John Edwards

Edwards Blogger Resigns

Although John Edwards decided against firing the two bloggers from his campaign that were under attack by notorious homophobe and anti-semite Bill Donohoe, one of them, Amanda Marcotte, has decided to resign anyway.

Days after Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards decided against firing two liberal bloggers with a history of inflammatory writing, one resigned last night with a blast at “right wing shills” for driving her out of the campaign.

Amanda Marcotte, whose writings were assailed as anti-Catholic, wrote yesterday on her blog that the Edwards camp had accepted her resignation. She blamed her most vocal critic, Bill Donohoe, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, writing that he “and his calvacade of right wing shills don’t respect that a mere woman like me could be hired for my skills, and pretended that John Edwards had to be held accountable for some of my personal, non-mainstream views on religious influence on politics,” which Marcotte described as being “anti-theocracy.”

I have to say, if I were receiving mail from Catholics like this, I would resign in order to respond to it as well:

From my mailbag:

I pray that I had some small part to play in your “resigning” from the Edwards campaign you libelous fraud!

—
Catholics are concerned about killing unborn children, you stupid bitch. Chop away if it suits you, but we don’t have to accept that as moral. That’s why it’s called a religion. Look into it.

—
Amanda,
after reading your vile screed against Catholics and the Holy Spirit, I just had to see what you looked like. (I envisioned you eyebrow-less, with no visible pupils, and a blank, dead stare.) I see I was correct about the blank, dead stare, but other than that you’re not too bad. I then thought maybe you were mad at God (and by proxy Catholics) for making you ugly, but now I’m figuring you’re just mad at him for making you a woman.

—
Andy Driggers from Dallas, TX:
Problem with women like you, you just need a good fucking from a real man! Living in Texas myself, I know you haven’t found that real Texan yet. But once your liberal pro feminist ass gets a real good fucking, you might see the light. Until then, enjoy your battery operated toys b/c most real men wouldn’t want to give you the fucking you deserve b/c the shit that would come out of you ears.

—
From Paul Bernard of Scottsdale, AZ:
i like the way you trash talk i don’t particularly want to have sex with you but i would like a blow job.

—
Bud Phelps, another person who opposes “bigotry”:
It’s just too bad your mother didn’t abort you. You are nothing more than a filthy mouth slut. I bet a couple of years in Iraq being raped and beaten daily would help you appreciate America a little. Need a plane ticket ?

I linked above to some choice quotes by “Catholic League” president and anti-semite Bill Donohue, but here’s new one that will make your eyes pop. You can watch the video of him saying it at this link.

DONOHUE: Look, just hold on here. You had your time. Look, the kid’s a phony and here’s why. I dealt with him earlier today on an MSNBC show, and I said we could hypothesize that there’d be a Columbia University ping-pong team made of Asians, and somebody goes out there and says “All gooks go home.” So I — I asked him about my gook joke. And guess what? Andy’s — Andy’s sense of humor just collapsed. He found that offensive. You see what you are? You’re a phony. You’re a typical Ivy League little brat who thinks it’s OK to dump on Catholics, but you don’t like my gook joke. Now, what’s wrong with a gook joke?

Continue ReadingEdwards Blogger Resigns

Melissa gets to keep her job

I mentioned yesterday that there was some question about whether blogger Melissa McEwan, aka Shakespeare’s Sister at the site of the same name, would get to keep her job with the John Edwards campaign after complaints from the nutty rightwing blowhards over things she’s said in the past on her personal blog.

Turns out that she does get to keep her job.

That part is really cool. I wasn’t thrilled with the wishy-washy support that Edwards gave her, though.

I can’t believe that people who are certifiably crazy get to shake the trees and get a response like this from Edwards.

Continue ReadingMelissa gets to keep her job

Melissa McEwan is a Goddess

One of my favorite writers is Melissa McEwan, who hosts a group blog called Shakesville – which I link to all the time here, so you should be at least familiar with it if you follow along with what I write at all.

Melissa is one of the most eloquent, intelligent writers I’ve ever run across. She seems to have some of the same ideas I do, but where mine are half-formed notions that cross my mind, she examines them in detail and depth that would never have occurred to me. She is, in a word, brilliant. I’ve thought for ages that she should be writing on a national level – for a major paper or magazine, so when I heard she was hired by the John Edwards campaign I was ecstatic – finally, she’d get her due. I hope every one there realizes how extraordinary she is — please.

