Predictable Democratic Pattern
Always beware when Democrats begin bleating about "the children." In this piece, Margaret Carlson throws out every Democratic talking point about the Foley affair, concluding that "Hastert was more desperate to save a seat than to save a child."
With all due respect to Carlson (which is painfully little), that's ridiculous. Foley's district is solidly Republican, and had Hastert known that "a child" was in jeopardy, even if he had been thinking only about maintaining the seat, he would have forced Foley out well in advance of the election, so that a strong challenger could actually have had his name on the ballot. Instead, as Hastert knew only that some borderline inappropriate emails had been sent, Foley was instructed to knock off any more contact, and he promised to do so.
And what's this about "sav[ing] a child," anyway? What Foley did was disgusting and reprehensible. But where was the Democratic concern about "saving a child" when Gerry Studds was sleeping with a male page? Don't bother to note that the Studds page was 18, especially now that we know that (contrary to ABC reports) the Foley page was eighteen at the time of the most outrageous instant message exchanges.
As for the 18 year old needing "saving," well, certainly no one could ever condone the tone or content of the instant messages coming from Foley, but anyone who's spent some time on the MySpace chat rooms for even the youngest kids must realize that this was unlikely to be the first time that the page encountered some pretty graphic sexual content online (and where, pray tell, is the Democratic concern about that?)
What all of us are still waiting for is any indication of how the Democrats believe the issue should have been handled. Should Foley have been removed from his post on the Missing and Exploited Child Caucus on the basis of a few inappropriate emails, given that he was gay? How, exactly, do Democrats believe these matters should be addressed in the future?
What we see in the Foley affair is typical of the Democratic approach in general. Denounce, carp, sneer -- but don't offer any indication of how Democrats would handle a situation, whether it's the war in Iraq or a gay congressman sending ambiguously creepy emails. Just trash the Republicans and hope, desperately, that it will be enough to drag you over the finish line.
With all due respect to Carlson (which is painfully little), that's ridiculous. Foley's district is solidly Republican, and had Hastert known that "a child" was in jeopardy, even if he had been thinking only about maintaining the seat, he would have forced Foley out well in advance of the election, so that a strong challenger could actually have had his name on the ballot. Instead, as Hastert knew only that some borderline inappropriate emails had been sent, Foley was instructed to knock off any more contact, and he promised to do so.
And what's this about "sav[ing] a child," anyway? What Foley did was disgusting and reprehensible. But where was the Democratic concern about "saving a child" when Gerry Studds was sleeping with a male page? Don't bother to note that the Studds page was 18, especially now that we know that (contrary to ABC reports) the Foley page was eighteen at the time of the most outrageous instant message exchanges.
As for the 18 year old needing "saving," well, certainly no one could ever condone the tone or content of the instant messages coming from Foley, but anyone who's spent some time on the MySpace chat rooms for even the youngest kids must realize that this was unlikely to be the first time that the page encountered some pretty graphic sexual content online (and where, pray tell, is the Democratic concern about that?)
What all of us are still waiting for is any indication of how the Democrats believe the issue should have been handled. Should Foley have been removed from his post on the Missing and Exploited Child Caucus on the basis of a few inappropriate emails, given that he was gay? How, exactly, do Democrats believe these matters should be addressed in the future?
What we see in the Foley affair is typical of the Democratic approach in general. Denounce, carp, sneer -- but don't offer any indication of how Democrats would handle a situation, whether it's the war in Iraq or a gay congressman sending ambiguously creepy emails. Just trash the Republicans and hope, desperately, that it will be enough to drag you over the finish line.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:41 AM
2 Comments:
I'm enjoying your blog again Carol. Thanks for Sherriff-ing!
I can't wait for the elections, and I won't be surprised if the Republicans hold steady in both the House and Senate. I also won't be surprised if the Democrats get their wish and take a few seats. The fever swamp has the vapors, that's for sure.
Yesterday is History. Tomorrow is a Mystery. And Today is a gift from God, that's why it's called the Present.
What all of us are still waiting for is any indication of how the Democrats believe the issue should have been handled.
I think the universe is more likely to fizzle out before THAT ever happens.
Post a Comment
<< Home