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 6 of 12)
76. I just finished writing my comments, but they have not appeared here. I did hit "Add your comments". Do I need to do more to get heard?
Dorothy Tarantino at 8:54PM on Oct 10th 2006
77. I find it absolutely incredible that everyone has completely put the sleazy ex-President Clinton and his "I did not have sex with that woman" testimony out of mind....add to that, the Democratic "god" Teddy Kennedy and his murder of Mary Jo Kopechne...
I would say the Democrats are HUGE hypocrites and must resort to pointing fingers and selectively releasing trashy news items in an effort to discredit and dishonor the Republican Party. While I do not condone what Foley did and am just as repulsed by it as others, what does it have to do with the issues of the Iraq war, our economy, our health care, the terrorist threat, or any of the myriad of issues that SHOULD be the primary focus of the pre-election debates and discussions?
The Democrats little "game" has not fooled me and I still want to know where they stand on these issues. They are depending on the complacency and ignorance of the American public to re-elect them to office based not on what they have done or what changes they want to make, but on the fact that they have not been caught with their pants down....lately!
Valerie Steele at 9:01PM on Oct 10th 2006
78. so the democrats finally learned from Mr. Karl Rove's playbook, what's the problem ?
milton ong at 9:07PM on Oct 10th 2006
79. Remember back in grade school when you learned about "checks and balances"? It was an essential pillar of our democracy. The power of the executive branch (President) was balanced by the power of the legislative branch (Congress) with the "umpire" being the Supreme Court. Works great on paper.
But with Republicans in charge of both the Executive AND Legislative branches (and moving to control the Supreme Court with conservative judges), the checks and balances are fading. Many of George W. Bush's policies go unchallenged or rubber-stamped by a partisan Congress. Possible unconstitutional abuses of power (possible, I say, not definite), aren't even being examined or investigated.
The reason to vote for Democrats in this coming election is not to try to push through a "liberal" agenda. Trust me, even a landslide of Democrat victories next month won't get most left-wing legislation anywhere near passing--Bush would veto, and the Republicans won't lose enough seats that the Dems could overcome a veto.
So don't worry about your personal philosophy on same-sex marriage, abortion, taxes, or defense. We're not talking major political shift. No significant laws will be passed in the next two years no matter which party succeeds in the mid-term election. In other words, if you're a Republican, this is a safe time to consider voting the other way. You don't have to, but read on for a good reason to consider it:
Democrats in contorl of Congress for the next two years will give us someone to ask questions of the White House. Official questions. It will also allow for questions on the conduct of Senators and Congressmen like Mark Foley.
The problem is when the chickens control the hen house. Without anyone to hold them accountable, the Republicans kept the Foley story quiet. I don't blame them. No scandal is good for your party. The problem is--because of the Republican control of nearly all three branches of our government--there were no checks and balances.
It's not a question of what Mark Foley did or didn't do. It's the simple question: "What else is going on that we haven't been told about?" Are there more Mark Foleys? Has the White House been hiding something? Maybe the answer to both questions is "no", but right now, there is no one to even ASK the question with any kind of authority...and that invites abuse of power by either party that is in control.
Captain Jon at 9:08PM on Oct 10th 2006
80. It does not matter when the Foley information was released and who released it. What matters is that the Republicans DID NOT RELEASE IT or DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT when they should have.... immediately upon learning of it.
Sally Dzikiewicz at 9:08PM on Oct 10th 2006
81. I'm just irritated that the public is so affected by the Foley incident at all. Such things hide the serious damage that's being done to this country by the Republican party. (And the Democratic party isn't much better.)
Tom Liotta at 9:09PM on Oct 10th 2006
82. I am 73 years young and I am appalled at the dirty politics going on--I very strongly support Pres.Bush and his values--Foley should be out of office--as should anyone who preys on the young--I have listened closely to all the hoopla and I am firmly convinced there was a scheme afoot about the timing of releasing the Foley story--I am afraid of the effect on the United States because there seems to be more of a program to "hate Bush" than to realize what is clearly the best and safest course for our country--GOD BLESS AMERICA
Barbara Krauth at 9:13PM on Oct 10th 2006
83. My God, can't we just solve our problems, i.e., health care, poverty, education, the unjust war.
Leroy Hampton at 9:12PM on Oct 10th 2006
84. The real question is if you had a 16 year old son (or daughter) who was interested in politics (perish the thought) or public service, would you want some old man in Washington sending him e-mails of the purulent nature of the Foley e-mails? E-mails trying to lure (or even suggesting) your son into this old man's bedroom?
It really does not matter if Foley is gay, a drunk, or if he was molested by his priest as a teenager. Those are side issues meant to confuse the issue. This guy is a pervert, praying on children. The leadership of the Rpublican party has apparently tried to hide the fact that they have known about the problem for months or even years and did nothing about it. The next question should be: Why? Could it be that this pervert was also a very strong fund raiser for the RNC. Did the fact that he raised over $2 million for them recently have anything to do with the less than ambitious handling of the issue by the Republican "leadership?"
Who cares who brought the story to the public's attention or even that it might be politically motivated. The Republicans, I am sure are doing tons of research to try to find something on a Democrat (and they probably will). Republicans who blame the Democrats for this issue are just scrambling for a toe hold. They have no one to blame for the inaction by their leadership but their leaders. perhaps an objective minded person will say, "Hey they failed us again. Maybe we do need a change in our government."
What EVERYONE should care about is that this will likely change the status quo and now the children are a bit safer.
Rick Goldsburg at 9:12PM on Oct 10th 2006
85. Monique says, "These e-mails were tame compared to some sex-fantasies suggested in "respectable" Woman's Magazines and current TV shows."
The thing is, the e-mails were real messages to real children from a real congressman. You see the difference, right?
BTW, I don't know of too many "women's magazines" that print or endorse sexual fantasies about children. Care to name any names?
Phila at 9:18PM on Oct 10th 2006
86. WHAT A SLAB OF CRAP FOLLEY IS AND ALL THE OTHER NO GOOD REPUBLICANS. THIS IS JUST A SMALL THING COMPARE TO ALL THE MURDERING THEY ARE GETTING AWAY WITH BY HIDING BEHIND THE LIES OF THE WAR ON TERROR. CHECK YOUR HISTORY YOU'LL SEE WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD NUTS THAT USED FORCE TO GET THEIR POINT HEARD. IT'S TIME TO GET THOSE DAMN REPUBLICANS OUT SINCE THEY HAVE NOT DONE NOTHING GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY SINCE THEY HAVE HAD CONTROL AND HISTORY WILL PROVE THAT THIS LITTLE BUSH WILL BE KNOWN AS THE WORST PRESIDENT THAT THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER HAD AND I WANT THE DEMOCRATS TO INPEACH HIM THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS AND STOP HIM FROM MURDERING ANY MORE OF OUR SOLDIER'S AND THAT'S WHAT IS DOING.
BRENT at 10:36AM on Oct 11th 2006
87. Were there not any sweet little Democrat pages that caught Foley's eye??
Big Question -- What did the Democrats know and when??
missy sofio at 9:36PM on Oct 10th 2006
88. It is astonishing that the Republicans are trying to blame the TIMING of this on the Democrats. The Democrats did not KNOW about Foley - the REPUBLICANS did. The issue is that they knew he was a predator and protected him (not that he was gay - despite the spin attempts of people like Gingrich, being gay and being a pedophile are NOT the same thing). Just a tiny bit of research confirms that the emails were leaked BY A REPUBLICAN: "Longtime Republican Was the Source of the Emails," http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news2.html
It is way, WAY past time for Republicans to stop trying to pass the blame and accept responsibility for what they have done. Apparently, one Republican finally got fed up with the cover-up, and cared more about these children than about keeping power no matter WHO got stepped on in the process.
Amy Samonds at 9:39PM on Oct 10th 2006
89. Back to comment #1 which says all that needs to be said. There is no question that the American Spectator will lie to advance the neocon agenda. Their own people have quit in disgust and told us so. I will assume the story is BS until confirmed by a REPUTABLE source.
And even if there is a shred of truth to the claim; Foley, Hastert, Fordham, Reynolds (the main players in this mess) are all republicans, are they not?
jeff at 9:39PM on Oct 10th 2006
90. It's remarkable that Republicans are actually blaming Democrats for a vile act committed by a Republican.
Have you no shame? Except responsibility for your party's failures, take your punishment (next month at the ballot box) and work to rebuild your party as something more moral and ethical than what exists today.
Pete Fall at 9:46PM on Oct 10th 2006