October 7, 2006
A Kiss Before Lying
Check out this AP story; it is, quite literally, nothing but a campaign commercial for Democratic darling Patty Wetterling, who is running for Congress from Minnesota's sixth district, which leans to the right. The media are so much in the tank for Democrats, they no longer even trouble to pretend fairness or reporting. This story is beyond obvious; it's positively brazen.
Titled "Dem Candidate Jabs GOP Over Foley Matter," the story simply retails her charge that:
A Democratic congressional candidate whose son was abducted 17 years ago said GOP congressional leadership failed to protect teenage House pages from former Rep. Mark Foley's advances.
"Foley sent obvious predatory signals, received loud and clear by members of congressional leadership, who swept them under the rug to protect their political power," Minnesota Democrat Patty Wetterling charged in her party's weekly radio address Saturday.
"If a teacher did this and the principal was told but did nothing, once the community found out, that principal would be fired."
- What "predatory signals" did Foley send?
- Who exactly "received" these signals "loud and clear?"
- Since she clearly is saying members of Congress knew Foley was a sexual predator (if indeed he even is that) back in 2005, why wouldn't they have simply expelled him then, when he could easily and relatively painlessly have been replaced?
- How would sweeping these signals "under the rug" serve to "protect their political power?"
- Is Wetterling, in her teacher/principal analogy, literally suggesting that Speaker Hastert (R-IL, 100%) was actually told that Mark Foley had sent explicitly sexual Instant Messages (IMs)?
- What about those who did have access to the IMs before the primary but chose to wait until now to reveal them -- now, after the deadline has passed to replace Foley on the balllot? Did Democrats put more teenaged pages at risk for purely political purposes?
- Finally, who at AP is supposedly fact-checking her charges?
Frederic J. Frommer, who wrote the story, seems a most incurious fellow. He makes no attempt to investigate or fact check anything Wetterling has said. He doesn't even engage in the pro-forma, faux "balance" of asking Wetterling's Republican opponent, Michele Bachmann, for her response. He simply retails her charges and tries to make Republicans look stymied by her eloquence:
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., has rejected calls to resign, saying he hasn't done anything wrong. Republicans, including President Bush, have closed ranks around Hastert in recent days.
Hastert had blamed Democrats for the election-season revelations, but on Thursday abruptly changed course and took responsibility for the matter.
Why, look! Those Republicans can't even answer her! They're panicking, like deer in the headlights! It must be so, because Frommer quotes not a single member of the GOP defending his actions or questioning the Democrats' role in this October surprise.
Frommer gushes over her "hard-hitting television ad" without mentioning that even Eric Black of the Minneapolis Star Tribune has found that ad (and her previous one) deceptive and unsourced. The ad claims:
Congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the Internet to molest children.
Even more unanswered questions:
- Who has supposedly "admitted" to a cover up?
- And exactly which "children" have been "molested?"
Frommer doesn't know. Frommer doesn't care. It's enough that Frommer repeats the charges, softened just enough not to make Wetterling appear the raving conspiracy nut she actually is.
This fairy tale is just a big, wet kissy-poo from Associated Press to the Democratic Party and Patty Wetterling. And of course, it ends with the obligatory paean to Wetterling's absolute moral authority on this issue, which makes it a hate crime even to respond to her -- a terrible new twist to campaigning that Ann Coulter was first to notice and identify as the "Jersey Girl" syndrome:
Wetterling's 11-year-old son, Jacob, was abducted in 1989 on a rural road. Despite a massive search effort, Jacob was never seen or heard from again. The loss transformed Wetterling from a stay-at-home mom to a national advocate for missing children.
"For 17 years, I have fought for tough penalties for those who harm children," Wetterling said. "Members of Congress are not and should not be above the law."
I wonder whether "reporters" who write such transparent muck actually think of themselves as heroic? I suppose they must.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, October 7, 2006, at the time of 1:11 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1318
The following hissed in response by: snochasr
So here's another question for you: if Foley was sending out "obvious predatory signals," then why didn't Patty Wetterling notice them during all the years that she worked closely with Congressman Foley, on child protection issues? It seems to me that she is at least as much at fault as Denny Hastert is.
Patty Wetterling's previous ad was equally devoid of the truth, claiming that her opponent, a well-known tax-opposer, wanted to increase taxes 23%, while neglecting to mention that this [national sales tax] would REPLACE all other federal taxes. The question is, at what point will the MSM actually call the Democratic candidate a liar?
The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael
Foley sent obvious signals, eh?
As far as we know, those signals included talking to pages and suspicions that he was a closeted Gay.
If we turn our attention to High School Principals (as suggested by the Honorable Democrat Candidate from Minnesota), perhaps we should start investigating those who's only indication of crossing the lines of legal behavior is that they are suspected of being closeted Gays.
In reality (In other words, leaving the deranged Left behind for a moment) the Republican Party should hold a Press Conference and point out that other Government employees and agents should NOT follow the advice of the Democrat Party on this matter, that anybody who instigates an investigation against an official merely because he or she is suspected of being Gay will be prosecuted for Harrassment and Abuse of Office.
Charges which would have very properly been brought against Speaker Hastert had he done what the Democrat Party is saying he should have.
Point out in the Presser the difference between responsible governing and the actions of the Democrats... and let it be known that these election season histrionics are not a new signal to start targeting innocent Gay officials... unless the Democrats want to cannonize the idea that all gay men are dangers to our children?
The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh
[U]nless the Democrats want to cannonize the idea that all gay men are dangers to our children?
I presume the Democratic leaders' apology letters to the Boy Sprouts are already in the mail...
The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh at October 7, 2006 6:57 PM
The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael
...But I'm serious. I'm wondering what kind of signals the Democrats and the MSM are sending here, and what the fallout from it will be. We're in the process of setting new Standards here, these accusations are not occurring in a vacuum. People are going to see this and change their behavior to protect themselves; not in large numbers, no, but many will out of pre-emptive self-defense if nothing else. "You saw how Hastert failed, how could you have made the same mistake?" If you were a bureaucrat, would YOU welcome that question, or would you cover your Asp and start questioning anybody who is presumed Gay and deals with kids?
We may not want people to follow the leadership of these Democrats, but they ARE the Representatives and the leaders of a significant portion of our country. The Republicans would not only be doing a service, but could end the whole smear on one big push by accepting the attacks on Hastert as the cost of doing Political business but warning the real world that assuming illegal behavior on the basis of Sexual Preference will not be tolerated.
The following hissed in response by: Terrye
This ad is a lie and so it the AP report. If this man was so obviously abusing pages then why ae we just now hearing about it? Cat got their tongues?
The above hissed in response by: Terrye at October 8, 2006 4:08 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved