Catholicophobe, Amanda Marcotte, resigns as Edwards’ sweet blogger

February 13, 2007 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Democrats, Election 

Remember how she apologized. Remember how she said she didn’t mean to offend? Remember it was all in jest – satire – parody? Well, being the upstanding young gentlewoman that she is, she’s decided to step aside and allow the Edwards campaign not be tarnished by her speckled past.

She is, however, working on a new campaign!

The number of times she references Donhue, the head of the Catholic League, in her blog could lead one to wonder if she’s really attracted to the guy and has done all of this to garner his attention. Such behavior is common amongst children.

Back to her Catholicophobic blog – How will her readers take her seriously again? It was all a joke, remember? What about this latest campaign – a parody?

Oh sweet, sweet, Amanda. What a pickle you’ve gotten yourself into.

Great video here.

A fun video here!

More background info here.

Prince John (Edwards) Charming comes through for sweet Amanda Marcotte

February 8, 2007 by · 1 Comment
Filed under: Are you kidding me?, Democrats, Election, News, Politics 

What a guy

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.

And Cinderalla herself speaks up:

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.

The sum of genteel Miss Marcotte’s personal writings are a testament alright. And this whole situation is a testament to a disconnection with reality.

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 know—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 precisley 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.

And they lived happily ever after…

More from one of my favorites (Allahpundit).

And another favorite. (Mary Katherine Ham)

And Michelle Malkin

Will Edwards stand by his Amanda? Next on “As the Blog Turns”

February 8, 2007 by · 2 Comments
Filed under: Democrats, Politics 

When we last left the pair, Amanda was taking baths, shaving her armpits & legs, and trying to delete and modify skanky posts at Pandagon all in an attempt to fit in with l’objet de son désir (pardon my French), presidential wannabe, John Edwards.

Though she blogged like she was from the wrong side of the tracks, the handsome candidate with stylish hair and good teeth attempted to save her from her lowly condition. Surely her past would stay in the past.

But alas, the evil conservative bloggers and that misogynist Catholic church would not allow it to be.

The Catholic League, a conservative religious group, is demanding that Mr. Edwards dismiss the two, Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog site and Melissa McEwan, who writes on her blog, Shakespeare’s Sister, for expressing anti-Catholic opinions.

Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, is among the leading Democratic presidential candidates.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said in a statement on Tuesday, “John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots.”

Mr. Edwards’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.

The two women brought to the Edwards campaign long cyber trails in the incendiary language of the blogosphere. Other campaigns are likely to face similar controversies as they try to court voters using the latest techniques of online communication.

Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of contraception forced women “to bear more tithing Catholics.” In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

She has also written sarcastically about the news media coverage of the three Duke lacrosse players accused of sexual assault, saying: “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”

Why is the Catholic League trying to tarnish the reputation of this genteel young woman?

Catholic League president Bill Donohue is demanding that presidential hopeful John Edwards fire two recently hired anti-Catholics who have joined his team: Amanda Marcotte as Blogmaster and Melissa McEwan as the Netroots Coordinator. Here’s why:

“Writing on the Pandagon blogsite, December 26, 2006, Amanda Marcotte wrote that ‘the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.’ On October 9, 2006, she said that ‘the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.’ On the same day she wrote that ‘it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.’ And on June 14, 2006, she offered the following Q&A: ‘What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit,’ to which she replied, ‘You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.’

So unfair!

Who, WHO, WHO will save her? Bryan at HotAir has some answers:

Over at MyDD this incident has been taken with the seriousness of a nuclear attack:

I have a pretty vicious rant and an important action alert lined up, but I am waiting to hear from the Edwards camp about the fate of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan before doing anything.

Two things spring to mind. First, if you think having both a “vicious rant” AND an “important action alert” teed up constitute words that should strike fear into a presidential candidate, you either have a very high opinion of yourself or a very low opinion of the candidate. Or both. Second, it’s hilarious. It just is, as written, hilarious. Unintentionally, of course.

Oh, and there’s her name. McEwan. Got it.

Over at Crooks & Liars, John Amato is promising that a Pandora’s Box has been opened. I suppose a line has also been crossed, a martini has been shaken and an i has been dotted. A cliche has certainly been loosed upon an unsuspecting world. And someone’s taking himself and this whole incident waaaay too seriously.

Way too seriously, Bryan? I think not. Ace of Spades analyzes the seriousness of this and other equally important “Action Alerts.”

And the sweet Miss Marcotte is in the fight for her very blogging life with the Pandagon Papers.

Is there no voice of reason amongst the evil-doers?

First, I agree with Allah:

I don’t like to see anyone fired, no matter how much they deserve it . . .

I share this attitude in general. The feeling, which Allah and I share, is that blogging has gotten too dangerous. This is one reason that I have said repeatedly that I hope Edwards keeps Marcotte. And if he has fired her, I hope he does rehire her.

The other reason I hope Edwards uses Marcotte is that she is an obvious liability to Edwards. Since I don’t like Edwards, why in the world would I want him to lose a liability?

Now, judging from the reaction from the left blogosphere today, lefties generally disagree with me, and think that Marcotte is not a liability. They believe that her rhetoric is not that unusual. A bit profane, perhaps, but not something that should really offend Americans that much.

This view is, of course, utterly insane, as any rational person even vaguely familiar with Marcotte’s writings is well aware. The proof is in the links three paragraphs up, as well as in various places around the blogosphere. It’s not hard to find. If you’re bad at surfing, just go to her site and browse around.

Mr. Edwards – what will you do? The world awaits…until next time on “As the Blog Turns.”

Crucifix conflict – UK School Orders Pupil to Remove Her Crucifix

January 16, 2007 by · Leave a Comment
Filed under: Are you kidding me?, News 

Samantha DevineFor those of you unfamiliar – a crucifix is a cross bearing the corpus or body of Jesus. A cross on the other hand is simply a cross. Not that it’s really important but crucifixes are typically worn by Catholics.

An article in ThisIsLondon.co.uk tells of a 13 year old devout Catholic school girl, Samantha Devine, who was told by school teachers to remove her 1/2 inch crucifx with chain because it posed a “safety hazard.”

I wonder what they meant by “safety hazard.” Is it a safety hazard in the same way publishing “offensive” cartoons is a safety hazard?

Now a school bans 13-year-old from wearing crucifix

A school provoked fury last night by ordering a devout Catholic schoolgirl to remove her cross necklace because it posed a health and safety risk.

Teachers demanded Samantha Devine remove her chain and tiny crucifix despite allowing Muslim and Sikh pupils to wear symbols of their religion.

Her family have vowed to fight the decision “all the way” claiming it discriminates against Christians.

The case mirrors the row which engulfed British Airways and forced the airline into an embarrassing climbdown after it threatened to sack an employee who insisted on wearing her cross at work.

In the latest clash, 13-year-old Samantha was left in tears after her form teacher told her she must remove her tiny half-inch crucifix and chain.

But her furious family yesterday pointed out the school – Robert Napier in Gillingham, Kent – allows Muslim pupils to wear headscarves and Sikh students to come to lessons with turbans and bangles.

Samantha even claims staff routinely fail to crack down on youngsters wearing non-religious jewellery, including large necklaces and earrings.

Her parents are concerned she is being singled out because she is a Christian. The youngster last night vowed to continue wearing her necklace to school – even if it means being expelled.

You can read more here.