by DemFromCT
The cable news was dominated today by the House leadership scandal. The Ethics Committee will investigate - slowly and with 4 dozen subpoenas. But as to whether there's anything they'll do (pre-election or otherwise), that's another story. And Denny Hastert reiterated that he knew little to nothing pre-Friday, and did less. Mistakes were made, it's under investigation, let's move on. Right.
That's a huge problem for the GOP, of course. Unlike Mark Foley, who did way too much, Hastert and leadership's problem is that they all did too little. From Hotline:
House Speaker Dennis Hastert said he wouldn't resign because "I haven't done anything wrong," and refused to say whether he held his staff accountable for letting Mark Foley's behavior slip through the cracks.
On the timeline of when his staff or other Republican leaders knew about the earlier "too friendly" e-mails, Hastert said " I don't know, who knew what when. I know there are reports that people who knew it and fed it out and leaked it to the press."
Hastert said that Rep. John Shimkus, " a former Army Ranger, a tough guy," went "right to the point" with Foley, and that Foley promised he wouldn't sent e-mails to pages, and that was that.
So, here's the thing. It's Shimkus and Hastert who should have done more, who should have investigated more, who should have involved the Democrats in a bipartisan fashion. Why (in detail) this won't work can be found here:
The details: they are awful. And they're going to get worse. And the American media is obsessed with SEX. Nothing sticks to the gut of an American voter more than an abuse of power combined with tawdry sex details.
The facts: The Hill reports that a Republican provided ABC News and other news outlets with the original e-mails. The page who first provided ABC News with the Instant Messages seems to be a Republican, too. Warning signs about Foley's conduct -- even if they were ambiguous -- were missed.
Open dissension in the ranks. Rep. John Boehner wants to play the role of loyal soldier. Rep. Roy Blunt has defected. Rep. Tom Reynolds is somewhere in between. Hastert is Hastert. We aren't overstating the point: these men do not trust each other. Their staffs marginally trust each other, in part because they share the same staff-to-principal sensibilities and the same self-preservation instincts.
Open dissension in the base -- It's hard to blame the media when the elites in your base are as outraged or disgusted as the media seems to be. Keep in mind this distinction. There are many Republicans in Washington whose professional identifies and livelihoods depend on Republicans keeping control of Congress. There are many Republicans outside Washington whose livelihoods and professional identities depend almost entirely on channeling outrage against elitists in the media and the Democratic Party. These two groups are likely to be support the status quo. But there are many, many conservatives and Republicans inside and outside Washington who are animated by ideals and principles and who, in a situation like this, are not inclined to give a party they find disappointing and immature the benefit of the doubt. The tension between these two sectors of the Republican establishment is evident and harmful.
An emboldened media: ABC's dominance of this story (and the concurrent ramping up of their coverage by Drudge) is no doubt increasing competitive pressures in the media. Editors and producers don't want to check Drudge every day only to see yet another Brian Ross report. Just check out the number of bylines in the Post covering all the angles the past two days. More media scrutiny begets more revelations - i.e. more bad news for Republicans.
I'd add Bush's crummy poll numbers into the mix. But in the simplest terms, Main Street will have none of it. If your high school principal blew off emails from a teacher of the sort Hastert supposedly saw last year, they'd be gone. This "we don't know what the facts are" and "who else but the Speaker knew" nonsense is completely blown out of the water by the fact that Tom Reynolds, the guy whose job it is to elect Republicans, was involved at all.
The fact that he was is all the evidence anyone needs to know that this was about preserving power being chosen over protecting kids. And that has no defense, not on the Hill and not on Main Street. From the Chicago Tribune:
A quote from an anonymous Republican with close ties to the White House:
"'This is a disaster. It's undermining our base. And it's been handled terribly,' said a Republican official with close ties to the White House. 'Quite frankly, right now, everybody's circling the wagons.'"
"But the official pointed out that a departure by Hastert might not solve the party's political difficulties since Boehner also was in the loop on the complaint. 'The No. 2 supposedly knew about this months ago,' the official said."
We get to talk about this through the weekend. And don't forget what we're not talking about. Circling the wagons helps the GOP not at all.
Update [2006-10-5 15:56:27 by DemFromCT]::I guess it's not just my opinion.
House Republican candidates will suffer massive losses if House Speaker
Dennis Hastert remains speaker until Election Day, according to
internal polling data from a prominent GOP pollster, FOX News has
learned.
"The data suggests Americans have bailed on the speaker," a Republican source briefed on the polling data told FOX News. "And the difference could be between a 20-seat loss and 50-seat loss."
btw, last 4 polls from pollingreport.com:
Goodbye 40, Hello 30's
Posted by: DemFromCT | October 05, 2006 at 17:13
Warning signs about Foley's conduct -- even if they were ambiguous -- were missed.
they weren't missed, they were ignored, because "officially" Foley was straight in the eyes of the GOP leadership (although they, of course, knew better). Coming from a real heterosexual, the "overly friendly" nature of the emails were just a "little weird" -- coming from a gay man, they were obviously warning signs of a significant problem.
Hastert, et.al. chose to ignore what they knew about Foley's sexual preference. If a straight congressman had written those emails to female pages, steps would have been taken. If out gay congressmen like Kolbe or Frank had written those emails to male pages, steps would have been taken. The reason why nothing was done was because to act on them would mean disavowel the myth that Foley was straight....
Posted by: p.lukasiak | October 05, 2006 at 17:24
We have watched our figurehead President with Rove for a brain and Cheney the real president.
What would the Bush presidency look like without Rove/Cheney?
Were Hastert and Delay the House's version of Bush-Rove/Cheney?
Hastert has often been said to be a figurehead Speaker, with Delay, with his hammer, in charge of day to day operations in the House.
Where was Tom Delay in the Foley mess?
Did Hastert's staff report to Delay first and Hastert second, if at all?
Did Delay engineer the coverup and leave Hastert out of the loop?
Are we seeing what the GOP controlled House looks like without its hammer?
Ugly, isn't it?
Posted by: CLK | October 05, 2006 at 18:45
Great point about Reynolds' involvement being improper no matter what he ended up doing. I'm trying to figure out why the GOP, which is made up of people with extraordinary save-myself-first instincts (witness Boehner's exemplary loyalty to Hastert), hasn't been able to get rid of Hastert? He must have a pretty good list of the locations of corpses, I think.
Posted by: MarkC | October 05, 2006 at 19:50
You can't dump leadership this close to an election. everyone stops running for their seat and starts running for speaker.
Posted by: DemFromCT | October 05, 2006 at 19:56
"I didn't do anything wrong" should be slightly amended.
More to the point -- "I didn't do anything."
Posted by: EdSez | October 05, 2006 at 22:24
I have been reading through these reports of the disarray of the House Republican leadership and the resulting fall-outs since the weekend. Foley-Gate keeps growing and pulling in more players. I suddenly became aware that I am sitting here grinning.
This is such a pleasure to watch. I feel a twinge of regret for Mark Foley who has some real problems that if he were straight or a Democrat would probably have been taken care of by a friend getting him into the counseling he needs. With luck, Pages were not hurt. I mean, for a young hetrosexual male it is a real shock to be hit on by another male, but that's life. It happens and you deal with it, just as girls do [well - except that it is harder to learn to deal with since guys don't talk to each other.]
But all the fallout in the Republican Party!! It is like they are the reincarnation of the Keystone Kops, all brought together into a big room and watching everyone stake out a chunk of wall to stand against so no one can get behind them. Then they all watch each other suspiciously, while hoping that the media does not call on them to speak.
If someone anonymously yells "Who did it?" they each glance wildly around and point to someone else, real or fake, then glance (again suspiciously) at the people next to them to see if someone is pointing at them. Some are pointing blatantly. Some, instead, try to catch your eyes and then surriptiously glance at Hastert, hoping no one who doesn't like them will notice what they did or who they gave up.
No one goes near the window or the balcony, doubtless fearing defenestration. Everyone is afraid to go near the door because it they leave, they will be the person blamed. They can't leave the party, but they really, really don't want to stay.
