I come to praise George Will -- an honest conservative - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmac2012 · #1 10-07-2006, 03:16 AM

What Goeth Before the Fall

By George F. Will
Thursday, October 5, 2006

The Reverend Elmer Gantry was reading an illustrated pink periodical devoted to prize-fighters and chorus girls in his room at Elizabeth J. Schmutz Hall late of an afternoon when two large men walked in without knocking.

"Why, good evening, Brother Bains -- Brother Naylor! This is a pleasant surprise. I was, uh -- Did you ever see this horrible rag? . . . I was thinking of denouncing it next Sunday. I hope you never read it."

-- Sinclair Lewis, "Elmer Gantry"

In life as in literature, Elmer Gantry is a recurring American figure. He is making yet another appearance in the matter of former representative Mark Foley.

Sinclair Lewis's "Elmer Gantry," like most of his novels, is dreadful as literature but splendid as a symptom. Published in 1927, the year Charles Lindbergh flew the Atlantic and Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs and the American craft of ballyhoo was being perfected, the novel was a cartoonish blast of contempt for tub-thumping evangelists who were doing well for themselves while pretending to do good works to redeem this naughty world. Gantry succumbed to temptations of the flesh and the real estate market. The modern twist to the fall of Foley -- public protector and private predator of children -- is the warp speed with which it moved from exposé to therapy: Foley, who has entered alcohol rehab, says he takes "responsibility" for what he has become as a result of abusive priests and demon rum.

Having so quickly exhausted the Oprah approach, the Foley story moved on to who knew what, and when. That drove Speaker Dennis Hastert to the un-Oprah broadcasting couch on which Republicans recline when getting in touch with their feelings. To Rush Limbaugh's 20 million receptive listeners, Hastert, referring to Republicans as "we," said:

"We have a story to tell, and the Democrats have -- in my view have -- put this thing forward to try to block us from telling the story. They're trying to put us on defense."

It is difficult to read that as other than an accusation: He seems to be not just confessing a coverup but also complaining that the coverup was undone by bad manners. Were it not for Democrats' unsportsmanlike conduct in putting "this thing" forward, it would not be known and would not be disrupting Republicans' storytelling.

Their story, of late, has been that theirs is the lonely burden of defending all that is wholesome. But the problem with claiming to have cornered the market on virtue is that people will get snippy when they spot vice in your ranks. This is one awkward aspect of what is supposed to have been the happy fusion between, but which involves unresolved tensions between, two flavors of conservatism -- Western and Southern.

The former is largely libertarian, holding that pruning big government will allow civil society -- and virtues nourished by it and by the responsibilities of freedom -- to flourish. The Southern, essentially religious, strand of conservatism is explained by Ryan Sager in his new book, "The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party":

"Whereas conservative Christian parents once thought it was inappropriate for public schools to teach their kids about sex, now they want the schools to preach abstinence to children. Whereas conservative Christians used to be unhappy with evolution being taught in public schools, now they want Intelligent Design taught instead (or at least in addition). Whereas conservative Christians used to want the federal government to leave them alone, now they demand that more and more federal funds be directed to local churches and religious groups through Bush's faith-based initiatives program."

To a Republican Party increasingly defined by the ascendancy of the religious right, the Foley episode is doubly deadly. His behavior was disgusting, and some Republican reactions seem more calculating than indignant.

Foley's name remains on the ballot in Florida's 16th Congressional District, which means that Democrats, who needed 15 seats to capture the House, now need just 14. Thirteen, actually: In Arizona's 8th, where Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe is retiring, Republicans used the primary to vent, nominating a probably unelectable fire-breather on the immigration issue.

After the 1936 election, in which President Franklin Roosevelt shellacked the Republican nominee in all but two states, a humorist wrote: "If the outcome of this election hasn't taught you Republicans not to meddle in politics, I don't know what will." If, after the Foley episode -- a maraschino cherry atop the Democrats' delectable sundae of Republican miseries -- the Democrats cannot gain 13 seats, they should go into another line of work.

aklim · #2 10-07-2006, 09:37 AM

Do you agree with him then when it comes to global warming?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101707.html

Honus · #3 10-07-2006, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Do you agree with him then when it comes to global warming?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101707.html

So, a conservative commentator writes a column accusing Speaker of the House of covering for a Republican pedophile for no reason other than the pedophile was assured of re-election and the best you can come up with is a column about global warming. Glad to see you are taking a fair and balanced look at the Foley/Hastert scandal.

BTW, the Republicans continue to get caught telling bald-faced lies about the Foley/Hastert matter (from http://thinkprogress.org):

Quote:

Top conservatives have fanned out on television to defend House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s role in the Foley scandal.

