Althouse: "I am fairly sickened by the Republicans and as much as I cannot stand statist, liberal polices, will not mind seeing the Republicans chastened."

October 3, 2006

"I am fairly sickened by the Republicans and as much as I cannot stand statist, liberal polices, will not mind seeing the Republicans chastened."

If you're looking for the Foley discussion, including the Washington Times call for Hastert to resign, go back to this post from last night, which has a nice comment thread going, including that quote.

And by the way, how long do you think it will take before some terrible story about the sexual failing of some Democrats in Congress hits? I'll see you one representative and raise you a Senator. Aren't you expecting that? There must be a hundred members of Congress sweating now over something they once said in email or that porn they looked at on the computer.

51 comments:

Doug said...: This behavior is disgusting. Is there no EEOC that applies to Senators and Congressmen/Congresswoman?

I know congress exempts themselves from many of the laws that they force upon the rest of society and I think that may be one of them.; 10/3/06, 7:54 AM
Anonymous said...: I bet there are many in Congress, state houses, and private houses throughout the country sweating this out. How many people do you think ever thought someone would keep copies of Instant Messages for 3 or 4 years?; 10/3/06, 9:00 AM
Ann Althouse said...: gj said..."Ann, as the Washington Post points out, Democrats are not hurt by sex scandals as much as Republicans are, because the element of hypocrisy is not so clear. Also, the trule explosive part of the Foley scandal is the dereliction of duty by the Republican House leadership. It's not so easy to come up with a comparable Democratic distraction."

False. Sexual harassment. Period.; 10/3/06, 9:36 AM
MadisonMan said...: This scandal makes Bush campaign headlines like Bush Says Democrats Shouldn't Be Trusted and President Bush Says Democrats Shouldn't Be Trusted to Hold Reins in Congress immediately brings up memory of the current House Republican Leaderships' apparent failings. Maybe that's my non-Republican view of it, though. But perhaps the chastening will occur.

Perhaps Bush should modify his message so the headlines written about it explicity include GWOT, his perceived strength.; 10/3/06, 10:23 AM
MadisonMan said...: They sat on the story for months, waited to do maximum damage.

Even if this is true -- as Ann noted elsewhere, it shows the Republican Leadership in even worse light. Let's give the Democrats something they can use against us, and let's let them control when they use it. Idiots.; 10/3/06, 11:36 AM
Beth said...: The GOP didn't go after Foley because they were afraid of looking homophobic? Give me a break! That's the new GOP defense and damn it, they're sticking to it.

No one accused anyone of homophobia for prosecuting pedophile priests. And homosexuals aren't jumping up and down defending Foley; the right to sexually harrass a teen-age subordinate isn't on the queer agenda.

What's clear to me is that in the GOP, there is no sense, not a shred, of personal responsibility. If a GOP rep gets caught with his pants down, it's the Dem's fault for making hay over it. If the GOP leadership gets caught covering up scandal, it's someone else's fault for making them do it.; 10/3/06, 11:52 AM
Beth said...: Fen, you're way wrong here. Foley wasn't "outed" as gay; he was outed for sexually harrassing young people. You can say it all you want, but it won't make it true that revealing his offense would have resulted in accusations of homophobia.

NAMBLA is not part of mainstream gay politics, or society. That's a pernicious, evil, right-wing slander. They are not welcome at our table; no reputable gay rights organization includes them in their ranks.

When I talk about the lack of personal responsibility, I'm speaking of how commenters here grasp at straws to shift the blame for the behavior of the GOP leadership over the past months, and blame their choices on other parties. You've done it again here, in your post, so thanks for the illustration.; 10/3/06, 12:34 PM
Beth said...: Fen, I agree that there's no party lock on bad behavior. But you're too sure that the Dems would offer only a slap on the wrist. Dollar Bill Jefferson was removed from the Ways and Means Committee by means of a proposal by the Democratic Caucus. They moved quickly to do that--the raid of his office was May 20, Pelosi asked him to resign from the committee on May 24, and the caucus voted to strip him from it on June 15, with the House following on the 16th.

