READER COMMENTS ON

"Exclusive: New York Times Editor 'Stands Behind' Contested 'Pimp' Reporting on James O'Keefe"

(102 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Lora said on 2/8/2010 @ 8:50 pm PT...





Wow, people can be quite convoluted (and rather insulting in a polite sort of way) while defending their particular brand of bullcrap. Brad, you seem to have followed all the convolutions very well. Here's a little analysis: Greg: As I said, we see nothing to correct. It is not merely a matter of accepting his version. He was videotaping some of the action, including when he left some of the offices. At one point, the camera was turned in such a way to catch part of the "costume" he was wearing. And ACORN employees who saw him described his costume. I'm taking this to mean a video that Greg has seen (or thinks he's seen) in which O'Keefe himself did the videotaping, and Greg's contention is that O'Keefe swung the camera around, possibly by accident, and caught himself on the tape. The inference is that the camera caught him in his pimp costume inside an Acorn office. The fact that Greg infers this without coming out and saying what the video actually shows strikes me as dishonest and that he is hiding something (perhaps only his fuzzy memory or his abysmal lack of checking sources). Greg: I said our statement was based on a video. I did not say that we saw the video online or that it ever was online. Possible Translation:

I can't say for sure if I ever actually saw the video or not. I think I did but I don't remember which video it was or where O'Keefe was standing when the camera swung, or what he was actually wearing in that clip. 'Cause if I did, I would have told you and it would have proven my point. Greg: I guess this day and time that would seem logical to assume since everything else is. Many of our reporters have done a great deal of reporting on Acorn over a good period of time. And through that reporting --- whether it was watching videos, interviewing sources (who would not always go on the record) or doing other research --- we feel we have confirmed the information we reported. Possible translation:

Now I'm wondering if maybe I heard about that camera angle from another reporter. Can't remember who but I ran with it and I figure if it's not 100% accurate, nobody's gonna know or care except some fool like you and I'll just politely put you in your place and that will be that. Greg: Just because I am not willing to give you a link --- or don't even have a link --- doesn't mean our reporting is in error. We're also not going to give out the names and phone numbers of sources so anyone who wants to call them up and ask for confirmation can do so. And in cases where someone might have let us listen to an audio tape or view a video on some subject, we are not going to break our commitment to them not to divulge the source. It's just like when we quote from a document and say: which The Times was allowed to read..... Meaning that we saw it; we took notes, but we don't have the document in our possession. The fact that we can't post the document online doesn't undercut our reporting. If someone chooses not to believe us, then that's part of the process. Possible Translation:

Damn, my whole argument is hanging on this one video clip I can't even remember the particulars of, or even if it actually showed what I think it did! Hmmm, well here's a smoke screen about not betraying confidential sources which will make you out to be an idiot for not realizing this and me sound like a pompous (though polite) jerk. That should take care of it, especially when I invite you to disbelieve the NYT, if you dare. Greg:

[The rest too boring to repeat] Possible Translation:

Hey, everybody else said the same damn thing, so bugger off already! And yeah just to obscure the matter further, maybe you thought I was talking about the Fox interview. Yeah, that's the ticket! Go watch it and you'll see that everything I said was the way it was on that Fox video. Jeez, you can't even find the Fox video? What kind of investigator are you, anyway? Sheesh. I'm sure there are plenty of lovely words to describe Greg's behavior --- "obfuscate" is the first to come to mind.

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... T.R.O. said on 2/8/2010 @ 9:02 pm PT...





ACORN has lawsuits against O' Keefe in two states for secretly filming their employees which violates the state law,according to my understanding. As such, could the ACORN lawyers subpoena the tape that the Times allegedly has in theeir posession that would show O'Keefe dressed in pimp suit?

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... deecee said on 2/8/2010 @ 9:02 pm PT...





It dosen't matter Brad. they will always believe him becaue his accuastion is against black people. apparently congress is still standing behind felony pimp's word, i haven't heard of any of them apologizing.

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... LJ said on 2/8/2010 @ 9:16 pm PT...





The whole ACORN fiasco was so unprofessionally faked. I have been amazed that the airwaves were not filled with interviews with those who lost their jobs at ACORN. They never had a forum to give their side of the story and I am sure they had one. The truth will come out as long as folks like you at Brad Blog keep digging. Good start. Now let all the blogs join in and find out the truth. And we will.

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 2/8/2010 @ 9:16 pm PT...





T.R.O asked: As such, could the ACORN lawyers subpoena the tape that the Times allegedly has in theeir posession that would show O'Keefe dressed in pimp suit? Well, they could certainly subpoena O'Keefe/Breitbart for the full, unedited tapes. They could *try* to subpoena the NYTimes, but if they actually had such a tape (which remains highly dubious, in my personal opinion), they would not/should not turn it over unless their source okays it. That said, a subpoena might at least be answered with the response: "Tape? We never had any tapes other than the ones O'Keefe/Breitbart released. Never mind what we told that BRAD BLOG guy."

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 2/8/2010 @ 9:39 pm PT...





Thanks, LJ. PLEASE spread the word wherever you all can!

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 2/8/2010 @ 9:45 pm PT...





I have two words for Greg Brock: Judith Miller.

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Billy said on 2/8/2010 @ 9:51 pm PT...





Damn that was a lot of work. I think it would be a good idea to point out, once again, that "the media" (including the NY Times and James O'Keefe) successfully damaged ACORN without cause. The Times' resistance to adhere to any minimal journalistic standard can be interpreted as nothing short of malice. They're out to get ACORN.

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/8/2010 @ 10:22 pm PT...





Read through your whole exchange. Remarkable. Just remarkable. Is this some strange, contemporary, hyper-dysfunction symptom? Maybe it's always been around. Or maybe it's always been a part of Western Culture and it's just more prevalent/exaggerated these days. I'm a continuity guy. When people prefer to duck and weave and perform amazing feats of acrobatic contortion with the English language, sense, and history to avoid SOMETHING, it's just astonishing. What the hell is going on? I don't know what this is here, but it seems to be a common phenomenon these days. In a way it's beautiful and creative. Just making up all kinds of crazy shit on the fly to avoid acnowledging some simple truth. Impossible to pin down. A master of escape. But only a master because the old commonly accepted rules of language and meaning are abandoned while the pretense is offered that they are still in place. Makes no sense except in Bizarro World, Alice in Wonderland, 1984. I have no idea really, but my guess is this guy is not conscious of what he's doing. My guess is he has a need to not acknowledge something here. So he doesn't. I would like to go further out on my limb and venture another guess that he doesn't know how important this issue is, as you suggested he did. I'm gonna guess he has not connected the Acorn dots that your regulars here have been staring at for years. I don't know what this magic thinking is but I think there's a lot of it going around. On all sorts of subjects. Finally--I think it well may not matter in the slightest what tack you would have taken here but I was wanting there to be more focus in the back and forths on Harshbarger's study. Didn't Harshbarger look at all of O'Keefe's tapes? That was the sense I had from reading your other reports. Isn't that right? Cuz if Harshbarger did look at all of O'Keefe's tapes and the tapes show nothing corroborating O'Keefe's claims but do show plenty contradicting them, isn't that the context we should be putting the story/questions in? Isn't that what we're asking the NYT to reconcile? Wouldn't that be a little harder to squirm out of? I know you brought the Harshbarger study up but Greg barely acknowleged that you did and then went right back to claim and counter-claim. Woould it have possibly born more fruit to keep the Harshbarger study as the anchor in the debate? And now for a little stickling-- Near the end of the email where you first mention including Mr. Hoyt in the communications you write--"..just below the exchanges between you and I..."-- It should be you and "me". This is the only english grammar rule I care about. I've even heard Obama make this mistake. It always drives me crazy. I can't help myself cuz it's the only english grammar rule I really care about.

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Jon in Iowa said on 2/8/2010 @ 11:00 pm PT...





I love that their sources are Fox News' live shows, video on the internet, hearsay and what they've read "ad naseum." I mean, what the hell happened to investigation? They really are in the business of just reprinting press releases, it seems.

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 2/9/2010 @ 4:35 am PT...





LoL, the Right Wing Times doesn't support getting to the truth?...I wonder if Brock knows the guy that ran back inside the building...maybe its him?

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 2/9/2010 @ 4:54 am PT...





Greg Brock is a wingnut spin machine, grew up in Mississippi, went to Ole Miss. Not saying he's a racist or anything, but; In his role as Senior Editor of The Times, Brock helps oversee the standards and ethics of the newspaper and works with editors and reporters throughout the newsroom to address readers’ concerns about bias, fairness and accuracy. Guilt by association? We retort, you deride.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 2/9/2010 @ 5:22 am PT...





Aw shit, do we have to absolve him of any editorial faux pas because of his sexual orientation now? I'm not even going to go there. Yous guys can fight it out with him.

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... T.R.O. said on 2/9/2010 @ 6:25 am PT...





Brad @#6 But you see ,that is precisely my point. It would force the NYT's hand on the issue if they even have a tape in their possession that purports O'Keefe being in the ACORN offices in "pimp" attire. Does anyone recall the full page ad that ran over a year go in the Times,entitled Rotten ACORN?Eventually it was revealed that it was a group associated with Richard Berman,PR spinmeister aka Mr. Evil.This was just prior to the Presidential elections.Incidentally,McCain was FOR ACORN,before he was AGAINST it. The courts have exonerated ACORN, yet there is little effort on the part of the media in general,or the Times in particular, to give equal coverage to that FACT.

