CNN host and MSNBC analyst suggested Democrats' own past scandals should prevent them from highlighting GOP leadership role in Foley scandal
On the October 4 edition of CNN's American Morning, after airing a campaign advertisement from Minnesota Democratic congressional candidate Patty Wetterling accusing congressional Republican leaders of covering up the "predatory behavior" of former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), co-host Soledad O'Brien asked CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley whether "Democrats ma[de] a mistake by grabbing this issue and running with it" because "[t]here's certainly been enough scandal in the Democratic Party in the past." Similarly, on the October 4 edition of MSNBC Live, responding to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, MSNBC political analyst and Congressional Quarterly columnist Craig Crawford told host Chris Jansing that he has "some pause about this idea of Democrats on a roll, simply because when they were in charge, they had plenty of their own problems with abuse of power."
From the October 4 edition of CNN's American Morning:
O'BRIEN: No surprise that there's this new commercial. Patty Wetterling, a Democrat in Minnesota, is the first one to sort of come out right out of the box and run this commercial. Let's show a chunk of it, if we can.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE [video clip]: Congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the Internet to molest children. For over a year, they knowingly ignored the welfare of children to protect their own power.
O'BRIEN: It goes on and on and on to talk about molesting, as well. No surprise. Do you think that Democrats make a mistake by grabbing this issue and running with it? There's certainly been enough scandal in the Democratic Party in the past.
From the noon broadcast of the October 4 edition of MSNBC Live:
JANSING: Carl Crawford is an MSNBC political analyst and columnist for Congressional Quarterly, also a former congressional page. So, Craig, what do you think? Is the -- are the American people, based on this NBC poll, kind of got the feel of what's really going on out there?
CRAWFORD: Well, we can certainly see a pattern, here. It's sort of like the waves -- surfing the waves, Chris. We see this on the top, these waves going in one direction, but there's always an undertow, and you never know what you might not be seeing.
I do have some pause about this idea of Democrats on a roll, simply because when they were in charge, they had plenty of their own problems with abuse of power, and, of course, most of them supported the war when it was first -- when Iraq was first invaded. So, I can see where some voters might be unhappy with Republicans, but when they look at the Democrats, a lot of them don't see anything much different.
smug media whores tell the American people that. Who cares about facts? Let's just pontificate for the masses.
in the past." - O'Brien
That's right, Sole . . . what with the Dukester, Randy Cunningham, Tom "The Anvil" DeLay, Scooter Libby, Jack Abramoff, etc. . . . oh wait, they all wear an R - despite any onscreen graphics by FOX.
"Democrats . . . when they were in charge, they had plenty of their own problems with abuse of power." - Crawford
You mean like a record surplus, no illegal preemptive war, and dealing swftly with terrorist attacks? Yeah, that's abuse of power, all right . . . and this is all a moot point, anyway: The Repubs hold the WH and BOTH houses of Congress - not to mention the corporate "liberal" media . . . so crying about how the Dems should tread lightly is simply ridiculous . . .
But what else should we expect from the "liberal" media?
go to any reich wing site and you will get a list of the top 15 democratic sex scandals. Here's the unwritten truth - only 2 that they have are after 1990, Clinton and the Dem senator with a page. Wow. They had to go back to the 70's to come up with a relevant list of dems to compare to. 35 years ago. No one yet today. Nope. Not one.
excepting for Jefferson and a few others that have some shady dealings in their backgrounds. It must be remembered that part of what lead to the Congressional leadership change in 1994 was the purported arrogance of D leadership and their behavior regarding the House bank. It does appear in our political climate that those in charge of the Executive and Legislative branches have had the most to "hide" since the Watergate years. Politics has turned out, in the last 30 years, to be a lot like war, only messier. The answer may lie in a total House, Senate and White House cleaning over the next 3 election cycles. There are hard working, straight dealing members of both parties, just as there are/have been/will be "absolute jerks" in both parties. It is our responsibility as the primary stakeholders in our form of government to demand accountability.
The corporate media is holding nothing back in their attempts to neutralize the Democratic advantage going into the November elections. Even the AP ran news articles referring to Republican Rep. Foley as a Democrat although they, unlike Fox news, have retracted that "mistake." Let's face it, accidents happen but when they happen repeatedly they are no accidents. Above all, the corporate media is afraid that the Democrats might win in November and hold the FCC accountable and prevent further media deregulation. They fear nothing more then that Democrats might seek revenge and reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Then they would have to give equal air time to the left and labor and environmental activists.
