Ezra Klein: Edwards, Marcotte, and McEwan

February 07, 2007

Edwards, Marcotte, and McEwan

It would seem to me that the only acceptable response from the Edwards' campaign to the right's attempts to get Melissa (Shakespeare's Sister) and Amanda Marcotte fired from the is to point them to Glenn Greenwald's post on the subject and leave it at that.

Look: I thought the Edwards' campaign made a surprising choice when it picked up Amanda. She throws elbows, to say the least. And her focuses, and opinions, are not always popular in contemporary American political life. It seemed an act of bravery and conviction, though I wasn't sure what, exactly, the upside was. But the Edwards campaign chose her. They hired her. She left her blog for the position. And now they've got to defend their choice. To back down would either prove that their hiring process was incompetent and they didn't vet someone with an extensive public record, or that they'll collapse beneath even moderate pressure from rightwing professionals. Neither is a good look for the new campaign.

Again, I don't envy them the controversy. But they made their own hiring decisions. And it's an ugly precedent to let a little ripple of controversy divert them from an interesting course. If they need to respond, a counterattack digging up everything Patrick Ruffini has ever written, or Bill Donahue has ever said, or Rush Limbaugh has ever snorted, would be fine. But in the end, this will be a choice for the campaign. Who's respect do they care more about retaining? The netroots'? Or Bill Donahue's?

February 7, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

I may be out of the loop here, but is there something the Edwards campaign has done that shows they care in the slightest about this reaction?

If I were seeking the Democratic nomination, I'd WANT to be on the hitlist of every right wing blog and the source of innaccurate stories in the NYT. Few things will get you the camaderie of partisans like being in the foxholes with them.

Posted by: Tony V | Feb 7, 2007 11:27:54 AM

Well, right now I'm putting my money on Donahue. Look, politics is about getting a bunch of different people to vote for you. It is generally a good idea not to associate your campaign with a person who condescendingly refers to the lord and savior of, I don't know, 240 million americans as "Jeebus." Ms. Marcotte does more than profess her atheism, she goes out of her way to offend people. I spent about an hour going through her religous postings, and they go far beyond just atheism, they goad and pick fights with religion in a very bombastic and mean-spirited way. It's just not nice. And if you are in the habit of going out of your way to offend 80% of the population, that is fine for a blogger, but not for a campaign for president. If you can't understand this, you really need to either grow up or spend some time away from your "netroots" friends.

To analyze these things, I always look to my mother, a moderate Catholic. She voted Carter, Anderson, Mondale, Dukakis, Perot, Dole, Bush, Kerry so she is hardly a right-winger. There is NO WAY she would ever vote for Edwards if she was shown Marcotte's comments. The fact that the Edwards campaign hired her shows a serious lack of judgment. They need to dump these bloggers now, or they will face some serious and uncomfortable questions for months to come.

Posted by: Scott | Feb 7, 2007 11:38:53 AM

I don't see why the Edwards campaign should dignify this kind of crap with an official response.

Posted by: nolo | Feb 7, 2007 11:43:55 AM

If I were seeking the Democratic nomination, I'd WANT to be on the hitlist of every right wing blog and the source of innaccurate stories in the NYT.

Great, if you don't care about winning the the general.

I think Amanda's job will depend on what she does while working for Edwards. I haven't followed that, but the hints that show up here suggest she hasn't fully shifted gears yet. If she behaves as she did at pandagon, she'll probably be more of a liability than a help. If she works to be less offensive, I think she'll be fine.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 11:45:18 AM

Sadly, I think Amanda is finished.

As long as this story was confined to the blogs and mainly about naughty words and the Duke case, it wasn't going to go anywhere. Even if it did get front paged on Kos and was attracting the huge comment threads everywhere that blog-meta naval gazing exercises always get.

But now there's someone whom the MSM considers some kind of spokesman for a religion involved, even though we know he's just a wingnut group. Note that the story didn't make the Times until this became about Catholics and not Duke or bad words. The media's deference to religious sensibilities just makes it impossible for us to spin this our way. Game over.

(As people over at Greenwald's place have noted, we on the left have got to get better at taking down their bloggers and other fire-breathing frontmen when they get offical or quasi-offical jobs. If this be the way the game is played from here on out, we have no choice but to play it.

(By the way, what does Shakespeare's Sister have to do with any of this, other than guilt by association?)

Posted by: Bertie | Feb 7, 2007 12:06:07 PM

Why does the Edwards campaign need to "respond" to this exactly? They specifically brought in these bloggers to communicate with the netroots - a fairly select demographic. They aren't there to address the general populace. It's Donahue that wants to mischaracterize this and try to turn it into a story (that pretty much summarizes everything that Mr. Donahue has ever done in his public life).
I'm not Amanda's biggest fan either, but at her most abrasive she isn't nearly as ridiculous as Mr. Donahue's average performance on national television.

Posted by: sprocket | Feb 7, 2007 12:08:38 PM

Tony V,

From the NY Times article:

Mr. Edwards’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.

I greatly admire Amanda Marcotte and have expressed this at my blog and to her personally through email. Yes, she can be rough around the edges, but her analysis is generally spot-on.

Sanpete is right, what matters for her present job is if she is going to be able to shift gears. If the Edwards team spent even 30 seconds perusing her writing they would have seen her style. I suspect that they wanted someone like that - hiring Shakes as well pretty much proves that point. So Amanda and Shakes need to walk the tightrope between the bluntness and yes, crudity, of their previous blog writing and the more refined needs of a campaign blog.

Scott is right that Edwards needs to appeal to a wide range of people. But he will never get Donahues's support, even if he were to change his stance on issues to mirror Donahue. The reason is that despite what Donahue might personally believe, he is a professional Conservative Republican Catholic. So giving in to him on anything wins exactly zero votes.

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 7, 2007 12:09:32 PM

It is generally a good idea not to associate your campaign with a person who condescendingly refers to the lord and savior of, I don't know, 240 million americans as "Jeebus." Ms. Marcotte does more than profess her atheism, she goes out of her way to offend people. I spent about an hour going through her religous postings, and they go far beyond just atheism, they goad and pick fights with religion in a very bombastic and mean-spirited way. It's just not nice. And if you are in the habit of going out of your way to offend 80% of the population, that is fine for a blogger, but not for a campaign for president.

Agreed.
Marcotte believes that she can be just as crude and spew wild-eyed hate at her perceived enemies who are always groups that she has painted with a broad brush. She has never been accountable for her hate speech.
Well, now it seems the chickens have come home to roost. Maybe Kucinich could use her. He's as crazy and extreme as she is.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 7, 2007 12:17:08 PM

As people over at Greenwald's place have noted, we on the left have got to get better at taking down their bloggers and other fire-breathing frontmen when they get offical or quasi-offical jobs. If this be the way the game is played from here on out, we have no choice but to play it.

Sure, by all means we should copy them instead of sticking to the principles we've been arguing for. This kind of abandonment of principle seems to be more common than people are willing to notice.

