Democrats can do no wrong. Joe Biden can literally shepherd his son to meetings where he sells access to the Vice President and the Associated Press will assert that there is absolutely NO evidence of wrongdoing. He can attend them and the White House will say “he loves his son,” so no biggie.

But if sex is involved the sky is the limit. Sex of all kinds is sacred, anywhere, any time, for any reason. Not just visiting prostitutes is A-OK, but being a digital prostitute is okey-dokey too, if you are a Democrat.

it’s all calvinball for democrats – the rules change and are made up, so that hypocrisy doesn’t truly matter anymore https://t.co/ovR9VceZhp

— kaitlin (@thefactualprep) September 13, 2023

That is the word from Politico’s chief media writer, Jack Shafer, who admires Susanna Gibson’s “moxie” in standing proud against the Puritans who think that selling sex acts for money online isn’t noteworthy or relevant to whether she is fit for office.

Susanna Gibson, a Democratic nominee for a competitive seat in the Virginia House of Delegates, toppled a previously untouched political taboo this week when the Washington Post fairly reported that she and her husband had performed sex acts on the online forum known as “Chaturbate,” where the couple had 5,700 followers. And they solicited “tips” for performing requested moves.

Politicians have long transgressed polite society’s sexual boundaries. Members of Congress always seem to be getting busted for hiring prostitutes. A number of members have been convicted for having sex with underage pages. In the 1980s, one lawmaker, Rep. Barney Frank, lived with a male escort who said he ran his prostitution service out of Frank’s apartment. In the 1990s, Congress could have passed for a swingers club as a passel of high-ranking members, including Bob Barr, Dan Burton, Robert Livingston, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde and Pete Domenici engaged in sexual affairs. And, of course, in 1998, President Bill Clinton collapsed the day’s existing moral standards when he did the same with an intern inside the White House.

Taboo-busting among politicians extended into the 2000s. For a couple of examples, a married Donald Trump allegedly had sex with a porn star and a Playboy Playmate of the Year, and money was exchanged to hush the stories. One-time Rep. Anthony Weiner was jailed and placed on the sex offender list for sending sexually explicit texts and images to a minor. Weiner had previously earned national notoriety for sending pictures of his junk to women but still ran for mayor of New York even after he resigned from Congress.

I don’t know about you, but being compared to Anthony Weiner would make me skulk off in shame. He, as Schafer himself points out, is a sex offender. In my world, this is not OK. And something tells me that every Democrat in the universe screamed bloody murder about Trump’s sexual antics, and even invented some to discredit him. (Remember prostitutes and peeing? That was made up to discredit Trump.)

A few of us moralists have been screaming loudly about the slippery moral slope that America has been on, and wondering when we could hit bottom.

The answer is simple: probably never. Democrats have only two moral absolutes: killing babies is everywhere and always good, and any kind of sex anywhere at any time is admirable as long as you are not a Republican. Some people think there is a third, that no Democrat can do wrong, but that is only mostly true; if a poll says that the Democrat might lose an important office, they get tossed aside to preserve the power of the Party. They are like the Soviets or the Chinese Communists that way–protect your own, unless they can bring you down.

At one time, to have been discovered smoking dope or taking cocaine would end a candidate’s campaign. Not so now. As the old taboos have fallen, so will the new ones. Today, it might be tough for an adulterous candidate to win office and near-impossible for a married candidate who has had sex online with their spouse to succeed in politics. Past returns are no guarantee of future results in either finance or politics, but the day a video exhibitionist who solicits tips wins office may be before us soon.

Comparing Gibson’s live-streaming sex acts and her excretaory functions for money to the commission of sins in private is a dodge. Politicians are people and as such are fallen; what made Weiner’s and Frank’s actions so unacceptable–although Barney Frank got reelected because his constituents are degenerates who will forgive Democrats literally anything–is that their behavior was publicly immoral.

Running a prostitution ring or sexting teens are not private peccadillos; they are bold acts that violate very basic and important public norms and laws. What made Clinton’s affair with Lewinski impeachable was not the sex, but the perjury, for which he lost his law license.

And live-streaming one’s sex life for money is disqualifying because electing a digital prostitute to office tells every child who (unfortunately) looks up to our elite that selling sex is a good life choice. We call elected officials “leaders,” after all. Someday you too could be like her.

Of course the Democrats and their puppets in the MSM are circling the wagons around Gibson–she is running in a swing district and Democrats need her to win. By now we know that if she were senile, a barely-verbal stroke victim, or on the brink of death and utterly unaware of her surroundings the Democrats would crank up the machine to get her elected.

Yet I suspect that even more important than winning the seat is winning the point for many leftists; they have made very clear that sexual liberation is an ultimate good, and that Gibson should be a role model for young children. Even better if she were one of the “chicks with dicks,” as the porn sites advertise.

We live in an era where it is assumed that breaking taboos is a positive good. I fail to see any evidence that this is the case. The cities where taboos are almost gone–say San Francisco or Portland–don’t seem particularly livable to me. And all those schools that spend endless hours on “Social and Emotional Learning” to liberate students are filled with depressed students whose happiness and sense of identity are evaporating at an alarming rate.

Look at the statistics on kids’ mental health and academic achievement. The more we push the Leftist view of the good life, the unhappier people are.

The answer to the question “So what?” looks pretty clear to me: if you want more societal decline and teen suicide, continue on the path we are going down. If not, maybe it is time to reverse course.

UPDATE: Great minds think alike. John wrote a piece on the same topic and it is a good one.