Thursday, February 08, 2007

Edwards Keeps Marcotte

The Edwards campaign has just issued a statement, contradicting reports from yesterday, that it will retain Amanda Marcotte as the candidate's official blogger. The candidate remarked,
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.
This statement begs the question: if "the tone and the sentiment" of some of the duo's posts offended the candidate, and did not meet the standards for his employees, why did Edwards hire the duo in the first place?

191 comments:

Michael said...

Can a leopard change its spots? I guess we'll see.

On the other hand, we still no nothing about Edwards' stance on this case outside of what we can infer by his silence.

Anonymous said...

It would seem to have been quite the Road to Damascus moment for Marcotte and friend, what?

Anonymous said...

I wonder when the "Breck Girl" will grow a spine?

Anonymous said...

Hey, he's in it to win. He thinks her attacks against 'the enemy' would be more effective than any criticism against her screeching - because obviously the MSM is prepared to dismiss that criticism as evil right-wing ranting or 'swiftboating' (code for unfair to lefties no matter how true).

And said MSM will go to some lengths to avoid linking her Duke LAX venom to the Edwards campaign. They're in it to win, too.

Insufficiently Sensitive

DukeEgr93 said...

Gotta say - this is truly a negative indicator for his potential judgment as president... It's not as if there isn't an entire universe of folks who are (a) good at blog development and promotion and (b) aren't Marcotte. Something like, "After investigating further, I have determined that the previous electronically published messages from these two make it impossible for me to trust my message to them," would have been much, much better.

Anonymous said...

All of you devoted liberals who spend time here have some 'splainin' to do.

Anonymous said...

He just pissed on the 350,000 members catholic league

not a good start

Anonymous said...

Edwards didn't get me excited in 2004, and he certainly isn't doing a good job of changing my mind!

duke2009mom

Anonymous said...

So I wonder if Marcotte and friend had to attend sensitivity training now that they have been judged spouters of intolerant language?

Anonymous said...

That writer at MYDD blog outright threatened Edwards with a left wing avalanche if he fired those two. Edwards caved - imagine what he would do with the folk who threaten the USA on a daily basis. The foul mouthed women did say they were sorry and would not do it again. Rudy G is my man.

Anonymous said...

Actually, this is a smart move by Edwards in his long-shot campaign for the nomination. Let's face it, centrists or moderates will not vote for him in the primaries anyway so Edwards takes the Ned Lamont/Dailykos route. It may very well pay off and if he can win the majority of the hard core marxists/feminazi/G88/black racist crowd. This is probably a majority of democratic party anyway so he have good chances.

Of course, if he happens to win the nomination with the DailyKos votes he cannot get more than 25% of votes genetal elections.

Anonymous said...

JLS says.....

Edwards shows why he has no chance at the nomination. In fact I believe that stealing speech from British policians, commenting on the bathing habit of your opponents or saying "we have better hair" each individually eliminate your chances to get the nominamtion. Bye Joe B and John E.

Anonymous said...

That last question does rather go to the heart of the matter.

And if Marcotte didn't mean to malign and impugn "personal faith", how come she did it so often?

Anonymous said...

Edwards is positioning himself to be the "Howard Dean without the Craziness" this time around, which means he needs all of the netroots on his side. Judging from some of the comments on liberal blogs yesterday afternoon and this morning, he would have been eaten alive and abandoned by these people if he'd fired them.

He's either going to look spineless to conservatives or to liberals, regardless of what he does. This is the smart political move for winning the nomination, even if it's wrong on the merits.

Anonymous said...

Yep, there are "two America's".

If you are a blogger that supports the constitutionally provided presumption of innocence you are a right-wing blog holligan.

If you blog intolerant views of a wide swath of the population, your employer can expediently declare "we’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked (ie by the right wing holligans)"

Sorry that "justification" by Edwards doesn't fly with this North Carolinian.

john bruce said...

It's worth pointing out that Glenn Reynolds thinks Edwards did the right thing in keeping the bloggers. In other words, no matter how bigoted you are, no matter how offensive your blogging, free speech trumps all, or something like that.

Reynolds is wildly overrated.

Anonymous said...

What a politically dumb move. Edwards will have enough trouble identifying themes that will capture the electorate (other than as a plaintiffs lawyer, hardly a species designed to excite the average American) without being queried constantly about the radical and often hate filled views of his associated bloggers. For all of those who dislike Bill Clinton - let's make on thing clear - he by and large did not make stupid political mistakes. He would not have done anything like this here.

Horrified said...

If free speech does trump all, then everyone would be required to buy Dixie Chicks albums, and watch Susan Sarandon movies.

I don't know what material Edwards was referring to as being insulting, since Amanda trashed it once daylight hit the rafter she roosting on.

Anonymous said...

Why? Two words:
PAM SPAULDING, granddaughter of Asa Spaulding, and Pandagon blogging partner of Amanda Marcotte.

bill anderson said...

Is nothing sacred? Does this mean Amanda cannot use the "F"-word when describing Catholics and Duke lacrosse players? That is SO unfair. Politics over free speech. This is only the first step to fascism.

Anonymous said...

EDWARDS CAMPAIGN STATEMENT

The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me.

(I am relieved to hear this. But, will you comment on the offense to others? The 2008 election is not all about you, or is it?)

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.

(Yes. It is important to check out potential employees carefully so you know what sort of people are working for you.)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign,

(Sounds good. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to be paid for it.)

whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else.

(Are you intimating that the posts from these two were humor or satire? A multi-year, multi-post "botched joke" of sorts? I don't hear anyone laughing.)

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

(As Amanda can assure you, a woman would not lie about maligning someone . . . or a rape. By the way, what was their intention? The long term pattern suggests some intention? Do you suffer from a lack of intellectual curiosity like our current president?)


anyone's faith,

(Or sex? Or race? Or the region they call home? It's not just the Catholics who are angry.)

and I take them at their word.

(Again, they are incapable of lying or deceiving. Too bad Amanda has technical problems that make old material disappear from her blog.)

We're beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can't let it be hijacked.

(Did you say "hijacked"? You make it sound like this is something bad that happened to you. The bloggers wrote what the bloggers wrote and your campaign failed to carefully vet them.)

It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in.

(Especially courage John, especially courage.)

SAVANT

Anonymous said...

What a ninny.... I'm just curious about how well his whining about two Americas will fly once folks see some photos of his new house.

At least it's clear which America he wants to be a part of....

Please tell me I'm correct in my recollection that he is originally from SOUTH Carolina....

Anonymous said...

No offense, but I don't think Edwards is courting the idiot constituency... so all your outrage isn't likely to affect him or the election.

AMac said...

Presumably it was the Edwards campaign's inadequate Due Diligence that let to the hiring of Marcotte and McEwen. To see what "blog" means to them, you just have to click over and let one of their homepages load. A classic case of WYSIWYG.

But it could only have been the back-room machinations of Karl Rove that got Edwards to keep these two on his campaign.

Or perhaps Hillary had a hand in it.

Top secret Marcotte-Edwards emails on display at IowaHawk (NSFW satire).

Horrified said...

So much for the awesome, mind numbing, brutal powers of we evil papists. We're one vote/law/violent act away from hurling all women into the abyss, so I'm told. and yet, we find that we cannot stop a campaign that supposedly will represent we reactionary theocrats, from hiring a blogger that hates Catholics.

Yep. fear us. We are indeed mighty. Oh yeah.

Excuse me whilst I subvert the courts with my minions.

james conrad said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
james conrad said...

This statement begs the question: if "the tone and the sentiment" of some of the duo's posts offended the candidate, and did not meet the standards for his employees, why did Edwards hire the duo in the first place?.....because john edwards is an empty box of hair politically and couldnt carry his home state if his life depended on it

Horrified said...

Excuse me, I need help, since I'm just a Catholic.

"they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith".

So when she accuses all Catholics of attacking all women and making them slaves who would create future churchgoing "tithers" through Church policy on contraception, that wasn't maligning anyone?

"There is to be a debate"!?! On what; Catholic Church policy? By Edwards!?!

Great! Sign me up. After we're done, we can debate the other great religions, such as Judaism, Protestantism and Global Warming.

Anonymous said...

If you think Edwards will have trouble with his "2 Americas" theme, what did you think of an oil-man from the Bush dynasty that is worth hundreds of millions, mostly from Saudi oil, trying to act like an every-man and outsider (its cute he wanted to appear an outsider, even though daddy was also a President of the USA).

Anonymous said...

Global warming isn't a religion. Religion is the complete lack of open mindedness, just believing in God because you don't understand certain things about the world and/or universe.

Plus, America-hating zealots like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell (fellow staunch conservatives) blame 9/11 on New Yorkers and depravity... as did they blame hurricane Katrina on the people of New Orleans, and God's desire to punish them.

Me, I believe God is evil and hates mankind... and I have JUST AS MUCH PROOF OF THAT AS ALL YOU BELIEVERS DO OF A BENIGN GOD!!!

Anonymous said...

I've been trying to give Edwards the benefit of the doubt, but he keeps making it harder and harder for me to take him seriously as a candidate. It appears he hired these people without first determining exactly who they are and what they stand for, and then refused to fire them due to pressure from the far left. This type of behavior reminds me of another politician known for his inattention to detail and his willingness to pander to the fringe of his party -- you may have heard of him, he goes by the nickname "W" and has gotten all of us into a whole mess of trouble. I don't think this country can (or will) stomach another guy like this.

Anonymous said...

"The foul mouthed women did say they were sorry and would not do it again"

Sorry 2:47, but they DID NOT apologize. No one over there did.

Edwards said he was "personally offended" but failed to acknowledge that anyone else was. That is part of any decent apology because the apology is for the benefit of the other person, not for yours. The women said they did not intend to malign anyone but failed to acknowledge that a reasonable person (including their boss) could conclude that they had. They denied intent, but did not address the effect of their screeds.

Furthermore, JE intimates that maybe their trash was just "humor or satire" and his discussion of a "hijacking" sounds like blame shifting.

The apology is weasel-worded, post-modernist crap. At least they did not offer the current (low) standard of apology which goes "I'm sorry if anyone was offended by what I did."

I do agree that they probably won't do it again.

Anonymous said...

I take no objection to anyone comparing Edwards to the devil incarnate, but please please please please please never compare him to something much, much worse, George W. Bush, worse than Carter, worst President ever. And its only getting worse as his joke of a Presidency winds to a close.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

re: 3:21

Yeah, I have no use for Bill Clinton but you are right, he would have cut this woman loose in a second and have dressed down whomever hired her.

And he would have told her in no uncertain terms she was not going to bring down an avalanche of bloggers on him, if she knew what was good for her. She would have gone quietly or she may have even liked being yelled at by Clinton.

Anonymous said...

He has never had any chance of being elected. Based on the language that Marcotte used, and which can now be used against Edwards, he will carry only the loonies - which based on my reading of posts here, is a pretty good number of people. Moonbats - your silky pony is ready to ride! To oblivion and beyond!

Gayle Miller said...

'Cause he's stupid, why else?

Anonymous said...

4:00...

Call liberals "moonbats" all you want. Just think of them being "loons" as you stand up in church, praising a God that you never see, but nevers fails to side with you, singing hymnals that were sang by primitive peoples thousands of years ago that thought the earth was flat and continuing a tradition that went so far back as to thinking that -- because we don't understand the sun -- a God named Apollo must be dragging it around.

But yea, liberals are the looney ones!!!

Anonymous said...

4:05 PM
Um...plenty of liberals attend church or partake in some form of organized religion, something protected under the constitution.

Anonymous said...

to 3:51 PM

Karla, nice to see you here again.

Anonymous said...

Thats great that the Constitution protects sillyness, be it religious conservatives or liberals.

But to compare baseless religious beliefs with scientific consensus is idiotic (yes, there can be consensus even if 1% of scientists employed by oil companies deny global warming).

Anonymous said...

To Anon @ 3:39
John "Ambulance Chaser" Edwards is, indeed a Palmetto. He is what we call a "galvanized Tarheel."

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but I never take it sitting down when a religious person accuses someone else of being "looney", illogical or a "moonbat".

But hey, its normal to literally believe you are eating a man's flesh and drinking his blood, even though you are not Jeffry Dalhmer and he has been dead for 2,000+ years... riiiiiight.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....

re: 4:05

It never ceases to amaze me when I see an intolerant agnostic/atheist who fails to respect the beliefs of those that do believe.

Many such people claim to not like religion because it is intolerant. But too many times they are intolerant like your posts. What an odd choice to combat perceived intolerance by trying to be even more intolerant?

Anonymous said...

This reminds me of John Kerry refusing to apologize for the botched joke. When some of these statements are publicized (see Liestoppers if you haven't already read them), there will be a lot more pressure for him to distance himself from this vile, foul mouthed feminazi. (hint.. find the post she wrote on birth control.. I posted it on TL)

These quotes are grossly offensive to most of the US population, not just to right wingers and Catholics. By the time Edwards figures out how much damage this is going to do and finally cuts them loose, it will be over for him. And good riddance. The last thing we need is a slip and fall lawyer as the President.

Anonymous said...

4:16 PM, your religion is showing:


But to compare baseless religious beliefs with scientific consensus is idiotic (yes, there can be consensus even if 1% of scientists employed by oil companies deny global warming).


Just as faith is not a mechanism science uses, nor is consensus.

Many of the best scientists have upset previous consensus views.

Anonymous said...

Intolerance... religious beliefs are... BELIEFS. Just like political beliefs.

I should be no more or less hesitant to call someone crazy for their legitimately weird and unfounded religious beliefs than someone should be for calling someone a loon or moonbat for their political beliefs... especially since usually you can talk statistics, economic theory, etc. to back up a political theory.

Religion is a choice, as are political affiliations. I just don't see why religious beliefs should get special protection. I didn't see one of your "intolerance" posts criticizing the guy who called lliberals "moonbats" and "loons".

Anonymous said...

2:28 PM wrote "All of you devoted liberals who spend time here have some 'splainin' to do."

As a liberal, I will admit that I am losing my faith -- not in liberalism per se (JS Mill is still my intellectual hero), but rather in the increasingly illiberal Democratic Party.

To be a "good liberal," it often seems, one must regard fundamentalist Christians (and in some quarters, Catholics as well) with utter contempt, yet simultaneously regard fundamentalist Muslims with utter respect.

Fundamentalist Christians don't think that gays should be allowed to marry: "oh the horror of such right-wing bigotry!"

Fundamentalist Mulsims tend to think that gays should be put to death: "How dare you say that, you right-wing Islamophobic bigot! It doesn't matter if it's true: can't you understand that 'truth' is just a social construct, you anti-intellectual dolt!"

Is there a political home for someone like me? Where, pray tell?

Anti-Leftist Liberal

Anonymous said...

There's no reason to disrespect people for their religious beliefs. It's ill-mannered. In most cases, people adhere to such beliefs because they simply don't know any better.

But there's no reason to respect the beliefs themselves. No belief system is entitled to immunity from robustly-expressed criticism, especially the craziness that is religion.

Anonymous said...

My goal isn't to insult people of faith. Moreover, my goal is to point out how silly it is for a religious person to call another a loon. Judging by some of the beliefs they hold... I'm not so sure that it is much different than someone being held against their will in a psych facility calling other people "loons".

But I don't wake up every morning wanting to make fun of religious beliefs. But I will pull no punches when liberals are called "loons" by religious people. I'll respond by asking about the magical guy who flies around in the clouds, and who cries when you touch yourself.

Vivian Thomas said...

A copy of a comment I posted under Mr. Edwards' comment on the situation

Dear Mr. Edwards,
Your appointment of Amanda Marcotte is the first action you have ever taken which has caused me to question your integrity and your honor. Ms. Marcotte explicitly asserted in her blog, pandagon.net, that "[The 3 Duke Lacrosse player] held someone down and fucked her against her will--not rape, of course, because the charges have been thrown out". She goes on, in her faux-cute language to question, "Can't a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair".
Ms. Marcotte seems to think that it is funny to comment so recklessly on such an issue. She seems to think that it is clever to laugh and smirk at the suffering of 3 young men who have been falsely accused of raping, sodomizing, strangling and beating a young woman. She seems to wish that the boys had actually done all the acts of which they've been accused.
Tell me, Mr. Edwards, had you been falsely accused of raping, sodomizing, strangling and beating a young woman when you were in college, how would you have wanted a person, such as Ms. Marcotte, to have treated the issue? What would you have wanted a person with such a large audience to do with what little he or she knew about your plight? Would you have wanted a person, such as Ms. Marcotte, to have flippantly mocked your pain and taken the lies of your accuser as gospel for seemingly no reason other than the fact that it was fun for her?
To be fair, I couldn't really care less about the poor, persecuted Catholics who seem to be up-in-arms about Ms. Marcotte's characterization of them. I still hold their questioning of Galileo against them. However, the 3 young men accused in Durham do not have a sovereign nation or thousands of years of followers to support them. These young men are on the precipice of their adult lives, and their futures are being threatened by the ignorant flights of fanciful rage which seem to flow freely from your head blogger, Amanda Marcotte.
Simply stated, Ms. Marcotte's writing on the issue of the "Duke Lacrosse Scandal" have been despicable, inexcusable, cruel, viscous, wanton and pretty much every other negative adjective that one could imagine. That is, until she deleted them all from her blog and tried to pretend that she never made such ignorant statement. Well, Ms. Marcotte can keep her fingers crossed and her breath held if she likes, but I'll assure her as I'm assuring you now that there are people who will never let anyone forget how Ms. Marcotte treats such issues. Everyone I know and everyone I can contact will know that you, Mr. Edwards, support, through your employment, a person who made the above statements, in a public forum, in such an inexcusable manner.
If you wish to continue employment of Ms. Marcotte, that is certainly your decision. However, for me, Mr. Edwards, such an action raises grave concerns which I do no believe I will be able to put aside. It raises too many important question about your values and your judgment.
I will be following your message and hoping that you can do some good through your campaign, but I will be voting for Mr. Obama.

