Be ready.

If you give in to these types of fanatics, then they're the ones in control of us. Think about it.

Like the guys at the "Y" say:

Democrats think everybody should have a say.

Republicans just think they should be in charge.

http://www.dailykos....

As far as Amanda's resigning goes, I'm taking this at face value until she says otherwise.

Despite the fact that this t.v. show was made with the approval of the archdiocese of Los Angeles and had priest-advisers from the archdiocese on its staff, Donahue labeled the show anti-Catholic.  It was anything but. 

It was an intelligent show that sensitively portrayed the fault lines in the modern Catholic church. And it did so in a way that was thoughtful to all sides.  But it wasn't Mr. Donahue's brand of intolerant Catholicism so his organization intimidated sponsors into canceling.  He threatened boycotts and holy hell reigning down on the heads of anybody who dared advertise on that show.  Incredibly, ABC-TV kept the show going. with dwindling sponsorship, as long as it possibly could.  I still mourn the untimely passing of that show.

Donahue also made highly inflammatory and anti-semitic statements when defending the controversial Mel Gibson film, "The Passion of Christ."  And interstingly, he criticized opponents of that film for threatening Gibson's artistic freedom, something he had no problem denying others.

And Bill Donahue has a definite political agenda.  No less than the Taliban and Al Qeda, he would hijack Catholicism for the cause of political conservativism and theocracy.

On the other hand, Marcotte's statements really could be offensive to Catholics.

I just spent a weekend with friends who are progressive Catholic activists.  They claim, with some accuracy, that their job is made harder by people who make tastelss jokes and inflammatory statements  about religious people.

Let's face it, we embraced Jim Webb because we saw him as somebody who could bring back the Reagan Democrats, those blue collar Democrats who voted against their own economic interests because they felt culturally alienated and disrespected in the Democratic Party of the sixties and early seventies.

I don't want to see those people re-alienated because of a blogger's childish anti-religious humor and screeds.

That's very different from honest criticim of religion when it oversteps its boundaries in the political arena. I have often criticized theocratic tendencies and even the abuses of the Catholic Church.  It's fair to do so.  But it should be done thoughtfully and with respect.

Amanda Marcotte is certainly entitled to her opinion and to say anything she wants on her blog.  But perhaps she wasn't the best choice to run any mainstream candidates' official blog.

Having said that, this whole mess, where Edwards had to back down to an extremist like Donahue, could have been avoided by having a campaign staff that did better research and did their due dilligence better.  Too many slips like this and Edwards won't have a viable campaign. And that saddens me to say because I support him.

Edwards made a huge mistake backing down to the radical right.  The whole thing could have been handled better.

Unfortunately, in the end, it was cancelled.  And I never forgave Donahue for it.

I'm glad we both fought the good fight on that one. Until The West Wing came along, Nothing Sacred remained my favorite t.v. show.  It's still right up there with the greats.

Let's face it, we embraced Jim Webb because we saw him as somebody who could bring back the Reagan Democrats, those blue collar Democrats who voted against their own economic interests because they felt culturally alienated and disrespected in the Democratic Party of the sixties and early seventies.

I have been a big Jim Webb supporter since the primary and donated money to his campaign. I don't accept that embracing Webb means we have to do and say things to satisfy the likes of Bill Donohue or anyone else for that matter. If it does then count me out.

their job is made harder by people who make tastelss jokes and inflammatory statements  about religious people

I don't want to see those people re-alienated because of a blogger's childish anti-religious humor and screeds.

As someone who believes in the right to free expression, it offends me to suggest there is anything wrong with Marcotte's statements... Hear that!... I'm offended, take that back!

There was nothing Marcotte wrote that was directed at religious people on a personal level. Anyone who takes personal offense to her statements are the ones lighten-up and grow-up.

Bill Donohue is a bully. The only way to respond to a bully is to hit them square between the eyes. Figuratively speaking, of course. I think Amanda Marcotte will do just fine.

One issue is the campaign controlling its message. The other issue is paid political staff should not be an issue in a campaign.  They are there to do damage control when the candidate messes up.  The candidate shouldn't have to spend time doing the damage control for his staff member.

And, unfortunately, I'm going to stick with my original opinion that we've suffered in the past because the Democratic Party and its candidates were perceived, unfairly, as hostile towards religion.

To be honest, I've never believed we will win over the hard religious right.  We shouldn't even try because they just are not our constituency. 

There are, however, a great many mainstream religious people, who share our disagreements with the religious right, but they often feel left out of the Democratic Party.  They don't want a theocratic state.  They are even as apalled as we are with some of the religious right's excesses.  Many of them are pro-choice, anti-war, in favor of social justice, and against the death penalty.  And they also go to churches, synagogues, and mosques and want their religious sensibilities, which are moderate, respected. 

Those are the people I do want to feel welcome within the Democratic Party and comfortable voting for my candidate.  Edwards, Obama, and Hillary have all gone to great lengths to talk about their values and their religious beliefs to these people.  I think those beliefs are genuine.  Why would any of them want a controversial staff member undercutting that message?

It's not about Marcotte's personal beliefs, which she is, of course, entitled to express on her blog and any place else she chooses.  It's about her becoming an issue in the campaign and also undercutting Edwards' message.

Again, I don't fault her for it.  I believe his staff should have vetted the whole thing better.  In fact, they should have decided what they were really looking for before making a hire.

It's not about censorship, it's about the right fit for a campaign.  And I consider this whole thing a serious gaffe on the part of Edwards' campaign.

"It's not about Marcotte's personal beliefs, which she is, of course, entitled to express on her blog and any place else she chooses.  It's about her becoming an issue in the campaign and also undercutting Edwards' message."

This is politics. Sometimes triage is necessary for the candidate to remain viable.

In an intellectual setting, here on RK, the level of thought and opinion re. this matter is far different than, say, the opinions and level of thought present in the audience of TV news as "reporters" pummel this issue into hamburger and insert negative controversy into Sen. Edwards' campaign.

I have no desire to see the few minutes of critical news coverage allocated to Sen. Edwards fixated on this no-win matter which can do nothing except injure Sen. Edwards.

When Donohue speaks as if he is an official representative of the Catholic Church, he's putting himself on shaky ground.  (His organizations name certainly is used to wrap itself in the legitimacy of a large religious organization).

Every time Donohue speaks he should acknowledge that he does not represent the Catholic church, and that he speaks only for his right-wing political organization. 

I think one potential leverage point here is to get the Catholic Church to clarify the role of Donohue and his organization.  The Catholic Church has a vested interest in remaining an apolitical organization, and I suspect it would be reluctant to take Donohue on as an official spokesman.

There may be a legal angle to this as well.  I'll have to leave this to the practicing attorney's in our group, of which I am not one, however, it seems that, if Donohue is representing his views as the official "Catholic" line, that he is engaging in fraudulent activity.

Surely there are better representatives of the Church than that.

I can't count how many times I have seen him being a part of the punditocracy, as if he had a viewpoint any of us should care about.

Also, I believe that their sense of fairness gets in the way. Ironically, because they disapprove of people like Donohue, they seem to be compelled to give these extremist a voice to avoid compensate for their bias against them.

... Also, why does every two-bit, bible-wielding, self-appointed guardian of morality get treated automaticly with respect and us non religious types are told we're out of line? Why am I the one that's patronizingly told to be more understanding of others' sensibilities? That this whole blogger thing is an issue to begin with completely conflicts with my sensibilities. Marcotte's statements were not out-of-line, in my view. Donohue was totally out-of-line and yet here I am, on a liberal blog, having to defend Marcotte, only to be told she can say what she wants, as long as she stays out of sight and mind. Told that by embracing Webb, I have to smile and go along with the "accepted" religious point of view. Frankly, I'm not offended, I'm disgusted. whew... I feel better now...

I reiterate, we don't win anyone over by capitulating to the right-wing attack machine.

It's not whether she's religious or not, it's how she expresses it. Frankly, there are plenty of atheists who are far less provacative.

And probably less read in the blogosphere.  What makes an interesting and controversial blogger is not necessarily the same qualities a campaign would want in a staffer.

Let's face it, how many Republican candidates are actually putting Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin on their staff payrolls?

I don't believe in capitulation but there is something to be said for picking your battles wisely.

We DO have to pick our battles also. I don't know enough about this blogger to know if she were worth going to the mat for.  If it were a mistake, the Dems better learn to "hire slow and fire fast." If it weren't a mistake, they have to learn to strike back quickly and with a vengence.

We seem awfully willing to do something. What happens next is that we need the campaigns to direct all the energy in the netroots. All the campaigns have to start telling the Netroots where they want us. I haven't heard anything from any of them other than requests for money. Many of us are standing by to make a difference off-line. They have to learn what to do with us, but until they do, we may have to plan our own action items.

One does have to pick battles.

People like him turn out to be the biggest hypocrites.  He's probably got skeletons not only in the closet, but in the garage and under the basement.

I wonder what it could be... gambling, drugs, gay sex, child porn, abortions, incest, murder, wife beating, fraud, tax evasion, racism...who knows.  I'll bet he is a hypocrite, and I can't wait until it all unfolds.  I think he just begged us to find out what he is hiding. 

My instincts with Donohue would be to follow the money trail.  What goes around comes around, most certainly. 

In other words, Mr. Donohue, you are on the way out.

Thank God.

Steve