home

The Discrediting Of Breitbart: Why Was He Ever Taken Seriously?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:04:08 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

David Frum writes:

you’ll never guess who emerged as the villains of the story in this second-day conservative react. Not Andrew Breitbart, the distributor of a falsified tape. No, the villains were President Obama and the NAACP for believing Breitbart's falsehood. Breitbart went almost universally unmentioned.

Of course the irony of the right wing noise machine decrying the Obama Administration and the NAACP treating Breitbart seriously is rich (but who would expect otherwise? Their dishonesty has been manifest forever.) But the question remains, and not only for the Obama Administration and the NAACP - the question is for everyone - who would take Breitbart (and Drudge and Fox) seriously? They are all dishonest hacks. I certainly hope this ends Breitbart's reign of terror, but it never should have needed this event to discredit Breitbaert. He has always been a discredited figure.

Speaking for me only

< Putting A Face To The Cost Of Dem Cowering | How To Win The Tax Battle >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Discrediting Of Breitbart: Why Was He Ever Taken Seriously? | 105 comments (105 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    oh geez BTD, must i explain it to you, again? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:29:15 AM EST
    once more, for those of you on drugs:

    they get taken seriously because they scream the loudest. in order to shut them up, they are pandered to, like a spoiled child.

    write this on the blackboard 100 times!

    oh, and because democrats live in fear of their own shadows, and the MSM is not liberal.

    It's amazing... (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:00:09 AM EST
    how much credibility we can assign to those who cater to our fears, reinforce our stereotypes and prejudices, and press our buttons.

    Eh (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:17:22 AM EST
    scrolling through Balloon Juice, I see DougJ saying "even nuts like Jonah Goldberg" think Breitbart is in the wrong.  Now everyone will get in line, but the only people with something to gain from that are those on the right.  Frum, Goldberg, anyone with a brain on the right is going to throw Breitbart under the bus, however briefly, and take this opportunity to say A) Obama is cowardly and weak and B) we aren't racists, not at all!  Get a Tea Party spokesperson to say the same thing, and they're in the clear.  Because there sure as hell isn't going to be more media accountability from this incident.  Instead it's a perfect opportunity for the right to save face on race.  It's a decent opportunity for the left to mount a media critique that can also discredit the right wing morons with race-baiting rap sheets a mile long who are now going to say Breitbart is wrong/race-baiting, ...BUT the Obama Admin is just going to try to get this to go away, and the left (at Balloon Juice, for ex.) may just say "hopefully Obama does better next time!"  Or maybe I'll learn this is somehow Harry Reid's fault.  Who knows.
    It seems to me the overarching theme (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:31:46 AM EST
    the right has been working on establishing for many years is that there are more false accusations of racism than true ones.  If, to make that point, they find it advantageous to get behind people they ordinarily oppose, like the occasional Hillary Clinton or Shirley Sherrod, they will do it. In this case they will even make the false charge themselves, and then denounce it.

    Dems doing the dance with them are not helping.

    Parent

    Oh, please! (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by steviez314 on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:38:15 AM EST
    Breitbart's dishonest?

    Palin's an idiot?

    Beck's insane?

    THESE AREN'T BUGS, THEY'RE FEATURES.

    And Obama's administration is the (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:41:00 AM EST
    most transparent in history.

    Parent
    I will give you this... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:01:16 AM EST
    right wing psuedo-journalists sure ain't the only ones catering to fear, prejudice, and stereotypes to further their agenda...s.o.p. in this here politics racket, and far too common in the "journalism" game too.

    Parent
    I think you put your (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:38:15 AM EST
    finger on "journalism".   That is how they consider their work-- as a game.

    Parent
    The focus, in my view, (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:32:25 AM EST
    should not be about the bait (that is what wingers like Breitbart do), but  why was the bait swallowed, hook, line and sinker.

    We'll feed on any load of crap... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:40:27 AM EST
    that backs up our personal world view.

    If the NAACP is your bogeyman, this is your catnip...you want to believe it so bad it blinds you.

    And most everybody does it to some extent...I find a police misconduct story and I run with that puppy, often with less than the full story...it's not easy to always check your prejudice at the door, it requires constant intellectual viligance.

    Parent

    True, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:57:59 AM EST
     but what about Vilsack, et al.  Democrats seem to be more driven by Republican wingnuts than Miss Daisy.

    Parent
    They're just pols... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:31:01 PM EST
    in this climate they'll bend over backwards so as not to appear anti-cracker...truth and justice be damned.

    Why they think anyone pleased by her firing would ever vote for them in a million years?  I don't know...I guess they know loyal Dems will fall in line on election day even if they proposed repealing the federal MLK holiday, so what have they got to lose?

    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:09:53 PM EST
    and yet even worse.

    The NAACP issued a statement of condemnation which only accelerated the story after they saw the edited video.

    The entire issue is a bi-product of 24 hour news where everyone expects the news "right now", and an egotistical media that always wants to "break the story". But it's not just what people refer to as the mainstream media, it's also all of us getting our news from a variety of blogs with authors that far more often than not go into every blog story with an agenda of their own.

    This is only a good story today because the (white) farmers in question when the event took place 2 decades ago are still living and able to give the true story, thus verifying the full video that was still laying around.

    Has anyone here viewed the entire 45 minute video? Highly unlikely as we too thrive on the 20 second snippet to feed our news junkie appetite.

    What was the real story? A black woman that grew up in the segregated south, while working for a non-profit, went out of her way to assist an elderly white farming couple because they couldn't receive assistance anywhere else.

    What was first viewed as an incident of prejudice now is known to be an amazing story of redemption and the fascinating life story of Shirley Sherrod.


    Parent

    Why was he taken seriously? (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:06:21 PM EST
    Because the right in this country entirely controls the political media discourse in this country. They won. They control the spin. The left is all but dead.  Hell, the left is afraid of even being CALLED the left.

    That's why.

    This morning the NAACP (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:42:36 PM EST
    said their first response came at 1:30 a.m. and they were calling around Georgia trying to get certain confirmations.  Are they kidding me?  None of this could wait for the light and sanity and stability and calm group questions of daylight verses the dark shadows of one phone in hand speaking to another phone in hand during the witching hour? Which should now be called the witch burning hour?

    Nobody writes about race issues and all the nuances like you either.  This is such a betrayal to everyone.

    They effed up (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:08:48 PM EST
    They fessed up to effing up.

    I'm ok with the NAACP now.

    Parent

    The 24 hour news cycle.... (none / 0) (#63)
    by ks on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:08:10 PM EST
    Does not wait for rational deliberation.  Being "first" to respond is now more important than being right.

    Parent
    Lots of figures have been 'discredited'. (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 03:09:09 PM EST
    For that matter, lots of figures have been discredited for using fabricated charges of racism to further their agendas on either side of the political spectrum.

    It hasn't kept them from retaining prominent positions in the blathersphere ... does it?

    Have posted this at least two other times (2.00 / 0) (#1)
    by BTAL on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:28:31 AM EST
    Breitbart did not edit the video.  Breitbart was not the first to publish the video.

    Do I hold him harmless, no, not entirely.  However, this shoot the messenger is laughable.

    Where is the outrage in the faux race card charges by the dems directed at the TP on the day the HCR bill was signed?  Hate Breitbart all you want but he put up $100,000 for anyone to provide any snippet of audio or video showing that racial comments were made or directed at any of the members of congress that day.  The money is still on the table.  

    I have tried to ignore your ridiculous point (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:30:39 AM EST
    Breitbart was reckless in his disregard of the truth of the situation.

    He knew it was an edited video but trumpeted it as evidence of racism from Sherrod in HER PRESENT JOB as the USDA.

    Breitbart is a despicable figure and I have no idea why you are defending him.

    He is a dishonest, despicable piece of crap.

    Parent

    Why? (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:16:10 AM EST
    He's taken seriously because there will always be Republicans like BTAL to defend his ilk and push his story lines.

    Parent
    Rediculous? (none / 0) (#5)
    by BTAL on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:44:15 AM EST
    Breitbart played the ultimate move on the WH, NAACP and the entire Dem party.  He gave them just enough rope and all proceeded to hang themselves in public.  In short, it hoisted the entire group on their own petard.

    The only ones that appeared smart enough, or maybe they were too slow to jump on the bandwagon were Jackson and Sharpton.  

    Parent

    That was not your original point (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:50:08 AM EST
    Your original point was that Breitbart was not a bad actor. That is ridiculous.

    Parent
    I did not make that statement (none / 0) (#7)
    by BTAL on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:53:44 AM EST
    In fact, please see the comment in the original post:

    Do I hold him harmless, no, not entirely.  


    Parent
    I am disappointed by this comment, BTAL (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:31:30 PM EST
    You identified yourself as an Evangelical a couple of days ago here....

    I was holding open the possibility--given the seeming evenhandeness of some of your comments--that you were not the knee-jerk conservative that has become so ubiquitous.

    But this defense of Breitbart--when there is none.  This taunting of liberals--hoisted on their own petard, you say--shows some very twisted and malicious thinking.....The Ends Justify the Means because all is fair in the Great Battle of us Believers against the Evil Liberals.....Lying is okay....

