In this forum topic, discuss the questions posed by the Rules Committee regarding candidate qualifications, delegate registration, convention processes, secure voting and more.
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
In this forum topic, discuss the questions posed by the Rules Committee regarding candidate qualifications, delegate registration, convention processes, secure voting and more.
How will you ensure that the voting is secure?
I think we have no other choice than to make individual's votes made pubic record and implement a one man one vote system so that a citizens vote does not go for those they vote against in a winner take all structure. To do this and retain the republic control as required we must require all citizens to vote. Anything less than these two things will fail. As a all volunteer military will slowly die off during times of war... - Earn Snyder
Author "$aving the bureaucracy - Killing the beast"Modern Progressive Independent
www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
In order to raise the money and awareness that will be required to compete with the major party candidates, the Unity08 ticket should be known in early 2024, March at the latest.
How:
How will this all be implemented in just a bit more than a year with (my tally from incomplete public disclosures) just $77,000 in reported donations, when the group has (somewhat undisclosed) operating costs which already include a commissioned representative survey, three websites, and presumably at least one staff member?
Who:
Is anybody on any of the rules committees, the founders, the donors, or the employees of Peak Communications associated with any internet voting vendors? If so, how?
Quick answers to these questions will increase my confidence.
Jim Cook
Irregular Times
http://irregulartimes.com
Good questions posed here, and apologies for the slow responses from moderator types. Expect changes in short order as the movement's efforts increasingly focus on keeping this website vibrant and lively and providing users lots of opportunities for meaningful input.
How will this be implemented? Assuming by your question that you mean how will it be financed, it will be through small-dollar fundraising and "larger" gifts of no more than $5K each. This is the focus of just about every Unity08 volunteer and its small handful of paid people right now, as you might imagine. We are trying to get better at it, do more of it, and get better at reporting how we are doing back to our online community. We appreciate the support of every individual who has made any contribution whatsoever.
No one in the Unity08 world is associated with Internet voting vendors, certainly not that this moderator is aware of. But the Unity08 Rules Committee undoubtedly will be talking with technology experts across the spectrum to ensure the ultimate solution is reflective of the very best technology and security that is out there today -- and worthy of the public's unwavering confidence.
Thanks for your interest and thoughtful questions -- please keep them coming.
Thanks for the reassurance on the lack of any association between members of the Rules and Founders Committees and internet voting vendors.
But the answer to the money question isn't really an answer, besides "we'll try really hard." There is a big financial problem apparent for Unity08. The organization has come off a big, big wave of media attention, and according to IRS financial disclosure forms for the 2nd and 3rd quarter, Unity08 has brought at most $77,000 (and possibly less, since the 2Q reported totals don't add up to what's in the Schedule A) in donations over $200. In the meantime, 2Q and 3Q expenses reported were more than $77,000.
Either Unity08's donations under $200 are staggeringly large in number -- in which case it would be good to know how much that sum is -- or Unity08 is in a financial hole.
If Unity08 is in a financial hole NOW, after the big wave of publicity, how will it manage to conduct the first national online secure election in about a year's time, all while securing ballot access?
These are fair questions for an organization that says it is "grassroots" and that says financial transparency is "sorely lacking" in politics today. People should know the condition of the organization that is asking them to volunteer their sweat and money.
=========================
Jim Cook
Irregular Times
http://irregulartimes.com
I don't have an MBA or any experience raising money for political activities, and until Unity08, I've made NO political contributions in the past 40 years. This singular lack of qualification, however, puts me in a unique position regarding methodology, especially since I've made a good living as a professional artist, which has required creating demand for an untested product (my art) over the years.
Thus, two points:
1) People generally want reassurance that they are doing something worthwhile with their money, and they like to know, with some specificity, how it is being spent.
2) People who are shown what their money is buying, and who see a relationship between their spending and the future value of what they have spent their money on, are much more likely to come back and give again, than are those who can only guess about current or future values.
When I was a kid, every organization worth its salt that was raising money for non-specific causes at least had the wits to promote a visual symbol of their success, typically in the form of a goal "thermometer" that kept people fundamentally aware of the goal and how close donors were to achieving it. It was an easily understood, visceral reminder to all. And it kept all aware of not only the distance to the goal, but the rate of progress toward reaching it.
