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. ~The Wall Street Journal

So, in other words, because there is a PC culture that says there is nothing amiss in an older, single gay man chatting up young boys the Republican leadership should have gone on its merry way and paid it no mind?  Did Reynolds say to himself: “Normally, I might think this was a little bit sketchy, but since PC culture tells me that this is all in good fun I’ll let it pass!”?  If there is a PC standard, the Republican leadership is going to adhere to it mindlessly?  Presumably the Republicans are among the least likely to buy into prevailing PC ideas about homosexuality and they frequently represent voters who would be most likely to see something very wrong with such a situation.  If they were confronted with a lecherous heterosexual member who was hitting on underage girls, would they have been similarly cavalier about protecting young ladies in the page program?  Apparently only if PC culture told them to be cavalier. 

It is almost certain that most Democrats are taking cynical, partisan advantage of something that they might otherwise take less seriously or ignore all together.  Okay.  Of course, Republicans have never taken cynical partisan advantage of anything in their time in the majority.  Except Elian Gonzalez.  And Terri Schiavo.  And the Iraq war authorisation.  And…well, you get the idea.  How hard is it to face the music and admit that the GOP leadership has well and truly failed its supporters and constituents?  For those who face the prospect of losing power, it is apparently very hard.