October 3, 2006
WISHING WON'T MAKE IT SO:
It Takes a Sex Scandal The real world cares about the Foley e-mails. If Democrats can’t win now, they’re doomed to become modern-day Whigs. (Howard Feinman, 3 Oct 2006, Newsweek)
An Iraq war that has cost us nearly half trillion dollars—and the good will of the world—might not have done it. Runaway federal spending that allowed the national debt to reach $8.5 trillion might not have done it. George Bush’s low approval ratings, the lack of comprehensive immigration reform, the historical pattern of an anti-incumbent “six-year itch†in presidencies, the cascade of stories about administration ineptitude and dissembling and congressional financial and lobbying corruption—none of these issues seemed destined to end the Republicans’ 12 year reign in Congress.
Then came the Foley Scandal. If the Democrats can’t take the Hill now, they deserve to go the way of the Whigs...
The Foley Scandal is a missile aimed at the heart of the GOP’s most important base constituency: evangelical, Bible-believing Christians, who were already upset with the administration on a host of issues—including spending and immigration...
More important, the Democrats’ message is murky. In the Senate, they decry the Mexican fence, then more than half of them vote for it. They label the Iraq war as a mistake, then vote $70 billion more for it. They object to Bush’s torture bill, yet flinch at a chance to block it in the Senate.
It was that kind of profound indecision on a moral issue (slavery) that led to the demise of the Whigs before the Civil War. The Foley Scandal means that Democrats might be able to succeed with a campaign slogan that says, simply, “Had Enough?†But if they take control of Congress, they’ll still have to do what the Whigs could not, which is explain what they are for, not just what we all are against.Let's see, Iraq equals slavery, the "real world" cares about some perv and the Evangelicals are upset about spending and immigration. I wonder what color the sun is in Howard's world. Posted by Pepys at October 3, 2006 10:32 PM
Oh, come on. If you're under pressure to be witty every day, sometimes you're just going to write stuff because it rolls trippingly off the keyboard, not because it makes any sense. I'm talking about Howard Fineman here, of course.
Posted by: HT at October 3, 2006 10:57 PMWatch it...
Posted by: pepys at October 3, 2006 11:03 PMOK, I'm making my prediction right now, October 3, 2006:
The GOP will keep both the House and the Senate. However, total voter turnout will be somewhere around 28%. Only those who are in the mood to "Just win, Baby." will come out to vote. Judging by the fact that Speaker Hastert went on Rush's program today (smart move, Karl), there may be more of us in that column than Dems.
Posted by: Brad S at October 3, 2006 11:42 PMHastert went on Rush's program out of necessity. He's another washed up Illinois hack who has run out his string.
The cat's meow would be for the Rs to retain the house while using the utter failure of the House Leadership to sink worthless drones like Hastert.
A real leader of a "moral values" party would have sent a pig like Foley packing in 2003...
but hey, anything (even pedophilia) for a "safe seat."
Hastert is simply more evidence of rot. Win or lose, he's damaged goods, and has to go.
Posted by: Bruno at October 4, 2006 12:10 AMHastert won the House seat in large part because he was non-controversial -- i.e., after Gingrich, and with DeLay, the GOP kmew a high-profile speaker would atumatically draw the wrath of the big media outlets, who would run with every Democratic talking point. So you don't get someone who is going to excite the troops, but also, up until this summer, someone who was going to be hard for the media to pin down as one of those eat-the-poor theocratic Repiblicans they're always warning are a step away from seizing our liberties and making us into the Christian Taliban.
That said, Hastert's action in the Jefferson office search case eroded a lot of support from the base that really hadn't been paying much attention to the guy up 'till then. And while the media has been quick to confuse the issue of the e-mails vs. the instant messages, they still really haven't been able to lay into the Speaker in a DeLay-like fashion, other than to to try and fudge the issue and say he should have know about the IMs (to attack him simply over the e-mails risks ticking off the Democrats' gay special interest groups, who want their party in power, but not at the expense of making it seem as if any gay man sending an overly-friendly, but not overtly sexual e-mail is a possible child molestor).
