No Penalty for Lying

So here’s the deal. Andrew Breitbart’s web site shows a video of a black woman saying she discriminated against a white guy. Not wanting to look like a reverse bigot, the NAACP condemns her. The government fires her. Conservatives go ape-sh*t crazy.

Turns out the video was edited to hide context. The woman was talking about what she learned from her attitude SOME 25 YEARS AGO! NAACP claims it was “snookered”. Any organization that believes anything Breitbart says, needs to be retired. Strike two for Ben Jealous in as many weeks.

To top it off, the “victims” of her bigotry have come to her defense. She saved their farm.

What will happen to Andrew Breitbart for being a lying scumbag? Not a damn thing. The days of libel and slander are over my friends. Print any lie you like. Hell, run an entire campaign based on lies. No consequences.

There was a time when the old fable “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” meant something. Trust was valued. Now the only rule to live by is trust no one.

Every great empire eventually falls. It won’t be liberal or conservative politics that brings down our great country. It will be this new standard of lying without penalty.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Advertisements

93 thoughts on “No Penalty for Lying

  1. I confess that I did not watch the video when it was popping up everywhere. I read the transcript of the clip, and it didn’t flatter her in any way. After the “snookered” remark came up this afternoon, I decided to dig deeper.

    I just went and read the original story at Big Government. That clip was portrayed as not being the real story of what she said (as she was encouraging the audience to come work for the department of agriculture because they would never be fired). That said, I’d like to see the unedited clip because I found the audience reaction in the clip everyone has seen curious.

    I’m also very disappointed that Breitbart didn’t show the whole clip, and I’d like an explanation why he didn’t.

  2. It will be this new standard of lying without penalty.

    GUFFAW! How’s it feel Rutherford to deal with Rachel Maddow tactics – something your side has been doing for 40 years without penalty or punishment?

    I’m sorry for Ms. Sherod or however she spells her name as she was first a fool, then decided to do the right thing, then a tool. Bongo, looking out for his own racist and lying ass (I never heard that dialogue from Jeremiah Wright in 20 years), ready-fire-aim. 😆

    But after what has happened with George Bush, and hundreds of preachers, and Robert Bork, and countless other Conservatives over the last 40 years, I don’t feel the least bit of sympathy for your predicament.

    You goons created this game of gotcha. Better learn to live with it like we have.

  3. Here Rutherford. This will really give you a case of the red ass. 😈

    Obama Administration Stands By Decision to Fire Sherrod

    After ignoring the New Black Panther Story, the false and manufactured accusations of racism against the tea party and the raw video disproving charges made by Rep. Andre Carson against the tea party movement, the media has gone ‘all in’ in defense of Shirley Sherrod. It give the media pause that, even with full video of her speech available, the Administration stands by its decision to fire her. Moreover, they are directly refuting her claims. After finally viewing the full speech, we are thinking the media hitched the wagon to the wrong star. As they say, stay tuned.

    http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/07/20/obama-administration-stands-by-decision-to-fire-sherrod/

  4. I’m also very disappointed that Breitbart didn’t show the whole clip, and I’d like an explanation why he didn’t.

    How about calculated manipulation of the message?

  5. “What will happen to Andrew Breitbart for being a lying scumbag? Not a damn thing.”

    I don’t think this is accurate.

    Breibart will lose a great deal of credibility over this (as he well should). And since he launches web sites with the tide, these days, losing credibility is about the last thing he would want.

    It might not be the level of penalty you are looking for, or that he deserves, but I think he will pay a price.

    I suspected he was completely full of shit when he started posting videos supposedly showing Farakhan threatening “war” against fellow blacks. (Now that video had undeniable context)

    Rutherford, what do you think of the reactionary steps taken by the Obama Administration concerning this issue? I mean, Breibart lying is one thing. But officials in this administration fired her without obviously doing a shred of research into the allegations.

    I think that is a bigger story than Breibart’s lies.

  6. Or this… 😆

    Sherrod Blames NAACP for Resignation – UPDATED

    The argument that “the tape wasn’t about nailing Sherrod, it was about demonstrating the racism of the NAACP audience; it was a response to their wicked attempt to paint the Tea Party as racist.”

    And your good “pal” Hippie Professor was just bragging about his lying prophetic nature of the NAALCP being right about calling the Tea Party racist this morning. 🙂 What goes around, comes around. 😉

    http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/theanchoress/2010/07/20/sherrod-blames-naacp-for-resignation/

    This is how your liberal pals operate everyday.

  7. “Obama Administration Stands By Decision to Fire Sherrod”

    Tex, this is coming from Breibart’s Big Government site. I shouldn’t have to tell you how much stock to place in that by now.

  8. Tex, it just so happens, I am livid with the NAACP right now. Their very late hit on the Tea Party proves their irrelevance (as far as I know the resolution still hasn’t seen the light of day) and now they essentially get this woman fired.

    Julian Bond was on Countdown tonight talking about how the government should admit it made a mistake. Julian should shut the f*ck up and get the woman a job. I tweeted this earlier tonight. In fact, I’m annoyed at myself for not coming down harder on the NAACP in this article but admittedly I snuck the article into an otherwise hectic schedule.

  9. Rutherford,

    Do you remember a few months back when you guys here on this fine blog, including the blog owner, were speculating about Trig Palin and his name? Making fun of mother (always) and child, with with speculated innuendo how he was named after the genetic disease he carries?

    And after I demonstrated to each of you about the derivation of a Down child’s name, and how the child named after a beloved Uncle, none of you never even acknowledged the egregious B.S. you were laughingly speculating about?

