« Harry Potter and the Former Vice President | Main | Sadr Runs To Iran »

Second Edwards Blogger Resigns

Melissa McEwan has now submitted her resignation from the Edwards campaign.

I understand that there will be progressive bloggers who feel I am making the wrong decision, and I offer my sincerest apologies to them. One of the hardest parts of this decision was feeling as though I'm letting down my peers, who have been so supportive.


There will be some who clamor to claim victory for my resignation, but I caution them that in doing so, they are tacitly accepting responsibility for those who have deluged my blog and my inbox with vitriol and veiled threats. It is not right-wing bloggers, nor people like Bill Donohue or Bill O'Reilly, who prompted nor deserve credit for my resignation, no matter how much they want it, but individuals who used public criticisms of me as an excuse to unleash frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.

This is a win for no one.


Bob Owens finds it "somewhat ironic that someone who calls my fellow Christians 'christofascists' accuses others of unleashing 'frightening ugliness, the likes of which anyone with a modicum of respect for responsible discourse would denounce without hesitation.'"


I certainly don't count this as a win for anyone. Edwards comes closest to winning since the bloggers will not be officially with the campaign, although the hire itself, and the fact that Edwards did not fire the bloggers, keeps him from declaring this a win. It is not a win for those on the right because they have lost a really juicy target in the Edwards campaign. It is not a win for those on the left because they have been identified as supporting language and sentiments that few Americans would embrace.

One point I do want to make clear is that anyone claiming these bloggers should not have been held to account for the profanity-laced anti-Christian statements they made on their personal blogs might have a point if they had been hired to do graphic arts designing Edwards campaign logos or something like that. Instead, they were hired for their blogging. The fact that Edwards' campaign hired them on the basis of their blogging, but seemed to be shocked to learn the content of that blogging tells us a lot about the state of the campaign. If they were aware of the content, but chose to hire them on that basis, that tells us even more. Bottom line -- it was fair game to point out their previous writings, as long as they were quoted verbatim, and in context.

Previous posts:

Another Misstep for Edwards

Salon Reporting that Edwards Has Fired Bloggers

Edwards Gives Potty Mouth Bloggers Another Chance

Edwards Stumbles On The Net

My Fair Potty Mouth Blogger

Edwards' Bleeping Blogger Resigns


TrackBack

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

» Bill's Bites linked with Twisted Sister #2 Resigns

» Right Pundits linked with Edwards Campaign is Imploding

Comments (58)

"unleash frightening ugline... (Below threshold)
RicardoVerde:

"unleash frightening ugliness"
Yes, Pandora, it's and awful box you've opened

You have to give her credit... (Below threshold)
marc:

You have to give her credit for one thing.

At least she didn't shift the blame to "Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills," of lay down the victim card by calling the despicable episode a "targeted hit on atheists in politics."

At least not yet.

The delay in her resignation announcement probably gave her, and Edwards, time to note many mainstream organizations that are both Christian and Democrats have spoken against the hiring of these two.

A piece of advice for Edwards. Better lay in a very large supply of butter... because your toast.

Why doesn't Edwards just br... (Below threshold)
snowballs:

Why doesn't Edwards just break down and get a MySpace page already?

Yawn, what a non story agai... (Below threshold)
jaku:

Yawn, what a non story again hyped and held high by idiots. Bill Donohoe? Probably got buggered multiple times in his youth by a good god fearing priest, but he obviously enjoyed it, hence his obsession today with butt sex. Was he friends with Ted Haggard or something, maybe they went on , ahem, double dates at a cheap motel by the freeway?

You know if Edwards kept them on, it would have hurt his candidacy far more in the long run, but since they left voluntarily, this particular chapter is closed, done, over, that's it.

Of course I fully expect you all here to write a half dozen more posts about it in the coming weeks, in between all your rants about Al Gore and John Kerry.

So trumpet this minor little blip on the political radar as a victory if you want. Your side could use a good win, because you haven't had much luck winning anything else lately.

