So It’s Foleygate Now, Is It?
Well, I suppose that was inevitable…I’ve said my piece many, many times now, and you all know where I stand. It’s not about me, though; this is a political blog, and clearly the story is having an impact. At the RealClearPolitics blog, Tom Bevan writes:
Foleygate has clearly mushroomed into a mini-nuke for Republicans. Democrats were getting nowhere with the “culture of corruption” argument. Voters didn’t care. But when you take the Foley mess and modify the message to “culture of sleaze,” that gets voters’ attention.
Well, maybe; we know sleaze sells just by looking at television. But before we get too carried away with assessing the fallout from the story, remember Harry Whittington.
Who? See, you already forgot…he was the man shot in the face by Dick Cheney, with a resulting media frenzy almost beyond belief. Here was Bob Herbert of the New York Times in the aftermath of that scandal:
“That was the moment when the legend of the tough, hawkish, take-no-prisoners vice president began morphing into the less-than-heroic image of a reckless, scowling incompetent who mistook his buddy for a bird. This story is never going away. Harry Whittington is Dick Cheney’s Monica. When Mr. Whittington dies (hopefully many years from now, and from natural causes), he will be remembered as the hunting companion who was shot by the vice president of the United States. This tale will stick to Mr. Cheney like Krazy Glue, and that’s bad news for the Bush administration.”
Ahem…doesn’t look very prescient, does it?
This, too, shall pass…
UPDATE 2:10 p.m.: Mickey Kaus, in his inimitable fashion, reminds us that this is actually an application of the Feiler Faster Thesis…
I think the difference here is what you noted—the sleaze factor. The impropriety level is more analogous to Gary Condit than Dick Cheney.
Oddly enough, I couldn’t recall whether Condit was a Republican or Democrat, but because I couldn’t associate a party with his name, I assumed (correctly, as it turns out) that he held office as a Democrat. Somehow, the party affiliation wasn’t stressed as much in that case. Hmmm, I’m sure there must have been some reason….hmmmm….
Actually the fact that Condit was a Democrat was widely noted at the time, as was the case with William Jefferson. Both parties will have members who are scoundrels — the issue is what the leadership does about its bad apples, and whether it turns a blind eye to misbehavior in order to retain power.
As a side note, yesterday’s New York Times had a front page story about Jack Murtha which basically portrayed him as a corrupt power broker. The article claims that he uses his influence on the Armed Services Committee to give earmarks and political favors in return for votes. This article was three columns wide and much more prominent than the article on Foley. Just in case you thought the Times tilted their coverage to one side of the aisle…
Now whatever gave you that idea?…
This story is dividing into two camps.
those who hate dems and those who hate republicans.
both these groups already have their votes made up. I am seeing this thing referred to as ‘democratic ploy’, they were privy to more information than the gop. If that is the case this thing backfires, badly. The dems in congress have placed their bet, on something most of them know little about.
swing voters-I wonder what their opion will be…for that matter, no one has a poll out there on this scandal, reiterating that all role players have not been identifed.
The (ibd) yahoo editorial is a sign of things to come. All newspapers will likely be writing an editorial on the matter as more facts are known. I find it noteworthy that Ted Kennedy has not been barking like a seal eating fish.
The Washington Times today called for Dennis Hastert to relinquish his post as speaker. This could be a good opportunity for Republicans to recapitalize. Most conservatives are not at all pleased with the fiscal irresponsibility by the Republican leadership in the House. Most Republicans — most people in general, I’d suspect — would still take Hastert over Pelosi, but he’s not someone we can get excited about. He should take this opportunity to step down and bring some new blood into the speaker’s chair (Mike Pence, perhaps — it sure would help him in the bid for the White House he’s hinted at).
I’m also wondering why “gate” is tacked on to the end of the names of people involved in scandals. The Watergate scandal was so-called because its inciting incident was in the Watergate Hotel.
So, are you saying Tom Bevan is a sock puppet of Bob Herbert? Otherwise, I don’t understand how a not so prescient comment (filled with hyperbole) from Bob Herbert equates to Bevian (from RCP) being wrong that voters will be thinking about Foley in 4 weeks time.
And, for what it’s worth, I knew exactly who Harry Whittington was. I saw his puffed up face in my mind when I read his name. And then, when I read “Who?” I thought “the guy who was shot in the face by Dick Cheney”.
And, the resulting media frenzy about the vice president shooting man in the face while out “hunting” is quite understandable. If Al Gore shot someone in the face don’t you think the newspapers would have run a few stories? Geez. They probably would have claimed it was staged to take attention away from Monica or Bosnia or whatever they were bitchin’ about at the time.
But, you’re right, this scandal will blow over, but the proximity to the election is quite different than Mr. Cheney and his accident.
[insert response with mention of Ted Kennedy instead of Condit]
“Harry Whittington is Dick Cheney’s Monica.”
I had already forgotten the guys name.
Dick also did not have to poor taste to deny he shot the guy, when his ‘pellets’ were plastered all over the guys face.
but I would believe cheney when he said-’I did not have sex with that man, mr.whittington.’ but then of course if cheney had lied about his shooting to investigators and then lied in court about it…then yes Harry would be monica.
I give the gop a way out:
add to their platform a national law that will be passed in the spring that ‘forbids the soliciting of, or engaging in, homosexual sex with a minor, regardless of states actual statuatory ages in respect to heterosexual relationships.’
Hate to see federalization of age of consent laws, especially when it sperates gays from heterosexuals, but if the dems want to play with fire…
the pitch for it:
take TN. Age of ocnsent can be 17, so long as the other is not more than four years older. Does america want gay college age kids, trolling our school grounds for fresh, ‘legal’ meat.
This is still a wedge issue that will put the dems on the defesnive.
Mike, am I saying Bob Herbert and Tom Bevan are the same people? I have no clue what you mean by that…
I’m saying that Bevan points out that the scandal is having an effect, but before we get too carried away with measuring the effect, let’s remember that prominent NY Times columnists were writing about what a big deal the Cheney shooting story was – and in the grand scheme of things, it was not a big deal at all…
Was my point really that difficult to understand?…
In the space of one week, you’ve had the NIE estimate, the Woodward book, the revelation that Jack Abramoff has been to the White House 400 times, confirmation that Condi Rice was warned about an Al Qaeda attack in an emergency meeting with Tenet, and a sex scandal. And what do people concentrate on? The sex scandal! Is this a great country, or what?
Mark: No, I was saying you had no point (or at least it was very weak). I don’t understand how you can deny that this will be in voter’s minds in 4 weeks. As evidence you cite an event that took place in February, that was a fairly understandable accident and in no way even a possible crime (unless liquor was involved, which was a genuine question to ask, in my opinion. What if Cheney were shot accidentally instead? What if it caused him to have a heart attack? I mean, seriously, it’s a big deal. If they weren’t being cautious when they were out hunting, what makes you think he’s competent to help run the country? That is the extension of the liquor question, but it was investigated and sort of piddled out). In any event, the two are not related at all. That was MY point. Unless the two are the same person, there is no connection. I was trying to say you are attacking the messenger to defend your point when in fact, a) the messenger isn’t the same person (hence the reference to sock puppetry), and b) the election is in 4 weeks, not 9 months. I suppose you can claim that a “mini-nuke” is hyperbole, but then he follows with “voter’s attention”, which is quite vague and very near term. He doesn’t claim the story will “never go away”.
Mike, settle down. I would never attack Tom Bevan; I think he’s great, and I’m very jealous of his success at RealClearPolitics. All I’m saying – ALL I’m saying – is that these media frenzies have a way of very quickly running their course…
You may not agree with me, but this ‘sock puppetry’ stuff between Bevan and Herbert is just bizarre…
Peter, this one is a bit strong:
confirmation that Condi Rice was warned about an Al Qaeda attack in an emergency meeting with Tenet
That’s more an allegation than a confirmation, wouldn’t you say?…
It’s confirmed by several people who were there:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000282.html
Mark: I was only saying that unless you were saying Bevan is a sock puppet for Herbert (which is clearly not the case) then your point holds no water because of the reasons I mentioned (i.e. that if you claimed they were the same person, you could attack the messenger, but they’re not the same person and therefore using a NYT article to discredit the argument of someone from RCP is sort of weird).
I know this scandal will run it’s course, just like all scandals, but 4 weeks (possible crime being committed) vs. 9 months (hunting accident with no crime). I’m willing to believe voters will indeed remember something about Foley in specific and possibly make a connection to sleazy Reps in general (either warranted or other) when they go into a voting booth before I’ll believe Dick Cheney’s accidental shooting will be a story that won’t go away…it’s already “gone away” in that it’s only mentioned in left wing publications from time to time or on John Stewart (who, incidentally hit Condit (not to be confused with Condi, whom he also rips on all the time) very hard at the time, and continues to bring his name up from time to time).
In any event, I was being weird, you’re right. I do that on occasion.
Well, Mike, maybe I’m projecting (i.e., I certainly don’t think this is a big deal (it’s a HUGE deal for the people involved, of course), and it’s all a little tabloidy for my tastes)…
“In any event, I was being weird, you’re right. I do that on occasion.”
Quel surprise.
“…had a front page story about Jack Murtha which basically portrayed him as a corrupt power broker.”
That pales compared to his role in the ABSCAM sting.
The dems haven’t changed in thirty years.
The gop…living off of one good congressional and spending their time figuring out how to become democrats with our tax money. Mission accomplished.
[...] Earlier today, I noted how prominent left-leaning journalists (Bob Herbert specifically) were just SURE that Harry Whittington spelt the end of the evil reign of the Republicans. Howard Fineman is sure setting himself up for a similar fall: 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. [...]
I think this is the check bouncing scandal of ’94, that is, we all know congress can be corrupt in big ways, but when they get away with stupid little stuff, however disgusting, that would land most of us in jail for 30 days, we get pissed.
Is There Time for the GOP to Recover from Foley Scandal?
Mickey Kaus thinks that, in today’s climate, the fact that the Foley sex scandal has broken four weeks before the election is good news for the GOP:
The Feiler Faster Thesis is the Republicans’ friend at this point. […] There’s…
[...] I wouldn’t know where to begin to describe my feelings about this Foleygate and I’m afraid this particular scandal will get “-gate” status even without all that extra pushing from the Democrats, which is looking uglier and uglier John Podhoretz gets right to the point: “outing” is McCarthyite. And vile. [...]
[...] As I said three days ago: this, too, shall pass… [...]