Decision ‘08

Not Playing That Game

See, what Mark Foley did was terrible and inexcusable, and everyone acknowledges that (and no, I’m not fooled by his rehab gambit), but this is what I was talking about when I talked about lefty smear jobs in another post, this time from DarkSyde at Daily Kos (with whom we’ve tangled before):

House Republican leaders stand accused of allowing a sexual predator to work directly with adolescent boys and girls and lead a committee on child Internet safety, while those same Republicans knew he was making lewd and unwelcome advances to teenage boys for years.

…To make an informed decision in the midterm elections, We the People, all of us, conservative, progressive, or indy, must have all the facts.

There are obviously plenty of decent conservative voters out there. I know quite a few. I’m happy to call some of them my dear friends. Sadly, there are also vile opportunists disguised as decent conservatives, wrapped in the flag and waving a Bible, who would enable the sexual stalking of minors without a second thought and happily cover it up for sordid political profit.

This single issue will once and for all separate the two like Moses parting the Red Sea.

The decent conservatives will line up behind calls for immediate comprehensive investigations to be concluded before the midterms. They’ll demand them. The amoral right-wing sociopaths will stall and dismiss the accusations and evidence out of hand. They’ll wring their hands over the political fallout, make excuses for why investigations can’t happen until after Nov 7 (If ever), implicate the innocent and pardon the guilty, straight down a partisan line as distinct as a laser beam.

Note the “some of my best friends are conservatives” ploy; the distinctly partisan rush to have this dominate the headlines immediately before the election, under the guise of ‘informed decisions’; the ludicrous assertion that this is some sort of defining issue rather than a sordid tabloid-type tale.

Note more than those things, however, the continued smear, with the flat-out assertions that there are any number of ‘amoral right-wing sociopaths’ who will stop at nothing for partisan gain, not even enabling sexual abuse of a child.

This is a texbook smear job…but let DarkSyde put the final nail in the coffin of his reputation himself:

Early reports so far this morning indicate that Fox News may be interested in aiding and abetting child predators or covering up same. Similar reports (See Kevvboy’s dairy) for White House spokesmen Tony Snow.

So Fox News and Tony Snow are interested in aiding and abetting child predators, eh? Those are outrageous accusations; I would think that such a charge would constitute slander and libel under even our liberal system for public figures.

I will not be railroaded by this gotcha game, and I encourage all Republicans to stand up for what they believe in. All decent people of any political stripe deplore the abuse of children. Mark Foley should be investigated, and if warranted, prosecuted, tried, and convicted. Similarly, if any House leader is shown to have acted with criminal negligence, the same should occur.

But I’ll be damned if I’m going to let Glenn Greenwald, DarkSyde, Jane Hamsher, Kos, or anyone else get away with these nasty, brutish, indecent smears. Let the investigations go forward, but let them go forward at their own pace…the timing of the election has absolutely NOTHING to do with justice. If Hastert or anyone else has acted improperly, they will resign or be removed from office, regardless of whether it is before or after November 7th.

And if the investigations show the worst to be true, I’ll call for their heads as loudly as anyone…until that time, DarkSyde, you should be ashamed of yourself. You are playing this tragedy for partisan advantage, and you know it damn well…

24 Responses to “Not Playing That Game”

1 megapotamus Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:06 am
The charges are not outrageous, merely stupid. I encourage these nincompoops to pursue this tack. Yes, Tony Snow is a notorious pimp and procurer of little boys for depraved acts…. genius. Foley himself has done the proper thing with his resignation and it seems that he is subject to criminal charges just on what we know, given the state of the laws pretty recently passed. We may well find that his history of predation includes more serious behavior. In any case a full prosecution is entirely appropriate and will get applause from this corner. The Dem/Left however should be cautious in their acclamations here. We remember the “live boy/dead girl” standard so famously coined. Will a general scrub for sexual and other misconduct in Congress NET Democrats’ seats? Not likely.
2 mtl Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:26 am
let them continue…

sooner or later a reporter wil ask a gop guy, maybe in a local race, ‘if he approves of the attempt of the far left to make the gop house look as if it was aiding and abetting a homosexual deviant’…

as mark Halperin wrote, 06 is about turnout. I don’t see their current tact helping the dem base rally, but I do see it helping the gop base. There is nothing more that the gop would love to do, but run as at the victims of the ultimate smear.

This is the wellstone memorial all over.
3 mtl Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:57 am
It also suggest the far left has moved on:

their two biggest pushes, against Liebermann and Allen, have fallen by the wayside-both senators will retain. I seriously question the ability of the blogosphere to move elections, so, as long as this remains on the blogoshpere, net effect will be zero.
4 too many steves Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:58 am
Hey Pot! It’s me, Kettle. You’re black!

