I yield to no one in my scheudenfreude over the current discomfiture of the Republicans over Foley's Follies.

But those who are gloating now shoud recall a little ancient history. Bill Clinton needed more than his considerable charm and guile to escape Monicagate; he needed the ham handed attempts by his enemies to exploit it. They piled on so much that the public came to believe that anyone with enemies like that couldn't be all bad. And when the chief demonizers, Livingstone, Gingrich, et. al., turned ou to have their own sexual peccadilloes, the Republicans lost senate and house seats in the 1998 election.

It is an absolute certainty that Republican operatives and reporters of all stripes are turning over every rock in attempts to find Democrat versions of the Foley behavior. If any exist they WILL be found. And if they turn out to be those doing the loudest holier than thou screaming, and especially if they included members of the Democratic leadership, it could allow the Democrats to once again snatch defeat from victory.

So enjoy your scheudenfreude, but be wary. Remember the ancient history of Clinton, Livingstone and Gingrich.

Tim Grieves says: "While George W. Bush didn't have much to do with the House page scandal, the wall-to-wall coverage of Foleygate..."

Why should anyone assume that? Continued Republican control of the House and Senate is even more critical to the Bush administration than to the Republican members of Congress. Even one house, armed with subpoena powers, could be a living hell to the Bushies, and quite possibly lead to impeachment.

The polls were razor thin prior to Foleygate, and the loss of even one seat could have caused the disaster they all feared. Might not Rove, in his desperation, have called on the House leadership to let the Foley issue slide until the election was over? Might not that have been behind Bush's less than lukewarm endorsement of Hastert?

We don't know that happened. But I for one am not willing to assume that it didn't.

I heard a Republican Congressman on Harball lamenting that the Foley mess would never have happened if only Tom DeLay were on the scene. If he meant that DeLay might have kept the cover up covered up, he may have been right, although he was imnplying that DeLay would have gotten rid of Foley in the beginning.

But Foley's Follies are probably a major part of DeLay's legacy.

DeLay was still House Whip until he was indicted in Texas on September 29, 2005. The House rank and file had overturned Hastert's (DeLay's?) plan to install a temporary replacement until DeLay's indictment was either quashed in the courts or was acquitted, and a new House election was called and DeLay was replaced by Boehner.

Hastert says he first learned about the "G" rated emails from Foley in the "fall" of 2005, although others have claimed he knew far earlier.

No one doubts that Hastert was DeLay's figurehead speaker. If Hastert, Boehner, Blunt, Reynolds, Shimkus or other House leaders were aware of what What Foley was up to, DeLay would certainly have known also. And the underlings would have done precisely what DeLay ordered, no matter how strong their reservations. Ordering a cover up would have been in total character with his monumental hubris.

But that's certainly not anything the underlings can admit to now.

George W. Bush really is a bold, decisive leader. So is the first lemming over the cliff.

This article lists five possible reasons for this tragedy.

I suggest a sixth: showing off by buzzing the building. People connected with the Mets are said to live there, and there might have been others whom Lidle knew.

It probably didn't happen in this case, but pilots have been known to buzz the homes and neighborhoods of their families and people they know.

Just another hypothesis.

Why do I never see Tom DeLay's name mentioned in all the stories about Foley's Follies and other GOP scandals?

Hastert has acknowledged first learning about the page's e-mails in the "fall" of 2005, although others are presumably swearing under oath that he knew years earlier. Boehner, Blunt, Shimkus, Reynolds and other members of the House leadership have made similar acknowledgments.

DeLay was House whip until his indictment on September 29, 2005. He is universally acknowledged as the real power in the House until then, with Hastert his figurehead speaker. He was still a major player after losing his whip position, until his resignation from the House last June or so; he undoubtedly still has much influence there.

If Foley was pressured to run again, or if a cover up was involved, it was under the direction or with the approval of DeLay. The other House leaders would not have dared to do either on their own. Even Rove, if he was involved, would have had to clear it with DeLay.

Here's the key part of Tim Grieve's piece: "Karl Rove's political team may have pushed Foley into a race he didn't want to run by telling him that his career as a lobbyist might suffer -- hint, hint -- if he didn't keep his Florida seat safe for the GOP."

Whether Rove pushed Foley or not, the point that everyone overlooks is that DeLay's K Street Project was not only designed to assure the bulk of lobbyist donations going to Republicans; it was designed also, perhaps primarily, to keep Republican members of Congress -- Senators and Representatives -- in line. Those who didn't follow orders could forget about becoming a wealthy lobbyist after leaving Congress. That was the real essence of DeLay's power.

It was brilliant, but he inevitably overreached, and Foleygate is part of his legacy. It won't be his last negative one.