October 8, 2006
FOLEY AS METAPHOR....The Mark Foley scandal is only marginally about Foley himself. More broadly, it's about the how the House Republican leadership handled the scandal and what that says about the Republican Party itself:
Many strategists in both parties believe the scandal might echo principally as a metaphor for a GOP leadership that over the past year has drawn more attention for ethical lapses and partisan turmoil than legislative achievements.
....A frustrated GOP strategist who spoke on the condition of anonymity essentially agreed, saying his party's mishandling of Foley "speaks to our inability to govern and do the right thing. It says everything about who we are as a party."
Mike O'Hare has more along these lines.
—Kevin Drum 12:47 AM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (50)
As long as you can keep people thinking with their spleens instead of their heads, we've got a chance. Keep them thinking about Republicans not getting the whole job done. Whatever the hell you do, don't let them start thinking about what Pelosi and the Democrats will actually do, or not do, if they get into power.
And remember, this year it's "anything but the economy, stupid!"
Posted by: dnc on October 8, 2006 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK
If the modern GOP is epitomized by anything it is this: Appearances trumph reality. The GOP was more concerned about what the exposure of a closeted homosexual would do to their image than they were about the fact that Foley was causing real damage to actual people.
You can say the same thing about Iraq, taxes and Medicare. Going against doctrine means admitting mistakes. Appearing right it more important than being right.
Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on October 8, 2006 at 1:06 AM | PERMALINK
Many strategists in both parties believe the scandal might echo principally as a metaphor for a GOP leadership that over the past year has drawn more attention for ethical lapses and partisan turmoil than legislative achievements.
Partisan? If there is any partisanship going on, it's the liberals and democrats for hyping the Foley story. As even the liberal media reports, the entire Foley story originated from a left-wing group who posted some e-mails alleged to have been written by Foley.
Link
"Foley resigned last week after Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning watchdog group, posted some of the e-mails he exchanged with the former male page in 2005, who was then 16 and had worked for Rep. Rodney Alexander, a Louisiana Republican."
The fact that the entire "scandal" was started by liberals should give us pause on whether or not to believe the e-mails are real or not. In fact, Drudge has reported that the e-mails and IM's written by Foley were actually pranks.
Link
"According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.
According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats. This source, an ally of Edmund, also adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund."
So in fact, what really happened was that Foley wrote the messages as a prank, but a liberal group allied with Soros got their hands on it and then decided to hype the messages. It's clear the only people who are being partisan are the liberals and democrats. They're trying to pretend what was written as a prank was for real.
Posted by: Al on October 8, 2006 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK
If there is any partisanship going on, it's the liberals and democrats for hyping the Foley story.
That's "Democrats". "D".
Your triviality (and partisanship) is showing.
Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on October 8, 2006 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK
Here's a cartoon ...
http://www.uclick.com/feature/06/10/06/jd061006.gif
... which perfectly illustrates how the Foley story and the Iraq story are stories with a moral, and the moral of the stories is that the GOP just doesn't care.
Swopa has given some thought to how Foley-gate (or is it now Hastert-gate?) "is something that can and should be connected to a deeper truth about how Republicans have governed the country."
http://www.needlenose.com/taxonomy/page/or/101
Posted by: sysprog on October 8, 2006 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK
Can we call a moratorium on stickling "gate" on the end of every scandal?
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 8, 2006 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK
Ten Pranks You Can Play on a Child Predator:
In honor of Matt Drudge's claim that the initial IM exchanges between an ex-page and Mark Foley "were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives," an allegation that, while slapped down by the ex-page's attorney, was handled with masturbatory glee by the anxious right wing punditry:
1. You can put a whoopee cushion on the child predator's seat in the House of Representatives. When he sits on it and creates a fart sound, he will still be a child predator.
2. You can pretend to be a lobbyist and shake the child predator's hand with a joy buzzer. When he jumps back from the jolt, he will still be a child predator.
3. You can offer to donate to his campaign and point to a quarter you've glued to the floor. When he struggles to pick up the quarter, he will still be a child predator.
4. You can balance a bucket of water over the door to his office where his computer is. When he opens the door and gets drenched, he will still be a child predator.
5. You can meet him at a fundraiser and offer him a drink containing a fake ice cube with a plastic fly inside it. When he reacts disgustedly, he will still be a child predator.
