Recently, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz and White House reporter Tommy Christopher attacked Andrew Breitbart and myself for a “failed ambush” after I released Project Mayhem, Part II, which included video in which I broke the first rule of Project Mayhem, and asked Schultz how Ohio Senate Bill 5 allegedly takes away union rights to bargain on safety, which he and his panel contended, when it specifically does the opposite.

Recounting this in a subsequent broadcast, calling me part of a “goon squad,” Schultz explained that “after the show, one of Andrew Breitbart’s lackeys ambushed me.”

First of all, I did not “ambush” him; I asked him for a few moments of his time for an interview and he agreed. Perhaps I should from now on duck, cover and scream “Help!” every time some Greenpeace member asks me if I have a moment for the environment.

Apparently Schultz’s definition of the term “ambush” is any consensual interview in which specific questions are asked which don’t comfortably warrant platitudinal answers. (By this rationale, most questions towards President Obama regarding specific language in Obamacare are ripe for secret service intervention.)

Schultz continued: “It wasn’t a scheduled interview he just came up and started talking.”

Actually we did schedule it. I asked, “Hi Mr. Schultz, can I ask you a few questions for the people of Ohio?” He said, “Sure.” So I began. I assumed by “sure” he meant “right now is fine,” as opposed to “call my assistant, she knows my schedule this week better than I do.”

In the interview, I pointed out to him that “the bill under Section 4117.08 actually gives the right to unions to be bargain on safety which the Democrat bill of 1983 didn’t.” His response was “that’s not what the firefighters are telling me,” to which I said, “But the bill says so.”

… And it still does. As the author of the bill Shannon Jones advised Schultz in my earlier video, “Reading is fundamental.” In response to the video release, Schultz admitted that while the bill does in fact say so, it at the same time doesn’t say so:

“What Breitbart and the anti-union Republicans don’t want you to know about is Section 4117.14 of the bill … Right now if firefighters and lawmakers have a disagreement, they go to a neutral third party to reach an agreement. In Senate Bill 5, those rights are taken away and the lawmakers — the lawmakers — have the final say.”

Once again, Ed, reading is fundamental. Had Schultz actually read the article I wrote in which the video was embedded, he would have found that this “Breitbart lackey” who “[doesn't] want you to know about … Section 4117.14,” specifically mentioned Section 4117.14.

To be fair, opponents of the bill who have read it at least offer a more nuanced argument than Schultz. Appearing on Rachel Maddow’s show, Mike Weinman, Director of Government Affairs at the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio, told Maddow that “under Senate Bill 5 now, it would be up to city councils whether or not you get that safety equipment.”

And this is true. SB 5 does, in fact, replace unfirable binding arbitrators unaccountable for budget solvency with elected officials answerable to both the taxpayer and the unions. In the private sector, this would be the equivalent of allowing the actual manager (who has a tangible stake in keeping the company solvent so as to avoid lay-offs) to negotiate with the union, rather than an uninvested yes man to waltz in, high-five union members and decide how much money said manager may have to pull out of thin air to accommodate.

Of course, the only reason I pointed out this change under SB 5 was because I did not want anyone to know about it. Perhaps I would have had better luck pointing it out on MSNBC.

Schultz then turned to Jack Reall, playing my clip in which Reall said:

“That lieutenant sitting in the seat next to you, going into the fire with you, has no right to bargain for his safety, his staffing, his safety equipment. And that is bullshit.”

I had followed that clip with a title card reading: “…At least that claim is. Under SB 5: ‘… equipment issues directly related to personal safety are subject to collective bargaining.’ (ORC 4117.08)”

After playing the clip, Schultz noted:

“As you can see from the video, they did a great job of editing, but they forgot to take out the first part which was ‘the lieutenant sitting in the seat next to you.’ [SB 5] removes the rights of any supervisor to be in a bargaining unit or have a bargaining agreement. That means lieutenants, captains and battalion chiefs in the fire department have no right to bargain for anything.”

Reall was referring to Section 4117.06, which reads:

[I]n determining the appropriate unit, the board shall not…with respect to members of a fire department, designate as appropriate a unit that includes rank and file members of the department with members who are of the rank of lieutenant or above.

While I hate to break the bad news to Reall, he does still have the right to bargain for his safety. Unless his right to the victim card is of more value than that of the rights he is claiming to be a victim of losing, the term “bad news” is relative.

Section 4117.06 simply means that members who are of the rank of lieutenant of above cannot be including in the same bargaining unit as that of rank and file. This does not preclude lieutenants and their superiors from bargaining altogether, within their own unit.

Under the 1983 law, everyone save the chief was in the same bargaining unit as the rank and file. SB 5 simply puts firemen in the same situation as the police, which is to separate the bargaining units so that lieutenants, captains and assistant chiefs could organize and have their own unit and bargain for the same list of items as the rank and file.

To clarify this, I spoke with Jonathan Downs, attorney specializing in employment law with an emphasis on public unions, representing cities, counties and school boards throughout the state, a number of clients of whose have contracts with fire, police and county sherrifs.

Perhaps I would not have to keep pulling the rug out from under every one of Schultz’s lies if someone would be kind enough to hand him a copy of the actual bill. But then, of course, that might constitute an ambush.

