Redstate

harassment of Erick at work or at home.  Frankly, anyone who could be traced and caught should be arrested in my opinion.

....that Armando at dKos behaved in a forthright and honorable fashion in trying to squash the harrassment.  I am appreciative.

Lefties saw how Malkin was able to get a secretary fired from her job for writing a truly asinine (and insulting) e-mail.  They thought they saw an opening against Erick, which, thankfully, didn't exist.

The days of "everything is fair game" are slowly coming to the blogosphere.  (My only suprise is that it's taken so long.)

Can we agree that the term "media whore" has a negative connotation?  The first definition (not the one quoted) in Wikipedia says as much, and describes someone who seeks media attention for vanity purposes.  Relying on a selective dictionary definition does not remove the highly derogatory roots of "media whore".

Ms. Sheehan's arguments are basically that 1) Bush lied to start the war in Iraq and that 2) we should get out of Iraq.  Maybe this is naive, but how about if the Right attacked the actual message?  I know you have arguments against both these points, so make them.

a secretary fired from her job

Should be "a secretary fired from his job."  (Given that I have a male secretary, you'd think that I'd know better.)

Your above definition of "media whore" is so broad as to be meaningless.

Since Cindy Sheehan has called George W. Bush a mass murderer, several times, I'd say that calling someone a "whore" is rather mild by comparison. I'd just call Sheehan "acutely mentally ill" and leave it at that. The best reason for Bush to ignore her completely: what Sheehan needs desperately is psychiatric help, and Bush is not a psychiatrist.

... I'd be right there with you.

Are you going to check in with your thoughts on Israel giving "Palestine" back to its rightful owners?  Ms.  Sheehan has stated repeatedly that this is the other key (after getting out of Iraq) to stopping the killing.

Is she right?

Not quite so "forthright and honorable"

To media whores, who are unable to recognize their condition for what it is.

Not at all.  It's a derogatory term for persons who are perceived to do those particular things.  Seems pretty clear-cut to me.

I wouldn't contest that.

Sadly, as already demonstrated, those aren't Sheehan's only arguments by a long shot.

going over to Iraq to server in Bush's War?

Oh, sorry, I forget -- your kind doesn't feel the ordinary patriotism that might yearn for victory even in wars one opposes.

This didn't used to be much of a problem.

Anyway, since you've only left two comments on the site, and one of them was constructive, I'm not going to boot you for saying dumb things.  But be warned: we welcome lefties here -- unless they're just here to shriek the shibboleths they mistake for wisdom.

Actually, alot of people have postulated that Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is at the crux of conflict between the Arab world and the West.  There is (or at least was) some truth to that, but there are alot of other reasons for violence against the U.S. including our support of dictatorships and occupation of Arab lands.  Of course, the Middle Eastern also has many issues unrelated to the U.S. which need to be sorted out among themselves.  

It seems like Palestinians do have a claim on the West Bank and Gaza, though Israel has the right to hold those territories if necessary for its self-defense.  I think it's a good thing that Israel is leaving Gaza, and I think it would be a good thing if they largely left the West Bank as well, with the exception of ceding some land to Israel in exchange for a transportation corridor for Palestinians.

For her bereavement at the loss of her son, Ms. Sheehan is due as much benefit of the doubt and personal respect and sympathy as we can individually afford her.

For her narcissistic demand that her grief bestows upon her the right to meet with the President of the United States a SECOND time (most of us will never have that opportunity, under any circumstances), for her willingness to accept any and all media and celebrity attention in the interest of obtaining said meeting, and for her outrageous and offensive statements uttered in the name of maintaining said media attention (think: Israel out of "Palestine"), Ms. Sheehan is due as much derision and condemnation as our individual consciences will allow, "media whore" being rather generous.

You will notice that I have made absolutely no mention of her stated views on Bush Administration policy and Iraq, and yet still the causes for derision far outweigh the causes for sympathy.

Liberals love to talk about conservatives having "squandered the world's goodwill after 9/11"...well, Ms. Sheehan is a textbook example of how to squander a nation's goodwill in the wake of her own personal tragedy.  She could have elected to seek counseling for her grief and/or to pursue her political dialogue through the channels responsible, everyday Americans use, but she chose the media spotlight and selfish demands instead.

Ms. Sheehan, may fate forever place you last in line whenever you request an audience with a public official to air your grievances.

I think this war shows why we need to have mandatory service for all in the armed forces (or peace corp, or something) after high school.

Politicians wouldn't willie-nillie send folks off to war w/o plans for securing the peace, nor would the ignore the Powell Doctrine (whatever happened to that?) if more of their constituients had kids in the battle field.

I just think if we "stay the course" now, we're going to keep seeing more of the same.  There has been a 100% increase in IED attacks on our troops since a year ago today.  So if we "stay the course", there will be 100% more of them next year than now?

It's such a shame.  We could have done it right.

I was going by the username "tenwords".  I posted no profanity and violated none of the "comment posting rules".  I also didn't receive an explanation as to why I was banned from commenting on this site.  Here is the link to what I posted.  Just wondering what the hysteria is all about.

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/8/12/122959/500

you came into our house and subtlely accused us of racism.  Gee wonder why you got banned.

What is it she's trying to tell the media in Crawford, then?  From your link:

She told the audience of veterans from World War Two to today's war in Iraq, that the two main things she plans to tell the man she holds responsible for son Casey's death are "Quit saying that U.S. troops died for a noble cause in Iraq, unless you say, 'well, except for Casey Sheehan.' Don't you dare spill any more blood in Casey's name. You do not have permission to use my son's name."

"And the other thing I want him to tell me is 'just what was the noble cause Casey died for?' Was it freedom and democracy? Bullshit! He died for oil. He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East. We're not freer here, thanks to your PATRIOT Act. Iraq is not free. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," she exclaimed.

So her argument number 3 is that (along with the U.S. getting out of Iraq) Israel getting out of "Palestine", which would be the West Bank and Gaza, would stop terrorism.  She's certainly not the first to think that the key to stopping terrorism is having Israel withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza.  I would say there's more behind terrorism than that, including our support for the Saudi royal family, but it seems like her third argument would be less controversial than "Bush lied" and "let's get out of Iraq".

characterize the comment, the one that I was simply responding to?  Surely, you are not condemning me and defending them.  I didn't see that in the rules, insinuating that someone is biased, someone who has just admitted that they are biased by using an insulting nickname for Arabs.

trevino -

I think the analogy of "whore is to media whore as dog is to hot dog" is not quite apt.  More accurately, "whore" is to "media whore" as "nazi" is to "soup nazi".

In either case, your point on the parsing of the phrase stands.  And, parsing completed, you have failed to address the real issue.

The thing that makes Erick's characterization of Sheehan as a "media whore" offensive and rude is not anyone's sense that he is accusing her of having sex for money.  It is the implication that she is exploiting the death of her son.