Probably an appropriate apology from Amanda would have helped. My impression is that she doesn't believe in apologies, or sees some conflict with her earlier goals.

By the way, what does Shakespeare's Sister have to do with any of this, other than guilt by association?

Did you see this part of the NYT piece?

Ms. McEwan referred in her blog to President Bush’s “wingnut Christofascist base” and repeatedly used profanity in demanding that religious conservatives stop meddling with women’s reproductive and sexual rights. Multiple postings use explicit and inflammatory language on a variety of issues.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 12:24:18 PM

So giving in to him on anything wins exactly zero votes.

Not only that, but kowtowing to idiots like Donahue would do little to inspire the base or convince anybody that the Edwards campaign is prepared and willing to fight off the inevitable attacks of a general election campaign.

Surely they anticipated this. Amanda's style isn't exactly a secret.

Posted by: Royko | Feb 7, 2007 12:27:05 PM

There's no need to roll over here. And it would of course be awful precedent.

When Rush Limbaugh started becoming popular, people thought he wouldn't last because he was to outlandish. Ditto Bill O'Reilly. But it turns out that if you're willing to ride out the initial controversy, the world doesn't come to an end. Better to do this now when no one is paying attention.

Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Feb 7, 2007 12:33:14 PM

If Edwards caves on this, he's definitely dropping from his current second-place spot on my list, because as Ezra noted, it would mean that his campaign is either weak-willed or ill-informed. Donahue is useless to us and is long overdue for a kick in the teeth anyway; the few Catholics he represents are fanatics and misogynists, so it's not like they're going to be voting for anyone not of the barefoot-and-pregnant, ~~chastity-belt~~ purity-ball persuasion.

And as Shakes noted, she actually graduated from Loyola University, a fine Jesuit (and therefore mostly rational) institution, and quite happily voted for a roman Catholic for president in 2004.

Posted by: latts | Feb 7, 2007 12:34:37 PM

Well, I took time out of my busy, busy day to see if I could not pour some gasoline on this fire. A few emails, a few phone calls a fax or two.

And then I had another thought. All of this publicity has brought Marcotte out of the closet and publicly exposed her for what she is. If she is denied this new job with Edwards, her old employer's now got her number. Why does that matter? Because she works for a publicly funded university supported by tax dollars and there is little doubt in her flunky job that posts were prepared and blogging done on the taxpayer's dime.

I question if she will be welcomed back after all of this.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 7, 2007 12:37:03 PM

Amanda's toast. Good. Sorry, but it's annoying to have the likes of her thrown in front of my face as the state of liberal beliefs, like some kind of Ward Churchill, only with a following and a more stylish wardrobe.

Still, I'll side with her in a battle with Donohue, but only because he's slightly the "worser" of two evils...and besides, Amandum will surely step in dogshit and track it into teamEdwards' house, thereby precipitating her quiet invitation to "seek other opportunities." (Presumably in places where professional immaturity and inarticulately-stated half-baked opinions are coin of the realm.)

Posted by: jimmmm | Feb 7, 2007 12:37:04 PM

Scott Lemieux at LG&M has it right. For a certain contingency out there, being a liberal is to be anti-Catholic by definition. As is being a feminist, I might add. But whatever. As Scott Lemieux also noted, if opposing Catholic teachings on issues like contraception makes you anti-Catholic, then the majority of American Catholics fit the bill.

Posted by: nolo | Feb 7, 2007 12:53:48 PM

People who think the candidates spend more time worrying about moderate voters right now than base partisans obviously never pay attention to Republican candidates.

Seriously, this is what a good politician does. You present yourself as a moderate (ill in formed independents only pay attention to you) and you get your "advisers" to be a bunch of extremists (well informed partisans care about them). This is what Bush did, and it's what Rudy "I'm not pro-life, only my judges are" Giuliani is in the process of doing.

It's also pretty much the exact opposite of Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Tony V | Feb 7, 2007 12:53:52 PM

Wow, people really hate Amanda.

Posted by: tps12 | Feb 7, 2007 12:53:57 PM

Ms. Marcotte does more than profess her atheism, she goes out of her way to offend people. I spent about an hour going through her religous postings...

Jeebus, Scott, it looks more like you went out of your way to be offended. I, for one, believe in God, and I am not convinced of the soundness of evolutionary theory. However, I do recognize that I don't have all the answers. There are too many people in this land of the free who carry on like they do have all the answers, and some of them want us all to follow them without question. Some of these people are even trying to throw their weight around our legislature (we know they've got inordinate influence on the current executive). Sorry, Scott, but Glenn Greenwald is right. When religious folks try to use our government to force their beliefs on others (even other religious folks who worship differently), they are fair targets for criticism and verbal abuse.

Ms. Marcotte's arguably strident atheism is her business, and so far it looks like John Edwards is mature enough to trust that she'll be an adult who won't let her personal beliefs get in the way of her job. It's a shame that so many people out here in the electorate aren't that mature.

Let me put this another way, Scott. Our Savior, perhaps the second most powerful being in the universe, let himself be cursed, spit upon, tortured, and murdered because he knew it was the only way that redemption could be found even for the very people who were torturing and murdering him. Now, you're telling me that-- as his professed followers-- you and millions of others in this country are going to have a holy conniption because of one irreverent blogger? If your faith is this weak, you might have bigger problems than a few choice words on a website. I think you or anyone else who's going through so much effort to be offended by this needs to be more Christ-like and toughen up.

We live in a freaking representative republic with guaranteed free speech, for God's sake. Reactionary religious childishness helped keep Europe in the Dark Ages for a thousand years, and the Founders were aware of that. That's why they built the religious establishment proscription into our constitution. So that means Ms. Marcotte is free to rail against religion and you, Scott, are free to be offended. I suggest you (and if you are correct, 240 million other believers) focus your political energy on more earthly pursuits, lest we all fall prey to the machinations of the latter-day Pharisees.

Posted by: Church Secretary | Feb 7, 2007 12:55:52 PM

People really hate Bob Jones U too. Guess that's why other people count it as a real litmus test. It has a cost.

Posted by: Tony V | Feb 7, 2007 12:56:21 PM

This isn't--or shouldn't be--a problem for Edwards. This is a primary, and the controversy--the opposition of right-winders--only helps him with primary voters--which, I think, is one of the reason the Edwards team picked her. And by the time the General rolls around, Donahue and others will try to make Edwards pay for Marcotte's writings, but it'll be old news.

I don't think Edwards will let her go, but if he does I'll be pissed.

Posted by: david mizner | Feb 7, 2007 12:58:50 PM

Church Secretary:

"Fuck you if you can't take a joke" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Amanda is exercising her right to free expression. Irresponsibly, but matters of taste don't count. But if a sizable number of people are disquieted by her hastily-stated views--and the task at hand, despite arguments to the contrary, is to get Edwards at least one more vote than his opponents--then Marcotte has to bear some responsibility for offending people.

It's not putting a muzzle on free speech. It's about not going out of one's way to deliberately offend a wide swath of supporters and potential supporters.

Posted by: jimmmm | Feb 7, 2007 1:00:27 PM

I think Edwards needs to hit back hard. Pointing them to Terry Moran is part of that, but so is making sure everyone knows Bill Donohue is an extremist anti-Semitic anti-gay bigot whom every decent American should ostracize. So is making clear that criticizing a church's political positions isn't bigotry. So is making the point that no campaign in the history of politics has ever been held to a standard requiring them to hire only people with all of whose opinions they agree.

Posted by: Tom Hilton | Feb 7, 2007 1:03:12 PM

Being opposed to Catholic doctrine in no way requires being offensive or less than fully accurate in your criticisms. Lemieux's line on that isn't much of a defense of Amanda's actual behavior, it's just a response to one of Donahue's lesser points.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 1:03:29 PM

> Amanda is exercising her right to
> free expression. Irresponsibly,

Ah, the old "irresponsible free speech" again.

I never can quite get a good definition of the difference between "responsible" and "irresponsible" free speech, but the Radical Right and their useful idiots seem to know it when they see it.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer | Feb 7, 2007 1:12:12 PM

Cranky, it's irresponsible to needlessly offend people and wilfully misrepresent their views.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 1:15:31 PM

Amanda's never struck me as being particularly offensive -- but then again, I don't think the aspects of Catholic doctrine that she criticizes (namely, those that directly affect women's reproductive and civil rights) deserve much respect. They're backward, meanspirited and oppressive, and they continue to cause much suffering in the world. If Amanda occasionally uses a rude word or two when discussing them, I'm not sure I consider it to be entirely inappropriate.

Posted by: nolo | Feb 7, 2007 1:21:20 PM

All of this publicity has brought Marcotte out of the closet and publicly exposed her for what she is.

A good writer and indefatiguable blogger? When pandagon was Jesse & Amanda, I found myself agreeing with Jesse more but realizing that Amanda was the better writer. That said, my psyche is such that I tend not to get worked up into a tizzy simply because someone writes something I find at odds with my personal beliefs.

I know you've been desperate for an opportunity to get Amanda fired from her state job, even though she made pains to ensure that she didn't blog while on the clock, but you should know that she has already left her state university job and moved to NC to work for the Edwards campaign.

Posted by: Tyro | Feb 7, 2007 1:26:06 PM

Don't let the rightwing score a victory! Please sign the petition to keep Amanda!

Posted by: Please Sign The Petition! | Feb 7, 2007 1:32:13 PM

Probably an appropriate apology from Amanda would have helped. My impression is that she doesn't believe in apologies, or sees some conflict with her earlier goals.

I imagine that she was coached by the Edwards campaign in this.

it's irresponsible to needlessly offend people and wilfully misrepresent their views.

True, but I don't think Amanda is guilty of this. Her language and style can be considered offensive, but it was deliberately chosen to make a point. It also is far from likely that she has misrepresented anyone's views at all, let alone willfully. At the very least we need not accuse Amanda of deceiving us regarding what she believes. Anyway, it's as you said, what she has written is less important than what she writes now.

Fred,

No matter how much you stalk her, I doubt Amanda will ever go on a date with you. So stop trying; it's creeping the rest of us out.

Posted by: Stephen | Feb 7, 2007 1:32:24 PM

I think you are all fooling yourselves if you think this is just a Donahue v. Marcotte issue. Whether a candidate has respect for religion is important to a lot of people. Believe it or not, many of them are not right-wing lunatics. Showing disrespect to any religion is looked down upon in our country. It is not considered polite. And one thing you need to do as a presidential candidate is generally be polite, especially to those whose votes you will need to get elected.

As for the "we can't blame John Edwards for Marcotte's views", I would just respond that of all the tens of thousands of political bloggers in the world, he picked her. The only reason bloggers have any worth at all is because of their views. I assume the reason he picked her is because of her views (why else hire her?) so it is entirely fair game to question him on it.

Posted by: Scott | Feb 7, 2007 1:35:24 PM

but then again, I don't think the aspects of Catholic doctrine that she criticizes (namely, those that directly affect women's reproductive and civil rights) deserve much respect. They're backward, meanspirited and oppressive, and they continue to cause much suffering in the world.

Bingo. The RCC-- and my mom went out of her way to make sure that we would never adopt the attitudes about Catholics & Jews common at the time among our Southern Baptist neighbors-- is pretty much dead wrong on matters of gender and human sexuality, period. They're generally good on science and far from ignorant wrt reading texts, but increasingly hopeless on relationships, equality, etc. The fact that the Church is allying itself with the most backward and theologically childish elements of Christianity isn't exactly an argument in its favor... a shame, because an institution that old should be a bit less anxious & defensive.

Posted by: latts | Feb 7, 2007 1:36:25 PM

One of the big unwritten commandments of working on a political campaign is "Don't become the story". The more the press spends its time reporting on John Edwards' bloggers rather than Edwards himself, the more than campaign is forced off-message and into defensive rather that offensive mode. I would like to think that the Edwards campaign was aware of this possibility when they hired Amanda and that they were willing to take the heat, although it is also possible they just didn't realize how much negative emotion Amanda would stir up.

Edwards needs to get past this as quickly as possible, but unfortunately most of his choices right now are bad ones. Dumping Amanda = caving to the wingnuts. Standing up for Amanda = giving the wingnuts lots of anti-Edwards campaign fodder. I am glad I don't have to make that call. But then, I wouldn't have hired her for that job in the first place.

Posted by: Lux | Feb 7, 2007 1:41:07 PM

it's irresponsible to needlessly offend people and wilfully misrepresent their views.

Well, then, Sanpete, it appears 'irresponsibility' has been working very well for the GOP. Neither the Democrats nor the elusive 'left' have propaganda organs like the right. They've got nearly all the corporate media, including broadcast and cable news; talk radio; and right-wing think tanks that churn out an endless supply of right-wing pundits for those outlets. Some of these propaganda organs, like Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, are phenomenally successful primarily because they've been honing their craft and building their markets for decades.

Again, the political waters were muddied long before Amanda Marcotte started blogging. Personally, I think it's about time a Democrat or two started 'throwing elbows.'

And I must ask the question: who's really offended here? Seriously, this is becoming quite tedious. Are some of you actually getting your Garanimals in a twist over Ms. Marcotte's rhetoric? Have you really not noticed what the GOP has been slinging for all this time? Does Willie Horton ring a bell? No? How about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?

Well, if you haven't noticed the disparity of rhetorical aggression, then at least consider what several years of Republican domination has done to the country. Does that bother you less than a blogger with a penchant for rough and ready discourse? If so, then there are two possibilities. You are either right-wingers come here to piss in the comments pool, or you're some of those candy-ass 'centrists' who are always worried about what the fascists and knuckledraggers will think of you. If you are the former, eat shit; I'm offended by all the bloodshed and depravity that you continue to openly support. If you are the latter, then grow a pair; during a time of crisis there's nothing more offensive than a mealy-mouthed coward.

