Baron Hill Goes Foley
It's like "going negative," but slimier.
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2006 — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Mike Sodrel (R-IN) is not a leadership member of Congress. There is no indication that he had any thing to do with the Foley scandal, any responsibility for failing to detect it, or any awareness that it even existed before any of us did. That hasn't stopped his Democratic opponent, Baron Hill, from irresponsibly attempting to link Sodrel to a pederast, despite the fact that the two have nothing in common other than nominal party affiliation. Incredibly, Baron Hill appears to be the first Democratic candidate in the country to use Mark Foley in an ad against a Republican, despite the fact that he is not running for Foley's old seat, or against Shimkus, Hastert, or anyone else even tangentially involved in the scandal. As a freshman Congressman, Sodrel was not even in Congress when much of Foley's illicit activity occurred. Interestingly, a Nebraska blog called Leavenworth Street has put together some fairly convincing proof that at least two Democrats in fairly disparate regions are sharing an ad agency on this one - I suspect that we'll see a lot more of this cookie-cutter irresponsible advertising in close districts in the coming days. The message: a vote for any Republican, regardless of their connection to Mark Foley, is a vote for pederasty.
I suppose that Hill might have felt that going negative - slime negative, in fact - was necessary, given the recent polling in this race. A month ago, IN-9 was one of the most endangered Republican seats in the country, with Hill holding a double-digit lead over Sodrel. However, in a just released poll, SurveyUSA showed Sodrel bucking what many perceive as the national trend, and closing to within 2 of his opponent (48-46), turning the race into an absolute toss-up. In this district at this point in the race, that's good news for Sodrel. So what did Hill do? Mention him in the same sentence as Foley, of course. What else is there to do?
You could make the case that some Republicans deserve to get hit with the Foley fallout. However, it's ridiculous to claim that every that every Republican had something to do with the perverse actions of a lone Congressman from Florida, and the American people know that. And if the Democrats are busy making tons of cookie-cutter ads that try to link every Republican in the country to one bad apple, then they're desperately overreaching, and I have the feeling that it's going to backfire.
Let's hope that Baron Hill is the first one to find that out.
You can donate to Mike Sodrel here.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Media Bias Against Bob Corker — Comments (3) »
Baron Hill Goes Foley 12 Comments (0 topical, 12 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
The OP has been modified.
"We could find a speck of dust and scribble down our life stories..." - The Refreshments
Baron Hill is just another low-life Democratic pig.
Mary Jo Kilroy has used Foley in advertising against Deborah Pryce in Ohio. From an October 6th, CBS News story:
A Democratic candidate accuses her Republican rival of not doing enough to stop disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley and his cybersex exchanges with teenage males in an ad for Christian radio stations.
Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy is challenging seven-term Rep. Deborah Pryce, a member of the GOP House leadership, in one of the more competitive races. Kilroy's weeklong ads begin Saturday.
"What is going on in Washington? ... Deborah Pryce's friend Mark Foley is caught using his position to take advantage of 16-year-old pages," says the ad, which will air on Christian and Clear Channel Communications Inc., stations in central Ohio.
The spots cost Kilroy's campaign $5,000.
Foley, a former Florida congressman, helped Pryce get elected Republican Conference secretary, then Conference chairwoman _ the No. 4 position in the House leadership. Last month, in Columbus Monthly magazine, Pryce named Foley one of her five friends in Congress.
It may not be the first Foley ad, but Hill is the first to use Foley against a "generic Republican." Pryce is Chair of the House GOP Conference - the number 4 leadership post in the caucus. So she could be said to bear some responsibility as a leader for not doing more. I don't necessarily agree with that position - but I don't think it's unfair to debate and discuss whether those in leadership could have done more to stop this earlier.
In Sodrel's case, there is nothing to indicate he could have done anything, or even could have known anything about Foley. Trying to tie him to Foley is nothing more than a low blow.
I don't believe in negative campaigning. But just because Baron trashs his opponent doesn't give Sodrel the right to do the same. I live in the 9th and it's getting pretty nasty. I suggest that Christians and conservatives who want moral leadership should sit this race out because it's obvious that neither of these candidates are interested in furthering the conservative cause but rather furthering theirselves by doing whatever it takes to win.
Shame on these candidates who dishonor this position of leadership and drive away American citizens from the political process. Status quo will not do...we must let these guys go their way.
Has a response ad in which is calls out Baron for "the biggest lie yet" for linking him to Foley. It was on RealClearPolitics the other day.
Admittedly its a midterm election and the electorate will consist overwhelmingly of the base, but this scandal is not going to have the effect the D's want. It really ticks off the republican base and its one big confirmation for the paranoids that the media is biased.
I have seen an NRCC commercial against Hill and it just makes me laugh.
Baron Hill voted against cutting your taxes dozens of times, dozens of times, DOZENS OF TIMES!!!
If it was hundreds or thousands it might of made an impact but the commercial they ran was just plain laughable.
If Democrats are allowed to tie any Republican to Foley, does that mean we can tie all Democrats to the disgraceful response to the Studds incident? As Rush has reminded listeners - Foley is dispicable - but all he did was email and IM people - Studds had actual sex with someone who was working as a page at the time and was rewarded by his caucus with standing ovations and a committee chair.
Sodrel wasn't even in Congress in 2003 when the Foley instant messages were sent. Who was in Congress representing the 9th District then? Why, it was some Democrat named Baron Hill.
If Sodrel is somehow indirectly guilty for the Foley mess, what about Hill's vote to make Nancy Pelosi Minority Leader in 2002? Pelosi voted three times to make a convicted page sexual predator, Democrat Gerry Studds, chair of a congressional committee. She voted against censuring Barney Frank for letting his boyfriend run a prostitution ring out of their apartment. She said nothing when Bill Clinton pardoned Democrat Mel Reynolds, who had been convicted of felonies related to having sex with a 16-year old campaign worker.
A reporter for the Evansville Courier & Press got Hill to admit in a press conference right after the Foley scandal broke that he did not realize that the Foley emails, which were seen by the House leadership, had no sexual content in them.
Hill was then forced to backtrack somewhat, though he refused to concede that he was jumping on the Foley mess for political gain, and his ad was still launched even after his admission of being ignorant on the matter.
It's sleazy, yes, but it will also work unless Sodrel continues to hit back hard.
Mike needs to promote his 23% flat tax instead of slinging mud. He stands to attract more voters if he would simply state what he believes in instead of constantly slamming Hill. I think the voters would recognize the value in an overhauled tax system and show that Mike has more to offer than just negative campaign ads.
Please post it so we can give him some funds to get the storyu out and win this.
The Foley thing is a sleazoid trick, and the backlash againt the dems for this should cost them seats, not us.