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.

>

Right, cause we know that fighting for women's rights is the top priority of Al Qaeda.

Just reading the comments on this thread it is so obvious that what passes for "liberalism" these days is all hate, all bile, all venom, all day every day. Is it possible someone could conclude that communism (which after all has only been responsible for millions or even hudereds of millions of deaths everywhere it has been tried) might not be the best thing without autmoatically being stupid and evil? Is it at least a remote possibility that someone could take issue with some of your utopian ideas without therefore being an idiot? I feel like I just turned a corner and came face to face with an open sewer. Repulsive.

Does ABC condone hate speech?

Yes. They hired Glenn Beck

Amanda Marcotte is hate speech incarnate. I’m not sure how to spell the German word for what she is, Shadenfreude maybe? Someone who takes pleasure in the troubles of others, she cannot deny it, and this is what we might have controlling information for a president. I’m wondering why someone so obviously full of bile is comfortable with a guttural disposition that shouldn’t be tolerated by any person who still has the right to vote, much less her trial lawyer, and presidential candidate boss Mr. Edwards. I’ve read some of Ann Coulter’s books, and someone without a progressive/communist agenda would be able to discern the differences between an educated potty mouth, and a sarcastic pundit. Ms Marcotte would be happier in Russia, she doesn't belong in this contry.

Maybe the answer is this: abolish political parties. They are an institution (like the electoral college) that has outlived it's usefulness, and now only seems to exist to feed into the polarization of America. By reading all of your wonderful comments, bloggers, it looks like many of you throw Democrat and Republican around like the n-word (and yes, I do compare them, after all they're degrees of hatred when used as insults).
I am nominally a Republican, only because I find slightly more of their views closer to mine. But when I read the sewage that some of you throw around, it disgusts me and makes me disavow ALL labels. Therefore, I am not a democrat or republican, not a liberal or conservative, just an American. And I'll ignore the bloggers and media as slightly stupid (albeit sometimes lovable) children and listen to the candidates - and then vote on what I hear from them.
Moran, though is right in saying, "Can't we all please just get along?"

The major difference between the right and the left, is that the influential bloggers and radio personalities on the right have called for the death of Americans who disagree with them. They have also called for Americans to be jailed or held in internment camps for opposing the war.

I challenge anyone to find a Liberal blogger calling for the death or imprisonment of Conservatives for their political views, like the right has done countless times.

Under T Moran's leadership, ABC news is trying hard to become Fox-lite. Edwards' blogger is much less objectional than people like Ann Coulter and Glen Beck whom ABC regularly allows to spew their lying, hate-filled invectives to a national audience. ABC is also quick to parrot unattributed, false stories about Dems (Polosi plane, Obama madrasa eg)planted by the moonie press while ignoring real malfeasance and corruption by Repugs. Shame on ABC.

I live in the mountains with limited TV reception. ABC is the local affiliate. I refuse to watch this station's national news because of the obvious and inaccurate right-wing slant. Thank G0od for the Bloggs.

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

Actually Teri we folsk (sic) on the left are quite a happy crew, with wonderful senses of humor when SOMETHING IS FUNNY. Insistent and tireless? Perhaps, ever since you wackos on the far right started ramming your backwards ideas down our throats. Brats? Let's not use schoolyard names, it is so immature don't you think?

"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's he distracting us from Teri, that war over in Iraq that your side has been so successful at running? I see you personally identify with 9/11 since you are wearing the date on your sleeve. Do you agree with Ann Coulter's comments regarding the Jersey Girls, just because they happen to disagree with her politically? Do you agree that there is bad and good on both sides of the ideological fence? And I really do hate to break it to you, but out here in the heartland the Republican Party is seen as the party of hate and fear. As for party loyalty I think that there are what, 7 moderates left in the GOP now? Most rank and file moderate Republicans and Independents voted Democrat in November. What does that tell you Teri? Ask Chuck Hagel what party disloyalty brings you, if you even know who he is.
"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"

Sorry Teri, but that would be the MO of right wing Republicans. Just take a minute to re-read what you write. Demonized and destroyed? Whom has been calling whom unpatriotic if they don't agree with the current administration's policies? Who gets labeled wrongly as hating America first, just because we support a separation of church and state or miniumum government involvement in social issues? Teri, Right Wing Pundits don't care about humanity, only bank accounts.

Please don't feel sorry for me Teri. Other than when I read trite, overly sanctimonious and hypocritical postings by uninformed partisans who care more for their political party than their country I live very harmonious and charmed life. But thanks for the concern and if you are really sincere we would appreciate it if you would educate yourself about the state of affairs of our great country and quit attempting to hide your contempt for those that don't agree with you behind patronizing platitudes. I'll pray for you.

"Thanks to all who have weighed in on the issue of John Edwards' "blogmaster" Amanda Marcotte. All voices and views are welcome here. The whole point of "Pushback" is to provoke a discussion, to take a look at the news and start talking about it."

You have got a lot to learn about this medium.

You were taken to task yesterday largely for interposing what honest people on the left, right and middle would deem silly, if not stupid rhetorical questions, apparently under the guise of provoking a discussion. (e.g., "If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react?")

Your response to the din, however, is vintage Tony Snow. Thanks for racing to bottom to avoid and obfuscate the issue you raised. Your abject failure to inquire whether Mr. McCain condones hate speech by virtue of persons he has teamed with is duly noted.

If you want to provoke discussion, do your job. If you merely post talking points, you will get hammered.

Mr. Moran,
This is the first time I've ever taken the time to read through a blog and its responses. You expressed the hope that the blogosphere would deepen and extend our national debate. The posts that followed, for the most part, caused me to seriously doubt the ability of this part of our citizenry to ever participate constructively in a serious debate.
Last night I helped my 13 year old daughter study for a logic test on fallacies (bad arguments based on faulty reasoning). Among the types of fallacies she'll be tested on are ad hominem (attacking the person rather than the argument) and straw man (mischaracterizing an opponent's argument by isolating just one part of it), fallacies in abundance in the above posts. Missing from the exchange, again for the most part, were reasoned arguments over ideas. Today, people seem to think if they yell the loudest, they'll win the debate. Lost is the art of making arguments that stand up under scrutiny. If you're ever interested in seeing an example of a "deeper" national debate, as Mr. Moran hopes for, read the Federalist Papers. The language and intelligent arguments are so compelling, you'll wish as I do for a renaissance of logic and civility.

*****

A very simple question to Terry.. have you done any similar investigation of whether McCain/Guliani/Romney/Brownback campaigns have hired anyone in ANY role that has made "hateful" comments in their past.

If you have done this investigation what did you find out?

If not, why have not you done this investigation since you thought it important enough to write about in a negative tone on your blog??

Hope you answer this question.

*****

Gosh, I am not sure that this "conversation" about hate speech is helpful. Many of those who have posted comments that rail against this type of speech seem to have lowered themselves to the very thing they propose to despise.

I am concerned that any group that hires and condones this kind of speech has crossed the line. I long for politics and politicians that discuss issues in a manner that is civil and honest. Whether these leaders are conservative or liberal, I don't think that hiring and propping up these kinds of discussion are in the best interest of our national discourse.

I am truly a proponent of free speech. These folk can say and write whatever they like. I do not have to read it (and don't). However, I do not want those seeking to lead our country hiring them.

Terry, I appreciate your willingness to have these discussions without blasting others and resorting to name-calling. Also, that you love your brother whether or not you agree with his ideas. That shows leadership.

"Just reading the comments on this thread it is so obvious that what passes for "liberalism" these days is all hate, all bile, all venom, all day every day"

Agreed. And you would be surprised how many are federal employees surfing the nutroots on taxpayer time. I know a GS15 at DOL who spends his entire work day surfing the net.

TERRY: Please don't attribute the amount of negative responses or hateful vitrol here as anyting indicative of public opinion. Most of your lefty commenters are online activists from the DU/Kos fever swamps.

You won't see many mainstream peeps commentng here because its a waste of their time - seriously, why would I waste my time arguing with trolls who insist the CBS forgeries were a Rove op?

Anyways, please try to stay objective and above all the vitrol here. Not that I'm coming back to the networks anytime soon, but I HAVE noticed that of the left-biased MSM, ABC and WaPo are at least trying to provide more objective reporting. Good luck to you.

