Those of you who know me, know I just can’t resist here . . .

While, yes – the actions of Mark Foley are the actions of just one man. And I am the LAST person to judge someone based on their sexual orientation or human weaknesses.

However, the fact that the Republican leadership knew about this situation for over a year and DID NOTHING really reminds me so much about the problems the Catholic Church had last year. I mean, how low are our expectations for our elected leaders? Obviously pretty low, since so many of the same voices that called for Bill Clinton’s impeachment over lying about consentual sex with an adult are now saying that the facts about who knew what when are UNIMPORTANT in the Foley case.

I even had a right-leaning friend tell me that the DEMOCRATS were responsible because they knew about it as long as the Republicans did and were waiting for the media firestorm to help them in November! I guess I can buy that argument as long as I also buy that the party in power has NO RESPONSIBILITY for taking care of it’s own business.

But wait – I think that IS the message the GOP is selling this year . . .


7 thoughts on “Foley-a-rama

  • Hey Hemati,

    I heard Bill O’Reilly say the same idiotic thing the other day, that the Democrats were criminal accomplices to the act as they waited until the elections neared to go after Foley …

    The death of accountability is at hand. The perp is a victim of political circumstances and machinations.

    Foley tried to hide behind his alleged alcoholism and his claim that he was molested by an unnamed catholic priest at an unnamed church.

    Assuming all that transpired, giving him the benefit of the doubt, does that excuse HIS behavior?

    But O’Reilly, on his stage with his slimy microphone, had the temerity to suggest that the Democrats were also culpable.

    Hastert should resign, because he knew about it long ago, and did nothing to correct obvious ethics violations.

    I heard absurd comparisons to some Democrat offender in the early 80’s.
    Some Democrat violating the law, or ethical law, 20 years ago does not give any elected congress member license to do likewise.

    Yet through it all, through every damned issue Americans see, it is partisan politics winning out, finger-pointing and name-calling.

    What a sham and what a jip.

  • Hey guys,

    Don’t keep track of the news like I used to, and I really don’t feel like looking at the details and timeline of this one. I will say that Fox has been either incompetant or underhanded in mentioning that Foley was a Democrat on a couple of occasions. I don’t mind getting my news from conservative outlets (in fact I love it), I do have a problem with networks and/or reporters acting as mouthpieces for a party. I generally don’t watch television news.

    If Hastert is forced out because of his alleged complicity in the case, that would be the first time the leadership of a party would be held responsible for the sexual indiscretion of one of it’s members. I can’t remember another example. You guys have any examples, or any reason why Hastert’s involvement is a real precedent? Like I said I don’t know all the details and the timeline of what Hastert knew when, I guess he could have forced Foley to resign long ago, but did he have enough evidence against the guy, or did he just hear stuff through the grapevine? I even heard that Foley may not have broken any laws, or at least there is no evidence that he did. I do know some angry fathers who wanted to kill men who behaved this way, and plenty of his fellow citizens probably wouldn’t throw a father in jail for doing so. I don’t think Hastert was covering up a major problem like the Bishops did, at worst he ignored one bad apple.

    Otherwise, I totally agree with the sentiment, death of accountability is at hand.

  • Sorry if I am rambling a bit, but one more thing. I am not a big fan of Hastert, I find he has been a poor speaker and Bob Livingston would have been better…certainly better for Louisiana. Too bad Livingston had to become a sacrificial lamb for the Republican party’s quest for sexual purity back in ’98. Gingrich, whatever you think of his comments today, was a much better and more principled speaker of the House by any measure. When Gingrich and Dick Armey left the House really started going downhill ethically.

  • In response to Johnny B,

    I had a talk on the golf course with an attorney in the La Attorney General’s office concerning the Foley issue:

    The law he clearly broke is federal ; solicitation of sex with a minor.

    It is analagous to solicitation of murder for hire.

    No actual sex had to occur for him to break the federal statute, just as no murder is necessary for one to be guilty of “murder for hire”.

    As far as the reason Hastert should resign, one of the many duties of the standing Speaker is overseeing ethics, and if he had prior knowledge of Foley’s indiscretions and failed to address them, then he has failed one of his duties.

    It is clear. I am not saying this as a partisan, because I don’t give a damn about the Democrats either, frankly.

    Fire them all.

    If you have been following the Abramoff case, it seems the corruption, from breaking basic moral law to violating the spirit of our representation to grossly violating federal law, is at an all-time high, and on both sides of the political fence.

    Now, more than ever, Americans should embrace a direct democracy through the national referendum, and send the charlatans packing.

    The thought of a national referendum scares me frankly, because I understand Americans and their many bad habits, their many distractions, their lack of focus on important issues, their basic indoctrination, their collective illusions, and their lack of a sufficiently-large knowledge base. (how PC is the last one)

    But anything is better than what we see day in and day out now.

    All right, thats the cue, all get in line and fire some more volleys at scottie.

    I’m ready 🙂

  • No volleys to fire. I agree with you that they should all just be sacked. There are few of them I have any trust in. But I do not believe in a national referendum government.

    If people had a sufficient “knowledge base” they wouldn’t continuosly reelect the schmucks that represent them now, but even if that “knowledge base” were to be dramatically improved, it is hard to imagine a national referendum being the way to go.

    I think state-wide referendums are overused at times (although not in Virginia–it almost never happens in Virginia) and would rather just have a legislature that is held accountable.

    Completely eliminating a branch of the government and replacing it with a national referendum government is insane and impractical.

    But send the charlatans packing? Hell yes. I would love to see every incumbent who is not properly serving his constituents but is instead playing politics and living like a rock star…to lose…every single election.

    Congress…Hollywood for ugly people.

  • They vote for the schmucks because too many times it is the case that voters have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

    Remember the David Duke vs Edwin Edwards governor race?

    Either you vote for the rascist or the crook, not much of a choice.

    The difference is that citizens knew about their backgrounds in Louisiana.

    We are only beginning to learn of how deeply-rooted the corruption is in Washington, ala Abramoff.

    I think if you wanted to identify who the noble-minded service-oriented principled members of Congress are, you put forth a measure calling for elimination of all special interest contributions. Any member of Congress caught receiving PAC money should be booted immediately, in my opinion.

    But just to see who votes in favor of such a measure, it would be a way to identify the good eggs from the bad.

    It would be a start. I mean seriously, 68,000 registered lobbyists vying for the political influence of 100 senators and 434 members of the house, that’s too much. I think 1 is too much frankly.

    You must end corporate ties with the government, because you see how companies like Enron operate when they know they have friends in high places to cover things up, referencing Cheney’s refusal to give up hundreds of documents concerning Enron. Or the connection between Big Oil and this administration, which is suspect when you consider issues like defense contracts in Iraq, or defense contracts in general. LBJ escalated Vietnam, and Kellogg Brown and Root built all the airbases in Vietnam to the enrichment of the few. Now the war was not pursued for that reason, but we cannot have such close ties between our government and Corporate America, as their are obvious conflicts of interest.

    The system, in my mind, is dead. So the question is what can be done to salvage the democratic component of our system.

    I am not suggesting that a referendum makes sense on all issues. Americans would be at the polls all the time. But referendums on key issues I think would be grand. Healthcare, Medicare and Social Security, withdraw from Iraq or not, declassify documents pertaining to 911, pertaining to the JFK assassination, the Federal Reserve System and its role in bankrupting the US, taxation, US foreign aid to Israel, the Fence along the Mexican border,etc. The big issues should be decided by a referendum if we cannot trust our corrupt representatives to do the jobs they were elected to do.

    I mean why not ?

    There are tons of conspiracy theories concerning 911. One such conspiracy, or what the government claims is a conspiracy, is that a missile hit the pentagon. Now i do not care one bit if you accept the official version of 911 or reject it in part or in full, the point is there are videos from the Va Dept of Transportation that could easily be shown to all Americans to de-bunk the conspiracy.

    These cameras are paid for by the citizens. And yet the citizens cannot gain acess to these crucial video tapes, which would at least answer one part of one question concerning 911. I am fairly sure that a plurality of Americans would want to know what’s on the tapes.

    This would be a perfect example of an issue to have a referendum on.

    Secrecy does not jazz well with the idea of an open democracy.

    The referendum could engage the citizenry. One might see more and more distracted pre-occupied Americans actually start to learn about crucial issues.

    I see it as a tool to put some limited power back in the hands of the people. When Bush had an approval rating of 32% last spring, when 45% of conservatives disapproved of him, do you know what the poll at the same time was concerning approval for Congress?


    How much lower must the US sink before we consider other options?

    It ain’t working boys and girls.

    Geaux Saints!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *