take19 - TAKEN!!!

Sounds kind of crazy, huh? Like something only a desperate person might say, instead of a 12 year veteran of Congress. After all more than 90 million Americans own mutual funds, including many of Sue Kelly's constituents. But judging by this video clip, Sue Kelly seems to think you're not a responsible investor if you don't know what stocks your mutual fund manager owns. And studies routinely show that most Americans have no idea what the funds they own invest in.

Of course, if Sue really wants to change the subject from her own unremarkable 12-year record and that of the Bush administration that she actively supports, and poke around into John Hall's financials, she probably should have made sure that her own much larger holdings were sparkly clean first. Yet as we can see by a quick scan of opensecrets.org, Sue has plenty of the very same investments that she wags an accusing finger at John Hall for owning. Of course, there is a key difference: Kelly and her husband, Ed, own these stocks directly, which is a bit different than owning Fidelity Magellan.

So what's in Sue portfolio? A number of companies that Sue has subpoena power over, as chairwoman of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, assuming she was actually doing her job. Here's a quick run-down of a few major scandals in Sue's portfolio:

American International Group Earlier this year, AIG reached a $1.64 Billion settlement with Eliot Spitzer over accounting fraud and other issues. Kind of makes one wonder why Sue never poked around in AIG, but perhaps it had something to do with the fact that she owns as much as $100,000 of AIG stock, according to her latest financial disclosure form.

Bed, Bath & Beyond Sue also owns as much as $100,000 worth of Bed, Bath & Beyond stock, which on Oct. 10, announced that the federal Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating the company over its stock options practices dating back to 1993. Oddly enough, Sue's committee has yet to hold a hearing on this growing problem, even though the Wall Street Journal first disclosed the problem back in March.

Then there's Ed's $50,000 investment in Fannie Mae. Fannie Mae has been the subject of multiple federal investigations, though none launched by Sue Kelly.

There's lots of different stocks that Sue and Ed could have bought. Either they have a knack for buying into scandals or they're just lucky that way. Come to think of it, maybe they should have bought some plain-vanilla mutual funds like John Hall did.

Routing around through someone's portfolio isn't particularly enjoyable for anyone. And it doesn't really tell you anything about the type of Congressman that someone will be, which is why John Hall's folks aren't spending their time on this. But Sue Kelly started this game with her ridiculous charges that she's blasting on local airwaves. And, if she wants to continue playing, there's plenty more examples to choose from.

Earlier this afternoon, former President Bill Clinton came to town to stump for John Hall and he laid out in point-by-point detail why Sue Kelly is the wrong person to continue representing NY-19.

"They have tried to push America in places it has never been and doesn't want to go. They have left us democrats being both the traditional progressive and conservative party. Think about it. I gave them 3 surpluses. We never had a social security problem. The president says he wants to quote revisit social security after the election. When I was in college we called that a euphemism. Stick a fork in him after the election," Clinton said.

And then: "They can say cut and run all they want. Cut and run is not what we're for, we're for stop and think."

"This is basically a contest between the politics of special interests and the politics of the common good, a contest between government based on evidence and argument and their way based on assertion and attack."

Sue Kelly may try to spin yet another tale, hoping voters don't check opensecrets.org, which shows all the PAC money she receives, not to mention all of the oil company stocks she owns, but it's pretty easy to fact-check that stuff now. Still, she's lied about her resume, she's lied about her investments. She's lied about John Hall's record. There's only 1 week left. What will Sue Kelly lie about next?

We've always known that Sue Kelly isn't known for being the sharpest card in the deck. Of course, we're not the only ones. Sue's fellow conservatives over at Redstate.com routinely describe her as "the dimmest bulb in the New York state Republican delegation". Indeed, that's the primary reason why she has refused to debate John Hall publicly, other than on farm issues -- because as Stephen Colbert noted two weeks ago, just like Velveeta, Kelly "melts at the first sign of heat".

