If you want more proof that the Right just doesn’t have a sense of humor, read some of the shrill pronouncements on Amanda&MelissaGate. Happily (for us anyway, because we’re too tired to do much research), the shrill and humorless Michelle Malkin has rounded up some choice reactions over at her blog.
For instance, she points us to this response from Dawn Eden to Amanda’s apology (in which Amanda said that, “My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics”).
Next, Michelle presents some words from everyone’s favorite hissyfitter, Jeff Goldstein:
Jeff, old chap, humor and satire aren’t meant to be taken literally, but they aren’t also “lies.” For example, when the Sadly, No! guys say that you eat paste, they aren’t (necessarily) claiming that you really consume Elmers Washable School Paste on a regular basis. However, they aren’t attempting to pull the wool over their readers’ eyes by implying that you’re kinda dim, when they actually believe that you’re the smartest man who ever lived. (Sorry, I asked them, and they really don’t think that about you.) They are using humor to make the point that you’re kinda stupid, which is something they truly believe. (And by so doing having forfeited any chance for a job on a political campaign once the League of Paste Eaters demand their heads.)
And speaking of funny, the Corner’s K.Lo, who is closely following PottyMouthGate, brings us this announcement from the Catholic’s League’s William ”Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Catholicism but like anal sex” Donohue:
(Note to Jeff Goldstein: Bill Donohue didn’t really do this. However, I am not trying to pull the wool over my readers’ eyes, as I truly do believe that Donohue is a wingnut, and a … what was that phrase … oh yes, a “posturing blowhard.” Also please note that none of the above signals any intent to disparage Catholicism or Catholics in general — however, my respect for other faiths this is not in conflict with my belief that of all the Leagues of my acquaintance, to include bowling leagues, the Red-Headed League, the Leagues of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, I find the Catholic League under it’s current leadership to be the least admirable.)
But hey, on a completely different topic, here’s the Corner’s (and Canada’s) Mark Steyn :
COMMENTS:
For instance, she points us to this response from Dawn Eden to Amanda’s apology (in which Amanda said that, “My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics”).
I guess it’s nice to know that all those times her blog referred to Our Lord and Saviour as “Jeebus” — in 114 blog entries to date (the most recent last Sunday) — she was only kidding.Dawn, honey, she didn’t come up with that moniker for our Lord and Savior, the writers for “The Simpsons” did. So, I’d take that as a pretty good sign that she was indeed just joking — sorry it went over your head. So, instead of finding and counting all the “Jeebuses” on Pandagon, perhaps you could make better use of your time by exploring this concept we humans call “humor.” I have it on good authority (well, Doug Giles) that Jesus was a heck of a standup comedian, so it’s pretty much your religious duty to take a break from frothing and go watch MST3000 or something.
A search of Pandagon archives shows that Amanda has yet to devise a similarly ha-ha name for Mohammed.
Next, Michelle presents some words from everyone’s favorite hissyfitter, Jeff Goldstein:
Lots of gloating already in the comments by the flying monkeys the left typically dispatches to sprinkle schadenfreude over the poppies. But that’s to be expected, I guess. That their commentary is rife with further attacks on the faithful and suggestions that those who find Marcotte reprehensible have been saddled with tiny penises—well, this, too, is about as surprising as a Marcotte post that doesn’t somehow wend its way back to the institutionalized torturing of her pudendum by misanthropic godbags. But lost on these Marcotte supporters—who are cheering on the power of the “netroots” to cow a politician into keeping on an ugly and hateful liability—is that Edwards just showed up Marcotte and McEwan as frauds and posturing blowhards, writers who have been pulling the wool over their audiences’ eyes by posting vicious “arguments” they never truly believed.(Apparently, Jeff’s comments are in reference to Edwards’ statement that ”intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else,” but that Amanda and Melissa had assured him that “it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith.”)
Jeff, old chap, humor and satire aren’t meant to be taken literally, but they aren’t also “lies.” For example, when the Sadly, No! guys say that you eat paste, they aren’t (necessarily) claiming that you really consume Elmers Washable School Paste on a regular basis. However, they aren’t attempting to pull the wool over their readers’ eyes by implying that you’re kinda dim, when they actually believe that you’re the smartest man who ever lived. (Sorry, I asked them, and they really don’t think that about you.) They are using humor to make the point that you’re kinda stupid, which is something they truly believe. (And by so doing having forfeited any chance for a job on a political campaign once the League of Paste Eaters demand their heads.)
And speaking of funny, the Corner’s K.Lo, who is closely following PottyMouthGate, brings us this announcement from the Catholic’s League’s William ”Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Catholicism but like anal sex” Donohue:
Edwards said today that ‘We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked.’ I have news for him—the Catholic League—not Edwards—will decide what the debate will be about, and it won’t be about the nation. It will be about the glaring double standard that colors the entire conversation about bigotry.And then Mr. Donohue took off his shoe, pounding it on his desk, and screamed “WE WILL CRUSH YOU! For WE in the Catholic League control the debate! And WE control the vertical! If you think this is over, you’re wrong — dead wrong! You’ll pay for tampering in God’s domain! They said we were mad, but who’s mad now!?!?!? Muah ha ha”
We will launch a nationwide public relations blitz that will be conducted on the pages of the New York Times, as well as in Catholic newspapers and periodicals. It will be on-going, breaking like a wave, starting next week and continuing through 2007.
(Note to Jeff Goldstein: Bill Donohue didn’t really do this. However, I am not trying to pull the wool over my readers’ eyes, as I truly do believe that Donohue is a wingnut, and a … what was that phrase … oh yes, a “posturing blowhard.” Also please note that none of the above signals any intent to disparage Catholicism or Catholics in general — however, my respect for other faiths this is not in conflict with my belief that of all the Leagues of my acquaintance, to include bowling leagues, the Red-Headed League, the Leagues of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, I find the Catholic League under it’s current leadership to be the least admirable.)
But hey, on a completely different topic, here’s the Corner’s (and Canada’s) Mark Steyn :
Thought for the dayAnyway, you can now go about your business — but try to keep it clean, because I’m still attempting to get picked up as a consultant on wingnuts by one of the candidates, and I don’t want to blow my chances.
“There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious.”
- Ayatollah Khomeini
COMMENTS:
So why aren’t conservatives funny, anyway?
“Keep it clean”‽‽ Worst Nightmare Commentator #1™ reporting for duty!
Actually, I s’pose, that’d probably be Annti. But, still, I’ve got to be in the top ten, at least. I can give Amanda a run for her “Jeebuses” any day of the week, and, in addition, my explicit gay sex passages are gross enough to make a fairy puke. Or something.
Ooh, lessee whatchoo got here… Wow! It’s like you gave the wingnut one-armed bandit a yank and hit teh jackpot! Interesting how the concept of having opinions of their very own somehow eludes, well, all of them. Y’see, I often have differences of opinion with the candidates I vote for–sometimes substantial differences. I don’t enter the bargain a blank slate, waiting for my candidate to tell me what to think.
This bunch is actually proud of their inability to reason their way out of a wet paper bag, waiting for teh Word™ to come down from on high (yes, wingnuts, I am mocking your faith. I am not as nice a person as s.z.). It’s baffling in its stupidity, but after a while, one comes to expect it.
Goldstein. What can I say? Was that excerpt actually in English? I state, categorically, that the material on either side of that couldn’t possibly have made it any more comprehensible. In fact, it might have made it even less clear. Ptui!
Last, and, as it turns out, least: Mark Steyn! OK, a word or two of advice for Mr. Steyn. While your crowd has been conditioned to have a Pavlovian response to the very mention of Islamic names, the Koran, 9/11, Islam its-self, or various Muslim boogeymen, many of us are a wee bit more sophisticated than that. For instance, I know that the humorless, scowling Ayatollah Khomeini died on June 3rd, 1989. So, unlike Steyn, I don’t tend to soil myself at the very mention of his name. Also, by digging up a quote from the late, unlamented Ayatollah, Steyn grants him the power to reach out from beyond the grave to affect the here and now. I don’t choose to grant the mean old bastard in black this, and never will. IOW, Mark… STFU. Thank yew.
So, thanx for the mixed nuts, s.z. They were “delicious.” Only… now there are all these weird, curly hairs caught in between my teeth. Odd.
Actually, I s’pose, that’d probably be Annti. But, still, I’ve got to be in the top ten, at least. I can give Amanda a run for her “Jeebuses” any day of the week, and, in addition, my explicit gay sex passages are gross enough to make a fairy puke. Or something.
Ooh, lessee whatchoo got here… Wow! It’s like you gave the wingnut one-armed bandit a yank and hit teh jackpot! Interesting how the concept of having opinions of their very own somehow eludes, well, all of them. Y’see, I often have differences of opinion with the candidates I vote for–sometimes substantial differences. I don’t enter the bargain a blank slate, waiting for my candidate to tell me what to think.
This bunch is actually proud of their inability to reason their way out of a wet paper bag, waiting for teh Word™ to come down from on high (yes, wingnuts, I am mocking your faith. I am not as nice a person as s.z.). It’s baffling in its stupidity, but after a while, one comes to expect it.
Goldstein. What can I say? Was that excerpt actually in English? I state, categorically, that the material on either side of that couldn’t possibly have made it any more comprehensible. In fact, it might have made it even less clear. Ptui!
I have news for him—the Catholic League—not Edwards—will decide what the debate will be about, and it won’t be about the nation. It will be about the glaring double standard that colors the entire conversation about bigotry.Ah, teh Catholic League. Overestimating their own importance much? Really, Donohue is only about one ladder rung above the ilk of Doug Giles or Dr. Professor Mike Adams – in other words, obscure to the point of near non-existence. Really, about 96% of Catholics want about as much to do with Donohue and his nutty club as they want to contract the bird flu. He’s actually dumb enough to think that his sheer unpopularity proves that he’s right. That bigotry double standard he mentions should work like this, as far as he’s concerned: He and his are OK, and everyone else is utter crap… especially the jews. And the fags. Oh, and Messicans! Wanker.
Last, and, as it turns out, least: Mark Steyn! OK, a word or two of advice for Mr. Steyn. While your crowd has been conditioned to have a Pavlovian response to the very mention of Islamic names, the Koran, 9/11, Islam its-self, or various Muslim boogeymen, many of us are a wee bit more sophisticated than that. For instance, I know that the humorless, scowling Ayatollah Khomeini died on June 3rd, 1989. So, unlike Steyn, I don’t tend to soil myself at the very mention of his name. Also, by digging up a quote from the late, unlamented Ayatollah, Steyn grants him the power to reach out from beyond the grave to affect the here and now. I don’t choose to grant the mean old bastard in black this, and never will. IOW, Mark… STFU. Thank yew.
So, thanx for the mixed nuts, s.z. They were “delicious.” Only… now there are all these weird, curly hairs caught in between my teeth. Odd.
Hey! That was almost clean!
Aw, c’mon, Marq, you’re adorable. Even when you’re filthy, it’s more funny than offensive. You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Although, I suspect Billy D would *love* a demon-possessed, foul-mouthed, blasphemous homo atheist to be all offended by.
“I have news for him—the Catholic League—not Edwards—will decide what the debate will be about, and it won’t be about the nation. It will be about the glaring double standard that colors the entire conversation about bigotry.”
I never thought the right would lay out their case so nakedly–”we want a conversation on our contrived hissyfits, not Iraq, or health care, or income inequality.” Good on Edwards for not firing them, even if I don’t read them much. If the left stops acting like it has to appologize whenever the right throws a fit, people will stop thinking we have lots to appologize for. Then we as a country can talk about what’s important.
I never thought the right would lay out their case so nakedly–”we want a conversation on our contrived hissyfits, not Iraq, or health care, or income inequality.” Good on Edwards for not firing them, even if I don’t read them much. If the left stops acting like it has to appologize whenever the right throws a fit, people will stop thinking we have lots to appologize for. Then we as a country can talk about what’s important.
I’ve gleaned from conservative wingnut sites that if you just write it Je_bus, then G_d, and presumably Dawn Eden Goldstein, won’t have a problem with it.
I can personally vouch for the fact that Dawn Eden used to have one of the best senses of humor of anyone I knew. In fact, she was pretty much a comedy expert, she kept resources on lots of obscure comedy acts that I’d never even heard of. Sadly, that was 20+ years ago when she was a very different person than she’s now become.
Well, you can never be too fortunate in your choice of enemies, as our friends demonstrate here; that collection of witlings, psychopaths, and tiresome scam artists would be hard to beat with any similarly-sized roster.
That said, I love Amanda but it’s hard for me to understand how someone at the Edwards campaign vetted her if they’re so damned sensitive. And that reminds me: if we’re going to relive Liveblogging the Convention 2004 next year (Now with more Ego!) somebody remind me to have my electricity disconnected in March.
(By the way, the Sufis are a hell of a lot funnier than any Christian sect I can name. Intentionally, I mean.)
That said, I love Amanda but it’s hard for me to understand how someone at the Edwards campaign vetted her if they’re so damned sensitive. And that reminds me: if we’re going to relive Liveblogging the Convention 2004 next year (Now with more Ego!) somebody remind me to have my electricity disconnected in March.
(By the way, the Sufis are a hell of a lot funnier than any Christian sect I can name. Intentionally, I mean.)
(Sufi story)
A man goes to visit his friend in town, and he notices there aren’t any clocks anywhere. He remarks on this to his friend. “I don’t need a clock. The railroad is just a half-mile away, and it runs every half-hour, just like clockwork.”
“But the railroad only runs until midnight,” his friend replies. “What if you need to tell the time after that?”
“I have this trumpet,” says the other.
“How can you tell the time with a trumpet?” he’s asked.
“Simple. I just lean out the window and blow it, and someone is sure to yell, ‘Who’s making all that racket at three o’clock in the morning?’”
A man goes to visit his friend in town, and he notices there aren’t any clocks anywhere. He remarks on this to his friend. “I don’t need a clock. The railroad is just a half-mile away, and it runs every half-hour, just like clockwork.”
“But the railroad only runs until midnight,” his friend replies. “What if you need to tell the time after that?”
“I have this trumpet,” says the other.
“How can you tell the time with a trumpet?” he’s asked.
“Simple. I just lean out the window and blow it, and someone is sure to yell, ‘Who’s making all that racket at three o’clock in the morning?’”
I had an Iranian friend a few years ago (not that he stopped being my friend mind you, we just lost touch) who had come to the states before the revolution but still had family over there that he was occationally in contact with. Anyway, he told me a joke that they had passed on that was going around Tehran at the time, went something along the lines of the classic “airplane was going down but not enough parachutes” joke.
However, instead of not enough parachutes, the plane was too heavy or something, and they had to throw stuff off but it still wasn’t enough, so in the end the punchline was essentially they threw off the Imam, since they had lots to spare anyway, one less wouldn’t make much of a difference.
He said it was more funny in Farsi.
However, instead of not enough parachutes, the plane was too heavy or something, and they had to throw stuff off but it still wasn’t enough, so in the end the punchline was essentially they threw off the Imam, since they had lots to spare anyway, one less wouldn’t make much of a difference.
He said it was more funny in Farsi.
I don’t know…I thought Edwards’s response was as near a cave-in to the pressure from Malkin as you could get without actually firing them. And I found Amanda’s apology to be utterly insincere in the sense that it was clearly a requirement of keeping her position to write it, and write it in that way. And seriously: do you actually think Amanda didn’t “mean to malign anyone’s faith?” Of course she did. The people she went after deserved to have their faith maligned, because their so-called faith is a jumbled mess of bigotry, hypocrisy, kitsch, bad hair, and unbelievably crappy music.
This is obviously a complete dust-up over a big nothing, but that’s a major tactic of the right, and Edwards played into it, and forced Amanda to go along. I know Amanda had a choice to say, “fuck that noise” and quit, or take the route she did and soldier on to fight the good fight and hopefully get a good man in the White House. I actually really see this as a victory for the Right, though. They got it pushed into the Times, into the mainstream, the whole thing.
I hated Edwards’s post, which read like he had a little talking-to with his daughters for using bad language. We’re adults. We HAVE to stop playing into the pearl-clutchers’ gaspings, which is completely contrived and designed to elicit weak-kneed responses like what Edwards did.
I love Amanda, read Pandagon regularly, but she got brutalized both by the noise machine, and by her own boss, on this one.
Edwards better shape up his response abilities fast. The Swift Boating will continue, and if he responds like Kerry did, it’s done for him.
This is obviously a complete dust-up over a big nothing, but that’s a major tactic of the right, and Edwards played into it, and forced Amanda to go along. I know Amanda had a choice to say, “fuck that noise” and quit, or take the route she did and soldier on to fight the good fight and hopefully get a good man in the White House. I actually really see this as a victory for the Right, though. They got it pushed into the Times, into the mainstream, the whole thing.
I hated Edwards’s post, which read like he had a little talking-to with his daughters for using bad language. We’re adults. We HAVE to stop playing into the pearl-clutchers’ gaspings, which is completely contrived and designed to elicit weak-kneed responses like what Edwards did.
I love Amanda, read Pandagon regularly, but she got brutalized both by the noise machine, and by her own boss, on this one.
Edwards better shape up his response abilities fast. The Swift Boating will continue, and if he responds like Kerry did, it’s done for him.
I’m over here in the corner trying to figure out a word. I thought I was pretty up to date on current usage but I had never heard/seen “godbag” before today. WTF? I give up… Is it some sort of truly stupid usage trying to get across the idea that we’re all children of God, and filled with the Holy Spirit? If so, it’s a really revolting failure. Does anyone know from whence this “word” springs? There’s nothing on Wiki at all, and that’s my go-to site for anything new…
In the words of the late, great Bill Hicks:
“See, that’s what Fundamentalism breeds: NO IRONY.”
Lord, I miss that foul-mouthed bastard.
“See, that’s what Fundamentalism breeds: NO IRONY.”
Lord, I miss that foul-mouthed bastard.
Misanthropic Godbags would be a great name for a punk band.
“…those who find Marcotte reprehensible have been saddled with tiny penises…” Essentially accusing Marcotte’s critics of being cheapskates, since the saddles with the big honkin’ ones are only a few bucks more.
Hey, it’s no dirtier than the quote it’s taken from.
Hey, it’s no dirtier than the quote it’s taken from.
I like Pandagon a lot. (I can’t read it everyday because I get too pissed off at the people who are ‘profiled’ there, but I do like it.) And I’ve enjoyed Ms. Marcotte’s vitriol there.
I also understand basic humor. Funny, not funny. I get it. I even understand satire despite my public-school education. Personally, I think mocking institutionalized religion is hilarious. And Amanda is one of the better ones.
BUT she is also maligning their faith. David E is right in that they do deserve it, but to deny it is spineless.
Also, by the exact definition of the word ‘bigot’ Amanda is one: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. (from m-w.com) This is not necessarily a bad thing. We should be intolerant against the institutionalizing of the subjugation of women. We should be intolerant to the forcible imposition of a specific religion on society as a whole and our lives in the specific. We have to be intolerant of the “Christian” right who would emasculate our Constitution and imprison those who don’t comply. The same “Christians” who believe killing muslims is Godly. They don’t deserve tolerance. And I will proudly say that I am bigoted against them.
So should we all be.
I also understand basic humor. Funny, not funny. I get it. I even understand satire despite my public-school education. Personally, I think mocking institutionalized religion is hilarious. And Amanda is one of the better ones.
BUT she is also maligning their faith. David E is right in that they do deserve it, but to deny it is spineless.
Also, by the exact definition of the word ‘bigot’ Amanda is one: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. (from m-w.com) This is not necessarily a bad thing. We should be intolerant against the institutionalizing of the subjugation of women. We should be intolerant to the forcible imposition of a specific religion on society as a whole and our lives in the specific. We have to be intolerant of the “Christian” right who would emasculate our Constitution and imprison those who don’t comply. The same “Christians” who believe killing muslims is Godly. They don’t deserve tolerance. And I will proudly say that I am bigoted against them.
So should we all be.
I agree with DavidE. This was an incredibly weak response, only marginally better than not firing them. Actually, per Salon, (h/t to Greenwald) he DID fire them, but the overnight outrage out here in the hinterlands of left blogistan caused his change of heart.
He’d have done much better simply to have not responded to this Catholic League nonsense at all and simply kept them on his staff. Then, if anyone from the “legit” press asks him about it, do like McCain did- give them his unequivocal support.
He might also have reminded the press that while he doesn’t agree with every single thing they’ve ever written in their lives, he is not required to. (There is no writer about whom one could say that they completely agree with every thing that ever came from their keyboard.)
He could have said that he hired them for their skills, not their religious or anti-religious beliefs. He could have said that he has no religious tests for his staff. He could have said that he appreciates, even desires, a wide diversity of opinion on his staff. (Was it Ike or Truman who said, “If everyone is thinking alike, someone’s not thinking.”)
He could have justified this further with the old saw: I disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight for your right to say it. This would have put the Catholic League in the position of having to defend their own chilling attack on free speech.
He could have gone on the offensive himself by pointing out that this League, for all their professed piety, is in direct opposition to the Church’s doctrine on the death penalty and the Pope’s condemnation of the Iraq War.
Finally, he could have pointed out all the instances of religious bigotry the League spews against Muslims, Protestants, “secular Jews”, atheists, liberal Catholics, and anyone else how doesn’t adhere to their narrow doctrine (which apparently includes the Pope himself).
He didn’t do any of that; instead, he puts out a mealy-mouthed sort-of apology and forces the bloggers to do the same if they want to work for him, thus appearing to be another old-school focus-group-obsessed Democrat with no spine for a bare-knuckles political fight. The wingers are already blasting his reaction as a sign of weakness, saying he won’t stand up against the “lefty” bloggers. As if he should renounce his closest supporters in order to appease his loudest opponents.
If he can’t stand the lukewarm nastiness of a non-entity like the Catholic League, how is he going to stand the fire of the general election?
Between that and his recent Iran-sabre-rattling before an Israeli audience, he’s no longer my favorite, that’s for sure.
How many times do we have to remind the Democratic front runners?
Quit listening to your beltway consultants, the overpaid hacks who’ve been telling you for years to play it safe. It hasn’t worked, it won’t work, it can’t work.
Playing defense is a losing strategy in national politics. We need a leader, not a follower. That means, show some conviction and don’t act ashamed of having core beliefs. Leaders don’t cave, certainly not to their most vitriolic opponents.
Your opponents are hateful, spiteful, tools of the corporatocracy who would gladly sell out all our traditional freedoms and repress any American who isn’t exactly like them. Say so, often and with conviction.
The party began to show some spine in 2006 and was rewarded for it. More, please, and faster…
I’m starting to think the Draft Gore movement is looking better and better.
He’d have done much better simply to have not responded to this Catholic League nonsense at all and simply kept them on his staff. Then, if anyone from the “legit” press asks him about it, do like McCain did- give them his unequivocal support.
He might also have reminded the press that while he doesn’t agree with every single thing they’ve ever written in their lives, he is not required to. (There is no writer about whom one could say that they completely agree with every thing that ever came from their keyboard.)
He could have said that he hired them for their skills, not their religious or anti-religious beliefs. He could have said that he has no religious tests for his staff. He could have said that he appreciates, even desires, a wide diversity of opinion on his staff. (Was it Ike or Truman who said, “If everyone is thinking alike, someone’s not thinking.”)
He could have justified this further with the old saw: I disagree with what you say, but I’ll fight for your right to say it. This would have put the Catholic League in the position of having to defend their own chilling attack on free speech.
He could have gone on the offensive himself by pointing out that this League, for all their professed piety, is in direct opposition to the Church’s doctrine on the death penalty and the Pope’s condemnation of the Iraq War.
Finally, he could have pointed out all the instances of religious bigotry the League spews against Muslims, Protestants, “secular Jews”, atheists, liberal Catholics, and anyone else how doesn’t adhere to their narrow doctrine (which apparently includes the Pope himself).
He didn’t do any of that; instead, he puts out a mealy-mouthed sort-of apology and forces the bloggers to do the same if they want to work for him, thus appearing to be another old-school focus-group-obsessed Democrat with no spine for a bare-knuckles political fight. The wingers are already blasting his reaction as a sign of weakness, saying he won’t stand up against the “lefty” bloggers. As if he should renounce his closest supporters in order to appease his loudest opponents.
If he can’t stand the lukewarm nastiness of a non-entity like the Catholic League, how is he going to stand the fire of the general election?
Between that and his recent Iran-sabre-rattling before an Israeli audience, he’s no longer my favorite, that’s for sure.
How many times do we have to remind the Democratic front runners?
Quit listening to your beltway consultants, the overpaid hacks who’ve been telling you for years to play it safe. It hasn’t worked, it won’t work, it can’t work.
Playing defense is a losing strategy in national politics. We need a leader, not a follower. That means, show some conviction and don’t act ashamed of having core beliefs. Leaders don’t cave, certainly not to their most vitriolic opponents.
Your opponents are hateful, spiteful, tools of the corporatocracy who would gladly sell out all our traditional freedoms and repress any American who isn’t exactly like them. Say so, often and with conviction.
The party began to show some spine in 2006 and was rewarded for it. More, please, and faster…
I’m starting to think the Draft Gore movement is looking better and better.
I gotta agree with David and Rob on this one. I know politicians are held to different standards in terms of sticking to their principles, but this was dumb.
Remember when you were ten and your fourteen year old brother used to pound on you for fun? And you one day called him a dick, and he got that smarmy look on his face? And he said, “Well, fine. I *was* going to let you come hang out with my friends, but if you’re going to call me names, then I’m not going to.” So you ended up apologizing, and he laughed, and you all knew he never had any intention of letting you hang out with them anyway, and why would you even want to, and after you apologized he pounded on you again a little more before he went off to hang out with his pals.
It seems like so many democratic politicians never learned how to deal with bullies at all, but by gods the republican ones sure learned how to deal with the kids with no confidence.
Really, why in the name of anything holy would Edwards *want* the support of nutjobs like Donohue? What exactly would he have to do to get it, and why on earth would he be willing to? I think it’s safe to say that if Jesus came back and told them to vote for Edwards, they’d just assume it wasn’t *really* Jesus. Everybody knows damned well, from Edwards to the press to Donohue himself, that this was just a little power play, right up there with James Dobson beating the hell out of a dog to make it sleep where it’s been told to sleep. (And for the record, John, if Dobson decides to make you submit too, don’t bother. He’s still not going to be your pal, no matter how much of your lunch money you let him steal.)
These religious bigots, and they are the real religious bigots in this story, are bullies, and they *deserve* to be called on their bullshit, their meannness and their hatred. Donohue can pull out all the indignation he wants, but most Americans who are paying any damned attention to blog staff on a primary campaign have already formed their opinions about which party, at the very least, they are voting for. Donohue’s minions are not swing voters, and by knuckling under to these bullying tactics, you’re just admitting your research was bad, your principles are a matter of convenience, and you care more about what your opposition thinks you should do than about what your own voters think.
Is it too much to ask that democrats not apologize for annoying republicans? Some might argue it’s even your job.
Remember when you were ten and your fourteen year old brother used to pound on you for fun? And you one day called him a dick, and he got that smarmy look on his face? And he said, “Well, fine. I *was* going to let you come hang out with my friends, but if you’re going to call me names, then I’m not going to.” So you ended up apologizing, and he laughed, and you all knew he never had any intention of letting you hang out with them anyway, and why would you even want to, and after you apologized he pounded on you again a little more before he went off to hang out with his pals.
It seems like so many democratic politicians never learned how to deal with bullies at all, but by gods the republican ones sure learned how to deal with the kids with no confidence.
Really, why in the name of anything holy would Edwards *want* the support of nutjobs like Donohue? What exactly would he have to do to get it, and why on earth would he be willing to? I think it’s safe to say that if Jesus came back and told them to vote for Edwards, they’d just assume it wasn’t *really* Jesus. Everybody knows damned well, from Edwards to the press to Donohue himself, that this was just a little power play, right up there with James Dobson beating the hell out of a dog to make it sleep where it’s been told to sleep. (And for the record, John, if Dobson decides to make you submit too, don’t bother. He’s still not going to be your pal, no matter how much of your lunch money you let him steal.)
These religious bigots, and they are the real religious bigots in this story, are bullies, and they *deserve* to be called on their bullshit, their meannness and their hatred. Donohue can pull out all the indignation he wants, but most Americans who are paying any damned attention to blog staff on a primary campaign have already formed their opinions about which party, at the very least, they are voting for. Donohue’s minions are not swing voters, and by knuckling under to these bullying tactics, you’re just admitting your research was bad, your principles are a matter of convenience, and you care more about what your opposition thinks you should do than about what your own voters think.
Is it too much to ask that democrats not apologize for annoying republicans? Some might argue it’s even your job.
Ya know, I’ve asked this over and over, but did anyone of any sort of substance complain besides Malkin and Donahue? For reasons I shouldn’t have to reiterate, neither of those loathesome dingleberries should be taken seriously under any circumstances whatsoever but, for some reason, they get asked their opinions on The Big Issues Of The Day. So, my question is, did any liberal Catholic group complain about what Marcotte wrote? Any liberal Christian group or, for that matter, any liberal group of media-level liberal spokesperson complain to the Edwards people? Was there any objections at all to what McEwan wrote from anyone?
In other words, did anyone – anyone – apart from a anti-Semetic, racist, homophobia blowhard with delusions of granduer and a mendacious, power-worshipping hate monger living in gross defiance of the Peter Principle. Dear sweet baby Elvis, did anyone even stop to say, “Hey, maybe we should consider if these two people really have our campaign and Teh Libruhl Agenda’s best interest at heart”?
Sheesh.
In other words, did anyone – anyone – apart from a anti-Semetic, racist, homophobia blowhard with delusions of granduer and a mendacious, power-worshipping hate monger living in gross defiance of the Peter Principle. Dear sweet baby Elvis, did anyone even stop to say, “Hey, maybe we should consider if these two people really have our campaign and Teh Libruhl Agenda’s best interest at heart”?
Sheesh.
Some folks still need to realize that, in order to win, Edwards needs to appeal to a wide base–just to scrape a win. It might have worked for a long time for Tom Delay and other neocon scum, but the whole “fuck-you-I’ll-do-as-I-please” approach will NEVER work for the Left.
For starters, we have too many looking for an excuse–any excuse–to start bawling that every viable candidate is a “DINO” and then toss their vote into the trash. It’s safe; if you vote for some fringie who has no chance in Hell, you don’t have to worry about the guy you support winning, getting into power, then doing something you DON’T like, which would then bring shame upon your “no-compromise” philosophy. (Think I’m kidding? Just mention NAFTA or Don’t-Ask over at DU and see how many replies compare Bill Clinton unfavorably to things like Nazis or dog turds. He’s usurped Carter as history’s greatest monster, apparently.)
Glenn Greenwald: “Nobody is going to be casting their votes a year from now based on the pre-campaign postings of Amanda Marcotte or Melissa McEwan, and the only ones who will ever speak of this again would never have voted for Edwards in the first place, and only raised these issues in the first place with the intent to harm Edwards specifically and Democrats generally.”
I highly recommend Glenn’s articles on this issue–but it’s most telling that in the quote above he doesn’t limit the “never-vote-for-Edwards-anyway” crowd to “Republicans.”
And anyone who thinks other candidates wouldn’t deal with this problem in a similar fashion have forgotten “the kiss”–that embarrassing display-for-the-cameras slop-job that was Gore’s clumsy response to neocon smears. It didn’t affect my vote, because I’d rather have a good President than a good campaigner–but it illustrates a point. (And it’s hardly alone in that role.)
Finally: Amanda and Melissa have issued statements backing Edwards on this. If anyone in the blogmunity has final-say rights on this issue, who else?
For starters, we have too many looking for an excuse–any excuse–to start bawling that every viable candidate is a “DINO” and then toss their vote into the trash. It’s safe; if you vote for some fringie who has no chance in Hell, you don’t have to worry about the guy you support winning, getting into power, then doing something you DON’T like, which would then bring shame upon your “no-compromise” philosophy. (Think I’m kidding? Just mention NAFTA or Don’t-Ask over at DU and see how many replies compare Bill Clinton unfavorably to things like Nazis or dog turds. He’s usurped Carter as history’s greatest monster, apparently.)
Glenn Greenwald: “Nobody is going to be casting their votes a year from now based on the pre-campaign postings of Amanda Marcotte or Melissa McEwan, and the only ones who will ever speak of this again would never have voted for Edwards in the first place, and only raised these issues in the first place with the intent to harm Edwards specifically and Democrats generally.”
I highly recommend Glenn’s articles on this issue–but it’s most telling that in the quote above he doesn’t limit the “never-vote-for-Edwards-anyway” crowd to “Republicans.”
And anyone who thinks other candidates wouldn’t deal with this problem in a similar fashion have forgotten “the kiss”–that embarrassing display-for-the-cameras slop-job that was Gore’s clumsy response to neocon smears. It didn’t affect my vote, because I’d rather have a good President than a good campaigner–but it illustrates a point. (And it’s hardly alone in that role.)
Finally: Amanda and Melissa have issued statements backing Edwards on this. If anyone in the blogmunity has final-say rights on this issue, who else?
Happenstance,
I understand all that and it’s all perfectly logical. And you’re probably right in that not only will it not be an issue by the time the game really gets rolling, it won’t be the last dose of bullshit the Edwards campaign has to deal with. I imagine both the wingnut horde and GOP braintrust will ramp up ugly as hell this time around, and honestly I think the gameplan this time around will be to salt the earth rather than hold on to the seat.
Still – and this is beyond me never really warming to Edwards, though I thought he’d make an able if not neccessarily spectacular vice-president – I gotta wonder how the guy’s gonna react the next time the slime machine gears up on him, especially since whatever it is will be exponentially worse than a pair of uppity females. Really, if you were the guy who ran with a guy who was accused by Michelle Malkin for perhaps injuring himself so’s he could score some sweet Purple Heart action, shouldn’t your first response to anything Michelle Malkin writes, says or thinks be “Fuck Michelle Malkin”?
I mean, really.
I understand all that and it’s all perfectly logical. And you’re probably right in that not only will it not be an issue by the time the game really gets rolling, it won’t be the last dose of bullshit the Edwards campaign has to deal with. I imagine both the wingnut horde and GOP braintrust will ramp up ugly as hell this time around, and honestly I think the gameplan this time around will be to salt the earth rather than hold on to the seat.
Still – and this is beyond me never really warming to Edwards, though I thought he’d make an able if not neccessarily spectacular vice-president – I gotta wonder how the guy’s gonna react the next time the slime machine gears up on him, especially since whatever it is will be exponentially worse than a pair of uppity females. Really, if you were the guy who ran with a guy who was accused by Michelle Malkin for perhaps injuring himself so’s he could score some sweet Purple Heart action, shouldn’t your first response to anything Michelle Malkin writes, says or thinks be “Fuck Michelle Malkin”?
I mean, really.
Hey! These guys are turning our insults against us, calling us “Nutroots” and “Flying Monkeys” I am not a flying monkey. And, as it happens, my personal motto is “Never argue with a Nut”. I thought it up when I was twelve, and it’s never let me down.
I understand that the Edwards campaign cannot afford to waste energy a year before the primaries debunking the likes of Malkins and Donohue, but so what the hell did they want with bloggers? Somebody vetted Amanda, and I’ve never known her to take prisoners or suffer fools. It winds up sounding like the Edwards campaign heard that blogs were the Must Have accessory of ’07, and had no idea about any possible cockroach or Malkins infestation.
Personally, I don’t get the impetus to be a blogger-turned-journalist or -political functionary (okay, wonky bloggers, maybe, but not for the smart, witty wiseasses I lust after). Amanda, dear, remember the old joke. You’re part of the cerebral cortex of the country. And it’s still the assholes that can drown the rest of us in shit.
Personally, I don’t get the impetus to be a blogger-turned-journalist or -political functionary (okay, wonky bloggers, maybe, but not for the smart, witty wiseasses I lust after). Amanda, dear, remember the old joke. You’re part of the cerebral cortex of the country. And it’s still the assholes that can drown the rest of us in shit.
And let us ever keep in mind that the pearl-clutching we’re currently witnessing comes from some of the most foul-mouthed, vile, immoral liars ever to grace the intertubes.
Wasn’t Bill Donahue the one who berated Congressman Foley for not fighting back against his putative molester when he was 15?
Wasn’t Bill Donahue the one who berated Congressman Foley for not fighting back against his putative molester when he was 15?
teh l4m3, you are correct. And as John Rogers pointed out, Donohue represents roughly 0.5% of US Catholics.
First of all, S.Z., I can’t believe that you ignored the L&O alert on Ted Haggard as closet-case murderer. It’s a crappy episode, very sloppy plot, but I just LOVE the premise!!! And he HANGED HIMSELF IN JAIL!!!!!!
(What? Too much schadenfreude?)
Secondly: Marq, when did you turn into TED?!??! Don’t make me bitch-slap you in front of company.
(And don’t tell me that Ted & Bill S. “deputized” you to poke at Annti with sharp sticks, either, ’cause I know damned well that they were “detained” at the Chuck E. Cheese on that night and most others.)
Now, to topic: “…the institutionalized torturing of her pudendum by misanthropic godbags.”
Not only is that the most tortured phrase that I’ve seen this year, and possibly in the past decade (and that’s INCLUDING Swank, Giles,O’Reilly AND Fatfuck Limbaugh!), but I know of at least four guys who’d pay good money to have that done to them.
And no, Marq, you can’t have their phone numbers.
Could anybody find me a home address for William Donahoe? I reeeeeeeally need to do a road trip, and SOON. I don’t like anal sex but I fucking LOATHE catholicism, so it ought to be an interesting visit. Especially once I break-out the tow chain.
(BTW, to Jeff Goldstein: In case you’re monitoring us “flying monkeys” {I always thought that this particular moniker fit Laura Bush’s “cleaners” much more aptly, especially when she’s been driving drunk}, the above is what’s known as “satire,” as in, the bloviatingly surreal fantasy of a total pacifist who wishes that she could change the world by swinging a tire tool, but not an actual “tarrist threat,” kay pumpkin?)
And to anyone who would like to impugn the dignity, wholesome character, or ginormous heart of S.Z. by association with a loud bitch like me, let me further clarify that I fucking loathe ALL religions/cults the same, it’s just that the RCC has such a head-start on most of the other “western” religions, and that they’ve managed to out-missionary everybody but the Evil-As-Fuck Mormons, PLUS they have an operating budget that rivals the U.S. military, so they tend to piss me off the most often. The Mormons aren’t any better about how they treat women, they’re just waaaaayyyyy the hell sneakier about it.
BTW, Marq, I really liked this line the best:
“I don’t enter the bargain a blank slate, waiting for my candidate to tell me what to think.”
Would that the world could comprehend the same goals.
But if you mention curly hairs in teeth again, I’m going to sentence you to lifetime detention with Clarence fucking THOMAS.
“I’ve gleaned from conservative wingnut sites that if you just write it Je_bus, then G_d, and presumably Dawn Eden Goldstein, won’t have a problem with it.” — R. Porrofatto
OHHHHHHHH, so THAT’S what they’re upset about! Oh, well, hey, no prob, Porrofatto, I’ll just bend the fuck right on over and drop my drawers so that the republicunt fucktards can stick it to us AGAIN, because WE’RE TOO FUCKING POLITE TO SAY IT LIKE IT FUCKING *IS*, MUCH LESS TO CALL THEIR CULTS OUT FOR WHAT THE FUCK THAT **THEY** ARE!!!!!!
As Ciocia and others have noted, for lo, these many moons, that’s how they’ve managed to fuck us out of everything over the past nine years. Because we “took the high road” and didn’t fight them on their outright lies, treason, and thievery.
Oh, yeah, we should do more of THAT, definitely, you betcha.
Very cute joke, DHR. You make me miss my Iraqi/Arabic friend from college. He was one twisted mofo, but in a really good way. Until he had to “re-convert” to get married. That’s when he stopped being any fun, as is usually the way.
Ugluks, I don’t speak Farsi,but it sounds much prettier in person, so don’t worry about the translation. Now: could we actually DO that joke with ALL of the fucking preachers on this entire fucking PLANET?
David E: AYYYMENNN, mah brutha.
Marion, pumpkin, I don’t think that anybody here came to get “filled with the holy spirit” and “godbag” absoLUTEly has nothing to do with ghosties or spirits or any other fairy tales. But nice try on the backhanded ref, darlin’. Maybe next time we’ll teach you how to do a REAL google-bomb.
I like where you were going, Punkinsmom, and I do get your point. But when you’re dealing with people who ESCHEW education (unless it’s an MBA), people who view science and discovery as THREATS to their very way of life, no, you can’t give them the word. You can’t get into the pedantics or semantics with people who see life in black and white and red. These are the beasties who have ruined our country. They don’t want to hear explanations or definitions, they make their money by declaring that INFORMATION & EXPOSITION are “Bad” and somehow indicative of “waffling” and ergo, if you have to EXPLAIN something to them, then that means that you’re LYING to them.
They think in soundbytes and, sadly, bumperstickers. That’s also how they market to the sheeple. So no, we can’t give them that word. Because they’ll USE IT. And in complete opposition to your usage and Merriam Webster’s.
And to Rob W., who put together the most sentient commentary on this entire clusterfuck-in-a-teacup that I’ve seen thus far (aside from S.Z.’s brilliant harpooning of the pompous pricks above) — you are so right. And ergo, so depressing.
Life’s a bitch, eh?
Personally, until he bent over for them, I was all for Edwards… as Al Gore’s VP candidate. Now, maybe we can let him run Health & Human Services. As long as he doesn’t get to do the public policy shit.
Trashfire, how could anybody NOT love Twisty?
D.Sidhe, I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again: YOU. FUCKIN’. RAWK. Period. Y’notice how the bullies are becoming more frantic, more aggressive, and therefore more SLOPPY about their swaggering around, trying to “own” the planet? There’s a sea change a’comin’, sister, and you see it, too.
*Whew*!
Now, can we call this horseshit “over” and move the fuck on? I really don’t want to help this clusterfuck stay in the “news cycle” until Monday.
Personally, I’d like to get back to those Top-1% tax cuts, the murder of 6,000+ Americans by greed-whore hegemony bullies, and the fact that the only “tarrists” that we SHOULD be “chasing” are the ones in Saudi Arabia. Just for starters.
(What? Too much schadenfreude?)
Secondly: Marq, when did you turn into TED?!??! Don’t make me bitch-slap you in front of company.
(And don’t tell me that Ted & Bill S. “deputized” you to poke at Annti with sharp sticks, either, ’cause I know damned well that they were “detained” at the Chuck E. Cheese on that night and most others.)
Now, to topic: “…the institutionalized torturing of her pudendum by misanthropic godbags.”
Not only is that the most tortured phrase that I’ve seen this year, and possibly in the past decade (and that’s INCLUDING Swank, Giles,O’Reilly AND Fatfuck Limbaugh!), but I know of at least four guys who’d pay good money to have that done to them.
And no, Marq, you can’t have their phone numbers.
Could anybody find me a home address for William Donahoe? I reeeeeeeally need to do a road trip, and SOON. I don’t like anal sex but I fucking LOATHE catholicism, so it ought to be an interesting visit. Especially once I break-out the tow chain.
(BTW, to Jeff Goldstein: In case you’re monitoring us “flying monkeys” {I always thought that this particular moniker fit Laura Bush’s “cleaners” much more aptly, especially when she’s been driving drunk}, the above is what’s known as “satire,” as in, the bloviatingly surreal fantasy of a total pacifist who wishes that she could change the world by swinging a tire tool, but not an actual “tarrist threat,” kay pumpkin?)
And to anyone who would like to impugn the dignity, wholesome character, or ginormous heart of S.Z. by association with a loud bitch like me, let me further clarify that I fucking loathe ALL religions/cults the same, it’s just that the RCC has such a head-start on most of the other “western” religions, and that they’ve managed to out-missionary everybody but the Evil-As-Fuck Mormons, PLUS they have an operating budget that rivals the U.S. military, so they tend to piss me off the most often. The Mormons aren’t any better about how they treat women, they’re just waaaaayyyyy the hell sneakier about it.
BTW, Marq, I really liked this line the best:
“I don’t enter the bargain a blank slate, waiting for my candidate to tell me what to think.”
Would that the world could comprehend the same goals.
But if you mention curly hairs in teeth again, I’m going to sentence you to lifetime detention with Clarence fucking THOMAS.
“I’ve gleaned from conservative wingnut sites that if you just write it Je_bus, then G_d, and presumably Dawn Eden Goldstein, won’t have a problem with it.” — R. Porrofatto
OHHHHHHHH, so THAT’S what they’re upset about! Oh, well, hey, no prob, Porrofatto, I’ll just bend the fuck right on over and drop my drawers so that the republicunt fucktards can stick it to us AGAIN, because WE’RE TOO FUCKING POLITE TO SAY IT LIKE IT FUCKING *IS*, MUCH LESS TO CALL THEIR CULTS OUT FOR WHAT THE FUCK THAT **THEY** ARE!!!!!!
As Ciocia and others have noted, for lo, these many moons, that’s how they’ve managed to fuck us out of everything over the past nine years. Because we “took the high road” and didn’t fight them on their outright lies, treason, and thievery.
Oh, yeah, we should do more of THAT, definitely, you betcha.
Very cute joke, DHR. You make me miss my Iraqi/Arabic friend from college. He was one twisted mofo, but in a really good way. Until he had to “re-convert” to get married. That’s when he stopped being any fun, as is usually the way.
Ugluks, I don’t speak Farsi,but it sounds much prettier in person, so don’t worry about the translation. Now: could we actually DO that joke with ALL of the fucking preachers on this entire fucking PLANET?
David E: AYYYMENNN, mah brutha.
Marion, pumpkin, I don’t think that anybody here came to get “filled with the holy spirit” and “godbag” absoLUTEly has nothing to do with ghosties or spirits or any other fairy tales. But nice try on the backhanded ref, darlin’. Maybe next time we’ll teach you how to do a REAL google-bomb.
I like where you were going, Punkinsmom, and I do get your point. But when you’re dealing with people who ESCHEW education (unless it’s an MBA), people who view science and discovery as THREATS to their very way of life, no, you can’t give them the word. You can’t get into the pedantics or semantics with people who see life in black and white and red. These are the beasties who have ruined our country. They don’t want to hear explanations or definitions, they make their money by declaring that INFORMATION & EXPOSITION are “Bad” and somehow indicative of “waffling” and ergo, if you have to EXPLAIN something to them, then that means that you’re LYING to them.
They think in soundbytes and, sadly, bumperstickers. That’s also how they market to the sheeple. So no, we can’t give them that word. Because they’ll USE IT. And in complete opposition to your usage and Merriam Webster’s.
And to Rob W., who put together the most sentient commentary on this entire clusterfuck-in-a-teacup that I’ve seen thus far (aside from S.Z.’s brilliant harpooning of the pompous pricks above) — you are so right. And ergo, so depressing.
Life’s a bitch, eh?
Personally, until he bent over for them, I was all for Edwards… as Al Gore’s VP candidate. Now, maybe we can let him run Health & Human Services. As long as he doesn’t get to do the public policy shit.
Trashfire, how could anybody NOT love Twisty?
D.Sidhe, I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again: YOU. FUCKIN’. RAWK. Period. Y’notice how the bullies are becoming more frantic, more aggressive, and therefore more SLOPPY about their swaggering around, trying to “own” the planet? There’s a sea change a’comin’, sister, and you see it, too.
*Whew*!
Now, can we call this horseshit “over” and move the fuck on? I really don’t want to help this clusterfuck stay in the “news cycle” until Monday.
Personally, I’d like to get back to those Top-1% tax cuts, the murder of 6,000+ Americans by greed-whore hegemony bullies, and the fact that the only “tarrists” that we SHOULD be “chasing” are the ones in Saudi Arabia. Just for starters.