I'd like to see Unity08 adopt a similar strategy regarding donors. Create a visual representation of the goal (or goals), regularly update the image to accurately reflect progress toward the goal as well as the rate of giving. Then let people drill down in data for more specific information as needed. If I gave $50, but see that most people are giving over $100, I'll be more likely to give more (as my fair share). I'll also give more to things I see as being vital (programming,bandwidth,etc.) as opposed to discretionary (a Hilton Penthouse room rental). Show me a US map drawn from contribution data. I might decide that Arizona needs another contribution from me to get it back in shape.
People thrive on news, be it good or bad, if they think they can actually make a difference and can see for themselves in a clearly presented set of images, how their contributions are being used and how they relate to goal attainment and the efforts of other contributors.
So, there. I've contributed $50 and my 2 cents. I'll need more information before I give more.
<
The amount of time needed for voting will depend on the capacity of the Unity08 website- you don’t want it to crash during the voting.
It will take several hours at least to vote because not all voters will be in the same time zone. If voting goes from 8am to 10am EST, people in California won’t want to be up to vote at 4am.
Making the voting results public as the votes are cast may encourage voters to change their vote to whomever is winning instead of voting for the candidate they really want.
The Rules Committee asks: "What information should we collect at the outset to simplify verification [that delegates are registered voters] (e.g. full name, address where registered, etc.)."
Presumably those willing to expend time and effort as a delegate are also willing to donate. Their credit card billing address is therefore already being collected, and their name and telephone number should also be available as part of the credit card verification process. In other words, the verification process necessary to donate by credit card can be used to automatically jump-start the verification of delegates, since the credit card verification process already provides the basic information needed for comparison with the voter registration list.
You want to place a financial obligation on persons wishing to be delegates to Unity08? I thought the purpose of Unity08 was to get money out of politics.
What about people who can spare their time, but cannot afford to make a cash donation? Is Unity08 to be beholden to the monied interests?
No, I'm more interested in trying to straighten out this screwed up country than listening to you guys calling each other foul names!
Candidate qualifications should mirror the federal qualifications for the Presidency.
Bob W. Hargis
www.hargis.info
bob@hargis.info
How many members does Unity08 currently have? 1/28/07
Bob W. Hargis
www.hargis.info
bob@hargis.info
Is there even a working definition of member (much less a legal one)? I have become a regular poster here on shoutbox, but if campaign finance reform is all Unity08 has to offer, I won't be involved in choosing its nominee and I won't be voting for its candidate.
Call them delegates, members, founding counsel, whatever, how many people are now associated with unity08? Does anyone know?
Bob W. Hargis
www.hargis.info
bob@hargis.info
Each candidate should have at least 1,000 supporters among the Unity08 delegates. These supporters should endorse their candidate via a secure online petition available on the Unity08 website.
Friday, March 21, 2024, should be the deadline for any interested candidate to reach the 1,000 mark. By this date, already several weeks after Super Tuesday II (3/4), Americans should already know who the Republican and Democratic nominees will be due to the ever-increasing frontloading of the presidential primaries. If the extremists take control of either or both parties and shut the moderates out of the process, or if (as is more likely) the fake centrist elites who presently control the levers of power shut out the grassroots true believers in an attempt to secure an “electable” candidate, we could see a significant portion of usually reliable major party voters alienated and fishing around for other alternatives. In the weeks following defeat in the primaries, any disgruntled major party candidate who finds him- or herself disgusted with the two-party system should have no problem rounding up enough delegates to be considered by Unity08.
Each candidate should have the option of answering the Unity08 questions from the moment they begin running. Certainly by April 1, though, every qualified candidate should have responded to the questions by submitting their answers in a format so that responses can be posted online at least in written form, with the option of posting videos as well. After allowing enough time for all delegates to look over the various responses, we should vote in mid-April, say, on Friday, April 11 and Saturday, April 12, with no results released until the voting ends. Then, the top six vote-getters would remain in the ring for the nomination.
Those are my rambling thoughts on a few of the questions raised about candidates by Unity08.
