Laura Bush defended Michelle Obama from those silly charges of not being patriotic. Mike Huckabee told Republicans to stop “demonizing” Barack Obama. Cindy McCain thinks wives should be off limits, and that Michelle Obama is a “fine woman. She’s a good mother. We both are in an interesting line of work right now.”
Run a respectable campaign, GOP, not a tabloid.
Maybe some Catholics should cease promoting propaganda and advocating absurdity by returning to responsible and reality-based political commentary. Criticism of Obama’s platform is fair game (believe me, I am all over it). But let’s leave the hyperbole and histrionics to Glenn Beck.
“Run a respectable campaign, GOP, not a tabloid.”
I agree with the sentiment to run a respectful campaign. However, often that just means the Republican candidate must not mention the failings of the Democrat candidate. Meanwhile, the Dem’s (and the complicit media) are free to attack their opponent without fear of return fire.
We are choosing an employee for a very important position. The most important aspects of the candidates are their character and judgment. Because of that, it would be very foolish of an opponent not to highlight matters that negatively pertain to their character or judgment. If McCain runs a nice, friendly respectful campaign (as I’m afraid he will) he will get a nice seat to watch Obama sworn in next January. If you play by nice neighborly rules while your opponent is playing hardball you will be a likeable loser.
It would have been very nice if Obama had returned the favor on Friday. But for some reason he decided to throw out wild charges of Racism as to the GOP and by implication McCain.
I would suggest that the Demcorats and the Obama folks do not go tabloid either.
Should Wives be off limits? Well for the most part yes. I don’t think his wife is a “bad PErson” or a bad mother.
However it not quite clear how much of a role MRs Obama will have if her Husband is elected . As we saw in the Clinton White House the First Lady’s Influence and Bully Puplit cannot only have you involved in great policy but can elevate you to US Senator and almost the White House.
Will Mrs Obama be more of Laura Bush First Lady or more of a Hillary First Lady. I think to be honest that sort of sets the boundaries right there how you ask the question.
I do agree with Huckabee and that has been a consistent tune of his. He is warning certain elements not to go places where they should not. I totally agree.
As to CrankyCon post that was a tad of humor and was directed I think at Prof Kmiec that many of us have our hands full with lately as he is doing his transformation from ROmney Supporter to Obama supporter
Cindy had to reiterate that she was proud to be an American whenever addressed with the Michelle issue on Friday; she was by no means entirely gracious.
It’s funny, because we have found clips of her husband in which he said he was not proud to be an American until his prisoner of war experience. And with all that privilege of coming from a long military fserving family…!
The Republicans would do well to lay off entirely about wives and pride. For one, Cindy has no entirely clean past; and, more importantly, it is beneath the dignity of the discourse about one of the most serious elections in American history and our country’s fundamental direction in a time of serious crisis.
“Cindy had to reiterate that she was proud to be an American all her life…”
Obviously you have never heard of satire.
Obviously you have never heard of satire.
Perhaps it is a matter less of my having never heard of satire and more of your not knowing how to write satire. The difference between satire and histrionics is that satire has a healthy dose of realism. See Erasmus’ In Praise of Folly for an example of good, decent satire.
Or perhaps it is just a matter of you not being quick enough to understand what I’m actually saying. One or the other, I suppose.
Maybe it isn’t really possible to make nice with people who are responsible for the (ongoing) Holocaust. Would you take Hitler out for coffee? More importantly, why would you even be tempted to take Hitler out for coffee?
The Satan/Hitler comparisons to Obama eminently display the high level of rational discourse the two of you are obviously used to. Forgive me for suggesting that one look to real political analysis and rigorous discussion. I’ll kindly return to the lower conversations of simpletons.
The Satan/Hitler comparisons to Obama eminently display the high level of rational discourse the two of you are obviously used to.
Good grief. You REALLY DON’T KNOW who CrankyCon is referring to in his parody?
(It ain’t Obama).
I think, actually, that an incapacity to see the modern holocaust for what it is, simply because it is the one taking place right now, renders basic accuracy in discourse – let alone rigor – impossible.
Maybe some Catholics should cease promoting propaganda and advocating absurdity by returning to responsible and reality-based political commentary.
In the interest of evenhandedness, could you aim this criticism at your co-blogger Gerald Campbell, whose commentary on Obama is less “reality-based” than, well, anything?
SB,
Gerald’s commentary, which is informed by his vast political experience, is more “reality-based” then most anything I have read on the issue. While I do not always agree with Gerald’s conclusions, I nevertheless have to admit that his experience as an insider in Washington is far superior to my sidelines view of things.
Christopher,
The perspective behind the post can apply even-handedly to those Catholics who support Obama. You’re right that “Satan” does not refer to Obama the man, but it most certainly is inclusive of Obama’s approach to abortion.
I think, actually, that an incapacity to see the modern holocaust for what it is, simply because it is the one taking place right now, renders basic accuracy in discourse – let alone rigor – impossible.
I agree. Does this mean you’re ready to step up to the plate?
Does this mean you’re ready to step up to the plate?
Already there. I’ve got the coffee on for you.
SB,
You must not have went to the Faculty of Arts and Sciences while at Harvard.
Something has to explain your personality’s having become a virtual contraceptive.
The perspective behind the post can apply even-handedly to those Catholics who support Obama. You’re right that “Satan” does not refer to Obama the man, but it most certainly is inclusive of Obama’s approach to abortion.
You really are clueless, aren’t you?
SB,
And before you correct my grammar, allow me to replace “went” with “gone”.
Mark D — you might find it an interesting challenge to see if you can come up with anything beyond insults based on your evident inferiority complex.
