Evasive GOP leaders trot out cut-and-run strategy

Evasive GOP leaders trot out cut-and-run strategy
October 4, 2006
BY CAROL MARIN Sun-Times Columnist
Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times



J. Dennis Hastert and John Shimkus did a "cut-and-run" on Monday.

Though Republicans have been fond of tarring Democrats with that label when it comes to Iraq, here were two of Illinois' favorite Republican sons chickening out in the face of what was sure to be tough questioning at home.

The two held a news conference Monday in Washington about the Mark Foley scandal four full days after ABC News' Brian Ross first broke the story. Hastert and Shimkus had prepared statements to read and they read them. There they were in the presence of a massive Washington press corps that, understandably, wanted to know what the duo knew about Congressman Foley's misconduct with teenage congressional pages and when exactly they knew it. But after reading their written words to that sea of reporters and camera crews, after denouncing Foley and declaring they had been duped, Hastert and Shimkus turned and left. Time to cut and run.

Questions? Sorry, not now.

Later, each cherry-picked a few media venues for more comfortable, less democratic smaller interviews. And Hastert spent part of Tuesday with Rush Limbaugh. On Limbaugh's radio show, Hastert threw himself in the arms of his conservative base, reminding it about all the great things his team has done for the war on terror and on the economy, rather than his and Shimkus' dereliction of duty.

There is a very narrow time frame for anyone in the eye of a storm to stand up and take that storm in hand. You'd think that an experienced politician such as Hastert especially would have figured that out, but it doesn't seem as though he has. Never very comfortable with the press, he isn't about to tolerate an open, freewheeling news conference now.

Too bad.

If you were around Nov. 12, 1993, perhaps you remember someone else in the eye of a terrible storm. It was Chicago's Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. He had just been accused by a man named Stephen Cook of sexually abusing him years before when Cook was a seminarian in Cincinnati.

Bernardin, like Hastert, was never totally at ease with the press. He had, until that point in time, preferred long, convoluted prepared remarks and carefully constructed written press releases. But this was a crisis like no other. And Bernardin had to abandon what was comfortable and meet any and all inquiries immediately and head-on. I'll never forget what it was like to watch the cardinal standing in a room jammed with the press, patiently answering a litany of probing and painful questions. He stood there until the questions ran out. It was impressive.

Hastert and Shimkus have not been impressive. Nor have they been particularly available.

I'm still waiting for anyone from Hastert's office to call me back.

I've already been advised that Shimkus won't be calling. He, of course, is the chairman of the House Page Board. And one who, like Hastert, should have heard alarms going off in his head beginning many months ago when he learned of Foley being "overly friendly" with a page.

Here's my conversation Tuesday afternoon with Shimkus' press secretary, Steve Tomaszewski:

Is it possible to talk to Congressman Shimkus sometime today by phone? "I can put a request in, but at this point he's not doing interviews," Tomaszewski told me.

Can you help me understand why? "At this point the congressman issued two statements . . . If anything changes with regard to him talking or interviews I will certainly make sure that this request is considered," he assured me.

What was it that caused Shimkus and Hastert not to take questions Monday? "You'd have to ask the speaker's office," replied Tomaszewski. I'd love to, believe me.

Then again, I understand the speaker is probably pretty busy right now. He has to fend off demands by the conservative Washington Times that he resign. And he has to contend with the unexpected criticism from his own House majority leader, John Boehner. But I think Hastert and Shimkus have something much more important to do. And it's almost too late for them to do it. They need to convince a skeptical public that Congress is something other than a purely political club of good old boys who quietly protect their own colleagues and themselves.

It's not Hastert's resignation I'm looking for. It's his open, frank and full response to a wide range of questions, a complete conversation that would serve us ... and him.