Mmmmmmm. Vindication.

See, back here, I went to a lot of trouble, in the context of the Mark Foley scandal, to draw a distinction between pedophilia and the recent wingnut talking point that Mark Foley was "just gay." I thought that was an important distinction to make, since I was convinced that letting the GOP paint Foley as "just gay" was politically to the GOP's advantage in that they (the GOP) would use that accusation to launch into a whole new round of gay-bashing.

In fact, I wrote these exact words:

Over the last couple of days, the new GOP talking point to excuse Foley's behaviour is that he's not a pedophile, he's "just gay." This is, of course, terrifically convenient since it gets the GOP off the hook to some extent and lets them indulge in some delightful gay bashing, their sport of choice.

See? Did you catch that as it went by? Short form: Letting the wingnuts portray Foley as just another gay would be very, very bad for gays. That's what I said. You can look it up.

Some commenters didn't quite see it that way. "thickslab," for instance, seemed to get that point entirely backwards, as he wrote:

Instead of arguing that Foley is guilty of sexual harrassment and abuse of authority, you take every opportunity to call him a pedophile, reinforcing over and over again in people's minds this equation: Foley = gay, Foley = pedophile, therefore gay = pedophile.

which, as I'm sure you can now appreciate, is exactly the opposite of the point I was making but, by now, I've given up trying to explain it to him.

Well, a day sure does make a difference, as we document the latest atrocity courtesy of Glenn Greenwald:

There is a palpable desperation among Republicans as a result of the Foley scandal and related election troubles, which is giving rise to a significant increase in their willingness to peddle blatantly dishonest and irrational claims in order to save themselves. Let us begin with Bill Kristol, who uttered what I think is the single most despicable statement yet in the Foley scandal, when he was asked by Brit Hume on Fox News what Democrats might do if they takeover the House:

KRISTOL: Well, Democrats care about the children, Brit, and so I think they should pressure states to raise the age of consent from 16 to 18 so that it's clearly illegal for people like Mark Foley to hit on 17-year- old pages. . . . They could certainly pass a resolution supporting the Boy Scouts in their effort to keep people like Mark Foley from becoming scout masters, I think the Democrats could really do a lot of good for our children.

The controversial Boy Scouts policy to which Kristol is referring, of course, is one which bans gay men generally -- not "people like Mark Foley" -- from being scoutmasters, but Kristol's statement purposely recognizes no such distinction. Kristol is overtly arguing that the Mark Foley case proves that gay men cannot be trusted around young children. Many of the basest right-wing commentators have subtly implied that equivalence, but none has so overtly equated the two as explicitly as Kristol did Thursday night.

Well, how about that? Apparently, to everyone's shock and amazement, the wingnuts are downplaying the "pedophile" aspect of all this, and are now emphasizing Foley's "gayness" to provoke a whole new offensive of gay-bashing.

Who could have imagined such a development? Who, I ask you, could have had the foresight to see that particular train wreck coming? Who, I beseech you, has the kind of awe-inspiring prescience to have forecast such a vile, despicable and utterly dishonest counterattack?

Take your time. It'll come to you.

UMMMM ... COME AGAIN? Only after I re-read Bill Kristol's inanity above did the following jump out at me:

... I think they should pressure states to raise the age of consent from 16 to 18 so that it's clearly illegal for people like Mark Foley to hit on 17-year- old pages ...

I'm sorry -- since when did the age of consent apply to cybersex?