Different yardsticks
Then it was called principled defiance. Charles Krauthammer writes in the Weekly Standard:
In 1983, Representative Gerry Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts, admitted to having sex with a 17-year-old male page. He was censured by the House of Representatives. During the vote, which he was compelled by House rules to be present for, Studds turned his back on the House to show his contempt for his colleagues' reprimand. He was not expelled from the Democratic Caucus. In fact, he was his party's nominee in the next election in his district--and the next five after that--winning reelection each time. He remained in the bosom of the Democratic Caucus in the House for the next 13 years.
The reactions to Studds and Foley will be radically different because the electoral bases of their parties are likewise different. When you have asymmetrical expectations you have asymmetrical disappointments.
posted by wretchardthecat at 10/08/2006 09:20:00 AM
13 Comments:
When you have asymmetrical expectations you have asymmetrical disappointments.
And asymmetrical expectations follow from asymmetrical ideologies. When Democrats talk about pro-family they're talking about fiscal issues (wages and living expenses). When Republicans talk about pro-family they are talking about encouraging the existence of one certain type of family and discouraging the existence of creative alternatives. So Studds was pro-family to Democrats but not to Republicans, while Foley was pro-family to neither party.
The Studds/Foley comparison is interesting for those fascinated with politics -- but how many people fall into that category anymore?
The Mainstream Media have been losing their market for a long time. The BBC is no longer regarded as an unbiased source of news, and is consequently increasingly talking only to itself. Membership in political parties is in decline, as is actual voting in elections.
The elephant in the corner may be the "Consent of the Governed", which is steadily being withdrawn from the political class. With their current actions, Democrats and the media (to be redundant) may be poisoning the well from which they themselves will have to drink.
As to the long-term consequences of the alientation of the bulk of the citizenry from the small political class -- who can say? But it is not likely to end happily for the political class, including Democrat activists.
Eggplant said...
This Foley thing is an obvious Democrat "October Surprise" (they knew about Foley for years). It's also obvious the Democrats would play this thing the same way the MSM played Abu Ghraib, i.e. dribble out new pictures every other week and turn the thing into a "death by a thousand sound bites".
What I don't understand is why the Republicans handed the razor over to the Dems. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Florida) is blabbing to Newsweek that she learned of Foley's drunken attempt to storm the Page dormitory back in '02. '02! This corroborates what Fordham and other staffers have claimed, that the House leadership has known about this peculiar little problem for almost four years. Were they simply afraid to reveal the power of the Lavendar Bund within the GOP? I really don't understand the internal deliberations of the leadership over the handgrenade beneath the table.
"So Studds (a proven actual pederast given 3 cheers by the Dem caucus during his minimal punishment)was pro-family to Democrats but not to Republicans, while Foley (a keyboard diddler with a drunkenscene outside the page dorm, to boot; he forgot to try to vote out there in the page dorm yard)was pro-family to neither party."
What gets me about this is this is, first, a direct assault on a core of the GOP base, not an attempt to sway the undecideds, who presumably are closer to the Dems on "lifestyle" issues. All this using intent to buggery, while having cheered, literally, for one of their own who actually accomplished buggery of a juvenile....
I am always amazed at how stupid the Dems believe America to be.
Undertoad:
An increasing trend toward child protection???? What HAVE you been smoking?
It was only recently that the Democrats tried, both legislatively and judicially, to have the Boy Scouts' charter revoked because of the Boy Scouts' rule against gay scoutmasters. Which children, exactly, did that effort protect?
It was only recently that the Democrats blocked a bill that would have prevented interstate transport, by a non-family member, of a minor for the purpose of obtaining an abortion without even parental knowledge, much less parental consent. Which children, exactly, did that effort protect?
And by what grotesque standard is an 18-year-old considered a child, anyway? A minor, yes--depending on the jurisdiction. But a CHILD? Puh-leez!
I could go on, but you get the point--or maybe you don't. I frankly give up on trying to predict or understand which points liberals get.
North Korea may have conducted a nuclear test.
http://english.yna.co.kr/Engnews/20061009/630000000020061009114816E6.html
Nothing certain yet, but thus far not looking good.
The Return of Sexual McCarthyism
"...a simple comment on the democrats stunning hypocrisy in expressing outrage over Foley's sick emails and IM's compared to their 'ho hum move along' attitude to Stubb's actual sexual intercourse with a 17 year old boy - a comment which strangely enough, you studiously fail to address in your 700+ word response to the thread."
Well said. Hypocrisy ["...a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion." - Webster's] radiates from his post.
Dems/Libs love the tactics of shift and split. Shift the focus of the discussion, often by ignoring the central point(s) which would be too painful for them to address, and seek to split their opposition by hurling accusations designed to cause quarelling amongst them, providing an opportunity to escape.
still republican,
That is GENIUS!
I may be biased. I'm a huge BH fan.
From Jed Babbins' piece at spectator.org today:
"Media entrapment is what this campaign is all about. First we had the Dems' phony "hearing" in which the discredited "revolt of the generals" was revived, to widespread media coverage it didn't merit. Then we had the National Intelligence Estimate leak and condemnation of the war by all the usual suspects. After that, the Woodward book, timed to embarrass the president before the election. And then came the Foley matter, again apparently timed to affect the election by media outlets who had the story for months before and were themselves apparently manipulated by yet another George Soros group. Republicans are on the verge of collapsing into an entirely defensive campaign, kept behind their crumbling ramparts by the incessant media barrage. And none of their campaign leaders -- Dole, Reynolds and the lot -- seem willing or able to take the offense. If ever there were a recipe for losing the election, that's it."
Lemony Snicket Republicans
All want to work diligently to keep pedophiles from harming children. But is the new standard that any suspicious act should be seen as a red flag? Is that enough for a full and thorough investigation to then be conducted including reading personal emails?
I think that any investigation should require some evidence of wrong doing.
What about when a man who spends a lot of time with boys? I am a stepfather who coached many Little Leagues teams and umpired many games. Also, I was involved with boys in AYSO, Pop Warner, and Indian Guides. Is it suspicious that none of these boys were my real sons?
I am sure I was seen hugging boys and patting them on their butts. Many times there was no other coach, so I was alone on the practice field with the boys. Is that suspicious enough for a full investigation?
I mention being a stepparent as I resent the way stepparents are depicted in movies, etc. However, I am more concerned for my gay friends. What’s the threshold required to conduct an investigation of a single man who volunteers to spend time working with boys? I hope it’s some evidence of wrong doing.
Congressman Mark Foley’s instant messages were the “smoking gun” proving improper behavior, but in the initial emails according to ABC News “Foley asks the young man how old he is, what he wants for his birthday and requests a photo of him” see www.FelderLaguna.Blogspot.com and not close to any evidence of wrong doing.
A parent responding with a demand for no future contact is fine, but not for the government to conduct an investigation.
Suggest that from this point forward surprise and shock shall be limited to politicians doing moral things of a noble purpose.
Ok, a quick comparison.
Democrat Studds is found to be committing indecent acts with an underage page.
Democrat reaction: Defense
Republican reaction: Outrage
Republican Foley is found to be talking about indecent acts with a young former page.
Democrat reaction: Outrage
Republican reaction: Outrage
So who’s being inconsistent here?
Post a Comment
<< Home