Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

February 12, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

DONOHUE WINS?....Amanda Marcotte has resigned from the John Edwards campaign. More to come on this, I'm sure.

Kevin Drum 10:29 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (153)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

More to come? You mean, like more campaign staffers made into liabilities for their candidates because of unpopular (yet defensible) opinions that they've published?

Of course there's more to come -- it's almost 2 years til the election.

Posted by: Grumpy on February 12, 2007 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

Wrong, Kevin. It's a victory for civil discourse. Bloggers like Marcotte who fiercely hate Catholics, Christians, and men need our pity, not our attention.

Posted by: American Hawk on February 12, 2007 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

Bloggers like Marcotte who fiercely hate Catholics, Christians, and men need our pity, not our attention.

Sorry American Hawk but you are obviously no authority on civil discourse, neither is the bigot Donohue. When will you call for his resignation?

Posted by: antiphone on February 12, 2007 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

I'm suddenly completely dreading the 08 elections.

They're bigoted, non-sensical, hateful windbags, and they always win. They always win, because they get a big microphone, and no one ever, ever stands up and calls them on their hypocritical bullshit in an equally loud voice.

At least Amanda's free to stand up and say it in her own blog now. Amanda unleashed is a beautiful thing to behold.

Posted by: RKMK on February 12, 2007 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin D., any feelers from the Edwards camp yet?

Posted by: David W. on February 12, 2007 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

Antiphone-- Marcotte clearly has rage issues. I'm willing to start a collection to help her get the anti-anger meds she needs. Will you join me?

Donahue, on the other hand, simply tries to explain the Bible to people. The fact that liberals have a problem with that says more about them than him.

Posted by: American Hawk on February 12, 2007 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

Typical Lefty - blaming other people for her own laspes in judgement.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on February 12, 2007 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

So, all the people who declared themselves "Edwards" supporters because of his "brave stand" will now rescind their support and go with other candidates, yes?

Or was it Edwards "brave stand" to "refuse to fire" Marcotte and just force her to resign after he got all the positive blogospheric press?

Posted by: Patrick on February 12, 2007 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

I'd say Donahue would be happy...but when are his kind ever happy? They're never satisfied unless they have 1) someone to accuse of persecuting them, and 2) someone to attack, possibly for the same reason as 1).

Posted by: Kryptik on February 12, 2007 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

Wrong time to bag out for Ann.

Edwards won't even get a VP nomination this time.

Posted by: dontcallmefrancis on February 12, 2007 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

Donahue, on the other hand, simply tries to explain the Bible to people. The fact that liberals have a problem with that says more about them than him.

He ought to explain the part about "blessed are the peace makers" to President Bush then.

Posted by: David W. on February 12, 2007 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk - Donahue can explain the Bible all he wants, to people who exercise their freedom of religion and willingly attend Church.

Of course, that "freedom of religion" thing also means that the rest of us don't have to give two craps about "what the Bible says", or may even have different interpretations of "what the Bible says", so if we don't choose to attend his church, he's got no right to shove his opinion of "what the Bible says" down our throats. And since the framework of the Constitution calls for the separation of church and state, when it comes right down to it, "what the Bible says" is largely irrelevant to civil society, and the Edwards campaign.

Why does Bill Donahoe hate freedom of religion? Why does Bill Donahoe hate America?

Posted by: RKMK on February 12, 2007 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus. If Edwards couldn't stand up to the nuttiest of nuts, Bill "Hollywood is controlled by Jews who hate Christians" Donohue, how will he deal with a real campaign?

Posted by: keptsimple on February 12, 2007 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, the easy way to avoid dumping your personal baggage as an opinion-writer onto your favored candidate is to never take a paycheck from their campaign. Simply be a de facto campaign worker on your own time.

Since this is the obvious loophole, the next step in the escalation will be attacking a candidate for the opinions of unpaid supporters. Say, Edwards is still tarred as anti-Catholic because Amanda continues to support him on her personal blog.

Posted by: Grumpy on February 12, 2007 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

Donahue, on the other hand, simply tries to explain the Bible to people. The fact that liberals have a problem with that says more about them than him.

America Hawk, you must not be familiar with Donohue’s record. I’d like to know if you'd describe this as civil discourse:

Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It‘s not a secret, OK? And I‘m not afraid to say it. That‘s why they hate this movie. It‘s about Jesus Christ, and it‘s about truth. It‘s about the messiah.

Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost.

You have got secular Jews. You have got embittered ex-Catholics, including a lot of ex-Catholic priests who hate the Catholic Church, wacko Protestants in the same group, and these people are in the margins. Frankly, Michael Moore represents a cult movie. Mel Gibson represents the mainstream of America.

Bill Donahue on Scarborough Country.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6685898/

Posted by: antiphone on February 12, 2007 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

Um, guys, you might at least try to comprehend the possibility that Marcotte did indeed make her decision to leave Edwards' campaign on her own. Or do you think she'd not tell the truth if she was in fact forced out?

Posted by: David W. on February 12, 2007 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

David W-- THe bible says that light should not commune with darkness.

RKMK-- The phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't appear anywhere in the constitution. The 'wall' Jefferson wrote about was to protect the church from the state, not the other way around. Even if the constitution did say that, though, individual voters are still entitled to ask campaigns not to hire people who hate Christians.

Antiphone-- In fact, most of the executive positions in Hollywood are held by secular Jews. Hollywood also produces a lot of vile material, which is the point Donahue was making.

Posted by: American Hawk on February 12, 2007 at 11:11 PM | PERMALINK

Well Amanda fucked things up for Edwards again by resigning in a blaze of glory. At this point it is looking as though Edwards should have kept Shakes and fired Amanda.

The winning playbook was for Amanda to resign quietly as she realized she wasn't a good fit for the campaign, but instead, once again, she had to make everything about herself and her needs. This is typically what drives her deep philosophy.

Anyway, Amanda being gone is like having an abcess removed. Edwards will walk around with a bandaid for a few days and then we will all feel much better.

Now we only need Amanda to go toss herself in the biological waste pile.

Posted by: jerry on February 12, 2007 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk, Iran isn't full of "darkness", no matter how many speeches are written saying such is the case.

Posted by: David W. on February 12, 2007 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

David W.-- The Iranian government is, which is why we need to do everything we can to destabilize it.

Posted by: American Hawk on February 12, 2007 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Amanda's pissed...

Posted by: paul on February 12, 2007 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

God knows I've been critical of how the blogosphere has handled the Amanda Marcotte thing.

But she has certainly chosen to do the right thing for her candidate.

Brava, Amanda.

Posted by: frankly0 on February 12, 2007 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

Antiphone-- In fact, most of the executive positions in Hollywood are held by secular Jews. Hollywood also produces a lot of vile material, which is the point Donahue was making.

Is the Donohue quote above what you would consider civil discourse or not?

Posted by: antiphone on February 12, 2007 at 11:17 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk, the Iranian government has been willing to talk and deal but has been rebuffed by President Bush at every turn. Indeed, Bush seems only interested in provoking the Iranians by trumping up bogus charges about their alledged involvement in Iraq.

Posted by: David W. on February 12, 2007 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK

Antiphone-- Donahue may have erred in being too concerned about protecting children from the smut Hollywood puts out, and baby-killers that call themselves abortionists. Amanda erred in hating Catholics too much. If I have to choose, I'll side with the guy who errs in the side of being too compassionate, rather than the one who is too nasty.

David W.-- Blame America first. Good liberal! Have a cookie. It's a simple equation: If Iran insists on having a nuclear missile, we should give them one. We can have a plane loaded and there in about... twelve hours or so. We should make them aware of this fact.

Posted by: American Hawk on February 12, 2007 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINK

Amanda joined the Edwards campaign because she wanted to help him become president. It became obvious that she was hurting his campaign because the bigots on the right were not going to let up. Whether you thought it was an important issue or trivial, it was a distraction...not the press that Edwards needed.

Good for him that he stood by her. And good for her that she stepped aside.

Posted by: JJF on February 12, 2007 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINK

Let's just face it...the world isn't ready for mainstream bloggers...

Posted by: elmo on February 12, 2007 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINK

antiphone, of course Donahue really believes that the Jews killed Jesus, which is the sort of "truth" only a bigot would admire.

Posted by: David W. on February 12, 2007 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

Pathetic. The first bully to push him around and he caves. And now the rest of us have to hear a crowing Bill Donohue and Michelle Malkin.

If Edwards thinks the Republicans will spin this as anything other than another weak, waffling Democrat who got called out on his anti-christian bias and schooled by the strong, truth-telling christian activists, he's nuts.

Thanks, John, you've been a big help.

