Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Marcotte Out?

Salon is reporting that the Edwards campaign has fired blogger Amanda Marcotte, she of the following insightful January observation about the Duke case: "Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?" Salon termed Marcotte a victim of "the right-wing blogosphere." Indeed.

The Edwards campaign issued a semi-denial of the report, saying it would "caution [Salon] against reporting that they have been fired. We will have something to say later."

Hat tip: R.T.

206 comments:

1 – 200 of 206   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

This should be fun.

Michael said...

Pretty interesting to read the blogger comments on the Edwards pages. Edwards' page in the past really didn't leave room for commenting. I guess they turned it on with the hirings and that that can't scrub the blog posts fast enough.

LS reported starting a blogswarm over there. Though Amanda was apparently pretty rude to just about anyone else. Going after the Catholics like that was probably the straw that broke the Camel's back.

The Duke case was a good catalyst
but her own personality and record
did her in. Just too bad for Edwards that he didn't:

1) Check out her background
2) Look into the Duke case and do
something about it

Anonymous said...

They'll release Amanda's regretful resignation, taking full blame, saying she should have told them she wasn't right for the job, etc.

duke09kparent said...

I love it when a person's own bile is splashed back on them. I wonder if she's unpacked her suitcase in Chapel Hill yet? The campaign has to comment on her now, whether or not they keep her.

gs said...

If true

I would think her editing history, changing past blog entries is what did her in.

It shows, like the group of 88 deleting the orginal ad, an attempt to change or revise history.

Anonymous said...

She may not have had the right record to be hired by the Edwards campaign but it will only encourage more swifboating hysteria by the right wing blogs.

But, I suppose since their leaders haven't made any progress on the deficit, the Iraq war, the war on terror, illegal immigration or education if all they can do is get some whack job feminist blogger fired from her job, they will take what they can get.

Anonymous said...

Surely, we must all band together and figure out a way to criticize Edwards for doing what we think he should have done -- i.e., fire this woman.

This is an important tactic. We must remember that no matter what, liberals are incapable of ever doing the right thing.

If they do something we consider right, figure out a way to trash it. Its quite simple, really.

Anonymous said...

Bush & Co. would swiftboat G.I. Joe if he weren't a cartoon/action figure!!!

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

I can not decide which term I like better:

A. Pajamahadeen

B. Blogholigan

Both are so wonderful.

And of course this woman might have survived had only those on the right been offended by the Duke hoax. The fact that here we have people of all stripes meant she could not last long in a presidential campaign that needs a board spectrum of supporters.

Anonymous said...

"Salon termed Marcotte a victim of the right-wing blogosphere."

I guess in our brave new world to be quoted verbatim is to become a "victim". The use of the term "victim" here is evidence of the mentality of Salon and Marcotte.

Mike in Nevada

Anonymous said...

If by swiftboat, you mean tell the truth, then there you go. Marcotte was done in by her own idiocy and hatred.

Anonymous said...

Mike in Nevada:

When things go bad, the Bush administration, and Republicans dating back to Nixon (famous manipulator, wasn't he), don't take responsibility... but lamest of all, THEY BLAME THE MEDIA, claiming bias when their war plan proves a horrible joke, etc.

Is that kind of playing the victim? I think it fits that description PERFECTLY!!!

Anonymous said...

She is a victim of the right wing bloggers. I happen to agree with her about the Catholic Church, sex and birth control, but not having a blog of my own my views are not on record in such highly colorful terms.

If you actually read what she wrote, although she is often, silly and histrionic [a prerequisite for a blogger] most what she said while very, very liberal, wasn't patently false or crazy. That she was wrong about the Duke case isn't really grounds for losing her job, is it?

One would hope that before hiring her someone would have vetted her previous blogging, but it looks like that didn't happen, or Edwards buckled at the first sign of criticism. Either way it doesn't speak too well of his campaign organization.

wayne fontes said...

Marcotte was on a lot of people's radar before her Duke post. Speaking broadly she slandered

Men
Christian's (not just Catholics)
Women with babies

Very few people in America don't fall into one of those catagories. How could he hire them in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Please, folks! Remember to focus on the Duke 3 in this thread and others in DIW. If comments go off track into right and left politics (and I certainly have both strong opinions and loads of facts), we will not further the cause of justice or the wronged Duke 3. Professor Johnson has set the proper tone for us. Let's maintain it!
gk

gs said...

If you are going to run for office choose your people carefully.

Catholic League Demands Dismissal of John Edward's Bloggers

Anonymous said...

Blaming the media when Republicans make legitimate mistakes is NOT playing the blame game. First of all, Republicans don't come close to making as many mistakes as DemoCRAPS. Second of all, the media has misportrayed everything about Iraq. Last week, the United States painted ten schools. I only heard about it on Fox.

Anonymous said...

John "My hair is better than yours" Edwards' campaign is DOA. It matters not what bloggers he hires or fires, he is just in line soaking up money from the feds. His poll numbers may flucuate, but he is truly a back of the pack kind of candidate. At best he is running for vice president.

Anonymous said...

Last week, the United States painted ten schools.
----------------------------

Are you being sarcastic? Didn't over a hundred people get blown up last week and some US helecopters get shot down?

Anonymous said...

Gosh, how awful to be forced to accept responsibility for . . . your own hateful words. May, many hateful words. So many hateful words that you cannot erase them fast enough.

Anonymous said...

5:01... I agree. Edwards is the wrong man to take over foreign policy issues like Iraq. We are in a time of War, and we need continuity. Maybe someone working for the current administration? Granted, Cheney is too old and has health problems, but he'd be a GREAT President, in my opinion. He is the type of strong on defense, patriotic leader we need. So maybe a Condi, though she is a woman, and again we are at war, or maybe Donald Rumsfeld could run.

Anonymous said...

5:04...

I am not being sarcastic. Last Sunday, on "Hannity's America", he did a special segment about what the troops had to say in Iraq. Everyone Hannity had on his show 100% supported Bush.

Also, they never report about painting schools and that kind of thing. All the liberal, DemoCRAP media does is report about car bombs, none of the painting schools stuff. The Iraqis are happy to be free from Saddam and are much safer now than they were while he was in power.

-AmericanPatriot'07

Anonymous said...

People, people. If you can't stick to the subject of Marcotte without veering off into politics, I'm going to have to start deleting posts...

Anonymous said...

"If you actually read what she wrote, although she is often, silly and histrionic [a prerequisite for a blogger] most what she said while very, very liberal, wasn't patently false or crazy. That she was wrong about the Duke case isn't really grounds for losing her job, is it?"

Presumably this was sarcasm. "Silly and histrionic" and "patently false or crazy" do seem to apply to Ms. Marcotte's work. And being wrong on the most politically divisive issue in John Edwards' home state seems sufficient grounds for dismissal to me. She can either do the research or refrain from blogging--if she wants to work in a serious campaign.

Observer

Anonymous said...

Just a quick refresher course in the business of news.

Generally speaking, death, destruction, war, bombs, terrorist attacks and such are BY DEFINITION more newsworthy than school paintings. Just like murder and home invasion is more newsworthy than the opening of a new playground here at home.

As for Amanda, I feel sorry for her if she was fired because the right wingers put her in their crosshairs. It's another way to limit free speech, apparently if you have a blog and you want a career you had better parse your words carefully.

Anonymous said...

5:11...

Your post makes my family and I less safe.

-AmericanPatriot'07

Anonymous said...

AmericanPatriot'07 is an obvious troll. Just fyi.

gs said...

Wanting a career is not the same as entering politics.

People are held responsible for what they say. Her only recent statement on the Duke case is that she will delete all emails addressing it.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn asks:

What IS it about politicians from North Carolina knowing squat? If you're a former senator running for President, you know nothing about a potty-mouth blogger you hired yourself. If you're the governor, you know nothing about a rogue DA you appointed yourself. If you're Senator Dole, you know nothing about one of the worst scandals in your own state. And if you're the police chief of Durham, you not only know nothing about the Duke scandal, you don't even know how to tell anyone where you are.

By the way, where IS Chalmers?

Anonymous said...

5:15...

If by "troll" you mean "Tenacious Republican Outarguing Looney Liberals" than you've got it dead-on.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, reality, it's such a downer, man.

There is no post on the planet no matter how vile or ugly that can make you less safe unless it comes from a terrorist or calls for a terrorist action, and even then, it would still be a pretty far stretch.

Amanda was a young blogger who, as bloggers are known to do, shot her mouth off, used crass language and played to her base.

The only important question is whether Edwards or anyone on his staff had read her blog and still hired her or if they never bothered to check out her views and writing style for themselves.

Anonymous said...

5:17...

Your post is just a part of the liberal media, doing anything and everything it can to make sure that terrorists take over the United States and impose Sharia.

Its just like Mike Nifong. There is no way he'd have prosecuted these men if they were al Queda. He'd have given them cushy jobs and then the New York Times would give them secret information about the Pentagon.

-AmericanPatriot'07

Anonymous said...

5:16

I can answer that - he's on leave. Won't be back until he finds another job.

Someone asked the other day whether or not Nifooey was still going to work - they showed him yesterday walking into the Durham courthouse, which is where his office is, so maybe he was at least pretending to go to work. No doubt he was working on his defense, which, if we turn his own words back on him, would require us to ask "Why would an innocent person hire a lawyer?" Well Nifey? Why would they?

Anonymous said...

We've now heard from everyone but the ADA's in Nifong's office. I wonder if any of them will ever speak publicly, either about the case itself, who worked on it, what they thought or about Mike Nifong as DA.

Anonymous said...

I was reading the response of the womens supporter. One made a donation to Edwards for $100.00 via pay pal. He wants his money back.

Vivian Thomas said...

I would like to say that I have been sending Amanda Marcotte supporting email over the last few days. I've suggested to her that she might be more comfortable living in a cave where her recklessly ignorant comments won't cause anyone to expose what a fraud she is.

Anonymous said...

The ADA are screwed.

Who did you work for?

Where did you learn legal process?

When you boss was framing the 3 dukies, what did you do about it?

Unfair, but they could forget about a future in politics.

Anonymous said...

"I was reading the response of the womens supporter. One made a donation to Edwards for $100.00 via pay pal. He wants his money back."

He probably wants his money back so he can donate it to Saddam Obama or Al "Queda" Gore.

-AmericanPatriot'07

Anonymous said...

I had read somewhere that a large number of ADA's had left since Mike Nifong took over, eight or something? That would seem like a high number, how many ADA's can Durham have?

They are probably all lifers there anyhow, just like Mike. From what I've seen as an outsider the level of incompetance and corruption in Durham would make success outside of Durham unlikely.

Anonymous said...

-AmericanPatriot'07
-------------------

You are really offensive, Amanda's got nothing on you in terms of ignorance.

Anonymous said...

5:29...

I see you're playing the victim card again. "Whoa is me" seems to be the liberal go-to when they are proven wrong.

-AmericanPatriot'07

gs said...

Duke LAX Defense Attorneys Meet with Prosecutors

Anonymous said...

The thread has been Moby'd.

Anonymous said...

"You are really offensive, Amanda's got nothing on you in terms of ignorance."

Please do not feed the troll

Anonymous said...

5:07 You are not KC - He deletes you without comment.

gs said...

I've said it before, no way the state wants 1 yr anv news, it will be over soon.

Anonymous said...

5:11 Well Yeah !!!!!

Anonymous said...

That's interesting. I wonder if they've started 're interviewing' the witnesses. As far as I can tell the police only interviewed everyone once, they never went back to Kim, never went back to the security guard at Kroegers, not sure if they went back to the neighbor, we know they harrassed the cabbie...

I also wonder if the rumors about Colins alibi were accurate or not.

Anonymous said...

4:43 PM

I always find it amusing when the term 'swiftboating,' is used as if the tactic did not involve revealing the truth. Orwell in play, I guess.

Gary Packwood said...

This story is much more about the NY Times' fear of Bloggers than Marcotte.

This is the quote from the NY Times

"Two bloggers hired by John Edwards to reach out to liberals in the online world have landed his presidential campaign in hot water for doing what bloggers do — expressing their opinions in provocative and often crude language."

As the Duke Mom said Sunday at the March in Durham, if it had not been for Bloggers we would have not know about this case.

When this shakes out eventually it will be the Bloggers that trumped the press on the story and the lies told to harm the three young Duke students.

The NY Times should be respectful of Bloggers and what they know and when they knew it.

Opinions are sometimes provocative and crude NY Times! You just may be scooped by KC Johnson ... and soon.

Anonymous said...

5:45...

I agree with you. The swiftboat veterans for truth exposed John Kerry for who he is.

Kerry hates America, period. Otherwise, he wouldn't have said the troops are "stuck" in Iraq. What kind of a thing is that to say? They are patriots like myself, and they decided to join to actually fight for the USA, unlike Kerry, who always fights against it.

-AmericanPatriot'07

Anonymous said...

5:45...

I forgot to add that YOU'RE A GREAT AMERICAN sir!!!

-AmericanPatriot'07

Anonymous said...

With all due respect, the credit goes to the defense lawyers who poured over the case evidence and wrote their motions accordingly.

It may be true that the national media was swift to condemn the boys, but it was not the bloggers who uncovered the evidence, but the defense team.

A lot of credit also goes to the News & Observer for some good reporting. Sure, the blogs helped, but let's be serious here. There wouldn't be anything to blog about if the defense hadn't used the motions to make public the case evidence.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of what Amanda "feels" about other social issues, her remarks about the 3 LAX players is what matters on this board.

The sad part is, Amanda isn't alone in her "feelings" about the LAX 3 AND no amount of evidence will ever change that.

The Duke case will evenyually come to an end, but it surely will not be the last time that something like this happens.

There is a portion of our society that thrives on "victimhood". I see no way to end that.

Anonymous said...

5:50
I'm sure the public defenders would have done as good a job, if the 3 Lax players were poor.

LOL

Nifong should have picked poor people to railroad.

Anonymous said...

In this case, the falsehood was so blatant, that yes, a public defender could have EASILY gotten the same results as these guys did.

The only possible difference would be the public defender would have to ask for money to hire a DNA expert, and w/out a DNA expert the hidden results might not have been found.

The most disturbing thing about Amanda's blogging about the Duke case and the responses was the absolute ignorance of the facts. Months later they were still touting the rape exam 'injuries' as proof a rape occured, when that had been debunked totally.

Anonymous said...

Marcotte's anti-Catholicism wasn't that big a surprise; what was a surprise, at least to me, was her post on the immaculate conception.

I was under the impression that she'd been raised Catholic, and would know that that particular doctrine isn't about the conception of Jesus. I'm not RC, and I'm aware of it.

Scary ignorant + foul mouthed + arrogant + intolerant = not really suited to being campaign staff.

I'm not sure it would disqualify her as a candidate, though, provided she kept the bad language under control when the cameras were rolling.

Anonymous said...

4:43 PM
"...but it will only encourage more swifboating[sic] hysteria by the right wing blogs."

Interesting comparison. Pointing out the facts and past statements of Amanda is 'Swift boating'.

From the mouths of babes...

Anonymous said...

The immaculate conception isn't about the conception of Jesus? Come again?

It's an interesting dilemma if you want to be a blogger and have a professional career. Would a politic, diplomatic, non ranting, non polarizing blogger from right or left ever get any traction?

Anonymous said...

Re: Anon @4:58
Couldn't agree more. I've got some strong opinions on politics, etc, but they don't belong on this thread. Please, left and right wing-nuts: Keep your cheap shots to yourself and let's work together to get this issue resolved. Keep on topic and don't start pig-wrestling.
Outerbanx Phantom

Anonymous said...

There is only so much power the right wing blogs have, they tried to swift boat the Associated Press and they failed miserably, and are now reduced to saying "Al AP" as their revenge.

Their ability to destroy Amanda, even though they used her own words, will embolden them further in their mindless hate of everyone that doesn't believe George W. is a great president, that wars are won or lost by journalists not soldiers, or who doesn't pine for the 'unborn.'

Anonymous said...

6:10...

In Catholic Doctrine, the Immaculate Conception refers to the belief that Mary was conceived without original sin.

This is often confused with the virgin birth of Jesus, but they are not one and the same.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 6:10

Nope, it's not.

"In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin."

"The Blessed Virgin Mary . . ." The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of her soul and its infusion into her body. "

It's strange, but if you're RC, you're supposed to have been catechized about this stuff.

Anonymous said...

Oops. I forgot to include the link!

Sorry - it's from the Catholic Encyclopedia.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

duke09kparent said...

The first report of Marcotte's supposed firing came on Salon at 1:21 p.m. today. The article had the following odd paragraph:

"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."

No announcement of any kind this late in the day has been reported from the Edwards campaign and nothing confirming or denying the alleged firing has been posted on the Edwards' website. Seems odd to me that nothing official has been said. Not even a statement that the matter is being reviewed.

Anonymous said...

Interesting. But, I'm afraid I must agree with Amanda that the Catholic Church is anti woman and anti sex. The Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth are about as rooted in reality as Athene emerging from the forehead of Zeus.

Anonymous said...

I would read that comment to mean they have RESIGNED, not been fired. The statement will no doubt slam the right wing blogs and say they resigned for the good of Edwards campaign, blah, blah, blah.

WJD said...

This may be a little off topic, but my thinking goes this way about Nifong, recusing himself from the case. The defense has made several motions and very few have been ruled on. Perhaps, Nifong never responded to the motions and really couldn't in good conscience, so turn it all over to someone else to answer the motions. Nifong is apparently not that smart of a lawyer, perhaps that is why he ended up in motor vehicle court for all those years. He was in over his head.

Anonymous said...

Nifong had cancer.

He cjose to work in traffic dept. Allowing him a lighter work load

Anonymous said...

He was definitely in over his head and that's why he never responded to the motions. The idea that Cheshire was 'afraid' to go up against him in court is laugh out loud funny.

But I think he recused himself due to the bar complaints and likely because of a lot of behind the scenes pressure.

Anonymous said...

anonymous @6:21

My problem was the ignorance of the point she chose to illustrate her opinion. There's plenty in Catholic doctrine, history and practice to illustrate pretty much any point you wish to make.

Rather like her post about the Hoax. "Don't confuse me with the facts! I have an opinion!"

gs said...

I believe Nifong recuse himself because his lawyer would not take the Bar case with him activily continuing the hoax.

Anonymous said...

That may be, any lawyer in his right mind would have wanted him off the case to prevent him from telling any more obvious and provable lies.

One thing I found very illuminating was Joe Cheshire's letter to him back in the beginning, professional, conciliatory, rational, and a nice piece of documentation if it was needed as to when the legal issues were raised. What did Cheshire get for his trouble? No reponse.

USMC1 said...

AmericanPatroit'07
Who are you, you sound like Glenn Beck, if you know who he is, but still like a patroit, I was in the USMC and USMCR for a total of 30 years. Would like to talk to you, e-mail me at BigBBfan017@aol.com Thanks.

gs said...

Cheshire's letter trapped Nifong. He can not claim he did not realize what was going on.

Cheshire sent a copy to the bar.

Nifong was out classed by Cheshire.

Cedarford said...

As soon as Edwards announced her job the deathwatch started by those in the Blogosphere familiar with her views and politics - not just the Duke rape case, but hundreds of other whacked-out instances of her spin on things and personal behavior.

Many hoped that Edwards would be slow to catch on and that Amanda would inflict significant inadvertent damage on Edwards before Ken Doll wised up.

Alas, this isn't so.

So the "cum-guzzling boozehound" as she describes herself (on a rare night where she gets lucky and finds a chewed off arm trapped under her flab mass....goes back to Austin).

If you visit her site, she is one nasty piece of work on a range of topics. She despised women with babies as stupid sex slaves of the Patriarchy. She despised men. She despised Christians of any sort. Got some press in Katrina times for saying anyone who denounced the looters was a heartless racist, that poor people had a moral right to loot what they wanted in a disaster if it "would help their family, somehow since Chimpy wouldn't".
Very rude and intemperate, easy to bait, notorious for character assassination of other Bloggers and for attempts to discredit and attack other Bloggers on visits to their websites.

Anonymous said...

After reading the posts of the last several days, I think I’ve finally solved this case.

Nifong did not really will the election and is not the legitimate DA. Rove rigged the vote so that Mike would win, and ultimately make the DEM’s look bad. Linwood Wilson professes to be a Christian… so Falwell must have pulled the strings during the December interview with the FA. Since the DNA didn’t match any lacrosse players, there’s only one possible culprit… must be GWB. (Must have thought the victim was from New Orleans) I know, W doesn’t have a moustache, but that didn’t slow things down before. The Gang of 88, as well as the Dixie Chicks, and even poor Amanda have all been ‘swiftboated’ by the vast right wing conspiracy. It’s amazing that those cretins are smart enough to run a blog. Finally, those three lacrosse guys... They just keep getting in the way of a good discussion. We know they’re ‘entitled’ and this is just a lark for them.

I'm not sure yet where Mark Foley fits in here, but I declare, case closed.

Anonymous said...

SILKY PONY CANS CUM GUZZLING BOOZE HOUND - FILM AT 11.

Anonymous said...

"Victim" Marcotte earns her wings. She'll have fun trumpeting her grievances for years and years.

beckett

Anonymous said...

The controversy over a feminist blogger getting hired by Edwards is another example of America's inability to focus on anything important.

We want some titilating news, let's hear about a blogger chick who says rude things, let get a Catholic on to claim she's anti Catholic. War? Economy? Environment? Crime?

Nah, let's hear about sex, and if we can't get a sex scandal then let's hear about a blogger who blogged about sex and was crude.

Anonymous said...

I am not a John Kery fan, but at least he served and in a war zone. I remember the times very well, anyone who could get in and stay in school did so. Kerry was on of the few who did not. Many went to Canada. Kerry served his country. Those swiftboat folk against him were clowns.

Anonymous said...

I am not a John Kery fan, but at least he served and in a war zone. I remember the times very well, anyone who could get in and stay in school did so. Kerry was on of the few who did not. Many went to Canada. Kerry served his country. Those swiftboat folk against him were clowns.

Newsflash. Those "swiftboat folk" all served in war zones as well.

Anonymous said...

The Swiftboaters lied about John Kerry and they were paid by the Republicans to do it.

Swiftboat=smear campaign

Revenant said...

Woot! Ding dong, the bitch is dead.

Mike said...

Anon @ 4:43
Is it an unfair hysterical attack if it's true? I, along with a couple of hundred thousand other folks, spent time "across the pond". Unlike most of those folks I was in a combat unit. If everyone in my unit got a Purple Heart for each injury sustained that was treated with Neosporin, a topical antiseptic cream, the government would have gone broke issuing them to us.
Again is it an unfair attack or swiftboating if the allegations aren't allegations but instead are true?
Marcotte herself leaves much to be desired. My mother used to say that the use of vulgarity is the sign of a small mind. Marcotte, using that standard, has a very small mind.
Mike in Spring

Anonymous said...

Sorry but comparing this Amanda Marcotte episode with the Swift Boat fiasco is silly.

The Swift Boat guys were completely and utterly full of it. They made my stomach turn and thinking about it right now makes my blood boil again.

Amanda Marcotte=Sista Soljah

Was Clinton empowering the right when he rightly comdemnded her lyrics? No. He was establishing moral credibility before the right jumped all over it. If Edwards goes through with the firing, it may be a similar situation, depending on the way its done.

There actually is an objective case to be made for her firing. Unlike the Swift Boat for "Truth" guys who had nothing of value to offer. Michelle Malkin and Bill Donohue are not generally people who have anything valuebale to offer IMO, and they actually seem to do more damage than good. But just because they believe something doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean its wrong. If Amanda Marcotte is on one side and the Malkins and Donohues of the world are on the other, there actually can be a 3rd party who can evaluate the issue. And there is an issue, its about much more than a few F-bombs here and there.

Jay Jeffers

Anonymous said...

Amanda Marcotte is a nobody. The ONLY reason the blogs took up the cause was because she made herself an easy target. The right wing wants another Rathergate, they salivate for it every day. Unfortunately, so far, the best they've done is get a freelance photographer in Lebanon fired from Reuters and now, maybe, get a feminist blogger fired from the Edwards campaign.

My opinion is that her blog was too full of profanity and WAS too crude to make her a good choice for a political campaign, but I don't know anything else about her background.

No one cares about Amanda, she's a target that is vulnerable, that's all.

M. Simon said...

4:43PM,

The defict is $150 bn below projections and if the Dems don't go on a spend fest will be zero two years sooner than projected.

Education reform will require getting past the teachers unions. The Dems are going to have to help. What are the odds?

No major attacks on American soil since 9/11. I'd call that progress. My bet on 9/12/01? We get hit every 6 months. One year max.

The rest of the items will need some work. Perhaps the Dems would like to pitch in?

M. Simon said...

4:51PM,

I don't agree with the Catholic Church about a lot of things. My language is, however, temperate.

Disagreement need not devolve into hate.

Anonymous said...

Amanda Marcotte may be just a vulnerable target, but if there is a legit case that can be made against her, then it really doesn't matter what the right's intentions are. Edwards will come out looking better, the way Clinton did with Sista Soljah. Of course, those were the old rules. Maybe the net has mobilized people that wouldn't have had influence before. I hate to break it too them, but if Edwrads gets rid of Ms Marcotte, its not like Obama or Hillary are going to be quick to hire someone similar. I guess they can all throw their support behind Zucinich.

Jay Jeffers

Anonymous said...

