Did Foley's Resignation Reveal Hypocrisy in Congress?

[Ivan Seeking]

Does one think the Washington Times sees it this way? Is the Washington Times going to manipulated by a Liberal/Democratic conspiracy?

These are the same guys who are giving extraordinary powers to the president, who have failed in their responsibilities to provides 'checks and balances', and who apparently did know that something was going on regarding Foley and some congressional pages (as is evident in their own words and actions - even including not bringing the matter before the entire House Page Committee (which included Democratic members of the House)).

Yes, there does appear to be a conspiracy - obstruction of justice on the part of Hastert, Reynolds, and perhaps some other republicans.

Yes, it is time for the Republicans to turn a new page.

Fordham is now claiming that he alerted Hastert's office two years ago about inappropriate conduct by Foley. Also, Fordham -now fmr chief of staff to Tom Reynolds - resigned today.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A senior congressional aide said Wednesday that he alerted House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office in 2004 about worrisome conduct by former Rep. Mark Foley with teenage pages - the earliest known alert to the GOP leadership.

Kirk Fordham told The Associated Press that when he was told about Foley's inappropriate behavior toward pages, he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene." ...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_PAGES?SITE=TXBRY&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

This thing really seems to be snowballing.

 

[edward]

Newt Gingrich explains the situation during a weekend interview with Chris Wallace.

Gingrich: House GOP would have "been accused of gay bashing" if it "overly aggressively reacted" to Foley's emails in 2005

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610010003

I had not realized that the GOP had become so sensitive to gay issues.

 

[turbo]

I had not realized that the GOP had become so sensitive to gay issues.

Well, they have. They have also found out that almost any character flaw can be readily explained by alcoholism. They won't use the Rush Limbaugh excuse because drug use doesn't play well everywhere, but alcoholism is fair game. If you're following the news, Foley is now painting himself as a victim of child sexual abuse, as if that gives him the right to "pass it on".

 

[Astronuc]

House GOP would have "been accused of gay bashing" if it "overly aggressively reacted" to Foley's emails in 2005

The members of the GOP really need help, actually education would help, if they do not know or cannot tell the difference between homosexuality and child abuse, or inappropriate conduct by an adult with a minor.

And no, the House leadership would have been accused of 'gay bashing' unless they tried to wrongly blame gays in this matter.

 

[turbo]

Dennis Hastert, according to members of his own party, has had at least 3 years to respond to Foley's behavior and failed to do so. It's time to sweep out the dirt-bags at the top of the Republican leadership.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061004/ap_on_go_co/congress_pages;_ylt=AkMzezfokQ5Y.j3kHdNq2Zes0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3ODdxdHBhBHNlYwM5NjQ-

The aide, Kirk Fordham, said he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene" several years ago.

The claim drew a swift, unequivocal denial from Hastert's chief of staff. "What Kirk Fordham said did not happen," Scott Palmer said through a spokesman.

Hastert's political difficulties were evident half a continent away.

Rep. Roy Blunt (news, bio, voting record) of Missouri, third-ranking leader, pointedly told reporters he would have handled the matter differently than the speaker, had he known of it.

"I think I could have given some good advice here, which is, You have to be curious, you have to ask all the questions you can think of," said Blunt, a member of the leadership. "You absolutely can't decide not to look into activities because one individual's parents don't want you to."

 

[Astronuc]

Ex-Aide Says Speaker’s Office Told About Foley 3 Years Ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/04/washington/04cnd-hastert.html
(registration required, and article accessible for 7 days)

WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 — A former Congressional aide said today that he alerted House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert’s office at least three years ago that Congressional pages had lodged complaints about Representative Mark Foley’s “inappropriate behavior,” asserting that Mr. Hastert’s staff had been warned about Mr. Foley far earlier than the speaker’s office has acknowledged.

