Patterico's Pontifications


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.

73 Responses to “Eric Boehlert: No, Seriously! Kick Me!”

  1. This is apparently so bad that even the droolers from bradblog and Chris Hooten are not bothering to defend/divert/deflect.

    JD (b2079e)

  2. Brad left me an angry comment the other day demanding a retraction. He is banned here, purely because he banned me there first.

    Patterico (c218bd)

  3. Nice job Patterico. It’s great to see the lengths the lefties will go to in controlling the narrative, to exclude diverse opinions and explanations and facts. Just like the LAT, and NYT, old Uncle Left Tom Cobbleigh and all.

    All the juicy details laid out for us vulgar publics to see. Sorry lefties, honesty is the best policy, even evil rightwingers and the tea party think so.

    Insufficiently Sensitive (8906ed)

  4. Apparently it really is too much to ask — argue your points HONESTLY, progressives of the world! Sheesh.

    Icy Texan (43cdbb)

  5. A great demolishing job! Remind me never to tangle with Patterico.

    PK (703b8c)

  6. Patterico – Demanding a retraction over what? Did someone call him a mendoucheous lying twatwaffle that defends those that would assist in child prostitution?

    JD (a84af4)

  7. That’s a majestic cathedral of fisking, especially compared to the flimsy shack of falsity that Eric Boehlert built.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (fb9e90)

  8. Icy Tex,

    Argue honesty?

    They can’t! Those pesky facts keep getting in their face no matter how hard they try to swat them away.

    MJN1957 (6e1275)

  9. Keep in mind that this odd mental illness of Mr. Boehlert’s—that the press treats Republicans better than Democrats, and in particular that the press treated GWB well—is a long term obsession.

    Remember that he even wrote a book about it:

    Lapdogs: How The Press Rolled Over for Bush, Free Press, 2006. ISBN 978-0743289313

    Also, if you search around (paywall involved, I guess), there is a hysterical interview between Boehlert and Dennis Miller. Miller quickly discerns that Boehlert was a mindless partisan tool, saying nutty deluxe things, and you can hear the consternation in his voice.

    Great job Patterico, but no worries. Eric Boehlert is insane in the membrane, so he will feel no shame, and admit no hypocrisy.

    Eric Blair (f03f56)

  10. Quit picking on my boyfriend!

    Eric Boehlert (fa9b46)

  11. ^^^^

    Not crazy enough. It needs a “Leave Britney alone” vibe.

    Eric Blair (f03f56)

  12. I ain’t certain that Boehlert has read “1984”, but if he did my guess is that he rooted for Big Brother.

    And is still rooting for him.

    Jack (e383ed)

  13. Hey Patterico! Bet you didn’t know that Boehlert is an internet and media guru. Here it is:

    Of course, it is from a highly nonpartisan and fairminded source, as the interview demonstrates.

    This guy really is a nullifarian, isn’t he?

    Eric Blair (f03f56)

  14. mmm, patterico, can i suggest maybe doing one of those “read more” things where you tuck this under the fold. its alot to scroll through.

    Of course if there is any danger this might screw up the comment function again, then disregard this.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  15. Magnificent!

    htom (412a17)

  16. Another douche bag liberal who would slit his parents’s throat to get what he wants then beg for mercy b/c he is an orphan is being a HYPOCRITE AND LIAR???

    I am shocked.

    HeavenSent (a9126d)

  17. Aaron Worthing, some dissections require a large workspace. Boehlert is pretty well flayed in this one, and rightly so!

    Eric Blair (f03f56)

  18. Ouch. That’s gonna leave a mark.

    TimesDisliker (d345d1)

  19. I think it’s time to put up a section on the right (or in the headline) listing sites you are proud to say you have been blocked by, and have a link to a detailed explanation of why, demonstrating how one’s courageous stand for the truth is not welcomed in certain places, all of which are on the left.

    I can see the T-shirts now:

    Like Patterico
    I too was blocked for telling the truth…

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  20. You know, I’ll bet it was a lot of fun to write that post. Good thing you took screen shots all the way along. They seem to be pretty fast with the eject button over at Smirking Chimp!

