It appears the Democrats have decided to ride the Mark Foley scandal all the way to Election Day. The party which wouldn't expel a Member of Congress for actually having sex with a page, or for allowing a prostitution ring to be run out of his apartment, is suddenly in high dudgeon over the text of IMs. It has begun showing up in their campaign ads, most notably those of Patty Wetterling, Democratic nominee for the 6th District seat in Minnesota. It's very telling.

In the Weekly Standard, a contrast is drawn between Wetterling's ad and one from Republican Rep. Nancy Johnson of Connecticut's 5th District by Bill Kristol:

There you have it. These TV ads in two competitive House races tell the story. Repelled by former Republican congressman Mark Foley's sexual overtures to congressional pages and ex-pages, and by the House GOP leadership's alleged failure to move aggressively against him? Vote Democratic. Worried about the Democrats' tendency to coddle jihadists? Vote Republican.

This is a choice that should work out fine for Republicans. Which is why Democrats and the media may look back on the frenzy about Foley as a tactical mistake. In a time of disturbing foreign news--apparent lack of progress in Iraq, North Korea's threat of a nuclear test, Pakistan's cutting a deal with al Qaeda, Iran's nuclear program chugging ahead--the assault on the Republicans focused on a disgraced and departed congressman and the unquestionably decent speaker of the House, Denny Hastert.

Foley is a creep. The House leadership might have stumbled in dealing with him. But even the Washington Post commented that Wetterling's ad "seriously overstates what is known about the actions of the House Republican leadership." Will voters really be convinced that Denny Hastert "knowingly ignored the welfare of children to protect [his] own power?" From what we know, Hastert didn't find out about Foley's lurid behavior until a week ago, and then Foley was quickly gone. And how exactly did ignoring Foley's behavior help protect GOP power? His district is a safe Republican seat (except now, when Republicans are stuck with Foley's name on the ballot).

Read the whole column at the link above. Then, read the transcript of the Star-Tribune's judge of political ads, reporter Eric Black, defending his reports with Hugh Hewitt:

HH: Have both of these ads been false and misleading?

EB: Let's see. The one about the sales tax we said was...made an omission so relevant, that it created a false impression, I think, namely the false impression that if this tax were imposed, that taxes would go up, as opposed to the fact that it was a sales tax that's designed to replace the income and payroll taxes. And in the second case, let's see. You looked at my story today.

HH: It said...you said it exaggerates the known facts in the case. But is that false and misleading?

EB: Well, to the degree that if the word cover up means what I think it means, then that's false or misleading. It's an exaggeration.

HH: It can't be. What did it exaggerate? You know, when I catch a fish and I say it's three pounds, but it was two pounds, that was an exaggeration. If I didn't catch a fish, it's a lie.

EB: Right. So let's focus on the word cover up for a second. Is it crystal clear to you that if someone gets information about a serious problem, possibly criminal, and does nothing with it, that...I said in my story that that should probably be called something like nonfeasance.

HH: Well, it's crystal clear to me...

EB: But it's not a good word for an ad.

Read the full interview at the link above.

The Democratic strategy seems to be to impugn the entire GOP with Foley. They insist Speaker Hastert should resign or be investigated for "failing to stop him," although they never suggested Speaker Tip O'Neill resign for allowing the Studds/Crane page scandals.

Since Foley is already gone, it is clearly a diversion. Democrats know the less people think about issues like terrorism and national security and taxes, the greater the chance they will vote for Democrats.

This is a test for America: just how stupid have our voters become?