Smutgate: Drudge nukes Webb with pedo passage from novel; Update: Michelle slams Allen camp

posted at 11:22 pm on October 26, 2006 by Allahpundit

Technically it’s the Allen camp that nuked him by issuing the press release, but come on. Who has the launch codes? Who’s the one capable of putting this into media orbit?

A few thoughts.

1. In Webb’s defense, American ass is, in fact, an important product.

2. Yes, “ma-cock-a.” I get it. No need for further e-mails.

3. John Hawkins broke this story ten days ago with help from an unknown “someone” who called it to his attention. Read his post, as it places the passage in context. It’s an odd little vignette, to be sure, but the other characters seem as mystified by it as the reader is. The story’s about Vietnam; maybe he’s describing some obscure cultural practice that he encountered there. Or, just maybe, he made it up. Have we actually reached the point where Senate seats now turn on the sex scandals of fictional characters?

4. If George Allen had written this book, not only would the left be going berserk, they’d be circulating lists of characters in his other books whom they suspect of being gay.

5. E.M.’s too easy on Foley but her larger point is, as usual, right:

Its not a major scandal, by any stretch, since it doesn’t appear as though he acted on any of the impulses that he wrote about in his novel, but if a few vulgar IMs can send the media into a major fit for nearly two weeks, and a stint at the Playboy party can become a running gag on The Daily Show, this deserves at least a lookover in a campaign commerical and a few “rescue” interviews, or at least some sort of new adjective attached to Jim Webb’s name when he’s mentioned on nighttime political stew shows, something right in the middle of a Foley and Ford, Jr.

Yeah, there’s no getting away from “[he] turned him upside down, and put the boy’s penis in his mouth.” Once you’re famous for having written something like that, you’re famous for having written something like that. If he beats Allen, they might as well refer to him that way when calling the roll. “…Mr. Obama; Mr. Pryor; Mr. Put the Boy’s Penis in His Mouth…”

Henceforth, forevermore, it shall be seared, seared in our memories.

kerry-silly5.jpg

Update: Here’s another one for the “Malkin never criticizes conservatives” file.

Update: A pox on both their houses, says Moran:

Issuing a press release that quotes a character from one of Webb’s saucy war novels doing unspeakable things to his own son (sorry – find the damn link somewhere else. I don’t link to porn.), Allen may very well have sealed his victory by “outing” Webb’s fictional day dreams but he has lost his soul in the process…

But doesn’t this make anyone else’s skin crawl? Both because Webb wrote it and Allen brought it into a political campaign?…

There must be limits beyond which a candidate is penalized for exceeding. The absolutely disgusting nature of the passages quoted in the Allen press release fills that bill. The fact that they are quoting piece of fiction obviates only slightly Webb’s startling and disturbing imaginative wanderings into the sexual dark side of the human mind as it also reveals the depths to which Allen’s honor and integrity have sunk.

If this doesn’t doom any Presidential hopes for the Virginia Senator, it certainly should.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

This is off topic, but here goes…

I respectfully disagree with Michelle.

JayHaw Phrenzie on October 27, 2006 at 10:32 AM

What would it mean if someone disrespectfully agreed with JayHaw Phrenzie?

I think alot about these sort of things…

Especially on crazy ass threads like this.

(and I write ass in a non-sexual, non-peadophile sort of way)

EFG on October 27, 2006 at 12:18 PM

The inmates over at DUmmieland have picked up on Michelle’s post regarding this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364×2495812

Enoxo on October 27, 2006 at 12:20 PM

This is off topic, but here goes…

I respectfully disagree with Michelle.

JayHaw Phrenzie on October 27, 2006 at 10:32 AM
What would it mean if someone disrespectfully agreed with JayHaw Phrenzie?

I think alot about these sort of things…

:)

That’s funny.

Let’s see … how’s this for disrespectful agreement:

“Good point, EFG, you semi-retarded howling whack job. Good point!”

