It’s been a little while since I’ve heard how Republicans just cannot either vote or express their conscience because the liberals and Democrats are just so mean. Like all fine whine it just gets better with age.
We’d solve a lot of problems if we could could just figure out how to make these conservatives less fearful.
I don’t know how old Bricker is, so I can’t say how long he may have been naive, but I disagree with your claim. I have witnessed this in a person I am close to. She is 43, and she was a TRUE BELIEVER. In a different institution than a political party, but nevertheless she was utterly devastated when the leaders of it did something she just could not interpret in any other way than despicable…
A faith in the essential goodness of an institution is akin to religious faith.
I find it very difficult to believe myself, since I lost this form of faith in anything and everything, way back in my early teens. And I failed pretty miserably in comforting my friend – because my initial attitude was, “Jeez, about tme.”
Hey, I laughed.
Admittedly, it was an evil laugh, but what else do you expect from me?
Josh Marshall called it on TPM earlier this evening. Even this, however, is too little and too late. As reported in another thread (I think) the source who gave the emails to ABC says he got them from a now-former-but-then-current gay Congressional aide who is a Republican and has voted Republican his whole adult life. They cannot lay this at the feet of the Democrats or the gay staffers. Every time they twist, they find another person coming forward to refute them.
Reports are that Hastert is hiding out in his house in Plano, peeking out the curtains like Gene Hackman in The Birdcage. He’s holding a press conference tomorrow morning…will he resign?
The reason I always run back in the direction of the Libertarians is that every time you get near a politician who you think has real principles, you wind up sadly mistaken. These are people who are attracted to power in the first place. There is immense pressure on them to stay in power. Not only does it give them the power and recognition they crave, but they have throngs of donors, sponsors, campaign workers and a large section of the public counting on them to stay in power. They operate in a strange world with its own rules of behaviour, disconnected from the public. They have gifts thrown at them, ‘advisors’ who only care about keeping their jobs and will counsel the politician to do stupid things.
It’s a corrupting environment. Even the ones who go in on principle often find themselves in a minefield of political traps, corruption, and ‘business as usual’ unethical behaviour, and they wind up having to play the game just to stay even.
So no surprise at all that A) a Republican was a predator, and B) The leadership has never had the best interests of anyone in mind other than their own when they tried to sit on this before. Certainly not the page’s, or the public’s. So screw 'em all.
As for the behaviour of some Republicans in trying to minimize this, or deflect blame, or whatever… I see this as no different than what happened when it was Democrat Bill Clinton in the crosshairs. There were feminists who went overnight from being advocates of women’s rights in trials to making snide comments about ‘trailer trash’ regarding Monica Lewinsky and ‘slut’ jokes about Kathleen Willey. They have even defended the lame, “it depends what ‘is’ is” defense. And those defenders of women against male predators in the workplace who use power to coerce them never said a peep about the most powerful man in the world getting a 20 year old intern to blow him in the oval office.
It’s never a surprise that partisans on either side find lame justifications when it’s one of their own being gored.
I am sure we are all grateful to friend Sam for reminding us, once again! of the moral failings of the Clinton administration. Lest we forget the horror of peace and prosperity…
“I have here in my hand a list of 205 people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the homosexual agenda…”
I thought “trailer trash” was thrown at Paula Jones, not Monica.
I think you talk from your bottom. Us librul partisans did not so much defend Clinton as scratch our heads over the wingnuts’ hypocritical frothing. Saying, “Who the fuck are you to derail the entire government for over a year over this” is not the same thing as lionizing Clinton for his misbehavior.
Hunh??? What thread are you reading? This thread contains no pileon. Bricker has been roundly commended for telling all and sundry that the scales have fallen from his eyes. How is asking him how many scales, and which scales, and which scales remain, a “pile on”?
If he didn’t want a discussion; if he expected a chorus of “you go girl” or nothing at all, he wouldn’t have posted it at the Dope. That the discussion is covering a lot of ground in no way makes it a pile on. Get a grip.
Hey, Bricker! You go, girl!
Gotta say, this OP surprises me not at all. There aren’t many on this board as principled as Bricker.
Mhendo Said:
*This is hilarious!
You seem to be implying that, if the Republicans do the right thing on the Foley issue, if they take their lumps and get rid of those involved in the cover-up, then all will be right with the world again, and the Republicans will once again deserve their self-proclaimed title of defenders of “law and morality.”
If it’s taken you this long to realize what dishonest scumbags they are, and if you think that this incident is the prime example of their perfidy, you’re living in a land of delusion.
