Don't Fall for the Hype
Stories like this are the way that a Democratic Party committed to terrorist rights and cut 'n run in Iraq are hoping to have the opportunity to take Congress.
Don't fall for the hype. As of yet, there is no indication that Speaker Hastert or anyone other than Rep. Foley did or didn't do anything that should result in an anti-GOP tidal wave. Certainly, it's important to make it clear that -- unlike the Democrats -- Republicans don't defend or support their representatives who engage in sexually inappropriate behavior. But that doesn't mean that every Republican across the country should run around like a chicken with its head off, yelling for Hastert's scalp.
So far, what we do know is that Speaker Hastert knew what a number of newspapers and other figures knew -- which the papers determined did not warrant a story, and which Hastert believed warranted a warning, rather than taking steps to remove a gay congressman from his post (which would have been excoriated by many as a sign of a homophobic Republican witch hunt).
The Democrats are trying to play the same game with Foley as they do with Iraq . . . refusing to recognize that decisions can be made only with the imperfect information that people have at the time. Once all the facts are revealed, Dems like to second guess, but that's the prerogative only of those who don't really have to be responsible for anything.
Republicans need to remain calm. Make it clear that we are united in our absolute distaste and repugnance at Foley's behavior, wait for the facts to come out, and then proceed accordingly.
But it will be deeply disappointing if conservative Christians refuse to turn out on the basis of the Foley scandal, as the linked piece asserts. Surely the base knows better than to impute the guilt from one man's behavior onto the rest of the party, especially when there's no evidence that anyone else knew about Foley's damning instant messages -- and especially when so much (including, most importantly, the course of the war on terror) depends on Republicans holding the Congress.
And let's not forget to find out who else -- besides Dennis Hastert -- knew anything about this, including those who brought out this story at such a fortuitous time for the Democrats.
Don't fall for the hype. As of yet, there is no indication that Speaker Hastert or anyone other than Rep. Foley did or didn't do anything that should result in an anti-GOP tidal wave. Certainly, it's important to make it clear that -- unlike the Democrats -- Republicans don't defend or support their representatives who engage in sexually inappropriate behavior. But that doesn't mean that every Republican across the country should run around like a chicken with its head off, yelling for Hastert's scalp.
So far, what we do know is that Speaker Hastert knew what a number of newspapers and other figures knew -- which the papers determined did not warrant a story, and which Hastert believed warranted a warning, rather than taking steps to remove a gay congressman from his post (which would have been excoriated by many as a sign of a homophobic Republican witch hunt).
The Democrats are trying to play the same game with Foley as they do with Iraq . . . refusing to recognize that decisions can be made only with the imperfect information that people have at the time. Once all the facts are revealed, Dems like to second guess, but that's the prerogative only of those who don't really have to be responsible for anything.
Republicans need to remain calm. Make it clear that we are united in our absolute distaste and repugnance at Foley's behavior, wait for the facts to come out, and then proceed accordingly.
But it will be deeply disappointing if conservative Christians refuse to turn out on the basis of the Foley scandal, as the linked piece asserts. Surely the base knows better than to impute the guilt from one man's behavior onto the rest of the party, especially when there's no evidence that anyone else knew about Foley's damning instant messages -- and especially when so much (including, most importantly, the course of the war on terror) depends on Republicans holding the Congress.
And let's not forget to find out who else -- besides Dennis Hastert -- knew anything about this, including those who brought out this story at such a fortuitous time for the Democrats.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:04 AM
3 Comments:
Okay, I'll say it since you've been so good to not say it...why did Studds get to keep his seat for 13 years after having sex with an underage page in 1983? Oh yeah, he was a Democrat.
Why don't Democrats EVER seem to resign with shame when they sin mightily?
Certainly anyone with prior knowledge of these events, who did not bring it up upon first learning of it, are as quilty as Foley, just as anyone else who conceals a crime, as pointed out by Wile. I expect to see something done as the facts are brought to light.
What needs to be made known, is that those of us on the right are simply human beings subject to all the same temptations as everyone else, and sometimes some of us succomb. That is hardly the point. The point is that we don't seek to change laws to enable our shortcomings, we still maintain the wrongness of such behaviors, and generally take responsibility. We don't just gloss over such infractions, as evidenced by the outcry over Foley by the right, and we expect accountability from our own and our own selves. This is the distinction between the right and left, not that we are beyond temptation. It's not hypocrisy to stand for righteousness while struggling with temptation. It's only hypocrisy when one speaks against sin and knowingly and willingly wallows in it.
I'm sorry, I have to plead legal ignorance here. Is sending a gross IM a felony in and of itself?
And are both sides of the IM out there, or only those purported to be from Foley?
Post a Comment
<< Home