|
|
| Voting Against the Foley Follies |
Posted: 10/31/2006
Voting Against the Foley Follies
Mark Foley is gone from Congress — that's the good news. Denny Hastert is on the ropes because of it — that is probably bad. Let me say from the outset that it's good that Foley is gone. We just got another bad apple out of the barrel — I hope before that decaying apple has contaminated all the other fruit.
It's a good thing we already know better then to trust the main-stream media's "objective" reporting of the news, lest we believe that this incident will result in all the moral conservatives "sitting this election out." I have never seen a more blatant attempt at creating an avalanche of self-fulfilling prophecy, then that produced in the Foley aftermath. A classic case of "monkey hear-monkey do" is being foisted upon us. The media tells us that moral conservatives are staying home in protest of the "Foley cover up," apparently in hopes that other moral conservatives will automatically join in the boycott. It's promoting the time-tested tactic of turning the principled tendencies of your opposition to work against themselves, so to speak. As one colleague said to me recently, "conservative Christians vote with their heart, not their heads." Perhaps this is a left-handed way of saying that they are principled, thus are at a distinct disadvantage to left-leaning voters who are more pragmatic and expedient in their choices (they are smarter and will do anything to win). Maybe that colleague had a point; nobody in the media predicted that Clinton would lose the support of feminist constituencies despite his alleged shabby treatment of women. A little "trailer trash" could be jettisoned if the commitment to keep abortion safe and legal remained the status quo.
This strategy du jour is even being picked-up and implemented by novices. A letter writer in my local paper has been as faithful as any good horseman of the apocalypse, trying to undermine the Bush administration by writing derogatory epistles every month without fail. Just recently he has changed his tune, exhorting true conservatives to stay out of the election to protest the betrayal of the conservatives' planks and platform by undisciplined Republicans. It is a political rope-a-dope so painfully obvious and artful that it would make Mohammed Ali turn shades of green.
So let's turn our eyes back to Speaker Hastert. The cry and the hue calls for him to resign amidst the innuendo that he knew about Foley's perverse proclivities long ago. All that is missing is any credible evidence. If an investigation surfaces with any convincing proof, I will join the chorus and sing the loudest. I am not sure Hastert has been the best Speaker — he's certainly no Newt Gingrich — but that is no reason to toss him from the train preemptively. As I understand it, there were two classifications of electronic communications; E-mails and instant messages. The E-mails were apparently examined by both the FBI and certain Florida newspapers. The benign nature of the communications caused the FBI to decline any further investigation, and the newspapers couldn't find anything juicy enough to warrant publication. It was the instant messages, which Hastert claims he had no knowledge of, that supposedly contained the salacious communications in question.
Now suppose you're Hastert. You might suspect Foley has inappropriate proclivities, but if you act on a hunch without legal proof that he had communications of a sexual nature with minors, you're castigated as a bigot or a homophobe. If you give him a slap on the wrist, you take the chance that a scandal explodes in your face. If you resign, then for political purposes, you're as good as guilty. What a wonderful choice of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" alternatives! In our day of political correctness and "perpetrators rights," being preemptively circumspect is almost too heavy-handed.
Of course the timing of this raises no suspicion at all. Gallup polls indicate that 42% of Americans believe that the falling oil prices since August, are being orchestrated for political benefit despite overwhelming evidence and logical inference to the contrary. Too many Americans can see the snakes and spiders crawling all over them, when they can't smell the rat hiding under the kitchen table. Such folks are going to cancel out your informed vote.
There are certainly problems enough in the Republican Party that we ought to be angry. But let's not get so blindly enraged that by default we place back in power those who by their political nature will raise our taxes, neglect the immigration problem, support expanding the definition of marriage, treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue, and vote on the wrong side of pro-live issues, etc.
That is what I will be thinking of November 7th, not about former Rep. Foley.
Robert E. Meyer
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.com
Read and post feedback
Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.
1213 Views
Printer Friendly Version |
E-mail this article to a friend |
Return to home

|
Re: Voting Against the Foley Follies
| Posted On: 11/04/06 02:16:22 PM |
Age 47, MO |
This is an excellent article. I like your description of the anti-Bush/anti-GOP as a "good horseman of the apocalypse." It is the Rapture Gnostics and their followers who seem to sabotage so many chances to nominate and elect pro-life Republicans (and pro-life Democrats). When they bloviate about the the timing of the Rapture, they encourage too many of our fellow Christians sit on their "left behinds" on election days, and they make us all look like Linus and his belief in the Great Pumpkin! BTW, Age 33 OK, you are completely wrong. Christians in politics such as Sam Brownback do NOT view immigrants as sub-human (maybe Michael Savage does, but he is neither Christian nor Republican). It is NOT homophobic (nor smoker-phobic!) to deny special rights and privileges to people engaged in destructive lifestyles. Bush has appointed, and Republicans have confirmed, many pro-life judges not blocked by liberal Democrat filibusters. GOP congressmen have passed, with help from a handful of pro-life Democrats, several pro-life laws signed by Bush. Other pro-life laws have been blocked by Democrat filibusters and other underhanded procedures.
Click here to reply to this post
|