Thank you.


It's met with either positive or no reaction from subsequent commentors.

Anonymous said...

Don't you ding-dongs have jobs!?!?!?

Horrified said...

"I'm sorry, but I never take it sitting down when a religious person accuses someone else of being "looney", illogical or a "moonbat".

"But hey, its normal to literally believe you are eating a man's flesh and drinking his blood, even though you are not Jeffry Dalhmer and he has been dead for 2,000+ years... riiiiiight. "

This thread was in reference to a Presidential candidate hiring, and then deciding to retain someone who hates, among others, Catholics.

At least three posts have agreed that religions and believers should be hated and reviled, and decried some " special protection". No one here is demanding 'special protection'. I do think that it's important to know which, if any candidates also hate Catholics.


That doesn't mean that John Edwards isn't still a candidate, or that his new blogger doesn't still hate me. It means that I now know who I won't vote for.

duke09kparent said...

The Iowahawk satire amac linked at 3:41 is a very funny satire. When someone gathered the greatest hits selection from Marcotte's blog in a memo for Edwards to read, I wonder how many expletives he used in asking what idiot hired her in the first place.

He was in a hard spot-- he couldn't be seen to yield to the right wingers, Donahue and the Catholic League was never going to vote for him anyway, he needs the hard left wing to win the primaries. As 3:32 pointed out, the Spaulding connection is probably important. Plus, these women probably have little policy input, he just needs someone to scrub his blog site (but not too much to make it look scrubbed, and he can't admit they're nothing on policy without offending whatever blog following she can bring or without gutting their motivation to work for him.

His statement was pretty artful, but such political statements are almost always weaselly. He could be offended by "some" of her posts, like the Rump Group in our case didn't approve of "some" of the protests. The claim they didn't mean to malign any religion could be accepted as an apology by anyone who didn't actually read the crap.

Anonymous said...

Gosh,and I wrote an "I'm sorry it happened to you" note to Amanda earlier today.It will be interesting to see how this ends.I think there are just too many nutso posts by Amanda out there.

Anonymous said...

4:22

Exactly. And here is a link to one of those "best scientists" who proved that Mann's "seminal" study, the result of which is the hockey stick spike in temperature this century, is wrong.

Dr. Wegman

If you care to follow the articles, the preeminent authority on hurricanes in the Atlantic said his work was inaccurately portrayed.

Another link to a scientist who is not funded by big oil:

Dr. Timothy Ball

The IPCC's only answer to these critics is an attack, but it does not dispute their facts.

Anonymous said...

I guess these two scientists each somehow cancels out thousands who reach the opposite conclusion.

Anyway, I like how criticizing religious beliefs is "hatred" and outright mocking liberals isn't considered taboo.

But hey, you want to play victim and let your beliefs have special protection, just because they fall into a certain category, well thats just a little too PC for me.

Ideas are ideas, and immutable characteristics (such as race) are... immutable characteristics. To compare treating religious beliefs just like any other idea to racism is PC garbage and you are playing the victim card.

Anonymous said...

Ok, so political beliefs are fair game, but religious beliefs are "special". Got it.

Keep mocking liberalism using derogatory words. Thats okay, but in your PC framework, its NOT okay to mock your special religious beliefs.

Pretty good deal when you make all the rules, huh?

james conrad said...

hey kidz, i hate to break it to you but the prez race is down to 3 candidates, hillary, mc cain, and giuliani. of course, at 2 yrs out, theres still time for a new guy (actually old guys like gingrich or al gore)but as the months of '07 click by, that window will close in a hurry

Anonymous said...

4:50

Please read the articles before dismissing them. There are also two climatologists - state of Oregon and state of Delaware - that agree with these two and Crichton's comments on the matter.

There are not "thousands" of scientists that have reached the opposite conclusion. There are only a handful of scientists that are even capable of critiquing the global warming studies.

If you think the Duke case is a hoax, wait until you pull the covers back on the IPCC.

4:42

Anonymous said...

It's also interesting that evidence and consensus are either important or not.

The evidence and consensus is that the Duke accuser was NOT raped, that's all good. There are still a few die hard purists who refuse to look at the evidence or see something the rest of the world doesn't. These die hards are reviled and criticized.

The evidence and consensus is that global warming is exacerbated by human activity and that the consequences of inaction are dire. There are still a few die hard purists who refuse to look at the evidence or see something the rest of the world doesn't. These die hards are great pioneers going against the grain.

Don't even get started on the idea that the holy spirit impregnanted Mary or the creator talked in person to Moses and gave him a stone tablet as something that is beyond criticism from a real world perspective.

Anonymous said...

"But hey, its normal to literally believe you are eating a man's flesh and drinking his blood, even though you are not Jeffry Dalhmer and he has been dead for 2,000+ years... riiiiiight."

Just once, I'd like to see someone non-or-lapsed Catholic discuss transubstantiation who actually understands it. Just once.

Or at least quote Jane Grey: "The baker made him."

And that's the sort of tolerance that endears the hard left to everyone else.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, let's get Stephen King and Kurt Vonnegut to weigh in on global warming too.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I'd like to see what Mark Twain has to say on the global warming issue.

Anonymous said...

How about Bernie Goldberg... he wrote a really, really good book too!

Anonymous said...


"But hey, its normal to literally believe you are eating a man's flesh and drinking his blood, even though you are not Jeffry Dalhmer and he has been dead for 2,000+ years... riiiiiight."

Just once, I'd like to see someone non-or-lapsed Catholic discuss transubstantiation who actually understands it. Just once.


Yes, isn't it funny that people who normally understand metaphor have immense difficulty with that particular issue.

Anonymous said...

King and Vonnegut are as qualified as the "thousands" of scientists that endorse the IPCC study.

Anonymous said...

rest in Peace, Anna Nicole. The lost of a child is the worst thing that can happen to a person.

Anonymous said...

It isn't a metaphor in Catholic theology, the essense of Christ is alleged to be present in the wine and communion wafer, the essense of reality is changed...

It's convenient to pretend that it is, and ALWAYS WAS a symbol and a metaphor but that is rewriting history. Just like it's convenient to forget about all the church father's who wrote copious articles about sex for pleasure was a sin, when what they really meant was.....

There is a lot of good in Catholic teachings about helping the poor and needy and preventing violence. They fall miserably short when it comes to sex, procreation and homosexuality.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the heros of the religious right, Jerry B. Jenkins and whatever his butt-buddy's name is can weigh in on global warming.

They wrote the whole "Left Behind" series. You know, how much of American LITERALLY believes that believers are going to disappear upon the "glorious reappearance", and that the rest of us suckers will be left behind.

Rest assured, that in the book, good-hearted priests leave behind video messages for those left behind to watch and it tells us how we can find Christ and be with them... but only after the 7 plagues infest the earth... including the one Jenkin's described as locust-like insects that look more like sea horses come and sting all the non-believers.

They do literally believe this stuff. Metaphors they are not!

It would be telling to hear their stance on global warming. I'll just believe the opposite of whatever that is!!!

Anonymous said...

5:09

You could always just go review the books at Amazon. Some of us have no freaking clue what you're going on about.

Is keeping Marcotte a good move for Edwards?

I don't think it is, mostly because her writing is dreadful.

Anonymous said...

Skipped over the religious views - who cares what anyone thinks about religion or lack there of. I am always pleased that is no cussin and talk of body part.

Anonymous said...

I don't care about religion. I simply will point out how hypocritical it is for SOME PEOPLE to call others "loons". Think about what you yourself believe before you start throwing out the term "loon" or "moonbat"!!!

Gary Packwood said...

Amanda Marcotte

If I was dumb enough to hire her I would figure it out eventually that I could never EVER fire her.

