« Woodward 2.0 | Main | Dear Security Moms… »
September 30, 2006
Dangers of DeFoleyation
Nobody knows how the Mark Foley scandal will develop, but it could be wildly disruptive to the Republican Party. It's not just that it puts us in position to win Foley's district, where his name will still be on the ballot even though the votes will go to someone else. Tom Reynolds, who runs the NRCC (the House Republican campaign fund) was among those who knew about Foley's creepy behavior a year ago. He's also in a surprisingly competitive race -- a recent poll had him leading Jack Davis only 44-42, with a Green getting 8%. The Green won't actually be on the ballot, and Davis has money. I wonder if there's a possibility of Reynolds suddenly getting selfish with the NRCC cash, and depriving Republicans across the country.
Then there's speaker Hastert. If his image gets tarnished too much for him to hold a leadership position, will other Republicans be plotting to fill the power vacuum? That can't be what you want going into a midterm election.
September 30, 2006 | Permalink
Comments
will other Republicans be plotting to fill the power vacuum?
Impossible. For instance, Boehner outed him from a sense of public-spiritedness.
Posted by: calling all toasters | Sep 30, 2006 8:34:09 PM
The Republican Party gets to spend the last month before the general election explaining how Foley retained his position in the House of Representatives even though the GOP leadership was aware of his transgressions. First, they'll say they didn't really know, that Foley lied to them and didn't admit it all. Then they'll say, okay, we knew most of it, but he promised to clean up his act. Then they'll say, sure, he broke his own law but it wasn't up to us to turn the information over to prosecutors.
Then, during the second week of November, they'll say the election would have been a lot closer and Pelosi wouldn't be Speaker of the House if only Foley had behaved himself, but no one will be listening to former members of the House.
Posted by: Zeno | Sep 30, 2006 8:49:00 PM
I've probably read a dozen blog posts about Foley by now, and I still haven't seen one mentioning the lawsuits against the Catholic Church as an interesting analogy. What's up with that???
Posted by: Allen K. | Sep 30, 2006 10:04:39 PM
This is a complete disaster - for the Democrats.
The last thing we need is something that distracts from the core Democratic message that we are, in essence, just like the GOP on everything.
I fear that before long there will be vicious and snarling partisans who use this scandal to draw distinctions between the Democrats and Republicans, and who may even stoop to the claim that this represents incompetence and less than fully altruistic behavior on the part of GOP House leadership.
Oh, when will we be free of the horrible partisanship of the Democrats?
Posted by: Stephen | Sep 30, 2006 10:46:28 PM
As mentioned before, the Rs get rid of these people, if he had ad D behind his name it would ne "don't be so judgemental, pedophiles are people too".
If he were runing a brothel out of his DC apartment he would be out too.
Posted by: Guy Montag | Sep 30, 2006 10:46:44 PM
the level of delusion on the right is a fascinating thing to behold. To think, I once thought you were politically brilliant. That's the thing about meeting head on people you thought were something more than they are- they never quite live up to expectations. Anyone, see in a 2007 Democratically controlled Congress.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 30, 2006 11:00:19 PM
Query -- there seems to be two different sets of electronic communications:
1. The initial emails that Hastert, et al, had access to, reviewed, and at the request of the family pursued no further, and
2. The IM's that surfaced in the ABC story, that so far do not appear to have been known about by House Leadership.
The news reports seems to confuse the emails with the IM's, or is my understanding incorrect?
Posted by: Chris | Sep 30, 2006 11:01:45 PM
You guys on the left have to really be struggling with this. You got the NAMBLA lobby to be sensitive to.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Sep 30, 2006 11:05:55 PM
The news reports seems to confuse the emails with the IM's, or is my understanding incorrect?
The news reports I've heard have distinguished these, but some of the analysis I've read hasn't taken the difference into account in a way that I can detect. I'm waiting for some more details to come out before I draw conclusions about the connections to the other congressmen.
Posted by: Sanpete | Sep 30, 2006 11:17:52 PM
You got the NAMBLA lobby to be sensitive to.
Nope--that's the Grand Ol' Pedophiles. Is Hastert playing with pages too? Dreier? Mehlman? Graham?
You certainly have all the closet cases too.
Posted by: amberglow | Sep 30, 2006 11:51:02 PM
Good grief, CT Dipshit - you really are a sick fuck - a seriously sick fuck. Montag too. You are pointless little people.
Posted by: DuWayne | Sep 30, 2006 11:58:46 PM
that's the point I have been making for a while DuWayne- they are basically emotionally messed up peo who come on here to spit out their emotional issues.
Posted by: akaison | Oct 1, 2006 12:08:14 AM
A series of rhetorical questions:
How does this affect the Republican image of family values? The Republican image of keeping your kids safe? The Republican image of taking action when necessary? The Republican image of Christian governance? Goodbye, base.
Posted by: Jon O. | Oct 1, 2006 4:10:10 AM
"Tom Reynolds ... (is) ... in a surprisingly competitive race -- a recent poll had him leading Jack Davis only 44-42, with a Green getting 8%. The Green won't actually be on the ballot, and Davis has money."
