John Edwards: Hostage To Chris Bowers
Doubt that John Edwards caved to the Nutroots®, as I asserted below? Doubt no more:
Both Democrats and the netroots won a big victory today when John Edwards refused to cave into the pressure of a right wing smear job. This was huge in several ways:
- The vast majority of established, beltway consultants would have told Edwards to fire Melissa and Amanda. By not doing so, it shows that he is capable of moving beyond tired, worn out advice. He is open to new ideas, including those coming from the netroots. We need more leaders like that.
- It sets a precedent for all other Democratic campaigns this cycle when it comes to right-wing smear jobs and swiftboating. Unlike in the past, it shows that Democrats don’t have to cave, and are not ready to cave. Any other campaign in a similar situation will now be judged by the yardstick Edwards has laid down. At this point, caving will make you look very bad.
- Relative to the Republican Noise Machine dominated established news media, it increases the power of the netroots as a voice in the Democratic party. They listened to us, not to the establishment, and not to the right-wing. This will help build the movement, and free the Democratic Party from conservative Republican influence in our primaries. We are one step closer to choosing our leaders on our own.
Great victories indeed. I am so relieved for Amanda and Melissa. I am just as relieved for John Edwards, who I really did not want to write off my list of potential candidates to support in the primary. Now, I will happily identify myself as an Edwards supporter. The only way I could imagine that changing is if another candidate shows a superior ability to help grow the movement.
The quid pro quo is, amazingly, explicitly detailed. Bowers offered Edwards the support of the Nutroots® apparatus if he caved, and Edwards complied.
It’s right there in black and white, ladies and gentleman.
Let’s pause to remember what this little episode is about, the principle that Bowers finds so important that he was willing to prostitute his services in exchange for: the right to be a bigot and keep your job.
Here’s the quote, once again, for posterity:
Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.
And for pointing this out, a quote that no one denies, the right was ‘swiftboating’ Marcotte.
Seldom has the progressive hostility towards religion been so starkly expressed…
You presume far too much, to say that this is any deeper than self-congratulations on Bowers’ part. I could be wrong and you could be right, but the assertion that there was some kind of quid pro quo going on between Bowers and Edwards is anything but certain, as you seem to assert.
[H]e is capable of moving beyond tired, worn out advice from people who have been involved in more than one winning campaign in their lives.
Knowing Bowers’ history, I guess we can translate this as “if someone else offers me a job.”
Actually, given that Edwards had to give them a public upbraiding, and the two of them had to do the “I’m sorry if I offended anyone” dance, I’m not sure sure this is much of a victory for anyone involved. I think Jeff Goldstein hit the nail on the head:
Fargus, I’m respectfully responding here, and not trying to pick an argument, but last night, Bowers made it absolutely clear that he considered this a make or break issue, and today, he announces victory and throws his support behind Edwards.
Isn’t that the definition of a quid pro quo?…The only thing missing is the transcripts…
Or put it another way, if you prefer – isn’t threatening to actively pull all “netroots” (there, I said it) support only a small step away from offering that support? Both imply that “Your fate is in your hands, Senator – behind door number one…”…
Edwards made a simple calculation that his candidacy was stronger with them – and their baggage – than it would be by firing them.
So, to the netroots’ credit, they have some power, as measured by the Campaign of John Edwards.
Always click the link, Mark. This saga has proceeded precisely as Baudrillard would have predicted:
- the era of the original
- to the counterfeit
- to the produced, mechanical copy
- to the simulated “third order of simulacra” whereby the copy has come to replace the original
It’s curious how the enormous controversy created by the femibloggers’ comments has now been boiled down to parsing whether some nutrooter caused Edwards to balk. A cynic might wonder whether the original ever existed at all.
Comrades,
Well, having the Nutroots® full support, blessing, and backing seemed to do pretty well for Ned Lamont. Oh.. wait…
The Nutroots® are just the modern version of the southern fire-eating slavers who ran the Democratic party into the ground in 1860. When they lost to that (as they referred to him) “Great Ape Lincoln”, they formed their own Confederacy, with their own laws as they felt they should be. We all know how well that turned out…..
Personally, if I were to ever run for office, I’d welcome the Nutroots®’ backing of my opponent. It would all but ensure my victory.
Respects,
Mark, what you describe above is self-satisfied bluster on Bowers’ part. I could have made the exact same pronouncements.
For your accusation of quid pro quo to hold any water whatsoever, you’ve got to convince someone besides yourself bot only that Edwards and Bowers were directly in correspondence, that Bowers has the power to offer the allegiance of the progressive blogosphere, that Edwards believed Bowers had that power, and that Edwards acted consequently in a manner other than he would have otherwise.
Zero for four so far, by my count.
Oh, gee, Fargus, you got me…sorry to waste your time – but what’s this? I guess you didn’t bother to read Bower’s blog last night. Too bad for you I did:
I’ve been spending all day working behind the scenes on this, and I will continue to do so this evening. With 100 comments in the first open thread about this subject, here is a new one.
I also wish to make something else clear. While there is no way I will support Edwards with Amanda and Melissa are fired, I will immediately become a staunch Edwards supporter if they are not fired.
Quid…pro…quo…or if you prefer…game…set…match…
Mark, respectfully, you’re not making much sense here. If I write in my blog, “Edwards better do X or he won’t get my support.” And he does X. That doesn’t mean he did X because of me. Second, even if he does X because of me, that’s not a quid pro quo, at least not in any meaningful sense. If Bowers had offered his support in exchange for money or some form of personal gain, that would be a quid pro quo. But there’s nothing nefarious or unethical about saying “I’ll support you if you take a position I like on this issue.” That’s what politics is. It’s not like Bowers has some personal stake in Marcotte’s continued employment. He just cared about this issue. Why is that such a big deal?
Finally, and more importantly, you have to realize how silly this all is. So Marcotte has said some racy things. If that was a disqualifier, literally no one would be working for most Republican campaigns. McCain has hired all kinds of shady people, the very people he criticized in 2000, people who are responsible for the dirtiest of dirty campaign tactics and ads. Since when are politicians held to account for every word ever spoke by low-level campaign staffers? Is this some new rule that only applies to John Edwards?
And for the record, calling Marcotte an “anti-catholic bigot” is a little hyperbolic. It’s parroting an accusation made by Bill Donohue, who is the nuttiest nutjob around and has a long track record of saying genuinely bigoted things about gays and jews. Plus, if I remember correctly, Marcotte enthusiastically supported the Catholic candidate (John Kerry) in 2004. Clearly she’s a crazy bigot.
No sale, Anonymous…I could give a rat’s behind about Donohue. I’m calling Marcotte an anti-Catholic bigot because she is one, and she proved it to the world with this phrase:
Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.
Pretty ‘racy’ stuff, all right…
Mark, that’s pretty thin gruel. I can see why someone who’s catholic would consider that statement sacreligious, but bigoted? Atheists and agnostics mock religious dogma all the time. It doesn’t mean they hate religious people. Making fun of someone’s beliefs is not the same thing as making fun of someone’s race or ethnicity.
Plus, I go back to my earlier point. You can shrug off people like Bill Donohue, but the point is, people like him are ALWAYS associated with Republican campaigns. And there’s never any demand that they be fired or disavowed. Who the hell cares what some low-level staffer on a campaign once wrote? If anyone bothered to fisk the staffers of the various Republican campaigns, I bet a million dollars that we’d find statements that are every bit as offensive as anything Marcotte has ever written. You know this is true.
“The substance”
Point 1. Many items in Christian tradition were adpoted from old mythologies…do you deny this? Why is this offensive regardless? Because it attacks your way of life?
Point 2. People use religion to justify their misogynysm (nothing about “all”)…you’re plain wrong. It happens. Every day. It’s happened for thousands or years.
Point 3. So what? Do you think God defied the conservation of mass and made a sperm appear next to her unfertilized egg and presto – Jesus? Or did biology not actually exist until we ‘discovered’ it? Seriously, using sexually-charged imagery to note the absurdity is not that big of a deal. Not to mention it’s funny.
Fine, guys, it’s getting old for me, and I’m sure my readers, as well. It’s a real laugh riot, I assure you, to religious people to find their 3,000-year old traditions mocked in an aggressively hostile fashion.
Hey, I’ve got an idea, Mike, why don’t you print up some flyers for the Edwards campaign featuring this quote and send them out to churches nationwide? I bet they’ll just laugh their heads off…
Do I have all the answers? I sure as hell don’t…will I ever convince someone like Mike that for some people, ‘sacred’ is still a word that holds deep, deep meaning in their lives? Of course I won’t…
But will I stand by while the Jane Hamshers of the world, and the Amanda Marcottes, tar and feather religious people with vile imagery and mockery and then claim to be ‘swiftboated’ when their actions are criticized?
You can bet I won’t…
The unavoidable truth of this whole episode is that no one but the most willingly obtuse deny the quote in question is deeply offensive. Even Edwards said as much in his statement. All the rest is smoke and mirrors…
But so what? Is the new rule that anyone connected to a political campaign, no matter how low-level, must be fired if they every said anything “offensive”? That’s crazy.
Moreover, you always mock beliefs that you find stupid. We all do. The people that hold those beliefs are no doubt offended by your mockery. So what. Mocking others beliefs is not even close to the same thing as racial/ethnic bigotry. No one is born catholic. It’s a belief system. And surely even an ardent Catholic can understand that some of Catholic doctrine (virgin birth, transubstantiation, etc.) would sound pretty damn crazy to someone who wasn’t raised to believe such things. Religious people of all stripes need to have a little thicker skin.
Hey, I respect your position. I’ve said my piece…
Disclaimer: I do not flame. And I am not Catholic.
THAT IS NOT FUNNY. If you think that is funny, then you are a sad, sad person. You have managed to align yourself with offensive comments made against the world’s largest religion.
What if I said, “Q: What if the first Dalai Lama’s mom had taken Plan B after Avalokiteśvara filled her with his hot, white, sticky jizz? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.” Would I not be the most racist, bigoted jackass that ever existed?
So why in God’s name are you giving this woman a pass for saying exactly the same damn thing about another religion? Furthermore, it’s FUNNY?! That’s bullspit and you know it.
P.S.: Forgive me, Mark, for I have sinned. Edit as needed.
It depends on the specifics of the religion, dude. Is the existence of the Dalai Lama used to promote misogyny? If not, then you’d just be misinformed. If you were just laughing at the idea of reincarnation because you find it ridiculous and have no reason to believe it, then no, you’re not bigoted. You’re not racist. Respecting someone’s right to a belief does not necessitate respecting that belief. Never has, never will. That’s why this whole sorry “story” is so damn sad.
Just a little switch of an ‘s’ for an ‘h’, GCB, a minor edit..
Thanks for the edit, Mark.
I had not seen the quote in question before tonight. I was appalled.
Perhaps I should make myself more clear. This blogger referred to a deity revered by over a billion people as jizz. This blogger went beyond mockery. If that’s not blatantly offensive to a large mass of the world’s population, I’m not sure what is.
Yes, well, there’s a reason you haven’t seen the quote before tonight, and a reason I keep printing it. No one on the left who is talking about this is showing the quote, they’re just saying she used some mild profanity here and there. Gleen Greenwald has posted on this for two days without mentioning the quote, as has Chris Bowers…
Sex is how people are impregnated, right? Like, semen is introduced and sperm swarm an egg and one of them fertilizes it, right? Pregnancy is intimately tied to sex. I’m not saying that I don’t understand that people found the quote you keep spitting out offensive, but for you to say that it’s because the pregnancy of Mary was sexualized, well…..pregnancy is all about sex.
Yes, Fargus, it was a theological argument she was making…you’ve cracked the Da Vinci Code, congratulations…
And bravo on your deep knowledge of Catholic theology, by the way…I’m sure the points you bring up have never been considered by Augustine, Thomas Aguinas, or Hans Kung…
What? I really don’t understand what you’re talking about.
You’re talking about it being offensive to have sexualized discussion of this particular pregnancy. Um, all I’m saying is that in human beings, pregnancy comes from sex. Talking about pregnancy already has sexual undertones. No theology there. I wouldn’t stoop so low.
Nobody’s bothered to answer my question about how claims of a virgin birth would be handled today. Christians get a pass and have to have their beliefs, no matter how absurd, sheltered from criticism simply because the events in question happened too long ago for anybody to check up on it?
Please. That’s ridiculous on the face of it.
Fargus, in case you’re wondering, I think your contempt for religion has come through loud and clear. There are literally millions of words written on Catholic theology, and the problem of miracles in a modern world, and whether theology allows the denial of the miraculous nature of Christ’s birth.
Really – you’d be amazed at the level of intellectualism that surrounds these issues. In fact, as a non-Catholic, let me say that Catholicism is, without a doubt, the most intellectual of all religions.
But we’re not talking about any of that, we’re talking about a vile, offensive comment, transparently so.
Now, I’m not going to play this game with you.
Your passive-aggressiveness is not fooling me or anyone else…
Exclusive interview!
Following his “big victory” Thursday in the battle over campaign bloggers Melissa McEwan and Amanda F***ing Marcotte, John Edwards took the advice of Chris Bowers and decided to keep piling on the pressure by hiring a new Netroots-approved spokesman:…
Mark, in case you are wondering, your contempt for engaging arguments and debating them comes through loud and clear. On the other thread you said you were tired of “arguing”…well you have not argued one point Fargus and I have made, so I’m not sure what makes you so tired besides your anger at these two women.
I do not have contempt for religion, I just don’t understand it and the quote is actually something I identify with and that is what makes it funny (to me and to their particular audience on a given day…this is how Malkin/Coulter and the like keep in business. If a campaign hired them the left would be a raving mass, but I’d be the first to say “who gives a spit”, well, you know what I’d actually say…)
But, then again, by fiat I’m a sad sad man…
Mark: Yeah, she wasn’t making a theological argument at all with her post (s). She’s a raving lunatic I guess. No cogent arguments at all. No sir. She’s crazy I say!
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
It’s not about the idiotic Bill Donohue, it’s about Amanda Marcotte…
I think that your assumption that Chris Bowers has held Presidential Hopeful John Edwards hostage is extremely short and one sided. Further, and even more enflaming, is your notion that Mr. Bowers in any way shape or form condones any practice of bigotry. Having known him for more than 28 years I am proud to say that Mr. Bowers has always been a defender in private of individuals to choose their own paths in lives, a defender of all religions up to and including being an active participant in Central New York’s Inter-Faith Council, which his father was the President of for over four years!!!!! To say that Mr. Bowers does not condone religious freedom is as absurd as saying that gravity no longer exists. Get of yourself already.
I didn’t say Bowers was a bigot or that he did not condone religious freedom – I said he went to the mats for someone who fits that description. Big difference…