More On The Media Narrative Of The House Leadership Scandal

by DemFromCT

Typepad's been down, so infrequent updates.

Hotline On Call has an excellent roundup of media quotes. Of special note:

Newsweek's Fineman: "This is a missile aimed straight at the heart of the Republican base, which is why Republicans in the White House and on the Hill are scrambling so quickly to try to get ahead of this fast moving story" ("Countdown," MSNBC, 10/2).

Ex-WH adviser David Gergen: "This story is going to trace itself up to just exactly who exactly in the leadership of the Republican Party knew what when. And that is going to keep the story alive for day after day, and keep the Republicans on the defensive, with the election just around the corner" ("AC 360," CNN, 10/2).

America's Cause Bay Buchanan: "This is a known homosexual who is writing e-mails to the home of a 16-year-old boy, asking for pictures. That's all you need to know. ... We need an investigation. Bring in the FBI. Stop this guy. Make certain that, if indeed he was the predator he could be, he was stopped that day. They failed that. You cannot spin this. And I don't know that I would call it a cover-up" ("Situation Room," CNN, 10/2).

Since we were debating the effect on social conservatives, don't miss the WaPo roundup:

After Foley, New Fears For the GOP
Some Say Party Could Lose House and Senate

...There was intense anger among social conservative activists in Washington yesterday, and some called for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) to resign.

Republican operatives closely following the battle for the House and Senate said that they are virtually ready to concede nearly a third of the 15 seats the Democrats need to recapture control of the House, and that they will spend the next five weeks trying to shelter other vulnerable incumbents from the fallout of the Foley scandal in hopes of salvaging a slender majority.

I thought "some say" was a GOP construction. It's a little early for the daily media politics summaries, but somehow I don't think the GOP won this news cycle. Oh, well. It's October. Surprise!

Comments

[Mimikatz]

Kevin Drum quotes from a LA Times story:

The LA Times has interviewed some former congressional pages, and they say that Mark Foley's infatuation with teenage pages was well known:

"Almost the first day I got there I was warned," said Mark Beck-Heyman, a San Diego native who served as a page in the House of Representatives in the summer of 1995. "It was no secret that Foley had a special interest in male pages," said Beck-Heyman, adding that Foley, who is now 52, on several occasions asked him out for ice cream.

That was 0ver 10 years ago, under Gingrich. DeLay obviously would have known as well, because it was a way of manipulating Foley. These things are generally known within the leadership of an organization, excepting perhaps among the women, like Deborah Pryce and Shelley Moore Capito, who was on the Page Bpard and evidently in the dark.

No way they spin this. Too bad Foley wasn't one of the Impeachment managers.

[jonnybutter]

Oh doctah!

The repulsive thing (well, one of them) about this story is that the outrage on the right is not so much about the authority/minor issue, but about exactly what Bay B. said: that Foley was a 'known homosexual'! What is this, 1940? 'Known homosexual?'! It sounds right out of a J. Edgar Hoover press release...oh, wait..

[freepatriot]

gradually is past for the repuglicans

suddenly is here

bush is practicing his impeachment whine

anybody know what joezoe loserman has to say about this one ???

[Jim E.]

ABC has more IMs. Looking worse for Foley, much worse.

On the bright side, the fact that he's talking about giving alcohol to a minor can bolster his otherwise BS story of needing rehabilation for alcoholism.

[Jim E.]

I guess I'll be watching Charlie Gibson on ABC tonight: they claim they'll be reporting with more precision about what specific congressmen knew about Foley's e-mails, and when they knew it.

[Jodi]

I will repeat a little of what I said in the previous thread.

Someone said that one of the terrible 3 (Frank) was well accepted and might have been the next Senator in Mass if Kerry had been elected President.

Well in the Republican Base of which I am well acquainted (most all my famil) Frank is "repulsive" to say the least. Not 1940, but 2006. You don't have to like it, but if you are a realist you best learn to accept it.

This is the problem. It was one thing for this group (and maybe most of the Indepedent group) to see the actual email the R Leadership saw, where Foley requested a "picture" of the Page. As the FBI has said (see previous thread) that was not at the level of criminal activity. Pretty much my statement.

