Tell it to McCain (hat tip Brian)

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.

Did Mr. Hynes bring Thor's hammer down on the anti-semitic commenters?

Did Mr. Hynes purge the anti-semetic remarks?

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

How many conservative bloggers slammed McCain for allowing his consultant to behave this way?

My guess is, none.

And that's how you know that the Edwards whine from the right is just more hypocritical smearing. Anit-semetic hate speech on the web site of McCain's blogging consultant isn't objectionable, but hate speech on the website of Edwards bloggers is objectionable, right?

(Plagiarized and adapted from an earlier comment of mine to another)

Lee'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 Lee has ever made on any of my pieces -- and he has pretty much committed himself to supporting that action.

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

J.

Jay, Lee's telling you that YOU are responsible for his hate speech.

Lee, you know better than that.

Come now man, why don't you be a good sport and admit that Dave Burge's piece is side-splittingly funny.

"Plastic Bush head on a spike,
assistant who's a vegan dyke. these and other things I like"

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

oh, duh -- (read last comment before posting)

p'p'=ditto

That was very, very good.

*hoping Lee had as big a laugh out of his post as I did*.. They're the same huh, Lee?.. LMAO!.. maybe at Kos!..(Lee was joking, right?)

Maybe we should dig up Danny Kaye as well for this one:

I've got a loverly bunch o' coconuts...

[c'mn now, use you imagination]

I don't think a blogger should be held responsible for the comments posted to their blog because then it's easy to plant stories, thus plant accusations. All somebody with malicious intent has to do is post a few questionable comments and wah-lah! -- you have a Patrick Hynes-esque story that Lee has mentioned.

There's another case I remember where Wizbang went after Daily Kos for comments posted on that site, actions which I also thought were incorrect.

I guess it all depends on the size of the blog, too. Back on my old blog it was small enough for me to become supreme dictator if I wanted/needed to. So when the whole incident with lefties posting Michelle Malkin's home address went down, I put my foot down and said no, personal information will not be posted to my blog in a post or comment and started deleting things. Now if I were in charge of, say, Washington Monthly or Atrios, administrating comments becomes a million times tougher. You really can't control those threads, they're just too large.

Oh, as for Iowahawk's satire piece.. Blah. I could say where it was going after the first sentence, and I hate it when people keep on repeating the same joke long after its humor has expired.

Followed the posted link. Noted the pretty girl in the photo. (Hmmm, why yes, that IS Amanda Marcotte (nice!...type dirty to me, baby!)). Read Iowahawk's jagged, one-handed typing below it and wondered if there were children in the house. Noted his weird jhow666 visage at left: de luxe child/wife repellent there!(relief) Noted the "About Me" boasts of his Precious Moments collection...RED ALERT! RED ALERT! MAN W/O PANTS! MAN W/O PANTS!...Seriously, though, Lorie. Just because a strange little man posts suggestive things about a quite attractive (and yes, bawdy) young lady, and is uninhibited (or "hepped up") enough to press "send", do you want to hitch your wagon to him? Put another way, would you use his keyboard after him? Do you know what a movie theater floor is like? In conclusion: Dave "sticky keys" Burge: he's no Ronald Reagan!

Only the very smallest blogs can possibly control comments posted. That's not the issue.

When outrageous comments ARE posted on a particular blog, though, it can be quite telling to see how they are received. If the blogger and his "community" typically accept, or even embrace such comments, it is quite a different matter than if they are routinely condemned.

The singling out of Pat Hynes pretty well demonstrates the difference between the leftist and right-wing bloggers. Anyone who can pretend to see some equivalence between Hynes' statements and those of the gyno-warrioresses hired by Edwards is in need of counseling.

And I don't mean to single out bryanD in particular, but if the prescription fits, fill it.

Jim Addison, "bryanD" what? Subject, object, verb! I'm not a Chinese puzzle solver.

So, Lee, should I fire up the delete key on your comments, just to prevent anyone from holding me accountable for what you say? J. Posted by: Jay Tea at February 10, 2007 10:03 PM

Well Lee we're waiting for your answer.

Quite the conundrum you have found yourself in isn't it?

Ah, bad me, I forgot the "we're conservative hypocrites" money 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."

Did the conservative blogoshere disagree with him, or is it just the usual garden-variety hypocrisy of the right to condemn one variety of inappropriate behavior when condemning it can serve to smear an opposing candidate, but celebrate it (and even promote it with links) when they think celebrating it serves the same, self-serving purpose of smearing the politicians and liberal philosophies they hate?

Apparently the behavior isn't offensive so long as the target is the right's political enemies. Dang, that's a Colonel Sanders bucketful of hypocrisy you got going there, pal.

Jay wrote this regarding my comment above: "By that principle, I am accountable for anything and everything posted as a comment to my pieces."

No, by that principle you're accountable if you foster hate speech that results in anti-semetic remarks made about a Jewish Senator and you then leave them up in your blog.

Jay again (emphasis mine): "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."

Those that reflect poorly on you? When and why did this become about you, Jay? What an odd, ego-filled leap to make.

But Jay can't stop trying on hats, and write again: "By that criteria, I should probably delete every single comment Lee has ever made on any of my pieces -- and he has pretty much committed himself to supporting that action."

Ah, Jay's immature, cartoonish "Thor's Hammer" rises again. Jay apparently sees nothing wrong with anti-semetic comments being left on a blog -- and potty mouth language is all right so long as it's aimed at the left, but "anti-Jay" comments should be purged. When and why did this become "about you" Jay? Why are you comparing remarks made criticizing you with anti-semetic remarks?

Jay's "delete finger" is twitching now --- he thinks at last he has an excuse to delete those entries I've written mocking his "It is high time to get tough on Islamofacists" stance with comments like "What are you going to do, Jay -- throw your rubber duck at them?"

Yes, Jay -- if you find incidents of anti-semetic hate speech you should delete them, in my view -- you apparently disagree but are instead in favor of deleting anti-idiot remarks made about you?

Well, Jay, your blog is a reflection of who you are and what your values are, and what you tolerate -- and if you don't see a problem with anti-semeticsm but decide instead to bring down Thor's hammer on comments made mocking you and your sweet little rubber duck, that's your business.

Wizbang linking, as Lorie did above, to this page whihc has language like this... language I've cleaned up but which is still there in all of it's fully pornographic glory on the page Lorie linked to:

Amanda f*cking Marcotte... Pandagon to you, you motherf*cking c*cksucking tool of the Southern f*cking white f*cking racist patriarchy!

...that language is offensive to me, regardless of who it is aimed at. Why isn't it offensive to conservatives?

Conservatives are apparently perfectly fine with language like that when it mocks liberals, but when it is mocking Christians it's time to get out the Smear-O-Matic and start spraying Edwards -- even though Edwards had nothing to do with it and has publicly denounced it as inappropriate -- unlike Wizbang, which finds other examples of totally inappropriate language on the internet and then links to it.

Edwards has made clear he will not tolerate it in connection with his campaign.

Lorie and Jay have made it clear that it's ok so long as it is mocking someone other than Christians.

Oh wait -- that's such a riot -- let me stop laughing before I continue --- Ahhhh, what a fun time we have on the internet.

Oh, but there's a second link in Lorie's post. Let's not leave out that second heaping serving of that southern-made down-home hypocrisy. Let's look there at the other page Lorie links to as well (again Lorie provided this helpful link to the fully pornographic version)...:

I would like to express my heartfelt thanks for this totally f*cking awesome opportunity to help you take America back from f*cking BushCo and the other f*cktard bible-humping extremists that have turned this once great nation into a g*dd*mn rape factory for their snakehandling Jesus Camp hatebots.

In closing, I am so f*cking proud to be a part of this campaign, and f*cking gratified to know that I'll be working for someone who f*cking understands the importance of reaching out to progressive bloggers like myself. I look forward to contributing in any way I f*cking can. You won't be f*cking sorry!

Yeah, Jay -- subjecting your readers to childish crap like that is fine. Taking Wizbang readers to page like that is perfectly acceptable, but any remarks mocking you and your little rubber duck should be purged. I think you've got your priorities in line with the conservative blogosphere's standards and practices -- what's the next question?

And you'd better hurry up an delete this comment, Jay -- in my view it really points out what a total jack*ss you can be at times.

I guess we can add sanctimonious and humorless to the list of adjectives describing Lee's role here.

Hope that new career writing conservative homily-stuffed fortune cookies pays off for you, wavey -- but beware -- the hammer-swinging ogres prefer commenters stay on topic and not engage in any personal attacks, or they will have to put on their sixth grade viking halloween costume, attach their trusty rubber duck to their shoulder (Arrrhhh matey!) and come after you.

Lee's nailed it, Lorie! If you're going to use porn for the cause, please throw the culture warrior schtick out the window!

...okay, sanctimonious only.

Did I miss something, or has Lee gone three whole comments without invoking Iraq?

C'est un miracle!

I worked Iraq into a comment in one of the Edwards thread below, and that was written in between the posts on this thread, so no miracle -- lol!

Wow, I dunno if I have time to catalog everything Lee got wrong.

1) It's not Thor's Hammer, but Olaf's Troll Hammer. Think Buffy The Vampire Slayer, not Norse mythology.

2) Mr. Ducky is a counterfeit Beanie Baby, not a Rubber Ducky. He deeply resents the implicit racism of categorizing him as Anatidae Latex.

3) I "personalized" Lee's castigating a blogger over the comments of readers because... well, I'm a blogger and he's a reader that leaves comments. If he's going to espouse principles over that sort of thing, it's kind of hard for me to not apply it to our particular circumstance.

4) It's satire, Lee. It's the deliberate, crafted use of profanity to lampoon the people who use it so casually. One can appreciate Lenny Bruce, George Carlin, Sam Kinison, and Robin Williams while still despairing of the potty-mouthed teenagers one can find at any shopping mall.

J.

Jim: When outrageous comments ARE posted on a particular blog, though, it can be quite telling to see how they are received. If the blogger and his "community" typically accept, or even embrace such comments, it is quite a different matter than if they are routinely condemned.

Until the blogger in question is asked about their philosophy towards administrating comments on their site then I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. In my case, when I ran a blog, I let some pretty atrocious comments be published simply because if somebody wanted to be that way, then who am I to stop them from being a jackass? I was content with letting them advertise their faults. I wouldn't like to be held responsible for the content of those comments simply because I didn't delete them.

As for how the community on that blog receives the comments, though, I do get what you're saying there.