Underwhelming scandal.

Byline: The Register-Guard

The first paragraph of any discussion of the Mark Foley scandal must include a denunciation of the former Florida representative's conduct toward congressional pages. Everyone agrees, or at least feels obliged to say, that Foley's e-mails and text messages to underage pages were creepy. Foley did the right thing by resigning a week ago.

The second paragraph of comments about the Foley scandal depends on who's talking. And everyone who's talking seems to be saying the wrong things, once they get past the ritual expression of shock and horror at Foley's behavior.

House leaders' failure to heed earlier warnings about Foley is being exploited for partisan advantage. But it's worse than that - it's a sign of rot in the political culture of Washington, D.C., that should concern both parties.

Moreover, Foley's actions, bad as they were, are of far less consequence than other scandals unfolding in the nation's capital.

For Democrats, the second paragraph brings a widening of the circle of responsibility. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, in particular, is condemned for learning about Foley's inappropriate e-mails but failing to act. Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., chairman of the Congressional Page Board, learned of the e-mails last fall but said nothing to fellow board members.

The aim is to connect Foley to as many Republicans as possible, and to portray the House leadership as enablers of a sexual cyber-predator.

For conservatives ranging from The Washington Times to direct-mail activist Richard Viguerie, the second paragraph brings a call for new leadership in the House. The low-key Hastert, in contrast to his predecessor Newt Gingrich and his former No. 2 man Tom DeLay, has long been a disappointment to red-hot conservatives. Viguerie and others who describe themselves as "values voters" want to ensure that Republicans respond to the Foley scandal by hardening their positions on social issues such as abortion and gay rights.

For Republicans, their second paragraph brings a denunciation of Democrats for making an issue of Foley. They question the timing of the scandal - although if Hastert, Shimkus and perhaps others had wanted to get the ball rolling earlier, they could have. Republicans have a stronger case when they point out that Foley quit - unlike Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts, who in 1983 was censured for having sexual relations with a 17-year-old page but stayed in office and was re-elected six times. Republicans rarely mention that Republican Rep. Daniel Crane of Illinois was censured at the same time for the same reason, but they could, because Crane resigned his House seat.

A better second paragraph for everyone would be to note how the House has changed since the 1983 page scandal. Then, House Speaker Tip O'Neil and House Minority Leader Robert Michel created a bipartisan panel to thoroughly investigate allegations that pages had been mistreated. Their aim was twofold: to protect the well-being of underage workers in the Capitol, and to protect the integrity of the House.

It's hard to imagine Hastert and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cooperating in a similar manner toward the same ends. Instead, the Foley scandal is seen as either a threat or an opportunity.

More broadly, it's dismaying that either party would conclude that control of the House of Representatives might hinge on the Foley scandal. The Foley story is a small-bore sex scandal that so far seems not even to involve actual sex. It's playing out against the backdrop of a war in Iraq, the justifications for which have proved hollow and the future course of which is in grave doubt. It's taking place in a Congress where far-reaching legislation such as the Medicare prescription drug benefit is openly crafted to protect the interests of lobbyists' clients. It's occurring in a country that now accepts torture as an aspect of a justice system for enemy combatants.

The Foley scandal is a flash in the pan. It's truly scandalous how this one has pushed others aside.