The company the candidates keep

Following up on an earlier post on the pseudo-scandal about John Edwards’ official bloggers, an emailer who wishes to remain anonymous suggests I’m being hypocritical. I’ve made a big deal about who Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has brought onto his campaign staff, so I “shouldn’t be surprised” when there’s similar scrutiny applied to a Democrat’s staffing decision. It’s an interesting point, which I think is entirely wrong. Let’s flesh this out a bit.

The Edwards “controversy” is about two bloggers, who’ve written a few posts conservatives consider “shrill.” That’s really the whole story in a nutshell — Edwards is under fire for hiring Pandagon’s Amanda Marcotte and Shakespeare’s Sister’s Melissa McEwan, who’ve collectively written thousands of blog posts, some of which the media is inexplicably referring to as “hate speech.” The Edwards campaign is reportedly so concerned about the right-wing accusations, it hasn’t decided whether to keep Amanda and Melissa on staff.

On the other hand, we have McCain’s decision to hire Terry Nelson, a veteran GOP campaign operative, to be the senator’s national campaign manager for the 2008 campaign. As regular readers know, Nelson has a colorful background that has not yet received much media scrutiny. As Media Matters reported, Nelson:

* Approved attack ad on Harold Ford criticized as racist — As head of the RNC’s independent expenditure unit in 2006, Nelson approved a controversial advertisement attacking Senate candidate Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN). The ad featured a scantily clad white woman posing as someone who “met” Ford “at the Playboy party.” As the ad concluded, she looked into the camera, purporting to address Ford, an African-American, and asked him to “call” her.

* Implicated in DeLay scandal — In September 2005, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) was indicted on charges of conspiracy involving alleged illegal corporate contributions into the Texas state elections…. While Nelson has not been charged, both the conspiracy and money-laundering indictments allege that, as deputy chief of staff of the RNC at the time, Nelson received a $190,000 check from Colyandro in September 2002, along with a request that the RNC fund seven particular candidates for the Texas House of Representatives. The RNC subsequently carried out this request.

* Implicated in NH phone-jamming scandal — During Nelson’s tenure as RNC deputy chief of staff, one of his subordinates, RNC New Hampshire political director James Tobin, conspired with several GOP operatives to obstruct the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote effort in the state by jamming the phone lines they used on Election Day, November 5, 2002…. While the degree to which Nelson was aware of Tobin’s scheme is unknown, his name did appear on the government’s witness list during the Tobin trial.

And, best of all, are the Swiftboat Liars.

* Consulting firm connected to Swifties — Nelson’s consulting firm, Crosslink Strategy Group, counts Chris LaCivita among its employees. While working for a separate Republican strategy firm in 2004, LaCivita was a paid consultant and media adviser to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, who launched a smear campaign against Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) based on lies, factual distortions, and baseless attacks on Kerry’s Vietnam War record and personal life.

All of this led TNR’s Conor Clarke to write a terrific piece on Nelson, describing him as McCain’s “hatchet man.”

How is this similar to Edwards hiring Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan? It’s not. Neither of them has ever been involved in a serious political scandal, neither of them has been accused of illegal political schemes; neither of them has been accused of doing anything unethical. They’ve written a few blog posts with some profanity, and said some mean things about right-wingers they disapprove of. They weren’t even in any official party or campaign positions at the time.

In short, there’s no comparison. Out of McCain and Edwards, I agree that one of these campaigns should probably start firing controversial employees, but it will turn logic on its head if it’s Edwards.

Right on, CB.

  • I’m all for applying equal scrutiny to all campaign hires. But that doesn’t seem to be the issue here. This is simply more manufactured outrage from the right. Edward’s hires stand up quite well to equal scrutiny compared with McCain’s.

    Any wingnut who can find an equivilence, is quite simply out of their tree. The right can say anything it wants. But when someone from the left points out that one of their nuts is well, nuts, it’s somehow an affront to all of civilization.

  • It is more than fair for the GOP to take a hard look at the staffers for Democratic candidates. And, as the post demonstrated, being edgy like Shakes and Pandagon is nothing like being criminal like the McCain staffers.

    That said… Shakes and Pandagon reflect poorly on Edwards for reasons unrelated to the McCain staff comparison. They are, simply put, crummy bloggers.

    They are both shrill, over the top, and — worst of all — utterly closed to contrary opinions, even progressive ones. I long ago removed them from my daily surf in favor of spending more time here, on TPM and its offshoots, and on Political Animal. Progressives lose the high ground when they cease being thougtful and respectful.

  • I read Pandagon every day, specifically FOR the “shrill” and “over the top” commentary. As for it being closed to contrary opinions, put your opinion on your own blog and trackback.

