Charen: The interpretation battle

There are two battles every election year. The first is for votes; the second -- almost as crucial -- is over the interpretation of those votes. Many a past election has been misinterpreted in the days following -- recall the "angry white male" election and the "swift boat" election. Today, we are invited to conclude that the 2006 election was a referendum on the Iraq War and the Bush presidency. Maybe. But for the sake of argument, let's consider the possibility that Iraq did not determine this election at all.

The war in Iraq was cited as an "extremely," "very" or "somewhat" important factor in the votes of 89 percent of the electorate according to exit polls. But the war on terror was cited by 92 percent of voters as important to their votes. These nearly cancel each other out, as those who cited Iraq as crucial tended to vote Democrat and those who cited terror tended to vote Republican.

Fifty-seven percent of voters said they either "strongly" or "somewhat" disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president, but more (61 percent) said they disapproved of Congress. Why Congress? Other polling, conducted before Election Day, found that 75 percent of voters were concerned about political corruption.

In days before the Foley scandal erupted, support for Republican candidates was inching up. On Sept. 15, a USA Today/Gallup poll showed support for Republican and Democratic House candidates tied at 48/48. Foley resigned on Sept. 29. By Oct. 8, 59 percent of voters were leaning Democrat. Republican numbers never recovered after that.

Foley was merely the proverbial straw breaking the camel's back, of course. Corruption has been oozing and suppurating from Capitol Hill for several years. Recall that Republicans had changed their rules to permit a member of the leadership to continue to serve following an indictment. They changed it back later, but too late to undo the damage it had done to their reputations.

Rep. Tom DeLay was forced to resign when he was indicted (justly or not) and then left office under a cloud. Rep. Duke Cunningham was indicted and convicted not for borderline campaign finance finagling, but for out-and-out graft. Jack Abramoff and his buddies (which included some members of Congress like former Rep. Bob Ney and Sen. Conrad Burns, along with many movers and shakers in Republican circles) were found guilty of bilking Indian tribes and other low deceits. Abramoff's black trench coat and black hat became the symbol of Republican control.

There was one prominent Democrat caught with his fist in the till, William Jefferson (of frozen bucks fame), but instead of offering him up as evidence that corruption is bipartisan, the Republican leadership threw a protective arm over Jefferson's shoulder, indignantly denouncing the FBI for searching his office. In so doing, they made his scandal their own.

When Foley, a champion of protecting kids from Internet porn, was revealed as an instant-messaging degenerate, and it was bruited that members of the leadership had known of his proclivities and remained silent, the corruption needle headed into red territory. Days later, we learned that Rep. Curt Weldon was under investigation by the FBI, and the snowball picked up speed.

Many reasons have been adduced for the "Republican revolution" of 1994 -- and the tectonic shift that year may have had several antecedents. But without doubt among the most potent issues was corruption. Certainly Newt Gingrich, who had successfully upended House Speaker Jim Wright on those grounds, was aware of its power.

Gingrich offered a Contract with America, but he also harped on Congress's failure to abide by the laws it passed for others (including employment and Civil Rights laws), its elaborate perks and the House banking scandal. Thanks to a cozy system designed by the lawmakers for the lawmakers, members of Congress were engaged in massive check kiting. No fewer than 77 members either resigned or failed to seek re-election due to the banking scandal, and five were convicted of crimes. At the same time, voters learned of the House post office scandal, which resulted in the resignation and criminal conviction of Rep. Dan Rostenkowski. In 1994, the voters threw the Democrats out.

This year, Republicans had many reasons to be lukewarm about their representatives. Spending has been obscene. Earmarks are a disgrace. The reforming zeal the class of '94 arrived with has long since melted into complacency. Some conservative voters may have chosen to sit this one out. But the overriding reason for the Democrats' sweep -- just as it was for the Republicans 12 years ago -- was corruption.

Charen ping!

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Mona Charen ping list...

2 posted on 11/10/2006 5:07:23 AM PST by cgk (I don't see myself as a conservative. I see myself as a religious, right-wing, wacko extremist.)

William Jefferson broke the law, but said he did nothing wrong and is still in his office; many Democrats were in bed with Jack Abramoff also; Kerry once again demeaning the military as Nancy Pelosi did etc. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter casting dispersions on their President and country abroad as did other Democrats....but the Media made using the word macaca (a monkey) as reprehensible as murdering the Pope.

Sweeping congressional and senatorial crimes under the rug should be a crime in its self and is for Republicans but the MSM will bury any such facts about Democrats. That must stop and we must expose such lapses of fact each and every time it happens.

Mona is the mom hottie who knows all and speaks it!!

Jefferson is done, even many rank and file Democraps hate his guts.

Exactly! Charen writes a nice catalog (but still emotionally charged) of Republican sins. She does point out Hastert's stupdity in covering for Jefferson but then fails to talk about Reid's outright illegal real estate transactions. Foley did NOT get an underage page drunk and bugger him, he did NOT troll and make passes at multiple pages, he DID have sex - self stimulated or not like Clintoon - he did not get a campaign aid drunk, drive off a bridge, and let her drown. The national electorate seems to have embraced the moral standards of 70% of the Massachusetts population. How sick.

"...When Foley, a champion of protecting kids from Internet porn, was revealed as an instant-messaging degenerate, and it was bruited that members of the leadership had known of his proclivities and remained silent, the corruption needle headed into red territory.

@ the time of the foley outrage, i remember postin: DOWN W/HASTERT, as a critical indicator to the voters, that republicans 'care' 'bout corruption; i believe and agree w/Mona, that this foley 'thing' was a BIG DEAL!

Excellent analysis. Take away the scandals and the Republicans might have added to their numbers in Congress--despite Iraq and having championed some unpopular (to conservatives) legislation.

This was a one-off win for the Democrats. They barely managed to pull off an ordinary sixth-year change in seats by running self-professed conservatives in competetive seats.

Good read, thanks. I'm a Charen fan, but corruption had zero affect on my vote. That some politicians are corrupt is a given, on both sides of the aisle. I wonder how the percentage of corrupt politicians compares to the general populace.

I'm one of those "ninety two percenter", War on Terror voters. Keeping enemies from killing us is a lot more important than some corruption. If you're taking the long dirt nap, you're not going to be worrying about corruption, DOH!

I also wonder what the concession was on the interpretation of sKerry's loss. I thought Swift Boaters played a hugh part.

8 posted on 11/10/2006 6:12:12 AM PST by benjaminjjones (Thanks for your service Pop (& all that Pop stuff too!) Hope you & all Vets hava great Veterans Day)

9 posted on 11/10/2006 6:24:49 AM PST by Enterprise (Let's not enforce laws that are already on the books, let's just write new laws we won't enforce.)

A big part of this problem is the media's incessant harping on Republicans' moral shortcomings, while sweeping those of the Dems under the rug.

Perception is everything, and the Dems have powerful allies in the media to create a one-sided picture.

If we want to have an image of higher standards, we need to live up to those standards, including policing our own, because any shortcomings on our side will be trumpeted to the heavens.

I guess, also, that nobody really EXPECTS the
Dems to live up to high standards of ethics or morality.

Its The Corruption, Stupid! And I will no more tolerate it from Republicans than I will from Democrats.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

I don't care if the Democrats don't. We do have a higher standard of ourselves because we expect so much and the Republican Congress failed to conduct themselves the way we expect of public servants.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

The Republican leaders were so stupid on this issue. They couldn't even agree to pass earmark reform, even with the shadow of Jack Abramoff looming over them. Failing to tackle the roots of corruption in the middle of a scandal-ridden political environment was an inexcusable blunder. It just added to their image as out of touch and obsessed with congressional perks.

There was a legitimate Democrat scandal - Harry Reid. I know, I was providing some of the background material. But it got buried. Big coverup. But also more stupidity by Republicans, I was never once contacted by Repubs. The Dems would have run to victory with the same material.

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.