Posted by: Ciccina on February 12, 2007 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk, we just dealt with North Korea today over the issue of nuclear weapons. The Iranians aren't nearly as difficult to deal with.

Posted by: David W. on February 12, 2007 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

Edwards came out of this okay, I think. He said he wouldn't fire either blogger, and that was the story for a couple of days.

Of course, there will be speculation that Amanda was actually fired, and that her resignation was just kabuki. The difficulty with this theory is, the people who advance it are likely also to advance the image of her as independent and speaking her mind. That she could be that (which I believe) and publish the post she did, in which she says she made the decision to resign (which I also believe), and at the same time be a meek tool for a campaign that in reality was firing her, is completely inconsistent.

So, no tinfoil hat for me. Edwards saw the mileage in standing up to the Right Wing Noise Machine, and he got points for doing it. (And Donohue did NOT look good.) And Amanda, no dummy, saw the political writing on the wall and fell on her sword.

Ugly business, thanks to the Right.

Posted by: bleh on February 12, 2007 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

David W.-- If by "we" you mean "the Bush administration", then yes "we" did deal with them.

Posted by: American Hawk on February 12, 2007 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

Bloggers like Marcotte who fiercely hate Catholics, Christians, and ...

As opposed to bigots like AH who can't bring themselves to even admit that Catholics *are* Christians.

Posted by: Disputo on February 12, 2007 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Amanda. Moth meet flame.

Posted by: Al on February 12, 2007 at 11:33 PM | PERMALINK

page isn't comin' up. archive? anything?

Posted by: adam on February 12, 2007 at 11:34 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk, the deal with North Korea is pretty much the same agreement that President Clinton made that a Republican Congress later reneged on. I think the current Democratic Congress will have more sense about the matter of energy assistance and other aid.

Posted by: David W. on February 12, 2007 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

Donahue may have erred in being too concerned about protecting children from the smut Hollywood puts out, and baby-killers that call themselves abortionists. Amanda erred in hating Catholics too much. If I have to choose, I'll side with the guy who errs in the side of being too compassionate, rather than the one who is too nasty.

Well then the issue isn’t civil discourse is it? You happen to agree with Donohue’s brand of bigotry, which, by the way, is not representative of the majority of Catholic opinion.

Posted by: antiphone on February 12, 2007 at 11:40 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk: THe bible says that light should not commune with darkness.

Is that a public policy statement? Is "negotiate" the same as "commune"?

How about "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's"?

Back to Marcotte: if a writer said stuff like that about Islam in general (as opposed to a few cults) would she be allowed to work for a candidate in a public relations capacity? Her job for Edwards was to win votes. After the quotes that you have posted from Donohue, I am sure that any candidate who hired him would come under pressure to dump him. Does he in fact work on the staff of a candidate for elective office?

Posted by: spider on February 12, 2007 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

&uot(1) Neither Edwards nor his staff would never have hired her if they'd read her stuff. Some of her stuff becomes a liability because it creates an easy target for opponents. There are other writers out there who can write equally well who don't bring that liability to the table.

(2) They didn't do even a cursory check of what she's written. If they had they wouldn't have hired her. Therefore, they made a mistake.

(3) The mistake was pointed out by the opposition. If it had been pointed out by a colleague instead, in a private meeting, they'd have found a reason to quietly let her go. That it was pointed out in public by a repulsive theocrat with a fixation on anal sex doesn't change the fact that they made a mistake, and they opened themselves up to that because they made a mistake.

(4) Not admitting the mistake is not the same thing as "standing up for; anyone. Not admitting the mistake is just digging the hole deeper.

(5) That Amanda now thinks it's appropriate to throw a fit in public, and resign after Edwards indicated he was willing to try to deny the mistake and hunker down hoping the storm would blow over, validates the observation that they need to improve their screening process.

Posted by: billio on February 12, 2007 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

You happen to agree with Donohue’s brand of bigotry, which, by the way, is not representative of the majority of Catholic opinion.

Not only is it not representative of catholics, it is not catholic at all.

Donohue's so-called Catholic League is nothing more than a bunch of bigots who happen to have been raised Catholic -- it has nothing to do with Catholicism.

Posted by: Disputo on February 12, 2007 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk, the deal with North Korea is pretty much the same agreement that President Clinton made that a Republican Congress later reneged on

Except that under Clinton's agreement all this plutonium was locked up and we could monitor Kim's compliance with keeping it locked up, and Bush is now hoping Kim will agree to essentially the same deal *except* that the plutonium is now in nuclear bombs that Kim has not agreed to give up.

Posted by: billio on February 12, 2007 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

All I know is that this will now get really ugly, really fast, as every staffer for every campaign has their every online utterance parsed for offense. The blowback on this is going to be hell for both sides.

Also, Amanda's posts on Donahue should be awesome and horrific--and I think I speak for everyone left of Joe Lieberman when I say it's time to take the bigot down.

I wouldn't want to be Bill today. Not that he's smart enough to know it.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke on February 12, 2007 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

"It's a simple equation: If Iran insists on having a nuclear missile, we should give them one. We can have a plane loaded and there in about... twelve hours or so. We should make them aware of this fact.
Posted by: American Hawk on February 12, 2007 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINK"

i'm so sick of this macho "we have a bigger army than you" bullshit. oh man, nukes are so cool cause they blow lots of shit up! who CARES that lots of people die, right???!!!

if you get your testosterone high by talking like a big man on the comments of a liberal blog, then good for you i guess, but it strikes the rest of the human race as pathetic.

Posted by: b.schac on February 12, 2007 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

Bill Donohue is an embarrassment to all Catholics, including me. It's about loving your enemies (or overly snarky bloggers) and turning the other cheek, not being pompous and self-righteous. "Our two weapons are fear and surprise ..." Catholic League operating manual, perhaps?

Posted by: Spanish Inquisition on February 12, 2007 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

i'm so sick of this macho "we have a bigger army than you" bullshit.

It's doubly sick since AH isn't even a real 'merican -- he's just a wannabe macho freak.

Posted by: Disputo on February 12, 2007 at 11:55 PM | PERMALINK

Why does this blog have the highest conservative-to-liberal ratio between comments and blog-contents of any blog out there? These guys seem to work to stink up things so bad that no community can develop at all. Comparing the discourse here to Glenn Greenwald's comments, for instance--another center-left blog--is like night and day. What's going on?

Posted by: Jack on February 12, 2007 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a naturalized American. I guess liberals don't understand that it's possible to be a citizen not born here. Curiously, those same liberals refuse to use the force of law against illegal immigrants. It just goes to show that liberals are very silly people.

Posted by: American Hawk on February 12, 2007 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINK

…most of the executive positions in Hollywood are held by secular Jews. Hollywood also produces a lot of vile material…

American Hawk, would you care to clarify your reasoning here? Could you define the term-- “secular Jew’?

Posted by: antiphone on February 12, 2007 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

What's going on?

Uh, civil discourse?

Posted by: antiphone on February 13, 2007 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

I guess liberals don't understand that it's possible to be a citizen not born here.

No, it's just that us real Americans resent having retarded bigots who have no idea what it means to be an American pretending that their imported bigotry has anything to do with this beloved country.

We don't need any sleeper cells of hate.

Posted by: Disputo on February 13, 2007 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

All I know is that this will now get really ugly, really fast, as every staffer for every campaign has their every online utterance parsed for offense. The blowback on this is going to be hell for both sides.

All the more reason for Edwards to consider hiring someone like Kevin. Who could possibly take offense at catblogging, I ask?

Posted by: David W. on February 13, 2007 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

Um, guys, you might at least try to comprehend the possibility that Marcotte did indeed make her decision to leave Edwards' campaign on her own. Or do you think she'd not tell the truth if she was in fact forced out?

No, I don't think she'd tell the truth if she coordinates this with the Edwards campaign, since it would put his earlier statement in a bad light.

Posted by: Boronx on February 13, 2007 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

No cat blogging, thank you.

Posted by: DemocRATS on February 13, 2007 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINK

Jack, let the nutcases rant. It is to Kevin's credit that they can. Remember on the nutcases preferred websites like LGF, RedState, FreeRepublic and the like users are banned left and right (mostly left) and comments are deleted.

So let them rant. Remember the answer to free speech is more free speech.

It's Lincoln's Birthday, I think he said, "It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."

Posted by: jerry on February 13, 2007 at 12:05 AM | PERMALINK

After taking a respite from the crazy, nothing makes me happier than knowing nothing has changed here.

Ms. Marcotte is the victim because she impugned the religious convictions of Catholics. As an atheist, I find this argument less than compelling.

Posted by: Inigo Montoya on February 13, 2007 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

Boronx, if what Marcotte has written up to now is any indication about her, she wouldn't turn the other cheek and cover up if she was in fact fired. The more reasonable answer is that she chose to leave the Edwards campaign on her own.

Posted by: David W. on February 13, 2007 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

If Iran insists on having a nuclear missile, we should give them one. We can have a plane loaded and there in about... twelve hours or so.

Or how about Bush's plan: let them refine their own plutonium while we watch, and let them build their own bombs and test their own missiles while we watch. You like Bush's plan, don't you?

BTW, it wasn't like Iran. Kim refined that plutonium in plain sight. Not in a hardened bunker. In a reactor that a single cruise missile could take out. Kim thumbed his nose at Bush, called Bush's bluff, took the plutonium out of storage, re-started the reactor, refined it into weapons-grade plutonium, and built bombs.

Bush *could* have stopped that before the reactor was re-started (it's not just a matter of flicking a switch). Then Kim would have had to respond with conventional weapons.

If Bush were to take your foolish advice now, Kim would be responding with nukes.

If Bush didn't have the balls to stop Kim from refining the plutonium after telling Kim that he'd better not dare refine that plutonium, what do you think he'd do now?

Easy to answer, we know what Bush actually *did* do as Kim refined the plutonium, built the bombs, tested missiles, tested or pretended to test a nuke, etc: Bush gave Kim more and more concessions, until he'd given Kim everything Kim had asked for, getting less and less in return until finally all he's getting for all of those concessions is that Kim will turn off the reactor that was off when Bush took office. And Kim keeps the nukes that were built with plutonium that was in storage that we could monitor for compliance when Bush took office.

Heckuva job.

Posted by: sdf on February 13, 2007 at 12:16 AM | PERMALINK

Ms. Marcotte is the victim because she impugned the religious convictions of Catholics…

Is that really the case? Did she make a sweeping generalization about all Catholics?

Posted by: antiphone on February 13, 2007 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

American Hawk,
Are you that dense? Have you seen who the board of directors of the Catholic League are? Would you believe that Dinesh D'Souza is on the board? You'll never win the argument, so just submit now before you are made to look even more foolish.

Posted by: This Machine Kills Fascists on February 13, 2007 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

Looks to me like Amanda Marcotte resigned so that she would be free to kick Bill Donahue's sorry ass in the strongest possible terms, without interfering with John Edwards' campaign.

Donahue has not won. The game has just begun, and by the time that it ends, Bill Donahue will be too disreputable to appear on television; he'll have to answer too many questions about sex with statues and why he hates Jews.

Posted by: Joe Buck on February 13, 2007 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

The victim ain't Marcotte.

It was Edwards that just got run over. Donoghue was driving the car. Marcotte was the car.

If Amanda continues to throw a tantrum and the blogosphere makes a big deal out of this, than yeah, it will be a long time before bloggers are allowed close to a campaign.

People laugh at all of the Bush officials that resign to spend more time with their family, but that's the way it is done. And once you're gone, you don't talk out of school.

How selfish is Amanda going to be?

Posted by: jerry on February 13, 2007 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

So, y'all who insist on seeing this as Edwards "caving" are insisting that Amanda is a brave truth teller except when she says that she resigned voluntarily. So wouldn't this make her as "cowardly" as Edwards, who is cowardly because he's firing the brave truth teller, who's lying to save his worthless skin? So, if she's lying to save his skin then is she someone we should really hate Edwards for firing?

Isn't it easier to take her at her word when she says she resigned voluntarily? Isn't it a little early to be cranking up the "I knew it, he's just a phony" box?

Posted by: URK on February 13, 2007 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

"Looks to me like Amanda Marcotte resigned so that she would be free to kick Bill Donahue's sorry ass in the strongest possible terms, without interfering with John Edwards' campaign."

-this is how i read it too. yay, fireworks!

Posted by: URK on February 13, 2007 at 12:52 AM | PERMALINK

People laugh at all of the Bush officials that resign to spend more time with their family, but that's the way it is done. And once you're gone, you don't talk out of school.

Yes, and the Bush administration is such a shining example for everyone to emulate…

Posted by: antiphone on February 13, 2007 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know if Marcotte is bigoted against Catholics, but her writing includes bigoted comments. I think it's proper for Bill Donohue to oppose anti-Catholic bigotry.

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 13, 2007 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINK

I think it's proper for Bill Donohue to expouse anti-Semitic bigotry.

Fixed that for ya, faux-lib!

Posted by: Disputo on February 13, 2007 at 1:02 AM | PERMALINK

People laugh at all of the Bush officials that resign to spend more time with their family, but that's the way it is done. And once you're gone, you don't talk out of school.

A democracy ought not be run like the Mafia, IMNSHO. People like Paul O'Neill and John D'Iulio did the right thing by revealing how the Bush administration really decides things behind the scenes. I think we the people can tell the difference between self-serving B.S. and genuine critisism, and that those who have plenty to hide prefer that people don't talk.

Posted by: David W. on February 13, 2007 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

I think it's proper for Bill Donohue to oppose anti-Catholic bigotry.

I see. Donohue is opposed to anti-Catholic bigotry, and he uses anti-gay, anti-“secular Jew” bigotry as tools to accomplish this goal. This makes him a hypocrite but quite popular with quite people who share his love of nuance.

Posted by: antiphone on February 13, 2007 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

I don't recall O'Neill and D'Iulio coming out of the White House, throwing a tantrum and vowing to find the real killers.

I seem to recall an orderly and well mannered resignation and well after the fact, discussions of what really happened inside.

Posted by: jerry on February 13, 2007 at 1:06 AM | PERMALINK

jerry, compared to what happened to John Snow, who was openly kept on despite it being well-known that he was not wanted as the Secretary of Treasury any more, Marcotte's stepping down was far more straightforward. That Bush hardly a week before the election said Rumsfeld wasn't going anywhere as SecDef only to turn around afterwards and fire him to later say to reporters that he was really thinking of doing it before the election is also not exactly a shining example of a orderly and well-mannered process to say the least.

Posted by: David W. on February 13, 2007 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

I think it's a shame that he gave in to criticism. I was looking forward to 18 months of her nutball rhetoric hanging around his neck like an albatross.

Jeez. NO sense of humor.

Posted by: Mike K on February 13, 2007 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

Boronx, if what Marcotte has written up to now is any indication about her, she wouldn't turn the other cheek and cover up if she was in fact fired.

She claims to have left for the good of the Edwards campaign. I've seen no evidence that she was convinced to leave, but if she were, revealing that would make Edwards look like a two-faced jerk and more than counteract the good she does by quitting.

She's already showed more politcal savvy than her blunt manner would suggest.

Posted by: Boronx on February 13, 2007 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

antiphone and disputo, you claim Bill Donohue is a bigot. That's a serious accusation. Can you provide cites to quotes of his bigoted comments?

Some liberals understand that Marcotte was a poor choice. E.g.,

Little has been written (at least as far as I have seen), about the need for blogs on the left to demonstrate more respect for the majority of Americans who are religious. We have made that point at least five times in widely linked posts....But most of the responses were hostile and the debate generated more heat than light.

And I have no reason to think anyone listened to this perspective. Sadly, there is little about the current flap that suggests that the point has been heard now--despite Sen. Edwards' express statement that such language is offensive. The articles below make it clear that many others on the religious left agree with my perspective.
http://blog01.kintera.com/christianalliance/archives/2007/02/will_liberal_bl.html

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 13, 2007 at 1:21 AM | PERMALINK

antiphone and disputo, you claim Bill Donohue is a bigot. That's a serious accusation. Can you provide cites to quotes of his bigoted comments?

Yes, I did upthread:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010733.php#1046699

Posted by: antiphone on February 13, 2007 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

Ex-lib,
It's all over the internet. Google is your friend. If you really need that much help, I suggest you go look at Crooks and Liars. They have plenty of evidence for you.

Posted by: This Machine Kills Fascists on February 13, 2007 at 1:32 AM | PERMALINK

I don't know if Marcotte is bigoted against Catholics, but her writing includes bigoted comments.

So you say Ex-Liberal, what are the comments?

Posted by: antiphone on February 13, 2007 at 1:34 AM | PERMALINK

Makes sense to me...she did make some insensitive remarks in regards to about as hot-button an item as you possibly can make insensitive remarks about - religion.

It may be cool to be an atheist and mock believers on the internet, but it ain't on Main Street or mainstream politics, and I realize that it's not that simple, but nuance and complexity don't do well in politics or short blog entries.

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2007 at 1:44 AM | PERMALINK

Also, before I possibly get flamed, I'd also like to add that Edwards isn't and shouldn't be under any obligation to keep any of his employees on for inflammatory remarks they have made that he was previously unaware of but that have gone public.

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2007 at 1:47 AM | PERMALINK

Last, if your employer knows and values your services enough, like Bush does Rove, nearly anything will be overlooked or railroaded. That is just not the case here.

For what it's worth, Amanda says she stepped down on her own to spare Edwards, and that's the right call irrespective of everything else.

Donohue is a scumbag and doesn't believe in American values, and as an employer I never would have buckled under to that asshole, so I respect Amanda's decision to remove herself as the focal point here from the Edwards campaign, which was not by design and not desirable.

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2007 at 1:52 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and I predict this will be a "victory" Donohue will learn to regret.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory

Right wingers and Bush supporters should be very familiar with the term.

Posted by: Jimm on February 13, 2007 at 1:56 AM | PERMALINK

Faux-liberal,

Here's AH at 11:11: In fact, most of the executive positions in Hollywood are held by secular Jews. Hollywood also produces a lot of vile material, which is the point Donahue was making.

AH conjoined these two assertions (the Jews run Hollywood and Hollywood makes vile material) in order to (not very subtly) suggest a causal connection. The upshot of his remark was 'It's them rich Jews who are hurting America with their smut.' This is the interpretation that any competent English speaker would adopt (unless that person were playing the silly rhetorical game of divorcing the man's words from their historical context).

AH then added this lovely old anti-Semitic trope to the mix (at 11:11):

Donahue may have erred in being too concerned about protecting children from the smut Hollywood puts out

Ah yes, will no one think of the children? Who will shield them from those wicked Jews who run Hollywood -- you know, the ones who control the studios that are throwing all this smut at our poor children?

BTW, AH, the Iranian theocrats must love Bush. His sabre-rattling has only consolidated their position, having the opposite effect of de-stabilizing them.

Posted by: otherpaul on February 13, 2007 at 2:00 AM | PERMALINK

Edwards isn't and shouldn't be under any obligation to keep any of his employees on for inflammatory remarks they have made that he was previously unaware of but that have gone public.

First of all according to what is known, aside from speculation, Amanda Marcotte resigned.

Second, if his staff wasn’t aware of her track record they should have been.

Third, we’re under no obligation to support him as a candidate. The right has lots of attack dogs. They don’t require reasons to attack and if candidates fire staff every time an overblown or manufactured scandal is pushed into the media by the right wing noise machine they will be rewarding bad behavior and playing a loosing game.

Posted by: antiphone on February 13, 2007 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

I found this quote from Donohue:

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, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. That's why they hate this movie. Its about Jesus Christ, and it's about truth. It's about the messiah.

Note that Donohue didn't say "The Jews" (as otherpaul inaccurately claimed), which might imply a conspiracy.

The actual comment seems reasonably accurate, albeit exaggerated. AFAIK most of the studios are run by secular Jews. Their movies do often show Christianity negatively, and seldom show it positively. Their movies are sometimes very negative toward Catholicism. I didn't see "The Passion of the Christ", so I don't know why mainstream Hollywood disliked it, but it's clear that they did dislike it.

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 13, 2007 at 2:17 AM | PERMALINK

Ex-Liberal,
Did you miss the part where Donohue said that Mel Gibson represented mainstream Christianity? I suppose mainstream Christians are a bunch of incoherent, drunken anti-semites, right?

Posted by: This Machine Kills Fascists on February 13, 2007 at 2:23 AM | PERMALINK

Their movies do often show Christianity negatively, and seldom show it positively.
Posted by: ex-liberal

I generally find the Hollywood portrayal of Christianity to be infinitely more tolerable. The most negative depiction of Christians comes from the frothing, rabid hordes of rightwing Christofascists.

Posted by: Nads on February 13, 2007 at 2:35 AM | PERMALINK

Did you miss the part where Donohue said that Mel Gibson represented mainstream Christianity?

To be accurate, I do think the quote was from before Gibson’s most recent meltdown, but Gibson’s version of Christianity is definitely not mainstream.

Note that Donohue didn't say "The Jews" (as otherpaul inaccurately claimed), which might imply a conspiracy.

Right Ex-Liberal, nothing bigoted or offensive about this:

Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

Posted by: antiphone on February 13, 2007 at 2:37 AM | PERMALINK

I'm a bit split on this as I wish Amanda would have stayed but understand her position that her goal is to help the Edwards campaign and if she's a distraction from the real issues she's no longer able to achieve that end. Sad that such a bigot and hate-monger as Donohue could get the media impact he did, that's the true travesty of all of this and we all should work to ensure he and those like him do not get prominent media exposure in the future. Amanda sounds like she will be a thorn in his side for years to come and I encourage her to not hold back in the least. Donohue deserves nothing less than very public and very prominent humiliation over who he really is, a hypocrite.

Posted by: Fred F. on February 13, 2007 at 2:56 AM | PERMALINK

Someone should ask the relentless crusader against bigotry Donohue for comment on this.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican Mitt Romney's choice of a museum honoring auto pioneer Henry Ford as the site of his presidential announcement was strongly criticized Monday by Jewish Democrats, who noted Ford's history of anti-Semitism.

The former Massachusetts governor, who is scheduled to formally launch his presidential candidacy from the Henry Ford Museum in Detroit on Tuesday, was taken to task by The National Jewish Democratic Council.

The council "is deeply troubled by Governor Romney's choice of locations to announce his presidential campaign," executive director Ira Forman said in a statement.

"Romney has been traveling the country talking about inclusiveness and understanding of people from all walks of life," Forman said. "Yet he chooses to kick (off) his presidential campaign on the former estate of a well-known and outspoken anti-Semite and xenophobe."

Forman said Romney's "embrace of Henry Ford and association of Ford's legacy with his presidential campaign raises serious questions about either the sincerity of Romney's words or his understanding of basic American history."

Ford was bestowed with the Grand Service Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle by Adolph Hitler.

Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Romney, said the candidate will go ahead with his announcement as planned.

http://rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fapnews.myway.com%2Farticle%2F20070212%2FD8N8CFUG0.html

Posted by: antiphone on February 13, 2007 at 3:10 AM | PERMALINK

Donohue is a hate-mongerer of the first order.

Having said that, Marcotte should have had the good sense to just keep her religion-rage in her pocket.

Bottom line: she made Edwards look like an idiot. After he stood by her last week, she couldn't resist getting up Donohue's nose one more time.

That would get anyone fired. She should have just walked away from Pandagon, and gone back after the Edwards campaign turned off the lights. IMO.

Posted by: Stranger on February 13, 2007 at 4:07 AM | PERMALINK

One more thig - she should have taken a cue from Jerome Armstrong. He handled this situation exactly the right way when he went to work for Deadn.

Posted by: Stranger on February 13, 2007 at 4:09 AM | PERMALINK

Dammit. Dean

Pardon the drunken posting.

Posted by: Stranger on February 13, 2007 at 4:10 AM | PERMALINK

Marcotte may or may not be an anti-Catholic bigot* but she was not a good fit for that position.
She is a polemicist who advocates strongly and blasphemously for her point of view. Both she and the Edwards campaign would have been better off if she remained a forceful advocate for her positions from the outside. Ms. Marcotte's political instincts are not very good either as Pandagon was hosting a 'tell your favorite religious joke in the midst of the shit storm. (Not particulary savy but there were some classics on that thread)

While Donahue will claim his pound of flesh I doubt it was his objections that did in Marcotte. The left side did an excellent job exposing him for the anti-semitic opportunist he is.
If Marcotte resigned at this point to help the campaign as she claims it is because other forces were at work. (She had already survived the worst part and numerous other stories had knocked this off everything but the right wing wurlitzer) In the end, I think the campaign was concerned about alienating moderate/liberal Catholic Democrats particulary those in positions within the party.

* Most of the posts highlighted by the right wing were crude but indicative of nothing more than a corrosive wit and a resentful/righteous anger. The only post that struck me as odd and showed the possibility of bias was on the Catholic Church's position on birth control. Marcotte's Catholic friend apparently gave her some official pre-nuptial guide that she then enviscerated. Almost every Catholic commenter stated that was not the advice/instruction they had received. I don't know if it was the setup, the contradictory comments or just the exuberance with which she ridiculed this supposed Catholic pre-nupbtial instruction but that post just didn't sit well with me.

Posted by: skeptic on February 13, 2007 at 4:44 AM | PERMALINK

ex-lib:antiphone and disputo, you claim Bill Donohue is a bigot. That's a serious accusation. Can you provide cites to quotes of his bigoted comments?

There are plenty and they are outrageous examples of Donohue's bigotry. See Media Matters here and here. Examples from the last link:

• "People don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 2/9/06]
• "Name for me a book publishing company in this country, particularly in New York, which would allow you to publish a book which would tell the truth about the gay death style." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 2/27/04]
• "The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 4/11/05]
• Addressing former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) in a press release, Donohue said: "[W]hy didn't you just smack the clergyman in the face? After all, most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn't allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?" [10/4/06]
• "I'm saying if a Catholic votes for Kerry because they support him on abortion rights, that is to cooperate in evil." [MSNBC's Hardball, 10/21/04]
• "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, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 12/8/04]
• "Well, look, there are people in Hollywood, not all of them, but there are some people who are nothing more than harlots. They will do anything for the buck. They wouldn't care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so, and they would do it with a smile on their face." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 2/9/06]

Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 13, 2007 at 5:18 AM | PERMALINK

On vulgarity, I think Donohue went over the top with this one:

“If someone tells me that there’s a statue of Martin Luther King with an erection receiving oral sex, I don’t need to see it.”
What kind of twisted mind dreams this crap up? Oh, it's Bill Donohue. What a hypocrite!

Posted by: Apollo 13 on February 13, 2007 at 5:22 AM | PERMALINK

She kept blogging at Pandagon. She can't do that. You sign onto a political campaign, you sell your soul for the duration. Regardless of your role and what you do in your real life, everything you do or say is a reflection on the candidate. That's how it works. Amanda may have understood that intellectually, but the emotional effect of not being able to say what she thinks for the next year and half may have been unanticipated.

Posted by: jayackroyd on February 13, 2007 at 5:30 AM | PERMALINK

Since this is the obvious loophole, the next step in the escalation will be attacking a candidate for the opinions of unpaid supporters.

That's already happening.

Posted by: jayackroyd on February 13, 2007 at 5:32 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry to see Amanda leave the Edwards campaign. Off-the-chart leftwing wackos like her do nothing but help the conservative cause. Hope she signs on with Hillary.

Posted by: Grairreeks on February 13, 2007 at 5:38 AM | PERMALINK

Hrm.... 'off-the-chart leftwing wackos' only help the conservative cause...while 'off-the-charts rightwing wackos' like Donahue...only help the conservative cause.

Seems to me either that there's an unfair balance in how our wackos are treated, or someone's trying to drive in a neutering wedge here...

Posted by: Kryptik on February 13, 2007 at 9:24 AM | PERMALINK

The Edwards campaign should have never hired her in the first place and should have fired her once her blog became an issue (her resignation may simply be a firing in sheep's clothing).

She has a perfect right to write anything she wishes, but she does not have a right to represent the Edwards campaign. I have no sympathy for what happened to her. You reap what you sow.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on February 13, 2007 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINK

You reap what you sow.

Ain't it the truth, Yancey. ;)

Posted by: Gregory on February 13, 2007 at 10:08 AM | PERMALINK

What's going on?

Uh, civil discourse?

I courteously beg to differ.

Posted by: rewolfrats on February 13, 2007 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

Ye reap what ye sow - As in GWHB or George the First firing Karl Rove. How did that work out?

Still time for Crooked Talk to hire Archie Bunker, aka Bill Donohue, as a consultant and front man on cable entertainment "news".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on February 13, 2007 at 10:23 AM | PERMALINK

And now Marcotte is claiming she was persecuted because she's a woman?!? Oh please, grow the f*ck up.

No, she was fired because she's a rage-filled, hate-spewing bigot, who never should have been hired in the first place. If she was notoriously racist or anti-Semitic, she never would have been hired in the first place, nor would she have any credibility generally. But she's "only" an anti-Catholic bigot -- so it's not only okay, it's downright trendy.

Any number of religions have the same view as Catholicism on birth control, abortion, etc. But she limits her rants to Catholicism.

Here are just a couple of her choice comments:

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.

"The Catholic church is so interested in making sure that people can’t make the perfectly sound decision to limit their family size while enjoying a healthy sex life. It’s a way to disrupt people’s lives so the church can get more control"

"The Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics."

And even if you take out the anti-Catholic bigotry, she's essentially just a self-promoting, talentless, twisted shrew, who can't even take responsibility for her own role in this whole ugly affair. Please, Amanda, go back to your basement and let the grownups talk.


Posted by: sullijan on February 13, 2007 at 10:49 AM | PERMALINK

Sullijan, criticism of Catholic Church hierarchy and doctrine, while it may offend you, is not the same as bigotry. When Marcotte starts writing that because of their religion Catholics should have to drink from separate water fountains from the rest of us, lose a job or be unable to get one, or suffer violence or other persecution, then get back to us. Now please return to your basement.

Posted by: JK on February 13, 2007 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Thanks for the list, Apollo 13. Let's take these statements of Donohue one at a time:

• "People don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 2/9/06]

Many anti-Bush folks argue that Bush was wrong to try to implement Demcracy in an Islamic country. So, it's literally true that some some people don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty. Notice that that this statement doesn't say whether Donohue himself believes that Muslims can create a democracy.

• "Name for me a book publishing company in this country, particularly in New York, which would allow you to publish a book which would tell the truth about the gay death style." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 2/27/04]

I'm not sure whatthe gay death style is. If he means that the gay community doesn't do enough to prevent the spread of AIDS, then I agree that was the case at one time. E.g., the gay community fought to keep open the bathhouses that were a big problem, medically. I do agree that the New York book publishing industry bends over backwards to avoid offending gays.

• "The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 4/11/05]

I don't know what damage he's talking about. I haven't heard such an apology, nor have I heard the straight community apologize for the damage they've done to gays, which is a lot greater IMHO. This comment of Donohue shows him taking sides.

• Addressing former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) in a press release, Donohue said: "[W]hy didn't you just smack the clergyman in the face? After all, most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn't allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?" [10/4/06]

This seems like an unfair question. If a 15-year old girl had been seduced by an adult, nobody would ask such a question of the girl.

• "I'm saying if a Catholic votes for Kerry because they support him on abortion rights, that is to cooperate in evil." [MSNBC's Hardball, 10/21/04]

I don't share Donohue's POV, but his comment is reasonable if one believes a fetus is already a human being.

• "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, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 12/8/04]

This seems to me a reasonably accurate description, except that I think the libertines have mostly won.

• "Well, look, there are people in Hollywood, not all of them, but there are some people who are nothing more than harlots. They will do anything for the buck. They wouldn't care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so, and they would do it with a smile on their face." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 2/9/06]

Everyone knows this, and it's nothing new. Read "What Makes Sammy Run," a 1941 novel by Bud Schulberg.

In summary, IMHO Donohue is not so much a bigot as someone who has very different social values from mine.

Posted by: ex-liberal on February 13, 2007 at 11:23 AM | PERMALINK

JK, Marcotte claims to be "anti-theocracy" yet carps only on the Catholic Church -- which would be a bit like constantly carping on one race, and then, when called on it, claiming you're just a misanthrope.

And please, while you're in your basement or cubicle or wherever you lurk, LEARN TO READ. I specifically said that those were but TWO of her remarks -- they are not all "hierarchy-directed." And even if they were, her hatred is pretty apparent.

When someone repeatedly bashes a single religion, race, sexual orientation, etc., to the virtual exclusion of all others, it's pretty obviously not intellectually driven; it's simply too narrow to qualify as that.

Of course, there are always people like you, who will contort themselves into ludicrous semantic positions to try to excuse such behavior, if they have no objection to the prejudice being expressed.

Posted by: sullijan on February 13, 2007 at 11:37 AM | PERMALINK

Marcotte was a paid advocate who had to stifle her own voice in order to please the aspirations of a presidential candidate who is unwilling to fight the very powers that cause many of the social and political problems he is supposedly running for presidnet to solve. Marcotte sold herself out to Edwards' ambition and he could not defend her against scum like Donohue for fear of alienating even one precious vote. I think this means the end of Edwards presidential campaign because he will lose many activist liberals who want him to confront people like Donohue not bow to them.

I am a bit surprised someone like Marcotte, who is able to use a voice of confrontation and hostility as well as utilizing the internet medium, would aspire to be an insider and compromise her writing. I suspect the allure of power and wealth makes many dedicated people become platitude serving hacks. Her dream of becoming the next Novak and being on the A list are gone. I think those of us who read and comment at blogs have to be a little more suspect of the motives of bloggers and not allow them to have credibility just because we agree on some issues. Many are just like Edwards, full of ambition, but willing to throw their own ideals under the bus in order to satisfy material needs like success that comes from the approval of the beltway elites, the arm waving Fundamentalists, and the cash promising corporations.

