In A Word: Bluster – The Foley flap loosed a wave of claims and counter-claims. Where's the truth?
Gerald Eisman
October 08, 2006
In A Word: Bluster – The Foley incident has unleashed a new wave of claims and counter-claims. Where’s the truth?
Bluster: To speak in a loudly arrogant or bullying manner. To brag or make loud, empty threats. To force or bully with swaggering threats.
There was a saying in the advertising industry that went, “when there’s nothing new or different about a product to praise, sing a jingle.” It worked for the moguls then, and since 1994, it has worked for the Republican Party. The only difference is, the Republicans used scare tactics and bluster in lieu of a jingle. If something happened that put the Elephants in a bad light, they attacked with “scatter-gun mouths” and “character assassinations.”
The Mark Foley situation is the latest example of the tactic, and Mr. Conservative mouth, Rush Limbaugh, is the fastest mouth to engage the enemy. According to the “fastest mouth in the party,” Mr. Limbaugh’s comment was this:
The Democratic Party’s handwringing over the unfolding scandal involving former Representative Mark Foley is part of a carefully coordinated attack designed to help the Democrats in the upcoming election.”
In deciphering Rush’s line of thinking, the Democrats have no feelings about Mr. Foley’s actions at all. He goes on to say, in his own inimitable way, that the Democrats have no concern for the children, but are using the incident to further their nefarious struggle to regain control of the nation’s legislative bodies.
Mr. Conservative went on to suggest the timing was planned to break shortly before the mid-term elections, a coordinated effort to besmirch the Republican Party. He suggested the Democrats had copies of the emails as early as last November and withheld the evidence (a criminal act) until it could do the most damage.
The attacks were totally coordinated,” he stated in pontifical tones on his radio talk show. “Sunday afternoon Harry Reid sent out a demand for the Attorney General to investigate the Foley scandal.”
But, that wasn’t all. It seems Mr. Limbaugh still hasn’t gotten over the Bill Clinton era. In his own anal-retentive manner, he continues to pursue the verbal assault on the one man he couldn’t bring down by adding this.
I’m going to tell you what I think is going on. I think the Clinton war room is back up in full speed. How long has this Foley stuff been known by people?”
Well, according to a senior congressional aide, Kirk Fordham, House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s office was alerted to some worrisome conduct by Foley and teenage pages back in 2004. That’s 3 years past and the Republican Party did nothing with the fact. That is three years ago, an two years before other members of the Party were informed. Why wasn’t that fact mentioned by Mr. Mouth? Isn’t that something that could be considered a coordinated effort – at covering up some dirty laundry?
Though under attack, Fordham had this to say. He will fully disclose to the FBI and House ethics committee “…any and all meetings and phone calls” he had with senior staffers in the House leadership.
The fact is,” he went on to say, “even prior to the existence of the Foley e-mail exchanges I had more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley’s inappropriate behavior.”
Meanwhile, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said the delay in disclosing former Rep. Foley’s improper messages to male pages put the kids at risk. Then, in a simple but devastating contradiction, Hastert added that anyone who knew of the sordid incident messages Foley was sending to congressional pages should have notified the proper authorities immediately. That statement begs the question, if Fordham is telling the truth, why didn’t Hastert or a member of his staff bring the authorities in on the scandal three years ago?
Poor Dennis complained that the Democrats had copies of the messages before he did; by a full day. Perhaps that is true, but Dennis’s office had knowledge of the material three years before the Democrats. Somewhere amid the chaos and defensive posturing lies the truth.
Hastert claims he saw the Washington Times editorial, the one calling for his resignation, and questioned editorial page editor Tony Brinkley’s thought process.
Why didn’t he talk to me?” Dennis wondered. “I’ve known him for years. I could’ve told him a lot of things that he took for granted that weren’t necessarily right.” Ah, but they weren’t necessarily wrong, either. Hastert admitted that were he to resign, “That would throw us in a whole speaker’s race right in the middle of an election, which means we wouldn’t get our message out.”
How about the truth? It that was to get out I would consider it to be a boon to the American people.
This brings us back to the subject of bluster. Mr. Hastert says he never saw the messages because of the desire of the page’s mother to protect his privacy. Commenting on the statements by Kirk Fordham, Hastert said “You know, people are making accusations that haven’t been proven. We are going to have an investigation…”
And who do you suppose Mr. Hastert has asked to make that investigation? Alberto Gonzalez, the appointee of President George W Bush. How impartial will that inquiry be? No more bluster, please. How about an immediate investigation by an independent counsel?
Bluster: To speak in a loudly arrogant or bullying manner. To brag or make loud, empty threats. To force or bully with swaggering threats.
There was a saying in the advertising industry that went, “when there’s nothing new or different about a product to praise, sing a jingle.” It worked for the moguls then, and since 1994, it has worked for the Republican Party. The only difference is, the Republicans used scare tactics and bluster in lieu of a jingle. If something happened that put the Elephants in a bad light, they attacked with “scatter-gun mouths” and “character assassinations.”
The Mark Foley situation is the latest example of the tactic, and Mr. Conservative mouth, Rush Limbaugh, is the fastest mouth to engage the enemy. According to the “fastest mouth in the party,” Mr. Limbaugh’s comment was this:
The Democratic Party’s handwringing over the unfolding scandal involving former Representative Mark Foley is part of a carefully coordinated attack designed to help the Democrats in the upcoming election.”
In deciphering Rush’s line of thinking, the Democrats have no feelings about Mr. Foley’s actions at all. He goes on to say, in his own inimitable way, that the Democrats have no concern for the children, but are using the incident to further their nefarious struggle to regain control of the nation’s legislative bodies.
Mr. Conservative went on to suggest the timing was planned to break shortly before the mid-term elections, a coordinated effort to besmirch the Republican Party. He suggested the Democrats had copies of the emails as early as last November and withheld the evidence (a criminal act) until it could do the most damage.
The attacks were totally coordinated,” he stated in pontifical tones on his radio talk show. “Sunday afternoon Harry Reid sent out a demand for the Attorney General to investigate the Foley scandal.”
But, that wasn’t all. It seems Mr. Limbaugh still hasn’t gotten over the Bill Clinton era. In his own anal-retentive manner, he continues to pursue the verbal assault on the one man he couldn’t bring down by adding this.
I’m going to tell you what I think is going on. I think the Clinton war room is back up in full speed. How long has this Foley stuff been known by people?”
Well, according to a senior congressional aide, Kirk Fordham, House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s office was alerted to some worrisome conduct by Foley and teenage pages back in 2004. That’s 3 years past and the Republican Party did nothing with the fact. That is three years ago, an two years before other members of the Party were informed. Why wasn’t that fact mentioned by Mr. Mouth? Isn’t that something that could be considered a coordinated effort – at covering up some dirty laundry?
Though under attack, Fordham had this to say. He will fully disclose to the FBI and House ethics committee “…any and all meetings and phone calls” he had with senior staffers in the House leadership.
The fact is,” he went on to say, “even prior to the existence of the Foley e-mail exchanges I had more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley’s inappropriate behavior.”
Meanwhile, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said the delay in disclosing former Rep. Foley’s improper messages to male pages put the kids at risk. Then, in a simple but devastating contradiction, Hastert added that anyone who knew of the sordid incident messages Foley was sending to congressional pages should have notified the proper authorities immediately. That statement begs the question, if Fordham is telling the truth, why didn’t Hastert or a member of his staff bring the authorities in on the scandal three years ago?
Poor Dennis complained that the Democrats had copies of the messages before he did; by a full day. Perhaps that is true, but Dennis’s office had knowledge of the material three years before the Democrats. Somewhere amid the chaos and defensive posturing lies the truth.
Hastert claims he saw the Washington Times editorial, the one calling for his resignation, and questioned editorial page editor Tony Brinkley’s thought process.
Why didn’t he talk to me?” Dennis wondered. “I’ve known him for years. I could’ve told him a lot of things that he took for granted that weren’t necessarily right.” Ah, but they weren’t necessarily wrong, either. Hastert admitted that were he to resign, “That would throw us in a whole speaker’s race right in the middle of an election, which means we wouldn’t get our message out.”
How about the truth? It that was to get out I would consider it to be a boon to the American people.
This brings us back to the subject of bluster. Mr. Hastert says he never saw the messages because of the desire of the page’s mother to protect his privacy. Commenting on the statements by Kirk Fordham, Hastert said “You know, people are making accusations that haven’t been proven. We are going to have an investigation…”
And who do you suppose Mr. Hastert has asked to make that investigation? Alberto Gonzalez, the appointee of President George W Bush. How impartial will that inquiry be? No more bluster, please. How about an immediate investigation by an independent counsel?
Print
Email
