(Vanity) Foley's Follies, or, Queen for a Day

grey_whiskers ^ | 10-01-2006 | grey_whiskers

[grey_whiskers]

I didn’t hear the beginning of the Mark Foley debacle, as I was out of town communing with nature (and my wife, and the kids, and the cat). But I thought it was interesting to see the reactions on this. From the right, there seem to be two schools of thought. One of them is the “why did the Republicans shoot themselves in the foot again? This is typified by commentators such as Captain Ed of Captains Quarters blog, who said:

“I cannot tell CQ readers how disgusted I am with Speaker Hastert. Reynolds is no fringe nutcase; he's the man Hastert trusted to run the midterm re-elections of the Republican caucus. He has no reason to lie, but Hastert apparently did. This also calls into question Boehner's earlier reversal, when he denied saying that he informed Hastert after Hastert denied knowing of Foley's activities.”

The other major take on this is that the timing is a little too cute. It has been brought up by The Great One, Mark Levin, who said,

“But has it occurred to anybody to ask how the Foley messages only now became available to the media. The Florida primary season is over. It is not clear whether or how the Florida Republican Party can replace Foley on the ballot. Yet, as I understand it, most of the Foley messages are a year or more old. The Foley seat, once a safe Republican seat, is now in play, probably leaning heavily Democrat now. Is this coincidence? It certainly advantages the Democrats, who only need 15-seats to win the majority in the House.”

Now this is a valid point. In fact, I would take it a step further. In particular I would pose the following questions:

1) Which news outlets and / or leading Democrats (or their strategists) had access as to the contents of these emails?

2) Is there any evidence that they notified the proper authorities in a timely fashion (more timely than, “Gee, this would sure be convenient for our re-election.” 3) Since the Dems are unwilling to divulge confidential sources when it is only a matter of something trivial like National Security, but they are ALL agreed on the need to “protect children from predators”, would the MSM outlets and the Dem strategists agree to divulge their journalistic sources? Remember, “it’s all for the children…”

4) If they don’t divulge their sources voluntarily, and the new investigation referred to by Dennis Hastert reveals criminal wrongdoing in this matter on the part of ex-Representative Foley, can’t we go after the journalists for aiding and abetting a crime by conspiring to cover it up? (I mean, if the Democrats are going to sling that mud at Republicans, and the Republican leadership might not have known…why not?)

From the left, it seems like the DNC talking points are running “This proves the Republicans are not trustworthy. First Bush lied, and people died. Now the Republicans are molesting *your children*.”

Think I’m kidding? Try this link from the Huffington Post. (“I’ll Huff…and I’ll Post…and I’ll blow your Republican House Down!”)

So, since the left feels that they have to literally call all Republicans child molestors, in order to trump the war on terror, and they are also calling Republicans hypocrites, I thought I’d take a trip down memory lane for prior Democrat reactions to sex scandals.

On Clinton with Monica Lewinsky: “The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president," Mrs. Clinton said. From CNN.

Oh really, Hilly? How about your “Don’t ask, don’t tell” book in which you say: “Gasping for air, I could hardly breathe.” The smartest woman in the world duped by a common philanderer?

There is also the famous James Carville quote:” "Drag $100 bills through trailer parks, there's no telling what you'll find"?” (quoted from Time Magazine).

On Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick. Ted Kennedy began appearing in a neck brace after the scandal hit. As though *that* would do any more for Mary Jo than wearing a pink ribbon to raise AIDS awareness. And for that matter, where was Ted Kennedy during the Clarence Thomas hearings?

On Chandra Levy and Gary Condit: The Huffington Post (again!) calls Chandra Levy an Israeli spy (along with Monica Lewinsky).

On New Jersey Governor James McGreevey. Hardball with Chris Matthews on Aug. 13, 2004, presented this as an attempted blackmail by a younger gay lover.

Why is it that whenever Democrats are embroiled in a sex scandal, they so often portray THEMSELVES as the victim? Do you get the idea that “any excuse will do”?

There are many others. I could go through them in detail. On the other hand, as the famous website says, we should just “move on.”

Then again, I *do* agree with the Democrats on one thing. The ultimate fault for this lies with the GOP leadership. And not just in Congress. If we did not pander to so many RINOs, if some people were not so concerned with making the Republican Party a “Big Tent”, maybe the pink camel would not have got its …err, nose… under the door.

[grey_whiskers]

I asked the Mod to pull the original version because I wrote of "Tom" Foley when it was "Mark". Oops.

To compound my error, I didn't note the person who corrected me. Thanks, whoever you are :-)

I think we should ask Ruth Bader Ginsburg her take on this. Between her "age of consent" remarks, and the Lawrence vs. Texas case, her comments ought to be quite relevant and...err, entertaining.

[thomaswest]

Foley only wrote words. He never made a contact.

Foley is guilty as a hypocrite. This condemns him---he LOUDLY spoke against sexual predators, and was one.

He upsets us because he exemplifies that the LOUDEST preachers are often the most guilty. Church priestliness, J.Edgar Hoover, Falwell come to mind.

Hypocrisy has become an art form.