"I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less."
12 October 2006Quote of the weekTerry Michael, on the question of whether House Speaker Dennis Hastert should step down:
Call me an old-fashioned little-"d" democrat, but I'm willing to leave moral and ethical judgments about an official's personal conduct to the wisdom of crowds — the electorate, in this case.
Through their democratically selected Republican representatives, let the citizenry decide whether Hastert should stay or go. In fact, I wish Mr. Foley had chosen to be judged by the people of his district in Florida, rather than hide behind a smarmy, lawyerly "I was drunk and molested" defense. A Democrat involved in a page-related sex scandal a few decades ago, gay Congressman Gerry Studds, stood before his voters and was repeatedly returned to Congress. His straight Republican colleague, Dan Crane, who had sex with a female page, was fired immediately by those who had sent him to Washington. Gay Democratic Congressman Barney Frank and gay Republican Congressman Jim Kolbe both won approval of their constituents after they were outed while in office. In all those cases, a crowd casting ballots probably showed more wisdom than some House "ethics" committee or "independent" counsel could ever muster. And who's to blame for all this foofaraw, anyway?
The problem Mr. Hastert is facing is not ABC News or liberal Democrats. It's a significant number of [his] party's base voters, who appear to despise gays and lesbians, and who demand that the party accept their bias as a legitimate "religious" belief. And it's also many — I think a majority — of those pesky voters in the center, who conclude Republicans are more than a little bit intolerant and are being a tad bit hypocritical.
As a Democrat, albeit a libertarian Democrat (there are about six of us), I side with the view that men are indeed canines, but it's a lot more important for congressmen to decide whether to send 18-year-olds to their deaths in the desert than it is to monitor whether dirty old men are sending "what are you wearing" instant messages to 16-year-olds at the beginning of the sex-sophisticated 21st Century. I'd dispute that "sex-sophistication" business — I submit that we're no closer to understanding all of its ramifications now than we were when Delilah gave Samson a buzz cut — but otherwise, I bark in general assent. And speaking of Mr Foley, Nolan Clay of the Oklahoman said this with a straight (I think) face:
Foley, a Florida Republican, quit after ABC News confronted him about lurid messages sent over the Internet to teenage, former male pages.
"Former" male pages? What, are they female now? Or somewhere in between? If that's the case, "lurid" doesn't even begin to scratch the surface, as it were. (Daily Pundit's Bill Quick caught this.) Posted at 6:17 AM to QOTWThe problem Mr. Hastert is facing is not ABC News or liberal Democrats. It's a significant number of [his] party's base voters, who appear to despise gays and lesbians, and who demand that the party accept their bias as a legitimate "religious" belief. Apparently, the conventional wisdom sometimes gets it wrong. Shocking, I know. Posted by: McGehee at 8:21 AM on 12 October 2006A lot of this depends on what your definition of "significant" is. I don't know a lot of Republicans who "despise gays and lesbians," and I'll say so if anyone asks; on the other hand, I'm not going to claim that such creatures don't exist, either. What I love is that so many of these guys who get caught with their hands in the cookie jar one way or another get sent to 'ethics' or 'sensitivity' classes. Yeah, we know he's ethical now - here's the diploma that proves it. Really, what this training tends to do is teach scoundrels the right buzzwords to toss off so they don't wind up on the hook next time. No one respects the voters, including the voters themselves. Of course, what should happen is that bad pols should be VOTED out. That sends the best message of all. Instead, we get tossed ideas like term limits, as if the masses stood en masse and shouted 'Save us from ourselves! Stop us, before we vote for him again!' I've always felt we already get the representation we deserve. If your congressman is stuffing wads of ill-gotten cash in his trousers, well, I agree that's bad. On the other hand, you might be living next door to Ken Lay (OK, not anymore) or Jeff Skilling, who make his shady dealings look comparatively honest. Thieves, scoundrels, axe-murderers, child molesters, layabouts and drug dealers deserve representatives chosen from among their peers just like anyone else. None of us can realistically expect Ivory purity in government as long as we live in such a corrupt society. Posted by: Mister Snitch! at 12:09 PM on 12 October 2006The only term limits that will work, I think, are those that are limited to one term: at least the clods won't spend half (and up) their time in office planning their re-election campaigns. If Terry Michael wants to see something that'll resonate with the kind of people he calls GOP "base voters," he might want to have a look at this. One needn't "despise gays and lesbians" to wonder about a would-be Speaker who marches in a parade to honor an avowed advocate of legalizing pedophilia. Posted by: McGehee at 8:52 AM on 13 October 2006 |