UPDATE: Here's the editorial:
House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.
Posts
44 comments:
Amusing. My very first comment in your Foley/Folly post was "Supposedly Haster knew about these allegations a year ago. If so - that will be the real scandal."
I was rebuked by Tcd within minutes.
Looks like I was right again though.
Surely Hastert has got to be one of worst Speaker of the Houses ever, right? I think even Jim Wright accomplished more . . .
And he's nothing compared to former speakers like Tip O'Neill and Newt Gingrich.
Hastert should resign. His reign has been a disaster for the party. Someone should tell Boehnor to step aside also.
I'd be in favor of someone like Reynolds taking over.
Gahrie said...
"Hastert should resign. His reign has been a disaster for the party."
Reign implies rule, but Hastert has always played Louis XIII to DeLay's Richelieu.
Unless or until serious evidence appears that Hastert and others in the leadership team were aware of the extent of the problem a year ago -- rather than merely being aware, in the most abstract terms, that there had been some sort of inappropriate e-mail contact between Foley and the page, as his office currently contends -- he should not resign, but should not stand for the Speakership in the 110th Congress. In light of the Democrats' demonstrated commitment to throwing around wild insubstantial accusations, as in the plamegate non-scandal, I cannot see how they expect to be taken seriously when they suggest that someone should resign their seat every time an accusation is made. They're just pissed that they couldn't push Roveout and they want another go.
Hastert has always been the embodiement of the Peter Principle. An accidental Speaker. This latest only further demonstrates it. He typifies all that is wrong with the Illinois Republican Party which has become marginalized through attempting to damp down the waves in order to preserve what they already had.
An old wrestling coach *should* know that "no pain" means "no gain." I doubt if he knew about the IMs, but he knew about the emails and he *should* have quickly made a more thorough investigation and then forced Foley out (and possibly have seen to a more legal investigation into pedophiliac acts). He didn't because he's too cautious and too far above his level of competence.
I had forgotten how much Hastert had already annoyed the Republican base with his earlier shenanigans (especially the Jefferson thing).
This wanna-be "scandal" wouldn't even damage a Speaker that the party actually wanted in place. But it might serve as a decent enough flimsy rationalization for Republicans who already wanted him gone to actually get rid of him. With a little bit of slight of hand they could even spin it as being true to the "8 year" pledge. :)
Gahrie -
I'm not sure Reynolds is the likeliest successor.
Maybe you should be thinking of someone who wasn't intimately involved with the cover-up.
I think it may be good for Hastert to resign in favor of a younger Republican with flair for 1994. Besides, Hastert has been in too long.
It could be that the Foley deal will drive Democrats over the top to a majority. It is interesting that Democrats will have achieved such a majority because of a gay page scandal involving one Congressman that soured the republican base for a moment rather than something else, such as...um.... new ideas to make America a better place.
I can already see the buzz for the next two years.
Maybe Gingrich will run again.
jas said...
"Maybe Gingrich will run again."
I think he has the other House in mind.
I continue to wait for Democrats to explain what exactly it is that they think is so scandalous about two males over the age of consent engaging in apparently-consensual sexually licentious behaviour. Conservatives have standing to criticize Foley's conduct; liberals thusfar do not.
Simon -
Do you really not see the harm in Foley's behavior? Do you need a liberal to explain everything to you?
Can you count on Gingrich not to have sex with interns or staffers? Or not to argue that a blowjob isn't sex?
Hastert's inaction in the face of the information he had about Foley last year might not be a scandal. It would be impossible and unfair to argue that he was somehow complicit in Foley's behavior.
It's just evidence that Hastert is incompetent. A vigilant leader doesn't let such a potentially toxic problem as this one just grow to these proportions. He has the imagination to consider what the problem might grow into. He does something about it, instead of waiting passively, hoping it will go away.
As a former teacher/coach himself, Hastert should have realized what "overly friendly" meant in this context.
Hell yes, he should step down as Speaker, and Boehner should go down with him. If the message is "Republicans will protect us better," then you need to put clear incompetents on the back bench.
Isn't it strange that 4-5 media outlets have known about the emails regarding Foley, a republican congressman, and no democrats have known about it. Do you think it is possible that the media outlets were able to keep this secret from democrats - especially after they decided not to run stories....