Mr. Hastert’s chief of staff, Scott Palmer, denied the account of the former aide, Kirk Fordham, who said in an interview that he had informed Mr. Palmer of the concerns about Mr. Foley prior to 2004. Mr. Fordham worked in Mr. Foley’s Congressional office until January 2004, and today he resigned as chief of staff to Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, the chairman of the House Republican campaign committee.

Mr. Hastert’s office has said it first learned of concerns about Mr. Foley in the fall of 2005.

But Mr. Fordham’s assertion raised additional questions about whether Mr. Hastert and his staff had failed to respond quickly and forcefully enough to multiple warnings about the conduct of Mr. Foley, the Florida Republican who resigned from his House seat on Friday after being confronted with sexually explicit messages that he had sent to teenage pages.

And it further clouded Mr. Hastert’s prospects of holding on to his job as speaker as his party groped for a strategy to deal with a scandal that appears to have undermined its chances of keeping control of Congress on Election Day next month.

Well - depending on the news source, Hastert is gaining support or losing support with respect to remaining Speaker. I still have to wonder what the people (electorate) back in his district think. And what about Reynolds? Oh - ick - Reynolds is from NY.

Mr. Fordham’s statement delivered a setback to Mr. Hastert after his allies had earlier in the day believed they were making progress in solidifying rank and file Republicans behind him for the moment as lawmakers issued a series of generally supportive remarks.

Republicans in Washington and across the country not only expressed anger, but feared the revelations would drag the story of Mr. Foley’s resignation into a second week and eclipse a critical period of campaigning to hold their House majority. At the same time, they said in interviews, it solidified worries within the party that Mr. Foley’s conduct — hardly a secret — may have been kept quiet because Republicans were facing a tight election year.

Oh - you think?

Are republicans more angry and upset that their campaigns have been upset than they are about Foley's misconduct and an apparent coverup by the GOP leadership? If that be the case, it's time to clean House and remove those who are more concerned about their own personal benefits and prestige than doing the right thing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Most talking heads that I've heard interviewed don't expect Hastert to last the week. Apparently the tone of things changed abruptly late today.

 

[Astronuc]

Seems like a rolling stone at this point.

I reflect on Gergen's words - "compelling purpose rooted in moral values". Seems to be lacking in Washington at the moment.

 

[Rach3]

If that be the case, it time to clean House and remove those who are more concerned about right than their own personal benefits and prestige.

 

[Astronuc]

It's been a long day.

 

[BobG]

Originally Posted by Astronuc
If that be the case, it time to clean House and remove those who are more concerned about right than their own personal benefits and prestige.

Astronuc sounds like he's ready to clean up the House Ethics Committee

Actually, I'm kind of curious how this works. Technically, Foley doesn't work for any other Congressmen - his job is to represent his district in Florida at a national level. Congress could censure him for unethical conduct, but that's more discipline by embarrassment than something with real clout (although, in this case, just making it public would have ensured the problem would go away very shortly).

There might be a traditional agreement were each party takes care of its own embarrassing problems, but, if so, then Republican Party leadership telling Foley to stop harrassing pages seems like the standard disciplinary action.

I'd be surprised if it were only a few Republicans that knew Foley was a problem - it's more likely that a lot of Republicans and Democrats knew something about his antics. Blaming Hastert only makes sense if it's normal for representatives from the opposing party to keep their hands off, hoping the other party's leadersip can resolve the problem. I also wonder if the leadership of either party ever really resolves the personal problems of a few representatives or if they always wind up doing no more than keeping things quiet for awhile.

In any event, you would think someone in Congress would have realized that sexual advances to underage pages was more than your typical Congressional scandal and that the 'normal' responses just weren't applicable.

 

[Astronuc]

Astronuc sounds like he's ready to clean up the House Ethics Committee

I'd like to clean up the entire mess in Washington. Even if the democrats were to regain a majority in the House or Senate, I don't see much changing. They aren't that different anymore.

When we end up with a choice between Bush/Gore or Bush/Kerry, the system is broken.

