[Porsche-O-Phile]

Thanks Moneyguy - that's EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. The Republicans cannot selectively decide when the principles of their relationship/ties to the religious right wackjobs in this country can and cannot apply. Either they do or do not. The RR has said time and again, "homosexuality is evil", "homosexuality is a sin", and so on. The Republican party embraces these people (and by extension, their intolerance). As such, it is perfectly logical to conclude that if one were to substitute a MALE white house intern for Monica Lewinsky (hypothetically speaking), the outcry would have been far worse. ESPECIALLY on the coattails of Gingrich's "Contract with America" and his "we're the party of morality" position (insert puke smiley here).

I'm not saying the Democrats are saints either - personally I can't stand EITHER party but in this case the Republicans are the ones caught with their pants down (literally and figuratively). The age-old game of trying to shift the conversation to Clinton or whatever else will not work - this is about the Republican party DELIBERATELY getting caught engaging in activity that is not only criminal, but clearly against the core tenets of their own party platform.

And FWIW (not that my personal feelings matter, but I'll share them anyway) I find homosexuality disgusting and repulsive, but I don't look down my nose at anyone for it, nor do I feel it's my place to pass judgement on them. I actually support gay marriage since although I don't understand it and find it repugnant, who am I to decree who one is allowed to fall in love with? I overcome my inherent distaste for the practice by applying logic, tolerance and common sense. One might call this the hallmark of a civilized individual.