However, the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue and some other right-wing attack groups like Michelle Malkin have started publicly criticizing the Edwards campaign for hiring Melissa, based on feminist posts she’s made in the past on her blog, criticizing the Catholic church for being the homophobic, misogynist bastards that they are.

The story has shown up in major papers like Salon and now the New York Times, and there are rumors that the Edwards campaign is considering firing Melissa.

I hope to goodness they don’t succumb to pressure and do that, because that would be the indication to me that Edwards doesn’t have the stones to be my president in 2008.

I’m going to make a list of all the angry things I’ve ever written about the Catholic Church on this blog — and you know I grew-up Catholic, so there are dozens of inflammatory things I’ve written — and post them all in one place, so if there’s ever any question, they’ll know right where to look.

Continue ReadingMelissa McEwan is a Goddess

A Letter to John Edwards on Marriage Equality

A letter written by the very wise Pam Spaulding on Pam’s House Blend (link has been deprecated) is a great help in sorting out the marriage equality issue for fair-minded people, so I’m reprinting it here in full…

Dear John Edwards,

I have read about some comments you made recently in New Hamphire about marriage equality for gay and lesbian Americans. The article quoted you as saying:

“Civil unions? Yes. Partnership benefits? Yes,” he said. “But it’s a jump for me to get to gay marriage. I haven’t yet got across that bridge.” … “I wish I knew the right answer,”

I hope that is an accurate quote of your words.

I would like to suggest that perhaps you have not yet considered the right question and that perhaps the right question would help you find the “right answer.”
First, a preliminary question. “Do all American citizens deserve equal treatment under the law?”

If your answer to the preliminary question is no, then there is no need to go on.

If your answer to the preliminary question is yes, then things get a little more complicated. Here we go.

Which of the three options mentioned in your quote offers genuine equal treatment, at least potentially, to all American citizens who wish to form some sort of legal contract of partnership?

Please keep in mind that the benefits and protections of marriage come from multiple levels of government. The most numerous and significant ones come from the federal level, 1,138 of them according to the latest summary by the GAO. This document, GAO report number GAO-04-353R entitled ‘Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report’, which was released on February 24, 2004 may be obtained from the United States General Accounting Office website. It is available at the following URL. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-353R

Some of the benefits and protections, considerably fewer, come from the state level. Others come from the county and municipal levels as well as from the private sector.

As you know, the federal Defense of Marriage Act currently prohibits any same sex marriage from receiving the 1,138 benefits and protections of marriage. If my recollection is correct, you are on record as opposing DOMA. Unfortunately, however, I think the reason you give is not a fully correct reason. As I recall, your reason has something to do with states regulating marriage. That “reason,” which seems to be the Democratic Party line, is oversimplified and misleading. While it is true that each state regulates who can get married, none of the states provide the federal benefits and protections of marriage. They cannot do so. What I’m hearing from your recent comments is that even though you oppose DOMA, you are uncertain as to whether or not gay and lesbians Americans deserve full citizenship benefits.
For the sake of my question, however, lets just assume that DOMA does not exist or has been repealed.

Which of the options you note would provide equal treatment for all US citizens who wish to form some sort of legal contract of partnership?

Civil unions cannot give access to any of the benefits and protections of civil marriage. They require a separate set to be specified. If these civil unions are at a state level, they only apply within the single state that issues them. They are not portable and provide absolutely no protection to couples crossing a state line. More significantly, they cannot provide access to the most significant and numerous set of benefits and protections at the federal level. The first example that comes to mind is the fast-tracking of citizenship in international marriages. This is something completely outside the jurisdiction of the states.

Partnership benefits have exactly the same limitations as civil unions. The difference between civil union and partnership benefits is in name only.

A civil marriage contract is the only option capable of providing access to all the benefits and protections of civil marriage from all levels.

So then, if you truly believe that all American citizens should be given equal treatment under the law, hopefully the answer you have found to be elusive in the past is now within reach. I have taken you to the end of that bridge. Only you can take the final step required to complete crossing it.

Continue ReadingA Letter to John Edwards on Marriage Equality