In the comments section of our Thursday post, attorney Daniel Callahan provides his side of the story.
Posts Tagged ‘politics’
Waxman hearing = weapon in litigation?
Nice tactic, if you can get away with it: after filing suit, get a House committee to conduct a hostile investigation of your opponent with your clients appearing as friendly witnesses. That’s what appears to have happened in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s hearings last week on alleged shortcomings in the work of Iraq contractor Blackwater USA. The friendly witnesses in this case, called by committee chairman Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), were family members of several Blackwater consultants killed in Iraq, who are suing the company for damages. According to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the hearing followed upon the sending of a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi by Orange County, Calif., plaintiffs’ lawyer Daniel Callahan of Callahan & Blaine, who’s representing the families. The letter urged a “fruitful and meaningful” investigation of “these extremely Republican companies, such as Blackwater, who have been uncooperative to date”. (S. A. Miller, “Iraq contractor focus of hearing”, Washington Times, Feb. 8; Lattman, WSJ law blog, Feb. 9; Larry Margasak, “Blackwater E-Mail Outlines Gear Shortage”, AP/Washington Post, Feb. 7; Chaos in Motion, Feb. 8).
More: in the comments section, attorney Daniel J. Callahan responds.
Update: Marcotte quits Edwards campaign post
She’s departing as his blogger-in-chief (Memeorandum; Malkin). Earlier coverage here: Feb. 2, Feb. 4, Feb. 7, Feb. 8.
P.S. And check out Amanda Marcotte: The Rock Opera.
“Lawyers Look Beyond Edwards”
In the last presidential election, John Edwards had the powerful support and deep pockets of the nation’s trial lawyers behind him. But when the lawyers gather for their winter conference today in Miami Beach, it will be Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) delivering the meeting’s keynote speech.
The Washington Post notes that trial lawyers are willing to shell out for Biden because of his efforts blocking tort reform. But Edwards is fighting back:
Four years ago, [Fred] Baron shuttled Edwards around the country on his private jet to introduce him to other lawyers. Now, Baron is working to reinforce Edwards’s standing with some of his backers from the last campaign.
(Matthew Mosk, WaPo, Feb. 10).
Edwards to keep bloggers
That’s how it goes: no regrets as of Feb. 4, “I am sorry” as of Feb. 8. Associated Press has more. Edwards’ statement is here. Earlier, in what a Shakespeare’s Sister commenter dubs a “Dewey Defeats Truman moment”, Salon had erroneously reported that the two had been ousted. (P.S.: Salon stands by its story, saying the two were in fact sacked but that the decision was then reversed.) Earlier coverage on this site here, here and here.
More: Ted, in comments:
“I am sorry that you were offended” is a rather non-apologetic apology by Marcotte, so she isn’t being quite inconsistent with her earlier “Je ne regrette rien” position, other than that her statement doesn’t refer to “tone-deaf wingnuts.”
What’s amusing is that even this tepid politic gesture by Edwards is causing the Angry Blog Left to howl for his head. It’s an entertaining deal with the devil Edwards has made by courting this crowd, and shows his general unfitness for governing.
And from reader Hans Bader:
Apparently, Edwards is ethically clueless after all.
The only remarks that offended him were Marcotte’s religious insults, not Marcotte’s defamatory, malicious, and ignorant remarks about the Duke student defendants….
And: “Asked whether the campaign had sufficiently screened the two women before they were hired, [Edwards spokeswoman Jennifer] Palmieri said it was difficult to find and read every word a prolific blogger had written over a period of years.” (John M. Broder, “Edwards Learns Blogs Can Cut 2 Ways”, New York Times, Feb. 9). That’s an exceptionally lame excuse as regards Marcotte, whose abusiveness of tone seems to have been a standing, definitional aspect of her online presence: it’s hard to sample any random week’s worth of her posts at Pandagon without being hit over the head by it. As mentioned earlier, her post on the Duke case appeared while she was actually under consideration for the Edwards team, which would hardly have required anyone to dig through “years” of her work.
Marcotte’s regrets
I wouldn’t even go so far as to say there’s things I “regret”. There are comments I’ve made that tone-deaf wingnuts don’t understand, sure.
— John Edwards official campaign blogger Amanda Marcotte, or someone posing as her, in the comments at J Train. Marcotte (or the person posing as her) apparently thought better of the Edith Piaf stance, and a minute later returned with a second amending comment. For examples of the “comments I’ve made that tone-deaf wingnuts don’t understand” regarding the Duke lacrosse case, see our post of Friday, further updated on Sunday.
Marcotte has a “tremendous fan” and doughty supporter in Ann Bartow of Feminist Law Professors (Feb. 6), whose precision in classifying adversaries as “conservative” is disputed by South of Heaven (Feb. 7: “People who know me are rolling all over the floor.”) On the other hand, inveterate publicity hound and professional taker-of-offense Bill Donohue of the Catholic League has now gone on the warpath against Marcotte (and another Edwards hire, Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare’s Sister). Marcotte’s writings on religious topics do seem to present a rather broadly inviting target for offense-takers, to judge from the snippets now making their way into press coverage (Nedra Pickler, “Catholics Slam Bloggers Hired by Edwards”, AP/ABCNews.com, Feb. 6; Kathryn Jean Lopez, “Unholy Hire”, National Review, Feb. 6). The New York Times’s coverage, unlike the AP’s, makes reference to the Duke lacrosse rants that originally drew our and many other people’s attention to Marcotte. (John M. Broder, “Edwards’s Bloggers Cross the Line, Critic Says”, New York Times, Feb. 7). The Times adds that “Mr. Edwards’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.”
More commentary: Patterico (“godbag”); Ed Morrissey (“In the case of Marcotte, her anti-Catholic screeds would make Jack Chick blush with embarrassment”); Althouse; John Cole (scroll to “Browns/Cowboys Superbowl”, as well as comment); Kos comments (do Catholics tithe, anyway?); “Expo” on Kos; Matt Stoller at MyDD.
Marcotte encore
John Edwards’ selection as his blogger-in-chief of Pandagon‘s Amanda Marcotte has mushroomed into what National Journal “Beltway Blogroll” terms “the first blog scandal of campaign 2008,” made more piquant by Marcotte’s quick move (documented in our Friday post) to delete her bizarrely abusive rantings about the Duke case once they began to attract attention. I should note that in our very active comments thread, Ted takes a different view than I do of the affair, and I explain in turn (in a comment kindly quoted by K.C. Johnson) why I think the episode does reflect poorly on Edwards’ campaign:
John Edwards’s life in the law and experience with the justice system is his major resume item dating back beyond the past few years, as well as the major reason this site has given his career extensive coverage. Moreover, the Duke case, which looks ever more like the Scottsboro Boys case of our era, has been convulsing his own state of North Carolina for month after month. Edwards’ dodging of the case — his apparently successful stifling of any urge to speak out at the plight of the falsely accused — might on its own stand as merely cowardly. Marcotte’s hiring, on the other hand, throws an even less attractive light on it, rather as if, in Scottsboro Boys days, an on-the-sidelines Southern senator took on as a major spokesperson someone who’d been yelling the Boys’ guilt from the rooftops in the most crudely prejudicial language.
On Marcotte’s quick removal of her Duke comments, Dale Franks at Q and O makes the legitimate point that there’s nothing intrinsically improper in bloggers’ going back to amend or delete past posts that they now realize are mistaken or which no longer reflect their evolving views. And Ted cautions, also quite fairly, against evaluating a blogger’s fitness for a real-world post by pointing to the most inflammatory of his or her thousands of past posts.
Part of what lends the Marcotte episode such a comic aspect, however, is the timing and nature of her post and later revision. Her vitriolic rant asserting the lacrosse players’ guilt was posted a mere two weeks ago, almost certainly at a point after (as the Atlanta airport reference indicates) she had already entered talks with the Edwards campaign and thus had reason to know that she might soon come under the heightened scrutiny accorded to an official spokesperson. These were not the impulsive utterances of a Net Newbie. Moreover, the temperate-sounding new “official stance” with which she replaced the scrubbed post is ludicrously different in both tone and content from the rant it replaced; at a quick reading, one might even take it for a defense of the lacrosse players. A closer examination of its dodgy language, however, reveals that she does not actually take anything back; there is no indication that she has reconsidered her view of Jan. 21 or sees it as being in need of actual correction.
As for whether Marcotte was just having a bad day and slipped into an abusiveness that is unrepresentative of her usual tone, even a cursory glance through her output at Pandagon makes clear that there is much more embarrassment for the Edwards campaign to come: a few examples are collected at LieStoppers (scroll to “Earlier Comments”), Michelle Malkin, and Creative Destruction.
