I’ve spent a little time lately looking at our Congressional leaders and the amount of money they spend doing their jobs, but I haven’t felt any burning desire to dive into the political maelstroms that are kicking up since there’s so much of that going on everywhere else.  But after reading Lex Alexander’s post in which he shares comments made by Virginia Foxx to him re. the Foley Scandal I just have to say my piece about my own US Representative.

It’s really quite simple.  I don’t know Rep. Foxx personally but based on her comments on this and at least one other issue I have to ask whether she’s a Republican lap dog or just plain dense.  And it’s not just that I disagree with her take on things it’s that I think what she’s doing is stupid from a pragmatic, political angle.  Let’s start with the Foley issue.  Here’s an excerpt from Lex’s blog:

During my telephone conversation with him Thursday, Rep. Howard
Coble, the 6th District Republican, called on the National Republican
Congressional Committee to return $100,000 it received earlier this
summer from former Rep. Foley’s political-action committee. The NRCC
works to elect Republican candidates to the U.S. House of
Representatives. Because Republican control of the House is in jeopardy
for the first time since that party took control of the chamber after
the 1994 elections, the NRCC understandably wants to raise as much
money as possible to help Republican candidates in close races. Foley,
prior to news of his scandalous Internet communications, was considered
a safe bet for re-election and still has roughly $2.8 million in his
PAC.

The NRCC’s problem, however, is that news reports indicate that the
NRCC’s chairman, Rep. Tom Reynolds of New York, had been told months
ago about Foley’s potentially problematic behavior. He accepted the
money anyway — and also is reported to have been instrumental in
talking Foley, who had been thinking about retiring, into running for
re-election this year.

No quid pro quo has been proved, Coble said, but "appearance-wise, it does not look good."

Rep. Virginia Foxx, the area’s other Republican House member, has no
problem with Reynolds’ behavior. And she thinks that if at least two
newspapers — the Miami Herald and the St. Petersburg Times — were
onto the story but had chosen not to publish anything at the time the
NRCC got Foley’s money, she doesn’t see why Reynolds should have done
anything differently: "There were at least two newspaper outlets and
they didn’t think it was worth reporting. Then why fault Reynolds for
doing what he did? If the news media had thought at the time that it
was so inappropriate that something should have been done, then maybe
they should have done something."

Can she possibly be serious?  Why fault Rep. Reynolds if we don’t fault the papers?  Well let’s start with the fact that he’s a member of Congress and it’s his job to do something about it, as it would have been hers if she were privy to what was going on.  Is she saying that she’s not obligated to report misgivings about a fellow Representative unless the Winston-Salem Journal also reports on the situation?  Furthermore, here’s what the St. Petersburg Times’ editor said about deciding not to run the story:

I led deliberations with our top editors, and we concluded that we did
not have enough substantiated information to reach beyond innuendo.

We were unsuccessful in getting members of Congress who were
involved in the matter or those who administer the House page corps to
acknowledge any problem with Foley’s ambiguous e-mail or to suggest
that they thought it was worth pursuing.

And we couldn’t come up with a strong enough case to explain to a
teenager’s parents why, over their vehement pleas to drop the matter,
we needed to make their son the subject of a story – and the incredible
scrutiny that would surely follow.

It added up to this conclusion: To print what we had seemed to be a
shortcut to taint a member of Congress without actually having the
goods.

I guarantee you that if they’d run the story as it was Rep. Foxx would have jumped all over them for reporting rumors and trying to sabotage a sitting member of Congress.  Also, she should take note that had Rep. Reynolds and the other party leaders who’d been warned about Foley done their jobs the story would have run with corroboration.

As I said I’m not just stunned because I disagree with her stand on this issue, I’m equally or more stunned at her political ineptitude here.  Instead of just saying "I think we should investigate this matter and take whatever actions are appropriate" she tries to shift the blame and in the process looks less adept at that than my 5th grade son.

The Foley incident where Rep. Foxx has looked like she’s living in a different, partisan universe.  Earlier this summer she went to Baghdad and here’s some excerpts from a Winston-Salem Journal article about her trip:

The war in Iraq is
going well, Iraqi government officials are determined to have a united
government, and American soldiers are satisfied with their equipment
and their mission, said Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-5th, who visited Iraq
yesterday and Sunday…

Foxx and other members
of the congressional delegation stayed with troops overnight in a
military compound in Baghdad that is one of Saddam Hussein’s former
palaces and had lunch together yesterday. (Ed. Comment: Sure she got a real good idea of what the situation on the ground looked like from there)…

Yesterday, after
Foxx’s visit, there were several kidnappings in Baghdad, the latest in
a string of sectarian violence that has escalated in recent months.

Foxx said she did
not see any evidence of this (Ed. See comment above). but said that the government officials,
particularly al-Bolani, are committed to making sure "the terrorists
don’t create a civil war."…

Ideally, she said,
military leaders and government officials told her they hope to have
Baghdad "secure" and a "place where people can feel safe" by the end of
the year. (Ed. She really bought this?)

There have been
reports that American military personnel do not have adequate supplies
or that their morale is low. Foxx said that her meetings with soldiers
did not support this. She said that at one point she asked the
soldiers, while their supervising officers were not within earshot, in
hopes to get the most honest answer, and they told her they were fine.

"There was no sense of any problems," she said, "There was no indication of unhappiness." (Ed. Oh come on, in the private sector that would be like a VP going around her CEO to bitch to the Board of Directors.  It ain’t gonna happen).

So again I ask, is she really this obtuse or is she a party hack?  Personally I think she’s a party hack and my evidence to support this is her early and consistent push for immigration reform.  That’s a hot-button issue in this neck of the woods (see this W-S Journal article) and I will definitely give her props for being a consistent advocate for immigration reform, even if I don’t agree with some of the solutions she proposes.

Still her recent comments and stances on issues like the war and the Foley matter really have me thinking she’s more commited to her party than the good of her constituents.  I’m sure she’s worried about her party losing the majority in November, but her comments and behavior, and that of her party’s leadership are only serving to highlight why it’s time they get a little butt spanking.  Maybe it will help them remember where they’re from and what they’re supposed to be about. Sadly the Democrats aren’t any better, but I guess it’s their turn to figure out how to further screw this country up.