Take us to DefCon 1

Posted at 8:21 AM on October 3, 2006 by Bob Collins (7 Comments)

The National Journal has the Republican and Democratic playbooks on the Foley affair.

Turns out, according to Hotline, Wetterling's news conference yesterday was part of the national strategy. The Hotline seems to suggest Wetterling was being a loyal soldier in a bigger battle than the 6th.

Today, I imagine we'll see if the local Republicans got their copies yet. I didn't see "shut up and don't answer the phone" listed.

Update 9:05 a.m. - The Washington Times calls fors Hastert's resignation. Context: It's like when Goldwater paid a visit to Nixon in 1974.

Now the big question: Is anyone outside the Beltway or in addition to political wonks paying attention to this issue?

Update 9:20 a.m. - TPM Cafe takes a gander at it all. Takes note of Wetterling.(More)

Update 10:09 a.m. - The Carpetbagger Report asks GOP "leaders" and "analysts" a salient question: what does this have to do with fears of "gay bashing"?

The only thing missing from this now is Lucille Ball and Vivian Vance.

Comments (7)

Coleman is going to give away the $2500 recieved from Foley. Kennedy is going to do the same with the $3000 recieved from Foley.

But the NRCC is gonna keep the $550,000 they recieved from Foley since 1996.

Switching gears a bit - I agree that Wetterling should address the accuracy of her anti-Bachmann tax ad at some point. But I fail to see why she had to address the issue at a news conference called specifically to discuss the handling of the Foley problem.

The most inflammatory, and misleading, ads in CD6 this year have come from the NRCC. Bachmann gets a pass on defending the accuracy of the ads because her campaign didn't directly pay for the ads.

The NRCC did.

So, to be snarky, how much Foley PAC money was used to make grossly misleading attacks on Wetterling?

Posted by Gremlin | October 3, 2006 11:29 AM

Gremlin asks "So, to be snarky, how much Foley PAC money was used to make grossly misleading attacks on Wetterling?"

That could make an interesting ad. "The NRCC has spent half a million dollars on ads attacking child advocate Patty Wetterling. The NRCC received over half a million dollars from disgraced congressman Foley, the alleged pedophile from Florida. What will it take for Republican candidate Michele Bachmann to condemn the NRCC's dirty campaign?"

Posted by bsimon | October 3, 2006 12:20 PM

//What will it take for Republican candidate Michele Bachmann to condemn the NRCC's dirty campaign?"

I suppose if Bachmann were to have a news conference today about Foley, we would -- as I understand it -- be prohibited from answering that question.

Does that sound right?

Posted by Bob Collins | October 3, 2006 1:03 PM

No fair using logic-fu on these folks, Bob.

Posted by Jeff | October 3, 2006 1:20 PM

// But I fail to see why she had to address the issue at a news conference called specifically to discuss the handling of the Foley problem.

A news conference is when a candidate makes him or herself available to the media, in the interest of getting that media to convey the message that he or she wishes conveyed.

The reason the media can -- and DOES -- ask other questions is because candidates don't dictate what the media will cover. The media gets to make those decisions.

Now, you may not like that now, but you will the next time George Bush has a press availability to talk about some spiffy pseudo-program, and some reporter asks -- about why he "lied about Iraq."

Or, to put it better -- are you going to tell Helen Thomas what questions she can ask?

She'd tell you where to go, basically.

Posted by Bob Collins | October 3, 2006 1:20 PM

I love Helen Thomas.

However, I think she is pretty used to hearing: "no comment" in response to most (all?) of her recent questions.

If politicans are required to answer all questions at news conferences I suspect we'll see a sharp decrease in the number of press opportunities.

Posted by Gremlin | October 3, 2006 3:54 PM

That's why her questions are usually predicated with a scene-setting comment.

Politicians are NOT required to answer any questions...anywhere.... any time. They just have to accept what comes with the territory when they don't.

Posted by Bob Collins | October 3, 2006 4:29 PM

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories