"Two bloggers learned this week that whatever talent they have for writing or political commentary, the image put forth through their more incendiary writing is likely to overshadow it."

Only in the minds of conservatives, who were unlikely to vote for Edwards anyway. Whether there is any lasting effect on Edwards will be shown when the next set of polls come out. If there isn't an effect (which is my guess) we can expect the right-wing conservo-smear-o-sphere to amp up it's efforts to smear Edwards more.

If you think these kind of on-going smear campaigns are actually helping the conservative cause, you're mistaken. All it does is point out the hateful, lying, smearing desperation of the Republicans in this country who seem to be having difficulty in adjusting to the will of the American people.

The fact that conservative bloggers are intentionally and deliberately misleading the American people, just as the Republicans in the White House and Congress mislead the American people for years, is not surprising anyone. In fact, it's rather predictable, and will only serve to weaken conservative power even more.

Rock on, Lorie, Mary Katherine, and the rest of the right's echo chamber. You're doing a wonderful job.

Amen Lee. About 2.1245% of the population gives a sh** about this issue and they hang around blogs like this.

Corection:2.1245% of the republican voting population.

Aahhh, more commentary from attention starved libnuts. Does anyone actually care what you think?

Aahhh, more commentary from attention starved libnuts. Does anyone actually care what you think?

According to the most recent election, yes.

Interesting interpretation of "smearing" you two have going on there. Apparently repeating someone's own words is considered underhanded and dishonest.

You two don't even have the brains to argue the "taken out of context" tack, even though Lee is a master of it -- witness his recent critiques of me where he contrasts my opposition to "casual profanity" with a carefully-chosen single usage of one.

Anatomy of a smear, according to Lee and Hugh:

1) Two bloggers spend a couple years writing for blogs, liberally spewing venom and profanity.

2) Prominent presidential candidate hires those bloggers to blog for him.

3) Others look at their prior writings, on the logical presumption that they will now do for pay what they had previously done for free.

4) The next logical presumption was that since they were hired to blog, then their prior blogging was what won them those positions. Therefore, the venom and bile is pretty much what the Edwards campaign saw and liked.

Yup, sounds pretty scummy to me.

Harry Truman said it best: when told to "give the Republicans hell," he responded "I just tell the truth about them, and it feels like Hell!"

J.

Really, Brian? And just what office were YOU elected to?

J.

Hugh, some of us of who don't give a crap about this particular issue hang around blogs like this too.

Although I'm curious why Lee claims the "conservative" blogs are being misleading. How misleading is it to quote entire passages from a blogger? Many of the articles I've seen consisted primarily of large excerpts of material, without much commentary from the blogger, and that commentary that has been there has directly addressed the statements, not reading any more than that into it.

Edwards has his reasons for his choices, I'm sure the two bloggers in question have their reasons for their particular styles, and I don't see where it makes that much of a difference. He's hired them to present his viewpoints, not theirs. Hell, maybe they'll learn something from him about when it's appropriate to go fangs-out, and when its time to dial back and present a reasoned argument. The political process needs new blood in it, and just about every member of the current generation has had something heated and over-the-top to say about something, no matter where their political views lay.

The problem comes when, in an attempt to garner the favor of the ever-cantankerous left side of the blogosphere, Democratic candidates hire bloggers with profanity-laced, President-hatin' pasts to helm their online efforts and blogging output.

Oh, is that the problem? Those darn Democrats!

Last summer, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, hired Patrick J. Hynes, a conservative blogger and political consultant, to be his campaign's blog liaison. Mr. Hynes quickly ran afoul of fellow bloggers by initially concealing his relationship to the McCain campaign while he was writing critically about other Republicans.

He then came under fire for declaring that the United States was a "Christian nation" in a book and television appearances that predated his work for Mr. McCain. Last November, while employed by Mr. McCain's campaign, Mr. Hynes posted on his personal blog a picture of Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California, and invited readers to submit nicknames, some of which were anti-Semitic.

Even though the writings of Marcotte and McEwan were claimed to be personal, everyone in politics knows that presidential campaigns are all about putting forth a particular image of a candidate. This is not a controversy over free speech in a personal blog, because at issue is not whether or not the blogger is free to say what she wants, but rather it is the story of the image one campaign wants to convey to the country.

Oh, "everyone knows", all right.

In an interview, Mr. Hynes said the Internet was a place where overheated language and vicious personal attacks were often tolerated, even encouraged. But, he said, "I would caution against holding candidates responsible for what their bloggers and blog consultants have said in the past."

Whew! Well, fortunately the right would never tolerate such behavior, right?

Mr. Hynes remained on the McCain campaign staff and maintained his personal blog.

Lorie, I couldn't find your Townhall or ABCNews columns attacking Republicans for this behavior last year. Can you please point me to it?

Jay, please apply your 4-step logic to McCain, then get back to us.

Oh well, I'm putting Edwards down in the Catholic-haters column. This episode ought to fly really well with the rest of the family.

Time to move on.

Really, Brian? And just what office were YOU elected to?

Oh, I didn't realize that was the question. I thought the question was whether anyone cares what we "libnuts" think. Next time I'll try to respond to the question that I should have predicted you would insecurely distort the original question into, rather than the actual original question that was posted.

Hmm... let's see, Brian. You're comparing one guy who invited others to join him in mocking one particular politician, and did NOT censor people who said vile things, with the never-ending shrill, profanity-laden polemics of M&M? The insulting of a single individual with the wholesale verbal assaults on whole classes of people?

That the best you got?

Oh, and Brian, YOU are the one who is claiming to have the "majority" of people backing him. I never make such claims. In fact, I repeatedly say that I speak for no one but myself, and nobody speaks for me. I don't need to make up numbers to give myself credibility.

J.

The smears haven't been limited to Edwards. You have the lies about Pelosi and "da plane!, you have the lies about Pelosi's minimum wage legislation, the lies and smears about Jamil Hussein and the AP -- the list is getting longer daily.

Rock on, is my answer - and don't forget to check the polls. The approval rating of the Republicans is continuing to drop -- as the approval rating of Democrats continue to rise. I think there is a direct correlation between the poll results and the rising volume of the spew of the conservative right and the desperation politics being played on this and other right-thinking blogs.

Oh dear, me and my small mind. Lee's, Hugh's and Brian's comments only leave me with more questions, not answers. I understand their political preference. I know they want to win again in 2008 and make it two in a row. But, if what Lorie and Mary Katherine are writing only hurts the Republican's chances in 2008, why don't Lee, Hugh and Brian just smile to themselves and shut up? I'm sure that if I could only understand this problem I'd understand the meaning of life, the universe and everything. [sarcasm switch to "off", engage improbability drive, maximum improbability]

Shutting up isn't nearly as much fun as pointing out your foibles and laughing about it, Upset Old Guy. I know nothing I post here is going to change your vote, just as you know that nothing Lorie posts will change mine.

The lying right went unchallenged for too long, and the majority party is now talking back. Sucks, don't it?

Lee once again demonstrates his definition of lying -- "disagreeing with me." Pelosi said she needed the larger plane for its range, so she wouldn't have to stop to refuel on her way home. But the plane Hastert used has a range of over 4,000 miles.

We STILL have no evidence that the AP's source, "Jamil Hussein," exists -- and some of the stories attributed to him have been investigated and found severely lacking.

Pelosi specifically tried to exclude one area from the minimum wage law. It just so happens that the biggest employer in that area is a big contributor of hers. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Any more "lies," Lee? Or are you utterly out of other diversions to deflect attention from the actual topic at hand?

J.

re: Pelosi -- Tony Snow set the record straight yesterday, Jay, confirming that the Washington Times had lied. Catch up on the news.

"We STILL have no evidence that the AP's source, "Jamil Hussein," exists"

The Iraqi Ministry of Information confirmed it. Catch up on the news.

Nope. Samoa was excluded by an act of Congress back in 2003. That would be the Republican majority Congress" that exempted Samoa. Catch up on the news.

Sorry, Jay, but when you keep repeating the lies which have already been debunked, you are going to be called a liar.

Oh, and in case you've forgotten, Lee, the topic was:

John Edwards hired a couple of well-known bomb-throwing bloggers to blog for him. Is it unfair to ask whether they will continue their bomb-throwing, and whether Edwards is tacitly endorsing their bomb-throwing by hiring them? Is it really "guilt by association" when someone chooses to not only associate, but employ them in the activity where they committed their despicable deeds?

J.

FFace

You seem to be the only one who thinks Hastert's plane has that kind of range.

So, with Putnam 7 girlie-man McHenry, you are going to continue the plane lie.

I thought that you, of all the Wizposters, tried to maintain basic factual arguments. Guessed wrong.

Lee once again demonstrates his definition of lying -- "disagreeing with me." Pelosi said she needed the larger plane for its range, so she wouldn't have to stop to refuel on her way home.

And Jay once again demonstrates his definition of truth -- "lying".

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not request a larger plane for personal use to travel cross-country without stopping, Bill Livingood, the House sergeant at arms, said Thursday.

Livingood said the request was his, and he made it for security reasons.

"The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft that is capable of making non-stop flights for security purposes, unless such an aircraft is unavailable," Livingood, who has been at his post for 11 years, said in a written statement.

"I regret that an issue that is exclusively considered and decided in a security context has evolved into a political issue," the statement said.

I'd ask you to cite sources, Lee, but that would be evidence that I gave a rat's ass about your latest attempts to change the subject. Sorry, I'm too tired and cranky to play "let's talk about something else." If you want to talk about that stuff, start your own blog or sign up for the Bomb Squad.

J.

Felch

How about your "lie" about pelosi up above?

What is missing from Lorie (not Jay)is criticism of ANY Bush or Republican errors...
Most leftist/stinkin/hippy/traitor/Bush Hater blogs..regularity criticize Dems for actions they take...

Lorie remains the smiling H.S. cheerleader who gives the same optimistic cheers when her team is losing 21-0 with two minutes left...

I applaud her spirit..but it often has nothing to do with reality. I believe she is a person of intelligence. As such she should not have to get her talking points from the same few sources...

Give me an I...R..A..Q..what's that spell
Victory!

Yeah, I'm sure that after San Fran Nan and her fiery temper made a phone call to the Sgt at Arms, this is what he would claim.

Sorry, not gonna work.

Nancy and the scandals keep piling up. Who would have guessed we would have so many so soon!

Whoooo hooo

U.S. Department of Labor

Volume 68, Number 152, Page 46949-46951

======

Wage and Hour Division

29 CFR Part 697

Industries in American Samoa; Wage Order

AGENCY: Wage and Hour Division, Employment Standards Administration,
Labor.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------
[[Page 46950]]

SUMMARY: Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, minimum wage rates in American Samoa are set by a special industry committee appointed by the Secretary of Labor. This document puts into effect the minimum wage rates recommended for various industry categories by Industry Committee No. 25 (the Committee), which met in public and executive session in Pago Pago, American Samoa, during the week of June 16, 2003.

DATES: This rule shall become effective August 22, 2003.

Lee, the Bushbot media are only keeping up appearances and each archive date needs an entry. I'm suprised the posters aren't catatonic, frankly. Or that they put up with being so used and abused by this administration. As the Libby trial confirms: Cheney lied, people died; as the reconstruction oversight commitee of congress has shown through expert testimony this week: multiple BILLIONS of dollars was stolen immediately (stealing instead of guarding ammo dumps); also the untraceble automatic and crew-serve weapons that were passed out by the tens of thousands to who knows who; and now the US is fighting members of the coalition government's troops that we KNOW we armed, i.e, they were our allies against the Sunni insurgents just last month; oh, and who can ignore our recent strange policy of pissing off the kurds by shooting them? Sure, Edwards is still interesting... in a galaxy FAR, FAR AWAY!

This is too much damn fun, Jay - I'm not going anywhere -- and you've set a perfect illustration as to why. The smears come out, the right-wing echo chamber repeat the lie, and it becomes a "fact" when "in fact" it was a lie to begin with.

I'm all for exposing these lies over and over again, as many times as it takes to get the truth out there.

Jo

you really are in Chevy's words, an ignorant slut

Get off the phoney Pelosi plane crap ...you're just proving that you ar5e ignorant.

Oh yeah..some Catholics have put this behind them..and don't hate Edwards
"Washington, D.C. - Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good Executive Director Alexia Kelley issued the following statement today in response to the controversy over the John Edwards campaign's hiring of netroots consultants who had made insensitive remarks regarding Catholicism:

"Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good condemns these and all religiously intolerant remarks. We accept Senator Edwards' assurances that he too was offended by comments made by recently-hired staffers and that religious intolerance has no place in his campaign. Catholics comprise more than one quarter of the U.S. public, and neither John Edwards nor any other candidate can afford to take this constituency for granted."

"We hope this unfortunate incident will initiate a deeper conversation on the part of all presidential candidates regarding the broad range of issues and values of primary importance to the Catholic community, including the Iraq War, a concern for the poor, human life and dignity, the availability of health care, and a commitment to the common good."

So..notice how they point out "issues" that are missing from the Republican agenda...

Who's first in line to bloviate...awww, it's Lee. You should win some sort of prize.

If you think these kind of on-going smear campaigns are actually helping the conservative cause, you're mistaken. All it does is point out the hateful, lying, smearing desperation of the Republicans in this country who seem to be having difficulty in adjusting to the will of the American people.

I'm actually fascinated by this sort of rhetoric, because it shows how inept people like Lee really are. What exactly makes you think you have some sort moral high ground on this Lee? Do you have some sort of evidence that the American people all agree with you and your ilk? Lots of people agree with the President, lots of people don't and lots of people don't seem to care. So I laugh at the idea that you guys think you have some sort of majority, since if pushed to answer honestly, most American would consider themselves conservative as it is.

Awwww repuke. You should have called me a "M@#%%^ F@#@ing Slut" and then you may be eligible to work for someone like Edwards.

Don't forget the Hezbollah supporting Imam that just prayed for the DNC meeting. And everyone is discussing San Fran Nan and her diva like ways. Whooo hoooo.

PR nightmares for the dhimmis.

Good times, good times.

Hmm... let's see, Brian. You're comparing

Ah, following your typical M.O., I see, Jay? You post or comment on one angle, and when shut down on that, you switch to a different angle. Then when shut down on that, you switch to a different angle. Over and over, until your ultimate position is so far removed from your original one. (Shall we review your post about how no right-wing Wizbang commenters used Obama's middle name, which when disproved then morphed into how no Wizbang bloggers did, which when disproved then morphed into how you yourself did not?)

In this case, the original post is about a presidential candidate hiring bloggers, with prior offensive writings attributed to them, as campaign bloggers. But when that blows up in your face, you immediately want to switch it to "well yeah, but their offensive writings were more offensive than the other offensive writings"!

That the best you got?

Which brings me to:

The insulting of a single individual with the wholesale verbal assaults on whole classes of people?

You are so partisanly defensive to dismiss inviting anti-semetic remarks about a person as not an assault on a whole class of people?

Oh, and Brian, YOU are the one who is claiming to have the "majority" of people backing him.... I don't need to make up numbers to give myself credibility.

I don't need to make up numbers either. I use the factual ones. You should try it sometime.

Lee, I'm going to ask you the same question I asked in the first place, before you started your bullshit game: just WHAT is the "smear" against Edwards and his pet bloggers? Or are you redefining "smear" as "repeating someone's own words?"

I am also going to quit posting tonight. For several purely physical reasons, my sense of discretion and restraint are utterly shot and I am NOT going to continue to entertain you.

J.

Only in the minds of conservatives, who were unlikely to vote for Edwards anyway.-Lee
AND, after an