David Jeffers speaks volumes to the so-called 'evangelical backlash'. Democrats see Foley as a made-to-order golden ticket to power. Democrats, according to Jeffers, do not understand evangelicals, which is not all that surprising. So what could have caused the desired backlash? Jeffers offers three points:
1) Mr. Foley could have came out and said, "But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not share instant messages with that boy, the congressional page. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time – never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the people of Sixteenth Congressional District of Florida."Jeffers doesn't say it anywhere in his article, yet it's certainly implied. But for the unnuanced out there, I'll say it: Democrats and Big Media making a big deal over Foley, while conveniently forgetting William Jefferson Clinton, well... That's just plain old Hypocrisy. And it destroys what little credibility Old Media and Democrats have.
2) While sticking around in office and refusing to do the right thing and resign, Mr. Foley, when asked if his relationship with the congressional page was inappropriate, he could have answered: "Well, let me say, the relationship was not improper, and I think that's important enough to say. But because the investigation is going on and because I don't know what is out – what's going to be asked of me, I think I need to cooperate, answer the questions, but I think it's important for me to make it clear what is not. And then, at the appropriate time, I'll try to answer what is. But let me answer – it is not an improper relationship and I know what the word means."That's right, William Jefferson Clinton knew what 'improper' meant, yet struggled with 'is'...
3) And finally, after months of Congressional and Justice Department investigations, Mr. Foley could give this speech of [sic] the House Floor: "As you know, in a deposition in October, I was asked questions about my relationship with a congressional page. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information. Indeed, I did have a relationship with the congressional page that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible."Foley resigned having committed no real crime, accept being homosexual, yet William Jefferson Clinton lied under oath to a federal grand jury, committed adultery, and told a bold-faced lie to the American people. Anyone with even a shred of intellectual honesty knows that had it been George W. Bush who lied under oath, committed adultery, and then lied about it to the American people, his presidency would have been over. Democrats and their willing accomplices in Big Media would have beat that horse dead, never letting up even after the impeachment and resignation in disgrace. They would have demanded said resignation. Not so with Bill Clinton who committed genuine crimes. Thus far Foley has only demonstrated an abyssmal lack of judgment. But abyssmal judgment isn't enough to disqualify one for public office... Just ask William Jefferson Clinton.
The only way Republicans lose next month is if Republicans stay home. The real losers could turn out to be the American People if Democrats take power. America would see two years of vendetta, coupled with an escalation of partisan bickering and all-around bad behavior.
24 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Or, if Dems show up in greater numbers.
Or, if the Great Masses out there who don't vote, decided things were bad enough that they needed to vote Democrat, just to slow down the Big Machine rolling in the wrong direction.
Or, if many Republicans come to understand (as I did during Reagan's regime) that the Republican party doesn't represent Christ's position any better than the Dems and, of the two, maybe Dems will do slightly better. And if not, then we at least need to keep voting out the devils we know and choosing the devils we don't.
I can see many ways that the Republicans can lose. By all rights, they should be long dismantled by now for their own ineptitude and amorality, but then, I'm not the majority of Americans...
could you cite the relevant ordinance for us, el?
KEvron
KEV...
1) The age of consent in Washington DC is 16 years old.
2) The page in question was well over that age.
3) The emails/IM's were consenting since the page in question obviously responded, thereby prompting more emails/IM's.
4) No sex took place (unlike the incident with an under-aged page and Rep. Jerry Studds in 1983. The page in question was 17 at the time. Who here knows when the age of consent changed from 18 to 16 in Washington D.C.? Regardless of when, Congressman Studds DID have sex with that page AND stayed in office-- Can you say, Bill Clinton? Foley talked about sex to a page, and resigned... BIG difference, people! Night and Day difference!)
5) Because of the age of the page the charge of Pedophilia is erroneous, tricksy, false.
In short, no crime to be charged with, but plenty over which to be vilified in the media.
Am I defending his behavior? Absolutely not-- Everyone here knows my views on homosexuality. But is he guilty of a crime. Not yet he's not.
Besides which, There are plenty of other people on the other side of the aisle who have done much worse and chose NOT to resign. Gerry Studds (God have mercy on his soul), Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, William Jefferson...
Holding up Mark Foley as the poster child for the Culture of Corruption, while hoping the dam doesn't burst on all those other people far more guilty of crimes is hypocritical, and evidence of a smashed moral compass.
The only ordinance I need to cite is the one that says the legal age of consent for sexual relations in Washington DC is 16 years.
Foley has resigned. That's the end of it.
But if Foley IS guilty of ANY crime, it's being a Gay congressman seeking the attention of young men old enough to choose for themselves what kind of behavior they want to engage in.
Kind of hypocritical of the Democratic Party, neh?
What long list of grievances? And how so (are the Dems morally rudderless)?
KEvron
And instead of me citing figment statutes and ordinances perhaps you can enlighten us all as to what crime YOU think Foley committed.
Please, the stage is your.
Yet again--the blatant display of either delusion or pure deceptive evil.
Have MERCY!
you're wrong. homosexuality is not a crime. duh.
if you're gonna make me come right out and say it....
KEvron
Thank you for sharing your powerful reasoning skills-- the intellect of a tree stump --with us. After all, why is it everyone else caught the nuance but you?
You see Foley resigned on September 29th, a friday. On Monday he checked into an alcohol rehab facility, and as far as I know he's there still. No one can interview Foley.
The story about him sending suggestive emails to pages only had 2 directions to go after he took himself out of the picture. The pages and the house administration.
The questions being asked of all the pages is: a) Did Foley ever creep you out? and b) Were you warned about Foley?
A lot of pages (some even back from before 1999) have said they were warned about Mark Foley. Several others have come forward to say that they've been accosted by the man.
The questions being asked of the party administration is: a) When did you know this man was preying on adolescents? and b) Why was nothing done sooner? And these are the juicy questions because the repub admin just blew up when it was asked.
Peggy Sampson has supervised Republican pages since 1986, and several former pages say she warned them about Mark Foley.
In 2002 or 2003 Foley showed up drunk one night at the pages dorm. In 2004 Kirk Fordham, Foley's Chief of Staff, said he notified Speaker Hasterts office about Foley's problems. The speaker's Chief of staff denied the meeting took place. Later it was confirmed to have happened.
In 2005, Rep. Alexander(LA) was made aware of some emails Foley had written and the matter worked its way up to The Chairman of the house page board. Foley was warned to stay away from the pages, but strangely no one else on the page board was told about the matter and no hearings or investigations were ever held.
In Spring 2006 Rep. Alexander took the matter to Rep Reynolds, chair of National Republican Congressional Committee, and Rep. Boehner, House Majority whip. Both these men say they took it up with Dennis Hastert. When confronted with thise Dennis Hastert denied the meeting ever took place.
The scandal has moved on from Mark Foley's indecent and possibly illegal acts to the Republican Leadership and how long they knew about an adult preying on adolescents in their care. Would you support a school board that let a teacher carry on IM's with students discussing how well their hung? If it had gone on for 4 years or more?
And in fact Foley may actually be guilt of a crime. The FBI is investigating. "Some state laws criminalize certain communications with minors, even in the absence of physical sexual contact. In Florida, which Foley represented in Congress, the age of consent is 18 and attempts to seduce a minor are illegal. Louisiana makes it a felony to have sexually explicit communications over the Internet with anyone under 17."
HOW ROVE TWISTED FOLEY'S ARM:
It seems increasingly clear that the GOP congressional leadership, eager for every safe incumbent in the House to run for re-election, looked the other way as evidence accumulated that Mark Foley had a thing for pages. Holding onto his seat became more important than confronting him over his extracurricular activities.
But there's more to the story of why Foley stood for re-election this year. Yesterday, a source close to Foley explained to THE NEW REPUBLIC that in early 2006 the congressman had all but decided to retire from the House and set up shop on K Street. "Mark's a friend of mine," says this source. "He told me, 'I'm thinking about getting out of it and becoming a lobbyist.'"
But when Foley's friend saw the congressman again this spring, something had changed. To the source's surprise, Foley told him he would indeed be standing for re-election. What happened? Karl Rove intervened.
According to the source, Foley said he was being pressured by "the White House and Rove gang," who insisted that Foley run. If he didn't, Foley was told, it might impact his lobbying career.
"He said, 'The White House made it very clear I have to run,'" explains Foley's friend, adding that Foley told him that the White House promised that if Foley served for two more years it would "enhance his success" as a lobbyist. "I said, 'I thought you wanted out of this?' And he said, 'I do, but they're scared of losing the House and the thought of two years of congressional hearings, so I have two more years of duty.'"
The White House declined a request for comment on the matter, but obviously the plan hasn't worked out quite as Rove hoped it would.
--Ryan Lizza
Furthermore, how is it Democrats can be the great defenders of Gays and Lesbians they say they are, and still get away with using a gay congressman to further their own political agenda?
How? Because they're hypocrites.
If anything, this story shows the lengths to which Democrats will go to REGAIN power.
Mark Foley will answer for his crimes (if any) in front of a court of law. The Republican party administration though has to be held accountable at the ballot box and in front of the national TV news audience.
Abramoff, Delay, Libby, Safavian, Wheldon, Ney, Foley and Hastert. Republicans brought down by corruption. The Moral Majority.
Govt. Spending increased by 38% in the last 8 years. 25,000 plus disabled soldiers. 6,000 earmarks in the latest highway bill. The Terri Schiavo incident. Hurricane Katrina response and "heckuva job" Brownie.
The Foley scandal is crystalizing resentments about all these other issues into a general negative surge aimed at republicans.
"Dan...Your long list of grievances perfectly describes today's... and yesterday's Democratic party: Morally and ideologically rudderless."
What long list of grievances? And how so (are the Dems morally rudderless - any moreso than the Republicans)?
VERY well stated, Ben!
Those who suggest the Republicans are doing poorly "only" because of Foley, truly don't get it.
An interesting fellow, who shall go unnamed here, had these choice words to say...
"ya dumbfuck"
"yer a creep"
This, my friends, from the ranks of Unwashed Democratic Liberalism.
I did, however, call him an idiot. But knowing his work from elsewhere... Still that doesn't excuse my own behavior. Apologies to all, including the aforementioned uncivilized democratic liberal.
As to the being held accountable at the ballot box and in the Media:
Ballot Box = Yes. That is the proper venue for accountability of elected officials assuming they haven't broken laws.
Media = No. Not if they're going to choose who they hold accountable, and who they don't. Their blatant hypocrisy in this regard invalidates any claim they have to being the peoples 'right'-ful executioner.
I don't have time to enable Comment Moderation either, so enjoy the colorful language while it lasts. If it's reasonably polite I'll let it stand. Otherwise...
We're not. We can (and do) speak out against the policies of politicians when we feel they're wrong.
What churches CAN'T do is endorse candidates. We don't do that. Nor do we want to do that.
On the other hand, in my mind, the whole tax exempt status is a questionable matter.
go stick your head back in the sand. i'm done with a liar like you. for now.
KEvron
bingo.
KEvron
bingo."
KEVron and I actually agree on something, though I suspect for completely different reasons.