    Gesundheit (cfa313)

  21. Wasn’t there a blog called Eject!Eject!Eject! ?

    JD (6837b4)

  22. Simple honesty. Detailed effort. RESULTS.

    Vermont Neighbor (5841cd)

  23. JD, yes, it is Bill Whittle’s and can be found on Pajamas Media. Bill is brilliant and does some video with my friend Stephen Green.

    SPQR (159590)

  24. Elvis has left the building.

    SPQR (159590)

  25. SPQR – Is Stephen that vodka drunk-blogging person? Whittle was/is hysterical. I always loved the name of that blog.

    JD (b19b82)

  26. Sometimes is nice just to see a freight train smash a soda can.

    Which is basically what I expected when Boehlert vaguely claimed Patterico was wrong on Twitter.

    He’s willing to go through a hell of a lot to insinuate the media wasn’t critical of Bush, something no one really believes. So strange.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  27. So, Eric Boehlert can join Brad Freidman in the lying mendoucheous asshat category.

    JD (b19b82)

  28. JD, yes Stephen Green’s blog title is “Vodkapundit”. He’s good people.

    SPQR (159590)

  29. What about this language:

    Please note that these Media Matters columns appear here with permission but are not posted by Eric Boehlert.

    Was it there before, or added after Patterico started making trouble?

    Fritz (0b0d73)

  30. Notice the terminology used, Fritz. “with permission”. At best, it supports Patterico’s comment about weasel wording. Claiming in essence that he didn’t click the “submit” button is pure weasel.

    SPQR (159590)

  31. SPQR,

    Somebody had to take some action. It wasn’t just magic.

    Fritz (0b0d73)

  32. It’s a neat diversion to distract us from the fact that his initial thesis is, kindly, utter crap.

    Fritz (0b0d73)

  33. Was it there before, or added after Patterico started making trouble?

    Looks almost certain that it was added recently. It’s now in all his posts. Here’s a google cache of a month old column that does not have the language:

    Here’s the current link to that same article with the language:

    Nuke Riding Cowboy (1682a2)

  34. I blame it on unregulated cabana boys publishing things without their keepers’ permissions.

    Thomas Ellers (63c4de)

  35. I blame it on my brother, Dan. You know, it’s a**-faces like Boehlert that give thieves a bad name. I guess the ends justify the means… but does handing over your soul seem worth it?

    Boehlert’s Head + Patterico’s Stick = ICU_Damage (figuratively of course)

    enoch_root (9548cd)

  36. Damn, it’s been almost three hours since this post appeared and not one paid minion of Uncle George Soros has dropped by to try and defend Boehlert. What a drag. Have they been so dispirited by the train wreck that is the Obama Administration that they have just given up, at least until Republicans retake Congress?

    JVW (36eb17)

  37. enoch, I think you are exaggerating the worth of their souls … tiny, shriveled little things most of theirs. See timmah for an example.

    SPQR (159590)

  38. Lost in the glare of Boehlert’s surreal whining about the treatment of Obama by ONE employee at the Times is his even more hysterical headline. It is the classic “when did you stop beating your wife” assertion masquerading as a question. The failure to put a leash on Malcolm PROVES the Times hates Obama, Eric just wants to know why. Seriously, with a lead in like that you can’t really expect anything that follows to make any sense.

    JDBlackaby (1309cf)

  39. At least they were more polite to you than Wash Monthly is to me if I try to comment. It just says “You are not allowed to comment.”

    One thing I’ve noticed there, though. The comments on Benen’s posts are down to 3 or 4. When Drum was there, there would be 30 to 50.

    Mike K (82f374)

  40. OT: Earthquakes continue to rattle California and transplants.

    natives remain unaffected. 😀

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  41. Off topic, but this is the top thread right now. I just visited the Jury, and, to my surprise, the commenting features work there, while they’re still fornicated up here. Your url displays, and you don’t get the idiot “Comment by You” first before refresh.

    The frustrated Dana (3e4784)

  42. Is Boehlert seriously suggesting that a few years ago someone else set up a blog called “Eric Boehlert’s Blog”, has been using it to post his commentaries without permission, and Boehlert’s daily Google search on his own name never clued him in on it? Really?

