As we inch closer to the weekend I look forward to most each year -- OU/Texas weekend -- I was faced with the choice of writing an inspirational piece about my beloved Sooners or sticking to the topic du jour, a scandal that has the nation talking and an entire political party in shambles.

However, I have only one thought on the Red River Rumble this year. I want the Sooners to win this sonofagun for Leander, Texas, native Paul Thompson, a guy who willingly stepped back into a quarterback's role he lost to Rhett Bomar last year. When Bomar ran afoul of his team, his university and the NCAA, good-guy Thompson retook control of his team with class, grace and -- I'll be damned -- ability.

After a controversy on Sept. 16 in Eugene, Ore., that had the entire Sooner State swooning in disgust, OU quickly dismantled a Middle Tennessee State team, the best salve for what hurts an aching football team. However, as Washington continues a surprising run through the Pac-10, combined with the Sooners' perfect performance two weeks ago and a solid performance in a hostile Oregon environment, I would submit that our beloved crimson-and-creamers are quite a bit better than we thought they would be at the beginning of the season.

Does that mean we'll beat Texas? Hey, their guys try hard, too, you know.

Like the coach on NBC's "Friday Night Lights" said on Tuesday night, "Clear eyes and full hearts can't lose."

I love the Sooners in Saturday's big game but with a fair amount of trepidation. I'm a realist. Texas rarely loses this game when favored (78%). However, I love it when OU -- under Bob Stoops -- is an underdog, and I love it that the guy leading our team is as high-quality a person as Paul Thompson.

Karma, you owe us one, big time. For how we handled Bomar. For Oregon.

The gods-o-fate, on the other hand, will not look favorably upon the GOP after former Rep. Mark Foley's page fiasco. However, I think it's high time we separate partisan politics from the facts of this case. First and foremost, this controversy should have nothing to do with homosexuality.

Of course, that's merely my opinion. Whether one harrasses somebody of the same sex or of a different one matters not in the eyes of the law, if not upon the ears of the masses.

Likewise, Foley -- even if guilty of sending salacious IMs and e-mails to pages -- probably didn't break the law in terms of age of consent. In Washington, D.C., that would be 16 years old, although I bet you didn't know that in some states, the age of consent for activities between male-male same-sex couples is significantly lower than that of heterosexual couples.

For example, the male-male age of consent in New Mexico is 13. Yikes.

No, the real problem, the only problem here is abuse of power. Whenever somebody with authority, prominence or position makes unwanted or unwise advancements toward somebody within his or her purview, it is harrassment. Given that the pages in question were between 18-21 and Foley was in his early 50s at the time, I'd submit that his conversations were unwise at best. Creepy and terribly irresponsible at worst.

The age difference is a problem morally, not legally, best I can tell from what I've read from neutral resources. There are laws, separate from age of consent, that make it a crime to groom people under a certain age for sexual activity. However, the central problem still is the power Foley held, as a congressman, over pages.

Compounding Foley's troubles is the fact that he headed up some sort of committee whose job it is to protect minors from predators. It's analagous, although much more significant, to when former OU basketball coach Kelvin Sampson got caught cheating while he was the leader of the NCAA's ethics committee.

However, this is not merely Foley's problem, is it?

Republican leadership has been accused of knowing about Foley's advances for up to three years without ever doing anything about it. Every congressman bears a responsibility to those who serve them as pages, individually and collectively. They also bear a responsibility to their constituents to uphold not only the written law but a certain moral standard, as evidenced by all the hubbub surrounding former President Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs.

So, what's the difference between then and now?

As it pertains to my primary premise -- that the problem here is power -- none. However, one cannot merely examine this situation under the construct of how I view it.

Here's the part of my column where you'd expect that I'd make a case that the Republicans crimes were actually worse. However, I am just not up on all the facts or laws enough yet to make that judgment. Not yet. Not as it pertains to this scandal.

My gut hunch, though, says that laws-or-no-laws, the pages with whom Foley allegedly had these salacious conversations were still boys. Not men. That would in fact make this much more significant, at least morally, in my opinion, than an extra-marital affair had by our nation's chief executive.

Clinton's major offense, Republicans said at the time, was that he lied about it under oath, which is merely selective judgment. As long as the planet has revolved around the sun, men in power have lied about sex. What Clinton failed to realize was that his primary offense was one of power, just as it is now in Foley's case.

The hypocrisy waged by Republicans in defending their knowledge, or supposed lack of it, compounds the evil in this instance, in my estimation. That they spent millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to impeach Clinton for lying about a blowjob and won't admit their collective wrongdoing at the hands of an alleged online predator is sickening. That Speaker of the House Denny Hastert deigned to accuse Democrats of waging a smear campaign against conservatives is not only smug, it's reprehensible, particularly in knowing that it is primarily a group of Republican staffers who have made these claims against Foley.

One such former page works for Oklahoma gubernatorial candidate Ernest Istook's campaign. The Associated Press ran his name, but we didn't on koco.com. It was our decision that the alleged victims in this case should be afforded the same rights as other victims of sex offenses. Bottom line is that we thought it was the fair thing to do.

If liberals are behind the revelations about Foley, just a month away from the November elections, then I must commend their bravado. It's about time, given that John Kerry was defeated essentially at the hands of a true smear campaign waged by conservative media in the form of Swift Boat allegations. However, most of those pages are now staffers, who work for Republicans. It's a stretch to make a connection between these accusations and Democrats.

Besides, I don't really think it will affect November's elections. State races are decided on statewide issues and performances. Perhaps, if a race is pretty close, a conservative candidate might suffer enough at the hands of Foley fallout to lose his or her race. However, estimates that the GOP could lose 50 seats because Hastert decided to stay on as Speaker are way overblown, in my opinion.

To be fair, we don't know yet for sure that Hastert isn't telling the truth about not knowing of specific communications between Foley and congressional pages. We don't know yet who knows what for sure.

What I do know is that if it swims like a fish and stinks like a fish, then it is probably a fish. Frankly, congressional Republicans could learn a lot from the 2006 Oklahoma Sooners by taking accountability and replacing their top brass with somebody capable and of good ilk.

If they don't, and I don't suspect they will, then it is truly they who are playing partisan politics as well as the role of public hypocrites.