Don't give John Edwards the shaft because the bloggers left.

[Counciltucky]

If anything, this should be pinned on Bill Donohue and his narcissistic cohorts not being able to let something go or let people have the ability to express their opinions.

Donohue and his ilk -- some of the slimiest of those who abuse the term "Christian" -- purposely made these bloggers' lives a living hell.

This is not the work of John Edwards. If anything, Edwards is a victim.

However, this begs two questions: 1) What can be done to counter this attack by bitter right-wingers who will never settle for anything but complete cooperation? 2) What can be done to retaliate?

People like Bill Donohue give Catholics like me a bad name. John Edwards and the two bloggers don't deserve this.

[The Count]

1. No. Rather give him the shaft for being unprincipled, weak kneed

http://www.towncalleddobson.com/?p=526

Personally, there was no shaft there to begin with since the IWR sponsorship, the Iran saber rattling and the 2004 theft silence. But that little incident proves how he deals with the pressure sure to mount in the campaign, presidency.

[Counciltucky]

13. It isn't Edwards' fault that Bill Donohue attacked the bloggers.

It was Donohue who instigated it, and the bloggers quit even after being assured that they could keep their jobs.

[The Count]

20. Of course not. But the way he dealt with it, gave us a glimpse of his future

campaignign/presidency. Appease, appease, appease.

[saltpoint]

2. Donohue has reason to fear Edwards. Bill Donohue is a threat to both

democracatic principles and Democratic principals. The man who's made threats in this instance is Donohue. He's the flame-thrower.

Edwards could be considered a threat to Donohue because virtue in thought and conduct trump howling idiocy. When choosing role models, many mature people might prefer Edwards' model over the slobber-and-howling model of the Far Right. Edwards' role -- and the role of our other candidates -- is going to eclipse the impact Donohue has on anything.

Edwards may be our nominee in 2008.

He'd be a very, very good one.

I'm not seeing anyone in the likely GOP field in a position to beat him.

[pocoloco]

3. You are right, he damn sure ain't a threat to

bush* or the repugs!!!

[saltpoint]

4. Edwards will beat any Republican. He and Kerry already beat Bush in 04.

Donohue's an irrational man, possibly insane.

In the much worse case, he's a rational man, sane and cynical and self-promoting.

The "Right" is represented, increasingly, by loud and loony folk. That plays to the advantage of the blue team, not the red team.

[Az]

5. Its difficult for the atheist community to watch this

The message being sent out is that if word gets out about our atheism then we are persona nongrata. In this day and age of politics grafting one's self to Jesus buttock is nearly required. Acknowledging you even know an atheist let alone employ one is tantamount to political suicide.

This is about spine. Backbone. Standing by those who support you. And Edwards is failing this test in the eyes of many right now.

[saltpoint]

6. Uncharacteristically unfair slam. Az.

I would ask why you'd take the side of the Right against one of our Democrats.

[Az]

7. I still support Edwards and am backing him

But I am trying to relate how many atheists see this situation. It is sticking in many craws right now.

[saltpoint]

9. Understood. But Edwards' primary constituency in his campaign will

not be atheists.

He was raised up Baptist and he's from a state with quite a few Baptists still running around.

He won't succeed as a cross-over candidate in any demographic study I've ever heard of by playing to atheists. Better to make the broader gesture of deciding to retain their employ -- which he did -- and to extoll the virtues of the First Amendment -- which he has.

[Az]

10. Don't need to play to atheists

We get that we are a minority. The candidates that get our support (whether they want it or not) are those that play to diversity. The big tent. We The People. Hopefully he can stay on message with that. I expect he can. But others are wary.

[saltpoint]

11. And who would those "others" support? I'm not seeing any atheists

in our field for 08.

A quick check of the opposing party suggests the same over there.

The bloggers were retained by the Edwards campaign and later resigned.

I don't get your point.

[Az]

12. I will try to explain

To the atheist community in general it appears as though the initial reaction was to oust the atheists. But then it seems as though it was realized that this would cause a backlash. So instead they asked the atheist to resign to alleviate the campaign of any onus. Its all pure conjecture. But many of us have experienced events strikingly similar in our own lives. Publicly support is given to us and in the background we are asked to quietly disappear.

And yes you are correct. You do not see any atheist candidates. That is because we are paraiha. No one will vote for us and no one wants to be associated with us. Kind of makes us feel all warm and loved inside.

The upshot is we have no representation in our government. Our rights are only overseen by the wisdom of those who are believers and get that the rights of the atheists are the rights of everyone. That the wall of separation works for all and not just the skeptics. Our concern is born of the fact that so much political advancement can be made by picking at that wall of separation and trying to knock it down. If candidates are willing to pander to the religious right then what else are they willing to give up for a few more votes? How many bricks can be removed from the wall before it crumbles?

So we are a voiceless minority in a nation of people who seem to be on the edge of holy war. Our culture is torn in two along the lines of absolute religious morality vs moral relativism. Our jobs can be placed in jeopardy if we are outed. Our safety is endangered if we announce our selves in many parts of the nation. We are isolated by silence. When we gather we are protested.

So yeah... we can be a bit reactionary and take things like this incident a bit more personally than others would seem to think it warrants. But it hurts. It hurts when you have no representation and those who you are trusting to support you despite their differences seem to fail you.

[saltpoint]

14. I'm sorry the incident hurt your feelings, Az, and I'm not speaking

facetiously.

I also doubt very seriously that anyone in the Edwards HQ office intended to hurt anyone. We could examine the posted work of those two bloggers and make an evaluation of their tone and intent. When it comes to hurling invective, it seems to me that they could dish it out with the best of them.

Conjecture this or that as we may, the evidence as presented has the two of them resigning. We have to work with what's at hand.

Jimmy Carter fired Bella Abzug. Surely it did not win him cheers and hurrahs from pro-feminsts but I doubt very seriously that any of them abandoned him to vote for Ronald Reagan. It's a consideration in politics that we don't always get what we want, or exactly how we want it if we do.

With respect fully owed to you, I feel you are imposing your personal vision onto a circumstance which was never intended to accommodate it past the broader stroke of First Amendment protections. If I personally feel that Bill Donohue is a maniac, Bill Donohue is free to think the same of me. I very, very seriously doubt that anything Donohue has to say on the issues will significantly impact the 2008 election cycle. In less than a month's time, these two bloggers' experience this past week will fade. Democratic voters in those northwestern farm communities in Iowa are not going to endorse or reject Edwards' candidacy based on these bloggers.

Neither should we.

[Az]

16. I am trying to walk a line right now

I am trying to convey what seems to be the general attitude within the atheist community. I am not absolutely in synch with the general attitude. I personally am cutting Edwards a lot more slack and still consider him the best candidate. I also am uncomfortable with the sort of invective the bloggers use. I find no benefit in attacking others for their belief. But I also am aware that not every atheist is on the same page as I am and they have emotional issues with the world of belief and they may need to express it and they should be allowed to do so. I can turn on the TV and find someone berating atheists any time of the day. It strikes atheists as ingenuous that we can be kicked about and no one raises a fuss but if anyone dares to speak against religion they are beaten to a pulp. My point of view is decidedly different than this. But I do understand their view.

[saltpoint]

17. Makes sense. I always think of Jesus as a near-Atheist, which of

course pisses off many of his followers.

But he completely eschewed institutional religion and headed on out to the far caves to party with the Essenes and other rapscallions hanging with John.

Jack Kerouac would recognize at least some of that energy.

To the extent atheism is an insistence that no abstract, authoritarian entity shall hold sway over one's life, one's thoughts, one's values, one's genitalia, etc., it is an enormously attractive posture and philosophy. I've seen it achieved within conservative institutions, even. If you and I have to put up with nutcases like Bill Donohue, we can also appreciate the poetry and passion of Francis of Assissi. Whom the Pope couldn't stand.

The Republicans are getting buried in the back of the garage for 2008 at all levels of government. Iraq alone will probably do it. As we speak, Nancy Pelosi is forcing Republican Congresscritters to stand for 5 minutes and defend Bush's indefensible Iraq policy. Nice move by Speaker Pelosi, and of course, our Democrats are sounding very effective on the points, not to mention that we shine in that format anyway.

Edwards' campaign may result in his nomination. If it does, I think he'll choose Richardson or Schweitzer or Sebelius -- maybe even Obama -- and he'll go on to the White House. There'll be talk of health care and education and veterans' benefits and re-establishing diplomatic courtesies with our allies. And the Iowa caucuses are less than a year away.

[Az]

18. I consider his teachings an early form of Humanism

Which is of course are the nice atheists ;)

[The Count]

21. My point exactly. Next thing, we're not citizens again - as per Poppy.

[blm]

8. ALL Democrats need to stop validating the RW lies used against other Dems.

And it is something that almost ALL candidates and many of their supporters, so far, have been doing regularly.

http://mydd.com/story/2006/2/3/121715/7260

Don't apologize for the spin they use against you and don't reify the lies about other Democrats. It's that simple. Fight the LIES and the spin.

[The Count]

22. Agreed. But I need the dems to deal with the lies with a backbone.

No more apologies, self- mockery and indulging the attackers. And then, I'll be totally in their corner.
Nancy's response to Bush's plane smear was brilliant. So was Obama's answer to Howard. His latest apology - not so good.

[Clark2008]

15. I don't like Edwards because of his ever-changing positions

his lack of FP skills and his stance on Iran.

I couldn't give a flip about his house or bloggers or any of that superficial crapola.

[leeroysphitz]

19. I don't find the blogger issue troubling at all.

I find this somewhat more troubling:

S.J.RES.46
Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Sponsor: Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. (introduced 10/2/2002) Cosponsors (16)
Related Bills: H.J.RES.114, S.J.RES.45
Latest Major Action: 10/3/2002 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 630.
Note: For further action, see H.J.Res. 114, which became Public Law 107-243 on 10/16/2002. COSPONSORS(16), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen Allard, Wayne - 10/2/2002
Sen Baucus, Max - 10/7/2002
Sen Bayh, Evan - 10/2/2002
Sen Breaux, John B. - 10/9/2002
Sen Bunning, Jim - 10/4/2002
Sen Domenici, Pete V. - 10/2/2002
Sen Edwards, John - 10/3/2002
Sen Helms, Jesse - 10/2/2002
Sen Hutchinson, Tim - 10/2/2002
Sen Johnson, Tim - 10/7/2002
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 10/2/2002
Sen McCain, John - 10/2/2002
Sen McConnell, Mitch - 10/2/2002
Sen Miller, Zell - 10/2/2002
Sen Thurmond, Strom - 10/10/2002
Sen Warner, John - 10/2/2002


That and this as well: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x203552



Too late Mr. Edwards. I'm glad you admitted your error but this war has consequences and sorry won't make it better so I can't reward you or Senator Clinton for your little "mistake" with my vote in the primaries and I hope like hell I don't have to hold my nose while voting for you in the general election (again).