Some further commentary: Common Sense Political Thought, Protein Wisdom, Mark Steyn @ NRO (“There are two Americas: one in which John Edwards gives bland speeches of soporific niceness, the other in which his campaign blogger unleashes foaming rants of stereotypically obsessive derangement.”), Patterico (& welcome Michelle Malkin readers).
Meet John Edwards’s new blogger-in-chief
Well after the revelation of the undisclosed DNA results, the ATM, taxi and dorm alibis, the umpteen times the stripper has changed her story, Amanda Marcotte still is willing to blast the Duke Lacrosse Three as guilty, guilty, guilty; and what do you know, the John-Edwards-for-President campaign has just saluted Marcotte’s acuity by naming her its blogger-in-chief (Pandagon, Jan. 21, foul language galore; Edwards blog, Jan. 30; Blogger News Network, Jan. 30, via Taranto; LieStoppers, Feb. 1). It’s enough to distract attention from all the comic joshing over the Friend of the Downtrodden’s gigantic new residence, or “Suing-’em Palace” as Mark Steyn calls it (NRO “The Corner”, Jan. 30; Dean Barnett, Jan. 30).
Update: Marcotte has now (1 p.m. Friday) yanked down her original post of Jan. 21, and appears also to have deleted several comments, but GoogleCache still has it for the moment. Here is its text, in the spirit of Fair-Use-ery:
Naturally, my flight out of Atlanta has been delayed. Let’s hope it takes off when they say it will so I don’t miss my connecting flight home.
In the meantime, I’ve been sort of casually listening to CNN blaring throughout the waiting area and good f**king god is that channel pure evil. For awhile, I had to listen to how the poor dear lacrosse players at Duke are being persecuted just because they held someone down and f**ked her against her will—not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out. Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.
111 Responses to “Stuck at the airport again…..”
Further update (1:20 p.m. Friday): Here are two comments that Marcotte appears to have deleted from the original thread. The “In her part of the country” comment had already drawn criticism from readers on the LieStoppers site:
Amanda Marcotte Jan 21st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Yes, how dare a rape victim act confused and bewildered like she was raped or something.
# Amanda Marcotte Jan 21st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Natalia, do you know the details of the case? If so, why do you think a women enthusiastically jumped into a sexual situation with men making slavery jokes at her? Furthermore, what is your theory on why she supposedly looooooved having sex with guys holding her facedown on the bathroom floor? There’s no “if” they behaved in a disrespectful manner. We have conclusive evidence that happened.
This is about race and class and gender in every way, and there’s basically no way this woman was going to see justice. In her part of the country, both women and black people are seen as subhuman objects to be used and abused by white men.
Plus: I see that K.C. Johnson (“Durham in Wonderland“) is on the case in typically thorough and powerful fashion. Marcotte also provides this further comment reacting to her critics (“if I see the words ‘Duke’ or ‘lacrosse’ in an email that has the whiff of accusatory tone, I’m deleting it and simply not going to reply to it”).
And again (11:30 p.m. Friday): In a further post, K.C. Johnson cites chapter and verse about how Marcotte’s hiring won much praise for the Edwards folks as a shrewd way of reaching out to progressive netroots forces. More discussion: TalkLeft forums, Betsy Newmark, Jeff Taylor at Reason “Hit and Run” (R-rated), Outside the Beltway, Patrick Ruffini, South of Heaven, Little Miss Attila, Brainster; & welcome Glenn Reynolds, Kevin O’Keefe and Michelle Malkin readers.
Further updates: see Feb. 4, Feb. 7, Feb. 8, Feb. 12 (Marcotte quits Edwards post), Feb. 16.
Miers nomination
Roger Parloff thinks history will look back on it as a turning point in the history of the GWB presidency, if not the Court (Jan. 8).
“Election Dejection”
November’s results obviously make it more of an uphill slog for legal reformers to win legislative victories; a roundup in Inside Counsel provides some details, quoting me along the way. (Mary Swanton, January). I venture a prediction that Democrats will use their new Congressional power to push legislation that would expand private causes of action in the employment field, a step that would gratify the plaintiffs’ bar and many union advocates alike. Contrary to an implication that the article may leave, private causes of action are at present very much alive and thriving in the wage and hour field, but they’re not (yet) authorized in the case of many other sorts of labor-law violations.