Lisa at A Clear View to a New Life linked to a Washington Times editorial about the Hastert/Foley scandal. Due to Blogger's current limitations, I was not able to post the response I wanted to the article.
Lisa's comment was that she agreed with 99% of what Tony Blankley had to say. And I also agree with the point of Blankley's statement. But I have strong reservations about the delivery.
While Blankley felt that Hastert should step down, he followed the classic party line in assuming the exposure of Foley and the continuing pressure on Hastert to resign is part of some vast left-wing partisan conspiracy to win the mid-term elections. He does an excellent job of playing the victim card, a tiresome but unfortunately effective tactic used by ultra-conservative Republicans whenever one of their own is exposed.
Blankley suggests that Democrats knew about Foley's taste for underage boys and withheld the information until it was politically advantageous. But Foley was a member of the House of Representatives for 11 years. There is also evidence to suggest that GOP leadership knew as early as 2001 that Foley was a little too fond of the male pages. 2001 was two (almost three) election cycles ago. If Hastert et al. concealed this information for the past five years then they are no better than the Democrats he is attempting to demonize.
I was also displeased by his subtle insinuation that Foley's predilection for teenage boys is part of his homosexuality. Trite, boring, unoriginal and untrue.
Even if the Democrats knew of Foley's prediliction, why should they be the ones to break the news? It would have been much easier for the Republicans to circle the wagons and cover it up if they had. And, why not use it politically now? The Republicans wouldn't have hesitated for a second to wait until the most strategic time to report about something done by a Democrat. Tony Blankley is a weasel.
ReplyDeletePeople using this politically is inevitable and depressing.
ReplyDeleteI've been listening to some of the coverage of this on NPR, and I wonder if somebody's going to be sitting down and talking with the boy and his parents. Someone needs to. I don't know who -- a pastor, a law-enforcement person, a trusted teacher, a longtime family friend, a especially wise relative -- but somebody needs to get inside this kid's head a little bit and help him be okay with this.
With all due respect, I beg to differ somewhat with the way the last sentence was phrased -- a predilection for teenaged boys, as opposed to teenaged girls, sounds to me like it's also homosexual. However, I hasten to add, that shouldn't be the big deal here. I don't really care who likes to put what where. But I have a son who'll be this age quicker than I like to think about, and this is really disturbing. (He already had one near-miss a couple of years ago with an authority figure at his old school who physically molested little boys, including one of his classmates, in the lavatory. I hope I never meet the gentleman again.)
If Foley had hit on a 21-year-old page a la Prezdet Bill, the issue would be between consenting adults, and while I can understand that some people would have a problem understanding if either party also happened to be married or otherwise in a commited relationship, it's really nunna. It's still an unequal power relationship, but it's putatively two adults. Kind of like a former president of a major Southern university (Think Hootie and the Blowfish) who had male students accompany him on trips and then receive expensive gifts as mementoes. Pretty icky, but on a different plane from a 17-year-old boy.
So -- yeah, the problem is that this is a minor. Not cool. In fact, I'm beginning to appreciate the "half the younger person's age plus seven" criterion, even.
I need a shower. (*shudder*)
Jenn, you are right on all counts. I think I was so relieved to see that he recommended Hastert resign, despite the political consequences of that decision, that I overlooked the more subtle issues you point out. Thanks for taking a closer look!
ReplyDelete