Remarkable News And Funny Pictures

Ace pummels Ben Smith over Obama’s New Party membership

The ever intrepid Ace of Spades took on Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith over his absurd coverage of President Obama’s membership in the socialist New Party in his Chicago days. Ace was, understandably, pissed to see Ben Smith utterly gloss over the documentation proving Obama’s membership. Instead, Smith emphasized comments from New Party officials who continued to claim Obama was never a member.


Clickbank Ad Rotator

Ace was in no mood to pretend Ben Smith’s reporting was acceptable or even vaguely passable. So, he let him have it.

this has crossed over from shameful to shameless.

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

if I find a contemporaneous document I give it great weight, and the "memories" of his "fervent supporters" not so much

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

it's as if @rosiegay and @buzzfeedben are unaware that "sometimes people lie"

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

I also don't understand the line: He wasn't a member, and his involvement was *minimal* at best.

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

Your honor, my client didn't shoot that man, and the gunshot wounds were light at best

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

they also continue perpetrating the "crackpot smear" line from Obama — now utterly disproven — and refuse to acknowledge any of this

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

I see no reportage on why the Obama campaign branded this a "crackpot smear," and I see no attempt to contact the Obama campaign about it

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

What I see are a lot of Obama surrogates in the New Party.

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

I see no question, "If Obama didn't join, why was he listed as having joined? What was the process?"

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

Just assertions they had no real membership — despite the fact their records demonstrate they did. They had cash-money membership.

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

And, as is typical in cash-money situations, they kept track.

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

Oh: The meeting minutes say Obama joined 1/11/96. A separate record of membership dues also says he joined 1/11/96.

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

For an organization that was so "disorganized" and had "no real membership," they sure were bears about getting that Join Date right.

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

@BuzzFeedBen please. Have you contacted anyone at team Obama for comment? Did you inquire as to how these records are made?

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

@BuzzFeedBen the meme you're pushing is that they're either faked or created in error. Let's go with the last one. Do you have any theory…

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

@BuzzFeedBen …as to how they were created in error? Twice? With apparently membership dues paid through 1996?

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

@BuzzFeedBen do any of the witnesses who claim shakey memories offer any explanation as to why they made so many errors in documentation?

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

@BuzzFeedBen do you think their memories were sharper in 1996 and 1997, when they created these documents, or now in 2012?

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

@BuzzFeedBen you fail to even acknowledge that Cover Story 1 — we didn't even really have any members per se — is completely disproven.

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

@BuzzFeedBen even in the face of Membership Lists you continue to push Yesterday's Line that they had no Membership Lists.

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

@BuzzFeedBen and I see no questions or answers explaining this discrepancy.

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

@BuzzFeedBen The fact was in the "lede" but not, I notice, the headline. The headline was your previous headline — New Party denies .

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

Here's a list of NP members, N through part of P. Were these people erroneously added to the lists, too? http://t.co/CecoC1tW @buzzfeedben

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

Or is Obama the *only* person falsely added to the New Party Membership Lists (which don't exist, except they do)? http://t.co/CecoC1tW

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

@BuzzFeedBen well for one thing the headline could note the actual new news — the minutes — rather than recapitulating the old spin

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

@BuzzFeedBen @courageman for another thing, you could actually ask these Obama Supporters why they said there was no membership list

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

@BuzzFeedBen @courageman like, rather than simply repeating their now discredited statements, you could ask about the discrepancies

— iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) June 13, 2012

Read more: http://twitchy.com/2012/06/13/ace-pummels-ben-smith-over-obamas-new-party-membership/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *