Via Bumperstickerist, here is word from the Edwards campaign, which has decided to keep Marcotte and McEwan onboard the Edwards Express:
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.
Lots of gloating already in the comments by the flying monkeys the left typically dispatches to sprinkle schadenfreude over the poppies. But that’s to be expected, I guess. That their commentary is rife with further attacks on people of faith and suggestions that those who find Marcotte reprehensible have been saddled with tiny penises—well, this, too, is about as surprising as a Marcotte post that doesn’t somehow wend its way back to the institutionalized torturing of her pudendum by misanthropic godbags.
But lost on these Marcotte supporters—who are cheering on the power of the “netroots” to cow a politician into keeping on an ugly and hateful liability—is that Edwards just showed up Marcotte and McEwan as frauds and posturing blowhards, writers who have been pulling the wool over their audiences’ eyes by posting vicious “arguments” they never truly believed. To use the loaded language of establishment feminismâ€â€he publicly castrated them—and in so doing, he made fools out of their audiences, to boot.
Further, in doing so, he has shown himself to be nothing more than a calculating political opportunist of the worst sort—one who believes the voting public so daft they might actually buy a statement like the one he just released.
As I wrote yesterday, I don’t care one way or the other, personally, about whether or not Marcotte and McEwan are allowed to keep their jobs. That’s Edwards’ call. And from a blogging perspective, I suppose Edwards’ decision is good news.
But let’s not confuse the effect with the rationale—which is both risible and insulting. Because were it really never Marcotte’s intent to malign anyone’s faith, she probably wouldn’t have dedicated so many hate-filled blog posts to, you knowâ€â€maligning anyone’s faith.
Of course it was her intent. Just as it was McEwan’s intent. And worst of all, Edwards knows it. That he has pretended to take the two at their word, in an ostentatious gesture of “trust,” is precisely the kind of staged treacle that makes people doubt the sincerity of politicians; and that both Marcotte and McEwan have assured their own personal Patriarch that they’ll behave, now that he’s promoted them to the grownups’ table, is, to put it bluntly, one of the most pathetic public surrenderings of personal integrity I’ve ever seen.
Seriously. We should feel bad for them.
That is, were we to actually believe they meant any of it. Because how this plays out for the netroots is this way: either they are cheering on an ideological sellout, or they are knowingly and happily embracing an opportunistic liar. So. Congrats to them. Once again, they’ve covered themselves in white hot sticky glory!
Edwards and Marcotte deserve each other, as far as I’m concerned. A presidential candidate who tries to sell me on the fact that Marcotte and her group of shrieking ill-tempered character assassins had no intent of maligning anyone—all for a bump in the DailyKos straw poll—is a charlatan and a waffling opportunist.
Similarly, if Edwards believes “we’re beginning a great debate about the future of this country,†he might begin by instructing his “Blogmistress†that deleting dissenting opinions doesn’t exactly further “debate†as it is commonly understood.
Of course, “debate†as it is understood in progressive circles means something different, I suppose—namely, circling the wagons and attacking dissenters, even as you airbrush away their dissent so that you alone can characterize it â€â€so, in at least one America, Edwards is directly on point.
I’m tempted to say here that “Jesus wept”—but I fear that would only bring about a thousand cheers from a thousand self-styled emancipated vaginas.
****
More from LGF. See also, Red State.
****
update: Marcotte:
My writings on my personal blog Pandagon on the issue of religion are generally satirical in nature and always intended strictly as a criticism of public policies and politics. My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics. Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact.
I think she forgot to factor into her equation all the deletions and attempts to skew the outcome of debate by limiting the participants. Because by my accounting, that would certainly change the sum total of her personal writings.
But then, maybe I’m just relying on “vertical” math. Which just, you know, shows how sexist and against free expression I am…
Hot Air has more, as does PJM, in a roundup of blogosphere reaction.
Damn!
And I thought we were through with this mess……
Bad move politically. It helps him with the netroots progressives, but keep the issue alive for a while now instead of it disappearing in a week. Does he think the Catholics are gonna forget the whole thing? And he will need their center-right D voters, even in the primaries.
As to what I have read by these two chicks, it seems relatively harmless to me, sort of like watching a puppy go after a stuffed animal. Stupid, potentially offensive, idiotic, but also amusing. Maligning Christianity? Sure. So what.
