I noted earlier in the week Hugh Hewitt’s linkage of the Wellstone memorial to the Foley situation. Now Dean Barnett, also on Hewitt’s site, is asking Wellstone Funeral Redux?.
Barnett’s inspiration is an ad by Patty Wetterling (Democratic candidate for Congress in MN-06) in which it is stated that Foley “molested” children and that House Leadership has admitted to a “cover-up.” Both of those statements are simply factually false and do represent an example of Democratic candidates well overstepping the boundaries in using the Folely situation in a way that could backfire.
However, this Wellstone funeral business is ridiculous and demonstrates that while Ms. Wetterling may be overstepping, so, too, are many of the hardcore defenders of the GOP leadership–especially those who want to blame the current mess on the Democrats because they are tying to make political hay out of it.
In a post designed to explain the Wellston reference, Barnett wrote:
Reading the comment boards here, it seems some people (especially liberal people) have either short or selective memories when it comes to Paul Wellstone’s funeral. Here’s what happened: A man who was liked and respected by all, including his ideological opponents, died tragically in a plane crash. At his memorial service, Democratic partisans opted to use his metaphorical coffin as a campaign prop while trying to rally the faithful.If that was all that happened that night, it would have been plenty distasteful. But what made the Wellstone Memorial noteworthy was its raw ugliness. Republican dignitaries who attended the event to show their respect for Wellstone were booed when their images were shown on the Jumbotron. Many fevered-swamp type Democrats saw nothing wrong with this. The country recoiled from the spectacle, utterly repulsed and shocked. To many Democrats, though, the unsightliness of the Wellstone funeral apparently remains an obscure mystery.
The Democratic Party seems intent on replaying this mistake with the Foley affair.
[…]
WHAT’S UNSEEMLY HERE harkens back to the Wellstone funeral. Although Democrats didn’t realize it at the time and most of them still don’t realize it today, their real sin that night was using a friend’s coffin as a political bludgeon. The old saying is that in America, politics ends at the water’s edge. That saying reflects the fact that most Americans strongly feel that politics belongs in a distinct realm. When a party invites politics to a funeral, it offends the sensibilities of most Americans. It also shows the party doing the inviting to be craven to its core.
Ok, let’s put all of this in perspective: the problem with, and the damage done, by the Wellstone memorial was that it was quite clear that a sober moment was inappropriately turned into a political rally where guests were treated rudely because of their political affiliation. In shorter formulation: an event that has a certain cultural significance was turned into something radically different in way that many found offensive.
In the case of Foley it is certainly possible for Democrats to overplay their hand (but it will be tough, to be honest), although the parallels to the Wellstone memorial are totally nonexistent. The issue is what are the expectations of the public in a given situation? At a memorial, we expect decorum and we don’t expect politics and rude behavior. When a Congressman engages in disgraceful behavior we expect the opposition to try and use the situation to their advantage. Certainly if this was a scandal involving a Democrat, the Republicans wouldn’t be standing back in solemn respect–they would be on the attack.
Yes, the Wetterling ad is factually false, but Wetterling isn’t the whole of the Democratic Party. Further, even in her case the Wellstone analogy doesn’t work: again, it is about expectations. We expect an opposition politician to exaggerate the foibles of the other party. Does it make it right? No. But certainly we expect it–in a way we never expect a memorial to turn into a political rally.
So enough with the Wellstone memorial analogies. It isn’t a good proxy for over-playing one’s hand, it is an analogy for radcially inappropriate responses. We are not seeing an unexpected or inappropriate response here–we are seeing a normal political response. Enough with being surprised that the Democrats would seek to use this situation to their advantage. Enough with trying to divert attention from the actual problem by suggesting that this is all an orchestrated dirty tricks campaign.
For one thing, as Betsy Newmark rightly notes:
If that was so, they would have held off and had this scandal break much closer to the election. Five weeks is still a long time in politics
Indeed. (And, The Hill is reporting that the initial whistler-blower was a Republican).
For another thing, even if the Dems did orchestrate the timing of the revelations, it doesn’t negate what Foley did and what leadership didn’t. The bad behavior and the at-best inept leadership response doesn’t go away based on how the information was released.
People need to stop looking at this like it is a football game and it’s all (and only) about the score. Regardless of what effect this situation has on the elections, it is a wholly legitimate. If Hastert & Co. are inept in handling a situation like this, should even the hardest of the hardcore Republican want him in charge of managing the House of Representatives? That isn’t a partisan question.
(And for those who refuse to pay attention: I am not, in any way, defending the Wetterling ad. I am just saying that it isn’t especially surprising, and that it doesn’t fit with the alleged Wellstone memorial analogy).
Very well said.
(However, someone in the back row will undoubtedly raise their hand and ask if this is really all about quotas or something)
Comment by Jan — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 9:47 am
The inability of the GOP leadership to stand up and say “we screwed up” is what is driving this at this point. And the fervrent hope that somehow this is a “Democratic dirty trick” shows the lack of ideas about how to handle this head on.
Comment by SoloD — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 9:52 am
I agree with all you have said here about the Wellstone non-connection, with one strong exception. You are trying to make the point that it makes no difference whether the Democrats did “orchestrate the timing of the revelations.”
