Patterico's Pontifications

2/12/2010

A Direct Response to the Ridiculous Screeds from Marcy Wheeler, Eric Boehlert, and Brad Friedman

Filed under: — Patterico @ 1:58 am

As I note in this post, Marcy Wheeler, Eric Boehlert, and Brad Friedman have spent gobs of time over the past couple of days defending people who tried to aid a child prostitution ring. All three have been furiously writing thousands of words today about the following “critical” issue: when James O’Keefe told ACORN employees that he was a pimp for child prostitutes, was he also dressed as a pimp?

You and I might say: who fucking cares? In fact, I have said precisely that. But to these clowns, O’Keefe’s clothing is somehow the biggest salient point of the ACORN scandal.

In the course of their screeds, they have accused me of getting the facts wrong about this critical clothing issue, in this post on my blog. The accusation is a red herring that I won’t dignify with a post on the main page of this blog, because it’s not worth the space. However, I will directly address their false accusations here — as well as lay out a rich cornucopia of falsehoods that they have not corrected.

Let’s start with Marcy Wheeler. She starts her post by carefully explaining that her use of the term “TeaBugger” for James O’Keefe supposedly has nothing to do with the erroneous allegations repeated by several Big Media outlets that O’Keefe had tried to “bug” the offices of Mary Landrieu. Why, the similarity of the words and the timing is all just one grand coincidence! Wheeler gives several definitions of “bugger” and argues that she was using the word in the sense of a “fuck-up”:

Patterico may not know me well enough to know that I live with an Irishman, and therefore it is not uncommon for me to hear and even use the word “bugger” as the Irish or Brits or Aussies do, as a catchall swear word generally tied to a fuck-up (though said Irishman wants it known that he says “bollocks” more than he does “bugger”). But it’s hard to know anything about me without knowing that I have a bit of a reputation for having a potty-mouth.

Yuh-huh. I’ll leave it to readers to make their own judgments concerning how likely this explanation is. OK, that’s not true: I will now give my own opinion about this explanation. Namely: Marcy Wheeler’s explanation is completely transparent bullshit.

Here is the search for “TeaBugger” at FireDogLake. I went through about a dozen pages of results, and did not see a single one that referred to anyone as a “TeaBugger” other than the O’Keefe Four who were falsely accused of bugging Landrieu. In fact, Wheeler has been very careful to distinguish between “TeaBaggers” (her idiot term for Tea Party activists) and “TeaBuggers” (her idiot term for O’Keefe and his compatriots).

It could not be more obvious that Wheeler used the term “TeaBugger” as a little pun on the idiot liberal term “TeaBagger.” In other words, she employed the term as a way to mock O’Keefe and his three compatriots as people trying to “bug” Landrieu’s office. Now, it is crystal clear that they were not doing that. But Wheeler is too wedded to the cutesy term to discard it for some reason so trivial as its inaccuracy. So she continues to use it — and when I call her on it, she devises some transparently false excuse for using the term.

The “TeaBugger” term (which, again, is founded on a lie) is repeated by Friedman, who piles on the irony with a post that contains phrases like this:

he must also hurl all sorts of names and whiffed attempts at insults . . .

juxtaposed with phrases like this:

Patty had his panties in a crunchy wad last night . . .

Friedman’s post declines to address any of the ACORN-generated lies that he has recently rebroadcast on his site, such as this:

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 manner,” Russell explains.

(I provided the video proving the bolded portion to be a lie here.)

and this:

“We have only seen the videos posted online by O’Keefe who has refused to release the unedited tapes. He also refused to release the unedited tapes or be interviewed during Scott Harshbarger’s investigation,” [ACORN Stooge] Whelan explained in his Wednesday email.

“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.”

That’s a goddamned lie. O’Keefe presented himself as the up-and-coming owner of a brothel of underage prostitutes from El Salvador — prostitutes as young as 13 and 14 years of age.

He posed as a pimp. A pimp of the worst possible kind.

And what about the unedited audio? That is rather conveniently not referred to in the stooge’s e-mail or on Friedman’s moron blog.

If I had the ethics of Friedman or Boehlert, I would stop right there. I have found the softest spots in their posts — the most obvious lies, that are the easiest to debunk — and shredded them.

