Grading Palin’s Speech (scattered thoughts)
Gov. Sarah Palin is, to use the words of Chris Matthews, a torpedo aimed straight at the Obama campaign. I think that, overall, she achieved more last night than I, Democrats, and even members of the GOP thought she would. I thought Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee were also quite good.
Here’s how I grade Palin’s speech:
Delivery: A She delivered last night, plain and simple. She got the convention crowd on its feet, she presented flawlessly, and she set a new tone for the McCain campaign.
Rhetoric: B+ Aside from the sarcasm and misrepresentations of Sen. Barack Obama’s tax policy (for which I docked a few points), she was effective and compelling in the manner in which she described her experience as a mother, mayor, and governor. While the argument is still weak that she is experienced enough for her new role, her choice of words, exhibition of confidence, and knowledge of her audience should put to rest any doubts among most McCain supporters and many independents. Also, her critique of Obama was pointed, which could effectively cast doubt among his own supporters. I think the GOP is finally ready for this election.
Substance: C The speech had little to offer in terms of solid argument and substance. She did not offer any idea of what she intends to do specifically as vice president. Scant references to anonymous Americans in various states do not assuage concerns that she actually knows the problems that most Americans face. The speech can be summed up crassly as: I have political experience, John McCain will fight for you, the media has an inaccurate view of us, and Obama will hurt America. Rhetorically, this is very effective in politics, and I believe that Palin was not aiming at substance. Indeed, why would she go for substance if it is not needed? In this respect, Palin has taken a big play from Obama’s primary election handbook.
Overall: B+ The sentimental experience and the rhetorical effect of the speech will carry on throughout this week and next. Palin has clearly established that she is a tough-minded politician and that she will not shy away from taking head-on Obama and Sen. Joe Biden. There is a new dimension to the McCain campaign, and I suspect that the bounce Obama received earlier this week will be mitigated by last night’s speeches. However, we do not really know that Palin is aware of, or clear about, the issues that face Americans, and we do not know how she envisions her role as vice president. This is the substance that was lacking last night. I am sure, nonetheless, that we have not heard the whole story yet, since the point last night was to answer objections to her candidacy and to critique the Obama campaign. One last point: the scathing critique of the media last night was probably a bad idea. The media is an important implement in politics, and enemies within its ranks can do some damage to any campaign. McCain and Palin need to make sure they get the sort of coverage they need in order to win this election.
When my students purposefully misrepresent someone else in their papers, I certainly take off more than a third of a letter grade!
I thoroughly enjoyed the speech. Ted Nugent liked it, too!
I was a little surprised that she didn’t explicitly mention abortion, but there really wasn’t anything she could have said about life issues that would have matched in poignancy the sight of her, her husband, and her five kids (and future son-in-law) up there on the stage with her. And besides, she doesn’t really need to say anything about where she stands on that issue — Obama’s campaign is already making that case for her (judging from the reports here about their latest commercial).
A fair critique of the speech. I also thought Huckabee and Giuliani performed well.
Where specifically did she misrepresent Obama’s tax polices. Death Tax? Business taxes? Payroll taxes? Income taxes?
She didn’t mention abortion or gay rights because she was attempting to appeal to moderate women. This was telegraphed in her Ohio speech, some just chose not to believe it.
It’s too bad Palin can’t debate Obama. She’d tear him a new one. And without teleprompter – From Red State:
Halfway through Sarah Palin’s speech tonight at the RNC, people following the speech noticed she was deviating from the prepared text.
According to sources close to the McCain campaign, the teleprompter continued scrolling during applause breaks. As a result, half way through the speech, the speech had scrolled significantly from where Governor Palin was in the speech. The malfunction also occurred during Rudy Giuliani’s speech, explaining his significant deviations from his speech.
Unfazed, Governor Palin continued, from memory, to deliver her speech without the teleprompter cued to the appropriate point in her speech.
