Who Knew Congressman Foley Was a Closeted Democrat?
At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they’d be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat. The object lesson of Foley’s inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.
You had to know that this was coming, eh? It started with Sean Hannity discussing former Congressman Gerry Studds (D-MA) having sex with a 17-year-old “not that long ago.” Well, it WAS 1983, and since the math-impaired Hannity can’t seem to do the math, I’ll do it for him. 1983 was 23 YEARS ago, which wouldn’t necessarily seem to qualify as “not that long ago”…unless you’re desperate to fidn something- ANYTHING- to deflect attention and help your party’s chances in next month’s midterm election. Now Ann Coulter, never one to let mere facts stand in the way of her arguments, has begun beating the drums in an effort to thoroughly propagandize the American sheeple.
It’s been said that truth is often the first casualty of war. That may well be true, but it’s DEFINITELY true of Conservative politics. Coulter is going all out to justify Foley’s behavior, because, as Newt Gingrich can attest, Democrats have done much worse things. Hey, so Foley wanted to soap up a page; at least he never upholstered his office couch with the skin of a female intern after having sex with her and then strangling her….
Whether or not what happened to Gerry Studds was appropriate (and I wouldn’t argue with the assertion that he got off easy), going back to 1983 to dredge up the makings of a “Well, yeah, you did the same thing” defense is just plain despicable, and it shows how little Conservatives like Coulter understand the gravity of the Foley scandal. Unlike the Democrats in 1983, it appears that the Republican Congressional leadership covered up Foley’s actions. Whether this cover-up was by commission or omission hardly seems to matter; the end result is the same.
This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against gays. But if they don’t, they’re enabling a sexual predator.
Gee, d’ya think that might have ANYTHING to do with the fact that Republicans have exalted themselves as the uber-righteous, morally superior juggernaut that is God’s Own Party??
The plain, unavoidable fact is that Republicans electoral prospects are hosed…and they know it. Like a cornered animal, they’re lashing out in any manner they think will help their party’s chances in November. With intellectual thugs like Coulter (and Hannity) to shill for them and provide ideological cover for their illegal, immoral, and quite possibly illegal behavior…well, don’t tell me your were expecting a reasoned, rational debate on the issues?
STILL GLAD YOU VOTED REPUBLICAN??
Quick Question: Has a democrat said anything about Foley, condemning him? You know the guy who did the horrible thing? I ask 'cause I haven't seen that. All I've been able to see is "Hastert needs to resign."
Will Republicans never learn?
It's not so much the crime, it's the cover-up. Foley resigned and may well do jail time. (The careers of federal prosecutors - and future income opportunities with white-shoe law firms - are made by such cases.)
Of course we are critical of Foley, but why pile on? He is personally ruined. Now let's get on with nailing his many dissembling enablers, starting with the House Republican leadership.
And while we're at it, it's payback time with all those pious sanctimonious jerks like Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer(speaking of closeted self-loathing gays), and James Dobson who are now blaming liberals, diversity and tolerance for the moral failures of the right-wingers.
Democrats have been surprisingly and remarkably quiet. From what I can tell, the strategy seems to be to let Republicans eat their young. While kill the goose, when all the geese are busily falling on their own swords?
Sounds opportunistic to me... As do Pelosi and others shrill demands for the resignation of Repuplicans. It's about as far from "remarkably quiet" as you can get.
If the Democrats exploitation of Foley's behavior (not to mention his victims) isn't obvious, perhaps it's time for a reality check. This blog and many others have been obsessed with the topic (with the possible exeception of a dog butt pic here and there.)
Opportunistic? Hell yes, it's opportunistic. Democrats have been polite for way too long, while allowing Republicans to maintain this absurd illusion of moral superiority. It's time to kick some of that pious, sanctimonious, arrogant ass.
Rather than worrying about Pelosi's "shrill demands" (could it be that she is a woman is what is bothering you?), I prefer to focus in on her entirely reasonable plan for the first 100 hours of Democratic leadership of the House.
Dictionary.com defines shrill as follows:
I believe #4 and #5 apply to "Pelosi and others" behavior regardless of their sex. But I'm glad we can agree that it's opportunistic.
