Did we learn nothing from Rathergate?

An anonymous commenter left that rather good (if rather perplexing) question after I went to bed last night.

If I recall correctly, "Ra^thergate" involved damning material of questionable provenance which was being used in the midst of an election. It was intended to attack the character of President Bush, and his moral fitness to be president.

Now, an election attack has been mounted, but the actual target of the attack folded. Which means the target is, well, everyone in his party.

What did they do and when did they do it?

Well, what did Foley do? All that has been documented beyond dispute has been the sending of inappropiate emails. According to Audrey Hudson at the (moralistic) Washington Times, the editor would not have found the emails interesting enough to merit a story:

The exchange was brief, but the congressman asked a former page for a "pic" -- questionable, but not enough to warrant a story.

I was surprised to read ABC's report later that day, thinking much ado about little evidence of wrongdoing.

I asked my editor Wednesday if I had brought it to his attention last week when I first saw it, would we have run with a story? Did I get scooped?

No, he confirmed, we would not have run with the first account.

It was the subsequent instant message exchanges sent to ABC that fed the fact fire and showed that without a doubt, Mr. Foley had engaged in dirty talk with another former page, whom ABC said was underage.

NOTE: The young man's age at the time of the IMs is disputed. From what I can discern, the IMs started when he was 17, but the damning one -- the one that's caused most of the outrage -- occurred when he was 18.

So what we have are transcripts of questionable provenance involving dirty talk.

A dirty old man talking dirty to teenagers.

But the man in question is not Howard Stern. Instead, he's a moralistic member of congress who probably would have condemned Howard Stern and wanted him taken off the air.

Congressman or not, Foley's mouth should be washed out with soap at an absolute minimum. Which it won't be, because it's too late to do anything to him, because (at least at this point) it appears he was smart enough not to violate the laws he drafted. And besides, he's gone.

Not much to do except blame the climate.

Once again, I think Foley is a total sleazebag with no self control who abused his position of authority, and deserves the shame, ridicule, and disgrace he's getting. Even if he hadn't been a powerful man, talking dirty to teenagers by a man of his age is simply a bad idea (especially when they talk back). But can anyone explain to me why this is such a moral victory for the Democrats? I ask this not just because the Democrats are crowing, but because the Republicans are cowering.

Why do they cower?

Because Foley isn't there, and the rest of the Republicans are behaving like the kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. They need someone to blame.

Too bad they can't blame Foley. Too bad Foley can't drag this out and fight for his job as the knives are sharpened. Too bad Foley can't go on TV and tearfully say, "I never had sex with that young man!" (Ironic, but in this case, apparently true.) Too bad his colleagues can't vote for censure.

Too bad and too late.

Is this part of the infamous "strategy of defeat" we've been hearing about for months? Maybe, but I don't think it's deliberate. It's unconscious.

I'm still thinking about that "accurate but fake" Ra^thergate memo.

It might have worked had it involved dirty talk with teenagers.