See Lindsay Beyerstein's article at salon.com today.

Devil's Advocate time: Duncan Hunter did not run for Vice President last year. Edwards did, and if anything is trying to increase his profile this time around.

That doesn't mean that what happened to the bloggers was right, but it makes Benen's comparison a little too "apples vs. oranges" for my tastes.

As he says, "it's further evidence that there's literally nothing a conservative can say that will get him or her shunned by the GOP establishment."

Not true. If a conservative comes out against shooting prairie dogs with automatic weapons, he's dead meat. The GOP establishment will shun anyone who doesn't toe the NRA line.

News flash::: All rightwing wannabe's won't be taken seriously.This country wants a Dem leader,Righties are just throwing money away.But what eles is new.

Go fuck yourselves you liberal-traitor-niggas.

(see assholes... we can still ONLY THINK the n-word...)

John Edwards has a legitimate chance of being the President of the United States. Duncan Hunter can barely manage his sock drawer, and lost a straw poll at his own kitchen table.

So what? For Hunter to hire such a bigot on to his campaign is still cause for embarassment, IMNSHO.

"it's further evidence that there's literally nothing a conservative can say that will get him or her shunned by the GOP establishment."

Or the MSM!!

IOKIYAR!!

Devil's Advocate time: Duncan Hunter did not run for Vice President last year. Edwards did, and if anything is trying to increase his profile this time around.

That doesn't mean that what happened to the bloggers was right, but it makes Benen's comparison a little too "apples vs. oranges" for my tastes.

I'm not sure I but that the legitimacy of a media hatchet job is directly proportional to the popularity of the candidate. Fringe candidates tend to be fringe because of the policies they advocate and the things they say, and, to a lesser extent, the policies and statements of their minons, are unappealing to the majority of the voting public (and also, of course, to the media elite who frame those policies and statements.) If a second-tier candidate like Edwards deserved to be scolded because of the past statements of his blogmistress (and I don't buy that he did), then a fourth-tier candidate Hunter deserves to be scolded because of the past statements of a state campaign manager. Tolerance for offensive statements shouldn't be on a sliding scale because of a candidate's popularity. It's completely backwards. Offensive statements should hurt a candidate's popularity.

It's not inconsistencies between conservative religious bigotry and the Bible that can get them in trouble. It is inconsistencies between conservative governmental ideology and the Bible.

Example: what does the Bible say about raising taxes?

ann beat me to it. Propose limiting gun use, son, you're done.

There'd also likely be a taboo against emphatically endorsing scientifically based evolution over Intelligent Design or Creationsism.

Proposing slaughter of foreigners (see Reynolds, Glenn) = robust defense of our nation.

"there's literally nothing a conservative can say that will get him or her shunned by the GOP establishment"

I think the wingnuts take this even further: The crazier and more racist you are in a public forum, the more certain they are that you're really one of them. After all, there's not much wiggle room to walk back statements like "Buddhists and Muslims should be killed". I think they're getting tired of fake promises to be a nutball followed by behavior that flirts with being reality based. Maximally crazy statements with high visibility serve to assuage those fears.

As he says, "it's further evidence that there's literally nothing a conservative can say that will get him or her shunned by the GOP establishment."

Well, he can advocate not hunting prairie dogs with assault rifles. That'll get him shunned and fast.

David W.-- You can't publicly embarrass a man who doesn't even exist in the public consciousness.

Sure you can, by reporting on it. Given the blatant bigotry involved, it should be made more widely known in order to make it very clear that such thought is DOA in America, period. Just because Duncan Hunter isn't as widely known as John Edwards doesn't mean that the sins of Hunter's campaign hires should be ignored.

"It would be a relevant comparison if the person had been hired by, for instance, McCain."

I do believe that Senator McCain has his own personal whackjob on staff.

McCain has hired embarassing people, like one who has publicly called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and didn't exactly have the most negative view of apartheid.

Why would they shun them? They believe the same things.

Just because Duncan Hunter isn't as widely known as John Edwards doesn't mean that the sins of Hunter's campaign hires should be ignored.

Exactly.

Really Kevin? May I introduce you to one Patrick J. Buchanan who was shunned by the GOP establishment for the things he supposed said and written.

The best way to handle Duncan Hunter and anybody associated with him is with a poorly stifled yawn.

Damnit, ann beat me to it! Sorry, ann.

wishIwuz2, the Bible says, "render to Caesar the things that are Caesars and to God the things that are Gods." Tithes are taxes paid to God and collected by Caesar's representatives. Taxes are tithes paid by directly to Caesar, God.

The Bible's place in politics is doomed. The Bible is a proved hoax. It doesn't matter if that is so or not, just that there is a good case for it. At present there are over 42 million Americans that agree the Bible is bogus and the number is climbing.

http://www.hoax-buster.org is having an influence already with people saying Pat Robertson's political jugarnaut is kaput.

Except right-wingers are actively espousing the conservative credentials of Hunter and attempting to get him more notoriety in the race. Essentially, right-wingers want Hunter to be this year's Howard Dean. Mainstream liberals don't want LaRouche to be their candidate; mainstream conservatives want Hunter to be theirs. And those same people who pretended to be shocked, SHOCKED at Amanda's blog posts are unfazed by Hunter's employment of an openly racist bigot. I'm amazed you fail to find anything odd about that.

It would be a relevant comparison if the person had been hired by, for instance, McCain.

From Media Matters:

In 2006, McCain's political action committee hired [Patrick] Hynes -- a blogger for the conservative weblog Ankle Biting Pundits -- as a consultant. As Media Matters for America noted, the media have largely ignored Hynes' failure to disclose his employment with McCain's campaign, even though he posted several blog entries praising McCain as a presidential candidate and attacking McCain's rivals...has not paid similar attention to Hynes' history of "outrageous" statements:

Hynes referred to the Democratic Party as "anti-Christian." Hynes titled a July 6, 2006, blog post: "Exclusive Poll Info: Democrats Devolve Deeper into an Anti-Christian Party."

Hynes asserted that the United States is a "Christian nation." In a June 2006 interview regarding his book, In Defense of the Religious Right (Nelson Current, 2006), Hynes was asked whether he believed it was fair to call America a "Christian nation." As blogger and attorney Glenn Greenwald noted, Hynes responded: "Yes. America is a Christian nation. As I write in my book, 'Is America a Christian nation? Of course it is. Don't be ridiculous. What a stupid question.' "

Hynes apparently called Chelsea Clinton "hideously ugly" in a 2004 posting on the conservative website FreeRepublic.com -- echoing a joke McCain had reportedly told about Chelsea Clinton years earlier.

Hynes suggested that Rep. Waxman be nicknamed "Pig Man." [Waxman is Jewish]. In late 2006, Hynes posted a photograph of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-NY) on Ankle Biting Pundits and solicited captions, saying, "[A] dude with a mug like this guy really needs a nickname."...Does McCain countenance his consultant's calling Henry Waxman "pig man" and encouraging his readers to mock the size of Waxman's big nose (a standard, highly offensive stereotype) and to spray vulgarities at Waxman?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702120009

He did another post following up on this. Too bad the media is so whipped they won't follow up.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10040.html

Essentially, right-wingers want Hunter to be this year's Howard Dean.

And we should say anything to discourage them?

Hmm. Duncan Hunter was way ahead of Giuliani at FreeRepublic.com when I looked earlier. And most posters there claim to hate McCain.

But of course it's Free Republic, a self-selected group of nutters from the bottom of the 30% Bush-supporting dead-enders. I guess we can ignore their polls.

Furthermore, AH, regardless of Hunter's "chances of winning," you ignore the highly relevant fact that Duncan Hunter is still an elected member of Congress, who has now hired this lunatic. Even if you dismiss his stature as a candidate do you honestly disagree this is not equally a terrible statement to his position as a Congressman? Or does a Congressperson have to be black and have "crazy hair" for his actions to merit scorn from right-wingers?

American Hawk: "[T]here are a lot of wacky D-list candidates doing wacky things that get no play at all -- when's the last time Lyndon LaRouche has been on the frontpage?"

Lyndon LaRouche has never held elected office, nor have the two unfortunate bloggers hired by the edwards campaign.

Duncan Hunter may well be a ""D-List" presidential candidate, but he is an elected member of Congress from Bakersfield, CA and once chaired the House Armed Services Committee -- so while he might be the same caliber of loon as LaRouche, the two are hardly operating on a similar political level.

Further, his current campaign co-chair Henry Jordan was not an obscure blogger, but rather a elected member of the South Carolina Board of Education when he offered those aforementioned intemperate comments about Muslims and Buddhists.

Other than that, your post does offer a valid point that Hunter is most certainly not the same caliber candidate as John Edwards, and therefore Steve Benen's stated (and otherwise valid) contention about the GOP's double standards in the current presidential campaign aren't entirely applicable to these two particular candidates.

Xanthippas >"Why would they shun them? They believe the same things."

Exactly

I am all for these people airing all of their inner most thoughts in public as often as they like (and in as many media outlets as possible). That could certainly wake up many of the sleepwalking majority as to what these people believe reality IS.

No more sleepwalking for anyone. No more claims of "Well, I didin`t really know what s/he actually believed when I supported/voted for her/him".

Time for EVERYONE to WAKE UP !

WTFU Reality Time is here

"We are no longer writing the rules of interaction among separate national economies. We are writing the constitution of a single global economy." - Renato Ruggiero

What's telling is that all the other hopefuls' staffs jump on such news to get their candidate an edge. The media is fueled by both Dem mudslinging and Repug hit squads.

