Olbermann awarded Donohue "Worst Person" runner-up for defending remarks on Hollywood's "secular Jews who hate Christianity"
On the February 12 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded Catholic League president Bill Donohue the "runner-up" prize in his show's daily "Worst Person in the World" segment for attempting to defend his comments that "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."
As Media Matters for America has noted, while discussing the controversy surrounding two bloggers hired by former Sen. John Edwards' (D-NC) presidential campaign on the February 9 edition of CNBC's Kudlow & Company, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Peter Beinart confronted Donohue for calling the bloggers "anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots" and pointed to Donohue's 2004 statement about Hollywood's "secular Jews." Donohue defended his remarks and attempted to deflect Beinart's criticism, in part, by stating: "I'm not going to put up with it. I'm not the issue here."
In bestowing upon Donohue the "runner-up" prize, Olbermann commented: "Yes, you are ['the issue here'], pal. Vulgar, trash-talking bigotry can transcend race, religion, creed or color."
From the February 12 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
OLBERMANN: Our runner-up, speaking of garbage, William Donohue, the creator of the nicely named but nonetheless notorious Catholic League, on CNBC to repeat his insistence that two bloggers working for Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards were, in his opinion, anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash-talking bigots. Another guest pointed out that three years ago, Mr. Donohue himself had said, quote, "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular." Mr. Donohue responded, "I'm not going to put up with it. It's not the issue here" -- or "I'm not the issue here." Yes, you are, pal. Vulgar, trash-talking bigotry can transcend race, religion, creed, or color.
Media Matters: Limbaugh's Off the Wall spin on Michael Jackson's death
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
Of course there is a double-standard. Whatever fits their agenda... they go with it.
Has the Catholic League ever come out against a conservative issue? The Papacy was against the war (at least John-Paul II was). Any thoughts from Donohue on that subject?
Should the Catholic League be called the Conservative Catholic League?
Yes they should. Scroll down this page and take a look at their Board of Advisors.
Who would have guessed:
Brent Bozell III Gerard Bradley Linda Chavez Robert Destro Dinesh D’Souza Laura Garcia Robert George --not 100% on linkMary Ann Glendon Dolores Grier Alan Keyes Stephen Krason Lawrence KudlowThomas Monaghan Michael Novak Kate O’Beirne Thomas ReevesPatrick Riley Robert RoyalRussell ShawWilliam Simon, Jr. Paul Vitz George Weigel
Of course there is not one notable liberal on this list. I have listed all of the wiki links I could find on these guys. A coulple may be athletes, but by-and-large these are all conservative activists who happen to be Catholic. This shouldn't be called the Catholic League. Maybe the Conservative Catholic League, but to put them on TV as if they represent all Catholics is blatantly dishonest by any measure.
Just as the NAACP should include liberal in their title, you would agree?
I thought about that while I was posting. Maybe the Catholic League shouldn't necessarily change their name, but they should definitely be described as a conservative organization whenever they are on a show. Not to describe their organization that way would simply be dishonest, judging by their monolithically conservative board.
We are reminded at nearly every turn by the media and conservative talk-show hosts that the NAACP is a liberal organization (despite having more conservative members than the Catholic League has liberal members). I am fine with that.
It wasn't very practical of me to expect an organization like the Catholic League to self-label correctly.
Open Mind:
For what the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights is about from their perspective, see:
http://www.catholicleague.org/faqs.htm
As they note:
So while an individual priest or bishop may be a member or support the group, they do not represent the church, any more than the various Pro-Choice groups represent the church.
I think it should be noted that while KO claims he has no agenda and goes after those in power, by criticizing Donohue he is going after someone with very little power, especially compared to employed members of the polical campaign of a former major party VP candidate, current presidential candidate.
Disclosures: I am a practicing Catholic and personally think that Donohue's inclusion of "Jews" in his criticism of secular Hollywood was stupid/bad/dumb/unwise/irritating/wrong... and think an apology is still in order, even 3 years later.
Strange. The current President of the NAACP is a registered Republican. Hmm.... Maybe it is indeed just what it says that it is? An organization to help promote and advance an agenda for a people that have been downtrodden over time? Although, I would say that most black voters in America do vote democrat, or at least that's the stat that I heard at some point in time. So maybe you would be sort of right, so you could make the assertion that indeed, they might be a majority democratic group, but their current leader is a republican.
Mr. Donohue and Mr. Edward's bloggers, wallowing in their own mud, deserve each other. The best we can do is to duck underneath it, for it has no chance to hit the ground. The mud sticks to them both.
