Facts matter
I agree that conservative and pro-Republican commentators should respond to the Foley scandal with more than just condemnation of Foley, discussion of past Democratic offenders, and questions about whether Democrats had knowledge of Foley's misconduct and didn't act. We should, in addition, scrutinize the response of the Republican House leadership, especially the Speaker.
But in doing so, we need to be careful about the facts, more careful than I was here. Consider, for example, this statement by our friend Ed Morissey: "[T]he father of all this misery comes from the decision made by Hastert and/or his staff to keep the parental complaint about Foley from the bipartisan Page Board." Well, if Hastert decided to keep a complaint about Foley from the Page Board, that's pretty damning. But if Hastert didn't hear about the complaint, and it was his staff members who decided to keep it from the Board, that's less damning when it comes to Hastert. And if his staff members didn't decide to keep the matter from the Page Board, but rather initiated a process through which it was presented to Rep. Shimkus who headed that Board, the scenario is less damning yet, in fact barely damning at all.
The latter version of the facts -- the one in which Hastert didn't hear about the complaint, the matter was presented to Shimkus, and Hastert heard about this only after Shimkus had "resolved" it -- is the one laid out by the Speaker's office. To my knowledge, it has not been shown to be inaccurate.
Even under the Speaker's time line, the matter was not handled well, and the Speaker is not immune from criticism. However, the criticism should not exceed what the facts permit, and that standard should exclude (on the present record) substantial condemnation of Hastert and calls for his resignation. This is best left for the Democrats and their allies in the MSM, for whom the facts don't matter.
