Edwards Caves To The Nutroots®
Well, if you haven’t heard, John Edwards is keeping his bloggers, after Nutroots® bigshots such as Chris Bowers basically threatened to blacklist him if he didn’t. The statement of the Edwards campaign:
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word.
Thus, Edwards is personally offended, and agrees that the statements were sterling examples of intolerant bigotry, in so many words, but apparently feels that the words magically appeared on the respective blogs without any animus behind them.
And if anyone believes that…
Let’s demonstrate, shall we? Here’s Edwards again:
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.
Now, let’s go back to one of the statements in question:
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.
So Amanda Marcotte told John Edwards she never meant to malign anyone’s religion when she called it a misogynistic mythology and used sexual characterizations on two of its most holy icons. And he takes her at her word.
Ahem…
Well, John, you’ve made your choice…
“My writings on my personal blog, Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.”
And just for good measure, let’s look at that satirical criticism of public politics again:
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.
You getting the point here?
Of course, Edwards will now be the Crown Prince of the Nutroots® (note: THAT’s a politically satirical term, folks, and Amanda knows the difference) for his ‘brave’ stance in keeping this noble warrior for freedom of religious expression on his campaign staff.
And I say to myself, “What a wonderful world”…
It ain’t over, John…
So every single politician is now responsible for every single opinion that every single staffer of his or hers may ever have voiced?
That’s insane, Mark. Insane and ridiculous, and I thought you were better than to perpetuate this nonsense. Marcotte and McEwan aren’t forming Edwards’ religious policy wing, therefore their personal opinions don’t figure into it, and his hiring them doesn’t constitute an endorsement of everything they’ve ever said.
You know what’s insane, Fargus? That John Edwards would say with a straight face that he believed Marcotte when she said she wasn’t trying to malign anyone’s religion.
Tell me you believe that – but then again, you don’t, because by your own admission you believe she WAS trying to malign Catholics, but justifiably so…
Your own words:
Intolerance borne of observation of the misogynist tendencies of a religion, coupled with its tolerance of pedophilia in its highest ranks and its adherence to doctrines at least as ridiculous as ones that its own members feel free to mock in other religions…..that ain’t bigotry, bud. That’s an informed opinion.
YOU don’t even believe Edwards, and you’re attacking me…
Mark:
Since you’ve already stated that your not Catholic and that her offense wasn’t directed at anything that you hold sacred, I can only assume that you outrage is just a convenient hammer with which to beat someone you don’t like.
It ain’t over, John… suggests to me that your going to keep at it.
But I already know that your outrage is manufactured. So, apparently does John Edwards.
An intention and a consequence are two quite different things. If your intention is to state your own beliefs, and your own beliefs happen to make somebody else uncomfortable, then you can hardly say that it was your intention to offend those who were offended. Even if it may be the case that there’s no way that a group wouldn’t be offended by your expression of your opinion, such does not automatically qualify as intent.
I can say that it’s my belief that it’s insane to believe, contrary to all the scientific evidence, that the earth is 6000 years old and that evolution is “just a theory.” Would people cry foul at my use of the word “insane?” Certainly. But that doesn’t mean it was my intention to piss them off. My intention would have been to comment on an issue and state my own beliefs on it. The offense taken, even if I knew it would be taken, is not the intent of the expression of belief.
Paul, in response, I’ll quote something I left in the comments to another post:
…[I]t’s a factor that I can assure you will be brought up again at the appropriate time by Donohue and others like him, regardless of whether you care for the man or not.
I’m not going on the warpath; I have nothing but contempt for John Edwards, regardless of who his staffers are, and it doesn’t mean that much to me. The only reason I’m still blogging about it today is because of Edwards’ transparently lying statement of taking Marcotte at her word that she wasn’t trying to malign anyone’s religion.
But other people will go on the warpath, and they have a lot more firepower than Chris Bowers, for cryin’ out loud…
And Paul, don’t presume to know my motives, okay? It’s insulting…
Fargus, please…you cannot read the statement of Marcotte and believe it was not her intent to offend.
I’m sorry, it can’t be done.
You’re being deliberately obtuse, and I’m going to quit responding if you don’t ground yourself in the reality of the situation at hand.
The statement is transparently offensive BY ANY STANDARD…
It might also be worth noting again what John Edwards said himself:
He’s clearly saying they were beyond the pale, and that it’s only his sense of charity and greater mission that leaves him to keep them in place. I don’t think you need to be especially cynical to think a cold, hard political calculation probably drove him more than any grand philosophy, but nevertheless, he’s made it clear that he doesn’t like what they’ve wrote. I guess he’s just part of the Right Wing Noise Machine too.
I’ve said over and over again, Mark, that I can see how people view it as offensive due to the way it was expressed. Vulgarity and such.
