Does John Edwards Condone Hate Speech?

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.

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….

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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.

Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reiley routinely engage in hate speech?
POST EXAMPLES.
Put up or shut up.

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.

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.

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.”

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…

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

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.

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.

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

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.

“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: …..

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…

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

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…

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!

Catholics Slam Bloggers Hired by EdwardsBill Donohue Lead’s the Way.

Newsvine.com:
Catholics Slam Bloggers Hired by Edwards
Two bloggers hired recently by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards were criticized Tuesday by a Catholic group for posts they had written elsewhere on the Internet.
Bill Donohue, pres…

From http://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

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?

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?

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.

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?

“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

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)

The short version on Greenwald, and much more amusing:
http://wuzzadem.typepad.com/wuz/2006/07/greenpuppet.html

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-that’s what Edwards and his people are guilty of.
C’mon lefties, be honest. If McCain or Romney were to hire Ann Coulter, or Michelle Malkin as a consultant you’d go ape. BTW, what’s with the fixation with foul language on the left side of the blogo-sphere?
I don’t find a lot of big-time right of center bloggers using obscenities.( Comments from readers are another matter)But it seems that plenty of voices on the left side seem incapable of making an argument without dropping the f-bomb.

Also, thanks to ‘Rick Moron’ for making us aware of the Terry’s self-admitted wingnut brother, and the curious recapitulation here of the concerted right-wing pile-on. Funny, that.
Lord forbid that someone deprive Bill Donohue or Hugh Hewitt or Michelle Malkin of their income based upon what they say. We all know that there is absolutely nothing a right-winger can do or say to become persona non grata; because once that happens, such a person always turns out to be a cunningly-disguised liberal.

Here are some of Amanda’s hateful images on her Flickr photo sharing account. http://flickr.com/photos/amandamarcotte/251643144/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/amandamarcotte/314843023/

But I gotta say, this just shows that the left gets awful p*ssy when they get taken to task about anything. Oh, and “but they do it toooooooooooooo!” isn’t an excuse or a defense. Remember that for next time.
Here are the basics of this:
The bloggers Edwards hired are going to get canned. Not because of “hate speech” but because of stupid speech- because Edwards won’t want to be saddled with dealing with what they wrote.
That’s his choice.
And the bloggers will be able to go on their merry way, writing their vulgar, ill-informed rants if they want to, with knowledge that doing so may cost them future political jobs.
That is their choice.
The “right” can criticize Edwards for the hire, and can criticize the bloggers for what they wrote. (So can the left if they want)
That is our choice.
And those on the left will have to accept that the “right” have claimed a couple of scalps this go around.
In that, you have no choice.
Those are the facts. PERIOD. No bringing up sideshows such as Rick Moran, Pres. Bush, Limbaugh, Hannity, FOX, etc, as they are not involved here.
DEAL WITH.

The hate speech v. free speech debate as well as the liberal v. conservative debate is immaterial here. Clearly, John Edwards and his staff are fools to associate themselved with Amanda Marcotte, whose obscenity filled tirades are the stuff of the gutter. I like Edwards but I will not vote for him if he retains Marcotte.

Another phony controversy stirred up the the Bush 28 percenters to distract drom real issue affecting Americans…..Edwards need not respond to this tripe….
Malkin and the rest of the RW hit brigade need to get off their lazy sorry butts, ENLIST and go to Iraq to fight in the greatest struggle in the history of mankind…..the war of “ideas” doesnt mean anything if youre dead.

Fen: “Its amusing how the Lefties here ignore Marcotte’s behavior.”
cleek: “nah, what’s amazing is your apparent ability to read minds.”
No mindreading here. You use Coulter et al as an excuse to ignore Marcotte’s bigotry. Your “logic” is that if the other side does it, that justifies your side doing the same. What a profound moral corruption.
The Left doesn’t really believe in the things they lecture us about.

That’s right lib4 ….cut and paste in all the talking points…next time, restrict discussion to the topic at hand, m’kay?

I personally consider many of Ms. Marcotte’s comments to be hateful and prejudiced, but she has the right to voice her bent opinions. She’s aiming her spears at common targets of the left. It’s not so much the targets she picks – it’s that she uses shallow, profanity and/or obscenity-laced hyperbole. Instead of posting reasoned arguments, she covers her targets in slime. When your reply to a post would be “yes, but…” – it may be worthwhile to do so. When your reply to a post would be “oh, yeah? Bite me” – it’s pointless to reply. She is in bite me territory.
Obviously, Senator Edwards is an empty suit cynically picking a handy leftist to boost his numbers.

Addendum:
They go after Christianity – which, out of the “big three”, is probably the cleanest in peaceful message.
Judaism – especially modern – is a close second.
Islam isn’t even close. You’ve got a religion whose “prophet” was a raving mysoginist, set up his own harem, raped a woman after having her family beheaded and called it “marriage”, screwed 9 year old girls for fun, and whose entire focus for spreading his “religion” was conversion by the sword.
Islam’s holy book states that on the last day, it’s a “duty” of Muslim to go around slaughtering Jews and other unbelievers. While they claim “Jihad” is an internal struggle for self-betterment, the term is used over a hundred times in the Koran all of which describe war, and in only one Hadith (“saying of the prophet”) otherwise, and that Hadith’s genesis is faulty because it comes through two “scholars” who are regularly accused of making up Hadith verses. It doesn’t appear in either of the “Big Four” of the Shia tradition or the “Big Six” of the Sunni.
But nevermind that. Go on believing your little lies till you’re run over.

“I don’t find a lot of big-time right of center bloggers using obscenities.”
would you like some examples?
” You use Coulter et al as an excuse to ignore Marcotte’s bigotry. Your “logic” is that if the other side does it, that justifies your side doing the same. What a profound moral corruption.”
no, Kreskin, i’m not excusing Marcotte. i was responding to specific claims about the state of right-wing punditry made by posters here on this thread – go ahead, read what i wrote and to what i was responding. in fact, this paragraph right here is the very first time i’ve mentioned Amanda on this thread. so, i can hardly be held to blame for an argument i never made. run that little fact through your awesome logic analyzer.
and actually, my personal opinion of Marcotte and Edwards’ hiring of her might surprise you – so go ahead, Carnack, read my mind.

For all the moonbats here tying Terry Moran/ABC News/Disney to the chimpy/cheney/mchaliburton/oooiiiillllll axis, give it a rest. It makes you look even more pathetic than Marcotte.

I am constantly amazed at reporters who are against free speech– at least when it’s liberal free speech. And Terry, you might not have noticed, but your industry, even ABC News, not to mention Cheney, et al, have been pandering to Rush Limbaugh for more than a decade. You might not like what Marcotte says (not that it makes it wrong for her to say it), but you have to admit, she never called an innocent 13-year-old girl a “dog”, as Limbaugh did.
Also, you might not read your own ABC News blog, The Note, but it’s said a few controversial things in its time, though its most egregious offense is the oh-so-arch tone and the insistence that its writers know so much that they just can’t tell…. Oh, yeah, and its editors total and humiliating brown-nosing to a REAL hate-speecher, Hugh Hewitt.
Heal thyself, reporters, before you start slanging bloggers. You have mostly done a horrendous job covering this administration, and you know it, and we’re just all lucky that liberal bloggers did the work for you this last 6 years, or we’d never know anything of the truth.

Terry is either very stupid and lazy in his reporting, or he’s just being dishonest in this article.
Worse, he’s just repeating his brother’s right-wing talking points.
Terry should remove himself from political coverage as long as his brother is blogging.
It’s a shame that ABC is now a completely Fascist (by the dictionary definition) propaganda unit for the GOP now.
Like Fox, but less honest, and less entertaining.

Is racism, sexism mocking and making pornographic references about one of Christianity’s most beloved figures hate speech? If it isn’t then there is no such thing as hate speech. If Christians behaved the way this woman and other Christian bashers describe them, Marcotte would be tarred, feathered and burning in some town square right now. Thank God for the tolerant Christians in our society. In many Muslim Countries she would be buried up to her waist and then stoned until she was unconcious and then likely buried still alive. If John Edwards wants to get in bed with this woman, then I encourage him to do so and I look forward to watching it all unfold in the media. He’s a big boy, let’s hear him defend his choice.

People should question religion.
That isn’t “hate speech.”
The correct term is “skepticism.”
A better headline for this article would be “Does John Edwards Condone Skepticism?”
I certainly hope so.

Oh, and does it ever bother you that you so obediently follow the memes created by the Republican spin-machine? Be honest here. YOU didn’t come up with this. You got some email or press release from some Republican or right-winger, and you trotted off to make a big deal about it.
There’s an actual story here– who wins when you print this? Who sent out this spin-release? Who got this started? Not you… so do some real analysis and real reporting for a change, and find out in whose interest it is to closely examine personnel decisions of Dem candidates, while ignoring the administration’s hiring of actual taxpayer-paid administirative division chiefs, etc, who have extremist views on things like family planning, not to mention the administration’s continual firing of US attorneys and scientists who insist on telling the truth. There’s a real story, and you might think about why you so easily succumbed to the diversionary tactic.
You are fast becoming irrelevant. How many of us actual news junkies– the viewers you NEED– no longer give more than cursory attention to your news show? How many of us instead read blogs, which have actual links to news and not just rightwing talking points dressed up in that ironic tone of yours that suggests far more than is actually there?
This is from someone who really cares about news– please. Become a reporter. Stop being a toady. Admit your responsibility and learn from it.

If the Edwards campaign even has to think about the appropriateness of these ‘employees’, that tells me a lot about this candidate and his campaign’s lack of maturity. The lack of political savvy on all of their parts is actually stunning.
We’re talking about officially stumping for the potential President of the United States with the lowest form of negative discourse.
How can this even be a question to ponder for ANYONE of any political persuasion?

Notice there aren’t any links to Marcotte’s actual blog posts even though including them, and the context they provide, would have been the easiest thing in the world.
Hence the first quote Moran presents, which came from a post that was a specific response to the subset of the Catholic church trying use theology to justify stripping American citizens of their reproductive rights, becomes a blanket condemnation/mockery of all Catholics everywhere.
Lazyness to the point of dishonesty on Moran’s part.

Anyone who can google can find her posts and read for themselves.
That still doesn’t address the appropriateness of hiring these people for a presidential campaign.

i also heard amanda leaked the name of an undercover c.i.a. agent to the press and then lied to a grand jury in an attempt to cover it up. is that true? or am i thinking of someone else?

OH NO! TERRY MORAN’S BROTHER IS A RIGHT WINGER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LETS IGNORE HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sheesh, what’s up with the 3rd grade defenses today?
Oh, this is a good one:
“You can’t be serious. Is there a new standard that any blogger who has made controversial or profane remarks in the past is unsuitable to work for a political campaign?”
You win the Denseness award! It’s POLITICS! In case you have notices, politicians generally try to avoid having to deal with controversial remarks. And in general, profanity is still a turn-off to the general public. It’s common sense really.
Lefties, remember that your little echo chamber in Pandagon or Kos or DU isn’t the real world. In the real world where us adults live, we don’t have nearly the venom and hatred towards those who have an opposite political view that you do. So yeah, while many adults may be skeptical of Christianity, may not even like it, they really don’t go for someone who expresses it in a juvenile, profane way. And Edwards- all politicians- realize that. Which is why these 2 bloggers will go on their way and he will find someone else who won’t be a liability for him.
Anyone who brings up anything else (Limbaugh does it, WAAAAAAH! Rick Moran is a winger WAHHHHHH! Freedom of speech WAHHHHH!) is either missing the point or knows better but doesn’t care.
And for them, I feel pity.

This marrcotte chick probably has a collection posters ranging from black-faced Liebermann to a black-faced Michael Steele and a couple of Aunt Jemima Condi birds squawking into Hilter’s ear to inspire her creative juices so consumed by the Left.
All in the name of her free speech of course.

With all due respect Terry, Amanda Marcotte’s PERSONAL BLOG posts are what are considered RANTS.
HATE SPEACH, on the other hand is what the folks on KSFO practice.
Please, going forward, get your terminology correct.

“A better headline for this article would be “Does John Edwards Condone Skepticism?”
I certainly hope so.”
Except when it comes to global warming, then skepticism is a bad thing, right?
OOOOPS, did I just expose you? Sorry.

The title of this post is absolutely ridiculous. None of those posts are hate speech. But nice attempt at silencing free speech, Mr. Moran.

Terry Moran, are you responsible for what your brother writes on his blog?
Are you so in the dark and naive that you think that what is put on DrudgeReport, Michele Malkin and other sites dripping in hatred, rcism and sexism are NOT coordinated with the GOP?
Come now, Terry, you can;t be that stupid.

The following post has it right on:
If Moran’s is really wondering what would happen if a conservative hired someone with history comparable to Marcotte, isn’t the evidence right there to see? Why isn’t the media all over the hiring of Ruffini, Henke and Hynes? Didn’t someone say it should be a ten part series in the NY Times?
Absolutely right. This is nothing more than Republican spin on the nature of the blogosphere. McCain’s blog hires had racist contests to nickname Democratic senators. Here we go with another right wing lynch mob and “Christians are under attack” line of B.S. rather than address the facts which are, why isn’t ABC News reporting that Republicans have done THE EXACT SAME THING with FAR MORE INCINDIARY bloggers?

take your scumback crap and point it somewhere else.

“If Moran’s is really wondering what would happen if a conservative hired someone with history comparable to Marcotte, isn’t the evidence right there to see? Why isn’t the media all over the hiring of Ruffini, Henke and Hynes? Didn’t someone say it should be a ten part series in the NY Times?”
I gotta DEMAND that you post something comprable from Henke. I mean straight up you gotta produce or you’re full of crap here. The others I don’t know about- but you have never seen Henke post something even comprable.
Do it. RIGHT NOW. And make sure you post the link to it.

You 28%ers, You Right-Wingers, You War Supporters, You Bush Lovers – you all make me sick.
I’m going to leave this board behind and continue with my life. You poor, misinformed people will also be left behind by history and reality, and you can continue this kind of circle jerk in quiet, in unlit, untraveled places like this, right through Hillary’s (or Barack’s) two terms.