"Last night I helped my 13 year old daughter study for a logic test on fallacies (bad arguments based on faulty reasoning). Among the types of fallacies she'll be tested on are ad hominem (attacking the person rather than the argument) and straw man (mischaracterizing an opponent's argument by isolating just one part of it), fallacies in abundance in the above posts."

Don't forget "Tu Quoque":

A is bad, but since
B is also bad
A is excused

Example that is typical of numerous lefty posts on this topic:

".. have you done any similar investigation of whether McCain/Guliani/Romney/Brownback campaigns have hired anyone in ANY role that has made "hateful" comments in their past."

Translation: "Since I think others are just as bad as Marcotte, and since Terry has failed to investigate them too, I will hold Terry's argument suspect and excuse/deny/ignore Marcotte's bigotry."

"So let me try and understand this. John Edwards should have to fire two woman because they used a few swear words"

Strawman. Marcotte has a pattern & history of bigotry towards Catholics and Southerners. Apparently, Edwards beleives its unwise to antagonize those voters...

Moot point anyway. Edwards never had a real shot at POTUS. He's just a pretty boy with good hair. Hillary will maul him in the primary.

Well, Instapundit reports Edwards is KEEPING his two little bigots on staff. Thats fine too. They'll have their "Dean Scream" moment, they can't help themselves.

Dear Lord, Mr. Moran. I feel for you. What it must do to you, reading these howls of hate. But I did read recently that hate is now fashionable, and exhibiting your hatred of "the evil one", whoever that might be, is held to be an admirable quality in liberals. We really are in a post-Christian world, aren't we?

Were everyone to adhere to a sort of golden rule and never say something unkind about someone else that would be wonderful. I don't see that happening any time soon, more's the pity.

As a person of faith who is not of the Jewish/Muslim/Christian bent I am regularly barraged with "hate speech" from the Christians that really is never addressed in our society. In all honesty, I am far better treated my Muslim and Jewish neighbors than the Christian ones. I am treated better by liberals than conservatives. Hence, I suppose I am almost anesthetized to religious slams. Dominant religion whining about being mistreated when they abuse others constantly leaves me with very little empathy since they are the main purveyors of abuse.

Like others, I tend to feel that the left (of which I am not a member, by the way) is subjected to abuse for attempting to do even a little of what the right (of which I am also not a member) is getting away with. Hence, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and if one is concerned about Edwards’ blogging staffer then one wonders where the concern is for the crazed right wingers out there.

As one of those who wander in the wilderness of the middle grounds I usually feel like the old saying “a pox on all their houses.” That being said, I suspect that if we met most of the folks we “love to hate” that we’d find they are very nice people whom we’d like a great deal – which does not mean I will be lining up to meet Rush Limbaugh any time soon.

Mikesc,
Are you employed, sir. You have commented at least a dozen times to these two posts. Don't you have anything better to do than troll an abc news blog and feebly try to discredit other posters. Bush league stuff, laughable.
-Da Jesus Quintana

You ought to shut up about this if you don't want to look like your brother's sock puppet, Mr. Moran.

Watch yourself, or you will end up fired from ABC.

Jesus, comparing white-supremacist and eliminationist rhetoric to the writings of Marcotte et al...

And conveniently ignoring in your contrived self-justification the far worse hate-filled rantings of McCain's bloggers...

Have you no sense of decency, or are you truly your brother's brother?

And will due respect, your brother says some pretty nasty things. Here he is wishing death upon Keith Olbermann:

"You almost want to avert your eyes when the inevitable crash comes but, like those of us who watch NASCAR solely for the spin-outs and pile-ups, the entertainment value of watching Olberman melt like the Wicked Witch of the West right before our eyes will be immensely satisfying."

Doug:

You are a ninny. To take an allusion to the Wizard of Oz and make it into my wishing death on Olberman is loony.

Get a grip kid. Take a Xanax and breathe into a paper bag.

Kudos to the brothers Moran for exposing the radical loon insanity of the Edwards campaign. If this incident proves nothing else, it certainly underscores the fact that leftists can never be trusted to behave with America's best interest in mind. They will always cater to the anti-religious, anti-American fringe extremists instead. Edwards embodies everything that is wrong with the modern Democrat party, and is a sterling example of why that party must never be entrusted with executive authority in times of war (i.e., now).

On a related note, Marcotte and her ilk should bear in mind that their sophomoric demagoguery only emboldens the enemies of freedom and democracy. Such senseless tirades endanger the lives of our troops overseas, and should be suppressed by a rational society interested in self-survival. America's Constitution is not a suicide pact, and neither our forebears nor our descendents will forgive us if we lose our republic for failure to stomp out the treason within which moonbats like Marcotte (and Edwards) so flagrantly typify.

"I challenge anyone to find a Liberal blogger calling for the death or imprisonment of Conservatives for their political views, like the right has done countless times."

Chris Hedges has called for the silencing of Christians.

Read DemocraticUnderground and get some lovely eliminationist rhetoric.

"Thanks for racing to bottom to avoid and obfuscate the issue you raised. Your abject failure to inquire whether Mr. McCain condones hate speech by virtue of persons he has teamed with is duly noted."

At some point, the proof of the hate speech will be presented, right?

"Are you employed, sir."

Yup.

"You have commented at least a dozen times to these two posts."

You need to learn to count more accurately.

"Don't you have anything better to do than troll an abc news blog and feebly try to discredit other posters. Bush league stuff, laughable."

Well, I admittedly don't have the ability to troll as you do.

Notice I'm posting thoughts while you're obsessing over me? While I am admittedly honored by your infatuation with me, I can assure you, it is not a mutual thing.

"And conveniently ignoring in your contrived self-justification the far worse hate-filled rantings of McCain's bloggers..."

A single example of this would be peachy.

Notice that examples of Amanda's work has been cited.

"And will due respect, your brother says some pretty nasty things. Here he is wishing death upon Keith Olbermann"

Watching him make a fool of himself on television is not a wish for his death.

But, yeah, that's every inch as bad as what Amanda wrote, huh? Same thing.
-=Mike

It's amusing how touchy these liberals are. Someone simply quotes word for word a Bush hating, angry left-wing blogger, and everyone's in a tizzy. Truth is indeed stranger, and more entertaining, than fiction. These fools can dish it out, but give it right back to them and watch the crying begin. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Grow up hippies!

There's nobody anywhere near mainstream on the center or on the left who spouts the kind of violent eliminationist rhetoric that you see on a regular basis from right-wing media figures like Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, etc. And if you go to the right-wing blogs like LGF it really gets scary... Even at the oh-so-polite RedState moderators day-dream about the mass-murder of liberals. Timothy McVeigh and the White Citizen's Council have become the mainstay of the conservative movement and of the Republic Party -- and our media has happily accepted (even encouraged) their ilk as part of normal, acceptable discourse. Our traditional media are all turning into Radio Mille Colines.

A Glenn Beck sampler:
http://achorn.blogspot.com/2007/01/glenn-beck-boycott-faq.html

RedState civility:
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2006_03_19_patriotboy_archive.html

The more I read Terry Moran, the more dishonest it sounds. Dobson and Falwell are treated with respect by everybody in our media -- even though they regularly say much worse than Marcotte ever did -- and no politician is stigmatized for embracing them.

McCain hires bloggers who wrote much worse than Marcotte and have had very serious ethical lapses and being involved in corruption cases -- and not a word.

In spite of repeated racist or bigoted statements and appeals to violence, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, etc., are treated as peers by our journalistic class -- that makes you responsible.

And then our guardians of civil discourse reach for the salts when somebody on a progressive blog says f*ck.

They ignore the Abramoff story for years (and still, to this day, there's no sense from their coverage that we are dealing with the largest case of political corruption in the entire history of the nation), they laugh it up with Bush's can't-find-those-WMDs jokes while thousands of the plebs are dying for it. But they gleefully jump in to enable whatever the latest baseless smear of a Democratic politician happens to be (today it's Pelosi's plane, Jesus, really anything will do...)

ABC hired Glenn Beck. That's really all you need to know. You are becoming Radio Mille Colines.

Terry -- care to comment on this from Michelle Malkin's own hire, Allahpundit?

"Do Catholics really believe they are eating Christ when they take the host? Allah knows that your priests have a taste for flesh –- the younger the better, it seems -– but this is ridiculous. And you have the gall to mock Muslims for believing that Satan lives in their nostrils at night? Allah will admit that we have our eccentric beliefs like any other faith, but at least cannibalism is not part of the core curriculum. Stop chewing on Jesus, you ghoulish f*cks."

http://www.liberalavenger.com/2007/02/08/malkins-allahpundit-catholic-hater/

And are you going to give the same prominence to Hynes' writings (and history of dirty tricks and ties to corruption) and keep talking about it until the McCain campaign is forced to address it? No? What does that say about you and about ABC? That you have become for all practical purposes a conservative hack, even if you'd rather not think of yourself that way?

Some samples from Hynes:

"John McCain is a contemptable [sic] human being. He makes my stomach churn and my bowels clench."

"Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702070007

And, just one more, how can you justify the role that your profession plays in all of this when Donohue was all over the networks ranting about civility and bigotry and nobody though of asking him about his statements like:

"Just imagine if a white guy is performing oral sex on a statue of Martin Luther King with an erection. Do you need to see it to know it's ugly?"

and

"Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, okay?
And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex."

The hypocrisy and double-standards are breath-taking.

And I strongly recommend that you read this:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/#postid-updateV3

Terry,

I respect your intellectual honesty and reporting style.

You actually seem more like a Libertarian to me and I respect that.

You are one of the best reporters in America and report the facts without a bias to the right or left.

Personally I believe you do lean slightly to the left, but it doesn't reflect in your reporting.

Kudos on your honesty and love for your brother.

My brother and I have the same dynamic, but I belive the disagreements you and your brother, Rick, had have made you both better informed than people how only listen to Conservative pundits or Liberal pundits.

Much respect...

The bottom line is, the domestic arm of Al Qaeda is the Democrat Party. If we don't stop these people by any means necessary, our families and our way of life are endangered. Marcotte is the tip of the iceberg. Traitors to the American way of life number in the millions, and unless we stop them now, they may well elect the Al Qaeda choice for President in 2008. That's why we should strike them while we still control the military, strike San Francisco and Manhattan and all the other moonbat havens, burning them to the ground if necessary. If that's what it takes to save the American way of life, I think we have to do it. It's no different than when Sherman burned Atlanta in 1864, only this time it's mostly the Northerners who will have to face fire and steel for the sake of the Union.

It's not really Terry's fault. He's grown up in a age of Lazy Journalism.

You see Terry probably graduated from college with a degree in journalism. As such, he doesn't really know how to talk to real people. He's never held a job before where you get your hands dirty. He's afraid to get in his car, drive across town and take notes on a real story. See, that'd be work, and they didn't teach him that in college.

So he sits by his computer all day waiting for an email, or the phone to ring with some juicy story that he can write about and sound all edumicated and such.

So when his brother Ricky called him the other day to let him know about this big blogger controversy with Edwards, he was all raring to go because nobody else had called.

Or maybe it wasn't Ricky. It might have been Scooter Libby for all we know, and perhaps Libby also contacted Ricky and his bud Malkin.

Regardless, what we do know is that this isn't a story Terry uncovered. He didn't provide any original thought, any original details, any original analysis. He just parroted what he was told in that phone call.

Quick solution: If you don't want to be accused of being a shill.

Don't be a shill.

And one last thing, if you are going to spend your days distorting others words and calling them names. Don't spend the next day whining about how everybody else is distorting your words and calling you names.

It just sounds pathetic.

I think The Other Steve's attitude tells you everything you need to know about what's wrong with this country. People like him are the enemy within, and we can never be safe, prosperous and free until he, and the many others like him, have been successfully neutralized.

I'm sure you're with me on this one, Terry. I know Rick is, I'm a longtime fan of his work.

Wait... Rick Moran doesn't think the Wicked Witch of the West died? Wow, it's going to be fun watching Terry try to defend that. Oh wait, that's right, he doesn't need a reason. Well that's good, because he wouldn't be able to find any in Rick's posts, either.

Using commentators Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter as example of hate speech is typical of the left as they have complete amnesia of the hate filled speech, not just by democratic poltical commentators, but by the political leaders of the democratic party, The personal attacks by leading democratic politicians on President Bush and members of his administration are in the same vein a