« Libby Update | Main | The Tennessee Chill »

Edwards' Bleeping Blogger Resigns

Michelle Malkin posted a link to Marcotte's resignation announcement and has a roundup of links. Here is a bit of Marcotte's announcement:

I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what's right. Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don't respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics (I'm anti-theocracy, for those who were keeping track). Bill Donohue--anti-Semite, right wing lackey whose entire job is to create non-controversies in order to derail liberal politics--has been running a scorched earth campaign to get me fired for my personal beliefs and my writings on this blog.

In fact, he's made no bones about the fact that his intent is to "silence" me, as if he--a perfect stranger--should have a right to curtail my freedom of speech. Why? Because I'm a woman? Because I'm pro-choice? Because I'm not religious? All of the above, it seems.

Regardless, it was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can't do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn't have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won't do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.

There is good news. The main good news is that I don't have a conflict of interest issue anymore that was preventing me from defending myself against these baseless accusations. So it's on. The other good news is that the blogosphere has risen as one and protested, loudly, the influence a handful of well-financed right wing shills have on the public discourse.

Blah, blah, blah...it was all the rightwing godbags' fault, blah, blah, blah. No way could it be because of her inability to control her filthy hate-spewing mouth. We might not ever know what happened behind the scenes. Did someone in the Edwards campaign convince her that she would be a liability? Did they get wind that someone in Hillary's camp was just waiting for the most opportune moment to take maximum advantage? Did Marcotte decide that she didn't want to spend the next two years in North Carolina after all? Who knows? What we do know is that now it is on. Does that mean that now she will really start showing her feisty side?


Update: Greg Tinti sees a familiar pattern. It is never about the individual's actions. It is about freedom of speech, don'tcha know?


Update II: Wow. I saw Michelle's reference to O'Reilly's segment, but missed the show when it first ran. I am watching the replay now. He did not sanitize things. O'Reilly made it his talking points memo, then continued with the segment with Michelle and Kirsten Powers. O'Reilly had to warn viewers about the offensive content and told them to turn the channel for three minutes if they were easily offended. It is obvious why Marcotte had to resign, but then it was obvious last week. I just wonder now if McEwan will be going next. He read some pretty offensive quotes from her, as well. Here is video of the segment Michelle Malkin and Kirsten Powers did about the Edwards' bloggers.

One of Ed Morrisey's readers says, "record her blog posts as a book, and she'll almost certainly win a Grammy."


Update III: In a comment at Pandagon, Marcotte said "this was a targeted hit on atheists in politics." There are quite a few atheists/agnostics on the right side of the political blogger aisle and I don't see any of them being attacked. Maybe that is because they choose not to attack those of faith or ridicule them with insulting names.


Update IV: Jim Addison has more at Wizbang Politics, including a movie review Marcotte posted over the weekend.

Update V: James Joyner has a great roundup of opinion from the blogosphere.

Update VI: The Anchoress has now written about the resignation and her take was worth the wait -- especially her newsflash.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Edwards' Bleeping Blogger Resigns:

» The Political Pit Bull linked with Amanda Marcotte Has Resigned from the Edwards Campaign

» Bill's Bites linked with Marcotte resigns! Marcotte f#$

» Church and State linked with Blog-o-Crat Goes too Far

» Outside The Beltway | OTB linked with Amanda Marcotte Resigns from Edwards Campaign

» Sensible Mom linked with It's Always Someone Else's Fault

» The Anchoress linked with New and old media evolving erratically

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Edwards' Bloggers Apologize, Keep Jobs

Comments (76)

Hey I didn't know all you g... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Hey I didn't know all you guys were "well financed".

Time for JT to upgrade the shaggin' wagon.

And how is quoting someone "baseless"

Evidently, a smear consists... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Evidently, a smear consists of quoting accurately (verbatim, in fact) someone's own words.

I think it most likely that... (Below threshold)

I think it most likely that this resignation and the content of its announcement was planned when Edwards decided to re-hire her. this is just the Edwards campaign getting rid of her in way that will hopefully not antagonize the nutroots.

Why not use this opportunit... (Below threshold)
pauly shore:

Why not use this opportunity to defend William Donohue, Lorie?

*cricket, cricket*

LorieNo surprise h... (Below threshold)

Lorie

No surprise here...another example of "Hoist by your own petard"

I suspect someone in the Ed... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I suspect someone in the Edwards campaign organization pulled her aside and convinced her that she was in a position to do more harm than good.

and so this is what you rig... (Below threshold)
slingshot:

and so this is what you right wing shills are reduced to- getting bloggers to resign. well, i suppose it's better than ruining the country and its international reputation. oh, wait- ytou've already accomplished that.

So let me make sure I have ... (Below threshold)
Murphy:

So let me make sure I have this straight.

Evil Bill Donohue harassed this poor noble wonderful woman and John "Man of the People" Edwards accepted her resignation?