Poli — I don’t doubt that Gerald is “experienced,” but that’s a rather silly reason to suggest that he is “reality-based” in claiming that Obama will “tame the soul” of Americans, etc.
You really are clueless, aren’t you?
Then do a brother a favor on the Sabbath and enlighten me, please.
Poli:
Certainly. I would think the title of Christopher’s post on the Public Square linking to my blog would be a clue as to who I am satirizing. Long story short, I am mocking the absurd arguments put forward by Doug Kmiec that Barack Obama – the most radically pro-abortion major party presidential candidate in US history – is in fact the greater champion of the pro-life cause is in this race. Is it the greatest satire ever? Of course not. You may think it is a silly analogy – fine, it’s all a matter of taste. But it really has nothing directly to do with Obama other than the fact that Obama happens to be the object of Doug Kmiec’s affection. My writing of the Church of Satan wasn’t meant to imply that Obama is Satan, or is Satanic, or that his supporters are Satanic (though I think Zippy may have a point). It’s just the analogy I decided to go with.
The thing is, I agree with the point of your post. There are enough things to criticize about Obama that we don’t need to make hyperbolic accusations about the man. If he is elected, I really don’t want to see a slew of books on the tables at Borders over the next 4-8 years decrying him as the wickedest man alive as has been the case with the Bush bashers over the past 8 years. I do think that Michelle Obama is fair game only in the sense that her stump speeches are fair grounds for criticism. But if they go beyond that, it’s time to dial it back. And I happen to be getting as sick and tired of Glenn Beck as you, so that’s another point of agreement.
Again, maybe my post wasn’t particularly artful, but I don’t think it was trying to say what you seem to think it said.
CrankyCon,
That’s exactly who I thought you were mocking. Hence, my post here, and, hence, my comment about the comparison of Catholics’ working with pro-abortion politicians and cooperating in the evil of Satan.
Then I simply fail to see how my post was engaging in histrionics. Perhaps you disagree with the analogy, or think Doug Kmiec has a point. That’s fine. Otherwise I simply think your criteria for determining what is “reality based” are a bit odd.
SB,
I am just astounded at your pointless, uncharitble and sideswipes at Gerald, who, I must say, reasons completely within the guidelines of Faithful Citizenship. Have you read that document?
You , SB, display NO REASONING here, so, as does Socrates. I give my interlocutor only his due. You are a Callicles verging on an Alcibiades.
As to inferiority complexes, there is only one poster here who constantly flaunts his dubious connections, and he goes not by his full name.
One more thing, and then I have to go grill:
I say this as someone who has lived, studied, and worked in DC for seven years: there is no one more immune from reality than a Washington DC insider. We live in a little cocoon here, and believe me, we’re not smarter about this thing called politics than a great many on the outside.
“but that’s a rather silly reason to suggest that he is “reality-based” in claiming that Obama will “tame the soul” of Americans, etc.
This “taming” is already well underway. The vaunted but cynical political machine of the Clinton’s has been smashed and defeated. The Republican attack machine that operates in the tradition of Harry Dent, Lee Atwater, and Karl Rove will meet the same fate.
The qualities that the electorate are demanding from their leaders has shifted dramatically since last fall. The electorate now wants more from their candidates than character assassination, wedge issues, and the use of code language. Those who don’t think this constitutes a decisive shift in American politics — something that reflects the better part of our natures — had better look again.
The catalyst that has awaken the American people to new possibilities happens to be the Democratic nominee. Vote against him if you wish, but he is changing the political landscape.
That was my prediction last December prior to the crescendo of catcalls and name-calling.
My prediction now is that the strategy that defeated the Clintons will defeat the Republicans this fall. The Democrats will capture the White House and dramatically increase their power in the House and Senate.
My expectation is that the Republican Party will remain a minority political party for the next quarter century and perhaps more. I might even go further and say that conservatism as an organized political force in America is dead. Neither the fundamentalists, the Neocons, or the libertarians have their finger on the pulse of America. This coalition is dead. New ideas are necessary.
Now let the next round of catcalls begin.
CrankyCon,
In your post (which is histrionics at its best), you make the following analogies:
You are likened to Doug Kmiec
Satan is likened to a pro-abortion politician, and more specifically, Obama
The International Church of Satan is likened to a pro-abortion platform, and more specifically, the Obama campaign.
Am I missing anything?
“My expectation is that the Republican Party will remain a minority political party for the next quarter century and perhaps more. I might even go further and say that conservatism as an organized political force in America is dead. Neither the fundamentalists, the Neocons, or the libertarians have their finger on the pulse of America. This coalition is dead. New ideas are necessary.
Now let the next round of catcalls begin”
Deja Vu!!! It seems I have heard similar projections from both parties. In fact we hear some variation of this every 2 year elction cycle.
One year ago people were asking when was that nice Baptist Minister going to get off the stage, McCain was already starting to be proclaimed dead by the pundits and it was will it be RUDY or Romney. Clinton was pretty much the nominee.
Hisotry events all have a odd way of getting in the way of the grand plans of one party domination
If the fundamentalists, the Neocons, or the libertarians have their finger on the pulse of America then I must say I dont; see the left netroots having it either. IN the end this country is slightly Center right that goes a tad Center left at times.
That is the reality that people often in their echo chambers on both sides cannot see.
In a sense Obama recognizes this too. That is one reason that he is having to move the right as we speak.
“My expectation is that the Republican Party will remain a minority political party for the next quarter century and perhaps more. I might even go further and say that conservatism as an organized political force in America is dead. Neither the fundamentalists, the Neocons, or the libertarians have their finger on the pulse of America. This coalition is dead. New ideas are necessary.
Now let the next round of catcalls begin.”
What a revolting thought. Our country deserves better than the failed policies of socialism, and the oppressive hand of excess government.