It is an issue of Amanda inside his tent spitting out or outside his tent spitting in.

She has so many friends in
Angry Studies work and they need for her to talk and talk often.

Anonymous said...

5:13

Edwards' campaign made a huge mistake hiring her and compounded it by keeping her on in a bow to a nutroots constituency. Notice that Edwards "believes" her, but didn't bother to address her repugnant views.

Gary Packwood said...

Whats a moonbat?

Anonymous said...

Moonbat - political epithet for extremism.

Anonymous said...


Moonbat - political epithet for extremism.


Well, strictly speaking, a moonbat is a leftist extremist.

A wingnut is a rightist extremist.

These epithets tend to be hurled by people of the other persuasian.

It's a bit chimps hurling shit at people in a zoo. The chimps tend to look more clueful, though.

Anonymous said...

"Moonbat" is only used to mock liberals.

And it makes sense, because liberals believe in ivory-towerish things. On the other hand, conservatives believe in more realistic things, and put them into action. For instance, we were so pleased with receiving candy and flowers upon invading Iraq, and that it would pay for itself. Clearly, the liberals have a strong-hold on all things ivory tower.

Horrified said...

Stating that Catholicism enslaves women is mere criticism? Really?

Once again, a false agruement is made that special protection is sought. None was asked for. This is good since basic tolerance isn't forthcoming, much less 'special protection'.

We've been able to converse on this site for months despite our differences in politics, because most here value basic human rights to assemble, attend school, even to have college parties, without devious and/or unhinged people abusing their rights and railroading them.

To think that condemnations of a religion would incite some to rejoice is regrettable. Still, I'm glad that her comments against the Duke students, which were published so recently, were exposed.

Anonymous said...

Edwards probably did the smart thing if he wanted to live to fight another day. He has to have the far Left to win the primaries. What he will do for the general election (if he can get by Clinton) will be interesting to watch since the toxic posts did not get erased in time and most Americans have yet to be exposed to the most vile material from Amanda-land.

Edwards is using the same approach of securing the Left that was used by President George McGovern.

Anonymous said...

None of this religious debate means much. The average American Catholic, and even the average American Pentacostal, is -- compared to the average Wahhabi cleric -- is a fair-minded, tolerant, follower of the Enlightenment. Yes, they hold a lot of ideas that I personally find nonsensical, but are any of them advocating a return to the laws of Leviticus? Proponents of Sharia, on the other hand, number in the hundreds of millions

Folks, we are in a global struggle between those who believe in freedom and those who want to destroy it (radical Muslims and their allies on the radical left).

Anti-Leftist liberal

Anonymous said...

This was always more about the right wing bloggers trying to flex their muscle and uncover another vast left wing conspiracy of hate toward Christians, Men, White Men and Republicans.

Edwards is not going to get the nomination, Amanda Marcotte is no one to get worked up about.

If this story is reported at all it will be watered down and Edwards will say 'she apoligzed if her blogging offended anyone, etc. etc.' case over.

Anonymous said...

Last time I checked the muslim hordes weren't at the border quite yet. I doubt very much if we offered the rule of our country to bin laden he would take it, the terrorists do not want to take over American or the West, they want to take over their own countries and oppresss their own people with their brand of religious insanity. When they think the West gets in their way, they blow stuff up.

That does not make it a global war or a war with Islam, it makes it a fight against a handful of nuts whose view of the Koran is about as correct as Jim Jones view of the Bible was.

Anonymous said...

To Anti-Left Liberal:

No one is even remotely saying that American religious people are bad, let alone as bad as the Taliban and Wahhabists everywhere.

What you might be mistaking for intentionally mocking is nothing more than asking people to put up or shut up when they call other people "loons". If you are going to go ahead and do that, is it not appropriate to comment on which of their beliefs is objectively loonier than a liberal's political beliefs?

That was the context. Not calling people evil, homophobes, etc., not comparing them to Wahhabis. But I am showing how ridiculous it is to call liberals "loons" when you believe some of this stuff.

Anonymous said...

Anti-Leftist Liberal

Hear Hear. Unfortunately, few politicos (of any persuasion) have the spine to stand up to the radical Muslims.

Anonymous said...

Once again, taking things out of context. No one compared CC's to Muslims. No one even made the comparison.

It was simply a matter of exposing ridiculous hypocrisy. Wanna call liberals loons for what they believe about social policy, fine go ahead. But first let us have a look at some of your beliefs and allow us the chance to ask you whether, just maybe, you shouldn't call us loons!

Anonymous said...

4:05

anon. 4:00 here - sorry, I don't go to church, I'm an atheist. Perhaps my use of the words "loonies" and "moonbat" are too strong. For that apologize. Mustn't be intemperate here amongst the gentle spirited libs.

So I will merely quote your illiterate posting "But yea, liberals are the looney ones!!!" I couldn't have said it better myself. The three exclamation points are excellent by the way.

Anonymous said...

5:37 -

The Muslim hordes will not come after Western countries via the gate - witness Europe, especially Britain: one subtle step after another....

Anonymous said...

What a weasel. He is saying, basically, that she's fine, it's just that some of the things she has said aren't things he would have said. Moving along...

Anonymous said...

The Muslim hordes are no different that the hordes of Mexicans...if you stop expecting immigrants of any stripe from adopting the cultural norms of your country, be it the US, England or France then you are in for a world of hurt down the road.

That is the problem, in an orgy of politcal correctness nobody in Europe was willing to say boo to the muslims until several muslim girls were killed in honor killings in France.

If you come to country X, you have to adapt to the mainstream culture. You don't have to give up your ethnic identity but you can't expect to live by your own laws.

Anonymous said...

She's gone, Call it a gentle see ya'.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

It is remarkable how KC's post regarding Marcotte has brought forth so many rude, obnoxious and off-topic comments. Marcotte's fans must have joined us for the day.

Anonymous said...

to 5:38
"No one is even remotely saying that American religious people are bad, let alone as bad as the Taliban and Wahhabists everywhere."

Actually, this is excatly what ACLU, Micheal Moore and the rest of the hard core left are saying publicly.
(ok not exactly true: they are saying that christians are worse than islamists since they enjoy white christian male privileges)

Anonymous said...

5:37 You are so right. Wirh a birth rate of 5 -10 to 2 - France and Britain will be muslim in 100 years.

Anonymous said...

G88 sent their assistants here, that's the reason for various pro-ACLU, pro-Edwards pro-AP posts in recent days.

Anonymous said...

Religious people are not bad, religious people using the government to force their religious beliefs on those who do not believe as they do, that's bad.

Anonymous said...

Well, as long as we are so off topic - This country can no longer support the number of people who want to come here. End immigration and build the border fence. The gov. was supposed to build a fence in 1988 during the first and hopefully last amnisty.

Anonymous said...

Edwards - you are such a weasel

AMac said...

More than half the entries in this thread have nothing to do with the host's topic.

Plainly, some commenters are uncomfortable with what the Lacrosse Rape Hoax suggests about broader social tendencies concerning Criminal Justice, Universities, or -- in this instance -- the choices of presidential aspirants.

Capt. Dreyfus wasn't convicted in a vacuum. The three lacrosse players don't face felony charges in a vacuum, either.

If I believed in Edwards' ideas, I would weep at the campaign's selection of Marcotte as blogger. Today's non-apology apologies and idea-free Statement of Principles are cringe-worthy.

Edwards knows he'll be judged by the company he keeps. Hoax enablers Marcotte and McEwan are who he wants: they are, therefore, good choices.

Hillary/Rudy/Obama/John in '08!

Ken said...

Edwards is a Democrat. He'd have to pull a Nifong to get the media to notice any problems and he can rely on them to bury Marcotte's bigotry. There are still relatively few people who read blogs or other alternative news sources. He has no worries. As long as he's out there on the left he has protection

Anonymous said...

6:06 PM
"Marcotte's fans must have joined us for the day.

Considering the level of arrogance and hate, it may be Amanda herself.

Anonymous said...

4:05 Howard Dean is that you? I'm not supposed to feel glad one thinks one is no different from a rock, but at times like this I may make an exception. You may want to go consider chopping some wood and working all that anger out...

Either that or apply to teach race/gender/class warfare at Duke.

Anonymous said...

5:18 How is the world do you act when someone calls you an #$%@% loon?

Anonymous said...

Inre: Marcotte, the irony is that, of course, he implies that they will muzzle her. How's that for freedom of speech. It is the best news I've had all day, as she will not be moving back to Texas.

Anonymous said...

7:06 - wish to try that again in English this time? Your question is not quite making it through the bong smoke...

Anonymous said...

