Aside from the what-did-he-know-and-when-did-he-know-it questions surrounding Mark Foley's resignation, Larry Kudlow identifies lots more reasons why Dennis Hastert should resign as Speaker of the House.
Rather than a winning message of economic growth, a strong defense, and optimism for the future, Hastert has given us silence. And where’s his response to the House Democrats, who take every opportunity to speak up? ...Seldom does he make himself available to the press, including various cable and broadcast talk shows. He has operated as a behind-the-scenes player, someone who is worried more about process and compromise than advancing Republican philosophy.
And there are consequences to such reticence. Tax reform has gone by the wayside. So has spending reform. So has free trade. So has true immigration reform. ...
Hastert doesn’t lead; he drops the ball.
He never discusses key election issues, particularly economic issues. Where is he on the Bush bull market for stocks; or the not-too-hot, not-too-cold, but steadily expanding Goldilocks economy; or the resiliency of the American consumer; or plunging gasoline prices; or the remarkable profit-making health of U.S. businesses in the aftermath of President Bush’s supply-side tax cuts?
I've never been a fan of Hastert, and I think it's past time for him to go.
I agree that Hastert has been, at best a mediocre House Speaker, but him leaving now would do more harm to Republican chances to retain Congress (slim as they may be) than him serving out his term would. I agree that it is past time for him to go, but unfortunately this close to the Foley scandal and fall elections, his stepping down would not help his party.
I think that Republicans are often too eager to throw their leaders overboard in moments of crisis. Then they complain in quiet times that they don't have any good leaders or internal cohesion.
I'm not sure whether Hastert has been a good speaker, but I know that "throw him out" is almost always a bad idea---because it's an incomplete idea. Who will replace him, exactly? And will that replacement be enough of an improvement to justify the disruption that a change of leadership would cause? I seem to recall that the process that resulted in Hastert as speaker put the Republicans in chaos for months.
A more serious argument for changing speakers would emphasize how good the replacement would be and how easy the change would be, not just how bad the current guy is.