It's Time To Go
By Erick Posted in 2006 — Comments (31) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yesterday, I was privately telling the contributors that I had received several phone calls from people on Capitol Hill informing me that GOP Members of Congress had actively begun plotting to throw the Speaker under the bus should the GOP somehow manage to keep control of Congress.
This morning, a baker's dozen of staffers had all emailed me the same article, found here. It's the editorial in the Washington Times entitled "Resign, Mr. Speaker." (See Gerry's take here.)
Let's be clear -- now is not the time to have a leadership struggle. We're five weeks from an election that isn't looking very good. But, should the GOP somehow be able to keep the House in Republican hands (and Lord I hope they can!), the Speaker must go when the House returns.
Right now, however, we must fight. We must fight like our lives depend on it. Make no mistake, the timing of the Foley allegations were not designed to persuade swing voters to vote Democrat. They allegations were designed to suppress the GOP turnout. We must not let the Democrats be successful at this.
While we know the GOP is far from perfect and, under Denny Hastert's recent leadership, has been a disappointment, we know the Democrats would cut all funding from Iraq, unleash investigative hordes on the President, and block all tax reforms and social security reforms.
Now is not the time to get comfortable with the notion of Speaker Pelosi. Now is the time to fight. Call your local GOP candidate. Walk neighborhoods and work phone banks. And then contribute cold hard cash to some good Republicans who need your help.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | While We're All Dwelling On Foley — Comments (51) »
It's Time To Go 31 Comments (0 topical, 31 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
What value are we compromising by letting Hastert finish out this Congress?
The fact is, the national Democrats as constituted today will call us the gay-bashing, planet-raping, woman-hating, principle-ignoring but theocratic anyway, war-loving, new incarnation of the KKK no matter what we do. And they'll make up ways to demonstrate it whether we toss Hastert now, keep him until January, or wait another two or four years before doing so.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
What value are we compromising by letting Hastert finish out this Congress?
Are you serious? You might want to read Gerry Daly's comment about what Hastert should have done for some moral clarity, since yours seems to be uncharacteristically absent at the moment:
How about 1) refer the matter to the committee charged with oversight of the Page program, and 2) perform due diligence by asking other Pages what they knew-- points made in the Washington Times editorial.
The biggest problem for Hastert is that, after the William Jefferson kerfuffle broke, he took a position that looked like he was all for protecting Congressmen from accountability. With the Foley fiasco, that is now looking like it may be a pattern.
Moral leadership, due diligence, and protecting young teenagers entrusted to the care of the House from ANY potential threat. Those are the values that have been compromised.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
The American public is not foolish. They reelected Republicans to Congress many times when the elites claimed change was supposed to be in the air. The American people know this was an isolated incident and with a few changes in the page program, possibly in leadership, the matter is over. Think about how many sordid, sick scandals Democrats were involved in during years they had power.
The Democrats chose to politicize what is a very sensitive matter. The public will see which party actually cares about protecting kids, which has a record of protecting kids, and which suddenly feigns morality just in time to win an election they were on their way to facing a rout in.
Democrats stand for nothing. Their entire line of campaign is 'vote for me, I'm not Bush!' That is why they will fail again this year as they have failed time and time and time again.
Democrats stand for nothing. Their entire line of campaign is 'vote for me, I'm not Bush!'
increasingly, it seems that the Republican platform is, "vote for us, we aren't Democrats."
Really, neither portrayal is fair.
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I dont have any real dog in this hunt. I am not a democrat and frankly if the dems take both chambers I will be less pleased than if they took just one (either one - though my preference is that the dems run teh senate and the gop run the house, and term limits on the latter but not the former.)
--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism
But your sig marks you a pragmatic progressive, and very far from home here at RS.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I'm not saying "go away, troll" or something like that. He (?) is the one who brought up his status, heh.
I just get annoyed when people come here and play that "Well we can say the same thing about you" routine when it achieves nothing, because it proves nothing. Anyone can and does say anything in politics, after all, if you look around enough.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
It's not like the democrats don't do that too.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
it will not be because of Foley, but because the Republicans did not listen to or help their conservative base. The Republicans did not act to stop illegal immigration (which the base wanted) and they really haven't done anything to help the majority of the base on the tax side (the AMT needs fixing and affects many more people than the cap gains tax cuts or estate tax reform ever will). Instead, they chose to play politics and their arrogance/indifference may lead to a Democrat led Congress.