Is that true?
Are both bloggers equal. Rusty posted some comments toward Edwards' blogger on the first piece... Freakin' vile. Is this the level of discourse? Not sure (but I don't know) they both deserve equal billing.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, I meant Mr. Donohue himself, I did not mean his bloggers. The writings of Edward's bloggers and Donohue's mouth are equal in their trash spewing antics.
Let us pray that they both redeem themselves by going forth and sinning no more.
Tommy,
If Donohue's mouth is just as bad as Edward's bloggers, then why is this pompous freakshow getting so much TV time?
I think this is what Media Matters is getting at.
Alot of pompous freakshows get TV time.
But apparently NOT Edwards' bloggers, who (as you say) are equally egregious. Why is that, do you think?
Why does Donohue get top billing for his side, but nary a word from the opposition?
Because being a religious bigot is perfectly acceptable in America (as long as you're a Christian), but being an anti-religious bigot is not.
So, put them on TV then or go on yourself, if you're Edwards. You better ask him, I am sure he could get on any talk show he wanted to defend them, don't you think? I think one just quit, but why isn't Edwards on these shows sticking up for them?
Can someone please give me a link to the worst Pandagon stuff? Cause I haven't seen anything so far other than a lot of dirty words that was so "vile."
Attacking Catholics, or Catholic beliefs as beliefs is, and I think should be, bigoted and improper. Attacking social policy that claims to be rooted in those beliefs seems fair game to me. And I like dirty words, used judiciously!
Well... all I've seen was the 'dirty words' stuff... But, all completely misogynistic, predatory nasty. I'm no prude, but... that's all they got? Weak and vile.
Read one of the bloggers comments about the "hot, white, sticky Holy spirit" and tell me that is not vile.
Absolutely.
That is not neccessarily vile Tommy,
We don't know the full context of the quote. Could well be a sincere effort to make the Lord's holy juices flow here on earth. To create a real "Heaven on Earth," would be fine objective, and very religious.
If that is perfectly acceptable to you, there is nothing to discuss.
Tommy,
Are you going to go hide in the closet?
Although I'm sure (please!) CC is joking... Tommy and I are in full agreement.
Let's not forget Greek...
God is with us, and within us. God is not afraid of our secretions. It is one of the great gifts he has bestowed on us.
Ummm... okay.
Again, if there is a handy page anywhere that summarises this all in context, I'd be interested in reading it.
Pandagon is offline right now but still available via Google cache...
If you find the context in which that quote is acceptable, please forward it to us. Thank you.
Again, I agree with Tommy... there is no context in which a anyone should use those words toward another. Period. Pure misogyny.
Read one of the bloggers comments about the "hot, white, sticky Holy spirit" and tell me that is not vile.
It's vile to people who believe in and worship the Holy Spirit, but not to those who don't. To atheists it's probably funny, or could be. That's why I say the Catholic League, who gets in a twist about any perceived slight to their chosen faith lifestyle, is just the Catholic version of CAIR.
So, unless your a Catholic or a Christian this is probably funny stuff? Really? So, if you're not gay, the word fa**ot is funny too, right?
No, that's just name-calling. Calling a gay person fa**ot is not funny. Likewise, calling a Catholic a "fish-eating papist" wouldn't be funny. It's just mean. But joking about the "hot, sticky Holy spirit" is no different than joking about magical underwear or 72 virgins. People choose their faith, they have to deal with ridicule of its ridiculous aspects.
How hair splittling ridiculous. Insults are insults, there is no difference. So the next time Beck or someone else blasts Muslims, you will be right there saying only Muslims should be insulted, nobody else. Bigotry is cool with you as long as it's targeted at some group you don't like.
Beck can make fun of Islam 'til the cows come home for all I care. I'll join right in. But most of the time that isn't what he does - he pimps fear of Muslims.
Your distaste for faith has been displayed, and that's perfectly fine. You're entitled to it. However, decency, respect and tolerance for those with different beliefs normally are a hallmark on the left......so it's rather curious and enlightening when a hard left liberal takes such glee at remarks so hideously insulting and reprehensible when directed at a group who doesn't share your non beliefs.
And what's even more interesting is that you will decide for them whether they should be insulted or not. And to think you were insulted at being called a "Democrat".........
"so it's rather curious and enlightening when a hard left liberal takes such glee at remarks so hideously insulting and reprehensible when directed at a group who doesn't share your non beliefs." --Tommy
Where did Rusty "take[] such glee at the remarks"? Are you reading minds again?
Funny isn't glee?
