Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
About Chris Cillizza  |  On Twitter: The Fix and The Hyper Fix  |  On Facebook  |  On YouTube  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed

Imperiled Congressional Leaders: Lott vs. Hastert

House Speaker Dennis Hastert's just-concluded news conference on the Mark Foley scandal is sure to stoke more "will he or won't he" speculation about the Illinois Congressman's future -- a question that has dominated the chattering class for the past few days.

Dennis Hastert
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. (REUTERS Photo)

"I'm deeply sorry this has happened and the bottom line is we're taking responsibility," Hastert said from his district office in Illinois. "Ultimately, the buck stops here."

Hastert added that he has no plans to resign over the Foley scandal. "I'm going to run, and presumably win, in this election," Hastert said. "And when we do, I expect to run for leader -- for speaker."

Hastert added that he will fully cooperate with any investigation and that he wants to appoint an independent person from outside Congress to make recommendations for reforming the page program.

It remains unclear whether the speaker will ultimately survive the scandal.

The last time official Washington was so captivated by the political peril of a Congressional leader was back in late 2002 when then Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) found himself at the center of a maelstrom created by comments he made at a 100th birthday party for Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.). Lott eventually resigned his leadership post.

Trent Lott
U.S. Senator Trent Lott, R-Miss. (REUTERS Photo)

A study of how the Lott matter played out is instructive in understanding the current situation Hastert faces. While there are a number of similarities between the two matters, there are also a handful of crucial differences that could keep Hastert from following in Lott's ignominious shadow.

Let's take a look at the similarities first.

Both stories started small. Lott's comments -- made on Dec. 5, 2002 -- were largely ignored by the mainstream news media. Foley's resignation amid a sex scandal seemed at first an isolated incident.

In the immediate wake of both events, Republican leaders sought to downplay the hubbub. Lott dismissed his remarks as "not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago but of a man and his life." Republican leaders quickly moved to make clear that while they were aware of some overly friendly email contact between Foley and a former House page, they knew nothing of the far more lewd instant messages exchanged between the two.

As the stories progressed, conservatives began to splinter off the party line -- the first sign of major problems for the two leaders. In Lott's case people like Family Research Council president Ken Conner and Free Congress Foundation head Paul Weyrich revolted, insisting that if the Mississippi Senator stayed on it would jeopardize the party's agenda. For Hastert, the calls to step aside came from the reliably conservative Washington Times editorial page as well as longtime conservatives like David Bossie and Richard Viguerie.

Both Lott and Hastert sought out conservative talk radio to regain their footing. Lott went on Sean Hannity's show to apologize for his remarks, categorizing them as a "mistake of the head, not the heart." Hastert -- on both Hannity and Rush Limbaugh's show -- was more combative, insisting he would not resign his office. He also sought to put the blame on Democrats for seeking to spread the story. "They're trying to put us on defense," Hastert said.

The biggest difference between the two situations is the attitude of the White House toward the two men.

Lott was never a favorite of the Bush Administration and it showed in the public statements made by White House officials. One week after Lott's comments, President Bush said that "recent comments by Senator Lott do not reflect the spirit of this country. He has apologized and rightly so." That lukewarm statement was not enough to turn Lott's fate around and days later it became apparent that the White House would not oppose an effort to oust Lott.

Hastert, on the other hand, enjoys warm relations with the White House. Following a tour of an elementary school in California on Tuesday, Bush called Hastert "a father, teacher, coach who cares about the children of this country." He added: "I know that he wants all the facts to come out, and he wants to ensure that these children up there on Capitol Hill are protected."

Earlier today Vice President Dick Cheney echoed Bush's comments. "I'm a huge Denny Hastert fan -- I think he's a great speaker," Cheney said. "And it makes no sense at all for him to think about stepping down."

Another major difference between the Lott and Hastert situations is timing. Lott's remarks came in early December -- a very quiet time typically for the political press corps. Without any other political stories to focus on, the media brought their full resources to bear on the story -- ensuring wall-to-wall coverage.

The Foley scandal, on the other hand, has hit Washington just five weeks before a midterm election where both sides acknowledge control of the House and Senate are up for grabs. It's unclear whether the rapidly approaching election helps or hurts Hastert's chances. On the one hand, people are paying more attention to elections at the moment and so might be more likely to hear about the machinations surrounding the Republican leadership and Foley. On the other, there are thousands of potential political storylines circulating in the country and at some point reporters and their editors will feel compelled to cover them.

We wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether Hastert can hold on or not. But, remember that it was 15 days from Lott's comments to his resignation. If you take Foley's resignation as the start of Hastert's clock, he is now in day 7 of the spin cycle. The next eight days will be extremely telling.

By Chris Cillizza  |  October 5, 2006; 3:14 PM ET
Categories:  House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Romney Spends Freely, With an Eye on 2008
Next: The Line: Senate Landscape Shifts Toward Democrats

Comments

Just a P.S. Don't forget that most of the news media and all of the voting machines are in the camp of the incumbents!

Posted by: jim | October 26, 2006 1:17 AM | Report abuse

Just a P.S. Don't forget that most of the news media and all of the voting machines are in the camp of the incumbents!

Posted by: jim | October 26, 2006 1:15 AM | Report abuse

History will show the Foley scandal as one of the greatest partisan coverups in the history of this nation!

Posted by: jim | October 26, 2006 12:39 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I would encourage you to put the latest poll numbers in your story. I can get those from sites such as MyDD. Once you give your readers the numbers, imo, your fine analysis has some context.

Posted by: John Casper | October 13, 2006 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Take a look at Indiana's 3rd District...Rep Sauder (R) may go down. GOP just did some polling there, and are running scared.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061011/LOCAL19/610110539

Posted by: Anonymous | October 13, 2006 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Yes - I absolutely think that this will have a direct result on the election.

But to be VERY honest - I personally think Foley is being used to cover up the more significant Bill that the President is planning on signing.

One that is amazingly hidden and very quiet right now.

The Port Security Bill. FRIST tacked on the Online Gambling measures to it - and if you haven't read it - you actually need to sit down and read it. It makes gambling online a banking issue - and it allows the US Govt to invade privacy - by making your ISPs and banks report your actions - plus SO MUCH MORE! It invades every US Citizen's privacy!

If you're into Democracy and NOT a Dictatorship then take a moment and read this bill and pass the information around - regardless of your political or religious beliefs. Or whether you're into gambling or not.

Las Vegas, Reno, Atlantic City are alright - Tribal casinos are alright, bingo halls in churches - friendly poker games, state lotteries, Horse Races are all fine - but a person cannot choose to gamble in their own home - online - AND THE BANKS and ISPs are going to be MADE the WATCHDOGS... And remember that the AMERICAN PUBLIC is doing what they want - without hurting ANYONE ----- ON MONEY THAT THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN TAXED ON!!!

Please - help spread the word before October 13th and don't let the FOLEY issue hide the truth that the US is getting closer to a Dictatorship.

Thanks for your commentary on your blog - and for letting folks comment!

Wager Witch - http://wagerwitch.blogspot.com
Gambling free bonuses, Industry information, fun casino commentary and no deposit freebies! A visitor of other blogs and commenter on lots of cool people's sites!

Posted by: Wager Witch | October 7, 2006 8:56 AM | Report abuse

What buck stops where? What responsibility?

I thought taking responsibility was something you do, not something you say.

This reminds of Rumsfeld after Abu Ghraib, who also said "I take full responsibility" and then proceeded to do nothing, not resigning and not even apologizing.

Accountability has become just empty words. They say "I take responsibility" and do nothing and the base is told "Speaker Hastert has shown leadership and taken responsibility." No he hasn't.

But the worst thing about Hastert's phoney accountability moment was what he said after that, which was that "if anyone is found to have known about this and not acted on it, either in my staff or somebody else's, we will take the appropriate actions."

IE, like Abu Ghraib, we're just hunting around for somebody junior to throw overboard.

Posted by: AJK | October 6, 2006 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Foley has resigned and he's outta there, Hastert is running for re-election and will be re-elected handily in his district. I wonder how John Boehner feels about this, and whether he would challenge, or support a challenger to Hastert? As for the White House supporting Hastert. President Bush isn't the most popular person in the USA today, Republicans in Congress may be looking to distance themselves before the elections. If so, they may find a challenger to Hastert. Remember, we recently had a case where Roy Blunt was the "DeLay like" candidate which the White House supported but lost to John Boehner for the position of Majority Leader of the House. Anyone remember that election? Then after that victory for Boehner, the House sent the Senate/White House immigration bill up the creek for now. So, is it really helpful for Hastert to have the President's support? I don't know, just asking. However, Hastert will not resign and he will be re-elected to Congress. We will see if he keeps the Speaker's position or not.

Posted by: reason | October 6, 2006 3:11 PM | Report abuse

What does it mean "I take the responsibility." Ever since Ronald Reagan "took responsibility" for the Marine deaths in Lebanon, it seems to mean that no one has to pay any penalty for the mistakes or malfeasance they are "responsible" for.

Posted by: Anna | October 6, 2006 12:43 PM | Report abuse

What does it mean "I take the responsibility." Ever since Ronald Reagan "took responsibility" for the Marine deaths in Lebanon, it seems to mean that no one has to pay any penalty for the mistakes or malfeasance they are "responsible" for.

Posted by: Anna | October 6, 2006 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I was trying to make a list of all the "wonderful things" the Republicans have done since they have taken over control of the government, let's see Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Rice invaded another country attempting to link it to 9-11 and let Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora, while our troops are being shot and killed or maimed, can't use that! Let's see tax cuts, well I don't make more then 100,000. a year so that pretty much affects most folks I know, I know they uphold the law, oh well there was that thing about Bush and Cheney saying they think the Constitution is "just a piece of paper" and the torture thing, then of course the illegal wiretaps, how about that economy, uh no, how about Katrina, you know how concerned Bush is about the American public, couldn't you see that in his face as he flew over the area five days later looking down as though he were touring a foreign country, sorry can't use that, morality, um that might be a little tough given that they covered up for the pedophile , well then what about IRAQ, I mean it's going so well, not huh, Afghanistan, no, well our borders and ports are secure, oh yea that's not a priority, our health care system, no, our schools, well were getting close there must be something? I've got it they already put away that 20 million for the big celebration party for the Iraq and Afghanistan War that we won, at least their thinking ahead. So if you like all those things I've mentioned besides the corruption scandals you know Abramoff, Cunningham, Halliburton, Libby, then I really think you should just vote to keep the status quo, because we all want to tell our grandchildren about this great time period of our lives and Bush's legacy!
HAHAHAHAHAHAGrannysue

Posted by: Sue Filutze | October 6, 2006 12:35 PM | Report abuse

also answer why I kept getting an error message when obvoiusly my went through since it showe up three times

Posted by: Cynthia | October 6, 2006 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I've been wondering ever since the R's started screaming that the D's were behind the leak for political gain and knew about Foley all along....
Why would the D's wait until losing the 2002 and the 2004 elections to pull out this card?
Especially since any idiot could see that the party of moral high ground would crash and burn...

just wondering

Posted by: Cynthia | October 6, 2006 12:20 PM | Report abuse

I've been wondering ever since the R's started screaming that the D's were behind the leak for political gain and knew about Foley all along....
Why would the D's wait until losing the 2002 and the 2004 elections to pull out this card?
Especially since any idiot could see that the party of moral high ground would crash and burn...

just wondering

Posted by: Cynthia | October 6, 2006 12:17 PM | Report abuse

Can someone answer a question that has been troubling me since the R's started screaming that the D's leaked this for political gain and knew about it all along?

If the D's all knew, then why did they wait until after losing the 2002 elections and the 2004 elections to finally say something?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2006 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Can someone answer a questio that has been troubling me since the R's started screaming that the D's leaked this for political gain and knew about it all along?

If the D's all knew, then why did they wait until aftee losing the 2002 elections and the 2004 elections to finally say something?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 6, 2006 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Drindl: more like long-term intelligence loss. More and more polling data suggests that R's will vote for whomever has the 'R' next to their name regardless of what they've done. No THINKING R could examine the facts of Hastert's 'accomplishments' (and the two choices are either gross incompetence or outright lying) and show up at the polls to vote for him. Yet millions of Illinois residents will. That provides only one conclusion.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 6, 2006 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Yeah Judge, I've been noticing too. 'Investigations' go into the memory hole. How many have we seen 'started' that never go anywhere, or get resolved in any way. How about the'3 separate investigations' into Bill Frist's illegal stock dealings? It seems like the more investiagations there are, the faster they disappear.

As a culture, we seem to have a creeping case of short-term memory loss. Or maybe just ADD. We go from one Paris Hilton scandal to the next and forget what happened yesterday. It's realy weird and creepy.

Posted by: drindl | October 6, 2006 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Last comment, also from Ignatius' column:
"If they win the House of Representatives, will the Democrats embark on a two-year binge of investigations and score-settling? Or will they get serious about solving the country's problems?"

In other words, will they behave like Republicans? Or will they behave like Democrats? Will they get serious about solving the country's problems (suckers!) so that Bush can callously veto their efforts at every turn?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 6, 2006 9:11 AM | Report abuse

We can easily predict the Ethics Committee's future by examining its past:

"To see how far the Republicans have strayed from accountability, it's useful to recall their response to the DeLay scandal. At every opportunity, they tried to evade, obstruct and bully. When the House ethics committee admonished DeLay in late 2004 for ethics violations, the GOP leaders stonewalled. First they changed the Republican caucus rules so that DeLay could remain as leader even if he was later indicted. The leaders were forced to back down on that one, but they then fired the conscientious Rep. Joel Hefley as chairman of the ethics committee and purged two other Republican members and several staffers. The effect was to gut the committee, which didn't function at all during 2005."

Hoping they'll actually change anything? Sucker!

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 6, 2006 9:06 AM | Report abuse

In terms of what we should be worried about, sure Korea testing a weapon bad, lotta bad things out there--but right here at home, in our own neighborhoods, we have incresingly complex and dangerous chemical plants. Look:

'APEX, North Carolina (CNN) -- Half of the 32,000 residents of Apex, North Carolina, have been asked to evacuate Friday after explosions and fire at a hazardous waste plant released noxious gases and flames 150 feet high over the town.

People "are putting themselves in very grave danger by being near or around this smoke. If you see smoke, get away from it." said Bruce Radford, manager of the Raleigh suburban town.

"There are pesticides, oxides, chlorine gases, there are all grades of contaminated material in this fire and in this smoke," he said.'

Imagine all this hitting you at once. And why did it happen? A lax regulatory environment, which in a country as heavily industrialized as ours, is a constant and deadly source of danger.

'The Wayne, Michigan-based EQ Industrial Services processes hazardous and nonhazardous waste, according to its Web site. On March 31, the plant was fined for six safety violations, according to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources Web site.

It was required to pay a fine of $32,000 for failing to "minimize the possibility of a sudden or nonsudden release of hazardous waste constituents to air, soil or surface water which could threaten human health or the environment."

The company was also cited for storing a container of hazardous waste beside an incompatible one and for not clearly marking containers to identify their contents.

It was also cited for failing to immediately carry the procedures outlined in the contingency plan "whenever there is a release of hazardous waste or constituents which threatens or could threaten human health or the environment."

Just like the mining companies, they get a slap on the wrist and keep doing exactly what they were. Isn't the whole raison for government to protect us from danger? This disaster is a direct result of 'conservative' policies.

Have you had enuogh yet?

Posted by: drindl | October 6, 2006 9:05 AM | Report abuse

"The Ethics Committee had endured a partisan stalemate for 16 months that prevented its members from launching any new investigations. The committee broke the deadlock in May by announcing four separate investigations, including the first congressional probe of a lawmaker linked to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff"

May was at least 4 months ago or, in GOP-speak, 16 WEEKS. Anything to show for those four separate investigations?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 6, 2006 8:56 AM | Report abuse

OR: you got that right. And now Hastert et al are running around saying "hey, we cleaned our house, didn't we?" when in fact ABC News got Foley to quit. The GOP had nothing to do with it. Amazing that they can still blame the media (who deserves all the credit for protecting the pages) while taking full credit for Foley's resignation. We need a new word in the dictionary that means the same thing as "ultra-mega-hypocrite."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 6, 2006 8:53 AM | Report abuse

IF - just imagine - what if Hastert and the GOP leadership, instead of giving Foley a bye, had exposed, forcefully and very visibly kicked the perv out of their ranks?

WOW the conservative religious right would be marching in lock step, pulling every vote from under the rocks to assure their beloved GOP would increase their numbers in both houses of Congress and change the course of history!

But sadly, Hastert & Co. couldn't tear themselves away from one GOP seat and his $100000. Instead the GOP will spend many 10s of millions of $ (some of it mine) and get their teeth kicked in. gerrrrrrrrr

Posted by: ohiorepublican | October 6, 2006 8:40 AM | Report abuse

The issue is not what Foley did. If it was, the scandal would already be dying down. This issue is HYPOCRISY. Foley is the Congressman who based his acreer on writing ever tougher laws against people having sex with minors on the Internet, then gets caught like this. Hastert and the rest of the Republican leadership have been trumpting their 'moral values' (remember 'values week' where they voted against gay marriage and flag burning) and were willing to cover up Foley's actions.
What is even more important is that this has 'scratched the teflon.'
Which is why Foley's Follies is MORE important than Iraq, because now the teflon is scratched, people are finally able to be heard ABOUT Iraq, about Abramoff, about the parade of Republican horrors, about the 'signing statements' -- which was a buried story over the months and was at the top of the "Today" section of my browser yesterday.
For years, Democrats were talking, and Republicans were telling everybody 'don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain,' and it was working. There wasn't a Toto, but Foley's actions 'pulled the curtain down' and people see Republicans for what they are.

Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | October 6, 2006 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Libby, Rumsfeld, Frist (Dr. Diagnose from afar), Santorum, Ralph Reed (Christian Coalition leader turned Native American user with Abramoff money), Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom Delay, Conrad Burn, George Allen (Maccaca (a monkey) referring to the only non-white in the audience and also considering his a question about his Jewish heritage as "casting aspersions" when a simple "I'd prefer to keep religion and heritage out of today's discussion would do), Tom Foley (ick), Jack Abramoff$$$$ and "I didn't know, but I'm in the position that is supposed to know, investigate and protect our youth" Hastert...If this isn't a group that epitomizes the old saying "throw the bums out", then what magnitude of bums would it take?

Posted by: voteseverytime | October 6, 2006 7:38 AM | Report abuse

The truth of the situation is, that while this Administration has fouled up so much of this country, this issue might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The right wing conservatives have stood by Bush and turned a blind eye to everything he has done. The lies he's told the American people, the soldier's whose blood is on his hands, the continuous breaking of the law, etc. I could honestly go on and on but what's the use? We all know our country is in the sh*tter because of the republicans. Unfortunately, so many Americans are willing to beleive anything their precious Bush tells them that it's taken this kind of scandal to open their eyes. I do not think that Foley's actions are worse than what the Administration has done for years. I certainly think it was inappropriate and immoral to say the least. What I am saying is that this Administration has been raping the American citizens since 9/11 and if Foley is what will take the blinders off then so be it. I'm sick of the lies. I'm sick of the fear mongering. I'm sick of the worsening economy. But above all, I'm sick and tired of listening to Self-Righteous conservatives call Democrats immoral when they refuse to look at their own party.

Posted by: texas dem | October 6, 2006 1:14 AM | Report abuse

Yockel, you missed my point entirely. My beef is not that Rep. Studds faced no criminal prosecution, but he never paid a political price for his deviant behavior with a male House page of minor age, an action which in my mind narrowly trumps words typed on a computer screen by Rep. Foley. I'm sorry, but a censure of Mr. Studds and a loss of a Merchant Marines Subcommitte chairmanship was simply not enough. He should have faced immediate expulsion.

At least the people of IL-19 had the decency to say no thanks to Dan Crane at their earliest opportunity. The people of Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard showed their disapproval of Mr. Studds by giving him "only" 55% support in 1984, but much more in five subsequent elections.

If hypocrisy is indeed the capital offense that members of the thought police say it is, than those who allowed Mr. Studds to continue to serve in the House but who are now casting stones at the current House leadership should be sent to the proverbial gallows.

Posted by: KY-6 Guy | October 6, 2006 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Regardless of whether Hastert stays or not, the damage has already been done. Republicans have lost Foley's seat, and besides being used as a tactic in other districts, Rep Tom Reynolds is now on the verge of losing his seat. He's down by five 50-45 against his Democratic challenger Jack Davis in a new Survey USA poll. The damage has already been done.

Posted by: P Chase | October 6, 2006 12:30 AM | Report abuse

The biggest difference between Lott vs. Hastert: Lott was the head of an exclusive club; Hastert is 3rd in line to POTUS.

Other differences - Lott couldn't deny or defend his stupidity. Hastert is doing a damn fine job of denial and defending stupidity.

In the end - and hopefully there will be one soon - Hastert is either guilty of a premeditated immoral act (aiding and abetting pedophilic acts) or innocent but one of the most incompetent leaders the GOP has known. Either disqualifies him as 3rd in line to POTUS.

Posted by: ohiorepublican | October 5, 2006 11:38 PM | Report abuse

"WASHINGTON - House Speaker Dennis Hastert offered a public apology Thursday for his handling of a complaint about a congressman's suggestive electronic messages to an underage page as the House ethics committee opened an investigation into former Rep. Mark Foley's contacts with pages.

"I'm deeply sorry this has happened and the bottom line is we're taking responsibility," Hastert told a news conference outside his district office in Batavia, Ill. "The buck stops here." "

This will undoubtedly be the Bush version of "taking responsibility:" say you're sorry but actively resist ANY negative consequences for your incompetence. Admit no specific instances of guilt. The fleas have migrated from the dog residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue over to Congress.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 5, 2006 11:25 PM | Report abuse

"WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 -- Leaders of the House ethics committee on Thursday promised a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding former Representative Mark Foley's electronic messages to Congressional pages and approved nearly four dozen subpoenas for an inquiry they said would take "weeks, not months."

"The American people, and especially the parents of all current and former pages, are entitled to know how this situation was handled, and we are determined to answer their questions," said Representative Doc Hastings, Republican of Washington, who is chairman of the panel."

What they really mean: "....determined to answer their questions after November 7, that is. Exactly four WEEKS and two days away. Hey, anybody know how many WEEKS there are between now and November 2008?"

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 5, 2006 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Some: they'll probably start by not showing up at the polls on November 7. No witch hunt necessary. Just start over with candidates who sign onto a "no gays in my administration pledge." Not that that won't eventually make them guilty of hypocrisy. Maybe Dobson and company will come up with a particularly stupid test that they'll force the candidate and all his/her staffers to take. Make them burn a stack of Judy Garland albums and see if they cry.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 5, 2006 11:10 PM | Report abuse

will follow John Warner and change his mind about the Iraq war?

Posted by: Wonder if George Allen | October 5, 2006 10:52 PM | Report abuse

This is a bit off topic, but a telling insight to all the sideshows of this greek tragedy of a scandal, I wonder if anyone caught Paul Weyrych of the 'Free Congress Foundation' yesterday on NPR's All Things Considered, blaming this entire mess "on gay people who have sex on their minds all of the time". I'm not kidding about this. Even the host of the program, who said that she thought many people would take exception to that statement, was astounded. I think to say she was caught off guard by that comment is an understatement.

I was honestly appalled......and now watch out! This little tidbit gave me the inkling that the GOP and its social conservatives are now going to demand a serious house cleaning of the party of all its gay memebers. I have a good friend in CA who is member of the Log Cabin Republicans and we talked last night about all of this. He noted that among his members there is now a real genuine fear that the fundies are going to begin a witch hunt to accomplish this. I have no clue how they will do this, but I don't even like the thought of how it could play out.

Seems like Mc Carthy and the reds have come back from the dead, but in different garb.

Anyone want to corraborate or expand on this one?

Posted by: some of my best friends... | October 5, 2006 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Here we go. The FBI should NOT be in charge of this.

"Watchdog Group Disputes FBI's Claims on E-Mails
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 6, 2006; Page A04


The watchdog group that first provided the FBI with suspicious e-mails from then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said yesterday that FBI and Justice Department officials are attempting to cover up their inaction in the case by making false claims about the group."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 5, 2006 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Reference my 5:43pm Post. The Keith Olbermann show "Countdown" just completed is what I was refering to. If any of you can get this program it is the last 10 or 15 minutes of the hour program. Very well worth the time to watch it.

Posted by: lylepink | October 5, 2006 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Whatever way Denny "Blimp" Hastert goes down is fine with me although it is sad that with all the non-oversight congress has been doing the biggest news story is his covering up for a pervert stalking teenagers.
Somehow I think letting Bush and Cheney fly innocent men to Syria to get tortured would be a bigger scandal....or maybe that 8 billion dollars that went "missing" in Iraq or maybe Rove cutting deals with Abramoff to help preserve slave labor in Siapan. I could go on and on.

Posted by: maria | October 5, 2006 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Don't know how my comment snuck above yours, Nor'easter, but I'm still LOL'ing.

Posted by: coyote | October 5, 2006 7:24 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Zouk is saying that it will a 50 seat gain for the GOP.

Posted by: Nor'Eatsre | October 5, 2006 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Zouk !

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 5, 2006 7:19 PM | Report abuse

LOL! Well, someone with a 4-letter name, anyway. Both first and last.

Posted by: coyote | October 5, 2006 7:19 PM | Report abuse

lfrasher2005: Cheney's quote and the other WH support are the kiss-of-death for Hastert. That's the way Bush/Rove operates - public support, private knife in the back. Didja see the Fox News item from "a Republican source" about how Hastert is gonna lose the GOP 50 seats? Guess who that "Republican source" is.

Posted by: coyote | October 5, 2006 7:17 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes, I agree with you, North Korea is very dangerous, so is Iran,, but consider the mess this administration, NSA, the CIA and the morons in the Pentagon made of Iraq. I think it would be far more dangerous to permit these keystone cops to do *anything*. Even as a conservative you have to admit their complete and utter failure and their lack of understanding of their failure is incomprehensible...and very dangerous. There are some good and able conservatives who could lead us through this critical period without blowing up the world, Bush, Hastert, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and their associates are not amoung them. God help us if George Bush decides to switch his attention from Iraq to North Korea or Iran...or both at once.

Posted by: MikeB | October 5, 2006 7:13 PM | Report abuse

OutOfSync, Hastert's actions are even worse than Foley's. Foley was out of control. Clearly. And needed to be addressed. That Hastert did NOTHING for YEARS put many many YOUTHS in serious jeapardy.

Dennis Hastert's inactions put many many American youths at risk.

He is the Speaker of the House of Representatives. He is the one who needed to STOP Foley. He did not. He knew and he did nothing. Just like Condi Rice and 9/11.

You know this. Your and Hastert's ONLY defense is a political one. Not an ethical or moral defense. A political defense.

You are shameful for supporting a Leader of the House of Representatives who did nothing while a sexual predator in the Congress of the United States preyed on children.

Im glad to hear you are critical of President Bush. Im glad to hear that, and you seem like a moral guy, but you need to look at this incident through a moral lens and not a political one. If you did, you would see that Hastert must resign for allowing, enabling this monster.

Posted by: F&B | October 5, 2006 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Sync - You raised the sexual pecadillo aspect. For days most of us have been discussing this from the political and possible Aiding and Abetting and Obstruction of Justice criminal violation perspectives.

You took the thread in the other direction.

I think we all know where you stand; join in on what you see happening from this point on. The reasoned "I am a Republican" voices are good ones to have in the discussion. You provide good perspective.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 5, 2006 7:10 PM | Report abuse

"After Monicagate, in which Foleygate pales in comparison in terms of the total sound and fury, "

If only because Foley was a Republican and he has already resigned.

On the other hand, Clinton having sex with Monica was not a felony. Was Clinton chasing White House interns for the entire 8 years he was in office...with the knowledge and implied consent of most of the White House staff?

Was the White House a big "twister party" for him, like the Hill was for Foley, with armed guards required to keep him away from the interns, at night?

How many times did Foley shuttle between Tracks and P street with a page in the shotgun seat of his BMW, and perhaps, an extra in the back?

You're not sure, are you?

Well, you seemed to know so much a second ago. Now I think that you are a bit more quiet.

Personaly, I don't know, either. We'll have to wait to see what Jeff Guckert says.

Posted by: cc | October 5, 2006 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Quote: Earlier today Vice President Dick Cheney echoed Bush's comments. "I'm a huge Denny Hastert fan -- I think he's a great speaker," Cheney said. "And it makes no sense at all for him to think about stepping down."End Quote. Hasterts right hand man in Congress was Tom Delay and Hastert tried to coverup his actions. Now that Cheney is backing him up I think everybody understands why this guy needs to step down. He is obviously bad for the country because of the company he keeps.

Posted by: lfrasher2005 | October 5, 2006 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I'm not so sure that Hastert is the WH's fair-haired boy.... after all he presided over a House that blocked the Bush-backed amnesty legislation.... unless he and the WH were just playing Good Cop - Bad Cop.

Or, maybe the WH likes him but doesn't think he can deliver.

Some Repub is going to have to be the fall guy, that person will be the one Rove thinks can give the GOP the most "have taken decisive action" points in November.

So far, that seems like Hastert, unless he can get away with blaming his aides.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | October 5, 2006 7:06 PM | Report abuse

I am not defending Foley. I am refusing to preface my remarks by saying, "I was more disgusted than you were".

Posted by: OutOfSync | October 5, 2006 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Don't totally dismiss what bhoomes is saying.

The equation is: Crisis at the top of the United States Government (third in line for the Presidency) plus an illogical dictator about to test nuclear weapons (already testing delivery systems) = opportunity for bad things to happen.

It's not likely to amount to anything, but it had better be on the Administration's radar screen and in their short term strategic planning.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 5, 2006 6:57 PM | Report abuse

hey Out of Sync, you are aware that the pages that Foley contacted were not UNDER THE AGE OF 18. Foley was contacting minors, not 18 year olds. Whether or not someone of the age of 15-18 should or should not know better, the law states that the age of consent is 18.

I will agree with you that there are millions of kids from as young as 13 in some cases that are sleeping with other minors and even some adults. They know what they are doing, but that doesn't make it legal. Tha parents may have failed in many of these cases and your right there too, but that doesn't make it legal. Foley committed a CRIME, his actions were ILLEGAL and the fact that you are willing to ignore that fact should also be a crime.

Posted by: Rob Millette | October 5, 2006 6:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris said, "We wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether Hastert can hold on or not." Most everyone in Washington has this in the "when" column, not the "if" column.

Is there a person in the Republican Party, who can play the Barry Goldwater to Hastert's Richard Nixon?

George Herbert Walker Bush?

Bob Michel (Illinois native)?

Nominations, anybody?

Tommorrow's Friday Line: The Speaker resigns in:

10. today
9. tomorrow
8. three days
7. four days
6. five days
5. six days
4. seven days
3. eight days
2. nine days
1. ten days

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 5, 2006 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Judge, I'm happy to report that I am able to sustain a high level of dissonance. I voted for GWB vs Gore, and can admit it was a mistake. I have consistently held (including back in the day) that those who held Clinton's feet to the fire for a sexual pecadillo were doing no one any good.

Americans' prudery is regularly used to distract Americans from serious political arguement. Never was such argument more urgent than it is now.

Posted by: OutOfSync | October 5, 2006 6:43 PM | Report abuse

KY-6, as you can read in the Post the House leadership went after Studds. If Hastert had been as diligent as Tip O'Neil then he would not be in trouble.

O'Neil brought in his Republican counterpart Bob Michel and they launched a non-partisan investigation. The DoJ investigated the matter as well under the leadership of Rudi Giuliani. Unfortunately, Giuliani was unable to charge Studds.

Read all about it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301109.html

Bhoomes, you must be pretty desperate that you are resorting to name calling. My sympathies.

Posted by: Yockel | October 5, 2006 6:35 PM | Report abuse

There's another difference between Lott and Hastert. Lott was the Majority Leader for his party in the Senate. John Boehner is the Majority Leader in the House.

The Speaker is a position above both parties in the House. [The Senate does not have a true equivalent.] Which is why so many Speakers, while supporting their party, consider the "good of the institution" in all equations.

