Mark Foley sinking both sides

[billvon 2,473]

The Mark Foley thing started out as a congressman who did some pretty stupid things (including sending obscene messages to some underage pages) and has since become a three-ring circus. No doubt it's going to get even bigger as time goes on. It's got everything - cover-ups, teen sex, big players, repentant alcoholic perpetrators. The media is going to win, but we as a people are going to lose in the end.

It's been interesting to watch how quickly this became a partisan battle - which I guess shouldn't be suprising based on how close to elections this comes. Lines have already been drawn and the battle is on. And this battle has a November deadline, so expect it to pick up speed fast. Not sure what will happen in the long run; about the only thing that's sure is that both parties will lose the battle.

Republicans - yes, this is a bad thing for republicans, for several reasons.

First, many people feel that republican politicians in some small way represent _all_ republican politicians. This is an attitude fostered by both parties. Listen to any speech; you'll hear how republicans (not a few senators) are "tough on terrorism." You'll hear how democrats (not just a group of politicans) are "cut and run" democrats. Both parties go to some effort to represent themselves as a monolithic bloc; this helps get less-well-known partisan politicians more votes. "Hmm, I'm worried about terrorism, but I don't know which candidate has a better plan. But I heard republicans are Tough on Terrorism so I'll vote for the elephant guy."

That attitude is now backfiring to some degree. Taking this attitude at face value, republicans (not Mark Foley) sent obscene messages to minors. This isn't true, of course, but is the natural result of the campaigns that both parties have launched. In this case, it doesn't help one bit that the guy who sent the messages was also the head of a group that claimed to be againt this sort of sexual predation. Republicans thought he was a good choice to head such a group even with his known history of sending inappropriate email; that's going to suggest that republicans _do_ support him.

Secondly, there is already a concerted campaign underway to mitigate the damage. But since no one (excepting perhaps Rush Limbaugh) wants to be seen as supporting a pedophile, the only avenue left is to attempt to blame someone else, perhaps taint some democrats with the scandal - to in effect claim "they're just as bad!" This has already resulted in conservatives blaming the victims (i.e. Drudge claiming "they wanted it" and Limbaugh claiming that the page was a democratic operative) conservatives pulling up historical comparisons ("see, Gerry Studds did the same thing in 1973!") and the WMD approach (i.e. "There is hard evidence that democrats did far worse; we just don't know where it is exactly.") There is even a "we kept Foley's actions secret to PROTECT THE CHILDREN" angle (believe it or not.)

This is going to backfire in an even bigger way. Everyone knows that both parties are somewhat corrupt. Pointing out that democrats or republicans have scandals is like pointing out that garbage trucks smell bad. But more significantly than that, saying "yeah, Foley's bad - but they are so much worse!" DOES come off as defending Foley, despite all the protestations to the contrary. That approach is also going to help cement the idea that republicans are a monolithic bloc, and that plays into the idea that they all support Foley.

And blaming the victims is going to be an unmitigated disaster for the GOP. Nuff said about that.

Democrats - this is also a bad thing for you. It may indeed be worse for republicans, but that is NOT the same as being good for democrats.

First off, confidence in government is at a historical low. Very few people think Congress is doing a good job. This is going to drive their opinion of Congress even lower, and that's bad news for _both_ political parties. It means lower voter turnouts, less attention to the details of referendums, and in the end, less effective government. Keep in mind that there is a good chance democrats are going to take control of one or both houses this election cycle. Do you really want to be the majority in the least-trusted government in recent history?

Secondly, right now the GOP is getting the scandal spotlight primarily because they have all the power. The two republicans on the page board didn't tell the third member (a democrat) about Foley because for a long time the democrats were a joke - why bother telling them _anything?_ Democrats were an ineffective whiny minority party. That very ineffectiveness has served to shield them to a degree from all the scandals. Why bribe a powerless democrat when you can bribe Duke Cunningham? Why should Abramoff funnel money to a minority party that can't get anything done? Heck, Texas democrats would probably have redistricted to ensure democratic victories if they had the power to do so. But they didn't - and DeLay did.

So don't crow too loudly about how evil the republicans are and hope that you shine in comparison. Within a few years you'll have your own Mark Foley to deal with - and that crowing will come back to haunt you.

Overall, this should not have caused this big stink. Foley made a very big mistake, resigned, and entered treatment. End of that problem (at least in terms of the House.) Some people _may_ have helped cover it up. The appropriate response would be to launch an independent investigation. If nothing criminal is found (and I doubt there will be, outside of Foley's direct actions) then release the results to the public and let them decide if they want to vote for these people come November. All the alarums, sound and fury are detracting from _both_ parties, and in the end, from the effectiveness of the government we all support.