Why do I not defend Donohue... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

Why do I not defend Donohue? Why should I defend him? Why would you think I would defend him? He is nothing to me (outside of being a fellow human being). I don't know him. He is not a candidate I support. I am not Catholic, so he doesn't even pretend to speak for me. Marcotte is the one trying to pretend that Donohue is the issue. Her words were the issue and the Edwards people did not do their vetting and now they are playing clean up. Plain and simple.

I don't automatically defend just anybody like some of those on the left do. Nothing I think about Marcotte's language and anti-Christian comments has anything to do with anything Donohue said. What I think of her comes from my reading HER OWN WORDS.

Those of us on the right did not defend Bob Packwood when he was harassing women. Those on the left defended Clinton when he did it though. We didn't defend Foley when he was writing dirty notes to pages, Dems defended Studds when he was having sex with underage pages. We don't reflexively defend anyone who claims to be on our side of the aisle. Haven't you learned that by now, cricket?

If she is angry about being... (Below threshold)
Brad:

If she is angry about being "harassed" from her position then it must be that she "resigned" under duress. It should be noted that it wasn't Bill Donohue that forced her "resignation;" it was candidate Edwards acting on charges that she could not defend against.

If she could not defend herself in the quiet of a smoke filled room how will she do so amid the cacophony of the blog world and surrounded by her own words. Custer, at least, had the honor of being defeated by the guns of his enemies.

The irony is that upon being more or less convicted of religious bigotry she would accuse her accuser of the same.

This was a big story on O'R... (Below threshold)
Jo:

This was a big story on O'Reilly tonight. He read the really nasty stuff that the MSM decided to ignore. I knew then that at least one of these gals was going to be history soon.

As usual the libs are making fools of themselves trying to defend her. The other night on Hardball Ron Reagan Jr. was defending her and a conservative guest asked if he thought she was anti Christian/Catholic and Ron Reagan said he couldn't say, because he wasn't going to try and get inside her head and read her mind.

Huh? The conservative guest than asked him the obvious. How about just reading her words. No need to "read anyone's mind" in this case. Helllooooo.

Geeeze, for the life of me I don't know why libs want to ruin their integrity and reputations forever to defend the worthless nuts that surround them.

I was hired by th... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
I was hired by the Edwards campaign for the skills and talents I bring to the table, and my willingness to work hard for what's right. Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills don't respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills

What is it lately with the left and "because I'm a women" crap. Sheesh, anything to play the victim these days.

Nana Nancy is using it. The Dixie Chicks and these eff'ing bloggers all jumping on the woman "hear me roar" but the right wingers are trying to hold me down.

Whatever.......

Phony leftyism....

Actually I doubt she resign... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Actually I doubt she resigned. This was probably "arranged" so the NUTroots wouldn't start that infamous ACTION ALERT (roflmao).

Probably got an offer from Time (like Wonkette) or was hired by Ludacris or some other potty mouth rapper to write their lyrics. Or maybe some Muslim Imam writing sermons.

Anyway, her future somewhere on the left is very promising.

Wait--Edwards was actually ... (Below threshold)
Paul Lee Sure:

Wait--Edwards was actually a contender? For what? biggest house competition? First to get gutted in a back alley by Hillary? Best hair? Best facial surgery to hide a drool-looking mole? (& since "It's on") Fattest wife??? Contender my shilling ass. Both these Catholic-hating bitches should get jobs shellacking (Heh heh--she-lack; thank you Dixie Chix) Barack's half black Africkin' root for a quarter a pop. Since "It's on" & all. RodHam, ya know--the Pig Phallus--is the only contender these libs have, so they might as well start mouthing "Stay the course" & "support the troops" now, instead of pretending the Breck Girl ever had a chance.

You all have got to go over... (Below threshold)
Jo:

You all have got to go over to Malkin and read her latest on this scandal. Now there is infighting amongst the left (I love it when that happens) because some libs are mad that other christian libs (are there really any?) were criticizing these bloggers. Read it all. It's hilarious.

Hey Howard Dean, how's that campaign strategy going of trying to win over more religious folk for 2008?

LOL.

"other christian libs (are ... (Below threshold)
jp:

"other christian libs (are there really any?)"

there are many, they call themselves "christian" anyway, of course they do not know squat about the bible other than they don't beleive what it says. Especially the cornerstone of it.

"I suspect someone in the E... (Below threshold)
Pete_Bondurant:

"I suspect someone in the Edwards campaign organization pulled her aside and convinced her that she was in a position to do more harm than good."

Gee Lee, thanks for that brilliant thought. We would have never guessed. What would civilization do without such intelligent people as yourself? Please, emlighten us more.

"Wait--Edwards was actua... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Wait--Edwards was actually a contender?"

I have been really surprised recently by the number of liberals I've spoken to who support Edwards over Obama or Hillary -- so yeah, he is a contender.

I think the net effect of this on Edwards, now that Marcotte is gone, will be nil. Republicans would have been better served to leave her in there rather than chase her out but, as last night's Grammy awards demonstrates, the right just isn't real good at picking their fights these days.