You mean the deficit that didn't exist before Bush took office and went on a spending spree and a tax cut spree? That deficit?

We have spent almost a TRILLION dollars on the Iraq war, and terror attacks around the world have gone up NOT down, our own intelligence reports say the world is less safe than it was before. For every prediction made about Iraq, the opposite has occured.

Bush already got his no child left behind bill passed, but, oops, he forgot to fund it. Education is best left to the states, just like Reagan said.

Bush has further squandered billions on Homeland Security to ensure that petting zoos in the Midwest are safe from terror attacks and our skies are empty of lip gloss and water. And still we find no terrorists, just hoaxes, mistakes or witch hunt prosecutions that end in zip.

My humble opinion is that George W. Bush is going down in history as the worst, most destructive, most incompetant president in American history, bar none.

M. Simon said...

gk,

You want to leave the politics out of a discussion of a political campaign?

Are you insane?

M. Simon said...

5:04 PM, Gosh, how awful to be forced to accept responsibility for . . . your own hateful words. May, many hateful words. So many hateful words that you cannot erase them fast enough.

You know why I hate her? I linked to some Pandagon stuff and now the links don't work.

That just messes every thing up.

Mike said...

Anon @ 6:10 PM
"It's an interesting dilemma if you want to be a blogger and have a professional career. Would a politic, diplomatic, non ranting, non polarizing blogger from right or left ever get any traction?"

Professor Johnson seems to have pulled this difficult trick off with either "ranting" or "polarizing" his readership (with the exception of the G-88).
Mike in Spring

Anonymous said...

"It's another way to limit free speech, apparently if you have a blog and you want a career you had better parse your words carefully. "

Who's limiting her free speech? She has spent years at Pandagon writing what she wants and I suppose she can go back and pick up where she left off. John Edwards has no obligation to pay her for her speech if it does not serve his purposes.

This is not a right-wing hit job. What happened is the right-wingers, who believe in a vigorous market, made the market more efficient by improving information. The Edwards campaign used the information to make a more informed decision about the services it was purchasing.

He was not doing this to please the right-wing market enhancers because he knows they won't vote for him anyway. He did it because he believed she would be a liability to the moderates that he would ultimately need in a general election as well as thinking liberals in the primaries.

M. Simon said...

5:11 PM

As for Amanda, I feel sorry for her if she was fired because the right wingers put her in their crosshairs. It's another way to limit free speech, apparently if you have a blog and you want a career you had better parse your words carefully.

Your words could be used against you. Oh the horror.

Fortunately the Democrats are not like that. You can say anything and they never complain.

Anonymous said...

Point of fact, though, it was her vigorous exercising of her right of free, vulgar, trash talking speech that led anyone to even know who she was. If she had all the same liberal, feminist, anti Christian views but didn't have a blog, no one would be the wiser. She would have been free to poison the feeble mind of John Edwards day in and day out.

So, it still feels like a hit to me. It means that this generation, of Myspace, and online diaries and blogs is going to be punished for thinking and saying things that are unpopular or divisive.

I can't get behind that, no matter how much I agree that her blog gives the impression of a hysterical child or a drunk college student.

Anonymous said...

Well this posting devolved into a quagmire quickly.

Glad my postings are anonymous - wouldn't want any of my intemperate rantings to come back to haunt me when I go on to a career - oh, that's right - I won't. Still, using wit and polite language will get one a lot farther in life than the opposite.

As someone said, KC has set the tone here and it is up to commenters to keep that tone alive or squander it trying to make points. Certainly minds are not being changed as a result of reading comments here, so I guess this is just a clean well lighted place to vent.

M. Simon said...

5:28 PM,

They are probably all lifers there anyhow, just like Mike. From what I've seen as an outsider the level of incompetance and corruption in Durham would make success outside of Durham unlikely.

There is always Chicaga or N'Oleans.

Vivian Thomas said...

CNN just ran Marcotte's post during the Situation Room.

I hope to see that woman abandoned by any organization that is within 1,000 light years of being mainstream.

Anonymous said...

I still see a hit for the sake of doing it. It isn't as if Edwards was going to appoint her secretary of HHS or she was hired to write policy statements and write legislative proposals. She's a blogger, he hired her to run his blog. Destruction for the sake of it.

Anonymous said...

M. Simon:

I think your post about "no attacks since 9/11" fails to grasp that we were at war with al Queda WELL before 9/11.

Despite terrorist efforts to attack on US soil, such attacks have been very, very, very few and very far between. Some didn't do much damage, others were by US citizens (Timothy McVeigh and the Ku Klux Klan through much of America's history).

Aside from McVeigh and the KKK (the biggest perpetrator of terrorist attacks on American soil in our history), al Queda was successful on US soil twice (discounting technicalities about the ownership of the soil our embassies sit on).

Anyway, attacks like Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole occurred while we were technically in "friendly" territory. Not saying its very friendly, but the USS Cole was refueling, and the embassies were embassies, and they are kind of left to be protected by our allies of whom we are guests.

In the end, nothing changed on 9/11 except Bush waking up. Clinton failed in that bin Laden was never killed or caught, but those who claim he could have gotten bin Laden make that claim based on the dubious assumption that -- in that particular case -- we should have negotiated with State-sponsored terrorists to get him.

In the end, in light of the fact that al Queda has been trying to attack on US soil WAY before 9/11, their probability of a successful attack on American soil has been very, very low. 9/11 was an abberation and the FBI predicted almost the EXACT plot would unfold... something they forwarded to the Bush adminstration with plenty of time for a crackdown.

Clinton failed in not killing/capturing bin Laden, and Bush failed in not heeding the FBI's advice. At the very least, something akin to a "on-the-fly" raising of the terror level, particularly amongst airline security might very well have prevented the attacks -- let alone putting a TON of resources into the claim that Arab men were training to fly commercial airliners in Arizona without caring about learning to land (the official warning system that is really a joke didn't yet exist at the time, but you could still do the same thing without it).

As horrible as 9/11 was, the expectation that attacks would happen every six months was based on fear, not logic.

-Don

Anonymous said...


With all due respect, the credit goes to the defense lawyers who poured over the case evidence and wrote their motions accordingly.


So, what did they pour all over the case? A bucket of shit?

Vitruvius said...

When I received my first email account, in 1974 (sic), it was on a university mainframe, and, fortunately for me, they gave me a three page set of rules and advice on how to behave in email. The one I'll always remember was, "Never send in email what you would be unwilling to see on the news". And, my parents always taught me, double-check your frustrations when pontificating in public.

Of course, with blogs it's even more immediate. But because I was fore-warned both technically and morally, I've held back during my moments of greatest frustration. And, because of that, if you knew my real name and Googled about me, going back to newsgroups in the '80s, you would find that I've never been rude or inconsiderate.

What we have in the case of Ms. Marcotte is someone who, for whatever reason, has never learned that if you don't play well with others in your public writing, then people will conclude that you don't play well with others in general.

And it doesn't matter whether or not you're left or right of the isle. She behaved specularly poorly, she laid down a public evidence track to support that claim, and now she is suffering the consequences.

Anonymous said...

LOL going after the Catholics was the last straw - Marcotte and McEwan are out and Edwards does not have a chance in 2008.

NYT:

"Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of contraception forced women “to bear more tithing Catholics.” In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception."

Stick a fork in Edwards - he's done.

Steven Horwitz said...

Gosh. Someone publishes something controversial and edgy on the web and other people say "hey, that's controversial and edgy and we don't like it." The first person gets fired because their employer doesn't wish to offend people. Sounds like freedom of speech all around to me.

Can someone please explain how the free speech of the second group is somehow limiting the free speech of the first? When bloggers of any stripe publicize the words spoken by other bloggers, it's ALL part of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of responsibility from the effects your words have on others.... despite what the Group of 88 seems to think.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of contraception forced women “to bear more tithing Catholics.” In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception."
------------------------------

Couldn't agree with her more.

M. Simon said...

6:15 PM Their ability to destroy Amanda, even though they used her own words,

How unfair. Using her words against her.

will embolden them further in their mindless hate

is this projection?

of everyone that doesn't believe George W. is a great president,

Heck that is kind of a hard one to swollow even for me.

that wars are won or lost by journalists not soldiers,

The great theoretician of war Clauzwitz said the moral is to the material as three to one. Newspapers have a lot to do with the moral or morale as it is some times called. A winning army can be called home without a defeat.

or who doesn't pine for the 'unborn.'

Actually, I do know the difference between an acorn and an oak tree.

Plus, I think drug prohibition is a waste.

So where do I fit in to your stereotype?

Anonymous said...

Is it possible that the Edwards campaign liked what they read on her blog and hired her because of her work?

Which is worse - to have not read it and hired her, or read it, liked it, then when there was a negative reaction, be forced to get rid of her.

Just askin'...

Anonymous said...

Since we haven't heard officially from Edwards' campaign regarding Marcotte the Moonbat, for all intents and purposes the post at 8:00 could very well be from the Silky Pony himself.

That's how I'm reading it.

Anonymous said...

A winning army can be called home without a defeat.
------------

Aye there's the rub. But that isn't a morale problem, or a media problem, or a military problem, that's a strategy problem.

When your forces will every battle and still cannot keep the peace that's a sign that the peace cannot be won in battle.

Anonymous said...

"So, it still feels like a hit to me. It means that this generation, of Myspace, and online diaries and blogs is going to be punished for thinking and saying things that are unpopular or divisive."
7:41

All things considered, I think it is better to know more. About 25 years ago, my town had a Klan rally. Some people, black and white, did not want it. Some, black and white, did for no other reason than to know who among us wished to walk around in a white dunce cap and proclaim their hatred. I was in the latter group preferring to know who I did not want to know.

Sunlight is a great disinfectant.

I am sure that Marcotte wanted her day in the sun. She certainly got it.

SAVANT

Anonymous said...

Vitruvius:

I'm old-school enough to agree with every word. Well, except "isle."

Dave

Anonymous said...

Dave:

LOL!

I'll agree with that!

Anonymous said...

I can see it both ways, really.

Amanda had a blog, her opinions and writing skills were there for all to see. If she had aspirations of a more professional nature she should have considererd the consequences.

Amanda is an unimportant cog, and only was of interest because she made herself an easy target and she can be another poster girl for the 'looney left' wing.

My guess is that Edwards people must not have read her blog in detail, she probably gave them her site meter readings and some of her less profanity laden entries.

Sign of a badly run campaign either way.

M. Simon said...

7:00 PM,

Those swiftboat folk against him were clowns.

I served in the war zone - Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club. DLGN - 25 '66.

I believed Kerry in '71. By '80 I knew different.

The man is/was a traitor. The Swift Boaters killed Kerry with the truth. Sorry 'bout that. For me '04 was a great revenge on Kerry.

So yeah. Marcotte got Swift Boated. Some one (many actually) told the truth on her.

Anonymous said...

The Swift Boaters were pretty much discredited.

They weren't where they said they were, their "affidavidts" were based on heresay and the verified eye witnesses and documentation from the time events occured did not support their statements.

wayne fontes said...

Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of contraception forced women “to bear more tithing Catholics.” In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception."

Catholics don't tithe.

Vitruvius said...

Oops, sorry about that Dave. Also, I wrote specularly instead of spectacularly. Although, when I consider the differences between the right and left sides of the isle of Hispaniola, and their specular natures... ouch, ouch, hey, stop hitting me ;-)

Anonymous said...

5:11 PM
"It's another way to limit free speech, apparently if you have a blog and you want a career you had better parse your words carefully."

You obviously don't understand the free market system, or don't believe in it. If I don't buy or like your cheap drivel, I don't have to take you out to dinner, buy your records, attend your classes, or hire you to represent my ideas.

What a novel thought... but you call that restricting free speech or intimidation. Wow, what an insular world!

MGM

Anonymous said...

What I understand is that the more a person writes or speaks the more amunition there is to take ones words out of context in order to assassinate their character or, in this case, get them fired.

I call that intimidation.

Anonymous said...

Oh damn it. "Retiring" suggests she's moving back Texas.

Anonymous said...

Edwards campaign is sunk either way. If he fires the idiot(s) the angry left blogosphere will attack him more viciously than they did Lieberman and likely make it their mission to destroy him. If he keeps them on, and more mainstream info outlets pick up the story, he's history with a big chunk of moderate dems.

Buh bye silky pony.

Anonymous said...

Maybe I was wrong, maybe North Carolina is STILL out to get these kids....I am stunned.
-----------------------

Duke Lacrosse Judge May Discipline Grand Jurors Who Spoke Publicly


Posted: Today at 7:13 p.m.
Updated: 25 minutes ago

Two former members of the grand jury that indicted three Duke lacrosse players could be charged with contempt for talking about the case.

This all comes as Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong faces his own State Bar trial for talking too much to the media early in the case.

Superior Court Judge Orlando F. Hudson Jr. said he could not believe it when he heard the two grand jurors on an ABC Television program talking about the Duke lacrosse case Tuesday morning.

"It was pretty clear to me that the jurors are in violation of North Carolina law," Hudson told WRAL on Wednesday.

Last spring, the grand jury listened to Durham detectives lay out evidence in the case in which an exotic dancer claimed to have been raped by three members of the lacrosse team during an off-campus party for which swhe had been hired..

Members then chose to indict Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and Dave Evans on charges of rape, sexual assault and kidnapping. Nifong subsequently dismissed the rape charge against each of the three.

When grand jurors are sworn in, Hudson noted, they are given clear instructions regarding secrecy.

The judge called the grand jury process the most sacred in the judicial system.

"I'm thinking about doing something because it is a very serious violation of the court's orders," Hudson explained.

The judge would not talk about details about what he might do, but he said grand jurors who discuss a case can be charged with contempt of court, a misdemeanor offense that can carry up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.

The two jurors did not show their faces during the interview. Hudson said that could make it difficult to identify them, but he said he could call in all the grand jurors from that session and put them under oath to find out who talked.

Hudson was named last year to handle all aspects of the lacrosse case so it could move as easily as possible through the courts.

Last month, Nifong asked the state attorney general to take over the case, and two prosecutors from that office are now in charge.

Defense attorneys met with the prosecutors Wednesday, their second session in as many weeks after having had no meetings with Nifong. They would not disclose what was discussed.

Anonymous said...

4:43 Isn't the deficit relative to GNP as low as it's been in twenty years?

Anonymous said...

I guess Hudson isn't as concerned with flagrant violations by the district attorney as with comments to the media by grand jurors.

Anonymous said...

Amanda Marcotte's writings IN CONTEXT were more than enough to get her fired from the obviously-unsuitable job to which Edwards' campaign foolishly appointed her and which she foolishly accepted. Don't see where intimidation comes into it.

Steven Horwitz said...

"So, it still feels like a hit to me. It means that this generation, of Myspace, and online diaries and blogs is going to be punished for thinking and saying things that are unpopular or divisive."
7:41

I love it when leftists complain about how wrong it is to punish people for unpopular or divisive - who was it, after all, that came up with campus speech codes?

Vitruvius said...

What I understand 8:29 is that the more a person writes or speaks the more evidence there is to consider ones words, in context, in order to judge their character, and where there is sufficient evidence to support the position, to discriminate against them in one's dealings.

To pre-judge is almost always less than optimal, but to discriminate on the basis of evidence of misbehavior is only reasonable. If one is unreasonable, and one pays the price for that, then that is not intimidation, it's past that point.

Freedom of speech does not mean one is free of criticism and even ostracization for one's speech, nor does it mean that any private collective is required to carry, transmit, or support one's speech. It only means that the state is prohibited from preventing you from speaking.

Except in three cases. You are not allowed to yell Fire in a crowded theater, unless of course there is a fire, you are not allowed to incite violence, and you are not allowed to slander.

That sounds about right to me.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone even notice the post that says the Duke judge is considering action against the grand jurors who spoke out?

Am I the only person who finds this very, very ominous?

Kind of like the idea that Durham really isn't ready to let go of this case.....

Steven Horwitz said...

So let me get this straight:

Trent Lott says some racist stuff at Thurmond's birthday party, bloggers publicize it (including conservative ones), and he's forced to step down. The Left cheers.

Two women bloggers say some anti-Catholic and anti-male stuff on blogs, other bloggers publicize it (including liberals like KC), and the women are forced out of their jobs. The Left screams censorship.

What's wrong with this picture?

I guess it's only censorship when it's things you agree with eh? So much for principles.

Lefty McLiberal said...

8:42

Speech codes are different. Speech codes punish hate speech. Don't try to change the subject.

Steven Horwitz said...

Oh, and the remarks about Catholics weren't "hate speech" - whatever that is?

And speech codes ban much more than "hate speech." Learn something about the subject.

Anonymous said...

Okay, nobody cares that Hudson is threatening action against the grand jurors?

You'd rather discuss Amanda Marcotte?

Anonymous said...

8:38

I think Judge Hudson is working on the issues he has jurisdiction over. The state bar association is handling Nifong. Judge Hudson is right to attempt to get to the bottom of who the talking grand jurors are. They broke the law just as surely as Nifong and Crystal Gail Mangum did. They deserve the same scrutiny. Time will tell what their fate will be, but regardless of what else you think of the case, one crime does not warrant another.

Anonymous said...

How did the grand jurors commit a crime?

They didn't disclose anything about what was presented at the grand jury, only their views about the case since then.

This is more intimidation from the Durham power structure and more precisely, the Durham black community.

Anonymous said...

I read a great definition of hate speech on a left wing blog today - hate speech is speech you disagree with. The point the writer was trying to make was that no matter how vile you are in describing Christians, white males or conservatives, if you agree with the basic premise, it isn't hate speech. There you have it - there can be no hate speech if it is directed towards members of those groups.

Anonymous said...

Who else thinks that the dolts who are defending Marcotte's comments are the same exact people who were howling for that actor on Gray's Anatomy to be fired for using a "gay slur"?

Michael said...

Someone should post the law on GJ participants. Perhaps KC could make a separate blog post on this as it would appear to deserve one.

Anonymous said...

5:45, here (thanks, American Patriot '07, for the neck-rub). KC, sorry to stray off-topic, but I feel I must respond.

For what its worth, and in addition to Sen. Kerry's subsequent, somewhat unsavory second career as a Lothario interested in marrying rich women, among the facts of the Massachusetts junior Senator's biography I still find it hard to believe more than (250) Swift boat veterans agreed to sign an open letter to him that challenges his fitness to serve as America's Commander-in-Chief.

Signers of the letter included the entire chain of command above Lt. John Kerry in Vietnam: Lt. Commander Grant Hibbard, Lt. Commander George Elliott, Captain Charles Plumly, Captain Adrian Lonsdale USCG, and Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, who said, "I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States. This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust-- all absolute tenets of command.

"His biography," the Admiral said, "'Tour of Duty,' by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even a most casual review of this biography. He arrived in-country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future."

Squares with the fact that Senator Kerry, then Lt. (j.g.) Kerry, brought a Super-8mm. movie camera to film his martial exploits. He then claimed a Purple Heart for getting nailed in the ass with a grain of rice.

Well, sorry, folks, but this guy's running one way and looking another; just about as high and goodbye as they come.

Barbara Tuchman said, "Honor wears different coats to different eyes," but coming from a family of veterans-- and their grumpy old alcoholic comrades-- my experience makes it almost unbelievable to me that all these guys stepped up to sign their names to a petition denouncing Kerry, (30) years after the fighting ended.

Tough to imagine they all would voluntarily put their names out in public if there weren't some foundation to their opinion. Lieutenant Kerry must have been some piece of work during his tour.

And the fact that he has STILL not released a COMPLETE set of military records (as he promised in the 2004 campaign to do) ices it:

"Swiftboating," is to offer revelations, not obfuscations, about a public figure.

You see in this epizootic of the blowhole Marcotte exactly the kind of red-assed angry freak that gravitates towards the Liberal-Democrat victim-cult these days; coming full circle, the culture that allows knuckleheads like Durham prosecutor Nifong to take the kinds of actions he has been allowed, in denying these fratboy wildmen due process. Hey, here's a bulletin: in the eyes of the law, discrete facts exist APART from the meta-narrative in which they manifest.

OK?

Simple common sense and fair play have been hijacked by Foucaultian bullshit, and relegated to the category of bourgeois fantasy, but the fact is MOST people live their lives in the Great Middle Ground of perception. Democracy is the actions of a majority with respect for minority interests; which for its proper functioning requires adequate-- and sometimes self-sacrificing-- civic responsibility from everyone, including respect for due process, free speech, and the primacy of concrete evidence.

Sorry. Hand me back my beer, I'm kicking away this soapbox.

Anonymous said...

"If by swiftboat, you mean tell the truth,"

No by swiftboat we mean to intentionally misrepresent the valorous military career of a man who served his country by the minions of a coward. It's really that simple, now isn't it? Or are Deferment Dick and George I just won't show up for duty anymore, now considered military heroes?

Anonymous said...

Dan Rather, is that you???

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 5:50 PM

Bloggers and the Press and the Defense Lawyers... working together.

The issue is not who gets the credit (Boggers vs. Defense Lawyers) for the three Duke students.

It is about Bloggers working in tandem or partnership WITH the Press and Defense Lawyers and Officers of the law.

For example, today in a suburb of Houston, Texas, police arrested a 19 year old young man for the rape of 4 or 5 victims over the last several months.

http://stories.baytownsun.com/story.lasso?ewcd=a3f75a06bbff8c27

All police organizations in the Houston, Texas area credit the Bloggers and the Police working TOGETHER to solve these crimes. If fact, a police officer was assigned to read the Blogs day after to day to see if the citizen Bloggers of our community could help synthesize all of the information needed in order to arrest the perpetrator.

I would have never found this Blog if Reade Seligmann had not looked straight into a TV camera and mentioned that his professors were talking about the three guilty students... before a trial. As a retired professor and college administrator, I can assure you that Reade was correct! It is most unusual for professors to talk badly about their students in public in front of the press. I jumped up onto the Internet immediately to find out what else was going on at DOOK.

This case is far from over and the Bloggers need to keep moving this case forward until all of the facts are rooted out and placed in front of the Police AND the Bloggers AND The Press AND Duke Alumni.

I have already written all three of the universities that provided me with a degree and told them in no certain terms...should their faculty talk badly about their students in public or if they create a department of Anger Studies my annual donations will dry up and I will list their actions with the Blogger community.

Can you imagine how things might change for the better ...in the future for defendants who do not have great defense attorneys as do the three young men from Duke?

Bloggers are going to make a big difference in the future.

Anonymous said...

The swiftboaters were just exercising their right of free speech, doncha know.

Anonymous said...


"If by swiftboat, you mean tell the truth,"

No by swiftboat we mean to intentionally misrepresent the valorous military career of a man who served his country by the minions of a coward. It's really that simple, now isn't it? Or are Deferment Dick and George I just won't show up for duty anymore, now considered military heroes?


There are two types in the military. Those who do their duty and don't make a big deal of it, and the REMFs who are there for the political gain.

While Kerry is due some respect for actually having the balls to serve under fire, compared with some others, I do get the impression that he is more of an REMF type.

Vitruvius said...

What is it with some of you people? The topic is Ms. Marcotte's behaviour and marginally its impact per Mr. Edwards. I'm sure Professor Johnson will cover the grand jury matter in due course. Have you no patience at all?

Lefties, righties, and scatterbrains, what is this, one trick pony night at Durham in Wonderland?

Anonymous said...

8:00 You may want to consider applying for a job over at the Edwards campaign. I understand there he has openings...

Inre: "Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of contraception forced women “to bear more tithing Catholics.” In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception."
------------------------------

Couldn't agree with her more."

Anonymous said...

Tonkin Gulf

Yup, just change the words to "yellow cake uranium" and you've got the chickenhawks screaming war.

Anonymous said...

"While Kerry is due some respect for actually having the balls to serve under fire, compared with some others, I do get the impression that he is more of an REMF type. "

Yup, REMFs like deferment Dick and I can't show up to do my duty George. What heroes they are

Anonymous said...

How come no one is pressing Edwards regarding the Duke hoax? He's getting a pass...

Anonymous said...

"What I understand is that the more a person writes or speaks the more amunition there is to take ones words out of context in order to assassinate their character or, in this case, get them fired.

I call that intimidation. "
8:29

On the other hand, if someone puts out a lot of material, you can get a good idea of where he or she is coming from.

I am certain that I would cringe to see some things I said or wrote in print. However, if someone read everything I uttered or wrote (or even a decent sized sample) they would be able to pin me down as what is often called a libertarian- conservative. They would not find a pattern of me beating on a group because of their gender, race, or religious affiliation.

If Marcotte had written emotionally balanced and well thought out stuff most of the time, she would not have been a target. Rather than look at the sample of her rantings chosen by rightie blogs, I went to the source (Pandagon). I felt like I had to cherry pick to find something written by a stable, intelligent human being. She was exposed for what she is.

If I had an employee who was toxic to my customers, I would want them to tell me even if their motivation was simply to screw the toxic employee. I would not blame them for pointing out something I was too obtuse to notice. It would then be for me to decide if I wanted to keep or fire the toxic employee.

Amanda's fate was purely a function of what she did prior to joining the campaign and the campaign's weighing of whether she was an asset or a liability. The rightie blogs merely provided information for the campaign to ignore or utilize as it saw fit.

You are shooting the messenger. If you think that Marcotte is wonderful or got worse than she deserved, be angry with the Edwards campaign.

SAVANT

Anonymous said...

