Posted on 11/10/2008 1:50:53 PM PST by Dawnsblood
Martin Eisenstadt outs himself as Carl Cameron's source for some recent Palin-mockery and delivers yet more fodder (emphasis added):
As you know, I was one of the foreign policy advisers on the McCain campaign who worked with Randy Scheunemann to help prep Sarah on her debate with Joe Biden. Did we outright give her a geography quiz when we started the prep? No, of course not. But yes, in the context of the prep, it slowly became apparent that her grasp of basic geo-political knowledge had major gaps. Could she have passed a multiple choice test about South Africa or NAFTA. Probably. But it was clear that she simply didn’t have the ease of knowledge that we come to expect from a major party political candidate. Other slights came up, too: Not knowing the difference between Hezbollah and Hamas. Or the difference between the Shiites and Suni. Or when it came to international terrorist organizations, knowing that the IRA was in Northern Ireland, and ETA in Spain.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.tnr.com ...
Okay, this Einstadt dude is a hoax. So where did Carl Cameron really get his “scoop”, who are the real “unnamed sources”?
Are we saying here that Cameron’s source was this fraud Einstadt?
So did "Marty" also hoax Carl Cameron and FoxNews so that the entire story is without substance (as it always appeared to be)????
The bigger, more important question is this:
Was “information” from the “Marty Eisenstadt” the main source of Carl Cameron’s story as well??
IF this hoaxer is the one that put Cameron onto the “story” in the first place, then Cameron easily could have gotten 2-3 lukewarm non-specific “confirmations” ala “yeah, we RINOs never did like Sarah Palin” etc.
IOW, we must force Cameron and Fox News to come clean: did they ever have a real story at all or was this hoax b.s. the entire story?
Obama people.
Anyone who ever believed these high school fabrications emanated from the McCain campaign should be embarrassed!!!
But wouldn't it be easy for McCain to make a couple of calls to his campaign staff and then refute all of the rumors? All he has to do is have his staff send out a news release with a quote from him. That would have ended the attack on Palin that day. So what is he waiting for?
How and why should he repond to a false Obama-led attack?
This was a test.
John McCain passed: He didn’t take the bait.
About a thousand FReepers failed.
Don't ever lose that charm.
:) Wow, I think I'm in love.
SON OF SHATTERED GLASS
He should have questioned his staff and then if he was convinced it did not come from them he should have publicly denounced the stories. If his staff did say this then he still should have publicly defended Palin. He picked her and brought her to the dance- he should not have ignored this- letting it get legs.
He apologizes that it’s a hoax yet the readers’ comments are full of other hoaxes and misinformation and hoaxes. If we want Sarah Palin to be viable in 2012, we need to get familiar with all of the smears that are still circulating, even after being debunked, and smack them down online. Otherwise, they are being repeated often enough by leftist goons that people are going to believe them.
His staff has denied all this.
Most people around here did not believe them.
Why would those same people believe McCain?
There is a perfectly valid theory about these sorts of messes which holds that you don’t legitimize them by responding to them. You just ignore them. The truth will come out soon enough.
Martin Eisenstadt’s blog is pretty plainly a satire site. Not very funny, but obviously fake, as is “The Harding Institute.”
The purpose of political attacks isn't to play some kind of game with the other political insiders, it is an attempt to plant an idea in the public's mind which will remain for a long time. That's the "why".
The "how" is simple - put out a news release deploring the attacks, and include a couple of quotes from campaign staffers and McCain himself noting that the attacks are false and unfair. No need to point out their source, let the supportive media folks take care of that.
If you don't respond to attacks - even false ones - the idea contained in the attack becomes believed by the public. The failure to respond to attacks is one reason Republicans are in the situation we are in.
Did you?
Did you?
Why should I? - you did.
But even if the accusations are false, they need to be responded to. Otherwise the millions of people who will vote in 2012 won't know what you and I know.
Yes, indeed. Once one of these "truths" is released, they don't go away. I still hear people talking about the list of books she banned, etc.
You’re right, the falsehood of Sarah Palin wanting to ban books is out there. Plus her “bikini picture”... Plus she didn’t know Africa was a continent...
Propaganda works. So, to retaliate, cancel your subscription to newspapers and mainstream news magazines. You already fund the public schools, you don’t need to spend $50 a month or more funding the MSM’s pet toys.
Trust me, you won’t be missing anything.
Hey that’s pretty good. Guess that’s all that really matters huh!
I meant as far as defining the difference between the 2 groups.
Sorry; thought that was sarcastic criticism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.