Thursday, February 08, 2007

Showcasing John Edwards' Decision Making

From the Wash.Post :

"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," Edwards said.
I think this is great. I don't think there's a thing in the world wrong with showing who you really are. If the country takes a look at these people and says, "yeah, that's who I want leading me," well, then it's time to head to the hills. But it won't happen.

And what does this say about Edwards' judgment? "never their intention to malign anyone's faith"? Come on. If you read the 'sticky' post, it's obvious that the intention was exactly to malign and offend. It's the cheapest and nastiest way to make your point: to desecrate that which your opponent holds sacred. It's the your-momma insult updated for the www. This is holy to you? Good, watch me pee on it.

I might just have to write Edwards with a way-to-go mail.


Wrymouth said...

Did you get to marinate in the editorial tone of the "Nedra Pickler" article -- if that is her real name?

It's got a lovely whiff of de-emphasizing any offense the bloggers may have caused, while amplifying the incendiary comments of Bill Donahue?

I am a big fan of free speechiness, and probably wouldn't be offended by the bloggers' jibes (being a reasonable person of Catholic extraction and all), but the author of the article is really dancing around like mad, trying to make it come out all right and nicely one-sided.

I've got a similar post today, coincidentally, on some Extremely Politically Correct signs posted in our local colleges' restrooms. Forget any comments I make -- just read the actual text of the signs themselves.

Thanks again for being there--

Anonymous said...

Blogger's shame:
1. All the vitriol they spewed in the first place.
2. Saying they were just kidding in the second place, a no-no sell-out to the nutroots Edwards is courting in the first place.

Lose-lose for them.

Edward's shame:
If 1) he didn't bother checking into their past writings, then his... ahem...inattention to detail won't exactly serve him well as President of the US, and with any luck actual voters might notice this, but if

2) he actually agrees with the things they wrote, then he's more of a jerk than I imagined (and trust me, trial lawyers aren't my favorite species).

Lose-lose for him.

Actually, one win for him, because in spite of the bloggers' wimpy "we never meant to offend anyone" howler, the nutroots are likely placated at least to a degree. For what that's worth.

But win-win-win-win for the rest of us.

lumberjack said...

And... keep these girls around awhile and sure as God grows little green apples, they'll go overboard again. After all, a leopard can't change its stripes.

Well, rare, striped leopards can't anyway.