« Deep in the Art of Texas | Main | Classy, but Also Stupid »
October 5, 2006
An Impossible Standard
So Rep Foley appears, it turns out, to have sent sexually suggestive IM's not to a minor, nor to a person of the age of consent, but to an 18 year old. Foley is still a big bucket of sleaze, of course, for using his position of power in an attempt to pressure young people into having sex with him against their better judgements. And it is a good thing that he resigned. But it does make me wonder: can more than ten people in the House and Senate survive a standard that high? Do we have that many elected representatives who do not use their positions of power for gaining more power, more money, or more personal perquisites — more often than not using public money and property to do so? Have we so easily forgotten Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Cynthia McKinney, Gerry Studds (all Democrats) or for that matter the various and sundry Republicans who have behaved just as badly? Can any person who seeks the power and prestige of elected office in the US stand up under such a standard of review?
I say we apply that standard, broadly and immediately. Because the truth is, a quick look at our laws and the behavior of our elected representatives indicates that the number of representatives who deserve to remain in office is statistically indistinct from zero. Of course, instead, we keep electing these slimeballs, as Massachusetts seems to be ready to do.
(Prediction, though: this standard can only, in a politically realistic sense, be applied to Republicans. Anyone attempting to smear a closeted (but widely known) gay Democrat acting sleazy with the Congressional pages would have their character assassinated and reputation ruined. Being called a homophobe would be the mildest approbation applied, and newspapers would not be filled with inaccurate and damning details of the conduct, but inaccurate and exculpatory denials of the conduct. The elected Republicans are sleaze with a sense of shame. The elected Democrats are sleaze with no sense of shame.)
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/2335
Comments
Even today, watching about 15 minutes of CNN Headline News, they used the terms "underage" and "young boy" in describing the page. Never let the facts interfere with your story template, huh?
While Foley's use of his position of authority and the obvious unequal status between him and the page is disgusting and good riddance to him, I think the reaction would have been much different had the initial (and current) story reported that the page is 18.
After all, he did far less than Bill Clinton vis-a-vis Monica Liewinski (sp?). Now that it's known that the page is not "underage", why is Foley's behavior such a big deal? I mean, in the Clinton scandal, it wasn't that big a deal. Everyone does it. It's two adults. And anyway it's all about sex, which oral sex isn't don't you know? But IM's are? MoveOn people!
I do wonder if this would be treated differently if the page was an 18 year old female, or if it was a female representative with an 18 year old male page.
Sadly, I already know it would be treated differently if Foley was a Democrat, regardless of the sexes of the parties involved.
Posted by: Brian Medcalf at October 5, 2006 8:09 PM