HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Kevin Drum hits a two-fer. First he draws our attention to the fact that the kids at NRO's Corner are taking this scandal incredibly seriously (while nevertheless attempting to talk themselves into believing it is all the MSM's fault, of course), then he summarizes precisely why they are right:

Even my eyes glaze over a bit when I try to remember everything that was going on with Jack Abramoff or even Duke Cunningham. But Foley? That's easy. He was preying on teenage pages, and the Republican leadership looked the other way and allowed it to continue for nearly a year. It doesn't get much easier than that.

This scandal may not expose systemic corruption the way the Abramoff scandal did, but it has plenty of legs. It involves sex, it involves coverups, it involves powerful players turning on each other to protect their own skins, and it involves lots of documentary evidence. Unlike the Abramoff scandal, this one is going to get covered in People magazine and the National Inquirer. It may finally be the GOP's Waterloo.

Simple narratives are the key to getting the public's undivided attention, and this is as simple as you can get. Republican leaders knew they had a potential child predator in their midst and they did nothing. Politics mattered more than protecting children.

As I said yesterday, this scandal strikes at the heart of the GOP's 20+ year message of "moral values."

UPDATE: TPM Reader JA has another take:

If the GOP can't even keep a bunch of 15 year olds safe, how can they keep America safe?"

Meanwhile, TPM Guest Blogger Reader DK makes a great point:

One thing that seems to be missing from the GOP reaction is shock or surprise. Maybe I've simply overlooked them, but I haven't seen any quotes along the lines of what you usually expect when something like this breaks: the befuddled reactions of those who knew the alleged perpetrator but had no idea he was even capable of what he is being accused of. I'm thinking of those standard quotes from serial killers' neighbors: he was quiet, kept to himself, seemed completely normal.

It's a small world up there on the Hill, and you just don't get the sense that this is a bolt from the blue. I'd be surprised if some reporters didn't already have the low-down on Foley's "over-friendly" ways.

This hadn't occurred to me before. But he is dead on, isn't he? Has anyone out there seen any signs of surprise from the House leadership? All I've seen so far is an extensive but nevertheless badly bungled effort to cover their own asses.

Over at Unclaimed Territory, Glenn Greenwald notes what is perhpas the most deeply ironic aspect of this entire scandal:

For now, I will just note what seems to be the bizarre and incoherent contradiction in the law, noted by Atrios yesterday, that in-person, actual sex between Foley and a 16-year-old page would be perfectly legal in D.C. and in most places in the U.S. (see UPDATE below), but it seems that it is a criminal act for Foley to discuss or solicit sexual acts with the same page over the Internet. Despite all the irritatingly righteous (and overheated) "pedophile" language being tossed around, in the overwhelming majority of states, and in Washington DC, the legal age of consent for sex is 16 years old. That means that actual, in-person sex between Foley and a 16-year-old page in D.C. would not be criminal at all (though it likely could have other legal implications).

But under the so-called "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any "minor" under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense (see Adam Walsh Act, Sec. 111(14) ("MINOR.--The term 'minor' means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years") and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256 (1) (“'minor' means any person under the age of eighteen years").

Beyond the irony, this is particularly important because many members of the House leadership, including Speaker Hastert himself, have spoken at considerable length about the need to protect the nation from sexual predators on the Internet. Through their own actions, however, they demonstrated that they were more interested in using the issue for political purposes than they were in actually doing something about a very real problem over which they had very real control.

Protecting potential kids from potential threats? That they could do! But protecting real kids from real threats? That apparently was asking too much.

Last but not least, another bit of irony, this time courtsey of Ezra's blog:

"It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."—Former Florida Rep. Mark Foley, referring to President Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal.