The family of Governor Mitt Romney's so-called "victim" from nearly a half-century ago said the following to ABC News:
The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family,” she said.
According to the the Washington Post, Mr. Lauber died of liver cancer in 2004, and while the family didn't detail what the Post got wrong, they have made it clear that seeing a loved one exploited by the Post "to further a political agenda" has been hurtful to them. And yet, against the wishes of his surviving family, the Post's only response has been: drop dead.
Since the release of this statement, the Post has continued to exploit Mr. Lauber to aid and abet the reelection of Barack Obama. To begin with, just yesterday, the Post's own Ombudsman, Patrick B. Pexton, doubled down in defense of a story that has been discredited on many, many levels. But the most laughable part of Pexton's water carrying came with this:
I think biographical stories on presidential candidates are fair game even if controversial incidents contained in them are far in the past. Of course we all change and mature. But these stories give clues to the character of the flesh-and-blood human beings we pick to lead us. These men and women all are flawed; none is perfect. But I think it’s the media’s job to describe them and report on them as accurately and as in depth as possible.
Of course, we all agree with that. But Pexton is lying by omission. Nowhere does he mention that in '08 the Washington Post wrote only two profiles of then-candidate Barack Obama's teen years (that we can find), both of them bordering on myth-making, and in one, Obama's admitted illegal drug use is buried under -- no joke -- 8800 words.
I'm going to say it again: Through this deliberate act of omission, Mr. Pexton is lying to his readers and defiling his responsibility as an ombudsman. This statement, however, about the article's timing, doesn't pass the laugh test:
Does that mean Post editors are timing stories with the White House? I hope not, I hope not, and I doubt that is the case.
At what age do Ombudsmen stop believing in unicorns and non-stop MSM "coincidences" that benefit the left at the rate of right around 100%?
To add partisan insult to Mr. Lauber's loved one's injury, this morning the Post published this column by their resident leftist Jonathan Capehart.
A man is dead, the loved ones he's left behind have attacked the credibility of the Post's story, and they have requested that his use as a partisan football by the Post and the rest of the Left stop. But because these awful people are so desperate to do anything to win Obama a second term, they continue to cynically feast on the corpse of a dead man in order to regurgitate lies, and they do not care who gets hurt.
Who's the bully now?