Comments on: Marcottes in Everything http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/02/08/marcottes-in-everything/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Avedon http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/02/08/marcottes-in-everything/comment-page-1/#comment-1631 Avedon Thu, 15 Feb 2007 01:21:32 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1599#comment-1631 I agree that a campaign would have to be crazy to hire me in this climate, but since neither Amanda nor Melissa were in policy-related positions, they were in a category that just last week was considered off-limits - ordinary <i>staff</i>. We've really never seen this kind of attack on minor staff people before. But I'd refuse to work on a campaign because it would ruin my greatest advantage as a blogger: I don't know these people and have no personal relationship to them. (I did enjoy tea with Mo Mowlem, but she's dead, and I don't write all that much about British politics, anyway. The politicos I know who are still in government are people I disliked even before they were in government, so the fact that I dislike what they do in government isn't being diluted by any personal friendships.) I agree that a campaign would have to be crazy to hire me in this climate, but since neither Amanda nor Melissa were in policy-related positions, they were in a category that just last week was considered off-limits – ordinary staff. We’ve really never seen this kind of attack on minor staff people before.

But I’d refuse to work on a campaign because it would ruin my greatest advantage as a blogger: I don’t know these people and have no personal relationship to them.

(I did enjoy tea with Mo Mowlem, but she’s dead, and I don’t write all that much about British politics, anyway. The politicos I know who are still in government are people I disliked even before they were in government, so the fact that I dislike what they do in government isn’t being diluted by any personal friendships.)

]]> By: Julian Sanchez http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/02/08/marcottes-in-everything/comment-page-1/#comment-1630 Julian Sanchez Sat, 10 Feb 2007 08:59:00 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1599#comment-1630 Tim- I agree the Duke stuff is the least defensible of the items that have been cited but, (1) "innocent until proven guilty" is a legal standard, not a bar to individuals expressing opinions about whether they think someone is probably guilty--OJ comes to mind, and (2) Marcotte's personal history here disposes me to cut her a certain amount of slack when it comes to a "believe the accuser" bias in this kind of case. Tim-
I agree the Duke stuff is the least defensible of the items that have been cited but, (1) “innocent until proven guilty” is a legal standard, not a bar to individuals expressing opinions about whether they think someone is probably guilty–OJ comes to mind, and (2) Marcotte’s personal history here disposes me to cut her a certain amount of slack when it comes to a “believe the accuser” bias in this kind of case.

]]> By: dylan http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/02/08/marcottes-in-everything/comment-page-1/#comment-1629 dylan Sat, 10 Feb 2007 03:45:09 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1599#comment-1629 The pun in the headline is top shelf, Sanchez. The pun in the headline is top shelf, Sanchez.

]]> By: Tim http://www.juliansanchez.com/2007/02/08/marcottes-in-everything/comment-page-1/#comment-1628 Tim Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:20:53 +0000 http://juliansanchez.com/?p=1599#comment-1628 I certainly think there's something to be said for toning down outrage kabuki, but I also think there are a couple of plausible distinctions that might be drawn here. One is that campaign spokespeople should probably be held to a higher standard, self-censorship wise, than people who do behind-the-scenes work for a campaign. Being John Edwards's official blogger is a little bit different from being his secretary or the guy who writes scripts for his campaign commercials. Secondly, I agree that contemptuous statements about religion are ho-hum, but aren't her comments about the Duke case in a slightly different category? "Innocent until proven guilty" is a pretty fundamental part of our justice system, and someone who's willing to ditch that principle so cavalierly makes me question her judgment on other policy topics. Edwards had literally thousands of liberal bloggers to choose from. If he chose these two, I can only assume it's because he (or his staff) liked what they had to say. Given that she wrote the Duke post less than a month ago month, I don't think it's crazy to think that at the very least, it demonstrates either poor judgment or a very sloppy vetting process. I certainly think there’s something to be said for toning down outrage kabuki, but I also think there are a couple of plausible distinctions that might be drawn here. One is that campaign spokespeople should probably be held to a higher standard, self-censorship wise, than people who do behind-the-scenes work for a campaign. Being John Edwards’s official blogger is a little bit different from being his secretary or the guy who writes scripts for his campaign commercials.

Secondly, I agree that contemptuous statements about religion are ho-hum, but aren’t her comments about the Duke case in a slightly different category? “Innocent until proven guilty” is a pretty fundamental part of our justice system, and someone who’s willing to ditch that principle so cavalierly makes me question her judgment on other policy topics.

Edwards had literally thousands of liberal bloggers to choose from. If he chose these two, I can only assume it’s because he (or his staff) liked what they had to say. Given that she wrote the Duke post less than a month ago month, I don’t think it’s crazy to think that at the very least, it demonstrates either poor judgment or a very sloppy vetting process.

]]>