About that Congressman...
In other news, water is wet, sun rises in the east
The Democrats' talking points:
1. There is always the part of the story that you can’t see in these gotcha style videos — what were these folks doing, how did they approach him, how were the cameraman and/or others off camera acting?
Uh...standing on the sidewalk. What form of "acting" would have, in any way, justified the mans behavior? I suppose assaulting a small child or something but I doubt that was happening.
2. Why would any legitimate student doing a project or a journalist shagging a story not identify themselves. Motives matter — what was the motivation here? To incite this very type of reaction?
Perhaps they're journalism students. Or Political science majors. Or Psyche majors. Their motives, whatever they were, never entered into the equation. The man was asked one simple question on camera in public and he went bonkers. Does the author ever ask after Michael Moore's motives?
3. This is clearly the work of the Republican Party and the “interviewer” is clearly a low level staffer or intern. That’s what explains blurring the face of the “interviewer” and refusing to identify the entity this was done for. The Republicans know if they were caught engaging in this type of gotcha tactic it would undermine their own credibility — yet if it was an individual acting on his own there is no reason that person would have blurred themselves out of the video — and if it was the work of a right wing blog they would have their logo on the video and be shouting their involvement from the roof top.
"Clearly" twice in one sentence. I can understand the argument that the guy most likely has Republican leanings, but saying it's in any way "clear" that he's with the party or a staffer is drawing conclusions were there are none. James O'Keefe was affiliated only with himself. What possible "gotcha" are we talking about? The guy was overly aggressive in the face of a single question (ok, technically two but "how are you today" wasn't really the question). If he ambushed the guy with some scurrilous charge about misappropriated funds or beating his wife or drug abuse or enjoying the music of the Bay City Rollers I could see getting angry and possibly physical. None of that happened.
4. This was a purposefully partisan hit job designed to incite a reaction for political reasons — but it is a tactic so low — the parties involved are remaining anonymous.
"Designed to incite a reaction?" Are we to believe that Democrats are ragebombs waiting to go off if asked a simple question? And anonymity is now a surefire sign of low tactics? No more anonymous sources for journalism then eh? Good to know. The next time you see any democrat or democrat friendly story in the news that contains anonymous sources you can now discount it. Good to know.
5. The fact that no one wants to take credit for this should raise real questions in the minds of voters and the press.
Because it's not about them, it's about the criminal (literally) behavior of a Congressman. Also, given the hatchet job they've done on Joe the Plumber why would anyone want to expose themselves to such a campaign? I know I wouldn't.
6. Push hard w/ blogs the lack of credibility inherent to anything Breitbart does/posts, given its role in the debunked ACORN videos: (links deleted)
Push back hard? The guy was big enough to admit he was wrong (though he couldn't bring himself to do so without taking a swipe at his film crew.) The smarter move would be to applaud him for his apology and move on. Dragging this out further is not going to help him. Digging into the lives of the people who made the video won't either. Eventually they might figure out that doing that sort of crap just makes you look worse and keeps the original incident in the minds of voters.