Ron Reagan put his ballet background to use this evening, bending over backwards to avoid admitting the obvious: that the Edwards bloggers are anti-Catholic bigots. Appearing on Hardball, Reagan was matched against one of my personal favorites among conservative commentators: Terence Jeffrey of Human Events.Asked by host Chris Matthews whether John Edwards should retain the controversial bloggers, Reagan responded:
"Yes, absolutely. If John Edwards had folded, everybody on the right would have known that John Edwards can be put in a defensive crouch."
Jeffrey: "Ron, did you actually read what they wrote?"
Reagan: "Yes I did. I did read."
Jeffrey: "Is it not anti-Catholic bigotry, Ron?"
Reagan: "I don't know what was on their mind. I can't give you a yes or no because I can't read their mind."
View video here.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
Jeffrey made the logical retort: "You can read their words!"
When Jeffrey tried to finish his thought, Reagan cut him off with a snippy "can I answer you, Terry? Can I answer you?" As evident in the screencap, Jeffrey didn't bother to hide his exasperation at Reagan's evasiveness.Reagan went on to claim that bloggers write "in a context, and if you take those remarks out of the context, you lose the flavor. Maybe they are anti-Catholic. I don't know these people. But I'm not willing to say so on your say-so."
Wait a second, Ron. What does this have to do with Terence's say-so? Didn't you just say that you read the remarks yourself?
Jeffrey argued the undeniable: "These statements on their face are anti-Catholic."
Matthews suggested that people look at the facts over the weekend, then added, interestingly, "Terry Jeffrey, I share your view generally. Generally."Here's a link to the Catholic League page setting forth the bloggers' comments. I would invite viewers to once again play one of our favorite games: WIARHSI? What if a Republican Had Said It? Imagine that a Republican had said comparable things about another religion, say my own, Judaism, or Islam. What are the odds Ron Reagan would have been unable to call it what it is -- vile bigotry?
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
If a Republican had said th
February 10, 2007 - 00:19 ET by terrigIf a Republican had said this there would be hell to pay. Well, maybe not if they said it about the Catholic Church. There are a lot of anti-Cathlolic sentiment out there and in here for some reason there seems to be a number of people who just can't accept the fact that each person has the right to choose their own religion if they want or not to choose any religion. If they live a good life, that should be important. Not bashing some religion you don't agree with.
I honestly wonder if old Ron Reagan, Jr. even voted for his Dad. I doubt he did.
How can I say this delicate
February 10, 2007 - 00:26 ET by kevcadHow can I say this delicately? The adopted son Michael seems more from his adopted father's loins than the actual fruit.
kevcad...I agree......Always
February 10, 2007 - 01:20 ET by bigtimerkevcad...
I agree......
Always has.
Bending
February 10, 2007 - 11:18 ET by BBallleaperI'd say he was bending over,...forwards and grabbing his ankles!
Most people DO accept the fac
February 10, 2007 - 03:31 ET by mostlymoderateMost people DO accept the fact that each person has the right to choose their own religion. But I honestly believe we have the right to criticize one another as well without being labeled "anti-catholic" or "anti-semitic" or "anti-black" or "anti-mexican" etc etc etc.
I am a moderate. However, I ALWAYS end up voting Republican because the Democratic candidates are usually a bunch of wankers; does anyone believe Edwards has the SLIGHTEST CHANCE of WINNING??? Who cares WHAT these 10-cent bloggers wrote. I am MORE concerned with the free media attention they have been getting from this whole situation.
Have you read what the blog
February 10, 2007 - 08:10 ET by Mark FinkelsteinHave you read what the bloggers wrote? If not please go to the link in the article to the Catholic League website that contains the bloggers' statements and see if it falls into your definition of reasoned criticism.
I read what they wrote; it
February 10, 2007 - 09:52 ET by motherbeltI read what they wrote; it was disgusting.
And I don't care what Ron Reagan says, there is NO possible context in which those words would not be insulting and offensive.
"out of context", my foot!
These people have no shame, considering the depths to which they will sink to defend one of their own.
I went to their website mostlymoderate
February 10, 2007 - 08:34 ET by SportPoliticsI went to their website mostlymoderate, pandragon or whatever they call it, with their chinese pandabear atop it, or whatever it is.
The only reasonthis whole thing concerns me, is by the very fact that John Edwards has this loon working for him. Her screeds were as farleft as I've ever seen anyone go and have been for some time( I read the archives ), and so it points out to me just what Edwards attracts, just who the "democrats" are nowadays.
She's young, a heavyset blonde with glasses, and had a screed against "models" I ran across, along the lines of yesterdays post, where this whole idiot newshead demagogery or whatever one calls it, makes up a big fat fantasy, and pushes it as real, along withtabloid womens mags and Oprah and whomever else has an elixir to peddle. Does anyone really think TV or a magazine cover outweighs what "not so pretty with low self esteem" young women see IN PERSON nearly every day of their lives ? We're supposed to accept that the young ladies base their self appraisal on a magazine cover or a model TV runway show, not on the dozen of women they meet in the course of a single day ?
I guess the newsheads are so disconnected from reality, that AGW for instance is certain to win most all hearts and minds.
Anyway,the way pandagon or whatever her site name is writes, she should be John Edwards demise, just for being such a sleaze. Nothing to do with attacks on Catholics IMO.
Ron does not look so good.
February 10, 2007 - 12:37 ET by porterjervisRon does not look so good. He sure has not aged well.
Nevermind if a Republican h
February 10, 2007 - 00:23 ET by motherbeltNevermind if a Republican had said it. What if they had said the same sort of things about blacks, or homosexuals? Would Ron Reagan have had any trouble knowing "what was going on in their minds"? I think not.
And to say bloggers write "in a context, and if you take those remarks out of the context, you lose the flavor..."
What, pray tell, Mr. Reagan, is the missing context that makes the "flavor" of these remarks palatable?
This site used to have less
February 10, 2007 - 01:12 ET by sanskritgThis site used to have less "What ifs",no?
Hey Ron here's a simple tes
February 10, 2007 - 01:15 ET by mlongHey Ron here's a simple test...re-read their blogs and replace any words/statments dealing with Catholics with Jews,Muslims or whatever and then tell us if that sounds bigoted or not.
Ron R is a weak, uninspiring
February 10, 2007 - 06:45 ET by Andrew H.Ron R is a weak, uninspiring commentator who carries the water for any lib--that said, it is important Edwards keep these angry, hate-filled babes (!?!) on his staff. They won't be able to stop themselves; they can't help and more liberal nonsense will surely be broadcasted. Heheh. Let them stay, John!
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Ron R's in his BVD's again.
February 10, 2007 - 11:36 ET by BlondeAndrew,
Ron Reagan as political commentator? Puhlease. He was an idiot on Animal Planet doing commentary on dog shows.
He needs to put on his underwear and just dance....a la Risky Business on SNL. Only thing I've ever seen him do that's worthwhile.
What a dolt.
I certainly agree--msnbc give
February 11, 2007 - 05:49 ET by Andrew H.I certainly agree--msnbc gives him some air time every once in a while. That should have answered the question!
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Oh I just love Lear-Jet Lib
February 10, 2007 - 09:02 ET by Jack BauerOh I just love Lear-Jet Lib***ls like multi-millionaire John Edwards.
This epidode tells us a couple of things.
#1. He was for the boorish bloggers, before he was against them, before he was for them. So he's clearly the John Kerry candidate in this presidential race.
#2. He knows nothing about the internet/web. In that regard he's like most national politicians who know nothing about televison or the movies or even shopping
They don't use the internet, like they don't watch TV. They don't shop. They rely on "staff advisors" to give them this information so they can pretend they do stuff the rest of us do ourselves. Then it blows up their faces.
