Given some of his recent statements on the war in Iraq, one might have been tempted to think that Chuck Hagel was a man willing to go against the Bush administration. But he's one of the two Senators who voted against the bill to amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to preserve the independence of United States attorneys. The other was Christopher "Kit" Bonds (R-MO).
Four Senators didn't vote. One is South Dakota Senator Tim Johnson, who didn't vote for obvious reasons. The other three are Biden, McCain, and Mikulski.
A one-man play in three sentences.
Hey, there's the bus. Is that Kyle Sampson under it? Why yes, it is!
I'm sure I can't imagine how anyone could have gotten the impression that Michael Battle was threatening them from this little old e-mail:
Cummins recounted in an e-mail made public yesterday that the official cautioned that administration officials would "pull their gloves off and offer public criticisms to defend their actions more fully."
I'm sure that Mr. Battle only meant that the weather had warmed up enough that members of the administration didn't feel the need to wear gloves outside. Oh sure, perhaps a bit of over-sharing, but a threat? Come now.
I was wondering when this was going to enter the campaign:
McCain operatives are putting out material that depicts Giuliani riding into City Hall on the shoulders of the New York Liberal Party as a throwback to the old Tammany Hall Democratic machine.
I'm surprised McCain hasn't added "Endorsed Democratic incumbent Mario Cuomo for Governor!" Maybe he's saving that for later.
This does give a somewhat misleading cast to what the article was actually about - that the far right wing are not necessarily enamored of "maverick" McCain, socially liberal Giuliani, and "Multiple Choice" Mitt Romney once they learn details of their political backgrounds. I'm just more familiar with Giuliani* because of my place of birth and city of residence. Knowing all that I do about him, I still find it hard to believe he'll survive all the things about him that will become more publicly spread as campaigns heat up. Twice running on the Liberal ticket, as well as the Republican ticket, and having endorsed a Democrat for governor are two of the things that I think will be real setbacks for Giuliani. We'll see.
*Full disclosure. I voted for Giuliani twice. I would not, however, vote for him for President, as I think he is too authoritarian and temperamentally unsuited for the position.
Anyone who is wringing their hands and furrowing their brow over the private postings of a couple of low-level campaign staffers with no policy-making influence working on John Edwards' campaign, but who is also touting Rudy Giuliani as a serious candidate for President is not to be taken seriously. Rudy is one of the most uncivil politicians around. If you're really concerned about the death of civil discourse, you should be out there campaigning against Giuliani, not a couple of women who aren't running for any office, let alone the highest office in the nation. Whether or not you agree with their politics or phrasing, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan didn't deserve the kind of outrage that was stirred up over their being hired to staff a campaign blog. That outrage is better directed at those who run our country or want to run our country.
Wow, this is a surprising number: Hillary Clinton is not just beating Rudy Giuliani in his home state — and her adopted state — of New York, but is trouncing the former Mayor by over 20 points in a new poll. The survey, released today by Crain's New York Business, finds that Hillary is beating Rudy 53%-32%.
I have to disagree with Eric Kleefeld. It's not a surprising number at all. As a New Yorker, I find this eminently unsurprising. New Yorkers are very familiar with Rudy Giuliani and his flaws. Before 9/11, Rudy's popularity had decreased significantly. He wasn't a particularly liked mayor.
Many New Yorkers who are fans of Rudy as Mayor think he'd make a horrible President. People outside New York don't realize how obnoxious he really is. While a lot of New Yorkers may think this is a fine quality in the Mayor of New York City, those same people don't think it's a fine quality in the President of the United States. We really don't think it's a swell idea to have a man who is more likely than not to refer to the French Ambassador as a "mewling baby" or the like. Rudy has a long history of running off at the mouth, insulting people, and generally not knowing when to shut the hell up. Not good Presidential qualities.
Not to mention that he has no taste for dissent. He wasn't regularly called Benito Giuliani for nothing. I think a lot of New Yorkers would prefer a President who is willing to consider opposing viewpoints. Giuliani is not that man. His general style of leadership consists of: "Do it." "I told you to do it." "You're fired."
As for Mike Bloomberg's single digit results, no shock there. Bloomberg is easily one of the most uninspiring politicians New York has seen in my lifetime. He may be an excellent businessman, but his public speaking abilities make Al Gore seem like Mr. Excitement.
Via Eschaton.
Unless it were an historical drama of the black-face era, it would not be acceptable to make a movie today with whites dressed in black face, not even in jest. A movie like The Bird Cage would probably get slammed today. A movie of women in subservient positions, unless it were trying to make a political point, would be unacceptable as well. Yet for some reason, it's still acceptable to make fun of obese people. Why?
Rightfully, there is a chorus of criticism of white college students who are holding parties mocking the worst stereotypes of African-Americans. I guess it's not cool enough to dress up as important African-American leaders such as Martin Luther King or Jesse Jackson (though, as someone who's Jewish, I have my own issues with Jackson). Instead, it's deemed cool to toss around the "n" word, dress up as gangstas, drink malt liquor, and don black face.
"Where's the harm," these students are asking, noting that they're only mirroring the behavior of African-Americans and that they're only appropriating what they see as cool behavior. "We only want to be like you." Actually, I have my own opinion of the gangsta culture and don't believe African-Americans should behave this way. This type of behavior can be dangerous, marginalizes women, and only reinforces negative stereotypes. Still, it is one thing for African-Americans to act this way and quite another for whites to act this way.
For African-Americans, it diffuses the power of stereotypes by taking a racial epithet and making it part of their lexicon; for whites, as the class in power, it only serves to perpetuate an image, continue to disenfranchise African-Americans, and to deny African-Americans the equal treatment they deserve.
It is also a mockery of African-Americans only to want to mirror their worst behavior, as though it's the only way they behave. Nope, no African-Americans serve in important positions or are doctors or lawyers, no African-Americans are positive role models and leaders. Again, whites may say, "It's only harmless fun, African-Americans behave this way, why can't we?" The reasons why they can't are numerous. As one critic noted, it was once seen as fun to hold lynching parties and no harm was really done, none at all. It is making fun of African-Americans, again perpetuating stereotypes, intimating that all African-Americans behave this way, and continuing the tradition of demeaning them and not taking them seriously by dressing up in black face and making mockery of them by turning them into cartoonish figures in movies who walk around bug-eyed, only capable of saying, "Yes, massa, you sure is right massa."
Where African-Americans have created power systems by using the "n" word or using gangsta themes to skyrocket to success in the rap industry, whites can only keep African-Americans down by appropriating their behavior and saying this is the only way African-Americans behave. A subtle form of racism to be sure, but racism as much as segregation or lynching parties were.
It's much better than racism. Here's what Biden had to say about Obama (emphasis mine):
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."But - and the "but" was clearly inevitable - he doubts whether American voters are going to elect "a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate," and added: "I don't recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic."
He expresses nothing about how Hillary Clinton, as the first mainstream female candidate is "articulate and bright and clean" or how that's "a storybook." Because there's no underlying prejudice about white women not being articulate, bright, or clean.
Via Paul the Spud at Shakespeare's Sister.
No one knows what the ultimate disposition of the Duke Lacrosse case will be, but the developments in the last few weeks only reinforce my opinion that there was an immediate rush to judgment and that the entire team and especially the three indicted players have been treated unjustly. In this country, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty; in this instance, the opposite happened. The players were presumed guilty from the start, and for that, I blame reverse discrimination. Because they were white and privileged and accused of a crime against a poor African-American woman in a predominantly African-American and poor community, the players were treated as pariahs from the start, branded criminals, and sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.
Rather than wait for the case to play out, Duke University immediately suspended the entire team and ultimately canceled the season. True, there are other instances where players accused of a crime have been suspended before the legal process has run its course - the most recent example being Tank Johnson of the Chicago Bears, arrested on gun charges and suspended for two games - yet the defining legal principle in this country is that a person is presumed innocent.
I believe the University reacted to the outcry against the team and an assumption that the charges were true rather than give the players the benefit of the doubt as they should have been under our legal system. Some of it may have stemmed from the party itself, that the players held a Bacchanalian affair with underage drinking, but without the rape charges, I am not sure that the University would have responded as it did. The University gave into the public pressure and to the reverse stereotype at play and deprived the team of due process.
