Barack Obama has consistently voted to make sure as many babies are murdered as possible, voting against every possible limit that came across his desk, and people here can’t wait to anoint him the new Christ.

While I’ve never agreed with the position that says one can only vote for a candidate that is completely against abortion, regardless of the candidate’s stances on any other issue, certainly abortion needs to be high on the list. And when you have a guy who consistently votes for as many abortions as possible, to the point where he’ll against bills that even NARAL doesn’t oppose, you have to say “gee, maybe this isn’t just not in line with Church teaching, he’s actively and vociferously opposed to it.” If there’s any spiritual vacuum, it’s the one that allows some like Obama to become a secular Messiah, and Obama is merely a symptom, not a cure.

I think Donald got it right posting that Obama is a Rorschach test. He’s simply an empty suit with a good speaking voice, but nothing to say, except of course, change! What kind of change, he’s never gotten very specific about, except of course, the need to make sure as many children are murdered as possible.

Judging from what you’ve written thus far, I would have to say your failure to comprehend my argument is undisguised.

Total rubbish. Your post boils down to “The guys on the other side are devils, and the guys I support are angels, notwithstanding any evidence to the contrary”. Gerald if you truly are this terminally naive, rather than merely disingenuous, you are in for a very rude awakening.

Plato said the State is Man writ large. With that in mind, it would be tragic if the American people were persuaded they had to conduct their affairs following the advice of men like Dent, Atwater, and Rove. For when History came to the final chapter on America, Truth would require it to write something akin to Atwater’s final confession.

We, as individuals and as a nation, can do better than that. It is within us to do better.

I advise everyone to read Pericles Funeral Oration. It speaks to our current predicament more forcefully than most would imagine.

The Achilles Heel of America lies in its tendency to subscribe to the belief that “the end justifies the means.” This is a logical outcome of the Nominalist/Voluntarist underpinnings that cast its influence on America and the modern mind. While our national conversation too often reflects a quarrel about ends there is little critical analysis of the proper and intrinsic proportionality that needs to exist in the relationship between means and ends.

We tend to act as though means were neutral in regards to the outcomes we seek. But, as I’ve indicated, the ends that ensue are nothing more than a reflection of the means used to obtain those ends. This is why Dent, Atwater, and Rove are so dangerous. In the end, they offer the promise of power and wealth. But they don’t offer dignity, freedom, or solidarity. Thus the outcomes they engineer are self-destructive. Always. Nothing endures.

Thomistic ethics affirms the primacy of the intellect over the will. This is why its center of gravity is called “practical reason.” It involves an analysis of the principles inherent in the means and the ends and analyzes their proportionality. Popular discussion, on the other hand, places emphasis on “choosing the good” as though it existed apart from the means used to obtain it (Voluntarism). This leads to the Achilles Heel I mentioned above. While such form of debate is popular, it has practical validity only in topsy-turvy land.

He is also aware of the antidote to dirty politics. His success is evidence of that.

If there were any substance to your allegation of moral equivalence, it would already be manifest in the 2008 presidential campaign. Clearly, it is not to be found. Indeed, the absence of such Machiavellianism has been a subject of ongoing criticism by political experts, pundits, and the MSM.

Others, including Ted Sorenson (jFK’s speechwriter), are not surprised by Obama’s success. To them, the formula “the end justifies the means” has never been a prescription for sound political leadership. And the reason is simple. Such tactics are beneath the dignity and aspirations of this great nation.

It may come as a surprise to you but not everyone in America is motivated by the kind of soul-destroying treachery as has been exhibited by the likes of Dent, Atwater, and Rove.

I would express things a little differently than the quote you provide.

I see it this way. America, unlike any other country in human history, was founded on an idea — the idea of freedom. For this reason, America is a dynamic nation. It is not static. It aspires to make concrete the unrealized dimensions of personal freedom locked within the confines of the human imagination. For this reason, Americans are always looking beyond themselves, beyond where they exist today.

I tried to capture this dynamism in a letter I wrote recently to Senator Barack Obama. It was written within the context of US public diplomacy. The following paragraphs are from that 4,000 word letter:

“… but there is more. Effective public diplomacy requires a process of renewal at home. For “telling America’s story to the world” — a phrase which denotes public diplomacy — is powerful only because it is true. But it can only remain true and powerful if America never stops rewriting the story it has to tell.

“The story of America is no simple narrative. Every period of its history is dynamic and dramatic. Whether it be the Revolutionary period, the Westward movement, the Civil War, the tides of immigration, the women’s suffrage movement, the labor movement, the civil rights movement, the women’s liberation movement, the gay rights movement, or the environmental movement – all phases of American history represent heroic struggles to give shape and substance to the universal notions of personal dignity, individual freedom, and human solidarity.

“Thus the struggle for the future of freedom never ends. It requires that everyday, someone, somewhere applies their creative energies to challenge the old order and replace it with the new. It requires this to happen in business and science, politics and law, cinema and television, music and sports, education and news, and on and on. America’s story, like its promise, is that of a nation on the march holding high the banner of dignity, freedom, and solidarity. It is a dynamic and living spectacle giving inspiration and hope to all mankind. To remain vital in the world, America must struggle to remain vital here at home, particularly in this Information Age where news in the City of New Orleans, or about a high school known as Columbine, is instantly news everywhere around the globe.

“Truth demands the story of America to be told, “warts and all.” But the story of America is also a story of what we permit and what we do not; it is a matter of the spirit and its intrinsic yearnings. From that vantage point, the world is constantly watching. It sets standards for America that are always high. The question now being asked by individuals and populations the world over is this: “Will America be a self-obsessed nation, pre-occupied with its hedonistic and utilitarian concerns? Or, will America be a hope and inspiration for the rest of mankind?”

“Given this, America’s enduring challenge is to judge wisely. Poor judgment is America’s Achilles Heel. To respond authentically, America must be mindful of that silent voice of conscience within its heart. We must ask ourselves continually: “Is the example we radiate to the world today worthy of the inscription Frederic Bartholdi placed on his statue in New York Harbor: Liberty Enlightening the World? Would Lady Liberty be proud?

“Clearly, it is time to revisit the transcendent interrogatories of the American drama: 1) “What kind of people shall we choose to become?” 2) “What kind of America shall we choose to create?” and 3) “What kind of example shall we allow America to project to the world?” These questions denote moral and intellectual challenges. They reveal that America’s security is intrinsically connected to the power of its example. If America’s example falters here at home – if we cease the struggle to make incarnate personal dignity, individual freedom, and human solidarity for all Americans — surely our collective security will be substantially diminished overseas.”

For Obama, advancing this far in a career this early on suggests some infrastructure to “market” himself akin to Bush (who really lacked any successes at the time of his presidential campaign and an in depth look at his resume at the time would suggest he ruined every group he was in charge of). And Bush employed “kingmaker” and dirty politics experts to forward his career.

“Axelrod is known for operating in this gray area, part idealist, part hired muscle. It is difficult to discuss Axelrod in certain circles in Chicago without the matter of the Blair Hull divorce papers coming up. As the 2004 Senate primary neared, it was clear that it was a contest between two people: the millionaire liberal, Hull, who was leading in the polls, and Obama, who had built an impressive grass-roots campaign. About a month before the vote, The Chicago Tribune revealed, near the bottom of a long profile of Hull, that during a divorce proceeding, Hull’s second wife filed for an order of protection. In the following few days, the matter erupted into a full-fledged scandal that ended up destroying the Hull campaign and handing Obama an easy primary victory. The Tribune reporter who wrote the original piece later acknowledged in print that the Obama camp had “worked aggressively behind the scenes” to push the story. But there are those in Chicago who believe that Axelrod had an even more significant role — that he leaked the initial story. They note that before signing on with Obama, Axelrod interviewed with Hull. They also point out that Obama’s TV ad campaign started at almost the same time. Axelrod swears up and down that “we had nothing to do with it” and that the campaign’s television ad schedule was long planned. “An aura grows up around you, and people assume everything emanates from you,” he told me.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?_r=3&oref=slogin&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Politics Illinois style tends to get very rough. Maybe Axelrod and Obama have gone through a spiritual epiphany since 2004. Sure.