Something like that …

Professor Blather on October 27, 2006 at 12:26 PM

Professor Blather, as to your book, can’t you use clinical terms, or must you resort to getting nasty in your descriptions? Robert A. Heinlein was able to get pretty graphic without being gross…

Whether you like it or not, the MSM brought sex into the elections by assisting the super secret democratic operative, then running with that story. While they were as sneaky and underhanded as could be, Allen’s camp came out and mentioned a specific passage from a book written by Webb. What is wrong with that? Are writers not responsible for their works? Why should this have been ignored? If his writings are nothing to be concerned about, why are you so concerned?

You want to know how you should write your book, and here is one solution. Don’t write anything that you would, or could be ashamed of writing.

DannoJyd on October 27, 2006 at 12:28 PM

DannoJyd:

I want to make sure I understand you.

It is your position that showing or depicting the bad guys … being bad … isn’t kosher anymore?

Seriously?

Time to start the book burning! There goes most of the Bible, all of Shakespeare (read MacBeth lately?) … not to mention every decent action movie ever made.

And, uh, no offense … but you might want to reread Heinlein. By your criteria, he’ll be near the top of the book burning list:

I have to confess that I find Heinlein’s exploration of sexual themes in these later books disturbing. Although books like “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” and “Stranger” allegedly promote an open attitude to sex and sexuality, his final series of books goes far beyond that, dealing extensively with incest and child sex. In “To Sail Beyond the Sunset” for example, his main protagonist Maureen Johnson (mother of Lazarus Long) connives with her husband to enable him to have sex with two of his daughters – one of them sixteen at the time. She also tries to seduce her own father and speculates on whether he has had sex with one of his granddaughters.

Professor Blather on October 27, 2006 at 12:35 PM

There should have been a spew alert on your comment, Apologist :)….I’m still cleaning coffee off of my keyboard…..

thebookkeeper on October 27, 2006 at 12:43 PM

I haven’t read MacBeth lately, but what I do know of the Bible and Shakespeare, there may be a chronicle of a sordid tale but there are no gratuitous details.

INC on October 27, 2006 at 12:43 PM

Hell, Thailand sells its female children into sexual slavery. If you don’t want to think about that, be my guest. Just keep your moral indignation to yourself unless you can speak on a topic from a position of information.

My moral indignation is directed at this perv trying to be elected to a position of being a policy maker…my information is based on his running for PUBLIC office. I see his platform isn’t touting his sucess as a “novelist”. Again I ask, why not?
Because his content is not socially popular.

What I see, is my first born son growing up in a country that doesn’t accept writing like this as socially allowable fiction and not as some distrubed man’s “visions”. It most certainly allows itself to inspection. He’s not running for County Clerk here…
He’s free to write it all he wants, but he’s also open to be suspect in his intentions for doing so.

Are you aware of the epic center of child porn in the world? It is southeast Asia.

Yes I am. That is thier problem. It is not one that our elected officials can, will, or could change. He’s not running for office in Southeast Asia. He wouldn’t make policy for them either.
If this were a documentary profiling abuse instead of a novel for profit your agument would have more substance.

If you have a child in the American military, you might want to know about these things. Your choice but, please, save me your purity

My purity has nothing to do with this. I’m no prude for sure, but I hold elected officials to a much higher standard. It’s junk, for profit and should not be acceptable writing for a potential member of Congress.
My children will and do have a very open and honest view of the world, including the fact that there are those that will try to justify thier perversions.
You said it yourself, cultures are selling children into slavery, so how is writing about it moving and thought provoking and not repulsive?
The more society has viewed junk like this, paraded as works of art or “moving and thought provoking” the more numb they have become to it and the further the envelope will be pushed next time in the name of “Dramatic license”.

CBarker on October 27, 2006 at 12:44 PM

but what I do know of the Bible and Shakespeare, there may be a chronicle of a sordid tale but there are no gratuitous details.

I’m assuming you’re kidding – right? (Don’t make me post a thousand examples proving that wrong, please. Shakespeare is frickin’ gruesome, for God’s sake. He was the Quentin Tarantino of his era. And the Bible probably has the most explicit and highest body count on record.)

Sigh. There is a reason that pretty much every piece of film or literature ever made shows the bad guy being bad. Usually explicitly, often more explictly than necessary.

So that the audience hates the villian.

C’mon.