[lawrocket 3]

Damn it, bill. There you go again Objectivity and reason...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 18]

Best post on this supject to date!

Except the Limbauhg part was pure BS. Gotta listen before posting something like that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Gerry Studds did the same thing in 1973!")

Quote

This part is misleading as looking at it from this perspective is misleading at best.

When I brought Stubbs up it was only to show that the Dems (and thier media) have two different standards depending on which party the perp comes from

Oh yah, did I mention that Foley is scum and he deserves what he has coming to him

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

• Quote

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Damn it, Bill. There you go again ...

Just because it's long, doesn't mean it's all objective and fair.....

I thought it read like Taranto - illusion of non-partisonship but not really - only left leaning. But the bias was much less pronounced than usual so that's a plus:

(Reps are bad because of this and they are also bad for any other reason you care to use, look out. Dems, since the Reps are so bad, you will likely become like the Reps, if you don't look out).

Pretty good writeup in the message to the Reps - but sadly lacking in the message to the Dems. You can't softpedal just because you have a personal bias. Or at least you can't if you want to give the illusion of objectivity.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,473]

>Except the Limbauhg part was pure BS.


"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." - Rush, Oct 2

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Except the Limbauhg part was pure BS.


"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." - Rush, Oct 2

You do listen as I did hear him say that but, you have cherry picked this which puts this completely out of the context in which it was said and the point he was trying to make. He did not make this claim.

(or did you just get this quote from one of the get Rush websites?)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,473]

>I did hear him say that . . .

>He did not make this claim.

Well, that's settled then.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>I did hear him say that . . .

>He did not make this claim.

Well, that's settled then.

You are good a cherry picking aren't you

You show you tactics very clearly here.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,473]

>You show you tactics very clearly here.

That didn't take long!

[sundevil777 94]

Sink both sides? I think not.

The reason is that there is enough time to find out who knew about the IMs.

I don't think it is going to be repubs. If it could be shown that repubs knew about it, we'd already have been shown that. It will only take a little while to find out who really knew and held on to the messages. Still plenty of time to find out who did it and get that message across before the election.

It would have been more effective against repubs if it hadn't been released so soon. There is just too much time to find the truth.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Lucky... 0]

So it is bad for the Reps for obvious reasons, but bad for the Dems cause they will win the House and maybe the Senate and be the ones under the french fry light. Isn't that like saying I don;t want to be wealthy cause then people will want to sue me? Although true, let me take the chance.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Gerry Studds did the same thing in 1973!")

Quote

This part is misleading as looking at it from this perspective is misleading at best.

When I brought Stubbs up it was only to show that the Dems (and thier media) have two different standards depending on which party the perp comes from

Oh yah, did I mention that Foley is scum and he deserves what he has coming to him

This is what Bill is talking about. Less is more, so let it go and quit giving the appearance of defending Foley via hating other slimy Dems.

• Quote

[billvon 2,473]

>If it could be shown that repubs knew about it, we'd already
>have been shown that.

Often investigations like this take months. Records must be supoenaed, phone records checked. Are you really concluding that anything that can't be found out in a day doesn't exist?

>It would have been more effective against repubs if it hadn't been
>released so soon. There is just too much time to find the truth.

The only objective truth here is that Foley sent obscene PM's to kids, and resigned as a result. As I mentioned, both sides have their spin machines going full blast. The democrats will conclude that republicans covered it up no matter what the facts say. Republicans will conclude that democrats (and the media, that's always a favorite target) are the real villians - again, no matter what actually happened. Both will shout about the truth, and "the other side can't handle facts!" and whatnot. And it will backfire on both of them.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Sink both sides? I think not.

The reason is that there is enough time to find out who knew about the IMs.

I don't think it is going to be repubs. If it could be shown that repubs knew about it, we'd already have been shown that. It will only take a little while to find out who really knew and held on to the messages. Still plenty of time to find out who did it and get that message across before the election.

It would have been more effective against repubs if it hadn't been released so soon. There is just too much time to find the truth.

You can't handle the truth

You are assuming there will be an exoneration. Either way, Hastert or not, Foley will be a black eye on the conservs. What Russert was saying is that the GOP's won;t care, but the fundies will and may stay home.

[rushmc 18]

nearly if not all posts I have made on this subject have the following

Foley is scum and he deserves what he has coming to him.

The implication that this is a party issue is insulting.

Peterson murdered his wife and unborn child. Does that make all Californians murders?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

nearly if not all posts I have made on this subject have the following

Foley is scum and he deserves what he has coming to him.