Posted by: Brojo on February 13, 2007 at 11:41 AM | PERMALINK
Bloggers like Marcotte who fiercely hate Catholics, Christians, and men need our pity, not our attention.

Again, American Hawk uses Catholics-are-distinct-from-Christians anti-Catholic construction while chastising someone else for being anti-Catholic.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 13, 2007 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK
Any number of religions have the same view as Catholicism on birth control, abortion, etc.

Very few, in fact, do, and nearly as large and influential in the US as the Catholic Church. Even the Protestant groups that tend to have similar views to Catholics on abortion and provision of birth control to unmarried people, particular minors, tend not to oppose birth control used by married couples the way the Catholic Church does.

While Marcotte's language is far from diplomatic, the substance of her criticisms is not hard to understand, nor is it hard to see why she sees the Catholic Church as a particular focus of those criticisms.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 13, 2007 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK
Marcotte claims to be "anti-theocracy" yet carps only on the Catholic Church

Yeah, so? There's a good argument to be made that the Catholic branch of the religious right, which would subordinate the state to a particular religious authority, is theocratic, while the Protestant branch, which would seek to have the state legislate based on religion and on matters of religion, but continue to reject any particular institutional religious authority, is caesaropapist.

While both are antithetical to liberal democracy, theocracy is more fundamentally antidemocratic than caesaropapism, structurally.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 13, 2007 at 12:04 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, well--Edwards is toast. Biden's done. Wait'll Hill gets a hold of Obama. Hide the women and children...

Posted by: nikkolai on February 13, 2007 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: Not quite sure what your sentence "Very few, in fact, do, and nearly as large and influential in the US as the Catholic Church" means, as it's nonsensical.

But once you start throwing around terms like "large and influential," you've pretty much veered off into ConspiracyLand. It's the kind of thing Lucky Lindy used to say about the American Jewish community prior to our entry into World War II.

And I'm sorry, but have you been living in the biosphere for the entire Bush presidency? Because it's not the Catholic Church that has been "influential." It's the fundamentalist Protestant leadership -- and to significant negative effect. (And that's not a conspiracy theory, as both the fundamentalists and the Bushies openly brag about their symbiotic relationship.) But Marcotte rarely mentions them.

Marcotte claims to be anti-theocracy, yet fixates, biliously, on one religion. That pretty much removes her rants from the realm of intellectual criticism.

Posted by: sullijan on February 13, 2007 at 12:12 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely: Thanks for the laugh. I haven't heard about how Catholics want to "subordinate the state to a particular religious authority" since I read Billy Sunday's rants against Al Smith in history class. (I think those particular smears were tried on JFK, too...).

You can split hairs all you like, but aggressively and nastily attacking one religion to the exclusion of all others, with not even the vaguest attempt at an intellectual underpinning, is bigotry. Period. And all the sophistry in the world can't cover the stench.

Posted by: sullijan on February 13, 2007 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: In summary, IMHO Donohue is not so much a bigot as someone who has very different social values from mine.

First of all, "ex-liberal," your steady flow of bullshit has revealed to all and sundry in this forum that your "IMHO" isn't worth a bucket of piss.

Secondly, while "someone who has very different social values from" you would normally by default be a laudable thing, your feeble defense of Donahue marks you, yet again, as a real piece of work.

Thanks for proving yet again that for dishoenst right-wingers like you, your standards on "civil discourse" are, shall we say, flexible. But then, we knew that from your own example -- you avoid profanity, fooling some into thinking you're "civil," yet you insult the members of this forum on a regular basis with scurrilous accusations, and insult them further with endless, droning repetitions of your lies -- not the least of which is your choice of handle, of course -- no matter how many times you're corrected.

Shame on you, "ex-liberal."

Posted by: Gregory on February 13, 2007 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

Donohue is a leader in a Popish plot to subordinate America to a Medieval Inquisition.

Perhaps a reading of the propaganda from the English Civil War could be instructive to Democrats.

Also, where is Dean? He has been too silent.

Posted by: Brojo on February 13, 2007 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINK

I like how when faux-lib agrees with a person's bigoted ideas, he therefore concludes that the person is not a bigot. Nice.

Posted by: Disputo on February 13, 2007 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

"he's just a wannabe macho freak"

Sigh... He's not even that. He's a troll who is deliberately yanking your chain and laughing his ass off at the people he's fooled. He doesn't really believe the stuff he spouts; he writes it solely to get the reaction that all too many here are happy to give him.

Posted by: Paul on February 13, 2007 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

"you claim Bill Donohue is a bigot. That's a serious accusation. Can you provide cites to quotes of his bigoted comments?"

ex-liberal, you implicitly claim Amanda is a bigot by saying that it's "proper for Bill Donohue to oppose anti-Catholic bigotry." That's a serious accusation. Can you provide cites to quotes of her bigoted comments and explain why they are "anti-Catholic bigotry?"

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Posted by: PaulB on February 13, 2007 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

sullijan wrote: "aggressively and nastily attacking one religion to the exclusion of all others, with not even the vaguest attempt at an intellectual underpinning, is bigotry"

And if Amanda had done that, you might have a point. Since she manifestly did not, I'm afraid that this is simply another strawman argument and ad hominem attack, and a rather lame one at that.

Posted by: PaulB on February 13, 2007 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Janet Sullivan (sullijan) obviously hasn't bothered reading any of Marcotte's posts if she thinks that Marcotte "attack[s] one religion to the exclusion of all others".

But since sullijan misquotes cmd to paint him as a bigot, changing "the Catholic branch of the religious right" to "Catholics", and smears him for referring to Catholics as "influential" (as if 25% of the US pop would be something other than "influential") while using the same term to describe fundamentalist Protestants, she has pretty much revealed herself to be a lying ignorant hack, so I am not surprised.

Posted by: Disputo on February 13, 2007 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

I am assuming Ms. Marcotte is/was Catholic or raised one. I have no problem with her criticism of the Church. I am glad for it. I like to tell people I will happily bash any religion they hold dear, it is just that most of the 'religious' people I know are either Catholic or Protestant, so most of my criticism of religion and priests falls on these sects.

Posted by: Brojo on February 13, 2007 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

I am assuming Ms. Marcotte is/was Catholic or raised one.

Someone with a French surname having a personal association with Catholicism? Impossible....

Posted by: Disputo on February 13, 2007 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Is there a such thing as religious discrimination? I'm referring to social discrimination, as opposed to institutional discrimination; no one is advocating laws against irrational superstition, but is it really the duty of everyone to respect god-belief?

Being Catholic is not a condition, it is the acceptance of bad ideas. When you decide to subscribe to ancient traditions because mommy and daddy said so, you open yourself up to ridicule. So have fun with that.

I don't understand how you can just cry "anti-Catholic!" or "anti-Muslim!" or whatever, without being obligated to address the actual criticism.

Posted by: Kyle on February 13, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Buck: Looks to me like Amanda Marcotte resigned so that she would be free to kick Bill Donahue's sorry ass in the strongest possible terms, without interfering with John Edwards' campaign.

I think that's the story line here. If you want to write the sort of raunchy stuff that only "speaks to the converted", then you have to stay off the payroll of the candidate. The candidate needs polite disputants and spokespeople who can counter the extreme criticisims without offending the middle and undecided.

In the early days of the Republic, when candidates and their supporters did hack work, they wrote pseudonymously.

Posted by: spider on February 13, 2007 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Headline over at CNN says Obama apologized for saying troops lives wasted.

Posted by: Brojo on February 13, 2007 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Edwards should have fired those two bloggers. They were practicing hate speech against Christians. If they were practicing hate speech against Jews or Muslims, they would be pariahs. Instead, they are heroes of the radical left. It's just like Che Guevera; if he had massacred Jews instead of Christians, the radical left would hate him. But he killed Christians, so he's a hero.

If the Democrats do not see the moral failure of the radical left for embracing those who hate and kill Christians, then maybe they should look at this from a practical perspective: most Americans are Christian. If the Democrats continue pandering to anti-Christian leftists, they'll lose elections.

Maybe if John Edwards cared more about helping the poor than supporting anti-Christian bigots, he would have fired them.

Posted by: brian on February 13, 2007 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

I understand that this nuance will wizz by brian's head, but Marcotte was criticizing the Christian right, not Christians in general.

That brian is incapable of distinguishing between the two is more bigoted against Christians than anything Marcotte may have written.

Posted by: Disputo on February 13, 2007 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo: An apt anagram for Stupido.

