Sunday, February 04, 2007

Newsflash - Marcotte is not running for president - Updated

The wrongwingnut posse is still trying to recapture the long past glory of their Dan Rather moment by getting Amanda Marcotte fired. Why you ask? Good question. Since none of them are likely to be supporting Edwards campaign, it would appear the answer is single-minded spite and a rather pathetic need to prove they still exercise some kind of "tipping point" power over the public debate. Take this sublimely ironic comment coming from the Princess of Vitriolic Spew, Michelle Malkin:
Seems that everyone but the Edwards campaign has tracked Marcotte's foul-mouthed nutroots diatribes. Or perhaps the Edwards team is well aware of her lunatic blogging and can't wait for her to unleash her unbridled anger on their spiffy website to give him a gritty, "progressive" edge.
"Everyone" being the usual gang of wrongnut thugs who can't seem to grow up out of their adolescent urge to bully the kids who won't join their gang. Malkin, who generally comes across like the trashy, gum snapping teen, who smokes in the school bathroom and bitchslaps the smart girl because she can't beat her in an argument that requires wit, is a fine one to talking about a foul mouth. The language she routinely uses is the most offensive this side of Ann Coulter and neither have to drop the f-bomb to appall civilized people with their lunatic ramblings.

Fortunately, not all the conservative bloggers buy into this mindless Borg mentality. Dale Franks at Q&O, which is quickly becoming one of my favorite alternative view blogs, offers a temperate response to the manufactured outrage of the gang bangers.
So, it seems like a tempest in a teapot to me. ...Besides, if Ms. Marcotte is some sort of loose cannon, nobody's gonna get hurt but the people who hired her. And since the people who hired her are the Edwards Campaign...who cares? It's not like I have a vested interest in Sen. Edwards' success.

Quite the opposite, actually.
And that's the real point. Amanda is not running for president, Edwards is, and what she says, or has said, on her personal site has nothing to do with his candidacy. He hired her to blog about his platform, not counsel him on policy positions. If the wrongnuts want to contribute to the debate, they should address Edwards' statements, not Amanda's past and personal remarks. And if they want to behave like teenage miscreants maybe they should give up the pretense that they're blogging politics and start a MySpace page instead where they can still measure their popularity without diluting the debate on the vital issues of the day.

And that I hope, will be my last word on this ridiculous brouhaha.

Update: I see on Memeorandum that this story just won't die but I'm glad to see some of the bigger lefties are weighing in with some stellar snark about the wrongwing morality patrol. Meanwhle, Dan at Protein Wisdom is still dissing me with new posts. It's all too silly at this point.

Anyway, this is really my final word and it's to John Edwards. I'm just a small time blogger compared to Amanda but I've been at this for three years now and have collected my own little cadre of wingnut critics. All I can say is, if you're pissing off the wrongwingers enough to give them such a heavy case of the vapors, you can be certain you're doing something right.
Bookmark and Share


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Surely, surely, you are not so naïve as to believe that a candidate will not take hits for the behavior or reputations of his staffers?

It's easy enough to see: if, say, Rudy Guiliani hired Fred Phelps as his staffer on religion issues, do you doubt for one moment that he'd be attacked by every one of his political opponents for such?

I suppose that Mr Edwards hired Miss Marcotte because she's a good blogger (as measured by her site traffic). But bloggers become good by having a paper (electron?) trail, and such trail is rarely good for individual candidates. It might be that the only "good" blogger for a candidate like Mr Edwards is a blogger who is bad enough that he has no record.

5:47:00 PM  
Blogger richard mcenroe said...

If Marcotte doesn't reflect on Edwards, whose idea was it to Orwell (unsuccessfully) all her old posts and comments?

9:00:00 PM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

Dana, I've been told I'm totally without guile, and that's true enough, but naive I'm not. I've been following politics for 45 years. I think I have some perspective and Amanda is not on a par with Fred Phelps. She's not a nationally known poltical figure.

She's just a blogger, not a DC fatcat who passes out big bucks to the insiders. Most of America still doesn't even know what a blog is, much less recognize, or I suspect care, who Amanda is. And without looking, tell me all the bloggers that are working on campaign websites right now. Name everyone who worked on 04 campaigns. Did anybody run over to their first posts and paste in their personal archives?

I see from your blog, that you're not expressing this outrage out of a concern for Edwards, so please don't try to paint petty meaness as some noble cause or standard practice politics. This whole faux scandal is simply a vendetta against Amanda.

I'm tired of the whole sordid affair. I think it's pointless, impolite and is little more than irresponsible hatemongering. I'm really tired of hatemongering. In any event, I believe I've made myself more than clear and have nothing else to say on the subject.

You're free to disagree with me. So far, this is still America.

9:22:00 PM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

Richard I will answer this because it's a new issue and frankly I don't know why she deep-sixed the posts. She of all people should know that nothing dies on the internets. I would let it stand. But read the Q&O link for why I don't think it's such a big deal. It's her blog. Not a farookin national archive.

Speaking of which, I wonder why you're more concerned about Amanda deleting a couple of posts than you are about our government reclassifying information that has been in public domain for decades, not to mention the wholesale secrecy around their current operations? We could use some extra outrage about that.

9:38:00 PM  
Blogger ilyka said...

I wonder why you're more concerned about Amanda deleting a couple of posts than you are about our government reclassifying information that has been in public domain for decades, not to mention the wholesale secrecy around their current operations? We could use some extra outrage about that.

Well, don't look to these guys for it. They're more concerned that a woman who says what's on her mind got the kind of job they're never gonna get. It doesn't bode well for them, and they know it.

I've enjoyed your responses to them though, Libby. You saw through them a lot faster than I did once upon a time.

5:54:00 AM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

Thanks Ilyka. I loved your post about it as well. Great blog you have over there. I'll be checking it out more when I get some time off.

7:48:00 AM  
Blogger Tim said...

They're gone. The Edwards campaign fired them. Now that says something about Edwards. And it ain't good.

4:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok OK this Catholic League guy and Michelle Malkin are not goog representatives for any sane idea. But even a broken clock is right twice a day.

We ought to be able to judge claims on their own merit. We can still say that some people don't have the credibility to preach to us about certain things. But if Anamda Marcotte truly was fired, it may because John Edwards ACTUALLY disagrees with many of the things the Ms Marcotte says (and the way she says them).

Even if John Edwards would fire her for political reasons, apparently some of you think falling on your sword in order to legitimize the bombastic stuff Ms Marcotte says is more important for John Edwrads to do than actually win the nomination, since many of the comments in questions would be damaging.

True enough, Ms Marcotte isn't running for president, but when the right hires their wackos, I think its perfectly legit to point it out. It should work both ways right?

4:59:00 PM  
Blogger Libby Spencer said...

Tim - I answered you in a whole new post at the top right now.

Jay J - the difference is Amanda may swear like a sailor but if take her views as a whole, she's not out of the mainstream thinking. The wackos took her stuff out of context and made her look much more extreme than she is. Furthermore, the wrongnut candidates have hired bloggers with much more offensive views and we gave them a pass in favor of concentrating on the issues. I think that's over now and you can expect to see some scrutiny and retaliation coming from the left.

I answered the rest of your comments in the new post I think.

7:33:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home