It’s not often that, barely a week after sparking a mini media circus by being arrested on federal property in the course of an undercover operation, an individual can be at the center of another press controversy. But in James O’Keefe’s world, it seems, anything is possible.
Last Wednesday, Salon published an article by Max Blumenthal, titled “James O’Keefe’s Race Problem,” which asserted that the conservative videographer’s “short but storied career has been defined by a series of political stunts shot through with racial resentment.” The story covered some previously reported ground, such as O’Keefe’s role in organizing an “affirmative action bake sale” in college; highlighted comments O’Keefe reputedly made in a college-era online diary that has been preserved at Daily Kos; and suggested that O’Keefe’s “racial issues” shaped his approach to ACORN. But the key bit of news was O’Keefe’s attendance at—and his alleged involvement with—a 2006 panel discussion in Washington, D.C., that featured as a speaker Jared Taylor of the white nationalist organization American Renaissance, along with National Review writer John Derbyshire and Kevin Martin of the black conservative group Project 21.
The precise tenor of the event, which Salon’s editors described in a sub-headline as a “white-nationalist confab,” is a matter of some dispute. (Readers who are inclined to make their own determination can listen to the audio recordings at the American Renaissance Web site.) At issue here is a more specific point: Blumenthal’s claim in the original story that, “Together, O’Keefe and [fellow conservative activist Marcus] Epstein planned an event in August 2006 that would wed their extreme views on race with their ambitions.” That was the line that most directly tied O’Keefe to Epstein, whose record includes a subsequent arrest for assaulting an African-American woman, and that most directly gave him ownership of the event.
The problem is that, as it appeared in the Salon story, the source for the claim was unclear. And, as became apparent over the next couple days, Blumenthal’s sources—including Daryle Jenkins, director of a racism watchdog group called the One People’s Project, which monitored the event, and a pseudonymous freelance photographer known as Isis—did not actually know whether O’Keefe had planned the gathering.
Jenkins told CJR that OPP representatives had observed several individuals from a conservative group known as the Leadership Institute—O’Keefe apparently among them—“setting up the tables” and otherwise assisting on site. Isis, meanwhile, said in an interview Friday that O’Keefe “was very actively involved in the execution of the event,” and likened his participation to a friend helping the host of a party. (She has been similarly quoted by Blumenthal at his blog and also by Dave Weigel of The Washington Independent, who was at the original event and wrote numerous stories about it last week.)
That’s something, but it’s not what Blumenthal originally claimed. Meanwhile, Epstein went on record to say that O’Keefe was not an organizer. And O’Keefe—who did not respond last week to requests for comment from Blumenthal or CJR—denied any planning role in a conversation with Andrew Breitbart’s BigJournalism.com.
When first contacted by CJR last Thursday, Blumenthal did not back down from the claim. “The story is accurately sourced, and I stand by it,” he said, repeatedly. Indeed, Blumenthal’s sources had no quarrel with his reporting. Isis was quoted by Weigel on Friday as saying, “I don’t believe O’Keefe planned the event.” But that afternoon, she told CJR that she had no problem with Blumenthal’s account. “Nitpicking over whether he planned the event, or nitpicking over whether he manned a table or not, is… getting away from the base racism of the situation, which is dangerous,” she said. “What was obvious was [O’Keefe] participating in the execution of the event. I think that Max interprets that as planning, and in the world of event-planning, Max is correct.”
- 1
- 2
AND...the point of this article was? You got heat from that scheming bigot Breitbart? CJR bows to CONservative pressure again.
#1 Posted by Lamonta Peruty, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 02:15 PM
Geez. Spare the lecture and spare us your pain for having to deal a blow to a fellow traveler. The tiniest violin weeps. The real story here is Blumenthal has a history and record of playing loosey goosey with the truth in order to smear conservatives and is an embarrassment to the profession. Joan Walsh too. End of story.
#2 Posted by Timetester, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 09:23 PM
"Whatever is in his heart, O’Keefe has a history of pushing people’s buttons on racial issues and testing the limits of what he can get away with"...
????
Mr. Marx just can't bring himself to ackowledge the cooked-up libel against a conservative-type without sliming the victim a little himself...
It's the old Ratheresque "fake, but accurate" chestnut recast into a racist slime attack against the victim of a typical liberal hack job.
Now, let's see... The "precise tenor" of the 2006 event O'Keefe attended is unknown, but we do know that there were also white supremecists there and, worse still... Black Conservatives! Egad! And there's no evidence O'Keefe had anything to do with running the thing. But, by ding, we sure know that he was "pushing racial buttons"!
But what exactly which "racial issue" buttons has Mr. O'Keefe pushed, Mr. Marx?
That's a hell of an unsupported accusation to toss around without the slightest shred of evidence.
#3 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 10:26 PM
Wow! Way to throw softballs, CJR.
Just couldn't bring yourself to call that pathetic Salon article what it really was--a trashy hit piece, devoid of any substantive fact or evidence, dressed up with a cropped, photo-shopped picture of O'Keefe, purporting to be manning a table distributing white supremacist literature, all supplied by a pseudonymous photographer (Isis!), who claimed that the FBI had eaten her original un-cropped photo. Real persuasive.
If this softball is the standard at the CRJ--that self- styled "watchdog of the press"-- for setting the record straight when a journal like Salon has printed fiction as truth, then I weep for the future of journalism
#4 Posted by Calfed, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 11:41 PM
I'm very disappointed in CJR. Blumenthal wrote a sloppy hit piece, and Salon published it, followed by a half-assed correction.
Don't excuse Blumenthal.
Author Max Blumenthal] presents no evidence that Breitbart hired O’Keefe “to carry out the ACORN operation” because none exists. None exists because the claim is absolutely false.
While Breitbart may have served as promoter of the ACORN hidden camera videos, he wasn’t involved in shooting the videos.
#5 Posted by Belinda Gomez, CJR on Tue 9 Feb 2010 at 11:57 PM
"The precise tenor of the event, which Salon’s editors described in a sub-headline as a “white-nationalist confab,” is a matter of some dispute."
Yes, there's Blumenthal's description, and there are the observable facts.
http://tinyurl.com/yjbwkk2
#6 Posted by Pablo, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 12:27 AM
It wasn't a bad piece until you started the usual CJR BS about how the MSM is such a sensible, centrist collection of well-meaning journalists.
It takes a concerted campaign to correct the central tenet that held this thinly-sourced gruel together and you're satisfied that journalistic justice has been done--oh and by the way, Max you'll get your man the next time.
Episodes such as this one reminds one of the joy of watching the mainstream press shrink like a hemorrhoid.
#7 Posted by Mondo, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 12:43 AM
I have to agree with what most of the others here have said. I read the Blumenthal story and, even if he hadn't made his mistake, I'm not sure what his big scoop was. Mostly it was just heavy on the innuendo, and light on facts. Papa Sidney, I'm sure, would be proud of that kind of crap, but I don't see that it added any kind of useful information to anyone other than the sort of folks who consider Keith Olbermann the world's ultimate information provider.
#8 Posted by Frank, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 02:06 AM
O’Keefe’s pimp story goes astray on key detail
You may be interested in the latest Brad Blog piece if you are presuming that anything O'Keefe says has anything to do with journalism. Acording to the MA Attorney General, O'Keefe's claim that he wore his pimp outfit into ACORN offices is untrue. He merely altered his video to make it appear that he had.
O'Keefe claims to be a journalist. What he actually is is a liar.
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7689
#9 Posted by Benedict@Large, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 02:10 AM
Benedict:
Make that Former Attorney General hired by ACORN in an ACORN run inquiry and you might be in a better position to sling around words like "liar" or talk about alterations.
See, you get things wrong and your point is discredited even if (a point I am not willing to concede) your larger point is true.
Kind of like what Marx was saying.
#10 Posted by Clovis, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 11:42 AM
So is photographer Isis also a racist for attending this event?
Is Kevin Martin, who was one of the debaters, a white supremacist for actually participating in the event? That would be unusual and a real story, since he is black!
