Archive for John Edwards

Catholicophobe, Amanda Marcotte, resigns as Edwards’ sweet blogger

Remember how she apologized. Remember how she said she didn’t mean to offend? Remember it was all in jest – satire – parody? Well, being the upstanding young gentlewoman that she is, she’s decided to step aside and allow the Edwards campaign not be tarnished by her speckled past.

She is, however, working on a new campaign!

The number of times she references Donhue, the head of the Catholic League, in her blog could lead one to wonder if she’s really attracted to the guy and has done all of this to garner his attention. Such behavior is common amongst children.

Back to her Catholicophobic blog – How will her readers take her seriously again? It was all a joke, remember? What about this latest campaign – a parody?

Oh sweet, sweet, Amanda. What a pickle you’ve gotten yourself into.

Great video here.

A fun video here!

More background info here.

Advertisements

Leave a Comment

Will Edwards stand by his Amanda? Next on “As the Blog Turns”

When we last left the pair, Amanda was taking baths, shaving her armpits & legs, and trying to delete and modify skanky posts at Pandagon all in an attempt to fit in with l’objet de son désir (pardon my French), presidential wannabe, John Edwards.

Though she blogged like she was from the wrong side of the tracks, the handsome candidate with stylish hair and good teeth attempted to save her from her lowly condition. Surely her past would stay in the past.

But alas, the evil conservative bloggers and that misogynist Catholic church would not allow it to be.

The Catholic League, a conservative religious group, is demanding that Mr. Edwards dismiss the two, Amanda Marcotte of the Pandagon blog site and Melissa McEwan, who writes on her blog, Shakespeare’s Sister, for expressing anti-Catholic opinions.

Mr. Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, is among the leading Democratic presidential candidates.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, said in a statement on Tuesday, “John Edwards is a decent man who has had his campaign tarnished by two anti-Catholic vulgar trash-talking bigots.”

Mr. Edwards’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.

The two women brought to the Edwards campaign long cyber trails in the incendiary language of the blogosphere. Other campaigns are likely to face similar controversies as they try to court voters using the latest techniques of online communication.

Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Church’s opposition to the use of contraception forced women “to bear more tithing Catholics.” In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

She has also written sarcastically about the news media coverage of the three Duke lacrosse players accused of sexual assault, saying: “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”

Why is the Catholic League trying to tarnish the reputation of this genteel young woman?

Catholic League president Bill Donohue is demanding that presidential hopeful John Edwards fire two recently hired anti-Catholics who have joined his team: Amanda Marcotte as Blogmaster and Melissa McEwan as the Netroots Coordinator. Here’s why:

“Writing on the Pandagon blogsite, 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.’

So unfair!

Who, WHO, WHO will save her? Bryan at HotAir has some answers:

Over at MyDD this incident has been taken with the seriousness of a nuclear attack:

I have a pretty vicious rant and an important action alert lined up, but I am waiting to hear from the Edwards camp about the fate of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan before doing anything.

Two things spring to mind. First, if you think having both a “vicious rant” AND an “important action alert” teed up constitute words that should strike fear into a presidential candidate, you either have a very high opinion of yourself or a very low opinion of the candidate. Or both. Second, it’s hilarious. It just is, as written, hilarious. Unintentionally, of course.

Oh, and there’s her name. McEwan. Got it.

Over at Crooks & Liars, John Amato is promising that a Pandora’s Box has been opened. I suppose a line has also been crossed, a martini has been shaken and an i has been dotted. A cliche has certainly been loosed upon an unsuspecting world. And someone’s taking himself and this whole incident waaaay too seriously.

Way too seriously, Bryan? I think not. Ace of Spades analyzes the seriousness of this and other equally important “Action Alerts.”

And the sweet Miss Marcotte is in the fight for her very blogging life with the Pandagon Papers.

Is there no voice of reason amongst the evil-doers?

First, I agree with Allah:

I don’t like to see anyone fired, no matter how much they deserve it . . .

I share this attitude in general. The feeling, which Allah and I share, is that blogging has gotten too dangerous. This is one reason that I have said repeatedly that I hope Edwards keeps Marcotte. And if he has fired her, I hope he does rehire her.

The other reason I hope Edwards uses Marcotte is that she is an obvious liability to Edwards. Since I don’t like Edwards, why in the world would I want him to lose a liability?

Now, judging from the reaction from the left blogosphere today, lefties generally disagree with me, and think that Marcotte is not a liability. They believe that her rhetoric is not that unusual. A bit profane, perhaps, but not something that should really offend Americans that much.

This view is, of course, utterly insane, as any rational person even vaguely familiar with Marcotte’s writings is well aware. The proof is in the links three paragraphs up, as well as in various places around the blogosphere. It’s not hard to find. If you’re bad at surfing, just go to her site and browse around.

Mr. Edwards – what will you do? The world awaits…until next time on “As the Blog Turns.”

Comments (2)

Edwards and Marcotte sittin’ in a blog part II

Seriously – you’ve GOT to see the dramatic rendition of the very Pandagon blog post I quoted Monday – Today’s Vent by Michelle Malkin.

Comments (1)

Edwards and Marcotte sittin’ in a blog…

Ahhhh, the unholy union of John Edwards and the irrepressible Amanda Marcotte. No, it’s not a marriage – just one of the moonbattiest bloggers reporting for duty as John Edwards’ blogmaster.

This is both my first post to the Edwards blog and my announcement that I’m joining the presidential campaign for John Edwards for 2008. I’ll be taking over the job of Blogmaster (mistress?) over the course of the month of February.

The main two questions this brings up are: Why me? And why John Edwards?

Yes, indeed, why you? Do you have something on Edwards?

Michelle Malkin has wonderful coverage on this.

So Mr. Edwards – who is this lovely woman you have managing your blog?

One thing I vow here and now–you motherf*&#$rs who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will f*&$ without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherf*&#$rs. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now.

Okay, so would it be considered “irony” that Ms. Marcotte is “not going to be ‘punished’ with babies,” while Mr. Edwards has reaped all of his rewards directly from babies? We’ve got Hillary Clinton scootching past Edwards displaying her “maternal tendencies” and Edwards is employing one of the most anti-maternal bloggers on the internet. Only popcorn and Cherry Coke would complete this show.

Speaking of shows, don’t miss Hot Air Theater Presents Amanda Marcotte.

Mary Katherine Ham has more items of interest.

Comments (2)

Those babies came through for John Edwards

Take a lookie at this post by DPGI

And now for something from the Edwards 08 camp:

je.jpg

I love ya man

John Edwards is running for president because he wants to build an America that lives up to its promise — one where we all share in prosperity at home and one that shows real moral leadership around the world.

Leave a Comment

The Attack on Kids With Down Syndrome

The theme of Monday’s 34th annual March for Life was, “Thou Shalt Protect the Equal Right to Life of Each Innocent Human in Existence at Fertilization – No Exception! No Compromise!” But a whole lot of people, more specifically 85% of those with a prenatal diagnosis, take exception and some will compromise their Judeo-Christian ideals to terminate a baby with Down syndrome.

Look for that 85% figure to rise. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is now recommending that ALL pregnant women (regardless of age) receive prenatal genetic testing and counseling.

Yes, it’s going to lead to more termination, but it’s going to be fair to these women who are 24 who say, ‘How come I have to raise an infant with Down’s syndrome, whereas my cousin who was 35 didn’t have to?’” Dr. Andre Lalonde, the executive vice president of the SOGC, told the National Post.

To make it easier on everyone (but the baby), a non-invasive nuchal fold translucency test can be performed at 10 to 13 weeks of pregnancy, when a mom is barely showing, so no one has to know if she chooses to terminate.

Those whose results are most worrisome could then undergo a procedure called chorionic villus sampling (CVS) to confirm the diagnosis while still in the first trimester. Those whose results are less clear and are worried about the small risk of miscarriage posed by CVS can wait until the second trimester to undergo the quadruple test. If that is positive, they could then undergo amniocentesis, which also carries a small risk of miscarriage.

Women who would opt to terminate a pregnancy based on the results would be able to do so much earlier, when abortion is less risky and less traumatic, Malone said.

“By the time you’re 20 weeks pregnant, most women will be feeling fetal movement. We wouldn’t want to underestimate the psychological or emotional difficulty of undergoing pregnancy termination that late,” Malone said. “Also, at that point it’s easy to tell by looking at the woman if she is pregnant. This way she can make her decision in utmost privacy.”

