The two controversial bloggers hired by the presidential campaign of John Edwards have quit after people complained that they had written some things that were anti-Catholic. No, they weren’t fired. They went on their own accord:
A second controversial blogger resigned yesterday from John Edwards’s presidential campaign, a day after Amanda Marcotte quit amid criticism that her writings were anti-Catholic.
Melissa McEwan wrote that she made the decision, with the campaign’s “reluctant support, because my remaining the focus of sustained ideological attacks was inevitably making me a liability to the campaign, and making me increasingly uncomfortable with my and my family’s level of exposure.”
Edwards had decided last week to retain Marcotte and McEwan even while saying he found some of their writing offensive. McEwan, who had called President Bush’s conservative Christian supporters his “wingnut Christofascist base,” apologized for “letting down my peers” in the liberal community but said she had been the target of a campaign of “frightening ugliness.”
As Mollie pointed out last week, this story goes to the heart of the debate among Democrats over what they are to do about religious Americans. What type of signal did Edwards send by keeping these employees even though their writings deeply offended many in America?
The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz, writing about the departure of the Marcotte on Tuesday, focused on the media aspect of the story. To Kurtz, who reports brilliantly on all things media, it’s a story about bloggers with a tail of information that was dug up and used to change the political storyline. It’s a legitimate side of the story, but I was hoping to see Alan Cooperman share the byline for this story because it is as much about religion as about new media.
The aspect of the story that has been missing from mainstream media coverage is the voice of the religious left, or the lack thereof. I haven’t had the time yet to read the opinions of the religious left thoroughly (Religious Left Online had a thoughtful post here), so I won’t make a judgement on their reaction. Let’s just say it’s one thing for Kurtz to quote the predictable Michelle Malkin or the folks over at MyDD.com, but why not find a few members of the famous religious left and see what they have to say?
 | Posted at 1:38 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (54) |
February 14, 2007, at 2:13 pm
Here’s one more take on the issue from “Faithful Democrats”:
These comments are pure trash. They’re not political arguments; they’re condemnations of people who hold certain religious beliefs. They’re not funny; they’re sardonic; they’re mean; they’re contemptuous. And calling out Marcotte and McEwen is entirely appropriate.
…
That said, we progressives would be foolish to simply accept disturbing comments such as those that Marcotte and McEwan seem to make a regular part of their blogging routine. If their slimy remarks had been directed at African-Americans, gays, Muslims, or other minority groups, progressives would be (rightly) up in arms. For both moral and strategic reasons, the progressive coalition should welcome — enthusiastically — a diversity of religious views.
http://faithfuldemocrats.com/content/view/512/40/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 2:42 pm
I don’t know. I’m still confused as to why the Mormon beliefs about Mary haven’t made the ones angry at the bloggers angry at the Mormons.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 3:36 pm
FYI: Ben Smith at Politico.com has an update.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 3:38 pm
Mormons do not set out to deliberately offend the sensibilities of other religious believers. It’s perfectly possible to say, for instance,that there was physical sex between God and Mary without being vulgar and offensive.
A large part of what makes this story fascinating is how so many people don’t seem to understand that foul and obscene language is not suitable to use in a public, political forum.
I’d love to see a story about how—or perhaps, if—there is a consensus of what boundaries exist in civil discourse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 5:09 pm
Thanks Ted for the link. Big kudos to Ben Smith (and Politico.com in general for being a great new fresh voice in Washington that doesn’t charge for its content) for tracking this story.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 5:17 pm
Well I don’t know, physical sex is physical sex.
The language describing it may be coarse or poetic, true, but I’d venture to say that quite a lot of people would be offended no matter how polite or poetic the language may be when it comes to Mary and the Virgin Birth, ( which implies no sex, physical or otherwise).
Also, the bloggers in question were not in a “public, political forum”. They were blogging on a site that readers had a choice to read or not read. They were not representing a party, a candidate, or any views but their own, no matter how offensive those may be to some.
That’s the nature of the Internet.
Do you want to censor the Internet?
Be my guest.
For what it’s worth, I found the remarks offensive but no more offensive than remarks I’ve heard on radio, TV, or read in newspapers, magazines or on the Internet said or written by people both right or left.
