--There is no evidence he [Foley] has had any physical relationship with a minor.

--Even if he had, there is no evidence (yet) that he committed an actual crime (morality aside). Age of consent in the District of Columbia is 16. Why, in a district ruled by Democrats it's 16 is another question.

Can you say the word "weasel"? I can't believe I'm reading this!

You have just forfeited the right to mention Bill Clinton's sexual misbehavior in any context whatsoever. The party who attempted to destroy a Presidency based on sexual misconduct of two grownups has absolutely no standing to exonerate one of their own, attempting to seduce people not old enough either to vote or to join the armed forces, based on technical points of law.

--This isn't about Foley anyway.

No, not much it isn't. You'd really like to believe that, wouldn't you?

It's about winning the election.

You got me there. It's so much about winning elections that the Republican leadership sought to cover this up for a very long time. Now that their chickens have come home to roost, they're trying to blame their own negligence on their opponents.

The bottom line is that Democrats get a pass on the hypocrisy charges because they really don't think Foley did anything wrong.

Bullshit. Sexual harassment of subordinates is wrong. Attempting to seduce a minor is wrong. I am amazed that you think that Democrats don't respond to this as parents and grandparents because they're Democrats.

The "Vagina Monologues" celebrate the sexual awakening of a 13-year old by an older woman (later revised to 16).

First, the girl was 14. Get it right.

Second, that piece is only one out of over a hundred interviews, many of which deal with rape and other forms of sexual violence against women.

And third, how is this relevant? It's a play, not a piece of legislation. Ensler has written about things that have been done to women and girls. Foley has done things, verbally, to boys. One reports, the other perpetrates. Don't you see the difference?

I have no reservations in saying that if Foley had been a Democrat in a safe Democratic district, this story would have been treated much differently.

But since he isn't, we'll never know. I could make similar speculations about what the Republicans would have done to him had he been a Democrat in a vulnerable district.

What we do know is that the party that celebrates "family values" doesn't give a rat's ass about defending them unless said values can be used to beat on their opponents. Is consistent application of a trumpeted principle, even when it's uncomfortable and embarrassing, something that Republicans understand?