In an act of political sabotage in an interview on Hardball he pretended personal knowledge he did not possess, inferring he witnessed the events. Later, of course, his spokesman said that he could not state that it wasn't first hand knowledge because, ahem, of his promise to reporters breaking the story - a story he instituted by sending "sources" to the media in the first place.
I think we can safely call this Brand Name Smearing. For those who respect Sabato, the smear can be seen to be more believable than a hit piece from Salon.
From his spokesman:
At no point did he say that he had firsthand knowledge of the language in question; all he did was assert that it did happen, and he's either right or wrong.How does he know it happened if he was not there? On one hand, he KNOWS it happened and he BELIEVES it happened.
Which is it? You judge and then judge his impartiality in all of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment