Amanda Marcotte Resigns
Remember last week, when Chris Bowers was strutting around like Mick Jagger in his prime talking up his mighty power over the Edwards campaign?
Well, a few short days later, Amanda Marcotte is no longer in the employ of Senator Edwards:
Amanda Marcotte has resigned as the blogger for the presidential campaign of Democrat John Edwards. She blamed her decision on Bill Donohue, the president of the Catholic League who last week demanded that Edwards fire her for anti-Catholic statements at the blog Pandagon.
Marcotte announced her resignation there. Here is an excerpt:
[The campaign by Donohue] was creating a situation where I felt that every time I coughed, I was risking the Edwards campaign. No matter what you think about the campaign, I signed on to be a supporter and a tireless employee for them, and if I can’t do the job I was hired to do because Bill Donohue doesn’t have anything better to do with his time than harass me, then I won’t do it. I resigned my position today and they accepted.
Unencumbered by her work for Edwards, she vowed to strike back. “The main good news,” Marcotte wrote, “is that I don’t have a conflict of interest issue anymore that was preventing me from defending myself against these baseless accusations. So it’s on.”
Besides the obvious satisfaction of seeing a worthy comeuppance, three things strike me as particularly hilarious about this: one, that Marcotte apparently is giving us fair warning that she intends to become even more foul-mouthed and unpleasant now that she is no longer ‘held back’ by her employment with Edwards.
Two, we can obviously see now the complete and utter insincerity of her ‘apology’.
Three, she actually thinks anyone is going to give a damn about her now! It’s over, babe…now you’re just another foul-mouthed lefty, and I can’t swing a cat without hitting three of those…
UPDATE 9:53 p.m.: It gets funnier by the minute. Here’s Matt Stoller’s incredibly blind take:
Bill Donohue’s attack on Edwards failed…
It did? Marcotte resigned, and that’s a…victory??!!???…Even his own commenters aren’t buying that one…
UPDATE 10:10 p.m.: Oh, here’s a beaut from a Kos commenter:
I wish she would have stuck it out. Amanda’s viewpoints are pretty mainstream in my neck of the woods.
You can say that again!…
UPDATE 11:38 p.m.: Bowers weighs in, no longer doing the victory dance:
Sadly, the inhuman still rules the world of American politics. We will all be a lot better off when there is a more prominent place for someone like Amanda Marcotte in our public discourse.
Yes, if there is one thing missing from our public discourse, it’s more people willing to describe the Virgin Mary and the Holy Spirit in a highly sexualized, wholly inappropriate manner…Chris, you are just dead on, buddy…
[...] Update: Mark Coffey is is just cruel: Remember last week, when Chris Bowers was strutting around like Mike Jagger in his prime talking up his mighty power over the Edwards campaign? [...]
[...] UPDATE: Others: Ace of Spades, QandO, Andrew Olmsted, The Political Pit Bull, Eunomia, Decision '08, Wizbang, Don Surber, UrbanGrounds, politburo diktat, BLACKFIVE, Sister Toldjah, Patterico, PostWatch, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, Hugh Hewitt, Protein Wisdom, Althouse, The Bullwinkle blog, Hot Air, Riehl World, Jay Reding.com, Classical Values, Captain Ed, [...]
Breaking: Marcotte Resigns (updated. And updated again)
Ms Marcotte blames the Catholic League's Bill Donohue for her troubles, but in truth, her anti-religious screeds (she calls them "anti-theocracy" -- though the distinction seems rather disingenuous, given that her attacks…
Personally, I didn’t care if she was fired or not. If she was fired, well she certainly deserved to be on political grounds. But, on the other hand, if she was not fired we’d have Amanda to kick around for 2 years. I’m sure she’d have made life interesting for the politically inclined.
However, what I do find extremely interesting is what her being hired says about the Edwards campaign. After all, he’s one of the Democrats front-runners. And, logically, either he (or his campaign staff) knew her positions and writing style and were just fine with them (which is simply unimaginable), or they hired her without the least bit of checking. Either way, it says someone’s not ready for prime time.
