Oct 03 2006
Why Go After Hastert Now?
OK, I was one of the first to see warning signs inthe Foley debacle because it seemed there were missed warning signs early on. But as information has come out, it seems the warning signs were not very clear and there were reasonable conditions (if Foley is gay and it was widely known) for Hastert and the leadership to tread lightly on weak evidence. I am assuming Foley was gay and it was well known because of former Speaker Gingrich’s comments on Fox News Sunday about a concern any action would be seen as gay bashing. It struck me as odd when he said it – almost defensive. But at the time I did not know about Foley’s open secret.
Given that Congress is pummeled everyday with wild and false accusations from partisan hacks, and given the years of PC brain washing that one cannot be singled out based on their sexual orientation (which is what would have happened with the news of those initial, borderline emails) then it is not reasonable for people to expect Hastert and company to respond to a set up. In fact, if this was a set up the initial claims would be proffered in such a way as to minimize the urgency and pull Hastert and company into a false sense that things were being overblown.
But the calls for Hastert’s resignation are just a sign of gutless wonder by conservatives and Republicans worried about an election. And it is the wrong, wrong response to this. For one, we need to determine if Hastert deserves to step down – we don’t have the facts. Second, this kind of self destructive response only eggs on the democrats and lefties to keep pulling out embarrassing information to force Reps in powerful positions to step down. Every successful dirty trick spurs on the idea-plagued left. Finally, Foley committed any crimes if there were any (and there may have been, this needs an investigation). So punishing Hastert does no good. If Foley was hiding criminal acts, he knew better than anyone HOW to hide his actions. He led a caucus focused on developing ways to detect and catch child predators. If he wanted to, he could avoid detection.
So what does asking Hastert to step down do before an important (and maybe life threatening) election? Nothing. It is a simple act of throwing someone to the wolves hoping that will hold them off. It won’t hold them off and it shows a lack of spine and honor. We conservatives need to show more positive qualities. We need to stand up and say “this is a problem and we are looking into it and we take the proper action once our LEGAL processes run their course”.
Otherwise more of these set up, hit-jobs will be coming and we will lose through attrition by embarrassment. Someone ind DC needs to stand up and weather these storms and show some intestinal fortitude (aka “guts”). Contrary to the Washington Times call for Hastert to go (linked above), I am not embarrassed by Foley’s actions. He no more represents me that William Jefferson, Randy Cunningham or any other disgraced and depraved pol. I refuse to be tarnished by this guy’s actions. If true, then he pretended to share my values and got himself elected, I never shared his warped ones. I ain’t resigning over it and I ain’t tarnishing anyone else with those actions.
I heard a Dem on Fox News say that Hastert should have known how bad it could be because every knows that Foley is a homosexual. So how do Dems feel theoretically about homosexuals?
The correct charge is “Serving in Congress while gay and Republican”
That is a crime. Now if it were Gay and Dem, well….. that’s okay.
It still is not clear to me that there was an actual crime committed.
It is clear that a known homosexual made inappropriate remarks to a young person. It is not clear that it was a crime.
Reading the imess’s it seems clear that both of the parties made inappropriate remarks, willingly.
I heard a caller on Washington Journal say that maybe that the pages don’t report things because they are young and are afraid of the repercussions. That it may cause problems with future political plans. Well, if their youth is that much a problem, then maybe they aren’t mature enough to be in that position.
I have been propositioned by homosexuals two times in my life. The first time at age 12 and the second time at 15. Neither time was a “problem” for me to deal with. In both cases, I was in an automobile with the person and both times, I told them I was not interested and stop the car and let me out. Both times they did and that was the end of it. I told my mother and father(about the 2nd event only) and it never affected my life any more in any way. So if I could deal with it at 12 and 15, these people are certainly ready to deal with it at 16, They are young but they are not stupid and are not necessarily immature.
It appears that there may be some real guilt for some involved if they had info and they believed” inappropriate” actions were taking place and they failed to act to prevent possible injury to minors (albeit they were above the age of consent).
I think that people’s sexual orientation should be a private matter, but let’s face reality, anytime people get together in groups, all kinds of stories and comments are going to be made. Some more risque than others. If you don’t want to participate, either say so or get up and leave. Let anyone that makes an inappropriate remark know that it is.
It is not at all clear to me that Hastert was aware of anything that he should have done more than he did. This is still America and there is still a presumption of innocence, even if you are a Republican.
Some Serious Crying From The Left & The Right…
See my earlier posts here and here for additional info.
Now this is some serious crying from the Washington Times:
The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, co…
Also young kids today are well aware from movies, tv and magazines and their peers more about the existance of gays than were children of 20 years ago.
These kids have been raised since the oft repeated mantra of good touch bad touch and tell a supervisor training.
Rush provided a little “Heh, heh” this morning regarding that Washington Times editorial calling for Hastert to step down from the Speaker post: Seems the Human Resources Director of the Washington Times was forced to resign in recent days (August or September).
Got himself caught in a sting while waiting for his 13-year-old Internet date to meet him for a little get-together.
I agree with Enforcement. Well except for that proposition part. But he is right about kids saying NO. They do it all the time and they could tell someone, like their folks.
As I have pointed out in my own posts, this is nothing more than a lynch mob mentality. People to need step back, take a deep breath and start thinking again.
BOTH sides of the aisle.
It’s also a joke that the Washington Times editorial would even be an MSM headline in the first place. When’s the last time *anything* the WT reports on, let alone editorializes on, became an MSM lead story?