But a tidbit contained in today's Journal-News endorsement of John Hall (that's 3 major newspaper endorsements for Hall; zero for Kelly) really drove it home for us. Apparently Sue, who sits on the House Financial Services Committee, which regulates banks, credit card companies and other financial services firms, blamed record-high deficits on the weather. We thought it was bad enough when, during an editorial board meeting at the Times Herald Record two weeks ago, she didn't seem to understand the difference between the national debt and the federal deficit. But blaming the mushrooming deficit -- a deficit that is financing the "strong economy" that the Bush Administration routinely touts -- on bad weather is clearly a whole new level of stupidity.

The people of NY-19 deserve someone who can think on their feet -- someone who doesn't continually make excuses for the Bush Administration's failed policies. Sue Kelly is not that person.

While Sue Kelly likes to tout her years of experience of key committees, we couldn't help but laugh over something she said during last night's debate on Cablevision. Upset that John Hall is questioning the $65,000 that she has taken from big oil companies to finance her campaign (not to mention investing in their stocks), Sue fired back that Hall invests in a mutual fund that apparently owns some oil company stock. By bringing this up, we can only assume that Sue, who sits on the House Committee on Financial Services doesn't understand how a mutual fund actually works. In a nutshell, the mutual fund manager picks the stocks that the fund invests in and the individual investor has no say-so in those choices. Maybe Sue needs to read up on mutual funds before making baseless charges.

But that was just one sign of the Kelly camp's growing desperation. The other came in the form of these two (#1 and #2) letters to the editor -- both from the same man who lives in Albuquerque. As in New Mexico. Which puts him a bit far afield from NY-19. Does Sue really need to recruit someone from 2,500 miles away to drum up support in the district? Can't she just rely on the local Conservative party kingpin and other party hacks who have been writing already and are a bit more local?

Just how desperate will Sue get? Now that John Hall has made it onto the DCCC's Red to Blue list, we're guessing that Laura Bush will be making an appearance sometime soon.

Sue Kelly

Sue Kelly runs away from the cameras, runs away from debates with John Hall, and Tuesday night, she ran away from the district to fundraise with Republican senator Mike DeWine. Maybe Sue needs to commiserate with another conservative-hiding-as-a-moderate who is in a tough fight against a great opponent? Birds of a feather, they say. Maybe Sue thinks she’s so popular here that she doesn’t need to fight for votes? (My canvassing in a conservative area in Orange County last weekend debunks that one.)

Maybe Sue and Mike (and heck, even Pamela) are making plans to get together once the two politicos are forced into retirement in January? Maybe Sue really enjoys hanging out with wingnut blogger Pamela from AtlasShrugs, even if it made for an awkward threesome that noted Vanity Fair blogger James Wolcott calls a "halfway house for halfwits". At last night's soiree, Geller was singing Sue's praises and touting her conservative qualifications. Which just goes to show you that Sue pretends to be an "independent" here in NY-19, but as this picture shows, it's easy to see where she really stands when she thinks nobody is watching.

Today's Times-Herald Record released some information from the editorial board meeting they had last week with Sue Kelly and her challenger, John Hall. In this article headlined, "Sue Kelly Strikes Back Part Deux", the THR describes two fits that Kelly had during the debate.

First up:

Kelly set the tone before the camera even started rolling by objecting to the debate's format, which required two-minute opening statements.

Should be an easy feat for a six-term congresswoman, right?

"I was not told that," she said. "I was not told that there were opening or closing statements. We actually checked. They indicated that that was not going to happen."

Hmmmm, and then she continues to lose her grip a little later:

Times Herald-Record Executive Editor Mike Levine was framing a question about the Iraq war. His hands were fumbling with a highlighted piece of paper.

"Is that a John Hall release you have there?" she probed.

"No, this is the Times Herald-Record."

"Just checking."

None of this sounds like "Striking Back" to me. And, of course, we know she totally freaked over the Mark Foley connection during this debate as well. Plus, in her Journal-News interview video, Sue looks about to cry and mirrors her boss George W. Bush by talking about "working hard."