“IN the end this country is slightly Center right that goes a tad Center left at times.”
First, the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives nearly uninterrupted from 1931 until 1995 and won most presidential elections from 1931 until 1968. The Nixon Southern Strategy — and we all know what that was about — changed the dynamics of presidential contests.
As regards presidential contests, I believe the back of the Southern Strategy is now being broken. My suspicion is that it will be unable to rise again. Hopefully, for the sake of the country, this suspicion will prove to be the case.
Second, Karl Rove’s strategy was to play to the right wing base not to the center. This is commonly known but the quote above might be read to gloss over that fact.
“If the fundamentalists, the Neocons, or the libertarians have their finger on the pulse of America then I must say I dont; see the left netroots having it either.”
You are correct. Neither does. To my way of thinking, the power of ideology over American politics is losing its stranglehold. (Left and Right).
What I see unfolding is a new political dynamic. By this I mean a return to the pragmatic center of American politics. I mentioned this in a post last December. Expect also to see more emphasis on the use of intelligence and experimentation (Pragmatism) rather than strict reliance on rigid ideological methods to gain control over events and behavior. Attention will be directed to solving practical problems, including health care, energy, and dysfunctions and injustices in the economy.
Hopefully, a new bipartisan Grand Strategy — not unlike that developed by President Eisenhower in 1953 — will emerge to guide America’s relations with the world through the next half century. Central to this Grand Strategy will be a revitalization of American public diplomacy.
This Cindy vs Michelle thing is the dumbest yet. Of course Cindy McCain is “very proud of her country”. Why wouldn’t she be? It’s been awfully good to her. She was born to wealth and privilege and her ancestors did not carry the baggage of racism. I’m not criticizing her for that at all. Hell I’d take the money too and I’m sure she is a very nice lady. But to contrast her opinion of this country with that of a working class black woman from the south side of Chicago whose ancestors undoubtedly *did* carry the baggage of racism, and then to draw the conclusion that Cindy is somehow more patriotic? Give me a break.
“What a revolting thought. Our country deserves better than the failed policies of socialism, and the oppressive hand of excess government.”
If there were to be the outcome, it would be revolting. But my view is that the fears of socialism and excess government are misplaced. Something new is unfolding; something non-ideological.
See my comment at 7:21 p,m.
As to inferiority complexes, there is only one poster here who constantly flaunts his dubious connections, and he goes not by his full name
Just to be clear, you are speaking of a single comment, in one thread, and I did this (as I already explained directly to you) only as a means of establishing to Henry and MM that I have some background knowledge on the issue of judicial nominations. One post in one thread does not amount to “constantly flaunts” under any good faith meaning of the term.
I am just astounded at your pointless, uncharitble and sideswipes at Gerald
Perhaps you are unaware of the history here — I (along with several other people) have pointed out before that Gerald’s pro-Obama contributions have been wildly histrionic. Even so, other bloggers who purport to be neutral as to Obama, and who make a show of calling out histrionics elsewhere, refuse to say anything even mildly critical of Gerald’s pro-Obama rhetoric, instead purporting to believe that Gerald’s resume makes his utopian rhetoric “reality-based.”
…utopian rhetoric…
SB
Ha ha!
Citizens are simply believing now (as they should) that their collaborative efforts amidst the polis CAN & SHOULD effectuate –more significantly than has been the case over the past 3 + decades– the common good.
You call this utopian. I call it a healthy Catholic embracement of the best of represenative democracy.
For one, we are in an enegry crisis and our current administration has had NO real longterm energy strategy, at least inasmuch as we are publicly aware of. For, unfortunately the secret doings of Cheney’s Energy Task Force (made up of almost entirely all industry insiders) are now accessible to us–with the dubious asertion of exucutive priviliege.
Thia is appalling and completely unacceptable in America, and the citizenry will demand and effectuate real, prescriptive changes.
The list can go on and on.
First, the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives nearly uninterrupted from 1931 until 1995 and won most presidential elections from 1931 until 1968. The Nixon Southern Strategy — and we all know what that was about — changed the dynamics of presidential contests.
I think the New Deal era and WWII is a special type period.
Since then it appears as to the WHite House we have gone in pretty reliable cycles
As to the House there was a trnsoration on the Republican party too . The Democrats also held control of the House for so long because they were more comfortable with wings of the party living in Co-existance with each other.
“As regards presidential contests, I believe the back of the Southern Strategy is now being broken. My suspicion is that it will be unable to rise again. Hopefully, for the sake of the country, this suspicion will prove to be the case.”
It depends what you mean as the modern day Southern Strategy
“Second, Karl Rove’s strategy was to play to the right wing base not to the center. This is commonly known but the quote above might be read to gloss over that fact.”
He talked to issue that were important to the Conservative movement. Many of which I shared. Needless to say I don’t think immigration reform was one of those
“What I see unfolding is a new political dynamic. By this I mean a return to the pragmatic center of American politics. I mentioned this in a post last December. Expect also to see more emphasis on the use of intelligence and experimentation (Pragmatism) rather than strict reliance on rigid ideological methods to gain control over events and behavior. Attention will be directed to solving practical problems, including health care, energy, and dysfunctions and injustices in the economy. ”
It very well could be. And it could happen under either Hopeful thought I think McCain has more the temperament for it
Mark — whatever you’re quoting is not what I call “utopian.” What I call utopian — in the literal sense, in that it refers to nothing that a mere politician could ever accomplish in any actual place (“utopia” = “no place”) — is this bit of inanity:
“For his part, Obama has the capacity to summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind.”
Come on, have you ever heard anything so silly? I’d be embarrassed to write such words about any Pope who has ever existed. But this is what Poli purports to find “more “reality-based” then most anything I have read on the issue.” Hmm.