    Breitbart is a liar.  He thinks that is okay because he believes he is righteous.  Sick, very sick thinking.  

    The Obama administration messed up because they cowered to the Right and FOX news--not because of too much zeal in opposing racism--just the opposite is the case here.

    There is no viable defense of Breitbart.

    Parent

    Ahhh, I don't believe I have ever (none / 0) (#83)
    by BTAL on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 04:12:37 PM EST
    posted any comments on my beliefs.  I did make one comment regarding the evangelicals in relation to control of the republican party in a comment about 2012 candidates.  That comment also addressed Romney and his religion.

    As a originally posted and reminded BTD, I do not give Breitbart a free pass on this.  

    As for the petard comment.  Shall we balance the scales here with the professional race-baiters of Jackson & Sharpton.  Heck even Olbermann screams (on a regular basis) how specific individuals are racists purely for demeaning political effect.  That side of the scale is never addressed or called out by the left.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 06:32:33 PM EST
    here is your comment:

    Your prediction on Romney in 2012 could be close to the mark but still miss the winner.  The Mormon thing is old news.  His "religion" speech dealt with that in the R party like Obama's Philadelphia "race" speech did for the D party.  Believe if you like that the R party is the same as it was 8-10 years ago and is held hostage by the evangelicals - IMHO (as one) it has moved on.

    Bolding added.

    I think you have declared, no?  But no matter--it is what to expect.   Most conservatives--especially those who blog or try to engage liberals--are religious conservatives....

    And the Ends Justifies the Means methods among religious conservtives are well exemplified by Breitbart....

    Parent

    You are correct, and I will admit (none / 0) (#91)
    by BTAL on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 07:19:18 PM EST
    to my beliefs but I will also admit to mis-stating that level of "evangelicalism" as it appears to have been misunderstood.  I am not a bible-thumper and do cringe when the hard core right weighs into politics with their pure religious arguments.  Fair cop if you want to play it that way.

    The point of my post was focused on the impact and effect of the hard religious right on the Republican party.  IMHO, it no longer has the strangle hold that it did in the past.

    As just stated in another thread, I will gladly meet anyone at the 50 yard line.  We may agree to disagree but as you and the majority here, I cannot just roll over to echo chamber politics.

    Fair?

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:28:47 PM EST
    But I can't help wondering as a conservative what interest this blog holds for you.....

    This is a place for liberals and progressives to really have a no-holds barred discussion of politics and crime--imo.....And, boy, how we do disagree with one another....

    Why a conservtive would be interested is, well... interesting....Sport?  Try to sharpen your skills?  Convince us of something--really?

    Parent

    Bi-Partisanship GOP Style? (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:36:01 PM EST
    Divide and conquer.

    Parent
    Because I don't believe in only (none / 0) (#105)
    by BTAL on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:53:41 PM EST
    listening to one sided echo chambers.  Stereo is much more interesting and educating.

    Some here should try venturing out more often too.

    Parent

    Read, yes; blog, no (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:31:11 PM EST
    No real upside or benefit to commenting on conservative sites--as if that were even possible without being banned.....

    Just a waste of time....

     

    Parent

    Sick thinking (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:40:52 PM EST
    You say they are false charges just because there is no video of the the epithets hurled at John Lewis during the Health Care debate?

    Do you really believe that?  If it was not on video, it did not happen??

    We have the eyewitness accounts from John Lewis and another Congressman--and a reporter....

    Who in the hostile Tea Party crowd would video, or even volunteer the video if it existed, of such an event?  Those were the people who were there....

    You of course would not impose the no-video, did-not-happen-standard to other situations....No criminal convictions unless you have a videotape?  

    That you believe this sick propaganda is one thing; that you actually try to peddle it here as persuasive is bizarre.

    Parent

    I say that if it happened (none / 0) (#58)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:52:05 PM EST
    with all the video recording, people around, etc., somebody should be able to get that $100,000.

    Parent
    With all the people around (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:55:36 PM EST
    ...there is a lot of noise...especially given the ranting of the crowd.

    It is likely that only the people within a few feet heard or witnessed the event....

    You are calling a number of people liars....

    You are now stuck with the videotape standard of proof.

    Parent

    I am saying that no one has (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:17:03 PM EST
    collected the $100,000.

    And please don't put words in my mouth.

    Parent

    Weasel words (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:22:52 PM EST
    You are implying John Lewis is lying.....

    ....about his own experiences with recent racism....

    Own the argument that you are calling him a liar.  Otherwise, your argument is dishonest.  You can't have it both ways....  

    Parent

    I am implying (none / 0) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 03:57:11 PM EST
    nothing. I state that no one has collected the $100,000.

    If YOU want to take that to mean that John Lewis is lying then that is YOUR position.

    As for weasel words, read "....about his own experiences with recent racism...." and tell me the specific facts behind the claim.

    Parent

    I've been looking (none / 0) (#86)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 06:57:06 PM EST
    ... I don't know of a report of John Lewis claiming to hear a slur, let alone a 15-repetition chant.
    James Clyburn and some media accompanied the Congressional Black Caucus on the walk, and he asserts he did NOT hear the slur even once.

    Parent
    Here (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 07:13:39 PM EST
    But Clyburn was downright incredulous, saying he had not witnessed such treatment since he was leading civil rights protests in South Carolina in the 1960s.

    "It was absolutely shocking to me," Clyburn said, in response to a question from the Huffington Post. "Last Monday, this past Monday, I stayed home to meet on the campus of Claflin University where fifty years ago as of last Monday... I led the first demonstrations in South Carolina, the sit ins... And quite frankly I heard some things today I have not heard since that day. I heard people saying things that I have not heard since March 15, 1960 when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus."....

    This afternoon, the Congressman [Rep. Emanuel Cleaver] was walking into the Capitol to vote, when one protester spat on him. The Congressman would like to thank the US Capitol Police officer who quickly escorted the others Members and him into the Capitol, and defused the tense situation with professionalism and care. After all the Members were safe, a full report was taken and the matter was handled by the US Capitol Police. The man who spat on the Congressman was arrested, but the Congressman has chosen not to press charges. He has left the matter with the Capitol Police.

    HuffPo

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Tony on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 07:16:39 PM EST
    James Clyburn does not specifically say what slur he heard, but I don't think it's much of a leap:

    "It was absolutely shocking to me," Clyburn said ... [Q]uite frankly I heard some things today I have not heard since that day. I heard people saying things that I have not heard since March 15, 1960 when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus."

    And Lewis' spokesperson confirmed the slur was used.

    The only was to assume the left-wing was falsely charging Tea Partiers with using racial slurs on that day is if you assume men like John Lewis, James Clyburn, and Andre Carson were lying about it.

    Parent

    Thanks , I've seen those. (none / 0) (#92)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 07:24:33 PM EST
    Yes.  Early reports include statements by Lewis's spokesperson (Brenda Jones) and Andre Carson. "some among the crowd chanted 'the N-word, the N-word, 15 times.'"
    I've no report with a direct attribution to Lewis.  I'm still hunting, but at one time I'd read a report that Clyburn expressly said he didn't hear it himself.

    Parent
    Why... (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Tony on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 07:33:16 PM EST
    do you need a specific quote from John Lewis?  I don't understand.  His spokesperson confirmed it.  This report has John Lewis
    standing next to
    Andre Carson while he recounts it.  Dana Bash says she witnessed it.

    The only way to believe this did not happen is to assume all of these people are making it up, and John Lewis stood idly by while they did so.  It is preposterous.

    Parent

    Gah (none / 0) (#94)
    by Tony on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 07:34:08 PM EST
    Italics fail.

    Parent
    Still looking ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 08:26:54 PM EST
    Dana Bash says she was told by Lewis, and I would not be surprised if she was told, not by Lewis, but by Brenda Jones.
    One thing that makes the report hard to believe is that it is described as a 15 repetition chant, something hard to overlook.  In other words, the report wasn't "isolated utterances," but (this is a direct quote from AP), "some among the crowd chanted 'the N-word, the N-word, 15 times.'"
    I think that report can be fabricated by one reporter.  Others can "play along" or talk about something else without making any express agreement or disagreement about that detail.

    Parent
    Last thoughts on the subject ... (none / 0) (#98)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:10:19 PM EST
    Cleaver is the one who issued a statement regarding being spit on.  The statement makes no mention of hearing a 15 repetition chant, or even one utterance of n-word.  His spokesman, Danny Rotert, volunteered "This is not the first time the congressman has been called the 'n' word ...", but Mr. Rotert does not report hearing it himself, nor that Cleaver reported hearing it.  Of course, that's the natural inference, but Mr. Rotert could be making an offhand report on the assumption that the original report is true.
    I'm reminded of an AP report of a Bush campaign rally: "He's [Bill Clinton] in our thoughts and prayers, Bush said at a campaign rally.  Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them."  The AP report by Tom Hays was fiction, and the "crowd booed, Bush did nothing" line was removed by the AP wire an hour later, with "Eds: SUBS lead to include reference to surgery. DELETES 3rd graf previous, Bush's audience, because of uncertainty about crowd reaction."
    I certainly understand the inclination to find reports credible, but tracking this one back to original source results in a small number of players who could have kicked off a hoax.  One reporter, Rep. Andre Carson, and Lewis spokeswoman, Brenda Jones.
    All that, combined with the size of the original report (15 repetition chant) and absence of any recording, well, I'm open to evidence (obviously, I think) and the story has too few direct observers, who should be eager to get their observations on the record.  It's not just absence of video, it's also absence of the witnesses being personally accountable for making the direct charge.
    Also, not that a majority of the protesters might testify against interest, it's not beyond the pale that 2, or 10 would corroborate such an outlandish outburst as a 15 repetition chant - they might even beat the snot out of the chanters.  But not a single corroborating witness.  The reports come off as a game of post office.  "He heard it," not "I heard it."
    You can believe what you want to ... it's not my job to give you an accurate world-view.

    Parent
    Thanks , I've seen those. (none / 0) (#95)
    by cboldt on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 08:11:41 PM EST
    I'm doubting the reporters, mostly, and Brenda Jones and Andre Carson.  HuffingtonPost reports Emanuel Cleaver and Heath Shuler also claim to have heard it, but they are not mentioned in the original report, and on April 15, AP issued a correction, "Rep. Heath Shuler is denying a report that he heard racial slurs yelled from a crowd of angry health care protesters outside the U.S. Capitol."  I have not researched for direct quotes attributable to Cleaver.
    The initial (AP) report is a 15 repetition chant.  Other reports (e.g., FoxNews) are by reporters not on scene, and seem to be restating the original report.
    Lewis never gives a comment, only Brenda Jones does, ostensibly on his behalf.  Clyburn is, I think (could be wrong on this) in the same general vicinity, at the same general time, and according to "A Closer Look at the Capitol Steps Conspiracy," he said he didn't hear it.  I'm going to look for the March 22 Olberman transcript for source material on that.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8MvcHcw5mk @ 3:39 "I didn't hear the slurs" (and he was with Lewis, he says)

    Parent
    Allrighty then. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Tony on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 08:27:56 PM EST
    Good luck in your quest.

    Parent
    Oh, I get it! (none / 0) (#100)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 12:17:51 AM EST
    The whole thing was a giant conspiracy!

    After all, the likelihood that people who carry around pictures of the President of the United States as a tribal medicine man with a bone through his nose couldn't possibly, possibly, ever have used such crude language!

    Parent

    Not a giant conspiracy (none / 0) (#101)
    by cboldt on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 05:36:03 AM EST
    It only takes a few people, in the right place, to perpetrate a hoax.  I shared my research and reasons.
    Separate subject, but it's worth watching the video of the spitting incident.  I think, when pressed Cleaver admitted it was a case of somebody not adhering to "Say it! Don't spray it!"
    As I said to Tony, it's not my job to adjust your credulity, you can believe whatever you want to, on whatever you find to be sufficient, credible evidence.

    Parent
    This event occured due to racial politics (3.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Buckeye on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:00:44 AM EST
    being played between the NAACP and the Tea Party.  The NAACP accused the Tea Party of being a racist organization (due in part to unproved allegations of racial heckling of Congressman Lewis for example).  Breitbart responded with a tape of Sherrod speaking at an NAACP meeting.  According to Breitbard, the purpose was not to nail Sherrod but to show that the NAACP audience cheered when Sherrod spoke of being racist, but did not cheer when she spoke of redemption and how she grew from the experience.  Breitbart said the purpose was to show the NAACP had racist people in their organization (the audience) so they should not be accusing others (such as the tea party).  That is also why the NAACP responded so recklessly harsh and rapid to Sherrod's firing.  They just accused an entire organization with millions of members of being a racially motivated organization and then they see the tape of Sherrod and to quote Obama "acted very stupidly."

    It is really sad how racial politics in America can ruin good people's careers and reputations.

    Parent

    No, they did not (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:09:59 PM EST
    NAACP accused, entirely factually, the tea party of having racist elements.  That fact is undeniable, which is why the right wing immediately started lying their heads off and saying the NAACP accused them of being a racist organization.

    Parent
    yea (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CST on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:16:53 PM EST
    the NAACP needs to apologize immediately to the tea party for having the audacity of being right, and forcing them to respond in such a way that proves them right.


    Parent
    And if you look at the video (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:50:23 PM EST
    and listen to the laughter the Tea Party can claim racist in the NAACP.

    But see my comment #18.

    Parent

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 12:01:05 AM EST
    And btw, Breitbart claims they "cheered," which is a complete lie.