That’s pretty much my point, jackd. Look, Americans don’t want a party of republicans and a party that looks almost exactly like republicans but has more minorities. We don’t even put up with that few choices when picking out a toothpaste. Americans *do* want an increase in the minimum wage, safer working conditions, a more progressive tax structure, less pollution, some form of health insurance for everyone, less corporate money in the campaign system, an end to the war in Iraq, and even, for the most part, the government to stay the hell out of peoples’ sex lives. These things are–or should be–bedrock democratic positions. They are easy ways to draw contrast between the parties, and easy ways to actually get the democratic base involved beyond just voting. These are positions we should be embracing.
Instead, we’re trying to appeal to a bunch of people who have no interest in voting for us anyway. Even the swing voters are more likely to care about ending the war in Iraq than they do about what some campaign person said about God.
And, yes, I understand that a politician needs to offend as few potentail voters as possible. But I don’t think it helps anyone see what the democrats are really all about if we spend all our time jumping through hoops the–by definition–fringe players erect. Why reinforce the notion that the democrats don’t stand for anything, are flip-floppers, don’t stand by their people, are either too dim to look into the backgrounds of those we hire or don’t realize what’s going to sound offensive, and are such constant, chronic fuck-ups that they’re always having to apologize.
The funny thing is, all of those things are as true, if not more so, of the GOP. But they apologize less, so the media treat them like they have less to apologize for. Reporters don’t report anymore. They haven’t got the time, the inclination, or the training to tell you what’s actually happening and what it means. They’re very good, though, at reciting a settled narrative. In this case: All these guys said this was a bad thing for Edwards to have done, and Edwards agreed with them, so they must have been right.
If we’re ever going to get the media to do their job, they have to be forced into it. And without the media doing their job, the only people you can really expect to vote democratic are democrats. And they’re not looking for republican lite.
Finally: Amanda and Melissa have issued statements backing Edwards on this. If anyone in the blogmunity has final-say rights on this issue, who else?
That, btw, is an extremely good point, and one that would be persuasive but for one thing: This is about who our president will be. Having seen just how bad those choices can be, I think we all have a duty to offer at least constructive criticism when we see our chances of having a good one lead the country slipping. This isn’t a private argument between three people. This is about whether we get a chance to undo some of the horrific damage that’s been done to our country.
And, really, if the only people they can get involved in this is the extremist right and people who are being paid to take a stand, I think we’ve got some serious problems.
Happenstance, I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with you before, and I don’t entirely disagree with you now, though I’d like to hope that the fact that I do to whatever extent isn’t itself proof that I’ve taken an extremely foolish position. But after watching the GOP forever pandering to the most extreme and bigotted elements of their voting bloc, it’s aggravating to watch the democrats pander to them too while distancing themselves from actual democratic voters.
Instead, we’re trying to appeal to a bunch of people who have no interest in voting for us anyway. Even the swing voters are more likely to care about ending the war in Iraq than they do about what some campaign person said about God.
And, yes, I understand that a politician needs to offend as few potentail voters as possible. But I don’t think it helps anyone see what the democrats are really all about if we spend all our time jumping through hoops the–by definition–fringe players erect. Why reinforce the notion that the democrats don’t stand for anything, are flip-floppers, don’t stand by their people, are either too dim to look into the backgrounds of those we hire or don’t realize what’s going to sound offensive, and are such constant, chronic fuck-ups that they’re always having to apologize.
The funny thing is, all of those things are as true, if not more so, of the GOP. But they apologize less, so the media treat them like they have less to apologize for. Reporters don’t report anymore. They haven’t got the time, the inclination, or the training to tell you what’s actually happening and what it means. They’re very good, though, at reciting a settled narrative. In this case: All these guys said this was a bad thing for Edwards to have done, and Edwards agreed with them, so they must have been right.
If we’re ever going to get the media to do their job, they have to be forced into it. And without the media doing their job, the only people you can really expect to vote democratic are democrats. And they’re not looking for republican lite.
Finally: Amanda and Melissa have issued statements backing Edwards on this. If anyone in the blogmunity has final-say rights on this issue, who else?
That, btw, is an extremely good point, and one that would be persuasive but for one thing: This is about who our president will be. Having seen just how bad those choices can be, I think we all have a duty to offer at least constructive criticism when we see our chances of having a good one lead the country slipping. This isn’t a private argument between three people. This is about whether we get a chance to undo some of the horrific damage that’s been done to our country.
And, really, if the only people they can get involved in this is the extremist right and people who are being paid to take a stand, I think we’ve got some serious problems.
Happenstance, I don’t think I’ve ever disagreed with you before, and I don’t entirely disagree with you now, though I’d like to hope that the fact that I do to whatever extent isn’t itself proof that I’ve taken an extremely foolish position. But after watching the GOP forever pandering to the most extreme and bigotted elements of their voting bloc, it’s aggravating to watch the democrats pander to them too while distancing themselves from actual democratic voters.
Only… now there are all these weird, curly hairs caught in between my teeth.
Left by Marq
That explains the interrobangs‽‽ at the start of you comment. I was wondering how you got them.
Left by Marq
That explains the interrobangs‽‽ at the start of you comment. I was wondering how you got them.
*tiptoes in*
umm… for the record, auntie… i was just…
SPEAK UP BOY, DON’T STAND THERE MUMBLING!
um… I was jus’ makin’ a wee jokie, ma’am… I swear…
WELL NEXT TIME MAKE IT FUNNY, DAMMIT!
Yes’m… I will try to do better… I promise…
*tiptoes out*
umm… for the record, auntie… i was just…
SPEAK UP BOY, DON’T STAND THERE MUMBLING!
um… I was jus’ makin’ a wee jokie, ma’am… I swear…
WELL NEXT TIME MAKE IT FUNNY, DAMMIT!
Yes’m… I will try to do better… I promise…
*tiptoes out*
Amanda&MelissaGate.
damn, and here I thought it was going to be called “PandaGate”
damn, and here I thought it was going to be called “PandaGate”
Amanda and Melissa issued statements that sound absolutely nothing like them. In fact, I feel quite confident in believing they were created by committee, and the two of them were required to sign/post to keep their jobs. I read Pandagon, not Shakes, but I gotta say: Amanda’s posts are not “satirical” in nature. And bullshit that Amanda never meant to “malign anyone’s individual faith.” She went after bigots and hypocrites with zeal and glee, and ripped them apart, using acid humor as a tonal vehicle in the writing. And fuckin’ good for fuckin’ her.
For Edwards to call it “satirical” is to cut her off at the knees, and essentially show Donohue and Malkin that he agrees they were out of line. He didn’t fire them, and so much the better, but seriously: they’ve now been publicly embarrassed by Malkin/Donohue and by Edwards. That statement read like Edwards was clutching his own pearls at the thought that his staff members might have been vulgar. The poor baby. He didn’t have to diminish their past work, and force them to sign “mealy-mouthed non-apology apologies.” Donohue’s right on that count.
As I say, it seems to me they had a choice: to say, fuck you and your cowardly ways, and walk; or to post the apologies, soldier on, and hopefully work from inside the campaign to improve their response time and response way down the road.
Given that their boss and his handlers stumbled on this one, I do think they did the right thing. It’s not their own blog, they have bosses now, and they’re in a different dimension of the game. Better that it’s them in there than some corporate/marketing-speak wonk who doesn’t know shit about shit in the blogoverse.
I wish Edwards and his team had handled it better, and quicker. But he didn’t, and life goes on. I still prefer him to anyone else on the field, but like I say: he better get his shit together on how to handle this stuff right quick or he’ll get sunk. It’s amazing to me that he wasn’t ready, after watching Kerry get annihilated first-hand in 2004.
I’m with Greenwald here, too: great for the blogosphere for staying Edwards’s hand and correcting his decision, and forcing some context into the followup NY Times story. But Edwards doesn’t seem ready for prime time if he needed a 24-hour hunker to know how to respond to the likes of Malkin.
Go pop over to Atrios’s pad today and take a look at the YouTube clip of my congressman – and I’ve never been prouder — Anthony Weiner, ass-raping the Republicans on the floor of the House over the Pelosi plane thing. THAT’s how you deal with manufactured scandal. (Post is called “More like this.”)
He refers to them over and over again as the “Republic” party. It’s just a nice little bit of sweet revenge.
And a shoutout back to annti – love ya, babe.
For Edwards to call it “satirical” is to cut her off at the knees, and essentially show Donohue and Malkin that he agrees they were out of line. He didn’t fire them, and so much the better, but seriously: they’ve now been publicly embarrassed by Malkin/Donohue and by Edwards. That statement read like Edwards was clutching his own pearls at the thought that his staff members might have been vulgar. The poor baby. He didn’t have to diminish their past work, and force them to sign “mealy-mouthed non-apology apologies.” Donohue’s right on that count.
As I say, it seems to me they had a choice: to say, fuck you and your cowardly ways, and walk; or to post the apologies, soldier on, and hopefully work from inside the campaign to improve their response time and response way down the road.
Given that their boss and his handlers stumbled on this one, I do think they did the right thing. It’s not their own blog, they have bosses now, and they’re in a different dimension of the game. Better that it’s them in there than some corporate/marketing-speak wonk who doesn’t know shit about shit in the blogoverse.
I wish Edwards and his team had handled it better, and quicker. But he didn’t, and life goes on. I still prefer him to anyone else on the field, but like I say: he better get his shit together on how to handle this stuff right quick or he’ll get sunk. It’s amazing to me that he wasn’t ready, after watching Kerry get annihilated first-hand in 2004.
I’m with Greenwald here, too: great for the blogosphere for staying Edwards’s hand and correcting his decision, and forcing some context into the followup NY Times story. But Edwards doesn’t seem ready for prime time if he needed a 24-hour hunker to know how to respond to the likes of Malkin.
Go pop over to Atrios’s pad today and take a look at the YouTube clip of my congressman – and I’ve never been prouder — Anthony Weiner, ass-raping the Republicans on the floor of the House over the Pelosi plane thing. THAT’s how you deal with manufactured scandal. (Post is called “More like this.”)
He refers to them over and over again as the “Republic” party. It’s just a nice little bit of sweet revenge.
And a shoutout back to annti – love ya, babe.
PSST! s.z.! Kruschev said “We will bury you”, not “We will crush you”…and he never banged his shoe at the UN…
Actually, he didn’t even say “we will bury you”. He said “we will attend your funeral”…context at link above.
Actually, he didn’t even say “we will bury you”. He said “we will attend your funeral”…context at link above.
I think the response may not have been as “caving” as it seemed on the surface. Note that Amanda apologized for only one of the things that the RWNM was pitching fits about, and not even the main thing: just the “religion bashing”–not the feminism, not the gay activism, not the “foul language”, nothing about the Duke posts or the Katrina posts (which were Malkin’s main complaints). And the apology itself and Edwards’s statement highlighted their support for free expression of religion.
Here’s a possible take on it: they were ignoring the story until it landed in the NYT with the imprimator of the “Catholic League” stamped on it. At this point, they are no longer concerned about wingnuts: they are worried about normal Catholics and Christians getting taken in by the wingnuts’ ravings. Since Edwards’s platform is a heavy social justice one, he is probably looking for support from a lot of liberal “Beatitude” Christians–you know, the “help the poor and sick” and “judge not lest you be judged” types that are pretty much the opposite of the ones Amanda targets in her posts. From that perspective, Amanda’s apology is bang on and sincere: she isn’t maligning their faith, but rather maligning the faith of the authoritarian theocrats that very unfortunately happens to share the same name as theirs. In other words, I wonder if Amanda was apologizing to the people she wasn’t attacking but who accidently stepped into the rhetorical line of fire.
Then Edwards went straight for “We have important work to do, and we won’t let this discussion be hijacked.” Short, succinct, and “STFU” to Malkin et al, and a direct calling out of their standard tactics.
I have no inside information at all, but I can dream, can’t I?
(I don’t read Shakespeare’s Sister, so I’m not making any statements about her.)
Here’s a possible take on it: they were ignoring the story until it landed in the NYT with the imprimator of the “Catholic League” stamped on it. At this point, they are no longer concerned about wingnuts: they are worried about normal Catholics and Christians getting taken in by the wingnuts’ ravings. Since Edwards’s platform is a heavy social justice one, he is probably looking for support from a lot of liberal “Beatitude” Christians–you know, the “help the poor and sick” and “judge not lest you be judged” types that are pretty much the opposite of the ones Amanda targets in her posts. From that perspective, Amanda’s apology is bang on and sincere: she isn’t maligning their faith, but rather maligning the faith of the authoritarian theocrats that very unfortunately happens to share the same name as theirs. In other words, I wonder if Amanda was apologizing to the people she wasn’t attacking but who accidently stepped into the rhetorical line of fire.
Then Edwards went straight for “We have important work to do, and we won’t let this discussion be hijacked.” Short, succinct, and “STFU” to Malkin et al, and a direct calling out of their standard tactics.
I have no inside information at all, but I can dream, can’t I?
(I don’t read Shakespeare’s Sister, so I’m not making any statements about her.)
Can Goldstien (The Count) actually go two whole columns without bringing up a penis, by name?
something sure stinks in Denmark.
something sure stinks in Denmark.
I dunno, Annti–on a scale of 1-to-10, how bad is it to be Ted? And, to Herr Doktor Bimler – yeah, those interrobangs are curly little suckers, ain’t they‽
42, Marq.
The answer is 42.
The answer is 42.
Annti, I’ll have to work on finding that address for you. Sounds like one hell of a road trip! (I’ll bring the trail mix.)
Works for me, Mrs. TBB!!!
(Oh, gawd, that rhymed, like a fucking valentine card… Feel free to kill me if I do that again…)
At any rate, can you share the driving duties? I can’t do 1,000 miles at a stretch like I used to do… And can we duct-tape Marq to the truck as a hood ornament?
(Oh, gawd, that rhymed, like a fucking valentine card… Feel free to kill me if I do that again…)
At any rate, can you share the driving duties? I can’t do 1,000 miles at a stretch like I used to do… And can we duct-tape Marq to the truck as a hood ornament?
I can’t do 1,000 miles at a stretch like I used to do…Sure you can, Annti! Y’just need to slap on some “adult diapers,” sos you can skip bathroom breaks, and it’s easy-peasey! Kinda makes you an “ass”tronaut.
Nooooooooooo, Marqy-Poo-For-Brains, I can’t do the thousand-miles-at-a-stretch road trips anymore because I REBROKE MY FUCKING BACK AND HAD TO HAVE ***ANOTHER*** SURGERY — ON MY BIRTHDAY, MIND YOU — TO REMOVE THE OLD HARDWARE AND TO SLAP THOSE LAST TWO VERTEBRAE TOGETHER BECAUSE THE DISK BETWEEN THEM HAD **DISINTEGRATED**. Oh, and if they hadn’t done the fusion, those two sliding-back-and-forth vertebrae would’ve severed my spinal chord.
So, that’s what makes me disqualified me for road trips of any duration for the next year, mkay pumpkin? Unless you’re going to get me a fully-equipped handi-van with hand-controlled braking & acceleration, I don’t see any of this changing anytime soon.
And just in case anybody was wondering (and I’m sure that you weren’t, but what the hell…), yeah, I “still” have arthritis, fibromyalgia that is a MOTHERFUCKER, chronic fatigue syndrome, and a herniated disk in my fucking NECK. If I was a horse, they’d have shot me back in ’95.
Morris Bart is the fucking ANTICHRIST for real.
So, that’s what makes me disqualified me for road trips of any duration for the next year, mkay pumpkin? Unless you’re going to get me a fully-equipped handi-van with hand-controlled braking & acceleration, I don’t see any of this changing anytime soon.
And just in case anybody was wondering (and I’m sure that you weren’t, but what the hell…), yeah, I “still” have arthritis, fibromyalgia that is a MOTHERFUCKER, chronic fatigue syndrome, and a herniated disk in my fucking NECK. If I was a horse, they’d have shot me back in ’95.
Morris Bart is the fucking ANTICHRIST for real.
You guys knock me out. In a good way, of course… Doesn’t interfere with my driving.
No comments:
Post a Comment