Patterico's Pontifications

4/12/2015

NY Post Cover Makes Eric Boehlert Very Unhappy

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:11 am



[guest post by Dana]

As Americans anxiously await Hillary Clinton’s formal announcement that she will run for president, the NY Post is taking heat for today’s cover:

Untitled-1

Via Twitchy, Eric Boehlert is having a bit of a hissy fit about it:

and so it begins….@nypost mocks Hillary as an “aging hoofer” “close to her expiration date.”

So far, polite silence from DC pundits in the face of rancid anti-Hillary misogyny from @nypost; that’s how the media game gets played.

and if you think DC press will condemn that kind of rancid sexism, you slept through 2008;

As we learned in 2008, RW sexist commentary was oddly okay, even among “liberal” commentators, if it was targeted at Hillary. Still true?

Funny how Boehlert is not an equal-opportunity accuser of ageism and sexism, or simultaneous acts of ageism and sexism.

–Dana

ADDED: I wanted to note that it’s ironic that Hillary is not even yet officially out of the gate and already a man is defending her and attempting to shield her. I would think that any woman running for president and worth her feminist salt, would reject his defense of her, tell him to back off, and then get to the business of being an equal-opportunity candidate. Sort of like another female public figure recently did.

1/5/2012

Eric Boehlert Cites Gingrich As Proof Swift Vets Were Liars

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:28 am



And attacks me in the process:

Responding to a relentless wave of Iowa attacks ads produced by a Mitt Romney-friendly Super PAC, an angry Newt Gingrich last week challenged Romney to debate the “dishonest” commercials. Over the holiday weekend, Gingrich said of the ads, “I feel Romney-boated.”

. . . .

But wait, everyone knows the Swifties peddled slanderous lies about John Kerry, right? Everyone acknowledges their ad campaign represented a new low point in American politics, right?

Wrong.

For years, prominent right-wing bloggers have clung to the parallel universe belief that the Swifties were honorable men and that none of their wild Vietnam War claims about Kerry were ever debunked. Within the right-wing media, the Swift Boat Veterans are fondly remembered as heroes who “courageously told the untold truths.”

Previously, from Michelle Malkin:

A reminder to conservatives: “Swift-Boating” does not equal smearing. Swift-Boating means exposing hard truths about corrupt Democrats.

From Powerline:

Most of what the Vets said in their ads has never been disputed, let alone discredited.

From Patterico’s Pontifications:

The canard that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was a “smear campaign” is so well accepted by Big Media that ABC NEWS feels comfortable in portraying the Swifties’ ad campaign as “slanderous” and “smear ads.”

On and on the denial goes as far-right bloggers cling to their Swift Boat fantasy.

Actually, the fantasy and spinning is being done by Eric Boehlert. Let’s look at the post of mine that he links. In it, do I engage in denial or factual distortion? No. Instead, I note that Beldar had issued a challenge for anyone to prove a material fact that the Swifties had lied about — a challenge unmet to this day. Meanwhile, I noted, Big Media adopted the herd-like canard that “Swift Boating” means “lying” while themselves distorting the facts:

Meanwhile, I have yet to see anyone meet Beldar’s challenge to name a single specific and material statement of fact by the Swift Boaters that has been fully debunked, or shown to be fully unsubstantiated.

Wouldn’t stating material falsehoods be a critical component of a “slanderous” campaign of “smear ads”?

In fact, as I have previously observed, the media often has a worse track record of inaccuracies on this issue than do the Swifties.

Boehlert can’t confront me on the facts. Indeed, I would post this as a comment at Media Matters, but I am essentially banned there (at least on Boehlert’s posts) — despite never having posted anything but factual refutations of their lies.

That is their commitment to truth.

And Boehlert is the one with a history of making unsupported claims — including one about the Swift Vets, as I show in this post.

Boehlert’s lazy and ridiculous screed is useful for one thing, though: highlighting Gingrich’s willingness to accept a tired media canard if it serves his own political purposes. Someone should track down Gingrich and confront him on this.

