The Kingfish's blogger-in-chief
Tuesday February 6, 2007
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards -- henceforth known on this blog as "the Kingfish" -- might want to look into the background of the woman he's appointed as his campaign blogmistress. As Kathryn Jean Lopez details, she's got a history...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Perhaps this (along with Biden's little "gaffe") is nature's way of taking out the idiots earlier in the election cycle, so the Dems have a chance of nominating somebody who could both win and actually govern? :/
Any chance of posting a link to Lopez's column?
Yes, just corrected the link. Sorry!
Today's Democratic Party...
About an hour ago I heard some guy on NPR (didn't catch the name, alas)say that we're now in "the American Idol phase" of the 2008 campaign. This seems to dot the I's and cross the t's of his point.
Oops, That last post was me.
And Dems wonder why so few listened to their warnings about Iraq. Mystifying.
Will Edwards stand by her? An early test for him.
I don't care what y'all think-- I like her! It isn't any worse than some of the things said about liberal Christians on this blog.
Yes, people ignored Russ Feingold and Patrick Leahy and all the other Democrats who believed GWBush was lying about Iraq because a 20-something blogger somewhere has a potty mouth. It all makes sense now!
Edwards is smart to hire smart, independent thinkers, not unimaginative toadys. Yeah, she was a little crude on her own blog. She'll tone it down for Edwards' blog and be an asset to his campaign.
(And Santorum WAS obsessed with sex and governmental control of it, so while her language may have been indelicate, her point was spot on.)
Look closer at her picture. I think you'll see she needs to wax her mustache.
Thank you, Eric B. You've not only elevated the debate, but you've also illuminated just why you and people like you inspire such vehement reactions.
Lopez's comment here is stupid and goes a step beyond mere vulgarity. But this Greenwald post is a propos nonetheless. "Somewhere along the way it was decided that the most egregious act of 'incivility' is not spewing vile ideas or violence-inciting rhetoric, but instead, the absolute worst injury to our body politic, the most disturbing sign of 'anger', is the use of naughty words. From National Review's Stanely Kurtz, reviewing Peter Wood's new book on anger in politics:
"Glenn Reynolds spews bigotry and paranoid rantings as overt as can be imagined, continuously smears the media and political opponents as traitors, calls for one war after the next, disseminates the most baseless and false innuendo virtually on a daily basis, but there is nothing 'angry' or 'uncivil' about any of that because he refrains from using naughty words.""Kingfish"? Comedy GOLD!
OK, looks like I misunderstood one thing - the way I read Rod's post, I thought that her commentary on Santorum was posted on Edwards' blog, not her own. Makes a difference.
Seems to me that an extraordinary number of Far Left bloggers are incapable of expressing their "thoughts" without frequent resort to the F-word. Rather telling, IMHO.
that little part of all of us that wants to run into a preschool and yell f**kslut Does Miss Marcotte really travel in circles where such sentiments are presumed normal? Do such circles actually exist? This poor woman writes like she belongs in an institution.
Simon--well said! texasaggiemom
Seems to me that an extraordinary number of Far Left bloggers are incapable of expressing their "thoughts" without frequent resort to the F-word. Yes, while the far-right bloggers equate disagreeing with them with treason - and some of them, like Ann Coulter, calling for the death penalty thereto. I'll stick with the people with the f-words.
I think Simon's comment is the most appropriate. This woman has problems. As I read more of her comments I found myself reacting less with anger than with something close to sadness. There's a point when somebody's screaming at the world this way where you just shake your head, back off, and hope she comes to her senses. She needs prayers.
Ahhh... the soothing tones of holier-than-thou condescension. Rather telling, indeed.
Would it make people happy if we can all agree that Ann Coulter spews a lot of nasty ideas AND the Edwards blogger is a rageaholic? Regardless if you happen to agree some of the time with one of them.
Both sides of the political blogosphere have their bad habits, so I'm not sure what there is to gain by defending one nut by comparing them to another nut that's on the other side.
Does she EAT with that mouth?
Can you imagine if a conservative blogger tied to a GOP candidate would have used that language when talking about homos or pro-gay politicians? You'd have never heard the end of it. This is related to the mainstream media's double standard: their willingness to give the Dems a pass on things they'd never let Republicans get away with. It also speaks to the fact that most people just expect liberals to have lower standards in matters like this, because personal morality doesn't matter to them as much. If a conservative spokesperson is found to be bonking his secretary, or unleashes a stream of gutter-mouthed inanities it's big news. When a lefty does it, it's no big deal because one sort of expects it. It only matters when it's perceived as hypocrisy -- the actual morality or immorality of it is of less import.
Nice Marmot, The Kingfish blogmistress's comments *do* rise to the level of hypocrisy though, because the candidate she works for -- and therefore whose position she is tacitly endorsing -- has based his whole political career on "sticking up for the little guy (and gal)" -- basically poor people in the South -- who aren't likely to share her incredibly "progressive" and "tolerant" views on religion, sexuality, Santorum, et al.
Well, Marmot is right that liberals care a lot less about someone using proper language. But like Scott said above, I'd rather have someone tell me the truth with a few naughty words thrown in, than some prim and prudish Republican lie to my face so he can start an unprovoked war and line his own pockets.
And I think hypocrisy does, in fact, matter. If a politician (or his people) claim to be Christians and condemn other people (e.g. gay people) for being sinful, and then are caught in some decidedly un-Christian behavior, it IS more newsworthy than the same behavior being exhibited by someone who never claimed to be devout in the first place. Blame it on the media if you want, but it's perfectly natural.
"The Kingfish blogmistress's comments *do* rise to the level of hypocrisy" Indeed they do, Reginald, and the fact that the media ignores liberal hypocrisy and trumpets that of conservatives demonstrates my point.
Hypocrisy does matter -- I'm all for rooting it out whenever it rears its ugly head, but it should be done equally. When libs are hypocritical they should be raked over the coals just like conservatives. By the way, there is another double standard in operation beside that of the media -- the notion that it's okay for those in the 'diversity and tolerance' crowd to be intolerant in their advancement and imposition of it. This mentality dates back to the 60's to leftist godfather Herbert Marcuse who said that tolerance of opinion by Leftists need not extend to those on the Right. The liberal movement has been following this approach ever since, hence their willingness to shout conservatives down rather than engage them in argument.
So Edwards is trying to help the economic situation of poor Southerners, and because they may not be as socially liberal as his campaign blogger, she is therefore a hypocrite? How is that hypocrisy? And if you read Pandagon (Ms. Marcotte's pre-Edwards blog), you'll see very quickly that while, yes, she and some of her co-bloggers do use naughty words from time to time, they very definitely do engage the ideas put forth by conservatives. They may not do it in the polite terms of, say, Eric B. above, but they are full of ideas. (I don't agree with all of them, but I'd rather read lively, interesting writing than, well, The National Review spouting the party line and then pretending they aren't.)
'...they very definitely do engage the ideas put forth by conservatives.' Yes, on occasion they do, but when debate fails they will almost invariably demonize the views of their opponents. If you don't like NR, try 'Chronicles' or 'Modern Age' -- much less GOP defense goes on in those.
"...hot, white sticky Holy Spirit..." Yeah, there's some idea engagement there. I'd say more, but at this point it's academic because the woman is almost certainly going to get the axe.
Just wondering why we keep helping these people out. Why not just point out this lunatic as an example of what John Edwards is about and leave it that. Why instead do we show him the error of his ways and give him an early assist to making corrections. What if he actually ends up in the White House. (nah, not gonna happen).
Honestly. Calling Edwards the Kingfish, it seems to me, gives him way too much credit. I don't think the guy has enough substance to make it past the early stages of the primaries.
(On the other hand, I thought the same about Ronald Reagan, with apologies to all those who think he was a great President.)
The Left (Daily Kos, etc.) is pushing hard for the Kingfish to keep Marcotte, and to defy the overreaction of the "wingnuts" to this "non-story".
alwsdad, The hypocrisy of Marcotte's position, and the hypocrisy of much of the left, is that she engages in populist rhetoric, while at the same time she seethes with contempt for the things that matter most to much of the working-class: their religion and their morality. The "little guy" she sticks up for and the "holy-rollers" that she hates are pretty much the same demographic group. The angels and the devils in her cosmology are one and the same.
Reginald, that's a pretty good answer. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say "pretty much the same", but there is undoubtedly a lot of overlap between those two groups. But I don't think there is anything hypocritical in advocating policies that help someone get health care for their children while simultaneously disagreeing with their views on, for example, gay rights. Marcotte uses too much hyperbolic language in discussing the issues, but for "much of the left", those are both perfectly reasonable positions to hold and not hypocritical at all.
alwsdad, Marcotte's hypocrisy is not disagreeing with the overwhelming majority of work-class opinon on moral and religious concerns; it is doing so in such a bigoted and sadistic way, as if the bile and vitriol she pours on Christianity does not apply to those who hold Christianity dear, ie (again) the overwhelming majority of the working class whom the left claims -- let me stress "claims" -- to represent. Solidarity means more than appreciating it when people vote the way you tell them to. Fancy that.
Would this be Rick "Man-on-dog sex" Santorum we're discussing here??? If he says/believes those things about gay Americans, he can and should rightly be dismissed as the christianist nutzoid case he is. Blog on.
Hey curiouser and curiouser, What's wrong with man/dog sex? As long as each of them consent to the act, why would it be wrong?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.