Another day, another anonymous left-wing source who knows someone who might have overheard something at a party somewhere in DC quoted in the Prowler:
According to one political consultant with ties to the DNC and other party organizations, “I’m hearing the Foley story wasn’t supposed to drop until about ten days out of the election. It was supposed the coup de grace, not the first shot.”
So why the rush? According to another DNC operative: bad polling numbers across the country. “Bush’s national security speeches were getting traction beyond the base, gas prices were dropping, economic outlook surveys were positive. We were seeing bad Democratic numbers in Missouri, Michigan, Washington, Arizona, Florida Pennsylvania, even parts of New York,” says the operative…
So how to remedy? “You pull out the bright shiny things that distract the average American voter away from the issues we all know they care about — national security, anti-terrorism — and focus on the ugly: Foley and Iraq.”
Does anyone talk like that in real life? He sounds like a James Bond villain explaining the master plan to Bond before he tries to slice his stones off with a laser. One milllllllion dollars.
Anyway. I’ll give you the good news first just because there’s so little of it. Pew’s latest:
The bad news? They’re the outlier. GOP insiders reportedly think as many as 30 House seats could be in play now. (The margin of control is 15.) TradeSports currently lists GOP control of the House and Senate at 36.5 and 65.4, respectively; the latter figure is down almost five points from yesterday.
The GOP’s counterstrategy? Shrug and point at Gerry Studds. Barnett is underwhelmed, as am I.
An evangelist I’ve never heard of met with Hastert this morning and told him to do the right thing. Meanwhile, sources have told CNN that former House clerk Jeff Trandahl raised red flags about Foley with Kirk Fordham, Foley’s then-chief of staff, several times before 2005. Trandahl is a bit of a mystery figure in all this, as you may recall. He’s openly gay and “personally close” to Foley, according to the WaPo piece quoted by Tom Maguire. Why did he take his complaints about Foley’s behavior to Fordham instead of to the House leadership? Or did he?
Update: I wouldn’t call this reassuring, either.
Prowler-bashing flashback! A reader reminds me that the Prowler once quoted an unnamed “Republican leadership staffer” as blaming Harry Reid for that Terri Schiavo memo that turned out to have been written by one of Mel Martinez’s staffers. Read the quotes; see if they sound any more realistic to you than the quote in today’s piece.
Update: Hastert said today that if anyone on his staff covered up Foley’s problem, they’re gone. Slublog responds by vomiting.