Taking Responsibility, and Other Thoughts

This is how the Republicans do it:

So far the Foley scandal has been:

Nancy Pelosi's fault

George Soros' fault

A "Democratic operative's" fault

CREW's fault

The gay agenda's fault

Gerry Studds' fault

Barney Frank's fault

The media's fault

Fordham's fault

The pages' fault

According to Reynolds, it's Hastert's fault
Accordingt o Hastert, it's Reynolds' fault

Oh, right -- almost forgot: it's Bill Clinton's fault.


I just went through the comments at Ann Althouse's Foley post -- or, actually, her "Should Hastert Resign?" post. Interesting, the assumptions there: Democrats have had the information for months but waited until five weeks before the election to release it (one week would have made more sense); "Unlike Liberals and Democrats, we will not flush our values down a toilet so that we can maintain a death-grip on the reins of power. We are decent, we have values, and we will clean our own house" (that one's hysterical -- total absence of any discernible contact with reality); Hastert should resign, not because of any possible cover-up, but because he hasn't accomplished very much as Speaker; there's a lot of taking "theoretical" for "real," but of course, that all falls back into the "Democrats are equally culpable because they must have known" mantra; there's even one commenter who obviously doesn't get the point at all: "I continue to wait for Democrats to explain what exactly it is that they think is so scandalous about two males over the age of consent engaging in apparently-consensual sexually licentious behaviour. Conservatives have standing to criticize Foley's conduct; liberals thus far do not.".

I'm not making this up.

A lot of those comments are just echoing the Republican talking points (which only serves to support my contention that Libertarians = "Conservatives" -- cue the air quotes), nicely summarized by Glenn Greenwald.

Internalized Something:

This, from the Wall Street Journal, and my response as submitted to WSJ:

In regard to Daniel Henninger's statement: "Where does post-modern American ethics place Mark Foley's homosexuality on a scale of 1 to 10 - a 1 being just another gay guy and a 10 being a compulsive, predatory sex offender?":

I have to take exception to the underlying assumption that equates Mark Foley's sexual orientation with his predatory behavior. One might as well ask "Where does postmodern American ethics place Clarence Thomas' heterosexuality on a scale of 1 to 10 - a 1 being just another straight guy and a 10 being a compulsive, predatory sex offender?"

Chew on that one for a bit, see how it tastes.

Even a minor amount of research would quickly dispel the idea that gay men are more prone to predatory behavior than straight men -- in fact, it would demonstrate the opposite. (Unless, of course, you are relying on the "research" of such as Paul Cameron of the American Family Institute, which has no credibility outside of Agape Press.) While I realize that this is the horse being flogged by groups such as Focus on the Family and the American Family Association, groups never noted for factual accuracy, it's a dead horse, nevertheless.

If you're really looking for an explanation for why the Foley scandal is dominating the news, you might consider the ramifications of a sex scandal involving a gay Republican Congressman in a party that draws its electoral strength from the most rigidly anti-gay segment of the American population. If you want to blame a cultural phenomenon, blame the corporate culture of hypocrisy, government version.

I also find it instructive that Henninger's comments appeared in the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. How odd that a newspaper that obsessed compulsively over the sexual pecadilloes of a Democratic President could reflect so much distress that we are wasting time on the objectively more heinous activities of a Republican Congressman and a probable cover-up by the Republican leadership.

I don't know whether Mr. Henninger's use of the equation of homosexuality with predatory behavior is deliberate or just an automatic anti-gay bias. Either way, it's insulting, malicious, and irresponsible.


Gay Republicans:

The idea that gays should stay in the Republican party to work for "change from within" stumbles on one major issue, as far as I can see: how effective can you be if you're in the closet? I think if gay Republican staffers and MOCs start coming out, then we might start to see some shift in the party line. Not until.

Granted, in a party that draws its main support from homophobes, that could be a problem.

We have enough testimony from gay Democrats who have come out -- Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, James McGreevey -- about the damage that being in the closet does to your emotional stability.

For what's going on in Republican gaydom now, see this, from NYT.

This quote, from the article, only demonstrates one thing:

Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida who served with Mr. Foley, said, “If you’re a gay Republican, you have to act like a Republican.” Mr. Scarborough, who is now the host of “Scarborough Country” on MSNBC, said “acting like a Republican” entailed going out on the campaign trail “talking about guns, chewing tobacco and riding around in a pickup truck.”

Joe Scarborough is an idiot -- or at least, he knows diddlysqat about gays.

Actually, I'd like to see a Republican -- any Republican, gay, straight, bi, whatever -- with the balls to stand up and say that Foley's sexual orientation is irrelevant.


On Elections in General:

I like this idea from Atrios:

In a year when incumbents are feeling nice and safe there's plenty of money to throw around to challenge incumbents and try to win open seats. But in a year when the incumbents start fearing for the jobs the money is going to start flowing to them.

And, yes, yet another reason why it's not so crazy to run candidates everywhere. It can really help to suck all of the money out of the system.

Keep 'em poor.