Mr. Mark Foley and the House of Representatives

This is an interesting editorial from The Washington Post about some reactions in the House for the scandal leaded by Mr. Foley.

The Speaker's Feint
Mr. Hastert would assign the wrong mission to his 'high-caliber' adviser.
Friday, October 6, 2006; Page A22
HOUSE SPEAKER J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) yesterday came up with yet another ploy to shield himself and his colleagues from scrutiny while pretending to do the opposite.
The issue is how House leaders dealt with warnings that Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) had sent inappropriate e-mail to a teenage page. The speaker announced with considerable satisfaction that he hopes to appoint an independent "person of high caliber" -- but not to do what is obviously needed, which is investigate whether the House botched the response, thereby endangering more pages. Instead, Mr. Hastert said, he wants someone "to advise us on the page program." He floated the idea of naming former FBI director Louis J. Freeh but pulled back when Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wouldn't go along.
Let's save the speaker, and whoever his eminent person turns out to be, some time by offering advice right now: No congressman should harass pages. No one should send them what White House press secretary Tony Snow dismissed as "naughty e-mails." And if there's even a hint that one of your colleagues is doing so, or wants to, don't brush it off. "The buck stops here," the speaker said yesterday, declaring that "we're taking responsibility." But announcing that doesn't make it so.
Yesterday's gambit followed an earlier tack, which was to turn the matter over to the FBI. The FBI has a role to play in determining whether criminal violations occurred, but the appropriate constraints on the bureau -- in the scope of its investigation and its ability to share information with the House and the public -- make it an ill-suited vehicle "for us to try to find out what happened," as the speaker put it. Meanwhile, responding to the uproar with finger-pointing suggestions that the other side leaked the matter, as Mr. Hastert did yesterday, isn't going to fly. Would he be happier if the information hadn't come out?
The House ethics committee's announcement yesterday of an investigation is a development to be taken more seriously. As we've said previously, there are legitimate questions about the panel's ability to handle something with this much political sensitivity, given Republican efforts to undermine its power and independence and given its dysfunction during the Abramoff scandal. That's why an independent investigator -- a "person of high caliber," in the speaker's phrase -- would have been the best way to ensure a thorough investigation and unsparing conclusions.
That apparently wasn't seriously considered, though, so now the ethics committee's integrity is on the line. It should resist calls for haste (including from Ms. Pelosi, who risks appearing more interested in electoral timelines than a thorough inquiry), but it also must work briskly and without regard for political fallout.