Another one of those "which of these buffoons am I supposed to root for" situations, this time at the tea party convention over the weekend. Joseph Farah gave a speech, much of it about the birther nonsense, and Andrew Breitbart, who seems to have at least have a mildly less tenuous connection to reality than Farah, criticized him for it. Dave Weigel, who was at the event, reports on the ensuing confrontation:
After he introduced the evening's closing entertainment -- a film titled "Generation Zero" -- Breitbart walked outside to the convention hall. There, I heard Breitbart criticizing Farah, and briefly talked to him about it before I noticed that WorldNetDaily's Chelsea Schilling was already talking to him, holding up a voice recorder. I backed up to allow her to continue her interview, which consisted of questions on why Breitbart didn't think Obama's citizenship was a legitimate issue."It's self-indulgent, it's narcissistic, it's a losing issue," Breitbart told Schilling. "It's a losing situation. If you don't have the frigging evidence -- raising the question? You can do that to Republicans all day long. You have to disprove that you're a racist! Forcing them to disprove something is a nightmare."
"Wouldn't you say," asked Schilling, "in this case, that Farah is asking Obama to prove something rather than his disprove it?"
Breitbart rejected the premise. "When has a president ever been asked to prove his citizenship?"
After a few minutes Breitbart ended the conversation and Schilling started interviewing Tea Partiers about the speech, finding a little less skepticism. (I found some Tea Partiers, like Rita Grace of Virginia, who said they didn't appreciate Farah's speech.) I spotted Farah and asked him if his speech had been approved by Tea Party Nation.
"They asked me to speak," said Farah. "They didn't ask me, 'What do you want to speak about?' No, this operates like a free and open society, not like the kind of Marxist society you would apparently like to be a journalist for."
I told Farah that his speech was getting negative attention already, and that Breitbart, who'd taken the stage after him, had criticized the "birther" parts of the speech. Farah shook his head and walked over to Breitbart in what seemed like an attempt to debunk my question.
"Andrew is my friend," said Farah. "He has the right to disagree, and he has the right to say anything to a socialist newspaper that he wants. And if he wants to criticize his friend to you, and he's dumb enough to do that..."
Breitbart raised his eyebrows. "I'm dumb to do what?"
"Criticize your friend to this socialist newspaper."
"I was talking to her," said Breitbart, pointing to Schilling. "I was talking to you. And I was saying that I disagreed on the birther stuff."
"OK, well, did you know that Dave Weigel from The Washington Independent was"-
"I was talking to her," said Breitbart. "She was asking me if I thought it was wise to bring it up, and I said, no. We have a lot of strong arguments to be making, and that is a primary argument. That is an argument for the primaries that did not take hold. The arguments that these people right here are making are substantive arguments. The elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts were all won not on birther, but on substance. And to apply to this group of people the concept that they're all obsessed with the birth certificate, when it's not a winning issue-"
"It is a winning issue!"
"It's not a winning issue."
"It is! It becomes even more of a winning issue when the press abrogates its responsibility-"
"You don't recognize it as a fundamentally controversial issue that forces a unified group of people to have to break into different parts? It is a schism of the highest order."
"Nothing exposes the president's-"
"Then prove it!"
"The press isn't asking the question-"
"Prove it!"
"Prove what?"
"Prove your case."
"I should prove, what, a birth certificate that may or may not exist?" Farah had gotten irritated. "That's ridiculous. You don't even understand the fundamental tenets of what journalism is about, Andrew. It's not about proving things. It's about asking questions and seeking truth."
Breitbart tensed up after that insult. "Right."
"I know you're not a journalist, so that's fine. But don't diminish people who've been doing this for 35 years."
"So you're going to go on record saying that I'm not a journalist?"
"Are you? I've never heard you claim to be. Are you?"
"I'll let it be answered by you."
"Well, I knew Drudge didn't consider himself a journalist, so I assumed that you were. ... I don't know, I'm not trying to insult you."
"You did."
Snap! Oh no he ditn't! Of course, the fact that Farah considers himself a journalist speaks volumes about his capacity for self-delusion.

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 

Comments
Ed stated:
I'm cringing Ed. Call me a curmudgeon; but what's next, "my bad", "whatever"?
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 9, 2010 9:38 AM
I am no fan of Brietbart but I gotta go with the guy who is making more sense, at least in this particular argument.
Posted by: Don | February 9, 2010 9:44 AM
Oh no he ditn't!
Oh yeeaahhh he was all up in there, like, talk to the hand cuz the face aint' listening!!
Posted by: 386sx | February 9, 2010 9:48 AM
OT but our old fiends from tex-ass...
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1001.blake.html
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | February 9, 2010 9:53 AM
What's that saying about confusion to my enemies?
Posted by: Sivi | February 9, 2010 9:53 AM
You are missing the point. This is like a fight between the chess club geek and the newspaper nerd in the halls of the local high school.
Posted by: chilidog | February 9, 2010 9:53 AM
Given Farah agrees with the National Socialist German Workers' Party, Nicolae Ceauşescu, and Stalin on issues like abortion, the preferred role of women as housewife and brood mare, and the evil of homosexuality, he'd advised to watch slandering people with the socialist label.
Posted by: History Punk | February 9, 2010 9:57 AM
chilidog @ 6:
In defense of chess club members and real journalists, I'd change to:
*Breitbart is an AGW denialist (as is Farah for that matter)
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 9, 2010 10:13 AM
Michael Heath:
Sorry. My bad, dog.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 9, 2010 10:14 AM
Re Michael Heath
Farah is also an evolution denier.
Posted by: SLC | February 9, 2010 10:19 AM
Thunderdome! Thunderdome! THUNDERDOME!(But let's arm them with hand grenades, that'll increase the chances neither one will survive.)
Posted by: Phillip IV | February 9, 2010 10:22 AM
I will bet anything that this will be the money quote when this gets written up for WND.
Posted by: FishyFred | February 9, 2010 10:24 AM
Farah denies reality on a regular basis. Why single out specific bits of reality?
Posted by: MikeMa | February 9, 2010 10:25 AM
chilidog at #6 and Michael Heath at #8- No, this is more like a blind man and a deaf man arguing over what sound red makes.
To be honest, as I got towards the end of Weigel's account I was half- way expecting an exchange like, "Na uh, I got a force field!" and "Oh yeah? Well I got super bullets that go through force fields in my gun!" and so on until the end of time. Which, coincidently, is about 10 seconds less than the time it would take to show either what complete jackasses they are.
Posted by: Jeremy Shaffer | February 9, 2010 10:59 AM
Jeremy: To be honest, as I got towards the end of Weigel's account I was half- way expecting an exchange like, "Na uh, I got a force field!" and "Oh yeah? Well I got super bullets that go through force fields in my gun!" and so on until the end of time.
This is also a good summary of why governments should stay out of religious arguments. The parents' role on the playground is not to decide who shot who, but to make sure the kiddies don't hurt each other while they play.
Posted by: eric | February 9, 2010 11:11 AM
The above exchange is priceless, not to mention hilarious in that Farah apparently believes his critics are Marxists, Socialists, Men In Black, etc.
It shows just how deep the rabbit hole in which he lives goes.
As for Breitbart, I'm no fan of him or his incompetent, pasty-faced protege Jimmy O'Keefe, but it was fun to read his public dismantling of Farah's birther delusions.
Posted by: CHV | February 9, 2010 12:25 PM
Breitbart & Farah: Two naked men criticizing each others fashion sense.
Posted by: MikeMa | February 9, 2010 12:38 PM
I find it telling that Breitbart's major objection to birtherism is that it creates a schism among right-wingers.
Being demonstrably untrue is apparently not so important.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | February 9, 2010 12:39 PM
Steve @ 18,
And that it's a losing issue. With the implication that if it was a winning issue then, however factually incorrect, it would be ok.
Also telling is this quote from Farah:
"I should prove, what, a birth certificate that may or may not exist?" Farah had gotten irritated. "That's ridiculous. You don't even understand the fundamental tenets of what journalism is about, Andrew. It's not about proving things. It's about asking questions and seeking truth."
Oh, I see. I thought journalism was about informing people. I guess it's not about fact checking or investigation. Nope, in Farah's world it's really just about asking questions, apparently no matter how ridiculous (But only of people who don't agree with you politically).
Posted by: MyPetSlug | February 9, 2010 1:11 PM
Jeremy Shaffer @14:
"No, this is more like a blind man and a deaf man arguing over what sound red makes."
I am so stealing this!
Posted by: Moon Jaguar | February 9, 2010 2:56 PM
Well, I know who comes off best: Dave Weigel.
Of course, Breitbart is right on the issue. Whether that makes him a good guy, even a decent guy, is a separate issue altogether. He is definitely on point, though. It's an issue of falsifiability, and it's a losing issue.
Which is why I want Farah to keep talking about it, so he can keep losing.
Posted by: JStein | February 9, 2010 6:04 PM
Steve Reuland #18:
MyPetSlug #19:
To be fair, I get the impression that what Breitbart means is that this causes a schism in the right wing and it's a losing issue for them BECAUSE it's factually incorrect and demonstrably untrue. Having said that, I have no real doubt that, if there was even the slightest of slight doubts of Obama's citizenship that was actually based on any kind of real evidence at all, Breitbart would be one of the first to start screaming for Obama to step down, even if said evidence was only enough to put a very small question-mark on the issue.
Posted by: Zmidponk | February 9, 2010 8:00 PM
eric @ 15
Pen-missile!!!!
Posted by: Chilidog | February 9, 2010 9:03 PM
Zmidponk @ 22 stated:
If Mr. Breitbart only printed demonstrably true assertions than you than you'd have a point. However Mr. Breitbart distinguishes himself with his dishonesty, as does Mr. Farah. Therefore I'd argue that Mr. Breitbart deserves what Steve Reuland concludes @ 18.
Posted by: Michael Heath | February 9, 2010 9:30 PM
Sorry to drag this off topic but here's a "strange" clip
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/pam-geller-tries-tell-ron-reagan-jr
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | February 10, 2010 9:26 AM
Maximus @ 25:
Isn't that beyond obnoxious?
A little while back, Frank Gaffney also claimed that Ron Reagan would be a disappointment to his father.
What a cowardly scumbag...
Posted by: CHV | February 10, 2010 10:23 AM
CHV
I couldn't watch the clip due to being at work but just from the transcript alone, leaving obnoxious aside it's baffling.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | February 10, 2010 10:25 AM
Re CVH
Actually, when Ronald Reagan was Ron juniors' age, he was a liberal Democrat and president of the screen actors' guild so he probably would be understanding.
Posted by: SLC | February 10, 2010 10:30 AM
I wonder which would be more likely to know what St. Ronnie of Alzheimer's would have thought?
It's a puzzler. - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | February 10, 2010 10:35 AM