I was wrong yesterday. I'd like to offer an aoplogy.

[americanstranger]

Yesterday I posted 'If this is true, Edwards is toast,' dealing with the dustup over firing the two bloggers that he hired last week. I accused of John Edwards of having less guts than I thought, but today he proved me wrong. He released a statement announcing that Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan were not being fired.

While I will quibble a bit and say I wish he had taken the opportunity to deliver a good slam to those who instigated the whole thing, I'll applaud his decision to stand by his employees.

And I hereby apologize to those who thought I was trying to plant anti-Edwards seeds on DU. I applaud his standing up to Donohue and Malkin - he must realize that they and those who follow them will never vote for him, and that they have no right and no business trying to tell him how to run his campaign.

Well done, Candidate Edwards.

- as

[Donnachaidh]

1. well good for Edwards

It certainly raises my opinion of him.

[JuniperLea]

2. Didn't that rumor start on Salon?

I'm just not trusting anything I read on the Internets anymore.

Stand up thing, apologizing. Good on you!

[AndyA]

7. It depends on which one of the Internets you're on.

If you find the good one, all the media and news stories are accurate, honest, balanced, and fair.

I just haven't been able to find that one.

Perhaps Bush has declared that particular Internet his own, so it's always available to him when he goes to The Google. :rofl:

[JuniperLea]

14. Damn humans running all those sites!

I'd like to see Dubya using the Internets! That would have great entertainment value; I bet he talks and argues with it (out loud).

... oh, wait, I'm not into naked chicks:)

[Adelante]

3. Where is the statement?

I'm glad to hear this, americanstranger.

[Adelante]

4. I found it

Statement on Campaign Bloggers

user icon John Edwards in News Feed of
2/08/2007 at 11:36 AM EST

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan'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.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/2/8/113651/4503

[WilliamPitt]

11. "it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith"

Really?

"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."

That was one of the comments, link here:

http://pandagon.net/2006/06/14/pandagon-goes-undercover-the-lazy-way-on-a-catholic-anti-contraception-seminar-pt-ii

Pretty goddam insulting to a practicing Catholic on a bunch of levels (while absolutely spot-on with the snark), it's hard to avoid the clear intent behind it. Edwards is a forgiving fellow.

[americanstranger]

13. I won't defend that remark.

As I've repeatedly said, Marcotte is just wild about pushing those buttons. She's an atheist (if I had to guess, a former Catholic, but I have no proof of that) with big religion issues.

I've also repeatedly said that Marcotte is not one of my favorite bloggers, and I also think Edwards could have chosen someone just as sharp without the anti-religion baggage. I read somewhere that Elizabeth Edwards was involved in the hiring of both of these women, but I can't remember where so I can't provide a link.

My concern was that he'd let the likes of Bill Donohue and Michelle Malkin push him around, and I said yesterday that this episode would prove to be a dry run for the slime-bath to come in the primaries and general, should Edwards get that far.

While he didn't act as quickly on this as I would have liked (understandable - he was out campaigning yesterday), I'm glad he didn't fold on this. It might cause him static down the road, but the Rightards would have gotten talking points either way - keep the bloggers on staff and Edwards is 'anti-Catholic,' fire them and he wouldn't have 'the courage of his convictions' or some such rot.

And in a larger sense, this whole thing also lays down a marker for all Dem candidates. Who's to say that any netroots employee for any Dem candidate is not going to get the same oppo research treatment? Edwards, I believe, made that a bit more difficult to do with his decision, even though you know that the right will try to do it again anyway.

sorry to ramble.

- as

[pnwmom]

34. What about Catholics like me, who aren't coming from the right?

Why shouldn't Edwards care how we would feel about this? Is he willing to write off the vote of middle of the road and progressive Catholics who are offended by Catholic bashing?

I'm not talking about people who thoughtfully disagree with various doctrines -- I do myself -- but people like the bloggers who go out of their way to spew insults.

[BruceMcF]

38. Quite so, I can see how anyone could be ...

... offended by language like this:

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan'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. ...

Talk about the height of insens ... itiv ... it ... a wait a minute, I guess I hadn't read that through.

... after all, it was hidden all the way at the front of the statement.

