DUmmie FUnnies 02-09-07 (John Edwards Rehires The FIRED NUttie Leftwing Bloggers)

DUmmie FUnnies ^ | February 9, 2007 | HUffies and PJ-Comix

[PJ-Comix]

Lost in all the hoopla about John Edwards refusing to bow to "rightwing" pressure by keeping his NUttie leftwing bloggers is the fact that Edwards actually did bow to pressure by FIRING them only to be forced to rehire them due to leftwing pressure from the nutroots. At least that is the report according to this Salon.Com ARTICLE which states: "After personal phone calls to the bloggers from the candidate, the Edwards campaign has rehired the bloggers who were fired yesterday, according to sources inside and close to the campaign." If this Salon article is correct, this shows just how SPINELESS Edwards is. First, under pressure, he fires the bloggers. Then when his nutroots went into open revolt, he reversed course and rehired them. Not exactly something here we are looking for in a leader. Of course, an enterprising reporter out there could ask Edwards DIRECTLY if he did indeed FIRE the two NUttie bloggers before rehiring them under pressure. I'm not exactly holding my breath waiting for a representative of the MSM to ask Edwards that very appropriate question but perhaps a member of the Pajamahadeen could ask that question of Edwards during one of his campaign stops. So let us now watch the Huffington Post HUffies react, in this THREAD titled, Edwards Decision To Keep Bloggers May Risk Catholic Vote," to the news of Edwards "standing by" (rehiring under pressure after firing) his two NUttie bloggers in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, who still awaits the answer from Edwards to the question posed above, is in the [brackets]:

Edwards Decision To Keep Bloggers May Risk Catholic Vote

[Accordint to Salon.Com he didn't exactly "keep" the bloggers. He rehired them under leftwing pressure after firing them under pressure.]

WASHINGTON - Inside the Edwards campaign, there was what politicians like to refer to as a healthy debate over whether or not to fire two bloggers who had written about Catholics in ways that the candidate said "personally offended me."

[A healthy debate by Edwards consisting of "Will it help or hurt me more to rehire the bloggers I just fired?"]

One of the bloggers, Amanda Marcotte, wrote on the blog Pandagon on Dec. 26, "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."

[That's actually one of the nicer things she said about the Catholic Church.]

In the end, Edwards decided to keep Marcotte and Melissa McKwen on staff. But "it was a tough decision," a campaign adviser said in an interview today, "and there was a lot of back and forth. It was certainly tough balancing what they've said in their private lives with how we want the campaign to be represented."

[Back and forth meaning firing and rehiring under pressure.]

It wasn't that it was so hard standing up to the demands for their firing from Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, whose main constituency seems to be TV bookers.

But there was a balancing act the Edwards aide did not want to discuss -- the choice between the passionate primary-season kingmakers in the blogosphere and the moderate religious voters any Democratic nominee will need to win a general election -- and the campaign chose the former.

So, there will be other purity tests for the candidate to fail in the blogosphere. But did Edwards just lose the Catholic vote? The aide sighed. "I think people will see the statements and know where John is coming from; people know those aren't John's views."

[John's views are whatever he thinks will get him the most votes.]

Comments in the blogosphere today overwhelmingly cast the issue as a no-brainer: Are you with us or against us? For many, it was a simple matter of whether Edwards would stand up -- for progressives, under pressure, and to the opposition.

[John was against the NUtroots before he was with them...at least for now.]

And even among Catholic liberals, Marcotte's comments were widely seen as hurtful.

At Commonwealmagazine.org, the online version of the liberal opinion magazine, Eduardo Penalver posted a piece that calls Donohue "an embarrassment who obviously doesn't hold himself to the same standards he holds for others."

Yet he goes on to say that, "As much as it pains me to say it, I think Donohue may have a point in this case...Marcotte's post goes beyond simply criticizing the Church's positions on contraception, etc. on the merits, and attacks the institution as a whole in ways that resonate with traditionally anti-Catholic rhetoric from the bad old days."

Edwards issued a statement today saying: "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.''

[They sured fooled everybody on that one. Either that or they are the WORST writers in the world to be so "misinterpreted.]

After reading that, Penalver added to his piece: "The comments on Marcotte's blog were clearly intended to offend...I think the vast majority of Catholic voters see that."

[But...but didn't you read that they said that they really REALLY didn't mean to offend?]

"For Edwards to take these two women at their words -- that they did not intend to offend -- is pretty much to tell those who are offended that there is something wrong with them."

[John Edwards to offended Catholics: "You have LOUSY reading comprehension skills." And now to read the reactions from the HUffies...]

Pretty hard choice, but the comments these bloggers made are not all that bad. Frankly I think they are correct. Now I know Edwards has to pander to the morons who still buy into the whole christian thing, but I wait for a day when he and other smart people wont have to.

[A HUffie anxiously waiting for the day that Edwards can tell Catholics how he REALLY feels.]

If Edwards stood up to the FR and kept the bloggers on, I think that's terrific. But, I read hear on HuffPo that he had fired them. If THAT'S true, and he then caved into pressure from the LEFT to re-hire them, then I question his principles. Anyone know the real story?

[BINGO! According to Salon.Com, Edwards FIRED the two NUttie bloggers before rehiring them. As to the real story, don't hold your breath waiting for the MSM trying to find out. It will be up to individuals at the Edwards campaign stops to find out (hopefully with video running). An evasive answer from Edwards will mean that he did fire them before rehiring the bloggers.]

Edwards did the only thing he could to save his campaign. It won't be his final test. But if he had failed this one, he would have been finished.

[So much for the silly idea that Edwards actually acted out of principle and not political expediency.]

Mr. Edwards certainly made the right choice. Had he fired the bloggers I would have to completly write him off as yet another pandering, gutless wimp. We need a real leader to fight the Republicans, not someone who will compromise thier integrity to win votes.

[According to some reports, Edwards DID fire the bloggers before rehiring them.]

Think the smear campaigns have gotten a little old. The public is getting wised up.

[According to the Left, "smearing" someone is what happens when you ACCURATELY quote the loons.]

I really like John Edwards. I think he did the right thing. The cowtowing, back peddling, apologies,defensive strategy doesn't work.

[According to reports, backpeddling is EXACTLY what Edwards did. The reports state that Edwards FIRED the bloggers before rehiring them under pressure.]

If he loses the Catholic Vote over something that stupid, then, noone should vote Republican at all based on the scum they hire as consultants and advisers. Besides, John is a Baptist and I am certain he will not lose their vote.

[John the Baptist already lost their vote in North Carolina in the 2004 presidential election.]

Read the Gospel of Judas pew man, learn something for a change.

[Theological instruction from a member of the NUtroots.]

Edwards did what he should have done: he took the time to treat his employees fairly and told them to be civil. I wish many employers everywhere would take the same approach.

[You mean rehiring their employees after FIRING them?]

[PJ-Comix]

Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to visit John Edwards at a campaign appearance near you and RECORD his answer to the question of whether he first FIRED the two bloggers before rehiring them. Remember, it is up to US to do the job the MSM refuses to do.

Let me know if you want on the DUmmie FUnnies PING List.

[Condor51]

In B4 the ping :-)

[PJ-Comix]

PING!

[NeoCaveman]

IB4TP

[darkwing104]

Hey John,

Where is your Gravitas?

[NeoCaveman]

I missed by 11 seconds.

[Condor51]

Read the Gospel of Judas pew man, learn something for a change.

What the ........

There isn't any Gospel of Judas in any Bible I have. Niether the Catholic one OR the King James version.

(maybe the Pope snuck in when I wasn't looking and ripped them out?)

[Condor51]

Yeah, that's what I said.
I felt like practicing my typing okay ;-)

[labette]

What leadership skills!...
.
.
.
/sarc

[steveegg]

Just-out-of-the-shower top 10.

[socialismisinsidious]

Love the way the media is washing what these girls wrote. The vile in full:

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.’

Melissa McEwan: On November 1, 2006, on her blogspot Shakespeare’s Sister, she referred to President Bush’s ‘wingnut Christofascist base'
On February 21, 2006: ‘What don’t you lousy motherf---ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds, and our families?’

Currently, the very first entry under ‘Greatest Hits’ on her website [where she brags about being appointed to Edwards’ campaign] is titled, ‘On C---s’. In her article she boasts that she is the ‘Queen C--- of F--k Mountain.’

http://www.catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_1/070206_Edwards.htm

[MichiganConservative]

Good thing these two have their jobs back. The thought of Amynda Marcotte having to maybe try being a professional "cum-guzzling boozehound" is scary. Watch the language at that link.

[ziggy_dlo]

top 15

[Ditter]

I love watching liberals shoot themselves in the foot.

[MichiganConservative]

This is Marcotte:

I really dislike her. Don't think it's superficial. It's not (all) because of her looks. She is a stupid (as in not very intelligent) feminist with radical politics who believes she's a superior political analyst than most because of her even stupider readers.

[PJ-Comix]

Here is what the Salon.Com ARTICLE said:

After personal phone calls to the bloggers from the candidate, the Edwards campaign has rehired the bloggers who were fired yesterday, according to sources inside and close to the campaign.

Salon reported yesterday that on Wednesday morning the Edwards camp fired Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen, the two bloggers whose hiring had sparked an uproar by conservatives. That information was confirmed by sources in and close to the campaign. But almost as soon as the decision had been communicated to the bloggers, a struggle arose within the campaign about possibly reversing it, the sources said, as the liberal blogosphere exploded.

[MichiganConservative]

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.’

Jokingly, I said that her minions would defend that by saying that that is not specifically anti-Catholic, but anti-Christian in general and therefore the anti-Catholic claim was baseless.

Then I read on pandagon, I believe, that the idiots were making just that ridiculous argument. It is so easy to be a liberal because you just have to check your intelligence, logic, and reasoning ability at the door.

[MichiganConservative]

I remember now. It was on the Shakespeare's Sister blog. So it was McEwen's sycophants making that absurd defense.

[GraceCoolidge]

"For Edwards to take these two women at their words -- that they did not intend to offend -- is pretty much to tell those who are offended that there is something wrong with them."

Replace references to Catholicism with references to women, homosexuals, or blacks and see if you can claim you "did not intend to offend" that group. And I totally agree with you that the media version of what these girls wrote is a pretty amazing example of spin.

[epow]

Edwards actually did bow to pressure by FIRING them only to be forced to rehire them due to leftwing pressure from the nutroots

Nutroots! Hey, I love that term, it's the perfect name for the nutjobs on the far left who are the roots which nourish the noxious commie/left weed in the American flower garden. Unless you have it copyrighted PJ I'm gonna steal it for future use.