Respond to Post Endorsement of Frank Wolf

By: KCinDC
Published On: 10/15/2006 5:08:48 PM

Yesterday the Washington Post endorsed Frank Wolf (R-VA-10). I didn't get a chance to respond yesterday, since I was out most of the day volunteering for Wolf's opponent, Judy Feder, but today I sent this letter to the editor:
I was disappointed to see the Post endorse Rep. Frank Wolf for reelection ["Mr. Wolf's Diligence," Oct. 14], especially since the editorial described him as someone who is "more than a party-line Republican" and has a "zeal for human rights."

Rep. Wolf's political independence and concern for human rights were nowhere in evidence on Sept. 29 when he voted for the Military Commissions Act, which gives the president free rein to define "torture" however he wishes; allows use of evidence obtained through cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; and immunizes senior U.S. officials from prosecution for war crimes committed before passage of the act. In addition, any prohibitions of prisoner abuse contained in the act are made meaningless by its elimination of habeas corpus rights for detainees. If detainees are unable to bring their cases to court, then even innocent prisoners can be held indefinitely and subjected to outrageous treatment with no means of bringing the abuses to light or remedying them.

Seven House Republicans chose to break with the president and their party and oppose this shameful legislation because they cared about human rights and the principles the United States stands for. Rep. Wolf was not among them. What does that say about his commitment to human rights?

If you share my feelings about the Post's endorsement, please write your own letter to the editor (e-mail to letters@washpost.com and include your name, home address, and home and work phone). Do it tonight! The more letters (different letters, not copies of mine) they get on the subject, the more likely it is they'll publish one. Letters from people in the 10th District would be especially good.

Comments



WaPo goes along to get along (Kindler - 10/15/2006 6:57:36 PM)
My impression is that the Post wants to protect its relationships with its powerful contacts in the region and is therefore generally afraid of endorsing challengers who they don't think will win.  It's an aristocratic, rather than democratic, approach.


Donna Edwards endorsement (KCinDC - 10/15/2006 7:03:15 PM)
If that's true, why did the Post endorse Donna Edwards' primary challenge to Rep. Al Wynn in Maryland's 4th District? That earlier endorsement made this one harder to understand.


I love how the "liberal" (Lowell - 10/15/2006 7:01:08 PM)
...Washington Post endorsed the same Frank Wolf who votes over 90% of the time with George W. Bush. And yes, the "liberal" Washington Post endorsed the same Frank Wolf who gets a ZERO rating on choice; a 5% positive rating from the ACLU; a ZERO rating from both the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the Arab American Institute; a 6% rating from the Service Employees International Union, a ZERO rating from NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby; and a ZERO rating from the American Wilderness Coalition.

Real "liberal."  Yeah, right.



Wolf writing off Muslims (KCinDC - 10/15/2006 7:15:40 PM)
That zero score from the Arab American Institute doesn't surprise me. Not that all Arabs are Muslims, or vice versa, but I went last night to help with a candidate forum at the Dar Al Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, and there was no trace of either Wolf or Allen (no signs, no volunteers, no one to speak for them). Tom Davis showed up, and so did Tom O'Donoghue (running against Moran), and of course Andy Hurst and Judy Feder and Jim Moran (who spoke for Webb), but Wolf and Allen apparently consider their Muslim constituents to be completely beneath their notice.


Ideas for letters (KCinDC - 10/15/2006 8:47:30 PM)
If you need some ideas for points to make, try the New York Times editorial on the Military Commissions Act, which calls it "a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation's version of the Alien and Sedition Acts", or Amnesty International's analysis.


RE: "Balance" (JPTERP - 10/15/2006 11:26:35 PM)
My read is that this is a case of the editorial board wanting to show that it is not strongly partisan (e.g. not always backing Democrats).  Now they can point to this endorsement if people accuse them of bias.  It's not a strong justification for Wolf's endorsement, but I have to believe that was part of the rationale. 


It's not just the WaPo... (Bwana - 10/16/2006 12:32:41 AM)
...it seems Esquire magazine even endorsed Frank Wolf...and James Webb, too.