ok mick. But even if your point was granted, at what point does the cycle end? Gore's Buddist temple shennanigans DIDN'T matter, as it turns out, BUT LOTT'S GAFF DID as it turns out (nothin' happened to Gore -- he paid no price for his illegal activity, but Lott paid the price -- and his "activity" wasn't even illegal, even if you do interpret it as distasteful)

You can't claim moral equivalency as you do without accepting that your side of the point paid no price whereas the other side DID.