Clinging to Power
As if the Republicans didn't have enough to worry about this Fall, House Speaker Dennis Hastert isn't making life any easier for them. He has done a dismal job of handling the fallout from the Foley scandal. He has changed his story every thirty seconds, and has claimed he had no idea about Foley's inappropriate behavior. (Rumor in Washington is that almost everyone knew that Foley was sleazy.) Some Republicans realize that Hastert has become a liability, and have declined offers for Hastert to campaign for them. Yet Hastert clings to being Speaker of the House, even at the cost that the Democrats may pick up more seats in November. While I doubt that any politican in Washington is going to step forward and take responsibility for themselves (even if Hastert didn't know, he should have known), you would think that once in a while, Party self-interest would come into play.
posted by David at 10/10/2006 09:43:00 PM
2 Comments:
OK, now you're starting to worry me.
"even if Hastert didn't know, he should have known"
Should have known?
How?
That's a common accusation being hurled by his enemies...but have you forgotten what Gandalf said?
"Knowledge must have a source"
That information was not something that could be derived from known data or basic principles.
That information was being concealed, rather than being publicly distributed.
The only ways one can justify that he should have known would be to insist that all Congressional communications be monitored. Or... to assume that all homosexuals will hit on teenagers who work with them.
Foley's gone. Good.
If Hastert knew and did nothing, he should answer for it. [That the kid was 18, and not 16 as first reported, may mean that no law was broken -- thereby not allowing any action to be taken against Foley]
If Hastert didn't know until this story broke, then there was nothing more he could do.
I'm gettin' a bit concerned, Dave. You can cogitate better than this...
There is a little background to this comment, which I didn't put into the original post. Someone I know is involved in the political arena, and he told me that it was common knowlege on Capitol Hill that Foley was sleazy. While it is possible that Hastert could have been oblivious to this, I doubt it. The nature of Hastert's job means that it his business to stay in touch with what is going on.
In today's politics, people tend to keep on eye on sleazy behavior. If the person is part of the other party, they use it for campaigning purposes. If the person is in their own party, they keep an eye on it to make sure the other party doesn't use it against them. So it stands to reason that a professional politician would have kept an eye on Foley's behavior.
Given that multiple individuals have said that they had notified Hastert's staff about Foley's inappropriate conduct, it's suprising that Hastert didn't know about it. It's unlikely that his staff would have kept something like this from him. So either the individuals who claimed they notified Hastert's office are lying, the staff was negligent in their duties, Hastert turned a blind eye to rumors, or Hastert knew and is lying about it. Unfortunately, any of the above are possible.
So, I would say that it is highly probable that Hastert knew that there were rumors of Foley's inappropriate behavior. It is probable that he knew the general class of Foley's inappropriate behavior. Depending on the veracity of some of the parties involved, it is possible that he knew specific instances of Foley's inappropriate behavior.
Given these things, wouldn't you agree that as an accomplished politician, Hastert would have kept an extremely close eye on Foley, and would have sought out any information from third parties that might be relevant? And given the number of people who knew of it, is it probable that Hastert didn't know what was going on?
Post a Comment
<< Home