I think that Hastert resigning would keep the story in the news primarily because the story would then move to the internecine warfare that would break out among Republicans for power.  I think that's already going on, to some extent between Hastert, Boehner, et. al.  If he stays in office, and says 'Sorry, I didn't cover anything up but I dropped the ball -- practically anyone would have dropped the ball" (Rumsfeldism) -- and promises to investigate, etc, etc., then I think the captivating part of the scandal will pretty much go away and be a memorable cloud over the party.  I wouldn't hitch my wagon too much to the scandal.  I would segue back to Iraq etc., as part of the general incompetence of Republicans to do anything right.

Please, the answers is.... (drumroll)-too speculative.

It makes embattled Republican Incumbents look completely ineffective when they call for his resignation.  Two Republicans just called for Hastert's resignation in Ohio.  If he doesn't resign, they look like they aren't going to be able to get anything done in Washington.

Resign or not, I think this story has a lot more details yet to be revealed.  If Hastert refuses to resign, the GOP is split.  If he resigns, they can all rally around the new speaker, someone who looks and sounds completely different from Hastert.

I rather have the GOP split over "how corrupt their house speaker really is" than rallying around a new, most likely flashy speaker.

Or Bob Livingnston?

If a new Speaker and new leadership are elected, they then have the ability to position themselves as "reformers" of this mess, and possibly congressional corruption. We all know that won't be true, but it will take the spotlight away from democrats as the opposition and the party of reform. The "rebel" republicans allowed the torture bill to pass because they were seen as the only credible opposition. The way will win this election is if we are seen as the only alternative to get things back on track. If voters get the impression that "rebel" republicans can do it, then we won't stand a chance.

First off, asking this question is like asking what flavor of frosting you would like on your cake.  You really can't go wrong.

Given that, I agree with Chris.  If Hastert resigns, in effect it would be an admission of guilt.  The population of Republicans and press that is holding on to the fiction that this is somehow an evil Democratic plot would no longer be able to pretend that somehow the Republican leadership is innocent.  It would be yet another nail in the coffin to the Rebub GOTV.

OK, there's an election coming up, political considerations are magnified. . .

BUT: It's better for Dems (and everyone else) if Hastert resigns because, basically, Hastert should resign.

If Hastert stays on through the election,  the Reps lose the house (!), Denny boy  steps down from his leadership position and never really has to acknowledge that he's responsible for enabling the sexual abuse of minors. By a member of Congress.

The grander problem exposed by Foley' (probably) illegal actions  is that the Republican party leadership has never scrupled about lying, hiding information, or attacking opponents.

Accountability, full and public, is the only way to start to heal the wounds that they've inflicted on the country.

It's a 50-state strategy.

best if we push for his resignation, but it doesn't actually happen

I think it is a mistake to get too tactically cute.  The way to win is by winning.  And getting Hastert to step down would be a definite win.

Inertia is a good thing - We want to convey an impression of a never ending series of disasters for the Repubs over the next weeks.  

As soon as Hastert is out we start beating the drum on Boehner, Reynolds, etc. etc.   It can be the gift that keeps on giving

A former page says he was warned about Foley in 1995, during Foley's freshman term. Gingrich should have seen to it that someone else ran for Foley's seat in 1996. Don't tell me that rumors never got around to Gingrich's office.

I'm sorry, but I don't care if it's good politics or not. I don't want someone who would think it's OK to cover for a pedophile in charge of congressional policy.

A "don't know" might make sense in this case. Both scenarios are so good (and so well argued) that I couldn't vote.

On this site we definately wouldn't be polling the "don't know what you're talking about" crowd, we'd be polling a category of people who think either choice is more delicious than a juicy steak.

I don't think it makes any difference whether he resigns or not. The 35% of braindead Rethugs that will vote for A. Hitler if he was a Rethug could careless and most D's are already voting D. As for the few Indeps. left at this pt. I doubt it will effect them either.

...then it's best that he stays.  If another Kirk Fordham reveals that Hastert knew more, then it keeps the speculation going.

If the well is dry as far as revelations go, then a resignation would be the next best thing.

Why are we asking him to go?

Because his irresponsibility in handling the Foley/page issue is:

1) Possibly illegal, especially if he were aware a crime was being committed (statutory rape, child predator).

2) Irresponsible.

3) Distracting.

If we believe these things (by the way, the last two were said about Clinton as excuses for his impeachment) then it is disingenuous to do anything but tackle this issue head on, regardless of the political outcome.

Speaking of...

