Is it possible that we might achieve some sort of bipartisan consensus that what Bill Clinton did with intern Monica Lewinsky and what Rep. Mark Foley subjected male teen-age pages to were both wrong, and for the same reason?
The White House and Democratic leaders in Congress called Sunday for a criminal probe into former Rep. Mark Foley's electronic messages to teenage boys _ a lurid scandal that has put House Republicans in political peril.
White House counselor Dan Bartlett called the allegations against Foley shocking. He said President Bush hadn't learned of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to a 16-year-old boy and instant messages to other boys before the news broke last week.
Clinton and Foley were both adults with enormous power preying on people with none. It's the kind of behavior that quickly gets people fired (at the least) in the private sector. Getting rid of public officials is a little harder -- at least Foley had the sense to resign. I'm not bringing up Clinton to create some kind of equivalence to lessen Foley's deserved disgrace, and if people like Hastert knew what Foley was doing and covered it up, I'd like to see them gone, too. But I'm already getting a little tired of the selective, calculated outrage over this from people who kept saying the Clinton scandal was "just about sex." Yeah, like bank robbery is about money management.
And I realize it's misguided to keep expecting a basic level of intelligence from members of Congress, but how dumb are you if you think you can commit your obsessions to e-mail and not have it come back to bite you?
Comments
And, talk about irony, this was the biggest foe in congress of child sex offenders, founder of a congressional caucus for missing and exploited children and had major roles in several key pieces of legislation ... talk about stupid.
I'd sooner forgive Clinton. At least he wasn't a hypocrite about it. And taking advantage of a 21-year-old fat lady who throws it in your face is distasteful but not nearly as twisted as pursuing teen-age boys and talking dirty to them.
You're trying to make your guy smell better by comparing him to Clinton, but it's not working.
Hey, Alex, smell is smell, ... after you've determined you're not comfortable with the olfactory fallout, the only thing left is how far you want to move away from them. But, seems to me, once you've decided to move at all, how far doesn't really matter.
Ah yes, only in the twisted mind of the Republican party is consensual sex between two adults the moral equivalent to preying on children.
This is a new low for you Leo...
I know it's asking WAAAAAAY too much to not make this a dem/repub thing, but I'll reiterate my thoughts one more time. Since the beginning of recorded time, a certain percentage of the human race has always had the unnatural penchant of placing their private appendages where not appropriate, be it someones elses wife, girlfiend, boyfriend, child, livestock etc.
This penchant is not tied to any particular race, culture, creed or political party, so for everyones sake, let's prosecute the offender and leave the politics out of it.
Ah, ... a voice of reason - finally.
So, I guess the answer to my question is, "No, some people CAN'T give up their partisan prejudices long enough to judge all scoundrels equally." I'm willing to say Foley should be called a sexual predator. If you're willing to overlook what Bill Clinton did as president as merely "consensual sex between adults," that's your call. I must say, though, we have different definitions of "low."
Leo, that is EXACTLY right: "No, some people CAN'T give up their partisan prejudices long enough to judge all scoundrels equally".
For some, partisan prejudice is all they have.
Foley is lower then pond scum...
It is NOT complicated...
Mike Sylvester
Nancy Nall points out this morning how the Bill Clinton tack isn't working, so now the right's lathering at the mouth about how "this shouldn't be about politics."
It's all about politics. It's all about hypocrisy.
Great article in the Sunday Journal-Gazette about the "Red Letter Christians." They seek to take the "Christian conservative" mantle away from the people who are all about rooting out "sin" and instead directing their energies toward real Christian endeavors like eliminating poverty, avoiding war and protecting the environment. Bully for them. I hope they make the GOP clean up its act. Or at least quit pretending to hold a corner on virtue.
Whatever Leo, your comments stand for themselves. YOU are the one making this a political issue by dragging in Bill Clinton's name. YOU are the one comparing the behavior in the two cases. In the process, you come off like you're rationalizing the behavior. There is no comparison. You, I and everyone reading this blog damn well knows it. YOU choose to defend (by rationalization and comparison) the behavior of this predator. YOU and all the talking heads spouting these latest comparisons to Bill Clinton should be ashamed of yourselves.
But like I said, this is a new low for you - and your party. Congratulations...
Jeff, Leo isn't rationalizing anything. He merely pointed out how people like you rationalize the bad behavior of those you hold in great esteem and condemn the bad behavior of those with whom you disagree.
I think all of us would agree, citing other peoples abominable behavior doesn't excuse Foley's behavior at all.
What most thinking people find incomprehensible is your ability to completely absolve someone (in this case Bill Clinton) of deplorable moral choices.
I voted for him both times, I think he was a competent President that lead us through some great economic growth, but that doesn't change the fact he is an amoral, sexist, womanizing liar. His good accomplishments don't justify his lack of a moral compass.
No one's absolving Clinton. They're rightly pointing out that messing around with a loose woman is not remotely the same thing as hitting on teen-age boys. If you think these are morally equivalent then let's expand the sex offender registry to include everyone who's ever committed adultery or had unwed relations.
You've already absolved him, and to describe it as "messing around with a loose woman" is committing a great disservice to all women. Ask one or two, you might get smacked. Leo, nor I EVER said they were morally equivalent.
He didn't equate the two specific acts, (i.e. what x did was way worse than what y did) he asked if both men were wrong in what they did for the same reason (using your position of power to extract sexual favors from subordinates). It's called coercion.
Which guys' sexual predilections are more depraved is a matter of interpretation.
"It's all about politics. It's all about hypocrisy." In Washington? I'm shocked.
Hypocrisy is one of the most boring topics on the face of the earth, and it's really getting tiresome in the Foley case. Democrats blather about the hypocrisy of Republicans being the party of "moral values" and spawning somebody like Foley. Republicans counter with the Democratic hypocrisy of giving people like Clinton and Franks and Studds a pass and suddenly discovering depravity in the Foley case. Blah, blah, blah.
Ever since Holden Caufield decried the hypocrisy of adults in "Catcher in the Rye," teenagers have been dismayed to find that people sometimes say one thing and do another, or say contradictory things at different times depending on the circumstances, and write great blistering denunciations of the practice as if they're the first ones to have ever discovered this evil. Many of them go on to write opinion pieces about issues of real substance. But many, as we have seen this week, keep holding on to that lame subject.
Which is as juvenile in the adult world as it was in high school. We always see the hypocrisy of the other side. We seldom recognize the hypocrisy of our allies. So if you start going on and on about hypocrisy, all you're doing is revealing your own philosophical predilection or political inclination. That's nice to know, but now say something worth arguing with.
Thanks, Tim, for reiterating what I thought was an uncomplicated and unassailable point: People with power should not abuse it, and they should be held accountable when they do, by their political supporters and detractors alike. I specifically said I was not trying to create some kind of moral equivalence. I made it clear I think Foley is a predator, and if people knew that and covered it up, they should be held accountable, too. And people who just can't admit Clinton did wrong, even those who before Clinton thought powerful male predators in the workplace represented the greatest evil womankind had ever known, accuse me of sinking to a new low.
Oops. I may have just been guilty of accusing someone of hypocrisy. High school is so hard to leave behind.
Leo, you made an unassailable point about nothing.
Monica Lewinsky wanted it. She said so herself. She deliberately went to Clinton's office, hitched her skirt and flashed him with her thong. She told Barbara Walters she considered him a sexual soul mate.
You'd compare this to a person in power telling a working girl she needs to put out or get out? Please.
Alex, you certainly do have an interesting take on all this. Just out of curiosity, do you know any women? You might want to meet some and explore their insights.
For a guy with a liberal bent, you sure sound like a caveman....
"Monica Lewinsky wanted it. She said so herself. She deliberately went to Clinton's office, hitched her skirt and flashed him with her thong. She told Barbara Walters she considered him a sexual soul mate."
I can almost hear beavis & butthead in the background going "heh heh heh heh heh yea yea...heh heh she wanted it heh heh heh