Obamawitz, Liz:
Hate to be the one to break this to you guys, but your prevarication management skills really, really suck (for lack of better word). Rule one is that in the pursuit of political character assassination financed with out-of-state, right-wing booty, you really need to stick to the same story. Especially if you post these stories on blogs where people like NGD can get their avaricious paws on them. Not to worry, we're not going to publicly ridicule you for being serially inept liars, but rather point out areas for improvement and suggest alternative communication strategies. And hopefully get you guys out of the political wringer you're in with GOP operatives like Roger Stone and Dan Perrin.
Let's start right at the top.
Here's what you, Liz, wrote Tuesday on the New York Times blog:
September 2nd, 2008 10:12 pm
For the sake of accuracy, I want to say that Paul Newell’s campaign had nothing at all to do with the mail piece. I alone wrote the letter, and as noted above, it was funded by an outside group. The Newell campaign didn’t even know about the piece.
The piece may be negative - the events that prompted it certainly were - but it is the truth, and I believe it tells something important about Speaker Silver.
Elizabeth Crothers
So far, so good, Liz and Obamawitz. (One suggestion Liz, stop with the "For the sake of accuracy" boilerplate. You come off like a pedantic, self-absorbed twitlet about to launch another of her double whoppers. Too much time with Obamawitz, perhaps.)
But back on point. After the smooth Times denial, you guys completely botch the job with Roy Odroso of the Village Voice. Odroso writes:
Early this morning Crothers told Runnin' Scared that she had mentioned her plans for the mailer to Newell, but not its funding source.
That is just an awful, awful mistake in a clutch moment. I mean how does this even happen? What was going through your heads? You've got to reclaim credibility soon. Frankly, you two look like a couple of lame-brained political extortionists who can't keep their alibies sorted out. A very bad thing, especially for a political relations pro like yourself, Liz. So Liz, simply claim that it wasn't really you who posted the Times comment. We've worked up a response for you that fits like a glove with your general motif and style, but more important, it worked with that Freeper crap DaBrinker tried pulling on you. Just say this to anybody that asks you about it:
"In regards to that September 5 post, you are correct that the anti-Newell site is entirely off-base. I have never contributed to the 'New York Times' website and strongly disagree with absolutely everything that site espouses."
See how that just flows, Liz? No Free Republic, no New York Times, no DaBrinker, no nothing. What can anybody say? You can use it with your buddy, Dan Perrin, too. Don't flit around the issue with weasel-worded crap like: "I didn't really do intense research on him." Be bold: "You are correct that I'm stunned that you would even ask me that question because I strongly disagree with everything that site espouses." Then get Evan to say that you are "courageous." (But watch him, he gets confused easily, and end up calling you a cougar.)
Unfortunately, you have another loose end here. A bad one. And that's the mess you also left on the Daily News blog:
For the sake of accuracy, I want to say that Paul Newell's campaign had nothing at all to do with the mail piece. I alone wrote the letter, and as noted above, it was funded by an outside group. The Newell campaign didn't even know about the piece.
The piece may be negative - the events that prompted it certainly were - but it is the truth. I believe it tells something important about Silver.
Elizabeth Crothers
The Freeper-Times denial concept is completely useless here. It can only be used once a week, Liz, no more. OK? So just go with a version of the LNG strategy. And don't worry, the MSM will never check, so much as mix or match! Just like your huge faux pas on what you told Obamawitz about Perrin and Stone's mail drop. The MSM are snorin' as we speak.
So here's what to do about the Daily News blog post. Again, the LNG template:
"This is amazing, stunning. It is mystifying to me why people would need to invent people who write blog comments when there are so many people out there that write blog comments"
Perfect. Again, don't worry, people like Danny Hakim and the Times don't give one whit about syntactic coherence. In fact, when Shelly's involved, they don't even want it. So just stick with the statement, and they'll run all the interference you need.
A final thing, Liz, you also need to work on your blogspamming skills. Now. DO NOT leave identical posts on different blogs like you did with the Times and Daily News. It implies desperation, insecurity, web-stupidity, and compulsive prevarication. You're really lucky you didn't get flamed. Or worse, fisked. Either one could be a major public embarrassment for you--especially as a political-public relations professional. Because what goes on the Internets stays on the Internets. And that is very bad for business.