"Republicans would have bee... (Below threshold)
Pete_Bondurant:

"Republicans would have been better served to leave her in there rather than chase her out but, as last night's Grammy awards demonstrates, the right just isn't real good at picking their fights these days."


Lee, are you for real? Keep posting, the more you do it, the dumber you look....and that is quite the accomplishment.

lee, you think she's stupid... (Below threshold)

lee, you think she's stupid or stubborn enough not to have understood that from the very beginning of this controversy?

So now "it's on," and we get to see her defend herself against these "baseless accusations." More black is white and white is black.

I can hardly wait to see what other blasphemy lurks in her fetid soul.

Why is it that feminists se... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Why is it that feminists seem to always play the "they're mean to me because I'm a girl" card all of the time? If they don't take THEMSELVES seriously, why should others?

Why not use this opportunity to defend William Donohue, Lorie?

Why should she?

And, Lee, she is still the woman Edwards refused to fire. Anything she writes is going to be fair game because he did not fire her. She quit. He STILL gave her his tacit approval, like the little girl she clearly believes herself to be.
-=Mike

Does this mean the fun is o... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Does this mean the fun is over? Awwww, I was enjoying that. Oh well, bloggers will find a new reason why they're the most important people in the universe next week.

Mantis, RU referring to M&M... (Below threshold)
epador:

Mantis, RU referring to M&M or the folks often referred to as Wingnuts?

I thought Bill O'Reilly was getting the credit for this hit anyways.

BTW, COMPLETELY off-topic, ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

BTW, COMPLETELY off-topic, but who was a Gore delegate in 1988 and a fund-raiser for Al?

Fred Phelps. The "God Hates Fags" guy. He's still a registered Democrat.

Thought it was kinda ironic.
-=Mike

Mantis, RU referring to ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Mantis, RU referring to M&M or the folks often referred to as Wingnuts?

Oh, the whole lot. I love when they all decide that a blog war is as big a deal as say, a real war, and have a nice big circle jerk over their own self-importance. Kind of like the Grammies.

For sake of perspective, think about this: when was the last time, before blogs, that you ever knew or cared about who worked behind the scenes on political campaigns, let alone this far before even the primaries? I'm guessing never. And who actually cares about what a blogger who works on a candidate's campaign writes? That's right, the tiny percentage of us who are demented enough to read and care about blogs and bloggers, who are already pretty well-secured in our ideological stances. This will make no difference whatsoever, and now it won't even be around any longer to torment Edwards (still got the house to hammer him with!).

It's much ado about nothing, and it's hilarious in its banality.

I guess we'll have to kill ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I guess we'll have to kill time before the next blogsplosion with terror-fightin' dolphins!

I guess they came back after escaping during Katrina. After a bit of an ocean bender, of course.

Lee, you've said some goofy... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Lee, you've said some goofy things, but the right somehow learning a lesson about who to pick a fight with was learned last night from the Grammys is one of your more hilarious ones.

Which lesson are we suppose to learn? That if you're an outspoken liberal in a song or a movie, that you will probably get nominated, even perhaps winning many awards voted on by other likeminded people?

Wow. Now who could have seen that coming?

lol.

Now Amanda is sorta caught ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Now Amanda is sorta caught between a rock and a hard place.

She is now free to get back to her true, vile, hateful self. And she is probably very ready to, being full of anger at this recent humiliation.

But if she does, she proves to everyone that she is the vile person we claimed she was, and that we were right to point it out, and Edwards was right to fire her. (c'mon, we all know she was fired).....

Gee, what to do. What to do. Tough choice......lol.

Fred Phelps. The "God Ha... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Fred Phelps. The "God Hates Fags" guy. He's still a registered Democrat.

And David Duke's still a Republican. Who cares?

Btw, look up irony. I do not think it means what you think it means.

The main good news is that ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

The main good news is that I don't have a conflict of interest issue anymore that was preventing me from defending myself against these baseless accusations.

============================

Preposterous. Actually, most revealing of Marcotte's mental illness. This is one person who has perceptual disorders and emotional problems and in the blogosphere, apparently, that sort of disturbance is able of venting and expressing itself -- no surprise to those of us with sites that we administer -- but in political campaigns, it's an indication of remarkable disturbance by whoever hires and then maintains issues such as this. In Marcotte's specific example, I hope she finds the help she needs and I'll pray for her.

jpm100: "...how is quoting... (Below threshold)
-S-:

jpm100: "...how is quoting someone 'baseless'..."

I wonder the same thing. In my experience, people such as Marcotte really do believe they are persecuted and do nothing that merits criticism. Like I wrote, she's one disturbed person.

I read on another website t... (Below threshold)
-S-:

I read on another website that Steven Spielberg is close friends with Edwards and considered or already did consider backing Edwards for the Presidency.

I wonder what the reaction would be from him if and as Edwards (or anyone else) hired a blogger onto their campaign who wrote the eqivalent of Marcotte's Catholic-hater screed with use of the word, "Jew" instead of "Catholic".

