This man may object to having an RFID chip in his head.
Posted on 10/07/2006 12:40:27 PM PDT by AmericanExceptionalist
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
"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.
Wow! This could be bigger than that Foley thing. Who is the Congressman that molested children?
molest
–verb (used with object)
1. to bother, interfere with, or annoy.
2. to make indecent sexual advances to.
3. to assault sexually.
Should of known.
A child (plural: children). Precise definitions vary; is the offspring, of any age, of two people. The American Heritage Dictionary[1] defined a child as an individual who has not yet reached puberty.
There seems to be a lot of oddballs that have signed up within the last 2 months. Must be an election coming up soon!
But why stop there? Let's implant RFID chips in all penises and monitor sexual activity so we know where they are and what they are doing at all times.
We could have armies of sexperts on the government payroll analyze data and prepare reports. They could refer people considered deviant or perverted to prosecutors. Others might get sex therapy with Jocyln Elders providing tips on masturbation and Masters and Johnson counseling couples. Their fees and charges for headache meds for malingering females could be covered by Mediscare.
It's been a while since the Dems had a new idea, but this could definately usher in the Brave New World. If we are going to be the worlds lone superpower, we need to make sure we have the best sex in the world, too.
Speaking as a male, I am opposed to that. Now vagina's... that may have some advantages....
I wouldn't call my 42 year old son a child.
This man may object to having an RFID chip in his head.
You're right...
I must be a liberal spy!
Pointing out: manipulating and/or arguing over the definition of words doesn't help our cause.
Whining like that comes off as just that - whining. Let's focus on the facts - like the difference between IMs and e-mails, somthing the media still hasn't picked up on.
OK, so what was your point in posting the definition of molesting?
Congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the Internet to molest children.
Oppopsiotionm is not allowed. Your civil liberties have been cancelled by the drive by media. Their 1st amendment rights trump all other rights.
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.