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... molly said on 2/9/2010 @ 6:40 am PT...





Well sure the Times will slant the news for the O'Keefes and Brocks of this world. They all work for the same company. They NY Times is a propaganda spewer. Remember the run up to the Iraq war?The question now since they are not to be trusted and subscriptions have fallen WAY off. Are they too big to fail?

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... T.R.O. said on 2/9/2010 @ 6:57 am PT...





@#12

The South has produced some remarkable American literature. I consider it a cheap shot to denigrate one's birthplace or alma mater. Its an even cheaper shot to aid and abet the railroading of an organization that has been doing yeoman's work for years. And I am not saying Mr. Brock IS doing this, I am saying that intentional harm has been perpetrated upon ACORN . There needs to be a reckoning,imho.

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 2/9/2010 @ 7:18 am PT...





Ha! Using the Fox way of reporting (#12&13) has gotten TRO's panties in a bunch...it does work. Of course you might have forgotten that is exactly how Fox (R-mouthpiece) does things to Obama. And the way the NYT is letting this slide is aiding and abetting Fox's story about ACORN. Point proven. Thanks.

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... camusrebel said on 2/9/2010 @ 7:50 am PT...





Brad, do we know exactly how many and which ACORN offices were visited? Or at least could you restate the list of states that have been publicly acknowledged as having been targeted. Great Job. So far. Can we help you turn up the heat? I'm snowed in w/another storm approaching, but I could call a bunch of ACORN offices, try to maybe get some more folks on the record?

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... T.R.O. said on 2/9/2010 @ 7:55 am PT...





@#17

I fail to see how the Fox way of reprting "Works". I do,however, see why you chose your screen name.

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... Ancient said on 2/9/2010 @ 8:26 am PT...





The fact that nytimes didn't print the Harshbarger's report says it all. They're sticking to the hearsay they choose with the same disastrous results of j miller proportions on innocent people. Personally, I see it as more evidence of the very prevalent good-cop-bad cop syndrome/scam that has permeated our politics/media to corporate advantage.

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/9/2010 @ 8:44 am PT...





This is what I think I'm seeing, what I'm not seeing much difference between, what appears to me part of the same dysfunction, what I think we need a strategy for bridging. I'll put it in the form of questions-- What's the difference between- 1.Greg at the NYT refusing to acknowledge the simple facts Brad is asking clarification for? 2.My friend Jennifer(liberal)refusing to look at election fraud issues or listen to criticisms of Obama that make her uncomfortable? 3.Barney Frank(famous gay liberal)refusing to acknowledge the possible realities of election fraud or expressing any real interest in investigating the issue? 4.My sister and her husband(teapeople)refusing to look at any information that contradicts their narrative?(I read Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck to understand them. They can not read the littlest Howard Zinn booklet-Failure To Quit-to understand me.) 5.Jill, old girlfriend and a progressive, baling on her commitment(etched in stone, she said)to friendship and communication when we break up and refusing to discuss the matter? To me these refusals to examine uncomfortable information from people across the political spectrum on varying subjects look much alike. To me these refusals seem like manifestations of fear and expressions of our extreme disconnect from the earth, each other, and what really matters. There is precious little harmony. We are not together. I think the challenge is to come up with, create, manifest a way of being that is all about truth, bridges, and coming together. I also think our efforts in this direction must be done with an awareness that whether we're too late or not in derailing the widespread disasters it looks like we're headed for, we well may not see many results from our labors. Still I suspect whether we see the results in our lifetimes or not, this sort of bridging is the essential work that must be engaged if our culture is to stand a chance of awakening from this deep, deep trance of fear and ignorance in which we currently walk.

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 2/9/2010 @ 8:47 am PT...





COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/8/2010 @ 10:22 pm PT... Read through your whole exchange. Remarkable. Just remarkable. Is this some strange, contemporary, hyper-dysfunction symptom? Maybe it's always been around. Or maybe it's always been a part of Western Culture and it's just more prevalent/exaggerated these days. I'm a continuity guy. When people prefer to duck and weave and perform amazing feats of acrobatic contortion with the English language, sense, and history to avoid SOMETHING, it's just astonishing. What the hell is going on? It's actually scary. It's as if Brad caught the NYTimes red-handed, and no one ever pressed them for answers and they don't know what to do, that someone is actually following up on their non-answers and non-retractions!

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 2/9/2010 @ 8:52 am PT...





I feel the same way, the fact that even when people out the mainstream media for false stories or ignoring stories, they don't "finish the job" by pounding home the most important thing: that the media isn't liberal. All stories should end with: "this is proof the media isn't liberal and we're being propogandized to believe it". http://www.youtube.com/w...;feature=player_embedded Just pointing out false things in the media and not tying it all together with the reason for doing it is dropping the ball in my opinion. You can point out all the false or ignored stories in the mainstream media, the corporate owned media we're supposed to think is liberal...but if you don't pound home that fact that it's not liberal, you may as well not even point out the false or ignored stories. Because we need to know why they want us to think the MSM is liberal, even though it isn't. We need to know why!!!

COMMENT #24 [Permalink]

... Floridiot said on 2/9/2010 @ 9:15 am PT...





Someone caught them (Times) doing a pro Exxon retraction and were told that there is no way of going back (no database) to confirm his hunch... We found out about the lack of such a system while investigating a 199-word correction attached to an article about the Greenpoint Oil spill in Brooklyn. The correction to the ExxonMobil article replaced accurate data with other studies that downplayed the effects of the spill. Suspecting that ExxonMobil may have pushed for the lengthy correction, I asked an editor if that was the case. The editor claimed that there was no database to confirm or deny my hunch. They have it all fixed now (right) http://www.stinkyjournal...ism-news-updates-104.php

COMMENT #25 [Permalink]

... T.R.O. said on 2/9/2010 @ 9:18 am PT...





How about poining out that MSM media are liars,not liberals?

COMMENT #26 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 2/9/2010 @ 9:41 am PT...





My Dear fellow "hubris-propelled intellectuals":

I'm tempted to write this reminder in red-bolded, italicized, super-caps with several screaming exclamation points: PLEASE DIGG / RE-TWEET / CIRCULATE this article as much as you can. Do it from several different computers. Ask friends to do it. Send it out in massive mailings to like minded folks. Ask friends to do the same. If you don't have a twitter account, get one. Even if you never use it except for Bradblog articles. It's free. If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them for you (by email). At the time I'm writing this, we're at 8 diggs / 9 retweets. While I hope to see the comment thread skyrocket for this piece, I'm always amazed and disappointed that for all the Bradbloggers desperately asking how can we get this (or any) critical story more oxygen - no one will simply click on the digg button making the article more visible to search engines. (And yes, I know how some of you feel about tweeting - outright, defiant refusal sprinkled with condescension for those of us understand what it could be capable of and who try to utilize it to that effect. So be it. But it works and it's such an easy thing to do. Please consider it.) Brad's (typical) ratio of readers to diggers is downright shameful. Hundreds of readers, dozens of long comments, hours of invested passion and heated debate = 2 diggs. 1 retweet... Friends, don't you get it?

It's your internet VOTE.

COMMENT #27 [Permalink]

... NYCartist said on 2/9/2010 @ 9:54 am PT...





Wow. NYTimes "caught" again. "All the news that's fit to print" their points of view. (I like the comment noting Judith Miller.)

COMMENT #28 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 2/9/2010 @ 10:05 am PT...





...and I intend to drop Greg AND his bosses at the NYT a friendly howdy-hey and what-the-fuck letter, as well.

COMMENT #29 [Permalink]

... EH said on 2/9/2010 @ 10:20 am PT...





But it's the bloggers, you see, who base their posts on complete fabrications and innuendo, poorly sourced if at all. Makes total sense, New York Times.

COMMENT #30 [Permalink]

... colinjames said on 2/9/2010 @ 10:23 am PT...





Can someone please start a petition or something to demand that the NY Times and other media print retractions/corrections to the ACORN stories to point out the fact that O'Kweefe was NOT dressed as a pimp INSIDE the offices? Please? Also, it seems clear that the SENIOR editor of STANDARDS at the NY Times is both an idiot, and a fan of FOX "News". Which is to say, either he's an idiot because he watches FOX News, or he watches FOX News because he's an idiot.

COMMENT #31 [Permalink]

... Alan B said on 2/9/2010 @ 10:34 am PT...





Great work Brad!

COMMENT #32 [Permalink]

... Harry said on 2/9/2010 @ 3:44 pm PT...





Is there a reason why not one ACORN employee did not call the police, or anyone else to report the "fact" that they were "trying to protect the young girls"?

COMMENT #33 [Permalink]

... T.R.O. said on 2/9/2010 @ 4:09 pm PT...





@#32-

Harry, that's not true, according to a Salon article,by Joe Conason . Here's an excerpt: After O'Keefe and Giles left the San Diego office, that same employee called a cousin who worked in a local police department "to ask him general advice regarding information he had received about possible human smuggling" --- a reference to O'Keefe's claim that he was bringing in young girls from El Salvador to work as prostitutes. The police report concerning that call shows that officers followed up later, only to be informed by the ACORN employee that the incident was a "ruse." In Philadelphia, O'Keefe's suspicious behavior likewise alerted the ACORN staff that something was amiss, and the police were informed there as well. No video of the visit to the Philly office was ever released by O'Keefe and Breitbart, although Harshbarger notes that "some of the released videos contain scenes of the sign of the Philadelphia ACORN office and shots of Philadelphia's head organizer with no audio."

COMMENT #34 [Permalink]

... T.R.O. said on 2/9/2010 @ 4:15 pm PT...





Here are a couple of links relating to #33.

COMMENT #35 [Permalink]

... T.R.O. said on 2/9/2010 @ 4:17 pm PT...





Acorn - Salon.comDec 11, 2009 ... ACORN videos were propaganda. By Joe Conason ...

www.salon.com/news/acorn...y=/opinion/.../acorn - Cached "ACORN videos were propaganda". December 12, 2009 9:16 am ET by Eric Boehlert. From his recent Salon column, Joe Conason details what former ...

mediamatters.org/blog/200912120001 - Cached

COMMENT #36 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 2/9/2010 @ 4:47 pm PT...





Harry @ 32 said: Is there a reason why not one ACORN employee did not call the police, or anyone else to report the "fact" that they were "trying to protect the young girls"? Of course they did, Harry. Is there a reason yu're misinformed on this? Oh, right, because Breitbart and O'Keefe and Fox misinformed you about the entire thing. In other words, you've been played for a chump by your "news sources", Harry. (TRO, thanks for offering links to Harry. Harry, there are many more out that which confirm same.)

COMMENT #37 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 2/9/2010 @ 4:52 pm PT...





Thank you, Jeannie Dean. Hope others read what you wrote very carefully above! You are right on target ('cept for the "hundreds of readers" part. It's thousands, often tens of thousands, in truth. Making the absurdly low number of DIGGS/REDDIT/Tweets even more sorry, frankly.) Yes, it is your Internet VOTE.

COMMENT #38 [Permalink]

... Lora said on 2/9/2010 @ 5:28 pm PT...





I have never Digged (Dug?), nor really know anything about it. I am uninformed as to the art or science of Internet --- what, praising? Advertising? Getting out the vote? (I went on Digg's site and read about it a bit but I still feel utterly clueless about what it is and how it works. I guess not enough specifics were supplied for my taste. Like, what's a "critical number?" What is THE critical number? Is there only one? What's the time frame involved? Is it the same for everyone? Etc, etc. Ok, ok, just a BIT OCD here...) This is not something I have ever had any interest in or desire to learn about, but I'm getting the message that it's a free and easy way to help the Brad Blog. So, although it's against my general temperament to do this sort of thing, I will Digg.

COMMENT #39 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 2/9/2010 @ 9:03 pm PT...





Lora - The formula used at DIGG (and the other places) is actually a closely guarded secret. So we don't really know how many and over what time period launches stories to the front pages at DIGG and REDDIT, etc. But as registering is free and really easy, and you can then stay logged in always, it's then very easy to hit the DIGG and REDDIT buttons while here next time. And yes, it very much helps to get eyeballs on these stories. Especially when they hit the front pages over there!

COMMENT #40 [Permalink]

... Soul Rebel said on 2/9/2010 @ 9:11 pm PT...





Heard the Nicole Sullivan (am I right about the last name, I don't get her much up here in the NW) bit tonight. Nice work.

COMMENT #41 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 2/9/2010 @ 9:21 pm PT...





Thanks, Soul. That was Nicole Sandler (filling in on the Randi Rhodes Show). For folks who missed it, it's now here for ya [MP3]. (Appx. 15 mins)

COMMENT #42 [Permalink]

... Soul Rebel said on 2/9/2010 @ 9:34 pm PT...





Now having read the entirety of that ludicrous exchange...if Greg Brock won't back up the reporting, will Hoyt? I find it hard to believe that there would be any secrecy in that supposed video - in fact, if it really exist, wouldn't it "prove" O'Keefe's claim against ACORN in the first place? I fail to understand the inability to provide any video - hell, it doesn't even have to come from a "source" (thus, blowing someone's informant cover, say huhwhat?), just make it available for the world to see. Why would they not do that, if it existed? In fact, doesn't the refusal/inability to provide the video effectively destroy the notion that such a video ever even existed??!! WTF, NYT, you've done some crap-tastic work in the past, but this really takes the cake. From Judith Miller. NYT. No longer a credible source. Don't quote from it ever again.

COMMENT #43 [Permalink]

... Soul Rebel said on 2/9/2010 @ 9:36 pm PT...





Perhaps we should get Greg Brock a spot on the next season of Dancing With the Stars. His c.v is now stacked after that exchange. He'd probably even qualify as a judge.

COMMENT #44 [Permalink]

... Harry said on 2/9/2010 @ 11:24 pm PT...





All I did was ask- thank you for your answers. It is obvious that since I found my way here that my "news" sources include progressive radio.

COMMENT #45 [Permalink]

... Soul Rebel said on 2/9/2010 @ 11:31 pm PT...





Harry, we have been inundated with a host of TeaBagger trolls lately. (Hi Brook. Hi RHM.) Seems that you're not one of them. Stick around a bit.

COMMENT #46 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 2/10/2010 @ 8:25 am PT...





The right-wing media narrative that the Obama administration endangered security by giving Miranda rights to alleged attempted Christmas Day bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is falling apart. Contrary to claims based on unnamed sources in the right-wing media, Obama administration officials agree that Abdulmutallab gave valuable intelligence during his first interrogation and that Abdulmutallab has begun divulging intelligence again. http://mediamatters.org/research/201002090037

COMMENT #47 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 2/10/2010 @ 8:28 am PT...





Palin headlines birther conference; press pretends not to notice http://mediamatters.org/columns/201002090002 Funny, how Sarah Palin never produced Trig's birth certificate but the birthers don't care, nor does the mainstream media: http://andrewsullivan.th...nts-in-the-last-day.html

COMMENT #48 [Permalink]

... SandyD said on 2/10/2010 @ 8:54 am PT...





Who is it journalists work for? According to Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, in their seminal work, "Elements of Journalism," journalism' s first loyalty is to citizens. They tell of a young Adolph Ochs who bought a struggling New York Times in 1896, and published this promise the first day of his ownership: "to give the news impartially, without fear or favor, regardless of party, sect or interest involved." How far it has fallen.

COMMENT #49 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/10/2010 @ 9:14 am PT...





Brad, ultimately, what evidence do you have that O'Keefe was not wearing the pimp costume in any of the ACORN offices? You cite the Harshbarger "independent" investigation. Wasn't Harshbarger hired by ACORN? Are you claiming that a Democrat politician and lawyer, hired by the people that he is supposed to be investigating is truly independent? Let's cut to the chase here: Did Harshbarger locate any video of O'Keefe in the ACORN offices NOT dressed in the pimp costume?

COMMENT #50 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/10/2010 @ 9:31 am PT...





Dear Harry, @32 Unless he knows something I missed in your email there, I think Brad bit your head off prematurely. Usually he doesn't bite like that. (I've been feeling sorta premenstrual myself lately.) We're generally more into gumming a person's head here. This leaves the head and neck connected(if a bit slippery with saliva)and more likely to promote expanding conversations. Sorry for the inconvenience of the head bite. love,

Dave

COMMENT #51 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/10/2010 @ 9:38 am PT...





Calfed @49 I think that's the point. I believe Harshbarger saw the original tapes and O'Keefe is never in pimp attire in the Acorn offices. Only adorned as La Pimpo Villa outside. That's my understanding, anyway.

COMMENT #52 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/10/2010 @ 10:50 am PT...





David @ 51 Since the original tapes are presumably in either Breitbart or O'Keefe's possession, and Harshbarger was hired by and working for ACORN, how would he have had access to the original tapes? Is Harshbarger's assertion that O'Keefe never wore the pimp costume into an ACORN office based on any hard evidence, or merely based on statements that he took from ACORN employees, who may have had reason to lie about what O'Keefe was wearing?

COMMENT #53 [Permalink]

... colinjames said on 2/10/2010 @ 10:52 am PT...





Calfed- what proof do you have that George W. Bush WASN'T sent here from Planet Zargon to prepare Earth for an alien invasion? The burden of proof is on O'Keefe and his enablers at the NY Times to show him in the ACORN offices dressed as a pimp, NOT on the Bradblog to prove otherwise. The point of the first question is, you can't prove a negative, that's not how logic works. Here's another question for you- if O'Keefe WAS dressed as a pimp inside ANY of the ACORN offices, why do not ONE of his videos shown ad nauseam on FOX News show that? Wouldn't you think that would be a damning piece of evidence in that "sting" operation that would have been included without a doubt? Or even after the fact, if there were such video, wouldn't they show it to put any doubt to rest? Coming here with questions and reasoning like yours is like bringing a dull butter knife to an AK-47 fight. The ones with grenade launchers on 'em.

COMMENT #54 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/10/2010 @ 11:32 am PT...