Repugs don't turn on each other in such a way, at least not until the year of the election. Better organization, message discipline assures a squeaky-clean Republican slate. By the time we get to the general election, the public will be so sick of news cycles about Hillary Clinton's woes that the Repug frontrunner (presumably McCain) will have a pass. Then, the Repugs can claim they're bringing dignity or whatever nonsense to the White House.

Well sure. Republicans don't believe in political correctness. Additionally, it's their duty to point out Democrat actions that are not consistent with Democrat beliefs. Who's better qualified to say what a Democrat should believe and do than a Republican?

That's what it looks like, anyway.

Steven Benen has it wrong. It's not true that Edwards' blogger bashed " religious fundamentalists" unless you consider Catholics to be fundamentalists.
Posted by: Frequency Kenneth

... who qualifies as a fundamentalist?

Reality Man: "McCain has hired embarassing people, like one who has publicly called Nelson Mandela a terrorist ..."

Technically, Mandela was in fact a terrorist -- but as no less than President Ronald Reagan once famously observed, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

"Terrorism" is but one tactic within the concept of "urban guerilla warfare", and when targeting military-related targets is a valid military option of the oppressed.

I offer that as someone who lost his father to an act of Viet Cong terrorism during the Vietnam War.

American hawk, who has actually made several well-reasoned, well-thought out, civil comments lately, is absolutely correct. Duncan Hunter is a nobody who has no relavance on the national stage, whereas John Edwards is a strong candidate to be the President of the United States. Although I agree with most people here that the blogger "scandal" was a hypocritical much-ado about nothing, comparing the reactions to Edwards' staff and Hunter's staff is a non-starter.

horatio Parker: "Who's better qualified to say what a Democrat should believe and do than a Republican?"

A logical conclusion, as long as Democrats are content to allow the GOP and / or its allies in the media to both initially set and then further define the parameters of almost any political debate of substance.

Now, now. If he had said "screw" and "kill" Christians, that would certainly have kept him off the team.

Presumably if Amanda had gone after Muslims, everything would have been okey dokey.

Latin Mass Catholics are fundamentalists.

Lefebvre Catholics are fundamentalists.

there's literally nothing a conservative can say that will get him or her shunned by the GOP establishment

Ask Trent Lott.

David W.-- You can't publicly embarrass a man who doesn't even exist in the public consciousness.
Posted by: American Hawk

A Bakersfield congressman hired a former SC BOE member with a history of making (at least one) radically racist statement, which in a civilized society, should have beyond the pale and precluded him from any future in politics.

But the republican machinery defended him, and by implication his statements, absorbed him into the fold, and promoted him within the party.

That's newsworthy.

If Hunter wasn't known before, then make him known now. Ask if it is typical among republicans, prominent or not, to ignore blatant racism amongst their staffers, or whether this case is an aberration. Tar Hunter with this atrocity, and force and make him stake a position. Either Hunter will do the right thing and not allow his party to be tainted with such a blatant racist on the payroll, or he will.

Lefebvre Catholics are fundamentalists.
Posted by: Brojo

I was curious about the wingnut answer.

Yeah, what's happened to Hawk? He actually sounds engaged by a few of the things he's talking about lately. Might even be an actual person.

It helps when commenters show some interest in something outside of politics. Guess one (more) problem with reactionaries is that if they have hobbies other than amassing power and spreading hate, they are the sort of things that can't be talked about in public.

Sorry, I like typing Lefebvre.

Devil's Advocate time: Duncan Hunter did not run for Vice President last year.

Neither did anyone else.

Ben Stiller: what about brett fabvre?

By the way, Trent Lott and Pat Buchanan are examples of what happened a long, long time ago, before Republics discovered they could say or do anything— (except wage protracted, pointless war—and get away with it. But now that they've grown senselessly arrogant (again), that may change (again).

Kevin,

the correct word is "kerfluffle"
dont be like the conservative geeks who think they have such a large vocabulary and mangle words they don't know how to use -

Duncan Hunter is a nobody who has no relavance on the national stage,

As others have pointed out, sitting United States Congressmen who chaired the House Armed Services Committe are not "nobody."

Now Ward Churchill, he was a nobody -- and yet I've seen his name smeared over Fox News for years and years....

"Fundamentalists" in this context is a problematic term; it has a fairly strict, narrow meaning referring to a movement in Protestant Christianity which is clearly inappropriate here, and while it has some progressively broader senses that might apply, its not clear exactly what sense is intended (there are essentially two branches of meaning, one focussing on anti-modernism and another focussing on intensity of belief.)

Its probably better to use a term more specific to the actual attribute being addressed, though often the person using “fundamentalist” in this sense is using it as a simple pejorative rather than a considered description focussing on some particular attributes.

unless you consider Catholics to be fundamentalists.

We consider them bozos up here above it all

Rumor has it that Hunter likes to kill his Buddhists and Muslims before he screws them.

I'm agree with Stefan !

A Catholic is incapable of being a "fundementalist" as Cmdicley observes.

