Iraq Debate, Edwards’ Bloggers
EmailSo tonight we covered on World News with Charles Gibson the House debate over the Iraq resolution. FREE VIDEO HERE
As I was doing that story, another internet controversy involving former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, and his presidential campaign was coming to a head.
Yesterday Edwards blogger Amanda Marcotte resigned after having written many offensive comments, which can read about HERE.
Edwards’ 2nd controversial blogger — Melissa McEwan, who writes at THIS SITE (content warning!) — resigned Tuesday evening.
McEwan has been under fire for posts stating that "some of Christianity’s most prominent leaders—including the Pope — regularly speak out against gay tolerance," referring to President Bush’s "wingnut Christofascist base," and rhetorically asking that base "What don’t you lousy motherf—ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds, and our families?"
McEwan also regularly trafficked in a c-word generally unpopular among women.
This afternoon McEwan stepped down from her Edwards job, posting the following on her website:
"I regret to say that I have also resigned from the Edwards campaign. …I would like to make very clear that the campaign did not push me out, nor was my resignation the back-end of some arrangement made last week. This was a decision I made, with the campaign’s reluctant support, because my remaining the focus of sustained ideological attacks was inevitably making me a liability to the campaign, and making me increasingly uncomfortable with my and my family’s level of exposure…"
Thoughts?
– jpt
Romney Takes Aim at Conservatives 
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters
So it’s okay for the Glen Beck’s and Bill Donohoe’s of the world to say unbelievably awful and demonstrably false things about the left, but if someone on the left responds in kind it’s “hate speech?” Careful ABC–your bias is showing. Once again you make a headline story out of a non-issue trying to imply something sinister about a liberal. If hate speech is the issue, than take Glen Beck off the air and quit providing a forum for truly awful human beings who defile the whole notion of Christianity, like Bill Donohoe.
Nasty is nasty, but the right is MUCH better at it than the left. Maybe that’s the real story.
Posted by: Michele | February 13, 2007, 9:39 pm 9:39 pm
I don’t know why these women were saying these strange things. They were making a problem for Edwards. John Edwards is a good man and would make a better president than any republican who is now in the race for president. We just need to get rid of Bush before he attacks Iran or does any other dangerous thing that will be a nightmare for our country. That is, besides the nightmare that Iraq already is.
Posted by: Vicki | February 13, 2007, 10:21 pm 10:21 pm
People are free to write whatever they want. And I am free to hold it against the candidate they support and, in this case, work for. Edwards has and will lose support because of what these people on his payroll are writing. That’s only fair.
Posted by: Allen Williams | February 13, 2007, 10:28 pm 10:28 pm
This can only be a health development for our political culture. For far too long, people have been flaming each other in emails, blogs and comments in a manner which they would *never* do were they speaking to one another face-to-face. Now, even if ever so slightly, people are being held to account for the words they write, just as they would had they spoken them. We should all celebrate this rather than get all hissy about it and point fingers at others who behave badly in the belief that it somehow justifies our own bad behavior and poor character.
Posted by: karl | February 13, 2007, 10:33 pm 10:33 pm
Michele did such a great job…….I have nothing to add. Awesome!!
Posted by: Marc | February 13, 2007, 10:56 pm 10:56 pm
I am glad that they resigned. It showed that they had more character than the words they wrote in their blogs indicated. In the end they stood up for what they believed in – their candidate, John Edwards.
I don’t read the blogs just because of the vitriol that seems to substitute for substance. The right has been using them to stir up misinformation and hate for years. The left does not have to take this play from their play book. Maybe we could actually rise above them.
Posted by: Kelli | February 13, 2007, 10:59 pm 10:59 pm
The issue is not about Glen Beck or Bill Donohoe. They aren’t running for president. John Edwards is. If these women had said anything like this about black, gays, or Jews, they would have been fired in a heartbeat and roasted in an open fire. So are Christians, and Catholics in particular, the last fashionable target of vile hatred?
Posted by: Jamie | February 13, 2007, 11:27 pm 11:27 pm
A shame. A blow to free speech. We have real problems in this country. More people die for lack of access to health care than any in terrorist attack. Climate change will degrade the life of our children and every living creature in the decades to come.
And what are we so worried about? Someone who uses colorful language in keeping with the style of the freedom granted at the fringes of the debate.
Political correctness just sucked the life out of a worthy, fun, corner of our national life.
Posted by: Scott | February 13, 2007, 11:50 pm 11:50 pm
Your point? Wrong is wrong. BOTH types of speech should be attacked. Neither should be upheld and to say that one bad move was trumped by a worse move is a sad statement for our culture. Once again instead of taking responsibility we shift blame to something else…
Why is it so hard to just admit when someone screws up?
Posted by: John | February 14, 2007, 1:03 am 1:03 am
Well, Edwards will not be getting my vote! Yes I know he did’nt write the stuff but , he did’nt fire the freaks either . So that tells me he sees nothing wrong with what the bloggers wrote , he is just not happy that they were open about it and blogged it. If it truly offended Edwards then he would have fired them ! To think I was thinking of voting for him makes me sick .
Posted by: Fed Up | February 14, 2007, 2:14 am 2:14 am
They have the right to write what hey want and I have the right not vote for Edwards .
This has helped me make that choice and the fact that he did’nt fire them
Posted by: Fed Up | February 14, 2007, 2:36 am 2:36 am
America would be a much better place if it stop watching major news newworks, and just surf the net. The Major News Networks has been ONE-SIDED since the Clinton years, and they haven’t stop, they have only gotten progressively WORSE. Why any half-thinking American would want to watch these news networks is just amazing, for they NEVER report the WHOLE truth!
If the Air Waves belong to the American People, well, someone has to prove that to me.
America has become Corporate Owned, and Neo-Con owned and its down right disgusting!
If you want your air waves back, put their numbers in the toilet, and just STOP WATCHING! PERHAPS WE CAN REALLY GET BACK TO “FAIR AND BALANCE REPORTING, AND “FOR REAL” JOURALISM, instead of Progranda Feed News!
I don’t watch, and haven’t in years! If I could literally take them off the channels, I would.
Any truthful and worthwhile news I learn, is from Progressive Radio Stations, and the Internet!
Posted by: Nobi | February 14, 2007, 3:22 am 3:22 am
There is no need for paid campaign staffers to sink to the lowest common denominator in their political discourse. They reflect badly on their candidate and their “resignations” at best put off the inevitable termination. The midterm elections showed the electorate’s rejection of the right wing attack jibberish. Why would these campaign professionals choose to adopt the same approach? The temptation is great to fight back in kind now, but there is a real risk that the advantages gained in the last two years will be lost.
Posted by: Eamon | February 14, 2007, 7:32 am 7:32 am
These women have a right to say these things. And I don’t see them as being “strange” as Allen Williams says. I think anyone who “literally” believes in the stories in the Bible are strange to begin with. Having faith is one thing, but pushing your faith on others is horribly wrong. Christians have been doing this for centuries. So have other religions, but still others, such as Judiasm and Buddhism, are much more tolerant of other’s beliefs than Christianity and especially Islam. During the Crusades, you’d be killed both my a Muslim or a Christian if you refused to convert to their faith.
Posted by: Mike D | February 14, 2007, 7:43 am 7:43 am
To quote and elaborate on Marshall McLuhan, not only is the medium the message, but also the messenger is the message. No campaign should have to divert its energies explaining its employees’ actions and beliefs when the important messages the campaign needs to convey are being buried in endless recriminations, apologies, and chatter. Ms. McEwan was right to resign, as was Ms. Marcotte, when they both realized their opinions on their personal blogs were overshadowing and distorting the messages the Edwards campaign wanted to express.
Posted by: chuck | February 14, 2007, 8:00 am 8:00 am
As far as we have come, it is apparent from all of
the comments that we still have so far to go. I just can’t help but feel that for as enlightened as we are supposed to be, we fail at the most basic level of what a so-called civilized society requires – respect for one another. I am not a practicing Catholic, nor am I sure about my faith, yet I find myself wanting to say a prayer for all of us when I read between the lines and feel the intolerance and hatred that are expressed. I guess Frost said it best when he wrote ” but I have promises to keep and miles to go before I sleep “. May the different roads we travel bring us closer together, rather than drive us further apart.
Posted by: victor | February 14, 2007, 8:07 am 8:07 am
John Edwards should let the strategy team he hired run his campaign, instead of letting his wife, Elizabeth call the shots. His entire campaign is looking pretty mickey mouse about now.
Posted by: Madelaine Durst | February 14, 2007, 8:09 am 8:09 am
I don’t read Beck or Donohoe but I doubt quite seriously they engage in the kind of depraved filth that appears quite regularly on the Edward’s staffers blogs. This is something you actually have to read to grasp. They have a right to purvey this filth and hate under the First Amendment. The fact that Edwards hired them to do so under the aegis of his campaign, and that so few Democrats spoke up against this pathetic decision says a great deal about the candidate and the party.
Posted by: DaMav | February 14, 2007, 8:27 am 8:27 am
Edwards shot himself in the foot in the opening salvo of a national presidential campaign. For him and his supporters not to understand that this wouldn’t be accepted or tolerated by those who are not on the extreme adolescent progressive left reveals a serious naivete and shows that he’s not ready for the job.
I’m a moderate and am actually shocked that he thought that this would fly because he’s not new to politics. Pandering to your base is something that all candidates do, but insulting a huge swath of other potential voters in an obscene way, for basically no gain is just plain stupid. Hiring these bloggers means that he connected their words to his. Shows that neither Edwards nor his campaign are ready for primetime.
As to the women in question? Ah, well… Not exactly a bastion of deep thought or inspiration. Can you imagine one of those folks writing a state of the union speech? One of those ditties engraved on monument? People commonly refer to the difference between their net personality and ‘real life’, like there actually is a difference. In a presidential campaign, there is NO difference. And who you hire matters. And that history follows you.
Go to the freezer, get the box. No brainer.
Posted by: JR | February 14, 2007, 8:32 am 8:32 am
The other side of the coin is its implications for bloggers. The events that transpired with respect to Marcotte and Ewan may have a chilling event among bloggers with political or mainstream career aspirations. Future bloggers may bite their tongues and dial it down a notch, thinking that one day what they write may be used against them or a candidate whom they serve (which Ann Althouse calls “blogger wrangling”). )
Now that would be a shame.
Jake already straddles that fence, because he has a mainstream job and this blog. I’d hazard a guess he censors himself often. Also a shame. Maybe one day he’ll slip and cuss or let loose some vitriol. We can hope… ;-)
Posted by: cordelia525 | February 14, 2007, 10:15 am 10:15 am
The views expressed by these intellectually adolescent women are mainstream stuff in today’s universities. One of the commenter’s above reflected the same view point – that religion (especially Christianity, and doubly Catholicism) imposes itself on others and is the source of intolerance, hatred and the opression of women. Yeah, right. The only problem is that these views are increasingly seen as mainstream. These two women have an ideological first premise that they are victims of some ideological campaign, which in turn, gives them license and justification to spew the most hateful and off the planet opinions.
The fact these these women have social pressure upon them is not the result of censorship, the loss of the freedom of speech or being a victim of Christofacists! It is is the result of their vile statements and the community’s sense of how wrong and sick they are.
Bill Donohoe is a robust voice defending Catholicism from these kinds of attacks. He doesn’t go after liberals, because they are liberals. He goes after liberals because they are the group that wants to destroy Catholicism in clear and certain terms.
Posted by: Columcille | February 14, 2007, 1:15 pm 1:15 pm