[sphinx]

This sounds like deliberate sabotage to me. This could have happened at the vendor (Burch Munford), or at the printer. There should be a paper trail on all this. Unless things have changed radically from the olden days, all copy would have been submitted to the RNC for approval. The RNC direct mail managers would also have signed off on the bluelines. If the bogus number was submitted and cleared, then someone at the RNC was asleep at the switch, or worse. But if a change was made post-blueline, that's a different matter entirely.

The story doesn't detail exactly when or how the switch happened or tell whether anyone was fired as a result. Those are among the first questions that should be asked. But it's an ABC story, so naturally the interest of the reporter doesn't extend beyond glee at the RNC's embarrassment.

My initial hunch is that there is a disgruntled former employee somewhere (Burch Munford, printer, or RNC) who sabotaged a mail piece on his way out the door.

[Nightbird]

Is “Burch Munford” a person or a mail company?

How do you know he/they produced this? FEC records?

[Buckeye McFrog]

in my town at least the direct mail business has the reputation for hiring a high percentage of drug users

[pillut48]

It is very curious to me--ABCMSM running with the "latest RNC blunder" which they admit isn't the RNC's fault but the mailer company's fault--yes, someone at RNC had to have signed off on the proof before printing and distribution commenced--but if it was a mailer company used frequently with a regular letterhead that wouldn't change each printing, I can see why a telephone prefix might be overlooked. If this was the FIRST time this mailer company has been used, I think I would investigate this more fully at the RNC.

What is also curious to me is the lewd sexual connection to the RNC, just like the 'strip bar' story--is this the new liberal meme designed to 'humilate' the Republican party? Rather hamfisted, if so. ;-)