Milking Edwards’ bloggers ‘controversy’ a little more

February 12, 2007

A friend of mine emailed me last week to suggest John Edwards’ Democratic rivals should be pressured to issue statements in support of Edwards’ decision to keep his bloggers on staff. This struck me as highly unlikely, and probably a little unreasonable. It’s one thing to talk about Clinton’s and Obama’s bloggers; it’s another to ask Clinton and Obama to publicly congratulate Edwards on his bloggers.

On the flip side, we have some conservative Catholic organizations taking Clinton and Obama to task for not attacking Edwards enough.

The national Catholic-based advocacy group Fidelis sent letters to Democratic presidential candidates Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama calling on them to publicly condemn the anti-Catholic and anti-Christian blog posts of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, who serve as the official bloggers for the John Edwards for President Committee.

Fidelis President Joseph Cella stated: “Senators Clinton and Obama must publicly condemn the hateful writings of these bloggers and call for their dismissal. Anything less than a clear public condemnation would significantly call into question their efforts to reach out to religious voters, many of whom have felt alienated by the Democratic Party in recent years.”

Some of my sources tell me that Bill Donohue, who was largely responsible for getting this story started, is also contacting the Clinton and Edwards campaigns, making a similar demand.

It’s not enough to make hiring decisions that these conservative groups — who will never vote Democratic — approve of; rival campaigns have to repudiate the hiring decisions of others or face an alleged backlash.

Raise your hand if you think that has any chance of actually happening. (Note to the religious right: there is such a thing as going to the well once too many times.)

Unfortunately, most of those “conservative” (read “reactionary”) Catholics prove all the anti-Catholicism every time they open their mouths (the same way the Southern Baptists and the rest of the evangelical right reinforce every anti-Southern stereotype every time they open up). Face it, Donohue and the rest of them want to go back before the Reformation – they’ll need it, since buying indulgences is the only way these bozos will ever make it past the pearly gates.

  • After religious “leaders” like Haggart thundering into the earth on afterburner, I’d be surprised if the religious bloc had anything like the kind of intimidating clout it had before the last election. Shouldn’t they be off on some kind of pilgrimage or something, seeking forgiveness?

  • Holy hell. The whole thing started as an effort to tar Edwards as a bigot, based on the writings of employees he had not yet personally met (that their writings were bigoted is simply assumed as fact). Now the guilt spreads out to the next layer of association, with the implicit threat that if they don’t condemn the hiring decision of their rival, they’ll be tarred as bigots themselves.

    We can only hope you’re right, CB, and that they’ve finally gone too far.

  • A friend of mine emailed me last week to suggest John Edwards’ Democratic rivals should be pressured to issue statements in support of Edwards’ decision to keep his bloggers on staff. This struck me as highly unlikely, and probably a little unreasonable. It’s one thing to talk about Clinton’s and Obama’s bloggers; it’s another to ask Clinton and Obama to publicly congratulation Edwards on his bloggers.

    Yeah, I think you’re right, CB.

  • The response Obama would be justified in giving, but won’t, for several obvious reasons:

    “Really? Really, Mr. Cella? You want me to line up with a guy who concocted an analogy involving a white guy sucking off a statue of Martin Luther King Jr. with a boner to make some kind of political point? Whose life, in this country, do you think was improved by the creation and sharing of that mental image? Do you think there’s a problem with political rhetoric and analysis and outreach on *our* side of the aisle? Do you have rocks in your head?”

  • The other Democratic candidates might respond to Fidelis President Joseph Cella by saying something to the effect of “We will be more than happy to condemn the hateful writings of these bloggers and call for their dismissal as soon as you condemn the hateful writings and pronouncements given by Bill Donohue and call for his dismissal as well.” Like that would ever happen.

  • I’d like to see a joint press conference by the Dem Candidates at which they announce that Donohue is not a valid representative of any kind and lay out some of his “sins”. Then announce that they would not pay any attention anything he says as it is invalid. Then list a few valid Catholic activist groups to refer to.

  • I’m sick of saying this, but here goes again. Yes, Donohue is an idiot. But this is NOT about Bill Donohue. Marcotte’s comments deliberately mocked the core religious beliefs of all Catholics. It goes away beyond honest disagreement about various aspects of Church teaching.

    For progressive Catholics like me, there is a sense of great betrayal from the liberal blogosphere. And you people wonder why Catholics vote Republican!

    Just to show you what I mean, take one of Marcotte’s statements:

    “What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.”

    You don’t find that offensive? What if she had written something similar about Moses or about Mohammad, concluding:

    “You Jews have to justify your chosen people sense of superiority with another ancient mythology.”

    or

    “You Muslims have to justify your itching for bloodthirsty violence with another ancient mythology.”

    Or is it only not bigortry when it’s about Catholicism?

    P.S. See here for take-down of Donohue: http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/2007/02/time-to-revisit-donohues-partisanship.html

  • Morning’s Minion,

    The issue became Donohue when he opened his mouth and demanded something from Edwards. No matter what you think is right or wrong in this situation, if Edwards would’ve fired them it would have been perceived as caving to Donohue and never as doing the right thing, as you believe.

  • If politicians or their workers lost their jobs everytime they said something stupid and offensive, President George W. Bush would have lost his job the moment he said, “Bring it on!”

    Bush would have also lost his job for dozens of other stupid and offensive things he said and did, such as joking that he could not find any weapons of mass destruction when thousands have died for that lie.

    Thanks for reading,

    Steven Joseph

  • Marcotte’s comments deliberately mocked the core religious beliefs of all Catholics.

    No, it didn’t.

    It pointed out the Catholicism is, in fact, mysoginistic — it has consistently and constantly treated women as second-class citizens.

    And mythology is defined as: a set of stories, traditions, or beliefs associated with a particular group or the history of an event, arising naturally or deliberately fostered. So, again, Catholicism (just like any religion) is, in fact, mythology.

    Now, was the image she typographically painted crass? Oh heavens yes.

    But to say that she insulted the entire Church and anyone who belongs to it just isn’t factually accurate.

  • MM: Yes, I do find it offensive. But it has nothing to do with Edwards. And I wouldn’t call it bigotry. She wasn’t saying anything about Catholics themselves. I’d call it typical obnoxious-atheist prattle, like everything Sam Harris says.

    Yeah, it was a cheap shot. But what about what she was reacting to? A piece put out by some right-wing Catholic group using the BVM to justify their anti-contraception stance. How is that not a cheap shot? One could even argue the latter was an even cheaper shot, since it came from people who are supposed to revere Mary. Using her (and by extension, our Lord and Savior) as a rhetorical tool verges on blasphemy, IMHO.

    And there are plenty of Catholics who share her low opinion of RC doctrine on contraception, though they wouldn’t express it in such grody, imflammatory terms.

    Edwards did not hire Amanda Marcotte for her stunning theological insights. He hired her because she’s a good blog editor. The woman isn’t stupid, so she’s not going to be sharing her opinions on religion at Edwards’s blog. And to use those opinions, lame as I may think they are, to tar Edwards is reprehensible. He’s made it obvious he doesn’t share them, so what’s the problem?

    This was a smear, plain and simple. Not standing up to shitbag like Donohue is far worse than keeping Marcotte on the staff.

  • As I wrote in the previous Edwards/blog thread, it’s wise to pick your battles, and I don’t think this one is worth it.

    And Tom’s right. Every howling frenzy by fanatics screws reasonable — and quieter — people with its sheer volume. There IS a religious left, but not an organized political group. Personally, I’m cold to “organized religion” in any sense, but I know a number of people who have faith and go to church, but who disapprove of bigotry and approve of science. (Politically, as a Democrat, I just don’t like to discourage anybody from voting with the party.)

    I hope Grumpy’s right, and I think he is. I don’t think the religious right will ever have the political power it’s enjoyed during the last decade or two. As in the case of the mid-terms with Bush, I think we may have reached the point where most Americans are just sick of them.

  • I don’t know how you idiots can contrue her comments as constructive criticism. It’s absically saying anybody who believes the Bible is a mysoonist. It portrays the central figures in Christianity in vulgar and crass ways. And don’t forget her partners quote about how Protestants are mother fuckers. Seriously, how intellectually dishonest do you guys get?

    • Comments are closed.