Pushback

I didn't realize it was hate speech when it was about Christians, conservatives, etc. I have to give Terry Moran credit for this article. If we are going to oppose hate speech, we need to oppose even that with which we agree.

This isn't hate speech. It's called free speech. We all have a right to our opinions and are free to express them. Although strong, she states her views. Nothing wrong with that or John Edwards 'associating' with a person who does.

Pretty mild comapred to the extreme hate stuff you hear on Fox News, Limbaugh etc. Kudos to the person who pointed out that in the past this was called free speech.

Has Terry Moran and his straw men gone to work for the swift-boaters?

hmmmm.... sort of reminds me of a Robert Hienlien story about a man that spent his life finding a cure for a horrible disease. Then he caught it himself and still couldn't cure it so he decided that "on me it does look good!" Most liberals remind me of myself when it comes to mirrors, now that I am old and fat I don't like mirrors any more than they do....

Yikes! I would not even talk to a nasty person like that!

A: Marcotte was speaking her opinions and the truth as she sees it.
2: There is plenty of documentation she could site to back up her opinions.
III: Free speech is free speech- opionions, profanity and all. Everyone should have it, everyone should use it.

To characterize her work as hate speech is ridiculous, especially when you read the rhetoric to which she is reacting. And what does this really have to do with John Edward's candidacy, anyway?

Yes, hate speech. What's the point? Really? I never have understood why so many attack Christians. Sure there are fringe, fundamentalist groups, just like there are left of left liberals.

But to impart that Christians are about the destruction of Islam is pure hogwash. Christians didn't fly planes into the World Trade Center. Muslims did.

Whatever your beliefs, we are Americans. We should use that right to free speech to build bridges, find common ground rather than stand toe to toe yelling obscenities at each other. I mean does anyone, any single party have all of the answers?

Hate speech is hate speech, whether from a democrat or a republican. You a learn a lot about a person by watching the people they associate with. Marcotte's comments say something about her, and a lot about Edwards.

If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react?

IF????

Are you serious?

This is hardly hate speech. It may be raw and not my style, but it doesn't fall within the parameters of hate speech. Perhaps you're thinking of Limbaugh, Colter and Savage? They are the real experts on hate speech in commercial blog/radio show America today.

what small, mean people you are on the left!! And any grasp you ever had on reality is long, long gone....

I love that Moran even asked the question "Is it ok to trash Catholicism and not Islam?" The obvious answer to that in politically correct America is "Of Course." It's been fair gam on Catholics for a long time.

The whole concept of terming anything hate speech is horrifying to me as far as being a way to limit what can be said. Marcotte may be vicious, rude, vile and often wrong, but in the America I was taught she has an absolute right to be all of those things as publicly as she chooses.

Difference between Marcotte and Limbaugh, Coulter, et al. is that none of them work directly for a Presidential candidate as Marcotte does. And Coulter uses prett impeccable footnotes when she rips somebody.

It is ok for uneducated people to express their opinion in America.
I might not agree with people that are full themselves,however; I will defend their right to express even hateful words.
Someday they will grow up.

The Republicans are no strangers to abusive, even insulting speeches from their biggest fans as well - for examples see Rush Limbaugh's radio show, any one of Ann Coulter's books or articles, or Matt Drudge's Radio Show, just for openers. The also spout hate speech whenever it suits them, but as Plato said "Though I may not agree with anything you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Also, I would like to point out that she is now in Edward's employ, and I'm sure will be tailoring her comments to fit his much less offensive views, not her own.
And there is no such thing as guilt by association - there is guilt by actual wrongdoing. None of these comments are from Edwards himself. This article is partisan tripe akin to Karl Rove asserting during the Republican primaries last time around that McCain was too crazy to be President because he was a POW in service to his country. Pathetic.

It shocks me how uninformed people can be. Limbaugh and the others do not spout hate. They may express dislike for people and policies, but not hate. I don't think Marcotte is spouting hate either, but she is attacking beliefs which she does not understand, clearly, and throwing out ridiculous generalizations about whole groups. She ignores facts (reference the Duke case) and really reveals her extreme dislikes (men, especially white men, Christians, conservatives, basically anyone she disagrees with). That is purely juvenile. Grown-ups can disagree and still like each other. Guess politicians and "pundit-wannabes" can't.

I often wonder what has happened to all that our fore-fathers fought for, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, etc. Yet we still don't give those freedoms freely. If voices are never to be heard, how can anyone make a difference; if MLK was unable to make his speeches, march his marches, where would we be today. What has changed is not our freedom, but the lines of those freedoms. If you are from a red state, more power to Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, etc; and to hell with anyone with different views. If you are part of the blue states, it's the same thing!

Barrack O'Bama said it plainly and purely, there is no red state, blue state, only the United States. When people start being told what they can write, what they read, who they can listen to and to whom they must live their lives like, then we might want to call ourselves, China, North Korea, Cuba. We are beginning to be more and more intolerant of each other and our government isn't helping in that matter, if nothing more, they are pushing us further apart.

We are one nation, one people of many different variations in color, thinking, etc. If we an unable to speak or write what we feel than this nation is going to explode at the seams, maybe our own little civil war.

Terry Moran, as much as I know you don't respond to those who question you, I just ask this, what is the role of a reporter, what is your role in this blog? If the media is to maintain a "bipartisan" atmosphere, stories like this one must also be followed by stories from the other side as well.

That someone blogging for ABC would decry "hate speech" by progressive bloggers while someone like Glenn Beck appears regularly on their network is sadly not surprising.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/glennbeck

Interesting to read the comments from liberals here. To sum up, "Yeah, we hate Christians, what's the big deal?"

Of course she has a right to say this juvenile stuff, but the question is, does it show good judgement on the part of the Edwards campaign to hire someone like this?

Believe me, I'm hoping he keeps these bloggers on the payroll. This can and be used against him now and further into the campaign.

These comments are hysterical!

"Pretty mild comapred to the extreme hate stuff you hear on Fox News, Limbaugh etc"

Said the person who's obviously never listened to either.

"If the media is to maintain a "bipartisan" atmosphere, stories like this one must also be followed by stories from the other side as well."

Yeah, because God knows the networks never run anything critical of conservatives.

You guys have given me my chuckle for today!

It's not hate speech... since it's directed at Christians. Were she to say the same about Moslems... well what's the point...she'd never say that about Moslems since they might actually kill her for her speech.

Better to trash talk the folks that'll turn the other cheek than the ones that'll cut your empty head off.

In any case she has the right to say what she wants... but Edwards may have to bear the consequences of her opinions.

Terry Moran has posted verbatim examples of what he considers to be attacks that are over the line. Many posters on this board have accused right-wing pundits of the same without providing examples. Propose posting verbatim quotes of the offenses of the right so that we may see what is actually said.

On another note, I highly encourage John Edwards to hire left-wing hatemakers to help him get his message out. (Look how well loved Karl Rove is). It'll do wonders for his campaign and besides, it's traditional to whip the public into high-dudgeon over the usual scapegoats.

Observer wrote:

"The Republicans are no strangers to abusive, even insulting speeches from their biggest fans as well - for examples see Rush Limbaugh's radio show, any one of Ann Coulter's books or articles, or Matt Drudge's Radio Show, just for openers."

For the sake of argument, we can take the assertion that Limbaugh, Coulter, and Drudge have used abusive language toward liberals as true.

The problem, Observer, is that none of those persons has been hired for a prominent position in a presidential campaign. So, to say that there are conservatives who use hateful language is to miss the point of Moran's post, which is what the Marcotte affair says about Edwards' judgment.

I would add that I cannot think of a single prominent conservative blogger who uses such venomous language. The guys at Powerline, Hugh Hewitt, and Captain Ed are always gracious advocates of their views. Malkin can be acerbic and even catty, but she's never vulgar. Glenn Reynolds (who does not accept the label "conservative", but let's just go with it for now) is about as much of a gentleman as can be.

But among the prominent left-wing bloggers, it's quite common to see venomous, hateful, and even profane diatribes. Sometimes, I have to wonder if their hate is all that they have.

Sally,

Educate yourself.

"but as Plato said "Though I may not agree with anything you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it.""

Try again. This time check out Voltaire.

I am delighted to see so many liberals Dems rushing to Edwards defense over this. Delighted! If they encourage Edwards to publicly hesitate just a little on 'free speeech' grounds before firing her, he's toast. Now, if only Hillary and Obama can make similar gaffes.
Oh, and "free speech" means the government can't sanction you. It doesn't mean Edwards can't fire you. Why do liberals have such trouble with simple ideas like this?

Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reiley routinely engage in hate speech?

POST EXAMPLES.

Put up or shut up.

Oh yes, definitely free speech. Free speech that the voting base needs to hear more of, and make an informed decision regarding John Edwards' choice of media mouthpiece

Liberals' defence of this is "well Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity do it too".

I learned a long time ago, the argumnet is won when your opponent uses that debating tactic.

"What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit. . ."

I don't recall Limbaugh, et al. saying anything remotely as offensive as that. Those characters are slso able to write whole PARAGRAPHS without resorting to the "F" bomb but modern lefties would only consider that a defect in style.

I'm not sure I can call it hate speech -- but it sure is retarded and ill-informed. Maybe that's Edwards' "two Americas" view: One America for rich blood-sucking lawyers and one for bad writers with a ton of opinions unsupported by reality.

Didn't George Allen lose his re-election bid because he used a word that is considered hate speech? Even though, as far as I know, noone can read anyone else's mind yet, certain words are hate speech and certain words are not. Who decides who hates and who does not hate?

Oh Shark, with pleasure. Examples.

Well, there was Rush Limbaugh saying that the White House got a new dog, and flashed open a picture of Chelsea Clinton when she was 11 years old. Rush Limbaugh accusing Hillary Clinton of murdering Vince Foster.

Let's see,... Hannity thought it would be fun to wear blue ribbons to honor the cops who beat Rodney King.

O'Reilly... need I bother. Ok. He encouraged Al Qaeda to bomb San Francisco because they passed an anti military recruiter law. And I quote.

O’Reilly said “if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we’re not going to do anything about it. We’re going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco.”

If Edwards wants to associate with someone who has problems advocating for her side without wild accusations and venom, let him. He will face the political consequences somewhere down the road. This was not well thought out on his campaign's part.

Certainly many of you must be joking! And to those who would say that the likes of Limbaugh (Club Gitmo Gear?), Coulter ("roll over and crush Canada"), et cetera, are not doing the exact same thing I assure you that YOU obviously don't listen to them, as I do. Daily. Oftentimes it's laughable, other times excrutiating - then again so are many liberal commentators. I've also read their books - and their Democratic and liberal rivals'. Both sides do the same thing, pull the same dirty tricks, manufacture evidence to support their claims, take things out of context, and so on. To assume either does anything otherwise is naive at best and assinine at worst.

That being said, I still fail to see the point here.

Obviously the girl Edwards has hired is extremely partisan and very rough, not to mention quick to jump (the Duke case in particular), but I'm sure he'll be reigning her vitrole in. If nothing else, the conservatives and Republicans should be thrilled that they will have one less virulent blogger out there ripping them to shreds.

Now if only someone on the right would hire Michelle Malkin as a campaign worker maybe we could all have a quiet, productive political day...

"To characterize her work as hate speech is ridiculous"

Hardly. She makes generalizations based on stereotypes. Provincialism -> bigotry -> hatespeech.

No surprise. Its a blind spot for the Left - they've never really done any self-examination re their own hate. The term "redneck" [bigoted term once used to denigrate immigrant farm laborers]frequently shows up in the pages of the NYTs and WaPo. Its no different than "wetback" or "nigger", but Marcotte and her ilk still use it.

She is macaca (is that spelled with a capital "M"?)

>>>>Who decides who hates and who does not hate?<<<

Liberals obviously. For example, the Mohammad cartoons were examples of hate, so much that the Times wouldn't print them. But Piss Christ, or Virgin Mary Dung painting were perfectly acceptable for publication- praise even.

Or Joe Biden, feeling the need to comment on Obama being such a well-spoken, well groomed and nice black man. WTF!??! I have never heard such a paternal, condescending racist (and stupid) comment in my life, and it's barely a blip. Meanwhile, Trent Lott says something stupid at an old mans birthday party and he gets raked over the coals. You tell me what the double standard is.

The Dems have a KKK member in their Senate caucus for crying out loud! But "macacca" or whatever George Allen said is hatespeech.

Gimme a break...

A lot of people here comment about "free speech". As usual, people have no idea what "free speech" is or means.

this article does not attack her right to speak opinions. It attacks those opinions. Free speech does not mean that you can say what you want and not have anyone else criticize you.

Nor does free speech mean you can say whatever you want and still have whatever job you want. The only institution that is precluded from "censoring" your speech is the government.

thus, we are free to criticize her speech, we are free to point out that her juvenile and hateful speech and the fact that Edwards hired her despite such juvenile, vulgar, and hateful speech says a lot about Edward's decision-making. Pointing such things out, and criticizing Edwards for hiring her, does not eliminate her "free speech." If she loses her job now, b/c of the criticizm, it does not do anything to eliminate her "free speech". She will still be free to go on her blog and write her idiotic, vulgar, juvenile rants.

So, there is no "free speech" issue here. Just as she has the freedom to state obnoxious things, we have the freedom to criticize her for saying them, and to criticize Edwards for associating with her.

I hope people can understand this simple explanation. I am sick to death of people throwing around the term "free speech" under the belief that it means someone can never be criticized for the things they say.

One of the greatest features of free speech is its uncanny ability to expose the terminally stupid. The hiring of Ms. Marcotte has provided me with some insight into the judgement of Mr. Edwards and has allowed me to completely rule out ever casting a vote for him in a primary or general election. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for the civic service she has provided.

Whooaa Terry, you know better than to ask such questions. From the looks of things here, you apparently have not been given permission by your Leftist overlords..

I dont carfe what they say, but I do care that you can question it...which the media seems not want to do of certain groups. When will the media grow a set and get in the face of the Islam apologists such as terror support groups as CAIR etc.

Media should and has questioned Christians, Jews, etc. for their annoyances...Muslims are not anointed with some special "not questionable" status...no matter what they say. If they live here then they are....and they deserve some very severe questions and perhaps actions taken if they refuse to act as this society has deemed we will act when here in the US. If they do not like it,,,there are places they came from that allow wife beating, mutilation, honor killings etc...they can go to Britain where it is now common. The had 150 honor murders there last year.

Congrats trifecta! You only had to go back almost a decade to find Rush Limbaugh using "hate" speech.

And speculating about Vince Foster isn't "hate" last time I checked. Stupid, yes. Hate, no

WELL DONE!

Let us not forget that Mrs. Edwards is a member of the nutroots posting community as well.

well said, Great Banana--one suspects that when the political animal that John Edwards is understands he has just written off a large part of America by moving far left, I suspect the blogress' will be looking for new jobs--AND, just like William Arkin and the Dixie Chicks will be playing the victim card (instead of reading your nice precis of free speech and its consequences).

People are free to state their opinions, even if they do it in an offensive way. People are free to criticize those opinions or how they were expressed. People are free to hire who they want, regardless of how other people react to the person hired.

But people are also free to draw their own conclusions about the character of those who express offensive opinions, or strong opinions in an offensive manner.

And they are especially free to draw their own conclusions about the character and competence of those who hire people who have demonstrated their character through repeated instances of offensive behavior.

Some Repub, thank you. You beat me to it.

Look, I am not easily offended. I love South Park, don't have any problem with their irreverent Jesus parody (and I am a Christian). But this person's description of the immaculate conception is just WAY over the line. There is irreverent and then there is crude disrespect.

Does she have the right to write it? Of course, this is the internet. Will I be contributing to Edwards' campaign, as I did in '04? No way. Not if this is the type of person he chooses to surround himself with.

"Both sides do the same thing, pull the same dirty tricks, manufacture evidence to support their claims, take things out of context, and so on"

Logical fallacy of tu quoque:

R: Amanda Marcotte makes bigoted hateful statements.

L: But so does Ann Coulter, ergo I excuse Marcette's bigotry.

R: .....

She should have every right to engage in as much hate speech (or otherwise) as she chooses.

And (the real question) what does this say about Edwards as a potential President? Does he agree with her? Did he not vet her enough? Does he want to spend a lot of time "distancing" himself from her?

She's done. It's just a matter of time.

Its a moot point anyway, I'm not at all impressed with Edwards:

Edwards:I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment. ...

MR. RUSSERT: But it seems as if, as a member of the intelligence committee, you just got it dead wrong, and that you even ignored some caveats and ignored people who were urging caution.