Catholicism is a religion of "the word" rather than a religion of "the book"

From the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-holyland25feb25,1,4876426.story

This is tangential to the discussion at hand...or is it? When the government is run by criminals...tyranny may ensue.

A Catholic is incapable of being a "fundementalist" as Cmdicley observes.

That's not actually what I said; there are certainly senses of the word by which Catholics may be "fundamentalist", but its generally more useful, productive, and clear to a use a more specific term in those cases, since which of the broader senses of "fundamentalist" is meant is often unclear in such usages, and there becomes a significant danger of miscommunication, accidental equivocation, or mistake for the all-too-common use of the term as a content-free pejorative.

Steve Benon wrote, "A Democratic candidate hired a couple of fairly low-level staffers who’d written some intemperate blog posts about religious fundamentalists."

I guess this is true, but it's a huge understatement. Edwards's ex-blogger Marcotte routine insults Catholics. She's terribly vicious and vitriolic. She remains in la-la land regarding the Duke rape accusation case, which she continues to treat like an actual rape,despite the case having fallen apart.

Liberal blogs don't have to have this sort of nastiness. E.g., Kevin makes his points like a gentlemen. Simlarly, on the other side, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, Instapundit, Charles Johnson, etc. don't resort to locker room language or bigoted insults against entire classes of people. (Well, they do insult Islamic terrorists as a class, but that's different from insulting Catholics as a class.)

I will repeat: Ewards made a poor choice. He's lucky that he was forced to let these bloggers go now. They'll be long forgotten by the time the voting starts

The issue isn't whether politicians are supported by their own party. Edwards has plenty of supporters.

The issue is what gets covered in the press. Big brou-ha-ha over Edwards, big brou-ha-ha over Clinton/Obama crossfire.

Anything about repubs? Hello? Anybody there?

Ask Trent Lott.

You mean the guy who just got elected back into Senate Leadership? I'm sorry, that was the argument for YOUR case?

workingclassannie: Anything about repubs? Hello? Anybody there?

Don't worry. Repubs are getting smeared, even when it's unfair. E,g, the AP put out an article a couple of days ago reporting that Romney's great-grandfather and great-great-grandfather were bigamists. This article build prejudice against Romney as a Mormon.

This is a remarkable stretch, since candidates normally don't even get smeared with their parents' misdeeds (and rightly not), let alone 3 and 4 generations back.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/02/24/politics/p101652S30.DTL

ex-liberal wrote: " guess this is true, but it's a huge understatement."

Not really. It is a precise description of the reality in this case.

"Edwards's ex-blogger Marcotte routine insults Catholics."

No, actually, she doesn't, which is why neither you nor anyone else has been able to provide any evidence that she does.

"She's terribly vicious and vitriolic."

LOL.... Oh my ... your poor dainty shell-like ears have never heard such language? You simply cannot imagine just how sorry I feel for you.

"Liberal blogs don't have to have this sort of nastiness."

Some blogs do; some blogs don't. It's an entirely irrelevant point.

"E.g., Kevin makes his points like a gentlemen. Simlarly, on the other side, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, Instapundit, Charles Johnson, etc. don't resort to locker room language or bigoted insults against entire classes of people."

ROFLMAO.... You don't read those blogs much, do you? Free clue: liberals and Democrats are, in fact, "entire classes of people."

In any case, since Amanda has never issued "bigoted insults against entire classes of people," I'm afraid that, as usual, you simply do not have a point.

ann, You are absolutely right. I think progressives ought to turn the Jim Zumbo story into a full blown freedom of speech cause. It won't peel any of the hard core away from their conservative masters, but it might move some of the middle roaders.

The next time one of those guys uses a "politically correct" argument, we need to simply say Jim Zumbo. Cross the NRA and they will squash you like a bug.

American Hawk: John Edwards has a legitimate chance of being the President of the United States. Duncan Hunter can barely manage his sock drawer, and lost a straw poll at his own kitchen table.

True enough.

The correct thing for Hunter to do now is repudiate the sentiment and the man who expressed it (and had the sentiment written into the minutes.)

This is hilarious. Nice try but the Edwards nutbloggers were news. Duncan Hunter, let alone some obscure staffer, is not.

on the other side, Powerline, Michelle Malkin, Instapundit, Charles Johnson, etc. don't resort to locker room language or bigoted insults against entire classes of people. (Well, they do insult Islamic terrorists as a class, but that's different from insulting Catholics as a class.)
Posted by: ex-liberal

malkin defends the iternment of an entire race as a matter of course. reynolds advocates terrorism as a tactic. as for johnson ...

it would be a mistake -- and that's being charitible -- to say that lgf doesn't routinely engage in bigotry. that crowd are the most enthusiastic collection of nazis I've ever encountered online. their biggest complaint against hitler is that he apparently chose the wrong people to decimate.

"This is a remarkable stretch, since candidates normally don't even get smeared with their parents' misdeeds (and rightly not), let alone 3 and 4 generations back."

Yup, and that particular smear was excoriated by several liberal bloggers. So tell me how many conservative bloggers spoke up in defense of Amanda and Melissa, particularly the latter?

This is hilarious. Nice try but the Edwards nutbloggers were news. Duncan Hunter, let alone some obscure staffer, is not.
Posted by: Mike K

Not to put too fine a point on it ... but that's the ENTIRE fucking point of the posting.

Mike K wrote: "This is hilarious. Nice try but the Edwards nutbloggers were news. Duncan Hunter, let alone some obscure staffer, is not."

Dear heart, the double standard was precisely Kevin's point. Thank you for playing; we have some lovely consolation prizes for you.

Sheesh,

The problem is religion. Religion is something humans invented to explain things that they don't quite understand. It's obsurd to think "my" views of the unknowable are superior to those of folks who have a different slant on the unknowable.

Mankind (women will) cannot evolve unless we losen up the baggage of our religious beliefs.

Humans are animals that think they have the answers.

I maintain that if humans embraced a more "Universalist" approach to religion our world would not only be safer, but more equitable as well.

Religion is like sports fanaticism; wonderfully intense, but really not that important in the greater scheme of things.

The blather about putting down faiths is actually a sign that many humans are cowards and immature.

Sorry, I just had to "pontificate."

Duncan Hunter is not a serious candidate. He filed in order to stay in the game. His candidacy won't go anywhere but you'll see a lot of him of Fox, MSNBC and some others.

As for John Edwards, I know his supporters are disappointed but the fact is he has little traction and the likelihood of him being the Democratic candidate is slim to none, just as are the chances of Obama.

The coming election will be all about national security and the Democrats have only one candidate with the credentials to win both the presidency and the Congress as have the Republicans.

Edwards' ex-blogger, Ms. Marcotte, routinely uses vicious and vitriolic rhetoric to describe the abusive behavior of Catholic priests, who use their authority to intimidate the children they rape. I think using religious authority to rape children, protect the rapists and belittle the accusers is worthy of a vicious and vitriolic response. Those who attack Ms. Marcotte are protecting child abusers and the religious institutions that abet them.

"The coming election will be all about national security and the Democrats have only one candidate with the credentials to win both the presidency and the Congress as have the Republicans."

Actually, any one of the Democratic candidates can go toe to toe with each other and with the Republican candidates on national security, unless something changes dramatically in the next year. The Bush administration has so thoroughly discredited the Republican Party's "national security" credentials that damn near all polls show it's a toss-up on that issue.

the apologists for hunter are simply confirming that republicans will overlook evidence of blatant racism amongst their lesser-known party members and staffers. nevertheless, that sort of culture is apparently not discouraged in these backrooms. In this instance, the racist was even promoted.

which is one of the reasons, I suppose, that prompted Dean to limit them to a white christian party.

American hawk, who has actually made several well-reasoned....

So many sock puppets, so little time.

The problem is religion.

No, the problem is identity politics. Religion is simply one (though hardly the only one) prominent focus of such politics. Non-religious ideologies (Communism), national identities, race, class, subculture, and all kinds of other bases of "us v. them" dichotomies all can be the focus of the same thing.

Edwards' ex-blogger, Ms. Marcotte, routinely uses vicious and vitriolic rhetoric to describe the abusive behavior of Catholic priests, who use their authority to intimidate the children they rape.

Except that, in the real world, Marcotte's use of "vicious and vitriolic" language concerning the Catholic Church was not limited to those members of the clergy involved in abuse.

Just because the attacks on Marcotte have been dishonest and unfair is no reason to do the same in defense of her.

... Patrick J. Buchanan who was shunned by the GOP establishment... sean scallon at 3:00 PM

I was curious about the wingnut answer. Nads at 4:04 PM

...He's lucky that he was forced to let these bloggers go now.... ex-lax at 5:17 PM

...Duncan Hunter, let alone some obscure staffer, is not. Mike K at 5:39 PM

the apologists for hunter are simply confirming that republicans will overlook evidence of blatant racism amongst their lesser-known party members and staffers.

The same was basically true for Edwards' apologists. though the fundamental issue here is crude disrespect for religion, not race.

Religion is something humans invented to explain things that they don't quite understand.

I have been thinking about the origins of religion for a while and my explanation is somewhat different.

Religion is a way to explain the volition of an extraordinary individual to the group/village/mob/masses. To me, religion came about to explain human kind's willfulness, not to explain the misunderstood forces of nature. The willful had to explain themselves through divine forces in order to mobilize the group/village/mob/masses.

Willfulness and volition were not understood and had to be explained by inventing religion to rationalize them. Thus the first priestly classes were created.

When the first Sumerians were confronted by a willful person who wanted to dig canals and control water, they needed a more powerful explanation than the water will flow to the fields. They needed a divine explanation in order to follow the directives of some one who was creating something that had never been done before.

I think ancient history is full of these types of examples. The Mezo-Americans developed corn from a grass. They worshiped the corn god, but of course is was humans who hybridized the plant, and those humans became the priests of the corn god cult. The group/village/mob/masses had to be manipulated with divine myths in order for the first corn growers to be allowed to go about willing the plant to change into a rich food producer. Their willfulness was explained as the work of a god. Maybe I read too much into this, because obviously the plant experimenters did not know anything about genetics, so they probably attributed the changes of the grass into corn as magic, too, coming from a divine source. The mythology to explain both man's volition and nature have probably been mixed through the millenia.

The divine right of kings was a propaganda theme developed to explain why some individuals have power and why others do not. I recall a recent popular novel even tied their divine rights with a genealogy traced back to the Son of God himself. The group/village/mob/masses are easily fooled by mythology like this. Despite the recognition by some of the thinkers on the subject that god is dead, most people are unwilling to excersise their will and admt they are actors in this world. Still, fate must have a role. Despite my will or the will of the superman, a volcano or a hurricane can destroy all that has been created.

Since my youth I have been very interested in the meaning of the first commandment, which I think is an acknowledgement to the mind's power to manipulate nature, others and the self. Yet it too attributes the power that humans have to something divine.

In the begining was the word, but God did not utter it, a human did, and it was OK, let's start digging.

I'm not one to normally agree with ex-liberal, but I concur with his summation about Amanda Marcotte's repeatedly insensitive comments about the Catholic Church, which at times bordered on the vicious and crude. She clearly comes across as a "recovering Catholic" with serious issues.

And speaking of Michelle Malkin -- guess who has a new show that premeired this weekend on FOX News? It really has to be seen to be believed -- the camp value alone is priceless.

The same was basically true for Edwards' apologists. though the fundamental issue here is crude disrespect for religion, not race.
Posted by: spider

... so the response should be identical, right? from media coverage, to broadly smearing the respective party, to the party's disavowal of said person.

except it isn't.

Religion is a way to explain the volition of an extraordinary individual to the group/village/mob/masses.

I don't see that. I see religion as arising naturally from the human need to tell stories and to attempt to improve their lot.

Advancing the human condition depends on cultivating civilized behavior. That is the main focus of religion. And it is a noble goal. Religion is often abused by willful people, as is virtually any human institution religious or otherwise. Religious abuses are not the fault of religion per se.

Religion is something humans invented to explain things that they don't quite understand.

The sheer ubiquity of religion and belief across all cultures in the supernatural suggests that is an innate, evolved trait.

cmdicely, points to you for being realistic about Marcotte.

PaulB here's a bit from an article that gives a number of Marcotte quotes:

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

That update on the Baltimore Catechism comes via Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog in her “FAQ ON THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S ‘CRAZY’ TEACHINGS ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL.� In it she explains that “the intent� of “mainstream Catholic teaching� on artificial contraception “is to make women suspect their gynecologists* are out to get them and possibly kill some babies for fun.�

Read the whole thing at http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjYzN2FiZjFmOGIwZDcyZDQ1NzM1MDU5OGM2MzljZTE=

... so the response should be identical, right? from media coverage, to broadly smearing the respective party, to the party's disavowal of said person.

except it isn't.
Posted by: Nads

This thread is the first I've heard about an Edwards staffer doing something or saying something negative about something. So I would say the media coverage has not been exorbitant.

The sheer ubiquity of religion and belief across all cultures in the supernatural suggests that is an innate, evolved trait.

Yes, though I'd argue that it can be both innate and invented. The desire to understand one's environment may be innate, and then magic/myth/religion/superstition is invented as the answer to that impulse.

Duncan Hunter doesn't have a chance? I don't understand. He is just as fucking stupid as W.

The sheer ubiquity of religion and belief across all cultures in the supernatural suggests that is an innate, evolved trait.

Well, certainly capacity for certain types of spiritual experiences have demonstrable links to certain brain areas, so certainly there is an extent to which capacity for certain types of religious experience have an innate, physiological basis, though I think genetic evolution is a poor explanation for religiosity except in terms of very broad capacities and propensities. But on that level, genetic evolution explains all behaviors.

Duncan Hunter doesn't have a chance? I don't understand. He is just as fucking stupid as W.

Yeah, well its not like (even were he permitted to run) W would have good prospects in 2008, even with the benefits associated with incumbency.

Sorry if someone has already mentioned it above, but Mr. Hunter could not even get the support of the our mayor in San Diego on his home turf. The mayor endorsed Mr. Straight Talker just a few days ago.

This thread is the first I've heard about an Edwards staffer doing something or saying something negative about something. So I would say the media coverage has not been exorbitant.

Since you are a regular on this blog, and its at least the fourth time the same to-do has been the focus of a story here since February 11 (and its come up, even outside, those four stories, tangentially in other discussions in that time), I think you were either experienced a temporary and unusual bout of media detachment at the time the story broke, which is why you missed the heavy prior coverage including here, or you are deliberately feigning ignorance.

In either case, I don't think your claimed ignorance, whether it true or not, really proves much about the matter.

Let's take it as a given that some of Marcotte's statements were over the top, went too far, etc., and that Edwards is a higher tier candidate than Hunter.

On the other hand, Marcotte was a blogger, a fairly low-level staffer. Jordan is a campaign co-chair, so he's far more significant.

But the real, final point, is the extremity of the statements.

Marcotte said "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."

A bit over the top.

Jordan said "Screw the Buddhists and kill the Muslims. And put that in the minutes."

Read that last on again. "Kill the Muslims"? Kill everyone from a particular faith? Someone who says this has NO PLACE whatsoever in our political process. A man like Hunter, former chair of one of our most important congressional committees, should know that. Marcotte's statements were un-PC, Jordans ("Kill the Mustlims") were genocidal.

Every Republican should be made to condemn this hire, or they have no claim to be even close to decent human beings.

cmdicely
Since you are a regular on this blog, and its at least the fourth time the same to-do has been the focus of a story here since February 11 (and its come up, even outside, those four stories, tangentially in other discussions in that time)

Actually, I've been here rarely since October/November. So I've missed all the Edwards kerfuffling, and haven't seen anything on CNN, NY Times, local rag, etc. that made it worth my while to actually grok the subject. I'm sure it's important to somebody.

Tempest in a teacup.

Democrats aren't generally very good at exploiting the personal shortcomings of thier opponents - for God's sake they let a man with the longest criminal rap sheet in American history become president (George W. Bush - 4 known arrests) and six years later they still haven't got him to come clean with the American people. Contrast this with Bill Clinton, who had every check he ever wrote, every tax return he ever filed and every word he ever spoke or wrote, scrutinized with a fine tooth comb.

A recent example - Al Gore wins the Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary about global warming and "reducing your carbon footprint" and the next day, The Drudge Report’s lead banner is about how Gore’s mansion uses 20 times the energy of the average household. These bastards are damn fuckin' good at slimin’!!!

"PaulB here's a bit from an article that gives a number of Marcotte quotes:"

LOL... I just knew you were going to post that, faux. I've read that article; it's a rant not against Catholics, not even against the Catholic leadership, but against the deliberately misleading and dishonest information promulgated by that leadership. There is not one shred of evidence in that particular post of Amanda's to support your assertions. Amanda took the Catholic Church leadership to task for lying. If you have a problem with that, I'd say that says more about you than it does about Amanda.

The worst thing you can say about that post of hers is that was over the top, particularly the satirical quote in question. As evidence of anti-Catholic bigotry, you guys are going to have to do a hell of a lot better than that.

At worst, Marcotte is an anti-catholic bigot.

At best, Jordan advocated genocide.

American hawk, who has actually made several well-reasoned, well-thought out, civil comments lately, is absolutely correct.

Oh, please. That's an imposter. A wingnut posting well-reasoned, well-thought out, civil comments is someone's idea of a joke.

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

So, this guy thinks (or is it believes?) that 27% of the world's population deserves to be "f..king killed." That's 1 out of 4 people on the planet.

If religion isn't the problem, then why do so many idiots use as it as an excuse to kill or threaten to kill their FELLOW humans?

People confuse spirituality with religion. It's spirituality that is an innate human characteristic. Religion does not have a good track record when it is used to justify inhumane acts against other humans/animals.

I cringe everytime politicians wear their religion on their sleeve. It's actually NOT a good sign for a Politician to publically show their faith (because of the animosity that it might ignite in others).

It's not our words that people remember (or follow) us by, but our deeds, our actions.

I could proclaim loudly that "I have been saved." making some folks feel all warm and fuzzy, or as my grandfather always said, "saved from what?"

We fear the different. We distrust those who find "god" in alien ways from our own experience.

Religion is used (often) to control the masses. Spirituality is immediate, personal, and universal.

Religion is used (often) to control the masses. Spirituality is immediate, personal, and universal.

Joseph Campbell used to say something along the lines of you put mystics from different religions together in a room and they see fellow seekers. You put the bishops together and you've got competing bureaucracies.

As in the Desert Religion with its various Jewish, Christian, Islamic and Mormon branchs all abicker. May they divided - but with the bickering at a low boil.

theConservativeDeflator: Al Gore wins the Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary about global warming and "reducing your carbon footprint" and the next day, The Drudge Report’s lead banner is about how Gore’s mansion uses 20 times the energy of the average household.

The important point was that his usage is up since he made the movie. That's clearly hypocritical, and everybody likes to criticize hypocrisy. but it's a small point, and it will pass. Perhaps he'll install PV cells, and go off the grid.

Given Drudge, it might not even be true. Drudge aims for speed more than reliability.

Democrats aren't generally very good at exploiting the personal shortcomings of thier opponents

They did depress the vote for Bush by releasing the information about his drunk driving arrest, just before the election of 2000. That technique may have swung the popular vote to Gore. perhaps even the electoral college vote, had the entire state of FL been recounted.

Au contraire, Red State Mike. The issue of the bloggers hired by John Edwards was covered in the mainstream as well as on the internet. It was depressingly mysogynistic.
You may have missed the story, but it was there. Google and you'll find a ton. Nice of you not to pile on, though.

You know what else isn't fair? Britney shaves her head and is all over the news. I got a haircut just yesterday and not one damn camera crew has come to call. The double standard is outrageous.

A cry for help heard all over the world. She shaved her head to reduce aerodynamic drag as she falls from fame, said Conan O'Brien

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

looks reliable.

But, does Gore ever live there? He might not even know the utility bills.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367
looks reliable.
Posted by: spider

wow ... talk about stupid. I guess the AEI headliners running that rightwing bullshit think tank slipped under your ever-vigilant radar.

... sure. looks reliable.

tennesseepolicy.org: non-partisan but definitely not voting democratic!

Speaking of intemperate language here's something on Young George's comment that if bin Laden were captured he'd "fuck him in the ass".

With priceless photo illustrating big talk at the ranch.

(Q: anyone know what kind of monitor that is in the background and how old it is?)

My bad, the Great Leader actually said,

"I will screw him in the ass!"

Nads: I guess the AEI headliners running that rightwing bullshit think tank slipped under your ever-vigilant radar.

So you think the figures are false, is that right?

according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

Maybe the AEI headline writers misplaced some decimal points or something.

The Angry Arab unearths this insight into the true mindset of America's oh-so-Christian commander-in-chief, George W. Bush, from a Haaretz review of a new biography of Bush's soulmate and mentor, Ariel Sharon. Like a DNA sample from a spittlefleck, this little glimpse of Bush gives us the man in his entirety, in his essence: the empty bluster of an impotent drunk; the ineradicable vulgarity of the fratboy mentality; and the uncontrollable sexual panic of a harshly repressed psyche expressing its thwarted nature in fantasies of rape and violence. (And in Bush's case, of course, the violence is not just fantasized, but acted out – by proxy – in horrific reality across the world.)
...
From The pessimist was right, by Uri Dromi; review of "Ariel Sharon: An Intimate Portrait" by Uri Dan (Haaretz):
...
Speaking of George Bush, with whom Sharon developed a very close relationship, Uri Dan recalls that Sharon's delicacy made him reluctant to repeat what the president had told him when they discussed Osama bin Laden. Finally he relented. And here is what the leader of the Western world, valiant warrior in the battle of cultures, promised to do to bin Laden if he caught him: "I will screw him in the ass!"

Yeah, sure.

I think it's probably a good thing that we never heard Presidents Truman and Eisenhower cussing. We do know what Nixon said to Eisenhower, and to loads of other people. Kennedy and Johnson, not so much.

...Young George's comment that if bin Laden were captured he'd "fuck him in the ass".... cld at 10:37 PM

actually spider, the comment was only in response to "looks reliable" ... which in the setting of your referenced source, was suspect. I would imagine most mansions in america operate/consume well above the national household average.

but I do apologize for the snark and the stupid comment ... I should have just pointed out the AEI-driven nonpartisanship of the reporting group (drudge, I assume, was a given) without any personal digs.

... but what's a commentary in a post entitled Intemperate Language without some ... well ... you get the idea.

Red State Mike,

Glad to see you that you spend more time in the cockpit than watching Bill O'Reilly.

This "tempest in a teapot" you referred to has been covered by BillO several times - He said that this destroyed the bid by Edwards.

However, one point about the Representative from Northeast San Diego, Duncan Hunter. One may call him as stupid as W, but they can never call him a Chicken Hawk - 173rd Airborne in Viet Nam. That said, I am very relieved that he is merely Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee and not the Chair.

Actually, I've been here rarely since October/November. So I've missed all the Edwards kerfuffling, and haven't seen anything on CNN, NY Times, local rag, etc. that made it worth my while to actually grok the subject.

From all available evidence here, you've rarely seen anything anywhere that's made it worth your while to actually grok any subject outside of a very narrow range.

Nevertheless, whether or not you've personally seen anything that has motivated you to develop an understanding of an issue, it was a major story in the mainstream media when it broke, contrary to your characterization of the media coverage as fairly minimal.

Tempest in a teacup.

While I agree with this characterization of the entire Edwards' bloggers issue, its almost exactly the opposite of your original characterization: a "tempest in a teacup" is a substantial uproar over a matter of little importance; your previous characterization was that it was not a substantial uproar in the first place.

Joseph Campbell used to say something along the lines of you put mystics from different religions together in a room and they see fellow seekers. You put the bishops together and you've got competing bureaucracies.
Posted by: snicker-snack on February 26, 2007 at 9:24 PM

A Good argument for diplomatic effort generally. Get the diplomatic "types" together and give them enough latitude to quell the world's conflicting interests. The current state of hubric self-destructiveness is getting a bit wearing.