Yip Yap Times

Mark Foley Fiasco

DID DEMOCRATS PAGE MARK FOLEY?
Scandal: Right after Mark Foley was revealed to have had inappropriate e-mail conversations with a 16-year-old page, he resigned and checked into rehab. Now, what did Democrats know, and when did they know it? read
________________________________________

The Democrats finally met a sex scandal they didn’t like, and at a fortuitous time too. With the President’s approval ratings on the rise, a strong economy, strong national security, gas prices dropping, a booming stock market and less than five weeks until mid-term elections, a good scandal is just the shot in the arm the Democratic Party needs. So, it’s not surprising that House Minority Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has issued a loud summons for a full investigation of Republican leadership by the Ethics Committee and demanded House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s resignation: “Republican Leaders admitted to knowing about Mr. Foley’s abhorrent behavior for six months to a year and failed to protect the children in their trust. Republican Leaders must be investigated by the Ethics Committee and immediately questioned under oath.”

Could Minority Speaker Pelosi right? Even The Washington Times’ and some conservative groups have called for Dennis Hastert’s resignation. The conservative Times is generally fair-minded in due process but the October 3rd editorial was quick to denounce Hastert as either “grossly negligent” or that “he deliberately looked the other way.” Neither assessment is fair. The Republican leaders have said they knew a year ago about the so-called “overly friendly” instant messages where the erstwhile congressman asked the former page for a picture of himself. At that time, Speaker Hastert, Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) and other members of the Congressional Page Program cornered Foley about the iffy messages and told him to stop all contact with the former page and to watch his conduct around the current pages, according to CNN . Foley agreed and I believe that Hastert et al thought the problem was solved. These emails, though questionable, are not illegal because they did not solicite sex. Hastert said he knew nothing about the sexually explicit and disgusting emails—which do amount to the solicitation of a minor—of 2003 prior to ABC News’ release of the emails last week. There is no reason at this time to doubt his word.

On the flip side, I can understand why the Times has been so quick to condemn the chain of command for one man's error. War is hell and given the stakes of this year’s elections—15 house seats and 6 senate seats up for grabs—we shouldn't be surprised that the Democrats would take advantage of the opportunity to exploit this scandal. So, according to some Democratic strategists, Mr. Foley’s indiscretions are representative of the immoral slurry of the entire Republican Party; never mind that perverts come in all shapes, sizes and political affiliations.

While the Democratic Party tends to promote what the majority of people see as immoral behavior in the name of constitutional freedom and sloth and underclass in the name of compassion, the Republican Party is perceived as taking a stand for foundational and social values. The Washington Times then is understandably concerned with the reputation of the Party and believes it necessary to remove everyone who has been tainted by Foley's actions, whether or not it's fair. As the Times puts it: “…are we at The Times right to ask that the Republican Party hold itself to a higher standard of morality and leadership?” Mr. Foley’s highly suspect communications with underage boys, especially while being a co-chair of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, has seriously embarrassed the Republican Party. Mr. Foley’s actions may even tip the balance in favor of the Democrats.

Despite the shrill cries of “cover-up,” Mr. Foley immediately resigned upon disclosure, checked into rehab and good riddance. The Republican leadership was quick to condemn Mr. Foley and to start investigations on the violations of any sexual predator laws, both federal and state. But Ms. Pelosi et al shriek that not enough is being done. This is hypocrisy at its finest, maybe overshadowing Mr. Foley’s hypocrisy. Let's examine some history. What did the Democratic Party controlled Congress of 1983 do when it had to deal with its own Congressional page sexual scandal? That’s right, nothing new about congressional interest in pages. The House Ethics Committee had concluded that two members, Daniel Crane (R-IL) and Gerry Studds (D-Mass), had sex (they didn't just write notes) with 17 year old congressional pages. In Crane's case, it was a 1980 relationship with a female page and in Studds' case, it was a 1973 relationship with male page. Both representatives plead guilty to the charges but Congress only censured them. Censure requires the guilty party to stand in the well of the House and be publicly reprimanded. However, the then Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-GA) said not enough had been done and recommended expulsion, but his recommendation was ignored. Crane, who subsequently apologized for his transgression, lost his bid for reelection in 1984. Studds on the other hand, insisted that his relationship with the page was legal and private and refused to apologize for his behavior. He even turned his back and ignored the censure being read to him. He continued to be reelected until his retirement in 1996, according to ABC News.

How about Barney Frank (D-Mass)? Back in the mid 1980s, the openly gay congressman paid Stephen Gobie for sex and Gobie ran a prostitution ring out of Rep. Frank’s Georgetown apartment. Frank did not resign his position; he was not even censured by Congress. In fact, Mr. Frank is still working as the Democratic representative from Massachusetts.

Or how about that Bill Clinton? True, he and Ms. Lewinski were both consenting adults, but he took advantage of his power position and then lied about it under oath.

I don’t think the Washington Times needs to worry if the Republicans can hold on to their reputation for higher standards of morality and integrity.

Notwithstanding all of the above, what is surreal to me about the whole Foley fiasco is the timing of these sordid revelations. That Mr. Foley’s questionable behavior toward minors came to light and been swiftly dealt with was necessary regardless of the timing, but I can’t help asking who had this information and when did they have it. Did someone choose to save this information for disclosure to ABC News at a critical election time rather than report it to the proper authorities? Could someone at ABC News have held it for similar reasons instead of giving it to the House Ethics Committee? If either case is true, it sounds like obstruction of justice to me.

A few days ago a Fox News anchor suggested that Congress has become “more moral” over the decades, opposite to where society is going. I don’t think so. If Foley had been a Democrat, I doubt he would have had to resign. Nothing has changed in Congress. Partisanship is still every bit as opportunistic as it has always been.

posted by Lisa @ 4:01 AM