The vicious anti-Catholic (and in general, anti-religious) bloggers hired by the John Edwards campaign came under surprising condemnation from liberal columnist (and PBS NewsHour pundit) Mark Shields and liberal NPR reporter Nina Totenberg on the Friday night TV talk show "Inside Washington." Shields said he hesitated to agree with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, but he was "right." Shields dared go where media accounts have not, explicitly reading Amanda Marcotte’s sleazy joke about the sperm of the Holy Spirit and Mary aborting Jesus with the Plan B pill, saying "if she had written similarly about a Jewish person, an Islamic person, a gay or a lesbian, she would be banished to the outer darkness." Totenberg called it "disgusting."
Only Newsweek’s Evan Thomas seemed to try and make excuses for Edwards by slamming bloggers in general: "Read blogs. They're full of that kind of stuff."
Perhaps Gordon Peterson, host of the show airing on local Washington PBS affiliate WETA, was taken aback at the reaction he received. It’s perhaps not that surprising coming from Shields, who is Catholic, but Edwards even lost the support of Nina Totenberg (perhaps Marcotte sounded too much like Anita Hill’s alleged porn-film-recounting Clarence Thomas):
Gordon Peterson: "A word on the pitfalls of the blogosphere, a couple of young women working on the John Edwards campaign have, on their personal blogs, a history of taking shots at conservative Christians and Catholics. One of them said the Catholic Church's ban on artificial birth control, for example, forced women to give birth to more tithing Catholics. Bill Donohue, conservative president of Catholic League, says he's going to take out newspaper ads now attacking Edwards as anti-Catholics. Edwards says the remark offended him. ... As of Friday, he hadn't fired the bloggers. Mark?"
Mark Shields: "He had not fired the bloggers, and I hesitate to come down on the same side as Bill Donohue, who himself has been more than intemperate on more than one occasion, but I think here he's right. I mean, the stuff that they wrote on there was graphic, pornographic. I mean, one of the quotes was, 'What if the Virgin Mary,' a central figure in Christianity, 'had taken Plan B,' morning after pill, 'after the Lord filled her with hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?' Now, if she had written similarly about a Jewish person, an Islamic person, a gay or a lesbian, she would be banished to the outer darkness."
Nina Totenberg: "It's really, it's just disgusting, and you can't have a viable campaign and allow that to go on."
Evan Thomas: "But blogs meet politics. Read blogs. They're full of that kind of stuff."
Totenberg: "Yeah, but you don't have to-"
Shields: "You don't have to hire them."
Totenberg: "No."
The second half of Marcotte's Q&A about if Mary aborted Jesus is also insulting to Christians: "You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology." Kathryn Jean Lopez gave the controversy a full rinse cycle here. These are not ancient comments from five years ago that the Edwards campaign could lamely say it would have taken months to find. They're from 2006.
For her part, in a November 18, 2006 blog post, Marcotte identifies herself as not just anti-Catholic, but anti-religious, hoping to flood the media with the enemies of faith:
"Because the fundies have gotten more aggressive, in other words, they’ve created an opportunity for anti-religious thinkers to flood the media with our point of view and also to get more aggressively anti-religious, not just arguing that fundies are wrong but that faith itself is fundamentally flawed and damaging."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Note to Edwards (paraphr
February 11, 2007 - 07:48 ET by motherbeltNote to Edwards (paraphrasing a President who realized the ship of the Viet Nam war was going down) : if you've lost Mark Shields, you don't have a supporting leg to stand on.
And his comment about the results if she had written similarly about gays, or Muslims, (banishment to the outer darkness) was dead on. She would have been condemned before the page finished uploading.
If Marcotte's statesments are
February 11, 2007 - 07:56 ET by msh1973If Marcotte's statesments are are so vile and disgusting that PBS can't ignore them, then you know she is in trouble. I said in another thread that it isn't God the left hates, it is the name of Jesus. She is a sick and twisted woman who needs serious help.
She'll really need help if I
February 11, 2007 - 19:42 ET by kathleenirishShe'll really need help if I get ahold of her.
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
Well, Tim, I see my post on another thread is no longer valid.
February 11, 2007 - 08:02 ET by acaiguanaWell, Tim, I see my post on another thread is no longer valid.
Here are two Leftists who have come out and condemned these Bloggers and Edwards for hiring them.
Kudos to them and its good to see the Left Wing actually stand for something other than hate spewing idiocy.
ACA
...
Hillary Clinton says: "I want to take those profits."
Not so simple as controlling
February 11, 2007 - 08:33 ET by ucNot so simple as controlling TV prime time content and using V-chips. Add this to Hillary in New Hampshire and Obama in Springfield and the Democratic Party message starts reading across the board like the following:
Kids you can have all the cookies you want before dinner even if it fills you up. So what if tomorrow you fail to complete you soccer skills and this leaves your Republican coach taking the blame. And about that Civics paper you are supposed to write either about "Live Free or Die" or "Lincoln and the Civil War vs Johnson and Reconstruction" you are expected to not raise question about Iraqis' fight for freedom and definitely not to raise Obama's emphasis on Civil War over Reconstruction and especially not supposed to reach higher with argument that America should still be remembering earlier more off the boat years of our revolutionary days.
More cookies with you Edwards blog reading kids?
1)...a history of taking shot
February 11, 2007 - 08:44 ET by ThisnThat1)...a history of taking shots at conservative Christians and Catholics....2)Bill Donohue, conservative president of Chtholic League...3)a couple of young women working on the John Edwards campaign.
Do you note a trend in these three statements? The conservative label is used as frequently as possible. But, the "young women" are as vanila and plain as can be. No attempt here to establish "them" vs. "everyone else", is there?
Even when the MSM is forced to recognize vilefull remarks of the Left, their bias is always front and center. They have been programmed to categorize the "other side" without even thinking about it. Why are these two people from the Edwards campaign described simply as "young women"?
Good catch, thisnthat! Of c
February 11, 2007 - 13:49 ET by motherbeltGood catch, thisnthat! Of course you realize that the reason for this is that the "them" you refer to is normal people who don't need a label. There is no left wing; there are just normal people and "conservatives" or "right-wingers".
I think the reason I, and probably a lot of others, missed it, is because it is so standard procedure that we just slide by it out of habit.
Yes, that is a trend worth no
February 11, 2007 - 14:16 ET by Tim GrahamYes, that is a trend worth noticing. It is the liberal media reflex. My maxim is this:
To the media, the epic ideological battles of our time are fought between the conservatives and the nonpartisans.
LOL!!!
February 11, 2007 - 15:43 ET by motherbeltLOL!!!
Only Newsweek’s Evan Thomas
February 11, 2007 - 09:49 ET by FastEdOnly Newsweek’s Evan Thomas seemed to try and make excuses for Edwards by slamming bloggers in general: "Read blogs. They're full of that kind of stuff." That is very true, so true in fact, that all the bloggers here will now be working for Obama and herthighness. (as long s they bash catholics, not gays, lez's, jews, african americans, and never, never islamo-facists or muslims) And Newsweek wonders why it's numbers are following the NYT's.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
The liberal "netroots", in ma
February 11, 2007 - 12:42 ET by ding7777The liberal "netroots", in making this a "netroots" issue instead of HR issue, has lost its moral compass.
Rove is smart enough not to put the Limbaughs, Hannitys, Coulters, and etc on the payroll - so someone in Edwards camp is not as smart as Rove
Faced between a rock and a hard place, Edwards did do the correct thing in distancing himself from Marcotte's radical postings - but Marcotte lost her radical feminism creds by issuing an apology (even if it was seen as a non-apology apology)
Dang, that Karl Rove shure is
February 11, 2007 - 15:28 ET by Roger the ShrubberDang, that Karl Rove shure is a smart feller!
You are playing right into
February 11, 2007 - 15:55 ET by motherbeltYou are playing right into their hands, ding7777, by saying it was SEEN as a non-apology apology. It WAS a non-apology.
First, they told Edwards it was never "their intention" to malign anyone. That's like me calling you a fat slob, and then saying that, well, I did say it, but it wasn't my intention to MALIGN you by it. Then they say they are sorry if anyone was offended by it. So I could then say I am sorry that you were offended by my calling you a fat slob. Does that make everything OK now?
That WAS a NON-apology!
“I'm sorry if anyone was of
February 11, 2007 - 18:33 ET by Carpareus“I'm sorry if anyone was offended” indicates a lack of acceptance that an offense has actually occurred.
I suspect these old media tal
February 11, 2007 - 15:22 ET by BlondeI suspect these old media talking heads are worried about all bloggers as rivals....to the point that Evan Thomas lumped these two vile bloggers in with the rest of the political bloggers. Attempting to achieve differentiation between "journalists" and bloggers as legitimate political commentators.
Too bad for the old media....they're beginning to learn....their captive audience has left the room.
It's going to get much more interesting.
Even Media Liberals Suggest E
February 11, 2007 - 18:04 ET by Geepers"Insensitivity"?
That's got to be the understatement of the week.
Kudos to Edwards
February 11, 2007 - 21:13 ET by blogonatorToo often in politics, people mess up and then they're done. I don't agree with what these women said, but have new found respect for Edwards for putting his reputation on the line to stand by these two low-level employees. I think it is a vote of confidence for all bloggers on both sides of the political spectrum. We all know inflamatory remarks were bound to happen in the uncharted blogosphere, now we have a pecedent for how to deal with them.
Creepy
February 11, 2007 - 21:18 ET by dagdaHis actions reflect on his ethics. By standing behind them, he is agreeing with them. He should fire them and be done with it. Actually he should not have hired them. You need to vet your employees. Shows either poor judgement or a lack of ethics on the part of Edwards
Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower
Think of all the great Amer
February 11, 2007 - 21:30 ET by blogonatorThink of all the great Americans we'd be without if someone hadn't given them a second chance. Edwards knows that if these two f*ck up again, he'll be up a creek politically. That takes balls. Not to mention that when a high-profile conservative blogger messes up in the future, they'll benefit from Edwards' precedent and won't be hastily fired.
wrong post
February 11, 2007 - 22:55 ET by motherbeltI think he WILL fire them, when the furor dies down, and enough time passes that he can deny this had anything to do with it. He has to wait until it won't look like he caved to pressure from "right-wingers."
"Concflicting commitments" for the bloggers, or something similar, would be my guess as to the reason given for their departure.
We all know inflamatory rem
February 11, 2007 - 22:48 ET by motherbeltWe all know inflamatory remarks were bound to happen in the uncharted
blogosphere, now we have a pecedent for how to deal with them. - blogonator
How, by standing by them? Good luck with that. That will hold until some blogger makes an offensive comment about a black or gay person. Which will just illustrate that there are standards regarding which groups it is OK to insult.
I think this is all a very go
February 11, 2007 - 21:25 ET by mostlymoderateI think this is all a very good plan for Mr. Edwards. True, a conservative could not say these things about homosexuals, blacks, or hispanics and get away with it. I believe Mr. Edward's KNOWS this and is using it as political leverage. Let me explain:
Mr Edward's KNOWS that the bible crowd is never going to vote for him anyway. He also knows that Catholic's in general DEFINITELY will never vote for him (remember Kerry and how the Catholic's rejected him??). THEREFORE, this works out beautifully for Mr. Edwards because he is going to pick-up a great deal of extra votes from undecided liberal and moderate voters who have always had contempt for religion. It also shows how Mr. Edward's does not get pushed around (similar to George W.)
Like it or not, there are a lot of people that appreciate the fact that Mr. Edward's is handling this the way he is. It's going to be an exciting 2008 for sure!
mostlymoderate? I hate to
February 11, 2007 - 22:56 ET by Dee Bunkmostlymoderate? I hate to burst your bubble - but having contempt for religion and calling yourself moderate is a joke.