Ever notice how foulmouthed, strident, offensive, bigoted and offensive lefty bloggers take the cowards way out, then throw around charges of ’suppression’ when anyone else uses their freedom of speech to condemn the lefties’ hate posts?
just sayin’, its a pretty common trait, that and the herd mentality of other lefties to defend them to the death, no matter what they say. Really, the right side is not like that, they rightly condemn extremists on their own side. Also, its another fake fact that will be ‘accepted truth’ that right wing bloggers forced Morcotte out. Not one high profile righty blog advocated firing her. In fact, I think everyone wanted her to stay on and entertain us
Amanda Marcotte resigned!
heh! After having read some of the vicious vitriolic spew over at Pandagon and wondering what in the hell the Edwards campaign could think they have to GAIN from having Marcotte on board, it’s rather bewildering.
Jeff at Protein Wisdom:
Ms M…
Edwards is shedding the softie,breck girl image though…here’s video proof:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2007/02/john-edwards-gets-tough-with-matt-lauer_08.html
Well, she resigned, wasn’t fired, so I’ll give her this: she did the honorable thing. How this came to be is anyone’s guess, but if, as she says, she wants to support the Edwards campaign, then she did the right thing given she has become the dreaded “distraction”.
Dishonorable is the notion that she is a victim of: Bill Donahue. She is victim only of herself, having been held to account for what she wrote. Criticism is not persecution.
Amanda Marcotte Resigns from Edwards Campaign
Amanda Marcotte has resigned as John Edwards’ blogger, on the basis that she was creating a distraction for the campaign. Rather than stop there, though, she plays the victim.
Unfortunately, Bill Donohue and his calvacade of right wing shills do…
Never-was hires shrill shill.
Shrill shill shreiks.
Shreiks shock Catholic community.
Catholic community shakes never-was.
Never-was acts annoyed.
Annoyed act shocks shrill shill.
Shrill shill side steps.
Andy Warhol vindicated.
[...] One or two opinions via Memeorandom: The Moderate Voice, QandO, The Agonist, Outside The Beltway, Taylor Marsh, The Sideshow, Decision ‘08, Vox Popoli, MyDD, culturekitchen, Ace of Spades HQ, The Reaction, The American Street, The Political Pit Bull, Lonewacko, The Carpetbagger Report, Wizbang, Andrew Olmsted dot com, Liberal Values, The Caucus, Eunomia, Heading Left, Reason Magazine, Stop The ACLU, The Fix, The Bullwinkle Blog, Happy Furry Puppy Story …, UrbanGrounds, Booman Tribune, politburo diktat 2.0, The Corner, World-O-Crap, Slog, Bill’s Bites and Pam’s House Blend [...]
Apparently Stoller doesn’t read his own site.
I’m holding my breath for the next time someone from the Left actually criticizes the religion of Islam for being intolerant – now, that would be truly courageous.
Islam is incredibly intolerant. Happy? Of course it’s intolerant. Of religious diversity, of women, etc.
The reason people here decry the intolerance of Christianity is that it’s what rules the day in the United States. It’s like refusing to admit your house is on fire until you hear somebody admit that there’s another house across town that’s on fire.
My, Fargus, but you paint with a broad brush. Surely it’s the intolerance of fundamentalist Christianity you decry, not Christianity in general. After all, aren’t evangelical Christians exactly like radical Muslims with their denial of equal civil and religious rights, their race and religious bigotry, their murderous militancy, their suppression of women, their celebration of death and destruction? Why, of course they are.
Your finely honed sense of moral equivalency is breathtaking. And, by the way, no religion “rules the day” in the United States. The Constitution of the United States rules the day.
At the end of the day, what strikes me is this whole business could not have been handled worse by the Edwards campaign. First, you hire someone to be a spokesperson without anyone stopping to think, “Hey, are we hiring a lightning rod?” Then you take the hit of keeping her on, figuring the support you’ll get from the hardcore donors will be worth it. Then you lose her anyway, along with the goodwill of those donors, who are probably going to always suspect she was pushed out the door.
Of course, Edwards has almost no shot of winning the nomination, and I doubt he wants to be No. 2 again, so it’s all mostly for show anyway.
My mistake on the omission of “fundamentalist.” You’re right on that one.
As for “rules the day,” I nowhere implied that Christianity governs the laws of the nation. Such was clear from the context of my comment, and no amount of out-of-context snark will change that.
I think the whole thing is a triumph–for Marcotte. Her visibility increased tenfold; she gets credit for “integrity;” she gets “persecuted” by the evil religious right and admired by the loony left. What’s not to like? I bet she gets a lucrative job out of this–as did Ana Marie Cox, another knucklehead.
Miriam, maybe, but I’m not so sure…there is a sizable Nutroots® contingent that is very unhappy with her for ‘caving’…
“The reason people here decry the intolerance of Christianity is that it’s what rules the day in the United States.”
“Rules the day here?” My, that sounds serious. Rather than pontification and much needless bloviation, please give examples of whose rights have been abridged by the evil forces of Christiandom. Please cite actual cases of law, not ad hoc arguments.
“I nowhere implied that Christianity governs the laws of the nation. Such was clear from the context…”
Nice job of furious backtracking there -apparently now it’s everyone else here who didn’t understand your remarkable subtext and wit. Jeez, been away for almost half a year and you’re still playing the same notes.
Wow. Y’all really know what you’re talking about. No backtracking, man. If you want to ask me to clarify what I meant, I’d be happy to do that. If you want to tell me what I really said, then you can shove it.
Also, too bad Malkin and Donohue don’t comment here. I’m sure they’d be crying that I be fired from working for the U.S. Government due to my audacity and bigotry, huh?
This comparison of Islam in the Middle East to Christianity in America reminds me of a section in The Case For Democracy by Natan Sharansky. He mentioned a scene during which a feminist from a Muslim country, decrying the so-called “honor killings” in Islamic society, in which a female Israeli reporter said that “we have a problem like that here, too,” referring to the ultra-conservative Jews who wanted to legislate modesty. The difference here of course, is that Israel, as America, is a free, democratic country, and the differences are legitmate and modesty laws can only be imposed with popular support. Quite unlike Islamic society where violence and killings are not only allowed, but sanctioned, by dictatorial governments.
Concise and illuminating debating technique – as always, we bow to your superior intellect. With folks like you at our government’s service, we’re bound to lick that knotty terrorist problem in the future, no question. Hope you speak Farsi, we could sure use a man like you over there.
As for your audacity and bigotry, we’ll leave that question for your neighbors and co – workers. No doubt they share your expansive and non – judgemental viewpoints.
“The difference here of course, is that Israel, as America, is a free, democratic country…”
Shhh! Don’t tell Fargus – he works for the government. Wonder if they know he’s using his laptop for nefarious reasons.
“If you want to tell me what I really said, then you can shove it.”
This scintillating use of syntax and verbiage suggests that the commenter must be an Ivy – League graduate. Interesting what $50K/year gets you these days.
See, this is the reason why people don’t like to stick around and comment. At least it’s why I don’t, when you’re around. With Mark, I can have a debate without him insulting my intelligence, my patriotism, my commitment to my job, etc. With you, it’s a different story. Clearly. It makes me more sad than angry, because I really do come around here looking not to make people agree with me, but for some intelligent debate that’s NOT needlessly nasty.
Intelligent debate? Are you implying that you tried to make an intelligent point before Dmac (or I — not sure to whom you’re referring) came along?
I always thought you just came around to be a troll and annoy people.
Have a different opinion = Be a troll? Honestly, I come around here because even though I don’t agree with him, I have respect for Mark and the way he usually makes his arguments, in a lot less breathless and inflammatory way than a lot of right-wing bloggers. And judging by the fact that he refers to me in posts as “our good friend Fargus,” I’d say he probably considers me something other than a troll.
I don’t mean to presume, though, so Mark, if I’m wrong, lemme know and I’ll take the leave that your other commenters would evidently love.
