Drudge, Rush, WSJ: Foley crime is Dems fault!

Many of the leading voices of the right-wing are throwing out their common sense in their attempt to deflect blame away from their leaders over their loathesome dereliction of duty in protecting American high-schoolers from the sexual predator Mark Foley (R-Fla).

Digby has captured a couple of clear examples of standard plays from the Republican playbook intended to shift blame. First up is Drudge:

Clip #1: And if anything, these kids are less innocent -- these 16 and 17 year-old beasts...and I've seen what they're doing on YouTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet -- oh yeah -- you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. 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. We haven't got the whole story on this.

Clip #2: You could say "well Drudge, it's abuse of power, a congressman abusing these impressionable, young 17 year-old beasts, talking about their sex lives with a grown man, on the internet." 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?

To paraphrase Drudge, the kids propositioned by Foley are "beasts" and "their pop culture" is responsible. They led Foley on, they wanted it, and they brought it on themselves. No word on whether Drudge also thinks sexy clothing had anything to do with the fact that Foley couldn't tell a tenth-grader from an 18 year-old.

Not to be outdone, Rush Limbaugh manages to blame it all on the Democrats who, according to Rush,  of course could care less about homosexuals propositioning tenth-graders. We Democrats feel in our crotches it was ok and we condone it. The only reason Democrats are complaining is not because they care about kids, it's because of politics.

LIMBAUGH: I'm just thinking out loud here. What if somebody got to the page and said, you know, we want you to set Foley up. We need to do a little titillating thing here. Keep it and save it and so forth. How would you get a kid to do that? Yeah, who knows? You threaten him or pay him. There's any number of ways given the kind of people that we're dealing with and talking about here.

Now, folks, I don't want to be misunderstood here. I'm not trying to mount any kind of a defense. That's a bad word. I'm not trying to get into a defense of what Mark Foley did. Please don't misunderstand. I'm just telling you that the -- the -- the orgy and the orgasm that has been taking place in the media since Friday and with the Democrats is -- it's all coordinated, and it's all -- it's all oriented toward the election. There's no concern about the kid -- no concern about the children.

There is -- there is -- there's not even any real problem with what Foley did, as we've discussed. In their hearts and minds and their crotches, they don't have any problem with what Foley did. They've defended it over the -- over the years.

Of course, Democrats do not defend the sexual exploitation or propositioning of minors. Never have. But Rush has a problem here. How do you defend a bunch of Republican politicos who sheltered a sexual predator? You've got to make it the other guys fault. Republicans couldn't possibly be responsible for something so base, so disgusting, so sexually avaricious could they? No way. That's the stereotype that is supposed to describe Democrats and come hell or high water they desperately need to keep that stereotype breathing through November. So they lie and they smear. Nothing new here.

Perhaps they can blame it on Clinton? Sure! It's Clintons fault for lowering standards and over-sexualizing our culture! That won't wash? Ok .... it's the fault of the Democrats for coddling homosexuals! Over at TPM Josh Marshall quotes the Wall Street Journal:

But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

Right. The gay-bashing party was afraid to offend gays.

The excuses keep coming but their lameness has been notable. What they need to realize is that you simply cannot defend to American parents of any political persuasion the despicable actions of the Republican House leadership (Hastert, Reynolds, Shimkus) in allowing the sexual predator Foley to continue his attempts to copulate with high school boys. Every parent has had to leave their children in the care of others and every parent expects those caretakers will truly care for our kids. Finding out that high elected Republicans abused that trust and put their own political interest above the welfare of the children in their care is guaranteed to enrage all but the most jaded parents or most ardent Republicans. Most parents will have none of their pathetic excuses and will harshly judge them for their poor morals and low character. When Drudge and Rush and the WSJ try to defend Foley or his enablers they will surely lose stature by trying to defend the indefensible for political reasons.

To win this war of words Democrats need only continue pointing out that the Republicans are scurrying like rats to keep from taking personal responsibility for their own words and actions. Blaming others for your own faults is certainly not indicative of good moral character. Even worse, they sheltered a sexual predator of high-school boys to protect their own positions of power. As a parent I can think of few greater crimes than for someone I trust to shelter and protect my children to abuse that trust. Americans won't stand for that and well they should not.



Display:


Re: Drudge, Rush, WSJ: Foley crime is Dems fault! (none / 0)

Will their be an episode on Law and Order relating to The Mark Foley Scandal.


by CMBurns on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 04:52:30 PM EST

Re: Drudge, Rush, WSJ: Foley crime is Dems fault! (none / 0)

Will their be an episode on Law and Order relating to The Mark Foley Scandal.