The main good news is t... (Below threshold)
Jill:

The main good news is that I don't have a conflict of interest issue anymore that was preventing me from defending myself against these baseless accusations.

In other words, she is now free to go back to being her true self. You know, the one that got her into this mess to begin with. Complete with more colorful language and bigotry.

You can't make this stuff up.

I question the timing.... (Below threshold)
Neo:

I question the timing.

... a quick interjection. ... (Below threshold)
yo:

... a quick interjection. Maybe the best line I've ever read, here:

"We don't reflexively defend anyone who claims to be on our side of the aisle."

Sums up a lot more than just this incident.

Thanks, Lorie.

"Lee, you've said some g... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Lee, you've said some goofy things, but the right somehow learning a lesson about who to pick a fight with was learned last night from the Grammys is one of your more hilarious ones.

I said the right should learn a lesson, I didn't say the right did learn a lesson. In fact, I'm positive they didn't.

For the record yes, I agree with you, Jo -- the right somehow learning a lesson last night watching the Grammys is a hilarious concept. Sometimes I say things that are really funny - thanks for noticing.

"Which lesson are we suppose to learn? That if you're an outspoken liberal in a song or a movie, that you will probably get nominated, even perhaps winning many awards voted on by other likeminded people?"

Oh sure -- after calling me goofy you ask for tips on how to fight liberals more effectively? Well, since we've already established that the right is challenged on the whole "learning" thing, what harm can it do?

No, the DCs winning the Grammys was easy to predict, Jo.

The lesson the right hasn't learned yet, and never will if I can help it, is that there is a time and place for everything. A ticking time-bomb like Marcotte is better left inside the house of Edwards, rather than driving out into the street -- for the time being.

Me? I would have waited until after Edwards received the Presidential nomination, and then bring it up at the first televised debate. Quote Marcotte's writings, and as the camera slows zooms in on Edwards ask him why he has people like this working for him.

Then, and I know this would be the hard part for you, Jo -- I would just close my mouth and wait for him to dig himself into a nice, deep hole.

What if Edwards doesn't win the Democratic nomination? Then Marcotte is moot. Save it for the next time Edwards runs for office.

I wouldn't have gone after the Ditzy Chicks with my pitchfork held high, either. I would have put in place an effective economic boycott -- as the right did -- but I would have done it with the death threats (Doh!) -- and then with the economic boycott underway, I would have shut my mouth and never mentioned their names again -- and just let the Ditzies dissolve into obscurity.

Are we seeing a pattern here, people? Or, as Jo suggests, are right-wing activists just unable to learn?

So, can we safely assume th... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

So, can we safely assume that Marcotte's previous "apology" wasn't sincere? LOL!

As I posted over at <a href... (Below threshold)

As I posted over at Politics, the remarkable thing is the offending movie review was posted Sunday, only days after she reportedly assured Edwards she never meant to "denigrate anyone's religion."

It probably means little in the long run in the race, but Edwards looks the fool right now. With NOTHING to do except run for President, he can't even keep his campaign blogger on message for a week.

I do agree is one of the top contenders for the Democratic nomination, but it only illustrates the utter vacuity of the Democrats that two of their top three contenders are so lacking in qualifications, and the third has only her undue influence on her husband's adminstrations to add to her own single term in elected office.

I went to Edwards' campaign... (Below threshold)
Bill:

I went to Edwards' campaign site and read her post on his health care plan. She was thrown some serious questions and answered them in a thoughtful, studied way, as if shed done some research or queried someone on his staff. I can imagine her getting to the end of the day and sitting there staring at her monitor and saying to herself. "Research? Asking some fucking wonk for f**king information? No profanity? No vulgarity? F**k this f**king dogs**t! This just ain't me! I'm outa here, Mo-Fos!"

After a brief period of mou... (Below threshold)

After a brief period of mourning, by whom I don't know, Marcotte will surface somewhere else. If you think anyone that predisposed to hysterical, vulgar rants, who also characterizes her own style as freedom of speech for her beliefs won't be able to find a suitable sponsor that mirrors her unrestrained pomposity, think again. I actually believe she line up another gig before announcing her departure. So mkae this frontpage if my prediction comes in. :-)

This is good news, potentia... (Below threshold)
marc:

This is good news, potentially GREAT news!

I mean think of it, with Marcotte back to being the hateful, spiteful wench she is aRepukelican may just find a home more suitable to his way of [non]thinking.

Blah, blah, blah...it wa... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Blah, blah, blah...it was all the rightwing godbags' fault, blah, blah, blah. No way could it be because of her
...
It is never about the individual's actions. It is about freedom of speech, don'tcha know?

Ah, yes, the old "my actions aren't to blame... it's the media's fault!" excuse. What kinds of idiots would use that lame explanation? Oh, wait...

Edwards is shedding the sof... (Below threshold)
minorripper:

Edwards is shedding the softie,breck girl image though...here's video proof:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2007/02/john-edwards-gets-tough-with-matt-lauer_08.html

Was raised Catholic and cur... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Was raised Catholic and cured of that affliction once I graduated high school and moved out. My callsign here is a reference to South Park and if you know the episode it isn't a pro-religion reference. I've mentioned before, I claim the same as Jay Tea--born again agnostic.

It boils down to a simple chain of events. Edwards picked this blogger because she carried some amount of popularity with the extreme left. Why was she popular with the extreme left?--because she was a shrill, foul mouthed anti-religious, bigoted harpy.

Why did the religious right get up in arms?--because she was a shrill, foul mouthed anti-religious, bigoted harpy.

Why did they say she was?--because her own posts on her own blog showed she was a shrill, foul mouthed anti-religious, bigoted harpy.

She now "threatens" to return being a shrill, foul mouthed anti-religious bigoted harpy after being forced to resign due to her being a shrill, foul mouthed anti-religious bigoted harpy.

So she was hired for what she is, fired for what she is--excuse me, "chose to resign so as to not hurt the campaign"--threatens to be more of what she is and yet, it's all someone else's fault.

Ultimately, there is one thing she is that makes this all a moot point.

She is...

Insignificant.

Didn't read her blog before all this, had no clue who she was, wouldn't have read her as Edwards' blogger and I doubt I'll read her in the future.

Again.

Insignificant.

Marcotte sounds a lot like ... (Below threshold)
ziggy in JC:

Marcotte sounds a lot like Nancy Pelosi's bitching about not having the large plane or if you are a student of psychology the right sized phallus.

It's really funny how power... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

It's really funny how powerful some on the left believe that the right side of the blogosphere can be all of the sudden.

Inadvertently elevating the the Dixie Chix to 5 grammy wins? How'd dat feel on ya, neo-cons?

Causing a hateful liberal blogger to "resign"? Who's going to cover Edwards' cat now?

Preventing the House Majority from getting anything done? Wow, I still can't get over that one - too funny.

Ah man - and we've got another year and a half of this to witness! Ha!

The right side of the bogop... (Below threshold)
Lee:

The right side of the bogopshere wasn't smart enough to realize the backlash effect their campaign against the Ditzy Chicks would actually have on the singers' careers - -which you'd have to admit is exactly opposite the one intended.

Now that it's turned out to be one of the dumbest moves in recent political history, do you think if the circumstances presented themselves again the right would do anything differently? I don't.

I can't wait to see how badly the right screws up the Marcotte affair (and the next one, and the one after that). Maybe Marcotte will get a movie deal, or her own syndicated talk show, where her views can receive a far, far greater audience than her pitiful blog ever had.

Ha! That'll show her!

Still not sure what the Dix... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Still not sure what the Dixie Chicks have to do with Amanda Marcotte, Lee.
But you are bascially claiming that the plan was for Amanda to lose her job, and the "right side of the blogosphere" fell for it? Not sure how that coincides with her resigning. . .

Lee, I've said it before, you need to take a break. You used to be much more reasonable and often convincing, and now you come across as shrill and hard to respect.

Now that it's turned out... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Now that it's turned out to be one of the dumbest moves in recent political history,

What was? Holding the Dixie Chicks accountable for their comments? That was a political move? Yeah, those 5 grammys really sent a message to those stupid, evil Republicans and Bushbots out there. I guess we'll just wait and see what effect that has on the next elections.

Maybe Marcotte will get a movie deal, or her own syndicated talk show, where her views can receive a far, far greater audience than her pitiful blog ever had.

I'm sure those views will resonate with the rest of America. She should do well.

"What was? Holding the D... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"What was? Holding the Dixie Chicks accountable for their comments? That was a political move? Yeah, those 5 grammys really sent a message to those stupid, evil Republicans and Bushbots out there. I guess we'll just wait and see what effect that has on the next elections."

The nation laughed at you clowns the other night, and applauded the Ditzy Chicks for their stand. By itself it won't have an effect on the election, but it sure makes you guys like like morons. Your attempts to censor the DCs gave them a larger audience for their views than they would have had otherwise.

The good news is that you guys will keep repeating these same mistakes over and over again. THAT will, eventually, have some measurable effect on the election outcome, in my opinion.

In a comment at Pandago... (Below threshold)
Herman:

In a comment at Pandagon, Marcotte said "this was a targeted hit on atheists in politics."

This about sums up the mistake made by the
Edwards Campaign. It goes without saying that left-wing bloggers are notably smarter than your typical voter, and therefore less inclined to believe in such supernatural entities as Zeus, Yahweh, Odin, Allah, the Tooth Fairy, and so on.

Consequently, it behooves the Edwards Campaign to do thorough background checks of the bloggers they hire, lest they wind up with someone too far ahead of his/her time. (Say, for example, the wonky one, Ms. Wonkette herself).

