Patterico's Pontifications


Debunking Tommy Christopher on the Attack on Steve Crowder, Part 4: Why Did Tommy Christopher Not Mention the Statements from Black Witnesses on Who Pulled Down the Tent?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:56 pm

Alternate post title: “Is Tommy Christopher a racist?”

I am spending (at least) five posts ripping apart Tommy Christopher’s recent post about the attack on Steve Crowder.

Part 1 showed how Christopher built his entire post around the false assumption that Lee Stranahan filmed and edited the Crowder video — then rewrote the post to remove the repeated references to Stranahan, and issued a correction that doesn’t come close to revealing how central Christopher’s partisan-driven error was to his post.

Part 2 showed how Christopher misrepresented key aspects of Crowder’s interviews with Sean Hannity and Sun News. Christopher claimed Crowder told viewers he had not pushed anyone. But Crowder said no such thing. Christopher claimed Crowder had admitted in a separate interview that he had pushed the man who punched him. But Crowder said no such thing.

Part 3 took on Christopher’s claim insinuating that the video itself shows Crowder pushing the guy to the ground. Part 3 takes a careful look at the available raw video and shows that it is, in fact, inconsistent with Tommy Christopher’s insinuation.

This post, part 4, examines whether Tommy Christopher is a racist — and concludes that, at least by his standards, he is.

One thing I found curious about Christopher’s post: he gives space (albeit skeptically) to the argument that this was a false flag operation, and that the tent was torn down by Americans for Prosperity insiders:

In the video of the tent incident that columnist Lee Stranahan posted, you can clearly see that many union members are acting to protect the tent, and one witness even told Thom Hartmann that he saw the tent appear to be taken down from the inside, and that it was union members who alerted police and tried to rescue those trapped inside.

The “inside job” part of this man’s story is the least reliable, but Crowder’s dishonesty, and the lack of a full video, raises questions about whether the man he pushed was actually trying to protect the tent, and how violently Crowder pushed him.

It’s great that Christopher deems the “inside job” claim to be the “least reliable” claim the guy makes. But why bring it up at all? And saying it’s the “least reliable” claim leaves open the possibility that it’s somewhat reliable.

I find it fascinating that Christopher gives any space to this claim at all — yet makes no reference to the statements of Clint the hot dog guy and his wife, who say in this video that Americans for Prosperity did not pull down the tent themselves, and that anyone who says they did is a liar:

Clint also says he was called a “nigger” and an “Uncle Tom” by the people pulling down the tent — presumably because he had the gall to sell hot dogs to the AFP people.

Christopher is famously quick to label other people racists. Now: imagine that instead of union people, these were Tea Partiers who called this guy a “nigger” and tore down a tent occupied by left-leaning folks. Do you think Tommy Christopher would be ignoring the testimony of the black man who lost part of his business to the Tea Partiers who called the man racial slurs?

I venture to say that, in such a situation, Christopher not only would have highlighted that part of the story, but would have labeled “racist” anyone who disbelieved or contradicted or ignored the black man’s statements.

I’m not saying Tommy Christopher is a racist for ignoring Clint’s statements, or for ignoring in this piece the way that Clint was abused by lefty racists. But if the tables were turned, that’s what he would be saying.

Tommy Christopher may not be a racist. But if you apply his own standards to his conduct here, you would conclude that he is.


  1. Ding.

    Comment by Patterico (8b3905) — 12/18/2012 @ 9:56 pm

  2. of course he’s a racist. all lieberals are, which is why they believe no one can advance in the world without their help and guidance, courtesy of the benevolent government that you proles are too stupid to listen to.

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 12/18/2012 @ 10:26 pm

  3. besides, Clint and his wife are conservatives, from all i’ve read, so it’s not like they are really “black black”…

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 12/18/2012 @ 10:27 pm

  4. I’m not sure that’s true, red. Source?

    Comment by Patterico (8b3905) — 12/18/2012 @ 10:34 pm

  5. I know this isn’t the thread for it, but merry Christmas Patterico, for all you do and do above and beyond and the junk that gets tossed your way… I hope next year is so much better then what has happened. Sorry that such crazy people exist. Thank you for your voice.

    Comment by G (bbda88) — 12/18/2012 @ 10:55 pm

  6. He is usually one of the first to identify the dog whistle, so it would stand to reason that Tommy Christopher is, indeed, a racist.

    He just didn’t want to take the word of this uppity darkie over some anonymous voice on the Hartman show…

    Comment by Ghost (2d8874) — 12/18/2012 @ 11:19 pm

  7. Interesting that Tommy ignored Clint, because Tommy did not ignore the Congressional Black Caucus claims about the Tea Party calling them the N word. In fact, in Hating Breitbart, he tries to downplay the video evidence showing the slurs didn’t happen as not really being any proof.

    Comment by Marooned in Marin (59600d) — 12/19/2012 @ 3:55 am

  8. Gee, Christopher’s entire argument seems to boil down to: He is more suspicious (hateful?) of Crowder than words of union members that he labels ‘least reliable’. He therefore considers their story potentially more credible. As I read it, there isn’t even any effort to measure or qualify the reliability of any or either. But clearly to him, one side is less trustworthy because of some reason not highlighted (but we can all guess what it is).

    It’s a good thing that such shallow and inept reasoning is shunned and rebuked in most professions. Otherwise our laws and legal rulings would be quite the mess, or infinitely more so, and our bridges and buildings would be unusable.

    Comment by JohnInMA (0d6af8) — 12/19/2012 @ 5:24 am

  9. Malkin, maybe? i read that she was a local Republican official, IIRC.

    i’ll have to do a search and see if i can find it.

    i read too damn much. 8)

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 12/19/2012 @ 7:24 am

  10. seems i did ‘member right. her name is Linds, according to the last paragraph here.

    a search for “Linda Tarver Republicn” turns up numerous hits, such as LinkedIn, and this interview that has a video at the bottom.

    the screen cap showing there looks like the person on the video screen shot you posted, so i’d say that’s a lock.

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 12/19/2012 @ 7:36 am

  11. Linda Tarver is a big Tea Party supporter. Clint is apparently a well known hot dog vender at the capital (there was a YouTube video profiling him. It said he caters during the cold months.) According to Linda, Clint was hired to cater AFP. Linda said that Clint isn’t even very political.


    Here’s the video on YouTube profiling Clint:

    Comment by ratbeach (f5aad4) — 12/19/2012 @ 9:10 am

  12. Clint had nice things to say about Mittens in a Slate interview (third para from the bottom), and the local left seems to hate him.

    if anything, i’d imagine he would play down his politics because he’s black, because to be black & conservative is to be targeted by the left, and that would effect his business.

    terrorism and suppression is the left’s stock in trade.

    Comment by redc1c4 (403dff) — 12/19/2012 @ 10:04 am

  13. Greg McNeal’s coverage of this story at Forbes hasn’t gotten much love:

    He started asking the right questions from day 1 (Dec. 11th) and the only comments have come from leftist trolls including one “Stephen Diamond” a leftist law professor.

    Considering Greg McNeal asked all the right questions, any moonbat conspiracy-think about “questions now being raised” from the leftist blogs in the week after the assault on AFP are clearly yellow journalism. Or maybe “red” journalism.

    Comment by Neo (c2a3b0) — 12/19/2012 @ 5:49 pm

  14. if you apply his own standards to his conduct here, you would conclude that he is

    Wouldn’t he have to have standards before he could have them applied against him?

    Comment by Bill M (2f7437) — 12/19/2012 @ 5:58 pm

  15. One wonders how far the propensity to deceive extends, they cover up an assault, would they try to go further, we know how persons of a similar mindset tampered with audio, video and transcript
    to incite a ‘two minute hate’ one of which was rehired in Seattle, we know nothing Christopher does leads to sanctions from Mediaite?

    Comment by narciso (ee31f1) — 12/19/2012 @ 6:06 pm

  16. I know this isn’t the thread for it, but merry Christmas Patterico, for all you do and do above and beyond and the junk that gets tossed your way… I hope next year is so much better then what has happened. Sorry that such crazy people exist. Thank you for your voice.

    Thanks, G. Hey, as far as I’m concerned, any thread is the thread for a comment like that.

    Comment by Patterico (8b3905) — 12/19/2012 @ 6:30 pm

  17. “raises questions about whether the man he pushed was actually trying to protect the tent”

    The guy that attacked Crowder wasn’t protecting the tent. He was protecting Chris Opalewski, who was trying to bring down the tent. After Tony and Hard Hat guy menaced Crowder and the other guy (who pushed or somehow stopped Opalewski) you can see Opalewski continue to take down the tent in the background behind the Union guys. Aiding and abetting a crime is also a crime, right?

    Cenk Uygur claims Tony was “standing calmly.”

    Chris Opalewski hating on fellow (Police) Union members.

    Comment by Neo (c2a3b0) — 12/19/2012 @ 9:16 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1516 secs.