It wouldn't be a shock if they did an episode. Hard to say if you'd get a liberal or conservative slant though. You might see a world-wise 16 year-old on the make who has political ambitions and decides to seduce a powerful Congressman to further his rise. Wouldn't be the first time L & O has put a rightward spin on things they rip from the headlines.


by Curt Matlock on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 07:18:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Drudge, Rush, WSJ: Foley crime is Dems fault! (3.00 / 0)

I actually don't consider going after a 17 year old guy in itsef as pedophilia(let's face it, if he were a hot female teacher, people would be high fiving the 16-17 yr olds). It is probably a perversion of some sort(as opposed to being a pedo) that he seems to favor the younger men at his age.  Even worse what he is contemplating is illegal  if one of those guys ever took the next step with him.
Drudge does have a minor point that a 16 year old guy is hardly an innocent baby.  I know I would have felt like I had the upperhand if an old guy came on to me when I was 16 because I was the type who would probably mercilessly make fun of him. I probably would share the IMs with other people to ridicule the senator. But that's about all I will agree with him on.

OK devil's advacate mode over.

I agree with the gist of whaat Curt is saying. It is hilarious how the right wingers REFUSE to take any freaking responsiblity for ANYTHING. These guys are totally shameless. Their followers are shameless. I have not heard any outrage from right wingers over this isI live in fucking Georiga and there was so much talk here about how Clinton was an embarassment. How he LIED. How his minions slandered Monica(they did have a point there as the Clintonites were shameful in slandering a needy insecure woman like Monica). But now, unlike some of their republicans who are deafening in their silence, they got the audacity to gfight back.Fuck you rightwingers. If you bastards are so fucking aching to fight every damn second, go to fuckign IRaq and get rid of your frustrations there.  

I am sick of these sanctimonious rightwing assholes who have shifting goalposts for morality and what is right and what is wrong. These 16 or 17 year old guys, while not as childlike as some of us like to portraay them to be, they are still young, and were entrusted into the care of a UNITED STATES SENATOR.   THat should fucking mean something. I see this as a serious sexual harassment type issue because regardless of what I said earlier, they are young people who may lack the strength to do against the office of a senator if they got uncomfortable with His Perviness.
These bastards hijacked the country's agenda in the 90s by spending so much time and money in going after Clinton's blowjob thing from a mid 20 something woman. And now, they want to blame the 16 year old pages? Un-pervy-believable!

Anyone knows where Mr. Morality Lieberman is when all this is going on? How come he is not out there lecturing the republicans on how they are letting the people down with condoning such behavior?

My neighbors put up a Ralph Reed sign even after all the exposes on him a few months ago. It really affected me because I consider them to be such nice helpful people. But how do they rationalize putting up a Ralph Reed sign which is not just a vote for him, but a strong endorsement of his overall career. Seriously, are these morons in severe denial?

Some clients came to our office and over lunch. Silly me, when they brought up the New Orleans issue, I expected some liberal talk from them considering they were software guys from Seattle.Damn, they were just blaming everything on the local governments for Katrina. THey even mentioned how they heard that the city had enough bonds to fund the levees without any help from the federal government andf they blew the funding on wasteful stuff.

Aargh. I can't stand these people anymore.


by Pravin on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 05:50:46 PM EST

Re: Drudge, Rush, WSJ: Foley crime is Dems fault! (3.00 / 1)

I actually don't consider going after a 17 year old guy in itsef as pedophilia.

I don't consider it pedophilia either but I think you are wrong to grant Drudge that the kid is not an innocent. For sure, tenth-graders think they understand the world and think they can handle sex but the reality is they are easy marks for manipulation. A predator like Foley does have enough empathy to be able to read them and work them until he creates the opening he is looking for. I'm sure he's come on to many, many young men some of which no doubt were in far over their heads.

These bastards hijacked the country's agenda in the 90s by spending so much time and money in going after Clinton's blowjob thing from a mid 20 something woman. And now, they want to blame the 16 year old pages? Un-pervy-believable!

My neighbors put up a Ralph Reed sign even after all the exposes on him a few months ago. It really affected me because I consider them to be such nice helpful people. But how do they rationalize putting up a Ralph Reed sign which is not just a vote for him, but a strong endorsement of his overall career. Seriously, are these morons in severe denial?

It's going to be tough for many right-wingers who still buy into the heroic nature of Republican leaders to digest this latest incident. Just as with your neighbor perhaps, they have alot invested emotionally in trusting Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the righteous core of the Republican leadership.  Ralph Reed has been proven to be a scumbag to anyone who wants to look at his dealings, but it's far easier for true believers to keep their certainty by accepting at face value the first excuse offered. From that point on they just ignore everything else. If they see a bad headline they move on. So yes, I think denial plays a big part in the fact that Bush still has 40% or so of America ready to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Rush, Drudge and the rest of the propaganda machine exploit this by offering up excuse after excuse until one sticks. Generally, they prefer excuses which also attack Democrats and liberals in the process. As in this case, Drudge and Limbaugh don't mind lying about the opposition and constantly mischaracterize what liberals think along with flat-out lying about the past.

You have my sympathies for having to live so close to a Ralph Reed sign. He's got to be in the top five of my personal can't stand list. Orrin Hatch and Rush Limbaugh are on that short-list as well as as usual, Rush comes through again.


by Curt Matlock on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 07:46:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.