But there is another argument that Boehlert has made that is harder to rebut — and indeed, there is a grain of truth in what he says. A grain. So let me address that.

But first let me point out that this is exactly what these people NEVER do. The hardest blows that I land on them, they simply ignore, and pretend they never happened. Answering the toughest charges is something they never bother even to attempt. They think these omissions show strength, but they actually show dishonesty and weakness.

Now, let me do what these people never bother to do, and address their central argument.

This is really getting down in the weeds (because their point is so trivial — and as we will see, it ultimately hurts ACORN more than it helps ACORN . . . not that they understand this). But stick with me.

It all started with Friedman writing an absurdly meandering and lengthy screed in which he railed on and on about how the New York Times supposedly suggested that James O’Keefe wore his pimp get-up in the ACORN offices.

Why Friedman thinks it will help ACORN to prove he didn’t, I have no idea. I know people — Lee Stranahan is one of them — who assumed that O’Keefe was wearing the pimp get-up in the offices, and therefore (they believe) the ACORN people could not have taken him seriously. Showing that O’Keefe didn’t wear the get-up inside the offices (and I believe he didn’t) simply reinforces the damning impression that the ACORN workers DID take him seriously as a would-be pimp of child prostitutes . . . and nevertheless agreed to help him break various federal laws in order to continue his trafficking in underaged prostitutes smuggled in from El Salvador.

So anyway, what was Friedman’s proof that the New York Times had claimed that O’Keefe had dressed as a pimp? He quoted at length several different articles, in the New York Times and elsewhere, saying that O’Keefe had POSED as a pimp:

• After Arrest, Provocateur’s Tactics Questioned
Campbell Robertson and Liz Robbins, Published: January 27, 2010:
“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.”

• High Jinks to Handcuffs for Landrieu Provocateur
Jim Rutenberg and Campbell Robertson, Published: January 31, 2010:
“Mr. O’Keefe made his biggest national splash last year when he dressed up as a pimp and trained his secret camera on counselors with the liberal community group Acorn – eliciting advice on financing a brothel on videos that would threaten to become Acorn’s undoing.”

• O’Keefe Talks to Fox About His Landrieu-Office Arrest
Kate Phillips, Published: February 2, 2010:
“James O’Keefe, the young videographer who caused an uproar last year by surreptitiously recording himself and an associate, posing as a pimp and prostitute, getting business advice from workers at Acorn…”

The Times website also published a number of reports from wire services such as Reuters and Associated Press which forwarded the same inaccurate assertions:

• Activist Accused Of Tampering With Senator’s Phone
By REUTERS, Published: January 26, 2010:
“…among those arrested on Monday was James O’Keefe, who, posing as a pimp and accompanied by a woman pretending to be a prostitute, filmed workers with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN…”

• 4 Men Accused of Scheme With La. Senator’s Phones
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Published: January 26, 2010:
“A hero of conservatives who bruised the liberal group ACORN by posing as a pimp on hidden camera…”

• Phone-Tampering Case: Prank or Political Spying?
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Published: January 27, 2010:
“Last year, O’Keefe, a 25-year-old self-described investigative journalist, posed as a pimp in the hidden-camera videos that embarrassed the community organizing group ACORN.”

• Activist Touted ‘Project’ Before Phone Tamper Case
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press, Published: January 27, 2010:
“Last year, O’Keefe, a 25-year-old self-described investigative journalist, posed as a pimp in the hidden-camera videos that embarrassed the community organizing group ACORN.”

[The above article was replaced on the Times site by the next one for some reason. The old link is still there when searching NYTimes.com, but it now goes to the following story instead]

• Lawyer: Phone Scheme Meant to Embarrass Senator
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Published: January 28, 2010:
“…activist James O’Keefe, known for posing as a pimp and using a hidden camera to target the community-organizing group ACORN…”

Note that, with one minor exception, each and every single one of these stories cited by Friedman said that O’Keefe “posed” as a pimp. (The other said he dressed as one but did not say he did so inside ACORN’s offices.)

Well, guess what? You needn’t DRESS as a pimp to POSE as a pimp. The word “pose” encompasses merely ACTING in a particular role, which is exactly what O’Keefe did. He POSED as a pimp who planned to run a house of child prostitution.