[pnwmom]

41. His statement was fine, but he needed to match it with action.

Firing the bloggers, not choosing to accept that they never "meant to malign" the Church, when they clearly did.

[BruceMcF]

50. He did match it with action.

He stood up to the right wing smear merchants trying to distract attention from the President and his waging of an unjust war followed by ongoing reckless military adventurism.

[ScreamingMeemie]

17. Agreed.

I was rather surprised myself at this latest turn of events.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

26. Right back at you.

[BuyingThyme]

21. Yes, people who are brainwashed out of discussing sex at all

might be offended by discussing sex in the raw.

But so the fuck what?

Offend on.

[pnwmom]

29. It isn't a question of discussing sex.

The bloggers posts would never have been defended here if the targets of the diatribes had been Jews, Muslims, or African Americans. But for some reason many DU'ers think it's okay to heap scorn on Catholics as a group.

[BuyingThyme]

47. I think it's fine and dandy to heap scorn on people for their beliefs.

Particularly when their beliefs negatively affect others.

It's a completely different thing than scorning people for what they are.

[pnwmom]

56. Well, I think it's fine and dandy

for a political candidate to protect his message by firing bloggers whose past statements threaten it.

[pnwmom]

25. Thank you WilliamPitt. "Pretty goddam insulting" is right.

Edwards is forgiving and, apparently, more than a little stupid. Good luck with Catholic vote. He's lost any chance of having mine because he would be a sitting duck in the general election against someone like Giuliani -- who you know will make an issue of this.

[americanstranger]

28. Rudy 'My mistress is sleeping over at the Mayor's Mansion' Giuliani?

Rudy 'I dress up in drag and lived in an apartment with a gay guy' Giuliani?

Rudy 'My ex-wife found out about our impending divorce on NewsChannel 4' Giuliani?

The pro-abortion guy? That guy?

What makes you think he's going to get a free ride from religious conservatives?

- as

[pnwmom]

31. He won't, but that's not the point. He doesn't have record of

Catholic bashing -- none of the Republicans do -- but now Edwards does. This was a very stupid move on Edwards part to align himself with Catholic bashers.

[americanstranger]

35. Edwards most certainly did not Catholic-bash.

And we should refrain from that type of 'guilt by association,' IMO.

It will only take hold if the bigot Donohue is not called for his own hateful language. Did you know that the man accusing Edwards of Catholic-bashing recently said this:

Just imagine if a white guy is performing oral sex on a statue of Martin Luther King with an erection. Do you need to see it to know it's ugly.

Why in the hell would a 'good Catholic' even think something like that? That's at least every bit as offensive as what Edwards' bloggers put on their blogs, is it not?

Don't follow the accusations of a bigot.

- as

[pnwmom]

43. Yes, it is every bit as offensive. But no one is hiring Donohue to be

their spokesperson in a Presidential campaign. That's the difference.

Edwards can't hire someone to be his spokesperson and then say it doesn't matter that that person has a history of anti-Catholicism. I'm deeply disappointed in him.

[americanstranger]

45. So we stand back and let an anti-Semitic bigot pick and choose

who works for a Democrat's presidential campaign?

I'm sorry. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

And I take Edwards at his word that if his bloggers even hint at saying anything like they said before he hired them, they'll be gone.

But I guarantee you, if Donohue gets his scalps out of this episode, then no candidate will be safe from the attacks. He'll just go from campaign to campaign, picking off talented employees to satisfy his warped sense of Catholic victimhood.

Edwards did the right thing. Funny, though - people yesterday were accusing me of tearing Edwards down, and here I am defending him against right-wing smears again.

An afterthought: I wonder where the venerable Christian tenet of forgiveness kicks in. Or if it does.

- as

[Adelante]

39. "Catholic bashing.. -- but now Edwards does"

Edwards has bashed no Catholics and has no record of bashing Catholics.

[mnhtnbb]

37. Catholics aren't the only Christians to believe in the Immaculate Conception

Why are they the only ones with their knickers in a twist?

I have to say, as a one-time go to church every Sunday and sing in the choir person who no longer drinks the kool-aid, that is one damn funny Q & A.

[pnwmom]

46. I doubt that you even know what the doctrine means.

Mary is the Immaculate Conception, meaning that she was born without Original Sin.

