The Plot Thickens

Tuesday, October 10, 2006
AJ is on the trail of the leaker:

Republicans had to have known we’d be looking to change the national debate,” says a House Democrat leadership aide. “You had our leadership looking at cratering polling numbers. A majority within grasp wasn’t drifting away, it was being yanked back by Republicans. I wouldn’t be surprised if Foley had to be bumped up on the scandal schedule. That makes a lot of sense given where we were two weeks ago, and where we are now.”

This seems to be a bit of crowing by the Dem leadership aide about how well their efforts worked, even though they had to pull the trigger on the Foley scandal sooner than they wanted to. So who was this leadership aide? Well, Gateway Pundit has a lead on who that might be - and possible connection to the leak itself and who shopped it to the media for nearly a year - courtesy Erik at Redstate:

In August of 2004, Rodney Alexander’s Chief of Staff, Brian Smoot, and five other staffers abruptly quit because Alexander switched to the GOP. National Journal reported on August 13, 2004, that the Chief of Staff “sharply criticized Alexander for switching parties.” The Chief of Staff and five staffers were promptly hired by minority leader Nancy Pelosi.

So we have a Dem leadership aide who also has contacts inside Alexander’s office. Coincidnce? Is this why Pelosi refused to testify under oath or on a polygraph

Yes, just what did Nancy know and when did she know it? And was it all an elaborate hoax using Foley's pathetic secrets to bring down the leadership?


David Thomson said...

The crap is starting to hit the fan. The Democrats should have settled for a single or a double---and not tried for a home run. Watch their poll numbers drop like a rock.

terrye said...


Do you think they thought it would go this far? I wonder if tey really thought the Republicans would go to the ethic committee and call for subpeonas?

Knucklehead said...

The timing of this sort of "scandal" was critical. This kind of thing has "sprinter" rather than a "distance" legs.

Four of five days generates the hyperventilated reaction we saw. A couple weeks brings out stuff like the sheer cheapness and shallowness of the political dirty trick, the differentiation between a dangerous pedophile and a skeevey gay guy who scoped out 16 and 17 year old pages and filed them away waiting for them to be 18 and older former pages. People start hearing the "Oh, it's OK for gay guys to be Scout leaders but not to work in Congress because they have teenage pages there".

I seriously doubt that the Foley Follies, after a couple weeks, will have any impact on turning out or suppressing the vote or swaying anyone much beyond his district to vote Democratic. The noise and heat are dissipated.

Syl said...

We need proof, peoples. This ain't it.

Fresh Air said...

Change the national debate?

From, say, whether it's a good idea to kill terrorists abroad to....

Whether it's a good idea for Congressmen to hit on Congressional pages?

God, the Democrats are pathetic. I mean, truly, awful. This is low and tragic. This party used to have some statesmen. Now it has these idiots.

This is a tear-down. There isn't enough worth saving, IMHO.

David Thomson said...

"Whether it's a good idea for Congressmen to hit on Congressional pages?"

The jury is still out on that question. The so-called shocking e-mails are boring as hell. They are not even slightly sexual. Dennis Hastert, as far as we can tell, was never aware of the more salacious instant messages.

terrye said...


I agree, but there is no proof that Foley was even the one that sent all the IMs either. None of this sad silly charade has been about proof.

This will devolve into a he said/ he said debate.