Election Day is a mere 16 days away and as the Times Herald-Record's endorsement of John Hall notes, Sue Kelly isn't just living in the past as evidenced by her hob-knobbing with President Bush's first press secretary Ari Fleischer in Dutchess County on Friday night. She embodies old thinking. Here's a snippet from their editorial:

Kelly came into Congress a dozen years ago with the Newt Gingrich-led GOP sweep and its famous "Contract With America" that promised reform of how the House of Representatives was run by Democrats. For her part, Kelly reserved the right to pick and choose on the contract, but pledged to work for "a smaller, smarter government which is more accountable to the American people." The GOP-led federal government may be many things, but smaller, smarter and more accountable are not among them. Kelly's sin is not necessarily that her vision has not been realized, but that she almost unfailingly defends what has been delivered instead.

Asked in a debate at the Record's offices about the various scandals, excessive spending and botched White House efforts in Iraq — all attributable to Republicans — Kelly insisted that's "not where my focus should be." Rather, she said, "My focus is on the 19th Congressional District. I've helped bring jobs here. I've helped to make sure our environment is safe. I've helped bring money to schools, hospitals. I've done a great deal of work for the people here. That's where the focus should be."

Sorry, congresswoman, the I've-brought-home-the-bacon argument is not enough this year. Not when Americans are demanding accountability for a costly botched war and are anxious about a federal government that seems to operate without any checks and balances. She says looking back at Iraq, on which she has supported the president, is "second-guessing." Hall more accurately describes it as "avoiding responsibility."

Ouch! The take-down is particularly sweet because the paper has endorsed Kelly repeatedly in the past. Which brings us back to Ari Fleischer. Just as Fleischer spun tales about the war in Iraq (among other things), Sue Kelly keeps spinning stories about John Hall's plans to raise taxes (among other things). If you can't get by on the facts, you have to make stuff up. And Sue Kelly is showing once again that, as the old saying goes, you are the company that you keep.

Tomorrow's NY Times has endorsed John Hall for Congress. And while the paper had plenty of nice things to say about John, it's the stuff that they said about Sue Kelly that was particularly biting:

She has mostly been a go-along-to-get-along party member, supporting the Bush administration's tax cuts, stoutly defending its handling of the Iraq war and voting this month for President Bush's dangerous bill on military commissions...She is a rank and file loyalist in a party that is tired and fiscally reckless.

The endorsement isn't available online until tomorrow. We'll post a link then. In the meantime, if you haven't seen John's performance on the Colbert Report on Thursday night, be sure to check it out. .

We think this speaks for itself....

A new independent poll conducted by Majority Watch shows that Sue Kelly may soon have plenty of free time to spend being a "wife, mother and grandmother" as she indignantly shouted the other day. This new poll shows that John Hall is leading Kelly 49% to 40%. The crosstabs (pdf) are given and can be evaluated by those wanting the data -- it just shows that this race is one to look at. There's also these numbers from the latest NBC/WSJ poll, which while not local, show that the public thinks Congress is doing a lousy job.

Now, a few weeks ago, before Sue's ties to former Congressman Mark Foley were clear, John Hall released an internal poll that showed him and Kelly running neck and neck, with Kelly at 49% to Hall's 45%. But as this story in the Times Herald Record noted, Kelly's folks didn't give the poll much credence because it wasn't independent. Kelly spokesman Jay Townsend said of the poll results: "No independent source has released anything close to this. It is at variance with what we've done internally."

How will Jay spin this one? Post your guesses in the comment section.

As we've noted here and here, Sue Kelly only comes out of her bunker to talk to real voters when she's guaranteed a friendly audience. Need evidence? Just look at these images from last night's debate at RNN TV.

Just more evidence that Sue Kelly has no new ideas. And she can't defend the ones she already has. During the editorial board meeting at the Times Herald Record on Monday, Kelly actually said that "Iraq is mostly pacified now". Really? Wonder what the families of these 10 soldiers would have to say about that.

And obviously she can't stand it.

Nationally renown blogger Joshua Marshall has caught Sue Kelly in what is either a lie or at the very least a significant bending of the truth. Sue Kelly was head of the House Page Board from 1999 to 2001 but she claims to have been such a bastion of morality that Mark Foley either suspended his predatory ways, or didn't start until she stepped down from the Board in 2002.

So which is it Sue? A lie or another lie? Or do you want to tell us again that you just work there, you have nothing to do with the actual running of the place.

Marshall's article is here.

Well, now we know why Sue has been in hiding. Because when the hard questions start flying about Pagegate, Sue doesn't know how to answer other than to say that she's a wife, a mother and a grandmother. So are a lot of people, Sue. But none of those wives, mothers and grandmothers happened to have served as Chair of the Page Board when the first pages began complaining about Mark Foley's creepy behavior.

To watch the video of Sue unraveling, head here and click on the "You have no shame" link. Doesn't it kind of remind you of the scene in the Wizard of Oz where the bad witch melts before your very eyes?

And to learn more about what Sue knew, check out SueKnew.com, a new site that should help Sue refresh her memory.

The bottom line is this: Sue either knew about Mark Foley and did nothing. Or she wasn't doing her job.

Later today, Sue Kelly will come out of her hole to appear at a Farm Forum at Warwick Town Hall in Orange County. Though seats are extremely limited, this is the only public forum that Kelly has agreed to, despite the fact that her spokesman, Jay Townsend, continues to lie about the number of debates Kelly has agreed to.

Need evidence about just how hard Kelly is hiding? Well, she's already blown off invites from the League of Women Voters not once, not twice, but three times. We'll note that while some extremists on Kelly's side claim that the League is partisan, there's plenty of other members of Congress, including Sue's fellow Republicans, who are participating in debates sponsored by the group (see here and here and here).

But Kelly's not just blowing off the League of Women Voters. She's also blowing off RNN -- the only channel available to people who get their television via cable or a satellite dish. Here's a snippet from the letter RNN hand-delivered to Kelly on Friday:

As you and your campaign are aware, despite repeated requests by the Westchester County chapter of the League of Women Voters, you have failed to respond to a non-partisan invitation to participate in a regionally televised debate with your 19th District Congressional Seat opponent John Hall.

As a result, RNN-TV is left with no alternative but to proceed without the auspices of the League. So, we will continue with plans to air a debate with or without your presence as scheduled on Tuesday, October 17th at 8pm originating from the RNN-TV studios in Rye Brook, NY. Your absence will be represented by an empty chair.

Meanwhile, as the Journal News reported yesterday, many Republicans are beginning to have concerns about Kelly's cover-up of the Mark Foley scandal, otherwise known as Pagegate.

How much longer can she really continue to hide? Even the groundhog makes an appearance once a year, Sue. It's time to come out of your hole and meet the voters of the 19th district!

Late yesterday, Sue put out a laughable response to the ad that Majority Action put out. Here's a snippet:

Majority Action is dumping half a million dollars into this race-money that is being used to air a filthy, scurrilous attack on my character and integrity. What is Majority Action? One of those mysterious democrat shadow groups called a "527," funded by well-healed fat cats who can cut six and seven figure checks and operate outside the rules imposed on federal candidates.

So let's get this straight: putting out a commercial that takes a close (albeit critical) look at Sue's massive campaign donations is filthy and scurrilous. But attacking former Sen. Max Cleland for being in bed with Osama bin Laden as the Republican 527 Progress for America did back in 2002 or as "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" -- another 527 that was active in 2004 -- is perfectly fine in Sue's book.

If that's Sue Kelly's idea of reality, than she really is more out of touch than we thought!

