NY Times, AP reported Donohue's criticism of Edwards campaign bloggers -- but ignored Donohue's own controversial comments and inconsistent outrage
The New York Times and Associated Press have both reported criticism by Catholic League president Bill Donohue of two bloggers hired by John Edwards' presidential campaign; Donohue contends that the bloggers are "anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash-talking bigots."
But neither the Times article, by reporter John M. Broder, nor the AP article, by writer Nedra Pickler, included any mention of Donohue's own history of vulgar, trash-talking bigotry -- or of Donohue's decision to dismiss anti-Catholic bigotry on the part of a key anti-Kerry operative in 2004.
In 2004, Media Matters first detailed anti-Catholic comments made by Jerome Corsi, who, as co-author of Unfit for Command (Regnery, 2004), was one of the ringleaders of the smear campaign by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) -- a Catholic presidential candidate. Among Corsi's bigoted comments:
- CORSI: "So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the laywers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that's probably about it."
- CORSI: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press."
Corsi also called Islam "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion," and a "cancer that destroys the body it infects" and claimed of Muslims: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together."
Despite the uproar surrounding Corsi's comments, Donohue apparently remained silent at the time, and subsequently dismissed the comments as "quips." A search of the Nexis database yields no examples of Donohue denouncing -- or even commenting on -- Corsi's anti-Catholic remarks.
A search of the Catholic League's website for "Corsi" yields only one result -- a 2006 news release in which Donohue defended Corsi (who is referred to in the release as "Jerry Corsi"). The Catholic League release stated, "Corsi once made anti-Catholic jokes on the Internet, and later apologized for doing so," and quoted Donohue describing Corsi as "someone who once made anti-Catholic quips for which he has long apologized."
Neither the Times nor the AP reported Donohue's selective history of criticizing political actors for anti-Catholic comments.
Nor did the Times or the AP report Donohue's defense of actor Mel Gibson's anti-Semitic comments. Donohue said of Gibson, "There's a lot of people who have made comments which are bigoted who are not necessarily bigots," adding that he is "concerned now about piling on." Of those who won't forgive Gibson, Donohue said: "Who gives a damn about those people?" Donohue then asked, "What kind of blood do they want out of this man?
Nor did the Times or the AP report that Donohue has his own history of comments that could easily be described as "vulgar" and "trash-talking" examples of bigotry, which Media Matters form America has repeatedly documented:
- "People don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 2/9/06]
- "Name for me a book publishing company in this country, particularly in New York, which would allow you to publish a book which would tell the truth about the gay death style." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 2/27/04]
- "The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 4/11/05]
- Addressing former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) in a press release, Donohue said: "[W]hy didn't you just smack the clergyman in the face? After all, most 15-year-old teenage boys wouldn't allow themselves to be molested. So why did you?" [10/4/06]
- "I'm saying if a Catholic votes for Kerry because they support him on abortion rights, that is to cooperate in evil." [MSNBC's Hardball, 10/21/04]
- "We've already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ... Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 12/8/04]
- "Well, look, there are people in Hollywood, not all of them, but there are some people who are nothing more than harlots. They will do anything for the buck. They wouldn't care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so, and they would do it with a smile on their face." [MSNBC's Scarborough Country, 2/9/06]
A February 2 article in Women's Wear Daily described Donohue's efforts to "manufacture controversy" -- and, unlike the Times and AP articles, noted that other Catholics disapprove of his antics:
It's this ability to manufacture controversy that has brought a moribund advocacy group firmly into the black and turned Donohue into catnip for the press. For talk show bookers and reporters on deadline, he's a never-ending sideshow who comes ever ready to hurl expressions of indignation and opprobrium at anyone who might have offended him. As prejudice against individual Catholics has receded, Donohue has simply turned up the volume, taking aim at everyone who questions the church's official positions on homosexuality, abortion and birth control, lapsed Catholics included.
[...]
But the same thing that keeps Donohue in the press prevents him from becoming truly respectable within the religious community, where his antics are a source of frequent consternation.
Mark Silk, director of the Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College said, "He's a thug. He reverts to bullying because he thinks that's what the job entails."
Rev. Mark Massa, a Jesuit priest and co-director of the Curran Center for American Catholic Studies at Fordham University, accused Donohue of being unable to differentiate between healthy debate and real religious bigotry. "Not everyone who criticizes the church is anti-Catholic," he said.
The editors at the Catholic weekly magazine America seem to agree. In 2000, they chastised Donohue for denouncing movies he hadn't even watched. "While being first may increase one's chances of attracting media attention, there is a danger that the Catholic League reinforces the stereotype that the Catholic Church is at best unreflective and at worst unfairly biased and paranoid," wrote Rev. James Martin. "In the long run, this may do more harm to the church's reputation than a short-lived movie or play."
Donohue's criticism of the Edwards' campaign bloggers concluded with a demand that they be fired: "John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots. He has no choice but to fire them immediately."
The Times and the AP both noted Donohue's call for the bloggers to be fired for what he described as their bigotry. But neither noted that Donohue's Catholic League lists Dinesh D'Souza on its Board of Advisors. D'Souza's own history of inflammatory rhetoric and actions -- and Donohue's willingness to associate himself with D'Souza -- would seem to be relevant to an article about Donohue denouncing trash-talking bigotry. As Media Matters has explained:
As an undergraduate in the early 1980s at Dartmouth College, D'Souza gained national notoriety as co-founder and editor of the conservative newspaper The Dartmouth Review. During D'Souza's tenure as editor of the Review, according to a September 22, 1995, article in The Washington Post, "[T]he off-campus newspaper [The Dartmouth Review] published an interview with a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan, using a mock photograph of a black man hanging from a campus tree, and 'outed' at least two gay students."
D'Souza has recently gained attention for his new book, The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 (Doubleday, January 2007), in which he asserts that "without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened" and seems to suggest appeasing terrorists. The New York Times wrote of The Enemy at Home:
His new book, ''The Enemy at Home,'' is filled with willfully incendiary -- and preposterous -- assertions that ''the cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11''; that the left is ''secretly allied'' with the movement that Osama bin Laden and Islamic radicals represent ''to undermine the Bush administration and American foreign policy''; and that ''the left wants America to be a shining beacon of global depravity, a kind of Gomorrah on a Hill.''
[...]
In this shrill, slipshod book, Mr. D'Souza often sounds as if he has a lot in common with those radical Middle Eastern mullahs who are eager to subject daily life to religious strictures and want to curtail individuals' freedoms and civil liberties.
It's an interpretation he does not deny: ''Yes,'' he writes, ''I would rather go to a baseball game or have a drink with Michael Moore than with the grand mufti of Egypt. But when it comes to core beliefs, I'd have to confess that I'm closer to the dignified fellow in the long robe and prayer beads than to the slovenly fellow with the baseball cap.''
Donahue is a card-carrying Christofascist. For those conservatives who don't understand why liberals fear the Religious Right, just listen to the crap this guy spews on a regular basis.
Do you people have any idea of the unadulterated hate spewed from Amanda Marcotte, whom Edwards hired? (To his credit, the vile was so putrid, Edwards saw his error in hiring such a hateful woman and fired her. But the fact that Edwards would hire such a woman in the first place says a lot about his character.)
Read THIS. Marcotte's words are vile bigotry, plain and simple.
- shoes89
You said.......
"(To his credit, the vile was so putrid, Edwards saw his error in hiring such a hateful woman and fired her. But the fact that Edwards would hire such a woman in the first place says a lot about his character.)"
You question Edwards character because he hired a hateful and useless woman for his team, even though he fired her........hmmmph
What does that say to all those so-called "compassionate conservatives" that claim to be decent, god-fearing, and for equallity that hire these same type of people that do this for hateful crap for a living and yet THEY don't fire them?
While one could make the case for Edwards momentary lack of judgement......at least he FIXED the problem!
Name even one Republican that did that without being forced into it? And then tell me that same bigot wasn't hired by some other Republican?
LOL! You apparently have never heard the kind of bigotry and filth that William Donahue spews! This vile, little Elmer Fudd like man makes Archie Bunker look like Noam Chansky!
Please educate yourself before you post in the future. Thanks.
Talk about a double standard. Donohue criticizes those he disagrees with politically, but gives a pass to those on his side of the political fence. What would Jesus do?
Jesus would tell him to sin no more
Good answer
And then Donohue would tell him to get a shave and a haircut because he looks like one of those secular Hollywood Jews who likes anal sex...
Jesus would say, "I never knew you. Depart from me."
Take out "anti-Catholic" and this clown has described himself to a T.
This guy uses the Catholic Church as a shield. The grey lady NYT (and the media in general) pussyfoots around the Catholics (is there any major leader that gets more passes than the pope?) because of their so-called "piety" being "full of grace" (its full of something). So Donahue, by putting the Catholic tag by his opinions, disparages not only himself but further weakens the integrity of the Catholic Church. They should kick him out the door, but they won't.
How is it that Women's Wear Daily can do a better job of putting Donohue's comments in context than the New York Times or AP?
Must be all of those anti-Catholic bigoted European Socialists they have on their editorial board.
I'm curious.
What sentiment is missing from Donohue's comments that context will illuminate?
Mudslinging by BOTH sides.
On a scale from 1-10 I give this latest mud fight's importance a big whoop-de-doo. [hint minus10]
I wonder what God thinks about THIS war of words all in the name of religion.
Is he crying or laughing?
Exactly. Campaign bloggers a year before any primary vote cast, an nearly two before the election? Minus 10 is an apt description.
Nah, screw that, both of you. This is the same kind of smear gang tactics the republicans pulled in 2000 and 2004. If the dems leaned anything from the last two campaigns let it be that it is never too early or harsh to smack back these thugs.
This isn't about he said, she said. This isn't about curse words on the internet. At best this is about controlling the debate, it's about silencing the debate at worst.
Sorry fellas, you have my respect. But I don't see this kind of thing as silly or irrelevant.
So apparently Women's Wear Daily provides more responsible editorial supervision regarding who, what, and how ranting is reported than the Times. The savior of the failing Times in 1896, Adolph Ochs, who began his career here in Knoxville TN, who created the motto still on the masthead "all the news that's fit to print," would be ashamed.
Kudos to Media Matters for being on top of this. If the Times and AP plan on not doing any actual reporting, research and context during the upcoming campaigns, then now -not a year from now- is the time to bring it to light. Same is true of the Obama/Osama, Halfrican, etc. garbage. Right-wing garbage has to be stopped now, and nipped in the bud.
This MM post is nothing but a cheap personal attack on Donahue.
Let's turn the tables. How would MM feel if every time that Randi Rhodes, Keith Olbermann, Cindy Sheehan, or Maxine Waters had something to say about something, the NY Times and AP revisted their controversial remarks? That wouldn't be very fair, would it? And I'm sure MM would complain.
Also, MM is trying to deflect the fact that Edwards has hired a pair of anti-Catholics. Donahue has shown evidence of this (here).
Also, the slap at Jerome Corsi by MM is just a cheap personal attack as well. Corsi has nothong to do with this issue. In addition, MM falsely claims that Donahue "defended" Corsi. This is flat-out false. Donahue has a history of acknowledging and accepting sincere apologies from those who are sorry for having committed anti-Catholic smears. (Opie and Anthony is another example, because I knew you'd ask.)
There's more, but enough for now ...
Thank you.
Earth to Shoes...
Jerome Corsi was a prime mover in the "Swift Boat Liars for Bush." That's a fact, not "a cheap personal attack."
I don't know why there seems to be a certain segment of Publicans who seem totally unable to separate fact from fiction? I guess they live in a sort of willful ignorance.
