« Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™ | Main | Biased Incompetence »

Edwards Stumbles On The Net

My Townhall column this week, Edwards Stumbles On The Net, is posted at ABCNews.com. Here is an excerpt.

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. The Dixie Chicks learned through their highly publicized foray into the world of politics that they were selling more than their music -- they were selling an image. 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.

See also Mary Katharine Ham's column at Townhall, Vote for Edwards, Godbag Christofacists!. Ah, I think she had some fun with this one.
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.


That's what happened to John Edwards this week. He hired Amanda Marcotte of the blog Pandagon to be his blogmaster and Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister to be his online communications person. If personnel is policy, let's just say those two hires reflect the Edwards campaign's desire to be "Queen C--of F--k Mountain" and "F--k BushCo."


It's not exactly the winning populist message John-Boy was shooting for, I reckon, and bloggers on the right side of the aisle recognized that immediately. Too bad for Edwards, Marcotte, and McEwan, no one on their side did. Or, perhaps more damaging, they did and couldn't do anything about it.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Edwards Stumbles On The Net:

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

» Bill's Bites linked with Vote for Edwards, Godbag Christofacists!

Comments (162)

"Two bloggers learned th... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"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 ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

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 re... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Corection:2.1245% of the republican voting population.

Aahhh, more commentary from... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

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

Aahhh, more commentary f... (Below threshold)
Brian:

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

According to the most recent election, yes.

Interesting interpretation ... (Below threshold)

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 wha... (Below threshold)

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

J.

Hugh, some of us of who don... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

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, ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

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-st... (Below threshold)
Brian:

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

Oh well, I'm putting Edward... (Below threshold)
bbozum:

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 ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

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. Yo... (Below threshold)

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 lim... (Below threshold)
Lee:

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 mi... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

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... (Below threshold)
Lee:

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... (Below threshold)

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... (Below threshold)
Lee:

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 forg... (Below threshold)

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.

FFaceYou seem to b... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

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 demonstra... (Below threshold)
Brian:

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... (Below threshold)

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.

FelchHow about you... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Felch

How about your "lie" about pelosi up above?

What is missing from Lorie ... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

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 S... (Below threshold)
Jo:

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</p... (Below threshold)
Lee:

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 ... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

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, ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

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.

Joyou really are i... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

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 hav... (Below threshold)
bogo postal:

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 blov... (Below threshold)

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 h... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Awwww repuke. You should have called me a "[email protected]#%%^ [email protected]#@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.... (Below threshold)
Brian:

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 t... (Below threshold)

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 con... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Only in the minds of conservatives, who were unlikely to vote for Edwards anyway.-Lee
AND, after an amen
Corection:2.1245% of the republican voting population-Hugh

Here is what I think you are overlooking:
Regardless of party lines, the number of American's that identify themselves as Christian = 76.5%
The number of Americans that are Catholic = 24.5% (or 32% of Christians, however you want to slice it).
36 % of Catholics are registered Democrats
35 % are Republicans
27 % Independent
Of the Democrats, 47 % (of the 36) are moderates, 37% liberal, 18 % conservative

For all Catholics in 2004, 40% voted Bush, 40% voted Kerry. Of the Catholic Democrats, 76% voted Kerry.

Looking at these numbers, would you want to alienate this group of voters lightly?
Catholics, like it or not, are the single largest religious affiliation in the United States. And neither party has a lock on them. Pissing them off may not drive them into the opposition's arms, but keeping them home on election day would still hurt the dems. Factor in the independents (27%) who are likely to vote against a candidate who is seen to be anti-catholic (assuming the Rep. candidate is seen to be pro or neutral).

To me courting the nutroots at the risk of alienating Christians and Catholics in particular is not a wise move.
Most of the millions of Catholics don't read blogs. But we've already seen that folks like Donohue will make sure the word gets out (and his version will be very biased).

Sounds like the Democrats h... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

Sounds like the Democrats haven't learned any lessons from their last two attempts at a Presidency.

They are doing the same thing that they did in 2000 and 2004, which is surrounding themselves with people who don't seem to have any answers at all, but do know how to carry the predominant rally cry of the 'tolerant' left (let's all hate the stereotypes of the right!).

Being Anti-Republican isn't a viable platform, even if you do have a dynamite candidate such as John Kerry or Al Gore - heh.

<a href="http://w... (Below threshold)
Lee:
AP

"The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media."

Only in the minds of co... (Below threshold)
marc:

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. Posted by: Lee at February 9, 2007 05:14 PM

Is it really "only in the minds of conservative" Lee?

Guess, as usual, you've only choosen to view the issue from a posaition of slamming those you dieagree with and ignore those critical from your side.

For example, National Democratic Ethnic Leadership Council:

"We have gone so far to rebuild that coalition [between Democrats and religious Christians] and something like this sets it back," said Brian O'Dwyer, a New York lawyer and Irish-American leader who chairs the National Democratic Ethnic Leadership Council, a Democratic Party group. O'Dwyer said Edwards should have fired the bloggers. "It's not only wrong morally - it's stupid politically."O'Dwyer e-mailed a statement to reporters saying: "Senator Edwards is condoning bigotry by keeping the two bloggers on his staff. Playing to the cheap seats with anti-Catholic bigotry has no place in the Democratic Party." ...

"I thought his explanation was not satisfying," said Cornell's Penalver. "It's obvious that they did mean to give offense."

"You imagine a similar kind of comment directed at the Jewish community or at the gay community - something at this level of intentional offensiveness -- and I have a hard time believing it gets resolved in the same way," he said.

Lee, if you think alienating those of the Christian faith that also identify themselves as Democrats are the correct path to the White House you're mistaken.

I must say that bogo postal... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

I must say that bogo postal is my evil twin and not me..I for am glad that many here embrace the Catholic religion and of course their Pope...too often..say during the Southern Baptist Conventions anti-Catholic anti- Mormon rhetoric takes place..
I applaud those who condsider themselves fundamentalist Christians for embracing the initial charges from the Catholic fundamentalists...
After all as a fundamentalist Christian...if you can't trust the people who say they speak for Catholic Church...who can YOU trust...
...still waiting for Focus on Family to condemn this...

I am also going to quit ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

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.

Be honest, Jay. Your sense of discretion and reason are what's shot, and that's caused you to make wild claims that were quite easily shredded. Get a good night's sleep, wipe up your blood, and try again tomorrow.

DATES: This rule shall ... (Below threshold)
marc:

DATES: This rule shall become effective August 22, 2003. Posted by: Lee at February 9, 2007 06:23 PM

Lee it's been well established the wage law covered Samoa previously.

How does that excuse Porkmistress Pelosi's attempt to further this afront to the U.S. taxpayers via another piece of legislation after the fact?

I'm actually fascinated ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

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?

Actually, I'm fascinated by people who months ago rallied about how the "only poll that matters is the one on Nov. 7". And then, now that we see the outcome of that "poll", right here on this page we have multiple posters (and a blogger) chiding those on the left for believing that the American people side with them. Truly bizarre. But predictable.

Brian, I almost NEVER cite ... (Below threshold)

Brian, I almost NEVER cite my physical ailments on here, but tonight I am: certain medical conditions and exhaustion have severely afflicted my temperament and judgment where I am about one comment away from telling you and the rest to go fuck yourselves and firing up the banning software.

Food is in short order, probably followed by bed.

J.

"Who's first in line to ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

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

I ususally ignore trolls, but since this troll keeps gettitng thrown in my face let me answer this one time.

Check the time on Lorie's post: 4:24pm

Check the time on my first comment: 5:14pm

I don't know how accurate those timestamps are - I don't usually pay any attention to them, but according to timestamps I commented 50 minutes after Lorie's post went up. I read the post, and I commented. I don't try to be first, but often am.

Why? I don't know. You'd be better off asking why does everyone else wait for someone else to comment first? Beats me...

Lee it's been well estab... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Lee it's been well established the wage law covered Samoa previously.

Which further establishes that it wasn't Pelosi's doing, as Jay ignorantly and fraudulently charged above. Thanks for the comment.

Jay..compromise.. just te... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Jay..compromise.. just tell anyone to go "fuck" themselves..but take care of yourself..after all this place would not exist without an effort far greater than any of us wanna-be's have the courage or effort to do

Brian, congratulations, you... (Below threshold)

Brian, congratulations, you've successfully diverted the topic from Edwards and his pet hatemongers. Feel proud of yourself; by your silence on the actual topic, you've shown that you don't give a faded fart about it.

J.

LorieHave you got ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Lorie

Have you got the guts to do a post on the IG report that was issued today?

We're curious as to whether you give a damn about something that really matters.

Afterall, Feith cherry-picked so that Bush could lie and our troops would die.

Your silence is deafening, Lorie.

Nogo, take your kind words,... (Below threshold)

Nogo, take your kind words, print them out, fold them up into sharp corners, and shove them up your ass. I don't need your condescending, ellipsis-dribbling crocodile tears.

J.

Pukeface, I am sick and tir... (Below threshold)

Pukeface, I am sick and tired of your whining. You want a story discussed? Fine. Here are three ways you can do it:

1) Start your own blog and write about it.
2) Sign up for the Wizbang Bomb Squad and write it yourself.
3) Offer one of us money or some other compensation to do your bidding.

Your off-topic sniping hasn't worked in the past too well; maybe you ought to try something that might work for a change? Or are you too heavily invested in your status as a whiny dipshit?

J.

Jay...I am sorry you are go... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

Jay...I am sorry you are going through a hard physical time...I, and probably most here do not have the passion, expertise, fuckin' commitment that you have demonstrated these years...
May I suggest you say in bold colors
Fuck You...then do what you need to be comfortable and put on your favorite music real loud..
Out of respect for you..and an admission..that it is easier for me to say than do...
I will not post anything till next week...
I sincerely hope this situation is temporary and not chronic...

Brian, congratulations, ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian, congratulations, you've successfully diverted the topic from Edwards and his pet hatemongers. Feel proud of yourself;

When you feel up to it, I'm sure you'll be able to point out exactly which post of mine wasn't on topic, and wasn't a direct response to off-topic items posted by you yourself and others on the right.

I want to redirect the disc... (Below threshold)

I want to redirect the discussion back to Lori's comment that..."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."

For example, Marcotte's writings about the Duke Lacrosse players' case was reprehensible. If you were a parent consider what your response would be to what she wrote after the very public disclosure of the DA's poor handling of this prosecution, if it were your child.

Note, this isn't a request for a litany of injustices past; rather, what if this was your child she was talking about?

I've only been at the Panda... (Below threshold)
Herman:

I've only been at the Pandagon site a few times, so I really can't comment on it. But I am able to highly recommend Shakespeare's Sister.

From Lee LeeAP <br /... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

From Lee Lee
AP
"The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media."

Lee, this is quite old news and still no Jamil Hussein, we have Osama Hussein Obama (D) of the Islamic joke of a religion, but no Jamil Hussein. It looks like the ASSociated (with terrorists) Press got another story from the non-existant Jamil Hussein to prove he exists. I'm not from Mo. but show me Jamil.

To old "pucker puss" (lee l... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

To old "pucker puss" (lee lee) resident turd polisher) (resident moron) keep up the BS you keep putting out with your "ditto" key and you may not have a "say" if you stay or not. Hint hint.
Good thing I am not in charge here as there would be far fewer kos kiddie rejects.

Psssst did Jay get anyone's attention?
(yeah I know he can kick off as well but he has not told me to cool it. When he does ,I will.

Let's see....In th... (Below threshold)

Let's see....

In the original post, Lori links to two pieces -- one about the role of bloggers in Presidential campaigns, written by her, in which she references "Marcotte, who was well known for her caustic, profanity-laced attacks on those with whom she disagrees. Not only did Marcotte come under fire for being a potty mouth, but also for anti-Christian, specifically anti-Catholic, statements."

Lee, can you say that Lori's statement is a lie? Does not Marcotte have a "potty mouth?" Does she not make anti-Catholic or anti_christian statements?

The other piece is from Mary Katherine Ham, in which she opines about the matter in measured words and accurately quotes MCEWAN pridefully referring to herself as "Queen Cunt of Fuck Mountain."

Now, common sense reality tells me that both of these "women," prideful as they are of the words they publish in their names, must live with the public's reaction to them -- right, left and center. To quote them, link to them and give commentary on their words cannot be deemed a "smear campaign" by any person exercising an ounce of intellectual hinesty, much less sanity.

For Lee or Bryan or anyone else to call these posts a "smear campaign" just simply doesn't pass the "HA-HA" test. And their assertion is all the more preposterous when Lee employs (as is his habit) the word "lying," as though Marcotte or McEwan didn't actually say the things they are accused of saying.

Commenters are correct that few people read these sources of information, so, we ask, why is this important?

It is important because the words that few people read here become the words that people read outside of the blogosphere. And Lee, Bryan and others ought to have at least a hint of concern as to what the reaction of the "average voter," center-left or center-right, is going to have when s/he learns that this first-tier candidate for President JUDICIOUSLY decided that he would, after all, employ two women who say the things that they say in public.

If Lee, Bryan et als think that their precious Democratic majority will be expanded and consolidated by advocates like Marcotte and McEwan, then I say let them loose, sit back, and watch the train wreck.

"Lee, if you think alien... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Lee, if you think alienating those of the Christian faith that also identify themselves as Democrats are the correct path to the White House you're mistaken."

What I think won't matter much in the long run, I admit that. What I said in my very first comment was "Whether there is any lasting effect on Edwards will be shown when the next set of polls come out."

We'll be able to see how many Democrats have been effected by this controversy by seeing the changes, if any, in Edwards polling numbers. Maybe you're right, maybe I'm right. We'll see.

wavemaker, I wonder if you ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

wavemaker, I wonder if you would answer this question for us:

It's clear that as soon as the Edwards campaign announced the hiring of Amanda and Melissa, elements of the Right began combing through their old posts for anything they could turn into a scandal. Nobody on the Left appears to have done the same to Hynes, Ruffini, or Henke. Anyone who has been blogging very long at all is bound to have written a few things that come across badly or turned out to be wrong. Yet we don't bother to do to them what they do to us. Why is that?
Wavemaker writes;<blo... (Below threshold)
John:

Wavemaker writes;

To quote them, link to them and give commentary on their words cannot be deemed a "smear campaign" by any person exercising an ounce of intellectual hinesty, much less sanity.

For Lee or Bryan or anyone else to call these posts a "smear campaign" just simply doesn't pass the "HA-HA" test.

Well, yes... Actually, it does because the smear campaign is against Edwards, but the quotes are from other people.

This is an innuendo type smear based on guilt by association.

The late Ann Richards diagramed the anatomy of this type of smear, which goes as follows... "Well, I heard that Ann Richards had a lesbian working in her office, and those lesbians you know have short hair. They also tend to associate with others of that "sort of moral character". Now, Ann Richards has short hair, and I'm not making judgments, or jumping to conclusions, but you know...."

She also diagrammed the smear done on John McCain during the Republican primary of 2000. "Well I heard John McCain has a colored child. It's just disgusting how many children are born out of wedlock these days. I've also noticed that we've gotten a lot more lax about dating "those kind of people" in this country, even though I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, you know. Anyway, don't you find it a little odd that John would have a little colored baby? Now, bless your heart, I'm not suggesting that anything Improper happened, but it certainly does make one wonder..."

That's how it works.

Considering all the hammering on "Breck Boy", and all the talk about his "Mansion" lately, yeah I'd say it is a smear against him, and not just idle chatter about a couple of bloggers. And I'd say that passes the "Ha-Ha" test if you're honest....

John, I introduced the "gui... (Below threshold)

John, I introduced the "guilty by association" remark well before you did. As I said then:

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.

The dhimmis seem a bit test... (Below threshold)
Jo:

The dhimmis seem a bit testy in here tonight, so the Edwards deal, and Pelosi HUGE scandal must be taking a toll.

Sweeeeet!

This is O/T but have you gu... (Below threshold)
Jo:

This is O/T but have you guys seen the CNN Charlize Theron video where she basically equates the lack of freedoms in Cuba with lack of freedoms in the U.S. Oh yeah, baby, she said it.

Even the CNN anchor (who you know is a lefty) was basically like "WTF??????"

She changed the subject quickly because I think she realized how stupid she sounded.

Talk about one dumb blonde. But actually she's no different than the typical lefty. Geeeze it's embarrasing to be a dhimmocrat.

Jonot half as emba... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Jo

not half as embarrassing as to be you!

Jay Tea writes;<block... (Below threshold)
John:

Jay Tea writes;

John, I introduced the "guilty by association" remark well before you did.

Not just said the phrase, but advanced that actual type of argument... "Is it unfair to ask...?" Yours is a pretty good example of this type of dishonest line of reasoning.

Jay Tea writes;<block... (Below threshold)
John:

Jay Tea writes;

John, I introduced the "guilty by association" remark well before you did.

Not just said the phrase, but advanced that actual type of argument... "Is it unfair to ask...?" Yours is a pretty good example of this type of dishonest line of reasoning.

BrianWhat is your op... (Below threshold)

Brian
What is your opinion of Marcotte's comments about the Duke Lacrosse Team case? See my comment above.

Why do they come here, time... (Below threshold)
robert the original:

Why do they come here, time after time to complain that Pelosi and Edwards are not topical and to hijack every thread to Iraq? Why? It just doesn't make any sense; there are plenty of posts here on Iraq. There are other blogs.

Why are they almost always first in on a thread? Do they have nothing else to do or is there a hover feature that I don't know about? How can it be that someone is so fixated on hijacking each and every Wizbang thread that they can do nothing other than make dozens of comments while ignoring everything else in their life?

You call that a life?

Do you think Jay, that they are conflicted? How else can it be that they pop up every ten minutes spewing the same ol', same ol'? Why not just go to KOS and get their daily fix, why come here and do nothing but complain?

A day in the "life":

There he sits, alone with the computer, the inner turmoil barely contained. Something is wrong deep inside but he cannot reach it, like an itch than cannot be scratched. "Bush lied" he writes, but the monster down there knows the evidence cannot be reconciled with it. "BUSH LIED" he writes again, this time in caps, but the peace will not come. It will be drugs again this night, and still he will wake up screaming.

Tomorrow he will be drawn to Wizbang again to try to exorcise the demons. He is forced to return, driven back again and again. He thinks he comes because it is blue, but we know that so many comments per day are a sign of the condition that torments him. Over and over the same words are typed - no breaks, no letdown, the voices say.

Faster and faster he writes, and stronger the words, sustained now only by fingertip bandages, pocket lint and light from the candles of the Jane Fonda shrine in the corner. "Compelled" is not the word; this is lib programming - something beyond even medical science. Force out the words and pound out the sentences, or be consumed by the power of the beast. The horror, the sheer panic as he realizes that it is no longer a choice; he must return, he has to return. He is now so twisted he can see nothing wrong with Edward's bloggers; he is them.

As his breathing shallows, the butt cheeks constrict as the mind bends to the power of the insanity that lurks and the circular logic. If only he can repeat the same old thing a few more times salvation will come he hopes, but the descent is inexorable.

Soon they will come and take him away, he knows, and then all the injections and the sessions. "Bush lied" he whispers one last time, the darkness closing in.

" ususally ignore trolls, b... (Below threshold)
FMK:

" ususally ignore trolls, but since this troll keeps gettitng thrown in my face let me answer this one time.

Check the time on Lorie's post: 4:24pm

Check the time on my first comment: 5:14pm

I don't know how accurate those timestamps are - I don't usually pay any attention to them, but according to timestamps I commented 50 minutes after Lorie's post went up. I read the post, and I commented. I don't try to be first, but often am.

Why? I don't know. You'd be better off asking why does everyone else wait for someone else to comment first? Beats me..."

That right there is funny, I don't care who you are !!

Not in the way you intended it, but funny none the less.

Is there any way to have th... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Is there any way to have the name of the rant-maker at the TOP of the rant? That way we could just skip past the utterly predictable commie sounding ones (you all know who you are.) Could our left/socialist/communist commenters please stick to du or dailyKos or Marcotte or Tbogg or the other vile blogs, and leave the decent ones for decent folks?

Puke, Lee, Hugh, John et al... (Below threshold)
Tony:

Puke, Lee, Hugh, John et al:

Why do you feel the need to derail almost every thread you post on? There are certainly forums and other blogs you could post on, why not do that? If you're so pissed that Wizbang is 'lying or distorting the truth' all the time, why not email them instead of publicly disrupting things? Or better yet, why not realize that the internet is a place where you're capable of hearing and things you don't agree with? Wizbang doesn't advocate violence. They don't advocate hate. They cover a topic they choose to in a way that you don't agree with, so what? Let it go homies, accept it and quit stifling debate by volume raising your whining talking points and one-liners.

Lately Lee and Hugh have been raising points instead of slinging snark, and I understand that being a less-well represented voice on a blog is grating, but they're trying and I like that. THey're realizing that conservatives, when approached in a civil way in the spirit of debate, enjoy doing so.

But come on. All the derailment of the conversation is seriously weaksauce; Wizbang writers will never be as omnipresent with their commentary as you are with your antics, and I hate to break it to you but certainly every little nit you want to pick is being discussed as we speak on a blog somewhere. Have some respect for people who want to discuss the thread topic at hand, please.

In short, Jay and the other Wizbang writers don't go to where you live and shit on your lawn dozens of times every day, why do you do it to them?

It is so amusing to see how... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

It is so amusing to see how the liberals care about honesty and not misleading. Liberals promoted, enabled, and participated in a campaign of lies with their hero Wilson. Oops, Dan Rather just made a mistake in Rathergate, you know. This is the standard mode of operation for liberals. Wilson, Kerry, Eason Jordan, Clinton, Carter... These liberal standard bearers didn't mislead, lie, or smear!

Note to Wizbang: To avoid y... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Note to Wizbang: To avoid your position being over-run next time, General Longstreet would advise a leap-frogging flanking maneuver to dilute the "enemy's" point of attack . In cyber-space this can be accomplished by POSTING MORE THAN ONE ARTICLE. lee, aR, and brian were practically racing each other to "take" the king.(jay tea: sublingual B-12, and 10 minutes/day with any weights you can find at a garage sale. Buy the weights; speed-lift to exhaustion; nice buzz results! lasts all day)

What is your opinion of ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

What is your opinion of Marcotte's comments about the Duke Lacrosse Team case?

I'm not familiar with them. If you'd like to post a link, I'll gladly respond.

robert the original, good o... (Below threshold)
Brian:

robert the original, good one. Substitute "shit for brains" for "Bush lied", and that's exactly how I've always pictured jhow66.

By the way, you should be prepared to be attacked for an off-topic post.

I went over and read a bit ... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

I went over and read a bit of both bloggers' stuff, even though neither one is my cup of tea. You know, giving it a chance, spending about an hour on each blog trying to figure out why any politician would request the services of either.

Over at Pandagon, one example was that they were really struggling with the notion of asserting blame on the pilots in the recent friendly fire incident (and the comments, well, aren't worth commenting on).

At Shakespeare's Sister, it appears to me to be the same blog with a slightly different clique and extremely similar content which is no surprise (and yes, I know that right-leaning blogs do that too).

It's kind of neat that bloggers are being more and more integrated into the process with each new election cycle. On the other hand, I'd say that if this is the best that Edwards and his staff can do, I'm already convinced that other than mobilizing the base, it will be mostly ineffective (unless Edwards owns a cat or two).

Ok, so the discussion up to this point is the quality of the content that they will be able to provide, and their history as well. Perhaps it's a better idea to have someone drive this type of media for you if they have had no "logged" history of their opinions for others to slog through and use against them.

I want to make sure I got t... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I want to make sure I got this straight:

A gay man at a WH press briefing with a daily pass anybody who claims to be a reporter and is unarmed can get is a massive scandal and something to attack the Bush administration on in absurd ways.

But, when Edwards has two bloggers he is paying with a lengthy history of hate-laced commentary, asking if it's OK for him to hire somebody he KNOWS does this is somehow unfair and out-of-bounds?

Tough. I PRAY Edwards wins the nomination because the ads slamming him will basically make themselves. Simply put what his bloggers wrote and mention that Edwards was made fully aware of their comments and decided to keep them employed, which shows that he does not feel they are terribly out of line.

Well, yes... Actually, it does because the smear campaign is against Edwards, but the quotes are from other people.

People he HIRED, was made FULLY AWARE of what they did, and kept them on the payroll.

I mean, people like you expected Bush to run a background check on Gannon. The Boston papers apparently expected Mitt Romney to run background checks on employees of a landscaping company he contracted to take care of his property. But Edwards hiring two bloggers with a lengthy and quite public history of hate-laden blogging is just not a fair condemnation?

So, if, say, Giuliani hired Coulter, you'd be on the frontline saying it's unfair to criticize Rudy for hiring her, right?

I, well, doubt that.

To avoid your position being over-run next time, General Longstreet would advise a leap-frogging flanking maneuver to dilute the "enemy's" point of attack . In cyber-space this can be accomplished by POSTING MORE THAN ONE ARTICLE.

Well, true, Wizbang could go the leftie route of posting numerous "open comment posts" --- but the writers here actually try to put THOUGHT into their posts and try to avoid repeating one another, so multiple articles on the same topic with the same viewpoint is hardly a good idea.

And the likes of you simply change the subject. "Well, what about (x)?" as if x has ANY bearing on Edwards hiring bigots for his campaign and standing by them when called on it.
-=Mike
...they also are FAR less prone to pull the ban hammer or delete your posts, unlike the bastions o' free speech that IS lefty blogs...

Well, true, Wizbang coul... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

Well, true, Wizbang could go the leftie route of posting numerous "open comment posts

If I wanted that, I would go to Atrios. Ugh.

Edwards simply decided to c... (Below threshold)

Edwards simply decided to cast his dice on the side of the virulently anti-Christian left, and against the many Christians who are Democrats. While the GOP has made strong gains among Catholic voters since Reagan, a plurality of Catholics still identify themselves as Democrats.

I object to the characterization of the gyno-warrioresses hired by Edwards as being "anti-Catholic," though. I'm not Catholic, but I was offended by several of the screeds posted by both of them. They are "anti-Christian," not just "anti-Catholic.'

~~~~~~~~~~

MikeSC: Yes, we are very reluctant to edit or delete posts or to ban commenters. Our patience, however, is not without limit.

Commenters are urged to stay on topic, and to maintain some level of courtesy. Those who cannot bring themselves to do so can find many other places to practice their "art."

Uh, what was the topic agai... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Uh, what was the topic again?

MikeSC, "open comments post... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

MikeSC, "open comments posts":bleeech!, but a link to like-minded "friendlies" could present a more robust front to aggressors: look at Malkin. A short intro + link x _ = not a care in the world! (ladeeda!). Ex.// Obama: black or wigger?// Duelists for Hillary's Heart: Murdoch vs. Soros// Team Gore Meets Behind Boss's Back? Why?//...these are real stories that could split the opposition and they're not TOO trumped-up.

Back to Edwards and his dec... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Back to Edwards and his decision ....

There's the question of "right" and the question of "smart". Anyone has the "right" to do something terminally stupid - that's not the question. Is the decision to hire these two "smart"?

If he wants to get elected, the answer - obviously - is "NO".

We aren't talking about the opinions of his caterers or image consultant. We are talking about the people he hired to COMMUNICATE for his campaign. Now, he has forced them to issue a half-assed apology for their previous writings -which was an even stupider decision for him to make, BTW - they are even more marginalized.

If he liked their message, then he should have supported them. If he didn't, then he should have 1) not hired them in the first place or 2) fired them later. By forcing them to back away from their earlier writing, he created the question 'can we trust what they really say or will it be whitewashed later?' As a female professional, I am astounded the two women caved so quickly on their professional integrity.

As to whether their writings will matter to those who may have voted for Edwards ... we have already seen that it has. A major Catholic organization - not affliated with the man who started the stink - also came out against the decision.

In my own case, I have family members who have indicated an interest in Edwards. If the two are still affiliated with Edwards when the time comes - and I don't expect they will last that long - I will simply hand those family members a copy of the women's writing. It won't cost the Democrats a vote, but it will absolutely cost Edwards votes. Most of my family are committed Catholics (I am not) and all are less tolerant of the language used than even I am.

To our resident commentators who still seem to want to control what is discussed - and not discussed - on this blog ... is it the instructions for Blogger than have you confused? Is that why you haven't taken the step to start your own place where you can control every word spoken? If that's the problem, we would be glad to help explain the instructions to you. :-)

aRepukelican ... glad to see you continue with your attacks on any women who dares to disagree with your opinion. Always nice to see what feminism really means to a self-avowed liberal.

Lee ... You may want to actually READ the article on Jamil Hussein. If the question is "Who is Steve Brown?", an article saying we found "Jim Smith" really DOESN'T answer the question.

As to Nancy Pelosi and the Somoan workers getting paid less than minimum wage. Yes, we understand that it was a decision made prior.

The fact you continue to defend the decision, however, is what makes you a complete hypocrite.

If we were to believe what you have said - the Democrats have an overwhelming majority, Nancy Pelosi is a extremely powerful woman, and the Democrats care about the less powerful people in this country - then you have created a different question.

Where's the legislation sponsored by Pelosi seeking to overturn the previous decision and cover Somoan workers with the minimum wage law?

Anyone with a 6th grade education in American goverment knows (or at least, should know) that she can create and submit that legislation. WHERE is it?

As long as you keep following back on your 'it's not her fault", argument, you invalidate the majority you claim and her authority as a powerful female leader.

If Edwards got cowed down b... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

If Edwards got cowed down by these two cretins, how would he do as CinC? What a wimp! Reminds me of his "I Feel Pretty" video on youtube. He is toast--and good riddance.

Lee, Brian -- as usual, you... (Below threshold)

Lee, Brian -- as usual, you ignore a direct answer to a direxct question. We are all used to that.

But on your absurd insistence to claim that this post is a SMEAR of Edwards, the point is simply that "this first-tier candidate for President JUDICIOUSLY decided that he would, after all, employ two women who say the things that they say in public."

If you believe that is not, in itself, something that the MAINSTREAM folks in this country would raise their eyebrows at, then your are, I believe, out of touch with the mainstream.

BrianHere is a link<... (Below threshold)
My, my how the lefties are ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

My, my how the lefties are upset. Why? Apparantly one of the bloggers ranted about God's white sticky stuff getting Mary the mother of Jesus, whom the Catholic church reveres is only a harmless statement. Edwards is right, keep them on his payroll. I will tell you why the RNC has not made too big a deal of this. They are waiting for Edwards to gain momentum and then talk about these vile women and throw in the facts about his other America his new house is built in. But the RNC should not wait too long, Hillary will surely use this issue for the Catholic vote. I have to add that I am strongly hoping Edwards is the Demo's candidate for Pres. I cannot wait. ww

wavemaker: "Lee, Brian -... (Below threshold)
Lee:

wavemaker: "Lee, Brian -- as usual, you ignore a direct answer to a direxct question"

Break me a give, wavey.

Last night I noticed your question directed to me right after I posted my comment at February 9, 2007 08:34 PM above. Your question was posted as I was writing my 8:34pm comment.

I composed a reply right then, but when I tried to submit the comment I kept getting "time out" errors from the Wizbang blogging software. Apparently I wasn't the only one, because you'll note that there aren't *any* comments between 8:34pm and 9pm, and then they start up with the same frequency as before my comment at 8:34.

Thanks for posting the smear against me, claiming I was avoiding the question. It was a minor smear - I'm not complaining -- but it illustrates so well the tactics being employed by the smearing and lying right. Next week LoveAmericaImmigrant will be whining about "the time Lee avoided direct questions on the Edwards thread" as the smear becomes a "fact".

I saved the comment I composed yesterday in response to your question, but thanks again for this perfect example.

wavemaker: "And their as... (Below threshold)
Lee:

wavemaker: "And their assertion is all the more preposterous when Lee employs (as is his habit) the word "lying," as though Marcotte or McEwan didn't actually say the things they are accused of saying."

As you know, but have somehow avoided saying, I didn't say this post was a lie, I said it was a smear. I also said that lying and smearing was becoming commonplace, was a sign of desperation, and in subsequent comments I pointed to other instances where smears and lies have been thrown around the blogosphere, and I cited specific examples and provided links.

So far, the only possible lie I'm aware of is that the Marcotte or McEwan (I don't remember which) had previous blog posts which had "disappeared", and the lie I read was that they had erased and "purged" them - when in fact they've explained that there was a blogging software database crash which erased some previous blog posts.

That's perfectly logical, and in fact I've had it happen to me, so I believe their statement that they were erased and purged is quite possibly a lie.

If this "lie' follows the usual and common course - it will be pushed around the internet as if it was a "fact" until the blogger's ISP manager produces a log or some other proof that it really was a database crash.

Push the lie and smear around the internet, unsubstantiated by any evidence whatsoever, until it's proven to be a lie - then move on to the next lie and smear. That's the M.O. of conservative bloggers today.

I'll link to the "purged" meme later tonight or this weekend. Got to run now.
-----

I wrote that last night, wavey, and I don't think I'll bother looking up and linking to the purged meme right now, but instead wait for the next Edwards smear on Wizbang.

I think my point has been made, and maybe the next time I come across the purge lie I will grab a link and share it with you then. Maybe not. There are so many lies to debunk that are being thrown around the Internet by conservative liars -- and so little time. I've spent enough time on this one for now.

Have a great weekend.

It's hilarious how cons can... (Below threshold)
Reality:

It's hilarious how cons can clutch their pearls in faux outrage over things that they do themselves daily on this blog.

Face it, John Edwards pwned you guys. He just gave you a big middle finger and said you smear merchants don't matter.

The truth is, you don't.

Lee, you either have thin s... (Below threshold)

Lee, you either have thin skin or a truncated vocabulary. I "smear" you by calling you out for not answering a question directly? And then you go off in a comment that -- again -- doesn't answer my questions directly. And you want me to give you a break?

You continue to repeat ad nauseam words like "hateful, "lying" and "smearing" in your comments -- in this case when the post EXCEEDINGLY FAIRLY calls out Edwards for JUDICIOUSLY deciding to employ these two people -- and then duck the main issue.

Oh, sorry -- you too.... (Below threshold)

Oh, sorry -- you too.

So far, the only possibl... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

So far, the only possible lie I'm aware of is that the Marcotte or McEwan (I don't remember which) had previous blog posts which had "disappeared", and the lie I read was that they had erased and "purged" them - when in fact they've explained that there was a blogging software database crash which erased some previous blog posts.

Marcotte wrote publicly she was deleting the comments and posts since people were making a big deal out of them.

UPDATE: Since people are determined to make hay over this quick shot of a post, I'm deleting it and here's my official stance. The prosecution in the Duke case fumbled the ball. The prosecutor was too eager to get a speedy case and make a name for himself. That is my final word.
http://pandagon.net/2007/01/21/stuck-at-the-airport-again/

You were saying, Lee?
-=Mike

I believe it would help mat... (Below threshold)

I believe it would help matters tremendously if we could find a common definition of the word "smear."

According to me and, apparently, several others, it means to "make false or misleading defamatory statements against someone."

To Lee, "Reality," and their ilk, it means "to make someone look bad, even if it's by simply repeating accurately their own words, or the words of those they have chosen to represent them."

To our side, "smear" and "slander" and "libel" have one thing in common: "truth is an absolute defense."

To the other side, "truth" is irrelevant. If it's done by their political opponents, and it makes one of their own look bad, it's a "smear."

The real shame is that if there's any "smearing" going on, it was done by the Edwards campaign staffers who had the brilliant idea to hire on these two guttermouths. But it's so much easier to just shoot the messengers, isn't it?

J.

Yes, J, there should be a d... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Yes, J, there should be a definition of a smear. Oh, wait I know. How about when a extreme right wing blog with the initials WBB parrots a Washington Times article about the Speaker of the House that has been thoroughly discredited, even by the opposition White House?

How about if said blog refuses to retract?

Oh wait, how about if the same blog smears AP by claiming it's source didn't exist, and when the source is proven to exist, move the goalposts?

How about if said blog again refuses to retract?

Lets start our definitions of smear from here, shall we?

Lee, Brian -- as usual, ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Lee, Brian -- as usual, you ignore a direct answer to a direxct question.

Please justify your accusation by pointing out the direct question that I ignored. Or is your post "faked"?

Sorry Brian -- I was mistak... (Below threshold)

Sorry Brian -- I was mistaken. The original questions were to Lee only.

Yes, J, there should be ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Yes, J, there should be a definition of a smear. Oh, wait I know. How about when a extreme right wing blog with the initials WBB parrots a Washington Times article about the Speaker of the House that has been thoroughly discredited, even by the opposition White House?

All you have to do is point to one single factual inaccuracy.

The gov't has smaller planes that can handle the demands Pelosi has. A Gulfstream G550 can go about 5,000 mi and can be set up for all of Nancy's communications needs at a fraction of the $600,000 per round trip cost of her current aircraft.

A "smear" should include, you know, factual inaccuracy. Just because the government does not wish to make a stink does not mean that it is peachy.

Oh wait, how about if the same blog smears AP by claiming it's source didn't exist, and when the source is proven to exist, move the goalposts?

They didn't move the goalposts. That Hussein couldn't be found to exist was the LEAST of the problem. The stories he was the basis for were the problem and they've been proven to be false.

Lets start our definitions of smear from here, shall we?

How about when people claim that the WH intentionally allowed a gay reporter to lob softball questions at press conferences and implied there was some grand conspriacy with the WH to allow that.

Would that qualify?
-=Mike

Lee, Brian -- as usual, ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Lee, Brian -- as usual, you ignore a direct answer to a direxct question. We are all used to that.

By the way, it is YOU who ignored a direct question. Typical rightie behavior, though. Engage in behavior while baselessly slamming the left for that behavior. But we are all used to that.

All you have to do is po... (Below threshold)
Brian:

All you have to do is point to one single factual inaccuracy.

OK, how about the repeated assertions, even in the face of denials, that Pelosi requested a larger aircraft? The facts are otherwise.

Does that count?

I haven't scanned this thre... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I haven't scanned this thread recently, and don't know if it was mentioned already, but the recent smear of Obama over his early education is a classic smear, and another one that was roundly debunked. This smear originated with the Washington Times-related Insight Magazine. the same Washington Times that pushed the lie about Pelosi's plane.

Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a "madrassa" are not accurate, according to CNN reporting.

Insight Magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times, reported on its Web site last week that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.

Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and stepfather and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school, but an aide said it was not a madrassa. (Watch video of Obama's school )

Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim.

Lorie has link in her post above on the topic of inaccuracy and bias in the media -- does it mention the recent outright lies from any of these conservative publications?

No. That would be honest and show integrity. You won't find that coming from many conservative bloggers these days....

What is your opinion of ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

What is your opinion of Marcotte's comments about the Duke Lacrosse Team case?

If I understood them correctly, which was difficult because it's pretty poor writing, my opinion is that she foolishly drew a opinionated conclusion without paying proper attention to the facts. Kind of like so many posts on here.

OK, how about the repeat... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

OK, how about the repeated assertions, even in the face of denials, that Pelosi requested a larger aircraft? The facts are otherwise.

Does that count?

Again, there were plenty of military aircraft that could have done the job for much less money and with much less pollution.

She CHOSE that one.

So it is a COMPLETELY accurate story.

Lorie has link in her post above on the topic of inaccuracy and bias in the media -- does it mention the recent outright lies from any of these conservative publications?

Hillary --- as ALL the other candidates --- have investigators out digging up dirt. Her people came up with this (and unless you can name who actually DID come up with this as the editor of Insight has said, more than once, they repeated what was said to them, the charge remains valid). Insight repeated what her people said, not because they believed it, but because (again, according to the EDITOR of the magazine), they were fascinated by what the Dems were going to do to each other.
-=Mike

You continue to repeat a... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You continue to repeat ad nauseam words like "hateful, "lying" and "smearing" in your comments -- in this case when the post EXCEEDINGLY FAIRLY calls out Edwards for JUDICIOUSLY deciding to employ these two people

To me, the "smear" (perhaps not the right word) is not that the bloggers are being called on what they wrote. It's that you are focusing on Edwards' employ of bloggers who wrote stupid things, while ignoring those on the right who did the exact same thing with nary a raised eyebrow. Does that seem "exceedingly fair" to you?

Again, there were plenty... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Again, there were plenty of military aircraft that could have done the job for much less money and with much less pollution.

She CHOSE that one.

LOL! OK, now you're just lying. Pelosi was offered a choice of aircraft? Where did you read that?

When asked to produce an inaccuracy, I do, and you just make up a new fact that doesn't exist and contradicts the real facts. Looks like "fake but inaccurate" is your new sweet spot.

Read Livingood's quote again. "The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft..."

Pelosi didn't "choose" anything. And I challenge you to reveal a factual statement that she did. Or, you can post another invented lie, just for entertainment purposes. Or, I suppose you could just admit you were wrong.

LOL! OK, now you're just... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

LOL! OK, now you're just lying. Pelosi was offered a choice of aircraft? Where did you read that?

There are a LARGE number of aircraft that we own. It's not like they said "You have to take Air Force Two". You really think the military chose THAT plane for her?

Funny.

When asked to produce an inaccuracy, I do, and you just make up a new fact that doesn't exist and contradicts the real facts. Looks like "fake but inaccurate" is your new sweet spot.

No, you don't. You cite Snow saying it's not a big deal as "proof" that it's not a big deal. The administration also didn't choose to throw the book at Berger, even thought it was justified and they have not really done much to the leakers of classified info even though it, too, was justified.

Read Livingood's quote again. "The fact that Speaker Pelosi lives in California compelled me to request an aircraft..."

He did not request THAT SPECIFIC AIRCRAFT. Hate to break it to you. SHE chose that SPECIFIC AIRCRAFT. There are other options that provide all she needs for much less money.

Pelosi didn't "choose" anything. And I challenge you to reveal a factual statement that she did. Or, you can post another invented lie, just for entertainment purposes. Or, I suppose you could just admit you were wrong.

What was said:
"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"

Not "I requested this flying palace". He did not request that specific plane, AGAIN, because there are NUMEROUS planes we own that can do the job. He requested an aircraft that can go cross-country. The one she chose was just one of the most expensive and luxurious ones we own that can do it.

SHE chose that plane.

Stop lying about it.
-=Mike

BRIAN -- you see a question... (Below threshold)

BRIAN -- you see a question there I didn't answer? I don't. You mean about the "black baby?" I though your remark was rhetorical, it was so silly.

As for the right wing blogger??

"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."

OH MY GAWWWWWWD say it isn't so!!

Posting Waxman's photo and inviting captions? Juvenile behavior, to be sure -- I didn't (and wouldn't) defend it.

And the bloggers haven't written "stupid things." They wrote vile, despicable things.

I have no problem with both Edwards and McCain being asked to defend or censure their respective agents' conduct, and in being held accountable for their judgment as to how they decide to act.

You have a problem with Edwards being held accountable for deciding to hire these folks having learned what they have written? That was the original question that hasn't been answered yet.

And, wave, blaming Hynes fo... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

And, wave, blaming Hynes for his commenters postings is hardly fair. NOBODY is asking Amanda to take responsibility for what HER commenters say because it's not under their control to any great degree.
-=Mike

Question--if you stuck an a... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Question--if you stuck an apple in Waxman's mouth, what would he look like?

MikeSC: "Hillary --- as ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

MikeSC: "Hillary --- as ALL the other candidates --- have investigators out digging up dirt. Her people came up with this (and unless you can name who actually DID come up with this as the editor of Insight has said, more than once, they repeated what was said to them, the charge remains valid)"

WHAT? If a liar continues to re[eat the lie then it must be the truth? LOL!

Insight made it up, Mike, -- so I don't think anyone has or can be named as the source.

Show me, Mike, where the editor of insight has named the source, and not just rpeeated their fraudulent, lying claim. Everything I've read continues to say otherwise.

Prove it.

Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim.

He called the story "an obvious right-wing hit job."

An obvious right-wing hit job. Hammer, meet nail head.

Obvious to everyone except kool-aid gulping MikeSC, but since Mike is so confident that Insight named the source, it shouldn't take long for him to show us a link and quote, right Mike?

Lee, hope you're having a l... (Below threshold)

Lee, hope you're having a lovely weekend.

Do you have a problem with Edwards being criticized for deciding to hire these folks, once having learned what they have written?

Not at all, waveguy. There ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Not at all, waveguy. There are people will who criticize candidates no matter what they do. Speaking our minds, including criticism, is healthy. I think freedom of religion, and the right of U.S. citizens to freely express themselves regarding religious issues, is good. Apprently so does Edwards.

"Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else," Edwards said. "But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake."

The two women put out statements in which they offered apologies if they had offended anyone but defended their right to speak their minds.

"Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact," Marcotte wrote."

Personally, I found what they wrote was disgusting. I wouldn't allow those bloggers to speak like that for me, and neither will Edwards.

How do you feel about freedom of religion and freedom of speech in the United States, wavey? Aren't these bloggers entitled to their opinion, even it it differs greatly from your or mine, or even if they express it in terms you or I find offensive?

It's still their right, right? --- but Edwards has made it clear that it will not be tolerated in his campaign. They don't speak for him -- but they have the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, I'm sure you agree with that.

And another question back a... (Below threshold)
Lee:

And another question back at you, wavemaker (my weekend has been very relaxing, I hope your is as well).

I'm not an expert in employment law, although I am somewhat knowledgeable as a result of many years spent managing and supervising departments with very large staffs. I'm don't know what your experience in the area is, but do you think Edwards firing those bloggers would have been legal, given that it is quite possible that what they wrote is protected speech, and they didn't write it under his employment?

Brian's notion of holding a... (Below threshold)

Brian's notion of holding a blogger responsible for the comments of readers has an implication that I seriously doubt he's considered.

By that principle, I am accountable for anything and everything posted as a comment to my pieces. Since I am responsible for the comments, perhaps -- in my own defense and self-interest -- I should go and alter and/or delete those that might reflect poorly on me. By that criteria, I should probably delete every single comment Brian has ever made on any of my pieces -- and he has pretty much committed himself to supporting that action.

So, Brian, should I fire up the delete key on your comments, just to prevent anyone from holding me accountable for what you say?

J.

Now we're actually getting ... (Below threshold)

Now we're actually getting somewhere.

Sure, Lee -- they can say anything they want, wherever they want (within rather startlingly broad limits!) I'
m not going to say that I support entirely the broad expanse of freedom of speech that SCOTUS has given over the years to, say, pornographers, but these people are entitled to make asses of themselves, by all means.

But what they have said, and what they stand for, will reflect on Edwards, because he has made a decision to have himself associated with them, and he accepts the benefits and disadvantages of that choice. He obviously made a calculated decision that it was more beneficial than detrimental. His calculation people are entitled to test.

(Regrettably, I think it is apparent that freedom of speech enjoys far more support than freedom of religion -- unless you're practicing something other than Christianity, but that's another debate and not your primary question.)

The First Amendment applies to the government, not to private parties, Lee. They could be fired for any reason at all that is a legal reason. Their speech (past or current) is not protected except against Government interference. Their gender, sexual orientation, race, etc are.

I'll give you an apt (I think) current example. If the chosen Miss America was found to have been a stripper before she entered the competition, she could be "fired." Now you can make distinctions between the two cases, but they are inapposite to the central point.

But we're not really going to assert that Edwards decided to keep them on staff because he was concerned about being sued for wrongful termination, are we. Of course not.

WHAT? If a liar continue... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

WHAT? If a liar continues to re[eat the lie then it must be the truth? LOL!

Insight made it up, Mike, -- so I don't think anyone has or can be named as the source.

Show me, Mike, where the editor of insight has named the source, and not just rpeeated their fraudulent, lying claim. Everything I've read continues to say otherwise.

Your own post cites them stating it came from Clinton's people.

Feel free to prove it didn't.

You're saying they made it up. They said where it came from. Since you're NOT them, who they said they got it from is of considerable more use than where you think they did.
-=Mike

MikeSC - Prove I haven't be... (Below threshold)
Lee:

MikeSC - Prove I haven't been told by an anonymous source that you are absolutely 100% wrong, and you privately admitted it to that source.

I'm not going to name my source, but prove my hidden, secret source didn't tell me that. Go ahead prove it....

You can't. You're suggestion to me is equally ridiculous. You can't prove it didn't happen -- the burden is on me to prove it did happen, and to do so I'd have to name the anonymous source. The same applies to Insight Magazine.

Wavemaker - I'm not sure you're correct in your assumption that wrongful termination would not apply to this instance, but I'm not an expert and can't prove you're wrong. The person(s) who definitely should be fired is whoever on Edwards's staff was responsible for screening and vetting these two bloggers.

We don't know if Edwards had any involvement in their hiring. My guess is he didn't. You'd agree, at a minimum, that it is highly unlikely that Edwards knew of the specific, objectionable writings of these two and still approved their hiring, right?

Brian -- absolutely pricele... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Brian -- absolutely priceless! What a great quote:

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."

That Mr. Hynes would be Patrick J.Hynes, hired by Senator McCain's campaign to be McCains' campaign blogger representative. "I would caution against holding candidates responsible for what their bloggers and blog consultants have said in the past."

Priceless. Has Lorie responed to your question asking if she had voiced an objection over Hynes?

wavemaker: "Their speech... (Below threshold)
Lee:

wavemaker: "Their speech (past or current) is not protected except against Government interference. Their gender, sexual orientation, race, etc are."

As is the freedom of religious expression.

Prove I haven't been tol... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Prove I haven't been told by an anonymous source that you are absolutely 100% wrong, and you privately admitted it to that source.

I'm saying your source didn't. Seeing as how I allegedly told the source that, you now have to prove I ACTUALLY did.

You can't. You're suggestion to me is equally ridiculous. You can't prove it didn't happen -- the burden is on me to prove it did happen, and to do so I'd have to name the anonymous source. The same applies to Insight Magazine.

Hillary's people leaked it. It's up to Hillary to dispute it. I am fairly sure she has not done so.

Priceless. Has Lorie responed to your question asking if she had voiced an objection over Hynes?

Hynes said we're a Christian nation. We only have history, tradition, and polls to show that. You can claim Christianity has no place here, but you know you'd be lying.

Feel free to point to him saying anything approaching what M & M said.
-=Mike

Mike ScAgain, at 2... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Mike Sc

Again, at 2:33 you repeat the lie about Pelosi and the plane after a link was provided a few posts prior.

You are the perfect example of the LYING SMEAR.

Note that I quoted what the... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Note that I quoted what the sergeant-at-arms said.

He asked for a plane to go cross-country.

THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT PLANE MODELS WE OWN THAT CAN DO THAT.

Pelosi CHOSE the most extravagant one.

I know you're going to hold on to your talking point until Glenn or somebody else gives you a new one, but actually READ the quote.

He NEVER said "I requested THIS plane". He said "I requested A plane that can go cross-country".

"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"

He was not going to make the choice as to which one for her. She could've chosen OTHER aircraft that could have easily gone cross country.

You've been thoroughly decimated thus far. Do you wish to continue getting handled?
-=Mike

Lee, yes, I would make the ... (Below threshold)

Lee, yes, I would make the assumption that he did not know of the content of their writings before they were hired -- and would even go further and say it wouldn't surprise me that he didn't even know that they were hired when they (thought they) were.

I think what makes this whole matter notable (to whomever cares to examine it outside of the blogosphere) is what happened when their writings were brought to his attention.

"Now tell me you didn't mean those things and that you are sorry and you'll never say them again."

"We're sowwy."
________________________

Lee, I have 25 years in litigation, six of which I was a state legislator involved (for part of that) in drafting the employment discrimination statute. That's the basis of my opinion.

I hire you to be my spokesman. Tomorrow, your homeroom teacher from 6th grade comes to me and tells me you announced every morning at the beginning of school, "I hate Jews." I fire you. You sue me.

I win -- unless you care to demonstrate that your expressions of hatred are a part and parcel of the exercise of your religion. For instance, you are a member of a bona fide religion that worships Queen Cunt of Fuck Mountain. Then you win.

Not that it doesn't cost me a coupla hunnert thousand for the vindication.

That's why my business insurance is so expensive.

No thanks to John Edwards.

And now we have come full circle!!

Isn't this fun!!

YeahWhere is the l... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Yeah

Where is the link showing that Pelosi chose and had used the "Flying Palace."

There are a LARGE number... (Below threshold)
Brian:

There are a LARGE number of aircraft that we own. It's not like they said "You have to take Air Force Two". You really think the military chose THAT plane for her?

Please cite any reported statement that Pelosi was given the option to choose any plane she wanted. Otherwise, stop making that up.

You cite Snow saying it's not a big deal as "proof" that it's not a big deal.

Nope, another lie from you. I never referred to Snow. I cited Livingood as stating unequivically that HE requested a new plane for Pelosi. Please cite any reported statement that Pelosi was given the option to choose any plane she wanted.

In fact, the Pentagon clearly stated that THEY would choose the plane:

On Wednesday, the Pentagon sent a letter to Pelosi's office with guidance about travel regulations. The letter said the military would make "every effort" to provide a non-stop flight to Pelosi's home district, but "such support is subject to aircraft type and availability and therefore may not always be guaranteed."

He did not request that specific plane... The one she chose was just one of the most expensive and luxurious ones we own that can do it.
SHE chose that plane.

Please cite any reported statement that Pelosi was given the option to choose any plane she wanted.

Otherwise, stop lying about it.

BRIAN -- you see a quest... (Below threshold)
Brian:

BRIAN -- you see a question there I didn't answer? I don't.

It's pretty clearly right there in my post. Perhaps you can find someone with better glasses to read it to you.

I have no problem with b... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I have no problem with both Edwards and McCain being asked to defend or censure their respective agents' conduct, and in being held accountable for their judgment as to how they decide to act.

Funny, I haven't seen any criticism of McCain from you, other than the sarcasm used to dismiss perhaps the least inflammatory thing his blogger did.

You have a problem with Edwards being held accountable for deciding to hire these folks having learned what they have written? That was the original question that hasn't been answered yet.

That question has been answered often. No, I don't. What I have a problem with is people like you calling Edwards to task as if you're the moral police and he's the anti-Christ, while never feeling the need to apply the same sense of oversight to those on the right.

Brian's notion of holdin... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian's notion of holding a blogger responsible for the comments of readers has an implication that I seriously doubt he's considered.

Huh? Jay, I think you need another nap. I haven't a clue what you're referring to. You're either misinterpreting something I said, or you're getting your reliable info from MikeSC. Or, you're just making stuff up again.

Note that I quoted what ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Note that I quoted what the sergeant-at-arms said.
He asked for a plane to go cross-country.
THERE ARE SEVERAL DIFFERENT PLANE MODELS WE OWN THAT CAN DO THAT.
Pelosi CHOSE the most extravagant one.

Where are you getting that from? You've been asked multiple times, Mike. No answer from you? I wonder why. Show a source... ANY source... that says Pelosi was offered a choice.

I know you're going to hold on to your talking point, but actually READ the quote.

He NEVER said "I requested THIS plane". He said "I requested A plane that can go cross-country".
He was not going to make the choice as to which one for her.

Who says there was a choice at all? You're correct, he requested "A plane". You're claiming the Pentagon's response was "well, Ms. Pelosi, we have a lovely selection of planes to choose from, feel free to send us your order when you've decided." When in reality, the Pentagon's response was "we'll do our best and give you whatever's available." That is a documented fact. Your "choice" claims are undocumented lies.

You've been thoroughly decimated thus far. Do you wish to continue getting handled?

Brian, YOU quoted this your... (Below threshold)

Brian, YOU quoted this yourself:

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.

So Mr. Hynes was being called to account for things his commenters said, and you are apparently in favor of it. As I said, by that principle, I should -- in my own self-defense -- go and purge comments that might reflect badly upon me. And if yours end up on the chopping block first, you should wholeheartedly support me.

J.

Descent into darkness, cont... (Below threshold)
robert the original:

Descent into darkness, continued...

You need a checkup if:

1) You think Pelosi would be just as happy on commercial.
2) You think the White House isn't spinning to be the good guy.
3) You think that the Sergeant at Arms isn't falling on his sword.
4) You think that bellicose threats from the Appropriations Chair are not about the maximum pressure Congress can bring.
5) You think that leaks printed in the New York Times are truer than leaks printed in the Washington Times.
6) You think there is any feminist angle here.
7) You think the Pentagon letter restricting to type and purpose was not in response to anything.
8) You think that debating yourself in a series of comments - at 4:00 AM - is not a sign of a crackup.

Lee,I do have some... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Lee,

I do have some HR experience and I would say Wavemaker is right in his assessment.

Based on what I have seen in the past of various campaigns, people serve the candidate "at will". In that case, they can be fired for any number of reasons legally. Certainly, someone hired for communication skills would and should be expected to not create communication problems for the candidate and, if they did, could be terminated.

Now, it is possible that Edward's campaign created some other type of employment contract with them. It certainly wouldn't be the smart thing to do, but it is possible.

The "at will" contract would also not protect the Edwards' campaign if there were some other occurrence that was actionable - such as sexual harassment.

But, based on just what we have seen so far, I would say he could have terminated them if he wanted to and probably not even have been sued.

brian, clean your <a href="... (Below threshold)

brian, clean your eyeglasses.

"I have no problem with both Edwards and McCain being asked to defend or censure their respective agents' conduct, and in being held accountable for their judgment as to how they decide to act."

wavemaker: "I hire you t... (Below threshold)
Lee:

wavemaker: "I hire you to be my spokesman. Tomorrow, your homeroom teacher from 6th grade comes to me and tells me you announced every morning at the beginning of school, "I hate Jews." I fire you. You sue me."

You hired me to be your spokeman, and as your spokesman and while under your employ I made remarks that were both innapropriate for that setting and not representative of your views -- so yes, you should fire me for that behavior. I don't think a wrongful termination suit would apply, and I have 25 years of supervision and management expertise, which includes union contract negotiation, administration, and arbitration (employer's side) and also have a fair amount of first-hand experience dealing with wrongful termination cases. I know what I'm talking about -- although I still admit I'm not an expert.

Marcotte and what's-her-name made their remakrs on their pesonal blogs - an appropriate place to express their personal views, and did not make those remarks while under Edwards employ as his spokesman.

Interesting glove, OJ, but it doesn't fit.

"I win -- unless you care to demonstrate that your expressions of hatred are a part and parcel of the exercise of your religion. For instance, you are a member of a bona fide religion that worships Queen Cunt of Fuck Mountain. Then you win."

Time to up the Tourette's medication dosage wavemaker -- but declaring yourself the winner also indicates that there are other problems that need attention as well. Good luck with those...

"And now we have come full circle!! Isn't this fun!!

I'm having a blast, glad you are as well. I couldn't stop laughing when I read your first paragraph:

Lee, yes, I would make the assumption that he did not know of the content of their writings before they were hired -- and would even go further and say it wouldn't surprise me that he didn't even know that they were hired when they (thought they) were.

I think what makes this whole matter notable (to whomever cares to examine it outside of the blogosphere) is what happened when their writings were brought to his attention.

Indeed -- and what Edwards did when it came to his attention was condemn their actions as not something he agrees with, and make clear it would not be permitted in connection with his campaign.

but tell me, wavey -- How do you feel about pedophiles?

When Congressman Foley's despicable, vile behavior was brought to Speaker Hastert's attention, how did he respond?

For clues let's tune the irony-detection machine at the rest of your first paragraph, where you characterized Edwards' reponse as...:

"Now tell me you didn't mean those things and that you are sorry and you'll never say them again."

"We're sowwy."

Which is exactly what Speaker Hastert did -- slapped Foley on the hand (or maybe it was a playful slap on his rump - that's my guess) and sent him on his way to practice his sick pedophilia on more young pages.

I'm sure that you were among those conservatives defending Hastert turning a blind eye towards Foley's absolutely untolerable behavior -- when correct-thinking people (like us liberals) were calling for Hastert's resignation over this, right?

And let me point out that it was Speaker Hastert's specific responsibility to deal with Foley over his behavior as a Congressman. It isn't Edwards' responsibiity to deal with the bloggers behaviour before he employed them.

Edwards did wrong, and Hastert didn't? Wow, be careful of that large gaping logic hole in your argument, amigo.

You're right - this is fun. Can't wait for you to throw more strawmen out there.

I know! Let's pretend that you employ a Secretary of Defense who's incompetence results in the death of thousand of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, -- along with our country's tremndous loss of stature and support in the world community -- all with a price tag approaching a trillion U.S, tax dollars.

Do you "stay the course" (just as Hastert did with Foley) and just let it continue as Bush did until the day after the election?

Edwards isn't "staying the course" and supporting the continuance of the behavior at issue here... Hastert and Bush did allow the wrongs to continue.

Advantage: Democrats.

Congratulations, Lee.... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Congratulations, Lee.

That may just be the most incoherent jumble of faulty logic and half-truths ever assembled here in one post. With BryanD about, that is saying something.

Other that call into question your claims to management experience, it didn't accomplish much, however.

Campaigns are notorious for ups and downs as the candidate's success ebbs and flows. If he hasn't built into everyone's employment the right to fire for no other reason than they need the money somewhere else, he is a fool.

While Edwards may have a near non-existent resume as a leader, he, by all accounts, was a successful lawyer. As such, I'm sure he has maximized his legal options in that case.

You mean straw men like....... (Below threshold)

You mean straw men like....Mark Foley?

Do you think that Hastert didn't receive his share of opprobrium from the right? House leadership's response to Foley could well have been the final straw in the '06 elections. You're sure I was one who defended Hastert?!? Why are you sure of that, Lee? Because obviously I must be one of those knee-jerk right wingers? Your presumptuousness knows no bounds. I condemn Hastert and anyone else who failed to act is that fiasco.

But I think your defense of Edwards falls flat. What he did was give them a pass. They assured him that they didn't mean the things they said. Give me a break. What they did was promise them they'd muzzle themselves (i.e., not put their despicable thoughts in print) for the forseeable future.

This habit you guys have of defending your peoples' behavior by saying "your guys do it too" is the weakest form of argument. Especially when you make the phony assumption that all right-wingers must have defended Hastert for his failure to do this or that.

If I thought that was an effective debating tool, I would remind you that Foley was only following the precedent established by (I'm sure) one of your lions of courage and bastions of probity, Gerry Studds -- but then we'd have to parse the difference between emails and actually sex, and that would get messy and uncomfortable.

I've got my answer from you. You're satisfied that Edwards did enough and you don't think Middle America should care that he has judiciously retained the services of people with vile despicable opinions of Christians so long as they say they won't do it anymore.

We'll see how Edwards's judgment is received in due time.

OV wrote: "That may just... (Below threshold)
Lee:

OV wrote: "That may just be the most incoherent jumble of faulty logic and half-truths ever assembled here in one post. Other that call into question your claims to management experience, it didn't accomplish much, however."