Harry_the_Hop -
Good point.
Terry Moran could have provided links to the quotes, but chose not to in order to hide the context.

Hate speech? See the ABC contributor Glen Beck for hate speech

So how does this work? Only corporate owned ABC and Terry has a right to free speech?
Before you smeared Edwards, did you do any research to determine if this supposed offensive blogging was done under his pay and/or watch.
You owe Edwards an apology but, of course you’ll claim free speech.

Typical ABC hack piece; nothing about nothing. Moran and the rest– including you Gibson– have become nothing but stooges for Disney and the entire Right Wing. You lost me with that fake 9-11 crap– do you expect me to believe anything you put up? I don’t care what some Edwards employee wrote in a previous life. So what? Why don’t you quote some of the vile crap your own little squib Beck hacked up in the past?

Eric Jaffa writes, Terry Moran could have provided links to the quotes, but chose not to in order to hide the context.
Unfortunately, the Pandagon owners have been changing some of the material and the links so providing links to that content might not work. You need to hit the WayBack Machine.
It’s too bad that Pandagon doesn’t feel it can stand behind one of their own.

So far, this is what we’ve learned from our lefty commenters here:
1) Rick Moran is a right winger, so following McCarthy’s law, Terry Moran is part of the vast right wing conspiracy
2) Terry Moran is a right wing hack
3) It’s ok because Limbaugh and others do it too
4) How dare you deny Marcotte her free speech by using your speech to criticize her speech!
5) ABC = All Bush Channel
6) She didn’t do anything wrong because rightwingers and christians are evil and deserve it
Well done lefties! You’ll convince multitudes of 3rd graders with that reasoning!

Steve White lies here. Pandagon is famous for their pathetic servers breaking down. They’ve lost tons of their history. They’d rather it was all still out there.
I assume Steve White collects money from the GOP for posting obvious lies like this.

lin4: “ENLIST and go to Iraq to fight in the greatest struggle in the history of mankind…..the war of “ideas” doesnt mean anything if youre dead.”
I’ve already served 12 yrs in the Marines [Somolia & Kuwait]
What have you done? Seriously, you and and your kind whine endlessly about the “illegal and immoral war” in Iraq, yet you do nothing but moan on the net about it.
What have you done to stop the war? If you believe that thousands are being “raped and killed” by our troops, what have you sacrificed to prevent it?
Don’t play the chickenhawk card here. You are a selfish parasitic Lefty who cares more about your cheap oil economy and free health care than about the civil liberties [freedom from religion, woman's suffrage, homosexual rights] of millions of Arabs. You’ve got your liberty, so screw the rest right?
Pathetic parasitic selfish liberal… what have you actually DONE to stop the violence?
Nothing at all. Why? Because the Left doesn’t really believe in the things they lecture us about.

Free speech = you being able to say what you want.
I would like to issue a challenge to find an intelligent person on either side of the political spectrum that would seriously say that you don’t have the right to say what you believe, as long as it is not advocating death / injury.
When someone objects to what another person says this is NOT stifling free speech. It is expressing their own opinion. Calling attention to what someone has said has ZERO to do with restricting someone else’s right to free speech.
People will listen to others that think like them, no matter what their political stripes are. And those that disagree with one’s preformed opinions will be shouted down. It is just the way that people prevent cognative dissonance.
That, however, does not mean that those shouting are preventing others from excercising their god-given right to express themselves.

Does Terry Moran passive-aggressively hide unfounded accusations behind question marks?
Does that make him a coward?

does msnbc condone obscenity? chris matthews should resign immediately. terry get on this one!

Hey Shark, doesn’t it suck to have your post completely invalidated by, literally, the very next poster?
“Lefties, remember that your little echo chamber in Pandagon or Kos or DU isn’t the real world. In the real world where us adults live, we don’t have nearly the venom and hatred towards those who have an opposite political view that you do.”
Followed IMMEDIATELY by:
“I hate…HATE…liberals for the people who wish them well:”
Thanks, An Atheist, for making my point better than I ever could.

“Does anyone have an answer for this, other than attacking Greenwald himself, rather than the substance of his post?”
Greenwald uses sockpuppets to defend himself – thats dishonest. Therefore, all arugument from Greenwald is SUSPECT. He is disingenuous.
Seriously, would you buy a used car from a neighbor who cheats friends at the weekly poker night? Would you even waste time listening to his sales pitch? Same for Greenwald. There is a consequence for being so dishonest.

Gees the real question here is who the hell coded this?
Anyone at ABCNews heard of syntax validation? Your XML is foobared.

Oh my. Moran, the internets are a very useful tool (kind of like you’re a very useful tool for the Republicans). I suggest you use this new site called “Google” to do some investigatin’ before you reveal yourself to be the fool (hey, that rhymes with tool!).

She just proves what we already know–most of the “blogosphere” is filled with crackpots who can say anything they want behind safety of their computer monitor.

Anyone grokking the difference between a citizen blogging and an official presidential campaign?
Between individual talking heads and campaign staffers?
This isn’t about the Daily Kos or Malkin. This is about paid employees of a presidential campaign with these views and this behavior.

When’s the last time anybody saw a lefty blogger advocating the elimination of an entire class or race of people? This happens regularly on the right wingnut blog circuit. Never on the left. That’s because the extreme right blogs are cauldrons of racism, hatred, fear and eliminationism.
And this notion that “free speech” means we all have to tolerate hate speech is a Lie. The righties’ notion of censorship is stupid and self-serving. Censorship is by the government; when individuals seek to shut down hate speech, it is the marketplace of ideas cracking down on the “bad” ideas. No marketplace of ideas survives long without some means of identifying the bad speech and separating it from the good; in a free society the force that accomplishes this is not the government but MORE speech by people speaking out against the bad speech. So to say that lefties are for censorship is a complete straw-man; in fact all the right wingers are doing is avoiding accountability for their own McCarthyite filth and lies through a false defense of “victimhood.” But please, dont stop now! Keep digging, wingers! Keep wearing that false cloak of victimhood and throwing stones out of your glass houses. Keep calling us traitors and defend Dick Cheney for outing a CIA NOC to the bitter end. Your hypocrisy is nothing short of delicious. But dont ever say a curseword! Then you’ll never get hired by your favorite wingnut-welfare dispensing politician.

Who the Hell is Terry Moron? And what rock did he crawl out from under?

Sooo…
A talking head for the network and news division that recently hired documented racist hatemonger Glenn Beck (google Glenn Beck and Media Matters) has the gall to feign moral outrage over a liberal blogger hired by the Edwards campaign’s impassioned rants?
Even as said talking head’s own brother, who runs a quiet, non-bomb tossing site called “Right Wing Nut House” (!) rails at the left in far worse terms? And has also taken this “story” up as a wingnut hobby horse along with the rest of the wingnutosphere?
Well…okay. I’d love to say hypocrisy like this is the reason I no longer watch ABC, (in spite of my actually being interested in getting into “Lost” this season, and watching “Grey’s Anatomy” the last two seasons) but after “Path to 9-11″, the entertainment-iaztion of “Nightline”, and the general right-wing tilt of the Disney-owned network, the die was set.
And I don’t miss it a bit. By all means Mr. Moran, enjoy your and your network’s relegation to the “I used to watch you” dustbin.

Terry Moran is TRULY one of the biggest idiots out there.
Really useless. Anytime the right wing fools say things to this effect, they’re just speaking truth. If the left wing does it, then it’s “hate speech.”
Fire Terry Moran now.

What ever happened to reporting? Moran, you should get down on your knees and thank God every day that you get paid for stuff like this. Because back when there was real reporting, when profits came after consideration of the news, you would be lucky to be throwing papers from your Schwinn.

“I don’t get it? I read the posted comments from the Edwards bloggers and they seem pretty mainstream, to me”
TO ME = operative words.
Thanks for proving my point about the echo chamber. Remember Paulene Kael (paraphrase) “How did he get elected, nobody I know voted for him!”

“What ever happened to reporting? Moran, you should get down on your knees and thank God every day that you get paid for stuff like this”
Um…..it’s an opinion column called “pushback”- not reporting.
Read for context before you comment please

As an Irish-Catholic, let me say that anyone who aggravates that religious bigot Bill Donohue is fine in my book.
The sooner the media stops paying attention to his self-aggrandizing ravings, the better it will be for all Irish-Catholics. He’s an embarrassment.

“Questions: … 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?”
Did you just wake and figure out that a journalist’s job is not stenography?
Note to Terry: please be advised that there are all sorts of Republican candidates, as well as officer-holders, that are currently teamed up with wingnut bloggers spewing far more vile things than you are able to post on your “blog”. If you practiced a little journalism, you would already know that. Just ask one of your overworked and underpaid research assistants; they would certainly advise against interposing questions that expose apparent inexperience.

I’ll never understand why the Right can’t stand facts. They seem allergic to them. Theirs is the realm of small impotent men blaming women for not turning them on. Quite pathetic…

Aw…its’ only “hate speech” if it disagrees with my opinion. Otherwise it’s “free speech.” And everyone is entitled to it. Except conservatives. That about sums it up?
And by the way, since Terry Moran disagrees with me, he should be fired, because anyone who doesn’t agree with me should be silenced. That’s the good old-fashioned liberal way of things.
You people are unbelievable.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/5/53/225px-Vietnamescape.jpg

Wow, this is almost as bad as, say, a presidential cabinet favoring a particular hate-spewing cable new channel…
I guess when a blogger gets angry it’s BIG news. When O’Reilly, Coulter, Hannity, etc get angry, it gets dismissed as “entertainment”.
Tune in soon to see them opine whether the islamofascist., nazi, fat, jobless, jew-hating, godless bloggers have sunk so low as to begin name calling.

“Hate speech” can better be characterized as “oppress minority X” speech. If a group is dominant, or has hegemonic power, abrasive speech against it may be tactless or unkind, but it does not have a systemic oppressive EFFECT. This is generally required for something to descend to the level of “hate speech.”
The way you know who is really oppressed in this country is to look at violent hate-crimes statistics. Highest on the list are blacks, gays, Muslims, and Jews.
It is these groups for whom “hate-speech” has a powerfully systemic oppressive effect, because they are already so disenfranchised. Other groups: Catholics, fundamentalist Protestants, Republicans, etc., are HARDLY systemically oppressed, no matter what they tell themselves. And “liberals” as a group seldom have the economic power or the ethic of violence to oppress anyone.
As for this comment:
“Christians didn’t fly planes into the World Trade Center. Muslims did.”
Since we have not yet had a truly independent investigation of who perpetrated 9/11, I won’t touch that. I will remind folks that the Oklahoma City bomber was a white, right-wing Christian.

Thanks, Terry for confirming my suspicion that you are a GOP partisan. Perhaps you could partake in real journalism and look at bloggers on the GOP side rather than just cutting and pasting work from the blog of your right-wing brother. Or is that too much to ask?

Patrick Hynes, the paid consultant for John McCain’s presidential campaign for those unaware that Google exists. here is an example from http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/look-at-john-mccains-blogger.html
Hynes entered his own Waxman contest by adding an “update” to his post — a You Tube clip from Seinfeld in which the word “Pig Man” is mentioned five times in roughly 10 seconds. Most of the other entries for Waxman’s nickname on Hynes’ blog centered around what Hynes’ readers apparently think is Waxman’s big nose, though some were just more commonplace profanity. Here were the first four entries: “Nosferatu!” “NOSEGAY.” “The Nose Knows.” “Henry ‘Nostrils’ Waxman.” Those were followed by: “How bout ‘A$$hole’?” “Prick?” “His face frightens children and repulses women.”

Mr Moran. you have lost all credibility. You have just given me another reason to not watch ABC news programs.

FYI, This is all irrelevant since both bloggers are no longer working for Edwards.
1. I guess John Edwards doesn’t condone hate speech then. 2. Kind of disproves the whole “it’s OK to oppress Christians” mantra. 3. I expect that when a Republican politician hires a blogger who “spews this kind of venom” you, Terry Moran, will be first in line to ask whether or not the candidate “Condones Hate Speech”.

This ought to have been posted at RightWingNuthouse.com. Nothing worse than being associated with hate spewing bloggers.

Mr. Moran are you serious?
Considering the nature of your brothers blog I would say that you are not exactly being above board here.
If you find what Ms. Marcotte said to be offensive I can certainly understand, it is no worse then the last decade or so of venom that the members of the right; inclusive of people that you know, have been vomiting up on the left.
And on one hand it is a damn sight better then some of the stuff they have said.
So, if you don’t like it, look no further then your friends and family associates for one of the reasons that there may be people on the left that are not particularly happy with you and yours. Here is a piece of advice that my Dad gave to me that the right might want to keep in mind since it obvious that their fathers never imparted much if any wisdom to them: Don’t want to get punched in the nose? Don’t throw the first punch.
And the moment the rightwing of this country had the temerity and gaul to infer that anyone that did not agree with them were traitors? You threw the first punch, and it was a low blow at that. Just be happy that it is only strong language that is being used because where I’m from you say that kind of thing to a mans face and he knocks you on your a**.

Hate speech? Go buy a sense of humor.

Some of my best friends are strawmen.

Karen-
I don’t see any evidence here that Marcotte “hates White male Christians.”
I’m a white male, and when I read the Marcotte post condeming rapists, I don’t feel like *I’m* under attack, because *I’m* not a rapist. I think everyone can get behind hating rapists, and I’m often truly baffled when people take this as evidence of man-hating. See, I(and Marcotte) think the term “man” and “rapist” are different, and you seem think they’re synonymous. Who here hates men?
I would likewise think her attack on people who use the term Christian to justify war, torture and opression would have the support of any real Christian. Unless you think Christian and torturing-warmonger-oppressor are synonymous too.
Why do *you* hate white Christian males?

