Via ThinkProgress and Hunter at Kos, let’s throw this on the pyre of decency:

… they drop it the last day of the session, you know, before we adjourn on an election year. Now, we took care of Mr. Foley. We found out about it, asked him to resign. He did resign. He’s gone. We asked for an investigation. We’ve done that. We’re trying to build better protections for these page programs. But, you know, this is a political issue in itself, too, and what we’ve tried to do as the Republican Party is make a better economy, protect this country against terrorism — and we’ve worked at it ever since 9/11, worked with the president on it — and there are some people that try to tear us down. We are the insulation to protect this country, and if they get to me it looks like they could affect our election as well.

Sweet! So, if you personally think it’s appalling that the GOP leadership covered up a sex predator in their ranks, then you’re with the terrorists.

How much further can this go? We’ve already seen “you’re either with massive illegal surveillance, or you’re with the terrorists,” and “you’re either with indefinite imprisonment without trial, or you’re with the terrorists,” and even “you’re either with giving George W. Bush the right to define torture and order its use, or you’re with the terrorists.”

If this new gambit actually works, I wonder: how thoroughly debased can the first half of the equation become before people catch on?

“You’re either with ripping the hearts out of cats, or you’re with the terrorists?” “You’re either with nun-killing, or you’re with the terrorists?” “You’re either with dropping nukes on civilian populations, or you’re with the terrorists?”

Those all sound implausible, yes, but we’re already down to “you’re either with the year-long party-loyalty protection of a man who actually interrupted a vote in Congress to engage in cybersex with a minor, or you’re with the terrorists.”

So really, how much further is there left to fall?