“It very well could be. And it could happen under either Hopeful thought I think McCain has more the temperament for it”
I hope both parties move away from ideology. I. too, would like to see a reinvigorated Republican Party … and a reinvigorated Democratic Party. To me, it’s all about the future of America.
“For his part, Obama has the capacity to summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind.”
This is not silly. This is what is happening.
BA
I know you won’t like this, but from all I’ve witnessed in the primaries, I happen to agree with Gerald.
I was taken in as a young man by Reagan in 1980 and voted straight Republican nationally until 2004. I have become much more of a realist (and cynic) over the years, and in spite of this all I must say I’ve never experienced so promising a political phenomenon as what BO has managed to accomplish in the past year.
Sorry..that was meant for SB…
I’ve never experienced so promising a political phenomenon as what BO has managed to accomplish in the past year.
This has officially become the greatest thread in the history of Vox Nova.
Mark,
Having trouble telling us apart, eh?
crankycon,
But nothing can top–what shall we call it–your shrill attempt at satire tody on your own blog.
““For his part, Obama has the capacity to summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind.”
Holy crap! I can imagine this sort of pap from a teenage girl with a crush, but not from adults. If you’re mature enough to vote you should be able to consider a candidate’s accomplishments, positions, and capacity to fulfill his duties instead of getting excited because the candidate has a nice voice and fools the easily fooled by talking about being post-racial. It has almost reached the point that I expect his fans will be repeating “these are not the droids we are looking for” after he says it.
No. Just suffering my terrible sinuses again and not being as focused as I otherwise can be.
..But you both are conservative lawyers…;)
Gerald,
“This is not silly. This is what is happening.”
From what great height do you perceive this “happening”?
Largebill,
Some of us have been scared to death at the direction of US foreign policy these past 8 years and how the exploitation of fear has turned the US into a gated commuity; deadened the public forum so much that for 3 years or so sane deliberation was called unpatriotic; and mandated a departure from the reality based community
For one, Obama rose above all of this pernicious nonsense and gave people hope again– as to our ability to take back our country; reclaim the ideals and values that can and do make us great; and prevent a further aggression in the ME (Iran now) that would most likely unleash a fireball of WWIII proportions.
“Largebill,
Some of us have been scared to death at the direction of US foreign policy these past 8 years and how the exploitation of fear has turned the US into a gated commuity; deadened the public forum so much that for 3 years or so sane deliberation was called unpatriotic; and mandated a departure from the reality based community”
Mark,
If you actually feel that is that is the case then you have been listening to (and believing) the mainstream media without much critical thought. Gated community? Then how did 12 million illegal aliens get in? Called unpatriotic? That has been a myth perpetuated by liberals expecting to be called unpatriotic after saying things they assumed would (correctly) get them labeled as such. Mandated a departure from the reality based community? Sorry, friend it is those with a firm grasp on reality that have kept the rest of you safe. You may have forgotten, but militant Islam (okay kind of redundant) is at war with us whether we want to play along or not. Previous administrations played the ignore it and hope it goes away game. That strategy only emboldened them to attack again. Go ahead and vote for the inexperienced rube with goofy liberal (borderline communist) ideology. However, don’t try to sell us crap like hope and change and pretend it is anything but a slogan to fool the proletariat.
largebill
You prove my point.
Peace.
a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts
Well, Barack Obama has inspired a few YouTube videos, at least. YouTube videos are creative, in a sense, and often unique. If you played several at the same time by opening different tabs in your browser, it would make quite a symphonic chorus — a bit cacophonic for my tastes, but for the Obama worshipper, I can imagine it would be sheer bliss. So yeah, I guess you’re right, Gerald is just being realistic here.
“a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts”
Yep, that’s what it’s been.
Let’s see, now. How many million youth have been actively working in the Obama campaign? Isn’t that a symphonic chorus? Let’s look, again. How many million contributors have committed their resources to Obama? Isn’t that a symphonic chorus. Let’s look once again. How many million new Democratic voters are energized to vote this fall? Isn’t that a symphonic chorus?
Aren’t each of these individuals offering up their “unique creative acts” for a common cause? Isn’t that what makes up a “symphonic chorus?”
This language isn’t silly at all. In fact, it describes something pretty darn real. In fact, it describes a political earthquake that is getting ready to happen in American politics. Any serious person running a political campaign who saw this juggernaut coming at them would be mighty concerned.
Like SB, the Clintons thought it was all a “fairy tale.” They thought they could diminish Obama after South Carolina and go on to victory. They thought code language would save them. But they were mistaken. Since then they’ve seen the “fairy tale” was real. Too real. There was a “symphonic chorus of unique creative acts” after all.
Albeit too late, the Clintons can now say: anyone who thinks this ‘symphonic chorus” stuff is a “fairy tale” is a damn fool!
Think how many members of the House and Senate are facing the same reality as Clinton — a “symphonic chorus.” Only those who do their laundry know how scared they are. I’ll bet they’re not looking at what’s coming at them as though it were a “fairy tale.”
Funny thing about “symphonic choruses” in politics. They are real. Indeed, nothing is more real in a democratic politics than a “symphonic chorus.” That’s what a healthy democracy is all about.
Make it plain, Gerald :)
You know, I don’t agree with these tactics either, but the reality is that these types of moves are common to modern politics and its our jobs as smart citizens to weed through the riff raff. I commend your call for honorable campaigning, but we all know the truth is that politics isn’t about playing fair, it’s about winning. Hope is not for the faint at heart though, so kudos to you.