A Christian college student disturbed by the hate and rancor of our politics
<
In recent decades the most either the Democrat or Republican national convention has had is about 3,000 delegates. Chances are even 1000 delegates would be too many for an online convention. Also requiring 1000 delegates to nominate and second a candidate may make it impossible for any candidate to have his name placed in nomination, much less actually win the nomination. And this may also shut out lesser known, but more worthy candidates.
<
Maybe I misunderstood the Rules Committee documents. I'm using the term "delegate" to refer to everyone voting in the online convention and was under the impression that pretty much anyone could sign up (assuming we have the verifying mechanisms in place for voter registration). Unlike the major parties, Unity08 delegates formally represent only themselves so they function more like primary voters with extra rights. Maybe 1000 delegates is too high a treshold of support, but I think a number in the 400 to 500 level would work fine. If we don't have thousands of people participating in the Unity08 vote, enough for plenty of candidates, we will really struggle to mount any kind of serious campaign when crunch time rolls again.
A Christian college student disturbed by the hate and rancor of our politics
If the delegates all act like primary voters, then a threshold of support would not be necessary. You could simply vote until a single candidate wins a majority. Or, you could have one single vote in which delegates rank their candidates in the order of preference (say 1-10) and then vote again from among the candidates that received the most 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th...place votes, and then keep voting until only 1 candidate is left.
But, even if you choose the candidate this way, allowing every member to work on the platform will likely produce a chaotic convention.
That reminds me of former Viginia Governor Gerry Baliles propoasl a few years back that the major parties and all parties would get better Pres candidates and platforms by holding the conventions first in early Jan/Feb of an election year and the primaries second a few months later. maybe Unity could revive/repurpose thatidea now. We have the technology to webcast in a convention in conjunction with some of us actually meeting face to face and decide on platform and get a slate of 3 or 4 good candidates to have a primary runoff with. Winner and runnerup would be the ticket. I'll leave it to the experts to work out the modalities, but it is an idea to consider and would make us stand out from the other guys' stilted decrepit process.
"Chances are even 1000 delegates would be too many for an online convention."
-------------------
That's the beauty of an online convention, though -- you could have one million delegates, since you don't have to put them all in one convention hall. Just give them ten minutes or so for important votes, and automatically tally them up.
Of course, candidate nominations would have to be done in advance, by some other screening process.
I think it'd be better if you used a percantage of total delegates for a nomination rather than just a flat number, given it the wide uncertainity of the number of total delegates.
Glad to see there is another Christian on this site too!
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I was under the impression that we would establish platform(hopefully a narrow one) by online voting. Then we would select, again by voting, candidates. Both of these could be done by polls or a more rigid controlled voting procedure. I don't know the details, security and such but I do believe that we need to do something soon because we are wasting time. We need to at least establish the platform.
Look, if you'll bare with me a minute - I think I can make some sense of things ..
1. There's nothing wrong with the Constitution : What's wrong is the way it's been perverted by amendments to satisfy "special minority interests" !!
2. How Can We Correct This : By Regaining The Power Granted Us By The Founding Fathers - THE POWER TO CONTROL THE CONDUCT OF OUR GOVERNMENT !!
3. How Can We Regain Our Power : By Making Our SPECIFIC REFORM DEMANDS KNOWN & PUBLIC - And By Issuing Those Demands In Written Form TO EVERY SITTING & ASPIRING POLITICIAN - AND REQUIRING WRITTEN COMMITMENTS FROM EACH PERSON - ON EACH ITEM OF REFORM !!
4.AND - NOTIFYING THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA OF OUR DEMANDS & EACH POLITICIANS RESPONSE - BY THE END OF 2024 !!
To be realistic considering the time frame we have to work with and the funding required, our most realistic opportunity IS TO HOLD THE MEMBERS OF BOTH PARTIES "FEET TO THE FIRE" - EVERY SINGLE POLITICIAN WILL EITHER COMMIT TO REFORMS - HE WILL KNOW THE PEOPLE MUST HAVE IF THIS DEMOCRACY IS TO SURVIVE - SOCIALLY & ECONOMICALLY - OR HIS OR HER FUTURE WILL BE UP FOR DRASTIC CHANGE IN 2024 !!
Don't screw with The Constitution - just Bring It Back From Exile and Eliminate Amendments that Violate The Essence Of Its Intent !!