Wow, bloggers ARE angry los... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Wow, bloggers ARE angry losers! Both sides bitching about their blogs and in boxes packed with alternative information. I just focus ALL and DELETE. What the big deal?

jaku, I found your comments... (Below threshold)
Chip:

jaku, I found your comments extremely offensive. That's all the time I have for the likes of you.

jaku??"Yawn, w... (Below threshold)

jaku??
"Yawn, what a non story again hyped and held high by idiots. Bill Donohoe? Probably got buggered multiple times in his youth by a good god fearing priest, but he obviously enjoyed it, hence his obsession today with butt sex. Was he friends with Ted Haggard or something, maybe they went on , ahem, double dates at a cheap motel by the freeway?

Tell us what you really know about him. You must know something many of us don't.

Now that both bloggers have... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Now that both bloggers have resigned, I'm sure this is nothing but a damage controlled firing.

I would not be surprised one bit to learn that they were taken aside and asked (likely told) to quit. Either option of keeping them on or firing them would have damaged the Edwards bid.

Why is a piece of garbage l... (Below threshold)

Why is a piece of garbage like jaku commenting here?

"Bill Donohoe? Probably got buggered multiple times in his youth by a good god fearing priest, but he obviously enjoyed it, hence his obsession today with butt sex."

This is slander by any definition. You don't have to be Catholic to be offended by this.


I don't think it takes a ge... (Below threshold)
Corky Boyd:

I don't think it takes a genius to figure out these two were hired back after being fired, so they could be allowed to resign instead. Looks better on the resume.

No politician no matter how for left can live with the rhetoric of Marcotte. And it's more than just the f word. When the campaign becomes overwhelmed defending the indefensible, the candidate is squandering his resources.

Good riddance.

"somewhat ironic that so... (Below threshold)
tas:

"somewhat ironic that someone who calls my fellow Christians 'christofascists'...

Speaking of irony, isn't it ironic that the very people McEwan labeled as "christofascists" strived to put her and Marcotte out of a job?

Christofascists indeed.

Ohhhhh but Lori, we're all ... (Below threshold)

Ohhhhh but Lori, we're all smearing liars, so we can't possibly deny responsibility for this other shoe dropping from the left foot of Queen C***of F*** Mountain.

Hugh S: jaku's a good (i.e.... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Hugh S: jaku's a good (i.e. not boring)commentator with something relevant to say. The catholic stereo-type of the "flaming" priests has been proven out beyond all question in the last decade. From NAMBLA memberships to copping a feel in the sancristy... Remember Bishop Law of Boston? He who covered-up for the priests who got busted through the years for acting upon their "urges" with minors? Did he resign? Well, yes and no...."After his resignation, John Paul appointed Law to several authoritative positions in Rome and the Vatican. He is currently the archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore. He is also a member of the Congregations of Oriental Churches, Clergy, Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, Evangelisation of Peoples, Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Catholic Education, Bishops as well as the Pontifical Council for the FAMILY"...Now what do you say about that, Socrates? (I'm curious.)

jaku's a good (i.e... (Below threshold)
JimK:
jaku's a good (i.e. not boring)commentator with something relevant to say.

What? All he did was yet again try to tell someone else what they should and shouldn't be blogging about and stereotype all Catholics based on the actions of a few.

You think that's relevant and good? Then you're a really, really stupid person.

"Speaking of irony, isn't i... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

"Speaking of irony, isn't it ironic that the very people McEwan labeled as "christofascists" strived to put her and Marcotte out of a job?

Christofascists indeed."

Tas -- Just for the record, this Christofascist didn't strive to put them out of a job. I did think the public deserved to know what level of discourse Edwards deemed appropriate for someone representing his campaign.

You have the temerity to ta... (Below threshold)

You have the temerity to talk about people being 'held to account'? When exactly do you intend to hold the Jew-hating rape apologist Donohue to account for his hateful rants? When are people on the right going to have the decency and integrity to ostracize him?

Are you going to cut him loose, or is there no principle you people are unwilling to sacrifice for partisan gain?

Are you going to cut hi... (Below threshold)
marc:

Are you going to cut him loose, or is there no principle you people are unwilling to sacrifice for partisan gain? Posted by: Tom Hilton

Did you see anyone here defending Donohue? Why should he be "cut loose" by people not defending him?

And JUST who are "you people?"

And JUST who are "you pe... (Below threshold)
mantis:

And JUST who are "you people?"

The Christofascists, duh. ;)

If this was such a non stor... (Below threshold)
Jo:

If this was such a non story as Jaku says, he could have said that in one paragraph. Instead he's worried about the story and how big it's gotten, since he wrote about it for 4 paragraphs. Liberals are so easy to read.

BTW, this doesn't just "indict" John Edwards, it indicts (once again) the entire democrat party, what they write, and how they handle things.

PR wise, this has been a nightmare year so far for democrats.

No, no, not "Christofascist... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

No, no, not "Christofascists"..."godbags." Try to keep up, mantis.

And BTW jaku:Yo... (Below threshold)
marc:

And BTW jaku:

You know if Edwards kept them on, it would have hurt his candidacy far more in the long run, but since they left voluntarily, this particular chapter is closed, done, over, that's it.
Last statements from Edwards on this issue are all about embracing these two giving them a pep talk accepting their "apology" and sending them off to blog for the campaign. All the while not offering anything resembling condemnation for their blog posts.

THAT is what will hurt him in the long run AND WILL be a subject down the line. A quick condemnation and public firing would have ended the problem. But it was more important to appease the Nutroots than act responsibly.

As it is he's the runt of this dem political litter, is sucking hind tit and is about to be kicked of off even that.

And JUST who are "... (Below threshold)
And JUST who are "you people?"
The ones who are helping to carry out Donohue's jihad.

But hey, I'm prepared to give people the benefit of the doubt. Lorie says the bloggers should be held to account for quote anti-Christian unquote statements. Fine; the notion that anything they said was 'anti-Christian' is a load of crap, but fine. Let's see if you're willing to apply an anti-bigotry principle with anything approaching consistency. Are you prepared to shun someone who hates Jews? Are you prepared to shun someone who excuses the rape of children (if the perpetrators happen to be priests)? Or do you attempt to apply some kind of consistent standard?

I know this is totally off ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

I know this is totally off topic, well not really, since this could all be under the topic of democrats humiliating themselves, but....

Have you seen the reports on Drudge about all these global warming summits or meetings, or whatever, being CANCELED because of snowstorms???

TOO FUNNY. Democrats shouldn't pretend to predict Mother Nature. It really pisses her off.

Sorry...that last 'or' in t... (Below threshold)

Sorry...that last 'or' in there makes no sense. I trust my meaning is more or less clear regardless.

Tom,I'm not aware ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Tom,

I'm not aware that one of the campaigns hired Mr. O'Donohue. Isn't that really the point? Someone hiring bigots? I thought the democrats were against that. Apparently not.

This does not even address the Catholic DEMOCRATS who were also upset with Edwards. Does their opinion not count?

Do democrats count the opinions of ANY Catholics?

Wow. Looks like they do not. Good to know.

Tas -- Just for the reco... (Below threshold)
tas:

Tas -- Just for the record, this Christofascist didn't strive to put them out of a job.

Then why make a zillion posts about the situation? In my eyes, you're just as culpable for supporting this nonsense.

Then why make a zillion pos... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Then why make a zillion posts about the situation? In my eyes, you're just as culpable for supporting this nonsense.
------------------------------------------------
so that liberals can hide their sewage from public view?

I did think the public d... (Below threshold)
OldYaleCokeDealer:

I did think the public deserved to know what level of discourse Edwards deemed appropriate for someone representing his campaign.

...Coming from ther same pipehole who lionizes Charles Johnson, Hugh Hewitt, Karl Rove, Patrick Hynes...etc..

Ah go on. Whizbang celebtates!!!

Are you prepared to shu... (Below threshold)
marc:

Are you prepared to shun someone who hates Jews? Are you prepared to shun someone who excuses the rape of children (if the perpetrators happen to be priests)? Or do you attempt to apply some kind of consistent standard? Posted by: Tom Hilton at February 13, 2007 11:57

OK.. done... and done.

What else ya got?

And again... and just because you still haven't pointed to anyone here that has defended Donohue what the Hell's your POINT.

Other than being pissed that two bloggers got fired that should never have been hired.

Bryan'H... (Below threshold)

Bryan

'Hugh S: jaku's a good (i.e. not boring)commentator with something relevant to say. The catholic stereo-type of the "flaming" priests has been proven out beyond all question in the last decade."

You ignore the elephant in the room. Jaku's post wasn't about relevancy or stereotypes. He intentionally slandered a man.

Thank you Tom Hilton for se... (Below threshold)

Thank you Tom Hilton for serving up a nice juicy slow-moving softball.

I denounce Bill Donahue's use of outrageous rhetoric in furtherance of his otherwise-legitimate defenses of the attacks on Catholicism.

I denounce speech that expresses hatred of any person's religion, but I defend the right of any person to speak out against those who express hatred of the religious and their values.

I denounce the abuses of pedophile priests, or those of any others in positions of authority and influence over children, and I denounce the failure of those who oversee them to act swiftly and ruthlessly to prevent further abuse. And I denounce those who use pedophile priests as a basis to attack Catholicism.

And I'll second Wavemaker's... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

And I'll second Wavemaker's comments - while I point out that Tom Hilton HASN'T made a similiar comment. Should we assume - as he has - that his lack of comment means that he SUPPORTS those mentioned that Wavemaker has denounced?

I also denounce the activities of Fred Phelps and his "family". His anti-gay, anti-war, and, to me, anti-Christian comments are disgusting.

I support his freedom of speech - because only by defending ALL speech can we protect anyone's free speech. Therefore, I don't agree with those who seek to silence him - anymore than I support those who seek to silence those who disagree with the speech of the Dixie Chicks or these bloggers. Just as the Dixie Chicks and these bloggers have a right to speech, those who disagree with them do as well.

I do wish that various anti-war groups would speak out publicly against Phelps' efforts. I don't know that no anti-war group has, but certainly there haven't been many.

Good riddance to bad rubbis... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

Good riddance to bad rubbish. But, those two "gyno-warriors" would have made for some hillarious moments in Edwards campaign. Now, he is most certainly toast.

"It is not a win for tho... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"It is not a win for those on the left because they have been identified as supporting language and sentiments that few Americans would embrace."

I don't agree with what they said, but I will always defend their right to say it. Many conservatives seem to have a very selective moral compass when it comes to our freedoms -- and they only support free speech when it is free speech that they can "embrace". That's not what our country's founders intended.

Instead, they were hired... (Below threshold)

Instead, they were hired for their blogging.

Actually, I wasn't hired for my blogging, as I noted in my resignation announcement. I was hired as a part-time technical advisor.

I don't agree with what ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

I don't agree with what they said, but I will always defend their right to say it.

Good paraphrase of the quotation, somewhat appropriate here.

Actually, I wasn't hired for my blogging, as I noted in my resignation announcement. I was hired as a part-time technical advisor.

So why did you resign? I've heard a lot less about you than Amanda Marcotte, but none of what was posted about her would disqualify her (IMHO) from a technical advisor position. Heated dialogue, exaggeration, and hyperbole are part and parcel of the modern blogger, and the know-how is still there. Same would certainly apply to you, I would think.

I was under the impression ... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

I was under the impression that McEwan was hired for her blogging (ie. based on her experience as a blogger), rather than for technical expertise unrelated to blogging. If that is the case, I would also ask why the resignation.

Lorie, she could mean she w... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Lorie, she could mean she was hired as a technical advisor for blogging. As I said, the know-how. Not writing the posts, but telling the writer what is more or less effective, and such.

Lorie: "If that is the c... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Lorie: "If that is the case, I would also ask why the resignation."

Seriously? It almost sounded sincere, Lorie. Were you laughing uncontrollably when you wrote that?

The smear campaign by conservatives like you and your pal Michelle Malkin drove these blogggers out of their jobs... and now it appear that you guys perhaps didn't quite have your facts straight before the swiftboating began. They exercised their freedom of religious expression and free speech, and conservatives hunted them down.

And please, don't claim for a second it was their potty mouth language you and the others objected to -- if the bloggers had written the exact same words about Islamics instead of Christians the conservative hypocrites would have had no problem whatsoever with Edwards hiring them. They probably would have praised Edwards' decision.

Lee, this is me rolling my ... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Lee, this is me rolling my eyes at you. This was turning into a decent conversation, and you are still in shrieking flamewar mode. Calm down a bit, I'm genuinely curious about McEwan's take on the whole thing, and hoping she comments back again. It appears Lorie feels the same way.

It helps to remember that there are other people, much like yourself regardless of political differences, on the other side of the tubes.