Colin, what you have posted is nonsense. Brad has created an entire blog post that is based on his demand that the NYT's retract its statement that O'Keefe was dressed in his pimp costume in the ACORN offices. I've asked what evidence this demand is based upon. Now you come along and assert that Brad needs no evidence to demand a retraction. Say what? I got news for you, Colin--having some reliable evidence in your pocket that a statement is incorrect is the sine qua non of getting any newspaper to issue a retraction. If you don't know that, what the hell are you doing posting on this blog. As to why none of the video shown so far depicts how O'Keefe was dressed, I offer this--If the camera was secreted in something that O'Keefe was wearing, how the hell COULD it show how he was dressed? Incidentally, the issue of whether O'Keefe WAS or WAS NOT dressed in his pimp costume is really a collateral issue, since it is clear from the video that he was representing himself as a pimp who wished to import under-aged girls to work in his stable. Finally, Colin, if you want to get personal, let me just say that based on your analysis so far, if you were any duller, we would have to water you twice a week.

COMMENT #55 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 2/10/2010 @ 12:28 pm PT...





Calfed: What proof is there that O'Keefe was dressed in his pimp costume in the ACORN offices? Actually, that costume was so outrageous, it's pretty hard for the average rational person to believe he was dressed like that. Do YOU believe he was dressed like that in the ACORN offices? And you say that O'Keefe being dressed OUTRAGEOUSLY is a "collateral issue". It's not. Because of how outrageous his costume was, it's not collateral or irrelevant. If he was dressed like that and talking to them, that is VERY IMPORTANT for several reasons, including how outrageous the costume was AND if he wasn't dressed like that, he absolutely wanted everyone to think he was by editing the videos. That's outrageous, in fact, that YOU don't think that's important!

COMMENT #56 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 2/10/2010 @ 12:30 pm PT...





Also, Calfed, you say "Democrat politician" instead of "Democratic politician", so I think we all know where you're coming from.

COMMENT #57 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 2/10/2010 @ 12:48 pm PT...





Calfed said, parroting the wingnut propagandists: it is clear from the video that he was representing himself as a pimp who wished to import under-aged girls to work in his stable. Really? Which video is that "clear" from? Because the transcripts that O'Keefe released (allegedly, of the uncut interviews, unlike his videos) show clearly that he represented himself as a college student and aspiring candidate for office hoping to save the prostitute from an abusive pimp. Or did you just take O'Keefe/Breitbart's deceptive videos at face value as they tried to falsely represent them? Like the NYTimes, Fox "News" et al?

COMMENT #58 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/10/2010 @ 12:53 pm PT...





"That's outrageous, in fact, that YOU don't think that's important!"--Big Dan Big Dan, what should be clear is that what is important is what O'Keefe TOLD the ACORN employees and what the ACORN employees TOLD him. It is clear that O'Keefe TOLD the ACORN employees that he was a pimp, attempting to import under-age girls to work as prostitutes. What is also clear is that the ACORN employees TOLD O'Keefe what he should do to hide his activities from the authorities. What is collateral is what O'Keefe was wearing at the time that this occurred. You are trying to deflect attention from the activities of the ACORN employees, so I think we all know where YOU are coming from...

COMMENT #59 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/10/2010 @ 1:22 pm PT...





Calfed-- Excuse me, I was dead wrong about Harshbarger having seen all the videos. I guess I made that up. Just went and checked Harshbarger's study itself and he's completely clear that he hasn't been able to get the unedited versions. Very embarrassing to be that wrong. Re from your comment #58---It is clear that O'Keefe TOLD the ACORN employees that he was a pimp,--- I'd be obliged if you could direct me to the evidence for your claim here. As far as I can make out so far it's only clear that O'Keefe CLAIMS he told Acorn employees he was a pimp. From what I understand, we've got some edited videos on our hands and that there is not a helluva lot that is COMPLETELY clear. It sounds like Mr. O'Keefe is the one who could clarify a lot of this up by releasing all the original videos. It'd be good to see what's on them. And it'd be good to see how much they may have been doctored, no?

COMMENT #60 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/10/2010 @ 1:59 pm PT...





“Because the transcripts that O'Keefe released (allegedly, of the uncut interviews, unlike his videos) show clearly that he represented himself as a college student and aspiring candidate for office hoping to save the prostitute from an abusive pimp.”—Brad Brad, this statement is why I have problems with your characterization of these matters. It glosses over the fact that O’Keefe represented himself college student and aspiring candidate for office—who was deriving income from prostitution and attempting to derive income from underage prostitution. Most of us would call that pimping and pandering. And the ACORN employees were oh so helpful in instructing O’Keefe in how to hide his activities from the authorities. You can label that “wingnut propaganda”, but ACORN itself found the activities of its employees sufficiently embarrassing as to require them to be terminated. And ACORN is not an easily embarrassed institution. Anyone can go to the Big Government website and read the transcripts for themselves. http://biggovernment.com/author/jokeefe/ Brad, you don’t REALLY want me to cut and post the exchanges between O’Keefe, Giles and innumerable ACORN employees, do you? It won’t help your side in this matter, I assure you.

COMMENT #61 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/10/2010 @ 2:23 pm PT...





David, I would direct you to the Big Government website where the videos and transcripts are posted: http://biggovernment.com/author/jokeefe/ I suggest scrolling to the bottom and working up--I found it easier going as it is in chronological order (m/l) that way. I believe any fair interpretation of those transcripts support my characterizations. As for releasing the unedited videos--yes, it would probably be helpful to us. however, I point out several issues: --ACORN itself is pressing for charges against O'Keefe and Giles for taping ACORN employees. As a result, the audio of the ACORN employees on some of the later videos is being suppressed on the Big Government website. Wouldn't it also be helpful if ACORN dropped it's request for criminal charges so that there were no legal issues involved with releasing the unedited video?

If ACORN REALLY thought that the unedited videos would inure to their benefit, wouldn't they naturally want to pave the way for their release, by dropping their demands for criminal prosecution of Giles and O'Keefe? --O'Keefe and Giles consider themselves "journalist" (I'm not crazy enough not to realize that many posters at this website disagree with that description). "Journalists" would rather walk through fire (or spend months in jail on a contempt citation) before they turn over unedited material to the public. Tell you what--try to get ALL of the unedited video from "60 minutes". Good luck.

COMMENT #62 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 2/10/2010 @ 2:50 pm PT...





Calfed said @ various: Brad, this statement is why I have problems with your characterization of these matters. It glosses over the fact that O’Keefe represented himself college student and aspiring candidate for office—who was deriving income from prostitution and attempting to derive income from underage prostitution. Yup. But that wasn't the meal ticket here for O'Keefe/Breitbart, was it? It was that astrounding expose in which dumb ACORN employees were so stupid, they couldn't even see that this guy wasn't a pimp. A storyline helped by the fact that he appeared on Fox in the get up, in photos, etc. and stood by as everyone characterized that that's how he was dressed. Furthermore, they dishonestly characterized the entire thing as an "ACORN Child Prostitution Investigation". That's how they label the videos at YouTube, in fact. There was no "Child Prostitution" at ACORN, and you know it, because you're at least intellectually honest enough to show up here and review what I've been reporting and respond to it (unlike the cowards Breitbart, O'Keefe, BigGovernment.com et al). Hopefully you've also read the transcripts --- because the videos completely twist all of this up --- to see that in most of the cases, the employees were encouraging the two to pay their taxes, even if it was taxes on illegal business. They did not tell them "don't pay the taxes!" (most of them, anyway) as was the picture portrayed, deceptively by Breitbart/O'Keefe in their hit job. Moreover, the "journalists" were so dishonest here that they didn't report the employees who *didn't* take the bait and who called the police or through them out of the offices, etc. If 60 Minutes wanted to catch low-level employees --- from among some 13,000 --- saying and doing stupid things, they would not hide those who didn't say or do stupid things. They would not manipulate the video (at least I'd like to think!) in order to make them look stupider and/or like they were doing things they weren't actually doing. ACORN took appropriate action by firing those who needed to be fired, doing an internal and external investigation to change practices, finding out that there was not an institutional instruction to commit "child prostitution" as the GOP operative Breitbart and O'Keefe have purposely and deceptively tried to convince people of. In the meantime, the actual companies of folks like Halliburton, Blackwater, Exxon, etc. who receive BILLIONS of tax-payer dollars from the federal government, more than ACORN has received in their lifetimes, have admitted to billions of dollars in fraud, have been taken to court on actual crimes like manslaughter, rape, murder, etc. and the intrepid crime fighters like Breibart, O'Keefe and Giles couldn't give a damn about it --- even as they make the claim they are fighting against government corruption. It's a complete, and utter scam. They are fighting against government Democrats. Period. Wouldn't it also be helpful if ACORN dropped it's request for criminal charges so that there were no legal issues involved with releasing the unedited video?

If ACORN REALLY thought that the unedited videos would inure to their benefit, wouldn't they naturally want to pave the way for their release, by dropping their demands for criminal prosecution of Giles and O'Keefe? That's otherwise known as extortion, Calfed. Are you that out of touch with conservative values such as the Rule of Law, that you'd even suggest such a thing? None of it is "journalism". It's dirty tricks, propaganda, and yes, extortion.

COMMENT #63 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 2/10/2010 @ 3:16 pm PT...





Meant to also respond to this from Calfed: O'Keefe and Giles consider themselves "journalist" ... "Journalists" would rather walk through fire (or spend months in jail on a contempt citation) before they turn over unedited material to the public. Rubbish. Complete rubbish. Journalists (real ones, not ones that have to be put in quote marks) refuse to release material in order to protect sources. Not to protect themselves from scrutiny and justifiable criticism that they've been dishonest and have misrepresented the material. You appear to know nothing about journalism, but apparently plenty about "journalism" --- Breitbart/O'Keefe style "journalism" anyway --- and seem as willing to torture the truth as did Greg Brock of the NYTimes in hopes of making excuses for utter failures of both journalism (in the case of NYTimes) and "journalism" (in the case of hoaxsters Breitbart & O'Keefe).

COMMENT #64 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/10/2010 @ 3:37 pm PT...





Dear Calfed @ comment #61-- Thanks for the link. Wasn't 'til I went to it that I realized it was Breitbart's. I just read Glenn Beck's latest--Arguing With Idiots--cuz I have a sister who loves him. I just can't do Breitbart right now. I just spent days tracking down Glenn Beck's misrepresentation after misrepresentation and I'm tired of it. These guys--Glenn and Breitbart--offer an awful lot of anger and obfuscation. They don't talk straight or listen well. These two and their compatriots are constantly calling me an idiot, in one way or another, while never honestly acknowledging my point of view, and occasionally encouraging people to do me physical harm. Not a lot to work with there. Maybe I can find the transcripts somewhere else.

COMMENT #65 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/10/2010 @ 4:10 pm PT...





“Yup. But that wasn't the meal ticket here for O'Keefe/Breitbart, was it? It was that astrounding expose in which dumb ACORN employees were so stupid, they couldn't even see that this guy wasn't a pimp. A storyline helped by the fact that he appeared on Fox in the get up, in photos, etc. and stood by as everyone characterized that that's how he was dressed.”-- Brad Brad, you don’t honestly believe that the scandal in the ACORN story was that ACORN employs people who can’t tell the difference between REAL pimps and guys who play pimps on TV, do you? The scandal in the ACORN story is that an organization that receives millions in tax payer funding was caught on tape counseling a “pimp” and a “prostitute” on the best way to avoid getting caught importing under age girls to be used in their prostitution “business”. Claiming that the major issue here is what O’Keefe was wearing at the time that he received this counseling is really obfuscation. BTW, what real evidence do you have that O’Keefe wasn’t dressed in his pimp suit when he visited the ACORN offices? I mean real evidence—you know, tapes, photographs, etc—not just statements from ACORN employees that have every reason to lie about it. “There was no "Child Prostitution" at ACORN, and you know it” --- Brad You claim that this was dishonestly portrayed as an “ACORN child prostitution investigation”. That is more obfuscation on your part. No one ever claimed that ACORN engaged in child prostitution. What ACORN DID do was provided assistance to people posing as child pimps and panderers. Both the tapes and the transcripts bear that out. “…in most of the cases, the employees were encouraging the two to pay their taxes, even if it was taxes on illegal business. They did not tell them "don't pay the taxes!"—Brad This is another “Straw man” argument. The scandal wasn’t that ACORN employees told O’Keefe and Giles not to pay their taxes. The scandal was that ACORN employees explained to the pair how to file a false return, so that they could pay their taxes without disclosing the illegal source of their income. You claim that O’Keefe “didn't report the employees who *didn't* take the bait and who called the police or through (sic) them out of the offices, etc.”. That’s an interesting point. What I remember is ACORN claiming that O’Keefe and Giles were thrown out of ACORN offices and then seeing video of O’Keefe and Giles being helped at those same offices. As for police reports—there are a few. And they are posted on the Big Government website. There are also kudos to an ACORN employee who DID refuse to help O’Keefe. You claim that ACORN took “appropriate action” by firing those who needed to be fired and to the extent that is true, I applaud ACORN. But to pretend that ACORN isn’t a troubled organization, with lax internal controls is to miss the point. The brother of ACORN’s founder, who was a high-level ACORN employee, embezzled a million dollars and the current management has been covering up this fact for years. http://www.cnn.com/2008/.../13/acorn.investigation/ “It's a complete, and utter scam. They are fighting against government Democrats. Period.’—Brad -as opposed to this bog, which goes after Democrats and Republicans alike. I guess I missed all those exposé’s of Democrat organizations that you have posted here. Be real--ALL media outlets have a political POV. ‘That's otherwise known as extortion, Calfed. Are you that out of touch with conservative values such as the Rule of Law, that you'd even suggest such a thing?”-Brad



Uh, no. But I’m also not so out of touch that I can’t see the hypocrisy of calling for criminal charges against someone for secretly video taping ACORN and then criticizing them for not releasing more of the tapes.

COMMENT #66 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/10/2010 @ 4:16 pm PT...





David--I don't blame you. I'm conservative (gasp! shocking!)--lol--, but I can't stand Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. To me, they are the conservative obverse of the same coin that Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz exist on.

COMMENT #67 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/10/2010 @ 4:37 pm PT...





“Rubbish. Complete rubbish. Journalists (real ones, not ones that have to be put in quote marks) refuse to release material in order to protect sources. Not to protect themselves from scrutiny and justifiable criticism that they've been dishonest and have misrepresented the material.”—Brad With all due respect, Brad, it is you who doesn’t know anything about journalism and journalist shield laws. Journalists routinely refuse to hand over outtakes of their video work. Frequently the courts support them in their refusal- http://www.signonsandieg...4-outtakes/?zIndex=66194 Do you really argue that Journalists release their notes, unused work product and outtakes to anyone that questions their work? Puhleez! Reporters show that stuff to their editors and then the editors issue a statement to the effect that “we stand behind the reporting” on the questioned issue. That stuff usually get released, if at all, after a long bitter court battle.

COMMENT #68 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 2/10/2010 @ 5:04 pm PT...





Calfed said: Brad, you don’t honestly believe that the scandal in the ACORN story was that ACORN employs people who can’t tell the difference between REAL pimps and guys who play pimps on TV, do you? I honestly believe that that was the lie the entire gimmick was lynchpinned on, yup. And have had many express same, with shock, when they learned that that headliner claim was an utter fabrication. The scandal in the ACORN story is that an organization that receives millions in tax payer funding was caught on tape counseling a “pimp” and a “prostitute” on the best way to avoid getting caught importing under age girls to be used in their prostitution “business”. That was the story line that was created, yes. It's veracity, however, is thinner than ever once one reads the transcripts, and realizes so much of the rest of the story (eg. O'Keefe was dressed as a pimp) was a publicity scam and fabrication. Claiming that the major issue here is what O’Keefe was wearing at the time that he received this counseling is really obfuscation. An honest journalist might have consider that before risking his/her story, if it was legitimate in the first place, on an entirely phony premise. BTW, what real evidence do you have that O’Keefe wasn’t dressed in his pimp suit when he visited the ACORN offices? I mean real evidence—you know, tapes, photographs, etc—not just statements from ACORN employees that have every reason to lie about it. Um, really? Besides the videos which do not show him in that outfit, the former MA Attorney General who says he wasn't wearing the outfit and the ACORN employees who say he wasn't wearing that outfit, and O'Keefe's own statements in the video transcripts that he told the employees he was a college student, hoping to run for Congress someday, the boyfriend of the prostitute and trying to save her from an abusive pimp? I know that's pretty thin. So that's why I asked the NYTimes for the evidence that, they now claim they have seen, supporting that he was dressed that way. Unfortunately, they are unwilling to supply that evidence or any link, or anything else that independently verifies their claim. Which is why I described it as a "contested". That said, what evidence do you have that O'Keefe wasn't holding a gun behind that camera and pointing it at ACORN workers? Just the statements to the contrary from the partisan propagandists who have every reason to lie about it? (I hope you're smart enough to understand the point of this graf. I believe you are.) You claim that this was dishonestly portrayed as an “ACORN child prostitution investigation”. That is more obfuscation on your part. No one ever claimed that ACORN engaged in child prostitution. I guess the video, as titled "ACORN San Bernadino Child Prostitution Investigation", as posted on James O'Keefe's article at Big Government.com headlined "ACORN Prostitution Scandal: California Here We Come!" must have posted itself. (That page, btw, promises Part II to the video, which never came, after the first tape included a secretly taped video in which an ACORN employee makes suckers out of O'Keefe and Giles by saying she killed her husband, despite the fact that the county sheriff said the woman's husband was very much alive, and the dishonest O'Keefe and Breitbart never even bothered to retract their story, or even update readers to that fact, six months and 1,241 comments later. Yup, there's your "journalism".) Or there's the first video posted called "ACORN Baltimore Prostitution Investigation" Parts I and II and . No, not deceptive or misleading at all from the folks who claim to be combating "journalistic malpractice" of the corporate media. And there's the DC videos posted at BigGov in an article called "Washington, DC ACORN Video: Child Prostitution Investigation". And, there's "ACORN NYC Child Prostitution Investigation" and "ACORN San Diego Child Prostiutiont Smuggling", etc. etc. Of course, you can go to YouTube and search for "ACORN Child Prostitution Investigation" and many more dishonestly titled videos from Breitbart and O'Keefe. But never mind any of that. Yeesh. They're just doing good "journalism". Other than that and hundreds of other similar examples, you're right, "No one ever claimed that ACORN engaged in child prostitution". “It's a complete, and utter scam. They are fighting against government Democrats. Period.’—Brad -as opposed to this bog, which goes after Democrats and Republicans alike. I guess I missed all those exposé’s of Democrat organizations that you have posted here. Yup. Apparently you did.

COMMENT #69 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/10/2010 @ 6:10 pm PT...





“Um, really? Besides the videos which do not show him in that outfit, the former MA Attorney General who says he wasn't wearing the outfit and the ACORN employees who say he wasn't wearing that outfit, and O'Keefe's own statements in the video transcripts that he told the employees he was a college student, hoping to run for Congress someday, the boyfriend of the prostitute and trying to save her from an abusive pimp? I know that's pretty thin. “—Brad



So, no, you do not have any solid evidence that O’Keefe wasn’t wearing his pimp suit at the ACORN office. And one line in your rationale sums up the weakness in your argument. “former MA Attorney General who says he wasn't wearing the outfit” Only he doesn’t exactly say that, does he? What his report does say, with respect to his investigations of O’Keefe’s visits to the ACORN offices is this: “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. Based on these caveats, contained in the Harshbarger report, your insistence that Scott Harshbarger assures us that O’Keefe was not wearing his pimp suit at the ACORN offices is inexplicable. And laughable. No wonder the NYT refuses to retract—they can read. The evidence that you cite for your conjecture that O’Keefe wasn’t wearing his pimp suit during his visits to ACORN offices boils down to this: 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” To use your own words, Brad, “pretty thin”. Oh, hey, one other thing. About that whole “video twisted the ACORN employees words” thing—the Hershbarger report had one nugget: “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” Harshbarger apparently gets it, Brad.

COMMENT #70 [Permalink]

... Soul Rebel said on 2/10/2010 @ 6:48 pm PT...





Where is the video? Why can we not see the video? Produce the video? Proof is in the pudding, why not just show the goddamn video? It's really very simple. Unless there is no video. In which case, nobody saw the video. Why such obfuscation in such a simple matter?

COMMENT #71 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/10/2010 @ 6:57 pm PT...





What video?

COMMENT #72 [Permalink]

... Soul Rebel said on 2/10/2010 @ 7:34 pm PT...





Lol! Exactly.

COMMENT #73 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/10/2010 @ 7:38 pm PT...





you're right Soul, there is no video. And ACORN is nothing more than a small nut lying under an oak tree.

COMMENT #74 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/10/2010 @ 7:50 pm PT...





Dear Calfed, This is all very interesting. Do you believe everything O'Keefe has been saying about the whole series of Acorn incidents? Do you find him an honest witness to events? Do you find Harshbarger not credible? Yes, he acknowledges that his evidence is hearsay, but to me it sounds like part of his job was to piece together a coherent narrative of events. You claim he may be biased. So might Breitbart, O'Keefe, and Fox News, no? Biased or not Harshbarger offers a dramatically different narrative in Appendix D than the story promoted and perpetuated in the national media. His narrative seems consistent to me. He was hired to make an independent report. His report is wildly at odds with the "official" version. Does that make you curious? It makes me curious. Because I'm hoping we can all agree that many of the details of Harshbarger and O'Keefe's versions are mutually exclusive. Somebody's telling a whopper. I'm gonna go look for some harmony. Catch you cats later. love, Dave

COMMENT #75 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/10/2010 @ 10:00 pm PT...





“Biased or not Harshbarger offers a dramatically different narrative in Appendix D than the story promoted and perpetuated in the national media”--David Yes David, a dramatically different narrative, but based on what? I’ll quote the Harshbarger report directly: “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 HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENTS.”



This is the take-away—Harshbarger’s “dramatically different narrative” is based on self serving, third hand accounts of people that Harshbarger acknowledges “DID NOT HAVE DIRECT KNOWLEDGE OF THE EVENTS.” Of what value are those accounts? Don’t you see that you are asking me, in effect: Who am I going to believe, the third hand accounts of people who have no direct knowledge of the events or my own lying eyes? Do I have to answer that question?

COMMENT #76 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 2/10/2010 @ 11:16 pm PT...





Calfed: Excellent points, all. You've convinced me. O'Keefe *was* wearing his pimp outfit in the ACORN offices! Just like you and the NYTimes said! But just in case anybody asks, what's your evidence for it? Because the NYTimes wasn't able to offer any, and I'd sure like to be able to back up your story, and theirs, and Fox "News'", in case anybody asks. Thanks in advance!

COMMENT #77 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/11/2010 @ 7:52 am PT...





Excellent points, all. You've convinced me. O'Keefe *was* wearing his pimp outfit in the ACORN offices! Just like you and the NYTimes said! Brad, you're just inches from sincerity

COMMENT #78 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/11/2010 @ 11:24 am PT...





Dear Calfed re comment #75, You seem to be a thorough and thoughtful person. You also appear to me to be extremely biased against Acorn. That's okay, we all have our biases. I'm extremely biased for Acorn having followed the Republican attempts to discredit them for years now. Thanks for the Harshbarger quote but I've read it myself many times now and alrady have acknowledged that Harshbarger clearly states his conclusions are based on hearsay evidence. I feel you're beating a dead horse there. In my view we are not lacking for dead horses. I'd love to get beyond the Land of the Dead Horses, if possible. It's interesting how we all see such different things. You see Harshbarger spewing nonsense based on testimony that is worthless(hope that's accurate enough of your viewpoint.) Having just been through an extremely unpleasant legal business myself, I hear a lawyer being very careful and specific, the way good lawyers are. Without knowing with greater certainty because I wasn't actually there witnessing any of his investigation, what I make up is this-- Harshbarger talked to a bunch of Acorn people in the various offices visited by O'Keefe. Perhaps he talked to Acorn staff who witnessed O'Keefe and Giles entering their offices and/or he talked to Acorn staff who got a version of events from participants directly involved. I make up that his narrative is based on something that probably can be backed up with further investigation. You make up that it's pretty much worthless bullshit(again, I hope I'm being accurate here in describing your viewpoint.) Katherine Conway Russell's narrative in Brad's latest piece is consistent with my interpretation and I believe at odds with yours. Now maybe she's a self-serving liar but maybe she's not. When I checked O'Keefe's version of his interaction with her I found it impossible to tell what was what because he's constatnly interrupting and editing the video. This makes me not trust him. Calfed, there's also a lot of history here and I wonder how or if you factor that history into your interpretation of events. David Iglesias was a Republican U.S. attorney with a very good job rating who was fired for not going after Acorn. Is he another self-serving Acorn worker? His story is consistent with what looks like a continuing witchhunt by Republicans against Acorn. Finally when you ask--- Who am I going to believe, the third hand accounts of people who have no direct knowledge of the events or my own lying eyes?--I think we're getting closer to the heart of ths matter. To me it appears you are choosing to believe the narrative of someone who gives every indication of having an extreme bias against Acorn. He is presenting highly edited versions of events and narrating over much of them. This makes it impossible for anyone to be able to tell what really is going down.(This also is exactly what Harshbarger points out.) Yet, you fully believe him. I'm calling that extreme bias on your part. You seem to ignore all of O'Keefe's shortcomings and inconsistencies while being ready at every turn to think the absolute worst of anything Acornish.

COMMENT #79 [Permalink]

... mickey said on 2/11/2010 @ 7:30 pm PT...





[Ed Note: Pornographic link removed. - BF]

COMMENT #80 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 2/11/2010 @ 7:32 pm PT...





"That's outrageous, in fact, that YOU don't think that's important!"--Big Dan Big Dan, what should be clear is that what is important is what O'Keefe TOLD the ACORN employees and what the ACORN employees TOLD him. It is clear that O'Keefe TOLD the ACORN employees that he was a pimp, attempting to import under-age girls to work as prostitutes. What is also clear is that the ACORN employees TOLD O'Keefe what he should do to hide his activities from the authorities. What is collateral is what O'Keefe was wearing at the time that this occurred. You are trying to deflect attention from the activities of the ACORN employees, so I think we all know where YOU are coming from... It is important if O'Keefe was wearing that outlandish pimp outfit...BECAUSE...it would make ACORN look even worse/stupid. That's like saying it doesn't matter if he had on a clown outfit. So, you're saying what you wear doesn't matter, it's what you say? Go for an interview dressed in ripped blue jeans, uncombed hair, and a T-Shirt for a computer job and let me know if it matters what you wear or not. THEN...go to an interview dressed in a suit, let me know if there's a difference what one wears. ANOTHER ridiculous statement by you!

COMMENT #81 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/12/2010 @ 10:25 am PT...





Dan, what can I tell you… Some people hear the story of the Titanic and wonder what caused a great ship to sink. Others hear the same story and obsess over what the captain was wearing as the great ship went down. I guess each of us deal with the issues that we feel competent dealing with. Perhaps this You Tube cut will make my point for me—(with apologies to Marisa Tomei) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba7QvrreqU4 Not to put too fine a point on this, but I don’t “give a f--- what kind of pants the son of a bitch was wearing”. And outside of a few caterwauling blogs, I don’t think anyone else does either. And if you think the REAL story here is what O’Keefe was wearing when he got help from the ACORN employees in how to set up a child prostitution ring, then, as Chris Wallace says, you must live out where the trolleys don’t run after dark. .

COMMENT #82 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/12/2010 @ 12:15 pm PT...