I'd be surprised if it were only a few Republicans that knew Foley was a problem - it's more likely that a lot of Republicans and Democrats knew something about his antics. Blaming Hastert only makes sense if it's normal for representatives from the opposing party to keep their hands off, hoping the other party's leadersip can resolve the problem. I also wonder if the leadership of either party ever really resolves the personal problems of a few representatives or if they always wind up doing no more than keeping things quiet for awhile.

In any event, you would think someone in Congress would have realized that sexual advances to underage pages was more than your typical Congressional scandal and that the 'normal' responses just weren't applicable.

It seems from comments from former pages, that warnings about Foley circulated starting several years ago. It would seem likely that some staff members and/or Congresspersons would have been informed that something was going on. On the other hand, any comments may have been short of accusations of misconduct. If someone is characterized as 'too friendly', that is not the same as saying he or she is 'soliciting' inappropriately or engaging in misconduct.

As for Hastert, he or his office has denied that he was warned of Foley, while the media reports that he was warned. If he was warned but failed to take action, then . . . .

 

[Astronuc]

Is this for real?

FOX news labels Foley as a Democrat?! Is this the October surprise that Rove promised?!

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570

Unbelieveable!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Re Fox, it figures.

There could be as many as 48 subpoenas

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Now there are suggestions of a cover-up at the FBI

The watchdog group that first provided the FBI with suspicious e-mails from then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) said yesterday that FBI and Justice Department officials are attempting to cover up their inaction in the case by making false claims about the group.

Law enforcement officials said the allegations by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) are without merit, and they stood by allegations that the group had refused to provide some information to the FBI.

...Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, said copies of the original e-mails she sent to an FBI agent show those assertions to be wrong. Sloan said the agent called to confirm receipt of the e-mails and to ask if one of the parties was Foley.

Sloan said the group sent unedited e-mails to the FBI because "we wanted them to commence an investigation. We're sort of outraged that they're saying anything differently." The group has asked Fine's office to look into the FBI's assertions. [continued

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501657.html

 

[Astronuc]

Hastert Vows to Overcome Scandal
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/06/washington/06hastert.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 — J. Dennis Hastert, who was installed as House speaker eight years ago through backroom maneuvering in a moment of crisis for his party, has no distinct power base in Congress, not much of a national reputation and, in an age of television politics, little polish in front of the camera.

But Mr. Hastert has survived and survived to become the longest-serving Republican speaker. And on Thursday, standing outside his district office in Batavia, Ill., he made it clear that he did not intend to become a casualty of the Mark Foley scandal, saying he expected to win re-election to his seat and run for speaker again when the new Congress convenes in January.

Mr. Hastert made his statement soon after the leaders of the House ethics committee promised a vigorous investigation into the handling of the Foley case, approved dozens of subpoenas and said they expected to finish their work in weeks.

Mr. Foley, a Florida Republican, resigned from the House last Friday after being confronted by ABC News with sexually explicit messages he had sent to teenage pages.

With both parties still trying to adapt to the fallout from the case with less than five weeks until Election Day, Mr. Hastert moved to squelch speculation that he would step down in response to suggestions that he and his staff had failed to heed warning signs about Mr. Foley.

Without acknowledging any shortcomings by himself or his aides, Mr. Hastert said he took responsibility for the matter. But he seemed to concede that leaders in times of crisis could sometimes fall victim to perceptions as much as to any wrongdoing or bad judgments on their part.

 

[Astronuc]

In Illinois, Hastert's Supporters Uneasy with Scandal
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6196746

All Things Considered, October 4, 2006 · In Washington, House Speaker Dennis Hastert is fending off questions about his handling of the inappropriate e-mails sent from a congressman to a page. In Hastert's home district, many voters who say they support Hastert also say they're bothered by the story.

Hastert's Democratic challenger is trying to capitalize on the scandal; Hastert returned Tuesday night to his district in Illinois.

Well, Hastert maintains that he will stay as Speaker of the House for the moment.

Meanwhile - House Opening Formal Investigation into Foley Case
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6208203

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My sense of things is that there is no way for the R leadership to justify not acting aggressively at the first sign of a problem here. The "values" balloon has burst.

 

[Astronuc]

My sense of things is that there is no way for the R leadership to justify not acting aggressively at the first sign of a problem here. The "values" balloon has burst.

Or "values" façade, as the case may be, has fallen away.

 

[arildno]

Well, I've looked at this story on and off, and I really find the Reps have been too gleefullly criticized by the opposition. I don't think the Democrats would have fared one bit better, nor do I think any party over here in Norway would have dealt with such a case in a less clumsy way than the US Reps have done.

They are people after all, they do not have the competence to suddenly switch their image of Foley from that of a friend and colleague, to that of a predator.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, I've looked at this story on and off, and I really find the Reps have been too gleefullly criticized by the opposition. I don't think the Democrats would have fared one bit better, nor do I think any party over here in Norway would have dealt with such a case in a less clumsy way than the US Reps have done.

Why "too" gleeful? An "October Surprise" that hurts their opponent is what every politician dreams of. And of course you're right that IF the Dems had been in the same position, they wouldn't have behaved any better (but note that this scandal is going to sensitize politicians to the issue for a generation). But that's hypothetical, and when said by a Republican is perceived as whining. It's election time in America!

They are people after all, they do not have the competence to suddenly switch their image of Foley from that of a friend and colleague, to that of a predator.

On the contrary it looks like everybody is cutting and running in the opposite direction as fast as they can. Haster looks like being deserted too.

 

[arildno]

Now they have entered the predictable panic mode.
What I was referring to was their squamishness, their inability to take decisive action themselves, and their lack of strength to disclose this case themselves (and thereby, if you like, remain in charge).

As I said, I think there are very few politicians, or for that mattter other people, who have the requisite strengths to do such a thing when they stumble upon a case like this. Instead, they fumble about, get anxious and in distress, don't know what to do, with the result that others disclose it for them. It is very human, after all.


In particular, one cannot use this case as evidence that Republicans are, somehow, more morally flawed than others. In order to show that, one should look elsewhere.

 

[Astronuc]

Foley Story Wasn't Reported, Until It Was
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6211216

by David Folkenflik

All Things Considered, October 6, 2006 · Months ago, several major media outlets learned about troubling e-mails Rep. Mark Foley had sent to former pages -- but they didn't feel they had enough information to go public with the story. Brian Ross of ABC News got the same information back in August -- but he found a way to crack the scandal open.

Reporters and editors at Florida's St. Petersburg Times, The Miami Herald and the Fox News Channel all say they obtained e-mails that seemed to be between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page -- but that they didn't have enough to go public with the story.

The reporters sought more information.

"We verified the accuracy of the email we had," says Neil Brown, executive editor of the St Petersburg Times. "We also spoke with congressman Foley and spoke with the boy's parents. Congressman Foley told us we had misinterpreted it -- and in fact maybe a page had misinterpreted it."

And there it largely stood for nearly a year.

In August, however, ABC News got the e-mails, too. Once ABC's Brian Ross was done with anniversary specials on Hurricane Katrina and 9-11, his investigative unit turned its attention to Foley.

Ross had covered the page sex scandal that snared two congressmen back in 1983 --- and he read the e-mails a little differently.

"These are emails that were unusual for a 52-year-old man to be sending to a high school junior," he says, referring to the personal nature of the exchanges -- and requests for a photo.

But ABC wasn't able to confirm the e-mails with the former pages -- so Ross took them to Foley's aides.

Foley's press secretary verified the e-mails. But he said the notes were harmless, Ross says, that "this is just a case of the congressman -- you don't know Mark -- he's just overly friendly -- nothing wrong with these things at all."

The message they got, Ross says, was that "others have looked at these -- and there's no story here."

A little-known Web site posted some of the apparent exchanges, but Ross has said he didn't know about that. So Ross and his bosses were confronting the same choice as editors elsewhere: whether to run the story or not.

The answer in this case was still no -- not exactly. Viewers didn't see it on ABC's flagship evening newscast.

But Ross still found a way to crack open the story last Thursday.

The ensuing posting on ABCNews.com opened the floodgates. Within hours, people who said they were former pages sent Ross explicit instant messages that seemed to show Foley asking them about sex.

As Ross recounts it, ABC News producer Maddy Sauer called Foley's office back last Friday. She read off some of what they had accumulated.

"His former chief of staff called back 20 minutes later and said, 'the congressman is going to resign,'" Ross says, "and we want to make a deal with you."

The former aide, Kirk Fordham, confirmed the messages were real, but said Foley would exclusively talk to Ross only if Ross agreed not to post the instant messages. That wasn't even a close call for Ross. The messages went online, and the story roared forth.

The story has dominated the political scene ever since, showing how an old-fashioned media outlet can use its newfangled toys on the Internet to change the rules on how the news is broken.

And the media still was ahead of the House leadership.

 

[Skyhunter]

Is this for real?

FOX news labels Foley as a Democrat?! Is this the October surprise that Rove promised?!

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=3570

Unbelieveable!

Yes it is real. And typical of FAUX news.

And did you hear Hastert's press conference? His parting shot was to blame the Democrats. Even after he had been "urged not to", by senior Republican officials.

Comments that Hastert made in a Tribune interview suggesting the scandal had been orchestrated by ABC News, Democratic political operatives aligned with the Clinton White House and liberal activist George Soros were considered a serious misstep in national Republican circles, an official said. Senior Republican officials contacted Hastert's office before his news conference Thursday to urge that he not repeat the charges and he backed away from them in his press conference.

"The Chicago Tribune interview last night—the George Soros defense—was viewed as incredibly inept," a national Republican official said. "It could have been written by [comedian] Jon Stewart."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-061005hastert,1,2851683.story?page=2&cset=true&ctrack=1&coll=chi-news-hed

Now we know who writes the political satire for the daily show.

Haster backed away from his accusations the way Boehner backed away from his. It looks like Boehner is sticking to his story, kinda.

"I believe I talked to the Speaker and he told me it had been taken care of," said Boehner. "And, and, and my position is it's in his corner, it's his responsibility. The Clerk of the House who runs the page program, the Page Board—all report to the Speaker. And I believe it had been dealt with."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2006/10/boehner_points_.html

Is there a problem with the House Republican leadership? It appears that Boehner is trying to play it both ways here. He "believes" he told Hastert, and he "believes' it was handled.

What a slimy politician.

I think the GOP has some "leadership" issues.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In particular, one cannot use this case as evidence that Republicans are, somehow, more morally flawed than others. In order to show that, one should look elsewhere.

You are missing the hypocrisy that catches up to the Republicans here. The Republicans portray themselves as morally superior to the Democrats –they call themselves the “family values” party. On top of that, gay Republicans have only recently started coming out and not many are known as yet. You may remember that it was a huge deal when Cheney’s daughter announced her sexual preference. So Foley hits on two fronts: First, by contacting teens as he did and all that goes along with that. Next, the fact that he is gay and that people knew this, is no doubt a huge shock to some people. Recall that the core of the Republican right [which is really the extreme right] are anti-gay by definition - they are fundamentalist Christians. As a result, gay [out or not] Republicans now fear a backlash [one even feared a McCarthy-like witch hunt] from this scandal. But in fact what seems to be happening is that the evangelicals are jumping ship. And this is very good because this unholy alliance is what has allowed the Republicans to take over and make such a mess of things.

IIRC, the extreme right has turned out for the Republicans in numbers close to 90%, or even more at times.

 

[arildno]

Well, it shows that they are at least as bad as the Democrats and any other politicians, but I don't see an inflated self-image primarily as a moral flaw, rather, it shows stupidity.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Next, the fact that he is gay and that people knew this, is no doubt a huge shock to some people

The canard pedophile=gay has been used to smear gays since forever. There is no necessary connection, any more than there is between heterosexuality and raping little girls.

