Read it more carefully

Post #299,605 by rcareaga 11/13/08 10:40:32 AM Reply	Read it more carefully (Emphasis added) ** "Who would say such a thing? On Monday the answer popped up on a blog and popped out of the mouth of David Shuster, an MSNBC anchor. ÂTurns out it was Martin Eisenstadt, a McCain policy adviser, who has come forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks,Â Mr. Shuster said. Trouble is, Martin Eisenstadt doesnÂt exist. His blog does, but itÂs a put-on. The think tank where he is a senior fellow Â the Harding Institute for Freedom and Democracy Â is just a Web site. The TV clips of him on YouTube are fakes. And the claim of credit for the Africa anecdote is just the latest ruse by Eisenstadt" ** "Eisenstadt" didn't originate the Africa story — he just claimed credit as the "campaign insider" who leaked it. cordially,
Post #299,608 by Another Scott 11/13/08 10:51:17 AM Reply	Oooh. I guess one could read it that way, but... http://www.eisenstad...-and-proud-of-it/ :-) It should be easy enough to check - I wonder if Carl Cameron has been asked about it. Cheers, Scott.
Post #299,636 by rcareaga 11/13/08 12:48:05 PM Reply	again, no From the referenced link: ** So yes, to be clear, last week I was the one who leaked those things to a producer at Fox News who works with Cameron. Carl and his producers are good guys, and I donÂt want them to have to worry about protecting their sources (and going through the wringer ala Judith Miller or Matt Cooper) on something like this. 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. ** The second paragraph is a demonstrable lie. Why, then, would you believe the first paragraph? This guy (or these guys) have been pranking for months—I first saw some of their stuff being debunked in early summer, as I recall. It has been my understanding from the beginning of this latest kerfluffle that it was "Eisenstadt's" claim to be the origin of the Africa story that was bogus, not necessarily the story itself, although naturally the Palin dead-enders will want to run with the latter interpretation. Palin herself, incidentally, recently said something to the effect of "As if I didn't know the difference between Africa the continent and Africa the country!" —which speaks volumes right there. I'll leave the last word to Andrew Sullivan: ** Let's be real in a way the national media seems incapable of: this person should never have been placed on a national ticket in a mature democracy. She was incapable of running a town in Alaska competently. The impulsive, unvetted selection of a total unknown, with no knowledge of or interest in the wider world, as a replacement president remains one of the most disturbing events in modern American history. That the press felt required to maintain a facade of normalcy for two months - and not to declare the whole thing a farce from start to finish - is a sign of their total loss of nerve. That the Palin absurdity should follow the two-term presidency of another individual utterly out of his depth in national government is particularly troubling. 46 percent of Americans voted for the possibility of this blank slate as president because she somehow echoed their own sense of religious or cultural "identity". Until we figure out how this happened, we will not be able to prevent it from happening again. And we have to find a way to prevent this from recurring. It happened because John McCain is an incompetent and a cynic and reckless beyond measure. To have picked someone he'd only met once before, without any serious vetting procedure, revealed McCain as an utterly unserious character, a man whose devotion to the shallowest form of political gamesmanship trumped concern for his country's or his party's interest. We need a full accounting of the vetting process: who was responsible for this act of political malpractice? How could a veep not be vetted in any serious way? Why was she not asked to withdraw as soon as the facts of her massive ignorance and delusional psyche were revealed? ** cordially,
Post #299,638 by Another Scott 11/13/08 1:05:40 PM Reply	Interesting. Thanks.
Post #299,641 by boxley 11/13/08 1:40:30 PM Reply	sullivan is right you know 49 percent of Americans voted for the possibility of this blank slate as president because he somehow echoed their own sense of social or cultural "identity".
Post #299,617 by beepster 11/13/08 11:42:35 AM Reply	Then why all the apologies? MSNBC was duped by a blog story emailed to a reporter who assumed it as fact. Or are you going to parse their apology too?
Post #299,620 by boxley 11/13/08 11:51:33 AM Reply	she is country folk, must be backward and ignorant
Post #299,626 by malraux 11/13/08 12:17:52 PM Reply	No, she actually sounds ignorant. It's hard to fake the kind of incoherence she displayed with Couric, sorry. You don't sound like that unless you don't have a clue about what you're trying to answer. I didn't realize she was considered "country folk". Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #299,645 by boxley 11/13/08 1:58:58 PM Reply	stood up to cheney, is that antics of an idiot? http://www.democrati...litics/003625.php 1. Natural Gas Pipeline: Before becoming governor, the plans for a natural gas pipeline were in the works. Governor Palin's predecessor, however, was cozy with big energy corporations and was pushing pipeline legislation which signed off on a plan he had already worked out with oil companies, which would have relinquished the state's sovereignty vis a vis the pipeline as part of the package deal. When Palin came into office, she wanted to limit big oil's influence over the state's affairs, and when she took over the project (from the executive end), she absolutely insisted there would be no deal with any company unless the state retained its sovereignty. The Bush Administration got wind of this and not surprisingly tried to intervene on behalf of Big Oil. Cheney himself even put in a couple calls to Palin asking her to kill it. "Cheney's staff pressed the Palin administration to draw in the energy companies, said current and former state officials involved in those discussions." "Palin had been warned twice by Vice President Dick Cheney, to bring in the oil producers to the pipeline project." (AP; Alaska Daily News) Sarah Palin, however, stood up to Big Oil and the good ole boys and the state of Alaska has now finalized a plan with TransCanada which, as a result of the governor's firmness, includes the sovereignty provision. After Alaska's Senate vote in favor of providing the AGIA license to TransCanada, Gov. Palin praised the Legislature: "Our lawmakers have protected Alaska's sovereignty. They've really taken it back."
Post #299,649 by malraux 11/13/08 2:22:03 PM 11/13/08 2:22:50 PM Reply	Ignorant != idiot. And knowledge of issues specific to Alaska does not a global leader make. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. Edited by malraux Nov. 13, 2008, 02:22:50 PM EST Expand All History
Post #299,697 by folkert 11/14/08 12:23:44 AM Reply	Re: stood up to cheney, is that antics of an idiot? Stood up to Cheney? Dick Cheney? That's... stupidity not ignorance or idiocy.

Welcome to IWETHEY!