I am willing to let it drop but I expect that Amanda will be soft pedaling her “fucking for freedom” stance in coming months. If she doesn’t, she will be out of a job.
Edwards had a tough call. Fire the girls, and in a sense admit to administrative chaos, and, incidentally, lose a built-in lead-in to all those who read the girls, or, keep them, tell them to knock it off, and forget about it. I mean, if The Donald can do it, so can Edwards. Americans are a very forgiving people.
I never really cared wither way either, but paid attention mostly to see what Edwards would do. This is by far the most interesting of the two possible outcomes because it says so much about Edwards, who he considers his base, and ultimately how much power (voting power? PR power? both?) he thinks they carry.
Personally, I find it hard to believe that were so awash in wingbats that a presidential hopeful would stake his campaign on them; but then again what the hell do I know, I’m just an ignorant breeder.
Gosh. I’m glad that’s over!
I was afraid some meat-space thing would interfere. You know, like a thrusting surge, a freezing global something, the size of some woman’s plane, or a sideways market. I’m glad I was able to keep my ADD at bay long enough for this story to unfold without, you know … distractions.
Instaed of “Blogmistressâ€Â, howze about using “Blogatrix”?
Oh boy, is this great!
[/Flounder]
Not, that I’m shocked or anything, but, wow, is Edwards a gigantic douchebag.
He can’t possibly believe that potential (not already in his pocket) voters will believe that tripe. Unfortunately, he does and he is probably correct. I guess it’s all about teh “nuance”. Of course he could slum it a little and have PW’s resident moron, you know who you are “*lph**”, run his little blog for him. But then again, cock size may mean something to John Edwards, so that will leave amanda in the lead over *lph** for sure.
Then I have a practical question at this point: If Goldstein is a non-practicing Joo!, is he disqualified from the whole Godbag thing? or . . ?
You’ll never shame the Left, Jeff. Ever.
This is nothing to them. Its all power and winning it. Principle? Psssh. It is to laugh.
What ahem said. And Jeff, put Amanda down RIGHT THIS INSTANT, and wash your hands, young man. Lord knows where she’s been.
I knew that loose was too noose… uh… noose too loose…
Well, oh goody, because now the two gals can awaken the slumbering giant of liberalism on the political landscape. You know, just what us wing-nuts feared.
But, really, I’m glad we straightened the whole mess out; that it’s wrong to use one’s words against them.
Can somebody hook me up with one of those nifty, Progressiveâ„¢ “Intentions trump Words” cards? Could come in handy next time I get yanked up short for my racist, bigoted Godbag hate speech.
Intentions do trump words, JR. It’s just that one has the ability to lie about one’s intentions.
So cowardly, though, isn’t it—and unbefitting a brave TruthTeller like Amanda.
I think “punkass marc” might have to change his name to “milquetoast marc.” Either that, or insist that he get to wear the strap-on for a change.
NEWSFLASH: Jeff won’t vote for Edwards because Edwards is a liar or a charltan….didn’t you believe that prior to this dust-up?
Did you?
Do you now?
Jeff: True. But the magic Trump thing only works if you’re a Progressive, man. So, like, I’m totally feeling the whole 2 Amerikas thing right now.
TOTALLY.
I find it amusing that so many on the left side of the blogosphere are now pledging their support to Edwards because he decided not to fire Marcotte. Apparently, that decision is more important his policy initiatives or his stances on the biggest issues of the day.
Who knew that the left took their votes so lightly, and that they were so easily bought?
No more sloshyness?
Myself, I think Amanda’s “nice girl” writing doesn’t bear the scrutiny it’s going to receive. It’s like how Dark Phoenix loses all her power when she turns back to Jean Gray.
Really…
Here’s the thing – I might actually, partially believe Marcotte didn’t mean to insult anyone, inasmuch as the following statement can be construed as true: the woman is actually so self-absorbed and selfish that she honestly, truly, consistently renders herself incapable of true empathy. She has placed herself beyond the realm of caring for anyone other than #1 and so therefore simply believes that her blog is all. about. her., adoring fans included. She honestly doesn’t care what the targets of her rants think or feel and thus it never even crossed her mind to think that she might be insulting them, as obsessed as she is with her own reproductive plumbing. She’s dealing with the Generalized Other and, when specific people stand up and say “Hey, that’s insulting!”, she realizes that she’s not dealing with metaphoric Godbags but real live flesh-n-blood human beings that could, quite possibly, be offended at being so labeled.
