More Bad News For Republicans
ABC News reports:
Congressional Republicans, already struggling against negative public perceptions of Congress, now face voters who say new scandals will significantly influence their vote in November.
With midterm elections less than five weeks away, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that about half of likely voters say recent disclosures of corruption and scandal in Congress will be very or extremely important when they cast their vote next month.
The poll of 1,501 adults, including 741 likely voters, occurred Monday through Wednesday as House Republican leaders came under increasing pressure to explain what they knew of sexually explicit messages from former Rep. Mark Foley of Florida to teenage pages.
More troubling for Republicans, the poll found that by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 likely voters says Democrats would be better at combatting political corruption than Republicans.
This problem will not go away for the Republican party. The GOP leaders should have taken full responsibility. Instead, they jumped into defense mode from the start. Admit mistakes, take full responsibility… then do some serious damage control. That’s how these things should be handled.
72 Responses to “More Bad News For Republicans”
I didn’t realize the “Foley’s Foibles” was posted today previously…
Austin. It’s called H Y P O C R I S Y . You point it out when you see fit as well . Nancy Pelosi is a fraud. That is the point. AGAIN! Foley is gone as he should be. It is a shame Democrats don’t act as responsibly. But other than investigate the matter further I don’t see what the Republican party is doing wrong. Would you like Foley tarred and feathered?
As for the one stomping his foot, it seems that an investigation is ongoing and the facts are not all in evidence. I speak to what is known at this time and nothing else
Michael- You said you only cared about the sexual peccadilloes of politicians when they were illegal.
Well, Gerry Studds had consensual sex with a 17 year old-it was legal-unethical maybe but legal. Unlike Mr. Bauman’s escapade which seems to have totally eluded you. I guess you cherry-pick your information the same way Cheney did before we invaded Iraq, LOL!
Kim said :
In my opinion, you intended it as an insult, so I called you on it. What did you expect me to do? Agree with you?
No, people like you never agree even when presented with irrefutable evidence.
Kim Ritter said
Michael F- The difference is that only the hard-core Republican apologists ARE bringing up Gerry Studs. So when I said that, it was based on reality.
That would assume that you are the arbiter of what constitutes a Republican apologist. I feel equally confident in understanding what constitutes an example of being intellectually vapid . My agreeing with republicans on this issue is no different than you agreeing with ( fill in the most nefarious individuals you can think of)
Yes, You tossed out the insult and responded in kind. Again, this is exactly my point in the thread. You can’t view anything objectively. Even when you insult people you expect a different standard to apply to you.
Kim – actually, no. At that time the age of consent was 18 in DC, and Studds admitted to the facts of the matter and that is was an illegal affair. No prosecution followed, and later the age was lowered to 16. Just trying to keep the facts straight.
Kim said :
Well, Gerry Studds had consensual sex with a 17 year old-it was legal-unethical maybe but legal. Unlike Mr. Bauman’s escapade which seems to have totally eluded you. I guess you cherry-pick your information the same way Cheney did before we invaded Iraq, LOL!
No. I was using the Studds case to point out the hypocrisy in what is going on in the present case. No other case invalidates the comparison . Try to focus .
MichealF – I still don’t see what you are trying to prove. You just seem to want to argue for the sake of argueing.
To quote Dieter, “I find you…tedious. Time to dance.”
Yes, Austin, that is how I recall it as well. I tried to google the age of consent law on that one but failed to find it. A local talk radio show pundit made the same distinction.
As I said earlier, I am not concerned with the sex lives of consenting adults. However, I do acknowledge that there are times when consent becomes quite a gray area. I had a complicated situation with the mother of my best friend when I was 12 years old. It has always made me cautious of becoming involved with much more immature women even when they were of age
AustinRoth said :
MichealF – I still don’t see what you are trying to prove. You just seem to want to argue for the sake of argueing.
Then you miss the point of a whole lot of us out there who think it is important to apply the same standards to both sides of the political spectrum .
At the time I thought it crossed the line, and was meant mean-sprirtedly. If it was just Snarkiness, then my sincere apologies.
Sorry old chap, I used GIGO as a shorthand for the notion that I think you view the world thru a flawed lens. Now I know I am not the designated judge of whos worldview is flawed and whos is not.
But I do put a lot of emphasis on emperical evidence, especially the kind I have experienced firsthand.
Now having seen thos program that was adopted by self proclaimed conservitaves turn into an ongoing train wreck/clownshow, I tend to believe that the current GOP philosephy is flawed, and not just a little bit.
Now these same such people make no secret of their dislike and downright hatred of Dems/Liberals/terrorist-loving enablers. So every time you take that swipe at the Dems that you just seem to not be able to resist, I cant help but think you have at least that flaw that colors your outlook.
Now if you want to take that personal, then go ahead. But that is what I meant by GIGO.
So if you gotta hate on me, just do it with your eyes fully open. Thats all I ask.
BTW, you know that disapointment you felt when you were going along reading my initial rant, and then you got to the reversion to snark form?
Thats the way I feel everytime you make a fantastic speech and then throw it all a way with that “but the Dems….” thing.
You are an enigma, having seen your laserlike defense of the Dems you so routinly scorn, I will have to say at this point, I have NO idea where you are coming from.
Austin- My source was Wikipedia, which said it was the age of consent at the time, and so was legal-just look under Gerry Studds name (sorry I’m terrible with links) If you have a source that says otherwise, I’d be interested in reading about it.
Michael – Obviously nobody here understands what the significance of the point you are trying so persistently to make is.??? You keep talking about how the Democrats don’t care about their members who break the law or their unethical behavior.
I showed you an example of a Republican member who was arrested for soliciting a male prostitute (he was a very Conservative Christian which makes his behavior even more deplorable) and told you that the Republican party wanted him to run again- two years after his arrest. Obviously, they did not condemn him for his conduct -which was a big scandal at the time.
I think I agree with Austin-you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Waste of time.
Stubbs should be thrown out of office. What a horrible example for our children. I can’t stand him. Go away Stubbs.
Hastert should resign, but he won’t. Not until he has done incredible damage to his party. Therefore I support the former wrestling coach. Go Hastert!
Stubbs Studds whatever. I don’t even know the guy, but I know from the righteous anger of a bunch of boneheads that he really sux.
Snarky – You are an enigma, having seen your laserlike defense of the Dems you so routinly scorn, I will have to say at this point, I have NO idea where you are coming from.
LOL. I appreciate the compliment.
First, let me make it clear that I do not hate one you, as you put it. I enjoy are interchanges very much.
Second, I do not hate Democrats (OK I do, but I hate Republicans, too). I am not an ideologically pure person is all.
I am extremely cynical, and believe just about all lawmakers are corrupt. But that is not a new phenomenon; it has always been that way.
I think you think I view the world through the lens of Bush Republicanism. That is not true. I do lean more Republican than Democratic, especially on International affairs.
But I don’t think Dems are terrorist-loving Socialists. I do think there is a strong wing in the academic/vocal left that is Anti-American and Socialist, though, but there is a strong wing in the Republican party that is pushing us towards authoritarianism.
If it makes you feel better, I think Rummy is a failure and should be fired, that the occupation of Iraq has been horribly misshandled, I am more than a little concerned about the recent habeas corpus law that was passed, and I think most aspects of the Patriot Act should be declared unconstitutional,
George Will nailed it when he said that the party that claims to have cornered the market on virtue should not be surprised at the reaction when it is found to be less than pure. We could go back to Jefferson’s possible sex with a slave girl as far as peccadilloes go but that is not the point. That was then ,this is now , and right or wrong it is the Republicans turn in the washer regardless of what Dems did in the past.
Kim said :
You keep talking about how the Democrats don’t care about their members who break the law or their unethical behavior.
I showed you an example of a Republican member who was arrested for soliciting a male prostitute (he was a very Conservative Christian which makes his behavior even more deplorable) and told you that the Republican party wanted him to run again- two years after his arrest.
Bringing up an example of Republican bad behavior does not negate the point I made regarding Democrats. I never said that Republicans don’t have problems in this regard. The point should be clear. The Democrats have far more egregious examples and their finger pointing rings hollow.