The real problem with this article is that Mr. Marx is trying to make it seem to fall under the "fake but accurate" imprimatur.
#11 Posted by MTinMN, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 11:43 AM
"Acording to the MA Attorney General, O'Keefe's claim that he wore his pimp outfit into ACORN offices is untrue. He merely altered his video to make it appear that he had."--Benedict@Large, 2/10/10
What are you talking about?
Scott Harshbarger, the FORMER Massachusetts Attorney General and now PRIVATE attorney was hired by ACORN to conduct an "independent" investigation and made the claim that you cite.
So, let me get this straight...ACORN hires a Democrat attorney to conduct an "independent" (that's a laugh) investigation of itself and you cite the findings as
being those of the "MA Attorney General"?
Who is the liar here, Benedict?
#12 Posted by Calfed, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 11:47 AM
" ...“the mainstream media”—a term that has been stretched beyond all utility, but by which they often seem to mean any outlet without an avowedly right-wing perspective ..."
Let me help you here, they mean news organizations which claim to present unbiased journalism to the general audience. Examples would be: CBS, PBS, The NY Times and Salon. Alternatively, sources such as Daily KOS, HuffPo, Red State and the Breitbart Bigs are not examples. Seems clear enough to me.
#13 Posted by Stephen Pittman, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 12:07 PM
Some progress is being made. Fifteen years ago Max's father would have been able to place this story as news in a major daily newspaper and it would live forever in the databases. Fifteen years ago, every key Tea Party organizer would be smeared on the news pages for every divorce, parking ticket or past comment that could be distorted courtesy of Max's father.
Today, Max has to do his own dirty work and take some heat. Max reveals himself to be the biased bigot willing to distort facts to injure an opponent. And the real story is Max's smear, now out in the open, and not the tepid, almost sorta not my cup of tea event that actually took place.
#14 Posted by Alan R, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 12:14 PM
Examples would be: CBS, PBS, The NY Times and Salon.
As important as it is to point out the bias at organizations like CBS, NPR, NYT, etc., I think it's even more important to point out the good reporting from people like Jake Tapper at ABC, who's doing great work. To that end, I give Greg Marx credit for correcting Blumenthal. Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, Marx's own article is still heavily colored by his own assumptions.
#15 Posted by kwo, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 12:24 PM
To Greg Marx: I hope CJR is internalizing the obvious here - that people on the Left are very free and easy with accusations of racism, particularly when their political fortunes are in decline. Since this stuff has a nasty history in recent memory (i.e., the disgusting performance of much of the press, led by the unreliable NY Times, in the fetid Duke/lacrosse scandal), I believe that every reporter's BS detector should go off when left-wing journalists and activists start playing the race card.
Unjustified accusations of racial motive (usually defined in slippery terms) have as scabrous an effect on civic discourse as does racism itself. (Several MSM stalwarts were also humiliatingly taken in by the Kentucky census worker scam, thanks to the same lazy biases, too.) It is good to see CJR approaching this stuff with skeptical scrutiny.
#16 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 12:56 PM
The big joke in journalism in the last week has been the Salon story.
The slightly smaller joke is a very conservative correction, when a retraction and apology was needed. The entire story drips with bias, but they only corrected one small spot.
Just behind the slightly smaller joke is this joke : The CJR story that excuses most of the malfeasance of Blumenthal and Salon and even reinforces the unfounded claims that it was a "racist event."
Yes, this affair does give people like me ammunition to claim a liberal bias in the mainstream media. But trust me, friend, we already have more than enough. The allegation is not even at issue any more. It is merely a matter of deciding who can be trusted and who can't. Salon definitely falls into the latter category, and unfortunately, so now does CJR.
"False but accurate" indeed.
#17 Posted by Rob H., CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 02:00 PM
"You may be interested in the latest Brad Blog piece if you are presuming that anything O'Keefe says has anything to do with journalism."-Benedict@large
I read the Brad Blog piece. It is about as impressive as your contribution to the discussion. And you know how impressed I was with that.
#18 Posted by Calfed, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 02:48 PM
It's too bad Breitbart's slobbering legions had to ooze themselves over here to defend their champion. You know, you could be out there buying Andy a comb, a treadmill, and a clue instead of yammering in defense of a 25 year old racist
#19 Posted by timb, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 03:11 PM
Cool, Pablo ventures forth from the slime of Protein Wisdom to give us the Breitbart party line! He even links to it! WOW, how clever.
So, if I read the self-interested twaddle, will pablo go to VDARE and American Renaissance and see what he's defending? You know, jared taylor discussing the genetic superiority of whites to Hispanics and blacks? maybe, then he could come back here and defend it? Just maybe, the fellow who opposes the Community Reinvestment Act because redlining is not so bad, can explain how O'Keefe sitting through such a discussion makes him a non-racist.
Gee, what is the likelihood of that happening?
#20 Posted by timb, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 03:15 PM
So, let me get this straight...ACORN hires a Democrat attorney to conduct an "independent" (that's a laugh) investigation of itself and you cite the findings as
being those of the "MA Attorney General"?
Who is the liar here, Benedict?
Posted by Calfed
Did you read it, Calfed, or are you just shooting a messenger because you're lazy and "breitbartified"?
#21 Posted by timb, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 03:17 PM
Posted by timb
Did you read it, Calfed, or are you just shooting a messenger because you're lazy and "breitbartified"?
Read it and commented on it. Substantive comments. Not like your usual puerile tripe.
#22 Posted by calfed, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 03:21 PM
While I appreciate you stating the obvious, Mr. Marx, and it needed to be said, I can't help but feel you just winked at journalists who ask the public to trust them again, and again, and again, etc. You don't seem terribly concerned about cookie jar raids.
#23 Posted by FeFe, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 03:51 PM
You can almost hear Marx's (appropriate name) teeth grinding as he is forced to very gently chastise a fellow leftist for an egregious, dishonest smear. I mean how badly does a lying socialist hack pretending to be a journalist have to put his foot in it before even the CJR is forced to mutter some kind of protest?
You people actually proud of yourselves? Pathetic. But let's not lose sight of the big picture here, we don't want anyone getting the crazy idea that 'the media is motivated by ideological biases and personal vendettas, unconstrained by norms that ensure fairness and accuracy', right? Keep it subtle people! Undermine the credibility of conservatives with weasel words and passive aggressive jabs, 'forget' to report facts that run counter to the agreed narrative, blackball people and stories that make the left look bad, but don't outright lie and falsify photographs, that stuff just gives the game away! Come on, Blumenthal, we all hate O'Keef and want him destroyed, but get with the program!
PATHETIC. I'm glad your disgusting 'profession' is dying.
#24 Posted by Amos, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 04:15 PM
Max Blumenthal is a serial liar. Now that we have your attention, he also lied in an article that he wrote for Salon when he accused Rush Limbaugh of saying on air: "You know who deserves a medal of honor? James Earl Ray." Salon later retracted that, too, as there is no credible source and it never happened. That POS has zero credibility.
#25 Posted by John DOe, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 04:56 PM
"That POS has zero credibility. "
Apparently none needed at Salon.
#26 Posted by Calfed, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 05:30 PM
Come on, Greg, take your own advice and just report the facts without stooping to take gratuitous swipes at conservatives.
For instance, it doesn't strengthen your case to link to the Washington Independent, an amateurish, typo-laden publication that's bigger on innuendo than objectivity ... and is about as "independent" as Howard Dean.
The very Weigel story you link to makes a big deal out of the fact that O'Keefe attended a meeting at which "The big draw (was) Jared Taylor, the politically toxic editor of the openly racist American Renaissance magazine."
Big draw? Big deal!
It was a debate society, for crying out loud, and whether or not Jared Taylor and his magazine are "openly racist," it doesn't prove that everyone attending the event shared all -- or any -- of his views. (By that shoddy standard, Phil Donahue is a racist for hosting his Daytime Emmy-winning 1979 show, "Nazis and the Klan.")
You also accuse "Breitbart, O'Keefe, and their circle" of "exploiting the idea that 'the mainstream media ... does not apply the rules consistently, and can not be expected to treat conservatives fairly."
Well, Greg, while your smackdown of Max Blumenthal was laudable, the rest of your story probably makes Breitbart, O'Keefe, and their circle say to themselves, "Thank you for proving our point."
#27 Posted by I.C. Bias, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 05:44 PM
Calfred wrote
"Read it and commented on it. Substantive comments. Not like your usual puerile tripe"
Could you link to your comments on the former AG's report? I'd LOVE to read those!
What substantive objections can you raise about a mostly critical audit of ACORN? The fact that Harshbarger compared the released transcripts to the edited video? The fact that ACORN employees never saw O'Keefe in the pimp costume, meaning O'Keefe spliced it in afterwards? Just curious to know what part of Harshbarger's PDF you "commented on."
See, I'm betting outside of Sean Hannity's "books", the polemics of Ann Coulter, or the rantings of Michael Savage, you probably can't read 40+ pages...
#28 Posted by timb, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 05:49 PM
Hey, I.C. the link's right there. go listen to the "discussion" and let us know what you think. I'm especially interested to hear your opinion of Taylor's contention that white people are genetically smarter than blacks and Hispanics. No, big deal, right? that's not part of an extremist kook-ology, just.....well, you're not sure, but you're aware there was a free range discussion.
Nice to know the Strom Thurmond wing of the Breitbart party is still extant
#29 Posted by timb, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 05:54 PM
Tim, go to the Bradblog link if you want to see my comments on Brad's defense of Scott Harshbarger's report.
#30 Posted by Calfed, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 07:44 PM
NewsBusters -- CJR to Salon's Blumenthal: Stop Giving Fodder to Critics of Liberal Media
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/02/10/cjr-salons-blumenthal-stop-giving-fodder-critics-liberal-media
#31 Posted by Thomas Stewart, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 09:06 PM
timb said
The fact that ACORN employees never saw O'Keefe in the pimp costume, meaning O'Keefe spliced it in afterwards? Just curious to know what part of Harshbarger's PDF you "commented on."
Did YOU read the Harshbarger report, tim?
Here is what Harshbrger said with respect to his investigation of O'Keefe's visits to ACORN's offices:
“The unedited videos have never been made public”
So, he hasn’t seen any video that the rest of haven’t seen.
“We did not speak directly with those employees who were captured on video in part because we were satisfied there was no question that the visits occurred and the comments were made”
So Harshbarger didn’t even speak to the people who actually dealt with O’Keefe. Does the word “hearsay” ring a bell?
“We have described what we have been told were the specific circumstances of each visit in narratives attached hereto as Appendix D, which stem from interviews of ACORN employees, MANY OF WHOM DID NOT DID NOT HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENTS.”
Jesus—double hearsay. And from people who apparently didn’t know anything themselves.
“We also did not have the opportunity to speak with the videographers. In fact, they either declined or ignored our requests.”
So, they didn’t get to talk to O’Keefe, either.
“It is important to note that none of the ACORN offices visited has any written record of the visits”
So no contemporaneous reports of the visits to fall back on.
Given these caveats to Harshbarger's "investigation" of the O'Keefe visits to the ACORN offices, your reliance on his report is laughable.
The evidence for your conjecture that O'Keefe wasn't wearing his pimp suit can be summed up as:
Some ACORN employees, not the ones who actually dealt with O’Keefe, mind you, say he wasn’t wearing his pimp duds. Oh, and by the way, those ACORN employees, who are already looking pretty bad to begin with, and would look even worse if they admit that he was wearing his pimp duds, well they really aren’t in a position to know what O’Keefe was wearing, because as the Harshbarger report said, “ many…had no direct knowledge of the events”
This is evidence of what, tim?
#32 Posted by calfed, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 09:33 PM
I'm not the slightest bit surprised that Blumenthal got exposed yet again as a fraudulent journalist. Folks, keep in mind that he floated some absurd story about Sean Hannity having close ties with some neo-nazi named Hal Turner. Problem is, the story is bogus. Turner's claims about this relationship have been thoroghly debunked.
#33 Posted by Scott, CJR on Wed 10 Feb 2010 at 10:30 PM
Greg, can you provide a single prior example where CJR or any of the MSM investigated the private life of a journalist - any journalist at all?
This is a smear job, pure and simple. Blumenthal should have his license revoked (although there's no license needed to report, I suppose). Yes, you exposed his lies, but compounded them with your own "racist" innuendo.
If you want people to trust the media, I suggest you begin with your own reporting.
#34 Posted by JLD, CJR on Thu 11 Feb 2010 at 12:18 AM
Calfed, I do have the evidence of the Baltimore transcript, where O'Keefe claimed to Giles's boyfriend, that he was protecting her from a violent pimp, and that he was attending graduate school at Johns Hopkins and preparing for a student government run.....
one thing, in all his lies, he never claimed to be a pimp. One can assume he wasn't wearing the get-up there! Maybe he wore it when he went to cheer Jared Taylor's racist rants?
All we have is Marcus Epstein's account that he didn't plan it, but Epstein wasn't under oath, so that testimony is inadmissible.....guess everyone can play the lawyer's game of acceptable testimony.
But, me relying on his report is "laughable," whereas you relying on edited videos, the testimony of a professional liar (O'Keefe), and a whole flying wedge of racists and dorks is not....
touche, Calfed!
#35 Posted by timb, CJR on Fri 12 Feb 2010 at 05:45 PM
Yes, timb, O’Keefe “claimed to Giles's boyfriend, that he was protecting her from a violent pimp, and that he was attending graduate school at Johns Hopkins and preparing for a student government run.....” Who was deriving money from his girlfriend’s activities as a prostitute, and who was looking for money to purchase a house in which he and Giles could set up under-age El Salvadoran girls as prostitutes.
Most people refer to that activity as “pimping and pandering”
A few passages from the transcript that you referenced:
[In regard to 13 under-age El Salvadoran girls that “James” (O’Keefe) has told “Tonja” (an ACORN tax specialist) that he and Giles will be importing and putting up in the house]
James: What if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too
Tonja: but if they making money and they are underage then you shouldn't be letting anybody know anyway..
James: well that’s what happen we told the bankers and they kicked us out
Tonja: right because it’s illegal. So I am not hearing this, I am not hearing this. You talk too much don't give up no information you are not asked
Later, when discussing deducting “supplies” as a business expense:
Tonja: so we'll use this so no advertisement no cards record expense. What about legal or professional expenses, you don't have to get licenses or nothing like that no okay
what about supplies..yes
James: condoms...how many condoms did you buy last month
There are plenty more passages that show clearly that O’Keefe and Giles were representing themselves as pimp and prostitute, who were looking for help in starting an underage prostitution business. I invite anyone who questions that to read the whole 46 pages of the Baltimore transcript and judge for them self if that is a fair characterization.
Frankly, timb, there really are only two possibilities for your claim that O’Keefe didn’t present himself as a pimp in the Baltimore transcript—deliberate prevarication or serious dementia. Or both.
Hey and one other thing—didn’t ACORN fire the two employees in Baltimore? ACORN certainly understood the implications of what O’Keefe was telling the Baltimore employees—even if you don’t.
Oh, and about that whole “relying on the edited videos” thing. The Harshbarger report had this to say about that:
We did not speak directly with those employees who were captured on video in part because WE WERE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION THAT THE VISITS OCCURRED AND THE COMMENTS WERE MADE.
So, despite the editing of the videos, Harshbarger found them clear enough to rely on.
I find it amazing, timb that you continue to defend conduct that ACORN itself refuses to defend and in fact, found so egregious that it fired the ACORN workers who engaged in it.
#36 Posted by Calfed, CJR on Sat 13 Feb 2010 at 01:50 AM
I'm not defending ACORN; I'm attacking O'Keefe....and I'll leave alone the "most people characterize it" bit, since, if we're playing that game, claiming not be a racist liar after being a part of organization which planned and executed a racist event would be characterized by "most people" as "racist."
Maybe you haven't heard, but the Congressional Research Service released a report which noted ACORN employees did not break the law?
Whereas, the hero of your tale is not just a liar, but also a criminal. And, as Mr. Blumenthal points out, a bit of racist. You go ahead. I'll keep showing he's a dishonest hack and you keep....well, outside of defending a privileged racist, I'. not sure what you're doing.
#37 Posted by timb, CJR on Sun 14 Feb 2010 at 02:40 PM
The only one who has proven to be a liar is you, timb, when you tried to float the “O’keefe never claimed to be a pimp” canard.
And as for your charges of racism, why is it that when someone cannot debate the issue or present facts to back up their claim, they cry "racism".
You haven’t shown O’Keefe to be either a liar or a racist.
As for what I'm doing.....just trying to keep you honest. It's a full time job.
#38 Posted by Calfed, CJR on Thu 18 Feb 2010 at 12:36 AM
And, now ladies and gents, we move into the make believe portion of Calfed's retinue. Got any page numbers for those assertions? I assume you do since I'm supposed to believe you copied from the Baltimore transcript (where Jimmy talks for 13 pages about him as her boyfriend and he as a law student and never is the word spoken). I'll go on record saying I think you did copy those from a news report, but not from the transcript, which would make them mostly valid. I am prepared to concede the point if you can back up the assertion with proof.
Secondly, I claimed O'Keefe is a racist on "no evidence"? The title of the Salon piece is "O'Keefe's race problem." The entire article, of which are sweet enough to call Blumenthal names for writing, is a catalogue of racial charges, many from the scrawny little punk's own hand. He admitted to moving 'cause he didn't like gays; complained of the smell of his Indian rommate; was kicked out of the dorm for racial comments (which he denied making); implies with "defended myself to a black dean" that, because of the dean's skin color, he didn't get a fair shake; attends a conference where john Derbyshire and Jared Taylor talk about genetic racial inferiority of blacks and Latinos; and lies his way into the offices of an organization whose main sin, according to O'Keefe, is registering minorities to vote (although no voter fraud cases could ever be brought, according to the DOJ).
And you say there are no facts?
There are a bunch of them right there. I get that you want to focus on ACORN, because they are SOOOOO evil and all, but the person who made dishonest videos, who sat on a FOX set in "pimp" garb and allowed the host (not a bright man to start with) claim Jimmy wore the garb into ACORN offices is the same little punk whose follow made G. Gordon Liddy look professional by comparison. He's a giant douchebag.
Still, my favorite part in my journey into make-believe land is this quote: "You haven’t shown O’Keefe to be either a liar or a racist."
Read slowly if you must, Calfed: I don't have to show O'Keefe is a liar. He admits it. he lied to get into ACORN, he lied to get into Landrieu's office, and he lied to Planned Parenthood, in a move so rash the wingnut group paying him for unfocused white rage and belligerence was forced to can him.
He lies for a living.
As for racism, O'Keefe hangs with Marcus Epstein and sits through "debates" with Jared Taylor. You do the math
#39 Posted by timb, CJR on Fri 19 Feb 2010 at 12:48 PM
Timb wrote:
Hey, I.C. the link's right there. go listen to the "discussion" and let us know what you think. I'm especially interested to hear your opinion of Taylor's contention that white people are genetically smarter than blacks and Hispanics. No, big deal, right? that's not part of an extremist kook-ology, just.....well, you're not sure, but you're aware there was a free range discussion.
Nice to know the Strom Thurmond wing of the Breitbart party is still extant
_____________________________________
*** Ummm ... so what's your point, Timb? That Taylor is a racist kook? Gee, when did I say otherwise?
Apparently you need a remedial course in reading for comprehension.
Let's go over this again: My point was that despite the Left's desperate attempt to pin the scarlet letter of racism on James O'Keefe -- a typical Alinsky strategy of attacking the messenger when you can't refute the message -- it's laughable to assume that every person attending a conference agrees wholeheartedly with its most controversial panelist.
