Foley: The Perfect Story for Democrats
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in NewsThe political opportunism surrounding the Mark Foley story is getting pretty bad. Foley is a sick man who needs help. The story itself is a small and unfortunate one, worth a day or two of moderate coverage. If the Republican leadership covered-up Foley’s contact with these boys, then that’s a story too and worthy of more intense coverage.
But many of those who oppose the Republicans have reacted to this story with a disturbing amount of glee. (I don’t need to link – just go check out the numbers of breathless stories about Foley on any left-of-center blog.)
A Republican who’s gay! Who has a thing for underage boys! Who abused his power! In an era where the lowest-common-denominator story gets top billing, this is just what the Democrats needed to cast the Republicans as hypocrites. Not enough people were paying much attention to the far bigger stories of incompetence in Iraq and at home. But people will pay attention to sex. And the media will always feed us salaciousness whenever they can.
I guess that’s just the way the game is played these days. It’d probably be politically idiotic for the Democrats and their allies not to jump all over this. It’s just too perfect. Finally, a story the Democrats can tell without having to clarify or explain. “The Republicans say they are for family values. But they’re really harboring child predators.”
That’s it. That’s all you have to say. It’s that frickin’ easy.
Forget that Foley, while a sick man who acted inexcusably, isn’t technically a child predator (the boys in question were hardly children — we give a pass to men lusting after 16-year old girls all the time, although they do rightfully get in trouble for crossing the line like Foley did). But “child predatorâ€Â? is such a good word to pair with “Republican Congressman.â€Â? It all makes a nice little symbol to repeat over and over and over.
Now, if the Republican leadership (and not just a few staff members here and there) really did cover this up, then they deserve whatever punishment the voters dole out. But if there was no real cover-up and this story still ends up changing the outcome of the November election, then that’s a pretty sad commentary on the state of American politics.
Anyone who is just now waking up to the fact that hypocrisy runs rampant through the Republican party is either blind or willfully ignorant. It shouldn’t take cold and blatant opportunism by the operatives of the left to alert people to this reality. But that’s what we have. Excited, stumbling-over-themselves opportunism.
I don’t believe anyone commenting on this story really cares about Foley or the boys with whom he had contact. They care about what’s to be politically gained (or lost). And ain’t that just the way of it?
This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
October 3rd, 2006 at 5:47 pm
There are plenty of legitimate stories that should get play, but they don’t. If this is what connects with the masses, so be it.
And all your talk about IF there was a cover up. Where have you been? It looks pretty certain to me.
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Alan, let me get this right. A Republican congressman uses his position and power to sexually prey upon teenagers and the Republican congressional leadership looks the other way and is now engaged in a coverup. Yet, your greatest outrage in the whole sordid affair is that democrats are too strong in condemning the behavior. Have you lost your moral compass?
Rick
October 3rd, 2006 at 7:04 pm
If this was just a random story of luring childen that’s one thing. But you’re talking about the party that specifically uses homophobic rhetoric to win votes. Who puts photocopies of gay men kissing on the windshields of Texas church goers (which is like, all Texans). And your talking about the person who FOUNDED the subcommittee on missing and exploited children, who said things like
“I have no problem with adult pornography. People are entitled to read
it, watch it, see it in their homes or in public accommodations. Where
I have to draw the line is using children for the excitement of those
more mature people who should know the difference and know better.” â€â€?
Mark Foley, 2002 interview with National Public Radio
I do care about Foley - I care to see him fried. I care about the republican party, I care to se them finally take some responsibility. They have lied to us for YEARS and act like nothing is wrong. Finally, we have something they can’t just simply throw a commentator on Fox News and let it roll off the table.
All Americans should be getting out their daggers and sticking it in them as far as it will go.
October 3rd, 2006 at 8:21 pm
There are two small stories here, and one HUGE story. Foley-the-predator is one story, and you are right — it’s worth no more than a day or two of coverage.
The Hastert-Boehner-Reynolds cover-up is a larger story - these guys have betrayed so fundamental a trust (protection of children) that they deserve the pillorying that they are getting. This isn’t worth a 24×7 frenzy either.
That we are living under one-party rule (and in some cases “unitary executive” rule), and that the leaders have just been proven irretrievably unworthy of that level of trust is a HUGE story. Bogus evidence leading to war? - no oversight. War profiteering? - no oversight. Unlawful detainment? Torture? Wiretapping? — NO OVERSIGHT ALLOWED. Either you are with us, or you’re against us. No hearings, no subpoenas.
In light of this story, is unitary rule such a good idea? If this is what it takes to get the message to the masses then fine.
