Useful to get this learned

"Had those women spoken of racial minorities, or believers in minority religions, in the same foul-mouthed and hate-filled way, they would have been fired at once. And they should have been." Excepting, of course, Santeria. Or, to reference the Glenn Greenwald post I cited yesterday, Mormonism (McCain's blogger, recall, referred to Mormonism as a cult). This hypocrisy does not fit well, Rod.

Despite the desperate pleadings of some for a you to take a massive injection of "what's the-problem-everybody-does-it" self-censorship, it's very appropriate to bring things like this to readers' attention, Rod.

It is important to point out---the previous two posts were talking about murder and human sacrifice. If Marcotte wants to make a comment about how it's wrong for Christians do murder people or perform human sacrifice, she can go ahead. Nor did Rod describe radical Islam/Santeria in terms half as sickening as Ms. Marcotte did.
God bless.

Ah, they've come a long way, baby. Women have shown that they can be just as foul-mouthed and coarse as their male counterparts. John Edwards has just revealed himself to be a first class wimp.

The Edwards campaign was between a rock and a hard place. They hired a blogger that better vetting would have surely shown to be someone who even many folks strongly in agreement with her dislike because of her mocking, sometimes hateful style. Then they are attacked for the hire. Then the netroots attack back for the Edwards campaign seeming to cave into the pressure of the attacks. I am assuming--perhaps over-charitably, that Edwards meant every word in that statement: that he doesn't like what Marcotte had written (which tells me he wouldn't have hired her if someone had gotten him better information), and that he doesn't want anything to distract from his campaign. I like that Edwards, in his defense of keeping Marcotte on staff, nonetheless strongly rebuked her, and made her apologize on the blog. That doesn't make me an automatic Edwards fan, but I think it does show a working politician trying to the best out of a bad intitial choice.

What exactly is the outcome you would find acceptible, Rod, and how would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot, and it was YOUR boss being held to the fire because of YOUR private beliefs. Would it be fair? Actually, reporters have been fired over what they've written on their personal blogs. If I were writing things on this blog that were as foul-mouthed and as hateful as what Marcotte was writing, I would be surprised if I was allowed to keep my job at the DMN, because the fact that they allowed someone so unbalanced and spiteful to be an editor and writer here would say something about what they considered acceptable. Some in the local Muslim community have tried to get me fired because they don't like my criticism of radical Islam, or of them. I really appreciate my employer standing up for me, which doesn't imply that they agree with everything I write. If I ever write about Islam or any religion or human being in the way that Marcotte wrote about Christianity and Christians, I would expect to be fired.
John Edwards is more scared of the netroots than he is of doing the right thing, in my view.

Let me clarify a bit my last post: if a janitor at my newspaper or the Edwards campaign kept a blog on which he carried on in Marcottian fashion about Catholics, Jews, Serbo-Croatian pygmies, whatever, I don't think it would much matter to customers of the Dallas Morning News, or potential Edwards voters. But if someone like me or Marcotte had written those things, and were given jobs where we helped shape message and product content, that would, or should, cause more concern.
Again, I think the thing this demonstrates more than anything else is that the Kingfish is scared of the netroots loons.

Academics have also been fired in the USA because of the content of their blogs - I think one person was fired after critising the administration of her University, or academic colleagues.

I was referring to this: "Again, I think the thing this demonstrates more than anything else is that the Kingfish is scared of the netroots loons." I understand that this is your opinion, but you don't really say how you reach that conclusion.

I think that Edwards made the wrong move, but I'm not sure. His goal is to win the Democratic primary. I don't know if he can do that if he ticks off the far left. He can make them mad and come to the middle once he wins the primary, but I don't know if he can do that now. I would have been more impressed with him if he had fired her. But I don't know if impressing people like me and ticking off the far left will get him as many votes.

I don't follow. Why is that "conservative?" It speaks to the conservative ideal of the meritocracy.

I don't think he is the former, either, Derek. Perhaps he is merely a man who takes people at their word. I'd like to believe that there are some people left in this world who can be taken at their word. Those two bloggers? Heh - who knows? Other than this particular incident, I had never heard of them, so I am not qualified to comment on the veracity of their "mea culpa."

"Again, I think the thing this demonstrates more than anything else is that the Kingfish is scared of the netroots loons." Yes, but I suspect only in the sense that he's going to need them to get his message out to anyone, with any chance of success, once the primaries begin. Edwards has always been a bit of populist leftist; now he's going hardcore for the activist, labor and radical democrat vote. That means the blogging left. Presumably, he assumes that's the only way he'll be able to compete with Clinton and Obama at the primary level. I strongly doubt he'll feel much need to keep up good feeling for his campaign on the blogs once the primaries are over (assuming he gets that far). Again, I doubt Edwards was involved in her hire, I suspect he honestly was appalled at what she'd written, and the politician in him was supremely concerned about making the whole issue go away as soon as possible. Making her apologize and then brushing past the issue makes sense, even if it's not the most admirable thing in the world.

I don't think he is the former, either, Derek. Perhaps he is merely a man who takes people at their word. Do you really think Marcotte didn't mean to malign Christianity in the piece Rod quoted (http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/crunchycon/2007/02/kingfish-and-pandagon-day-2.html)? I just don't see how an honest person can answer that question in the affirmative.

Well, let's parse the sentence, Derek. It really is a masterful stroke of saying the right words and meaning absolutely nothing at all. Point 1 of his statement: "I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith." I can only guess, but that's probably exactly what they did - told Edwards that they never intended to malign anyone's faith. Point 2: "...and I take them at their word."
They said the right words, and he's choosing not to call them liars to their faces. Pretty much leaves his hands clean without having to take a principled stand. Politics - ya gotta love it.

Of course, when the next outrage happens, on either the left or the right, we'll have already forgotten this little tempest in a teapot. It's too early to start swiftboating Edwards. Why not wait until he makes a mistake that actually means something?

I agree, watsy. Maybe Edwards explained to Marcotte that she has the job only through the primaries. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think he just lost the primaries.

Newsflash, Mr. Dreher: Comments about the "white, hot, sticky Holy Spirit" are offensive to evangelicals, as well. That sort of Catholic-centric commentary just annoys the fire out of Protestants, as well it should

Derek Copold, I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think he just lost the primaries.
I don't think so...think back to, say, Bill Clinton. You can do a lot as a Democrat and still keep your base. I honestly believe if Nixon had been Democrat and in current times he could have rode it out, like Clinton did. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe the average Democrat voting in the primaries thinks those sorts of comments generally funny, considering who was the target. Besides, the whole electorate is simply more forgiving today. Look at Rudy - 3 wives! Wow. In the '60s one divorce would sink you. It's simply amazing that he could even be considered for the Republican primary. They really will sell their souls to win. Like the frog warming up slowly in the pot, I think we have no idea how far we've sunk and just how hot it is in here.

A lie would be "The ladies said X and I believe them,"... That's the impression he meant to convey. The fact that you have to go through this kind of dissection exercise proves my point to make any kind of case for him. Really, if your point was correct, what does that say about Edwards again: that he accepts insincere mouthings from his underlings. That would mean he tolerates liars in his employ or that he agrees with what they wrote.

You can do a lot as a Democrat and still keep your base. The problem is that his base, as such, is largely the kind of people who'll be offended by this, and you can bet Clinton and others will bring it up time and again.

"Really, if your point was correct, what does that say about Edwards again: that he accepts insincere mouthings from his underlings. That would mean he tolerates liars in his employ or that he agrees with what they wrote." Or maybe, like GWB, he's loyal to a fault. Given the cast of characters that surrounds GWB on a daily basis, he should have been tossed out of office withing the first year if we are going to use your criteria. Edwards is loyal. Or maybe he's naive. At least his loyalty didn't result in tens of thousands of dead people in Iraq. Oops, there's that Iraq word. You know, the debacle we are ignoring while we discuss foul-mouthed, satirical bloggers. No wonder the NRO prefers to talk about this then the morrass they helped create.

Or maybe, like GWB, he's loyal to a fault. He could find them other work. Edwards is loyal. Or maybe he's naive. At least his loyalty didn't result in tens of thousands of dead people in Iraq. No, but his vote giving GWB authorization to invade Iraq did, or have you forgotten that?