Or maybe this is just an example of projection. These folks are arguing that the GOP covered this up for crass, partisan political reasons, which is an argument made by the Democrats for crass, partisan political reasons.

Goodness I hate this sort of thing.
5 mtl Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:09 pm
I wonder how many dems knew that Patrick kennedy had a drinking/drug problem. If he had hit a pedestrian, instead of a barricade, should the gop have had an inquistion for the dems who failed to intervene?

Just saw a newt interview…apparently the parents of the sexually confused child did not wish to make these allegations public. Always good to see that dems go against the wishes of a family’s method of dealing with a disturbed child to score polical points.
6 mtl Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Where there is a chance for backfire…if the urgency of getting rid of foley would fall on the gop, the question must be asked:

How long did democrats know about it? There is a long trail that is starting to appear, one vein runs with waht the gop leadrship knew, the other is what the 503c who produced this for abc news. knew, and when they knew it.
7 mtl Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 12:24 pm
can’t wait for the final week of elections-dems can run on the platform of -”forget about about protecting you from terrorism, we will keep you safe from queers”.

Forcing Harry Reid to spend his time on foley, away from woodward…like a kid who can’t get his hand out a of the cookie jar, unless he only takes one at a time.
8 Anonymous Liberal Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:53 pm
Similarly, if any House leader is shown to have acted with criminal negligence, the same should occur.

Mark, perhaps you’re just being imprecise here, but I hope this is not what you actually think should be the standard. Criminal negligence is a ridiculously high standard, and I don’t think anyone believes the behavior of the House leadership rose to that level. The question is whether they behaved inappropriately and unethically, i.e., whether they were negligent in a more pedestrian sense of the term.

There’s pretty solid evidence at the moment that a number of House leaders had at least seen the emails (though not the IMs). When CREW was provided the emails, they thought they were so problematic that they reported them to the FBI. And when ABC got its hands on the emails, they began investigating and almost immediately found the IMs and all sorts of other dirt on Foley. Yet Hastert and crew apparently were shown these emails a long time ago and did nothing. Moreover, it looks increasingly like Foley’s predelictions were a bit of an open secret in some circles (GOP pages were warned about him almost 5 years ago). That’s not good. Based on the available evidence, it looks like the GOP leadership was, at best, willfully blind as to what was happening and likely didn’t look further because they didn’t want to jeopardize a safe congressional seat.

If the shoe was on the other foot, you KNOW that the GOP would be in full-on attack mode and going ballistic about this. You can criticize liberal bloggers for making a big deal out of this, but you have to know that if the situation were reversed, just about every conservative blog would be having a field day. And I can think of a number of prominet conservative bloggers that I would bet my left arm would be far less restrained in their rhetoric than anything currently being said by Darksyde or Jane Hamsher.

At its heart, this isn’t about child predation. It’s about a Republican party that puts winning elections above all other considerations. It’s about the accusation (which seems to be borne out by the known facts) that the GOP leadership cared more about winning elections than about investigating whether they had unfit Congressman in their midst.
9 Mark Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:16 pm
At its heart, this isn’t about child predation. It’s about a Republican party that puts winning elections above all other considerations.

Yes, all other considerations including child predation. That was the specific accusation by DarkSyde, and it’s the heart of the smear that’s being perpetrated. It’s a vile accusation, and it’s totally unfounded based on the evidence before us.

Your take on the matter is not the one being pushed by DarkSyde, Greenwald, et al…

One doesn’t have to be an apologist for Hastert to note that, compared to the IMs, the e-mails were fairly innocous…but I don’t have to prove anything one way or the other. That’s the job of the investigators…and they have been brought in, and they will issue their findings.

Is it wrong to wait for those findings before jumping to conclusions? Do you disagree that DarkSyde and Greenwald are totally engaged in partisan ‘gotcha’ games?
10 Mark Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:53 pm
Also, Anonymous, you ask if I was imprecise in saying:

Similarly, if any House leader is shown to have acted with criminal negligence, the same should occur.

Absolutely not, because the preceding sentence was:

Mark Foley should be investigated, and if warranted, prosecuted, tried, and convicted.

I absolutely don’t think Hastert should be prosecuted, tried, and convicted if his behavior was not criminal. Isn’t that a tautology?

The correct remedy for unethical behavior is not criminal prosecution; it is censure, removal, or resignation…
11 Anonymous Liberal Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:15 pm
Is it wrong to wait for those findings before jumping to conclusions? Do you disagree that DarkSyde and Greenwald are totally engaged in partisan ‘gotcha’ games?

It’s not wrong, Mark, but it is a dodge. The investigators aren’t going to be investigating Hastert and his cohorts, because they are not even accused of doing anything criminal. The investigation will focus on Foley’s conduct.

