A name that has been whispered among the many for Barack Obama’s ticket is Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson. Nelson is a moderate Democrat, widely respected among Republicans and members of his own party. Nelson is one of four pro-life Democrats currently in the Senate, and he has shown himself to be an unwavering defender of life. He has been endorsed by both the Nebraska Right to Life PAC and Nebraskans United for Life. If he were to be selected as Obama’s running mate, I would consider voting for Obama this November with the hope that Nelson would not only mitigate Obama’s strong position in favor of legalized abortion, but also bolster the growing presence and effect of Democrats for Life within the party.
Why would Obama select Nelson? It’s a long shot, but the dividends from such a choice are obvious:
- Obama is seeking to snatch a red state or two this election, and Nebraska would fit the bill. He’s already leading McCain in the key swing states of Pennsylvania by 12% (Bob Casey, Jr. would make a fine running mate), Ohio by 6%, and Florida by 4% (Obama did not even campaign here for the primary). Nebraska would only yield 5 electoral votes, however, but its influence could extend to neighboring Kansas, Iowa, and Colorado.
- Nelson currently enjoys a 68% approval rating in his state, which is astounding for a Democrat in Nebraska. An Obama/Nelson ticket could possibly but Nebraska in Obama’s column, though McCain currently leads there by 11%.
- Running with a moderate like Nelson could bring most of the reluctant Hillary Clinton supporters to Obama along with a large constituency of independents.
- In 2006, we saw in Pennsylvania just how formidable a pro-life Democrat can be. Sure, Casey had the name recognition going for him, but he took away the faith and pro-life angle of Rick Santorum leaving the incumbent with little more to attract staunch Catholic voters.
Though there seems to be little chance that Nelson will be tapped for the V.P. slot, anything is possible with a guy who claims “Change.” If Neson were selected, it would not seal the deal for me; considering to vote is not the same as deciding to vote. But like I said, I would definitely give Obama a second look.
I’m impressed that Ben Nelson was able to escape the Democrats’ usual vicious hackery when it comes to Supreme Court appointments, and vote to confirm John Roberts and Alito.
I actually heard Ben Nelson mentioned as a possible VP pick for McCain too. Not sure which is more likely.
Would you consider voting for a KKK member as long as his running mate was against slavery?
Would you consider voting for a KKK member as long as his running mate was against slavery?
I didn’t realize Robert Byrd was in the running.
Just like members say that the president has little to no influence on abortion, the VP has even less influence to do a darned thing. The only thing I’ve seen a VP do worth mentioning is break a tie in the senate, e.g. Al Gore breaking the tie in the Senate and instituting the unconstitutional “assault” weapon ban in ’94.
Obama would still make it his first priority to increase federal funding of abortion, and lessen/override state restrictions.
Meanwhile, he’d be laughing about duping the people who thought his VP pick meant something.
Just like members say that the president has little to no influence on abortion, the VP has even less influence to do a darned thing.
Where have you been the last eight years?!?
“Where have you been the last eight years?!?”
Same place you have, watching Cheney gain unconstitutional power. He still can’t sign executive orders or sign bills.
Are you advocating that the next president do the same that G.W. has been criticized for all along?
At a bare minimum, Obama would have to publicly drop his support for the FOCA to get my vote. The VP might be able to influence the President, but at the end of the day, the President is the one who signs or vetoes the bills. If hypothetical-VP Nelson would demonstrate that he can influence Obama in a concrete way, I’d reconsider, but until then, I’d just view it as another form of pro-life pandering.
I would say many conservatives, due to their enthusiasm for the Iraq War, a this way/that way attitude toward torture, opposition to government help for the poor and those without health insurance, etc., have, let us say, somewhat dubious credibility (or at least glaring inconsistency) on life issues. The people that need to be convinced to care are liberals – you get more liberals opposed to abortion and convinced of the need to restrict it, and you can bet things would definitely change.
Byrd? Don’t you mean Strom Thurmond, George Allen, Jeff Sessions, or Trent Lott? After all, Byrd repented….
The VP might be able to influence the President, but at the end of the day, the President is the one who signs or vetoes the bills. If hypothetical-VP Nelson would demonstrate that he can influence Obama in a concrete way, I’d reconsider, but until then, I’d just view it as another form of pro-life pandering.
This is my exact feeling. Hence, I would only consider voting for Obama.
Are you advocating that the next president do the same that G.W. has been criticized for all along?