I think this move by the Washington Times was totally irresponsible. It's as though they want to see a defeat. If Hastert needs to go, have the fight after the election. Now is the time to win elections. Just two weeks ago, Erick reported that Rove was telling people that Republicans would retain control. Now, Erick reports the mood is not good about retaining the House and the Senate. Tony Blankley should be ashamed of himself for this.
The number one thing the democrats know how to do is to get us to cut each other up.
That people like Blankley or the Captain would rather sell out this nation over a friggin' drunk pervert congressman who was forced to resign as soon as the facts emerged over his perversion is ridiculous.
The democrats still have cold cash JEfferson in office, and he is likely to be re-elected. Menedez in NJ is on record as a crook. He is going to likely get re-elected. Clinton did not just talk trash with interns, did he? Studds screwed a boy in the halls of Congress and told Congress to flip off - and he stayed in power until he was feeling like retiring years later. Murtha is an olde crook, the DNC covered it up for him, and he gets to declare defeat and trash our troops.
We are being played for fools. The dems know that in our feeble-mindedness, all they have to do is coverup and protect their own and let us tear ourselves apart over what.......dirty instant messages? Messages that someone saved for years to drop out now?
What a load of pap.
I don't like Hastert since he cravenly went after the Ports Deal, and I don't like him over his obtuseness to cover for Jefferson.
BUt I will not toss him under the bus so Pelosi can sell out our country in this war, defund it, put our troops in harm's way and start the DNC job of censoring the internet.
We have a good President. He ahs led us well in a tough war against foreign enemies and domestic seditious twits.
Now because of an obvious blatant planned October surprise we sell him and this country out to a bunch of American hating lefties?
I think not.
You make a good point citing that Rep Jefferson is still sitting in his Congressional seat. That, as well as all the other page-sex examples, really illustrates how the Democrats approach these questions as compared to Republicans. We can take pride in our higher moral standards. We also, however, need to remind ourselves that these standards are a strength, not a weakness, and we ought not let the degenerate Democrats and liberal media hang us with our own rope. They certainly wouldn't dream of taking the type of action that Foley, to his credit, did by resigning. Heck, even Duke Cunningham bawled his eyes out and begged for forgiveness. That shows some character or at least recognition of sins. That counts for something. Democrats don't even get that right.
When I read the op-ed on Hastert, I found myself supportive of replacing him not for this specific problem, but for the totality of his awful job performance. I think this is the straw that breaks the wrestler's back. Time for a change-up!
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Alan Greenspan
Do what the enemy expects or wants.
We are being had by the dhimmicrats.
We need to focus on one thing, and one thing only:
Winning the war.
All else is a waste of time.
Since very little the Medicrats have thrown at us have really depressed GOP voter turnout intentions (despite much wailing on all sides here and at other "red" sites), this is a redux of the DUI story in 2000. We all know what that did to reducing religious conservative turnout and the results not only in teh Prez race that year, but downticket races like Senate and House. Also, this will be used by the Malkin types who actually want to have conservatives sit out and lose "to send a message" as their justification for stabbing us in the back.
I sincerely hope most of the base sees this stunt by the Mediacrats for what it is.
Sitting out is a vote for KOS.
When has Malkin endorsed sitting out?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
has constantly ripped the leadership and used the "I'm not getting out the pompoms" line a bunch in the last year. Also, since she has not been critical of others in the "sit this one out crowd" illustrates she at least is sympathetic to them.
Sitting out is a vote for KOS.
So your use of her name with the sit-out crowd is fake, but accurate?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
When Democrat dirty tricksters pull black bag operations that involve first mysteriously obtaining then covering up (until the opportune moment) evidence of possible sexual exploitation of congressional pages (all for the purpose of winning election so they can sabotage the war effort), why do some people ostensibly on our side respond by getting mad at REPUBLICANS?
