Linkin' logs

Wherein puns are morally reprehensible


What's up with Instapundit? He writes:

DO THE REPUBLICANS DESERVE TO RETAIN THE HOUSE? This morning driving in to work I heard Neal Boortz saying no, and he made a pretty compelling case. (If it weren't for silly Democratic talk about impeachment and show-trial hearings I'd find it even more compelling.)

And doesn't even link to Boortz? Especially when the show notes set the table for the discussion? In fact, Sir Links-a-lot wrote three paragraphs consisting of 196 words and there was ONLY ONE HYPERLINK. Could someone contact the Univeristy of Tennessee -- I think Glenn Reynolds' computer has been stolen.

Here's the Boortz bit:

No .. I haven't softened on my stand. I still think that there were many people in Washington -- on both sides of the aisle -- who knew or should have known that Mark Foley was preying on pages, and did little or nothing. I'm sorry, but none of the excuses are working for me. In one of the many columns and stories I read today on this issue someone suggested that if a male congressman was writing a 16-year-old female page and asking for pictures, alarms would sound throughout Capitol Hill. Well, why not when a gay congressman asks for a picture from a 16-year-old male page?

This may change .. but right now I'm just completely fed up with the Republicans. One advantage that the Republicans used to hold over liberals and Democrats was their strong sense of traditional moral and family values. Can they make that claim today? Did they take the steps necessary to protect young men in their charge from the advances of a seemingly predatory homosexual congressman?

No .... don't tell me about Democrats and Gerry Studds. I know that Democrats excused the behavior of Ted Kennedy. I know that Bill Clinton got a pass for his tryst with Monica ... and for the rape of Juanita Broaderrick. They're Democrats. That's their pattern. Does this mean we have to excuse the same actions in Republicans?

Something spectacular is going to have to happen in the next four weeks or so to salvage the Republican control of the House. Things change, but right now I expect the Democrats to take control of the house -- but not the Senate -- in next month's elections. Republican leadership inaction on Mark Foley set the stage. Stand by for Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

I know this is heresy for some of you, but remember ... I'm not a Republican. I'm a card-carrying Libertarian. If I voted in a state where you registered your political party, my registration would be Libertarian. Obviously, though, I'm far more aligned with the alleged goals and aims of the Republican party than I am with the socialist, big government, tax-and-spend Democrats.

That having been said I would suggest that some good might come out of a Republican defeat. Which scenario would you prefer? Would you rather have the Republicans gloating over another victory over the Democrats? Or would you rather have the Republicans in exile for two years wondering where they had gone wrong, and developing a plan to regain the support of the voters?

The choice is becoming increasingly clear.