Based on that secnario, Hastert hangs on for now, but he will have to do some damage control (and if it turns out anyone in the leadership knew about the IMs before last week, he'll be out of the Speaker's post within 24 hours just for the cover-up).
Posted by: John at October 4, 2006 1:00 AMBruno
It's Hastert vs Pelosi.
Who would a "moral values" person choose? A defender of Gerry Studds, a defender of Barney Franks (who ran a male escort service/ whorehouse out of his home), a crusader against the Boy Scouts of American? I don't think so.
Posted by: h-man at October 4, 2006 4:54 AMVery amusing that you all think either Pelosi or Hastert are going to influence this election cycle much at all. Just ask the next 10 people you see who they are. Then ask them what the price of gas was for their last fill up. An instant poll in which you will see what will most influence people at the polls.
And as far as Foley goes, he was another no-name politician that people have no clue who he was or care. I live in Florida and haven't got a clue who he is. It will work for the Democrats in that one particular race here in Florida, but unless they have pictures or emails of numerous GOP'ers involved in this behaviour, it won't go far.
Posted by: Buttercup at October 4, 2006 7:31 AMH-man,
A "moral values" person may simply decide not to show up on election day.
The left knows better than anyone that costing your opponent a vote is as effective as getting one vote for your side (it's even more effective because it's probably cheaper).
I'm also not buying the "no one cares" mantra. Men skanking on boys always makes the news, and by election day, a good portion of people who tune in just long enough to make a decision will know a) who Foley is, and b) that House leadership had plenty of fair warning that he was a bomb just waiting to go off.
The hubris and incompetence alone call for them to lose their leadership positions. No matter, the circling of the wagons has started, and the "moral values" party squanders yet more of their political capital to help a hack.
Posted by: Bruno at October 4, 2006 9:19 AMAh, yes! The great Morals Value Voter (inbred 1st/2nd cousin to the Harriet Miers Conservative) who always keeps threatening to keep the perverted and amoral Dems in power because they don't get everything their way. They're unhappy with the with the GOP in power because in their Leninist little world, it's better to be totally ignored (like every other taken for granted Dem constituency) rather than have an ability to influence Congresscritters who will at least listen to them. Things will keep going to Hell, but at least the Moral Values Voter will still be pure. (And somehow, magically, the voters will finally Get Fed Up and fix everything in one magic election.)
Moral Exhibitionist Voter is more like it.
Which is more "perverted?" The party that openly supports and embraces perversion, and asks that it be normalized, or the 'moral values' party that excoriates perversion but looks the other way to keep a "safe seat?"
Live by the "moral values" voter, die by the "moral values" voter.
BTW, don't mistake my wish for Hastert to take responsibility for his massive failure as a wish for Republicans to "pay at the polls."
I merely report.
Posted by: Bruno at October 4, 2006 10:00 AMBruno: Thinking that the GOP coddles its wrongdoers is not only incorect, it goes against all the evidence to the contrary. When a GOPer screw up, he is gone.
Look at Bob Livingstone, dumped within a week. Clinton is more popular than ever. Foley resigned the same day, Gary Studds served 10 more years, got his committee chair back within 2 years.
You hate the Illinois GOP, so you are letting it cloud your judgment. Moral voters are not so blind as you. They know that while the GOP is not perfect, the Dems are far, far worse. There will be zero impact, heck, the GOP may even keep Foley's seat.
Posted by: Bob at October 4, 2006 10:56 AMOr the fates of Dana Cunningham vs. WIlliam Jefferson, for an another recent example that has nothing to do with what gets the "Moral Values Voter" all hot and sweaty.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 4, 2006 11:40 AMRaoul,
You just described the basic Modus Operandi of the California GOP. You know, where the beautiful people live. And in alleged pursuit of those beautiful people, NRO would like the Red state conservative Republican to emulate the same behavior.
No thank you. I believe I speak for most "moral values" voters when I say I want to keep winning and influence policy by my vote, instead of going on a purity kick.
Posted by: Brad S at October 4, 2006 2:05 PM