Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (182056)	10/9/2006 12:31:19 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794298

Anyway, I am concluding that trying to piece together something like this is an exercise in futility. I listened to "analysts" on both sides spouting spin and taking their best shots, and you know, it's all meaningless. And sad, too. I agree with you about the timing, by the way. I think politics played a role in how Foley was initially handled, and in how it has become public. But why would we think it wouldn't? This is the game now- ignoble, dirty, and merciless- on both sides. Yes, indeed. And, unfortunately, it all happens at a time when we need a rational, unemotional national discourse more than ever. But political hay will be made when the sun shines, and Foley's Foibles are a perfect example. As was Monica's Dress, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, etc., ad nauseum. The national security picture is incredibly complex and has become vastly more so thanks to the NK nuclear test. It will become horribly so when [not if] the Iranians test their own nuclear stuff. The wise old adage that politics ends at our borders' edges is dead, but it shouldn't be. We don't need to waste political capital or destroy the already delicate ability to reach a consensus on large issues with small time BS like Foley's. Take the political lumps, 'fess up to whatever knowledge the GOP leadership had, and move on. If heads need to roll, let them roll. But it will never happen because the scandal was timed, IMO, to coincide with the November midterm elections and to thereby extract maximum political advantage from the furor it caused. I suppose hoping that it would have been handled in a less politicized way is the essence of naivete.

To: Rambi who wrote (182056)	10/9/2006 12:57:04 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794298

I spend days at a time off SI also. But usually don't spend time watching news channels. ---------------------------------- The defensiveness to me is exemplified in pulling out 25 year old cases, trying to make themselves look better by comparing what happened then to now, saying in effect, "hey, your guy was slimier than ours". The whole thing is political and political attacks need to be countered. The point of bringing up Studds is to nullify the claim that Democrats are or would be better at safe-guarding young people. Clearly, Studds - who still sat in Congress a decade ago - shows that isn't so. Re. Brooks comparison of the Foley case to Eve Ensler's play, I think he has a point. Whatever the play is deemed to be about (women's frustrations .. emerging sexual freedom .. awakening) if it includes an episode of child seduction positively, then that is what it is and is unavoidably problematic morally. Art is not necessarily advocacy - child pornographers would say artistic depictions of child sexuality aren't necessarily advocacy.