Posted on 10/18/2006 9:56:35 AM PDT by veronica
In the wake of the scandal surrounding former Congressman Mark Foley, what will Republican voters do? I believe they will hold their noses and go to the polls to re-elect a Republican Senate and Republican House of Representatives. They will comfort themselves with the thought that between now and 2008, they can cleanse their party. We will soon know. Tempus fugit.
An article in The New York Times last week made this same point, stating, “As word of Representative Mark Foley’s sexually explicit e-mail messages to former pages spread last week, Republican strategists worried—and Democrats hoped—that the sordid nature of the scandal would discourage conservative Christians from going to the polls. But in dozens of interviews here in southeastern Virginia, a conservative Christian stronghold that is a battleground in races for the House and Senate, many said the episode only reinforced their reasons to vote for their two Republican incumbents … [A]ll [interviewed] insisted the episode would have little impact on their intentions to vote.”
The Republican base, at least one-third of Republican voters, according to the Times, is comprised of the Christian right and Evangelicals. They will never vote for the Democratic Party, believing as they do that Republicans will ensure their primary goal of securing a safe conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Democrats have a lot of work to do if they are to make serious gains in the upcoming elections. Sadly, the Democratic party has lost the white Southern voter who now overwhelmingly votes for Republican candidates. The Democratic Party in the South is now overwhelmingly operated by and supported by African-Americans, while the Republican Party is the exact opposite—operated and supported by whites. This is not good for the country and certainly not good for the Democrats. The Democratic Party has to undertake a strategy to win the white Southern voter back while keeping African-Americans in the party without compromising its position on civil rights. It can be done.
While I believe that the Democratic party is capable of accommodating the left and right wing, I believe that when either wing takes over the party, our party suffers. It happened in the 1970s when George McGovern and his supporters took over the party and began its destruction. When Bill Clinton and his moderate political philosophy came to the fore, the party made a comeback.
But the Clinton years are long gone and the radical left has again taken control of the Democratic Party, as reflected in the election of Howard Dean to the chairmanship of the party. The most recent exhibition of the power of the radical left wing of the party was its ability to defeat Senator Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. Most distressing was the Democrats’ abandonment of Lieberman after he chose to continue to run as an independent. Stalwart Democrats, people I support, like Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd and others, walked away from Lieberman. They believe that they and Lieberman were bound by the primary results. That is simply not true. There is no law, party rule or ethical principle that prohibits a candidate from attempting to win as an independent. What’s more, Lieberman is not only the incumbent, but he is also a recent Democratic Party candidate for vice president. He stated that should he win, he will be part of the Democratic Party Caucus in the U.S. Senate.
Interestingly, the people of Connecticut in a recent poll voiced support for Lieberman who, as we went to press, was 10 points ahead. Last week, I campaigned with Lieberman at Grand Central Station. Hundreds of Connecticut-bound commuters stood in line to shake his hand before boarding their trains. Only two people yelled at me for supporting the Senator.
Last week, I also traveled to Maryland at the request of Democratic Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley to help him campaign for Governor. O’Malley told me that he received 88 percent of the vote in his second term election. In his first term, he got 91 percent and said, while laughing, “The fall off was because I had to make some controversial decisions.” I was chagrinned, since my highest vote tally in 1985, when I ran for a third term, was only 78 percent of the vote in the general election. In my second election, I got 75 percent of the vote. When I ran for a fourth term in 1989, I got 42 percent of the vote, and David Dinkins won. I have always believed that 25 percent of the voters will always vote against any candidate—getting elected and holding public office can be a really tough job. So I thought that my 78 percent in 1985 and 75 percent in 1981, which were record-breaking in New York City, were really good. They don’t hold a candle to O’Malley’s vote.
I also recently campaigned for a really great Congressman, Republican Peter King, in Nassau and Suffolk counties, which entitles me to keep my self-appraisal as a “liberal with sanity.” I did both a radio and television commercial for him.
I am in what used to be called the declining years—I am almost 82—but I am trying to remain relevant. I supported Hillary Clinton when she ran for U.S. Senator for New York in 2000. On my office wall is a picture taken with Hillary on the night she won, on which she wrote, “Ed—Thanks for standing up with—and for—me (and for watching my back too!) All the best. Hillary.” I hope to be around and able to take a role in the campaign to elect her as President of the United States.
This is my exact thought.
While I agree with the old gay guy, what the heck is "the New York press", and he could have found a more obscure place to pen his musings?
Foley? Who's Foley?
That is the answer about 70% of the voters will give on election day.
The other 30% have already decided.
We won't hear that question any time soon.
People used to speculate that Ed Koch was homosexual. But in the end, it didn't matter, because he was absolutely resolute in keeping his sexual orientation to himself and his sex life private.
The whole problem arises when homosexuals become gay activists, and try to make their sexual orientation a political issue.
The NY Times writes about the Foley affair: "Democrats hoped—that the sordid nature of the scandal . . ." What breathtaking hypocrisy. Does the Times really think that homosexual activity is sordid? I doubt it, since they are the premier gay newspaper in the country. They merely hope, hypocritically, that Republicans will find it sordid. But if a Democrat is a homosexual, that is virtuous, that is good, that is politically correct, that is better than heterosexual because it represents a deprived minority.
Hypocrisy.
NY Press is sort of a Conservative-leaning Village Voice. Russ Smith, aka Mugger, used to be the editor. May still be. He's great. I once sent him an email complimenting him on a piece he wrote and he then sent me free copies of the paper for several years.
That puppy got out of the bag just a little bit too soon.
If it had been dumped on October 20th or October 27th (right after Rush went off the air), the whole story would have been so much more devastating to the Republicans.
But then the North Korea crisis would have grabbed attention, and this business about Mark Foley might never have gotten beyond Page 4. Which would have devastated the Dem'crats. Because it was their best shot for this election cycle.
How can Koch complain about the far left of the Demo party and then say he strongly supports Hillary in '08?? Makes no sense.
No, the "Pubbies stuck it to themselves with pork spending, border issues, etc. Most conservatives and Republicans would think that Foley ws Foley's problem.
Mark Foley was just one randy gay guy. Nothing more, nothing less. For the left to scream that Republican leadership didn't do enough to get rid of Foley is hypocrisy at its height; look at how the left panders to homosexuals and pedophiles. There certainly have been enough Dems over the years that fit those descriptions.
If the Republicans lose, it won't be because of some gay guy nor because the MSM beat them up so unfairly. It will be due to open borders, bloated spending and war fatigue. Foley is already forgotten.
Koch sort of tacked that on at the end, didn't he? The title of the article is sure to attract conservative readers - and the parting thought that he chose to leave in readers' minds is the possibility that Hillary might end up in the White House, just a few years from now. Hmmm.
Ed might just be a more skillful writer than I'd previously thought. Liberals who read this article will be angry that Koch is dismissive of their attempts to hurt the GOP with the Foley scandal. But then, at the end -- all is forgiven. See, Ed is still "on the reservation", supporting Hillary. Meanwhile, the conservative readers will see a level-headed article, served up with a reminder about the the high price of political apathy and defeatism.
Looks like an attempt to give conservatives a good swift kick in their complacency.
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.