There’s a lot of speculation on the who knew what when about Mark Foley, with some Republicans crying “foul” about timing and Democratic smear campaigns, while people from all possible political stripes focused on what looks like a cover-up to preserve GOP numbers in the House.
The hypocrisy is rampant and bi-partisan, and Nick Anderson’s cartoon last night was a brilliantly executed depiction of this aspect. (Ed: link now working.)
Much of the finger-pointing at the GOP’s moral hypocrisy, though, is the direct result of their pandering to a group that has skewed the party’s identity radically in recent years: the socially conservative “Religious Right“. It’s their parasitic influence on the GOP host that has brought the party to this spectacular implosion.
David Corn writes:
On CBS News on Tuesday, correspondent Gloria Borger reported that there’s anger among House Republicans at what an unidentified House GOPer called a “network of gay staffers and gay members who protect each other and did the Speaker a disservice.” The implication is that these gay Republicans somehow helped page-pursuing Mark Foley before his ugly (and possibly illegal) conduct was exposed. The List–drawn up by gay politicos–is a partial accounting of who on Capitol Hill might be in that network.
Lest ye fear the source of the above, others of less-blue credentials have also been discussing The List in various contexts, and frankly, the mere existence of such a thing reminds me of a religious purge more than anything else.
For someone like Polimom, who sees (saw?) the GOP as a necessary brake on expansive, intrusive government, and a crucial counterweight to socialist democracy á la Europe, the actions and reactions of the Republicans are devastating.
I’m appalled by what looks to have been a cover-up in search of the Political Power Grail, and I’m extremely disturbed that their reliance on a zealously religious faction may have been what drove them here.
But now Republicans have a new worry: Key social conservatives have issued blistering statements about the handling of the Foley matter, arguing that political correctness kept G.O.P. leaders from intervening earlier, and are making it clear that they are not giving Hastert and his team the benefit of the doubt. Republican pollsters are warning party officials that enthusiasm among their voters is waning from its already listless levels. And officials say the rebukes from Christian conservatives carry ominous implications for the midterm elections, when the G.O.P. will depend on these voters to turn out and work for the party’s candidates.
Because America needs the Republicans. What we didn’t need is precisely what is breaking their backs: promotion of religious dogma… and specific to this scandal, the homophobia. Is that what’s behind this?
The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley’s (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.
That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim.
The same source, who acted as an intermediary between the aide-turned-whistleblower and several news outlets, says the person who shared the documents is no longer employed in the House.
But the whistleblower was a paid GOP staffer when the documents were first given to the media.
If the purpose of the whistleblowing was to expose predation on pages, Polimom wouldn’t find the party affiliation particularly remarkable… but in combination with the rumored List, I find this very worrying in the long-term.
It would be very helpful if the Republican leadership could find its feet regarding the underlying problem with all of this. Foley was not the first to prey on teenaged pages; such behavior is not related to political affiliation, and it’s not a homosexual issue either. However, because the GOP has abandoned its traditional planks in favor of religious “values voters”, they’re stuck with few options.
Polimom hopes they don’t choose this:
There have been a number of signals through the course of the day that the last gambit of the GOP House leadership will be to blame the Foley debacle on a cabal of gay staffers who hid and/or enabled Rep. Foley’s behavior for years. The idea being that they are to blame rather than the leadership.
It would be, effectively, total capitulation to the religious ideologues.
The Religious Right inserted its sanctimonious tentacles into what was once a worthwhile political ideology, and it’s hard to see, just at the moment, how the GOP can extricate itself.
They’ll have to, though… before the party is nothing more than a dry, empty husk of itself. They need a purge indeed — but it’s not the gays who need to be ousted.
I think the country needs what the GOP used to be. They haven’t been a brake on expansive government for most of my lifetime.
The religious right can whine all it wants, but they must realize that they have no real choice. They have to vote Republican because the alternative would be — egads — voting something else. It’s not as thought thy are suddently going to jump the fence and vote for Democrats, and if they show their annoyance by not voting at all, this just reduces Republican votes, thus helping — eek! — the godless, morally deviant Democrats.
