I Used to Privately Snicker at the Dems

The BBQ Pit
261

[QUOTE=Bricker]

We’re switching focus here, I think, between individual candidates and the party as a whole. My support for a particular candidate is lost when his hypocrisy is seen. My support for the party he belongs to is not, because there is no showing of hypocrisy on the part of the party. So Hastert, if he knew, should resign. He no longer has my support. But the Republicans still do, becasuse they still support the goals I want them to support.
[/QUOTE]

But, but, but. Your OP states things in terms of the general–“my side” is but one example.

I thought this was a thread about one conservative having (some) of the scales fall from his eyes etc. Put you’ve put the blinders right back on. Now it’s not “your side” that does worse, some some few lone, bad apples. Gee, where have I heard that before-it’s linked to a prison in my mind somehow–a prison in a hot, desert climate. It’ll come to me in time. :rolleyes: Wishy-washy waffle, much? Apparently there is more than page flipping going on here-there is flip-flopping as well.

The GOP is supposed to be the party of personal responsibility (that’s what my memo says, anyway)–so, WHERE is that personal responsibility? Every last one of them had a PR to blow the whistle on Foley, for how many years? Every last one, from the leadership on down bears some guilt and shame for this. DC is too small a town and politics too intimate and ugly for anyone tied however loosely to Foley to be exempt.

Like it or not-YOUR party is tarred and tainted with this nastiness. The reaction of the GOP and RNC and even conservative posters here is reprehensible.

262

To follow up on Miller’s post, multiple members of the House GOP leadership have participated in this coverup: Hastert, Boehner, Shimkus, Reynolds. What reason do we have to believe that these guys aren’t representative of the GOP caucus? And how many party members are calling for them to step down? I see Shays and one or two others, but that’s it.

263

[QUOTE=Miller]
But the point of your OP wasn’t about an individual: it was about the party as a whole, which is trying desperately to excuse, mitigate, or otherwise defer any sort of responsibility for or knowledge of Foley’s actions. Sure, Foley is easy enough to throw out, and so’s Hastert if he can be shown to have covered for Foley. But what about the myriad Republicans who are trying to spin this instead of cleaning house, as you decried in the OP? If the party as a whole had acted as you wanted them to, no one would fault you for your continued loyalty to the party. But that’s not what’s happening. The issue isn’t just about Foley, which is really a minor issue in a lot of ways, but about the way the GOP leadership handled the scandal. Shouldn’t the way other Republicans react to this issue raise questions about how they’ve reacted to other issues?
[/QUOTE]

This is about the House leadership and the pundits and anyone who has participated in any sort of chicanery with respect to this scandal. But are you seriously suggesting this is endemic to the Republican PARTY as a whole? That Rumsfeld’s integrity may be judged from this incident?

264

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
The GOP is supposed to be the party of personal responsibility (that’s what my memo says, anyway)–so, WHERE is that personal responsibility? Every last one of them had a PR to blow the whistle on Foley, for how many years? Every last one, from the leadership on down bears some guilt and shame for this. DC is too small a town and politics too intimate and ugly for anyone tied however loosely to Foley to be exempt.

[/quote]

First of all, I have been careful to use the subjunctive. IF Hastert knew. I notice that you’re naming a whole list of names and convicting each one of them with nary a second’s worth of doubt.

So the actions of - what - five, six guys, can somehow utterly destroy a party that roughly half of America voted for? Sorry. I don’t think so.

I support the Republicans for the reasons I mentioned above – they are the party that enacts policies and laws that more closely mirror my goals and my vision of how the country should be run. Their senior leadership has acted badly on this issue, and I have called them on it. But that doesn’t mean I should throw my support for the party, and those goals and that vision, down the crapper.

265

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
To follow up on Miller’s post, multiple members of the House GOP leadership have participated in this coverup: Hastert, Boehner, Shimkus, Reynolds. What reason do we have to believe that these guys aren’t representative of the GOP caucus? And how many party members are calling for them to step down? I see Shays and one or two others, but that’s it.
[/QUOTE]

Wait – all this is a given? We KNOW that they participated in the coverup?

266

Bricker -we are drawing parallels to other stories and scandals that involve the Reps because the GOP spin machine works the same for all of them. And that is what makes this beyond the pale for me, at least. Bad enough for some teens to be sexually harassed, but to then spin this and finger point and weasel…what kind of “men” are these?

IMO, you cannot take this as one odd aberrant situation–the response from the leadership is too similiar to not examine other stories in the past where they were more successful in getting the mud to stick to others…

I don’t think anyone is saying that Condi or Rummy knew anything. We all already know that Bush is clueless, so he’s absolved. Rumsfield has no integrity, as you well know-he sold Saddam Hussein weapons under Reagan. But I digress.

Let me ask you this: do you trust the Fox “pundits” now? Do you find yourself more willing to nod your head at Drudge or Hannity or Scaborough country guy?

Or do you think that maybe now you should probe more deeply, not “snicker”, and I dunno-THINK about what you’re being fed?*

*this applies to both sides of the aisle.
And I apologize for my above post. It should read “but some few, lone bad apples…”

267

[QUOTE=Bricker]

Well, you seem to want me to impute to the entire party, in both the legislative and executive branches, the sins that I am now criticizing and decrying in some of them. Why should I do that? You want me to conclude that because Hastert covered up Foley’s sexual predation and conservative commentators have tried to distract the public with trial balloons about what the Dems knew, that Bush and the White House staff would “stoop to anything”. What is the logic in that? Should I assume that they were behind 9/11, too, because they would stoop to anything? Did they hire the school shooters in Colorado and Pennsylvania to get the nation’s attention off the Foley scandal because they would stoop to anything?

No. I posted this thread to criticize “my side” for something I saw the leadership and pundits doing, something that was done to my great surprise and dismay. But I cannot agree that this is somehow evidence that anyone with an R- in front of his name is a “stoop-to-anything” manipulator. There is no evidence of that. This scandal does not implicate Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, or Powell in any way. Why would I assume that because someone else had done wrong that they were then proved to be dirty dogs?

Wy would you WANT me to make decisions like that?
[/QUOTE]
Try reading my post again. Here, I’ll put it right here and highlight the important words for you. . .

I didn’t write your OP, you did. You’re the one who apologized to me and mine for not having previously believed that your side was capable of the tactics they’re engaging in in this scandal – in fact, capable of worse. I am unwilling to accept your apology, given that you are only willing to acknowledge their capablility of said behavior in this one and only one instance. No one should be so foolish to believe such a thing, particularly not you.

268

[QUOTE=Miller]
But the point of your OP wasn’t about an individual: it was about the party as a whole, which is trying desperately to excuse, mitigate, or otherwise defer any sort of responsibility for or knowledge of Foley’s actions. Sure, Foley is easy enough to throw out, and so’s Hastert if he can be shown to have covered for Foley. But what about the myriad Republicans who are trying to spin this instead of cleaning house, as you decried in the OP? If the party as a whole had acted as you wanted them to, no one would fault you for your continued loyalty to the party. But that’s not what’s happening. The issue isn’t just about Foley, which is really a minor issue in a lot of ways, but about the way the GOP leadership handled the scandal. Shouldn’t the way other Republicans react to this issue raise questions about how they’ve reacted to other issues?
[/QUOTE]

Like what other issues?

I should suddenly decide that I don’t want texualist judges appointed to the Supreme Court? Nope - I still do. And Bush has reliably appointed them and the Senate has reliably confirmed them. If the Dems were in power, I doubt I’d get that. So I still support the Republicans.

I should suddenly decide that I don’t want pro-life policies advanced to the extent possible under current law? Nope - I still do. And the GOP has, in general, reliably done that. If the Dems were in power, I doubt I’d get that. So I still support the Republicans.

I should suddenly decide that I don’t want US troops in Iraq? Nope - I still do. And the GOP has, in general, reliably supported that. If the Dems were in power, I doubt I’d get that. So I still support the Republicans.

I should suddenly decide that I don’t want obscentity prosecutions for obscene material? Nope - I still do. And the Republican administrayion has, in general, reliably done that. If the Dems were in power, I doubt I’d get that. So I still support the Republicans.

I should suddenly decide that I don’t want stern sentences for drug users and sellers, to include pot? Nope - I still do. And the GOP has, in general, reliably supported and enforced such sentences. If the Dems were in power, I doubt I’d get that. So I still support the Republicans.

I should suddenly decide that I don’t want vouchers for education choice? Nope - I still do. And the GOP has, in general, reliably pushed that issue, although not as strongly as I’d like. If the Dems were in power, I doubt I’d get any traction there. So I still support the Republicans.

Shall I go on?

The reasons I support the Republicans are because the Republicans advance positions I think are wise for the country. In this Foley scandal, they have departed from that role, and I am criticizing those responsible. But that doesn’t change my support for the positions I hold.

