Castle Will Not Wage Write-In Campaign — Plus, Catch the O’Donnell LinkedIn Imposter!!!
The tidbit about Castle appears in this AP article about the LinkedIn profile that had erroneous claims about her educational background.
Since O’Donnell says the LinkedIn page was not created by her, or anyone acting at her direction, it’s time we uncovered the imposter. Someone has gone to great lengths to build a lengthy, mostly accurate profile of Ms. O’Donnell, which included subtle puffery about her educational background. Assuming this person is not Ms. O’Donnell, this is a clever plot, as it feeds into the narrative that she has previously fibbed about her education. If we take Ms. O’Donnell at her word, then whoever perpetrated this travesty is likely an identity thief out to destroy Ms. O’Donnell’s reputation. I assume we all agree that this person must be exposed.
How the imposter got O’Donnell’s spokespeople to initially react as though the profile was hers, I’m not sure. It just goes to show that his or her access to Ms. O’Donnell may be more intimate than anyone imagines.
Meanwhile, O’Donnell’s imposter had 84 connections on her LinkedIn page (which has now been deleted — but don’t worry, there are screengrabs all over the Internet and the cache is still alive here). Perhaps one of those people managed to communicate with the imposter. These communications might reveal something about the imposter’s identity.
LinkedIn should cooperate with authorities and release the information that would identify the perpetrator (such as the e-mail address used).
This all assumes, of course, that O’Donnell will be proactive in helping to expose the wrongdoer. And why wouldn’t she be? If they will do this to her, why stop with this?
I assume O’Donnell has filed or will file a police report alleging some form of identity theft. Let me know when you hear that has happened.
Wow, you’re just not going to stop, are you? I guess you personally being “right” is way more important than any other possible consideration. I think Mark Levin might just have you pegged, regardless of some minor details where he is wrong – mainly because he really doesn’t have the time to run every little thing down – but sometimes the big picture is way more important than the details.
william wilson (f6deac) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:26 pm“I assume O’Donnell has filed or will file a police report alleging some form of identity theft.”
Patterico – Indeed. Why would she not do this in an effort to out the wreckers out to destroy not only her campaign but also her reputation, such as it now stands.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:28 pmwilliam wilson – Is the truth not important to you, sir?
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:29 pmWe are fighting a war. Not all of our allies are perfect – but they are our allies, and we need to win this war above all. The future of our country is in the balance. How is it in our interest to aid the Bearded Marxist, Coons? What kind of “conservative” helps the Marxist like this? How about if we go all out to win this election and stop these enemies? How about if we use strategy AND tactics to prevail?
william wilson (f6deac) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:35 pmLOL LOL LOL
I loved how Levin posted so many attacks on Patterico, and when Patterico politely noted Levin was wrong on some facts, Levin screamed how Patterico was arguing with himself.
What a joke. You say he doesn’t have time to run down details? That’s a crock. He saw proof his claims were wrong, and replied to those claims with ugly attacks. The poor level of discourse he shows proved he’s got way too much time on his hands, and when he promoted the impeachment lie, he boasted that he had an excellent researcher on his payroll. He knows his posts have lies in them, and he won’t correct them because he’s the sort of ‘man’ who can’t admit a mistake. I’m sure he goes on and on about how he’s just so busy he can’t be bothered with little people stuff like Patterico. Only thing: Patterico’s not a full time pundit… he’s got a real job, unlike Levin. Levin shouldn’t attack someone before doing the homework and knowing he’s right.
It’s not Patterico’s fault O’Donnell has another issue. You’re attacking someone for not being silent? How in the world do you expect the government to ever have reform if we let some politicians get away with stuff because we agree with them? It won’t work like that.
And Castle should have ruled out a write-in bid much earlier on. He’s right that seeking office after losing a primary is wrong. Of course, O’Donnell also refused to rule out a third party bid. Her supporters were bashing Castle for something O’Donnell probably would have done. And a lot of them are bashing Castle for not endorsing O’Donnell… she wasn’t going to endorse him either. They don’t like eachother and do not support the other… why ask for endorsements that are lies?
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:36 pmwilliam wilson, it’s important that people know the truth(s) about the person asking for their vote. Asking a citizen for their vote is not light matter. A person’s vote is important, the principles guiding that vote are equally important. If a candidate is cavalier about that or thinks that they can play fast and loose with the truth, they risk losing that vote.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:38 pmwilliam wilson – Is the truth not important to you, sir?
Comment by daleyrocks — 9/29/2010 @ 9:29 pm
I don’t think it’s the truth that bothers him, it’s the condescension. The truth is unknown.
Rick (d204b0) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:38 pmWhat makes you think it helps us to lie about coons being a marxist?
That just bolsters him, because you now have poor credibility. People think you are either uninformed or a liar, and don’t believe anything else you say. People have no confidence that you will hold ‘your side’ to decent standards, either. I don’t want a new set of crooks, with their own shills protecting them and attacking their opponents with lies. Coons is wrong on many major issues. Extremely wrong. And he’s not a marxist. Coons was illustrating absurdity, much as Rush Limbaugh does quite often, by making the joke about people calling him marxist when he moved to the left.
There are more compelling ways to convince people not to vote for him. Look into those and stop making it harder to beat Coons, please. You and Levin are reasons O’Donnell is losing. Moderates and independents and democrats are not going to find this kind of crap compelling.
Patterico and many others have noted that O’Donnell is our flawed guy, who is better than their flawed guy, but will go ahead and admit the obvious. O’Donnell has an ethics problem.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:41 pmwilliam wilson says:
I do not say in this post that O’Donnell is lying — but let’s pretend for the sake of argument that she is, and that this hurts her in the election.
Whose fault is it, then? Hers for lying? Or mine for telling the truth?
In another post today I slam that creep Grayson for lying about his opponent. I do that because he is a liar. I’m sure you would cheer a post like that — but your cheering would have nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with his politics. You are the type who would support a liar like Grayson if he were on your side of the aisle. You appear to lack any principle but achieving your political ends at any cost.
