Dennis Prager, a nationally-syndicated radio talk show host, was taken aback by Patty Wetterling's attempt to "cash in" on the Mark Foley scandal.
From Townhall.com:
I do not live in Minnesota.
Nor have I ever written a column about any congressional race.
But what Patty Wetterling, Democratic congressional candidate in
Minnesota's sixth district, just did is so wrong, so dishonest, so low even for the generally negative tone of political advertising, and so injurious to children, that I am breaking a lifelong silence on congressional races to beg Democrats and others in her district not to vote for her.
This is not motivated by partisanship; I would even prefer a candidate to the left of her. Vote for the Green candidate if there is one; write in someone to the left of her. But to vote for Patty Wetterling is to harm political discourse and compromise our society's battle against child abuse.
Her recent television ad, referring to the Mark Foley scandal, states: "It shocks the conscience . . . congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman who used the Internet to molest children."
Even the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, among America's most left/liberal newspapers, which essentially endorses only Democrats, published an article under the headline, "Wetterling ad overstates facts: The TV spot by the Sixth District candidate is wrong in stating that members of Congress admitted to a coverup -- none has."
Read the rest
What Mark Foley did was wrong. It was an abuse of his power and stature as congressman to attempt to take advantage of young, impressionable underling pages in his quest for self-gratification. It was a total abuse of his office, and of the trust placed in him by the voters. He resigned. Good riddance.
Wrong also is Patty Wetterling to opportunistically leech on to this issue, or, at the very least, as the STRIB put it,"overstate the facts," for her personal political gain. Prager's point in the article (again, please read the entire thing) was that Wetterling's use of the term "molest(ation)" in this matter completely dilutes the meaning of that term. As Prager stated,
To equate seductive e-mails to a 16-year-old -- or even the more explicit instant messages with an 18-year-old (which no Republican knew about) -- with "molesting children" -- only undermines our efforts to fight the enormous, almost unparalleled, evil of child molestation. What Patty Wetterling has deliberately done for political gain is to cheapen, redefine, and thereby reduce hatred of, child molestation.
Like Cindy Sheehan, Wetterling has been given credibility as a spokesperson due to the loss of a child. The tragic, painful godawful loss of a child. But while both Wetterling and Sheehan can credibly and with great authority speak to the untold pain and suffering a parent feels when a child's death precedes her own, their experiences cannot nor should not translate into unquestioned unilateral authority relative to issues of policy, nor should their ideas or even their motivations on such matters be deemed infallible or unquestionable. Just as it would be folly to consider Cindy Sheehan's ramblings sacred and/or irrefutable with regard to Iraq and other foreign policy matters, it also is a public disservice to allow Patty Wetterling's wrong-minded and politically-motivated rhetoric to go unchallenged; and thinking voters should not be chided against questioning the motivation and/or reasoning behind her actions. The public good demands that policy be borne of rational thought unfettered by blind emotion.
Don't get me wrong. Wetterling (and for that matter Sheehan), has every First-Amendment right to publicly air her grief, along with demands for public policy based on her experiences. She has every right to run a campaign to try to convince voters that she is the best candidate for the MN 6th CD. But voters also have a First Amendment right, nay,
an obligation, to question her assertions and motivations, given that she seeks an office whose function it is to represent their interests.
Posted by leo at October 24, 2006 11:43 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/crawford.cgi/7877
Comments
Wil you also condemn republican candidates who run false political ads??? As in Ohio were Dewine was attempting to run one so misleading that several TV stations rejected it and refused to run it.
I hear little here about that.
just wondering????
Posted by: OhioGolfer at October 24, 2006 12:11 PM
The purpose of this article was to call attention to political "sacred cows;" that one's life experience does not automatically translate into instant/irrefutable credibility on issues. In the current climate liberals claim that life experience does just that. Like you are "against mothers" if you question Cindy Sheehan or Patty Wetterling. Or you are "against veterans" if you question the wisdom of Jack Murtha.
The stakes are too high to allow "sacred cows" to be unquestioned in the arena of ideas.
Posted by:
Psycmeistr at October 24, 2006 12:18 PM
Psyc: And of course, you're racist if you question blacks, xenophobic if you question the "open borders" crowd, sexist if you question a woman, etc. I guess you know the drill.
Yes, Sheehan and Wetterling deserve our sympathy, but not unquestioning deference. In fact, it is precisely their grief itself which renders them incapable of totally unbiased judgment. Yes, I know this is a harsh thing to say, but this is reality, like it or not. Emotional involvement will always renders someone's judgment suspect. That's why we do not put family members of the defendant on the jury at his his/her trial, or allow military officers to have command over their relatives.
Posted by: Bigfoot at October 24, 2006 02:52 PM
Ohio Golfer, politicians have always run ads which tend to, shall we say, shade the truth to spin in one direction or another. If a prosecuting attorney agrees to plea bargains, he is portrayed as "setting criminals free", for example. We all know this, and if we have any brains at all we take it into consideration.
But Wetterling lied, outright lied. She simply claimed several things that were not true.
First NO ". . . congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman..." It did not happen. Period. Dennis Hastert admitted to seeing a benign e-mail, which he felt was questionable but hardly predatory or abusive. He, at the request of the parents of the recipient, asked Foley to stop writing such e-mails. The e-mail was not sexual in nature, nor did it even hint at anything sexual.
Second, the e-mail in question in no way indicated any "predatory" action on the part of Foley.
Third, no child was molested. This claim involves two separate lies. The first is that the page in question was a child. The second is that he was molested in any way.
"Overstates facts"? HA! "Invents 'facts' " would be more like it. In other words, LIED.
The woman lied. In doing so she falsely accused a congressman of molesting children, which has not even been alleged by even his most hysterical critics. There is not a shred of evidence that any "child" had been talked to by Foley, much less "molested". And not one congressional leader admitted to covering up anything, much less that Foley's behavior was "predatory".
Posted by: Almiranta at October 24, 2006 06:16 PM
Prager's main point was the trivialization of serious issues for poltical gain. He comments on the misuse of the word "molest" to describe something which in no way ever approached any level or definition of molestation. To apply the word to an e-mail which could be perceived as mildly flirtatious is diminishing the true meaning of the word, devaluing it, and trivializing it.
I have complained about the same efforts on the radical Left to trivialize "torture", one of the most heinous activities in the history of mankind, by applying the word to virtually every interrogation technique used by anyone even remotely connected with the Bush Administration.
The cynical application of words which should have deep and profound meaning to circumstances which are not serious and not relevant, merely in hopes of stirring some hyper-emotional knee-jerk reaction, is despicable.
And I believe that anyone who tries to use such shoddy and inherently dishonest redefinitions has abandoned all claim to respect or trust.
Posted by: Almiranta at October 24, 2006 06:25 PM
Wil you also condemn republican candidates who run false political ads???
Only those severe enough to warrant condemnation, OhioGoofball, and this one was severe. Your side has nothing to run on, so it runs a bunch of lies for you lemming pukes to lap up.
Torture, Almiranta, would be to listen to eight SOTU addresses by Shrillary, or having Ms. Piglosi banging the Speaker's gavel.
Posted by: 1H8L1BS at October 24, 2006 09:22 PM
Well Ih8lis, what about this... From the Columbus Dispatch about Sen Canidate Mike DeWine's ad
(the) ad was rejected by a number of Ohio TV stations because it erroneously charged that Brown's 1992 congressional campaign didn't pay $1,776 worth of unemployment taxes for 13 years. The debt actually was paid in 1994.
And why must still use personal attacks when responding... are you so weak with ideas that using personal attacks is your only way to get noticed!!!!!
Posted by: OhioGolfer at October 25, 2006 08:47 AM
Almiranta
NO.. congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman..." It did not happen...
Are you a little hasty with this comment when the investigation is not yet over... Just a question on accuracy, since you are so rightous in insisting on it
Posted by: OhioGolfer at October 25, 2006 08:53 AM
Republicans are missing an oportunity with the Foley debate. As with the Catholic Church sex scandals, 98% of the child abuse occured by homosexuals. It is these same homosexuals that are the darlings of liberal Democrats. Protection for the civil rights of homosexual child molesters is an unwritten plank in the Democratic platfor.
Republicans condemn all child molestation. Democrats shy away from condemning homosexual child molestation and connecting it to that deviant life style.
Posted by: RA at October 25, 2006 01:05 PM
OG, you would do so much better if you could read---and the process the information.
I said "NO ". . . congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman..." It did not happen."
Nowhere did I claim that it would never happen. Nowhere did I predict the future. Nowhere did I claim to have a crystal ball which would let me know of any action which has not yet taken place.
I stated, as clearly as it could be stated, what has happened, or not happened, so far. And anyone with a brain could have read what I wrote, and understood it.
Ms. Wetterling did not say that maybe, possibly, sometime in the future some congressional leader would try to cover up the Foley actions. No, she said it had already happened. And I pointed out that it hadn't. Past, present, future----you racial moonbat Libs really have a lot of trouble with complicated concepts like that, don't you?
Right on, RA, for pointing out the homosexual issue. Just to continue bumfuddling the poor bumbuddled Libs, there is also a definition of 'pedophilia" which centers on sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Now, I never met the pages in question, but I feel fairly confident that at the ages of 17 and 18 they were past puberty.
And if it is OK for a heterosexual man to be attracted to girls who are, say, freshmen in college, then why is it such a horrible thing for a homosexual man to be attracted to boys of the same age? (Thinking here of a prominent leader being sexually serviced by a 19-year-old girl, wo the admiration of his party.) If the District of Columbia made 17 the legal age of consent, then Foley did nothing illegal, he was just being creepy. His IMs were sent to an 18-year old, who admitted to luring him into the discussion as a "prank", so this was clearly not an unsolicited communication. It would fall under the definition of consensual sexual conduct with an adult.
No children, no molestation, and no cover-up. SO FAR.
Wetterling lied.
Posted by: Almiranta at October 26, 2006 08:48 PM
Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.
Post a comment
Wil you also condemn republican candidates who run false political ads??? As in Ohio were Dewine was attempting to run one so misleading that several TV stations rejected it and refused to run it.
I hear little here about that.
just wondering????
The purpose of this article was to call attention to political "sacred cows;" that one's life experience does not automatically translate into instant/irrefutable credibility on issues. In the current climate liberals claim that life experience does just that. Like you are "against mothers" if you question Cindy Sheehan or Patty Wetterling. Or you are "against veterans" if you question the wisdom of Jack Murtha.
The stakes are too high to allow "sacred cows" to be unquestioned in the arena of ideas.
Psyc: And of course, you're racist if you question blacks, xenophobic if you question the "open borders" crowd, sexist if you question a woman, etc. I guess you know the drill.
Yes, Sheehan and Wetterling deserve our sympathy, but not unquestioning deference. In fact, it is precisely their grief itself which renders them incapable of totally unbiased judgment. Yes, I know this is a harsh thing to say, but this is reality, like it or not. Emotional involvement will always renders someone's judgment suspect. That's why we do not put family members of the defendant on the jury at his his/her trial, or allow military officers to have command over their relatives.
Ohio Golfer, politicians have always run ads which tend to, shall we say, shade the truth to spin in one direction or another. If a prosecuting attorney agrees to plea bargains, he is portrayed as "setting criminals free", for example. We all know this, and if we have any brains at all we take it into consideration.
But Wetterling lied, outright lied. She simply claimed several things that were not true.
First NO ". . . congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman..." It did not happen. Period. Dennis Hastert admitted to seeing a benign e-mail, which he felt was questionable but hardly predatory or abusive. He, at the request of the parents of the recipient, asked Foley to stop writing such e-mails. The e-mail was not sexual in nature, nor did it even hint at anything sexual.
Second, the e-mail in question in no way indicated any "predatory" action on the part of Foley.
Third, no child was molested. This claim involves two separate lies. The first is that the page in question was a child. The second is that he was molested in any way.
"Overstates facts"? HA! "Invents 'facts' " would be more like it. In other words, LIED.
The woman lied. In doing so she falsely accused a congressman of molesting children, which has not even been alleged by even his most hysterical critics. There is not a shred of evidence that any "child" had been talked to by Foley, much less "molested". And not one congressional leader admitted to covering up anything, much less that Foley's behavior was "predatory".
Prager's main point was the trivialization of serious issues for poltical gain. He comments on the misuse of the word "molest" to describe something which in no way ever approached any level or definition of molestation. To apply the word to an e-mail which could be perceived as mildly flirtatious is diminishing the true meaning of the word, devaluing it, and trivializing it.
I have complained about the same efforts on the radical Left to trivialize "torture", one of the most heinous activities in the history of mankind, by applying the word to virtually every interrogation technique used by anyone even remotely connected with the Bush Administration.
The cynical application of words which should have deep and profound meaning to circumstances which are not serious and not relevant, merely in hopes of stirring some hyper-emotional knee-jerk reaction, is despicable.
And I believe that anyone who tries to use such shoddy and inherently dishonest redefinitions has abandoned all claim to respect or trust.
Wil you also condemn republican candidates who run false political ads???
Only those severe enough to warrant condemnation, OhioGoofball, and this one was severe. Your side has nothing to run on, so it runs a bunch of lies for you lemming pukes to lap up.
Torture, Almiranta, would be to listen to eight SOTU addresses by Shrillary, or having Ms. Piglosi banging the Speaker's gavel.
Well Ih8lis, what about this... From the Columbus Dispatch about Sen Canidate Mike DeWine's ad
(the) ad was rejected by a number of Ohio TV stations because it erroneously charged that Brown's 1992 congressional campaign didn't pay $1,776 worth of unemployment taxes for 13 years. The debt actually was paid in 1994.
And why must still use personal attacks when responding... are you so weak with ideas that using personal attacks is your only way to get noticed!!!!!
Almiranta
NO.. congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman..." It did not happen...
Are you a little hasty with this comment when the investigation is not yet over... Just a question on accuracy, since you are so rightous in insisting on it
Republicans are missing an oportunity with the Foley debate. As with the Catholic Church sex scandals, 98% of the child abuse occured by homosexuals. It is these same homosexuals that are the darlings of liberal Democrats. Protection for the civil rights of homosexual child molesters is an unwritten plank in the Democratic platfor.
Republicans condemn all child molestation. Democrats shy away from condemning homosexual child molestation and connecting it to that deviant life style.
OG, you would do so much better if you could read---and the process the information.
I said "NO ". . . congressional leaders have admitted covering up the predatory behavior of a congressman..." It did not happen."
Nowhere did I claim that it would never happen. Nowhere did I predict the future. Nowhere did I claim to have a crystal ball which would let me know of any action which has not yet taken place.
I stated, as clearly as it could be stated, what has happened, or not happened, so far. And anyone with a brain could have read what I wrote, and understood it.
Ms. Wetterling did not say that maybe, possibly, sometime in the future some congressional leader would try to cover up the Foley actions. No, she said it had already happened. And I pointed out that it hadn't. Past, present, future----you racial moonbat Libs really have a lot of trouble with complicated concepts like that, don't you?
Right on, RA, for pointing out the homosexual issue. Just to continue bumfuddling the poor bumbuddled Libs, there is also a definition of 'pedophilia" which centers on sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. Now, I never met the pages in question, but I feel fairly confident that at the ages of 17 and 18 they were past puberty.
And if it is OK for a heterosexual man to be attracted to girls who are, say, freshmen in college, then why is it such a horrible thing for a homosexual man to be attracted to boys of the same age? (Thinking here of a prominent leader being sexually serviced by a 19-year-old girl, wo the admiration of his party.) If the District of Columbia made 17 the legal age of consent, then Foley did nothing illegal, he was just being creepy. His IMs were sent to an 18-year old, who admitted to luring him into the discussion as a "prank", so this was clearly not an unsolicited communication. It would fall under the definition of consensual sexual conduct with an adult.
No children, no molestation, and no cover-up. SO FAR.
Wetterling lied.