Posted by: Church Secretary | Feb 7, 2007 1:42:41 PM

Showing disrespect to any religion is looked down upon in our country.

Unless that religion happens to be Islam.

And one thing you need to do as a presidential candidate is generally be polite...

Sure, you can have all your minions and sycophants handle all your brutal rudeness for you, like Dubya did against John Kerry.

Edwards needs to get past this as quickly as possible, but unfortunately most of his choices right now are bad ones.

This is bullshit, Lux, sorry. No matter what John Edwards says or does, there will be some right-wing bloggers who will twist it into a puppy-butchering. Then right-wing talk radio will take the hand-off, and after running a few yards with it, they'll lateral it to the so-called MSM, who will comment on it as though the original ludicrous allegation had any merit. That's how the Right-Wing Noise Machine works. The GOP and the right wing have dragged our politics down to the gutter. It isn't good enough for progressives to be honest and correct anymore; they have to be ready to dish out a righteous beating.

I don't give a rat's whisker whether Amanda Marcotte respects my religious views, but I know she knows how to hand out a sound, factually supported rhetorical beating with the best of them. I'd rather be in the political foxhole with someone who says "Jeebus" than with someone who praises the Lord while flushing my child's future down the neofeudal toilet. Think about that, people, even if you have to straighten out your spine first.

Posted by: Church Secretary | Feb 7, 2007 1:55:50 PM

And one thing you need to do as a presidential candidate is generally be polite

Yeah, that explains the effectiveness of negative advertising. Negative commercials making offensive and inaccurate statements never work!

Oh. Wait. They do.

Amanda's stuff is offensive mostly to people who enjoy being perpetually offended. But that aside, the notion that American politics is a politeness contest is stupid.

Posted by: Thers | Feb 7, 2007 1:57:35 PM

I don't think the aspects of Catholic doctrine that she criticizes (namely, those that directly affect women's reproductive and civil rights) deserve much respect.

That's part of the problem, the lack of respect for not only the doctrines but the other aspects of religion that underlie them. It isn't just a rude word here and there; it's a fundamental lack of respect and all that goes with that.

Her language and style can be considered offensive, but it was deliberately chosen to make a point. It also is far from likely that she has misrepresented anyone's views at all, let alone willfully.

The point she makes is the wrong one, or at best a twisted version of the right one. When you portray conservative religious believers as neanderthals, as wanting to hurt women, and things like that, you're off the track of careful and valid criticism and onto venting personal frustrations in a polarized and distorted way. That may not be as easily apparent to people who share the same anger, but I think it's fairly easy to show that such views are distortions. I consider them willful if a moment's reflection would reveal their implausibility.

Fred and Amanda have apparently been dating for years, in a sort of disfunctional way.

Interesting idea about the possibility that the campaign told her not to apologize, if that's what you were saying Steve.

Well, then, Sanpete, it appears 'irresponsibility' has been working very well for the GOP.

As I pointed out in the other thread, this kind of irresponsible behavior tends to attract other angry people, and by further polarizing things, even creates more angry people. That works, if your goal is to gain power even by means that are on the whole destructive to the fabric of society. You're defending the indefensible, Church Secretary, and contributing to it.

You're also wrong about the differences between the Left and Right in this regard, but that's another topic.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 2:02:00 PM

Really, why are Amanda's views on the Catholic Church any more offensive than the Catholic view that Amanda's going to burn in a lake of fire for eternity for her beliefs?

Anyway, with the primaries almost a year off, I think they can manage to weather this tempest in a teacup.

Posted by: Royko | Feb 7, 2007 2:02:01 PM

Ha! I called you Steve, Stephen. Don't know what possessed me. I blame it on Amanda.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 2:04:25 PM

Ha! I called you Steve, Stephen. Don't know what possessed me. I blame it on Amanda.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 2:05:37 PM

again pissing in the wind about a lot of nothing. my prediction: next week it will be something else.

Posted by: akaison | Feb 7, 2007 2:10:04 PM

I said:

"I don't think the aspects of Catholic doctrine that she criticizes (namely, those that directly affect women's reproductive and civil rights) deserve much respect."

and Sanpete said:

Wny should anyone have any respect for doctrines that are oppressive and inhumane, or for any aspect of religion that underlies such doctrines?

Posted by: nolo | Feb 7, 2007 2:12:48 PM

by the way- what do I mean by pissing in the wind? I mean fake controversies. Bullshit that gets people heated, but has nothing substantively to do with any thing that matters in our daily lives. It's shit that allow Fred to feel vindicated, and Sanpete to argue crazy liberal, but which truthfully- has more to with the drama of it all than it has to do with anything meaningful to the average American. If people are honestly going to vote or not vote on this after nearly 8 years by the time they get to decide of having a present who was all marketing over substance,t hen this country and the folks advocating this as important are truly fucked.

Posted by: akaison | Feb 7, 2007 2:13:52 PM

Thers, negative offensive statements are generally not made by a campaign, but by surrogates. Did GWB ever say anything negative about Kerry's Swiftboat days? No. Neither did anyone in his campaign. Whether that is fair or not, it is the way it is done.

Secondly, there is a difference between being insulting to an opposing candidate or campaign and being insulting to a large group of people. As a candidate, you don't want to insult any group of people whether it is religious people, baseball fans, country music fans whatever. As to whether her posts are insulting, to me they are bad. If Edwards ever tried to say, give a speech at a catholic church or really any church other than unitarian or UCC, I would certainly expect the republican opponent to do a little cut and paste and say a "key Edwards advisor" says this about your religion, what do you think about it? If you think this will not follow him, you are all nuts.

Posted by: Scott | Feb 7, 2007 2:16:40 PM

Her language and style can be considered offensive, but it was deliberately chosen to make a point.

Oh, paleeeeze. You portray her pensively choosing language. The woman has emotional problems and spew HATE. I'm not saying that she's the only one, but get a grip. It's an emotional outburst, not some well thought out process.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 7, 2007 2:17:43 PM

TPM Cafe is reporting that Edwards is gonna let Amanda and Shakes go. If this is true, if the Edwards team fires these bloggers in fear of Malkin and Donahue, it's gonna be a HUGE blunder, one the campaign won't recover from in the netroots. But I hope--fuck, I pray--that Tom Hilton's right, that the "something" that Edwards is gonna announce is a counter-attack on the wingnut attack.

Please, Johnny. Don't make this mistake.

Posted by: david mizner | Feb 7, 2007 2:21:48 PM

Wny should anyone have any respect for doctrines that are oppressive and inhumane, or for any aspect of religion that underlies such doctrines?

It's a good question, nolo, even if it's getting a little beyond the natural confines of the thread. I'll give it a shot anyway. First of all, whether the doctrines are oppressive and inhumane is itself a matter of controversy. No one who believes them believes they're oppressive and inhumane. This is something that reasonable, intelligent people of good will disagree about. As a rule of thumb, in such cases the views of each side are worthy of respect, of being taken seriously as having some potentially valid basis, of being correctly represented, and the like, even if you strongly disagree with one side or the other. The rule of thumb is that the well considered views of people of good will are worthy of respect.