Today on my show I addressed Christopher’s silly hit piece. I haven’t bothered reading his yet, as he bravely waited until I was on air before publishing so I couldn’t immediately respond, but his prejudice against me is predictable so I don’t feel the need.

Next time, Tommy, put in the due diligence of reaching out to your targets so you can avoid missing the “scoop” on such an easy answer in the future. I have a pretty fast turnaround on email responses! Embarrassing.

The New York Times is reporting on a story I discussed a couple of days ago – the mystery surrounding ‘Betty and Veronica’ – with a stunning detail; apparently Mediaite reporter Tommy Christopher was given fake IDs by a woman claiming to be Betty’s mother:

One Twitter user the group observed seeking to interact with Mr. Weiner was called “Nikki Reid.” She started an online campaign to get Mr. Weiner to be her prom date at Hollywood High School in May, using the account @starchild111. Within days after Mr. Weiner started following her, a Twitter user, also using a fake name, Marianela Alicea, and pretending to be Nikki Reid’s classmate, contacted a member of the #bornfreecrew and said she had information about Mr. Weiner, but never provided any.

But there is no evidence that either girl exists. There is no Nikki Reid or Marianela Alicea enrolled at Hollywood High School. In response to requests from a reporter from the blog Mediaite, a woman claiming to be Nikki Reid’s mother provided documentation to substantiate her identity and her daughter’s identity. But records show the street address the woman provided does not list anyone named Reid as an occupant. State officials in California have confirmed that the driver’s license this woman provided to Mediaite was false, as well.

A friend on Twitter just told me..

Tommy has some serious explaining to do.. lecturing everyone while writing a story on 2 people who don’t exist (who he said were beyond question)

Hard to argue with that point.

The New York Times piece has a fatal flaw; it gives the impression that these apparently fake people were trying to ‘set up’ Weiner. This fails to highlight a huge repercussion of this revelation – Tommy’s piece ran long statements from Betty / Nikki, Veronica / Maria and Betty / Nikki’s mom. These statements including emphatic defenses of Rep. Anthony Weiner. If all of these people are fake, then Tommy ran defenses of Weiner from fake people. Here’s an example from the ‘mom’.

When Rep Weiner followed my daughter the one and only message he sent her was welcoming her to his twitter followers and suggested he go to his website for more information. My husband and I were delighted with this message as it furthered our daughter’s interest in learning about government. We were very grateful to Rep Weiner for this and saw nothing wrong or inappropriate with this message.

This was the one and only message that Rep Weiner sent our daughter. Our daughter sent a message thanking Rep Weiner for following her and thanking him for the welcome message. This was the one and only message our daughter sent to Rep Weiner.

Soon after she was following Rep Weiner, a group of grown men and a few grown woman who described themselves as “concerned mothers” began harassing my daughter. I can assure you, as a mother, I’ve never heard of such disgusting behavior. My daughter, with our permission, responded to these attacks on Rep Weiner following her with grace and maturity – which is something that cannot be said for these “mothers” and their fellow grown men involved in the attack.

These mothers and their grown male friends attacked the intentions and character of Rep Weiner to our daughter and suggested that he was somehow perverse for following her. This disgusted myself and my husband. They were attacking a man, who has done nothing to them and has done nothing wrong.

That is not only pro-Weiner (and as we know now, patently false) but it also claims people in the #BornFree crew were harassing the (apparently fake) Betty and Veronica. But the New York Times piece continues the meme that the #BornFree crew were a bunch of nefarious conservatives out to get Anthony Weiner by any means necessary.

If Tommy Christopher’s sources aren’t real, then the #Bornfree crew are victims, not only of the Imposter but also of the New York Times and Mediaite.

Let’s also remember another detail that’s come to light recently – Tommy told me on the phone several days ago that Betty / Veronica were trying to push a story on Tommy that Andrew Breitbart and Dana Loesch were attempting to force Betty / Veronica to lie about Rep. Weiner. Tommy didn’t run with this story, which had outrageous details but he didn’t report on the attempt to discredit Breitbart and Loesch, either.

If Betty / Veronia / Mom were an imposter, this makes this seem even more sinister. Apparently, a person or persons unknown was trying to discredit Breitbart & Loesch. Again, read the New York Times piece and it makes it seem as though Weiner is the intended victim here and makes no mention of the Breitbart / Loesch angle.

One other detail – apparently Tommy DID talk to a woman on the phone.  That provides some starting point for uncovering this mystery.

At this point, Tommy REALLY needs to show his work and come clean. Putting the fake IDs up for other people to see would be a good idea, as well.

From Tommy Christopher in Mediaite:

Then, on Thursday, a blogger at DailyKos published a diary rife with wild speculation, and unfounded insinuations, including an unredacted version of Veronica’s Direct Messages to @Goatsred, which also contains Betty’s name. This is the problem with new media, an ignorance, or contempt, or simple disregard, for established journalistic practices. Redacting the names would have no effect on the item’s news value, and the message states they are high school girls, but the blogger either didn’t notice, or didn’t care.

When the girls’ parents became aware of this, they were very distressed, fearing for their children’s safety and privacy. I assured them that I would contact the blog’s proprietor, Markos Moulitsas (a father himself), and he would surely take it down, or redact their names.

