Did you know that you can “pose” as a pimp without dressing like one?
Can someone explain that to Brad Friedman of the “BRADBLOG”? And to his oafish sidekicks Marcy Wheeler and Eric Boehlert?
Above: Brad Friedman, Eric Boehlert, and Marcy Wheeler
In short, the Times suggested in an article a week ago Sunday — and at least seven others prior to it, all published after the release of the former MA Attorney General’s report — that O’Keefe was wearing his infamous pimp outfit inside the offices of ACORN while speaking to employees in his now-infamous hit videos. In actuality, according to the December 7th report by AG Scott Harshbarger, in direct contradiction to the Times reporting, he was not.
Note how slippery this is. First Friedman says the Times merely “suggested” O’Keefe wore the pimp costume in the offices. Well, if the report by “AG Scott Harshbarger” (actually a former AG) stood in “direct contradiction” to the New York Times‘s reporting, then the Times must have done more than “suggest” this.
But, of course, they didn’t. Friedman provides no quotes from any news outlet directly asserting that O’Keefe wore the pimp get-up inside the ACORN offices. Here’s what the New York Times actually wrote:
Mr. O’Keefe is a conservative activist who gained fame last year by posing as a pimp and secretly recording members of the community group Acorn giving him advice on how to set up a brothel.
You can “pose” as a pimp without dressing like one. Look up the definition if you don’t believe me.
And “posing as a pimp” is precisely what O’Keefe did. Yet Friedman writes a huge, several-thousand-word post wailing about the New York Times‘s failure to “correct” something that they never got wrong.
Naturally, dopey ol’ Eric Boehlert walks right into this one:
Go read the BradBlog for a truly eye-opneing [Yes, he wrote "eye-opneing." Stand in awe of the Soros-funded copy editors! -- P] encounter the blogger had with a Times standards editor after the blogger pressed for an ACORN/O’Keefe-related correction. Specifically, Brad Friedman urged the paper to correct its erroneous reports that suggested O’Keefe, when making his undercover ACORN clips, entered the ACORN offices dressed outlandishly as a pimp.
According to an independent investigation into the ACORN matter, that claim is not true. (i.e. “He was dressed like a college student – in slacks and a button down shirt.”) But the Times, like lots of news outlets, has made that dressed-as-a-pimp assertion again and again.
Uh, no, dopey. The Times hasn’t.* Nor have the other outlets cited by Friedman. These outlets have made the “O’Keefe posed as a pimp” claim. And that claim is true, because if you have seen the tapes, that’s exactly what O’Keefe did.
Friedman doesn’t seem to realize that, of course. In his screed the third, he credulously repeats this nonsense from Kevin Whelan, ACORN’s
Minister of Lies Communication Director, who makes this outlandish and easily disproved claim:
“In fact,” he continued, “the transcripts posted on biggovernment.com themselves reveal that O’Keefe presented himself as Giles boyfriend not her pimp – his scam involved a story about rescuing her from a violent pimp. So it would not have made sense for him to wear the costume, even within the fictional scenario he presented.”
Uh, except that O’Keefe most assuredly did present himself as a pimp. Specifically, as a pimp willing to run a house of child prostitution. This is apparent to anyone who has even the slightest passing familiarity with this scandal.
Friedman also repeats lies told by ACORN in Philly:
In the video (seen at right), Russell explains what happened when O’Keefe and his partner Hannah Giles — seen dressed similarly to a prostitute in the edited videos from other cities where O’Keefe carried out his campaign — came in for an interview in her office. “They never said that she [Giles] was a prostitute, and he was not dressed in any usually flashy manor,” Russell explains.
Uh, that’s “manner.” Anyway, that’s an easily provable lie, as Friedman should know by now:
OK, now on to Marcy Wheeler. Her post is titled NYT Thinks TeaBugger James O’Keefe Entitled to Own Set of Facts. And she says . . . wait. What is that term? “Teabugger”? Oh, I get it. It’s like “tea bagger” — only the word “bugger” is substituted . . . a reference to O’Keefe’s “bugging,” which it’s now clear he did not do. So it’s a joke name based on a lie. Which tells you all you need to know about Marcy Wheeler.
Anyway, Wheeler sez:
Brad Friedman lays out an entire exchange that, first, one of their readers, and then Brad Friedman himself had with the NYT, attempting to get them to either correct or back up the claim that O’Keefe dressed as a pimp.
Except that, again, the paper never made that claim in the way (at least in the way that Wheeler means, if you read her post).
Also, all three bloggers repeatedly refer to a supposedly “independent” report by a guy paid by ACORN, which makes various findings totally at odds with the unedited audio that the report (and all three bloggers) refuse to acknowledge even exists. (Did you know there is unedited audio? In all the whining about the lack of unedited video, did anyone ever bother to tell you that you can listen to the full unedited audio of these visits? It’s true! Click the link if you don’t believe me.)
In short, these three are pathetic hacks.
Seriously: if Brad Friedman, Eric Boehlert, and Marcy Wheeler are the best liberalism has to offer, we conservatives have nothing to worry about.
*In context, this statement is a refutation of the claim that Friedman’s evidence backs up his assertions. However, Boehlert has since dug up other apparent instances where the New York Times did appear to suggest that O’Keefe wore the get-up inside the offices. This actually makes ACORN’s case worse, as it removes any argument that they didn’t take O’Keefe seriously due to his ridiculous costume.