Nope. Just showing that you are wrong to think the “VP has even less influence to do a darned thing.”
iust showing that you are wrong to think the “VP has even less influence to do a darned thing.”
Notice I said that cheney should not have the power he does, and that even with that power, he still can’t sign laws or executive orders.
Notice I said that cheney should not have the power he does, and that even with that power, he still can’t sign laws or executive orders.
I did not notice that. But the state of affairs and what should be the case are not the same thing.
MM:
That is a ridiculous cheap shot. First of all, none of the men you mentioned were Klansman. Strom was a segregationist – who, contrary to your calumny, did repent of his ways. I have no idea why you bring up the other three than pershaps an implicit aassumption that any Republican with a southern accent must automatically be a Klansman.
What an idiotic comment.
Strom Thurmond was a segregationist… back when he was a Democrat. So far as I know, the only Klan member to be President was Truman (he was a member for about a week until they told him he couldn’t give jobs to Catholics). As Hugo Black (ex-Klan member, Democratic Senator, and Roosevelt appointee to the Supreme Court) put it: “You have to understand, at the time the Klan was the left wing of the Democratic party.”
Blackadder – why did many “Boll Weevil” Democrats change their Party affiliation from Democrat to Republican? Why did blacks overwhelmingly change their party affiliation from Republican to Democratic after the 1960s? Is it possible there is a common factor in these two groups’ respective decisions?
“I have no idea why you bring up the other three than pershaps an implicit aassumption that any Republican with a southern accent must automatically be a Klansman.”
No; maybe it’s just because MM reads the newspapers like other informed Americans do.
After all, Byrd repented…
Beat me to it. Blackadder’s cheap shot is awfully similar to those who would call Pope Benedict a Nazi.
Mark:
That would have been an informed comment, except that the only newspaper that would reveal these men to be even remotely Klan related would be National Enquirer.
Come now, Cranky–when you cheap shot “bad people,” it becomes a prophetic utterance. Do keep up.
Anyway, the latest buzz has Senator Obama considering former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn, which would be a canny political choice. But this early in the process, the odds are against hearing about who’s really being considered.
Though I think it is a little unfair to mention Byrd’s past membership in the Klan considering that he has repented of it, it’s not really analogous to the Pope Benedict situation. Joseph Ratzinger was more or less forced into the Hitler Youth. He did not freely choose to join the organization, whereas Byrd certainly entered the Klan freely and without coercion. So it’s not really the same thing.
So Sebelius is out as a prospective VP? – that would be NARAL’s dream ticket.
I think the constitutional duties and authority of the VP are to daily inquire as to the health of the president and attend state funerals.
I would vote for Obama if he were running against satan. I’m not saying there would material differences in their agendas. It’s that Ob would not be as effective.
CrankyCon,
Keep on defending your seeming second Mother, the GOP.
My Catholicism is not a function of any American political party affiliation.
Cheers!
Mark,
Why do you so quickly move to impugn other peoples faith?
The important battle is not fighting our fellow Catholics; it is against Satan. The GOP is not Satan. Neither is the Democratic Party.
Entirely off the point, but I admit that I really enjoy this WordPress ID badge/logo for each of our posts. It reminds me a lot of the Iznik ceramic tiles the Ottomans used to produce (and Turkish craftsmen today are having some success in re-creating).
Of course, that’s just [one of] my [many, many] quirky thought[s], and YMMV.
Cranky Con: I’m from South Carolina. I taught Strom Thurmond’s children in high school there. Take it from me, he NEVER “repented,” and he and his trophy wife (who eventually divorced him after he did’t croak soon enough for her to marry one of the legislative assistants she always picked for him on the basis of their male pulchritude) brought their children up to be as racist as they were. I’ll never forget an argument I had one morning in the principal’s office of the school wherein I taught Nancy Moore Thurmond over whether the film Mississipi Burning was “unfair” to the South. You are talking out of your hat.
CrankyCon:
Unfortunately, dd is right–Thurmond never explicitly renounced his segregationist views. Yes, he supported the King holiday and extension of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, but he never repented like Byrd and Wallace.
Poli,
Who are the other two pro-life Dems (besides Ben Nelson and Bob Casey)? I can’t think of any others who are solidly pro-life.
“I can’t think of any others who are solidly pro-life.”
Kennedy is a huge champion of social justice and stands solidly against capital punishment.
Is that pro-life?
Keep in mind that a NARAL-endorsed candidate is most analogous to an active, committed, unrepentant KKK member. One has to consider whether one would vote for a candidate who unapologetically says that burning uppity n*****s to death should be safe, legal, and rare; as long as the candidate’s running mate was against burning uppity n*****s.
Who are the other two pro-life Dems (besides Ben Nelson and Bob Casey)? I can’t think of any others who are solidly pro-life.
I am thinking of Harry Reid and Mark Pryor, though I think their support for exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother–like McCain–keeps them from really being deserving of being called “pro-life” in the fullest sense.
Zach,
I do not go around with a tag like LividLib or DaisyDem.
I take it from reading this thread if McCain picked Senator Brownback every one would be getting on the McCain express
Mark:
So my largely tongue-in-cheek bloghandle is supposed to justify your completely unfounded attempt to argue that I am more beholden to the GOP than to my faith? That’s really rather unfortunate, but whatever.
As for Strom: I stand corrected.
The pro-life dems usually vote no differently than the pro-abort dems
It’s a party line over principle thing
CrankyCon,
I apologize. I know I stepped over the line.
Zach,
Quit while your ahead.
Mark:
No problem. Apology accepted.
Thank you for your graciouness.
Mark,
What is that supposed to mean?
I’m bored. It’s Friday afternoon. Also, what I said is true. Look up the voting records of the aforementioned senators.
As for the topic of the post – what was the topic of this post? Oh yeah, the appointment of the designated funeral attender. I think both nominees are actually going to have to pick someone to their right. Obama definitely could use someone like Nunn to ease concerns over his lack of foreign policy experience, but Nelson would probably be a more useful fit. McCain would just about lose any conservative support he has left if he goes with some of the more extreme names I’ve heard (Bloomberg, Lieberman: that ain’t happening), but even a Charlie Criss could cost him votes. I think Jindal is out, but I can see Palin still being in the mix.
In the end though, it really is a lot of speculation over the “most useless office ever devised by man.”
CC,
Agreed (except with a slight reservation, concerning what Dick Cheney has recently done to the office of VP).
I heard that Strom wasn’t a segregationist because he was a racist. He just didn’t want to be any place where he might run into one of his kids.
About Jeff sessions (from wikkipedia):
Sessions had unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers (including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King, Jr), on a case of election fraud for the 1984 election. Sessions spent hours interrogating black voters in predominantly black counties, finding only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of the more than 1.7 million ballots cast. The three civil rights workers were acquitted after four hours of jury deliberation.
During his nomination to federal court, it was revealed that Sessions had once labeled the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) “un-American,” “Communist-inspired,” and had said that they “forced civil rights down the throats of people.” At his confirmation hearings, Sessions said that the groups could be un-American when “they involve themselves in un-American positions” in foreign policy. Sessions also stated about the Ku Klux Klan, “I used to think they’re OK,” until he learned that some Klan members were “pot smokers”. Sessions claims he was joking or misunderstood.
I saw the wikipedia article too. I think you need a little more than that to put him in league with the Klan.
In other news, it seems that the other Senator from Nebraska, Chuck Hagel, has announced that he would be open to being Obama’s VP.
That would be interesting…
CC,
“I think you need a little more than that to put him in league with the Klan.”
Yeah, but it’s enough to want him nowhere near any of the educational endeavors that will involve my children.
Beyond an internship at the White House ( admit it MZ Forrest) what is all th ehoopla about Obama about?
I must admit finding it a little amusing that the same people who, quite rightly, heap scorn on notorious racists do not like to hear scorn heaped upon notorious pro-choicers.
Isn’t being “pro-choice” about letting some people choose to force minorities to sit in the back of the bus pretty similar to being “pro-choice” about letting some people dismember the very young?
I must admit finding it a little amusing that the same people who, quite rightly, heap scorn on notorious racists do not like to hear scorn heaped upon notorious pro-choicers.
Well, if it actually amounted to endorsement of “dismembering the very young,” it would be something other than “amusing.” The matter of abortion really is not settled one way or another, and may never be. Look at the number of countries around the world that accept abortion in one way or another, and look at the counties that prohibit abortion entirely. This in no way proves who is right and who is wrong about abortion, but it is generally the countries who support human rights who also sanction abortion.
Most of us don’t heap scorn on the heads of, say, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison for being slave owners, although of course we may be troubled or puzzled by it.
“dismembering the very young,”
Go ahead. Come up with a euphemism that allows you to quiet your conscience with the delusion that” The matter of abortion really is not settled one way or another…”
Well, if it actually amounted to endorsement of ‘lynching uppity n*****s’ it would be something other than amusing.
