Hastert watch

by Henry Farrell on October 5, 2006

By my reckoning, Denny Hastert’s “Galbraith Score”:https://crookedtimber.org/2005/02/22/livingstone-campbell-galbraith/ is “now”:http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061003/3hastert.htm “two”:http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010153.php . Any bets on whether he’ll stick it out for the grand slam?

Update: We’re now at “three”:http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/washington/05cnd-hastert.html?hp&ex=1160107200&en=ed644f3ba9b42abf&ei=5094&partner=homepage



C. L. Ball 10.05.06 at 11:03 am

In the spirit of naive falsification, hasn’t Rumsfeld exceeded the Galbraith Score limit?


John Emerson 10.05.06 at 11:39 am

One Hastert is 48 hours. I don’t think he’ll last more than that.


John Emerson 10.05.06 at 11:39 am

Actually, the Hastert started yeasterday, so I really mean 24 hours, maybe 36.


C. L. Ball 10.05.06 at 12:16 pm

This is an odd scandal for real liberals or progressives to relish. Given that the pages are all of the age of consent in DC (16 years-old), what law did Foley break? If none, then the liberal left embraces the social conservatives moral standards, or must limit the criticism to the GOP’s hypocrisy in embracing social conservative beliefs.

If Foley asked for a sexually explicit picture of a page, then he violated 18 USC 2251 which makes it a crime to get a minor (under 18 years) to engage in “any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct.” Yes, that is right, if you have sex with 16 or 17 year old, that is OK under Federal law, but if you film it, then you’re in trouble. Actually, Federal law lets you have sex with anyone age 12-15, provided you are not more than 4 years older than the person (18 USC 2243).


kth 10.05.06 at 12:24 pm

I don’t think you have to “embrace the social conservatives moral standards” to believe, say, that high school teachers should be fired if they have sex with their students.


scottf 10.05.06 at 12:39 pm

I bet Hastert goes for the golden sombrero, which refers to four strikeouts in one game. Five strikeouts in one game is called a platinum sombrero, and six in one game is known as a Horn, after Sam Horn of the Baltimore Orioles who accomplished the feat in an extra-inning game in 1991. Perhaps, we will have a new record…


Kevin Donoghue 10.05.06 at 12:49 pm

…what law did Foley break?

IANAL but I think it’s illegal for a congressman to offer assurances of a bright career in return for sexual favours. If it isn’t then it should be.


Steve LaBonne 10.05.06 at 1:19 pm

There’s also the hypocrisy factor- which in no way requires disapproval of the actual behavior in order to be relished. I am ferociously in favor of full equality for gay people yet, being only human, I can’t help finding it a bit of a guilty pleasure to see leading lights of the Gay-bashing Old Party outed.


Matt 10.05.06 at 1:34 pm

Foley broke the “don’t be a fucking idiot” law.


tom bach 10.05.06 at 1:34 pm

Surely, the core of this crisis is not Foley’s sexuality but rather the fact that once again an abuse of power by a Republican has been covered up by his fellow Republicans. Furthermore, as I understand it, Hasert, Boehner, et ali have all lied repeatedly about the chain of events in an effort to avoied taking responsibility. Presumably, one of the attractions of this scandal for others, as it is from me, is that it offers an instructive and illuminating view of the manner in which the one party state goes about its business of maintaining and misusing power.

But then again maybe it is all about teh Gay.


mds 10.05.06 at 1:37 pm

…what law did Foley break?

I do appreciate the concern about why on earth it could be considered a bad thing to point out that a co-sponsor of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was secretly engaging in cybersex with minors. And nevermind that it involves a party, having spent three decades shrieking about the need to defend “family values” from godless Hollywood liberals, having also spent at least a couple of years covering up an ethical problem involving one of their own and Congressional pages. It would be the height of electoral foolishness to attempt to hit Republicans over the head with this, especially since it involved consensual sex. Much better for Democrats to give a complete pass to rampant ethical lapses and hypocrisy by Republicans, and stick to stamping their foot and saying, “We do not want to ban the Bible!” to the next Republican ad campaign. Gotta hold to the moral high ground, here. Oh, wait, the moral high ground would oppose the notion of a 53-year-old Congressman behaving like this toward 16-year-olds in Congressional employ, while his superiors cover up for him.


Steve LaBonne 10.05.06 at 1:39 pm

#9- well, you and I didn’t need to be told that; we can only hope that a significant number of previously clueless voters will finally connect the dots and realize that’s how the GOP has been doing business on lots of other issues. (I’m sure the “liberal” media will assist with that dot-connection process- riiiight.)


tom bach 10.05.06 at 1:58 pm

Number 11 (although this kind of identification reminds of some tv how or another, british I think it was)
Color me dopey, but my faith in my fellow citizen is always at highwater when none of them are around to remind of their credulity. So as it is just me and memories, I assume that everyone reacts as I do. Later, of course, I may run into one or a dozen of them and illusions m;ay again be shattered.


abb1 10.05.06 at 2:03 pm

What is they weren’t a bunch of corrupt and hypocritical SOBs (aka ‘democratically elected representatives’); what if instead they were a bunch of pure true believers. Whould it be better or worse? I’m not sure.


harry b 10.05.06 at 2:52 pm

tom bach — The Prisoner. Number 9. Brilliant. What a literate lot you CT commenters are!


tom bach 10.05.06 at 3:21 pm

“tom bach—The Prisoner.”

The Prisoner, you say, well I never. Huh, keen mind you’ve got there to pull such a piece of trivia out of thin air. How do you clever charlies remember such things. And the now 9, which is you know six upside down, I meant Mr. Labonne, who might in next week’s episode be number one, while I might remain number six rightside up.

“What a literate lot you CT commenters are!” Why thanks, of course it is down to folks like you to remember the name of obscure telly and to grasp so efficatiously the content, tone, and context of the various and sundry messages that this literate lot posts.

Again, thanks.


Steve LaBonne 10.05.06 at 9:50 pm

Who is Number One?


ajay 10.06.06 at 6:32 am

You are Number Six. (Or is it “You are, Number Six”?)


Steve LaBonne 10.06.06 at 7:15 am

I am not a number- I am a free man!

Comments on this entry are closed.