Which, when true, makes them difficult to depose. But, Speaker Hastert has acted more as Super Majority Leader than as Speaker. Lots of folks could be out to get him than we might even imagine.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 5, 2006 6:33 PM | Report abuse

"Those who use sexual pecadillos as their way of winning political arguments are the lowest of a species (politicians) which is pretty low to start with."

After Monicagate, in which Foleygate pales in comparison in terms of the total sound and fury, this would explain why you voted for Gore in 2000. Didn't you? Hmmmmm?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 5, 2006 6:31 PM | Report abuse

ok this is enough. There really is not much to this, and this guy has just about hit the nail on the head. Further analysis is mental masturbation at its worst.

"The thing that I believe will cause Hastert's downfall his obvious failure to comprehend why people are upset because the leadership of the party that prides itself on its moral values blithely enabled a creepy pedophile in order to hang on to power"

but he didn't do it *consciously*!!!

It was more out of naivete than anything else. Incompetence, perhaps. Oh but wait: Hastert used to be a teacher, and was trained to spot and deal with this sort of predatory behavior!

Oh, but wait! as far as we know, he was never actually shown the emails themselves, just told what they were about...and he passed the issue off to a big-buck Army Ranger, and certainly that had to put the kibosh to the whole issue. Because after all we know that sending a big strong Army guy to talk to a gay perv, is guaranteed to put that perv back in his panties. No way that he would ever try to hit on young boys again!

Hastert was either ignorant or incompetent or both. But that would speak to a lot of the actions of the Republican leadership woudn't it? Except...when it comes to getting reelected?

Has anyone actually examined how much the continued reelection of Republican party members condemns the American democratic system? Seems to be quite substantial, at least to me. Just take a look at how popular Saddam Hussein was in Iraq. And what it took to get him out of there. It took our President lying to the American people and pursuing an agenda against Iraq in spite of the recent attacks of bin Laden against the Cole, that left us wide open for 9/11. Even after being rejected by the UN, he still went ahead with the attack because he had exploited Colin Powells' soul for domestic support for an invasion.

And do you know that if he had actually done it in a competent way, if he had actually reassigned or even "reprioritized" Rumsfeld, way back right after the mission was "accomplished", people might be saying what a great idea it was, right now?

That is "ends justify the means" logic at its finest. And that is what this country has been suffering from, for the past 8 years. Ever since the Republicans took over the House...if not since Ronnie Ray-guns' election team took over the White House partially by negotiating with the Iranians to hold the US hostages until after the election. Whatever it takes to get in power and stay in power is a good thing.

How can you be surprised by any of this, now?

Haster will never quit. He'll have to be driven out of office by the barrel of a gun. And the same goes for his supporters. Until it becomes obvious that they can't get reelected with him as Speaker, they will stand by him. Swim, or sink, together. That is Republican loyalty at its finest. Whatever has to be done to win, do it, baby, because winning is all that matters.
The only ethics and morals that matter are those of the people in government. The rest of the people are irrelevant. As long as you can keep your post, you're good, baby.

Posted by: cc | October 5, 2006 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Those who use sexual pecadillos as their way of winning political arguments are the lowest of a species (politicians) which is pretty low to start with.

Why on earth should citizens of the USA be more concerned about what a 50 year old man told an 18 year old boy, than about how a president has trashed habeus corpus? I guess the trashing party has little respect for history.

Posted by: OutOfSync | October 5, 2006 6:27 PM | Report abuse

I have seen a lot of posts referring to former Congressman Garry Studds (D-Mass) who had sex with a male page who (I think but am not positive) was over the legal age of consent in the jurisdiction in which it happened. But I have not seen any references to former Congressman Crane (R-Ind) who had sex with a female page at the same time (also, I think over the age of consent). Both were censured by the House. I do not see how there is any substantive difference in the offenses, in fact, maybe Crane's was worse because it was also adultery. Now Crane was apologetic and Studds was defiant. Crane lost the next election and Studds was returned to Congress every time he ran until he retired around 10 years ago.

The key issue is that Congresspeople are in positions of enormous power vis-a-vis pages. Institutions from the military to colleges to businesses forbid sexual relations between seniors and juniors. Were Foley (or Studds or Crane) a military officer, he would have been court-martialed - even if he was hitting on women. As a parent, I categorically reject the notion that 15 to 17 year olds, away from home, serving in an institution as heirarchical as the House, are somehow on the same level as a Congressman when it comes to personal relationships. Foley used his influence to attempt to seduce under-age pages. It is reprehensible and it was reprhensible when Studds and Crane did it. Certainly House ethics rules strictly forbid such behavior with pages. The issue swirling around Hastert is did he behave as the Roman Catholic bishops did when abuse allegations against priests first surfaced. At least when allegations surfaced against Studds and Crane, the House ethics committee acted in a bi-partisan manner.

Posted by: JimD in FL | October 5, 2006 6:19 PM | Report abuse

I cannot believe we have story comparing the two events. While they both are items that put the Republican leader of a house in Congress on the defensive, these are so different that one cannot compare.
As was said before, Lott was no well liked. A man with concrete hair and a love for organizing his sock drawer is not one who inspires. That, along with the fact that the Republican Party was in the middle of trying to appear "diverse," Lott was jettisoned fo comments that should hav just had him slapped around.
Hastert, in the other hand is charge of a Republican Party backed into a corner. The war is going bad, the middle class feels the economy is bad, and scandal after scandal has been popping up more than Habitat for Humanity houses built by Jimmy Carter.
For Republicans, there is one thing they all believe - when you are down, when an election is closing in, you attack. Attack the Democrats, attack the media. in their mind, cutting Hastert would not show you can adapt to the challenge (despite all those wonderful bumper sticker slogans). Eventhough he has shown he is incompetent, even if he has been stained, you cannot show weakness when the voters are sharpening their penicls.
My guess, within the week of the Congress reorganizing, Haster will be handing his gavel and office to a Democrat, having lost control - the voters doing what the party wouldn't. If the Republicans somehow eek out a win, Hastert will either step aside, or be challenged by an evangelical within the caucus.

Posted by: David Timmerman | October 5, 2006 6:19 PM | Report abuse

How
How they got the N Koreans to play along on the election year October calendar scheduling is the real secret.
===========NH:
Kim Jong II has crossed my trail at least once [sound]
My guess is he wants Bush to keep pushing the US onward to self destruction, as does anyone who choreographs so tightly in the negative withour elections cycle. Notice the UN is preparing to elect a SOUTH korean president. Maybe some of the Yin Yang to keep the world in 'balance'?; xref: the day lasts for 48 hours on the surface of the earth; xref: news c ycle
=============NH//

Posted by: W. Hale | October 5, 2006 6:18 PM | Report abuse

OOO: people who ignore or, like Foley, belittle the law are the problem.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 5, 2006 6:15 PM | Report abuse

So ex-Congressman Foley is the gunsel, Speaker Hastert is the Fat Man, Brian Ross, the ABC reporter is Sam Spade. Who's Bridget O'Shaugnessy?

Posted by: Casting Call | October 5, 2006 6:15 PM | Report abuse

well, I got a third of the way through before I found an outright Republican idiot in this thread. Like roaches, they are so disgusting.

"Last time I checked, 18 year old males having (imaginary? mocking?) sex with older people is not a felony."

The pages aren't over the legal age of consent, and even congressional staffers over 18 are off limits to their supervisors and their bosses. In a corporation this sort of widespread "touchy feely" stuff by a senior manager would be grounds for a lawsuit.

Furthermore there are questions about whether Foley appeared at the page dorm one night in a drunken haze, and had to be turned away by security. And whether that was kept quiet. Until now.


"Nor was it any business of Ken Starr when President Clinton fiddled around with a 22 year old provocatress. "

It became his business when Clinton lied about it in the Paula Jones sexual-harassment trial, see above.

Posted by: cc | October 5, 2006 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Just in case anyone mistakes me, I am a registered republican who intends to vote a straight democratic ticket in order to present Bush with a divided government, because I believe he has failed miserably.

Posted by: OutOfSync | October 5, 2006 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Keep digging, OutOfSync. Just like Jabba the Hastert, you do your party no favor by defending felonious sexual predation of minors.

Posted by: coyote | October 5, 2006 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Judge C. Crater, it looks to me like you're part of the problem. Do you really think that all those sexual pecadillos are relevant, when what really matters is deficit, Korea, Iran, Iraq? I understand that you're a prude, but I want to attack this idea that prudes should rule.

Posted by: OutOfSync | October 5, 2006 6:03 PM | Report abuse

All of a sudden Hastert's seat is in play, too.

Those millions of $$$ in GOP campaign funds are getting spread thinner and thinner.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | October 5, 2006 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Rove didn't have to make it up, the tests are no doubt real, he only had to know they were being planned, and keep it quiet until October, expecting that NKorean nuclear threat would once again provide a mushroom-cloud image they could conjer up for the campaign trail.

It still works on us baby-boomers, we all went through those "duck and cover" drills.

It is a wonder to me that the NKoreans would make such a strategic blunder, either they are completely stupid or they are in cahoots with someone.

And if you suggest I'm a conspiracy theory nut, never forget, it only takes two ambitious and evil people to create one dangerous conspiracy.

Posted by: JEP | October 5, 2006 6:00 PM | Report abuse

>>

volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#131 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (01:54 PM)

The US Capitol Police took my information today after the office of
the President Pro-Temp of the US Senate [^] refered me to them.

Last year I reported to Spkr Foley's office that US Supreme Court
Police Sgt. Quigley may have been morally and legally violated based on
a video CD I hand delivered [sound]

"Who knows, Hale, one day we might test my DNA and find I am related
to President Bush," Sgt Quigley said to me while my camera was on.

Whether we have a whole sale nursery gate of "out of the office" abuse
of anonymous dna contributions that are resulting in more and more
federal police officers being related to one another is a question I've
been asking more than a few officers over the past few years. They
trust me. They agree with me that the department should take internal
dna prints of officers to prevent under the table nepotism, and for
their and our own protection so we can in-house verify who really is
whom in this day and age of identity theft, realistic masques, and
deceptions.

So, would you like to look into this further? I guess I can put the CD
on the internet now. I'll post the address to you as soon as I can

W. Hale
202-258-5978

Note: Nancy Pelosi might be our next president! Hillary could use a
GHWB strategy to get 16 years. Who might want Condi to beat her to it.
But time is so short. So be on heightened alert, right?


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#132 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (01:59 PM)

washingtonpost.com
>
News Home Page
Advertisement
Message sent

Your message was sent to ... Thank you for taking the time to contact
us.

Because of the high volume of correspondence, Washington Post staffers
are not always able to reply to every message.

* Recent stories by William Branigin

© 2006 The Washington Post Company


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#133 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:01 PM)

"I'm deeply sorry this has happened and the bottom line is we're
taking responsibility," Hastert said from his district office in
Illinois. "Ultimately, the buck stops here."

=========NH:
xref: NY Police offic[hnk]...
=============NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#134 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:02 PM)

Also, "Your ultimate principles and realities [voice]..."