Excuse me, but where the hell was Terry Moran on the “hate speech” issue when the President and the Vice-President were sitting down to chat with the master of hate speech, Rush Limbaugh?
And how about this part:
A bit of a tempest is brewing over the strident and profanity-laced writings of John Edwards’ official campaign “blogmaster,” Amanda Marcotte.
Nice use of the dog whistle there with the use of the word “strident”, Terry.
For folks who missed the chapter on dog whistle politics, when someone calls a woman strident, it’s really code for “castrating feminist bitch”. Ifthere is anyone who actually doubts the truth of this statement, just ask yourself, “When was the last time I heard a man being called strident?
For that matter, let’s ask Terry–Hey Terry, when was the last time you ever described a man’s behavior as strident?
Never? Yeah, I thought as much.
But, you know, that’s not hate speech, because he uses the dog whistle code. Oh, and he didn’t use naughty words.
Pathetic.

Somebody early on said it’s not hate speech, it’s free speech. But that’s completely meaningless. It’s not as though the two are mutually exclusive. There’s no question that she has the right to say such things. The question is, when is Edwards going to fire her ass.

Some of the things Terry is saying are easily shown to be just plain factually wrong.
1. The things she says about Christian fundies being misogynistic, racist, and homophobic ***ARE*** said about Muslim fundies in public by both the POTUS and every single member of Congress and their supporters and their campaign staff on a very regular basis.
2. “NASCAR dads/voters” has been extensively used by ABCnews and other journalistic agencies to describe white, Southern, conservative voters.
3. Unless you can show me where she is encouraging violence and intimidation against a group of people, you’re accusation of “hate speech” is plain wrong.
4. “If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react?”
This has already been going on for quite some time. Conservatives have responded to it by voting for and supporting those Republican candidates.

Wow, Terry. Michelle Malkin and Pam Atlas much? Rush Limbaugh? KSFO radio? Republican bloggers and Republican personalities have been spewing hate speech and venom for YEARS now. Where have you been?

Just tasteless, Moran. Please come back when you actually have something to report.

Hah – Moran the Moron deleted my followup comments regarding Christianity’s peaceful and Judaism’s peaceful scriptures in the face of the Koran’s open misogyny and hatred.
Fine: I’ll back up with proof. From Islamic scholars themselves.
http://www.livingislam.org/n/dgjh_e.html
The so-called “Greater Jihad” that Muslim apologists like CAIR will claim is a “struggle for inner peace” is a sham; the isnad of the claim is not even recognized, and there’s good reason the hadith in question isn’t included in the Big Four of Shia-accepted Hadith collections or the Big Six of Sunni Islam.
Christianity was founded by a man who came to atone for the sins of others and who preached peace and nonviolence.
Islam was founded by a man who had a woman’s family killed, raped her, and then called it “marriage” the next day when his followers were getting upset (wife named Safiyya). A man who screwed 9 year old girls (‘wife’ named Aisha). A man who limited his own followers to “no more than four” wives, but claimed he was “special” and deserved a harem of at least 10 wives plus numerous “slaves.” A man who all his life expanded his religion through military conquest.
A tradition that Mohammed’s followers follow quite thoroughly today:
http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part6.html
But Moran the Moron doesn’t like such comments, so I have no doubt – “Free Speech for Me, but Not for Thee” will happen yet again here.

“Michelle Malkin, it should be noted, is hardly innocent of being involved with what ABC News’ Terry Moran termed “hate speech” when applied to Marcotte. Malkin has long maintained ties to VDARE, a Web site tagged as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center that has published works by people like Jared Taylor, one of America’s leading white supremacists, and Sam Francis, who was fired by the conservative Washington Times for his own white supremacist remarks, given at a conference held by Taylor’s organization. The liberal press watchdog Media Matters has also noted Donohue’s long list of controversial statements.”

Mr. Moran, do the views that you hold represent those of ABC News?
Of course not.
To imply that Edwards supports “hate speech” based on the personal views of one of his staffers is ridiculous and ignorant.
It is time for the media to use their brains before they write stories like this – and not merely write what they think will seem “controversial.”

Short answer – no.
Longer answer – why does a “journalist” like yourself merely recite right wing talking points from such luminaries as your brother and Michelle “nothing wrong with a little internment camp” Malkin? Why not actually investigate before writing a story? I guess because that takes work. Here is someone who did investigate, maybe you can crib from him in your retraction http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/look-at-john-mccains-blogger.html

When the Swift Boat Veterans posted this same “anti-Catholic” language on Free Republic, Bill Donahue kept his piehole shut. The hypocracy is apparent. If a Republican or evangelical pundit criticizes the Catholic Church, the Catholic League says nothing. If a liberal or Democratic blogger says something, suddenly red flags go off.
You’ve been caught red handed, Bill Donahue. The Catholic League appears from this incident to be acting as a front group for the Republican Party.

Yup, Terry’s scrubbing this comment thread hard and fast.
No wonder the Righties were sounding literate – the all caps droolers were being deleted.
Okay, then. ABC and Terry: credibility=0.
Buh-hye.

For all those suggesting they will no longer watch ABC News, that is excellent news. Now also boycott NBC, CNN, PBS and MSNBC because they are all shills for Bush.
And as George Strait would say, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

Real original, Terry. Does your brother’s website do all your reporting for you?
What does it say about YOU that you seem to spend your day cruising websites filled with hate-speech and then cutting-and-pasting their inane ramblings into your own articles?

It is hard to get too worked up about the occasionally vulgur words of a couple of staffers on a campaign when compared to truly obscene actions that have occurred under the Bush administration.
There is Abu Ghraib, of course. Right-wingers will excuse that as the actions of a few wrong-headed folks in the military, but those folks weren’t talking about raping and torturing prisoners, they were doing it, and the Bush administration tried to hide it.
Less visually offensive, but no less obscene are the abuses of the Constitution in which the Bush administration has engaged. From illegal wiretapping, to denying American citizens the right to habeas corpus – the Bush administation didn’t talk about slowly reducing the freedoms of the citizens in the land of the free, they took action to do it.
Extraditing prisoners to countries that torture? As long as you don’t talk about it, and only do it, I guess that’s okay with the right-wing.
46 million people in the wealthiest country in the world with no health insurance? Hey, the insurance industry and the Bush administration is offering a big old “fuck you” to the uninsured, but at least they aren’t using those terribly uncivil words.
What a ridiculous brouhaha, although not surprising, coming from people with a simple-minded, black and white idea of morality.

“I see it everyday when the left advocates for the destruction of Israel.”
How about a few examples, Julie. Some links would be nice as I have never seen such a thing.
P.S. Isreal is neither a race or class, which was the original comment after all. It is a country. Look it up.

“If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react?”
You’re kidding, right? Please tell me this whole thing is a joke.

Christians – in a socity that’s dominated by a Christian majority, when a lone blogger makes negative comments about your religion, why do you suddenly believe she hates YOU personally? I know y’all are big into the martyr thing, but do you think you could possibly drop the suffering victim schtick? I doubt that Christianity in America’s packing it in any time soon, so I think you’re all safe from we big, scary hate-mongering heathens, ya big babies. Didn’t Jesus tell you to turn the other cheek? Well turn it and quit yer whinin’ already.
Wanna watch someone truly be accosted for their beliefs? Watch someone tell a group of people that they’re an atheist.
Oh, and Moran, you’re the very definition of a worthless hack. You fit in perfectly at ABC.

first off, congrats Terry! You will have barking moonbats hanging on your every word for years! One of the best ways to become jettisoned to stardom is to get the left going “rabble rabble rabble” like some South Park skit.
Well played, they’ll be including you in their diatribes for eons.
Now for this comment about NASCAR–
“There’s no real reason that NASCAR has to have a political edge to it, much less be some weird symbol of Southern male white supremacy and yet through careful Republican marketing, it has become just that.”
What if she wrote instead—
“There’s no real reason that Mosques have to have a political edge to them, much less be some weird symbol of the Muslim male’s domination of women and religious supremacy over the dhimmi and yet through careful Islamic marketing, it has become just that.”
Anyone see a problem with that? Seems more evident than her real post. But try giving some blogger that rant on his blog and make him the anointed one of a president’s campaign and watch the “hate speech” accusations fly.
They want to have their cake and eat it too. Interesting that the lib blogs would link up here. It’s a lot like Kerry’s choice of a blog queen. Nothing wrong with it, free speech and all, no goose stepping soldiers or book burning lawyers impinging on their rights, only a hue of hypocrisy tainting their self-positioned halos.

Terry…you ask,
“If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react?”
As a reporter why don’t you go find out?

For all the lefties in here who excuse leftwing hate speech with “But, but, but, THEY do it too, well I thought the whole point of voting for democrats was because they were supposed to be BETTER than the GOP.
Thank you for announcing very clearly that you are not.

would you say the same about your brother’s blog? and your association with him? do you condone his hate speech?

I left a comment over at bro Rick’s blog pointing out that he referenced ‘Immaculate Conception’ incorrectly. The comment used to be there. Now its not. Imagine that. You wingnuts are tough guys.

Nothing would make the rightwing happier than people pushing for a boycott of ABC.
Trust me.

These comments have been good for quite a few laughs …
I especially enjoy the flexible definition of “hate speech”, which comes down to:
“Hate speech is speech that trashes people I like, while free speech trashes the people I don’t like.”
How facile.
Though it does relieve you of the mental stress of responding to arguments you don’t like, right?

Why is it so hard for the Righties here to understand that the issue is not ‘hate speech,’ but that Moran is tarring only one person, a Democrat, for something that has been proven to occur by a Republican as well, namely McCain? The issue is bias, of which ABC has proven time and time again that they have in spades.

The real question is “Is Terry Moran a right-wing propoganda vessel for the predictably biased and vile ABC?’
Or perhaps “Is ABC essentially the Pravda for the religious right and GOP slime-merchants? (hint: see film “The Path to 9/11″

Chuck when Edwards fires Amanda, will you continue to appreciate finding out “where he stands.” ?? lol.

Open mouth and stick foot in

It lloks like a few of the Democrats vying for the Democratic nomination for President have stxk their foot in their mouthes. First you have Biden talkning about Obama, and now we got The Breck Girl Edwards, hiring a anti-Catholic

I see that the level of vitrol from the left here hasn’t abated- it has increased if anything.
Sad, sad sad. Your hate doesn’t play well outside of the echo chamber.
I pity you.

Boycott ABC! Boycott ABC! Let’s start the petition NOW!

Good job regurgitating what your brother says! I mistakenly thought you were actually an investigative reporter! Funny how these things are always reported about Democrats and conveniently omitted when about Republican-Americans. Gee, no wonder most people get their news from the Daily Show!

“Moron please get a clue. Look in the mirror and realize you’re a shill.”
Well, there’s a typical reasoned and logical response. Well done spanky!

“What do you mean “If”? Republican candidates across the board have teamed up with the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin, Coulter, etc, etc. etc. with barely a peep of protestations from their followers, much less the mainstream media. ”
Can you please show me where GOP candidates have hired Limbaugh, Malkin, Coulter etc etc? Just asking since you throw these things out there so easily. Someone has to call you on it and surely won’t be your echo chamber buddies….

Update:
Both have been FIRED!
Chuck? Chuck? You still admire Edwards for showing us “where he stands.” ??
Let the nutroots have a meltdown. I want front row seats. Yahooo!

Here goes the ABC slime machine again. Slinging mud. That’s all you lazy reporters know how to do. If you would have been a good reporter, you would have gotten the truth out about Iraq and stood up for America. All you are is an enabler for all the right wing wingnuts that has divided America. You’re pathetic. It looks like ABC is in competition with Fox.

“.. torture, killing people of other faiths, expulsion of non-Christians from their homes, robbing and beating non-Christians – the list is quite long..”
see Srebrenica, Bosnia, July 1995.
8,300 Bosnian men (Muslims) killed by Serbs (Christians)

Shark you are hilarious. I’ve totally enjoyed your posts.
Well, on the bright side, Amanda may have a bright future writing for Time magazine, to follow in the footsteps of the foul talking Wonkette. They seem to love that type.

How about McCain hiring Patrick Hines, instrumental in the whole Swift Boat debacle and as “Kerry Crusher” on right wing blogs, the genius behind such posts as this http://mediamatters.org/items/200702070007
Come on Terry, at least pretend to do your job.

Wow Terry, I can’t believe you could be so obtuse as to get involved in this controversy. Your political leanings and outright bias should not be so obvious if you’re going to be affiliated with such a mainstream show as ABC nightly news.
I guess it’s just one more reason for not watching ABC news. My viewership has been declining since Peter Jennings death — now you’ve given me one more reason not to bother watching at all.

Cleek,
And it was the Americans who saved their arses.

You want to talk about hate speech? Maybe you should take the time to check out what comes out of most of the ABC O&O’s like WABC and WLS radio. What do you call that Terry? Have you ever blogged about that? I don’t think so. Too close huh! Disney wouldn’t like it now would they? Oh, not to mention the vile hate speech that comes out of KSFO.

Jo-
I’m familiar w/ Wizbang though I haven’t stopped by recently.

Attention: none of that was hate speech.
Carry on.

Oh Terry, I remember you at Court TV when you weren’t a lawyer, you just played one on TV….

Terry,
Welcome to the world of leftwingers who go ballastic when you don’t toe the party, oops, I mean the typical journalistic line.

“And it was the Americans who saved their arses.”
well, except for the 8,300 Muslims i mentioned, who were already dead. at the hands of Christians.

What this doesn’t change is that you’re still the minority party. Suck on that hard candy
Ooooooh, I be cryin! In the meantime, the “majority” party sure doesn’t seem to be able to get those meaningless Iraq resolutions passed. How frustrating that must be for you!
If I were a lesser man, I’d respond something along the lines of “Bush is still President so suck on that hard candy” but instead I gotta ask: “Suck on that hard candy? WHAT THE HECK IS THAT!?? That’s kinda lame dude, come up with something cooler next time.

Question:
If Amanda’s past posts weren’t so bad, then why is she frantically trying to erase them?
lol.

“Questions: … If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react?”
Well, if they were right wing BushApologists, they would look the other way, as evidenced by the ridiculous comments here.
“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.”
Gee, that’s kinda like saying that there are no cigarette butts in the sidewalk cracks unless you can go scrape some up for me to look at.
That said, would you consider the following “hate speech”?:
Michael Savage, when he told a gay caller to “get AIDS and die, you pig.”?
Ann Coulter, when she said “Timothy McVeigh should have bombed The New York Times building”
Glenn Beck, when he said “I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out–is this wrong?”
There’s lots more, but all the wingers here knew that, so what is the point?
I know, I know, it’s just humor when right wingers talk about killing people and condemning them to death. Delightful banter and all.
Har Har

This title is disingenuous to say the least. John Edwards hired a blogger. He did not endorse everything she has ever said. When someone consents to be a Vice Presidential candidate, it’s understood that s/he will go along with the Presidential candidate on areas where they disagree.
Furthermore, if anyone spends ten minutes reading any of the right-wing blogs, you’ll find speech much more “hateful” than the quotes provided.

McStubbins, let me know when you come back to Planet Reality.
The MSM is biased towards liberals. They even admit it now. If you can’t even grasp this simple fact, then no wonder you are on the Left.
Meanwhile, keep amusing the rest of us.

desperately trying to edit many of her past posts (proven with screencaps of Google cache),
Golly! Nobody could ever edit a ‘screencap’ in Photoshop or something. That’s unpossible!

“Golly! Nobody could ever edit a ‘screencap’ in Photoshop or something. That’s unpossible!”
It’s Rove’s fault isn’t it? I know wooby, you can tell me!

“You moron. Bush and 30%ers can blow me. How’s that? Cool enough for you?
Now you can go on with your pathetic minority status…”
If you’re in the majority pal, the minority suits me just fine.
My pity for your fellow majority members.

“The MSM is biased towards liberals. They even admit it now.”
Source please.

How could anyone possibly begin an entry about a woman’s blogging without using the word, “strident”?
Is it fun being owned by the Republican far-right?

Gooby:
“Golly! Nobody could ever edit a ‘screencap’ in Photoshop or something. That’s unpossible!”
That’s just it – there was editing being performed – the author’s own.

“That’s just it – there was editing being performed – the author’s own. ”
She edited someone else’s screencaps? She must be magical.
She’s a witch! Burn her!

Wolfy, why so much aggression?
Posted by: shark
Shark. It’s not aggression. I enjoy oral sex. Now eat me.

Ms. Marcotte’s comments on other people’s faith could only be considered as hate speech by someone who is already predisposed to react viscerally to anything challenging those faiths from a logical perspective. For these people, it’s OK to abdicate the ability and the brain that ‘god’ gave them in favor of the seemingly insane precepts that are being spoonfed to them by the leaders, who have the most to gain from the intellectual laziness of their flock.
On the Catholic teachings on birth control: She doesn’t need to Trash Islam, the right-wing hate mongers are doing a fine job.
On the Duke rape case: Are you objecting to the work “fuck”? It’s just a word. What have you got to be afraid of?
On Republican voters: Truth hurts doesn’t it?
On Christian supporters of Israel: From my Christian past I know these sentiments to be true and taught openly in the churches. Who are you trying to kid?
On NASCAR: It’s an abomination anyway and to be politicized? Yikes.
On the Crucifiction…: Why is it that the right-hand side of the isle has suddenly developed a childish hands-off attitude regarding their “sacred cows” It’s OK for you to tell someone that because they are different, that they are bound for an eternity of suffering which is another way of saying…”you aren’t as good as me” If, however, I were to analyze your religion with thought, and logic…you quickly attack with the “don’t disparage other people’s faith” weapon. Just like when I disagree with your pro-war policies, I’m no longer a patriotic citizen. You really should listen to yourselves sometime.
So, do these views somehow sully John Edwards? You ask if a Republican candidate teamed up with a blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how people would react? You tell me, because the Republicans did it first. The Swiftboat Liars for Peace did their hatchet job on John Kerry. How is that working out for you, Mr. Moran? The right-wing talkers have virtually dominated the air-waves and they spew lies and hatred all day long. So it seems if anyone is in a position to know the answers to those questions, it would be someone like you

How about dinner sharky?

Lets have fun with wordswitchery!
Limbaugh’s comments on liberal politics could only be considered as hate speech by someone who is already predisposed to react viscerally to anything challenging those politics from a logical perspective. For these people, it’s OK to abdicate the ability and the brain that ‘god’ gave them in favor of the seemingly insane precepts that are being spoonfed to them by their leaders, who have the most to gain from the intellectual laziness of their partymembers.”
YEAH! That’s the ticket!

“… most of these angry Euro-Marxist types are as miserable in their heads as they appear on paper. They play aloof, but are filled with a great deal of unfulfilled rage and self doubt.”
more mindreading?
what the fnck is it with all the wingnuts who think they’re Kreskin?

The rank hyposcrisy of a statement that says the left trades in hate speech when your own brother travels in a circle that routinely condones torture, detention, eliminationist rhetoric and racism boggles my mind.
Shame on you. If you feel the need to pimp your brother’s blog, do so after you resign your postion at ABC.
I have seen the radical jerk to the right that your network has taken in the last 5 years and for you to hold your brother and his fellow travelers, i.e. Malkin, Patterico, et al up as defenders of civility, is an astounding display of disconnect to the truth. Who exactly is part of the tub-thumping hate merchant? Your brother, that’s who.
You people disgust me and I would like to know how you square your rhetoric with the facts.
You obviously haven’t read any lefty sites. Or maybe you just don’t read your brother’s and merely shill for him.
Either way, I think you are blind in your loyalty and intellectually dishonest. Not very admirable traits for a “journalist”.
Heh.

Gee, I’m sorry Wolfy. Your advances got me all flustered!
This interweb is all new to me and stuff, tee hee!

Cleek,
19 – surfer, long hair, pissed off, wayward, broke, addicted, unfulfilled – voted for Nader/LaDuke as an ardent leftist.
29 – surfer, long hair, happy, rather wealthy, clean, married to a hottie, good job – didn’t vote.
Who knows, when I hit 39 I’ll probably go bald or cut my hair and really dig in and vote Mark Steyn.

After I red the introduction I was ready for some red meat in the qoutes… and found none. O.K. the only one that rose an eyebrow was the one about Mary and Plan B, and that was the result of the Cathololics bizarre fixation on birth control. All the others was nothing special. It highlighted the hypocrisy of the public pious, they do horrible deeds and think the image of virtue makes up for that, luckily not all christians are like that, but the problem is that the bad apples capture all the attention. Also does the author see no problem with rape? The quote was strongly against rape, but the author seems to have a problem with it.

“Good for you wooby, your boogyman is no more!”
Sorry to disappoint you, chum, but he was never my boogyman.

Jo, you said the media have even admitted to having a liberal bias, I asked for sources. Crickets so far…
Evan Thomas, Asst. Newsweek Editor:
“Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards – I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox – but they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all. There’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points”
Hows that? And do I need mention Dan Rather?

The internet left is a very deeply hateful group of people that don’t know how to argue like an adult.
Posted by: rds
You’re obviously new to the tubes too.

JournalismJobs.com: Why have conservative media outlets like The Weekly Standard and Fox News Channel become more popular in the past few years?
Matt Labash: Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it’s true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We’ve created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It’s a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It’s a great little racket. I’m glad we found it actually.
Matt Labash works for the Weekly Standard.
http://www.journalismjobs.com/matt_labash.cfm

“didn’t vote”
Posted by: An Atheist
Hmmm… and you expect to be taken seriously???

McStubbins, I guess you missed the study done by some liberal profs at (was it USC or UCLA) who even surprised themselves when they conducted a media research study that found out something like 80% of the media was biased towards the dems.
And not to mention Evan Thomas of Newsweek who back in 2004 admitted that the media was for Kerry and that their positive coverage of him should give him at least a 15 point boost in the polls.
And then even Walter Cronkite not long ago admitted to Larry King that of course the media was biased.
Now you were saying? Lol.
Question: Do you live in a cave?
Next.

Evan Thomas?! Hah! Another center-right useful tool that the far right like to portray as “liberal” (see also Joe Klein). Evan Thomas is currently sucking John McCain’s nutsack. Sorry, my quotes from the architect of the ‘work the ref’ philosophy carry a weeee bit more weight.

Way to do your stupid brother’s bidding, asswipe.

What was Edwards thinking when he hired these two in the first place? Anyone who reads their blogs from time to time, which I do, will quickly realize that this type of rhetoric is *all* they bring to the table. There’s nothing particularly thoughtful to any of their interpretations of political or social issues.
If Edwards was looking for a liberal blogger of substance, he would have been a lot wiser to invite someone in the mold of Matt Yglesias or Christy Hardin Smith, rather than a low-functioning idealogue like Marcotte.

Permanent, pervasive media

U.S. presidential candidate John Edwards has reportedly fired Amanda Marcotte, the controversial blogger he hired to run his campaign blog. Marcotte is part of Pandagon.com, a blog that voices opinions that some people find offensive.
So heres o…

More from the truth files:
“Leading the charge against Marcotte — and to a lesser extent McEwan — have been bloggers like the National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez and Michelle Malkin. Malkin originally accused Marcotte of trying to scrub Pandagon’s archives of material that could be embarrassing to the Edwards campaign. When that proved untrue, Malkin posted a correction, but said that the fact that she had been wrong was “even worse for the Edwards campaign” because “its blogmaster left crackpot posts like that one up and hired her anyway.”
Malkin, it should be noted, is hardly innocent of being involved with what ABC News’ Terry Moran termed “hate speech” when applied to Marcotte. Malkin has long maintained ties to VDARE, a Web site tagged as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center that has published works by people like Jared Taylor, one of America’s leading white supremacists, and Sam Francis, who was fired by the conservative Washington Times for his own white supremacist remarks, given at a conference held by Taylor’s organization. The liberal press watchdog Media Matters has also noted Donohue’s long list of controversial statements.”

Correction:
What’s next? Claiming David Gregory is a shill for the REPUBLICAN party. Sorry, I’ve been laughing so much at McStubbins that I messed up.

Oh, the UCLA study done by two former members of right-wing think-tanks AEI, Heritage Foundation and Hoover Institution? The UCLA study that ranked bias by some odd relationship between a Congressman’s approval of a think thank, and the media’s reporting about that think tank? The UCLA study that ranked the ACLU more conservative than the RAND Corporation and the NRA? The UCLA study that sources Brent Bozell and WorldNet Daily? The UCLA study that virtually no one cites anymore because it became quite clear very early on that the methodology was inherently flawed?
Yeah I think I’ve heard of that.
Next.

Just a touch quicker. :)
Posted by: An Atheist
I gotta say, you are pretty quick for a stoner.

The “Catholic League” is a pro-Republican Party political organization, funded in part by groups such as the William E. Simon Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and the John M. Olin Foundation.
They are not funded nor recognized in any official capacity by the actual Catholic Church.
The Catholic League is a Republican Party organization that receives money from other Republican Party organizations solely for the purpose of advancing Republican Party political goals.
Is this partisan Republican Party political activist group and their Republican Party activist spokesman allowed to make statements about Democratic Party presidential candidates in unbiased news media without attribution as such?

McStubbins? McStubbins?
(crickets chirping)
Next up on the agenda for McStubbins: telling us how college universities and their professors are hotbeds of radical rightwing activism.
Bwahahahahahahah…you guys are funny.
McStubbins how is the weather at Disneyland today?

‘News’ Whores like Terry Moran and the rest of the US Corporate Media ought to be brought to justice with plenty of rope, tar, feathers.
Sick of the Horse ****! Where is Osama? Where is the Anthrax Terrorist Dr. Philip Zack? Where is the Democracy in Iraq, USA?

“The right wingers are the most hypocritical bunch of people I have ever seen in my life. they can spew any garbage they want on their blogs and over the airwaves, but the left isn’t allowed to respond. And if they do they are the ones who are damned, not the people who made the horrible comments in the first place.
Posted by: Susan”
SILENCE SUSAN! YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO RESPOND TO OUR MEDIA HEGEMONY!
Woe unto thee, misbehaver!

Again, conservatives as a whole left ABC long long ago.
You see how this proves our point about their bias? Let me say this slowly. Libs JUST NOW wanting to boycott ABC. Conservatives boycotted LONG AGO. Get it? Get it? Was that simple enough for you?
The word dense comes to mind when talking with the leftwingers. lol.

Yes yes just becaue a blogger he’s hired has said some controversial things John Edwards Condone Hate Speech.
By your logic since Cheney both works for Bush and he shot someone Bush must Condone shooting old republicans in the face.

Left and Right, can’t we all agree on 1 thing:
That John Edwards sure has some great looking hair, doesn’t he?

Wolfy – I’m outta here – it’s quitting time. You’re a good bloke. Take good care.
- cheers mate

But it sure seems radical and cool.
Posted by: An Atheist
“Cool,” like a “wealthy” “surfer” huh?
Yeah, that’s it!

I take this to mean you disavow all your brother’s hate speech then, Terry?
Or is it just certain hate speech that is too terrible?

John Edwards sure has some great looking hair…
Posted by: shark
Indeed. Still up for dinner?

Also, I’m getting so very tired of the sanctimonious pearl-clutching every time someone uses an expletive in a blog. We’re all adults, we’re not living in a perpetual episode of Leave It To Beaver. Get over it.

This is disgusting. At first I was ready to dismiss you as just another right-leaning hypocrite. Then I saw you’re actually affiliated with *news*?
Of course, you’re a good Christian boy, right Terry? Which is why when I click through to the home page of your programme, the first thing I see is a picture of a porn star …

I’ll remember that this is all hate speech the next time Coulter decides to advocate the invasion of entire countries, the execution of their leaders and the forced conversion of their people.
I’ll remember that this is hate speech when Limbaugh decides to openly mock someone with a debilitating disease.
I’ll remember that this is hate speech when the next time Michael Savage decides tell gay people they should get AIDS and die.
I’ll remember that this is hate speech when OReilly decides to show his psychological expertise and blame a pre-teen for his own kidnapping and molestation.
I’ll remember that this is hate speech the next time Hannity tells me that I should stay home on election day because my vote doesn’t count anyway.
I believe you need to revise your idea of what hate speech is to include actual hate speech rather than observation and comment.

Let her talk her trash. Free speech lets you spot the idiots sooner.

clearly the corporate media has declared war on all things ‘democrat’. Well, ya know what, ABC and it’s right-wing viewpoint can go to hell for all I care.

None of this really has anything to do with free speech. Of course anyone can post whatever filth they want on their blogs. As far as I’m concerned, Amanda can F this and F that to her little heart’s content. Who cares?
What this is about is judgement on Edwards’ part. He has every right to hire Amanda to be his blogmaster. He also has every right to hire Bob Guccione to blog for him.

TYPICAL YELLOWBELLIES!
The gangrenous bloggers hired by Edwards can’t be the problem… nothing to see here… move along…. RIGHT?
How dare anyone become angered by these two tarts and their potty mouths!
These two tarts get caught farting in public and you leftwing yellowbellies try to blame the stink on the reaction to the smelly farts?
um…. G-O-N-G!
I say keep up the phat work painting yourselves into a corner with your feet stuck in your pie holes!

“ON THE CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ON BIRTH CONTROL:
Last year, Marcotte blasted the Catholic Church’s position on birth control: “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.” (Side note: Would there be a different reaction if John Edwards “blogmaster” had insulted Islam to this degree? Is it “okay” to trash Catholicism–but not Islam?)”
Why are you presuming that this woman isn’t Catholic? Speaking as a Catholic I too have issues with my church’s command that I never use birth control. As so 90% or so of the Catholics in the United States which use birth control.
So Sir, why is it not permissable for a person to question the church on their policies when so few people support those same policies?
Oh – or is it because the way she posed the question was crass?

I say keep up the phat work painting yourselves into a corner with your feet stuck in your pie holes!
Posted by: trax
Mmmm… I believe that’s what the republican party did last November eh?

When Amanda gets fired, and realizes she ain’t moving to North Carolina, she should be glad, right? Because after all, she formerly posted something about how North Carolina is full of white men who victimize and bully women, blah blah blah.
We’ll see if she reacts in a positive way to not having to move to this oppressive state for all women.
*snort*

Trax, you might have a point if the media had had the same reaction to McCain 2006 consultant/blogger Patrick Hynes (a paid staffer). Unfortunately it appears that despite Jo’s (unsourced) claims of liberal media bias, the media paid him no attention back in 2006.
It’s not the noticing, but the *selectivity* of the noticing that’s the question here. It’s only hate speech if you are on ABC’s hit list (or if your brother runs a right-wing blog).

“You have the right to speak freely but you also have the responsibility to accept the consequences, especially the political ones in Edwards case. Calling it hate speech is just as protected as what she said.”
The issue, really, is how Moran has framed the whole situation. He calls is hate speech, or uses the equally vapid “some say.” So who is this some say? Well, once you poke around, it turns out it’s nutterbutters like Kathryn Jean Lopez and Our Lady of the Concentration Camps, Michelle Malkin. So really, “some” don’t sat, but rabid right wing attack dogs “say.” And when you read her writing, Father Couglin or Goebbels Marcotte is not.
Second, Moran suggests that GOP and conservative politicians don’t benefit from the ministrations of vulgar, rabid, right wing bloggers. Which is a patent falsity. Some have been hired directly – look at who McCain has picked up – and others are funded through the same shadowy channels of far right Scaife et al. money.
The issue is not the objection – which is perfectly legitimate – its the wishy-washy and dishonest way that Moran frames it.
Particularly considering that is right-wing blogging brother has picked up on this story as well. Makes one think, huh…..

“The issue is not the objection – which is perfectly legitimate – its the wishy-washy and dishonest way that Moran frames it.”
Actually, the issue was Edwards judgement for hiring political liabilities but people like you rushed into turn this into Right vs Left with “Waaaaaaaaaaaah, they do it too, and worse!”
You’re tired and cranky. Go get a juicebox and take a nap

My God… what kind of drugs are you on? How could you even attempt to make a statement like: If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react” with a straight face.
Ummmmm… Rush had… probably still has a blog, and need I mention the follies created when some of Free Republics alumni have tried to move up/on to associations with more mainstream media and/or candidates? Get a grip sport… you’re embarassing ABC – actually I take that back. You’re embarassing yourself.

“Actually, the issue was Edwards judgement for hiring political liabilities but people like you rushed into turn this into Right vs Left with “Waaaaaaaaaaaah, they do it too, and worse!”"
I just had some juice, thanks very much.
I see you failed reading comprehension. I have no problem with you criticizing Edwards for hiring Marcotte – I think it was stupid as well, precisely because he set himself up for the very reaction he is getting.
I was saying that the irritation by leftie folks like myself is that Terry Moran is acting like this is some sort of breaking news, that Edwards is unique in hiring questionable folks to work for him, and that he frames the issue as if Marcotte’s speech is really hateful, leaning on that pussified crutch of “some say,” a favorite right-wing spin tactic.

Gee, I miss the good ole days before Fox News and bloggers exposed things that we democrats & liberals use to get away with.
Sigh.

Sigh… just another sad example of how ABC News has become Fox News lite, trying to sell itself as conservative (“really, we’re as right-wing as FOX, we are!”). Republicans have SECRETLY surrounded themselves with these kinds of bloggers for years and no one cared to report it then. Yet a Democrat openly hires a blogger who doesn’t like Republicans or the positions of the church and you’d think ABC had found those missing WMDs or something. It’s not like these guys are hiding anything. I smell someone stirring up politics, not news.

Big Red, I know! And when Guiliani hired Savage as his paid consultant and spokesperson I was APPALLED.
Oh wait….
Geeeze, you guys are so lame.

Awwww… these poor little ladies are shown as the village idiots and people want to blog about WHY they’re getting this reaction?
LMFAO… G-O-N-G!
Notice WHO doesn’t want to talk about what these two scrubs have posted on this thingy called the blogosphere? WHY should we dissect the REACTION instead of THE STORY?
Deflecting it and pointing at the REACTION while holding your nose is knee-slappin funny.. and typical of the leftwing yellowbellies.
The bottom line is that this stinky poo was hired by Edwards. Claim the stink and cover it with kitty litter… don’t try to kick the poo toward others or it will end up all over your shoe and release a fresh wave of stink in the air.. adding to that global warming problem no doubt! ; )

I say that Edwards & his wife should let Amanda (or the Edwards themselves) read these old posts to their kids. Sorta like bedtime stories.
Posted by: Jo
I say you just further proved to everyone present that you’re an idiot. I suppose, for kicks, you read articles from your favorite porn mag to your children, “sorta like bedtime stories.”
“Walter Cronkite not long ago admitted”… Now there’s a laugh out loud for real. Say something else. You’re really pretty amusing.

Jon Tones -
Are you high?

Are you going to uncover racial speech in rap music next?
This article exposes the media’s complete ignorance to the workings of the modern world. If you use Edwards as an example you have obviously been in a cave, on the moon, with your fingers in your ears for at least a decade. The last election was a lesson on many things, but all you need to do is look at how the pundits on the right, and their use of race, sex, ignorance, fear, etc. etc. to prey on the worst parts of the American psyche. The desperate need to show “both sides” by blaming both the left and the right is getting disgusting, look at Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and tell me that this is an equal issue.

Some crazy hypocrisy on both sides of this issue.

Wolfy, uh, I wouldn’t hire people who write porn material to be a part of my campaign.
Ouch, you just made a total fool of yourself with that idiotic “point.” LOL.
And BigRed still doesn’t seem to grasp the fact that Savage, etc. were NOT hired by a republican candidate.
You guys stay on the left. Conservative logic would go right over your heads.
Even McStubbins admitted defeat. It’s time you do.

Read Before Hiring

The blogging woes of two Liberal bloggers have made the news bigtime as they, having been hired by John Edwards, have let loose with some very anti-Catholic and offensive screeds, a couple of which are here. They appear to be anti-Christian and Jew to…

“Even McStubbins admitted defeat. It’s time you do.”
Jesus Jo, it’s a wonder you can even operate a keyboard. Reading comprehension is clearly not your strong suit. I merely gave up screaming at a potted plant.
Man, while I also disagree with Shark, he/she (sorry Shark, dunno) at least is intelligent, seems to understand the concept of reasoning and is able to use humor effectively. You’re just an idiot (and therefore an effective Republican foot-soldier).

And by Jo’s logic, Dick Cheney should tuck in his grandchildren with a peck on the forehead and a “Go fuck yourself.”
Warms my heart…

For starters: Calls for violent acts from right-wing bloggers…
Misha of The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler on the Supreme Court: “Five ropes, five robes, five trees. Some assembly required.” [7/11/06]
Megan McCardle (who uses the pseudonym Jane Galt) on anti-war demonstrators in New York City: “I think some in New York are going to laugh even harder when they try to unleash some civil disobedience, Lenin style, and some New Yorker who understands the horrors of war all too well picks up a two-by-four and teaches them how very effective violence can be when it’s applied in a firm, pre-emptive manner.” [2/13/03]
Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit: “Civilized societies have found it harder, though, to beat the barbarians without killing all, or nearly all, of them. Were it really to become all-out war of the sort that Osama [bin Laden] and his ilk want, the likely result would be genocide — unavoidable, and provoked, perhaps, but genocide nonetheless, akin to what Rome did to Carthage, or to what Americans did to American Indians. That’s what happens when two societies can’t live together, and the weaker one won’t stop fighting — especially when the weaker one targets the civilians and children of the stronger. This is why I think it’s important to pursue a vigorous military strategy now. Because if we don’t, the military strategy we’ll have to follow in five or ten years will be light-years beyond ‘vigorous.’ ” [11/19/02]
Denny K of The Flying Monkey-Right Blog in reaction to the Rumsfeld-Cheney photos: “Let’s start with the following New York Times reporters and editors: Arthur ‘Pinch’ Sulzberger Jr., Bill Keller, Eric Lichtblau, and James Risen. Do you have an idea where they live? Go hunt them down and do America a favor. Get their photo, street address, where their kids go to school, anything you can dig up, and send it to the link above. This is your chance to be famous — grab for the golden ring.” [7/02/06]

“You guys stay on the left. Conservative logic would go right over your heads.”
There is no such thing as “conservative” logic, or “liberal” logic for that matter.
There is logic and there is sophistry.
The new breed of conservatives are masters of sophistry; the old guard were, once, pretty good at logic. Too bad the bedwetters of the modern right scorn them so.

“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.”
Marcotte has now been fire [bye-bye]. And yes, its hillarious that someone hired to do net ops for Edwards would not know that deleting her prior bigoted posts would be pointless. What an idiot.
Speaking of…. its also funny how many Lefties here have dodged the question of Marcotte’s bigotry. Really wish you guys would “speak truth to power” to Islam. Hypocrites.

“I know. When Cheney wrote all that hateful anti Christian, anti everything, profanity laced commentary for everyone to see on his personal blog I was APPALLED.
Oh wait.
You guys are STILL lame. And McStubbins you are weak even for a lib.
BTW, my favorite Edwards misstep was when the continual Walmart bashing Edwards had his assistant call top dogs at Walmart to use his influence to get his kiddies an MP3 (or whatever it was everyone was campaing out for) around Christmas. Walmart called him out on it with a embarrassing (to Edwards) press release. Saying he should wait in line like EVERYONE ELSE.
Bwahahahahahahah…..God bless Fox News & the rightwing blogs for exposing the Left every single day.”
See? Sophistry in action. Gorgias and Thrasymachus would be proud.

Are you freaking kidding me? So insulting the entire Catholic Church and Christians (roughly 80% of the US) is OK, but if I use the N-word offending (primarily) the black race which is a minority of the population that is hate speech? Many of these people responding to this article are idiots….I do agree free speech is free speech but that should mean EVERYTHING that does not cause physical harm, even if it offends those in the majority or minority should be OK. But you can’t pick and chose.

“Are you freaking kidding me? So insulting the entire Catholic Church and Christians (roughly 80% of the US) is OK, but if I use the N-word offending (primarily) the black race which is a minority of the population that is hate speech? Many of these people responding to this article are idiots….I do agree free speech is free speech but that should mean EVERYTHING that does not cause physical harm, even if it offends those in the majority or minority should be OK. But you can’t pick and chose.”
Being Christian or Catholic is – or should be – a choice. Being black isn’t. Incidentally, the most virulent hateful rhetoric about Catholics in this country comes from the right, not the left. Go ask yr pal Dobson what he really thinks about the Pope (anti-christ) and about Catholics (pagan heretics).
“Then how come Edwards jsut fired her? Is Edwards so weak-willed that a little “propaganda” from ABC makes him flip-flop? I’d hate to see him react to terrorism. If you think this was all propaganda, then you’ve got to dump Edwards for being such a wimp.”
That is exactly why he fired her. He is a wimp. That is the problem with Democrats. With a few notable exceptions, the “mainstream” ones are pussies. And I am lefty saying this.

He should have stuck by her like Bush stuck by Harriet Miers.

Here’s a direct quote from Amanda’s lovely little blog…
“I’m a hot, moist, inviting twat. Warm, wet, inviting.”
Edwaqrds should put it on a bumpersticker, don’t you think?

I’llbe anxiously awaiting Mr. Moran’s investigation into the bloggers for the Republican candidates.
I’ll even point him in the right direction…….start with John McCain’s blogger.
Get back to me with what you find…..and what you havent heard in the mainstream media about him.

a lot of money has been raised with weblogs. this is a really lame effort to put the kabosh on it.
it’s really as simple as that. Campaigns are suddenly being taken to task for everything their employees say? when did that happen? when it looked like it could do some damage.
much ado about nothing.

Wow–ABC must be loving this (it’s probably generated more comments than anything in several months). Terry, I hope you’re paying attention to who is lowering the level of discourse here. I am a conservative who is amused that you had the guts to mainstream the facts about Marcotte’s writing and ask relevant quesetions, only be eviscerated by the Left (not so amusing). Hopefully you already know that conservatives tend to be a bit more genteel in our arguments, not to mention a bit more reasoned. I must confess that of the reams I have read and heard by Limbaugh and Coulter, nothing–nothing compares to the hatred and intolerance demonstrated by Edwards’ ex-blogmaster. The only comparison I might draw is if McCain hired David Duke to head up online campaign operations. Not only would he have had to backtrack, McCain would be bounced out of the party (as Duke was years ago). It’s interesting to note that the Democrats will clean their house on neither account.

Dear Sorkin [since I know your "Studio 60" interns lurk here],
I’d like to thank you for your “courageous” attacks on Christians in your new show. Its so “brave” of you to speak truth to power – because those pesky Evangelicals are SO much more dangerous than radical Islam.
I would only ask that you hire Amanda Marcotte to your writing staff. She’s found a few bigoted jokes that you may have missed, and is currently unemployed.

Heidi. I spend a lot of time at liberal and conservative blogs. And it’s funny that there are those on both sides who always play the “Who me?” card, arguing that their side is immune from cursing, insults and logical fallacies, when in truth both sides employ such non-productive means to pretty much equal measure. I will admit to some of the same (see my responses to Jo above), but I only poke back when prodded by idiots.
You really need to look around, keep an open mind, and you will see that conservatives are not “more genteel” in their arguments (hell, just look in this thread), nor are they more reasoned. And if you really think that Limbaugh, Coulter et al are more demure than the blogger in question… then you really aren’t paying attention.
Liberals and conservatives alike can be stupid assholes, no one has the corner on that market…

“liberal journalists are trained as journalists, make their living in the world of journalism, and at the very least aspire to objectivity. They all know that that objectivity is an impossible ideal, but they aspire to it nonetheless.”
Oh thats funny. They aspire..
I guess that why CNN deliberately covered up Saddam’s rape rooms and torture chambers.
I guess thats why CBS and Mary Mapes deliebrately & knowingly used forged docs to attack the President.
I guess thats why NBC employs a greenpeace acvtivist who hates the troops and credits him as a “military analyst”.
I guess thats why AP uses fake attribs as sources in Baghdad.
I guess thats why Reuters photoshops pics to make Isreal look worse.
They are striving to be objective. Ha. please PLEASE stop. You’re killing me.

Hi Mary-
Yet another statement with no links or quotes. Have you got proof of your statement? Put up or shut up.

Hey Terry! Nice plagarism from rightwing blogs. I’m glad ABC’s “journalists” have such high standards.

She needs to take her hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit back to Pandagon, unless Edwards hired her in a calculated attempt to show his disdain and contempt for the Catholic Church.
However, I’m not sure running against Catholicism per se is such a good idea; they’re 24% of the population and few of the rest of the 76% of us really care that much about them, let alone loathe them to such a degree we’d vote for Edwards just to spite them.
As a political strategy it is puzzling to say the least. In Britain 200 years ago there was a genuine anti-Catholic constituency convinced that “Papists” would undermine the authority of the Crown, but in modern America? Edwards’ move has me baffled; what does he stand to gain from this?

Oh, gee, terry, you’re a biased moron.
p.s. why do you always look like a panting puppy sucking up to your owner when you report from the WH?

Ed, I wonder if you were as worried about “journalistic standards” when CBS was forging documents on Bush.
Somehow I don’t think so.

McCain’s campaign manager?
The guy who gave us this ad-
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cWkrwENN5CQ

The smarter ones among us realize this is not a “gift” to the rightwing. It’s merely a gift to Hillary & Obama. You know, the ones the media has decided to support.
Wise up. Terry & the MSM are still on your side. Only an idiot wouldn’t see this.

italics off
?

George Washington, calling conservatives silly is rather silly in itself considering we’re talking about the hilarious silly and ridiculous posts of the subject at hand. You know, Amanda.
Get a clue.

I’ll ask you the same question, Mr. Moron: Do you condone hate speech? It’s apparent you don’t believe in balanced journalism, or you would have mentioned the years of venom being spewed from the right from the likes of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, et al.
And where were you when your new colleague Glenn Beck was using the word “faggot” with impunity? What do you think about the word “faggot,” Mr. Moron? Should ABS hire someone who believes that “faggot” is nothing more than a naughty word?
Do you read these comments, Mr. Moron? If so, please respond.

Henry-
Gee, it sounds to me like Terry Moran managed to dig up some dirt on Ford.
However, I missed the part where he foamed at the mouth, condemned entire religions, and spewed a hot stream of sewage on his blog. Care to point me in that direction? Thanks, I’ll be waiting.

Obviously you are a conservative who supports Bush no matter what. Well, people like you & your brother have left liberals like me marginalized & disenfranchised by society. If I had a choice I would take Andrea & Melissa over you & your brother. You are both part of the elite of society & it gives you a lot of entitlements & foments an elitist view of society the way Bush feels. I support liberal bloggers like Crooks & Liars & Americablog because they are honest & you & your conservative friends are not.

Mark-
Ah, yes, the poor, marginalized left. Maybe we can take up a collection for Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, Susan and Tim Sarandon, George Clooney, et al.
The poor, marginalized left! Horrors!

“Oh thats funny. They aspire..
I guess that why CNN deliberately covered up Saddam’s rape rooms and torture chambers.”
Uh, actually it was the liberal media – and more specifically, left wing news sources like the Nation and the Guardian UK that broke this news back in the 1980′s when Saddam was shaking hands with Rummy and knockin back a few with Alexander Haig while they pored over CIA satellite images to coordinate poison gas attacks on Iranian troops. Back then the news was inconvenient. My how the stupid forget….
“I guess thats why CBS and Mary Mapes deliebrately & knowingly used forged docs to attack the President.”
Are you talking about the controversy over the President’s *cough* “service” *cough*? The fake documents were a right wing disinformation plant job – this has been well documented. CBS f*&ked up – and people got fired. Its called accountability, something not seen among the rightwing blowhards, no matter how often they are wrong, which is about 97% of the time. See below:
“I guess thats why NBC employs a greenpeace acvtivist who hates the troops and credits him as a “military analyst”.”
Whose this? I have no idea who you are talking about? William Arkin? You mean yet another manufactured controversy that is all smoke, and no fire? And even if he is a greenpeace activist, so what? Bill Kristol is on Fox News all the time, and he openly advocates fascism. L. Brent Bozell is consulted as an “expert” all the time, while lacking expertise in anything other than being a total ass.
“I guess thats why AP uses fake attribs as sources in Baghdad.”
You mean the guy who actually really does exist? Spectacular! What a stunning example. Watch how Michelle Malkin, wrong as usual, and this time so wrong that the man faces torture in prison, escapes any culpability for her idiocy through verbal gymnastics blaming others for her f*&kups. And there will be no repercussions because her bosses, Scaife and co., want her to do exactly this: muddy the waters.
“I guess thats why Reuters photoshops pics to make Isreal look worse.”
First, he was a local freelancer. Second, are you telling me that Reuters, the f*&king newsticker for the Wall Street establishment, is flamingly librul? Third, he was fired, the pictures withdrawn, and apology issued. When is Bill o’Reilly going to apologize for his multiple lies and broken promises? When is Fred Kagan going to stop talking and save the world from his idiocy? When is Ann Coulter going to jail for election fraud (soon one hopes!)? When… etc.
“They are striving to be objective. Ha. please PLEASE stop. You’re killing me.”
You named .01% of working journalists. Most of them – far from the glamor of war zones and Washington bureaus – strive hard to report the news. They do a simple job, day in, day out. If you are ever interested in what these means, read some of the bios of the old guard, folks like Studs Turkel or Bill Moyers (yes, they are both lefties, but they nonetheless describe in brilliant detail what working a news desk is like).

“NOTHING Limbaugh, Coulter, or Malking have said COMPARES to what Marcotte said (it also, incidentally, doesn’t compare to what libs who write to them say)”
Limbaugh made fun of someone with a hereditary disease which he cannot control, blatantly lied about it, lied about apologizing, etc etc.
Coulter has advocated illegal invasions, forcible conversions, domestic terrorism, said widows enjoy their dead husbands, and routinely wishes death upon her enemies.
Malkin has advocated putting people in concentration camps, and has put the life of an Iraqi police captain at risk to avoid admitting she was wrong.
Michael Savage has wished that all gays would get AIDS and die; he has advocated nuking Middle Eastern countries.
But I personally think violence and advocating violence is far more reprehensible than Marcotte’s ribald and tasteless jokes. That puts her in the same territory as the Penthouse forum or South Park; many of the right’s commentators more closely resemble Goebbels.

“You mean the guy who actually really does exist? Spectacular! What a stunning example. Watch how Michelle Malkin, wrong as usual, and this time so wrong that the man faces torture in prison, escapes any culpability for her idiocy through verbal gymnastics blaming others for her f*&kups. And there will be no repercussions because her bosses, Scaife and co., want her to do exactly this: muddy the waters.”
Ironically, Jamil Hussein does not exist. The guy the AP claims was him was not named Jamil Hussein.
He ALSO states he did not ever speak to them.
He ALSO is not under any criminal probe in Iraq.
And the burnt mosques are still standing.
Your point..?
“Limbaugh made fun of someone with a hereditary disease which he cannot control, blatantly lied about it, lied about apologizing, etc etc.”
This is when an actual citation is useful. “Your word” is of precious little value.
“Coulter has advocated illegal invasions, forcible conversions, domestic terrorism, said widows enjoy their dead husbands, and routinely wishes death upon her enemies.”
“illegal invasions”? On what grounds are they “illegal”? And “forced conversions”? Yes, detestable, but they are the norm over there AS IT IS, but it’s just S.O.P. As for the widows, she said the four women in particular did so. Not all widows and your points are killed by your habit of dramatically overstating the facts. I can cite her ACTUAL quote. Can you? As for “routinely” wishing death, yeah, it’s bad. And, no, it’s not limited to her.
I was unaware that what the lowest common demoninator does is now considered to be justifiable behavior. I guess that whole holding people to a higher standard thing was only for the military and not, well, for yourself or those you agree with. Cute.
“Malkin has advocated putting people in concentration camps, and has put the life of an Iraqi police captain at risk to avoid admitting she was wrong.”
No, she did not. She stated why it happened and why it was justifiable. Not that it was a good thing. And, the Iraqi police captain has stated he never spoke to the AP, is not named Jamil Hussein, and is under no threat whatsoever.
“Michael Savage has wished that all gays would get AIDS and die; he has advocated nuking Middle Eastern countries.”
Savage is a moron. He’s the (fill in your standard Air America “personality”) of the right. But if what he said is so bad — why are you defending Amanda for doing it?
Seems disingenuous.
“But I personally think violence and advocating violence is far more reprehensible than Marcotte’s ribald and tasteless jokes.”
Coulter and Savage’s comments were ribald and tasteless jokes.
“That puts her in the same territory as the Penthouse forum or South Park; many of the right’s commentators more closely resemble Goebbels.”
He who cites the Nazis early on seldom has an actual argument to make.
-=Mike

what we have is a hatemonger saying Edwards hires hatemongers.
you really want to take his word for it? I don’t. It seems ABC does.

It amuses me how people pretend that who Edwards chooses or doesn’t choose to work with is impacting how they will vote in 08.
a) if thier vote is that easily altered frankly they where a lost cause to begin
b) lets be honest, no one commenting on this and few reading it are fence sitters. Without even having read the above we could all ape each other on what the other side will say. If you are republican it could be god himself running as Democrat against the Devil as republican (or vice versa depending on politics) and you would vote for the devil.
As someone way up there said, the poster above is doing nothing different then any other political commentators on both side use but we always have blinders on when its “our side” doing it. Ok for me, not ok for the “enemy”, whoever that may be.
Personally its two more years until the presidential election and I am going to continue to wait and see before allowing something as silly as a blogger decide my vote. But thats just me. Apparently in this day and age of us vs them, thats just crazy talk.
BTW: This column is a prime example on why political commentators do the way they do. Being reasonable is boring and rarely gathers attention, but being rude, obnoxious and generally disruptive does wonders for the page hit count. Do your really thing the coulters, Koz’es and Limbaughs of the world would act they way they do if it didn’t help make them lots of money? And all of you decrying it are the very ones that feed it.

Coming Soon To a John Edwards Press Conference Near You

I did not. Read. That woman’s blog…Miss Marcotte. Who could blame him? UPDATE: Now, that’s principles, baby!

Wow. This has turned into a real firestorm. It seems quite hypocritical to see Moran do this piece seeing as his own brother writes some pretty crazy stuff on his own blog. I checked it today and your brother said that Marcotte should be tarred and feathered. Hey Terry, does your family not only condone hate speech but practice it as well?

“It seems quite hypocritical to see Moran do this piece seeing as his own brother writes some pretty crazy stuff on his own blog.”
And the campaign that hires his brother should answer questions about it. I have no doubt you’d join the lynch mob if somebody hired Charles Johnson, even though nothing HE has said is actually even remotely hateful.
You should also cite these “pretty crazy” things.
“I checked it today and your brother said that Marcotte should be tarred and feathered. Hey Terry, does your family not only condone hate speech but practice it as well?”
I have ZERO problem with Amanda being taken down by the same process she has used many times herself on others. That’s life.
With freedom comes responsibility.
“I don’t think they’re hateful.
I don’t think they have anything to do with Edwards except a means of discrediting him.”
Care to reveal what you feel IS “hate speech”?
-=Mike

people say Kerry “insulted the troops” when he did nothing of the sort. he apologized for something he didn’t do.
Donohue and people like him are being given the luxury of context.
what has he done to deserve it?

mike, you are the custodian of your own standards and I am the custodian of my own.
I like to say my bit as you like to say yours. I don’t play one up games on message boards.
I think adults get to talk the way they like about what they like.
I don’t see hateful things. I see strongly worded opinions. you don’t? don’t invite ‘em over for dinner. I think this whole thing is REALLY weak.

You’re all a bunch of whiners and Terry Moran is an idiot. This is a trumped up attack from the right on two girls to take down Edwards early. You think what they said was so bad? Check out the scoop on McCain’s hired blogger PATRICK HYNES, and then pontificate.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/02/look-at-john-mccains-blogger.html

dave,
I read the Glenn Greenwald piece. It’s a bunch of tripe.
I’m a Catholic. My religion/morality/ethics informs my politics. They intersect. Glenn makes a disingenuous argument that they should not.
I profoundly disagree — politics involves how groups of people make decisions, and religion involves what decisions are correct for those groups of people to make.
Hence, there is a VERY LARGE intersection between religion/morality/ethics and politics.
So if, as Glenn claims (unclear on the veracity of this) that McCain has a spokesperson who dislikes Mormonism, and McCain embraces that position by either remaining mute or speaking his approval, then if I were a Mormon, I’d sure think twice about voting for McCain.
Now, Edwards has just had exactly this kind of wake-up moment. Either he can strongly disapprove, say nothing in hopes the problem will disappear, or endorse his new blogger’s positions. The two latter actions will certainly cause Catholics to look askance at Edwards.
Another thing: Glenn quotes quoters — he doesn’t appear to base the article you referenced on any first party sources. Just a synthesis of blogs, not of primary material. And his own material appears to be more of the name-calling kind — the words smear, filth, gutter, silly, …
And there’s a good reason why Kerry didn’t win the Catholic vote — someone can claim to be a good Catholic all they want, but Catholicism’s underpinnings are that a good Catholic acts both inwardly via faith and outwardly by visible works supporting that faith. Kerry was rated, and found wanting, by a large number of us for his works. It is OK in Catholicism to disagree with the Pope, but you better be able to articulate why in a way that shows you have an informed conscience. So, just as Glenn can point to the anti-war stance mentioned in the Catechism, so can I find a pro-war viewpoint there as well (the concept of Just War is spelled out in the Catechism as well); war is permitted to defend the innocent, but must be waged with regard for the innocent. Now, if Glenn can find justification in the Catechism for NOW’s position on abortion (which Kerry supports), I’ll be REALLY impressed.

So let me get this straight …
Someone criticizes a policy of the Catholic Church (and, as a Catholic, I saw it in no way offensive), makes an obviously sarcastic remark about the Duke rape case, and uses some foul words (and all from quotes taken out of context) … and that’s bad.
Yet Anne Coulter can advocate murdering Senators and Supreme Court judges, and gets time on national TV.
Malkin can suggest putting all Middle-Eastern people in the U.S. in camps, and she still gets air time.
Beck can spew not about a policy of Islam, but of the religion itself, and he gets a gig on Good Morning America?
Rush Limbaugh can mock a man with Parkinson’s, yet still gets millions?
Maybe it’s just me, but there seems to be a stunning double standard — Amanda uses harsh words, to be sure, but is that all this about? Profane sarcasm?!
Or is it okay to be hateful for real, just so long as you’re really nice about it?

What do Dinesh D’Souza, Brent Bozell III, Alan Keyes, Lawrence Kudrow, and Kate O’Beirne have in common?
If you said “They are all on the Board of Advisors for the Catholic League” you get a gold star.
So what do we know at this point?
1. Conservative claims that this is a hit being done by Hillary / Obama are wrong.
2. Liberal claims that this is a hit being done by the Republican Party are correct.
3. If Michael Moore was on the Board of Advisors and George Soros the chief financier of a group making accusations about a Republican candidate, you can bet your sweet patootie that the traditional press would have made mention of this fact.

Gee Terry,
Seeing how you’re a mouthpiece for a network which willfully broadcast lies concerning the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Why should we be surprised when you turn whore for the swift boating of Edwards?
Enjoy the money they pay you to regurgitate on command.

Does Terry Moran Condone Idiocy?
Why, yes… yes he does. And so does ABC, apparently, as evidenced both by Moran’s wingnut propaganda and the slanderous fiction called The Path to 9/11. Looks like they’re trying to outfox Faux News.

…Yet Anne Coulter can advocate murdering Senators and Supreme Court judges, and gets time on national TV…
Unless you can prove that Ann has a time machine, I suggest that you stop spreading another Internet myth.

COMMENT: 3. If Michael Moore was on the Board of Advisors and George Soros the chief financier of a group making accusations about a Republican candidate, you can bet your sweet patootie that the traditional press would have made mention of this fact.
RESPONSE: Soros called the Administration Nazis recently and there were barely a peep, so doesn’t that kind of destroy whatever point you had?

Get a life. You’ve just unmasked yourself as part of the right-wing nutosphere. Coulter is a sociopath.

um, none of that was hatespeech. It was (sometimes) profane ranting about some touchy issues. But to say “I abhor hateful social power” isn’t hatespeech.

I have yet to meet the evangelical Baptist who wasn’t a hopeless mental automaton. Give me an American Roman Catholic who thinks for him or herself any day! (Donohue would not fall into that class, either.)

Of course there is an inherent intellectual dishonesty in your post Moran. The only question is whether the dishonesty is intentional or a reflection of fundamental ignorance.
You lead with the politely phrased but obviously intentionally incendiary comment (I give you enough credit that you aren’t so ignorant that you are incapable of realizing at least that):
“It’s pretty strong stuff; her comments about other people’s faiths could well be construed as hate speech.”
The intellectual depravity of this single sentence and what you follow it with is breathtaking. You throw an emotional term “hate speech” in a way which clearly has inflammatory effect. You fail to acknowledge that as a journalist, your obligation is to unambiguously state “construed BY WHO” and then carefully examine whether such a claim is supported by facts. Finally, you disreputably evade that clear responsibility by falling back into the passive mode of using the question form to throw further inflammatory allegations.
Let’s make one thing clear: Accurately and pointedly characterizing the deluded BELIEFS of others, and particularly when those dangerously deluded mental deficients attempt to gain political power in a pluralistic society and impose their twisted beliefs on others, meets no legitimate definition of hate speech.
Furthermore, such pointed criticism is politically astute if it is a principled defense of upstanding values. Political power is legitimately gained by sharply defining the genuinely corrupt values of an opponent and forcing voters to declare whether they want to be seen as sharing those corrupted values.
Of course, one can also turn much of the same arguments about stunted intellect and vacuous inflammatory rhetoric against far too many supposedly progressive bloggers, perhaps including these two. Some of the comments you cite certainly are problematic. However, this has nothing to do with whether most of the cited comments are fair and aggressive political attacks against people who quite legitimately deserve it, but because some of them just plain lack intellectual substance or moral honesty. The important point is that, to all appearances, the difference is lost on you.
You and most of the blogosphere would do well to carefully read the criticism of both the psychotic religious AND smug liberal left Chris Hedges deftly lays out in “American Facism”. It is not surprising that both sides have found common ground in attacking the manifest wisdom of this work as you have done here.

Steve,
My first line was my taken on Glenn’s general writing style. As you’ll note, I shift to my own personal style in the paragraphs thereafter.
I voted for Bush. Twice. Knowing his record as Governor of Texas. He is not perfect, but he was far better than the opposition. How did I come to vote for someone whom you state is not deserving of the vote from someone of my stated faith? Answer: I built my own party platform, ranked the planks in importance, and compared the results with the stated opinions of the candidates. Bush won that shootout. He still does.
You list several items of interest, and I give you my positions; you can compare them with Bush’s:
a) I’m anti-abortion.
b) I’m anti-death penalty.
c) I’m pro-immigration.
d) I’m for helping the poor and disadvantaged.
e) I’m for the war.
f) I’m for barrier contraceptives, but against contraceptives that act to kill a fertilized egg (whether implanted or unimplanted), embryo, or fetus.
I think Bush does pretty good scoreboard-wise on the above list.
With regard to third party sources, it’s one thing to reference the opinions of the secondary source (which is what Glenn tends to do), and another thing to reference primary sources. What you are saying is that the bloggers and authors Glenn quotes are better than he is, because they base their analysis on primary sources. OK, I’ll take that…
About picking and choosing — that’s why I didn’t vote for Kerry; I view him as a picker and chooser. I offer as a thought the following: You know your god is a false god when it is everything you want it to be.

Here’s the Soros quote:
“The United States is now recognizing the errors it had made in Iraq, he said, adding, “To what extent it recognizes the mistake will determine its future.” Mr. Soros said Turkey and Japan were still hurt by a reluctance to admit to dark parts of their history, and contrasted that reluctance to Germany’s rejection of its Nazi-era past.
“America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany,” he said. “We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process.”
Notice that this isn’t “The Administration is Nazis” and that neither of those two things are the same thing as an organization funded by Soros with Michael Moore as Dinesh D’Souza (and now Rosie O’Donnel as Katie O’Beirne and Al Sharpton as Alan keyes, I think I’ll throw in David Brock as Brent Bozell III) sneaking in a political hit on a Republican presidential candidate.

Correction, I blended Turkey/Japan in with Germany. He was pointing out that Germany actually owned up to the horrors they had wreaked and rejected the ideology that led them there.

Hate speech? No, Ms. Marcotte’s words, although vile, poorly reasoned, and often just plain ignorant, are just speech. Just as the words of someone who opposses abortion, illegal immigration, gay marriage, or affirmative action, is not hate speech, it is just speech. Everyone should feel free to voice his or her ideas. However, they should also understand that people may not like what they say, and they will have to live with the consequences.

Your right Moron why don’t you report on “If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom”. I am sure such a fine reporter such as yourself could find at least 1 couldn’t you? How about St McCain’s for starters? You are a “fair and balanced journalist” aren’t you? Republicans are lined up at the door to be on Hannity,Rush, Malkin etc…etc… Maybe there is a story there eh?

The world of blogging is a world of unedited thinking-out-loud. I would no more hold someone’s character to the idiocies they mutter on/in a blog, then I would to the ravings I’ve heard in barrooms after last call. Terry Moran’s blog on this issue is a case in point. As a teevee talking head he’s used to saying things that make no sense with a straight face.
This “issue” and the noise being made around it has so many examples of the dum-dee-dum-dums of human behavior, it’s a wonder that we still know how to breath.

Hey Terry,
Have you listened to Fox News lately? How about Rush, Malkin and all the other right wing nuts? This seems pretty tame compared to those hate mongerers! Think I’ll start watching NBC.

All I have to add is somewhere, Ben Domemech is laughing at you all…

“Something I have learned-its hate speech if its a republican or conservative its free speech if its a democrat or liberal”
Shorter: “The Left doesn’t really believe in the things they lecture us about”
I’ve been lurking around the sites like this that are commenting on Marcotte – the pattern is that only a handful of lefty posters have denounced her bigotry without a disclaimer

Just the kind of mental masturbation I would expect from a shill for the Disney Corporation, one of the most bigoted-agenda conglomerates on the planet
Oh no, there’s no hate speech in the right wing blogosphere! Anymore than there is on right wing talk radio, which makes great profits for the Khristian Kaucasian Kooks at DisneyCo!
Pass the sick bag, Mickey!

Response to Squeaky McCrinkle:
Baptists are free thinkers and believe in free will. There is no church hierarchy to which they answer except to their local church. There is no authority in the church except that which is granted in the New Testament. I do not even have to belong to a Baptist church or any other church to be secure in my salvation.
There are cases in which a man’s or woman’s life becomes so depraved that the church can take action, but that is based on decision of the local church. In that case the church first seeks to work privately with the individual in hope of reconciliation. If that does not work, then eventually the case can be brought before the church body. In the end, if it comes to that, the church can take disciplinary action as a body. In today’s church that seldom is done.
On the other hand, I don’t’ need to go to a priest for confession and I don’t need to do something as silly as “Hail Marys”, praying to Mary, or being obsessed with unfounded ideas about patron saints. My salvation is based only on my personal relation to the Lord God Jesus Christ. It is in Him only I put my faith based on the scriptures and it is to him only that through prayer I confess my sins. There is no supernatural revelation from the Godhead apart from the 66 book of the Christian Bible.
As far as to what I base my belief on it is the 66 books of the Christian Bible, nothing more, nothing less. There is a strange thing about a group of believers who base their faith on the same tried and true book. They often think the same and come to the same conclusions because they are on they same page and because on their own they have come to the same conclusions.
There is nothing Christian regardless of sect for being a smart aleck jerk and using the mysterious individuals (Baptists) you have met to “prove” your point. I have been around for a long time and I have discovered when all these mysterious individuals are brought up to prove a point, there are no individuals and there is no point. It is simply a lie. My father taught me that a liar will do anything.
Let me borrow from the Book of Jude a principle regarding false accusations. In this case there is a verse which in principle contains “May the Lord rebuke you”. I’ll leave it at that because the Book of Proverbs teaches to not argue with a fool. It is a waste of time

The term “hate speech” is a pretext to constrain free speech. I agree that this person’s foul spewings are free speech, and support her right to spew them.
However, it’s also fair to attach them to Edwards in the same way that anthing Limbaugh, Coulter, et al had ever said would attach to any candidate who employed one of them in an official capacity.

“GO F**K YOURSELF”
-Vice President Richard Cheney.
Good thing he didn’t say that to a Catholic huh?

Re: feckless
I am not certain what this guy is trying to say.
Most of my employment has been dealing with men and woman of coarse background. I do not like to hear the language but it has become more prevailing in our society. I personally think its use is a sign of a person attempting to make up for weakness in some other area.
That being said, I know of men and women who can’t seem to complete a sentence without profanity, but when it comes to their business dealings they are as straight as an arrow, while on the other hand I on occasion find a person who never utters what anyone would consider inappropriate language, but they can not be trusted to turn your back on.
Regardless, it is refreshing to listen to a person who regardless of education or position never utters profanity or otherwise coarse language.
I think a lessen can be learned from the Christian Bible in the Book of Nehemiah. Nehemiah was charged with security for the City of Jerusalem the first task of which was to repair and rebuild the wall around the city. Also, essential to the security of the city and thus the nation was the stability of the family as well as a common language and righteous moral heritage. It did not matter what wall was built, Nehemiah knew if the family unit fell apart, communication was garbled, or there was a moral degradation of the generations the nation could not be secured.
Here is how the King James translation of the Christian Bible records what happened: “In those days also saw I Jews that had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: AND THEIR CHILDREN SPAKE HALF IN THE SPEECH OF ASHDOD, AND COULD NOT SPEAK IN THE JEWS’ LANGUAGE, BUT ACCORDING TO THE LANGUAGE OF EACH PEOPLE. And I contended with them, and CURSED them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, ‘Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves.’” (Neh. 23-25)
However a person might disagree with Nehemiah’s method, it was effective and there is no place on record where Yahweh (Jehovah) held him to account for his method or language. He was charged to do a job.
If I remember the Hebrew correctly I think the term “plucked off their hair” literally translates “made them bald”. I remember the quote from “Cool Hand Luke”: “What we have here is a failure to communicate.”
As far as Vice-President Cheney is concerned I am not necessarily a fan, but it would be hard to match his knowledge however correctly or incorrectly he might use it. We live in desperate times and that can warrant desperate measures. However I might disagree with the functioning of his family I do not doubt his love for them. Love can eventually solve a lot of problems.

Since when is bashing religion “bigoted”? No more bigoted than pushing a homophobic, anti-women agenda. Religion is the root of all evil, and people who wish to say so are protected by free speech– a Constitutional right we are losing every day due to the conservative wing-nuts who have set medical science back 50 years in the last 8, not to mention alienating us from the rest of the world due to these “high moral standards.”

What’s the problem?
How can someone call that hate speech?
What she wrote was totally true and even if it wasn’t, she should be able to write it without lame people getting upset and talking about hate speech. All Americans: give up your religion and relax!

Missy, you said it all, and you didn’t need to waste as many words as I and others here have.

MikeSC,
Hitler was Christian–at worst a lapsed Catholic–and you’re at best a liar and at worst an incredibly ignorant fool. Did your religion teach you that? Does it condone it? Educate thyself before thy mouth ignorantly shoots off again!

I find it hilarious that so many people from both sides of this issue have taken this woman’s blog posts so seriously.
It’s COMEDY, folks. It’s meant to be edgy and inappropriate.
Obviously most of you have never heard of Sarah Silverman? Another highly offensive woman who pushes the envelope of decorum and insults the maximum number of people in the commission of her art.
One of the basic fundamentals of blogging is the hook… In this case Marcotte gets her audience reading by shocking their sensibilities a bit. I see nothing wrong with it. It’s her schtick and she’s entitled to it. It’s no different from Coulter’s inflammatory language – it’s meant to hook the reader, not to be taken literally!
The whole response to this has made several things very clear: the Left takes itself way too seriously, and the Right (pathetically) will say anything to try to regain its lost mantle of moral superiority.

“I see all the liberals accusing conservatives of hate rhetoric and yet I see no specific examples. Naming pundits does not count as providing examples. Please provide specific instances with quotations.”
if this is hate: “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.”
why isn’t this? “Liberals are like people with stale breath talking into your face at a party. You try backing away from them or offering them gum, but then they just start whimpering.” (from Ann Coulter’s archives. Pick an article at random and you’re all but guaranteed to find at least one similar reference to democrats/liberals/left-wing wack jobs [all the same in coulter's eyes])
it’s humor – why does everyone take it so seriously?

who of you even regularly read Pandagon? Let alone have read the posts in question?
She was not expressing religious bigotry. She was complaining about POLITICAL policy lobbying on the part of a religious organization and its leaders–and she did this using snark.
Funny that all of the posts being complained over are to defend the rights of women, minorities and the LGBT community against the hate-filled POLICIES of religious (and gov’t) organizations. Over and over, I keep reading about “these girls” and about “potty-mouthed chicks”, etc, etc.
This is sexism and the reaction is revealing.
It isn’t hate speech any more than it would be hate speech to make fun of a social darwinist or for evo-psych’s for similar views. Something else that she does a lot.
Pointing out the the right-wing expresses hate-filled speech on an almost constant basis does not excuse any liberal for being hateful.
But that’s assuming that you think that pointing out hypocracy and hate in an ORGANIZATION THAT ACTIVELY LOBBIES OUR GOV’T to CONTROL and DESCRIMINATE against women, minorities and the LGBT community is hateful. It isn’t.
Maybe if Christians would make those who pretend to represent them actually act like Christians, the complaint would stop being valid. Until then… it’s fair game.
The Catholic Church officially lobbies to control women’s bodies and to treat women and gays and lesbians as fundamentally second class citizens by advocating that they be restricted from the same rights and priviledges enjoyed by men and straight people. Same goes for alot of other religious organizations. That’s not a question of faith or your relationship to God. That’s a question of using one’s faith or allowing others to use your faith to impose on other people.
Seriously though… if this makes someone NOT vote for a democrat… if this is the extent of your intellectual abilities and your excuse to vote for another fucking fascist???? Ok then… good for you. I really enjoy hearing people bitch and moan about Bush and then saying it’s Democrats fault for not pandering to your insecurities more. That’s weak. Grow up. Take responsibility. You voted for Bush because bigots and and jackasses love each other… and the next time you vote for a bigot and jackass it will be for the same reason and not because a politician had all the right policies but just didn’t pander in the right way.
Maybe we do deserve another Republican fascist for another 8 years. Lets see how far we can roll back.
As a vet and former republican… this country and the sexism, racism, homophobia and religious fanatacism is starting to scare the shit out of me.
out.

This author is obviously nuts. Anybody that calls up Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh only highlights that Ms Marcotte is even more irrational, strident, and vituperous than they. No, don’t expect a smart boy like Edwards to use her for any longer than necessary.

Re: MikeSC
Aren’t blogs just great? I learn so much valuable information. This guy informs me that “Hitler was a Christian”. Boy that is really going to help me.
I think not. The word Christian in the Greek means “little Christs”. They were first called Christians at Antioch because they followed and thus imitated the teachings of Christ. This being the legitimate definition for who are Christian, then Hitler is among the last who could be one.
The Lord God Jesus Christ is fair though and in the end each one chooses his or her own eternal destiny, whether it be Hell (Tartarus in the Greek) with the ultimate end being cast in the Lake of Fire or Heaven with eternal blessing. Rewards and punishment are also perfectly fair.
Hitler has already found his self in utter darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Christians find their blessed promise as eternity in Heaven. Christians don’t go to Hell.
Hitler has a real problem because he was a messenger of death. Part of these was Christian which will received a particular abound of blessing because of their tribulation. Others had no personal relationship with Christ. As a result of their own bad choices they also are in “the place of torment”. All these with weeping and gnashing will be after Hitler and as a result he will be among the most tormented of all those who decided to follow such a life of brutal cruelty.
I take no joy that “Tartarus” (place of torment) does or that the “Lake of Fire” will even exist, nor do I take joy in anyone whose decisions lead them there, but there a “bright line” drawn between those whose decisions lead them to respond to Christs call to Salvation and those whose decisions cause them to reject Christ’s call.
MikeSC, to change the subject, go to Google and enter Hitler – homosexual. I take no position on the results, but it could possibly open a person’s eyes.

“I only have virtually every expert on the topic on my side of the debate.”
Now *that’s* some impressive delusion. Ok, here’s a quote for you:
“I shall never come to terms with the Christian lie [...] Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.”
Now, if Hitler had said something like that, it would certainly back up your case. However, he never did. It’s actually a woefully bad mistranslation from a French translation–the original says nothing of the sort. That’s the kind of “expert” you have on your side–experts in delusion, much like yourself.

“So, I guess because he SAID he’d do it, that means he really did do it and the factual reality of what he did is trumped by his words, because darn it, we can TRUST Hitler, right?”
Hey now, I just need a little more living space. This is my last territorial conquest. No really. I mean it this time.

You pick the right or left hand (which ever is more comfortable for you) and then you go f*ck yourself. Sad but true.
Posted by: SomeOtherDude | Feb 11, 2007 9:59:29 PM
SomeOtherDude…I think you nailed it.

WHEN will people stop being so casual and ignorant about what our forefathers meant when they said freedom of speech. That freedom we all have prevents the GOVERNMENT from stifling our speech. But by no means does it free anyone from being resposible for talking crap if that is what it is defined as, nor does it free anyone from being criticized for it. Come on, wake up. And calling out any pundit who does NOT work for a presidential candidate in comparison to this woman’s rants is ridiculous. Those rants are only being criticized now that SHE does work for Edwards. That garbage has been smelling up the internet for a LONG time.
Funnier is that the same people, who are incorrectly screaming free speech sure have opposing views to the other right covered in the very same amendment that houses free speech.

Uh, did you guys even bother to read the thread? Or are you just cut-n-pasting talking points from Kos/DU?
Here it is again:
Great Bannana said: “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.”
/that being said, Marcotte smears groups of people [Causcasians, Catholics, Christians, Southerners, etc] based on ignorant stereotypes of them.
That makes Marcotte a bigot. Cuddle up to her all you want – we already know that the Left doesn’t really believe in the things they lecture us about.

Working hard, staying in school, and garnering a voice through actual substantive achievement are MOST important, but then there are the Richard Nixon’s who did that reminding us we all have a voice. Blogs meet that purpose and to me it is like icing on the cake.

Just another case of left wing hypocrisy, she has a right to write what she wishes but no the intellagence to form a coherent thought. As for edwards, sounds about like his trashing of WalMart and then…..

Another embarassing moment in the history of American Methodism…Bush,,,Mrs. Clinton,,,why can’t they all be colored Methodists and hopefully they will all go to colored heaven…what a bunch of niggers…

Well, as they say: The carnal mind is at enmity with God; neither does it or can it, know God…Nonetheless, He forebears their sins because they are LOST…

Well, as they say: The carnal mind is at enmity with God; neither does it or can it, know God…Nonetheless, He forebears their sins because they are LOST…

Well, as they say: The carnal mind is at enmity with God; neither does it or can it, know God…Nonetheless, He forebears their sins because they are LOST…

Well, if anybody believe this is a free speech,then ask her to have the courage and write such stuff about islam or mohammed and lets see what the reaction will be.

I really dont how an atheist like this woman can hide under freedom of speech to attack christianity in such a vile manner.the problem with liberals is that there is no limit for freedom which i thought is equall to anarchy.

Google is the BOMB! Ain’t it??
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/rush_limbaugh.html
“The difference between Los Angeles and yogurt is that yogurt comes with less fruit.” – Rush Limbaugh
Here’s a REAL gem
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/9/10/175835/580
“I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself” – Glenn Beck
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/ann_coulter.html
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.” – Ann Coulter
This could obviously go on for DAYS…

televangefrist
This is about two bloggers who were recruited under Edwards’ campaign. The content of the blogging of these individuals scrape the gutters. It seems that bringing up this fact has for some reason offended you.
What’s your problem regarding this? Your previous post was so rambled that it lacked coherence.

of course the view is a simple minded +bigoted + wouldnt even be discussed in the MSM if said about muslims , jews,blacks,etc but everyone is missing the key point and that is THIS : from this moment on we can be sure of one thing he may be able to garner the democratic nomination but he will be the the PRESIDENT OF NOTHING .I hope all those union members hard earned dues that will be poured into his camp will once again show how time and time again BIG LABOR is impotent.

This poor shriveled little soul has to be one of the most ignorant and deliberately stupid people I have ever read. I hope Edwards keeps her on, though, because he is then guaranteed to loose quick on quick, and he doesn’t deserve to win anything, anywhere or anytime.

Hate speech? Of course this is not hate speech. It is only considered hate speech when it attacks a minority and this, does not. If you attack a white middle class Christian, its ok because we can always deploy the “freedom of speech” parachute. In this day and age, it is only considered hate speech when the discourse attacks minority groups (blacks, illegal immigrants, muslims, etc.)
If you didnt pick up on the sarcasm, you are probably the type of ignorant, myopic individual who uses such absurd generalizations and falsities as Marcotte to view the world and those within it. Answer me this: how would it look or be responded to if it was discovered that a member of Bush’s administration or one connected to it was blogging, speaking, teaching, or promoting any sort of speech that contained such words as “spick, nigger, faggot, mussi, etc.”?
Oh wait, I am sorry, that IS considered hate speech. Not freedom of speech, but hate speech because it attacked minorities instead of the majority. My point is this: how can you say it is ok to attack Christianity but emerge (lawsuits in hand) when another religion is targeted? When another race or ethnicity is attacked? When a view to which you adhere is the focal point?
People scream for equality so lets start it: if Christianity can be attacked, so can everything/everyone else…other religions, blacks, jews, illegal immigrants, midgets, retards, EVERYONE! Its either all hate speech or pure freedom of speech. one or the other. you cannot have you cake and eat it too. You cannot speak your mind and condemn others for speaking their own.

To claim that anything Coulter or Limbaugh have said equals Marcotte’s bigotry is foolish. To claim that we should celebrate black progress rather than focus on black history, or hint that Jesse Jackson is a criminal (he is), or that Maxine Waters is incompetent and depends on racial quotas may be rude, but it doesn’t come close to Marcotte’s obviously false accusations of rape (which differ from accusations against Bill Clinton in that Broadderick’s accusation is fairly credible and Clinton still refuses to deny it so she can sue him for libel and let the public identify the fact), or her comments about God’s “hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit”, or just about everything else she’s said. To claim that Ann Coulter’s comment that we should go to war with terrorists who attacked us equals hate speech reveals exactly how much the speakers wish to see our nation defended.
The problem with Edwards wasn’t that he didn’t ‘tone down’ the comments, or that he refused to fire them–that was just icing on the cake. The problem is that Edwards looked at these hateful, foul-mouthed, bigoted, and frankly stupid people, watched their groupies cheer every profanity-laden slander and obscenity, and thought “These are my people. I’ve got to get her on board.”
He was right, but he didn’t want the voters to know that.