6. You can ask him to open a can of peanuts in the Rotunda. When cloth snakes come springing out and make him scream, he will still be a child predator.
7. You can unscrew the top of the salt in the Members' Dining Room. When he pours salt all over his fish sticks, he will still be a child predator.
8. You can ring his doorbell at his DC home and run away. When he answers and looks around perplexed, he will still be a child predator.
9. You can tell him that the United States needs to go to war with Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. When he votes in favor of your war, he will still be a child predator.
10. You can IM him your dick size. When he IMs back how much he wants to fuck you, even as you laugh with your friends at your clever prank, he will still, at the end of the day, be a child predator.
Posted by: Merry Prankster on October 8, 2006 at 1:25 AM | PERMALINK
No it's essential to understanding this scandal that it is not about Foley. This is about blowing the cover on the homophobia they've been pitching to their base. They've done a tremendous job of making the people in Kansas think that they're one of them.
They're not. They never have been. They don't have a problem with folks being gay, with folks messing around. That's what they do themselves. But they've sold themselves to their base as something entirely different.
Now, Foley is evil, and the fact that he was hitting on boy rather than girl pages does not, from a thoughtful moral perspective, make any difference is beside the political point. The political point is that they have sold themselves to their racist, homophobe base as one of them.
And it's quite clear that they're not one of them. Even worse, for the swing voting soccer/security/suburban moms, they don't even care about the children.
They're toast. Now it's up to us to make sure that the Dems live up to the principles they've been selling us. You know, there's this Lieberman fellow, just for example....
Posted by: JayAckroyd on October 8, 2006 at 1:35 AM | PERMALINK
dnc: And remember, this year it's "anything but the economy, stupid!"
For voters, the economy is about jobs and standard of living, not the published employment rate and DJA.
When it comes to jobs, about 2.5 million have been created since Bush took office. Since 150,000 new jobs are needed each month to keep up with people coming into the work force, we are behind by about 6 million jobs.
When it comes to standard of living, since per capita income has not risen during Bush's reign and since the dollar is worth about 10% less than it was when he took office, the typical American has seen a significant reduction in purchasing power.
Republicans like to crow about the recent fall in gasoline prices; but what they won't mention is that if gasoline, which was $1.22/gal when Bush took office, had kept pace with overall inflation, it would now be at $1.32/gal, rather than $2.40.
Luckily for the Democrats, most voters are not as stupid as you are.
For instance, did you know that there are actually people who are not aware that, like all Republicans, everything Al says is a lie?
Posted by: V on October 8, 2006 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK
"So in fact, what really happened was that Foley wrote the messages as a prank..."
Congratulations, Al: your lawyer called and said that your divorce from reality just became final.
Posted by: Bobarino on October 8, 2006 at 1:37 AM | PERMALINK
Please be patient wiiht my little Ally-kins. We are just having a terrible time getting the dosage on his new medication regulated.
Posted by: Al's Mom on October 8, 2006 at 1:47 AM | PERMALINK
" It says everything about who we are as a party."
Yup - whiny, buck-passing, incompetent perverts.
Posted by: craigie on October 8, 2006 at 1:54 AM | PERMALINK
Like the GOP, it's really time for Al's lame schtick to end.
Posted by: craigie on October 8, 2006 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK
Al is a bought and paid for GOP hack blogger whore, who else would write such misleading and intentionally convoluted things as AL does?
Hastert knew of the problem a full year before he claimed..Ergo Hastert, AL, is a big liar.
Hastert is the hoax AL, Bwahaahhaha
Posted by: Dennis_Hastart on October 8, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK
JayAckroyd on October 8, 2006 at 1:35 AM
I agree. Nicely put.
Completely beside the point, the grammar of the third paragraph is obviously correct, but very interesting ("that [that]....is). I'd like to keep it as an example.
Posted by: ither on October 8, 2006 at 2:32 AM | PERMALINK
Where is Adam Walsh these days? It seems like every time there has been a high profile child abduction or sex crime story, Walsh gets face time everywhere, CNN, Today, GMA giving us his get tough on the predators and their enabler lecture.
I haven't seem him at all this week. Odd.
Have any of you?