BUT TO KNOW FOLEY WAS A HOMOSEXUAL LIKE THE R LEADERSHIP AND PROBABLY EVERYONE IN THE HOUSE KNEW. IN FACT AS THEY SAY A FLAMING "EXPLETIVE DELETED."
THEN THE BASE AND THE INDEPENDENTS ARE REPULSED. OUTRAGED. REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY MAD!!!!

The bottom line is the R Leadership will be changed. They have caused the Republican Party considerable damage and LOST THE HOUSE AND MAYBE THE SENATE for 2006. (Unless) Rove and company can get a whole bunch of dirt on the Dems. The kind that they usually wouldn't want to present because it is too vile.
Denny will not be a Minority Leader!

And here I like to quote my big brothers. It is time to "bunker" down with your flak jackets and helmets securely on for the "s***" is about to fly.

[DemFromCT]

I appreciate the view from a segment of the population we don't always her from here, jodi. But the unequal nature of this is rove-proof. Ony the R's are in power. Only the R's neglected notification. Only the R's failed to thell the woman and democrat on the page committee (the Dem is a known straight arrow good guy).

Barney Frank and 30 year stories are not going to save the republican leadership from what they didn't do over the last year or more.. Frank runs in MA, and only those voters get to judge him.

It's really bizarre that anyone would think otherwise.

[Jodi]

Oh yes, my support guy provided me also with this web site showing all the "closeted Republican House members."

(I guess if you look, there is a lot of stuff out there, that mainstream America doesn't know about, indeed, doesn't want to know abut.)

/////

www.blogactive.com has a lot on the Hill "hypocrisy in the gov't", grouping the alternate life style

The Republicans in all aspects of Government, even on Bush Staff
http://www.blogactive.com/2006_06_01_blogactive_archive.html

And the "blade" media has a lot.

Here the Washington Blade

http://www.washblade.com/2005/12-2/view/editorial/cunningham.cfm

has the closeted Republicans and their voting records.

The other remark I have is the people watching this are saying the Gay Groups are very quiet, because even though the Republicans will suffer, so will they.

////

I teased my support guy over the phone who I know very well, seeing the pictures of his wife, and children, etc., and he probably was blushing and sorta stuttered and said "well you asked, and I always provide the service you request."

Anyway for what it is, there it is.

[DemFromCT]

the chance of homophobia backlash is very real, and everyone should be concerned about it.

But this isn't about sexual orientation, and here's where Slate's John Dickerson is right:

This is about preying on a young person, not sexual orientation, say Democrats. They're right. These pages are not just young; they are employed as part of a compact. Parents send their teenagers to Washington thinking they're being looked after. One former page told me the power relationship was so skewed that she would have been thunderstruck if a member had talked to her at all.

and here's where he's wrong

For GOP leaders to pay a heavy political price requires either more evidence that they really knew what Foley was doing or for Democrats to form an alliance, at some level, with people who find homosexuality outrageous no matter what the age.

Dems don't need an alliance, folks will think what they think without any prodding (see Bay Buchanan).

[Jodi]

"It's really bizarre that anyone would think otherwise"

DemFromCT, you are not pursuing the logic thread. What you are saying is true to a certain extent, but the question is not what the Dems think. It is the Republicans/conservative independents think and do.

If that base stays home or even votes Dem, the Republicans are dead in the water. If they can be partially regalvanized/resurrected so to speak by being reminded strongly about the "other side," the "dark side," the Democrats and their relationships with some other groups and some of their members, then the Republicans can at least limit the damage, and though they most probably (at this point) will lose the house, they might not lose the Senate, and they might keep enough members in the house where with sympathetic conservative Dems, they can still prevent too much damage.

DAMAGE CONTROL IS THE NAME OF THE GAME NOW.

[Mimikatz]

Jodi, the difference between Dems and the GOP is that Dems are more tolerant and allow people to be out gays and still be Democratic office holders, while the GOP requires that they stay in the closet. There are gay men in the top echelons of the GOP leadership in and out of the House, but they can't be open about of it because the GOP has demonized gays for political gain for so long that it would, as you say, upset the base to know what many people in and out of Washington know.

So the Dems have gay office holders and activists who lead basically normal lives and the GOP has closeted men and women. Being in the closet creates extra anxiety, opportunities for blackmail or manipulation, and on some level self-loathing. Not a healthy combination for someone in power. This is the downside of demonizing 10%+ of the population--some of them are bound to be in your midst.

