Dear Former Senator Edwards, I am writing to you about your decision to retain Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, in spite of the recent comments from that have been brought to light. In your statement on the matter, you write, "
Among the comments in questions are these from Ms. Marcotte:
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.
As far as I can tell, there are three possible ways to reconcile your statement with the above quoted passage:
- Ms. Marcotte did not intend to malign my religion, but is a completely incompetent communicator. Nevertheless, you hired her as your campaign's blogger. You do not mind having incompetent people work on your campaign, and likely would not mind having incompetent people working for your administration. This is good information to have in determining whether to elect you.
- Ms. Marcotte did intend to malign my religion, but managed to convince you that she did not. Thus, you were duped. That you are easily duped is also good information to have in deciding whether to vote for you, especially in light of mistakes made by the current administration.
- Ms. Marcotte did intend to malign my religion, you recognize it, but you've all agreed to pretend that something obviously meant to offend was not in fact intended to offend. Ms. Marcotte is not being honest, and you're going along with it, because you would rather alienate people like me than appear "weak." Sounds a bit like our current president.
All three of these conclusions would lead me to not support your campaign for president; indeed they would lead me to most vociferously oppose it.
I understand that it is probably unreasonable for me to expect Democratic campaigns to embrace orthodox Catholic morals about secuality. But I do expect better than contempt. And when called on that contempt, I expect better than dishonesty.
4 comments:
Well John, if I recall, you’d throw your hat in with the Bush’s again if Jeb would only run. So it’s kinda silly for you to act like your potential vote for Edwards just now turned into a snowball in hell. As for the Marcotte post you link to, she makes many, many good points that you turn a blind eye to in your fervor to get all worked up over a select few quotes. From my perspective, not only do I find the idea of tiptoeing around your faith a loathsome and gratuitous demand, but I honestly think getting righteously worked up is an integral part of what makes religion your cup of tea. The thing that bothers me though is not your rather insane religious predilections, it’s the certainty with which you entertain them as something that I should have to care about because there will be consequences for those who dare to cross the hordes you call brothers and sisters in Christ.
Have you learned anything from the past two presidential elections?
To correct the record on Bush, what I said was that if he weren't part of the Bush family, he may objectively be the best candidate. But he is, so he's not.
Which is pretty much the direct opposite of the view you ascribe to me -- that I'm hankerin' to elect another Bush, but gosh darn it, Jeb won't run, so I better find another candidate.
But anyway...
I did read the entire post, and if she were criticizing a proposed government policy, then it would be a worthwhile addition to the debate. But her targer was the Church's guidance to Catholic married couples which is, frankly, none of her damn business, and the overall purpose of her post was to discredit my Church.
You and Edwards don't have to care about my religion. But then I don't have to vote for Edwards either. I could have just silently been offended and crossed Edwards off the list of candidates to consider. (yes, he wasn't high on my list to begin with). I chose to publicize the impact of his actions. Do with that what you will.
Right now, I'm in agreement with you in preferring that the next president be a Democrat. But asking me to vote for someone who hires someone who spews hateful lines like that about what I hold dear is asking me to be someone I'm not, and I'm not going to do it.
The Democratic response to that has been to write me off, which is your choice. Edwards tacked on the insult to my intelligence, in asking me to believe it wasn't meant to malign. But you may end up with the same results.
If not having to tiptoe around my religious sensibilities is worth more to you than who is in the White House, be my guest. But don't pretend you don't know what you're doing.
Edwards is shedding the softie,breck girl image though...here's video proof:
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
Gee John. I hope you got this worked up when all the bigots in your party were jacking-off over Congressman Ellison's religious beliefs.
Post a Comment