As I mentioned in my reply to Erick's post, I don't, and I doubt any of us do, know if Sheehan is sincere, callous, opportunistic, or insane in her actions.  I also, personally, think that folks who have lost their children in similar situations get a pass.

Leave her be.  She'll go away soon enough.

Cheers -

with the basic content of Armando's post, though I didn't read the commentators. Attack her claims not the woman. Blame the media for over focusing on her, don't blame her.

The quote is replete with much more than "Israel out of Palestine". At a glance, we have the following "arguments":

(1) No blood for oil.

(2) No war profiteering.

(3) No American imperialism.

(4) The PATRIOT Act is eeeeevil.

If I had just fallen off the back of the turnip truck I would not be able to tell this woman apart from the average poster on Democratic Underground. Stop trying to make out like she's some reasonable, moderate, sane critic of the war: she's not, and you know it.

...to the level of personal harrassment is unfortunate, to say the least, and puts the subject of mere name calling in perspective; I utterly reject it, and wish that those engaging in it are apprehended.

That said, I find this diary defending Erick's choice of phrasing a missed opportunity for RedState, whereas repudiating the more questionable part of the original entry would be an admirable call to keep high the bar for the level of discourse.

From where I come from, referring to someone's mother using any phrase containing the word "whore" is at best a display of classlessness. And to charge those who would take offense at the use of a phrase such as "media whore," in such a circumstance, of "manufactured outrage" strikes me as manufactured cluelessness. What's more, that the person doing this in the comments section of Erick's entry is retired military truly puzzles me. The defense of using such a phrase against the mother of a fallen fellow soldier, no matter what disagreements there may be with such a woman, does more disservice to the honor of the U.S. military, in my eyes, than anything I'm aware of Mrs. Sheehan having done.

Amos,

You wrote: It is the implication that she is exploiting the death of her son.

Ms Sheehan WOULD NOT be getting the media attention if she were not who she is or more accurately if her Son had not died in Iraq.  

This isn't about meeting with Bush again.  She knows it won't happen.  Camping in Crawford and wanting a meeting are just the gimmicks to manipulate the media, plain and simple.  Media manipulation is also an essential technique in campaigns and in presidencies (not just the current one).  Ms. Sheehan did what she could to help John Kerry win last year, and no doubt she could write her Senators, but the net result of such attempts was and would be zero.  She welcomes the media spotlight because that's how she is bringing attention to her cause.  

My point concerns her intent, and the sincerity of her intent, both of which I doubt are knowable to Erick or Josh.

Cheers -

Let's be honest -- this woman is doing everything she can to get herself on tv.  She is a media whore.  

From the AP:  

"On Friday, she released a 60-second television ad running on cable channels in the Crawford area the rest of the month. The $15,000 cost was paid for by Gold Star Families, a group Sheehan founded."

Gee, cheap cable commercials.  Posts via Michael Moore's website.  As Bush passes by in his motorcade, holding up a sign saying "Why do you make time for donors and not for me?" so she can be sure to make the news (and ignoring the fact that Bush, his deputy chief of staff, and his national security advisor all have met with her.  There's no need for an apology.

However, whatever her orginal intent was she is currently drawing on her sons death.  If she was not  she would not be appearing in our newspapers and on our TV's.

"Adjective, context, metaphor: who doesn't know these things?"

Try grammar.

I know what a media whore is, everyone who remembers mediawhoresonline knows it too, and saying media whore in the form of a grieving mother is not even close to the use of media whore.

Trevino, you are trying to pull a quick one here (and referring to wikipdiea for justification, how trivial). Calling someone a "media whore" is one thing; but adding "in the form of a grieving mother", is quite beyond any line of decency.

I don't think the people attacking Erick are out of line at all. Erick Erickson deserves a very public and personal humiliation.

If this was a liberal blogger that'd said this, Fox News, WSJ, and the rest would be using "whore in the form of a grieving mother" as the statement which Erick uttered.

You said it, not us.

Erick does not deserve to be humiliated or harassed at work.  He is exercising his right to free speech on a blog that he advises and supports with his resources and time.  You don't like his post? Go play some where else.

but she has made a cold, calculated decision to use that status to further her own political ends.  Read some of the crazy, outlandish comments she has made (although she's toned it down some for the MSM, this community has done a good job of collecting links to her prior statements).  She has deliberately misstated the events of her last meeting with President Bush.  She wanted to become a public figure -- her wish has come true.  If she and her supporters can't stand the heat, she should get out of Texas.

I stated Sheehan's two primary points here, and amended them with a third.  To sum up what she is saying:

1. Bush lied (we are there for the PNAC doctrine - your points 1-3)
   
   
2. Get out of Iraq
   
   
3. If Israel got out of the West Bank & Gaza along with #2, terrorism would go away

I wish I had the command of the english language that Josh does.

I was over on DKos, being the sole defender of Erick's choice of words (handle: RSCorky).  After Erick's 'apology' I felt abandoned...

..."If she and her supporters can't stand the heat, she should get out of Texas."

See, here's the thing. She can stand the heat, and she's not leaving before Bush does, and the same will go for many of her supporters. And Mrs. Sheehan is, most difinitely, rather smartly utilizing the media to the fullest advantage to get out her message. That is what those successful at bringing mass awareness to their campaigns do, be they lefties or righties or what have you; they are able to establish significant media leverage. The chagrin arising from the realization of Mrs. Sheehans success, I believe, is why she is being so roundly attacked ad hominem by those adverse to her message.

Yes, that's right: Because Mrs. Sheehan efforts at gaining mainstream and non-mainstream media coverage to speak out against this war have been successful, she is being attacked for that success. Kinda funny, when you think about it.

.

"Definitely." "Sheehan's." I hate it when I typo.

I also regret that I made it seem that I viewed all those who disagree with her message as resorting to ad hominem attacks. In fact, I do not.

I only now have seen that Erick has granted that his choice of words crossed the line. My argument, then, isn't with RedState, but with Trevino and those who continue to back the original phrasing.

how nuts Daily Kurse would have gone if Erick had said something along the lines of....I don't know...."Screw 'em"?

I know it was a joke, but IMO waaaaaay over the line

My objection, while not the one you are focused on, was not worded that way, nor over the top.  There is a reasonable form of this objection to that language and general attitude, and of course I'd prefer you addressed the strongest form, as well as deal with any weaker objection.  My objection is not hypocritical.  It is an objection more from the center, from frankly a tacitus.org standard of discourse.

frankly, I'm not much for this "whore" metaphor we throw around so easily... whoring this and whoring that, blogs and diaries and oh what a general purpose concept, so useful!

It's pathetic... playing on a sexual morality frame for something wholly different.

I mean, I could say that Malkin was a "media whore"... but why bother... people have a right, in my book, to promote their ideologies, to talk to the press, and even to arrange events or even stunts to try to get press attraction.

It's part of how are system works and it's not bad.  

Of course it's possible to defend attacking a person at the roots, at their reputation in general, and maligning that and their motives, etc, but why?  Why bother?  That doesn't answer any of the issues which, guess what, we all feel strongly about... not just Sheehan.

but lest I be banned after promising not to pursue this further in another thread... I was asked for this by yet another post specifically on a part of the presentation I objected to.

I think the point about Sheehan could be made without resorting to this overused cliche... but by all means, if you insist on it, it merely becomes a part of your presentation, and I think a sign of desperation if a mere citizen's opinions require this sort of language to discredit.

-pyrrho

Her claim is basically not, as some have suggested, a laundry list for the radical Left. She's been pretty specific that the conduct of this war from the outset has been conniving and pathetic:

"He's committed troops to war. They're over there sweltering. They're not equipped properly and the people of Iraq don't have any clean water; they don't have electricity to cool their houses down. Our troops are out there with their body armor and they shouldn't be there in the first place."

"And then he comes and takes a five-week vacation. I just hope this is putting a little crimp in it for him," she said. "I'm never going to be able to fully enjoy another vacation because he's put a permanent hole in my life."

assuming she is a leftist from the git-go (I don't know, I have not followed this particularly closely, but I've read that she voted for Bush in 2004, but ignoring that possibility)

given that: what do you expect from people not inclined to support the war as their family members die?  To get suddenly more supportive?  Why?

You should expect this, it's a cause of war.  I honestly don't know why you would not expect this.  Just as if someone does support the war and loses their son, I doubt they should be expected to be really accepting of arguments the death was a waste.  

It's perspective and predictable.  I don't think a person needs to be slurred as a result of their strong positions, per se, it's enough to discredit their position if you can.

are they not just media whoredom then?  are we not trying to get attention?  And why?  Altruism.  

Perhaps, or perhaps not.  It would seem to me to be a matter of position and perspective... but this insult is easily thrown at anyone that is getting a lot of media face time... but can the blogosphere really credibly complain about that?

And simultaneously try to inject massive amounts of it's own flak into the system?

Fact of the matter: you wouldn't have heard of her had her son not died in this war... and there are plenty of people that are not going to like that because they don't support the war enough to explain it to themselves, and we really ought to as Americans be able to hear their complaints without maligning them and thereby soiling the right of all of us to do exactly what they are doing.

And I do practice what I preach, I don't call someone a media whore because they want to praise the sacrifice of their child for their country... I'll actually admit quite readily they have done and see no reason to try to discredit their emotions that flow solely from my nation's decision to be at war.

Link search for her here

I have no idea about 2000, but she campaigned against Bush in 2004.

I prefer not to be banned, and try to be respectful.

But come on... I think the term "towelhead" there was pretty much racist, yeah?

tenwords might have been banned based on a policy of not allowing too much disturbance by liberal posters, and I think that is a legitimate basis for a web site banning... but that's what it was... not a false accusation of racism... come on.

The comment in question was over the top in that regard.  Yes?

Again... I'm not questioning the decision to ban, I don't think there is a high standard for that... but if you are answering her question... it's not because she introduced the idea of racism... is it?

The only person "using her sons death" to their advantage is her.

I think she needs to knock it off.

It would seem even John Kerry voted for Bush in 2004. How does one prove that?

whether blogs are media whoredom or not is pretty irrelevant unless you're going to follow a non sequitur with a tu quoque.

"And Mrs. Sheehan is, most difinitely, rather smartly utilizing the media to the fullest advantage to get out her message."

If the left would stick to simply calling Michelle Malkin a media whore, I think she would be really delighted.

What they actually call I can't repeat here. So the sanctimonious claptrap really does not cut it.

the context I read that was a further attempt to discredit her.

Personally, I don't care who she voted for, and I'm sincere in my point of assuming she has always been a liberal.

My point is based on that assumption.

"media whore" is a useless term, it is nothing but a form of "shut up"... I find it especially non-credible coming from we who love not to shut up.

If Ms. Sheehan is a "media whore", than so is George W. Bush, because he also utilizes the media to the fullest advantage to get his message out.  Thus, the term is either slanderous or useless.

...Sheehan's not a media whore and you know it. The only thing she has left after the death of her son is to try and ensure that his death was not in vain. That is what this is all about. Whether she is being naive, simply wrong, or perfectly right, she doesn't deserve this treatment. Why don't you treat her the way you know you would if someone were doing the same thing to President Clinton?

Erick has apologized for "media whore," at least in a way. Sometimes we make mistakes, and that's fine. But to come in after the fact and try to justify this just to "see if it will fly" really irritates.

rugged as well.

so what can I say.  I am agreeing there is no need for this term.

My personal right to continue to make this objection is rooted in the fact that I am in fact consistent.  I don't think the term serves much use, nor do worse slurs, in general, though there are some exceptions to such rules.

But I am being consistent.

To defend using the term in this case based on it's innappropriate use elsewhere is not particularly consistent, because you already grant it's innapropriate.

I think very litle of Ms. Malking, but I assure you everything I've ever called her could be repeated here.

Okay.  But let's not pretend that the media coverage is somehow an unintended byproduct of this affair.

Rather, it's the point.

to call Terri Schiavo's parents "media whores"?  Why or why not?

The man responsible for unleashing Kos upon the country.  Talk about a troubled conscience.

In any case, this....

....adding "in the form of a grieving mother", is quite beyond any line of decency

....is a complete non sequitur.  Unless, of course, you believe that maternal grief confers blanket immunity in all things.  This would be a surprise to Clytemnestra.

Nice "they do it too" excuse as well.  Raising the bar, Jerome?

that is a good analog.

the fact that the definition of "media whore" (which is a funny idea, wonder when it will hit the Oxford Dictionary) applies makes little difference.

Yeah, a slur has a definition and it applies!  That's not really a justification for using the slur.  Not in my book anyway.

Better to stick to the point.

If you say so, chief.  Clearly that which you believe is ipso facto apprehended by me as fact.

The only thing she has left after the death of her son is to try and ensure that his death was not in vain.

And to attack Israel, of course.

of anyone that just happens to wander in front of a TV camera or that organizes an event designed to bring those cameras. We'd have to extend "media whore" to the entire political involved community.

That we can follow you to your house, harass and threaten your family, and try to destroy your livelihood for kicks?

I mean, given this:

I don't think the people attacking Erick are out of line at all. Erick Erickson deserves a very public and personal humiliation.

Email me your address. I've got thousands of unemployed relatives who'd love to camp on your doorstep and protest your continued existence.

I once thought coexistence with the Left was possible, that we could have a debate in which words occassionally flew, but at the end, walk away, knowing one side or the other would win, but both were doing what they were doing out of good intentions if nothing else.

No longer.