[jonnybutter]

Not 1940, but 2006. You don't have to like it, but if you are a realist you best learn to accept it.

Yes, you're right. I was using ridicule to say the same thing you are, basically. I know you don't win people over by ridiculing them, but....sometimes it's warranted. Consider:

Barney Frank: Is honest with himself and everybody else about who he is (something which takes real courage); is a very hard working and smart member (among the smartest) of the House - in fact, 'gay congressman' is even a misnomer; he's a good and serious congressman who's gay. Disagree with him ideologically all you want, but he's serious and effective.

Mark Foley: is sneaky and dishonest about who he is; cultivates power in a Party which officially hates him for what he is (but winks at him (ahem) when it behooves them); and has for years (let's call it what it is) sexually harrassed boys who were subordinate to him. (not to mention the committee Foley chaired).

Who's repulsive?

[Jodi]

Mimikatz,

it is my personal opinion but not mine alone that the percentage number is probably between 3 to 5. There are methods of analysis that usually can predict these things pretty accurately using available information of all kinds. That is what they show. But that number is a whole lot of people. Just 1% of 300 million is 3 million.

\\\\
My people are fretting, so I have been investigating and analyzing what the heck is going on, and its impact -
(of the media, blogs, etc.)

I am perusing the major papers/services, and the techs.

This is the bible. [[It allows me to communicate head to head with my bosses.]]

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Wall Street Journal

Opinions - (concerning Mark Foley scandal)

Some titles of pertinent articles----------------------

Could a gay congressman be quarantinied?

House Republicans have done a lousy job of policing themselves

Murtha's prodigious pork and unsavory past may haunt in any Hourse Majority Leader's race.

[[ they are already foreseeing the future!! ]]

Does Andrew Sullivan really want to make Mark Foley a poster child for gay liberation

The roots of Republican failures in Congress

Congress must learn "trust but verify" when it comes to its own members; Mark Foley's Democratic opponent is a Democrat tailor-made for a GOP district
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Those are the kind of blurbs that appear in the "daily info/intell report" that my bosses read.

We are preparing for a turnover.

[Sara]

The Media hasn't yet sorted out the narrative because this is still very much a breaking story. Apparently ABC has over 35 IM's and they seem to be releasing them one or two a day only after they have checked them out (smart) meaning much more is probably coming.

The researchers in SNAP -- Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests -- are likely to identify the "clergyman" who Foley is claiming abused him 40 years ago in the next few days (there are over 5000 members, and they have the line on virtually every abuser) -- and if so, then this becomes a Catholic story. They will have their own form for the narrative, and it will get attention. SNAP will criticize Foley for not coming forward over the past few years and supported their efforts. They are a tough bunch -- it takes a combination of vulnerability and heavy determination to fight the Bishops and Cardinals and the Vatican Bureaucracy and gain strong support for doing this. They won't buy the victims tale that does not go beyond the woah is me resolution.

Another narrative is the Traitor to the Republican Party formulation, particularly if the polls and election results cut very deep, which I now think likely. He will be held responsible for the schism between the social conservatives (or values voters) and the Economic Interest Republicans...and he will have no friends in either camp. How strong this narrative will be, I think will depend on whether any other scandal offsets this one between now and election.

Given the divisions in the Republican House Leadership -- evident today -- I think the Democratic Narrative should be about the inability of Republicans to honestly and practically address problems. Their leadership team is totally incapable of investigating something, establishing facts, and setting out a new course. I would suggest that taking this tact allows us to get back to Iraq and the need for realistic assessments of the facts on the ground -- Which is where we need to land in the last ten days of the campaign.

[Jodi]

Sara,

I hope the Dems are much stronger than that and need to make a strong case.

This is a case of blatant self serving incompetence which has permeated most of the Bush tenure.

Every time they made a decision it was self-serving, or eventually became self-serving, and was full of incompetence.

But the Dems didn't do very well themselves and are giving off their own aura of incompetence as they wrestle with their blogs/base and reality, and unwillingness to step up and be counted.

The problem is because the lobbyists and all the splinter (both Dem and Repub) groups have destroyed both parties.

Now DemFromCT, love him and his blind faith, thinks that all we have to do is put Dems in and all will be well, and that is really hard to believe.

God help me. Am I going to have to vote Libertarian next time?