5:38 Well you certainly did show them, didn't you?

Anonymous said...

I find the discussion about religion very interesting, especially about the Catholic Church. As someone who was diagnosed with liver tumors resulting from the use of birth control pills (hepatic adenoma-- a rare condition I am told), I have developed an appreciation of my church. Having suffered through six surgeries related to removal of these tumors and having almost died after one of those surgeries, I now believe the teachings of my church. My brilliant doctors were not as smart as Pope Paul VI, at least for me.

The Catholic Church (as is the case with other religions) sees things with a wide angle lens. It concerns itself with the beginning of time to the end of time and beyond. Therefore, it will understand things differently than those who only see things with a narrow focus. Because its focus is so large, the Church may see how our society is poisoning itself before we do.

Has every Pope or church member been a saint? Of course not. But it has survived despite Nero, Atilla the Hun, Stalin, etc. (It must be doing something right.) I'm sure it will survive Ms. Marcotte and John Edwards, as well. For that I am grateful.

P.S. I suspect that Ms. Marcotte and friends are really freaked out by our two new Supreme Court members, both of whom are Catholic. This is the source of their great bitterness and hatred toward the Catholic Church. (Q. What lie figured prominently in Roe v. Wade? A. The same lie the Duke Lacrosse case was based upon).

Anonymous said...

5:37 PM wrote: "That does not make it a global war or a war with Islam, it makes it a fight against a handful of nuts whose view of the Koran is about as correct as Jim Jones view of the Bible was."

If only that were true. Good public opinion polls show that the "handful" of Muslims who essentially support terrorism number in the tens of millions if not hundreds of millions. That said, there are indeed many liberal Muslims, secular Muslims, and others whom I highly respect. Sufis, Ahmmadis, Abangan Muslims, Ismailis & Bohras (7er Shiites), and Alevis all, moreover, follow tolerant forms of Islam. But they are losing influence, and their numbers are declining rapidly. Hyper- fundamentalism is on the rise everywhere. One reason is because the Koran and the Hadith contain numerous passages that are most readily understood in a violent, intolerant manner -- as clerics across the world insist. Also important is the fact that orthodox Islam holds that the open-minded Meccan revelations in the Koran are abrogated by the intolerant, Medinan verses.

Of course our addiction to oil helps fund all of this. And for that I place a lot of blame on the Saudi-loving Bush administration, the oil industry, and the global warming deniers. But on this topic there is plenty of blame to spread everywhere. What, after all, did Clinton do? I also blame environmentalists themselves for destroying the nuclear power industry.

Regardless of the oil angle, it is time to take our heads out of the sand and look at what is actually happening in the world of Islam. In Denmark, at least, even the socialists are starting to understand the extent of the problem.

Anti-Leftist Liberal

Anonymous said...

guess: Edwards never hired them directly. They were hired by a lower-level employee of his. When it became clear to everybody what they were like, he would have fired them, and was planning to. Then Donahue and other conservatives spoke out, and Edwards couldn't look like he was bowing to their pressure. So he compromised, by retaining them but publicly telling them to clean up their language and attitudes. Funny thing is: how will Marcotte handle having to write, now, without using bad language, without insulting men, religious, people, pregnant women, without lying about the Duke case..? In effect, she has to remain "castrated" now.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, the great and long lived Catholic Church that brought us witch burning, torture of the body to save the soul, missionary position only sex and the inquisition. What a long lived wide angle lense that must be.

If the christianity or catholicism gives one comfort, great and wonderful. I am happy for you.

I'm sorry that you had a negative and rare reaction to oral contraceptives. They've been used by hundreds of millions of women safely and I respectfully believe that it is up to the woman and her doctor not the church or the government to regulate access to same.

Anonymous said...

7:30 - Amanda, I presume!

Anonymous said...

7:33

You can't deny the truth of any of those statements, though can you?

Did the church approve of witch burning? yes

Did the church approve of torture to save the soul and get a confession? yes

Did the church forbid all sexual positions except the missionary one? yes

Did the church establish the inquisition to root out heretics and punish them? yes

Have oral contraceptives been used safely by hundreds of millions of women? yes

This is always the tactic of the right, when you can't win on the facts, attack the messenger and try and change the subject.

Joe T. said...

Anti-Leftist Liberal: Thanks for recognizing (for a liberal) the danger of radical Islam. They are a mortal danger to Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and certainly anyone of any alternate sexuality. Let's hope Europe wakes up before it's too late, to prevent it becoming "Eurabia". (And that's the ONLY non-Duke related post I'll make here).

Anonymous said...

7:36

Who cares - I don't have a god in that fight. Go argue with someone who cares.

Anonymous said...

I don't see much difference in the evangelical christian's viewpoints and those of radical islam.

They hate gays, hate premarital sex and embrace murder to punish those who have a different moral view, e.g. doctors who perform abortion.

Given that the evangelicals have to live with the rest of us, there is no way of telling what kind of laws they would put into place, including back to the bible stoning for adultery if they had the chance to run the country the wya they wanted.

Anonymous said...

7:39

Nice "wya" blast. Back away from the blunt...

Anonymous said...

5:13
Is keeping Marcotte a good move for Edwards?

I don't think it is, mostly because her writing is dreadful.


Dreadful it is - about on a par with the communication skills of the Duke 88.

'course, with all of the stuff goin' on 'n the oppression and storm-trooper Catholics 'n other... uh, stuff... that must be blogged, who could write clearly?

Anonymous said...

Quite honestly, some of the posters here make me sorry I agree with them on the Duke case.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:36 said:

"You can't deny the truth of any of those statements, though can you?

Did the church approve of witch burning? yes

Did the church approve of torture to save the soul and get a confession? yes

Did the church forbid all sexual positions except the missionary one? yes

Did the church establish the inquisition to root out heretics and punish them? yes

Have oral contraceptives been used safely by hundreds of millions of women? yes

This is always the tactic of the right, when you can't win on the facts, attack the messenger and try and change the subject."

You sir, are a duffus! I practice my faith - as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution - without ad hominem attacks from a**holes like you.

I am Catholic, I have sex doggy style, I don't torture or burn witches at the stake, and support those that enjoy the freedoms afforded by our Constitution.

You, on the other hand, are a card-carrying, loser-multiplying, air-sucking, waste of mankind. May you burn in hell. And when the barbarians are at the gate, I'm gonna point them right at ya? Get it???

Anonymous said...

I stand right with DIW on the Duke lacrosse case and I certainly don't agree with those bloggers' views on the case, but I must say that the calls for these bloggers to be fired is the last thing our already warped political system needs.

It's bad enough that every presidential candidate, in order to win, has to navigate a narrow line appeasing the party faithful in the campaign without saying something they'll later regret in the general election. Now will every candidate also be judged by every last blog, email, or word uttered by every campaign employee?

I know--people need to be held responsible for what they say. But it seems that at some point we need to acknowledge that even presidential candidates and their staff are human beings, and that every utterance cannot be edited beforehand.

We have some really severe problems in this country that need to be solved, and nothing is going to happen if our politicians spend the campaign absorbed with "he said, she said" nonsense, rather than actually addressing the issues of the day.

And no, these bloggers don't say ANYTHING about how Edwards would handle the issues that are most important to our country. Rape is a STATE crime, so some blogger's views on Duke lax will mean next to nothing, even if Edwards wins.

Anonymous said...

Marcotte, McEwan and Edwards can say or write anything they want. Hate Catholics ? don't like the theology? insert any other reason here __________, no big deal. As a Catholic I can deal with it, have been all my life.

Bottom line you can say anything you want - I can vote for anybody I want. bye bye Edwards.

Richard said...

Edwards has no chance of winning and Marcotte has had her few minutes of fame. In 30 years he’ll be living in his multi, multi million dollar mansion and she’ll be eating cat food.

Such is life. Move on.

Anonymous said...

May you burn in hell.
-----------------------

I don't believe in hell, buddy, but your anger at seeing historical truths about christianity tells me all I need to know about you, buddy.

Post Patrol said...

Your last post would have been more effective had you not used "buddy" twice...

Anonymous said...

7:56 PM
"And when the barbarians are at the gate, I'm gonna point them right at ya?

Sic 'em Tige... Thanks, from a doggie style 'Protestant'

Anonymous said...

To Anon 8:08:

you said the following:
"This is always the tactic of the right, when you can't win on the facts, attack the messenger and try and change the subject."

'burn in hell's reactions: "You sir, are a duffus!"

He did such a good job proving your point, I have to wonder if you're really the same people!

Anonymous said...

Just one more thought from Marcotte (January 27, 2007):
do not give money to PETA...I say this as a vegetarian environmentalist animal lover who openly has argued that a cat has more right to life than a fetus.

