Hastert, Advertising, and Lies
Advertising is often used to reshape public opinion, to shore up a weakness. When customers complained that the new Beetle was cramped inside, Volkswagen ran a bunch of ads emphasizing how roomy the car was. Everybody knows frozen meals are crappy, which is why there’s a poster on my block telling me some brand of frozen food is so good that chefs don’t want me to know about it. Every company that strip mines brags about how many trees it plants.
The problem here is that everybody knows the truth. The reason people think Beetles are small is because you get a leg cramp immediately upon entering one. Frozen meals are crappy. And strip miners don’t really care about saving trees. In each instance, the advertising message runs directly counter to the widely-known truth. It’s a lie, and the hope is that if they repeat it enough, somebody will believe it.
And that’s why Dennis Hastert held an entire press conference about the Foley matter to say “The bottom line is we’re taking responsibility.”
In that conference, he did everything he could to smear responsibility on as many other parties as possible. He “reached out to the Democrat leader and shared with her some of the ideas”. (When was the last time the Republicans turned to the Dems for help on anything?) He “turned this whole thing over to the FBI … to try to find out what happened.” He also asked the Justice Department, the Ethics Committee, and the State of Florida to help figure it all out. You’d think Foley was Kaiser Sose, a criminal mastermind eluding an international manhunt, rather than a pedophile trying to plea bargain down from jail time to AA meetings.
It is too late for Hastert to take responsiblity. The buck went zooming by months ago. Accountability would have required a real investigation when the problem first arose. Look at his old emails, look at his old instant messages. Interview past pages, his staff and him. This isn’t hard in any way except politically, which seems to be the only thing that mattered to the Speaker.
October 5th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
The age of consent in Washington DC is 16. The “boy” that Foley was chatting up was either 16 or 18 depending on who you believe.
What law was broken?
Foley is gay. Isn’t that a good according to lefties, like yourself? You didn’t have a problem with Garry Studds or Barney Frank, both Democrats and gay, were caught actually diddling minors, instead of just chatting them up like Foley.
This is just a cheap political kabukie theathre, Democrat style. Yawn.
Grow up.
October 5th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
For some reason, I can’t remember the Democratic party leadership’s taking responsibility when Juanita Broderick quite credibly accused Clinton of rape, when Kathleen Willey (his friend’s wife) equally credibly accused Clinton of feeling her up, when Barney Frank admitted to letting a male call girl shack up in his Georgetown condo, or when Gerry Studds admitted to breaking an underage male page down like a shotgun.
Seeing Democrats get lathered up over a Republican sex scandle is as incongruous as Bil Clinton showing up at a Promise Keepers rally.
October 6th, 2006 at 8:28 am
You are completely right. And both sides of the political aisle are nauseating on this topic.
The Rethugs have dropped the ball and are now trying to dilute their faults and in some cases their hypocricy on the ethics issue. Blame the press, blame the Dems, blame someone else. Idiots. Imagine if they had taken a stand in the first place and pushed for better control over interactions with suspicious legislators and the pages.
The Dems are nauseating as well. They aren’t neccessarily hypocritical, since they seem to see little wrong with this type of thing. (at least from a historical stand point they didn’t have any issue with Gerry Studds) They are most certainly playing this thing as loudly for political traction. I just don’t see that they are in there advocating any more safety for the Pages.
The press isn’t helping either. The first couple of days it was only reported about emails, which in the end weren’t at issue at all. Then the facts aren’t in place to say whether a crime has been committed at all. The page in question may have been 18 at the time of the IMs being sent. And the age of consent in DC is 16 which could also mean that this wasn’t unlawful. Not that these lawfulness deflects the reasonableness of protecting pages from potentially predatory sexual deviants.
And, on a very very minor note, VDHanson at Pajamasmedia points out that pedophilia is apparently the wrong term for this issue. It’s pederasty.
The more I hear about politicians, the more I believe that those that want to be in politics shouldn’t be allowed.
October 6th, 2006 at 10:08 am
‘The “boy” that Foley was chatting up was either 16 or 18 depending on who you believe.’ It’s not who you believe, it’s which one you are talking about. He’s been after more than one.
“What law was broken?” Do you think that because it wasn’t illegal, a it was right for a 50-something Congressman to “chat up” teenage Congressional employees? Anywhere but in Congress, there would have at least been a case under the sexual harassment laws, but Congress has exempted itself from obeying those laws.
