Some reactions of the Catholic left to the Edwards/bloggers flap

[pnwmom]

The articles excerpted below also contain links to other liberal sites that have addressed the issue.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2693.html

As the flap over alleged anti-Catholic writings by two John Edwards campaign bloggers devolves into a shouting match between conservative religious voices and liberal bloggers, some members of the "religious left" say they feel – again – shoved to the margins of the Democratic Party.

"We're completely invisible to this debate," said Eduardo Penalver, a Cornell University law professor who writes for the liberal Catholic journal Commonweal. He said he was dissatisfied with the Edwards campaign's response. "As a constituency, the Christian left isn't taken all that seriously," Penalver said.

Democrats -- and Edwards in particular -- have embraced the language of faith and the imperative of competing with Republicans for the support of religious voters. His wife, Elizabeth Edwards, even sits on the board of the leading organization of the religious left, Call to Renewal. But in private conversations and careful public statements today, religious Democrats said they felt sidelined by Edwards' decision to stand by his aides.

"We have gone so far to rebuild that coalition and something like this sets it back," said Brian O'Dwyer, a New York lawyer and Irish-American leader who chairs the National Democratic Ethnic Leadership Council, a Democratic Party group. O'Dwyer said Edwards should have fired the bloggers. "It's not only wrong morally – it's stupid politically."

SNIP


http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/post/index/762/Edwards-vs-Donohue-Death-Match

FWIW, apart from the merits of his (Edwards) decision, I think this way of explaining things is a mistake. The comments on Marcotte's blog (especially on this post) were clearly intended to offend. (Really, what else could be intended by a post comparing the Holy Spirit to semen and talking about Mary taking Plan B to prevent the conception -- or, more accurately, induce the abortion -- of Jesus?) I think the vast majority of Catholic voters see that. For Edwards to take Marcotte at her word -- that she did not intend to offend -- is pretty much to tell those who are offended that there is something wrong with them. If he felt he could not fire her (perhaps because of a fear of being viewed as having caved in to hacks like Donohue and Michelle Malkin), it would have been better for Edwards to draw a different line, saying that he would not hold people responsible for blog posts written before they came to work for him, or something like that. To say that he actually believes that she did not intend to offend Catholics either means he is a sucker (because he believes her, even though she clearly did intend to offend) or he thinks Catholics who were offended are suckers (because he thinks they'll believe that he believed Marcotte did not intend to offend). Alternatively, he may think that Catholics who were so offended that they will now not vote for him were people who would not have voted for him anyway. I think that would be another mistake. Am I wrong? Has this changed anyone's mind about Edwards?

[shrike]

1. No, it hasn't

Unless I get more evidence that Edwards himself is a bigot. Politicians make all kinds of deals with the devil, sad to say.

[DemBones DemBones]

2. Are you aware that Amanda Marcotte wrote

"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's blasphemous as well as highly insulting to all Christians as it mocks a basic tenet in terms that are, in this context, disgusting.


You can read that and more here:

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

On the same page, she wrote that God is "a sadistic bastard," thereby insulting anyone who believes in God, whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim. Those who believe in multiple deities may be offended, too, I would not venture to guess how they would view such a comment. If you're an atheist, I'm sure you don't care; may even applaud her "bravery." Interestingly, she has deleted "Part i of her "undercover" story. Makes me wonder what she said in it.


Edwards may not be a bigot but he's a fool and a sucker if he believes her saying she "meant no offense." These bloggers are nonentities, not power brokers he needed to make deals with.

The Ku Klux Klan and Bob Jones University, both extremely anti-Catholic, are no doubt pleased with Edwards but voters affiliated with either are highly unlikely to vote Democratic.

[shrike]

3. I'm not an atheist

In fact, I'm a practicing Catholic and I'm (mostly) aware of what Marcotte said.

However, I would not oppose Edwards over this incident and here's why: I like his ideas so far, he's called for an immediate troop withdrawal and I find his health care plan interesting. I'm waiting to see what else he has to say.

Almost every candidate that has ever run for office has offended me in one way or another; Bill Clinton offended me greatly and I still don't regret voting for him.

However, I'm interested in policies, ideas and a fresh outlook on things: I used to live in a large American city that shall remain nameless and its mayor, quite frankly, was a son of a bitch.

I knew him personally. He was a pig, to put it mildly. If he fell and slipped on the ice I probably wouldn't help him get up. But I did vote for him -- he was a good mayor.

Unfortunately, you can be a rotten person, hold some ideas that would probably prove repugnant to some people and still be a good office-holder.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. Sorry, I meant "you" in the generic plural sense, not you personally.

I see that was not clear the way I phrased it.

I liked Edwards for his speeches about "the two Americas" but another DUer pointed out that he did almost nothing in the Senate and is a friend of corporate interests. So he may talk the talk but not walk the walk. I don't assume the poster is correct, but in 2003 and 2004 there were reports from North Carolina that he couldn't have been re-elected because of voter anger that he'd spent his Senate term campaigning for president inside of taking care of business in D.C. I would have to look into his Senate record myself before considering voting for him.

I haven't researched him myself because I supported Dennis Kucinich in the primaries and voted for the Kerry/Edwards ticket because it was either that or not vote.

I think Edwards has handled this very badly, defending the women and allowing them to resign instead of making a strong statement against the views they expressed and asking for their resignations (or firing them.)

They've both resigned now and his campaign has "no comment," which is certainly troubling. Do they think this will just fade away?

[shrike]

8. I'd prefer Kucinich too, frankly. But he'd never be elected

Problem with any presidential candidate, it's tough to know just what they'll do when they get in. Herbert Hoover was thought to be one of the best qualified men ever to assume the presidency, and we all know how that turned out.

It's very early, and I'm giving everyone a chance. Obama and Edwards are at least making some concrete statements as to what needs to be done. Hillary is just too mealy-mouthed for me.

[Dorian Gray]

7. She's entitled to her beliefs

just as I'm entitled to think what she wrote is very disturbing.

I don't know what to think about this. I don't think that I'd want to work closely with someone who spoke so dismissively of other people's beliefs. I just don't understand the vile language that denotes hatred for Mary. It seems so unnecessary.

[DemBones DemBones]

10. Exactly. Something Melissa McEwan wrote

was equally vile and very disturbing, considering that she's a woman. She claims she likes to be referred to by an obscene term which DU doesn't allow and I wouldn't use if it did. She wrote a lengthy piece about her love for this obscenity which has always been used to objectify and degrade women. She claims she's "taking back" this word but I don't think that works. It just encourages others to use the word and cite this "feminist" as an authority for using it. Using degrading sexual terms to objectify a woman is a screwed-up view of feminism to me. It fits with the Mary hatred, though.

[DemBones DemBones]

4. Just heard on CNN that both have now resigned.

Marcotte resigned last night and McEwan evidently tonight -- at least Wolf Blitzer had it as "This Just In."



Edwards would have come out of this a lot better if he had asked for their resignations or fired them outright.

He defended keeping them on his staff because they told him they didn't mean to insult anyone's beliefs. :eyes:

As I told Edwards by e-mail, I know he couldn't have become a successful trial lawyer if he hadn't been able to tell when people are making statements that contradict what they've said in writing, i.e, when they're lying. Of course I know he's unlikely to personally read my e-mail but I'm sure the staff make notes of views expressed.

I wonder if he even bothered to read the pages referred to. I sent him quotes and the link to the page on Marcotte's blog which the quotes appeared on. I also told him she had taken down Part i of the article so I had to wonder if she had said even worse things in it. Again, I hoped that a staff member would take note of this information.

Interestingly enough, as I wrote this post I was hearing a CNN story on racism among white college students in the U.S. and now they've said they're about to do a report on anti-Semitism in Britain. Will we ever see a story on anti-Catholicism? Or on the anti-Christian views of many on the left? Don't hold your breath!

Thanks for the great links, pnwmom! :yourock:

[pnwmom]

6. You're welcome, DemBones!

I also emailed the Edwards campaign and explained that it wasn't only the Donohue types that might be offended, but many Catholics who might otherwise have responded positively to his campaign.

I guess I should write again and thank him for accepting their resignations.

[DemBones DemBones]

9. Has he made any comment on their resignations?

All I've heard is "no comment." And in reponse to my e-mail, I got a campaign e-mail welcoming me to the Edwards campaign effort!!! Apparently, they don't have staffers read their e-mail.