Joe Lieberman's Two Front War

I watched most of today's Connecticut Senate debate, featuring Joe Lieberman, Ned Lamont, and Alan Schlesinger.

I assumed that it was going to be a constant back and forth between Lamont and Lieberman, with Schlesinger trying to get an occasional comment in or someone to notice that he was in the debate as well.

My assumption was wrong.

Alan Schlesinger, polling in the mid-single digits range, had absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain in the debate, and it showed. He was the clear winner, by far. He showed an understanding of the issues and had the right combination of energy, political irreverence, and use of rhetoric to stand out among the candidates. Lieberman, being the 18-year Senate veteran, not surprisingly was the first candidate to burn through his 18 minutes of response time. Lamont sounded like he was trying to cram as many words as possible into each of his responses, essentially going into long John Kerry-esque musings while sounding as if someone was playing a tape on fast forward.

Schlesinger went after both of his opponents, although it seemed to me most of his jabs were directed at Lieberman, who is relying on Republican money and votes in his independent candidacy to try to save his political career. Lieberman was at a disadvantage, since at several points in the debate he had both Lamont and Schlesinger double-teaming him.

While Schlesinger may have been the winner of the debate, the big beneficiary was Lamont. If Schlesinger can shore up some more support from conservative Republicans by tapping into Lieberman's base, Lieberman could lose the race.

Lamont is aware of this, and he even implicitly encouraged Schlesinger to play spoiler in the race at one point during the debate, recounting his own experience bucking his own party in his decision to challenge Lieberman.

Lieberman is stuck in a political no-man's land. He's essentially given up on the Democratic activist base that rejected him in the primary so is now forced to appeal to conservatives, moderates, and independents. Lieberman's strategy has been to shore up support from conservatives and independents, who when combined outnumber the liberals in Connecticut's registered voters. If Schlesinger starts tapping into the conservative base in the polls, Lieberman would be facing a challenge from his right flank, and that would mean he would have to fend off both Lamont and Schlesinger for the next three weeks.

The International Community Forcing Kim Jong Il to Go Cold Turkey?

This from the New York Post:

KOOKY KOREAN TO LOSE BOOZE
U.S.: CUT OFF KIM'S HOOCH

October 10, 2006 -- The United States moved quickly yesterday to seek tough U.N. sanctions against North Korea - including an export ban that would cut off alcohol-guzzling Kim Jong Il's flow of his beloved top-shelf booze.

The U.S. plan for hard-hitting sanctions against the rogue communist nation came as world leaders joined the international outcry against Kim's underground test Sunday night of a nuclear weapon.

The Bush administration urged the United Nations to take urgent steps, including:

* Banning sales of military hardware to North Korea,

* Inspecting all cargo entering or leaving the country, and

* Freezing assets connected with its weapons programs.

But it was a ban on countries exporting "luxury" items to North Korea that would hit Kim the hardest - right in his prodigious liquor cabinet, stocked with the world's best libations.

The often-drunk Pyongyang dictator is known for his huge consumption of pricey French wines, Johnnie Walker scotch and the finest cognac.

He is said to spend an astounding $650,000 a year just for Hennessy cognac, and the basement of his official residence is a wine cellar with nearly 10,000 bottles of one of France's most famous exports. And those foreigners who have spent time with Kim say his thirst is never sated. Reaction to Kim's boast of a successful nuclear test was swift at the U.N. Security Council.

How come they didn't show this in Team America?

Woodward on Bush and North Korea

In light of yesterday's nuclear test, this seemed worth highlighting. [Note: At the time, Bandar was the Saudi ambassador to the United States and a close friend of the Bush family] From pages 12-13 of State of Denial:

George W. pulled Bandar aside.
"Bandar, I guess you're the best asshole who knows about the world. Explain to me one thing."
"Governor, what is it?"
"Why should I care about North Korea?"
Bandar said he didn't really know. It was one of the few countries that he did not work on for King Fahd.
"I get these briefings on all parts of the world," Bush said, "and everybody is talking to me about North Korea."
"I'll tell you what, Governor," Bandar said. "One reason should make you care about North Korea."
"All right, smart aleck," Bush said, "tell me."
"The 38,000 American troops right on the border." Most of the U.S. 2nd Infantry Division was deployed there, along with thousands of other Army, Navy and Air Force personnel. "If nothing else counts, this counts. One shot across the border and you lose half these people immediately. You lose 15,000 Americans in a chemical or biological or even regular attack. The United State of America is at war instantly."
"Hmmm," Bush said. "I wish those assholes would put things just point-blank to me. I get half a book telling me about the history of North Korea."
"Now I tell you another answer to that. You don't want to care about North Korea anymore?" Bandar asked. The Saudis wanted America to focus on the Middle East and not get drawn into a conflict in East Asia.
"I didn't say that," Bush replied.
"But if you don't, you withdrawl those troops back. Then it becomes a local conflict. Then you have the whole time to decide, 'Should I get involved? Not involved?' Etc."
At that moment, Colin Powell approached.
"Colin," Bush said, "come here. Bandar and I were shooting the bull, just two fighter pilots shooting the bull." He didn't mention the topic.
"Mr. Governor," Bandar said, "General Powell is almost a fighter pilot. He can shoot the bull almost as good as us."

Buffalo, We Have a Problem

Last week, I wrote that the Foley scandal was radioactive to anyone it touched. Tom Reynolds, the congressman most directly responsible for maintaining the GOP's majority in the House of Representatives, is in serious political trouble.

How serious?

Serious enough that Reynolds felt it necessary to address the scandal in a new campaign ad running in a $200,000 buy in his district. I can't find the ad on YouTube or Reynolds' campaign website right now, but will update this post to include it if I find it later. But apologies may not be enough.

A weekend poll of residents of New York's 26th district commmissioned by the Buffalo News now has Reynolds 15 points behind his Democratic challenger. The same poll says that 57 percent of respondents disapproved his handling of the Foley scandal.

Reynolds is now Exhibit A of what the Foley Effect might bring to incumbent Republicans who are entangled in the scandal. If Jim Kolbe weren't already retiring from Congress, he would probably be facing a similar backlash from constituents based on today's story in the Washington Post.

If Bob Novak's reporting in his column today is accurate, this will not endear the now-embattled Reynolds with his constituents.

Disgraced former Congressman Mark Foley had two excellent job offers in the private sector this year when Rep. Tom Reynolds, National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, talked him into seeking a seventh term.

Although Reynolds says Foley was merely deciding whether to run again, the talk in Republican circles on Capitol Hill was that he was ready to leave Congress. His inappropriate e-mails to a former page were known to the Republican leadership late last year. The 16th Congressional District was considered so safely Republican that any GOP candidate could carry it but now likely will be lost with Foley still on the ballot.

Supporting the Troops

Captain's Quarters points out the photo on this section of the DNC's website:



The problem? The soldier is Canadian.

The Other Nuclear Option, North Korea Edition

I will take a break from Foley coverage to note the breaking news out of Asia tonight.

SEOUL, South Korea (CNN) -- North Korea on Monday claimed it has performed a successful nuclear test, according to that country's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).

South Korean government officials also said North Korea performed its first nuclear test, the South's Yonhap news agency reported.

The apparent nuclear test was conducted at 10:36 a.m. (0136 GMT) in Hwaderi near Kilju city, Yonhap reported, citing defense officials.

"The field of scientific research in the DPRK (North Korea's official name) successfully conducted an underground nuclear test under secure conditions on October 9 ... at a stirring time when all the people of the country are making a great leap forward in the building of a great prosperous powerful socialist nation," KCNA reported.

Late Sunday in Washington, a U.S. military official told CNN that "something clearly has happened," but the Pentagon was working to fully confirm the report.

Senior U.S. officials said they also believed the test took place, citing seismic data that appeared to show one.

South Korean intelligence officials said a seismic wave of magnitude-3.58 had been detected in North Hamkyung province, according to Yonhap.

This is big news, no matter when it would happen. Politically, it hands Democrats more ammunition against the Republicans on foreign policy issues for the November elections. Republicans wanted something to get Foley out of the news, but I think this isn't what they had in mind.

What He Knew, When He Knew It

The Washington Post has a bombshell on another Republican congressman who knew about Foley, as far back as 2000.

A Republican congressman knew of disgraced former representative Mark Foley's inappropriate Internet exchanges as far back as 2000 and personally confronted Foley about his communications.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship. Last week, when the Foley matter erupted, a Kolbe staff member suggested to the former page that he take the matter to the clerk of the House, Karen Haas, said Kolbe's press secretary, Korenna Cline.

The revelation pushes back by at least five years the date when a member of Congress has acknowledged learning of Foley's behavior with former pages. A timeline issued by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) suggested that the first lawmakers to know, Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), the chairman of the House Page Board, and Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), became aware of "over-friendly" e-mails only last fall. It also expands the universe of players in the drama beyond members, either in leadership or on the page board.

A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The Washington Post under the condition that they not be reprinted. But Cline denied the source's characterization, saying only that the messages had made the former page feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless, she said, "corrective action" was taken. Cline said she has not yet determined whether that action went beyond Kolbe's confrontation with Foley.

It's a good thing for Kolbe he was already planning to retire from Congress, otherwise I'd say he would be guaranteed to lose his seat once voters found out he knew about Foley six years ago.

The Credibility Gap

A few days ago, I wrote about how Kirk Fordham, sensing he was being made the fall guy by House Republicans for the Mark Foley scandal, dropped a massive bombshell on Dennis Hastert's office.

Despite claims by senior congressional aide Kirk Fordham that he notified House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office more than two years ago about possible inappropriate contact between former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., and underage congressional pages, the Speaker's office insists it did nothing wrong in the way it handled the investigation.

"That never happened," Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean told ABC News.

But Fordham, who resigned as Foley's chief of staff to work for another member of the GOP leadership, Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., said that as far back as 2003, Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, had been told that Foley was too friendly with pages. According to Fordham, Palmer spoke to Foley about the matter.

Neither Foley nor Palmer could be reached for comment, yet Hastert's office disputes the account.

Here's the reaction of Scott Palmer, Hastert's chief of staff:

"What Kirk Fordham said did not happen."

Palmer might want to revise that statement and get a good lawyer, if the story in today's Washington Post is correct.

House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's chief of staff confronted then-Rep. Mark Foley about his inappropriate social contact with male pages well before the speaker said aides in his office took any action, a current congressional staff member with personal knowledge of Foley and his behavior with pages said yesterday.

The staff member said Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, met with the Florida Republican at the Capitol to discuss complaints about Foley's behavior toward pages. The alleged meeting occurred long before Hastert says aides in his office dispatched Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.) and the clerk of the House in November 2005 to confront Foley about troubling e-mails he had sent to a Louisiana boy.

The staff member's account buttresses the position of Foley's onetime chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, who said earlier this week that he had appealed to Palmer in 2003 or earlier to intervene, after Fordham's own efforts to stop Foley's behavior had failed. Fordham said Foley and Palmer, one of the most powerful figures in the House of Representatives, met within days to discuss the allegations.

Palmer said this week that the meeting Fordham described "did not happen." Timothy J. Heaphy, Fordham's attorney, said yesterday that Fordham is prepared to testify under oath that he had arranged the meeting and that both Foley and Palmer told him the meeting had taken place. Fordham spent more than three hours with the FBI on Thursday, and Heaphy said that on Friday he contacted the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to offer his client's cooperation.

"We are not preparing to cooperate. We are affirmatively seeking to," Heaphy said.

Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean declined to directly comment on the second House staff member's assertion, saying that it is a matter for a House ethics committee investigation. "The Standards Committee has asked that no one discuss this matter because of its ongoing investigation," Bonjean said.

Palmer might also want to think about updating his resume and cleaning out his desk.

Mea Culpa

The real culprit responsible for the Mark Foley scandal 'fesses up and takes responsibility.

Dennis Hastert's Conspiracy Theory

One of the few comical aspects of the Foley scandal [beyond the endless fodder for the late night comedians] is watching Republicans try to somehow blame the whole thing on Democrats, their allies or associates because of the proximity of the leak to the November congressional elections. Dennis Hastert in a phone interview with the Chicago Tribune published yesterday:

When asked about a groundswell of discontent among the GOP's conservative base over his handling of the issue, Hastert said in the phone interview: "I think the base has to realize after a while, who knew about it? Who knew what, when? When the base finds out who's feeding this monster, they're not going to be happy. The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by [liberal activist] George Soros."

He went on to suggest that operatives aligned with former President Bill Clinton knew about the allegations and were perhaps behind the disclosures in the closing weeks before the Nov. 7 midterm elections, but he offered no hard proof.

"All I know is what I hear and what I see," the speaker said. "I saw Bill Clinton's adviser, Richard Morris, was saying these guys knew about this all along. If somebody had this info, when they had it, we could have dealt with it then."

Even Republicans are starting to get weary of Hastert's conspiracy theory. From the Chicago Tribune:

Comments that Hastert made in a Tribune interview suggesting the scandal had been orchestrated by ABC News, Democratic political operatives aligned with the Clinton White House and liberal activist George Soros were considered a serious misstep in national Republican circles, an official said. Senior Republican officials contacted Hastert's office before his news conference Thursday to urge that he not repeat the charges, and he backed away from them in his news conference.

"The Chicago Tribune interview last night--the George Soros defense--was viewed as incredibly inept," a national Republican official said. "It could have been written by [comedian] Jon Stewart."

Hastert, a former high school teacher and wrestling coach, really should re-read Shakespeare. In particular, he should heed the Bard's wisdom in this famous scene

"Men at some time are masters of their fates: The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings" - Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene II

The idea that this scandal was the plot of Democratic operatives and financers with ABC News as their enabler is absolutely laughable on its face. ABC even admitted that their sources were Republican congressional staffers and former pages, not Democratic operatives. Even Hastert's office admitted they had no evidence to back the assertions. CNN last night:

ZAHN: So, Dana, let's talk about Speaker Hastert's allegation, that, in some way, Democratic operatives and ABC News are behind the dumping of the documents, even going so far to say that Bill Clinton had something to do with this. Is there any proof of that?

BASH: No, there isn't any proof of that.

And the -- the speaker's office is saying that they -- they haven't been able to back that up. He also went after George Soros as well. George Soros, in the last campaign, did a lot of funding for Democratic causes and campaigns.

Essentially, what he is trying to do, and what he did today, Paula, as you mentioned, is take it to a whole 'nother level, is throw red meat to the Republican base. He even said today, point blank, that, when the base finds out who's feeding this monster, they're not going to be happy.

So, he's trying to -- to -- to say: Look, don't be mad at me. You know, it -- it's not necessarily us. It's the -- the Democrats who are trying to raise this at this time, in order to -- to hurt us in the election.

Having said that, I talked to several Republicans today, who said that might be a good argument, but it shouldn't be coming from the speaker himself. That really is not necessarily going to play well, especially with some conservatives, who say: Look, the bottom line is, you didn't do enough to -- to protect young boys, essentially, on Capitol Hill.

ZAHN: Sure.

BASH: And that's what matters here.

Hastert is not the only congressional Republican or political ally to speculate about a Democratic conspiracy, but given his role in the scandal as the head of the House GOP caucus and that his leadership position is in very real and potentially irreversible political danger, he and his staff should think of words and actions that can contain or minimize the effects of the scandal on his party, not give ammunition to the late night comedians.

In the end, Hastert's conspiracy theory talk is unwittingly reinforcing what Democrats have been arguing for years about Republican-controlled Washington: that people refuse to admit error or accept responsibility for their mistakes. It is this aspect of his handling of the Foley scandal, along with the scandal itself and the perception of a cover-up by the House GOP leadership, which will be the 10-ton anvil hanging from the neck of every congressional Republican candidate on Election Day.

Update: Glenn Greenwald cites comments by Billmon, which I think effectively summarizes in one sentence why this whole scandal couldn't possibly be a Democratic operation.

If the wing nuts are right for a change and this really was a Democratic covert operation (it would be churlish to call it a dirty tricks operation, since it's all true) it's the best one I've ever seen. Which, knowing the Democrats, is a pretty good reason for believing it's NOT their doing.

Greenwald also cites comments by John Podhoretz, whose entire column is worth taking the time to read as well.

THIS column is directed entirely to the sleazy, skuzzy, unprincipled and entirely Machiavellian Democratic political operative who helped design the careful plan resulting in the fingerprint-free leak of Mark Foley e-mails:

Bravo!

This whole Foley business is one of the most dazzling political plays in my or any other lifetime - like watching an unassisted triple play or a running back tossing a 90-yard touchdown pass on a double-reverse.

Aftermath

The National Journal has a story on the political and social dilemma of gay Republicans in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal, which is well worth taking the time to read.

Update: Andrew Sullivan has this post, which begins with Pelosi's role in the Foley scandal, but goes on a tangent about politically active gays from both sides of the spectrum in DC. Also worth reading.

Drip, Drip, Drip...

Lots of activity today...

Yesterday, I said that I didn't think Dennis Hastert's leadership position was in any immediate jeopardy until prominent congressional Republicans began calling for him to go, particularly 2008 hopefuls.

I am now reassessing that comment, following a report by Fox News today on an internal GOP poll which does not bode well for them.

WASHINGTON — 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."

My guess for Fox's source is a member of Congress or an associate who has been critical of the leadership and wants to clean house before a tough election (i.e. Chris Shays) or someone with possible leadership ambitions who sees an opening. Either way, both of them would have the means and the motive to subtly nudge Hastert out the door by leaking word about this poll in hopes he gets the hint and doesn't take the rest of the party down with him.

ABC News continues to own the story. Two days ago they revealed this shocker:

Former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) interrupted a vote on the floor of the House in 2003 to engage in Internet sex with a high school student who had served as a congressional page, according to new Internet instant messages provided to ABC News by former pages.

Today, they found more skeletons in Foley's closet:

Three more former congressional pages have come forward to reveal what they call "sexual approaches" over the Internet from former Congressman Mark Foley.

The pages served in the classes of 1998, 2000 and 2002. They independently approached ABC News after the Foley resignation through the Brian Ross & the Investigative Team's tip line on ABCNews.com. None wanted their names used because of the sensitive nature of the communications.

It all goes downhill from there - more raunchy comments and e-mails from Foley.

The House Ethics Committee voted unanimously to open an investigation into how lawmakers and congressional staffers handled the Foley allegations, creating a new subcommittee and issuing over four dozen subpoenas for testimony and documents. Committee chairman Doc Hastings declined to name names but I think it would be fair to assume that Dennis Hastert is one of them.

Separately, former Foley/Reynolds aide Kirk Fordham was interviewed today by the FBI as part of its investigation.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi deep-sixed a proposal by Hastert to have ex-FBI director Louis Freeh look into the page program:

Hastert had hoped to announce the bipartisan appointment of former FBI director Louis J. Freeh to look into ways to improve the page program, in which teenagers live in a Capitol Hill dorm and attend a special school. But when he called Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) early in the afternoon, she declined to go along with the plan.

Pelosi saw the Freeh proposal as a ploy to burnish the GOP's image, aides said. She told the speaker that investigators should examine whether existing rules and procedures were followed before the House considers new rules, the aides said.

Finally, an interesting note: ABC News broke the first story about the Foley e-mail one week ago today. Who would have guessed what a firestorm that story would unleash within a week? This story has become Watergate in a microwave.

Blaming the Booze

Slate has this interesting story on how three high-profile public figures caught up in scandal can or have used alcoholism as an excuse to try to generate sympathy and possibly [at least in Mel Gibson's case] a career comeback. Check it out.

Throw Denny from the Train

Before we get to today's developments, I'm going to quote this little nugget I wrote, from the Department of Hate to Say I Told You So:

At a minimum, I expect that aide to be out of a job before Election Day, because he just brought the whiff of scandal onto his boss, who is in the middle of a tough re-election campaign which will now draw the attention of the national political press corps.

Well it happened - Kirk Fordham quit his job as chief of staff to the now-embattled Congressman Tom Reynolds, and admitted he was resigning essentially for the reasons I wrote yesterday.

Like so many, I feel betrayed by Mark Foley's indefensible behavior. Again, I will not allow the Democrats to make me a political issue in my boss's race, and I will fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation."

That might have been the end of it, if House Republicans hadn't decided to make him their fall guy:

Those sources said Fordham, a former chief of staff for Congressman Mark Foley, had urged Republican leaders last spring not to raise questionable Foley e-mails with the full Congressional Page Board, made up of two Republicans and a Democrat.

"He begged them not to tell the page board," said one of the Republican sources.

As I wrote previously, no one wants to be pegged as helping to cover up for an Internet sex predator and be the one holding the Foley hot potato when it's all over, and sensing he was being made a scapegoat, Fordham decided to drop a massive bombshell on Dennis Hastert:

A senior congressional aide said Wednesday that he alerted House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office two years ago about worrisome conduct by former Rep. Mark Foley with teenage pages.

Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that when he was told about Foley's inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene."

The conversations took place long before the e-mail scandal broke, Fordham said, and at least a year earlier than members of the House GOP leadership have acknowledged.

Not surprisingly, this has turned into an all-out feud between Fordham and Hastert's office, each accusing the other of lying. CNN has a good recap of the back and forth accusations flying around here. I hope they all get their stories straight before the federal investigators start knocking on doors and asking for statements.

This scandal is radioactive to anyone it touches. My guess is that if anyone else is going to get tossed over the side in the days and weeks ahead, it will be the current and former Hastert aides who were warned by Fordham in 2004, assuming that Fordham's story checks out.

Although more people have called for Hastert to resign, I'm not sure he's going to since the scandal as it relates to his own leadership position has not reached a critical mass within his own caucus yet. When big name House and Senate Republicans, particularly any with presidential ambitions for 2008, start calling for Hastert to go, that's when I'll say stick a fork in him.

If Hastert decides to buckle down and wait it out, which by all indications appears to be his chosen course of action for the moment, and more revelations trickle out to the media about who knew and what they did about it, Hastert will arguably become the Democrats' biggest political piñata for the next four weeks. You can already see this strategy in action in this entry at Daily Kos, which tracks how several Democratic congressional candidates have already incorporated the Foley scandal into their campaign attacks.

Stay tuned, this one is not over by a long shot.

Update: Reuters has a story on this:

A senior party aide said House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who oversees the congressional intern program at the center of the scandal, could be forced out after the November 7 elections, instead of immediately, as has been urged by some critics. Hastert has said he intends to stay on the job.

"Looks like right now he will keep his job for a maximum of one and one-half months," said a top party aide, adding that in the meantime Hastert may fire some staffers. Other aides said it remained unclear how long he would stay.

ABC News did three stories on Foley-gate tonight, all worth checking out.

Mr. Self-Destruct

This is my fourth attempt at writing this entry.

The subject was going to be the politician who most jeopardized or ended his or her political career during this election cycle through self-inflicted injuries, careless mistakes, or straight up incompetence.

My original post was going to be about Joe Lieberman.
Then it was Katherine Harris.
Then it was George Allen, and I had gotten pretty far along in writing it when recent events overtook it.
Today we have a winner: NRCC chairman Tom Reynolds.

He gets word of the original email, passes it on to Dennis Hastert, and does nothing.
Then his current chief of staff goes off the reservation to do freelance damage control for Foley and tries to get ABC to spike its report of the smoking gun IM chat transcripts.
Then, he holds a press conference about the Foley scandal at a day care center surrounded by children. A reporter even asks Reynolds if the children can leave the room so they can discuss the Foley scandal. See the video on You Tube:



He was already in a difficult re-election battle amid a hostile national mood towards Congress, but in the course of the week he just made his own re-election campaign much more difficult and the subsequent scandal will attract the scrutiny of the national political press. Regardless of what happens to him on Election Day, this man will not be running the NRCC in 2008.

FYI, the title was taken from a Nine Inch Nails song.

Holy Crap

LA Times: Foley Saga No Shock to Some

WASHINGTON — Years before sexually explicit electronic messages sent by Rep. Mark Foley to teenage House pages became public last week, some on Capitol Hill say, the Florida Republican was known to have a special interest in younger men.

In interviews with the Los Angeles Times, several current and former congressional employees and others said they recalled Foley approaching young male pages, aides and interns at parties and other venues.

"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.

Another former congressional staff member said he too had been the object of Foley's advances. "It was so well known around the House. Pages passed it along from class to class," said the former aide, adding that when he was 18 a few years ago and working as an intern, Foley approached him at a bar near the Capitol and asked for his e-mail address.

There were rumors about Foley going back to the House page class of 1995. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's absolutely mind-boggling that no-one else in the House of Represenatatives heard about any of this, aside from the gay rumors that had been whispered about Foley for years.

Update: I failed to note some more important context and significance to Beck-Heyman's claims. Foley was elected to Congress as part of the Gingrich Revolution of 1994. He was sworn into office in January of 1995. If Beck-Heyman's account is correct, that would mean that Foley already had a reputation for hitting on pages and interns within six months of being in Congress.

Spin and Damage Control

The Hotline has two separate posts with excellent analysis of how Republicans and Democrats are going to handle their political strategy and message surrounding the Foley scandal. They make extremely accurate points on both sides and I think they're right on.

I would add that on the Republican side (and the Democrats IF any Democratic members of Congress or aides are implicated in subsequent investigations of the House page program) they need to take some lessons of the past into account.

Look at how past political scandals (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, Whitewater, House banking, etc.) were handled or mishandled by elected officials and their staffs and political allies. Political and PR consultants will tell you that in any scandal, the best way to defuse it is to get ahead of the story and disclose everything immediately. This gets all the information out at once and would ideally avoid any subsequent revelations or leaks which would give the public and political impression of a cover-up.

As far as accountability goes, the two people I see that are in real political danger over this are Dennis Hastert and Tom Reynolds. Reynolds moves up the food chain in this because Howard Kurtz revealed today that his current chief of staff [who was aware of the original email to the page and was former chief of staff to Mark Foley] tried to talk ABC News out of revealing the damning AOL IM chat transcripts by offering an exclusive interview with Foley. Brian Ross, to his credit, refused to take the deal.

At a minimum, I expect that aide to be out of a job before Election Day, because he just brought the whiff of scandal onto his boss, who is in the middle of a tough re-election campaign which will now draw the attention of the national political press corps. No amount of loyalty or concern for a former boss, mentor, or friend should override political concerns or appearances for your current boss, especially if he's the House Republican most directly responsible for trying to maintain a GOP majority this fall.

Hastert, as the Speaker of the House and the third-highest ranking politician in the country, is ultimately responsible for anything that goes on in his chamber of Congress. I don't know about his chances for re-election, but I would say his leadership position in the caucus is in serious jeopardy. A Washington Times editorial called for him to step down as speaker.

Unlike the other major political scandals of the past few years (Abramoff, Cunningham, DeLay, Jefferson, Oil for Food, Enron, the CIA leak, NSA warrantless wiretapping, etc.) this is a clear cut issue that ordinary Americans, especially parents, will have no trouble understanding or following. The only thing I might even be able to compare it to is the sex abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church a couple of years ago, although there is no evidence yet to suggest Foley's behavior was a symptom of a much larger institutional problem within the page program and the House of Representatives. The timing of the story could not have been worse for the GOP. It's a month away from Election Day, which gives plenty of time for the story to grow legs and any other skeletons in the closet to be discovered by the media.

Looking ahead, regardless of who wins on Election Day, expect a more extensive in-depth investigation of the House page program. I don't know when the House Ethics Committee will have their investigation or preliminary findings done, but I would expect a more aggressive committee like Government Reform to look into it. Given Henry Waxman and Tom Davis' track record of cooperation and willingness to take up issues in their committee, this would seem to be fodder for them, regardless of which of the two is chairman in January.

Off With Their Heads!

Wow.

This just in from Drudge:

WASHINGTON TIMES ON TUESDAY WILL CALL FOR SPEAKER HASTERT'S RESIGNATION, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE... DEVELOPING... Editorial titled: 'Resign, Mr. Speaker': 'House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once... Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance'... -- Washington Times, October 3, 2006...

When the Washington Times is calling for Hastert's head, the House GOP has a serious problem.

Abramoff and Iraq

Amid all the Foley and Woodward madness from the past few days, I forgot to look into the Jack Abramoff report and document dump from the House Government Reform Committee that was released last week. While Foley is (rightfully) dominating the headlines right now and could be the most immediate catalyst for a major political scandal to shake up the House leadership, voters and the media should keep their eyes on the other two big scandals on Capitol Hill: Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham.

A Daily Kos diarist unearthed this little gem [according to the Committee website, the email files are down but will be posted again soon]

The following is available in doc dump two, page 26:

From: Jack Abramoff
To: 'octagon1'
Monday, March 18, 2002 8:31 AM
Subject: RE: Sunday

I was sitting yesterday with Karl Rove, Bush's top advisor, at the NCAA basketball game, discussing Israel when this email came in. I showed it to him. It seems that the President was very sad to have to come out negatively regarding Israel, but that they needed to mollify the Arabs for the upcoming war on Iraq. That did not seem to work anyway. Bush seems to love Sharon and Israel, and thinks Arabfat [sic], is nothing but a liar. I thought I'd pass that on.

Look at the date: March 2002. The significance is astonishing - Jack Abramoff,a private lobbyist with no government security clearances that I know of, knew the United States was going to invade Iraq a full year before the actual invasion itself.

Radioactive

I was working on a long story on the political fallout of the Foley scandal, and it turns out the Washington Post beat me to it in a front page Sunday story written better than anything I had, so I'll link to their story here.

In less than 24 hours, the Foley resignation has become a full-fledged political scandal on Capitol Hill.

The extent of the problem was first reported by ABC News:

One former page tells ABC News that his class was warned about Foley by people involved in the program.

Other pages told ABC News they were hesitant to report Foley because of his power in Congress.

In essence, the problem was so blatant that pages were being warned about Foley by "people involved in the program." This means that within the program, it was an unspoken but open secret by people who were in the position to know.

With Foley now out of the picture, news organizations are trying to figure out how long his behavior went on, who it involved, and most significantly, which of his House Republican colleagues knew, or should have known or investigated, the allegations of impropriety.

It is in the last of those three issues where heads much bigger than Foley's could roll as a result of this scandal.

Because of their knowledge at different points of the allegations against Foley, the big targets of scrutiny in all of this will be:
1) Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
2) Rep. John Shimkus, chairman of the House Page Board
3) Rep. Tom Reynolds, head of the National Republican Congressional Committee
4) Rep. Rodney Alexander, the congressman who hired the boy that Foley was communicating with.

The question has now extended beyond Foley's actions, and can be summed up with a paraphrase of Senator Howard Baker's famous question during the Senate Watergate hearings: What did the House GOP leadership know and when did they know it?

It is very rare to see any Republican violate Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment, but in this case nobody could blame them because no one wants to get pegged as covering up for an Internet sex predator. In the end, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was left holding the Foley hot potato by members of his own caucus.

While Majority Leader John Boehner introduced a resolution to have the House Ethics Committee investigate the Foley matter, and it passed unanimously, other Republicans are being more aggressive.

According to an article in today's New York Times, Rep. Peter King (R-New York) called for a "full investigation." Rep. Chris Shays (R-Connecticut) raised the rhetoric, telling the Times, "If they (members of the House GOP leadership) knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership." Shays, in the middle of a tough re-election race in his home district, given the facts we know now is implicitly calling for Hastert to go.

Looking at Hastert's situation, I'd say it's unclear how this will affect his re-election prospects. I've been unable to find any polls for Hastert's re-election bid this year, as well as the exit poll results from 2004. I think that his leadership position in the House GOP caucus might be in jeopardy, especially if the GOP loses the majority in the House of Representatives and his handling of the Foley issue winds up being a factor in any GOP losses.

Beyond Hastert, I'd say the other member of Congress who might be in trouble for this is Rep. John Shimkus (R-Illinois), who was filled in on the allegations but did not notify Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Michigan), the only Democrat on the House page board. Given the way it was handled, exclusively within the House GOP caucus with no action taken against Foley, it gives the public and political perception (whether genuine or not) that House Republicans were covering up for Foley for political reasons even though they knew about the allegations for almost a year.

The story could not have come at a worst time for House Republicans - it absolutely dominated the headlines on the last day that Congress was in session, and there is almost a full 5 weeks for any possible scandal to grow legs and bring other people down before Election Day.