As a gay adult, I am disgusted by Mark Foley's behavior, as are all my gay & lesbian friends! The statement by the lead LGBT lobbying group says it all:

"Gay or straight, Democrat or Republican, it is completely inexcusable for an adult to have this kind of communication with a minor. Congressman Foley brought shame on himself and this Congress by his horrible behavior and complete lack of judgment. We strongly condemn his behavior."

Creepy and inappropriate.

Then again, I'm probably not the most objective person to ask, cuz I'm 35 and have flirted with seventeen-year-olds (although, in my defense, I didn't know how old they were and stopped once I found out).

I wasn't that impressed with George's post, hung up as it was on individual House members of whom most voters, even most Republican voters, know little. He is right about the potential of the Foley affair to depress Republican turnout in five weeks, but nothing Rep. Hastert decides to do will make much difference one way or the other.

What the Foley affair could be is a catalyst, a scandal especially repellent to specific groups of voters who tend to support Republicans. This is partly because it involves sex and partly because it involves children, but just as important is that it is relatively straightforward and easily grasped by people who do not spend enough time tracking the news to know what laws Bob Ney broke or who Jack Abramoff did favors for.

Now, with Rep. Foley having gotten their attention, conservative evangelicals can be engaged by the Democrats with advertising that links the Foley affairs with Abramoff, Cunningham, corruption at Interior, bridges to nowhere and indeed anything done in Washington that even sounds scandalous. Democrats could run against Washington, against a culture of corruption and depravity, the idea being not so much to get evangelical votes for their candidates but to discourage these and other conservatives from turning out in numbers as large as we saw in 2002 and 2004.

There are a number of reasons Democrats may choose not to attack this aggressively. They may decide not to say much while the Republicans seem to be doing themselves in; this is the path of least resistance, with the lowest risk that Democratic candidates would say something unpopular. It would make sense if we were two weeks from the election, not five. Democrats may also have trouble massing enough money to advertise effectively in key markets -- Howard Dean's commitment to building party organizations even in areas of the country where Democrats have not recently been competitive may, for this election cycle, come back to bite the Democrats if they are unable to fully exploit the opening Republicans scandals have given them. Democrats may not want to attack things like wasteful Republican spending on earmarks or sleazy deals on appropriations, as some of their own members are implicated in both . They may even be reluctant to use Foley in attack ads for fear of sounding anti-gay.

Above all Democratic campaigns in the recent past have focused on protecting incumbents. The party has played defense more than offense, and even with all President Bush's troubles may not be prepared to launch slashing attacks on Republican candidates, let alone attacks attempting to associate them with bribe-taking and romancing young boys on the Internet.

I'm not advocating anything here. It's true that I have no difficulty restraining my admiration for most of the Republican incumbents running this year, but personally I don't see that Democrats would be any better. All I'm saying is that Republicans have gained an enduring advantage in recent years by protraying their candidates as being on the side of a large number of voters who take moral issues seriously. There is a lot in the GOP's record that mars that portrait this year; if enough evangelicals and other conservative voters become alienated enough not to vote, Republican candidates become vulnerable in many states and districts they haven't been before. The Foley affair, used properly, could be the string that ties everything together.

This will certainl be an issue still resonant with American voters -- and the media -- by election day. On a slight aside, what ever happened to John Mark Karr?

Karr vs. Foley would sure make a great celebrity death match.

Dunno.

At this point, it's unclear if the guy went beyond being 'inappropriate and creepy' did something clearly illegal, and he has resigned.

I evidence turns up that he actually did something illegal, it'll be an issue, if not, there will be some partisans who want it to be an issue, but will be unsuccessful in convincing everyone else.

It's not like the guy is trying to hang on to his job and the party leadership is backing him. If they were, yeah, it'd be an issue for sure, but they seem to have taken the smart pill on this one.

Then again, I'm probably not the most objective person to ask, cuz I'm 35 and have flirted with seventeen-year-olds (although, in my defense, I didn't know how old they were and stopped once I found out).

I'm also in my 30s, and have had a 17-year-old hit on me. Persistently. After it became clear that she was serious, and not just sadistically tormenting an old fart, I explained that an age difference that large was not socially acceptable in the US (she was from eastern europe, apparently that kind of thing is less objectionable there).

This was a democratic party hit piece. Few in DC politics cared about the behavior. Most would legalize it if they had their druthers.
The problem for the Dems is that it won't make a difference where they need it to. The up-side for them is that it pushes W off the front page.
What if the Pubs start going after all the Dem pediophiles? That would be funny.

z:

To follow your strategy, best things Dems can do is shut up and let the press do the digging.

Not sure the Dems are "better", but with Demo control of Congress, Bush's conduct could be investigated and some of his actions placed under some kind of control.

I think this whole episode is the funniest damned thing I've seen in a long, long time.

Heh, heh, - conservative family values indeed. I can't wait to listen to Rush this afternoon to hear how he is going to rationalize this. He's probably in such shock that he is clearing out of every CVS in southern florida of pain killers again.

Huggy - A Democratic hit piece? C'mon - remember what Will Rogers said: 'I don't belong to an organized political group - I'm a Democrat.' I don't think there is a Democrat in the world outside of the Kennedy family that could sit on this juicy bit of gossip for several months just to release it 5 weeks before the election...

Maybe ABC is trying to repent for the Path to 9/11. Can't wait to see how they fictionalize this little bit of history. Of course, it will be in the adults-only section of the video store.

Why have satire when reality is so much more fun?!?

AM: You should never count on the media to do your campaign work for you. With five weeks before the election, there is plenty of time for Republican incumbents to distance themselves from Foley and other scandals (which at least in some cases they may in fact have had nothing to do with) or for the media to lose interest in favor of some new hot story. And the link between the Foley scandal and others is not something Democrats should expect people to make unless Democrats make it for them.

Voters are persuadable when they are shocked and when they are angry. Moments when they are both don't happen too often; if you let them pass and you get lucky, you might win anyway. I just don't believe in luck.

I think the concern for Republican candidates in competitive areas has to be turnout. Many Republicans now face a fired-up Democratic base and perhaps a less than fired up Republican base.

In an off-year election, turnout matters even more than usual. In my own home state of MO, if the incessant bad news about Republicans (policywise and otherwise) keeps 2% of Talent's voters home, he will probably lose.

Foley's doings have been rightfully been condemned by everyone, and he has fallen upon his sword. The issue with legs is the issue of cover-up. Speculation about Hastert, Boehner, and Reynolds could very well run for another 2 weeks, which takes us to 3 weeks before election time.

The longer this drags on, the more likely it is to depress Republican turnout, methinks.

My prediction (already made at OTB) is that if Hastert walks in the next day or two, the story's gone & forgotten by Election Day.

Otherwise, it'll keep nipping at him ... at least, until we bomb Iran on Oct. 31, or until the new Osama video comes out Nov. 1.

Z:

The Democrats have a habit of overdoing things. In this case, their record on the unimportance of sex, when it comes to evaluating the performance of elected officials, could come back to haunt them. (See Lewinski, Monica... Studds, Gary (or Gerry))

Personally, if I were a Demo, I'd be pushing Iraq, and let the scandals take care of themselves.

Dan,

This is great entertainment. I agree with Kaus that it will fade by election day, but as my call before Foley was a Democratic pickup of 3 seats in the Senate and 8 (+/-2) in the House, the residual effects of Foley plus a high end Democratic turnout and low end GOP turnout could flip the House.

Much depends on foreign events. A nuclear test by North Korea or Iran before election day would definitely result in GOP retention of both houses of Congress.

Dan,

This is great entertainment. I agree with Kaus that it will fade by election day, but as my call before Foley was a Democratic pickup of 3 seats in the Senate and 8 (+/-2) in the House, the residual effects of Foley plus a high end Democratic turnout and low end GOP turnout could flip the House.

Much depends on foreign events. A nuclear test by North Korea or Iran before election day would definitely result in GOP retention of both houses of Congress.

You guys pay attention to Kaus?!?!? And you admit it?

"It's not like the guy is trying to hang on to his job and the party leadership is backing him."

No. That part is over and done with. He already did that, for several years, and the party leadership covered for him.

Much depends on foreign events. A nuclear test by North Korea or Iran before election day would definitely result in GOP retention of both houses of Congress.

I'd put money on North Korea.

Those guys have a real gift for mis-interpeting events outside of North Korea.