It's a paranoid's circus is what it is. Somewhere Hieronymous Bosch is unlimbering his paints and brushes as he gets new inspiration.
And I'm sitting here watching it through a darkened window, grinning, and loving every minute of it.
Posted by: Rick B | October 06, 2006 at 00:50
When I was a little kid, in a state I can barely remember I played basketball. I was just a little tyke. A little slender reed of a girl. Some of you have those sorts of team pictures. Almost painful to look at until you are much older. Of course Mom has every team picture any of us made on a hall wall.
I remember the team to a girl and the young amazingly athletic eager College girl that was our coach. Of course my mom and brothers came to see me play. Well my older brothers would already be there doing their own thing, but they would always come by and encourage their little tyke sister with a "go get them, take your time with the shot, use two hands to shoot, watch the ball, ..." the usual, with a quieter (so mom couldn't hear) "don't make us look bad squirt." For that I got them back bad when they later became involved with girls. But anyway, now I believe mom told them to pass through at least once, and then they could go play with the boys and stare at the girls furtively, like they did my coach.
I wan't very good then. A few years later I would mature in Junior High when mom pushed me to play again to develop some coordination (for a tall thin girl) and some confidence. About then I blossomed and wondered where all my court savy had been back in the 6th grade. Wow, I would have burned them up. But anyway.
A quote from Dennis Hastert's website:
"Throughout his legislative career, Speaker Hastert has drawn from his experience as a former wrestling coach by emphasizing teambuilding and setting clear-cut, achievable goals. The Speaker has since remained committed to the goals he laid out during his first term as Speaker and his accomplishments during the 107th Congress prove this."
Speaker Hastert was a coach! A wrestling coach. A sport that grit and determination play a big part in. Speaker Hastert is proud of being a coach!
I remember my big(est) brother telling me back in those early years. "Don't give up just because the team is behind. Coach don't give up. You don't give up. You don't give up" Well I tried though I wasn't very good then, but with my big brother and mom watching and cheering I never gave up. Never. I was as serious a little tyke that has played a game, from start to finish. They rewarded me with smiles and hugs for trying. And daddy too when he was home. My coach loved me for trying! She of course hugged everyone, but maybe me a little more. A little more! A life lesson!
"Coach don't give up."
Hastert decided that he was going to stick it out. If the Republicans lose the House he would never be Speaker again. If he quit now, the results for the Republicans were still up in the air, and some said it would be worse, but he would never be Speaker again.
I am told that men who are Speaker and then aren't never hold a lower leadership office. It is a step down.
He has probably has no problem winning the Illinois 14 District regardless of what he does. He will win bigger if he stays Speaker
and (pardon my language) hell, COACH DON'T QUIT!!
I learned that long ago.
I don't know if it will help or hurt. I think the House will go Democratic unless something really big happens. This thing will fester and grow, but Hastert quitting or not quitting doesn't matter. And Coach don't quit.
Posted by: Jodi | October 06, 2006 at 03:58
Say I'm a House Republican. ("ok, you're a House Republican.")
Say I want to show clearly and resolutely that I no longer support Hastert.
What would I do? Other than go on Sunday talk shows, I mean. Is it reasonable to expect me to introduce a House Resolution or something on the record that is the equivalent of a "no confidence" measure?
I'm asking because I'd like to be able to ask why none of the Congressional Republicans are doing it -- but I don't know what "it" is.
Posted by: emptypockets | October 06, 2006 at 08:23
They're afraid. They've chosen the "hang together or hang separately" defense, turned over the program to the James Baker-David Gergen "fix it" wing of the party (more competent spin now emerging) and are now engaged in prayer.
Posted by: DemFromCT | October 06, 2006 at 08:51
The party's nominations for Speaker are made internally and in private, in closed (and usually Members-only) meetings of the House Republican Conference. That's where the real, intra-party move to replace Hastert would be made.
Unofficially, of course, the wheeling and dealing that's part of lining up behind one candidate or another is done elsewhere. Sometimes publicly, sometimes not. Going on a talk show would be one of the public ways.