    And now, I assume you believe I should sympathize, or be embarrassed, or apologize for Breitbart beating the Left at their own hideous daily game of propaganda, innuendo and lies?

    Nope. Not until the “progressive party” starts practicing honesty instead of deceit and you can admit these charges of ubiquitous Tea Party racism completely bogus to mask the failure of Obama.

  10. R,

    You never did answer my question about your cohort’s racism and whether you were really ok with it. It seems to me to be a pretty serious case of race based condescension, and it also seems to demonstrate the point I have tried to make clear time and time again about liberals thinking that the ability to overcome racism is in direct proportion to whatever entitlements and special accomodations that government is willing to make for them.

    I’m also very disappointed that Breitbart didn’t show the whole clip, and I’d like an explanation why he didn’t.

    How about calculated manipulation of the message?

    I’ll remember you said that the next time that MSNBC starts editing out footage showing the race of armed Tea Party rally attendees and throwing around their Journolist inspired accusations of racism.

    Maybe, just maybe your OUTRAGE!!!! is more than a little misplaced here.

  11. Oh because I call out Breibart’s lying for what it is I am suddenly a bleeding heart for the libs?

    Look, if you want to defend the lying prick, be my guest. But your “they have done it for years” defense doesn’t excuse blatant bullshit, and we are just as guilty of it if we excuse it. I won’t be a party to it.

    Personally, I am not interested in defending anything but the truth. You posting something from Breibart is worth about as much as Rutherford posting something from Dan Rather. Both are proven liars.

  12. “Maybe, just maybe your OUTRAGE!!!! is more than a little misplaced here.”

    I don’t know. I am getting pretty damn sick of Breibart’s bullshit, myself. First he tried to convince us that Farakhan had declared war on blacks.

    I mean really…..

    Now this.

    And I just knew he was going to play this game of dragging it out for dramatic effect. The sad part is that he obviously isn’t using the time to properly research his claims. And its that lack of research that pisses me off the most. This is supposed to be a professional with a shred of ethics.

    At worst, he lied. At best, he is incompetent. Either one shatters his credibility as far as I am concerned. The conservative movement doesn’t need that. He needs to be refutiated.

  13. and we are just as guilty of it if we excuse it. I won’t be a party to it.

    Fair enough. However, I don’t know that I’m willing to rush to judgment and tar him as a “lying prick” either. I think I’mwilling to let this play out for a few days before I start making pronouncements like that.

  14. Brietbart’s video of Sherrod’s “racism” was materially edited to create a false impression of her remarks, just as Brietbart did with the “smoking gun” video of the ACORN staffer who supposedly gave advice to a pimp about how to bring young prostitutes into the country illegally.

    Brietbart is just being Brietbart. You can’t expect a snake to act nice. What pisses me off is that Vilsack fired Sherrod over this phony “evidence” of her “racism.” And it pisses me off that the NAACP piled on too, the morons.

    What pisses me off even more is that the White House seems to be standing behind Vilsack in this matter.

    I guess all the recent right-wing hysteria about anti-white racism is having an effect. Way to go, you guys.

    Sherrod got fired unjustly over this. She deserves an apology, and reinstatement. But nothing can give her back her name and reputation after this lie. They say that a lie goes around the world twice before the truth can get its boots on.

    Vilsack is the one who should be fired for ending someone’s career on the basis of a Brietbart video and not checking the facts first. And if Obama really is backing his play, he ought to eat a double helping of crow.

    Huck – Dan Rather didn’t lie. He just couldn’t prove that his story about Bush’s questionable military record was true – although it clearly was. Big difference.

  15. First he tried to convince us that Farakhan had declared war on blacks.

    I hadn’t heard about that one. Seems to be facially unlikely. The Democrats are the only ones who can do that, and you have to admit, they’re good at it. They have made chains appealing. How many people have pulled that off successfully throughout history?

  16. What pisses me off is that Vilsack fired Sherrod over this phony “evidence” of her “racism.”

    You complaining about someone else on a issue of credibility is rich, Chin. It was just a thread ago when you got caught in a lie.

    Dan Rather didn’t lie. He just couldn’t prove that his story about Bush’s questionable military record was true – although it clearly was.

    “Clearly was???” What about that “evidence” was clearly convincing?

  17. Huck has missed the bigger point. Nothing new about that. Yeah, I’ll defend the lying prick because you Huck are now excusing the laughing and clapping from the NAACP in attendance – context or not.

    Those in attendance had no idea how that story was going to be played out, and at that point it was blatant racism on display. Breitbart has proven his point. The NAACP is blatantly racist and the proof is now on display for all to see.

    And on top of that, you didn’t answer my question about collusion and cover up in labeling Conservative journalists racist. Want to try again sport?

  18. “I hadn’t heard about that one. Seems to be facially unlikely. ”

    I shit you not.

    “What pisses me off even more is that the White House seems to be standing behind Vilsack in this matter. ”

    As much as I’d love to pile on, I am not rushing to that one. I am not trusting an unnamed sourse after all this. Let Gibbs answer the inevitible question at tomorrow’s presser, then we’ll see.

    “I guess all the recent right-wing hysteria about anti-white racism is having an effect. Way to go, you guys.”

    No. The NAACP and Obama Administration need to own their mistakes. What they did is their fault.

    “Huck – Dan Rather didn’t lie. He just couldn’t prove that his story about Bush’s questionable military record was true – although it clearly was. Big difference.”

    It so clearly was that Dan Rather had to produce counterfeit documents to prove it?

    Sorry, no. Whether or not the story was true, the documents were bogus. Rather either knew that, or didn’t do his homework. Just as with Breibart, he’s a lair at worst and incompetent at best.

    And just as with the standard I placed on my side, your failure to call him out makes you a party to his actions.

  19. Huck – Dan Rather didn’t lie. He just couldn’t prove that his story about Bush’s questionable military record was true – although it clearly was. Big difference.

    Oh please. How many lies you going to continue to parrot Mr. Insufferable?

    Dan Rather was clearly proven a liar, as was Mary Mapes. Have we forgotten the ’73 memo done in superscript font? I think it worth remembering Rather and Mapes both lost their jobs for this…

    And make sure you take a good look at the blink font Pragmatic Paul. This is all the proof one needs and you still won’t get it:

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/28722_Dan_Rather_Should_Be_Careful_What_He_Wishes_For

    You’re in such denial you don’t even know what the hell you’re talking about anymore.

  20. Which is it, Tex?

    Is it this:

    “How’s it feel Rutherford to deal with Rachel Maddow tactics – something your side has been doing for 40 years without penalty or punishment?”

    or is it this:

    “Those in attendance had no idea how that story was going to be played out, and at that point it was blatant racism on display. Breitbart has proven his point. ”

    It can’t be both.

    I have heard the defense that this was all about the audience reaction, but I am not buying it. And if it is accurate, he should have made that more clear for what is now obvious reasons. He’s eating shit right now. If you want to help him clean his plate, bon appetit, my friend.

    Even before this he was posting stupid videos to support ridiculous claims regarding Farakhan decalring war on black. He’s got Elric over at Alfie’s saying he was calling for a violent race war, for pete’s sake. I just can’t trust anything from him right now, and I am not going to give him the benefit of the doubt for a while, if ever. I think he hurts the cause.

    “And on top of that, you didn’t answer my question about collusion and cover up in labeling Conservative journalists racist. Want to try again sport?”

    I didn’t answer it because I have no interest in defending it. I have called it out in other comments on blogs today. Just because I am calling out Breibart does not mean I have suddenly taken sides with the NAACP and have to defend or answer for every stupid-ass thing they, or any other black racists, do.

  21. I guess to be fair, I shouldn’t accuse Breibart of lying. I don’t have proof he put forth this tape with the intention to mislead. For all I know that edited tape was what he was given. But that in no way excuses what would then be his incompetence.

    Here’s my gripes.

    This is his article exposing the video. And this is the very first thing it says….

    “Context is everything.”

    He actually lead with the words “context is everything” as he was exposing a video we now know lacks all kinds of context. Other people caught on right away that there was obviously more she had to say and asked why the video was cut off. Breibart should have caught and asked those same things. He didn’t.

    The next words in the article are:

    “In this piece you will see video evidence of racism coming from a federal appointee and NAACP award recipient and in another clip from the same event a perfect rationalization for why the Tea Party needs to exist.”

    He mentions the “racist rants coming from a federal employee,” but no mention of the audience reaction. In the opening paragraph of the entire article. In fact, he writes the word “audience” a total of 2 times in the entire 1396-word piece.

    As I said, if he intended this to be about the audience reaction, he should have made that more clear. He didn’t.

    The shame is that I still have every confidence that there are tapes out there that show the NAACP to be what Breibart is trying to prove they are. Instead, he blew his wad too soon and now he’s a joke.

  22. From Politico:

    Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said Wednesday that he will reconsider the abrupt firing of Shirley Sherrod, a Georgia-based Agriculture Department official who was the victim of a media frenzy over comments that turned out to have been distorted by video editing.

    “I am of course willing and will conduct a thorough review and consider additional facts to ensure to the American people we are providing services in a fair and equitable manner,” Vilsack said in a statement e-mailed by USDA at 2:07 a.m.

    Looks like Vilsack got “snookered” too – just like the morons at the NAACP. (And of course the morons at Faux.)

    Vilsack, that crow that you are about to eat is gonna taste SOOOOO good! I hope that Obama has the cajones to fire YOU. You deserve it.

  23. “Clearly was???” What about that “evidence” was clearly convincing?

    BIC, don’t you EVER take off your freaking trial lawyer hat? EVER?

    Which part – that Bush used his family connections to get into the Texas Guard to avoid Vietnam, or that he skipped his mandatory physicals, or that he didn’t show up for mandatory Guard meetings.

    The right-wing noise machine pulled off a coup when they manged to make this whole story about Dan Rather, instead of about the character of George W. Bush. Blame the messenger.

    Respond by comparing Rather to Brietbart? I don’t think you want to go there. You really don’t.

  24. G-chin, do you think all of your name calling and false accusations of racism have been validated by the full story here?

    “I guess all the recent right-wing hysteria about anti-white racism is having an effect. Way to go, you guys.”

    Are you kidding me? You and “your ilk” are nothing more than exploiting propagandists when it comes to race — the worst kind of racist in existence. I think we deserve an apology from you.

  25. Huck said: “The sad part is that he obviously isn’t using the time to properly research his claims. And its that lack of research that pisses me off the most. This is supposed to be a professional with a shred of ethics. At worst, he lied. At best, he is incompetent. Either one shatters his credibility as far as I am concerned.”

    I was thinking the same thing — except I was thinking it of Obama when he trashed her to save his image as he will do time and time again, particularly when it comes to race.

    This whole thing is a most pathetic commentary on this administration’s vanity-driven priorities. That’s the real story here.

  26. G-chin, since you’re trying to defend Rather, would it be fair to say that the white-racism depicted in the tape is “false but accurate?”

  27. Yeah, this administration’s idiocy is two fold. On the one hand, every decision they make comes after a cost benefit analysis of the effect it will have on the Obama brand, country be damned. Secondly, the idiots try to move at the speed of sound. They think they have to keep up with us internet creeps.