Early in the morning of March 21, 2005, Sue voted to intervene in Michael and Terri Schiavo's personal lives. Fast forward a year and a half and Michael Schiavo notes with more than a bit of irony how Sue Kelly and other members of Congress should have been paying more attention to a far more serious problem in Florida: Mark Foley's abuse of teenage pages. Schiavo writes:

It wasn't that long ago that the same cast and crew who are now claiming to be misinformed, uninformed or in denial went to great and extraordinary lengths to interject themselves into my life. And it hasn't escaped my attention either that most of the people on the Foley hot seat are the same ones who voted to put Congress in Terri's hospice. People like Tom Reynolds, Sue Kelly, Dennis Hastert, Don Sherwood, Mike Fitzpatrick, Mark Kirk and, yes, even Mark Foley voted to put the Congress in my personal life when they should have been looking at his.

Michael Schiavo goes on to say this: "Sue Kelly deserves to go. No questions."

We couldn't agree with him more.

ABC News is reporting that former Republican Congressman Mark Foley was reportedly cruising the pages' dorm in the summer of 2000, a time when our own Sue Kelly was in charge of the House Page Board.

What does Sue Kelly have to say for herself now? Why don't you call her and ask? 202.225.5441 in DC or 845.291.4100 (Orange County), 845.897.5200 (Dutchess County) or 914.962.0761 in Westchester. We'd certainly like to know.

Sue Kelly isn't having a very good week -- and it's only Wednesday!

First the LA Times reported that a former page was approached by Foley in 2000 (while Ms. Kelly was Page Board Chair).

Then the Washington Post wrote about how fellow Page Board member, Jim Kolbe, learned about the Foley situation back in 2000 (while Sue Kelly was Page Board Chair).

Then, yesterday, Kolbe issued this press release stating that he notified the Page Board clerk and Mark Foley's office.

Remember that Sue Kelly was the Chair of the program and she was responsible for supervising it during this time.

Then CQPolitics upgraded her congressional race moving it in a more competitive category. (Now it is listed as 'leans' republican from republican favored)


So apparently all of these questions swirling around Ms. Kelly are taking a toll. The Journal News reports:

U.S. Rep. Sue Kelly angrily denied this afternoon that anyone informed her in 2000 when she was chairman of the [page board and] that a former page had complained about an e-mail message he received from then-U.S. Rep. Mark Foley that made him feel uncomfortable.

(emphasis added)

Uh oh, sounds like Sue is losing her cool!

The Journal News Continues saying:

"I'm pretty angry at Jim (Kolbe)," Kelly said

Why? Because Kolbe refuses to cover up the facts that you either covered up for a fellow Congressman who was preying on teenage boys or that you weren't doing your job as Page Board Chair? Whether or not you knew about Foley back in 2000 is almost irrelevant now: It was YOUR JOB to know about Foley.

It's fact:
You should have known -- knowing about this was the whole reason the Page Board was created!
The biggest purpose of the job, the job of the Page Board is: To oversee and make sure of the well being of the Congressional Pages in all aspects.

Because of increased activity, a great opposition candidate (John Hall) and

the question of whether Kelly herself knew about Foley’s lewd behavior during her tenure as Republican chairwoman of the House Page Board

CQPolitics.com has upgraded the NY-19 to 'leans' republican from republican favored.

There are only 18 races that CQ rates as more competitive for democractic pickup over the 'lean' category.

The article is written here .

-- MrMacMan

For the past week, Sue Kelly has been sticking to her story that she knew nothing about Mark Foley's predatory behavior or messages until Pagegate broke on Sept. 29.

But this story in the Washington Post shows that one of Kelly's colleagues on the Page Board -- indeed the person that Kelly replaced as chair of the Page Board in February 1999 -- knew about Foley's explicit emails as early as 2000 and personally confronted Foley about the emails to young male pages.

C'mon Sue: are the voters here in the Hudson Valley really supposed to believe that you knew nothing? As each day passes and new facts come out, it's getting harder and harder to swallow that story!

We now know beyond any doubt that North Korea is a nuclear power.

For a little perspective, we suggest reading Joshua Marshall's Talking Points Memo this morning:

The origins of the failure are ones anyone familiar with the last six years in this country will readily recognize: chest-thumping followed by failure followed by cover-up and denial. The same story as Iraq. Even the same story as Foley.

That's right. Once again, tough talk and swagger is the substitute for acting smart and protecting the American homeland. Sue Kelly and the Republican-controlled Congress have failed to secure our ports, or ensure our troops in Iraq have adequate body armor. They prefer swagger to doing real work, and we can't afford it anymore.

The bomb-grade plutonium that was on ice from 1994 to 2002 is now actual bombs. Try as you might it is difficult to imagine a policy -- any policy -- which would have yielded a worse result than the one we will face Monday morning.

The policy of the Clinton administration - containment backed up not only by the threat of sanctions but the promise of rewards for good behavior - has been replaced by the aforementioned tough talk and swagger. And now another nation has joined the nuclear club.

Talking tough is great if you can make it stick and back it up; it is always and necessarily cleaner and less compromising than sitting down and dealing with bad actors. Talking tough and then folding your cards doesn't just show weakness it invites contempt. And that is what we have here.

We couldn't agree more. We can't afford another two years of Republicans like Sue Kelly telling us "don't blame me, I just work here."

Earlier today, the Los Angeles Times reported additional details on the Mark Foley/Pagegate scandal during the time that Sue Kelly chaired the Page Board. Here's a snippet from the Times story:

The exchanges quickly became provocative. In one 2000 message, Maf54 inquired about the length and direction of the youth's erection. "He clearly has used his position, but who hasn't?" the former page said.

Meanwhile, Sue Kelly continues to try to spin the story and minimize her involvement in the whole sorry mess. In the past week, we've seen her claim that she doesn't remember when she was chair of the Page Board (the correct answer is February 1999 to early 2001). And we've seen her say that nothing "had been brought to my attention" which kind of sounds like Condi Rice's excuses about 9-11 because "If we had known an attack was coming against the United States, we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it." Duh!

Has Sue been subpoenaed yet? Why not give her office a call and ask? Here's how to reach her (well, her office, since she seems to be in stealth mode, particularly on this issue): 202.225.5441 in DC or 845.291.4100 (Orange County), 845.897.5200 (Dutchess County) or 914.962.0761 in Westchester.

The election is now less than a month away. Voters deserve to know the truth about what Sue knew. And if she really knew nothing despite being Chairman of the Page Board, why the heck not?

Now that ABC News is reporting that three former pages were being harassed by Mark Foley when Sue Kelly was Chairwoman of the Page Board , it seems like only a matter time before Sue is hauled before the House Ethics Committee. Here's a snippet from the ABC News report:

The second page who talked with ABC News, a graduate of the 2000 page class, says Foley actually visited the old page dorm and offered rides to events in his BMW.

"His e-mails developed into sexually explicit conversations, and he asked me for photographs of my erect penis," the former page said.

Despite the fact that Kelly claims she can't remember exactly when she served as Chairman of the Page Board, various sources put the date at Feb. 11, 1999 through early 2001. That would put her in charge during the dates that this particular page was being harassed by one of her colleagues.

And there's also this as reported in today's Charleston (W.V) Gazette: Sue Kelly collected around $12,000 from her PROM date/fundraiser with Mark Foley on Sept. 26, just two days before Foley resigned from Congress.

The bottom line is that Sue Kelly either knew what was going on with Mark Foley and covered it up, or she wasn't doing her job as Chairwoman of the Page Board by protecting vulnerable teenagers. Which one is it Sue?

There's little doubt that Sue Kelly spent much of today trying to run from her involvement in what's now being called Pagegate. But unfortunately for Sue, the facts can be stubborn things. That's because as both Roll Call and the Times-Union blog are reporting, just last week, Sue Kelly stood side-by-side with Mark Foley to collect money from a group called PROM, or Physicians to Retain our Majority. Here's the official invite, which conveniently omitted Kelly's name. Not to mention Foley and NY-20's John Sweeney. But here's what the Times-Union blog had to say about the event:

Members of the PROM committee include two New Yorkers - John Sweeney (20th CD) and Sue Kelly (19th CD) - as well as Shelley Moore Capito, of West Virginia, who is a member of the House Page Board and was not told of the Foley emails when the issue came up earlier this year.

The name of this committee, which helps candidates tap new donor bases, is doubly unfortunate when you consider this passage from yesterday's Washington Post:

"The pages did, however, receive a lot of attention from Foley. He attended one of their parties in a tuxedo. He donated to the fundraiser that helps pay for their prom and spoke admiringly about them in floor speeches. He learned their names and asked them about themselves. For many, it was welcome attention."

Will Sue Kelly return the money she collected that night? Or will she continue to hide?

Sue Kelly's excuses on what she knows about the Mark Foley scandal are beginning to sound a lot like "the dog ate my homework" to many people who live in the 19th. From this morning's JoNews story:

Kelly said she couldn't remember the exact years of her service, but Salley M. Collins, a spokeswoman for the Committee on House Administration, said in an e-mail yesterday that Kelly served as chairwoman from 1998 to 2000.

Hmmm...where else have we heard about a politician not being able to remember important things about this case? How about Speaker of the House Denny Hastert, who can't remember when he was told about Foley's behavior? Or NRCC Chair Tom Reynolds, who also seems to have a memory lapse when it comes to details about this case?

And why are the dates that Kelly served as Chair of the Page Board changing by the hour? As we've noted in several posts, Kelly just can't seem to get her story straight on this one. So now she's simply saying she just doesn't remember.

Don't the voters in the 19th deserve more from their Congresswoman than lame excuses about events that didn't even happen all that long ago?

Sue Kelly loves to tell us what a power player she is in Washington, but when push comes to shove, when the rubber hits the road, or a scandal hits the Republican leadership, the story suddenly (and predictably) changes to "who, me?"

According to this document, Sue Kelly chaired the House Page Board from the 106th to the 108th Congress. But when asked by the Times Herald Record, Sue Kelly apparently didn't know or wasn't there or didn't hear a thing.

So let's take her at her word. When she gets to Washington, Sue Kelly just keeps her eyes closed and does what she's told by the right-wing Republican leadership. But we knew that all along.

A short time ago, John Hall urged Sue Kelly to come clean about her time as Chair of the House Page Board:

John Hall Questions Sue Kelly About Scandal

BEACON, NY Democratic congressional nominee John Hall today called on Rep. Sue Kelly to answer relevant questions about the unfolding scandal regarding Rep. Mark Foley and the sexually explicit messages he exchanged with teenaged congressional pages. "It is critical for Rep. Kelly to be as forthcoming as possible about her time as the Chair of the Page Board," said Hall. “Rep. Foley’s perverse actions may have taken place under Sue Kelly’s watch. When it seems that so many others knew of Foley’s lewd and entirely inappropriate behavior, why didn’t Sue Kelly? And if she did know, why didn’t she do anything to protect these children?”

Lots of questions are beginning to surface about exactly what Kelly, who depending on the source either served as Page Board Chair in the 106th-108th Congresses (2000-2004) (see this report (pdf)) or was there from 1999 to 2001.

Two versions of this AP story (early and later) also give slightly different dates.

And then there's the question of her official spokesman, Kevin Callahan, sounding more than a bit shrill when a THR reporter began asking some questions for this article. Said Callahan: ""I don't see where you're going with this, other than on some witch hunt," Callahan told the Times Herald-Record. "I don't see what you're trying to do other than connect her to a sick man. All I can tell you is that no incidents came to her attention while she was chair."

Was Kelly part of the Foley cover-up? Why not give her office a call and ask: 202.225.5441 in DC or 845.291.4100 (Orange County), 845.897.5200 (Dutchess County) or 914.962.0761 in Westchester. Don't we deserve to know the truth about what Kelly knew and whether she was doing her job protecting our children?

John Hall's new TV ad. We thought we'd share....

We think this speaks for itself.

As this article in the Journal News noted over the weekend, Sue Kelly refuses to debate with John Hall in Westchester. She never even responded to three separate invites from the League of Women voters in Somers. Though her spokesman, who happens to be Pat Buchanan's former campaign manager, tried to dismiss concerns over the debates in this item that ran in yesterday's Times Herald Record, you have to wonder what's going through their heads. Is Westchester really that scary for Sue, even though she has under-represented the area for the past 12 years and who claims in her campaign literature to be a "47 year resident of Hudson Valley" (sic)?

According to the latest numbers from the state, there are 121,919 voters in Westchester who live in NY-19, which makes it the largest part of the district after Orange County. Don't those 121,919 people -- few of whom we're assuming will be invited to Sue's newspaper editorial board meetings that she is trying to pass off as actual debates -- deserve to hear what Sue Kelly has to say? Not to mention that one of those editorial board meetings is set for West Nyack, which last time we checked, is located in Eliot Engel's district.

If you live in Westchester, call Kelly's office in Washington (202.225.5441) and demand a public debate in Westchester. Come to think of it, Putnam County residents deserve a public debate too. After spending the past 12 years in Congress, the 121,919 voters who live in Westchester deserve more than lip-service and lame excuses from their Representative in Congress!

UPDATE: Apparently, Sue doesn't have a problem taking money from Westchester residents. She just has a problem with an open debate in Westchester. According to this item on the JoNews blog, Sue will speak for $55 a plate at LeChateau in South Salem on Oct. 19.

The ignominious 109th Congress, dubbed the "Do Nothing Congress", unfortunately got active and passed the Military Commissions Act in the days just before going on recess to campaign for our votes. And what did they accomplish with this? Let the New York Times (Rushing Off a Cliff, published: September 28, 2006) tell you:

Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about anti-terrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Here are some lowlights--the worst of the worst parts of this abominable bill:

Enemy Combatants: Legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, could be subject to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.

Habeas Corpus [established in the year 1215 AD] is no longer available: Detainees in U.S. military prisons lose the basic right to have a court (and not George Bush) determine the lawfulness of his imprisonment (i.e., habeas corpus would provide some protection from Bush and his cronies randomly pulling an individual off the street and throwing him into jail to show the world how “tough” they are on terrorism).

Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.

Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence [evidence obtained by torture] would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant.

Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

The Republicans made it clear that they’d use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. Which brings us, as ever, to SUE KELLY. Voting in lockstep, rubber stamp in hand, Sue helped the House pass this Un-American and probably unconstitutional bill. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll491.xml . Not a very "moderate" or "independent" act, as the Times sums it up:

. . .Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration. They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Ever since the primary, Sue Kelly has been running scared. She's been telling voters in the 19th CD how the election of John Hall to Congress would mean the elevation of Nancy Pelosi to Speaker of the House.

Since Sue already brought it up, let's take a good look at the current House leadership. The same leadership, which according to today's New York Times:

knew for months about e-mail traffic between Representative Mark Foley and a former teenage page, but kept the matter secret and allowed Mr. Foley to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues, Republican lawmakers said Saturday.

Full article here.

And Speaker Hastert? The same Speaker Hastert who Sue Kelly wants to keep in office? According to Roll Call, Hastert is running for cover faster than you can say Representative John Hall.

Hastert's staff insisted Friday night that he was not told of the Foley allegations and are scrambling to respond to Reynolds' statement.

Full article here.

And while we're on the subject of online predators, both in Congress and otherwise, how long do you think it will be before Sue Kelly once again claims credit for the Online Sexual Predator legislation she had little or nothing to do with?

Just some food for thought...