October 3rd, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Rick,
Where did I say I was outraged about the Democratic reaction? Where did I say that thereaction bothered me more than Foley’s actions or the possible cover-up?
I’m merely pointing out that this story is being used as a political weapon. Am I incorrect? Are the Democrats NOT using this story as a big ole’ stick to pummel the Republicans with?
Note I even say it would be a political mistake NOT to use this story for political gain. I’m hardly outraged. I’m not even particularly annoyed with the Democrats or anyone else on the left. I AM irritated and a little depressed that THIS is what it takes to get people to focus in on the hypocrisy and corruption of the Republicans. And I am disturbed at how gleeful many Republican opponents are about this story–it’s a little unbecoming and, frankly, a little clumsy. Politically speaking, you don’t want to fall into the trap of overplaying this story. It’s too perfect. Garnishes ruin its effect.
So, no, I’ve hardly lost my moral compass.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Oh, and as for the cover-up, it does look more likely now than when I wrote this. And, if true, I stand by my statement that the bums get whatever the voters dole out. But anyone who is using THIS story to make their decision as to whether or not to vote Republican — well, they just haven’t been paying attention.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:05 pm
But this is a political story - its about the rampant abuse, corruption and lying in our nation’s capital which is being conducted with our electoral support. We must take political action to stop it from continuing. To do otherwise is to be just as complacent and just as guilty as the Republican leadership has been.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Dude:
You’re not going to harsh my happy buzz. I live for train wrecks like this. Just watching Moe, Larry and Curly, er, I mean Hastert, Boehner and Reynolds try to shove each other under the bus is worth the price of admission.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:09 pm
ASC - Good post. One word for the Dems: Premature Scandalization. I do believe that the leak of this information was orchestrated in time, the so-called “October Surprise”. That being said, good for the Dems, but it got pushed out too soon, enough time for it to go from the visceral to the analytic. Enough time for the Republicans to counter-strike. By election time, the initial visceral, emotional disgust will have dissipated. The Dems for their part, in an attempt to preserve that initial reaction and translate it into votes, must beat the dead horse. Only the Dems can take a perfect scandal and turn it into a magnifying glass on their own policy void. Just watch.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:10 pm
If a politician ran over a 16 year old boy, what could we do? We could just sit back and wait for the “person of interst” to check into rehab. In the instant case of Mark Foley, that is what he and the GOP expect. They expect some time in rehab and we will all forget and forgive. Rehab is a legitimate place to hide while the press (or posse) loses your trail. However, the deviant performance of Foley was well known to the Republican leadership and they decided to ignore it. What if it had impacted one of their childern? Would they have acted so passive or would they have not been able to recall (Hastert can’t recall?) the indicators? These are the people that everyone among this country looks toward for leadership. This is the same flacid group that is leading the war on terror, leading the budget growth at $8 billion per month for wars, leading us off the cliff ! And they have spare time to play pee-pee touch with teenage pages?
In the real world: if I abused a teenage person (physical or mentally) and then I hid behind some pre-pubescent issue and said “alcohol made me do it”, I would not be much better than the hit run driver. The hit-run driver says alcohol made me do, I’m going to rehab, all is forgiven.
Tht is what Foley wants the citizens of the Florida (and the US) to accept but the leap of faith is too great…………..sorry big boy, not this time.
October 3rd, 2006 at 10:15 pm
You think this is a Republican issue? I think the Democrats probably have to watch their back.
People in glass houses, you know.
October 4th, 2006 at 12:53 am
Alan:
I said, “Yet, your greatest outrage in the whole sordid affair is that democrats are too strong in condemning the behavior.” >>>
You said, “Where did I say I was outraged about the Democratic
reaction?”
You said in your original post. “many of those who oppose the Republicans have reacted to this story with a disturbing amount of glee. (I don’t need to link – just go check out the numbers of breathless stories about Foley on any left-of-center blog.)
It’s true, you didn’t use the word “outrage” I should’ve said you were “disturbed” by it.
You said, “I don’t believe anyone commenting on this story really cares about Foley or the boys with whom he had contact. They care about what’s to be politically gained (or lost). And ain’t that just the way of it?”
My comment: It seems a bit naive to complain that you’ve gone to political blogs and all their talking about are the political ramifications of this sordid tale rather than a concern for the lives of the perpetrator and victims. Matter of fact your post has little to do with Foley or the victims but rather a stream of complaints about the politics of the subject matter.
Furthermore, we have no access to the victims and it’s hard to know if Foley’s defense that he was an alcoholic and was molested by clergy is true so we are left with the politics of this unfolding event.
You said, “where did I say that thereaction bothered me more than Foley’s actions or the possible cover-up?”
