« | »

Dems Put Out Etheridge ‘Talking Points’

From the Politico:

Dems defend Etheridge, attack Breitbart

June 14, 2010

Bob Etheridge’s abject apology for roughing up an anonymous conservative videographer is being accompanied by a defense of the congressman from national Democrats.

Mr. Etheridge’s “apology” was anything but “abject.” It was full of weasel words. But never mind.

"Motives matter, and I think you can see who was behind this," said DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse just now. "This was a Republican party tracking operation. If it wasn’t a party tracker or intern, why is the face blurred and why is the source hidden?

According to the Washington Post’s website, WhoRunsGov.com: “In 1997, [Brad] Woodhouse moved to Capitol Hill, getting a job with Rep. Bob Etheridge D-NC). He worked as a legislative assistant for agriculture, small business and environmental issues before eventually becoming Etheridge’s press secretary before Etheridge’s 2000 re-election campaign.”

Small world, huh?

You know if it had been a right wing blog, they’d identify themselves and they’d be booking this person on TV all day. Republicans know if they admit their involvement in this game of gotcha it will undermine their credibility. One minute this guy is interviewing a member of Congress on camera and the next a video is released with his face blurred out? If that doesn’t tell you this is a Republican Party hatchet job nothing will."

A national Democratic Party official e-mailed around a set of talking points about an hour ago, under the subject heading, "Etheridge Gotcha Video Background."

Democrats are seeking to raise questions about the video, which first appeared on Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government,

This is simply untrue. Mike Flynn at Breitbart only posted the clip on June 14th. It was first uploaded to YouTube three days earlier, on June 11th.

But when have Democrats (or the Politico) ever let such minor details ever get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

[B]ecause of what’s widely viewed as the media’s mishandling of the ACORN story, which emerged without context from edited videos.

We are still waiting for “the context” that would explain away those videos.

In particular, party officials say the video was likely taken by a tracker for the Republican Party, which would explain the effort taken to conceal his identity.

How dare a taxpayer ask a question of a public servant! Get his name!

Still, is it beyond the realm of possibility that the young men were concerned about being tracked down by the SEIU or any of the rest of Mr. Obama’s large army of goons?

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?

Actually, you can see the context, since we see the initial contact and until the the students leave the scene. Moreover, Mr. Etheridge did not cite any other context or untoward behavior from the students.

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?

The question was: “Do you support the Obama agenda?” Is that too “inflammatory” to ask? Is that like waving a red flag in front of a raging bull?

Was Mr. Charlie Gibson’s question to Sarah Palin, "Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?" similarly incite-ful? As we recall, Mr. Gibson was carried aloft in triumph by the Democrats and the rest of our one party news media for asking that asinine wonderfully probing question.

3. This is clearly the work of the Republican Party and the “interviewer” is clearly a low level staffer or intern.

And it is always ‘open season’ on Republicans. You can assault and batter them without let or hindrance.

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.

Again, there are plenty of good reasons to protect oneself from the Democrat Party – as the video amply demonstrates.

But more importantly, the politics of those asking a question should be totally irrelevant. (Look at Helen Thomas.) The question was respectful and certainly within the bounds of normal journalistic practices. (Cf. again Charlie Gibson.)

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.

Again, this is a laughable lie. Only the DNC could pretend that asking a Congressman such an innocuous question is a “hit job.”

5. The fact that no one wants to take credit for this should raise real questions in the minds of voters and the press.

6. Push hard w/ blogs the lack of credibility inherent to anything Breitbart does/posts, given its role in the debunked ACORN videos:



Note how the Democrats cite the Soros front, Media Matters and Gawker as reliable sources.

And, once again this is an obvious lie, since the original video was uploaded three days before Breitbart ever posted it. In fact, Breitbart didn’t even link to the original videos, as we did.

Still. It’s pretty hard to think of a context in which Etheridge’s assault on the videographer would be acceptable.

This is all Politico could think to say in response to these fallacious and hilarious points?

This is what passes for journalism in the 21st Century?

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, June 15th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

20 Responses to “Dems Put Out Etheridge ‘Talking Points’”

  1. proreason says:

    Motives matter.

    Except for Democrats….and particularly for the Liar in Chief.

  2. Rusty Shackleford says:

    I once tapped a guy on the shoulder. 20 minutes later, that guy clocked me in the face. I had him arrested. But I had to pay a fine of $1200 for simple non-fellonious assault. He got jailtime and had to pay a fellonious assault fine of $5,000.

    But I only tapped him on the shoulder when he was standing in my way and I was trying to politely ask him to move.

    So, grabbing someone the way Etheridge did is probably close to, if not in fact, a felony.

    I no longer support my hypothesis that he might be a diabetic. That ship sailed.

    • proreason says:

      Gee Rusty, you talk as if our rulers are subject to the same laws we are.

      That’s the ship that sailed long ago.

      As Jim Geharty in NRO points out, George Allen’s macaca comment was front page news about 100 times in WaPro. This Etheridge incident got three paragraphs on page C-3. What’s amazing is that it was mentioned at all.

      Our betters, provided they heel to the philophy of the new aristocracy, necessarilly have a different set of rules. If they didn’t, it would be difficult to maintain their control over violent neanderthals like us who cling to the laughable outdated notion that we are as good as the gods who rule us.

