Protect and Defend

Welcome to my blog, Protect and Defend. You don’t have to understand me. You only have to agree with me. I can live with losing the good fight, but I can not live with not fighting that good fight at all. - Publius

Sunday, October 15, 2006

Lookie Lookie

The Mark Foley instant-messaging scandal is playing out like a massive October Surprise for Democrats…
On the ABC, CBS, and NBC morning and evening news programs, from the story’s emergence on Friday night, September 29, through Wednesday morning, October 11, the Big Three networks have aired 152 stories. (A fraction of the stories were brief anchor updates.) The breakdown:
ABC: 50 (World News, 20; Good Morning America, 30.)
CBS: 46 (CBS Evening News, 15; The Early Show, 31.)
NBC: 56 (NBC Nightly News, 20; Today, 36.)…
Consider the case of Rep. Mel Reynolds (D-Illinois). In 1994, Reynolds was indicted over a consensual sexual relationship with a girl named Beverly Heard, beginning when she was 16. Heard testified that Reynolds gave her cash at each meeting and supplied her with his pager number and apartment keys.
In taped phone conversations, they even plotted group sex with a 15-year-old Catholic high school girl Heard had said wanted to have sex with him. Reynolds responded on tape: "Did I win the Lotto?" He asked Heard to take naked photos of the girl. He was indicted on August 21, 1994, and convicted on August 23, 1995 on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography. Here’s how the same networks handled that congressional sex scandal.
The 1994 indictment of Reynolds (total: three stories): ABC: zero. CBS: two (one anchor brief in the evening, another one in the morning). NBC: one evening story.
The 1995 conviction of Reynolds on all 12 counts (total: 16 stories): ABC: one. CBS: five (one evening anchor brief, three morning briefs, and a full morning story). NBC: 10 (one evening anchor brief, six morning anchor briefs, a morning story, and two morning interview segments).
Please note that this adds up to 19 stories over more than a year, not 12 days. If the Foley story advanced to an indictment, how many more hundreds of stories will these three networks air?
There are obviously some differences in the two sex scandals. Foley’s Web interactions were with a congressional page, while Mel Reynolds was dealing with a minor in private. But Foley’s scandal is based on sex talk, while Reynolds not only had an active sex life with one teen, he was trying to add more teen sex partners.
There’s one obvious similarity: Reynolds was in the Democratic majority in 1994. The networks did not erupt in a frenzy asking: what did Speaker Thomas Foley do to protect the children? When would Democrats force Reynolds to resign? No one did. He was re-elected in 1994.
In the fall of 1994, with the ethical scandals hanging over Democrats, like the indictment of crooked Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (who did not resign, but ran for re-election), the Reynolds scandal might have had partisan resonance. But the networks weren’t interested in that kind of partisan resonance.
Tim Graham

5 Comments:

Blogger Alec said...

You can point to sex crimes with representatives from both parties. But the article notes (while dismissing) the crucial difference: congressional pages and a possible leadership cover up. And (unfairly) the gay factor. But then again, Republicans are hardly in a position to contest that.

Mon Oct 16, 10:39:00 PM  
Blogger Bobkatt said...

Publius, I hope you are not just now realizing how biased the MSM is. I don't recall anything in the media about how comrade Teddy Kennedy offered his services to the Communist Russians to undermine our sitting presidents on their foreign policies. When liberals talk about how patriotic it is to disagree with current policy concider what the following reported offers:
"One of the documents, a KGB report to bosses in the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee, revealed that "In 1978, American Sen. Edward Kennedy requested the assistance of the KGB to establish a relationship" between the Soviet apparatus and a firm owned by former Sen. John Tunney (D.-Calif.)."
Another KGB report to their bosses revealed that on March 5, 1980, John Tunney met with the KGB in Moscow on behalf of Sen. Kennedy. Tunney expressed Kennedy's opinion that "nonsense about 'the Soviet military threat' and Soviet ambitions for military expansion in the Persian Gulf . . . was being fueled by [President Jimmy] Carter, [National Security Advisor Zbigniew] Brzezinski, the Pentagon and the military industrial complex."

In May 1983, the KGB again reported to their bosses on a discussion in Moscow with former Sen. John Tunney. Kennedy had instructed Tunney, according to the KGB, to carry a message to Yuri Andropov, the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, expressing Kennedy's concern about the anti-Soviet activities of President Ronald Reagan. The KGB reported "in Kennedy's opinion the opposition to Reagan remains weak. Speeches of the President's opponents are not well-coordinated and not effective enough, and Reagan has the chance to use successful counterpropaganda." Kennedy offered to "undertake some additional steps to counter the militaristic, policy of Reagan and his campaign of psychological pressure on the American population." Kennedy asked for a meeting with Andropov for the purpose of "arming himself with the Soviet leader's explanations of arms control policy so he can use them later for more convincing speeches in the U.S." He also offered to help get Soviet views on the major U.S. networks and suggested inviting "Elton Rule, ABC chairman of the board, or observers Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters to Moscow."
"Kennedy told the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1976 that "For the last five years, I and others in the Senate have labored unsuccessfully to place some meaningful statutory restrictions on the so-called inherent power of the Executive to engage in surveillance." When Congress discussed legislation to require a court warrant to wiretap enemy agents and terrorists, Kennedy and the ACLU began a campaign to raise the barriers as high as possible.
The restrictions that Kennedy successfully put in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act were so tight that when the FBI arrested Zacarias Moussaoui (the so-called 20th highjacker) in August 2001, they could not get permission to download his computer since FBI headquarters understood that they did not have enough evidence to get a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. After 9/11 when they did download his computer they found, among other interesting things, information on the air currents over New York.

After 9/11 Kennedy and other demagogues in the Congress blamed the FBI and CIA for the intelligence failure. The slogan was "they didn't connect the dots." There was no way to connect the dots when they weren't allowed to collect the dots.
Who's looking out for you? I don't think it's this bunch.

Tue Oct 17, 03:43:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Alec, tell me what you want then. There was Studds who had sex with an underage male page, but your response was that it was 30 years ago. There was Frank who hired a male prostitute and ran a brothel out of his apartment, but your response was that it was consensual sex. Here there is Reynolds, who actually had sex with an underage girl and was trying to arrange sex with another underage girl, but your response was that there was no cover up. I have no doubts that the Democratic Party did not want any of these stories to get out, and I am sure they tried to prevent them from getting out. In fact, I would argue that considering the amount of press the Reynolds story got, the Democrats did do a good job of covering up the whole thing.

Wed Oct 18, 04:40:00 AM  
Blogger Alec said...

Alas, you lack any evidence to back up that claim. Moreover, there is ample evidence to indicate the Republican leadership did conceal the Foley affair.

Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

Fri Oct 20, 10:19:00 PM  
Blogger Publius said...

Alec, you are right, I don’t have any evidence that Democrats tried to cover up any of these scandals. All I do have is the evidence that once these scandals became known, Studds, Frank, and Reynolds were all reelected. So maybe for Democrats it just wasn’t all that scandalous. I think this goes back to an earlier argument of: “Is there anything Democrats can’t do,” and not still get reelected.

Sun Oct 22, 12:14:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home