But whether or not Foley did anything criminal, he certainly did a lot of stuff that is sleazy and unbecoming of Congressman (or anyone for that matter). No more information is needed to determine that (have you read the IMs?!!) So the relevant question politically is whether Hastert and other Republican leaders covered up or failed to sufficiently investigate Foley’s conduct. And this question is unlikely to be the focus of the FBI investigation.

Indeed it is primarily an ethical question, and therefore it is supposed to be handled politically, not by law enforcement.

You write:

That’s the job of the investigators…and they have been brought in, and they will issue their findings.

I don’t think that’s accurate. Assuming you are talking about the FBI, they will 1) almost surely NOT investigate the relevant ethical question and 2) almost sure NOT issue any findings when they are done. Law enforcement investigators indict people or they don’t. They don’t issue findings.

Hastert, Boehner, and Reynolds owe the American people an explanation. There is more than enough information already in the public domain to indicate that Foley acted highly inappropriately. The remaining question is whether Haster et al. acted appropriately based on their knowledge. There is absolutely no reason we should have to wait for an answer to that question.

Finally, as to your point about the emails not being as bad as the IMs, that’s clearly true. But compare the way ABC and CREW acted when getting their hands on those emails to the way Hastert and others apparently acted. ABC, after barely any investigating, uncovered a whole lot more damning information. CREW immediately contacted the authorities. Clearly those emails aren’t totally innocuous. They raise all kinds of eyebrows and should have prompted any normal person to do a little more investigating. Did the Republican leadership do that? Clearly someone thought the emails were problematic or they wouldn’t have reported them to the leadership in the first place.

I think you’re going a little far in reserving judgment on this one, Mark. This situation is incredibly sketchy and Hastert and others are rightfully on the hotseat. They have a lot of explaining to do, and they shouldn’t be allowed to hide behind the investigation, which isn’t even focused on their conduct.
12 Anonymous Liberal Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:20 pm
The correct remedy for unethical behavior is not criminal prosecution; it is censure, removal, or resignation…

I confess to not having read all the liberal blog posts on this subject, but isn’t that exactly what people are calling for: censure, removal, resignation? Are people really claiming that Hastert and company should be criminally prosecuted? I’m pretty sure Greenwald isn’t saying that. My impression was that people think Hastert and the others acted unethically and should therefore pay a political price.
13 Anonymous Liberal Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Mark, here’s what liberal moonbat Bay Buchanan had to say today:

I tell you what, I don’t know who knew what when and who is remembering correctly. I know one thing: that e-mail they call an “overly friendly e-mail” that had predator stamped all over it. No one in this country can suggest otherwise. You’re in a leadership position. You have a colleague you know is at least a potential predator and we have the pages coming through his office every day? They had an obligation, that same day, to investigate him further, to call in the FBI, if that was an appropriate action and also to call in those pages and make certain every one of them was interviewed to see if there is any problems here that goes deeper than what they already knew. They failed the parents of this country is what they did.

Do you still think this is all about partisans overreacting?
14 Mark Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Anonymous, I stick by my writing. There is a smear job in progress, and it has nothing to do with Foley, who has already resigned and is under investigation. It has everything to do with an election in 5 weeks.

The matter has also been referred to the House Ethics Committee, not just the FBI. They will, as I said, investigate and issue their findings. It’s not a dodge, not an excuse, and not an embrace of Hastert to resist being railroaded on such a foul charge. Clearly, there is an attempt underway to equate “sexual predator” with “Republican”, and I don’t intend to be a willing victim…
15 jpe Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:31 pm
I will not be railroaded by this gotcha game

Last I remember, you were a willing participant in the where-is-the-outrage game. I distinctly remember because you’re generally reasonable. That said, what we’re seeing is hard rhetoric; that’s something people of all political stripes embrace readily. Given that what I’ve seen is technically correct (Foley was a potential predator, if not one outright; the GOP’s negligent failure to investigate aided his plans), it falls within the brutally but not unexpectedly partisan level of rhetoric (see also: “Dems and al-Qaeda use same rhetoric!”)
16 jpe Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Clearly, there is an attempt underway to equate “sexual predator” with “Republican”, and I don’t intend to be a willing victim…

What I’ve seen is that people are blaming the GOP leadership for a failure to investigate, as AL points out. And the rush to defend Hastert’s negligence is certainly fair game for criticism.
17 Anonymous Liberal Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:52 pm
According to Drudge, the ~~liberal blog~~ conservative newspaper the Washington Times has joined this partisan witchhunt. They’re going to call for Hastert’s resignation tomorrow. And apparently Michelle Malkin has made a similar call for Hastert’s head.

Look, Mark, of course the Democrats are trying to capitalize on this scandal. But can you blame them? It’s a legit scandal and you know that the Republicans would be all over this if the situation was reversed. In fact, we’d probably never hear the end of it.

I appreciate your point about the referral to the ethics committee, but please, the GOP controlled ethics committee has presided over an era of unprecedented congressional corruption and has done nothing. Delay stacked it with his cronies when they threatened to investigate him a few years ago and we haven’t heard a peep from them since. What gives you any confidence that the ethics committee would do anything if left to their own devices? And even if they did, why does that absolve Hastert, Boehner, and Reynolds from having to publicly account for their actions? They are elected officials and they owe the voters an explanation–before they go to the polls to re-elect them.
18 Nathan Tabor Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:56 pm
One could make the argument that the reason more attention is being paid to Foley’s immoral and horrendous conduct than conduct by Democrat lawmakers in the past is because Foley is a conservative
and a rarity, while there are a number of Democrats who are sleazy and it’s accepted by their party faithful.

As conservatives we must to strive to find the best candidates possible — moral men and women. It’s not easy to find those people. And just because it’s difficult to find moral candidates doesn’t mean we have to scrape the bottom of the sewer where the Dems find most of their candidates.

During the run-up to the 2008 Presidential race, I’m looking at alternative candidates and so-called dark horses. I’m fed up with the usual suspects such as McCain, Hagel, etc. I’m looking at John Cox who appears to be a true conservative. Folks, it doesn’t hurt to shop around. Think about it: Most people give more thought to what they’re going to have for dinner than for whom they should vote for.
19 Mark Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Look, Anonymous, I’m not saying there’s no smoke here; and I’m not saying that the lefty blogs are the only people calling for Hastert’s head; I’m talking about a very specific smear that is underway, not general calls for the resignation of Hastert.

I’m not a Hastert fan, from way before this; he doesn’t excite me, and I think the House Republicans have done a pretty crappy job overall. I’ll shed no tears if he resigns, even though it will hurt this close to an election. I just don’t want to see anyone try to generalize this scandal to paint the vast majority of Republicans, decent Americans all, as are the vast majority of Democrats, with the brush of indifference to child abuse.

That brush has been deployed and I’ve given specific examples. Let me go off the defensive, and ask you: do you approve of the tone of the posts that I’ve highlighted? I know you’re not responsible for them, but do you approve of them? Surely you see the smear?
20 Mark Says:
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:19 pm
You’ll have to remind me, jpe, about the subject of ‘where is the outrage’ that I engaged in - not denying it, I just post so many posts on this blog that I lose track. I’m sure people can find ample grounds for hypocrisy on here; that’s the danger of leaving a public record. Yet and still, in this circumstance, let’s remember that this story broke Friday. This is the second business day. Feel a little railroaded yet?…Can you at least see that it appears that way?…
21 jpe Says:
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:58 am
Yeah, I meant the outrage thing more in jest, and I communicated the proper tone really badly. Well, not at all really.
22 Mark Says:
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:17 am
No problem, I was just confused as to which time I made a jackass of myself (there are so many to keep track of)…
23 Biff Says:
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:35 pm
The matter has also been referred to the House Ethics Committee,

First… what ethics committee. Second, unless I missed a vote, technically it hasn’t been. Actually, the decision over whether or not to even refer this matter to the House Ethics Committee has been referred to the House Ethics Committee. And as to what they actually cover, if anything… well, I expect I’ll be underwhelmed. But as it stands, they’ve done nothing, investigated nothing, pledged to investigate nothing, and provided no oversight–which is in fact what they’ve typically done under the Republican majority.

And yes, it’s clear that this whole thing stinks, from the $100,000 contribution to the fact that the full page board was never notified to the allegations that some in the leadership actually knew about this five years ago. Hopefully it *will* get fully investigated, one way or another. And it’s way past high time for *something* to get fully investigated.

And as far as an outright ethical purge of government… you don’t want to play that game either, although perhaps you should. Just a purge of people with Abramoff ties would free up dozens upon dozens of seats in Congress, whereas a general crony purge would wipe out a huge chunk of government, period.
24 Mark Says:
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:52 pm
Fine with me…I can count the number of truly effective Congressman on both hands…you’re rather missing the point. The point is not that the Republicans are paragons of ethics….the point is they are accused of being unconcerned about a sexual predator in their midst. And that’s not a fair accusation to hang on someone on the basis of freshly broken stories that havn’t been fully investigated…

Furthermore, this story broke on Friday, and you’re crying me tears over how there has been no investigation yet?

Jeez, dude, get real…you can’t investigate something like this in 1 1/2 working days…