Two reasons why the Foley scandal might not have a huge impact beyond reducing the number of seats the Democrats need to capture by one, as Florida's 16th district is almost certainly now going to go to the Democrats in November. From FOX News Sunday yesterday:

1) WALLACE:Before we get to the Clinton interview, let's start, as we always do, with the latest news.

It now turns out that, as we said, top Republican House leaders knew for months that Congressman Mark Foley sent inappropriate e-mails to at least one 16-year-old male page.

Speaker Gingrich, did House Republican leaders do all they should have?

GINGRICH: Well, I think if you look at what they actually knew, which was that the family did not want anyone involved and the actual notes were relatively innocuous -- there was nothing sexual in those notes. They had him counseled. They had the head of the page program, Congressman Shimkus, talk to him very directly. And I think they thought it was over. The newest incident only surfaced when ABC News interviewed Foley, and he resigned within two hours, or I think the House leaders would have moved to expel him.

WALLACE: But during all those months, they left Foley in the House Republican leadership. They left him as the head of the congressional caucus dealing with exploited children. No second thoughts about that?

GINGRICH: Well, you can have second thoughts about it, but I think, had they overly aggressively reacted to the initial round, they would have also been accused of gay bashing. I mean, the original notes had no sexual innuendo, and the parents did not want any action taken.

WALLACE: Well, how would it have been gay bashing?

GINGRICH: Because it was a male-male relationship. And they had no -- there was no proof, there was nothing that I know of in that initial round that would have led you to say in a normal circumstance that this is a predatory person. It's very clear -- and let me remind you, in 1983, I moved to expel two members for dealing with pages inappropriately, because I do think we have an en loco parentis responsibility. But I think it would have been very hard to have done much more than they did with the first action. And in the second action, had he not resigned, I think they would have expelled him.

**********

2) WALLACE: Brit, bigger issue here. Does this feed into a sense that, certainly at least the Democrats are arguing, that it shows an arrogant Republican majority that, you know, is more concerned about incumbency than about, in this particular case, protecting kids?

HUME: It is serious misbehavior on the part of Congressman Foley. Whether it stems from some overall arrogance or just the weakness of the human flesh is another question.

It's probably worth noting here that there's a difference between the two parties on these issues. Inappropriate behavior towards subordinates didn't cost Gerry Studs his Democratic seat in Massachusetts, nor Barney Frank his.

Nor did inappropriate behavior toward a subordinate even cost Bill Clinton his standing within the Democratic Party, even though indirectly, he was impeached for it. Mark Foley found out about this, was found out to have done this, and he's out of office and in total disgrace in his party.

From the facts we have today, I think both Hume and Gingrich hit on important threads to the Foley story that may keep this from blowing up into a full blown issue in the election. That is of course with the facts that we know on the story as of today, if the facts change or are materially different, and there was a substantive cover up by the Republican leadership in the House, then it is a whole different ballgame.