This Michelle Malkin post made me laugh out loud. First, she attacks Amanda for supposedly taking down a post which would make the Edwards campaign unhappy. Then, whoops, turns out Michelle just doesn’t know how to use the “archives” function, and Amanda’s post is still on the site. Instead of admitting she’s an asshole, Michelle uses Amanda’s non-deletion of the archives as further evidence that Amanda isn’t deserving of her job:
Looks like Marcotte’s Katrina post is actually still available to the public here under a different URL. My bad. Or rather, John Edwards’ bad. Because it’s even worse for the Edwards campaign that its blogmaster left crackpot posts like that one up and hired her anyway.
So Amanda’s a liar if she deletes the post, but she’s even worse if she leaves it up. You can’t win with these people.
Michelle, classy as usual, rounds up her post by quoting Amanda completely out of context, attributing to Amanda sections of posts where she was paraphrasing racist wingnuts (you know, like Michelle). Not that any of this is surprising — after all, Michelle Malkin is the most morally bankrupt winger since Ann Coulter. I’m just disappointed that she couldn’t do better. After all, Amanda has written more than enough to ruffle the feathers of neo-fascist wingnuts like Michelle Malkin and her blogger friends. Are they really so dependent on outright lies that false attribution and making shit up is now the default position?
Even better, Robert troll #1 is on the case.
The best thing is that Michelle is a pusher of Jamilgate, which is quite likely to get one or more men named Jamil (or Jamail or Jamal) in Baghdad killed. But not Michelle, since she called off her trip to the Green Zone when it became clear Jamil/Jamail/Jamal actually existed.
On balance, Amanda’s got a potty mouth sometime and uses strong language when talking about the Bush Administration — and, by damn, some of her posts got lost in a migration.
Clearly, she’s the greater threat to the Republic.
First, Malkin did not call Marcotte a “liar.” She said she was hiding her frequently embarassing and profane posts. Now, if that had turned out to be true, it’s newsworthy.
But, it did not turn out to be true. So, Malkin corrected herself; good for her for being honest. Then she notes that Marcotte’s posts do not reflect well on the Edwards campaign. That’s, of course, why everyone went looking for those posts in the first place. And, given Marcotte’s writings on the Duke situation, as well as her profanity, its not all that suprising.
What is surprising is your defense of Marcotte: “Michelle, classy as usual, rounds up her post by quoting Amanda completely out of context, attributing to Amanda sections of posts where she was paraphrasing racist wingnuts (you know, like Michelle).”
I’m just not seeing the “completely out of context” parts. Malkin quotes two of Marcotte’s posts in full and excerpts most of her first Edwards campaign post. She then quotes from others who are examining Marcotte’s posts, which I have to admit are kind of difficult to understand. But I don’t see where Marcotte was paraphrasing anyone.
I know you’re a big fan of Marcotte, but you don’t think the “hide-your-past” story was an important one if true? Since it wasn’t true, what sort of apology would make you feel better? And which of those quotes were Marcotte paraphrasing “racist wingnuts” like Malkin?
How about this:
That’s all Michelle quotes, although she sandwiches it in with a bunch of other quotes from unrelated posts — without clarifying that the posts are separate — to make it look like Amanda is a rambling racist idiot.
The full post is http://pandagon.net/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=19&gl=us” rel=”nofollow”>here.
Now please try and argue that the paragraph Michelle quoted is in any way representative of what Amanda actually believes.
This little performance is typical of today’s wingnut: never admit you’re wrong; when you’re shown to be wrong, just ratchet up the personal attacks, inflammatory rhetoric, and violent self-congratulations. You’d think that people who call themselves conservatives would have at least a minimal concern for reality and for the standards of civility and truth-telling in our public discourse. But you’d be dead wrong.
Wow, Gabriel moved those goalposts all the way down the field in just five paragraphs.
A very impressive performance.
I’ve been watching (and occasionally commenting on) the lunacy over Amanda’s supposed crimes against humanity. What a lot of stupidity over nothing…
More proof that there really is no extent to which the Reichwing Authoritarian Cultists won’t go to in order to stifle the voices of those who say things they don’t want to hear. Amanda’s profile has just risen high enough to get an extra dose…(and we see plenty of trolls at Pandagon already…)
I pray that some people will see this ridiculous crap for what it is, and hold it against the Right for the next several generations. Given what they are doing to this country and the world, it’s only fair…
First, I’m not claiming that Marcotte believes anything she posts. I’m just saying it is inaccurate to write that Malkin is quoting Marcotte out of context when in fact she’s provided the full text of two posts, most of another, and multiple excerpts, all with links for readers interested in getting more information. It is similarly inaccurate to claim that Malkin accused Marcotte of lying. And it certainly is newsworthy that the Edwards campaign has taken on someone with Marcotte’s colorful way with words, as evidenced by the not-disappeared posts that started the whole conversation.
Second, it is notable that Malkin introduces the excerpt that is irritating you by calling it one of Marcotte’s “uncensored blog rants.” In fact, it is “uncensored” in the sense that it contains language not generally regarded as acceptable. It took place on a blog and it probably qualifies as a “rant.” Nowhere does Malkin claim that Marcotte actually believes what she writes. Rather, Malkin (and others) are just pointing out that Marcotte really does go nuts with the profanity.
Third, in fact, the excerpt that you’re irritated about is quoted from a post at riehlworldview.com, where a link to Marcotte’s post is available. I actually followed just that link before responding above and realized I was completely unprepared to talk about whatever Marcotte was talking about in that post. Here’s why:
If that is a sentence then I am an astronaut. This is why people are focusing on Marcotte as a choice for the Edwards campaign.
Finally, I don’t really want to fight with you here in your blog-home, Jill. I’m usually happy to just lurk (except for the BSG threads, yay zuzu!). But Malkin takes so much crap from so many people that I cannot not speak up when I think she’s being treated unfairly. She’s certainly written questionable things in the past, and she’s shown no desire whatsoever to understand or accurately represent her ideological foes. But in both those qualities, she’s a lot like Marcotte, don’t you think?
BWAH! Ha! Ha!
Sorry, baby, but what world do you live on? Gemenon?
Aaaand Gabriel moves the goalposts even further away from the original complaint.
Again, one of the most impressive performances I’ve seen in a while, and definitely worthy of Super Bowl Sunday. Congratulations, Gabriel!
Well, no new BSG this week. Someone’s gotta fill the self-deluding Baltar role this week.
On the other hand, and in defense of Malkin (shudder), it was hard for me to tell what in Amanda’s post, which seemed to be about professional wrestling, was true and what was satire (I’m hoping it was all the latter, but I get the sense that it’s not).
But what MikeEss said. The Right has turned into something so disgusting that I don’t think I could force myself to vote for a Republican under any circumstances.
I don’t know, Gabriel, I think I forgot that last time Amanda Marcotte went on TV to advocate the rounding-up and abuse of an entire ethnic group, or pushed, with clout, for a security policy that simultaneously put more of our ports in danger while painting more than one and a half billion people as probable murderous criminals.
Or published the home addresses of political enemies.
Or–
oh, hell, never mind. I’m sorry; I don’t countenance a lot of the sexist, racist bullshit thrown at Michelle Malkin, but she is a stain on our mutual ancestry. Amanda just sorta has a potty mouth.
“If that is a sentence then I am an astronaut.”
So what’s it like in space, Gabe?…
Not only does it look like a sentence to me (FWIW), but since Amanda has a degree in English, I think I would give her the benefit of the doubt.
How about this one for comparison: “But Malkin takes so much crap from so many people that I cannot not speak up when I think she’s being treated unfairly.”
What ARE you trying to say here?…
Or, you know, the last time she went on TV and falsely claimed that a presidential candidate faked being shot in order to get a purple heart. And then made really fabulous faces when Chris Matthews called her on it.
Actually, not just “faked being shot” but “shot himself.”
“I’m not claiming that Marcotte believes anything she posts.”
“Nowhere does Malkin claim that Marcotte actually believes what she writes.”
BTW, those comments are really insulting.
Jesus General is a known spoof – he was doing Colbert’s act before Colbert. Believe literally what he writes at your peril…
Amanda jokes, teases, and mocks, but she is honest and forthright about her feelings.
In a world as false, insincere, and manipulative as the one we live in, what Amanda (and Pam Spaulding, Digby, Wolcott, etc.) says is as refreshing as a cold mountain stream. She is an inheritor of the spiritual mantle left by Molly Ivins, and I’m sure that’s exactly what she wants to be…
I forgot zuzu! Please for give me!…
Also? The fact that these nitwits call Amanda by her last name intending to be meant as an insult speaks volumes..
zuzu, BTW, you mentioned Robert at the top of the comments.
How many times do you think Robert has downloaded and regenerated?…
No.
Mention me in the same breath as Molly Ivins, or die.
Probably my last comment on the subject, but now I’m really curious what you’re talking about in comment 18, zuzu. How is it insulting to call Marcotte by her last name?
I do it because it just seems so, well, forward to call her Amanda when I don’t know her or read her. You’ll notice that I call Malkin by her last name for the same reason.
I’m not telling anyone what to do, but if Gabriel were to go the way of Robert, I would cry this much.
I keep him around for the BSG comments only.
Gabriel, “Marcotte” is French. And you know how the wingnuts feel about the French.
I’m going to keep repeating this until it gets processed:
Manufactured outrage = more traffic and trackbacks = higher ad rates and more tv appearances = more money
They have a formula. They know what works. The weekend was a slow news weekend. They latched on to what they could.
I wish there was a selective banination button. That way the really annoying people could still post on topics where they aren’t trolls, without madly creating thread drift in topics where they’re determined to obfuscate reality.
On the other hand, I would totally hire Gabriel as a lawyer in a personal injury lawsuit.
We watched some clips of professional wrestling for TV class back when I was in film school, so I feel I can assure you that every word of Amanda’s description of that scene was 100% true. Wrestling is much more theatrical than most people realize, with very strong (if simple) narratives and very black-and-white characters.
Yes, and we’ll know when she’s recovered from her insanity. It’ll be when she advocates rounding up religious and ethinic minorities and putting them in detainment camps, but does it with very ladylike words.
Honestly. Sometimes I’d really like to lock Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter (among others) in a cell together and throw away the key. Dunno who’d kill the other first or if they’d hit it off brilliantly or what, but I’m soooo tired of these particular hypocritical, flat-out-lying, self-congratulatory (and possibly, self-loathing) handmaidens of patriarchy that I could just vomit buckets. I can’t help but wonder, though, what makes these women tick, what turned them into such vituperative mouthpieces of cruelly distorted reason in the service of pure hate.
You know how David Brock started off as a self-loathing closeted gay man/ Republican smear professional (defaming Anita Hill, among others), and then went on to that ultimate mea culpa in founding Media Matters? I can’t help but wonder, sometimes, what Coulter’s and Malkin’s equivalent mea culpas might look like, in the (however unlikely) event they were to happen in my lifetime. (In which case, who among us could, or could not, bring themselves to forgive them? And in what ways would the Right seek its revenge? Surely female turncoats would have unique punishments in store for them, to which the likes of even gay men like Brock would never be subjected.)
Idle curiosity, sure. But still.
you know, it’s really sort of sad but kind of humorous how MAD and snarky so many conservative bloggers have been about amanda going to work for the edwards campaign … like, if they think she’s so awful, and they think edwards is so awful (because they think all democrats are so awful), then why should it matter to them? shouldn’t they be thrilled that they’ve found each other?
the subtext seems to me that they may actually be terrified that this is actually a good move. so, of course, they’ve got to snark the hell out of it.
Shorter reactionaryosphere: I’ve seen the Constitution shredded, internment camps being proposed, and nuking Mecca bandied about as a serious policy initiative, and I can say without fear of hyperbole that occasionally using the F-word is a billion times worse than all of those things put together.
They’ve *always* been like that. Of course, it only works if your followers don’t go and check up on you. Afterwards, if they’re sincere and honest, they end up angry, disillusioned, and joining the opposition…
I’ve seen a few post on how Amanda Marcotte is bad for the Edwards campaign, and they all site her post on Hurricane Katrina. Maybe someone here can explain why it’s improper to be pissed about the response to that disaster. It seems to me that if there were anything worthy of an explitive laden tyrade, that would be it.