Civility is a precious commodity. Unfortunately, it’s also one that’s lost quite easily.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 5:20 pm
Evagrius, what does that comment have to do about the media’s coverage of the issue?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 5:32 pm
Nothing, he is cheerfully trying to link this thread to the Mormon thread.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 5:35 pm
I respect your and Mollie’s shouts out to those of us on the left, but it seems a little naive. No matter what the Edwards team does re: these bloggers, and no matter the response of other Democratic candidates, it seems likely to me that liberal Christians will still vote for Democrats and concersvative Christians will still vote for Republicans. I don’t mean to suggest that our values political determine our faith, but I suspect that both values and faith are caused by the same lurking z-variable. Moreover, it seems that said variable is not moved by these secularist bloggers working for Team Edwards.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 5:36 pm
Daniel, I agree that those on the left will vote Democratic, but will they vote Edwards? We’re still in primary season remember?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 5:47 pm
The contributors to the Catholic left publication Commonweal seemed to be of two minds about the bloggers, partly because they despise Catholic traditionalists. For example, Cathleen Kaveny from Notre Dame Law School saw some “moral equivalence” between Edwards’ bloggers and Catholic pro-lifers:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 6:39 pm
“Nothing, he is cheerfully trying to link this thread to the Mormon thread”
That’s correct. I’m trying to ascertain why bloggers who are clearly non-religious in any sense of the word are attacked for their views on a Catholic dogma, ( not held by all Christians ), and political candidates of a certain party and political standpoint, are not questioned as to their religion’s view on the same subject.
There’s an interesting dissonance here. An interesting compartmentalization, that I find fascinating.
If someone could respond with a good analysis, I’d be grateful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 6:51 pm
Evagruis, I suggest the difference is intent. Whatever LDS theology is on the point, the intent is sacred. The intent of the bloggers was to ridicule a particular belief. As is their right. But as a matter of politics, did it make sense for Edwards to keep them? And a note to the blogosphere: Don’t post it if you wouldn’t want to see it in a headline in a couple of years. That’s not censorship — it’s realizing you need to take responsibility for your words. And that they persist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 7:08 pm
Hey, I study political science for a meager graduate student living. You don’t have to tell me twice. But point taken.
On the other hand, my principle argument remains the same. I’ve been recently convinced that religion often bends backwards to accommodate politics. I do not think that Christian liberals (or liberal Christians) are going to be any more or less likely to vote for Edwards because of this. I am no less in favor of Edwards than I was before this (I’m rooting for Obama like every other wide-eyed grad student), and were I to have supported Edwards before this I could still easily disconnect his support for his employees from his employees’ disregard for religion.
In other words, Christian liberals who support Edwards over, say Clinton, will continue to do so. On this we’re probably agreed.
BUT I suspect that Christian conservatives will get behind Giuliani quite quickly as well. Perhaps they’ll convince themselves that his personal support for abortion rights is outweighed by his support for conservative judges (who will be pro-life). Or they’ll say, “we can support a pro-choice candidate if it means he’ll bring pro-life people with him on the ticket.” Just watch the logical gymnastics we’re in for if/when he’s nominated. I suspect they’ll be quite spectacular!
…Then there’s the polite fiction that the bloggers quit of their own accord. Of course I have no reason to suspect that they didn’t leave amicably except the general trend in the Beltway being that people always resign and are never fired…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 7:08 pm
Evagrius-the problem wasn’t the two being opposed to certain -or all-Church teachings—it was the intemperate, obscene, vulgar, nasty words they used. Words so off-base that most MSM outlets wouldn’t repeat what actually was printed—which of course skews the debate because it leaves the wider public thinking Catholics are super-sensitive and touchy instead of Catholics merely asking to be treated as respectfully as our society demands other minorities be treated even when they get involved in controversial debates (active, practicing Catholics are probably not more than 10% of the American population—but gets a lion’s share of garbage.)
As for leftist Catholic Democrats, I saw some very critical comments about Edwards and his blog hires from them on some internet sites, but the MSM didn’t pick them up as far as I could see. Of course the non-reporting of those upset liberal Catholic Democrats by the MSM plays into the hands of those who wanted to caricature the dust-up as some sort of “conservative” smear job. (It also plays into the growing media stereotype that the Democrat Party is the secularist anti-Christian, anti-Catholic Party while the Republican Party is the captive of the Christian Right.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 7:16 pm
My POV is that I don’t hold Edwards responsible for the views of his staffers. Loud mouthed atheism is common in the computer industry and it sometimes expresses itself crudely. To me this has always been a non-issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 7:36 pm
Jinzang—the “views” of a staffer are one thing. But to hire two people whose known specialty is garbage-mouthing religious people-especially Catholics—is a sign of either incredible bigotry or supreme stupidity. You say that this is a typical mark of atheists. If so, that confirms what some people believe about atheists—that they not only don’t believe in God, but, for some reason, have a deep-seated hatred (or is it envy) of those who have faith.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 7:45 pm
Interesting responses, which don’t really answer the point. Really, the bloggers were that obscene? Of course they were. That’s what the blogs were intended for. As I’ve stated, no one had to read those blogs. They are limited in that one has to actually, really , really look them up on the Internet.
On the other hand, hearing some other remarks, about other groups, was fairly easy to access. One merely had to listen to the radio or watch certain TV networks, a lot easier than having to go on the Internet…and I might point out, those remarks certainly have had a far, far broader audience.
As for the “pious” intent, that’s quite an interesting point. Some people might not accept that.
I’m just trying to point out that there’s a ethical dissonance here, one that will continually poison any real political debate.
It’s all fine, according to some, for a group like Donahue’s to attack bloggers who’ve made idiotic,bigoted remarks.
However, others who make similar idiotic, bigoted remarks are excused.
Why that should be the case, I leave up to you to explain.
I have my own views which you can probably figure out.
Note;
As to my political orientation, I’m an Eastern Orthdox Anarchist, a la Berdyaev.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 7:51 pm
Ah, the slippery finger- Eastern Orthodox Anarchist- a la Berdyaev!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 8:34 pm
Where is the voice of the religious left?
I suspect that it’s not being heard because the religious left, by and large, don’t necessarily want to see themselves as distinct from those on the left who view themselves, the pressing issues of the day, etc. wholly from a secular standpoint.
By and large, they don’t want to establish themselves as distinctive from the non-religious left, unlike many in the religious right who have a tendency to view themselves as separate from the prevailing culture.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 9:12 pm
Again, the entire American political scene boils down, in presidential politics, to who gets the Catholic center/moderates. This was an interesting case study.
Edwards can hire whoever he wants.
Then he gets to live with them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 9:17 pm
Oh, read the LA Times editorial again.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-bloggers11feb11,0,6592795.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail
Does “liberal” now equal anti-evangelical?
Does “liberal” now equal anti-Catholic? Anti-traditional Catholic?
Does “liberal” now equal secular?
Does liberal now equal pro-abortion-rights?
What does the POLITICAL word “liberal” mean in this editorial?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 9:40 pm
I think the answer to “what about the religious left” is fairly simple: no one cares what the religious left thinks about anything unless they are criticizing the religious right (to provide a “if you really must be religious, fine, but since there’s a religious left, there’s really no excuse for being conservative” context).
The irrelevance of the religious left is, at least in part, their own fault. Donohue may be unhinged, but on this issue he spoke clearly from Catholic conviction. The religious left, on this issue and others, only speaks out of (politically) liberal conviction. I don’t think the religious left deserves attention until they can speak clearly and without ambiguity as the religious left. Just look at the Faithful Democrats article mentioned as an example - the author examines, at length, Donohue as the face of pure unmitigated bile-spewing evil, while Edwards is “right, sort of” (kind of, I mean, well, Jesus says judge not, I think, somewhere, doesn’t he, but I mean, not to say anything against Amanda, because she’s a woman and everything, and Christians can be feminists too, but still, I think, maybe, she sort of, shouldn’t have said that, even though having said it no one should complain about it, I guess….)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 9:46 pm
I’m a little confused by the last post.
The argument seems to be that the “religious left” don’t see themselves as distinct from the “secular left”.
This is supposed to be contrasted with the “religious right” who supposedly see themselves as “separate from the prevailing culture”.
Am I then to see the religious right as not being distinct from the non- religious or “political right”?
The “prevailing culture” is not necessarily that
of the “left”, ( whatever that is).
The “left”, from what I read and see and hear, decries the prevailing materialism, selfishness, self-gratification, violence and anger of the “prevailing culture”.
This is especially true of the “religious left”, whose voice is not often heard due to the “accidents” of the media.
Perhaps the question should be, “What is the prevailing culture”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 10:18 pm
Or they quit and in three months no one outside of the far-right blogosphere is going to remember this incident. People will be focusing on war, health care, and immigration except the small group of people who look to Donohue or Neuhaus or the orthodox Catholic blogosphere for direction.