Posted by: Keith G on October 8, 2006 at 2:53 AM | PERMALINK
Keith - Adam was the son who was kidnapped and murdered. John is the father who made a career off of capitalizing on family tragedy.
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 8, 2006 at 3:06 AM | PERMALINK
But in answer to your question, no I have not heard a peep out of the man, odly enough. Maybe he has run his course, too? Let us kneel anp pray tis so...
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 8, 2006 at 3:07 AM | PERMALINK
V: Absofuckinlutly right on.
Posted by: American Idiot on October 8, 2006 at 3:08 AM | PERMALINK
My bad, thanks GC.
What the hell are you doing up at this hour?
Posted by: Keith G on October 8, 2006 at 3:12 AM | PERMALINK
Hey, Al: prank off.
Posted by: Kenji on October 8, 2006 at 4:18 AM | PERMALINK
And of course, as we know, the very first thing a safe-seat House incumbent does when he's pranked by a bunch of teenagers and liberals wielding fake e-mails is to resign and check into rehab.
Sure, Al's a parody--but for those of us who have a mind, it boggles mightily to think anyone would fall for the prank theory put forward by the wingnuts, no matter how desperate the desire for some exculpatory narrative.
Posted by: Lionel Hutz, attorney-at-law on October 8, 2006 at 7:54 AM | PERMALINK
Foley's not a metaphor for the libs, he is a billy club. He's just another tool useful for pushing an agenda that Americans have routinely rejected.
If you can't beat the Republicans at the ballot box then taint them all with a homosexual pedaphile.
I wonder if the Democratic leadership knew about Foley before all of this shaky ABC reporting. But of course they are not responsible for reporting anything because they do not have the power in the house. Only Republicans can be blamed for what someone in their party does.
At least the Republicans force their part members to quit after something like this. Democrats give them leadership positions for actually having sex with an underage intern.
Posted by: Orwell on October 8, 2006 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK
Orwell, you are just freeking nuts. Rep Foley resigned when he was confronted by an ABC investigation of his odious activities. The GOP leadership at one point had the same info that ABC had, but they did not persue the leads.
At least the Republicans force their part [sic] members to quit after something like this.
What an out an out lie.
Posted by: Keith G on October 8, 2006 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINK
gop warned about 9-11 - they do nothing
gop warned about katrina - they do nothing
gop warned about foley - they do nothing
s.s.d.d.
Posted by: mr. irony on October 8, 2006 at 10:21 AM | PERMALINK
The Foley story is an example of the way the REPS have "governed."
Mess up, cover-up, don't investigate or white-wash investigate, vilify the other side for caring.
Posted by: lilybart on October 8, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK
Oh great, though not directly related to this story, the Pope seems to be piling on.
Gays are a danger....
USA Today
Posted by: Keith G on October 8, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK
I posted about what this reveals about the GOP in my blog, under the title "The GOP thinks 'Oversight' means 'Overlook'". To save linking, here's the short post:
We really shouldnt be surprised that the GOP leadership was more concerned about ignoring possible problems in the page program than in resolving them, since thats part and parcel of the whole GOP philosophy: they dont like the government looking into and regulating business, any busines: the securities industry, the pharmaceutical industry, agribusiness, telecoms and broadcastwhatever the industry, the GOP does not want oversight to occur: outsiders snooping into whats going on, looking for things the business is doing wrong. They hate OSHAlet businesses worry about workplace safety, no need to get the government involved. And the whole effort of the Bush Administration to keep things secret is precisely to avoid oversight or interference.
The GOP is a party of secrecy, a party of insiders, a party that wants no truck with or accounting to hoi polloi. And so when the GOP fails at oversight, they are in fact succeeding at carrying out their philosophy.
Posted by: LeisureGuy on October 8, 2006 at 11:17 AM | PERMALINK
And what's weird about the Foley scandal in particular is that the GOP keeps saying, "It's the Democrats who brought this to light!" Well, good for the Democrats---they were not interested in shielding and enabling a sexual predator, as Hastert and his cronies were. Too bad it wasn't the Democrats who did it, but the GOP was careful to keep all of this from the Dems (not playing politics, of course, just keeping it secret). As amply reported, the whistle was blown by a Republican who apparently couldn't stomach the continued protecting of a child predator.