Oh wait.
Kevin,
My conscience is not the issue here. The question is whether there is a consensus on abortion. I think it is accurate to say there is no consensus in the way there is a consensus on slavery or torture or perhaps even capital punishment. Take a look at one of those maps of the world that color codes countries for abortion and tell me which areas–in general–are the areas where your values are in force.
Regarding the phrase “dismembering the very young,” if abortion is wrong, it is not the grisly nature of abortion techniques that make it so. Just because the average person might find it difficult to watch open-heart surgery does not make it morally offensive, and surely you don’t object to abortion on the grounds that it is not pretty.
David,
There was once a moral consensus on slavery. Stances like yours would have only perpetuated it’s practice. And if you believe in an objective moral order, neither slavery, nor abortion are permissible.
Sorry your conscience is the issue, not the color codes on your Atlas.
As my kids, like to say; Man up!
“David Nickol Says:
June 21, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Kevin,
My conscience is not the issue here. The question is whether there is a consensus on abortion. I think it is accurate to say there is no consensus in the way there is a consensus on slavery or torture or perhaps even capital punishment. ”
That is just nonsensical. There is such a thing as right or wrong. There is such a thing as evil. I don’t need a consensus to recognize evil.
Back to the topic. The running mate selection means nothing to me. The most strongly pro-abortion presidential candidate ever would still be the same man regardless of his running mate. I could be his running mate and he’d still be an abhorrent choice to any Catholic. Beyond that, his total lack of experience makes him an awful choice to any American. We are talking about a guy who was a community activist for a few years then a state senator for a few years (where he often just voted Present rather than yes or no) and then a U.S. senator for 143 days before announcing he was running for president (again often just voted Present rather than yes or no). He has never run anything bigger than his senate office and has no real accomplishments.
That is just nonsensical. There is such a thing as right or wrong. There is such a thing as evil. I don’t need a consensus to recognize evil.
The remark I was addressing was from DarwinCatholic saying, “I must admit finding it a little amusing that the same people who, quite rightly, heap scorn on notorious racists do not like to hear scorn heaped upon notorious pro-choicers.” I am not arguing that there is no such thing as right or wrong, or that a consensus is necessary to recognize evil. I am merely saying there is a consensus that racism is wrong and there is not a consensus that abortion is wrong. At the moment, abortion is accepted in most of the free world, and in the United States the right to an abortion is a constitutional right–one that five Catholic justices on the Supreme Court don’t seem prepared to rescind (even though some of them were put there in the hopes they would). I certainly wouldn’t deny anyone the right to oppose abortion, but “heaping scorn” on people who support a constitutional right doesn’t make much sense to me. It’s also probably not a helpful tactic for “pro-lifers” who want to change people’s minds. Although I admit it is more emotionally gratifying to heap scorn on the head of those with whom one strongly disagrees.
. . . . he’d still be an abhorrent choice to any Catholic
I guess the Catholics who are currently supporting Obama aren’t really Catholics.
I guess the Catholics who are currently supporting Obama aren’t really Catholics.
Perhaps, rather, and for whatever reason, they lack the capacity to discern what is objectively abhorrent.
“I guess the Catholics who are currently supporting Obama aren’t really Catholics.”
I did not say that. I said it was abhorrent choice. We can make many choices that are abhorrent without forfeiting our Catholicism. A Catholic who is a recovering alcoholic who tries to have one drink is making an abhorrent choice. However, they are still a Catholic. A Catholic could mistakenly fall for Obama’s stance that the government is the answer to all of problems. With that mindset, a decent Catholic could somehow convince themselves that he is the better candidate. It would still be an abhorrent choice for our country (and definitely for the pre-born) but as long as they aren’t voting for him because of his dedication to the abortion industry they are not abandoning the church. It may take some mental gymnastics to get to that point. My understanding is that is the church’s position. However, a Catholic politician who consistently fights to keep infanticide legal (Kennedy, Dodd, Biden, Pelosi, etc, etc) has abandoned the Catholic Church and should no longer pass themselves off as Catholic. However, that is very different than a voter who merely makes a bad choice in the voting booth. My godmother aunt has been voting for Democrats since FDR. She is wonderful Catholic woman. I pray that she isn’t held to account for those votes.
Obama’s stance that the government is the answer to all of [our?] problems
Largebill – that’s a ridiculous caricature. Obama takes a more expansive view of government’s responsibility to help people than Republicans do: duh, he’s a Democrat. The Democratic Party has historically tended to make use of the government to balance the power of large corporations and wealthy elites – this is more or less mainstream American politics since the New Deal era.
David,
You seem remarkably comfortable with anything as long as it enjoys legal, political or cultural acceptance. Almost as if you think Truth is arrived at by simple head-count, or sheer inertia is an acceptable response when confronted by evil. Again, your response to Dred Scott would be the same as your response to Roe v Wade, a shrug, a washing of the hands and a sighed; “guess that’s settled”
I’d say Catholics who support Obama typically do so by adopting your approach or by willfully distorting or disregarding Church Teaching. Faith requires courage, as the temptation to go with the flow is a very powerful one. Catholics supporting Obama have basically capitulated to the culture.
“Courage is the price that life exacts for granting peace with yourself” – Amelia Earhart
“The Democratic Party has historically tended to make use of the government to balance the power of large corporations and wealthy elites…”
Please, talk about cartoonish descriptions. The Democrats use the government to protect and empower their own economic and cultural elites. Any objective observer would look at the Great Society and assume it was designed to create a permanent underclass that could be cynically manipulated every election cycle and to expand the powers of the well-heeled managerial class that benefits from the administering the chaos that passes for life in most American cities.
To suggest big business and big government are somehow adversaries is laughable.
Kevin –
There was a consensus in the United States from the mid-30s to about 1980 that one thing we wanted our government to do was to keep things more equal than they end up being under a pure laissez-faire system where the market determines all, and let the poor fend for themselves.
Any objective observer would look at the Great Society and assume it was designed to create a permanent underclass that could be cynically manipulated every election cycle and to expand the powers of the well-heeled managerial class that benefits from the administering the chaos that passes for life in most American cities.
Let me make sure I’m understanding this: You’re saying the Great Society Programs were a conspiracy against poor people by the rich?
Matt,
“You’re saying the Great Society Programs were a conspiracy against poor people by the rich?”
I’m saying it might as well be given the permanence of the underclass and the continuing breakdown of the family as the State plays the role of a cold, sterile parent.
I am not a libertarian, nor an advocate of laissez-faire economics, but the collusion between Corporate America and Leviathan is pretty obvious. Arguing otherwiseis just blinkered partisanship and not a honest assessment of reality
“Let me make sure I’m understanding this: You’re saying the Great Society Programs were a conspiracy against poor people by the rich?”
Matt,
Are you unaware of that? Not exactly a conspiracy, but a plan to remain in power by keeping a segment of the population in need of government assistance. LBJ was quoted as saying that his welfare programs would have the blacks (he, of course, used a word that started with N instead) voting for Dems for the next 200 years. I’m sure many of those who supported the various government programs honestly thought they would help. However, many just did not consider the law of unintended consequences. Democrat policies from the last century have lead to a permanent underclass dependent on government assistance. If too many people succeed then there will be less people susceptible to being bribed for their vote with gifts of government assistance. I’m not painting all Dems with this brush. I believe some, like Pat Moynihan, really thought they were helping. However, for many it was just about maintaining power.
Largebill,
It might be argued that those who initially implemented the Welfare State did so without knowing the consequences. Who now though, can contend that it’s continuation serves the interests of anyone other than the Managerial Class? Besides those comfortable with telescopic philanthropy, that is.
I’d say Catholics who support Obama typically do so by adopting your approach or by willfully distorting or disregarding Church Teaching. Faith requires courage . . . .
Kevin,
I would be convinced of the courage of the “pro-life” movement if there were more people who really wanted to vote for Obama but could not bring themselves to do so solely because of his stand on abortion. The people who are arguing that Catholics absolutely must vote for McCain are people who would be supporting McCain anyway. It does not take much “courage” to argue that everyone is morally obliged to support the candidate you support.
I’d say Catholics who support Obama typically do so by adopting your approach or by willfully distorting or disregarding Church Teaching.
If it is a teaching of the Catholic Church that one is obliged to vote for McCain and not Obama, then the Catholic Church should make a clear statement to that effect. I personally do not believe it is the position of the Catholic Church that all lives are equal, a fetus is a life, and consequently, in order to vote for Obama one must arrive at a calculation showing he would save more lives supporting abortion as McCain would opposing it. That is not moral reasoning; it’s arithmetic.
By the way, what obligations do the five Catholics on the Supreme Court have regarding abortion?
David,
You really are determined to vote for Obama and won’t let anything get in the way. Below are some links on Catholic Teaching and the responsibility we all have to resist the evil that is abortion. Judges included, or does that offend your bifurcation between some mythical personal sphere of faith has hobby and a de-Christianized role as public actor?