The reality, though, was quite another story. When I contacted Moulitsas, he refused to call me, insisting upon email, which greatly hampered the amount of detail I could give him. The result was that he refused to redact their names, or make any changes, but the actual emails demonstrate a reprehensible lack of compassion or responsibility: (Warning: There is some very strong language)

VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

date Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:22 PM
subject VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

They are sources of mine, and scared shitless, please call me. xxx-xxx-xxxx

from Markos Moulitsas
to Tommy Christopher
date Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:26 PM
subject Re: VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

Email me the info.

from Tommy Christopher tommy@mediaite.com
to dkos
date Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:29 PM
subject Re: VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

These are confidential sources. If you can’t call me, at least have this blog taken down, or redact the DM screenshot, including the names (redacted) and the name (redacted), and the girl’s picture. And any reference to those names in the comments or story

from Tommy Christopher tommy@mediaite.com
to dkos
date Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:58 PM
subject Re: VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

Please let me know what’s going on. I will be posting these girls’ story pretty soon, with proper protection. They just don’t want all these bread crumbs out there. They are 16 years old.

from Markos Moulitsas
to Tommy Christopher
date Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:34 PM
subject Re: VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

That’s a community member’s post. Not my staff. I don’t exert editorial control over what the community writes absent legal imperatives or deeply offensive material. Right now, I’m seeing neither.

I’m not sure I get why you want me to pull that. Those DMs appear relevant to the story. As I understand it, those two individuals injected themselves into a political smear effort, why should they be protected now?

Open to a counter argument that has nothing to do with protecting your source.

from Tommy Christopher tommy@mediaite.com
to Markos Moulitsas
date Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:37 PM
subject Re: VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

They are both minor children and (redacted) was not involved. Will discuss further if you need, not on email. There could be legal implications, I’m not a lawyer. I’m going to post their story fairly soon, but will discuss off the record by phone if you need.

from Tommy Christopher tommy@mediaite.com
to Markos Moulitsas
date Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:20 PM
subject Re: VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

I’m prepping my story now. Are you going to leave it as is? These girls are afraid. Here’s a redacted version, if you want to drop it in. That’s all I ask. You’re a father, think about it for a sec.

from Markos Moulitsas
to Tommy Christopher
date Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:35 PM
subject Re: VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

If they’re so afraid, why are they talking to you?

from Markos Moulitsas
to Tommy Christopher
date Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:35 PM
subject Re: VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

And to be clear, no, I’m not getting involved. I see no reason to protect your scoop.

from Tommy Christopher tommy@mediaite.com
to Markos Moulitsas
date Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:35 PM
subject Re: VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

Because I have promised to protect their identities.

from Tommy Christopher tommy@mediaite.com
to Markos Moulitsas
date Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:37 PM
subject Re: VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

It’s not my scoop I’m protecting, it’s these young girls. Jesus, all I’m asking is that you redact the names of these children. Please.

from Markos Moulitsas
to Tommy Christopher
date Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:37 PM
subject Re: VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

So did @goatsred.

Again, not my responsibility to protect your sources.

from Tommy Christopher tommy@mediaite.com
to Markos Moulitsas
date Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 11:40 PM
subject Re: VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

Dude, it is your responsibility to protect the identities of minors, sources or not. I can’t believe you. This gesture will cost you nothing, and it will save these girls being subjected to fuck knows what. As a father, I beg you, please redact these girls’ names.

from Tommy Christopher tommy@mediaite.com
to Markos Moulitsas
date Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:17 AM
subject Re: VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

This is the last I’ll say on the subject, and you can take it for what it’s worth, like I said, I’m not a legal expert, but this girl’s parents are livid and talking about legal action. Obviously, you didn’t know it was posted, but you know now.

from Markos Moulitsas
to Tommy Christopher
date Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 12:56 AM
subject Re: VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

Wish them luck going after @goatsred.

from Tommy Christopher tommy@mediaite.com
to Markos Moulitsas
date Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:08 AM
subject Re: VERY Urgent you call me! One of your bloggers is compromising identities of two minors

Well, he has removed it from his YFrog. Probably not out of decency, but now, you’re the only obstacle to their safety. I really can’t believe you’re doing this. I hope you think better of it.

It disgusts me to see any person behave this way, particularly a fellow liberal. It is my hope that he rethinks this, or that enough of my fellow liberals (he’s not likely to be persuaded by conservatives) encourage him (perhaps via Twitter) to do the right thing, and protect these girls. Their parents are sick with worry over this, and the frustrating part is that I promised them, every step of the way, that I would protect them, that I would kill the story rather than risk harm to these girls.

Read the whole, very interesting article here.

After all, this isn’t just any story. Regardless of how it all eventually breaks, what we have here is either the story of a high profile, recently married New York Congressman who’s seriously considering a Mayoral run in Manhattan, tweeting his “junk” to a young woman two decades his junior — and lying to the media about it. Or we have a story involving a high-profile Congressman’s Facebook and Twitter account being hacked with pornographic pictures.

So ask yourself: how does the MSM justify all but ignoring something so juicy? And then if you’re still not convinced of the story’s newsworthiness, remind yourself that these events are not unfolding in one of those odd, square-shaped states our journalist-class fly over every once in a while. This is a New York story that involves the trifecta of politics, sex, and a rising political star. Furthermore, the icing on the cake is Bill and Hillary Clinton. Last July, in a ceremony officiated by former President Clinton himself, Rep. Weiner married Hillary’s top aide, Huma Abedin.