Posted by: LeisureGuy on October 8, 2006 at 11:22 AM | PERMALINK
I'm not surprised that those on the right are quick to look at the Foley scandal and try to somehow compare to the Clinton follies even though Clinton at least had to decency to find a floosie of legal age cater to his weaknesses. The fact that Republicans in power positions were aware that something was rotton in Florida and chose to look the other way to protect the party's power says a lot about their priorities. This does not surprise me at all. What does surprise me is that a much bigger scandal should be brewing concerning Hastert's land deal. Why aren't the Democrats demanding an investigation of this little plum. Whitewater gives them a precedent to demand an investigation into shady land deals (which Whitewater turned out NOT to be), and if we could get an investigator as partisan and zealous as Ken Starr who knows what kind of dirt might come out from under the rug. In the big picture I think the Republicans really prefer to talk about Foley rather than bring all those earmarks out of the closet.
Posted by: sparky on October 8, 2006 at 11:38 AM | PERMALINK
If the Demos take back the House, they're gonna have to pick and choose among the zillions of things that need to be investigated.
Hastert's land deal, egregious as it is, doesn't have far-reaching implications for the country. The Iraq war, and the domestic spying issue, do. If we want to dig into a financial scandal, the theft of billions of taxpayer dollars straight into cronies' pockets would be a good thing to focus on - that's our money, and it could have been spent on things important to us, like education or healthcare or, hey! on our underequipped, overstressed soldiers who are having to pay for their own armor, healthcare, and transportation home.
I hope, if the Dems are in a position to put the GOP through a wringer, they do it for things that matter to all Americans.
Posted by: CaseyL on October 8, 2006 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK
Um, Orwell, are you saying that the real problem is that the Democrats had this information and didn't blow the whistle sooner?
Good for you. Now, take it one step further - why is that a problem? Because if its true (of course, its not, but lets pretend shall we), then the Dems used this information to influence an election. How will that influence an election? Because the Reps have less time for damage control. In other words, they have less time to re-influence an election.
Come on, Orwell, use your brain. The problem is there was a predator in Congress that was known by the GOP, who did nothing to protect those they were charged with protecting because they didn't want the info to negatively influence an election.
So, is that the best you have?
Posted by: ronik on October 8, 2006 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINK
Sysprog linked to an analysis that I very much liked, at
http://www.needlenose.com/taxonomy/page/or/101 .
That essay emphasized that Democrats should be building a narrative rather than dealing with scandals and issues piecemeal, and that the ideal narrative is the Republicans' massive betrayal of trust. This focusses on (and ties together) many important issues (social security, the Iraq War, domestic safety, etc.) and it is an easily understood message. It should properly inspire outrage at the Republicans even in apathetic citizens and "values voters" (two groups that the Democrats have had a hard time reaching), and it is a perfectly natural fit with Democratic ideals about the role of government in competently fixing problems and making things better and fairer.
Comments?
Posted by: N.Wells on October 8, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK
What makes this scandal so terrible for the Republicans it that it appears most people that "doing the right thing" never motivated any of their leaders' decisions in a matter like this. Even "taking resposibility" was only about politics.
Posted by: david1234 on October 8, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK
Competency. That's been the issue available to the Democrats all along. The President and the rubber stamp Congress is not competent, plain and simple. Foleygate is simply another example of of a never ending list of incompetent actions to solve problems. So, Foleygate is important in the bigger scheme, even for Republicans who knew nothing about it.
Posted by: William Jensen on October 8, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK
Here is a comment someone left on a post I put up on my modest little 6-reader site after I wrote about Hasterts land deal:
Anonymous said...
If he had had sex on that land, then you would have a story.
You yanks are a curious lot.
10:43 PM, October 07, 2006
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 8, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK
Its about Congress and its inability to be accountable for anything. The House leadership is clueless. If Hastert had said I am the leader of the house, I made a bad call, but the responsibility for this as an institution lies with me alone and I take responsiblity it would be over. Even today they keep running the maybe Rahm Emanuel knew, Bill Clinton knew, George Soros knew, why did it have to come out 5 weeks before an election, its my staff's fault, its the media's fault ad nauseum. The same tired old crap with Gingrich and Delay of all people chiming in, they just keep digging a bigger hole. Ray Lahood is right. The program needs to be retooled. Congress should not be in the child supervision business. They should raise the ages of the pages to 18. They should be college students and don't even get me started on the pay. $20,000 a year for what is basically a Congressional gofer when they refuse to raise the minimum wage.
Posted by: aline on October 8, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK
Ray LeHood (R-Tex)said today he did not think the Foley mess would hurt Republicans because they "still have 30 days to prove to the American people that we can govern". Unfortunately the moderator did not respond with the obvious question, "after 12 years in power?". I think it is the Republican congress in a nutshell. Do whatever the hell they want, and depend on the voters attention span to make only the last 30 days of rhetoric relevant.
Posted by: Layne on October 8, 2006 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK
Goodwin in the Daily News has a great column today about how insane it would be for the Foley affair to be the deciding issue in the elections:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/459460p-386592c.html
I realize many of your folks are pretending the issue has larger significance, but the reality is that it is a gay sex scandal that democrats are trying to exploit. Amazing, and frightening, that such an issue might have such an impact on an election. But on the other hand, there'll be another election in two years.
Posted by: brian on October 8, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK
the reality is that it is a gay sex scandal that democrats are trying to exploit.
Considering the restraint the Republicans showed when Bill Clinton had an affair that was not illegal, with a consenting adult, an event that had taken place in the marriages of at least two of his Republican tormentors (Hyde, Gingrich), an event that was none of the public's business...
RUB THEIR GODDAMN FACES IN IT AND STEP ON THEIR BACKS.
Payback is sure a bitch, ain't it?
Posted by: Repack Rider on October 8, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK
Yes, how dare the Dems use something valid to influence an election? The Repubs know you're supposed to make shit up, and the truth is hurting their delicate sensibilities.
Meanwhile, those highway earmarks are just ticking away, aren't they? Talk about earning your schadenfreude. (That's German, for payback's a bitch.)
Posted by: Kenji on October 8, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK
Would it surprise you to know Dennis Hastert contributed to a book about boy scouts?
http://www.amazon.com/Scouting-Way-Dennis-Hastert/dp/0971539804
Parents, do you know where your children are? Not with republicans, I hope.
Posted by: Michael Buchanan on October 8, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK
Repack Rider:
I think you are comparing apples and oranges on Clinton and Foley. Foley was caught and quit a pretty insignificant office. Clinton was caught, lied repeatedly, and stayed in the most important job in the world. Democrats may have a legitimate point in arguing that the impeachment of Clinton was unwarranted and a waste/diversion, but it is not honest to use Clinton as an excuse to exploit Foley. Actually, an honest approach would be to say that since democrats considered it no big deal when Clinton had sex with a white house intern, lied and kept his job, democrats also should consider it no big deal when Foley sent perverted messages to a former page and quit when caught. Honesty anyone?
Posted by: brian on October 8, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK
an honest approach would be to say that since democrats considered it no big deal when Clinton had sex with a white house intern, lied and kept his job, democrats also should consider it no big deal when Foley sent perverted messages to a former page and quit when caught. Honesty anyone?
Let's try it another way. Since REPUBLICANS considered it a big deal when Clinton did something that was tawdry but not illegal, they have no excuse for ignoring Foley's clearly ILLEGAL act, a violation of the law that HE SPONSORED.
Certainly Clinton lied, but none of his lies was a violation of law, and the event he lied about was no more important to the public than if he had lied about the weather. Once the Jones case was settled out of court, the deposition became moot, and any lies told during that deposition were legally nonexistent, as though the deposition had never taken place.
For the hard of hearing then, what Foley did violated federal law, and nothing that Clinton did violated any law.
BTW, got any idea why Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney REFUSED to be sworn before testifying to the 911 commission? Would it have anything to do with possible perjury charges? After all, I know that YOU would want the president and vice-president to offer SWORN testimony to Congress, so that we could be assured that the consequences of lying about official acts are at least as severe as the consequences to Mr. Clinton of lying about private, legal acts.
Right?
Posted by: Repack Rider on October 8, 2006 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK
Yes, Brian, you seem to be looking closely at some real-world events but not stepping back to look at the real-world consequences. Not only are Foley and Hastert part of the ruling party now, their actions are clearly illegal andeven more crucial, politicallythey are brutally illustrative of Republican hypocrisy.