It goes without saying ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

It goes without saying that left-wing bloggers are notably smarter than your typical voter

Bwahahahahhahah. . . pull the other one, it's got bells on. Sure, there are plenty of smart leftists, just as there are smart right-wingers. But the lunatic fringe, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack of same, are hardly exemplars of apparent intelligence.

The nation laughed at yo... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

The nation laughed at you clowns the other night, and applauded the Ditzy Chicks for their stand

Sorry Lee, I think the nation is laughing at the fact that Grammys are actually considered an awards show. They didn't win any awards because of their music, it was because of their politics and the politics of the select view who actually voted on the awards. The public had no say in it.

And your reference to censoring shows that you have no concept of what that word actually means.

Lee, you have demonstrated ... (Below threshold)

Lee, you have demonstrated already that you know nothing about the first amendment, and now you confirm it with your loopy use of the term "censorship." Just how did "we guys" censor Natalie Mains? By exercising our own first amendment right to speak out against her? Is that how it works? Th 1st amendment works for some speech but not others?

Is that what they got their Grammys for? Their political views?

Wow, then the industry voters who support their leftie views must not have known when they named Carrie Underwood best new artist of the year that she was a Christian and they certainly must have missed the hidden meaning in her grammy winning song "Jesus Take the Wheel"!!

Why don't you exercise a little circumspection before you type (for once).

"Just how did "we guys" ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Just how did "we guys" censor Natalie Mains?"

I didn't say you did, you boorish jackass, I said you tried.

Your attempts to censor the DCs gave them a larger audience for their views than they would have had otherwise.

"By exercising our own first amendment right to speak out against her? Is that how it works? Th 1st amendment works for some speech but not others?"

Choosing to apply economic pressure against your fellow Americans who dare speak up against Bush is a despicable attempt at censorship. Note again the word "attempt" - it always backfires - just as it has here. The world knows much more about the Dixie Chicks and their views now, thanks to Lorie Byrd and her gang of free-speech hating thugs.

You're on my ignore list, wavey. I'm tired of dealing with your dribbling excuse for debate and your childish ad hominem attacks and behavior.

Choosing to apply econom... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Choosing to apply economic pressure against your fellow Americans who dare speak up against Bush is a despicable attempt at censorship.

Sorry, not buying things is not censorship. Censorship is something governments do, not consumers.

lol lee, you're a dimwitted... (Below threshold)

lol lee, you're a dimwitted fraud, through and through. Now THAT'S an "ad hominem" attack.

Sorry, mantis, but you're w... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Sorry, mantis, but you're wrong.

Censorship is the removal of information from the public, or the prevention of circulation of information, where it is desired or felt best by some controlling group or body that others are not allowed to access the information which is being censored. Typically censorship is undertaken by governments, or by established bodies (religions or the mass media), although self-censorship and other forms also exist. Censorship of some forms of sensitive information, such as commercial secrets and intellectual property, official secrets, and legal privilege, are not usually described as censorship, provided that they remain within bounds which are recognised in general as being reasonable. For this reason, the term "censorship" often carries with it a sense of untoward, inappropriate or repressive secrecy as opposed to a reasonable and expected level.

Censorship is closely tied in as a concept with freedom of speech and other forms of human expression, and when tightly exerted is often allied with human rights abuse, dictatorship and repression.

If you hold a loaded gun to my head, mantis, and make it very clear that you object to me speaking out against Bush, are you attempting to censor my free speech?

Wavemaker would say no, because you don't have your hand over my mouth. Wavemaker would say you are not engaging in censorship because I'm still free to say whatever I want.

The economic boycott launched by the right is exactly the same form of censorship.

You'll note that there were death threats reported in connection with the right's attack against the Dixie Chicks as well. I don't think anyone can deny that death threats against someone exercising free speech is a form of censorship, according to the definition of censorship I've cited above.

If you disagree feel free to cite and link top whatever backup information or definitions you can provide to support your claim that it isn't censorship.

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

BBC:

Dixie Chicks 'get death threats'

The Dixie Chicks have said they fear for their lives following the backlash against singer Natalie Maines' comments about US President George Bush.

The band say they have received death threats after Maines told a London audience she was ashamed that Mr Bush came from her home state, Texas. Dixie Chicks 'get death threats'

The Dixie Chicks have said they fear for their lives following the backlash against singer Natalie Maines' comments about US President George Bush.

The band say they have received death threats after Maines told a London audience she was ashamed that Mr Bush came from her home state, Texas.


If you hold a loaded gun... (Below threshold)
mantis:

If you hold a loaded gun to my head, mantis, and make it very clear that you object to me speaking out against Bush, are you attempting to censor my free speech?

Ok, fine, you got me. Do, or did, the Dixie Chicks have a gun at their heads?

The economic boycott launched by the right is exactly the same form of censorship.

Still gotta disagree with you there. How is not buying things censorship? If it is, I've been censoring tons of bands for years, including the Dixie Chicks.

As far as death threats are concerned, it's kind of a gray area, I'll grant. It depends on the nature of the threats and the likelihood someone will follow through on them.