On Hastert. I am not sure if he should resign based on this story. Especially now that it is clear if a liberal media outlet didn't publish the story, how could we expect Haster to run it. However, in general, I think House Republicans need new leadership. They should not be in the situation they are in where a Democratic party with no actual plans or ideas other than cut and run is able to mount a challenge.
"Should Hastert resign?"
Yes.
Hastert has mostly focused on bringing home pork (about 1/3 of new Federal spending in the state of Illinois has always ended up in Hastert's district, which is 5% populationwise of the state.)
The reason he hasn't taken more heat before is that he had an even more lighting rod lieutenant working under him-- former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (and if you think for a moment that Hastert wasn't privvy to some of DeLay's questionable financial dealings on behalf of the party, you are in dreamsville; Denny had to have known.) Now that DeLay is gone Denny has no one to run interference for him and absorb the fiery darts thrown at the house leadership.
Certainly if Democrats take control of the house, the Republicans will shake up their leadership and Hastert will be one of the first out the door. If Republicans hang on, they will be happy to have dodged a bullet and the status quo will probably be preserved for at least another election cycle but the strength of the Hastert led house is starting to look like a really tired runner, trying to make it to the next water stand so he can run on a little farther. No matter what happens, the end is in sight.
Isn't it strange that 4-5 media outlets have known about the emails regarding Foley, a republican congressman, and no democrats have known about it.
The Democrats did know about it months ago (since July at least). They were just waiting until closer to the election to break the story, so the Republicans wouldn't be able to get somebody else's name on the ballot in Foley's place. You can tell how all the talking points were in place to be fed to drones like Doyle, while the Republicans are still trying to figure out what's going on.
Pretty sneaky, but good politics. :)
As for Democrats knowing and waiting until close to the election, that's just one more reason why Republican leaders are blameworthy. They left the issue there to be exploited at will by their opponents, allowing them to choose the timing. What ineptitude! The Democrats should argue not just that they are more morally upright, but that they are more competent at running things. I don't know if they are, but they've got evidence of Republican incompetence.
Ann, that's a pretty good summation of American political philosophy: Vote for me, not because I am better but because the other guy is worse!
Doyle,
Yet again, you either completely miss the point, or at least, feign ignorance to avoid answering it. The point isn't whether or not I find this kind of behavior abhorrent - I do. But of course I find it reprehensible - I'm a conservative. What I "need" a liberal to "explain" to me is why liberals are now castigating Foley for behavior that they usually defend - consensual sexual activity between two males over the age of consent. I'm not defending Foley's behavior, I'm castigating liberal hypocrisy.
There are some rumors here in D.C. that the FBI has a number of Members and senior staff under investigation for similar conduct. I would be somewhat shocked if this behavior is limited to one side of the aisle. Using influence to get sexual favors from interns, and to help trade in wives of 25 years for junior staffers 25 years of age, is a bipartisan hobby. Going to cocktail parties attended by anybody who is A through D list, you can meet these charming Winter/Spring couples. In fact, they are so charming, I often find myself getting vertigo. "Hey, if it's not Senator family values with his new wife, Youngenough Tobe Hisdaughter." I am fairly sickened by the Republicans and as much as I cannot stand statist, liberal polices, will not mind seeing the Republicans chastened.
As a matter of good politics, however, the Dems might want to be careful about kicking over this particular rock. I don't think anybody knows what will come crawling out once the FBI does a search of emails sent to and from pages by Members and senior staff. I'm sure the DNC's gamble is that any FBI reports will take a while to percolate into the public eye, and with some luck will break early in the next election cycle. Good luck on that...
"As for Democrats knowing and waiting until close to the election, that's just one more reason why Republican leaders are blameworthy. They left the issue there to be exploited at will by their opponents, allowing them to choose the timing."
That comment seems to rest on certain assumptions about what the leadership knew, assumptions that are not yet demonstrated. My view is that it is far from clear that the leadership was aware of the content of these messages "a year ago"; if they were aware, they should be tarred and feathered, but not unless or until.
I see this whole thing through the prism of Plamegate, where Democrats leaped all over a nonstory in their desparate search for a scandal, ably aided and abetted by the media. They desparately wanted to bring down Rove, they failed; now they have a sitaution where someone really HAS done something wrong, but the Dems aren't satisfied with just putting the hit on some pervert Congressman, they are desparate to find a way to make this mud stick to a wider range of targets. And frankly, neither the Democrats nor the media have any credibility whatsoever on this issue.