Okay, I will play along with your ridiculous game.
Where did Rusty say he thought it was funny then?
Please use quotes.
Read the dialogue. Ridiculous? Play your silly semantic games with someone else, I am not interested. I stand by my statements.
An honest person would just fess up or provide the quote. You haven't done either. You are apparently either too dishonest to admit you cannot find or are too lazy to provide such a quote from Rusty to support your statement. Right now, I am thinking the former.
You're right, of course, Open_Mind. I never said I thought Marcotte's statements were funny. In fact, I don't. Tommy took my straightforward statements and wove them into his own twisted fantasy of who I am. His mind-reading powers are not what he thinks they are.
I don't go around making fun of religion to religious people's faces. UNLESS they claim some kind of moral high ground simply because they've chosen to believe something I haven't, or try to force others to live in accordance with their chosen supernatural beliefs. The second situation was what Marcotte was addressing with in her "hot, sticky" post, which confronted the hard-right Catholics on their insistence that just because they believe contraception is unholy, then nobody should have it.
I Think you are correct Tommy...
Bigotry in any form is not right no matter who it is(unless it is towards other bigots I guess..lol). Edward's bloggers as far as I can tell are misogynists, and are just as bigoted as Mr.Donohue.
I don't know if I want to wade into this, but...
1. I don't share Tommy's extreme distaste at these statements, but he is of course entitled to them. I am not going to tell him to "lighten up."
2. I don't get how the "hot sticky..." comment is misogyny, unless it is another that is being referred to. Amanda Marcotte is, to all appearances, a woman...
3. I don't regard the "hot sticky" comment as bigotry per se. I would say it is insensitive to the feelings of earnest Catholics, but not an entirely gratuitous one. She was making an argument about the Catholic Church's attitude on birth control, which she feels is morally wrong and the cause of much suffering.
I am a recovering Catholic, so I have my own take on these views. I don't invalidate the feelings of believing Catholics by any measure, but neither am I a bystander on this issue. I do, however, keep my thoughts to myself, as I don't see any benefit in broadcasting them to people who are a) probably not interested and b) may take offense.
Is there some rampant misunderstanding of misogyny beneath all this agreement with Tommy? Mysogyny is hatred of, or ill-treatment of, WOMEN, typically by male authority, such as the Catholic Church, or by idiots such as Donohue.
All the rotten stuff on the page linked from another thread, IS mysogyny, spewed AT the blogger BY Dohohue's apostles.
Pandagon, however, is BY a woman, FOR women, and supportive OF women. Somewhat to my dismay, I just found myself agreeing with the articles at issue, in their effective condemnation of the Church's "stupid policy" on prevention of pregnancy. and the Church's numerous outright lies in support thereof; to such extent, in the end, that I might have overlooked some really serious basis for Donohue to complain. Or, maybe, the effectiveness of the condemnation alone, could have been sufficient reason for that dog to bark.
Well, if you insist . . .
That comment, in context, is NOT VILE!
Whatever the mechanism (man in God's image in mind) that descriptor of the impregnation of Mary serves as well as any other, given no evidence to refute it.
Thanks for placing this issue in context, especially about Misogyny. Horrible amount of shooting from the hip going on here.
I would just add the woman who wrote the piece had strong resentments toward the policies of the church that infringed on womans rights. It was cutting, sharp tongued criticism and satire, it was not bigotry.
Well, I dont know about vile, I dont have a problem with questioning someones beliefs, such as the virgin birth, I dont like to do it but I dont think it out of bounds. On the other hand to do so in THIS kind of insensative manner is certainly offensive. I mean I think it obvious she was trying to be offensive. She has as much right as Weiner to be offensive but people also have as much right to call her on it as we call Weiner on his. The point here is the hypocrisy. Donahue is one to talk about other people being offensive. He lives in a glass house and throws too many stones
Valentinian:
Dead-nuts ON! Everything I would say, having wasted two hours searching for some basis for Donohue's attack on the bloggers. It just isn't THERE, in my own opinion, and, apparently, yours.
St. John McCain's bloggers have been vetted by Jerry Fallwell.
They're just as pure as snow.
Nice job by Beinart.
At least someone in the mainstream media has taken on this dirtball.
Sadly, Donohue is a kind of religious chicken hawk. When his own words come back to bite him, he runs and hides in the closet.
Check out the web site for the Catholic League if you haven't already...
http://www.catholicleague.org/faqs.htm
Donahue's pic says it all. He is a man touched by God.
Can a Jew be a bigot?
Insightful? No. Inciteful? Yes.
