Daily Kos Founder Twitter-Feuds with Meghan McCain Over Gay Marriage

This kind of thing really makes me mad.  I’m going to try to be chill, but there might be profanity below the fold.

Meghan McCain was tweeting about a Washington Monthly article that named her as a “meaningless” advocate of gay marriage:

It was pretty meaningless to hear Meghan McCain urge her Republican Party to come around on gay marriage. It seemed a bit more important when Steve Schmidt, John McCain’s campaign manager, gave the GOP the same advice.

But in terms of influence in Republican politics, Dick Cheney is on another level.

While their point is that Cheney carries more political weight, their swipe at Meg was gratuitous and inaccurate.  Meg has done more than most to publicize marriage equality, and not in the ugly, Perez Hilton way.  To call her meaningless, or all of the other non-Dick people who work hard to achieve equality for everyone, is just wrong.

So, when Meg pointed this out on her Twitter feed, here’s the response she got from Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas:

markosm

Before I comment further, and before I get to Meghan McCain’s statement on this feud, let me lay out the rest of the Twitter conversation for you, in chronological order:

Hey Washington Monthly, so it’s only important to speak out for marriage equality if your an old man? http://bit.ly/yxBj9about 1 hour ago from web

so I guess young women should just stfu and be seen and not heard Washington Monthly….? Only Dick Cheney should speak out…?about 1 hour ago from web

I wonder if the Washington Monthly thinks if all women or minorities speak out it is “almost meaningless” – apparently only Cheney matters28 minutes ago from web

I guarantee you if one of my brothers were doing what I am doing right now the Washington Monthly would think it had meaning.27 minutes ago from web

Markos: Stop whining @McCainBlogette the only reason you get any attention is because your last name is McCain.33 minutes ago from web

Meg: @markosm jealous?22 minutes ago from web in reply to markosm

Me: TommyXtopherIs that Krackle or Pop I hear? Nah, it was SNAP!

Markos: Of what? Being a legacy “celebrity”? I prefer earning my successes. RT @McCainBlogette: @markosm jealous?22 minutes ago from web

Meg: I would have been more impressed if Dick Chney said what he said while he was in office and had power to enact change, thats all.17 minutes ago from web

TommyXtopher@markosm Wow, you must really care about equality to slam one of its most visible boosters

Markos: markosmAnd speaking of “jealous”, I’m not the one whining that the Washington Monthly ignored me. 21 minutes ago from web

TommyXtopher@markosm Why are you messing with her at all? @McCainBlogette does more to publicize marriage equality than most.Don’t you care about that?21 minutes ago from web in reply to markosm

TommyXtopher@markosm This is why we have such problems, people like you fighting over turf instead of actually caring about liberal issues.19 minutes ago from web in reply to markosm

Meg: McCainBlogette@markosm no more fighting darlin’, enjoy your day15 minutes ago from web in reply to markosm


Then, it turns out Kos didn’t even read the article Meg was referencing (great endorsement for the journalism on his blog), as one of his acolytes informs him:

Tigger761: RT @Tigger761: @markosm The magazine specifically called out @McCainBlogette. Should she not respond?4 minutes ago from web

Markos: markosmAhh, my bad then.

Yeah, but not really:

Markos: Still, @McCainBlogette is as much a legacy personality as Liz Cheney. And I’m certainly not jealous of being in that company.half a minute ago from web

I don’t have a lot to add here, as my interjections pretty much sum it up.

As I’ve said before, Markos is a pioneer in the liberal blogosphere, but he consistently lets his ego get in the way of actually helping the liberal cause (See Lee Stranahan/John Edwards).

I understand the egotistical impulse.  I’m a bigger attention-whore than the spawn of a peacock and a firefly riding bareback on a blowfish, but there are issues that are bigger than my ego.  Marriage equality is one of them.  If Dick Cheney wants to help, I’m not going to crap on him for it.

By the same token, Meghan McCain deserves nothing but admiration and gratitude from Markos, if he actually gives a shit about equality.  Unlike Cheney, Meg actually is way ahead of President Obama on this.  That’s the message here, not Markos Moulitsas and his earned success.

I asked Meg if she’d comment for this article, and although she very graciously disengaged from Kos’ feuding (after which he took several more shots at her), she did have this to say:

Unfortunately there are a lot of men in the media that aren’t used to strong, aggressive women speaking their mind.

Hopefully, Markos will act like a man, and offer Meg a sincere apology, and welcome her as a powerful ally on a very important issue.

Update: Ha! He just can’t let it go. How sad:

  1. What movement is @mccainblogette part of? She’s just a last name. RT @MTeson: @markosm A lot of your party hates you, are you meaningless?16 minutes ago from web

  2. Yup For all it matters. RT @justrmor: @mccainblogette has 40K followers, @markosm has 5K. Is [she] more influential on twitter than Kos?20 minutes ago from web

  3. To add, for @McCainBlogette to be “meaningful”, she would need to have influence inside GOP. We all know that’s not happening.22 minutes ago from web

  4. She is meaningless. Her party hates her. RT @CorinneAM: I was wondering why you agreed with WaMo’s assessment that she was “meaningless.”24 minutes ago from web

  5. RT @smassing: @markosm When’s the last time Chelsea Clinton was all over the news? Or any of the Gore children?33 minutes ago from web

  6. Who would ever think that @mccainblogette, random daughter of unpopular former Prez candidate, means less to GOP faithful than VP Cheney?34 minutes ago from web

  7. Ok, I get this now: @McCainBlogette is angry that Benen considers her less meaningful than former VP in influencing GOP. http://bit.ly/KntrS36 minutes ago from web

Update: From the comments section:

Comment by Gen. JC Christian, patriot on June 2, 2009 12:55 pm

This quote is bullshit: “Markos: Stop whining @McCainBlogette the only reason you get any attention is because your last name is McCain.33 minutes ago from web” you deliberately removed my name make it appear as if Markos wrote that statement. He didn’t. He was quoting me. Sure, by doing so, he may have been agreeing, but it isn’t the same thing and you know it–that’s why you removed me from the quote–it suits your attack better.

And she was whining.

Comment by Tommy Christopher on June 2, 2009 1:06 pm

I left it in the GIANT PICTURE on the blog. I removed it for clarity, as I did with a lot of those tweets. Maybe you both need to sharpen up your reading skills.

Itook a lot of junk out of those tweets for readers unfamiliar with Twitter conventions.  The guy deserves a Twitter bump, so go check him out.  Re-tweeting without comment is the same as repeating, and JC Christian, unfortunately, doesn’t figure into the rest of the story, so I stand by my handling of it.

Update 2: Washington Monthly explains that meaningless doesn’t mean meaningless.

Update 3: HuffPo is on it.

Advertisements

34 Comments

  1. This Kos guy is nothing short of a militant.

    Just another asshole trying to get noticed.

    Hey KOS, Kiss Megan’s Fat ASS!!

    Tommy, how can he ACT like a man, he is a poor excuse for a man, doubt he will.

  2. When Meghan McCain, a MODERATE, advocates for gay marriage, it is far less newsworthy than when a far right conservative like former VP Cheney does. Benen didn’t personally attack Mr. McCain’s daughter, he merely suggested that her views carry less weight. He’s right. They do.

  3. I can honestly say I had never heard of the Daily KOS site until today…but Meghan McCain I’ve been aware of and admired for awhile. She is a fresh face in the GOP and someone who has all the “right stuff” to affect change. Then some right wing blow-hard has to come in and act like he’s better than her in some way.

    Do republicans really not realize that by tearing down someone that has done absolutely nothing to them, they are simply creating a bigger problem? But I digress.

  4. No, he said “meaningless.”

  5. DailyKos only cares about issues that make the GOP look bad, when is he going to admit that Cheney are doing 10,000 times what President ‘Seperate but Equal’ Obama and Joe ‘I voted for DOMA’ Bident are doing. It was the President’s own statement in opposition of marriage equality last year that helped Yes on 8 secure 2 million Obama voters in their case for discrimination. If Kos truly cares about anything more than his ego, he would take any assistance offered, but since he only cares about himself, he should shut up.

  6. Peter, the point is that overall, there was no sense in using her name period. She is trying to affect change and she should be commended for that, no matter how meaningless ANYONE *thinks* it is. Her opinions and actions were called meaningless. Anyone standing up for any human rights issues is far from meaningless.

    I certainly don’t care what Cheney has to say. He carries less weight IMHO than Meghan McCain as he had his 8 years and did nothing with it.

  7. You’re wrong about the President, see the link in my article.

  8. I’ll jump in for just a second: I don’t care if the only reason Meghan gets the soapbox is because she has a famous last name. The point is that she is using that soapbox very effectively for the betterment of a class of people that her party has long scorned.

    By bringing attention to marriage equality and using her famous name for good she is doing more than most people with famous names.

    As for Markos, he has become the thing he once mocked and has absolutely no street cred in the fight for legitimacy.

    Regards,

    Tengrain

  9. What is the DailyKos?? I love Meghan McCain!! 🙂

  10. Well said.

  11. This quote is bullshit: “Markos: Stop whining @McCainBlogette the only reason you get any attention is because your last name is McCain.33 minutes ago from web” you deliberately removed my name make it appear as if Markos wrote that statement. He didn’t. He was quoting me. Sure, by doing so, he may have been agreeing, but it isn’t the same thing and you know it–that’s why you removed me from the quote–it suits your attack better.

    And she was whining.

  12. I left it in the GIANT PICTURE on the blog. I removed it for clarity, as I did with a lot of those tweets. Maybe you both need to sharpen up your reading skills.

  13. Whining? She was commenting on something she was brought into. She clarified her stance and brought about her POV. Don’t want her talking to/about you, don’t comment about her.

    So what if she has a famous last name? She has to make something of herself and she doesn’t have a whole lot of choice on the last name she was given. /shrug

    It does nothing for your stance when you say things like “she is whining”…that is the school yard version of “I don’t agree with her but have nothing better to say”.

  14. So why take it out in the quote?

  15. Clarity? You mean to make it look like Markos said it rather than quoted it. It makes your point stronger that way.

  16. *Edited-please read the rules. TC*

  17. just curious, do you know what an RT is on twitter? You misquoted markos because he didnt say that, the person he was RT’ing did.

  18. To JC (whom I love dearly and spent some time with at Eschacon last year) and Markos:

    Meghan will be around long after her dad and Cheney. She’s the face of politics even two generations from us – us being you, me and Tommy – we’re all within 10 years of each other. Who the hell knows what either party will look like in 10 years from now. I fully expect that moderate republicans will continue to be absorbed by the Dems, which in turn will push progressives out the Dem door.

    If you continue to support the Democratic party through change, look for legacy McCain to be holding hands with legacy Clinton in a few years…

  19. No surprise here. Misogyny runs rampant… even through the so-called lefty blogosphere. However, I have never really considered Kos a true lefty. Just one more centrist.

  20. Read it again.

  21. Misogyny runs rampant… even through the so-called lefty blogosphere.

    Misogyny? Pics or it didn’t happen.

  22. just because you are paranoid does not mean they may not ALL be against you !!
    very often the baggage that gays carry sinks them or blinds them to the one thing alone that will save them. an honest loyal friend. a trusted loving friend. when you see this nasty striking out we see the past scars and scares. many gays need to be quieted by friends so they dont hurt our friends that fight for equality and justice for ALL. regardless of your personal needs or wants. causes greater than your own self interest. remember hearing that somewhere markosm? the apple falls by the tree.
    big gabe vermont

  23. We as democrats want people to be open to all, all inclusive. Then, we turn around and bash those that dont agree with us. How is this any different than the republican party and their tactics? If we cant start listening to the other side, we will continue down this destructive path of war against ourselves.

    And for the fact that McCain is not a leader like cheney was, and by saying that she is meaningless in her attempts to make a better republican party, that is completely making all of us who are not party leaders feel as though we have no say in what is going on in OUR country. How DARE anyone discount her, me, or anyone else that has the passion to be involved. Wake up and realize, Markos, that you are no better than newt or rush…

  24. Wait, if it’s wrong to slam people who agree with your positions, then it was wrong for the McCain girl to slam Washington Monthly, right?

    I mean, wasnt the reason she brought it up because her ego was bruised by Washtington Monthly pointing out that she isnt a meaningful player in the GOP?

  25. Straw man alert “it’s wrong to slam people who agree with your positions” Never said anything like that. Read it again.

  26. I love Meghan McCain. She’s very real, not just party-line. People will have to pay attention to her in the future I truly believe. She may not be the present, but she’s the future and thats very very meaningful in my mind.

  27. […] The Daily Kos and Megan McCain fight about who the bigger gay marriage proponent is… PLUS: Tommy Christopher throws his two cents at Markos! […]

  28. “I’m a bigger attention-whore than the spawn of a peacock and a firefly riding bareback on a blowfish, but there are issues that are bigger than my ego.”

    This? Is fucking epic imagery. (Reminds me of a quote: “If there’s anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot immediately.”)

    On-topic: Oh, internet. e_e;;

  29. Really? All that’s being said here is that if Dick Cheney, the former vice-president of the United States, speaks out for something, it’s more significant than when Meghan McCain does. Look, saying that Meghan McCain is less important than Dick Cheney doesn’t devalue her voice. Saying that Meghan McCain is less important than Dick Cheney is stating the bloody obvious.

    So yes, Meghan McCain is simply picking a fight. So are you, as a matter of fact, by focusing on the bigger name rather than say, the person who actually wrote the words you posted at the top.

    Straw man alert “it’s wrong to slam people who agree with your positions” Never said anything like that. Read it again.

    Alright: “Meg has done more than most to publicize marriage equality, and not in the ugly, Perez Hilton way. To call her meaningless, or all of the other non-Dick people who work hard to achieve equality for everyone, is just wrong.”

    If that’s not saying it’s wrong to slam anyone who works for gay marriage, I would truly love to hear what you meant.

  30. I meant “Meg has done more than most to publicize marriage equality, and not in the ugly, Perez Hilton way. To call her meaningless, or all of the other non-Dick people who work hard to achieve equality for everyone, is just wrong.” That was a critique of the spiritual and factual accuracy of the Washington Monthly writer’s statement.

    As for Markos, I meant, again, what I said. He didn’t slam her for disagreeing with his position, he slammed her in spite of her agreement with him on an issue that is supposed to matter to him, for no other reason than to put her in her place. He hadn’t even read the piece he slammed her about.

  31. That was almost my favorite quote of the day.

  32. “I’ll jump in for just a second: I don’t care if the only reason Meghan gets the soapbox is because she has a famous last name. The point is that she is using that soapbox very effectively for the betterment of a class of people that her party has long scorned.
    By bringing attention to marriage equality and using her famous name for good she is doing more than most people with famous names”.

    You know, that’s true. I’m thinking about “moderate republican” Collin Powell. Does anyone know where he stands on gay marriage? Abortion?

    *crickets chirping*

    Yeah, neither do I…

  33. I meant “Meg has done more than most to publicize marriage equality, and not in the ugly, Perez Hilton way. To call her meaningless, or all of the other non-Dick people who work hard to achieve equality for everyone, is just wrong.” That was a critique of the spiritual and factual accuracy of the Washington Monthly writer’s statement.

    Yes, it was a critique. It also says that calling anyone who works for equality* meaningless is wrong.

    *Which would include Steve Benen and Markos.

  34. No, and I’m not going to argue this endlessly. My statements are what they are. Argument by extension is intellectually dishonest, and a waste of my time. I said Benen was wrong, and why. I said Markos was wrong, and why. Those reasons do not extend beyond those examples, because there are infinite variables beyond them.

    In fact, the quote you’re trying to pick apart explicitly belies your interpretation, as I denounce Perez Hilton right in it. Hilton “works for equality,” but in an entirely counterproductive fashion.

    You also utterly fail to account for Markos’ attacking Meg without even having read Benen’s piece, and you ascribe context to Benen’s statement about Meg that simply is not there.

    If you have more to say about this, go blog it out at DKos, shoot me the link, and maybe I’ll do a post about it. At least then, we both get some content out of your pointless apologism.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s