Nah, Fargus is not a troll…we get heated sometimes in our discussions, just like with Peter…but I like having some resident lefties around, keeps us honest…you guys play nice now, or I’ll be forced to let my beagle loose on you…
No; have a different opinion and never post anything other than snide remarks = be a troll.
Here is the first post you made on this thread:
“Islam is incredibly intolerant. Happy? Of course it’s intolerant. Of religious diversity, of women, etc.
The reason people here decry the intolerance of Christianity is that it’s what rules the day in the United States. It’s like refusing to admit your house is on fire until you hear somebody admit that there’s another house across town that’s on fire.”
How is that intelligent? How does it foster debate? From where I am, it’s a sarcastic remark intended to start a flame-war.
The reason that many on the left in the United States decry the failings of Christianity over the failings of Islam basically boils down to the biblical aphorism about ignoring the mote in your neighbor’s eye until you’ve dealt with the log in your own. As a religion, Christianity (Catholicism and Protestantism) is the largest influence in the U.S. Much more so than Islam, to be sure. More so than Judaism, more so than Shinto, and more so than Zoroastrianism. So a focus on what I see as the failings of Christianity isn’t here at home isn’t an endorsement of the bad points of Islam so much as it is a desire to address problems that we have here at home before trying to go fixing the motes in the eyes of the rest of the world.
And I stick by what I said. If I say Christianity is intolerant, it’s no counter-argument for you to come in and say “Islam is intolerant.” It’s a calculated attempt at distraction.
Fargus: Well played.
Fargus: Also, I think the difference between them and me (perhaps us?) is that they feel “attacking” someone’s religion using vulgarity/unholy phrases is the same as racism. At the very least, that is what Bill Donahue feels. If that is the case, I completely understand the outrage and their accusations, but I disagree with this notion. It seems Mark cannot fathom that and therefore I am evil and hate religion and am an anti-Catholic bigot. Well, actually, I’m an equal opportunity “bigot” when it comes to trying to insert laws into our legal code based on religious dogma rather than logic. Catholics that use their religion as a reason to vote a certain way receive no respect from me. If they use logic to say WHY specific actions (like abortion) should be illegal I actually respect them even while disagreeing. Are we in a similar boat?
Yessir, we are. To me, faith is a personal thing, and I don’t begrudge a person for having it, but I do begrudge a person for trying to use it to push legislation. Every time I hear lawmakers on the floor opposing gay marriage because it goes against their faith, or even the faith of a large part of the country, it rankles. I’ve never heard an explanation for opposition of gay marriage, for instance, that’s non-religious AND in any way remotely convincing.
Abortion I can respect, when it’s divorced from “God doesn’t like abortion” talk. If somebody truly believes that life begins at conception and that abortion is tantamount to murder, I may not agree with them, and I can respect that position. I can understand why it’s a part of their beliefs that they can’t abandon (because they’d then be abandoning the belief that murder is wrong). That one makes sense when divorced from the religious argument.
Um, Mike, why do you come around here and take shots at me? Seriously…
Because to be honest, it seems as if your life must be unbelievably empty if you fill it with baseless accusations against a guy who is basically not banning you out of the kindness of his heart (that’s not a threat, it’s a genuine question).
If you want to come debate issues, that’s one thing…but I won’t respond to you anymore, starting now (I promise) if you just take potshots at me.
I don’t give a damn one way or another, but it’s childish, and it diminishes you in the eyes of everyone else around here…
Mark: Why is the first response to a comment I make on your thread “Hey, you hate religion! Good on ya, mate – but we figured that out from your 169 other comments saying the same thing… ” after the 5th or 6th post you make on the same subject? You don’t think it’s a two way street? Your poop don’t stink? Come on, man. And why do you continually refuse to talk about merits? I pointed out our difference, challenged you to correct me (by saying “it seems Mark…” rather than the definitive “Mark…”) if wrong and tried to summarize your position. It’s called active listening and I don’t think I’m incorrect in summing up your views of me on this issue, or am I? I don’t know why you would say I hate religion based on my views. I hate when religious people try to legistlate their beliefs due solely to their religion, which is why I’m defending Marcotte on this issue.
