There has arisen in the past several days an outcry over what is generally characterized as collateral liability/culpability of various Republicans, namely Hastert and Reynolds.
It sets me wondering where the dialogue should begin and/or end, as well as discussions of context, offense-wise.
I have heard many comments from many pundits, and, apart from strictly rhetorical offerings, I have heard right-leaning statements bemoaning Foley's actions (as well as those of the above-mentioned names), and calling for a wholesale "heads on platters" response.
There then follows the context which is compelled by political imperative; the various other incidents which have occurred over the years, several of them involving Democrats, most infamously Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, and Bill Clinton.
These extended discussions, which, let's face it, are part-and-parcel of the ongoing media dissection, prompt indignant cries of "FOUL!" from Democrats who seem to prefer that historical context not be taken into account.
Given the deplorable conduct of several Republicans vis a vis the Foley affair, what sort of propriety should apply here?
Should all the other stuff be out-of-bounds?
Why?
Bookmarks