0
   

Foley Quits Amid Allegations of Email Sex Scandal

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 08:11 am
Quote:
Apology 101: Don't accept any actual responsibility

By David Martin
Published October 5, 2006


Good morning class, and welcome to "The Art of the Public Apology." Whether you're a famous public figure or a lowly civil servant, I'm going to teach you how to apologize without taking any actual responsibility for your actions.

First off, never ever accept blame or admit that you were wrong. After all, you're not sorry for what you've done or said; you're just sorry that you got caught.

True masters of the art admit no wrong and apologize for nothing, no matter how egregious the error. But let's face it; unless you're a billionaire or George W. Bush, this is not a realistic option for most of us.

All right, so you've done or said something that's gotten you into hot water. What do you do next? The classic opening gambit is to use apology-sounding words while avoiding any acknowledgement of culpability. The preferred wording is: "I am sorry if my words offended anyone."

Used by everyone from politicians to popes, this approach often does the trick. People hear the words "I'm sorry" and immediately assume what follows is an apology.

Yet you're not taking back what you did or disavowing your words. All you're really saying is that it's unfortunate that some people are thin-skinned. With any luck, this sneaky pseudo-apology will get everyone off your back.

If you still meet some resistance, try some variations on the same theme. As in, "I'm sorry that people misinterpreted what I said" or "I wish my words had not caused so much pain."

Usually this approach will get you off the hook. Even if, like Pope Benedict XVI, you have to keep rephrasing your non-apology for a couple of weeks, eventually it will be accepted as a true mea culpa.

But sometimes saying you're sorry that people were offended is not enough. That's when you have to try the full-fledged non-apology apology.

With this method you say how truly, truly sorry you are and offer your sincere, heartfelt regrets. To most people, your statement will seem like the real thing.

But, like Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli apologizing for Maher Arar's year of torture in a Syrian prison, be careful to use contingent phrasing. You can be as pained and as sorry as you want. You can even use words like error and mistake, but only contingently. As in, "I'm deeply sorry for any mistakes that might have been made that may have contributed to the problem that everyone's upset about." But whatever you do, don't point out that the wrongdoers under your command have gone unpunished, undisciplined or possibly on to a nice, lucrative promotion or a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Finally, if all else fails, check into rehab. Sure, you may have slighted an entire race, nationality or religion. But remember, it was the drugs, alcohol or personality disorder doing the talking, not you.

Mel Gibson doesn't hate Jews; only alcoholic Mel hates Jews. Former House Rep. Mark Foley doesn't stalk teenage congressional pages; only substance abuser Mark Foley lusts after boys.

Check into the Betty Ford Clinic or, if you're on a tight budget, start attending Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Sex Addicts Anonymous or even All Addictions Anonymous meetings. Guaranteed you won't have to apologize at all. After all, in this modern age, being guilty means never having to say you're sorry.

----------

David Martin lives in Canada.
Source
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:24 am
Thomas wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
I'm getting out of D.C. and going to the border to hunt illegals.

Why not just hunt all those illegals in Congress? Washington seems to be a target-rich territory for those.


Good one, Thomas! Common sense strategy. I think we in the U.S. are just trying to keep up with the Europeans and Englishmen in terms of "hot scandals" to print in the tabloids.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:29 am
okie wrote:
Thomas wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
I'm getting out of D.C. and going to the border to hunt illegals.

Why not just hunt all those illegals in Congress? Washington seems to be a target-rich territory for those.


Good one, Thomas! Common sense strategy. I think we in the U.S. are just trying to keep up with the Europeans and Englishmen in terms of "hot scandals" to print in the tabloids.


Good one, Okie. It seems that the U.S. is already far, far ahead of the English and Europeans in this regard.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:31 am
Reading through the WSJ this morning, I came across this editorial, and it shows that many Republican supporters just don't get what the problem is in this situation with repsect to leadership.

Two 'grafs:

Quote:


What is Mr. Hastert's supposed firing offense, anyway? We've seen no evidence to date that he lied or attempted a cover-up. His office responded to complaints from the parents of a former page by having the head of the page board and clerk of the House speak with Mr. Foley and order him to stop communicating with the minor.


To begin, this is an inadequate response to a problem regarding safety of children. If you found out that someone was stealing money, would you go to them and say 'don't do it again?' What if they were blowing people up, hell, any other serious crime? Absolutely not. When you become aware that someone whom you have responsibility over - and the Republican leadership most certainly does have that responsibility - has possibly committed a crime, it just isn't good enough to say 'don't do it again' for two reasons: first, you could be endangering other youths, and second, it has the potential to really come back and haunt you, as Hastert is now finding out.


Quote:
Republicans should also have alerted the Democrat on the page board to the warning (no ****), but to force a Speaker's resignation because he didn't demand an investigation into every communication between Mr. Foley and current and former pages is politically convenient hindsight. Two newspapers also saw the same emails and declined to publish a story on them, no doubt for similar reasons of privacy and fairness.


No, they declined to run the story because they didn't have enough information, and accusing someone of pedophilia/pederasty/ephebophilia whatever we're calling it these days, in politics, is a very serious accusation if you don't have proof. Now, eventually someone in the news decided that it was worth tracking down some proof, and the story broke; but even the most cursory investigation by the Republican leadership would have revealed a serious problem, and they didn't do it.

Does anyone else realize just how many times the story has been changed here? Does anyone believe that these guys aren't just lying to cover their asses as much as possible? Sheesh

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:38 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Quote:
Apology 101: Don't accept any actual responsibility

Great, sad, funny story, Walter..

Cycloptichorn wrote:
To begin, this is an inadequate response to a problem regarding safety of children. If you found out that someone was stealing money, would you go to them and say 'don't do it again?' What if they were blowing people up, hell, any other serious crime? Absolutely not. When you become aware that someone whom you have responsibility over - and the Republican leadership most certainly does have that responsibility - has possibly committed a crime, it just isn't good enough to say 'don't do it again' for two reasons: first, you could be endangering other youths, and second, it has the potential to really come back and haunt you, as Hastert is now finding out.

nodding..

Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, they declined to run the story because they didn't have enough information, and accusing someone of pedophilia/pederasty/ephebophilia whatever we're calling it these days, in politics, is a very serious accusation if you don't have proof. Now, eventually someone in the news decided that it was worth tracking down some proof, and the story broke; but even the most cursory investigation by the Republican leadership would have revealed a serious problem, and they didn't do it.

nodding again..
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:45 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Reading through the WSJ this morning, I came across this editorial, and it shows that many Republican supporters just don't get what the problem is in this situation with repsect to leadership.

The problem for the Republican leadership is to hush up the scandal fast enough to win the midterm elections in spite of it. They're solving it reasonalby well. I expect a raise in the terror alert level any day now.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:49 am
It all depends on how much they (abc) decide to slow-play the story, and whether or not Hastert can answer actual questions about who knew what, and when, in the face of accusations that people knew long before they claim they did.

Other factors: confirmed sexual contact, other congressmen involved, more pages coming forward to speak, ethics investigation, FBI investigation... it's hard to say where the story will go from here, but anyone who thinks the media is going to let go is crazy; they have their teeth firmly into this one.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 09:52 am
Also, the fact that the GOP decided to throw Fordham under the bus looks, in retrospect, like a huge mistake; he has firsthand knowldege of pretty much the entire situation, and is starting to sing. That can't be a positive thing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 10:44 am
Quote:
October 05, 2006
The Definition of Political Opportunism
By Ann Coulter


At least liberals are finally exhibiting a moral compass about something. I am sure that they'd be equally outraged if Rep. Mark Foley were a Democrat.

The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get snippy.

Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch hunt." He didn't whine that he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)

In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."

When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds -- not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men -- defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office SIX more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")

Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch hunt" against gays: "New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life."

Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.

No one demanded to know why the Democrat Speaker of the House, Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was propositioning male pages.

But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.

Let's run this past the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager -- oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy -- and a credit check, too!

When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.

But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.

The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al Qaida -- solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay.

On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"

Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times "ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub Scouts because they exclude gay scout masters was "the ethical thing to do." The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."

We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:
Boy Scouts -- As gay as you want to be.
Priests -- No gays!
Democrat politicians -Proud gay Americans.
Republican politicians - Presumed guilty.
White House Press Corps - No gays, unless they hate Bush.
Active Duty U.S. Military - As gay as possible.
Men Who Date Liza Minelli - Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss Thing?

This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch hunt against gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.

Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 10:48 am
I read where Hastert is blaming the democrats and ABC News for this scandal. I thought it was Foley s fault for being a sumbag young ********** but hell, what do I know?
0 Replies
 
jpinMilwaukee
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 10:52 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I read where Hastert is blaming the democrats and ABC News for this scandal. I thought it was Foley s fault for being a sumbag young ********** but hell, what do I know?


I gotta agree with the bear on this one.

I still think the Dems are absolutely milking this one for all its worth and going after people just because they can... but for goodness sake, if Foley wasn't doing anything wrong, the Dems wouldn't have anything to make a deal out of.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 10:55 am
http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/061004/ramirez.jpg
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 10:59 am
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I read where Hastert is blaming the democrats and ABC News for this scandal. I thought it was Foley s fault for being a sumbag young ********** but hell, what do I know?


I gotta agree with the bear on this one.

I still think the Dems are absolutely milking this one for all its worth and going after people just because they can... but for goodness sake, if Foley wasn't doing anything wrong, the Dems wouldn't have anything to make a deal out of.


bingo. and I agree that the dems are using this for political gain and ABC is using it to boost ratings... in other words a totally everyday effort from any network or political party. Doesn't make it right, but certainly doesn't make it unusual.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 11:09 am
jpinMilwaukee wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
I read where Hastert is blaming the democrats and ABC News for this scandal. I thought it was Foley s fault for being a sumbag young ********** but hell, what do I know?


I gotta agree with the bear on this one.

I still think the Dems are absolutely milking this one for all its worth and going after people just because they can... but for goodness sake, if Foley wasn't doing anything wrong, the Dems wouldn't have anything to make a deal out of.

I gotta disagree with the bear on this one, the problem as I see it is party politics where winning is the only issue. I never voted for Clinton (and never would) which you might say cost Gore the election but I will not and cannot vote for a party against my own values. Foley could have been from any party which makes the republican party the enemy for hiding/defending his fuckup just as the dems would have done (Liberman for V.P.?) It is not Foley that will cost the repubs, it is actual conservative repubs rather than party jerkoffs who will not-vote that will kill the repubs. The dems will not win one, the repubs will lose one and the US of A will, in the end, be the losers.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 11:14 am
but there would be no party politics swirling around Foley if he hadn't been caught at innappropriate sexual behavior so in the end it's his doing.

Not that I'm a fan of either party or their politics. I was planning on watching the Apocalypse with you on yur porch drinking liquor and smoking dope with an occasional trip into town to loot the Food King.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 11:21 am
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
but there would be no party politics swirling around Foley if he hadn't been caught at innappropriate sexual behavior so in the end it's his doing.

Not that I'm a fan of either party or their politics. I was planning on watching the Apocalypse with you on yur porch drinking liquor and smoking dope with an occasional trip into town to loot the Food King.

ok by me.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 11:23 am
Ticomaya wrote:
The Definition of Political Opportunism
... Ann Coulter

I think that pretty much sums it up.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 11:32 am
Joe and Tico,

How would you guys sum up Ann Coulter? (I myself do not trust her.)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 11:32 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Quote:

By Ann Coulter

This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages, Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch hunt against gays.

Ah, nonsense. Fifty-something politician actively preys on teenage pages - scandal. Period. Whether the pages are boys or girls dont make any difference - not to Democrats anyway - people would have been indignant either way.

Perhaps the fact that Foley wasnt just preying on teenagers but - oh no! - was being gay and going for boys, in particular, is a big deal for Coulter and the Christian conservatives. Perhaps for them gay preying is just that much more of an issue than regular preying.

But Democrats are not the ones with a hang up on this. For them, the gay angle is irrelevant. A Republican Congressman preyed on teenage pages. Either which way they would have pounced on that.

If anyone seriously thinks that, if the Republican Party had denounced and disciplined Foley for preying on teenage boys, the Democrats would have defended Foley, he or she should check his head. Even just from a cynical power-politics POV: not even the Democrats are that suicidal.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 11:35 am
wandeljw wrote:
Joe and Tico,

How would you guys sum up Ann Coulter? (I myself do not trust her.)


Always entertaining ... never dull.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/11/2025 at 06:56:23