So freewheeling! Mr. Edwards, what a find.

Anonymous said...

I submit that the Amanda Marcotte issue was off-topic for this blog, despite the vicious, smug and smarmy attacks she made on the Duke 3. Marcotte and, by extension, Edwards, (since he hired her) are fools. So what? It doesn't really have anything to do with getting these three innocent college kids out of a jam.

And what's happened is that, for several threads now, the discussion has deteriorated into some pretty nasty and childish partisan bickering. Swiftboats, Kerry, Edwards, presidential politics, the Catholic Church, Iraq; all have hijacked thread after thread.

If I wanted this stuff I could find it at Free Republic or DailyKos.

I suggest (not that I have any clout around here) we keep on topic: Duke and Brodhead, Durham politics and players, the false accusations against the Duke 3, and outwitting Nifong and the G88 -- ie, the case itself.

beckett

Anonymous said...

I’m surprised that Marcotte, as the survivor of a partial-birth abortion where she had her brain sucked out, would write such a thing…

Michael said...

[Mr. Edwards had wanted to decide the women’s fate without speaking to them personally.]

(From NYT article today).

Interesting management style. Maybe Edwards is afraid of women.

Michael said...

re: beckett

Of course it is germaine. Edwards should be pressured to help get the Duke kids their dismissal given his location and local stature.

Anonymous said...

beckett:

All the things you'd like on topic have already been played out, dude! What else is there to discuss but Swiftboats, Kerry, Edwards, presidential politics, the Catholic Church, Iraq?

How about global warming, jihad, racism, tenure, welfare, insert topic here?

Anonymous said...

8:35

LOL!

Gary Packwood said...

5.27 PM

Moonbat - political epithet for extremism.

Thanks for MOONBAT definition.

I'll probably never forget the description of the chimps in the zoo. Oh My. That is just toooooo fuuny
____
It's a bit like chimps hurling shit at people in a zoo. The chimps tend to look more clueful, though.

Anonymous said...

Can't We All Get Along?

Remember that a fundamentalist is someone who believes in a literal interpretaition of their holy book. Whether it is the bible or the koran is insignificant. The above comments have proven that both sides have a long way to go.

Anonymous said...

8:40

As an ex-senator, Edwards does not have a lot of influence around here.

More important, he probably doesn't want to get involved in that devolving mess as it will not serve his goals. The dems who are going to vote for him will do so regardless of what he does on this case. Republicans won't vote for him, so at best, all he can do is sway some pro-Hillary democrats or others to his side, but the risk is high.

Also, his campaign bloggers have made their opinions on the case heard, so for now, that is his opinion, too.

Politics is about making difficult decisions and he would rather avoid that now, it seems.

Anonymous said...

8:41 I think there is a lot of truth in your observation.

Earl Hofert said...

I don't believe in God, but I do believe in DNA. I also believe that Marcotte is a doofus, and a huge political liability to John Edwards.

But to keep things within the contextual framework of this blog...remember what Marcotte said about the lacrosse players, when she said it, and how she said it.

If you can't distance yourself from that, then the mainstream will definitely want to distance itself from you.

M. Simon said...

3:09 PM,

You have misstated Instapundit's view.

He said what Edwards did was right for his campaign.

Not right for America. Not right in a larger moral sense. Just right for Edwards politics.

Which is about right.

I'm rooting for Edwards. The Ned Lamont of Presidential politics.

Anonymous said...

"john bruce said...
It's worth pointing out that Glenn Reynolds thinks Edwards did the right thing in keeping the bloggers. In other words, no matter how bigoted you are, no matter how offensive your blogging, free speech trumps all, or something like that.

Reynolds is wildly overrated."


He was pretty obviously pointing out that the only path open that didn't make him (Edwards) look spineless was to keep Marcotte and what's-her-name:

http://instapundit.com/archives2/2007/02/post_2337.php

M. Simon said...

3:49 PM,

Yeah but Bushco. Pulled it off twice.

I don't think Edwards is that good.

Had Edwards been smart he would have had a small house on a lot of land. Hold off on the the other 24,000 sq ft until he was an ex-president.

Anonymous said...

KC - Professor Everett is no light weight. His CV and career is excellent. Maybe he has something to his article.

Anonymous said...

I hesitate to enter the religious fray here, but for anyone actually interested in understanding why much of the world embraces any religious tradition, try reading Karen Armstrong's History of God. She has a number of excellent books, including The Battle for God, which addresses religious fundamentalism, and The Spiral Staircase, which addresses her personal spiritual journey of Catholicism to agnosticism back to a sort of free lance monotheism.

Having grown up in a fundamentalist tradition (although I am no longer part of that tradition), I can say that most of the comments I read here about fundmentalism sound more like jeers rather than thoughtful analysis, and they capture nothing of the heart of the faith.

Armstrong, more than anyone else I have read, has the gift of offering intellectual and emotional insight into a variety of religious traditions without condescension. By my reckoning a serious study of the world's faith traditions is essential to understanding almost anything about world history and world politics. Furthermore, sacred texts connect us with our heritage and enlighten us as much through metaphor as through literal interpretation. I recommend reading them, even if it is for purely anthropological study.

Can we acknowledge that there are a finite number of atoms on earth and that on the molecular level we are indeed a part of everything that has come before and everything that will come. Atoms are recycled. So, in some real, as well as metaphorical sense, the taking of communion can be understood as a partaking in the blood and flesh of Christ.

Re: Marcotte and Edwards--Marcotte seems green, immature, and full of contempt for most of humanity--not the best qualities for an important representative of a presidential campaign--and, yes, the blogmaster is an important representative in my book.

Observer

Anonymous said...

Amanda Marcotte was an egregious example of someone too young, too rigid with too much time for blogging on her hands.

Amanda, her blog, her role in the Edwards campaign is not particularly newsworthy, unless your goal is "the liberals are coming, the heathen liberals are coming."

The right wing is more worked up about this woman than they are about several tons of cash going missing in Iraq.

Amanda's relationship to THIS case is even more tangential. She's just an example of knee jerk reaction from the left...white athletes MUST BE guilty...don't bother me with the facts.

Move on.

Anonymous said...

That's true. When I was at Duke Law School (late 70's) Everett weighed at least 300 lbs.

M. Simon said...

3:57PM,

You are right. It is bad to compare Edwards to Bush who got elected at least once to the Presidency.

I think he is more like Lamont. A rich man who will bring glory to the communist wing of the communist party. Or so the communists hope.

I think he will wind up like Lamont. Or Alan Keyes for that matter.

Really when you think about it it is plain to see that for all the huffington and puffington Lamont and Keyes are the sign posts of American politics: don't go there.

Anonymous said...

Wow. Even more than Mrs. Edwards (just kidding)

Anonymous said...

7:56: Actually, the Inquisition stopped burning witches early, saying it was people blaming their problems on others.

Protestants burned far more many witches during the post-Luther era, in the late middle ages, as opposed to Catholics, particularly in Protestant Germany.

Don't buy all the hype.

-McEsquire-
-Maryland-

Gary Packwood said...

Re: 9:57

Someone wrote a book titled... History of God?

I am just stunned.

GP

Anonymous said...

Oh, and to voice a wise Yale Professor:

"Catholic baiting is the anti-semitism of the Liberal."

-McEsquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

You wait until Edwards flames out in his campaign -- again. These two bloggers will be back even more viciously. I hope someone is around to quote their sanctimonious BS to them then.

Speaking of Edwards: that guy is a complete dope. His candidacy won't last six months.

Anonymous said...

Please, KC, no more posts on Marcotte. She and Edwards are tangential to Duke-in-Wonderland.

Anonymous said...

Fantastic.

So now this is a catholic bash site?

Or is it a global warming site?

I thought it was about three men getting railroaded by a corrupt justice system site.

Argue your goddamn bullshit somewhere else.

M in China said...

The first post or two on her was relevant to the Duke/Nifong case, but it gets to be less and less relevant.

Anonymous said...

This crap about the woman blogger is ridiculous! The election is in 2008. Do you REALLY think people are going to remember her name by then? Do you really think people who aren't following the Duke case -- for the most part -- know her name even now. Even if they read everything she wrote, do you think they really care?

As for books about religion, try reading Sam Harris' "The End of Faith". Its straightforward and blows the logic behind all that "Well, since I can't explain it, it has to be God" crap.

And let us not forget how the whole religious discussion on this thread began. Liberals here refused to be called "loons" by people who take part in organized religion without fighting back.

Call us loons all you want... and I clearly don't speak for all liberals here... but liberal or conservative, I'm not going to listen to someone who believes some of that ridiculous crap call me a "loon" for rational political beliefs, even if you disagree with them. I can back up my arguments much better than a religious person can back up their insane assertions.

Don't call me a loon, I won't point out the insane hypocrisy. I believe you understand what I'm saying.

Gary Packwood said...

New Friends. We Need to get Along

We should be at least a little fearful that our leader may put us ...along with the Collin and Reade...on double secret probation...if we don't behave.

And you know what that means!

Anonymous said...

KC asks: "This statement begs the question: if "the tone and the sentiment" of some of the duo's posts offended the candidate, and did not meet the standards for his employees, why did Edwards hire the duo in the first place?"

My guess? The hiring was not instigated by Edwards himself, but by a lower-level campaign staffer. Edwards probably signed off on it, assuming the hirer had performed due diligence, only to find out that this was apparently not the case. That gave him a Hobson's choice: back down in front of a nut like Bill Donohue and look weak, or keep Amanda and risk offending moderate Catholics (and, indeed, all Christians). I find it extremely unlikely that Edwards hired Amanda knowing that she routinely called religious Americans "godbags".

This was probably the least bad option. Make it clear that Edwards doesn't support what these people did in their own personal time and that it won't be tolerated on his campaign. By the way, the right-wingers who are rejoicing over this ought to watch out. Do you want to set the precedent that a candidate is responsible for the online rants of low-level staffers? Apparently, some prominent conservative Republican candidates have a bunch of really bigoted nuts on board their own campaigns. And what about Donohue's own statements? This is a man who said: "We've already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, okay? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex." (MSNBC, Scarborough Country, 12/8/04) Oh, but I forgot, that's not anti-Semitism. Criticizing Israel's occupation policies, now, there's anti-Semitism for you!

In sum: Bad hire, but Edwards (or, indeed, any presidential candidate) can't be seen as a shrinking violet.

I do feel sorry for Melissa McEwan. She doesn't deserve to be lumped in with a shrill, talentless shrieker like Amanda. And there's a big difference between the few intemperate posts Melissa might have made (virtually every blogger has said something or other that they might regret) and the relentless hate spewed on Pandagon.

In any case, this is a tempest in a teapot. By 2008, no one will even remember it. And by that time, of course, the Duke charges will have long since been dropped, as well. KC, what do you plan to do at that time? Your writing here is generally of high caliber, though the comment threads are infested by a nasty cohort of racists.

-Firebug

Anonymous said...

11:00

I agree, though don't know if I would go so far as to call all religious belief 'insane'..but I consider religion and spirituality to be very different.

However, it is pretty ridiculous to be told you are a loon for believing in the scientific data supporting global warming by someone who, say, believes that jesus christ is going to take the faithful up to heaven and leave the nonbelievers behind when the end times come.

Anonymous said...

totally unrelated, but this just goes to show the joke and racist nature of the durham law enforcement and justice system http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-810190.cfm
as it takes them 4 tries to finally (after committing numerous violent crimes while on the previous bonds) increase the bond on a murderer to a level less than the inital set for the Duke students in April

Anonymous said...

IMHOtep

John Edwards' prospects and Marcotte's "ideas" are equally non-existent. The Nifong hoax is real. Its threat still hangs over these three young men.

I know it gets repetitive, but IMO, that should remain front-and-center -- not what percentage of rape claims are false, but what to do about this one, this maddeningly false claim; not Black or White IQ's or relative criminal tendencies or senses of privilege vs. entitlement, but the destructive racial dynamic in this town, the crimes of this DA and this justice system, as shown by this case; not even what courses and professors and ideologies at other colleges are risible, steam-driven crap, but how this particular group of professors absolutely intentionally poisoned the well, set out (and remember, have not yet failed) to railroad these three defendants...three young men who still, to this moment, face charges that gravely imperil their futures, and are simply an affront to human decency.

Anonymous said...

McEsquire Maryland @ 10:03

Could you list sources on that assertion about Protestant and Catholic witch burning?

I ask because (using Robbins' Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology and other compilations of primary sources) I can't verify that, either by number of trials or by number of victims. By very rough analysis, it appear that the worst areas were those under dispute, or changing hands under "cuius regio, cuius religio."

Anonymous said...

KC - I am enjoying the Marcotte-Edwards posts

Anonymous said...

I will almost definitely be voting Dem, and I'm indifferent towards Edwards... but I can tell you one thing with 100% certainty: I DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS STUPID WOMAN BLOGGER. Has no effect on my opinion about Edwards... it is a non-issue.

As for confronting her with her idiotic and harmful remarks? Sure, I have no problem with that, and she is making herself a public figure... and she surely inserted herself into the private lives of the accused boys. So yes, as far as confronting her and exposing her goes, I'm all for it.

But the Edwards thing is such a non-issue. No one really cares now, and no one will come election time '08. Shockingly, a good percentage of Americans can't name the Vice President... even politics junkies won't remember this woman come election time... or at least they will look ridiculous if they're talking about it still.

Anonymous said...

Who cares... there is nothing more or less rational about burning withces than what people believe today. I know that sounds weird... but really, what is inherently irrational about burning people you think are witches if you believe equally irrational things, like in the Virgin Mary and stuff like that?

Its just taboo today to burn witches. And my wife is lucky about that!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 12:20

Um. It actually is fascinating, if not on-topic. Really.

All I want is to know who made the assertion McEsquire from Maryland is relying on. Yes, it's OT, but it's a subject I'm interested in.

Anonymous said...

That was the whole point...burning witches is inherently irration...somebody has sold their soul to the devil and all they got out of it was the ability to make milk sour, maybe kill some babies, but they're still living in relative squalor in the village, they can't hex the torturer or escape from jail. It's ridiculous.

They burned witches because they believed that objective evidence of the witches magical ability was not needed, they never questioned the asinite theological reasoning for why the powerful witch would let herself be tortured and then burned alive.

Belief and not evidence was paramount, the same in religion, which is why people burned witches and believe, to this day, in the virgin birth.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 12:25

You have, I think, taken an historical analogy further than I am comfortable with.

Anonymous people arguing back and forth, way off-topic, aren't helpful, so I'll drop this.

All I really wanted was some source material (said in a wistful tone).

Anonymous said...

Kelly Jarrett of Duke says:


One of the important underlying issues that is being lost in the current
rally around the innocence of these three young men is that when these
allegations were first made they were so believable to so many people
both off and on campus. The team's history of misbehavior, which was
well known both in the Durham community and to the Duke
administration,
the uncontested elements of the party (the hiring of strippers, the misrepresentation of their identities, the underage drinking, etc.), and the team's reputation and behavior at tailgate parties and other on-campus venues, the disturbing implications of what it says about the team culture that the explicit sexual violence of American Psycho was a
shared joke--all of these things helped shape an atmosphere in which
allegations that some members of the team had sexually assaulted an
exotic dancer at a drunken party were met with belief rather than
disbelief.




Say what? Because of these things it was believable that they were violent gang rapists?

Wow, so all college athletes are violent gang rapists?

M. Simon said...

Observer,

Re: Marcotte and Edwards--Marcotte seems green, immature, and full of contempt for most of humanity--not the best qualities for an important representative of a presidential campaign--and, yes, the blogmaster is an important representative in my book.

Think of Edward's tears for the poor and his 28,000 sq ft house. If that isn't a form of contempt, from a man fommenting class warfare, I don't know what is.

Michael Jasper said...

It's always telling when a person equates religious and political beliefs, and the--and I am paraphrasing here--"How dare you call me a loon because I support Edwards when you worship a carpenter who lived 2000 years ago," has a certain pat, "irrefutable" quality that appeals to undergraduates (and I say this as a university professor since 1987). But that argument is, in fact, more than a bit shallow and--I dare say--uneducated. it ignores the differences between the spiritual and temporal planes, and the different modes of communications about those planes, and the different standards of proof each plane demands. The fact is that any spiritual belief--Catholicism, Islam, Wicca, or even those of us who cop out with the whole I'm-spiritual-but-not-religious thing--every spiritual belief is by definition irrational. And not in the bad sense. It simply means that faith neither requires nor demands rational proof, and so to dismiss all faith as "irrational" is akin to criticizing your daughter for not winning the big penis contest. It was the recognition of this distinction between the spiritual and the rational which allowed Einstein, for example, to be both a brilliant scientist and an actively religious man.

Political beliefs, one assumes, are based here in the temporal realm. While it is appropriate to use one's moral code to decide moral issues, the real world demands that, even in making these moral judgments, we come to terms with historical reality. For example, to say that the debate about climate change is "over,"--and above that, simply dismissing opposing viewpoints as your "proof" that the debate is over--is as irrational an argument as any argument any church could come up with. The fact of climate change is historical reality--whether that change is mandmade or simply a product of the earth's natural cycles is the debate, and it is by no stretch "over."
It is that kind of blind "faith" in one's political beliefs that has put these three Duke lacrosse players at jeopardy.

Anonymous said...

"They burned witches because they believed that objective evidence of the witches magical ability was not needed, they never questioned the asinite theological reasoning for why the powerful witch would let herself be tortured and then burned alive.

Belief and not evidence was paramount"

Isn't this why David Brooks likened this Duke case to a witch hunt? Maybe we are not so OT.

M. Simon, Yes, building that castle while fomenting class warfare seems completely contemptuous.

Observer

Anonymous said...

Michael Jasper,

Thank you for reminding me why I love academia.

Observer

Anonymous said...

To 11:00 commenter who does not want to be called a loon,

I am happy to read your book, but I understand why people do not believe in God. I am much more interested in understanding why they do.

Observer

Anonymous said...

I disagree that keeping these two wacks would do damage to the Edwards campaign. The voters who would hold Edwards responsible for his people or his words are not the ones who will be voting for him anyhow.

his base is the DailyKOS and he is playing to it.

Anonymous said...

I did vote for the Kerry Edwards ticket...

I did send money...

I did vote for Bush in 2000 but could not in 2004...

I did attend an expensive luncheon for Elizabeth Edwards...


Memo to The Edwards: I cannot and will not support your campaign if you allow such a vulgar, profane and wrong-headed person to be your voice.

If she speaks for you, then I know you do not and could not represent me.

Your response to criticism in this matter was so ridiculously tepid and meaningless that it is insulting to me .

I appreciate your position on the war and want to support that. But this decision regarding your blog makes me question your broader judgment.

Tell me I'm missing something...

Anonymous said...

***But that argument is, in fact, more than a bit shallow and--I dare say--uneducated. it ignores the differences between the spiritual and temporal planes, and the different modes of communications about those planes, and the different standards of proof each plane demands.***

OK, I'm sure if religious beliefs could be backed up factually and imperically, you'd still be making this argument.

In fact, the very reason people give religious beliefs special treatment is that their beliefs NEED special treatment to survive. I see no reason to subject religious beliefs to a lower standard of proof than we do a used car salesman who tells us that the car "is in tip-top shape, no test drive needed". Now, this seems inherently more believable than the whole Virgin Mary thing... yet we won't believe the guy without his reaching a certain level of proof, including our ability to drive that car ourselves before buying it.

I'll continue to put all beliefs to the same standard of evidence. I'm totally open to believing in God... but the sales pitch is very, very lacking.

Anonymous said...

Hate to state the obvious but that's why religion occupies a private personal space in America and government is expected to operate on a rational, evidence-based real world template.

It cannot be proven in any way, shape or form that sex before marriage is a "sin" and that "god" disapproves of homosexuals or abortion or that these "sins" will damm one to "hell."

People are free to believe this along with creationism, the Old Testament or that Muhammed ascended directly to heaven as feverently as they wish, but without any proof, these beliefs do not belong in the public policy arena.

Anonymous said...

10:16

True enough, but when you can freely say that in Teheran or Saudi Arabia, then we will be making real progress. Good luck on that, by the way...

Anonymous said...

Once again, you are confusing the issue. The issue is not comparing religious zealots in America with Wahabbism or terrorists who kill in the name of their religion.

The issue, on the other hand, is whether or not people who adhere to organized religion should be using the term "loon" so freely to describe a liberal's political beliefs. At the very least, they could say "my fellow loon", lest the irrationality of some of their central beliefs come to light.

Anonymous said...

True enough, but when you can freely say that in Teheran or Saudi Arabia, then we will be making real progress. Good luck on that, by the way...
------------------------------

Isn't that a bit beside the point? The negative results of the religious loons running Iran and Saudi Arabia should be all the evidence needed that religious loons of any religion should NOT be running the government.

I don't doubt that if the American evangelicals were running America it would look a LOT more like Saudi Arabia than Switzerland.

Anonymous said...

Of course they'd legislate in similar ways to Terhan and Saudi Arabia. Despite the fact that we have a Constitution, some of our Supreme Court justices believe that the government should be able to regulate MORALS legislation (Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Sam Alito). That was stricken down in Lawrence v. Texas... but please read the dissenting opinion of Scalia. He saw nothing wrong with that law that regulated consensual adult sex.

That law technically prohibited sodomy, not homosexual sodomy if my memory is correct. Regardless, the point of Scalia was that society should be able to create such legislation.

Combine an ever-increasingly sympathetic Supreme Court with a hypothetical Evangelical-majority House and Senate and Executive... you'd have something that looks a lot more like Iran and Saudi Arabia than present-day America.

Anonymous said...

I would never have voted for Edwards. It has been fun laughing at those two and Edwards exposing himself as a weasel again. Lots of laughs with Cash's concern for $240.00 - chump change. At least Joe Biden knows what happened to his short presidental campaign. Now it is back to real life. Should not the investigation be over by now and the charges dismissed? With every resource of the state available to them, the charges have still not been dropped. As Marvin Gaye said "Whats goin on?"

Anonymous said...

Edwards has proven himself to yet again be a weasel easly manipulated and pandering to the liberal and black vote. This man can't stand up to a little pressure from the wacko liberals, how do you expect him to stand up to Iraq, China and Russia. He is weak with no spine and obviously has no idea what right and wrong is. He must be Brodhead's missing twin brother, both spineless cowards who avoid the truth, talk around questions never answering them straightforward. All rhetoric, liberal garbage.

Anonymous said...

***This man can't stand up to a little pressure from the wacko liberals, how do you expect him to stand up to Iraq, China and Russia.***

I have confidence in his abilities to handle these major problems. Look, not everyone can be George W. Bush and run a war as effectively as he has in Iraq.

With that one caveat having been set forth (that no one can duplicate the great success in Iraq that GWB has), I don't see why Edwards can't at least come close to filling GWB's shoes.

No wait. I have my facts wrong. George W. Bush -- even putting aside his pathetic inability to get anything done domestically -- has been one of the biggest wartime President disasters in the history of our country.

You talk so tough about liberals being unable to handle issues of war and peace. Well give us a chance. Your guy has already squandered his!

Anonymous said...

George W. Bush is a true clown. I swear they should play circus music in the background when he goes to make a speech, and not hail to the chief.

With all the disaster going on in Iraq right now, at least Iraqi oil revenue is paying for the entire war effort, and as he told Pat Robertson, there wouldn't be many US casualties, you know? Hey, the man knows how to follow through on a promise.

Anonymous said...

Interesting comment on MSNBC -"Edwards showed he could stand up to the right." I thought he showed he caved to the left and their threats. Must mean, he is in the middle.

Anonymous said...

Someone asked about the burning of witches An excellent starting point is here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15674a.htm

Indeed, Martin Luther called for their extermination. The Spanish Inquisition stopped the practice very early. Calvin was big on it as well, mainly because he followed the Old Testament to the letter. It reached its heights in the early modern period, most notably in Protestant Germany.

I only learned this, BTW, after researching the Spanish Inquisition, and found out there was a whole lot of myth going on vs. reality, which suprised me greatly. In 350 years, for instance, 5,000 people were put to death, most during the first decades of the Inquisition. That is a drop in the bucket compared with the general practices of that time.

Good luck in your research.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

Anonymous said...

If you truly believe in God, there is nothing irrational about killer non-believers or burning them.

Reading the Bible, Koran, etc., you can make as many violent justifications for killing as you can for love, acceptance and peace. Just as rationally.

Anonymous said...

JOHN EDWARDS IS HALF A FANCY BOY WHO SPEAKS ABOUT TWO AMERICAS. ONE WHERE HE GETS SUPER RICH EXPLOITING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM AND THE OTHER AMERICA WHERE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM EXPLOITS PEOPLE AND HE DOES NOTHING. WAY TO GO MARY

Anonymous said...

Didn't Amanda Marcotte complain that the powers that be in North Carolina are bigoted when she spoke about the Duke Case. She implied that North Carolina is dominated by corrupt "white men"...

well isn't John Edwards the Representitive of North Carolina? I guess Marcotte dosen't mind working and backing the corrupt "White Male" leaderhip of North Carolina...lol

What a true buffoon this Amanda Marcotte is.

Anonymous said...

The Leftwing Media is attacking Bill Donohue of the Catholic League...one problem with that Bill Donohue is the leader of the Catholic League...he is doing his job...AND he is not the one running for President...Edwards is.