That’s the real scandal, that Congressmen think they deserve to be exempt from the laws that they impose on the rest of us. It’s bipartisan, and it’s been going on for a long time.
October 6th, 2006 at 10:32 am
When Team GOP shows up here and the best defense they can bring is “but, but, but… Clinton!”, they’ve already lost. What’s worse is that it’s not even true.
Kathleen Willey’s accusation was complete crap. I did a bit of work related to that matter. Her story was full of holes, her friends wouldn’t lie for her, and there was less than nothing there. For some of the details, read the Isikoff piece. As for Broderick, it’s tough to call the charges credible when (1) she herself denied them and (2) Ken Starr found nothing there.
Moreover, the point is not that Foley did something illegal. The point is that Foley did something harmful to a bunch of kids in his employ. Unwanted sexual advances from your boss are bad, and especially so when your boss is a powerful adult and you’re just some kid.
It’s amazing to watch the family values crowd defend pederasty as no big deal.
October 6th, 2006 at 10:43 am
Once the investigation is done, I’ll have more of an opinion.
Just now, to me, it looks like the Dems know they’re getting Foley’s seat and are trying for a two-fer by attacking Hastert before all the facts are in.
October 6th, 2006 at 10:49 am
On the ohter hand, we have this from Drudge by way of LGF. Looks like the whole thing is a bunch of crap, and the Dems will stoop pretty low to get back the power they were formerly accustomed to. Not that Foley and Hastert shouldn’t be kicked in the nuts, I just think all politicians should be kicked in the nuts.
October 6th, 2006 at 11:02 am
Hugger-
Thanks for clearing up the Kathleen Willey matter with your work.
I feel better now.
Could you please link to the site where Broderick denies the rape allegations she charged on NBC in the Lisa Myers interview?
I am not denying that she didn’t repudiate the charges – I just haven’t seen it.
October 6th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Chris,
To be clear, my work didn’t clear up the Willey matter. Some of the resulting legal work landed on my plate, so I ended up having to look at the different pieces.
As for the Broderick stuff, I don’t have a link. I was going from memory rather than google. Keep in mind that when all this stuff happened, the internet wasn’t a permanent news record yet.
Ben, are you so desparate to dismiss this affair that you would believe things that are blatantly false? The IMs and emails were sent to several pages over many months. Foley didn’t resign because of a prank. Instead of regurgitating discredited nonsense from your conservative puppetmasters, try some critical thinking.
October 8th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Hugger-
I apologize for being a little snippy on my last post.
I think that Clinton is, at best, a cad, a perjurer, a disbarred attorney, a lousy husband, and a proficient liar and, at worst, a sexual predator and a sociopath.
The fact that no Democrats of national prominence took the Willey and Broderick charges seriously and, instead, attacked the putative victims, to me excludes them from having any moral standing to jump on the anti-Foley and Hastert bandwagon.
To be sure, Hastert is only worried about keeping his job, a concern I don’t share.
However, 7 or 8 years ago, Clinton and the Democrats were similarly only concerned about keeping his job.
If anything, the Democrats should be sympathetic on this matter, since they certainly were in the Clinton era.
But this is an election year, and I certainly understand what they are doing.
It just goes with the territory.
As an aside, it sounds like your law practice is more interesting than mine if you were working on the Clinton – Willey matter.
Hastert has been awful for the last 5 or 6 years and may well have ignored earlier reports about Foley. It will be interesting to see what unfolds on this matter.
October 10th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Chris,
My practice is focused elsewhere these days, but it’s still pretty interesting. Sometimes I get to work on things that have an impact on the world. Other times, it’s just the usual stuff. I’m lucky to have a job I like that isn’t crushing pressure. 🙂
I find the comparison between Clinton and Foley strange. One guy’s transgression was a consenting relationship between adults. The other… not so much. There’s a big difference between 22 and 15.
As for the rape and sexual assault accusations against Clinton, you’re right that nobody took them seriously, and that’s at least partly because they weren’t credible and quickly unraveled. The accusation against Foley is credible (multiple sources, documentary evidence, etc.) and getting worse (more IMs coming out). The equivalence you’re looking for just isn’t here.
But my point here wasn’t Democrats good, Republicans bad. I do believe some members of the Democratic party would act as reprehensibly as Hastert if given the chance. The point is that Hastert *has* acted this badly in a situation that is unfolding worse and worse every day. Bad behavior from Democrats in the 90s and theoretical bad behavior in an alternate universe where Dems currently control the house… well, these are not excuses.