Eric Boehlert, the Media Matters moron, followed up with this:

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.

None of Friedman’s numerous cited sources — not one! — substantiated this claim. And so, I noted that fact:

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.

It is clear that I am noting the deficiences in the citations BY FRIEDMAN. But, you know, that requires CONTEXT.

Boehlert, in his characteristic “let me rip your statements from context, isolate one of them, recharacterize it in my own words, and then refute it” style, today triumphantly declares:

Yet, as I noted, the Times has made the dressed-like-a-pimp-inside-ACORN-offices claim. Now Patterico says I got it wrong and that the newspaper has never claimed that O’Keefe was dressed that way when he made his undercover tapes. Patterico insists the Times simply described O’Keefe as playing the part of the pimp, or posing, and not actually dressed that way.

Scolds the clueless Patterico [emphasis original]:

Uh, no, dopey. The Times hasn’t. Nor have the other outlets cited by [Brad] 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.

K. Ready for the embarrassing part where I quote the New York Times claiming O’Keefe was dressed as a pimp visiting ACORN offices?

Behold:

The undercover videos showed a scantily dressed young woman, Hannah Giles, posing as a prostitute, while a young man, James O’Keefe, played her pimp. They visited Acorn offices in Baltimore, Washington, Brooklyn and San Bernardino, Calif., candidly describing their illicit business and asking the advice of Acorn workers. Among other questions, they asked how to buy a house to use as a brothel employing under-age girls from El Salvador. Mr. O’Keefe, 25, a filmmaker and conservative activist, was dressed so outlandishly that he might have been playing in a risque high school play.

And again:

But never has his work had anything like the impact of the Acorn expose, conducted by Mr. O’Keefe and a friend he met through Facebook, 20-year-old Hannah Giles. Their travels in the gaudy guise of pimp and prostitute through various offices of Acorn, the national community organizing group, caught its low-level employees in five cities sounding eager to assist with tax evasion, human smuggling and child prostitution.

Honestly Patterico. If you’re going to try to play this game, get a Nexis account. Or at least Google.

Now. Neither of these articles was quoted or cited by Friedman, which is the main point. But it is certainly not outlandish to read these articles as signifying, not only that they were posing as pimp and prostitute, but that they were both dressed that way. So Boehlert’s claim, which appeared to have been based on Friedman’s evidence-free post, may (accidentally, I’m sure) have turned out to have more evidentiary support than it appeared at first blush.

Does that merit a “correction” by me? I don’t think so — not when you take context into account. I was talking about Friedman’s evidence, and responding to Boehlert’s citation of Friedman’s post, and noting that Friedman’s post had no evidence.

But it’s a fair point to acknowledge. I have certainly never appointed myself Chief Defender of the New York Times and I’m not starting now.

What these clowns don’t seem to realize is that, if the NYT did get it wrong, that fact is WORSE for ACORN — because it removes any defense to the effect of “we weren’t taking O’Keefe seriously because of his clothes.”

Man. Can you see the top of the weeds around you? We are DEEP down in there.

Which brings us back to the main point: we shouldn’t be going there.

There is a bigger issue here, and it is one that Boehlert and Friedman and Wheeler keep dodging.

Tax fraud.

Mortgage fraud.

Child prostitution.

By ACORN.

ACORN employees engaged in sickening, disgusting, immoral behavior. Where is the outrage from these liberals? Where are the calls for a criminal investigation?

Again: the silence is deafening. Because of partisan politics. Because these three are hacks.

UPDATE: Just to make everything crystal, crystal clear, I have added the following update to my original post on the all-important clothing issue:

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.

35 Responses to “A Direct Response to the Ridiculous Screeds from Marcy Wheeler, Eric Boehlert, and Brad Friedman”

  1. I know that you’ve made the point above, but I still don’t get why these people think it’s an important point as to whether O’Keefe wore any special garb to look like a pimp. Is there some lack of credibility on his part if he didn’t dress like he were a side character out of Shaft? Or like Michael Keaton in Night Shift?

    I’m not kidding — what exactly is their point? Other than to pick at nits that aren’t even there?

    Dudes, give it up. That’s not lice you’re trying to deal with, it’s the DTs.

    meep (d93c62)

  2. Their point is that you – Patterico – made an error in your post. Intentional or not, you should admit the mistake and move on.