Yes, disputo, I quote verbatim from Marcotte's website without having read it!! I am the original Psychic Friend! But then, you know, we Catholics are famous for our communing with the supernatural...

And please, disputo, for the love of God (a Catholic one or otherwise), learn how to READ. Fundamentalist Protestants and the Bushies BRAG about their co-dependence and mutual influence. In fact, I clearly stated that fact, obvious as I knew it was, in case anyone should be ignorant enough to call that a conspiracy theory. But as the old saying goes, nothing is foolproof --fools will always figure out a way to get it wrong.

And despite cmd's bizarre claims, and your ignorant defense of them, no one in ANY branch of the Catholic Church, right-wing or otherwise, has EVER proposed Church-sponsored government. To claim so is not only ignorant, but yes, a smear worthy of Billy Sunday or Ian Paisley. Or you, apparently.

As for PaulB, READ her website. Show me one other religious group she attacks with anywhere near the frequency or ferocity she reserves for the Catholic Church and its adherents.

Imagine if she wrote of minorities "breeding" the way she writes of Catholics doing so. Or if she incessantly made anti-Semitic or homophobic or any other bigoted type of comment. No reputable campaign would have (or should have) touched her.

Apparently, for some people in society, and a distressing number of people on this website, anti-Catholic bigotry is not only tolerated, but justified, no matter how lame/dishonest/tortured the arguments have to be in order to do so.

Posted by: sullijan on February 13, 2007 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

No, what's really sad is that "Christians" have so little to recommend them sometimes.

Maybe all we can do besides turn away with embarrassment is take comfort in these words, "...they will have a form of godly devotion but prove false to its power."

He should know.

Posted by: elr on February 13, 2007 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, elr, way to miss the point!

What we're talking about here is not religion itself, or the teachings of the Bible or any particular church, or how one should or shouldn't live one's life according to religious teachings. That's a subject a bit too broad and too personal to post about. What we're talking about is bigotry. Read Marcotte's stuff, and tell me you can't see the hate there.

There is a difference between criticizing theocracy or religion, with an argument that has intellectual, logical and ethical underpinnings, and just spewing hatred at a particular religion and its adherents, which is what Marcotte does. I truly don't understand how anyone can defend that in good conscience.

She is a drama queen who says hateful things for attention, and when she gets it, she cries poor pitiful me, and on top of that, claims she's being persecuted because she's a woman. She's the textbook definition of dishes it out/can't take it.

I'm a liberal Catholic who has criticized the Church myself, including in published essays. I can honestly say there's probably nothing I'd generally agree with Donohue on. But this is one of those times when the broken clock is right. She's a hater, and she reserves most of her hatred for a single target. And if that target were almost any religion other than Catholicism, none of the self-satisfied sophists on this site, who seem desperate to be trendier than thou, would defend her.

Posted by: sullijan on February 13, 2007 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

The problem is not with Christians, but with many people who call themselves Christians.

Personally, as a Christian who is about to become a Catholic, I have some of the same problems with the Catholic Church that Amanda does. But, if you look at the overall Protestant vote versus the Catholic vote these past several elections Catholics are more on her (and my) side on many issues than most Protestants are...

The modern democratic party is definitely more Christian than the republican party; I'd bet my soul on it. If you look at the Catholic statement on what it means to be pro-life, the Dems have the Repubs beat in 8 or 9 of the 10 issues. Even on the issue of abortion, being pro-choice does not mean being pro-abortion, it simply means that making abortion illegal will not stop it and it is an individual moral choice, one that wealthy Americans will continue to make regardless of the law.

I personally plan to focus on some of the many other pro-life issues: the environment, poverty, adequate health-care, infant mortality, education, fair-wages, malnourishment, war as a last resort, etc...

The problem on both sides, the Church's and Amanda's, is that there is too much anger, finger-pointing, and intolerence for differing views and the discussion thereof.

Posted by: Brian on February 13, 2007 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

Catholics have murdered many people for their beliefs. Be afraid of Catholics, they burn people alive.

Posted by: Brojo on February 13, 2007 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

If the circumstances were reversed, and Patrick Ruffini had resigned and then said there was an evil liberal cabal out to get him, an enormous cry of whiny ass titty baby would be heard across the land.

Posted by: anon on February 13, 2007 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: brian on February 13, 2007 at 3:33 PM

Ah, everyone's favorite faux-moderate, faulx-reasonable concern troll weighs in with the usual load of bullshit unsupported, if not discredited, assertions. Besides, we've already had the rundown on the bullshit right-wing talking points, and your repetition hardly adds any value. A typically pathetic effort, "brian."

Posted by: Gregory on February 13, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

OMG! Brian is a troll! I AM NOT LISTENING I AM NOT LISTENING!

Every good society has to have an epithet, some word they can call out at somebody who has an opinion they don't like, or who is blocking your efforts to control the situation. With a choice flip of your term, you can end that pesky debate, flip over your chessboard and walk away without another thought given to the stunned silence (or lack of silence) behind you.

In the blogosphere, that term is "Troll". You call somebody a Troll, and you're done! End of story. This person's a troll, you see, and you just can't talk with a troll.

Think, for a moment, how much power you pack into that little word. With a simple casting of the "Troll" spell, you've said:

* The person is contributing absolutely nothing of value.
* The person is trying to take away your precious life force.
* The person knows nothing about the subject except how to ruin discussion of it.
* The person, ultimately, isn't really a person.

That's the amazing ability of epithets; they remove all the heavy lifting in debate and let you get on with doing shit your own way. And the important part is that the word sticks, branding that person to everyone that they are not to be listened to.

Nothing's more peaceful than a shut-down debate, and nothing's more productive than stopping those questioning, debating "Trolls" in their tracks.

But that still leaves the important question:

Are we trolling?

Posted by: anon on February 13, 2007 at 4:51 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a conservative Catholic but I and many paleos don't care for Bill Donohue because he wants to be the Catholic Jesse Jackson or the Catholic Abe Foxman, a shakedown artist who doesn't just want to call attention to bigotry, but bully people on top of that to throw their weight around, show they're powerful or their organizations have power. He's hustler pure and simple just waiting for his TV moment. The minute someone tells him to go screw himself is the minute his balloon gets popped.

However, Edwards brought a lot of this on himself by hiring people he didn't vet and then watched himself get embarassed by their own words. Such a minute decision could very well speak volumns in people's minds about his ability to be president. Campaigs are tests of executive ability and right now Edwards is flunking.

Posted by: Sean Scallon on February 13, 2007 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever her religious background, Amanda la Pucelle was educated at St. Edwards University, a minor Catholic school in south Austin TX, so it's natural that some of her efforts in the Higher Criticism should address specifically Catholic doctrine. But it's false that she criticizes only Catholicism. (Recall that this whole affair began with her statements about the Duke Rape Case, an ecumenical matter.) It was Donohue, a fairly late entrant into the controversy, who narrowed the focus.

Posted by: Innocenti Illjes on February 13, 2007 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

"Janet Sullivan" (aka sullijan, although she is now obscuring her real name in her email) not only begins her retort with an insult, and doesn't even attempt to counter anything I wrote, but charges me with writing things that I did not.

My apologies folks. Looks like I fell for yet another rightwing troll. Let's hope that "she" is short-lived.

Posted by: Disputo on February 13, 2007 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

Brian,

I accept your bet.

Posted by: Lucifer on February 13, 2007 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

And lest it go unsaid, Catholic pretenders like our newest troll "Janet Sullivan", who are incapable of distinguishing between criticism and hate speech, do more to hurt Catholicism than Marcotte ever could.

Posted by: Disputo on February 13, 2007 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

LMAO @ anon, the meta troll who defends trolls.

Looks like it is about time for the mods to crack down on yet another spammer.

Posted by: Disputo on February 13, 2007 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

looks like another IP addy to block

Posted by: Disputo on February 13, 2007 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

There is a difference between criticizing theocracy or religion, with an argument that has intellectual, logical and ethical underpinnings, and just spewing hatred at a particular religion and its adherents ...

amanda does both, often in the same post. she was a bad choice of spokespersons for a candidate for the presidency because her writing is not for the easily offended and a political candidate has to appeal to easily offended people. however, when she breaks down the rhetoric of the religious right and their leaders, she is usually spot on.

i also personally have a huge chip on my shoulder with respect to organized religion. one of my earliest memories of church was a sermon about god smiting a 6 year old girl for throwing bread that represented the body of Christ in the toilet. the water in the toilet turned blood red and she heard a booming voice demanding that she repent. she was bitten by a copperhead not long after, and she refused to repent even as she felt the fires of hell licking her legs. i was perceptive enough to note the eve allegory inherent in the story.

it always did piss me off that woman was blamed for the introduction of sin into the world. there just isn't any way for me to accept that christian doctrine isn't sexist. in fact, i think it's one of the primary reasons that i simply was never able to muster a sincere belief in god past the age of 8 or 9. i've been just as hateful towards christian doctrine (and often towards christians in general in my less than stellar moments) as amanda has.

honestly, i don't see why anyone would blame me since my gender is the one that gets blamed for bringing sin into the world and told to shut up, submit, and obey. i'm working on trying to set that aside. i don't want to let the screaming harpies who just label their totalitarian instincts 'christian' (why not? it gets them instant legitimacy with a huge number of americans.) turn me against the majority of people who are christian because many of them are good people who somehow manage to ignore the sexism in their religious doctrine. they also don't use their religion as a self-righteous bludgeon against those who are less powerful than they are.

She is a drama queen who says hateful things for attention, and when she gets it, she cries poor pitiful me, and on top of that, claims she's being persecuted because she's a woman.

she doesn't say hateful things for attention. she says them because she is sincerely angry at religious leaders for attempting to shape secular law to conform to their religious beliefs, which are frequently horrendously misogynist in nature, no matter how much they talk up their deep respect for women and sincere desire to 'protect' them. she is rude and contemptuous in the extreme when expressing that anger, but she isn't doing it just for attention.

the motivation behind the negative reaction to the things she has said is not either/or. some of it is genuine anger at the contempt she expresses towards the catholic church. some of it is also motivated by outrage that a woman would dare presume to be contemptuous of the catholic church. just read some of the hate mail she has posted -- people have emailed her to call her a dirty slut and tell her that she needs some sense raped into her. those comments are clearly misogynist.

She's the textbook definition of dishes it out/can't take it.

no, she can take it. the fact that she has been blogging for so long and resigned in order to put up a proper fight is a sign that she can, in fact, 'take it' just as well as she can dish it out.

if you want to read some real hatin' on religion, stroll through the archives of PZ Myer's blog sometime. in particular, read the post titled 'The God Worm'. now, there's some real bigotry against religious people. that said, i don't believe that god-belief deserves any special respect. as long as people who believe in god don't try to curtail my personal autonomy or subject me to inferior medical or pharmaceutical services based on those beliefs, i promise not to get in their faces about it.

Posted by: spacebaby on February 13, 2007 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Ms. Marcotte can take it. Mr. Edwards cannot. I would rather vote for Marcotte.

Posted by: Brojo on February 13, 2007 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

Spacebaby....my new Hero along with Amanda Marcotte! All hail Reason and Truth. :-)

Posted by: TJFRMLA on February 13, 2007 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

thanks for the kind comment. i'm often not this reasonable. today is just one of my good days.

Posted by: spacebaby on February 13, 2007 at 7:02 PM | PERMALINK

Why is the concept so difficult?? We're adults here.

Again, being a Christian or a Muslim is NOT a human condition, it is a choice made: the acceptance of bad ideas. And bad ideas are fair game to criticize and/or ridicule.

One's race or gender - factors which cannot be changed, which come with birth - are NOT fair game, because they are human conditions which cannot be altered. That's the difference. That's why it's acceptable to criticize religion and unacceptable to criticize one's race or gender. If you follow this rudimentary logic, you'll see that Amanda is not a bigot.

Please, this is one of my favorite political blogs and I can't stand to see a "debate" like this inspire controversy.

Posted by: Kyle on February 14, 2007 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

Disputo, ie Stupido: First of all, I countered everything you wrote, which obviously pissed you off to the point where you were left sputtering insults.

Second of all, not only am I not a right-wing troll, I'm a liberal and a multi-time elected delegate to the Democratic convention, who has been posting on this board for quite a while now.

If you cannot distinguish between reasoned criticism of a religious organization and the kind of vitriolic hate speech spewed out by Marcotte -- whose mindless ranting you seem dooomed to emulate -- you are even more ignorant than your posts betray.

Third of all, I am now using my alternate email address because I have to protect myself from wackos like you, who look up strangers' email addresses repeatedly while simultaneously claiming to ignore them. Get a girlfriend, for God's sake, or at least an inflatable doll.

Posted by: sullijan on February 14, 2007 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK
Not quite sure what your sentence "Very few, in fact, do, and nearly as large and influential in the US as the Catholic Church" means, as it's nonsensical.

Yeah, a "none" somehow got left about between "and" and "nearly".

But once you start throwing around terms like "large and influential," you've pretty much veered off into ConspiracyLand.

The fact of the size and influence of the Catholic Church as an institution, and its lack of rival among Protestant Churches in the US (and that, size aside, it is more centralized and heirarchical than most major Protestant institutions, as well) are not conspiracy theories, they are well documented, uncontested facts which really distinguish the Catholic Church from other institutions.

It's the kind of thing Lucky Lindy used to say about the American Jewish community prior to our entry into World War II.

The key difference being that the institutional Catholic Church is, in fact, a large, heirarchically organized institution with centralized authority, whereas no such similar structure exists within the American Jewish Community.

Facts make a difference.

And I'm sorry, but have you been living in the biosphere for the entire Bush presidency?

Er, yeah, I've been living in the biosphere, where have you been living?

(The insulting rhetorical question you meant to ask was "have you been living in the Biosphere, or more precisely Biosphere 2.)

Because it's not the Catholic Church that has been "influential."

That's, at best, debatable (especially in terms of the political right within the Catholic heirarchy and the 2004 campaign.)

It's the fundamentalist Protestant leadership -- and to significant negative effect.

The political right-wing of both the Catholic Church and the Protestant fundamentalist movement have been in increasing alignment for, especially, the last decade and a half or so; their influence is not exclusive.

Marcotte claims to be anti-theocracy, yet fixates, biliously, on one religion.

If by one religion you mean "Christianity", this is true, if you mean "Catholicism", its clearly not, which is why the attacks on Marcotte have themselves frequently employed the anti-Catholic construction of claiming that Marcotte engages in "bigotry" directed at "Catholics and Christians".

Thanks for the laugh. I haven't heard about how Catholics want to "subordinate the state to a particular religious authority" since I read Billy Sunday's rants against Al Smith in history class.

I didn't say Catholics, in general, want to do that, moron. Learn to read.

Posted by: cmdicely on February 14, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

We Win!!!!

I knew we would, I have read Padagon for a while before this and that skew is indefensible.

If Edwards had a bigger chance he never would have hired them. (Hillary wont make that kind of mistake)

Posted by: Fitz on February 14, 2007 at 3:58 PM | PERMALINK

It's a victory for civil discourse...American Sqawk at 10:40 PM ... blaming other people for her own laspes in judgement.
F K at 10:59 PM

Civil discourse for RepubliConTarians is making rape and death threats. See They get letters from Christians
Yup, no l-a-p-s-e- in judgment from those correspondents
Rape and Death Threats Against Marcotte (and McEwan)

Melissa quit the campaign because she was scared by threats of death and rape. This is standard operating procedure from America's fascist party Melissa McEwan has also resigned, citing as her reason the same sort of threats.

...I'll side with the guy...American fawk at 11:25 PM |

One would be hard pressed to find a smut-peddlar nastier than Donahue and his minions on the right. Just because you carry around an unlimited number of straw men in your arse, don't expect anyone to take them seriously.
yes "we" did deal with them. American Gawk at 11:31 PM

Wanna check with your friend John Bolton on that?
I'm a naturalized American... American Jawk at 11:57 PM

Is you name Josias Kumpf or Anton Geiser?
... her writing includes bigoted comments... ex-lax at 12:56 AM

Classic case of nut-picking, but no one has more bigoted commentary that your favorite rightist sites like LGF, TownHall, ConfedYank and others too numerous to enumerate. This reminds of the Randy Newman anecdote: After writing Short People as satire, he received many nasty letters from the height-challenged. Do you really hate short people, an interviewer asked? I do now, Newman replied.
...you claim Bill Donohue is a bigot. That's a serious accusation....ex-lax at 1:21 AM

Accusations of bigotry are badges of honor for rightists because racism and bigotry are their core values. You can obtain a representative sample of his statements here .
...(her resignation may simply be a firing in sheep's clothing).
... Yancey Ward at 10:03 AM

Are you endorsing rape and death threats against women with whose ideology you disagree?

Posted by: Mike on February 14, 2007 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Are you endorsing rape and death threats against women with whose ideology you disagree?

no, he isn't.

Posted by: spacebaby on February 15, 2007 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

prescription pharmacy online prescription pharmacy online

Online Pharmacy cheap online pharmacy store

Posted by: best choice on February 15, 2007 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly