About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Wash. Post uncritically reported Shays's phony excuse for bringing up Chappaquiddick

October 15, 2006 4:55 pm ET

SUMMARY: The Washington Post uncritically reported Rep. Chris Shays's (R-CT) purported explanation for his reference to Chappaquiddick, claiming that he made his comment in the context of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's appearance with Shays's opponent, Diane Farrell, whose calls for Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's resignation over the Mark Foley scandal, Shays said, were made before the evidence of Hastert's "serious mishandling" of the scandal had come out. But Shays himself was one of the first Republicans to comment on evidence that the House leadership knew of some of Foley's alleged communications with pages. He was quoted in The New York Times on October 1 -- two days after the scandal broke -- saying that if any House leaders "knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership."

14 Comments

In an October 14 article by special correspondent Zachary A. Goldfarb, The Washington Post uncritically reported Rep. Chris Shays's (R-CT) explanation for why he recently brought up Chappaquiddick in response to an appearance by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) on behalf of Shays's opponent, Democrat Diane Farrell. Shays declared: "I know the speaker didn't go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day ... Dennis Hastert didn't kill anybody." Asked to explain the remark, according to the Post, Shays's campaign manager, Michael Sohn said, "Shays's remarks on Kennedy only reflected the fact that the senator had come to Connecticut a few days earlier for a Farrell fundraiser after she had called for Hastert to step down -- before Hastert was shown to have made serious mistakes in the handling of the page scandal."

In his purported explanation of Shays's remarks, Sohn appears to have taken the position that Farrell's criticism of Hastert, first reported by the Associated Press on October 3, was premature given that evidence of Hastert's "serious mistakes in the handling" of the scandal involving alleged email and instant message communications between then-Rep. Mark Foley and underage former congressional pages didn't come out until later. But the absence of evidence that would later come out -- including before Shays actually made his Chappaquiddick remark -- did not stop Shays himself from asserting shortly after the scandal broke that if any House leaders "knew or should have known the extent of this problem, they should not serve in leadership." Indeed, Shays's remarks were apparently in response to evidence already public that the House leadership had known for months about emails allegedly sent by Foley, with Hastert contradicting himself -- and other members of the leadership -- on when he first learned of Foley's behavior. As the Chicago Tribune wrote: "In the chaotic hours after news of the scandal broke, GOP leaders offered confusing versions of events about how much they knew, and when." As Media Matters for America has noted, Hastert's staff told the Chicago Tribune on September 29 that he "was not aware until last week of [Foley's alleged] inappropriate behavior." But after House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) reportedly stated on September 29 that he had discussed with Hastert Foley's contact with a 16-year-old page months ago (Boehner then disputed media reports that he had discussed Foley with Hastert, and then said he "could not remember" whether he had done so), and Rep. Thomas Reynolds (R-NY) disclosed on September 30 that he had told Hastert about alleged emails between Foley and an underage congressional page earlier in the year, Hastert issued a September 30 statement saying he did not challenge Reynolds's account.

Moreover, by the time Shays brought up Chappaquiddick in an October 6 interview that was published on October 11, Hastert had also contradicted himself on whether he forced Foley to resign from Congress. As Media Matters noted, Hastert initially claimed on October 2 that Foley stepped down without prodding from the Republican leadership, saying that the leadership "really didn't have a chance to ask him to resign." But on the October 3 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, Hastert claimed that the leadership had, in fact, intervened, saying "We found out about it, asked him to resign." In addition, by the time Shays brought up Chappaquiddick, more evidence had surfaced contradicting Hastert's claim to have only recently learned of Foley's behavior. On October 5, Kirk Fordham, former chief of staff to both Reynolds and Foley, had asserted that he had approached Hastert's office several years ago to warn Hastert about Foley's behavior, a claim that has since been corroborated by a current Republican staffer.

According to the Hartford Courant, which first reported Shays's remarks about Chappaquiddick on October 11, "Shays, Reps. Rob Simmons, R-2nd District, and Nancy L. Johnson, R-5th District, have made carefully worded statements [on the Foley scandal] they hope will portray them as both tough and fair ... They all stopped short of naming names, but Shays went further, drawing a link between Hastert and Kennedy."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by HuntingtonBeachLefty (October 15, 2006 9:29 pm ET)
         

      past events, but where was George Bush 37 years ago?

