What may finally have broken the back of Republican domination of the House, Senate and, eventually, the White House (and so remembered as the end of the self-inflicted reign of terror) will be the absolutely incredible, egregious, idiot bravado of men and women who have been led to believe they can do no wrong because there is no longer a true moral compass by which to steer. Because Republicans have accepted as "the necessary price for freedom" the relinquishment of freedoms, the throwing over of ideals and the abandonment of our very Constitution, the Party,and by extension, this administration, begins to look a lot like the last days of the Third Reich or a scene from "The Damned."

How could this not have happened? You give your people enough rope and they will most certainly hang themselves - and each other. That it had to go this way is actually tragic, and not occasion for dancing in the streets. The fiasco had to come to an end at some point, the party had to get so rough that even the oldest and most accomodating neighbors would eventually call the cops.

Now those neighbors are plenty pissed - and rightly so. Rightly because it is they who have allowed, with their idiotic party-line voting, for these people: Foley, Hastert, Libby, Bush, Rove, Rumsfeld, DeLay, etc. (in no particular order), countless crimes without retribution, in exchange for merely saying the same magic words over and over again, until one day the rotten pumpkin breaks open as it now has, and the crud runs out and gets on everyone. The whole gang is overcome by the stench of years of corruption, and the Republican voters, in a fit of self-loathing, are predicted to stay away from the polls - rather than do the American thing and turn out to vote for people of conscience and character, regardless of party. Because this party is over.

The really Big Question which remains is not "Will Dennis Hastert be moved and/or pressured to step down before the elections?" Rather it is "Will Democrats have the balls, when the time comes, to press forward into the vacuum left by a failed and morally bankrupt party and administration, or will they, once again, engage in a daisy chain of aimless milling about while the Great Beast that was once the Loyal Opposition take advantage of the seeming inability of the Dems to do ANYthing when the opportunity falls on top of them?".

The savior of the day is not blind luck nor the bad behavior of idiots but, as always, the failure of good men and women to do nothing. This is the "bending moment" Democrats have been praying and braying for. People acting badly is not enough. It is also required that someone act rightly. This is our razor's edge.

I hope the Republicans at least get as much grief over this Foley scandal as they dished out to Clinton over Monica. Even though it would come out of my pocketbook, (we are still paying for the blow-job investigations and will for years)at least a GOP crucifixion is a show I would voluntarily pay to watch.

I think EVERYBODY knew about Foley for years. The pages certainly did. If the Democrats can't turn Congress over on the coattails of this one, they may as well close up shop and give some other party a chance. The Whigs maybe. Ralph Nader. Elvis.

Watching the pundits is finally fun again. Best of all, Foley says he will get out of page-molestors 'rehab' the week before the midterm elections and hold a press conference about why it isn't his fault he was driven to IM sweet filthies to young men whilst waiting in boring old Congress for vote counts. Woo hoo!

Yes Virginia, there IS a Santa Claus.

The Dems will be as spineless about this 'gift' from Foley as they are about every other issue that would allow them to define themselves. The work 'attack' is gone from their lexicon. All they know how to do is a cowering retreat. I agree that they should pack it in if they don't make serious gains in this election. With every Repug victory we retreat further and further from anything recognizable as democracy.

Having said all that, I continue to cringe at the loose use of language, also used by Shapiro, such as "crime," "children," "young boys," and "pedophile," in connection with the Foley Follies. There is no crime. The boys are over the age-of-consent, which has suddenly, and incorrectly, become 18. It is 16 in Washington, and many other places. The ex-pages are now older than 16.

What Foley did can't even be considered "sexual harrassment" unless the teenager complains and asks Foley to stop what he's doing. Few, if any, of them did.

The use of the word "children" deliberately conjures up images of little 8-year-olds riding tricycles on quiet suburban streetss being offered candy by a raincoat wearing strangers. Only in this benighted country do we consider 16 or 17-year-old, sexually mature (psysiologically), adolescents as "children," much to our peril. We give them 2-ton weapons to drive, expecting them to make many life-and-death decisions everytime they get behind the wheel. And they certainly are considered adults when it comes to committing crimes, including execution. But for anything sexual they are considered "children." Pardon me while I retch.

Much the same can be said for the term, "little boys." If you've ever lived in the same house with a 16-year-old football player the humor in the term might be more obvious. Yes 16-year-olds have a long way to go before they are fully functioning adults, but they are not as innocent as many want them, seemingly, to be. This bunch of pages, by their own admission, were onto Folley and his antics, and I have no problem imagining that one or more them, singly or as a group, egged him on just for the bragging rights of having done so. Something like, "Do you know what that old perv asked me last night? I told him I had 8-inches just waiting for him to..." Also I have no problem believing that some of the teenagers enjoyed Foley's attention, sexual and otherwise, but that's a whole other discussion.

Lastly, Foley is not a "pedophile" unless you extend the definition of "child" to mean adolescents. Pedophiles are sexually attracted to "children, " which I take to mean prepubescents. Puberty hits around 13 or 14 in males, earlier in females. From the onset of puberty it is hard, if not ridiculous, to call these individuals "children" any longer. They are in an inbetween state, and remain there for some time - not helped by the infantilization that is commonplace in suburban America.

Foley is predatory, and would most likely have sex with teenagers, but they aren't "children" and it isn't a "crime" if they're over the age-of-consent, and do, in fact, consent. He shouldn't be in a position of authority over young males. Just as heterosexual males sexually attracted to teenage females (and there are very many) shouldn't be either. All these men so shocked about Foley's attraction and email exchanges with young males wouldn't be nearly so upset about Foley having email exhanges with young females, or having sex with them. They'd pin a medal on him. So much of this is all about homophobia, and pandering to the social conservatives and religious nutcases, of which we have far too many.

There. I've said my piece again.