A key talking point: when ABC made Foley’s sexually explicit communications public, Hastert “dealt with it immediately” by going to Foley and telling him, “Resign or be expelled.” Both Ken Mehlman and Ed Gillespie said Hastert’s bold ultimatum to Foley was something not seen “in thirty years in this town.”

In fact, their entire story is a fabrication. Hastert could not have issued an ultimatum to Foley after the sexually explicit instant messages were made public, because by that time, Foley had already resigned. ABC did not make Foley’s sexually explicit communications public until Friday, September 29, at 6pm ET. Foley had already resigned three hours earlier, at around 3pm ET.

As ABC producer Maddy Sauer has described, Foley decided to resign not after an ultimatum from Speaker Hastert, but after ABC called his office on Friday morning and read Foley staffers the instant messages they had obtained. According to Sauer, Foley’s office called ABC an hour later and said the congressman would be resigning.

Speaker Hastert himself acknowledged that he had no role in Foley’s resignation in his first statement on the issue on Monday:

When [the instant messages] were released, Congressman Foley resigned. And I’m glad he did. If he had not, I would have demanded his expusion from the House of Representatives.

Full transcript video:

HASTERT: When Congress found out about the explicit messages, Republicans dealt with it immediately and the culprit was gone. [10/5/06]

HASTERT: I, first of all, learned of this last Friday, when we were about to leave Congress for the break, to go out and campaign. And that’s the first time that I heard of the explicit language. When it happened, Republicans acted. And the guy’s gone. [10/5/06]

HOEKSTRA: I mean, we were all disgusted by what we found out last week Friday. But we also need to remember that what we did do on Friday is the speaker, the leadership and the House Republican conference, we spoke with clarity. It was a defining moment for us. We said, Resign or be expelled. Mark Foley left the House of Representatives within hours of this information becoming public. [10/6/06]

MEHLMAN: The fact is, what Denny Hastert did is something that we haven’t seen done in thirty years in this town in Washington DC, and that is he said to a member of congress, either you go or we’re going to make you go. That happened the moment that Denny Hastert found out about this. [10/6/06]

GILLESPIE: In fact, voters are starting to understand that speaker Hastert reacted very strongly. As the father of a 16-year-old son, I appreciate him going to Mark Foley and saying, “You either resign or you’re going to be expelled.” That would be the first time in thirty years. [10/6/06]

aklim · #4 10-07-2006, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

So, a conservative commentator writes a column accusing Speaker of the House of covering for a Republican pedophile for no reason other than the pedophile was assured of re-election and the best you can come up with is a column about global warming. Glad to see you are taking a fair and balanced look at the Foley/Hastert scandal.

BTW, the Republicans continue to get caught telling bald-faced lies about the Foley matter (from http://thinkprogress.org):

So I ask an offhanded question and you think I am talking about the Foley/Hastert issue? Wasn't even on my mind. They each cover up for each other because there are no real penalties that are certain or swift.

cmac2012 · #5 10-07-2006, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

Do you agree with him then when it comes to global warming?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101707.html

I differ with Will on many issues, enviro damage being one of them. He does raise some thought provoking arguments about it, as well as most everything else he writes about.

He is not one to suffer fools lightly, especially for the sake of partisanship, and we could use more of that in our nation's media.

aklim · #6 10-07-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I differ with Will on many issues, enviro damage being one of them. He does raise some thought provoking arguments about it, as well as most everything else he writes about.

He is not one to suffer fools lightly, especially for the sake of partisanship, and we could use more of that in our nation's media.

Just curious. As far as global warming goes, I am kinda agnostic having been warned when I was young that my grandkids might face a global freezing and now it is a global warming.

Ok. Unfortunately that is kinda scarce in the world.

cmac2012 · #7 10-07-2006, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

So, a conservative commentator writes a column accusing Speaker of the House of covering for a Republican pedophile for no reason other than the pedophile was assured of re-election and the best you can come up with is a column about global warming. Glad to see you are taking a fair and balanced look at the Foley/Hastert scandal.

BTW, the Republicans continue to get caught telling bald-faced lies about the Foley/Hastert matter (from http://thinkprogress.org):

Olbermann put it well, something like "the ghost of Richard Nixon could have told them: it's not the misdeed, it's the coverup that'll get you."

The proffessional propaganists are covering themselves in glory on this one. Of course, all purpose fall guy George Soros is really the one to blame here -- he knew about this for months, they would have us believe, but cynically waited until now to spring it. The same crowd that drug us and Clinton through the mud for a couple of years over something way less pathologically weird than this want to dismiss this as a Demo October surprise. This crowd is shameless beyond shameless.

t walgamuth · #8 10-07-2006, 02:34 PM

yep.

tom w

aklim · #9 10-07-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Olbermann put it well, something like "the ghost of Richard Nixon could have told them: it's not the misdeed, it's the coverup that'll get you."

The proffessional propaganists are covering themselves in glory on this one. Of course, all purpose fall guy George Soros is really the one to blame here -- he knew about this for months, they would have us believe, but cynically waited until now to spring it. The same crowd that drug us and Clinton through the mud for a couple of years over something way less pathologically weird than this want to dismiss this as a Demo October surprise. This crowd is shameless beyond shameless.

Well, I would say they are hoping they can bury it before it gets known. Sometimes it works and life is good. Sometimes it won't and then the coverup will get you. Kinda like me speeding. 999 times out of a thousand I don't get caught so I speed. I can live with those odds. Of course those that do get covered up successfully probably won't be known to you or me so maybe that is why they do it.

Carleton Hughes · #10 10-07-2006, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

What Goeth Before the Fall

By George F. Will
Thursday, October 5, 2006

The Reverend Elmer Gantry was reading an illustrated pink periodical devoted to prize-fighters and chorus girls in his room at Elizabeth J. Schmutz Hall late of an afternoon when two large men walked in without knocking.

"Why, good evening, Brother Bains -- Brother Naylor! This is a pleasant surprise. I was, uh -- Did you ever see this horrible rag? . . . I was thinking of denouncing it next Sunday. I hope you never read it."

-- Sinclair Lewis, "Elmer Gantry"

In life as in literature, Elmer Gantry is a recurring American figure. He is making yet another appearance in the matter of former representative Mark Foley.

Sinclair Lewis's "Elmer Gantry," like most of his novels, is dreadful as literature but splendid as a symptom. Published in 1927, the year Charles Lindbergh flew the Atlantic and Babe Ruth hit 60 home runs and the American craft of ballyhoo was being perfected, the novel was a cartoonish blast of contempt for tub-thumping evangelists who were doing well for themselves while pretending to do good works to redeem this naughty world. Gantry succumbed to temptations of the flesh and the real estate market. The modern twist to the fall of Foley -- public protector and private predator of children -- is the warp speed with which it moved from exposé to therapy: Foley, who has entered alcohol rehab, says he takes "responsibility" for what he has become as a result of abusive priests and demon rum.

Having so quickly exhausted the Oprah approach, the Foley story moved on to who knew what, and when. That drove Speaker Dennis Hastert to the un-Oprah broadcasting couch on which Republicans recline when getting in touch with their feelings. To Rush Limbaugh's 20 million receptive listeners, Hastert, referring to Republicans as "we," said:

"We have a story to tell, and the Democrats have -- in my view have -- put this thing forward to try to block us from telling the story. They're trying to put us on defense."

It is difficult to read that as other than an accusation: He seems to be not just confessing a coverup but also complaining that the coverup was undone by bad manners. Were it not for Democrats' unsportsmanlike conduct in putting "this thing" forward, it would not be known and would not be disrupting Republicans' storytelling.

Their story, of late, has been that theirs is the lonely burden of defending all that is wholesome. But the problem with claiming to have cornered the market on virtue is that people will get snippy when they spot vice in your ranks. This is one awkward aspect of what is supposed to have been the happy fusion between, but which involves unresolved tensions between, two flavors of conservatism -- Western and Southern.

The former is largely libertarian, holding that pruning big government will allow civil society -- and virtues nourished by it and by the responsibilities of freedom -- to flourish. The Southern, essentially religious, strand of conservatism is explained by Ryan Sager in his new book, "The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party":

"Whereas conservative Christian parents once thought it was inappropriate for public schools to teach their kids about sex, now they want the schools to preach abstinence to children. Whereas conservative Christians used to be unhappy with evolution being taught in public schools, now they want Intelligent Design taught instead (or at least in addition). Whereas conservative Christians used to want the federal government to leave them alone, now they demand that more and more federal funds be directed to local churches and religious groups through Bush's faith-based initiatives program."

To a Republican Party increasingly defined by the ascendancy of the religious right, the Foley episode is doubly deadly. His behavior was disgusting, and some Republican reactions seem more calculating than indignant.

Foley's name remains on the ballot in Florida's 16th Congressional District, which means that Democrats, who needed 15 seats to capture the House, now need just 14. Thirteen, actually: In Arizona's 8th, where Republican Rep. Jim Kolbe is retiring, Republicans used the primary to vent, nominating a probably unelectable fire-breather on the immigration issue.

After the 1936 election, in which President Franklin Roosevelt shellacked the Republican nominee in all but two states, a humorist wrote: "If the outcome of this election hasn't taught you Republicans not to meddle in politics, I don't know what will." If, after the Foley episode -- a maraschino cherry atop the Democrats' delectable sundae of Republican miseries -- the Democrats cannot gain 13 seats, they should go into another line of work.

Dreadful as literature??
Up to this point I have always respected and agreed occasionally with your viewpoint but I cannot stomach your cavalier and philistine dismissal of one of America's greatest social critics.

Have you read Main Street,Dodsworth,Babbit and other tomes exposing the pretense and pus upon which a shaky society is floating?

"Red" Lewis as he was known was a fearless and gifted chronicler of the foibles and pretenses of society,so what if they were written 70-80 odd years ago,same ***** today,only the outward forms of "advancing technology"differ.

Matt L · #11 10-08-2006, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carleton Hughes

Dreadful as literature??
Up to this point I have always respected and agreed occasionally with your viewpoint but I cannot stomach your cavalier and philistine dismissal of one of America's greatest social critics.

Who are you speaking to here?

Gil · #12 10-08-2006, 01:12 AM

Uh, just wondering how one pervert who's already been summarily disposed of has quietly morphed into the "Foley/Hastert/entire Republican party" thing.

The St. Pete Times was considering doing a story on Foley nearly three years ago but decided not to, as they felt they didn't have enough evidence - and they knew a lot more details than Hastert did. But no matter, right?

As if all Republicans should resign because of one guy who's already out of the picture. Yeah - nice try. I didn't see anybody resign over Reynolds, or Gerry Studds (who actually had sex with a page - not just a few emails), so why should wholesale resignations be expected of Republicans?

Oh yeah - for those who don't remember Reynolds - former congressman who had sex with a 15 year old campaign volunteer:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp

The Dems will neverthless pathetically try to milk the Foley thing all the way to the election as much as possible to avoid any discussion of their agenda. [Can't say as I blame them - what have they really got?]

If they want investigations of Congressmen, better be prepared for what else they might find among their own party members - they may have just created another monster.

cmac2012 · #13 10-08-2006, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carleton Hughes

Dreadful as literature??
Up to this point I have always respected and agreed occasionally with your viewpoint but I cannot stomach your cavalier and philistine dismissal of one of America's greatest social critics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

Who are you speaking to here?

Thanks Matt, you beat me to it.

Carleton, those were George Will's words. I've got mixed feelings about the guy. He can be insufferably arrogant but he often writes well and is among the select group of conservative pundits I make a point of reading because he forces me to examine some of my sacred cows from time to time.

I especially like the fact that he doesn't toady up to conservatives in power but smacks them hard when they've got it coming, as he did, deftly but savagely, here.

I never read "Elmer Gantry" but I really liked the movie with Burt Lancaster. Come to think of it, I've not read Lewis at all. I'll make a point of sticking my nose in one of his books.

cmac2012 · #14 10-08-2006, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gil

Uh, just wondering how one pervert who's already been summarily disposed of has quietly morphed into the "Foley/Hastert/entire Republican party" thing.

The St. Pete Times was considering doing a story on Foley nearly three years ago but decided not to, as they felt they didn't have enough evidence - and they knew a lot more details than Hastert did. But no matter, right?

As if all Republicans should resign because of one guy who's already out of the picture. Yeah - nice try. I didn't see anybody resign over Reynolds, or Gerry Studds (who actually had sex with a page - not just a few emails), so why should wholesale resignations be expected of Republicans?

Oh yeah - for those who don't remember Reynolds - former congressman who had sex with a 15 year old campaign volunteer:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/reynolds.asp

The Dems will neverthless pathetically try to milk the Foley thing all the way to the election as much as possible to avoid any discussion of their agenda. [Can't say as I blame them - what have they really got?]

If they want investigations of Congressmen, better be prepared for what else they might find among their own party members - they may have just created another monster.

I'm trying to recall where I said other people in Congress should resign over this. I'm hoping this whole affair will illustrate their craven allegiance to money and cronies to the detriment of the nation's business, not to mention youth, to enough voters to bring about a change in employment for enough Repos so as to bring about a little balance of power in DC.

What have the dems really got?!? The Repo crowd that have gotten drunk with power are outta control. The Jefferson guy is a crook too, and he'll soon be sent to Vocational rehab I imagine. Good Lord, did you miss DeLay, Cunningham, Nae (Nay -sp?)? And this character Boener/Boner is about the sleaziest looking guy I've seen in gubmint since.... well since Tom DeLay.

I've never been too impressed with Hastert and he's not distinguished himself here. Cheney says he's a big Hastert fan. I can only imagine that's because Hastert's round form makes it easier for him to roll over for Cheney/Bush. The guy has come across really weak in this, IMHO.

Carleton Hughes · #15 10-08-2006, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

Who are you speaking to here?

Uhhhh,,,,,,I dunno