2 October, 2006

So on the one hand I am as much a scandal-fan as anyone else in this town. Pass the Cheez-Its and warm up the laptop, I’ll be a’reloading Drudge and TPM all night! But schadenfreude, like erections, has a way of fading when the fun-naughty becomes the actual-naughty. I felt ill reading those IMs, it really killed my good-times-scandal buzz. All weekend I’ve just wanted to yell “Hello! Did anyone ever apply the motherfucking golden rule? Did anyone ever think ‘Do I want this schmuck around my kids?’ Did anyone ever think even, merely, ‘you know, if this is true, it’s possible that this guy is a total child molester. Perhaps we should conduct our investigation in such a way as to figure that out, because if he is, maybe we have a much bigger problem here than it seems.'”

Prevaricators never seem to realize that information wants to be free. Said best by a commenter on Political Animal: “If they had simply reported him to the FBI and asked his resignation when this all came to light 11 months ago, the scandal wouldn’t have been much. Just another pathetic middle aged pedophile got caught. Hastert and the rest would look like pillars of the community.”   Too late now. What boggles me is this: it’s not like they thought middle-aged guys macking on teenage boys was okay or normal or to be approved of — they knew such behavior was inappropriate, at the very least.  Why didn’t they act like it? Is it really that easy for people steeped in political considerations to…simply…FORGET normal standards of behavior?

This from a Kos poster:

The decent conservatives will line up behind calls for immediate comprehensive investigations to be concluded before the midterms. They’ll demand them. The amoral right-wing sociopaths will stall and dismiss the accusations and evidence out of hand. They’ll wring their hands over the political fallout, make excuses for why investigations can’t happen until after Nov 7 (If ever), implicate the innocent and pardon the guilty, straight down a partisan line as distinct as a laser beam.

I think these two kinds of people are the same people — I hope so, anyway. Nobody starts out that amoral; even sociopaths take some work to create. What does it take for an issue to cut through the bullshit and just be clearly WRONG?


3 Responses to “scandal”

  1. Dr. Birdcage Says:

    I don’t think there can be any agreement on things like right and wrong, particularly in politics. One of these dudes– I can’t remember if it was Hastert or even Gingrich, whose name has been bantered around a lot the last couple of days– was on Fox over the weekend (or so I heard on npr), and apparently he stated that, though he’s known for months that Foley was having inappropriate exchanges with male pages, he hadn’t decided to go public with it because (I couldn’t make this up) he didn’t want to be accused of gay-bashing. I mean, seriously. This is what we are dealing with here. People who, with their records, can actually say stuff like this with straight faces. The kind of people who are apoplectic about two women marrying each other, but whose mouths couldn’t be pried open with a crowbar in an election year if they caught one of their own in the act with a farm animal on their desk.

  2. techne Says:

    well that’s depressing. OTOH it means our country is now so diverse that we have not even a moral code in common, which has got to make us unique or at least unusual historically.

    That was Hastert what said that. Did you catch the news conference yesterday with Reynolds (a major linchpin of the who-shoulda-done-what), held in a day care with kids there, so the reporters were not allowed to ask questions about salacious things lest the kids be (I can only assume) DAMAGED by EXPOSURE TO SEXUAL THINGS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THEIR AGE. Because that would be, um, what’s the word I’m looking for…damnit it’s on the tip of my tongue…

  3. Dr. Birdcage Says:

    hehehe…. seems as though they’ve had three years to contemplate whether or not it was morally wrong. Does beg the question of whether or not it’s possible to have something be morally wrong enough for someone in power (whatever party) to acknowledge it, even if it meant losing a little of that power.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: