I have very uncomfortable feelings at this point about the way the Democrats are dealing with the Foley scandal (addressed here)So here's where it stands:
BILL MAHER: "AMERICANS LOVE TORTURE." Young Americans certainly seem to be learning to. And we, their elders, are enabling this. Bill Maher's not wrong..
GUILT BY ASSOCIATION AND WHY I REFUSE TO GO THERE: FOLEY'S EMAILS TO JEB. What? What? Oh, for God's sake. Come on, people. Unless there's more to it than I've seen so far, let's be fair. Yes, I said fair. And I mean to Jeb Bush. Yes. To JEB BUSH.
[quote begins from article at the PalmBeachPost, "Foley's email to governor voices fear White House snubbed him."]
E-mails from former U.S. Rep. Mark Foley to Gov. Jeb Bush reveal that Foley feared two years ago the White House was shunning him, and he called on the governor, President Bush's brother, to intercede.
Foley wrote to Gov. Bush on Sept. 29, 2004: "Have I done something to offend the White House ... I am always getting the shaft ... they came to ft pierce a few weeks ago and said I was not allowed to attend ... yet joe negron is there ...
.....Bush and Foley have exchanged about 100 electronic messages since 1999, according to documents Bush's office released Wednesday evening. The bulk of the e-mails from Foley, who almost exclusively sent the messages from his Blackberry, concerned hurricanes, federal legislation and his recommendations for appointments.
The governor's office did not return calls Wednesday night concerning the e-mails.
The e-mails show a friendly relationship between Foley and Bush, in contrast to Bush's recent characterization of Foley's behavior as "despicable" and "disgusting."
[quote from article ends]
Oh, FOR GOD'S SAKE. Is "liked Mark Foley before" really going to become some sort of political mark of Cain?
This is utter nonsense, you know, unless they've got evidence that Jeb Bush knew what was going on and somehow enabled it. Which I do not believe.
I can't stomach the "guilt by association" overtones, if indeed those overtones are present. No Democrat ought to touch that sort of argument. There. I said it.
I'm all for the "guilt by hypocrisy" charge being applied to Republicans who have pretended to their Christian base that they agree with their extreme ideas while secretly tolerating conduct wouldn't be tolerable to their constituents. Even if in the long run it doesn't do any good, they deserve to be exposed.
But somehow or other that's not the way a lot of the current rhetoric is coming across. Whereas they ought to be saying: "I know you think these people think the way you do, but they're cynically manipulating you," what they seem to be saying is, "Look! They're all friends with the predatory gay man!" And that doesn't sit well with me.
I don't believe for a moment that Jeb Bush had any idea what Foley got up to when he was drunk and feeling lonely and horny. And if he didn't, why shouldn't the two have had a friendly or at least not uncordial relationship before he did know? And why should the contrast between what Jeb Bush thought about Mark Foley before he found out and what he thinks about him now be worthy of remark? Unless they can show me evidence that Jeb Bush somehow knowingly or at least with reckless disregard for the evidence acted as some sort of Foley enabler (which I don't believe), I couldn't care less how many emails the two exchanged.
Is the implication that Jeb Bush's friendship with Foley prior to the recent revelations is somehow discreditable to Jeb? If so, that's just disturbing. Any whiff of "guilt by association" ought to scare the bejesus out of thinking Americans.
And so should the current witch hunt. Seriously, people. Get some perspective.
HOW FAR SHOULD A DEMOCRAT GO WITH THIS? Not this far, my fellow Dems. Not this far:
[quote begins from New York Times article, "Foley Case Snags House Incumbent in Ohio," by Adam Nagourney]
Ms. Kilroy [Democrat] is using the Foley scandal to try to systematically undercut Ms. Pryce [Republican] with a big component of the Republican base here, Christian conservatives, when Republicans already worried that those voters would stay home on Election Day. “Deborah Pryce’s friend Mark Foley is caught using his position to take advantage of 16-year-old pages,” an announcer says in advertisements the Kilroy campaign has placed on Christian radio stations.
Ms. Pryce responded by accusing Ms. Kilroy of gay-baiting. She said in an interview she was hopeful she could win over gay voters in a city long known for a large gay population, particularly because the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy organization, has endorsed both candidates in the race.
“She feels that the gay and lesbian population is a very big component of her support,” Ms. Pryce said. “And she really is kind of baiting with this in terms of Mark Foley.”...
The Foley case is becoming an issue in an increasing number of races, aides in both parties said. But nowhere else has it become quite as pitched as here, where Ms. Kilroy — who had already been trying to link Ms. Pryce to corruption scandals in Ohio involving Republicans — has moved in with withering attacks since Mr. Foley resigned.
[quote ends]
On the one hand, the Republicans brought this on themselves by narrowing their base to the point that they apparently have to have the support of Christian conservatives to survive. Having adopted a public stance of superior righteousness and godliness---which, as Jesus himself remarked, is never to be confused with actual righteousness or godliness---they're now up to their necks in the Slough of sanctimony.
On the other hand, my fellow Democrats, let's be very careful we don't end up in the same predicament. If the Republican candidate is accusing the Democrat of gay-baiting and is now courting that base, while the Democrat is working the conservative Christian side of the spectrum, it's time to take a step back and weight the cost. Exploiting the Foley scandal for political gain isn't worth the cost of pandering to voters who regard Foley's homosexuality as the real scandal.
THE PIGS MUST BE FLYING. Did Karl Rove really call representatives of the religious right "nuts" or "boorish"? I'm not saying he did or didn't; I'm asking. According to this article by David Kirkpatrick at The New York Times and this article at Editor and Publisher, he very well might have done. Forgive my skepticism; it's just that I have a hard time taking in the fact that Karl Rove and I may at last agree on something. Just because a former aide says so doesn't mean I have to believe it, you know.
Man, the Republicans really have hit a string of embarrassments with their conservative Christian base, haven't they?
I know the Republicans are panicking and the Democrats gloating over all the ways that the Republicans have suddenly and at the worst possible moment managed to offend some of their key constituents, but in the long run, what choice do the conservative Christians have? It's them or us, and they aren't going to hook up with the party of the gays and the feminists and the African-Americans and the east coast and west coast liberals.
I don't know; maybe they'll all stay home for the midterm elections. I can't see them switching sides, but maybe they'll be too demoralized to give their votes to the Republicans. But I can't help shaking my head over the astounding fact that a tawdry sex scandal that seems to be limited to a few creepy emails has the power to accomplish what the Iraq and Katrina fiascos could not.
I guess it's asking too much to wish for a Democratic victory based on the real reasons why the country desperately needs it.
And I must say that I am rather apprehensive about the long-term effects of the Foley scandal. Maybe it will demoralize the Christian base---but it also might result in the long run in their getting together to elect some really scary representatives.
After all, the good thing about the hypocritical Republicans who play to the Christian right is that they don't really share their constituents' crazier views.
Comments