BTW, there never has been a "vote to go to war" in Iraq. The authorization for the use of force was intended as a diplomatic tool to force Saddam to comply with the weapons inspection regime, nothing more. Top Democrats said as much in their floor speeches at the time. It was never intended by Democrats who voted for the bill to be a blank check to go to war. In fact, they clearly stated that it was not and Bush promised that he would let the weapons inspectors finish their work. He did not do this. He lied to Congress and the American people about his intentions and how he would use the authorization for the use of force. The "vote to go to war" meme is completely false, it never happened. Remember, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, Democrats called for a second vote for a declaration of war. Bush said he didn't need it and Republicans in Congress blocked it. If there had been one, we wouldn't be there now.
senator bob graham in fact voted against the use of force resolution because he said "we can't trust this president with a blank check". it was not intended to be that, but that is what bush claimed it to be. and it has to be remembered that the republicans were pushing this through in the fall of 2002, just before the midterm elections. they were already painting any criticism of bush as siding with the enemy. they did run campaign photos of sen. max cleland alongside osama. [along with sabatoging the democrats ride to the polls phone banks in new hampshire.]
sabotaging
All these talking ditto heads will end up starring in a video shown to school kids called "The Failure of American Journalism."
Practicing old school Mormons. Another stunning example of republican family values.
Your point with this post?
I was raised Mormon. Several of my family members still attend church regularly. Not quite sure what you're getting at here..?
Not really intending to offend, should have been a little more detailed about the select group of mormons who still practice multiple wives. They have a compound here in Texas as well, and if you look on their website you will see they love donating to the republican party.
They are all bad apples, so just throw up your hands in vain.
We've seen this Media approach before. Discount the issue, when you are on the losing end of it.
the page program is at fault here, in one paper was described as " feudal relic " ( King County Journal written by John Tierney, from the NY Times dated Oct 4, 2006 ). Gives the authoritave appearance but the problem in reality is that scoundrel FOLEY and his ilk, despite the attempts of the other scoundrels, lawyers included, who are given the microphone, to divert culpability.
Why is Crawford using this deceptive republican talking point? The majority of Democrats in Congress voted against giving that imbecile authorization to use force at his discretion.
Let's create a false equivalency rather than engaging in accurate, honest reporting!
Ain't it funny that the media excoriates the Dems for being gutless even while they simultaneously advise them to be gutless? Funny, that.
There is something so condescending about her approach with almost everyone...but she seems to relish sticking it to Democrats. This was a good catch by MMFA because it's the kind of matter-of-fact talking points they use to detract from the real story, which is a cover-up by the Republican leadership. Democratic candidates have every right to try and capitalize on this scandal...that's just politics and they know it!
During the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, I don't remember anyone in the media saying the Republicans' own marital issues prevents them from criticizing Clinton's.
I didn't hear the media saying Republicans can't go after Clinton, because Newt Gingrich cheated on his wives (in some cases with Congressional aides like Callista Bisek), or because Bob Livingston, Gingrich's successor, resigned himself because he was also cheating on his wife.
There's a very long list of Republicans who cheated on their wives, but the media never said that prevented them from bringing up Monica Lewinsky, or impeaching the former President over the Lewinsky scandal.
...to even suggest this should not be investigated (no matter where it leads) should get you canned.
Am I the only one who's uncomfortable with the Dems jumping on this scandal as an opportunity to lump Republicans and marry them to this one guy just so they can win the election? It's kind of like swift-boating, or max cleland-ing, isn't it? Yes, I hereby endorse the new verb "cleland-ing." I mean, Foley resigned, so he probably will lose his seat to a Dem, that's fine. So far, there hasn't been an investigation to determine a cover up, so we have to assume there wasn't one. Of course, conservatives in the media are in damage control mode, but it always pisses US off when THEY try to use values and morals as a weapon to hammer us with, especially after the Clinton thing, so why should we engage in the same thing? It might be an easy way to take back the house, but it's an ugly win, isn't it, guys? and gals, sorry.
Dr Engine said
"Am I the only one who's uncomfortable with the Dems jumping on this scandal as an opportunity to lump Republicans and marry them to this one guy just so they can win the election?"
>>> I would be uncomfortable with any elected official from any party who did not object to the cover-up of this kind of behavior, and with anyone who was not upset and offended with the lack of further investigation by the superiors! There's no evidence that they are correctly objecting to this horrific lack of oversight in a bid to win an election. They have a legitimate reason to be going after those who did not do their jobs. I have seen no Democrats who have claimed that the supervisors did the same thing as Foley. They are claiming that they did not supervise well, and are fairly attacking them for those failures!
It's kind of like swift-boating, or max cleland-ing, isn't it?
>>> Nope, it's not like swiftboating at all. It's not even kind of like it. Swiftboating was distorting the facts to impune the character of someone. This is fair and accurate accusations against people who shirked their responsibilities.
So far, there hasn't been an investigation to determine a cover up, so we have to assume there wasn't one.
>>> What? We have to assume, contrary to all the evidence that is currently available, that no cover-up happened? Why?
Of course, conservatives in the media are in damage control mode, but it always pisses US off when THEY try to use values and morals as a weapon to hammer us with, especially after the Clinton thing, so why should we engage in the same thing?
>>> It pisses us off when they falsely claim the high ground. They claim they are the party of family values, and we are not, but in this case, and many others, they have not shown family values. I know of no one who believes that morals and values are bad things, so your argument holds no water.
It might be an easy way to take back the house, but it's an ugly win, isn't it, guys? and gals, sorry.
>>> So, you buy into the right wing talking point that this was a plan to take back the house, rather than the facts that tell us that it was Republican staffers who made sure that ABC had the emails, and it was the ABC news story that caused other pages to forward the lurid IM's to ABC, and it was the call from ABC to Foley, asking about those salacious IM's that caused him to resign. Somehow the facts are in total denial of the talking point that this is an effort to take back the house, but you buy into it, and then reject that as a tactic? Talk about a strawman argument!
At no point did I ever say that the Dems conspired to release this scandal; I don't think they had anything to do with it, but you'd be a fool if you didn't think Democrats and liberal pundits weren't using this information to sway public opinion away from the Republicans with the mid-term elections coming up in a month. My question was simply: Is this how we want to win? By clobbering Republicans with a values issue when values, particularly sexual values (when they're not illegal of course) don't have much to do with the job of running the country. Repubs did this to Gore in 2000, with their "restoring values to the White House" rhetoric, an obvious allusion to Clinton's sex scandal, and it hurt Gore. It's an ugly way to run a campaign, in my opinion. Foley's seat SHOULD be lost; he did what he did, but don't think for a second that Democrats aren't going to use this issue; in fact one already has. That's not buying into Republican spin; it's political fact, and I think it's a little sad. But I actually like "Blue's" post below. Maybe an ugly win is what we need to turn this country around.
I dunno... I think the Dems have (wisely) been relatively restrained (with some exceptions, of course). It's the Repubs who have "run with this issue"... run away from Dennis Hastert, that is. This scandal hurts the Republican Party a lot regardless what the Democrats say or do to take advantage of it. What the Dems do is not the real issue...
This is a nonsensical post. I am just sick of the way we've been forced into discussing politics in our country, and I do blame Rove and company for that. I feel as if I'm in a wet T-shirt mud wrestling contest when I do. My parents taught me to have more dignity than that.
All I can say is that Robin and Company and especially Soledad and Miles (Gosh--I can't even think about all the other "new" outlets--except sometimes C-span [sp?]) have caused me to do my morning exercises watching the History Channel instead of the news about what is happening now.
It really makes me sad. So many things need to be discussed intelligently and opening, without political spin.
I can't imagine growing up now--no wonder many young people are disgusted with "adults."
You'd be right if this were 'sport' - it would certainly be an ugly win! It's also true that I wish Dems would just keep quiet at this point - the one ad that a candidate ran, was necessarry to stir the pot a bit, but now - just let the Repubs, with their stupid talking heads, Rush making outrageous claims without a shred of evidence, - let them just self destruct or more accurately, just let them just inflict their own wounds. Just watch while we see how badly they wound themselves!