Or, she could be a lying two-faced jerk attempting to weasel her way out of an awkward situation in order to continue working for the premiere Hyperspace Chicken Lawyer currently running for President of the US. You know, your choice.
Funniest thing I’ve read all day, right there–wait, hang on, gotta get my hip-waders on–alright, where were we? Oh, yeah, that’s right, Edwards was shoveling a huge pile of bullshit.
Personally, I don’t much care about these two idiots or their views on Christianity or anything else, but it sure has been fun to watch them step on their cranks.
This is great news.
It means that I’ll get that job with the Walden Woods project even though I’ve publicly called Don Henley, the Eagles, their record company, everyone related to anyone who worked for or performed in the Eagles, especially their freaking bus driver who never had the courgage to run those fuckers into a bridge abutment as “spawn of the crud off of Satan’s douchebag.”
‘cause I never meant to offend.
tw: music73. wow.
The “apologies” they were forced to write were so humiliating! Oh, I haven’t cringed in a long time, not even watching the BBC version of The Office.
But this! Oh, it’s just so demeaning! Think of all the venom and bile and vitriol she has worked so hard to refine. The time and effort it took to develop the skillz, the patois, the readership … all so she could blast the Catholics and other white male patriarchies, the phallocentric system that she just fucking hates with every fiber of her being!
And to have to disavow it all. To have to take it all back. To have to pretend she didn’t mean any of it. To be forced to say that she didn’t mean to give offense. Giving offense was the whole point all along!!!
All so another white man could get elected.
The feelings of worthlessness she must be feeling right now. Amanda has a date with a fifth of vodka, probably one every day for the next couple of years, I’d guess. You don’t just eviscerate yourself like that in the public arena and just walk away like nothing happened.
I don’t think Edwards was cowed by them.
I think he forgave them.
Subtle difference.
If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.
You know, if you look at Edwards’ campaign strategy, it probably makes sense for him to keep them on. Hillary is obviously the establishment candidate. The Nutroots haven’t yet settled on their “progressive†candidate, a la Howard Dean in 2004.
Given that Edwards is waging a progressive campaign, with his “Two Americas†schtick that plays up class distinctions, the Nutroots are obviously the constituency he’s going after. If he axed Marcotte, he would have severely damaged his credibility with that group. By keeping her on, he scores points with them as a fighter (they always talk about “fighting†against conservatives), and as someone who backs their own.
Like I said. It’s probably good strategy on his part.
He’s still a douche for that B.S. statement, though.
I think it’s great that the Patriarchy kept Amanda on as it’s tool.
I can’t believe she wrote testament. That can’t have been what she vagimeant.
*Apparently, that decision is more important his policy initiatives or his stances on the biggest issues of the day. *
You mean, foiling the plots of right wing neocon haters ? Well, duh.
Alphie said:
So it’s just a coincidence that Marcotte’s and McEwan’s repentance match the standard hollow political apology of “I didn’t mean it that way and I’m sorry if you were offended.”
Also a coincidence that Edwards’ God-like forgiveness could have been constructed from a checklist–supporting their right to speak but criticizing what they said, followed quickly by the “let’s move on and focus on the real issues” statement.
Alphie, are you really that credulous, or are you just lying?
To sum up:
1. Pandora’s Box is closed (for now);
2. We now know what is in the Breck Girl’s Box.
Follow the links before you comment, alphie.
It’s nice to see that MyDD and the netroots, who were recently threatening to bring hell down on Edwards, have “forgiven” him.
Nope, not a payoff at all. A “reward.”
Subtle difference.
I doubt that’s what he believes. Rather, I suspect he believes that the majority of potential voters will never know about it. And I think he’s probably right. If a Republican candidate’s blogmeister had made comparable remarks about, say, abortion advocates, it would be a very different story (i.e. it would be a big story). But this almost certainly won’t be, and I suspect that’s what Edwards is banking on.
Given the Eagles’ strategic partnership with Wal-Mart, they might well agree with you.
So what’s the over/under on how long until Marcotte breaks her recently installed “ethics v2.0” software and goes nutrooty on some topic?
I can’t see this lasting much longer than through the summer. Once a nutroot, always a nutroot. Marcotte thrives on the backslapping she gets from the various shoe-sniffer nutroots. It’s really just a matter of time before she feels neglected and decides to “fight the power” the only way she knows how.
This will be HIGH-larious to watch. Edwards will be forced to dump this loser before they get to New Hampshire. Just ask Ned “I lived and died by the nutroots” Lamont.
I have a question. Isn’t it a sacred part of the feminist canon that a man can never use “I was only kidding!” as an excuse or back-out for any verbal or psychological abuse of a woman?
Just askin…
John Edwards: Godbag
http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=2215
It’s not a double-standard. It’s merely “horizontal” social justice.
Don’t be so cynical.
The concept of Christian foriveness,
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
is that religion’s most powerful message, IMHO.
I think most Christians will take their apologies at face value.
1. alphie:
Wow, the textbook lefty response. Enlightening.
2. I’m disappointed that the Shiny Pony did not designate his blog post as an IMPORTANT INACTION ALERT.
Look, alphie, we get it. You’re playing games with us. Tis alright, but since we’ve figured it out, it isn’t as funny any more.
I wouldn’t have minded seeing Marcotte get the ax, but watching her reveal herself to be a fraud is quite a tasty outcome. Probably moreso than her getting fired, as, I mean, come on, EDWARDS? He ain’t gonna win and you all know it.
“If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.
Posted by alphie | permalink
on 02/08 at 12:25 PM”
Here’s a rebuke, alpo:
You’re an idiot.
alphie
Since you seem to want to keep Christian themes as a talking point to this, I thought you should know that unless Edwards strikes a deal with Hillary, she is going to crucify him for this when the time is right.
I envision something along the lines of
“John Edwards thinks that the best way to advance feminism is by hiring women who write vile hateful things about anyone who is not a woman (hold for applause), while I think the best way to advance feminism in this country is to elect a woman POTUS (grand slam thank you and goodnight)”
You have to know something like this is coming right?
I hate those “I’m sorry if…” apologies. Chicken. Defensive. And false, with regard to intent. “I’m sorry if anyone was personally offended” translates perfectly as “I’m sorry you’re so easy to offend.”
I think most Christians will think they’re full of shit.
If Edwards has any sense, he offered to let them stay, with the caveat that another blogger would be inserted above them both in the campaign hierarchy.
So, basically, only those who have lived a life of moral perfection, or who don’t buy into the ancient mythology in the first place, can legitimately be critical of anything. Is that about the size of it?
Jeff, wasn’t Marcotte one of those arguing that the meaning of what one writes or says is for the reader or listener, not the author or speaker, to determine?
I’m not playing with you at all, OHNOES.
The offense these two committed was against the Catholic Church, not right-wing bloggers.
A church that practices forgiveness.
They’ve appologized and have promised to change their ways.
That’s how it works.
It’s kinda cool.
I’m really sorry if at any point it looked as if I were eager for Amanda to lose her job. That was never my intent. While I may have found Amanda’s work offensive, I realize now that I was being entirely too sensitive and that she certainly had no intention of offending me. Indeed, it was her intention that I giggle merrily at the humor that she selflessly offered in the interest of furthering discussion of public policies, and I apologize for having failed to do so. I agree with Mr. Edwards that any further criticism of Amanda would risk hijacking the debate about the future of our country.
ZaMoose:
Here’s the thing – I might actually, partially believe Marcotte didn’t mean to insult anyone, inasmuch as the following statement can be construed as true: the woman is actually so self-absorbed and selfish that she honestly, truly, consistently renders herself incapable of true empathy.
If that’s true, ZaMoose, then you’ve just given us a textbook example of someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
As a former NPD boyfriend used to say, “I’m sorry you were hurt by what I said, but I’m not sorry I said it.”
In other words: I was speaking righteous truth; if you have a problem with it, something’s wrong with you.
Typical, typical narcissist. Explains a lot.
BTW, based on his past record, the odds that alphie has absolutely no idea how badly he is wrenching that quotation out of context are roughly 100%.
Alphie, as I pointed out, these apologies are crafted in a very political manner and they are made after years of crude insults that were clearly designed to offend. The fact that they didn’t even admit they had intentionally given offense diminishes the value of these apologies to almost nothing.
Yes, forgivness is a virtue, but, to quote my old American Lit professor, a very pious Cistercian priest, naiveté is a sin.
So you actually write in full good faith. I should have known.
You forgot the Duke non-Rapists. Or, hell, you forgot the myriad of other people she has insulted. You’re playing rhetorical shell games in lieu of debate, and you’re being purposefully obtuse and credulous, and you pretend you’re not “playing with” me.
Take a hike, alphie. You’ve spent that nickel.
Let me explain to you how politics works.
Every time Edwards opens up his yokel trap, someone gets to say that he has two public relations personnel who call Christians “godbags” and think that appealing to them is “reaching out to the stupid market.”
But they say they didn’t mean to “offend” anyone …
HOW DARE YOU NOT FORGIVE!
CHICKENCHRISTIAN!
Alphie is a parody of himself.
Alphie,
The Catholic Church could give a rats over whatever it is that Mandy and friend say. It’s the political action comittees who are forcing this statement out of her.
It’s bullshit. She needs a job so she has to disavow all the bile she’s spilt over the years. All it takes is an “I’m sorry for years of calling the racist fascist Christers with small penii, racist fascist Christers with small penii, ‘cause my boss wants you to vote for him.”
The other one who came out and said, “I’m not anti-Catholic because I went to Loyola”? That’s just a big fucking joke.
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
is that religion’s most powerful message, IMHO.
And if you’d actually read the passage in which that phrase appears, you would see that Jesus was NOT saying that only the sinless can identify or punish for sin.
The woman taken in adultery was brought before him by his enemiesâ€â€the elites of his dayâ€â€who were trying to catch him in a trap. The Law of Moses mandated that adulterers be stoned to death, whereas Roman Law prevented anyone but Rome from administering the death penalty.
They thought they had him between a rock and a hard place, because if he says to let her go, he’s disloyal to Mosaic Law (heretic) but if he says stone her he’s an enemy of the State. The men who posed this question were vile hypocrites and were spectacularly unserious about the question, and Jesus knew it. So he turned the tables on them by pointing out that theyâ€â€these elites, not humanity in generalâ€â€were themselves unrepentant adulterers. People seem to think that this was a question posed by innocent followers who wanted to know what to do. It wasn’t.
So nice try, alphie, but no fruit cup for you.
The other one who came out and said, “I’m not anti-Catholic because I went to Loyola� That’s just a big fucking joke.
I loved that statement. It sounds a lot like “but one of my best friends is black.”
Plus, I spent a good portion of my 20s living around Loyola and was friends with many students there. The place isn’t exactly a bastion of orthodox Catholocism.
If someone apologizes and truly changes their ways…
…how can mortals know whether they are sincere or not?
Well it’s certainly been fun watching Amanda and Melissa be forced to snack a bit on the fruits of their own bad faith (heh). When I read her repudiation of her entire blog, I swear I heard Jesus singing in the background:
first the mic then a half cigarette
singing “Cathy’s Clown”
that’s the man that she’s married to now
that’s the girl that he takes around town
she appears composed,
so she is,
i suppose
who can really tell?
she shows no emotion at all
stares into space like a dead china doll
i’m never gonna know you now,
but i’m gonna love you anyhow…
Or maybe it was my iPod, I dunno.
The truth is that Edwards may have the power to fire or retain the two, but he has no power over how their pathologies will reverberate out here in the world, and right now all of them, Marcotte, Edwards, McEwan, the netroots, believe that somehow they’ve mitigated the situation and gotten away with something. But the fact that they grossly overestimate human power in general and their own power in particular bears no weight here in the world. Something tells me they’ve yet to be served their soup, much less the main course.
And the Lord singeth on:
looking out on the substitute scene
still going strong
XO, mom
it’s ok,
it’s alright,
nothing’s wrong
tell mr. man with impossible plans
to just leave me alone
in the place where i make no mistakes
in the place where i have what it takes
i’m never gonna know you now, but i’m gonna love you anyhow…
yours/
peter.
TW: problem11. Har! I love this thing!
IMO this has been exceedingly entertaining, it’s just icing on the cake that the nutroots gets to demonstrate in all their hyperventilating glory what a bunch of cheap sell outs they are
I’m really looking forward to part two
Alphie makes me miss Actus.
Perhaps there could be a “Who’s the more annoying troll” poll?
Actually, alphie, that’s not how it works. One may forgive but one is also counseled not to forget. See, in the Bible, actions, not words, are what makes the difference. That’s the point of the entire book of James. A promise to do better is worth exactly nothing. Only doing better counts.
You have to know something about a faith before you cite it.
bains —
I don’t know, to be honest with you. If she weighed in on the intentionalist debate, I likely ignored it. Because I take the subject seriously. And her, I do not.
There is a a world of difference between a sincere apology and an apology to keep your job.
This is all for naught for Edwards anyway. He will get some money out of this from the far left, but Hillary, who will squash him like a bug anyway, just got some ammo.
This seems like the best possible outcome. Edwards can no longer claim that he’s unaware of the hateful nature of his bloggers, and Marcotte and whoever the other person is don’t get the glory of becoming martyrs for their cause.
On top of that, there are two likely courses for this to take longer-term:
1. Marcotte gives in to the old urges, and publically embarrasses herself and Edwards
2. Marcotte stifles her hatred, further revealing herself as a complete sellout with no ingrained views or morality to call her own.
Either way, it should be pretty good.
alphie –
there’s that whole ‘change their ways’ thing that has yet to be determined.
The position Marcotte’s working requires a certain tact, diplomacy, consideration and editorial judgement that will be played out in public on a national stage every day.
Moo-who-wha-ha-ha-ha-ha
Edwards just removed the following tools from Amanda’s rhetorical blog tool-box:
fuck
fucking
fuckers
mother-fucker
fucktard
asshat
Christofascists
Pope
Catholic
Jesus
Godbag
Abortion
Rape
Duke
and
Mansion
… this will cause her to grow as a writer.
Into what is anybody’s guess.
Like Oakland, Amanda might not have any ‘there’ there.
Forgive but don’t forget, Jimmie?
If these two have apologized and they refrain from further bad behavior, aren’t we supposed to encourage them, though?
OHNOES – Isn’t it obvious that alphie isn’t playing with you? He’s playing with himself.
alfie, if I go into the confessional (for a change) and tell the priest after telling him my sin, “look, I’m sorry that you took that the wrong way”, I won’t get forgiveness.
The very basis of forgiveness (esp in a Christian sense) is that the person being forgiven is truely sorry for his/her sins. Nothing I’ve read from Marcotte recently indicates that she views her writings as anything but completely true.
They prove it through a series of actions.
First, you confess your transgression. You do this by reciting the particular behavior that you now know to have been wrong. You have to list these with particularity, and by yourself, not have them told to you. This shows you that you can identify the wrong behavior on your own, thus demonstrating that you have a new understanding.
You then have to engage in an act of contrition, preferably of your own choosing, as an outward manifestation of your sincerity, which will demonstrate that you now comprehend the gravity of your offense.
Then, you have to atone, such as by repaying what was stolen, repairing what was broken, or some other way of reversing the ill-effects of whatever it was you did.
Finally, you have to ask for forgiveness, by expressing the sentiment that you realize that you are not entitled to it, but that if it is given to you, it is an act of grace and mercy.
What you DON’T do is tell people that you are sorry that they took your words as being offensive, which is basically just a way of confirming that you still think they are stupid godbags and it’s their fault for assuming that you meant anything by it.
Only those that are sincerely repentant are forgiven.
And only those that sincerely debate should be addressed. Alphie doesn’t.
The interesting thing is, one doesn’t need to be a ChickenChristian, or any kind of Christian, much less a Catholic, to find some of the more incendiary Marcotte posts offensive. Or at least exceedingly disreputable. Large numbers of people who merely have respect for the tradition of religion would find the equation of the Holy Spirit with a load of semen, for example, to be be an outrage. Fortunately for Edwards, the most inflammatory comments are never going to see the light of day in any of the major media outlets, where people who don’t already have their minds made up would see them. Because if they did, his candidacy would be seriously harmed.
Great, while ya’ll have been yapping about these idiot bloggers, poor Anna Nicole might have just gone and done herself in.
I guess this means no more seasons greetings for us bitches.
alfie, why didn’t Marcotte express regret for her writings prior to this?
When, exactly, was her “road to Damascus”?
Nice try wingnuts.
Got credibility?
Losers.
I just read that Anna Nicole has indeed shuffled off this mortal coil.
One last Anna Nicole post? Please?
Hey, Alpo – Edwards is a Lawyer who made millions by sueing doctors based on shoddy scientific evidence. He has no concept of ‘forgiveness.’
tw: pessure31 and rising.
Well, “we never meant to offend” is clearly a lie; the intent was obviously to offend. I’d go so far as to say they reveled in being offensive. If someone lies in the course of making an apology, it’s an excellent chance—certainty?—they’re insincere.
And, as others have pointed out, it’s not just the matter of the insults to the religious. How about the lacrosse teams?
Earning forgiveness requires penitence—the personal acceptance of responsibility for the trespass. “I’m sorry you took offense” is not penitent. “I’m sorry I offended you” is—so long as it’s followed by avoiding trespass again.
I know you’re trying to hoist the Christers on their own petard, but you should really try to understand what you’re talking about, first.
Anna Nicole Smith is DEAD. Get serious people ….
Special knowledge, Robert?
What is so hard to understand about forgiveness?
The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes
Pretty simple.
Jeff, no, I vote in Indiana where primaries don’t matter (the issue will long-decided before it gets here), but, as I have been pilloried before, I like Senator Edwards. He was a pussy last time around and you can’t be a pussy and fight Republicans (ask John Kerry what he thinkks of Bob Perry and friends). i like the Two Americas them because I preceive oligarchial tendencies in America that are troubling (it’s one thing W and I agree on). But, I haven’t heard any magic from anyone running for President that has won my vote.
Am I more inclined to vote for Edwards than before? Sure am.
The Right played one of its typical cards (and by typical I mean in tactics not motivation. I have no doubt from reading your and Dan’s output on the subject that your opinions and revulsion are genuine, nor do I agree with Ms. Marcotte or thought she wrote particularly persuasively). Nonetheless, it was a typical example of right wing attack. Noise and noise and links and noise, and then a genius like William Donahue (he of oh-so-careful remarks…tell us about those Jews, Billy) stands up and acts injured, and a “reporter†like Terry Moran comments on it, and now the NY Times can do a story on a campaign blogger 11 months away from the first ballot.
In the past, the lefty would have ignored it and allowed Rush to run with it for days and the mainstream media to report it forever until it became an accepted fact (“Bill Clinton shut down LAX with a haircut,†except he didn’t; “Al Gore claimed credit for Love Canal,†except he didn’t; etc) OR they capitulate to shut everyone up. This time, Edwards addressed the issue in a classy way and he will move on.
The best part is now the minions can comment on Edwards’s hair or something similarly weighty, while refusing to acknowledge Edwards had a problem, he addressed it appropriately to the kind of people who will listen to him (which excludes almost everyone here anyway) and he’s going to move on having, surprisingly, lost your minions’ votes. I’m sure he will recover, because he looks a lot better than if he had capitulated to the Michelle Malkins of the world.
Seems like a damn fine way to handle kerfuffle.
So, I dished, Jeff, why don’t you? Now, it’s too early for the 2008 PW endorsement, but who do you like early? Most PW’s seems to like Rudy? Is that the direction you’re leaning? What about Gingrich? I’ve heard from some of my Republican friends, who are neutral so far, that they’d like Newt to hop in. What’s your thought?
Posted this on the other thread, but thought it was clever and about to be ignored so…
Well, they are white; two inches is relatively large for that demographic. But they do have ten inch tongues.
You and I have a completely different understanding of class—as well as different standards for what it takes to a earn a personal endorsement.
But since you asked, and since I had this conversation on IM earlier, I will note that right now I’m leaning toward Giuliani. Though his personal views on gay marriage and abortion don’t track with a lot of social cons, I also recognize that he deplores social engineering, and so I have confidence that as President he would, if called upon to do so, nominate Constitutionalists to the bench.
He is also strong on security, and doesn’t pussyfoot around real civil rights issues like the inherent Constitutional problems raised by race-based affirmative action.
I have friends who are working for the Brownback campaign, but I think Giuliani is who the country is looking for. I could be wrong, but I don’t think the country has lurched left like some others believe—though I believe Republicans need to court the south park conservative vote (namely, classical liberals with both strong social libertarian tendencies and a seriousness about national defense and sovereignty).
I am a little confused, timmy, until what became an accepted fact? All I saw were people repeating what Marcotte had written… oh, that’s right, she didn’t mean it, so it was all lies, and if the right had kept repeating her own lies then eventually they would have been accepted as truth which…
hmmm….
You see why this is a bit confusing to us reality challenged trogs out here?
Jeff – out of curiosity, where’s the maligning of someone’s faith and where’s the hate in that supposedly hate-filled post you linked to. I’m seeing some garden variety, blog style making of fun of creationists, but nothing that seems any more hateful than the “libs are evil, libs are evil, libs are evil” sort of rants you can read on any given day over at townhall.com. Maybe you’ve got some better examples?
Cool, I registered so I could comment over at the Edwards website.
I’m not classy. Move on, right! It’ll take pliers to remove my titty twister.
How can your forgive someone for something they did do someone else?
I don’t forgive them. I hate ‘em. How can Edward’s forgive them for offending me?
I forgive N. O’brien for making you look like a complete and total dumbass.
I also forgive myself if you felt offended that I called you a total dumbass.
I don’t think Edwards is losing your vote, Gray.
Here’s a chance for the Catholic Church to practice what they preach, show they’re different than religions that spew hatred and call for revenge against anyone who insults their faith and maybe pick up a few converts in the bargain.
I think they’re going to take the chance
Edwards just became the plan B candidate.
And since Mandy is back to running his blog, it’s time for phase 2. (Dr.Evil laugh)
I find fourteen definitions for evil. Here are eight of them:
As I wrote a friend: To elevate the tone of any discussion about Amanda Marcotte’s ethics and John Edward’s incredibility as exposed by his statement is only to attempt to avoid the issue. To elevate that tone into a merely rhetorical debate is to, by equal parts, debase our own morals and ethics. We deceive ourselves. I will not.
Our morals and standards are the issue. Posters like joewilson prove the point by rejecting them in favor of blind opportunity.
Nice try progressives. Got credibility? Losers.
You know what I can’t wait to see? When Hillary and Obama start quoting these two gals during the campaign, and painting the Breck guy as anti Catholic.
For JerryL:
And of course, the one I alluded to in my post:
No offense, though.
One last thing on this whole Christian Forgiveness thing.
1) Dicentra has it right as far as background goes. I would add that the Pharisees who were attempting to trap Jesus were on already shaky ground as Mosaic law required both the woman and the man be presented for judgment.
2) Why is it that every casual observer (alphie) who thinks they can snatch a bible verse out of context. cram it down the throats of political foes (some of whom have actually studied the bible) and assume that the debate is over? Alphie, as is usual in your parsing of all things factual, you left out the last line of the story.
“Neither do I condemn you. Now go forth and leave your life of sin. RTepentance literally means to “turn away” from the aggregious behavior. All Mandy and Melanie are doing is redefining their “style” to fit the candidate.
So either steve, timmy, alphie, joewilson or anybody else who has defended Edwards and/or snarked at Jeff: Do you honestly believe that the apologies as written constitute real contrition and repentance for the hateful things that our two ladies have written in the past about religions and their adherants?
If so, then you are all utterly clueless or you totally agree with the vile sentiments expressed. If not, then acknowledge that the points that have been made have merit and that Edwards is pulling a fast one.
alphie/Neville/monkeyboy; stop quoting people or citing history. You suck at it. Big time
alphie: It’s dark in there, isn’t it?
Ohhhhhh…. It’s religions that spew hatred.
Oh, well… I forgive the religions for making you feel like they are spewing hatred.
I forgive me again for calling you a leftist shitbag.
I see your point on this forgiveness thing. I dig it! Shitbag.
[…] of an early trademark during his consistently repulsive campaign — beginning with his handling of the Marcotte / McEwan dustup (the “sentiment” of their anti-Catholic remarks “personally offended” […]
[…] Marcotte is still blogging? Even after being exposed as an embarrassing opportunist? Who […]
[…] Wisdom, funny. Amanda Marcotte is still blogging? Even after being exposed as an embarrassing opportunist and a purveyor of gross libels against those wrongly accused of rape (and their defenders)? Wow, […]