I still want somebody to go read (or watch) A Time to Kill and let me know if Grisham (or Jackson or McCaughnehay(sp?)) are pedophile sex fiends …

Professor Blather on October 27, 2006 at 12:50 PM

I find it very amusing that people are suggesting that Google sue a man for “google bombing” here: http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/26/google-should-sue-chris-bowers/

but Psycotte’s post above is an attempt at doing the same thing.

Back on topic, I agree with Ms. Malkin.

dandellsun on October 27, 2006 at 12:52 PM

Gee, How do you write works of art without being graphic. I once had an english professor put it this way.
Graphic language, sex, and gratuitous violence are generally used when you aren’t smart enough to do it any other way…… now re-write it…

I did.

CBarker on October 27, 2006 at 12:52 PM

Foley wrote about inappropriate sexual acts in IMs and emails, which he thought would be kept in confidence, and as far as we know he never lived out his fantasies. (No, I don’t condone what he did, that’s not the point.)

Webb wrote about inappropriate sexual acts in novels, which he wanted to sell to the public for profit, and as far as we know he never lived out his fantasies.

Gay men and straight men fantasizing about sex is a natural phenomenon. Men fantasizing about sex with under aged boys are judged as unnatural, unlawful and perverted by society. Some act on their fantasies, be they natural or perverted, while others do not.

As far as I know, it is not a crime to think or write about an illegal act. It becomes a crime when the thought or word transcends to the physical act. This being the case, what is the difference between Foley and Webb?

fogw on October 27, 2006 at 12:53 PM

I give up.

God I hate when conservatives act exactly like the ridiculous stereotypes that liberals paint. This whole thread is proof that both sides of the political aisle can willingly turn their minds off when the partisan blinders are on.

I repeat: this is just a DU thread of a different flavor.

Professor Blather on October 27, 2006 at 12:54 PM

I didn’t say anything about it being criminal. So write on…
I just said elected officials should have a lot more in the area of morally acceptable judgement.

CBarker on October 27, 2006 at 12:58 PM

No, I’m not kidding. It’s been a while since I’ve read Shakespeare, but I’m very familiar with the Bible. For example, the incest of Lot and his daughters and the rape of Tamar are reported but there are not graphic, salacious descriptions.

INC on October 27, 2006 at 12:59 PM

I will say I did not read the book, but the issue now isn’t the book, but the character of what was written or the person who wrote it. A writer of fiction or non-fiction will see things differently than a politician. Politicians have to be held accountable for deciding laws that affect our lives. When I am stating politicians and writers, I am referring to people who do it as a trade. Not a Politician writing his or her memoirs or books about current events after making their name in politics.

Politicians in “absolute laboratory conditions” vote their morality or conscience. We elect politicians not to stick the finger in the air and see how the wind is blowing as in taking polls but to lead. We choose a politician because we TRUST his or her judgment. The politicians in most cases are voted for because they share the morality and views of the majority of the people who voted for them (it is suppose to be that way when the public has a selection). Politicians live within constraints, not free to be any way they want. Politicians can’t publicly live out his sexual fantasy in most areas of our country, unless you maybe from San Francisco, Madison, New York City or Massachusetts..

Yet, An example of the Politician whose inner mind comes out to the public and affects our views of him is Bill Clinton, Mark Foley or Barney Frank. They have their loyalists but doubt based on their behavior they would win a nationwide office and in some places local offices.

A writer has no public constraints as a politician. On paper a writer doesn’t have to have any morality. A writer can write whatever he or she chooses. A writer has to in most cases do what the public expects of the writer or the writer might not sell books. I am not referring to people who write books that end up in their desk drawers, but people who do it for a so-called living. If the writer has to follow what a politician is held to, a writer would have problems writing. The writer if turning politician or political commentator would be overly conscious of not getting elected or not representing the people in the district. The writer not only writes about what we see but about what’s in the conscience, in the mind we don’t see. Politicians do not have to publicly display the inner mind or even need a conscience. If a writer wants to become a politician or discuss political issues, he or she is restricted on what the writer can write so it will not distract future views and appearances of the person.

A conservative writer, can’t go out and write about her inner fantasy about being a porn star, then be taken seriously by readers when she talks about moral behavior. What one fantasizes in ones own mind doesn’t mean what one does in reality, just a dream kept to oneself, but writers let us in on their fantasies in many cases. Controlling oneself rather than acting upon our fantasy is considered normal behavior.

When the writer becomes the politician, all is out on display for all of us to see. We can see what a “perv” an individual is if that’s the case, the inner character is out there. People have the right to write what they want to write, even if I do not think it is moral or proper behavior they are inputting into their characters and events. Yet, upon writing, should be conscious of the consequences of their writing. I do not object to Mr. Webb writing a book, if that’s his thing, cool. He should be able to write it, but since he turned politician, the book exhibits to the voter his inner conscience and his version of morality. He is expressing what HE is tolerant to, his morality. I would be first in line defending the man’s right to write. This does not mean I have to buy what he thinks and think highly of him. He could be a perv and pond scum as far as I and the voters think, and not vote for him. We know too much or maybe more than we should, perhaps too much material to mess up our views of the person. That so called “perv” writer, can in living his or her life not actually exhibit such behavior. Knowing you have to get elected, affects what you write. Knowing that people read your writings because of your views affect what you write too.

StuLongIsland on October 27, 2006 at 1:04 PM

I give up.

God I hate when conservatives act exactly like the ridiculous stereotypes that liberals paint. This whole thread is proof that both sides of the political aisle can willingly turn their minds off when the partisan blinders are on.

I repeat: this is just a DU thread of a different flavor.

Professor Blather on October 27, 2006 at 12:54 PM

Honestly Blather, I don’t care what you write. Nor will I condemn you for what you write. But know this:

If you ever decide to enter politics, whatever you write for public consumption becomes fair game for discussion in a political campaign. And if you campaign in a party that tries to make a sex scandal (e.g., Foleygate) the centerpiece of its campaign, then don’t be surprised if graphically sexual depictions in your own writing are later used against you.

It may seem unfair to you, but that’s just the way it is. As AP said above, if a Allen (or any Republican) had wrote these same things, it would be page-one-above-the-fold in the NYTimes. If so, then it’s fair game to call Webb to the carpet for the same thing, especially in a political season when Dems tried to make Foleygate their campaign theme and when Webb has run an exceptionially dirty campaign himself.

Karma.

thirteen28 on October 27, 2006 at 1:19 PM

CBarker – So, Jim Webb is a “perv”, your words, because he witnessed the boy/penis episode in Thailand while a reporter and had the audacity to write about it? Yeah, how dare he write about it and offend your sensibilities. Books like this SHOULD NEVER be written…
As far as your children having an open view of the world as it is… Sorry, I find that doubtful with a hate infested parent such as you. Call back after the kids do a slumming tour of Southeast Asia or even the Middle East.

How about we tar and feather the “perv” then set him on fire. Would you feel better… one less “perv” in your world!

I stated before that I was surprised that he was running for public office and that I would never vote for him. Not good enough for you! Need to punish the “perv”, need to cast him from American society. After all, he brings up topics you find repulsive.

Burn baby, burn. It feels so good!

Babs on October 27, 2006 at 1:44 PM

Just heard a liberal “strategist” on MSNBC say “The Republicans are really in trouble if they decide to turn this into a campaign about sex ….. have they forgotten about the War in Iraq?”

I’m not kidding. This, after three weeks of condemning Foley and calling for Hastert’s head.

Somebody shoot my ears off.

fogw on October 27, 2006 at 2:04 PM

“I just said elected officials should have a lot more in the area of morally acceptable judgement.”

CBarker on October 27, 2006 at 12:58 PM

I take it that you have read NONE of Mr. Webb’s books. I find your ire to be ignorant as you have no idea of the context in which he places the events that you find so distasteful.

As I said in my initial comment, it is my belief (based on my many readings of his books), that he is pointing out the degredation of societies, he is not condoning the acts he describes.

Do you get it now? Or not…

Babs on October 27, 2006 at 2:07 PM

Yuuucccckkkkk!

Gross!

This topic has made me sick!

I am calling HAZMAT! Right now!

Thankfully,

I do not have to vote for, or against, Webb!

Wwwwhhooooppiiiiieeeeeee!!!!

Remind me to keep my son, and daughters, away from these people!!!!!

Thanks!!

William

William2006 on October 27, 2006 at 3:27 PM

ya, know, I was prepared to unleash a diatribe of my own now that I have more time but StuLongIsland said it better than I ever could.

As far as your children having an open view of the world as it is… Sorry, I find that doubtful with a hate infested parent such as you. Call back after the kids do a slumming tour of Southeast Asia or even the Middle East

Wow, hate infested? That’s origional. I prefer “moderatley intolerant skeptic” myself.
Context it all you want, wrong is wrong.
And if you have to ask if it’s right or wrong, most likely it’s wrong.
And I’m the bad guy for wanting ELECTED OFFICIALS to be of HIGHER STANDARDS the the population? People who DESERVE my respect?
Look, he writes several books with questionable content, then runs for office. That’s fact.
His violent/abusive/ graphic content comes back and bites him in the butt, that is also fact.
I feel I stand with the majority of people that will say the picture he paints in his novels are indeed needlessly graphic in first light. Sickening in hindsight.

I see the context Mr perv Webb wrote in. And by Monday I will have read the book in question but in case I miss it, what is the context that YOU see this in?

CBarker on October 27, 2006 at 3:38 PM

oh, yea. I get it….
I’m not for burning books…write all you want.
But you are, or should be, responsible for what you write…

CBarker on October 27, 2006 at 3:42 PM

The problem is that the Democrats set the tone with Foley.

And while I am adult enough to reconcile the description of the acts of a character in a novel as not representative of the behavior of the novelist himself, and while this kerfluffle would have ZERO impact on my vote if I lived in Virginia, this is a case of the Democrats being hoist by their own petard.

The Democrats started this crap.

They wrapped themselves in a white cloak of hyprocrisy, pointed self righteous fingers at Hastert and Reynolds and ALL Republicans over some IM text messages from a disgraced congressman who, at least, had the decency to resign when confronted (unlike Frank and Studds), and then used it to try, with the media’s open and obvious assistance, as a pry bar to separate believers from the Republican party in a transparant attempt to suppress the Republican turnout next month.

So any whining about the unfairness of this by the Democrats ought to be ignored.

Further, if this causes the audience that the Democrats were targeting with Foley to view Webb with disgust, and give them the self justification necessary to hold their noses and vote Republican, while driving away religious Democrats (if there are any), then so be it.

They, the Democrats, have sown the wind and now they reap the whirlwind.

georgej on October 27, 2006 at 4:29 PM

Pornography is pornography.
Webb is scum.

But Allen, by releasing all the info without just mentioning Webb’s writings has sunk to his level.

He can kiss the Presidency goodbye.

There goes another Candidate that I used to respect. Joins Lindsay Graham on my shit list.

At least we still have Condi.

I bet Virginians now wish that they had a third party.

accdat on October 27, 2006 at 4:37 PM

And by Monday I will have read the book in question

The Book??? The quotes were carefully lifted from 4 different books. Read the press release again. Better scurry to your local library if you want to read the books by Monday…

but in case I miss it, what is the context that YOU see this in?

I wrote a rather detailed comment about the context of the quotes at about comment 50 of this thread. Scroll up, if you actually care.

Babs on October 27, 2006 at 6:03 PM

Oh yeah, that’s right — we’re conservatives! We’re better than this!

Well Michelle et. al, lemme tell you folks something: I’m sick of being better than this! All of this stifling intelletual analysis is making me nauseous.

Of course this isn’t relevant! Of course this is shameless guttersniping! But guess what, folks? We (republicans/conservatives) didn’t start it. They (liberal-progressives/democrats) did. I’ll be happy as a freakin clam if our side ends this once and for all.

Come to think of it, I’d love to see more of this nationwide, if for no other reason than that it would give us a perfect reason to revolt and kick out all the incumbents on capitol hill. Who’s with me? HURRAH!

gryphon202 on October 27, 2006 at 6:27 PM