Republicans have to act swiftly to remove the stench of Foleygate from the party. They need to demand the resignation of Hastert as Speaker, as well as Boehner as Majority Leader if he lied to protect Hastert. Allowing Foley off the hook was a mistake in judgment, but this is a betrayal of those who trusted Hastert to lead the House with dignity, honesty, and integrity.

Robert Bluey in Human Events Online reports on calls for Hastert's resignation by Michael Reagan (himself a victim of child sexual abuse) and David Bossie of the conservative group Citizens United:

"Speaker Hastert had knowledge of Congressman Foley’s inappropriate behavior and chose to protect a potential pedophile and powerful colleague over a congressional page,” said David Bossie, president of conservative advocacy group Citizens United. ... “Any member of Congress who was aware of the sexual emails and protected the congressman should also resign effective immediately,” Reagan said.

Joseph Farah, writing in World Net Daily, goes a step further and wishes a pox on the whole Republican house:

Following the revelations about Florida Rep. Mark Foley's sexually suggestive e-mails to a 16-year-old congressional page, I have concluded Republicans are unworthy of retaining control of the federal government.

The Drudge Report has a breaking news siren atop a bulletin reporting that the Washington Times, in Tuesday's edition, will call on Hastert to resign as speaker and quotes from the editorial, in part:

"House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once... Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance."

Now, to be fair, many conservatives don't believe that Hastert or anyone else in the House Republican leadership should resign. Hugh Hewitt has ignored Foleygate except to criticize Nancy Pelosi for her criticism of the Republican leadership. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity both took this position on their radio programs today, instead focusing on the timing of the Foley revelations. Mary Katherine Ham excoriates the Times for its editorial and questions their motivation:

There is an investigation underway, and we will find out. Can we wait until then to start calling for the guy's head? From what we know so far, it sounds as if Hastert knew about the existence of "overly friendly" e-mails, not the more explicit IMs.

You know what this feels like to me? This is a classic McCain Move on the part of the Times. Get a jump on the moral high ground, condemn someone in the severest terms before the evidence necessarily justifies it. Result? You end up looking like an unassailable saint and you get a whole lotta press out of the deal.

Of course, one could argue that Rush/Sean/Hugh/MKH have ceded the moral high ground by failing to condemn anyone except Foley, when the evidence clearly shows problems beyond Foley's conduct. Result? You look like someone putting political power over doing the right thing, and you end up losing both the political power you seek to protect and the moral authority you once held.