I don't think I'd call the speech or her subsequent interaction with the press gracious:
Sink's advice to Scott, to focus on achieving unity with those who did not support him, provides a bit of a contrast with President Obama's philosophy of rule expressed not long after he took office:
Aside from the video, the St. Petersburg Times published a story about Scott's victory speech and Sink's concession. The Times' story included one of those bits I love--a bit of liberal opinion presented as factual common knowledge:
Scott, spending $73 million on his campaign and promising to bring new jobs to the state, capitalized on the economic anxiety and anti-incumbent sentiment embodied by the tea party, a movement he once helped finance with a campaign-style group that fought President Barack Obama's health care changes.
The tea party embodies the sentiments of economic anxiety (fear) and anti-incumbent sentiment (anger). Objective fact! The tea party folks are angry and scared. The Times has measured it and dutifully reported its objective findings to its "in the know" readers, who can add it to their store of knowledge if they didn't get the message already.
Maybe the tea party just doesn't agree with using government (deficit) spending and government employment to address economic woes?
Nah, that couldn't be it. They're just skeered and angry. We see that all the time with uneducated yokels. Or something.
Alex Sink cheated during last week's gubernatorial debate with Republican candidate Rick Scott. And, as is so often the case, the coverup ends up as the larger story.
Sink blamed the cheating on campaign staffer Brian May, who sent Sink a text message by phone. But video shows Sink looking at the message for some 10 seconds or so and excusing the event to the CNN staffer who confiscated the phone shortly after by saying "Oh that's okay. It didn't have anything on it that was-." Yes, she clammed up abruptly at that point.
Regardless of May's actions, Sink was guilty of cheating when she received debate advice from the makeup artist "They want you to stand up." And evidence keeps popping up that pokes holes in Sink's story about the incident:
John King, a co-host of the debate, said on CNN Tuesday that CNN reviewed an audio clip that clearly reveals that the makeup artist alerted Sink about the message.
"We listened very closely to the audio,'' King said, "And the makeup artist, when she approached Alex Sink, said, 'I have a message from the staff.' And at that point they looked, it was on a cell phone... It was essentially advice after the last segment of the debate telling her if that question comes up again,
remember this, and be more aggressive when Rick Scott questions you.''
The Herald blogger, Marc Caputo, notes that we're taking John King's word for the audio content. The aired portion of the video that includes the conversation between Sink and her makeup artist picks up with the attempt to read the message on the phone. Caputo has a point that hearing the audio firsthand would be nice, but if we're not trusting the reports of journalists without seeing the evidence where does that end? Do we need a Marc Caputo for anything other than posting audio and video clips?
I find it interesting that the Herald--a liberal newspaper if there ever was one--is still on this story while the St. Petersburg Times has gone silent since Oct. 28 (a story about a Rick Scott ad that mentions Sink's cheating).
The Times sponsored the debate, but has demonstrated no real interest in the story.
Sink has spent the last two days responding to the flap after debate moderater John King of CNN concluded that Sink knew she was receiving coaching from an aide during the debate. It took Sink's campaign two days to persuade the media that she did not cheat and unwound the video to show that she did not realize why she was being handed the phone.
Simply reporting the facts ought to lead any reasonable reader to the conclusion that Sink ought to have known she was cheating. King stated that CNN had audio of the stylist telling Sink she had advice from her campaign staff ("[T]he makeup artist, when she approached Alex Sink, said, 'I have a message from the staff.'"). The stylist also wondered aloud--loud enough for CNN's microphones, anyway, whether it was campaign staffer Brian (May) who sent the message. On top of that, Sink received advice separately from stylist, who told her twice--the second time in response to Sink's request--to "stand up" to Scott.
There's simply nothing in the video that permits any so-called "objective" determination that Sink did not know what she was doing.
This is probably a good example of how, when the chips are down and the pressure is on, the desire to see the Democrat win affects a news staff's ability to report the news.
I naively felt that Rick Scott was unwise to put so much emphasis on Sink's debate cheating. I did not think the media would be able to ignore it. It lasted about two days in the news cycle before the Times eventually accepted Alex Sink's fig leaf as though it was a suit of armor.
Though King's statement appeared on Caputo's Miami Herald blog, regardless the Herald published a story with largely the same content as the one from the Times:
Again, there's no objective indication from the video that Sink didn't know why she was show the phone screen. And such determination relies on granting Sink the benefit of the doubt. Consider, for example, that Sink might be smart enough to pretend that she doesn't know what's going on long enough to look at the message while preserving plausible deniability. An objective reporter doesn't dimiss that possibility out of hand.
CNN continued its reporting and analysis of the Alex Sink debate story. Sink's debate with Republican opponent Rick Scott has stayed in the news because Sink was caught breaking the rules. Sink compounded the error by scapegoating the staffer who sent the message. CNN's panel does a nice job on the story:
The St. Petersburg Times posted a story this morning on the new audio material. Watch for the spin. Put your head down if dizziness occurs.
TALLAHASSEE — A debate-cheating flap continued to nag at Democrat Alex Sink on Wednesday even as new video surfaced showing she might not have known a campaign staffer broke the rules until it was too late.
The makeup artist was also part of Sink's staff. Why doesn't she know better than to show Sink a message that may be from "Brian"? Shouldn't Sink be wary of any message she receives during the break because of the rules to which her campaign agreed?
Just wait 'til they get started:
The new video clip, posted Wednesday by CNN, indicated Sink was handed the phone before she realized the message was about her debate against Rick Scott, her Republican opponent for governor.
Ahem. The above is not news reporting, because the video evidence can provide no assurance that Sink did not know the message was from a member of her staff. It is news analysis at best and more probably ought to count as an opinion. I will cheerfully concede that Sink may not have initially known the message was from her staff. The evidence is ambiguous on that point. But when Sink accepted a message from her staffer by reading it off the phone, she broke the rules. And the breakage was doubled because the makeup artist, according to the CNN transcript, conveyed a corresponding message to Sink.
Makeup: Do you want some food? … A grape? Anything? Sink: No if I eat a grape, I won't have anything. I'm okay. Thanks though. … Makeup: This is from … they said … (they both look down at device). I don't know who that's from, if it's from Brian or … Sink: I don't know. Makeup:They're saying you need to stand up. Man walks over: Are you okay? Sink: Yeah. You want to give me a little more water? (Man walks away.) They're saying what? Makeup:Stand up to them more. CNN political editor Mark Preston: I'm sorry, did you just show the BlackBerry? I'm sorry (bends over to pick it up). Makeup: What's that? Preston: (unintelligible) Sink: Oh that's okay. It didn't have anything on it that was …
I believe Sink meant to say "It didn't have anything on it that I could comprehend" since that is essentially the account she later gave of the incident. Unfortunately, her response to Preston makes it appear that she understood the message and judged that it was of little importance to the debate, and apparently not even a breach of the rules ("Oh that's okay.")!
More spin control from the Times:
CNN didn't post all of the audio from the exchange, but CNN debate moderator John King accurately noted that the stylist twice discussed the contents of the message, in which a campaign adviser wanted Sink to "stand up'' more to Scott.
Sink, who wasn't clear about what she was being told, even asked the woman to repeat the message.
Again, the story breaks the conventions of objective journalism. An objective writer does not know whether or not Sink is clear about the message. It is clear that Sink wanted the makeup artist to repeat what "they" were saying, and since the makeup artist was able to receive messages Sink may have expected content not included in the text message. The objective writer doesn't make that call.
Compare the "contents" of the message as expressed by the makeup artist to the text of the message on the phone (appearing in a separate story from the Times):
Alex Sink's makeup artist shows her a message that reads: "The attorney on Sykes suit said Alex did nothing wrong. Tell not to let him keep talking about her."