By the way, I don’t support McCain as I’m anti-war and anti-interventionist. Obama as you know has no such qualms, outside of Iraq. Instead of setting up a false choice between McCain and Obama within the dictatorship of relativism, why don’t you ever use Church documents to support your arguments? Just wondering.
As for courage, you’ve contended that abortion is settled and can’t be considered evil because the Supreme Court and the color codes on your favorite map say so. Let’s face it; your merely conforming to the City of Man, so lectures on courage may not be your strong suit.
http://www.ewtn.com/vote/Catholic_Politicians/index.asp
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisteriumteachings.html
http://www.catholic.com/library/abortion.asp
David:
If it is a teaching of the Catholic Church that one is obliged to vote for McCain and not Obama, then the Catholic Church should make a clear statement to that effect.
How about neither?
By the way, the fact that the Church has not explicitly said (for example) ‘the Iraq war was initiated unjustly’ doesn’t imply that the Iraq war was initiated justly, and therefore Catholics can in good conscience support the Iraq war. I think it is pretty clear that it wasn’t initiated justly.
The question we ought to be asking ourselves is not “has the Church explicitly forbidden me to vote for Obama/McCain?” or “Has the Church explicitly forbidden me to support the Iraq war?” The question we ought to be asking ourselves is “as a matter of objective fact, is it morally acceptable to vote for Obama/McCain?”
I tend to think the answer is “no”, whichever one of the major candidates you substitute into the question. Our consciences have been so numbed that many of us actually take seriously the possibility of giving our personal endorsement to one of two candidates with objectively despicable platforms.
Zippy, well-said!
David;
“Every voice matters in the public forum. Every vote counts. Every act of responsible citizenship is an exercise of significant individual power. We must exercise that power in ways that will defend human life, especially those of God’s children who are unborn, disabled or otherwise vulnerable. We get the public officials we deserve. Their virtue – - or lack thereof – - is a judgement not only on them, but on us. Because of this, we urge our fellow citizens to see beyond party politics , to analyze campaign rhetoric critically, and to choose their political leaders according to principle, not party affiliation or mere self-interest.”
Catholic Bishops of the United States
November 18, 1998,
Zippy and Kevin,
The question of whether a faithful Catholic can vote for almost any contemporary politician seems a much better question than whether he or she can vote for Obama.
David: I agree. The celebratory mood around deliberate cooperation with – lets face the facts here – the modern holocaust, is a pretty amazing statement of the present state of Catholicism. Mute and very reluctant support I can understand, I suppose, though I think it is misguided.
But anyone who is triumphalist about Obama or McCain must have a terrifically numb, distorted, or damaged conscience, it seems to me.
David,
True, but what I find appalling is a site touting its “Catholic Perspectives on Culture, Society and Politics” as being all too indistinguishable from the standard blog fare offered up by generic partisan.
Worse, are the mental gymnastics some make to claim that signing the Freedom of Choice Act into law is a mere trifling. Maybe it’s a form of the Stockholm Syndrome, but some here appear giddy in their glee to vote for Obama and will use any tool available to sow dissent and obscure the truth. Truly nauseating.
The Catholics supporting McCain remind me of those driven into the fascist camp back in the 30′s as they frantically sought a “bulwark against Bolshevism”, even if it meant 3rd class status in a heretical Pagan state. Their fear of the Abortion Regime’s ultimate triumph has made them blind to the anti-Christian aspects of the Bush – McCain policies.
Making peace with the Culture of Death is an act with serious ramifications for each individual on this forum, yet I don’t sense a wide-spread realization of that fact.
Considering the author of the post on FOCA condemned Obama’s support of FOCA and stated he wouldn’t vote for Obama on that basis, that seems like an odd cudgel to be using.
Speaking for myself, I have difficulty seeing why you would care what anyone does since the whole enterprise is doomed anyway. at least according to your belief set.
I have difficulty seeing why you would care what anyone does since the whole enterprise is doomed anyway. at least according to your belief set.
Yes, MZ, we know that anyone who doesn’t think just exactly like you is a fatalist.
Personally, I think that supporting either one of these two mainstream presidential candidates is a profound expression of fatalism.
Not necessarily. It could just as easily be indifferentism. There are any number of belief sets that can get you to the point of supporting neither candidate. A principled stand on a particular issue does not appear to be one of them if we are going to constrain the outcomes to those that are logical.
