A mid-Tuesday Foleygate roundup

[BobcatJH]

Some news, notes and commentary cobbled together as America looks on, stunned, as the Republican Party appears to have coddled and subsequently covered up a child predator.

• Just when you thought things couldn't get any more bizarre in the unfolding Mark Foley scandal, it does. One of the first to learn about Foley's e-mails was Rep. Tom Reynolds, chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Reynolds's job, of course, isn't to get to the bottom of the issue. No, it's to maintain the Republican majority in the House. From the start, therefore, the Republican Party appeared more concerned with coddling a child predator and keeping its majority than protecting underage Hill staffers. Reynolds, meanwhile, is facing a reelection battle himself in New York and is taking heat for his role in the growing scandal. So how does Reynolds face up to accusations of a political cover-up? By surrounding himself with children at a press conference Monday night. According to the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, a reporter called him on the appearances of his actions. Wrote Erin Kelly, "When a reporter suggested to Reynolds that the children step outside in order to have a frank discussion of the sexually charged case, Reynolds declined." Why? Said Reynolds, "It's astounding to me as a parent or a grandparent that anyone would insinuate that I would seek to cover up inappropriate conduct between an adult and a child." No, Mr. Reynolds, what's astounding is that instead of being a stand-up person and facing the tough questions, you hid behind children. What's even more astounding is that you hid behind children to avoid answering questions about your role in helping protect a child predator. And that's shameful.

• How long, I wonder, until the goodie basket from George Allen headquarters arrives at the Foley household? And also how long, I wonder, until the official Republican talking points on Foleygate include pinning the blame for his transgressions on Bill Clinton? Oh wait, they already do. Quoting Brit Hume, "Nor did inappropriate behavior toward a subordinate even cost Bill Clinton his standing within the Democratic Party, even though indirectly he was impeached for it." That didn't take long. It appears noted drug addict Rush Limbaugh has also settled on his target: Democrats. Said Limbaugh Monday, "I'm just thinking out loud here. What if somebody got to the page and said, you know, we want you to set Foley up. We need to do a little titillating thing here. Keep it and save it and so forth. How would you get a kid to do that? Yeah, who knows? You threaten him or pay him. There's any number of ways given the kind of people that we're dealing with and talking about here." Quick, however, to disabuse listeners of the thought that he was defending Foley, Limbaugh then proceeded to shift the blame for his actions. "I'm just telling you that the - the - the orgy and the orgasm that has been taking place in the media since Friday and with the Democrats is - it's all coordinated, and it's all - it's all oriented toward the election," he said. "There's no concern about the kid - no concern about the children." Funny you should say that, Rush, considering the first concern about Republicans in-the-know about Foley wasn't the children. No, it was maintaining the Republican majority in the House.

• While we're still speaking about things I don't doubt, I also don't doubt that the Republicans have settled on another scapegoat for Foleygate - Dennis Hastert. House Majority Leader John Boehner, who reversed course Saturday after telling the Washington Post previously that he had spoke to Hastert this spring about Foley, has again reversed course and is again singling out Hastert. Said Boehner on the radio Tuesday morning, "I believe I talked to the Speaker and he told me it had been taken care of." Added Boehner, "And, and, and my position is it's in his corner, it's his responsibility." Boehner again joins Reynolds, who at that bizarre press conference Monday night pointed fingers at the speaker. "I did what most people would do in a workplace," TPMmuckraker reported Reynolds saying, "I heard something, I took it to my supervisor." Taking things a step further were conservative activists Michael Reagan and David Bossie, who have called on Hastert to resign. Said Bossie, the president of Citizens United, "Speaker Hastert had knowledge of Congressman Foley's inappropriate behavior and chose to protect a potential pedophile and powerful colleague over a congressional page." Added Reagan, "Any member of Congress who was aware of the sexual emails and protected the congressman should also resign effective immediately." If that's not bad enough, the right-wing Washington Times also called for Hastert's resignation. Hastert, who, when asked about whether his party should have done more about Foley, said, "Would have, could have, should have", isn't budging. He's also gone so far as to give himself the congressional version of "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." "The Speaker has and will lead the Republican conference to another majority in the 110th Congress," read a statement from his office. The statement added, "Mark Foley has resigned his seat in dishonor, and the criminal investigation of this matter will continue. The Speaker is working every day on ensuring the House is a safe, productive environment for members, staff and all those who are employed by the institution." Somehow, I doubt that.

• The right-wing playing of the gay card has begun. Bill O'Reilly, for instance, spoke about Foley last Friday. "Now, there have been rumors about Foley's homosexuality for years," he said. "You've heard them, we've all heard them. It wasn't an issue at all until now." Added Fox News analyst Tammy Bruce Monday, "All I want, frankly, is a gay person in office who is not a sexual compulsive. I mean, is that too much to ask for? I don't think it is." And now this. Check out this passage from the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal:

But 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. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

Where is Nancy Pelosi? She's back in the reality-based community, where the rest of us realize that the problem isn't whether or not Foley is gay. No, the problem is that all signs point to his being a pedophile. But, putting yourselves in the Republicans' shoes, coddling gays is a much easier charge to fight than is coddling pedophiles. And only in the misguided world of the Republican Party is being gay equated with pedophilia. I find arguments like these nearly as reprehensible as Foley's actions themselves. I'd also look for arguments like these to increase as the Republicans look to spin this horrible reality as much as possible. Foleygate strikes at the heart of the Republican Party's "party of values" rhetoric, leaving an especially bad taste in the mouths of the party's faith-based backers. How, therefore, do the Republicans keep their base motivated enough to vote in the crucial November elections? By turning this scandal around and into an attack on homosexuality, of course.

[NJmaverick]

1. Nice round up!

Good summary of the news.