Politics is merely the skillful exploitation of your opponents mistakes, i.e. opportunism. To say "well, the Democrats sure are shrill" and imply that their opportunism is anything but the norm in national politics is to delude yourself, and I think you already knew this, Bob.
The fact is that if the parties were flipped here, the other side would be doing the same thing in a different way. It is not a uniquely Democratic sin. Criticizing the Democrats for failing to take advantage in a more effective way is one thing, but to criticize them for taking advantage at all is a waste of time.
This is not to make an equivalence argument that "it's ok because the GOP does it too." Rather, I am arguing that this is the politics our politicians, media, and people have fashioned for ourselves over the last century. It's like drawing a Wild Draw Four in Uno. Even if you think the card is unfarily balanced against the rest of the deck, it's part of the game as it evolved, so you play it anyway.
PS - I doubt the GOP leadership is totally blameless here. I think calling for their heads is premature, but to dismiss it out of hand as "opportunism" is destructive toward your apparent ends of wishing a better national discourse. You can't parrot values, morals, and "think of the children" while allegedly covering up for a self-defined "internet sexual predator."
Like Nixon, Democrats prefer to keep quiet while opponents twist slowly in the wind from their own noose. Go ahead, keep Hastert, run DeLay, Cheney and Bush in all GOP campaign ads. Let the voters decide.
As with so many other issues, Republicans are in a state of denial about the Foley / Hastert matter, too. The RNC chair - who himself has had to deal with numerous allegations over the years that he is a closeted gay like Foley - says he sees no data that suggests Republicans are in trouble.
What a crock. Every single national poll shows Republicans in big trouble, with most voters convinced Hastert et al knew of Foley's inappropriate contacts and did nothing.
I always enjoy and benefit from reading Adam's comments here. I don't think opportunism is unique to either party and did not intend to imply otherwise. The Republicans certainly exploited Clinton's scandals shrilly, and Reagan took advanage of the scandalously ineffective presidency of Jimmy Carter.
But Reagan was a rare execption in national politics - He campaigned on the concept that he had ideas that were better than his opponants. He told folks exactly what he planned to do and why, and left it to them to decide if they agreed. Today, both parties tend to run on an more abstract depiction of their ideology.
Correct (again) Adam, and while I accept this, I don't pretend to be happy about it. And yes, I'd rather see politicians discuss their ideas and commitments instead of childishly focusing so much on who knew what somebody else was doing with their pee-pee, and when they knew it. I theorize that professional politicians prefer the pee-pee talk over presenting a committed and detailed strategy that they might be held accountable for at the next election. This applies to both parties.
In the late 1800s we began a shift from the original representative republic form of government to a more socialized democratic form. Not all bad, but not all good either, for the results included massive overgrowth of the government both in size and scope of control. During the same time, our political system devolved into a exclusive two-party pollitical industry that too often gives voters a choice at the polls that's similar to trying to pick up a dog turd by the clean end. (I'm sorry but the Jesus in a dogs butt pic keeps coming to mind!)
I'm so impressed with the Democrats and Repuplicans in Congress that I'm ready to support a new idea. Let's send all their asses home (after a ceremonial tar and feathering on the Capitol steps.) Then, we can replace them with identical copies of Dave Barry, cloned with the aid of embryonic stem cells from aborted fetuses.
Now, that's a radical and detailed political idea, not to mention controversial. But at least it would get folks focused on the issues instead of politicians pee-pees.
Bob says Reagan was a "rare exception" and suggests he did not govern on the basis of ideology. Au contraire. He had but one ideology, expressed in his first inaugural address: "It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment". That was his only agenda.
During his tenure in office, Reagan was often said to be detached and uninvolved in his own administration, with little idea of what his minions were doing, in a government he understood little about, on his behalf. (Remember Iran-Contra and the cake?) He was a great communicator, always hit his mark on cue and delivered his lines like the swell actor he was. His views differed substantially from the moralist, Christo-fascist beliefs of today's Republican Party, but he clearly had his own ideology. I kinda wish we had him, and maybe Barry Goldwater, back.