Who has contempt for religion
February 11, 2007 - 23:25 ET by mostlymoderateWho has contempt for religion? Mr. Edward's didn't say anything about religion, one of his blogger's did. Mr. Edward's didn't advocate what the blogger said either, he just said he wasn't going to fire them over it.
mod alert
February 11, 2007 - 23:33 ET by tumbler_2007The only thing Edwards accomplished by keeping the pair of hooligans on his team is to make all the other Democrats immediately distance themselves from him like a plague. They know he's radioactive now; just where they want him. He's bound to drop out early.
Maybe! I still think the onl
February 11, 2007 - 23:38 ET by mostlymoderateMaybe! I still think the only voters that will be upset over this would NEVER have voted for Edward's anyway
I for one want him to keep th
February 12, 2007 - 05:37 ET by Andrew H.I for one want him to keep these people on his staff--I believe they are so hateful and vile, they won't be able to help themselves and will not help his candidacy... liberals can't help but shoot off the mouth about things they know little or nothing about--but see a threat inside every church.
It's only a matter of time before these wingnuts reveal more about themselves and their views. Views many Americans find hateful and vulgar.
Let me think about this, let's see, Marcott and her "philosophy" versus faith??? No, thank you at all... I think I'll stick with faith.
Liberalism is a convenient lie.
Well, good for the very liber
February 12, 2007 - 09:49 ET by Michael ChapmanWell, good for the very liberal Mark Shields and very liberal Nina Totenberg. Shields was right---if any other religion had been slammed by the two bloggettes, they would not be working for Edwards today. Nonetheless, attacks on the Catholic Church and Catholicism in general, as well as conservative Christians, is standard fare for the media and countless bloggers who are viciously anti-Christian. Funny, I never see Catholics arguing with their critics in such mean-spiritied and insulting ways.
correct but only sometimes
February 12, 2007 - 11:23 ET by tumbler_2007Yes, Michael, except in a place such as this. It would seem to a few folks in this site, maybe I'm mean-spirited and insulting, arguing against critics of the Catholic Church. One poster, GuyArthurThomas, has been ragging me about this when I dispute with a couple of fundies.
It's easy to think of me that way. Over a long time now, I'm really too feisty, and I'll confess to that. But I have a certain mind-set.
It's because I dislike lukewarm Catholics; as hard-line conservatives have come to dislike W. He seems a lukewarm Republican. I recall in the Book of Revelations when Jesus judges one "angel" (bishop) -- "I know thy works; thou art neither cold nor hot. I would that thou wert cold or hot.
"But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to vomit thee out of my mouth; because thou sayest, 'I am rich and have grown wealthy and have need of nothing,' and dost not know that thou art the wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked one." (Rev 3, :14)
Until Catholics all over the world start building up more steam, the attacks on our Church are surely going to multiply. I only speak for Catholics. Many other sectarian Christians are also badly treated. However, they too, often bash the Pope, dogmas, and their brethren of the Catholic faith. -- I think that placating those characters is lukewarm faith, and so for me it's HOT OR COLD TIME.
bigots
February 12, 2007 - 19:19 ET by Tito the NormanIt's about time that both sides of the political spectrum calls a spade a spade. Amanda and Melissa are vicious bigots that the Protestant John Edwards doesn't mind having.
"The Truth is absolute.", Pope Benedict XVI
Marcotte
February 13, 2007 - 13:47 ET by Shrillary ClintonCry me a river, Marcotte. If the tables were turned, and a person opposed to, say gay marriage or affirmative action had commented against either practice, no matter how civilly, you and your cronies would have called for their head and their firing, along with calling them an intolerant bigot. Yet when the slam is on religious faith i.e., Catholicism or Christianity everyone just shrugs their shoulders and tells the religious to get over it. When the tables are turned and you are called on the carpet for making offensive remarks, it becomes a free speech issue and you cry foul. Tolerance flows both ways, my dear.