Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, it's time to play that favorite game of conservatives and Republicans—"What if ..."
Today we have a special "twofer" edition of the game that asks: "What would happen if a Republican tried something like this?"
Pay attention, double-standard mavens, because this is a multi-pronged question today: What if ...
... a Republican presidential candidate hired a blogmaster whose writings featured vile attacks on other religions and expletive-laced rants against those who disagreed with her?
... the same Republican also hired another blogger whose writings featured similar attacks and rants?
... that same Republican, after learning of the nasty blog posts, stated that "intolerant language will not be permitted ... on my campaign" and then permitted the two bloggers to stay on?
... the same Republican, after his blogmaster resigned in the wake of posting another piece mocking a religion's central teaching, continued to keep the second intolerant blogger on his staff?
Wouldn't the media be all over this civility scandal? Wouldn't this be a big test of the candidate's leadership and integrity? Wouldn't this GOP candidate get the 24-7 Trent Lott treatment until the miscreants were either off his staff and on their way to a re-education camp or alcohol treatment center?
Well, John Edwards, come on down. You're lucky you're a Democrat, my boy. The media won't be in death-watch lockdown on this. The shocked-and-appalled editorials will be at a minimum. All will be forgiven or, at least, marginalized.
Now, for today's second double standard: What if Edwards' two bloggers—Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan—had spewed their venom on Jews or African Americans rather than Christians in general and Catholics in particular?
Would Newsweek have sanitized their stuff by saying they had simply "criticized Roman Catholic and religious conservatives"? Would The New York Times have written that they were just "doing what bloggers do—expressing their opinions in provocative and often crude language"?
No, they would have nailed them for anti-Semitism and racism, and they would have been quite correct in doing so. This kind of stuff may be acceptable in certain effete quarters where Catholic- and Christian-bashing is the thinking man's anti-Semitism, but it should have no place in our politics.
Happily, the Catholic League's William Donohue is calling the bloggers and Edwards on this, and the media on its double standards. Why? Because here's what Edwards wants to let pass:
"What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord [profane details referring to the Holy Spirit deleted]?" (Marcotte)
"[T]he 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." (Marcotte)
"[P]resident Bush can take some much-deserved credit, as long as he's willing to share it with his wingnut Christofascist base." (McEwan)
"What don't you lousy [expletive-deleted] understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds, and our families?" (McEwan)
And these samples don't feature the worst of the savage vulgarity in the Marcotte and McEwan blogs.
What does it say about Edwards' White House qualifications that his campaign failed to spot their bilge in the vetting process?
What does it say about his judgment that he didn't sack them after learning about it?
What does it say that he seemed to fire them and then bowed to pressure from the left-wing blogosphere to keep them on last week?
Or that he didn't fire Marcotte after last weekend's outburst ("The Christian version of the virgin birth is generally interpreted as super-patriarchal, where god is viewed as so powerful he can impregnate without befouling himself by touching a woman, and women are nothing but vessels") and let her resign on her own?
What does it say that he kept McEwan on his payroll until she resigned on her own last Wednesday?
That is, other than Edwards is not a Republican.