    Pretty simple really.

    You stated the NYT never said he was dressed in his Pimp costume. That is not true. Being generous I’d call it a mistake. All your subsequent posts appear to me to show your inablity to admit a simple mistake is symptomatic of your inablity to admit your humanity.

    This is a bigger deal becuase your pride won’t allow you to admit you f’ed up.

    Man up. You’re not perfect. No one is.

    Your posts in defense of an obvious error bring the rest of your statements into question and cause any valid points you try to make suspect at best.

    Ira (2b3b9e)

  3. Ira – Pat admitted where his argument had a flaw. That’s more than hacks like this crew is likely to do. And this is a part of their M.O. – stand up, make false allegations, and pretend they can’t even understand English when you lay out their error.

    I have recent experience with this at Mediaite.com, the site founded less than a year ago (or so) by former MSNBC host Dan Abrams and staffed by young NYC leftists. They hate Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin, and throw all kind of schtuff against them without fact-checking. When you catch them (and it AIN’T hard), they either play dumb or clam up.

    After about two months of busting them with links and solid facts, Managing Editor Colby Hall informed me I was banned from the site. Inquiring as to what standards I had violated (since I don’t use profanity or vulgar language in my posts as many did), he said something about “the commenting experience is more pleasant when you’re not around.” Apparently, my comments were cramping the style of the serial slimers there, particularly Glynnis “Glynnocchio” MacNicol, who used to co-host an Air America radio show with Ana Marie “Wonkette” Cox.

    Pat, ignore Ira. You done good.

    L.N. Smithee (54e271)

  4. No, you were NOT talking about what Friedman had said when you said

    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.

    You were saying that the The Times never said what they, in fact, DID say.

    And stop with the strawman arguments please. No one has said that this is a really important bit of info that has earthshattering consequences, so stop saying that some on the left must think so. No one has ever thought, or ever said ANYTHING that could be reasonably assumed to mean that we think it’s the most salient point. And no one has been ‘defending’ anyone who wanted to aid a child prostitution ring. You just sound stupid when you make such strawmen arguments.

    Dolly Madison (27edca)

  5. Dolly Madison,

    You’re the same person who falsely claims on every Boehlert post that I delete your comments.

    Just so everyone understands what a fucking liar you are.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  6. “You stated the NYT never said he was dressed in his Pimp costume.”

    Ira,

    Unless you’re demanding corrections from Friedman and Boehlert for their numerous lies, you can take your alleged regard for the facts and shove it up your Eric Boehlert.

    Everyone else sees the context: these people make unsupported claims, I note the lack of support, and they dig up new evidence.

    All over utterly trivial bullshit.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  7. Pat,

    Ira and “Dolly Madison” are two more examples of the Cult of Liberalism.

    PCD (1d8b6d)

  8. Dolly Madison,

    You’re the same person who falsely claims on every Boehlert post that I delete your comments.

    Just so everyone understands what a fucking liar you are.

    Comment by Patterico — 2/12/2010 @ 7:05 am

    Wait – did I understand that right? Dolly Madison is…Brad Friedman? This Brad Friedman?

    haahahaha But was he dressed as Dolly Madison? Inquiring minds want to know…!

    no one you know (196ed7)

  9. I have updated this page to note Boehlert’s subsequent findings re the NYT’s apparent errors. As noted in the update, I also updated the original post with language noting his subsequent discoveries.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  10. One little nugget of partial truth in a steaming pile of lies. Watch these clowns now try to show that because one of their points was true, that proves the rest of their points (lies) to be true.

    JD (9f8068)

  11. The venow with which the author and his supporters hurl invectives is sad.

    Did I hurt your feelings? Too bad.

    Elections have consequesnces, deal with it.

    Ira (2b3b9e)

  12. Notice how quickly the concern troll mask came off?

    JD (61ed4f)

  13. So, Ira, do the multiple lies and falsehoods peddled by your liberal triumvirate bring into question all of their offerings to you, or do you only apply that standard to those you claim superiority over?

    JD (61ed4f)

  14. Maybe Ira can explain to us why what was worn is so important, and how it effects what the ACORN people voluntarily offered to do.

    JD (61ed4f)

  15. Elections have consequesnces, deal with it.

    What consequences are you referring to? The inability to get an agenda passed when you control the freaking government? I can deal with those consequences. Can you?

    Sue (2442a4)

  16. #10:

    Did I hurt your feelings? Too bad.

    Uh, no.

    Elections have consequesnces, deal with it.

    Uhm, I still haven’t been told why it matters what O’Keefe was wearing and when, so I don’t get what elections you are bringing up?

    The upcoming ones in which it looks like the Dems and all their sycophantic enablers are going to take a serious hit to their un-American agenda, or the last one, which is causing the American people to “deal with it?”

    EW1(SG) (edc268)

  17. To answer your feeble points:

    Boehlert only pointed out that the claim that the NY Times never mentioned O’Keefe in his Pimp outfit was demonstrably false. He then provided actual quotes from NYT articles to prove his point.

    THAT WAS THE ISSUE.

    All you folks focusing on other topics are doing is setting up strawmen. You just don’t get how logical arguments are made and I thank you for the laughs!

    As for the consequences…

    The GOP/Tea Party/Palinistas are becoming fused in the minds of moderates – the true drivers of electoral victory. Keep it up, please!

    Your leaders are being exposed and your ideas – when you actually have any – are being ridiculed.

    Let the name calling begin.

    Ira (2b3b9e)

  18. Ira, you seem not to really understand what “strawmen” are. That Boehlert’s argument are in fact strawmen and non sequiturs, rather than brillian logic, is going over your head.

    And as is usual with the projection you and your buddies demonstrate regularly, we know who is doing the name calling, don’t we?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  19. Ira is apparently quite alright with the other lies and falsehoods pushed by Boehlert/Wheeler/Brad, as what clothes were worn is obviously the most important aspect of this issue. Plus, you neanderthal teabaggers/teabuggers are too stooooopid to realize what kind of electoral damage you are doing. Ignore VA, NJ, MA. Look! Bunnies !!!

    JD (24fe7d)

  20. Killer Bunnies, JD, given Avattoir’s favorite film. Killer Bunnies.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  21. SPQR – notice how avatoir disappeared when Stashiu called it out on its multiple names?

    JD (24fe7d)

  22. Having just stumbled across this site, I must say that it’s very entertaining.

    I’ll add it to my daily readings.

    Thanks for the laughs!

    Comment by Ira — 2/12/2010

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Their point is that you – Patterico – made an error in your post. Intentional or not, you should admit the mistake and move on.

    Pretty simple really.

    You stated the NYT never said he was dressed in his Pimp costume. That is not true. Being generous I’d call it a mistake. All your subsequent posts appear to me to show your inablity to admit a simple mistake is symptomatic of your inablity to admit your humanity.

    This is a bigger deal becuase your pride won’t allow you to admit you f’ed up.

    Man up. You’re not perfect. No one is.

    Your posts in defense of an obvious error bring the rest of your statements into question and cause any valid points you try to make suspect at best.

    Comment by Ira — 2/12/2010

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Twit goes from stumbling across this site to attack-mode in nothing flat. Simply amazing.

    GeneralMalaise (4d34a1)

  23. Tax fraud.

    Mortgage fraud.

    Child prostitution.

    By ACORN.

    ACORN employees engaged in sickening, disgusting, immoral behavior. Where is the outrage from these liberals? Where are the calls for a criminal investigation?

    Try here.

    Pons Asinorum (f6829b)

  24. So Freidman, Borhelert et al cite several NYT and other stories that DON’T say O’Keefe dressed in a costume, but lie about what it said.

    Patterico points out that their cites are not supporting their claims.

    they find that the NYT eventually did say what was claimed once. Though it was an error.

    Patterico acknowledges that, yes, apparently the NYT made that mistake once.

    How does this make Patterico dishonest? He’s not able to memorize every paper in America and defend their content. If you claim something with a link, and the link doesn’t support what you say, that’s on YOU. When someone points out your error, and you eventually find something that makes your claim, that’s still on you.

    And while Ira goes on and on and on about what the issue is, she is clearly ignoring what the issue actually is to find something, anything to attack with. But Patterico can just own that the NYT made this error once, and go on with his general argument that ACORN defenders like Freidman and Boehlert are dishonest.