However, that is unlikely to happen, because the sheep and cattle in the media all accept the herd’s judgment on the Swift Vets.

Thanks to Jay for the heads up.

6/15/2010

Boehlert Tries to Cover His Tracks, and Fails Miserably, Stepping on the Rake in the Process

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 5:35 pm



An addendum to this morning’s post revealing the dishonesty of Eric Boehlert:

Boehlert’s Smirking Chimp post now contains the following caveat: “Please note that these Media Matters columns appear here with permission but are not posted by Eric Boehlert.”


Here today

He just added this today, obviously in response to my post.. The cached version shows the language was not present in the original.


Not there yesterday

In other words, he’s trying to cover his tracks by sneaking in a caveat.

Pathetic.

What’s worse is that the caveat doesn’t help him. Remember: Boehlert claimed The Smirking Chimp posted his columns “independently,” writing a long sneer-filled post claiming I knew nothing about “how the Internets work” and posting on Twitter:

If @patterico were any dumber, it would hurt. I didn’t “cross publish” my column at Smirking Chimp, idiot.

And now his big defense is that he authorizes cross-posting, but he doesn’t press the publish button himself? On a blog at The Smirking Chimp called “Eric Boehlert’s blog”?

Are you kidding me?!

Unbelievable.

By the way, that’s how virtually all of my posts work at Big Journalism. I publish posts here, and then authorize them to be published at Big Journalism. Editors there decide whether to publish them. I have never logged in or hit a publish button at Big Journalism. In rare cases I will modify a post for their site; when I do, I e-mail the modifications to the editors.

Although I don’t hit the “publish” button myself, I would never claim that Big Journalism “independently” publishes my posts, or imply I had no involvement in the process.

Because, unlike Eric Boehlert, I am not a weasel.

Eric Boehlert: No, Seriously! Kick Me!

Filed under: General,Morons — Patterico @ 7:20 am



Recently, Matt Welch and I utterly destroyed Eric Boehlert’s ridiculous claim that nobody at the L.A. Times was ever allowed to casually denigrate President Bush:

And I don’t even have to do a Google search to know for a fact that when President Bush was in office, there was nobody on staff at the Times, and certainly nobody writing off the opinion pages, who was allowed to so casually insult the office of the presidency on a regular basis.

Hahahahahahaha! Read Welch’s post and mine for the destruction of that singularly clueless claim.

I also observed that Boehlert’s whine about The Times’s terrible lack of respect for the office of the presidency was considerably undermined by the fact that he cross-posted his whinge at a site called The Smirking Chimp.

Boehlert has now responded — not with any undermining of Welch’s evidence, or mine, concerning his central complaint, but with this:

Fact: I did not “cross-publish” my column at The Smirking Chimp. Patterico might not now [sic] this, but in the wonderful world of the Internets, sometimes sites independently reproduce other writers’ work, which is exactly what The Smirking Chimp did with my column about the LA Times. As it does with many of my columns.

But Patterico makes a patently false claim about me in an attempt to portray me as a hypocrite; that I specifically cross-published my LA Times column at The Smirking Chimp. I did not.

Interesting, that word “specifically.” Almost like it’s a weasel word.

Let’s take a look at this claim that The Smirking Chimp “independently” republished Boehlert’s work, with no input from Boehlert. My conclusion: Boehlert is dissembling at a minimum, and more likely just flat-out lying.

Boehlert’s post appeared at something called “Eric Boehlert’s blog” at The Smirking Chimp:


Eric Boehlert’s blog

What does it take for a blog like that to appear? I decided to check it out last night.

I signed up at The Smirking Chimp last night, to get myself a blog just like Boehlert’s. I had to fill out a form, with my user name, e-mail address, and location. I then was e-mailed instructions, with a link I could click to log in and change my password. (I changed it to “boehlertsux.”) Once I went into my e-mail, followed that link, changed the password, and logged in, this is what what a portion of my user profile looked like:


The default user profile at The Smirking Chimp

See, the chimp is the default picture they give you at The Smirking Chimp when you first set up a blog. Boehlert had to specifically delete this and replace it with a different picture of himself.


