An interesting article over at The American Spectator verifies what I've been hearing from other sources. Democrat operatives are confirming that the Foley story wasn't supposed to be released until about 10 days before the election - and it was supposed to be the culmination of a series of orchestrated October surprises, rather than the beginning.

What changed? Poll numbers. Republicans were coming back strongly -- Democrat hopes were evaporating. With the new age of media and the Internet, Democrats figure that a poll swing that results from a story like Foley would last about two weeks before voters start paying attention to real issues again - and that's nationally. In individual races, where often local issues are paramount in a non-presidential election year, the swing benefit from such a story might even be shorter (see NYT story later in this post):

"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."

...'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.' "

As much as Katie Couric et al try to keep the Foley fires burning, there is now enough evidence that this was a political stunt -- and that no one out there knows where this is heading. Leaders and operatives from both parties are going to be put under oath by the FBI and the Justice Department in the investigation of a cover-up.

Democrats beware -- there was just too much coordination beween liberal groups like CREW, a fake blog, American Family Voices, David Corn's McCarthyesque "Gay Staffers List", and Nancy Pelosi to be a coincidence. Now that evidence has surfaced that the communicant with Mark Foley of the IMs (not the e-mails, which not even Brian Ross was willing to write about in August) was a legal consenting adult, the story turns into a gay version of the Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal. The differences are homosexuality, a page instead of an intern, and there being no physical contact in the Foley story.

The latest twist, that congressional staffers like Kirk Fordham "warned" Hassert's office three years ago about Foley's penchant for young men, lacks any detail about what the warning was, and is contradicted by Fordham's own documented actions regarding the Foley Scandal.

If no evidence that any crime was being committed, what can be done about someone like Foley except what the National Journal is saying happened?:

Foley's friends ruefully speak of knowing that Foley was friendly with congressional pages. One recalls jokingly telling Foley to be careful not to confirm a stereotype about sexual predators. Foley laughed, a friend says.

...But then, in the fall of 2005, a page sponsored by Rep. Rodney Alexander of Louisiana, complained. After Foley had furtive discussions with House officials, his friends warned him to police himself. And one former Foley staffer recalls asking the lawmaker directly whether there was anything more serious floating around. Foley, according to the former aide, said no.

...Foley's former chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, last spring promised both Rep. John Shimkus, the chairman of the page board, and a top assistant to Hastert that he would make sure Foley behaved himself. At that time, Fordham was the chief aide to Rep. Tom Reynolds of New York, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Fordham's assurances, according to this account, apparently were enough to persuade Hastert's staff not to recommend further action

...Fordham told ABC News that in 2003 he warned Hastert's powerful chief of staff, Scott Palmer, that he was worried about Foley's penchant for doting on male pages. Palmer, according to Fordham, subsequently notified Hastert. Palmer responded that Fordham's version of events is untrue. And a House leadership aide wondered aloud why Fordham, who professed to be surprised by Foley's conduct on Monday, was saying two days later that he remembered having long-standing anxieties.

When the Foley story first hit, I was furious. Based on what I was reading and hearing, I thought that Mark Foley was at the very least a sexual predator and a pedophile. Now, even according to Andrew Sullivan, no evidence exists that he is either. Right now I'm glad he's gone (he seems like a time-bomb waiting to explode), and we may still find out that he has committed crimes against young children. But right now this whole thing is looking more and more like a political hit piece designed to surpress the conservative vote. And according to the New York Times, it's not looking as if it's going to work long-term:

But in dozens of interviews here in southeastern Virginia, a conservative Christian stronghold that is a battleground in races for the House and Senate, many said the episode only reinforced their reasons to vote for their two Republican incumbents in neck-and-neck re-election fights, Representative Thelma Drake and Senator George Allen. "This is Foley's lifestyle," said Ron Gwaltney, a home builder, as he waited with his family outside a Christian rock concert last Thursday in Norfolk. "He tried to keep it quiet from his family and his voters. He is responsible for what he did. He is paying a price for what he did. I am not sure how much farther it needs to go."

The Democratic Party is "the party that is tolerant of, maybe more so than Republicans, that lifestyle," Mr. Gwaltney said, referring to homosexuality.

So the ABC News polls out this morning reflect the American public being hit in the face with the Foley Scandal and its spin, and the trickle-down from that. But it reflects national opinion, not local races. The local polling will take a hit as well, but only for as long as local issues (or the War on Terror and Immigration) aren't the focus. The more the Democrats use Foley in their ads and the media obsesses over it, the more of a chance that the Democrats will experience a blow-back from the voters. It sometimes takes a while, but generally voters know when they're being played for fools - and don't appreciate it. This Foley business certainly doesn't help the Republicans, but it's not the fatal blow that is being portrayed in the media, either.