September 30, 2006
SPECIAL SAT. NEWS ANALYSIS: The Foley Follies
It’s been a long 48 hours for the House Republican leadership. It all started when the media began reporting on the inappropriate email and instant message exchanges between now-ex-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) and an underage teenager.
Let’s first agree that what Foley did was wrong, predatory and possibly illegal. And the resulting decision by Foley to resign was not only appropriate, it may be the least of the punishment, depending on whether a criminal investigation is seriously pursued.
But what’s given the House GOP leadership headaches today and possibly for the rest of the election cycle is the series of events that took place nearly a year ago when news of some initial questionable contact between an underage House page and Foley were first unearthed.
The timeline of what Speaker Dennis Hastert knew and when he knew it, has seemed to change throughout the last 48 hours. Late 9/30 p.m., the Speaker’s office released a fairly detailed explanation of when Speaker’s office first learned of the complaint. (See below post). But the explanation doesn’t answer every question. [CHUCK TODD and JOHN MERCURIO]
For instance, clearly, Foley’s actions raised enough alarm bells that a number of investigating actions were started late last year and in early spring. In addition, ABC News reports that the 16-year-old page had been warned to watch out for Foley, suggesting that the congressman's behavior was an open secret among the folks that ran the page program. If this is true, it implies Foley’s behavior was more systematic and known. If so, how many members of the House GOP Conference aware?
Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA) was concerned. As he raised the issue with a number of key folks, including the clerk and NRCC Chair Tom Reynolds.
Reynolds was concerned enough that he made sure to alert Hastert. Now, Hastert, even today, doesn’t recall the conversation with Reynolds but doesn’t dispute Reynolds’ recall.
What isn’t clear is why no one other the clerk of the House and GOP Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), the member in charge of the Page program, directly spoke with Foley.
More importantly, and this question may decide whether Republicans retain control of the House, how thorough was the investigation conducted by the clerk and Shimkus? What exactly did that "investigation" discover and/or conclude? It only took ABC News about a day to go from knowing nothing to knowing, well, too much about the contact Foley had with underage pages.
Politically, how will this affect the Democratic effort to revive the "culture of corruption" mantra that had lost steam this summer?
Let’s give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt. Then the worst the House GOP leadership is guilty of is a lack of curiosity and of maintaining a “culture of institutionalism” where members are always given the benefit of the doubt. But is the benefit of the doubt members are given the same standard the general public is held to under similar circumstances? And are voters really in the mood to give Congress anything close to a “benefit of the doubt?”
Read carefully the details Hastert’s office released regarding how they investigated the allegation. Is it really the regular practice of the House GOP leadership staff to keep the Speaker out of the loop when it comes to questionable conduct by Members?
Hastert is notoriously slow when encouraging a wounded member of his party to get going. From Tom DeLay to Bob Ney, Hastert never seems willing to push members into what needs to be done. Now, in all three recent cases (DeLay, Ney and Foley), the member eventually did the right thing -- but at a politically painful pace.
Hastert, for better or worse, is an institutionalist. As the release below shows, he allows the system to work even when it appears the system doesn’t work very fast, and unfortunately for him, very well.
A coach should know when a member of his team is in trouble. Hastert probably regrets that he didn’t speak directly to Foley and at least given Foley the chance to lie directly to his face.
It’s important to note that when the House GOP leadership first apparently learned of something amiss with Foley and a page, the GOP leadership team was in flux. Roy Blunt was the acting Majority Leader fighting with John Boehner to keep the job permanently.
Did the House GOP leadership vacuum that was created by DeLay’s departure lead to a situation where no one was calling the political shots? And did that sense of chaos create anxiety, preventing Republicans from taking the steps necessary to protect these underage pages?
No doubt, every member of the House GOP leadership that knew of this Foley problem before this week regrets not pursuing a more thorough investigation. But isn’t the argument Democrats will now make when reviving the “culture of corruption” tagline (or even a “culture of arrogance of power” tagline) is that the House GOP leadership just doesn’t have the capacity or the intellectual curiosity to investigate questionable activity, whether it involves a member of their own caucus or more serious public policy concerns like the war in Iraq? [CHUCK TODD and JOHN MERCURIO]
Posted at 08:48 PM
Comments
Yeah I was wondering when anybody would mention that the ABC report said that pages had been "warned" about Foley. That to me seems worthy of further investigation.
