Bill Donohoe declares war on Edwards

[KingofNewOrleans]

“Edwards said today that ‘We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked.’ I have news for him—the Catholic League—not Edwards—will decide what the debate will be about, and it won’t be about the nation. It will be about the glaring double standard that colors the entire conversation about bigotry.

“We will launch a nationwide public relations blitz that will be conducted on the pages of the New York Times, as well as in Catholic newspapers and periodicals. It will be on-going, breaking like a wave, starting next week and continuing through 2007. It will be an education campaign, informing the public of what he did today. We will also reach out to our allies in the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist communities. They worked with us before on many issues, and are sure to do so again. What Edwards did today will not be forgotten.”

http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_1/070208_edwards_tolerates.htm

Can you say meglomania?

[Warpy]

1. Anybody hated by conservative Catholics is fine with me

as anyone despised by fundies of all other flavors.

It's an indication that Edwards is doing something right.

[pnwmom]

6. I'm a progressive Catholic and I'm deeply disappointed by Edwards.

He's an idiot to believe those bloggers never meant to malign the Church, and this decision is going to haunt him.

I can't stand Bill Donohue but Edwards left himself wide open for the attack. It's a crying shame because one of the Church's stands is for a "preferential option for the poor" so Edwards' populist candidacy could have been a serious choice for many Catholics.

This is stupid. So stupid.

[Debs]

17. I agree

The bloggers were amazingly offensive. Of course as MMFA pointed out so was corsi and Doanhue not only forgave him he made appologies for him. Quite a bit of hypocrisy here. I am sure Edwards didnt know about what the bloggers had written but once he did he should have asked for their resignation

[pnwmom]

32. The difference, of course, is that Donohue is NOT running for President.

Edwards is. But his campaign will be short-lived, if this decision is indicative.

[karynnj]

108. He made apologies for Corsi???

I agree with you guys that Edwards made a mistake keeping them - at least from what was printed on DU, these comments are offensive. Now, if this becomes a battle between Edwards and Donahue, there is no way Edwards wins and it feeds the theme that Democrats are anti-religion.

[benny05]

158. It is GOP smearing

Donohue is in McCain's camp, and it tells me McCain is afraid of him.

[karynnj]

180. Benny,

You are from Illinois. How would your friends and neighbors who are less political than you re-act if they saw a flyer which included:

- The worst of these women's posts
- Comments from MSM that characterise the posts as "too profane to print".
- Added that these are the two lead Edwards bloggers.

Note that that is unfair as it does not spell out that these were written on their private blogs and were before they worked for Edwards. How many people who are not commited Democrats could find it hard to vote for Edwards because of this?

Donahue is a creep. The point is that this is not something in Edwards' past that can't be changed. this is a potential liability that could have been quietly taken care of. I doubt these were the only two bloggers committed to Edwards, who could do those jobs. I'm sure there are even some closer to Edwards' own values.

[benny05]

183. Here's a better analysis

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/2/9/924/90975

[karynnj]

186. This is how he defines his background and his goals re religion

"I was lucky to be born and raised an atheist. I did not have to go through the painful process of self-doubting and losing my religion. Thus, I am not a fervent atheist - it just comes naturally to me and I cannot imagine being anything else. This is why the issue of religion is lower on my list than that of many US-born atheists who had to go through such a process. As long as the wall between the church and state is kept standing and the fundamentalists are kept on the margins, I have no problem with people believing whatever myths they want to if that makes them happy or feeling more secure.

Now, the anti-atheist sentiment in this country is the result of direct fundamentalist sliming over the centuries and can be addressed by ridiculing and marginalizing the fundamentalists. Part of this ridiculing effort also involves explaining why religious beliefs are irrational and silly. Part of this effort involves exposing all the evils perpetrated in the name of religion over the millenia, including today. But many people have a deep emotional need to believe in something bigger than themselves, and as long as such a need is channelled towards doing good, and not manipulated by Priests of various religions for their own aggrandizement or whatever other political or financial gains, I am fine with that. If the marginalization of fundamentalism happens and thus people understand what atheism is and isn't and being an atheist is not being a second-order citizen, the rest of the society will slowly secularize itself over the generations as well.

Note that he glides freely from marginalizing fundamentalists to defining religious beliefs as "silly" and "irrational". This man writes very well, but he is, by his own definition of himself, far out of the mainstream. The beliefs he wants to define as "silly" are very important to very many people.

I think that John Edwards would, and in fact did, disagree with this in his statement - as did the two woman involved. Edwards himself has been referring to his Southern Baptist upbringing - clearly to build a bridge to evangelicals who are open to considering Democrats.

Kerry got a portion of that vote in 2004 and in preparing for the 2008 run that will not happen, he clearly must have seen the need to honestly reach out to this part of the population by defining his own religious beliefs.

His speech at conservative evangelical Pepperdine College was an attempt to build common ground - for himself, obviously, but almost as much for Democrats and the country. It was an attempt to convince them that a liberal MA Democrat cold share more values with them than they would have thought possible.

Even if Edwards can win without a single fundamentalist or conservative Catholic voting for him, he needs to pull the country together. This should be easy given his signature issue of poverty - the churches were the first and the most consistent responders helping in New Orleans. The government should have been there.

[benny05]

188. Part of the response has to do with the anger over Marcotte

Who is a self-proclaimed aethest, and may shed some light on what she writes.

But in any case, I liked some other arguments about Donohue, which what I'm harping about and I'm concerned some of the posters here took the bait instead of recognizing this was a hit job on Democrats (and of course, on JRE and the bloggers who are NOT his lead bloggers or spokespersons, their jobs are more coordination, with an occasional PR piece in the Arguments and Analysis section of the blog) I read on My DD, Stand up, Relgious Left From Matt Stoller (whom most of time I butt heads with, but this column is pretty decent):

Donahue is using religion as cover for a political attack. The only ethical response from anyone who actually opposes bigotry is 'Donahue should be ignored because of his record' or some variation thereof. So until the self-described religious left decides to stop letting bigoted and extreme right-wingers talk for them, they are no different than the religious right they pretend to oppose.

A comment from same diary:

Anyone who says 'David Duke may have a point in his criticism of Israel' or "Bill Donohue may have a point in his criticism of the bloggers' (my edit: which was what I saw on this thread) entirely misses the point. If you wanna say the bloggers were wrong about the Church, or Israel's awful, that's fine: but you never, never, never lend credibility to venomous and hateful movements and spokespeople.

Yet another:

And to publicly buy -- even slightly -- into his (Donohue's) complaints is damaging and counterproductive to the cause of the Christian left. I don't know why the "faithful Democrats" couldn't just grit their teeth (even if they were privately bothered by the posts), let it go, and keep their eyes on the big prize -- getting a faithful-Democrat-friendly candidate like John Edwards in the White House. Giving Donohue even a smidgen of credence does not work towards that goal.

So I when I see that the one poster here took the bait and accuses Edwards of being Anti-Catholic may as well look for a Republican candidate instead of a Dem. Barack Obama has been attacked by the right wing for his faith, and who knows about other candidates in the future. But this has to stop. And if the poster says she is a progressive candidate, she has to remember that while faith does help inform decisions. Donohue and Malkin more or less told Edwards they wage war over not firing the women, and pretty much what a death threat that came to Natalie Maines before a concert in Dallas in 2003: "to shut up and sing, or else."

I'm not telling those bloggers to shut up and sing, but I certainly expect them to stay on message with Edwards' message while he pays them during the campaign.

I do wish the Religious Left would stand up to anti-hate messages by someone who claims to be a Catholic Leader. I seriously doubt a cardinal would say those things.

[karynnj]

189. I so absolutely NO posts supporting Donahue

none. You are creating a strawman that we are supporting Donahue over Edwards.

Can I be the first to say that Edwards is a far better person than Donahue? That is very faint praise - Donahue is a RW hack misusing religion.

I also think Edwards was in a tough position - because there was a cost to be paid whichever way he went. I do wish that the statements of Edwards and the women would have admitted that those posts went over the line - but that they regretted the comments (if they do) and that those type of comments would never appear on the blog.

[benny05]

192. Here's an answer to your point

"and that those type of comments would never appear on the blog."

They won't unless commenters keep bringing them up (which they are). Marcotte and McEwen are not bringing their views to the blog. They are blog consultants, looking at the coordination of improving the blog and of the netroots in general.

I also like what Now Public blog had to say: http://www.nowpublic.com/john_edwards_and_feminist_bloggers_politics_of_hyperbole

I say let's get the troops home, figure out if the UHC plan Edwards proposes will be workable, smart trade, and start thinking about getting college or technical training more affordable for those who are struggling to make ends meet. Edwards has some good ideas.

[DemBones DemBones]

207. I support Donohue. Edwards should have fired those

bloggers. If they'd written such insulting comments about Jews or Muslims, I know he WOULD have fired them, and DU would have cheered him for doing so.

Donohue did the right thing by letting the public know about this situation. He's a pitbull but he's not running for office.

Edwards is running for office.

After being made aware of the past nastiness of the bloggers, Edwards made his choice and it was the wrong one. Apparently, there are actually three Americas, the new one being where he lumps all Catholics. He would have gotten the votes of progressive Catholics and his concern for the poor might have gotten some conservative Catholics to vote for him, too.

Contrary to what DUers generally believe, Catholics will and do vote for pro-choice candidates.

[KingofNewOrleans]

18. I disagree

These two ladies were hired to run a blog for the campaign. They weren't hired to create policy for the campaign, in fact, I'm sure they are given very specific instructions on what to post on the campaign blog, as opposed to any personal opinion they have.

They have apologized, or attempted to put into context, their previous personal comments. However, your vote is your vote, and you have the right to excercise it based on whatever criteria you deem important.

[DemBones DemBones]

201. So am I. I will not support Edwards and I had liked him

precisely because he spoke about the two Americas. Apparently there's a third America he's willing to consign Catholics to, however. Some groups who were slurred as we were would be burning Edwards in effigy and rioting in the streets. We just won't support Edwards. If he manages to be nominated, I won't vote for him, but will write in Dennis Kucinich, who is far more progressive anyway.

You spoke truth about how Edwards COULD have appealed to Catholic voters but he blew it big time. He could have drawn some conservative Catholic voters back to voting Democratic and of course he'd had gotten progressive Catholic votes. He had the chance to make it right by firing those people but he wouldn't do it.

Bill Donohue is a pitbull but so's Abe Foxman. Without Donohue, we wouldn't have known that Edwards cared nothing about Catholics. Better to know it now than later.

[DemBones DemBones]

205. Not all Catholics are conservative and

no Catholics are "fundies." Edwards has lost a lot of votes with this very unwise decision to support bias.

[Skwmom]

223. It's kind of amazing how an "attack" against Edwards by a

far right conservative actually helps Edwards in the primary. But of course, if it didn't I really wouldn't have expected Tweety and the gang to cover it. I'm still waiting for Tweety and gang to discuss how Edwards may not be the anti-war candidate Edwards, Tweety and gang are trying to sell him as:

EDWARDS IN HIS OWN WORDS

As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran."
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_kno ...

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AX10]

5. Why would mainline Protestants stand with him?

Why would Muslims? Oh, that's right, they wouldn't do so because Billy D. has spouted some vile "shit" against these faiths.

I agree, Billy D. is a kook!

[rockymountaindem]

11. Why would Jews?

After all his rants about our supposed conspiracy.

[DemBones DemBones]

219. Because if nobody stands up for the Catholics, how

can you expect anybody to stand up for the Jews?

If one kind of intolerance is allowed to stand, others will flourish.


Forget about Bill Donohue and concentrate on the ISSUE. Donohue is a pitbull. So is Abe Foxman. Don't you want Foxman to be aggressive in defending Jews? Pitbulls are often used as watchdogs and Donohue and Foxman are essentially watchdogs on the lookout for offenses against their respective faiths.


The ISSUE is what's important and the ISSUE is that these women have written very insulting things about Catholics and at least one of them has actually blasphemed against Christian teaching -- not just Catholic teaching but the teaching of all the mainstream Protestants as well, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists. Anyone who accepts the tenets of the Christian faith would find her writing blasphemous.


You can, of course, find individuals in any religion who don't actually follow the tenets of their faith and so will put up with blasphemy. John Edwards is apparently such a person and also a person who's willing to keep people on his staff knowing that they have seriously insulted Catholics and blasphemed against the Christian faith.


Would you approve of Edwards keeping people on his staff who had written that the Holocaust never occurred or that Jews are sadists for circumcising their sons or that Jews eat Christian babies? I'm sure he could have found some bloggers who've written such things and worse and they'd certainly be "edgy" writers. Their writing about Jews would certainly appeal to some voters, too -- he could draw in some Republicans that way. But it would be reprehensible, just as his decision to keep these bloggers on his staff is reprehensible. Not just insensitive, but reprehensible.

[DemBones DemBones]

220. Because if nobody stands up for the Catholics, how can Protestants feel safe?

How can Muslims feel safe? How can Jews feel safe? How can atheists feel safe? How can Wiccans feel safe? No matter what group you belong to, there are people who don't like you because you're "one of them." We can't allow that kind of thinking to prevail or we're all doomed.

If one kind of intolerance is allowed to stand, others will flourish.


Forget about Bill Donohue and concentrate on the ISSUE. Donohue is a pitbull. So is Abe Foxman. Don't you want Foxman to be aggressive in defending Jews? Pitbulls are often used as watchdogs and Donohue and Foxman are essentially watchdogs on the lookout for offenses against their respective faiths.


The ISSUE is what's important and the ISSUE is that these women have written very insulting things about Catholics and at least one of them has actually blasphemed against Christian teaching -- not just Catholic teaching but the teaching of all the mainstream Protestants as well, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists. Anyone who accepts the tenets of the Christian faith would find her writing blasphemous.


You can, of course, find individuals in any religion who don't actually follow the tenets of their faith and so will put up with blasphemy. John Edwards is apparently such a person and also a person who's willing to keep people on his staff knowing that they have seriously insulted Catholics and blasphemed against the Christian faith.


Would you approve of Edwards keeping people on his staff who had written that the Holocaust never occurred or that Jews are sadists for circumcising their sons or that Jews eat Christian babies? I'm sure he could have found some bloggers who've written such things and worse and they'd certainly be "edgy" writers. Their writing about Jews would certainly appeal to some voters, too -- he could draw in some Republicans that way. But it would be reprehensible, just as his decision to keep these bloggers on his staff is reprehensible. Not just insensitive, but reprehensible.

[pnwmom]

7. Donohue's disgusting but that's not the point.

The bloggers records speak for themselves. And that of Marcotte, especially, is deeply insulting to many Catholics.

[mnhtnbb]

41. Oh, it's ok for Donohue to be disgusting but not the bloggers BEFORE

they worked for Edwards?

[pnwmom]

46. You can't run away from your record when you're a candidate, or

a spokesperson for one.

Who has said it's okay for Donohue to be disgusting? Not one person that I've seen.

[karynnj]

109. It's not Donahue - it's the comments the women made that are the problem

People can come away thinking Donahue is slime and being offended that Edwards would keep people on his staff who wrote these things.

[DemBones DemBones]

209. You are incredibly rude. Donohue didn't lie. The blog posts exist

and are very offensive to Catholics and other Christians. Edwards should have fired the bloggers.

[AX10]

3. Any religous conservative will have the same ideas.

From Osama to Bill Donohue, they all want repression of free peoples.

[BOSSHOG]

4. A belated welcome KONO

Glad you are with us. I'm across the border in Mississippi but I get into town three, four, five times a year. 52 miles from our house to the parking lot on the corner of Elysian Fields and Decatur.

Yeah, so happy that donohoe is enjoying his constitutional liberties.

[KingofNewOrleans]

12. Hope you made it down

for the Krewe du Vieux parade last Saturday. Their finest ever IMHO. Thanks for the welcome.

[pnwmom]

8. Edwards WAS one of several candidates I liked.

But he's just made a grave mistake. This is going to come back to haunt him if he makes it to the general. No way I'll vote for him in the primary now.

[madfloridian]

9. Because he didn't fire them?

?

[pnwmom]

15. Yup. Because he didn't fire them. He's just handed the Repubs

a huge club to bash him with.

And he deserves it, for keeping on as spokespeople bloggers who have a long record of Catholic trashing.

I'm disgusted. DU'ers would never have been trying to justify these bloggers if similar remarks had been directed at Muslim or Jewish beliefs. But it's fine to heap scorn on Catholics, if you want to work for John Edwards.

[madfloridian]

20. So you are taking Donahue's side?

That's too bad.

[pnwmom]

33. If I'm "taking Donohue's side" by saying that his remarks are

deeply insulting to Catholics, then so is William Pitt.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=157004&mesg_id=157120

[madfloridian]

39. Yeh, well, Will and I had words already. He's not God either.

:hi:

[pnwmom]

47. No he isn't, but he's making more sense than most of the people

around here today.

(Seriously. Today I'm one madwashingtonian.)

[madfloridian]

61. Donahue is claiming he has control. You are defending that.

Will was saying for Edwards to fire the bloggers would not be a bad thing.

When does one take a stand?

[pnwmom]

71. I'm not defending Donohue. I'm standing up for the broad number

of Catholics, middle of the road and progressive, who don't appreciate anti-Catholic bigotry.

[AX10]

28. And you are ignoring Donahue's bigotry!

[pnwmom]

34. No, I'm not. I said he was disgusting. But he isn't running for President,

is he?

Edwards is, and he has just thrown away the votes of large numbers of Catholics who won't support a candidate who offers lame excuses for Catholic bashing.

Any more than if he had just hired an employee with a record of gay bashing or any other form of bigotry.

[karynnj]

113. Can't you be against BOTH of their bigotry

Also consider that the Democrats do usually carry a majority of Catholics.

[AX10]

31. I left the church after the 2004 election.

Between their raping of children and their politiking on behalf of Bush (also their history of violence and oppression), they no longer represented my beliefs.

[DemBones DemBones]

210. You saw what you wanted to see -- and what the media wanted you to see.

A saying I learned from a college prof back in the Sixties: "Where there's smoke, there's fire. Or somebody with a smoke machine."

Think about Bill Clinton. Sure, he fooled around with Monica a bit, which was wrong because he's married, and a lot older, too. But was it really a fire? It was consensual and she was 22, which is above the age of consent in any state. The media had a BIG smoke machine they aimed at Clinton.

Did you know that the % of Catholic priests who abuse is the same as the % of ministers and rabbis who abuse? So there are fires in every group. Most pedophiles are married men. But the media had a BIG smoke machine which they aimed at Catholic priests, but not at rabbis, ministers, or married men.

I'm not saying you should come back to the Church, just suggesting that you examine the way the Church has been misrepresented by the media and people who have an axe to grind against Catholics. If you look for dirt on any large group of people, you'll find some dirt. But to be fair you should examine the good as well as the bad about any group.

For example, Catholics saved thousands of Jews from the Nazis, particularly in Italy. I believe it was 43,000 in Italy alone who were saved, but it may have been 73,000. Pope Pius XII told Catholics to help; priests were told to issue baptismal certificates to Jews so they could pose as Catholics, and Jews were hidden in Catholic homes, churches, schools, convents, monasteries, and inside the Vatican itself. The media won't tell you that.

Nor are the media likely to tell you that if you visit the synagogue in Florence, Italy, you'll learn that the Germans destroyed the old building and that Catholics helped their Jewish neighbors rebuild the synagogue. The day I learned that, I was especially glad to be a Catholic.

[More Than A Feeling]

88. You are in favor of our candidates jumping when the extremist right says so?

That is not a winning recipe. I would have eliminated Edwards from consideration if he HAD fired them. So what he might have lost from you, he can still gain back from me.

[pnwmom]

127. He's alienated a lot more potential voters than he's won, IMO.

I'm in favor of him doing the right thing. In this case, letting these bloggers go once he realized their history would have been the right thing. Do you realize that the average Catholic in the pews has NO IDEA who Bill Donohue even is? But they'll certainly have an opinion about Edwards choice of spokespeople once they see the kind of slop they've been spewing in their blogs.

[More Than A Feeling]

149. Amanda Marcotte is a brilliant writer, and she is right to criticize the Catholic Church

when it is wrong, as it so frequently is on woman's issues. Her influence is partly responsible for me being a feminist.

[pnwmom]

154. Both those points may well be true. But Edwards shouldn't have

hired as his spokesperson someone with her political baggage.

I can't believe he's decided to take this on. He's not fighting to keep us out of Iran, he's fighting for the rights of potty-mouthed bloggers. That will get him really far.

:sarcasm:

[More Than A Feeling]

156. He's fighting for us.

We have opinions that aren't considered "polite" within the beltway about economics, religion, and social issues too. If Edwards bowed to the pressure, what he'd be saying is that normal people don't have legitimate voices in the political discourse.

[pnwmom]

169. Oh, I forgot. Catholics aren't normal people like other DU'ers.

Any more insults? Maybe you should try to get a job with Edwards, too.

:sarcasm:

[DemBones DemBones]

221. Well I suppose it's true that Edwards is

fighting for all the Catholic bashers at DU. But there are more Catholic DUers than many realize, posters who don't post in these Catholic bashing threads. And even if there were no Catholics at DU, Edwards would be wrong to keep these bigots on his staff.

Edwards is also very short-sighted to keep these women on his staff because Catholics make up about 30% of the electorate.

Goodbye, Johnny, we hardly knew ye but now that we do, don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out!

[karynnj]

110. Or if were similarly offensive remarks against blacks or Asians

or against gays.

[benny05]

159. They are feminists

and they wrote the stuff well before his campaign started.

BFD.

[DemBones DemBones]

222. So have these feminists written about the

treatment of women in many Muslim countries? We know that Muslim women endure honor killings and genital mutilations, that they are often not allowed to leave their homes without a male relative, that in Saudi Arabia (a major U.S. ally), women are not allowed to drive at all, that they have little or no education in many cases. Catholic women aren't treated that way.

I believe abortion is illegal in Muslim countries and I don't think they allow contraception, either, which should annoy these "feminists." They encourage large families as one way of spreading Islam. Catholic women aren't "popping out more tithing Catholics" as fast as Muslim women are "popping out more jihadist Muslims." Catholics very rarely tithe; that's a Protestant practice. But all Muslims are called to jihad and that MAY mean violent jihad.

Why would a so-called "feminist" who should respect women talk about any women "popping out" babies? I guess it's part of being edgy. And crude.

Certainly, we've all seen the news stories about women being executed -- either shot in the head with a rifle at halftime of a soccer game or stoned to death -- for the crime of adultery, for which men are not punished. Aren't these "feminists" outraged about that?

Where's the outrage and nasty criticism of Islam? Where are the comments about Mohammed having multiple wives, about Mohammad marrying a 9 year-old girl and having sex with her?

Shouldn't they be looking into this, being feminists and all? Since they apparently have no respect for religious belief, why aren't they mocking the idea that a man who is martyred for Islam is provided with 72 virgins in paradise?

N.B. I don't hate Muslims or Islam but I think Muslims have some very troubling beliefs and practices in regard to women in particular. Have these bloggers addressed those? Or is it just more fun and less dangerous to bash Catholics?

If they can mock the Holy Spirit, who is one Person of our Triune God, equal to God the Father and God the Son, and say that the Holy Spirit is semen and talk about the Virgin Mary using Plan B to get rid of the unborn Jesus, than why not mock Islam's deepest beliefs? Or the deepest beliefs of Jews?

[JohnLocke]

10. He didn't fire them

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/2/8/113651/4503

[pnwmom]

36. I realize that. I think he should have.

Now he's going to have to drag around anti-Catholic baggage for the rest of the campaign.

[rockymountaindem]

13. What exactly is going on here?

I'm behind on this whole story. What did Edwards do/not do?

[pnwmom]

19. Edwards hired two bloggers who had a record

of anti-Catholic remarks. The right wing Catholic League, headed by a creep named Bill Donohue, called him on it. Unfortunately, the Catholic League is only ONE group in the Church that will be offended -- many more Catholics will be too, middle of the road and progressive people, as these anti-Catholic comments get publicized. (Which the Catholic League is determined to do.)

After considering the matter for a while, Edwards issued a statement saying, in effect, that he doesn't like that kind of language but that he talked to the bloggers and they never meant to malign the Church. Right.

Here's a link to a relevant post by WilliamPitt, including a sample of one of the bloggers' posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=157004&mesg_id=157120

[madfloridian]

21. My church maligned me. They said I was unpatriotic.

I think Donahue and his ilk are deserving of the malignment. They do not own me, they do not own Edwards...they do not own the country.

They can have their religion, but they don't have a right to tell the rest of us what to do.

[pnwmom]

26. You don't get it. Plenty of other Catholics will be just as offended as

the Catholic League, as the bloggers' comments get publicized. Edwards has just handed any Republican opponents a bunch of ammunition to shoot at him.

Are you saying that Edwards should write off the votes of all the middle of the road and progressive Catholics that might have given strong support to a populist candidate? Because that's what he's doing.

[madfloridian]

29. That is BS...

.

[DemBones DemBones]

213. Sez you, but you're not Catholic, are you?

We're not gonna take it any more!

[mnhtnbb]

43. Edwards isn't writing off the votes--you're trying to do that for him.

[pnwmom]

49. I'm expressing my pain at his decision, as a progressive Catholic.

[mnhtnbb]

58. Please explain what it means to be a progressive Catholic.

[pnwmom]

65. I believe in the "preferential option for the poor," for one thing.

I am a populist, pro union, pro environment, anti-war, and -- like most Catholics -- I ignore the current hierarchy's positions on human sexuality.

The Catholic church is a huge umbrella. I can't speak for all "progressive Catholics" but this is what I mean when I say that I'm one.

So Donohue and I have only one thing in common.

Neither of us has a tolerance for Catholic trashing.

[mnhtnbb]

73. So, according to your Church, they have the right to excommunicate

you based upon the fact that you do not accept the Church's teachings
on human sexuality.

I've lived in a town (Lincoln, NE) where they did just that to Catholics who dared to support the local Planned Parenthood.

