Readers on this site are already aware of the leaked document that showed a super-rich right-winger planning a $10 million “scary black President” smear campaign. Of course, once the plan and the billionaire backer were exposed to the sunlight, they quickly pivoted to say that they never really planned on running the ads.
Romney, after initially hemming and hawing and saying he hadn’t “read the papers yet,” eventually got around to “condemning” the attack strategy, saying, “So in regards to that PAC, I repudiate what they’re thinking about.”
But some in the right-wing blogosphere think that Romney actually is offering “wink wink nudge nudge” support for the smear campaigns, and is simply employing the strategy of “good cop, bad cop” alongside his surrogates.
Johnson cited tweets by Loesch in which she analyzed Romney’s campaign in order to “prove” his point that Romney and Breitbart.com are in cahoots. He even went so far as to suggest that Breitbart.com employees were present at a top-secret meeting with Romney’s campaign.
From Christopher’s piece:
Loesch, for her part, says her tweets were not the result of some inside information …
Since the blogger outreach meeting was off the record, Loesch wouldn’t be able to reveal what was told to her by colleagues who were at the meeting even if she wanted to, but “All of my Tweets are based purely on my own conjecture unless specified” seems to pretty well cover it.
I’m not sure that it makes much of a difference, since what Loesch is saying rings just as true whether she got it from the Romney meeting or not. Loesch has been getting very defensive on Twitter (pretending that a meeting everyone knows about didn’t happen is a lousy way to tamp down suspicion) about Johnson’s post, but what they’re each saying isn’t all that incompatible.
Johnson is really only saying that Romney failed to make clear to the meeting’s attendees that these kinds of attacks by others were unacceptable. If he had, Johnson reasons, surely one of Loesch’s colleagues in attendance would have corrected her tweets. It’s also not a stretch to believe that Loesch’s analysis might be colored by conversations with her colleagues who were at that meeting.
Loesch wasn’t having any of it, and she tore into Christopher for his conspiratorial and fact-starved article:
In his story, Christopher also condescended to Loesch, suggesting that her Twitter analysis of Romney’s campaign was so “astute,” she couldn’t possibly have the ability to make those observations on her own.
Clever, Tommy. Too bad you picked the wrong woman to talk down to.
Nothing patronizing about that.
Here’s the clause:
Clarification: Dana Loesch is under the impression that this post was meant to imply that she was at the meeting herself, despite clear language to the contrary. To be clear, any references to Loesch gaining information from this meeting is in reference to her colleagues who were there. Dana Loesch was, in fact, not at that meeting, and I never suggested she was.
During the course of all this, conservatives leapt to Loesch’s defense, calling out Christopher for his disingenuousness and really letting him have it.
Christopher’s silly implication that Loesch was able to be in two places simultaneously even launched a hashtag game: #TeleportingDana.
Dana Loesch, all the points; Tommy Christopher, nothing but a goose egg and ego bruises.
To change your comments display name, click here.