The public condemnation of the players was equally as swift. There was no question that the players were guilty, a call was issued for their heads on a platter, and numerous protests and rallies were held at the home of the party. Unfortunately, this happens all the time in America. Al Sharpton organized a protest against the shooting of Sean Bell and his friends outside a Queens night club late last year, despite the fact that no charges have been brought against the police officers and that the shooting appears to be no more than a tragic misunderstanding. Bell and his friends likely thought they were under attack, and the police in turn likely felt they were under attack. Overall, in the Queens case, there hasn't been an outcry against the officers in the same way there was against the Duke players, and the case has largely faded from public memory, but why is there is quickness to assume guilt in such cases? It's as though we need to assuage our guilt for centuries of mistreatment of African-Americans by saying that these incidents only occur because it is white privileged men acting against a disenfranchised populace. One of the officers in the Bell case is African-American, yet that seems swept under the rug and the finger pointed at racism here and in the Duke case. It seems like there's a reverse stereotype at work.
Most egregious of all is the behavior of D.A. Mike Nifong. I will not get into the question of his motivation here because I do not know the man, but his words and deeds only inflamed an already hot situation. Rather than wait for the results of an investigation, he immediately said he was sure a crime had been committed and made several prejudicial statements. From all appearances, he conducted a faulty investigation, proceeding only on the word of someone whose story has been wildly inconsistent, ignoring and suppressing exculpatory evidence, organizing a rigged line-up that was no more than a game of eeny, meeny, miny, mo, never interviewing the accused and ignoring what seems to be strong evidence of their innocence, and only belatedly interviewing the accuser herself. It's a clear example of how not to conduct a criminal investigation, one that has landed him in hot water.
It is only good news in my opinion that the North Carolina Attorney General has agreed to take the case. The office will conduct an investigation from scratch, hopefully proceeding in a far more professional manner than Nifong. I cannot predict the outcome of the investigation. Maybe it will find cause to move forward anyway, though I will be surprised if it does, and maybe the players will wind up on trial after all is said and done, though again, I doubt this will happen. I believe the case will, as it likely should, go away at this point. Even if it does, however, there has been plenty of damage done to the team as a whole and three players in specific.
Their names and reputation have been muddied, and the case will follow them for the rest of their lives. Whenever applying for a job or meeting someone for the first time, they will be immediately thought of as the Duke players accused of rape. Whether that prejudices people against them or earns sympathy is hard to say. Either way, they have been through months of turmoil on what appears to be a weak and doubtful case. If there were more compelling evidence against them and less questions about the merits of the case, I would still have a problem - as stated before, the presumption should be innocent until proven guilty - but not as much of a problem.
I cannot help but wonder had this not been rich against poor, privileged against underprivileged, white against African-American, whether the case would have gained as much traction as it did. Based on all the evidence so far, I believe a fundamental injustice has been done to the team and accused players.
The correct answer to Words of Wisdom is then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. Had he only heeded his own advice before counseling the current Bush to depose Sadam Hussein.
Or Why I still have a problem with what Barbara Boxer said to Condi Rice.
I've read a lot of commentary on what Barbara Boxer was saying to Condi Rice. Some of it ludicrously hysterical about how Boxer told Rice that Rice was unqualified for her job because she was single and childless. And, yes, I agree, that's ridiculous. Boxer never intimated any such thing.
On the other side, it's more of the Boxer was just saying that there are sacrifices that will have to be made to carry on the war and the surge, and we should be cognizant of the prices people will have to pay. I agree that's what Boxer intended. However, her framing of the issue unconsciously plays right into patriarchal assumptions about women. As a single, childless woman myself, I got that very quickly.
In her example, Boxer used herself and Rice as two people who don't have a personal price to pay. Both women. The price they could pay was cast in terms of their children or lack thereof. Not in terms of themselves. Women are in the military. Women die in wars, even if they aren't in combat. It's not just that Boxer's children are too old. It's that she's too old. It's not just that Rice doesn't have an immediate family to sacrifice. It's that she's too old herself.
If the only price women are seen as being able to pay for their country in wartime is their children (and husbands), what does that mean for single, childless women? Given the culture we live in, it's really not hard to read that as "you're selfish." It's not as if single and/or childless women don't get fed that message constantly anyway. "Selfish." "Unwomanly." "Failure." That's the environment in which Boxer made her remarks. The environment in which she excluded the possibility of herself or Rice sacrificing themselves (if she hadn't, there wouldn't have been a framing/subtext issue). While I don't believe she consciously meant that Rice was selfish, none of us escape our socialization. There's an unintended subtext to her remarks; one that I believe feminists and progressives should be aware of.
In 1992, the following was said about why the U.S. had not pressed onto Baghdad after the Gulf War:
"If we'd gone to Baghdad and got rid of Saddam Hussein - assuming we could have found him - we'd have to put a lot of forces in and run him to ground someplace. He would not have been easy to capture. Then you've got to put a new government in his place and then you're faced with the question of what kind of government are you going to establish in Iraq. Is it going to be a Kurdish government or a Shiite government or a Sunni government? How many forces are you going to have to leave there to keep it propped up, how many casualties are you going to take through the course of the operation?"
Who said it? Answer tomorrow.
I guess in the world of Dan Riehl a 40-hour work week means you work from 9 am on Monday until 1 am on Wednesday.
Right?
Well, you know, as someone (perhaps Benjamin Disraeli) once said, "There's lies. There's damned lies. And then there's statistics." Back in December, Gallup took a poll regarding American views on the media coverage of Iraq. Here's how the numbers broke down: 56% believe the media portrayal of Iraq is inaccurate. 41% believe it is accurate, and the remaining 3% have no opinion. Now, in fairness, that's not great news for the media, and this poll is meant to be a barometer of how Americans view media coverage of Iraq.
Compare and contrast what I'm going to write to what Don Surber wrote. Read both and ask yourselves what messages you get from both phrasings.
Me:
56% of Americans believe the media generally portray Iraq inaccurately.However, only 35% of Americans believe the media portray Iraq as worse than it really is.
Don Surber:
The Gallup Poll found 56% of Americans "believe that the news media's coverage of the situation in Iraq is generally inaccurate."Of that 56%, most (61%) think the media portray Iraq worse than it really is.
Looks like Bush is not the only one with a low approval rate.
The trick is that both phrasings state the exact truth, but in ways that will send different messages to most people.
Detailed breakdown of the poll results below the jump.
41% believe the media portray Iraq accurately
35% believe the media portray Iraq as worse than it really is
20% believe the media portray Iraq as better than it really is
3% have no opinion on the accuracy or inaccuracy of media coverage of Iraq
2% believe the media portray Iraq inaccurately, but have no opinion as to whether they portray it as better or worse than it really is
Sigh. Our own President, turning aside from tradition and appointing Zalmay Khalilzad, a Muslim, to be UN Ambassador. Whatever shall we do? If we don't do something about illegal immigrants soon, we'll just have more and more Muslim ambassadors! </snark>
Via Pam's House Blend. Pam also provides us with the Freeper reaction, which in large part should surprise no one. This gem is indicative: "Holy crap! Please forward all evidence you have that this man is a member of Al Qaeda or the Taliban to the President immediately! A grateful nation breathes a sigh of relief." (OK, it's possible that one is actual sarcasm directed at the racist Freepers. But how sad is it when you honestly can't be sure?)
Not content with warrantless wiretapping, President Bush has decided he can "construe" an exception to existing law and open our mail without a court order too.
The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions.That claim is contrary to existing law and contradicted the bill he had just signed, say experts who have reviewed it.
Cue the cries from Bush supporters about how you've got nothing to worry about unless you've got something to hide. Because governments never abuse their power or extend a law meant for one thing to entirely different things. Not to mention a little word like "principles." How many more civil rights does Bush expect us to sacrifice in the name of "security?" The only thing that keeps me hopeful is he doesn't realistically have the time to get a constitutional amendment passed to kill the 22nd amendment.
The word in question is "oppressed," and I do not think it means what Dr. Helen* thinks it means.
It seems like those with views other than liberal must wear the Scarlet R. Well, I will not hide any longer. If people want to call me a Republican, I will wear the label with pride with the R proudly displayed on my forehead whether it really fits or not, just to show my solidarity with those who are oppressed by such labels. Maybe you should too.
I'm not really sure how holding the executive branch and close to 50% of the legislative branch qualifies Republicans as being oppressed by the label Republican. Especially if they are, in fact, Republican. How are you oppressed by being called what you are? If you've registered for the Republican party, you're a Republican by your own volition.
As for those individuals who Dr. Helen assures us feel the need to apologize for having right-leaning views, well, actually, who are these people? I live in the bastion of "latte-swilling liberalism" known as Manhattan (why is everyone always hating on the latte anyway), and I have actually never heard anyone say "Oh, no, I am not really a Republican, I have other views etc." except when they're not, you know, Republicans and wish to clarify the matter. Much like Dr. Helen herself says that she isn't a Republican, but a right-leaning libertarian. She clearly wasn't apologizing by saying that. She was, I assume, stating her party affiliation or lack thereof. When people mistakenly refer to me as a Democrat, I will often clarify with a "Oh, no, I'm not a Democrat." This would not be me apologizing for being possibly one of the most socially liberal people I know, so much as my stating the verifiable fact that I am not registered as a Democrat. I have very purposely refused to register a party affiliation as a personal (admittedly minor) form of protest. [The day the Democrats want to pay more than lip service to women and POC is the day I might actually register as a Democrat.]
As for the concept that you're being oppressed by having to explain that you are not what someone has mistaken you for, really. Ludicrous. As a Jew in this country, I am not being oppressed. No, not even when someone mistakes me for Christian (a common occurrence). Is it annoying that many people just assume I'm Christian? Yes. Am I being oppressed? No. If being Jewish were limiting my access to education, housing, or jobs, then I would be oppressed. That is not happening, however. It sure as hell is not happening to actual or imagined Republicans either. Republicans and those with right-leaning views are not being oppressed.
Words have meaning. We're not in Looking Glass World.
*I see a fair number of progressive blogs refer to her as Dr. Mrs. Instapundit or Dr. Instawife or Dr. Mrs. Ole Perfesser or something like that. I really wish they'd stop. Agree with her politics or not, she is a separate individual from her husband. Nobody calls him Professor Dr. Helen. I'm sure it's possible to insult her by not diminishing her status as an actual, full-fledged human being in her own right.
Shorter Roy Moore: "The best way to uphold the Constitution is to do something unconstitutional."
I think we need to question Roy Moore's willingness to uphold the Constitution. It appears far more suspect.
Via Shakespeare's Sister.
If you work in the world of finance, as I do, there's a phrase that gets drummed into your brain. "You must avoid anything that is a conflict of interest or an apparent conflict of interest." What would constitute a conflict of interest is, I think, fairly obvious. Don't accept gifts that will sway your decision on a contract. An apparent conflict of interest is one where, even if it doesn't sway your decision, it could appear to a reasonable person like it might. So you don't accept gifts over some nominal limit from potential vendors at all.
None of what we're talking about is actually illegal. Just unethical. If you accept tickets to the World Series for you and your family from a potential vendor, you won't go to jail. You won't be charged with any crime at all. You may well be fired, but that isn't a legal punishment.
So when I read about the number of judicial candidates who donated money to Republicans in decision-making capacities while they were judicial candidates, the first phrase that pops into my mind is "apparent conflict of interest." It might even be an outright conflict of interest, but at a minimum, it is an apparent one. Judgeships shouldn't be up for sale, or even look like they're up for sale. I hear that too often they are rewards for patronage of different sorts, which is despicable. The judiciary is meant to be a check on the executive and legislative branches. If they're doled out as repayment, then what kind of check do we have? It's exactly this kind of behavior that enables the executive branch (read "George W. Bush") to think they can simply take whatever powers they want, the other branches of government be damned. If you're willing to simply ignore the legislature and have the judiciary in your pocket, why worry about anyone putting a stop to your power grab?
As citizens, we need to send a clear message that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. If you live in Ohio, Pennsylvania, or New York, here are the politicians you should be wary of: Senator George Voinovich, Senator Arlen Specter, Senator Rick Santorum, and Governor George Pataki. I left Senator Mike DeWine off the list, even though he is discussed in the Salon article, because it seems he returned all the money. You can't stop someone from making a contribution. You can return it. DeWine did the right thing, at least on this issue. Santorum is up for re-election this year. I hope his opponent makes this an issue. It looks like Santorum is going to lose regardless, but this should still be made an issue.
Specter isn't up for another four years, but don't buy his BS that "it's just not possible to know everybody" who donates to his campaigns. Of course it's not, but there aren't that many judicial candidates he's nominated. It's not that hard to scan through the database of contributors on a regular basis for their names and return any contributions. Specter also trots out the "but it doesn't actually sway my decisions" tripe (that's my paraphrase, not an exact quote). Even if that's true, it's still an apparent conflict of interest. It's called "ethics", Arlen. Look it up.
Oh, there's one more Republican politician who accepted contributions from judicial candidates - George W. Bush himself. It starts at the top.
Over at The Corner, a friend of K-Lo e-mails her the following about Jim Webb's book:
Race is over. Finished. Done. Webb is toast.Yes, it's only fiction, but that bit about the father and his naked son is so despicable that the sensible people in red Virginia will certainly "go home" and support Governor Allen.
I think Webb even loses some of the independents in Northern Virginia with these revelations.
Maybe you guys in Manhattan are desensitized to this filth, but the people of Roanoke, Lynchburg, Blacksburg, Fredericksburg, etc., aren't. And no way will these voters EVER accept the argument that it's only fiction.
So, let's do a check. Jim Webb writes a piece in a novel about an apparently common cultural practice in Vietnam that he observed while he was a Marine. Not something he made up. Something he witnessed that he felt was important to the context of the book he was writing. (Incidentally, John Cole notes that one of Webb's novels is recommended reading of the Marine Corps).
George Allen insults a man of color using the racist term "macaca". He professes a great fondness for the Confederate flag, even though he's not from the South originally. He has connections to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a racist group. Apparently there's something that K-Lo's friend the conservative activist thinks the people of "Roanoke, Lynchburg, Blacksburg, Fredericksburg, etc." are desensitized to.
Oh, but there's no Southern strategy. No, nothing to see here. Move right along.
Non-John Cole links via Radley Balko (although Radley Balko links via John Cole, so it's some kind of big circle).
Stumping for Republican candidates in the days leading up to the election, W. insists that the Democrats can't be trusted to control Congress because they have no cohesive plan for winning in Iraq. All you hear from Democrats is a mix of ideas and paraphrasing him that they'll cut and run before the job is over. An interesting position from a man who clearly has no plan himself. What exactly is his strategy for success in Iraq? If he has one, I'd like to hear it. Up until recently, it was stay the course, even though staying the course was getting us nowhere except deeper into the morass. Now he advocates flexibility and a series of benchmarks for gauging when it's safe to turn things over to the Iraqi government. Yet the Iraqi government publicly disagreed with W. this week over his policy and timetable for removing U.S. troops. They claim to be on the same page now, but that's just a public dog and pony show. I'm sure there are deep divisions, and how can W. have a plan if the Iraqi government doesn't support it? Even if he has a plan, it's been a miserable failure up until now. Can he truly be trusted as the person to lead us to victory? Wasn't he, after all, the one who claimed mission over when it was and is nowhere close to being over? Isn't he the one who's insisted on the same policy all these years even though it clearly was the wrong course?
I don't know what the right course of action is. Maybe the Democrats have competing visions for winning over there. Still, I'd like to see an alternate plan of action to the plan we've had up until now. Since the Republicans have flopped thus far, I'd like to see how a different party would handle the situation. The Democrats deserve the opportunity to come up with a cohesive strategy of their own, not that it would do much good anyway. Whatever approach they advocate won't have the support of the President, whatever legislation they pass will be vetoed with no possibility of override. We're stuck until a new President with a new vision comes into office. Will he or she have the answer? I don't know, but whatever happens, it would nice to see something new.
Unable to tell the difference between fictional characters and real teenagers.
Allah and Patterico actually get it almost right.
The latest big bombshell in the Webb-Allen race is that Webb wrote a novel containing a scene that depicts a man performing oral sex on a young boy.Let's stipulate that such practices are illegal and disgusting. However, this is a novel. All sorts of odd things happen in novels. Creative people need freedom to let their imaginations run wild without having people assuming that every fictional scene is an expression of their internal desires.
It's an odd little vignette, to be sure, but the other characters seem as mystified by it as the reader is. The story's about Vietnam; maybe he's describing some obscure cultural practice that he encountered there. Or, just maybe, he made it up. Have we actually reached the point where Senate seats now turn on the sex scandals of fictional characters?
But then Allah drags up something totally irrelevant and Patterico agrees:
If George Allen had written this book, not only would the left be going berserk, they'd be circulating lists of characters in his other books whom they suspect of being gay.
However, a commenter at Patterico and another blogger Allah links to seemingly can't tell the difference between a character in a novel and real Congressional pages.