I could be wrong about some of the details of my criticism of you here. But hey. Sometimes the big picture is way more important than the details.
I’ll repeat something I have said to may others: if you are the type of blog reader who does not care about the truth — and it appears that you are — this may not be the blog for you. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and making you read here. It’s a big Internet and you’ll find people willing to ignore (or wildly spin) this important story all over the place. Feel free to check them out if the truth is not good enough for you.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:46 pmThen you didn’t read his comments. He says you are not legit conservative if you help Coons ‘in this way’, obviously by pointing out issues that may embarrass O’Donnell, or noting her character flaws.
He says we’re in a war, and wants Patterico to just ignore any issue negative to O’Donnell.
He’s not worried that Patterico is condescending. However, I do believe that people who are honest are superior to people who aren’t. Levin has shown he’s not honest and has no interest in correcting his claims when disproven. People who support that approach are inferior. It’s hard to talk to inferior people nicely without coming across as condescending.
I don’t speak for Patterico here, but a lot of folks seem to think we should treat our side of this ‘war’ to a much more relaxed level of scrutiny. That is horrible for our country. It’s also horrible for a reform movement, because it completely undermines its credibility. Pundits who are not afraid to just say it how it is are the best friends of reform.
We’re not going to agree on everything, but we should all agree to be honest. O’Donnell may be the victim of an incredibly sophisticated identify theft crime. Or she could be a total liar. Her other lying helps inform us on this.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:47 pmI don’t think it’s the truth that bothers him, it’s the condescension. The truth is unknown.
What condescension? The truth is unknown, yes — but with some aggressive action on the part of O’Donnell to uncover the truth and expose the alleged imposter we can get to the bottom of this. Are you with me, Rick?
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:48 pmI just said she isn’t perfect. Are we in a war or aren’t we? If we are in a war, does it help to try to defeat those who are on our side? Is electing Coons better than electing O’Donnell? Oh well, too bad about my “poor credibility”. I guess I am either uninformed or a liar. I’m not sure which I am. I think I will go with liar. But it is nice to be lumped in with Mark Levin as a source of evil in the world.
william wilson (f6deac) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:50 pmbut a lot of folks seem to think we should treat our side of this ‘war’ to a much more relaxed level of scrutiny. That is horrible for our country
To be fair, Dustin: this strikes me as being an almost universal trait – every group seems to have a large percentage of people who will forgive sins of members which they would loudly denounce in non-members.
It’s unproductive and unhelpful – in some cases because of the lack of tolerance, understanding, and forgiveness of sins in others that we have accepted in our tribesmen; in other cases, because it leads us to accept sins in our tribesmen which we would clearly object to in outsiders – and it’s something worth struggling against.
But I think it is a very human thing, not unusual, and not unique to any one tribe or clique.
aphrael (9802d6) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:51 pmWilliam Wilson: I’m not a conservative, so I’m ineligible to speak on the question of whether conservatives should support O’Donnell.
But I’ll note that, as a liberal, I’m not voting for Gavin Newsom, because he’s an untrustworthy slimeball I wouldn’t trust with the keys to my car.
Some things should trump partisan allegiance … and if someone has shown themselves to be of such character in their personal life that they can’t be trusted with the responsibility of representing the people in our government, that should be more important than their partisan allegiance. In my opinion, at least.
aphrael (9802d6) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:53 pmIf we are in a war, does it help to try to defeat those who are on our side?
If anyone might be defeating those on our side, it would be O’Donnell herself (if this turns out to be a fabrication). Truth doesn’t defeat.
Again, her pro-active stance re this (or lack thereof) will tell us what we need to know.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:54 pmBut I think it is a very human thing, not unusual, and not unique to any one tribe or clique.
Which makes me appreciate all the more that Patterico is not only willing but compelled to speak the truth, regardless.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:57 pmPatterico, I took your entire post as ridiculing O’Donnell’s assertion that the LinkedIn page was not created by her, before the facts are known. If I’m wrong, I apologize. As for the truth, I’m all about the truth.
Rick (d204b0) — 9/29/2010 @ 9:59 pmIs electing Coons better than electing O’Donnell?
I’m starting to wonder. I’m told that it’s OK to sacrifice the seat for the greater good of pushing candidates to the right. Maybe, just maybe, it’s OK to sacrifice the seat for the greater good of pushing people to pay attention when warning bells go off indicating that a candidate is a weasel. You guys were perfectly happy to sacrifice the seat for your principles but apparently now the principle of truthfulness must give way to your desire to see this woman elected.
I won’t sacrifice my credibility for Christine O’Donnell or any other politician. Period.
Feel free to be lumped in with Mark Levin. Given your apparent lack of concern for accuracy, he is perfect company for you.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:00 pmOK, fair point, Aphrael. We all want to do this to some extent.
Absolutely true. I favor my alma mater’s football team, even on questionable plays and penalty calls.
Pretty natural inclination to be more interested in the ‘other’ team’s mistakes and scandals, and surely not too happy to hear about your own’s.
As common as this problem is, decent people rise above it. At least when we talking about things like government corruption.
And they sure as hell do not go out of their way to condemn people who rise above it. I don’t know what motivates these Levin fans, but it doesn’t appear to be patriotism. Yep, I really hold them in extremely low regard. We’re trying to clean up our country, and that takes honesty and some basic ethics principles. I’m sick of those principles being negotiated away over something like marginally lower exposure of some scandal.
Hold their feet to the fire. I think that helps the Tea Party greatly, but if it means a somewhat slower takeover, it also means a much more lasting one, as the people won’t lose faith in the reformers if they don’t turn out to be a pack of crooks.
I think we’re fighting to save our country, just as will does, but I have a different idea of what we’re fighting against. One of the biggest problems we’ve had is a lack of frankness about inconvenient realities.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:00 pmRick,
I don’t know the facts. Apparently her spokesman are fuzzy on them as well. What I am suggesting is that if she is the victim of identity theft, she will no doubt soon be acting like it and filing a police report. If you believe her you should be demanding it.