The content of the text message helps make clear that the infraction was twofold. The makeup artist was used as a go-between. The text instructs her to convey instructions to Sink. And she did. But Brian May was made the scapegoat and the Sink campaign refused to identify the makeup artist:
The makeup artist, whom the Sink campaign would not identify, didn't seem to know much, either, as she showed the phone to Sink.
"I don't know who that's from,'' she said, her voice growing quiet with a question: "If it's from Brian?"
The makeup artist didn't know much? She knew the gist of the message ("They're saying you need to stand up"), she knew it was from a "they" that might have included "Brian." Since she was part of the staff it is reasonable to assume she referred to Brian May, in which case she made an accurate educated guess as to the sender. She knew a good bit, even if her execution of her role helped land the boss in hot water.
New questions in light of the additional information released by CNN:
What was said prior to the makeup artist showing Sink the phone?
Who is the stylist and why wasn't she fired, given that she transmitted debate strategy to Sink?
Why won't the campaign identify the stylist?
Why can't the Times (Marc Caputo, Beth Reinhard) report the story straight?
Oct. 28, 2010: Removed a couple of duplicate paragraphs.
"I've been looking at this for 10 seconds and I still can't read it."
It turns out I can embed the video from the Times:
It seems as though the Times has changed the text identifying this story, or at least has used the video with two different stories. The one I used this time adds an interesting twist:
"Alex Sink says she didn't mean to break debate rules."
Sink doesn't say that.
Transcript mine:
AS: I just have a couple of minutes 'cause I am about to catch a plane, guys.
Reporter: Could you just tell us what you talked about with that aide when she passed you the message?
AS: Oh, last night at the debate?
Reporter: Yes.
AS: Well, I looked around, she put this phone in my face and said I don't know who this is from, and I turned around and looked and I said, I mean I couldn't tell, really, what it was.
Reporter: You didn't discuss it ahead of time?
AS: Oh, absolutely not. In fact, when I went back, afterwards, I said find out where that text message came from, and it act act actually came from a member of my campaign staff, clearly against the rules, and, uh, that person's had to leave my campaign. Brian May.
Reporter: Can you see, there's a bit of an irony which Rick Scott had mentioned yesterday. You've staked your campaign on saying that he's cheated and been deceptive, but your campaign cheated.
AS: When I learned what had happened and got to the bottom of it, I took accountability and I held the person who was responsible for the cheating accountable and he's no longer with my campaign. That was the right action to take.
1) If I'm a makeup assistant (yes, that's a stretch) and I get a phone message from somebody I don't know, I probably don't take my phone to the debate participant I'm supposed to be working on during a short commercial break to get her to help me figure out the author of the message. It is overpoweringly likely that the assistant knew at least that it was a message for Sink and that she presented the situation that way to Sink. Sink ought to have known that receiving messages was forbidden, so once she starts looking at the phone to interpret the message she is without excuse. Sink cheated.
2) Sink was probably able to tell what it was. She took her time looking at it. If I'm on a break during a debate I probably don't spend much time looking at something I don't understand from somebody I don't know even if it's not against the rules. Wrong time, wrong place.
3) Meh. The reporter's follow up question could have been better. Yeah, he gets a break because it's the spur of the moment. How about this one: "You knew you weren't supposed to receive messages during the debate, right? Why did you look at it at all?"
4) Brian May was made Alex Sink's scapegoat. May couldn't cheat without Sink's help. It's unlikely the debate rules forbade attempts to send messages to the candidates. Rather, the candidates were probably bound not to receive debate advice during the debate. Sink was right to fire May because he his actions contributed to a disastrous performance for her campaign, not for cheating in the debate. She was the cheater.
The fourth point strikes me as Alex Sink's Al Gore moment, at least with me.
Let me explain.
I used to like Al Gore. He ran for president in 1980, and he was the most conservative and sane-sounding of the Democratic candidates. He dropped considerably in my estimation during the Clinton years, but though he shifted left I still felt he was probably an OK guy. The Al Gore moment that soured me came during one of his debates with George W. Bush.
During a debate with candidate Rick Scott, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Alex Sink was caught cheating.
What a way to level the playing field after continually attacking Rick Scott on ethics.
As the video reveals, Sink is shown debate advice on a cell phone during a break. Scott notices and brings the violation to a staffer's attention and mentions the cheating during the debate (also seen on the video).
Ridiculously, Sink fired the staffer who sent the message and offered no apology for her actions.
Does Sink owe an apology? Of course. She had a choice, assuming she knew the rules (Scott knew the rules).
She could have looked at the makeup artist instead of at the phone screen and asked the girl if she's crazy. It's against the rules to show her something like that. Or she can read the information and hope nobody notices.
Sink chose the latter, then used her staffer as a scapegoat. Clearly the type of leader we need in Florida.
"After the debate tonight, one of my campaign advisers admitted he tried to communicate with me during one of the breaks," Sink said in the statement. "While he told me it was out of anger with Rick Scott's repeated distortion of facts, it was a foolish thing to do. It violated a debate agreement and I immediately removed him from the campaign."
Outsider Rick Scott defeated former congressman Bill McCollum in the Republican primary yesterday, securing a chance to run against Democratic winner Alex Sink for governor of Florida.
I voted for McCollum, thinking he had the better shot at beating Sink in the general election. Scott's conservative message, combined with a personal charisma somewhat greater than McCollum's, gave him the victory. It didn't hurt that Scott spent a great deal of his own money in the primary, but if spending money was the secret to winning then Jeff Greene would have beaten rival Kendrick Meek for the chance to challenge Marco Rubio for one of Florida's two seats in the Senate.
***
I'm amused by an ad Google placed on my blog:
There must be some specialized definition of "proven business experience." One that allows mid-level banking executives (I'm counting CEO of Bank of American in Florida as the top of mid level) to claim "proven business experience" while also preserving plausible denial for all the things banks do that their customers and employees resent, such as layoffs in the wake of mergers, high transaction fees and cascading overdraft charges.
Meanwhile, Rick Scott's creation of Columbia Healthcare and his administrative role in Columbia/HCA are somehow discounted.
The Republican Party of Florida's lack of respect for law enforcement officers and their families is on full display in this ridiculous video.
Our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to protect the people of Florida every single day. They deserve our gratitude and respect. But, instead, the Republican Party of Florida subjects them to insults and ridicule.
The "outrageous" video:
First, I think Florida's law enforcement officers can take a joke. Second, the video is explicitly referring to insurance investigators, not local or state police.
Why, then, would Alex Sink publicize her outrage at this supposed attack on "law enforcement officers"?
Perhaps to distract from the elephant in the room?
The ad is an attack on Alex Sink, to be clear (watch it if you doubt). And the missing element of Sink's reaction to the ad consists of her silence regarding the charge made against her (something about assault rifles).
What about the rifles?
Sink’s Department of Financial Services has purchased 182 assault rifles – costing $255,000, according to Sink’s office – in the last two years. Sink, the 2010 Democratic gubernatorial candidate, says the rifles are necessary to protect fraud investigators, but the Legislature’s Republican budget writers argue the rifles are expensive and unnecessary. Typically, fraud investigators have carried pistols.
(Orlando Sentinel)
I've been mulling a post about Sink's plan for the Florida economy, and as part of that post I'd have been willing to allow that I knew of nothing to blemish her record in her current office. This does look like a legitimate embarrassment, albeit a minor one. I think the bigger issue is the childish reaction of the Sink campaign to a legitimately funny political ad that nobody but a Sink sycophant would find offensive.
Word to the Sink campaign: The right reaction to this would have consisted of a straightforward explanation for the purchase of the rifles. Add to that a statement to the effect that it speaks well of your candidacy that the Republicans bother to place focus on such a minor issue.