"If I were writing things on this blog that were as foul-mouthed and as hateful as what Marcotte was writing, I would be surprised if I was allowed to keep my job..." IF!!!??? Rod, you owe me a new keyboard. My current one has coffee all over it from you making me laugh so hard. Please go back and read almost ANY of your anti-gay diatribes.
"IF" indeed!

If he did, then the electorate deserves the political climate they get. Of course, Susan, those idiot voters should shut up and vote for the right campaign, if it does hire rank bigots who hate them for their faith.

You have mistaken Mr. Edwards for Mr. Bush. And, it seems that you have mistaken me for a supporter of Mr. Bush. Even so, I don't even think Bush could pulled off a whopper like that without stumbling or cracking up. As for Cheney, the strain probably would have killed him.

Thereze wins the prize: "IS there a polite society anymore?" No. If EVERYONE (me included) would just stop flinging lies and insults the world would be a better place. Trouble is, the way I see it, I have to stand up when the lies and insults are about ME. I can be nice. I can be polite. But the 'right' lied it out of me, so they have to go first.

Derek: Re: your response to my last post. Well stated, and I must find myself in agreement.

Rod: "Had those women spoken of racial minorities, or believers in minority religions, in the same foul-mouthed and hate-filled way, they would have been fired at once." Sad but true. Equally true is what Susan S., said in the first post on this subject:
This is not a "left" phenomenon, as this Edwards story illustrates. Shouting "bigot" loud enough gets you attention, whether you are from the right or the left.

Ah, but that's the thing: you say it on the Internet, and it's there forever.

"If that's the standard we're going to use, then half of Congress should be kicked out for stupid things they said when they weren't Congresspeople." Oh, don't go getting my hopes up like that!

Dan, read what I wrote: I don't care if Marcotte dislikes, or even despises, Christianity. What I object to is the way she expressed it: by mocking, for example, Catholic beliefs about the Incarnation by describing God as some sort of masturbator. Why is it so difficult to grasp that there is a difference between criticism and contempt? Rod, it isn't difficult at all for intelligent people to grasp that.
Unfortunately, in the nutroots culture, where lacing emotive screeds with lots of F-words is considered a sign of serious thought, intelligent people are in short supply.

Well, I'm a lefty, and a lesbian--but I'm also a Christian, and it grossed me out. I think Edwards should have fired Marcotte--not to appease his hoped-for voters, but because as a Christian he should have found it too offensive to ignore.

If, after the war, the economy, the environment, civil liberties, the judiciary, etc., how many voters will choose on the basis of Blogger Politeness? Especially among Dreher, Malkin, and Donohue fans. Probably none among conservatives, I grant you that, but among liberal to moderate Democrats, who have other options in the primaries, it's going to cost Edwards. As I pointed out above, you have significant voting blocks, like blacks, Hispanics and so-called ethnic whites who don't like having their faith trashed. Clinton and Obama's campaigns know this, and will exploit it, among other things.

Who goes back? Opponents. The public won't have to go back and find these nuggets, John's opponents will do it for them. Then all they need is a little help from the media...

Oh, puh-leez, Curiouser and Curiouser. If Rod won't say it, I will. There is no way you can compare what Rod has said about the gay lifestyle and gay marriage to the absolutely vile, vulgar and hate-filled blog entries from Marcotte and McEwen. They make no pretense at being polite -- just incendiary. Calling the pope and other Catholics names with the foulest possible language IS hateful.
Disagreeing with gay culture and honestly stating that living that lifestyle is against God's plan ISN'T.
An "anti-gay diatribe" and comes nowhere close to the ugliness of the M & M bloggers. I've seen no evidence that Rod isn't "hating the sin and loving the sinners." And to the person who said their blogging was satire -- huh? I thought satire was supposed to be funny.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" means, as long as gay people promise to never, ever have a fulfilling relationship, as long as they promise to never experience real intimacy with the person they love, as long as they promise to be miserable their entire lives, then hey, they're OK with us. We love you, gay people!

Oops, the above post is in the wrong thread. Will repost elsewhere.