John Edwards creates consensus!

A lot of ink and talk has been tossed into the public arena over the decision by John Edwards to hire, then fire, and then not fire two young women/bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, who apparently learned about Catholicism from reading the Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk and watching Stigmata. One interesting aspect of the story is how it has brought about some consensus between those two hazy groups, the religious right and the religious left, which has been covered nicely by GetReligion.org. Another site, Politico.com, covers the angle in more details and contains some quotes from religious left leaders:

"We're completely invisible to this debate," said Eduardo Penalver, a Cornell University law professor who writes for the liberal Catholic journal Commonweal. He said he was dissatisfied with the Edwards campaign's response. "As a constituency, the Christian left isn't taken all that seriously," Penalver said.

Democrats -- and Edwards in particular -- have embraced the language of faith and the imperative of competing with Republicans for the support of religious voters. His wife, Elizabeth Edwards, even sits on the board of the leading organization of the religious left, Call to Renewal. But in private conversations and careful public statements today, religious Democrats said they felt sidelined by Edwards' decision to stand by his aides.

"We have gone so far to rebuild that coalition [between Democrats and religious Christians] and something like this sets it back," said Brian O'Dwyer, a New York lawyer and Irish-American leader who chairs the National Democratic Ethnic Leadership Council, a Democratic Party group. O'Dwyer said Edwards should have fired the bloggers. "It's not only wrong morally – it's stupid politically."

O'Dwyer e-mailed a statement to reporters saying: "Senator Edwards is condoning bigotry by keeping the two bloggers on his staff. Playing to the cheap seats with anti-Catholic bigotry has no place in the Democratic Party."

Really? I'd like to believe that, but I'm more than a little skeptical, especially since the Democratic Party is strongly influenced—led!—by folks who vehemently oppose the Catholic Church on hot button issues such as abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality/"gay marriage". Which is why the New York Times is able to report the following:

Mr. Edwards could keep the women on his staff and have to answer for the sometimes vulgar and intemperate writings posted on their personal blogs before he hired them late last month. He could dismiss them and face a revolt in the liberal blogosphere, which is playing an increasingly influential role in Democratic politics and could be especially important to his populist campaign. Some bloggers saw the controversy as manufactured by conservative groups. (emphasis added)

But that conspiratorial perspective makes no sense of the obvious distress felt by religious left leaders who are frustrated that a major Democratic candidate would not only hire the wrong people, but would keep them on staff after making comments that were stupid, infantile, and bigoted:

And so religious liberals find themselves in a quandary. They have no interest in associating with the likes of William Donohue, the Catholic League president who is closely aligned with the GOP and led the charge against Edwards' aides. Donohue said Thursday he would take out newspaper advertisements attacking Edwards as anti-Catholic. But religious liberals also think Edwards' aides merit more than a slap on the wrist.

“I thought his explanation was not satisfying," said Cornell's Penalver. "It's obvious that they did mean to give offense."

"You imagine a similar kind of comment directed at the Jewish community or at the gay community – something at this level of intentional offensiveness -- and I have a hard time believing it gets resolved in the same way," he said.

Exactly. Imagine if, say, Senator Sam Brownback (who is both Republican and Catholic) hired two bloggers who had written vulgar, outrageous posts aimed at Jews. Then imagine that he refused to to fire them, but instead said, "We’re beginning a great debate about the future of our country, and we can’t let it be hijacked." How would that go over in the media? With the majority of Americans? I think most people would think that common sense and civility were being highjacked. Here's hoping that Edwards' poor judgment reaps its deserved harvest.

Comments

[padraighh]

John Edwards has chosen to confirm that
he is not a legitimate candidate.

[padraighh]

The problem with liberals like Edwards is not that they have a
double standard, but rather that they have no standards at all.