I saw this last night and was
February 10, 2007 - 09:05 ET by NoMoreClintonsI saw this last night and was appalled. The other guy had Reagan dead to rights about the bloggers being anti-Catholic and the little jerk with the big name was such a weasel - he wouldn't admit that it was so. These liberals are beyond contempt. If it had been comments about blacks or hispanics I'm sure the little weasel would have changed his tune and not chalked it off to "possible satire".
Such hypocites!
I forgot to add that there sh
February 10, 2007 - 09:08 ET by NoMoreClintonsI forgot to add that there should be a kudo for Chris Matthews for giving this a full airing where other MSM have avoided it. We are quick to criticize Chris when he boo-boos so he should get a pat for this one.
Oh how Catholic times are a
February 10, 2007 - 09:19 ET by Jack BauerOh how Catholic times are a changin' in the Democrat party.
When John F. Kennedy was trying to get elected in 1960, his main concern was to re-assure the country that they had nothing to fear from electing what would be the first Catholic president.
Now a 'mainstream' Democrat candidate actively employs staffers who are hysterically and viciously anti-Catholic.
Is this not an amazing change?
Mark, I am vigorously pro Religous freedom.
February 10, 2007 - 10:27 ET by acaiguanaMark, I am vigorously pro Religous freedom.
That being said (I love that term) Catholics and Christians need to simply understand that if John Edwards wants to hire two Christian bashing bloggers to represent his ideas about religion, I'm all for it. Part of religous freedom is the freedom to bash religion.
The act of bashing exposes the petty minds behind the bashing. I believe it is the same mindset that creates Skinheads, KKKers, and racists. It is the same mindset that allowed Ellen Goodman to equate anti-Global Warming thinkers with the Holocaust Deniers.
What I cannot understand is what happened to the true Intellectual of the Liberal? Did they die off? I remember when Liberal thinkers would have denounced this junk (Goodman, et. al.) in a heartbeat. She is neither an intellectual nor a profound pundit. She's been around forever but she hasn't any depth about anything she has ever written.
The Washington Post and the Boston Globe and the NYT are doing a disservice to the Left by giving these people a platform from which to spout their drivel. The Internet has a lot of stuff on it.
I would suggest that Ron Reagan rethink his thinking. Sorry, I fell prey to the idea that he could.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
ACA - this is exactly why I g
February 10, 2007 - 11:07 ET by Chicago RepublicanACA - this is exactly why I get irate when I hear a Leftist refer to himself as "liberal" or worse, "progressive". There is nothing progressive about the Contemporary American Left. Look at their white knuckled approach to entitlements, for one example. Its obvious to any person paying attention that Government entitlements (and their incessant growth) are counterproductive on so many levels, yet the "progressives" among us howl like banshees when anyone tries to reign-in spending on them. That's just ONE example.
I completely agree with your
February 10, 2007 - 12:49 ET by Al CzervikI completely agree with your point. The more that these nutbags speak up, the further away from the middle they will get. Let the light of day shine in on their hateful opinions and attitudes and watch them marginalize any attempts of a democrat to run to the center. The more that Howard Dean the tinfoil brigade stay at the forefront, the more they will be exposed.
I agree with you on all of
February 10, 2007 - 18:37 ET by smfd227I agree with you on all of your points. That being said, (yeah, it does have a ring to it, doesn't it?) I'd like to point out that the hissy fits being thrown by the Catholic League put them in a bad light. "Demanding" that Edwards fire these two is, in my opinion, over the line, for the reasons you stated in your post.
As G. Gordon Liddy said, this country used to be free. Anymore, it seems, everybody and his miniature pony "demands" that whoever offends them be fired, banned, etc. Seems to me that one great component of freedom is being able to live and let live. When laws are broken, time to act. When feelings are hurt, well, it's time to fight back, point out the mistaken viewpoint of the offender, or, in the words of one of my gunny's, "get the f**k over it, sweet cheeks!"