Now, please don’t bother to answer any of the above questions. They were rhetorical and answered by the “D” after Rep. Weiner’s name. Naturally, the hacking of a Facebook account connected to one of the best known and most outspoken Democrats in Congress is a bonafide story … unless you’re afraid of where that story might lead. And if you’re interested in what a WeinerGate story looks like when a news outlet is terrified afraid of where it might lead, read this.

And while you’re reading that and wondering where all the coverage is, here’s a refresher course in Congressional sex scandals that did manage to dominate the news over the past few years. No doubt you’ll find a few of these names familiar: Larry Craig, David Vitter, John Ensign, Chris Lee, and Mark Foley. To answer your question… Yes, they’re all Republicans.

Another fascinating example of how the corrupt media has attempted to suppress this story can be found via our friends at Mediaite, who went full Media Matters Saturday by turning WeinerGate into an attack against Andrew Breitbart. In their top-of-the-page article, not only is Shirley Sherrod mentioned twice, but there’s a bizarre attempt to spin the authorship of the Big Government article into something suspicious:

Also notable is the fact that this post’s author, Publius, is entirely anonymous. Why didn’t someone with a real identity and something to lose sign off on this?

Well, why didn’t someone at Mediaite with a smidgen of reportorial curiosity simply click the “Publius” profile link where they would discover that “Publius” is the byline for the Big Government Editorial Panel; which is not only “someone with a real identity” taking ownership of the story, it’s everyone in editorial, including Breitbart himself. How exactly is that any different than when Mediaite jumped on the Media Matters bandwagon to destroy Fox News’ Bill Sammon with an article written by the “Mediaite Staff” — which, I would argue, is much more ambiguous than our editorial panel. One wonders if Mediaite’s entire staff (does that include housekeeping?) is aware they got into bed with George Soros.

Even better, however, is how  Mediaite closes their hit on Breitbart; with this genius piece of insight:

But this may not be a laughing matter, we either have a serious media or political scandal on our hands. We will soon see which one.

Mediaite’s goal here is obvious and, not surprisingly, shared by the left-wing fever swamp known as the Daily Kos: to distract from a legitimate story by targeting the messenger. Mediate’s desperation to change the subject was even more transparent on Twitter where editor Colby Hall (you remember Colby) and White House Correspondent Tommy Christopher (you remember Tommy) proved they were much more interested in badgering the messenger than looking into the possible misdeeds of a sitting Congressman. For a taste, read here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Other than Politico (the exception that appears to prove the rule), this is your MSM, folks. This is who these people are and how they operate. Larry Craig, David Vitter, John Ensign, Chris Lee, and Mark Foley were all made superstars of the media narrative, but as of right now it looks as though Anthony Weiner’s possible indiscretions are being treated like those of John Edwards — see, hear, and speak no journalism.

Thankfully, on Twitter and in the right-wing blogsphere, WeinerGate is exploding as Citizen Media does what the elite media refuses. As I write this, they’re the ones asking intelligent questions, digging for information and furthering the story one tweet and blog post at a time. All the while, you can sense the MSM hovering, watching, and wringing their hands with worry over how the great unwashed and uneducated might once again force them to cover a story they wish would just go away.

Later on that evening, I checked Twitter before bed and this had happened:

Martel claims she’s a libertarian. No libertarian I know claims personal offense at another’s opinion.

Obviously offensive, but apparently not enough for Mediaite to include the remarks in their hit piece on me.

When Larry O’Connor extended to us an invite to discuss it on his Sunday night show she tried walking back her remarks and has been trying to redefine them ever since. She also maintains that she was “making a joke” about Rand with the looter comment, but the context doesn’t support it, either in her statement or in Atlas Shrugged wherein looters were defined as people who sucked life out of others via government while providing nothing in return. She actually makes a novice mistake here and shows her cards: her belief that stay-at-home-mothers are equal to that of Rand’s looters shows that she does not place any value on mothering. Looters, by Rand’s definition, provided no value. Martel’s view on motherhood is an arbitrary point but one she mistakenly uses and promotes as objective fact.

Her belief that private household business arrangements should be subject to public evaluation also betrays any real claim to conservatism.

Here she’s at least willing to say that her opinion, by which she smears an entire class of women, may change over time. The presumption is that women who choose to stay home do so because they have no other options available to them or because they’re lazy. It’s an insult and stereotype of the Linda Hirshman variety.

Martel was fine at the show’s close but conveniently horrified two days after the show, but not by her behavior, not by the way in which she offended women online, or by her use ad hominem attacks and name-calling (apparently I’m a “drunk” because my husband made me a margarita after my sons were in bed, I’m “ignorant” because of my opinion and I’m “uneducated” because I don’t have an Ivy League degree), but because I said that she was acting like a “bitch.” Normally I don’t toss around the pejorative, but being that it was midnight and I was being yelled at on my Mother’s Day about motherhood by a self-involved single woman without children was over-the-top.

I repeatedly asked Martel why she found no problem with a family that, by choice or necessity, has to outsource childcare but has a problem if that family chooses to keep childcare in-house. The question remains unanswered.

Martel and Mediaite are simply trying to get attention from a non-story and attempting to save face by omitting all that which I have referenced. What was an ironically good-natured late night conversation that took place on the Internet was turned into a manufactured dispute. It’s ridiculous …

… especially so when Martel uses the pejorative herself at the end of O’Connor’s show:

The only mistake made was that my attention was given to a website that routinely attacks conservative women (conservatives in general, really), whose White House correspondent routinely cusses at readers on the site (with the approval of Mediaite Editor Colby Hall, apparently) –

– with the belief that they would be professional enough to extend the courtesy of objectivity to this topic. (Context)

P.S. The comments at Mediaite on this are amazing.

*More perspective from Turncoat Diva.

** Bigs contributor Dan Riehl chimes in.

But Tommy Christopher of course found it viciously racist for Donald Trump to associate President Obama with basketball regardless of how desperately the President tries to associate himself with basketball.  Surely it is just another attempt by Trump to “other-ize” the President by associating him with some exotic sport that is extremely foreign to the white people of America (like John Thune and Scott Brown perhaps?).

But there are race mongers, and then there is Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher.

To give you an idea of just how frivolous and contrived Christopher’s efforts to weaponize race for political gain really are, on April 27, as just described, Christopher blasted Donald Trump as a vicious racist blowing on that “dogwhistle [sic]” for associating the President with basketball (instead of golf, which would be less racist according to Christopher) as an effort to make him the “other.” What a racist dog whistler of a potential Republican Presidential candidate. (No word on his thoughts of rapper Common, a White House guest tonight, who spoke out against interracial marriages.)

But only two months prior, on March 3^rd Tommy Christopher savagely attacked Mike Huckabee as a vicious racist blowing on that “dogwhistle [sic]” for NOT associating the President with the “quintessentially American game” of basketball (more American than baseball according to the March 3^rd Tommy Christopher):

“Intentional or not, the same pack of dogs who lapped up Huckabee’s Confederate flag rhetoric will still salivate at the sound, as they will over Huckabee’s ‘Little League Baseball’ dividing line. As Matthews points out, basketball is actually a more quintessentially American game, as baseball owes its roots to European games. Huckabee surely knows that Obama played basketball as a youth, so why the reference? Why doesn’t basketball pass muster?”

Yes, according to March 3^rd Tommy Christopher, Huckabee’s failure to acknowledge all of the basketball in Obama’s youth was an attempt by Huckabee to other-ize Barack Obama.  What a racist dog whistler of a potential Republican Presidential candidate.

But do Tommy Christopher’s efforts to smear potential Republican Presidential candidates as racists with diametrcally contradictory standards necessarily demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Christopher’s grotesque race-mongering is entirely about political opportunism?  Is it possible that Tommy Christopher actually believes himself to be a uniquely non-racist white person in a world where being a racist white person is overwhelmingly the norm?

“As a non-racist white guy, I’ve often found myself in the position of racial double-agent, as other white people tend to assume that all white people think the way they do.” – Tommy Christopher, lonely non-racist white guy who tends to assume all white people think in a racist way that he doesn’t (though for a non-racist white guy, Tommy hears an awful lot of racist dog whistle frequencies…hmm).

The record would seem to suggest it’s quite a bit of both, but regardless, Mediaite is employing a political tactician – and a particularly nasty one at that – not the “media correspondent and White House reporter” his own job description suggests.  “Reporters” and “correspondents” do not actively support or promote campaigns to attack the advertisers of potential candidates.  Christopher’s basketball related racism insinuations about Donald Trump weren’t even his most contrived, dishonest and libelous in that April 27^th piece alone.

I initially started looking into writing a follow up post to my post last week when a friend alerted me to the fact that Christopher was actually trying to defend his fabricated account that Trump lavished ”praise for Confederate ‘rebels’ as ‘wonderful,’ ‘beautiful,’ ‘romantic,’ and ‘great’” on twitter.  I figured it was worth a follow-up given that Christopher has rarely seen a phony or staged racial incident he wouldn’t throw his full weight behind, employing all the dishonesty he can muster, even when the rest of the MSM – not to mention the principle inventers of the lie – have the good sense to move on and ignore it as soon as it’s exposed as a fraud.

Long story short, Christopher’s defense was about as bad as you’d expect, but here’s the part of Christopher’s defense that seemed to summarize it:

“Trump says that the Libyans are being portrayed as romantic, wonderful, and great, like the Confederate rebels in Gone With the Wind, but that the Libyan rebels might end up being worse than Mubarek. He never expresses disagreement with the film’s portrayal of the Confederate rebels. They are the exemplar. If you could show me where Trump disavows that film’s portrayal of the Confederates, you would have a point, but he did not.”

Whereas Christopher had falsely published that Trump “praised” the Confederacy in these glorious terms (when in fact Trump was mocking that those terms were being applied to Libyan rebels in the conventional meme), he now argues he was justified because Trump did not explicitly “disavow” the film’s portrayal of Confederate rebels.  How do you know he supports the Confederacy?  Because he didn’t say he doesn’t.

