Let me get this straight ... two bloggers make comments about Catholics,

long before they ever started working for a Democratic candidate, and the candidate is attacked for not immediately executing them publicly ...

A guy funds the Swift-Boat attacks on John Kerry all through the 2004 Presidential election cycle ... and gets an ambassadorship to Belgium? (Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference to Belgium notwithstanding ...)

Link please.

to be there ...

and the Senate better keep it that way.

When you control the media, it is easy to achieve this.

really more like liberals use "obscene" language when talking about the obscenities committed by the neo's and neocon's use "nice" language when excusing their own deeds or threatening others.

The steady stream of "fuck this" and "fuck that" that spills from many "progressive" blogs (specifically DailyKOS) plays more like adolescent political temper tantrums than serious political discourse.

As Jonathan Gurwitz wrote last summer, Moulitsas (KOS) has been instrumental in helping thousands of frustrated activists make their voices heard. Being heard, however, is not the same as being taken seriously.

even here someone who uses alot of f this or that can come off as adolescent. The one blogger I would cut a break is Rude Pundit, but then his name says it all.

What """""" progressives """""" need is less poopy talk to get that elusive prudish soccer mom vote!

Fuck yeah!

says hi ...

it would be due to all the stress placed on the good christian by evil liberals. We need to pray for him not persecute him (unmerciful, millions of dollars of persecution.)

The Republican would refuse to dignify that question with an answer and threaten to cut off the interviewer from all further contact. That is how Poppy Bush handled it.

If the interviewer's salary is predicated on getting the interview, then that cut-off threat is enough to rein in the interviewer. If the interviewer's salary is predicated on bashing the interviewee, then that cut-off plays into the interviewer's hands. Which is why Democrats should boycott Fox News while Republicans can go everywhere.

Faining outrage about someone exercising their right to free speech is the Republic Party MO. If you can effectively attack the bloggers on the pay role of a Democratic Primary candidate then you get to shape the debate. I was really disappointed that the Edwards camp let these two bloggers leave. That was a defeat at the hand of the lunatic right. Even worse is the fact that their allowed them as a minority to yet again control the message. Republic party members run campaigns like the politics of the playground.

Saying that they cannot express their views of Catholicism but being more that happy to let the Pope trash the democratic Presidential candidate is hypocrisy of the highest order. P. Benny XVI is allowed to wade into the realm of American Politics, but God forbid that you call him on it. As soon as he did that he opened up the debate. So what if a couple of bloggers trashed the church in Rome, it is called free speech.

unless the church wants to be taxed, it should stay out of politics.

I still don't get why Edwards allowed this nutcase to dictate who his staff could or could not be. It's really disgusting that no Dems seem to possess a fucking spine. It's like you need to equip them with a 'counter-attack' accessory like you do with video game characters: if the enemy attacks them, they automatically strike back without you having to enter in the commands to do so.