Patterico (c218bd) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:01 pmDustin: I have a firm belief that a lot of what I dislike about politics today is the way people’s political behavior is rooted in tribalism.
It’s understandable, and it’s human … but surely it’s something that we have a duty to each other to work to overcome.
aphrael (9802d6) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:04 pmIs creating a false LinkedIn page actually identity theft under the law?
Rick (d204b0) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:13 pmI’ll try to clarify; I am a fan of both you and Levin. I know that you think the two opinions must be incompatible, but I don’t see it that way. I see that we are in a war. War gets ugly. Sometimes we must make hard choices during war. I don’t think everything Levin has said about you is fair or right, but on this big picture issue I side with him – we are in an all-out war, and winning it is the most important thing in the world at this moment. I understand why you go with “the truth”, I understand philosophical and ideological consistency, but aiding Coons is about as wrong as anything could be IMO. Why is this your mission? The Democrats MUST be stopped, they are out to destroy our way of life. They employ lies as a matter of strategy. They make their arguments to the uninformed. Their side does not attack its own over relatively small flaws. At this moment, our side should not be doing that to itself either. I’ll say it again – the future of our country is at stake. I will spend election night rooting for O’Donnell.
william wilson (f6deac) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:13 pmMeanwhile, back in the real world, the next post up ahead, the administration and the congress is tearing through the economy like a runaway lawn mower, judges are refusing to follow the law, we have this incident with Whitman, which may or may
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:15 pmnot be true. Regardless we know that Jerry Brown’s
return to office would be like opening one of the seven seals
William Wilson, you sound very reasonable in some of your comments.
What are we in a war against? Democrats? I think it’s too complicated to just spit out a tiny answer, but I think a big part of the problem is corruption and misinformation about the nation’s financial future. I think it’s counterproductive in the extreme to fight this war with any sort of misinformation. A confirmation bias, or a see no evil approach to politicians seen as conservatives will just make the problem worse.
Where do we turn, if the conservatives we elect aren’t vetted and therefore are corrupt? Not vetting them will result in crooks, just about every time.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:19 pm______________________________________
Is electing Coons better than electing O’Donnell?
In an ideal world, McDonnell would step down and let her Republican opponent become the replacement.
I still place a lot of blame on rightist voters in Delaware who punched their chad for McDonnell in the first place. Even if they weren’t aware of how flawed she was, they had to have been aware that their state is loaded down with dumb-dumb liberals. IOW, if such Republicans deal with people of the left on a regular basis — family members, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc — they’ve got to realize such people have to be placed in the category of young kids. Kids who are a bundle of emotions and very little common sense. Youngsters who typically resist and squawk about, as one example, proper nutrition.
So if McDonnell could be characterized as too controversial and conservative from the get-go, voters of the right in Delaware should have known that placing her before the general electorate would be like placing “health food” in front of a bunch of antsy, impatient, petulant children.
Mark (411533) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:20 pmThank you, Dustin. IMO we are in a war against socialism and the inexorable growth of government. My conclusions flow from that premise.
william wilson (f6deac) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:23 pmI will spend election night rooting for O’Donnell.
But if a good type of political philosophy (ie conservatism) is not paired with strategy that is both realistic and sensible, then you might just as well close your eyes, cross your fingers and assume you’re going to be winning the Jackpot when the winning Lotto numbers are announced on TV and radio. I’d frame things differently if Delaware were a solidly, reliably red state, but it’s not.
Mark (411533) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:29 pmPatterico; can you seriously compare Grayson’s editing of Webster’s statements to make them say the EXACT OPPOSITE of what he actually said with O’Donnells use of “Oxford” rather than the name of the college that rented space at Oxford in her resume? Are these two things in the same universe?
william wilson (f6deac) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:31 pmAs much as i care about the truth… if I am Ms. Odonnell… I’ve got bigger fish to fry in the next 4 weeks regardless of what some guy out in CA says i need to fry.
Of course she should punt the LinkedIn questions down the road… at least she isn’t dumb like that…
The national GOP said to it’s candidates via a shot across the bow at Mike Castle… we’d rather run this lady who is a ditz and may well get beat vs. your squishy ass
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:35 pmWhile i understand the use of the term “war” as intended to convey a depth of feeling that I share, I fear some use it as cover for their support of dishonest tactics — a support I do not share. “In a war you can’t worry about honesty.” “In a war we can’t worry about the accuracy of accusations we make against people less famous than us.” And so forth.
That I do not believe in dishonest tactics, inaccurate slanders, and weaselly politicians does not make my hostility towards the destruction of our freedoms and future any less heartfelt than yours.
I am not out to help Coons. If O’Domnell is honest I am out to help her. If she is flat-out lying about this I do not consider it a minor flaw.
If this is a war it cannot be won by shooting but rather only by persuasion. Sacrifice your credibility and your ability to persuade is dead.
How she behaves should be revealing. I do not know if what allegedly happened to her is illegal in her state or not but if she’s telling the truth she will put the matter in the hands of the authorities and let them figure that out.
And if you believe her you should be encouraging her to do just that.
Patterico (a58490) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:36 pmPatterico’s position on this is honorable and sensible. I also think Aphrael is clearly right when he posits that there are plenty of people on both sides of the political divide who let partisanship warp judgment beyond all recognition. I can recall some posters on liberal blogs I follow who insisted that Eliot Spitzer be defended in the wake of his prostitution scandal. Their arguments were very similar to those enunciated by “william wilson.”
Angeleno (196ff8) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:41 pmMaybe, if it sends the message that we need to run candidates who not only have a good message but also good character. However, I think this falls into the category of “it happens.”
Perhaps O’Donnell will make state and local Republicans realize every state-wide race is important but I think they know that already. It’s not easy to get the best candidates to run in races where losing is virtually guaranteed, and that’s what O’Donnell and the GOP faced in 2008. Plus, the 2008 race may have contributed to a feeling with some Republicans that she had paid her dues to the GOP and deserved another shot. Maybe she did.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:45 pm“O’Donnell’s use of”?
She says she didn’t create the page. Did you miss that part?
If she created this page and lied about it? THAT is in the same universe, yes. It would be a flat lie.
If she created this page and lied about it, William Wilson, would you still support her? What with this being a war and all?
It appears your answer is yes because you already think she created the page, and so you must think she is lying when she says she didn’t and you don’t care.
So you have no standing to complain about Grayson’s lies. It’s like I said: you’ll support a liar if it’s your liar.
Because of the WAR.
Patterico (a58490) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:47 pmIndeed. Because nobody is discussing this except some guy out in CA.
And the NYT and WaPo and Associated Press.
But mainly the guy out in CA.
Patterico (a58490) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:50 pmLook, I only have so much time to research this stuff. Maybe she did, maybe she didn’t I don’t know. I will still be rooting for her, not Coons, on election night. My point was to compare the severity of the two lies. So I take it you are rooting for Coons, because she is a liar? And he isn’t?
william wilson (f6deac) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:53 pmI’m rooting for O’Donnell but I’m glad I don’t live in Delaware because I’d have to hold my nose to vote for her. She’s kind of a flake.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 9/29/2010 @ 10:55 pmHow about you stop putting words in my mouth and try reading what I am saying?
We’ll have to see how this all shakes out. I think it’s news and discussing it on a blog is hardly indicative of a desire to help Coons as you keep falsely insinuating.
Patterico (e27779) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:00 pmDRJ, maybe the O’Donnell campaign slogan should be, “Elect Christine. The perfect counterbalance to Al Franken.”
JVW (eccfd6) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:00 pmThe reason I leaned toward O’Donnell over Castle was that I believed Castle, on issues important to conservatives, would vote with the democrats, damaging the republican brand heading toward the 2012 elections. Those are the important elections, 4 more years of Obama is unacceptable. However, at some point I and others have to ask themselves if a Senator O’Donnell may be more damaging to the Republican cause come 2012 then a Senator Coons. If she is lying about this issue I’m probably at that point.
Rick (d204b0) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:01 pmYeah, well I guess i hold your opinion in higher esteem than those other three… but really… with 4 weeks to go?
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:02 pmSpinning wheels fighting this one?
Jeez, JFKerry didn’t even deign to answer whether he shot himself in the ass in VietNam… and that was over a race for President
Coons says “All Christine O’Donnell offers is an ideology.”
Prove him wrong.
It’s unfortunate that he’s running against the Tea Party rather than O’Donnell. It’s a strategy that suggests they take the election win for granted and want to associate the entire opposition movement with one candidate.
The GOP does the same thing with their Pelosi adverts. Or even their Obama ones. Some people turn out to be liabilities for their movement.
I have visited O’donnell’s campaign site several times, looking for a set of policy statements. All I find is this ‘Why Christine?’ page with extremely short issue statements. Many of them aren’t even statements beyond ‘this is bad’.
Coons is wrong on the issues, but his campaign site give the impression he actually would like to win this race. He’s making points and running on something.
I wonder what happens to an O’donnell staffer who notes just how poorly their campaign is being run. I can name many military leaders who fought wars by firing any messengers of bad news.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:06 pmBy the way…. swim in the ocean a bit more.
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:08 pmIt is said to toughen up the skin… but mainly out in CA
That’s funny, JVW, and kind of true. Obviously I like O’Donnell’s politics more than Franken’s but I also suspect she’s a nicer person than Franken. He seems to have a mean streak and I think that is a dangerous trait in a person who holds great power.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:09 pmFranken’s a little bitch.
Rick (d204b0) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:12 pmSadly, Coons is not Al Franken.
He comes across as a swell fella, aside from the completely ridiculous political views he holds, given our nation’s problems.
Did you watch the debate? Coons had O’donnell grinning and applauding him (I am not kidding). He’s smart enough to not appear nasty and mean like Al Franken or Alan Grayson. It’s a shame, because I think Coons is effectively about as bad as Al Franken, for our country. but people care a lot about the idea of not being a nasty jerk.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:19 pmBy the way, my writing style and my personal style are often at odds.
SteveG (cc5dc9) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:20 pmI’m not big on cops, laws (of course only the ones “I” think are dumb…today), and prosecutors etc. in general. But as individuals and in person… we usually get along great.
So periodically I will need to apologize for how I present myself to you and about you.
If I offended you personally (and I think I at least stepped on a pinkie toe) then let me say that from SteveG through Patterico, and up to the NYT… Ms. O’Donnell has bigger fish to fry than the LinkedIn scandal (such as it may seem) over the next 4 weeks
I agree O’Donnell’s best bet is to focus on her message of conservative fiscal issues. Even in a blue state like Delaware, I suspect it will resonate with many voters — which is why we’ll probably see her opponent focus on the personal attacks she’s left herself open to.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:33 pmCoons says “All Christine O’Donnell offers is an ideology.”
And his leftist beliefs aren’t an ideology? You could have fooled me.
One irony in all this is that O’Donnell may not even be all that philosophically anchored, at least to the right. Her former campaign manager said that O’Donnell was less of a conservative — if even that — and more of a chameleon-like opportunist. So who knows if she’d had been less squishy than Castle. And I use past tense in describing her ongoing race because, again, Delaware is full of oh-so-civilized, oh-so-humane leftist voters who probably wouldn’t have favored O’Donnell even if she were Mother Theresa.
Mark (411533) — 9/29/2010 @ 11:43 pmGood point, Mark. I don’t think O’Donnell is so well anchored to ideology either.
But Coons was saying he has ideology plus experience, and then explains his experience and how they relate to his plans. I look to O’Donnell’s site for some policy positions, and get some very short talking points. I am not qualified to run a Senate campaign, but this isn’t how I’d do it.
And Mark’s right to note the real issue is Delaware voters. One way or another, we have to convince them to join the Tea Party. Coons seems to get that this is the larger battle.
Anyway, I think Coons is a pet on Reid’s leash, and he’s very much the ideologue, but I also think senators should have some impressive experience (not necessarily in government).
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 12:03 amBill Maher’s people probably saved her social security number from a contract or release.
Simon (138d5d) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:21 amHere’s another website in which O’Donnell (or an imposter) lists the University of Oxford as a school which she attended. The site appears to have last been updated on 3/10/10, while the biographical info looks to be a couple of years old.
It also claims that O’Donnell had a Bachelors degree…which she didn’t have on 3/10/10.
Education
Abraham Lincoln Fellowship , Constitutional Government
Claremont Institute
Certificate , Post Modernism in the New Millennium
University of Oxford
Bachelors , English and Communications
Fairleigh Dickinson University
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/O'Donnell_Christine_-504003.aspx
For what it’s worth.
Dave Surls (b44240) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:41 amSo far, no one has answered rick on whether someone creating a social/networking account in someone else’s name is illegal in the state where linkedin is based.
It may be she can’t file anything with the police over this. FBI maybe? I don’t know. What’s the law, Pat? Or any other source of info about the law.
jakee308 (e1996a) — 9/30/2010 @ 3:56 amWell, jakee, we need to know where the crime was committed before we know the relevant jurisdiction.
Obviously, since O’donnell actually made the profile, it’s probably in delaware, but if we pretend there’s some chance she didn’t, we don’t really know where that would have happened.
Either way, it’s textbook fraud.
It would be an intentional deception in order to damage another person. Or it’s intentional deception in order to make a personal gain.
Hard to know even when this mythical fakery occurred, though.
Seems to me that she should contact the police even if it’s not clear when and where this crime occurred, or if it violates any particular law. It’s a fraud that should be investigated to determine what laws apply. Sometimes police don’t investigate something if it’s rather obviously not criminal, but I bet they’d look into something as serious as this.
It’s an arguable civil claim anywhere in the country, but if it’s a hoax, or criminal fraud, or some kind of other crime, requires some kind of police report, investigation, etc.
The reason Delaware law provides that O’Donnell can start this investigation without being sure what jurisdiction or law was broken is pretty obvious, IMO.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 4:17 am“I assume O’Donnell has filed or will file a police report alleging some form of identity theft.”
The identity theft law may require fraud-like damages.
imdw (ce700c) — 9/30/2010 @ 4:28 amIMDW, i just proved it doesn’t require anything but a reasonable belief in ID theft, before such a report is filed.
Filing a police report is the correct first step. Well… if you reasonable believe someone stole your ID… which O’donnell probably does not believe.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 4:34 am“IMDW, i just proved it doesn’t require anything but a reasonable belief in ID theft, before such a report is filed.”
That’s nice but for it get much done eventually it will have to violate the law.
But I see your point:
“which O’donnell probably does not believe.”
imdw (2020d4) — 9/30/2010 @ 4:55 amI think the fact that our country, is being stolen from us, is a more pressing issue. That this crew, means to hobble our economy, seize the internet, and any alternate source of news, seems more sympathetic to the enemy than to American people,
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/30/2010 @ 5:18 amian cormac,
Isn’t it possible that by electing someone weak in character and lacking integrity (if this as well as other issues surrounding O’Donnell are found to be fabrications) it could ultimately further the ‘stealing’ of our country? If she is not forthright in the smaller matters even before she’s elected, what makes you believe she will be forthright in the larger matters once in office?
It’s troubling some people cannot see the direct connection between character and behavior.
How one views honesty and integrity *before* being in office is likely how one will be after being in office. So if there’s already a serious issue with her integrity before…
Considering the nature of politics, there will be plenty of opportunities and temptations to compromise that integrity – whatever amount there is.
Dana (8ba2fb) — 9/30/2010 @ 5:59 amAt a certain point, enough is enough.
Christine shouldn’t have been the candidate.
Jack (f9fe53) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:10 amI want to have good people elected, not lying
scumbags. Especially not stupid lying ones.
I have seen how lies can be misrepresented as truth, by a large scale campaign, against a candidate that did speak ‘truth to powet’ using the Journolist, Axelrod’s astroturfing network, and I have seen how these same forces obscured the real ethical shortcomings of really flawed candidates like Biden and Obama, who were complicit by omission at the very least, in the financial crisis that brought this country down, by obstructing needed reforms. I have seen the same machinery operate before in similar fashion, in my own state,
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:11 amI do not understand this construct that if she does not file a police report, she must be lying, or it tells us all we need to know. Is every libelous or slanderous statement considered true unless the aggrieved party files a lawsuit? Maybe, just maybe, O’Donnell’s campaign knows that the longer the focus is on her and not the ideologies of the candidates, she is bound to lose, and chooses to maintain a different focus than what you would focus on. Is that so unreasonable?
JD (b88cc9) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:29 amComment by Patterico — 9/29/2010 @ 10:00 pm
I understand and respect your point regarding the importance of avoiding electing the truth-challenged. But having the truth on your side becomes a hindrance if you’re unable to Control Your Own Narrative.
Whatever you may think of Christine O’Donnell’s personal issues, and the By Any Means Necessary approach her supporters have apparently taken, she politically beheaded her own party’s respected, Electable “Mr. Name You Know.” I don’t care where you sit on the political spectrum; that’s an outstanding accomplishment. That means she’s in Control of Her Own Narrative, and the TV cameras naturally gravitate toward that.
Which means we have to ask ourselves a question: Regardless of her own personal faults, are we as a movement and a political party better off having Christine O’Donnell in the US Senate, or as a TV Pundit? If you are of the line of thought that the answer to that question is an easy one, ask yourself who gets more scrutiny: A US Senator, or a TV Pundit?
Now tell me what your answer to the first question would be.
Brad S (9f6740) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:33 amlinked in put up a statement saying, more or less, “we took it down because she asked us to. as to who put it up, no comment.”
linked in has to be connected to a real email account. if memory serves you even have to activate the profile with a confirmation email, but i could be wrong. someone in my office once put me on it, and i have literally barely touched it since. honestly, i have yet to figure out the purpose of it.
and there is the fact that linked in might have captured the IP of its creator.
as for filing a police report, i am not sure she would understand a law has been broken. as for identity theft, my understanding is that such require that it be done to get money. so this might not count.
But there is a federal law that deals with unauthorized access to a computer. a while back the feds tried to stretch that law to go after that woman who “cyber-bullied” that girl into suicide. (i hate that term, cyber bullying, but it was the popular phrase used in relation to that case.) But that was a really dubious use of that law, and i don’t remember how that turned out. volokh talked about it alot.
Police investigation or not, linked in owes it to us help us find out the truth. they should start telling what they know about the account.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:35 amComment by Simon — 9/30/2010 @ 1:21 am
Bill Maher can be a sleaze a majority of the time, but he’s not that desperate for ratings that he’ll try to make Christine O’Donnell a martyr. He wants her on his show at least somewhat politically unscathed, loss or no loss. He understands the value of her as a TV Pundit after a US Senate race like this one.
Brad S (9f6740) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:41 amSacrifice your credibility and your ability to persuade is dead.
Patterico.
Well said! I am so stealing that!
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:44 amReally, you think much too highly of Maher;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2OUJ8ZUTiI
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:47 amSacrifice your credibility and your ability to persuade is dead.
Patterico.
Again, only insofar as you are in Control Of Your Own Narrative.
Brad S (9f6740) — 9/30/2010 @ 6:48 am“Police investigation or not, linked in owes it to us help us find out the truth. they should start telling what they know about the account.”
It might violate their privacy policy to give out this information without legal process.
imdw (604a8a) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:15 amso basically the Republican party is so rightous, and virtuous, that it will start doing the dirty work for the Democratic party? this attitude is exactly why Republicans never win elections. I think O’Donnell is a crappy candidate but it doesn’t matter since I don’t live in the state of DE. what I’m learning is that the people of DE are weird and elect weird politicians. she is the Republican candidate elected by the people of DE. how about if we take our mother’s advise of “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all”. you don’t have to support her but you also don’t have to drag her through the dirt. the Democrats will be doing plenty of that in the next 4 weeks.
sabine (f6deac) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:32 amThis very much reminds me of the time that there was a dispute on this blog as to whether James O’Keefe had authored a blog containing allegedly racist comments and a description of how he had been expelled from his dorm by a black dean. I argued that if (as some of the other commenters were suggesting) a leftist had faked the blog, Patterico could get a real scoop by exposing the perpetrator. Patterico wasn’t so keen on the idea. Maybe if Mark Levin had been backing O’Keefe . . .
Northeast Elizabeth (9d7da5) — 9/30/2010 @ 10:49 amBradS: “That means she’s in Control of Her Own Narrative, and the TV cameras naturally gravitate toward that.”
Wait, you think that someone who’s the butt of late night TV masturbation jokes and endless academic cred scandals* is in “control of her own narrative”?
You must figure that a lot differently than I do. McCain is an example of someone who controls his own narrative. All the evidence points to him waffling on issues almost as much as Romney, being genuinely out of touch on a lot of issues and disinterested in learning about them, and having a petty mean streak a mile wide, and yet his Maverick schtick still holds some value, he’s on the talking head shows endlessly, and reporters still love him.
That’s narrative control.
* Speaking of the academic thing, I can’t help but compare her to some folks I’ve known personally who lie about their academic backgrounds. It seems to speak to a deep insecurity that I find a frightening prospect in a candidate. All politicians lie, and she seems to frankly suck at lying, which is also a liability, but someone with that deep of a personality problem in my view, needs to be kept away from positions of power. But then, I wouldn’t vote for her anyway, so discount that view as you see appropriate.
Jamie (556525) — 9/30/2010 @ 11:06 amPatterico isn’t keen on personally finding the perp here, either. He’s just pointing out the obvious about a Senate candidate.
It’s so funny how the nuts keep comparing O’Keefe to congressmen and senate candidates.
I do love that you have backtracked ridiculously on that O’Keefe scandal. You know why only nuts bring it up? Because it isn’t a compelling scandal.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 11:20 amWhat dirty work?
Honesty is not dirty work. If an honest appraisal of the facts stunts the campaigns of a few conservatives, that is for the best. We will not reform anything, nor will we have lasting majorities, unless we honesty vet and weed out.
It’s dirty work to play ‘see no evil’.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 11:22 amDustin,
Nobody much talks about O’Keefe these days, nuts or otherwise. And I’m not aware that comparisons of O’Keefe to politicians have been a particularly hot topic anywhere, although you may read different blogs than I do.
In any event, I wasn’t comparing O’Keefe to a politician. My point was that in cases involving the authenticity of a controversial public figure’s internet writings, proving that the writings were actually authored by the person’s opponents can be a powerful publicity too. Patterico clearly recognizes that here, although he’s raising the issue in a deliberately sarcastic manner. He could have also raised it on behalf of O’Keefe.
I would say that supporting O’Donnell (or at least remaining quiet about her) is more important than defending O’Keefe. I understand that Patterico is (rightly) ticked off at Levin, but it’s time to give it a rest. If Biden – who plagiarized and falsified his academic record as badly as O’Donnell — is electable, then O’Donnell is.
Northeast Elizabeth (9d7da5) — 9/30/2010 @ 11:44 amNE Liz, you bashing O’Keefe again is simply you grinding your axe. You have no point other than to just bash the guy.
You’re telling us to ‘let it go’? That’s your conclusion? I thought you were saying it makes sense to ask someone to not let it go, because you did that, and lo, here Patterico is “clearly recognizing that here”.
Oh, but O’donnell is electable despite her personal flaws and we should let it go.
It’s so weird to hear someone say we should hold O’Donnell to such a low standard that we should let go of this issue, because of what you call “more important”. We have different beliefs about what’s important, Elizabeth.
You say you’re not comparing O’Keefe to O’Donnel, but you say insane things like “supporting O’Donnell (or at least remaining quiet about her) is more important than defending O’Keefe.”
You were aggressively dishonest about O’Keefe, but I know you’re probably hoping to change the subject to him. Now you’re preaching we should all be dishonest in how we analyze O’Donnell.
