Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Oh oh, a lawyer gets a pollster under oath - MA'AM ENSUES

Yes, a pollster ... under oath ... I'll give you two guesses as to what was learned. (Bold is mine)

(For newbies: "Ma'am" (in the title) is short for "Mayhem."

Here's some excerpts from this article by: By JOSH GERSTEIN | 10/2/12 2:24 AM EDT 

When a pollster or strategist for a struggling political campaign presents what seems like a sugar-coated view of his candidate's chances, do you ever think: I wish I could give that adviser some truth serum, or maybe put him under oath? 

Under oath, Hickman admitted that in the final weeks of Edwards's 2008 bid, Hickman cherry-picked public polls to make the candidate seem viable, promoted surveys that Hickman considered unreliable, and sent e-mails to campaign aides, Edwards supporters and reporters which argued that the former senator was still in the hunt —even though Hickman had already told Edwards privately that he had no real chance of winning the Democratic nomination. We were monitoring all these polls and I was sending the ones that were most favorable because [campaign aides] wanted to share them with reporters," ... 

Share them with reporters?  Weren't you afraid the "totally objective jourrrrnalists" might do a modicum of research and then publish how full of shit misleading you were, thus revealing you as a fraud and ruining your career for life?  Sure, that could happen ... snicker.

The prosecutor was clearly trying to suggest that Edwards was more viable than Hickman, a longtime friend of the ex-senator, admitted in his initial testimony. Harbach may have even been trying to suggest that Hickman's basic credibility was impugned by the heavy spin he acknowledged offering late in the 2008 primary campaign. However, the line of questioning was baffling to reporters in the courtroom who seemed not at all surprised that a campaign would insist on its viability until moments before the candidate dropped out or lost.

In short, to many journalists, what Hickman admitted doing in late 2007 and 2008 was no more a sign of bad character than an actor spinning a yarn on stage during a play or a lawyer mounting an implausible defense for a clearly guilty client.

So true ... but what a sad statement.   Think about it ... "the line of questioning was 'baffling to reporters' ..."  Funny, isn't it.  The crowd of genius reporters so knowledgeable about how you should be living your life and why government should control every aspect of your life are suddenly "baffled" when confronted with other fraud staring them in the face.  

One group of fraudsters charged with reporting a fraud ... I'm going to get fat from eating all that delicious ironing.

Anyway, you can click here if you want the rest of that article.

No comments:

Post a Comment