I don’t see by what logical function you would see selecting between the two competing candidates as fatalist, but since you state is is profound, it must be.
Well, if it isn’t the Nadia Comaneci of polemics pivoting on the monkey bars.
Voting for Obama ensures passage of FOCA. Whether that is the rationale for your supporting him, or not doesn’t alter the fact that you will be defying your Church.
Kmiec and his camp followers should be present at the Rose Garden ceremony to receive the souvenier forceps and scissors emblazoned with the Presidential seal as mementos.
It will be richly deserved.
Since I’m not in the habit of calling various bishops not catholic, I’ll consider the source of the one inventing his doctine.
Actually, I said Mahony, the subject of a disgusting documentary and ongoibg criminal investigation should be on the receiving side of Prison Ministry. That a heterodox prelate doling out 500 million is settlements and fighting the legal requirement to reveal his notes on the matter all the way to the Supreme Court, is not surprising to anyone familiar with your screeds.
“The 2006 documentary Deliver Us From Evil is based on accusations that Mahony knew that Oliver O’Grady, a priest who sexually abused children, including a nine-month-old baby, in a string of Central California towns for 20 years, was a child molester but failed to keep him away from children. In 1984, a Stockton police investigation into sexual abuse allegations against O’Grady was reportedly closed after diocesan officials promised to remove the priest from any contact with children. Instead, he was reassigned to a parish about 50 miles (80 km) east, in San Andreas, where he continued to molest children. Not long after, Mahony was promoted to archbishop of Los Angeles, the largest Catholic diocese in the country. In Deliver Us From Evil, O’Grady says Mahony was “very supportive and very compassionate and that another situation had been smoothly handled”. Mahony denies knowing that O’Grady was a child molester.”
And M.Z. while you raised the subject of Mahony, again, maybe you can explain;
“The perverts at least have an “excuse” – they’re perverts. What excuse did the bishops have ? The occurrence of abuse per se isn’t surprising, but the extent, nature and, above all, the COVER-UP and active enabling IS”
M.Z. Forrest
http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2008/02/sex-abuse-denial.html
So what excuse does Mahony have, or is your response to these features of the culture of death restricted to mere “surprise?”
The quote is from Gerald Augustinus from the blog FKA “Cafeteria is Closed”. Red text is his, black text is mine.
The original post that he is quoting from is here; http://vox-nova.com/2008/02/01/scandal/
O.k, are you saying we should only hold our Shepherds to the same minimal standards as those applied to agents of the State? Should our major concern be whether they our Bishops are correctly administered their Miranda rights?
My Lord man, you may ultimately to come to peace with the Deathworks and all it’s accoutrements, but that’s no way to find real Peace.
I would figure secular authorities would have an interest in secular affairs such as any putative criminal conduct. I don’t really see my role as holding my shepherd to any particular standard. I see my role as aiding my shepherd in the execution of his office in so much as I am able.
“I see my role as aiding my shepherd in the execution of his office in so much as I am able.”
What about the false Shepherd? Do we aid and abet a heinous cover-up, or reward one who must close schools, shelters and ministries due to the penalties accrued as a result of his malfeasance?
I make very assumptions about the interests of secular authorities, but Christ’s Bridesmaid? Much is expected.
Edit; Very few assumptions about state-run enterprises who revel in the emptiness of their mission.
At one time I thought I saw many false shepherds, and I don’t say it as a point of pride. Reading Bishop Bruskewicz’s “A Shepherd Speaks” aided me in recognizing my own blind spots. That was a bit odd given that I was reading it to affirm myself in my own prejudices.
I guess I don’t see a conflict between going to the secular authorities with a report of a crime and being faithful to a bishop. In the grand scheme of things, my opinion of bishops in their personal faculties has probably lowered over the years. Tending toward idealism, I have desired to see authorities in work, business, and religion as good people or at least better people. I just don’t anymore or to put it differently I don’t find their failings incomprehsible compared to the pedesterian failings. In regards to cuts and what not, I can’t see how I would have chosen differently, so I can’t condemn them for imprudence. It is what it is.
Well, there is a difference between Bush/Cheney and Obama/Whomever when it comes to influence – Bush picked Cheney because he needed someone to actually advise him, Obama is looking for window dressing to shore up support where he is weak (not unlike Edwards was chosen by Kerry to get some southern comfort and a great hairdo to boot!).
The Scandal, including Mahony’s personal role, is an epic story of Betrayal. The lives ruined, the loss of faith by so many, the stigma unfairly attached to priests, and the squandering of badly needed resources, is on a level that is yet to be fully absorbed by all who love the Church. I suppose we each contributed to it in some way. How could something so large occur without massive spiritual complicity?
Denial or lawyerly defenses are not an option. Some demons can only be expelled by fasting and prayer, and a life of fidelity in things both large and small is our only option. Still, in addition to lighting candles, one must to paraphrase Neuhaus, curse the darkness, if only to keep from getting used to it.
I don’t see by what logical function you would see selecting between the two competing candidates as fatalist, but since you state is is profound, it must be.
It is really quite simple. One candidate supports – very firmly supports – dismembering live children at the whims of their mothers, and medical cannibalism of children. The other supports waging unjust ‘preventative’ war and, in a show of unity with the other candidate, the medical cannibalism of children. Only a fatalist could simultaneously fully grasp the truth of the matter and vote for either one. Doing so is inherently an act of despair — unless, I suppose, the voter doesn’t mind dismembering children, cannibalizing children, or waging unjust wars. I make the (perhaps rash) assumption that on a Catholic blog people mind those things a great deal.
Why would one be required to be a fatalist to conclude that competing candidates support a given proposition and act under the consideration of other propositions? I believe that is called prudence. It is also unclear to me how the person who makes a choice between the two is engaging in an act of despair as opposed to the person who does nothing.
The non-voter is merely indifferent to the slaugher of children and the waging of unjust war.
The non-voter is merely indifferent to the slaugher of children and the waging of unjust war.
Right. Capitulation is strength. Keep telling yourself that.
And refusing to vote is somehow not capitulation because…
“The non-voter is merely indifferent to the slaugher of children and the waging of unjust war.”
Just the opposite. By voting for a 3rd party alternative or skipping the charade at the top of the ballot, one is refusing to be complicit in both the electoral farce and the continuation of all aspects of the Revolution against God.
Personal credibility is vital to laboring in the vineyards. I can’t imagine many in my parish taking my pro-life activities seriously after publicly extolling the virtues of Obama. As for McCain, those supporting him appear to so with a sense of shame missing from the abortion regime collaborators.
The assumption here is that one’s activities extend beyond pounding on the keyboard. If that’s not the case, folks don’t care much anyways, and the verdict on voting for a Merchant of Death is one that will be delayed until the Final Judgement.
Refusing to choose one of two unacceptable options is the opposite of capitulation. Choosing one of two unacceptable options is an act of despair.
Kevin hits much closer to what the objective of the Third Party Vote or refusing to vote is: “refusing to be complicit in [] the electoral farce.”
“Refusing to choose … is the opposite of capitulation.” Give any other contemporary example where this is the case.
“Refusing to choose … is the opposite of capitulation.” Give any other contemporary example where this is the case.
That is a question-begging omission. Refusing to choose one of those specific two is the opposite of capitulation.
Another example is refusing to choose between supporting (1) a massive land invasion based on a requirement of unconditional surrender where millions of civilians are killed and (2) nuking Hiroshima. Choosing one of those is capitulation to evil; refusing both is the opposite of capitulation.
Refusing to choose between (1) invading Iraq and (2) surrendering to terrorism.
Refusing to choose between (1) Legalizing abortion and (2) leaving poor women and children on the street.
Contemporary life is filled with false choices presented by idealogues, often idealogues who hold power. Going along with false choices is the easy way, is capitulation, is inherently the path of despair.
Ah but not voting for either of these two just might ignore the fact that there might be a strong degree of difference in the degree of unacceptability. I doubt very much that I could convince a determined young woman not to have an abortion. As for McCain, I’m doubt very much that I could convince him not to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. But perhaps there is an ethical difference here. It could be argued that McCain needs to prevent Iran from getting the bomb to avoid a greater evil of their being a non-deterable leadership that is willing to nuke Israel or us, and would also be willing to blackmail Israel or us because the crazy mullahs don’t CARE about the consequences! Therefore, I think its hard to try and reason what is our best course of action; we can reason up to a point, and we should, but I think even then only God knows what is best and we should be patient and ask Him in humble prayer to guide and convict us. We might not know what to do until November. And I think it is wise to see where certain others who have been admirable might go – Colin Powell, for instance. It is after all still very possible that the right thing is to vote to avoid the lesser evil. Maybe McCain is too old, hot-headed, and trigger happy. Maybe to avoid that, I have to vote for someone who is soft on life issues. God knows and is capable of guiding me to the best I can discern.