Tuesday, October 3, 2006

Mark Foley ?

I confess that I do not, in general, pay too much attention to Congress and its vaporings: my own, well, autocratic tendencies usually mean that I find the Senate and the House of Representatives annoying rather than interesting most of the time. That is, of course, unless I want to see them do something, usually a something that anybody but the most purblind of idiots and dolts (meaning certain members of the Senate and House), could see was absolutely necessary.
All things being equal though, I'd rather have the solons being a minor annoyance, rather than a Major Fly in the Ointment.
Now that I have my petulance off my chest: who the Hell is Mark Foley ?

6 comments:

louielouie said...

I find the Senate and the House of Representatives annoying rather than interesting most of the time

caesar?
caesar, is that you?

El Jefe Maximo said...

Good old Gaius Julius probably understood right where I was coming from.

Anonymous said...

Republicans have madea big mess of this. They should have told him to sit pat and wait out the election. Now they're giving up a seat and essentially admitting that Foley did something illegal, which he probably didn't.

He didn't lie under oath like Bill Clinton did, and the boy was NOT underage according to the laws of the District of Columbia, where age of consent is 16.

El Jefe Maximo said...

I certainly agree on "mess" but I'd have NEVER stood pat. Never surrender the initiative -- always attack. I'd have had him bumped off, (oops, purged), months ago.

Don Corleone, check your messages please.

Candidly Caroline said...

Whoa, Anonymous! There is no way they should have sat on this information once the IMs were revealed. Admittedly, my first thought when I heard the newsflash was, "I hope he's not a Republican," but he should have immediately resigned, as he did. I don't care what the legal age is, 16 is not an adult, and kids should NEVER be subjected to the kinds of comments they were at the hands of Foley, especially from someone of such power. It's a disgrace, and he should be ashamed.

It does not mean, however, that Republicans should be disgraced. It was an individual, not the party, who committed these acts.

All the pundits say Republicans are going to get pretty much thrashed this election season. I actually disagree. It is going to be tough, but I think the damage will not be as bad as many think. This situation certainly doesn't help, however.

El Jefe Maximo said...

I've read more on this business this evening...I would agree with CC that there was no way they could have or should have stood pat.

The thing that is interesting, and bothers me -- Tom Bevan discusses it on the Real Clear Politics blog -- is prior to these IM's -- there were evidently some overly friendly e-mails. Bevan says there was some kind of program in place (with Demo and Republican members) for adjudicating issues with pages -- and it looks to me like Foley should have been sent to that a long time ago. This is where Hastert looks bad. Bevan quotes one of his own commenters as calling it "per se managerial malfeasance" and that looks about right to me.

The next question (again raised by Bevan)is...how long have the Democrats known about this ? Have they been sitting on information about Foley ? Saving it for political advantage ? If they've been holding out on lowering the boom...they have an issue too.

I don't know how this will play out for Republicans in general as opposed to Mr. Foley in particular. Mr. Foley was correct to resign, but I wish he'd done it sooner -- like 3 years ago. If the accusations are true, Foley should answer for it legally. He evidently knew this person was 16, and a 16 year old is a kid, period. How do you explain that ? But arguing that Foley's offense, for which he will be punished if guilty, constitutes an affirmative reason to vote Democratic is absurd.

I suspect the people who will allow this to sway their votes one way or another aren't really inclined to vote Republican in any case. Things do look bad, but how bad is unclear. The Democrats whole program consists of being anti-Bush, wanting to talk about domestic issues and run away from the war, and arguing that they're not Republicans. That should not be enough.

Prior to this business, my horseback guess was that the Democrats would pick up seats in the House and Senate, but would fall short of control in either chamber. This may change -- Hell, everything can change -- but for the moment, I still think that's the way to bet.