The House that Flacks Built
Three more come forward as the Foley Fallout blows down wind.
The only way the phants are going to hold the House of Representatives is if they move the capital to Las Vegas, and hope that what happens in Vegas really stays in Vegas. Reeling from defiant admissions that Hastert covered up for Foley, and then lied to the press just days ago about having forgotten - the FT reports that Abramoff ran cover for online gaming companies who paid millions. Only after Abramoff falls is legislation introduced to restrict gaming. Quid pro quo doesn't get much clearer in thus morally murky age.
Meanwhile the reason why an embattled phants are not trotting out the war, is because we are losing the Battle of Baghdad, and even Bill Frist, Senate Majority Leader and potential presidential candidate, is admitting that Afghanistan is nearly lost - even as NATO takes control of the operation there.
The solution to this in the view of the Republicans? Hunt for WMD in Iraq!
The word of the week has been "creepy". For a long time it is has been clear to independents and democratic base voters that the phants were crazy creepy hacks pursuing crazy creepy policies. The Foley scandal gives a face and a name to the sexualized overtones of a Republican regime which seemed to seethe with upstairs/ downstairs yearnings. Foley does not change the equation, but he does simply it down to g(o)p=∫(e)x.
This is more important to the phants fate than at first it might appear. One of the most important victories of the Republican Party was to convince people in the suburbs to vote their fears and their wild fantasies rather than their interests. Reagan won everywhere because there were suburbanites everywhere. Over the years the Reagan coalition eroded. One of the most important dynamics keeping it - and people like Rep. Johnson of Connecticut, who is a dead heat with Democratic challenger Chris Murphy - in place, was the evolution of progressive and Democratic young single women, into conservative and fearful married suburban mothers. Democrats hold huge leads with primarily urban dwelling young single women, but see this edge erode dramatically as those women grow older.
The exfoleyation of the Republican Congress, the bubbling gambling scandal, and the crumbling of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan strike that the heart of the argument, made nakedly by Bush earlier in the week, that the Republicans are the party that will protect you. The very knuckle dragging neaderthal qualities which made the phants project an undercurrent of loathsome lust, also made them seem like the kind of knuckle dragging neaderthals that would club the things that go bump in the night.
The Republicans cannot get this off the stage fast enough. To no small extent because it makes people face that the Republican base, the radical reactionary right, is willing to concoct Clinton conspiracy theories about Foley in order to preserve their own mental equilibrium. The problem is that every time the one of the Little Green Footballs crowd says the word "Gay" near the word "Republican", another base social conservative voter reaches for the barf bag, and decides to stay home. Nothing is uglier than watching phant step on its own trunk.
The scandal has overshadowed White House efforts to focus on national security and the economy. “If you guys write about the Foley scandal, morning, noon and night, it seems to me that -- the president was talking about things that matter,” he said.
But that is the irony. For 20 years sex scandals have been the way of getting political figures who were not vulnerable on the face of it, even if they were disliked. Tower, Clarence Thomas, Bob Packwood, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank all took their turns in the hot seat. By living by the politics of purient destruction, the Republicans cannot easily make the genie get back into the bottle. For years the Republicans tormented Clinton, trying to equate sexual propriety with political trustworthiness. The scandal introduces what Needlenose has called the trust issue as front and center.
While Nancy Pelosi does what she does best - fight in the trenches of congressional infighting, shooting down many of the most obvious ploys in Hastert's response, such as Louis Freeh's being in charge of reforming the Page program, Harry Reid has come out swinging with a very public statement:
This Republican Congress has now completely failed the American people. We knew they wouldn't stand up to big drug companies. We knew they wouldn't repeal the tax breaks they gave to big oil. But we did expect them to protect our kids. It is now clear we expected too much of them. They are not up to the job of upholding America's values.“It is not enough for House Republican leaders to work to ensure this disgrace is not repeated in the future. Every parent in America expects them to fully investigate why it was permitted in the first place. The problem today isn't the page program, which has been in existence since the time of Daniel Webster. The problem today is that House Republican leaders had evidence of a sexual predator in their ranks and chose to cover it up instead of choosing to protect these children. What is needed is for Republican leaders to testify under oath about what they knew, when they knew it, and why they didn't properly act.”
It also has the effect of reincarnating all of the other scandals that have rocked the Republican hold on power, but have not shifted the allegiance of the press to elephantine government. The public has soured on the current regime and gives the Republican Congress Nixonian numbers but now that is translating into leads in specific races. There is no longer a vague angst, but a specific anger. Scarborough, former Republican who knows sex scandals from the inside warns that this is yet another reason why the public is going to vote Democratic.
This comes at exactly the wrong moment for the phants, and has given the donks a raison d'etre. In the last three elections, the Republicans have closed well, even if they had almost lost the election, when it counted they recovered - in 2000 it was after election day - when it counted. The same forces that gave Bush a breather and a slow march upwards - the easing of energy inflation as the economy slows, without the loss of jobs that will come with it - is going to come to an end as OPEC turns the spigot down and the housing market slows.
Foley has given a name to the voters pain, and forced all but kool-aid freebasers to face the reality that the Republican Party has lied to them, repeatedly, on matters large and small, on questions both foreign and domestic, about personal behavior and public policy. That this deceit has been in service of a carnival of corruption, and a debacle of personal debauchery. While the party of personal responsibility continues to hold Clinton personally responsible for everything, the public cannot feast their eyes often enough on Mark Foley, gay Republican sex predator, and the House that Flacks built coming crashing down.
The GOP has, in a matter of days become the Gross Out Party: Debauchery, Deceit, and Defeat. This did not happen earlier, because earlier people were not quite ready. Scandals don't happen, they are allowed to happen. Many of these revelations were already in place last year, but instead the press allowed the election to be dominated by lies about Kerry's record, rather than the truth about the Republican Congress. This time, with the Republican money machine wheezing to a halt, it is different. People were ready to hear about what they could feel, but did not quite want to allow themselves to see. It was Republicans who pushed the material out to the press, possibly disgusted by months of inactivity on the part of the FBI.
George Will echoes a common sentiment these days, the party that narrowly lost running against war and recession had better not lose running against defeat and debauchery. So the question that now becomes a tangible reality is what the Democrats are going to do if they manage to convert this chance into control of one or both houses of Congress. Because parties that back into power, have a habit of backing right back out again.














Way back in the Good Old Days, there were actual policy arguments to be held between Republicans and Democrats that played out in ways large and small, but the nation did basically OK. The pendulum swayed this way then that way, but tended to oscillate about a basic center.
The Lee Atwater crew, determined to rectify Republican losses after the Nixon debacle, (in my opinion) recruited Movement Conservatives to form the Neo Republican Party we see today. These folks introduced a new set of methods intended to win the elections that they had lost so convincingly due to the incompetent aggressiveness of the Nixonians.
Karl Rove in the political world, Grover Norquist in the tax world, and the various political Religious Right folks exemplified by Ralph Reed carried this aggressiveness to high art, and their success catapulted the neo Republicans into power in both the legislative and executive branches of national government, and were successful at the state level as well.
We are, however, learning something about aggressiveness as a "strategy": It is not a strategy, it's a tactic.
Aggressiveness wins Short Victorious Wars, and it wins elections, but it doesn't win hearts&minds, and it doesn't govern competently.
Recent political events seem to support this hypothesis: The neo Republicans have had and used their power aggressively during the past 1.5 decades, and it appears that their need for power combined with their stunning lack of acceptance of responsibility for their actions, may result in a reduction, if not a major loss of their vaunted electoral power.
Foley's antics are personally important but not a structural problem. The Republican shutdown of the House Ethics Commitee during in response to the Delay, Abramoff and various minor ethics skirmishes, shows their unwillingness to police their actions. And that is a structural problem.
Their unwillingness to investigate Iraq expenditures and contract management, their unwillingness to show their cards in the Iraq runup, their resistance to the 9/11 commission, all point to weakness in governance. That is a structural problem.
In all of these cases, if they had been acting rationally and with the best interests of the nation in mind, why not invite debate? They know that they are right, why not allow that intrinsic correctness be brought out into the light of day?
I submit it's because they are into winning but not governing. They are intimately familiar with the hard power of war but not the soft power of not needing to beat up on everyone within reach to build and maintain a sustainable strategy.
In response to those who dismiss Democrats/Progressives/"liberals"/etc. for not having A Plan, I say that I have a large preference for their inability to wield such power over my life! I never understood the value of disorganized, "inefficient" government so completely as during the last half-decade, with its stunningly efficient transfer of wealth and influence into the hands of the few!
October 5, 2006 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent comment, thanks!
October 5, 2006 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, a calculus joke! I never thought I'd see that anywhere but on the walls of my computer science department! That's perhaps the funniest thing I've read on this site.
October 5, 2006 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lamentations
Foleygate emphasizes that even a so-called moderate phant in DC is a wingnut waiting to blossom. Hastert blames George Soros and the MSM for exploding the Foley bombshell. A regular old wingnut would be expected to blame the culture, MSM, Clinton (Bill or Hillary, pick one or both), but when a "moderate" does so, it exposes the entire DC GOP lineup as Kool-Aid drinkers. When confronted with facts that run counter their desired public perception, they cut and run.
After pointing out the failures of the GOP to police it's own despite being in charge, Dems should mention that Condoleeza Rice, the charming classic piano playing Secretary of State is a bald faced liar.
While Katie Couric spent time asking about how a gentleman would go about asking Madam Secretary on a date, facts emerging suggesting that Rice had lied about meetings with Tenet stating that Osama was a major threat.
I think Hastert and the GOP in general are slowly facing a MSM that feels somewhat obligated to report on GOP Congressional incompetence. The attempts by Fox News, Tammy Bruce, Newt, Rush, Drudge to try to divert attention by linking Foley to a sex scandal Congressional 23 years ago only makes the GOP look more incompetent and desparate. This is especially true in the post-John Stewart era, where outlets like MSNBC will now play back to back snippets of various conservative talking heads including Fox news anchors parroting the identical phrases linking Foley to past Congressional scandals.
Hopefully the 40% of the population representing GOP Kool-Aid imbibers will be overwhelmed by pissed of fProgressives/Liberals and outraged independents at the polls.
Time will tell.
October 6, 2006 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope you're right that the Olbermanns and Jon Stewarts are making a difference. Without them, and without sites like TPM, there's no real way to focus attention on the way the MSM tries to herd the citizenry along. The online polls are especially galling, e.g.:
Should the e-mails sent by ex-Rep. Foley to a former congressional page have prompted more action from Congress and the FBI?
* No. The e-mails weren't alarming enough to have warranted an investigation.
* Yes. They were provocative. Congress and the DOJ should have launched investigations immediately.
* Not sure. It's a matter of opinion.
Not a scientific survey.
They're not joking about the unscientific part. When ABC attaches a weak rationale to choices, they deflect voters who would have picked that choice, but for very different reasons. No, the emails don't rank 10 on the "provocative" scale when they're considered out of the context of Foley's past behavior and past warnings. But taken in context, yes they should have set off major alarm bells.
Notice how the should have prompted more action option alluded to in the lead-in falls completely through the cracks: it comes down to the false choice between no action or a 4-alarm fire.
This vote-shaping pattern is seen in many of the online MSM polls. The results are then revealed as a course-correcting mechanism to guide public opinion when it strays from the path that has been cleared and marked for it.
October 6, 2006 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember, there's more than one scandal here:
1) Foley's inappropriate behavior toward pages;
2) The failure of the page program, of which Hastert is the ostensible sponsor, to have policies and procedures in place that would minimize the potential for abuse, provide pages with a safe way to report inappropriate contact, assure that such reports would be investigated, evaluated and reported by persons without conflicts of interest to the appropriate law enforcement authorities and members of the house for their consideration and action. Hastert and those with day-to-day responsibilities for the page program have had their heads deep in the sand not to have noticed abuse scandals in the Catholic Church and elsewhere over the past decade and acted to prevent similar victimization of pages.
3) The unknown extent to which pages have been victims of other inappropriate behavior by Representatives, staff members of Representatives, lobbyists, and anyone else who could take advantage of pages because of perceived or real "power-over" the pages.
October 7, 2006 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
The poll is still on the ABC front page today. There are only a few over 5000 votes. People may have been discouraged from expressing an opinion by the language, but despite the lack of meaningful choices, people nonetheless voted 7-to-1 for the YES option: They were provocative. Congress and the DOJ should have launched investigations immediately.
Amazing. I agree the poll design was clearly biased to provide support for folks up the leadership chain from Foley. Even the not sure option is pigeon-holed as "it's a matter of opinion" rather than "not enough information yet" or just the open-ended "not sure."
One of the things that has been learned from polling and focus groups is that poll results shape opinion and that the way polling questions are phrased, and even the order in which they're asked, shape the outcome. TPM needs a permanent POLL-WATCH feature that gages the fairness and objectivity of MSM polls. You're right - in the case of the ABC poll even the logic was bad.
October 7, 2006 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for using a derivative of the verb "exfoleyate". Yours is the first use of the term that almost prompted me to set up my own blog, just to use it myself.
Also, since this is my first TPMCafe post, I'd like to add my voice to those pointing out that polling advantages due to scandals are useless when the specter of actual vote tabulation fraud hangs over the head.
Unless of course you believe that there's a secret wellspring of Naderites in Florida...
October 7, 2006 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Update: today's ABC you-vote poll, "What should happen to Hastert?" is not prominently featured, and when I clicked on VOTE, it wouldn't come up on my browser, so I can't see how the options were phrased. Could someone else try it? Since the Friday-Saturday poll didn't produce a pro-Hastert result, maybe ABC doesn't really want to know what people think on this one?
October 8, 2006 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ABC poll doesn't come up on my browser either (checking Monday). It does seem like that if it were just a coding glitch they would have fixed it by now.
CNN poll results are overwhelmingly critical of Republican handling.
(edited to update:) Rechecking at 3pm, ABC has removed the (non-functioning) Sun/Mon Hastert poll link from their website. It's most strange that the network that broke the story is showing so little interest in what viewers think about it.
October 9, 2006 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink