THE CONTINUING STORY OF EDWARDS AND THE UNHINGED LEFT
Posted by Rusty Lopez under Democratic Party, 2008 Presidential Candidates at 10:50 pm.…in which we see their true colors fly.
Update: as usual, Joe Carter demonstrates why he’s the man.
Update 2: Well, according to Malkin, it looks like Miss Marcotte has resigned. Michelle posts a snippet of Marcotte’s announcement, which blames the Right (surprise!, surprise!) as if they had some hangup with her being a woman. It is interesting to note that Marcotte mentions her personal views on religious influence on politics as being non-mainstream. Funny, why no mention of the humor and satire which supposedly made up those personal views?
As for my negative passion with regards to a double-standard, please read Rod Dreher’s Can the media see bias? over at CrunchyCon. Dreher states, “John Edwards is right — there really are two Americas, and in his America, it’s not such a big deal to use the filthiest, most blasphemous language, as long as your targets are traditional Christians. And Democrats wonder why they have trouble getting many people of faith to listen to them.”
—————
I know, I’m covering this story like a cheap suit. But it’s too irresistable to pass up. It’s classic leftist doublespeak. Besides, their handing it to us on a silver platter.
It seems that John Edwards has not fired his bigoted and vulgar-mouthed campaign blogmasters afterall. In the spirit of “everyone deserves another chance” he states,
The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else. But I also believe in giving everyone a fair shake. I’ve talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone’s faith, and I take them at their word. We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked. It will take discipline, focus, and courage to build the America we believe in. (emphasis added)
So, just say that it was never your intention to mailign anyone’s faith, and all is forgiven? Or, maybe it should be, IF YOU’RE A DEMOCRAT, and you say it was never your intention to malign anyone’s faith, then all is forgiven? Because, as we all know, the real culprits are the ones who attempted to hijack the debate.
Just what was some of this satire, humor, or anything else that was not intended to malign anyone’s faith? Here are some examples (see CrunchyCon and Riehl),
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 problem with Rick Santorum is that every time he talks about sex, that little part of all of us that wants to run into a preschool and yell “f**kslut” or go to a born-again church and scream about how God loves to come in our backyards for our milkshakes, well, it just grows a hundredfold, and the restraint that most of us show just flies out the window. As a Senator, however, Santorum finds himself frequently faced with many of the most pressing issues of p*n*s insertion that have ever faced America—and so he must speak, lest his lack of self-control be manifested by f**king his desk on the Senate floor. (There’s a knothole that’s just the right size, y’know.)
—
One thing I vow here and now—you motherf**kers who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will f**k without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherf**kers. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now.
—
Well, the Texas House of Representatives got Republican Jesus and he reminded them that out of of all the things he hates, which are multitude, nothing incurs his wrath more than women’s sexuality.
—
By god, you rape your daughter and she better stay raped! What’s state power for if not to help patriarchal a**wipes get their rocks off raping and forcing pregnancy on their very own teenage girls? What the hell do you think god made daughters for if not extra concubines to rape for yourself or sell to your friends?
Do you get the idea? The satire? The humor? The lack of intent on maligning anyone’s faith?
Now, remember, John Edwards was almost the Vice President of the United States of America, and he’s now a potential candidate for President. Why, on earth, would he align himself with the vulgar base that Marcotte represents?
And - How indicative is this of the Democrat base?
If you have a difficult time finding the details of this story on the mainstream media, try CrunchyCon (here and here), Townhall (here and here), Malkin and HotAir. And, for a slightly philosophical take, check Macht’s post Secularism bad, pluralism good.
February 9th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Rusty writes, “Or, maybe it should be, IF YOU’RE A DEMOCRAT, and you say it was never your intention to malign anyone’s faith, then all is forgiven?”
Silly me. I thought this site was a Red and Blue place, where Christians from both sides of the political aisle culd reasonably discuss the issues.
This sort of broad-brush statement is deeply insulting and wildly inaccurate.
That this demonizing post stands as is, undisputed by anyone else here, tells me that I was sadly quite mistaken.
February 9th, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Deborah,
This sort of broad-brush statement is deeply insulting and wildly inaccurate.
Please, point me to where the Democrats have denounced the actions of Marcotte and McEwan as indicative of deep-seated hatred and bigotry (both issues that liberals claim to care about). Also, please point me to where the MSM has hounded the two bloggers, obsessively reprinting the vile words they’ve written. How can one begin to reasonably discuss what’s gone on here when it is whitewashed by Edwards and buried by the MSM?
Demonizing post? Are you serious? You want demonizing… go visit the blogs of Edwards’ blogmasters. Or, just read the snippets of their writing I’ve posted - That is why this post is here, btw.
Consider this, what would the reaction have been if it had been a Republican candidate?
February 10th, 2007 at 1:26 am
Deborah, if repubs had pulled a stunt like that the yelling would be even louder. And the justification put forth by the Koz kids and MyDD has been astounding.
Even liberal christian’s are turning against him, what they said is so over the top. What would be the MSM response if this happened to a repub?
February 10th, 2007 at 8:07 am
I agree with Deborah. You aught to know not all democrats are of one mind. Some are far more crude than I would wish but one can’t, as Deborah says, paint every one with such a wide “brush.” If you say I’ve done it your right but I have changed and come to see that not all right wing evangelicals are of the same mold, and to respect all posters on this blog.
February 10th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Russ,
Show me where I stated that all democrats have done what Marcotte and McEwan have done? Re-read my posts on this issue. I’m upset that Edwards hired (not personally) those bloggers, and I’m upset that he didn’t fire (personally) those bloggers. I’m also offended by the vulgarity that comes from their keyboards which is supposed to pass as writing. And I’m questioning why Edwards not only gave them another chance, but then attempted to shift blame on those who criticized them (i.e., the republicans). Lastly, I’m questioning why it’s okay for such vile writers to get off by falsely - oops - simply stating they didn’t intend to malign anyone’s faith. Note that THAT IS THE POINT at which I question whether or not there are two sets of rules for such behavior (i.e., one for democrats and one for republicans), a point which Ron reiterates.
Critics need to try reading my entire posts and not cherry-pick one sentence out of context. To take that sentence and accuse me of broad-brushing all democrats, much less anyone who has posted on this blog, is absurd.
What I find disquieting, to say the least, is that no one has commented on the real point of my posts - that of a serious candidate for President of the United States being aligned with such bigoted hate mongers. Isn’t that where the reasonable discussions should be headed? Well, at least I think so, that is, if both parties are, indeed, reasonable.
February 11th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Rusty,
I think that you rightly point out a double-standard regarding deep-seated hatred and bigotry, yet you are tying it to a political party. In the title of your post, you use the term “unhinged left.” I’m not sure, in a post in which your negative passion for what you’re decrying is evident, that it is clear whether or not you mean “those members of the left who are unhinged,” or “all those who are leftist are unhinged.”
You also say, “It’s classic leftist doublespeak.” Why not just say, “It is doublespeak, plain and simple”? Surely the right is not completely innocent of doublespeak either.
If you want to ask whether there’s a double standard, as I take it you are doing with this statement (in sarcasm),
and this:
Why not simply point out the double-standard, rather than implying that it is only the Democrats who have them? Even if they have them more than Republicans do, what is the purpose of pointing this out? To do so is to compare and contrast the two political parties, rather than call attention to the double-standard itself.
February 11th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Rusty writes, “What I find disquieting, to say the least, is that no one has commented on the real point of my posts - that of a serious candidate for President of the United States being aligned with such bigoted hate mongers.”
There’s been plenty of religious bigotry voiced on this site about Mitt Romney’s faith.
Could it be that no one is responding because religious right outrage against religious bigotry is selective?
Yes, I find one of the two bloggers’ comments about Catholicism wholly offensive and unacceptable.
But certainly no less offensive that the outrageous and hurtful religious bigotry frequently voiced against a wide range of faith traditions, at RedBlue Christian since its founding.
February 11th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Hi Rusty,
“What I find disquieting, to say the least, is that no one has commented on the real point of my posts - that of a serious candidate for President of the United States being aligned with such bigoted hate mongers.”
Now there is something I will agree on with you. The hate mongering that’s going with our political pundits is dividing a great country. It makes one wonder who would put themselves through our presidential process.
February 11th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
But certainly no less offensive that the outrageous and hurtful religious bigotry frequently voiced against a wide range of faith traditions, at RedBlue Christian since its founding. (emphasis added)
Examples. Please?
February 12th, 2007 at 7:47 am
Hi Bonnie,
Sorry, due to the time-warp lag of the way comments post, here, I missed your comment.
To clarify my posts: when I wrote in the title “unhinged left” I was referring not to the entire left but to the unhinged left (e.g., the likes of Marcotte and McEwan).
In referring to a double-standard, yes, my sarcarstic remark which included “IF YOU’RE A DEMOCRAT” referred to a double-standard, but my question of whether or not this was indicative of the democrat base, did not.
I suppose I could simply refer to the general problem of having a double-standard, regardless of the fact that I think the double-standard is heavily weighted in favor of the left, but then the entire point of my post would have been lost. And to have done so would have been to divert from what I believe to be the real issue here - the resplendent bigotry and intolerance that is found within the “netroots” faction of the far left.
Contrast how George Allen was cleaned and fried, after his “macaca” statement, with the mild to nonexistent response to Joe Biden stating, “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts [in Delaware] unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”
February 12th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Bonnie,
I like your “negative passion” term. It should become a bonnie-ism (kind of, but not exactly like, the s/he term).
February 13th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Hi Rusty,
Thanks for your response. I know what you meant, I just question your presentation. I agree with every egregious detail you point out and share your, uh, negative passion toward the whole despicable thing. But (and you knew there was going to be a “but”), I still don’t see the need to equate it with an entire political party. Point it out, tie it to the guilty individuals, or guilty faction even, but then let folks draw their own conclusions as to party or candidate or where they’re going to put their vote. KWIM?
I understood the point of your post (I think). You ask valid questions about Edwards and about the Democratic base. But I think they can be asked in a way (context, and language) that is, shall we say, kinder and gentler (ugh); i.e., that doesn’t add any extra baggage, or overtly invite a hostile response.
February 13th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Bonnie,
When it comes to finesse, I cannot hold a candle to you. You are the epitome of finesse. And I understand your concern and the approach you recommend, but (that same “but” keeps showing up), it’s not really my style (being a “bull-dog”).
I will sometimes (okay, most of the time) write to stir the pot, especially when it’s an issue that has stirred my pot.
I don’t think my posts painted the entire Democrat party under one brush. The gist has always been the fact of Edwards aligning himself with the unhinged left. Why is that so difficult for people to understand? The writings of the unhinged left (e.g., Marcotte and McEwan) are, in fact, vulgar, bigoted, intolerant, and NUTTY. Edwards had no business aligning with them. Like for like comparisons, of what they’ve written, with what’s been written here on RedBlue, are baseless. THERE IS NO COMPARISON. But, you see, that’s part of the problem I also address: when I write a post about nutty writers on the unhinged left, I’m criticized for not being diplomatic or for being unreasonable. That’s another example of the doublespeak I mentioned, and we saw it when Edwards first attempted to handle this story (blaming it on an attack from the Right) just as we’re seeing it now that Marcotte has been unleashed to roam back to her old haunts (accusing the right of conducting a witchhunt on her).
I also write about a double standard. That there are double standards in our world is not the issue I’m addressing. I’m writing about a double standard when dealing with Democrats vs. Republicans. That’s my beef, so that’s the issue I raised. (also, don’t you find it interesting that this is considered a non-story by those on the… LEFT)
In actuality, it really should have been a non-story. If it were handled the way the business-world (at least, the business-world I’ve worked in) does things, this is the way it probably would’ve gone down:
“Miss Marcotte? It’s come to our attention that you are responsible for articles, on your personal blog, the contents of which are wholly incompatible with, and detrimental to, our company’s code of conduct.”
“Yes, I know… and I’m really, really sorry that people misunderstood the context of my satire and humor.”
“I understand.” (as an envelope is slid towards Miss Marcotte)
“What’s this?”
“It’s your final paycheck, with payment through the end of next week, per HR policy # XX.”
“I’m being fired?”
“Yes, you are. Sal, here, from security, will escort you to your desk so you can gather your personal belongings. After that, he will escort you off the premises.”
“I see.”
“Thank you for your employment, and good luck to you. Please surrender your employee badge now.”
Marcotte would have been gone before anyone (right or left) blinked. Critics couldn’t have gone anywhere with it. But no, Edwards, for whatever reason, tried to placate, accomodate, accuse, etc. - and all for nought. Like the saying from a Clancy novel, “there’s no point in trying to defuse a bomb… after it’s gone off.”
February 14th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Rusty, you are too generous.
I’m criticized for not being diplomatic or for being unreasonable. That’s another example of the doublespeak I mentioned
Only if those criticizing you excuse what Marcotte et al did. My question was more along the lines of why fight fire with fire. (Not that your language was anything like Marcotte’s, but, was your attitude hostile, and, if so, is it justifiable? And if it’s justifiable, is it helpful in getting attention focused where you want it?)
I’m writing about a double standard when dealing with Democrats vs. Republicans.
You mean the double-standard the “unhinged left” has when it comes to Democrats vs. Republicans, right? Sure, I get it. I still think you muddy the waters, though, with a statement like “classic leftist double-speak.” Because, while the classic leftists are known for their double-speak, neither the classic nor non-classic leftists have a monopoly on double-speak, classic or not.
Though I’ll grant that, in general, they’re more public about it, and over-the-top with it. Oops. Now I’m getting bullish.
(Did you mean “finesse,” or “stubbornness”?)
Edwards, for whatever reason, tried to placate, accomodate, accuse, etc. - and all for nought.
Well, that’s the whole problem with “tolerance,” isn’t it? People want to be popular or liked in order to gain social/political advantage. They also don’t want to be wrong, so they accept, or pretend to accept, everything (everything except the view that doesn’t accept their view, that is — another double-standard). Or to rationalize and excuse (almost) everything.