Moran on Marcotte – Questions Abound.

Terry Moran asks a few questions about John Edwards’ head blogger.

Questions: What, if anything, does it tell us about Edwards that he’s joined up with this blogger? Is Edwards’ association with a person who has written these things a legitimate issue for voters, as they wonder–among other things–whom he might appoint to high office if he’s elected? If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react? Is the mere raising of this issue a kind of underhanded censorship, a way of ruling out of bounds some kinds of opinion? Are we all just going to have to get used to a more rough-and-tumble, profane, and even hate-filled public arena in the age of the blogosphere?

Before you answer the questions, take a look at the posts Moran highlights. I had considered quoting them here but I don’t believe her brand of bigotry needs any more advertising than it’s already gotten.

To answer his questions for myself, in brief, here’s how I see the situation.

1) Of course it tells us something about Edwards. Either he knew about Marcotte’s specific brand of hate or he didn’t know and didn’t try to find out. If the first is true, Edwards at least condones that sort of vituperative hate. If the latter, Edwards is careless in who he hires.

2) You could bet your paycheck that if this had happened with a Republican candidate and a righty blogger, it would be blowing up all over the MSM like the Godfather. Every Republican candidate on every news show would have been asked about it. Further, had Marcotte decided to spew about any religions other than the Christian ones, the squealing would still be happening. Imagine if Marcotte had said what she said about Mohammed and Islam, for instance. Well, she’d be in hiding, for one thing, since there’d be a fatwa on her head. For another, she’d be under siege from CAIR and other groups who would demand, and would get, her resignation or firing. It would have happened already. Do not doubt that for a moment.

3) Of course it’s not censorship. Marcotte has the right to be as ignorant as she pleases. She can blog her hate out until she’s dizzy and spent and she may receive all the applause from her fellow hatemongers she can get. But we also have the right to criticize her and her employer for tolerating such ignorant speech. We have the right to drive such venom into the shadows. We must accept tht it exists, but we certainly do not have to tolerate it’s seeing much light and we certainly should not applaud it. No one is suggesting that she not blog. Plenty of people are suggesting that what she has said is disgusting and that her hiring reflects very poorly on John Edwards. We also have the right to insist that there is some speech we will not tolerate, even though we must allow it.

4) No, we don’t have to get used to it. There are plenty of bloggers on both sides of just about every issue who don’t get their hate-on with every third post. Any campaign that’s even marginally aware of bloggers could do just a little bit of reading and find the sort of choice they want. Crudity is not a given. Hate does not have to be the norm. We have a choice. We simply need to exercise that choice. Basically, we all need to behave like rational adults instead of poo-flinging monkeys. That shouldn’t be so tough to manage, should it?

(h/t: Instapundit)