    Parent
    The laughing (2.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:50:52 AM EST
    at an inappropriate moment is self explanatory. I refer to actions like this the "O.J. Syndrome" and cut the people involved some slack.

    Face it. Blacks were treated poorly in this country for years and it would take Saints to not enjoy some payback.

    Having said that, I think it would be helpful if the Left, the Democrats and black organizations did not try and play politics by making false accusations against the Tea Party.

    You see the result and millions of white people will not be as understanding.

    Obama is foolish to use a strategy that supercharges them.

    Parent

    false accusations? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by CST on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:58:59 AM EST
    one tea party organization just had to disassociate with another tea party organization due to blatantly racist comments.

    Are you saying that the tea partiers were wrong about that racist charge as well?

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:13:05 AM EST
    The words I used were "false charges."

    If they are provable, have at it.

    BTW - Could we see some links showing the context? That seems to be rather important in the DOA flap.

    Parent

    link (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:17:48 AM EST
    here:

    Dear Mr. Lincoln

    We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

    In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the 'tea party movement'.

    The tea party position to "end the bailouts" for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn't that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

    ...

    Sincerely

    Precious Ben Jealous, Tom's Nephew
    NAACP Head Colored Person

    oh and I think CST meant "MAJOR tea party organization"

    Parent

    the context being (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by CST on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:26:30 AM EST
    he thought it was funny.

    And "he" is Williams the head of a hugely influencial, large, tea party organization - the tea-party express.  This is not some fringe group.

    Parent

    And action was taken (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:26:48 AM EST
    So how about the false Congressional charges????

    And then we have this smear job by Think Progress.

    My point remains. Broad brush claims against millions of people is not the way to won friends and influence people...

    Of course if you don't want to...

    Parent

    action was taken by one group (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by CST on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:29:09 AM EST
    but he still remains the head of this other organization - which is still very powerfull in it's own right.

    This man still has the support of the tea-party express.  This is the type of thing they stand behind.

    Parent

    Well, I don't have any information on (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:31:31 AM EST
    "this other organization."

    Maybe they will fire him and Think Progress will fire the author of its hit piece at the same time.

    Parent

    Looks like they already fired him (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:36:08 AM EST
    Mark Williams, the flamethrower leading the battle against the Ground Zero mosque, was kicked out of the National Tea Party Federation Saturday for a racist blog post.

    Link

    Now it's Think Progress and the NAACP's turn.


    Parent

    no (none / 0) (#38)
    by CST on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:40:31 AM EST
    you are confusing the federation and the express.

    Fair enough, I had no idea what the difference was before this whole thing either.

    The federation kicked out the express because the express kept this guy on.  But the express is powerfull in their own right.

    Parent

    Where are the false statements in the (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:09:16 PM EST
    Think Progress piece?

    And your claim that the Congressmen were not called the n-word and spat upon just because there is no video of it is just ridiculous. You have no evidence that they colluded to make up that story, even to the extent of filing a report with the Capital Police.

    Parent

    Smear tactics are smear tactics (1.00 / 2) (#56)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:47:17 PM EST
    It's unclear whether Murdough is a tea partier

    And tea party is splashed all through the article...

    There is no doubt that the guy is a racist but Think Progress didn't even ask him if he was a Tea Party member and verify if he said he was. That's pretty basic journalism.

    If he is, he is. If he is not, he is not.

    And if the Congressman colluded shame on them... and will somebody please prove they are truthful and collect the $100,000?  

    You know, I'm standing on my comment #18. Take the friendly advice or ignore it.

    Parent

    And the rest of the quote (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:33:23 PM EST
    tells of his thought about the Tea Party, even if he is not a card-carrying member:

    It's unclear whether Murdough is a tea partier, but in the comments section of the Monitor's website, where Murdough is very active, he wrote, "I think the Tea Party movement is doing great things." His rhetoric in the comments often reflects that of the movement...

    I'm not going to quote the rest of his racist garbage.

    Actually, it is very convenient that people can align with the Tea Party in a vague way for that 'plausible' deniability on both sides.


    Parent

    And that proves what?? (none / 0) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 04:05:10 PM EST
    The smear is that he is a Tea Party member.

    To be a member you join. TP could have verified one way or the other if they were interested in the truth.

    Obviously they were not.

    Parent

    You have to ask? (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 04:06:14 PM EST
    The whole TP article is an attempt to smear the Tea Party.

    Parent
    Yes it is unfortunate that (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 04:08:49 PM EST
    nut cases like him and the New Black Panthers
    can mouth words that others can use against the each others organizations.

    Parent
    So who is being smeared, in your opinion? (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:39:17 PM EST
    Murdough or the Tea Party?

    I'm guessing the Tea Party, or whatever part of them is not racist.

    Parent

    And in that case, Murdough is smearing them (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    not Think Progress.

    Parent
    Just to be entirely clear (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:11:59 PM EST
    You are accusing John Lewis and Elijah Cummings of lying, right?

    Parent
    And Emanuel Cleaver.... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:15:12 PM EST
    and their staff members.  

    New rule: If it doesn't happen on video, it doesn't happen.

    Parent

    This is not a he said - he said (3.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Buckeye on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:53:47 PM EST
    situation.  This is a he said - four cameras with audio that showed nothing and no other witnesses.

    Ask Hillary or McCain if people like this in the Dem party do not play the race card in this manner?  Make an accusation, whether it can be proven or not, and it obfuscates the discussion away from something that is hurting you.

    Parent

    There is $100,000 (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:36:40 PM EST
    in the bank waiting for them.

    You can take it from there.

    Right?

    Parent

    Looks like a dumb (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:29:36 AM EST
    attempt at satire to me.

    And, if I understand it correctly, he has been "disassociated" whatever that means... for his actions.

    Parent

    The fact that you (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:28:35 PM EST
    don't think this is racist is LOL worthy.  Who do you think he's satirizing here?

    Parent
    Don't put words in my mouth (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:56:33 PM EST
    I didn't say the writer wasn't a racist. I said it was a "dumb attempt at satire."

    Or do you think racists can't try their hand at satire?

    Parent

    "dumb" (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by lilburro on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:13:31 PM EST
    as opposed to "malevolent/racist"?  "Dumb" suggests it wasn't malevolent.

    I don't know a damn thing about Mark Williams but that he is the head of the Tea Party Express and he wrote this.  I conclude he is racist based on this piece of satire.  Are you going off of other information?

    Parent

    there are a few different factions (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:36:18 AM EST
    here is a link that explains who the tea-party express are.  These are the people who are keeping this guy on.

    The people who "disassociated" with them are the tea party federation.

    This link explains the rift to some degree.

    Parent

    Edited look at audience also (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:24:19 PM EST
    I won't provide the link because not once have you ever used a link provided and I know you will refuse to watch the video and just spread Breitbart's story line, but the sort of 'laughter' is not in any way inappropriate.

    She is telling her experience.  When she is discussing the farmer, she states that the white man was acting better than her and she knew what he was doing.  That got a response from the audience that has shared the same experience.  Her next sentences are where she describes doing 'just enough' and there is NO audience response. She describes how she hands him off to a lawyer and there is NO audience response.  None.

    Breitbart takes a few sentences out of context and shows one audience response to whip up the far-white right and they lap it up and get all frothy.

    Parent

    Shorter (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:57:49 PM EST
    and more accurate...

    "I don't have a link so I'll just snark and make false claims."

    lol

    Parent

    Here's a link (2.00 / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    and you can listen to the audience... start around the 1:55 mark and remember that is BEFORE she explains that she was doing bad things because of the wrongs to blacks and was later saved from her sins.

    I stand by comment #18.

    Link

    Parent

    Just sad.... (none / 0) (#68)
    by ks on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:22:37 PM EST
    Your characterization and spin are ridiculous.  Now that Briebart got caught being a dishonest dirtbag, you and he are trying to shift to "audience reaction" but, as usual, you all are using a very selective part of the tape and a remarkably disingenuous interpretation of it you keep your sad, and failed, attempt to race bait alive.

    But, look over there! the New Black Panther Party just blamed global warming on whites farting!  Quick hurry up and get the tape to Drudge and Fox!  

    Parent

    Uh, got caught doing what?? (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 03:47:38 PM EST
    This is my first comments on the subject so I can't see how you can place me and Bb side by side... and selective? Well, she said and they reacted... if that is "selective" I guess I am.

    Perhaps, if you're interested in my position, you will read my comment #18.

    If that fails to please you then please be sure that you have my heartfelt permission to be displeased.

    Parent

    Got it (none / 0) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:40:13 PM EST
    She explains facing white racism and some people murmur, giggle or otherwise respond to this (statment that he was 'acting better' than her and he knew what he was doing) one anecdote in a life story indicating they relate to having faced white racism and that makes blacks racist.  I don't agree with your far-right position that blacks are racist when they point out white racism.  

    She introduces her story by informing the audience that it was originally a committment to blacks only but that God showed her it's about poor people.

    Parent

    There was... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Tony on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 04:11:56 PM EST
    nothing inappropriate about the laughter in the audience, for reasons explained by, of all people, Rich Lowry.  Honestly, the idea that the people in the audience did not realize this was going to be a story of penitence is absurd.

    Parent
    i believe that was (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 09:33:26 AM EST
    mr. breitbart's claim on the ACORN video as well. either he's a liar, or an idiot. he's certainly no journalist.

    of course, so far, the "original" poster of said video has yet to be revealed. perhaps he/she is hiding behind door# 3?

    Parent

    And the ACRON (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:35:45 AM EST
    video didn't tell the truth?

    Oh, really?

    Show me the proof.

    Parent

    Here you go, for a start (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:43:33 AM EST
    The Acorn videos have been discredited for months.

    Parent
    I saw the video and heard (2.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:15:32 AM EST
    what was said.

    So yes, ACRON was thoroughly discredited.

    Parent

    And arguments over how (2.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:18:23 AM EST
    he was dressed, etc., does not change a thing. He could have been dressed as priest and the actions of ACRON would have still be wrong.

    Parent
    Yep... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kdog on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:27:04 AM EST
    you can't teach a hooker how to play the system in order to buy a house...only the wealthy & connected are allowed to play the system.

    Who does ACORN think they are, the Federal Reserve?  The nerve of those community organizers, don't they know their place?

    Parent

    And there's the small matter of (1.00 / 2) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:39:02 PM EST
    young girls...'

    Kdog, sometimes there are things done by the poor and downtrodden that are just wrong.

    Parent

    But the video did not show you how he was (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by ruffian on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:24:18 PM EST
    really dressed, did it? Therefore factually inaccurate. And he wasn't even pretending to be a pimp. The full video shows he was pretending to be her boyfriend, saving her from a pimp. The whole thing was a hoax on two levels - fooling the Acorn workers, and lying about the facts to the media and public.  

    Parent
    The video showed what was said (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 12:40:31 PM EST
    I don't care if they were all naked.

    Parse and posture all you want.

    Parent

    ACRON.. (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 06:46:05 PM EST
    based in Akron..

    Perusual, you saw and heard what you believed before you saw and heard the video.

    And the same people who believed that simple-minded, disengenuous narrative are the same nitwits who thank we got us a non-native born, secret muslim in the Whitehouse (and that human influenced climate change is a left wing hoax).

     

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#19)
    by ks on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:52:45 AM EST
    It's amazing that after that incident that any "news" organization would take anything coming from Briebart at face value.

    Parent
    Not surprising at all.. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 07:17:33 PM EST
    we're talking about a news media that alotted time and relatively uncritical coverage to the people who claimed Vince Foster and Ron Brown were murdered.

    Breibart is no striking abberation in that context. All it takes is for a couple of fairly prominent Rethugs to catapult the narrative by suggesting the info "could be" deserving of closer scrutiny, and it immediatly becomes credible and newsworthy enough for the if-it-bleeds-it-leads folk.


    Parent

    True! (none / 0) (#102)
    by ks on Thu Jul 22, 2010 at 01:07:48 PM EST
    I guess I meant "amazing" in the "still amazing" sense.

    Parent
    Juan Carlos Vera (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Tony on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    He was portrayed in the tapes -- and over and over on Fox News, of course -- as working with O'Keefe and Giles to smuggle underage prostitutes across the border.

    As soon as they left the building, he called the police to report them.  This, obviously, was never mentioned as the videos of Juan Carlos Vera's face were shown over and over again.

    So, yeah, the ACORN video showed the "truth" of what the conversation between O'Keefe, Giles, and Vera, but it was not honest in any manner.

    Andrew Breitbart is a bully who ruins people's lives for entertainment, and it is pathetic that people take him seriously.

    Parent

    And the money is as (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 10:39:35 AM EST
    safe as if it were in a "bank in the middle of Beverley Hills in somebody else's name."

    lol

    Parent

    I hate to tell you this (none / 0) (#26)
    by sj on Wed Jul 21, 2010 at 11:24:03 AM EST
    but the guy is still being taken seriously.  He was on one of the morning shows this morning.  The one with George Stephanopolous.  There was a guest that was supposed to provide the "counterbalance".

    Breitbart didn't raise his voice but he didn't let either Stephanopolous or Other Guy get a word in edgewise.  At the start of the segment George S. almost managed to say that the edited video was deceptive, but Breitbart rather smoothly took the floor.

    I didn't watch the segment all that closely because I was getting ready for work (like many viewers most likely), but it sure seemed that Breitbart managed to let the lie stand.

    The Discrediting Of Breitbart: Why Was He Ever Taken Seriously? | 105 comments (105 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment