Marcotte Fired From Edwards Campaign...(UPDATED)

UPDATE: Predictably, the leftosphere misses the entire point (perhaps purposely, because they know they've been caught with their pants down and they really expected to get away with this little charade.) Some of them, like former Pandagon contributor Pam, appear to think this is all about the right's opposition to "pottymouths." Amusingly she links that arbiter of honesty, all-knowingness and sock puppetry Mr. Glenn Rick Ellensburg Greenwald to sum it all up for the despondent. Go read her link for a hearty guffaw. You can't make this stuff up - its so good that it writes itself.

This isn't about curse words. This was about holding this vile psycho to her own vulgar words, and then holding John Edwards to those words as well once he hired Marcotte and McEwan to positions as official spokesbloggers. Quoting Marcotte accurately is not "attacking" her - it reveals her.

Take this Marcotte hit piece, for example:

Just as my disinclination to jump all over the Santa Cruz students speaks volumes about my agreement that they’re entitled to claim campus space for the students instead of the military, conservatives who white wash the Duke rape case are speaking volumes about what entitlements they are willing tolerate, in this case, white male entitlement to abuse women and get away with it, especially if they are of the wrong sex class or wrong skin color.
For those of you lefties keeping score, that means that Marcotte has convicted and handed down the sentences to the Duke players without a scrap of evidence (and more to the contrary.) That was the political liability that Camp Edwards was taking on. There's much more on Marcotte's disgraceful comments about the Duke incident here.

Anyone can swear, but we've shown clearly that this isn't about swearing. This is about personal responsibility for bigotry against selected "OK to criticize" groups like Catholics, men, conservatives, etc. If Marcotte (and her ilk) didn't want people to read the Pandagon garbage, she shouldn't have written and published it. Karma's a beeotch.

A parting thought from Jay Reding, who sums it up for the denseosphere:

Like it or not, Ms. Marcotte may have the right to free speech, and no one is arguing that she should be censored. However, what she says is incindiary, derogatory, and bigoted. Had she treated Islam the way she treats Catholicism, she’d be widely ostracized.

Judging from the wagon-circling and scapegoating going on here, I don't think criticism of Marcotte or McEwan is in the cards just yet.

READ ORIGINAL POST BELOW THE FOLD -->

BAM!

The right-wing blogosphere has gotten its scalps -- John Edwards has fired the two controversial bloggers he recently hired to do liberal blogger outreach, Salon has learned.

The bloggers, Amanda Marcotte, formerly of Pandagon, and Melissa McEwan, of Shakespeare's Sister, had come under fire from right-wing bloggers for statements they had previously made on their respective blogs. A statement by the Catholic League's Bill Donohue, which called Marcotte and McEwan "anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots," and an accompanying article on the controversy in the New York Times this morning, put extra pressure on the campaign.

Speculation from sources that the two bloggers might be rehired was bolstered by Jennifer Palmieri, a spokeswoman for the Edwards campaign, who said in an e-mail that she would "caution [Salon] against reporting that they have been fired. We will have something to say later."

The Salon article also spends half of the space trying to fell Michelle Malkin as well, but falls short. In addition, isn't the NYT is such a right-wing rag these days?

Now the question is - who, in their right minds, hired them? Why?

I anxiously await the leftist hate-fest that will result from this crushing of dissent via the patriarchy.

And I'm still not voting for John Edwards. The leftists at Shakespeare's Sister are already putting Edwards in the crosshairs over this "betrayal." Its vintage Dem-on-Dem hating! LMFAO!

Posted by: Good Lt. at 02:49 PM

Comments

1 Counting coup! USA, all the way!

Posted by: Michael Weaver at February 07, 2007 04:40 PM

2 Some of the comments in the first link are hilarious as well. It's amusing that they whine about free speechin your updatedpost while having links of their own calling for their members to Google bomb McCain and Romney.

Free speech for me but not for thee...

Posted by: Vagrant at February 07, 2007 05:17 PM

3 Looks like The Silky Pony has lost the Kos Kids vote(which is all he ever had anyway) .
Maybe he ought to look into sueing them.

Posted by: 1sttofight at February 07, 2007 05:34 PM

4 "Had she treated Islam the way she treats Catholicism, she’d be widely ostracized

Good Lt.,
But isn't PC'ness entirely based on double standards? You know, what someone being more equal than others sort of thing? (sarc)

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at February 07, 2007 05:38 PM

5 ... sorry that was supposed to read: "You know, with some people being more equal than other?"

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at February 07, 2007 05:59 PM

6 GM-

You got it.

Orwell once wrote "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."

Posted by: Good Lt at February 07, 2007 06:04 PM

7 In all fairness to Marcotte she did give some shit to the Saudies in one of her post thatI read. So to say that she would have been ostrasized for criticizing Islam is perhaps not 100% true.

Posted by: jones at February 07, 2007 09:45 PM

8 Jones:Criticizing the Saudis is P.C. approved, because it's intended to portray the overthrow of Uncle Saddam as a tragic mistake. "Saddam didn't cause 911, Osama Bin Loser did. 15 of the highjackers came from Saudi Arabia."As if the left would ever approve of American military action against Saudi Arabia or any other country or entity. It's just more left-wing misdirection and deceit--as I'm sure you know.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 08, 2007 09:54 AM

9 yeah you tell em. saddam was right in there with osama. he probably intended to build WMD's to sell to osama so osama could blow up chicago.

Posted by: Jake at February 08, 2007 08:40 PM

10 actually i have an honest question. if you were offered the position of head blogger at some nice gop canadite's site, would you do it? and then later take heat for the number of times you outrageously proclaimed outrageous things? oh wait, it wouldnt come up... what with the right wing media and all...

Posted by: Jake at February 08, 2007 08:45 PM

11 Jake is now asserting that AQ, the group that flew passenger airplanes on suicide missions into skyscrapers and government bulidings, wouldn't be caught dead trying to use a nuke anywhere, or that they would even want one at all.

And that pesky Iraq Liberation Act of 1998? The one that cites intel suggesting (with the international community) that WMDs were indeed in Iraq? The same that Hillary Clinton saw and used to vote for the war in Iraq?

That's just a "rumor."

We've reached a new level of rich, people.

Posted by: Good Lt at February 08, 2007 08:47 PM

12 Fake:Osama was right there with Hussein? Why is it that only lefties make this claim, while falsely attributing it to dem neocons? Could it be.....BDS induced serial lying?The President takes his responsibility to protect America seriously. Like he's said ad naseum, he wasn't going to take a chance on Hussein builtWMD ending up in the hands of terrorists.You obviously don't care what the terrorists do to America, but most of us do. Executive power is in President Bush's hands for two more years, and there's not a damn thing you or the Dhimmiecrats can do about it.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at February 09, 2007 09:06 AM






Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0041 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0024 seconds, 20 records returned.
Page size 14 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.