Eric Boehlert: long-time member of The Smirking Chimp

Note the length of his membership: 3 years, 39 weeks. That’s a lengthy devotion to a site designed to mock the President of the United States.

Once I completed that signup process, I had a blog! Just like Eric Boehlert had conferred on him by magic, through no effort of his own!


My Smirking Chimp blog!

Here is what my profile looked like to outsiders:


My default profile

Looks mighty similar to Mr. Boehlert’s profile (except, of course, that he uploaded a non-chimp picture of himself):


Non-chimp pictures must be specifically uploaded

Only his happened by magic, while I had to work for mine!

So I started typing up a post. Here is what my editing screen looked like:


My editing screen

Finally, I published! Here was my finished product:


My post

Here it is with the (now defunct) URL:


The URL (no longer works!)

OK, I admit it. I voted for my own post, and gave it a 10.

It wasn’t enough.

All of a sudden, my world came crashing down around me. Within minutes, my profile was taken away:


Patterico: Banned at The Smirking Chimp

I tried to log in again with the “Patterico” user name and got this rough rebuke:


Account nuked!

Now, is it impossible that someone else set up “Eric Boehlert’s blog” with no input or authorization from Boehlert? Is it impossible that someone else uploaded his picture and set up the account almost four years ago?

No. Nothing is impossible. Why, my blog could be written by the reincarnation of Elvis.

But if someone else set up Eric Boehlert’s blog, let Eric Boehlert make that claim. Specifically.

I tried commenting at Media Matters to tell Boehlert some of the above facts: that his post was published at “Eric Boehlert’s blog,” for which he apparently had to sign up, in a lengthy process involving passwords and uploading pictures and such. But I am moderated at Media Matters. Here is the response I always get when I try to leave a comment:


Don’t bring your timely retorts here, buddy!

It usually takes a couple of days for my comments to appear. (It has not appeared yet as of the publication of this post, even though I left the comment around 5-6 p.m. Pacific last night.) After a couple of days, of course, nobody is reading the post any more.

That’s why they moderate me: to delay my rebuttals until the post is no longer being read.

Note the excuse: I haven’t left enough comments there. Except: I have commented at Media Matters! Again and again and again and again and again and again and again!

How many times do you have to post there not to be moderated for days?

I’m sure I haven’t found all the comments I have left there. I’m sure it’s been more than a dozen over the years.

Somehow, it’s not enough to allow me to make a timely response to Boehlert’s posts.

Boehlert makes a subsidiary point: that the L.A. Times and The Smirking Chimp are not comparable. That wasn’t my comparison, and Boehlert knows it. The comparison is between Andrew Malcolm and Boehlert. (There is no comparison, by the way.) Here’s the argument Boehlert is evading: if Boehlert claims Malcolm is no serious journalist because he denigrates the president, what does that say about Boehlert, who set up an account on a site specifically designed to denigrate President Bush?

See? When you state the argument honestly, it has some power, Boehlert. That’s why you construct strawmen instead. It’s the lazy man’s way out.

It’s your way out.

Oh . . . did I mention that Boehlert never addressed my main argument? Which was that he was dead wrong when he claimed that “when President Bush was in office, there was nobody on staff at the Times, and certainly nobody writing off the opinion pages, who was allowed to so casually insult the office of the presidency on a regular basis.”

Wrong-o, Boehlert old buddy old pal. That claim is dead on arrival. That’s why Boehlert is trying so desperately to change the subject.

UPDATE: More here.

6/14/2010

Eric Boehlert: Still Wearing the “Kick Me” Sign

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General,Morons — Patterico @ 7:08 am



Matt Welch vivisects Eric Boehlert in this excellent post at Reason. The subject: Boehlert’s whiny post about how Andrew Malcolm at the L.A. Times doesn’t show proper respect to the office of the president. I already took Boehlert’s post apart here — and noted here that it was cross-posted at a site called The Smirking Chimp. (Boehlert denies this, but I don’t believe him.) Welch adds considerable value to the pile-on by trolling through columns written by Bush-era L.A. Times columnists. Like my post, Welch’s entry focuses on Boehlert’s claim:

And I don’t even have to do a Google search to know for a fact that when President Bush was in office, there was nobody on staff at the Times, and certainly nobody writing off the opinion pages, who was allowed to so casually insult the office of the presidency on a regular basis.