And i love your title. I think, when you wrote “privately snicker at the Dems,” you misspelled “loudly excoriate the Dems while excusing or rationalizing dozens of instances of Republican dishonesty.”*
You said:
I find you, Bricker, generally a poster of principle, if a bit naive. I’m impressed at the level of both qualities you show here. Although with this thread you nudge the balance a little toward the principled side, I wish you godspeed as you continue to chip away at the mass of naivete that remains.
Scotandrsn wrote:
So, Bricker. Northern Vriginia. Looking at a map, it looks like your rep is Eic Cantor, Jo Ann Davis, Tom Davis, Virgil Goode, Bob Goodlatte, Jim Moran orFrank Wolf. Whoever it is, if this person who has brought about such a great sea change in your opinion were to turn out to be among those who knew but did nothing, would you vote for their competitor, or at least not vote for that person this year? that would be the only thing that would raise your prncipled stance above the level of hot air.
Cervaise Wrote:
*But you have hitched your political wagon to a gang of ideological opportunists who have nobody’s best interests in mind but their own. And the sooner you recognize that, and realize that the ballooning scandal before us is merely symptomatic of a moral putrefaction that has destroyed the soul of your political leadership, the sooner the cleansing can begin.
I believe in balance. I believe in dividing power. I believe that an adversarial system is absolutely essential for keeping both sides honest. And therefore I believe that while conservatives are wrong about the majority of the issues before us, it is necessary for them to strenuously argue their positions in order to strengthen the views of us progressives. We must have principled believers and debaters from across the spectrum to maintain clarity of leadership.
My sociopolitical beliefs may have virtually no overlap with yours, but I need you to be that way because I believe that’s the most effective way to challenge myself into honesty. And I need you to have political representation to do the same to my own chosen surrogates.
Right now, your political representation is made up of total bastards. They serve neither you nor the country. They have taken advantage of your naive adherence to ideological principles and are looting and destroying the country on multiple fronts.
One sleazy Congressman is, in the grand context of American history, rather small beer.
But it has served to peel back the veneer of respectability and reveal the power-addicted madness that led leadership to coddle and conceal his sleaze.
It’s there for all to see. All you have to do is look.
Wake up.
*
ElvisL1ves wrote:
Not to dump cold water on this lovefest, but I ain’t buying this act. Nobody, nobody with the obvious intelligence you have, Bricker , could truly have been so naive for so long. Look at the long string of things you’ve rationalized away while claiming your party has been the one of morals and righteousness (and will be again once they dump this latest round of “bad apples”, that is :rolleyes. If starting a war based on lies, and rationalizing torture and suspension of habeas corpus in its name, didn’t shake your faith, how the hell could a little sex scandal coverup do it?
BobLibDem wrote:
Why is it so surprising to some that the party of torture, the party of lying to invade sovereign nations, the party of emergency response incompetence, the party of tax breaks for millionaires and record deficits, is also the party of conspiracy to obstruct justice in a pedophilia case?
**And finally, what got me was **
Originally Posted by lissener
This incident should not, of course, suggest–as Bricker seems to think we’re suggesting–that all Republicans are liars. It should, however, eliminate “But a Republican cannot be a liar” as a valid defense.
*Obviously, these are two extremes, neither of which can be true. I’m just wondering if, what with this and other recent examples of embarrassing Retardlicanism, the needle on Bricker’s “Never a liar ==> Always a liar”-ometer has moved over a notch or two; if not into the red zone, at least maybe into a straight vertical position of having an open mind for each such incident.
In that case, it was the use of Retardlicanism. *
I concede sire that my assertion of pile-on was unfounded. It was a poor choice of words since it implies a massive rebuttal and attack.
However, multiple assertions of naivete and the slams on Republicans in general is what I am referring to.
My point is this. It is my opinion that every person, regardless of party affiliation, should look at each situation objectively. How many times (if I recall it is John Mace who is usually targetted with this one) have conservative posters been railed on for simply pointing out logical and rational flaws in the criticisms of Republican actions. Heck, I even think John has been accused of being a rapid Bush supporter when he did not even vote for him. (John if I am wrong please correct me, but I know one the typically conservative posters here has been accused of this)
In this case, we have a poster who had vehemently supported many of the Republican’s actions all throughout this board admitting that this is a clear cut example of impropriety that has eroded his trust in the Republican party. Then, many people jump in and say yup all (R’s) are mindless cretins who engage in illicit behavior. Bricker was admonishing himself for always assuming the best about Republicans. Then, he is criticized for not always assuming the worst.
In a good debate, as you refer to, each situation must be examined objectively. I know this is the pit, but calling someone naive for admitting something like this is not part of rational discourse.
Everyone knows I am a huge critic of Republican Party policy and especially of the Bush Administration. But, I aslo believe the only chance I ever have of convincing others of the validity of my assertions rests in rational discourse that encourages them to explore their commonly held beliefs and reject the notions of partisanship. To accomplish this, I must be also willing to do the same.
The common occurrence is for partisan individuals to use any single incident to demonize the entire competing party. Thus, when people criticize Bricker of being naive and ask him to refer to Republicans, in total, as evil, retarded, bigotted fascists, they themselves committ the same offense that Bricker has come in here to reveal.
My call is for rational discourse. Embracing objective analysis of situations and avoiding political spin. The demonizing of one party over another fails in this. However, the American people eat this crap up. This is what gives Rush Limbaugh an audience.
Bricker’s call for generalized responsibility amongst elected officials, which many here have supported, is an excellent step forward. When the actions of one individual are met with “Oh Boy, this will hurt that party”, I have to reiterate my original point about the motivation politicians have to tell the truth and the overwhelming peer pressure to cover things up.
What is the motivation for a political party leader to expose the wrong doing of one of their members, if the entire party is going to be hurt by it? Foley’s crimes have nothing to do with the Republican party platform. I assure you, most, if not all of them, despise him for his actions. But, if they did cover it up, they did it because they were afraid of of how it might hurt the party because of the ignorant masses raised on a blip culture who will immediately associate the actions of one with the integrity of all others associated with them.
Think about the allegation against Fox News (placing the D next to his name). Why would that matter unless everyone knows that even the association with a particular party would result in generalized disapproval with the whole group?
Thus, individuals who are blindly partisan, as we have seen countless times on this board, will gloss over the flaws of their own people and accentuate the flaws of the other party. It is a simply example of Social Identity Theory which is the root cause of most forms of prejudice. It is also one of our greatest sources of ignorance.
That is what I am saying.
Oh, and I agree with you Lissener that Bricker definetely posted this to get feedback and discussion. However, his rational discourse and self-admission should be met with more rational discussion, not partisanship or name calling.
Lol Lissener, i called you Sire 
That should be sir. Or, if you prefer, I will indulge your ego and curtsey 
Thanks for making my point for me; all your examples are examples of rational discussion, not partisanship or name calling.
Sorry Clothahump but this just shows that you aren’t well informed.
The leaker appears to have been a Republican
A liberal website did receive the first batch of emails back in 2005, and what did they do with it? Did they sit on it for a year and wait until just the right time to smear the Republican party?
No, of course not you idiot. They forwarded the emails to the FBI the same day they got them. Link (They currently are talking about this on their frontpage, but you might have to look for it through search).
There is no evidence that the Democrats had any role in any of the Foley mess (say it with me).
I agree with you on the first para, but not on the second. And this is why:
To which I would add that the agenda here was pedophilia. **Bricker ** has no sympathy whatsoever with that agenda and whaddayaknow just this once he can see or is prepared to acknowledge the dirty, underhanded tactics his party of choice uses when faced with a scandal.
When I see **Bricker ** acknowledging the assholishness of precisely the same tactics when used by the 'Pubbies caught out in a scandal arising *in pursuit of an agenda that *Bricker ** favours, then and only then will I be saying “good on you, Brick, for standing up and calling it”.
As I recall, Bricker’s ultimate response to allegations of underhanded tactics used to persuade voters prior to the last election was “It’s a good thing that Bush won, nothing else matters” ie the end justifies the means.
The major difference in relation to the Foley scandal is that Bricker doesn’t like the end, so he can see what’s wrong the means.
Bricker, I’m sorry about your loss of idealism. Unfortunately, I lost this bit of mine a long time ago. During the past couple of weeks, I’ve seen ads with Rudy Giulani shilling for Rick Santorum. What a man who claims to be a staunch defender of family values to the point where he opposes making emergency contraception available over the counter, and opposes gay marriage is doing with a man who deliberately and willfully destroyed his own marriage endorsing him is beyond me.
My theory is similar to others I’ve seen in this thread. Our senators are given a fairly large amount of power and respect simply by being a senator. Once you get used to that power and respect, it can be difficult to let go of. Some will do anything to hang on to it, and that applies to politicians of all parties. If one is seen as being part of an institution that protects the best of solid, traditional American values, it’s even more tempting to defend that institution against threats to it. After all, who wants to damage the image that gave you that much power.
As for Monica Lewinsky, let me point out one key difference between her and the pages. In her case, her relationship with Bill Clinton was one she actively sought out and pursued. With Foley and the pages (band name?), it was the other way around. He actively pursued them and they were being warned about him. It sounds as if Foley was pursuing relationships with several pages and they weren’t inclined to consent to one.
Another important distinction is that Lewinsky was legally an adult when the affair began. The pages had been put in the care of Congress by their parents and were not adults.
Slight correction. Crew received them in July 2006 and forwarded them to the FBI the same day.
The latter are of course textbook examples of rhetorical questions.