Too late now, though. She looks like a whiny baby willing to make up ridiculous charges to distract attention from her questionable actions. Add that to Sink's negatives related to her banking career and lucrative compensation package associated with that career and any of the Republican candidates look pretty good.
Alex Sink, Democratic candidate for Florida governor, seems to think that a strong plurality of Americans are extremists. At least if we take seriously a recent Rasmussen poll that had 49 percent supporting a lawsuit to stop the implementation of ObamaCare.
Here is part of the missive sent out by the Sink campaign:
Unfortunately, in spite of the clear need to focus on helping Florida's families who are struggling in today's economy, Bill McCollum, ever the politician, is busy touting his latest political stunt to sue the federal government in Washington.
(...)
Bill McCollum's partisan games won't help Floridians struggling with our economic crisis. But what his political circus will do is convince those groups shouting extremist rhetoric that he is one of them -- and that they should open their wallets and help fund his campaign.
Forty-nine percent want the federal government sued over ObamaCare. Bill McCollum agrees with that. He's one of them. One typical of "the groups shouting extremist rhetoric" (like what rhetoric, Alex?).
So, roughly 49 percent of you apparently qualify as extremists in Sink's mind.
It seems to me that a person running for governor ought to know about unfunded mandates and how they can impact a state budget. This statement from the Sink campaign makes it look like she is content to pretend that the issue doesn't exist.
As for McCollum, if he really is "busy touting" his lawsuit then he should be careful how he does it. The lawsuit is not likely to work. Losing a lawsuit is no sure way to glory. But at least the lawsuit will draw attention to the plight of the states. They are effectively forced by the federal government to spend money, yet the state governments have no representation in the federal government since the 17th Amendment went into effect. Shades of "taxation without representation." In other words, tyranny.
The people of Florida will have a tough time keeping their own state government solvent if somebody doesn't fight Washington's unfunded mandates. Are you up for that fight, Alex Sink?
Update:
I should have looked closer at the Rasmussen data. The percentage in Florida, 54 percent, is higher than the national average. Most Floridians are extremists, presumably right wing.
New PolitiFact operations are springing up like weeds. PolitiFact Florida, arising from a partnership with the Miami Herald, joins PolitiFact Texas among the ranks of political fact check organizations. So, what happens when a bad product further dilutes itself?
The issue:
The fact checkers:
Louis Jacobson: writer, researcher
Greg Joyce: editor
Analysis:
Even when PolitiFact botches its "Truth-O-Meter" rating, its stories often provide valuable information to help inform readers.
Unfortunately, this item fails to seize a golden opportunity to do just that. Writer/researcher Louis Jacobson gets lost on a superficial check of the wooden literal meaning of the claims about gubernatorial candidate Bill McCollum coming from rival candidate Alex Sink ("Approved by Alex Sink, Democrat, for governor") and the Florida Democratic Party.
Jacobson has all the information he ought to need in order to pin down the argument underlying the ad. That is, that McCollum's votes for pay raises supposedly make him of a kind with the Washington politicians who have fired the ire of so many voters. The ad is saying McCollum is, in short, a big spending politician and takes care of himself first. Jacobson resists putting a toe in those waters in favor of sticking with the aforementioned literal claim. So let's follow him on his rather brief fact-checking journey:
Today we look at an anti-McCollum response ad aired by the Florida Democratic Party. The ad begins with footage of McCollum telling reporters, "I'm proud of my record of having been a congressman."
A voice-over continues, "Really? Well, Bill McCollum, you cost the rest of us billions. He voted four times to raise his own pay. $51,000. Our tax money pays his congressional pension. Over $75,000 dollars a year. The national debt skyrocketed. $4.7 trillion. McCollum voted for debt-limit increases five times. Bill McCollum. Just another Washington politician Florida can't afford."
(blue highlights added)
It's almost surprising that Jacobson quotes the last line, for all the attention he gives it.
Jacobson deals with the pay raise issue in four short paragraphs. Here are the first two:
