Decision ‘08

The Religious Left, Marginalized By The Nutroots®

I said I’d post again on the Edwards blogger story only if something interesting comes along. Well, this qualifies: Catholic voices from the left decrying their marginalization by the Edwards campaign:

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

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

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

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

O’Dwyer e-mailed a statement to reporters saying: “Senator Edwards is condoning bigotry by keeping the two bloggers on his staff. Playing to the cheap seats with anti-Catholic bigotry has no place in the Democratic Party.”

Two more of those un-offended Catholics laughing their heads off at the ‘racy’ remarks of renowned wit Amanda Marcotte, eh, guys?…

22 Responses to “The Religious Left, Marginalized By The Nutroots®”

1 Fargus Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Is Hitchens a bigot, Mark?
2 Mark Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
In this area, yes, he is…I don’t mind Hitchens being an atheist - that is, of course, his right. I do mind his incredible Richard Dawkins-esque contempt for anyone of religious faith, however.

In this regard, he’s no better than the worst busybody fundamentalist…he makes an absolute fetish of his hatred of religion….
3 Fargus Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
And yet you endorse him all the time, even calling him “Hitchens the Great.”

Why is this OK? Because agreeing with him in one area does NOT equal your endorsement of everything he’s ever said.

Easy.
4 Mark Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Oh, Hitchens is working for a political campaign now? I didn’t realize that.

You see, dozens of idiots say stupid things every day, and I don’t make a stink about it. But this is different. This is a quite public spat in a presidential campaign that is being handled one way for anti-Catholic statements that it would never be handled if the offended party was a pet of the Democrats. Further along in the article I quoted above:

“I thought his explanation was not satisfying,” said Cornell’s Penalver. “It’s obvious that they did mean to give offense.”“You imagine a similar kind of comment directed at the Jewish community or at the gay community – something at this level of intentional offensiveness — and I have a hard time believing it gets resolved in the same way,” he said.

If Hitchens were coming before me for a job interview, I would have to say: Hitch, my boy, you’re brilliant…but you’re too much of a loose cannon for me.

And please, let’s not pretend that Hitchens and Amanda Marcotte belong in the same sentence…
5 peter Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
If this whole thing isn’t much ado about nothing, then I’m not sure what is. Why the infantile writings of bloggers associated with a failed Vice Presidential candidate who has about as much chance of being President as I do of winning the Master’s Tournament has stirred up so much sound and fury is completely beyond me.

In the past few days, the papers have reported on the Bush administration’s plans to place political appointees in each of the regulatory bodies; Waxman’s committee has been looking into Iraq spending; there seems to be tangible progress with North Korea; and Anna Nicole Smith died. (Too bad it wasn’t Simon Cowell instead.) One would think that any of these things would be excite far more passion than the blogs, but then one would be wrong.

If that is the case, then the interesting question is: why is that? Is it the shock factor of something which is so off-the-wall repugnant that its insignificance gets completely overlooked?
6 Mark Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Well, thank you, Peter, for at least acknowledging that it is ‘off-the-wall repugnant’.

I’m guilty of spending far too much time on this issue, it’s true, but I truly am outraged that these two are getting a free pass here…
7 peter Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Well, it’s hard to defend it or view it as anything but repugnant. Time to move on to more important things, like whether “Thunder Road” is the greatest song of all time, or whether it’s “Hungry Heart” instead.
8 Mark Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
“Hungry Heart?” Surely you jest…if you must go with The River, how about “Drive All Night” (some think it’s too melodramatic, but that’s rather the point, isn’t it?)…
9 Mark Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
But actually, the greatest song of all time is “I’ve Got You Under My Skin”, from Songs For Swinging Lovers…
10 peter Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
“Is a dream a lie if it don’t come true / Or is it something worse” - you posted about that once –
11 peter Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Actually you should do a contest for the worst song of all time which was also a top seller — maybe “In the Year 2525,” “God Didn’t Make Little Green Apples,” “McArthur Park,” something like that –
12 Mark Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
“When I lost you honey, sometimes I think I lost my guts, too
I wish God would send me a word, send me something I’m afraid to do”…

“I get shivers down my spine”, indeed!…
13 Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Straw Poll Update Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
[…] So, along those lines of getting to know you better: what’s the worst song of all time that was a hit, as Peter suggested in another thread? I’ll go with “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”… […]
14 Aaron Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
LOL . . . I saw 12 comments and I thought another war had started!
15 Mark Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Well, it’s been a war, at times, but I’ve fought all I want to fight tonight…
16 mikebdot Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 6:41 am
Yeah, they got a “free pass”…good call.
17 Cless Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 8:20 am
What I don’t understand is why Marcotte’s comments on the Duke rape case weren’t made into a bigger deal. That she didn’t even have to apologize for what she said there (which I felt were far worse than her other comments) is ridiculous!

Also, allowing someone like Bill Donohue to lead the way as far as the complaints went was a terrible idea. All that did was make it easy for the left to ignore any legitimate gripe when it came to Marcotte.
18 T.W.L. Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Cless-

You answered your own question - Donohue’s complaint allowed Marcotte’s supporters to concentrate on her anti-Catholic writing, where they could argue (correctly, I think) that she was advancing a substantive policy argument (albeit in a profoundly rude way), and ignore her Duke writing, which was the deranged raving of an obvious loon.
19 Ginger Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I’m glad Edwards decided to keep them on his campaign. I’m not Catholic or even very religious, but I can’t imagine how anyone cannot be offended by this woman’s rantings regarding the Immaculate Conception, Duke lacrosse team or birth control. She’s absolutely vile and as such I’m delighted to see her blogging for Edwards. Perhaps after he goes down in flames we can get her hired by Hillary?
20 largebill Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Not a chance of Hillary hiring these characters. You can call the junior senator from New York many things, but don’t accuse her of not being careful. It is more likely that she had someone recommend Marcotte to the Edwards’ camp.

Separately, it is pretty funny to hear “liberal Catholics” get offended by her bigoted rantings. How on Earth are is anybody surprised by her postings? My answer to “Catholics” who complain is “lay down with dogs don’t be shocked to wake up with fleas.”
21 mikebdot Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”

That’s pretty funny too. Go Saint McCain!
22 Juliet Says:
February 9th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Chelsea Clinton is not a religion, except to a few guys I went to high school with.