Re: Voting Against the Foley Follies
| Posted On: 11/01/06 06:02:44 PM |
Age 33, OK |
"But let's not get so blindly enraged that by default we place back in power those who by their political nature will raise our taxes, neglect the immigration problem, support expanding the definition of marriage, treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue, and vote on the wrong side of pro-live issues, etc."
Are we instead going to support the party that increases our deficit, treats immigrants as sub-human, holds policies on marriage that are thin veils of homophobia, have gotten our country into another Vietnam-type war, and have not done a thing for "pro-live" [sic] issues in these years that they've been in power???
(Think about it: The supposedly pro-life Republicans have had control of Congress, the White House, and even the Supreme Court for years... and they have done NOTHING. They like to whine from their moral highground, but they're effectively as pro-choice as any "liberal demon" in Washington.)
Click here to reply to this post
|
- Re: Re: Voting Against the Foley Follies
| Posted On: 11/06/06 07:09:42 AM | | Age 50, IN | You reference the Iraq war being another Vietnam. The only real similarity is that the politicians will not let the military do what they do best, kill people and break things on the way to victory. It's amazing the progress our military was making until the politicians got involved.
Also, I don't believe it's actually homophobic to say, as the Bible implies, that Marriage is between a man and woman. After all, God never said for this reason a man will leave his mother and father and cleave to his husband. Homophobic would be for me as a Christian to have nothing to do with homosexuals and say, "Oh well, let them burn in hell for their choices." And just in case you've re-written history in your mind, one of the reasons God distroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality. He loved the homosexual but he hated the act. He still does... Click here to reply to this post
- Pro-Lifers Hampered by Pro-Abortion/Anti-Family Democrats and RINOs
| Posted On: 11/05/06 01:05:11 AM | | Age 47, MO | I have one more point to make. The liberals know full well that pro-life Republicans have NOT been simultaneously in charge of the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court. Age 33 OK is just repeating yet another liberal Big Lie. In Congress, pro-lifers have been stiffed many times by pro-abortion/pro-homosexual/pro-perversion Democrats and RINOs. The Supreme Court now has four pro-life justices, appointed by Reagan and both Bushes. However, there are still five justices who support the deceptive Roe v. Wade/Doe v. Bolton; two of them were appointed by Clinton (Gisberg and Breyer), and the other three were appointees considered acceptable to the Democrats who controlled the Senate in 1975 (Stevens), 1987 (Kennedy), and 1990 (Souter). Click here to reply to this post
Re: Voting Against the Foley Follies
| Posted On: 11/01/06 10:26:26 AM |
Age 50, TX |
I am also very upset at the Republican party, but I know that the other side is even worse. I will vote this time, as I always have, according to my values.
The time to "punish" unfaithful Republicans is in the primaries, not the general election!
Click here to reply to this post
|

Re: Voting Against the Foley Follies
| Posted On: 11/01/06 08:46:14 AM |
Age 35, IL |
"All that is missing is any credible evidence. If an investigation surfaces with any convincing proof, I will join the chorus and sing the loudest."
Then why aren't you pushing for the release of the Ethics Committee's report? They're done interviewing everyone, but deliberately holding off on releasing the report until after the elections. Is it evidence you crave or a continuance of the status quo?
Click here to reply to this post
|
Re: Voting Against the Foley Follies
| Posted On: 11/01/06 02:44:41 AM |
Age 50, NE |
If there was ever a time we NEED to go vote, it is this election. If the liberals get control of congress, our efforts are toast! We need to prayfully go into the voting booth and vote for the most conservative candidates available, and most of the time it will be a Republican. I am sorry to say, even a conservative Democrat will not do this time......because they will be voting for the Democratic leadership who are blantantly ant-Christian!
We are the salt and light, and ambassadors for Christ on earth. We cannot let our Founding Fathers down, they gave us a Christian Republic, and WE are letting it slip away!
Click here to reply to this post
|
|
|
|