So the Wall Street Journal editorial board is pretty much getting at same thing here:
“Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert’s head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts’ decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where’s Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?”
That John Dickerson is getting at here:
But for this to become a brush fire may require courting homophobes to generate sustained and impenetrable outrage.
Usually it’s the GOP that embraces gay-bashing. The gay marriage issue bailed out Bush in 2004, when ballot initiatives helped draw evangelical voters to the polls, and it may have provided Bush with his margin of victory in the decisive state of Ohio. To be against gay marriage is not necessarily to be against homosexuals, but for the party to wield it as a successful electoral issue requires a coalition that includes those who have a sustained dislike for gay people. It’s the engine that the GOP doesn’t want to talk about, but it’s there.
They’re just getting at it from different ends. And Dickerson, unlike the WSJ Eds., doesn’t sound like an asshole*.
*I really did intend to unpack these a bit more, but it’s been a long day.
Now Playing: Episode 366
Obama staffs up, Detroit comes to DC and finally, Iraq and the US come to a security agreement.
Links Mentioned: Iraq SOFA … pros and cons of a bailout.
Is it just me, or does it seem that the focus of said brushfire should be pedophilia and not homosexuality? Why does the one need to be conflated with the other? The Dems would be wise to make this distinction.