I am afraid that the deranged and irrational hatred of Bush so aptly stated in “Buck Fush” bumper stickers has set the tone for the next decade of politics. Suddenly being crude, loud, and obnoxious when confronting those who disagree with you politically is either respectable or acceptable.
let’s leave the hyperbole and histrionics to Glenn Beck
We had better, because the whole world is watching to see how we treat this particular candidate and his wife, and much of our reputation as a nation–particularly frayed during these last eight years–will depend on it.
Bush and Cheney didn’t think that mattered, and now we are seeing how wrong they were.
Also, I myself believe that Obama is heading for a victory that will be like a sea-change in national politics, but, for the sake of his governance, it is very important HOW that change is effected. “Character” DOES count, and the public statements of the wives ARE fair game. However, the Republicans who are obviously going out of office for a while had BETTER conduct a respectable, non-Rovian campaign, if they want to see the inside of the White House any time during the next forty years, because, as the writers above have indicated, the mood of the electorate HAS changed, and they are looking for something entirely different in terms of leadership than what’s been on offer in the last half-century.
Gerald,
Do the young people involved in McCain’s campaign also constitute a “symphonic chorus of unique creative acts”?
What is the threshold for a group of people to qualify as a chorus?
Aren’t each of these individuals offering up their “unique creative acts” for a common cause?
No, not in the least. Voting for a candidate or attending a rally is the furthest thing imaginable from a “unique creative act.” Number one, it’s not creative in any sense whatsoever. Number two, it’s the opposite of unique. Hence, it’s not a “unique creative act.”
How many million youth have been actively working in the Obama campaign?
You tell me. “Actively working” doesn’t mean “watching a YouTube video” or “forwarding an email,” by the way, at least not to me.
As for taming the soul, you said:
Funny phrasing, that. If one does look again at the actual figures, Clinton got MORE popular votes than did Obama if you exclude the caucuses. Include the caucuses, and her popular vote total was within 60,000 of Obama’s. So what you’re saying is that because less than 60,000 Democratic primary voters picked Obama over Clinton, that tell us that the “electorate” as a whole has “shifted dramatically.”
You’re not “reality-based,” as Poli claimed. You’re wildly extrapolating from the actual facts just so that you can claim to have been right.
And before you claim that Obama has wrought a “decisive shift” by forswearing “wedge issues and the use of code language,” maybe you ought to wait and see what he does in pursuit of his latest maxim: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
Zach,
So far there hasn’t been much life in the McCain that I can detect. I suppose we’ll see soon what he can inspire.
But I certainly hope McCain can present an inspiring challenge to Obama. It would be good all around, and especially for the integrity of American democracy.
If campaigns are executed with integrity, there can be no losers and winners in the long run. In such a situation, America and the American people would always be the winner.
SB,
You fail to mind (whether intentionally or not) that Obama’s name was not on the MI ballot and places like Puerto Rico do not vote in American general elections. But either way, a first term senator smashed the Clinton political machine. No mean feat, if you know anything about American politics.
Perhaps if you stopped for a second in order actually to try to understand–and not just to appear to win an argument, you would then concede the point and desist. For whatever reason, I am not betting on that yet.
You fail to mind (whether intentionally or not) that Obama’s name was not on the MI ballot and places like Puerto Rico do not vote in American general elections.
So what? None of that changes my conclusion: The most anyone can honestly say is that Clinton and Obama were neck-and-neck in the popular vote, no matter whom or how you count it. To me, that result doesn’t say much of anything about a “decisive shift” in the “electorate.” I understand the impulse (from pro-Obama partisans) to say so, but that’s just wishful thinking at this point.
But either way, a first term senator smashed the Clinton political machine. No mean feat, if you know anything about American politics.
Hillary has never been much liked. She’s certainly not the natural politician that her husband was. I’m not surprised that any well-spoken and not-obnoxious person who seemed reasonably qualified would have beaten her. My only surprise is that she got as many votes as she did.
For his part, Obama has the capacity to summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind.
Ah yes. All hail the Obamessiah, the sacrament of whose religion is – literally – human sacrifice.
SB,
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we will bring a gun.”
What part on the concept of a conditional statement do you not understand? And it is the knife that divides….
This may seem like a stupid question, but who’s Glenn Beck?
Christopher,
See here:
http://www.glennbeck.com/
Chris,
I wish I wouldn’t know! The only reason I know this is because CNN Headline News is the only new channels I have on my TV :)
Here is a link (you may have seen him or heard him before):
http://www.glennbeck.com/
What part on the concept of a conditional statement do you not understand?
The part where Obama promises to avoid dirty tactics altogether, rather than promising to use even dirtier tactics.
Christopher: don’t feel bad, I’m not familiar with Beck either.
SB
Let me unpack the statement for you:
If someone comes looking to divide the country with wedge issues (using a knife), I will have the strength to put an end to that activity (with a gun).
Not pleasant words, to be sure…but that is the intention in his using them.
Oh the dreaded ‘wedge’ issue. People get so divided and conflicted over mass slaughter, cannibalizing the young for medical research, and unjust wars. Can’t we all just get along?
I don’t follow this mysterious belief in something called “wedge issues.” What are they, and how do they differ from any other political issue over which people disagree?
Zippy,
I am not talking about primarily those ‘wedge” issues.
More like the stuff around these insinuations , “Obama is a Muslim”…”Obama will talk to terrorists and thus surrender U.S. world hegenomy”…”Hamas supports Obama.”
You know, stuff out of the Rove playbook. Just look on the McCain website now and see the picture of the Iranian president (you know, the one that General Gates wants to talk to) beside Obama’s name.
Well, Mark, I suppose I would just call non-substantive issues ‘non-substantive issues’.
That the American Idol set likes non-substantive issues is a problem, I suppose. I tend to think that we could use more, and more enthusiastic, ‘wedging’ over substantive issues though. More division, not less, would be healthy over the things that do in fact matter.