      But I’m not upset about it or anything. It just feels right to me that a drunken jerk who managed to bribe, lie and con his way into the aristocracy should be able to assault teenagers who ask him questions without permission. Isn’t that the way it has always been? You should strive for my calm acceptance of the necessity of submitting to our betters. After all, they are just want society to be civil, and for us to accept the whip with with a smile.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Truly. You are correct. I just felt like providing an example from the unwashed.

      When you have a good double-standard, you stick with it.

  3. confucius says:

    The Democrats should read and learn from their own memo.

    (Just kidding. They don’t read–or learn.)

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Look, look. See Bob.

      See Bob come down the sidewalk.

      Bob is angry.

      Angry, angry, angry.

  4. mr_bill says:

    We all knew this was coming, but I’ll re-post my comments from yesterday for any liberal “readers” that may pass through here:

    “We all know the lame stream media will give Etheridge a pass and crucify the students for having the audacity to ask the Congressman a question on his political beliefs on a public street. I’ve even read some liberals awarding “victim” status to the congressman, already. Of course, perpetual victimhood is the calling card of a true lick-spittle, nutless, liberal. Same thing as George Allen? Not so much.”

    These talking points are suggesting that Etheridge’s reaction is “ok” because the students are “Republican trackers.” If it’s ok to beat up an opposition party tracker and steal their property on a public street for asking a question of a public servant, why all the [manufactured] hubbub about George Allen?

    The libs better watch it, it may come out that these boys’ faces are blurred out because they are minors, elevating the severity of the crime committed by soon-to-be-retired Congressman Etheridge.

    And on that note, why is this not being pursued as a hate-crime? It seems to me that the libs all know these students are Republican operatives because they asked such an obviously “incite-ful” question, Etheridge must have known as well. They must have been assaulted because of their political beliefs, isn’t that what the libs created hate-crime legislation for?

    Make ’em play by their own rules.

  5. Right of the People says:

    This kind of reminds me of the French aristocracy just before the French Revolution. We all know what happened to them.

  6. proreason says:

    Back in the good old days, Mr. Ethridge would lay about 40 lashes on young toughs like these, or put them in the stocks for a few days. Then he would hump their women a few times to make the point clear.

    They had more effective ways back then to teach the trash about their station in life.

    But you know, we should be back to an orderly society just as soon as Mr Obama gets his sea legs with this governing thing.

  7. JulieJ says:

    I recall that WAPO did about one hundred hit pieces on Senator George Allen for calling a “tracker” a “macaca”. They ran hit piece after hit piece calling him a racist and Allen lost the election. Now in this case, we have assault and battery and WAPO is trying to blame the victims! Their claims of “objectivity” in reporting the news are laughable. This is worse than changing the subject. This is rewriting history. And the Washington Post and other lib papers (which is a tautology) outed Allen’s Jewish ancestry in the most anti-Semitic way possible. Oh, yes: libs are very tolerant people!

  8. NoNeoCommies says:

    The kid should have kneed him where it hurts and claimed self defense. The result would be more entertaining and Ethridge would at least have been “punished”.

  9. Curmudgeon says:

    He’s gonna be out of there. I am going to be glad to see the back of ol’ Etheridge.

  10. BillK says:

    “Debunked” ACORN videos?!?!

    • untrainable says:

      Which ones were debunked? Who debunked them? I guess now we understand when it is OK to hire underage south American hookers with government money, and avoid paying taxes on the profits. I think “Just call them Artists” is actually in the Constitution. Part of the Freedom of Prostitution amendment. Or maybe the Right to Bare Bodies Act.

      I must’ve missed the broadcast on that one. Hope it comes back for summer repeat season. These are things that the public needs to know.

  11. BigOil says:

    Talking points on Congressman Etheridge – shouldn’t be to difficult.

    How to best describe Mr. Etheridge:

    1. A Drunk.
    2. Beats up kids.
    3. Pelosi’s stooge 97% of the time.
    4. A two-bit thug.
    5. The ideal Democrat.

    That was pretty easy. Maybe I can get a job with the DNC?

  12. Mithrandir says:

    It’s the lawyer’s way: turn the tables on the victims and start planting seeds of suspicion. It is not the actions of the abuser, it is only a RESPONSE to being provoked.


    It’s the same Sunday morning political shows in which the politician uses tactics from the movie “Dodgeball” (Remember the 5 rules of dodgeball: Dodge, Dip, Duck, Dive, and…….. Dodge)

    Q: Why did you vote to increase taxes 50 times during your tenure?
    A: The REAL question is, is why didn’t Republicans (insert talking point here)

    Q: You have been caught flip-flopping on major issues since the start of….
    A: Wait a minute now, the REAL question is, why didn’t the previous Republican administration …(insert talking point here).

    Bleech, get rid of the lawyers, and bring common people with common sense back to reality.

  13. canary says:

    Rep Etheridge assaulted & heavily fondled a minor. It’s against the law for the news to show a minor’s photo or name who is a victim.

    Rep Etheridge is fortunate the youth did not defend himself, when Etheridge first choked then violently hugged the minor’s chest.

    If the youth had defended himself against this act of autoerotic asphyxiation , the liberals would have considered it a “hate crime” thanks to the Obama administration adding individuals with sexual deviant behavior can not be harmed.

    Even tree hugging is allowed by the greenie liberals.

  14. Papa Louie says:

    Rep Etheridge grabbed someone on the street, demanded he identify himself, and claimed he had the “right” to know who he was. Can all those democrats who support Etheridge remind me again why they condemn the new Arizona law?

    • canary says:

      Papa Louie, excellent point. Etheridge would never demanded a Mexican tell who is was.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »