Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
One of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the world, when one finds oneself in trouble, is to point to other people who are doing even worse things and then wonder aloud why you're being so persecuted when others are allowed to get away with (fill in the blank). But when you do that, the person you point to needs to actually be doing worse things.
I'm sure by now you've heard all about this little tempest about Max Baucus allegedly being drunk while giving a speech on the floor of the Senate. I have no idea whether he was or wasn't, nor do I particularly care. He certainly would not be the first or last legislator to have a few drinks before hitting the floor; hell, if I had to spend all my time with politicians I'd be shooting heroin in front of the C-Span cameras.
Politico notes that Mark Foley, the disgraced former Florida congressman, is trying to use this as an example for his "why are you all picking on me" persecution pose.
On his Facebook page, former Rep. Mark Foley commented on the video: "This is the senator that hired his staffer and then took her on trips ... and divorced his wife ... and they had me run out of town."
Well yes, Mark, because there's a slight difference. You were trying to have sexual relationships with underage pages. That's not the same thing as having sex with a consenting adult. Or getting drunk. Nice try, though.
Politics
Comments
It's more than a rhetorical trick. It's window into workings of a faulty conscience. Obviously Foley has not even begun to grapple with the wrongness of his own actions.
I've heard similar protests from nearly every child molester I've ever evaluated.
Posted by: Dr X | January 1, 2010 9:51 AM
I think one of the biggest things we need to deal with as a species is the tendency of the dumbest or wrongest individuals to still want to believe they were right despite evidence they were wrong.
Posted by: Katharine | January 1, 2010 10:27 AM
As far as being drunk on the floor of the Senate.....there was a Congressional session shortly before the Civil War (back in the days when Congress was in session far, far less often than they currently are) which could not be ended for three days.
A majority vote is needed to close Congress. Alas, a majority of the Congress was too inebriated to cast their vote.
Posted by: Jillian | January 1, 2010 10:42 AM
I wonder if it would be just as effective to bombard Foley with information the way he's participated in repeating lies to the United States.
Would it be a good idea to continually remind Mark Foley about his solicitation of minors? Yes.
He deserves to be broken.
Posted by: Katharine | January 1, 2010 10:53 AM
I think one of the biggest things we need to deal with as a species is the tendency of the dumbest or wrongest individuals to still want to believe they were right despite evidence they were wrong.
Katharine, it's called denial, which is a symptom of addictive illness. I'm convinced it has a strong neurological foundation, and the only way to deal with it is to breed it out of the species - which would involve telling a lot of people they can't have children, which will never happen, which is one of the reasons we're on our way out the door.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | January 1, 2010 11:12 AM
Posted by: llewelly | January 1, 2010 11:17 AM
Posted by: llewelly | January 1, 2010 11:20 AM
You call that drunk?
I know a lot of drunks and, Mr. Baucus, you are no drunk!
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | January 1, 2010 11:38 AM
You're almost certainly correct about the neurological foundation of denial, but it isn't all bad news. Denial is the foundation of all other defenses and defenses have adaptive as well as maladaptive aspects. There is no such thing as neurological free lunch.
Defenses might lead to our demise as a species, but I doubt it. It's more likely that, on balance, our survival as a species actually owes something to defenses.
Posted by: Dr X | January 1, 2010 11:49 AM
So you think 16 and 17 year olds aren't adults? Not to defend the guy since Foley is a creep, a hypocrite, and an idiot but he wasn't going after 12 year olds. He was hitting on 16 and 17 year olds which is legal in Washington DC. Something Foley was very aware of.
Posted by: yoshi | January 1, 2010 11:53 AM
Yes, sixteen and seventeen-year-olds are not adults.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | January 1, 2010 12:01 PM
Reminds me a bit of German politician Franz Josef Strauss, and his infamous TV interview on election night 1980 - he was absolutely sloshed, could hardly talk straight. Apparently, he had a couple of bottles of wine to celebrate the defeat of his political ally but personal foe, Helmut Kohl.
And, no, it wasn't the end of his career - he survived that one as easily as the Lockheed bribes he took, or that incident with the underage hooker in New York. Goes to show that the right mix of clever bigotry, false piety and veiled racism can make you politically invulnerable not just in the U.S.
Posted by: Phillip IV | January 1, 2010 12:43 PM
It's not fair! You're only arguing with me because I'm wrong.
Posted by: xebecs | January 1, 2010 1:30 PM
Well, 16 and 17 year olds may not be adults for purposes of voting, making contracts, etc., but in 33 states plus DC they are adults as far as having sex goes.
http://www.4parents.gov/sexrisky/teen_sex/statelaws_chart/statelaws_chart.html
Now, one might think it's kind of creepy for a 50ish guy to be going after 16 or 17 year old pages, but one thing the pages are not (at least in DC) is underage. And yes, creepiness is sufficient reason for the voters to remove a politician.
If you think they're not adult enough to have sex, then the thing to do is to work to get the law changed in your state.
Posted by: Don K | January 1, 2010 5:23 PM
could someone explain the age differential on that link? http://www.4parents.gov/sexrisky/teen_sex/statelaws_chart/statelaws_chart.html
Posted by: shane | January 1, 2010 6:21 PM
Defenses might lead to our demise as a species, but I doubt it. It's more likely that, on balance, our survival as a species actually owes something to defenses.
I think we've arrived at a point at which our maladaptive traits outnumber our adaptive ones. That, combine with the gap between our technological advancement, without a corresponding advance in our collective level of emotional development, will probably result in our demise in the foreseeable future.
In other words, I don't think we have much time left.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | January 1, 2010 6:26 PM
DonK@
The problem with what Foley did is not just the age differential. An additional factor is that he was attempting to have sex with pages, who are employees of Congress and therefore people over whom he had power.
Posted by: Bill Poser | January 1, 2010 8:04 PM
DonK@17: Yes, that's a detail in Canada's age of consent laws that I quite approve of and is missing in the U.S.
In Canada, teens are legally deemed able to consent to sex with a person not in a position of authoirity over them. If there's a power relationship (teacher, boss, family, whatever), the age of consent is 18.
It's actually possible (and has happened, mostly when one is mentally retarded) to be in a position of authority over, and therefore prosecuted for non-consensual sex with, someone older.
This was all overhauled with bill C-2 in 2005, and I'm less familiar with the new rules, but the position of authority principle is still there.
Posted by: Canuck | January 1, 2010 9:30 PM
Some of the comments in Politico are hilarious in their over-the-top denunciation of Baucus' "intoxication" He sounds like he either had a couple of strong ones at lunch, or he might simply be exhausted.
Canada has a proud tradition of drunken politicians, most notably our first Prime Minister, John A. MacDonald. One campaign story has it that during a speech by his Liberal opponent, a bombed MacDonald suddenly vomited over the podium. He immediately said "See how disgusted I am with my opponent's ideas..." He served as PM for 19 years despite his reputation.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | January 1, 2010 11:25 PM