BoF, it's beyond obvious at this point that you have nothing of substance to say in regard to my initial post. You've been invited more than once now to rebut any of it, and all you've come up with is this meaningless sideshow. Anyone who's curious can simply read what I've had to say, and I stand by it. Now, on to someone who actually has a point to make:



Of the "others" you mentioned, the only one who's an actual Republican politician is Chris Cannon, and an Internet search turns up no sign of him blaming the Democrats for any of this, or making any suggestion to that effect. So that still leaves you with just Hastert. Your link also fails to make the case that the unspecified "GOP operatives" were trying to blame Democrats. The key sentence is:


"Might have been" does not mean blame. It means that it could warrant investigation, just as you said about Hastert. That's not an unreasonable position to take here. Remember this thread on Karl Rove? Plenty of posters there were willing to indict him for dirty push-polling against McCain with just two words: Cui bono? Well, what's the answer to that question in this case?

That was my point about your initial post.

Here’s your original statement to Christopher’s question.



Here’s my original reply.


I stand by my original statement.

I’ll let the readers decide which take is accurate.

People aren't trying to blame the scandal on Democrats, but moreover believe that there shouldn't even BE a scandal. This puppy should've been a one and done. Fruity Congressman gets caught, he resigns, game over. Nothing's that easy with our "unbiased" (HA!) media and "dirt" hungry American public.

Same dirt hungry American public who bought up record numbers of newspapers during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Same unbiased media that spent hour after hour, day after day, week after week, covering nothing but Clinton's sex scandal.

Your problem isn't with the media, your problem is with the media when the report badly on your personal favourite people.

Yes the American people, and frankly, the world, is 'dirt' hungry, is this supposed to be a surprise? They seem to believe there is something here, which is probably why the Republicans stand to lose both houses in 3 weeks.

I don't know if I'd put my eggs in the poll baskets just yet sir. Remember the polls prior to the second Bush election? They had him slated to lose... when he won by one of the largest margins in American history.

Secondly, Mr. Foley wasn't my favorite person, I'm a very hard working professional and very religious family man. I don't have homosexual child predator "buddies"... those are the comments people are really getting tired of, non constructive, and frankly why the "be nice" thread was begun.

Finally, the Clinton scandal turned into a scandal as he lied, lied, and lied again. Then he lied in front of a grand jury. The leader of the free world couldn't admit to hanky-panky in the white house. Had he said "yep- I did it"... I doubt it would've been such a big deal. Mr. Foley's situation isn't exactly the same.




I've already made my case, and apparently the truth about "guilt by association" only applies to white, republican men. I apologize that your bitter and cynical nature only allows you to post negative remarks, but what you're advocating is a 100% double standard from what you'd like yourself to be applied to. It's not race baiting, but moreover a legitimate analogy that made you angry, which was your choice. Frankly, it's 100% true. If we hold the Republicans accountable for Mr. Foley, of which they didn't know of his actions in this light, we must hold all people who are associated with other accountable for each others actions... such as all black men must be blamed for high crime rates? Absurd sir. Just absurd.

If someone said that Democrats must be held accountable for allowing Philanderers, homosexual pimps, and crack addicts (Marion Barry)... I'd wonder incessantly why anyone re elects Democrats. I just don't see that to be true. I believe that there are good republicans along with the bad minority. I suppose that is impossible for you to see.
Please feel free to make more personal remarks... as I'm sure that's how you'll choose to reply to this one.

Maybe its me, but I don't get it Aevans. I follow you when you argue that, because of the upcoming elections, some media outlets will try to make a bigger deal out of it than it already is, but saying that it shouldn't even be a scandal is illogical and amazing.

Definition of the word scandal:
#1
#2

Foley's case pretty much falls into these simple definitions of the word. The moment the allegations against this public figure (politician) came out it automatically became a scandal.

editted to add:



The Republicans are of course not accountable for the actions of one of its individual members. But because Foley was a respected Republican politician, it will no doubt hurt the credibilty of the party. It is that whole one rotten piece of fruit in the basket thing ...

In both those cases above, you might want to check your facts a little.

Firstly, every poll just prior to the second election had Bush Jr. winning the Presidency.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/res...0/epolls.0.html
http://www.2004dnc.com/polls.htm
http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html
http://www.pollingreport.com/2004.htm

Every single poll in the US just prior to election time had Bush jr. winning the election, though not by much.


Secondly, for your second 'fact'... the largest margin in US history? Er... what?

In fact it was one of the smaller victory margins ever in US History.





That is partly true, he certainly excaserbated a bad situation by lting about it, no question. However another reason it became a major issue is because the Republicans became a single-issue party for about 6 months, making this the primary focus of everything they did.



Isn't it?

Personally I don't know. I have been campaigning for an investigation, there are now several underway. I cannot cite chapter and verse that there was a coverup, but there are FAR to many suspicious questions to presume that there was not one. If there was, then that would be them lying, lying and lying again.



We shall have to wait and see. At the moment the Republicans have guarenteed lost 3 of 6 seats Democrats need in the Senate, and while the House margin is wider, far more seats are in play... Pretty much every analyst in Washington is Giving the Democrats both houses.

Perhaps your reading skills are as dubious as your debating skills. Once again, nobody but you has once referred to "white, republican men."

The comparison you try to make between Mark Foley and how his depravity has damaged the Republicans and Black men being blamed for high crime rates is a demonstrably false one. Since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, the majority of prisoners under a sentence of death are white. Black men commit crime in disproportionate numbers, but it's White men who are most likely to commit the crimes that warrant the most severe penalty the justice system can impose.

What you call my "bitter and cynical nature" is actually a refusal to accept your definition of events. As you feebly flail about carrying out character assassination against Ted Kennedy and any other Democrat to excuse Foley's perversions, you have made clear that you are a blind, partisan zealot who is far more interested in whitewashing (oops, was that a racially-loaded term?) the scandal instead of confronting the systemic hypocrisy of the GOP.

Dismiss that as a "personal attack" if you like. I call it an accurate summation of the events.

I think there is also a larger issue we need to consider, one which may be a factor in why Americans have gotten so tired of the Republicans in office.

Hastert MAY have been involved in a cover-up. We don't yet know. There are a lot of questions, but nothing proving he lied about his knwledge of the situation. We do have him mishandling the situation (Blaming it on The Democrats, Clinton and Soros) and later admitting he mishandled the situation. But while that may have been foolish of him, thats not proof of a cover-up: an investigation will decide.

If Hastert as house speaker did NOT perpetrate a cover-up and is NOT forced to resign, he will be the first in a while. It follows Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, Chuck McGee, Allen Raymond, James Tobin, Scooter Libby, Bob Ney, Curt Weldon, Jim Kolbe, Duke Cunningham, and so on and so on... From Federal, State and political levels, the list just in the last few years seems endless.

Now lets be clear, the Democrats are hardly lily white, they too have had some scandals of note, and I an not trying to exculpate them here. But in the last two years it just seems to be a litany of Republican names caught either metaphorically or literally with their pants down, again and again and again. I can't explain why this is, I don't believe the Republicans as a national movement are somehow completely corrupt, but considering the emphasis the Republicans have placed on their own role as the moral guardians of America, it seem that Foley might simply be the straw that broke the camel's back.

I've seen that sort of thing stated a number of times on this thread, and I think it needs to be challenged. I don't see where they've claimed to be the "moral guardians" of the country, as if to say that the American people somehow need moral guidance from them. I don't think they've ever taken that stance at all.

Seriously?

You don't think they have ever campaigned on isues of returns to morality or family values at all? You can't think of a time when the Republicans have presented themselves as the 'moral' party, and tried to portray the Democrats as immoral? When they presented themselves as the party of 'traditional values'?

Are you saying that if you were to check www.gop.com, you would NOT find a party that spends a lot of time talking about how they represent 'traditional family values', 'Morality' and representing traditional American morals?

You are honestly saying you believe they have NEVER taken that stance at all?


Just want to be sure of what you are claiming here...

They certainly have asserted that the policies they've pushed for do so. But that's not what you said. You said "moral guardians of America". That implies that they see themselves as on a plane above us ordinary mortals, which is absolutely not what they've asserted or implied.

Of course they think their policies are morally superior to the Democrats' policies. Democrats, just as naturally, think the reverse. That's nothing new in politics.

Well, thats your choice to read that far into my comment. I meant something somewhat less 'super-villainy' in reality. As you say it is hardly new that one party sees itself as superior to another, but in the case of the Republicans one of their primary selling points has been the 'Moral superiority' they supposedly have over the Democrats. It is pretty much impossible dto deny that this has ben a singular point of their self-image, and it is also very possible that the blatant conflict between this self-image and the plethora of scandals that have dogged them the last few years is one of the primary reasons why in all likelyhood both houses are going to go Democrat.

Blackstone, how long have you been sleeping. The Republican Party has been playing the “moral superiority” nose-in-the-air card at lest since J. Danford Quayle’s famous “family values” line in the Murphy Brown statement. Nice code.

I looked at three prominent Republican webpages (primary source material) and found evidence of alleged moral superiority on each of them.


Senator Sam Brownback (R Kansas0

http://brownback.senate.gov/


Go to issues and on to stem cell vote.

Rick Santorum (R Pennsylvania)



http://santorum.senate.gov/public/index.cf...&Issue_id=9

(coded on Santorum's page as a family issue)

Kay Granger (R Texas)

And from my own “lovely” Rep. Kay Granger, the joke that now represents my district – Jim Wright’s old 12th Congressional District of Texas seat.



http://kaygranger.house.gov/issues.asp?For...&Section=12

I didn't edit Granger's statement. As far as I know government pages are public domain.

One of these days you'll quote me accurately.


That their policies have over those of the Democrats. And the Democrats' selling point has been the "moral superiority" that their policies have over those of the Republicans. You're not making any real distinction here. You're just repeating how others have disingenuously characterized the Republican position.



A speech in which he mentioned Democrats or Republicans exactly zero times. Musta been that "secret code".

Actually, despite the way the media characterized the speech, it wasn't half-bad. I thought the remarks on gangs were especially poignant.

Man, you have to have been seriously living in a cave if you don't think Republicans built the foundation of thier takeover of goverment based on being the "moral guardians" of America- I mean- HELLO- Moral Majority anyone? I mean, dang. I don't think there has been a more obtuse view stated about any political issue I have ever heard. I mean, you have to be freakin' kiddin' me?

Yeah, and what about that band of wackos that went defunct in 1989? "I mean, dang," you must be one of the few people left on the planet who are still obsessing over them.

Oh, I almost forgot, they did try to revive themselves under the banner of the Christian Coalition, headed up by that formidable political strongman, Ralph Reed. Now there's a guy who's been so influential in the Republican Party that "During a July 2005 visit to Georgia, the President pointedly ignored Reed, who attempted to get his attention by jumping up and down and waving, during his speech."

No more so than all the other scandals going around the White House and the Republican Congress.
This administration's lies, issues of corruption, the war in Iraq and the lack of planning thereof are already hitting them hard. Somehow the Foley scandal is just icing on the cake. But, I fear there are too many people out there that buy into the Karl Rove propaganda machine that has been running unchallenged in overdrive these past years.
If possible, I am sure they would say something like this:

The Republicans are good, Christian people, with High Moral fiber and Standing.
We all know they are the only party that knows which end of a gun is the business end, (unlike those 'pacifist' Democrats who were leading this country during.. hmmm, let's see, WWI [Wilson], WWII [FDR/Truman], Korea [Truman], and Vietnam [Well.. both parties share the blame for that one, from Eisenhauer, Kennedy, Johnson and finally Nixon])
All these accusations of corruption are created by the Left Biased Media (let's not mention that most of the editors are on the Right). The insurgency in Iraq is really financed by the DNC (afterall, it's the Democrats that are the real enemy.. right?), and the IMs and emails from Foley were really written by Bill Clinton.
And, furthermore, the only reason Bin Laden is still on the loose is that Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica, who must've called Saddam and warned him that Bill was going to launch missiles at Bin Ladens training camps in Afghanistan in 1998. Since 2001 and 9/11, the Republicans are the only ones who can protect us from evil, because, well, if the Republicans are in power because God put them there, then the Democrats must be evil.. right?

The worse part about that is: if the above is mis-quoted, there would be millions of hard core republicans who would actually buy into it.


So, no, I don't think the foley scandal will affect the Republicans one way or the other. Their constituents seem to prefer lying, cheating, and stealing politicians (some, or at least one of whom have a preference of sex with minors), who are keeping the nation is a constant state of fear, and who think trickle down economics really works.


I think I just vented.. ooh.. that felt good!!

Opinion8ed I think you meant to post that on your blogspot.


I think the one thing many people here are forgetting is that senate and congressional elections are local. Locals policies drive the voting habits in these elections. That being said it doesn't stop Democrats across the country bringing up Mark Foley in their campaign commercials when it has nothing to do with local issues in their state.

[quote name='Sleeper' date='Oct 20 2006, 03:40 PM' post='199031']
Opinion8ed I think you meant to post that on your blogspot.

Yeah, I got a bit carried away in the moment!

You are right as far as the local elections. At least theoretically.
But the national perception is what is driving voters as well. Unfortunately too many Americans vote based on what they hear happening across the country on their favorite news channel. It is a small minority that actually pay attention to what the local issues are, and what one candidate over another brings to the table. Most seem to vote by party. At least that is the way things are in Texas, where my previous residence was (for over 20 years).
I would love to see a candidate, any candidate, who actually says.. I will do this, and I will do that.. instead of "I'm better than he is because he's done this or he's done that".. mudslinging is getting really old.

Myself, I have voted Republican as often as I have voted Democrat. And I'm not afraid of some of the 3rd parties either. But, at this moment in time, I think a splash of cold water on the collective Republican single party mentality is a good thing.

If Foley did what is being said of his, it does not matter if some person in prison currently did the same act, it would not clear him, so for trying to say well someone in the democratic party did the same thing I do not think in any form would clear Foley of any wrong doing and its a pretty missing the point redirect if I can add that in. The other part of the issue is that a possible cover up of such exists by other members of the republican party, that if true speaks on serious ethics issues, now I may have care for an individual, if they do something truly wrong I am not going to put my neck on the chopping block for them, its not my problem and I did not commit the act they may have in example because I do not condone it in the first place.

The other idea as it appears to me is that the GOP does try to run with the idea of having the moral high ground in American perception of morality as commonly taken, or trying to get the bulk statistic of such for a voting base. So its like when some television personality evangelist is caught on tape trying to hire a hit man to knock of his wife or is busted down at the local Eros center, it simply spells out disaster because it really simply puts you in the light of having no integrity, which to me is a very important moral issue because at that point you are simply trying to bend perception for an advantage that’s not true to the reality of it all. I mean if you do accept the idea of some super natural being as the creator of reality then following the truth of such would be the best form of worship right? Anyways on to something on topic.

You can try to spin things away from what occurred and the following investigation if not which hunt, but maybe the repubs should not bite the hand that feeds them, its pretty ignorant in my opinion, and as for all the supposed super moral republicans in this debate its a bit sad to see that such an idea does not bear any matter when compared to trying to keep your team with the ball, its basically just a bad sell out, or at least that’s what I am seeing. If gore was in office and he did everything that bush has done I can personally promise to be hating him and his government just as much as bush right now, but in all this the issues that politicians come to run on seem to matter not when they let them go for internal drama, and the supporters of such doing the same, I mean what kind of a system is that, its simply one of fallacy and bias really.

Let me see if I can help get things a little bit back on track here....

Will the current scandal involving Rep. Mark Foley harm the Republicans in the 2006 elections?


MMMmmmm....Duh? Does a bear...no, we won't go there. But seriously, people, of course it will. The only discussion is to what degree, which of course both parties are going to try to influence in their favor. That would happen anytime, but right before an important election, with control of Congress up for grabs? For those that question the timing of this, two points. First, (as Jon Stewart so aptly pointed out), the timing is indeed suspicious, as it always comes AFTER THEY DID IT. There is a very simple away to avoid having such things come up right before an election---don't do them in the first place! Second, even if it turns out that the timing of this was contrived (which has hardly been proven)...I would simply say that's politics, and refer back to my first point here.

I would also say, as some on the left have pointed out here, that much of the damage being done has been internal from the Republican Party. I like Cokie Robert's term: circular firing squad. Clearly, there are some internal power struggles going on within the party--I'm actually a bit surprised the Democrats haven't made more hay with that aspect of this issue. As for whether or not any of the attention being focused on this issue is deserved or not, well, Hello! Please refer to the various threads on the sensationalizing of incidents in the media. Contrast the Foley incident with the coverage of what John Mark Karr had for dinner on a plane and tell me this isn't at least as important (and actually receiving less attention). The actual newsworthiness or true importance of anything doesn't really even enter into the equation--its what can be done with it in the media that counts. This stuff happens because IT WORKS. We have no one but ourselves to blame for this. If we paid more attention to really important issues, and demanded that our own politicians became more proactive and less prone to rhetoric and negativity, then this stuff wouldn't happen. But, we don't. So, when something like this happens, it gets a lot more made out of it than it should.

As for whether or not the Republican party campaigns heavily on values, I think we need to follow that bear again. I would further suggest reading American Theocracy. While I found many of the author's conclusions to be quite a stretch (often 40 pages of historical buildup followed by a couple paragraphs of unfounded conclusions), he does a very good job of describing the influence of religion on politics, and how it has being going on for quite some time.

I agree with you Sleeper that the old phrase, "all politics are local" still holds true. Invoking the name of Mark Foley will not be enough to provide the margin of victory for a Democrat trying to beat up a Republican candidate.

However, I disagree that Mark Foley has no bearing on the local issues of a given state. Foley was not just some back-bencher from some safe seat in some backwater county. He raised money and contributed money to Republicans. He was the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. His fall from grace has the inevitable effect of furthering voter cynicism and disgust with Congress. That has a negative impact on everyone if enough people throw up their hands and may depress voter turnout.



Sad but true, Hobbes. America's Debate has had multiple Mark Foley and Israel vs. Hezbollah threads, but I don't recall one thread about the Darfur genocide that didn't wither away quickly.

People love to see the rich and powerful take a fall. We love to see our leaders reveal that they're just as big a slob as the rest of us. They drink too much, chase after women they're not married to, do drugs, and think about how to get rich without die tryin' and addicted to sex and power. Just like the rest of us civilians.

If you turn on the TV in prime time for the next three weeks you're going to be beaten into insensitivity by all the negative political ads by both parties. Is the only way to win by telling voters that the other guy is a bigger jerk than you are?

I'm assuming you're talking about Kevin Phillips new book? The originator of Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" is no fan of Bush and feels the GOP he knew has been body-snatched by religious conservatives. Between the influence the religious Right exercises upon the Republicans and the secular humanists whom have seized control of the Democratic Party it's no wonder it's the independent voters who decide who wins most of the political races.

I haven't been reading through all of the posts the last few pages but I wanted to address the thread question directly.

I think the damage of the Foley scandal for national politics is that Dennis Hastert has become a bit of a political liability. And as the race for the House increasingly indicates that the majority of the House will become Democratic this November, one of the weapons in the Republican counter attack tool box can't be brought out. Demonizing Nancy Pelosi and getting voters to think about a House led by a San Francisco Democrat would likely influence some voters.

However, now that Hastert's reputation in brought into question by the handling of Foley, such an attack would highlight the troubled leadership of the house.

So for some who regarded a Speaker Pelosi as anathema, the continuation of Speaker Hastert and co. is not much more comforting and Pelosi has become more of a political non-issue in the individual House races.

I've seen some mention of Pelosi as being a combative woman who doesn't stand down from a fight and actually relishes conflict.

So I think, that's bad--how?

Anyway, you're right about Hastert messing up any fear-factor strategy about screaming moon bat evil devil spawn San Fran liberal Democratic House leadership, even though I think such a strategy would blow up in the Republican leadership's faces. The goblins of yesteryear are the desired leaders of tomorrow.