Consider this. Howard Stern, Bill O'Reilly, George Bush, Al Gore, Martha Stewart, Simon Cowell, and Jimmy Carter all regularly receive death threats. Is that censorship? An attempt at censorship, maybe, but I really think that's a stretch. In any case you've offered nothing to support your contention, which was what I disputed, that "economic boycotts" (i.e. not buying stuff) equal censorship.

As far as definitions, I'll pull out the old standby, the OED:

censor: n. 1. an official authorized to examine printed matter, movies, news, etc., before public release, and to supress any parts on the grounds of obscenity, a threat to security, etc. 2. Rom.Hist. either of two annual magistrates responsible for holding censuses and empowered to supervise public morals.
v. 1. act as censor of. 2. make deletions or changes in

Sorry no link, it's from my copy.

wikipedia? pffffff... (Below threshold)

wikipedia?

pffffffff. You won't read legal cases from the federal circuit court right, and you want to push wikipedia on us?

"Ok, fine, you got me. D... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Ok, fine, you got me. Do, or did, the Dixie Chicks have a gun at their heads?"

Their livelihood and careers as recording artists were both threatened by the right as a result fo their free speech, so yes - -even ignoring the outright death threats (nice touch) - they figuratively had a gun at their heads. Turned out to be a cap gun held by childish self-appointed miscreants, but it was an attempt at censorship, yes.

"Still gotta disagree with you there. How is not buying things censorship? If it is, I've been censoring tons of bands for years, including the Dixie Chicks."

Not buying things is a matter of free choice. Going on the radio and writing in blogs, that everyone else should do the same, is a form of economic boycott.

An economic boycott applied against someone who is exercising their right to free speech, and in an attempt to do them some harm if they continue saying those things, to is a form of censorship - by the definition I provided above. Organizing events like steam rolling their CDs, boycotting their concerts, etc. these are all forms of economic boycotts.

Here is someone who agrees with me.

Louis Black
The Austin Chronicle

Beating This Topic to Death: Yet Maines' comment resulted in an outrageous, scary, and uncalled-for reaction. Sadly, it was not very unique; under the headings of "consequences" and "patriotism," assaults on Americans' freedom to speak their minds have become commonplace. It is troubling to watch the free expression of ideas being met by economic boycott and speakers being personally attacked and demonized, accompanied by calls for censorship, repressive legislation, and even social ostracism. One would think true conservatives would be die-hard defenders of an open society. In the same ways, however, some of them swoon over the possibilities of one-party/one-ideology politics; they have participated in the administration and Republican right's sustained effort at suppressing and silencing dissident voices.

No, the moral compass swings to and fro with conservatives -- it's all a matter of getting political power and/or holding onto it. Free speech be damned - they slighted boy George! Let's run those Dixie Chicks into the ground.

It's pathetic, as is your (hopefully misguided) attempt to defend their censorship attempts, mantis.

I don't defend their action... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I don't defend their actions, I was correcting hyperbole. If every occasion when people boycott something or object to it on the radio is called censorship, then the word loses its meaning.

The White House telling NASA scientists they can't talk about global warming, now that's censorship. Loudmouths on the radio organizing boycotts of country music, not so much.

You mention free speech as if that wasn't enshrined in the Constitution as a protection from the government (Congress shall make no law...). The 1st amendment does not protect musicians from consumers not buying their music.

Yes - "v. 1. act as cens... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Yes - "v. 1. act as censor of. "

As the right did in an attempt to silence them.

and here is Black's definition of "free speech, which is the same as mine (link is the same as above).

Free speech: When I write about "free speech" in this column, it is almost never a reference to the First Amendment to the Constitution, which grants all citizens free speech. As with the other freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, this means that the government won't prevent speech. When I refer to free speech in this space, I am usually referring to the fact that a healthy, sane society thrives when there is a willingness and atmosphere that encourages the free exchange of ideas between all citizens (of, in this case, the constitutional republic of the United States). The more open the atmosphere, the healthier the societies; assaults on free speech are their most deadly cancers.

Or do you believe that concept of free speech cannot exist outside of the legal parameters of the Bill of Rights?

And if an economic boycott is an not an attempt to stifle free speech, why do conservatives point to their economic boycott as a expression of their own free speech in reponse?

Hint: It starts with an "h", ends with a "y" and has a 'ypocris' in the middle. Here' Ill save wavemaker some time --

hypocrisy

The assuming of a false appearance of virtue or goodness, with dissimulation of real character or inclinations, esp. in respect of religious life or beliefs; hence in general sense, dissimulation, pretence, sham. Also, an instance of this.


Lee just explained that the... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Lee just explained that the failure to purchase someone's CD threatens the Dixie Chicks livelihood. (I don't recall the Constitution guaranteeing the right to life, liberty and a finanically successful singing career, but let's go with Lee's theory for the moment.)

If Lee fails to purchase, say, Malkin, Coulter, or O'Reilly's latest books, then he threatens their free speech by threatening their livelihood (if his convoluted reasoning is to be believed).

Let's see what he actually BUYS himself from conservatives - then we will know how committed he is to his own theory.

If he doesn't, then we know he's - again - just making it up as he goes along and he believes in free speech ONLY when it comes from the left.

"Lee just explained that... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Lee just explained that the failure to purchase someone's CD threatens the Dixie Chicks livelihood."

Nice hat, OV - Did you get it from wavemaker? He has one just like it.

No, OV - you're lying - what I said was that an organized economic boycott aimed at threatening the Dixie Chicks livelihood launched specifically in response to a political view the Dixie Chicks expressed is an attempt at censorship.

Since you started out by lying I didn't bother reading the rest of your drool. Sorry.

Or do you believe that c... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Or do you believe that concept of free speech cannot exist outside of the legal parameters of the Bill of Rights?

As a concept, sure. As a legality, no.

And if an economic boycott is an not an attempt to stifle free speech, why do conservatives point to their economic boycott as a expression of their own free speech in reponse?

I don't understand how that is hypocritical. The Dixie Chicks have free speech, the boycotters have free speech, at least insofar as they advocate not buying cds (the actual purchasing or not purchasing isn't speech at all, but commerce). They're both free to say what they want.

Freedom of speech includes being able to tell someone to shut up. Forcing them to shut up is what's not permissible.

Nice hat, OV - Did you g... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Nice hat, OV - Did you get it from wavemaker? He has one just like it.

No, OV - you're lying - what I said was that an organized economic boycott aimed at threatening the Dixie Chicks livelihood launched specifically in response to a political view the Dixie Chicks expressed is an attempt at censorship.

Since you started out by lying I didn't bother reading the rest of your drool. Sorry.

What was it you said about people who make personal attacks on others? Oh, yes, it was this:

... 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 --

LOL!

As to your "point" ...

I stated that "Lee just explained that the failure to purchase someone's CD threatens the Dixie Chicks livelihood.". You stated that my statment was a "lie".

Fine.

If you did NOT say that the failure to purchase a CD threatens the livelihood of an artist, then you have failed to prove that 'there was gun to their head'.

If, by definition, not purchasing a CD doesn't threaten anyone's livelihood, then no economic boycott can exist. If there was no economic boycott, then no censorship existed.

That, of course, is YOUR logic, not mine.

Economic boycotts themselves are a form of "free speech" as are any number of other forms of expression. You have a problem with that definition of "free speech", take it up with the Supreme Court.

Lee: "Or do you believe tha... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Lee: "Or do you believe that concept of free speech cannot exist outside of the legal parameters of the Bill of Rights?

mantis: As a concept, sure. As a legality, no."

I haven't suggested that anyone should be arrested because of this censorship attempt, or that the Dixie Chick's First Amendment rights were violated.

mantis: "Freedom of speech includes being able to tell someone to shut up. Forcing them to shut up is what's not permissible."

I assume that your use of "freedom of speech" here is not in the strict, First Amendment sense that you tried to box me into... heh.

An economic boycott is, in my opinion, an attempt to force someone to shut up. It's not against the law, and it doesn't violate anyone's First Amendment rights, I admit (but then I never said it did) -- but I have pointed to others opinions and definitions that agree with mine. You don't agree, and that's a-ok with me.

I assume that your use o... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I assume that your use of "freedom of speech" here is not in the strict, First Amendment sense that you tried to box me into... heh.

I'm sorry, I thought you opened it up beyond legalities. I'm not trying to be tricky here.

An economic boycott is, in my opinion, an attempt to force someone to shut up.

And I disagree, and that's fine with me too.

The right wing blogs are so... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

The right wing blogs are so powerful, they've changed the meaning of censorship!

"Free speech" exists defini... (Below threshold)

"Free speech" exists definitionally outside of the bill of rights because lee can cite to someone who decides how else it should be defined. Make your own reality, and then tell us that we have to live in it. Classic wacko POV. Cite wiki definition of "censorship," written by whomever, cite to no authority. Toss around terms of law with absence of regard for their actual meaning, cite to nothing, lob sanctimonious accusations of "smear" and "lying."

"not in the strict, First Amendment sense that you tried to box me into"

heh.

Total fraud.

Freedom of expression exist... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Freedom of expression exists outside of the confines of the First Amendment, and extends into everyday areas of life, according to several reasonable definitions linked on this and other threads.

Even the Presidient of the United States affrimed that when describing the actions of the boycotters of Dixie Chick CDs.

Too bad that some people, when they are throughly thrashed in a debate, can't just go lick their wounds someplace quiet and private - but instead have to catharse and wail in public like stuck little pigs. Sad....

pffffffff.... (Below threshold)

pffffffff.

"pffffffff"... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"pffffffff"

One of your more cogent efforts to date, wavey.

Glad to see your tourettes is finally under control - just stay on the meds, k?

Self-deluded <a href="http:... (Below threshold)

Self-deluded charlatan, is what you are lee.




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