If anybody has a better and more practical idea that they can put in plain language - and that I can understand : I'm ready to listen.
popo
<
Give some examples.
<
How have we lost this power? Is campaign financing really the issue when no more than half of the people who are eligible to vote actually register and seldom do more than half of the people that are registered actually go to the polls? The power to control our government was not taken from us; it was voluntarily forfeited.
<
As long as the office holders in the two major parties have control over ballot access, what do they have to be afraid of from a 3rd party/no party challenge? Ballot access and not campaign finance is the real issue.
If your child gave up a valuable gift to a group of children - because he didn't apreciate & understand its value : WHAT WOULD YOU DO ?? let them keep it - OR GET IT BACK & EXPLAIN TO YOUR CHILD THAT GIFTS OF VALUE MUST BE PROTECTED ??
Of course we allowed our Power to be taken by default, the Constitution provides means to get it back, but ....
Why get sucked into a long drawn out legal battle - WHEN PUTTING THE SPOTLIGHT ON EVERY POLITICIANS INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO VITAL REFORMS CAN DO THE JOB - QUICKER, EASIER & FOR A WHOLE LOT LESS MONEY !!
I learned that from a man named DUTCH GRUENWALD years ago, for many years Dutch was the most powerfull man in DC "behind the scenes" .. Ask Anybody that worked on the Hill in the 40's, 50's and early 60's ..
And before you find a hole in that : YOU GET THEIR ANSWERS IN WRITING - You Never Ever Take A Politicians Word FOR ANYTHING !!
YOU HAVE TO THINK "OUTSIDE THE BOX" - DO WHAT WORKS - As Long As It's Done With Style, Helps We The People and Doesn't Violate The Law !!
OH, and before I forget and you catch me on it : we do have some Elected Representatives who would do the right thing if they could : they've been rendered impotent by the acts of Congress we need to change.
popo
flaja does et it popo! Gruewald operated in a different time and political context where party discipline held some sway and Chairmen and party leaders could line up thier members with firm commitments and deliver their votes to get things done. Now with the extreme proliferation and bifurcation of power in Congress with the extensive committee/subcomittee system open to K street and Lobbyists influences (many representing you and me by the way) in writing legislation, that is not possible. What should be and is possible is complete transparency and access to who gives what and when and in what context. And let them defend it at the ballot box where we the voter say yea or nay on these bozos. So flaja is correct and ballot acsess and full disclosure and transparency would go a long way to maybe containing the problem. Your solution is nostalgic and well intended popo but a bit unrealsitic and unworkable where the present day rubber meets the road in my opinion!!
John, times have not changed with respect to an Elected or Aspiring Candidate For Office's - concern for Public Image, in fact it may be more heightened to-day because of the hype, speed and scope of todays media coverage.
Officials only like the Spotlight on when they are in control.
What's the realistic chances of the Ballot & Transparency Approach getting anywhere in time to do any good ???
John, I will listen to anything that looks like it might work for us, but in the meantime - until I see something that looks like it will work in time - I'll keep plunging ahead with my TWO PRONGED APPROACH .. my daily Postings on www.popopete.com and my efforts to get something going that makes sense to me at UNITY08.
I admit I'm a bit of a Hard nose - but its only because I care so much, and I've been through all this once before.
popo
<
What spotlight? If the majority of the American People, who are eligible to vote, cared to vote, we would not be in this situation. But, since this situation has been ongoing for at least the past 40 years, what makes you think the American People will ever care about taking back the government? If campaign finance reform is all that is needed and if the American People actually cared about campaign finance reform, don’t you think the American People would have demanded campaign finance reform long before Unity08 came along?
<
In writing? You you want the politicians to sign a Contract with America? That’s been done and it didn’t work. A politician’s signature on a piece of paper is no more valuable than the hot air he produces from his mouth.
Every one who stays at home on election day lets someone else decide the elections and the course of America. The ones who want change and vote will have a say and maybe even get what they want. The number voting is important but the majority of the ones who vote actually does the electing and deciding. The second part about signing a contract, well I can't aurgue with you on that.
