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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
205 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 205 of 205I think Edwards' biggest problem is going to be finding out that the American public in general isn't as stupid as most juries (i.e. the smart or working people usually get out of jury duty).
He is just too used to manipulating these juries, cashing out with his third of a big settlement, and then going on to the next bunch.
Has she indeed been fired or has there been some delay because Edwards has other priorities such as:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q
Some of the postings here portray Amanda as some sort of victim of right wing/Catholic rage. Speaking as a right winger and a Catholic, I can attest that this is laughable, as the prelate is beoming decidedly leftist. Also, The Catholic League couldn't stop Mary from being covered in crap and then displayed in a museum, or Christ doused in urine. Now we are to believe that they have the ability to smite an evil doing blogger? Possible? Yes. Probable? No.
The next category falsely claims that poor Amanda is on the run from the thought police, as are the Dixie Chicks, Tim Robbins and oddly enough, the gang of 88. To say that criticsm is now censorship is not merely false, but in this case, it's pointless. Dear Amanda isn't trying to 'defend her right to free speech'. She's following the example of her Texas brethren by outpacing Enron in the shredder competition.
If blogs did not exist, then Amanda would be lecturing to her cats, until the police were called when odors from her abode were noticed by her neighbors. Now, we are all the beneficiaries of her wit.
Other blogs also provide us with information that we otherwise would not have had regarding a supposedly routine hiring decision by one of the many Democratic presidential hopefuls. We accessed far more information than would be available to us in any newspaper or 30 minute TV news broadcast.
Others detail the many false statements and underhanded actions of governmental figures seeking to railroad innocent men and subvert the justice system. (Duke hoax)
Another uncovered a fraud perpetrated by a media outlet that took place in the middle of a Presidential campaign (Rathergate)
This was once known as investigative journalism. Journalists used to do this, back when they were reporters. Now that they're journalists, we get the Herald Sun.
Bill Anderson pointed out that both he and K.C. have been the subject of adverse mail, which have included threats to their health and employment.
We know that neither has represented themselves as speaking for their institutions, and both have employed professional standards in their writing.
We've also questioned what it is that persons in positions of authority should or should not say.
Thuse far, we've noted that persons should refrain from inciting violence, or committing slander or libel. However, we agree that people do have the right to speak their minds.
We also have the right to decide whom should represent us. Do we have the right to read what a blogger writes, when they are hired by a candidate to be a blogger? If so, are we allowed to form our opinions based upon this?
Do we have the right to decide to buy, or not buy, an album from a music group?
Do we have the right to attend the school of our choice?
This can be tempered by persons in both sides adhering to basic rules for interacting with each other.
I should be able to attend a course taught by Bill Anderson or KC without fear of reprisal if our politcs differ, which they do. Personally, I believe that this would be the case. I also have concluded that most of the gang of 88 are too unprofessional to be trusted in a similar manner.
As a Catholic, I rather doubt that John Edwards would be an 'ideal fit' as a candidate. Admittedly, our politics differed before his recent hiring decision. His decision has failed to lead me to the light.
Word is that the campaign is keeping the toxic twins.
Edwards was "personally offended" but believes that the twins did not intend to malign anyone.
Post a Comment