Tuesday, November 27, 2007

All Clear

If the Huffington Post is to be believed, we can sound the "all clear" regarding the scurrilous rumors of Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) having had a relationship with a male escort, one "Benjamin Nicholas."

A San Antonio-based gay male escort categorically denied Monday that outgoing GOP Sen. Trent Lott had ever procured his services, putting to bed one of the more stunning rumors to emerge following Lott's announcement earlier in the day that he was leaving Congress.

The charge was first published by the Washington DC blog Big Head DC, which claimed to have emails where the escort, Benjamin Nicholas, allegedly playing coy, declined to go on the record because "Trent is going through his fair share of scrutiny right now and I don't want to add to it."

But in an email message, Nicholas himself said the item was false.

"There's nothing to be said, as Lott and I have no connection whatsoever," Nicholas wrote in an email to The Huffington Post. "How these 'quotes' have been fabricated are beyond me. The Senator is someone I have had no personal dealings with, ever."

I suspect this is a much of a retraction as Sen. Lott can expect from any part of the blogosphere (as evidenced here, here and here.)

As I read and heard the initial reports, I must admit that it seemed plausible, especially given recent events. But as much as I thought there might be a smidgen of truth in in the story, Democrats hoped that the whole thing was true, and then some. I am always left to wonder what animates liberals' interest in seeing Republicans mired in sex scandals, particularly since they claim to be tolerant of persons who are of a homosexual orientation.

Of course the answer is simple indeed. Just as was the case in 2004, for the eventual Democrat nominee to look like a reasonable choice, Republicans - with George Bush standing in as the straw man du jour - must be made to look like pedophile satanist cannibals. (This will be most certainly be true if Hillary Clinton gets the nod.) So any scandal will do; as much is now the preferred occupation of the politically adolescent.

The real question is what Democrats are so afraid of. Could it be the latest Zogby poll of over 10,000 participants that indicates that Hillary would lose to the top 5 GOP contenders? Perhaps it is the fact that President Bush's approval rating towers over that of the Democratic Congress (with even Democrats disappointed with Democrats.) Or is it the fact that each of the Democrat contenders has sworn a blood oath to raise taxes on "the rich?" Could it be a sense that their obstructionism and nay-saying vis-a-vis the Iraq War has deranged them from the real gains in security being made - along with progress toward normalcy - and put them on the wrong side of victory there and in the greater War on Terror?

Whatever the case,
as made evident by their wholly irrational obsession with Republican foibles, the Democrats' lack of confidence about their chances for victory in 2008 speaks to a loathing of self and agenda that is idiosyncratic to the Left. Liberals are frustrated that their true political motives are not ones that Americans would embrace willingly. No serious observer would conclude that Americans are undertaxed, nor would most people wish for a U.S. defeat against its mortal foes. Scandals real and imagined aside, the good news is that the current crop of GOP candidates - while surely uneven and largely untested - aligns themselves much closer to the aspirations of average Americans.

Hopefully that clears up everything. Four More Years!

No comments: