« Going for the gold | Main | Wordstorms »

He just loves his M&Ms

If there's one thing you can reliably count on, it's Oliver Willis to shamelessly plug the work done by his Day Job employer.

I'm no fan of Bill O'Reilly, but I've often heard attributed to him an aphorism I rather like -- "you don't excuse bad behavior by citing other bad behavior." It's a dishonest tactic, and it's tangentially related to the "chickenhawk" argument -- both involve the same idea: if you discredit the individual making the argument, you discredit the argument itself.

In this case, the twits at Media Matters got their George Soros-purchased panties in a twist because it turns out that one -- ONE -- of those who criticized the John Edwards campaign for hiring a couple of prominent Nutroots bomb-throwers had also made some inflammatory comments in the past.

Apparently, to the worthies at MM, that means that anything that particular critic said -- or anyone who said much the same thing about Tweedledum and Tweedledummer (I forget the names of the two bloggers in question, and don't care enough about them to look them up) -- can and should be immediately dismissed.

Gee, what a great strategy. I guess that means I can say or do whatever I want, because as soon as enough people slam me, all I have to do is go after ONE of them in return, find some dirt on them, and that wipes clean the slate on everyone else.

I've also noted that a lot of people are calling the exposure of Marcotte's and McEwan's (OK, I looked up their names) a "Swiftboating," after the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. I think that's a fairly appropriate comparison; after all, pretty much all of their allegations against Kerry were either acknowledged ("Christmas in Cambodia," with President Nixon on the radio) or roundly ignored.

I've been toying with my own piece about the whole mess. I was going to title it "my application for any Republican presidential campaign's staff blogger" and go on a vile, profanity-laden, frothing-with-rage rant against the current crop of Democratic candidates, but I just couldn't bring myself to do so. Not even for satirical purposes could I indulge in such casual vulgarity -- I have too much respect for you readers, the swear words themselves, and myself. But damn, was it tempting.

I'd have to thank Oliver for pointing this out to me, but I suspect that he's already being taken good care of by his employers -- who don't seem to mind his using his "independent" blog to praise their works at 3:12 on a Wednesday afternoon, during what for nearly everyone would be considered "working hours."


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference He just loves his M&Ms:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Catholics slam bloggers hired by Edwards

Comments (44)

Ace of Spades and IOWAHAWK ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Ace of Spades and IOWAHAWK have about the best and most entertaining "coverage" of this, um, issue going; so much so that everything else about it is anticlimactic.


Fightin' Fightin' Nutroots Prepared To Slime Edwards If He Goes Through With Firing Their Buddies
-- by Ace
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/214887.php


More Marcotte
-- By Ace
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/214924.php


THE PANDAGON PAPERS
by IOWAHAWK
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/02/the_pandagon_pa.html


Verra, verra funny stuff.

The story isn't Edwards(D) ... (Below threshold)

The story isn't Edwards(D) cowardice in firing the LeftyHaters.

The story isn't that wingnuts might 'out' the LeftyHaters as LeftyHaters.

The story is that Edwards(D) would hire the LeftyHaters in the first place.

Now IF an (R) candidate hires some foul-mouthed hater then there is something to talk about. But if that foul-mouthed hater should be 'outed' as such by LeftyHaters it doesn't make them any less so...

Jay wrote above: "Not ev... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Jay wrote above: "Not even for satirical purposes could I indulge in such casual vulgarity "

Jay wrote here: "There was absolutely no call for what you did, you miserable, worthless pieces of shit."

apples and oranges, lee. </... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

apples and oranges, lee.

like hitting your thumb with a hammer might draw some profanity, but a paper cut usually doesn't.

Jay Tea: Once again, called... (Below threshold)
jp2:

Jay Tea: Once again, called out.

"ONE -- of those who criticized the John Edwards campaign for hiring a couple of prominent Nutroots bomb-throwers had also made some inflammatory comments in the past."


Is that Malkin or the Catholic League guy? Or Ace? Which "one"? Because I hope you are not actually going to even attempt to say that Malkin hasn't made "inflammatory comments."

Forget the foul language. I... (Below threshold)
yetanotherjohn:

Forget the foul language. Its a sign of a lazy intellect when you can't express yourself except through profanity.

Forget the positions taken. I would not expect someone comfortable with John Edwards being in charge of the nation to take similar view on matters of public import that I do.

What got me was the lack of logical thought, rationality and perspective.

The purpose of a blogmeister is to wrangle the issues in blog time. That's not waiting for the next news cycle, but immediate response. So looking at how the blogger handled breaking issues in the past should be an indicator for how their thought processes work in that sort of situation. Tweedledum went from noting that Rehnquist was dead to making the straightforward observation that Bush would get to name his successor. So far so good. My son in middle school could have processed this information, but a basic grasp of the facts is a good thing. She then goes on to say that 'we are f*cked'. Apparently I must not be in her 'we' because I didn't and don't feel that way, but that's not really the issue.

Her next three paragraphs should have disqualified her from working on blog relations for any presidential campaign of any stripe. Not because of the positions taken or the language, but because of the complete inanity of the reasoning behind it. If this is how she would have responded to a breaking news cycle, Edwards is better off saving her salary and buying another case of hairspray.

She starts off her intellectual rollercoaster by saying that choice is gone, Roe v Wade is overturned, states will start outlawing contraception (which was Griswold not Roe but facts aren't in the hunt here), and the court will find (finally something that hasn't happened immediately upon Rehnquist's death but something to be in the future we approach because of it) no right to privacy and contraception protection is gone. Who knew Rehnquist's death brought all that immediately into being. Seems to me it hasn't happened even well after his passing, but her keen insight saw it all immediately.

She then zooms around another intellectual corner suggesting that you immediately get sterilized if you don't want more children and stock up on condoms if you might want some in the future but not just yet. Another mental zag has her threatening the new forces of evil that were released with Rehnquist's final breath that they would never sleep. For she shall fight them by repeatedly plying the old 'in and out' with out having children. Her wanton acts will cause these forces of evil to toss and turn in sleepless restlessness. And her acts of carnality will render the inevitable historical imperatives that will cause the forces of evil to fail, so they might as well just give up now.

Imagine such a mind responding to any breaking issue and speaking in Edwards' name on the subject. The scary thought is why she should not have been hired. She just isn't rational enough to play in the big leagues.

And I'm sure, Lee, that you... (Below threshold)
tas:

And I'm sure, Lee, that you are as pure as the driven snow and have never, ever used profanity or lost your temper once in your life. I don't agree with most of Jay's post but I hardly think him dropping an s-bomb every once in a while would work to invalidate any of it.

tas: "And I'm sure, Lee,... (Below threshold)
Lee:

tas: "And I'm sure, Lee, that you are as pure as the driven snow and have never, ever used profanity or lost your temper once in your life."

I never said that I was pure, but then -- I didn't say this "Not even for satirical purposes could I indulge in such casual vulgarity", the same day I wrote this: "There was absolutely no call for what you did, you miserable, worthless pieces of shit." either. (repeated with link fixed)

If you hit your thumb with a hammer you may have an uncontrolled vulgar reaction. If you write it, proofread it, and hit the "publish" button anyway it's not as easy to claim that its the same.

I guess the moral of this s... (Below threshold)
Reality:

I guess the moral of this story is it's alright to swear at the other side in a blog if you're a Republican.

lee, the analogy I put fort... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

lee, the analogy I put forth was not the greatest but I figured you were bright enough to get my point.

Oh come on Lee, what is it ... (Below threshold)

Oh come on Lee, what is it about the phrase "casual vulgarity" don't you understand?

Are you really saying that you can't tell the difference between the casual and constant profanity from Marcotte and Pandagon and Jay Tea's response to some brain-dead trolls after serious provocation?

Or are you just being "ironic" in deliberately using the same dishonest, stupid argument that J has just spent most of an entire post pointing out the absurdity of?

I guess the moral high grou... (Below threshold)
Reality:

I guess the moral high grounders here don't have any condemnation for Jay's fat joke on Oliver either, right?

He just loves the M&M's?

Classy. I guess you didn't spend that $100 bonus (snicker) on etiquette lessons.

Lee, you forgot to mention ... (Below threshold)
tas:

Lee, you forgot to mention this part of Jay's post: "vile, profanity-laden, frothing-with-rage rant against the current crop of Democratic candidates".

If you're comparing "profanity-laden" with one instance of the s-word, you're overreaching.

