Thursday, July 23, 2009


Given the storm of blog posts, though diminishing in pace and volume, I can't - and shouldn't have to - respond to all the claims being made regarding the recent tea party incidents. One post, however, especially since it is an in-district blog, offered me a quick and easy opportunity to respond.

Jerry Fuhrman, the editor-in-chief of the blog From on High, offers his thoughts on media reports, this blog, and push back against the Charlottesville tea party claims. Money quote:
It wasn't 5th District Congressman Tom Perriello's office that called the police and had tea party protesters removed from in front of Perriello's office. It was ... someone else ... who didn't like the idea that tea party protesters were in front of Perriello's office.

Why anyone ... else ... would be concerned about protesters being in front of Perriello's office remains a mystery.

See the exhaustive - and too-shrill-by-half - excuse-making here. And here.
Get it? With a slew of mischevous ellipses, Fuhrman heartedly implies Perriello, his staff, and/or those blogging the facts are lying. Despite the mudslinging, which I can handle, this is the important part:
This can be easily resolved, by the way. Calls to the police on emergency communications lines (9-1-1) are a matter of public record. Charlottesville police should reveal the name of that individual who called and lodged the complaint. (emphasis mine)
Mr. Fuhrman, not a bad idea! As I noted in my two previous posts, the Daily Progress did just this. Again:
(UPDATE: U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello’s office did not contact police about protesters gathered outside his Charlottesville headquarters, according to emergency communi-cation center records.) [emphasis mine]
Now, I don't know who called the police, but this exonerates Perriello's staff. I am told, for what it's worth, that it was a neighboring business. But, no matter who it was, the matter here is that Perriello and his staff, supported by factual evidence, were not involved.

Please stop with the insinuations. Take a deep breath. Given your general distaste for our congressman, save your energy for a legitimate reason to be upset with Perriello.


cynthia said...

"Take a deep breath" is always good advice and people are getting WAY too worked up over some of this stuff. Ranting for ranting's sake is wearisome.

A Faithful Reader said...

Amen Cynthia

Jerry Fuhrman said...

See reply at From On High. Your response is pathetic.

CWPNRG? said...

Okay, guys, enough. I'm mailing the FOIA request today, and we'll find out once and for all.

Brandon W. said...

Not impressed, Jerry. From On High's "response" is, unsurprisingly, more argument by insinuation. The absence of incontrovertible proof that no one connected to Perriello made the call means nothing. Every bozo out there with a conspiratorial axe to grind uses that pathetic fallacy (no solid proof, but WHO ELSE could have done it?!?) to prop up their theories.

If/when you have something solid (Staffer X from Rep. Perriello's office made the call, etc), I'm sure plenty of people will be willing to listen to what you have to say. If any elected officials or their employees were involved in calling the police, I know I won't be a happy camper. The 1st Amendment is important to me too.

Absent any sort of proof, all you're doing is engaging in speculation. That's not substantive, and it's disingenuous to pretend it that is.

Anyway, it's not like we have a shortage of misbehaving politicians (on both sides of the aisle). Why not spend time skewering them instead?