Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Opposition Research

I've been reading about the Abramoff scandal for quite some time - both actual details with some facts involved plus the constant meme that "this is huge and is going to destroy the Republicans". The latter is generally seen in comments and I have always taken it as an indication of the ignorance of the writer. Scandals - even if factually based and ultimately proven in court - affect the individual(s) concerned but have a minor impact upon perception of the party. Unless, of course, the party rallies to the defense of the scoundrel involved and attaches itself to his deeds. The "proper" response from the party is to distance itself from the individual and let nature (and, hopefully, justice) take its course. The '90's provide ample evidence in support of this argument. Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston both had peccadillos in their past that did not withstand scrutiny, both acknowledged their errors, both resigned their offices and both left politics. Was the Republican party therefore tarred as the party of philanderers and did it suffer from such identification or is philandery more firmly attached to the Democratic party for some obscure reason?

Come we now to Abramoff and the exchange of political support of Indian gaming interests for financial support. I expect that the Gonzales DoJ will perform a very adequate and thorough investigation and that every instance in which sufficient evidence can be obtained will result in appropriate charges being leveled and trials conducted. I also expect that every Republican so charged will resign his/her office. I have no such expectations from members of the other party (vide '90's) for if it were so, Harry Reid, the Senate Minority Leader would already have stepped down in anticipation.

Opposition research produces results which might be best described as a razor sharp and double edged sword. When wielded with proficiency the results can be deadly to a single opponent, when wielded clumsily, the attacker may wind up with wounds more severe than the person being attacked. It's a weapon whose major efficacy is achieved by revealing the scabbard for drawing the blade gives no assurance that the wielder will be standing at the end of the fight. For that reason it is also a weapon of desperation and last resort. When you're losing and the outcome is in doubt, go down and go dirty. It works occasionally but it's a clear sign of a loser.

Like Harry Reid. Like the left wing of the once great Democratic Party.

8 comments:

MeaninglessHotAir said...

Fresh Air,

Wow, the list of caca they've been throwing at the Republicans had already started to fade in my mind. They've been working really hard to bring Bush down, at any cost to the Republic in wartime, scruples be damned. So far none of it has worked. Every appointment by Bush is "the end of our rights as Americans", without exception. It's the boy who cried wolf syndrome; after a while, people like me just can't listen to them anymore. Is there really anybody left who takes Killer Ted seriously anymore?

Rick Ballard said...

FA,

Good points. I would also note that '74 was the first election where significant numbers of baby boomers voted - for the first time. I wish I had the skills to identify shifts in voting patterns that occur as a voters move from renting to owning their homes. I'm pretty sure that contributed (in a minor way) to the scale of the setback that the Reps suffered.

Real shifts occur over much longer periods - five or six cycles at minimum. The only exceptions to that occured after the end of the Civil War and at the beginning of the Depression. Both were initiating events and neither had anything to do with scandal.

I'm personally very appreciative of the efforts made by the MSM in getting Jummy Carter and Bill Clinton elected. Taking a long view, it's hard to see how they could have been of more assistance to the Republican party.

cf said...

If you want to see the extent of what is publicly known about Reid and corruption Fedora at F.R. a very good researcher has basically done the oppo research and posted it there, though he tells me today he has more which he's not yet posted.

Who's using it? An account I read last night (I think in GQ) says DEAN is using it to keep Reid from bouncing him as DNC head.

Unknown said...

Yes... but bankruptcies go up too and of course people blame the Republicans for that as well. Works both ways. When I was working as a Realtor [gag] I played hell getting people to actually buy something they could afford. Eyes bigger than bank accounts.

As for scandals, people do forget. In fact I had forgotten all about that business with Newt Gingrich.

Watergate was sort of like a train wreck, it just went on and on and that is what hurt the Republicans.

But I think a lot of folks today blame the media almost as much as they do Nixon.

People are desensitized to a lot of this stuff.

As for the whole Abramoff thing, I just don't see the big scandal. I mean it is not a good thing and I think the Democrats are deluding themselves if they believe it will not touch them too...but still I am waiting for the other shoe to drop.

buddy larsen said...

That dem sweep in the 70s--the voting age went to 18 in 1968. Boomer flood, awright. [Gad--18! I've got leftovers in the fridge older than that.]

buddy larsen said...

LOL (*retch*)--

gumshoe said...

"Watergate was sort of like a train wreck, it just went on and on and that is what hurt the Republicans.

But I think a lot of folks today blame the media almost as much as they do Nixon."

Nixon was hated for the existence of the Vietnam conflict.

the Kennedy worshippers
(so hopeful! so youthful! so forward looking!!!huzzah!!!)
*never* seem to note or acknowledge who initially decided to send military advisors to Vietnam.

Nixon(flawed man that he was) inherited Kennedy and Johnson's mess.

Unknown said...

gumshoe:

This is true, Viet nam was going to be there no matter who won that election.