    Jim S. (c4946e)

  43. Jim, what’s amusing is that Eric Beohlert’s entire shtick is that he’s watching over the media, searching google, answering responses.

    There’s no way someone could have copied his articled under his name without him knowing it. He obviously did this himself. He obviously happily associated with ‘the smirking chimp’ and is a digital brownshirt for the democrats.

    I love the idea that he has to vaguely deny things the he obviously did in order to preserve some ridiculous sense of honesty. ‘I’m so honest, I’m going to lie about it!’

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  44. Hey Patterico…I wonder who deleted your blog at “The Smirking Chimp”?

    Who is the moderator and who is in charge?

    Gosh, I wonder if they have any associations with Mr. Boehlert.

    Eric Blair (c8876d)

  45. I blame Sarah Palin. She probably hakzor3d The Smirking Chimp’s site to make it look like Boehlert re-posted that post. Because Chaney told her to do it. Because he’s a racist. And it’s Bush’s fault — yes, G.H.W.B.-41 for, um, fathering G.W.B.-43, and yes, also G.W.B.’s fault. Because he’s an evil genius, when he’s not being a smirking chimp. Except that Karl Rove is his brain, so I blame him.

    Beldar (a6fff6)

  46. Reagan’s fault- it was he who was caught on film playing with a chimpanzee, even before Al Gore invented the Internet.

    MD in Philly (5a98ff)

  47. Jim S., did you use the word “seriously” with respect to Boehlert?

    You won’t make that mistake again, now will you?

    SPQR (b8ef0f)

  48. Karl Rove, you magnificent b@stard.

    Speaking of, is a most excellent website.

    JD (4b684a)

  49. By the way, that Boehlert disclaimer someone noted upthread is new. It did not appear in the cached version of the post.

    This post will be cross-posted at Big Journalism with a postscript addressing that caveat. I’ll probably do a new post about it here tonight.

    I’m having a hard time understanding why Boehlert picked this particular fight.

    Patterico (5c850f)

  50. “Boehlert is dissembling at a minimum, and more likely just flat-out lying.”

    Yeah, he’s a lefty.

    Comes with the territory.

    Of course, Boehlert’s basic theme has been that the media gave George Bush a pass, and now they’re being unfair to the New Messiah, which is so patently absurd that obviously telling the truth about any particular detail is out of the question.

    Dave Surls (b38714)

  51. I’m having a hard time understanding why Boehlert picked this particular fight.

    Comment by Patterico — 6/15/2010 @ 12:51 pm

    I thought you had it right when you said it was to distract from the idea that the LA Times didn’t disrespect Bush’s presidency. He’s sacrificing his reputation in furtherance of his mission of distorting the facts on media bias. Of course.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  52. I’m having a hard time understanding why Boehlert picked this particular fight.

    I’m having a hard time understanding why he would be insulting and call you an idiot for having the audacity to think that he may be behind something called “Eric Boehlert’s Blog”. He’s just a mean-spirited guy.

    Nuke Riding Cowboy (1682a2)

  53. Patterico – He picked it because the leftists accept this kind of behavior amongst themselves, encourage it. They could not imagine that someone might do some basic fact-checking.

    JD (4b684a)

  54. He’s sacrificing his reputation

    what rep? that of being a mendoucheous lying twatwaffle?

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  55. red, that’s his role. He is at the bottom of the system. He’s the brownshirt thug who smears and lies so that some degree of separation may exist for the ‘respectable’ reporter who notes that both conservatives and liberals complain that the LA Times (or whoever) is biased to both sides.

    He’s not credible, of course. Even Media Matters gets that, which is why they hide the debate for a few days via moderation dishonesty rather than engage in an enthralling debate they would be confident would aid their cause if they believed what they claim.

    ‘Why does the LA Times Hate Obama?’ was also paired with much nastier insults against the author than the amusing and often truthful (and not even insulting) comments about Obama. Meant to put reporters and readers in their place. Beneath democrat leaders. They can lay their hands on our kids, we can’t insult them as ‘former Senator’.

