Sunday, October 01, 2006
Sue Kelly, Mark Foley and the G.O.P. leadership
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...
Voters in NY-19 have to realize that the only way we can vote for change is to replace Kelly. Kelly will continue to support this leadership as she has in the past. She is not "independent"... never has been, never will be.
What is clear is that Kelly who is trying to frame herself as a 'independent' isn't. And the party that she *is* apart of allowed something like this to happen.
The republicans -- knew, did nothing and are now running for cover.
Voters in the 19th CD know the only way to change the culture of corruption in Washington is to replace Sue Kelly.
For example, Tom Reynolds knew about Foley's predations, and did nothing, when Reynolds accepted $100,000 from Foley for the Reynolds RNCC PAC earlier this year. And when Reynolds sent Foley $10,000 from Reynolds TOMPAC. And Reynolds, the chief enabler of the RNCC, also sent Sue Kelly $10,000 at the same time. So Sue has no incentive to rock the boat. She's cruising on the same sea of Republicash.
When I wrote to her about it, she tried to defend her vote by saying that Democrats didn't even have that rule in their own caucus until the late 90's. Anyway, it had nothing to do with the Democrats and she was just trying to build up a straw man. I wrote her back to ask "What did the Democrats rules have to do with anything if the GOP is supposed to be more ethical and moral?" Oh yeah, they've proved THAT really well. Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, Bob Ney, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley.....etc. etc.
Independent, yeah, right.......
The issue for the Sue Kelly race is that the Republican leadership turned a blind eye to behavior that not only was wrong, but that harmed children. And like it or not, shooter, Sue Kelly has followed those guys through thick and thin on every issue so we could hardly count on her to stand up to them on this.
-- We've all got to help Hall raise money in every way we can -- by donating as much as we can ourselves and talking to all of our friends. He has to have enough money to run ads (the sad reality of politics). We have to make sure he has these resources and soon, because Kelly will be saturation bombing the cable networks with these "independent voice" ads and Hall has to be able to respond and expose them for the sham that they are. Kelly has the advantage of a lot of PAC contributions and corporate contributors (all those banks -- she is on the banking committee after all -- quid pro quo!)
-- We have to try to get the ear of the DCCC. It's really annoying that they have declared NY-20 in the red-to-blue column but not NY-19. (We are in the emerging races column, but we deserve much more!) We are a much more competitive district than NY-20 (we'll show this to the DCCC come November when we vote Hall into office.) If you know anyone that you can lobby on this, please do it.
-- We have to apply pressure to get Kelly to debate. If she thinks anyone in NY-19 should vote for her, she should be prepared to explain why. Her behavior is appalling and I cannot imagine how any thinking person could vote for someone who won't make themselves available to their constituents for any kind of scrutiny. We have to figure out creative ways to turn up the heat on this.