I'd agree with the conventional wisdom that the Dems' chances of picking up the necessary 15 seats to win back the House is only about 50/50. But I also think there's a decent chance of this being a category 5 hurricane that takes down some unexpected Republican seats like Reynolds. We could take 30 - 35 seats if the stars align correctly.
Posted by: Petey | Oct 1, 2006 7:45:47 AM
You seem a little upset, DuWayne, as if a nerve was struck. Are you part of that NAMBLA constituency?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Oct 1, 2006 9:11:10 AM
I'm glad to see your a sick enough fuck to joke around about child molesting dipshit. It fits with the image of I have of you. Yes you struck a nerve you sick fuck - I'm a fucking parent asshole. I don't really find "jokes" about child molesting terribly amusing. Anyone who does, needs therapy - before they take it out on a child.
Posted by: DuWayne | Oct 1, 2006 10:54:40 AM
duwayne - I wouldn't waste my emotional time feeling anything about someone like Toke or Guy etc. They are what they are. Their only function is agitation. To put you on the defensive. As they are consigned to the dustbins of history (and I have faith now that htey will be)- time will show them as the one that Americans will struggle to forget ever existed like so many other aspects of our sometimes ugly past. These sorts rear their head periodically in our history,b ut they never last because they are at core about something that's not sustainable: pure emotions. That's at base what drives them, and trust me, as passionate as I am- I have come to understand the point from the ancients philosophers about how reason must direct passion. All Toke has, and its what makes him pathetic, is his emotional connection to the right. As they disappoint him- what choice does he have other than lash out?
Posted by: akaison | Oct 1, 2006 12:54:21 PM
The main danger of "deFoleyation" is that it will make Democrats look that much more pathetic if Republicans maintain even one-seat majorities in the House and Senate. Even with everything against them, the GOP would have survived -- which will be hailed as a "mandate."
Posted by: Grumpy | Oct 1, 2006 1:47:42 PM
fear of repercussions is what kills democrats, not action. in fact, the problem with the left is that they overthink things a bit too much for their own good. sometimes you just got to piss or get off the fucking pot.
Posted by: akaison | Oct 1, 2006 2:55:47 PM
Posted by: Guy Montag | Sep 30, 2006 7:46:44 PM As mentioned before, the Rs get rid of these people, if he had a D behind his name it would ne "don't be so judgemental, pedophiles are people too".
This is a brilliant statement for someone that the R's let alone to continue to prey on teenage boys for a year.
Nobody within a mile of being a swing voter will believe for a second that the Replicant Leadership would have left a Democrat alone for a year if they found this out about them. Indeed, the Republicans have finally handed the Democrats a real big issue they can use to neutralize a chunk of the "Christian Right" vote and persuade them to go back to staying home on election day.
"They said that the Democrats were on the side of the Devil and they were on the side of the Saints. Do moral people protect sexual predators or the teenage boys that have been placed under their care?"
Posted by: BruceMcF | Oct 1, 2006 4:49:36 PM
Posted by: Grumpy | Oct 1, 2006 10:47:42 AM The main danger of "deFoleyation" is that it will make Democrats look that much more pathetic if Republicans maintain even one-seat majorities in the House and Senate. ...
The Republican spin will be presented in the conservative mainstream media and the right wing media like Fox no matter what happens. When the "silver lining" being spun is that a swing against you could have been bigger, and that thirty of your Congressmen only held onto their seats by slender pluralities, that de-spins as, "the Republicans lost ground".
Heck, if the Democrars win a 20 seat majority, we will quickly find out from Fox why that is Good News for the Republicans and Bad News for the Democrats. Win, Lose or Draw, the Democrats have got to get out of the business of falling in with how things are "portrayed" and get into the business of winning the political ground game.
Posted by: BruceMcF | Oct 1, 2006 4:58:26 PM
Nobody within a mile of being a swing voter will believe for a second that the Replicant Leadership would have left a Democrat alone for a year if they found this out about them.
What is "this"? What did the Republicans know about it a year ago?
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 1, 2006 5:22:02 PM
You might want to read the linked article at the top, under "Mark Foley scandal", Sanpete -- the emails first surfaced in fall 2005.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Oct 1, 2006 5:43:28 PM
You seem a little upset, DuWayne, as if a nerve was struck. Are you part of that NAMBLA constituency?
two years ago, you rightie trolls had argument after obfuscating argument to work with... now, the best you stunted folks can do is bait people with NAMBLA accusations.
if this isn't enough to convince anyone that the movement has reached (and soon to pass) its crescendo, nothing will.
Posted by: the dreaming ape | Oct 1, 2006 5:54:35 PM
Neil, it's because I did read the article at the link, and some others, that I asked the question. From what I read, the only email specifically known to the Republican leadership a year ago was the one where Foley asked the boy for a photo, which Foley explained to those following up about it by saying that he was mentoring the boy. The more incriminating emails and IMs came out only a few days ago. If I misread that, I hope someone will set me straight.
Posted by: Sanpete | Oct 1, 2006 6:05:09 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