Canada is recommending automatic amniocentesis for all women over 40:

The Canadian society of obstetricians and gynaecologists recommends that all women be “given” amniocentesis, and that women over 40 should “automatically be given” amniocentesis. One wonders what the word “automatically” means here. Is there a distinction between being given amniocentesis and being automatically given amniocentesis? If so, what is it? Whatever it is, you can be sure of the direction in which the eugenic screws are turning. (From Reflections on Faith and Culture Blog)

I may be reaching, but I truly believe that the push for earlier diagnosis and genetic prenatal testing for ALL women stems from John Edward’s attack on obstetricians using junk science exclaiming cerebral palsy is caused by malpractice during the birth process. Now lawyers are finding other conditions to blame on obstetricians and are filing wrongful life/birth suits on behalf of parents and children with issues like Down syndrome. Testing all women gives them the opportunity to remove less than perfect babies from their bodies and no reason to sue their ob/gyn.

After my son was born, I needed to find others who had children with Down syndrome. Among the famous were columnist, George Will, and actor, John McGinley.

George Will has always been one of my favorite columnists. Following is an excerpt from his most recent column in Newsweek. Follow the link to read the entire column.

Golly, What Did Jon Do?
By George F. Will
Newsweek

Jan. 29, 2007 issue – What did Jon Will and the more than 350,000 American citizens like him do to tick off the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists? It seems to want to help eliminate from America almost all of a category of citizens, a category that includes Jon.

Born in 1972, Jon has Down syndrome. That is a congenital condition resulting from a chromosomal defect that causes varying degrees of mental retardation and some physical abnormalities, such as low muscle tone, small stature, a single crease across the center of the palms, flatness of the back of the head and an upward slant to the eyes (when Jon was born, Down syndrome people were still commonly called Mongoloids). There also is increased risk of congenital heart defects, childhood leukemia and Alzheimer’s disease. Down syndrome, although not common, is among the most common congenital anomalies—47.9 per 100,000 births (compared with 77.7 with cleft lips or palates, which also can be diagnosed in utero, and which sometimes result in abortions).

As women age, their risk of having a Down syndrome baby increases. It has become standard practice for women older than 35 years old to be offered genetic counseling and diagnostic testing. But because of the higher fertility rates of women under 35, such women have 80 percent of Down syndrome babies. So new ACOG guidelines recommend that all pregnant women, regardless of age, be offered such counseling and testing.The ACOG guidelines are formally neutral concerning what decisions parents should make on the basis of the information offered. But what is antiseptically called “screening” for Down syndrome is, much more often than not, a search-and-destroy mission: At least 85 percent of pregnancies in which Down syndrome is diagnosed are ended by abortions.

Medicine now has astonishing and multiplying abilities to treat problems of unborn children in utero, but it has no ability to do anything about Down syndrome (the result of an extra 21st chromosome). So diagnosing Down syndrome can have only the purpose of enabling—and, in a clinically neutral way, of encouraging—parents to choose to reject people like Jon as unworthy of life. And as more is learned about genetic components of other abnormalities, search-and-destroy missions will multiply.

Nothing—nothing—in the professional qualifications of obstetricians and gynecologists gives them standing to adopt policies that predictably will have, and seem intended to have, the effect of increasing abortions in the service of an especially repulsive manifestation of today’s entitlement mentality—every parent’s “right” to a perfect baby. Happily, that mentality is not yet universal: 214 American families are looking for Down syndrome children to adopt.

Read more here

I also urge you to read La Shawn Barber’s article, Baby Killing as a Civil Right. We come to the table of right to life with different, yet simlar, ideas:

Last October, Planned Parenthood joined the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, an organization founded at the dawn of the modern civil rights movement. This isn’t news per se, but I thought it was a timely tidbit for today, the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that fashioned a Fourteenth Amendment “right to privacy” for women to kill their babies in utero.

Says conservative writer and friend Mychal Massie: “How can a civil rights group that claims to support underprivileged blacks embrace an organization created expressly to hasten the demise of black people? People of conscience should be appalled and outraged by this alignment.”

Comments (5)