    So, the cop was stupid, we’re told on a prime time health care speech. And the lady was fired without anyone hearing what she had to say in its totality.

    That being said, very, very few of us would be allowed a “pivotal moment” of that sort if we held governmental power.

    “His own kind”?????

    If I was on tape having that kind pivotal moment I would be fired on the spot.

  28. “I guess all the recent right-wing hysteria about anti-white racism is having an effect. Way to go, you guys.” GREYCHIN

    Hilarious.

  29. “I guess all the recent right-wing hysteria about anti-white racism is having an effect. Way to go, you guys.” GREYCHIN

    Hilarious.

    Rabbit, I’m glad that you are so easily amused.

    I speculate that this is what went on in the mind of the spineless Vilsack:

    “Sherrod said WHAT? After the bashing that Holder took on Faux and the right-wing blogs for doing something perfectly sensible, I’M not letting THAT happen to ME. If I fire her, the story will be over in 24 hours. What if I’m wrong? So what! Holder may have cajones of steel, but I don’t.”

    Vilsack might or might not have remembered that Brietbart’s ACORN story was similarly mis-edited. But that mis-edited story destroyed ACORN, even after all the facts that Brietbart hid were disclosed. But Vilsack took the coward’s way out anyway.

    Fire Vilsack!

  30. Graychin has got to be one of the lamest, worst propagators of dishonest rhetoric I’ve ever read. No, I am not kidding.

    To read him you would have to believe Dan Rather and Mary Mapes innocent (though one fired, the other resigned under pressure), that ACORN was set up and innocent (though their funding was yanked), that the Tea Party the Klan, that NAALCP relevant, that Liberalism works, though every result says otherwise, that public schools superior, etc…

    You’re a deluded, old man Graychin and you’ve grown so pitiful in your unsupported claims, I simply point fingers and laugh at you anymore – you’re another not even worthy of debate because you’re first and foremost dishonest as hell.

    A man that told me Conservatism was nothing but a regional party not eighteen months ago on a different board. And you couldn’t be more wrong about anything of substance these days.

    It’s not Conservatism that is dying out Graychin. It’s your breed of self-absorbed, self-serving, self-important 60’s revolutionist. Your entire ideology has been proven a failure.

    They’ll shove you in an old folks home before long, and not one damn person will give a hoot in hell as you bellyache about FOX News, while some nurse assistant wipes spittle from the corners of your mouth.

    Good riddance….

  31. The thing I find most amusing about this story is the NAACP claim that they were “snookered” by Fox News (who had no part in it but is always the bogeyman for the Left) and Breitbart because they did not have the full context……. of a speech made to the NAACP. 😆

    The NAALCP is not only irrelevant and racist itself anymore. It’s entire membership doesn’t have a room temperature IQ.

  32. Thief? You’re hallucinating while you read.

    Married to a “60’s radical”? BFD. Tex is still trying to fight those old 1960’s battles that were over long before he even had any hair on his… armpits.

    I see nothing there that disqualifies Sherrod for sainthood. But if it’s there, Tex’s sources are sure to dig it out of their garbage heaps and wrap it in their next editions.

  33. Tex is still trying to fight those old 1960′s battles that were over long before he even had any hair on his… armpits.

    That was then – this is now. You and your cast of losers are on the downward swing Grandpa Eucha. Next stop – Jay nursing home. 😆

    All the swinging you do of your small axe won’t change that fact.

  34. “The thing I find most amusing about this story is the NAACP claim that they were “snookered” by Fox News (who had no part in it but is always the bogeyman for the Left) and Breitbart because they did not have the full context……. of a speech made to the NAACP.”

    …that they had the complete video of!

    Graychin, it’s real simple….Did Dan Rather go on live, nationwide television and produce documents he said proved something? And were those documents genuine?

    Yes or no?

    The only reason Breibart couldn’t be compared to Rather is because what Rather did was much, much worse.

    Breibart doesn’t have the credibility or influence Rather had. Breibart wasn’t attempting to influence a coming presidential election. Breibart only put out an edited video that was an actual video. The documents Rather put out there were completely fabricated.

    You are right, there is little comparison.

  35. Huck, I do have to give you sincere credit for calling out Brietbart’s malfeasance as a “journalist.” Among your “conservative” brethren here, you are the only one who has been willing to go there.

    But I have to disagree with you about Dan Rather. No, his documents about Bush’s military service were not genuine. Did he know that at the time? No. Apparently neither did anyone else at CBS who put the story together, although they did at best a sloppy job of verifying the documents. And Rather was more of a talking head on the story in question than a reporter. But there can be no doubt – CBS and Rather f**ked up the story royally and lost the story’s point in the process – the issue of Bush’s military service or lack thereof, and what that service or lack of it said about Bush’s character.

    Did Breitbart know that he was editing the tape of Sherrod to make her (falsely) look like a racist when the whole tape shows her the 180 degree opposite? Definitely. Big difference.

  36. I should add that Rather was a bugaboo to the right wing throughout his entire career. No media personality was ever the living symbol of the alleged “liberal media” like Dan Rather. You guys will be joyously tearing at the corpse of his career like a pack of hyenas for the rest of your natural lives.

    The corpse of Helen Thomas’ career is a distant second on the right wing Hit Parade.

  37. ” Did he know that at the time? No”

    Breibart says he wasn’t sure if there was more to the video he recieved. Should he be excused because of his ineptitude?

    Rather says he didn’t know the papers were fakes.

    There is no way to prove a man did not know something. So we can either assume they are telling the truth in that they didn’t know, or we can assume they are lying in that they didn’t know.

    You seem to want to give Rather the benefit of the doubt, while not giving it to Breibart. And I have no doubts about why that is.
    ————————————————–

    I think this is worth pointing out.

    One of the conservative blogs I frequest is Hot Air. Hot Air has 2 primary bloggers; Ed Morrissey and ‘Allahpundit’. While Allahpundit was hesitant to jump on the Breibart bandwagon, Morrissey piled on quick. Today, Ed Morrissey finished an article with these words:

    “I owe Shirley Sherrod an apology, and I do apologize for leaping to my conclusion from the edited clip. I believe that Sherrod should at least be offered her job back, and not because I support her politics (I don’t) or think she should have been appointed to the position in the first place (that’s the prerogative of the White House). She lost her job because of a controversy in which she had no role to begin with and didn’t participate in, and regardless of any other considerations, that’s just not right.”

    Recently, the blog Talking Points Memo was putting out a video where it has since been proven that they had used video of anti-Tea Party plants as proof of Tea Party racism. They were exposed, and even went so far as to edit out some of their worst offenses.

    Has anyone from TPM shown the level of integrity that Ed Morrissey has shown? Have they apologized to the Tea Party? Please give a quote and a link, if so. If not, and if you are a reader of their blog, perhaps you should reflect on your choices of reading.

  38. And if anyone would rather compare TPM’s actions to Breibart’s, I am willing to have that discussion, as well.

    And then I will ask why our resident libs aren’t calling out TPM for its actions they way they are calling out Breibart for his.

  39. Did Breitbart know that he was editing the tape of Sherrod to make her (falsely) look like a racist when the whole tape shows her the 180 degree opposite? Definitely. Big difference.

    I breathlessly await your proof that he edited it, which I’m sure will be forthcoming…unlless this is yet another in a long train of Graychin “facts” that you just KNOW to be true (i.e. feel).

    Among your “conservative” brethren here, you are the only one who has been willing to go there.

    Ahhh, yes. I choose not issue a knee-jerk reaction, like the NAACP or the Administration/Vilsak, and I’m failing to meet your lofty standards. You should pour yourself a big glass of get over yourself and chug it a few times.

    And Rather was more of a talking head on the story in question than a reporter.

    I should add that Rather was a bugaboo to the right wing throughout his entire career. No media personality was ever the living symbol of the alleged “liberal media” like Dan Rather. You guys will be joyously tearing at the corpse of his career like a pack of hyenas for the rest of your natural lives.

    Well, as usual, you get it half-right, if at all.

    Yes, Dan was the face of CBS news. He had no issue with letting his political bias color his narrative, and when the bias became more important than the eleventy-seven layers fo fact-checking and the near mythic “journalistic integrity” that we keep hearing as the excuse for propping up a failed business model for news, he made his choice.

    I don’t take any joy at tearing at the corpse of his career. I don’t consider him to be that important, as he is nothing more than one of several footnotes in the story of the crashing failure that the “official” fourth estate has come to represent.

  40. Here’s the story that Breitbart was telling, that is conveniently being ignored- when Sherrod told her tale of racism to the NAACP audience, they didn’t gasp, they didn’t shout her down, and they didn’t call her out. They laughed.

    They said they were snookered? They had the entire tape the entire time- it was their proprietary control of the tape at the local NAACP office. They’ve simply demonstrated that they are morons.

    The NAACP has the gall to call the Tea Party racist and demand that they call out their own, yet they have plenty of racism of their own to deal with, from this, to calling black conservatives Uncle Toms, to their ignoring the New Black Panther Party.

    Another thing I notice you are not acknowledging is the fact that Fox’s Glenn Beck was the first to defend Sherrod.

  41. “You should pour yourself a big glass of get over yourself and chug it a few times.”

    That made me LOL.

    (I’m not trying to one-up anyone.)

    “lol….for some reason it didn’t occur to me that the NAACP had the entire tape the whole time.”

    Yeah, and now I am reading (accuracy unknown) that this guy Jealous was even in that audience. If so, he knew what she said and still took a shit on her.

    “Here’s the story that Breitbart was telling…”

    G, he never made that clear until this blew up on him. As I said in a previous comment, his entire 1400-word article started with talking about her speech and the audience was not mentioned except twice. And deep into the article, at that. If you read his blog, it is pretty obvious he was going after her speech and the audience reaction was almost a footnote.

    “Another thing I notice you are not acknowledging is the fact that Fox’s Glenn Beck was the first to defend Sherrod.”

    Krauthammer, as well. Both did so on Fox News.

  42. Can we agree that SOMEONE edited the Sherrod tape with intent to deceive?

    If it wasn’t Brietbart himself, who was it?

    How much fact-checking did Brietbart do?

    Does Brietbart have any responsibility to fact-check what he publishes?

  43. I would be praising Glenn Beck to the skies if I thought for a moment that he was trying to do the right thing. But he only sees this as another way to engage in Obama-bashing.

    Fire the racist! No, you shouldn’t have fired the good woman. Damned if you do…

  44. “Can we agree that SOMEONE edited the Sherrod tape with intent to deceive?”

    Yes.

    Can we agree that SOMEONE faked those Bush documents?

    “How much fact-checking did Brietbart do?”

    Obviously, not enough.

    How much fact-checking Rather do?

    “Does Brietbart have any responsibility to fact-check what he publishes?”

    Yes he does.

    Does Rather have any responsibility to fact-check what he gets on TV and tells the world?

  45. “I would be praising Glenn Beck to the skies if I thought for a moment that he was trying to do the right thing. But he only sees this as another way to engage in Obama-bashing”

    And if he gets proven right and Obama deserves bashing on this? What will you do then?

  46. Can we agree that SOMEONE edited the Sherrod tape with intent to deceive?

    Not at this time. Intent is a tricky thing to prove, and there simly isn’t enough evidence to prove intent. I will concede that a reasonable person can infer intent from the way it was presented.

    If it wasn’t Brietbart himself, who was it?

    We don’t know. He does, and alluded to this in his interview on CNN last night.

    How much fact-checking did Brietbart do?

    Apparently not enough. However, if you read his orginal story, the racism angle was an add-on. Other remarks she made were the primary reason for publishing the two clips.

    Does Brietbart have any responsibility to fact-check what he publishes?

    Yes he does. However, it was the continual republication of the first clip in different fora which made the “racism” angle THE story. I think that this shows why a different approach might have prevented what happened, but I’m not sure it is necessary or proper to sacrifice the whole of his credibility for what was done with a part of his article any more than it is necessary or proper to sacrifce her career based on only some of what she said in that presentation.

  47. “Fire the racist!”

    Shall we assume that you are sitting on some evidence that Beck had previously called for her termination, or are you making things up again?

  48. “…I’m not sure it is necessary or proper to sacrifice the whole of his credibility for what was done with a part of his article any more than it is necessary or proper to sacrifce her career based on only some of what she said in that presentation.”

    But her credibility (concerning race) is salvaged by her later admitting she was wrong.

    I haven’t seen Breibart admit his folly. All I have seen are excuses. “It was about the audience.” “The video was editied when I got it.” It’s childish.

  49. “…I’m not sure it is necessary or proper to sacrifice the whole of his credibility for what was done with a part of his article any more than it is necessary or proper to sacrifce her career based on only some of what she said in that presentation.”

    But her credibility (concerning race) is salvaged by her later admitting she was wrong.

    And yet she remains unemployed. That was the thrust of my point.

  50. “And yet she remains unemployed. That was the thrust of my point.”

    Gottcha. I guess I missed that.

  51. Graychin and Rutherford:

    When are you going to show the same level of disgust with Think Progress (I mistakenly claimed TPM in a prior comment) for their publishing of edited video that has proven to be misleading as you have shown to Andrew Breibart for his publishing of edited video that has been proven to being misleading?

    Should I hold my breath?

  52. And if he gets proven right and Obama deserves bashing on this? What will you do then?

    I already told you. Since the git-go, I have been bashing Vilsack and Obama about this – although we still aren’t sure about Obama’s involvement. In any case, Sherrod is owed a public apology by Obama himself for the insane reaction of his administration in firing Sherrod.

    My point about Beck is that just because he is right doesn’t mean that he had any interest in doing the right thing with his “courageous” support of Sherrod.

  53. Huck –

    TPM, Think Progress, what the heck – they’re all liberals! 😀

    The “smoking gun” video at the site you linked won’t play for me. Something about accepting a “friend” request?

    Do you have another source for your allegations against TPM or Think Progress or whoever? I mean, before you ask me to condemn someone , is it too much to ask that you tell me what they supposedly did?

  54. In any case, Sherrod is owed a public apology by Obama himself for the insane reaction of his administration in firing Sherrod.

    Another in a list of Great Moments™ that we will NEVER see.

    My point about Beck is that just because he is right doesn’t mean that he had any interest in doing the right thing with his “courageous” support of Sherrod.

    Yeah, because it isn’t like he doesn’t have a history of defending government employees who have been dismissed under questionable circumstances…

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/15/fired_inspector_general_on_glenn_beck.html

  55. My, an approval/disapproval swing of 13 and 15 points respectively. Amazing what a year can do…

    Quinnipiac University today released a national poll of 2,181 registered voters, almost twice the size of most national polls. (It has a margin of error of 2.1 percentage points.) It showed President Obama’s net job approval rating at its lowest point ever – 44% approve, 48% disapprove.
    In July 2009, Quinnipiac’s national poll had the president with 57% approve, 33% disapprove.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2010/07/21/a-year-after-honeymoon-ends-whites-men-and-independents-desert-obama/

  56. “The “smoking gun” video at the site you linked won’t play for me. Something about accepting a “friend” request?”

    Ah yes. I forgot that Think Progress was forced to hide that particular video. (The video was a direct link to theirs. TP is who is blocking it)

    In order to get the full effect of the Confederate Yankee claim, you need to click and view each bold link in the article. You won’t get the full context if you don’t veiw them all.

    “is it too much to ask that you tell me what they supposedly did?”

    Is it too much for me to ask that you read my entire comment?

    “When are you going to show the same level of disgust with Think Progress (I mistakenly claimed TPM in a prior comment) for their publishing of edited video that has proven to be misleading

    They published a video to prove Tea Party racism. The used assorted statements that have been proven as not been spoken by actual Tea Party protesters. The links prove this.

    I also find it interesting that you don’t know anything about this. Are the lefty blogs too worked up over fabricated Tea Party racism to call out their own side when it puts forth proven inaccuracies and falsehoods?

  57. “In any case, Sherrod is owed a public apology by Obama himself for the insane reaction of his administration in firing Sherrod.

    Another in a list of Great Moments™ that we will NEVER see.”

    That’s right. Gibbs has issued a blanket apology “from everyone in this administration involved in this matter” which gives Obama a measure of deniability and in turn, an out to man up.

    I also love how Gibbs keeps saying the administration made its decision based on “facts” that have “changed.”

    I just love how some are allowed to defend fuckups based on changing facts, while others are accused of outright deception when they make decisions based on facts that change.

