An interesting article over at The American Spectator verifies what I've been hearing from other sources. Democrat operatives are confirming that the Foley story wasn't supposed to be released until about 10 days before the election - and it was supposed to be the culmination of a series of orchestrated October surprises, rather than the beginning.
What changed? Poll numbers. Republicans were coming back strongly -- Democrat hopes were evaporating. With the new age of media and the Internet, Democrats figure that a poll swing that results from a story like Foley would last about two weeks before voters start paying attention to real issues again - and that's nationally. In individual races, where often local issues are paramount in a non-presidential election year, the swing benefit from such a story might even be shorter (see NYT story later in this post):
"You pull out the bright shiny things that distract the average American voter away from the issues we all know they care about -- national security, anti-terrorism -- and focus on the ugly: Foley and Iraq."
...'Republicans had to have known we'd be looking to change the national debate,' says a House Democrat leadership aide. 'You had our leadership looking at cratering polling numbers. A majority within grasp wasn't drifting away, it was being yanked back by Republicans. I wouldn't be surprised if Foley had to be bumped up on the scandal schedule. That makes a lot of sense given where we were two weeks ago, and where we are now.' "
As much as Katie Couric et al try to keep the Foley fires burning, there is now enough evidence that this was a political stunt -- and that no one out there knows where this is heading. Leaders and operatives from both parties are going to be put under oath by the FBI and the Justice Department in the investigation of a cover-up.
Democrats beware -- there was just too much coordination beween liberal groups like CREW, a fake blog, American Family Voices, David Corn's McCarthyesque "Gay Staffers List", and Nancy Pelosi to be a coincidence. Now that evidence has surfaced that the communicant with Mark Foley of the IMs (not the e-mails, which not even Brian Ross was willing to write about in August) was a legal consenting adult, the story turns into a gay version of the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal. The differences are homosexuality, a page instead of an intern, and there being no physical contact in the Foley story.
The latest twist, that congressional staffers like Kirk Fordham "warned" Hassert's office three years ago about Foley's penchant for young men, lacks any detail about what the warning was, and is contradicted by Fordham's own documented actions regarding the Foley Scandal.
If no evidence that any crime was being committed, what can be done about someone like Foley except what the National Journal is saying happened?:
Foley's friends ruefully speak of knowing that Foley was friendly with congressional pages. One recalls jokingly telling Foley to be careful not to confirm a stereotype about sexual predators. Foley laughed, a friend says.When the Foley story first hit, I was furious. Based on what I was reading and hearing, I thought that Mark Foley was at the very least a sexual predator and a pedophile. Now, even according to Andrew Sullivan, no evidence exists that he is either. Right now I'm glad he's gone (he seems like a time-bomb waiting to explode), and we may still find out that he has committed crimes against young children. But right now this whole thing is looking more and more like a political hit piece designed to surpress the conservative vote. And according to the New York Times, it's not looking as if it's going to work long-term:
...But then, in the fall of 2005, a page sponsored by Rep. Rodney Alexander of Louisiana, complained. After Foley had furtive discussions with House officials, his friends warned him to police himself. And one former Foley staffer recalls asking the lawmaker directly whether there was anything more serious floating around. Foley, according to the former aide, said no.
...Foley's former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, last spring promised both Rep. John Shimkus, the chairman of the page board, and a top assistant to Hastert that he would make sure Foley behaved himself. At that time, Fordham was the chief aide to Rep. Tom Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Fordham's assurances, according to this account, apparently were enough to persuade Hastert's staff not to recommend further action
...Fordham told ABC News that in 2003 he warned Hastert's powerful chief of staff, Scott Palmer, that he was worried about Foley's penchant for doting on male pages. Palmer, according to Fordham, subsequently notified Hastert. Palmer responded that Fordham's version of events is untrue. And a House leadership aide wondered aloud why Fordham, who professed to be surprised by Foley's conduct on Monday, was saying two days later that he remembered having long-standing anxieties.
But in dozens of interviews here in southeastern Virginia, a conservative Christian stronghold that is a battleground in races for the House and Senate, many said the episode only reinforced their reasons to vote for their two Republican incumbents in neck-and-neck re-election fights, Representative Thelma Drake and Senator George Allen. "This is Foley's lifestyle," said Ron Gwaltney, a home builder, as he waited with his family outside a Christian rock concert last Thursday in Norfolk. "He tried to keep it quiet from his family and his voters. He is responsible for what he did. He is paying a price for what he did. I am not sure how much farther it needs to go."So the ABC News polls out this morning reflect the American public being hit in the face with the Foley Scandal and its spin, and the trickle-down from that. But it reflects national opinion, not local races. The local polling will take a hit as well, but only for as long as local issues (or the War on Terror and Immigration) aren't the focus. The more the Democrats use Foley in their ads and the media obsesses over it, the more of a chance that the Democrats will experience a blow-back from the voters. It sometimes takes a while, but generally voters know when they're being played for fools - and don't appreciate it. This Foley business certainly doesn't help the Republicans, but it's not the fatal blow that is being portrayed in the media, either.
The Democratic Party is "the party that is tolerant of, maybe more so than Republicans, that lifestyle," Mr. Gwaltney said, referring to homosexuality.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 12)
1. What evidence is there that this was all a giant Democratic ploy? An unsigned article in the The American Spectator bandying about allegations from anonymous sources? This would be funny if it wasn't being taken seriously.
The Spectator is journalism of the worst kind. It's stories on Anita Hill and Troopergate have been thoroughly debunked, by their own author. Unless you've got a reputable magazine (even a reputable rightwing magazine) reporting that Dems planned to break this story in the last ten days, repeating it is seriously irresponsible.
Left in the West at 2:11PM on Oct 10th 2006
2. it's really ironic that republicans are trying to make this about foley being gay. it doesn't matter his sexual orientation, the fact is he aggressively went after teenagers, if he was straight it would be just as bad.
i find it hilarious that you are pointing fingers at democrats for supposedly holding onto this story. so i guess the republicans not doing anything about the emails and complaints and keeping quiet this whole was all part of the dems plan? when there is a huge pile of elephant dung on the floor, you don't blame the trapeze artist for not notifying anyone.
toc at 2:36PM on Oct 10th 2006
3. At 73 I still am stunned at the incredible spin politicians can put on any subject. Saying that Foley probably is innocent of any crime, and that the whole issue is a Democratic attempt to throw an election is ludicrous. Not so oddly, it is the pot calling the kettle black: the GOP did do exactly this kind of thing, under Rove's direction, and it did corrupt the Florida and Ohio elections.
ed McClendon at 2:38PM on Oct 10th 2006
4. So this is the official rightwing perspective? A secret cabal of Democrats runs the world? And they've been ruining this country over the past six years through their naive GOP dupes?
Why don't you just get a rubber stamp that says "It's All Bill Clinton's Fault" and take the next decade off? If these are the best fabrications you can come up with after all that practice, you need a vacation.
Kurt S at 3:47PM on Oct 10th 2006
5. Enough is enough - E-mails versus Sexual contact - Senator versus President - all the press hype does not add up, unless it was meant to discourage the conservatives, undermine the Republican base and give victory to the Democrats. Let's get to the issues: border security, illegal immigration, war on terror, War in Iraq and Afghanistan, Economy, Jobs, English as National Language, Marriage between one man and one woman, abortion, minimum wage etc. etc. The list is long... Enough is enough! Move on to the issues - Debate them on the issues not on some sexually explicit e-mails -
These e-mails were tame compared to some sex-fantasies suggested in "respectable" Woman's Magazines and current TV shows. Move on! Enough is enough! Let's give us debates on ISSUES not fantasy driven e-mails.
Monique Yannotti at 4:00PM on Oct 10th 2006
6. There you have it. Truth at last. I know CREW informed the FBI in July, but that was part of the plot, to make the delay look legitimate. The liberal plotters screwed up by waiting until a few days after Woodwards new book had been released, because Foley sucked away Woodward's publicity, but it turns out that was a new girl in Liberal Computer Programming, she had reset her her computer's date a month behind. If all goes well, we'll have our secret leader, Barbra Streisand, installed as Supreme Dictator within the year.
The Democrats Again at 4:02PM on Oct 10th 2006
7. Read the Article. It's all pretty well laid out. Fact is that someone had these IM's and did not turn them over to the authorities until the scandal broke. Whoever had them was not "protecting the children".
Good post.
NixGuy at 4:06PM on Oct 10th 2006
8. The Foley scandal is not about gay's it is about pedophiles. The Jeff Gannon situation was not about a reporter it was about a gay male prostitute who was an obvious White House plant. Enron, to our knowledge had nothing to do with politics but about the President lying about knowing Ken Lay better known to him as "Kenny boy" when he had used his plane to campaign in. Abramoff is about selling your soul when you are supposed to be in Washington to protect your constituants. Being a Christian is not about protecting the "Republican" party but about standing up for Christ and the ten commandments he left for us to follow. And the most important thing, lying to go to war at the cost of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives is about evil in my opinion.
Cora Byrd at 4:13PM on Oct 10th 2006
9. According to a Washington Report article of May 2006, e-mails of Congresspeople and Journalists are routinely "vacuumed up" by the NSA superspy types now doing us all. Did they know about this and if so when? Maybe they held back also because of the candystore Foley was running for other GOP candidates. One wonders.
Ronald N. Smith at 5:07PM on Oct 10th 2006
10. NixGuy -- ABC, which received those IMs, has said that their sources were Republicans, not Democrats. The American Spectator story is junk journalism.
Left in the West at 5:15PM on Oct 10th 2006
11. OK, I just want some facts.
And I want to know that all of you are at least being consistent.
First, I think this guy is an absolute creep. Did he break the law? Well, I've read conflicting stories on that one. In the D of C, I've heard the age of consent is 16. (I've also heard the page was over 18, but I don't think that's true)
So, if this is true, then even sex with him (as an assumed consenter) is legal. If it was only IM's and emails, and not sex then I'm not sure what law was broken.
EXCEPT- is there a sexual harrassment charge because this kid was considered a subordinate?
SO- let's assume for the sake of argument that all that Foley did do was technically legal and considered consenting. If you still feel it's absolutely WRONG to place a subordinate into sexual situations, I agree with you.
So even if Foley didn't resign already, let's fire him and anyone that knew about him and his "activities".
NOW, show of hands here. How many of you fairly called for the same resignation of someone else who definitely had sex with someone who can be defined very easily as a subordinate? Did you all also consistently call for his resignation, work for it, and also support the resignation of every who knew about it, which was plenty? Of course you know that I'm referring to Bill C.
If you want me to take your indignation/condemnation completely seriously, then please show me your consistency of where you didn't support Bill, but wished for his resignation.
If you have evidence that Foley has broken the law, I'll take that as it's own very distinct difference between them. If it was just sexual pressure in a work situation, then either put up or shut up.
I'm not agreeing with this story that the Democrats knew about this and were just sitting on it. That's too weak to be proven at this point, but please don't tell me that you believe equally sneaky things are not done by both sides. I can give you plenty of examples from both. It is within the realm of likely possibility; I just won't agree with it until it's confirmed.
johhny_x at 5:21PM on Oct 10th 2006
12. Hold on a second.
This is the problem of interrupting events through ideological filters.
Regardless of who knew what in any context a 50 year old plus guy asking an 18 year old (or less) guy if "your horny" or "wearing boxer shorts", or "getting undressed", in the very best context is sexual harrassment.
Sexual harrassment by a government official is always legitmate news. Exposure puts a stop to it.
Putting this into a hetrosexual context, why would I ask a girl if she was horny. There is only one reason. Innocent flirting? Hardly, it is to move things to the next step - sex.
Is there anyone who doesn't believe that Foley's goal was to have sex with these children? In this day and age, what possible motivation would a man sitting on the House Committee for Child Exploitation have for taking such reckless, self destructive and explosive risk?
David Sefton at 5:43PM on Oct 10th 2006
13. It is insanity to blame this on the Democrats. Unless it was all false, and a smear. But Foley admitted to it immediately.
Further, I am from Utah and am outraged that Chris Cannon of Utah jumped in defending Foley and blaming the "precocious kids" and their parents. Kids are kids, and adults are supposed to protect them, even from themselves if they use bad judgment.
Cannon from the "family values" reddest state of Utah should know better. Unless what he "knows" is that he will get re-elected no matter what, and he thinks he is free to try to spin Foley to save the Republican lock on Congress. And why was Orrin Hatch, (Utah Republican senator) standing behind Foley in the pictures of Foley resigning?
Lee Anne WAlker at 6:07PM on Oct 10th 2006
14. The Republican spin is so laughable.Three weeks ago Foley was protesting that he was the victim of a Democratic smear campaign. Foley on numerous occasions was confronted with the smeinocuous im from the page from Louisiana. This was also given to various news outlets months ago.No one wanted to run with the story because it was felt there was no evidence of a crime only annoying behavior by a 50+ man. Then ABC published this on its internet news and two pages responded with salacious IMS. Within 2 hours of being faced with graphic sexaul IMs Foley resigned. This story has been laying around for months and no one wanted to do the investigative work necessary to flesh out the story. So don't blame the Democrats.The blame belongs on Foley and the Republican "leadership " that chose to protect one of their own until he was caught. Now the leadership is just playing catch up.
Vicenta Montoya at 6:12PM on Oct 10th 2006
15. Give me a break! I'm a republican and even I know they are to blame fot his mess. The Washington Times (a conservative paper) had the story back in June and refused to cover it. Had they broke it, we republicans wouldn't be having this issue now. . 10 days before? BS . . why can't we admit we messed up and clean up the mess instead of looking worse by jokes like this blog.
Rick at 6:15PM on Oct 10th 2006