The Washington Times on Mark Foley (hint: they use the word "disgrace")

Incredible.

When you read this, remember it's the Washington Times - not the Washington Post.

The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. [emphasis added]

Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal -- behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey.

An open secret among the pages.

Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could be prowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. [emphasis added]

Amazing - this is from Ronald Reagan's favorite newspaper.

Now the scandal must unfold on the front pages of the newspapers and on the television screens, as transcripts of lewd messages emerge and doubts are rightly raised about the forthrightness of the Republican stewards of the 109th Congress. Some Democrats are attempting to make this "a Republican scandal," and they shouldn't; Democrats have contributed more than their share of characters in the tawdry history of congressional sexual scandals. [emphasis added]

This is one place where I differ from the editorial.

It would not be a "Republican scandal" because Foley is a member of the GOP.

No, it's a "Republican scandal" because it looks like Speaker Hastert and the Republican house members worked to cover it up.

But here's the huge news:

House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.

Here's the important part again.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once.

Josh Marshal has a list of some House members' reactions to the Foley scandal. So far, Melissa Hart's not on it.

Has anyone contacted Melissa Hart to get her comments? I put in a call last night, but as it was after business hours I was only able to leave a voice message.

If anyone get's hold of a comment, please e-mail it in.

This is serious. The Washington Times even says so.

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE (8:00am): I just found John Delano's reporting on this. The piece is a compare/contrast the reactions between two local House Members, Hart and Democrat Mike Doyle. The bottom line (and it is literally at the bottom - it's the last paragraph) is this:

Both Hart and Doyle say if house leaders, or anyone else, knew what Foley was doing and didn't report it to the authorities, they should be fully prosecuted.

So I guess we have an answer.

Though Melissa Hart still seems to be covering for her party members:

But Hart, a Republican, and Doyle, a Democrat, disagree about whether Republican leaders should have acted sooner when they learned months ago about Foley's e-mail.

"Well, the first e-mail was e-mail was of a non-sexual content, it is my understanding," said Hart.

"You ask your nieces and nephews what they want for their birthday," said Doyle. "You don't ask total strangers that. It doesn't pass the common sense test. It should have raised an alarm bell." [emphasis added]

It's absolutely true what she says about the first e-mail - it's also completely beside the point. Check this timeline out. This is where it all began. This is the initial exchange where the page in question describes it as "freaked me out." And actually the first e-mail there says this:

do I have the right email

Mark Foley

It's the second e-mail where Mark Foley asks the kid "how old are you now?" In the third e-mail, he asks "what do you want for your birthday coming up" and "what stuff do you like to do?" And finally in the fifth e-mail, he asks for a picture. That's where the page described things as "sick."

Within the context of the whole packet of e-mails, it's obvious that something more was going on than "non-sexual content." The page certainly thought so.

Gotta run!