M. Simon. Thank you for serving.

Anonymous said...

8:21 You have any evidence to back that statement up...regarding discredited Swiftboaters?

Anonymous said...

The 88 said:

"swiftboat we No by mean to misrepresent the valorous of a man George I just who served his by the swiftboat we minions country of a intentionally coward. It's really isn't it? Or military career are swiftboat we Dick and won't duty anymore, now considered that , now military show up for heroes simple?"

WTF?

Anonymous said...

This is like deja vu, like going to Little Green Footballs and being asked to show proof of the scientific consensus on global warming.

The Swiftboaters have been discredited, I realize you probably don't give credence to MSM but the LA TImes, Wash Post and NYTimes all did pieces on the allegations vs. the public record and the Swiftboaters came up short.

Anonymous said...

8:46 Would you consider the Listening statement hate speech?

Anonymous said...

9:11

Of course not. Like most lefties, 8:21 is a forum troll.

Anonymous said...

The only crime is a Grand Jury system that allows the prosecutor to secretly present evidence, often false, to a jury w/o allowing the defendent or their attorney to answer to the charges. The Grand Jury system is the biggest perversion of justice in the history of jurisprudence. If Judge Hudson does go after the jurors, he may create even more fallout and more scrutiny of a criminally inept prosecutor and a NC justice system seen as a criminal enterprise by the rest of the nation. I for one hope he chooses to pursue the grand jurors as it will only focus media and blogger interest on what lies were repeated by Nifong, Gottlieb, et.al. behind those closed Grand Jury doors.

Anonymous said...

anon 9:12

Couldn't agree with you more. 88 monkeys typing for 88,000 years would probably make more sense.

Vitruvius said...

I agree with Savant. I too went and spent an hour reviewing the nature of the material at Pandagon, in context. People have to learn to appreciate that when they speak or write in public, they will be judged on their words, no matter what the law says.

What matters is the cumulative effect of ones works. You can, for example, go to my little pseudo-blog, The Sagacious Iconoclast, and you will find words that I have carefully considered and am willing to stand on.

I require that Ms. Marcotte submit to the same judgment.

Anonymous said...

If Judge Hudson does go after the jurors, he may create even more fallout and more scrutiny of a criminally inept prosecutor and a NC justice system seen as a criminal enterprise by the rest of the nation.
---------------------------

I hope so, I still think it's a really bad sign as far as this case goes. It reads to me that he wants to punish the grand jurors for talking about their present doubts and send a message to anyone else not even to THINK about ever telling the truth of whatever lies and falsehoods Nifong presented.

The grand jurors did not violate their oath by speaking publicly. It is more Durham b.s.

Anonymous said...

Vitruvius,

Austin Healy Sprite? The most fun I've ever had behind the wheel, even though the damn thing kept breaking down...

Anonymous said...

Too damn funny. It appears Salon has taken down the annoucement. She must still be employed, this has her thumbprint all over it...

Anonymous said...

8:33 PM
"Oh damn it. "Retiring" suggests she's moving back Texas."

Damn... where the heck are her cats? Last time I heard they were in Jackson. Kinda like 'limbo'... Uh oh, she hates that concept too.

Anonymous said...

Sources

Michael Kranish,“Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry ,” The Boston Globe, 6 August 2004 .

Jodi Wilgoren, "Vietnam Veterans Buy Ads to Attack Kerry," The New York Times, 5 August 2004.

Douglas Brinkley, Tour of Duty, (NY, HarperCollins, 2004).

Jim Rassmann, "Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush," Wall Street Journal, 10 Aug 2004: A10.

Ron Fournier, "McCain Condemns Anti-Kerry Ad," Associated Press, 5 August 2004.

Michael Kranish, "Kerry Faces Questions Over Purple Heart," The Boston Globe , 14 April 2004: A1.

Michael Kranish, "Heroism, and growing concern about war," The Boston Globe, 16 June 2003.

Maria L. La Ganga and Stephen Braun, "Race to the White House: Veterans Battle Over Truth; An ad calls Kerry a liar. His Vietnam crew sees a hero. Memories, and agendas, are in conflict." Los Angeles Times 17 Aug 2004: A1.

Michael Dobbs, "Records Counter A Critic Of Kerry; Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire" Washington Post, 19 Aug. 2004: A1.

William B. Rood, "FEB. 28, 1969: ON THE DONG CUNG RIVER
`This is what I saw that day'" Chicago Tribune 22 Aug 2004.

Michael Dobbs, "Swift Boat Accounts Incomplete: Critics Fail to Disprove Kerry's Version of Vietnam War Episode," Washington Post 22 Aug 2004: A1.

HumboldtBlue said...

"The Edwards campaign issued a semi-denial of the report, saying it would "caution [Salon] against reporting that they have been fired. We will have something to say later.""

Those are KCs words describing this story. MaybeSalon pulled it down because they have jumped the gun.

Anonymous said...

Read an excellent analysis of the NC Bar charges on UMR Blog - Now this is good writin. This Amanda could not write worth a hoot - the foul mouth cussing distracted from any point she had. Edwards is not my man, butwho hired this person?

Anonymous said...

9:27 Disregard the post, I must have made a mistake as I was able to pull the article up a few minutes ago. Excuse me.

KC do you mind deleting the 9:27 post? Thank you.

Anonymous said...

If she's out, it's probably for the anti-Catholic comments. That's a problem Edwards doesn't need.

I'm Catholic myself but Catholic bashing usually doesn't bother me. The cow dung Virgin Mary at the Brooklyn Museum was disturbing but I got over it. I have to say that a few of Marcotte's rants were pretty upsetting though. Put it this way - she really knows how to take something sacred and spit all over it.

Anonymous said...


Put it this way - she really knows how to take something sacred and spit all over it.


I think that was her intent.

The problem is, we all have our sacred cows.

Michael said...

There's a Swiftboats forum out on the web which would be a better place to discuss that aspect of the last election.

One of the benefits of using a signed identity is that you can delete your own posts as sometimes we say something we didn't want to say. Or say it twice. So we get Amanda privs over our own posts.

Anonymous said...

Michael Kranish,“Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry ,” The Boston Globe, 6 August 2004 .

“…Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one (ONE BUT NOT ALL), of the key contentions. …Elliott, in the interview yesterday, said that based on the affidavits of the veterans on other boats, he now thinks his assessment about the Bronze Star and third Purple Heart may have been based on poor information”

Elliot backed off his Silver Star statement but not the ones based upon comments of those who were there. Am I reading this wrong, all he says is that he should not have signed one of three affidavits? Elliot was NOT present.

Anonymous said...

8:57 PM
Like or hate GWB or the National guard... It's takes "a set" to pass jet flight training and fly a military fighter jet aircraft. There was a higher fatality rate of jet pilots in general than overall Viet Nam veterans. All the comments by the leftest loons show how devoid of service and the military they really are.

Anonymous said...

To 6:30 p.m of the previos post and to all the other commenters who have stated that they wouldn't send their children to Duke or who wonder who would send a child to Duke: Well, I sent one to Duke (Engineering 2000) and I would again.

IMHO, after the turmoil subsides and Duke addresses and resolves the issues that have arisen in this case, it will be an even better university and, I would go so far as to say, that town-gown relationships will improve as well. Already, town crooks and academic frauds have been exposed, albeit at a terrible emotional and financial expense to some of the LAX players and their former coach. And Humanities has already been relieved of Houston Baker.

To those of you who would not send a child to Duke, let me paraphrase the Buchanan pot bangers: "You can't run. You can't hide." I ask you where are you going to let your child (young adult is a better term) go? Look into murders on other campuses (Harvard, Yale, University of Pennsylvania to name several). Look into rowdy fraternities and athletes at other universities (a police called to an out-of-control off-campus fraternity party at the University of Arizona was shot and killed, a freshman died of forced alcohol poisoning at an MIT fraternity hazing). Show me the university where all humanities professors put aside their prejudices and biases and grade objectively. Show me the high school where that happens. Show me the administrators who are not primarily concerned about damage control and covering their asses and who are not afraid to express their real opinions. Show me a major university that doesn't have in its race/gender/class contingent of professors those who are always publicly preaching victimization. Maybe some smaller, more sheltered colleges and universities appear better and have not had the negative media coverage that Duke now has and that other universities have had. But the cracks are there at those rarefied campuses, and maybe some cracks have been covered up.

To you who state that you would not send your child to Duke, don't base your decision on the media coverage and the blogs on the reported campus activities. I suggest you visit Duke and examine the University in its entirety and observe and talk to students and professors during the course of their days. Most students are neither athletes nor pot bangers, and the Group of 88 (not all were professors) are not representative of the large and diverse faculty. If you get a chance, see the documentary on the rape case at Brown a while back. I believe it was a "Frontline" piece. The harpies and faculty that banged pots and carried signs there made the Buchanan pot bangers seem like tame amateurs.

"You can't run. You can't hide." And you can't home school for a university degree.

Gary Packwood said...

9:56 PM Anonymous

Good post. Good comments from the Dad of an Alum.

I just told a young women that I would recommend Duke as University and town that is going to be a much better in the future.

I wish I could work at Duke. I would enjoy working with teams of people to help keep Duke as a world class university.

Thanks

bill anderson said...

4:43 PM

I do not think this person was "swift boated." All people did was repeat what she wrote.

Now, maybe in your world, to actually hold someone accountable for what they have written somehow is immoral, but for the rest of us, one's words are in the public domain, and they are fair game. I have had people emailing the president at my university demanding I be fired because of what I write. That is what happens when one permits his or her words to be out there in public.

Our going after Marcotte's comments had nothing to do with Iraq or anything else. And we are not a bunch of right wingers, no matter what you might think. Are you saying that Marcotte should have no responsibility for her own words? Truly pathetic.

Anonymous said...

9:56 While I certainly respect your position, it will have much more impact after the young men are completely exonerated, a new leader is found, and something is done about the Gang of 88 (and their comrades) frauds.

You are correct, in fact if they really get serious, Duke could set the example on how to clean house.

However, they have currently shown very little, from very few which suggests you may be a bit optimistic.

By the way when we visited the summer before last, Duke, by far, had the best presentation, tour, and Q&A of any of the schools we visited. My son was looking at liberal arts and none of the crazies were presented...that is a problem, but not one unique to Duke.

Given what has happened, I feel like we dodged a bullet. He is a white, male, athlete.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone deny that if Amanda's same words had been used against MLK, blacks in general, or muslims... she would have been condemned as a pathological hate monger or a David Duke? I'm sure Hilter or Nazi would have been thrown in to boot.

It really depends on the target when the left comes out to defend or condemn. Sounds like the 88 to me.

Anonymous said...

Some lawyers who blog here should step forward and defend the two grand jurors. This is an attempt by the judge to intimidate.

Anonymous said...

I don't have anything against Duke as a university but I can't imagine sending any young person into a location where the entire town was seething with resentment and race hatred and is apparently a violent crime ridden city as a bonus. Cambridge is full of liberals, but they don't go out of their way to hassle white people or Harvard students; Princeton is a pictureque little town, Dartmouth, same, never been to Penn....New Haven kind of sucks, but I don't know that the population hates Yale.

It's very clear that Durhamites hate Duke.

Anonymous said...

Judge wants to charge two GJ members who spoke out.

I wonder, as the judge, if he recalls what was said in the GJ room? Maybe he should speak up and ask why no rape any more and what about the DNA evidence?

Judge may charge GJ members

Anonymous said...

I suspect he recalls only too well what was said and that's why he's trying to intimidate and punish these GJ members.

This worries me immensely, maybe the AG will try to go to trial afterall. I can't imagine it, really, but wouldn't have expected a judge to threaten these jurors for NOT disclosing any GJ testimony.

Durham is a cesspool.

Anonymous said...

I live in Durham, I don't hate Duke. The hospital there saved my life. Of course the cardiac surgeon who treated me graduated from Johns Hopkins, but he works there, so they must be doing something right.

The school is what it is - expensive, exclusive, elitist and also leftist. It has a beautiful campus, altho' not as nice as Stanford or Harvard, and some of the schools there are better than average.

The biggest problem is that it is in Durham. Durham is not a good place. The police have a policy (perhaps unofficial, but tell that to someone who is arrested) of treating Duke students differently than local miscreants. That's a problem right there.

My youngest son goes to ECU in Greenville - not a great place, but it is far from Durham. And about 46K dollars cheaper per year.

Duke permeates this town. It cannot be avoided. That breeds envy and resentment among many of the locals. Oh well. But not everyone hates Duke. Go Devils!

Gary Packwood said...

8:54 PM
Good Point
Anonymous said...
I read a great definition of hate speech on a left wing blog today -Hate speech is speech you disagree with...
...and 'cults' are groups of people you disagree with.

See how simple life becomes?

Anonymous said...

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/02/the_pandagon_pa.html

this is pretty funny...

Anonymous said...

Ah, I love the smell of napalm in the morning, don't you folks? It smells like victory.

Funny thing that, her getting canned, and right after the Democratic National Caucus. Almost like that decision was made there, huh? :D

Adios Amanda. No one is untouchable, no one.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

http://iowahawk.typepad.com

Anonymous said...

I grew up in a college town, though it was a large state school not an elite university, there was some sense of the college students considering locals country bumpkins and of course people always complained about college students having parties and wrecking rent houses but I never discerned anything close to what I perceive is the almost outright hostility in Durham.

bill anderson said...

Can anyone from Duke hit free throws? I'll bet Nifong is to blame for the lousy free throw shooting by Duke tonight. I'll go ahead and blame him.

Anonymous said...

I'm starting to wonder if we, as a country, aren't becoming people who prefer myths and narratives over facts. We can't agree on anything, no one will move off of their agendas long enough to do anything constructive. Facts are only good for twisting. Nobody's mind has changed on abortion for 30 years, it's likely nobody's mind will change in the next 30 years, but it stays front and center in politics. Inconvenient facts are ignored or discredited by both liberals and conservatives. Everyone seems comforted by their world views and stereotypes, whether that is the tratorous, politically correct liberal or the anti-science, anti-intellectual red state conservative. That's what this case is really about, no one will move off the dime, no one will give up their stereotype. It's truly pathetic that our country has come to this.

HumboldtBlue said...

The theme for the 88 and their apologists is now formally a quote from Alice in Wonderland ...

"Sentence first, verdict afterwards"

No wonder KC chose to name this blog as he did

HumboldtBlue said...

There was a fantastic piece written by Bill Bercier for the monthly journal "First Things" in January of 2004 called "Diverse Diversities"

Regarding the term 'diversity'

and I quote ...

"But then our universities use the term not as the morally neutral term it is. Rather they transform it into an ideal of university education.

"The university, as a product of the traditions of the West has occupied itself since its beginnings with the definitive standards of the West.

"Only very recently, however, has diversity been used as a term to designate a standard for a distinctive and significant area of excellence to be fostered by the university.

"Surely there is something new here, but it is hard to see what it is. For the new use of the term 'diversity' obscures what its usage aims to effect.

"The fact is that the "celebration of diversity" means to represent a kind of liberation from standards themselves, standards understood to prodeuce homogeneity by systematically excluding and oppressing whatever is 'different'."

In other words, to humbly use the words of Father Richard John Neuhaus, "such things are to expected in a culture with no higher standard than 'non-judgmentalism'."

Pretty much sums up the "isms" and their adherents.

Anonymous said...

Amanda can go back to Pandagon and spew her filth in a lower profile environment. She clearly proved she is not ready for prime time.

Neither is Edwards.

Thankfully, we will be spared from having to bother with these 2 twits.

Anonymous said...

I got to a blog called MYDD - the guy (Chris Bowers) who writes it actually tells Edwards, he will bring the wrath of the left wing bloggers down on him if he fires these women. I only heard of this Amanda when she wrote the article about the case. Jack Parr was right "people will tear their own tin foil."

Anonymous said...

So what actually is Judge Hudson's authority here? The original article copied here identifies him as the judge put in charge of all lacrosse case-related matters, but that is Judge Smith (and the WRAL site no longer contains that sentence. Was he the judge in charge of the grand jury?

Michael said...

A dailykos post:

another Amanda Marcotte quote:

I had to listen to how the poor, dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f***** her against her will--not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair."

Do you really want Edwards to stick up for this writer?
--------------
Someone over there gets it. Actually many people over there get it.

Anonymous said...

I would assume that the Grand Jurors can simply 'take the 5th' and not answer the Judge's questions...

he needs to prove that they did something and he seems to want to do that by getting them to admit to it under oath.

I guess he doesn't think they have a right to not incriminate themselves?

Anonymous said...

Ok I am feeling left out here. It seems all the effort I put into getting Amanda fired from the Edwards campaign is the work of right wing blogers. I know I can't be a right winger since I voted a split ticket last election and even had one democrats sign in my front yard. Why can't us independents get some credit too?

Anonymous said...

The judge would not have been in the grand jury room.

Stanley Feldman said...

I wrote the Edwards campaign to ask about Marcotte. He didn't bother to respond.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 206   Newer› Newest»