I actually believe that politically it benefits us... for many of the reasons stated already--

1) Its a huge 1-2 week story that essentially FREEZES races in the house if not hurting the GOP-- and I think we all agree if the election were held today we'd take the House.  Our FEAR is that they'll pull Osama out of their ass on Oct. 30th.  This makes that a lot less likely.

2) Hastert is a turd.  And as much as we like to hate on Republicans and wish them ill will, our country needs to be governed no matter which party is in power.  And I would think that if Hastert goes HIS WHOLE CROWD (Blunt, Reynolds) goes as well.  Who's next in line? Its gonna be someone better.

3) I'd rather have a newbie in as MINORITY leader as opposed to Hastert, who is formidable with regard to strategery, etc. and hold on his caucus.

I've just been at news.google and keyworded hastert and speakership and I was right.  The call to resign is only for him to resign his speakership, not his seat.

I like Hastert being the face of the Republican Party, along with Bush.  Hastert doesn't inspire.  Hastert doesn't look confident and competent.  

Let's keep him, to kick around, for a while.

But there are so many other good stories brewing...

e.g., Condi Rice can only hide abroad for so long.  Sooner or later she will have to come home and confront the fact that she lied about the July 10, 2001 briefing.  That will help educate the public that the Bush White House DID KNOW about the terrorist threat and did nothing.

I've re-read what was said, and I think I got confused by the initial talk of another election required.  

You cant watch live stream of Hastert 'taking responsibility at http://www.11alive.com/video/default_liv e.aspx?storyid=85662

Now that his name's in the public arena, he's ripe for demonizing.

I'd keep Hastert there, and get the country to feel about him the way they felt about Delay toward the end.

Keep pounding his fat face into their memories as the representation of the GOP's bloated, wasteful, incompetent and corrupt term of leadership.

A speaker resigning is big for political junkies, but the general public will just think of it as another politician moving on.

I think one of the reason it's hard to say what would be better is because the outcome probably would depend on how the Reps handle the situation.

Let's say Hastert, Boehner, and Reynolds all step down from their leadership positions, acknowledge that they didn't handle things well and promise to help reform the process.  Additionally, Reps have a quick and orderly transition to new leadership clearly unaffiliated with the issue.  It seems to me that this would help stop the bleeding.

On the other hand, if Hastert steps down and lashes out that everybody was out to get him, leaving a leadership vacuum that sets off more internal fighting, that would be a disaster.

If the Reps are unsettled on what to do once Hastert steps down, it's probably best if he just stays through the election.  

Obviously, they're in a terrible position no matter what happens.

Your first question in all of these should be what's better for America?

Every day Hastert is in power America suffers.

First off, he won't resign--it would just open the Republican fight to succeed him and no 'sane Republican' (to use an oxymoron) would want to see that battle for the next week or two. He may decide to promise not to run in the next Congress and that might have some purge value.

But the Dems. are better with him IN office since those who want to get his job from the Republican side will continue sniping in an effort to position themselves for the next Congress. And that has to be good for the Dems.
T.J.

I was initially concerned that it might be better for the country if he resigned, but I think that what would ultimately be better for the country is Dems winning in November. Let him be the symbol of Republican irresponsibility that Tom DeLay was supposed to be. Let him bring their caucus to ruin in a desperate plea to remain in power.

October surprise.

Not to split the baby here, but the best thing for Dems is for Hastert to resign in about 2 weeks.  Every moment spent on this scandal by the GOP is time spent not attacking the Democrats on National Security, etc.  If Hastert resigns, the story, for the most part, dies.  And that's where I can understand Markos and Jerome Armstrong's point.  We want this thing to go on.

But, at some point, we have to refocus on Iraq, the economy, and the other bread-and-butter issues.  We need closure as much as the GOP on this issue because it'll depress our turnout (not as much as theirs, of course).  So having Hastert resign amid scandal about 2 weeks before the election gives us the best of all worlds.

Another point, and I'm not sure where to go with this, but there's a power struggle within the GOP right now.  Hastert, Boehner, and Blunt are all struggling for power.  With Reynolds fighting for his political life, there may be no leadership to coordinate the actions of the GOP.  Had Hastert resigned today, someone would have emerged as the leader, recapitating the GOP.  But if the resignation occurs 2 weeks from now, does that help or hurt us from that perspective?  I don't know.

I agree with those who think that if he stays, it keeps the story in the news as a potential cover-up / corrupt leadership remaining in power.

If he resigns as Speaker (I don't see him resigning his seat itself), then the Republicans can claim they have "addressed the leadership problem" / someone big will have taken the fall, etc.

Either way, this story will remain in the news.

Oh, and regarding your statement, Chris, that "If the Speaker of the House were to resign in disgrace, that would be the biggest political resignation in this country since Nixon..."

... are you forgetting Newt Gingrich's resignation, over the failed Clinton impeachment attempt?

Which is worse for Republicans? That's kind of like asking if it would be worse to leave Iraq. It's a clutserfuck of epic proportions either way.

TPM cites Fox:

House Republican candidates will suffer massive losses if House Speaker Dennis Hastert remains speaker until Election Day, according to internal polling data from a prominent GOP pollster, FOX News has learned.

"The data suggests Americans have bailed on the speaker," a Republican source briefed on the polling data told FOX News. "And the difference could be between a 20-seat loss and 50-seat loss."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archive s/010207.php

Could this story be Rove's -"October Surprise"?

I seem to have screwed up my initial comment, so here's the shorter version:

They've got no savior in the wings.  Instead, they've got Boehner, who's just as tainted. If Boehner and Reynolds step down as well, the symbolism's good, but pragmatically, their leadership is decapitated just weeks before the election.

True, Hastert resigning means a lot more to political junkies than to your average American.  But to Joe Sixpack, it still means they admit they did something wrong--not just Foley, but the GOP establishment.  And just when they were forgetting about DeLay.

So, I go with Hastert resigning, because it's an admission of guilt--and actually turns up the heat on Boehner and Reynolds.

not only would we get John Laesch elected for sure (which would be a coup in and of itself), people pay more attention when congresscritters resign... it's true.

Plus i'd just like to see him gone.

-C.

"Stay, Denny, Stay...

Seriously. The idea that Democrats actually want Hastert to resign is absurd. Of course, he should resign given what he covered up, but from a purely calculating political perspective the longer he hangs in there the better."

Noticeably absent from this poll is how many seats the internal poll thinks the Republicans would lose or gain if Hastert resigns.

Either way, once GOP voters realize that Foley was hid in part because he was a good fundraiser and in part because he's not the only gay Republican congressman, their base will be demoralized.

Thank God Lee Atwater is dead...otherwise he might have had an aneurysm over how badly things have gone south.

I also think the Hastert resignation is good in that if he's out...there's a new power struggle between DeLay's waning faction and other groups. This totally distracts them from campaigning because they had planned a robust "lame-duck" session had they retained the majority.

From the dollar perspective, I think it's not even a close call: you want Hastert to resign as speaker.  But I don't see how it's possible Hastert resigns.  It's hard to organize a palace coup from the provinces.

You're a GOP Congressman.  Like all the other GOP Reps, you've left home.  If Hastert resigns, you know there's going to be a vicious war among Blunt, Boehner, Shays, and Shadegg to step up.  Some reporters are going to be asking you whom you support.  You won't want to commit.  You don't want Hastert to resign until the war is over and the new king is settled upon.  But that's impossible with everyone dispersed to their districts.  So are you going to call up Hastert's office and demand he resign?  Tell him you're calling for a caucus meeting in DC?  Spend all day on the phone calling your colleagues while your 50-state-Dem opponent is pounding the pavement?

No, you're going to look at it and figure the least of the evils before you is to cross your fingers, and hope nothing else comes out in the next four weeks.  

No question, in my mind, the best thing for us is for Hastert to resign the speakership.  How do you go to your constituents and say, "I f'ed up bad enough to resign from being Speaker of the House of the United States, but not bad enough that you should vote for someone else"?  It's another free seat, but he'd chew up boatloads of NRCC money trying to keep it--people owe him lots of favors and he'd be out to save his own job.

And if Hastert resigns, it's hard to see how Reynolds or Shimkus survive the admission that it was really that bad.  Boehner I think lives to see another day.  But again, he'd burn a lot of money doing it.

And that would all be money not spent in actual toss-up contests.  Just Hastert defence alone probably sucks oxygen from five or six other races.

Chris handicapped it correctly, much better if he does resign. If that happened it would be automatically mentioned whenever the House is a topic until election day. Even the apolitical types would conclude it was a deep based scandal with the top forced out to coverup anything festering below.

But Hastert will never resign. There are betting odds on some sites and it is more than a 2/1 underdog he resigns. Damn. I was hoping some of the pundits were making the lines and I could jump on the No at even money or better.

One of the few polling edges Republicans have is stronger leaders. Hastert would be handing us an absolute gift if he forfeited that edge by resigning.

Huffington Post:

"It's no accident that the first call for Hastert's resignation came from Tony Blankley, Newt Gingrich's former press secretary. Tony knows that the scandal cannot die as long as Hastert and his staff are still in the building."

if Hastert resigns now, the boil is lanced and the republican slime machine will seize the political agenda. its better if his fat,florid face continues to be the GOP symbol of this election.