Reynolds urged Foley to run — after seeing the ‘sick’ emails

October 4, 2006

Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, has defended his role in the Foley sex scandal by insisting he took concerns about Foley’s emails to House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). But it’s also worth noting that it’s not all Reynolds did.

In another stunning development, Robert Novak today reveals in his column…that even after House GOP leaders knew that Foley had written an inappropriate e-mail to a 16-year-old former male page, they were still urging him to seek re-election.

Novak writes, “A member of the House leadership told me that Foley, under continuous political pressure because of his sexual orientation, was considering not seeking a seventh term this year but that Rep. Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), talked him into running.”

This strikes me as interesting for two reasons. One, the evidence has been widely apparent for several days that Reynolds, as chair of the NRCC, put political concerns above everything else, including the safety of congressional pages. By urging Foley to run for another term, even after having seen the incriminating emails, and even after Foley was considering retirement, Reynolds now appears to have thrown security and morality completely out the window.

Two, taking a step back, who told Novak that Reynolds did this? He quotes an unnamed “member of the House leadership,” which narrows the field down quite a bit, but this indicates that the infighting among House Republicans is getting considerably worse. Reynolds, of course, has been placing the blame for the scandal at Hastert’s feet, and lo and behold, a couple of days later, someone in the leadership is running to Novak with a scoop that makes Reynolds look bad.

Some might look at this and think it’s a subtle way of Hastert saying, “Reynolds, if I’m going down, I’m taking you with me.”

Speaking of Reynolds, I explained yesterday that the NRCC chairman’s chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, after having learned about the sexually-explicit IM content, tried to suppress the most incriminating evidence by approaching ABC News about a “deal” (which the network rejected). The LA Times moves the ball forward today.

Reynolds, who is locked in a tight reelection battle for his own upstate New York seat, was forced to address his aide’s role on Tuesday, telling reporters that Fordham acted without his knowledge. He said he didn’t discuss the Foley matter with Fordham until Friday.

“I didn’t give him permission to have any conversations that he’s had at any time with Mark Foley, either as his friend or as his former employer,” said Reynolds, adding that Fordham was interacting with Foley on his own time.

That may sound like a compelling defense, if it’s true, and according to Fordham, it’s not. Fordham, who has hired his own lawyer, called a couple of reporters to explain that he confronted Foley about the IMs, Foley confirmed their authenticity, and Fordham then coordinated with Reynolds, who told Fordham to tell Foley to resign. It hardly sounds like freelancing. Indeed, it sounds like Reynolds was quite involved.

And as long as we’re on the subject, it’s probably worth keeping in mind that this nightmare for the GOP can still get much, much worse.

The House page scandal engulfing former Rep. Mark Foley and House Republican leaders enters its sixth day with Speaker Dennis Hastert working to hold onto his job and the GOP rank and file worried that the pre-election drip, drip of damaging political news isn’t over yet.

The daily disclosures about Foley’s salacious Internet exchanges with former teenage congressional pages have GOP lawmakers and conservative activists fearing the foibles of other politicians may be exposed.

“People are very, very concerned,” Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., said Tuesday night. “I think there are going to be more disclosures.”

“We have heard rumors that other, similar activity has occurred involving additional congressmen and will be released prior to the November elections,” said the Arlington Group, a coalition of 70 pro-family conservative groups.

Stay tuned.

It won’t take but one Democrat’s foibles to be found for this to billed as a “bipartisan” issue in the press and by the Repubs. See! Dems do it too, they will say.

  • Talk about your “October Surprise”….prolly not the kind the Re-Thugs were expecting though……

  • Apparently, it will get worse:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/taylor-marsh/abc-scrubs-comment-about-_b_30872.html

    “When I was a Congressional Page in 1998, we pages were warned by former pages AS WELL as staffers in the house and page program to BEWARE and stay away from 3 GOP members of Congress due to past history and inappropriate behavior with other pages. Obviously Foley has resigned and we are grateful. Although 2 members of Congress (at least that I know of and was warned of) still remain.”

    I wonder if reporters are asking who are the other two?

  • I’ve got to wonder also who Novak is carrying water for in this. If he’s passing the spin that Reynolds not only did nothing to replace Foley, but actually encouraged Foley to run despite his problems, it really makes me wonder.

    On the other hand, that $100,000 check from Foley to Reynold’s NRCC makes me believe it’s the other way around. Apparently Foley was the conduit of funds from the “we don’t care who Foley screws we want influence in Congress” donor list. Which kind of makes me wonder who exactly gets on that donor list.

    Read any Carl Hiaasen novel and you’ll appreciate that Florida is full of some rather shady characters. No wonder Harris thought she could get elected down there.

  • “It won’t take but one Democrat’s foibles to be found for this to billed as a “bipartisan” issue in the press and by the Repubs. See! Dems do it too, they will say.” – Dale

    Since this is about the Leadership covering up the conduct, no, that is not true.

    But you know that don’t you Dale?

  • “It won’t take but one Democrat’s foibles to be found for this to billed as a “bipartisan” issue in the press and by the Repubs. See! Dems do it too, they will say.”

    They’ve already started, by somehow equating William “Freezer Money” Jefferson with Mark Foley. See? They’re ALL doing it — whatever “it” is, and ignoring the complete difference between the Democratic leaders’ response (throw the son of a bitch out on his ear) and the Republicans’ (please, please run again ’cause we need every win we can get).

  • Lance–
    Actually, I think Dale nailed it (in a completely non-Foley-related way, of course).

    The GOP managed to spin the Abramoff/general corruption issue as “bipartisan” even just one Dem got caught with his hands in the … um, freezer. In reality, we all know different.

    Most non-political junkies, however, do not.

    Let us never underestimate the power of the GOP spin machine to frame the debate, nor the power of the media to actually help them do so.

  • When will politicians learn that it’s not the act, it’s the cover-up? Hell, if they had revealed this whenever they first had evidence of wrongdoing (whether 2005, 2003, 1995, whenever), nobody would be talking about it, Foley would have resigned, and his fate left to the Law.

    Seems to me to be a pretty damned stupid thing to do to cover up to protect just one Congressional seat… (oh, okay, unless there is more than one seat in danger here…)

  • I doubt it’s Hastert. If it is, it’s a heck of a way to resign from the speaker’s chair. The infighting does 2 things: It paints the repubs as completely unorganized, and keeps the Foley matter at the top of the news. Neither one helps Hastert, or any other repub, maintain that position.

    I suspect there’s someone angling behind the scenes, maybe the same repub(s) who tipped the media off in the first place.

  • I agree with Dale and others. This could easily become a bipartisan scandal.

    Were the pages warned about any Democratic Reps?

    What about female pages?

    On the other hand, even if this becomes a Congressional scandal, it will largely hurt the Republicans becuase of they control Congress.

    But remember, there are miles to go before we sleep.

    A lot can happen.

  • JoeW- don’t assume conspiracy when mere idiocy can account for it. This is one of those classic tussles over just who is going to be thrown to the wolves (and at least one person will have to be the sacrificial lamb, in this case). Do other Repubs have interests in this? Of course. But most of them will be smart, keep their mouths shut (and therefore, themselves out of the spotlight), and hover around like vultures, waiting for their chance to swoop in.

    Also note Novak’s use of the phrase “member of the house leadership”. As we know from his elegant CIA reporting, Novak is a stickler about how he identifies his secret sources. And that isn’t a very long list of people.

    As to how it could help Hastert? Well, if he can deflect enough attention to Reynolds (who is, after all the guy who was definitely privy to all of the info early on), then he can force Reynolds to be the fall guy.

  • As a lesbian myself, I’m a little tired of the Dems playing tender softball with Repug gays who hide their sexuality and bash their own kind while doing this kind of trash on the sly. It’s time to take the gloves off and kick these bastards out of the closet and into the daylight. There are plenty more where Foley came from, believe me.

  • You know, I have to wonder how the right-wing evangelical types feel about the fact that DeLay, Boehnert and Hastert left a “known ho-mo-sexual” (as they might put it) as the head of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children for years. Hmmmm….have Tony Perkins or Jerry Falwell commented on that particular sign of loyalty to their ‘family values agenda’, yet?

  • The Repulicans are truly an inclusive party. You can be liberal like Chafee or gay like Foley or corrupt like Delay, Cunningham, Nye, … as long as you vote for the cabal and don’t get caught. The Democrats don’t like Southerners, Blacks nor corrupt politicians since they didn’t defend Congressman Jefferson (all of the above).

  • NeilS- there is one VERY GOOD REASON why this is NOT going to become a bipartisan scandal… Simply put, It’s already Wednesday, and the scandal is Five days old…

    If the Republicans had a Democrat to offer up in sacrifice, to even things out, they would have already done it.

  • Cry havoc! Let slip the GOPs of war. On each other.

    I was reading an article in the Washington Post Style section about why sex related scandals hurt the G[r]OPers more. (Is there any section of the paper that doesn’t have a spin on the Foley Follies?)

    Simply put, the Refuglies’ moral superiority cant makes them instant hypocrites. I also think it is the fitting result of playing to a crowd that doesn’t feel good unless it gets to talk about how bad everyone else is. We all know how forgiving the Fundies are. At least when they’re the ones doing the sinning.

    I wonder how long it will be before the right-wanks pick up on the fact that Foley voted against the Gay Marriage Amendment and start waving that about as “proof” Hairshirt should have known there was something “wrong” with Foley. It will be unadulterated bullshit but after these guys finish tearing each other to shreds there might not be enough left to cause any trouble.

  • Castor Troy

    Its true that so far they have only been able to bring up Stubbs and Barney Franks, but I’m sure that everyone is asking pages whether someone from the other party made inappropriate comments to them.

    I wouldn’t bet the farm that one of those horny, egotistical pr***s hasn’t done something untoward. Even, God forbid, a Democrat.

  • Fallenwoman- no accusations of actual sexual contact at this point. However, keep in mind that, under the laws which Foley helped to create, the apparent solicitation of a minor in some of the newly released material may be illegal.

  • Fallenwoman,

    Has Foley been accused of having actual sexual contact with any of the male pages?

    Not to my knowledge. How does that matter given what we do know about his and the GOP leadership’s actions? Are you condoning Foley’s known behavior?

    To be clear, I’m condemning it. I just want to know where you stand.

  • “Has Foley been accused of having actual sexual contact with any of the male pages?” – Fallenwoman

    Is that the measure?

    Actually, I think Foley didn’t even have improper email and IM contact with “pages”. They were all ex-pages by the time Foley started his little seductions/stalkings/internet sex games.

    And if it is illegal, what he has done, he’s passed the laws that make it so. If he’d just had sex with the sixteen year olds in D.C. it would, strangely enough, have been legal. But writing to them over the internet about masturbation is not.

    What a twisted legal system we live in.

  • i have absolutely no “inside” knowledge on any of this Foley/hastert/bonneur/reynolds matter – a.k.a. “rep. tim foley and the house republican leadership” scandal.

    but i do wonder if some group within the republican party isn’t conducting a purge of the current house leadership with foley’s conduct as the assassination weapon of choice.

    motive?

    i have no idea.

    perhaps:

    – anti tom delay forces (hastert was delay’s choice as speaker)

    – newt gingrich’s revenge or preparation for a run at the presidency.

    – anger at the habeas corpus limits or some other legislation passed or not passed?

    – resentment over mistreatment or slights by hastert and the rest of leadership?

    – ideological disagreements, i.e., hastert, et al were not conservative enough or too conservative?

    add your own.

    on the other hand, maybe it is an outside job.

    recall that after gingrich was forced out, speaker livingston (r-la) had to resign within a short time of being elected (or resigned before being elected ) because of investigations by “nak’d bodies” publisher larry flint.

    it was livingston’s having to leave the playing field that opened the door for hastert, via tom delay’s influence.

    any guesses along this line?

  • Aww, geez, guys—come on and do the math. Novak’s a stickler for dropping hints. He mentions “a member of the House Leadership.” Hastert, Reynolds, and Boehner are all wrapped up in this sordid mess. There’s only one warm body of the GOP side of the aisle that still meets the criteria:

    Roy Blunt.

    There have been backdoor dealings between Blunt and Fordham in the past (such as the Blunt effort to gain the majority leader’s spot when DeLay went bye-bye), so why not now? He gets the chance to move from a cushy job that’s about to go belly-up (a Democratic House could be politically fatal to Reynolds) to a hatchet-man position with a job that’s more than just a toss-up (chief-of-staff for a House minority leader really isn’t all that bad).

    So Fordham has much to gain by helping to show the reynolds/Boehner/Hastert trio the door—and Blunt’s in the catbird’s seat, if those three are gone….

  • Fordham is the middle man who must have some allegiance to Foley because they are both gay Republicans and then Reynolds squeezed Fordham to manage the situation. I’m sure Fordham became very confused and conflicted, thus deciding to bail. Hope he can now help shed some light on the whole situation. Will this scandal have any affect on the Log Cabin Republicans?

  • If he’s (Novak) passing the spin that Reynolds not only did nothing to replace Foley, but actually encouraged Foley to run despite his problems, it really makes me wonder.

    On the other hand, that $100,000 check from Foley to Reynold’s NRCC makes me believe it’s the other way around. — Lance, #4

    I don’t see any contradictions in Reynolds’ position here. Foley brought car-loads of money for the Repubs, so he needed to stay in place — and Reynolds twisted whatever had to be twisted in order to make sure of the status quo, and helped with the cover-up. But, by the same token, Reynolds had Foley by the short hairs, so why not screw an extra 100thou from him? Afterall, collecting money for Rethuglican causes is what Reynolds was in charge of, no?

  • Regarding Dan’s comment about pages being warned about three congressman and his question about whether reporters are asking who the other two are, reporters were told. In the October 4, 2006 San Diego Union-Tribune a former page from 1995 was interviewed. He said that pages were warned about three congressmen. It just so happens that the three are the three most recent gay congressmen in office: Jim Kolbe (R-AZ), Barney Frank (D-MA), and of course Foley. But the ONLY ONE who was pointed out to him as actually being a problem with pages was Foley. It seemed to me that the other two were mentioned in the warning simply because they are gay. Given the dynamics of this Republican Congress, I don’t think they’d hesitate sacrificing retiring Rep. Kolbe (one of their own) or Rep. Frank (a Democrat – aha! bipartisan corruption!) if there was any substance to that. The warning was accurate about Foley, but it otherwise feels to me like an antigay slur against the other two men.

    • Comments are closed.