I can only hope that conservative VOTERS in the end will have more sense than this; otherwise we will suffer (and DESERVE to suffer) unspeakable tragedy as Democrats throw wide the gate to terrorism.
But that's OK; Democrats have a PLAN for what to do when the bodies begin to pile up like cord wood.
Blame us.
Well, if we let them win the 2006 election because of this or any other stupid "October Surprise", you know what?
Democrats will be RIGHT! It WILL be OUR fault!
As for me, I am even more willing to crawl over broken glass to vote Republican straight down the line because as far as I'm concerned with very few exceptions (Joe Lieberman) a vote for a Democrat, a vote for a third party candidate, or a non-vote is going to be an act of treason.
Mark Foley is pond scum but compared to those who are using his actions in order to ooze their way into power, he's a saint!
What are you smoking man?
Have you read the emails and IMs this sicko sent to those kids? That might provide a clue as why folks are so mad about this.
As the age of consent in FL is apparently 18, he may very well be brought up on charges. Are you still going to be defending him then? Will it still be the Dems fault? I think I already know the answer. It's ALWAYS the Dems fault right?
So much for the GOP standing for family values and personal responsibility. It's so much easier to pass the blame across the aisle.
Politics is a dirty nasty business. But in no way, shape, or form, does it compare to what Foley has been doing.
By your logic, our GOP representatives can be pedophiles, rapists, murderers, druggies, alcoholics...whatever....it doesn't matter, as long as they vote along party lines. I think you will find that position rather lonely.
No one here should be trying to defend Foley, but let's look at what Hastert actually did before throwing him under the bus. Apparently, he didn't know about the Instant Messages until last Friday, even though someone knew about them for three years (see Mark Levin's article in National Review)
http://levin.nationalreview.com/
Hastert, as soon as he found out, demanded that Foley resign, or else be expelled from the House. What more could he do?
The present scandal notwithstanding, the GOP is the party of moral righteousness...those that break the law ARE thrown out (not only Foley, but also Ney, and Janklow, who ran a stop sign and killed a motorcyclist). Meanwhile, Democrats like William Jefferson, caught with $90K of cold cash in his freezer, Patrick Kennedy who crashes his car at 3 AM, and his Daddy who drowned a woman in his car, are still in Congress.
Yes, there are Republican lawbreakers as well as Democrat lawbreakers, but WE throw the bums out, they don't!
Obviously, blaming Democrats won't work right now, but if the Democrats want to blame Hastert, we should say, why didn't whoever revealed those Instant Messages to the press sit on them for three years, and not blow the whistle three years ago in order to protect those young, vulnerable House page boys?
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
Foley with the entire GOP. Of course he isn't representative of the party as a whole.
There are people here trying to somehow pass the blame for this debacle across the aisle. That is unacceptable. Foley is responsible. If Hastert and others knew of this and decided to ignore it, they are responsible as well. According to the press reports I've read they withheld the Foley info from the Dems on the committee. If true, that makes it clear that politics held a higher priority than ensuring the wellbeing and safety of the congressional pages.
Now you've got folks here questioning the motive of the pages and their families. There are others who seem to believe that it's a media plot to jinx the upcoming elections. How misguided is that?
Wait until the verification comes out that he's in a Scientology rehab center. Than I'm sure it will Ron Hubbard's fault.
I'm done on this subject. Foley is scum and hopefully he will be brought up on charges for his actions. If Hastert and others knew of the problem and let it slide, than they deserve whatever they have coming. If they had handled it properly this whole thing would be a non-issue, and we would have had a candidate in that district that was actually listed on the ballot. They didn't, and we don't. In the end, regardless of whom one chooses to blame, we all lose from this.
What are YOU smoking, Christopher? Or are comparisons just beyond you?
Let me REPEAT for the deliberately stupid out there. I think Mark Foley is a scumbag who well desrves his public disgrace and perhaps even criminal prosecution.
However the Democrats who uncovered this potential abuse of pages AND COVERED IT UP are MUCH worse than a man who so far is only accused of writing dirty emails and instant messages! PARTICULARLY when they happily covered up and made excuses for a HOST of Democrat sexual perverts who actually performed the acts with assorted pages and interns rather than merely fantasized about them!
All this morning. When has that ever happened before?