You’re a disgusting specimen.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 11:57 amThank you, Dustin, for saving me the need to respond to this person. I will add merely this: the idea I am discussing this because of anything having to do with Mark Levin is absurd, and is the kind of thing someone would say if they were either ignorant of what happened in my exchange with Levin, or being aggressively dishonest.
Patterico (6dc05f) — 9/30/2010 @ 12:05 pmthe Democrats will be doing plenty of that in the next 4 weeks.
Comment by sabine — 9/30/2010 @ 10:32 am
Exactly why you Reps should be doing it now. Once they (the Dems) lay hands on this issue they will make mincemeat of her in the general. Like Jesus said, If you judge yourself, you will not be judged. You should be happy you have people like Patterico on your side. This to me, is one the best blogs in the whole cyber world! If she can get through this little scandal and resolve it now, she won’t need to worry about the Dems. Faithful are the wounds of a friend. But the kisses (flattery) of your enemy will bring you death! Proverbs 27:6 (paraphrased..)
The Emperor (6e616b) — 9/30/2010 @ 12:16 pmNELiz was very invested in that O’Keefe “scandal”. Very.
JD (45da85) — 9/30/2010 @ 12:16 pmI think it’s fascinating to see all these idiots like Northeast Liz come here to lecture Patterico about what to write on his blog, entertaining some bizarre fantasy that if he did not publish a story mentioning any of O’Donnell’s warts, nobody would find out about them even though the coverage of them is plastered all over the leftosphere and the MFM. I thought the Democrats were the party of Dumb.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 12:19 pmUNITY and PURITY
Bury the truth!!!!!!!11ty!!!!!
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 12:21 pmIt is very refreshing to read the thoughts of someone who genuinely values the truth. That’s why I believe this is one of the best political blogs around. However, I do sometimes find Patterico’s faked bemusement rather annoying. If you doubt O’Donnell’s statement that someone unknown to her created the profile, then simply say so. Stop being cute. It doesn’t suit you.
Max (8d59e0) — 9/30/2010 @ 12:22 pmWell, that’s four trolls all running with the O’Keefe distraction.
SPQR (26be8b) — 9/30/2010 @ 12:29 pmObviously, I like this blog a lot and I comment here quite a bit. You can tell which posts I’m not interested in, on the various blogs I comment on, because I don’t comment on those posts. It happens quite a bit, even on blogs I like a lot.
The idea that I would tell someone else what they shouldn’t write about has never occurred to me. Even on lefty blogs that mention things I think are ridiculous or nasty, I would never pretend it’s my place to tell someone else what to write about.
I just argue with them (until I’m banned, lol). Or I scroll or click to something I am interested in.
It’s 100X more annoying to see people moan ‘don’t write about this’ because they think it’s political disloyalty. What kind of country do these people want to live in?
And how miserable do you have to be to go around telling people to shut up? If it’s that hard to read, go read something else instead.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 12:31 pmMax,
I am trying to let the facts drive my opinion, rather than let my opinion drive the facts.
Patterico (6dc05f) — 9/30/2010 @ 12:50 pmI’m perfectly aware of what happened in the exchange with Levin. Patterico was 100% correct, and I’m sure Levin knew it. Anyone who could read knew it. Levin wouldn’t have bothered responding to Patterico if he didn’t know it. Levin is nationally famous, a millonaire, and wouldn’t have bothered mentioning a (relatively) obscure blogger if he hadn’t been stung and terribly embarrassed. His career wasn’t about to collapse if he just ignored Patterico.
But ultimately I don’t care who was right. I want O’Donnell to win. For the most part, being is a senator is like being a monkey pulling a lever, and even if O’Donnell is a liar about some facts she’s golng to pull more of the levers I like more than Coons will. At some point, Patterico should just be content to know he was right and shut up about O’Donnell.
Patterico also knows I was right about O’Keefe. That’s why he dropped down to thank Dustin for “saving” him the need to respond to me. Patterico doesn’t like being embarrassed with the truth any more than Levin.
How was I aggressively dishonest about O’ Keefe, Dustin? As I recall (though I may be wrong) you were one of the few who, like Patterico AGREED with me that O’Keefe authored those blogs but just didn’t think they were particularly damaging. Which I suppose wound mean that those arguing for the blogs being fake were “aggressively dishonest.”
And one more thing: a primary reason Patterico didn’t involve himself in the O’Keefe comments dispute was that he was embarassed at how much content-free invective was being hurled by those attacking me, rather than rational argument. The name-calling was very reminiscent of Levin’s theatrics.
Northeast Elizabeth (9d7da5) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:06 pmComment by Jamie — 9/30/2010 @ 11:06 am
And every single of those shows that make fun of Crazy Christine wil have her on their shows before the year is out, win or lose. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
THAT’s narrative control. And again, I’m not sure I want to face someone like Crazy Christine in a venue where she’s not going to be scrutinzed too heavily (unlike the US Senate).
Brad S (9f6740) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:08 pmNE Liz: you have a fantasy that I was somehow embarrassed by some “truth” you exposed about O’Keefe that I supposedly tried to hide. This is a delusion and/or a lie.
Patterico (6dc05f) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:24 pmFeel free to show otherwise with quotes and links. Without those you have nothing but contentless assertions that I have avoided the truth. I will not approve any more such contentless assertions. Apologies or proof only.
Patterico (6dc05f) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:27 pmElizabeth
no one is guilty until proven innocent. you have to prove o-keefe did anything. i mean seriously, any idiot could create a blog claiming to be someone else.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:30 pmYeah, Elizabeth, listen to Aaron.
(Actually this IS Aaron, making a point via sock puppetry.)
James O'Keefe (e7d72e) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:31 pmWhose narrative, the one of the Huffington Post, and TPM, that seems to be the template you’re using, or the people at CREW, trust me they always
ian cormac (6709ab) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:48 pmhave our best interests at heart.
Feel free to show otherwise with quotes and links. Without those you have nothing but contentless assertions that I have avoided the truth. I will not approve any more such contentless assertions. Apologies or proof only.
Comment by Patterico — 9/30/2010 @ 1:27 pm
With pleasure. Unfortunately, in this exchange, you’re the Levin, and I’m the Patterico.
(1) The link is here:https://patterico.com/2010/02/04/salon-writer-max-blumenthal-james-okeefe-is-a-racist/
(2) The relevant comments at that lnk are 264 (yours) and 265 (mine).
(3) I reproduce those comments as follows:
264. Note that the only hint of racism in that whole list of allegations is that O’Keefe was ejected from his dorm for using the N-word — yet Northeast Elizabeth pointedly omits that O’Keefe denied using the N-word.
And (assuming it was his blog) he’s the one who talked about it.
So if I write about a false accusation of racism against me, I get to be subject to people like Northeast Elizabeth going around repeating the accusation of racism — but failing to note that I am the one who revealed that accusation, and denied it.
Nice “honesty” there by Northeast Elizabeth. Which leads me to suspect: Moby. Someone with genuine “concerns” would be more honest.
Comment by Patterico — 2/5/2010 @ 7:52 am
265. Patterico,
You’re a bit late to this discussion, but
(1) I’ve repeatedly acknowledged O’Keefe’s denials of the “N” word use (those not the “indian midget” quip) in previous comments, and the possibility that he may have been framed by his roommate.
(2) This still doesn’t explain why he scrubbed the blog right after it was reproduced on the Daily Kos (if it was his blog).
(3) As I’ve also explained before, if it is NOT his blog, it would be fantastic ammunition against Blumenthal & Kos & Co., because it would expose a MASSIVE CONSPIRACY of fabricated evidence against O’Keefe — the created of a fake blog, fake quotes, etc.
So please address these points and retract your disgraceful accusation regarding my honesty. And give me your opinion, as an attorney, on whether “Feathers of Steel” at http://www.libertas.blogspot.com was his blog at Rutgers.
Comment by Northeast Elizabeth — 2/5/2010 @ 7:59 am
I’m perfectly content to rest on the record above as it stands. My assertion that you were embarrassed and “avoided the truth” rest on your failure to address comment number 265, and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t mere oversight or lack of time. And note that point (3) is directly relevant to your (sarcastic) demands that O’Donnell root out the person who falsified a linked-in account in her name.
More specifically on the embarrassment issue, I’m pretty sure you avoided answering my question about “Feathers of Steel” because so many of your loyal commenters were invested in the fantasy that it was Daily Kos forgery. You didn’t want to publicly side with me, and be subject to the same content-free, name-calling, insult-laden abuse I was.
Assuming you respond to this at all, just take a position on whether “Feathers of Steel” was O’Keefe’s blog or third party forgery and I’ll be happy.
Northeast Elizabeth (c780a0) — 9/30/2010 @ 1:55 pmComment 92, I’d like to introduce you to comment 85.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:02 pm“I am trying to let the facts drive my opinion, rather than let my opinion drive the facts.”
Which is why I read your blog. I hope my comments about the rhetorical pose you adopt in this post (and earlier when responding to Reynold’s piece on “eliminationist rhetoric”) did not obscure my admiration for your devotion to the facts.
Max (8d59e0) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:50 pmNortheast Elizabeth – Do you mean that aggressively dishonest Max Blumenthal piece at Salon which linked to a Kos Diary which linked to blogs which O’Keefe had allegedly written which you demanded Patterico actually find out whether O’Keefe had actually written, you know, just to protect us from ourselves, in case he turned out to be a racist or something?
I remember those exchanges. You were a jerk then and you’re being a jerk now.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 2:57 pmI liked talking like Levin, you big fecal heads.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 3:09 pmdaleyrocks,
See above.
And thank you for your content-free, insult-laden comment. Why not call me a “jackass” while you’re at it.
I never demanded that Patterico “find out” whether O’Keefe wrote them. I stated that he, in view of his honesty and his training as an attorney, would agree with me that O’Keefe wrote them rather than subscribing to the Daily Kos conspiracy theory. And I state again, if Patterico indeed responds this time, he will agree with me that O’Keefe was the author (even if he doesn’t thing the blogs are particularly incriminating).
Northeast Elizabeth (c780a0) — 9/30/2010 @ 3:15 pm“And every single of those shows that make fun of Crazy Christine wil have her on their shows before the year is out, win or lose. EVERY SINGLE ONE. THAT’s narrative control. […]”
Um, if you say so. Again, I think we must count “control” differently. Counted your way, the sad kid on the bus who gets picked on every day has masterful narrative control.
Put another way, I think you may be confusing “attention” with “control”.
Jamie (556525) — 9/30/2010 @ 3:25 pm“I never demanded that Patterico “find out” whether O’Keefe wrote them.”
Northeast Elizabeth – Sure you didn’t Liz. Why would Patterico’s trasining as an Attorney give him special knowledge with respect to whether the blog was O’Keefe’s? You never explained that part of your demand. Why could you not just investigate on your own?
“Assuming you respond to this at all, just take a position on whether “Feathers of Steel” was O’Keefe’s blog or third party forgery and I’ll be happy.”
Liz, we don’t want you to be unhappy, but there are some things you just need to let go.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 5:30 pmOh, I forgot, jackass.
daleyrocks (940075) — 9/30/2010 @ 5:31 pmWhy would Patterico’s trasining as an Attorney give him special knowledge with respect to whether the blog was O’Keefe’s? You never explained that part of your demand. Why could you not just investigate on your own?
Because attorneys spend their lives reading and analyzing millions of documents and evaluating their relevance and evidentiary value. Most people outside of the profession don’t, and most journalists who are not attorneys suck at it.
I did investigate it on my own and present a long numbered list of reasons in the comment section at the time. You should have done your own research before asking the question.
Patterico threatened to strike my comments unless I substantiated my claims. I did so, even though it was unnecessary in view of his prior participation in the discussion and easy access to his own blog. Under the circumstances, my request that he answer a simple question is not unreasonable.
It doesn’t surprise me that you stoop to Levin’s name-calling level. I’m sure Patterico is proud of you (although he’ll never threaten to ban your puerile invective).
Northeast Elizabeth (24fc2b) — 9/30/2010 @ 7:34 pm