When I expressed astonishment that Christopher’s and Mediaite’s “reporting” standards allowed him to redefine Trump’s failure to condemn the Confederacy or what it represented in a given sentence as support or “praise” for it, and falsely quote Trump as such, Christopher stopped corresponding with me, and Mediaite Editor Colby Hall explained that it was okay because Chrisopher’s piece was “clearly labeled as a column.”

Except of course it wasn’t labeled a column at all (and it shouldn’t matter where facts are concerned).  In fact only two of Christopher’s previous 120 pieces (roughly) were in any way labeled as opinion pieces, and Christopher titles himself “media correspondent and White House reporter for Mediaite.com” with no mention whatsoever that he is really an opinion writer.

Hall explained that this was the result of a “glitch in our system that is not enabling that particular tag.”  I take him at his word, but nevertheless, for a blog that claims to make an explicit distinction between “fact” and “opinion,” there is a remarkable continuity between supposedly factual posts and opinion posts.   Posts that are not labeled with the “editorialist” banner frequently contain opinions and use the first person voice, and apparently all of their contributors write sometimes as “editorialist” and sometimes as a reporter.  And even though Hall asserted that “because Christopher writes with a very strong opinion, nearly every single one of his posts is labeled as such,” he affirmed that he has no concerns whatsoever with Tommy titling himself a “media correspondent and White House reporter for Mediaite.com.”

As for Christopher, he might want to consider whether suggesting an extremely accomplished and dignified woman like Condoleezza Rice engaged in a “slap-fight” with an MSNBC host is really the appropriate “dog whistle” to be blowing while he’s touting his supposed sensitivity to dismissive, bigoted code language.

I would also be curious to know how many of his colleagues at Mediaite are also white racists – especially Matt Schneider, who wondered why Obama never seems as passionate about political issues as basketball.  Are he and everyone else at Mediaite among the non-racist white guy minority?  Or is Christopher going to condemn Mediaite for giving a platform to Matt Schneider’s racist dog whistling?   Is he going to campaign for Mediaite’s sponsors to demand that they drop him?

Now, it’s proper for me to mock Jack Stuef because he’s a grown man and not a little kid with a handicap. Well, technically, that’s inaccurate.  He’s certainly grown – the dude looks like he’s never met a burrito he didn’t like and that he’d detonate in a burst of bile and used Pringles if he ever tried to do a sit-up.  But he’s not a man.

It’s not fashionable to expect men to be men anymore – I’m sure Jack listened intently and internalized every lecture by his Georgetown University gender identity studies course professor and probably considers whole idea of “being a man” at best an anachronism and at worst some sort of Bu$Hilter/Haliburton conspiracy to reinforce the patriarchal paradigm.  But, of course, the characteristics we label as “manly” are not restricted to those with Y chromosomes – honor, courage, integrity, duty and the willingness to take risks for the greater good do not know gender.  Hell, most of the “real men” in the GOP have bore children.

The fact is that men don’t pick on little kids.  Now, I have an advantage – I’ve had the honor of serving with and leading real men for about a quarter century, including in wars where we defended the free speech rights that this slob disgraces with his pathetic attention-whoring.  Sadly, Jack Stuef has not had that opportunity – he’s apparently grown up in an insulated world of snarky leftism that tears down rather than creates.  Besides being clearly – how do I say it kindly? – too out of shape to serve, he probably suffers under the delusion common to grads of major universities that his immense talents would be wasted in the military.  So it’s really a public service that he instead devotes himself to slandering children for the amusement of fellow creepy, commie shut-ins.

There was a time when a male who made sport of children – or their mothers – would be grabbed by the scruff of the neck by an older alpha male – I’m not sure the alphabet is long enough to accommodate an appropriate letter for the category Jack Stuef falls within – and smack him around a bit until, if he didn’t see the light, at least he’d shut his piehole.

Sadly, that’s not the case today, as we have forgone the efficiency and directness of unofficial societal remedies for mere verbal chastisement – though I would think that our hero ought to be very careful not to cross Todd Palin’s path any time soon.  His face doesn’t need any further swelling.

But he has been chastised, and by some of his own – Tommy Christopher, Dave Wiegel and Alan Colmes have properly leapt into the fray, risking the anger of the bitter-enders of the Left and standing up for decency by taking him to task.

That’s what men do, and it’s good to see our political opponents do it.  Sometimes, in the heat of politics, we forget our common humanity.  That’s dangerous.  This kind of raw hate, besides being disgraceful, is poisonous, and the notion that there are no limits in dealing with one’s political opponents leads, eventually, to mass graves.  I know – I’ve walked through the ruins of a society that let its hate for the other side (or sides) burst its bounds in Kosovo.  We need boundaries in our battles, boundaries of decency; Stuef crossed them.

That’s Jack Stuef’s cue for some smartass comment – his kind likes sincerity even less than sit-ups.  His refuge is snark.  After all, he wrote for the Onion, committed lame “outrages” at Georgetown, and seems to think snark will misdirect others from reality.  But the reality is the Jack Stuef is a sad little punk who picks on little kids, that he is not a man, and that he never will be – and he knows it.  And now, so does everyone else.

Tommy Christopher takes on Wonkette Editor Ken Layne:

If Ken Layne really believes in retard jokes as a vehicle for the public good, he should absolutely stand by them, and I’ll stand where I stand.

[...]

Great. I guess I’m in a feud with Ken Layne now. Get in line, pal.