George, I don't see what the Democrats have to do to come out ahead in a Republican scandal. Other than, well, nothing. For a party that is supposed to be about Values, when a National Leader lets something like this happen -- Well, I doubt it plays well to an already restive base.
As for Democrats knowing and waiting until close to the election, that's just one more reason why Republican leaders are blameworthy.
Now it turns out that the FBI also had the emails but did not have enough evidence to investigate.
What is Hastert supposed to do?
Consider the following theoretical news story:
Speaker Hastert today, opened an investigation on Congressman Mark Foley regrading inappropriate emails that Mr. Foley may have sent to male pages (all of whom were minors). Speaker Hastert opened the investigation despite the review of five news organizations, including the NY Times, and the FBI, who all said the emails did not merit further investigation.
Do you think Haster would have been called to resign for asking for an investigation when non one else thought one was warranted. Do you think Hastert would have been accused of gay bashing?
The whole Foley incident brings out the worst set of facts for the gay community. Here you have a prominent member of society, who is gay and had hidden the fact that he lusted after teenagers. This sort of public fact only bolsters the arguments made by the Boy Scouts and their supporters who do not want to take the risk that gay scouting leaders may have similar dispositions.
As I noted yesterday, all Hastert had to do was leak the emails to an aggressive journalist. Do it before the Primary, and problem solved. If he's clever, (BIG If, it turns out), he can keep his fingerprints off everything as well.
As it is, now the Republicans get to read quotes like: It's one of the worst congressional scandals ever. A top House Republican who denounced sex predators as 'animals' stands accused of acting like one. And that's a quote from a Republican! A good leader doesn't let that kind of thing happen.
A good leader doesn't let that kind of thing happen.
Again, how was Hastert supposed to know that Foley was sending explicit emails to Pages. All he knew about was the request for a photo, which the FBI and five news organizations said was nothing.
We have the luxury of looking at the photo request while also knowing about the IMs, thus the photo request seems more obvious to us now. However, if we did not know about the IMs, the photo request would seem a lot more innocuous. And Foley could have easily come out and said that he keeps photos to help him remember names or something like that so he knows who he is talking to on the phone or getting emails from.
How could Hastert have avoived being a gay basher (by assuming the worst for a gay member of Congress rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt like any other member) while at the same time investigating Foley more thoroughly.
Sloan -
By focusing on the Congressman-Page aspect of the contacts rather than the male-male aspect.
This would have still been bad, and possibly illegal, if they had been female pages.
Also, wouldn't that be a risk they would just have to run?
Whatever the political expediency, they should have blown the whistle.
Believe it or not, Simon, it's not an article of Liberal faith that you can just do whatever you want.
It just looks that way to ass-backwards conservatives like yourself... who often secretly do just the kinds of things they preach against, like this guy in the news recently.
Boehner decides to bury Hastert after all
I think if any Democrat had the emails or direct knowledge of the 2005 incident, they would have been on the phone with the WaPo in a heartbeat.
There's no way they would have had the discipline to wait it out.
And if they did, I hope they get away with it :-)
Fenris -- Nancy Pelosi has responsibility for her caucus -- the Democrats. She is not responsible for the odious shenanigans of Republicans. Rep. Foley is ultimately responsible for his own behavior, and as his supervisor, so is Dennis Hastert for allowing it to occur.
Keeping track of Republican Sexual Pecadilloes would probably require a full-time staff member on Pelosi's payroll. Just like it would require one on Hastert's, or Boehner's, payroll for monitoring Democrats. The whistle blowing would be so shrill as to drown out all political speech. And when attention is focused on sex, little things like National Security get short shrift, to potentially devastating effect.
Believe it or not, Simon, it's not an article of Liberal faith that you can just do whatever you want.
Heh, this is flat wrong. The essence of liberal/leftism is to make up your own truth. If you can get enough people to support your version of the truth, you can undue anything - like reinterpret the Constitution.
Conservatives in contrast, believe that the truth is the truth and it cannot be altered.
If you can get enough people to support your version of the truth, you can undue anything - like reinterpret the Constitution.
Something you John Yoo/"Unitary Executive" fans should know plenty about.
I do take a pretty dim view of Truth, it's true.
But I believe in God, science, reason, and ethics. Apparently, for conservatives, one out of four ain't bad.
Just noting in the comments, one possible weakness going forward for Democrats...
This idea that Foley was a hypocrite, that his political actions were not in accordance with his sexual desires.
