Archive for Liberalism

Congratulations Dixie Chick! 5 Grammys

How does a group that’s not even nominated for a Country Music Award walk away with wins in all country categories for which they were nominated at the Grammys? Nothing political in that. No, Hollywood wasn’t trying to make a statement or anything.

The Chicks can’t hide their disgust at the lack of support they received from other country performers. “A lot of artists cashed in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career, which was a horrible thing to do,” says Robison.

“A lot of pandering started going on, and you’d see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism.”

“The entire country may disagree with me, but I don’t understand the necessity for patriotism,” Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. “Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don’t see why people care about patriotism.”

Some excellent comments and quotes at Wiz Bang.

And an appearance by Al Gore – what a bonus!

Leave a Comment

Prince John (Edwards) Charming comes through for sweet Amanda Marcotte

What a guy

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’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.

And Cinderalla herself speaks up:

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.

The sum of genteel Miss Marcotte’s personal writings are a testament alright. And this whole situation is a testament to a disconnection with reality.

But let’s not confuse the effect with the rationale—which is both risible and insulting. Because were it really never Marcotte’s intent to malign anyone’s faith, she probably wouldn’t have dedicated so many hate-filled blog posts to, you know—maligning anyone’s faith.

Of course it was her intent. Just as it was McEwan’s intent. And worst of all, Edwards knows it. That he has pretended to take the two at their word, in an ostentatious gesture of “trust,” is precisley the kind of staged treacle that makes people doubt the sincerity of politicians; and that both Marcotte and McEwan have assured their own personal Patriarch that they’ll behave, now that he’s promoted them to the grownups’ table, is, to put it bluntly, one of the most pathetic public surrenderings of personal integrity I’ve ever seen.

And they lived happily ever after…

More from one of my favorites (Allahpundit).

And another favorite. (Mary Katherine Ham)

And Michelle Malkin

Comments (1)

Will Edwards stand by his Amanda? Next on “As the Blog Turns”

When we last left the pair, Amanda was taking baths, shaving her armpits & legs, and trying to delete and modify skanky posts at Pandagon all in an attempt to fit in with l’objet de son désir (pardon my French), presidential wannabe, John Edwards.

Though she blogged like she was from the wrong side of the tracks, the handsome candidate with stylish hair and good teeth attempted to save her from her lowly condition. Surely her past would stay in the past.

But alas, the evil conservative bloggers and that misogynist Catholic church would not allow it to be.

The Catholic League, a conservative religious group, is demanding that Mr. Edwards dismiss the two, Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog site and Melissa McEwan, who writes on her blog, Shakespeare’s Sister, for expressing anti-Catholic opinions.

Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, is among the leading Democratic presidential candidates.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said in a statement on Tuesday, “John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots.”

Mr. Edwards’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.

The two women brought to the Edwards campaign long cyber trails in the incendiary language of the blogosphere. Other campaigns are likely to face similar controversies as they try to court voters using the latest techniques of online communication.

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.

She has also written sarcastically about the news media coverage of the three Duke lacrosse players accused of sexual assault, saying: “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”

Why is the Catholic League trying to tarnish the reputation of this genteel young woman?

Catholic League president Bill Donohue is demanding that presidential hopeful John Edwards fire two recently hired anti-Catholics who have joined his team: Amanda Marcotte as Blogmaster and Melissa McEwan as the Netroots Coordinator. Here’s why:

“Writing on the Pandagon blogsite, December 26, 2006, Amanda Marcotte wrote that ‘the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.’ On October 9, 2006, she said that ‘the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.’ On the same day she wrote that ‘it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.’ And on June 14, 2006, she offered the following Q&A: ‘What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit,’ to which she replied, ‘You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.’

So unfair!

Who, WHO, WHO will save her? Bryan at HotAir has some answers:

Over at MyDD this incident has been taken with the seriousness of a nuclear attack:

I have a pretty vicious rant and an important action alert lined up, but I am waiting to hear from the Edwards camp about the fate of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan before doing anything.

Two things spring to mind. First, if you think having both a “vicious rant” AND an “important action alert” teed up constitute words that should strike fear into a presidential candidate, you either have a very high opinion of yourself or a very low opinion of the candidate. Or both. Second, it’s hilarious. It just is, as written, hilarious. Unintentionally, of course.

Oh, and there’s her name. McEwan. Got it.

Over at Crooks & Liars, John Amato is promising that a Pandora’s Box has been opened. I suppose a line has also been crossed, a martini has been shaken and an i has been dotted. A cliche has certainly been loosed upon an unsuspecting world. And someone’s taking himself and this whole incident waaaay too seriously.

Way too seriously, Bryan? I think not. Ace of Spades analyzes the seriousness of this and other equally important “Action Alerts.”

And the sweet Miss Marcotte is in the fight for her very blogging life with the Pandagon Papers.

Is there no voice of reason amongst the evil-doers?

First, I agree with Allah:

I don’t like to see anyone fired, no matter how much they deserve it . . .

I share this attitude in general. The feeling, which Allah and I share, is that blogging has gotten too dangerous. This is one reason that I have said repeatedly that I hope Edwards keeps Marcotte. And if he has fired her, I hope he does rehire her.

The other reason I hope Edwards uses Marcotte is that she is an obvious liability to Edwards. Since I don’t like Edwards, why in the world would I want him to lose a liability?

Now, judging from the reaction from the left blogosphere today, lefties generally disagree with me, and think that Marcotte is not a liability. They believe that her rhetoric is not that unusual. A bit profane, perhaps, but not something that should really offend Americans that much.

This view is, of course, utterly insane, as any rational person even vaguely familiar with Marcotte’s writings is well aware. The proof is in the links three paragraphs up, as well as in various places around the blogosphere. It’s not hard to find. If you’re bad at surfing, just go to her site and browse around.

Mr. Edwards – what will you do? The world awaits…until next time on “As the Blog Turns.”

Comments (2)

Edwards and Marcotte sittin’ in a blog part II

Seriously – you’ve GOT to see the dramatic rendition of the very Pandagon blog post I quoted Monday – Today’s Vent by Michelle Malkin.

Comments (1)

Edwards and Marcotte sittin’ in a blog…

Ahhhh, the unholy union of John Edwards and the irrepressible Amanda Marcotte. No, it’s not a marriage – just one of the moonbattiest bloggers reporting for duty as John Edwards’ blogmaster.

This is both my first post to the Edwards blog and my announcement that I’m joining the presidential campaign for John Edwards for 2008. I’ll be taking over the job of Blogmaster (mistress?) over the course of the month of February.

The main two questions this brings up are: Why me? And why John Edwards?

Yes, indeed, why you? Do you have something on Edwards?

Michelle Malkin has wonderful coverage on this.

So Mr. Edwards – who is this lovely woman you have managing your blog?

One thing I vow here and now–you motherf*&#$rs who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will f*&$ without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherf*&#$rs. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now.

Okay, so would it be considered “irony” that Ms. Marcotte is “not going to be ‘punished’ with babies,” while Mr. Edwards has reaped all of his rewards directly from babies? We’ve got Hillary Clinton scootching past Edwards displaying her “maternal tendencies” and Edwards is employing one of the most anti-maternal bloggers on the internet. Only popcorn and Cherry Coke would complete this show.

Speaking of shows, don’t miss Hot Air Theater Presents Amanda Marcotte.

Mary Katherine Ham has more items of interest.

Comments (2)

Video: How to Win in Al-Anbar

Thanks HamNation

Leave a Comment

Mystery post of William Arkin

Where did that come from?

The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out
A Note to My Readers on Supporting the Troops
New Middle East Commander Correctly Stays in His Lane

See that post tucked in the middle – it wasn’t there yesterday. In fact, The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out, only appeared on his side bar on the front page for a short time yesterday and the post itself was on the front page for a very short time.

I popped over there today and see the Arrogant post along with this new mystery post A Note to my Readers on Supporting the Troops. And the timestamps make it VERY interesting.

Arrogant timestamp: Posted at 09:39 AM ET, 02/ 1/2007
Note to my Readers timestamp: Posted at 05:31 AM ET, 02/ 1/2007

First comment under Note to my Readers:

You’re a jerk, Arkin.

Posted by: Matt | February 1, 2007 05:47 PM

First comment under Arrogant:

Being subjected to such things isn’t fun, is it?…

{snipped}

…Keep in mind how all your words affect them, not just the ones you direct at them.

Posted by: Matt | February 1, 2007 04:08 PM

Now, it’s not so much that the timestamp of the comment on Arrogant comes before that of the Note to my Readers first comment – it’s the question of where are all the comments that were there before 4:08 PM yesterday for Arrogant and why were they removed? Is it because they want us to think that the “apologetic” Note to my Readers came first?

Leaning Straight Up analyzes the apology more closely.

Poetry at Michelle Malkin’s blog. 

Comments (2)

Older Posts »