269

[QUOTE=Bricker]
First of all, I have been careful to use the subjunctive. IF Hastert knew. I notice that you’re naming a whole list of names and convicting each one of them with nary a second’s worth of doubt.
[/QUOTE]

Effing pedantic attorney nonsense. Obviously it is assumed that IF there is an investigation and IF they are found guilty, that THEN they should be convicted. Hell, I’m not braying for blood-I’m asking for resignations and assurances that Foley seeks treatment (and never does another youth oriented thing in his life, including babysit his grandkids)-the others should lose their power, not their freedom. If there is enough evidence to have a trial-have at it. We wasted untold millions on the Clintons-there should be money in the kitty to prosecute a bunch of weasley, dirty old white men, no?

Yes, it can. The GOP position has been that one man, Clinton, destroyed America. He must have been one powerful guy…oops, I’m forgetting that he had all that help–from the other half of the country. I, for one, have not gotten over being called a traitor to my country for not supporting the Iraq war. No, you didn’t claim that-but the GOP did, and does.

Fair enough. I see the door is thick and the catch is sticky, but a few rays of light got in.

270

[QUOTE=Shayna]
Try reading my post again. Here, I’ll put it right here and highlight the important words for you. . . I didn’t write your OP, you did. You’re the one who apologized to me and mine for not having previously believed that your side was capable of the tactics they’re engaging in in this scandal – in fact, capable of worse. I am unwilling to accept your apology, given that you are only willing to acknowledge their capablility of said behavior in this one and only one instance. No one should be so foolish to believe such a thing, particularly not you.
[/QUOTE]

Well, Shayna, my apology stands is it is. If you personally dont’ accept it, I will have to live with that the rest of my life. It will surely weigh heavy on my heart, as I think about what might have been had only you accepted it.

271

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Effing pedantic attorney nonsense. Obviously it is assumed that IF there is an investigation and IF they are found guilty, that THEN they should be convicted. Hell, I’m not braying for blood-I’m asking for resignations and assurances that Foley seeks treatment (and never does another youth oriented thing in his life, including babysit his grandkids)-the others should lose their power, not their freedom. If there is enough evidence to have a trial-have at it. We wasted untold millions on the Clintons-there should be money in the kitty to prosecute a bunch of weasley, dirty old white men, no?
[/quote]

Wow. So in your view, we already know enough, notwithstanding any denial or explanation of evidence that any of these guys might make. We already know enough to confidently demand each of them resign? We need no further inquiry?

272

And before you come in and castigate me for accusing Hastert et al for being dirty white men–by that I mean that their hands are as filthy as Foley’s-since they knew and did nothing.
and please stop obfuscating things-noone is asking you to become pro-choice here. We are flummoxed by the way your OP has morphed into “but it’s still the Grand Ole Party and we’re still Better than those Dems” attitude. You could at least give the GOP a minute to wipe the raw egg from its face before you start proclaiming its moral superiority.

273

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Wow. So in your view, we already know enough, notwithstanding any denial or explanation of evidence that any of these guys might make. We already know enough to confidently demand each of them resign? We need no further inquiry?
[/QUOTE]

and who is to do the inquiry? The GOP? I’d laugh, but I’m feeling to nauseated. From what I hear on NPR-Hastert is might resign by the end of the week.

I’m not going to play “trap the non-lawyer” with you, Bricker. I see nothing wrong with public admissions of culpability and “remorse”. So, are you saying that Foley shouldn’t have resigned until there had been an inquiry?

274

[QUOTE=Bricker]
The reasons I support the Republicans are because the Republicans advance positions I think are wise for the country. In this Foley scandal, they have departed from that role, and I am criticizing those responsible. But that doesn’t change my support for the positions I hold.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree with each of those positions (actually, no, I don’t want U.S. troops withdrawn, not until it’s clear that Iraq won’t collapse into chaos or that our own presence is making things worse. But then, most of the Dems aren’t advocating immediate withdrawl, either.) But I have to say it’s nice and refreshing to see other people voting on the basis of the issues rather than on their personal opinions of those in power. As we saw during the last presidential election, people’s personal reactions to politicians vary tremendously; I maintained then and do now that the rational way to vote is to look at your positions on different issues important in public policy and figure out how the politicians and parties involved will act in each of those areas. I think there’s nothing more foolish than voting a certain way just because you think one party has a monopoly on morality or one party is nothing but crooks and liars. If there’s one thing that people have proven clearly, it’s that they have no way at all to evaluate such things; it’s only rational to entirely avoid making indefensible guesses like that and vote based on who’s going to do what you want.

275

[QUOTE=Bricker]

Well, Shayna, my apology stands is it is. If you personally dont’ accept it, I will have to live with that the rest of my life. It will surely weigh heavy on my heart, as I think about what might have been had only you accepted it.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, my heart’s just breaking, too. Wah wah. Frankly, I really couldn’t care less whether you might be concerned over my personal acceptance. It was just important that I point out the hypocracy in your entire OP. You aren’t really sorry because you haven’t really accepted that which you claimed to have finally seen the light of.

You want to see a Republican of honor whose apology is worth his weight in gold? Try mimicking the morals of Kevin Wiskus, candidate for Iowa House District 94, then maybe your “apology” might mean something to people.

276

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
And before you come in and castigate me for accusing Hastert et al for being dirty white men–by that I mean that their hands are as filthy as Foley’s-since they knew and did nothing.
and please stop obfuscating things-noone is asking you to become pro-choice here. We are flummoxed by the way your OP has morphed into “but it’s still the Grand Ole Party and we’re still Better than those Dems” attitude. You could at least give the GOP a minute to wipe the raw egg from its face before you start proclaiming its moral superiority.
[/QUOTE]

Nor would I have done so, were it not for the repeated demands in this thread that I justify myself and any continuing loyalty to the party that I might have. I agree that this thread should be about castigating those responsible and admitting that any attempt to discuss anything about what Dems knew, when they knew it, or whether the kid set him up – ANYTHING EXCEPT the issue at hand is a deceptive trick. That stuff is all garbage, and the reaction of the leadership ought to be simple. It wasn’t, and I called 'em on it.

But despite my attempts to keep the conversation going in that vein, I was asked more than once to justify my views on OTHER issues, issues on which I have aligned with the GOP. So I did.

277

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Wait – all this is a given? We KNOW that they participated in the coverup?
[/QUOTE]
Ummm, yeah. We know that each of them knew about the initial emails no later than last spring, and nothing was done other than to ask Foley whether he was being a bad boy, and to get him to promise not to be a bad boy.

Shimkus didn’t involve the rest of the House Page Committee in his ‘investigation.’ Hastert didn’t do jack. Boehner, who was freakin’ Majority Leader, has tried to pretend that he was a flunky whose only responsibility was to pass the word to his boss. You get the idea. And none of them referred this to a social worker or other professional in the field.

I’d call that ‘participation in a coverup’ by all concerned. What would YOU call it - tiddlywinks?

Yeah, I know - none of them has been tried and found guilty in a court of law yet. Fer chrissakes, dude, go off the clock for a minute. Human beings have the amazing capacity to arrive at judgments on the basis of incomplete evidence. Use it every now and then.

278

[QUOTE=Shayna]
Yeah, my heart’s just breaking, too. Wah wah. Frankly, I really couldn’t care less whether you might be concerned over my personal acceptance. It was just important that I point out the hypocracy in your entire OP. You aren’t really sorry because you haven’t really accepted that which you claimed to have finally seen the light of.

You want to see a Republican of honor whose apology is worth his weight in gold? Try mimicking the morals of Kevin Wiskus, candidate for Iowa House District 94, then maybe your “apology” might mean something to people.
[/QUOTE]

Well, Shayna, it’s hard to see just what I could do to imitate that, since I’m not actually running for office, nor does my home state even maintain party registrations. There is no particular vehicle for me to “unregister” as a Republican, since I am not registered as one anywhere.

In most future elections I will probably continue to support the Republican canddiate, true, because (as the list of positions above indicates) that will likely be the candidate that matches the majority of the positions I hold. Surely you’re not suggesting I start voting for pro-choice, gun-control, no-voucher candidates as a result of this – are you? Seriously – what, exactly and specifically, would you have me do here?

279

[QUOTE=Bricker]
But despite my attempts to keep the conversation going in that vein, I was asked more than once to justify my views on OTHER issues, issues on which I have aligned with the GOP. So I did.
[/QUOTE]
No, just one issue: Does this latest incident suggest to you, Bricker, that the GOP’s tactics might not be, in other situations as well, entirely on the up and up? One issue; the rest is obfuscation.

280

[QUOTE=RTFirefly]

Yeah, I know - none of them has been tried and found guilty in a court of law yet. Fer chrissakes, dude, go off the clock for a minute. Human beings have the amazing capacity to arrive at judgments on the basis of incomplete evidence. Use it every now and then.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not asking for a court. But I am asking for something a bit more substantive than press releases and news leaks to form opinions.