You missed the part about Foley being a holier-than-thou GOP hypocrite, member of the party that wants to impose its morality on everyone else.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,473]

>that like saying I don;t want to be wealthy cause then people will want to sue me?

More like a cocaine addict doesn't want to be wealthy because he will probably kill himself once he can afford coke again. The democrats are no more moral/pure than the republicans; they will have their own Mark Foley within a decade or so. Once they're in power, they will fall prey to the same sorts of temptations of power that the GOP did.

I'm hoping that poor guy starts NOW and gets off cocaine, before he gets all the money he needs to stuff his nose again. Likewise, the democrats sure aren't going to get more humble/wise/introspective if they win the majority in the houses.

One of the reasons I was against the impeachment proceedings against Clinton was that we're setting a terrible precedent - impeachment as a political tool to depose a leader who is of a different party. If this next congress _does_ switch parties, an impeachment proceeding may begin immediately just because democrats don't like Bush. And the republicans will share the blame for that by setting the precedent for doing just that years ago. Again, we all lose.

So I think that democrats shouldn't be crowing too much about how this indicates how evil the GOP is. Because when it happens to them (and it will) their own words will come back to bite them in the ass. And I'd rather have our government doing other things (like, well, governing) than biting each other in the ass all day.

(GOPers - please, I know that Clinton was a horrible evil impeachment-worthy guy and Bush should never, ever be impeached, and that the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other, and it's a stupid comparison etc etc. Let's take that as already posted.)

[rehmwa 2]

I like this post of yours much better.

Focus on the actions of the offending individual. Watch out for 'anyone' of any party that does the same as him. Keep the party line politics out it.

I bet both parties have another "Foley" at a minimum right now. No need to wait 'ten years'.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Often investigations like this take months. Records must be supoenaed, phone records checked. Are you really concluding that anything that can't be found out in a day doesn't exist?

No, what I'm predicting is that this was an attack by dem operatives, and if the knowledge of the damning IMs could be linked to repub leadership, I think they already would have.

Quote

The democrats will conclude that republicans covered it up no matter what the facts say.

Nope, I don't think so. I think the scandal will turn back on them. Why? Somebody knew about these IMs. I'm predicting that the release of this scandal will be found to be a dem dirty trick, and they will have to explain why they didn't protect the children while they held onto the IMs from Foley.

It is only going to backfire on the side that held onto the messages.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,473]

>No, what I'm predicting is that this was an attack by dem operatives,
> and if the knowledge of the damning IMs could be linked to repub
> leadership, I think they already would have.

Right. Which would tend to indicate that this is NOT a planned coordinated attack.

I forget the name of the law, but it's true 99% of the time. If there are two possible explanations of something, and one involves a complex evil conspiracy, and the other just plain stupidity - the smart money is on stupidity every time. Which is why I think an impartial investigation will reveal the page committee perhaps making some foolish decisions, but not any criminal ones.

>why they didn't protect the children.

This keeps coming up, and I still don't know what you're talking about. (other than "What about the children? Won't someone please think of THE CHILDREN!" angle, which is a bit stale.)

Which children have been injured by the revelation of Foley's IM's?

>It is only going to backfire on the side that held onto the messages.

The pages themselves?

[rushmc 18]

If Foley was known to be a child preditor months ago. A person has the documentation to prove it. But this person holds on to the info to time the release closer to the election.

You don't think holding on ti this info endagers what or who could be his next victim? Or, if one is thinking of the victim should that info have been reported when first found or at least given to the authorities?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,473]

>If Foley was known to be a child preditor months ago . . .

Yes. If he was showing signs of being a predator months ago, the person discovering evidence of that has a moral obligation to turn it over to authorities (or ensure it stops.)

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

Right. Which would tend to indicate that this is NOT a planned coordinated attack.

OK, I think it might be a very poorly planned and executed, coordinated attack.

Quote

Which children have been injured by the revelation of Foley's IM's?

At issue is that Foley was able to do the same to other pages during the time the IMs were not revealed.

Quote

>It is only going to backfire on the side that held onto the messages.

The pages themselves?

No, I'm predicting it was a dirty trick, that some dems had a part in this disclosure, and that they knew of the damning emails for a lot longer time than they will be able to justify.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[billvon 2,473]

>I'm predicting it was a dirty trick, that some dems had a part in this
> disclosure, and that they knew of the damning emails for a lot
> longer time than they will be able to justify.

Then a detailed investigation should be good for the republicans, no? Hopefully they will support such an investigation.