Anyone else see the weakness in this line of thought?
I'm well aware of the potential problems this event causes for FL Republicans, Denny Hastert, and the potential for losing control of the House.
But this issue could be a real poison pill for Dems.
The Dems aren't responsible for "protecting America's children", apparently
Do you trust the Republicans to do that job?
I protect my own children. I do what I can to help protect my children's friends. I don't need the Government's help.
I think you mistake my anti-incumbent glee for partisan glee. Perhaps to be expected, since most incumbents in DC are Republicans.
"I protect my own children. I do what I can to help protect my children's friends. I don't need the Government's help.
Really? So you are presumably fully on board with school vouchers, then, since you don't want the government "helping" you decide what your child does and doesn't learn and what they are and aren't protected from?
Doyle, I have to admit that when people use a term such as "unitary executive theory" as an epithet, as you do here, it's very hard to presume that they could describe what, say, the unitary executive theory is if their life depended on it. It's like describing someone as a big fan of the theory of gravity - you're trying to rebut a descriptive theory by attatching a normative presumption.
Here you go.
I recommend the section on its applications in the current administration.
Preview: "Yoo's opinions are widely seen by legal scholars as controversial and contrary to most scholars' understanding of the Constitution."
I see no evidence that Charter Schools, which I understand to be the chief beneficiaries of vouchers, educate children better than any other school. So no, I don't appreciated the need for vouchers.
Simon, if you're expecting me to be consistent across the board about all policies, you'll be disappointed.
Doyle, first of all, let state immediately, right up front, that Hastert should resign. Frankly, I think he should resign because he's been acting like a big-ass Liberal Democrat. He's been power-hungry and prinicples-free.
So, all y'all Liberals who see Republicans, especially principled conservatives calling for Hastert to resign, should take a deep breath, stop doing the sidelines-jump-for-joy-schandefreude boogie and ponder for a minute on the spectacle of a political group of people who are engaged in the act of putting their principles before their personal gain.
You all should learn a lesson by observing this. This is how real, moral, principled people behave.
None of you have a shred of authenticity to be pointing one digit of a finger.
So, go sit silently on the bench, while we clean our own house. We've watched you folks sell out every one of your so-called Liberal Principles, one after another, until you have not a scintilla of credibility left.
stop doing the sidelines-jump-for-joy-schandefreude boogie
I would if I could, but I can't.
So, go sit silently on the bench, while we clean our own house.
Yeah it's truly awe-inspiring. I like the way Boehner has already changed his story at least 4 times, even though you would think there would only be two options (he told Hastert or he didn't).
They're just scurrying like cockroaches, is all.
This is how real, moral, principled people behave
You forgot to add when they're caught.
Should Hastert resign? Hugh Hewett says no.
Good lord.
I'd love to leave him a comment-bomb, but frankly I don't have the energy to put up with that clunky TownHall piece of junk.
Good lord again.
I'll just say this one more time, for emphasis and in order to make it easier for me to get through today. We are not Democrats. We are not Liberals. We don't look the other way for Bill Clinton, and we don't slap Gerry Studds on the wrist, and we certainly don't tolerate the likes of Barney Frank.
Unlike Liberals and Democrats, we will not flush our values down a toilet so that we can maintain a death-grip on the reins of power. We are decent, we have values, and we will clean our own house.
Get out, Hastert. Get out, Hugh Hewitt.
Yes, Democrats and most certainly Liberals are a disaster for everything they touch. They will harm America and Freedom if they ever get anything remotely approximating power in the US government.
But, make no mistake, and be prepared to pay the price. We are not Liberals and we are not Democrats and we WILL clean our house.
Unlike Liberals and Democrats, we will not flush our values down a toilet so that we can maintain a death-grip on the reins of power.
Paul, I'm really confused by these posts.
Do you not see how that's exactly what "you" did by covering for Foley?
Are you just mentally amputating all those leading members of the GOP that were involved, and heralding the virtue of those who weren't (and are appropriately appalled)?
If you just define Conservativism as all things noble and good, and Liberalism as all things lurid and wrong, you make life a little too easy for yourself, I think.
"True Conservatism has never been tried!"
Uh huh.
the page who wrote the word "sick" twelve times on a printout of an obscene email from Foley
Asking for a photograph is "obscene", is it?
I'll be damned. Ann Coulter WAS right about Hollywood being a den of pornographers. :)
Post a Comment