      Chappaquiddick has come up more times in the past couple of weeks than in the past 20 years, and I don't think that's anything but a bad sign for the Repubs.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by clevelandsteamer (October 16, 2006 12:05 am ET)
           

        Chappaquidick comes up over, and over, and over, and over, and over...

        Report Abuse
      • Author by bunnyr (October 16, 2006 11:07 am ET)
           

        I don't think this is bad comparison to make politically, especially if you're in a desperate situation. Chappaquidick is definitely a truly awful thing to have in your life story.

        The trouble is that it's no excuse for how the Foley controversy was handled. "Hey, Kennedy left his passenger in the car to die - so what's so big about hiding Foley's perverted activity - after all he didn't kill anybody!"

        Puh-lease.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by fatbob (October 16, 2006 12:24 pm ET)
             

          The guy she killed in a car wreck is just as dead and that has just as much relevance as Chappiquidick.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Con Man (October 16, 2006 12:52 pm ET)
               

            I'm not one to bring up Mary Jo, but to try and compare her death to the guy Laura Welch killed is bordering on ludicrousness. The only real thing they have in common is a death involving an automobile accident. And that's not what people really are concerned about with the Chappaquiddick incident. It is the way the accident was handled (or not handled, for some).

            Anyone can forgive someone for an accident... we're all human, they happen. But critics' beef is with the way he (some say) didn't try and help, left the scene and the delay in reporting it. Nothing similar in Welch's case.

            But yes, while the Chappaquiddick/Dutton comparison borders on absurdity, the Chappaquiddick/Foley comparison would be miles over that line.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by commonsenseliberal (October 16, 2006 3:38 pm ET)
                 

              Wasn't Laura Welch drunk when she caused an accident that killed a guy? That changes your entire argument.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by commonsenseliberal (October 16, 2006 3:45 pm ET)
                   

                Laura Welch was not drunk. She just broke the law by running a stop sign. My apologies to the First Lady and anyone offended.

                CSL

                Report Abuse
              • Author by Con Man (October 16, 2006 3:47 pm ET)
                   

                She wasn't. Things like your post are how rumours get started... or continued. Out.

                Report Abuse
            • Author by rendesign (October 18, 2006 1:51 am ET)
                 

              if the right wing insists on comparing the events of 37 years ago to Mark Foley's situation then there are only two relevent points. Ted Kennedy WAS drunk when he had his lapse in judgement and the Democrats in Congress did not attempt to cover it up (as if they could) Furthermore Ted Kennedy did not habitually drown women in lakes over an eleven year period.

              Report Abuse
          • Author by ellie717 (October 16, 2006 1:02 pm ET)
               

            Laura Bush was 17 years old, and had an accident in which a classmate of hers died.

            She was not drunk, and there were no allegations at the time that said that it was anything other than an accident where she accidentally ran a stop sign right at the same time another car was travelling through the intersection.

            Kennedy may have had an accident too, or he might have been criminally negligent by driving drunk. He may have tried, but failed, to rescue his passenger, or he might have failed to do all he could to rescue her. And we know that he failed to go to the authorities in a timely fashion, and he was cited for that failure.

            They are not the same. I don't know if Kennedy did anything else criminally negligent. I do know that Laura Bush's case is not the same.

            In addition, Kennedy is the elected official. Laura Bush is married to one. That makes her different.

            Please stop being a jerk and bringing up Laura Bush.

            The Republicans are being jerks for bringing up Kennedy when they are trying to defend themselves from their sheltering of Mark Foley. Don't be like them.

            Report Abuse
    • Author by tabkhan (October 16, 2006 1:03 pm ET)
         

      I guess draft-dodger Shays has given up on getting any meaningful amount of support from Dem voters. Oh, well, another coward Reupblican soon to be seeking time to spend with their family...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jscott (October 16, 2006 6:05 pm ET)
         

      Chappaquiddick was all Bill Clinton's fault. Right?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by heredes3841 (October 17, 2006 2:00 am ET)
         

      I love how 'Ellie" blows off running a stop sign as just an accident. Millions of people don't do that every day. At least if she had been drunk there would have been an excuse. And wasn't it in her own neighborhood?

      If Joan Kennedy had just "accidentally" run a stop sign at some time in her life-- and killed somebody-- the press would still be talking about it.

      Millions of girlfriends never "accidentally" kill their own boyfriends. It just doesn't happen. So what did we do wrong as a country to be fated with these hapless, wacky individuals in charge?

      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

Push Back

Phone calls, emails and letters from the public do make a difference. Remember that to be effective you must be polite, and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and indicate what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.