Jay"his employe... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Jay

"his employers -- who don't seem to mind his using his "independent" blog to praise their works at 3:12 on a Wednesday afternoon, during what for nearly everyone would be considered "working hours." "

Noticed your posting at 11AM.

What are your working hours...just curious?

reality, thats pathetic, m&... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

reality, thats pathetic, m&m refers to media matters, talk about a stretch. And lee, pathetic as well, trying to compare Jay's line to the awful shit marcotte and her ilk write about constantly. Jay's line was hardly casual vulgarity, it was a calculated call out two three posters who deserve way worse than what Jay said.

It's ok, arepukelican, the ... (Below threshold)
Reality:

It's ok, arepukelican, the real lunch rush at McD's doesn't start until 11:30.

Really, hog? Since when do... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Really, hog? Since when does Media Matters have an ampersand in it?

Loser.

Did I say it STOOD for Medi... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Did I say it STOOD for Media Matters? No, I said it "REFERS" to Media Matters. Nice reading comprehension. Even better comeback, are you 10?

Riiiight. My comment stand... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Riiiight. My comment stands.

Well then it also stands th... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Well then it also stands that you have no clue what a reference is.

Poor little trolls got one ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Poor little trolls got one of thier kind canned and are crying in thier beer.

p'p' was Jay talking about you also? Fits you to a T. LOL

"Fits you to a T. LOL"... (Below threshold)
Alvin:

"Fits you to a T. LOL"

jhow66, you're that angry, stupid old man who laughs way too hard in the theater and makes a hundred other people who paid to see The Whole Ten Yards uncomfortable. You wait until the lines have been drawn between the liberals and conservatives, and then shit all over the thread with your asinine attempts at insulting humor.

And it's spelled THEIR, you inbred piece of shit.

Once again, JayTea can't ke... (Below threshold)

Once again, JayTea can't keep his facts straight and exhibits some stalker-type behavior. You are also apparently in love with "scare quotes".

"you don't excuse bad be... (Below threshold)
George:

"you don't excuse bad behavior by citing other bad behavior."

I see nothing dishonest or the least bit underhanded about this tactic. It's the same as "Two wrongs don't make a right." You provided a bad analogy.

The "chickenhawk" argument is fallacious. And so is this "discredit one individual and the argument is discredited" argument.

TAS: "Lee, you forgot to... (Below threshold)
Lee:

TAS: "Lee, you forgot to mention this part of Jay's post: "vile, profanity-laden, frothing-with-rage rant against the current crop of Democratic candidates".

"If you're comparing "profanity-laden" with one instance of the s-word, you're overreaching. "

I didn't mention it, because it isn't relevant to my argument.

I never said anything about "profanity-laden" so why are you suggesting that I'm overreaching in a comparison I didn't make?

Sheesh!

Jay (& any of you others) n... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Jay (& any of you others) need to rethink Bill O'Reilly. He use to bug me too, but I've been watching a lot lately and can't stop. He's been whistleblowing lately on the democrats and others on the Left (especially those lenient child molester punishments issued by liberal judges) and it's been extremely effective (& entertaining as well). When he has his producer do some Michael Moore type ambushing (like with Arkin) I am riveted.

Rethink O'Reilly.

I didn't mention it, bec... (Below threshold)
tas:

I didn't mention it, because it isn't relevant to my argument.

Because your argument sucks. You're selectively copying and pasting Jay's words and you're trying to say, "See? Look, Jay said this!" So then I come in and say, "Well, actually, Jay said this," adding the part you purposely left out. Then you complain that I'm ruining your "argument"? If you're argument relies on taking somebody out of context then you didn't have much of one to begin with.

Once again, JayTea can'... (Below threshold)
marc:

Once again, JayTea can't keep his facts straight and exhibits some stalker-type behavior. You are also apparently in love with "scare quotes".
Posted by: Oliver Willis

So tell us ollie, just what "facts" (I heart "scare quotes") were wrong or mis-stated?

One would think a devoted liberal driving by a demonstrably right leaning blog would be jumping at the chance to rub it in the faces of those he disagrees with.

Or did your politico/corporate leash holders yank you back to the reservation?

So, Tas, if I understand yo... (Below threshold)
Lee:

So, Tas, if I understand you correctly your point is that Jay writing "There was absolutely no call for what you did, you miserable, worthless pieces of shit." is ok, because it isn't a "profanity-laden, frothing-with-rage rant"?

How many times can one use abusive language such as Jay's before it isn't ok? Are three instances of language like "you miserable, worthless pieces of shit" ok, or is that a rant? Five? a dozen?

Why don't you draw the lines between acceptable and unacceptable and let me know, ok? -- but my opinion may vary. I think when a site's writers refer to some of their readers as "you miserable, worthless pieces of shit" they've opened themselves to some criticism when they later claim they are they piously avoiding the use of vulgar language in an article.

jo: O'Reilly's a phoney: "f... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

jo: O'Reilly's a phoney: "for" the border fence but insists it's "impossible" to deport illegals. And won't touch Bush's transnational SPP scheme with a 10 foot pole. Needs administration contacts too much, though they still won't go on his show. Anybody who doesn't care to appear (and isn't too powerful) is "afraid". Yet his posse is of rap star proportions (I saw him with 6 bodyguards in one photo) His Jessica's Law crusade insists on lumping teenage lovers in with baby-rapers. That's wooden-headed. And didn't he pay $2,000,000 to settle the phone sex harrassment case with a former producer? Plus he's a multi-draft deferrment baby with manhood issues resulting therefrom. And why the "working class" mythos? He was raised in Levittown and led a Leave It to Beaver childhood in a newly built and landscaped community. What a putz. P.S. If you mention the word "Olbermann" on his call-in show, he WILL call Fox security!

JayAfter reading t... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Jay

After reading the MM piece about Donovan, it seems a stretch to suggest that they are "discredit(ing) the individual making the argument, (then) you discredit the argument itself."

The MM concern is that the MSM has picked up the rant of an otherwise known bombthrower and given currency to his feigned outrage. There is no there, there; i.e an attempt to dodge the issue of Edwards' hiring bombthrowers.

Is it just that MM is stuck in your craw because of your attitude about Soros and/or David Brock, a former conservative, who, having participated in the conservative/right milieu, saw the light and renounced the tactics that he had seen employed by some of the conservatives with whom he associated?

BTW your snide jab at Soros, and therefore MM, is not unlike the point that you are trying to make about MM and your allegation that MM is just trying to dismiss one bad behavior by deflection through bringing up another's bad behavior.

Or is it that MM is merely guilty by association?

Lee, read this post by Jay ... (Below threshold)
tas:

Lee, read this post by Jay again. It's quite clear that, when he said he couldn't write a satire piece that was "profanity-laden," frothing, etc., he was talking about an composing an entire piece full of profanity. There's a huge difference between that and dropping an s-bomb once in a while. Hell, I think that's the first time I ever saw Jay swear.

And if you still insist that there's no difference between the two, well, then... I happily entitle you to your own opinion. But be sure to ask yourself if you formed this opinion objectivily or if it was formed on the basis of not liking Jay. If your friend made the exact same statements as Jay, would you level the same criticism against them?

I doubt it.

tas - I like Jay. ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

tas - I like Jay.

Sometimes we're toughest on the people we like because we want them to live up to their fullest potential.

(Sigh) I hate having to exp... (Below threshold)

(Sigh) I hate having to explain things... it's usually a sign that I didn't do a good job saying them the first time.

1) The "M&M" reference was intended to refer to Marcotte and McEwan, but "Media Matters" also kinda fits.

2) I wrote the piece early this morning, then scheduled it to publish at 11:00 -- as I have been doing for some years, if anyone cares to review my posting history. My self-set quota is 3 pieces, ideally at 5:00 a.m, 11:00 a.m, and 2:00 p.m. I don't always have time/motivation/inspiration to come up with three, but I always try.

2a) Today happens to be my day off, anyway. I spent all day offline, taking care of personal business, but I have Thursdays and Sundays off from The Day Job.

2b) Oliver's piece was time-stamped 3:12 p.m., a rather odd time to pre-slot a piece. That's why mine almost always have a nice, round number for a published time.

3) I did not decry profanity per se, but casual profanity. The fact that Lee has to keep bringing up the same single example pretty much confirms my consistency on that point.

4) Lee says he "likes" me. That confirms to me his utterly juvenile state -- he seems to show his "liking" much like a fourth-grade boy who constantly antagonizes and irritates the object of his affections. Sigh...