Don't hold your breath John... (Below threshold)

Don't hold your breath John -- he has no interest in anything approaching sincere dialogue. Black is white, white is black. He's gone way way let and hell never come back.

A shrieking flamewar is ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

A shrieking flamewar is exactly what the right fomented on this issue - without the complete facts it now appears. The damage is done, and now the right wants to slow down and engage in thoughtful reflection?

Hypocrites! That's what should have been done when this story first surfaced -- but instead the smear machine launched into full-attack mode rather than engage in a thoughtful discussion and debate.

Look at the history of this issue on this blog alone -- ignoring Malkin's foaming rants -- and you'll see for example that it was reported that these two were fired even when they weren't -- and it got worse from there.

Rolling your eyes won't bring about change, John -- but convincing right-side bloggers to change their swiftboating ways will - you're barking at the wrong dog.

Lee, they both resigned, af... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

Lee, they both resigned, after Edwards offered to keep them on. I've read both statements, and i'm still curious. Edwards knows he's a long-shot candidate, but having a couple of genuine firebreathers (not in a negative sense, per se) was probably the shot in the arm he needed. I'm curious if they will continue to support him with their posts, whether they plan to change their style in the future, with more or less heat, among many other questions.

There were quite a few on the right side of the blogpshere that supported these two staying on, some for snarky reasons, others for perfectly valid ones. The fact that a bunch of tools decided to email-bomb hatemail to both of these is unacceptable, it's happened from both sides of the fence, but the right-blogs should be embarrassed if they encouraged it in any way. I expect pols to have thick skins, but bloggers are generally regular people, and we need more of them in the inner circles of the political process.

Old "pucker puss" (lee lee)... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Old "pucker puss" (lee lee) (RTP) (RM) is begining to sound just like Alan "eyebrow" Combs. Excuses excuses. Neither can stand to hear the truth so they start by saying look what so and so said about the subject 200 years ago. p'p' MM could take anything you spew and chew you up like a whimpy ass LLL you try to be. I for one am glad that the ambulance chaser hired the 2 nuts. Just showed what kind of person he is. Can you see a person like this running this country? Sheeze

Lee, I'm probably to the le... (Below threshold)
troll:

Lee, I'm probably to the left of you in my politics, and I think it's obvious that Edwards, a candidate that would probably do a whole lot of good for America, should have hired bloggers with more... sanitized... histories. I agree with pretty well everything I've read at their blogs, but in terms of appealing to voters outside the base, you have to be ridiculously PG. Yes, it sucks that people like Malkin, Hewitt, and Reynolds get away with xenophobic or outright genocidal remarks in their writing, but they aren't working for a politician currently attempting to secure a federal party's nomination. If and when they are hired as campaign bloggers or consultants, then it will make sense to speak of hypocrisy.

Now whether there are any bloggers on the left who meet this stringent criterion is dubious, in part because liberals don't get hung up on the idiotic and unhelpful construct that is pejoratively referred to as "decency". Most funny people swear a lot, as do a helluva lot of smart people. A lot of mudslinging occurs on the internet, and inside jokes can be taken as pure vulgarity when the Googler is unfamiliar with a blog's history or the joke's context. The internet facilitates hitherto unimagined scrutiny of written word, and now anyone with a modicum of ambition must be seriously careful about what they broadcast into cyberspace. Marcotte and McEwan will continue to produce excellent content on their own blogs, and Edwards can go find a choir boy to carry his e-torch for him. Liberal (and Conservative) bloggers can take a lesson from this: if you aspire to bigger and better things than the blogosphere, don't be a fucking cuss-bag. :)

jhow66, are you writing in ... (Below threshold)
troll:

jhow66, are you writing in code? Does one have to consume the same amount of Coors Light that you apparently have in order to decipher that vomit? Say what you will about Lee, but the guy can form a coherent sentence. That's step 1. You're still struggling to find the ladder.

troll, in regards to one of... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

troll, in regards to one of your points, I still can't believe one of the critiques was that Marcotte used the term "Jeebus."

My sister is a very good-hearted Christian, and she uses that phrase. Probably because she's also a good-hearted Family Guy fan. . .

Me, I'm an agnostic. I try not to go out of my way to offend any particular God or set of Gods, but I figure they have to have a sense of humor.