Too smug?
Your point is lame, dude. Very eye-opening. I've got news for you, Muslims, Jews, Catholics...anyone can be a bigot. You blew my mind with your piquant observation. WOW!
I got it. You're smarter than I am. Feel good about that?
You tell me what the point of your initial observation was? You gonna teach us all a lesson about perpetrators or the meaning of 'victim'? Is there an underlyng feeling you have about Jews you'd like to express? Love to hear it.
Touched a nerve?
Not at all. And, even if it did... why would that matter? I am interested to know the meaning of your statement. But, keep on dodging.
Well, I'll give you credit. You're smart enough not to tell us how you really feel.
Can a Jew be a bigot?
So far all we know, according to Bill Donohue, is that Hollywood secular Jews are bigoted. We don't know yet whether secualr Jews in West Palm Beach and New York City are bigoted. I'm also not clear yet on Hassidic Jews in Brooklyn, either. But Bill Donohue, in his tirelessly vigilant way, will keep everyone posted, I am sure...
It's not about Mr. Donohue. Bigger than that.
Exactly! So, let's hear it.
What was the question again...? ;>)
Simple (and obvious) answer... Bigotry can live in the heart of any person, regardless of race, creed or nationality. We are an imperfect species...
With that said, I doubt if you'll find that any particular race has any genetic predisposition towards bigotry greater than any other race. Now if you're talking about some type of institutional bigotry, such as by religions or nations, I'm sure that's occurred throughout history... perhaps even still exists in some places today. As I said, we are an imperfect species. Throughout history man has been guilty of episodes of great inhumanity to his fellow man... and I would suspect that bigotry has sometimes played at least a part in some of that. Hope you're okay with that answer...
Excellent answer. However, I don't think that was his point.
"Excellent answer. However, I don't think that was his point."
I know... I was just showing off. ;>)
Sad to say, there are http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php?PHPSESSID=440d5819c30b77bed4d1324323f6e2e7&board=13.0
These guys long for the days of Jom Crow and apartheid.annd Jews who fought for civil rights were nothing more than self-hating Jews.
Now these guys are messhuganeh! They are more racist than the KKK!
"Can a Jew be a bigot?" - Allegory
No, we Jews are too pure and holy to be bigots (remember we are God's chosen people). Especially since we tend to vote for the Democratic Party.
But really, yes a Jewish person can be a bigot, what is your point?
Can't wait to hear what he has to publicly say about Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney...?
Isn't he the guy with three wives? ;>)
Give them hell Keith!!!!!!!
Where's WeinerRocks to tell us how this is just another example of libs pushing a PC agenda, or how Biden is just as bad?
I love how Allegory just shows up out of no where, to post nonsense and never explain what he was talking about. (unless of course he did and it was flagged and removed before I read it).
Sure hope that Anna's challenge to Donohue's Catholic League tax-exempt status is forceful and successful!
That would make the score a lot better!
reactionary bigots: -1 bloggers -1
Damn! Shakespeare's Sister out, too!
Responses from the Worst Person awardees:
Mark Levin responded in detail on his radio show.
Now Cliff Kincaid reponds on his web site:
http://www.aim.org/aim_column/5234_0_3_0_C/
While those above KO in notoriety tend not to respond, now that KO is attacking those less well known, he is getting some "interesting" feedback!
Cliff who?
Rusty,
Don't tell me you missed an episode of Meltdown? Whew, at least the transcripts are available at msnbc.com:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17131607/
It must be a really good transcript: 5 users gave it a rating average of 4.5. (And, no, I did not give the less than 5 rating).
MoShow, I don't watch the cable news networks if I can help it. I was just wondering who these nobodies that Olbermann was picking on are.
Tommy, do you beleive literally that the birth of Jesus was of a virgin? Did you know that in the 9th decade when the birth story was written that virgin birth stories were legendary? And did you know that in the 17th century when the existence of egg cells were discovered that all virgin birth stories, including the ones about Jesus, were fully discredited? The discovery of the egg cell meant that women could no longer be regarded simply as a passive recepticle for the seed of the male, that women from that moment on had to be recognized as an equal cocreator of life.
The primary assumption of the birth narrative is a hopelessly sexist idea born in a totally patriarchal world that denied woman's contribution to every new life.
Do you think that maybe women may be "offened" by that? Although I do not like the way the blogger phrased it and was deliberately being provocative , it may explain some of the bigotry and prejudice that women feel associated with Christianity and thus the outrage. Maybe you should have tried to see the point, but sometimes it's hard when someone is being provocative in their speech.