I disagree. That is a VERY serious charge, and should be confronted seriously, because if the Democrats did orchestrate the revelations, that would mean that “they” (whichever Democrats were involved) knew that children were being threatened sexually, yet they sat on that information for political gain. In other words, they endangered children for political gain, which is worse than the “inept leadership” you accuse Hastert of.
This is different than a Bush-drunk-driving type of revelation. Bush’s drunk driving was a thing of the past, and opposition taking advantage of it at the most strategic time might be distasteful, but is simply the way of politics. Foley’s offenses, on the other hand, were on-going, so any adult (Democrat, Republican, or news reporter) who understood what was going on had a responsibility to act immediately, not sit on the information until a politically opportune time.
Comment by Richard Nokes — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 10:23 am
I take the point and would agree. However, since there is, to this point, no evidence for that charge I see all discussion of Democratic orchestration to be GOP diversion tactics.
And what I mean by saying is that the orchestration issue does not matter in terms of a) Foley himself or b) Haster, Boehner, Shimkus, Reynolds, Fordham and friends.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 10:35 am
Indeed Brian Ross, who is ABC’s lead on this story, has said that his source was a Republican. But hey, desperate times call for blaming Bill Clinton.
Comment by SoloD — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 10:46 am
My point is not that the Democrats orchestrated the release of the information. So far as I can tell, neither parties’ leaders knew of anything more than the awkward e-mails, and my understanding of their content is that they were not necessarily indicative of sexual predation. It seems to me that the Democrats tried to make hay out of the e-mails, but that they were so tame nothing came of it.
SOMEONE, however, has had copies of the IMs. My understanding of the IMs is that some are several years old and are clearly sexual predation. Unlike e-mails, IMs are not automatically archived, so someone (possibly the boy on the other end) intentionally recorded them. The Hill article you cite makes clear that the tame e-mails were what the Republican staffer revealed, and that he did not know of the nasty IMs.
My hope is that it turns out that the child had copies of these IMs, and only revealed them when he grew into adulthood and began to understand he had a responsibility to do so.
If, however, an adult had these IMs (as opposed to the e-mails that it now turns out nearly everyone on Earth knew about, except for me), and held onto them for three years without doing anything — well, Democrat or Republican, that head needs to roll. It might not matter politically, but it still matters.
Comment by Richard Nokes — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 11:16 am
Feh — apostrophe screw up in the previous comment. I didn’t notice it until I hit the “Say It!” button. How embarrassing.
Comment by Richard Nokes — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 11:17 am
Richard’s points are all good. If anyone who was in a position to put an end to Foley’s behaviour, but decided instead to play politics rather than act responsibly, then they too are to be condemned.
However, to consider the original email as something other than a warning bell ringing loudly for any who wished to hear it, is to bury your head. It is very clear at this stage that the Republican leadership swept this under the carpet rather than investigate further. If they had it is quite possible they would have discovered the later messages.
Had the republicans taken this route right from the beginning, there would have been nothing for the democrats to orchestrate.
Comment by Cian — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 11:36 am
http://americanthinker.com/articles.html?article_id=5919
Comment by c.v. — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 11:45 am
Gary Studds had sex with a 17 tear old, not sexual text messages with a 18 year old page and he was reelected.
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Gerry_Studds
Comment by c.v. — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 11:48 am
Well I agree with your debunking of the non-analogy, but your characterization of the Wellstone memorial as a “political rally” is crazy. Look some people at the funeral, namely Rick Kahn, and somewhat Mark Wellstone said some inappropriate things, but the memorial was abused by Republicans not Democrats. I promise you that Democrats had no real intention of wining any votes with the Wellstone memorial. Some very close people got emotional and said some political things about a political person. If my mother had died and someone was running in her place I promise you I would make Kahn’s comments look tame and wouldn’t have a second thought about it. Conventional wisdom aside, it was not a political rally, but it would have been ok if it had been.
Comment by Talmadge East — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 12:02 pm
Tal,
This is a case wherein your prediliction to see through Democrat-colored glasses is getting in the way of objective evaluation. There is no doubt that there were political rally-like activities at the Wellstone Memorial and that that was the way it was perceived in the general public. I am not saying it was planned.
There were a number of political charged and innappropriate statements made at the event and the booing of Republicans who had come to pay respects to Wellstone was out of bounds.
While the whole event was not a rally, there were enough activities that made it look like a rally to create a political effect.
Further, it clearly had a political effect in Minnesota in that year’s election.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 12:29 pm
[…] Scott Nokes, in a comment below, makes a valid point in regards to the charge that the revelations about Foley were orchestrated ins some fashion by the Democrats or some ally of the party. Let me be clear: I agree with Scott that if someone had this information on Foley and withheld it for political gain then this would be a very serious action (indeed, if any adult had the information and sat on it, then there’s a serious problem). Yes, there would be the “dirty tricks” angle that would have its own political impact. However, the more serious element would be that someone knew about Foley’s predilections and did ignored those facts for political gain. If such information emerges, then the persons responsible will have Hell to pay. […]
Pingback by PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » A Point of Clarification — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 12:33 pm
Scott,
You make a very valid point and I just wrote a new post to address the basic issue.
And you are right if anyone besides the then-kids in question have the IM transcripts.
Speaking of which, I don’t know that it is strictly speaking true that there is never a file of IM messages. I want to say that I used to use an IM system that did keep a file.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, October 5, 2024 @ 12:34 pm