    The high ground is overrated. It’s like bringing a vase of flowers to a gun fight. It’s why Democrats lost so many elections. We’ve done much better since we started fighting back.

    Edwards has my support right up to when he fires Marcotte and McEwan. If he does that, he should withdraw immediately, transfer his money to the national party, and crawl into a hole. If he can’t survive feeble right wing faux outrage nearly two years before the election, he’s not our guy.

  • Hey Nonplussed,

    Would you consider Unclaimed Territory (soon to be at Salon) or Digby utterly closed to contrary opinions?

    A blogger isn’t required to give both sides of an issue. Usually they offer up a view that attracts readership. Some bloggers like the one formerly known as Calpundit or TPM are good at going over an issue in mulitple ways.

    Either way, are Shakespeare’s Sister or Pandagon really any different from most of the bloggers out there? I doubt it. What axe do you have to grind then?

    Patrick

  • I really value Melissa McEwan’s work. As a regular reader, I was pleasently surprised when I learned about the new gig. I trusted that Edwards Inc. had done it’s due diligence and was aware of the edgy and ireverent style of blogging that I enjoy so much.

    But no?

    This is a leadership moment for Johnny Boy. Either admit that important homework was not done or stand by your decision and take on all comers.

    I will be watching.

  • Perhaps it is a coincidence but http://www.pandagon.net has the following home page…

    “Whenever the site is up, we’re flooded by asshat spammers. We’ll just have to wait out the attack; rest assured we’ll be back to normal as soon as possible. Thanks! “.

    People going out to see what all the fuss is about and mysteriously, they cannot go to the page. Who would create such an environment whereby only one side is represented in a he said she said?

    BTW- blogs are not news sources and have no more obligation to present multiple sides of an argument than a priest does during a sermon.

  • update from salon.com – at this point they say the two bloggers have been fired. pretty sorry situation. if true, i am no longer a fan of edwards.

  • I’m going to be very disappointed in Edwards if his campaign doesn’t stand behind the hires.

    Doing background checks before you hire someone is basic common sense, not to mention basic human resources. If you’re hiring someone to blog for you, wouldn’t you go and, you know, actually READ the person’s blog?

    If they claim they didn’t know what was on the blogs, it shows a lack of due diligence. If they did read the blogs and don’t stand behind the hires, it shows a lack of spine.

  • Good one, CB. Though, we must all remember: Republicans have a hard time abiding facts and reason.

  • Edwards sounded promising in ’04 but then wimped out during the debate with Cheney. Why expect any better of him now? He has a good line but will back down at the first sign of conflict.

  • it will turn logic on its head … as the GOP and their lackey’s in the fourth estate always do.

    There’s a good comment from the Northwest Progressive Institute which includes

    Like it or not, the AP and The New York Times are going to have to come to grips with a few swear words. Plus they can bite me.

    UPDATE TEN SECONDS LATER–I see I have ruined any chance I had of being paid handsomely by a presidential campaign with my intemperate use of the term “bite me.” Woe is me.

    Why is Edwards taking so long to say the obvious?

  • The grey area at the center of this “controversy” seems to boil down to what were these people hired for and what in their background makes them qualified for the task assigned them. McCain hired Nelson because McCain is looking for a guy with low scruples to fight dirty, a hit man if you will. Republican campaigns are about getting nasty and Terry Nelson knows how to work for the Dark Side of the campaign world.

    My impression of the Marcotte and McEwan hires were for their knowledge of the blog landscape, the ability to run a sophisticated blog, their passion and their ability to draw a crowd. They were not hired for their personal opinions nor the use of profanity, which are the things Donohue et al are complaining about.

    The proof is in the profession. Marcotte and McEwan are being paid to run a very professional community blog. Nelson, no doubt, is planning his dirty tricks campaign. Edwards hired the two for their virtues not their faults, with McCain and Nelson, it’s the other way around.

  • From ABC’s tripe:

    …At issue are Marcotte’s comments on her own blog, Pandagon (http://www.pandagon.net/), which has staked out a prominent place in the left-wing blogosphere. It’s pretty strong stuff; her comments about other people’s faiths could well be construed as hate speech

    Ahem.

    Kinda like if you did a segment about atheists affirming their disbelief in God on YouTube, and entitled it “Spitting in the face of God”? Like that kind of hate speech?

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/terrymoran/2007/01/spitting_in_the.html

    Or maybe he means like when ABC gives a platform to Ann Coulter, who actually advocates cold-blooded murder. Maybe that’s the kind of “hate speech” they’re talking about.

    Does Mickey Mouse condone Hate Speech?