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#135 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:03 PM)

Hastert added that he has no plans to resign over the Foley scandal.
"I'm going to run, and presumably win, in this election," Hastert said.
"And when we do, I expect to run for leader -- for speaker."

========NH:
xref: "Leader", Bod Dole's dog; therefore a call for
reinforcements?
=========[tap tap]NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#136 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:05 PM)

The last time official Washington was so captivated by the political
peril of a Congressional leader was back in late 2002 when then
Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) found himself at the center of a
maelstrom created by comments he made at a 100th birthday party for
Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.). Lott eventually resigned his leadership
post.

==========NH:
This was not long after I pointed out the huge liability the
Republican party faced if anything went wrong at Mradi Gras when they
were fighting fundamentalist muslims.
=======NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#137 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:09 PM)

Hastert, on the other hand, enjoys warm relations with the White
House. Following a tour of an elementary school in California on
Tuesday, Bush called Hastert "a father, teacher, coach who cares about
the children of this country." He added: "I know that he wants all the
facts to come out, and he wants to ensure that these children up there
on Capitol Hill are protected."

===========NH:
xref: SFSU; xref: coaching [hnk hn] here on Two thursdays ago, in
a spontaneous response to an ongoing practice. Sounds like GWB is
perhaps sending a subliminal message to his OWN offspring who[sound]...
==============NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#138 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:13 PM)

Earlier today Vice President Dick Cheney echoed Bush's comments. "I'm
a huge Denny Hastert fan -- I think he's a great speaker," Cheney said.
"And it makes no sense at all for him to think about stepping down."

==========NH:
xref: "the buck stops here," comment by the NYPD officer when
after quite a few questions, I gave him the receipt to my hotel, he
responded "the buch stops here," with the inflection that he was going
to bother me no further on behalf of who likely had called him and was
standing there listening to all my personal information being given to
the law officer.
He also showed he knew I was considering head mounting short
shuot gn professional audio mics which would have looked like antlers,
perhaps?
So, Denny may be considering HIS "Ultimate principles and
realities" [^]... While dick worries about loosing his key right,
pulling, guard.
===========NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#139 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:16 PM)

We wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether Hastert can hold on or not.
But, remember that it was 15 days from Lott's comments to his
resignation. If you take Foley's resignation as the start of Hastert's
clock, he is now in day 7 of the spin cycle. The next eight days will
be extremely telling.

======NH:
Wow, daly, er, Dali, lama's watch check sure is showing up.
=======NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#140 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:21 PM)

Is covering up attempted pedophilia a crime?

Hastert's office says he never knew - Kent Fordham (Foley's aid for
ten years) and three republican congressmen say they did warn Hastert's
top aid, and Hastert himself.

If Hastert is lying is he guilty of aiding or harboring a pedophile?

I'm asking - not saying...

Posted by: Long Beach, CA | October 5, 2006 03:37 PM


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#141 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:23 PM)

By Bev Conover

In what may seem a curious turn of events, Bob Woodward, who wrote two
suck-up books that fawned over the Bush administration, has now
turned, in his latest tome, State of Denial, on his Bush buddies.
Perhaps it's not so curious, after all.

We have long predicted that the powers behind the curtain may have had
it with George W. Bush & Co., and even the Torture Republicans who
control Congress. The scandals that are popping up like mushrooms just
ahead of the mid-term elections -- from the National Intelligence
Estimate, Musharraf's claim the US threatened to bomb Pakistan back to
the Stone Age if it didn't aid Bush's "war on terror," the revelations
about Mark Foley's sexual come-ons to teenage male House pages, to
Woodward's book -- may be signals of big changes ahead.


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#142 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:31 PM)

And the fact that he has, up until now, absolutely refused to accept
any responsibility for the situation, choosing instead to blame ABC,
George Soros, "operatives" from the other party, and Bill Clinton, is
not a good example for the party of I'm holier than thou. Soccer moms
are not appreciating that even a little bit.

His bumbling ineptness in handling this whole affair betrays his
unfitness to hold a leadership position. And who knows what other
revelations are coming.

Posted by: Helena Montana | October 5, 2006 05:09 PM

If my hypothetical 15 year old son were bedded by anyone of either sex
- or if he bedded anyone of either sex (that never happens, does it?
that's not more likely than his being taken advantage of, is it?) - I
would consider myself to have failed in parenting, in the specific area
of inculcating a sense of responsibility where sexuality is concerned.

Posted by: OutOfSync | October 5, 2006 05:13 PM

http://thelongestpeacemarch.com/page222.html

volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#131 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (01:54 PM)

The US Capitol Police took my information today after the office of
the President Pro-Temp of the US Senate [^] refered me to them.

Last year I reported to Spkr Foley's office that US Supreme Court
Police Sgt. Quigley may have been morally and legally violated based
on
a video CD I hand delivered [sound]

"Who knows, Hale, one day we might test my DNA and find I am related
to President Bush," Sgt Quigley said to me while my camera was on.

Whether we have a whole sale nursery gate of "out of the office" abuse
of anonymous dna contributions that are resulting in more and more
federal police officers being related to one another is a question
I've
been asking more than a few officers over the past few years. They
trust me. They agree with me that the department should take internal
dna prints of officers to prevent under the table nepotism, and for
their and our own protection so we can in-house verify who really is
whom in this day and age of identity theft, realistic masques, and
deceptions.

So, would you like to look into this further? I guess I can put the CD
on the internet now. I'll post the address to you as soon as I can

W. Hale
202-258-5978

Note: Nancy Pelosi might be our next president! Hillary could use a
GHWB strategy to get 16 years. Who might want Condi to beat her to it.
But time is so short. So be on heightened alert, right?


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#132 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (01:59 PM)

washingtonpost.com
>
News Home Page
Advertisement
Message sent

Your message was sent to ... Thank you for taking the time to contact
us.

Because of the high volume of correspondence, Washington Post staffers
are not always able to reply to every message.

* Recent stories by William Branigin

© 2006 The Washington Post Company


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#133 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:01 PM)

"I'm deeply sorry this has happened and the bottom line is we're
taking responsibility," Hastert said from his district office in
Illinois. "Ultimately, the buck stops here."

=========NH:
xref: NY Police offic[hnk]...
=============NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#134 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:02 PM)

Also, "Your ultimate principles and realities [voice]..."


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#135 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:03 PM)

Hastert added that he has no plans to resign over the Foley scandal.
"I'm going to run, and presumably win, in this election," Hastert
said.
"And when we do, I expect to run for leader -- for speaker."

========NH:
xref: "Leader", Bod Dole's dog; therefore a call for
reinforcements?
=========[tap tap]NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#136 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:05 PM)

The last time official Washington was so captivated by the political
peril of a Congressional leader was back in late 2002 when then
Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) found himself at the center of a
maelstrom created by comments he made at a 100th birthday party for
Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.). Lott eventually resigned his leadership
post.

==========NH:
This was not long after I pointed out the huge liability the
Republican party faced if anything went wrong at Mradi Gras when they
were fighting fundamentalist muslims.
=======NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#137 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:09 PM)

Hastert, on the other hand, enjoys warm relations with the White
House. Following a tour of an elementary school in California on
Tuesday, Bush called Hastert "a father, teacher, coach who cares about
the children of this country." He added: "I know that he wants all the
facts to come out, and he wants to ensure that these children up there
on Capitol Hill are protected."

===========NH:
xref: SFSU; xref: coaching [hnk hn] here on Two thursdays ago, in
a spontaneous response to an ongoing practice. Sounds like GWB is
perhaps sending a subliminal message to his OWN offspring
who[sound]...
==============NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#138 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:13 PM)

Earlier today Vice President Dick Cheney echoed Bush's comments. "I'm
a huge Denny Hastert fan -- I think he's a great speaker," Cheney
said.
"And it makes no sense at all for him to think about stepping down."

==========NH:
xref: "the buck stops here," comment by the NYPD officer when
after quite a few questions, I gave him the receipt to my hotel, he
responded "the buch stops here," with the inflection that he was going
to bother me no further on behalf of who likely had called him and was
standing there listening to all my personal information being given to
the law officer.
He also showed he knew I was considering head mounting short
shuot gn professional audio mics which would have looked like antlers,
perhaps?
So, Denny may be considering HIS "Ultimate principles and
realities" [^]... While dick worries about loosing his key right,
pulling, guard.
===========NH//

If Carl Woodward would like to cover this humane and wise use of DNA
printing vs. the holocaust use, and what safeguards we [sound]...

Posted by: William Hale | October 5, 2006 05:26 PM
Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge
washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks
or other


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#143 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:35 PM)

AOL: playmates as toys and toys I need to develop for field theory and
what else "toy" and trust


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#144 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:42 PM)

HIS SCANDAL SHINES THE SPOTLIGHT ON DEMOCRAT HYPO...
10/05/06 05:37 PM (Msg Id: 565938:69876)
LIVFREEORDI

*

*


View Profile
* Send IM
* Send Mail


* Ignore Author

Rate this post:
You rated this post:
Overall Rating:
by 0 raters

Not Rated

0% of 0 people liked this post


REGARDING THE FOLEY SCANDAL....

HOW AMUSING!

THE DEMOCRATS ACTING OUTRAGED OVER FOLEY ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO WANT
TO PUNISH THE BOY SCOUTS FOR NOT WANTING GAY MEN AS SCOUTMASTERS
CAMPING OUT WITH 14 YEAR OLD BOYS!

ROTFLMAO!

=========NH:
Years ago we went through this posting cycle about are Gays more
prone to pedophillia than heteros. I think the conclusion was about
equal rates of liklihood.
=============NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#145 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:48 PM)


And what about Mel Reynolds..DEMOCRAT congressman from Chicago?

In August 1994, he was indicted for having sex with a 16-year-old
campaign volunteer. Despite the charges, he continued his campaign and
was re-elected in November 1994. Reynolds initially denied the charges,
which he claimed were racially motivated. On August 22, 1995 he was
convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and
solicitation of child pornography. He resigned his seat on October 1,
1995.

Reynolds was sentenced to five years in prison and expected to be
released in 1998. However, in April 1997, he was convicted on 15
unrelated counts of bank fraud and lying to SEC investigators. These
charges resulted in an additional sentence of 78 months in federal
prison. Reynolds served all of his first sentence and served forty-two
months in prison for the later charges. At that point, U.S. President
Bill Clinton commuted the sentence for bank fraud. As a result,
Reynolds was released from prison and served the remaining time in a
half way house. [1][2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Reynolds

===========NH:
Gives you an idea of how powerful "compartmentalization", or
skitzophrenia, can be in those who seek to act upon the stage all the
world is.
so what do we do? Look for candidates who come to the campaign
with a blue-Angles array of professionals on their team? Two doctors
who do not know one another, legal counsel, University sffiliations,
And who are willing to stand side by side with the candidate for their
"blue Angles " [psound] photo...
=================NH//
================NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#146 of 146: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:55 PM)

It is also worth recalling the entirely sick and inappropriate
behavior with a young White House intern by former President Clinton,
and both his and his supporters' steadfast defense of his actual
transgressions. Democratic comment and outrage then was barely heard,
save the brave and bold comments at that time by Sen. Joseph Lieberman,
D-Conn., who has been recently trashed by his party.