The Catholic Church is not one big happy family. They make no bones about the fact they want to impose their views on the rest of us. I, for one, will resist.

[pnwmom]

77. Lincoln NE probably has the worst bishop in the country, IMO.

But the Catholic church is made up of millions of individuals. WE are the Church, and the current hierarchy can't take it away from us.

To give you another example. Bishop Wuerhl of Washington DC, who is not considered especially liberal, was asked to deny communion to Nancy Pelosi because of her position on abortion. He flatly refused.

You are right, we're not one big happy family. We're more of a big, dysfunctional family. But few of us appreciate anti-Catholic bigotry.

[benny05]

142. So everything you stand for

Edwards does (pro-union, anti-poverty, etcv) , but you think he should have fired two people who wrote that content well before his campaign came along. The main thing is that he should not be defined by anyone, most especially Donohue and Malkin (whom no one has mentioned in these threads).

Moreover, McEwen has stated she voted for a Catholic last time and she graduated from Loyola.

I don't see the connection that JRE is anti-Catholic at all. I see that he recognizes those two were provocateurs, but on his campaign blog, in which they do not participate in policy making, they are expected to keep their potty mouths in check.

Personally, I didn't think this was deserving of a crisis. But many bloggers felt that if Edwards fired them, then he wasn't supporting the netroots.

I'm disappointed to read that some people are not holding fire feet to the MSM's feet about the reporting of the exchange either. But if you want to, Chris Bowers of My DD has set up a great page to sign a letter that goes out to the NYT, CNN, other MSM outlets:

http://www.democracyinaction.com/dia/organizationsCOM/Blogpac/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=1855

Bowers is now in the Edwards camp. Are you going to go over and bash him at MyDD and Daily Kos and tell him he's a scrub too? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/8/144335/4862

[pnwmom]

147. Edwards defines himself by every choice he makes.

He defined himself by deciding to keep these bloggers on, knowing that many Catholics would be hurt and offended by the comments they have made.

You might not realize this, but the South has a long history of Catholic bashing. The KKK was as anti-Catholic as it was bigoted toward African Americans. When I was growing up and visited relatives in South Carolina, I met many people who insisted that Catholics weren't even Christian.

I'm sorry to say this, but I'm afraid that Edwards may have a blind spot insofar as Catholics are concerned.

[benny05]

155. How is that?

He ran with John Kerry in 2004. Campaigned for Phil Angelides who is Greek Orthodox, and Bob Casey (now in the Senate) who is Catholic. Has tremendous respect for people of faith as he gave a great speech at the MLK celebration in NYC last month at interdominational church?

He never looks down at anyone based on their faith, gender, or color of skin. Your comment is extremely narrow minded, to say the least. You know very little about Edwards.

And while you say you don't care for Bill Donohue, I don't see condemnation for what he was trying to do to Democratic candidates, or that matter, for his anti-semitic comments. He called Barbara Walters a bigot yesterday too.

Iddybud, who has a prominent blog (http://iddybudjournal.blogspot.com) is a JRE supporter and is a Catholic, was offended by Donohue's comments and not by the hiring of the two feminists.

Blind spot indeed.

[pnwmom]

162. This writer at the liberal Commonwealth Magazine says it better

than I can.

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

Not only is he (Donohue) an embarrassment who obviously doesn't hold himself to the same standards he holds for others, but his judgment of what counts as anti-Catholic is, to say the least, seriously suspect, and has a tendency towards, shall we say, ideological selectivity. Finally, as much as it pains me to say it, I think Donohue may have a point in this case. The blog posts mentioned in the story did speak of a deep-seated hostility to the Church as an institution.

SNIP

(Responding to Edwards explanation of why he's retaining the bloggers, the writer says)

FWIW, apart from the merits of his 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?

Note:
Commonwealth is a magazine that appeals to liberal Catholics -- the kind that might have been drawn to an Edwards candidacy because of his populist positions. With this kind of story appearing in this kind of magazine, Edwards could be in trouble with Catholics. But maybe he's decided to write them off.

[benny05]

164. You didn't respond to my point

About Edwards' "blind spot". and your post implies that Edwards, being from the South, is as bad as the KKK about being anti Catholic. That's ludicrous.

This dust-up is more about the freedom of speech and expression, as Marcotte pointed out in her post. Do I find her comments any worse that what's in the DUL? No, I don't. and when I see that Edwards takes her word that she's not going to post that kind of content on his blog, I also believe him. I would imagine EE would see to that and hold her to that promise.

I'm disappointed to see that you support William Donohue in this instance, who is a big McCain camp person. You might as well support McCain, if that is your position. You are not in good faith with this blog, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't buy it that you are a "progressive" either.

[pnwmom]

173. If you read my posts you'll see that I NEVER supported Donohue.

But I agree with his conclusion that the bloggers statements are anti-Catholic just as I would if he were to state that 2 + 2 = 4. Even though I personally can't stand Donohue, he happens to be right on this particular point.

I did not imply that Edwards was as bad as the KKK about being anti-Catholic. There's a huge difference between having a blind spot to the bigotry of others and being a bigot yourself. In Edwards case, I think he does have a blind spot as far as anti-Catholic bigotry is concerned. He must, or he wouldn't have accepted these women's claims that they were not maligning Catholics in their posts. Their intent was all too clear.

If you don't think that someone is progressive who is a pro-choice, pro-union, pro-environment, pro-gay rights, anti-war populist, then I'll ask you: what is your litmus test?

"You are not in good faith with this blog"???? Get over yourself.

By the way, Will Pitt says the bloggers comments are "pretty goddamn insulting" to Catholics. Do you think he's not in good faith with this blog either?

[benny05]

182. He is faith, but you said...

As much you didn't want to say it, you were defending Bill Donohue and thought that Edwards should cave in to his type of bigotry and fire the women.

[pnwmom]

191. I never once said anything in defense of Bill Donohue.

I said that the women's blogging statements were anti-Catholic and that, yes, Edwards should have fired them because he doesn't need to drag their baggage around with him for the rest of the campaign.

All Donohue did was go down into the bloggers' dark archives and shine a flashlight on the stuff down there. Once he did that, Catholics were fully capable of reading the words for themselves and making up their own minds about what the bloggers meant. And about what Edwards meant when he hired them and then decided to retain them.

[DemBones DemBones]

211. I'm glad to see a LIBERAL Catholic publication saying that.

They said it all very well. Edwards has made no apologies that I know of and that particular post about the Holy Spirit as semen and Mary taking Plan B to avoid conceiving/abort Jesus SHOULD offend ALL Christians.

Catholics are not alone in believing in the Virgin Birth and that Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit (which is NOT the Immaculate Conception, BTW, a point that is rarely understood by non-Catholics.)

That's extremely gross and offensive to me and I used to teach sex ed so it's pretty hard to do that! Years of talking to coed classes about penises and vaginas and sperms and ova did not prepare me for someone suggesting that God is semen. The Holy Spirit and God the Father and God the Son are one in three "Persons" so if you say the Holy Spirit is semen, you're also saying that God and Jesus are semen.

Am I right to guess that her point was that Mary should have used Plan B so there'd have been no Jesus, ergo no Christians? Or did she intend something else?

[Clark2008]

204. I'm a progressive Catholic and I haven't seen any evidence

that Edwards "does" anti-poverty and pro-labor.

He wrote NO legislation as a senator to help the disenfranchised and he helped Big Banking with legislation a lot more than labor unions.

I'm disappointed you don't know this.

[DemBones DemBones]

212. He talked the talk really well but I guess

I'm not surprised he didn't walk the walk. He was away from the Senate campaigning so much for the presidency that I'd heard he could not have been re-elected to his Senate seat in North Carolina.

I never really looked into him because I supported Dennis Kucinich, as I still do, and then felt like I should support the ticket like I always have, despite doubts about both of them. Won't be fooled again!

[karynnj]

117. There are several in the US Senate - Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Leahy

to name 4 I can think of off the top of my head. There was also Father Drinan, a Jesuit priest, who was more progressive and had a longer history of fighting for social justice - than anyone running for President in 2004. (In fact, pick up anything written by or about Jesuits. They were among the strongest people standing against the RW thugs we supported in Central America in the 80s)

As to how their belief structure fits with their religion you can do worse than read John Kerry's Pepperdine speech on that. http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=4212.

[pnwmom]

133. Thanks for the Kerry link!

[DemBones DemBones]

214. Your church maligned you so it's ok for others to malign OUR religion?

How do you feel about the blogger saying the Holy Spirit was semen and talking about the Virgin Mary using Plan B to prevent Jesus from being born? That should offend anyone who's Christian.

[Clark2008]

116. Thank you - from a progressive Catholic.

You're exactly right, pnwmom.

[pnwmom]

131. Glad for your support, Clark2008.

I think it's down to Clark and Obama for me now, and maybe Gore if he runs.

[gratuitous]

23. Edwards hired some campaign staff

Two of the staffers used to be bloggers, and in that capacity they made some posts in the past that insult and denigrate Donohue's particular brand of Catholicism, one which, as you might surmise, is somewhat to the right of Torquemada.

Edwards allowed as how his blogger hires had written on their own website in terms and using words that he personally would not use, but that they were most likely entitled by the First Amendment to voice their opinions. Anyway, Edwards decided that his campaign staff hires were really his own business, and declined to turn that responsibility over to Donohue, who predictably went ballistic and has now declared holy jihad against Edwards.

It's quite instructive to see just how the right wing, led by the lunatic fringe represented by Donohue, will conduct themselves during the 2008 campaign. This is very, very early, but they will apparently have no compunction about ginning up more and greater fake controversies in order to rally what remains of their base.

This is one pretty good example of why I think we need to collectively slam back every little bit of mud they're slinging. Not everything is going to ring your personal chimes, but try not to get in the way of someone who is refuting the slime parade. You'll get your chance to speak out against some bit of right wing thuggery before long if this opening salvo is any indication.

[pnwmom]

100. You're wrong. The bloggers denigrated not "Donohue's particular brand

of Catholicism," but Catholicism in general.

Will Pitt got this right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=157004&mesg_id=157120

[gratuitous]

104. I don't see a word about Catholics in that post

Perhaps you are referring to another post?

And are you now setting yourself up as the supreme authority on all matters Catholic? Because I thought that job was already taken, and I wasn't aware that that person posted at DU.

EDITED TO ADD: I guess the larger question, however, is who has the power to hire staff for the Edwards campaign? John Edwards or William Donohue?

[pnwmom]

132. There are a number of posts. That one is mocking the Catholic

doctrine about Mary, in case you honestly didn't understand.

[gratuitous]

181. No, I don't understand

What is specifically Catholic about the post you linked to? It doesn't refer to Catholics specifically, and doesn't mention anything specifically Catholic.

But bottom line it for me, if you would, because with the plethora of posts you've made in this thread, it's pretty clear that you're not going to listen or or credit any reasonable counterargument. Who should decide staffing hires for the Edwards campaign: the candidate or Bill Donohue?

[DinahMoeHum]

14. Donohue can take that crucifix of his. . .

and make like "The Exocist" with it.

:nuke:

[The Magistrate]

16. This Wretch Is A Good Enemy To Have, Sir

"Who has no enemies has no friends."

[pnwmom]

22. I can't stand Donohue but he's not the only Catholic who is angry

with Edwards, believe me. Edwards has lost any chance of having my vote. One more good reason to vote for Obama or Clark, as far as I'm concerned.

And it's a shame because Edwards strong populist position is a natural fit for many Catholics.

[madfloridian]

25. May I call BS on that?

Donahue, Catholics, Southern Baptists and whatever....do NOT own this country.

It is not their country. They have to listen to the rest of us.

[pnwmom]

27. Would you say the same thing if the bloggers had engaged

in racial bigotry? Or religious bigotry against Muslims or Jews?

Would you say "African Americans do NOT own this country. They have to listen to the rest of us." Or "Jews don't own this country. They have to listen to the rest of us"? Or "Gays do not own this country. They have to listen to the rest of us"?

[madfloridian]

30. Religious control freaks want to control the country.

It is not their country.

[pnwmom]

38. I'm not a religious control freak and I have serious issues with

many of the positions of the current Church hierarchy. Sometimes, I feel like I'm hanging on by my fingernails. So if even I am insulted by these bloggers' diatribes, doesn't that tell you something?

[madfloridian]

48. If you defend Donahue's extremism, it tells me all I need to know.

I left the Southern Baptists because of their bigotry and hatred and extremism. I don't need it from Catholics.

This statement by Donahue, defend it:

I have news for him--the Catholic League--not Edwards--will decide what the debate will be about, and it won't be about the nation.

Please defend it.

[pnwmom]

50. Show me one word I've written in defense of Donohue.

I'll be waiting.

[madfloridian]

56. Hey don't hold your breath. I understand.

I do not like extremism in any form. If a religion holds itself up to total power...and you defend it...that is inexcusable.

I have news for him--the Catholic League--not Edwards--will decide what the debate will be about, and it won't be about the nation.

What does Mr. Donahue want to talk about if not the country? Who made him God? Why does the Catholic league think they have so much power?

[pnwmom]

60. No one is defending Donohue. He's a horrible person.

But the bloggers' comments speak for themselves. They weren't directed against Donohue, they were heaping scorn on ALL Catholics. And Edwards is making a huge mistake by associating himself with them.

[Joe for Clark]

44. Wow -

I had no idea this was going on.

One thing is for sure - if Edwards is dumb enough not to distance himself from this he is too dumb to be president.

Joe

[madfloridian]

52. Is this an organized thing here?

Looks like 03, but different target...Edwards.

[Crunchy Frog]

126. Yeah, you've got it. Joe for Clark is in on the conspiracy.

You can tell, because he has the word "Clark" in his username. We are sooooo busted.

[pnwmom]

53. Thank you Joe for Clark.

As I said in one of my posts, this has made my decision somewhat easier. Edwards used to be a contender, but right now I'm down to Obama and Clark.

[Joe for Clark]

64. Yeah I am with you - I was ok with Edwards.

I read what you said - what Pitt said -
And I don't think Edwards is anti-catholic - but his judgement is really questionable.

I like Obama and I like Clark - but inside I am praying Gore does run. If he does, Clark will be the next SOD - and I think he is really, really needed there right now. I have a very bad feeling about the "abilities" of our army right now - and it is dangerous.

Joe

[pnwmom]

Yes, Gore would be great, too.

I'm happy that we have so many good choices this time around.

[benny05]

145. Gore is staying clear

I happen to know that he is the keynote at an association meeting in June, in which the association's CEO is a Clintonista. I think the CEO would have done most anything to block his appearance if there wasn't some assurance Gore was not going to run against Clinton.

[mnhtnbb]

54. Another Edwards bashing post from a Clark fan. How original!

[madfloridian]

63. There's a lot of it. I wonder if it is organized...

like it was in 03.

[Joe for Clark]

70. You know - stupid is stupid.

I have nothing against Edwards - except I think he may be too dumb to go up against the gop -
They will eat him alive. Did you read that stuff posted?? He just alienated 25 % of the populace by an inaction -

That does not make a leader make.

And I want Gore.

Joe

This isn't organized - surely not by me - I want to win!!!

[mnhtnbb]

74. If you want Gore, why do you say you are Joe for Clark?

[Joe for Clark]

82. I don't know how or if I could change my sig line.

Lazy, I guess.

That, and I really like General Clark as a human being.

Lazy, I suppose.

It is just a sig line, afterall.

Joe for GORE

[Adelante]

146. What's it to you?

Isn't it bad enough you keep calling out Clark supporters without telling people what they should be calling themselves?

[mnhtnbb]

175. I didn't tell him anything. I asked a question.

[karynnj]

119. No - look at the threads from earlier this week

The point many were making was that these woman need to resign - the fact is that there statements 9especially one's) are extremely offensive to any Christian. I think this is a case where DU is far more willing to accept comments that knock religion than the population at large.

My concern is that this has the potential to blow up into something that could even more label the Democratic party as anti-religion.

[madfloridian]

136. You are afraid of them.

I would rather lose than succumb to fear anymore.

[pnwmom]

141. Garbage. You're just taking a knee jerk position against Donohue,

because he's a cretin.

But the problem is, he's not the only Catholic offended by the remarks of these bloggers. With Edwards keeping these women on, he's going to insure that Bill Donohue develops a higher profile than he's ever had before. And the average Catholic, when they read the blogger's posts, is going to feel that Donohue was right.

Good job, Edwards.

:sarcasm:

[karynnj]

143. I am not afraid of Donahue

Although I am Jewish, I am deeply offended MYSELF by the obnoxious posts. Only when I read the posts did I feel this way.

Maybe i'm not sufficiently a leftie, I also agreed that the Kerry blog in 2004 did the right thing in delinking Dkos, the biggest liberal blog, because of a very nasty, tasteless amoral Kos diary.

[madfloridian]

152. No, that was wrong of Kerry.

I am surprised at how people want to have their voice but don't want others to have one.

I remember that post. It was not one I would have written, but one of the mercenaries came from a city near me. There was more to the story. We should not have mercenaries over there who are battling mental illness going around taunting and shooting at Iraqis.

[karynnj]

177. Of course the mercenaries were very wrong in very many ways

The problem is it was not decent to treat their horrific deaths that way. Had it been a serious article on the dangers to our reputation of having mercenaries there, there would have been not reaction.

Kerry did not deny anyone their voice. He simply removed the link from his site.

My personal reaction to both of these bloggers (Kos , and Edwards') would have been that they add to the ugly side of the discourse and that the candidates should be above that. I am not a person in the middle, so seeing it would not have lost my vote - though (especially for Kerry, if he would have defended the link) I would have lose a lost of respect for the candidate.

I hope this story is too obscure, too early and will be not heard about again. I am from the midwest and in my 50s and that is the basis for much of my value system, even though I have lived in the NYC area for all of my adult life after college. Kerry and McGovern were my two heart felt votes, so I am not conservative.

[madfloridian]

66. So only Catholics get to say it?

Is that what you are saying?

Looks like this has been planned, organized, carried out with DUers in on it.

[pnwmom]

67. Only Catholics get to say what?

[Crunchy Frog]

134. Yeah, karynnj is in on the plot too.

She's really a secret Clarkie, and she's been working with the rest of us behind the scenes the whole time.

All your DU are belong to US. Mwahahahahaha!

[karynnj]

179. Crunchy, who do you think you are, Scouter Libby?

outing all the covert Clarkies.

(To the humor impaired, I do not now have a candidate who is running. I am looking to find out more about Dodd.)

[Crunchy Frog]

196. Good job maintaining your cover story.

Your bonus check is in the mail. ;)

[The Magistrate]

37. So Long As He Is The Point Mam, Ma'am, Sen. Edwards Benefits

So long as the Church clings to its positions on contraception, and sexuality in general, it will be subject to attack, some in the form of lampoon. Religious institutions cannot enforce an immunity to criticism in a free society; they cannot force people who do not subscribe to the faith they promote to adhere to their doctrines, or even to respect them.

[pnwmom]

42. Sure, bloggers are free to lampoon Catholics. But Edwards shouldn't

have hired them, unless he wants to associate himself with people who feel free to disparage Catholics.

Would you say the same thing if he had hired people who made nasty, profanity-laced comments about Muslims? I doubt it.

[The Magistrate]

75. In This Instance, Ma'am

It seems more important to me that a leading Democrat should stand up and strike a rightist turd like Donoghue across the snout, in demonstration that we are not going to knuckle under to hate-mongers complaining about items that fall far short of their own routine stocks in trade of hate speech.

"The floggings will continue. That is all...."

[pnwmom]

84. Unfortunately, he alienated a huge number of potential progressive voters

when he decided to stand up for those bloggers.

[The Magistrate]

87. Perhaps, Ma'am

And he may have attracted a great number of people who respect toughness, and understand the enemy needs to be kicked, hard and often.

[pnwmom]

94. I feel like he, and many DU'ers, kicked me today. As a Catholic, I mean.

Not just Donohue.

[mnhtnbb]

51. Gimme a break. Edwards is as pro-choice as you can get. And that's

a natural fit with many Catholics?

I don't believe you. The Catholic Church in this country has been drifting right for many years. They're the original club for exclusivity--do it our way or we'll excommunicate you.

It's your choice to support whatever religious group you wish, but you're going to run into huge opposition among liberals and progressives when you start trying to dictate which staff a candidate should hire because you disagree with
some of their writings--BEFORE they worked for the candidate.

Get over yourselves.

[pnwmom]

83. As I said, the majority of American Catholics ignore the Church hierarchy's

positions on human sexuality. The percentage of Catholics who use birth control is the same as the rest of the population, and so is the number of gays. (I haven't seen figures for abortion, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if they're the same, too.)

This might be different if the Church hierarchy didn't oppose birth control, but they do. Once you realize they are wrong on that, it isn't a big step to realize the error in the related issues.

[DemBones DemBones]

203. Catholics vote for pro-choice candidates all the time.

I'm a progressive, pro-life, and Catholic but I've never voted against someone for being pro-choice, have always voted Democratic and have voted a straight Dem ticket since 1994.

Democrats no longer own the Catholic vote, though, and most of them don't seem to want it. Fine with me. Try to get along without our support, John Edwards et al.

If Edwards had hired bloggers who had grievously insulted Jews or Muslims, I doubt you'd think he made the right decision or would be rudely telling Muslims or Jews to "get over" themselves.

[Cassandra]

115. Indeed, Sir.

He's been annoying the hell out of us in NY for years now.

[AtomicKitten]

24. Donohue has inserted his religion into politics before.

Didn't like it then, don't like it now.

[mnhtnbb]

35. "What Edwards did today will not be forgotten.” Uh, what did he do?

Tell you that you don't have hire/fire authority over his campaign staff?

What a blowhard.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. Though he's not my man, I'll stand up for Edwards on this

...if the right come gunning for him over it. There are times when unity is essential, and repelling any assault like this is one of those times.

[pnwmom]

55. I'm not from the right, and I find his bloggers comments

grossly insulting.

And the irony is, I was standing up for Edwards in all the other recent Edwards bashing threads. No longer. He's tone deaf, as a candidate.

[madfloridian]

45. To those defending Donahue....defend this statement. Please do. Please.

I have news for him--the Catholic League--not Edwards--will decide what the debate will be about, and it won't be about the nation.

That is part of his threat to Edwards. What say you?

[pnwmom]

57. NO ONE HERE IS DEFENDING DONOHUE!

[mnhtnbb]

59. But you are attacking Edwards for the same thing that Donohue

is

[pnwmom]

68. So? Where is your logic?

If Donohue said "2 + 2= 4" am I obliged to disagree with him? Or else be accused of taking his side?

As they say, even a broken clock tells the correct time twice a day.

[mnhtnbb]

76. My logic is not dependent upon some story that Mary

got herself knocked up by the Holy Spirit. Where's your logic?

[pnwmom]

79. So you're a Catholic basher, too. But you're not running for President.

Edwards is. But with the decisions he's been making lately (the house, the statements about Iran, and now this), it won't be for long.

[madfloridian]

90. That sounds like threat to Edwards because he did not back down......

to Catholics. Good lord what is happening in this country. This is crazy stuff.

[pnwmom]

95. What is this talk of backing down? Why this whole macho thing?

What he decided to do was keep on his staff, as his spokespeople, two bloggers who have a history of nasty, crude attacks on Catholics and Catholic beliefs.

He did this even though he would never have hired, or retained, bloggers who had a history of similar statements against Muslims, Jews, or any other group.

Please tell me why Catholic bigotry, attacking Catholics as a group, seems to be the only form of bigotry that many Democrats condone.

[madfloridian]

107. You don't get it, do you? The Catholic group started it.

The Catholics are going after Edwards. Bottom line. They are enlisting the Jews, the Muslims, the protestants they say...to join them in attacking Edwards.

I am stunned at your attitude. I have seen more bigotry since 2000 than I ever saw in my life.


""We will launch a nationwide public relations blitz that will be conducted on the pages of the New York Times, as well as in Catholic newspapers and periodicals. It will be on-going, breaking like a wave, starting next week and continuing through 2007. It will be an education campaign, informing the public of what he did today. We will also reach out to our allies in the Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist communities. They worked with us before on many issues, and are sure to do so again. What Edwards did today will not be forgotten."

[pnwmom]

121. No, the Catholics didn't start this. The bloggers did in their blogs.

[madfloridian]

122. Well, I write pretty strong stuff about Southern Baptists.

So, I guess that makes me bad. I call them out on their bigotry and hypocrisy. They combined with the Catholic churches here in Florida to stop gays from having any rights. Baptists led the way on that.

I don't have to agree with what they wrote in their private blogs. That is not the point. The point is they had a right to say it.

[pnwmom]

129. They don't write private blogs, they write public blogs. And as such,

they're accountable for what they say in them.

They have every right to say whatever they want in their blogs, because they have freedom of speech. But Edwards should know better than to hire as his spokespeople bloggers who have exercised their freedom of speech to bash Catholics, or any other religious group.

[madfloridian]

138. I write here about Southern Baptists....publicly.

Religious people are not immune from criticism in this country, not when they are openly saying they want to control it.

[pnwmom]

144. So? You aren't looking for a job as a blogger for one of the

Presidential candidates, are you?

Of course religous people are not immune from criticism . I criticize my own church leaders all the time. But people who make public statements sliming Catholics and their beliefs should not be hired to be a public face for any candidate.

[madfloridian]

150. Who can they slime, in your opinion.

And in your opinion, just what is slime.

[pnwmom]

151. I've posted examples of their offensive posts, and so have others.

Frankly, I don't think a spokesperson for any candidate should be involved in sliming anyone.

And when you criticize someone, it shouldn't be part of a broad brush smear against a group -- as if all Catholics, or all Muslims, or all Jews, or all members of a racial minority are the same.

[karynnj]

120. If these bloggers had attacked gays to the degree they

attacked religious Christians here, DU would be demanding that Edwards fire them.

[DemBones DemBones]

208. DING DING DING we have a winner!

Or if they'd attacked blacks, Latinos, Jews, Muslims.

Ironic that many gays, many blacks, and most Latinos are Catholic, isn't it?

I wonder if Edwards is one of those people who believe Catholics are not Christians?

[mnhtnbb]

168. I'm entitled to my opinion that the Immaculate Conception is a fairy tale;

the creation of the earth in six days is a fairy tale; the story of Jonah being swallowed by the whale is a fairy tale; on and on and on. The Bible, in my estimation, is full of stories written by humans, limited by their knowledge, trying to explain the meaning of life and death under all sorts of circumstances.

I do not agree with the infallibility of any person--Pope or not (who, miraculously attained such capacity only in 1870--no wonder Catholics agree with evolution!)and believe the Catholic church, while occasionally has been a force for good in the world, has more consistently been concerned
with inducing guilt in its members and like any good organization, ensuring
its continuity. That's not to say there haven't been a lot of good people, in spite of being Catholics.

Any organization that sets itself up as having all the answers, is bound
to find itself the object of critical thinking. That's not bashing.

[citizen snips]

62. its only a damn blog.

If Bill Donohoe wants to muckrake the blogs then go right ahead. But Edwards should ignore this and keep on discussing the important issues that are facing this country.

[pnwmom]

69. It's not Phil Donahue (wouldn't he be horrified?) It's Bill Donohue.

Both Catholics, but they're night and day on both issues and personality.

[citizen snips]

72. edited (n/t)

[Joe for Clark]

78. You made your point well.

Dohohue does NOT represent the catholic church - and certainly not american catholics.

But man - Edwards needed to distance himself from those remarks and he didn't.

I guess Dohohue is like a broken clock - it is always right two times a day.

Joe

[Hell Hath No Fury]

80. Edwards DID distance himself...

from the remarks the bloggers made prior to their employment with him -- here you go, from his statement today:

Senator John Edwards:
"The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen'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."

[Joe for Clark]

85. This is not a matter for a rebuke.

He really did need to fire them. He didn't.

That is what will be thrown up in his face - certainly in a presidental election.

He blew it - he really did.

Joe

[pnwmom]

86. Lame, lame, lame. He needed to distance himself by firing them,

not by saying that "it's not how I talk to people" but that they've "both assured me it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith."

He's a complete lame-brain if he really believes that. That was exactly what they intended to do.

[KingofNewOrleans]

93. Again, I disagree

These two ladies were hired to run a blog for the campaign. They weren't hired to create policy for the campaign, in fact, I'm sure they are given very specific instructions on what to post on the campaign blog, as opposed to any personal opinion they have.

They have apologized, or attempted to put into context, their previous personal comments. However, your vote is your vote, and you have the right to excercise it based on whatever criteria you deem important.

[pnwmom]

97. They were hired to speak for Edwards, so clearly their

blogging record is relevant. They weren't hired to drive his car or fix his computers, in which case it wouldn't matter.

[KingofNewOrleans]

105. No they were hired because of their knowledge

of the Blogsphere. They only speak for Edwards to the extent that they are a conduit for getting Edwards message (which is created by the candidate and his policy people) out into the Blogsphere.

In fact, they were hired essentially to drive his blog.

[citizen snips]

81. What remarks?

If I am not mistaken this only about a couple of bloggers.

[Joe for Clark]

89. Bloggers that worked for him that wrote stuff like this -

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."


Do you have any idea how pissed off that will make catholics?? Pretty much any christian for that matter.

He had to fire them and he didn't. It is his judgement that is the bigger issue. About 25% of the population of the US is catholic - and they voted for Kerry last time. You don't think the gop would make mince meat out of this guy?

Joe

[madfloridian]

91. To be honest, I see no problem. It is a personal opinion.

She had a right to it.

[Joe for Clark]

96. You see - to the extent they represented his campaign,

they represented him - that is all that will be remembered next year - that is the point.

And frankly, if you don't see a problem in what they said - then maybe you have a problem in tolerance.

Joe

[madfloridian]

99. So, now I am intolerant? Think about what you are doing.

They were private bloggers, they had a right to say what they thought, just as much as you do.

This was before they worked for Edwards. You apparently expect people not to criticize when a church leader says he has the power to control us all?

Wow.

[Joe for Clark]

102. Where do you get that???

They were paid by him. He hired them. And I am being kinder than any potential opponent will be.

You don't EVER estrange such a large voting block and expect to win anything.

I have a real question about his judgement right now.

Joe

[madfloridian]

106. He stood up and spoke out. He will gain respect for that.

Now address the fact that you called me intolerant.

[Joe for Clark]

111. OK

"they had a right to say what they thought, just as much as you do."

No one has the right to say such things about anothers beliefs.

And they certainly do not if they are "paid for".

It is a big problem for Edwards. And I am at least a fairly liberal catholic. Imagine what happens with the not so moderate.

It was stupid - it just was.

Joe

[citizen snips]

112. exactly they are private bloggers.

Edwards should not censor them.

[pnwmom]

135. They weren't private bloggers! They were public bloggers.

Anyone anywhere can read their posts.

[madfloridian]

139. That is my point. The Catholic group wants to silence them..

from working with a candidate. It is amazing you think it is ok that Donohue is planning to take Edwards down.

[pnwmom]

140. It is amazing that you think it's okay for Edwards to have hired

these bloggers in the first place, and to retain them after finding out about their history of bigoted writing.

[KingofNewOrleans]

92. Monty Python is funnier

I think the Catholic Church will somehow survive all this.

[Joe for Clark]

98. I think Jerry Lewis is funny too.

But Edwards really just alienated about 25% of the american population.

He really did.

Joe

[KingofNewOrleans]

103. Well there you are wrong

Jerry Lewis is not funny.

I just asked my wife (who's Catholic) about it, and she's not particularly upset. Of course, she disagrees with the church on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and marriage of priests. She thinks the Church is misogynistic too. She's had Catholics tell her she's not Catholic, so she may not be the best person to ask.

[Joe for Clark]

114. Oh come on -

Of course Jerry Lewis is funny.

I don't know about europe - but in america I don't think you could get 10 catholics in a room that actually agree with all the edicts. Your wife is in the majority.

The virgin Mary is off limits though - ask her. It is true.

Joe

[KingofNewOrleans]

130. If only I had photoshop skills

I'd test out your theory by dressing up Jerry Lewis like the Virgin Mary :-)

[Joe for Clark]

137. That would be funny -

Joe

[cadmium]

101. I'm a liberal Catholic and this does not

bother me at all. The Church has been pitiful on issues like Plan B and I am not offended by this sample post. The Catholic League and many powerful bishops followed the example of the leaders of fundamentalist mega-churches in encouraging parishioners to vote against Kerry. I would think worse of Edwards if he fired them as a result of ginned-up media outrage. I do worry that he may have hired amateurs as blog consultants. Now I want to go check out their blogs--I have never seen them. Edwards goes up in my personal estimation after this.

[Joe for Clark]

118. You should read some of this stuff.

If you really believe that "Edwards goes up in my personal estimation after this."

And there are a majority out here in blogoshpere that think so- we are going to get our ass kick in 2008.

What percentage of 25% do we have to lose before the entire election is out of reach, exactly??

And if he makes this kind of dumb mistake now - what other mistakes do we have to look forward to.

Joe

[LisaL]

123. Frankly I find it hard to understand why Edwards hired those two

in a first place. Somehow I doubt controversial and offensive was his goal. But hey, what do I know? Maybe it was.

[Joe for Clark]

124. It is strange.

I personally don't think he had any idea of what was going on - I wouldn't expect him to.

I just have a problem with him not reacting to save his political future.

Maybe he still can - what do I know.

Joe

[LisaL]

125. I don't know who thought it was a good idea to hire these two

particular bloggers. Alienating a large group of potential voters does not seem like a good idea to me, but what do I know?

[madfloridian]

128. So you are defending Donohue's right to take down a Democratic candidate.

There's a lot of that going around here today.

[LisaL]

148. I have not mentioned Donahue at all. How am I defending his

right to do anything?

[pnwmom]

153. Some people here think that if Donohue says 2 + 2 = 4,

Then we're all obliged to insist, 2 + 2 = (-4)

See? If Donohue says one thing, no matter what it is, then we're all obligated to say the opposite. Because he's a really rotten guy so he can never ever happen to get a single thing right.

Get it?

[LisaL]

157. Like I said, who is not with us is against us.

[benny05]

166. The poster is defending his right to do so

So much for "progressive" when Donohue is known as a McCain camper.

[cadmium]

160. my interest is peaked now. If

the comment about Plan B is typical of what has The Catholic League worked up the bloggers, it doesnt bother me--I dont think there is anything out of line in that post. I will check their websites in the future. Now if we are just talking about the political calculation of keeping them vs firing them, I support Edwards' decision. He wins points with me. Now they may have said something outrageous and if they did I may change my mind. If this post is as nasty as it gets it doesnt sound like much.