You're more or less collectively filth. I'm sure there are exceptions, but this is garbage.

In a different context; if the worst thing the liberal-left said about George Bush was that he is a media whore, the level of civic discourse in this country would be vastly elevated.

So I don't feel you are making as clever a point as you think you are.

The exasperating thing is that all this moralistic tutt-tutting is coming from the side which has been displaying a psychotic hatred of Bush and the Republicans for years. Take a quick glance at the comment threads as Atrios or pretty much any left wing blog.

Clean up your own sides language before you presume to drop in and lecture us.

called them that.

If anything Randall Terry who acted as spokesman for the Schiavos at times was and is a media whore.

you exercise with this post.

Wikpedia of course is a joke. The common usage on the Left for the phrase "media whore" is persons in the Media who whore themselves in the role as the press.

What you would want to call Ms. Sheehan, and to what effect, God only knows, is Media ATTENTION Whore. Now you are an intelligent person and must know this. Why you choose to play the fool on this Gawd only knows.

But that is beside the point. For someone who purports to rail against ad hominem attacks, why in the world would you embrace this one? You are better than this. This will sound trite to most, but you know I value your friendship, and I write as a friend here, this is beneath you.

Ms. Sheehan can be critiqued without this type of  attack. What is your purpose? Because your effect is negative -- to yourself. You have earned a gread deal of respect from all sides of the political spectrum. Justly earned I think. But this stands as a stain on you. Particularly after Erick disavowed this use.

Reconsider this decision.    

Of course I don't expect a woman who was always a leftist to suddenly decide the Iraq War was a Peachy-Keen Idea™ once her son comes home in a body bag. That's not what this is about.

What it is about is about her using her status as a bereaved mother as a platform from which to spout incandescently stupid fringe-left talking points. That is odious grandstanding.

sorry but you do realize this is a lame argument don't you?

how can we criticise someone on the basis of successfully getting their heartfelt message to the press.

we try every day!

... Clinton?  Carter?

Or for that matter, Reagan?  Nixon?  every president that's ever lived?

Let's just face the fact that psychotic hatred is a big problem.

So why would you know what my intent is here. This is a wonderful example of a pointless ad hominem attack that is of the worst kind - an ignorant one.

Ignorant meaning without knowledge, not stupid.

I had not thought of that... decent point about the rhetoric though.

Still... it's wrong that Erick deserves harassment, period.  Criticism, sure?  Rhetoric of the same level... perhaps.  Threats and harassment, of course not.

I disagree a lot with Erick deserving the result.

However, I think his point on the phrase is that he objects to equating her grief to "media whoredom"... that is, as if when we see her grief we should assume it's not real, and all she wants is attention.

That is in fact distinct from saying she wants attention but her grief is left unmolested.

drop by a FreeRepublic thread on Clinton.  Wow.

And, as you note, this is nothing new, as evidenced by this cheery campaign ditty:

Who rules us with an iron rod?

Who moves at Satan's beck and nod?

Who heeds not man,

Who heeds not God?

Van Buren, Van Buren!

you can no better make your sweeping generalizations today than yesterday.

I'll make the sweeping generalizations I'd like, but I'd appreciate a point to the comment of yesterday you find so offensive.

What are you talking about?

I'm a fellow American.

You said you "used to feel" a certain way, that is the yesterday of which I speak.

Put more simply... I appreciate your former perspective... don't be rash in letting the extremists change it... it plays right into their hands.

But that is off topic.

But assuming what you say is true, why spring to the defence of this woman who has decided to jump into the political arena with both feet, while trying to use her son's death as both a shield and a weapon? And whose "arguments" are vile, disgusting, and dishonest.

the alternate is for her to protest without reference to her son's death.

would that be better?  wouldn't in that case a charge be "she really only feels this way because of a peronsal loss".

But also, when you go to war you can expect some parents to feel this way who are also parents of dead children... it's really par for the course, I don't know how one can expect different.

The contrary expectation is that I expect many parents to be especially proud and especially sensitive to criticisms of the war... these are natural results of war, I think, and a natural if troublesome part of the debate.

But it is life and death, so "troublesome" perspectives and people are, really, not wholly out of place... probably, more likely, they are needed to remind the rest of us of all the stakes.

But I know that I would not be allowed to post on your site. How about If Kos opens things up and allows all the "wingnuts" to post over there?

Sure, Erick can't hide from the public consequences of his opinion.  People are free to repeat what he said, and if people deem it morally repugnant, then they'll think less of Erick, and if they happen to agree with him, then they'll think more of him.

But that doesn't mean personal harassment is deserved, and I'd like to think you didn't think your comment through fully because you did seem to imply this.  This sort of thing happens to outspoken people on both sides, but that doesn't make it right, and as a leader of a blogging community, I think it's your job to help draw the line.

I would expect no less from the leaders of RedState if some of the commenters here started harassing you at home, etc.

It's almost as if I didn't refer to that in the post proper.  Anyway, sorry for not using the phrase the way you folkses do.  Not like it was thus misunderstood.

As for the purported needlessness of this manner of critique of Sheehan -- as if this were even close to the worst she's faced -- I fail to see how her status confers an immunity upon her.

... a parent that supports the war may well come out very emotionally against all criticism of the war as if it cheapens their child's life.  To me... I may see that and think this really illustrates why the war is wrong, putting them in the difficult position of HAVING to KNOW the war was good, to avoid an even more painful grief.

I would say a conservative may look at Sheehan and say, "your son died so you could have free speech"... and that would be a sharp but fair approach.

The "media whore" approach (now retracted by Erick, but still under debate here) is to say, "shut up shut up shut up", and that is a different thing!  Interpreting events is fair.  "Shut up" is, in matters like this, matters of public debate, a debate we all take part in here, well, I think it's unamerican.

if you mean me specifically, my defense is pretty limited to saying calling her a "media whore" is a poor way to comment on the issue.

Beyond that my defense is merely the right to free speech, and insofar as I want to not be a hypocrite I find an analog in the parents that are hypersensitive against criticism of the war because of their own losses... I disagree with them, but I would never see the use of calling them a "media whore" for taking their message to the airwaves.  And I have seen such parents.

in a way my objection to the language Erick used could be put in terms of tacitus.org posting standards.

I was suprised to see this particular defense from trevino of all conservatives.

In which case she should be commended.

Or she is wrong. In which case she should be condemned. And "media whore" is not too strong a term of condemnation.

Since she is wrong, it is appropriate to condem her.

The fact that she seeks to exploit her sons death to further her political ends, and hopes to also use it to shield herelf from criticism, makes her somewhat more reprehensible,

reason my posts are not showing.

What I've been trying to say is why the left is ignoring Ms. Sheehans hypocrisy? She had quite a different story back in 2004.

something in the "Subject" box.

It's not ignorant to infer sincerity, or lack thereof, from the available data, Armando. Given that Ms. Sheehan has of late become one of the Kossacks' sacred cows, it's fair to reason that you have an interest in abjuring trevino's evisceration of said bovine apart from any non-partisan concern you might have, as a friend, for his credibility and reputation.

To put it another way: if it looks like you are posturing, and it smells like you are posturing, then I judge you probably are posturing. Accuse me of ignorance if it makes you feel better.

As a friendly piece of advice, hit the preview key before commenting. We've all been burned by just hitting "post" before.

What point, exactly, are you trying to make, here?

Are you trying to tell me that what she's doing isn't odious grandstanding?

Or are you trying to tell me that she has no choice but to engage in odious grandstanding?

Erick a new one, if they disagree.

I am not opposed to sending non threatening emails-the "I think you are wrong and here's why" type not the "you are evil and hope somebody murders your family" type.

But it crosses a huge line to call somebody at home and to post phone numbers and the like on the internet and encourage others to do the same.

she has a right to make her statements.

The fact that people are only listening to her because her son died is a characteristic of listeners that are good at selective deafness, through which her situation breaks.

But I agree with you nevertheless about the right to condemn her by those that judge her points as without merit.  But we disagree on "media whore" being a fitting condemnation.

she has the right to make her statement and relate her anecdotes and convey the pain of her situation all she wants.

And if she does that... she will be in a position where she can be accused of grandstanding.

But fwiw, I would prefer to hear that she is guilty of "odious grandstanding" than hear that her grief is not real and she is really only a media whore.

I'm pretty sure her grief for her son is real, and that she's a media whore. FWIW.

Seems the wikipedia definition would apply to Terri Schiavo's parents and to most parents/relatives of missing/murdered/sexually abused children.  All want media attention and all want to use that attention to further self-centered (in a strict sense) interests, as well as, to impact wider policies.  The Schiavo's wanted to have their daughter and they expressed concerns about what Terri's death said about our society and our laws.  Radical, as well as not so radical, prolife groups FLOCKED to them and performed for the cameras.  Randall Terry was especially clownish.

Parents of lost/abused/murdered kids also want media attention to help find their kids or to find and punish the animal who hurt their child.  Many, if not most, also end up talking about policy issues.  The proper punishment for molesters is a popular topic.  It's not unusual to see some guy with 2 teeth and a John Deere cap holding forth on some fine point of criminal law.  He has become, tragically, an instant expert.

Personally, I cannot refer to any of these people as 'media whores,' even though, as in the Schiavo case, I might strenuously disagree with their position.  I respect their position and I give deference to them due to their circumstances.  It was interesting to me that, during the Schiavo circus, the right attacked her husband in the most scurrilous fashion.  But the parents got a free ride, even though there were grounds to criticize, very little criticism of the parents was heard.

Now comes Cindy Sheehan, who, imo, seems a lot like some of these other 'media whores' I identified above.  Does she have an agenda?  No doubt.  Does she have a right to have it?  Sure, she does -- and I'm sure you all agree.  But where does this rightwing inclination to brutalize her come from?  (Sort of looks like it comes from insecurity born of the shifting sands of Bush's war.)  In my book, Cindy Sheehan, has a special dispensation -- as would anyone similarly victimized by the war, whether I disagreed with them or not.  

What is baffling to me is that Bush didn't have the wisdom to meet with her immediately.  At the beginning, almost no one knew about her or who she was and he could have turned on the ol' W charm, patted her hand, shed a tear, maybe even pray with her, and she might have been at least defused, if not mollified.  He might have had to absorb some indignation from her, but he's a big boy -- he made the tough decisions, surely an angry mom isn't going to completely shatter his ego.  Yeah, I know he met with her once, but obviously it wasn't enough.  Having given the highest sacrifice a mother can give for her country, I think she's due.  AT this point, though he's in a no-win situation -- which is, I think, really why the rightwing is so over-wrought.

However, I don't think attacking Cindy Sheehan is going to strengthen your hand.  

She does not have a right to make statements which are dishonest.

She does not have a right to make statements which can only give support to our enemies in a time of war.

She does not have a right to use her dead son as a prop in her political theater.

Her points are without merit. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. This ignorant, hateful woman deserves whatever language comes her way, as do all the other deranged people who feel the way she does.

And I tire of the Left today. Au revoir.

There is a tradition among your tribe to run to dKurse and post a "They banned me! ME!!" diary, in which your fellow yard-apes lament the Known Fact that we banned you for your ideology (and not of course for your tiresome repetition of the same garbage over and over again). Please don't disappoint me; I really enjoy reading those things.

Don't fling too much poo at the cage doors, though. Starts to smell worse.

the whore frame means she's paid to give something that is meant to be real, but is really just to get something in return.

what is it?

just attention?

if she could get more attention by praising the war... she would do that instead?

There is something insincere about sex via prostitution... what is insincere about her?  She has ideas you don't like.  But the attention she wants is for sincere reasons, so her message gets out louder.

The complaint is not what she's trying to do, because we do the same on these blogs and elsewhere, wherever we can, so perhaps it comes from the fact that it's working for her, now, for a bit, after much trouble and time when it got her hardly any attention at all.

media whore - In the area of news reporting, the term is used to describe ideologues who lie and obfuscate for themselves, others, or their cause out of sincere devotion to their beliefs/

You are using youe own meaning of the term, then calling us to task based on it.

It might be more productive if you used the term in the same sense as everyone else is.

While I do think Ms. Sheehan is being used, and I find it hard to reconcile her current comments with those made last year, I think a little perspective is in order. In the interest of full disclosure, I support the war and the President.

Anyway. I cannot imagine how losing a child would affect my judgment. Everyone is different. But remember that Paula Jones (a Democrat) accepted the help of people on the Right who were, I think it can be safely alleged, were "using" her. She accepted the help because it was the only reasonable option she had to seek a legal remedy from Bill Clinton. Similarly, Ms. Sheehan would not have gotten a lot of traction had she refused help from these Lefty groups. If she got brainwashed in the process, I'm not surprised. I believe both Sheehan and Jones are sincere people. They are also both willing tools.

Finally, I don't think Democrats or Republicans are, as a rule, given to writing vile emails. But there are elements in both camps that are capable of that sort of thing, and they are just different sides of the same filthy coin. Of course, my analogy falls apart when you observe that most Republicans including the President acknowledge that Ms. Sheehan is entitled to her grief and her opinion. No one in the party of womens rights, including Clinton and NOW, gave Paula Jones the benefit of the doubt. How do they sleep? You got me.

one, I have to say I don't put much stock in an intellectual analysis of what "media whore"  "really" means.  Come one.  It's not a technical term with a lot of thought put into its design, is it?

Why would I post a comment here rather than a post at dailykos if I wanted to take advantage of it?

It's just me I guess, but I read a certain Red Hot post by someone using your name that made just such an argument I thought. A good post that one IMO.

expressed an admirable sentiment -- "Having known two erstwhile comrades killed in Iraq, I am prepared to cut grieving mothers a great deal of slack. The wrenching-away of a child one has borne, nursed, and raised does not lend itself to rational response. So I am inclined to allow Sheehan her quixotic momenets, and I hope she finds some manner of peace, whatever her politics."

that it means whatever you wish it to mean?

How about extending to us a little of the generousity of spirit you seem so anxxious to extend to Sheehan? Is it really so absolutely inconcievable to you that we are using the term in just this fashion?

Sheesh!

...I find so many of the commentators at Atrios so beyond help I don't bother to jump into the fray; they're a lost cause. RedState in leftyland has a rep as more evenhanded than many of the other popular righty blogs, albeit perhaps over-moderated (but then, hey, Kos went through one day and sans warning banned anyone espousing moonbat conspiracy theories, so who's to say?). I do comment on occasion on Daily Kos, and that does include attempting to steer others toward the higher road when I see the need.

So far as my alleged "psychotic hatred" of Bush (I know you weren't addressing me specifically, but it seemed a blanket statement aimed toward lefties): please, I have no such feelings for anyone. Not that I would call myself "content" with Mr. Bush's job performance, but to say the left has this psychotic hatred toward Bush is as inaccurate as stating the whole right has a psychotic hatred toward the Clintons.

new person here... vet..medical discharge 1972...Independent...voted in 2004 State candidates three parties...did not vote for Bush or Kerry...If Mrs. Sheehan is a "whore"..does that make the cited Retired Special forces SGT Stan Goff of VFP her "pimp"? Anyone here want to call a retired Special Forces SGT a "Pimp" to his face. Why is it assumed that because she is a woman of conviction she is being "used" or "brainwashed"?

Regardless of her view, it takes courage to put yourself under national scrutiny. I am wating for a mother of a dead troop to stand up in the manner of Mrs. Sheehan. The Denver VA PTSD program is standing room only now because of Iraqi vets. I am waiting for a national group Iraq Veterans for the War or Families of Iraq troops who died for the WAR..are there such  groups? If so could you post a link?

I have taken it to mean people that write biased articles that are supposed to be objective, to further their career (get paid for it).

That's what it means to me.

Insincerity is part of it, like the fake "love" you get from a whore, if you pay.

But Erick has apologized for that term... and that's a good idea.

"Odious self promotion" was offered as an alternate.  Debate about that would be substantive, whereas debate about the precise technical meaning of "media whore" lowers us all in my opinion.

You want to stick around, at least quote Erick correctly. This is your warning.

Actually, I'd call him anything that was appropriate. As no one called anyone a whore, it does not follow that he's a pimp.

Long day.

Part of me is inclined to note that like Ms Sheehan, I can change my mind.

But the truth is that I haven't changed my mind, and there's not really a contradiction here.  Even if I am inclined to allow her her quixotic moments, it doesn't follow from that that Erick's original description is wrong.

....mostly that means you haven't understood this post at all.

While we are abondoning all pretence of being on topic here, I think this merits a response.

There were some nutty people on the right during the Clinton years, no question about it. But they were never as plentiful as the Bush haters are today, and they did not have a sympathetic ear in the GOP, or the media.

By contrast, the Democratic Senate leadership literally embraced Moore after going en masse to watch F/9/11. Howard Dean, head of the DNC, literally boasts of how much he hates Republians.

The entire Democratic party has spent the entire last four years and counting opposing eveything Bush tries to do, even when it is something which they themselves have been in favor of in the past.

We have filibusters happening routinely now, to the point where nobody even bats a eye about it. Prior to 2001, it was a Very Big Deal indeed for a filibuster to occur. Unprecedented, for the most part.

We just witnessed an election season where a major news network and a national newspaper attempted to topple a presidency based on fraudulent claims. And nobody displays even a semblance of shame about any of this.

Hate has been mainstreamed, and it has been the liberals who have mainstreamed it. Which is why this faux outrage over this silly Sheehan woman being called a media whose is so pathetic.

I don't fully understand what drives the typical democrat to their self-destructive rage, but that the thing exists and consumes the party as a whole, not just some fringe elements, cannot be disputed.

I am confused over the comparison between Paula Jones and Cindy Sheehan...Paula Jones had a long term sex with a married man(any father be proud of that daughter?)...Cindy Sheehan bravely buried her son KIA in Iraq. (any father be proud of that daughter?)

And Sam Malone: Both were drunks, but one didn't kill his girlfriend.

By the way, your value is now negative. As such, goodbye.

Had called the Schindlers media whores (and I am certain they were called worse), I don't imagine a bunch of conservative bloggers would have filled up their voicemail, email, and home answering machine with stuff that would get law enforcement knocking at your door, had you said it to an elected official.

If Michael Schiavo had been accused of being a media whore -- or worse, let's say, of killing his wife -- there'd be calls, stalking, and death threats against him.

Additionally, it was NOT liberal bloggers who filled up Erick's various accounts and machines. It was a tiny percentage of the enormous numbers of liberals who read liberal blogs.

This is NOT a phenomenon caused or corrolated with ideology.

Erick is a rare bird in that he has made -- if indirectly -- his phone and work info get out. Almost no one online lets that sort of info out. So this is more of a sampling bias than anything (at least as far as it happening more to cons than libs). Liberal bloggers get hate mail too, and if they let their phone numbers get out do you really think that a handful of conservative nutcases wouldn't call up and say some pretty disgusting things? I happened to know a few College Republicans who'd make a night of such of a thing if they had enough Natty Lite.

Additionally, it was NOT liberal bloggers who filled up Erick's various accounts and machines.

No, they had their readers do it for 'em.

Spare me.

You're right. It wasn't the lefty bloggers who did the actual calling. It was just them that published his work information at their blogs in connection with his comments here and cowardly let their minions do the stalking.

I'll be fully willing to grant you that there are loonies on both sides of The Big Ditch™, but I've been on the receiving end of some stuff (when my post here about patriotism got frontpaged at dKos) that simply made my hair stand on end.

I'm about as extremist as it comes, especially when it comes to life issues, and I can honestly say that I've never known anyone who has participated in a campaign like this, or would think such a thing was funny or appropriate. Further, I believe that there is a much wider swath of conservatives who would refrain from using the kind of language in question here on principle, whether posting something they though t was public or not. I don't think that's purely anecdotal.

You may have that same experience with your ideological brethren, I don't know. I'm just more sensitive to it because I've been on the receiving end of liberal crazies, not conservative crazies (as of yet).

Where are the entreaties to fill up Erick's answering machine and voicemail? To call him at work? Atrios idiotically posted Erick's IM screenname, if you know of more examples then I'll have to agree with you that my statement was BS, but I know of none among the first or second tier of liberal blogs, and I'd be surprised if the lesser lib blogs are visited enough to statistically have a chance of getting enough sociopaths with free schedules to account for the barrage.

If you're arguing that people like Armando can't stridently disagree with someone over an admittedly volatile issue without bearing the responsibility for what a handful of his readers do -- to the point where he had dkos readers do it for him -- I disagree with that. Incitement would be serious, but (given all evidence I have now) the emailers themselves carry all personal responsibility for those emails, not the bloggers who decided to report on Erick's post.

....dKos comments, and see TBogg.  Sadly, the latter altered his post, but he acknowledges this in his altered version.

Oh, see also Gilliard.

Well as noted above in my response to trevino, I didn't/don't know of any lefty bloggers who did that. If there were some -- and that's where the goons got the info and the idea -- then they are responsible for what happened.

I think there's no way to quantify the exact ratio of conservative goons to liberal goons, and so I'm left just knowing there are a lot of each and that in order to get rid of all of them most effectively this shouldn't be a partisan issue. Or else X goons will see the single-sided attack on Y goons as an excuse and justification for their own goonery.

Check, in particular, the tbogg post (which started all of this) - he's since taken it down (which he acknowledges), and he further acknowledges the harassment he's received at work.

Ugh, well, I stand corrected. I didn't know the actual info had been posted on highly trafficked sites. That's lamentable.

I will NOT call tbogg at work/home and fill his life with this kind of insane idiocy. I hope no one else will, either, despite how much he sincerely deserves it.

I do hope, however, that Erick pursues criminal action against him (solicitation of harassment) and the harassers involved. Seriously, if this kind of chain reaction begins, the repercussions throughout the blogosphere could be absolutely devastating.

I didn't follow those links because the post's context made it seem like they were proving that lefty bloggers were feigning an ignorance of the difference between whores and media whores. I already knew that was happening and I didn't feel an urge to see more of it.

Had I followed them, however, I would've seen that there was certainly something close to incitement/lynch mobbery going on. I'm sorry I didn't follow them...

Well, here's the deal. If Erick had posted what he did under a pseudonym, these very same nutcases would be crowing that he doesn't even have the courage to let anyone know who he is when making such a statement.

Because he is so up front, he gets deluded with phone calls (at work and home) from a bunch of folks who act like they've just learned a bunch of nifty new words on the schoolground and have been itching for a chance to try them in actual sentences.

In retrospect, I'm glad I've kept some semblance of anonymity.

Hmm, interesting that you believe posts without an original political insight warrant banishment.  However, posts that are too lazy to make any contribution at all, other than to compare someone to an ape and make scatalogical references are dandy.

I've no problem at all seeing people banned for violation of the rules, or for simply being a jerk. But, I've yet to see anyone banned for frequent restatement of talking points on the right.

I suspect the only reason leftists have been driven blind with rage is because the word "whore" was used in connection with the sainted Mrs. Sheehan. They don't care that the word was modified, as in "media whore," and that no one was literally calling her a "whore."

Use the word "whore" (modified or unmodified) in connection with a sacred leftist cow and it's time to break out the thorazine and straitjackets for those on the left. It's just like when anybody criticizes Democrats for being weak on defense, which they are, Ds respond with rage, demanding to know what gives the accuser the right to question their patriotism. It's all posturing, pure and simple.

I don't think calling Mrs. Sheehan a media whore is beyond the pale, although those would not have been the words I would have used. She's become a politician, so really, how could she NOT be a media whore?

...is the same as when I read of the same complaint from a fellow lefty: a chuckle, followed by a sigh.

The argument is always the same. "Their side is the side of rancor. Their side goes for blood when all we want to do is talk policy differences. Oh, and their side always has the sympathies of the media."

You'll note that Howard Dean was left in a cloud of dust by Kerry once Dems caught on that the man clearly wasn't ready for prime time, to put it charitably. (And I say this as one who supported Dean before it all unraveled.) Yes, he's head of the DNC, because it was judged his assets and focus on the long-neglected infrastructure and local offices could very well offset the weakness of his firebrand style for this position; '06 will give us a clue if this was a correct judgement.

Michael Moore? He's an entertainer with a political bent, and an agitant for both sides. But guess what? So are the likes of Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, both folks with mainstream appeal as well as reputations for not exactly being the "cuddly" sort, if you catch my drift.

Now, if you can supply me with credible data that proves that the genetic tendency for extremism also tends one towards liberalism, I might listen. But absent that, I think it's safe to say that the majority of both sides want what is best for our country and will make it stronger - today, and tomorrow. I think if just a few more folks opened their minds to this notion, it would further improve discourse.

She's prostituting herself, vis-a-vis her status as a bereaved mother, to obtain favorable media coverage for her moonbattery. What's "insincere" about it is not so much her views as her trading on her supposed grief to fashion a publicity stunt.

your attempt at shaming trevino appears that much more lame if you post it in front of your amen chorus?

Good grief, man.

And well-made elsewhere. Not here.

Thanks for playing.

In saying in your update that you understood Erick had "retracted the 'whore' quote". Designed to give the false impression to your mouth-frothing minions that Erick called Sheehan a whore, instead of a media whore - a phrase which means something utterly different, as you know.

If I did a search at Dkurse, how many times would I find the phrase 'media whore' used, and not used to mean 'prostitute' but used to mean 'publicity hound'?

Your false apologies for harassment don't wash here. You are encouraging it with your lying mischaracterizations of what Erick said.

Who told him on Dkurse that Erick retracted 'the "whore" comment'.

The fact that you would defend the daily kos stormtroopers of national socialist political correctness says a lot about you, whoever you are.

Look, he's a public person (ie, he's on the internet with his real name), and he works for politicians in the public arena. That's a given, and the context.

And that's the standard I'll be held up to as well.

Of course that doesn't extend to harrasment of people around him and his private life, his home, etc.

that he's the only Eric Erickson out there who recieved this kind of mail/calls today.  Would be a shame for some other person with the same name to get that kind of mail.  - and i'll dare say that the wrong people did get hatemail/calls yesterday over this..

dishonest statements, what she doesn't have is the right to be free from criticism for making them.

She decided to turn her grief and anger into a public spectacle, and by using the media to get out her message she opens her words up to criticism from those who disagree with her.

And I also think she opens her actions up to criticism-I see nothing wrong with criticizing methods.

....that you personally, and your fellow travelers, have had on "his private life, his home, etc.," I strongly suggest that it is incumbent on you to publicly eschew such practices ASAP with equal prominence as you gave your original deliberate misquote.

Cue the disingenuousness.

anywhere.

If you disagree-drop an email.  But disagree politely and make your case for why, dont threaten him or his family.

And do not call somebody's home and scare his wife-or make threats.  That is beyond the pale, and there isn't ever any excuse of defense for it.

I am yet to understand why people feel justified in harrassing people that they disagree with.

A few weeks ago the kids over at DailyKos seemed to understand context. But since this has all changed and now "media whore" and "whore" are the same thing, we can assume that this post referring to Norm Dicks as a "corporate whore" will illicit a storm of posts calling out whoever wrote this offensive stuff along with a listing of said offender's email address.

Given the small city that Macon is, there are still multiple Erick Erickson's.  However, most spell their name Erik, which is how the lefties were spelling it.  So that'd be interesting.

Ah, "political correct" lessons from the right....

It's a Republican website, where we want to discuss issues with each other.  We allow a few Ds in because we don't want to live in an ivory tower, but of late, we have spent ALL our time going over the exact same ground with liberals, over and over and over.

If you want to post here, just stay and read for a couple of months.  Get to know us individually, learn our outlook on issues, pay attention to which talking points we have wearied of, and then you can post.

Take as a given that all posts about the reason for the Iraq War, all posts about any election held over 1 month ago, and all posts about issues more than a week old are old news to us.  Just don't bother.  When you are the 100th mole to be whacked over a talking point, we whack harder.

p.s.  Just so you know, I'm not authorized to whack, but I have witnessed a lot of whackees entrance to The Pile.

And not conclude that he is implicitly endorsing the vile attacks on Erick--especially with words like "I don't think the people attacking Erick are out of line at all. Erick Erickson deserves a very public and personal humiliation."

No one with any sense of decency would stand by such disgusting remarks in light of the harassment that Erick has received. Armstrong should be embarrassed for himself, but I doubt he has the wit or humanity to understand as much.

Now I see where Moulitsas learned it from.

Just out of curiosity, Jerome -- you do know that that's not "political correctness," yes?  'Cause if you're not clear on what PC is....well, I mean, ha.

Have the moxie to give us your personal address and phone number if the harassment of Erick was "deserved." Otherwise, kindly stuff it. Life is too short to have to deal with so many fools.

I have Erick quoted fully in the sentence.

The whore dispute had fully blown up by then.

If I thought anyone would think what you have, and you are the only person who has said this, not Erick, not Leon, not anyone, I weould have been more careful. But since the qute is right there, I can't imagine that any rational person would have any doubt what I was discussing.

Erick thanked me for the update.

Heck of brush you wield.

Are all righties as fast and loose with the truth? And yeah I know you are a "Centrist."

Tit for tat you see.

You're not serious are you?

And you make that charge against me?

What the hell?

By saying "lefties" he didn't necessarily mean or imply "all lefties". The people who did this to Erick were unquestionably lefties, so his sentence is technically correct.

However, I think his point would have less easily misunderstood if he placed the modifier "some" in front of lefties to make it absolutely clear.

Given von's posting history, which you seem to be familiar with, I think you know that's what he meant anyway.

Please clarify that charge.

I absolutely never did. I didn't even know Erick's e-mail address tuntil he e-mailed me to thank me for dscouraging what was going on.

I try to be precise about who I am talking about.

I take a lot of abuse for defending Krempasky and Trevino, though with the crap he is slinging in my direction, I wonder if I am not a fool for doing so.

That's why I am asking you if you've ever been deluged with this filth from RedStaters (not Republicans, people from this site, specifically). For curiosity's sake, I'd love to know who they are.

I just know that none of the righty bloggers I correspond with would stoop to such a level, and I know a lot of them.

That being said, I tend to avoid LGF, where I have heard some colorful characters reside.

But deluged with filth I am every single day.

"Lefty bloggers gave out his information" is not equivalent to "all lefty bloggers gave out his information." It'd be silly for me to even suggest such a thing. Are you trying to imply that tbogg and Atrios aren't lefty?

If it makes you feel better, I offer this correction, "some lefty bloggers, not including Armando from dKos, gave out Erick's contact information in the express knowledge that their readers would use it."

Better?

Sorry. These things need to be kept clear.

I already acknowledged that you didn't post his information, or call for people to harass Erick. Is there something else I'm supposed to be noticing?

links to my post.

Don;t bother Erick.

OK, pop quiz.

Lisa Beamer -- media whore?

For the record, I have no strong feeling about Beamer pro or con.  Noone, however, would be reading her book if not for the loss of her husband on 9/11.

In short, for the record, I don't call her a media whore, and am not interested in seeing your Cindy Sheehan and raising you a Lisa Beamer.

I just want to know if you pin that appellation on everyone in similar circumstance, or only folks you disagree with.

Thanks -

The text of the link you refer to says "dozens of commenters at dKos dont' know"

but the link itself is to my post.

Isn't that what you asked for? He specifically stated that he was referring to the commenters.

then he accuses the posters of fomenting attacks on Erick.

Does that make sense to you?

What, then, is the reaction from that corner?  It seems that anger deprives the average leftist of basic reading comprehension.  Persons past high school, or with the ability to use the interweb, generally understand the difference between a "media whore" and a whore -- the latter being orders of magnitude more degrading, and something no person has, to my knowledge, ever accused Ms Sheehan of being.  A whore is to a media whore as a dog is to a hot dog, or a rod is to a hot rod, or a widow is to a black widow.  Adjective, context, metaphor: who doesn't know these things?

Steve Gilliard doesn't know.

Duncan Black doesn't know.

TBogg doesn't know.

Endless ranks of dKos commenters don't know.

I totally missed where he said that the dKos commenters were fomenting attacks on Erick. He DID say that they apparently couldn't tell the difference between "media whore" and "whore" - which, so far as I can tell, is true.

Politicians wouldn't willie-nillie send folks off to war w/o plans for securing the peace

Well, historically, the plan for "securing the peace" was to win, where 'win' meant that the Other Guys gave up. We never knew in advance how long that would take, or what we might have to drop on their heads to make that happen, or how many of our guys would die along the way.

It's only been since the advent of television that some of the Stoopid People™ expect wars to be over in an hour, or at most in a 26-week season.

Now, if it's not, they start to gripe. "It's all re-runs," they say. "When's this gonna end? Doesn't anybody know? Who wrote this script? Friggin' idiots don't even know how long it is! It's like they're making it up as they go along! What's this s'pozed to be, a reality show?"

It's OK, though. We now know how to keep the Stoopid People™ from winning the elections. So they can holler all they want.

I keep up here, and at DailyKos, but don't post very much on Dailykos, and have never done an article there.

I like it here; friendlier.

Anyway, the biggest difference I think is that over at the Kos, you get hysteria, name calling, strange flights of fantasies, and impassioned although clueless debate.

Over here, you get plenty of passion, but facts to go along with opinions. Also, ALOT less name-calling, and folks that can stick to the issue for awhile.

RedState.Org is like a country estate, with a big porch where you can sit awhile and say what's on your mind.

DailyKos is like one of those rambling houses in the Ozarks .. with every generation hammering strange add-on to the original structure ... and things poking out of the attic window, looking at you ...