Three cheers for John Edwards, who at the end of the day has declined to knuckle under to pressure from the rabid right.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 8, 2007
CONTACT:
Andrea Purse
919-636-3156
EDWARDS STATEMENT ON CAMPAIGN BLOGGERS AMANDA MARCOTTE AND MELISSA McEWEN
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – The statements of Senator John Edwards, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen in reference to their work as independent bloggers before joining the Edwards campaign are below.
Senator John Edwards:
“The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwen’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.”
Amanda Marcotte:
“My writings on my personal blog, Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.”
Melissa McEwen:
“Shakespeare’s Sister is my personal blog, and I certainly don’t expect Senator Edwards to agree with everything I’ve posted. We do, however, share many views – including an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs. It has never been my intention to disparage people’s individual faith, and I’m sorry if my words were taken in that way.”
-30-
I particularly like Edwards’ choice of words that we can’t let the debate be “hijacked.” That’s exactly what Donohue, Malkin & Co. were trying to do. They have failed.
Well done, Senator.
Nice job. You could probably take any blogger and piece together any kind of slant you want. If this is all that the right wing nutjobs can come up with than Edwards will be a force in the upcoming election.
<
p>
So to Edwards, keep on sending us your message and tell us why we should vote for you. The Republicans can and should discuss differences and Edwards positions. No one had issue with that, but if your message is to go after bloggers and pick out comments is all you have, well that make me feel good.
I think the response would have been a bit more effective had it pointed out that the criticism came from people who were only slightly less anti-Semitic than Adolf Eichmann.
<
p>
Who doubtless “didn’t intend to offend” any of the Jews they accused of running the world.
…a phrase like ‘wingnut Christofascist base’ was “never [intended] to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics.”
<
p>
I plan on spending the afternoon thinking up things to say that are never intended to hurt anybody’s feelings, either. Now that I can use them with impunity.
<
p>
David – my only qualm about your post is that there is a difference between ‘pressuring’ and ‘hijacking’, and ‘exposing’. I think that the Axis of Evil you cite will be delighted by the Breck Girl’s decision, and will do further embarassing data mining of the blogs past the recent rants, and will compare them with the newer, purer stuff they will now turn out on spec for him.
<
p>
No hard feelings.
that you’re right about the continued datamining of Pandagon et al, and that the rabid right is probably happy. But the point is that they were never going to vote for Edwards anyway, nor were people who take them seriously. Edwards had to choose between people who might actually vote for him, and people who never will. He made the right choice.
My opinion is that Donohue, the fellow who was making accusations against John Edward’s bloggers, uses anti-semetic code, and more. When he rants on about jews running Hollywood and the Media and on and on it starts to look like …well..outright anti-semitism to me. Kinda like the guy in the glass house throwing rocks.
<
p>
Also, as soon as anyone gives in to that kind of pressure, they encourage more pressure on themselves, no less.
<
p>
So, I liked the way John Edwards stood up to what looks to me like pressure from someone who had very dirty hands when it comes to showing respect for other religions and views.
This is one of the many gems put forth by Patrick Hynes, who now works for “Honest” John McCain. Hynes frequently posted as “Kerry Crusher”.
<
p>
….A review of “Kerry Crusher’s” posts on FreeRepublic.com revealed that “Kerry Crusher”, in response to another poster’s June 21, 2004, suggestion that Chelsea Clinton had undergone plastic surgery, wrote: “Yep. She’s been Nip n’ Tucked. Just like Kerry and his girlfriend Alex. And she’s still hideously ugly!” ……
<
p>
Often overlooked among the Swift Boat lies and other bullshit put out by the GOP in the run-up to the ’04 election, was the story that Kerry had an affair with an intern named Alex. That’s the lie that Hynes is promoting here. It eventually died, but not before it was bandied about between Drudge, Mickey Kaus, Instapundit, and various other limp dick GOP apologists.
<
p>
It’s par for the course for these guys. Like most sleeze bag smear merchants, they only understand one thing, and that is a good ass kicking. ’08 can’t come too soon.
No hard feelings at all.
that “wingnut Christofascists” do not exist?
<
p>
Quite a counter-factual argument that would be.
I’m happy that Edwards kept Marcotte and McEwen. But having become an issue in the first place is troublesome. Overall this is a fairly minor issue and he responded correctly so it will go away.
<
p>
So Bill Donohue and Michelle Malkin are now our social conscious?
<
p>
I would have liked a response to those nutjobs. Maybe the Catholic church needs to address Donohue as he hides behind the Catholic shield to spew his hate.
Count me among those in the party who are seriously disappointed in Senator Edwards for not having fired the bloggers.
<
p>
While I am loathe to throw in with Bill Donahue (a pompous cretin and borderline anti-Semite who represents the worst in Catholicism) and Michelle Malkin, I have to agree with their point that anti-Catholicism is one of the few acceptable forms of bigotry that remains in our society.
<
p>
Ms. Marcotte can claim all she wants that she in no way intended to denigrate people of faith but when you read some of her classier lines (for example, “Q: 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) it stretches the bounds of reason and logic to think that she was staying firmly planted in the satricial realm.
<
p>
There are troubling, anti-Catholic themes in both of these women’s writings and I believe Senator Edwards has made a grave mistake by pooh-poohing the legitimate concerns of progressive Catholics such as myself.
<
p>
Perhaps he would have been “kow-towing” to the “wingnutchristofascists” by summarily dismissing Marcotte and McEwen, but he also would have been sending a strong and courageous message that religious bigotry in any form would not be condoned in an Edwards campaign.
<
p>
There’s much to like about Edwards, especially when it comes to his focus on eliminating poverty and ending the war in Iraq. However, as a progressive Catholic, I’m tired of my faith being a punching bag for those on the left who need an “acceptable” outlet for their prejudice. By allowing Marcotte and McEwan to remain on the payroll, Edwards has tactily endorsed anti-Catholic attitudes.
<
p>
As a result, he is one candidate who will most definitely not have my support for 2008.
but I can’t resist observing the following:
<
p>
<
p>
OK, if Ms. Marcotte is a bigot, than Bill Donahue is a first class Jew Hater. I mean, the levels of discourse are totally different.
<
p>
Marcotte’s anti-Catholic writings that I’ve read are satirical. That’s not to say that she’s a Catholic supporter having fun. She doesn’t believe, but she does notice that 2000 years of Catholic history results in a ripeness for cheap humor. That’s cool. She’s asking intellectually interesting questions soaked with cheap humor.
<
p>
Donahue, on the other hand, is neither intellectual nor funny. He’s just a bully and an anti-Semite.
<
p>
In the mean time, progressives like me have a hard time with many of the more in-your-face tenants of my own Catholic church.
Since when does refusing to have fanatical religious doctrine shoved down your throat amount to bigotry? I have many friends who are religiously observant and are completely unfazed when I say that I think it’s all a bunch of claptrap. I am equally unfazed when they wink and say I’m headed to an uncomfortable afterlife. Oh well!
<
p>
Many of my christian friends (both Catholic and Protestant) are deeply conflicted and angry over what they see as a narrow, right-wing perversion of scriptural interpretation and an ascendence of of repressivec, theocratic political activism
in their churches.
<
p>
Christofascists? Sure, they’re out there and they deserve to be mocked and repudiated. Good for Marcotte. Good for Edwards.
Tell me – do you call your religious FRIENDS ChristoFascist CoConspirators?
Well, no. I usually try to be nicer than that.
<
p>
Of course, none of my friends have ever tried to bully me or the rest of the country into marching under the banner of their god(s). Friendly theological debate over a couple beers is a bit different from conversion by swordpoint.
<
p>
My contention isn’t that christians (or adherents to any other religion for that matter) deserve to be mocked and repudiated, just the people who think they are entitled to run my life because “God” told them to.
<
p>
I must confess to having accused some of my more puritanical, fundamentalist relatives of belonging to the “American Taliban”. It was fun watching them splutter. And I still think the appelation was apt.
<
p>
My argument isn’t against religion, though I don’t buy into it. My argument is that rigid, intolerant and politically ruthless fundamentalists are a peril to our collective well being no matter which book they’re quoting.
I did not know secular humanists HAD a book! :~)
<
p>
I agree with your statement, but sometimes, more is read into a statement than is actually there.
<
p>
Example – pertaining to no specific candidate – ‘My personal convictions decry the eating of shellfish, and I will do whatever I can to persuade people that eating shellfish is wrong and immoral.’ AHA! – Cry the lobster lovers. S/he wants to stuff that shellfish ban down out throats! Of course, there is no pending bill on a shellfish ban, and the candidate was honestly answering a question about what conviction is held. AHA! Buth S/he MIGHT file such a ban in the future! Well and good – don’t vote for them. Point out their opinion, and say why you disagree. But DON’T impute actions in advance of evidence, based upon a ‘might’. By all means, say there IS a ‘might’, but acknowledge that it IS a theoretical, not an actual sinister conspiracy. Also, it is perfectly appropriate to advocate for your point of view, as long as it remains advocacy, not legal enforcement of it.
<
p>
Conservative think liberals want to make morals illegal; liberals think conservatives want to make persoanl choice illegal. There are extremists on both side who want to do so – but neither extreme is the controlling force. The very vast majority is in the middle.
<
p>
No Salvation Army at stores – no opt-out for sex ed. in schools. Two sides of the same coin. And the sad thing is – cultural hot-buttons have so LITTLE to do with effective governing. They are a trap both sides get drawn into.
On the one hand it’s a positive sign that Edwards didn’t buckle, but Donahue still came out ahead in the exchange. Edwards has been smeared and intimidated–Donahue successfully planted his seed. With his response, Edwards is only nurturing it.
<
p>
He was accused of religious bigotry–serious stuff–and he should have refuted the charge and thrown it right back at Donahue immediately and forcefully. Instead he said basically: “I hired people whose writings I find offensive and intolerant, but I’m keeping them anyway.” That answer just validates Donahue’s charges and makes Edwards look weak and incompetent at judging the character of his personnel. It’s classic swiftboating.
<
p>
(It looks especially bad since he had to ask his consultants what he should say before answering. At the very least, he should have been prepared for the attack.)
<
p>
We all know that Donahue is a hypocrite and a bully, but the masses of people who read only headlines don’t. Edwards would have been informing them by calling out Donahue directly. Instead, this message gets broadcast: “Watchdog Accuses Edwards Campaign Bloggers of Anti-Catholic Bias”, “Bloggers Apologize for ‘Offense’, Remain on Payroll”.
<
p>
Edwards should have made Donahue the story by slapping back hard. It’s fine for us all to be chattering about Donahue’s anti-Semitism here, but the truth doesn’t do any good unless it gets out to people who need to hear it in order to grasp the reality of the situation. Unfortunately, Edwards is the only one with a high enough profile to make sure it gets broadcast in conjunction with the story. Nasty, but necessary.
<
p>
We can’t let the debate be “hijacked.” That’s exactly what Donohue, Malkin & Co. were trying to do. They have failed.
<
p>
I disagree. Debate was hijacked. It was only for a short while, but don’t worry, the next one will be coming along soon, I’m sure. Getting the smear into the news was the whole mission. And it was accomplished perfectly.
<
p>
The fate of the bloggers was never relevant, or even particularly important–except to a very small number of well informed people on our side who didn’t want Edwards to diss the netroots.