The Foley case
Your humble correspondent has been tasked with seeking comments from the Triad's congressional delegation today regarding the case of former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla. I've talked with Howard Coble, gotten a statement from Mel Watt, am expecting a callback soon from Brad Miller and am hoping for a callback from Virginia Foxx.
Possibly related developments:
- House Speaker Dennis Hastert is supposed to be holding a news conference in Illinois as I type. I don't know yet whether he actually is doing so.
- The House Ethics Committee is supposedly holding a news conference at 1:30 p.m. ET.
A number of commenters locally and nationally on various blogs have compared this case in various ways to those of Reps. Gerry Studds and Dan Crane in the early 1980s. TPMMuckraker.com has an instructive look at how the House addressed those cases: with an "independent" and "massive" investigation.
Comments (8)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
It's about time that the N&R started covering this, even with a 'local' slant. Ya think? It's been mysteriously missing till this a.m. from the print paper. Just IMO.
Posted on October 5, 2006 6:53 PM
Actually, Sue, I'm perusing our archives and I see that we had briefs on 9/30 and 10/2 (lead national brief) and stories on 10/1, 10/3, 10/4 (promoted on the front page), 10/5 (published on the front page) and today (front page).
I'm going to try to blog a bit more about this this morning -- leftovers from yesterday's interviews, primarily.
Posted on October 6, 2006 9:40 AM
Massive and independent. Harrumph ! Studds took his little boy to Portugal for their actual sexual romps. The outcomes are more instructive than the size and scope of the " investigation ", as Ann Coulter points out:
It's The Hypocrisy Stupid
Sudds turned his back on the Speaker while the censure was being read and received thunderous appluause from the Democrats in the House. Then was endorsed by them for 5 more terms and rewarded with a chairmanship. Earlier he indignantly said in a press conference that the matter was persomnal and no ones business.
Crane whose matter involved a female page, was apologetic and failed to gain re-election.
Okay, now follow the dots.
An ex-congressman who had sex with an (underage) subordinate and won clemency from a president who had sex with a young subordinate, then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate.
True or false ?
The Reynolds Rap
This sordid affair gained scant attention by the MSM.
Have I made it clear ?
Posted on October 6, 2006 11:44 AM
Update from Ace Of Spades:
Dem Dirty Tricks
Posted on October 6, 2006 12:13 PM
"Massive" and "independent" were TPMMuckraker's words, not mine. And I think that compared with what has thus far happened (or, more accurately, not happened) in the Foley case, I think they're accurate. Whether they're objectively accurate in a vacuum is another question entirely.
I think the Dems should have expelled Studds in 1983 as well: A Congresscritter going after a minor (even one it was technically legal to go after), irrespective of sexual orientation, is icky enough in my mind to warrant expulsion.
But there's another level of hypocrisy in the Foley case that didn't apply to Studds. For one thing, under Foley's own legislation, the explicit messages he sent minors appear to have been a crime even if sex with a 17-year-old wasn't (and it isn't, at least in D.C.). The Internet, of course, wasn't involved in the Studds case.
Then, at least w/r/t orientation, Studds wasn't living a lie. It's debatable at best whether Foley was, at least w/r/t his orientation, but what IS clear is that Foley built his career on "protecting the children" while he was preying on them. That's a level of hypocrisy Studds never came close to. Again, that doesn't excuse Studds' behavior, but it illustrates the point that the cases are not as analogous as Coulter claims.
Finally, although Studds' behavior might well have constituted sexual harassment, the issue wasn't one with which most Americans were conversant before the Clarence Thomas hearings in '91. Even Coulter appears to think Dems likely would be equally outraged if Foley were a Democrat; she just doesn't think he'd have gone away as abruptly as he did. Who knows? She might be right.
As for the Mel Reynolds case, I don't know why Dems didn't make a big deal about it, but then I don't think ANYONE made a big deal about that one compared with the concurrent pardon of Marc Rich, which it was thought might have involved not just sleaziness but outright bribe-taking. I recall a fair bit of outrage over that on both sides, but my memory might be faulty. In any event, I'm not sure how it's relevant to this case.
Posted on October 6, 2006 1:43 PM
As for the Ace post, it raises some interesting hypotheses but appears to prove nothing at this point.
As for Nancy Pelosi's refusal to give testimony under oath, why should she? She wasn't on the Page Board and she wasn't among the people who have been identified as having been told about Foley months before the news broke. (But if, say, Kirk Fordham were to come forward today and say he told her months or years ago, too, then, yeah, I'd say let's put her under oath and see what she knows.)
Posted on October 6, 2006 1:47 PM
Apparently he doesn't give a damn:
Phony Scandal
Posted on October 6, 2006 8:13 PM
Jeda at Xark has an excellent post on how it would look if Foley were a high school coach.
Posted on October 8, 2006 1:26 AM