The broader question relating to underlying religious belief involves a lot of complex issues, but in addition to the rule of thumb in the previous paragraph, I would add that religious belief is worthy of respect because it answers to some of the deepest aspects of the human soul in a way that little if anything else does. It's a serious and valuable part of human life.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 2:33:23 PM

I see the trolls and the concern trolls are out in force.

Posted by: Antid Oto | Feb 7, 2007 2:33:48 PM

As I pointed out in the other thread, this kind of irresponsible behavior tends to attract other angry people, and by further polarizing things, even creates more angry people. That works, if your goal is to gain power even by means that are on the whole destructive to the fabric of society.

Bullshit, Sanpete. You don't have to be angry to defend yourself, even if sometimes it helps. The right wing has a massive media militia of obfuscation, hatred, and venom that no longer even needs to be called out in order to function. "The fabric of society" isn't going to be preserved by decent people standing still to take sucker punch after sucker punch from these delusional maniacs and their opportunistic enablers. (I suggest you look up an honest history of this republic's founding era, if you want to see the 'tone' of politics in those days. It was a little less than genteel at times; try not to faint.) There is a time and a place for everything: sometimes it is good to be Martin Luther Gandhi; sometimes you're better off putting on your brass knuckles and getting ready to scrap. Unfortunately, the right wing has more goons and more experience when it comes to back-alley scrapping. Even more unfortunately, there are too many outside the right wing who don't even know there's a fight going on.

If John Edwards fires Marcotte and McEwan, then he might as well quite the race. If he's going to enable the wingnuts again, I'd be better off voting for Ralph Nader.

Posted by: Church Secretary | Feb 7, 2007 2:44:55 PM

I really value Melissa McEwan’s work. As a regular reader, I was pleasently surprised when I learned about the new gig. I trusted that Edwards Inc. had done it’s due diligence (I would think that Lawyer Edwards would have this research thing down) and was aware of the edgy and irreverent style of blogging that I enjoy so much.

But no?

This is a leadership moment for Johnny Boy. Either he admits that important homework was not done or he stand by his decision and take on all comers. Let's see what kind of person this man who would be President is.

I will be watching.

Posted by: Keith G | Feb 7, 2007 2:46:56 PM

I wish people wouldn't say meaningless things like "respect religion" or "not respectful of religion." Religion isn't a person, that requires respect, its the name of a class of beliefs held by some people. I don't respect "engineering" or "faith" or "the study of german nouns" either.

And as a poster up there said rather succinctly the particular beliefs of the particular subset of catholics that Amanda has criticized are pretty heinous. Specifically the notion that catholic dogma on *other people's sex lives* should be made the law of the land, that non-believers and even beliving catholics may be insulted and threatened with hell fire, that sexual practices lead to estrangement from god, etc...etc...etc... strike me as far more cruel and perverse (hey, what about those unbapteized babies in limbo?) than anything any left wing blogger could ever say.

Let us by all means talk about the actual content of the speech that amanda criticizes, as well as the language that she uses when she criticizes it. I'll put one "fucking jeebus on a pogo stick" up against "it is the considered opinion of the vatican that unbaptized children linger in limbo, or women who have had abortions go to hell, or homosexuality is objectively disordered..."

aimai

**Oh, and please don't bother to tell me that at the present time catholics are no longer to believe that they can buy indulgences, or that unbaptized children end up in limbo, or any of the other recent changes in immutable church doctrine. That is precisely the point. Non catholics and curious catholics have as much right to ridicule the catholic church as the catholic church has to make proclamations about church doctrine.

Posted by: aimai | Feb 7, 2007 2:54:50 PM

Church Secretary, you appear to have misread what I said. Of course the good should be defended. That doesn't require needless offensiveness and misrepresentation. You appear to defend adopting the tactics of Limbaugh and the like as good defense. I don't see the necessity of resorting to such harmful methods. As you can see, I vigorously defend points, but I don't think I would make my case more effectively by misrepresenting your views (I try not to) and calling you names.

It is interesting that the political climate of the late 18th century was very poisonous in some ways. Fortunately, not everyone was drawn into that, or there would never have been a Constitution. I don;t think the late 18th century is a great example for us in many respects, in any case.

Aimai, I don't think it's so hard to understand what's meant by respect for religion, religious belief, and religious believers.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 3:09:58 PM

Anyone who thinks Marcotte should be fired should ask themselves where this stops. How many people have been fired for just having a blog? Are we going to decide who can have jobs based on their professed religious opinions? Cause after all, no one's going to shop at a store where atheists work! Or Muslims! It's ridiculous.

I will say this - Edwards is probably screwed. Either the media crucifies him as as anti-Catholic, or he earns the wrath of the very constituency he was counting on.

Posted by: arbitrista | Feb 7, 2007 3:12:19 PM

Sanpete, you can't insulate your positions from criticism simply by claiming they're religious or based on religious consideration. Certainly not on matters affecting the rights of others.

Posted by: nolo | Feb 7, 2007 3:16:26 PM

If this is true, if the Edwards team fires these bloggers in fear of Malkin and Donahue, it's gonna be a HUGE blunder, one the campaign won't recover from in the netroots. But I hope--fuck, I pray--that Tom Hilton's right, that the "something" that Edwards is gonna announce is a counter-attack on the wingnut attack.

David, I had the identical thought when I saw the Salon article. This is outrageous. Simply outrageous.

I'm sorry, I can normally expound on things, but this...this has left me nearly speechless.

Posted by: litbrit | Feb 7, 2007 3:28:01 PM

One more thing: no votes take place for a year. If Edwards can not take this on, even if he takes a few hits (from people who will attack him anyway for any reason that they can find), and recover by the end of this year, then he is not a person who should have been trying to be President anyway.

Posted by: Keith G | Feb 7, 2007 3:32:00 PM

Tom Hilton gets the response exactly right above (which is why I'm relinking to his post here.)

...and spew HATE.

HA! Thats pretty rich coming from you, pal. If I cared, I'd comb the archives here looking for your HATEful comments, probably wouldn't take too longer either. However, considering most readers/commenters are frequent ones, I don't think thats necessary.

Posted by: Adrock | Feb 7, 2007 3:42:40 PM

This truck of horseshit — or to avoid being too needlessly offensive to people here, the truckload of blather that grew from this horseshit — is why I read Pharyngula. Seriously, if the controversy were over Amanda Marcotte's mishandling of the Duke rape case, I might not have agreed with it, but I wouldn't argued. From what I understand from secondary sources, it's an intellectual honesty issue. Not as bad as plagiarism, and maybe even a dilemma she had no good way out of, but still not something she should have done.

