Skip to content

How Will Terry Krepel Embarrass Himself and His Employer Next?

October 15, 2009

22blind-man

Media Matters employee and Con Web Watch proprietor Terry Krepel is almost masochistic in his inability to disengage from a debate.

I thought I was being charitable in giving Krepel the last word and quietly ending the debate over whether Media Matters and the Left were “smearing” talk radio host Glenn Beck in accusing him of lying about his mother’s death.

Then Krepel just had to rip the scab off before the wound had even started to heal:

2009 October 15
I’ve explained why I do not consider this to be a smear. Swindle has decided not to respond to it. Make of that what you will.
I see that today, Beck is personally attacking Anita Dunn for something she said in a private speech that has nothing to do with her current White House job, in order to make an ad hominem attack against her character. Will Swindle criticize Beck for that? Or are Beck’s words sacrosanct?

(Look forward to Matthew Vadum’s blog about this tomorrow morning.)

2009 October 15

The more you talk the more you prove my point and embarrass yourself. Attacking someone for expressing an intolerable political opinion (Beck on Dunn) is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AND ENTIRELY FAIR. Attacking someone on the basis that they allegedly lied about their mother’s death in order to ruin their reputation (Media Matters on Beck) is an ad hominem smear.

Trying to explain this to you is like trying to describe a sunset to a blind man. You just can’t see it.

I’m almost starting to feel guilty. What honor is there to be had in defeating a blind man in a fight?

For those keeping track this is the second time that Krepel, a Media Matters employee, has confessed to seeing no meaningful difference between a legitimate criticism of expressed political views and a mean-spirited ad hominem smear.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Advertisements
20 Comments
  1. October 15, 2009 5:57 pm

    I like Krepel’s avatar.

  2. October 15, 2009 6:22 pm

    Shoot! I don’t know! Sometimes I feel with that Swedish paper’s blood libel against Israel and the he’s racist smears against Rush, truth telling and logic have very little currency with “Media Matters” and many other Liberal organs (there are exceptions, I know).

  3. jbtrevor permalink
    October 15, 2009 7:21 pm

    Why is it he can’t see the difference smear vs criticism? Well that’s why Krepel works in the cesspool and you work in the palace …

    • In the know permalink
      October 16, 2009 6:00 am

      You are all too kind. He CHOOSES not to see the difference.

  4. SanePerson permalink
    October 16, 2009 8:01 am

    He’s purposely generating a cloud of confusion. He will continue to do so indefinitely. But keep going, it’s quite entertaining.

  5. October 16, 2009 1:15 pm

    Of course, Dunn wasn’t expressing a “political opinion”; she was talking about philosophy in a private venue. Why does this not qualify as an intrusion into Dunn’s private life as Swindle asserts fact-checking Beck is?

    C’mon, David, don’t tell me that this is not an ad hominem attack of Dunn.

    • L. Steven Beene II permalink
      October 16, 2009 3:39 pm

      A “private venue” at a SCHOOL FOR CHILDREN?!

      Sorry, you must have a very different idea of “private” than do most people.

      In a LIVING room at a PRIVATE home is a private venue. A public speech made in a open auditorium in a SCHOOL is not “private”.

      Put the bong down and step away.

      Beck showed what she said. What sticks in my craw with your whacko lefty types is how what she expresses and her internal thinking were EXPOSED and you guys hate it.

      Had this been a clip of Beck ascribing his political view to Hitler, who killed far less people than Mao, I doubt you’d be so circumspect.

      Try this: HAVE A SINGLE SET OF STANDARDS.

      Really, just try it.

    • Walt permalink
      October 16, 2009 7:14 pm

      How is speaking before assembled high school students a private venue or part of one’s private life? Also, citing Mao, who was one of the worst tyrants of the 20th Century, as an inspiration is not a neutral thing. Mao even put Pol Pot to shame in the genocide department. I do have to agree with David Swindle. You do seem to enjoy digging an ever deeper hole for yourself.

    • October 17, 2009 7:08 am

      You’ve more than demonstrated that you don’t understand what an ad hominem attack is.

  6. Judy permalink
    October 16, 2009 3:25 pm

    Terry,
    I have fought responding to you, but must. Anita Dun stated that she INCORPORATES Mao into her philosophy/ thinking processes/ place in society/way that she makes daily decisions/approaches problems and life decisions.(Notice how she just mentioned mother Teresa in passing so as not to appear to be a complete communist). This means that she has internalized the Mao philosophy into the fabric of her being and when she makes decisions she reverts to Maoist philosophy. This impacts ALL OF US directly and therefore she should be held directly responsible for her words (private or not).The Maoist approach that she exposes is political, how can it not be.Geez, David can you please perform a mind-meld with this guy and transfer some commonsense to him. Better yet, just send those invisible mind-control rays through the computer that our frequent conspiracists would most certainly find appropriate. Does Media Matters actually recruit these people? I would love to see the questions on the pre-employment application.LOLOLOLOLOLOL

    • October 16, 2009 4:55 pm

      I’m not a Vulcan, Judy. Sorry. 😦

      It would be cool if I was, though.

      • Walt permalink
        October 16, 2009 7:24 pm

        You should probably bundle all of the posts made by Mr. Krepel and forward them to his employer. A respectful cover letter should enquire as to whether management is aware of what their employee is doing. Do they really feel it is within their organizational mission statement to employ someone who goes after dead mothers and defends supporters of Mao? Even the lowest tabloid or radical rag would probably pause before going down such paths. Does Media Matters take its media watchdog role seriously, or do the contents of public restroom walls occupy them?

        • October 17, 2009 7:00 am

          Krepel is doing the exact same thing that Media Matters is already doing.

          The contents of public restroom walls does occupy them. They are a media watchdog in name only, in actuality they are a partisan attack machine seeking to destroy every conservative with ad hominem assaults.

  7. Miss Ogyny permalink
    October 16, 2009 3:45 pm

    David: You cannot debate the insane with sanity. Never the twain shall mix…

  8. Judy permalink
    October 16, 2009 5:16 pm

    David,
    Darn. I thought that we could do an intervention and help this dude out of his terminal state of dunderheadedness (a new disease state).

    • Walt permalink
      October 16, 2009 7:16 pm

      I wonder if Terry would defend someone who felt Charles Manson or Ted Bundy positively impacted their lives?

  9. October 16, 2009 10:05 pm

    Barry Goldwater adviser Stephen Shadegg said he “followed the advice of Mao Tse-tung.”

    The Cato Institute advised following a Leninist strategy for Social Security reform.

    Ralph Reed approvingly cited both Mao and the Viet Cong.

    What’s the difference between them and Anita Dunn?

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200910160001

  10. Trenchant Commentator permalink
    October 17, 2009 2:56 am

    NEVER ENGAGE IN A BATTLE OF WITS WITH THE UNARMED. To do so is always a waste of precious time.

    • October 17, 2009 8:44 am

      I’m trying not to, but Swindle keeps writing about me…

  11. L. Steven Beene II permalink
    October 18, 2009 4:39 pm

    The “but, but, but, OTHER people do it” arguement Terry is lame.

    That’s the difference between libers and conservatives – the whole “personal responsibility” thing.

    You all hide in packs. Taking credit for the group but blaming society when you do wrong.

    Mao was a monster. As I alluded to in another post, Hitler did a lot for Germany too – but his evil overshadowed his good works.

    Does that simplify it for you, or should I write it in crayon?

Comments are closed.