Contrast this to Barack Obama who, when last his teleprompter malfunctioned, was left stuttering before a crowd unable to advance his speech until the problem was resolved
Her aim seems to me to be not toward “Hillary voters” – a lot of leftist feminists there – but at people (mostly women) who were inclined to vote for Hillary. Not smart to mention abortion or gay rights in that context, and her life is an ant-abortion backdrop in any event.
From that angle, the speech struck me as very effective, but we will see.
This morning my neighbor came over to drop off her son. She and I coached speech and debate together for years. She HATES Sarah but loved her speech. She thought from a rousing inspire the troops perspective it was good. I was disheartened not to hear topics i care about:
abortion,
immigration
economy
energy (BESIDES “drill baby drill”)
environment
health care
Nice summary, Poli. One caveat: she did get into some substance with the energy policy discussion; obviously it’s an area that she’s comfortable with, and that came through.
She’s the antithesis of the proverbial bitter, ugly feminist. Good looks help, in any setting. In politics, they are a rarity. Gov. Palin has the looks, the charm and the forcefulness. She certainly has the GOP faithful wrapped around her finger. She sticks it to the enemy while looking fabulous. She doesn’t have a grating voice like Hillary Clinton, she’s not bitter, she’s not mannish. Hillary puts off men, she’s like a nagging wife. Sarah is the hottie that women still can like. She obviously knows how to handle boys and men, if you’re pretty and witty, they’ll eat out of your hand.
A fair summary I think. I would disagree about her going after the media though. I’m not trying to be over the top when I say the press are for the most part ideological bullies and they are sure to attempt to inflict damage no matter what (just look at the past week). The only thing to keep them in check is fear of being hit back, which is something much easier for someone campaigning for office to do than someone already sitting in office (often times viewed as undignified in that context).
Mark Steyn said it best:
I would like to thank the US media for doing such a grand job this last week of lowering expectations by portraying Governor Palin – whoops, I mean Hick-Burg Mayor Palin – as a hillbilly know-nothing permapregnant ditz, half of whose 27 kids are the spawn of a stump-toothed uncle who hasn’t worked since he was an extra in Deliverance.
How’s that narrative holding up, geniuses? Almost as good as your “devoted husband John Edwards” routine?
On what she would do as vice president, how could she really address that aside from the ‘friend of the families with challenged children’ remark…since traditionally it …vice president is a non initiating job and one of being directed by the president to crisis areas as Cheney is doing this week regarding Georgia and Russia. Mc Cain will probably deliver more of the issue related talk and now he will have to…. since he cannot hope to upstage Palin on the emotional appeal level since he thank God is loathe to talk of the imprisonment which has had enough coverage at the convention already. Palin does not fit into the rich family mold as Mrs. McCain does….and she probably captured many non affluent and non ideologue women last night…much to the chagrin of a Hillary Clinton. Palin makes Obama’s “rich and out of touch” schtick….harder to deliver vis a vis Palin compared to Mrs. Obama also as to life style burdens and money etc.
Attacking the media could have been quite good. Most voters realize that a president or potential one has to have an element of fight in them. Passivity can be provocative outside academe and world where pacifism seems only to exist. They were attacking her while not going into Biden as much….ergo….in this world, leaders have to be capable of a fight that takes it to the opposition. She passed the test.
And Hannity of Fox….annoying even to many anti liberals….served notice last night that as long as Palin is attacked for 20 year ago actions of relatives, Hannity will respond in kind on the Biden life and that could produce a truce as to gossip unless Hannity simply keeps it up when the other side is silent and he is unfortunately constitutionally disposed to keep it up past due….having stayed way too long at the Rev. Wright party.
Passivity is provocative. Palin is not passive. Mrs. Clinton is not happy this AM.
Please. She gets a C-, maybe a D. Nothing but insults and finishing up with the typical “they’re going to take your money and welcome the terrorists to your front door.” Poli, I’m surprised that you were impressed with any of it.
Is anyone else flummoxed by the fact that even here, at VN, we (and I mean, *we*, not “they” or “you”) seem unable to see things but through partisan glasses? We’re very predictable, aren’t we? MM and Michael didn’t care for the speech at all, and we conservatives loved it. Is anyone surprised by this? *Why is this*?
Gerald A. Naus, you’re a hoot! Keep it up; liberals are deficient in so many areas, but their inability to laugh at themselves is surpassed only by their inability to reason.
Because we’re all biased. I just embrace my partisanship and don’t pretend otherwise. I loved her sticking it to that gasbag Obama. In the end, what it comes down to is not “Catholic Social Teaching”, “the poor” etc. but sympathy and antipathy. The Left is built on envy/guilt, the Right on protecting what’s one’s own. So if you envy others or you feel guilty you’re rich, you’ll love Obama :P
I am interested in my property, my money, my gun, my cars. I don’t pretend to know what’s good for other people, but I know what I want. Thus, I am an evil selfish Americanist Dualist Calvinist Capitalist War-Mongering Poor-Oppressing Individualist Modernist swine who supports McCain and Sarah McHottie. Damn straight ! I embrace my swinedom.
Chris,
Interesting comment:
“Is anyone else flummoxed by the fact that even here, at VN, we (and I mean, *we*, not “they” or “you”) seem unable to see things but through partisan glasses? We’re very predictable, aren’t we? MM and Michael didn’t care for the speech at all, and we conservatives loved it. Is anyone surprised by this? *Why is this*?”
We begin from different assumptions about the nature of human beings.
For lack of better terms, liberals tend to buy into Rousseau’s argument about society being responsible for the evil human beings do. Conservatives reject this idea and say man is not perfectible in this world, and is more of a tabula rasa with a tendency to do evil.
We begin from different assumptions about the nature and purposes of government, as well as its role.
Liberals think the government will be effective in improving the lives of its citizens; conservatives, generally, do not.
We also begin with different assumptions about the possibilities of political life.
Conservatives think it’s better to work with what we have – taking the good and leaving the bad. Liberals tend to buy into revolutionary political schemes and demand systematic versus incremental change.
And so on. Unless we deal with these assumptions, our conversation will never make any progress.
John,
Interesting answer. But if it’s true, it leads to a depressing conclusion: that whatever claims we make about structuring our worldview according to our faith, other principles dominate our political vision. And I just don’t like that conclusion! :-)
Take the way you outlined your answer… it strikes me that your view of conservatism is much more in line with a Catholic vision than is the liberal view. But as much as I disagree with MM et al., I disinclined to say that their anthropology derives from the Enlightenment and not from the Gospel, just as I’m disinclined to attribute my fellow conservatives’ views on any variety of issues to a calvinistic dualism, as MM so often does. But then, maybe I’m too naive.
Where specifically did she misrepresent Obama’s tax polices. Death Tax? Business taxes? Payroll taxes? Income taxes?
Also did anyone watch the speech on PBS and see Gwen Ifil ( I hope I’m spelling her name correctly) afterward? I said to my wife she looks like she is on mega doses of cold medicine or she is really depressed. She looked totally dejected after the speech. Like she just got checked by a hockey mom.
I was disheartened not to hear topics i care about:
abortion,
immigration
economy
energy (BESIDES “drill baby drill”)
environment
health care
Same here. I think that given the pressure she had to deliver a good speech she did very well though.
Same here. I think that given the pressure she had to deliver a good speech she did very well though.
She is a terrific, charismatic speaker. The only problem I had was with the actual words she was speaking and the ideas that the words expressed.
Nick, comments like yours are foolish.
I am not a liberal, but I know a fair few who laugh at themselves and are extraordinary thinkers. Same goes for conservatives. Bombastic, self-gratifying remarks like yours are exactly what is wrong with public discourse in the United States.
Why can’t we model our discourse on our Church leaders? How many speeches from JPII or Benedict XVI have you heard, or in how many encyclicals that you have read, is sarcasm, acerbic wit, and general spite ever used to great affect? None. Are they often bold? Yes. Full of conviction? Yes. Motivated by fear and a mean spirit? No.
Most of us are guilty (at least I know I am!) of having been shaped more by our current culture war milieu than we ought. I should probably mention it in the confessional. But enough is enough already.
Chris,
I, also, do not want to attribute an anthropology that derives from Enlightenment political thinkers to our fellow Catholics. I do think, however, that the influence of Enlightenment political thought is much greater and is rooted deeper than generally admitted. It is also hard to see because it is so commonplace.
I think if we unearth these assumptions and deal with them rather than arguing about particular politicians and policies our conversations will make more progress.
Poli, I’m surprised that you were impressed with any of it.
Me too.
I’m just watching Sarah McHottie again. She’ll tear out your lungs and she’ll do it with a smile. And you’ll say, why thank you, governor.
I, also, do not want to attribute an anthropology that derives from Enlightenment political thinkers to our fellow Catholics. I do think, however, that the influence of Enlightenment political thought is much greater and is rooted deeper than generally admitted. It is also hard to see because it is so commonplace.
I think if we unearth these assumptions and deal with them rather than arguing about particular politicians and policies our conversations will make more progress.
I think a simple yes or no to “the Enlightenment” won’t do. There are obviously good aspects to the Enlightenment as well as anti-human ones. The tendency I see among Republicatholics is to choose the aspects of the Enlightenment that are not compatible with Catholic social thought while ignoring the Enlightenment’s positive aspects that CST affirms.
I’m just watching Sarah McHottie again. She’ll tear out your lungs and she’ll do it with a smile. And you’ll say, why thank you, governor.
Or she’ll bore you to death.
The “Sarah McHottie” shows the depth of your reflection, Gerald, as well as your sexism. Go take some pictures of some “McHotties.”
Michael, any thoughts with regard to my questions that Zach was replying to? I’m a little dismayed at the implications for VN.
I don’t know what to make of you Gerald. Are you here only to wind people up? What are you hoping to contribute? What are you wanting me to see to help me be a better person? Are you trying to convince me that I should be concerned with “my property, my money, my guns {if I had any}, my cars”? Are you trying to convince me that I too know what I want, and therefore I should try to get it? Are you trying to convince me that I too should embrace my swinedom?
Or are you strictly tongue-n-cheek trying to get people’s goat?
You are driving me to despair! All that we have is God’s, which we are to use for the good of all. We are called to repent of our swinedom, not embrace it. Unless we can agree on these things, we shall not agree on much.
“Or are you strictly tongue-n-cheek trying to get people’s goat? ”
Bingo. Well, I am not trying to get people’s goats. That’s something a liberal would do :)
Chris – Do you mean this stuff?:
Is anyone else flummoxed by the fact that even here, at VN, we (and I mean, *we*, not “they” or “you”) seem unable to see things but through partisan glasses? We’re very predictable, aren’t we? MM and Michael didn’t care for the speech at all, and we conservatives loved it.
But if it’s true, it leads to a depressing conclusion: that whatever claims we make about structuring our worldview according to our faith, other principles dominate our political vision.
I think when you divide people into two camps, camps which you find “predictable,” then we’re already in trouble.
In my actual posts at VN, for example, I have criticized Obama more than I have McCain. Do you find that “predictable”? Am I “partisan”? Not if by “partisan” you are accusing me of being a “liberal” or a democrat.
Do “other principles dominate” my political vision? I hope not. I have found that certain strands of anarchism have illuminated important aspects of Christianity that are largely neglected by both the right and the left, and that I neglected for most of my life. I reject those aspects of anarchism that are not compatible with Catholic social teaching because the Christian faith is what ultimately structures my worldview.
If I missed the specific question you are concerned with, let me know.
Liberals don’t want people’s goats, since they are all upscale urbanites apparently and wouldn’t know what to do with them. Can’t have it both ways. ;)
Well, they wouldn’t want them for themselves of course, they’d redistribute them :P
Michael,
Please note the “if that’s true” part of my second comment, as well as the section in which I said that I don’t think the “liberals” here don’t subscribe to an Enlightenment anthropology.
As to predictability, I’m happy to be wrong… I appreciate your point that in your posts you are more critical of Obama than McCain. My perception of late is that if a Republican says x, the response will be fairly predictable: most of the “liberals” here won’t like it, most of the conservatives will. Perhaps my perception is simply inaccurate.
And again, if this is a probably, it’s *our* problem, not “yours”.
Poli, I’m surprised that you were impressed with any of it.
Well, I just recognize that rhetoric is an art that can be conducted well with or without framing a substantive argument. I think she was masterful in this art, and this art wins elections. Now, if she were in a political science seminar or philosophy seminar, she would have been torn apart. But then again, her speech was not geared toward arguing for anything, but for persuading.
Zach–nice job on the John of Salisbury. I think you are the first at Vox Nova to notice the reference.
I appreciate your point that in your posts you are more critical of Obama than McCain.
Granted, the reason for this is because the inhumanity of John McCain and his policies should be obvious to any person of faith. I feel no need to dedicate many blog posts to this fact.
Michael,
Is Obama not at least equally “inhuman” as McCain, for categorizing an entire class of persons (the unborn) dispensible?
And, I don’t mean to split everyone into two groups, but sometimes categories help. I mean, do you not see yourself quite aligned with the opinions of the center-left contributors? Can you not see that you agree with some of the assuptions they make about human beings and political life and possibilities?
the inhumanity of John McCain and his policies should be obvious to any person of faith.
But what if it’s not, and your interlocutor is both of good faith and open to persuasion? Then what? Abandon all hope? Or make an effort to persuade & convince without polemic (as you personally have done, at least with me)?
Is Obama not at least equally “inhuman” as McCain, for categorizing an entire class of persons (the unborn) dispensible?
I see no evidence that Obama believes that the unborn are, as an entire class of persons, “dispensible.” Obama is not “pro-abortion.” He does not, for example, make jokes about killing the unborn as radical pro-abortion types do. McCain, on the other hand, is pro-war and he DOES consistently make jokes about hating and even killing entire groups of people.
My perception of late is that if a Republican says x, the response will be fairly predictable: most of the “liberals” here won’t like it, most of the conservatives will. Perhaps my perception is simply inaccurate.
Chris,
You are, of course, 100% correct.
There are a number of books out now that I am eager to read, a few of them are
Cordelia Fine: A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives
Robert Burton: On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You’re Not
Carol Tavris: Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts
Dan Airely: Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions
From the Scientific American review of Cordelia Fine’s book: “Furthermore, our brains warp perceptions to match emotions. In the extreme, patients with Cotard delusion actually believe they are dead. So “pigheaded” is the brain about protecting its perspective that it defends cherished positions regardless of data.”
We all (including me and everybody else on Vox Nova) at least to some degree are filtering what we see and hear, and unconsciously finding reasons to be critical of the candidates we already don’t favor and finding reasons to excuse the same kinds of flaws in the candidates we do favor.
The reviews of the Fine book on Amazon.com are worth reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Mind-Its-Own-Distorts-Deceives/dp/0393331636/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220551103&sr=8-1
Policraticus – Thanks for the honest, level grading of Palin and her speech.
Michael!
I see no evidence that Obama believes that the unborn are, as an entire class of persons, “dispensible.” Obama is not “pro-abortion.”
Whaaat? Obama is not pro-abortion? You buy into the distinction that is made with the misleading euphemism of choice?
That’s not good! “Pro-choice” is an unintelligible phrase. It only makes sense if it means “pro-the-choice-for-abortion”, which means, in the context of public policy, you support the the legality of the choice for abortion.
