I have eluded to this idea in other posts, but thought we should address it specifically. I feel as if partisanship seemingly overrides logic and good sense in many cases. Our nation and world has far more reaching concerns than the Foley scandal, but it seems that if you ask the average voter about Social Security funding or Darfur, you see far less understanding than the Foley scandal.

Questions for Debate:

1. Do you believe that the Foley scandal is a barometer of partisanship in the US?
2. How does this story coorelate to other "pressing matters" during such an election year?
3. Should Americans be more concerned about other issues, or is the Foley scandal (and/or partisanship) really that important?

1. Do you believe that the Foley scandal is a barometer of partisanship in the US?

No- I think it is a backlash against a party that has positioned itself as the great arbiter of morals, throwing around concepts like "situational ethics"- the foley scandal is just one part of a long history of looking the other way when repubs do stuff, and not policing thier own. If you are going to position your party this way- you have to walk the walk. The repubs have not done this- in fact, they have been much, much worse. It is NOT simply partisonship, it is the flash point for a long list of real greivences and issues. Why didn't the lawmakers that spent 88million dollars on a fishing expedition on Clinton do the same thing for GWs long list of REAL issues?


2. How does this story coorelate to other "pressing matters" during such an election year?

Because the repubs have clealy NOT addressed the "pressing matters". Where is my 88 million dollar investigaton on:

Lying to congress over the cost of the medicaid drug bill?
The energy summit that had Ken Lay helping make policy?
The raging incompetence and traitorous behavior of the GW regime?

Basically- for all the "pressing issues"- the party in charge of EVERY SINGLE BRANCH OF GOVERMENT- has NOT accepted responsibility for thier behavior- one of the supposed hallmarks of this party? You know- personal responsibility- for god's sake- you have a prez that can't even admit he has screwed up- much less take personal responsibility-




3. Should Americans be more concerned about other issues, or is the Foley scandal (and/or partisanship) really that important?

Like I said- it is not partisonship, it is the flashpoint for the massive wrongdoing of this regime.

IT IS NOT PARTISONSHIP, IT IS ALL ABOUT REPUBS POSITIONING THEMSELVES AS THE PARTY OF MORALS AND THEN NOT FOLLOWING THROUGH-

Umm... what does any of this have to do with the question?

If you feel like those other issues warrant debate, please start a thread.

The point I would like to make is that most Americans don't know anything about one of the worst tragedies in contemporary history, Darfur... while Mr. Foley's transgressions have made every tv news show known to man.

GW's traitorous regime? Take your medicine. That has nothing to do with what I'm asking.
I feel like these types of statemens MAKE MY POINT.

Currently, there are 232 republicans and 201 Democrats in the house (and one independant). In the senate the split is 55/44/1. I feel like our politics as a nation seemingly boil down to which side of the line you stand on. We rarely take the time to discuss the merits of ideas, but rather argue who's party is wrong. It's terrible.

I suppose your reply to my questions enumerates just this notion...

Or, you are so blindly partison yourself you can't see the point I am making LOL

I will break it down further-

1) We have had, for the most part, one party rule for the last 8 years, and conservative ideology has been paramount since 1980, and the repubs have had near total lock on power for over 8 years.

2) They positioned themselves as the party of morals- and didn't follow through

3) therefore, when a subject like this comes up, it is appropriate and natural to blame the repub party, and SHOULD be a campaign issue for every repub running for office. You must either distance yourself from the party leadership and those in power, or, ignore the wrongdoing of your party.

It is NOT a stretch Aevens, at all.

It is not partisonship- it is that the promises were not delivered, the behavior not changed, and they had plenty of time and power to do it.

It is simply calling them on thier behavior- I don't see why that is such a big deal for someone that actually holds those ideals to be true.

If I were a party member- I would be (wow, the curse function on this thing is VERY sensitive- I wasn't even aware that it was a blocked word, means drunk in England) at my leadership, and throwing them all out at the primary level and get some new blood in there that promised and delivered- and they have had several elections to do this, and have not done it.

It is just simply a flashpoint to bring all that out.

I don't see how you're proving anything but my point. What promises weren't delivered, what behavior are you referring to, etc?

It seems to me that the Republican party hasn't filled all promises, but if you're referring to a party of family values, etc... they're closer to conservative values than the democrats. The GOP has pushed the anti-Gay marriage agenda, held true to giving money to faith based charities (albeit not as much as we'd like or as promised), gave aid on the marriage tax penalty, etc.

It seems that most debates on this board refer to "anti-GW" rants as opposed to truly non-biased debate on the true actions of congress or our government.

How are your statements not partisan? What exactly has the republican leadership done negatively that the democrats haven't supported?

Ok Aevans, let me ask this another way.

1. Do you believe that the Clinton scandal was a barometer of partisanship in the US?
2. How did this story coorelate to other "pressing matters" during such an election year?
3. Should Americans have been more concerned about other issues, or was the Clinton scandal (and/or partisanship) really that important?

That is what you are asking about right? Whether a sex scandal should be harped upon by the opposition party to the exclusion of other news items? Should a party make the sex scandal their single driving issue, and ignore everything else?

I assume, giving you an improbably measure of benefit of the doubt, that you are asking this as a bipartisan issue, seeing as how the Democratic actions in the last month equal about 5% or the furor kicked up by the Republicans over a democratic sex scandal (this did NOT involve children) 8 years ago. In fact in THIS case, most of the accusations are coming from other Republicans.

This is what your question was meant to ask right? Just want to be sure before I answer...

I knew that this was coming... and aha! I have prepared.

To me the biggest difference is that Mr. Clinton didn't resign, his party didn't renounce him, and the bad apple and/or his deeds weren't seen as "any big deal" by many.

I believe had Mr. Clinton come out and admitted his sexual "faux pas" on the front end, apologized for using his power over an intern, and then moved on... WHAMMO- no real big deal.

Foley is different in that the guy was gone as the story broke. His party sent him floating down the river, and there is no evidence of party wrong doing. Bill Clinton's situation is diametrically opposing, in that his party stood by him, he lied repeatedly, and he stayed in office.

To me the Foley thing is just something for Dems (and some republicans alike) to hang on to. I surely wish that people would debate matters that have real bearing. Things that should really make a difference. A sick Congressman that resigned immediately isn't really one of those things for me...

I am really not trying to be difficult here, but even if this were true, which it is not (you are one of the last people alive to pretend there was NO cover-up of any kind, even the REPUBLICAN PARTY and Hastert himself has aknowledged mistakes), it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the question you asked

You asked if the 'opposing party' should harp on a sex scandal. Whether the media should report other news like Darfur, or world events.

The fact that you personally don't think this republican sex scandal is as bad as the Clinton Sex scandal is utterly irrelevant. EVEN IF I grant you that point (which I do not) the Republicans under Clinton spent every single waking hour for months and months harping on NOTHING but the Clinton scandal. The 'exposure' by the Democrats is miniscule by comparason.

Besides, the fact that most of the people making accusations and demanding action are REPUBLICANS would lead me to believe that maybe there is more to the coverup than you would pretend. Oh, that and all the interviews and media coverage which explicity states there is.

Interesting view of history. Hardly surprising, but interesting - from one of our most partisan members, no less.

Let's review a bit, shall we? As soon as the Republicans took over Congress, they began a partisan witch hunt unlike anything seen before. Their investigations were wide open, looking for anything that might implicate Clinton in some scandal. When they finally found something, Clinton lied about it. I won't excuse him - I am no fan of Clinton, who was a war criminal and a conservative Democrat whose policies were like a slightly lesser version of the cronyism and upward profit-shifting of the Bush cabal - but to say that somehow Clinton's Lewinsky affair was somehow less partisan of a thing than the Foley scandal is exactly backwards.

Foley's scandal came to light because some people who work for Congressional Republicans couldn't bear hiding the truth any longer, and went to the press. Republicans have for the most part repudiated Foley, and Democrats in Congress have done little more than give obligatory election-year moralizings. Clinton's scandal, on the other hand, only became known because of an extremely partisan hunt for something, anything, that might be shady in his White House.

1. Do you believe that the Foley scandal is a barometer of partisanship in the US?

Not really. The scandal itself did not come out in a partisan way. Is it being used by partisans? Well duh, of course! We are a month away from crucial midterm elections. Any opposition party would use scandals like this so close to an election. It would be inaccurate to take a 'partisan barometer reading' at such a time. Tell me - if this had happened to a Democrat do you think the Republicans would not use it? Of course they would! These people are interested in winning elections!