But don’t assert what it is and isn’t possible for me to do. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to read that and see that she put her opinion in a way that she knew would be appreciated and chuckled at by her normal readers, most of which likely wouldn’t be offended and aghast at such a thing.
And I think it was in the other thread where you took my comments as proof that progressives are anti-religion, and that couldn’t be further from the truth, in any sense that “truth” has any meaning. Am I anti-religion? Yup, I think you could say that. I think that religion is a corrosive force on societies that could otherwise be moving forward in meaningful ways. But to attribute my opinion to progressives at large is the height of fallacy.
Alright, I’m not going to engage in a flame war. I’m through on this…
You’re taking this too personal, Fargus, and that’s no fun for me. You’re a good friend to this blog, so on this subject, I’ve nothing more to say to you. It wouldn’t be productive or wise to continue down this path…
I’m not mad, I’m just not going to continue to go down this path of fruitlessness. I think you and I have both made our views abundantly clear…
Mark’s hed: Edwards Caves To The Nutroots
John Amato’s: John Edwards doesn’t cave to the RW Noise machine
I wonder what Baudrillard would have to say about that. Perhaps we can get noted semiotician Jeff Goldstein in here to explain.
Well, Andy, I think it’s hard to read Edward’s statement and read it as anything but a cave…and if you bothered to read Atrios, Chris Bowers, Huff’n'Puff, Kos, etc., yesterday, you know the unbelievable pressure that was on Edwards to cave…but again, read the statement itself, and tell me that you believe Edwards is sincere in his acceptance that Marcotte did not mean to malign anyone’s faith.
If he is sincere, he’s illiterate…
I realize that he was also under a lot of pressure from the right, and Donohue’s ilk, etc., but he did the politically expedient thing and ignored the people who weren’t going to vote for him anyway.
I still say it will come back to bite him, because the Catholic vote is not insubstantial, and you can bet this incident will rear its head again…
Let’s hope that embracing the Nutroots® will now make John Edwards the new Ned Lamont.
Now, everytime I see the Breck Girl on television pretending to be so avuncular and reasonable, I will remind myself that he hired two frothing bigots to blog for him.
Mark: It’s funny by MY standard, so you’re wrong. Does it make you a LIAR? No. It makes you WRONG. It’s a funny quote. It does not offend me one bit. (Note the distinction between being wrong and being a liar…something you might consider regarding Edwards…but you already have an axe to gring with him…we know this…and no, I’m not saying he is wrong, just that it’s a possibility. How does that statement malign anyone’s religion? It calls it misogynist? Do you think that is incorrect? Argue the merit, just once in this whole discussion…)
Gee, Mike, I guess you missed the part where Edwards said he found it personally offensive and an example of the sort of intolerant language he won’t tolerate…except when leaned on really, really hard by the Nutroots®…
Anyway, I am way past tired with this charade. You want to pretend you can’t see how using sexually charged language to talk about the Holy Spirit and the mother of Jesus is offensive to Catholics, go peddle it somewhere else.
Absurd…
I didn’t say it wasn’t offensive to Catholics, I said it isn’t offensive to ME. You said the statement is transparently offensive by ANY STANDARD.
Drama queen….
Yes, Mike, this is all about you…
Comrades,
And yet, lost in all of this is that John Edwards, ambulance chaser ‘par excellence” has coldly decided that the nomination fight will be between him and Hillary. His choice of doing whatever it cost to gain the support of the Nutroots® means that he knows Hillary will be bringing out the extra sharp knives, and he intends to be ready with his own pack of hired assasins. It’s how he works.
And as for the good little bloggers, they haven’t fooled anyone with their cloy and plastic non-apologies. They have a special venom designed for Catholics, whom they regard as worse than dirt because of perceived attitudes/dogmas within Catholicism which they disagree with.
However, after spending a day searching theorugh their past screeds, i have yet to see them apply the same sort of vitriol to Islam, whose blatantly mysoginistic dogma is displayed on the frontsheets of daily’s around the world!
John Edwards is a shameless bully, a Janus who preaches of “two Americas” while he does everything in his power to make certain he and his family stay in the “other” America. The one with the well-manicured grass and the lawn jockey by the gate.
Respects,
No, she didn’t. She noted that some had tried to justify their own misogyny w/ Biblical mythology.
Mark: Hardy har har. Love how you argue merits, especially when you’re wrong.
Gwedd: They don’t go after Islam because there aren’t any Islamic fundamentalists making our laws today…but there are certainly Catholics….
jpe, true Catholics don’t think their religion is a ‘mythology’, they think it’s the revealed word of God. They may be wrong, but even the mythology part would be offensive to a great many…but let’s face it, we’re dancing around the issue – the real problem, offensive-wise, is the sexual imagery around the Holy Spirit and Mary, and we all know it.