I'm not talking about moral relativism. Moral relativism is "Gerry Studds got away with bedding willing pages, so Mark Foley should get away with sending them X-rated IMs."
That's garbage. Foley deserves to be in prison, not Congress.
The issue here is that Democrats knew he was a predator and instead of doing the responsible thing, they waited until it was politically convenient to report him.
They were playing politics with people's lives.
What's worse, they developed this information solely for politics, never intending to use it to help victims.
"The issue here is that Democrats knew he was a predator and instead of doing the responsible thing, they waited until it was politically convenient to report him."
Your statement is an excellent example moral relativism. In illustrating a wrong we attempt to mitigate it by advancing a comparative second wrong. Essentially, they are two wrongs that should stand alone. They are morally responsible to deal with their behavior. I (we) are responsible for ours. Regardless, of their behavior, it does not let me off the hook for mine.