    The real question is: how much money does it take to defend ACORN in this manner? They are destroying our communities, and there’s proof. Drug dealers and pimps need help to hide their profits and organize their operation in inner cities. They can’t get away with that in ACORN free towns.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  25. You forgot Immigration fraud down in San Diego

    SteveG (909b57)

  26. Why is anyone concerned about what clothes O’Keefe was wearing? Are the fashion police collecting evidence?

    Good lord.

    Dianna (5f6ad4)

  27. Because Dianna, that’s the only defense of ACORN’s criminal conduct that they can come up with. It’s on the line of, don’t pay any attention to the elephant, quick look over there, it’s a bunny wabbit.

    peedoffamerican (5acf59)

  28. In other words, she employed the term as a way to mock O’Keefe and his three compatriots as people trying to “bug” Landrieu’s office. Now, it is crystal clear that they were not doing that.

    “..as a way to mock O’Keefe and his three compatriots” Certainly Isn’t it fair game to mock people who buggered a covert political operation?

    Can we dispense with the talking point that O’Keefe is a journalist? He’s not. He’s a political activist.

    “as people trying to “bug” Landrieu’s office”… That would be your read but if I had to ask someone, I’d ask her not you, she wrote it.

    Her explanation of bugger fits better than yours, it references the FBI and the media’s belief that bugging was what the O’Keefe Four were trying to do and it references bugger as in, “f*cked it up”. That they fucked it up is obvious becuase they were all arrested by Federal Marshals on a felony count, and I presume they didn’t finish what they went there to do. Buggered.

    No matter what the were trying to do and who can say what they were trying to do because they have not (not that they are credible), they have only said that they were not there to bug but some other reason. Maybe they should consider coming clean.

    O’Keefe wants the video released (not just the audio.) Why shouldn’t he offer the same with original uncut the ACORN footage? Then the question of whether Okeefe did or did not wear the pimp outfit into Acorn would be answered. The NYT says he did. You say he didn’t.

    Is it fair to say “deception” was an essential element of the O’KeefeFour’s plan, whatever the objective? Two of O’Keefe co-conspirators (I use that word in the colloquial sense not the legal sense) were dressed telecom workers not in clothes they would were to work everyday. Isn’t that a deception? Why did they have to conceal their own identities and project another identity in order to accomplish what they set out to do?

    Why did they need to go to the telecom closet?

    Neil Sagan (a25f81)

  29. More asspulls and baseless assertions and lies, Neil. That is no way to win friends and influence people.

    JD (f2435b)

  30. Neil is just asking questions, sort of like Andrew Sullivan.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  31. If you (Neil) cannot even spell a simple four-letter word correctly (wear), your reasoning abilities are obviously severely lacking. Let me guess, you graduated from an inner-city public school.

    John Hitchcock (e56f5d)

  32. John – Neil is just demonstrating the characteristics of a typical Obama voter.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  33. Gotta say SpellCheck is sorely lacking. If you spell the word wrong by spelling a wrong word right, SpellCheck doesn’t hit. That’s where ejumakashun comes into play.

    John Hitchcock (e56f5d)

  34. @28 Neil Sagan — Can we dispense with the talking point that O’Keefe is a journalist? He’s not. He’s a political activist.

    So what; that changes nothing. Child rape (in any of its forms) is still wrong.

    Child rape is the basest behavior within all mankind. It does not matter if the person who discovers such behavior was dressed funny, or is not a journalist, or is a conservative (or liberal). A person who discovers and reports child rape is a hero.

    Why is it that some are now excusing child rape (it’s not rape-rape) or child prostitution (O’Keefe is not a journalist) based on the perpetrator’s political beliefs? It is wrong regardless of political persuasion. Failure to condemn it, especially by those who enjoy a popular website and following, are just as reprehensible; as are the apologists and defenders of child rape.

    These predators and all their allies are shameful; warped morals coupled with a pervert’s heart.

    Pons Asinorum (f6829b)

  35. […] on what we’ve seen from Friedman’s blog lately, you’re likely to get about one hour of Friedman’s nonsense and misrepresentations, and […]

    Patterico's Pontifications » Patterico on “Stage Right” Radio Show Tonight (e4ab32)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2050 secs.