takes two minutes...

you get a thank you and get to donate 10$  

http://www.democracyinaction.com/dia/org anizationsCOM/Blogpac/campaign.jsp?campa ign_KEY=1855

Oh yeah.  Time for wartime consiglieri, time to go to the mattresses.  This should be fun.

It's time to take the swiftboating out of politics, and put it where it belongs- in the dustbins of history.

I have news for him--the Catholic League--not Edwards--will decide what the debate will be about, and it won't be about the nation.

This is not about 60 million U.S. Catholics, the vast majority of whom don't know who Bill Donohue is and don't care, or do know but hold his organization in contempt.  Don't get misdirected.  It's about Bill Donohue getting credit among his revanchist winger friends and donors for scalping the liberal netroots, that means you and me.

Well, I'm no Edwards fan, but the religious right must be very scared of him, if they are targetting him this way.  I guess, buecause his central theme is about Social Justice, and that is a powerful draw for many Catholics.  In the end, though, the Catholic League only has influence of Catholics who would never vote Democratic.  Democratic and independent Cahtolics don't read Catholic newspapers and certainly don't sollow winguts like him.  And Democrats who read the New York Times aren't going to be swayed by this windbag's full page ads.  It is a desperate attempt to remain relevant... create a straw man you cna fight and look good doing so...

We should, and will, fight back hard...  hopefully, with quotes by Mr. Donohoe himself against him.  If he wants a dirty fith, he will have it.  

What an arrogant bastard... "We will define the debate"  Who the hell does he think he is?

Thanks,

Mike

I have news for him--the Catholic League--not Edwards--will decide what the debate will be about, and it won't be about the nation. It will be about the glaring double standard that colors the entire conversation about bigotry.

You mean how "Catholic" organizations are allowed to criticise and defame, for example, gay people but aren't open to being criticized themselves?

Quite aside from that, I think its pretty arrogant to claim that the all-powerful Catholic League will determine the debate in the Democratic primary. I think Edwards just told them "no". They apparently don't like being told that.

I wrote as soon as you posted the initial action item.  Now I wish I'd held off so I could answer this hateful crap.  

On a side note, what price exactly did Mel Gibson pay?  

Catholic League does not serve the best interests of the Catholicism. CL and Donohue are a sham...a mockery...a shamockery.

Google bomb the Caotholic League anyone?

Speaking as a catholic, i find it offensive that Donohue thinks he can somehow speak for me and those who attend my church about this...or any other issue.

Just sent my response in.  Time to fight back and stop cowering.

This was my version of the letter:

Cafeteria Catholics and Edwards Bloggers

You did not tell the whole story about the Edwards campaign bloggers or offer the kind of context that would have properly informed your readers about Bill Donohue and how he does NOT represent the Catholic Church and whose political actions threaten his organization's tax-exempt status.

Catholics like Donohue are extremists who are still fighting Vatican II.  They want the Catholic Church to go back to Latin Mass and the Dark Ages.  As RJ Eskow posts today at Huffington Post: Bill Donohue: A 'Cafeteria Catholic' Promotes Extremism

"To rightwing Catholic activists, "cafeteria Catholic" is a term of contempt for those who pick and choose which Church doctrine to follow. Bill Donohue arrogantly dismissed the Pope's pleas against the Iraq War in order to serve his political bosses, yet some reporters is still characterize him as a Catholic spokesman. Donohue's selectivity in following Church teachings is as "cafeteria" as it gets""

William Donohue of the Catholic League, who is quoted throughout the stories expressing his outrage at the religious intolerance of the bloggers, is on the record in numerous venues expressing extremely vulgar and religiously intolerant views himself such as "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."   In a story such as this, where characters are being assaulted, it is the duty of a reporter to vet the source.

Covering the hiring of campaign staff  is perfectly legitimate.  However you don't serve your readers when you fail to provide context or perform due diligence on those who offer themselves as critics.

We are ALL Amanda Marcotte.

I sent an email, but did anyone really think the Catholic League would back down after winning rounds I (NYT -> MSNBC -> CNN) and II (paralyzed Edwards campaign).

So maybe this time Edwards will respond in the same media cycle with the statement he should have had today. Of course, hitting hard now after buying into their frame drags the story into the weekend.