All right, then, on the merits. Here’s my attempt to summarize my problems with Marcotte (a moot issue, now, but since that’s the subject at hand): I think you underestimate the hurt religious people feel when their faith is not just disagreed with, but subjected to infantile sexualization of an obscene nature.
Now, if Marcotte as a blogger wants to be hurtful in this way, that’s one thing…but when she becomes the blogger for the Edwards campaign, her past writings become fair game. She is no more exempt from criticism than Karl Rove, though her role is (would have been) far more limited.
Now there’s nothing I’ve said here or elsewhere that equates to a belief that religious views should be the primary concern of legislation. However, it should be pointed out that a religious person doesn’t make decisions in a vacuum, and of course their faith will color their views on many of the issues of the day, including abortion and birth control (to use one example, you can’t argue for intervention in Darfur on moral grounds on the one hand, and decry the right of the Catholic church to have a stance against abortion on the other – both are public policy decisions informed by moral judgements).
But this was never about Marcotte’s arguments or stances on an issue – it was about her intent to denigrate the views of others by holding them up to ridicule in the most intentionally inflammatory manner possible. It’s like shouting fire in a crowded building, then wondering why you got trampled…
To expand on the metaphor…I don’t think the question is whether or not she yelled fire, it’s also whether or not there is indeed a fire. So, as it turns out, I feel it IS a matter of her arguments and stances. If people are hurt by given lingo, they are free to express said hurt, but I don’t feel it should be grounds for dismissal. Go to her personal website and say “I am personally offended because of X,Y,Z. I respect your views regarding the various facets of my religion, but I feel you are wrong”. If the people practicing religion cannot accept her views as her views as opposed to “anti-Catholic bigotry” then that’s unfortunate.
The “denigrat[ion]” and “ridicule” was not even the crux of her post. It was written at the top of post in italics, as one would put at the beginning of a chapter in a book. Have you read the post that you are continually question or just the two sentences you quote? The rest of the post is indeed full of snark and comments which challenge the theology in general as it relates to birth control. Birth control in itself is a vulgar issue to Catholics in general, so it seems like all discussion of said topic is grounds to get someone in trouble, especially when you get to the point where it no longer bothers you to joke about it and do so on your personal website.
But Mike, it’s exactly my point that it DOESN’T matter whether there is a fire or not. You get trampled either way.
There are ways to disagree with a person without humiliating them. Marcotte should have learned a valuable lesson here in framing arguments, but I see from her latest that she would rather join Natalie Maines in playing the martyr (again confusing the right to say something with the consequences of saying it), and pretending the uproar was about her support of birth control and abortion rather than her use of over-the-top obscenities …
Mark: Why are the consequences of her talking justified here? How is it that this is grounds for her losing her job? How is making a point about where the origin of the semen that inseminated Mary grounds for losing one’s job and not only that, why is it NATIONAL NEWS? People disagree all the time. People get offended all the time. It does not cause them to lose their jobs (except sexual/racial/religious discrimination on the job from other employees!) Also, she does not humiliate any person with her quote. No person is singled out. She is not having a discussion with anyone but her normal audience. If she went on a national program and said these things to a Catholics face, it would be a direct personal attack. Why is there no difference here?
Well, as far as not saying it in person, I don’t believe hiding behind the relative anonymity of the Internet is a defense. Nevertheless, Mike, she wasn’t fired, she resigned…
Anyway, with all due respect, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree with this one. Suffice to say bloggers should not be surprised when their quite visible ‘paper’ trail surfaces…
On the larger issue, you don’t find it offensive – fine, that’s just how it is. Obviously, an awful lot of people did. There’s no right or wrong on whether someone is offended or not – it’s like a sense of humor: everyone has one and no two are the same.
It’s somewhat disingenous, though (more than somewhat, actually) that most of Marcotte’s defenders, as well as Marcotte herself, keep trying to spin this as if it were her beliefs that were under attack (ironic, eh?) and not the way she expressed them…99% of her defenders avoided the quote in question, and that’s the only reason I printed it over and over…
…But hey, I’m tired of Marcotte! Onward and upward…