His ClueBat Is Made Of Balsa

I'm going to be on the Dark Lord's shit-list again, I'm sure.  (Actually, Kos doesn't even know I exist, which is probably for the best for everybody involved.)  But I really don't like stupidity, and much of the reaction to the wingnutospere's attacks on the Edward's campaign has simply countered the stupid with the dumb.

If you don't know what I'm referring to, then its best to just skip on by.  It won't matter as much as ant-poop to the course of your life, or campaign 2008.  But it does kinda matter to me.  You see, there's this website out there called Pandagon.  I started to follow it closely when Ezra Klein split company with one of the more annoying guys I've followed on the web (~wink~) and joined Jesse Taylor there.  Then Ezra decided to freelance, as it were, and Jesse partnered up with Amanda Marcotte.  Jesse went on to a bright political future, and recently, it looked like Amanda had as well.  She got hired as blog-Goddess for the John Edwards campaign.

Here's where the stupid takes hold.  A certain shrieking harpy, no doubts unhappy that she can't just lock away anyone who scares her, decided that Edwards must suffer for associating with the left side of the netroots.  Amanda has been a marvelous voice for feminism and activism on the web, which would be why her talents were valuable to John Edwards.  But you can't hold strong beliefs without offending somebody, and Maglangalangadingdong was absolutely livid that someone who offended her might be involved with a political campaign, a campaign I would point out that she never had any intention whatsoever to support and will continue to attack with stupidity at every opportunity.

So, the attack chihuahuas formed ranks and screamed at the top of their tiny little lungs that Amanda would tarnish Edwards because she used the 'F' word, and didn't give their brand of shit any more weight than it was due.  The funny thing about that many little dogs yapping; they dull the senses enough that anybody listening just wants it to stop, and forgets that the little poochies are yipping at nothing.  Pay them attention, and give them pets, and maybe they'll quiet down.  That's the thing about canine-rats, though.  They never will quiet down and they don't mind acting bat-shit insane as long as you care more about their noise then you do the stupidity of the situation; grown thinking humans giving some kind of thoughtful credence to tiny annoying presumed mammals.

The wingnut-o-sphere has been very very good at that very sort of thing.  To me, it seems mostly because few thinking creatures have the will to smack the yelping whelps.  They're so helpless and cute, how can one gain the strength to discipline such angry little beasts?  John Edwards apparently doesn't have that strength.  Long story short, it took a while for the Edward's campaign to formulate the appropriate response to the piercing whines of the stupid.  Today, Edwards spoke his peace:

“The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.”

Yup, a fair shake for everyone.  That's like giving one kid the shake and the other the glass simply based on who shrieks loudest.  To me, that seems precisely as if Edwards is saying that the wingnuts were being 'fake but accurate', a phrase they so adore.  Maybe it's just me, but I don't care if John Edwards says 'fuck'.  I don't care if John Edwards was offended by such harsh resistance to stupidity as displayed by Amanda and Melissa.  He hired them to do a job, a job they are well suited to accomplish.  Whether you're trying to get votes or not, you don't reward stupidity; you dismiss it as stupid.  Edwards didn't do that.  To me, his statement reads :  'I want to fire them but that wouldn't look right, so I'm going to pretend that they didn't actually write those things and require that they be more genteel in the future'.  That isn't a fair shake.  That's hustling for favor, and precisely what I despise about politics.  Michelle and her tiny little litter should have been dismissed with laughter and derision.  Instead, the message sent was, 'you're right, of course, but I'm not going to let it look like you're telling me what to do'.  That's exactly what Edwards told the President, with his support for the Iraqi clusterfuck, before he turned against the Iraqi clusterfuck.  That's weakness and I don't relish it.

I am equally disappointed with Amanda's response. 

“My writings on my personal blog, Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.”

Don't get me wrong.  I am fully aware that these are the words of a woman striving to keep her job.  I don't believe much of the writing she refers to was 'satirical'.  It was the writing of one speaking truth to the stupid.  Amanda has nothing to apologize for, and yet she has been required to do so to save face.