2. How does this story coorelate to other "pressing matters" during such an election year?

It is a sideshow. What else? Of course there are more pressing issues.

3. Should Americans be more concerned about other issues, or is the Foley scandal (and/or partisanship) really that important?

I wish Americans would get more concerned about real issues. We have an administration that has tried to convince the public that our social welfare system is "broken" - baloney. They have been subverting the public good by getting industries to 'regulate themselves.' Yuck. They are trying to get rid of the estate tax, by purposely misleading Americans about how many people it really affects. We have a Congress that has been subverting democracy. We have a Commander in Chief who has lied us into wars and who has spent the treasury like a drunken Caesar.

But, we Americans love our juicy little stories. They're so much simpler, so much easier to understand, than the large scale kleptocracy instituted by the idiotic wing of the conservative party.

Funny... snide remarks from the same person that just used the words Kleptocracy in the same post. good job, but I'm never surprised by people on this board who carry hypocrisy in their pants pockets like a pack of gum...

The point is that no one can prove the little "tin hat" conspiracy theories about Clinton, and this debate really isn't about him. My point is that today's media, this board, and most Americans seem to defend their side more than they debate the merits of their ideas.

Partisanship, regardless of the side of the aisle seems to permeate our lives in a deplorable manner. It's surely getting old. I believe that the media and public opinion is following suit.

The Foley gig (and you can argue the Clinton deal) is a perfect example. (Not to mention the replies to my post!)

I don't get it Aevans. Do you believe that anyone who defended Clinton during his sexcapades should not say anything negative about Foley despite the fact that his sexual indisgression involved an underaged boy? I don't get it? Can people who defended Clinton not note other digusting acts? Have they lost the right to be morally outraged because they didn't share that moral outrage with you 10 years ago? I need some clarification.

On edit: Let me add this as well, I'm with you in that I belive there certainly are some partisan hypocrites among the media and elsewhere who would have been calling for impeachment if a Republican President did what Clinton did.

CP

Well, actually, as long as you include yourself in that, and as long as you are referring to the Republicans as much as the Democrats, then frankly I agree. But this one of the primary problems with the American system of government. A two party system leaves little or no room for shades of grey. Its all about Partisanship.



And your original post itself, yes. Again though, I'm not sure Foley counts (yet). How much have the Democrats really been screaming and obsessing about this really? I mean I know they have been accused of everything from having manufactured the situation to exploiting it, and I am sure they are certainly not going to ignore such a significant scandal, which eats into the very 'moral superiority' the Republicans have always campaigned on.

So allowing them a bit of crow, have they really been going berzerk about it? Have they really been obsessing on anywhere near the level of the Republicans under Clinton?

Because as I have said before, ALL the important actors in this scandal, the ones who revealed the scandal, the ones who call for investigations and so on, almost all of them are Republican.

Do you believe that the Foley scandal is a barometer of partisanship in the US?

No, I believe it is a barometer of our level of disgust in relation to pandering and hypocrisy. The exploitation of a scandal that emerges within an opposition party is not a partisan policy, it is a campaign tactic. And even then, I don't see the Democratic party getting all that much mileage out of this (at least, not as much as they could in the hands of, say, a Karl Rove). It appears to be the behavior of Republicans that is keeping this story on the front pages - and I hardly imagine that they are doing so out of "partisanship".

How does this story correlate to other "pressing matters" during such an election year?

On the domestic front, it is relatively important - especially in an election year. The political reaction to "the Foley scandal" on both sides of the aisle can tell us much about our representatives' priorities, motives, and concerns. Such information can be very useful when casting votes. Our leaders' reactions to or involvement in this story may not be pressing, but being an informed voter is.

Should Americans be more concerned about other issues, or is the Foley scandal (and/or partisanship) really that important?

There are certainly issues about which Americans should be as concerned, but "the Foley scandal" - and what it tells us about our politicians in general - should not be ignored. Of itself, "the Foley scandal" is hardly pressing. There were not, to my knowledge, any sixteen-year-olds in immediate threat. Mark Foley is out of office, as he should be - members of Congress are in a custodial position in relation to Congressional pages and it appears that relationship was egregiously abused. It is being investigated and, most likely, Foley will stand trial where, hopefully, justice will be done. "WHAMMO," as aevans might say, "no big deal" in relation to wider ramifications within Foley's party.

