The Reccurring Omission of 'Game Change' Defenders

I have been witnessing a trend with those in the media who are defending HBO's movie, 'Game Change.' They keep repeating the same line about Governor Palin's aides, the ones who stood up for her last week to correct the record, not seeing the film yet. Therefore insisting that these people simply cannot speak on the matter. Never mind the fact that anybody can see from the trailers what this movie is trying to imply, it's funny that these film critics would use this line to defend the movie. Especially when you consider that HBO spoon-fed it to them in a letter that accompanied their copies of the film to screen. Via Politico:

In a letter to news editors that accompanied “Game Change” screeners, HBO’s Executive Vice President for Corporate Communications, Quentin Schaffer, writes:

“There has been some noise about the film … Much of it has come from several Palin aides trying to discredit it even though they haven’t yet seen it.

As Adrienne noted in this fine take-down of Rachel Weiner, "The Fix" writer used the line, and so did David Zurwik from the Baltimore Sun. I'm sure there will be more, if there isn't already. HBO sent it to everyone and considering they're all on the same team, it stands to reason.

The same writers in the media who repeat HBO's talking point regarding Governor Palin's aides not seeing the entire movie, completely omit from their analysis the fact that some of these people asked HBO to screen the film but were denied. Why didn't HBO address this in their letter since their statement was meant to address the comments made by these aides?

John Nolte took HBO to task again, for their latest attempt to save face. He writes:

Before we get to HBO’s latest lame defense, here’s what the network (and Politico) won’t tell you…

Below are the names of eight people who have gone on the record to declare the book “Game Change” a falsehood, and what they’ve seen of the film (HBO refuses to screen it for them — but never mentions that in the statement) is just as false:

1. Governor Palin, who detailed life on the campaign trail in her autobiography “Going Rogue.” (In an obvious attempt at a publicity stunt, HBO did offer to screen the film for the Governor but, for some creepy reason, only at her home.)

2. Meg Stapleton, the Governor’s former spokeswoman.

3. Jason Recher, who handled vice presidential road operations for the McCain-Palin campaign and was with the governor during nearly every waking moment of the campaign.

4. Tim Crawford, Treasurer of Governor Palin’s PAC.

5. Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy adviser who advised Palin during the ‘08 campaign and who vigorously disputes the book and film’s portrayal of her as anything other than engaged and informed on foreign policy matters.

6. Thomas Van Flein, the Governor’s former lawyer, who was in almost daily contact with Palin during the ‘08 campaign.

7 and 8. Aides Doug McMarlin and Andy Davis.

That’s EIGHT people declaring on the record that it’s all a load of bull.

Here’s all HBO has:

1. Steve Schmidt, a top adviser to the McCain-Palin campaign who only now has come out as one of the book’s “background sources.” This was the genius who suggested McCain suspend his campaign during the financial crisis which, as we all know, is one of the main reasons for the loss. Furthermore, even before the campaign ended, both Schmidt and Nicholle Wallace were openly suspected of leaking lies meant to embarrass the Governor and blame her for their mistakes. Today, both are considered pretty toxic in party circles.

2.Mark Halperin and John Heilemann’s, the authors of “Game Change” who never spent a moment with Palin during the campaign.

3. An untold number of background sources (Schmidt? Wallace?). The book is about 450 pages long and somewhere around 10 percent of it is about Sarah Palin, and yet….

There is not a single on-the-record source with respect to anything written about her. Not one.

—–

Both HBO and the authors had the choice of choosing between telling the story told by those willing to stake their reputations and word on the record, or those who chose to throw rocks while cowering behind a cloak of anonymity. And we all know which way they chose to go.

So here’s the latest from HBO’s Executive Vice President for Corporate Communications, Quentin Schaffer:

“There has been some noise about the film … Much of it has come from several Palin aides trying to discredit it even though they haven’t yet seen it. HBO has a long track record of producing fact-based dramas, going to great lengths to get the story right. I want you to know about the efforts taken on this film.

That’s because HBO is afraid to let them see it. What the Palin aides are disputing is both the book and what they have seen of the film in the form of the trailer and other snippets that have been released.

If the 90 seconds or so that these aides have seen are filled with falsehoods, what will the entire film look like?

If the book upon which the film is based is all falsehoods, what will the film look like?