People don’t vote for certain reasons:
1. They like the country as is and thus don’t vote because they don’t want anything to change.
2. They figure their vote won’t make any difference so why bother.
3. They don’t like the candidates running.
4. They just don’t care.
The best Unity08 can hope for is to increase the voter turnout from reasons 2 and 3, and I don't think campaign finance reform is the issue to do it.
A narrow platform won't work. Most Americans do not care about campaign finance reform and they will not vote on the basis of this one issue.
I still believe that a platform of three to four items is the best. If we get too inclusive, especially with some hot ticket items like abortion, gun control and such. If we concentrate on Earmarks, lobbyists, ethics and campaign reform etc, then the candidates themselves can give us their stances as far as the hot ticket items. If this happens then when we vote to select our candidate we will have someone who will represent the will of the majority. As far as the majority is concerned, I think we should have someone who will represent at least 6o% or better to avoid losing too many supporters so when election day comes we will have a better chance of either winning or at least making the big two adjust their attitude. I furthermore would like a team in the white house that will make(by the power of veto) congress pass legislation that is bipartisan by demanding at least 60% passage of any legislation and promise to sign such, even if they happen to disagree with it. That way we will have a better chance of wide support and not let 50% plus one dictate to the other 49.999%.
... less is more. 3 or 4 platform items is ideal.
Once the site is upgraded we will have an opportunity to form and vote on an American Agenda. IF this process is conducted in a true grass roots fashion and draws a critical mass or netizens (at least in the thousands), it will resonate with credibility and give the site its own buzz in the media.
I repeat: This MUST take place in grass roots fashion. The media already knows what the Founders agenda is, they need to see credible evidence of the people's agenda.
To give this centrist movement credibility, momentum, and MONEY, the American Agenda polling and policy convergence process MUST take place in a TRANSPERENT, OPEN, FAIR, and HONEST fashion!!
I'm still praying this will happen.
<
In recent years the number of people who vote in presidential elections has numbered around 100,000,000 and you think a few thousand people on the internet will have any impact?
How many Presidential elections have been decided by a million or less?
1980
86,509,678 Ronald Reagan 43,903,230 (50.7%) 8,423,115
Jimmy Carter 35,480,115 (41.0%)
1984
92,653,233 Ronald Reagan 54,455,472 (58.8%) 16,878,120
Walter Mondale 37,577,352 (40.6%)
1988
91,594,686 George H. W. Bush 48,886,597 (53.4%) 7,077,121
Michael Dukakis 41,809,476 (45.6 %)
1992
104,423,923 Bill Clinton 44,909,806 (43%) 5,805,256
George H. W. Bush 39,104,550 (37.4%)
1996
96,275,401 Bill Clinton 47,400,125 (49.2%) 8,201,370
Robert Dole 39,198,755 (40.7%)
2000
105,417,258 George W. Bush 50,460,110 (47.9%) -543,816
Al Gore 51,003,926 (48.4%)
2004
122,293,332 George W. Bush 62,040,610 (50.7%) 3,012,499
John Kerry 59,028,111 (48.3%)
Average number of popular votes cast: 99,881,073
Average margin of victory for the candidate winning the electoral vote: 6,979,095
Number of elections in which the margin of victory was less than 1,000,000: 1 (2000)
The average number of popular votes is highly alarming considering the country’s overall population trend. The 1980 census had a population of 226,545,805. The 2024 census had a population of 281,421,906. While the U.S. population increased by over 24%, the number of votes cast for president increased by less than 22%. And with the population now 300,000,000 the trend is likely to get worse.
Thanks to Ross Perot, Bill Clinton was elected twice, he should thank Mr. Perot for making him President twice. He probably already has. I agree with smhiott and Trombone Erik, three or four core issues should be u08's American Agenda.
Won't work.
The only chance Unity08 has is to bring non-voters into the process. You cannot do this with campaign finance reform because if non-voters cared about this issue, they would not be non-voters to begin with. You must find issues that will drive these non-voters to the polls.
To get the nonvoters (mostly young voters) activated into the process we must focus on the two key mega-issues domestically and internationally they have a direct generational stake in. That is Entitlements and Foreeign Policy Grand Strategy. From a Generational point of view these are the biggies they are interested in and we need to address in some meaningful way. Do that and we get them. Don't and we are history footnote. Focus on the generational issues where the biggest loosers in the present setup are the young!! THAT is the formula folks for success - a real discriminator. The other parties do not have the political courage to do it. The opening is there for us to deliver - that is if we choose the issues well.