Just as a sidenote, I've got my Karen Carter sign in the yard already (she's his leading opponent in November's election). I hope there aren't enough boneheads to put him back in office, but I never misunderestimate the whims of voters in either party.; 10/3/06, 12:58 PM
Beth said...: Fen, nice attempt to change the subject. Of course the left uses homosexuality as a political issue. So does the right. But claiming that you're "certain" that revealing Foley's sexual harrassment would have triggered that reaction from the left is just a dodge. Homosexuality isn't the issue with Foley. Yes, I do think the anti-gay stands of the GOP amount to bigotry. I also think legislators ought not to be sending dirty IMs to teenagers, of either sex. Enough with the red herrings and changing the subject.

As for reputable as a qualifier? You are grasping at straws. There are probably thousands of gay rights groups. None of the national or international groups with which I am familiar include NAMBLA. Most include in their material statements specifically repudiating NAMBLA and its efforts to piggyback on our movement. Reputable is a good qualifier for any institution, so I offer no apologies for using it.

I'll meet you halfway on the responsiblity issue. Most comments here have shown disappointment in Hastert, and yes, Malkin is saying "Deal with it," but she's saying that to reluctant conservatives. The fact that she's saying it points to the fact that there are too many still yelling about this being about the Democrats playing politics. And today, actually starting late last night, I've started seeing the "we didn't reveal it for fear of being labeled homophobes" meme. That's nothing but a cheap dodge, which should be nipped in the bud right now.; 10/3/06, 1:12 PM
Beth said...: Fen, 1983? That's what you have to turn to? Come on, what about Gary Hart (1988)? Surely you can get even more current than that? Or can I tar the GOP eternally for the crimes of Richard Nixon? Why not just agree that given the ability to peer into the dark hearts of our species, we'd find plenty of evil in the reps of both parties? But I don't particularly care how Dems or GOPs responded to scandals in 1983.

Catherine, there was more than one boy involved, and the "investigation" by Hastert, Reynolds, et al, consisted of asking Foley what was up, and accepting his response of "oh nothing." It's useless to speculate now, though. It's all unfolding still.

My only purpose here, has been to point out that the current GOP response seems to be to try to change the issue and shift blame. All you have to do is read the interviews in the media with GOP leadership and follow the right-wing blogs to see that what I'm saying it true. Instapundit's now blaming the HRC and liberal bloggers. Oh, excuse me, he's not doing the blaming. He's just linking to sites that do.; 10/3/06, 1:37 PM
Beth said...: Fen, wow. Well said. But are you happy with a party that is stuck between resigned and defensive? There were other choices:

[responsible]: yeah, the other party will make hay out of this, but we need to act with integrity anyway.

They seem to have moved to:

[deflective]: let's blame the Dems. What were we to do? We were stuck being resigned or defensive, so we chose to stay silent.; 10/3/06, 1:41 PM
Beth said...: shanna, sadly, I agree that they all suck. I cannot think of more than a very, very few elected officials in or from my state that I have any genuine respect for or faith in, of either party.; 10/3/06, 1:43 PM
garage mahal said...: Elanor Mondale perhaps.

Often overlooked, is the last Republican man-boy scandal. Anyone remember the "call-boy" ring under Reagan/Bush 41 ?

Just google "Franklin Coverup"; 10/3/06, 2:09 PM
garage mahal said...: Which political party would best serve a politician that engages in or facilitates hidden, illegal sexual activities?"

Republicans?; 10/3/06, 2:27 PM
Beth said...: Elizabeth and I are just bumping heads. It can get heated, and I'm prone to overkill, but one of us will always be buying the drinks afterwards.

Fen, thanks; I very much enjoy our discussions, and I think highly of you. I'll raise one to you this weekend at my first weekend of Oktoberfest.; 10/3/06, 2:50 PM
Beth said...: Which party? I'd guess Libertarian. But I'm pretty sure that link leads to the Democrats, otherwise you wouldn't post it.; 10/3/06, 2:54 PM
Beth said...: Catherine, as I said, and as Fen has noted, it's all still coming out. I'm going on news reports that refer to more than one page, over time. No doubt all be revealed. As for children at risk, I am always wary of appeals to "we must save the children!" As you note, we're talking about teens here.

