Posted by
on Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:18:43 PM
The Edwards campaign has been the focus of some pretty withering criticism over the last few days, and it's all due to Amanda Marcotte, his former (I think) chief blogmaster. I say I think because if you read this (highlighted by Dean Barnett and Michelle Malkin) you can't really tell if she and her cohort are out or not:
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word. We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.
So, which is it, John-boy? Are they out, or in? Allah weighs in at Hot Air:
Not since the Trump/Miss USA press conference have I felt so moved by redemption ...
... Either he’s a gullible moron or he takes us for gullible morons. Bad news either way.
Absolutely. According to Hot Air, both are staying put. And I have to agree with Allah when he states that it seems as though the only reason these two nutters are still there is to appeals to the anti-religion tin-foil hat, space-cases. He can't seem to appeal to them, and bringing these two on board is drawing them to his ranks. (Of course, if he didn't act like an ambulance-chasing, used car salesman, and he was a little older, the nutters might actually embrace him.)
Marcotte and McEwan are the pinnacle of anti-religion nuts. For example, Patterico dug this up from his research:
Amanda Marcotte has said,
"... you don’t pick on Twisty’s glorious coinage “godbag” without tangling with me."
And indeed, that glorious coinage shows up in quite a few of her posts.
But apparently the “godbags” have decided to tangle with her. The Washington Post (in an AP article) reports:
Two bloggers hired recently by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards were criticized Tuesday by a Catholic group for posts they had written elsewhere on the Internet.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, demanded that Edwards fire Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan.
“John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash-talking bigots,” Donohue wrote in a statement. “He has no choice but to fire them immediately.”
And the New York Times has more:
Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of contraception forced women “to bear more tithing Catholics.” In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Well, don’t leave us in suspense, New York Times! What did she say? The New York Times won’t tell you — but that’s what blogs are for, right? Here you go: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.
No offense, and pardon my language, but this woman is an @$$ hat. We're Catholic, and we can laugh at religion, when it's funny. She's not funny. She's filled with anger and hate towards religion in general. Allah and Patterico are on the same side. It's a good thing that Edwards has decided to keep these two on board. It's like letting the captain of the Titanic run into the iceberg again. Add the flip-floppy, indecisive statement above, and you have the makings of a campaign sinking fast. No one is going to trust Edwards to handle the current situation of the world today with such Kerry-esque stance switching.
Oh, and what does Ms. Marcotte think of her jokes? Why, she believes she's a satirist:
My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.
Isn't satire usually funny? I think Lileks would agree with that. Maybe he can send a few pointers to her about being less of a vitriolic gasbag.
Publius II