Sunday

First off, I feel very, very stupid that I said “Mary Lou Rath” when I meant to say “Sandra Lee Wirth” on Hardwick this morning. I always, always confuse the two. Apologies all around. Otherwise, I thought it was a fun Hardwick, right down to my hastily-written negative ad about clam chowder.

Reynolds was on Meet the Press, and here are a couple of choice excerpts:

TIM RUSSERT: Let me turn to the House. Congressman Reynolds, you were considered a shoo-in for re-election. Here is the latest poll from the Buffalo News this morning. Tom Reynolds 47%, Jack Davis, Democratic opponent, 46%. What happened?
TOM REYNOLDS: Well, I moved 15 points according to the same pollster in two weeks when they put the obituary on the 26th district of New York. It’s all about turnout. My race will be the model just like 35, 36, 37 races across the country. They are in the margin of error. It’s about turnout. One thing you know about Buffalo. It isn’t snowing today. There were 400 people in the streets yesterday running the operation of turn out the vote. We’ll do it today. We’ll do it tomorrow. If that’s being done across the country, we’re in this race to hold the house. It all gets down for republicans turning out the vote.

RUSSERT: The same poll, however, asked this question. What did they think of your role in the Foley page scandal? 31% Approved. 57% Disapproved. Their concern goes back to this. In the spring of 2005, you say that Congressman Rodney Alexander brought to your attention the existence of the emails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander’s. That you told the Speaker of a conversation that Mr. Alexander had with me. Speaker Hastert says he doesn’t remember that conversation.
REYNOLDS: Two things. It was the spring of 2006. Second, the speaker has never denied the conversation. What he has said is he didn’t recall it.

RUSSERT: Why did Mr. Alexander, a congressman from Louisiana, go to you, the chairman of a campaign committee, as opposed to the page committee or the speaker, why would he be thinking politically? Why go to you?
REYNOLDS: Well, I have never outright asked him, but I got the impression maybe he came by to tell me that based on the fact that I know Rodney pretty well. It was — I was one of those that helped bring him across to the Republican side of the aisle.

RUSSERT: But was he thinking politics?
REYNOLDS: I don’t know. You will have to ask him, Tim. We spent three hours meeting with the media on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday in Buffalo. Actually both national and local media. As pundits and others made the observation that Reynolds was cooked, he was by the same pollster 15 down. We moved past this. We’re now back into what i call now all politics is local. The issues in Western New York are jobs, taxes, and social security. That’s what this debate has been on. That’s where we will close as it goes to the voters on Tuesday.

RUSSERT: But you’re in a tight race because of this issue?
REYNOLDS: I’m in a tight race because some said a guy putting $2.5 Million on my head would make a close race. I know Rahm was certainly pleased to recruit my opponent back for a second round of it. We’ll see what it is. I can tell you the polling says the top issues in our district are jobs, taxes, and social security.

RUSSERT: But the concern people have is that Foley gave $500,000 to your committee, spent $00,000 around the country for the republican candidate, was thinking about resigning himself and not running for re-election, and that the Republican leadership were more concerned about holding the Foley seat than they were about this young page.
REYNOLDS: Look, there are two instances. One was the overly friendly emails that were out where two reporters from the St. Petersburg Times looked at this, didn’t find anything. I understand the F.B.I. looked at it, didn’t find anything. The Miami Herald has put an editorial out that they didn’t see anything, didn’t even think it news worthy. We see the second set of instant messages and the type of things that ABC released on Friday. In that within two hours, Foley was gone from the Congress. I think that the people in Western New York after all of the politics and all of the flurry of my opponents and those types of things came through, as people understood that, that had a dramatic change in Western New York once they understood two different sets of emails, two different sets of actions.

And this on the Arcuri race:

RUSSERT: The tone of the campaign has been quite strike to go a lot of people. The Washington Post reported, and Congressman Reynolds, you had confirmed with me a vast amount of money from the campaign committee will be used on, quote, negative advertising. I want to roll an ad from upstate New York, the 24th district, a Democratic candidate paid for by your committee. Let’s watch.

Hi, sexy. You’ve reached the live one on one fantasy line.
The phone number to an adult fantasy hotline appeared on Michael Arcuri’s New York City hotel room while he was there on official business. The call was charged to Oneida County taxpayers. Arcuri denied it but the records were there.

RUSSERT: Bad call.
REYNOLDS: Here are the facts. They are not disputed by anybody. From the local Utica, New York, newspaper. What the record shows, –
RUSSERT: An aide inadvertently dialed the wrong area code. Everyone admits it. Yet you put an ad on suggesting that this guy is calling sex hotlines. Is that fair?
REYNOLDS: First of all, the chairman of the committee doesn’t know what goes on. Second, that ad is now down.
RUSSERT: You said you’re responsible. That’s what the banner said.
REYNOLDS: I paid for it. The committee paid for it.
RUSSERT: Is it fair?

It’s not fair, and it’s a dirty and misleading ad. But telling, and it probably goes back to the Foley affair:

the chairman of the committee doesn’t know what goes on.

Reynolds’ top two aides were spinning the Foley imbroglio 2 days before it went public. He didn’t know what was going on.

Tom Reynolds: I don’t know what’s going on, because I don’t have to.