Kim said :
Michael – Obviously nobody here understands what the significance of the point you are trying so persistently to make is.???
And what do you deduce from that? As you can clearly see from the posts on this Blog there are other sources with differing views.
Kim Ritter said:
Austin- My source was Wikipedia, which said it was the age of consent at the time, and so was legal-just look under Gerry Studds name (sorry I’m terrible with links) If you have a source that says otherwise, I’d be interested in reading about it.
You need to learn that the source you are using is often wrong. You can go onto that site and make corrections. I lived in Massachusetts most of my life and recall the scandal very well. One of my friends was a talk radio personality in Boston and a member of the gay community. The word had been around about Studds for years. Studds had sexually harassed several pages including two who made complaints. Studds had taken the kid along on several work related matters while carrying on his affair.
I use it from time to time just to get a general idea of an issue
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/08/25/pto-on- wikipedia-patently-unreliable/reet
from wallstreet journal online
I’ve been complaining about this for years,� says Greg Aharonian, a longtime agency muckraker who writes a patent newsletter. “From a legal point of view, a Wiki citation is toilet paper
Snarky: I’m way late to the thread and haven’t reviewed it, but I noticed your initial Rovian reference. I’ve argued elsewhere Rove’s reputation far exceeds his reality, especially in the famed October surprise area. My perception is that most significant and effective October surprises have been Dem surprises. The 2000 prez election was one of the more famous- the release of GWB’s DWI records 5 days before election. In 2004, there was the backfired release of the forged Texan National Guard doc. This year, arguably the most effective- the exposure of Mark Foley’s electronic solicitations. What are Rove’s October surprises, and is his reputation overenhanced?
Michael F- LMAO- I didn’t know I needed a source that would stand up in court to comment on a blog!
I tell you what -I don’t find your argument compelling or convincing and its obvious you feel the same way about mine-so lets agree to disagree.
I think Grognard’s comment makes my point very nicely:
George Will nailed it when he said that the party that claims to have cornered the market on virtue should not be surprised at the reaction when it is found to be less than pure. We could go back to Jefferson’s possible sex with a slave girl as far as peccadilloes go but that is not the point. That was then ,this is now , turn in the washer regardless of what Dems did in the past.and right or wrong it is the Republicans
Michael- show me someone here besides Tommy who agrees with your point on Studds, and that the Democrats have far more egregious examples. Four Republicans have resigned this year alone due to scandal, and more resignations are probably on the way. That is reality in 2006- not 1982. But remain in denial if it makes you feel better.
Kim said :
Michael- show me someone here besides Tommy who agrees with your point on Studds, and that the Democrats have far more egregious examples
Four Republicans have resigned this year alone due to scandal, and more resignations are probably on the way. That is reality in 2006- not 1982.
Sure . that’s the point . Republicans handle the situation better than do Democrats .
Kim , do you think before making comments like this :
Michael- show me someone here besides Tommy who agrees with your point on Studds, and that the Democrats have far more egregious examples
I could take you to a number of sites where I would share the majority opinion. At we type someone on Little green Footballs and on the Daily Kos are making the exact same point as you. Most people agree with me so I must be right. Brilliant!
Michael F- If they handle these situations so well, why are conservatives across the country calling for Denny Hasterts head, and why are all involved in the sordid little affair telling different accounts? Yes, they’re falling behind in the polls a month away from midterm elections, but they’re handling it beautifully!
Kim Ritter :
Michael F- If they handle these situations so well, why are conservatives across the country calling for Denny Hasterts head, and why are all involved in the sordid little affair telling different accounts
For exactly the reasons I have repeated and you ignor . Conservatives expect more from their politicians. This explains why Republican pols are more likely to see the handwriting on the wall and resign when faced with an angry electorate. The ones who ignore this reality are more likely to get the boot come election time.
Kim said:
Yes, they’re falling behind in the polls a month away from midterm elections, but they’re handling it beautifully!
There are a number of reasons why Republicans are falling behind in the polls which have nothing to do with FoleyGate . Go read the posts on this very Blog over the last several months prior to this latest scandal. When your done with that, look up the polls a month prior to the last several elections. Hint, Kerry is not the President.