As for the problem of 'an ugly win' - hell, if we can get ourselves out from under the tyrrany of control by this evil Neo-con administration - supported by the Repub majority I'd take almost any kind of win!
Sorry to have to say it, but better that a few bi-curious pages are now humiliated because they stepped too close to the edge, while flirting with a predator - better even that one or two take it where-the-sun-don't-shine, then feel 'abused' afterwards, than that our entire population gets screwed daily! Better than that thousands more young men give their lives for this military-industrial complex, Halliburton, The Carlysle Group, Exxon Mobil and their ilk!
It would be 'an ugly win' - and I'd be pleased beyond words!!!
Brent Bozell, from the Media Research Center, a site that specializes in misleading people about the so-called liberal media and media bias, said the same thing.
He said that Democrats have no right to complain about anything here because they have not been lily-white.
Since when is that the case?
Since when can someone not point out errors in another?
If someone is bad, is wrong, and they will not admit their own errors, then they deserve criticism for not owning up to their own failures, but even then it does not change the facts about what another person did wrong.
Most Democrats, and none that we know of in Congress today, have had any failings that have involved a Democratic Congressman who had inappropriate relationships with minor children working as pages (or minor children, period).
The fact that some people within a group have not been perfect does not mean that others within that same group cannot point out the errors of others!
For Bozell and MRC to assert such a thing is commonplace and totally expected. It's not okay for a neutral media personality and a news analyst to assert such a thing!
In this transcript from 10/4 Anderson Cooper 360, they try extra hard to make the Foley scandal a negative for the Dems. In particular, they show a commercial by child advocate and MN-06 candidate Patty Wetterling and fail to utter one word about her background in fighting for legislation aimed at sexual predators (her own son was abducted 15 years ago and has not been seen since), her work with John Walsh, even attending the bill signing ceremonies and standing right behind the president in the same video clips that CNN has been showing about Mark Foley. Instead they accuse her of trying to exploit the issue for political gain. Here's part of the transcript:
CNN, Anderson Cooper 360
ROBERTS: Dana Bash, thank you very much.With the midterm elections now just five weeks ago -- away -- some Republicans now are scrambling to distance themselves from this scandal, while Democrats are trying to maximize the fallout for their own political gain, which raises the question: Is there a danger in fanning the flames?
Here's CNN's Joe Johns.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOE JOHNS, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Scarcely 72 hours after the resignation of Mark Foley, Democrats were already working the story into their campaign ads -- no surprise.
But what's more striking on the campaign trail is that some Republicans running for Congress were also using questions about Mark Foley to separate themselves from the House Republican leadership.
Last night, in Maryland's Senate race, the Republican taking an uncompromising stance, saying -- quote -- "We need to investigate every member who touched this matter. And, if they're found conduct unbecoming, then, they, too, should resign, before they're removed." In a House debate in Iowa, the same warning from the Republican to the leadership.
QUESTION: Knowing what we know as of tonight, should Speaker Hastert resign?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think we need to investigate. And, if somebody had information of improper activity that threatened the safety of pages, young children working at the Capitol, then, yes.
JOHNS: On top of all that, a Kentucky congressman disinvited the speaker from a campaign appearance because of the investigation.
For Republicans, especially conservatives, who like campaigns to be run on higher ground, this kind of scandal is especially hard.
MANUEL MIRANDA, CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST: There's no doubt that Republicans are associated with moral values and legislation that reflects moral values. So, it's perfectly understandable that supporters of Republicans would hold them to a high standard.
JOHNS: But the counterattack they continue to search for is something that shows Democrats planned all this as an October surprise.
MIRANDA: Sure. You know, there's another side to this, of course, which is that this is a -- seems to be a fairly well- orchestrated war room tactic, to go after a congressman like this just short of an election. And, if Democrats were holding back information of this sort, they could also be held liable, under criminal law, for endangering the welfare of minors.
JOHNS: For the Democrats right now, some say the danger is the campaign ads. Democrat Patty Wetterling is running for the House in Minnesota.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, AD)
NARRATOR: It shocks the conscious. Congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the Internet to molest children.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNS: Unproven allegations, no evidence made public so far suggests a molestation charge. Nor has there been any admission of a cover-up. And even some Democratic strategists warn that, if the party is seen to be politicizing something this serious, it could backfire.