This statement, which Welch compares to a “please kick me” sign that Boehlert has duct-taped to his own rumpus, is the subject of some merriment by Welch, who proceeds to list off some epithets used by former L.A. Times columnist Rosa Brooks about President Bush, including:

* “Bubble Boy”
* “homegrown authoritarian”
* “Torturer-in-Chief”

Plenty more at the link.

Welch’s piece inspired me to go trolling through the archives of another partisan columnist who was employed by the L.A. Times for a good while during Bush’s presidency: Robert Scheer. Scheer employed these lines to describe Bush and his policies:

Again, these are just a small handful. There are many, many more.

Why, Scheer even wanted Bush impeached. Has Andrew Malcolm called for Obama to be impeached?

Anyone else want to take up Boehlert’s invitation to put a boot in his ass?

6/11/2010

Irony Meter Breaks: Eric Boehlert Whine About Incivility to Office of President Cross-Posted on a Site Devoted to Incivility to President Bush

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:18 pm



That’s right. Boehlert whines and moans about Andrew Malcolm calling President Obama mean names, like “Smoker-in-Chief.” Then he cross-publishes his post at a site called “The Smirking Chimp.” On the masthead is a picture of former President George W. Bush, with a “return to sender” stamp across his face.

It’s irony so rich, you won’t have room for seconds!

Thanks to Dodd.

UPDATE: Boehlert has taken to Twitter to deny the charge that he cross-posted his whine about civility:

If @patterico were any dumber, it would hurt. I didn’t “cross publish” my column at Smirking Chimp, idiot.

Boehlert’s post — which is posted at “Eric Boehlert’s blog” at The Smirking Chimp — decries Andrew Malcolm’s failure to maintain a “clean, dignified and civil tone.”

Is he doing some kind of subtle parody of himself? Help me out here.

6/10/2010

Eric Boehlert: “Why does the Los Angeles Times hate Obama?”

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 11:29 pm



Yes, that is really the title of his post. You’d think one glance at one of my year-end reviews of the L.A. Times would somewhat dispel that notion. And it would . . . for honest people.

But such a label does not easily fit Eric Boehlert, Senior Lotion Fellow at Media Matters, who asks how the L.A. Times can possibly allow one of its bloggers, Andrew Malcolm, to display something less than complete respect for the legend known as Barack Obama:

So my question is a simple one: Why does one of the largest newspapers in the country allow its political writer to routinely disrespect the president in a casually insulting way? To portray the president as some kind of punk. . . . [W]hy does the Times allows one of its high-profile political writers to continually adopt a hateful Rush Limbaugh and Fox News-like tone and personally degrade the presidency?

Indeed. Don’t they know that opinion people at major newspapers need to be kept in line? At least when they’re criticizing liberals.

Boehlert is upset because Malcolm has been allowed to call Barack Obama things like this:

* ”the United States’ Democratic Smoker-in-Chief”
* “the Real Good Talker”
* “Smoker-in-Chief”
* “the community organizer”
* “ex-state senator”
* “The Smoker”
* “the nation’s top talker”
* “what’s-his-name in the White House”
* “Duffer-in-Chief”
* “the ex-senator from Illinois”

Those are all pretty good, I’d say . . . and accurate.

I asked Andrew Malcolm if he would like to respond to Boehlert’s nonsense. He sent me this quote for publication:

Receiving this kind of free publicity AND our second Keith Olbermann Worse Person Award on only our 3rd blog birthday is a heartwarming treat. As are all the resulting new Twitter followers @latimestot. We also heartily enjoyed the claim that there are no counterbalancing liberals at the LA Times. God bless America and what’s-his-name.

The penultimate sentence refers to Boehlert’s bleating and incredible whine that “There is no sharply partisan liberal voice on the blog or any other of the Times’ political commentary outlets.”

Really?! When did they fire Tim Rutten, Michael Hiltzik, David Lazarus, and James Rainey? (Boehlert will probably try to tell us that these aren’t political commentators; Hiltzik, for example, is a “business columnist.” Uh, right. Just keep telling yourself that.)

Boehlert says:

And I don’t even have to do a Google search to know for a fact that when President Bush was in office, there was nobody on staff at the Times, and certainly nobody writing off the opinion pages, who was allowed to so casually insult the office of the presidency on a regular basis.

Well, he certainly packed that with enough weaselly qualifiers that he can mount a bullshit rebuttal to any mass of evidence to the contrary, but let’s collect some counterexamples anyway, shall we? I sauntered around the Top of the Ticket blog and found a few items; no doubt you could find more . . .

Kate Linthicum wrote that President Bush’s Hannukah invitations made him look “like a schmo.” Such disrespect for the office of the president!

Johanna Neuman talked about Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy” and never missed a chance to note that Dick Cheney has often been described by liberals as the “Darth Vader of American politics.”

Steve Padilla had this rip-roaringly funny joke about the George W. Bush Presidential Center:

We can’t help wondering if the center will include an exhibit on weapons of mass destruction. It could even be interactive — visitors could wander the complex and never find the WMD. Just a thought.

Hey, they laughed around the water cooler in the newsroom . . .

Mark Milian called Bush “the master of malapropisms.” Similarly, Don Frederick called him the “malaprop gift that keeps giving.”

Oh, the lack of respect for the presidency!!!! except that he kind of had a point . . . like Malcolm does with Obama.

For example, Boehlert faults Malcolm for calling Obama the “Smoker-in-Chief.” But here is the context: health care legislation pushing nannystate provisions:

Many of us were unaware of the need for federal regulation of local menus. But apparently the Democratic congressional majorities and the Smoker-in-Chief believe their bureaucrats must assist health-conscious Americans who are too dumb to figure out that a salad has fewer calories than a triple-burger buried in fries, even if those same stupid Americans were smart enough to elect all these folks in 2008.

It’s a fair point to note that a guy driving all these sanctimonious health care nanny provisions is consistently engaged in one of the least healthy habits known to man.

Ultimately, Boehlert is the same pathetic whiner he always is. But this screed really takes the cake. Thanks to Bradley J. Fikes for bringing it to my attention.

P.S. A couple more examples penned by Malcolm himself: in this post he called John McCain “the old guy from Arizona” and Sarah Palin “the Alaskan lipstick lady, who’s gonna do her own book about losing.” And in this one he referred to “those GOP suits on Capitol Hill who make Benadryl seem like a stimulant.”

Eric Boehlert didn’t tell you about those . . . did he?

UPDATE: Boehlert has cross-posted his post at a site devoted to incivility to Bush: The Smirking Chimp.

3/9/2010

Eric Boehlert Gets in His Time Machine to Blame the Right for Democrat Bedell

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:10 am



Eric Boehlert has found the cause for John Patrick Bedell’s 2006 rant against President Bush: the rhetoric from Tea Parties in 2009 and 2010.

Recall that Bedell, a registered Democrat, described the Bush Administration in 2006 as a “collection of gangsters” that initiated the war in Iraq “in order to divert attention from their misconduct and criminality.”

We crazy conservative bloggers think: hmmmm. 9/11 Truther, anti-Bush nut, and registered Democrat. Maybe this is one guy they won’t try to blame on us. Maybe for once they’ll call a lunatic a lunatic and leave it at that.

But Eric Boehlert knows who is to blame:

Sorry, right-wingers, but you fostered this toxic environment. You’re the ones who rally around Rush Limbaugh when he calls the president of the United States a Nazi. You’re the ones who cheer when Glenn Beck compares our commander in chief to a dangerous, Hitler-like tyrant who wants to “take your gun away one way or another.”

Indeed. Because in 2006, when Bush was president, there was no toxic anti-Bush environment.

Nobody called Bush or right-wingers Nazis. Except for these folks:

Mainstream commentary featured Nazi references too. Both Senator Robert Byrd and billionaire Democrat George Soros said Bush reminded them of Herman Goering.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, Al Gore used the term “brownshirts” (Nazi street thugs) to refer to Republican computer teams assigned to respond to criticism of Bush and the Iraq war.

Vanity Fair magazine nominated Richard Perle for the Goebbels role, running photos of both men under the headline “Separated at Birth?”

New York Times columnist Frank Rich managed to work in a reference to a famous Nazi filmmaker. He said a Showtime program on 9/11 was so favorable to Bush that it is “best viewed as a fitting memorial to Leni Riefenstahl.”

The Rev. Andrew Greeley, sociologist and novelist, depicted Bush as a Hitler figure who carried American over to “the dark side.”

During the Bush years, there were no gatherings of lefties calling for violence against Bush. Except for all of these. Here’s one example from many at the link, which is to Zombie:

imheretokillbush

You’ve nailed it, Eric Boehlert. Another brilliant column.

P.S. Hey, can we borrow your time machine? There’s a certain election from 2008 I’d like to undo. Thanks!

3/2/2010

Boehlert Lies Again

Filed under: ACORN/O'Keefe,Constitutional Law,General — Patterico @ 7:22 am



Eric Boehlert is at it again.

The dressed-as-a-pimp storyline was one Breitbart, O’Keefe, and others eagerly pushed last fall. And it was one the press quickly embraced. (In truth, O’Keefe was often dressed rather conservatively — slacks and dress shirt — when he talked to ACORN staffers, and he often presented himself as a law school student and an aspiring politician trying to rescue his prostitute girlfriend from her abusive pimp.)

The italicized “from” is Boehlert’s way of implying that O’Keefe never pretended to be a pimp at ACORN. In fact, he knows full well that O’Keefe pretended to be a pimp at ACORN. The fact that he portrayed himself as the good pimp doesn’t mean he wasn’t playing a pimp.

As I document in this thorough post below, O’Keefe repeatedly told ACORN employees that he was setting up a house where Giles and underage girls would turn tricks, and give the proceeds to O’Keefe, who planned to use them for a future Congressional campaign. The tapes have numerous exchanges like this:

O’Keefe: But, one of the things I was one of the things we also wanna do um one of my goals you asked you asked do you know how you wanna do this, I think one of the goals is not only can Eden protect some of these 13, 14, 15 year-old girls

Theresa (ACORN) Yeah.

O’Keefe: coming over from El Salvador. In addition to protecting them and getting their feet on the ground so that they can you know perform the tricks and you know learn the how LA prostitution scene is I was also wanting to um use some of the this is very lucrative and potentially we can use a lot of the money we’re getting from the underaged girls from El Salvador and use some of the money for campaign one day

. . . .

O’Keefe: We’re bringing these girls from overseas.

Hannah (Eden) Well, they’re here.

O’Keefe: But, we are gonna take a part of the profit and I intend to use the profit

Theresa (ACORN): Right.

O’Keefe: From the tricks the girls perform

Theresa (ACORN): Right.

O’Keefe: To fund my political campaign.

Theresa (ACORN): Right.

Boehlert knows O’Keefe posed as a pimp. But he won’t say so. I have offered to give Boehlert $100 (commenters have bumped the offer to $200) simply to state clearly whether O’Keefe pretended to be a pimp at ACORN. He knows that O’Keefe did, but if he says so, he can’t insinuate that he didn’t, by harping on the clothing non-issue.

Boehlert won’t tell you that O’Keefe pretended to be a pimp, but he is willing to further claims by others who deceptively claim O’Keefe did not. Today Boehlert posts a misleading, deceptive, and highly doctored video by Mike Stark which makes that claim:

Stark Lie

As I showed in this post, Boehlert labeled Giles and O’Keefe hoaxsters because they did not correct statements or implications by others that O’Keefe wore the pimp getup in ACORN offices. Yet he is content to post a video on his site that makes a false claim that O’Keefe never played a pimp. By Boehlert’s own standards, that makes him a hoaxster himself.