    George Soros gets a huge return on this investment. He’s going to make billions off the bizarre reaction Obama has had to the crisis in the gulf, which was to shut down all drilling, sending resources to Petrobas. Indeed, Soros has bet heavily on the US not developing energy. They won’t let their crisis go to waste, and they will fund Eric Boehlert and many like him as part of a scheme of slimeballs.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  56. Patterico, it all depends on what the meaning of the words ‘casually insult’ mean. The paper did not ‘casually insult’ George Bush, it intentionally, deliberately and consistently insulted and demeaned him. Thus, in his own perverse way, Boehlert is correct.

    eaglewingz08 (1e4d33)

  57. Problem for Mr Boehlert is that the post is still there.

    It doesn’t matter if it was accidental or not. He has not asked them to remove it – in fact, they’re (now) claiming they have his permission.

    What a joke. You might as well claim that Bush was black, if you’re going to claim that he was never mocked.

    scrubone (f5dbf1)

  58. I’m no expert, but people like Boehlert remind me of the principle of insularity. I will bet cash money that Boehlert has no friends who are conservative. All of his friends believe the way he does.

    So Teh Narrative spirals more and more out of control, more and more extreme, because there are no brakes on their partisanship. I mean, really: GWB was never disrespected in the LA Times? Really? And this claim is posted at “The Smirking Chimp,” dedicated to the “Worst President in American History.”


    So the counterclaim is that people like myself only interact with folks who agree with me politically. Um. Not so much.

    Eric Blair (f03f56)

  59. Eric Blair — 6/15/2010 @ 2:39 pm

    I believe the term is “epistemic closure” now.

    Jeff Weimer (952d52)

  60. Or “rectocranial inversion,” in this case.

    Eric Blair (f03f56)

  61. Eric Blair — 6/15/2010 @ 3:17 pm

    Well, that goes without saying….

    Jeff Weimer (952d52)

  62. who was allowed to so casually insult the office of the presidency on a regular basis

    He’s right. There was nothing casual about their insults… 🙂

    sookie (6407fe)

  63. eric boehlert
    standing short among midgets
    media matters

    ColonelHaiku (79bc23)

  64. Comment by ColonelHaiku — 6/15/2010 @ 4:51 pm

    I think this is some of your best work!

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  65. colonel haiku blush
    listen Levin on way home
    now loaded for bear

    ColonelHaiku (79bc23)

  66. tsk tsk tsk, Dana, don’t encourage his non-traditional form.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  67. colonel haiku bow
    to sensei spqr
    Seppuku Summer

    ColonelHaiku (79bc23)

  68. tsk tsk tsk, Dana, don’t encourage his non-traditional form.

    I’m sorry, SPQR, but he has me rolling today! Perhaps I should thank Eric Boehlert, because if he weren’t such a whiny lying weenie snot, our Colonel might not be quite so inspired.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  69. this must be the spring
    of colonel haiku’s best work
    try a saki bomb

    The Haiku Avenger (474dfc)

  70. The Colonel is on alert
    For the hijinks of Eric Boehlert
    EB wonders when
    CH drops his pen
    But Haiku is doing great work

    The Limerick Avenger (474dfc)

  71. When caught smirking chimps,
    Dodge, lie, modify and ban.
    That’s how libs debate!

    harkin (865845)

  72. If he isn’t posting stuff to smirking chimp (which was $427 off of its daily requirements yesterday to keep running), then someone is going to a lot of trouble posting EVERYTHING he publishes to that site. His latest article “Why does the LA Times hate Obama” is on there, in addition to dozens of other articles.

    Half Canadian (b93901)

  73. Great takedown.

    Y’all were puzzled as to why Bohlert “picked this fight”: The answer is that it’s a normal response to cognitive dissonance.

    Like most libs, Bohlert really believes the press never dissed Bush, so he’s horrified to see that any press outlet would publish remarks disparaging Obama.

    When confronted with factual evidence that the core of his belief system is false, rather than re-calibrating his view of reality, as a normal person would, he constructs ever-more-elaborate explanations to avoid coming to terms with the contradiction.

    Classic stuff.

    sf (dd2a87)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0911 secs.