  58. An interesting read…

    Just Disregard Fannie Mae’s Cry For Help

    Last month, Fannie Mae reacted angrily to borrowers’ surging strategic defaults by announcing that if it ever found out that people had the ability to pay their mortgage but defaulted anyway, Fannie would shut them off from mortgage financing for seven years.

    Properly understood, this is a cry for help that should not be answered.

  59. I guess we should thank Rutherford for unhindered use of his blog, but I’m a little confused about a blog owner who bothers to write a post, and then never takes time to defend his screed, answer the charges, scans the well thought out personal insults. 🙂

    Like BIC, I know Rutherford is around because he tweets, he D.J.’s, he obviously follows the news. Maybe he’s groping Sandi the Hermaphrodite or something?

    Or maybe Rutherford is like the fisherman who drops the tasty bait and falls asleep, only to discover his bait is gone over and over? 😐

    You know how all libs would starve to death if somebody wasn’t working to pay for their sustenance.

  60. Fishing…

    How I spent this morning. Took the boy out for some bonding. Was great. My two favorite things…

  61. It’s good to know that Mr. Iglesias has a future with this Administration…

    AP sources: No charges for ’06 US attorney firings

    In 2008, the Justice Department assigned Nora Dannehy, a career prosecutor from Connecticut with a history of rooting out government wrongdoing, to investigate the firings. One of the people who spoke to the AP, a lawyer, said Dannehy called him Wednesday afternoon and told him no charges would be filed.

    Much of the investigation focused on the firing of New Mexico U.S. attorney David Iglesias and whether the Bush administration misled Congress about his and other firings.

    Iglesias was fired after the head of the state’s Republican Party e-mailed the White House to complain that the U.S. attorney in New Mexico was soft on voter fraud. The GOP official asked that Iglesias be replaced so that the state could “make some real progress in cleaning up a state notorious for crooked elections.”

  62. Comment of the day:

    I love that sign on the door of Rev. G.D.A. Wright’s million dollar home. It reads,”I was born a poor black child, but G.D. America anyway.”

    That should be in a movie staring Steve Martin.

  63. Vilsak falls on his sword for Obama. Are they calling her a liar by claiming that the WH had nothing to do with this? Really, in the heat of the moment, through repeated calls from an Undersecretary, do you really mistakenly identify the WH as the source of the pressure?

  64. From:

    “I guess all the recent right-wing hysteria about anti-white racism is having an effect. Way to go, you guys.”

    To:

    “Looks like Vilsack got “snookered” too – just like the morons at the NAACP. (And of course the morons at Faux.)”

    To:

    “Sherrod is owed a public apology by Obama himself for the insane reaction of his administration in firing Sherrod.”

    Priceless.

  65. Tomorrow marks an important anniversary:

    This was, we were told, a “teachable moment”.

    Then this occurred:

    And we were told that this was, again, a “teachable moment”.

    Apparently, little was learned from that first teachable moment.

    Is it ironic that both of these issues revolve around race? How many times have we, as “white people”, been told that we’ve little to say on race because we have no appreciation for it. We haven’t experienced the bias of prejudice and oppression. We’re not qualified.

    Boy, I’m glad that we have level-headed leadership that looks past race…

    Or maybe not.

    Tell me, how’s this post-racial administration working out for you/

  66. I think Obama should make Vilsack and Sherrod have a beer together so we can make this “teachable moment” official.

  67. Anytime any of these wretched so-called “progressives” from Hades on here deny the MSM left-wing, speak of FAUX News, or Limbaugh, or Beck, or a host of others they hate, I’m going to remind these phony assholes they’ve been busted for the whole world to see now.

    And in reading over the months, it has become apparent that Graychin Van Lumberjack and the Hippie Professor sound an awfully lot like these Journolist lowlifes with their daily talking points, in their stereotyped articles and accusations of racism, and Tea Bagger mockery, etc…I used to think it was just MSNBC, Media Matters and PuffHO memes, but then we find out where MSNBC and Co. get their material.

    The point is, this is America’s “mainstream” media, supposedly. Except it’s not. It’s in fact a support wing for one party and one vision for America. And as with the rest of the progressive movement, it’s concerned not with the truth, but with power.

    Pretty good editorial exposing for fact what most of us always suspected. The “progressing to Hell” party is a bunch of jackboots and thugs:

    The Smoking Gun for Media Bias

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/541156/201007211852/The-Smoking-Gun-For-Media-Bias.aspx

  68. Hey Rutherford

    You’re always mocking Sarah Palin for being dumb, but it seems to me she was way ahead of the curve and blows way your elitist persona.

    Remember Sarah Palin accusing the media of “makin’ stuff up?” in which you laughed at her and even pulled the kids into the fray?

    Well, it turns out she was right. Must chap your ass that this “dummy” is now beating Obama’s ‘superior’ intellect every step of the way. 🙂

  69. 65 Known POS that were colluding to “change the news” for the propaganda spin machine known as “Progressive Politic.” These are the assholes that spin the racist Teabagger theme for MSNBC.

    Set these assholes names to memory so that next time one of our waterboys from the Left quote them, remind them of the illegitimacy of their source.

    And you guys from the right will note there are several common names that are quoted here frequently as “objective” news sources:

    LYING ASSHOLE LIST
    1. Ezra Klein
    2. Dave Weigel
    3. Matthew Yglesias
    4. David Dayen
    5. Spencer Ackerman
    6. Jeffrey Toobin
    7. Eric Alterman
    8. Paul Krugman

    9. John Judis
    10. Eve Fairbanks
    11. Mike Allen
    12. Ben Smith
    13. Lisa Lerer
    14. Joe Klein
    15. Brad DeLong
    16. Chris Hayes
    17. Matt Duss
    18. Jonathan Chait
    19. Jesse Singal
    20. Michael Cohen
    21. Isaac Chotiner
    22. Katha Pollitt
    23. Alyssa Rosenberg
    24. Rick Perlstein
    25. Alex Rossmiller
    26. Ed Kilgore
    27. Walter Shapiro
    28. Noam Scheiber
    29. Michael Tomasky
    30. Rich Yesels
    31. Tim Fernholz
    32. Dana Goldstein
    33. Jonathan Cohn
    34. Scott Winship
    35. David Roberts
    36. Luke Mitchell
    37. John Blevins
    38. Moira Whelan
    39. Henry Farrell
    40. Josh Bearman
    41. Alec McGillis
    42. Greg Anrig
    43. Adele Stan
    44. Steven Teles
    45. Harold Pollack
    46. Adam Serwer
    47. Ryan Donmoyer
    48. Seth Michaels
    49. Kate Steadman
    50. Matt Duss
    51. Laura Rozen
    52. Jesse Taylor
    53. Michael Hirsh
    54. Daniel Davies
    55. Jonathan Zasloff
    56. Richard Kim
    57. Thomas Schaller
    58. Jared Bernstein
    59. Holly Yeager
    60. Joe Conason
    61. David Greenberg
    62. Todd Gitlin
    63. Mark Schmitt
    64. Kevin Drum
    65. Sarah Spitz

  70. Yeah, and now we find out that Klein was using JournoList discussions and ideas to write his Time pieces.

  71. There’s one name on that list missing I should add. Nate Silver, stretching statistician for the Left and Hippie’s hero.

    They even clam up in unison:

    * Ezra Klein, current employee of The Washington Post: “I actually expect this to be my final public comment on the subject.”

    * Nate Silver, future employee of The New York Times: “This is pretty much my final ‘say’ on this topic, so please don’t anticipate any follow-up, or any response to media requests.

    😆 😆

    BUSTED…

  72. Actually this is very incorrect. Libel and Slander lawsuits are still very prevalent. Most are settled, but the fact remains that they are still a force to control improper forms of media. The thing that is going to hit Briebart is he committed both of these, with intent to do harm, which came to flourish ion as Mrs. Sherrod was “forced” to resign. When people dance the line of what is allowable, they use the magic phrase, “It is in my opinion…“ However, at no point on his website or on his TV appearances did he do so. By omitting that little phrase, he has left himself wide open for the before mention charges.

    In the very least she can sue for loss of her job, As for the damages, that would be purely based on decision of a judge. To be honest, this would be a great example for years to come as the lawsuit that will come from this will determine how punishable Online “Journalism” can be. Seeing this is the perfect example of how far in the measure of extreme things can get. Beribert wants exposure, and to go down in history – – congratulation, you’re definitely going to get that now. I wonder what Mrs. Sherrod will do with the websites, once they are given to her after the lawsuit is over?

    Let’s not forget, Breibart has a current standing lawsuit from ACORN. Which the US Government found not at fault when the video tapes were found to be edited to falsely portray the events that they were charged with. This guy is going to go down, and anyone that is to close to him will go down with him.

  73. Baloney, Breitbart won’t lose a cent – what the bigot going to sue him for? A job promotion, which is what this bigot got in return?

    Breitbart served his exact purpose. To expose the NAACP as incompetent liars with a penchant for hating whitey. The NAACP is having the nail driven into the coffin.

    Good riddance…

  74. Actually this is very incorrect. Libel and Slander lawsuits are still very prevalent. Most are settled, but the fact remains that they are still a force to control improper forms of media. The thing that is going to hit Briebart is he committed both of these, with intent to do harm, which came to flourish ion as Mrs. Sherrod was “forced” to resign.

    1. I don’t think you have reached “actual malice”.

    2. Resignations, even under these circumstances, don’t rise to the level of a constructive firing.

    3. One of the loudest condemnations came from the organization that hosted her giving the speech, and who had every reason to understand the “context” and correct the record. Their cranial-rectal inversion was not Breitbart’s fault.

  75. Glad you mention this. “Actual Malice,” is something to be determine by a judge. After all of this has played out, do you really believe there is a judge in this country that will rule in favor of a man that by his own words is an anarchist that is determine to destroy our established way of life through dishonest means with no remorse for those whom lives he destroys along the way, verse a woman that is dang near mother tereasa reincarnate. Oh yeah, there are the rules of law as well, that face it — he broke.

  76. I suppose you have prove of this. I’m pretty familiar with Breitbart and have never heard him say this:

    by his own words is an anarchist that is determine to destroy our established way of life through dishonest means with no remorse for those whom lives he destroys along the way</i?

    And if your charges were true, half the libs in America would be in court today.

    And if you think this whitey hating racist who made her money of suing the gov't is Mother Theresa, then you've told me all I need to know about your intellectual capability. 🙄

  77. “Actually this is very incorrect. Libel and Slander lawsuits are still very prevalent. Most are settled, but the fact remains that they are still a force to control improper forms of media. The thing that is going to hit Breitbart is he committed both of these, with intent to do harm, which came to flourish ion as Mrs. Sherrod was “forced” to resign.”

    “Most are settled?” Hardly. Most are dismissed, particularly when it comes to a public officials. What slander? Moreover, the question of whether the communications might be privileged is one of law for the judge, a finding of “actual malice” is one of fact for the
    jury (as far as I know).

    Meachy, I believe that what Brietbart did was wrong. However, your conceptual analysis that leads you to believe there is a slam dunk judgment against Breitbart, for defamation no less, is a little thin. But this is not my area of the law.

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s