The Catholic League is not a part of the Church, and Catholics out there should let their Bishops, Priests, Arch-Bishops, and Cardinals know how they feel about this Bigot claiming to speak for their views.  

A homophobic anti-semitic sleaze should never be allowed to claim he speaks for the Catholic Church and faith.  

If actual leaders of the Church were to distance themselves (if not condemn its hate speech) from the "Catholic League," it would do a great deal to harm Bill Donahue.  

Furthermore, complaints should be made to the IRS that the Catholic League may have violated its 501 c(3) tax exemption.  

Do not make Donahue speak for Catholics.  Remember Catholics went for Dems in the midterms and are a swing group.

Isolate Donahue as fringe partisan extremist right wing group and stop  framing it as he a president of a Catholic group representing Catholics.

One thing we should think about doing is to personally email reporters.  At this point pretty much every major journalist's email address is readily available on their stories.  If we're not in their rolodex, we shouldn't wait.  Go to them first.  Pitch it like a story.  "Did you know about Donohue's past statements?"

The downside is that Donohue is just trying to get publicity for the Catholic League, and more specifically donors.  More publicity for him, even if it's bad, will probably not deter that.

mail sent and passed this on to five (blogging) friends. i'm also about to post about this on TAP.

this shit is long overdue.

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney01172 004.html

I wrote a rather long one that didn't even mention the bloggers, but focused on Donohoe and Malkin:

"Oh, how I long for the days when our national press corps refreshed its Rolodex once in a while, and didn't keep barking loons on speed-dial.

Bill Donohoe is a barking loon; that is, a foul-mouthed, anti-semitic, ignorant lout of a barking loon.  Why is he considered a quotable source?  Why does the national press pay any attention to a man who is an embarrassment to any cause he ostensibly supports?  I'm  pretty sure the Catholic Chuch in particular, and Christianity in general, would prefer not to be represented by the Donohoes of the world.

And Michelle Malkin... good lord, what can one say about her?  This is the woman who wrote an entire book justifying internment camps.  This is the women who insisted that a memorial to the victims of Flight 93 was actually a "secret Islamofascist signaling device."  Malkin is not only an embarrasment to any cause she supposedly supports, she makes Donohoe look rational by comparison.

And you treat these two as news sources.  You quote them.  You take their malignant lunacy seriously.  Why?  Who on Earth do they speak for?   Doesn't it trouble you, to treat these certifiable head cases as serious news sources?

It should, you know.  It should trouble you.  It should trouble your sense of professionalism - provided you have one; and if not, why sense of professionalism?  What are you dong, working in a profession so debased that you can't even feel that it is a profession?

It should trouble your sense of pride in what you do - provided you have a sense of pride; and if not, why not? What are you dong, working in a profession so debased that you can't even feel proud of what you do?

For the love of all that is holy, stop giving publicity to people who would be better off under a doctor's care.  You're only encouraging them to act out, to the detriment of everyone."

We need to find Catholics and get them front and center right now. Catholics for Edwards needs to stand up.

I'm Catholic and I'm proud of my faith, and the role Catholics have played in American society. But Bill Donohue is an idiot that panics about "holiday cards" and secular Jews and gays having abortions in Hollywood.

It's true, there really are people in America that hate Catholics. Most of them, however, are Donohue's allies in the Religious Right.

can be found here at Majikthise, to whom HAT TIP.

"But his goal is to loot the pockets of the Soros/Hollywood gang, and they--like him--aren't offended by anti-Catholicism. Indeed, they thrive on it."

That's coded anti-Semitism? Wow...well, at least he didn't call them big-nosed money-lenders who killed Jesus. He's holding that for the next press release.

After you've taken action, be sure to head over to Digg to digg the action that's up:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Fight_ back_against_media_hypocrisy_Defend_Edwa rds_bloggers

Also, if you have a bit more time, be sure to comment on the other right-wingers attempt to make it their issue. We need to overwhelm them everywhere. GAME ON!

I posted something on the JRE '08 facebook groups. That should get something going.

I deleted the form letter and simply asked why these organizations think that Donahue is a legitimate interview on the subject of hate speech, and don't any of these supposed news organizations do any research.

I don't know what they gain from giving this idiot a platform.  I really don't.  Especially because 98% of Americans could give a flying shit about this issue, or Donahue's wingnut group.  I'm a Catholic, and he sure as shit doesn't speak for me.

Bring it, pussy!

I sent the e-mail and forwarded it to about a dozen others.  It's great to see the e-mails grow.  

As some state above, Edwards et. al. should get it front and center in the media that Donahue is not the Catholic Church and does not speak for it.  Dems need Catholic support big time and cannot be seen as anti-Catholic.  That's the true issue now -- you can bet the true agenda of Donahue always was to try to paint Dems as anti-Catholic.  

Michigan Catholic here,  Edwards needs to get David Bonior out there (Catholic also)who just came on his campaign and speak out against this Donahue nut.  I have been tired of him and the "Catholic League"lie.  Take a look at the board of directors for it.  Its a who's who of anti Vatican II nuts- L. Brent Bozell III, Linda Chavez, Dolores Grier, Alan Keyes, Tom Monaghan, Michael Novak, Kate O'Beirne, Thomas Reeves, Patrick Riley, Bill Simon, Paul Vitz and George Weigel among others!!

John

Done.  Will spread the word!

It's not taking my email address... it's a standard .edu address.

Anyone else?

(I will find another one of my unused email address)

Since when do theocratic fascist wingnut fringers get to control John Edwards' hiring strategies?

"Bill Donohue has apparently decided that there is more to be gained by aligning himself with the cultural right than by standing on principle and firing the Anti-Semites on his payroll. Had anyone on his staff used the 'N-word,' he or she would have been fired immediately. But his goal is to loot the pockets of the Falwell/Dobson gang, and they--like him--aren't offended by anti-Semitism. Indeed, they thrive on it."

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

As a Catholic Italian American I am triply disturbed and offended by your leagues outrageous conduct.  Mr Donahue's anti-semetic and racist comments have been extremely offensive.  John Edwards is not anti-Catholic and as a catholic myself I am utterly disgusted by your shameful and aggressive actions towards the Edwards campaign.

I would like to express my concern about the story your organization did yesterday on the Edwards campaign bloggers. It has come to my attention that you did not tell the whole story or offer the kind of context that would have properly informed your readers.

William Donohue of the Catholic League, who is quoted throughout the stories expressing his outrage at the religious intolerance of the bloggers, is on the record in numerous venues expressing extremely vulgar and religiously intolerant views himself such as "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular."   In a story such as this, where characters are being assaulted, it is the duty of a reporter to vet the source.

Furthermore, your focus on the Edwards campaign to the exclusion of others gives a biased view of the campaign blogger phenomenon as a whole and leaves the impression with the reader that this is the only controversial hire in this election cycle.  This is incorrect.  In fact, John McCain's campaign blogger Patrick Hynes is the subject of substantial controversy surrounding his failure to reveal his role after he was hired and his well documented religious intolerance, going so far as to say that anyone who doesn't believe that the US is a Christian nation is stupid.

And it's not just his blogger.  John McCain's campaign manager, Terry Nelson, was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Tom Delay TMPAC scandal and the man responsible for the racist 'call me' ad used against Harold Ford in 2006, an irrefutable fact which Nelson's boss John McCain has denied.

No one disputes that covering the hiring of campaign staff  is perfectly legitimate.  However you don't serve your readers when you fail to provide context or perform due diligence on those who offer themselves as critics. I hope that we do not see a reprise of the trivial campaign coverage of recent years or more willingness to air unsubstantiated "swiftboat" style attacks.  

And I would expect that in the interest of accuracy and ethical journalism, you will devote some time and resources to covering the controversial staffers of the McCain campaign.  As the presumptive Republican frontrunner, his blogger Patrick Hynes' questionable earlier internet writings expressing religious intolerance and his strategist Terry Nelson's questionable campaign tactics warrant an investigation.

Sincerely

I wrote the Edwards Campaign.  I explained that the threat of loosing the "Catholic Vote" was a load of crap.  

Catholics in America are used to haveing to run everything through the "utter bullshit" filter.  Remember, most of them use birth control and have sex before marraige  They can see bullshit coming a mile away.  Edwards does not have to worry about loosing the Catholic vote because he hired a couple of bloggers.  My wife is Catholic.  Trust me, I know of what I speak.