The Difference Between the Parties
Let the Democrats try to gin up a scandal in the wake of Mark Foley's resignation (Apparently, they've forgotten that such scandals can be bipartisan and that Democrat Gerry Studds never apologized even for having sex with a 17 year old male page).
Republicans should be reminding the public that however deplorable the Foley story is, it's essentially a distraction at a time when the nation is at war and there is much at stake beyond one congressman's disgusting behavior. Here's what Republicans ought to be talking about, as articulated by Bill Kristol:
[L]ast week's votes in Congress on the detainees legislation were . . . significant. The legislation had nothing to do with Iraq. It was a "pure" war-on-terror vote. And the parties split. Three-quarters of the Democrats in the House and Senate stood with the New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union for more rights for al Qaeda detainees, and against legislation supported by the Bush administration (as well as by John McCain and Joe Lieberman). Some Democrats in competitive races--such as Rep. Harold Ford, running for the Senate in Tennessee--supported the legislation. But it remains the case that a vote for Democrats is a vote for congressional leaders committed to kinder and gentler treatment of terrorists.
To the extent that the Democrats obsess on the Foley story instead of concentrating on the war on teror (and on explaining how they would address it), it's just another reminder of the different priorities of the parties . . . and more proof that Dems just don't take the war on terror seriously.
Republicans should be reminding the public that however deplorable the Foley story is, it's essentially a distraction at a time when the nation is at war and there is much at stake beyond one congressman's disgusting behavior. Here's what Republicans ought to be talking about, as articulated by Bill Kristol:
[L]ast week's votes in Congress on the detainees legislation were . . . significant. The legislation had nothing to do with Iraq. It was a "pure" war-on-terror vote. And the parties split. Three-quarters of the Democrats in the House and Senate stood with the New York Times and the American Civil Liberties Union for more rights for al Qaeda detainees, and against legislation supported by the Bush administration (as well as by John McCain and Joe Lieberman). Some Democrats in competitive races--such as Rep. Harold Ford, running for the Senate in Tennessee--supported the legislation. But it remains the case that a vote for Democrats is a vote for congressional leaders committed to kinder and gentler treatment of terrorists.
To the extent that the Democrats obsess on the Foley story instead of concentrating on the war on teror (and on explaining how they would address it), it's just another reminder of the different priorities of the parties . . . and more proof that Dems just don't take the war on terror seriously.
posted by LadybugUSA at 7:46 PM
4 Comments:
It is interesting that you did not find the Republican Party's resuscitation of the anti-gay marriage amendment earlier this year (or in any year since 9/11) as "a distraction at a time when the nation is at war" and that there is much at stake beyond the so-called defense of marriage.
Or the flag burning amendment, for that matter.
How are these diversions helpful to the war on terror? Hmm?
Carol doesn't seem to, at least when it comes to everyone focusing on a subject that SHE doesn't want them focusing on.
One could argue the protect marriage amendment would have an impact on society, whereas the Foley story won't have any, even if it's totally true, which may be in doubt. In any case, nice try.
Distraction? I dunno. I've been able to ignore that fool Foley all weekend long without even trying.
I'll point out, though, that "Cool Cash" Jefferson (D-LA) is still chugging along.
Post a Comment
<< Home