Is that a doctrine you've heard that other Christians also hold? I didn't realize that.

[REP]

52. Immaculate Conception Dogma Only Since 1854

You read that right - it was only in 1854 that the doctrine of the immaculate conception became dogma within the Roman Catholic Church; Eastern and other Catholics reject this teaching, as do almost all other Christian sects.

[pnwmom]

57. You think you're telling me something I didn't know?

Read the post I was responding to. Part of the point I was making was that it was a specifically Catholic doctrine, as the previous poster didn't understand. The other part was that the doctrine is misunderstood by those who think it relates to Jesus's conception; that Mary herself, by Catholic doctrine, is the Immaculate Conception.

[dsc]

48. Until Catholics start behaving more evenhandedly in regards

to what tenents they are going to decide to punish politicians for breaking, they deserve to be criticised. I won't defend this particular statement, but I am pretty sick of being called intrinsicly evil by a church that systematicly covered up child molestation for decades.

[pnwmom]

51. Have you ever heard of Dignity, the gay Catholic organization?

My father was very active in his Church, and his pastor was a gay man himself, who eventually chose to move out of regular parish work into a ministry for AIDS patients. When you smear all Catholics, you smear men like him.

[dsc]

54. Dignity is great as far as it goes

but it is both a small and a niche group in the church. The church as a whole is horrid toward gays. Look at Italy where they are pulling out all the stops to stop a civil union, not marriage, bill.

[pnwmom]

55. The Church hierarchy is horrid, but they're a tiny fraction of Catholics, too.

Most ordinary Catholics don't pay much attention to them -- despite what the hierarchy wants everyone to think. That's why American Catholics, for example, are just as likely as anyone else to use birth control.

They care more about what their pastor thinks than the Pope, frankly.

[americanstranger]

59. A sincere question.

Most ordinary Catholics don't pay much attention to them -- despite what the hierarchy wants everyone to think. That's why American Catholics, for example, are just as likely as anyone else to use birth control.

They care more about what their pastor thinks than the Pope, frankly.

If 'most ordinary Catholics' don't pay attention to the Vatican (and I count myself among them), then why is the Catholic League able to hold such sway over discourse concerning Catholics in this country?

I'm inclined to believe it comes down to media access.

But if the Vatican is the titular head of Catholicism and most Catholics don't pay attention to them, why should we pay attention to an organization that holds even less sway with Catholics when deciding how Democratic candidates run their campaigns?

- as

[pnwmom]

62. 99.99% of the time I pay no attention to anything the Catholic League says.

And it annoys me that they can purport to the media that they are somehow representative of other Catholics, because they aren't.

But in this case, they shined a light on the words of the bloggers. I didn't need their help to do the reading, or to decide that the passages I saw were deliberately offensive. And my conclusion was that Edwards, by keeping these women on, has associated himself with their past comments on Catholics and Catholic doctrine, and this isn't going to help him win the primary or the general election. He's deliberately decided to drag this baggage around for the rest of the campaign, and it's a shame.

So it isn't a question of paying attention to the Catholic League. The bloggers' comments are out there now in the MM. And that is what the average Catholic, IMO, is going to be paying attention to -- the articles in the NY Times, etc.

[americanstranger]

63. Fair enough.

It was a pleasure debating this with you, however short-tempered it seems to have gotten at times. :)

Peace?

- as

[WilliamPitt]

60. Indeed

But you miss my argument thrust here. I was raised Catholic, and am grossed out by orders of magnitude by its behavior, specifically regarding exactly what you mention. There's no getting around it.

But no candidate can hope to win anything if he/she does not accept the reality of the political power of religions. A blogger may be as right as rain about something, but that does not mean the campaign they work for should have to take the heat for that personal opinion.

Being right has seldom been a good thing in politics. Alas.

[americanstranger]

61. We know all politics is calculation,

and Edwards has shown glimmers of being adept at what I refer to as the de rigeur term of 'triangulation' (I hate that term, but it fits so let's go with it).

Could it be that Edwards is playing the percentages here - figuring that those who pay attention to the antics of the Catholic League and are apt to be swayed by them are outnumbered by those who will look at this situation and decide that at the end of the day, the opinions of a candidate's employees are less important than what the candidate himself has to offer?

I'm not saying that's the case. I'm just wondering aloud if that could be the motivation behind the decision to keep the bloggers in his employ.

- as

[REP]

53. Impiety n. Your irreverence toward my deity (Bierce)

Those who were offended by this statement may need to do penance for being so weak in their faith that words can sway them. Is merely the act of being a Protestant and thus not believing in transubstantiation enough to have them take to their fainting couches and call for smelling salts?

[wicket]

23. thanks

:kick:

[Rosemary2205]

5. No biggie, we need a weekly Edwards is toast thread anyways.

Have we had a "Hillary is unelectable" thread yet this week?

[Richard Steele]

12. Edwards has 30 thousand square feet of TOAST.

Or close to it, at this point.

[pnwmom]

58. I'm beginning to think you're right. His political instincts seem to be off.

[rinsd]

18. When every they pop up we should include pictures!

[quinnox]

6. just don't let it happen again

or else! <joking>

[Orsino]

8. That's cool of him.

I could wish he'd apply that principle you mentioned to his non-stance on same-sex marriage.

[pnwmom]

36. Would you say that of a candidate who defended

a blogger who had engaged in gay bashing? Or racial bigotry?

"That's cool" ?

[villager]

9. by the criteria, having chimed in on one of those threads,

I owe an apology too, initially assuming Edwards was ready to cave in to the rightwing pressure group.

Which, to be fair, Dems have been doing for a generation now.

Hopefully, the tide is turning...

[sandnsea]

10. "False Outrage"

He called it exactly what it was. If we wuld use those two words whenever the right starts with their manufacured attacks, they'd start to look like the boy who called wolf.

[pnwmom]

27. I'm not on the right, and I think Edwards made a grave mistake

hiring them, and now, keeping them.

As WilliamPitt says, the bloggers comments were deeply insulting to many Catholics. I'm one of them.

[sandnsea]

40. Catholic bishops are deeply insulting to me

Who approve the manipulation of parishioners against Democrats and never once mention all the Republican Catholics who are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-contraception. I'll save my outrage for something that matters, not this trumped up partisan attack.

[rinsd]

15. Kudos to you for such humility. (nt)

[PATRICK]

16. Compared to Obama's treatment

which Obama also handled with class, this should be like water off a duck's back. I am afraid they have established some very nasty points to dig into latent racism and making it work every which way against Obama and in several personal issues. Edwards right now is not proving a very opportune target, but they do try.

I think it is something to remember how the decent candidates of our party have to endure this gauntlet of slime and shame which enlists our participation in ways we will be later embarrassed to admit.
I think we can spare the luxury of dupe outrage until we actually get a Democratic president we can complain about. The bad guys by the way are over there, setting talking points and agendas.

As for the GOP there are several devastating and REAL points to be made about every GOP contender or possibility, much less the issue of the anointing in the back room. It is a horse that needs constant kicking to prove it is still dead.

[BuyingThyme]

20. He was gonna dump 'em until you stood up.

Well, not really, but no harm in jumping the gun a little -- just in case.

[americanstranger]

22. HA! Yeah, I carry a lot of weight in national politics!

Edwards should just be very careful not to hire me as a blogger. I cuss way too much. ;)

- as

[pnwmom]

24. Well if this is true, he's off my list.

And so is anyone who chooses someone to speak for him who has a record of religious or racial bigotry.

[Morgana LaFey]

30. Good on you. nt

[Hekate]

32. Seldom if ever do we see an apology here. Accepted, needless to say.

:hi:

Hekate

[jarab]

33. Very commendable, americanstranger! nt

...O...

[sendero]

42. I think it's funny...

... that religious folks can say I'm going to live in eternal hell, and I'm not supposed to be offended by that. But if I make fun of their pathetic beliefs, I'm oh so bad.

I agree with what the bloggers said, it wasn't "maligning the church" it was making fun of something in dire need of being made fun of.

If I were running for office, I however would not have hired such people in the first place.

[BuyingThyme]

49. Yes.

[Vidar]

44. I don't have a side in that fight, but apologies are a good thing. Thanks

for the display of decency.