In the fog of hard-fought political wars, the foot soldiers are exposed to stimulating sensations as the campaigns heat up and swirl with emotion. The ups and downs pound furiously as sweaty staffers strain to satisfy insatiable supporters and reporters.
One such reporter appears to have succumbed to the siren call of amour on the campaign trail. Sources have revealed that the fittingly macho-named Major Garrett is tied romantically with the disgraced “non-gay” senator from Idaho, Larry Craig. While there has been no confirmation at this time, the sourcing is “strong, very strong.” Garrett is the reporter who covered the Craig affair for Fox News. And while the photo at the left may not be considered conclusive evidence, it raises the temperature of the scandal significantly.
This revelation comes on the heels of the New Hampshire primary where Garrett reported with titillating excitement that Hillary Clinton’s campaign was floundering and that a staff shake-up was imminent.
“…some of the top advisers to former President Clinton are set to join to Hillary’s faltering campaign as early as tomorrow…Carville and Begala’s strategic advise will now carry greater weight than that of the original team that devised a strategy that has led to a defeat in the Iowa caucuses and a likely defeat in tonight’s New Hampshire primary.”
Garret was only one of many whose prescient observations presumed the fall of the house of Clinton. But he alone swept away the veil that barely hid the forms of Carville, Begala and their naked ambitions.
As it turns out, Carville vehemently denied that he was becoming entwined with the Clinton campaign:
“Fox was, is and will continue to be an asinine and ignorant network. I have not spoken to anyone in the Clinton campaign about this.”
And Begala uttered similar protestations:
“…whoever told you I am joining Hillary’s campaign fed you some bum info. It’s just not true […] I’m not coming in as a volunteer, or as an adviser, or as a strategist or anything else.”
Undeterred, Garrett continued to report the personnel changes and insisted that his sources were impeccable. He told Begala that he would “take it under advisement.” Just to be clear, he was telling Begala that what his sources were saying about Begala was better than what Begala was saying about himself. He then gave Begala this assurance:
“I am not trying to screw you […] I’m careful and don’t have a reputation for pulling stories out of my ass. I’m not now. The sourcing is strong, very strong, or I wouldn’t go with it.”
You can almost hear the strength oozing from Garrett’s baneful wale. Perhaps he is lamenting having promised not to screw Begala. But it is notable that he made no such promise to Sen. Craig.
In the end, it is not possible to provide skin-tight confirmation of Garrett’s dalliance with Craig. Though the evidence at this time is somewhat less than circumstantial, I have confidence in the faithfulness of my sources. But should this flare into a climax of reportorial passion, I vow to treat Garrett with uninhibited fairness. When I receive his call denying that there is any truth to the scandalous allegations herein, I will gladly take it under advisement.