5) Pukeface has it partly right. I do loathe Soros, and all that the millions that convicted felon has amassed, has wrought. David Brock I couldn't care less about.

J.

Uh Alvin did something I sa... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Uh Alvin did something I said get your panties in a wad? If you don't like it dipwit, go somewhere else. Otherwise I don't give a rat's ass what you think or call me. Just shows that I get under your liberal skin. (can I laugh now? thanks lol) You see what I post or you post on any given subject has about as much effect on what goes on in the world as a fart in a whirlwind. So I don't try to bring my untold wisdom on any subject. I have more fun making fun of leftwing nerds such as you. Welcome to WIZBANG. Get use to it (or leave).

Dang JT, I was enjoying wat... (Below threshold)
epador:

Dang JT, I was enjoying watching Lee kick the Tar Baby over and over.

Felch FaceI suspec... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Felch Face

I suspect your loathing for Soros has far more to do w/ the causes he uses his money for rather than your severe loathing for a dangerous French convicted felon, much as I have for Richard Melon Scaife, underwriter for NewsMax.

Puke Boy, I based my term f... (Below threshold)

Puke Boy, I based my term for you on the very name you have chosen for yourself. Just how do you derive "Felch Face" from the phonetic spelling of my initials?

And Soros' status as a felon is, as far as I am concerned, another reason to despise him. His horrific case of BDS (note his recent statements that the United States government will need "Denazifacation" after Bush leaves office), coupled with his tremendous wealth, is an ever bigger one.

J.

I suspect your loathing ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I suspect your loathing for Soros has far more to do w/ the causes he uses his money for rather than your severe loathing for a dangerous French convicted felon, much as I have for Richard Melon Scaife, underwriter for NewsMax.

I don't spend much time worrying about who the French condemn.

After all, if their President didn't have a law pass forbidding this, he'd be in jail right now. But, he had his cronies in the Parliament providing immunity from criminal prosecution for government officials.

Chirac is a criminal. And France supports him. They don't respect their own criminal justice system.
-=Mike

Mike SCHave you se... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Mike SC

Have you seen the IG report...a likly tip of the iceberg as far as the time from 9/11 to the Iraq invasion?

With your contempt for Chirac, I suspect you're skating on incredibly thin ice here at home.

FF aka Jay

It's just that "F" is only 3 letters before "J," and, therefore, not so distantly related.

Call it free association.

As to your use of my nick, I have no problem w/ the typical Wizzer adaptation on this site. I generally take it as their aggravation with my choice of a nick. Doesn't bother me a bit. You just made it more personal w/ your adaptation.

As for your reference to Soros' remark about "denazification" after Bush, there might be, after seeing things like the current IG report, a little more substance to that remark than you might want to admit.

As to "BDS," you might scan this, although you'll choke on its author. Some good insight, nevertheless.

Sorry about that, F___ Face

Jay: "I did not decry pr... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Jay: "I did not decry profanity per se, but casual profanity. The fact that Lee has to keep bringing up the same single example pretty much confirms my consistency on that point."

I kept bringing up that one example because it happened the very same day that you posted your "I'm too cool to use profanity" screech.... but the fact is that you use abusive language ona semi-regular basis.

I'm not interested in going back through your writings to point examples, but since you've challenged me on this I feel I have license to point it out when it happens in the future, and I have no doubt it will.

Evidently you aren't aware that you are, at times, abusive. I'll be happy to point it when you are from now on.

Lee,I am sure your c... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Lee,
I am sure your crusade to point out Jay's casual profanity will yield results. Just like when you tilted at windmills while yelling "SOCKPUPPETS!".
At a min, I know I'll be amused.

I'm not interested in go... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I'm not interested in going back through your writings to point examples, but since you've challenged me on this I feel I have license to point it out when it happens in the future, and I have no doubt it will.

Like you did with the claim of sockpuppetry around here, Lee?

I'm sure Jay is STILL waiting --- probably with baited breath --- for your report.
-=Mike

Have you seen the IG rep... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Have you seen the IG report...a likly tip of the iceberg as far as the time from 9/11 to the Iraq invasion?

I saw the Post's initial coverage of it --- which led to one of the most total apologies for lying in a story I've seen out of the press.

Confusing a 2 year old release by Sen. Levin for the report is laughable. But the Post did it.
-=Mike




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy