A Sneak Peak Into The Edwards' Campaign Staff

A couple weeks ago John Edwards, the prominent Democratic candidate for the 2008 presidential nomination hired two bloggers to work on the internet side of his election campaign. Shortly after the two were hired, it came to light that both had made a series of recent and thoroughly offensive anti-Catholic statements on their respective personal Web sites.

Here is one example that is clean enough to reproduce:

The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal, where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels.

Now, to get the full force of the issue at hand, the Catholic League has provided a link to the original comments made by the Edwards staffers. It's some tough reading, but necessary to grasp the depth of the bigotry that is being embraced by the Left.
**Warning: the original comments are profane, obscene, blasphemous and un-edited.**

If these comments were about blacks, Jews, Muslims, or homosexuals, you would expect the public outcry to have been overwhelming. Instead Edwards is standing by his staffers. Catholic League President William Donohue comments:

When Mel Gibson got drunk and made anti-Semitic remarks, he paid a price for doing so. When Michael Richards got angry and made racist remarks, he paid a price for doing so. When Isaiah Washington got ticked off and made anti-gay remarks, he paid a price for doing so. But John Edwards thinks the same rules don’t apply to him, which is why he has chosen to embrace foul-mouthed anti-Catholic bigots on his payroll.

To think that these two women are working to put John Edwards in the White House is scary. In one respect I shouldn't be surprised, but it's shocking nonetheless. What these vitriolic comments do emphasize is something I've heard conservative radio talk show host Dennis Prager say many times: Conservatives think Liberals are wrong, but Liberals think Conservatives [or the religious] are bad... There is a big difference between the two - especially when framing the arguments for debate.

I don't really think Edwards has much of a chance against Hillary or even Obama, so in the end it could be a moot point as far as the Edwards campaign goes, but what this does reveal is more insight into how the Left thinks, including those working for Hillary and Obama.

The election is a long way off, so a lot of the conversation is a bit premature, I know. But the Left is already launching their campaign 600+ days in advance, so we have to get ready for what amounts to a 2-year propaganda onslaught. The Republican party has a few presidential hopefuls, but so far there hasn't been a single unifying candidate that the whole base feels really good about. Instead we have McCain with his group of supporters, Giuliani with his camp, Romney and so on. I suppose that's normal this far out.

The real problem is that the Right may not become fully unified even once the official Republican candidate is nominated. I'm already hearing things like, "If Giuliani gets the nomination, I'll just sit out the vote because he's pro-choice." The same things are being said about McCain and Romney for their own reasons, so I'm not so sure how unified the Right will be even when there is only one person to worry about.

I used to be one of those "I'll sit out the vote" types. I'm not proud to say that I didn't vote until GW Bush's first run. What got me to get off my duff wasn't the sterling record of Bush. To be honest, I didn't look into it that much. What convinced me that it was important to vote was the fear that if I didn't Gore would win. And I knew enough about how Gore saw things to know that I didn't want him to lead us into the new millennium. I knew that a no vote for the Right equals a yes vote for the Left.

Even if we have to vote for a pro-choice Republican, there's something to be said for keeping folks who think like Amanda Marcotte and Mellisa McEwan from running the country. And how will this episode with the two foul bloggers end? Brian Saint-Paul of Crisis Magazine offers this prediction:

After an unnecessarily long wait (courtesy of Edward’s political tin ear), both Marcotte and McEwan will “resign,” issuing a statement saying that they regret their past remarks and the damage they caused Edwards. Furthermore, they’ll thank the former senator for standing by them against the “attacks” from the Right.

For his part, Edwards will “sadly” accept their decision, and will then say that he hopes America can now move on from these “distractions” to discuss the real issues facing the nation. Oh, and he’ll assure Catholics that he has nothing but respect for them and their religion.

At that point, will anyone believe him? We shall see.

UPDATE Tuesday 2/13:
Catholic League announced today that Amanda Marcotte has quit.
Donohue comments:

The Edwards campaign is in total disarray and the meltdown will continue unless McEwan is removed from his staff. The fact that Marcotte had to quit suggests that Edwards doesn’t have the guts to do what is morally right. He has one more chance—fire McEwan now.

Brian Saint-Paul has the gift!