When I was in high school, two male teachers made explicit attempts to have sex with me. I knew at the time that they'd done so, in some instances successfully, with others. Neither I nor any other of the girls involved told anyone. I've never been able to explain that to myself as an adult, but at the time it made sense. Perhaps I assumed other adults knew and didn't care; I liked both men as teachers and felt conflicted about "ratting" on them. I don't know. But it doesn't surprise me that the situation with Foley wasn't exposed by the teens he was targeting.; 10/3/06, 2:59 PM
garage mahal said...: Fen,
One need only to look at the title to your link, for me to decide.

Which political party should you join?"

If I were to "join" a party, this would be in the now, in the present. No?

At the present, it is your party that is involved in a nasty scandal, and apparent cover-up.

When you ask:
"Which political party would best serve a politician that engages in or facilitates hidden, illegal sexual activities?"

I would have to say Republicans. Look at the title to this thread!; 10/3/06, 3:01 PM
paul a'barge said...: What's clear to me is that in the GOP, there is no sense, not a shred, of personal responsibility says Elizabeth.

you're staring in the mirror, dearie.

You just sit back on the morality-sidelines and watch, as the Republican Party, the only party with constituents who still value their principles, demand accountability.

Foley? Gone within a hearbeat of notoriety. Hastert? Getting a deserved beating.

Compare: Bill Clinton. Y'all circled the wagons on that one, and you sacrificed feminist princples rather than stand for accountability.

Compare: Barney Frank. Y'all still sit with hands over eyes, ears and mouths.

Compare: Jefferson from LA, with the money in the freezer. How's that moral progress working out for you there?

You have no standing to criticize us. You bitch-shriek all you want, but no one takes you, your party or the wing of your party to which you belong with a shred of credibility.

You just STFU and watch as the moral party begins to clean its own house.

Take notes, and keep ranting at that mirror. Who cares what you think?; 10/3/06, 3:10 PM
MadisonMan said...: I could be wrong (Wouldn't be the first time), but I seem to recall that Studds' behaviour, though censured in '83, actually took place in '73. It seems it was dredged up so that when Crane was censured for something that happened in '80, the House could look Bi-partisan, and all the smug moralists could then shake hands afterwards.

Perhaps the Republican Leadership were waiting for a Democrat to be caught doing something, so then a similar ritual purge could occur.; 10/3/06, 3:30 PM
MadisonMan said...: Dick: what Studds did was repugnant. But it was not illegal. What Foley did was repugnant. It was possibly illegal -- jury's still out on that -- because of Foley's own legislation.

Your argument should be with Studds' consituents, some of whom were likely quite conservative. Why'd they keep electing him? My guess would be that the Republican party offered up no palatable substitute.

If you can't beat an opponent who's tarred down with a sex scandal, something is wrong.; 10/3/06, 3:46 PM
Beth said...: I always feel lifted up, invigorated even, after a good "STFU" from paul a'barge. In another thread, someone actually called the GOP "The Party of Integrity," as if such a thing exists in America.

paul's right that Foley was "gone within a hearbeat of notoriety," but alas, not within a heartbeat of the GOP leadership knowing about his indiscretions. Once the cat was out of the bag, we dealt with it! We'll handle it, if we can't cover it up any longer!