But what is important here is the response (or lack thereof) by Congressional leaders to the prior reports of Foley's conduct and the inconsistencies in their public statements since the scandal has merged. Combined with the revelations in David Kuo's Tempting Faith, it has become increasingly apparent that the "morality" of one of our major political parties is worn entirely on its sleeve - and that there is a different set of rules for cronies than there is for constituents. Many of us have long been aware of this double standard in relation to financial malfeasance, but too few of us have been aware of the level of duplicity within the Republican leadership in relation to sexual transgressions. This sort of dishonesty should be of concern to every citizen - especially those who embrace a faith-based agenda. No one wants to be a dupe.

Essentially, "the Foley scandal" reminds us that we should be concerned about issues other than those used as wedges or for pandering to minorities, particularly when our leaders don't seem to take those issues all that seriously themselves - or, worse, feel that their privileged circle is somehow "exempt" from such morality. We should look at the issues that directly affect us, our country, and our future. And those issues have not recently been the ones on which our candidates have focused.

To a lesser extent, this story underlines the fact that politicians of all stripes are willing to exploit or minimize scandalous behavior to their advantage, regardless of the welfare of the victims. This should lead everyone to take a harder look at our leadership. Significantly, the Foley scandal instructs us that we should not so much listen to what our politicians say as examine - closely - what they do. And, to me, that is "really that important".

Seriously - who are these guys?

1. Do you believe that the Foley scandal is a barometer of partisanship in the US?

I do not hold this belief.

2. How does this story coorelate to other "pressing matters" during such an election year?

It is under the radar in Colorado.

3. Should Americans be more concerned about other issues, or is the Foley scandal (and/or partisanship) really that important?

Yes, Coloradans are concerned about other issues.

Major Republican leaders have endorsed the Demo running for governor.

Republican incumbant candidates have refused to debate, respond to newspaper questionaires or even to make public appearances. They seem to be counting on party loyalty (aka partisanship).

The scandal will be important in Florida. It might be a subliminal message in other states, but as barometers go, it's really nothing. Out here we'd rather have water and jobs.

I guess one message is that the Republican Party is not on any higher ground than other parties, but then we Coloradans already knew that without Foley. The air is thinner up here. We can see for miles and miles and miles.

First, I don't believe you care one bit about the genocide in Darfur. You're just exploiting it for a cheap emotional response that has nothing to do with alleviating the suffering of the people and everything with playing a political game.

Second, I wonder why someone who is whining about "partisan politics" quotes an article, but doesn't link to it? Maybe because the pop-up ad from the Human Events site reads, "Try the fearless newspaper liberals don't want you to read?"

Quoting from a sickeningly biased right-wing website does nothing but establish you're every bit as partisan as anybody else, Aevans176. Welcome to the club.

To the actual "questions" posed:

1. No. It's a barometer of Republican malfeasance.

2. It makes crystal clear that Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Bob Ney, Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Mark Foley, and now Curt Weldon are the scuzzy poster children of GOP scandal, sleaze and venality.

3. Americans should be concerned about other issues, but the issue of whether our elected officials are honest, moral and trustworthy is "really that important." Republicans zealots say it isn't because right now the issue cuts them the wrong way. With over 40 million Americans without health insurance there are far more important issues than one horny Republican representative, but that's hardly been a priority for these cheap politicians who are more concerned about getting paid and chasing after young boys.



That would almost be funny if it weren't coming from one of the most ardent defenders of Dubya on this board. Don't delude yourself that you're not. Non-biased? Is that your attempt at making a joke?

It is interesting, over the past week I have ben watching the scandal and its backlash unfold, and been surveying the political reactions as much as I can.

I have found something odd, the initial attempts to BLAME the Democrats have fallen away and been long abandoned, but there are still calls about the Democrats exploiting, overusing and generally taking advantage of the candal for political purposes. That of course is the intent behind Aevans and this entire thread, abuse the Democrats for their 'partisanship' in exploiting the situation.

Except that they haven't. In fact the response of the Democrats has been really quite restrained. The first person to call for Hastert's resignation was a Republican, Tom Kean Jr, and it was joined by many others.

Now the Democrats have certainly made their voiced heard, and in several tight races there have been attack ads regarding the Scandal, but only a few. I certainly have seen no evidence that the Democrats have used or exploited this latest Republican scandal any more than could be expected by ANY political party faced with an opponent's scandal.


So really, is there ANY evidence of excessive 'partisanship' here at all? Or is it the Republicans beating up on other republicans when faced with yet another scandal at such a critical time?

1. Do you believe that the Foley scandal is a barometer of partisanship in the US?
Somewhat, but you have to look at the confluence of two factors that determine what we look at: the media, and the party who controls government (some of this depends on the depth of control, I think everyone can agree that the GOP runs the vast majority of all branches of government at this point in time).

Anytime the party in power talks about an issue (in this case, family values), and not only violates the very premise that they claim to uphold, but attempts to cover it up (allegedly, some of those chickens haven't come to roost yet), its considered newsworthy. Given that the scandal erupted a little over a month before a very hotly contested midterm election makes it even more so.

I think you need to separate the average folks from folks inside the belt, the MSM, and even a good portion of posters here on AD. For the average American voter, the partisan venom you've seen exchanged lately just doesn't mean a whole lot. The Foley scandal is important, but more than anything its symptomatic of a general sense of discontent with the status quo. The President is failing, Congress is worthless (and I do mean on both sides of the aisle), and most folks don't see much changing if you grant the current party in power a 2 year extension on their monopoly of power. That discontent, in my opinion, isn't partisanship, its directed at Congress in general. Yes, the Dems are benefiting in some measure from that discontent, but that hasnt' been realized and won't be until November 8th after all the ballots are counted.

2. How does this story coorelate to other "pressing matters" during such an election year?
It pales in comparison, but consider my first point regarding the MSM and the ruling party. The ruling party sets the agenda and the talking points for the MSM. Lets look at what they focused on, or rather what they seemed to consider the important issues of the day:
- A constitutional amendment on flag burning
- A constitional amendment regarding same-sex marriage
- A military tribunal policy that legislates torture and strips people of 400 year old liberties
- A failed concensus on immigration policy or any efforts to actually secure our borders
- A failed attempt to rubber stamp the unconsititutional attempts to issue surveillance on American citizens without due process
- A repeal or adjustment of the estate tax that would effect a severly small group of constituents

As opposed to the following issues:
- An energy policy that might actually have a chance at helping us loosen our addiction to foreign oil
- A modernization of the minimum wage to help lift people out of poverty in spite of working a full time (or 3) job(s)
- A real demand for review and accountability from the executive branch of its warrantless domestic surveillance program
- A real demand for review and accountability of the executive branches detainee policy, extraordinary rendition and torture practices
- A demand for accountability of the 10 billion dollars that we basically stole from the Iraqi people as part of the Coalition Provisional Authority
- A demand of the executive branch for a real foreign policy effort to help eliminate the genocide in Darfur
- A real review of global warming, and steps this nation can take, federal and otherwise, to reduce our footprint on CO2 emissions.
- A review of our tax policy as it relates to the mariage penalty, and the alternative minimum tax (AMT)
- A review of "No Child Left Behind" and amend it to be more effective
- A real review of Medicare and the prescription drug plan that doesn't seem to really help anyone
- An honest review of our health insurance crisis and exploration of measures to help alleviate it
- A more aggressive accounting for the war in Iraq, and a demand for a plan to phase out our committment there
- An honest attempt at balancing the budget
- An honest look at social security and retirement programs for this country

Now if you feed Americans a daily dose of the first list, how can you honestly be surprised when they get fed up with our Federal government?


3. Should Americans be more concerned about other issues, or is the Foley scandal (and/or partisanship) really that important?
This was basically answered above. Average voters aren't obsessing about the Foley scandal, we, the MSN, and those under attack are. The issues I listed in the 2nd block are what people are actually concerned about based on the polls I've seen. The Foley issue is only symptomatic of a larger perception of a Congress and Executive as being corrupt, unaccountable, and largely ineffective.

Excellent post, Doc.

I can only add one thing that surely adds to the peoples disgust, something I saw on the news last night.

As short a time as 15 years ago, congress spent between 185 and 200 days a year "doing the people's business". This year, that total is down to just 100 days of actual work. Add to that the fact that they have given themsleves pay raises in 12 of those 15 years.

Yep, we're now paying these clowns $1650 a day, to spend their time with the petty garbage you have in your first list, instead of the stuff in the second list, that the citizenry really cares about.

Why are we paying them $1650.00 a day, when we should have them arrested for loitering? As their employers, I can tell you that we're definitely not getting out money's worth.