I'd like to say something like "It's evident from your arguments that you are an expert in jumbled logic, so I'm honored by your assessment, OhioVoter", but that kind of cheap, ad hominem attack serves no real purpose, and would only suggest that to engage in personal attacks, instead of atttacking the argument, signals a lack of the skills, knowledge, intelligence, and ability to debate the real issues any further --

-- so I'll just say "thanks OhioVoter!"

Waveydude: "You mean str... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Waveydude: "You mean straw men like....Mark Foley? Do you think that Hastert didn't receive his share of opprobrium from the right?

To condemn Edwards and defend Hastert is the height of hypocrisy, but conservative bloggers are doing just that. If i was incorrect in assuming you were a defender of Speaker Hastert, I stand corrected, and I humbly offer my apology.

"House leadership's response to Foley could well have been the final straw in the '06 elections."

I agree that it definitely played a big factor. the Republican/conservative tactics in response included smearing Democrats as being gay bashers determined to out gay Washingtonians -- remember that bit of smear?

It's the same tactic we see today with conservative bloggers smearing Edwards over this issue.

"But I think your defense of Edwards falls flat. What he did was give them a pass. They assured him that they didn't mean the things they said."

DING! My BS-ometer alarmed on that last line. Do you have a link or a quote to back up your claim that "they assured [Edwards] that they didn't mean it"? My understanding is they defended their right to say what they did -- not admit they did wrong.

"Give me a break. What they did was promise them they'd muzzle themselves (i.e., not put their despicable thoughts in print) for the forseeable future.

Agreed. Not doing it again is the right answer, in my opinion, and not "for the foreseeable future -- they assured him they would never do that in connection with their roles in his campaign.

"This habit you guys have of defending your peoples' behavior by saying "your guys do it too" is the weakest form of argument. Especially when you make the phony assumption that all right-wingers must have defended Hastert for his failure to do this or that."

Well, you got me on the assumption part, and I've apologized - but it isn't a matter of "you do it too" at all. It's a matter that you are being hypocritical claiming pious offense at Edwards actions in not fring them, when Hastert's actions in protecting Foley were equally if not more more offensive, and yet were widely defended by Republicans and conservatives.

What is shows is that the moral compass of politically-active conservatives (like Wizbang bloggers) seems to swing in whatever direction will do them the most political good on that particular day... much like President Bush defending Rumsfeld two weeks before the election, and firing him the day after the election.

Claiming to be the "Family Values" party, while your Speaker of the House permits actions like Foley's to continue, is obscenely obscene, in my view.

Objecting to Edwards actions, while linking to pornographic-like language on web pages which mock liberals, is obscenely obscene as well. Lorie did that, today. Jay defends her.

"If I thought that was an effective debating tool, I would remind you that Foley was only following the precedent established by (I'm sure) one of your lions of courage and bastions of probity, Gerry Studds -- but then we'd have to parse the difference between emails and actually sex, and that would get messy and uncomfortable.

Touche!, but are you really suggesting that Foley consciously followed Democratic precedent?

Or are you using the "you guys did it so it's ok for us to do it too" defense that you said was "the weakest form of argument" in your previous comment?

I've got my answer from you. You're satisfied that Edwards did enough and you don't think Middle America should care that he has judiciously retained the services of people with vile despicable opinions of Christians so long as they say they won't do it anymore."

I think their freedom of expression and freedom or religious views is, above all else, paramount. God bless America. I don't agree with what they said or the way they said it, and I've never said I don't think middle-America should care, and your statement that I do agree is a lie. Whether you have the huevos to admit that and set the record straight, and the integrity to apologize, is up to you.

In fact, in a previous comment to you -- in this thread I believe, I confirmed that middle-America, and anyone else who was offended ,has every right to criticize Edwards, didn't I?

"We'll see how Edwards's judgment is received in due time."

Exactly what I said in the very first comment I made on this issue. Edwards made a stand, as he condemned their language and actions and made it clear he would have none of it in his campaign, and he will pay the price for that stand whatever that price turns out to be.

People of integrity do that - it's an integral part of who they are.

Please cite any reported... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Please cite any reported statement that Pelosi was given the option to choose any plane she wanted. Otherwise, stop making that up.

Find a link where the Sergeant said he chose THAT specific plane for her.

You can't do it.

He simply wanted a plane to go cross-country. Since that is ALL he wanted --- the plane to choose is HER choice, as even the most rudimentary logic would tell you.

On Wednesday, the Pentagon sent a letter to Pelosi's office with guidance about travel regulations. The letter said the military would make "every effort" to provide a non-stop flight to Pelosi's home district, but "such support is subject to aircraft type and availability and therefore may not always be guaranteed."

Meaning they would make the plane available to her unless it was otherwise being used.

Not that they'd choose which plane she used.

I can see why you thought so highly of Clinton. You parse language to permit lying almost as well as he did.

Where are you getting that from? You've been asked multiple times, Mike. No answer from you? I wonder why. Show a source... ANY source... that says Pelosi was offered a choice.

The Sergeant at Arms, at no point, said he chose the plane for her. He wanted a cross-country plane and that is all.

There are numerous planes to choose from.

Since he didn't choose the plane --- the only other person who could have is Pelosi.

Who says there was a choice at all? You're correct, he requested "A plane". You're claiming the Pentagon's response was "well, Ms. Pelosi, we have a lovely selection of planes to choose from, feel free to send us your order when you've decided." When in reality, the Pentagon's response was "we'll do our best and give you whatever's available." That is a documented fact. Your "choice" claims are undocumented lies.

That is not what was said and you are the one lying repeatedly.

They would give her her choice of planes provided it was not being used. Not that they'd pick the plane she'd use (hint: they would not have chosen THAT one as there ARE smaller ones with smaller crews they would have chosen first).

DING! My BS-ometer alarmed on that last line. Do you have a link or a quote to back up your claim that "they assured [Edwards] that they didn't mean it"? My understanding is they defended their right to say what they did -- not admit they did wrong.

Did you read either the statements by Edwards or by the two potty-mouths?

They CLEARLY state they did not "intend" to offend anybody (yup, the most pathetic apology on the planet) and that they were sorry.

Not that they had a right to say it. Nobody argued they lacked a right to say it. That you're trying to now muddy the water with this belief that conservatives wanted to restrict their Constitutional rights is one of the dumbest things you've posted here.

And using the logic of people like Brian, it's Jay's fault, somehow.
-=Mike

"Did you read either the... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Did you read either the statements by Edwards or by the two potty-mouths? They CLEARLY state they did not "intend" to offend anybody (yup, the most pathetic apology on the planet) and that they were sorry.

I did read it, and that's why I asserted they they never said "they didn't mean it" which I took at it's english-language "face value" as a statement that they didn't mean what they said, and not as a form of apology. My bad.

I think "they meant" every word they said. If they've subsequently said they didn't intend to offend anyone, fine, but I find that hard to believe myself. That kind of language is used to inflame and incite -- take it from an experienced inflamer and inciter (although I hope I never use that kind of language in an open forum).

I'd like to say somethin... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

I'd like to say something like "It's evident from your arguments that you are an expert in jumbled logic, so I'm honored by your assessment, OhioVoter", but that kind of cheap, ad hominem attack serves no real purpose, and would only suggest that to engage in personal attacks, instead of atttacking the argument, signals a lack of the skills, knowledge, intelligence, and ability to debate the real issues any further

Well, since YOU DID SAY IT - THE CHEAP, AD HOMINEM ATTACK - let me say that I think it is healthy that yu can admit that your penchant for personal attack "signals a lack of the skils, knowledge, intelligence, and abilty to debate the real issues any further."

Anyone reading my response can see that I responded to the topic being discussed prior to your post.

I simply lacked the time, then, to respond to the tangent that you launched in order to deflect the subject from Edwards and his bloggers. You pretty much threw in anything and everthing that you could in order to that in one single post.

I also was pretty disgusted... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

I also was pretty disgusted by the inaction of Hastert and every other public figure - including ABC News - who knew about Foley's behavior and failed to act on it in some way.

However, I disagree with the following statement:

And let me point out that it was Speaker Hastert's specific responsibility to deal with Foley over his behavior as a Congressman.

No Speaker of the House - Hasert, Gingrich or Pelosi - has THAT power. As recently seen in Louisiana, if the voters choose to return to office regardless of whatever legal trouble he is in, there is little anyone else can do to control his actions.

Note, they should do what they can, but what they can do is limited. If a Speaker of the House actually had that power, then Pelosi already has a list of several Congressman that she should be reining in. I am not a fan of hers, but even I do not expect that of her.

As to the claims about Rumsfeld being responsible for the deaths of servicemen and Iraqis .... not in any management model have I ever seen does the responsibility fall there and only there.

The administrative offices carry out the will of the elected officials. Bush's responsibility, yes. The responsibility of every member of Congress, yes. Rumsfeld's alone, not hardly

Mike SCIf you thin... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Mike SC

If you think that crock of a post of yours above proves that Pelosi chose the "Flying Palce," you are beyond nuts.

More than one person here, including myself, have asked for proof or a link that proves Pelosi chose or has used that plane and you cannot provide one.

Your twisted shit-logic above proves that you have no proof or anything to substantiate your lying claim about Pelosi apart from your moronic regurgitation of others' right-wing lies.

You have been "decimated" and apparently are still not tired of "being handled."

More than one person her... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

More than one person here, including myself, have asked for proof or a link that proves Pelosi chose or has used that plane and you cannot provide one.

The sergeant-at-arms never said he chose that plane for her. Just a cross-country one.

Since he did not choose it --- care to name other POSSIBLE choices as to who chose it?

BTW, to praise Nancy --- she ended up using one of Hastert's old planes this weekend.

Your twisted shit-logic above proves that you have no proof or anything to substantiate your lying claim about Pelosi apart from your moronic regurgitation of others' right-wing lies.

I have the statement from the sergeant-at-arms.

Feel free to point to him revealing that he chose which plane she had to choose, since there are mutliple options as to planes that go cross-country.

See, she took a DIFFERENT plane (one of Hastert's old ones) this weekend.

You have been "decimated" and apparently are still not tired of "being handled."

Puke, is the sky blue in that padded room you deem to be "reality"?
-=Mike

So Mr. Hynes was being c... (Below threshold)
Brian:

So Mr. Hynes was being called to account for things his commenters said, and you are apparently in favor of it.

Yes, I am in favor of a blogger taking responsibility for running a blog that doesn't descend into racial and religious hate speech. To wit, I find it astounding that Charles Johnson can find any moral justification within himself to not take any responsibility for the hate speech and death threats that fill his pages.

As I said, by that principle, I should -- in my own self-defense -- go and purge comments that might reflect badly upon me.

Well, if you want to equate racial and religious hate speech with someone disagreeing with your view on a political issue, that needs to come from your own moral center. But tell me, would you tolerate the kinds of comments on Wizbang that appear by-the-minute on LGF?

brian, clean your eyegla... (Below threshold)
Brian:

brian, clean your eyeglasses.

I did. Pretty shiny, now. Still don't see what you cited as your answer has anything to do with the question in my original post. Here's a hint: the question is the sentence that ends with the question mark.

He simply wanted a plane... (Below threshold)
Brian:

He simply wanted a plane to go cross-country. Since that is ALL he wanted --- the plane to choose is HER choice, as even the most rudimentary logic would tell you.

Umm, no, the most rudimentary logic would tell you that when you request a cross-country plane from the Pentagon, they come back and say, "OK, here", not "OK, here are your choice of planes; which one do you choose?"

Meaning they would make the plane available to her unless it was otherwise being used.

No, there is no reference anywhere from the Pentagon regarding "THE" plane. You're making that up. Their only assurance was that they would give her "A" plane, subject to "aircraft type and availability". Read that again. "Aircraft type". Meaning there are different types of aircraft. Meaning multiple aircraft from which THEY will choose. Meaning no one is discussing "THE" plane, whatever "THE" plane even means.

The Sergeant at Arms, at no point, said he chose the plane for her. He wanted a cross-country plane and that is all.
There are numerous planes to choose from.
Since he didn't choose the plane --- the only other person who could have is Pelosi.

The "only other person"? How about the Pentagon? Or are you saying that the only people who have requisition power over the Pentagon are the Sergeant At Arms and Nancy Pelosi?

>>"we'll do our best and give you whatever's available."
>That is not what was said and you are the one lying repeatedly.

The Pentagon said they would "make every effort" to supply a plane "subject to aircraft type and availability". If you can show how it is a lie to paraphrase that as "we'll do our best and give you whatever's available", you deserve a job in Tony Snow's office.

Since he did not choose it --- care to name other POSSIBLE choices as to who chose it?

Hmm, maybe the Pentagon's plane requisition officer? Hmm?

But anyway, your twisting and invention of words and phrases that don't exist, your failure to cite them, and your challenges to me to prove that they don't exist (hey, can you prove that Al Gore doesn't have superpowers?), just show everyone how desperate and out of ideas you are to keep this completely bogus story alive. My repeated debunking and exposing of your lies can serve no further purpose, since everyone else who pounded on this "fake but inaccurate" story from the beginning has now abandoned you, and it's no longer entertaining for me to watch you sputter. So you keep believing, in the face of published statements to the contrary, that Nancy Pelosi gets to pick and choose her plane from the Pentagon's prepared menu.

Mike SCYou keep on... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Mike SC

You keep on proving that you are dumber than owl shit.

You have yet to substantiate that Pelosi either asked for and/or used the "Flying Palace," other than your imbecilic repetition of the allegation, yet. just like a typical Wizturd, you keep repeating the same old refrain.

Don't talk of "handling" or "decimation" you ridiculous ass. Just get your head out of your nether hole and post some links to prove your point.

Pelosi: "I was quite willin... (Below threshold)
robert the original:

Pelosi: "I was quite willing to walk - for the sake of the children."

Democrats in unison: "I didn't request that plane!" (Like a choir), "nobody did, furthest thing from my mind, no thought of it at all".

Democrat spokesman: "It was all a plot by that sexist patriarch Rumsfeld, with all the twists and turns of a cold-war novel".

Democrats in unison: "It was him", they all said, pointing at Rumsfeld.

Murtha: "I will withhold the entire Defense budget and use it for global warming".

Pentagon spokesman: "We sent that letter right out of the blue, no reason whatsoever".

Lee, because the subject ma... (Below threshold)

Lee, because the subject matter interested me so, I did a (very) little case law research on the question of private employer firing an employee for statements made in public that are unrelated to the employee's job. (First, I asume you committed a scrivener's error when you said above that "I don't think a wrongful termination suit would apply." I think you meant that it would apply, right?)

Anyway, there may be a more exact precedent than this (that is available without westlaw), but try Dossett v. First State Bank,399 F.3d 940 (8th Cir.,2005), which discusses what connection to a government entity a private employer must have in order to be liable for a violation of a private employee's first amendment rights:

"Under § 1983, a plaintiff must establish not only that a private actor caused a deprivation of constitutional rights, but that the private actor willfully participated with state officials and reached a mutual understanding concerning the unlawful objective of a conspiracy." (i.e., the denial of the plaintiff's right of free speech.)

I haven't been able to find a case involving the plaintiff's statements having been made prior to hiring, but I don't see that being a controlling difference under the precedent.

Have fun.

Yes, I am in favor of a ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Yes, I am in favor of a blogger taking responsibility for running a blog that doesn't descend into racial and religious hate speech. To wit, I find it astounding that Charles Johnson can find any moral justification within himself to not take any responsibility for the hate speech and death threats that fill his pages.

So, again, you advocate purging all comments a blogger disagrees with?

In that case, you'd hardly have a post stay up here.

Well, if you want to equate racial and religious hate speech with someone disagreeing with your view on a political issue, that needs to come from your own moral center. But tell me, would you tolerate the kinds of comments on Wizbang that appear by-the-minute on LGF?

The comments on LGF pale to what you see on DU or Kos.

Just sayin'.

Umm, no, the most rudimentary logic would tell you that when you request a cross-country plane from the Pentagon, they come back and say, "OK, here", not "OK, here are your choice of planes; which one do you choose?"

That is, to be generous, moronic.

The military has several planes and a person who has influence over their funding (as Murtha cutely reminded them) needs one.

Nobody is going to tell her "No, you have to have this one".

Hastert, by the same token, also chose his plane.

And since Pelosi took one of Hastert's former planes, she CHOSE the smaller, more economical, and less polluting of the options this weekend. Good for her.

Of course, it also belies that she lacked the choice.

No, there is no reference anywhere from the Pentagon regarding "THE" plane. You're making that up. Their only assurance was that they would give her "A" plane, subject to "aircraft type and availability". Read that again. "Aircraft type". Meaning there are different types of aircraft. Meaning multiple aircraft from which THEY will choose. Meaning no one is discussing "THE" plane, whatever "THE" plane even means.

No joke, really?

That there is no reference to THE plane, that means it's PELOSI'S call.

If there was a reference to THE plane, it means THE MILITARY made the choice.

They did not.

I find it amazing that you actually think Andrews AFB chose that plane for her, which only requires more money and a larger crew.

The "only other person"? How about the Pentagon? Or are you saying that the only people who have requisition power over the Pentagon are the Sergeant At Arms and Nancy Pelosi?

The Pentagon is not the business of choosing planes for Congresspeople. They are annoyed enough that the Congress views Andrews AFB as their personal aircraft lot.

But anyway, your twisting and invention of words and phrases that don't exist, your failure to cite them, and your challenges to me to prove that they don't exist (hey, can you prove that Al Gore doesn't have superpowers?), just show everyone how desperate and out of ideas you are to keep this completely bogus story alive.

You can't make an argument, so you huff and puff because you can't refute anything. You take what the sergeant said, add in things he didn't say, and say it proves your point. I go simply with the EXACT words of the sergeant at arms.

Stunningly enough, security personnel tend to be fairly precise with their language.

My repeated debunking and exposing of your lies can serve no further purpose, since everyone else who pounded on this "fake but inaccurate" story from the beginning has now abandoned you, and it's no longer entertaining for me to watch you sputter. So you keep believing, in the face of published statements to the contrary, that Nancy Pelosi gets to pick and choose her plane from the Pentagon's prepared menu.

Keep convincing yourself that you made a cogent point as you, as per usual, failed miserably in the effort.

You keep on proving that you are dumber than owl shit.

Well, I will bow to your superior knowledge of the intellectual power of assorted animal feces.

I mean, with all of the feces you throw on the wall, you'd have to have picked up something, right?

You have yet to substantiate that Pelosi either asked for and/or used the "Flying Palace," other than your imbecilic repetition of the allegation, yet. just like a typical Wizturd, you keep repeating the same old refrain.

A typical "Wizturd"?

What are you, five years old? You know, you really don't have to stay. Trust me, nobody is begging you to lower yourself.

I have the sergeant-at-arms comment. You have your usual 4th-grade-level reading comprehension.

And, also, your usual winning charm and erudite wit when your intellect fails you.

Don't talk of "handling" or "decimation" you ridiculous ass. Just get your head out of your nether hole and post some links to prove your point.

I pointed to the comments from the sergeant-at-arms.

You simply whined and swore, which is a poor substitute for thought.

...okay, for most people it's a poor substitute. For you, it's all you have.
-=Mike

So, again, you advocate ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

So, again, you advocate purging all comments a blogger disagrees with?

So, again, you are unable to understand basic English, and must distort everything you read into something wholly different than what it says?

The comments on LGF pale to what you see on DU or Kos.
Just sayin'.

I don't recall hearing about calls for genocide from those sites. But then, I don't read them. Do you?

You can't make an argument, so you huff and puff because you can't refute anything. You take what the sergeant said, add in things he didn't say, and say it proves your point. I go simply with the EXACT words of the sergeant at arms.

Actually, it's you who is adding in things he didn't say. There is no statement from anyone involved in any level of this who represents that Pelosi was given a choice of planes. That is a complete invention of yours. So you make things up that don't exist, and say it proves your point. In contrast, I go simply with the EXACT words of the sergeant at arms. I can point to where he says he requested a plane from the Pentagon. Can you point to where he says Pelosi was offered a choice of planes? Well, can you? Don't BS and stall with some other invented falsehood. Just answer the question. Can you?

I pointed to the comments from the sergeant-at-arms.

Yes, you did. And then you invented made-up comments that he DIDN'T say, and declared it "moronic" to point out that he DIDN'T say them.

Stunningly enough, security personnel tend to be fairly precise with their language.

Yes, they do. Fortunately, the precise language in his quotes completely shreds your fabricated statements.

wavemaker: So an employer c... (Below threshold)
Lee:

wavemaker: So an employer can legally fire a 50 year-old employee if they discover a disagreeable editorial the employee wrote for their college newspaper 30 year ago?

I don't think so... In fact, I'm sure that isn't true.

Read the case, Lee. It says... (Below threshold)

Read the case, Lee. It says what it says.

Also, read this, which, judging from the source, ought to pretty much close the door to you, eh?

Check that door, wavey - Re... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Check that door, wavey - Redgrave was not an employee. Now you're talking about contract law - which doesn't apply here. Your link is absolutely 100% irrelevant, but thanks for being a contestant!

Keep trying, bud - there is bound to be a pony in there somewhere -- or not.

Spoken like a non-lawyer. T... (Below threshold)

Spoken like a non-lawyer. The distinction is irrelevant. And the other case?

You just can't admit that you even MIGHT be wrong.

Dossett won her case and wa... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Dossett won her case and was awarded a million plus for wrongful termination - see page 3. Why she lost the retrial is less clear, and relates to the relationship (or lack of) between the school district and the bank -- and can't be compared with Edwards situation anyway since he hasn't fired anyone.

"Spoken like a non-lawye... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Spoken like a non-lawyer. The distinction is irrelevant."

It doesn't take a lawyer to understand that contract law is different from employment law, but thank you anyway.

You're immune from educatio... (Below threshold)

You're immune from education, lee.

Never mind.

Posting links to contract l... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Posting links to contract law cases as support for an employment law question shows that you're simply grasping at straws, wavemaker.

You Google "terminate"+"free speech" and link to a case that has no bearing on the matter at hand, then come back and insult me when I point out that your example is irrelevant? This is typical of you, in my recent experience -- you get frustrated, and you then resort to these one-liner pouts, ad hominem attacks and insults.

You've made quite an impression here, Wavemaker.

***sigh** I'll try once mor... (Below threshold)

***sigh** I'll try once more to get through.

The issue is infringement of First Amendment rights, correct?

So I cite to the case that supports the (indisputable) proposition that a federal First Amendment case requires involvement of a government entity (Dossett), and that private entities cannot violate First Amendment rights unless they are in cahoots with a government entity. Can you understand that, Lee? The rest of the case is inapposite.

Then I cite a case from Massachusetts (where I live) that has one of the most liberal constitutional rights provisions in the country (remember, our constitution supports gay marriage) that stands for TWO propositions -- one is a contract issue and one is a FIRST AMENDMENT issue. They are SEPARATE ISSUES. The First Amendment portion says that while Redgrave had a constitutional right to speak, the BSO had a constitutional right as well.

I didn't bother citing to the Massachusetts employment discrimination statute, because there is NOTHING IN IT to protect someone's SPEECH. Likewise, EEOC contains nothing.

Now, you may wish to distinguish between a "contract case" and an "employment case," but when it comes to violting someone's free speech rights, there is NO MEANINGFUL DISTINCTION. And anyway, the employment relationship is nothing more than PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT.

So Lee, I have offered you federal and state case law to support the proposition that you are wrong -- that Amanda Marcotte would not have a case against Edwards's campaign if they fired her for her speech. (I won't get into what law would apply, North Carolina or Texas.)

You, on the other hand, have your opinion, and nothing more. Now instead of being a stubborn ASS, why don't you support your position with something other than denial and arrogance?

"The issue is infringeme... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"The issue is infringement of First Amendment rights, correct?"

Nope, never said it was. I agreed with you, remember:

wavemaker: "Their speech (past or current) is not protected except against Government interference. Their gender, sexual orientation, race, etc are."

[Lee]: As is the freedom of religious expression.

I stated that their right to religious expression was protected speech. I did not disagree with you when you stated that their First Amendment rights were not protected "except against Government interference"

Perhaps this misunderstanding on your part explains the childish attacks you've launched against me, -- but I'm not ready to give you that much benefit of the doubt. I think no matter what I say you will attack me, regardless - and that's why I've decided to just ignore you from now on.

Have a nice life!

and, in retrospect - my use... (Below threshold)
Lee:

and, in retrospect - my use of the term "religious speech" isn't what I meant above - what I meant is "religious expression" as I said in the quote.

Wearing a crucifx around your neck is a form of religious expression - it's my belief that it would be wrongful termination if I was fired because I wore a crucifix.

I also believe it would be wrongful termination to fire someone because they attend services at a synagogue.

And I also believe it would wrongful termination to fire an agnostic or atheist because they expressed those beliefs in a personal blog. That's all.

And as I said earlier I'm no expert, and maybe I'm wrong - but the fact that you can't convince me to your side of the argument is simply no excuse for stalking me posting the childish dribble you've posted over the last couple of days on practically every thread on which I've commented -- get a grip.




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:

[email protected]

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