So then accuratly quoting the bigotted, ignorant spewings of Donahue is a cheap personal attack? I am sure the rightwing WISHES that were true, as they spew such trash regularly and dont want to be held accountable for it. It isnt about what was done but the hypocrisy of Donahue to EXCUSE Corsi for saying the same kinds of things he is attacking the bloggers for. For THAT reason Corsi DID have something to do with this thread.
shoes shoots and misses again.
keep walkin' kiddo
Note that the hostility here is all yours, Tommy. I didn't even address you to begin with. Have fun punching if it turns you on.
Hmmm? I'd have to think about which cast member of that show turned me on? Barney?, No. Thelma Lou?, No. Gomer, No? I'll get back to you.
You've shown it again: much unprovoked hositility, little substance.
"hositility" s/b hostility
Some thoughts about Catholicism...
Putting aside Corsi's truly offensive comments for a moment, let me say that I recognize Bill Donohue's brand of hard-nosed Catholicism quite well. Where I was raised and where I still live is predominantly Catholic. Our circle of friends, neighbors and co-workers are mostly Catholic. Call me a lapsed-Catholic...
When Evangelicals have attempted to prothletize me what I come away with is that they want to share with me how wonderful it is to accept Jesus... and, generally speaking, they know the words of the Bible inside and out. Catholics are different... for one thing, they don't prothletize like Evagelicals and their knowledge of the Bible is generally not as good. But they are imbued with an almost arrogant certitude about the superiority of the institution of the Catholic Church. They don't want to convert you, they generally just want to tell you how wrong everyone else is. They are judgmental in a different way that Evangelicals are... Evangelicals will tell you something is wrong because the Bible says so... Catholics fall back on the official position of the Catholic Church. With Catholics, it's all about "authority"... and that's a basic principle that was started when the Catholic Church was first established... "to get to heaven you have to go through us, and obey the Church hierarchy..."
As a result, at least in my observation and opinion, the Catholic Church has many "warriors" whose purpose is to defend the Church... not to defend Jesus or his teachings, not to defend the Bible, but to defend the Cathilic Church and its hierarchy. I've seen local priests, bishops and other ranking Catholic Church members who are more like politicians than holy people. That's where I think Bil Donohue fits. His job is to vigorously and aggressively defend the Catholic Church regardless whether in doing so his comments are inconsitent are even hypocritical... just like a politician's hard-nosed spin meister.
I feel the same way about the Catholic Church, but I refer to myself as a recovering Catholic
‘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.’
Nice. No doubt, the fact that this guy is a knob makes it all just fine that one of the bloggers said the above. I realize that repeated acts of knobbery, if you will, lessen his credibility, but this seems like an attempt to avoid the story.
Wonder why the left has lost control of the once-certain Catholic vote?
Avoid the story? What is the story?
The republican smear gangs are out here on the people's wire intimidating the Edward's campaign for words written by two women before they were employed by Edwards.
You might have a point if Donahue actually gave a crap about civility.
This episode has nothing to do with decency and all to do with the republicans maneuvering to pervert the debate before it starts. Why? Because they know they lose to Edwards on taxes, healthcare, education, labor and foreign policy. These republican lie merchants know they must attempt to control the debate with intimidation and false premises, otherwise they get routed.
That's the story, Jack.
So let me get this straight.
You have previously discussed Evil Person 1 and do not like him.
A is a legitimate news story, harmful to a candidate aligned with your side.
Evil Person 1 tells you A.
Now A is irrelevant to you, and you must rehash everything you've ever said about Evil Person 1 again?
Your bantering and refusal to pay attention to the truth is about as willfully ignorant as the right's. Just because this guy hand-selects his battles doesn't change the fact that the bloggers wrote what they did, and that Edwards either didn't read their work before hiring them, or hired them without regard to (or in part because of) it. This site understandably picks and chooses their battles, should I not pay attention to anything said here because of that fact?
Let me help you get it strait. Evil person 1 says overtly offensive things in the media. Evil person 2 (a dem) also says offensive things on a blogsite. A third periferal evil person (a conservative) says offensive things on a blogsite of comparable offensive things on the same subject. Evil person 1 despite his own history of offensiveness and despite excusing and making appologies for the conservative periferal evil person is then given media access to attack, hypocritically Evil person 2. I am certainly not excusing EP2 that was somre pretty offensive stuff she wrote but this site is about Conservative media bias. The different way the conservative offensiveness was handled ( Did prominent religious people come out of the woodwork in prominent media to savage Corsi or Donahue himself?) is the point. Sure MMFA took Donahue to task but the question is always about the medias handling not the offense itself. If your point is that we are giving Marcotte a pass I certainly am not but THIS venue is about the biased media handling not the offensiveness of all parties involved which I agree about
Understood that this site is focused on a perceived media bias, but it just seems that it is all a rehashing. In scanning the archives, I've seen this guy beat up plenty in the past - likely beatings he's earned. Fair enough. If he's done wrong he's done wrong, but my point is that he's likely done little wrong in this instance.
It's as silly as a right-wing loonie discrediting everything that "compulsive liar" Clinton ever says, or that "Jew-hater" Carter ever says. We cannot require a schedule of every personality's sins before letting them speak on television -- that would be a pretty burdensome task.
As an unrelated aside, I generally lurk here and just read what y'all say. I get this feeling that with all the paranoia and perceived persecution that both sides feel they suffer at the hands of the media, the MSM (Fox notwithstanding) must be doing a pretty decent job.
Ignoring the truth?
Marcotte has an offensive potty mouth. That is the truth, however she has the same free speech rights as Malkin, Savage et al to speak her mind. Edwards has the same right as Bush and now Lord McCain to hire divisive polemicists too. So, spare us all the mock indignation.
Had conservatives condemned early on the underhanded tactics of Karl Rove, I might have a modicum of acceptance for their current gripe. But they didn't and I don't. It seems to be just fine for republicans to smear their opponents with feces, but GOD forbid if a dem plays hard.
It is incandescently clear that the intentions of these thug republican operatives is to make Edwards appear weak by backing him down. I know this by example of their hypocritical deeds, I know this by dint of their hypocritical words. This is a bully tactic and frankly it's because these cons are piss their pants horrified of a 2008 Blue Tide.
That's the truth, Ruth.
Nobody called into question her right to say whatever she wants, nor Edwards' right to hire her. I only question his judgement in doing so. Conceding that Donohue is either on the right, a blowhard, or both is immaterial.
Catholics in general are not right-leaning. Historically they are left-leaning, and recently they have been aligned closely to the general population. If Edwards supports the imagery of the Holy Spirit laying the wood to Mary, and pumping her full of love juice, then more power to him, but I suspect I know which way the Catholic vote would end up going.
No worries really, I can't imagine that in the end Edwards will be your man. Which America did he build that estate in? I don't begrudge him his estate, just see a little disconnect between his rhetoric and his actions there.
They most certainly did call into question her right to speak freely as they called for her to be fired.
Now don't confuse the issue here. In no way is her language decent nor does it have a place in national political discussion. But it's not as if these cons in the national political discussion give two hoots about decorum. No amount of grousing about what Marcotte or McEwan wrote can legitimize the position of the rightwing blogosmear or Donahue. It's pure thuggery and dems should not acquiesce.
Catholics probably would rightfully spurn Edwards for keeping her/them in his employ, does that mean he should run away from his decision? No. He should stay on the offensive call a punk a punk, offer authentic apologies to the Catholic church and get on with his message.
Lastly, Edwards built his estate from the foundation of a working class family. The difference between he and your average conservative is that he is not so vain to delude himself that he got where he is without help or the resources of the commons. He realizes no man is an island, that those who benefit most from our great society are morally obligated to reinvest a greater share.
Thank you for your concern.
I don't think anyone is simultaneously owed employment (least of all by a politician), and the right to say absolutely anything they want. Her loss of employment is a result of her exercising her first amendment right, but it is not an infringment of that right.
I don't think I would dare suggest that either side really gives a hoot about decorum.
I am close to advising the same course of action as you would. I think I would do all of the same stuff except calling "a punk a punk." I would not bother mentioning Donohue or the organization he represents. To acknowledge his displeasure with Donohue in the midst of an apology only weakens the apology.
Listen, I am a Catholic, but I do not vote, so Edwards doesn't need to impress me. But if he did, I would settle for him cutting the two loose. I don't need an apology.
We all know where his money came from. I have little problem with lawyers, and even less with the idea of personal wealth. Where was that moral obligation when he used a subchapter S corp to avoid Medicare taxes? Never mind that I think it was a good move, just don't try to confuse him with a saint, he's like the rest of us -- they all are.
You make a good point about calling a punk a punk as it would weaken an apology. So, maybe he should just call a punk a punk since he really owes nobody an apology. He could further question the Catholic League's 501C status since Donahue pretty clearly intervened in a political campaign. That may backfire if Catholics at large approve of Donahue.
Congrats to the serpentine hypocrites. Edwards has already fired the two bloggers, yet another reason that precludes an apology. Although, if he hasn't already he probably will apologize. For what I'm not sure.
I would say that at least one side, generally, does care about decorum since the left usually gets the s#!t end of the stick by trying to ignore these bastards. That may not hold true for our entire political history, but it does hold true in context of the last dozen years.
As for Edwards the candidate, he is turning out to be another war pimp. An Imperialist. He's no saint in my book I just agree with his economic populism.
My main beef with all of this is the willingness of current day republicans to subordinate their sense of honest debate to intimidation tactics; all in the name of control.
Thanks for your time.
Update: Edwards did not fire the bloggers.
Thanks Rusty and good for him. Now, I hope he mops the deck with Donahue's @$$.
I wonder how long he had to wash his hands everytime he touched Kerry.
I'm not so sure focusing on the tax status of a group is a good way for him to spend his time. Donohue's presence or not, I cannot imagine it would go over that well. Anyhow, we already know how you feel about intimidation.
FWIW, the two bloggers have not been fired, and Edwards did apologize (as did the bloggers). One of them even defended herself by essentially saying "I'm not anti-Catholic, I voted for Kerry and went to a Catholic college!" Sounds like the kinda guy who drops n-bombs, k-bombs and the like and then says "I have lots of black and Jew friends!" Listen, if you're anti-Catholic, that's fine. Have the balls to stand by it then though, and accept the consequences. If you're not, then discussing the delivery of hot, sticky substances into Mary's body is not something you would find worth doing.
Whatever. I've said my piece on the matter.
Focusing on the Catholic League's tax status is not intimidation unless one considers holding law breakers accountable a form of intimidation. Donahue may have broken the law. Marcotte wrote some foul passages, she did not break any laws.
Also, I don't know where you read their apologies, but the statements I read sounded nothing like the characterization you have presented. Marcotte's apology was very Limbaughesque in her insistence that she is mostly a satirist. And that is lame. Neither one of them approached the, "Some of my best friends are..." type of comment that you suggest. Could you provide a source for the comments you paraphrased?
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/08/D8N5LN581.html
"I'm not going to say a lot about this right now, but suffice it to say that the fact I cast a vote, without hesitation, for a Catholic during the last presidential election might suggest I'm not anti- Catholic," her post read. "My degree from Loyola University might also suggest the same."
Personally my problem is more with the words of Marcotte than McEwan (who is quoted above) anyhow.
Thank you, Sebafan. Man I love the internet!
No doubt. Anyhow. I've said enough on the subject, and traded off enough productivity at home and at work over this.
My bottom lines:
1 - It takes a lot for me to call something offensive. What Marcotte wrote is definitely offensive to me. I thought she should get canned. Whether it was on a personal blog or not, what you write "out there" is tied to you forever, or at least as long as Google has it in its cache.
2 - Donohue may well be a blowhard and an idiot. I'm not all that familiar with him -- if so f' him, but I'm not sure it is all that relevant in regard to this article.
I'm in agreement with you in many aspects of this episode. Marcotte wrote offenses that are indeed hateful, she should be let go. I think she proved herself to be as hateful as M. Savage and as plastic as Limbaugh.
On the face of it this would appear that the lefties are attacking the messenger in order to subvert the message. It is being cast as a lack of self awareness, hypocricy, crude brinksmanship etc. I've spent the morning touring the rightwing sites, no doubt, that is the narrative. However, none of this considers the mountains of frustration caused by the swift boaters and the likes of Ann Coulter. Frustrations that we libs are working to overcome. This Donahue guy has adopted the same smear tactics we have seen in the past. Yeah, he has a point. He is still a thug. Initial reactions to this story were, in part, influenced by frustration. That doesn't make invalid the overarching principle that resisting coercion is proper. That's all I have to say about that.
So, here's to the old axiom that discretion is the better part of valor.
Because Edwards is rich, he is unfit to notice that there are "two Americas" economically, and seek to change that situation? That doesn't make sense.
Religion and the Republican Party are such cozy bedfellows because both are founded on the principle of belief in the improvable and unobservable. God? Trickle Down Economics? What's the diff?
Great insight as always Irony.
I too am a "lapsed Catholic" and I remember thinking as a kid that Protestants were lesser Christians. Though that was never actually spoken out loud by a Priest, Nun, or our CCD instructors, it was inferred. Even as a kid I wondered--if we all pray to the same God, and believe the same things, why are we [Catholics] so much better???
Sort of off topic...When I found out that my Protestant friends didn't have to "go to confession" it was a shocker. Here we had to go through a priest, and all they had to do was silently confess their sins DIRECTLY to God during church services. Communion was another surprising jolt. Seems they had grape juice & REAL bread passed out to them right there in the pews. No trip to the alter and wafers that stuck to the roof of your mouth nearly choking you :-/
Not me. I'm not a lapsed Catholic.
I just stopped practicing. After twelve years of being beaten by every form of Catholic clergy, I figured I had practiced enough and finally gotten it right.
All kidding aside, one thing I will always be grateful for was that I was taught to think, not to believe. Critical thinking was a big part of my education.
This Donahue guy is pretty creepy and filled with hate. If they taught that in Catholic school, I must have missed those days. Just like Donahue missed the critical thinking lessons.
Critical thinking was a big part of my education.
Did that happen to be a Jesuit education?
I'm still a Catholic. Of course, I don't believe defining what that means is the sole purview of the Pope or the clergy, despite 2000 years of their efforts to do so. My perspective is grounded in Catholic's Greek root, which essentially means universal.
The closest analogy I can think of is the effort by Bush supporters to define what it means to be an American, or at least a patriotic one. Even if their guy is in the White House, doesn't mean they get to establish the rules of membership.
I'm Jewish..my wife had 9 years of a Catholic education. She went to Mass after we met for a while out of habit. She won an award from the CL in junior high school. Now she;s more or less an agnostic like me. Wonder what Donohue would call her (He'd better be careful..she is a black belt..and that ain't red polish on her toenails..it's blood ;) )
She went to Mass after we met for a while out of habit.
That's understandable. People might gossip at the sight of a nun dating. ;)
"Though that was never actually spoken out loud by a Priest, Nun, or our CCD instructors, it was inferred."
I think I can top that. In the Mormon church I was raised in, people were expected to give "testimony", declaring that they believed that the LDS church was the one true church. In other words, every other faith is full of it, according to the "testimony".
When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child." (I Corinthians 13.11).
I've seen it many times that people who have fallen away from Catholicism still look at the church through the prism of their childhood.
Obviously there were many things we didn't understand as children going to Catholic schools. Many of the things we were taught about our religion were colored to help control us. :-)
Having gone through a falling away and then coming back and seeing the philosophy and theology behind the Church's teachings. It may not work for all, but I have found great wisdom and truth in the Catholic message.
Another American...
I'm glad you found something good. I'm a lapsed Catholic, and I just have a problem when the top guy--The Pope--still holds to the position that birth control is a sin, and refuses to deal in any realistic way with abortion.
I can't have any respect for this.
Hey thanks.
Not to argue but even if you disagree with the Pope and the teaching of Church, why can you not respect that point of view?
Because the Pope and the Church are not merely content to disagree, but are actively intolerant of pro-contraception, pro-choice views. It's not as though the Church has a live-and-let-live approach to these things. If it did, your plea for respect might have more resonance.
You seem to forget that the Church sees itself as a moral guide. Part of it's job is to take the issues of the day and iterpret it through the teachings of Jesus and the writings of the Catholic's down through the ages.
The Church, via the Pope, speaks out on all sorts of moral issues.
If one believes, as does the Pope and Church, that life begins at conception and that all life is sacred, then you'd want the Church to give moral direction to it's followers. The Church sees abortion as a "grave moral disorder" and the killing of innocent human beings. You may not agree, but that doesn't mean the Church needs to stay mum on the issue.
I've only touched on the Church's teachings and I'm not trying to make myself to be an expert. It just seems to me that you are arguing it is okay to disrespect the Church simply because you disagree with it's defense of innocent human life from being killed in the womb. I would think liberals would also take that stand. It is amazing to me that they don't.
No, I'm saying that it's okay to disagree with the Church, and the Pope and the Church disagree with that. Disagreement is not disrespect, as much as they (and you) would like to conflate them. Because of their self-proclaimed role as arbiter of moral values, they barely pretend to respect other viewpoints or theologies or belief systems. As ever, you're simply appropriating the language of tolerance to argue for "respect" for highly rigid and intolerant views.
I think you are mistaken. The Catholic Church the last 40 years has made a determined effort promote respect for other religions even though it disagrees with them.
Actually, I think you and arglebargle make excellent points. The Catholic Church has made an honorable effort IMO to be conciliatory and accepting and respecting other religions. I also believe that the Catholic Church has worked to disingenuously frame any disagreement within the Church as a form of disrespect to the Church itself.
"You seem to forget that the Church sees itself as a moral guide."
More than that, I'm afraid... The Church is the final word in its eyes. Ask an Evangelical why homosexuality is sinful and he'll start quoting scripture (maybe more than you'd care to listen to). Ask a Catholic the same question and the likely answer you'll hear is "Because that's what the Church teaches." Ask a Catholic why contraception is sinful... "Because that's what the Church teaches."
The point I was attempting to make was that the Church is a powerful institution that insists on rigid obedience to its authority... and promotes the notion that the only way to heaven is rigid obedience to what it says.There are elements of the Church whose primary purpose appears, at least to me, to be to maintain the Catholic Church as a powerful institution. And in that respect, I would put Bill Donohue in that category... more of a hard-nosed political spokesperson rather than anyone I would listen to about morality and such.
You are correct that the Church does see its teachings, through interpretation of the scripture and tradition as the final arbiter of morality. But that is not a bad thing, but rather a good thing.
Many Catholics do read the scriptures for deeper understanding of the Church's teachings and the offical encyclicals by the Popes include the references to the scriptures. However many are content in trusting in the teachings to accept them without investigation.
The flip side of the coin is that there are, I think, over 2,000 Protestant denominations in the U.S. Each one has a different take on how to interpret the scriptures. You see some Protestants denominations think abortion is okay. Some don't. Protestantism leads to many to wonder how each can be following Christ to have such differening views. It is confusing to be sure.
The Catholic Church lays it all out. They have something called the Magesterium that studies the scriptures, the previous writings of Popes and Saints, and provides something like a Supreme Court, where issues are settled. Every once in a while there are synods and ecumenical councils where all the bishops come together to help reflect, pray, and interpret Christ's teachings.
Protestants in all their infinite variety also have synods, councils, and theological debates. The Catholic Church isn't the only steady or worthwhile voice in an otherwise anarchic denominational sea, and its relative unanimity doesn't give its conclusions any stronger truth-value.
Your losing me now Another American...
I don't believe the Pope's stand on abortion has anything at all to do with the teachings of Jesus.
And, I believe the Pope's stand on contraception is completely against the teachings of Jesus. In this regard, I believe he Pope is a source of great evil the world.
I have to give the Catholic Church credit in this area. They are against abortion, the death penalty, and unjust wars and they say so. I may not always agree with them but I dont deny their consistancy at least LATELY
Another American...
I didn't say that too well......I respect "your" point of view, whatever your position on contraception or abortion might be.
However, the Pope is a man in a powerful position, and in my opinion, he does not play fair on these issues. And what's worse, he is guilty of attempting to sway elections toward his preferred "Republican" candidates. The Pope may bear significant responsibility for the mess our country finds itself in today. So, in conclusion, I would say: I have respect for you, but not the Pope.
"...people who have fallen away from Catholicism still look at the church through the prism of their childhood."
Perhaps if your emotional development stopped as a child you might still view the Catholic Church through the "prism" of your childhood. As an adult I actually made the effort to study the Catholic Church historically and with a more intellectual approach. I know a great deal more about the Church than as I did as a child and as an adult I am able to look at what I've learned with a maturity that I did not possess as a child. I've come away with a greater appreciation for the teachings of Jesus, but to view the Catholic Church more as the man-made institution it is. On the other hand, as much as religion has throughout history been the source of continuous conflict and war, I still respect that aspect of any value system that encourages people to do the right thing.
I'm not saying everyone has to reach the same conclusions I did. Each of us has to make our own path. I respect yours.
Some day I would like to hear your views regarding religion as the source of much war and conflict as opposed to other factors.
As an atheist, I respect the teachings of the man Jesus Christ WAY more than the edicts of any religion.
To quote an obscure rock star: "Jesus was way cool."
And another rock star (of a different sort): "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ."
It's a fact. We all come up short by comparison. :-)
Irony- yep Donahue is NOT defending any Catholic religious teachings, not anything I recognize form Jesus teachings in the New Testament.
He's a fool. But a dangerous fool, and so are the nuts who put him on their "news" shows or quote him in "news" articles looking for ratings spikes cheap shots, or both.
Basically he's a maladjusted megalomaniac who perverts doctrine for his own power and control issues.
We see this all over the world with every major religion. It's perverse in it's most benign form and terrorizing when taken to the extreme.
The comments he's made and documented and sources by MMA speak for themselves.
Posters here need to let these main stream media outlets know we don't want nut cases like Donahue to be given a public forum.
the Catholic Church has many "warriors" whose purpose is to defend the Church
Mormonism and Scientology are the same way.
Corsi's an idiot, but... that's the best you could come up with to counter Marcotte's own idiocy?
Pathetic.
They are not trying to counteract Marcottes idiocy. They are pointing out Donahues hypocrisy. He excuses Corsi and attacks the bloggers. Think that MIGHT be a double standard?
This man Donahue is an absolute disgrace to the Catholic faith.
No wonder so many Catholics run for the hills when they see him coming.
Just what the Catholics need. This hellish, raving, freakshow to be their spokesman.
This guy is the CAIR of Catholicism.
I noticed MMFA is not printing what Marcotte happens to say. She's a nut and offensive as one can get. (I wonder if she's a regular here?)
Here's an example from Sept 4th, 2005 pandagon.net
Marcotte:
I’m not an idiot. I’m a tw*t. Get it straight.
I’m a hot, moist, inviting tw*t. Warm, wet, inviting. But not to you or your friends. Even if I were single, these nubile thighs do not wrap around the hips of Republicans. You can f*** yourselves or the dry tw*ts of the self-hating misogynists who will allow you tiny p**** to penetrate them. Have fun! Um, the wounds you get from rubbing you un-lubricated d*** repeatedly into your heartless, soulless woman–iodine is your best friend, my be-scarred friend.
What's wrong with that?
Are you afraid of a few dirty words?
Are you purposely trying to drag the discussion down or can't you help it?
(No doubt there will be another childish retort.)
I don't see what she wrots as "offensive as one can get." I find war "offensive." I find hate "offensive." I find racism "offensive." I find no offense in dirty talk.
Of course you are free to disagree. But I find the spirit behind these comments to be entirely different than "Hollywood likes anal sex."
Regarding the Dinesh D'Souza quote that Michael Moore is sloppy and slovenly. By this D'Souza displays a common tendency of the easily frightened GOP base to kiss up to institutional authority figures. He confuses appearances with reality. While Moore presents a sloppy appearance, it doesn't necessarily follow that he is slovenly. Quite the contrary in Moore's case. Likewise it doesn't necessarily follow that the Muslim clerics (or any other kind) have dignity because of their "long robes and prayer beads".
And they do it over and over. They don't seem to recognize this fault in themselves, which allows one conman after another to use them to all of our detriment.
You miss D'Souza's point entirely. He is not saying he disagree's with Moore's outlook because of Moore's appearance. He is saying his core beliefs are closer to the Grand Mufti than Moore's.
Of course that quote comes to us via the NYT's review of D'Souza's book. The NYT is blatantly trying to attach a negative connotation to D'Sousa by associating him with Middle Eastern Mullahs and the sentence, " Eastern mullahs who are eager to subject daily life to religious strictures and want to curtail individuals' freedoms and civil liberties." when D'Souza has not said anything close to that.
But gee... MMFA doesn't like to point out liberal bias and misinformation. Hahaha... Some of these threads only show the abusrd lengths MMFA will go to try to tarnish someone with whom they disagree.
Let's see.. A Catholic apologist points out the obvious anti-Catholic bigotry and hatred of a blogger hired by Edwards. MMFA, rather than acknowledge that the blogger has written opinions that migh offend 50 million Catholics and in so doing hurt Edward's Presidential bid by being associated with her, instead attacks the messenger.
That's why I find this website so amusing. They'll cut off their nose to spite their face.
The reason you find the site amusing is you dont understand what they do. The point isnt what Corsi OR Edwards bloggers did. Both are offensive. The point is Donahues hypocrisy in excusing ONE and attacking the other. Who wants to take bets it has something to do with the liberal bent of the one and conservative bent of the others? There are none so blind as those who ABSOLUTLY REFUSE TO SEE.
Solon,
The difference, which I don't think you picked up on is that Corsi apologized. That's the nice thing about Catholicism. It believes in forgiveness. :-)
It would be hypocritical of Donohue if he didn't forgive Marcotte after she apologized. (Which I don't think she's done.)
Forgiveness doesn't require apology in any dogma that I know of.
Well said. However one can also defend one's religion against intolerant biggoted bloggers without being hypocritical.
Yes they can. Donahue however didnt manage to pull that off
Oh no I picked up on that. It is ALMOST a good point. Except Corsi didnt appologize immediatly and where was Donahues outrage when the statements FIRST were publicised?
Personally I never heard Corsi appologized but will take Donahues word for it. Even still he went beyond forgiving to APPOLOGIZING for the remarks calling them jokes.
CORSI: "So this is what the last days of the Catholic Church are going to look like. Buggering boys undermines the moral base and the laywers rip the gold off the Vatican altars. We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that's probably about it."CORSI: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press."
Do these look like jokes to you? It still looks like a hypocritical double standard for me. Ask yourself if Corsi had been the liberal and Marcotte the conservative if it wouldnt have played out exactly the opposite way for Donahue?
How about this sentence from Mr. D'Souza's book.
“Lynndie England and Charles Graner were two wretched individuals from red America who were trying to act out the fantasies of blue America.”
Sounds to me like he's trying to blame the torture at Abu Ghraib on on the left.
Donohue's not merely a messenger; he's the creator of his own message. The issue is not the offensiveness of the bloggers, but rather the manifest hypocrisy of the man whining about it--a man who routinely engages in deliberately offensive, intolerant, bombthrowing rhetoric of his own. And the media gives Donohue a platform to express his outrage without telling viewers that he is routinely and deliberately outrageous in the expression of his own views.
What part(s) of "double standard" don't you understand?
Anotheramerican,
I think I understood correctly what he said and I would hope for his sake I'm right. If he meant he agrees with a religion predatory on other religions, then God help him. But I don't think he did meant to say that.Let's see......
Media Matters points out the obvious anti-Catholic bigotry of a right-wing smear merchant, and author of the political smut called "Unfit for command...."
And Another American turns around and throws stones at Media Matters? It's time to wake-up.
Still agree with myself in substance---but could have phrased it better.
I should have said:
D'Souza contrasts Moore unfavorably with Imams----appearances over proven substance. Representing versus reality. Authority figures over the reality of the issues.
The "Catholic" League claims 350,000 members. (Is this figure audited?) Yet, there are 50,000,000 American Catholics. By my arithmetic, this number works out to seven in every 1,000 Catholics, or, .7 percent. So, why does the media treat Bill Donohue as if he is a spokesperson for American Catholics or the Church itself? Neither the American Catholic bishops nor the Vatican itself have ever appointed him so.
In my opinion as a life-long Catholic, Donohue is a fool and a self-appointed "protector" of what he claims is Catholic orthodoxy. He is so off-the-mark, and such a repellant character, that every time he opens his mouth he increases the opinion of many, many Americans that Catholics are buffoons and in thrall to idiots in the hierarchy. Which leads to this question,"Why does the media continue to display Donohue as representing the Church and American Catholics?"
If the news media were to probe Donohue and the so-called "Catholic League" they would discover, as most American Catholics know, that he speaks mainly for himself. Of course, the media would denounce any suggestion that by continuing to give Donohue a national stage as a Catholic representative allows some members of the media to sublty diminish Catholics in national opinion.
Exactly right Rblackbird. Your last sentence about how focusing on Mr. Donahue is "subtly diminishing Catholics in national opinion". I would only add that this is the big trick, and expand your comment into a general tactic. You can substitute for "Catholic" other groups as well. It also works in reverse, that is they can enhance the national opinion of certain groups by selecting out the more admirable individuals among them to highlight. And it's done night after night, year after year---drip drip, drip. (I'm agnostic on Mr. Donahue specifically as don't know enough about him.)
You make a great point Blackbird...
Maybe the corporate "Media" just so loves the political porn that Donohue is "the Man."
This is what Media Matters is here for.
You have a good point that Donohue has an outspokeness that makes him attractive to talking head tv. And I don't agree with everything he says or how he says it.
Although he's bombastic and opinionated, and to those who disagree, offensive, my only point is that I don't see the intolerance Donohue expresses as hypocritical.
Thanks for the discussion.
So the Church deserves "respect," no matter what it does or says, but since the groups Donohue derogates are (in your view) deserving of derogatory characterizations, he's not a hypocrite.
Apparently you understand "double standard" quite well; you just don't care.
Read a little more carefully. It's not his intolerance per se that's hypocritical; it's the outrage he expresses at the "intolerance" of others.
Intolerance of intolerance cannot be intolerance.
No, but it certainly can be hypocritical. As it is here.
Donohue is not mad because the bloggers are being offensive, but because they are targeting the church. If they were targeting gays or Democrats, do you think his sense of affront would be nearly so intense?
Again, you happily embrace the double standard. You're certainly entitled to your views, AA, but don't pretend they have a logical basis.
It can be if you have been intolerant yourself in the same way
Whether one is intolerant of intolerance is not a really a compelling issue.
The bottom line is: Is one a dumb-ass? Is one a hate-filled moron?
And it's clear to me, from this whole conversation, Donohue is a dumb-ass, and a moral stain on the Catholic Church.
It's time we come out from our cocoon, and stop being dictated to by this monolithic corporate religion, and stand proud and free as Christ-like Americans.
AA, be ready to have that thrown in your disingenuous face the next time you defend Coulter or Limbaugh, whining about how mean we are all for "intolerating" their intolerance.
What did Marcotte say that was "anti-Catholic" or bigoted? I have been looking through what has been posted by Malkin and others and it just seems to be dirty language that they object to? How is it anti-Catholic?
Marcotte called Catholicism "mythology" (which is undeniable), and indicated that the Holy Spirit ejaculates semen. While that doesn't bother me, I can see how Catholics would be offended. Edwards was probably right to fire her since he's going to need Catholic votes. Keeping her would have been bad politics.
The other blogger from Shakespeare's Sister didn't seem anti-Catholic to me. She just used coarse language for shock value, which clearly offends the delicate sensibilities of some cons. (Strangely, some of the same cons who take glee in describing abortions in the most disgusting language imaginable - but then again, the notion of "double standard" has been shown above to be lost on them.)
Personally I would be more concerned with slovenly thinkers than a slovenly appearance (although I personally don't think Michael Moore is slovenly, maybe a bit slouchy). I wonder what Donahue thinks of the anorexic looking Ann Coulter who smells of cigarettes and alcohol. Is she a shining example of Christian femaninity in her ubitquitous black dress? And is her demeanor an example of Christian lady likeness? Now SHE is offensive.
The Edwards bloggers are offensive to my sensibilities. They should have been better vetted for sure. I would prefer more substansive ideas rather than shock value. What ends up happening is that the shock value is all people remember. Now admittedly, this is based on just a few of the examples I've seen. Maybe just the shocking ones have been highlighted.
This is the leadership of the so called Catholic League. Is it any wonder Donahue's a psycho with delusions of granduer?
Board of Advisors
Brent Bozell III Gerard Bradley Linda Chavez Robert Destro Dinesh D’Souza Laura Garcia Robert George Mary Ann Glendon Dolores Grier Alan Keyes Stephen Krason Lawrence Kudlow Thomas Monaghan Michael Novak Kate O’Beirne Thomas Reeves Patrick Riley Robert Royal Russell Shaw William Simon, Jr. Paul Vitz George Weigel
Board of Directors
William Donohue, President Bernadette Brady, Vice President Rev. Philip Eichner, Chairman, Board of Directors Marilyn Lundy, Vice Chairman William Lindner, Secretary Jerome McDougal, Treasurer David Gregory, General Counsel
Raymond Arroyo Thomas Brennan Nunzio Cardone Ann Corkery Robert Lockwood Kathleen McCreary Kathleen O'Connell Murphy Frank Salas Jodie Thompson, Jr. Kenneth Whitehead
So according to MMFA, either
1) the posts by the bloggers aren't anti-Catholic since the man criticizing them has made controversial comments in the past2) the posts are okay (even if they are anti-Catholic) since the man criticizing them has made controversial comments in the pastSo Donohue has made controversial statements in that past?? That means he isn't allowed to criticize hateful comments toward the Catholic religion when he sees them. Ridiculous. Liberals, always trying to change the issue rather than addressing it.
"So according to MMFA, either
1) the posts by the bloggers aren't anti-Catholic since the man criticizing them has made controversial comments in the past2) the posts are okay (even if they are anti-Catholic) since the man criticizing them has made controversial comments in the pastSo Donohue has made controversial statements in that past?? That means he isn't allowed to criticize hateful comments toward the Catholic religion when he sees them. Ridiculous. Liberals, always trying to change the issue rather than addressing it."--GRhino
MMFA doesn't make either of the arguments you impute to them. Nor does the piece issue any edicts about what Donohue is "allowed" or "not allowed" to say. His own comments are unambiguously bigoted--no less so even if you agree with them--and MMFA is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of his labeling these other bloggers as bigots.
Dimwit neocon trolls, always trying to change the issue rather than addressing it.