Monday, October 02, 2006
|
|
Washington Times Calls for Hastert's Head: A McCain Move
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
10:10 PM
|
|
By the Washington Times?
WASHINGTON TIMES ON TUESDAY WILL CALL FOR SPEAKER HASTERT'S RESIGNATION, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE... DEVELOPING... Editorial titled: 'Resign, Mr. Speaker': 'House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once... Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance'... -- Washington Times, October 3, 2006...
Forgive me if I think this seems a bit unfair. We don't know yet exactly what Hastert knew and when he knew it. There is an investigation underway, and we will find out. Can we wait until then to start calling for the guy's head? From what we know so far, it sounds as if Hastert knew about the existence of "overly friendly" e-mails, not the more explicit IMs.
You know what this feels like to me? This is a classic McCain Move on the part of the Times. Get a jump on the moral high ground, condemn someone in the severest terms before the evidence necessarily justifies it. Result? You end up looking like an unassailable saint and you get a whole lotta press out of the deal. Sweet.
Update: Lest anyone thinks I'm going easy on child sexual predators, here's my other post on the controversy. The first one is linked above. There's nothing to be said for Foley, but I just think Hastert is getting a bad deal, here, before all the evidence is out.
Allah makes this find, in the Democratic playbook. The Times must have gotten the same memo, which has, like, never, ever happened before:
Update: The Democratic playbook — literally:
1. Pay no heed to the distinction between the e-mails and IMs. There’s no evidence (yet) that any Republican leaders knew about Foley’s cybersex IMs. There’s plenty of evidence that they knew how uncomfortable the “overly friendly” e-mails made at least one page. So the Dems will press the GOP on what they knew about the former and will constantly, in their press releases, refer to the “GOP’s knowledge of the sexually explicit e-mails.”
Update: Here's the link to the editorial. They suggest replacing Hastert with Henry Hyde. I still disagree that Hastert should go, though I'll concede that I like Hyde.
|
|
|
Until they had the "smoking gun," what makes one dirty old pervert congressman (who leers but doesn't touch) different than all the other dirty old pervert congressmen who leer? Being gay is probably not enough of a crime, without also having the instant messages that turned up last week. What was Hastert supposed to do when the pages themselves want it all to go away? |
|
Both evening news reports last night said that Foley resigned because of inappropriate, sexually suggestive "emails" (not "IMs").
I thought, "here we go ..." |
|
Kudos to Michelle Malkin, Bay Buchanan, The Washington Times and other conservatives for choosing to acknowledge that the "overfriendly" emails had "sexual predator" written all over them. All of the above (and many more conservatives to come) have said noted that the emails were enough to justify the hammer on Foley by the GOP leadership. The IMs are gross, but the emails tell us everything we need to know.
Some conservatives (including Ham apparently) has decided to stick their heads in the sand on this one.
Is it possible to believe that an email from a 50 year old man to a 16 year old boy that requests a photograph and asks what the boy wants for his birthday can be anything other than a predator laying the seeds for a future conquest?
This is character time for conservatives. Kevin McCullough has already blown it. Fellow Liberal Hater David Limbaugh is no doubt rearranging his standard I hate Democrats "column" (moving words here and there and you get a whole new column - works every week!) in an attempt to make this into a liberal scandal. If that doesn't damage the Ann Coulter in pants, nothing will. |
|
Your criticism is a fair one, tigerrick. I may live to eat my words on this one, which is fine. I'd just like to see a little more investigation before we start going after Hastert's resignation.
We happen to disagree on the e-mails. But it's worth noting that Foley's local newspaper and the page's family involved didn't see fit to report or act on these e-mails. It seemed, at the time, there might be an innocent explanation for the picture request.
Also, in a political sense, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to shield Foley a year ago if the Republican leadership knew the extent of the threat he posed. I mean, why not just report all of this, blow it up, replace the guy, and keep the seat safe for '06? They would have had to have known that this would eventually come out.
There is no excuse for Foley, but I think there may be room to forgive Republican leadership of some naivete about the threat that existed in one of their colleagues. As I said, I'm not sure I would have seen it.
It should be clear from my posts that I think there's nothing to be said for Foley, and I think it's unfair to slime me as somehow excusing him just because I'd like to know exactly what went down before demanding Hastert's head. |
|
The Democrats are asking, in 20/20 hindsight, why Hastert didn't have a clearer crystal ball--to see Foley's future--than they (the Democrats) had to foresee Bill Clinton's future acts from their 1992 crystal ball. It's not like the Democrats didn't know about Clinton's "tendencies." They crossed their fingers and nominated him anyway. And in 2005, Hastert gave Foley the same benefit of the doubt that the Democrats gave Bill Clinton in 1992, with the stakes even higher for a President of the United States. The Democrats lost their bet just like Hastert did. But at least Foley, unlike Clinton, had the good sense to step down and not claim that the pages were all lying.
|
|
Oh, by the way. To all members of the lunatic left-wing fringe:
In the District of Columbia, the legal age of sexual consent is 16.
Need a link?
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
Now, if you're going to start bitching and screaming that even if it's legal, it's inappropriate for a 50-something politician to have sex with an unpaid young volunteer, and any such politician should be forced to resign immediately just for suggesting it ...
... need I remind you ... |
|
There are many issues out there that can be
debated by democrats, republicans, independents,
etc. This isn't one of them. This is about
protecting kids. We should all be in this,
together, regardless of whatever political side
we take. I think our kids are our greatest
natural resource.....let's, all of us, protect
them.
Sometimes I disagree with MKH, but I think she's
right on this. This is serious business. An
open, thorough, no holds-barred, and completely
honest investigation must take place (and having
said that, I hope it's possible). Get the facts.
Get all the facts. And then, anyone, everyone,
who may have been involved in a cover-up should
be brought to justice. It's about the kids.
If people can't come together on this, to protect
the kids, then shame on them, shame on us (all
of us). |
|
I disagree, and think Hastert should go.
I think Dean Barnett over at Hugh's blog put it best, basically saying that after a disasterous military campaign, the general is expected to resign, even if the failure can be traced to a subordinate. If Hastert didn't know, he SHOULD have, and if he did, then it's even worse. Its his JOB to know what his caucus is doing, and there seems to have been enough smoke to warrant a larger search for the fire. |
|
MKH,
Follow your gut instinct, MK.
I think you're right---what the Washington Times is doing is premature (and 'McCain-like'), and we must wait for the facts to be revealed before we start assigning blame.
We're Americans; we allow ourselves to be governed by evidence, rather than emotions. |
|
|
|