John I., I'm a former Chris... (Below threshold)
troll:

John I., I'm a former Christian, and I was raised to be tolerant of everybody who doesn't want to tie my gay uncle to a fence and throw rocks at him.

"Christofascist" is a clever and apt term for people who justify bigotry with an immorally selective interpretation of Christianity, sullying Jesus' name and philosophy in the process. Michelle Malkin et al show themselves to be personally offended by this remark, but hey, the truth sometimes stings. It is unsurprising that this term was included in their fruitful witch hunt, though, as the MSM fails to appreciate non-PC humor as much as the right-wing blogosphere. Edwards was made to answer for it, and "Laugh a little, you fucking babies" would not have gone over too well.

"Godbags", though, seems derogatory towards people of faith, and while I don't respect religion, I tolerate it. "Godbag" doesn't seem to meet the threshold of tolerance. Still, I've already started referring to my Christian coworkers as such and they find it funny--again, whither the right-wing Christians' senses of humor?

and I was raised to be t... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

and I was raised to be tolerant of everybody who doesn't want to tie my gay uncle to a fence and throw rocks at him.

Y'know, there's all kinds of kink on the internet. . .

I agree, pretty much.

Although, I have some fairly right-wing Christian friends, and most all of them have laughed at the joke about why little old ladies love Jesus. . .

The ones who didn't have definitely marked me down as "destined to burn" though.

Troll ..."Chris... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Troll ...

"Christofascist" is a clever and apt term for people who justify bigotry with an immorally selective interpretation of Christianity, sullying Jesus' name and philosophy in the process.

That is a genuinely interesting observation.

Until you pointed it out, it had no occured to me that - if we use your definition - Marcotte and McEwan would also be considered "Christofascists".

Many conservatives seem ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Many conservatives seem to have a very selective moral compass when it comes to our freedoms -- and they only support free speech when it is free speech that they can "embrace". That's not what our country's founders intended.

As anyone would know if they read your posts yesterday Lee, you have absolutely no idea what free speech means. Let alone any clue what our country's founders intended. I'm surprised you haven't thrown out the "right wing smear machine was trying to censor them." Another word you don't know the meaning of but constantly use as if you do.

I think the word Lee was lo... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

I think the word Lee was looking for is "surpress."

And it's a fault of many on both sides, wanting to disallow contrary opinions. Lee, you must recognize that many of the leftward college campuses have speech codes that far outweigh any attempts made to curtail the Dixie Chicks criticisms. J.R., I do recall some opponents of the DC's that wanted to go way beyond boycotts or responsive criticism.

It's not pleasant, nor should it be acceptable from either side. And ignoring it does not help.

J.R., I do recall some o... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

J.R., I do recall some opponents of the DC's that wanted to go way beyond boycotts or responsive criticism.

I definitely do not want to rehash all that has been said about the DCs. But to what you reference above, so what? What I was referring to was the simple decision of their fans to boycott buying their albums and having country radio stations stop playing their music. There was nothing extreme about it, nor was there any connection to anything extreme.

What I imagine you may be referring to are the death threats they received, which is illegal and has nothing to do with censorship or free speech. It is also something most famous people deal with on a regular basis.

"There was nothing extre... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"There was nothing extreme about it..."

Right...

oh my how awful. People rea... (Below threshold)

oh my how awful. People reacted to things that were said!

Not blog posts. How extrem... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Not blog posts. How extreme, the authors at Wizbang wrote blog posts about the Dixie Chicks!! How did those three ladies ever live through it.

Poor Lee, now blog posts are extreme to him.

The number was extreme. </p... (Below threshold)
Lee:

The number was extreme.

Why do the simplest things have to explained to conservatives... sheesh. You not only have to lead them to the facts by providing a link), you have to hold their damn mouths open and pout the facts in....

In every other context abov... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

In every other context above, etreme was characterized as death threats.

Now you come along and say the number was extreme. You have been trying to link the death threats to the other legal actions taken in response to the DCs throughout this blog. That is just pathetic on your part.

Why do the simplest things have to explained to conservatives

Gee, maybe if you stopped changing the definitions of words to fit your arguments or stopped moving the goalposts to better align with your position you wouldn't have to explain yourself in every other comment you make.




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