Thursday, September 22, 2011
New definition of pedophile: Anybody who makes a joke about, criticizes, or moves in next to, Sarah Palin.
In the newest attempt by the Right Wing to demonstrate their complete lack of ethics, overwhelming homophobia, and constant need to focus on all things sexual, Palin panty sniffer Dan Riehl has gone on the attack against Daily Caller TV writer Jeff Poor:
Over the weekend Riehl used a four-year-old girl to take revenge on The Daily Caller‘s TV writer Jeff Poor, who wrote a simple aggregated story on Mike Tyson‘s vile sexual thoughts on former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. The story stemmed from Tyson’s remarks to a Las Vegas radio station. Riehl was incensed. He’s a big Palin fan and “big” would be putting it mildly. He wept while watching a film that he said stole her innocence: “When I see innocence attacked so viciously I become very angry. My tears flowed from that, not so much from sympathy for her as an individual.”
So what does Riehl do? As an act of chivalry, he looked up pictures of Poor’s four-year-old niece on Facebook and at 3 a.m. (not at all a shady hour to post) published a story on his blog suggesting that Poor is a pedophile. He linked to photographs of the little girl. He based his accusations of Poor on a remark made three years ago regarding football and homosexuals.
Poor had posted a photograph on his Facebook page on the campus of Vanderbilt University in front of the set of ESPN College Gameday in October 2008, before the Auburn-Vanderbilt game. Just so happened there was a guy in the corner of the image, and the caption was – “In front of the set of ESPN College Gameday at Vanderbilt University, the training ground for closet homosexuality.” Go figure how that equals pedophilia.
By noon Saturday, The Daily Caller Editor-in-Chief Tucker Carlson had contacted Riehl to insist he remove the post. He obliged.
As many of you probably remember Dan Riehl was the Zombie Rat that Palin unleashed in my direction after I posted the Splitsville story. Riehl took innocuous posts and edited them together to make it appear that I was the quintessential bad man.
The same sort of tactics were used in an attempt to discredit David Letterman, Vanity Fair writer Michael Joseph Gross, and of course most famously, Joe McGinniss, just to name a few.
Essentially the argument is that if you don't like Sarah Palin, or laugh at jokes about her, or criticize her, you are by definition a sexual deviant. Which is EXACTLY how Palin herself has dealt with criticism her entire life. (Isn't it interesting how supporters of hers take on the very WORST of her personality traits?)
And of course since these are carefully closeted Right Wingers they are constantly linking being gay to being a pedophile. Which, as anybody NOT still stuck in the nineteenth century can tell you, is a completely false assertion.
But really what else could we possibly expect from a person who is STILL desperately clinging to their rapidly fading hopes that Sarah Palin will ride in on a Grizzly bear to save the country?
Okay obviously I cannot address this issue without also addressing the story about a leaked email between Joe McGinniss and myself that is making the rounds, suggesting that Joe did not have the facts to back up the allegations in his book. (By the way he certainly does.)
Yes I have seen the article, as well as the vicious attacks directed at Joe and myself.
However at this time I cannot provide a comment because I believe that there is an ongoing investigation.
What I can tell you right now is that I DID NOT leak, or provide access, to any e-mails between myself and anyone else. Period!
I will also let you know that I will not help to provide traffic to that site by allowing a conversation about the article on this blog. I apologize, as I really dislike censorship, but I am sure you understand the decision.