There's nothing funny about Foley's actions, but the flailing and whining as commentor after commentor tries to change the subject away from Foley and the months of GOP inaction is just getting funnier and funnier.; 10/3/06, 3:46 PM
MadisonMan said...: Studds was not stupid. The contact (if I can use the euphemism) occurred overseas. In Morocco, I believe.; 10/3/06, 4:03 PM
Revenant said...: not within a heartbeat of the GOP leadership knowing about his indiscretions

I keep hearing this and I've yet to see any evidence of it. The only reports I've seen are that the leadership knew of the earlier emails he'd sent to the one page -- which weren't indiscreet or inappropriate. I hope we're not at the point in this society where asking for a picture -- not a nude picture, just a picture -- of a teenager merits an automatic assumption of pederasty.; 10/3/06, 4:22 PM
Revenant said...: Wonder whether he thought his chairing that committee was a joke or some kind of expiation for his exploits with teenaged boys (of consensual age, that we know of)?

Or he simply didn't think flirting and talking dirty with willing teenaged boys was "exploiting children". I certainly don't think it was. If an older woman I was interested in had wanted to talk dirty to ME when I was 16 or 17 I wouldn't have considered it exploitation. I'd have considered it totally awesome.

In any case it is perfectly possible to be sexually attracted to 16-year-olds while still thinking that people who are sexually attracted to 8-year-olds should be thrown into a woodchipper -- just as it is perfectly possible to think Kirsten Dunst looked hot in "Dick" while still thinking only depraved perverts could think she looked hot in "Interview with the Vampire".; 10/3/06, 6:53 PM
The Exalted said...: ah, some things never change.

when in doubt, no matter what {insert GOP scandal} has occurred, bring up clinton.

rinse, repeat.

good thing that argument is sooo persuasive.; 10/3/06, 6:53 PM
garage mahal said...: I keep hearing this and I've yet to see any evidence of it. The only reports I've seen are that the leadership knew of the earlier emails he'd sent to the one page -- which weren't indiscreet or inappropriate

So, you would have no problem with your 16 yr old kid, who while in D.C. with virtually no protection, getting emails asking for his pic by a 52 yr old dude?

Yes or no.; 10/3/06, 7:08 PM
Beth said...: God help us, more unsupported, unsourced, hysterical data from cedarford. And just for fun, what color is Jeffords, cford?; 10/3/06, 7:30 PM
Beth said...: I can't believe you passed on my bi-partisan offer to put all the drinks on Ann's tab.

Fen, since I'm registered Independent, can we make that a non-partisan pub crawl? And if you think Ann won't notice--spendthrift that she is, I'm sure we can slip it by her--make mine a bock, please, in honor of the season.; 10/3/06, 7:37 PM
Revenant said...: Revenant, I said "exploits with."

I know, I was referring to the perceived contradiction between talking dirty to teenagers and being concerned about "Missing and Exploited Children". My point is that Foley is, so far as I can tell, sincere in condemning the exploitation of children, and that his behavior with teenagers does not fall into that category in my opinion.

Foley probably *did* break the law, as there have been all manner of absurdly draconian laws restricting the very idea of teenage sexuality in the last 20 years. Inasmuch as he helped push for those laws he deserves, Clinton-style, to get nailed by them. But I don't think what he did is something that would normally be deserving of imprisonment. The bad publicity and resultant shunning is enough.

I still think there are some opposition researchers and Congressmembers who sat on this story, until this election season and when it would be too late to replace Foley on the ballot.

That is pretty clearly the case, yes. Smart call on their part, really.; 10/3/06, 8:08 PM
MadisonMan said...: But I don't think what he did is something that would normally be deserving of imprisonment. The bad publicity and resultant shunning is enough.

The ironic thing is that he apparently did.

It's not clear to me that others sat on this story to change the timing. I think that, like Hastert, they thought there was nothing there, that they didn't know just how deep the roots went of this tiny little weed on the surface. Maybe I'm not cynical enough.; 10/3/06, 8:38 PM
Anonymous said...: I assume Cedarford is caucasian. I'd like him to please explain the actions of the KKK. After all - since he's white, he's obviously connected to them.

And we know that he's a right-winger. How does he justify the Oklahoma City Bombing? Because we know that all right-wingers had ties to Timothy McVeigh.; 10/3/06, 8:54 PM
Revenant said...: The ironic thing is that he apparently did.

Oh, I don't have any problem with *him* being locked up, for that very reason -- the same reason I thought Clinton deserved every bit of the sexual history questioning he had to endure, because he signed the damned law that made it allowable.

I just don't think, in the abstract, that people who act like Foley need to spend time in jail.

think that, like Hastert, they thought there was nothing there, that they didn't know just how deep the roots went of this tiny little weed on the surface

I'm not sure if they knew about the IMs, but they pretty definitely knew about the emails to the one page.

I would guess that they hoped to use that story, weak as it was, to get the media to rehash the past questions about Foley's probable homosexuality and possibly cost him support. The Dems pulled the same stunt by repeatedly referring to Mary Cheney's sexuality during the '04 campaign.; 10/3/06, 8:56 PM
Anonymous said...: And someone should remind the bigot Cedarford that the Boy Scouts happen to ban BOYS who are gay from becoming boy scouts. What - is he afraid the cub scout is going to molest the scout leader?; 10/3/06, 8:59 PM
Beth said...: The Dems pulled the same stunt by repeatedly referring to Mary Cheney's sexuality during the '04 campaign.

Mary Cheney's gay? Wow.; 10/3/06, 9:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Fenrisullivan is denying using the slur "fag".

What a joke. Who is actually kidding?

He says that all gay people are associated with NAMBLA and then he wants us to believe he doesn't use the word fag?

Stop acting like a victim fenrisullivan.; 10/3/06, 9:59 PM
Anonymous said...: And I'll say it again.

Any straight male who denies using the word "fag" is a liar.; 10/3/06, 10:02 PM
Anonymous said...: I see you're afraid to admit you're a liar. Afraid of the wrath of your pathetic little God?

Don't think you can slander all gay people as pedophiles fenrisulven and still expect to be treated with respect.; 10/3/06, 10:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Anyone who can read fenrisulven's statement above will clearly see that he thinks all gay people are child molestors, by trying to link us to NAMBLA.

The crudest form of anti-gay bigotry.

Fenrisulven thinks it's okie dokie to slander all gay people as pedophiles. But, gasp, don't call him a bigot!

What comes around goes around Fenrisulven.; 10/3/06, 10:13 PM
Anonymous said...: This story is getting really boring though.

If Democrats are smart, they will exploit this for all they can. The really smart thing for them to do would be to use anti-gay prejudices to gather more votes. "The Republicans are the party of gays and pedophiles" has a nice ring to it. That should help them get a slice of the anti-gay-bigoted electorate, about 93% of American according to the poll Ann published today.

Works for the Republicans, and I think it would be sweet to see it used by the Democrats against them.

Of course I wouldn't approve of it. And I'll be voting Libertarian. But it would certainly win votes.; 10/3/06, 10:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Chris,

Tip O'Neill was furious about the Studds incident (sex with a 17 year-old page) and wanted him out of the House. Studds was 35 or so. And the Studds incident had happened a decade earlier - in 1973 I believe. And the page stood with Gerry Studds a decade later and supported him and said it was nobody's business but theirs. So the page that Studds slept with was certainly not a victim as it was consensual. I can only imagine what it was like to be gay in 1973, and I don't think the comparison to Foley is apt. Foley is a creepy predator.
Regardless - it was still an abuse of power - and he was rightly censured. And Tip O'Neill was furious.

Hastert - an apologist for creepy old men - did not want Foley to resign when he first heard of this.; 10/3/06, 10:58 PM
Beth said...: By Edward's reckoning, evey place on earth (and even classical Greece) is homophobic

I don't agree with Edward's causal reasoning exactly, other than to the extent that, as someone pointed out yesterday on some thread here, any part of a person's psyche is likely to get a bit twisted when hidden and lied about. But he's right about classical Greece, and Rome as well, being homophobic about adult male-male relationships.; 10/3/06, 11:09 PM
garage mahal said...: Just in from Drudge...

Barney Frank 2nd shooter in Dallas

Developing...; 10/3/06, 11:11 PM
garage mahal said...: Dallas 1963 that is...; 10/3/06, 11:18 PM
Revenant said...: Any straight male who denies using the word "fag" is a liar

Well I'll be damned. And all these years I was *sure* I was a straight male. Now, after all these years, I learn that I'm not allowed to be straight until I start calling people "fags".

