Hammering Hastert

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 4, 2006 10:44 AM

As the Foley mess heats up into a full-blown, crisis-mode, what-did-they-know Washington scandal, plenty of conservatives are bailing on the GOP damage-control effort.

Most of them did not bother to defend Maf54, the screen name of the ex-congressman who liked to IM teenage boys, and now some are turning on the speaker of the House.

It's no surprise that liberal bloggers are having a field day with this, but I sense genuine outrage on both sides of the political divide, rather than the usual ginned-up partisan sniping. We're talking about kids here, not negotiations over some pork-laden appropriations bill, and about adults who failed to act when kids were being sexually stalked, at least electronically.

One of those who's had enough with Denny Hastert is the man whose job it was to defend Newt Gingrich during his speakership. Tony Blankley was Newt's spokesman during the '90s, and now, as editorial page editor of the Washington Times (and occasional talking head), has been a pretty reliable defender of the Republicans. But Blankley has an independent streak, and in this Washington Times editorial --one that might be dismissed by the right if it came from, for example, the New York Times--Blankley & Co. say enough is enough:

"House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance."

No punches pulled there.

Could Hastert really be toppled? "Backed by measured words of support from President Bush," the NYT says, "Speaker J. Dennis Hastert opened an intense drive on Tuesday to hold on to his post, but behind the scenes senior Republicans weighed whether he could survive the scandal surrounding former Representative Mark Foley.

"Among the options being considered by senior Republicans is for Mr. Hastert to announce that he will stay on as speaker through this year but not seek re-election to the post assuming Republicans retain control of the House, said people on and off Capitol Hill who were involved in the discussions. They said the advantage of such a step would be to postpone a disruptive leadership fight until after Election Day."

The public fallout? A WSJ poll says that "by 41% to 18%, Americans say that news they 'have seen and heard over the past few weeks' has made them less favorable toward continued Republican control of Congress." Bush is down from 41 to 38 percent.

Just when you thought the Foley saga couldn't sink any lower, ABC comes up with this:

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

And here's the evidence:

"The exchange continues in which Foley and the teen both appear to describe having sexual orgasms.

" Maf54 : ok . . . i better go vote . . . did you know you would have this effect on me

" Teen : lol I guessed."

Yuck.

First Foley says he's got an alcohol problem, and now another claim that he's a victim: "Disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley said through his lawyer Tuesday that he was abused by a clergyman as a teenager, but accepts full responsibility for sending salacious computer messages to teenage male pages," says USA Today .

Blaming it on the church?

Here's House Majority Leader John Boehner, in the Boston Globe . I believe the technical term is "distancing":

" 'I talked to the speaker, and he told me it had been taken care of,' Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said yesterday in an interview with a Cincinnati radio station. 'It's in his corner; it's his responsibility. The clerk of the House who runs the page program, the Page Board -- all report to the speaker. And I believe that it had been dealt with.' "

Back to the pundits: CNN commentator Bay Buchanan , another staunch advocate for the Republicans, isn't buying the line that there wasn't much evidence in the original e-mail from Maf54 to a 16-year-old boy, asking for a picture:

"That e-mail they call an 'overly friendly e-mail' that had predator stamped all over it. No one in this country can suggest otherwise. You're in a leadership position. You have a colleague you know is at least a potential predator and we have the pages coming through his office every day? They had an obligation, that same day, to investigate him further, to call in the FBI, if that was an appropriate action and also to call in those pages and make certain every one of them was interviewed to see if there is any problems here that goes deeper than what they already knew. They failed the parents of this country is what they did."

In the same vein, blogger and Fox commentator Michelle Malkin takes a swipe at Tony Snow:

"What I am hearing from some conservatives inclined to pooh-pooh Foley's behavior and carry on about Barney Frank instead does not sit well with me. You can't possibly read Foley's communications with minors that have been disclosed so far--including his attempts to rendezvous with one--and dismiss them as merely 'naughty e-mails.' Yet, that's how White House press secretary Tony Snow described some of them this morning. Though he admitted to being too 'glib' and 'clarified' those remarks with tougher words this afternoon, the damage has been done. Fair or not, it makes the White House look flippant about sexual predation. Parents of all political persuasions are not going to be receptive to that.

"At this point, I think the GOP is making a mistake banging the drum so hard over the apparent far left/MSM orchestration of the story. However long the other side sat on the e-mails and IMs, the fact is that Mark Foley--and Mark Foley alone--is responsible for giving his enemies something to spring upon his campaign in the first place."

At Rightwing Nuthouse, Rick Moran says Hastert, the one-time high school wrestling coach, may be pinned:

"I'm not sure the resignation of Hastert is either necessary or desirable. The voters will almost surely take care of Mr. Hastert and the Republicans come November. In fact, it seems pretty much of a lead pipe cinch at this point as the universal disgust over Foley and the leadership's tone deaf response to the emails and their potential import becomes widely known. The only question now is how big a majority the Democrats are likely to be handed as the new Congress sits next January. . . .

"None of the blame for this should necessarily fall entirely on the shoulders of the Speaker. But as a symbol of Republican malfeasance in the Foley matter, it may be hard for him to escape walking the plank."

One conservative forum that isn't exactly taking the Blankley line is the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which ticked off Andrew Sullivan with this argument that he begins by quoting:

" 'In today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys . . . Yes, Mr. Hastert and his staff should have done more to quarantine Mr. Foley from male pages after the first email came to light. But if that's the standard, we should all admit we are returning to a rule of conduct that our cultural elite long ago abandoned as intolerant.'

