Posted on 10/07/2006 9:45:11 AM PDT by frankjr
"It shocks the conscience. Congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the Internet to molest children. For over a year, they knowingly ignored the welfare of children to protect their own power. For 17 years, Patty Wetterling has fought for tougher penalties against those who harm children. That's why she's demanding a criminal investigation and the immediate expulsion of any congressman involved in this crime and coverup."
--TV ad on behalf of Patty Wetterling, Democratic candidate in Minnesota's 6th Congressional District
"A call is placed from New York to a known terrorist in Pakistan. A terrorist plot may be unfolding. Should the government intercept that call or wait until the paperwork is filed? Nancy Johnson says: 'Act immediately. Lives may be at stake.' Liberal Chris Murphy says: 'No. Apply for a court warrant even if valuable time is lost.' Chris Murphy -- wrong on security, wrong for America."
--TV ad on behalf of Nancy Johnson, Republican candidate for reelection in Connecticut's 5th Congressional District
There you have it. These TV ads in two competitive House races tell the story. Repelled by former Republican congressman Mark Foley's sexual overtures to congressional pages and ex-pages, and by the House GOP leadership's alleged failure to move aggressively against him? Vote Democratic. Worried about the Demo crats' tendency to coddle jihadists? Vote Republican. This is a choice that should work out fine for Republicans. Which is why Democrats and the media may look back on the frenzy about Foley
as a tactical mistake. In a time of disturbing foreign news--apparent lack of progress in Iraq, North Korea's threat of a nuclear test, Pakistan's cutting a deal with al Qaeda, Iran's nuclear program chugging ahead--the assault on the Republicans focused on a disgraced and departed congressman and the unquestionably decent speaker of the House, Denny Hastert.
Foley is a creep. The House leadership might have stumbled in dealing with him. But even the Washington Post commented that Wetterling's ad "seriously overstates what is known about the actions of the House Republican leadership." Will voters really be convinced that Denny Hastert "knowingly ignored the welfare of children to protect [his] own power?" From what we know, Hastert didn't find out about Foley's lurid behavior until a week ago, and then Foley was quickly gone. And how exactly did ignoring Foley's behavior help protect GOP power? His district is a safe Republican seat (except now, when Republicans are stuck with Foley's name on the ballot).
The attempt to make Foley a key issue in this fall's election is flopping. It's not credible to tar a political party with the misdeeds of one person. Did Republicans, for example, even try to link Gary Condit to other Democratic candidates in 2002? Was anyone really interested in Condit's party affiliation? Of course not.
And voters aren't in Foley's. National polls taken last week were basically unchanged from pre-Foley polls--bad for the GOP, but not irredeemable. And in the two competitive House races in Florida districts near Foley's, where there was of course saturation coverage of the story, the Republican candidates happened to gain ground last week.
There's no roll call vote in which the parties split on the behavior of Mark Foley. But there have been recent votes in which the parties divided on terror interrogations and (in the House) eavesdropping. On interrogations: Virtually all Republicans voted for tough interrogations of terrorists, and more than three-quarters of Democrats voted against. On supporting the administration's program of warrantless surveillance: Republicans in the House voted 214-13 for, Democrats 177-18 against. The Nancy Johnson advertisement may oversimplify things, but it captures a basic difference between the parties. That's why it has been effective. Johnson has opened a sizable lead on her opponent since the ad started running.
Issues usually trump scandals. Americans like reading about scandals. They like watching Desperate Housewives. But voting is different from voyeurism. The Republican landslide of 1994 was helped along by earlier congressional scandals--but it was basically ideological, following a campaign focused on Clinton's health care plan, his tax hike, gays in the military, gun control, and the like.
After a few days of panic last week, House Republicans seem to have calmed down and to be dealing more effectively with the Foley aftershocks. Now they need to defend against the charge that they don't care about sexual predators, and attack the Democrats for unjustly impugning their honor. Then they can get back to the issues--terror and taxes--where the parties really are distinct.
And if the media and the Democrats want to remain sex-obsessed? It might not be amiss for Republican candidates to remind the electorate which
of the two parties has, shall we say, a more "nuanced" view of sexual scandal. Which party continued to accept Rep. Gerry Studds as a member in good standing for a decade after his sexual liaison with a 17-year-old page? Which party worships at the altar of an even more famous abuser-of-his-position-of-power-for-sexual-favors--Bill Clinton? Not the Republicans.
OMG, finally a mature and non-hysertical essay from the Right.
Patty's nose must be 10 feet long.
I just think that Myrna Blyth should not have the right to write. She compares the Foley situation to the "hostage crisis at that school in Beslan".
The Dems are our friends when they motivate our base, as they are doing now.
And opinions are different then behaviorial actions.
Someone can rail against the oil companies, but they'll still purchase their gas. The Democrats did not succeed in their attempt to make the GOP base choose to drive electric cars, instead of sleek machines running using gas. They might have, as Kristol points out with neighboring districts as an anecdote, slightly raised the committment of a few members in the base to vote though.
And if the media and the Democrats want to remain sex-obsessed? It might not be amiss for Republican candidates to remind the electorate which of the two parties has, shall we say, a more "nuanced" view of sexual scandal. Which party continued to accept Rep. Gerry Studds as a member in good standing for a decade after his sexual liaison with a 17-year-old page? Which party worships at the altar of an even more famous abuser-of-his-position-of-power-for-sexual-favors--Bill Clinton? Not the Republicans.
Sure you Dems want to continue on this road? Especially since MacsMind, Gateway Pundit, Strata Sphere, American Thinker, Drudge, Passionate America and others are intent on digging into this plot and exposing Dems knew about Foley far longer then Republicans and used it cynically as an election stunt?
Great post, frankjr.
There's the Big Lie, frozen in concrete for all to see. Never mind there was no molestation, and no "children" involved. Both the Left and some parts of the Right (like the woman from NRO who compared the Foley fiasco to the massacre at Beslan) have chugged the Kool-Aid right down.
If people who actually exercise their responsibility to vote think George W. Bush is more dangerous than International Terror, then we are in bad shape.
If they think a Twink chaser like Foley is more of a danger than International Terror, we're equally in bad shape.
It's always the Voters who are accountable for election results, not the candidates.
So those women are not Republican voters to start with. However this dumb author is saying in her article that women are going to vote in drove for the democrats because of the Foley issue and totally forget the national security issue. Also she is assuming that most women are too stupid to believe the democrat lies that the Republican party as whole must be punished for the sins of Foley.
It's a legitimate gripe, your "frustration with women who vote their emotions..." Here in NC, 55 percent of the population, 55 percent of the population eligible to vote, 55 percent of the registered voters, 55 percent of the registered voters who actually vote, are women.
In 1998, 2/3 of the latter registered Republican women voters, voted to re-elect Johnny Edwards to represent this State in the U.S. Senate. About the only vote he subsequently showed up to cast over the next six years was acquit Bill Clinton of purjury.
If this keeps up, male voters are going to have to seek protection under Section 5 of the henious, discriminatory and recently renewed federal Voting Rights Act, as "a historically discriminated group...whose vote has been submerged into a larger voting block."
And men who vote dem? Are their votes based on "logic" and principle"?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.