An interesting article over at The American Spectator verifies what I've been hearing from other sources. Democrat operatives are confirming that the Foley story wasn't supposed to be released until about 10 days before the election - and it was supposed to be the culmination of a series of orchestrated October surprises, rather than the beginning.
What changed? Poll numbers. Republicans were coming back strongly -- Democrat hopes were evaporating. With the new age of media and the Internet, Democrats figure that a poll swing that results from a story like Foley would last about two weeks before voters start paying attention to real issues again - and that's nationally. In individual races, where often local issues are paramount in a non-presidential election year, the swing benefit from such a story might even be shorter (see NYT story later in this post):
"You pull out the bright shiny things that distract the average American voter away from the issues we all know they care about -- national security, anti-terrorism -- and focus on the ugly: Foley and Iraq."
...'Republicans had to have known we'd be looking to change the national debate,' says a House Democrat leadership aide. 'You had our leadership looking at cratering polling numbers. A majority within grasp wasn't drifting away, it was being yanked back by Republicans. I wouldn't be surprised if Foley had to be bumped up on the scandal schedule. That makes a lot of sense given where we were two weeks ago, and where we are now.' "
As much as Katie Couric et al try to keep the Foley fires burning, there is now enough evidence that this was a political stunt -- and that no one out there knows where this is heading. Leaders and operatives from both parties are going to be put under oath by the FBI and the Justice Department in the investigation of a cover-up.
Democrats beware -- there was just too much coordination beween liberal groups like CREW, a fake blog, American Family Voices, David Corn's McCarthyesque "Gay Staffers List", and Nancy Pelosi to be a coincidence. Now that evidence has surfaced that the communicant with Mark Foley of the IMs (not the e-mails, which not even Brian Ross was willing to write about in August) was a legal consenting adult, the story turns into a gay version of the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal. The differences are homosexuality, a page instead of an intern, and there being no physical contact in the Foley story.
The latest twist, that congressional staffers like Kirk Fordham "warned" Hassert's office three years ago about Foley's penchant for young men, lacks any detail about what the warning was, and is contradicted by Fordham's own documented actions regarding the Foley Scandal.
If no evidence that any crime was being committed, what can be done about someone like Foley except what the National Journal is saying happened?:
Foley's friends ruefully speak of knowing that Foley was friendly with congressional pages. One recalls jokingly telling Foley to be careful not to confirm a stereotype about sexual predators. Foley laughed, a friend says.When the Foley story first hit, I was furious. Based on what I was reading and hearing, I thought that Mark Foley was at the very least a sexual predator and a pedophile. Now, even according to Andrew Sullivan, no evidence exists that he is either. Right now I'm glad he's gone (he seems like a time-bomb waiting to explode), and we may still find out that he has committed crimes against young children. But right now this whole thing is looking more and more like a political hit piece designed to surpress the conservative vote. And according to the New York Times, it's not looking as if it's going to work long-term:
...But then, in the fall of 2005, a page sponsored by Rep. Rodney Alexander of Louisiana, complained. After Foley had furtive discussions with House officials, his friends warned him to police himself. And one former Foley staffer recalls asking the lawmaker directly whether there was anything more serious floating around. Foley, according to the former aide, said no.
...Foley's former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, last spring promised both Rep. John Shimkus, the chairman of the page board, and a top assistant to Hastert that he would make sure Foley behaved himself. At that time, Fordham was the chief aide to Rep. Tom Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Fordham's assurances, according to this account, apparently were enough to persuade Hastert's staff not to recommend further action
...Fordham told ABC News that in 2003 he warned Hastert's powerful chief of staff, Scott Palmer, that he was worried about Foley's penchant for doting on male pages. Palmer, according to Fordham, subsequently notified Hastert. Palmer responded that Fordham's version of events is untrue. And a House leadership aide wondered aloud why Fordham, who professed to be surprised by Foley's conduct on Monday, was saying two days later that he remembered having long-standing anxieties.
But in dozens of interviews here in southeastern Virginia, a conservative Christian stronghold that is a battleground in races for the House and Senate, many said the episode only reinforced their reasons to vote for their two Republican incumbents in neck-and-neck re-election fights, Representative Thelma Drake and Senator George Allen. "This is Foley's lifestyle," said Ron Gwaltney, a home builder, as he waited with his family outside a Christian rock concert last Thursday in Norfolk. "He tried to keep it quiet from his family and his voters. He is responsible for what he did. He is paying a price for what he did. I am not sure how much farther it needs to go."So the ABC News polls out this morning reflect the American public being hit in the face with the Foley Scandal and its spin, and the trickle-down from that. But it reflects national opinion, not local races. The local polling will take a hit as well, but only for as long as local issues (or the War on Terror and Immigration) aren't the focus. The more the Democrats use Foley in their ads and the media obsesses over it, the more of a chance that the Democrats will experience a blow-back from the voters. It sometimes takes a while, but generally voters know when they're being played for fools - and don't appreciate it. This Foley business certainly doesn't help the Republicans, but it's not the fatal blow that is being portrayed in the media, either.
The Democratic Party is "the party that is tolerant of, maybe more so than Republicans, that lifestyle," Mr. Gwaltney said, referring to homosexuality.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 12)
16. Give me a break! I'm a republican and even I know they are to blame fot his mess. The Washington Times (a conservative paper) had the story back in June and refused to cover it. Had they broke it, we republicans wouldn't be having this issue now. . 10 days before? BS . . why can't we admit we messed up and clean up the mess instead of looking worse by jokes like this blog.
Rick at 6:15PM on Oct 10th 2006
17. Talking about being played for fools...what about these gas prices. Everyone knows the big oil companies are trying to get their loyal republican voters to back the republicans by bringing down the prices temporarily. I also think a child predator (Foley) is much worse than what Clinton did. At least that was two consenting adults unlike what Foley was doing. Unexcusable. Too many republican lies in the past few years for me. Give me the days without billions of dollars of debt...please.
Karen at 6:16PM on Oct 10th 2006
18. You've got to be kidding me?! EVEN IF the democrats leaked this, and the evidence is tremendously weak that they did, THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE! The issue is the GOP had a congressman preying on minors AND THEY COVERED UP THE ISSUE putting the house seat above their supposed morals. The issue is the 180 degree difference between their words and their actions. And now there's been 400 calls to the new page 800 line regarding events over the past six years? That was probably Clinton's fault too.
Mike Kovack at 6:20PM on Oct 10th 2006
19. Guess what?
Clinton's been booted out of office! Woohoo! GOP wins!
There, I hope that improves our mutual ability to pay attention to what's going wrong NOW, with the government that is still in office. Comparing every human failing of our officials to previous ones and asking "Is it really as bad" ruins America's ability to hold her government accountable for their mistakes in the timeframe the people deserve: NOW.
Tom Jernigan at 6:23PM on Oct 10th 2006
20. That is irrelevant whether the Democratic party planned for this information to be released at this time. The most important factor is that Foley preyed on these pages.
cynthia at 6:29PM on Oct 10th 2006
21. Was Foley "too close" to pages (doesn't matter if male or female)? Did many Republicans in Congress know about this? Did the Republican leadership basically ignore it, hoping it would get to an acceptable level (whatever that is)?
Where do Democrats fit in this picture?! Who cares when it was released. The Republicans should have dealt with this disgusting behavior vigorously years ago. They were too worried about losing a safe seat that they forgot one of their campaign platforms. Now they try to point figures at when the Democrats released this. The Democrats had nothing to do with Foley's behavior the Republican leadership's inaction.
E. G. Kugler at 6:29PM on Oct 10th 2006
22. This is absurd. The issue here is not who released what when (and I don't see a shred of evidence on that score anyway). But the issue is emails and IMs that may amount to the crime or importuning a minor for sex -- a serious offense. The issue is also a GOP leadership that was informed of the problem and did nothing because they wanted to cover their butts. W
david scott at 7:26PM on Oct 10th 2006
23. Once again Republicans, if it wasn't for the facts you would be right. The story was admitted leaked by a person in the justice department, maybe it was leaked because the family value's Republican party was protecting a child molester. Republican's you are know official a bankrupt party, and as for the christian conservatives all I can say is that it was you get when you side with a political party and have a win at all cost motto. You run the risk of going down with the ship while losing every virtue you were tryng to defend. Guilty by association.
The T Shirt Revoluion at 6:40PM on Oct 10th 2006
24. I agree with a previous comment that Patrick Casey's blog is really irresponsible. You don't need to be a Democrat to see his "anecdotes" & remarks as somewhat dubious-sounding deflection tactics. He seems to be actually saying something like, "Forget what Foley did and whether it was covered up---the fact that the Democrats may have let it out of the bag, and are making political hay, is the real scandal!" This is too much like the Vatican saying that people who reported and protested the clergy sex scandals are all enemies of Catholicism. What transparent, self-serving baloney!
Kathleen Finertry at 9:49AM on Oct 11th 2006
25. The article is obviously another Republican scramble to try to get away from their own responsibility and pretend that Foley being a sexual predator doesn't matter, that it is all just a Democrat plot. But then, who was it sending those emails if it wasn't Foley?
By the way:
Just a side thought:
Isn't Big Oil making an unseen money contribution to keep Republicans in power by finally now beginning to gradually drop gasoline prices so we think the Republicans are really helping the economy? If they made direct contributions to the Republican party anywhere near the amount of this hidden contribution, it would be called trying to buy political favor. Big Oil just wants to KEEP the favor they already have. After all, Republican politicians always favor the wealthy and forget the middle income and lower income people, except when its time for their re-election.
Jerry at 6:55PM on Oct 10th 2006
26. Pragamatists like me take no umbrage over a rediculous piece of journalism such as this. It is part of the game. Repuglicans need to solidify their base and keep it believeing; there is no room for doubt. A story like this gives that certain "true believer" segment of the base something to hold on to. Of course this was a subversive Democratic conspiracy, how else can you explain it and still pretend to be legitimate? This is classic Repuglican damage control; blame the messenger and ignore the message. It has worked with Iraq, why not with Foley?
Robbie at 6:48PM on Oct 10th 2006
27. What is the bigger scandal? A representative persuing underage boys, the Republicans hiding it, or the Democrats exposing it? It's not hard for me to make the choice. Also, there is a major difference between a sex scandal with an adult, and a sex scadal with a minor. They can't be equated.
Betty at 6:48PM on Oct 10th 2006
28. The sad thing is that the repubs are trying to do the only thing they do best, blame everything on the dems! The saddest thing is that I once voted republican. It's a mistake I won't make again for a long, long time.
Ron Brown at 7:27PM on Oct 10th 2006
29. If the age of consent is 16 yrs old in DC (thanks to liberal judges/law makers) then how is the Foley story different from Clinton's? Oh, I know! Clinton did have "sexual relations with that woman."
Mary D at 7:00PM on Oct 10th 2006
30. I do vote republican. However, I do not thing
Foley should get away with this. This is dispicable
behavior for a member of congress. Sexual pressure
whether hertosexual or homosexual should not be
placed on subordinates. Whatever necessary sexual
activity should be conducted outside of the workplace whether it be public or private. Let us
uphold our sexual harrassment laws.
Annette Heller at 7:02PM on Oct 10th 2006