by Robert D. Novak Dysfunctional House GOP October 04, 2006 10:32 PM EST WASHINGTON -- After it was learned that Rep. Mark Foley had dispatched an inappropriate e-mail message to a 16-year-old male former page, the House Republican leadership was still urging him to seek re-election from his Florida district. He agreed. It was a success that surely will cost the Republicans Foley's seat in Congress and perhaps control of the House for the first time since the 1994 election. A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running. Reynolds confirmed that he did urge Foley, as he urged nearly all incumbents who had not made up their minds, to run again. Yet, the questionable e-mails -- not the subsequently revealed explicit instant messages -- had been known to House GOP authorities long before Foley decided to run. While Democratic accusations of an intentional Republican cover-up are clearly without substance, the Foley affair points to a divided, disorganized House leadership. The gap between Reynolds and Speaker Dennis Hastert is wide. The image of a dysfunctional House GOP is underlined by Hastert asserting that "I just don't recall or remember" Reynolds calling Foley's e-mail to his attention "this spring." These are leaders who operate in secret and have trouble communicating with one another. Dealing with Foley was complicated because he was a known, though never a self-proclaimed, homosexual. A desire not to be accused of gay-bashing may have influenced party leaders to set aside the e-mail that the former page described as "sick, sick, sick." Foley's e-mail was uncovered as early as last November. The boy's congressional sponsor in Louisiana, Rep. Rodney Alexander, notified the clerk of the House, who informed Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, head of the board that oversees pages. Staffers set at mid-April the time when Reynolds went to Hastert. At this point, Foley was talking about a 2006 Senate candidacy (after his aborted Senate race in 2004) but was discouraged by White House aides who viewed him as unelectable. According to House sources, Foley was then considering retirement from Congress. The NRCC regarded the sprawling 16th congressional district as safe Republican territory easily carried by a new candidate. Foley received 68 percent of the vote in 2004 (with George W. Bush winning there for re-election by eight percentage points). There was plenty of time for a substitute with Foley not filing for re-election until May 8. Even though the sexually explicit messages sent to other former pages in 2003 and 2004 were not yet known, this was the time to ease out Foley. But Reynolds indicated to me he urged him to stay, in hopes of keeping non-incumbent districts to a minimum. Until the Foley scandal broke, Reynolds was being heralded by Republicans as a savior whose astute managerial skills improved prospects for keeping the House. Late last Friday afternoon on the House floor, as Congress prepared to adjourn until after the midterm elections, unhappy Republican members speculated about a campaign plot hatched by Democrats and the liberal news media. It came, they grumbled, just as prospects were looking up for the GOP with a burst of legislative activity (including passage of a border protection bill). But by this week, Republicans were turning on their own leaders with difficult questions. Why did the unusual attention paid to teenage boys by a homosexual man not flash warning signals? Why did Shimkus not alert his Democratic counterpart on the page board, Rep. Dale Kildee of Michigan? Above all, why was Foley urged to run again? These questions are being asked by not only rank-and-file House members but by elected members of the leadership. Indeed, Hastert, Majority Leader John Boehner and Majority Whip Roy Blunt all were acting disjointedly as the scandal broke this week (with Boehner publicly declaring it was the speaker's responsibility). The failure of the 109th Congress to satisfy the Republican conservative base seems linked to failure to deal effectively with Mark Foley.
I'm only taking issue with your use of "disingenuous." Remember the rationale Republicans gave for switfboating Kerry? It was because Kerry himself brought up his Vietnam experience as part of his qualification. So by the same token, the very reason the Democrats are expressing "shock," was that the Republican party was supposed to be built on the "family values." If not for that, and for the apparent coverup the Republican members of Congress apparently involved in, this would have been only the problem of Foley himself, instead of the whole party. If one party does something wrong, it is the duty of the opposing party to use it for their political advantage. This is called democracy. Otherwise we would have one-party rule. I think that's the real (hidden) point - The Buchanan's really wish that we were living in a dictatorship and no one were allowed to criticize the Republicans.
Crap. Buchanan just likes to play the bull in the china shop, but I've never seen him knock the GOP without simultaneously slapping at the Democrats. On the other hand, whenever he goes on a anti-Dem diatribe, the GOP comes off looking like angels. Only righties are clueless enough to buy old Pat's alleged "independent" act. If you're looking for an honest Buchanan, look to his sister Bay, who didn't try for a sec to make excuses for how the GOP fucked up on their handling of Foley. Re: Foley, what I find extremely telling is that the Repugnikhans are so fixated on homosexuality that they weren't able to make the extremely easy call of being outraged at an adult, of either gender and any sexual persuasion, trying to hit on minors, without being scared of being accused of gay-bashing. Very, very revealing.
Alright, I correct myself. Buchanan and the right wingers wish that we're under one-party rule, that no one except the Republicans themselves are allowed to criticize the Republicans.
The difference is that when Buchanan criticizes Republicans, he actually makes sense and has a well-reasoned case. The typical Democrat attack is some wild-eyed moonbat screaming that Bush is Hitler, that 9/11 was a Bush-Saudi-Israeli conspiracy and that we invaded Iraq for Halliburton.
hmm. Sounds like you've taken it up the sphincter a few times and bled. Try rinsing the ole shit chute out with salt. It'll liven up that crappy disposition, brother.
You're using some far fletched fringe claims as strawmen to discredit all criticism of Bush. Even in those cases the Right has no basis to forbid others' criticism. The typical Democrat "attacks" are that Bush did nothing to try to prevent 9/11, Bush invaded Iraq on false pretenses, and his signing statements are violations of the constitution. Whether or not you agree with these "attacks," these are legitimate questions that should be allowed open discussion.
what the heck is hastert doing living with a person on his legislative staff. Might he not have been in a position to publically criticize foley for his choice of behavior with staff pages etc. ? Our legislators need to live private lives above reproach (or at least beyond potential political blackmail) I dont care if they are just living together to save expenses. This is just not acceptable political behavior.
Exactly - Slick Willy's private life and the shit it caused him brings this into light perfectly......