I would very quickly mobilize as non-partisan an investigative board as is possible and charge them with contacting the last 5 yrs (or maybe even more) worth of Congressional pages looking for any inappropriate contact or communication with Senate and House members, or their staff, from both parties.
Since Foley's transgression was leaked without due diligence, judge or juror we just do the same for anything the current and former pages offer up...ya baby!
Update: click Read the rest... to see the latest on the Folye mess!
When this page program investigation was announced you could even profile whose pages you focus on by watching who freaks out. And apparently prior to the Foley email/IM scandal it was well known in D.C. (at least to insiders) that Foley was gay. So use the inside information the insiders have on the rest of the deviants and focus more closely on their pages as well.
This would be the only way to turn this fiasco into an across the board cleansing the morally devoid members and applying a look at behavior of the entire D.C. power structure puts both parties on equal notice and scrutiny.
Such a radical and bold approach is of course a pipe dream, but it would make for an entertaining political news cycle and also rid our capital of some defective grey matter.
Update: Taranto has a great post on this Foley business, see the 2nd item starting with 'Open Secrets'. From his post, an editorial in the WSJ asked:
What next was Mr. Hastert supposed to do with an elected Congressman? Assume that Mr. Foley was a potential sexual predator and bar him from having any private communication with pages? Refer him to the Ethics Committee? In retrospect, barring contact with pages would have been wise.
But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior
Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one? . . .
Yes, Mr. Hastert and his staff should have done more to quarantine Mr. Foley from male pages after the first email came to light. But if that's the standard, we should all admit we are returning to a rule of conduct that our cultural elite long ago abandoned as intolerant.
Taranto later in his post examins Foley's attorney Roth statement about Foley being molested himself as a boy, Taranto writes:
We're not sure whether to credit the molested-by-a-priest story, which sounds like an excuse. (In fact, even if it explains Foley's interest in boys, it in no way exonerates him for acting on those impulses.) But for the sake of argument, let's suppose it is true. What are we to make of it? Roth seems to be implying that Foley's interest in boys is the result of the trauma of having been molested when he was a boy. If so, does this mean that some homosexuals are made rather than born? Or are we to believe that Foley was born gay and would be having "normal" relationships with adult men had he not encountered the pulpitarian pervert?
What all this suggests to us is that human sexuality is vastly more complicated than either traditional morality or liberal dogma will allow.
It would be interesting to pose some of these questions to the liberals!