Update 2: I’ve received another reply from Ken Layne, and in the interest of fairness, I’m going to include my response to him. Two things about that: First, there’s some strong language.

Second, I divulge to Layne that I’m the parent of two special needs children. I don’t generally include that information in my commentaries (and didn’t intend to here) because I don’t wish to use that fact to gain moral authority, or to be emotionally manipulative. I believe an argument should stand on its own merit. I include it here because it would be unfair to Layne to publish his responses, and not my own.

Here’s Ken Layne’s response to me:

But there’s already a Mediaite story, which is why I’m asking what Mediaite’s interest is in having a post taken down.

You *honestly* don’t know of the Palin fanatics’ Cult of Trig? I find that hard to believe, if you’ve been on the Internet before. In any case, spend a day at Team Sarah and then try to tell us there’s no Cult of Trig. Where do you think the pictures and poems Jack always mocks comes from? (He links to them.)

And my response to him:

I told you, I’m writing a piece of commentary, and wanted to present your side of the story. I guess you have. My interest in writing commentary is that I was deeply offended by the piece, and as the father of two special needs children, felt compelled to write about it. You and Jack think your satirical point redeems the vile child-fucking and retard jokes, I disagree.

Read the entire article here.

*UPDATE: Slate chimes in:

The original Wonkette post was gross, and I’ve never understood why anyone would make fun of Trig Palin’s disability. Criticize Palin for how she uses her child in political arguments? That’s one thing. Make fun of a kid who was born with a mental impairment? How is that funny?

The National Journal misses the mark:

Who’s Winning: The original Wonkette post was, if activism, pretty tasteless activism. Derek Hunter scored a win for his side by getting Papa John’s to withdraw advertising. Yet you also have to give Wonkette credit for turning the tables that quickly and ferociously to defend and clarify the original post. Who knows how this will end up. The only thing we can say definitively is that Papa John’s does not win for unwittingly getting in the middle of all this when a shockingly low number of their customers probably read Wonkette.

What, exactly, did Wonkette “clarify?” That it’s OK to mock a child with Down Syndrome and excuse it by saying oh, “confused target.”

They’re incorrect in classifying this as a “political debate.” It’s not a political debate to mock a special needs child simply because you dislike his mother. They insult the art of political debate with such reasoning.

Papa John’s received a boat load of business today for the integrity they showed in refusing to subsidize a website which considers acceptable attacking special needs children without apology.

*UPDATE 3: Adweek releases the full email conversation from Wonkette editor Ken Layne, who lies about attacking Trig. Get ready to be offended. Bold, my emphasis with my notes for the truly amazing parts:

After Adweek wrote Wonkette editor Ken Layne to ask for comment, he sent the following reply, CC’ing Weigel:

Hello Dylan!

“Every year or so, Sarah Palin’s fanatic audience finds Wonkette and professes outrage because we have been mocking Sarah Palin since before most Americans had any idea who she was. (This is true; check our archives! We even gave her the satirical nickname “America’s Hottest Governor,” which her own staff thought was a complement, and not an insult. But it was an insult.)

That said, we should always make it clear that it’s *Sarah Palin* who is the target of our disgust, because of what she does to that child. Jack should not refer to the child as “retarded,” even in a clearly over-the-top piece of political satire, because obviously the people who are going to act outraged about this are not going to be following the nuances of a notorious meta-humor website like Wonkette. [Ed. note: On Layne's watch Wonkette regressed from enjoyable political snark to complete juvenile inanity. The inmates run the prison now, and they don't know how to write actual "satire."] Remember, these are the same people who were somehow *personally offended* by Tina Fey’s comedy routines using Sarah Palin as a character. I cannot count the number of emails — because I deleted them — that I received informing me that Palin didn’t really say she could see Russia from her house. Well really, you don’t say.

But seriously, I have four kids myself and I wouldn’t want them mocked on the Internet by a bunch of cretins on the Internet. And that’s just one reason why I wouldn’t parade my children around in the media. What kind of mother does that?

In any case, Jack has been admonished and put on night probation until further notice. [Ed. Note: Admonished! Night duty! Cute.] Anything involving Palin, I want to make it extra clear that *Palin* is the problem with America. [Ed. Note: How so?] Not her kids. Not her little kid, anyway. The older ones seem to be on their own path and you can’t really blame Sarah for it, although she certainly encourages the sleaziest possible behavior from her grown children, which is hardly a very “family values” thing to do. But as far as Jack’s future, a few months on the night shift  cleaning up the furious, ALLCAPS unmoderated Wonkette comments, without pay, should teach him a thing or two about writing stuff that confuses the target. [Ed. Note: "Confuses the target?" Calling a kid a "retard" and half human is confusing the target? Too petty to just apologize?] Trig is cool with us. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, is a grave danger to America.

Also, Dave Weigel is a weasel. Let’s see who runs to his defense next time he’s fired for calling Tea Party people a bunch of “Paultards”! What is wrong with that guy, anyway?!

cheers,
ken

Minutes later, Weigel sent the following response:

Since I’m looped in — my only problems with the post are the joking references to the kid himself. My only comments about it came on Twitter when I said that it was “gross” and on the blog after Papa John’s announced its new policy. I thought the boycott was newsy bc it was a conservative campaign that only had to exist for a few hours on some blog posts and tweets to get the job done. On a 36-hour-old post!

Sorry to learn that I’m a weasel, but 1) I’ll stick up for any satire that doesn’t *make fun of a mentally disabled toddler* and 2) there’s a subtle difference between private e-mails that get leaked out of context and material that’s written and published for everyone to read. There’s a more obvious difference between a generic term that uses the suffix -tard and a personal joke at the expense of some kid who, through no choice of his own, will not be able to live a completely normal life. There’s a way to make fun of Palin and her fanbase without going there.

This, in turn, prompted another email from Layne:

Oh settle down, Weigel. I am poking fun at you for acting butthurt about the word “retarded” when that’s exactly what got you fired from the Washington Post. (Well, that and the WaPo being run by a bunch of hundred-year-old wusses.)

You know there’s not a damn thing anywhere on Wonkette that is directed at that child. [Ed. Note: Really? You want to correct that lie, Ken Layne?] “There’s a way to make fun of Palin and her fanbase without going there.” You know, I wish this was true. But you can’t, because the fanbase has become the Cult of Trig. It is a weird garbage loop and really, like I told Jack, the only way to avoid it is to ignore her dumb base and stick to mocking Palin. Allah knows they go crazy enough over *that*.

While many were offended by MSNBC’s Cenk Uygur’s laughter at GOProud Chairman Christopher Barron’s claim that the Republican Party is welcoming to gay people, today’s RNC Chair candidates’ debate provided a sobering contrast to the progress that people like Barron see. Asked if they support the anti-gay National Organization for Marriage’s position on marriage, all five answered affirmatively, with varying degrees of lip service to the “individuality” and “dignity” of gay people, the classic “No offense, but you’re not equal.”

Interestingly, it was incumbent Michael Steele who treaded most lightly on the topic, saying he believed that marriage is between a man and a woman “not to the exclusion of anybody.”

WTH? No, no no. Let’s put the social justice wine cooler down for a moment and examine the egregious logical lapses and application of the term” equal” when the litmus is arbitrary.

Tommy Christopher’s reasoning is only valid if one presupposes that marriage is a union created and controlled by the state for business purposes; as my liberal feminist mother would say it’s a “piece of paper that lets you do your taxes together.” This is where the entire point is lost by the left. Republicans don’t believe that marriage is a state invention: they believe that it is divine and that to force people of faith to redefine their religious beliefs and practices to include behavior which is discussed in Scripture as being not one with which God jives – is actually the government breaking “separation of church and state.” Why is it that when the subject of rights comes up, people of faith are the ones that must compromise their rights, a practice instituted by a faith that they alone observe? How is it unequal that everyone can enter into the same civil agreement but those who follow a faith that others do not seek divine blessing on their union? It’s a benefits argument, so have civil unions – but if there is a desire for more than the equal benefits provided by government, it presents the question of whether it’s about benefits or destroying part of Christianity.

And if you’re displeased your perception of “inequality” so far as the tradition of “marriage” applies, take it up with God. That’s not inequality, that’s religious observance.

Government has no place in marital affairs and Christians themselves should have protested the moment that government observance morphed into interference; government regulation gives the false impression that marriage is just a fancy name for “union” and not, in fact, a blessed union by observance of faith. Government has no place to dictate to people of faith or to any other community. This is why Barron is a Republican; progressives believe that which is antithetical to this. Progressives believe that the government has the ultimate authority to manipulate people beyond which is enumerated in the Constitution.

The beauty of the Constitution is that while is acknowledges the Christian faith (Declaration of Independence is quite clear in that rights are divine and without the grubby fingerprints of man), citizens are not forced to follow the faith, only enjoy the freedoms it gives. Free gifts? I thought progressives LOVED free stuff!

While GOProud has made progress within the conservative movement, particularly with young conservatives, the wheels come off the “welcome wagon” when it comes time to actually grant them equal status as human beings.

Excuse me? Why is the compromise of religious faith by people who seek not to observe it necessary to “status as human beings?” Did Christopher get the vapors while writing this? Because I nearly got them while reading it. As Democrats penalize marriage and families (marriage tax, estate tax) I’m shocked that anyone who even sympathizes with the ideology can say that they’re supportive of the very thing some in the gay community seek. Shockers! Maybe that’s the goal! More revenue for Uncle Sam!

If people of faith didn’t observe what was written in the Scripture, according to Alinsky, it would be used against them to denigrate them with their own base. What Christopher doesn’t realize is that the right’s tent has grown considerably larger, more so than the left who drum out anyone unaffiliated with their socialist caucus, and that while not everyone views civil unions, marriage, and other issues the same way, people are united for a threat bigger than these issues. We understand that the status given to our relationships is irrelevant compared to the shadow of socialism which has grown over our country in a Tolkien fashion.

What’s really at work here, I think, is the difference between what many conservatives actually believe, and what they can say out loud.

The simple fact that this statement exists in a post where the author berates conservatives (RINOs in some cases) for saying out loud what’s in their hearts shows me the level of effort put into this piece’s logic.

*UPDATE: If you’re one of the haters so out of touch with pop-culture that you think the screengrab image above is in reference to anything other than South Park’s Kanye/gay fish episode, you might be a drama queen.