"Pop culture is filth." - John Derbyshire
about the protesting
February 11, 2007 - 00:09 ET by tumbler_2007You choose to describe as "hissy fits'' this outrage expressed by the Catholic League ?
But do you think public awareness is ever raised without the vehement protests of an offended voice? This is the role of Mr. Donohue appearing on major news to call attention. It's doubtful he even cares whether or not the crude bit-ches lose their jobs or not. He was there to draw attention to these rotten people; otherwise they go on doing the outrageous.
A healthy diatribe against those offenders is soon forgotten, but they've lost face with decent Americans; they're exposed as anti-catholic and anti-christian. At this juncture, the hissy fit and our own NB attention plus many blogsites elsewhere will have hampered John Edward's candidacy for months. By failing to fire the gorgons Edwards is handing over the nomination to Hillary or Bammy. He's not much of a man, is all.
Reagan and his ilk are absolu
February 10, 2007 - 10:56 ET by bacher468Reagan and his ilk are absolutely right. You can't read their minds, so how can you call them bigots? That's exactly what they said about Trent Lott's remarks at Strom Thurmond's birthday.. and Rush's comments about McNabb....
Those blogs were disgusting. I'm delighted that Edwards didn't fire them. Keeping them can only hurt his candidacy. Any right thinking person that reads those blog comments sees them for what they are, and anybody who tries to dance around it ends up only having credibility with the small percentage of the populace that is this far out on the fringe.
I absolutely agree. The same
February 10, 2007 - 19:04 ET by Del DolemonteI absolutely agree. The same thing happened with Ned Lament in Connecticut. He had that "Firedoglake" blogger supporting him (though I don't think she was actually on his staff) but he had to distance himself from her after she posted that racist picture of Lieberman in blackface standing next to Bubba Clinton.
Edwards
February 10, 2007 - 11:31 ET by pbthinkerI certainly hope these people remain with John Edwards. This IS the American Left. Their vile hatred is apparent, not just by what they say, but how they say it. At least, saying it the way they do, they leave little doubt (Ron Reagan aside) as to their beliefs and the intent of their posts.
The thing most people avoid thinking about is that John Edwards is not as left wing as Hillary or some others. If he has staff that thinks like this, just imagine what Hillary's, Ted Kennedy's, John Kerry's, Carl Levin's, Harry Reid's, and Nancy Pelosi's staffs really think. Kind of scary, isn't it?
If there were tears in Heav
February 10, 2007 - 11:59 ET by Jinx McHueIf there were tears in Heaven, Ronald Wilson Reagan would be weeping for his son.
Edwards etal
February 10, 2007 - 13:19 ET by misterbillI went to the link. I will be brief--McEwan and Marcotte are sluts. They can choose to be the Queens of any mountain, but it will never be a mountain of decent, loving people. I cannot imagine that any man from a decent family would be interested in the "britches" of either of these two debauched slatterns.
PS God rest Ronald Reagan. How he must regret the procreation of such a fool. Young Reagan, IMHO, reasons with his rear end!
"Truth exists, only falsehoods must be invented."
Of course Reagan does not thi
February 10, 2007 - 13:23 ET by TEOf course Reagan does not think those two pea-brained dingbats are bigots; Reagan is an avowed, committed atheist/earth-worshipping pagan fundamentalist cultist.
Kool-Aid Drinkers
February 10, 2007 - 13:57 ET by Jonah JohansenThere is something so entertaining about hearing a Liberal trying to argue for an obviously false assertion. So strong is myth, the mindset, the ideology that no matter what the reality, no matter what the facts they desperately keep trying to force the square peg into the round hole. This Kool-aid drinking mentality is not exclusive to the left but it sure seams more common on that side of the political spectrum.