I guess what I am saying is that someone who minimizes and makes compromises with grave matters like abortion, ESCR, unjust war, etc could use a good wedgie. At a minimum.
And statements like “One party kills 1.3 million babies a year, while the other does all it can to save them.”
Bunk.
Why is everyone so cranky? You should glance this thread over from top to bottom and realize that everyone looks pretty silly (except me, of course).
And me too.
Mark,
I didn’t say that.
If you’re going to quote me, please use my exact words.
Zippy
I think pretty soon and in fact we are seeing it now that Obama the Messiah or as he is also called “‘THe Lightworker”. At some point for those that proclaim he is a new kind of politics will have to confront Reality
Did Obama, who we are told will reeach out even to us Pro-lifers, join the Gang of 14 to defuse a Crisis and bring bipartisan common sense to the approval of Judges. No but McCain did
Did Obama crusade at political risk on immigration reform. Well he did for a while till he killed it with a Poison pill at the request of Unions. We know what McCain did
Needless to say we have seen what he has done on Campaign Finance. SOmething McCain took arrows over including from me
Obama represents a new kind of International Politcs but still uses fears to whip up the public when opposing NAFTA, the FREE Columbia Trade Agreement etc. McCain does not. Obama’s view on trade are already starting to worry our European allies and some in South America. THoug as to NAFTA it appears perhaps he telling folks up in the Great WHite North this is all electon pandering
As to Israel and now FISA we see Obama going all over the map.
As to the Middle East where he bring on a new dawn last week he basically called the IRaqi Foreign Minister a Liar. Oh and where was he on the Dubai Terminal LEase deal as Arabphobia was sweeping the nation? We know where McCain was
Hopefully if the people want a new change of Politics they will look to someone that has actually tired to walk the talk.
As David Brooks said those that oppose Obama need to recognize what he is. A very Crafty Chiccago Politician
Don’t know if this counts as hyperbole (histrionics?) Perhaps the academics here can help:
““I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
Is it “histrionic” suggesting that we can responsibly face for once the U.S. health care crisis; the living-wage job shortage in America; and the long term effects of what industry has done/is doing to God’s creation?
To my moderate Catholic ears, it sounds in synch the hope and directives that Catholic Social Teaching givs us as participant-citizens in a representative democracy.
Perhaps you misuse the concept of subsidiarity to put a damper on all of this. If So, I find it not Catholic.
No, I don’t use the principle of subsidiarity. Its just I don’t think these issues have been ignored over the past 40 years to the point of contradicting Catholic social teaching. Not like the protection of babies in the Democratic platform has been ignored.
You feel not the ills of this country then (apart from the abortion issue).
I feel plenty of the ills of this country. I believe there will be more if Obama is elected.
“Is it “histrionic” suggesting that we can responsibly face for once the U.S. health care crisis; the living-wage job shortage in America; and the long term effects of what industry has done/is doing to God’s creation?”
Yes.
Phillip, Kevin, SB, etc.: You all seem to be blinded by right-wing ideology. Can you really not imagine a world where the rich help the poor, out of the goodness of their hearts? Can you not imagine a world where a free people decide to help, through the means of the government they’ve chartered, those who are less fortunate than themselves, not as an expression of tyranny but out of compassion?
From where I’m sitting and based on what you’ve said in this and other threads, you seem excessively pessimistic about human nature, and the possibility to help people through collective action.
I have no problems with people freely helping. We are foster parents and have adopted one of our foster kids. Didn’t need the govt. to get us to do it either. People can do things to help others freely without the government doing it.
Matt,
Government confiscation and redistribution is not something being done out of the goodness of their hearts. Deciding to donate your own time or money to charity IS done out of the goodness of your heart. A CEO taking company money and donating is just stealing from the shareholders so he can pat himself on the back and say look what I did. Likewise a politician who says he will give something isn’t giving anything. He is forcing someone else to give. Collective action is a fancy term for socialism/communism.
Phillip,
The record of the Republican leadership, despite all their flowering and tough rhetoric, is hardly any better than the Dems in actually eliminating the # of abortions in the U.S.
Where has been their changing the minds of a majority Americans; their Constitutional Amendment on Abortion; or their promised 5-4 overturning of Roe v. Wade. For, despite Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito, there has always been either Kennedy, O’Connor or Souter at the most crucial moments. And what was all that about Harriet?
Largebill,
Per your post above, I am surprised you have come out from under your bed this morning, you know , with all of those Islamo-fascists around the world and other imigrants in our country that you so fear.
As Dan Rather would say, “Courage.”
Philip and Largebill,
We are talking about JUSTICE, not CHARITY.
Mark,
I believe this has been discussed. If Dems got out of the way a lot more would likely have happened. But I certainly do know that Obama will not make things any better.
Mark,
And Love (Charity) is greater than justice.
Matt,
“Phillip, Kevin, SB, etc.: You all seem to be blinded by right-wing ideology. Can you really not imagine a world where the rich help the poor, out of the goodness of their hearts?”
I’ll assume I’m included in the et cetera, but I think you meant et al. I’m sure all of those guys can imagine a world where the rich help the poor. What kind of person couldn’t? This is not the question we are disputing, and serves to distract from the real disagreements.
“Can you not imagine a world where a free people decide to help, through the means of the government they’ve chartered, those who are less fortunate than themselves, …”
We already do this with little to no success; it doesn’t need to be imagined.
There is great reason to be “pessimistic” about human nature, although that’s not really the appropriate word. A better word would be realistic. Human beings are fallen. The norm is NOT justice, peace, equality, egalitarianism, prosperity, etc. If you look at history, these things are an aberration. The “right wing ideology” you decry is simply an attempt to recognize of the limits of human nature.
“And love is greater than justice.”
Tell that to the exploited, grossly underpaid, poor and hungry person, who has not yet crossed paths with a philanthropic individual.
Mark – That’s exactly what Jesus did.
THe facts are these. JUSTICE STEVENS IS LIKELY TO RETIRE. Ginsburg might have to also.
This is it. If we don’t get our shot now in replacing those two ROE v WADe and all that flows from it will be secure for 20 to 30 years at least The damage as the to the Prolife movement on this front will be massive.
We have a MUCH MUCH better chance with McCain than Obama. I will not even start to think if perhaps his Judges will find a a Privacy right in the Right to Die cases we shall soon see.
Perhaps this was what people want. Demoralize the Pro-life movement and thus weaken a important Republican voting bloc if one ios thinking in just political terms.
THe argument that I can see is so predictable. In 5 years I can hear people say that the balance of the COurt has been so effected that no Pro-Life Republican PResident cannot do a thing to change for deacades so vote Democrat even if they are pro abortion.
I am much more fearful that the Pro-Life movement after working decades to get this to this moment will become so demoralized that in fact a RUDY type person can realistically get the nod. I mean what will be the point to oppose him will the view many will have.
Phillip – I don’t have a problem with private action (kudos to you and your wife for being foster parents, by the way); but why not also do things using your government, for the things that are beyond your individual or local resources?
Largebill – I think your definition of socialism/communism is way too expansive. I think there ought to be a private sector. I just think we ought to make sure that society does not become too unequal; using the government to tax wealth and help poor people is a good way to do that.
Phillip, Kevin, SB, etc.: You all seem to be blinded by right-wing ideology. Can you really not imagine a world where the rich help the poor, out of the goodness of their hearts?
As often seems to be the case, you (like others) are reading into my comments all sorts of implications that I never said, and that are COMPLETELY of your own invention. Being skeptical of Gerald’s inane rhetoric does not = being blinded by right-wing ideology.
Zach, Phillip and Largebill,
Either you read CST through the distortives lenses of organizations like First Things and/or the Acton Institute, or you have virtually no familiarity with it at all.
This being so (and the fact that I have to make a 3 hour trip), I will withdraw now from any further attempt at real converation.
There is great reason to be “pessimistic” about human nature, although that’s not really the appropriate word. A better word would be realistic. Human beings are fallen. The norm is NOT justice, peace, equality, egalitarianism, prosperity, etc. If you look at history, these things are an aberration. The “right wing ideology” you decry is simply an attempt to recognize of the limits of human nature.
While I agree that human beings are fallen, and are capable of doing remarkably wicked things, I think people are also capable of being good, noble, and altruistic. Being fallen doesn’t mean being utterly depraved, if I understand Catholic teachings correctly – and it’s not enough to see injustice in the world, and then just respond with a resigned, “Well, it’s a fallen world. What is one to do?”
Also, isn’t it at least possible that, say, the Head Start program came about as a result of Grace acting in the hearts of those who began that program? After all, the world is not just fallen: Christ is risen.
Matt,
The first thing to note would be that I did not say we should be resigned to saying, “well, it’s a fallen world. what is one to do?”
I also didn’t say human beings were utterly depraved.
Where did you get these ideas?
Mark,
What? How about if I asserted that you have no familiarity with CST? In the first place, what good would that do? And you’d probably take it as an insult, right? Yeah, a humble and respectful person probably wouldn’t do that with so little knowledge of the other person involved in the conversation. Especially on a forum like this.
You very conspicuously avoid arguments you cannot answer rather than the admit the possibility that you understand something incorrectly. Have you ever misunderstood something?
I apologize if I incorrectly characterized your position, Zach.
You said, “The norm is NOT justice, peace, equality, egalitarianism, prosperity, etc. If you look at history, these things are an aberration. The “right wing ideology” you decry is simply an attempt to recognize of the limits of human nature.”
And thus, when it comes to trying to use our government to address inequality and other injustice…?
“Tell that…the hungry person who has not come across a philanthropic individual.”
Maybe that person is you. Maybe even on your three hour trip.
Matt,
There is no problem with the gov’t also doing things. I just point out that there is more to solving the problems of the world then government programs.
Plus there is also quite a distinction between saying that current programs may not be sufficient and saying ““…this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
I just point out that there is more to solving the problems of the world then government programs.
On this, you and I are agreed, Phillip.
Plus there is also quite a distinction between saying that current programs may not be sufficient and saying ““…this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”
What are you saying, Phillip? Inspiring rhetoric is verboten?
Matt,
Thanks for that.
If I were to complete your sentence, I would say:
When it comes to trying to use our government to address inequality and other injustice…we ought to be cognizant of the dangers of concentrating power in the hands of the ruling class – especially power over the minutiae of our economic lives.
It is no small thing, this idea that the federal government should be something like the character Robin Hood. i.e., the government should use its coercive power to take from the wealthy and give to the poor.
Are you at all hesitant with such a project, especially in light of 20th century history?
Matt,
No, just completely false rhetoric.
BTW,
One of McCain’s former captors supports him for prez.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7459946.stm
Zach –
we ought to be cognizant of the dangers of concentrating power in the hands of the ruling class – especially power over the minutiae of our economic lives.
While I agree that giving any institution too much power can be risky, including and particularly governments, I think leaving everything up to the market is also a really bad idea. I think that (within certain limits) the government can play a role in helping balance and stabilize society by keeping things more equal than they always end up being in a pure market system.
It is no small thing, this idea that the federal government should be something like the character Robin Hood. i.e., the government should use its coercive power to take from the wealthy and give to the poor.
