The Brawler wondered aloud on Saturday how the right half of the Cheddarsphere (aka the MSM, Milwaukee's Stupider Media) would respond to the revelation that the Republican House leadership turned a blind eye to the fact one of its members, Mark Foley, was a sexual predator that preyed on pages.
Suffice it to say, they've exceeded expectations!
First, there's Jessica McBride who says that cries for Hastert et al to resign are hysterical. If he has to resign, so should reporters who didn't turn info over to police, members of the FBI who blew the case, etc.
I'll let Lady McBucher speak for herself:
Thus, my rhetorical statements above refer to the other question: What responsibility does House leadership shoulder? Should Hastert resign? Frankly, I don't think the reporters, editors, the FBI, OR House leadership should resign - at least based on all currently available information. My statements above were rhetorical in nature to prove a point: There is a rush to judgment against the House leaders when they made the same judgment as the FBI and media. It's all about the midterms....
If there is a pattern, if there were additional red flags ignored, I may change my mind. I won't be shocked if there is a pattern. I'd bet money there is. The question then will be: Could the House leadership have reasonably known about it? Should they have done something they did not do? Perhaps one could argue they should have re-interviewed all past pages to see if there was a pattern of problems. There's some merit to that argument, but the emails, while a bit odd, were certainly not so prima facie disturbing as to warrant an aggressive investigation. So, I think that one is a close call and doesn't warrant House leaders' resignation and ruination of their careers
Last I checked it's not the press or the FBI that's in charge of the page program, it's Denny Hastert. So if something untoward happened in the House page program and tarnishes the image of the House then its the person who's in charge of that program that should take the fall. Hastert. Accountability! It's a great concept, albeit in short supply in Bush America.
And when Jessica says "the emails, while a bit odd, were certainly not so prima facie disturbing as to warrant an aggressive investigation" she clearly thinks using Latin gives her argument some credibility. It doesn't. A a man in his fifties asking a teenage girl or boy for a photograph, and commenting on the build of another, is not "overly friendly" or "odd." It's fucked up and would raise alarms with any sentient being. Those emails should have been enough to make someone say, "Hmmm, that's kind of weird, might be worth looking into." Particularly since Foley had a reputation. The emails didn't take place in a vacuum. ABC was able to shake out the more incriminating text messages in pretty short order. Insiders on Capitol Hill -- who know where the skeletons are buried -- could have gotten to the dirt much quicker (not to mix metaphors).
Jessica and Charlie Sykes also are outraged that the Democrats would try to make this a political issue. Sorry, but if the fact the Republican establishment turned a blind eye to the outrageous behavior of one if its members is not a political issue, then what is? That bit Lord Acton said about absolute power corrupting absolutely? The Foley scandal is exhibit A.
And for supporters of the party of Karl Rove, who in his past smeared a perfectly good man as a pedophile, to complain about the politicization of this abomination...
Words fail.
The Brawler was particularly intrigued by what Patrick McIlheran would say on the matter. Paddy Putzmeister Mack has bemoaned the millions the Catholic Church has had to pay out to people molested by priests -- many of the priests are dead, it happened a long time ago, the church does a lot of nice stuff so we don't want to bankrupt it, etc., etc.
This is how Paddy Mack begins his treatise:
What’s slimier than a congressman discussing sex with teenagers?
Again, words fail. But let's just note that in McIlheran's world view rhetoric outstrips action in the scale of sin. Politicians and others suggesting that the Republicans should be ousted for failing to police their own (just as they've failed to manage the country's budget, just as they've failed in their duty to oversee the President's disastrous occupation of Iraq) is worse than a congressman asking teen boys to measure their cocks or their preferred techniques of jacking off. Sorry for the blunt language next to Putzmeister's "rebarbative" (that's a synonym for repulsive for you peasants out there), but let's be plain. Foley was not "discussing sex" with these boys. He was trying to conduct a form of sex with them. If he wants to say politics is worse than that, fine. Curiously, Putzmeister didn't note that Foley claims he was abused by a clergyman as a boy. If you want an explanation, Paddy, as to why the Church must pay for sins of a past generation of priests here it is: The crimes they commit reach down for generations. |
I'm surprised that neither one pulled out the "Clinton did the same thing, and moral failures all have their root in that blue dress"
Because after all, a consensual relationship with a 22 year old who pursues you is much worse than using your position to get impose your sexual desires on young boys, and then blowing it off in a cover up because IOKIYAR.
which is what it all boils down to. I wish the pundits and apologists would just say it and avoid all the rationalizations and intellectual contortions.
"well, we'd send him to jail if he was a Democrat. But becasue he's One Of Us, we'll just let it go."
Posted by: TC | October 04, 2006 at 01:16 PM