Let's get it straight:  our country is in trouble.  The Edwards campaign knows this, banks on it, campaigns on it.  What's put us here is listening to the stupid.  So, what is the campaign response?  Let's acknowledge that the stupid might be offended because they lack point.  Wulfgar's response?  Who gives a crap if the dumb feel dumb?  Is it so damned wrong to want a leader instead of an appeaser to the stupid?  Well yes, Rob, obviously it is.

The wingnuts are now crowing about their victory.  They get to have it both ways.  Edwards kept his anchors and the wingnuts weren't called out for being the waste that they are.  They may not have controlled Edwards' actions, but they controlled the dialog.  Puppy wanted a biscuit and that's what they got.  It is truly amazing to me how readily the left in this country accepts that good was done here.  No.  It wasn't.

I probably would not have written one word about this save for this comment at the Dark Lord's website:

 

Edwards is now clearly the bloggers' candidate, he's the one Democrat who has walked through the fire and proven that he will stand up to right-wing pressure groups, even at the risk that those pressure groups might be able to win over some swing-voters in the end.

Edwards, the guy who wanted to stand up to the Swift Boat Vets for "Truth", but couldn't because he wasn't leading the campaign has just stood up to Unofficial Nutty Catholics for Slander!

This was part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy trying to take out the most dangerous, populist Democrat in the primaries.

He also is the risk-taking candidate who was brave enough and knows enough about the importance of the blogosphere to bring on top-notch bloggers in the first place.

 

Yeah, right.  He's my candidate.  Fur sure.

One final thing.  The whole point of this ridiculous episode from the wingnuts is to ensure the weakness of whatever candidate faces the one that they supposedly hate but will vote for.  They want the Democratic opponent to be Hillary Clinton, because they think they have a sure fire win against her.  I'm convinced that they want Hillary, and so will assassinate anyone who looks like they might challenge her.  Though Mrs. Clinton might surprise them in the end, I think they have a good strategy.  Playing to the desires of the extreme right doesn't favor America, and it doesn't favor what most of us want.  So why are we celebrating John Edwards for doing that very thing?

Comments

[cece]

I have to agree. Edwards went down a notch in my scheme of things, not that he was highly rated in the first place. What someone writes on their own time, especially before being hired by Edwards, has absolutely nothing to do with their day job, and employers have no right to govern it.

[Justin]

Careful cece, careful Wulfgar, what you refer to is called "free thinking", and that is taboo in a country controlled by the religious right. It's what we all want, we want to live by their rigid little rules, just ask the next religious right wing nut job that you run into, they'll tell you that it is. Nevermind the fact that probably 90% of the population of this country doesn't even bat an eye at the word "fuck" anymore, that's just the will of Satan for you to believe such things, it's his way of pulling you down to the level of these liberal scumbags that would dare challenge the status quo and imply that people have a right to do and be what they want. Now go forth and live by their legalistic religious bullshit like good little Nazis, before the big bad terrorists get you.

Puh - fucking - leeze. ;)

[Eric Brooks]

"Is it so damned wrong to want a leader instead of an appeaser to the stupid? Well yes, Rob, obviously it is.".

Eric says: FUCK APPEASERS.

The people crowing weren't going to vote for John Edwards anyway. It's "Manufactured Outrage" again. They're the same people who thought it was really cool to have a vice president tell a senator to "Go Fuck yourself". Why wasn't THAT brought up?

The left has really got to stop bending over backwards for morons. I still have Edwards in consideration... but he has to realize we want a LEADER in the White House.

Oh and FUCK anyone who doesn't like my opinions. :D

I like saying the word "fuck". It's fun.

[X-Cav]

You people are so out of touch with reality it’s actually funny. The overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God and attend religious services. You’re no smarter than Edward’s little bubbleheads.

[Wulfgar]

Even if your claims were accurate, X-Cav, you've failed to make any point. 'Care to enlighten us?

[MinorRipper]

Edwards is shedding the softie,breck girl image though...here's video proof:
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com

[X-Cav]

“Even if your claims were accurate...”
Of course my claims are accurate. I’m no liberal soapblog bloviator.

About 90 percent of all Americans believe in God. (Only 27 percent believe in reincarnation, which makes it tough on a lot of Democrats trying to become something else. But maybe Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are part of the 84 percent who believe in miracles.) Source: Harris Poll, "The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans."

About 81 percent of all Americans attend religious services. Source: Opinion Dynamics Corporation

“[Y]ou've failed to make any point.”
No, you just missed the point: Edwards cannot be elected with a bunch atheists or Christian haters on his staff. And he knows it. Watch those stupid girls disappear.

[Wulfgar]

That's kinda funny, X-Cav. The very poll you site shows how many people in America really have no idea of what Christianity holds as belief. But it's cool that you brought it up. Stupid, but cool. Ya see, I am a Christian, constantly struggling with the idiocy of those who hate in the name of Jesus. That you don't get that speaks complete fricking volumes.

And I didn't miss your point, kitten, 'cause you didn't make one. Now, out of the complete blue, you're manufacturing the idea that Edwards can't be elected with some kind of X on his staff. Uhhm, wrong again. Ya' see, people don't elect staff, they elect candidates. Perhaps you're a little clueless about that, but if you're not a junior high student, I do wish you'd educate yourself a little.

Ya see, it is precisely the 'Christian'-haters that Amanda and Mellisa take to task; people too fricking stupid to understand the teachings of the one they call 'Lord'. There's actually a lotta folk who aren't real amused with your dogma. You might want to get that picture, but reading you, its pretty doubtful.

Regardless, you're obviously too fucking idiotic to realize that I don't trust John Edwards, and expressed that clearly in my post. If those women are dismissed, it won't surprise me, but I will be so terribly disappointed. They've earned their positions, and this manufactured outrage is meaningless. If it means something to you, well, I'm terribly glad that I don't have your pathetic life.

[X-Cav]

Your foaming response indicates that I have made my point well. I am sorry if the truth upsets you so, but no politician in America can get elected if members of his staff spout filth and hatred.

[Eric Brooks]

I suspect X-Cav (besides his obvious reading comprehension problems missing that you're disgusted with Edwards for selling out his own bloggers) wouldn't vote for Edwards no matter what.

Correct?

And SO WHAT about Religious beliefs? I know of several Atheists that blogged feverishly for Bush in 2004, and no one knocked them for it. From what I gathered the bloggers in question were merely questioning Catholic dogma... didn't mean they were Atheists. Us Protestants knock the Catholics too.

It's America... we're free to our religious beliefs last I checked.

[Wulfgar]

What's even more fun than that, Eric, is that X-Cav appears to be commenting from Canada. I don't know about you, but I just love authoritative pronouncements about American politics coming from foriegners.

[X-Cav]

"I just love authoritative pronouncements about American politics coming from foriegners."

That was John Kerry's line in the last election, wasn't it?

Anyway, sorry to blow out your little tea party, but you did need some fresh air. Edwards did the right thing--live with it.

[Wulfgar]

X-Cav, you've adequately displayed your ignorance of the difference between a 'point' and a 'claim', but you really should try harder to be consistent. You've just said Edwards did the right thing, when you boldly proclaimed earlier that he couldn't get elected if he didn't fire the two women. So which is it? In the world of the somewhat smarter than you, we call that a 'contradiction'. If I'm gonna have to live with something, I'd hope it wasn't that stupid.

[X-Cav]

I see your inflated opinion of your own intelligence keeps you off track. And quibbling over “claims” versus “points” is fairly disingenuous, don’t you think?

I have numbered the items below, so you can follow things easily.

1. I said Edwards knows he cannot get elected with atheists or Christian haters on his staff.

2. I said Edwards did the right thing. If your memory serves you correctly, you should recall that he publicly chastised the girls or publicly distanced himself from them, if you like. (I never said he should fire them. Next time, take a moment to study what I wrote before you attempt to paraphrase me.)

3. I said the girls would “disappear,” which is a colloquialism meaning they would not be seen anymore around Edwards’ campaign. They will probably be encouraged to take a long vacation in Venezuela, and they probably will, since they have destroyed their budding careers as liberal groupies.

[Wulfgar]

quibbling over “claims” versus “points” is fairly disingenuous, don’t you think?

Not at all, because you still don't see the difference. English, motherfucker, do you speak it? (Ya' see, that's meant to be humorous 'cause it's a line from a popular movie. Since you can't tell the difference between casting your bullshit to the wind and actually supporting an argument, I figured you prolly wouldn't be able to tell.)

