The Washington Post pulls out all the analytical stops this morning and concludes that the GOP might or might not lose control of the House, and that the Foley fallout might or might not matter in four weeks.
The page 1 article is a masterpiece of non-news dressed up as reporting. It fails to note the contrary indicators such as Rick Santorum’s momentum in Pennsylvania, or the blowouts shaping up in the California and Florida gubernatorial races which will impact down-ticket conditions in these ttwo critical states.
The Dems need 15 seats to change hands, and no credible list is ever produced to back up that number, and even though Foleymania swept the MSM for ten days, it took exactly one day of focus on the world and loose nukes and terrorist kooks to refocus large numbers of voters on the stakes.
Nancy Pelosi’s 2003 speech accepting the Alan Cranston Award is particulalry helpful in framing the choice. The would-be speaker said:
The United States does not need a multi-billion-dollar national missile defense against the possibility of a nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile.
John Murtha demanding immediate retreat from Iraq and Nancy Pelosi insisting on the dismantling of our anti-ballistic missile shield does not fill the public with confidence that the Dems are capable on national security, while would be chief tax code writer Charles Rangell and Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers are both from the far left reaches of the party. The decision to promote them and their agendas because of Mark Foley’s repulsive conduct is irrational. Which is why the Post so transparently hedges its bet.