The idea that Democratic willingness to exploit this scandal somehow invalidates the meaning of the scandal itself is absurd on the face of it. And anyway, can you think of a single case when Rove and company have failed to exploit such an opportunityeven if they had to "create" it in the first place? They call it Swift-Boating for a reason.
Posted by: Kenji on October 8, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK
Repack Rider:
I think you are comparing apples and oranges on Clinton and Foley. Foley was caught and quit a pretty insignificant office. Clinton was caught, lied repeatedly, and stayed in the most important job in the world.
Posted by: brian on October 8, 2006 at 6:09 PM
Nice to see how little you value your government then. Foley was deputy whip of the Majority party in the House of Representatives. That made him one of the most powerful people in the House itself and a major player (if more behind the scenes then some) in the Congress and therefore the American government itself. He may not be "the most important man in the world", but he is most certainly not someone in a "pretty insignificant office" either. What I wonder is whether you did this purely from a rhetorical basis, as in what you are writing is rhetoric designed to advance a specific agenda or whether you knew what you were doing when you did this and did so assuming the ignorance/indifference of your audience. Foley may not have been a household name but that was not because he was some insignificant backbench Congress critter either.
General:
This is something I have found most irritating. This man Foley is being reduced in significance as a player in the GOP Congress, and while one expects distancing, to see a deliberate attempt to make a clear officer holder of the GOP itself played off as a insignificant person holding an insignificant office shows a level of contempt for government itself that is nakedly open about it's insult to the institutions and to the level of respect the citizens are supposed to expect from it as well as insulting the intelligence of said citizen. Sadly it does appear in today's America that is far easier to do than it used to be before the telecommunications revolution and especially since mass visual media started appearing. The transformation in culture such a fundamental change in information gathering/dissemination was inevitable but some of it's byproducts are not good ones and this limited attention span of the American citizen would certainly have to be called one of those.
The way this is emblematic of the greater problem though is how easily the secret was being kept by the leadership from the public *AND* their opposition the Democratic party. This is consistent with how the President has kept Congress out of the loop in it's actions and even fed them misleading to knowingly flawed intelligence* (*I won't say knowingly lied in this, I do strongly suspect it but I can't prove it and this message needs to be about what one can prove) and how this GOP led Congress has been willing to aid and abet this cause of secrecy with their rubber stamp. The Foley scandal shows that in a nutshell, it is simple in nature and perfectly reflective of a much greater and dangerous mentality running the American government than a sexual predator. The history of rubber stamping is part of the message already in place, the consequences of this GOP dominated government between Bush and the Congress has started hitting home with a true tipping point within American society, and how this issue was handled from the outset shows exactly the mindset and the abuse of power that comes with it in action.
That is what makes the Foley scandal a potent tool, and it is not about the sex but the abuse of power and secrecy (which involves trust, something the GOP dearly hope people don't stop to remember and then think about) involved in how this appears to have been handled prior to the revelations made publicly triggering the resignation of Foley and the subsequent week which showed just how quickly the cockroaches fled when the strong light of that scrutiny was shone on them. The actions of the GOP leadership in the first five days in particular are damning and the consequences of them I doubt will suddenly and magically disappear until after election day. This will be especially true if the Dems remind of this but they need to but this in the abuse of power context clearly whenever they do it. That it is sexual in nature is one thing but this is also abuse of guardianship by the predator and his fellows charges in loco parentis to these pages. That shows a level of abuse of power that simply cannot be overlooked, especially when one considers that 2/3rds of the pages come from the majority party's side and those are generally well connected party supporters families. If a party will place the children of their own loyal and valued supporters in the way of a predator rather than risk one house seat and the money Foley brought in then what won't they be willing and likely to abuse trust of with the powers of government? That is the basic message the Dems need to run with on this issue, and it should be a winner since it most certainly resonates in today's America out of the main GOP base given the numbers on independents as well as Dems.
Posted by: Scotian on October 8, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK
Sorry repack, but Clinton and Foley each did tawdry acts. Democrats acclaimed Clinton. Republicans dumped Foley.
This is not the most important part of this issue. But you get nowhere on the Clinton comparison.
Posted by: brian on October 9, 2006 at 12:43 AM | PERMALINK