The official act of replacing Hastert, of course, would have to take place on the House floor. If he were to resign, it would just be a matter of calling a vote for a new Speaker. If he had to be forced out, I would guess it would be done with a resolution to declare the Speakership vacant.
Could I have answered that in one line, then? A resolution to declare the Speakership vacant? Yeah, I guess so.
But by the time you got to that resolution -- and the House would need to be in session, which it's not until after the elections, for you to actually make such a motion -- you would have already worked out a succession plan inside the Conference. That can be done without the House being in session. It can even be done by a small cabal, say, via cell phone conference call, either with or without eavesdropping. But that process would be private, and as closely held (absent eavesdropping) as possible. So we wouldn't hear about it except from leakers.
Posted by: Kagro X | October 06, 2006 at 08:51
Thanks.
I'm asking because I'd like to be able to ask why none of the Congressional Republicans are doing it -- but I don't know what "it" is. -- I wrote this badly, I didn't mean so I could ask you guys why none of them are doing it (their reasons are clear) but so I could begin asking rhetorically, "congressman (...) says he wouldn't shield sex predators, so why hasn't congressman (...) done this thing to repudiate Hastert?" but it sounds like without the Congress in session there is no "this thing" (other than yakking on talk shows) and even when it is in session it sounds like what little there is to do doesn't quite roll off the tongue
although I suppose as political rhetoric goes, it may not be bad still to ask "why doesn't congressman (...) vote no-confidence on Hastert" and just leave it to the other side to explain the sensible technical reasons why that can't be done, all of which may end up sounding like an evasion.
Posted by: emptypockets | October 06, 2006 at 09:08
It's worth road testing, 'pockets. You're right, the actual explanation for why Congressman (...) isn't doing anything probably would sound like an evasion.
Even asking, "Why don't you get rid of Hastert?" and being answered "Well, it's not that simple" is an opportunity.
"Sure it is. Just submit a resolution declaring the Speakership vacant," is a fine retort. The fact that it's not politically that simple is a bad answer for the Republicans, even if -- perhaps especially if -- it's really true.
Posted by: Kagro X | October 06, 2006 at 10:52
emptypockets
Without Hastert resigning it is too difficult with a month to election. Most will say "vote for us and we will take care of it next session, and we will know more by then anyway. But I share all your concerns and need your vote so I can go back and straighten out this mess."
It goes back to my statement.
COACH DON'T QUIT!
But I also said this will fester and grow and the Pelosi will replace Hastert. Wow. Won't that be something?!
Of course that assumes no bombshells on the Democrats.
Posted by: Jodi | October 07, 2006 at 05:43
If Coach knew about his assistant's advances to team members and did nothing, Coach gets sacked. And more is coming out.
Posted by: DemFromCT | October 07, 2006 at 08:24
DemFromCT,
at this point what we know for sure is that Hastert did know about the "concern and requesting a picture" email. He didn't know about the IMs. Supposedly no one in the House knew about it until ABC released it. I can believe that because it would have been news long before.
Yes some people, supposedly Foley's chief of staff, have claimed that they told certain things to the leadership. What this is we don't know.
The FBI cleared that email that Hastert saw (or knew about) as "not at any criminal level."
Foley went home before Hastert knew about the IMs, or at least on the same day.
Now that sequence of events may be wrong. There may be lies or unknown facts.
But based on that, Hastert's main failures were
1) not "putting "his boots" on the ground and checking to see if there was any more that he didn't know." The men in my family are unanamious on that.
2) embarassing his party
There are many things he could have done.
If there was concern about looking like the Republicans were "attacking homosexuals," then they should have pulled in Barney Frank, and other homosexual Democrats, and Republicans, and said. Hey this is what we know. What are your ideas on how to handle this, how to check into this. (But that had a political risk that they chose not to take.)
Hastert and the leadership tried to handle it but by the time they went to see Foley about that"known" email, all those IMs were already sent, ??years earlier.
Anyway I don't expect Hastert to be Speaker (some miracle happens) or minority leader next year.
Unlike Rove-Plame there isn't enough data and the issues aren't clear enough to predict.
Posted by: Jodi | October 07, 2006 at 22:00