P.S. ACORN supporters are also claiming vindication because the Brooklyn D.A. yesterday issued a statement refusing to prosecute ACORN. They are especially excited because an anonymous source claimed that the videotapes were edited deceptively. Well, if we can’t trust an anonymous source nowadays, who can we trust?

The fact is that the full audio and transcript of the Brooklyn ACORN video is available and shows that the tape was not deceptively edited. If someone has a case to make otherwise, let them come forward and make it. My guess: the anonymous source (whoever it was) was a Democrat hack who didn’t release their name because they knew their partisanship would be discovered.

3/1/2010

Friedman Admits He and Boehlert Tried to Hoax Public; Still Won’t Correct

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:04 am



This post is an exercise in hoisting liberals on their own petards.

Regular readers will remember that Brad Friedman wrote, in a letter to NYT Public Editor Clark Hoyt:

While we can’t know if the text transcripts O’Keefe released were accurate, since he refuses to release the audio tape . . .

In fact, as Friedman well knows, the full unedited audio of every visit for which there is a transcript is available at Big Government. I told Friedman this repeatedly when we appeared on the radio together.

Applying Brad Friedman’s standards to himself, this is a “lie.” After all, he has repeatedly accused James O’Keefe of “lying” about his dress at ACORN — while citing nothing more than O’Keefe’s failure to correct Steve Doocy on a TV show. O’Keefe’s own videos show how he was dressed at ACORN, yet Friedman accuses O’Keefe of trying to hide what O’Keefe himself included in his videos.

If we apply Friedman’s own standards to himself, he is a liar and a hoaxster. He may claim it was merely a mistake, but why should Friedman get the benefit of a doubt he refuses to extend to O’Keefe or Breitbart?

Applying Eric Boehlert’s standards to himself, he is part of this hoax as well. Eric Boehlert has linked Friedman’s post but did not lift a finger to correct Friedman. By Boehlert’s own standards, that makes him part of the hoax.

After all, Boehlert has repeatedly claimed that O’Keefe “lied” or committed a “hoax” merely because O’Keefe did not correct Steve Doocy’s claim about his manner of dress at ACORN.

If we apply Boehlert’s standards to himself, Boehlert has lied about whether the unedited ACORN audio is available.

Friedman himself has now admitted his and Boehlert’s hoax, when he left a comment at this blog yesterday claiming his reference to the lack of unedited “audio” was “obviously a typo meant to refer to ‘video’ tape.”

Applying Friedman’s own standards to himself, this is an admission that he lied and engaged in a hoax. After all, Friedman has now confirmed the facts that I am using to call him a liar and hoaxster. By Friedman’s own standards, that means he has “admitted” being a liar and hoaxster.

After all, Friedman is the guy who wrote a post titled “Giles Admits O’Keefe, Breitbart ACORN ‘Pimp’ Story was a Lie: ‘That Was B-Roll, Purely B-Roll’.” Of course, Giles never opined that O’Keefe or Breitbart had lied; that was Friedman’s wording. But to Friedman, the mere fact that Giles acknowledged facts that Friedman was using to paint O’Keefe and Breitbart as liars means that she “admitted” that they lied.

If we apply Friedman’s standards to himself, he has “admitted” that he and Boehlert have engaged in a hoax designed to destroy O’Keefe and Breitbart with falsehoods.

Not to mention, he’s also lying about his falsehood being a “typo.” Look it up, Brad. It’s not a typo. The letters for “video” are not particularly close to the letters for “audio.” I think you meant “mistake.” By your standards, this is another one of your “lies.”

And also, your post remains uncorrected. Which kinda makes it seem like you don’t care about corrections. Ironic, since that is the fault you attribute to Clark Hoyt.

Word of the Friedman/Boehlert “no ACORN audio” hoax is starting to spread among respected bloggers. Instapundit got the ball rolling with a link last night, and the links will no doubt continue to roll in today.

It’s Day Two of the Friedman/Boehlert ACORN Hoax.

How long will they keep it up?!?!?!?!?!

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2859 secs.