No. Clearly, they haven't admitted to any such thing. There are conflicting explanations about who knew what when among House Republican leaders, and I certainly think that reporters should continue to ask questions about that. But to say in an ad, even given this sort of license of political rhetoric that candidates take upon themselves that House Republican leaders have admitted to covering up predatory practices? No...
Then I asked him if the Wetterling ad was false. "Based on what you've just read me," Kurtz opined, "that sounds like a real factual exaggeration."
What's the obligation of media vis-a-vis false and deceptive ads like Wetterling's? Kurtz responded in relevant part:
Maybe some people think it's fair. I don't, from what you've read me. But the Minneapolis paper in particular, or the Minnesota papers, because it's their local races, local race, excuse me, has an absolute obligation to report to its readers on whether or not that ad, and any ad put up by her opponents as well, are fair and accurate, exaggerated, or outright distortions.
Because the Minneapolis Star Tribune long ago gave up any pretense of being a serious newspaper, that won't happen. But new media is already at work laying out for 6th District voters the Wetterling deception. Ed Morrissey led the way, and others have followed, including Dean Barnett blogging over at HughHewitt.com, and Jim Geraghty, who wondered why "somehow, the very first ad from the Democrats that addresses this issue feels a need to... well, lie. To stretch the charges beyond anything resembling the facts as we know them."
Why, indeed? Two explanations, which are not exclusive.
The first and most likely is that Wetterling's numbers are bad and getting worse and absentees will be arriving soon. So she swung for the fences and hoped to get a free ride on an outrageous lie. But a free pass from the Strib doesn't get you even a bus token anymore.
Second, the new Democrats from the fever swamp cannot tell the difference between outrageous lies and campaign puffery. Moore's Disease long ago addled their perception of reality, and why not go for the low blow even if it is a bold and undeniable lie? Kos will applaud (and, predictably, did, as Dr. Lamontenstein again proves his strategic worth to the Dems.)
Whichever of the two explanations, or both, it doesn't matter. The Michelle Bachman campaign gets a lift from what might otherwise have been a modest bit of momentum for a struggling Wetterling. And probably more than a small lift as GOP contributors see an opportunity to reply to a crystal clear example of the politics of the unhinged left manifesting themselves in the campaign of a previously respectable (and even sympathetic) candidate.
Thus while Foley's reprehensible behavior may have cost the GOP a safe seat, Demcoratic dirty tricks in response have shored up one for the GOP that the left had hoped to take away.