Tell me if you agree with the following
If CSPAN was to sponsor a three hour knock down, drag em out, no prisoners debate between say Ann Coulter, Charles Kratuhiemer, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Stein, Christopher Hitchens
vs Al Franken, Howard Dean, Maureen Dowd, Keith Olberman, Paul Krugerman,
(or whoever you think the best debaters on either side) on say the topic of Iraq or Democratic vs. Republican party Foreign policy. ( or maybe with a substitution or two the death penalty, abortion, religion and politics)
If after several hours of debate the liberal side was really doing a job on the conservative side. If Maureen Dowd was able to knock down one Ann Coulter assertion after the other. If Krugerman was able to make Krauthimer look foolish and misinformed. If Howard Dean really did a job on Christopher Hitchens( I know its hard to imagine, but just assume).
If the Conservative side was really trounced, their arguments refuted one after the other, their 'facts' shown to be false, if in the end the conservatives had no good counter arguments and their point of vie shot full of holes. If this happened it would be a body blow to the Conservative movement. A large number of us would really have to reconsider some of our most cherished beliefs. It would cast a pall over the conservative blogasphere. It would all but destroy the conservative sense of being the 'rational' point of view. I think it would set back the cause and demoralize its members.
If on the other hand the tables were reversed and it was the liberals who lost the debate and had their arguments and viewpoint trashed. The left wing blogs would not miss a beat.
They would have some conspiracy theory, some rationale some excuse for why their people did so poorly. The moderator was biased, the people arguing for the left were paid off or threatened by the "corporate media" to throw the debate. I doubt the left would lose a single true believer. I doubt there would be one second of soul searching or doubt.
There is something so entertaining about hearing a Liberal trying to argue for an obviously false assertion. So strong is the myth, the mindset, the ideology, that no matter what the reality, no matter what the facts; they desperately keep trying to force the square peg into the round hole. This Kool-aid drinking mentality is not exclusive to the left, but it sure seams more common on that side of the political spectrum.
Tell me if you agree with the following-
If CSPAN was to sponsor a three hour knock down, drag em out, take no prisoners, debate between say Ann Coulter, Charles Kratuhiemer, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Stein, Christopher Hitchens
vs Al Franken, Howard Dean, Maureen Dowd, Keith Olberman, Paul Krugerman,
(or whoever you think the best debaters on either side) on say the topic of Iraq or Democratic vs. Republican Party foreign policy. ( or maybe with a substitution or two, the death penalty, abortion, religion and politics)
If after several hours of debate the liberal side was really doing a job on the conservative side. If Maureen Dowd was able to knock down one Ann Coulter assertion after the other. If Krugerman was able to make Krauthimer look foolish and misinformed. If Howard Dean really did a job on Christopher Hitchens( I know its hard to imagine, but just assume).
If the Conservative side was really trounced, their arguments refuted one after the other, their 'facts' shown to be false, if in the end the conservatives had no good counter arguments and their point of view shot full of holes, if this happened it would be a body blow to the Conservative movement. A large number of us would really have to reconsider some of our most cherished beliefs. It would cast a pall over the conservative blogasphere. It would all but destroy the conservative sense of being the 'rational' point of view. I think it would seriously set back the cause and demoralize its members.
If on the other hand the tables were turned, the roles reversed and it was the liberals who lost the debate and had their arguments and viewpoint trashed. The left wing blogs would not miss a beat.
They would have some conspiracy theory, some rationale some excuse for why their people did so poorly. The moderator was biased, the people arguing for the left were paid off or threatened by the "corporate media" to throw the debate. I doubt the left would lose a single true believer. I doubt there would be one second of soul searching or doubt.
It is the same reason why the left sends obscenity shouting hecklers to Ann Coulter speeches to shout her down instead of senior faculty member to debate her,
Very funny imitation of Andrew Sullivan doing just this-
http://www.townhall.com/TalkRadio/Show.aspx?RadioShowID=5&ContentGuid=4cfd6acb-23ec-4993-8c47-11d1c6787024