Only those who are guilty of the abuse of their office should surrender their office.  In this case, it sounds like it was just Foley.

I'm highly suspect of the timing of all this to begin with, not that I condone any sort of misconduct from any elected official, but beyond Foley's actions, nothing is more than an allegation.  And for the record, how about some of the morally questionable acts that certain members of the Democratic side have in their closets?  Shouldn't they feel shame and be put in the limelight because of it?  Let's see.  Hillary, you are no longer First Lady, can we now question you about your affair years ago and the "suicide" of your former law office partner?  Ted Kennedy, driven off any bridges lately?  Barney Frank.  No, you aren't a big purple dinosaur, but based on your "lifestyle", should we be concerned about any young male staffers you currently have or have had over the years?  I don't know many other names (and none in the House), but remember that lady who slapped the capital police officer and then tried to say that she was being harrassed because she was African-American?  That wasn't her first faux pas either, and she did lose her ability to retain her seat to her primary competitor just recently...

Republicans are not lining up to defend Foley, which is in sharp contrast to Democrats when one of them misbehave (quote below from Ann Coulter's column):

In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private relationship between adults."

When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds -- not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men -- defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")

Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch-hunt" against gays: "New England witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his private life."

I am not defending Foley, who should have resigned in disgrace, I am wondering about the democrats though.

Gerry Studds of Mass was not only lewd, but slept with several 16 year page boys.  He was censured, but that was all, the dem's weren't in a dither and Studds went on for several more years before he retired.  One has to wonder at their actions and denials in those arenas.

That makes sense, Cat Herder, but it rather falls apart when you consider the cases of Trent Lott and Robert Byrd.  Even though the common wisdom holds that the Democrats are the ones who care about black people, the Republicans drummed Trent Lott out of his leadership position for making a jovial comment of praise to a 100-year old man which, through a painstakingly logical process that Mr. Lott probably had not anticipated, ended up being an endorsement of segregation and Jim Crow laws.  And yet Robert Byrd, who once had a similar leadership position, was a former member of the KKK where he had been a leader.  The KKK was associated with lynchings, which I would venture to say is even worse than segregation and Jim Crow.  However, Democrat Byrd gets a free pass, while Republican Lott gets ejected from leadership.  Democrats do not punish the bad behavior of their members, even up to and including Edward Kennedy's actions at Chappaquiddik.

Does anyone find it highly suspicious that this news broke on the last day of the legislative session? The whisle-blowers had the emails/IM's since April, but sat on it until one month before the election. Give me a break.

Here is what Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has to say about the Foley scandal:

“Congress must not pass the buck on investigating this cover up. The children, their parents, the public, and our colleagues must be assured that such abhorrent behavior is not tolerated and will never happen again.”

Abhorrent behavior... let's see, that would be man/boy love right? Ironically, Nancy Pelosi marched mere steps behind Harry Hay (one of the leading advocates of MBL) in the 2001 Pride Parade in San Francisco. If MBL is so abhorrent, why didn't she protest his presence in that civic parade?

I'm not sure which bothers me more: republicans, if they did even a smattering of cover-up or democrats, withholding and then using at the precise moment for maximum political damage.