“It is based on the acclaimed book by well-respected veteran political reporters Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, both of whom served as consultants, checking every draft of the script to ensure its historical accuracy and thoroughness. When their book came out in 2010, it went unchallenged and unrefuted by the Palin camp. The script for Game Change was written by Danny Strong who also wrote the HBO Film Recount which was praised by both sides for its accurate portraits.

First off Halperin and Heilemann weren’t with Governor Palin during a single moment of the campaign and they are CHOOSING to rely on sources who refuse to go on the record as opposed to those willing to go on the record.

What does that tell you?

Secondly, to say that the book went unchallenged is provably false. Governor Palin

“In the process of writing Game Change, Strong spoke to 25 people intimately involved in the campaign, including the most senior advisors. He also reached out to Governor Palin and Senator McCain who declined to talk to him. They were also offered a chance to see the finished film but again declined. Secondary sources included Palin’s own memoir ‘Going Rogue,’ a beat-by-beat account of how she felt throughout the race, as well as other books on the campaign and many newspaper and magazine articles.

Who are these 25 people? Are they willing to go on the record? Because the eight people who are on the record have only seen about 90 seconds of the film and that was enough for them to cry foul.

More and more it is becoming glaringly obvious that what HBO and the book’s authors did was to CHOOSE who they were going to listen to based on what they wanted to hear.

In another eye-opening piece, Big Hollywood writer Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, does some more digging into the political donations of HBO management. He turns up some pretty predictable information. You can check it out here.

This whole thing boils down to credibility. The people who spoke in defense of Governor Palin last week, consisted of both current and former aides. Objectively speaking, it's safe to say that her former aides had nothing to gain or lose by speaking in her defense. They spoke for the sake of the truth and if you read Meg Stapleton's words, with much conviction. These are people who dealt with Governor Palin for long stretches of time, on a close, personal basis. They have credibility. The two jokers on this video, don't. Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace said one thing to cameras and something different to leftist authors behind the scenes, once they knew they weren't going to win. They certainly had something to gain by trashing Governor Palin. That being, her as their scapegoat for a failed campaign.

WaPo's Facts Perform a Disappearing Act

Rachel Weiner, a writer for the Washington Post's The Fix, posted a very disingenuous piece on Wednesday claiming that Governor Palin had somehow 'disappeared' from the debt debate. To suggest such a thing indicates that Weiner hasn't been paying much attention to what the governor has had (on many occasions) to say bout the matter. Which in the WaPo's writer's case, might benefit her in more ways than one.

Weiner writes:

During Washington’s long-running debt debate, one name you didn’t hear very often was that of Sarah Palin.

Googling the words "Palin Debt Ceiling" gives you a pretty good indication how out-of touch with reality that first sentence is. The search yields many results, all which could have aided Weiner's research efforts had she chose to engage in such a task. She goes on:

But then, just as the debate lurched to a final close on the day the country threatened to default, the 2008 vice presidential candidate suddenly reemerged on the political scene.

On Tuesday’s Fox News’ “Hannity,” Palin seemed to take it very personally when Democrats compared tea-party House Republicans to “terrorists” in referring to their tactics in the debt fight.

“I'm not just going to roll over with a sticker plastered on my forehead that says, hit me baby one more time, call me a terrorist again, call me a racist,” she told Hannity.

“And I'm going stand up for those fiscally conservative patriotic independent Americans who want the best for this country.”

Palin also criticized former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, a potential rival in the 2012 presidential race, saying he “waited until it was a done deal that we would increase the debt ceiling” before coming out against the compromise.

Those kind of headline-grabbing comments raise questions about Palin’s future plans. But the former Alaska governor has a tendency to insert herself into debates with a splash and retreat just as quickly as she appeared, going dark for weeks at a time. Given recent history, it won’t be long before Palin disappears again.

Don't they wish...

And yes, Weiner is suggesting that Governor Palin hadn't weighed in on the debt debate until Tuesday's interview with Sean Hannity... Somehow Rachel missed that whole episode when some in the establishment wing of the Republican party got somewhat wee wee'd up over a certain statement she posted on Facebook. Maybe she also missed these interviews the governor gave to Greta Van Sustren here and here, and this one on Fox Business here.

She continues:

As other 2012 presidential candidates ramp up their campaigns heading into next week’s Ames straw poll and this fall’s debates, Palin is barely a presence in Iowa or any other primary state. She has shot down reports that the high-profile bus tour that took her to New Hampshire in June is over, but two months later it has yet to restart.

The end of that tour was her last major media blitz. On June 2nd, wrapping up her trip, Palin criticized Romney in New Hampshire. She appeared on “Hannity” on June 3rd and on “Fox News Sunday” on June 5th. A few days later she was on the cover of Newsweek saying she could beat President Obama.

Wait a minute, she wrote that the governor did interviews on June 3rd & 5th and that a "few days later she was on the cover of Newsweek saying she could beat President Obama." A few days? The Newsweek article that Weiner links to was posted on July 10th, which is nowhere near a "few days" after June 5th. That's more than month! That is some horrible reporting.

Here's more:

Then Palin disappeared — even as archives of her emails from her time as Alaska governor were released and pored over by the media. On June 28th, she went to Pella, Iowa, for the premiere of “The Undefeated,” a movie about her governorship, but said little. At no point did she get back into the political debate.

Oh really? Not only did Weiner not read the date of that Newsweek article, she didn't read any of the content either. From the Newsweek article:

"I believe that I can win a national election," Sarah Palin declared one recent evening, sitting in the private dining room of a hotel in rural Iowa. The occasion for her visit to quintessential small-town America was a gathering of the faithful that would have instantaneously erupted into a fervent campaign rally had she but given the word. Instead, it had been another day on the non–campaign trail, this one capped by a sweet victory: she had just attended the premiere of a glowingly positive documentary about her titled The Undefeated.

Talk of winning a national election would certainly indicate being part of "the political debate."

It continues:

On Twitter, Palin promoted her daughter Bristol’s book and little else. Her other comments on the debt ceiling were via a couple vague Facebook notes.

Did she or did she not read the Facebook notes? Those were Governor Palin's statements regarding the debt ceiling, which indicates that she is engaged in the current debate. Weiner tries to downplay them but there was nothing "vague" about what Governor Palin was saying. Just ask Laura Ingraham.

Then Weiner implies that the governor didn't weigh in on the debate via Twitter by writing "Palin promoted her daughter Bristol’s book and little else." In reality, Governor Palin had tweeted the following:

@BarackObama wants us to contact Congress. Great idea! Tell them to rein in our dangerously unsustainable debt to protect our credit rating.

@BarackObama wants us to support a "balanced deficit solution." Great idea! How about a balanced budget amendment?

@BarackObama you're wrong, threatening to throw seniors under the bus because you refuse to prioritize govt spending.Time to #womanup & lead

After stating at the beginning of her article that Governor Palin had "reemerged" on August 2nd to talk with Sean Hannity, Weiner curiously writes this paragraph towards the end of her piece:

Then, Palin reemerged. On July 26th, she was on Greta van Susteren’s show. Two days later, she posted a Facebook comment that included a threat to House Republicans at the end: “P.S. Everyone I talk to still believes in contested primaries.”

So she did see at least one of the interviews with Greta, and she indicates that she's read the Facebook note that caused some in the establishment wing of the GOP to get upset. But her whole article is centered around the notion that Governor Palin had been entirely absent from the debate. So which is it?

This maddening article continues:

Yes, Palin explicitly positioned herself as an observer of the debt debate, saying that “out here in proverbial politico flyover country, we little folk are watching the debt ceiling debate with great interest and concern.”

Hey Rachel, Governor Palin stated she was watching the debate WHILE she was weighing in on it. Your whole point moot.

Weiner ends the article by writing:

“Doggone it, I want these candidates who are in there,” Palin said of Romney yesterday. “I want them to not be sitting back.” Her sporadic involvement in the political debate suggest that she won’t be one of those candidates. If she does, it would still shake up the race in a major way — but she would be forced to follow her own advice.

She has been following her own advice, despite Rachel Weiner's messy attempt to make Governor Palin look like a hypocrite. Unlike Romney, Governor Palin has been giving her opinion about the debt debate since it became an issue in the realm of politics. Well before the debate had wall-to-wall coverage on the 24-hour news cycles, she spoke about the matter. She's also remained consistent throughout the debate in her position. Something else Romney would have a hard time doing, on any issue.

From start to finish, the whole piece is designed to create a perception that the meat of the article doesn't back up. Weiner gives the impression that she's following some sort of time-line in her reporting, leading her to make this conclusion. But that time-line doesn't match reality and it doesn't even match her own story. Pay attention to detail when reading anything the Washington Post publishes considering their "facts" are nothing more than empty props.