  • Chief — I probably should not have said “crummy”. It would have been better (and less shrill) just to say that the shrill style is not my thing.

    Patrick — I not familiar with Unclaimed Territory but I will check it out. Thanks for the tip. As for Digby, I read it regularly but infrequently. I think it would be better if it made more effort to find the legitimate parts of its objects of criticism. CalPundit, now the Political Animal, is my idea of the ideal blogger. I read that one first every day.

    MNProgressive — I agree bloggers are not obligated to present both sides, etc. Its just my preference and I spend a lot more time reading the ones that do.

  • Also, I have no problem with people analyzing the blog posts of bloggers hired by campaigns. I’m hardly going to pledge not to highlight outrageous comments by Republican campaign bloggers, even if those comments were made before they joined a campaign.

    But there’s is a problem if the coverage is misleading (like describing profane posts as “hate speech”) or if the rules are different for Republicans and Democrats. And there’s a problem if nasty comments are considered as big a deal as illegal or unethical behavior.

  • “could well be construed as hate speech”?

    Terry Moran better watch his back, because what *he* just said could be construed about talking about my mother, and when people do that, it makes me want to kick their asses. (/sarcasm)

  • WHAT WRONG WITH A LITTLE HATE SPEECH

    ABC has had no problem in the past dealing with it when

    a. Melanie Morgan does it on their Disney owned stations KFSO
    b. New ABC hire Glenn Beck does it on his programs
    c. ABC’s Isiah Washington (Grey Anatomy) does it referring to a castmate

    This is a joke and yet another diversion…if the right wants to get in a pissing match about the comments let alone actions of some of the people affiliated with the Presidential campaigns….bring it on

    …..the left wing blogsphere is batting at least .950 the last 6-8 months when it comes to diffusing utterly ridiculous RW scandals and destroying lies and half truths with PROOF and a little thing called fact checking…
    remember Hell hath no fury like a LIBERAL blogger scorned….

    Edwards would be smart to keep those two on the campaign
    I mean what is the RW going to do
    NOT VOTE FOR EDWARDS…!!!?????

    PS I do not believe anything Marcotte and McEwan said would constitute the narrow definition of hate speech

  • Time for the Dems to refuse to play this game – if they cave, the GOP will be yanking this chain from now until election day – and considering that the Republicans have no high moral ground or authority from which to act, better for the Dems’ repsonse to be “talk to the hand.”

  • Fired? Big, BIG mistake…

    Damn, I am tired of this kind of spineless response. Does anyone think McCain will fire any of the numerous bad characters he’s hired? Hell, no.

  • You claim the Edwards issue is over bloggers “who’ve written a few posts conservatives consider “shrill.” ”

    No. Marcotte has written highly offensive screeds mockinga and belitting the core religious beliefs of Catholicism. She did not try to engage in a civilized debate along the lines of “I don’t think the Catholic church is right about issue X beucase…”. No, she insulted the religion itself. I remain convinced that Catholic-bashing remains one of the few prejudices that is still trendy. Imagine she had written similar things about Judaism, and threw in some comments about how bearded Jewish “dicatators” treat their women like crap— well, I’ve a funny feeling it would be a lot more serious than “shrill commentary”. Wake up. This is naked intolerance. And until you guys understand this, the Republicans will continue to pick up Catholic voters.

  • This pretty much is a typical right-wing attempt to blow up a largely phony scandal. That said, Amanda Marcotte does strike me as being “shrill,” and I stopped reading Pandagon when she took over from Jesse and Ezra. Her idea that dropping the f bomb every other sentence makes her seem tough is a bit infantile at best. She was never a very compelling blogger, and a lousy choice by the Edwards campaign.

  • If he can’t survive feeble right wing faux outrage nearly two years before the election, he’s not our guy.

    have to agree with that.

  • Nelson’s hatchet history and abuses aside (which are substantially different), I don’t see how any candidate can have someone on his staff who has written the things Marcotte has. I wouldn’t want her speaking for me, and I’m not interested in running for dog catcher. Sorry, gang.

  • Typical Rep playbook =
    1) Attack the messenger to avoid dealing with messages.
    2) The GOLDILOCKS strategy of Dems are always too weak/strident but Repubs are just right.
    3) Treat every Dem traffic ticket as a felony and every Rep felony as a traffic ticket.

    So Dems are too weak as they bring a knife to a gun fight but Dems are too strident when they even try to pack a 22.

    Dem Playbook = No easy targets for Reps.
    Investigate before hiring so you can stick with your choices (Edwards)
    Choose words with care (Biden)
    Push back against Repub attacks and MSM echo chamber chatter.

  • Comments are closed.