Skip to comments.Unable To Produce More Cain Evidence, Politico's Allen Brags Of Big Number of 'Twitter Mentions'
Posted on 11/01/2011 5:40:19 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
"This is the biggest single Twitter controversy of the campaign. 48,000 mentions!"
That was Mike Allen doing his best "look--a squirrel!" impression on today's Morning Joe. Pressed by Joe Scarborough as to whether Politico had any more details beyond its vague allegation that Herman Cain had made gestures "that were not overtly sexual but that made women uncomfortable," Allen's telling first instinct was to point to the story's popularity on a social networking site.
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
There’s no “there” there.
Gestures? Herman could have handled it smoother but this is going to wilt for lack of substance. Especially if the women in question refuse to do an Anita.
In other words, this story has attracted more twits than any other thus far in the campaign. Not surprising.
More evidence? How about any evidence at all?
I still think the Romney crew shopped this.
The Obamabots would have held onto this until the last 72 hours of the campaign.
Another demonstration that this story has little substance, but lots of faux outrage.
Clinton had Jennifer Flowers right before New Hampshire primary and he went on to win the White House.
The Cain story does not even come close.
Politico’s Allen can’t produce any more Cain details. Diverts to bragging of big number of “Twitter mentions.” Ping to Today show list.
You got that right! LOL bttt
Well gosh, if 48,000 Twits have Twittered about it, it MUST be true!
Hi Mark. How many of those tweets can Allen identify as calling him and Martin douchebags? Cuz, having looked for myself, it’s a lot...
Ops already taken off the net.
Flash in the pan, it’s over, nothing to see here. Go Cain!
They are PAID PR Reps.
Whenever Team Romney had rumors they wanted to start about other candidates,
Jonathan Martin has been their go-to guy to get those rumors in writing in front of a national audience.
And The Most Irresponsible Journalist Award Goes to The Politicos Jonathan Martin!
So tell me, how do you write a news story about an organization paying for a speaker when you dont even know if the organization is paying for the speaker?
Ask journalist Jonathan Martin. He knows all about it.
You see, Jonny wrote a piss poor story the other day about how the Iowa Family Policy Center will be paying a large speaker fee if Sarah Palin comes to Iowa to keynote the IFPCs fall funderaiser.
The only problem is that Jonny has no sources confirming that any exorbitant fee is being charged or paid.
Jonny also got some inside info from David Kochel, who was a top aide to former (and future) presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.
Hey Dave, didnt I just read a story about how Mitt Romney tried to buy off the Iowa Christian Alliance?
I heard you helped facilitate that little scheme. And somehow you are shocked at the thought of a well-known political figure (who very likely isnt running for president) getting paid a speakers fee for (gasp) a public speaking appearance? ..
and then weve got Tim Albrecht quoted. He was the Iowa spokesman for Romneys 2008 caucus campaign.
And it always seemed like, whenever the Romney people had rumors they wanted to start about other candidates,
Jonny was their go-to guy to get those rumors in writing in front of a national audience.
"Who's the Palin Leaker from the McCain Campaign?
National Review Online The publication of a Vanity Fair profile of Sarah Palin
appears to have opened old wounds in the McCain campaign.
... the source of the Diva leak was Nicolle Wallaces husband."
Politico is worked up because it's all been process to date, and they got lucky and hit a slow news cycle. They're still driving home their KIAs to their overfed wives in NVA, and losing their hair on camera.
And what is it about Politico -- do you have to have a bad combover to get a job there?
Corporate policy is to settle disputes. Corporate lawyers hate juries. They would rather settle and be done with it. This way, they minimize the risk and the publicity. It's just the cost of doing business to buy off the malcontents. This was explained to me by the lead attorney at a Fortune 100 company.
Some may look at Cain's handling of the matter and find fault. But some of that will just be a rationalization for hyping the non-story. I doubt Cain will lose a single supporter over this. Unless there is a pattern, or Cain is caught in a bold lie, this story is a non-story.
One aspect that IS interesting to me is where this story came from. It sure seems to me that his GOP rivals have more of a motive than the DEMs. The radio talkers were avoiding this yesterday, trying to use this as an attack on the MSM and liberal hypocrisy (talk radio template 101), but it's the one part of the story that I find curious.
Mike Allen’s gesture in that pic is making me uncomfortable!
I’d really like to meet Mike some day.
It’s obvious that Mike Allen is a racist.
Not so. In their analysis of the situation both Mark Levin and Rush said that "it was also possible" that the campaigns of the Republican front runners may not have clean hands in this.
In fact, on his show last night, Levin said that both campaigns should question their staffers on this to determine if any of them were involved.