I don't have a pro-Edwards agenda. I'm not inclined to defend him unless I smell a trumped up pseudo-controversy. No matter who the Democrats pick the Catholic League is going to amplify anything that can be contstrued as anti-Catholic to use against them. They took out full page adds against major newspaper ads against Kerry -- I believe not mentioning him by name.

For what it's worth isn't Elizabeth Edwards Catholic?

My opinion--I'm just one skeptical liberal Catholic.

[OHdem10]

163. Donahue was on Fox News during

last presidential election--Bashing Kerry, insinuating he
should not go to Communion. Bashes Liberal Catholics(of which
I am one proudly.)on any TV Program he can reach.

It is my opinion the organization would be more credible if
Bill Donahue were not their public face.

I think Edwards showed strength of character to stand tall
and not just knee-jerkedly fire people.

This is why Democrats had a long losing streak. Some Loudmouthed
RWinger could bully and we caved. Joe and Jane Six Pack
appreciate people who stand up and fight. The fact that he
talked to young women is enough. If they change the way they
blog re issues like Religion--that is all that is necessary.

[LisaL]

165. If they change the way they blog?

In other words, they can't blog what they really think? And that's good?

[pnwmom]

171. No one here is supporting Donohue. Most Catholics don't even know

who he is.

But Democrats will continue with their long losing streak if they're willing to write off the middle of the road and progressive Democrats.

No, talking to the the bloggers wasn't enough. They told him they weren't maligning Catholics and he believed them? Either he's incredibly stupid or he thinks Catholics are.

[mnhtnbb]

185. Elizabeth Edwards is Methodist.

[cadmium]

198. I stand corrected. I thought she was Catholic because

she is Italian.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

187. I did read ALL of the blog content in question...

that is available and agree with you completely. It was nothing I had not all ready thought or come to the same conclusion about myself during my time as a Catholic. And I too would have been more pissed off at Edwards if he had caved in on a little something called Free Speech by firing these women. They had a right to say what they did on their bogs, and Catholics had a right to offended. Welcome to America.

[Stinky The Clown]

161. Bill Donohoe - the Roman Catholic version of James Dobson ....

...... asshats are asshats, no matter what religion they follow. This particular asshat needs only a shaved head and a few tattoos of a certain usurped Native American symbol to "be all that he can be".

[pnwmom]

167. Donohue focused the spotlight on the bloggers. That's all he did.

The issue isn't Donohue, unfortunately. The issue is the hiring of bloggers who have a history of patently anti-Catholic statements.

The average Catholic in the pews had never heard of Donohue before this. But when they read or hear the bloggers statements, they will be offended. Millions of Catholics will be reconsidering their opinion of Edwards in the light of his decision to retain these women after their past statements were brought to his attention.

[LisaL]

170. Edwards or whoever hired these women perhaps should have

read what they blogged about. So these women would not have to change so much as to be unrecognizable when blogging for Edwards. I don't think that is too much to ask. I don't think decision to hire these two speaks well for Edwards. I mean, is there a shortage of bloggers out there that would not have to change their style and opinions while blogging for a political candidate?

[pnwmom]

174. That's what some people around here want us to believe.

[mnhtnbb]

172. Donohue is simply the 21st Century equivalent of the Grand Inquisitor.

Everybody must toe the line, be uncritical of Catholicism, adhere
to the teachings of the Catholic Church. No one is allowed to make any statements critical of The Church--and especially not women bloggers!
Those witches! Let's burn 'em!

[pnwmom]

176. Then I hope Edwards isn't the 21st century version

of The Idiot.

[mnhtnbb]

184. No, I think Bushie boy already has that title.

[pnwmom]

190. Well, on that much we CAN agree.

[mnhtnbb]

195. LOL. I suspect we could agree on a lot of other things :)

[Bucky]

178. I don't trust people who brag about "launching a blitz"

Well, except for Ted Turner, who launched Wolf Blitzer.

[McCamy Taylor]

194. He is trying to scare the Democrats so we will not support Edwards.

Make us think that Edwards would be doomed in a general election, encourage us to put our money behind another candidate.

This has the fingerprints of Team McCain all over it. McCain has assembled all of the vilest campaign people out there and they are doing a real Nixon 1972, I suspect their goal is to get Hillary/Obama as the nominees then lauch a "Hillary is a Bitch and she is committing adultery with that Black Muslim she is running with" campaign.

[McCamy Taylor]

193. Ooooo. A Holy Crusade. How scary.

[tsuki]

197. I cannot understand why the Catholic Church allows him to be the

new face of Catholicism in the US.

[cadmium]

199. probably because of money, from

his Catholic League people or other cohorts of right wing donors.

[DemBones DemBones]

206. The Catholic Church is not a dictatorship that controls what its members do.

The Church does not sponsor the Catholic League; it's a private organization to which some Catholics belong. I don't belong but I think it provides a public service by calling attention to anti-Catholic discrimination.

Now that I think of it, I think I'll send money I'd earmarked for Dems to the Catholic League instead. I'll send some to Dennis Kucinich but John Edwards won't get the time of day from me ever again.

Bill Donohue is a pitbull, no doubt about it. So is Abe Foxman. But when Abe Foxman says "Anti-Semitism" DUers salute.

[Ultra_Lib]

216. A number of issues being confused here

As a former Catholic who has said crude, provocative things about the church myself, I think there are at least two separate issues here. One is whether the liberal bloggers were engaging in "anti-Catholic bigotry" by making inflammatory comments about Catholic doctrine and Catholics in general. The second issue is whether John Edwards should fire them.

On the first issue, I think "anti-Catholic bigotry" (or even "anti-religious bigotry") is a misnomer. Beliefs, whether in social justice or virgin births or man-made climate change, are always open for debate, disagreement and even ridicule. They're beliefs -- nobody's beliefs are objectively "sacred" (even though they are sacred to the individual holding them). People may hate Democrats because we're "pro-abortion, pro-gay, anti-business" (their characterization, not mine), and in my mind they're entitled to hate us and even scoff at us if they want. They shouldn't be dishonest about it (i.e., claiming all Democrats are cowards or traitors, whatever), but they're not "bigots" per se. They hate us for what we believe and represent.

In a similar way, people (like me) who think religious belief is inherently weird and say so publicly are not being "bigoted" -- we don't dislike people for some intrinsic characteristic like skin color, gender, sexual orientation, etc.(which is why I don't think substitutions like "what if they said 'African-Americans' or 'gays' instead of Catholics" really work). We dislike them only when they force their beliefs on others. And we (I) think some of their beliefs are silly, but again, so what? They don't think those beliefs are silly and they're entitled to that opinion and I'm entitled to mine.

Should John Edward dismiss the bloggers because of their comments? That's a totally political calculation. Is he going to find smart, capable people who've never said anything offensive in the past? (Maybe he can.) Does he want to make an impression for standing up for free speech (even when that speech is potentially problematic) or does he want to avoid giving the Republicans a stick with which to beat him? I think I could support him either way.

[DemBones DemBones]

218. So what if they had made such insulting comments about ATHEISTS?

THAT would have 99% of DU wanting to burn them in effigy.

[Ultra_Lib]

224. So what if they had made insulting comments about atheists?

You may be right about the other DUers -- I can't speak for them. But my answer would be the same. If they want to say atheists are idiots for ignoring the obvious reality that God exists, I would say "let them." I wouldn't call it bigotry. If they went further to say all atheists are evil people with no morality (because we aren't ruled by "divine law"), I would heartily disagree with that (and to be honest ... maybe I would find that to be bigoted, as it would go beyond our beliefs to imply something about our character). But if they used hyperbole and satire to ridicule my beliefs, I would find that "fair game."

[jen4clark]

200. Sign on to this!

Haven't read the entire thread to see if this was posted, but even if it was, it deserves to be posted again:

From DefCon:

Sign our Petition today, demanding that The New York Times, the Associated Press, CNN and MSNBC stop giving the religious right a free pass and acknowledge William Donohue's own sordid history of trash talking.

http://ga3.org/campaign/donohue

[zulchzulu]

202. Like this doofus would vote for a Democrat anyway...

The guy is Brownbackian in nature...

[saltpoint]

215. Mr. Donahue would not be so intemperate, divisive, and rabidly hateful

had he not as a young man got his wee-wee stuck in a pool filter.

There's no help for it now, and he'll just have to rage and wail and throw tantrums.

I also think John Edwards easily survives any effort by someone like Donahue to derail him.

[DemBones DemBones]

217. A poster at Commonweal made a good point:

"So when liberals attack Catholicism, it's "disagreement."

But when conservatives (i.e. Bob Jones University,) attack Catholicism, it's "bigotry."

If it's okay to Edwards to keep these bloggers, then Bush's 2000 appearence at Bob Jones shouldn't be an issue."