=========NH:
When you cue on the blue and the red cues: the loyalty and the
bravery, it's easy to be hoodwinked on the white cues: the integrity.
Party skills in assessing integrity need to be developed and trained.
The blue and red threads might FEAR the white thread: far more
intelligent, and competent, and capable people in the world exist than
those we elect, yet the political mafia ties of blue and red out-weight
the white. So balance all three like this:
Make Nancy or Condi our first woman president.
With Hillary or Frist as VP
Let Hillary see what she can do re: 'white' thread re: 2008.


==============NH//


Posted by: William Hale [Hnk!] | October 5, 2006 6:00 PM | Report abuse

gawd, what a mess! I mean the opinions here...I've yet to read one :)

Hastert has latched himself onto the Republican party bulwarks. He's going to sink or float with the Party. This scandal is really too broad for the membership to peel him off and discard him, like they did with Lott. Foley was in the House a long time. There are a lot of stories out there, about him. Too many people knew about him, warned others about him...talked to him...got emails from him...went to his house...went out drinking with him. All while he denied that he was gay and ran on an anti-gay anti-child molester platform in a supposedly conservative state. He's part of the fabric of the Party, and we all know the Republican party is "me first". It's enough that he has been "outed" so dramatically and forced to leave, without question...the rest of them are shuddering at the prospect of it being *best* for them to resign. For Hastert and the other leaders to resign their posts, much less resign from Congress, that would be fatal to the party. As it is the party is already teetering. They might as well just hand Congress to Pelosi and Hastert will choke on his gavel before he does that.

But you can bet that if the Republicans survive this scandal and hold onto their majority, the worst is still to come.

It is like the old saying. "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Except now it is "ok you've fooled me 36,000 times, am I going to admit it now, or is it too late for me to gain anything by admitting it?" Now, the Republican party supporters have to face the ego-crushing option of admitting they are wrong and voting for Democrats, or the pleasant alternative of hoping that their leadership has finally learned how to be a good, responsible government, and giving them another chance to do things right.

They're morally corrupt. They will not do the right thing, the wise thing, and vote against candidates from their own party. If they cared about doing the right thing, they would never have voted for Republicans in the first place. Much like GW they have to be consistent or admit they were wrong all along.

To the cliff, lemmings!

Posted by: cc | October 5, 2006 5:59 PM | Report abuse

"End this witch hunt on Speaker Hastert (the real criminal left the Capitol building last Friday) and let the chips fall where they may in November."

Wishful thinking.

Too many witches, too much scandal, too many excuses; its much too late to end it, it can't even be "spun" anymore.

So the chips certainly WILL fall as they may.

But it will happen NOW, not in November...

Posted by: JEP | October 5, 2006 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Can't take credit for this list but since the R's, in an amazing display of brain-deadedness, continue to point fingers across the aisle here it is. Thanks to RMill (I think?) for collecting all this. Also, Studds was investigated and disciplined the House back when it had morals. No FBI, ABC or any other outside acronym. What a concept, no?


13. Bob Barr, (R-Ga)
Sponsored the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, saying "The flames of hedonism, the flames of narcissism, the flames of self-centered morality are licking at the very foundation of our society, the family unit." Was married three times and while married to his third and present wife was photographed licking whipped cream off of strippers at his inaugural party.
12. Robert Bauman (R-Md)(1989) 
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist, was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
11. Dan Burton (R-Ind)(1998)
Republican Congressman who, while married, fathered a child by another woman.
10. Helen Chenoweth, Congresswoman (R-Id.). In 1998 she called (in a campaign ad) for Bill Clintons resignation saying "I beleive that personal conduct and integrity do matter". Days laters she admitted to a six-year adulterous affair with a married associate.
9. Sue Myrick,(R-NC) (
Congresswoman described herself as a "devout Christian." Committed adultery with a married man.
8. Don Sherwood,(R-Pa) (2005)Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Eventually admitted to an affair with a woman 30 years younger than him, after she accused him of physical abuse and attempting to choke her.
7. Ken Calvert, Congressman (R-Ca), champion of the Christian Coalition and its "family values." In 1993 he was caught by police receiving oral sex from a prostitute and attempted to flee the scene.
6. Ed Schrock, (R-Va)(2004)
Two-term republican congressman, with a 92% approval rating from the Christian Coalition. Cosponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, consistently opposed gay rights. Married, with wife and kids. Withdrew his candidacy for a third term after tapes of him soliciting for gay sex were circulated.
5. Dan Crane,(R-Ill)(1983)
Married, father of six. Received a 100% "Morality Rating" from Christian Voice. Had sex with a minor working as a congressional page.
On July 20,1993, the House voted for censure Crane, the first time that censure had been imposed for sexual misconduct.
4. Ron Livingston (R-La)(1998) 
On the verge of becoming Republican House speaker when his career was upended by marital infidelities.
Livingston released a statement in December 1998 saying, "I have on occasion strayed from my marriage." The disclosure came on the eve of the impeachment debate involving President Clinton's relationship with former intern Monica Lewinsky. Two days after his admission, Livingston said he would not become speaker; he resigned from the House a few months later.
3. Donald Lukens, (R-OH) (2001) Congressman, was found guilty of having sex with a minor - a girl he was accused of sleeping with since 1985 when she was 13.
2. Bob Packwood, Senator (R-Ore.) Resigned in 1995 under a threat of public senate hearings related to 10 female ex-staffers accusing him of sexual harassment.
1. Mark Foley, (R-FL)(2006)
Resigned after trying to solicit sex from male congressional pages via an instant messenger program.

Posted by: RMill | October 5, 2006 02:28 PM

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 5, 2006 5:55 PM | Report abuse

What's wrong in this country is that we're making ourselves believe that the sexual indiscretions of politicos explain why our foreign policy has placed us in an untenable position. We need to be rid of people who believe that "intelligence" means "that information which supports my presuppositions". I leave you, to do the arithmetic.

Posted by: OutOfSync | October 5, 2006 5:54 PM | Report abuse

"CQ Transcripts Wire
Thursday, October 5, 2006; 3:02 PM
OCTOBER 5, 2006
SPEAKER: U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS HASTERT (R-IL),
...
HASTERT: Well, thank you very much for everybody showing up today... I'm deeply sorry that this has happened.

And the bottom line is that we're taking responsibility, because ultimately, as someone has said in Washington before: The buck stops here."


Someone?


The President must have been right the other day when he said the Democrats were no longer the party of Harry S Truman.

Here's proof that it's the Republicans, or "somebody."

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 5, 2006 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"...we may be on the verge of a premptive strike against North Korea."

Anyone want to explain what the N Koreans think they gain from testing anuke right now?

Something stinks here. What do you s'pose the S Korean citizens think about all this?

The most elementary mind would assume that N Korea would surely not be wise to stir the international 'nukuler' in-security pot right now, it would be a political gift to the neocons, especially Rove.

A test in October will give Bush an excuse to launch a few missiles, and that alone would constitute an October surprise of monumental proportions.

A "surgical" anti-nuke strike in October on N Korea could only be a political move, not a military move, and would constitute a diplomatic error of historic proportions.

Did Rove know about these pending plans for N Korean nuclear tests when he assured his operatives there would be sufficient terror available this election season to threaten the voters into submission?

How they got the N Koreans to play along on the election year October calendar scheduling is the real secret.

Posted by: JEP | October 5, 2006 5:47 PM | Report abuse

This is good. Kim whatever the rest of his name is, is not really fixing to test a nuke, the whole thing's been made up by Pope Rove the infallible and miraculous. Krimeny, are you for real?

Posted by: OutOfSync | October 5, 2006 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Someone with stronger observational powers than myself once said something to the effect that if everyone is to blame no one is to blame.

There is one person and ONE PERSON ONLY to blame for the sending of inappropriate instant messages to underage male pages, and he is currently in hiding in a rehab clinic somewhere, voluntarily stripped of his power and of what little respectability he ever had.

For decades, the thought police, primarily concentrated on one side of the political spectrum, have tried to instill the belief that the "cover-up" is worse than the actual crime (if that is at all possible), and that hypocrisy is a capital offense greater than murder or whatever gruesome violation you can think of.

If the latter is indeed the case, than surely those at the forefront calling for Speaker Hastert's resignation for "aiding and abetting" Mr. Foley's deviant behavior would also find an ample amount of outrage and bile to direct toward those currently in the House of Representatives, seated to the left of the speaker's podium, who for years aided and abetted Rep. Gerry Studds, a man who, unlike Mr. Foley, not only followed through on his crude predatory desires with a male page of minor age, but did so unashamedly.

Then there is the case of another fellow from Massachusetts, who 37 years ago left a woman to drown due to his own negligence and has never paid a political price for doing so. And let it not be said that not allowing him to attain the goal of temporarily residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. was a proper political price to pay.

Seeing as how I do not for one second believe that the thought police will seek to round up those clearly guilty of the crime of hypocrisy they themselves devised and want to impose on the rest of us, perhaps it would be best to actually live up to an ideal sorely missing in every facet of Amercian life: individual responsibility and responsibility for one's own actions.

End this witch hunt on Speaker Hastert (the real criminal left the Capitol building last Friday) and let the chips fall where they may in November. My guess is the thought police will be more than satisfied with what happens then.

Posted by: KY-6 Guy | October 5, 2006 5:46 PM | Report abuse

In William Hale's post: "Last year I reported to Spkr Foley's office that..."

Is Tom Foley back?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 5, 2006 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Now now children be nice to your friends you chat with every day, Seriously, this thing is getting out of hand and the best part seems to be still in its infancy. The repubs are looking clumsy, not knowing what is going on, and dont forget they are in charge. In charge of what? Someone might be temped to ask. All the top ranking guys and gals are trying to point the finger at anybody or anything except themselves. This thing, along with the others out in the public realm will, at least, get the folks a little steamed at the party as a whole based on the flat out false statements being made from the top down. This includes GW, Condi, Rummy, Gonzales, Snow, and the list doesn't seem to have even gotten started yet. This coverup is unacceptable, no matter how they try to dice or alice it. I should have said these are alleged charges and have not been proven yet. Istook, the firebrand from Oklahoma. appears to be involved, since one of the pages in this mess is working for him. This is the story that will not and can not go away, no matter how much the repubs want it to.

Posted by: lylepink | October 5, 2006 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I recommend this "thought experiment":

Try to imagine Beavis as victim of a sex crime.

Posted by: OutOfSync | October 5, 2006 5:42 PM | Report abuse

I'll string this out just a little more - Sync - Your basic premise would have to be that we all development and learn at equal rates.

You might have done your best to teach the 15 year old; but, they might not "get it" until they are 22.

While at the same time, there are 11 year olds who do "get it."

At 18, society believes that we should be able to fend for ourselves, whether or not we "get it." (Some never do)

The "human development factor" dictates the ethical terms of this scenario; which means you cannot make a universal declaration about this matter until the person approached is 18, because society/law says that they are capable of fending for themselves at that point.

Except in unusual circumstances, in your scenario the 50-something is invariably a predator.

In my book, Lewinsky and Clinton were both predators.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 5, 2006 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Staley: there's still time plenty of time for his resignation according to CC's guidelines. If that doesn't happen the good people of Illinois now have plenty of reasons to vote him out. If he had any political sense he'd at least resign the speaker's post and express some humility for what apparently would be the first time in his life. That might save his bacon on 11/7.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 5, 2006 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I'm willing to give the Speaker the benefit of the doubt on the single point that he claims he only knew of the (merely) suggestive e-mails which were the initial impetus of this scandal, and not of the explicit IMs which truly damned Foley. I'm also aware that conflicting stories over who told whom cloud the matter further. But even if a pie-in-the-sky best case scenario existed for the House leadership, there is STILL no excuse for the hushed-up half-assed way they admit they "handled" the situation, including the completely inappropriate early involvement of the campaign chair (Tom Reynolds), who should have had nothing to do at any stage of the process, and the failure to notify the entire Page oversight committee (which includes a Democrat). Even if every excuse the Speaker offers is true, he's STILL guilty.

Posted by: Staley | October 5, 2006 5:36 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how a lot of you are dealing with your adolescent children, when they see that your attitude is, "if a person under 23 had sex, something was seriously wrong".

My guess is that they're ignoring your beliefs and laughing behind your backs.

Posted by: OutOfSync | October 5, 2006 5:32 PM | Report abuse

OutOfSync, you have surely nailed the art of blaming the victim. Stop practicing, you are now an expert.

Posted by: bsimon | October 5, 2006 5:31 PM | Report abuse

http://thelongestpeacemarch.com/page222.html

volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#131 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (01:54 PM)

The US Capitol Police took my information today after the office of
the President Pro-Temp of the US Senate [^] refered me to them.

Last year I reported to Spkr Foley's office that US Supreme Court
Police Sgt. Quigley may have been morally and legally violated based on
a video CD I hand delivered [sound]

"Who knows, Hale, one day we might test my DNA and find I am related
to President Bush," Sgt Quigley said to me while my camera was on.

Whether we have a whole sale nursery gate of "out of the office" abuse
of anonymous dna contributions that are resulting in more and more
federal police officers being related to one another is a question I've
been asking more than a few officers over the past few years. They
trust me. They agree with me that the department should take internal
dna prints of officers to prevent under the table nepotism, and for
their and our own protection so we can in-house verify who really is
whom in this day and age of identity theft, realistic masques, and
deceptions.

So, would you like to look into this further? I guess I can put the CD
on the internet now. I'll post the address to you as soon as I can

W. Hale
202-258-5978

Note: Nancy Pelosi might be our next president! Hillary could use a
GHWB strategy to get 16 years. Who might want Condi to beat her to it.
But time is so short. So be on heightened alert, right?


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#132 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (01:59 PM)

washingtonpost.com
>
News Home Page
Advertisement
Message sent

Your message was sent to ... Thank you for taking the time to contact
us.

Because of the high volume of correspondence, Washington Post staffers
are not always able to reply to every message.

* Recent stories by William Branigin

© 2006 The Washington Post Company


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#133 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:01 PM)

"I'm deeply sorry this has happened and the bottom line is we're
taking responsibility," Hastert said from his district office in
Illinois. "Ultimately, the buck stops here."

=========NH:
xref: NY Police offic[hnk]...
=============NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#134 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:02 PM)

Also, "Your ultimate principles and realities [voice]..."


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#135 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:03 PM)

Hastert added that he has no plans to resign over the Foley scandal.
"I'm going to run, and presumably win, in this election," Hastert said.
"And when we do, I expect to run for leader -- for speaker."

========NH:
xref: "Leader", Bod Dole's dog; therefore a call for
reinforcements?
=========[tap tap]NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#136 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:05 PM)

The last time official Washington was so captivated by the political
peril of a Congressional leader was back in late 2002 when then
Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) found himself at the center of a
maelstrom created by comments he made at a 100th birthday party for
Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-S.C.). Lott eventually resigned his leadership
post.

==========NH:
This was not long after I pointed out the huge liability the
Republican party faced if anything went wrong at Mradi Gras when they
were fighting fundamentalist muslims.
=======NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#137 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:09 PM)

Hastert, on the other hand, enjoys warm relations with the White
House. Following a tour of an elementary school in California on
Tuesday, Bush called Hastert "a father, teacher, coach who cares about
the children of this country." He added: "I know that he wants all the
facts to come out, and he wants to ensure that these children up there
on Capitol Hill are protected."

===========NH:
xref: SFSU; xref: coaching [hnk hn] here on Two thursdays ago, in
a spontaneous response to an ongoing practice. Sounds like GWB is
perhaps sending a subliminal message to his OWN offspring who[sound]...
==============NH//


volley.ind 7: 006:10:05:Thursday
#138 of 138: William Hale (hinging0) Thu 05 Oct 2006 (02:13 PM)

Earlier today Vice President Dick Cheney echoed Bush's comments. "I'm
a huge Denny Hastert fan -- I think he's a great speaker," Cheney said.
"And it makes no sense at all for him to think about stepping down."

==========NH:
xref: "the buck stops here," comment by the NYPD officer when
after quite a few questions, I gave him the receipt to my hotel, he
responded "the buch stops here," with the inflection that he was going
to bother me no further on behalf of who likely had called him and was
standing there listening to all my personal information being given to
the law officer.
He also showed he knew I was considering head mounting short
shuot gn professional audio mics which would have looked like antlers,
perhaps?
So, Denny may be considering HIS "Ultimate principles and
realities" [^]... While dick worries about loosing his key right,
pulling, guard.
===========NH//

If Carl Woodward would like to cover this humane and wise use of DNA printing vs. the holocaust use, and what safeguards we [sound]...

Posted by: William Hale | October 5, 2006 5:26 PM | Report abuse

If my hypothetical 15 year old son were bedded by anyone of either sex - or if he bedded anyone of either sex (that never happens, does it? that's not more likely than his being taken advantage of, is it?) - I would consider myself to have failed in parenting, in the specific area of inculcating a sense of responsibility where sexuality is concerned.

Posted by: OutOfSync | October 5, 2006 5:13 PM | Report abuse

The thing that I believe will cause Hastert's downfall his obvious failure to comprehend why people are upset because the leadership of the party that prides itself on its moral values blithely enabled a creepy pedophile in order to hang on to power. The hypocrisy and out-of-touchness with the world outside the beltway is mind-boggling. He just doesn't get the abuse of trust issue at all.

And the fact that he has, up until now, absolutely refused to accept any responsibility for the situation, choosing instead to blame ABC, George Soros, "operatives" from the other party, and Bill Clinton, is not a good example for the party of I'm holier than thou. Soccer moms are not appreciating that even a little bit.

His bumbling ineptness in handling this whole affair betrays his unfitness to hold a leadership position. And who knows what other revelations are coming.

Posted by: Helena Montana | October 5, 2006 5:09 PM | Report abuse

OutOfSync - "Males age 15 to 18 who are incapable of setting sexual boundaries are more alarming than 50-something gay men who express their desire to bed them."

Are you sure you want to say that the innocence of a victim is more alarming than the predator?

That sounds like a promotion from NAMBLA.

They're not even equally alarming.

There is a reason why under 18's are considered to not have reached the Age of Majority, the aforementioned innocence.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | October 5, 2006 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Am I the only one that's that glad that Mr. OutOfSync is an R?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 5, 2006 4:57 PM | Report abuse

OutOfSync: it is a felony to solicit sex from a minor over the Internet. But Republicans like you don't seem to care about the rule of law anymore, now that Clinton is gone.

Posted by: coyote | October 5, 2006 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Last time I checked, 18 year old males having (imaginary? mocking?) sex with older people is not a felony. Nor was it any business of Ken Starr when President Clinton fiddled around with a 22 year old provocatress.

It seems as though the sexual legacy of prudery is a cudgel lying around in American culture, waiting to be grasped by any member of either party who would like to score cheap points, without addressing uncomfortable, and vastly more important issues.

I really have to laugh at the idea of Monica Lewinsky as this helpless young woman, swept off her feet by this powerful old man. Give me a break.

Any 22 year old woman who hasn't learned to say "no!", let alone learned not to flash her thongs at old men and then cry "I've been victimized!" when they respond, is surely developmentally disabled.

- Mr. Republican

Posted by: OutOfSync | October 5, 2006 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure hihglighting that Hastert is in good graces with the administration as opposed to Lott is really a valid point to make in this story. These days, as opposed to 2002, a Bush/Cheney endorsement is the kiss of death. In fact, having Bush defend him might make Hastert's situation even worse as members of COngress continue to scramble to distance themselves from the president.

Posted by: dano | October 5, 2006 4:56 PM | Report abuse

OutofSync,
That's ludicrous. I'd like to hear you say that if it was your 15 year old son that was being come on to by a fifty year old something power player in the community or country. It's more surprising that your 15 year old can't set limits? Outrageous! Mark Foley should be ashamed of his behavior. Whether he intended it or not he abused the power of his position by contacting these former pages.

Posted by: Justin | October 5, 2006 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, "An Ashamed R." I look forward to the day that folks like you restore sanity to your party, and both parties can work together for the good of this country. Because there are people on both sides who still care about that.

Posted by: coyote | October 5, 2006 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Here is another fact the Republicans are trying to hide from their intolerant right-wing base: Kirk Fordham is gay, as are many other Republican staffers (most are "out" to family, friends and close colleagues) and several Republican lawmakers (who remain in the closet publicly). The sad and ironic truth is that gay people align with homophobic politicians and their gay-bashing supporters/activists for cynical political reasons (to attain and retain power). Hypocrisy reigns.

Posted by: Partisan Democrat | October 5, 2006 4:50 PM | Report abuse

BTW, bhoomes, what exactly would we go to war with? The fiasco in Iraq has pretty effectively destroyed the armed forces readiness in both man power and equipment. We going to arm old men and children??

Posted by: TheIrishCurse | October 5, 2006 4:49 PM | Report abuse

No, silly you, bhoomes, for thinking that this Administration would go to war for anything other than political reasons. Like changing the subject from felonious sexual predation.

Posted by: coyote | October 5, 2006 4:45 PM | Report abuse

A war to distract from troubles at home, so you were all for Clinton trying to kill Osama during the Lewinsky scandal? Bhoomes, you're not like KOZ, you can do better than that.

We had a pedophile on the board for protecting Missing and exploited children. We had high up officials who knew of it and did nothing, this is a really big deal.

Posted by: Will | October 5, 2006 4:45 PM | Report abuse


If I were a D, I would simply run this ad;;;

Had Enough...

Flash photos and images of Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Tom Delay, Conrad Burn, Tom Foley, Jack Abramoff...

Then I would close, its time to restore a balance to our government.

As a R, I want the neocons gone even if it means being in the minority for 1 or 2 terms. Just as the Dems were highjacked by the left, R's have been tortured by the Right. It's time to clean house and start again.

Posted by: An Ashamed R | October 5, 2006 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"The simple fact is because ABC went public, Foley's access to Pages ended."

Anybody who thinks that the ends in that statement don't justify the means has a moral screw loose.

Hey, WaPo, why can't you delete comments from pedophiliacs? They seem much worse than a few four-letter words or a harmless off-color joke about pages.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 5, 2006 4:43 PM | Report abuse

But even more alarming than that, OutOfSync, is Republican apologists for sexual predators. Have you no shame?

Posted by: coyote | October 5, 2006 4:38 PM | Report abuse

I marvel at the hysterical unanimity of you who feel that an 18 year old male is incapable of saying "No!" - and has no duty to have enough spine to say "No!" - to anyone he thinks is approaching him in a sexually inappropriate way.

Let me be the first to say it out loud, in public: Males age 15 to 18 who are incapable of setting sexual boundaries are more alarming than 50-something gay men who express their desire to bed them.

Posted by: OutOfSync | October 5, 2006 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I know how unfortunate you Bozo's would consider a war right now. Silly me for thinking War would be more important than this. Thanks for correcting me.

Posted by: bhoomes | October 5, 2006 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Anything to change the subject, Judge Crater.

Oh, and bhoomes: a Republican is the last person who should be lecturing other people about what to be ashamed of.

Posted by: coyote | October 5, 2006 4:28 PM | Report abuse

Coyote: Hastert says "What we need to do is start talking about the issues" and now supposedly the party of the Swift Boat Veterans for 'Truth,' gay marriage, flag burning and Monicagate is now the party of 'issues.' Did somebody flip a switch?

Let me guess: 'issues' will suddenly become important until after the election when it will revert to the same old Do Nothing Congress best exemplified by the Do NOTHING Ethics Committee itself that has (surprise!) been put in charge of the henhouse. Unless the D's take the House in which case Hastert goes to jail for endangering a minor.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 5, 2006 4:14 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.onlinejournal.com
www.waynemadsenreport.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaim.info
otherside123.blogspot.com

Is Woodward being used to effect another "silent" coup?

By Bev Conover

In what may seem a curious turn of events, Bob Woodward, who wrote two suck-up books that fawned over the Bush administration, has now turned, in his latest tome, State of Denial, on his Bush buddies. Perhaps it's not so curious, after all.

We have long predicted that the powers behind the curtain may have had it with George W. Bush & Co., and even the Torture Republicans who control Congress. The scandals that are popping up like mushrooms just ahead of the mid-term elections -- from the National Intelligence Estimate, Musharraf's claim the US threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age if it didn't aid Bush's "war on terror," the revelations about Mark Foley's sexual come-ons to teenage male House pages, to Woodward's book -- may be signals of big changes ahead.

Woodward, a former naval intelligence officer turned journalist, made his name, along with Carl Bernstein, by uncovering the Watergate scandal (or as the late Sherman Skolnick claimed was the courier for those who wanted to overthrow Richard Nixon, short of assassinating him). In any event, Woodward is the consummate Washington insider and, if there is any truth in his having had a hand in bringing Nixon down, who better to turn to in bringing down the Bush II administration?

Before you break out the champagne, there are some things to consider.

First, why do the people who were instrumental in helping Bush seize the White House and the most extreme element of the GOP gain control of Congress want both gone now, when they have profited the most? Have they had a stroke of conscience? Do they realize if they push for more wealth for themselves at the expense of the people, the whole system will collapse? Are they fearful that the psychopaths in the administration can't prevent the psychopath-in-chief, whose mental state is at the breaking point, from pulling some catastrophic stunt, such as slinging nukes at Iran or North Korea? Or have they decided it's time to put the other branch of the Money Party in power, the Democrats, so it can take the blame when the whole house of cards comes tumbling down?

Second, bear in mind that it is the people behind the curtain who control the electronic voting machines that some 80 percent of the electorate will use this year. Given the past three stolen elections, if the Wimpy Democrats defeat the Torture Republicans on November 7, how can the voters be sure it was by their votes and not machines rigged to guarantee the outcome?

Undoubtedly, diehard Democrats and even sane Republicans will cheer at "their victory."

But the Grand Old Torture Party-controlled lame duck Congress can do much damage between November 8 and January. Moreover, who's to say the Democrats would clean up Congress and the White House, commence impeachment proceedings, undue all the damage of the past decades, restore our stolen liberties, reinstitute the constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances, and end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, along with the bogus "war on terror?" After all, the Democrats blew it when they failed to impeach Ronald Reagan and Poppy Bush for Iran-contra, with the lame excuse that they "couldn't put the country through that again" -- as if we were little children who didn't have the intellect and maturity to deal with criminals.

Also remember, the more desperate Bush becomes, which is shown by his increasing bellicosity, the more dangerous he becomes. Plus, October is a long way from over and Karl "Rasputin" Rove has promised a surprise.
So hold the bubbly until we see where this thing is going. It's going to be a fascinating five weeks.

Posted by: che | October 5, 2006 4:13 PM | Report abuse

bhoomes::you really are a clown.."we are on the verge of preemptive strike against North Korea"... And what is the clown-in-chief doing?? He's dialing for dollars for the repugs on the West coast..So your blaming the media why??

Posted by: TheIrishCurse | October 5, 2006 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Umm, bhoomes, how did the media help create this scandal? Name the media influences that caused Foley to illegally solicit sex from minors. I'm curious.

What's abundantly clear is that Republican politicians, from top to bottom, have no respect for "the rule of law." Someday the Republican Party may return to its former respectability, but nowadays it is the haven of torturers, treasonous leakers, crooks, influence peddlers, and pedophiles.

And don't get me started on incompetence.

Posted by: coyote | October 5, 2006 4:08 PM | Report abuse

I find it amazingly convenient timing that we may be on the verge of a premptive strike against North Korea.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 5, 2006 4:01 PM | Report abuse

San Carlos: "Hastert's inaction put minors in danger" AND then he lied about it (and is continuing to lie). I seem to recall impeachment proceedings that were based solely on a far less important lie.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 5, 2006 3:59 PM | Report abuse

The biggest difference between Lott and Hastert is that Hastert's inaction put minors in danger while Lott merely made an idiotic statement. Lott, rightfully, lost his leadership position. Hastert should lose more; hopefully the upcoming election for his congressional seat!

Posted by: San Carlos, CA | October 5, 2006 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Well now if Yockel thinks Hastert should resign to help the republicans, I think he should stay just to help the dems. Please spare me your nonsense Yucky. I find it amazing that we may be on the verge of a premptive strike against North Korea and all the media can do is talk about manufactured scandal they helped create. Now the fix does politics so that's okay but major media outlets ought to be ashamed when there are stories of potential war and this nonsense takes priority. Just turn on Fox, MSNBC and CNN. Its all they all talking about. They should have their journalistic license revoked

Posted by: bhoomes | October 5, 2006 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Long Beach: here's an opinion expressed by an R consultant before the truth was known:

"From the October 5 edition of American Morning:

JOHNS: For Republicans -- especially conservatives, who like campaigns to be run on higher ground -- this kind of scandal is especially hard.

MIRANDA [video clip]: There's no doubt that Republicans are associated with moral values and legislation that reflects moral values. So it's perfectly understandable that supporters of Republicans would hold them to a high standard.

JOHNS: But the counterattack that they continue to search for is something that shows Democrats planned all this as an October surprise.

MIRANDA [video clip]: Sure, you know, there's another side to this, of course, which is that this seems to be a fairly well-orchestrated war room tactic -- to go after a congressman like this, just short of an election. And if Democrats were holding back information of this sort, they could also be held liable under criminal law for endangering the welfare of minors."

Do ya think that Miranda is saying the same thing now?

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 5, 2006 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Hastert's promises sound a bit disingenuous. Ethics committee? Its been sitting on its hands for years. The time for new leadership is long past.

Posted by: bsimon | October 5, 2006 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Ultimately the buck stops at the top. Hastert either knew about the allegations well in advance, or didn't consider them important enough to monitor himself. If we don't protect our children, then who do we claim to protect? Rather than a combative and blaming posture, I would be impressed more by at least a complete and total admission that one way or another the ball was dropped. And dropped, no less, in the protection of our children who go to Washington to try to learn how our government is supposed to be run. It surely isn't supposed to be run like this. Our children deserve better.

Posted by: Craig | October 5, 2006 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it a crime to harbor a pedophile? To hush up his behavior? To enable him to continue harrassing minors with sexually explicit come-ons and pornographic messages?

Is Hastert a criminal?

Posted by: Long Beach, CA | October 5, 2006 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Is covering up attempted pedophilia a crime?

Hastert's office says he never knew - Kent Fordham (Foley's aid for ten years) and three republican congressmen say they did warn Hastert's top aid, and Hastert himself.

If Hastert is lying is he guilty of aiding or harboring a pedophile?

I'm asking - not saying...

Posted by: Long Beach, CA | October 5, 2006 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Is covering up attempted pedophilia a crime?

Hastert's office says he never knew - Kent Fordham (Foley's aid for ten years) and three republican congressmen say they did warn Hastert's top aid, and Hastert himself.

If Hastert is lying is he guilty of aiding or harboring a pedophile?

I'm asking - not saying...

Posted by: Long Beach, CA | October 5, 2006 3:37 PM | Report abuse

I think it all depends on whether R's can distract the media -- hopefully it won't involved anybody getting blown up.

Posted by: drindl | October 5, 2006 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I'm interested in another angle on this story that also involves the timing. Stories like that below are showing up all over the country.

I think it's interesting that I've seen R ads that try to smear D candidates with the global goals of contributors that donate amounts of money that are equal to (or even less than) what Foley gave to his R colleagues. Wouldn't it be perfectly fair to say that any R who received money from Foley approves of pedophilia? I don't see the moral difference.

Look for those R ads to disappear in a heartbeat.

"Foley donated to Kentucky Republicans
By James R. Carroll
jcarroll@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal
WASHINGTON -- Former Florida Rep. Mark Foley gave $7,000 from his political action committee to Republican House candidates in Kentucky between 1998 and this year.

U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis, R-4th District, said he is giving his $1,000 to charity. Others say that the money has been spent or that old campaign committees that received the funds are closed."

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | October 5, 2006 3:33 PM | Report abuse

The longer Hastert stays, the more he hurts the Republican party. This distraction makes it impossible for Republicans to talk about the war on terror, the last hope for holding the Dems at bay.

Posted by: Yockel | October 5, 2006 3:31 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company