by publius
A big news story is often significant not for its facts, but for the deeper sociological forces and fault lines lurking beneath the surface. Rodney King is the classic example. This story exploded not simply because the police severely beat King, but because it raised larger, more fundamental questions about race and class and criminal justice in the early 1990s.
Something similar is happening with the Marcotte/McEwan controversy, which (as Memeorandum illustrates) has simply exploded across the blogosphere. The reason, I think, is that the story not only hits bloggers in a personal and even threatening way, it also strikes at a very deep political nerve for liberals still recovering from the Clinton Wars and Swift Boats.
Anyway, I’ll get to all this, but there’s a lot of other interesting stuff to chew on here. So rather than trying to fit everything into an overarching narrative, here are some scattered observations:
Marcotte v. McEwan
First, I think these two are being unfairly grouped together. I’m a big Shakes fan. I find her writing entertaining and persuasive — and I hope she gets to stay on. The rest of the post is pretty much about Marcotte.
A Bad Fit
The short answer is that Marcotte should not have been hired in the first place. That’s not a knock on her writing ability or her wit. To be honest, I haven’t read her that much. The posts that Malkin and others cited were a bit silly, but I doubt they are representative of her work. But regardless, you can be the best writer in the world and still be a horrible fit for a political campaign. And she was a horrible fit, for reasons that a thousand other bloggers have already explained.
What’s less obvious is that signing up for Edwards was also a bad fit for Marcotte. To write for a national political campaign, Marcotte has to neuter herself (so to speak). Quite simply, she must stop being the writer she is, for good or bad.
And that’s the potentially tragic aspect of this little writing gig we do here on the Internets (or at least those who — like Marcotte — are brave enough to use their real names). Putting words out in the public has consequences that can’t be undone. There are risks and rewards. Every time you write something controversial, you take a real risk with your future. Marcotte chose to be a blogger, and she chose to be a controversial one. And there are benefits to that — she got an outlet for her passions, she got some notoriety, she got an audience. But just as her writing opened certain professional doors, it also closed others, likely forever. That sucks, and it’s something we all may deal with one day. But that’s the price. And she should have seen this coming, which brings me to Point #3.
What Was She Thinking?
People are blaming the Edwards campaign for not having their act together (more on that in a bit), but Marcotte shares some of the blame. I mean, if you write regularly about politics, then you should understand certain political realities, however frustrating they may be. What I’m getting at is that, in the context of a presidential campaign, she should have said, “Look, I wrote some things that you should be aware of.” Maybe she did, I don’t know. (ed. But aren’t you being a hypocrite? Do you tell your boss about your posts? My boss isn’t running for President.).
What Was The Edwards Campaign Thinking?
Some people are arging that what’s most troubling for the Edwards campaign is not so much the old posts themselves, but the larger organizational problems the Marcotte hiring/non-vetting suggests. As Matt Stoller says, it makes them appear “not ready for prime time.”
I’m not so sure about that though. The Edwards campaign as a whole seems to have its shit together. The health care plan, for instance, was impressive and had clearly been well-thought out. What the Marcotte hire shows is that Edwards, like others, doesn’t really take the Internet side of the campaign seriously yet.
Don’t get me wrong, they take the preferences of the netsroots seriously — after all, they want the money and the energy. But from an operational perspective, I don’t think they’ve fully internalized Internet operations as a major part of modern campaigns — one that requires top people supervising it, discipline, vetting etc. In fact, I suspect if you could burrow down into their heart of hearts, they probably think the Internet outreach side of the campaign is still a sideshow to the main event. And for now, they’re probably right. If I’m a candidate, I’ll take unions over liberal bloggers any day of the week. But still, it’s not something to blow off.
Taking a step back, the whole flap vindicates John Podhoretz’s view that the best metaphor for a Presidential campaign is a professional golf tournament. The best candidate isn’t always the one who can wow people in a single speech. It’s the person who avoids mistakes, day in and day out, under excruciating pressure and high visibility. Thus, the real issue now is whether Edwards’ reaction to this story is going to be a bigger mistake than hiring Marcotte in the first place. Next slide.
What To Do
The Edwards campaign sees itself in a pickle, though it shouldn’t. The answer is pretty obvious. Although it shouldn’t have hired Marcotte, it can’t back down now. From the Edwards campaign’s perspective, my guess is that everyone wants to fire her, but they don’t want to be seen as surrendering to the right-wing Noise Machine. In fact, I’m guessing the shouting match that took place today within the Edwards nerve center was whether firing Marcotte would cost them more than keeping her, in terms of both reputation and money.
A few thoughts here. First, Edwards — like other Democrats (e.g., Tears Durbin) — needs to learn what Rove & Pals have long understood, which is that news cycles don’t last. I mean, good Lord, Ari Fleischer made a living out of this. You evade for a day or two, and then the story goes away. And when it’s over, you don’t look like a wimp. Compare the reactions of Dick Durbin after the Nazi thing to Karl Rove after Reid called for an apology. Teary McTearFace Durbin cried and Rove ignored it.
Second, it isn’t that big a deal. Yes, those writings are bad and offensive. But the overwhelming majority of the public barely knows what a blog is. People just don’t care about this, politically speaking. Bloggers (and I indict myself) tend to live in a bubble, not understanding that most people don’t have the blogosphere on their radar.
Finally, Edwards needs to remember that his goal right now is to win the primary election, nothing more. He doesn’t have the luxury right now of worrying about what Republicans think of him. And firing Marcotte would hurt him with primary voters far worse than keeping her would.
At first blush, this seems contradictory. If no one in the public really cares about the blogosphere, why does it matter what he does either way? Well, to the extent the blogosphere’s opinion matters, it matters more in a Democratic primary than anywhere else. But that’s not really the issue. The issue is that Edwards would give the appearance of caving in to right-wing pressure. And in the Age of Rove, that’s a deadly sin for a Democratic candidate in the primary.
In this sense, the Marcotte controversy has nothing to do with her, it has to do with the larger underlying currents underneath. And what’s underneath is the Clinton Wars, Bush v. Gore, Iraq, and Swift Boats — and a determination not to bend to these attacks anymore. That’s why Howard Dean was so popular — people were craving someone who would not be bullied. This sentiment still runs strong, even to the point of causing foolish decisions (e.g., Feingold opposing the Levin resolution – they’re not mutually exclusive options). But these scars are still raw, and you can’t be seen as weak on that front. (This is why Clinton has her work cut out for her in the primary — it’s not a netsroots thing, it’s a perception of not fighting back over Iraq).
There’s even more to say, but this post is getting long enough.
I think Edwards should say something like, “I strongly disapprove of some of the things Ms Marcotte has written. She and I agree it was a mistake for my campaign to hire her and she has agreed to resign. I’m tightening up my staff vetting procedures. I’ve reviewed the accusations against McEwan and find them scurrilous. I hope she is willing to continue to work for me despite the recent controversy; those attacking her have no honor. It has come to my attention that more serious questions have been raised about similar staffers in Sen. McCain’s (and other Rs?) campaign(s); I call on him (them) to be as forthright and clear about his (their) values as I have been.”
Well, I don’t know if that would be the best course politically, but it’s what I’d like to see him say.
I don’t know if Marcotte is a good match for Edwards or not. I’m not sure that’s what’s important here. People make mistakes.
IMO the issue, for Edwards, has little to do with Marcotte. The issue has to do with whether he can handle himself in the knifefight that modern politics has become. Or, perhaps, has always been.
This is actually a very important issue, because if Michelle Malkin and Bill Donohue can cut you off at the knees before you’ve even made it into office, you don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting anything done should you ever actually make it to the Oval Office.
Marcotte may be a bad hire. Whether she is or not, Edwards should have been on the TV at noon today telling Malkin, Donohoe, and their ilk to pound sand. He did not do so.
No clear statement equals an equivocal statement. The longer a clear statement is not made, the more equivocal any statement will be, no matter how clear its language, when it is finally issued.
An equivocal statement, for whatever reason it’s equivocal, is blood in the water. It’s an invitation for the hyenas to pounce. And, pounce they will.
It’s not enough to have good ideas. If what you want to do is come up with good ideas, you should get a job in a think tank. If you want to be President of the US, you have to be able to *turn good ideas into actual policies, implemented in the real world*.
If a couple of pundits can make you second guess your blogmaster hire, you’re likely not the person to make that happen.
The noise is about Marcotte. The story is about Edwards. By my lights, he’s got maybe another 24 hours to reframe this issue on his own terms. If he can’t do that, he’s not the guy, regardless of how good his ideas are.
Thanks –
Sometimes I Almost Feel Like a Human Being …ilyka at Pandagon says a couple of neat things:
“Bloggers are not a new species. They (WE) are nothing special, nothing strange, nothing unknown. BLOGGERS ARE PEOPLE. It’s just been so long since real people’s voices were actually represented in media or politics that when you begin hearing them, they sound so—ew—so…human! I mean, they take STRONG stands n shit! They actually let themselves get eMOTIONal about war and human suffering and stuff. Surely not glossy enough, not powdered, puffed, sanitized, fumigated, or fluffed enough!” …actually this is a quote from a commenter, “nezua”
“I want more of that in political discourse, not less. More human beings, fewer abstractions. I want people to quit thinking of politics as something they gave up after their last civics class, whenever that was; and I want them to start interacting with their leaders, their governments, and their communities in a more passionate, human way.”
…this is ilyka
Well, read the rest if you want to.
I tend to agree with bob. I’m wondering if Edwards came out and said something like:
‘We hired Marcotte and McEwan because they have strong opinions and they are not afraid to voice those opinions. While I don’t agree with everything they say, I think it is vital for the health of this country to begin having strong opinions expressed as part of a campaign and part of an ongoing dialogue rather than both the pablum that currently stands in place of it and the attempts to prevent discussion on vital issues that affect us, our children and the world. We are not going to ask for their resignations and we will not accept them if they are offered. I don’t agree with everything they have written, but this is a democratic campaign, not a republican campaign, and we _will_ have a diversity of voices here’
What the Marcotte hire shows is that Edwards, like others, doesn’t really take the Internet side of the campaign seriously yet.
Actually, what I thought was that hiring two well-known, outspoken bloggers who can write up a storm showed that Edwards did take the Internet side of the campaign seriously.
But, if Edwards fires either or both of the bloggers for what they wrote before he hired them, then that shows that he didn’t take the Internet side of the campaign seriously enough to have the hires for it vetted.
Plus, I don’t know about Melissa’s standing, but firing Amanda is going to be hellishly expensive. I don’t mean metaphorically – that’s equally true for both of them. I mean literally. If Edwards fires Amanda, Amanda gave up her current well-paying job to move states to work for Edwards. If her previous job will take her back right away, that might not be as expensive, but if she loses her previous job too, and was fired for something Amanda wrote that any reasonable lawyer would point out that Edwards should have known about before he hired her, it’s going to cost Edwards’ big.
The metaphorical cost of firing both of them would be high, too, but at least on that side the two bloggers can tell themselves they didn’t spend two years campaigning for a loser.
Seriously, who gives a flying fuck what Michelle Malkin and Bill Donahue think? These people have said and advocated far worse, more obscene things than anything Marcotte has ever thought. The only proper response to them is a rhetorical punch in the mouth, not a kowtow. If Edwards backs down because of this, I’ve lost all respect for him.
Jes, you might want to leave off practicing American employment law.
But, if Edwards fires either or both of the bloggers for what they wrote before he hired them, then that shows that he didn’t take the Internet side of the campaign seriously enough to have the hires for it vetted.
i think he’s already shown that. there is no way they’d be panicking now, if they’d vetted her properly in the first place. if the campaign knew about Marcotte’s, umm, edgy, style and content in the beginning, then this issue now would be the simple matter of telling reporters the reasons they found it was OK to hire her, then.
so, either they didn’t vet her, and all of this is a surprise. or they did, but misjudged the reaction her writings would cause when they inevitably showed up in the press.
he needs to dump her, immediately. there’s nothing to be gained from having to defend this:
What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.
…in the national press for the next year.
i gotta say, i’m really puzzled by the people who think Edwards firing Marcotte sends a worse signal than having that text, and others like it, appear during every Edwards interview and anti-Edwards hit-piece from now until he drops out.
hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit
who the fnck wants to have to defend that ? don’t liberals have enough trouble in the religion category ?
Steve Benen kicks this whole issue right in the nads.
Charley: Jes, you might want to leave off practicing American employment law.
You’re right, of course: I’m saying what would be true in the UK, and in the US, as I understand it, workers have far fewer rights.
cleek: i gotta say, i’m really puzzled by the people who think Edwards firing Marcotte sends a worse signal than having that text, and others like it, appear during every Edwards interview and anti-Edwards hit-piece from now until he drops out.
Well, it will anyway. It’s not as if giving the right-wing what they want means they stop attacking you.
Publius: Really good post. Very little I would quibble with here in your analysis. I disagree with your conclusion. I think he needs to cut her loose, but they don’t exactly ask me for advice.
Also – what cleek said.
Cleek, I think that one reason the RW noise machine has been so successful is precisely because of that dynamic, so that democratic candidates are neutered and this seems like a good place to draw a line in the sand. If the Repubs spend all their money putting ads with Donahue, I think it will turn around and bite them (I hope)
I think this whole thing resonates with something about NRO that Gary referred to in an earlier thread: what you write about follows you around. If you say reprehensible things, someday those reprehensible things will resurface, and you’ll have to acknowledge them or repudiate them. Amanda erased them, or at least some of them.
That aside, the issue of whether Amanda was a suitable hire for blogmistress is worthy of attention. If Edwards hired Amanda to blog about the campaign, he certainly could have picked someone whose opinions are a bit less biting, and a bit less broadly offensive.
So, I’m thinking it’s just bad judgement on Edwards’ part. Perhaps not fatally bad, but he just might have pissed off goodly chunks of the left, center and right all in one week.
Well, it will anyway. It’s not as if giving the right-wing what they want means they stop attacking you.
i believe if Edwards can get out there and do a convincing apology dance, the press will lose interest. of course the right will attack over this as long as they can, but if the press isn’t interested in helping them, it will wither. as a famous writer once wrote “news cycles don’t last”.
this seems like a good place to draw a line in the sand
a line drawn with the hot, sticky, sperm of God?
Well, it is stringy…
BTW, Memeorandum doesn’t catch even half of the blogospheric responses. I tried to assemble some links here, but I am limiting it to the Left side of the blogosphere which is,I’d say, surprisingly united. I hope Internet-savvyy people in the campaign are sitting down the dinosaur internet-illiterate people in the campaign at a computer and making them read all hte posts and comments, while reminding them that bloggers are not Aliens, but people, voters, Democrats and activists – the same people who go to Iowa to knock on doors in January.
I am going to agree with russell — this is a situation which will show Edwards’ strength of character. The difference between being a lawyer and being a candidate is that as a lawyer, the case ultimately is not about you. He could go home each night knowing that if he loses, the worst that will happen is that he don’t get his contingency fee, whereas his client is the one who will end up with the far graver consequences.
I have several times in the past indicated that I liked what I saw about Edwards, and hoped to be able to vote for him next spring, when Pennsylvania finally has its primary. And even if Edwards decides to fire the two bloggers, I will still feel he has the best handle on the country’s problems, and great ideas on how to solve them.
But I will need to re-think whether he will have the strength to fight for his ideas when the going gets tough, and if not whether I can support a candidate who won’t do so.
lj: I tend to agree with bob. I’m wondering if Edwards came out and said something like […]
I think this captures the whole ordeal perfectly. Edwards made a choice, and I am hoping that he did his research rather than picking the name of a random prominent blogger out of a hat. If he made this choice because he values something about Marcotte, then he should not let her go because the right wing is making a lot of noise about it.
Like lj indicated, you do not have to agree with everything your employees say or think. He can make note of that and come off clean, I think: tell us that while he doesn’t agree with everything Marcotte has written, she has a spirit to her writing that he thought would be a great addition to her campaign, and he will not back down because of a little bit of noise. He strongly believes he made a good choice, and thus far she has written nothing so scandalous for his campaign, has she? … No? Right then. She is a smart and talented writer, she knows the bounds between professional and personal, and it would be quite a loss if he let her go, and so he’s not going to.
At least, that’s what I hope he’ll say, if anything. I would be severely disappointed if he let Marcotte and McEwan go, and much less enthusiastic about his campaign.
We’ll see how things turn out by this weekend, whether he issues a statement or the furor dies down…
I’ll also note: I think it is very important that a presidential candidate know how to admit mistakes. However, I do not want that candidate to back down every time someone else thinks he made a mistake. A leader has to use his good judgment day to day. If he strongly believes he made a good choice, if he has consulted people close to him, considered the will of his constituents, and analyzed the situation for himself, and still believes he made the right choice, I do not want to see him take it back just to please others.
What I want, if someone is going to admit their mistakes and try to account for them, is for them to make sure they really believe they made a mistake. A good leader will be considerate of the needs and desires of those he is leading, and that will factor into his decision, but not make it for him…
I’m not sure I can make my point any clearer, so I’ll stop now — I could have quite a lot of faith built up in Edwards depending on the choice he makes now, and more importantly how he explains himself. We will see if he has the qualities essential to good leadership or whether he will bend in the slightest of wind.
… I also think, regardless of US law, it would be a [crappy] thing to do to hire Marcotte, who quit her job and started packing up to move however-many miles, and then fire her days later. I don’t think he has any legal obligations to her, but on a more personal, moral level, he certainly has a responsibility to her, and I would hope that if he lets her go, he’s proactive (uh oh, buzzword) in making sure she gets settled back into her old life.
One thing I haven’t seen touched on much. Edwards included religion and spoke about his faith frequently in his VP bid. Since announcing his presidential bid, he has had plenty to say about it. Many of his campaign stops have been at churches. All the candidates have been speaking about faith, religious tolerance, etc. Democrats are trying to gain some traction on the issues of “moral values”, etc.
From his website:
Edwards said he grew up in a Southern Baptist home and prays daily.
“I embrace faith, and I believe America should embrace all faiths and those who don’t have faith.
If we are multicultural and multifaith than we ought to embrace all faiths,” Edwards said. “Faith is not a political tool.”
All you really have to do post that side by side with her “What if Mary had taken Plan B…” remark.
I’m sure there is some rule in politics about not handing your opponent a 2×4 to repeatably smack you in the head with.
Steve you really think people should be forever barred from employment because they tell a dirty joke that a lot of people find offensive? She’s his freaking blogger and it was written before she joined the campaign. I love how a one liner is more “out of the mainstream” than a book length defense of internment camps (dishonestly researched at that)…to say nothing of the quotes I could pull from actual government officials such as the Vice President of the United States (and I’m not thinking of the go f*ck yourself comment.)
Speaking just for myself, because that’s all I can speak for, I don’t think Edwards should have fired her just because I don’t happen to care for her opinions. I also don’t think he should have hired her in the first place, but I’m repeating myself.
Democrats are trying to gain some traction on the issues of “moral values”, etc.
See, this is what I would have thought – and now I am coming close to commenting on a campaign in the primaries – was so cool about hiring Amanda Marcotte in particular (I read her more regularly than Shakespeare’s Sister, because Shakesblog takes forever to load). They’ve both got traction on moral values, but without thinking that having traction on moral values means being anti-feminist, anti-gay, pro-Christian Right, which is what the Republicans routinely claim is what “moral values” means. Accepting the Republican definition of “moral values” and trying to match up with it is a losing game: better to declare what moral values you say are important, and stick by them.
The Republicans can take the position that their moral values require them to be against freedom of speech and freedom of religion: that leaves a wide field open for a Democratic politician to have distinctively different moral values.
I also think, regardless of US law, it would be a [crappy] thing to do to hire Marcotte, who quit her job and started packing up to move however-many miles, and then fire her days later.
i definitely agree with that (and the rest of your post). as much as i disagree with Marcotte as a blogger, i don’t really enjoy the fact that what i’m arguing Edwards should do could really put her in a lousy situation. on a personal level, that sucks.
“Jes, you might want to leave off practicing American employment law.”
Speaking as some one who does, on occasion, practice American employment law, what he said doesn’t seem that far off the mark . . .
I agree with cleek! The stars are definitely lining up…
Edwards made a choice, and I am hoping that he did his research rather than picking the name of a random prominent blogger out of a hat.
Those of you who are familier with the Edwards phenom. know that Elizabeth Edwards is a *very* enthusiastic participant in the blogosphere and has been for many years. No names were ‘drawn out of a hat’, believe me.
I can see both sides of this, but I have to come down on the side of publius. Edwards shouldn’t fire anyone. The story (or ‘story’) could go away, except for people like Donahue, et. al. wanting to bring up stuff like ‘hot, white, sticky holy spirit’. Let them. Edwards is not going to get the votes of their audience anyway.
The real problem here is the so-called netroots – people so hair-trigger intolerant and rigid that *they* are the ones who will keep the ‘issue’ alive. Without them, this would be just another squib from the loonies. Marcotte is a webmaster, not a ‘senior advisor’.
Rea, Jes is female.
I don’t know what kind of arrangement ms. Marcotte has with the campaign, but I’d be (pleasantly) surprised if it was other than ‘at will.’ I also don’t know NC employment law, but wouldn’t be surprised if it was fairly employer friendly. It ain’t the Virgin Islands.
So unless she can make out a case for discharge due to membership in a protected class — and I’m not seeing that — all she’d have (assuming that NC law is ‘normal’ for the US) is the public policy exception to the at will doctrine. And I don’t see that either.
I would guess that under the law, a campaign staffer who becomes an issue for a candidate can be let go. Why do you think it might be otherwise?
I don’t think he should fire her, btw, as noted on the other thread.
Those of you who are familier with the Edwards phenom. know that Elizabeth Edwards is a *very* enthusiastic participant in the blogosphere and has been for many years. No names were ‘drawn out of a hat’, believe me.
Thanks, jonnybutter I was really wondering if I just imagined her participation when no one else mentioned it.
Steve you really think people should be forever barred from employment because they tell a dirty joke that a lot of people find offensive?
Not at all. I’m looking at it from the perspective of running a presidential campaign. If you are speaking at churches, and including remarks about faith and religious tolerance in your stump speeches, and all the other candidates are talking along a similar line – then hiring/keeping an employee with a public record of being vehemently anti-Catholic just makes little sense.
This isn’t about being barred from employment – it’s about being barred from being a public face of a campaign when you are on the record as being almost violently against a plank in the platform of that campaign.
This is not going to be a 2 day news cycle. If he keeps her it will haunt him through the primaries. Forget about the RW Noise Machine. His fellow Democrats will use it against him every step of the way. It will be used against him in the primaries.
I don’t want him to be elected anyway – so I think I’ll just shut up now.
That’s not what “vehemently anti-Catholic” looks like and with all due respect, I don’t think you’re analyzing the likely response of other Democrats or primary voters very well.
As others have observed already, OCSteve, if the opinions expressed in those two posts (and others) make Amanda Marcotte “vehemently anti-Catholic”, most American Catholics are vehemently anti-Catholic… and that makes no sense.
Having slept on it, what I’m left with is the feeling that this is just very, very sad.
A few days ago, Edwards was a really interesting candidate, and Amanda and Shakes were really interesting bloggers. Now, almost whatever happens, Edwards looks a lot less good to me. Amanda and Shakes might lose their jobs, and will certainly continue to work under some sort of cloud if they continue to work for Edwards at all; in either case, not only will things go worse for them, but it’s hard to see how this won’t end up doing something bad to their writing — either some form of self-censorship or, conversely, the kind of ‘oh to hell with it, I won’t be shut up!’ reaction that is still, in its own way, a loss of balance.
So, while something might happen that surprises me, I think we might lose one good candidate and two good bloggers.
I don’t mean, here, to be making it sound as though all of this just somehow happened, without anyone being at fault. It’s just that, right now, I feel less blame-y than sad.
(And we still don’t know what’s going to happen. What’s up with that?)
. What I’m getting at is that, in the context of a presidential campaign, she should have said, “Look, I wrote some things that you should be aware of.” Maybe she did, I don’t know.
Jeeeeez. Can we get off the “she shares some of the blame” crap when you admit you don’t know how she conducted herself during the process of hiring?
That is an irresponsible claim, even with your technical caveat.
I have an idea — why don’t you ASK HER before piling on?
If Edwards *does* fire her, he should hire her to do something else for the campaign … monitor blogs, say.
And firing McEwan is just Bill-Clintonesque in the extreme.
OTOH, if the blogosphere’s mysterious love affair with John Edwards comes to an end, that could be the silver lining.
Now, almost whatever happens, Edwards looks a lot less good to me.
My comment on “blogospheric love affair” crossed w/ Hilzoy’s, but I take hers as important confirmation of my views! 😉
Kjære vene, da..
What is your point, publius? That an indeterminable force of indecisiveness around the campaign should, spell the doom for Edwards? That because there is a ghostly reminiscence of fear around the edges, of which none of the voting masses knows the reason for, the campaign should tank?
And this all because wise&responsible (and not shrill and mad) commenters like yourself cannot be bothered to have a goddamn opinion without qualifying it through what you believe “the stupid&uninformed voters”(tm) will “believe”.
And what, for instance, about the “Iran beligerence” on Edwards’ part lately? Will that be a matter of political anxiety towards the masses as well? Because of the lack of crystal- clear course, perhaps, or because it is another sign of this fear and insecurity insinuating itself around the campaign?
In the same vein, don’t you think the slightly meek demeanor and primarily searching attitude Edwards has had lately gives off an impression of weakness? Surely this kind of unpresidential behaviour does not satisfy your inner narcissistic tendencies?
Surely your “feeling” about the campaign is the most important part, eh?
Honestly – you guys don’t need politicians, you need shrinks. You want strong leaders to tell you what to think, but not in a direct fashion. Oh no, you need to cushion it in a mixture of opportunism and elliptic conceptualism designed to clear you of any responsibility.
But I agree, this episode should touch a lot of commenters personally. Because it’s about what you envision politicians to actually do and respond to.
And this is the key, ladies and gentlemen, to understand why the Rove- camp did so well: they have discovered that personality and perception of leadership sells better than actual leadership.
Trite point, of course, but the why of how this incident has taken off is to be found there. And it is this – the disconnect between actual opinion, and the expression of those issues. And in the case of the democrats, the issue is what, in particular, the wise&responsible response towards republican discontent is. How do you express that.
Do you say this is clear language, or do you skirt around it by competing for the metaphors of your opponent?
Do you write your opinion, or do you write about what others’ opinion is?
Do you aknowledge people’s opinions, or do you just not have the stomach to handle the furious stupidity of it all – and instead seek refuge in glorious wise&responsible analysis?
I’m just asking, but I’ll say this: you get the politicians you deserve, and you bloody well should’ve learned something by now.
I think that it is really really important that Democrats who seek leadeship positions stop letting thhemselvesbe nfluenced by whhat the righhtwinng says. you can’t be a leader if you ae afraid of thhe people who wwon’t vote for you anyway.
The figthht is for thhe votes of thhe middle. People in the mmiddle tennd to be less issue oriennted annd more responisve to perceied character. the righht winng knnows this and onne of thhe primary goals of the Noise Macinneis to make Demorats ollk weak so people in thhe mmiddle, long after thhey have forgotten any inndividual righhtwinng attack, will have a vague immpression of a Democrat who was weak.
The politically smart thhing for Edwardsto hhave done was to have annouced thhat he was keepinng his two blogggers, followed by and attack on that Donohue charcter and McClainn for thhe badstaffer he hired. Take thhe fighht to themm. Never apologize. I a few weeks no onne except a few righht bloggers will remember a thinga abouut marcotte but everyone whill remember thhat Edwards came out swinginng.
If Edwards can’t do that than hhe will campaignn like kerry anndwe don’t nneed that.
The real issue hhere, to my minnd, isn’t that marcotte said some offensive thingsabouut thhe Catholic church. The real issue is thhat thhe righhtwing hhas a well -greased efffective means of using thhe mmedia for bullinng annd inntimidation annd thhe Democrats need to stop being bullied annd inntimidated. period.
The merits of this particular situation are not relevant. It’s no different than thhe faux outrage over Pelosi annd the planne, the “madrassa”, Durbinn’s commennt about people who torture, Kerry’s botched joke, the Swift Boat Liars, or anny of the otherr times thhe righht ahs tried to whip up an irrelavnnt storm of nastiness.
Please excuse the morass of typos. i shouldn’t have started this rant because I’ve got to get dressed and run now.
With all due respect to Hilzoy – a lot is due, AFAIC – I think this is over the top:
I think we might lose one good candidate and two good bloggers.
First of all, look at the construction: ‘candidate’ looks equal to ‘bloggers’. It is pure insanity to ‘lose’ a good candidate over this, and I’ll bet both of the bloggers in question would agree with that. Second of all, this wouldn’t be anything more than another gob of tobacco juice if the left ‘sphere wasn’t so atwitter about it. Of course there is nothing wrong with taking/blogging about it – that’s what we do. But…get a grip, people.
H. Haller: I don’t think my views about Edwards are part of any “blogospheric love affair”. More like: well, if Obama somehow flames out and Clark doesn’t catch on, then I’ll have to find someone else, which could happen in any case (e.g., if suddenly Tom Vilsack does something spectacularly impressive), but failing that, Edwards seems like someone I might get behind, if push came to shove.
I mean: I think it’s very, very important that someone, somewhere, is making poverty his central issue. And while various candidates care about it, Edwards is the one who is building his campaign around it. That matters.
On the other hand, even before the Iran comments, I didn’t see much there there on foreign policy, and that matters too. It would be tempting to call this ‘inexperience’, were it not for the fact that, well, that’s not the main thing. Someone can not have a lot of experience in the State Department or the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee and still have both deep knowledge and sound judgment; these, plus an ability to consult with other people who know more than you do, and to listen to them and ask good questions and assess what they have to say, will get a person a long way.
(I mean: do the people who write for American Footprints have more “foreign policy experience” than Jonah Goldberg? Not (afaik) in the sense that would be picked up in a campaign. But that in no way means that they and Jonah G. are on a par.)
It’s that that I’ve been missing in Edwards, on foreign policy.
And we still don’t know what’s going to happen. What’s up with that?
Blind guessing from the other side of the Pacific, EE strongly felt that m&m were people the campaign should hire and JE is not as convinced and negotiating those sides might lead to the paralysis. I guess I’ve been watching too many White House reruns…
jonnybutter: I should probably have said: I will lose one good candidate, in the sense that while I might be wrong, I suspect that my view of Edwards will not survive undiminished.
lj: that was also my (wild, unsupported, evidence-free) speculation. It would explain why this issue seems to be hard for the campaign to resolve.
I hasten to add that I don’t mean to undervalue the independence and candor of good bloggers (I’m speaking more of Shakes., who I, too, am more familier with than Marcotte). But joining a campaign isn’t something anyone forced them to do.
H. Haller: I don’t think my views about Edwards are part of any “blogospheric love affair”.
True in your case, hence the emoticon. If they *were,*, no irony would’ve been needed.
However, I think it’s fair to say that a good bit of Left Blogovia has been Edwards-philic, for no good reason other than his ability to sound deeply committed to whatever admirable position he happens to be enunciating.
I would also add that if you’re going to make poverty your *central* issue, then wait to build your $$$ mansion until *after* the election. I am beginning to suspect a certain lack of political savvy on JE’s part. Perhaps I am mistaken.
Good post, P. Some of the commentors need to take your advice re: news cycles to heart.
This is a play the right-wing blogs will be happy to run again and again and again if they see that it works.
I think it’s fair to say that a good bit of Left Blogovia has been Edwards-philic, for no good reason other than his ability to sound deeply committed to whatever admirable position he happens to be enunciating.
I would argue the exact opposite. Left Blogovia has been remarkably skeptical about Edwards – it’s almost a tic (publius can’t support him because he’s…wait for it…cheesy). Lucky for you guys on the right, many progressives and Democrats in this country just don’t trust skilled politicians from their own side. If a dem isn’t boring and mediocre, there must be something ‘wrong’ with them. You guys on the right don’t have that problem – your problem is rather the other extreme; and the two are related, of course. Dems tend to be stuck in the stupid feedback loop of just reacting – in a literal way – to what the other side does. ho hum.
I would also add that if you’re going to make poverty your *central* issue, then wait to build your $$$ mansion until *after* the election. I am beginning to suspect a certain lack of political savvy on JE’s part. Perhaps I am mistaken.
Yes, you are mistaken. Your argument is anti-conservative and anti-Republican. Edwards already had a mansion – more than one. He’s rich, and he earned it. From the true hypocrite’s POV, I see the difference it would make if he built a mansion *after* he was elected (‘if you can’t be good, be careful!’). Perhaps he should buy a ranch?
I pick on H. Haller’s comment only to make a point: the GOP doesn’t want to run against either Edwards or Obama, and they definitely see Edwards as a threat. And they have allies on the left, always. They have psyched us out a little – and it’s not because they’re geniuses, but because we’re so obvious. All the nutball (Donohue) has to do is insinuate: then progressives flesh it all out. For bloggers, it’s not a manufactured issue, as publius and others have noted. But other than that, it’s just crap.
Katherine: I don’t think you’re analyzing the likely response of other Democrats or primary voters very well.
My political advice is worth every dime the DNC pays me for it 🙂
Just my opinion. The press is in love with Obama right now. Did you catch this love letter yesterday?
IMO, their backing away from HRC, starting to report her negatives a little more. Now they picked this up pretty fast.
Right now, Obama is the man. There is plenty of time for that to change, it’s just the dynamic I see right now.
That and $1.50…
OCSteve, they’ve been inexplicably in love with McCain for years (and still seem to be), so it’s only fair that someone else gets a share for a while.
Left Blogovia has been remarkably skeptical about Edwards
We slum in different dives, perhaps.
Perhaps he should buy a ranch?
Anyone who thinks Dubya cares a rat’s ass about the poor, isn’t in play for the Dems in any event.
“So, while something might happen that surprises me, I think we might lose one good candidate and two good bloggers.”
This seems odd. You aren’t going to lose two bloggers. The worst that is likely to happen to them is that they go back to their blogs and are more popular than ever.
As for one good candidate, either this situation exposes something important about Edwards or it doesn’t. If it exposed something you feel is important enough, it is better that we know now. If it did not expose anything important, I strongly doubt that Edwards will lose over this. It is almost two years before the election and this is a trivial matter over that time span. The only way you lose a candidate is if a large enough number of people who support Marcotte decide that this incident reveals something about Edwards that influences them to not vote for him. And that is back to situation number one.
Seb: I meant: it’s hard for me to see how this doesn’t affect their goodness as bloggers, either through self-censorship or through the opposite. Maybe less true for Shakes.
Sebastian, you’re probably right, but you’re ignoring the possibility that people might decide it reveals something about Edwards that is not in fact true, in which case we’d lose a candidate over something that really wasn’t important. You’re also ignoring the role of the media in these frenzies.
I just think it’s quite instructive as to how the “sensible left” is unwittingly a useful tool in the workshop of the right’s idle hands.
This whole issue is nothing more than the whole “shall we be gentlemen or fighters” debate writ large.
Guess who won.
TPM just put up a statement from Edwards and the bloggers …
Edwards says he was “personally offended” by some of the posts. He comes off sounding like he hadn’t read them before he hired them, which doesn’t look good to me.
It’s a two-fer for the right.
Congratulations, y’all! Good to see that good sense and careful manners are the foundation of a good society.
Hal, seems to me the “sensible left” and the “fighters” were both tools of the right this time.
I thought the statements, and the resolution, were as good as we could have hoped for.
KCinDC, how were the fighters tools? This was a fake problem blown up by Malkin who even admitted it was fake, propped up by the sensible left who disagreed with the bloggers in question and fanned the fake story. They got played.
The fighters? As far as I can tell, the only problem they had was joining Edwards’ campaign when they thought everything was cool
Without the support of the sensible left, this would have went nowhere. They could have simply not read their blog posts if they didn’t agree with them. BFD.
What’s missing in all of this is defining exactly what Marcotte has been hired to do. If her role will involve her to a significant degree in defining Edwards’ message, then her prior message taints his. If not, then her prior writing is basically irrelevant and has no meaning to his campaign.
I honestly am unsure of the role she was intended to fill in the campaign (and it may be undefined because no one knows what an internet coordinator is supposed to do). But I think the key judgment about this turns on this question.
The smartest move is to keep her but make it clear that her role does not have anything to do with defining Edwards’ message; i.e., she is needed for certain talents, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but he prior writings do not speak for the Edwards campaign. That may already be the case, or it may reflect an implied demotion in the role that she may have had absent the flap.
If the intent was to add her voice as an adjunct to the campaign’s overall message, then they made a serious mistake. I like her writings, but it is kind of like hiring Lenny Bruce to be your spokesperson.
“Sebastian, you’re probably right, but you’re ignoring the possibility that people might decide it reveals something about Edwards that is not in fact true, in which case we’d lose a candidate over something that really wasn’t important. You’re also ignoring the role of the media in these frenzies.”
Which ‘people’ are you talking about in the first sentence? For purposes of this controversy there are four types of people (listed in descending order of importance from the point of view of the Edwards campaign) Non-blog interested Democratic primary voters, non-blog interested general election voters who might conceivably vote for a Democrat, blog-interested voters who might vote for a Democrat, people (blog interested or not) who won’t vote for a Democrat. This controversy is not important enough to have anything to do with the first two groups. The fourth group isn’t a group that is politically important to Edwards. That just leaves the third group.
The reaction of the third group is not under the control of the fourth group, nor is it under the control of ‘the media’. The third group is politically savvy enough to find their own information and make up their own minds if they want to.
The handwringing about the fourth group or the media is a huge distraction.
Just read the TPM link re Edwards’ statement; I agree with hilzoy.
Sebastian, since CNN picked this up, don’t the first two groups then come into play?
Just read the TPM link re Edwards’ statement; I agree with hilzoy
Yes, it’s probably the best we could hope for, but as the bed has already been shit upon anything that follows is less than ideal.
Still, this the first victory for those on the right. May not have been a kill, but it’s a significant moral victory. And it’s amazing to see how quickly the sensible left piled on and transmitted a fake story.
Again, if you disagree with the blogger, that’s fine. But spreading a story by Michelle Malkin that you haven’t even verified? My god, what a stupid, stupid thing to do.
“TPM just put up a statement from Edwards and the bloggers …”
I think the fact that AP carried it, and the NY Times on the front page, is more notable, but anyway.
“Sebastian, since CNN picked this up, don’t the first two groups then come into play?”
Not everything that CNN picks up is actually interesting or mind-changing to potential voters. The long term impact of this is particular issue is way too inside baseball for the non-blogging audience. So I suspect, no it doesn’t bring the first two groups into play.
While I like blogging and enjoy (some) bloggers, I think this is much more likely to be filed under “They aren’t thinking about you as much as you think. No, way less than that.”
Without the support of the sensible left, this would have went nowhere.
that’s bullsh!t.
Malkin, Goldstien, the Bros. Moran, etc., etc. made a hell of a lot of noise with no help at all from anyone on “the left”.
Gary, just curious: I’m not seeing it on the front page of the NYT. Where are you seeing it?
Also, your AP link doesn’t work. But anyway.
Well, I would argue that it does, as sort of a constant wearing away of the foundations. I don’t know how you felt about the Kerry candidacy, but I wonder if you would argue that the attention given to him resulted in voters getting a true picture of the man or in a false one.
“BTW, Memeorandum doesn’t catch even half of the blogospheric responses.”
This is true; I’ve discussed it with the creator on a few occasions (via e-mail); there are a variety of filters.
If the blogger doesn’t add enough original material to what’s quoted, the post isn’t listed. If the blogger includes links to too many stories on the issue, it isn’t listed. And so on.
I’ve often blogged a story that Memeorandum has given links to dozens of blogs about, but not been linked to — or found that if I added a couple of additional links, my post which had been linked was eliminated. Etc.
“Those of you who are familier with the Edwards phenom. know that Elizabeth Edwards is a *very* enthusiastic participant in the blogosphere and has been for many years.”
People keep saying this, and it seems to have grown in the telling. I believe that she’s been seen to have made as many as maybe a dozen blog comments, lifetime.
Is it more than that? Or am I mistaken that nowadays it takes all of a dozen blog comments, lifetime, to be a “*very* enthusiastic participant in the blogosphere […] for many years”?
Hilzoy: “So, while something might happen that surprises me, I think we might lose one good candidate and two good bloggers.”
That seems like a major over-reaction to me, but we’ll see.
LJ: “I guess I’ve been watching too many White House reruns…”
I’m guessing maybe you meant “West Wing.”
Sorry, that was in response to Sebastian.
The statement seems to indicate he didn’t do his homework, which is disappointing, to say the least. Not the worst way this could have turned out, but not encouraging either.
GF: that’s bullsh!t.
See, such an articulate and useful response.
Thanks, Gary!
Who is this “sensible left,” and what are you talking about? How did they manipulate the NY Times and AP and the rest of the mainstream media into paying attention to Malkin and the right?
Sorry, it’s called The White House (or ザ･ホワイトハウス) here in Japan and I just went with that. It is very funny to watch Bartlett and company argue in Japanese.
re EE’s enthusiastic participancy: I’ve only caught a few comments by her, but the comments indicated that she’s reading people and knew, for example, where some commentators had been to school based on comments made in previous threads. I wouldn’t say enthusiastic, but she does know who’s who.
Reading the statements, I give Edwards a B+ for this. He ultimately made the right decision to keep them, but he took too long. He also avoided staging a counterattack on the accusers, which may or may not be the right strategy for this point in the cycle, but will only ensure that sometime later in the campaign there will be another attempt to throw Edwards off stride with this sort of trivia.
I’ve seen this same rumor spread by various blogs on the left. If you really, really want, I’ll provide links, but I’d rather not point fingers because some of them are friends.
But the point is, rather than a line drawn in the sand, what we have is a sensible discussion which basically supported the party line. Whether it was going to get into the NY Times and AP isn’t the direct result of the sensible left, but there wasn’t any unified response by the left to this whole despicable action.
Rather, we treated it – yet again – like a debate topic and fed the frenzy. No coming to the defense, rather the chin stroking and “yes, I haven’t always agreed with her and think she doesn’t represent my views and my, that does look bad that she scrubbed her site”. This isn’t an intellectual issue.
(which, by the way, it’s the height of comedy to see Tac pontificate on M&M)
“Gary, just curious: I’m not seeing it on the front page of the NYT.”
On the front page of the online NY Times; the story is here.
Hmm. Okay, it was under “News from AP & Reuters »,” but now it’s been replaced with other stories. Yes, folks, it’s just that earth-shaking a piece of news. Truly, Edwards’ campaign will never be the same, and all of America is talking.
Eyeroll.
The story now in the same slot is “Beauticians Give Stroke Prevention Advice.”
To me it feels like the issue is larger than the particular posts by these bloggers.
The right wing noise machine (RWNM) will throw anything and everything at any candidate, no matter how inaccurate or inconsequential the accusations are. If they can’t find a real issue they’ll just make one up (as Kerry and Obama can attest). Being proven wrong doesn’t even register with them. Kowtowing to them, to try to please some imaginary middle is not the way to go.
I can’t imagine who this apology is going to assuage. The people who make these accusations couldn’t care less. The people who take offense only do so because they are persuaded that they have been offended. The only way these remarks can be interpreted as hate speech is if you ignored everything that’s been going on in the past few years and laser focused on this one issue, which is what such an apology does without putting it in a larger context.
This is what Digby has been talking about for months if not years. For crying out loud, the top political figures in this country, not to mention the RWNM have been calling half the population traitors for years. The right has been publishing books such as “Treason”, “Godless”, “Unhinged”, “In defense of Internment”, “Liberal Fascism”, “The Enemy At Home”.
It’s all a game to them, trying to score points. Apologizing and defending our statements isn’t going to help. It’s time to stop playing the game and just call their bullshit.
“See, such an articulate and useful response.
Thanks, Gary!”
Since I didn’t write what you’re responding to, and thanking you for, and my name isn’t “cleek,” I can’t say “you’re welcome.”
“I wouldn’t say enthusiastic, but she does know who’s who.”
On how many blogs, with how many comments, exactly? As I asked? More than a dozen?
And “many years”?
Wait, she posts as “Bob McManus,” right?
The story now in the same slot is “Beauticians Give Stroke Prevention Advice.”
Gary, thank you for the chuckle, and for reminding me that I really need to get back to work.
“Rather, we treated it – yet again – like a debate topic and fed the frenzy.”
What do you mean, “we”?
I specifically didn’t post about this on my blog — not once — and I specifically announced that I wasn’t going to be saying anything about my opinion of was responsible for what, or what I thought of it, or the people involved, here or elsewhere.
Feel free to use the first person, or to refer to those individuals you have in mind, but kindly do not attempt to claim that “we” all did what you did. Thanks.
On how many blogs, with how many comments, exactly? As I asked? More than a dozen?
I don’t think someone has to make a splash to be conversant with what’s going on and then don’t have to post multipage comments to be sophisticated consumers of blogs. The bar between simply reading and actually commenting is, I think, quite different, and she has obviously crossed that one.
This is just an impression, but she didn’t seem like some newbie. I can only liken it to watching someone who has just started cooking pancakes with someone who has worked as a short order cook for a while: you can tell the difference just watching them cook one pancake.
See, such an articulate and useful response.
it’s as useful as ranting about some imaginary “sensible left” that somehow colluded with the wingnut right to doom some poor (apparently-)innocent blogger.
Gary,
“Feel free to use the first person, or to refer to those individuals you have in mind, but kindly do not attempt to claim that “we” all did what you did.”
The grammar police will soon show up at your door. “We” is first person plural.
And if anyone gives a damn, the headline is back on the Times front page; that section works off whatever AP and Reuters have updated in the last twenty minutes, so stories come and go on that basis.
Since I didn’t write what you’re responding to, and thanking you for, and my name isn’t “cleek,” I can’t say “you’re welcome.”
Wow. Thanks!
I note with interest that Brownback’s campaign has just picked up RedState’s Leon Wolf, whose statement is here.
“‘We’ is first person plural.”
Thank you for that little-known fact; yes, I meant “singular.”
Still, I love how this has gone completely meta. You’re right GF, there is no collective left and it’s silly to keep referring to it as such. Rather we should always exhaustively list our definitions extensionally rather than intentionally.
I’ll do much better in the future, thanks.
“Wow. Thanks!”
You’re welcome. I’m afraid that I long ago handed over the keys to my sock-puppet, “cleek,” to Liberal Japonicus, who now operates “cleek.” Try complaining to him about “cleek.” Also, remember that “Jesurgislac” is really Sebastian Holsclaw. And “CharleyCarp” is actually Hilzoy acting out her lawyer-philia, while “OCSteve” is Donald Johnson exploring being more conservative.
We really should post a guide to all the standard sock-puppets around here, I suppose.
It would be useful.
everything Gary just wrote is true, as always. don’t contradict Gary. he knows of what he speaks, as always.
I wish I had said that.
You did say that.
I note with interest that Brownback’s campaign has just picked up RedState’s Leon Wolf, whose statement is here.
I’m certain extremely moderate and mainstream Leon and his writings will pass the smell test. Either at RedState, or here.
Look who Wolf’s signed up with. ‘Moderate and mainstream’ discourse would likely have disqualified him from consideration. The religious right (ie, Brownback’s constituency) doesn’t grok compromise and comity.
I am spartikus!
(not really — I’ve just wanted to shout that for some time, and the sock-puppet comments made too good an opportunity to pass up)
But by making a stink about Leon, you try to force Brownback to embrace or disavow Leon’s not-so-sane comments about abortion; defining that candidate as being “all about banning abortion” then helps to wedge the Republican field on that issue. I mean, it’s not nice, but it might be effective.
Oh I agree, I’m sure there’s nothing Wolf has written that will get him fired or cause a public discussion about his suitability.
Or his new employment discussed in the NYT.
And so on.
[hmm… how to say i wasn’t trying to make a sarcastic about Gary’s veracity or tenacity, above, but was trying to be a very supportive sick puppet?]
sock puppet.
oh boy. the after-lunch sleepies are upon me.
“The story now in the same slot is ‘Beauticians Give Stroke Prevention Advice.'”
And there we have the flap assigned its relative importance to the non-blogging crowd. 🙂
I am spartikus!
I believe that [Eliz. Edwards] been seen to have made as many as maybe a dozen blog comments, lifetime.
Why in the world is this a point of contention?! It’s like arguing with feddies (not Feddie himself) over on publius’ old blog: ‘Exactly what constitutes ‘enthusiasm’? 13 comments? Tosh!’ Whatever is the frigging difference? E. Edwards is an enthusiastic lurker, and has been since well before the ’04 campaign, has commented on blogs (more than you could know for sure), and has written lots of posts on the Edwards blogs. Doesn’t fulfill your personal, vague, mao-ish criterion for ‘enthusiasm’, Gary? WTF? who cares?
“…has commented on blogs (more than you could know for sure)….”
This is why I engaged in the esoteric, and unduly harsh, practice of asking the question, as taught to me as the proper response when challenging running dog puppets of the imperialstic blog oppressors.
“Doesn’t fulfill your personal, vague, mao-ish criterion for ‘enthusiasm’, Gary?
That’s it, exactly. Thus shall the Revolution menace the Capitalists who suck the blood of the working man! Let bloggers be armed and overthrow all Imperialists under the leadership of the revolutionary war! In this great Cultural Revolution, the phenomenon of our blogs being dominated by bourgeois intellectuals must be completely changed!
You are spot on in detecting my hidden agenda.
Or, it could be I have some interest in “facts,” rather than fact-free “enthusiasm,” and thus I, in communistic fashion, ask “questions.” You’re welcome to ask “who cares?” about “facts,” of course.
But the Maoist explanation is better.
‘OCSteve” is Donald Johnson exploring being more conservative. ‘
Dang, I’m moving up in the world, having sock puppets who are actual genuine bloggers (sort of, over at TIO). Maybe Edwards will hire me.
The tempest in the teapot seems to be over, but as an actual genuine Christian (and not, for instance, the Pope’s sock puppet), I think one should make a distinction between Amanda’s attack on Christian doctrines which arguably do harm (the contraception issue, where I’m on Amanda’s side, as it happens, but that’s irrelevant unless I am the Pope’s sockpuppet) and that sleazy little joke about Mary and God’s semen. She can say that kind of stuff in private if that’s the sort of humor she enjoys, but in public it is a gratuitous mean-spirited slap at people’s beliefs. It’s similar to conservatives making bigoted comments about Islam and maybe a politician should be a little embarrassed having someone like that on staff who’s said that kind of thing publicly. Not that he should fire her, but if Edwards is a Christian and expects others to believe he is one, then he’s got to say that at least one of Amanda’s comments was personally offensive to him. Which he did.
As for whether the right gets away with worse and so on, well, yeah, they do.
For my edification, did any mainstream American Catholic group that does not consist of the loathesome Bill Donohue and his cohorts have a single word to say about any of Amanda Marcotte’s “vehement anti-Catholocism” in the last couple of days? The Conference of Catholic Bishops? Anybody at all?
I meant to say that Christians and Muslims and secular people with strong convictions on this or that should get used to the idea that their sacred beliefs are fair game for crude jokes. Can’t lock people up and throw rotten foodstuffs at them anymore when they blaspheme. But politicians are rightly held to higher standards than, say, my secular friends, one of whom by sheer coincidence told almost exactly the same joke Amanda made about God’s sperm just the other day. I, of course, pasted on a smile and said nothing, but was secretly thinking of Dante, who isn’t in the canon, but hell, saw the place with his own eyes which has to count for something. Can’t recall where sacrilegious bloggers went, but I’m sure it wasn’t up there with the virtuous pagans.
Edwards doesn’t have the luxury of gloating over the prospects of eternal torment for people who say things that momentarily shock or offend–he’s got to distance himself from those remarks.
Marcotte’s response.
McEwan’s response.
We really should post a guide to all the standard sock-puppets around here, I suppose.
You definitely should. I forgot who the hell I was supposed to play today…
The Conference of Catholic Bishops? Anybody at all?
Not even a peep from the Spanish Inquisition.
Now, this is interesting: The Board of Advisers of Donahue’s Catholic League:
Brent Bozell III
Gerard Bradley
Linda Chavez
Robert Destro
Dinesh D’Souza
Laura Garcia
Robert George
Mary Ann Glendon
Dolores Grier
Alan Keyes
Stephen Krason
Lawrence Kudlow
Thomas Monaghan
Michael Novak
Kate O’Beirne
Thomas Reeves
Patrick Riley
Robert Royal
Russell Shaw
William Simon, Jr.
Paul Vitz
George Weigel
Via the Slarti-endorsed blog, Sadly, No
I’m pleased with Edwards’s statement, in particular in view of Donald‘s stance. I still would have liked a bit of a counterattack on Donohue et al. and the press generally.
Assuming, that is, that Edwards can stay in control of the story now.
I meant to say that Christians and Muslims and secular people with strong convictions on this or that should get used to the idea that their sacred beliefs are fair game for crude jokes.
In general I agree with you. In this case I found the highlighted remarks to be vile, and I am not Catholic or the least bit religious. The thing I can’t get over in this episode is how many people honestly (I assume) see nothing that wrong with these remarks.
You mentioned Muslims so let’s expand on that. What if her remarks had concerned Allah and Mohammed and a certain underage bride and had been as detailed and crass. What if it was CAIR calling for them to be canned?
Would the left have been as supportive? Would the outcome have been the same? Is this bad form for your sock puppet?
“The thing I can’t get over in this episode is how many people honestly (I assume) see nothing that wrong with these remarks.”
Has there been a poll on that, or are there individual comments you have in mind, or a mass statement which people signed making such a declaration, or what? What and who are you referring to?
If Edwards had made the remarks in question, I sure wouldn’t be voting for him for President.
The fact that his “campaign blogger” has such remarks in her past, however, strikes me as awfully irrelevant. If a Republican hired the mirror-universe equivalent of Amanda, I’m sure the usual suspects would try to make hay out of it – in fact, they already do. But it sure wouldn’t be a reason for me to vote against that candidate. I could care less who their “campaign blogger” is.
As Rick Moran admits, this was simply an attempt by the right-wing blogosphere to score a scalp. Period.
Would the left have been as supportive?
Speaking for myself, yes.
What was your stance on the Danish Mohammed cartoons, OCSteve?
Google provided this:
OCSteve: Our society embraces free speech. If someone says something that offends your religion, deal with it. We have, for many years.
A statement which is 100% fine with me.
It’s probably not fair that I posed a question to OCSteve then used Google to answer it. I apologise.
Out of curiousity, I investigated the Google footprint of “spartikus”…and it led me to a startling discovery: There are two Canadians who use “spartikus” and post occasionally on poltical forums.
But the other Spartikus is very, very different from me……
To be fair, OCSteve isn’t suggesting we prosecute Marcotte or burn down Edwards campaign HQ…
Hmmm…yeah. Bad analogy.
Gary: What and who are you referring to?
The netroots Gary. Nitpick away.
spartikus: What was your stance on the Danish Mohammed cartoons, OCSteve?
A bunch of out of control (dangerous) children that needed a serious time-out.
spartikus: Google provided this:
That’s me. I use a handle of sorts, but I use it consistently and have for years.
Can we agree that “somebody”, journalist, a cartoonist, you or me, are not quite the same thing as a Presidential candidate in this day and age?
But I think you highlight what is really irking me here.
Assuming my hypothetical remark got the same coverage:
-CAIR would have had a press release out in hours calling for their firing and Edwards’ apology.
-Muslims would have protested in Detroit and Conyers would have publicly denounced the bloggers and called on Edwards to do something.
-“Prominent clerics” here and worldwide would have denounced Edwards until he complied.
-She would have been in actual physical danger.
-He would have had NO hope of being president in this day and time without throwing them under the bus and groveling a good bit.
At the very least, the very least – he would have canned them, apologized for not vetting them, and lost a half day meeting with CAIR and other representatives for some sensitivity training.
In this case he took on one whacko Catholic organization.
Bah – this is what is really at the source of my ire.
“Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.”
Bah.
Lol spartikus. Did you drink any weird antidotes lately?
Thanks, Spartikus. I did wonder briefly if OCSteve’s position that people shouldn’t make offensive jokes about other people’s religions extended to being opposed to the publication of those Danish cartoons… because I rather thought that when it came to being offensive about Islam, OCSteve had come down very heavily for the right to be rude.
I feel rather differently about people being rude about religious beliefs dominant within their own culture, to be honest, OCSteve. It’s that old thing about it being funny when the students make jokes about the headmaster, but unfunny when the headmaster makes jokes about a student.
spartikus: Embrace your doppelganger! It could do you good.
spartikus: What was your stance on the Danish Mohammed cartoons, OCSteve?
A bunch of out of control (dangerous) children that needed a serious time-out.
Er . . . the cartoonists, or the rioters?
Assuming my hypothetical remark got the same coverage:
-CAIR would have had a press release out in hours calling for their firing and Edwards’ apology.
-Muslims would have protested in Detroit and Conyers would have publicly denounced the bloggers and called on Edwards to do something.
-“Prominent clerics” here and worldwide would have denounced Edwards until he complied.
-She would have been in actual physical danger.
-He would have had NO hope of being president in this day and time without throwing them under the bus and groveling a good bit.
Aside from the fact that you have no basis whatsoever for assuming these counterfactuals to be true, I think we can all agree that insulting Islam is far, far, FAR from political suicide in this country, as the *(%)$*(#@ Keith Ellison Outrage-Of-The-Day — and all the attendant nonsense from Dennis Prager and his assorted jerkoff fellow travelers — demonstrates quite nicely.
In this case he took on one whacko Catholic organization.
Yes, it continues to be instructive that Catholics-at-large, and all the actual Catholic organizations that are actually affiliated with the actual Church, appear not to have cared about this at all, to the extent that they even noticed it. The only group — the ONLY ONE — who had anything to say about it actually has NOTHING to do with the Catholic Church, and is instead a collection of far-right freakbags still fighting the Culture Wars.
Personally, I think that this quote from Donohue (found by Digby) kind of says it all:
And having listened to the interview in the YouTube spot to make sure that that was in fact what he said, I’m in a position to say: yes, he did come up with that example out of the blue, and no, there was nothing in what came before that made it less completely bizarre than it seems at first glance.
Phil: The rioters, sorry if that was not clear.
Aside from the fact that you have no basis whatsoever for assuming these counterfactuals to be true
I’m not even going to humor that with links. You aren’t serious right?
Blogs are therapeutic. Maybe like group therapy writ large. I didn’t even know what irked me so much about this. But you folks (sincerely) brought it to light.
Again, I am not religious. Poke fun at religion all you want – of any faith! That does not bother me.
But this country was founded on religious freedom – and it seems we no longer have that. Anti-Semitism or slagging Christians in the worst way is just fine, be it by bloggers, pundits, or politicians. The Religious Right? Need I say more?
One religion is strictly out of bounds for any of that though.
With all due respect to all here, I think that the discussion would have been much different and the outcome would have been much different with my hypothetical comments.
In the end, that is what irked me, though I am just realizing it now.
What I don’t understand is this: why did Edwards hire Marcotte and McEwan in the first place?
Both women have achieved notable success as public commentators. In a world of a billion and one blogs, they have built solid, loyal audiences for themselves based on their writing. Which is to say, based on *what they have to say* and *how they say it*.
Their public statements are what they bring to the table.
I find Edwards statement to be churlish and clumsy. Either he was totally unfamiliar with the work and reputation of both women, Marcotte in particular, in which case he’s a bungler, or he was familiar but is now playing dumb, in which case he *is* dumb, and still a bungler.
If Marcotte and McEwan were policy wonks, political organizers, public relations folks, or any of a hundred other things, it might make sense to say that, although you’re “personally offended” by what they’ve had to say, you want to give them a “fair shake” so you’re keeping them on for their professional expertise.
M&M are none of those things. They are writers. What they say, and how they say it, *is* their professional expertise. It’s the source of their audience, of their credibility, and of their standing as spokespeople.
Basically, with this statement, Edwards is distancing himself as far as he possibly can from anything they’ve ever said, doing so in the form of giving them a public scolding, and then adding in a big assurance to the rest of us that they won’t ever be saying those nasty things again.
What’s the point? Why bother? Isn’t what they have to say — their point of view, the way they say it, the source of their audience and standing — the reason they were hired?
If he can’t stand behind them, he should let them go. Keeping them around with the “personally offended” line hanging over their heads is no favor to either of them.
If I were either Marcotte or McEwan, I’d have my resume on the street tomorrow. They’ve both been given a very public vote of no confidence. Regardless of your opinion of what they’ve had to say, Edwards’ statement is basically a kick in the teeth to both women.
I think he’s a knucklehead. Not because I agree or disagree with anything M&M have said, but because he has handled this like a stupid bungler, and has basically hung a giant albatross around the necks of not only himself, but of Marcotte and McEwan as well.
Thanks –
“The netroots Gary. Nitpick away.”
As I’ve said many times, I’m still unable to tell who the “netroots” refers to with any useful specificity. What’s the test for who is and isn’t one? How many of us are or are not? Are you a “netroot,” OCSteve? Am I?
Is there, like, a memo on this I’ve missed?
In any case, back to the immediate question: who is it, OCSteve, specifically, that are castigating for “see[ing] nothing that wrong with these remarks”?
It’s generally considered a good idea to not make accusations that are (unintentionally) along the lines of “I have in my hand a list of 205 [people] who [X].”
“Out of curiousity, I investigated the Google footprint of ‘spartikus’…and it led me to a startling discovery: There are two Canadians who use ‘spartikus’ and post occasionally on poltical forums.”
I found out quite some time back that someone else was doing a blog (started years after mine) called “Amygdala.” I wasn’t quite sure what, if anything, to do about that, so I’ve wound up doing nothing. It’s not as if I have a trademark on the name, after all. Though it does seem kinda rude, to me. But I’m a touch shy about going so far as to suggest this to the person. Suggestions welcome.
“Can we agree that ‘somebody’, journalist, a cartoonist, you or me, are not quite the same thing as a Presidential candidate in this day and age?”
I think so, so long as we include “blogger” in there.
“In this case he took on one whacko Catholic organization.”
Assuming I understand what you’re saying — and I’m not sure I do — then it’s worth pointing out that the current situation of Catholics, and Muslims, in our society, is, you know, different.
Just as, say, the situation of Jews is different from that of Episcopalians, and that of Mormons different from that of Episcopalians.
It turns out that these differing situations mean that these different religious groups can’t be plugged into different hypotheticals without them often concluding with different end results. True?
“I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” –Presidential candidate George H.W. Bush, August 27, 1987.
I guess it’s quotes like this one that keep my heart from bleeding for the poor, pearl-clutching Catholics like Bill Donahue, just because someone’s “campaign blogger” once said some offensive stuff.
John Cole points us in the direction of a blogger named Kung Fu Monkey for an anti-Donahue rant that makes me want of give up ranting, because others do it so much better.
Edwards should hire Kung Fu Monkey immediately and put him to work mining the harbor against the Republican swift-boaters.
I think it nice of Edwards to hire, and now keep, a couple of smart-alecky bloggers for paying jobs.
What does it say about Michelle Malkin that no Republican candidate would dare hire her in a campaign, but she is happy to volunteer her brand of heathers-trash for them anyway?
“But this country was founded on religious freedom – and it seems we no longer have that. Anti-Semitism or slagging Christians in the worst way is just fine, be it by bloggers, pundits, or politicians. The Religious Right? Need I say more?”
Probably, since with respect, OCSteve, this is a completely incoherent paragraph, and I have no idea what you’re trying to say in it. That could just be me, though.
How does the existence of anti-Semitism in America mean that there’s no religious freedom? What?
And do you have any familiarity with the things the various Christian sects said about each other, both in this country, and prior to moving here, in the 17th and 18th century? When was it, exactly, that we had “religious freedom,” which prevented “slagging Christians in the worst way”? What?
“One religion is strictly out of bounds for any of that though.”
I’m quite sure you don’t realize it, but this is a line of argument historically — and contemporarily — used against complaints about anti-Semitism, as well.
In any case, slagging of Muslims and Islam is hardly “strictly out of bounds” in America, and you must be aware of that, if you pause and consider the question.
This is a quote that’s never been authenticated.
Also: William A. Donohue, not “Donahue.”
The Washington Monthly had a bit about that quote, and some more info
I’m not even going to humor that with links. You aren’t serious right?
Well, yes, I am. The fact that Situation X involving Group A had Result 1 does not mean that Situation X’ involving Group A will also have Result 1. Not everyone who has ever said something bad about Muslims has ended up like Theo Van Gogh. In fact, he’s an outlier, not an example.
One religion is strictly out of bounds for any of that though.
This is, with all due respect, complete nonsense, and you know it is. If you really don’t understand why, perhaps you can explain to me how Virgil Goode was hounded from office this year and everyone, including Goode, seems to have missed it.
And if you think that I would have stuck up for Islam and indulged in all the other hypotheticals you seem so convinced of, you don’t know me very well. You want to slam on Islam? Slam away. I’ll slam right with you. I find it at least as stupid as any other theistic religion or supernatural balderdash.
And with swill like this airing on Our Liberal Media, we hardly need the unauthenticated GHWB quote to be informed about how atheists are viewed in this country.
Gary: As I’ve said many times, I’m still unable to tell who the “netroots” refers to with any useful specificity.
Making it up here, though I know you know perfectly well what I mean:
Merriam Webster 2008
Netroots:
Bloggers on the left side of the political spectrum with large audiences, and the readers who make up those audiences. Democrats, but generally of the more liberal type. Prone to activism. These influential bloggers are able to rally thousands of people who will take the time to write letters, send faxes and emails, and even visit Congressional offices in person. When multiple popular bloggers coordinate their activities their impact increases. Though small in number in terms of overall population, their impact can be disproportionate due to their coordination and willingness to be active in grassroots politics.
It currently remains to be seen whether they will be a help or a hindrance to the existence of the Democratic Party. Democrats like their money raising capabilities, but for the most part their demands are out of the mainstream. They have a disproportionate impact in primaries, but successes there lead to defeats in general elections.
Making it up, but if the official definition is anywhere close I want royalties.
You knew what I meant. It’s knitpicking.
Time to sign off apparently. I’ll assume it is me getting grumpy and bid you all goodnight.
There is a long history of anti-Catholic bigotry in the United States, but the Klan and the Know-Nothings aren’t running too rampant, at present, and Catholics are actually known to hold high office with little controversy nowadays.
There is a long history of anti-Jewish bigotry in this country, but I wouldn’t say that this makes the position of Jews any more the same as that of Protestant Christians than is the position of Catholics identical to that of Protestants.
Right now, Muslims face this.
Trying to claim that these three groups — or any other religious group — are in identical and interchangeable positions in the United States as regards acceptance and lack of discrimination, would have to be either fuzzy-headed, ignorant, or deliberately deceptive.
I don’t think OCSteve is either of the last two, but we all have fuzzy moments in passing, at times.
This is a quote that’s never been authenticated.
I think you mean it hasn’t been “corroborated.” The reporter who asked the question has verified the quote, which is good enough authentication for any court of law.
Are you aware of anyone who was present for the press conference in question – including GHWB himself – who has DENIED the accuracy of the quote?
“Making it up here, though I know you know perfectly well what I mean”
No, I don’t. I really really don’t. I don’t know which people anyone is referring to when anyone refers to “the netroots.” I’ve been saying this for quite some time now, though you may be the first person not on the left side of things I’m mentioning it to yet again.
I’m quite clear, though, that a term that purports to label a specific set of people, yet can’t actually be used in any way to determine who is and who is not in that set, is of extremely limited, if not non-existent, use.
“It’s knitpicking.”
I think one needs yarn for that. Meanwhile, I’m making a substantive point, and it’s the same one I’ve always made about “netroots.” When someone finally explains to me how I can tell who is and who isn’t one, I’ll stop asking.
I’d really like to find out if I’m one, or not, for instance. Can you be one and not read Daily Kos, for instance? How about if you don’t regularly read DK, Atrios, or MyDD?
Is Hilzoy a “netroot”? Is Katherine? Publius? Kevin Drum? Who here is one, and who here isn’t?
This isn’t nit-picking, and it isn’t rhetorical: I don’t know who is and isn’t a netroot. I have no idea.
“The reporter who asked the question has verified the quote, which is good enough authentication for any court of law.”
If you’re referring to Rob Sherman, he’s not a reporter, and he didn’t verify the quote. Aside from that, you’re right.
Were you referring to someone else, and if so, who?
Rob Sherman.
Rob Sherman:
I attended the news conference as a fully credentialed reporter with clearance from the Secret Service to be there. I was the Midwest Bureau Chief of American Atheist Press, reporting for the American Atheist Magazine.
As for your claim that he hasn’t verified the quote, just click the link. Again, he would be competent to authenticate the quote, which has apparently never been denied by anyone else with firsthand knowledge, in any court of law.
“Are you aware of anyone who was present for the press conference in question – including GHWB himself – who has DENIED the accuracy of the quote?”
I, myself, had a personal interview with George W. Bush, in which he admitted to me that he was a Red Lectroid, here from the Eight dimension. Do you know anyone who has DENIED the accuracy of the quote?
I’ll take that as a “no,” then. Which makes it odd that you’re fighting so hard to make the point that this quote, like many other quotes since the dawning of Time, was never captured on audiotape or otherwise corroborated.
“I was the Midwest Bureau Chief of American Atheist Press, reporting for the American Atheist Magazine.”
Yes, that certainly gives him credibility as an objective reporter. Obviously. Quite the prestigious journalistic credentials you’re citing there. Very impressive.
Conveniently, he’ll also delivery packages for you, and he’s a travel agent. It’s the usual deal with journalists.
“As for your claim that he hasn’t verified the quote, just click the link.”
I read it when Kevin first posted it, and have reread it many times since. What you’re claiming is “authentication” that he heard this from G. H. W. Bush is that he says he heard it. And he has a letter from Boyden Gray which says nothing about it, but which he insists is relevant, even though it plainly doesn’t say what he claims it says.
If you regard that as credible, well, that’s nice.
Do you have any funds you’d be interested in investing in real estate? I have certain properties in NYC that are available that you might find highly attractive, and which I assure you you’ll be able to quickly sell for a profit, once you purchase them from me, after I’ve “authenticated” my ownership for you.
I, myself, had a personal interview with George W. Bush, in which he admitted to me that he was a Red Lectroid, here from the Eight dimension. Do you know anyone who has DENIED the accuracy of the quote?
Let’s see if we can identify just some of the reasons why this snark is a really, really poor substitute for an argument.
1) The quote in question is neither obviously genuine or falsified; it could be either. Contrasting it to an obviously false claim is neither here nor there.
2) The quote in question was not made at a “personal interview,” but at a press conference with dozens of reporters in attendance. If one desired to fabricate a quote from a presidential candidate, it is unlikely one would claim that he made it in front of dozens of witnesses, where any one of them could come forward to challenge the account. Yet none of them have.
3) When you write to someone demanding that they explain a quote, and their lawyer writes back yet doesn’t deny the authenticity of the quote, that’s evidence that the quote was accurate, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.
I also note Gary’s disingenuousness in first trying to score a point by claiming Sherman was not a reporter, and then when I pointed out that he was at the press conference as a fully credentialed reporter, responded not by admitting he was wrong but by arguing that well, he didn’t have “prestigious journalistic credentials.”
I certainly would not stake my life on the accuracy of this quote, but unlike Gary, I see no evidence at all to call its accuracy into particular question. Gary, as an experiment, I suggest you write President Bush and ask him to explain his statement that he was “a Red Lectroid from the Eighth Dimension.” I very much doubt the response will be a polite letter that omits to mention that he, in fact, never said any such thing. But if you do get such a response, I will concede the point.
I suggest you write President Bush and ask him to explain his statement that he was “a Red Lectroid from the Eighth Dimension.”
Better yet, do us all a favour and inform the Black Lectroids of the President’s true identity.
I note that Sherman’s link also contains an interesting FOIA response (pdf link) which includes quite a bit of back-and-forth correspondence between the Bush White House and angry atheists. Not once does the White House attempt to defuse the controversy by saying “You know, the President actually never said those things you’re attributing to him.” In fact, the letters went so far as to reaffirm that Bush was a “religious man” who did not “support atheism.”
Included in the FOIA response is a 6/1/89 memo to White House Counsel C. Boyden Grey from Associate Counsel Nelson Lund, who wrote:
Because I do not believe that we can defend the remarks allegedly made during the campaign, and because I assume that you would not recommend that the President issue an apology, I think the best course is to ignore this follow-up correspondence: continuing to exchange letters would only make it increasingly obvious that we are refusing to address the issue he is raising.
That’s a mighty odd thing to say if Bush never uttered the quote in question. Why wouldn’t they say “let’s write these people back, and explain that the President never said any such thing”? Like I said, mighty odd.
“Yet none of them have.”
That would be because it’s incredibly obscure, as is Rob Sherman.
I’m not saying that George H. W. Bush didn’t say the alleged words, let alone that he couldn’t have. I’m just saying that it’s a case of one lone person saying he heard something — which coincidentally happens to be the one thing that would support his cause, atheism (and I’m an atheist, by the way, not that that’s remotely relevant) — which is sufficiently controversial that almost every journalist there would have reported, if the President of the United States had said it.
I look at that, and consider the word of the lone activist to be utterly insufficient as anything other than one biased guy’s word. You look at it, and apparently consider it proof, absent proof that it isn’t true.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes credibility, and credible evidence, of anything.
I, myself, am the Midwest Bureau Chief of the Amygdala News Service.
We’ll also have to agree to disagree with whether making up your own title, at an advocacy organization, constitutes being a credible “journalist,” as distinct from a citizen with an opinion about atheism, as well as whether that’s “good enough authentication for any court of law” (whatever that means — are you trying to argue that there are laws which say that if a “journalist” testifies in court, what they say must be true?).
“Not once does the White House attempt to defuse the controversy by saying ‘You know, the President actually never said those things you’re attributing to him.'”
That’s probably because C. Boyden Gray wasn’t there, and he’s not stupid enough to be bothering the President of the United States to ask him what he happened to say. Duh.
The packet starts with the statement that it contains “documents related to comments about atheists supposedly made by Vice -President Bush. I wonder how that word crept in there?
Just an accident, with no meaning, I guess.
What’s so amusing about all this, is that you are displaying all the signs of believing — on faith — that Bush 41 must have said these things — despite a lack of what is commonly considered to be anything resembling “proof” — and you are insisting that This Truth should be accepted unless it’s proven untrue.
Hilarious, really. Personally, I’m agnostic about this in the sense of believing that it could be true that Bush said the alleged statement, but atheistic in that I’m not inclined to believe it absent something vaguely resembling proof.
But, you know, believe what you like. Have whatever constitutes a standard of proof as regards what’s a fact, and what isn’t, that you like. I’m quite okay with that.
I never said that I believe the quote to be true with a certainty – in fact, I expressly said the opposite. What I did say, and which you seem to have nothing other than rhetorical derision to counter, is that there is no good reason to doubt the provenance of this quote.
When you say these remarks would be “sufficiently controversial that every journalist there would have reported them,” I think you display a certain amount of cluelessness as to the mainstream view of atheism in this country.
But let’s assume you’re right. Let’s postulate an example that would be clearly offensive – say, for example, someone claims that they asked President Bush about his views on Jews, and he responded that Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.
Now, if the White House were to get a bunch of angry letters based on this report, demanding an apology for the President’s offensive comments, what do you think the response would be? Do you really think they would take no position on whether he actually said that? Do you think they would write back to note that the President does, in fact, disagree with the religious views of Jews and feels no obligation to support them? Is that the likely reaction, if a bunch of cranks start writing the White House claiming the President said something that he didn’t?
I really can’t get over your belief that negative remarks about atheists are something that would be widely reported in the press in this country and would be considered highly controversial. That just strikes me as highly at odds with reality.
I’m not saying you’re nitpicking, but I don’t understand why you view “netroots” as somehow different from other terms. Who’s part of the grassroots? Who’s an activist? Who’s a liberal? Do you expect a list?
The netroots are people online (bloggers and active commenters) who are involved in electoral politics but not an official part of campaigns. I don’t think any of the people you mention are focused enough on elections to be part of the netroots, but maybe I’m wrong. Archetypical netroots blogs are Daily Kos, MyDD, and Swing State Project. There may be a netroots on the right as well, but that’s not talked about so much.
As with many definitions, there’s not a bright line between netroots and not-netroots, but that doesn’t mean the netroots don’t exist, any more than it means there’s no such thing as day.
That said, it’s not at all nitpicking for you not to accept “the netroots” as an answer from OCSteve to your question about who, specifically, saw nothing wrong with Marcotte’s remarks. “The netroots” is not a specific answer,
Via Atrios, Donohue’s comments on Mel Gibson, including his views on apologies, which are apparently no longer operative:
‘That said, it’s not at all nitpicking for you not to accept “the netroots” as an answer from OCSteve to your question about who, specifically, saw nothing wrong with Marcotte’s remarks. “The netroots” is not a specific answer’
I think most of us have a good idea what the netroots are, making the answer plenty specific for a friendly conversation. It’s even true.
Everyone has said lots of great things but I’d like to point out something no one has mentioned and that is that personifying and embodying god and his “white hot sticky sperm” or whatever is not at all irreligious and certainly not anti-catholic. In fact the debate about the physicality or otherwise of god, and mary’s specific experience of it, has roiled the church and its followers for many years. Try reading some Teresa of Avila why don’t you.
Its not at all disrespectful of religion to find some aspects of a particular religion illogical or distasteful and virgin birth has long been the focus of interior as well as exterior critique–in fact Donohue himself apparently referred to it mockingly in *defending a republican pervert fired for having sex with a drunken student*. Amanda happens to be an atheist and, if I recall correctly the founder of the religion of the “mouse and the discoball” but her comments don’t prove that she is not *also catholic* in any meaningful sense.
I’m sick and tired of having a prosletizing, converting, politicized religion tell the rest of us what we can and can not comment on. If they want to make their religion beyond comment they should stop stuffing it down our throats. Or stop believing patently absurd things and making them the basis of public policy.
aimai
Yeah, some of the medieval mystics had some rather sexual visions involving Jesus that would shock many Christians today. Probably including me.
Amanda, though, probably meant her comment to be an insult and it was the kind of insult that is going to hit people maybe she didn’t mean to hit, if she thought about it at all. Or maybe she did mean to insult all sorts of Christians indiscriminately.
I should add, on behalf of the Christians that I’ve known who really live up to the label, that their reaction to such comments would probably be sadness rather than anger. But those of us who are less mature are more likely to react with varying degrees of irritation. Since there are plenty of Christians who advocate stupid or even arguably evil policies based on their faith, while many other Christians strongly disagree with them, I think it makes more sense to save the semen jokes for private occasions with like-minded friends, or perhaps trot them out in classes on medieval mysticism.
But what I think happens is that people think that because they’re right, they can be as offensive as they want to be and anyway, it’s those bad other people that started it. It’s a common stance on all parts of the political spectrum and I’ve felt that way myself.
Time to prognosticate a bit: I predict that a year from now, the Edwards campaign blog will have a year’s worth of history of being well-written, informative, often funny, occasionally smarky, and never giving the sort of offense that Amanda has in her personal writings. It’ll nonetheless be hated by people ascribing to it qualities it never had.
That seems to me the reasonable guess based on the talent of the women writing it plus a touch of campaign oversight.
Donald, there is the additional point which hasn’t been made at all, so far: in the original post, those two lines about semen/the Holy Ghost were not part of the body of the post, but a caption (smaller print, italicized) tagged on to an image at the start of the post: many people who read the post originally (me included) probably slid right over the caption and into the meat of the post, part II of a discussion about the way at least some Catholic churches in the US are handling the standard sex-ed talk a priest is supposed to give a couple who intend to get married in a Catholic church. In short, in the context in which it was originally meant to be read, it was plainly and obviously a quick quip, not intended to be dwelt on – as other Catholics have pointed out since, it was in its way a very theologically proper joke (Catholics do argue how the Annunciation actually worked), and plainly based on the kind of comments anti-feminists have made themselves, asserting that God’s plans to create a specific human being to solve a problem are easily and irreversibly frustrated by women being able to abort.
With the advent of the Internet, I’ve seen articles and captions that are, in the paper version of a newspaper, buried in one of the non-serious sections, suddenly given prominance that, pre-Internet, no one could ever have expected them to get.
And I’ve also seen (and this is, after all, what happened here) political opponents rip one line out of context and publicise it as widely as possible with the worst possible interpretation.
KCinDC, thanks for the good answer to the question of ‘what are the netroots?’ [I’ve tried and failed previously to answer Gary’s question.]
people online (bloggers and active commenters) who are involved in electoral politics but not an official part of campaigns. … Archetypical netroots blogs are Daily Kos, MyDD, and Swing State Project. There may be a netroots on the
right as well, but that’s not talked about so much.
The defining factor, as KC says, is involvement in electoral politics.
I’m tempted to broaden the term to include bloggers and online entities (like MoveOn) involved in mobilizing activists for issue advocacy — antiwar, labor support, media response or reform, human rights, fighting Social Security privatization, etc. But maybe another term would be best for that, to preserve the electoral connotation of ‘netroots’.
Hilzoy’s a good illustration of an outer edge of the phenomenon. Most of the time, she’s not part of the netroots; she doesn’t blog primarily or even very much about campaigns and candidates. But she has, at the height of an election season, announced and encouraged support of particular candidates — influencing contributions and votes in the process.
And she’s also played, with Katherine, a vital role in the non-electoral sort of online activism: alerting readers to and helping them understand legislative and other developments surrounding the treatment of people detained by the U.S. Their November 2005 series on the habeas-stripping amendments to the McCain-Warner anti-torture bill is the archetype, but not the only example.
There are rough analogues on the right to DailyKos, MyDD, and even closer counterparts to the state- and local-level election-focused blogs. But most of those don’t apply the term ‘netroots’ to themselves, no matter how well they fit KCinDC’s definition. That’s because the defining early netroots phenomena — MoveOn’s antiwar and media work and DailyKos’ explosion of support for the Dean campaign — were on the liberal Democratic side, which led influential rightist bloggers to seize on the term ‘nutroots’ to refer to them.
As a result, they were at something of a loss for a term to characterize the inevitable online activism, electoral and issue-based, that developed on the right. Or maybe there is one and I just don’t know it; I leave most ‘know your opposition’ activity to others.
In fact the debate about the physicality or otherwise of god, and mary’s specific experience of it, has roiled the church and its followers for many years. Try reading some Teresa of Avila why don’t you.
Or Arius of Alexandria…
I see some similarities between the anti-Muslim right and the anti-Christian left. The false idea that all Christians favor “theocracy” parallels the false idea that all Muslims support terrorism, or that Islam is an inherently violent religion. In reality, only tiny but visible minorities within each religion embrace the views being attributed to the whole faith.
The other parallel is the idea that Americans/Democrats don’t need to avoid offending Muslims/Christians or treat them with respect because “they all hate us anyway”, often accompanied by the idea that if there are any good Muslims/Christians they’re not doing anything to oppose the bad ones.
There are of course differences as well. The anti-Muslim faction is a much larger and more powerful part of the right wing, and it includes actual politicians. Also, the proportion of Christians who are working to impose their views on others is larger than the proportion of Muslims (especially American Muslims) supporting terrorism. That may make the anti-Christian left less important and more understandable than the anti-Muslim right, but it doesn’t make it any less wrong.
Probably will never say this again, but woo-hoo, Beinart.
It’s easy to get old in the blogosphere
In the past few days, both Henry Farrell and Eugene Volokh have observed that the old, gray blogosphere ain’t what it used to be. Henry first: I was somewhat bemused to see a whopping big advertisement on the back of…