Professor Blanchard has given his thoughts on the Mark Foley page scandal here and here.
I completely agree with his assessment, especially his statement that:
There is no evidence presented so far that the anyone but Foley acted inappropriately.
My Hoya column appears Fridays, but I am posting an advance copy here:
The disgusting electronic communications between ex-Congressman Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and Congressional pages have already led him to seek treatment for alcoholism, and may send him to jail. But, in light of statements from House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) this week that he was unaware of Foley’s obscene conversations, calls for Hastert’s resignation as Speaker are unnecessary.
The AOL instant messages Foley sent in 2003 which were recently released by ABC News are awful, to say the least. Hastert has admitted that he had prior knowledge of “overly friendly” — but nonsexual — e-mails sent by Foley. On Tuesday, Hastert said that no one in the Republican leadership saw the more graphic and unacceptable instant message communications that caused Foley’s immediate resignation from Congress.
Foley’s immediate resignation points out a clear difference between Republicans and Democrats in Congress. Two other homosexuals in Congress, former Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.), and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), were also implicated in sex scandals.
In July 1983, the House was made aware of Studds’ consensual relationship with a 17-year-old male page that happened 10 years earlier. Studds admitted to the relationship, but refused to apologize. Studds was censured by the House, and turned his back and ignored the reading of the statement. He later held a press conference with the former page and publicly defended his choice.
In 1990, the House reprimanded Frank after discovering a male prostitute had run a prostitution ring out of Frank’s apartment. Frank had used his position to fix 33 parking tickets for his special friend but ignored calls to resign.
Again, both of these Congressmen continued to serve after their scandals. Fortunately for Congress, Foley is a Republican and the party willing to accept the consequences of its actions.
If Hastert did in fact only have access to the more benign e-mails, he cannot be criticized for his actions. Questions such as “What do you want for your birthday coming up?” and “What stuff do you like to do?” are certainly not what you might expect to receive from a congressman, but are harmless. Foley also asked for a “pic” of the teenage page, however. Both the page’s parents and Republican leadership then requested that Foley stop contacting the boy. These e-mails have now been infamously labeled “overly friendly.”
It’s interesting to hear that some people want Hastert to resign because he supposedly did not deal with an “overly friendly” congressman harshly enough. Foley did nothing illegal in writing those e-mails. Usually, in such a situation, one is told to “knock it off” when doing something that could be considered weird but generally does not lose his or her seat in the House. Hastert had no reason to take further action against Foley with the information he had at the time.
Overly friendly politicians should in theory be better than overly unfriendly ones. Imagine yourself, say, working for a primary candidate in an important midterm election race. While you’re attending a primary opponent’s rally, you are approached by the candidate and his staff in a Macaca-esque confrontation.
You are a fellow party member, however, and once everyone realizes this, you are treated much more nicely than Macaca. Soon after you’re approached, the candidate comes up to you and says, “Who is this tall, handsome, good-looking, blonde young man?”
Then, several months later, you’re at a party meeting and see the candidate again, who remembers you and says, “We’re all friends here,” and gives you a bear hug around the waist (remember, you’re a tall guy).
Finally, you’re attending a dinner a couple weeks later, and the candidate greets you in line, shakes your hand and includes the simultaneous forearm touch. You start to turn away, and the candidate, after touching your arm, says, “Been pumpin’ those weights? Oh, absolutely!” while continuing to grasp your arm.
I believe that whatever your reaction would be to these events, “overly friendly” would be an appropriate description of them. I do not think that any sort of action needs to be taken in situations like these just because occasionally politicians may be more personable than some people may feel comfortable with.
Hastert probably thought that Foley’s comments were eccentric but innocent — until the AOL conversations were released. Both the St. Petersburg Times and the Miami Herald had knowledge of the same e-mails Hastert did last November and chose to not run a story on the then-unconfirmed reports until the instant messages were released. In last Saturday’s issue of the Times, Scott Montgomery, government and politics editor, explained the paper’s decision, and said, unlike the newly public instant messages, the e-mails were “friendly chit-chat.”
Hastert, unlike Foley, has apparently done nothing wrong in the Pagegate scandal, and has no reason to resign his position as Speaker of the House. In the future, politicians must remember to use discretion when being friendly and personable; they can still kiss babies as long as they don’t slip them the tongue.
Recent Comments