From a Fox News story about John Edwards’ blogers-in-chief, Andrea Marcotte and Melissa McEwan:
Bill Donohue [President of the Catholic League] described the bloggers as "anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots." Among the postings he cited for complaint was one by Marcotte that reads: "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."
Another posting by McEwan is headlined to address religious conservatives: "What don't you lousy motherf——ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?"
Conservative blogs and pundits are in an uproar because a Democrat candidate has employed two intemperate, perhaps even ignorant, web consultants and Mr. Donohue and many others go on to demand Edwards fire these two. It would make a lot more sense for liberals to complain. As a conservative Catholic (not as common as you might think) I am rarely surprised at anti-Catholic views. In fact, much of the religious right, my strong political ally, is comprised of anti-Catholics, people for whom the Pope and many trappings of my religion are repugnant and anathema. So what, they aren’t calling for my head. The nature of actual religion, unless you are a Universalist, is a belief in absolute right and wrong, the logical corollary of which is someone else is absolutely wrong. This is not limited to religion of course, but it nonetheless causes all kinds of consternation and pretended consternation among people who should, and often do, know better.
How would conservatives be better off if these two women were fired? I suppose conservatives could calculate that if Edward’s fired them he would alienate the extreme left which is so important to the Democrat Party these days. If that is a correct calculation, Edwards would know it also and is unlikely to comply. As a partisan Republican, I like to see this kind of boobery. We already know how they think, and even after remarks like this, they deny this is how they think. Why not encourage them to speak their minds. Hire more of them. Hire them to blog. Catholics, enjoy the public bile and come over to my party.
The penumbra has stretched recently to encompass, in addition to all kinds of weird privacy and twisted contraception practices, the idea that free speech ends at other’s offense. I and the rest of my co-religionists may take offense at anti-Catholic sentiment, but a far worse thing would be unexpressed anti-Catholicism. And that goes for unexpressed racism, unexpressed anti-semitism and unexpressed boobery. Each of us needs to know what the other is thinking, or in many cases, not thinking.
At the top of the list of all the pathetic lessons not learn from the left is the propensity to moral censorship. We should not be calling for the abolition of Democrats praying with Islamic preachers, for the abolition of anti-Catholic speech, for the suppression of hurtful comments (or for the abolition of people who dance wrong in Indian costumes, for that matter). We should instead listen, criticize and above all, remember. Especially when it is time to run political ads.
John
To be honest, I would have guessed that the public would have been far more turned off by the clergy sex abuse scandals than they were by the Church's stance on birth control.
I would think that Edwards should be more worried about alienating all the Irish Catholic Democrats.
It's funny I have not seen this story in the main stream media. I wonder if it has not hit their radar because Edwards is a Democrat, it's a story about Catholics or Birth Control?
To be fair, I think this applies to damn near every piece of "offensive" crap that hits the airwaves, be it Janet Jackson trying to sell albums by showing a little boob (or the many knockoffs of the same stunt since then), Ann Coulter and the like, and so on, is that it should be IGNORED. People are offensive because it gets them free press and all the fist thumping just gives them what they want.
As a consistency check, it's noteworthy that if those two bloggers went on the same tirade against minorities they'd be gone, but that's because it's ok to hate on Catholics.
--
j
Part-Time Pundit
one guess why the mainstream press hasn't picked up on this? because intemperate blogs are not news. they're the norm on the left and on the right.
here's one from IP:
Ken's a little thin skined, I ask on his blog that after he was arrested for DUI after hitting a car in the parking lot of the White Horse Inn if he smelled like smoke from being in the bar or like the drunk that he is????? he got a little pissed!!!! Just because he's a councilman he's not above the law!
To go from one bad night to Pirok is a "drunk." Yeesh.
Take a look at your lefty counterparts on ucimc.org, e.g., the most recent post on patrick thompson. it makes wild accusations about attorney harvey welch.
if these sorts of statements were made in "the MSM" -- people would be talking about a libel lawsuit.
Before I logged on, I saw a lengthy debate about it on MSNBC, and they have come back to it repeatedly today.
Another posting by McEwan is headlined to address religious conservatives: "What don't you lousy motherf——ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?"
Please elucidate; how is that phrase offensive? She is simply calling a spade a spade. Religious conservatives have a tendency to find their noses in places they do not belong. Get over your outrage. You only bring it on yourselves with your nanny-ism.
What exactly did McEwan say that wasn't or isn't true? Face it, religious conservatives can't seem to keep their noses out of people's bedrooms or crotches.
Targeting a specific religion is dumb, though, especially since the Catholic Church doesn't even seem like the most conservative Christian religion out there. It'd make more sense to say, "Believe whatever you want, but keep your nose out of other people's bedrooms."
Take a look at your lefty counterparts on ucimc.org, e.g., the most recent post on patrick thompson. it makes wild accusations about attorney harvey welch.
if these sorts of statements were made in "the MSM" -- people would be talking about a libel lawsuit.
Yeah, I've often wished that "atrocious journalism" was an acceptable reason to hide posts on UCIMC, but unfortunately it isn't. I did ask about the editorial decision to hide dissenting posts, and was told that this would be less likely to happen if people would create user IDs on UCIMC and log in, rather than posting anonymously. (Like IP, we don't care who you are IRL, but consistent identities are encouraged.)
I believe you are quoting a poster, not IP.
"here's one from IP:
Ken's a little thin skined, I ask on his blog that after he was arrested for DUI after hitting a car in the parking lot of the White Horse Inn if he smelled like smoke from being in the bar or like the drunk that he is????? he got a little pissed!!!! Just because he's a councilman he's not above the law!"
Just to clarify, this was written by a commenter on IP.com, not written by IlliniPundit.
Sometimes we treat the site and my screen name as synonomous, which I don't really care for, as this site clearly contains more than just my writing. That's one of the reasons that I'm careful to refer to the stie and IP.com.
Thanks - I'm sure this is way too much inside baseball for most of you.
that's correct .. from a IP post, not from IP personally. i used IP there the same way i used ucimc.org, as a place, not a person. 2 different peopel at ucimc.org seem to have gone after harvey welch
i have a lot of respect for IP personally
"that's correct .. from a IP post, not from IP personally. i used IP there the same way i used ucimc.org, as a place, not a person. 2 different peopel at ucimc.org seem to have gone after harvey welch
i have a lot of respect for IP personally"
Thanks for the compliment, and the correction. That's the peril of continuing to use IP as my screen name, I guess, but I'm awfully and irrationally attached to it.
i used ucimc.org, as a place, not a person. 2 different peopel at ucimc.org seem to have gone after harvey welch
Tell me about it. And Harvey Welch isn't the first person they've gone after - Dan Walsh and Julia Rietz are frequent targets as well. Investigative reporting is a great thing, but it should be based on facts, not wrath.
I can't believe not one person addressed the point my post: Quit calling for people to be fired for speaking their minds, no matter how small.
How about a conservative out there, or what the heck, a liberal, tell us why conservatives are better off with these two women gone from Edward's campaign.
John
the main point of this thread is that Edwards has hired individuals who have blogged PERSONALLY some controversial stuff, not that they run blogs with controversial posters. The type of statements you complain about were made by Andrea Marcotte and Melissa McEwan.
That's the peril of continuing to use IP as my screen name, I guess, but I'm awfully and irrationally attached to it.
Yeah, it is easy to just be lazy and use "IP" for either. :)
I guess I tend to agree with you - let these wahoos show their true colors. That doesn't mean, however, that opponents of Edwards shouldn't point these two out (to identify the hiring as a character flaw of Edwards, like when Romney hired his Illinois campaign manager.)
Red,
I don't know what it is about my posts, but it's rare that someone responds to my point instead of chasing a tangent. This is a Red-letter day, because not only did someone address my point, they agreed with me.
While I do believe that as a strategic matter offensive behavior is best left to develop its natural stench, I also believe, philosophically, that none of us, left or right, should be calling for the firing of people or suppression of speech which is merely offensive. We should be arguing about ideas, which oddly enough, we get from the mouth part of people. (Before mute people get all jiggy with offense, I mean that metaphorically).
One of the bad lessons conservatives have learned from the left is the propensity to use offensive language from the opposition as a sword to stifle speech, ideas and debate. We call it political correctness when the left does it. We should call it hypocrisy when we do it.
John
Marcotte and her sidekick blogger are disgusting and lacking in imagination, but I wouldn't call for them to be fired. I think it's hilarious that John "two Americas" Edwards has hired these two without, apparently, reading their previous posts. They are the best thing that ever happened to Edwards as far as the GOP is concerened. If only Hillary and Obama were as astute in their hiring decisions. (And what's with marcotte and company's preoccupation with their crotches--that's just creepy).
"One of the bad lessons conservatives have learned from the left is the propensity to use offensive language from the opposition as a sword to stifle speech, ideas and debate. We call it political correctness when the left does it. We should call it hypocrisy when we do it."
Cosign.
I can't believe not one person addressed the point my post: Quit calling for people to be fired for speaking their minds, no matter how small.
How about a conservative out there, or what the heck, a liberal, tell us why conservatives are better off with these two women gone from Edward's campaign.
Bluntly, the questions seem disingenous. Making categorical and insulting comments about entire religions is a stupid move for a campaign blogger. It would be unusual for one side to encourage another to get rid of their dumbest staffers. Personally, I'm not interested in calling for anyone's removal, though the poor judgment in the posts certainly raises questions about whether the bloggers will have a positive impact on Edwards' campaign.
Run,
I don't think anything can be done about the double standard, but I am stunned at how political admakers for Republicans give these yahoos a pass. I am a big fan of negative advertising, and I think these anti-Catholic statements and dozens of others would play well shortly before the election. I certainly hope to see lots of more of Obama bin Lincoln leaching off that great peacemaker, Abraham. I can just see Lincoln agonizing over "extricating" the troops.
John
"I don't think anything can be done about the double standard, but I am stunned at how political admakers for Republicans give these yahoos a pass. "
There's no reason for Republicans to go after Edwards until and unless he's the nominee. Let the other Democrats attack him (or not attack him).
I do wonder, though, who's going to chair the "Catholics for Edwards" group. :-)
IP,
I agree completely. I wasn't speaking about Edwards specifically there, but about the wealth of material that is always available by election time, which to my mind, would make a great political ad.
John
looks like they have both resigned
Darn. Well maybe they will take a job with Hillary or Barak.
John
Is Fox News still banned from Obama's interviews? It happened after they revealed that he had attended a Madrass in Indonesia. Shouldn't we do more to publicize his real connection (and probable loyalties) to the war on terror?