Blogger Allah links to:
Its not a major scandal, by any stretch, since it doesn't appear as though he acted on any of the impulses that he wrote about in his novel, but if a few vulgar IMs can send the media into a major fit for nearly two weeks, and a stint at the Playboy party can become a running gag on The Daily Show, this deserves at least a lookover in a campaign commerical and a few "rescue" interviews, or at least some sort of new adjective attached to Jim Webb's name when he's mentioned on nighttime political stew shows, something right in the middle of a Foley and Ford, Jr.
Commenter at Patterico:
At such a critical point in our history for the campaign to be centered on such trash as a Congressman's salacious instant messages and another's even more lurid fiction (the boy was the son of the man BTW), boggles the mind. As a brilliant rocket scientist friend of mine keeps reminding me, half the voters have IQ's under 100.
They both seem to have missed the point. Totally. The issue over Foley's e-mail wasn't that they were vulgar or salacious. It's that they were sent to minors and were a form of sexual harassment. If Foley had sent them to an adult over whom he didn't have any power, NO SCANDAL! Get it. None.
Webb? Wrote a novel. That's why there's no scandal. There is no comparison between real teenagers and fictional characters, except in some fantasyland.
OK, it's not the entire GOP. But I needed a title.
Although I think a stopped clock is right more often than Jonah Goldberg, even he has to admit one of his readers has a point. Goldberg posts this e-mail he received:
So let me get this straight: It's an outrage when Michael J. Fox, an actual Parkinson's sufferer, films a political ad supporting a measure allowing stem cell research, but the fact that stem cell research opponents used a fake Jesus speaking in Jesus' language, gets no comment? Which side is being basely manipulative?
I can't remember which blog I saw this at, so I apologize to that blogger for the lack of credit and linkage ((although it's not as if a link from me would bring much in the way of traffic).
"Your looks are all that count, bitches."
"You ever see a picture of her back then? Whew," said John Spencer of Clinton's younger days."I don't know why Bill married her," he said of the Clintons, who celebrated their 31st anniversary this month.
Jackass. Speculation on the length of time until the non-apology apology of "I'm sorry if I offended anyone" comes?
UPDATE: No non-apology apology. No apology at all. A flat-out denial. Although Spencer's words are interesting. He denies using the word "ugly", although the Daily News reporter never put that word in any of the direct quotes he attributed to Spencer. He denies saying she had "millions of dollars" of plastic surgery. The Daily News reporter did put that in quotes, indicating it was something Spencer actually said. Spencer does say he talked about a lot of things back in the 60s [on the plane] and did say that Hillary Clinton looks good. He doesn't appear to deny saying "You ever see a picture of her back then? Whew. I don't know why Bill married her." So, is Spencer lying or is the Daily News reporter? Tune in later.
I suppose the easy answer is "because they breathe." How much lower could Drudge sink? He's blaming the Congressional pages for egging Mark Foley on.
You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him.
Because you have to remember, those of us who have seen some of the transcripts of these nasty instant messages. This was two ways, ladies and gentlemen. These kids were playing Foley for everything he was worth. Oh yeah. Oh, I haven't...they were talking about how many times they'd masturbated, how many times they'd done it with their girlfriends this weekend...all these things and these "innocent children." And this "poor" congressman sitting there typing, "oh am I going to get any," you know?
Can you believe anyone is seriously trying to pass that off? A 53-year-old Congressman, who is in a position of political authority, is being set up by high school students. How can anyone seriously put that forth as a defense? Foley had authority over these students. He also was instrumental in passing a law making his own behavior criminal. Yet, we're supposed to believe that he was being set up. He couldn't control himself in the face of those "wily" high school students. This is classic victim-blaming. It's also the classic excuse used by sexual predators. Even Foley isn't making himself out to be the victim here.
A former page sums up why sexual harassment laws are needed:
Loraditch says that some of the pages who "interacted" with Foley were hesitant to report his behavior because "members of Congress, they've got the power." Many of the pages were hoping for careers in politics and feared Foley might seek retribution.
That's exactly why Foley's behavior was coercive. That's exactly why it's ludicrous that he was the victim, rather than the minors he was soliciting. Had they been adults, his behavior would still have been wrong. The fact that they were minors makes it even worse.
As for Tony Snow's nonsense about the only thing House leadership having to go on being some "overly friendly e-mails", please. Hi, Tony? When a 53-year-old asks a 16-year-old non-relative for pictures of himself, total red flag. That's enough to call for an investigation. No one's saying you take action against the man on the basis of that evidence alone. You do, however, investigate. You talk to the pages to see if anything else has happened. You look at the man's computer records. You don't just brush it aside and say "Well, we didn't know anything else." You should have asked. Not you specifically, but Denny Hastert. He doesn't remember anyone telling him? Too bad, so sad. That's his job. His job is not to ignore a classic sign of sexual predatorship, thus putting other minors at risk. Besides, if Loraditch above is to be believed, and I see no reason why he's not, there were members of the House who knew of this behavior 5 years ago. 5 years. Surely long enough to have done a proper investigation and protected the minors working for Congress.
UPDATE: Add Bob Beckel to this list. According to Ace of Spades HQ, a Democratic strategist named Bob Beckel suggested on Hannity & Colmes that Foley's sexual orientation should have "raised questions" about the e-mails. I don't watch Hannity & Colmes and couldn't find a video or transcript to link to, but I'm going to assume it's true. In which case, Beckel is full of BS too. The fact that Foley is gay should not have raised any questions about the e-mails. The fact that he was an adult asking a non-related minor for pictures should have. If he had asked the same question of a female page, the same red flags should have been raised. Mr. Beckel, if you believe otherwise, you're a homophobe.
Not everything revolves around American politics. Especially since the people suffering the worst of this are the Brits. I have no clue what putting lots of Brits through massive amounts of trouble as they're about to go on their summer holidays has to do with Joe Lieberman. Wouldn't the conspiracy theory make more sense if Americans were the ones being most affected? Only, they're not. Honestly? I don't think Tony Blair, from his holidays, would majorly disrupt British air travel just for George Bush and Joe Lieberman. Especially when Bush could have accomplished everything Aravosis is accusing him of (and more) by claiming the plot was going to take place from an American airport. Whether or not it has anything to do with al Qaeda remains to be seen. And if he wants to question the red alert, fine. But It's the Brits who arrested the plotters, and the track record Aravosis mentions doesn't belong to the Brits. Mentioning Jean Charles de Menezes would have made much more sense. But that was just one extremely unfortunate mistake, and people really did bomb the London Underground two weeks prior to that, and unexploded bombs had been discovered one day prior.
Let me just say that as someone who had to fly out of London yesterday and who rearranged my flight home on Sunday to go direct from Dublin rather than through Heathrow, I was able to escape the vast majority of travel restrictions by doing that. Flying from Heathrow to Dublin yesterday, I could only carry my passport and wallet on the airplane in a clear plastic bag. When I fly back to the US from Dublin tomorrow, I'll be able to carry on everything I normally would except liquids and gels. Major difference. So if someone needs a conspiracy theory, concoct one about Tony Blair (as some Brits already have). At least it would fit what happened better.
Long-time blogger and regular reader Rick DeMent sends a link to this incredible account of a friend's experiences in Mumbai. To sound way bloggerish, read the whole thing.
I haven't yet waded into the deep waters of the New York Times Travel section posting photos of the vacation homes of Cheney and Rumsfeld because, pretty much, I found all the outrage idiotic. I mean, really. From Michelle Malkin (Google it if you want to read the original) after she admits that Rumsfeld cleared the publication of the photos.
"What news value and journalistic end was served by publishing the Cheney/Rumsfeld vacation home piece and the accompanying photo? 'Because Rumsfeld gave permission' may cut it with the moonbats and fairweather privocrats. Not with me."
Let me attempt to answer her question. No news value and journalistic end was served by publishing this crap. There is only one value that was - it is the same value that is served by publishing pictures of the child of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. The one I like to call "making money".
Let's face it. A lot of people are fascinated by "how the other half lives". They love to read about the rich and famous. This explains the amazing popularity of dreck like "People" and "Us". I realize this may come as a shock to many, but Cheney and Rumsfeld are both - wait for it - rich and famous. This is not the first time puff pieces about their vacation homes have been published. With any luck, if anything good can come out of this entire stupid episode, it will be the last. I would personally be thrilled if magazines and travel sections of newspapers would stop printing "Look at the lovely home of XYZ famous person!" articles.
But they won't. So brace yourself to c
