2 posts tagged “john edwards”
John Edwards' new blogmistresses demonstrate how to give the appearance of an apology without actually apologizing...
-----------------------------------
We've all seen it. We've all done it - at least when we were kids. That "go tell Joey you're sorry" ritual where you went, shook hands, and verbalized the words "I'm sorry" while conveying very clearly to Joey that you actually wished he’d fall headlong into a nest of fire ants. This, of course, would be followed by the obligatory parental admonishment of "No, say it like you mean it," which would result in yet another enunciation of the two words with only slightly less contempt than previously. It's known as the non-apology. With adults, it takes on a slightly different form. It invariably starts with the word if - as in "If I've done anything to offend you..." With the possible exception of "Not tonight dear, I have a headache," I don’t think there are less satisfying words in the English language. Now, for proper effect, the if is usually followed by words like "truly sorry" and "deeply regret" along with a suitably somber tone throughout. However, to the offended party, make no mistake: the most important word is the initial one, and when it consists of if, the words that follow it, however many or few, have been essentially rendered null and void. There are many messages that the "If I've done anything to offend you..." clause can convey. Here are a few of the more popular ones:
A variation on this basic theme is to preface the apology with, or embed within the apology, the words "it was never my intention to (hurt, offend, frighten, etc.) anyone." This tactic is also known by its more technical name: lying.
To see what these look like in practice, one need look no further than Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, the two recently hired and controversy-ridden bloggers enlisted by John Edwards to head up the online aspects of his presidential campaign.
In a previous post, I discussed their distinctly gag-inducing blend of hypocrisy, intolerance, hate, vulgarity, radicalism, and cluelessness. Not surprisingly, they managed to offend several million people, not the least of whom was Edwards himself who had this to say in a written statement:
"The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor or anything else."
Enter the non-apology. Ms. McEwan, ever resourceful, managed to incorporate not one of my above-outlined tactics, but both of them in a single sentence:
"It has never been my intention to disparage people's individual faith, and I'm sorry if my words were taken in that way."
Ms. Marcotte, not to be outdone, used two entire sentences to convey similar sentiments. Further, in a stunning display of constitutional fluency, she assures us that she does, in fact, support the First Ammendment. How positively magnanimous of her:
"My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact."
Now let me get this straight. These gals post blogs for the express purpose of making political commentary. Their posts routinely receive dozens, if not hundreds, of comments, both favorable and not. They pride themselves on their savvy with current political events and their ability to offer commentary. And it wasn't their intention to offend? They seriously ask "if" someone was offended?
I've got an idea: Let's send these two into a crowded room and have them start swinging a baseball bat. When the inevitable concussions, broken noses, chipped teeth, and worse ensue from their actions, they can stand before the judge and claim that it was "never their intention to hurt someone." Uh huh. You go girls. They can also turn to the assembled ranks of bandaged and bloodied faces in the courtroom and say "if we managed to injure any of you..." After the judge quells the riot, he'll promptly send our two clowns for a psychiactric evaluation.
That's exactly what we've got here: Twin sluggers with blogs instead of baseball bats. Sure they've got the right to say what they want - I'm as familiar with the First Amendment as the next person. But I've also got the right to point out their absolute stupidity at pretending they can't distinguish whether a large number of people would find their remarks deliberately offensive and inflammatory.
Contrition from these two? Hardly. Frankly, I don't think it's in their DNA. Genuine apologies? Not even close. But let's give credit where credit is due - when it comes to the art of non-apologies, Edwards has settled for nothing less than truly world-class talent.
Presidential aspirant John Edwards managed to choose some of the most vulgar, radical, and intolerant voices in all of liberal blogosphere to head up his online campaign: Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan. Apparently these two screedmistresses have checked their old ways at the door. Yeah, right...
------------------------------------------------
I long ago stopped counting the number of times conservatives in this country have been accused of "intolerance." So I decided recently to take a stroll through a few left-wing blogs to see if they practice what they preach. What I found were cheerful references to killing Dubya, the f-bomb dropped at least twice in every sentence, and rants that would reserve WMDs exclusively for use on conservative christians. Yes, it was positively oozing with tolerance and civility.
So I suppose it shouldn't have come as any surprise that when John Edwards decided to draw from the deep well of tolerant, intellectual, and articulate inhabitants of the liberal blogosphere, his bucket came up with the likes of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, two MTV-generation members of the pajama-clad media to lead his online communications efforts in his bid for the US presidency. Their primary credentials? Membership in the lunatic fringe.
Marcotte distinguished herself with her blogging at www.pandagon.net where the tolerant tone reminds one of - uh, the Third Reich comes to mind. Michelle Malkin was kind enough to give us several re-enactments of Marcotte's recent posts, showing the intellectual horsepower behind Pandagon's unequalled blend of wit, nuance, and persuasive skills - that is, if you equate those things with profanity-laced screeds. Judge for yourself here and here. As you watch these, bear in mind that these are verbatim reproductions of Marcotte's actual words - not sensationalized over-the-top distortions. Although Malkin will never win any Academy Awards, I do think she managed to nail the motivation quite well as she plays the part of Marcotte. The only thing missing was the flying spittle in slow motion as the loving words were spewed forth. Here's another blogger's parital summation of the strange universe Marcotte inhabits.
McEwan likewise distinguished herself with her Shakespeare's Sister blog with her insightful commentary that seems to repeatedly draw on female genitalia to make its points. Here's another example of her sterling ability to persuade. And, for those who don't think that the liberal worldview expressed by 99.999% of the journalists on the Big 3 US TV networks is sufficiently dominating the airwaves, you'll appreciate this wonderful bit of wisdom she offers showing why allowing a conservative voice on ABC is unforgivable.
What's not to like, eh? Feel the love. Feel the inclusiveness. Feel the tolerance.
And feel the hypocrisy.
Why did Edwards choose these queens of intolerance and vulgarity to be the online voice of his campaign? Who knows. I'm glad he did, however. It's rather in keeping with the recent Democrat track record of being their own worst enemies.
Frankly, this should come as no surprise. The left would like you to believe it's all warm and fuzzy where they dwell. But the truth is, it's generally dark and hateful. Check beneath the hood at popular left-wing blog spots and you'll see what I mean. Marcotte and McEwan may be a bit over the top, but the most recent liberal "excuses" for their behavior are of the predictable "what they do in private doesn't have any bearing on their job performance" defense. In private? Oh, I must have missed that part about blogging. Or the, "who hasn't engaged in profanity-laced online screeds" argument. Yeah, I actually heard that one offered as a defense. Brilliant. Almost as brilliant as the combined wattage of Marcotte and McEwan.
Which brings me to the real point of my remarks here: the idea that people have split-personalities when it comes to private and public, personal and business. I'll be the first to admit that what we see on the surface isn't always what lurks underneath, but I take strenuous objection with the assertion that one's inner life can be conventiently checked at the door and a completely different persona takes over in the public sector. Hart, Studds, and Clinton all come to mind. The right has not been without its own moral reprobates, such as Foley, but there's a difference: not in the behavior, but in the response to the behavior. The right doesn't try to hide behind this stupid notion of split personalities. They don't create this artificial dichotomy of "the private man" and "the public man" when it comes to moral integrity. The same man that took the pants off to cheat on his wife is the same man that puts them back on again to then tell us he'd never be dishonest.
I have a simple rule: As a man thinketh in his heart, so he is. Wise words from a guy named Solomon. Look it up in Proverbs 23:7.
Marcotte and McEwan are foul-mouthed, bigoted radicals. They didn't suddenly become rational repositories of virtue the day their employment contracts arrived from the Edwards' campaign. The same ideology that drove them to be online screedmistresses is the same ideology that will drive them now.
We take ourselves with us wherever we go. It's a lesson John Edwards apparently hasn't learned yet.