The crux of your post is a complaint about the politics of this unfolding story and not about Foley’s action nor his victims.
You actually tried to minimize Foley’s behavior. Let’s take a look at what you said.
“Forget that Foley, while a sick man who acted inexcusably, isn’t technically a child predator (the boys in question were hardly children â€â€? we give a pass to men lusting after 16-year old girls all the time, although they do rightfully get in trouble for crossing the line like Foley did). But “child predatorâ€Â? is such a good word to pair with “Republican Congressman.â€Â? It all makes a nice little symbol to repeat over and over and over.”
I don’t know of any adults giving 55 year old men let alone 24 year old men a pass when it comes to 16 year old girls. Foley is a sexual predator and your right, 16 year olds are not children unless of course you’re a parent and have a 16 year old child. They are children, no?
I use to work professionally with pedophiles and Foley’s emails remind me of what many pedophiles call “grooming.” They take a young person and befriend them. The goal is to earn the child’s trust and then make their advance when the moment is ripe. The betrayal rips at the
fabric of their souls leaving them confused, feeling defiled and misrustful for life.
October 4th, 2006 at 1:42 am
I was thinking the same thing as I poured over the Huffington Post today, and hoped that the people at Donklephant might have a more rational view of this story… and here it. God bless Donklephant!
October 4th, 2006 at 2:28 am
*But many of those who oppose the Republicans have reacted to this story with a disturbing amount of glee.*
Since you didn’t bother to link to any sites, I assume you’re blowing smoke on the ‘glee’ part, though if somehow Jean Schmidt were to become a central part of this scandal …
October 4th, 2006 at 5:55 am
I agree both with Alan that this whole spectacle — Foley’s behavior and the hysterical politicization of it — is sordid and depressing and with M. Takhallus that it is highly amusing and entertaining. Might as well laugh.
October 4th, 2006 at 9:15 am
“I don’t believe anyone commenting on this story really cares about Foley or the boys with whom he had contact. They care about what’s to be politically gained (or lost). ”
Wow, and I thought *I* was cynical.
I for one am disgusted regardless of what party Foley belongs to. I do care about the people involved because they’re all human beings who need help.
If the situation happened to involve a Dem representative, you can damn well bet that the comments would be just as “gleeful” (if not more so) on the other side.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Alan, as usual, I concur with your thoughts. This sordid affair, probably suspected by Dems and Reps alike, has now reduced itself to power politics, nothing more. That’s modern political reality. To me, it’s more reflective of DC’s bipartisan Entitlement Ethic, where representatives are often exempt from misbehavior (be it sexual, ethical or financial misdealings) because of celebrity, influence and power. I heard a former page say that his group referred to Foley as “FFF” (Foley, fag from Florida). If a group of pages figured it out during a summer, lots of folks (Dems and Reps) suspected the guy was dangerous. But absent public disclosure (the light of day), everyone averted their eyes.
Nothing new here, it’s human nature. But it makes me very skeptical of incumbency. Lets face it: for most of us in the real world, if we behaved like Mark Foley, Patrick Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Gary Condit, Speaker Wright or Speaker Hastert, we’d lose our jobs. In the fantasy world of DC, one never knows how it will play out.
October 4th, 2006 at 10:42 am
While I’m thinking about it, toss in Cunningham, Packwood and that representative from Louisiana who was Speaker for about a day after Gingrich lost his speakership.
October 4th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Rick,
I am disturbed by the glee, not by the condemnation. Big difference. I guess I could have started the post with an obligatory statement about how ill Foley’s actions make me and how disgusted I am with anyone who covered this up–but I was hoping all that went without saying.
I’m not at all trying to minimize Foley’s actions. This post really isn’t even about Foley’s actions so much as it is about the reaction to those actions. And, in that regard, you are probably right that I fit my own description as a commentor who really doesn’t care about Foley or the boys involved. I mean, I DO care a lot on a human level — but on a political level I, like everyone else, am much more interested in the power game this has become.
October 4th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
I don’t believe anyone commenting on this story really cares about Foley or the boys with whom he had contact. They care about what’s to be politically gained (or lost). �
Well I, by Go[lly], care, regardless of whether we’re talking about a post or comments wherever.
You know, it’s possible to have a “chips fall where they may” attitude.
Right?
October 4th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
I don’t give a rat’s ass about, per se, about “what’s to be politically gained (or loss),” as such.
And I’m not so arrogant on this story/topic as to think I’m the only one in that camp.
October 5th, 2006 at 12:22 am
You know, those comments of mine were too sharp. Didn’t and shouldn’t have put them that way. I am sorry (and shame on me).
RIA
October 5th, 2006 at 12:25 am
Didn’t have any real basis to and…