Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Hastert: Stick a fork in him... sometime
I haven't had the psychic energy to decide whether Speaker Hastert "ought" to resign for his failure to do something -- whatever that would be -- about Mark Foley. I don't even know if the reason for that resignation would turn on some a priori moral principle or rank political expediency. Regardless, my keen sense for the pulse of the righty blogosphere tells me that Hastert is done, whether or not there is justice in it. Unless I'm wildly wrong, an email Rich Lowry published at The Corner this afternoon strikes me as right on target:
All of this decapitation talk is only about timing. Hastert is finished. The only question is whether it is now or later. Regardless of the election outcome, Hastert won't be Speaker next year. If the Democrats take the House, then, obviously, Pelosi will be Speaker. If the Republicans somehow hang on, there are enough House Republicans who will withhold their support so he won't have enough votes to remain as Speaker and he won't have his patron, Tom DeLay, around to twist arms for votes to keep him in the Speaker's chair.
The relevant question is whether it is in the Republicans' political interest for him to step down now or later. I don't know if there is time to do so, but I think it would help the base if he announced that he was stepping aside and said that the House needs new Republican leadership. It might be a little messy but they should consult with Newt and Rove about how to project a message of a new start returning to conservative ideals (avoid the word "values"). They can still run on a positive agenda that might save the House. The current path will lead to Speaker Pelosi.
And Chairman Conyers. Don't forget that.
5 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Wed Oct 04, 12:06:00 AM:
Stop with the minimizing already.
Foley's been stalking teens for years, and the leadership evidently knew about it. Not just Hastert, but Boehner and Reynolds as well. It looks like Foley may have given the NRCC $100k to keep them quiet.
When the leadership of your party is sheltering pedophiles, it's time to clean house and start over. Really.
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Oct 04, 10:19:00 AM:
As far as I can tell, Hastert did exactly what he was supposed to do. When the first somewhat over-friendly emails (I admit, they were a little creepy) came to light some time ago, he smacked Foley down and officially ordered him to quit it. When the recent *censored* IMs came to light, Foley was out of the House so fast he left a sonic boom.
Screwy (and most of the High Democrats) seem to believe that Speaker Hastert knew about the IMs from the beginning, despite a total lack of evidence. But then again, it is October in election season, where the Democrats make wild charges that are repeated on every media station constantly until everyone believes them as fact.
I’m still very interested in just who had those IMs, and how they managed to be published on a sock-puppet at just the right time to keep the dishonored Republican on the ballot in FL. Will this be the Democrats only October Surprise this year?
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Oct 04, 02:31:00 PM:
Screwy - something about which you and I can agree! Whoever know about the pederasty embedded in those IMs and failed to take action against Foley should pay a steep price for their disgusting, immoral and illegal behavior.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Oct 04, 07:54:00 PM:
"In 1983, two congressmen were found to have had sex with underage pages—a crime that Foley thus far stands accused only of having aspired to. Rep. Dan Crane of Illinois, a Republican, was involved with a 17-year old female. He was shunned by his party, voted out of office by his conservative district in the next election, and disappeared from history. Rep. Gerry Studds (not a screen name, by the way), a Democrat from the archdiocese of Boston, err, I mean, the 12th District of Massachusetts, was involved with a 17-year old male. His fate was a little different.
The Democrat-controlled House of 1983 originally refused to as much as censure either congressman for his behavior, even after both pleaded guilty to the charges before the House ethics committee. This should answer any doubts as to how Democrats might have handled Foley. A young Rep. Newt Gingrich, however, raised quite a fuss over the two men’s crimes and called for their expulsion from the House. The House leadership declined to press the issue and instead reluctantly chose to officially censure the two.
Crane stood for his censure and began counting the days until his expulsion by Republican voters. Studds, by contrast, turned his back on members during his censure (insert your own joke here), and refused to even acknowledge that what he did was wrong. The House censuring him was, he claimed, a violation of his “right to privacy” and Congress should thus keep their laws off his body. After all, what a consenting adult does with a legal minor in the privacy of his own bedroom (or office) is nobody’s business but his own. I mean, when a man can't sleep with his messenger boys, what’s next? Interns?
Studds (now also his screen name) turned the whole scandal falsely into a gay-rights issue, appeared at a press conference with his loyal page, and was embraced by a large part of his party. His liberal Democrat district soundly re-elected him in 1984 … and 1986 and 1988, 1990, 1992 and 1994. In 1996, he finally retired and was replaced by Rep. William “Fidel” Delahunt (aka “Comrade Fidelahunt”), Hugo Chavez’s current page in Washington. Today, Studds lives with his husband (not his page) in Massachusetts, where he is considered “courageous” for standing by the page that stood behind him, at that press conference.
So perhaps Foley should have just switched parties, rather than entering rehab."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17343
When your party leadership gives three standing ovations to a confessed paedophile and refuses to either strip him of his office OR vote him out, it's time to destroy the party. Seriously.
What did I say about domestic politics the other day? Enough shit for everyone, and the ones who deserve it most, receive it least.
I don't want to hear any more partisan shit about this.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Oct 04, 07:55:00 PM:
Addendum: I realized that I referenced standing ovations. That's not mentioned in the article I cited, but has been repeated and discussed in other media channels. Originally printed in the Washington Post, I think. (in 1983)
