Yesterday, Randy Kuhl said that the Speaker of the House, the man second in the line to the Presidency, should be held to the same standard as a defendant in a criminal trial. Today, as part of backgrounders in preparation for today's debate in Canandaigua, he had another chance to speak out on the Foley matter. Let's take a close look at what he said:
All of this activity all happened before I was even there.
Not true: the initial emails were received and "processed" by the House leadership in the Fall of 2005 and Spring of 2006. Kuhl was in office during that time.
Isn't it interesting it all just comes out now?
Yes it is. Why would a House GOP aide leak emails to the press? And why didn't Hastert and Reynolds take care of the problem when they first heard about it a year ago?
My opponent is trying to capitalize. I think that's scurrilous. It's just outrageous for them to try to do that.
Absolutely true: his opponent is trying to capitalize on the scandal. I'll leave the ultimate judgment of whether that's "scurrilous" or "outrageous" to the reader, but I think there's a legitimate question of abuse of power and responsibility behind the salacious emails.
Here's another interesting quote:
I think that any calling at this point for any resignations is just political pandering. There's no question about in my mind and I'm very disappointed that my opponent has joined into that.
Perhaps Randy should write a letter to the pandering editors of the conservative National Review, which has called for the resignation of Rep. John Shimkus, head of the Page Committee. Or perhaps he has a bone to pick with the panderers at the conservative Washington Times, who said yesterday that Speaker Dennis Hastert should resign.
None of Kuhl's responses printed today are anything more than spin. How about: "I want my leadership to do better." That's a simple one. Can Kuhl agree to it?