SEN. EDWARDS: ...the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials.

via Captains Quarters.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/009103.php#comments

Edwards wants to lead the country, yet he can't even accept responsibility for decisions he made on the Sen Intel Cmmte.

Sure John, its was all Clinton's fault...

These comments are offensive and stupid but being offensive and stupid is not exactly an innovation in the left wing blog-world. Her comments make Fox news look pretty even-handed and restrained.

I love it....conservatives embracing political correctness. (i.e. you can't say THAT) will wonderes never cease?

I would also point out the problems with the idea of "hate speech" and/or "hate crimes". When you start making certain motives or speech illegal, it just grows from there. As can be seen from the comments here, liberals believe that everything a conservative commentator says (Limbaugh, Savage, Coulter) is hate speech. Conservatives can probably claim that things liberal pundits say are "hate speech."

It is down this road that leads to criminalizing political and/or unpopular thought. This hold true for "hate crimes" wherein we somehow decide a murder of person X is worse than the murder of person Y because of the underlying motive. We have basically criminalized thoughts and beliefs. While we may dislike those thoughts and beliefs, it is a very bad road to be travelling down.

(again, I'm not saying that criticizing anyone's speech is wrong, but criminalizing someone else's speech is).

I'd take Moran a lot more seriously if he asked George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Don Rumsfield and any number of Republican Senators why they go on Rush Limbaugh's show. After all, he's still selling "Gitmo Gear" (calling Gitmo a spa for terrorists) and ridiculing Abu Grahb as a series of frat pranks - even though Iraqi's died there and had to be spirited out...

I'd take this post a lot more seriously if Moran asked all the Republicans that attended the Conservative Political Action Committee convention of 2006 why they applauded when Ann Coulter said "raghead talk tough, raghead pay consequences". Dick Cheney, Mitch McConnel, John Fund and George Will attended that conference. Ann Coulter has been invited back to this years...

Where was Moran then?

Listen folks - ABC is a propaganda outlet for Disney, their parent corporation. Don't believe me? Ask Brian Ross what happened to the report he prepared that explored Disney's decision not to vet their amusement park workers for a sexual predator history... It was spiked...

That ABC News post is written by Terry Moran, whose brother is Rick Moran of RightWingNutHouse. Rick has a long post today about this matter that is almost verbatim what his brother wrote (he even adds on at the end: "My brother Terry (who has a new blog that you should bookmark immediately) gets it exactly right". So called liberal media my a**.

What Terry Moran wrote on ABC is copied almost exactly from the right-wing blogosphere - same quotes, ideas, everything. It's really quite pathetic. He also asks: "If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react?"

Instead of reciting what his brother and his right-wing blogger friends are writing, he should go do the work of a journalist and find out. Why doesn't he go and reserach what Ruffini and Hynes and Henke have written - you know, do actual real journalist work - and then write about that and he can find out the answer to his stupid question.

Who here thinks what Marcotte wrote is free expression, albeit offensive to some? I do, but she should be held responsible for her opinions and challenged if necessary on an intellectual level. Now, who also thinks the infamous Mohammed cartoons should not have been published because they are offensive to some? Plenty of media outlets took that position!

"I'd take Moran a lot more seriously if he asked George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Don Rumsfield and any number of Republican Senators why they go on Rush Limbaugh's show."

Logical fallacy of tu quoque:

Right: Amanda Marcotte makes bigoted hateful statements.

Left: But so does Rush Limbaugh, ergo I excuse Marcette's bigotry.

Its amusing how the Lefties here ignore Marcotte's behavior. They don't really beleive in the things they lecture us about.

Terry Moran asks:

"If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react?"

Glenn Greenwald, for one, answers that question for you:

"Why not engage in the actual function of a journalist -- research and investigation -- and find your own original material by looking at the writings of some other bloggers, such as Patrick Ruffini, Jon Henke, and Hynes?"

Let's make it easy for you, Terry - you can start your "research" here:

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/look-at-john-mccains-blogger.html

You might also trying calling William Donohue and asking him who controls Hollywood. You just might get a "hate speech" answer!

From www.rightwingnuthouse.com :

Does it look and sound familiar?

Watching the destruction of Amanda Marcotte, Pandagon blogger and soon-to-be-ex “Blogmaster” for the Edwards campaign, has been one of the few bright spots in this otherwise dreary and depressing new year.

If ever there was a left wing hysteric who deserved to be tarred, feathered, and dragged through the mud and slime of their own writings, it is Marcotte. She is a perfect illustration of the liberal mindset that posits the notion of a relative moral code when it comes to racial, ethnic, religious, and gender semantics. For her, anything goes. No characterization of her political opponents is too vile. No racist, sexist, or bigoted thought is out of bounds.

This is because the left has insulated itself from such mundane considerations as good manners and decorous language by elevating themselves to what they consider to be a higher moral plane than the rest of us. Simply because they mean well, they are vouchsafed all manner of perfidious name calling and calumnious charges directed against their opponents.

The fact that Marcotte sees the world through the prism of post-modern feminism makes her impossible to take seriously on any level. Her writing is full of so many half truths, manufactured criticisms, dead-wrong assumptions, and a child like ignorance of the emotional universe inhabited by normal men and women that trying to decipher her scribblings – once you can get by the obscenities and work your way through the incoherence – is a task best left to a psychiatrist.

I won’t pollute this site with too many examples of what I mean. For that, I urge you to see Dan Riehl’s posts or Michelle Malkin’s writings on Marcotte.

This is one of those stories that starts out on the internet, jumps to cable talk shows, and finally, when the issue can no longer be ignored, appears in the mainstream press. In the case of Marcotte, her initial effort to hide some of her more outrageous and obscenity laced tirades against conservatives in general and men in particular by deleting the offending posts at Pandagon only made matters worse. In effect, it was no longer what she said (which was bad enough) that was the issue but rather her clumsy attempt to cover it up once she was named “Blogmaster” of the Edwards campaign.

But someone with a track record of stupidity as long and varied as Marcotte’s should have realized that she wouldn’t be able to delete all the offending posts written over the last few years. In the end, her weird anti-Catholic bigotry will probably end up bringing her career as “Blogmaster” to a quick and unceremonious close. Here’s Marcotte on the Catholic belief in the Immaculate Conception:

Q: 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.

(HT: Patterico)

And in one of the more delicious ironies I can imagine, Marcotte may be brought down by the object of some of her more unbalanced rants; the Catholic Church:

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, demanded that Edwards fire Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan.

“John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash-talking bigots,” Donohue wrote in a statement. “He has no choice but to fire them immediately.”

The Edwards campaign declined to comment. McEwan and Marcotte did not respond to e-mails requesting a response.

The New York Times tries to excuse Marcotte’s ravings as a consequence of being a member of the blogosphere:

The two women brought to the Edwards campaign long cyber trails in the incendiary language of the blogosphere. Other campaigns are likely to face similar controversies as they try to court voters using the latest techniques of online communication.

This is absurd. Marcotte is not being taken to task for “incendiary” writing. Holy Smokes! Anyone peruse the DNC or RNC sites lately? “Incendiary” language is hardly frowned upon and is, indeed, a prerequisite for latching on to any political campaign.

Marcotte’s will lose her job because despite the fact that she believes herself to be well meaning and, probably according to her lights incapable of hatred directed against any group, she is a rank bigot, a nauseating, die hard dogmatist whose sickening screeds against people she disagrees with (including most non-emasculated men) have sullied the debate between right and left for far too long.

Unfortunately, Marcotte’s type will always have a home on the left. She will be welcomed back with open arms and continue her unbalanced rants, raging against people whose only transgression is that they fail to fit their beliefs into her own narrow, warped, and cockeyed worldview.

Perhaps there will be an opening soon in some other campaign, a job that she will be eminently qualified to perform as only she is capable.

I hear Ahmadinejad will be running for President again. Those two see eye to eye on more issues than either is likely to admit. Not to mention both being a couple of draughts short of a full keg.

Sounds like a match made in heaven…

UPDATE

It has been far too long since we’ve heard from the lefty’s #1 thinker, pundit, and sock puppet Lambchop.

Here, Lambchop weighs in on this controversy in his usual understated, intelligent, and perspicacious manner. And I quote:

NEENER!! NEENER!! NEENER!! NEENER!! NEENER!! NEENER!!

UPDATE II: OMIGOD THE MORANS AGREE ON SOMETHING!

My brother Terry (who has a new blog that you should bookmark immediately) gets it exactly right:

Questions: What, if anything, does it tell us about Edwards that he’s joined up with this blogger? Is Edwards’ association with a person who has written these things a legitimate issue for voters, as they wonder—among other things—whom he might appoint to high office if he’s elected? If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react? Is the mere raising of this issue a kind of underhanded censorship, a way of ruling out of bounds some kinds of opinion? Are we all just going to have to get used to a more rough-and-tumble, profane, and even hate-filled public arena in the age of the blogosphere?

Like any good journalist, he is asking the right questions – and the questions sort of answer themselves, don’t they? (HT: Malkin)

UPDATE III

Hugh Hewitt nails it and offers a challenge:

As L’Affaire Marcotte nears its inevitable conclusion, I can’t decide who was dumber, Marcotte or the Edwards campaign. On the one hand I can’t believe that Marcotte had become so comfortable in the left wing echo chamber that she actually believed her past didn’t preclude her from publicly entering a mainstream presidential campaign. On the other hand, I really can’t believe that the Edwards campaign apparently didn’t vet a high profile hire.

Anyway, it’s time to put together our first HughHewitt.com pool. In the comments section, name the date and time when Amanda Marcotte and the Edwards campaign irrevocably part ways. The winner will receive a free corned beef sandwich from the Palm Beach Gardens Toojay’s (tax, gratuity, and beverage not included).

I’ve got this Friday at 9:13 a.m.

Okay, Big Daddy I’ll take some of that action. Give me Thursday at 2:00 PM Central. As you know, good politicians lance boils quickly. The very good ones do it decisively. Marcotte is gone by the end of lunchtime tomorrow. Book it!
By: Rick Moran at 10:41 am

Are the comments in italics in order to give people headaches?

Because I'm getting a headache.

A classic Marcotte statement:

"This is about race and class and gender in every way, and there’s basically no way this woman was going to see justice. [b]In her part of the country, both women and black people are seen as subhuman objects to be used and abused by white men."

Let's assume this statement is true.

Why then is Marcotte leaving Austin, Texas and moving to North Carolina to subject herself to such treatment?

Errr....ummmm....those who argue that Marcotte is engaging in "free speech" don't understand the basics: Free Speech protects people from censorship BY THE GOVERNMENT. Does anyone really think that "Free speech" prevents private citizens or employers from holding other people accountable for what they say? Does anyone think Edwards would lack the right to fire Marcotte instantly if she wrote her hateful comments on HIS website? Look at Michael Richards: Will the left-loons insist that HE had a right to say what he said?

As for Marcotte's vetches being no worse than Fox News: say what? Just give some examples, please; you know, something like the spittle-flying rants Keith Olbermann entertains us with. And btw: if Fox is so biased, then why do **all** its news and commentary shows include liberals such as Juan Williams, Mara Liasson (both of NPR); Susan Estrich (Dukakis campaign manager); Chris Wallace (registered Democrat); Alan Colmes; Bob Bickel; etc. etc. Please name the equivalent conservative commentators appearing routinely on ABC, NBC and CBS. Ditto MSNBC and CNN. Admit it, moonbats: the left doesn't watch Fox, they only project their own biases onto it.

Why then is Terry Moran copying his brother's blogposts on this blog? Can't he be like a real reporter and, umm, report instead of recite?

Nasty? Yes. Hate speech, pa-lease! Not even close. Nice shot Terry, but there is a lot more hateful stuff coming out of the religious right and Republican party. None-the-less if I where John Edwards, I wouldn't want to be associated with that kind of shock-jock-journalism, regardless of what you think of the validity.

I am a self-confessed wingnut who is therefore a target of Marcotte's wrath.

I have to say I've always hated this term "hate speech" and all the political baggage that comes with it. Discussions of the term always seem to get perilously close to justifying censorship. And I frankly think the "fire in a crowded theater" exception to free speech is very narrow, and it should be.

Now that doesn't mean that Macrotte's words aren't hateful. Of course they are. Assuming she believes what she writes she quite obviously hates many of the people and positions I respect. But I certainly have no interest in stopping her from saying them; I'm glad to know where she stands, at least.

But that was all before she joined a presidential campaign. Look, Bush gets hammered all the time with the accusation that he didn't keep his promise to unite instead of divide. In this election in particular, candidates are getting a lot of traction on the notion that civility and unity need to be brought back to Washington. And from a purely political standpoint, candidates simply cannot afford to alienate the center in the process of appealing to their base.

So I think that the hiring of Marcotte was a dumb move on Edwards part because it suggests a lack of interest in engaging the center and a larger interest in rallying the rabidly angry base. I just don't think that kind of tactic is going to win the election, or even the nomination, if it continues.

"I'd take this post a lot more seriously if......."

I'd take you more seriously if you didn't sidestep the question...

Bill Donohue's collected quotes really do make Amanda Marcotte look like Doris Day. Somehow that hasn't led to his being declared persona non grata.

Who decided that he speaks for American Catholics? Last time I checked, the Church already has people who do that: they're called 'archbishops', 'bishops' and 'priests'.

Did someone elect him Pope while no-one was looking? No? In which case, he's just a self-appointed blowhard with a set of weird obsessions and a fax machine.

Not that this matters, since Marcotte and McEwan were hired to run the Edwards campaign's community-based websites, not to advise him on policy.

But thanks for such a great example of lazy journalism, Terry. The Gang of 500 and the Right-Wing Wurlitzer collectively salutes you for your job of passive amplification.

We all know what's supposed to come next: the manufactured outrage reaches its sad, inevitable conclusion. The Edwards campaign caves, alienates itself from liberal bloggers and proves to the wingnuts that it can be cowed now, and will be cowed again.

Or, alternatively, Edwards tells Donohue to stick it, and demonstrates that he has the spine to deal with smear merchants in the future.

But will you allow that to happen, Terry? After all, the MSM script for a story like this ('botched joke') only ends when the Democrat has capitulated.

Can we have Brian Ross back please?

Here's a good example of Fox News vetches being worse: the story that Barack Obama attended a maddresseh when he was a child. That was certainly a high point in the media world. Rumor, innuendo. Fox news is crap.

"Let's make it easy for you, Terry - you can start your "research" here: http://glenngreenwald"

For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from my blog…

/yeah Terry, you should really be taking advice from Master of Sock Puppets Glenn Greenwald...

More here: http://patterico.com/2006/07/27/4900/annotated-wuzzadem-the-facts-behind-the-greenwald-sock-puppetry/

Semper Fi
Fen

Being a hardcore conservative I have always believed in Free Speech and have always wanted the left to take full advantage of it. In the competition of ideas if theirs are given a full airing they will lose. The secret to the success of the left has always been to say one thing and do another. When folks like Arkin and Amanda Marcotte spew their hatred I say GREAT. Polarize, divide, spew like you have never spewed before...let everyone see what you really believe in. I trust the American people to do the right thing.

When your opponents are drowning don't throw them a life preserver...let them sink under their own hatred.

Besides Hate Speech is just another name for censorship...

http://pierrelegrand.net

Marcotte will be dismissed Friday and the press release will be done after the media closes up shop Friday nite--that will give Edwards time to brace himself on Sat for Sunday talk shows wherein he will explain his bad judgment, and further irritate the nutroots (oops: net roots)

Great pick by your staff John, its good to get the big wingnut on your team. Gimme a break! she gets a pass, because she put a smack down on the Virgin Mary. Lets see her write something about Islam maybe like, "and Mohamed filled the young suicide bomber with his TNT...." bet that would go over big! these people are a joke. If we want a win in 08 you have to be able to get rid off the dead wood on your side as well. Shame on him for this stupid stupid mistake.

The short version on Greenwald, and much more amusing:

http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/2006/07/greenpuppet.html

"Limbaugh and the others do not spout hate."

Limbaugh:

They oughtta change Black History Month to Black Progress Month and start measuring it.

Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.

Have you ever noticed how all newspaper composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?

Coulter:

Without affirmative action, African-American Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA): couldn't get a job "that didn't involve wearing a paper hat"

Bill Clinton "was a very good rapist"

My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.

...need more?

"Its amusing how the Lefties here ignore Marcotte's behavior."

nah, what's amazing is your apparent ability to read minds.

Does Marcotte ( and McEwan) have the right to post whatever garbage she likes on her site? Sure. Is is valid to hold her, and more importantly John Edwards accountable for those remarks? This isn't about free speech, it's about POLITICAL JUDGEMENT. You don't hire people who make you look like either a bigot or an idiot. Poor vetting-