Do you have any polling data to show what issues young voters and young non-voters are interested in?
What makes you think young voters are not interested in moral issues?
What makes you think young voters are not interested in general economic issues as much as they are entitlements? BTW: How many college students are receiving entitlements in the form of government financial aid for students?
What makes you think young voters are not interested in the environment?
<
What if you choose the 3 or 4 issues that most Americans don’t care about?
I am only a small voice here, the members of unity08 will coose the number and the subjects of the platform. I would hope that we will reflect the mood of america, if not then we are deoomed to start with.
I doubt that Unity08 can do this with anything less than several million members. It certainly will be impossible with just a few thousand.
I think that we need a series of meetings on platforms. Maybe the delegates can be broken into smaller groups with each group meeting (on-line or in person) and coming to an agreement on the platform issues. Then one person from that group meets with a larger area and they have an agreed upon platform, etc. There would be a formal platform that is agreed upon by the total group and the selected candidates. Without a platform it will be anarchy. Without the candidates agreeing to an agenda, the campaign is a failure. We would have nothing more that there is now. A couple candidates with ideas that are only important to convince the voters to vote for them and then it is thrown in the trash.
Hooray!.....Finally found the 'meat' of this organization.
Here are my suggestions:
1) May or June of 2024 would be fine for a convention. If anything it should be later.
2)Integrity of the Process--- I'll take your word for know that the technology exists to ensure "one person, one vote". However I think some sort of paper trial should be establsihed. Since you gather mailing addresses some sort of signed legal form should suffice. The statement should include an oath that the delegate is not in the employ of any candidate. ( I just heard today Edwards HIRED a blogger, I don't someone like THAT should be a candidate). A password to vote sent by snail mail would also help reduce fraud.
3) I don't see anything wrong with keeping the voting open for a day or so, although this could drag out the process if several candidates are running.
4)While conventions keep a running tally of sorts (by State), I think it might be better to simply announce the results when the voting closes. That should help alleviate 'band-wagon jumping'.
5) public confidence- Again, I think some sort of paper trail is necessary to ensure every delegate is a REAL person. Just surfing the "shout box" I find some the profiles a bit dubious. Is there any way of ensuring each delegate is a registered voter? I know I still have my Voter ID card and number.
6) There should probably be a waiting period (day or so) in between rounds of voting, to give time for reflection and politicing.
7) I'd be against elimanting the lowest total, but it really depends on how many candidate there are. If there are 20 candidates, I'd say go ahead; but if you get down to THREE, no one should be eliminated.
8) I don't see any way to TRULY identify a candidate as "Independent". It might help if the Unity convention occurs AFTER the Democratic and Republican candidates are selected.
9) VP selection---I think having each candidate submitting a list of three to five running mates and then voting on those is best.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
...over PAID bloggers who who called Catholics M*****F***ers, I think it is ESSENTIAL that all Delegates be vetted to ensure they are not in the employ of any candidate.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Bloggers who post hateful messages aren't helping the candidates they support, they are hurting them. I'm glad Edwards repudiated them today in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020800878.html
Edwards' Bloggers Apologize for Comments
By NEDRA PICKLER
The Associated Press
Thursday, February 8, 2024; 12:37 PM
WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Thursday he was personally offended by the provocative messages two of his campaign bloggers wrote criticizing the Catholic church, but he's not firing them.
Edwards issued a written statement about the fate of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwen, two days after the head of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights demanded they be fired for messages they wrote before working on the campaign.
The campaign distributed written apologies from the two women, who stressed they were writing on personal blogs and not on behalf of the campaign. Edwards said he believes in giving everyone a "fair shake."
"I've talked to Amanda and Melissa; they have both assured me that it was never their intention to malign anyone's faith, and I take them at their word," Edwards said.
Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, cited posts that the women made on blogs in the past several months in which they criticized the church's opposition to homosexuality, abortion and contraception, sometimes using profanity.
"The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwen's posts personally offended me," Edwards' statement read. "It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor or anything else."
The Edwards campaign did not immediately respond to requests for further comment beyond the written statement.
Edwards remained silent for two days as he considered whether to keep the bloggers and the controversy grew on the Internet. The pair started working for him last week as part of his outreach to liberal voters and activists on the Internet.
Marcotte also did not comment publicly until the campaign's statement was released. McEwan defended herself Tuesday in a two-sentence posting on her blog, Shakespeare's Sister, that noted her vote for 2024 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.
"I'm not going to say a lot about this right now, but suffice it to say that the fact I cast a vote, without hesitation, for a Catholic during the last presidential election might suggest I'm not anti-Catholic," her post read. "My degree from Loyola University might also suggest the same."
McEwen also posted the statement that the Edwards campaign distributed on Shakespeare's Sister on Thursday. Her portion said that she doesn't expect Edwards to agree with everything she's posted, but they share "an unwavering support of religious freedom and a deep respect for diverse beliefs.
"It has never been my intention to disparage people's individual faith, and I'm sorry if my words were taken in that way," McEwen's statement said.
Marcotte's statement said her writings on religion on her blog, Pandagon, are generally satirical criticisms of public policies and politics.
"My intention is never to offend anyone for his or her personal beliefs, and I am sorry if anyone was personally offended by writings meant only as criticisms of public politics," Marcotte said. "Freedom of religion and freedom of expression are central rights, and the sum of my personal writings is a testament to this fact."
The Catholic League counts its membership at nearly 350,000. Donohue is a frequent critic of those who speak out against the church and what he calls "political correctness run amok," such as the separation of Christmas and the holiday season.
Donohue also doesn't shy away from blunt language sometimes in his criticism of gays, Hollywood's control by "secular Jews who hate Christianity" and even the Edwards bloggers, who he referred to as "brats" in an interview Wednesday on MSNBC.
Edwards should have vetted his hires MUCH MORE thoroughly.
That's what "accountability" means.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
Bloggers and campaign staffers should be vetted. It's a problem for both sides and it won't stop until they're all more careful about those they hire:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200702070016
ABC's Moran criticized Edwards blogger, failed to ask similar questions about McCain aides
In a February 6 ABCNews.com weblog post titled "Does John Edwards Condone Hate Speech?" ABC's Nightline co-host Terry Moran wrote that a "bit of a tempest is brewing over the strident and profanity-laced writings" of Amanda Marcotte, a blogger recently hired by Edwards' presidential campaign. In his post, Moran asked five rhetorical questions, including, "What, if anything, does it tell us about Edwards that he's joined up with this blogger?" and "If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react?"
In fact, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has hired Republican operative Terry Nelson as campaign manager and political consultant and blogger Patrick Hynes on his presidential campaign. Despite a February 4 New York Times front-page article, which reported that McCain is hiring "advisers who once sought to skewer him and whose work he has criticized as stepping over the line in the past," Moran never asked similar questions of McCain. Moran, who began blogging on January 23, has also never broached the subject of McCain's controversial hires on his blog or on ABC*.
As blogger and attorney Glenn Greenwald noted in a February 7 post on his weblog Unclaimed Territory, Moran appeared to "echo[] the sentiments of his brother, right-wing blogger Rick Moran of 'Right Wing NutHouse.' "
From Moran's February 6 weblog post:
A bit of a tempest is brewing over the strident and profanity-laced writings of John Edwards' official campaign "blogmaster," Amanda Marcotte. She joined the Edwards campaign last week, and she's already gotten a lot of attention.
At issue are Marcotte's comments on her own blog, Pandagon (http://www.pandagon.net/), which has staked out a prominent place in the left-wing blogosphere. It's pretty strong stuff; her comments about other people's faiths could well be construed as hate speech.
Questions: What, if anything, does it tell us about Edwards that he's joined up with this blogger? Is Edwards' association with a person who has written these things a legitimate issue for voters, as they wonder -- among other things -- whom he might appoint to high office if he's elected? If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react? Is the mere raising of this issue a kind of underhanded censorship, a way of ruling out of bounds some kinds of opinion? Are we all just going to have to get used to a more rough-and-tumble, profane, and even hate-filled public arena in the age of the blogosphere?
*Lexis/Nexis database search: "Moran AND Nelson OR Hynes" in ABC transcripts from previous year.