I guess it's a good thing I never married. Explaining my newly discovered sexual orientation to my wife would be tricky.; 10/4/06, 12:00 AM
Revenant said...: What does the GOP have to do with any adult's sexual interest in teens, as opposed to other adults?

Nothing at all, and if I were you I'd stop trying to reason with people who say otherwise.

Foley stands accused of homosexual net-sex. He could just as easily -- and a LOT more safely, politically and legally -- had anonymous gay net-sex with adults. The idea that he was pushed into IMing teens instead of adults because Republican homophobia is Horribly Dangerous and Warping to Poor Gay Republican's Psyches is a load of horse shit. He probably IM'd teens for the same reason STRAIGHT men IM *female* teens for sex -- because sex with young, healthy, sexually mature and active people is an incredibly common sexual fantasy. There's a good reason the word "jailbait" has the word "bait" in it!; 10/4/06, 12:10 AM
Beth said...: I don't buy your verbiage about ancient Greece

You can refuse to buy the verbiage that the sky is blue and the grass is green, but the state of adult homosexuality in Ancient Greece is not based on opinion or subjective belief systems. It's described in the contemporaneous writings and laws. Any adult male playing a passive, or receptive role would be mocked and ridiculed. This isn't kept hidden in some secret academic vaults. Do a little googling and you can find some verbiage to buy into.; 10/4/06, 1:24 AM
Beth said...: I don't buy your verbiage about ancient Greece

What we know about the state of adult homosexuality in Ancient Greece is not based on opinion or subjective belief systems. It's described in the contemporaneous writings and laws. Any adult male playing a passive, or receptive role would be mocked and ridiculed. We know much less about lesbianism during the period.; 10/4/06, 1:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Ann Althouse wrote:
And by the way, how long do you think it will take before some terrible story about the sexual failing of some Democrats in Congress hits? I'll see you one representative and raise you a Senator. Aren't you expecting that? There must be a hundred members of Congress sweating now over something they once said in email or that porn they looked at on the computer.

I have an acquaintance who used to be a Capitol Hill staffer - and came away with a thoroughly bipartisan contempt for Congressmen, and she put it to me quite bluntly. Anyone who thinks there aren't more than a few Congressmen with long histories of treating young men and women at the bottom of the staff food chain as sex snacks is either naive or a liar. All this is going to do, IMO, is return the culture of sexual exploitation and abuse of power to the old school norms - keep your harassment F2F, because when it's your world against an intern's who is going to be believed?; 10/4/06, 2:57 AM
MadisonMan said...: Or did hearing aboyt Foley suddenly stir your memories of a scandal from 1983?

Completely natural. If Foley had been fished out of the Tidal Basin, who wouldn't recall Wilbur Mills?; 10/4/06, 8:16 AM
Revenant said...: The behavior Foley exhibited was almost by definition irrational to a large degree, because it was so inappropriate and so dangerous – dangerous for his career, most specifically.

Sexual desire is always irrational. Nobody sits down and says "hm, I think I'll lust after men instead of women" -- if they did, there wouldn't be any gay people in the first place. Now, was Foley's behavior inappropriate? Sure, I think that's fair to say, but "inappropriate" doesn't mean "irrational" either.

You could argue that it was irrational for him to take such risks, but the widespread shock, even among educated people (e.g. Andrew Sullivan) over the idea that people might save IM logs suggests that Foley might well not have *realized* that he was taking a serious risk.

I stand by my claim that institutional Republican homophobia contributed to Foley’s misbehavior

You're welcome to stand by a claim that the Earth is flat, for all I care. But as you haven't provided any evidence for your claim whatsoever I see no reason to take you seriously. You might as well blame Clinton's tendancy to stick his dick in anything warm and moist on the Democratic party's laissez-faire attitude towards sex.; 10/4/06, 4:18 PM