Sounds like it. Read this:
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.
Perhaps it was the threats from a few lefty Nutroots bloggers to release the ‘post from hell’ if the decison wasn’t reversed that made him change his mind? LOL.
In any event, as I said in my last post about them:
I’ve seen some blogposts today from bloggers on the right who clearly thought John Edwards should â€˜do something’ about these bloggers (presumably: fire them). My question is: why? I believe it was Reagan (correct me if I’m wrong. Update 2/8/07: I was wrong – it was Napoleon. Thanks, to those who noted that!) who said never stand in the way of anyone from the opposition who is shooting themselves in the foot (or something along those lines). That’s how I’m viewing this. Is it fair game to bring to light someone’s past statements or actions as a way of scrutinizing or confirming their credibility? Absolutely. If you’ve put yourself in the public eye, you can and better expect to be scrutinized, especially if you’re angling for and/or accepted a political job of any kind. But if a candidate from the opposition is shooting themselves in the foot, I’m not going to stand in his or her way, outside of helping to point out that that is what he or she has done. There’s nothing wrong with exposing someone for who/what they are.
And continue to shoot themselves in the foot they do.
It appears that Edwards has caved to his Nutrootian base, which isn’t bad news for us.
Update I: ST reader Sev makes a great point in the comments:
This is just a great endorsement for Edwards for President. If he doesn’t have the stones to stand up to the nutroots, I’m sure he’ll really be just the perfect man to stand up to Islamic Terrorists and Iran and North Korea. He’ll need a pair of knee pads pronto if he becomes President.
Let’s not forget this isn’t the first time the left has caved to the Nutroots.
It’s a good move for another reason, too. Like the boss noted recently in a not-dissimilar context, sunshine is the best disinfectant. The best way to fight the nutroots is to raise their level of exposure. Edwards helped do that. Thanks, Silky Pony.
Update II: Here’s a must-read from Rick Moran on the issue.
Update III: A Goldstein slam-a-lama:
Lots of gloating already in the comments by the flying monkeys the left typically dispatches to sprinkle schadenfreude over the poppies. But that’s to be expected, I guess. That their commentary is rife with further attacks on the faithful and suggestions that those who find Marcotte reprehensible have been saddled with tiny penises—well, this, too, is about as surprising as a Marcotte post that doesn’t somehow wend its way back to the institutionalized torturing of her pudendum by misanthropic godbags.
But lost on these Marcotte supporters—who are cheering on the power of the “netroots” to cow a politician into keeping on an ugly and hateful liability—is that Edwards just showed up Marcotte and McEwan as frauds and posturing blowhards, writers who have been pulling the wool over their audiences’ eyes by posting vicious “arguments” they never truly believed. To use the loaded language of establishment feminism—he publicly castrated them—and in so doing, he made fools out of their audiences, to boot.
Further, in doing so, he has shown himself to be nothing more than a calculating political opportunist of the worst sort—one who believes the voting public so daft they might actually buy a statement like the one he just released.
I’m so glad JG’s blogging again