Andrew Breitbart (of breitbart.com and James O'Keefe false ACORN 'pimp' story fame) has declared that he will take "down the institutional left" in the "next three weeks."
(He's also supremely fun to bait on Twitter and will retweet any an all criticism of himself posted there.)
.
So you agree with TheBradBlog in disproving the following (and Defending Acorn) by stating that James O'Keefe did not dress like huggy bear.
ReplyDeleteEric Boehlert: Lying Scum
Any sentient being who has examined the evidence understands that there are two pimps in play in the tapes: the abusive one Hannah is escaping, and O’Keefe, who is setting up a house where Giles and several underage girls will turn tricks and give the money to O’Keefe for a future Congressional campaign.
Well, HTTT, did O'Keefe dress like "Huggy Bear" inside the ACORN office, or did he dress like the future Congressional candidate? As I understand it, the statement in italics is true. However, let's be clear, O'Keefe went to ACORN with the intent of misrepresenting himself. I gather an investigation by a former Massachusetts Attorney General found no evidence of wrong doing on the part of ACORN employees (yes, evidence of bad judgment and perhaps too much tolerance to a slimy conservative). In my opinion, what O'Keefe did ought to be criminal, especially since it cost ACORN millions of dollars in federal money (the tiniest drop in the budget, but probably a lot of money to ACORN).
ReplyDeleteBut then further O'Keefe then went on FOX news and flashed the picture of himself wearing the ridiculous pimp furry coat, sunglasses and hat costume (and I notice a suit jacket and tie underneath, I guess his little joke on us). And O'Keefe did not correct the FOX news host when he laughed about how stupid the ACORN people were for falling for the pimp costume.
So O'Keefe not only deceived ACORN, he lied to FOX news' viewers. Really, I can't understand why anyone would want to defend him.
And of course your comment is yet another attempt to distract from the actual post. How is Andrew Breitbart going to "take down" the "institutional left" in the next three weeks? Apparently however he will do it, he didn't mention anything about Mr O'Keefe. I guess Jimmy is not coming along on this job.
If you want to shut down an organization because it has "bad actors," then perhaps we should start with Congress....
ReplyDeleteEd,
ReplyDeleteApparently he's going to have military backup:
1 thing 4 'Chickenhawk'-spouting lefties: When u come after me, did u support US military when chips were down? Think about who has my back.
28 minutes ago via web
andrewbreitbart
LOL!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteO’Keefe was addressed in normal clothes.
ReplyDeleteYou forgot to add the adjective "Independent" to the Investigation by a former Massachusetts Attorney General (and the Fells Acres Day Care Center case railroader) Scott Harshbarger.
That is what I see in the Talking points from Acorn, Media Matters, TPM and nutroots blogs.
Next Acorn can have Mike Nifong issue a report.
HTTT, "O’Keefe was addressed in normal clothes."? Or perhaps even dressed in normal clothes, while he was in the ACORN office. This is what I have read in reports about the tapes.
ReplyDeleteI believe we agree on that.
Do we agree that the edited videotapes that O'Keefe provided to the media never show him while he was in the ACORN office?
Do we agree that O'Keefe provided the media with pictures of himself dressed in the silly fur coat, the hat and sunglasses, with the suit on underneath, and that O'Keefe appeared on (apparently) Fox and Friends (whatever that is) wearing the Fur coat. Do we further agree O'Keefe did not correct the host when he laughed about how stupid the ACORN employees must have been to believe O'Keefe in a fur coat was a real pimp?
In other words, do we agree that O'Keefe himself perpetuated the lie that he was dressed as pimp, in the furry jacket, etc, while he was in the ACORN office?
Yes, Harshbarger was the prosecutor in the Fells Acres Day Care Center case, and yes, from a cursory look it appears that the children in that case were repeatedly asked the same questions and those children changed from denying anything had happened to answering the questions in the affirmative. I will say that our understanding of how to question very young children has evolved since 1984, and I believe (hope) that those charges based on that evidence would never be brought now. That said, Massachusetts had and has really dropped the ball in correcting that judicial mistake. Which is not to say that child abuse does not occur, but we now know it is much more difficult to question a child compared to what we understood in 1984.
So once again you are saying that anything O'Keefe does, any ethical rules he bends, any entrapment activities he engages in, any laws he breaks, and anything Breitbart (the topic of the original post) does, it's all ok as long as you can bring up something about some liberal and/or progressive from any time in history.