"Huh? I had no idea that the 'cultural elite' was now in favor of older, powerful men exploiting younger, powerless men in their teens for sexual titillation. In fact, the cultural elite is far more sensitive to that kind of sexual abuse than it was in the past. No one would regard it as intolerant to bar a person with such a predilection from interacting with teens past the legal age of consent. They might, however, consider it intolerant to accuse all gay men of such behavior and seeking to smear and 'quarantine' them."

Now for the liberals. Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher takes aim at the proprietor of the Drudge Report:

"The Republican coverup for La Cage Aux Foley has put all the tentacles of the right wing noise machine into overdrive. Did you ever wonder how low they could limbo to keep themselves in power? Wonder no more! Making excuses for sexual predators who abuse their authority as elected officials and prey on kids online? No problem! . . .

"Please please listen to these Matt Drudge radio clips at Crooks & Liars, because this is where the GOP Protection Racket that Hastert has run for years is going with this. Drudge is, after all, their flagship:

"Clip #1: And if anything, these kids are less innocent -- these 16 and 17 year-old beasts . . . and I've seen what they're doing on YouTube and I've seen what they're doing all over the internet -- oh yeah -- you just have to tune into any part of their pop culture. You're not going to tell me these are innocent babies. Have you read the transcripts that ABC posted going into the weekend of these instant messages, back and forth? The kids are egging the Congressman on! The kids are trying to get this out of him. We haven't got the whole story on this .

"I'm sorry but this really does take the cake for just about the worst thing I've ever seen the right wing try to apologize for. Isn't that what pedophiles always say? It's the kid's fault for seducing them? Right."

The Washington Monthly has started a political blog, and former Clintonite Paul Begala gleefully declares that "the Conservative Myth of Moral Superiority has been crushed . . .

"Tony Snow (R-Hair Spray) similarly has lost his moral bearings. The former Fox host (as if) told CNN's Soledad O'Brien, 'I hate to tell you, but it's not always pretty up there on Capitol Hill. And there have been other scandals, as you know, that have been more than simply naughty e-mails.'

"Naughty emails, Tony? Naughty emails? Is there anything more callous, more cavalier, more corrupt than laughing off a sexual predator as 'naughty'?

"The Capitol needs a change. Hell, it needs to be fumigated. And as the stench and filth of GOP sleaze slowly oozes away, let us never forget that these slimeballs, these dirtbags, these moral midgets think they're better than you and me."

Chris at Americablog :

"Where's Rush to provide some moral righteousness during these troubled times? Surely he must be bothered to hear there was a sexual predator running free in Congress, all under the watchful eye of Congressional leaders. James Dobson somehow can't find it in him to be as outraged with this scandal and says 'it's not the time to be talking about politics' now that the GOP owns this sex scandal (along with Abramoff, Iraq, DeLay, etc) plus cover-up. Where is Jerry Fallwell? Pat Robertson? Surely the Christian Broadcasting Network has something to say about a cover-up and sex scandal in Congress, right? Hello? Is anybody there?"

Rush Limbaugh hasn't been silent, by the way; he interviewed Hastert yesterday, and earlier questioned whether Dems were involved in this October surprise:

"Where was the concern for the kid, the pages here, who actually got caught up in all this? It doesn't seem to be that there was any concern. This was seen purely as a political opportunity by the Democrats to take down a sitting member of the House of Representatives as the time became right."

LAT columnist Steve Lopez isn't buying Foley's various justifications:

"After getting caught hitting on congressional pages with lurid shorthand e-mails and instant messages, the Florida congressman first blamed his keyboard adventures on alcohol, insulting alcoholics everywhere. . . .

"There must be a PR manual out there for public figures who find themselves in a jam, and maybe Foley borrowed a copy from actor Mel Gibson. 'Take full responsibility, then immediately enter rehab.' "

As for the abused-as-a-kid defense, Lopez says: "We're all keenly aware that molestation by a priest is not beyond the realm. As far as I know, however, being molested by a priest doesn't mean you have to become a molester yourself. It could simply be that Foley became a creep all on his own."

You might think that Arianna Huffington would be happy now that Bob Woodward has written a book, "State of Denial," that confirms her dim view of President Bush. But, no:

"Talk about being in a state of denial: praising Woodward for his very-late-to-the-party Iraq pile-on is like a music critic writing a rave of 'Let It Be' and getting credit for discovering The Beatles. Or, more fitting, having someone be the 100th -- or is 100,000th? -- person to call 911 to report a car crash and then getting credit for alerting the authorities.

"Yet there was Mike Wallace gushing about how Woodward had 'unearthed' a 'secret' classified graph revealing that -- wait for it -- attacks on 'US, Iraqi, and allied forces . . . have increased dramatically over the last three years.' Wow. You don't say! What did Woodward have to do to 'unearth' that one? Pick up a newspaper? Or log onto a blog or two -- or two hundred?

"Then there was the revelation, breathlessly delivered by Wallace in his intro, that after two years and more than 200 interviews, including 'most of the top officials in the administration,' Woodward has come to 'a damning conclusion: That for the last three years, the White House has not been honest with the American public.' Stop the presses, hold the front page! And burn all the copies of 'Fiasco,' 'Cobra II,' 'The One Percent Doctrine,' 'Hubris' -- plus 99.9 percent of the blog posts on Iraq that have appeared on HuffPost since we launched -- that have previously come to exactly the same 'damning conclusion.' Why fork over $30 for much-older-than-yesterday's news?"