But criticism of her didn't gain one bit of traction until the "Jeebus" jokes started. What is this? She wrote something mean about Christianity. And used bad words! Oh no! It's getting called "anti-Catholic" because the vocal critic so far is the self-appointed leader of American Catholics (and, just coincidentally, a partisan right-winger who disagrees with the Vatican on a lot of issues), but it doesn't deserve that. She's an atheist and a feminist. Put it that simply. She acts irreverent because she is not, in fact, reverent. She doesn't handle Catholicism or any other schism of Christianity any more angrily or unfairly than she handles anything else she disagrees with. Her foul language (quick, Jeeves, get the smelling salts!) would be a problem on Edwards' blog itself, but is as irrelevant to her current job as my previous job in PR is to my current one in journalism. (Um, no jokes, please.) If Edwards caves over this, he won't be admitting there's something wrong with swearing or her Duke stance; he would be saying there's something wrong with atheists and feminists. Or, at the very least, that he values the opinions of people who think so wayyy too much.

Akaison is right; this probably won't influence how any significant number of people vote, but if it does, we deserve whatever we get.

Posted by: Cyrus | Feb 7, 2007 3:53:28 PM

From Edwards' perspective, this isn't a contest between the netroots and the likes of Donahue. It's a matter of how this controversy will affect moderates and even liberals who respect religion and think others should too, and whose votes might be affected. Edwards doesn't care about Donahue. I agree that he should have been ready for this, if he (or rather his staff) did the requisite homework. It isn't fair to Amanda and Shakes to hire them and not back them before they've even had a chance to do what they were hired for. I think the initial choice was a bad one if there wasn't an understanding that the bloggers would make every effort not to be offensive, or if they thought there would be no problem without that understanding.

Nolo, nothing I've said even suggests insulating religious views from criticism. I respect your views, but I criticize them. I just try not to twist them, attack you as an idiot and manhater, and stuff like that, which I think is false and does more harm than good.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 3:53:53 PM

If Edwards fires his two bloggers, I will never cast a vote for him, even if he becomes the democratic nominee.

Posted by: sifl | Feb 7, 2007 4:17:56 PM

If Edwards caves over this, he won't be admitting there's something wrong with swearing or her Duke stance; he would be saying there's something wrong with atheists and feminists.

You seem to be implying that one needs to be disrespectful, offensive or misrepresent the views of others to be an atheist or feminist.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 4:18:51 PM

You seem to be implying that one needs to be disrespectful, offensive or misrepresent the views of others to be an atheist or feminist.

Posted by: Sanpete

Misrepresentations aren't what people are complaining about, and as far as I know Marcotte hasn't even been accused of that in the first place. As for being disrespectful or offensive, nobody would care about that if not for the fact that she is disrespectful to [a specific group of politically partisan] religious people in particular. Unless you can link to the New York Times story about McCain's blogger?

Posted by: Cyrus | Feb 7, 2007 4:33:28 PM

Whatever. Edwards wasn't going to be the party's nominee anyway. The bloggers should have their heads examined for their decision to cast their lots with him.

Posted by: raj | Feb 7, 2007 4:37:24 PM

Cyrus, Edwards probably wouldn't keep McCains's blogger on his payroll either. My point remains that you don't have to behave as Amanda does (and I think she does misrepresent the views of others) to be an atheist or feminist, and if she's canned it won't be for either of those.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 4:59:32 PM

Sanpete: I don't think it's so hard to understand what's meant by respect for religion, religious belief, and religious believers.

My respect for your religion and religious beliefs ends when you try to use the government to force me to live by them too.

Posted by: Shalimar | Feb 7, 2007 5:22:37 PM

I can only speak for myself here -- I am a Christian and have occasionally been annoyed by Amanda's posts about religion. But man, it never dawned on me that it was the slightest bit relevant to her employment with the Edwards campaign. She seems to be hard-working, adept at blogging, down with the Edwards agenda, etc.
(The Edwards agenda includes support for women's rights and freedom of religion -- it may not highlight those issues but it encompasses them, I believe.)

Those are the relevant qualifications. I can't fathom her being fired due to exercise of her free speech rights as a private citizen prior to being hired by Edwards 08. Particularly with the impetus of an organized right-wing oppo campaign.

Some of her statements have been hard for me to hear, but in some of those cases I had to take a look in the mirror.

Posted by: Dix Hill | Feb 7, 2007 5:39:01 PM

Respect for religion is often used as code for control. It's like when people say that gay marriage harms their marriage and threatens their children. I can't speak to this individual person, but I can imagine the frustration that comes when one is (say like me a deist) and having to deal with Christians who assume that means you are without morality or becuase you are gay you are without a moral compass, and will try to control you because of that belief. Who operates with the lever of control and power here? The random blogger or the Catholic League?

Let me put it to you this way- I have a side career as a writer of entertainment industry pieces. A few months ago I interviewed the director of the film, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated." There were many things that interested me about what he had to say. Part of what he talked about was how movies are rated by the MPAA in part by a small group of clergy (whick knocks the whole "Hollywood is liberal" thing on its ass by the way). It reminded me how pervasive the roots of control over non Christians that Christians have in our society. No one ever thinks to question it.

Or, to put another way, one of my friends when I told her that although I believed there was a God that I wasan't sure what the face of God is. It maybe Christian, but I wasn't sure. She asked me- "but don't you have any morals?" She caught herself, but it illustrates the point.

Nor is she unique. I grew up in a place that was evangelical. It's so pervasive where I grew up that no one questions is it the right choice (and the key word is choice) for everyone.

So when I hear respect-what I really hear is what I saw in NC/VA. Back in 2002 after 9/11 UNC want as a way to understand what had happened wanted to include a book for Freshman orientation about Islam. The students were given options: read the book, read a book from a long list of other books, or write an essay about why they didn't want to read the book or read other books. The Christian groups argued that it was oppressive to them to be asked to read about other religions. That's the real face of "respect." It means respect as in - no I don't want to be exposed to anyone else's life. So that means deny, deny deny.

You can see that with the recent controversy over vaccination for a sexually transmitted virus. The 'respect' requires that we not only respect but ignore all factual assertiosn in favor of the religios arguments. Indeed, many of the Christian groups never responded to the public health or other concerns. They only said- we get are Christian, and we feel sex before marriage is immoral. If the argument starts this way- how can there be respect of others?

So when people talk about respect- you need to say that's a two street. And if you say it, you must also live by it. I don't see a whole lot of Christians at least in politics living by that motto. I do see a lot of lip service about respect however when they are called to task to prove how their religios beliefs should trump all other considerations.

Ultimately, however, as I said above, this is a silly conversation. This thing isn't about respect for faith, what this woman is or is not, or any of the above referenced justifications. No more than the swift boating of Kerry was about his real Vietnam record, calling Al Gore a fibber was about his honesty, or calling Clinton slick willie was about his polish or smarminess as a candidate.

It's about that poem- sorry- I can't remember it's name that talked about the McCarthy era committees, and how they would sit and be happy stewing in their own shit. It's a spectacle that the press is after, and a distraction that the GOP wants. The religion. And everything else is just the means by which they do it.

Sadly, too many of you in order to seem 'reasonable' (whatever that means when one is referencing unreasonable arguments) are all too willing to play along. I find that intellectually sad and lazy.

Posted by: akaison | Feb 7, 2007 5:44:12 PM

My respect for your religion and religious beliefs ends when you try to use the government to force me to live by them too.

Is that some kind of revenge or something? What's the point? If you disagree with efforts to enforce religious belief, then fight those efforts. I don't see the point of being disrespectful about religious belief in the process.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 5:45:25 PM

ps- when I talk of respect- i think of common sacrfice- what are Christians willing to sacrifice of their faith to the common good that they are so easily willing to force others to sacrifice to what they believe as the good of their faith system?

Posted by: akaison | Feb 7, 2007 5:49:01 PM

Akaison, listing all the perversions of the idea of respect you can think if is no argument against respect. No one is arguing for all the stuff you brought up.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 5:54:12 PM

Sanpete: I don't think it's so hard to understand what's meant by respect for religion, religious belief, and religious believers.

My respect for your religion and religious beliefs ends when you try to use the government to force me to live by them too.

Posted by: Shalimar | Feb 7, 2007 6:01:13 PM

I am not listing the perversions Sanpete- I am listing the daily reality in politics. If you think of them as perversions then maybe you should spend as much time whining about that (which as I note has a real impact) as you do a blogger and her personal opinions (which have virtually none). Your prioritization for who should respect whom is why I'm bringing it up at all. because in your perverse view of things- a random word is disrespectful and of enough importance to post ad nauseum, but the true impact of common respect for others is given light weight. ANd no you didn't say that-b ut as I said- prioritation of post speaks louder than words.

Posted by: akaison | Feb 7, 2007 6:02:03 PM

Akaison, I am dealing with the issues raised in this thread. It's silly to take that to imply I think this thread or its issues to be the most important.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 6:28:22 PM

What's silly is to talk about issues without context. But as I have repeatedly said, that's your chief weakness, intellectuality with out context.

Posted by: akaison | Feb 7, 2007 6:43:49 PM

1. Why would bloggers have a responsibility to be respectful to religion? If they don't, we ought all ignore them (or what?) even if we agree with them? It may be politically safe(r) for Edwards to have never hired her in the first place, but really, wheres the real wrong in it? Where's the controversy? That someone spoke their mind? Who got hurt? Considering all speech is protected and no one got hurt, then all this amounts to is arguing that someone isn't being nice. If so, back to the playground, I say.

Why make the condition that we ought be respectful because its topics of religion. If you want to take it to that level, why not broaden it? Say, be respectful to all, regardless of the belief? Limiting it, or putting a special emphasis on religion, seems to me to say that the religious' beliefs are better than the non-religious. And if thats the case, then it doesn't surprise that someone might go on a rant about religion in the manner than Amanda has.

Posted by: Adrock | Feb 7, 2007 7:07:19 PM

Adrock-b ecause the discussion of respect is a sham which really means "let me control you."

Posted by: akaison | Feb 7, 2007 7:15:45 PM

Adrock, why respect is important is discussed further back in the thread. Religion is just an example that happens to be especially relevant to Amanda and which is the main source of trouble today. In an earlier thread a day or two ago the example of white men and especially Southern white men was the focus. The problem in the context of a political campaign ought to be obvious. As a candidate you try to get votes, not drive them away. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this. No one is suggesting they be jailed or not be allowed to say what they please on their own dime.

Akaison, you have a bizarre and false notion of respect. Respecting others wouldn't harm you any, wouldn't control you, wouldn't stop you from opposing views you disagree with or criticizing them as strongly as you please.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 7:48:42 PM

sanpete cut the bullshit

Posted by: akaison | Feb 7, 2007 7:54:26 PM

I have no desire to control you, akaison.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 8:21:13 PM

Jeebus, Sanpete, you won't quit. I don't know what kind of political world you think you're living in, but you keep ignoring a very important and timely fact: right wingers don't care about 'respecting' progressives in debates, or about 'respecting' others' beliefs. Have you been paying attention for the last twenty-five years? Right wingers have proven-- time and again, at every level of political discourse-- that they will resort to anything to drag every last voter they can to the polls. They will resort to race-baiting, woman-bashing, nativist fear-mongering, and all varieties of vile slander and misrepresentation.

In this climate that they have created, one must be ready to fight when necessary. 'Respect' doesn't mean meekly offering oneself up for whatever depradation an opponent has in store for you, and 'respect' must be mutual. You don't bring a knife to a gunfight, and you sure as hell don't bring flowers to a knife fight. All this talk about 'respect' in the current political context is meaningless, touchy-feely horseshit. A bully will 'respect' you if you send him home with cuts and bruises he didn't have before crossing you.

If you're used to having uplifting political debates with conservatives whose discourse never uses either obvious or coded racism, sexism, or other regressive -isms, then groovy for you. Life must be good in your Walgreens commercial. But for a lot of us out here in the real world, the nastiness has been flying for a long time. Some of us are getting better at fighting back.

Posted by: Church Secretary | Feb 7, 2007 9:22:21 PM

Bullshit. Pandagon is a hate site pure and simple. But because she hates against men, fathers, and Catholics, and because she has tits and a pussy she gets a pass by the lefty blogosphere.

That's called cowardice and political correctness.

If you took her comments about men and fathers and switched it to women and mothers, if you took what she said about Catholics and said it about Jews, Muslims or Atheists you assholes would be all over her.

I am a proud liberal, a yellow dog democrat and a father and Amanda Marcotte can go to hell. Because I recognize a fascist rightwing fucktard no matter what clothes she is wearing.

Posted by: anon | Feb 7, 2007 10:01:28 PM

Church Secretary, I've already responded to almost everything you say. I'll just add that, since you're a religious person, you might want to consider how Jesus' teachings about turning the other cheek and loving your neighbor fit in with your ideas. You may think you're getting better at fighting back. I think you're becoming more like what you think your enemies are like.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 7, 2007 10:39:31 PM

anon | Feb 7, 2007 7:01:28 PM

Pandagon is a hate site pure and simple

If the radical religionists like William Donohue and his Pope Ratzi the Nazi weren't neo-fascists, wanting to run everyone's life along their own lines, nobody would pay them a mind. But the fact is that they are neo-fascists. And so that's why we resist them. Call it hate if you want to, I don't really give a tinker's damn.

Posted by: raj | Feb 8, 2007 12:00:18 AM

What I find ironic here is folks who would point out in regard to foreign policy that it is not useful to demonise and refuse to talk to people you don't like are in favor doing that exact thing domestically.

Posted by: Don | Feb 8, 2007 3:14:49 AM

Thanks for the Rx, Dr. Sanpete, but I call bullshit again. Jesus' admonition about turning the other cheek and loving one's enemies was no prescription for making oneself a doormat. He was talking about forgiveness, not gullibility.

There are a lot of people here who are getting it, Sanpete, and you ain't one of 'em. The right wing is chock full of people who would just as soon see all gays, negroes, and other politically incorrect people demoted to second-class citizenship (or worse). Their eliminationist rhetoric has been increasing of late, too. They are only my "enemies" as long as they declare themselves to be. They continue to throw down the gauntlet, and I'll be happy to forgive when they pick it up and put it away. You feel free to turn the other cheek, Sanpete, because maybe you're in a position where you think they won't come after you. I take to heart the lesson of Pastor Niemoller: if you don't stand up and fight them now (especially while its only a war of words), then you'll be running and hiding from them (or worse, joining them) later.

If the righties get their way, Sanpete, and they're rounding up undesirables for reeducation and concentration, are you still going to be wagging your finger at us progressives who have fight in us, and telling us to make nice? That is what you 'centrists' and 'moderates' do well, isn't it? You preach calm and civility while standing behind whomever has the most guns. Well, by all means, keep up the good work.

Posted by: Church Secretary | Feb 8, 2007 6:22:43 AM

That *IS* ironic. Marcotte is the Queen Bee when it comes to this skill set and just another reason why Edwards will not want to be associated with her if he knows what's good for him.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 8, 2007 7:56:35 AM

Obsessed much, 'Fred'?

It's funny, because you've been associated with Amanda for at least two years, as her lead stalker. You've gone through at least two pseudonyms stalking her, so she must be important to you. It's only a surprise that you haven't driven to Austin wearing adult diapers yet.

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Feb 8, 2007 10:50:56 AM

Church Secretary, I've made it clear more than once that being respectful isn't the same as "being a doormat." That characterization is just a way to avoid the point. I'm no doormat, and I oppose what I see as wrong as vigorously as you do. Yet I don't feel it necessary to twist what you say, regard you as evil, call you names, swear at you and try to outdo the worst tactics of Rush Limbaugh in opposing you.

The idea that Jesus was talking only about forgiveness in speaking of turning the other cheek and loving your enemies is just plainly false. Love is clearly more than forgiveness. But even forgiveness, of any substantial kind, would be a vast improvement over what you're arguing for. Have you ever read James 3? It's one of my favorites.

Pseudo, Fred's attachment to Amanda is equalled by your attachment to him.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 8, 2007 11:33:23 AM

Amanda Marcotte:
(http://pandagon.net/2007/02/08/john-edwards-statement-on-amanda-and-melissa/)

“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.”

And here's Amanda:

"The Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics," Marcotte wrote on the blog Pandagon on Dec. 26

Pretty differnt, eh? It's called a lying bitch. Another interesting issue is that all of the archives at Pandagon seem to be scrubbed.

Cockraches also try to hide when the bright light of attention is shined upon them.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 8, 2007 3:12:31 PM

Typos!

I just washed my hands...can't do a thing with them.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 8, 2007 3:13:56 PM

Fred, it's comments like yours that lead to comments like hers. You're quite the pair. At least she doesn't claim to be a Christian. You do. If you are, you could show it better.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 8, 2007 5:02:14 PM

The post about the virginal conception and Plan B was actually more of a direct attack on God and Jesus than on Catholicism. Are you really surpised that Christians are offended by someone who openly fantasizes about an aborted Jesus?
What about the original Marcotte scandal, predating the uncovery of this one by at least 24, if not 48, hours: the fact that she supports the railroading into prison of men who are almost surely not guilty? It's interesting to see how much "compassionate" liberals care about that.

Posted by: James Kabala | Feb 8, 2007 9:31:28 PM

...the fact that she supports the railroading into prison of men who are almost surely not guilty?

Even *I* was shocked by that. I have seen Marcotte dodge, weave and construct the most ridiculous strawmen to rail against, but I never imagined that she would ignore all evidence and "Nifong" these guys. Until now, she has had no accountability and could spew her hate without consequences.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 9, 2007 3:15:58 PM

I'm so glad Amanda and Melissa are still on the job. They're smart, talented, and very skilled in the areas for which they were hired.

Good grief. Do we really want everyone in public life to be bland, premasticated, predictable little drones? Do we really believe that only Amanda has ever said something or promoted something that turned out to be wrong or poorly phrased or rude? She blogs, folks, so it's all gonna be out there. This is the way things are now. We've been seeing how one's internet presence is changing a lot of things - take, for example, a prospective employee's MySpace site. Young adults have put some pretty rambunctious and untasteful things on their pages, and now we all have to adjust our thinking to encompass the idea of how we should evaluate that information in terms of hiring them. Before this, one's personal history was constructed by existing correspondence, or by first or second-person testimony. It's a whole new world.

Amanda Marcotte has chronicled a lot of her thinking via her blog, from the mundane or superficial (like that image scanning tool that produces the celebrity faces similar to yours) to serious political and philosophical matters. Am I supposed to be surprised that she's said unpopular things, or that she's been wrong sometimes? If we're going to hold that everything anyone has ever said or believed is always and forever going to be dispositive about one's current character and beliefs, then a lot of us should simply recuse ourselves right the hell now from any future involvement in public life. And that means our public actors will all be either liars, drones, or folks with enough leverage to have thoroughly sanitized their personal histories.

What on God's green earth could anyone claim to be convincing evidence that Amanda Marcotte is gonna keep anyone from going to mass? Or that she ever imagined wanting to keep anyone from their religious freedom? Or that her employment by the Edwards campaign could ever afford her to do anything like that?

PS: this upset is fueled in no small part by the fact that Amanda is a woman. There's an underlying suspicion that hormones will somehow prevent her from doing her job without being overwhelmed and controlled by her seething emotions and opinions.

PPS: I imagine the one true Jeebus would regard Amanda kindly. Look: he went charging in and overturned the moneychangers' tables. Somebody had to clean up that mess. I expect it was the moneychangers' weary minions. I suspect Jesus was a little embarrassed about it later. He might have asked his disciples: "Did that seem unhinged to you?"

Oh, how I long for a Molly Ivins column.

Posted by: larkspur | Feb 9, 2007 8:29:38 PM

Do we really want everyone in public life to be bland, premasticated, predictable little drones?

Being responsible, fair, generous, and avoiding hatefulness and needless offense doesn't imply any of that.

Do we really believe that only Amanda has ever said something or promoted something that turned out to be wrong or poorly phrased or rude?

Nope.

Evidence?

You may have Jesus confused with a character in Jesus Christ Superstar, or possibly Life of Brian.

Posted by: Sanpete | Feb 9, 2007 9:03:41 PM

Pseudo, Fred's attachment to Amanda is equalled by your attachment to him.

You can say that if I'm still trying to get ~~Jim Robert~~'Fred' to take appropriate medication in two years. He really has been stalking Amanda for that long. I don't know about you, but I'd rather see people given the mental healthcare they so obviously need. Perhaps when single-payer arrives...

Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Feb 10, 2007 1:12:21 AM

Stop the emails, pseudo, I told you I'm STRAIGHT. Must I change my email address or what??

Posted by: Fred Jones | Feb 10, 2007 8:33:33 AM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