Norbiz nails it.
The funniest thing about all this is that if this campagin that Michelle, ConYank, et al are waging somehow proves succuessful in foricing Amanda out, they’re (with the noted exception of America’s favorite racist chick) basically undercutting themselves, and lessening any chance of future employment from the blogosphere, which when it comes right down to it is fucking hilarious (epsecially considering these are the same people who worship at the alter of “new media”),do they honestly not see how dislodging a liberal blogger vis a vis the sometimes controversial nature of her posts is counterproductive to the extreme? Not only because it will make future employers more hesistant, but also because doing so will all but assure that even if they somehow get a job out of this like Amanda has, they will be utterly deluged from the left with any and all possiblely offenseive post they may have made in the past ( for example Goldstein’s repeated Cockslap remarks, or ConYanks thinly vieled racial stuff).
I find it more telling or intriguing that this conversation/defense is taking place over here and not at Pandagon.
CoREv, it’s only “telling” of your inability to read. Auguste posted a defense of Amanda at Pandagon yesterday, and the discussion in the comments section is still going on.
The winguts are grasping at straws, trying to build yet another strawfeminist.
I love it when people call swear words “profanity.”
*titters daintily*
Fucking awesome.
It’s just a discussion about racial tensions between blacks and jews
If someone is both Black and Jewish do they get to have internal racial tensions?
Some 2-brain-cell moron over at Amanda’s place just posted this.
Is it me, or are trolls getting dumber?…
This is not about colorful language.
There is no profanity in this passage; Amanda doesn’t swear once. (Funnily enough, the only use of an expletive in this post is in a paragraph that attacks racism in a tone that is the furthest thing from sarcastic. Malkin didn’t quote that.)
The only reason anyone would quote it as an example of unacceptable language is if they were trying to point to the writer’s habitual use of racist slurs. Amanda is not in fact in the habit of using these racist slurs. She used them here in the sarcastic coda to a post that makes it absolutely clear where she’s coming from on the whole vituperative race-baiting thing. It is therefore really dishonest to excerpt this bit to argue that point.
It is also dishonest because Amanda is sarcastically riffing off of a speaker who is complaining about other people taking offense at words like “nigger” and “kike.” When this passage is set alongside Amanda’s cheerful obscenity and Malkin’s anxieties about Amanda’s tone, it sounds like Amanda is earnestly sniping at people–for instance a certain beleaguered conservative historian and blogger?–who take issue with racist slurs.
And spare me the “but the links are intact!” crap. Malkin has been coasting on the intellectual laziness of her readers all along. Her portrait of Amanda’s writing is intentionally misleading.
The basic argument was, “Amanda’s language is beyond the pale. Look, here’s Amanda saying fuck and shit and goddamn and pussy and nigger and kike.”
See which of these things are not like the others? Amanda does have a pottymouth. She does pepper her posts with expletives, and that’s her using them. She does get very harsh when she’s talking about right-wing attitudes towards women. She is not a vituperative racist asshole. She does not spice up her writing with racist slurs. She will occasionally use them, but never in propria voce. This is an attempt to lose that distinction, and it’s really a repellent strategy.
The whole thing seems designed to raise just enough doubt to either put Amanda out, or on notice.
I for one think there should be a lot more of the kind of straight talk Amanda specializes in. It’s a lot harder for assholes to hide from the light when there are plenty of people who call them on their shit…
Piny:
That’s exactly right. I didn’t do much blog reading over the weekend, and then late last night I was checking a local (for me) wingnut’s blog and that’s where I first learned of the Amanda-bashing. Here’s how he described Malkin’s post (it’s at the bottom):
He’s an imbecile and an insignificant member of the right-wing blogworld, but Instapundit habitually links to him for some reason. So this is how a complete lie about somebody can become right wing conventional wisdom. I’ve asked him for evidence of Amanda’s alleged racism, but of course he hasn’t responded.
I’ll admit it, I refer to Ms. Marcotte as “Ms. Marcotte,” because I don’t actually feel as if I’m on a first name basis with her. I tend to do this with other bloggers (if I know their last names) for the same reason.
Plus, it makes me feel all hoity-toity and proper.Ahem.Now, contrast that with Mr. Malor’s “respectful” use: “Marcotte.” Did he actually get that from reading Miss Manners? “See here, Marcotte!” “Marcotte, fetch my tobacco pouch.” This is not even remotely the same usage as “Ms. Marcotte, may I have some more Pad Thai?” Using “Amanda” would also carry less of an implied sneer.
But I’m sure that I’m overanalyzing this, and Mrs. Malkin and the other wingers bear no actual personal ill will towards Ms. Marcotte.
I’m not too hot about Amanda Marcotte, but this is the dumbest shit I’ve ever seen.
And, yeah, I’m also going to need that explanation about how being pissed off about the handling of a disaster and not quite yet saying, ‘the woman’s a lying bitch!’ is unacceptable and will hurt someone’s campaign?
[...] r opinions. This, apparently, is a huge indictment of the Edwards campaign. To borrow from Norbizness: Shorter reactionaryosphere: I’ve seen the Co [...]
WTF would be the point of that champ ?
I thought this blogger joined an election campaign, not some experimental sci-fi program to find the first person in the history of written language who is going to get a pass for what they believe rather than what they write.
And this idea that what people can be quoted as saying can’t be held against them unless they really meant it is being floated…. wait for it…. on the blogosphere in regard to a blogger.
ThePoorMan’s wingnut of the year awards closed a little early it appears.
If you can read that quote you are talking about and your response isn’t that they could have made the same point without forever tarnishing their reputation by stringing a series of racist obscenities together, then you’re not bright enough to be demanding reason from anyone else. If you can understand this then you understand that blogger already made that decision and you have no point.
This is self-evident. If this wasn’t the case then we would see at least a few journalists signing off with “and G W Bush is a cocksucker”, regardless of whether they believe he has actually fellated another man.
Certainly many of them would like to call him this, yet for some reason they find it imprudent to record that in permanant, searchable archives.
I recently saw an excellent blog post from another liberal blogger who used the word “cunt” repeatedly to illustrate what terms like “terrorist appeaser”, “traitor” and the like do for bipartisan relations.
It was a case well made, and while the question may be open as to whether the blogger actually believed his subject to be a cunt (I’d pay it) this has absolutely no bearing on the fact that this has disqualified him from ever attaining a respectable writing position.
Clearly you’ll view that as just some puzzling, unrelated anecdote which illustrates nothing in relation to the subject at hand.
Likewise, why do people keep showing that video still of G W Bush flipping the bird to news camera. It’s just puzzling. He is clearly a lot younger, so it can’t be news. Hmmmm.
No she didn’t.
I actually saw that quoted somewhere recently. You’ll note that at no point did she say she believed Kerry shot himself.
Now while I don’t really know how the arguement is supposed to work, that using the word nigger to refer to blacks is okay if you don’t really believe something (that nigger is a reference to some other group?) , you’ll note that even if it wasn’t that retarded to start with, Malkin would still get a pass under this standard. That she didn’t say she believes Kerry shot himself.
Come to think of it Karl Rove neither stated nor implied he believed McCain fathered an illegitimate black child so why do people keep referring to that as though loopholes and disclaimers count for nothing in defense of the indefensible.
Irony being what it is, this post will be linked from here on in for what this blog’s author defines as acceptable anytime an opinion is offerred on the subject.
Well, Kilo, she did refuse to answer Matthews’ question yes or no, but you can see from the video that she was asserting that “some veterans” were saying that Kerry shot himself, and that Matthews should ask Kerry whether he had done so.
So she wouldn’t express an opinion of her own, but she sure as hell was going to put it out there that Kerry shot himself. Just as she had no evidence that Amanda had intentionally deleted posts or that the excerpt she quoted was in any way representative of Amanda’s actual opinions, but she sure as hell was going to put it out there that Amanda’s racist. And once it’s out there, it’s a legitimate subject for discussion, regardless of the truth.
BFD. So Jill thinks Malkin’s a liar.