Times, Post, CNN left unchallenged Republican claims that Foley scandal has had little effect on voters
SUMMARY: The News York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN uncritically reported Republican claims that the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley has had little effect on potential voters. None of the three noted that recent, nonpartisan, publicly available polls contradict Republican claims that voters do not appear concerned about the scandal.
While discussing the potential political fallout in the wake of the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), The New York Times and The Washington Post both uncritically reported -- despite polling data to the contrary -- Republican claims that the scandal has had little effect on potential voters. In the October 7 Times article, "In House Races, More G.O.P. Seats Seen at Risk," Times reporter Adam Nagourney left unchallenged Republican National Committee chairman Ken Melhman's claim that according to "every single bit of public and private data ... I have seen a minimal effect of this particular situation." In an October 6 Post article titled "House Republicans Move to Back [Speaker of the House Dennis] Hastert," staff writers Jim VandeHei and Michael Abramowitz reported that "[s]everal GOP lawmakers in tough races said voters are not reacting as harshly to the scandal as they first feared." Also, during the 7 p.m. ET hour of the October 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, congressional correspondent Dana Bash reported similarly that "Republicans are trying to make the case that perhaps the Foley scandal may not have the impact that some Republicans are worried about," but that Democrats "doing their own polls" disagreed. At no point did any of the three note that recent, nonpartisan, publicly available polls contradict Republican claims that voters do not appear concerned about the scandal. For instance, an Associated Press/Ipsos poll conducted October 2-4 found that 66 percent of respondents indicated that "recent disclosures of corruption and scandal in Congress" will be at least "moderately important" in their vote; a Time magazine poll released October 5 found that 64 percent of respondents believed the Republican leadership "tried to cover ... up" the Foley situation and that "one quarter" of respondents "say the affair makes them less likely to vote for Republican candidates in their districts come November."
In an article stating that, "[a]t least five more Republican Congressional seats are now in serious contention," Nagourney reported that "analysts" said the scandal "is undercutting Republican support among elderly voters, suburbanites and women." But in the same article, Nagourney also quoted Melhman's claim that voters appear unconcerned about the scandal:
Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said he believed that Republicans turned a corner when Mr. Hastert accepted responsibility for the mishandling of the page scandal after days of being pressed to take action by restive Republicans.
"I'm looking at every single bit of public and private data," Mr. Mehlman said. "So far, I have seen a minimal effect of this particular situation, which is not to say that I don't take it seriously."
At no point did Nagourney note that much of the "public ... data" Mehlman purported to be "looking at" appears to contradict Mehlman's statement.
The Post, while reporting on Republicans' reaction to Hastert's handling of the Foley situation, also uncritically reported that "[s]everal GOP lawmakers in tough races said voters are not reacting as harshly to the scandal as they first feared, buying Hastert even more room to save his job."
Similarly, Bash left open the question whether the scandal will affect the outcome of the November elections, reporting during the 7 p.m. hour of The Situation Room:
BASH: Now, some Republicans are trying to make the case that perhaps the Foley scandal may not have the impact that some Republicans are worried about; for example, David Winston of The Winston Group just conducted a poll. He tells CNN that what he is seeing is that there is virtually no nationwide change in how Americans intend to vote. He also says that Mark Foley has an 87-percent ID, which is extraordinarily high. Democrats on the other hand, Wolf [Blitzer, host of The Situation Room], they are saying that they're doing their own polls and some of the closest races and they are seeing an impact.
Bash's assertion came despite the fact that when she reported Winston's comments earlier during the 5 p.m. edition of The Situation Room, Blitzer responded that publicly available polling contradicted such claims, stating that the Time poll "showed significant potential impact against the Republicans as a result of the Foley investigation." Nevertheless, Bash did not note this fact during her 7 p.m. report, and Blitzer did not make any comments following this report.
