The Foley Follies--just another part of a GOP pattern
I know I said I would likely not write more about the Foley Follies, so I will keep this short (for me, anyway). Last night, the lead story on PBS's "Now" examined the Foley Follies in the context of asking why the Congress does not seem to be able to control itself. For me, the report summed up what is and has been wrong with the Republican party for about the last ten years.
The Foley Follies have been just the latest manifestations of one of the main problems with the GOP these days (aside from the abject hypocrisy I have discussed often). That problem is that the Republicans have been almost exclusively concerned with staying in power rather than actually doing anything. This subject has been discussed previously on this blog, and I can't seem to find that discussion at the moment, but I have levelled the same criticism at the Democrats, noting that is why we ended up with Kerry as the 2004 candidate. In any event, the GOP has taken this problem to an extreme. In the "Now" report, the words of two people particularly resonated for me.
The first was Pete McCloskey, a Republican from California who was a member of the House from 1967-1983. He noted that when he was in Congress, there was plenty of corruption in the Democratic party, and then he said that since the GOP took over the House in 1994, the Republican party has "rapidly been corrupted by power, and in this case there is an arrogance that goes with it." It is that arrogance that particularly pisses me off. McCloskey, who ran for Congress just this year, only to lose the Republican primary to the incumbent--who is up to his eyeballs in the Abramoff scandal, believes that the only way to stop the culture of corruption is for the Democrats to gain the majority in the House. However, he also sagely says that then everyone must keep an eye on the Democrats to keep the corruption from developing anew.
The second person was Cliff Kincaid, who is the editor of the regular report of a group called Accuracy In Media (AIM), which is a media watchdog organization with strong social conservative leanings. In other words, AIM is one of those groups that seems to be part of the Republican base. When asked why he thought the Republican House leadership failed to act quickly to do something about Foley, Kincaid said
The Foley Follies have been just the latest manifestations of one of the main problems with the GOP these days (aside from the abject hypocrisy I have discussed often). That problem is that the Republicans have been almost exclusively concerned with staying in power rather than actually doing anything. This subject has been discussed previously on this blog, and I can't seem to find that discussion at the moment, but I have levelled the same criticism at the Democrats, noting that is why we ended up with Kerry as the 2004 candidate. In any event, the GOP has taken this problem to an extreme. In the "Now" report, the words of two people particularly resonated for me.
The first was Pete McCloskey, a Republican from California who was a member of the House from 1967-1983. He noted that when he was in Congress, there was plenty of corruption in the Democratic party, and then he said that since the GOP took over the House in 1994, the Republican party has "rapidly been corrupted by power, and in this case there is an arrogance that goes with it." It is that arrogance that particularly pisses me off. McCloskey, who ran for Congress just this year, only to lose the Republican primary to the incumbent--who is up to his eyeballs in the Abramoff scandal, believes that the only way to stop the culture of corruption is for the Democrats to gain the majority in the House. However, he also sagely says that then everyone must keep an eye on the Democrats to keep the corruption from developing anew.
The second person was Cliff Kincaid, who is the editor of the regular report of a group called Accuracy In Media (AIM), which is a media watchdog organization with strong social conservative leanings. In other words, AIM is one of those groups that seems to be part of the Republican base. When asked why he thought the Republican House leadership failed to act quickly to do something about Foley, Kincaid said
Why didn’t they react to it sufficiently? Mark Foley was one of them. He’s a member of the House leadership–House deputy majority whip. Raising money for other Republicans. Putting money into their campaigns. So he was a valued member of the team. They didn’t want to know.Later in the report, Kincaid was asked this question:
When you step back now, do you believe that this is a Republican party, a House leadership, that was more interested in protecting itself, its position of power, than in protecting the public trust and teenagers?Kincaid nodded "yes," then said the following:
The House leaders did not do their job. They did not protect the children. They were protecting “one of the gang.”Wake up, America. This is what these folks have been doing for years now, and it is way past time for it to stop.
posted by WCharles @ 10/07/2006 11:51:00 PM
3 Comments:
"Pot calling the kettle black."
Actually, I think that was part of the point McCloskey was trying to make. He made his statements after his campaign, in which he would tell people that the incumbent was a crook, and the response he got was "yeah, but everyone in Congress is, so we'll just vote for our incumbent." Also, keep in mind that McCloskey specifically said that if the Democrats do gain a majority, chances are they will succumb to corruption within a few years.
"Everyone is scrambling for the moral highground and this seems to be a result of the political scene of the past couple years."
I think that is probably the case in most places. Interestingly, there has been less of that here in Texas and in Oklahoma this year--at least in TV ads (I live near the border, so I see lots of Oklahoma ads).
In years past, some Democrats here have been guilty of this sort of campaigning. Lloyd Doggett--currently in the House--ran for Senate many moons ago and ran one of the nastiest, most mean-spirited, and stupid campaigns I have ever seen. As a result, the election went to Phil Gramm, one of the biggest freakin' weasels of all time. And if Ann Richards had toned down her rhetoric, George W. Bush would not have been elected Governor, and we would have been spared as a nation.
On the national scene, however, the Republicans have done much more to create this environment over the last 10-12 years, and it basically started with going after Clinton. Substantive issues got pushed to the background, and then Karl Rove took over. And since the Iraq war, Republicans nationwide have labeled Democrats cowards, appeasers, freedom-haters, whiners, immoral, and the list goes on. Every time legitimate substantive issues came up, the Republicans would immediately start in with this accusations and also claim that every bit of questioning and criticism was simply "political."
Will the Democrats be any better if they gain control? As discussed herein, there is a chance the answer will be "no." However--and this gets back to a point I think McCloskey was trying to make--the Republicans in power have not done a damn thing to change this atmosphere or control corruption, and there is no indication that if they stay in power they will work for such change.
There very well might be some Democrats invloved in this. If any of them were involved in a cover up or in failing to try to do something about this matter, they should be made to face the music.
That being said, Democratic knowledge/inaction does not in any way let the Republican ladership off the hook.
I have not followed the Pelosi/Freeh story since it came out a few days ago, but I can tell you I wouldn't want Freeh heading up this investigation, for several reasons. First, it needs to be handled by the FBI in an official capacity. Second, how can the House, or any group appointed by the House leadership, be trusted to be thorough and objective? Third, Hastert should not be allowed to hand pick his own investigative team. Fourth, Freeh still has a huge ax to grind with Clinton, and when you combine that with Hastert's lack of credibility, there is the potential for more political hackery. Fifth, Louis Freeh was not exactly the best FBI director in history. He should have been canned early on (and it was Clinton's fault he was not).
Now why did you have to go and derail our serious discussion with your sarcasm? What upsets me is that I can't top that line.
Post a Comment
<< Home