Harriet Meiers, before she withdrew her nomination for Supreme Court, was attacked by some for answering a 1980s survey that she was against abortion. Most of these attacks came from the Left. For some reason, liberals have the ability to forgive the past sins of their guys, while holding their opponents to the words they may have written decades ago. Of course the Republicans have just the opposite ability.

Who wrote, in response to the 1945 controversy over integrating the Army, that he vowed never to fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."?

Click here for the answer.

Here's a quote from Wikipedia about another former Klansman in the senate: "In the 1970s, many believe that [this person] had a change of heart and endorsed integration earlier than many other southern politicians. Some believe this change of policy was a calculated political move designed to extend his Senate career in a changing social environment." I find this sentence interesting, because there is no equivalent in the previous article. Yes, it mentions his change of mind, but never once suggests it might be a "calculated political move." Does Wikipedia hold the two men to different standards? Why would they possibly do that?

The difference between these two gentlemen--the first still considered a statesman of the first order, and the second a racist bigot who should have retired before becoming the oldest Senator? One is a Democrat and one is a Republican.

One Presidential candidate said he smoked a joint, but didn't inhale, and we are told we should forgive past indiscretions. Another Presidential candidate refused to speak of a prior DWI arrest (which caused him to give up drinking) saying he wasn't that person anymore. We were told he was disingenuous and should confess his sins. Which one was a Democrat and which a Republican?

One Senator has a few too many drinks and touches women inappropriately and is unfit to serve the public, according to the National Organization for Women, and eventually forced to resign. Another Senator, stone cold sober, is accused of molesting a masseuse in his home state and N.O.W. claims it's a politically motivated attack. Still a Senator. Yet another Senator has a few drinks, and drives a woman home, killing her in an accident, and N.O.W. continues to proclaim him their greatest ally in the Senate. Still a Senator. Which was a Republican and which was a Democrat? (Yes, the Republican was accused of sexual harrasment by several women. So was the Presidential candidate refrenced above, but those were all dismissed as political attacks.)

Here's what I think: If it's bad for a Republican to have used illegal drugs in his youth, then it's wrong for a Democrat. If it's wrong for a Republican to cop a feel, it's wrong for a Democrat.

If we're going to have long memories for Republicans, we should be elephant-like when it comes to Democrats. If we're going to highlight the spoken gaffes of a Republican, we should not say about a Democrat, "Well, that's not what he meant. He meant. . ." (And yes, I'm looking at Al "I invented the Internet" Gore and his followers.) We've got to start holding these people to the letter of the laws they write, and not forgive them because their in our favorite party!