« The Unpopular Republican Leader | Main | (How) The Democrats Should Take Congress »

October 06, 2006


Sullivan says that internal polls show the GOP losing 50 House seats if Hastert doesn't resign. Be still my beating heart.

Meanwhile, Yglesias channels(sort of) Kaygro X about what to do if dems do indeed take the House.

And the GOP lies about the Dems being behind the leaking of the e-mails (patently false, according to ABC) isn't even a good line for them, because it suggests that if those pesky, partisan Dems hadn;t blown the whistle, Foley could have just gone merrily on IMing pages and we'd all be happy. That manifestly doesn't sell with moms of any stripe, and it suggests the Dems are more interested in oversight than the R's, which is manifestly true, and one of the D selling points.

It is festering and growing.

The problem is that it is just ONE MORE event.

Whether Republican or Democrat. It is politics and scandal "as usual."

Hey what is it that they were talking about on the Charlie Rose show. I turned to it late. I like to listen while I work.

Charlie Rose asked his two guests (some book) Something about Clinton doing something that the Democrat Party is upset about.
The authors responded -Some friend (I didnt' recognize the name) went to see him and he said "angrily" that it wasn't true.
And then something about 'she won't run until it is addressed and taken care of'

It is apparent what it sounds like, but I was curious to have the "rumour" in full.

Spinning the lack of judgement and inaction on Foley is just not going to play. It may have if they dealt with as soon as the story broke. Three days of chaos and flip-flopping on who knew and who informed Hastert has blown any shred of credibility remaining. Everyone who heard this story and many, many people in America are aware of this story came away with the impression that the Repub leadership knew and did not protect pages from a Repub child predator in Congress.

This is a simple right & wrong issue and the Repub leaderships' inaction was wrong. Can't spin that! Blaming the Dems for leaking - no dice.

In a week unless new developments emerge, the Repubs can change the topic but the story inflicted some serious damage. Similar to the Katrina lack of judgement and inaction. They tried to spin the blame on local officials but even today people consider it a Bush failure.

How you keep your optimism in the face of recent history is an inspiration. And on a Friday to boot.

Josh Marshall at TPM quotes a SurveyUSA poll on Hastert:

63% say should resign as speaker

43% say should resign from Congress

This story was a cluster-bomb. And many of the bomblets could yet explode.

Wash Post:

Now, a second House aide familiar with Foley and his actions told The Washington Post yesterday that "Scott Palmer had spoken to Foley prior to November 2005." The aide spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter is now the subject of a criminal investigation and the House ethics committee inquiry.

, , , On Wednesday night, Palmer was described as highly emotional while aides sifted through e-mails and files to determine whether he had ever spoken to Fordham. Several people who spoke with Palmer said the chief of staff was emphatic in denying that he knew anything about Foley's questionable contacts with young male pages.

Palmer, who shares a townhouse with Hastert when they are in town, is more powerful than all but a few House members. Members know that he speaks for Hastert.

The divergent accounts have highlighted the holes in the public's understanding of Foley's undoing. And they are sure to ratchet up the pressure on Trandahl to come forward with his knowledge of events. As House clerk between January 1999 and November 2005, Trandahl had direct control over the page program.

Pages apparently saw Trandahl as a strict disciplinarian. In one instant-message exchange obtained by The Post, a former page, on his way to his first annual reunion in Washington, told Foley in January 2003 that "everyone is going to be pretty wasted a lot of the time in dc."

He then added, "well we dont have the [expletive] clerk to fire us anymore. . . . we didnt like trandahl that much . . . he isnt a nice guy . . . and he gets really scarey when he is mad."

Trandahl's departure came within days of his confrontation with Foley over e-mails that the congressman had sent a former page. House aides say the circumstances of Trandahl's exit were oddly quiet. The departure of a staff member of long standing, especially one as important as the House clerk, is usually marked with considerable fanfare, said Scott Lilly, a former Democratic staff director of the House Appropriations Committee. Debate is suspended in mid-afternoon to accommodate a stream of testimonials from lawmakers.

Trandahl's departure was marked by a one-minute salute from Shimkus and a brief insert into the Congressional Record.

"My one-hour Special Order changed to a five-minute Special Order, now to a one-minute," Shimkus said. "I just want to say thank you for the work you have done."

Lilly said: "He seemed to suddenly disappear in a puff of smoke."

Trandahl, now the executive director of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, has not returned repeated phone calls and e-mails.

Congressional aides point to another factor that links Trandahl to the Foley matter. A member of the board of the national gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, Trandahl is openly homosexual and personally close to the now-disgraced former lawmaker, who announced through his lawyer this week that he is gay.

Staff writers Jim VandeHei, Charles Babington, Dan Eggen and Allan Lengel contributed to this report.

Besides the Republicans, this will affect one other group in Washington, and indeed everywhere a lot.

The Democrats as a group will be better served if they stay out of this mess, and let it be be between the Republican groups, and the Ethics Committe, and law enforcement.

And is anybody here willing to respond to the question of the Bill Clinton vs upset Democrats vs inquiring messenger friend receiving angry rebuke from Bill Clinton saying "I didn't do anything." vs Hillary reluctant to run until issue is addressed and answered?

That was from Charlie Rose show Oct 5, 2006 -MARK HALPERIN & JOHN HARRIS

a) it's not a matter of "willing", it's a matter of "what are you talking about?

b) Bringing Clinton up in any discussion of R problems will 99% of the time be seen as a "Changing the subject, blaming Clinton again" statement, so don't look for everyone to drop what they're doing to assist you. Who cares? The gang of 500 is Clinton-obsessed and half the GOP is as well.

If you don't know, ok.

Hey I am a curious person. Clinton is a force of nature. Sorta like a volcano. It will be out soon if there is anything there.

I did look on theRose site but that hour is not yet availabe.
Halperin knew about it.

Sorry if I made anyone uncomfortable. I won't say another word.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad