SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GST who wrote (29825)10/6/2006 12:37:04 PM
From: Dale Baker  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 541470
 
The Republican party would benefit from some butt-kicking and house-cleaning, as we see in this latest scandal. This excerpt from today's WSJ sounds like a cross between the Keystone Kops and a Chinese fire drill:

Hang-Tough Strategy

The hang-tough strategy is being urged by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, conservative talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, and increasingly, according to several Republicans, by party Chairman Ken Mehlman and White House political advisers. "Get indignant," as one former House Republican and top party strategist put it. "We don't have to take any lectures from Democrats."

Advocates of this approach call for avoiding responsibility for not taking action against Mr. Foley, while reminding the public about past Democratic sex scandals, notably President Clinton's, involving former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. They suggest -- so far without evidence -- that Democrats held on to information about the Foley emails and instant messages until close to Election Day. "As much as we'd love to take credit for chasing a child predator out of Congress, their charges are ridiculous," said Bill Burton, spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

In the days since last Friday's disclosure of Mr. Foley's lurid instant messages to house pages and the congressman's resignation, Republican House leaders and their staffs have turned on each other. In disputing who was responsible for dealing with the Floridian's behavior, they have contradicted each other, and sometimes themselves.

Mr. Reynolds began the back-and-forth last Saturday, suggesting he'd acted responsibly by telling the speaker last spring, after he had learned from a Louisiana congressman about some "overly-friendly" electronic messages to a 16-year-old page. That, as Mr. Reynolds knew, contradicted the speaker's own comments that he only learned of the matter the day before through news reports. "I stand by my Saturday statement," Mr. Reynolds said in an interview yesterday.

At his Monday news conference, Mr. Reynolds said that upon learning of the "despicable" Foley messages last Friday, "I immediately began to work for his resignation." That conflicts with Speaker Hastert's account. "I think Foley resigned almost immediately upon the outbreak of this information, and so we really didn't have a chance to ask him to resign," Mr. Hastert has said.

But Mr. Reynolds, in the interview, said, "I did not talk to Foley but I asked Kirk Fordham" -- then Mr. Reynolds's chief of staff -- "to go down and secure his resignation."

On Wednesday, Mr. Fordham resigned, saying that he had repeatedly urged the speaker's staff as far back as 2003 to stop Mr. Foley's inappropriately personal contacts with male pages. The speaker's office denied that claim.

Mr. Fordham's contention raises questions for Mr. Reynolds as well. While Mr. Reynolds insists he knew nothing until last spring, Republicans privately say they can't believe Mr. Fordham wouldn't have made Mr. Reynolds aware as well. "Monday morning quarterbacking is great," Mr. Reynolds quipped.

At a news conference, Mr. Hastert yesterday took his own swipe back at Mr. Fordham. "It's interesting, Kirk Fordham also said, just about three or four days ago, that he worked for this guy for 10 years and he never did anything wrong."

Even before the Foley scandal broke, nonpartisan handicappers were predicting the Democrats could net the 15 seats needed for a House majority, and perhaps gain the six needed to take the Senate. The news came on the last day of a Congressional term that was unusually unproductive and contentious.

For example, the Republican-led Congress rejected the president's top-priority Social Security and immigration proposals. It also weathered corruption scandals that forced out the majority leader, Tom DeLay.

Now the Foley affair is providing new grist for Democrats as well as a controversy that voters can easily understand. "If you had a teacher [engaged in inappropriate contact with] a high school student, and the principal knew, and they had taken no action, what would happen to both the teacher and the principal once word got out?" asks Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, Mr. Reynolds's counterpart as head of House Democrats' campaign committee. "Well, that's how the American people see this."

The Republican leaders' sniping at each other, meanwhile, keeps the story alive, even for far-removed Republican members back home campaigning. "The more the spotlight shines on the dysfunction in Congress, that makes it very hard for these members to change the subject," says Amy Walter, who analyzes House races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

The Foley fallout is especially dangerous, Ms. Walter adds, for incumbents already under clouds of their own. One is Pennsylvania Rep. Don Sherwood, who stars in his own campaign ad asking voters' forgiveness for an extramarital affair. Republicans now expect to lose the seat Mr. Foley gave up, which was considered fairly safe until last week.

On Monday night, a group of House Republicans held a strategy conference call to brainstorm over how to respond to the Foley situation. Though he's in charge of the Republican House campaigns, Mr. Reynolds didn't phone in, as he was busy with his own race. But participation was high. "I guarantee you it was the largest one of these we've ever had," said Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina.

Rep. Judy Biggert of Illinois suggested every member contact the parents of the pages they'd sponsored, to provide reassurance and perhaps learn of other problems. "We seem to be forgetting that this is all about the children. We keep talking about who did what to whom, and who's covering up," she said yesterday in an interview. Mrs. Biggert says she has reached the mothers of three of the five pages she has sponsored, and none reported problems, only delight with the program.

Republicans have also discussed deflecting the scandal by talking up youth programs and education initiatives. Those issues were the focus this week when Reps. Reynolds, John Sweeney of New York, and Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania had campaign visits from First Lady Laura Bush, who remains hugely popular with voters. And Republicans have talked about surrounding themselves with children in public events -- just as Mr. Reynolds did at his Monday news conference.

As Mr. Reynolds prepared the party for the fall campaign, he took credit for an election strategy that had Republicans emphasizing local issues, and the federal funds they've brought home. That was to help them overcome the hostile national climate.

But now Mr. Reynolds's "all-politics-is-local" strategy is overwhelmed by the page scandal. That's particularly true in his own race. His district is a western New York stretch of suburbs, small towns and farms from Buffalo nearly to Rochester. It's traditionally Republican but less so as manufacturing job losses have unsettled voters. His rival is Republican-turned-Democrat Jack Davis, a 73-year-old businessman who took 44% of the vote against Mr. Reynolds two years ago, and says he will spend $2 million on this race.

(continued)



To: GST who wrote (29825)10/6/2006 7:54:34 PM
From: freelyhovering  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 541470
 
"McCain would make Hillary look like a pretender."

If you are talking about vote getting, you may be right. But, in a debate, I would bet on Hilary. She is dangerously quick and smart and McCain would have to be a gentleman with her. I think she would eat him alive.