Calfed, You're losing me cuz you're not responding to most of my questions in #74 and #78. This is giving me an uncomfortable feeling that I've gotten many times before. It happens when I'm discussing something with someone with a different viewpoint and we get to a conversational crossroads and they vaporize into silence. This makes me wonder if the person is interested in pursuing truth wherever it goes. It makes me suspect it's more important to them to support/hold onto their narrative than to deeply examine the matter at hand.

COMMENT #83 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/12/2010 @ 12:20 pm PT...





I should add that the uncomfortable feeling has flavors of loneliness, despair, and a sense of hopelessness about how to make contact/maintain relationships with people of radically different viewpoints.

COMMENT #84 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/12/2010 @ 4:44 pm PT...





David, I think you have missed my point. My point is not that the Harshbarger report spews “nonsense based on testimony that is worthless” Far from it. My problem is with people who selectively quote a single line out of it and pretend that quote settles an issue. Less than 20% of the Harhbarger report deals with O’Keefe’s visits to ACORN offices. Most of his report deals with the serious management and ethical lapses at ACORN. With respect to “investigating” the O’Keefe videos, Harshbarger was honest in detailing his methodology: - he didn’t view the unedited tapes

- He didn’t speak to any of the ACORN employees or former employees who are depicted on the video.

- The ACORN employees that he did talk to had no direct knowledge of the visits.

- There were no contemporaneous reports available for him to examine. Given these limitations, which Harshbarger is open about, Brad’s (or anyone else’s) reliance on the Harshbarger report to make an authoritative claim about anything that occurred during O’Keefe’s visits to ACORN is laughable. Further, the whole issue of what O’Keefe was wearing during these visits is a red herring. I think I have made myself clear on that point. The REAL issue is what were O’Keefe and Giles told by ACORN personnel during their visits. ACORN’s defenders claim that the videos were doctored and can’t be relied on. I don’t think so. They were certainly edited-as is almost every video that you see on TV. But doctored so as to be unreliable? Look to what Harshbarger says in his report about that: “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” It is right there in black and white—“we were satisfied there was no question that the visits occurred and the comments were made”. Harshbarger doesn’t dispute what was on the tapes, why do you or anyone else? Besides, I offered you the link to unedited audio and transcripts of the visits. It is all right there on the Big Government website. You chose not to listen. So, until you have listened to the audio and transcripts, stop complaining about the “heavily edited” videos. You claim that I “appear to .. be extremely biased against Acorn”. If “bias” means that I have disdain and antipathy for an organization that provides assistance to people whom they believe are engaged in child prostitution, then you are correct. Key directors of ACORN have a long history of unethical and illegal conduct, which has only come to light and been dealt with because of the activities of O’Keefe and other whistle blowers. I might ask you—why do you defend that? I can’t find the Katherine Conway Russell narrative that you refer to. If you link it, I’ll look at it. I take it that she is an ACORN employee or former employee who makes claims about O’Keefe’s visits. Meh. A story told after the fact to exonerate oneself is frequently not very persuasive. But I’ll look at it. But again, Harshbarger has accepted what was shown on the tapes represents what occurred at the ACORN offices, so what does Russell’s story really prove? As for David Iglesias, a man who was fired from his politically appointed job, I can’t see that his case has anything to do with O’Keefe. Iglesias was fired years before O’Keefe’s ACORN sting. O’Keefe had nothing to do with Iglesias’ firing. There simply is no “there” there.

COMMENT #85 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 2/12/2010 @ 5:06 pm PT...





Calfed: O'Keefe not wearing the pimp outfit in the ACORN offices is what amounts to LYING, correct? Because he edited his videos to absolutely mislead people that he was wearing it. So, do you agree?

COMMENT #86 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/12/2010 @ 5:11 pm PT...





Big Dan--can you show me a quote where O'Keefe claimed that he did wear the pimp suit? Can you prove that he didn't?

COMMENT #87 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 2/12/2010 @ 5:26 pm PT...





Here's what Calfed is saying: now that it's exposed that O'Keefe didn't wear the pimp outfit in ACORN offices...it's not important.

COMMENT #88 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 2/12/2010 @ 5:27 pm PT...





Well, Calfed, I'm SURE if he was wearing the pimp outfit in the ACORN offices, he'd show the video. Why wouldn't he?

COMMENT #89 [Permalink]

... Big Dan said on 2/12/2010 @ 5:29 pm PT...





Calfed: you don't need a quote, the edited videos show O'Keefe was trying to mislead everyone into thinking he was wearing the pimp outfit in the ACORN offices. You just made up a rule that we need a quote from O'Keefe stating he did.

COMMENT #90 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 2/12/2010 @ 5:36 pm PT...





"I can’t see that his case has anything to do with O’Keefe. Iglesias was fired years before O’Keefe’s ACORN sting. O’Keefe had nothing to do with Iglesias’ firing. There simply is no “there” there..." Really? Then what you can't (or won't) see is the systematic years of a well-orchestrated campaign against ACORN using Rove and Bush's politicized DOJ. Iglesias was fired because he could find no evidence of "voter fraud" perpetrated by ACORN in NM. He chose not to prosecute them despite pressure from Rove, so he was canned. C'mon, now Calfed. Everyone with a pulse knows that. Kind of a major thing to miss as it's the basis for the reoccurring ACORN attacks that led up to O'Keefe's potentially illegal and definitely misleading sting. You have now officially smothered your plausibility. I think Lasagna's onto you with "...it makes me suspect it's more important to them (you) to support/hold onto their narrative than to deeply examine the matter at hand." Right. Your botched narrative is showing.

COMMENT #91 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 2/12/2010 @ 5:45 pm PT...





Oh, and by the way Calfed - there's plenty of hard evidence of potential ELECTION FRAUD perpetrated by Rove et al from the second illegitimate term of GW Bush (see Brad's lastest article on the Mike Connell story if you really care about government funded corruption) - but I'm guessing that doesn't interest you at all. FAKE VOTER FRAUD / FAKE CHILD PROSTITUTION CHARGES = intractable and vigilant witch hunt. REAL ELECTION FRAUD resulting in the stealing of the highest office in the land and morphing our once great democratic republic into a Plutocracy = nothing to see here.

COMMENT #92 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/12/2010 @ 5:53 pm PT...





Big Dan, I take it that your answer is no, you don't have any evidence that O'Keefe claimed to have worn the pimp suit into the ACORN office and no, you can't prove that he didn't. But, as I've said, you want to keep talking about what O'Keefe wore in the ACORN Offices, because you DON'T want to talk about what the ACORN employees said during those visits. Classic deflection. But answer a simple question, were the ACORN employees wrong to offer advice to a couple who were ostensibly attempting to start a child prostitution ring? Advice that was designed to help them not get caught?

COMMENT #93 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/12/2010 @ 6:01 pm PT...





REAL ELECTION FRAUD resulting in the stealing of the highest office in the land and morphing our once great democratic republic into a Plutocracy = nothing to see here. -Jeannie

LOL… Pay no attention to the assistance that ACORN workers provided to people who were ostensibly setting up a child prostitution ring…this is really a story about the 2000 Florida election results.

COMMENT #94 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 2/12/2010 @ 7:50 pm PT...





Brilliant point, Calfed! And since I know your so concerned about prostitution and government corruption and all, why is it that Breitbart and BigGovernment.com hasn't yet let their readers know about THIS case of worst ACORN corruption to date?

https://bradblog.com/?p=7696

And where is YOUR fake outrage about it for that matter?

COMMENT #95 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/12/2010 @ 7:58 pm PT...





Calfed @ 84 I'll say it again--It's interesting how people see different things. For instance-- You say--Further, the whole issue of what O’Keefe was wearing during these visits is a red herring. You see a red herring. I see a person possibly misrepresenting reality in order to create the ugliest possible narrative in order to incite public opinion. Because it looks like I may be being lied to I am then skeptical of further claims made by this person. You see no problem there. 2. You don't think the tapes were doctored. You quote Harshbarger and ask a question-- “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”

It is right there in black and white—“we were satisfied there was no question that the visits occurred and the comments were made”.

Harshbarger doesn’t dispute what was on the tapes, why do you or anyone else? For me you are committing the selective quoting that you earlier complained about because you left out that Harshbarger also says, "The unedited videos have never been made public. The videos that have been released appear to have been edited, in some cases substantially, including the insertion of a substitute voiceover for significant portions of Mr. O'Keefe's and Ms. Giles's comments, which makes it difficult to determine the questions to which Acorn employees are responding." To me this says that the whole matter of who said what to whom is far from settled for Mr. Harshbarger as it is for me. For you though it seems settled. 3. You say--Besides, I offered you the link to unedited audio and transcripts of the visits. It is all right there on the Big Government website. You chose not to listen. So, until you have listened to the audio and transcripts, stop complaining about the “heavily edited” videos. Well, I did go to your link. I went there and I saw that Katherine Conway Russell was on one. I had just watched her little video in Brad's article so I clicked on O'Keefe's version. It appeared to me to be just as Harshbarger advertised with multiple edits and voiceovers making it impossible to determine what was being said in response to what. At that point I decided not to watch more of O'Keefe's videos because I am a mere mortal and there's so much to do. 4. You say-- Key directors of ACORN have a long history of unethical and illegal conduct, which has only come to light and been dealt with because of the activities of O’Keefe and other whistle blowers.

I might ask you—why do you defend that? I didn't know I was defending that. I am not aware of this long history of which you speak. I am aware of a long history of Republicans targeting Acorn because they legally register minority voters who tend to vote Democratic. As far as I can tell that history does not exist for you. 5. You say--I can’t find the Katherine Conway Russell narrative that you refer to. If you link it, I’ll look at it. I take it that she is an ACORN employee or former employee who makes claims about O’Keefe’s visits. Meh. A story told after the fact to exonerate oneself is frequently not very persuasive. But I’ll look at it. To me you again sound extremely biased. I say this because you sound so dismissive right off the bat. But thanks for looking at it. It's under Brad's article--ACORN CALLS NYT SR. EDITOR'S EMAIL ON MISREPORTING O'KEEFE'S 'PIMP' STORY 'TROUBLING AND DISTURBING' 6. You say--But again, Harshbarger has accepted what was shown on the tapes represents what occurred at the ACORN offices, so what does Russell’s story really prove? As I said, Harshbarger does not seem to have accepted O'Keefe's version of events. Russell's story is evidence that what Harshbarger suggests about manipulation may have in fact occurred. 7. Finally you say--As for David Iglesias, a man who was fired from his politically appointed job, I can’t see that his case has anything to do with O’Keefe. Iglesias was fired years before O’Keefe’s ACORN sting. O’Keefe had nothing to do with Iglesias’ firing. There simply is no “there” there. This one makes me not trust you. A lot. Iglesias was fired for not prosecuting Acorn. I don't know how to look at that as something other than the Republicans were/are very serious about attacking Acorn. If you can't see a "there" there, I will miss talking with you. I need to have some minimal agreements about observable reality. Without that, sadly I'm afraid I may have to withdraw from our discussion. There is too much work to do. I'm willing to put in the effort, but you have to give me something to work with. Always happy to be proven wrong in my fears here. Whew...that was a long one.

COMMENT #96 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/12/2010 @ 9:14 pm PT...





Well, David, let’s just leave it at this then… You claim that the “whole matter of who said what to whom is far from settled for Mr. Harshbarger as it is for me.” The matter was settled enough for ACORN to fire the workers involved. Why do 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? The unedited audio and the written transcripts are there. If it gives you a headache to listen, I guess I can understand that. Finally, if you are unaware of ACORN’s troubled past, read the Harshbarger report-the long history of embezzlement, cover ups and mis-management is there. Then Google ACORN embezzlement.

COMMENT #97 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/12/2010 @ 11:09 pm PT...





re comment #96-- Well no, Calfed, let's not leave it at that. 1. To me you seem to be conflating Acorn firing some employees who behaved inappropriately and unprofessionally with an admission of guilt to running a child prostitution ring, or something. 2. I'm not defending inappropriate, unprofessional behavior by a few employees. I'm defending an organization, a very big complex organization, involved in many activities aimed at improving the lot of poor minorities from a relentless attacks by Republicans and from you. From everything I can tell this concerted, ongoing attack has nothing to do with voter fraud or child prostitution. To me all the signs, the very same ones you refuse to acknowledge again and again, have everything to do with helping poor people register to vote. 3. At your suggestion I checked out Harshbarger's report more thoroughly.(This is the same Harshbarger that you initially dismissed as basically a hired Acorn shill, but who now you repeatedly cite because you think he helps your narrative). I did not read it all. I did see mentioned the recently resolved longstanding embezzlement scandal of which I was unaware. So thank you for that. I also saw that it was Acorn who hired this guy Harshbarger who was giving them serious criticism and serious recommendations. This says to me that Acorn is serious about doing their job better. I also saw that Acorn is an enormous enterprise that really looks to be doing a lot of good work on behalf of the underpriviledged. I did not see a long history of illegal activities. I saw the one embarrassing embezzlement scandal. I also saw that--"The released videos offer no evidence of a pattern of illegal conduct by Acorn employees." I also saw that--"there is no evidence that action, illegal or otherwise, was taken by any Acorn employee on behalf of the videographers." I also saw that no organizers or supervisory level employees were videoed. I also saw that a couple of police reports were filed after O'Keefe visited a couple of the offices. I also saw that in the videos Acorn and Acorn Housing were inaccurately blended into one. 4. Most interesting at the bottom of one of the affidavits was a footnote from Harshbarger himself. It seemed straight out of Harvey. It said-- "David Lasagna. Stop it. Calfed is on a witchhunt. He can't fully acknowledge your point of view or evidence. He needs his narrative. You will not unearth that need through these internet exchanges. Get off the computer. Rest your eyes." I always listen to pookas.

COMMENT #98 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/12/2010 @ 11:53 pm PT...





re: my own comment #97 2. Changed my mind. I do want to defend the people who got fired. More than anything else this whole affair stinks of a cheap, possibly illegal, entrapment scheme successfully pulled off by a couple of misguided, young knuckleheads. For all I know Acorn fired who they fired with regret. It's not hard to imagine a few employees, possibly even good ones, making an error in judgment. And it's not hard to imagine that with the constant vilification and pillorying in the media Acorn regretfully felt they had no choice. Sounds like they didn't break any laws. They made errors in judgment. "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!" shouted the Red Queen.

COMMENT #99 [Permalink]

... Calfed said on 2/12/2010 @ 11:55 pm PT...





"David Lasagna. Stop it. Calfed is on a witchhunt. He can't fully acknowledge your point of view or evidence. He needs his narrative" LOL-- I knew eventually you would make it personal. I sensed that this was becoming more about your pathological need to have the last word than an "exchange of ideas"

COMMENT #100 [Permalink]

... Jeannie Dean said on 2/13/2010 @ 12:23 am PT...





...10 points for quadruple irony, there, Cakefed with your getting in the last word about Lasagna having to get in the last word. But barring more embarrassing and transparent obfuscations from you, Cakefed, I get the last word: "

LOL… Pay no attention to the assistance that ACORN workers provided to people who were ostensibly setting up a child prostitution ring…this is really a story about the 2000 Florida election results." Nice try, Puckerwog, but I never even mentioned Florida in 2000. Not only that, but the indiscretions of several low level ACORN employees has been acknowledged ad nauseum/ addressed AND rebuked by many of us in this thread, most succinctly above by David Lasagna, though once again - NOTHING THEY DID ON THOSE DOCTORED VIDEOS RESULTED IN ANY CRIMINAL WRONGDOING - the same can not be said of Mr. O'Keefe, now, can it? And *yawn* yes, we have also pointed out to you that no ACTUAL child prostitution ring ever existed. See how you do? That Jedi mind trick shit might work on your less frequent thinkers from Tea-bag-Tatooine or where ever it is that you come from, but the grounded Earth rest of us who still read - can read between your not-so-subtle, pimp-disguised biases. Cakefed, you're a white, hot, ghetto mess of tortured logic and talking points. Nice work. You're a colossal fail.

COMMENT #101 [Permalink]

... David Lasagna said on 2/13/2010 @ 10:28 am PT...





Riding With Miss Jeannie @100 That was a thrill having you ride shotgun with me! Dear Calfed @99, Here's where I'm coming from-- As soon as you and I enter into dialogue it IS personal. We enter into relationship. Relationships can either be moving towards harmony or disharmony. I feel I've paid a lifetime's worth of dues for being in imbalanced relationships. Don't have time for more. Life's too short. I do not feel that you and I are operating from the same place of reciprocity. For instance--I acknowledged that I was wrong twice. First about Harshbarger having seen all the videos and recently at discovering there was a long embezzlement scheme at Acorn of which I was unaware. Correct me if I'm wrong but besides acknowledging that you find some conservative pundits distasteful you've acknowledged nothing to my point of view, interpretations, and evidence. You've repeatedly ignored the bulk of my questions. You made a patently ridiculous claim that the David Iglesias business is completely unrelated to the O'Keefe story. When this is pointed out to you by several people there is no acknowledgment. You repeatedly exhibit (what to me sure looks like) bias towards Acorn by being dismissive of Harshbarger, Russell, and anybody else who says anything supportive of them. But deny you have any bias except against child prostitution rings. You seem to grant no possibility that any version of events besides O'Keefe's, the one you have chosen to believe, has any merit. Get ready cuz I'm gonna get personal again. After an extended back and forth with you, you have come to feel like a conversational tyrant. You give nothing in acknowledgment of the POSSIBILITY of merit to anything I say. You ignore much of what I say and ask. You never acknowledge being wrong to any degree on any point ever. This feels really shitty. It feels like I'm not being treated as an equal. That my viewpoint is treated like it doesn't exist. Then you have the gall to bitch at me for getting personal when I poke fun at you. I exist. My points of view have been arrived at after much study. They have merit. I am open to a joint pursuit of harmony through the landscape of differing opinions and realities. But from where I'm sitting, here in front of this computer screen, you do not appear ready for the give and take that harmony requires. That's what this feels like to me. That's what makes sense to me. To me our whole conversation has been very personal. All of the exchanges here are personal. And yes, I probably do often have a need to get in the last word if the previous last word feels like a shit sandwich. I don't know if I'd call it pathological. But I'll think about that.

COMMENT #102 [Permalink]

... Jackie Rose said on 2/16/2010 @ 11:13 am PT...