What does “gay” have to do with pedophile? Should I assume all catholic clery are pedophiles? It’s a ridiculous leap on their part and a desperate attempt to change the subject with their “values” voters (an insulting term that implies what they really are: value judgement voters; their’s obviously being better than my values).
Polimom says – The Religious Right inserted its sanctimonious tentacles into what was once a worthwhile political ideology, and it’s hard to see, just at the moment, how the GOP can extricate itself.
They’ll have to, though… before the party is nothing more than a dry, empty husk of itself. They need a purge indeed — but it’s not the gays who need to be ousted.
Jeezee Poilimom, you sound like a new Nero for the Christians.
I love it when people who are clearly from one party, attempt to tell the other political party what to do “to fix their problems.” It’s even funnier when they are talking down about the party in power. Did it occur to you, Christians are THE REASON they are the party in power?
I’m a Texas Democrat and I think the national Democrats should quit supporting the massacre of countless babies the party currently favors, but I don’t see it happening until science progresses a little more. Right now science knows as fact a baby in the womb thinks, hears, reacts to touch and can feel pain in the second trimester . But some think they are not people. Just garbage to be tossed or used for parts like an old car.
And since it’s now known that this young person was indeed 17 and would be 18 in a few months, isn’t it just a little, how was that put “Holier Than Thou” for the Democrats to be talking about “sex.” That’s all Monica was about – right?
Well, no that scandal the President of the United States lied under oath, committing the same crime Scootter Libby was arrested and charged for, not to keep it from his wife because as all know now, she knew every thing about that and his many other affairs, but to step around yet another political scandal.
Foley was outed purely for political reasons, which makes that group of Capital Hill assistants and pages just as slimey as Foley. They timed the outing now because we have elections in a month and there are links in my other post to two of them. They lied about ages, saying the young man was 16 when in reality almost 18 and would have been 18 when they possible meeting, which never took place, would have happened.
” Did it occur to you, Christians are THE REASON they are the party in power?”
Umm…. being Christian is not, in and of itself, the problem. Furthermore, being Christian isn’t a Republican pre-requisite. There are Christians who affiliate with all parties… and none.
And I gotta tell ya, Laz, your Clinton Derangement Syndrome is making you sound a bit unhinged.
Polimom, you’re the one that said the Republicans had to get rid of them, not me
And I got to tell you making or using ‘cute little phrases’ doesn’t change the facts. I know you love Clinton and there’s nothing to be ashamed of in that. There no fact I can give you to changing you’re mind as you’re a hard core Democrat.
Also “sound a bit unhinged” is a pejorative term. I thought we weren’t supposed to have those about each other?
Sigh…. cue the fingernails on the blackboard track.
I did not say anything, Lazarus, about Christians in the post. I was referring to a political-religious group.
Regarding my political affiliations (or lack thereof) and “leanings”: when I first launched the Chronicle blog, someone asked me to take a quiz so they could understand where I was coming from. I did so, and responded. The querying comment and my following response can be found here (link).
As it happens, the first election in which I was old enough to vote was the 1980 Presidential… and I registered, and voted, Republican. I am now registered Independent, and vote for people.
I’m sorry then because I thought you said the Religious Right, which is a leftwing buzzword for Christians. If you denie knowing that it is a left-wing word — well there are only a couple of choices. So I’ll go back and read it again bucause I don’t want to say you said something you did not.
By the way, I’m a Texas Democrat.
shows Polimom the new marker boards that replaced chalkboards in school
See, no bad noise.
Yep, I was right: you refer to Christians one way or another a number of times.
From you – … the direct result of their pandering to a group that has skewed the party’s identity radically in recent years: the socially conservative “Religious Right“. It’s their parasitic influence on the GOP host that has brought the party to this spectacular implosion.
From someone you quoted : And officials say the rebukes from Christian conservatives carry ominous implications for the midterm elections, when the G.O.P. will depend on these voters to turn out and work for the party’s candidates.
From you – What we didn’t need is precisely what is breaking their backs: promotion of religious dogma…
religious dogma = another far-leftwing Buzzword used by anti-Christians
From you – GOP has abandoned its traditional planks in favor of religious “values voters”, they’re stuck with few options.
You were talking about Hindu, maybe?
From you – It would be, effectively, total capitulation to the religious ideologues.
Muslim this time??
From you – The Religious Right inserted its sanctimonious tentacles into what was once a worthwhile political ideology, and it’s hard to see, just at the moment, how the GOP can extricate itself.
Religious Right, yep, that defines about 40% of this nation, Christians
Yep Polimom, you referred to Christians repeatedly. Or are those not from your post?
As I said, I’m a Texas Democrat and always vote for whom I think is best in national elections.
WHen I said Democrat, I appoligize. I wasn’t referring to what they stamp on your card, I was going by just the beliefs you espouse in your blog – which is repeatedly liberal, letf-winger. I just call ‘em as I see ‘em.
Speaking of: Consider John and Sparkle, you said you had no problem with John, an EXTREME left-winger and proud of it; but TexSparkle you do. Spakle, rightwinger, allows more freedom on her boards. John doesn’t and his style is to attack individuals with attitudes different from his own.
I thought your rules here were against personal attacks. It just caught me by surprise when I was attacked and called mentally unstable.
Lazarus, you’re a liar.
To set the record straight: Lazarus submitted a comment in which, in the course of making his point, he was calling someone names. I wrote and told him I wanted to run the comment, but not with the name calling, and asked him if he would resubmit it.
This led to a series of ranting messages from Laz about how I was oppressing him and he was going to complain to the Chronicle (a bit silly, since the Chron doesn’t edit reader blogs in any way).
Other than that, the only posts I have not approved on my blog are ones that contain foul language, are spam, or are totally off topic. (None of which have come from Lazarus.)
I’m proud of my open commenting policy, and I don’t appreciate you lying about it, Lazarus.
John, we have rules here at Polimom Says about personal attacks.
I disagree with your statement but I do want to thank you for showing the exact way you treat people that disagree with you on your blog.
Many thanks, I would have had no other way to prove it.
Thanks again John in proving the type of site manager you really are. I couldn’t have done it without you.
Anyway John, I was so caught off guard by a post so rude being allowed that I forgot to ask – What the heck are you talking about??
“This is what I wrote about you –“Speaking of: Consider John and Sparkle, you said you had no problem with John, an EXTREME left-winger and proud of it; but TexSparkle you do. Spakle, rightwinger, allows more freedom on her boards. John doesn’t and his style is to attack individuals with attitudes different from his own..”
Please explain your comment :” I’m proud of my open commenting policy, and I don’t appreciate you lying about it, Lazarus.”
Where do I question your openness in this post? I said you don’t allow freedom on your board and you don’t. You and your “friends” gang up on people and run most people with something different to say off your blog. That’s why you no longer get 3 and 6 hits as opposed to 15 to 30 posts like you once did SO now you get hits only from the hardcore and your “attaboys” who agree and pat you on the back.
. People don’t like to be called names, as you did me here, and then when they reply with a name of their on, you delay it by making them change something.
The “name” I had to change for “Rude Randy” after Randy had been rude to people. Heck, I’ve had VERY LITTLE to say to or about you after I pulled your “chestnuts out of the fire” with the gun crowd that went on almost a week.
But you make it sound like we had some kind of adversarial relationship, which is simply NOT what the facts support. And to prove it, I’m going to post every email we exchanged and every link on your blog where I posted and let people decide.
Oops, Lazarus.
Not here, you’re not. Find someplace else to indulge yourself with that email trail. I have no desire, nor obligation, to host such a thing.
And to be honest, I read your comment about John and Sparkle as saying that John is censoring. Evidently he saw it the same way. Furthermore, everyone else is not required to view, and vote on, whether you are more, or less, in the right.
In fact, I’m betting they aren’t interested, either. If they are, the links to both your sites are widely available.
Finally — you’ve been sniping at me non-stop, too. I’m very, very tired of it, and my response was mild compared to my frustration.
Lazarus, you accused me of not allowing discussion. That’s ridiculous. I do respond to what people post, and that’s what got you all ticked off. You wanted to say what you thought and not be challenged. If you don’t want people to respond to what you say, you should try keeping a diary instead of commenting on blogs.
The others who responded to you are not “my gang.” I don’t even know who they are.
As for traffic, well, it’s gone up steadily, so you’re out to lunch on that too. (If you have physical copies of the Chronicle around, take a look at the list of most-read posts that they run.)
Sorry, Polimom, for hijacking your blog, but I really didn’t appreciate Lazarus’s tone or misrepresentations. I’ll say no more in your comments.
OK, let’s try to bring this back on-topic…
I see what you are saying, Poli, though in fairness I would point that at about the same time the Democratic party was hijacked by its own ‘parasites’ – those special-interest idealogues who have agendas of their own to push down the throats of everyone in the country. Just as John said
I will maintain that the country also needs what the Democrats used to be.
Just because they don’t invoke the name of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as the underlying authority for their pronouncements doesn’t make them any less dangerous to their party than the RR is to the GOP. The fact that the GOP is still in control of both elected branches of the Federal government is a good indication that many see them as the lesser of two evils. Whether that holds through the November election remains to be seen.
In any case, the last time we had a spectacular change in the makeup of Congress was when Newt G. trotted out the “Contract with America”. I would like to see both parties (one might even say all parties) come out with a similar program/platform (similar in that it states what their goals are should they be elected), instead of simply nay-saying the other side.
~EdT.
Ed, I couldn’t possibly agree with you more.
Prior to the last couple of weeks, I’d have said that the Democratic Party was even more broken than the Republicans (as viable entities). Chaotic leadership (or lack thereof), messages all over the map, and a clear desire to alienate the moderates (see Lamont and Lieberman) all indicate a party vigorously pulling itself apart.
A prior post on that here (link), along with some pretty funny commentary in light of the comments on this one.
The Republican implosion has some different catalysts, and the fracturing is somewhat more spectacular — and abrupt — as a result. Given the wider situation, both home and abroad, and that the Republicans are the party in power just now, I find this particularly diverting.
You can say that again! Oh, what the heck, don’t bother: I’ll do the honors:
🙂
And, as the reports continue to roll in, I am really beginning to wonder exactly where those catalysts are originating from. Which points out one of the benefits of the MSM (when they bother to do their job correctly): the fact-checking that they tend(ed) to engage in, before putting a story on the wire. Unfortunately, in our increasing haste for instant-everything (“I want it… RIGHT NOW!!!”), they are developing some of the lazy habits as the rest of us, engaging in gossip – using high tech tools, to be sure, but gossip nonetheless. Which is one of the reasons I refrain from getting into current event/issue/political blogging on an ongoing basis — I simply see the need to sit back and let things percolate, and with the attention span of a 3-year-old, most people can’t be bothered to read about last week’s news – after all, that is So Last Week!
Diverting… or disturbing? I submit that if Mark Foley had been a Democrat/liberal, it would have been equally diverting… and disturbing.
~EdT.
Oh, and just FYI — El Rushbo himself (Limbaugh, that is) agrees with you. He seems to think it is pretty silly that we are focused on Foley (esp. given the confusing and contradictory versions of the story), while we have other serious issues to deal with – terror, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Regardless of your specific position on these issues, I would much rather see people focusing on them than on how much of a perv Mark Foley is.
~EdT.
The religious right and the corporate monopolist killed the republican party. It is not the party of less government and will have a long road to travel before it becomes its old self again.