Arlen | 09.30.06 11:28 PM
 |
This is another example of Republican hypocrisy. I hope that the Democratic candidate will capitalize on this and win this district for the Democratic Party. I hope they regain Congress this year. Go Democrats!
David Clearwood | 09.30.06 11:51 PM
|
I'll just take a post from Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo and ask you to respond:
Delay was Majority Leader until February 2006. So when the emails between Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) and a congressional page first came to the attention of the House leadership last fall, Delay was still majority leader. (Ironically, Delay's successor as majority leader, Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), came to Congress as a result of a sex-with-a-minor scandal involving the then-incumbent Buz Lukens, whom Boehner defeated in the GOP primary in 1990.) So what did Delay know, and when?
Now the broad version of events being put out by Hastert and Company is that this all came to their attention when Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA) brought the concerns of the page and his family to the leadership. No one can get their story straight about what happened after that, but that is the starting point for the story, or so we are told.
But if Foley already had a "reputation" among congressional pages, you can bet his reputation extended to staffers and probably to congressmen themselves. One thing that seems to be missing from the GOP reaction is shock or surprise. Maybe I've simply overlooked them, but I haven't seen any quotes along the lines of what you usually expect when something like this breaks: the befuddled reactions of those who knew the alleged perpetrator but had no idea he was even capable of what he is being accused of. I'm thinking of those standard quotes from serial killers' neighbors: he was quiet, kept to himself, seemed completely normal.
It's a small world up there on the Hill, and you just don't get the sense that this is a bolt from the blue. I'd be surprised if some reporters didn't already have the low-down on Foley's "over-friendly" ways.
The peccadilloes of congressmen is the black market currency on the Hill. Gossip is golden. And Tom Delay was the leading broker. So what did he know and when?>>
MJ | 10.01.06 09:54 AM
|
On that lack of intellectual curiosity....
Ummm, yeah that's one (very charitable) way of putting it. How about a lack of conviction to do the right thing when doing the right thing could result in a loss of power and control of the government. This isn't about "intellectual curiosity", it's about a political machine, whose main goal is maintaining it's own power.
Adam Terando | 10.01.06 10:49 AM
|
What about the issue of statutory rape? Doesn't it seem possible--even likely--that Foley went beyond sending emails? Shouldn't this issue at least be looked into?
Outrage Republican | 10.01.06 10:59 AM
|
http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals
It seems there is a tradition, Folley is just keeping it alive.
jim@paradigm-productions.net
Jim | 10.01.06 11:05 AM
|
Does anyone with an IQ above 50 actually believe that there is a thread of difference between the Democrats and Republicans. Gays, those out of the closet represent 2 to 3% of the population but have Democratic senators Finestein and Boxer falling all over themselves in supporting their every whim and I doubt that it is any different in any other state. This guy just got stupid in coming out.
mcewen | 10.01.06 02:51 PM
|
At least the Republican pervs have the decency to quit, unlike their Democrat counterparts(Studds, Frank, etc).
anonymous | 10.01.06 05:06 PM
|
Age of consent for sex is 16 and below in a lot of states thanks to the democraitic idiots, Check it out.
How about the possibility that Foley comitted no crime. No one has published the 'age of consent' in D.C. From what I understand this is another place the liberals in a CYA move determined that anyone 16 or over had the brains (they don't) to make their own decisions and lowered the age of consent to 16 long ago.
Scrapiron | 10.01.06 06:44 PM
|
I worked in DC from 1999-2003 and it was a very open secret about Mark Foley and his interest in younger guys... It went so far as that interns at the RNC had to have staff members intervene to get Congressman Foley to stop bothering them (phone calls, emails, etc...).
Whomever knew about this should have done something and not tried to protect the status quo.
If this costs Republicans their jobs in the House, so be it. They deserve what they get for not standing up and doing the right thing.
Outraged | 10.01.06 07:04 PM
|
"Let’s give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt."
By their own admission, the GOP already knew about the e-mails and Foley's misbehavior for an entire year. To suggest that we give any of the Republicans 'the benefit of the doubt' right now is extraordinarily risible.
Steve | 10.01.06 09:18 PM
|
"Let’s give everyone involved the benefit of the doubt."
You're not just giving them the benefit of the doubt -- you're bending over backwards to invent excuses for what happened.
Try to get a grip on reality here: The head of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children was a sexual predator. The House leadership KNEW he had a problem. The pages themselves were warned that had a problem. And yet the guy was allowed to go on posing as the protector of America's youth.
He broke the very law he co-sponsored to stop people like him from doing what he did. And you're giving the House leadership the benefit of the doubt???
Can you not understand why so many Americans (present company most definitely included) have come to regard politicians AND the political media as subspecies of vermin somewhat lower on the evolutionary ladder than cockroaches?
billmon | 10.01.06 09:31 PM
|
When one is made aware of criminal activity, which luring a child into sexual activity is (federal offense by the way), isn't one obligated to inform the authorities? Certainly the "righteous and holier-than-thou Republicans" did engage in a cover-up. The question is, are they, along with Foley, also guilty of criminal activity?
G.O.P. = Guard Our Pedophiles | 10.01.06 11:42 PM
|
Is it time yet for an outside special counsel not under the thumb of Hastert or the White House to investigate what really happened and whether Foley's $100,000 contribution to the NRCC (chaired by Tom Reynolds - who knew what Foley was doing) was hush money?
Steve | 10.02.06 12:13 AM
|
The GOP leadership claims they did not pursue the Foley e-mails because the page's parents did not want to.
Since when do parents call the shots on possible criminal activities?
jd | 10.02.06 02:26 AM
|
Wow, I cant believe that someone could acutally make excuses for such a sick act. Its Time to clean the House and the Seante.
Corey Mandley | 10.02.06 09:12 AM
|
"But is the benefit of the doubt members are given the same standard the general public is held to under similar circumstances?"
I dunno, but I'm not sure the "same standard" has any meaning when the general public (generally speaking), wasn't given $100,000 like the National Republican Congressional Committee was. That's among the largest donations the committe got.
Makes me suspect "donation" is the wrong word, "hush-money" sounds more like it.
Jeff | 10.02.06 04:10 PM
|
What happens in Congress, stays in Congress? This is dispicable behavior on Foley's part. However, "Hearing about possible pedophile behavior" and not acting on the information immediately and correctly, is just as bad. The law calls this CONSPIRACY. Tom Delay, Tom Reynolds, John Boehner, Dennis Hastert, Rodney Alexander, John Shimkus, Trandahl and possibly Heather Wilson ALL should be investigaged by the FBI. Those still in Congress from the above list should be suspended immediately pending the outcome of the investigation. I am a Republican and I am ashamed at the lack of appropriate actions. Where is our moral compass in Congress? Obviously, it's clouded by power and money. We need an independent group in there policing these people.
Malaga | 10.03.06 10:00 PM
|
It is a shame and a scandal that this Mark Foley thing has taken over the political discussion in this country. Yes, we know very well how cheap tawdry sex scandals of the homosexual kind can transfix the average person, rendering him/her riveted and awe-struck as the lurid details are graphically shoved down our throats.
But this is not what this coming election is all about. Yes, even if Mark Foley had had carnal knowledge of young and tender 16-year old chicken boys, he would not be sent to jail as having intercourse with High-School juniors is not illegal in the district (the age of consent in this modern-day Sodom and Gomorra is 16, mind you). So what's the big deal? Cover-up's? Abuse of power? Pleeeeeez. Tell me something I didn't know already. The GOP is the master when it comes to covering-up foul tracks a la Watergate...
So let's leave this sick queen Foley alone and let's concentrate on what's really important: the war in Iraq; North Korea's entrance to the nuclear arms race; and John Mercurio's bitching body... have you seen that boy with his shirt off? Woof!!!
steven joseph rotolo | 10.16.06 10:10 AM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
