Pushback

I love my brother something fierce. I am very proud of him. We do not agree on many, many things (as decades of uncomfortably loud dinner table disagreements have demonstrated). In no way do I endorse anything he writes; that's not for me to do here. But I will never disavow him. I will always defend him as an honorable man. And I really don't care what anyone says about it. He is my brother.

Okay, that's sweet, but I'm pretty sure we all could care less how much you love you're brother. We care about your lack of attention to refusing to address his vile statements, which you still haven't actually given an opinion on. We're glad you "don't always agree" with him. Are you talking about right now? Plan on saying so anytime soon? And do you plan on asking John McCain if he thinks HIS bloggers practice "hate speech?"

I don't think that Terry has any obligation to "address" his brother's statements.

I do think that Terry has an obligation to take responsibility for what HE says. Or rather for what he asks. To ask a series of questions that imply certain answers and then say you were "only asking questions" is dishonest. It's disingenuous.

Another reason why people are paying less attention to the traditional media. Thanks for moving the process along Terry. You are further destroying the resource of your welfare.

No, of course you love your bro. But should you be shilling for him? I think your pimping of his blog and promotion of the controversy that he ginned up is what people object to.

I know it certainly diminished your credibility in my eyes. You are the one who made it personal by shilling for your brother's blog.

You know, I thought loving your
brother was something the Left appreciated. Must have been misinformed. One apparently must love only brothers one agrees with.

CS Lewis nailed it sixty-three years ago in his essay, "The Poison of Subjectivism." I would bet my house that Rick Moran has read it, and that August J. Pollock hasn't. (And BTW, the "poison" does indeed inhabit both sides, Pandagon doubled down though.)

It's weally nice that you wuv your brother and all, but if you're honest with yourself, you can't deny that he's a profoundly stupid man, with right-wing beliefs which no sane people can defend.

And I don't for a minute buy your laughable claim that you didn't know that he was writing about Marcotte. Not all of us are as stupid as Rick. Don't insult our intelligence by lying to us. We can count on Bush and those who carry his water, like Rick, to do that.

This issue angers me a lot because as a liberal I feel the rules are different for me & conservatives like Bush & Cheney are never held accountable for their actions. That is why I want them impeached & out of office. Coulter & Hannity are the same way

Is there another Moran brother? Because between Rick's Sonny and your Fredo, the family is seriously in need of a Michael.

Actually, what matters about this whole thing is not whether you're taking orders from Rick. What matters is that your story is clearly, obviously, driven by the rantings of Right Blogistan in general (your brother's blog is certainly well named!). It didn't occur to you to think about whether such incivility was more widespread until later. And you still haven't mentioned McCain's blogger Patrick Hynes.

I am honestly stunned that Terry Moran is getting smeared here because he dares to actually support his brother.

Dear God, do you realize how completely out-of-touch you sound? Do you realize how mind-numbingly insane this whole tripe sounds?

Terry and Rick Moran are different people. Vastly different people. My brother is a lawyer. I do not like what his profession has done, but I love my brother with all of my heart. He is quite liberal and I'm conservative and I still love him with all of my heart.

Is there some absurd belief that because two brothers have different political idealogies they must hate each other? That isn't passion. That is psychotic.

Augustus: "And do you plan on asking John McCain if he thinks HIS bloggers practice "hate speech?"

Provide concrete examples as were provided of Amanda and yeah, he probably will. You've not done so because you just assume they're there because enough of the leftie blogs claim there are. No citations, naturally.

James: "But should you be shilling for him? I think your pimping of his blog and promotion of the controversy that he ginned up is what people object to."

People like YOU brought it up, ad infinitum. He is either ignoring it by not mentioning it or pimping if he does mention it. There is nothing that could be done that would please you.

Steve: "you can't deny that he's a profoundly stupid man, with right-wing beliefs which no sane people can defend."

Which is ironic since there are many who feel the same way about you. Why not point to these examples of how "profoundly stupid" he is --- I mean, outside of the sheer outrage of him not agreeing with you and all, since you have all the answers?

Mark: "This issue angers me a lot because as a liberal I feel the rules are different for me & conservatives like Bush & Cheney are never held accountable for their actions."