1) You're absolutely wrong with this claim, and you've shown nothing to prove this or even mounted a relevant argument to this "point". You've made claim, a doubtful one at that. I think your claim is full of it. The burden of proof is on you, kitten. Keep in mind that many people have been elected with atheists and secularists on their staff. And no one, I mean NO ONE has shown Amanda or Michelle to be Christian haters. I guarantee you that Edwards knows that. He said as much in his statement. So please, prove to me what Edwards "knows".

2) Been there done that. I'm still correct. You said Edwards couldn't get elected by keeping those 'girls', but that he did the right thing by keeping those "girls". Sorry, cupcake, but that's a contradiction. Its a simple little algorithm. If you 'know' you can't be elected by having certain people on your staff, you remove them. Pretty obvious, isn't it? You see, unlike you, I actually do read what's written. Okay, so, I'm not sorry. It's you that's avoiding the point, and disavowing what you've written. You remain full of shit.

3) Are they on his staff or not? Yes they are. Will they be 'seen'? I guess that's dependent on whether or not they do the jobs they are paid to do. The screaming stupid on the right will do all to make issue of the fact that they are still on the payroll, so I guess 'seen' is relative ... at least to you. Did Edwards do "the right thing"? According to you he didn't, and yet you claim he did. Contradiction, cupcake. Look up the word if you don't know what it means.

Please continue with your bullet points. It makes it that much easier to show you as a charter member of the stupid brigade that this post directly took issue with.

[X-Cav]

As I said, Edwards did the right thing: “Former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.) condemned comments made by two bloggers on his presidential campaign staff but chose not to fire the women....” (Washington Post)

If you find a “contradiction” in that, then take it up with Edwards.

In his public statement, Edwards said, “Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake."

If you find a “contradiction” in that, then take it up with Edwards.

As for my claim that Edwards knows he cannot be elected with atheists and Christian haters on his staff:

1. That is a no-brainer because the overwhelming majority of voters believe in God and are one sort of Christian or another, as all national polls have shown. Every politician knows that. (Having crypto-bigots on one’s staff is another matter. What we are talking about are professed bigots publicly identifying themselves with a particular campaign.)

2. Edwards is trying to resolve the problem stated in (1), above, by publicly admonishing the girls for their anti-Christian publications. This is also Edwards’ way of publicly distancing himself from anti-Christian bigots generally.

3. The girls have accepted their public admonishment and issued “apologies.” This means they want to keep their jobs and will not spew any more hate. They will be good little girls in the future.

4. As for them “disappearing,” I stand by that speculation. Check back in six months to see if they are in anyway associated with the Edwards’ campaign. My bet is they will have disappeared.

Obviously, if your explosive use of profanities and ad hominem attacks are any indicator, you are not in the proper frame of mind to discuss this event rationally. In any case, I really cannot spend any more time explaining to you the subtleties of American politics.

[Wulfgar]

X-Cav, this is my website. I think you're looking for the Lady's Auxiliary. They meet down the hall, 'kay? Go lecture to them, but be sure to call them 'bubbleheads' and tell them how out of touch with reality they are before you admonish them about Ad Hominems. As for me, I'll just continue thinking that you're a stupid fucker.

And as my post indicated quite clearly, no, I am not in the proper frame of mind to discuss this non-event rationally, because it isn't rational. It's pandering to the stupid. In case you haven't noticed, I have no patience left for that. I don't like seeing it from John Edwards, and I'm certainly not going pander to your stupidity just because you came here and wanted a polite discussion about how wrong I am. Take it up with the ladies. I'm certain that they'll let you set the proper condescending genteel tone.

[Eric Coobs]

Edwards would do better if he'd find some kind of new theme, other than the "Two Americas" he keeps talking about.

[Karl DF]

It looks to me like the poster “X-Cav” is calling the shots right. The Associated Press is reporting one of the bad girls has quit the Edward’s campaign already. That must mean she’s disappeared!

[Wulfgar]

That's funny. I don't think Amanda's very public announcement of resignation qualifies as 'disappearance'. And keep this well in mind, Karl. Shane asks for, and will receive, polite discourse at his website. I am an asshole who will fuck with your words and comments if I so desire. Tread lightly here. I don't trust you. Have a care, if you're able.