Argghhh!!!

Heh. If it turns out the Republicans *sat* on the Foley story, how does it spin any other way than they are desperate to hold on to their power, and that, at a minimum, should they actually manage to pull off retaining the House in November, that the leadership simply.must.change. I'm a squish in politics, unlike Dusty. And I'm not going to vote left to spite my face. But I find it increasingly hard to *support* this group of seeming buffoons. Sadly, the team that will take their place, from the Left, is full of its own horrors.

I wanna redo. And the Dems aren't a redo. I just want a whole new crowd. Top to bottom, soup to nuts. And yes, I know how impractical that would be. The Republic would survive it, however.

As I say for the Services, More.General.Officer.Scalps. Contrary to what the GO Corps thinks, tossing a few of their own to the wolves (when guilty of malfeasance and misprision, mind you, not just for sport), rather than just quietly retiring them - would *enhance* confidence, not undermine it. The same is true in politics. More scalps, not less. And the voters, on both sides, aren't very good at it, either - though right wing voters seem more able to toss their own than left wing. Of course, it's easier to toss the bums out when there are viable alternatives. I dunno. I'm getting to the point where I simply will vote against any incumbent who wants a fourth term - three for Senators. Federal, State, and local, and if they win the primary anyway, withhold my vote for the office in the General. These bastards, on both sides, are starting to wear my patience thin. If turnover is good for things like Boards of Directors, how can it not also be good for politicians?

Locally, Representative Ryun's operation is beginning to torque me - not because I don't get personalized responses and attention - I'm well aware I don't donate enough, nor have a big enough voice in Kansas to warrant that attention - but if all I'm going to get are boilerplate responses based on general subject, vice specific question or issue - and those weeks after the fact - I'm obviously represented by someone who either manages his staff badly, or who feels his seat is so safe he can just blow us off.

I find it interesting that I see signs, placards, and ads for his opponent, Nancy Boyda, all around (not huge numbers, but noticeable) and I don't see a single thing for Ryun. Boyda showed up for our local parade recently, Ryun did not (mind you - he does have the job, and I want him to do it, and we're a small population and apparently very safe part of his district) - but Ryun's almost complete lack of effort is telling, I think.

I'd like to see him get a real challenge in a primary.

Senators Roberts and Brownback on the other hand, have their staffs respond to questions and comments quickly, and with targeted responses (they may also be boilerplate, but are *far* more focused) and with words added that indicate the comment was in fact read, and not just scanned for General Topic. I appreciate that level of response. I don't expect phone calls and emails from the Big Kahunas themselves. But I expect some sense of them actually being read for comprehension by *someone*. I do not have that feeling from Ryun's office.

Sigh. Sadly, I judge this whole political thing more about what *doesn't* happen to me than what actually gets done. The one thing about having the Republicans in putative control means that I keep more of my money (vice when the Dems take control, when they allow me to keep some of *their* money - a telling difference in approach), the gun collection still exists, because I don't doubt that if the Dems ever get both houses and the presidency, the Arsenal of Argghhh! will be little more than a digital memory...

Geez, I'm whiny today.

Update: The Speaker's Office responds (no, I have *no* delusions it was my whining, thank you).

From: Speaker's Media Release
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 5:36 PM
Subject: INTERNAL REVIEW OF CONTACTS WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER REGARDING THE CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY MATTER

Speaker’s Press Office

United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: 202-225-2800

September 30, 2006 Ron Bonjean or Lisa C. Miller

INTERNAL REVIEW OF CONTACTS WITH THE OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER REGARDING THE CONGRESSMAN MARK FOLEY MATTER

On Friday, September 29, the Speaker directed his Chief of Staff and Outside Counsel to conduct an internal review to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding contact with the Office of the Speaker regarding the Congressman Mark Foley matter. The following is their preliminary report.

Email Exchange Between Congressman Foley and a Constituent of Congressman Alexander

In the fall of 2005 Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the Speaker’s Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander’s Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page. He did not reveal the specific text of the email but expressed that he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it.

Tim Kennedy immediately discussed the matter with his supervisor, Mike Stokke, Speaker Hastert’s Deputy Chief of Staff. Stokke directed Kennedy to ask Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker’s in house Counsel, who the proper person was for Congressman Alexander to report a problem related to a former page. Ted Van Der Meid told Kennedy it was the Clerk of the House who should be notified as the responsible House Officer for the page program. Later that day Stokke met with Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff. Once again the specific content of the email was not discussed. Stokke called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker’s Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff. The Clerk and Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff then went to the Clerk’s Office to discuss the matter.

The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander’s office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.

The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action. This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speaker’s Office liaison with the Clerk’s Office.

The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter. They asked Foley about the email. Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.

The Clerk recalls that later that day he encountered Van Der Meid on the House floor and reported to him that he and Shimkus personally had spoken to Foley and had taken corrective action.

Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent’s wishes to protect their child’s privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities Kennedy, Van Der Meid and Stokke did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker’s Office.

Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall. During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus. While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold’s recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.

Sexually Explicit Instant Message Transcript

No one in the Speaker’s Office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the internet this week. In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time.

Mark Levin discusses the political side of it all, with backup from The American Thinker.

Note to J: I don't have to be balanced about this. The MSM is all over the other side of it - and I've made my feelings clear, as well, so I can be a mouthpiece for the other side on this one without a twinge of guilt.