1) Always win no matter the cost. Remember, you get to write the history books after the fact.
2) When you're enemy is in the act of tearing himself apart, don't get in the way. Wait until he is done then shoot whatever is still moving.
In this case NPR is playing close to the edge on #2, but that's the option they are playing. And we are going along with it.
this time I have to respectfully disagree in part, and withhold judgment on the rest.
I have to withold judgment on whether or not Hastert should have been more agressive because I have not yet read the emails that he received in 2003 (I've been checking mostly from work where our Internet usage is auto-monitored, and while posting here won't get me in trouble, downloading those sorts of files might). If they really were red flags, yes, Haster should have pursued the matter, but were the email messages, as opposed to the IM messages, really forward looking, as opposed to backward looking red flags? And here I don't mean Republican red flags, I mean across the board, we're not in this to smear red flags. because if they were only Republican red flags, then political judgment will come into play. Agressively pursuing an investigation into an openly gay Republican with no solid accusations to back it up? I can just see the sort of press that would have generated. If the moral position of the country is "don't ask, don't tell" which all of the MSM seem to claim, and which is our current military policy in spite of previous objections from military leaders that the prescence of gays in the ranks was inherently detrimental to unit cohesion; then the Republican non-response was in keeping with the mores of the country, and this line the bums up in front of firing squad and shoot them call is wrong.
And as for Henry Hyde being the man to hand the reigns to after the Hastert resignation, forget it. I might agree with the Washington Times that he would be an excellent choice, but as soon as his hat goes in the ring, he ceases to be a bi-partisan choice.
There are of course other elements of this story that bother me greatly. Why, if this has been happening since 2003, have there been no indications of trouble before? Why, if it was an "open secret" was it not reported in news articles? Why wasn't it referred to in campaigns or editorials? I read the Washington Times almost every day (missed this morning because I drove instead of riding the train) and I never saw word one about this until Foley resigned. Why didn't anyone over the age of 21 who heard about this "open secret" call in the FBI or some other police agency to investigate if they thought teenagers were at risk? Not to report it if you have reliable information is aiding and abetting in the commission of the crime (felony?) after the fact. I think the answer is that it wasn't an open secret until ABC ran their story, and then all the everyone who didn't know about it before adjusted their stories so they didn't seem to be out of the loop, which seems to be the only sin in DC.
that if the Washington Times can demand the speaker resign for something he should have known about, then let's ask for Tony Blankley's resignation on the same theory that he should have known about the Washington Times HR director who was busted last week in a federal sting for trying to meet a 13-year-old girl for sex.
Some of these so-called "conservatives" like those at the Times need to get a grip on it.
because of Foley.
I want him tossed because he is not a leader, supports an agenda of expanding government, and has generally been a worthless wus as Speaker. To give him cover and say he goes under the bus for Foley is an outrage. It gives cover to the rest of the RINO's who will happily continue their bipartisan ways.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
"As for me, I am even more willing to crawl over broken glass to vote Republican straight down the line because as far as I'm concerned with very few exceptions (Joe Lieberman) a vote for a Democrat, a vote for a third party candidate, or a non-vote is going to be an act of treason."
Based on recent elections, roughly half of Americans who vote are going to vote Democrat. And lots of Americans aren't going to vote. So, according to Fred Town Ward, way over half of Americans are traitors.
Fred Town Ward, do you really honestly think so many of your fellow Americans are traitors? I beseech you to consider the possibility, however remote, that you are wrong about some things and Democrats are right. Even if you are right about everything, isn't there such a thing as an honest difference of opinion? Do you think Nancy Pelosi (for example) sits up nights thinking how she can damage the United States? Or are you just venting?
"Let's be clear -- now is not the time to have a leadership struggle. We're five weeks from an election that isn't looking very good. But, should the GOP somehow be able to keep the House in Republican hands (and Lord I hope they can!), the Speaker must go when the House returns."
The problem is that this is precisely what the democrats want to demonstrate. That to the GOP, politics trumps the values it claims to stand for.
Can't you think of another way to get out of this trap?
If you hate a person, you hate something in him that is part of yourself. What isn't part of ourselves doesn't disturb us.
Hermann Hesse