I’m still wating to meet these moderate Catholics who were going to support Edwards who aren’t going to vote for Edwards (or Democrats) over this.
I’m betting I will wait a long time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 10:37 pm
“in three months no one outside of the far-right blogosphere is going to remember this incident. People will be focusing on war, health care, and immigration except the small group of people who look to Donohue or Neuhaus or the orthodox Catholic blogosphere for direction.’
Well, since the war, health care and immigration
I will venture to say that you’re probably right.
are outside the purview of this blog
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 14, 2007, at 11:06 pm
“Does “liberal†now equal anti-evangelical?
Does “liberal†now equal anti-Catholic? Anti-traditional Catholic?
Does “liberal†now equal secular?
Does liberal now equal pro-abortion-rights?
What does the POLITICAL word “liberal†mean in this editorial?”
About the same as “conservative” which was used twice just as the word “liberal” was used once.
So…
Does conservative mean pro- evangelical?
Does conservative mean “Catholic” or “traditional Catholic”?
Does conservative now mean “theocratic”?
Does conservative mean “anti-abortion”?
What does the POLITICAL word “conservative” mean in this editorial?
The editorial used the words “conservative” twice, linked to the word “Christian”, the word “liberal”, once, linked to the word “activist”.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue.
I’d argue that the editorial was pointing out how
the controversy is impeding real political discourse.
You may have a different opinion on this, of course.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 12:35 am
I would agree that conservative and liberal in that editorial are use in a standard way, to describe people who generally have similar political positions on a broad range of topics.
Of course, many would argue that a single dimension does not describe people that well given that many people describe themselves as fiscal conservatives (pre-Bush budget balancers), social liberals (individual rights libertarians) and in favor of regulating big business and environmental mandates.
Maybe we need to develope a code modeled from the ‘geek code’ so I could describe myself as PS++ PE— (etc) http://www.geekcode.com/geek.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 3:29 am
Evagrius,
sorry, but they were in a public forum, called internet, when they made their “remarks”.
Which doesn’t mean that they didn’t have they right to speak their mind (which BTW no one wanted to take away from them).
But once they have spoken, everyone knows their mind. And everyone is entitled to draw his own conclusions.
Whoever came up with the claim that freedom of expression means freedom from the consequences?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 7:23 am
Str1977;
Well, what’s good or bad for the goose is good or bad for the gander.
“…freedom of expression means freedom from the consequences.”
Yes, especially for quite a few well known “pundits” and commentators whose expressions have not been very polite and who have, therefore, have been rewarded with more, not less opportunity to make more impolite expressions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 7:27 am
I think it’s because they (we) see the fundamental problem being the kind of gotcha’, vituperative politics that characterizes Donohue specifically, and the right-wing noise machine generally, as being the problem. From this side, the significant question is why haven’t those on the Religious Right muffled or responded to these attacks? Again, the reasons is not that hidden: the pit bull in my corner is a sweet pet at home.
Your question above might have an answer were it not accompanied by a silence on the accusers own ethics. It is a silence of convenience if not complicity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 8:13 am
Many of those pundits and commentators to the political left. Would that then justify a Republican candidate hiring Ann Coulter as a spokesperson, saying it was “no big deal”, and accusing those who objected to her past history of highly inflammatory rhetoric of hypocrisy?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 8:38 am
The “frightening ugliness” part of the plaint made me smile, I must admit.
As to Evagrius’s constant needs for definition, re-definition, and re-re-definition, I have finally come to the conclusion that the only thing satisfactory to Evagrius is for all we who expressed discomfort, offence and objection regarding the bloggers would be for us to fall on our knees, beat our breasts and cry aloud “Mea maxima culpa! I have seen the light! The Democrats in general and Edwards in particular are all-sinless, immaculate and the only true way, and any one associated with them or who supports them is likewise blameless and unimpeachable in thought, word, and deed!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 8:55 am
I realise that last may sound harsh, but here’s why I’ve finally lost my temper.
(Quick summation of exchange as far as I can make it out; I only give my comments in reply because I don’t want to attribute my views to all those who replied)
Evagrius: Why are you guys so bent out of shape about this?
Me: Because these were crude, obscene , deliberately offensive attacks upon one of the central dogmas of the Christian religion.
Evagrius: You Catholics kill me. You’re all Republican supporters, aintcha?
Me: The Incarnation is a Christian, not a purely Catholic, dogma. I’m not a Republican supporter, I don’t even have a vote in this election.
Evagrius: But what about Donahue/Malkin/others? You think it’s okay for them to say mean things but you jump on the bloggers.
Me: I never even heard of these people, much less listen to or read what they say. I’m just talking about what the bloggers said.
Evagrius: Come on, ‘fess up - you guys are all Republicans, aintcha?
Me: Didn’t we cover this already? Like I said, no.
Evagrius: Oh, you Republican conservatives are all the same! You say mean nasty things about people then throw a tantrum when people say mean things back! Why don’t you think for yourselves and not vote Republican?
Me: Arrrghhh! *tears out hair*
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 9:38 am
Martha;
I’m not arguing that at all.
Obviously you’re just, just upset at the bloggers because they offend your Catholic sensibilities.
They offend mine also.
That’s not the point I’m arguing.Somehow, there seems to be a blindness as to how political discourse has deteriorated in the U.S., to the point that insults, libels, smears, threats, etc; are now considered to be part and parcel of the discourse, without anyone flinching.
Oh, I know, “those” pundits and commentators are not employees of candidates nor of a political party but they certainly benefit candidates and a certain political party.
It’s what a poster has identified as the “right-wing noise machine”.It is so loud that it dominates the political discourse . One has to either act or react to what it decides is important, not what the actual state of affairs may be.
You’re lucky that you haven’t listened or read some of these commentators and pundits- or maybe you’re not, since it means you’ve ignored an important aspect of the politics in the U.S.
As for the bloggers, please see them in context, not in isolation. As long as you see them in isolation, you really won’t understand what’s going on.
( Not that I do either- I’m completely mystified as to how tawdry politics is and how shallow coverage of religion is).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 9:42 am
Martha, those of us who actually listen to all points of view and try to learn from them — rather than just seeking attention — continue to love your posts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 10:10 am
Oh yes.
Seeking attention is what we all do, isn’t it?
Otherwise why post.
Unless of course it’s only to reinforce opinions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 10:30 am
I also appreciate Martha’s comments, so please don’t quit. And to Evagrius, I don’t accept that offensive comments from any pundit or blogger are good or should be allowed. Perhaps we should all continue to be models of civility in the blogging world. Maybe we’ll start a trend.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 10:57 am
That’s why I argued that the bloggers should be viewed in a larger context.
Civility is one of the glues that holds civilization together, ( obvious in its very definition).
The more extreme and impolite political discourse
gets, the more dificult it will be to have common solutions to common problems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 12:30 pm
Since this is about the media coverage, I think it is important to point out something that is left out entirely in the media coverage of this, and is conspicuously absent in this thread.
Which is the tone of the Pandagon (Ms. Marcotte’s) blog in general, and on other issues. (I’ve never read the other).
If the blog were high-toned, cultured, refined, and in all other ways delicate with regards people’s sensibilities, and then the remarks about the Catholic doctrine, then the media, Mr. Donohue, and commenters here would be justified in the fuss they are kicking up about the language, its intent, and how “offensive” it is.
On the other hand, the tone of the blog treats ALL topics that way, and deals with just about any dissent with very strong (people would say crude) language, from advertising, to the law, to the media, to religious beliefs. They are currently discussing who does the cooking in a relationship - and using equally salty language to do so.
It is irresponsible at best and actively dishonest at worst to make claims about how awful Ms. Marcotte “anti-Catholic” beliefs are based on her language without pointing out that she uses identical language for just about all topics.
Context HAS to be a part of any discussion like this. We do that in all other areas of life, or does anyone honestly think that the same language is used in bars, military barracks, or locker rooms as in church or the senate floor? Or ought to be?
Agree or disagree, the fact is that Ms. Marcotte has some strongly held and quite defensible beliefs about the negative consequences that Church policy has on people, and even more defensible beliefs about the way many people who claim to be Christian behave.
Of course, if the language issue is deliberately mischaracterized, we are left with a situation where these women were hounded out of a job with a secular political campaign for deeply held disagreements with the Catholic Church’s social policies.
Oddly, not so much “up in arms” about that. And it is quite conveniently being left out of the discussion and media coverage. Which means that the truth is being twisted, and the discussion is not complete.
Are we really saying that nobody who uses coarse language in any context cannot serve in political campaigns in any capacity? That nobody who disagrees with the Catholic Church can be allowed to work for a political candidate?
Or are we saying that religion, particularly the social and political consequences of people’s religious views, needs to get “a pass” and be treated differently from all other aspects of life.
The first post in the thread quotes someone as writing that progressives should enthusiastically welcome a diversity of religious views - while condemning Ms. Marcotte for hers. The irony is deafening.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 1:04 pm
Peter’s comments are very germane to this discussion. Since the blogger in question uses the same tone to discuss cooking and religion, the issue reads differently than if the attacks were specific to one topic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 1:20 pm
What I say, as a private citizen, is one thing.
But should I become a private citizen being trumpeted as a great PR worker _for what she has said on the Internet_, I would expect what I’ve said to go under the microscope.
Now, if I blogged under a pseudonym and then remove my work from the Internet and the Internet Wayback Machine before taking the job, you might say that I obviously mean to separate my PR work from my blogging hobby. But I would still expect people to remember what I’d written, and for caches to show up and fill the memory holes. That’s just the way the Net works.
Nobody has hired Ann Coulter to be a greeter at Wal-Mart on the strength of her sweet-tempered writing. You might do so on personal knowledge that she’s really a marshmallow and loves handing out carts; but you wouldn’t publicize that you’d hired “famous columnist and controversial speaker Ann Coulter”. You’d say you’d hired Miss A. Coulter and leave the rest out, you’d shun publicity about who she was, and you’d tell her to do the same.
Anybody who’d hire a nastygram-writing blogger either wants to add controversy to his campaign, or is clueless. When you make a big point that you’ve hired “famous bloggers” who are only famous for the nastiness, well….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 2:48 pm
To mention that the Edwards blogger hires have been as foul-mouthed and obscenely juvenile toward others and not just Catholics and other Christians is to double the stupidity of Edwards having hired them to begin with. People with such a mentality should be lucky to find a job as a soda jerk at a hamburger joint let alone run the blogs for a presidential candidate. And to defend their anti-Catholic snarling by saying others were attacked so that justifies all foul-mothing and obscenity— or to whine that some on the Right do the same— is to defend filth-tossing and bigotry promoting bloggers the way a 2nd grader defends himself when caught being the schoolyard spoiled brat or arrogant bully.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 2:54 pm
Peter, can you really tell me that the campaign to choose the candidate to stand for election as the next President of the United States of America is going to revolve around discussions of cooking?
That the Republicrats have successfully sown up the McTacoKing wote and now the Democans, who have been associated with Chez Snooty, are now trying to shake off their elitist image and appeal to the masses by lengthy reminiscences about their granny’s collard greens?
That lemongrass is a hot button topic?
When that happens, then we’ll talk about how Amanda and her friends word their private discourses on cuisine.
For the record: I stand on a platform of pure Madagascan vanilla beans only - vanilla extract is poor enough stuff but the shoddy so-called vanilla essence passed off upon us is excreable!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 4:39 pm
Deacon John M. Bresnahan ;
I don’t think anyone’s “defending” the bloggers.
All that’s being pointed out is that it’s quite surprising that people get upset at their language when that sort of language and conduct from others has been going on for quite a while with nary a negative response from some who are now offended at the coarse language being used by some bloggers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 8:18 pm
Jinzang—the “views†of a staffer are one thing. But to hire two people whose known specialty is garbage-mouthing religious people-especially Catholics—is a sign of either incredible bigotry or supreme stupidity. You say that this is a typical mark of atheists. If so, that confirms what some people believe about atheists—that they not only don’t believe in God, but, for some reason, have a deep-seated hatred (or is it envy) of those who have faith.
I didn’t say this behavior was “typical of atheists.” When guys are insecure, some head to the gym to lift weights and others try a little too hard to prove how smart they are. Computer guys sometimes mouth off about how they don’t fall for outmoded “superstition.” It’s a sign of insecurity and not moral depravity.
I’m sure Senator Edwards hired these bloggers for their mad web skillz and not because they insulted people of faith and was blind sided by their posts.
Personally, as a member of a minority religion, I’m more upset that a candidate would be pressured to fire a computer staffer because of their religious views, no matter how crudely expressed. To put the shoe on the other foot, suppose a campaign staffer wrote on their blog that all religions other than Christianity are “Satan’s counterfeits” and that campaign was pressured to fire him for insulting other religions.
And I’m a bit surprised that it falls on a Buddhist to cite how Jesus said to handle this situation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 9:03 pm
Frankly, Jinzang and Evagrius, I would be just as
disgusted and revolted by anyone yapping obscenely about Jews, Christian Orthodox, or Buddhists-but, since I wouldn’t feel it as a personal assault -to be honest- I might not join in the fray damning the bloggers. But I wouldn’t go on the internet defending these garbage merchants and their new boss using juvenile “Someone else is doing it” rationales as some have as long as it is Catholics verbally vomited on.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 10:05 pm
Deacon John M. Bresnahan;
I figured you’d say that- as long as someone else was getting insulted, you couldn’t care less.
As I’ve stated before,
I’m not defending them. I was just pointing out that it’s rather curious how such language was used by others, ( one could point to Donohue, for instance), long before these bloggers and no one raised a fuss, ( as you admit for yourself). But when it suddenly becomes “personal”, ( as you describe it), then you’re up in arms.
I think you’re in an interesting situation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 10:42 pm
No, you’ve given that up as a hopeless case. Instead, you’re minimizing and dissembling. Not much of an improvement.
There are plenty of rude, abusive people in the world, including many who share your political convictions (like Marcotte). Are you on the internet, tracking them all down to denounce them? No.
You ignore the crucial difference between the masses and Marcotte: she was hired as a public relations professional by a mainstream presidential candidate. That makes her history of bigotry a much greater concern.
This has been pointed out to you again, and again and again. You pretend that it does not matter that Edwards employed her, suggesting that any person who speaks negatively about Marcotte is involved in some vast conspiracy. When it comes to being a “noise machine”, you do a good job.
And where are all those people who attack hate speech by Donohue (or anyone else on the right) when clearly bigoted people are hired by Edwards? They justify, they minimize they dissemble.
So you’re in an equally “interesting situation”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 15, 2007, at 11:34 pm
Dale- I don’t know where you get the idea that I share any political convictions with Marcotte.
Please show me where I stated such.
Since you’re so inaccurate with that I won’t respond to the rest.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 16, 2007, at 2:53 pm
So… if Brownback hired campaign staff who had a record of habitually posting scurrilous, gutter-mouthed anti-Semitic tirades on the Web, and Abe Foxman complained, would his complaints be dismissed by attributing them to “the left-wing noise machine” “or leftwing dirty tricks”?
Yes, I am disgusted by the vituperative state of political “discourse” today — and by the fact that YOU, evagrius, appear to espouse a double standard.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 16, 2007, at 7:38 pm
Evagrius—It is sad that people can’t be honest with you without you using it to throw a brick back. And the way you put words in my mouth:: “you could care less if someone else is insulted” is like the other excuses for the “potty-mouth” bloggers— juvenile and immature. I think most peoples’ alarm bells and desire to argue back immediately on the internet is much stronger when personally assaulted. However, I know that from my pulpit (Catholic deacons may preach) I have given sermons strongly condemning racism, anti-Semitism, etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 17, 2007, at 12:29 am
Deacon John M. Bresnahan;
“Frankly, Jinzang and Evagrius, I would be just as
disgusted and revolted by anyone yapping obscenely about Jews, Christian Orthodox, or Buddhists-but, since I wouldn’t feel it as a personal assault -to be honest- I might not join in the fray damning the bloggers.”
That to me means you don’t care, in the sense that you won’t “join in the fray against the bloggers”.
Do you think that certain radio personalities should or shouldn’t be using provovative and insulting language about others who don’t agree with them?
I’m glad that you preach agaisnt racism, etc; but I’m curious as to why you don’t consider it a “personal assault” since, basically, racism etc; is an assault on all human beings.
I’m not trying to be uncharitable but I do think that perhaps there should be more thinking, and praying, on the language current, on all sides, from all sides, that seems to have degenerated to
insults and denigrations.
The more that language is not challenged, by everyone, the more it becomes prevalent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
February 17, 2007, at 12:37 am
“Yes, I am disgusted by the vituperative state of political “discourse†today — and by the fact that YOU, evagrius, appear to espouse a double standard.”
Which double standard am I upholding?
Perhaps you are upholding one.
Have you stated any opposition to the language of certain commentators who quite publicly, on radio and TV, have used insulting and provocative language?
If you have, good for you.
But I never stated I agreed with the bloggers. I never stated I supported them. I just pointed out how the bloggers are part of larger atmosphere, one that includes people from all political views, who have been using denigrating and provocative language.
That language is destroying any rational political discourse so that the result is emotional responses to emotionally provocative statements thus destrying any real common language thus increasing miscommunication thus engedenring hatred of the other.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0