I don’t see reasonable taxation and income redistribution as coercive, except perhaps in the strictest sense, i.e., if I don’t pay taxes they’ll put me in prison. I see it more like I see my time in military service: the dues I owe for living in such a great country.
It is my guess that fertility control and other technologies will be advanced enough in 30 years so that abortion will be considerably less of a problem, or perhaps no problem at all. Of course, the technologies may be ones that the Catholic Church doesn’t approve of. As for stem-cell research, I suspect embryonic stem-cell research may be a thing of the past by 2038, although genetic engineering may have moved on to other pursuits the Catholic Church will object to.
On the other hand, if I could actually remember what I thought, 30 years ago, that 2008 would be like, I might scale back my predictions for 2038. It may be that the recommendation is that the US embark on a war on cancer, and politicians will be talking about making a major push to achieve energy independence.
Matt,
I agree with your comments about limiting the scope of the government’s power. However, I would not say that we have ever had a “pure market” system, if “pure market” means unrestricted competition or total absence of government control. We are restricted and controlled in many ways – in the first place law, in the second place, our numerous entitlement programs.
What conservatives think is that the entitlement programs we have tend to do more harm than good. There is a separate but related concern of those programs being unconstitutional – a very strong case can be made for that as well. To begin with, read the 10th amendment. So conservatives see the proliferation of federal wealth-redistribution programs as being fundamentally opposed to our federalist system of government. We also think the federalist system of government is a good thing, because within our government, power is constrained by other power. The Constitution limits the governments power and acts as a safeguard – the Constitution protects us from tyranny.
What do you think of the 10th amendment? Should we get rid of it?
I’m not a lawyer, Zach, so I can’t really address your questions concerning the Tenth Amendment in any real depth. My understanding is that the various things the government does along the lines of helping people have withstood challenges in the courts.
The Constitution limits the governments power and acts as a safeguard – the Constitution protects us from tyranny.
I hear conservatives using that word, “tyranny,” a lot, and I’m not sure what you mean by that. To me, it means the government going overboard with the guys-with-rifles things it does – excessive police powers, things that violate our civil liberties, and so on.
I will add that there are worrisome things done by the Bush administration that could be argued to be tyrannical, or at least pushing the boundaries(warrant-less wiretapping? The “Unitary Executive”?), and there has not exactly been a storm of protest from the right.
NewsmaxTV’s Ashley Martella in a one on one interview reveals Mike Huckabee’s advice for Presidential Candidate John McCain regarding the GOP.
I think that Gerald is suffering from a severe bout of wishful thinking. Why don’t you just wait until November instead of putting your reputation as a liberal Catholic fortune teller on the line? I don’t know who has been selected as President yet, but I’m willing to wait until I find out before the gloating begins (actually, I won’t be gloating, I’ll be sad that I will have to choose between the lesser of two evils. Both propose to kill human beings, it is the quantity of proposed murders and the objective vs. subjective evil that comes into play. At this point in time, Obama promises to be the greater murderer of the two).
“For his part, Obama has the capacity to summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind.”
This is not silly. This is what is happening.
================
I’ve never experienced so promising a political phenomenon as what BO has managed to accomplish in the past year.
================
Something new is unfolding; something non-ideological.
================
My response:
Bwahahahahahaha! This is funny! Wow! Who ever thought that content-free politics and charisma could be so popular? Don’t drink the Kool-Aid, folks!
Me, I like my candidates to have some actual, you know, ideas….but it’s not that surprising that people that would fall for the content free notion of “choice” would also fall for the content free notion of “change”.
Unless the pro-choicers in the Senate decline below 50, there is zero chance of McCain getting through nominees likely to overturn Roe. Which is simply not on the table for the next 2 years at least, and only remotely possible even thereafter.
Unless the pro-choicers in the Senate decline below 50, there is zero chance of McCain getting through nominees likely to overturn Roe.
Not true. Quite a few pro-choicers, for example, voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts.
Though interestingly this points out part of the problem in why Repubs have not been able to change abortion more – many pro-choice Dems, and some pro-choice Repubs have blocked efforts.
Blackadderiv
Because that was swapping an anti-Roe vote for an anti-Roe vote. It will be different with Stevens, Bader and Souter, particularly when the Democrats actually control the Senate (and, by almost all measures, are likely to pick up several seats this election).
In the past generations, there has been remarkable consistency in swaps, with replacements only rarely differing with the one they replaced with regard to Roe.
-Thomas replacing Marshall
-Ginsburg replacing White (rebalancing the first)
-Alito replacing O’Connor
Unless he won in a landslide (usually considered over 55% at least in the American tradition, pace Bush et Rove) with significant coattails, McCain would have a very tough time wasting political capital on trying to make the case to a Democratic Senate that he had the right to replace Stevens, Ginsburg or Souter with anti-Roe justices. To say the chances are remote would be optimistic.
Does anyone care about the overseas and domestic abortion funding that Obama will reinstate, but McCain won’t??? I am here referring to the “Mexico City policy”, etc.
All I hear is about the odds of getting an anti-Roe judge on the Supreme Court…that is NOT the only abortion-related issue in this campaign….seems like that is avoiding the point.
And ON the subject of Supreme Court judges, all I can say is that McCain’s judges are extremely likely to be friendlier to the side of life than Obama’s!
Might as well save your breath, those who oppose Obamessiah. Once someone has adopted him as their very own personal Lord & Savior, it’s nigh impossible to convince them he’s anything other than the Light in our collective Darkness. Just back away from the blogs, donate money to conservative 527′s (I am), buy a few McCain bumperstickers, yardsigns, and whatever else you can get your hands on – and rest assured that these idiots will be singing Obamessiah’s praises even as McCain surprises the hell out of everyone in November.