Welcome to The Hoosier Illuminati. Macintosh bigot, clothes horse, motorsports fanatic (as long as they turn right), Anglophile.

Clothes and manners do not make the man; but when he is made, they greatly improve his appearance. --Henry Ward Beecher

Rush:  Dems set up Foley

Normally I agree with most of what Rush has to say, but this time he just needs to shut up and let the Republicans take their medicine. 

I’m just thinking out loud here. What if somebody got to the page and said, you know, we want you to set Foley up. We need to do a little titillating thing here. Keep it and save it and so forth. How would you get a kid to do that? Yeah, who knows? You threaten him or pay him. There’s any number of ways given the kind of people that we’re dealing with and talking about here.

Now, folks, I don’t want to be misunderstood here. I’m not trying to mount any kind of a defense. That’s a bad word. I’m not trying to get into a defense of what Mark Foley did. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m just telling you that the—the—the orgy and the orgasm that has been taking place in the media since Friday and with the Democrats is—it’s all coordinated, and it’s all—it’s all oriented toward the election. There’s no concern about the kid—no concern about the children.

Well, of course they’re going to exploit it, Rush.  It’s an election year, you’re not seriously trying to allege that Republicans didn’t exploit Clinton’s woman problems, are you?  You don’t honestly believe Republicans just wanted justice for Kathleen Willey, do you?  OF COURSE they’re going to exploit the issue, they’d be moronic not to. A member of the Republican leadership, the party of personal responsibility and chastity and the preservation of traditional marriage getting caught up in a morals and ethics scandal revolving around an underaged member of the same sex?  The fact that Republican leadership has known about it as long as it has and has chosen to ignore it is manna from Heaven as far as Howard Dean and the Dems are concerned.  I thought there was reason to believe the Republicans might actually pull it out in November until this years’ October Surprise. 

Of course it’s all coordinated, of course it’s all electioneering.  But don’t try to make believe Republicans are above that particular fray, that’s insulting and dishonest. 

Comments

But it is true that the Dems are now loudly condemning behavior that they once tut-tutted (in the person of former Rep. Gary Studds, D-MA).

You can slice it any way you want, but at least the Pubs are consistent:  It’s wrong to screw around with children, period.  Foley resigned (or was made to resign) as soon as this went public, even though it was a blow to Republican chances to retain the House; Studds on the other hand was reelected several times after his affair with a male page was made public.  The difference in how the cases were handled is significant, and probably more important than whether Foley’s case is being improperly politicized in an election year—I will agree with you and disagree with Rush to that extent.

The bottom line is that Democrats condone this sort of behavior among their own and condemn it in others, while Republicans condemn it wherever they find it.  What is unfortunate is that the Republican leadership didn’t force Foley out when it first came to their attention instead of waiting for it to hit the newspapers five weeks before the election. Instead, naiively, they relied on Foley’s promises that it wouldn’t happen again.  IMHO Hastert should lose his job over this if over nothing else.

As an aside, I’ll bet if Tom Delay had been speaker instead of Hastert, Foley would have been out on his ass the first time it came up.  But that’s just a guess.

The Dems will counter with (and there’s something to this, IMO, although you’re right in principle) that the Republicans are not consistent, they’re hypocritical.  Leadership has known about Foley for five years and permitted his behavior to continue, throwing him under the bus only when his actions became public and embarrassing, and how many pages would Hastert have allowed Foley to molest if it hadn’t become public?  Further, they’ll say that they’re being completely consistent, that they’re criticizing the Republicans for hypocrisy, not the actions themselves, and that Studds wasn’t punished because they don’t punish private sexual behavior as Republicans do. 

I don’t agree with all of that, obviously, but I think it’s an argument they can make with a straight face and that the public will buy. 

The important thing is Hastert, and that he has to go.  He’s a disaster and not just because of the Foley issue.

Mark Levin made an interesting point about the leadership the other day on the Corner.  He said something to the effect that the leaders have better things to do than ride herd on a member’s personal life, that this was just one thing out of many that came to the leadership’s attention, that the leadership aren’t cops (this is also where the “they aren’t Foley’s boss, his constituents are” business came from), and that when they called Foley on the carpet about it and he promised to cease and desist, they were justified in accepting that promise at face value.

It is simply intriguing that if this was known for 5 years (that’s three election cycles) that nobody—and that includes the victims—ever did anything about it until right now, when it’s as critical to Republican chances to hold the House as it could possibly be.

The fact that Foley reneged on his promise and that he is now out on his ass really ought to give the Republicans some points.  But it won’t because the media won’t even notice it in their blood frenzy.  This isn’t fair, but nobody said life or politics were fair.

I read Levin’s point about that issue, and I agree with it to some extent.  It’s really up to the voters in Florida to decide whether someone of Foley’s character (or the voters of Massachusetts in the case of Gerry Studds) is worthy of representing them. 

Where I disagree with Levin is his contention that the House leadership has no business paying attention to members’ personal lives at all.  When you’re in leadership, in addition to your responsibilities to your constituency you have responsibilities to the party.  It’s one thing if the Speaker is made aware that a member has an alcohol problem and an extra-marital affair.  Even that is worth keeping an eye on because that could easily compromise a member.  It’s another thing entirely when you’re made aware that the member is having an affair with an underaged staffer over whom he has direct authority.  That relationship is not only inappropriate but illegal and is potentially so on multiple levels. 

It’s touching that Foley crossed his heart and promised that he would go forth and sin no more, but he committed an illegal act. Hastert knew about it and covered it up, and Foley went right along violating young men exactly as he had been doing before.  It IS curious that no one said anything about the matter until six weeks before the mid-term elections, but that’s politics and it’s a valid weapon in the Dem arsenal.  I don’t want to see the Republicans lose the House, but if we can rid ourselves of Hastert and some of the other dead weights and give the Republicans a couple of years to assess exactly why they lost it might make the party stronger in the long run. 

And lets be perfectly honest:  Hastert lost the majority of his real power when DeLay resigned.

I agree 100% re: Delay.

On the other hand, see Kate O’Beirne at the Corner re Hastert and what he personally may have and may not have known.

Kate didn’t have the latest information.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGExZTIyZWQ0NjdhY2M3MGNmZGUxNzhhZjY2ZjEzZWY=

Either way, Hastert has some ‘splainin to do, and his statements to date do not cut it.  Honestly, I’d be satisfied if he simply said, “I fucked up, I should have paid more attention to this and I didn’t.”

Foley’s actions are inapproriate, and he should be gone.  However it is my understanding that his actions are limited to inappropriate electronic communications with pages or former pages.  Stubbs actually “physically interacted” with the page.  Also it is my understanding the information the house leadership had is prior emails which were inappropriate, not the instant messages which forced Foley’s resignation and are much more than inappropriate.

There is no defense for the Foley’s actions or the house leadership’s inaction.  However the Democrats are trying to make it worse than it actually is.  The reality is bad enough without any democratic embellishment. 

And keep in mind if Hastert did his job, the Democrats would be calling him a homophobe.

Fordham seemed to have trouble telling the same story twice yesterday, so I have to question his motives.

This is true, I’ve since read several different accounts at different times from Fordham, I’m beginning to believe that he’s either attentionwhoring or that he’s just trying to cover his own backside. 

One thing I think we can all agree on though, this couldn’t have been handled any worse by anyone, the Speaker’s Office, the media and especially not Foley himself.  I’m embarrassed for the man.

Add a comment