Bush has been condemned for lying for repeating the EXACT SAME INTEL Clinton cited. Berger stole and destroyed documents and got a slap on the wrist while Libby did virtually nothing and is getting a criminal trial. Bob Packwood was drummed out of Congress for behavior less offensive than Clinton's. Dems lionized Studds and buried Foley for acting identically.

Tell me how the left is held to this high standard.

Hermagoras: "What matters is that your story is clearly, obviously, driven by the rantings of Right Blogistan in general (your brother's blog is certainly well named!). It didn't occur to you to think about whether such incivility was more widespread until later. And you still haven't mentioned McCain's blogger Patrick Hynes."

Im what alternate universe does "everybody else is doing it" qualify as a legitimate defense?

Yeah, Amanda's posts aren't out of line on leftie sites --- Daily Kos, DU, et al have posts of equally offensive natures on a regular basis.

But is that REALLY a defense? Seems more like a condemnation of the leftie blogosphere echo chamber who believes that this kind of thing is OK. We had Deb Frisch threaten the life of a conservative blogger's child. We had the head of Firedoglake using "Blackface" to attack enemies. And the swamp that is DU is ripe ground for posts that would make your toes curl.

How in the world is BUSH the divider when the leftie blogosphere is applauded by the Dems?
-=Mike

It should ALSO be mentioned that Coulter's comments led to her firing from National Review.

So dealing with one's own words is already done on the right.
-=Mike

Terry: Is a pig's ass pork? (I guess you don't have ALL the great questions.)

Terry, I know this is hard to follow, but please try. You didn't know your brother was going to post about just this subject-- but he did. And so did a bunch of other rightwing blogs, not to mention MSMers like you and the guy in the NYTimes. Now has it ever occurred to you to wonder how suddenly these things spring up all at once, with almost the same terminology? Has it ever occurred to you to look at the process that leads to your coming up with this "story" at the very same time your brother the rightwing blogger came up with it?

I'm not asking you to betray your no-doubt confidential source here. But when you go on and on about how Marcotte really DID use hate speech, by defining it in some very painful way... I mean, you really had to squeeze that term to make it fit... while you simply ignore the real question-- why suddenly are you interested in bloggers, when for literally years, the Republican party and candidates have been hiring and pandering to much more vitriolic bloggers? Doesn't this interest you at all-- not that the Republicans hire these guys, or even that ABC wuvs Glenn Beck with a scary passion. Hey, free speech. I'm okay with it. But aren't you at all curious as to why you managed to ignore all that for so long-- ignore very prominent speakers on the right canoodling with the Repubs-- and then, suddenly, you decide that this little incident must, must, must be broadcast with a flaming headline? Aren't you at all curious as to why NOW you decided this was interesting? At the very same time your brother posted the same thing?

What I'm getting at is-- is it just possible that once again you got taken? That you got some talking points and gullibly made a story out of them because, heck, it sounded good, and most of the work was already done for you by whoever (I'm sure you won't tell us) alerted you to this?

Just look back-- see how many kerfluffles have sprung up in the past decade, almost all involving Democrats-- and spread with a rapidity that rivals the flu virus. Suddenly everyone is writing stories about Senator X and his... umm... haircut! Or Congresswoman Y and her Armani suit and her "stridency"! Or Vice President Z and his sweater and Love Canal!

You really ought to visit dailyhowler.com and read the archives, particularly from 2000 and 2004, and see how the Rove spin machine exploited the gullibility of the press to make the most trivial issues questions of "character" and "patriotism" and "manliness." And then think about the actual important issues that get buried -- war and deficit and hurricane and billions of wasted money and Halliburton and all the rest. This country has deteriorated in the last few years, and the press has been too busy discussing Gore's sweaters and Kerry's Purple Hearts to notice. Here you go again.... Thank goodness that the American public proved in November that they pay better attention than you do.

Terry,

I don't agree with your positions or reporting most of the time, but God Bless you for your comments and love for your brother, it really touched me. A Conservative American Cop/Marine.

Here's a post from a prominent liberal blog (Crooks and Liars) addressing the issue of right wing hypocrisy when it comes to lecturing left-wing bloggers on civility:

Congratulations to all C&L’ers who e-mailed the right-wing bloggers we named in this post, demanding to know why they were so conspicuously silent about Ann Coulter’s repugnant remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference this past week. Your e-mails forced Michelle Malkin, Jonah Goldberg and Kathryn Jean Lopez to end their silence and acknowledge that one of the most influential pro-Bush pundits spewed some truly deranged hate-mongering as part of her featured speech at the most significant conservative event of the year (other speakers including Dick Cheney, Bill Frist, Ken Mehlman, George Allen and Newt Gingrich - the heart and soul of the Republican Party).

And credit where it’s due - while Goldberg’s condemnation was whiny, half-hearted and reluctant, and Lopez’s was non-existent (she asks why we don’t just ignore Coulter without realizing that Coulter was the featured speaker at the most prestigious conservative event of the year and is one of the country’s most prominent pro-Bush pundits with a huge GOP following), Malkin’s denunciation of Coulter and her remarks is fairly straightforward and clear (although Coulter’s purpose is hardly "nothing more than (to) get a cheap laugh" - when she urged violence against "ragheads," she received a "boisterous ovation" from the crowd).

And, of course, the question remains: if Coulter’s views are so repugnant and extreme, why does she continue to play such a prominent role in the "conservative" movement and have such a large GOP following?

Still silent, however, are the usually talkative and opinionated Instapundit, Powerline’s John Hinderaker, and Hugh Hewitt. The silence is particularly inexcusable for Instapundit, not just because he was a featured speaker at the same Conference along with Coulter (although that is true), and not just because he loves to hold himself out as a responsible, mainstream Bush-lover who disassociates himself from the Right-wing fringe (although he does hold himself out as that). Instead, his silence is so deafening and inexcusable because he frequently and self-righteously demands that Democrats step up and condemn wholly irrelevant "fringe leftists," even when (as is not the case for Reynolds and Coulter here) the Democrats in questions have nothing to do with such figures and have no connection to them.

Here, for instance, is Reynolds sermonizing to Democrats on their obligation to condemn the obscure and inconsequential Ward Churchill:

It’s just that the right has done a better job of muzzling and marginalizing its idiots, while the Left has embraced them. . .

I keep hearing that there’s a silent majority on the Left that doesn’t agree with these things. I keep waiting for it to stop being silent.

So Glenn Reynolds appears at the same event as a woman who stands up and urges violence against "ragheads," terrorist attacks on Supreme Court Justices, and the assassination of a former President – and then he says nothing afterwards to denounce or condemn those comments. But Democrats who never met or even heard of Ward Churchill, never attended an event with him, never had anything to do with him – why, all of them have an obligation to stand up and denounce him. And unlike Ann Coulter, Ward Churchill isn’t being invited to the most important political events of the year, doesn’t have a huge following (or a following at all) on the Left, and isn’t selling hateful best-selling screeds.

Why is Professor Reynolds so silent about his co-speaker’s hateful and violence-advocating rants?

Why does Professor Reynolds sermonize to Democrats that they should "muzzle and marginalize their idiots" why he hides in the corner, afraid to condemn Ann Coulter’s remarks, even though she’s one of the most influential pundits in his Party and received a boisterous ovation from his fellow "conservatives" when she urged violence against "ragheads"?

Why would Professor Reynolds participate in an event that sponsors a speech urging violence against Muslims and the domestic political opponents of Republicans?

You can ask him these questions and others here: Pundit@Instapundit.com.

–posted by Glenn Greenwald

Now we can add brotherly love to the excuses used for far-right bias in the mainstream media. Mr. Moran has simply chosen to use selective, santimonious outrage and when he is called on this sad behavior he falls back on the old favorite, "For the good of us all can't we just be kind and gentle?" Spare me.

Way to go with the inflammatory headline and then the backpeddle.

"It should ALSO be mentioned that Coulter's comments led to her firing from National Review.
So dealing with one's own words is already done on the right.
-=Mike

Except that Edwards didn't make the remarks. The remarks were made on a blog that had nothing to do with Edwards. Not the same thing at all.

My God, you folsk on the left are miserable, humorless, insistent and tireless brats. Give it a rest.

Moran was right to try to distract you with some entertainment. You remind me of 8 year olds on a rampage. "Disavow your brother! You don't hate enough! You're not towing the party line!"

What a horrible world you folks want to live in. If everyone doesn't agree with you, they're to be demonized and destroyed. You lose sight of someone's humanity very quickly. That's incredibly sad.

And Mr. Moran, I can't believe any sane person would call you a conservative, you're clearly not. I respect your effort here. I respect your loyalty to your brother even more.

Here is an excellent post on this topic from a prominent liberal blog (C&L):

The Criminally Talented Mr. Nelson
By: Cliff Schecter @ 4:45 PM - PST
You may have been following the recent "controversy" engulfing the Edwards Campaign that has made it's way into the media, when the MSM are not too busy covering cases of homicidal astronauts wearing adult diapers for jaunts through southern states.

If not, all you need to know is that two bloggers working for John Edwards, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, may be fired (information is still a bit sketchy right now) because right-wing morons like Michelle Malkin have been crying ovuh bad wanguage the two used, in blog posts they wrote before working for Edwards.

B-O-O-H-O-O.

The fact that CNN and the NY Times would pay any attention to a woman whose reasoning in her books/columns falls somewhere between My Pet Goat and Millie's Book is bad enough. Yet, worse even, is that the press would try to turn "bad language" into a controversy (or now it's anti-Catholic ideas I hear…um, Bob Jones anyone?) and ignore a McCain campaign manager who consorts with criminals and approved the virulently racist ads used against Harold Ford by the NRSC in 2006.

That would be Terry Nelson. As head of the NRSC's independent expenditure unit in 2006, Nelson is the one who approved the "call me" race-baiting ad that played on fears of miscegenation, which led those liberals at Wal-Mart to fire his firm they found it so offensive.

Nelson was an unindicted co-conspirator of Tom DeLay's in his money laundering scheme in Texas (the TRMPAC scandal), and was forced to testify in the matter. He was also in the middle of Republican efforts to jam phones in New Hampshire in 2002, to hamper the Democratic GOTV effort in a tight senate race. He was James Tobin's boss at the RNC, a man who was eventually convicted of this crime. Nothing fishy there.

So let me try and understand this. John Edwards should have to fire two woman because they used a few swear words, but John McCain's hiring a man who's been involved in multiple scandals that led to indictments and convictions–not to mention his penchant for racist ads–is hunky dory. And the former is somehow a legitimate story for the media to swarm upon, but not the latter?

Wow, that's some liberal media out there.

For more on this and other stories, go to cliffschecter.com

AH yes! Hate speech. What a topic. Bill O'Reilly comparing Molly Ivins to Ted Bundy {"Just a joke") Winning hearts and minds with "Gitmo Gear." (Does Rush have that copywrited?) Mel Gibson ("Just a drunk.") Sodomizing your Mother in a minute. Can't trust black people. White folks have a terrible time. Rat poison in creme brulee. Dig her up so we can kill her again. Hilary Clinton cutouts for target practice. Anchor babies (PSSST Michelle Malkin IS one.)

Feel safer?

"the Republican party and candidates have been hiring and pandering to much more vitriolic bloggers?"

Give examples please. Thanks.

"Doesn't this interest you at all-- not that the Republicans hire these guys, or even that ABC wuvs Glenn Beck with a scary passion. Hey, free speech. I'm okay with it. But aren't you at all curious as to why you managed to ignore all that for so long-- ignore very prominent speakers on the right canoodling with the Repubs-- and then, suddenly, you decide that this little incident must, must, must be broadcast with a flaming headline?"

Provide examples again, please. All you're doing is thrusting out innuendo and smears.

What Amanda wrote is on the record. If you wish to defend it, knock yourself out.

Then remind us of how the Democratic Party is all about inclusion.

"Just look back-- see how many kerfluffles have sprung up in the past decade, almost all involving Democrats-- and spread with a rapidity that rivals the flu virus."

Like a web site with literally no history breaking the Foley story? Or forged TANG memos? Or a story about missing ammo from Iraq? Or how Rove leaked Plame's name? Or that whole Guckert thing?

Let me guess --- THOSE weren't what you were referring to.

"Except that Edwards didn't make the remarks. The remarks were made on a blog that had nothing to do with Edwards. Not the same thing at all. "

Edwards made the hire. He either 1) does not care one tiny iota about uniting squat, 2) doesn't vet AT ALL people he hires, or 3) completely agrees with her completely insane claims.

And then people keep mentioning Rush, Coulter, and Malkin who do not approach her level NOR are they employed by campaigns.

But, hey, keep blaming Bush for dividing the country while you condemn Terry Moran for not hating HIS BROTHER.

It's amazing what masks get pulled off when people think they have power.
-=Mike

I'm having some trouble trying to figure out who's left and right in all of this.

I've gotta say, Marcotte seems like an equal opportunity hater to me, an outrageous clown who hates herself most of all. And I don't say that disrespectfully. It is the privilege of the court jester to voice the dark heart of the truth we cannot own or condone.

I remember once saying to my confessor, "How can a rational human being believe in the Virgin birth?"

"There's a difference between thinking about something and praying about it, while your mind can tie you up in knots, a prayer can undo them."

And you know what? It did.

August,
Please keep in mind that the rest of the world isn't as b#t$&it crazy as you & the nutroots, so don't expect it to cater to your every crackpot question.

I find it incredible and insulting that you would compare "n-word" and blood libel degrees of racism and anti-Semitism with the quotes you've drawn out of Marcotte's writing. I think it's easy for a white man who has never actually experienced racism and anti-Semitism to make such deeply flawed comparisons that fail to take into account any power differentials that may be at play. Do you not realize that there is a vast gulf of difference between a) hateful speech towards an oppressed, disenfranchised minority, motivated simply by prejudice; and b) angry, even vulgar and mocking speech over tremendously powerful institutions (like the Catholic Church, the Republican party, and fundamentalist Christianity), which Marcotte (and I) believe are active in discriminating against and oppressing other groups of people, in this specific case, women?

And, to answer your question about whether it is "'okay' to trash Catholicism--but not Islam?" - again, these are apples and oranges. When Marcotte "trashes" the Catholic church, she is criticizing a powerful, centralized institution whose members wield significant political clout (as demonstrated by this whole fiasco), and who use attempt to use that clout to pressure politicians into severely limiting reproductive rights.

"I find it incredible and insulting that you would compare "n-word" and blood libel degrees of racism and anti-Semitism with the quotes you've drawn out of Marcotte's writing."

Nobody did.

But when compared to what is claimed to be hate speech, Amanda's writings MORE than qualifies.

Well, if she were a conservative it would to you.

"I think it's easy for a white man who has never actually experienced racism and anti-Semitism to make such deeply flawed comparisons that fail to take into account any power differentials that may be at play."

Back to the "only white men can be racists" mentality, eh? It's an intellectual cop-out and you are well aware of that.

"Do you not realize that there is a vast gulf of difference between a) hateful speech towards an oppressed, disenfranchised minority, motivated simply by prejudice; and b) angry, even vulgar and mocking speech over tremendously powerful institutions (like the Catholic Church, the Republican party, and fundamentalist Christianity), which Marcotte (and I) believe are active in discriminating against and oppressing other groups of people, in this specific case, women?"

Again, it's not "hate speech" if you do it. We got the message. It makes you a raging hypocrite, but I don't suppose that is a concern.

Basically, it's OK to use hate speech against those you disagree with and only you can define who is a group worthy of hatred.

"And, to answer your question about whether it is "'okay' to trash Catholicism--but not Islam?" - again, these are apples and oranges. When Marcotte "trashes" the Catholic church, she is criticizing a powerful, centralized institution whose members wield significant political clout (as demonstrated by this whole fiasco), and who use attempt to use that clout to pressure politicians into severely limiting reproductive rights."

And Islam DOESN'T?

Are you SERIOUSLY going to make that claim?

And, opposing your views means that you deserve hate, huh?

Nice of you to hold a firm line on opposition to hate speech.
-=Mike

Well said, Mr. Moran. Thank you for injecting some sanity into this debate.

It's amazing that such reasonable commentary can provoke so many objections.