Skip to main content

I created a video yesterday documenting the dishonest techniques that constitute the new "conservative citizen journalism movement" that the tea party has used so effectively to push their media narrative.  The video is a case study of the operations of Adam Sharp of sharpelbows.net, a local conservative blog.  In the past, Sharp has stalked Congressman Carnahan, hilariouslytried to accuseFox 2 reporter Charles Jaco of "assaulting," him (which, BTW, earned Sharp an Ass Clown of the Week awardfrom Riverfront Times voters), and falsely claimed that Congressman Phil Hare said he "doesn't care about the constitution."  

Now I think most activists in the St. Louis area are well aware of Sharp's act, but I hope this video can demonstrate to everyone that whatever Sharp is doing is a far cry from journalism.  Basically, he attends events trolling for sound bites that he can misleadingly edit, and he'll ask the same question literally dozens of times until he finds something he can use.  

Here's  the video of Sharp trying to get some sound bite to claim that I'm a "communist:"

There's a lot I could say about the video, but what I'd really like to put this in the context of is Sharp's attack video on Congressman Phil Hare.  First of all, as I've noted previously, Sharp along with Gateway Pundit and Dana Loesch blatently lied about this video when they claimed that Phil Hare said he doesn't care about the constitution:

The St. Louis Tea Party is up to their usual tricks, blatantly lying as an excuse to get on Fox News. The Tea Party claimed on their blogs that Illinois Congressman Phil Hare said that, "he didn't care about the constitution." What Congressman Hare actually said was, "I don't worry about the constitution on this, to be honest," which is pretty obviously a completely different statement. Saying, "I don't worry about it on this bill," is the equivalent of saying, "I'm confident that the bill is constitutional." It's not saying that you don't care at all about the constitution, and anyone who suggests that it is is obviously being willfully ignorant.

Here's the video that Sharp produced, that was featured on Fox News, including Hannity, O'Reilly, and others.

Now, think about this in light of the video I just provided.  Not only did Hare not actually say that he didn't care about the constitution, Sharp had been pestering him the entire night.  Likely, Sharp had already asked him the same question multiple times, just as he asked me if I was a communist over and over even after I plainly told him I wasn't.  Compare the following two conversations:

<span style="font-weight:bold;">#1</span>
Person A: Where in the constitution does it say you can mandate me to buy health insurance?
Person B: I don't worry about the constitution on this.

<span style="font-weight:bold;">#2</span>
Person A: Health Care is unconstitutional! Waaah!
Person B: Actually, the vast majority of legal experts agree that the bill is fine.

<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">(10 minutes later)</span></div>Person A: Where in the constitution does it say you can mandate me to buy health insurance?

Person B: In the Commerce Clause.
Persona A: Nu-uh, because I was watching Glen Beck and he had a legal expert on who said it was totally not in the Commerce Clause.

<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight:bold;">(10 minutes later)</span></div>Person A: Where in the constitution does it say you can mandate me to buy health insurance?

Person B: I don't worry about the constitution on this.

It takes on quite a different meaning in #2, doesn't it?  Basically, the answer in #2 is saying, "stop bothering me about this because I've already explained that it's not a valid point."  We know that Sharp was pestering Congressman Hare with questions during the forum, and then stayed after and continued to harass him.  So it seems pretty obvious to me, especially in light of seeing how Sharp was trolling for sound-bites with me, that this was an instance more like #2.

It is widely thought that the original false story that Phil Hare doesn't care about the constitution damaged his campaign and made this race competitive.  In fact, Dave Weigel of Slatewrotethe following the other day:

Let's focus on Hare, who, if defeated, would go down for a surprising reason. Elected in 2006 to replace his then-boss, Lane Evans, Hare stayed under the radar in Congress and in his district. According to one Republican I know who's working with Hare's opponent, his introduction to voters, effectively, came with a video taken after the health care vote in which Hare dismissed a Tea Party complaint about the mandate by saying he didn't "care about the Constitution" as it pertained to that. That video, I'm told, was as viral in Illinois as it was anywhere else, and it's done real damage to Hare's image. So one clumsy answer, living forever on the Internet, could sink him.

If Republicans win in November, it will be because of the triumph of dishonest and disingenuous information.  Don't let dishonesty decide an Illinois House race.  Donate to Phil Hare's Congressional campaign here.  If you don't have any money, then you can sign up here to help Congressman Carnahan, the other target of Sharp's stalking behavior.  

We have a choice in November between, on the one hand, a Democratic Party that is not perfect but at least makes an honest effort towards improving the lives of people struggling to make ends meet and, on the other hand, a group of people willing to lie, distort, manipulate and smear in order to take power.  The election is less than a month away, and if you haven't already, the time is now to get involved.

Cross posted at the St. Louis Activist Hub.

Originally posted to stlouis peacenik on Sun Oct 10, 2010 at 09:01 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Has anyone tried a similar tactic with him? (3+ / 0-)

    Like "I'm sorry you have a mental disability or brain dysfunction that prevents you from understanding answers to questions. You keep asking the same questions again and again so you must have that kind of disability. How can you claim not to have that kind of disability since you keep asking the same questions again and again? I hear you saying you don't have that problem but having that problem makes you incapable of understanding that you have that problem." And just on and on. Hopefully he will make disparaging comments on camera about the mentally ill and you have him. There are variations; it just someone with patience to put up with  a bull shit artist spewing without cold cocking him.

  •  Maybe you should have asked him about (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    stlouis peacenik

    Their supporters such as  the Aryan Nation, Stormfront, the KKK, Conservative Citizens Council(formerly the White Citizens Council), and others.

    Think...It ain't illegal yet ! George Clinton

    by kid funkadelic on Mon Oct 11, 2010 at 06:43:27 AM PDT

    •  Actually, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kid funkadelic

      I did pester him for quite a while by asking why his buddy Jim Hoft (Gateway Pundit) has linked to the Council of Conservative Citizens in multiple blog posts.  But I didn't include it in this video because I was just trying to illustrate a point about how their style of "journalism" works.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site