Democrats ought to learn to quit when they're ahead. Last Friday, they likely came one seat closer to retaking the House of Representatives. Rep. Mark Foley's exit in shame gave them a good chance of picking up one of the seats needed to get back their gavels, and in a Republican district no less. Also, there were legitimate questions being raised about (press scandal-story User Key) "what Republican leaders know and when did they know it" regarding Foley's revolting interest in male pages. They might have condemned Foley's actions, raised more questions, demanded a full inquiry, stayed out of the way while Republicans were committing political suicide, and left it at that.
But Democrats have an inability "to leave it at that" these days. They're glowingly the party of wretched excess. Hyperbole has overwhelmed argument, exaggeration has replaced evidence. Bush didn't just rely on bad intel to make the case for the Iraq war; no, he "lied us into war." It's not enough to hold a dignified memorial service for Minnesota Sen. Paul Wellstone in 2002. Partisans have to turn it into a macabre Democratic campaign rally.
And, now, it's not just a Foley scandal, the fall of a troubled man. No, it has to be the Dennis Hastert scandal, the tale of protecting a predatory GOP incumbent instead of the young men in their charge.
Republican brass, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi charged, knew of Foley's "abhorrent behavior for six months to a year and failed to protect the children in their trust." Even Senate Democrats got into the act. "This is about a member of Congress who used his position to prey on young children, and a Republican leadership team who set out to cover it up," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid.
Well now, how's all that for understatement? Democrats are saying that Hastert and company protected a sexual deviant and put boys at risk to protect their majority. I'm sorry, I don't believe any congressional leader of other either party would do that.
"It's what we have faced for the last two years," Rep. Greg Walden says, "in terms of exaggerated claims without any evidence."
The Oregon Republican is standing behind Hastert and the House leadership. He's seen no evidence to do otherwise. "I cannot imagine they would have tolerated this for one second," he said Tuesday, "had they known about the other e-mails."
The "other e-mails" are the instant messages Hastert and others learned about Friday with the rest of the nation. They're the ones in which Foley talks dirty and comes on to boys in the page program. The only Foley-gram Hastert and company knew of before then—the e-mail that prompted investigation and a warning—was an overly friendly e-mail to a former page. It's a creepy e-mail, loaded with significance in light of the newly released instant messages. But it's no (press scandal-story User Key) "smoking gun."
The St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald looked at it, and neither ran a story.
What's the difference between an e-mail in which a 50-something lawmaker engages in "friendly chit-chat" with a former page and instant messages in which the same guy trolls for young boys? Oh, the difference between mishandling the Foley matter and protecting pages from a lech for political advantage.
Perhaps Hastert should have dug deeper when told of the "friendly chit-chat," though that's easy to say in hindsight. There was clearly a failure of the Republican head of the page board to share the e-mail with the board's ranking Democrat or to bring him along to admonish Foley. But claiming Hastert and the GOP brass knew of the abhorrent behavior and covered it up—please. Or, at least, please provide evidence.
Granted, these are breathless days in the political and media bubble Democratic partisans now inhabit, and the Foley affair may indeed help them reclaim Congress. But if that doesn't happen, there may be a reason. Voters might have concluded Democrats were once again overreaching and trying to turn a tragedy—for the young men involved and, yes, one sick individual—into an electoral strategy. Democrats will have become the party that never misses an opportunity to over-play an opportunity—and miss an opportunity in the process.
David Reinhard
