I’m as excited as any of my fellow lefties to see the Dems take back power this November, believe me. But with five weeks to go until election night I think attacking the Republican leadership on this Foley scandal could blow up in the Democratic Party’s face. Moral attacks seem generally hypocritical in the post-Clinton political climate (even though I agree that pedophilia – wherever you draw the age line – does trump private indiscretions). The larger issue, as I see it, is whether anyone believes only the Republicans had caught wind of Foley’s behavior?
Yes, I get the corruption argument. But I think the thing speaks for itself. I’m thinking the DNC shouldn’t push this too hard. The dominos are already falling, you know? Point one finger and you’ve got three more pointing back at you.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
My Uber Talented Friends
Stuff I Read
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(121)
-
▼
October
(16)
- there - 't' = here
- Do you need a companion to feel complete?
- More reasons why I'm so happily single.
- You give germphobia a bad name.
- It's coming down, down, down.
- Panda Cam
- Love Thy Neighbor
- Will Walk for Beer
- Prokofieff Kills the Squirrel
- Crazy talks crazy.
- Swell photos to use for your Holiday Cards!
- Outside today, the City of Portland cuts down summ...
- Christmas tree umbrellas.
- How do we define the Foley "wrong"?
- Foley Fallout
- Sick day karma.
-
▼
October
(16)
2 comments:
While there are comparisons to be made with Clinton's scandal for sure, there are two important distinctions. First, Monica was of age (legally important, perhaps not morally so). Damn her for forever besmirching our school's good reputation! Second, the President has unique constitutional responsibilities which should afford him more protections from investigation than a mere congressman.
I guess I don't see much downside to attacking the leadership on this one. Sure, it's possible that some Democrats have committed similar indiscretions, and that some members might go down Henry Hyde/Bob Livingston style. I'm not sure the Republicans have much time to be on the offensive at this point. But even if this happened, these facts would remain true: (1) Foley is the fourth Republican congressman to resign this year, (2) the leadership knew about Foley's abuses for weeks if not months and did nothing about it, and (3) the country's going to hell and the people are finally recognizing this. The public is already familiar with major institutions shielding sexual predators (see the Catholic Church), so I think the Democrats would be wise to make as much hay as possible, since politics operates on such a fast timeline.
I agree w/distinguishing the Clinton scandal but not on the basis of any executive privlidge. I'd argue that his activities fell into his "private" sphere: marital infidelity is entirly different than behavior which may result in criminal liability (especially when you coauthor the bills you may end up prosecuted under).
The down side on attacking the Republican leadership, to me, has less to do with the "moral hypocrisy" debate and more to do with the transparent political nature of the attack. Everyone in Washington knew Foley was gay. And I'm guessing that a few Dems, and not just the Republican leadership, were hip to some of the shit he was pulling with these paiges. That's where I see it as a risky argument.
If politics operate on a fast timeline then the media operate at warp speed. The house ethics commitee won't figure any of this shit out until after the election. But at this rate, public perception will be shaped and forgotten by the end of the week.
Sorry for the shoddy spelling: it's late, I stayed home sick and I've just about had it with the Foley coverage (although this was a really good debate).
Post a Comment