April 18, 2007

Can Eric Boehlert Read? (Mvmts. 1 & 2)

I.
In the name of full disclosure, we first present the political contributions of Media Matters CEO David Brock:

brockdonations.jpg
There. Isn't sunlight great? OK, then...

II.

The latest keyboard spasm of Media Matters hatchetman Eric Boehlert was the opening 'salvo' - a sweeping and disjointed indictment of "conservative bloggers." And he even ends it begging for a kick in the teeth:
O'Neill's claims disputed? Yes.

O'Neill discredited? Yes.

Your move, Hinderaker.

Peter Rabbit would be wise to stay out of Mr. Hinderaker's garden. Never pick a fight with a tiger. A tiger, or a lawyer who helped tear down Dan Rather.
Eric Boehlert of Media Matters must be America's lamest media critic. We knew he couldn't argue; it now appears that he doesn't read so well, either.

What prompts this observation is this post by Boehlert in which he tries to rebut the observations I made here about the Swift Boat Vets and their campaign against John Kerry. The context was my applauding President Bush for his recess appointment of Sam Fox as Ambassador to Belgium; the Democrats had blocked Fox's appointment, purely out of spite, because Fox contributed to the Swift Boat Vets during the 2004 campaign. Here is what I wrote:

That the Vets have been "discredited" is a commonplace not only on the left, but in the mainstream media. Yet it is hard to find any explanation of where this "discrediting" lies. Most of what the Vets said in their ads has never been disputed, let alone discredited. Their most effective ad showed pictures of John Kerry in his anti-Vietnam war days, and quoted Kerry's own speeches. The ad was important because most voters had no idea that Kerry had accused his fellow servicemen of being war criminals. The Vets also exposed the lie of Kerry's "Christmas in Cambodia," which Kerry now admits was false. Another ad showed officers who had ranked above Kerry in the chain of command, and who now consider him unfit to be commander in chief. How has that been discredited?

In fact, there was only one SBV ad the accuracy of which is even disputed, the first one that talked about the medals Kerry was awarded during his Vietnam service. Some of those facts are still uncertain, but the thrust of the ad, that Kerry's purported heroism in Vietnam was being grossly over-sold, was certainly true.

And now, the roundhouse:
Boehlert quoted only the third sentence above, so if his readers were foolish enough to rely on him without actually reading what I wrote, there is some chance they wouldn't realize how dishonest he was.

So, how did Boehlert try to rebut the point I made? He cited a number of factual disputes that have been raised in connection with points made by the Swift Boat Vets. But every single one of the factual controversies noted by Boehlert relates, exactly as I wrote, to the subject of Kerry's medals. He never questions the accuracy of any of the Vets' seven other ads. Thus, Boehlert's post, far from rebutting my point, actually reinforces it. Unbelievable.

So can Eric Boehlert read? I'll just say this - Boehlert's reading skills surpass his analytical and writing skills.

By Good Lt. at 10:59 PM | Comments |