Again, that's as bogus as calling Phil Donahue a racist for once hosting a program that featured Nazis and Klansmen. And maybe you missed the fact that other panelists included National Review contributing editor John Derbyshire, and conservative black activist Kevin Martin, who is associated with the National Center for Public Policy Research ... gee, are they racists too? Does Martin hate himself??
Amusingly, you call O'Keefe a liar, then you demonstrate your own lack of veracity by claiming in one paragraph, "I'm not defending ACORN," and in the next paragraph saying, "Maybe you haven't heard, the Congressional Research Service released a report which noted ACORN employees did not break the law."
Which is ... ummmm ... defending ACORN, a corrupt, tax money-engorged organization whose employees had been arrested and convicted in several states even before they were caught on camera promoting kiddie prostitution.
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle!
#40 Posted by I.C. Bias, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 09:14 AM
timb said:
“Got any page numbers for those assertions? I'll go on record saying I think you did copy those from a news report, but not from the transcript, which would make them mostly valid. I am prepared to concede the point if you can back up the assertion with proof.”
Oh Jesus.. now I have to do the research for you too, timb? Did you even read the transcript before you mis-characterized the contents? Not to put too fine a point on this, timb, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to go back through the transcript and annotate the quotes for someone like you who is too lazy to read the transcript and too dishonest to fairly summarize its content.
As for what you “go on record” believing, let me say that I could not care less what you think or believe. Tell you what; let ME go on record saying that I believe that if you were any duller, you would have to be watered twice a week.
Timb said:
“Secondly, I claimed O'Keefe is a racist on "no evidence"? The title of the Salon piece is ‘O'Keefe's race problem.’ “
Mercy me! So the title of a Salon article, which has been partially retracted by Salon, indicates that O’Keefe has a race problem. Wow! And that is evidence of what?
By the way, perhaps it escaped your notice, but that very Salon piece is the subject of this CRJ takedown. You can’t be serious. You are going to rely on an article that even the CJR has found deficient as evidence?
I’ll make this short and easy for you too understand—The Salon piece is a thinly researched, largely undocumented hit piece on O’Keefe. Much of it has been discredited. You seem to have missed that. It is evidence of nothing, because it contains no evidence. Quoting it as evidence of anything is completely unpersuasive.
timb said
“He admitted to moving 'cause he didn't like gays; complained of the smell of his Indian rommate (sic); was kicked out of the dorm for racial comments (which he denied making); implies with "defended myself to a black dean" that, because of the dean's skin color”
I haven’t seen any admission by O’Keefe that any of this is true and I certainly didn’t see any evidence of such an admission in Blumenthal’s article. I saw Blumenthal CLAIM that O’Keefe had written this in an on-line diary, but guess what? There was no link to any on-line diary and no evidence, other than a link to a pseudonymous blogger named goodidealist (not further identified) at Daily Kos. And guess what? “Goodidealist” didn’t have a link to any of O’Keefe’s on-line musings either.
And you have the gall to claim those as “facts”? Let me again “go on the record” and state that I don’t think you have the vaguest of notions what a fact is. You see, timb, vague, unsupported innuendo is not a fact, no matter how much you wish that it was.
Finally, you cite the fact that O’Keefe misrepresented himself to ACCORN, Planned Parenthood, and Landrieu's office personnel all, of course, without mentioning that they were the subject of his investigative stings. Interesting point. I wonder if you would apply the same standard to undercover police officers, intelligence agents, “60 Minutes” or “Dateline” reporters, or PETA undercover operatives, all of whom misrepresent themselves to do their jobs. I won’t belabor the obvious, but certain kinds of investigative work involve these kinds of deceptions. That doesn’t make the person engaged in that kind of work “liars”. At least not in the sense that you insinuate here.
Oh, and one other thing, timb. You called O’Keefe a “criminal”. Do you have some evidence that he has been convicted of a crime, or is that just another one of you over-the –top assertions?
#41 Posted by Calfed, CJR on Sat 20 Feb 2010 at 08:40 PM