That's pretty much what's left if the damning instant message exchange turns out to be a joke. And Foley has resigned, hasn't he? That leaves the dangling moral question(s) for the voters to ponder.

I think at this point they're entitled to know the truth. And whether they are or not, I'd like to know the truth.

I want to know what happened, OK? I don't want to be told which spin is best, because I don't think spin is what's needed right now. Not for me. Fortunately for both political parties, this is just my blog, and not the New York Times or ABC or the Drudge Report.

As to what is the best course, via Glenn Reynolds, Ed Morrisey makes a good, hard-boiled utilitarian argument that we (which presumably includes this blog although I can't be sure) should just stop playing offense:

Republicans should stop going on offense on this issue; it's a fight that is unwinnable.The violation here is Foley's betrayal of public trust by hitting on young and vulnerable pages, regardless of whether they had turned 18 or not. It's not ABC reporting on the IMs, and it's not whether anyone held onto the IMs for a period of time before ABC reported them. Arguing these points will not win any converts among the voters that the GOP could lose in this upcoming election, and it's not going to motivate the base to turn out for the vote. The constant argument only prolongs the embarrassments, and it sets up Republicans for a "gotcha" every time another former page comes forward ... and I think we can look forward to more of that as the days progress.

Another major player, Jonah Goldberg (via Hot Air), sees it a bit differently, also from a utilitarian standpoint. He argues that had the Republicans not sacrificed Foley so fast, they would be able to let him go now, which would have been seen as a psychological victory for the other side. Thus, they wouldn't have to be playing defense and fighting coverup allegations:

So much of this current brouhaha revolves around the fact that Foley did at least one thing right: he resigned when confronted with the repugnance of his own deeds. This left a lot of angry people without someone to flay in public. Which in turn left the social conservative base of the GOP looking for a scalp at the same time the Democrats were eager to relentlessly exploit the issue for partisan gains. These high pressure and low pressure systems helped create the perfect storm we are in.

Here's another counter-factual for you. I deeply suspect the best thing in the world for the GOP would have been if Foley had refused to resign for a few weeks. That way the GOP could show its moral rectitude by defenestrating the guy with much gusto. If it lasted long enough, we might even have seen some Democrats hem and haw in his defense — as they did with Gerry Studds, who did something much worse.

I'd like to look at a man who's been forgotten, and largely written off as a child. I won't name him, because a lot of people still think he's a child. (Or perhaps the morally utilitarian equivalent.)

But let's assume you're 21. That shouldn't be too hard for many bloggers; perhaps some of my readers. Assume further you're a self-described "political junkie."

What would it feel like if certain allegations involving your personal life had the power to alter the balance of power in the United States of America (which just happened to be the only real world power)?

I think it'd be pretty heady stuff -- especially at age 21.

Foley should have thought about stuff like that.

(It's hard to forgive the son of a bitch.)

MORE: I previously posted about my congressman, Jim Gerlach and the deliberate strategy of defeat proposed by some conservatives. I don't doubt that Gerlach has been photographed with Foley, and if his opponent has any sense, she'll circulate a photo as a last minute hit piece. If anyone can explain how running away from the truth will ameliorate this in any way, I'm all ears.

AND MORE: If this is not a pedophilia sex scandal (which it has been shown not to be), then it is outrageous to claim it is. How is it politically advantageous to acquiesce to a false claim?