Conservatism is a Mental Disorder
Ummm. No. This happened on his watch to one of his "employees" and it's proper for him to share information with reporters. I don't see anything that demonstrates they promoted the story, only that they gave their volunteer the benefit of the doubt and shared the information they had with reporters. That is the proper way this should have been handled.
whoah whoah whoah.
Liberals have long favored the mentally ill plea. Payback's a !
Thats an incredibly naive view of what he was doing. I'm fairly certain THE PA campaign communications director does not personally oversee volunteers within the state. Its clear what he was doing which was pushing the story in an effort to make Obama look poorly by association.
How are we even debating this?
According to this, Verrilli gave the reporters details of the attack BEFORE the facts were known, which is not only incendiary but grossly irresponsible as well.
If this is true, it was NOT proper for him to share details, and he didn't just promote the story, he helped make it up. That is shameful if true.
Like this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_137710.htmlJohn McCain's Pennsylvania communications director told reporters in the state an incendiary version of the hoax story about the attack on a McCain volunteer well before the facts of the case were known or established -- and even told reporters outright that the "B" carved into the victim's cheek stood for "Barack," according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions.
This is why I was asking if there was anything other than him sharing the story he got from her with reporters. This could well be damning, I just want to see some proof of it.
I do believe Mc/P have an indirect measure of cause in this event, but if there's direct cause from the campaign itself, then I'll want to see more proof than a huffingtonpost.com article.
She was obviously coached by Palin in the fine art of "Making up a bunch of random crap and hoping they fall for it."
I don't even need to read those reports to know what happened. Its political campaigning 101. , its politics 101. Reporters are fed stories all the time and this is simply another example of that. But just because something happens all the time doesn't mean you don't get flak when it blows up in your face.
I heard McCain himself was holding the knife.
It doesn't matter if he personally oversaw it. Look, if you work for American Express and you get "attacked" and someone scratches a Visa logo on your cheek then the press is going to rightly look to some spokesperson from Amex for a statement. Good PR says you give them what you know and you err on the side of the victim.
This is common sense 101. Now, if the guy acted improperly and said incendiary things on behalf of the campaign on the record to a reporter, that's different.
I see what you did there
There's no direct link. I'm sure that the McCain people had nothing to do with the story. But there's also no doubt that once they saw a story that could potentially help their cause, they jumped on it and pushed it before having all the facts.
Now they get to enjoy having a negative story associated with their campaign. They could have let it lie and it probably doesn't big nearly as big a story yesterday and thus never blows up in their face but by pushing it and having McCain call her directly they made it bigger and now have to deal with a news cycle filled with this hoax.
I don't see any proof they jumped all over it. Maybe they did. But I don't see evidence of that in anything posted here.
Except political campaigns aren't business corporations and deal with an entirely different subset of PR. Pushing a story and giving a statement are 2 different things. Had the guy said something to the effect of we hope she's OK and that the perp is caught we wouldn't be having this conversation would be?
But what did he say? He framed it in a political context that would make Obama look bad. Thats not giving a statement. Thats spinning the story to benefit your side.
like saying "b stands for barack," or that the alleged attacker told the alleged victim he was going to "teach her a lesson" after finding out she supported McCain? Those types of things? Read the ing story.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_137710.html
I read the ing story. And once again. I don't see anything that indicates he was doing anything but relating the facts as they had been told to him. If the victim told him that's what happened then it's his obligation to share that with reporters.
Exactly!!!!! He was PUSHING "facts" that he didn't really know. What do you think his motivations here were MarryAnn? I'm honestly not sure why we're even discussing this. I understand giving them the benefit of a doubt but com'on.
I don't exactly see what I said during the thread that turned out so wrong. I predicted spin prior to knowing the facts. I advocated waiting until a little bit of an investigation before digging into her personally. I didn't jump on the apparent victim blindly, although I did note that it looked fishy once the picture was produced.
Next time a woman with political connections makes an accusation, I'll know not to believe her. My bad, I have learned my lesson from showing halfway compassion to someone who claimed assault
timvp was owned.
Do you understand what disclosure is? I don't have any idea what his motivations were. I can only go by his actions. As far as we know he was told a story of the attack by the victim. He then relayed those facts to the reporters that hang around him every day. He is obligated to give the facts as he knows them to reporters. It is the reporters job to verify those facts.
Except i'm 99.9% The communications director of the McCain Campaign in PA has never even met this woman much less gotten a first hand account from her.
Are you seriously thinking that McCain's PA communications director had any motivation in these conversations with reporters other than pushing the story for political gain?
Well, you can give the guy the benefit of a doubt if you'd like but I stand by my assertion that it is an incredibly naive view of what a communications director for a campaign does. Absent a statement from the guy saying thats what he was going for I'm not sure what more proof you'll find.
The girl had a photo of herself ready for the internet in a matter of hours. You honestly don't think she called the PR guy at the McCain center to give them the inside scoop as she saw it? I'll bet you money he talked with her on the phone. McCain and Palin called her - you don't think the PR guy did?
The communications director doesn't have to have motivation one way or the other. He has an obligation to share any information he has about the incident.
You can't demand full disclosure from them one minute and then criticize them for it the next.
I understand both sides of the Manny and MaryAnnKilledGinger. I agree with MaryAnnKilledGinger that the initial reaction could have very well been following political protocol, however Manny is right when he says that doing so was playing with fire.
You are both pretty much right, just looking at it differently. McCain will either have fault or won't have fault depending on that certain view.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