Positive minded people want to be careful in their usage of these concepts.

 

[arildno]

Well, Foley MIGHT be gay, but too wrapped up in internal miseries that he don't dare to develop any meaningful, egalitarian relationship to some man of his own age group, but prefers to romanticize a relationship in which he is dominant and the other is an adoring/submissive fan or aide, because that's simpler for him to deal with.

If he had been more open about this, he might have developed a more mature sexuality.
But that's my opinion, anyway.

 

[Skyhunter]

The canard pedophile=gay has been used to smear gays since forever. There is no necessary connection, any more than there is between heterosexuality and raping little girls.

Positive minded people want to be careful in their usage of these concepts.

According to the peer reviewed http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/94/1/41, 98% of molested males and 99.6% of molested girls are victims of HETEROsexuals, NOT Homosexuals.

To use such a canard is either deliberate misrepresentation (lying), or ignorance. Take your pick, I see a lot of both coming from the right-wing noise machine.

Then of course you have Michael Savages angle, blame the victim.

On the October 2 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Michael Savage responded to allegations that former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sent sexually explicit messages to former congressional pages by declaring that "the kid was leading him on" and was "gay-baiting" Foley. Savage also called the page a "sleazeball" and "a greedy, aggressive child" who "went to Washington to get ahead" and "knew how to play a congressman who was gay on the gay theme."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610050008

 

[Rach3]

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A former congressional page said he had sex with disgraced former US lawmaker Mark Foley, according to a newspaper report, as an explosive Washington political scandal continued to unfold.

The unidentified former page told the Los Angeles Times Sunday that he was 21 when he and the Florida Republican congressman had sex, and that Foley's overtures began shortly after he left the congressional page work-study program for high school students.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061008/wl_afp/uspoliticschildsexscandal_061008141247;_ylt=AooPDTcwsUzfr5m4YaI5eEqGbToC;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The canard pedophile=gay has been used to smear gays since forever. There is no necessary connection, any more than there is between heterosexuality and raping little girls.

Positive minded people want to be careful in their usage of these concepts.

I'm not saying that there is any connection but the extreme right has already implied as much in response to this scandal. Some came right out and blamed gays for covering this up. I heard it directly in some of the initial responses from the extreme right, on CNN. It was also mentioned specifically in the panel discussion at the end of this morning's "This Week" with George Stephanolpoulis.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/

So your point is exactly correct: This subject is a mine field...for the Republicans.

Fareed Zakaria stated that this goes beyond the level of a simple scandal; that the damage to the Republicans is long term. Also, the gay staffers involved respond by saying that they took it directly to the Republican leadership.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...For many of those men and other gay Republicans in political Washington, reconciling their private lives and public roles has required a discreet existence. But in the last week, the Mark Foley scandal has upset that careful balance.

...Some conservative groups blamed the “gay lifestyle” and the gathering force of the “gay agenda” for the scandal. Others equated homosexuality with pedophilia, a link that has long outraged gay men and lesbians. [continued]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/w...&en=04a2c0bca257d759&ei=5094&partner=homepage

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sorry, I tried to restrain myself but I got to say it: This has become a wedgie issue for the Republicans.

 

[BobG]

Sorry, I tried to restrain myself but I got to say it: This has become a wedgie issue for the Republicans.

-groan-

Kirk Fordham doesn't help Hastert or Reynolds. Notifying Hastert or his staff in 2003 and then resigning as Foley's chief of staff; serving as Reynolds's chief of staff and then taking an active role in Foley's dealings with ABC sure makes it hard to believe the two didn't hear something about this quite a long time ago.

http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?ps=1018&id=13149385&_LT=HOME_LARSDCCLM_UNEWS

http://www.auburnpub.com/articles/2006/10/04/news/state/state01.txt

Reynolds has dropped into a statistical tie with his opponent for election. That could make at least two seats Foley cost Republicans, and maybe three, since this somehow seems to affect NM Rep Heather Wilson's campaign, dropping her from a tie to a 10 point deficit.