In fact, public opinion polls indicate that the Foley scandal could be hurting Republicans. The AP/Ipsos poll conducted October 2-4 found that 66 percent of respondents said that the "recent disclosures of corruption and scandal in Congress" would be at least "moderately important" to their "vote in November," with 48 percent indicating it would be "very" or "extremely" important. The poll also found that 62 percent of respondents were either "dissatisfied" or "angry" with "the Republican leadership in Congress." The AP poll had a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percent. Similarly, the October 5 Time magazine poll found that a "quarter" of respondents "say the affair makes them less likely to vote for Republican candidates in their districts come November," and that "[t]wo-thirds of Americans aware of the lurid e-mails set [sic] to congressional pages by a G.O.P congressman believe Republican leaders tried to cover up the scandal." According to the poll, "[a]mong the registered voters who were polled, 54% said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate for Congress, compared with 39% who favored the Republican." The Time poll was conducted October 3-4 and had a margin of error of +/- 3 percent.
From the 5 p.m. October 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BASH: Now, some Republicans are trying to make the case that the Foley scandal may not at least immediately show a major impact when it comes to this political year. David Winston of the Winston Group did a poll that he says shows virtually no nationwide change in how Americans intend to vote. He also said though that Mark Foley now has an 87-percent name ID. On the other side, Wolf, Democrats are standing around their own polls trying to make the case that when it comes to specific races that were already very close, this Foley story is having a negative impact on Republicans.
BLITZER: That was certainly suggested, Dana, in that Time magazine poll that came out last night. Our sister publication, Time magazine, had a poll last night that showed significant potential impact against the Republicans as a result of the Foley investigation. Dana, thanks very much.
From the 7 p.m. October 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BASH: Now, some Republicans are trying to make the case that perhaps the Foley scandal may not have the impact that some Republicans are worried about; for example, David Winston of The Winston Group just conducted a poll. He tells CNN that what he is seeing is that there is virtually no nationwide change in how Americans intend to vote. He also says that Mark Foley has an 87-percent ID, which is extraordinarily high. Democrats on the other hand, Wolf, they are saying that they're doing their own polls and some of the closest races and they are seeing an impact. Wolf?
BLITZER: Dana, thanks very much. Dana Bash reporting from the Hill.















Democrats couldn't win on the real issues so they're hanging their hopes on this scandal. It might be a good thing if they take over the majority in the House (I don't think they'll make much headway in the Senate). Now they'll have to put up or shut up.
After they fall on their faces, they'll be voted out in 2008 and the GOP will retain the White House.
The dumbest part of this scandal is that while it's illegal to talk about sex on the internet to anyone under eighteen, you can have sex with a sixteen year old. Does that even make sense?
What actual issues or ideas have the Conservatives worked with in the last few years? Flag burning, gay marriage, abortion and Democrats are terrorists. The conservatives are really lacking authenticity.
Stick to your bag of tricks, TAZ, claim that we say the opposite of what we really say. Point out that that is ridiculous. Then ridicule us for saying such a thing. It is dishonest and exposes your lack principles.
That's alright. Stay on the offensive, keep dismissing, trivializing and ignoring liberals. We're talking to Americans while your talking to ideologues. Street level liberals are experiencing a cultural renaissance and are reconnecting with their progressive values and values voters. We're expressing honest family values by calling for affordable healthcare, workers rights and the common good of the nation as a family.
Remember, it was a REPUBLICAN that broke the story, not a Democrat. It fell in their lap. It wasn't an orchestrated marketing tool like the GOP Clinton witch hunt. Real issues? I'd type faster but I have to clean the screen after my inadvertent spit-take. In 2004, Bush ran on vague accusations that voting for John Kerry was a vote for gay married terrorists. I saw (too much!) of the GOP NY convention. Nobody was touting Bush's great handling of ANYTHING. Just a protracted 9/11 memorial followed by throwing darts at President John Kerry, as if Kerry was President while 9/11 happened. Running on real issues sounds like a grand idea, but it has yet to work. A sex scandal has lots of voter appeal. The Democrats learned that in 2000. To Mark Foley, I say:
THANKS!
The numbskull above says that Democrats could not win on the "real issues"! Nonsense! Republicans cannot win unless they distort the real issues, and distort their own behavior as well as the behavior of their opposition.
He also said that it's "illegal" to talk about sex on the internet.
It's not.
It's illegal to set up a rendevous with a minor who has not reached the age of consent. We have those laws to protect innocent children. It makes sense that minor who are the age of consent can have sex. Adults cannot solicit minors below the age of consent.
"Republicans cannot win unless they distort the real issues, and distort their own behavior as well as the behavior of their opposition."
Maybe you haven't noticed this, but the last time a Democrat was elected president with a majority of the vote was Jimmy Carter in 1976 on the strength of the Watergate scandal. Democrats just can't seem to win without a scandal, can they?
This whole Foley "sex scandal" is glaring proof of the lopsided anti-conservative bias in the Mainstream media. This is the first sex scandal I have ever heard of in which no one has been shown to have had any sex. At leat when that blackguard lib, Gerry Studds D-Mass [and HE didn't resign!], buggered a 17 year old house page, real sexual contact actually occurred, albeit, homosexual contact. So far, nobody has claimed that Foley actually had a sexual tryst with anyone under the age of 18, and the last time I heard, sex between consenting adults in America is not illegal.
The fact that you the other idiot libs who frequent MM are still blathering on about this is a testament to your ignorance and hypocrisy.
Some general advice for the left: When you trump up a sex scandal, try to find one that has actual sex in it.
You are clearly a moron. Lets see before Gump won by a razors edge Dems won the popular vote THREE TIMES IN A ROW. Its meaningless that Clinton didnt win a majority when there was a third party candidate in the mix. So you guys have won ONE IN A ROW and somehow DEMS cant win elections. You really have to be dumb as dirt to crow about how popular you are after winning ONCE when previously you lost the popular vote THREE TIMES IN A ROW. We understand, math and logic arent the strong suit of you mentally challenged conservatives. LIES, stupidity, smears, THOSE are your strong suits. If you ever rent a couple of brain cells and manage to pull of the trick of higher brain function you ought to come back and give a cogent argument a try. This Coulter impersonation thing you have going is sad and pathetic
Dems could attack the Repubs on the war, the debt, bad health care, loss of jobs, all that....instead they vote for all that stuff and all they got is a very minor sex scandal to run on. Yeah, what a bunch of philosopher-kings, true humanist progressive geniuses, they'll save us all from the big bad fascists. It all really proves where their heads are at.
When dealing with communications that cross state and international boundaries, it would be sensible to have a standard age of consent, to satisfy the different legal situations of each polity. The age of consent in my state is 16, but I wouldn't want to test it. Angry fathers are not worth it.
You say:
Democrats couldn't win on the real issues so they're hanging their hopes on this scandal. It might be a good thing if they take over the majority in the House (I don't think they'll make much headway in the Senate). Now they'll have to put up or shut up. " - Sorry TAZ but Democrats were winning before the pervert scandal. Do you remember the war?
"After they fall on their faces, they'll be voted out in 2008 and the GOP will retain the White House. - "
Thats an assumption and your right to have that opinion .
"The dumbest part of this scandal is that while it's illegal to talk about sex on the internet to anyone under eighteen, you can have sex with a sixteen year old. Does that even make sense?"
Its illegal to solicit sex like Foley may have been doing. its an abuse of power as an authority figure getting sexually off on younger boys who are working as Pages. Defending this or trying to get any type of approval of this is disgusting.
I also see you ignore Hasert and the GOP coverup.
Smart to give that "age of consent" a good buffer- sorta like testing the drunk driving blood alcohol level, most civilized people don't want to make it close.
You put up some very good posts, Redking, if I haven't told you before, and you seem to stick to your principles as far as calling the Dems on their hypocrisy as much as the rightys.
But..(here comes my big but).. as important as keeping the Dems honest is,I think sometimes you jump on posters here who are , unfortunately, just being realistic.
The Repugs have managed to take over all branches of the Gov't by saying nothing, and winning a popularity contest based on being average and scaring people.
I'm not a registered Dem, never have been,but I think we're at a point where we've got a gangrenous leg and voting Dem is like voting for amputation, and you're pointing out that cutting off that leg is going to hurt your basketball game.
But don't stop. Even if the Dems have to dumb it down to win,I'm glad you're there to make sure a Democrat administration won't be just as feeble as the current one.
I think we've lost all extremities, brain activity and bodily functions... I think it's dead, Jim. Only thing keeping the corpse animated is massive infusions of cash. A huge vampiric monster, sucking the future out of our country, destroying any hopes of peace, forever insane. The master plan is Crusade and the years ahead do not look optomistic.
They've got torture chambers, again. There's no way I can vote for any who allow or even fund torture. The morals of the Dems and Repubs in power is just plain disgusting, and if we don't take a stand against it, then we don't deserve to be free men. Moral revolution at the ballot box. Let's take our country back.
Foley is just the latest to go, let's review--Duke Cunningham, in jail, corruption, Tom DeLay 'retired', indicted, corruption charges, Bob Ney pled guilty to corruption, will not run, now Foley--that's it four in only one year, and how many investigations has the Republican Controlled house conducted on these corruption charges, NONE--now all of a sudden they are going to 'investigate' Foley?
Way too little to late. Foely is just the most recent to be added to the pile of corruption of the Republican Party and all the Republican controlled government in the house has done is to look the other way, now with this latest one during the election cycle, all of a sudden they will investigate this one?
Pathetic--simply PATHETIC---
The Democrats don't have to do anything, the corruption of the Republican Party just keeps on coming out and we voters are most certainly noticing it regarless of how the Republican attempt to spin this latest one, all that spin just does is remind voters of the pathetic corruption woven all through the Republican Party--and I've just noted those four in the House of Representatives.
State of Kentucky Republican Governor, Ernie Fletcher--INDICTED--Ohio, Republican Party 'Coin Gate'---governor 'convicted' of a minor offense,--Republican lobbiest Abramoff, convicted, the web of corruption just keeps on coming out and the Democrats had to do nothing--the Republicnas have done it all to themselves.
Anyone seen time magizine cover where the 'elephant' is walking toward the darkness? Pretty well describes the reality facing this group of corrupt Republican Party ideologues.
the fact is Republican neocons HATE government except to enrich themselves with power and money. At least Democrats over the last half century have shown they want to govern and can govern on behalf of everyone. They are much more interested in the public interest rather than just special interests. And liberals in particular are interested in egalitarianism for all people, not just rich people and corporations. Of course Democrats are not perfect and have been corrupt in the past as well. But not to the breathtaking extent of these corrupt criminals in office now. I mean this is just stunning. How anyone can defend these monsters is beyond me.
And Redking, how about concentrating your energies on getting another party together instead of just bashing the two parties we have now? Voting for Ralph Nader helped get this latest group of criminals into the Whitehouse and if you were being honest, the Democrats can do better right now. At least we may able to get some of our liberties back. Screw Ralph Nader until he builds a viable party.
wringing their hands over Democrats being willing to use a sex scandal to seize control of an flailing, injured government that was made topheavy by the elimination of checks and balances. Remember 80 million dollars spent and Kenneth Starr throwing up his hands in defeat because he could find -in his words - "no evidence" of wrongdoing on any of the dozens of investigation subjects issued by a republican party, before Kristol and Scaithe and their ilke successfully demanded that he return to the drawing table and play the sex card? Not the Monica card, the Paula Jones card...the one they had already played once to win the '94 majority that let them get enough Republicans in office to obliterate the record for congressionally spawned investigations of any prior oval office. Why do you think Bush was so desperate to get the immunity bill for war crimes past during this session of Congress? He saw the handwriting on the wall...the handwriting taught by his own party. Read a little. Or at least, read a little more.
not past.
only prove that they are the walking brain-dead. The rest of us have learned to think and can make the decision all on our own. (not that the dems are much, if any, better....but they are a viable and better alternative in many of these cases....they don't prey on underaged BOYS while claiming to be against gay rights, all while DRUNK at work)