Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, February 1, 1995 TAG: 9502010039
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CAL THOMAS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
That this was a political ploy, not the discovery of masked bigotry, was evident in the way things quickly unfolded after Armey mis-spoke. At first, the press, which carries around tape recorders like ideological Geiger counters that go into high gear when Republicans speak, ignored Armey's slip. It was only later that some reporters decided they had a ``story.''
These are the people who prefer O. J. Simpson to the substantive ideas of Newt Gingrich (thankfully available unedited on C-Span), who interview an unsophisticated mother ``between you and me,'' and whose computer spell-checks ensure they'll never be caught writing ``potato'' with an ``e.''
Next, the usual liberal suspects contacted reporters (or was it the reverse?) to express outrage, pain and disappointment. Rep. Pat Schroeder, D-Colo., said Republicans are ``so enamored of the power of it, that they just go too far.'' How soon she forgets what it was like when the former Democratic majority frequently went ``too far'' in silencing Republicans. Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., joined a dozen other Democrats at a news conference to attack Armey.
The impure politics spewed forth when Rep. Steve Gunderson, R-Wis., who is homosexual, spoke with Armey and then said that the majority leader does not have ``a malicious bone in his body .... Around here I think it is important that we focus on motive and intent. And I guarantee you, there are no malicious motives here.''
Frank said that he believed Armey when he said the word ``fag'' was not on the tip of his tongue, but that ``this is a sign that it was in the back of his mind.'' Surely this is the ultimate in thought-policing. Perhaps Frank should call for electrodes to be affixed to the heads of every member of Congress to monitor their thought processes so that when they think thoughts Frank doesn't like, a red light will go off and we'll all be alerted promptly.
Condemnation of offensive speech (and thought) is reserved only for certain classes that seem to have been awarded protection by the press. I frequently hear members of Congress say ``Jesus Christ'' and ``goddamn,'' which many Christians and Jews regard as blasphemous, hurtful and offensive. No press tribunal is convened to punish these offending blasphemers.
Condoms are distributed in schools. Evolution is taught as fact. Religion itself is viewed as so offensive to a small minority that the Supreme Court consistently bans religious speech and expression in public places, while allowing the American flag to be burned as a First Amendment right. These things pass with nary a whimper from the press corps.
It should not be forgotten that Barney Frank so offended the House by allowing a male prostitute to run his ``business'' out of Frank's home that it formally censured Frank for his misconduct.
If Dick Armey had purposely slurred homosexuals on the House floor (or even in an on-the-record interview in which his intention to do so was clear), a case could be made for criticizing him. But he didn't and, though no offense was intended, he apologized convincingly.
As the Democrats continue to reveal they have run out of ideas and the Republicans set the agenda and direction for the country, we're going to see more of this pettiness, inflamed by the Democrats' ideological cohorts in the press.
This won't help the Democrats. Neither will it help the press, whose credibility is in disrepair. The longer the press and most Democrats remain in denial concerning the message of the November election, the more irrelevant they become.
- Los Angeles Times Syndicate
by CNB