It might be objected that this means he is morally neutral on the question and he wants to leave it up to the individual to decide for themselves- but this supposed position of neutrality is absurd. For example, we are not neutral and therefore permissive on the question of what to do about murder or torture – we don’t want to leave the question of murder up to the invididual; and a person that did would be understood as seriously deranged.
And somehow advocating a policy which PERMITS the murder of an entire class of innocent human beings (the unborn) is not saying those human beings are dispensible? Really?
It comes down to this. Lefties, including several here, look at your things and they want to take a good part of it from you. Then they’ll chastise you for your house being too big, your car being too big, your gun and so forth. Lefties are the ultimate thieves. And not just that, they’re idiotic thieves, since they don’t keep it for themselves, but dole it out to whoever clamors the loudest. Leftist ideology and Catholic Social Teaching are, in the end, about envy and guilt and the theft stemming from them. Both claim to know what’s best for you. The aggravating fact about Catholicism is that it adds bizarre behavior rules to the confiscatory social programs. It’s like “Put down the condom and give your money to the poor !” The very term “the poor” is of course bizarre, as if one were standing someplace, asking, “Who are they ? ” – “Oh them, that’s the poor.” – “Ah. Let me give them my money. BRB”
Lastly, you have the absurd notion that “God loves the poor” – absurd because it contradicts the “option for the poor”. If it’s such a blessed state, why end it ? And, if being poor is bad, how would a god that loves someone allow them to be poor ?
I really have to thank Vox Nova, without it I wouldn’t have quit Catholicism. I do think it represents it quite well – the reactionary sex rules paired with the uber-liberal social rules.
It might be objected that this means he is morally neutral on the question and he wants to leave it up to the individual to decide for themselves- but this supposed position of neutrality is absurd.
This is a good summary of what I think his position is. I do agree that it’s absurd. He is complicit, yes, but he is not “pro-abortion” in the sense of pro-moting abortion as a good.
Unlike John McCain who thinks killing dark-skinned people is funny.
He does promote the choice for abortion as a good, and this is the same thing as promoting abortion as a good.
His policy says that abortion is a legitimate and good option to be chosen.
Listen to his speeches to NARAL, etc.
If he thinks that a teenager shouldn’t be “punished” with a child, that is consistent with the view (held by many people) that abortion is a positive good in at least some situations.
Unlike John McCain who thinks killing dark-skinned people is funny.
Come on, John McCain doesn’t think killing ANYONE is funny. You’re taking a stupid joke McCain made and not giving him any benefit of the doubt.
Yet you bend over backwards and a half to justify Obama’s legitimization of the choice for murder.
He does promote the choice for abortion as a good, and this is the same thing as promoting abortion as a good.
No, actually they’re not. They’re both indeed WRONG, and I condemn both views, but they are not the same thing.
His policy says that abortion is a legitimate and good option to be chosen.
Legitimate, yes. A good, I don’t think this is what he says.
Come on, John McCain doesn’t think killing ANYONE is funny. You’re taking a stupid joke McCain made and not giving him any benefit of the doubt.
I’m referring to two recent jokes, repeated racist comments and chest thumping. You will give McCain the “benefit of the doubt,” but not Obama?
Yet you bend over backwards and a half to justify Obama’s legitimization of the choice for murder.
I’m not “bending over backwards.” I’m making obvious distinctions that anyone who takes ethics seriously would make. Nor am I justifying his position. I condemn his position. I am concerned, though, that you are not representing his position accurately. You, my friend, are beyond dishonest.
You, my friend, are beyond dishonest.
Good talking to you too, Michael.
Good talking to you too, Michael.
I wish I could say the same this time, Zach, but your fanaticism has gotten in the way such that even after I explicitly say that I CONDEMN Obama’s position on abortion, you somehow insist that I am attempting to JUSTIFY it. The most polite way I can describe that move is “dishonest.”
The original dispute was about whether his support for legalized murder of the unborn class of human beings entails considering the unborn dispensible. I think it’s obvious it does; you have tried to explain that it doesn’t. You have also tried to explain how his policy is not “inhuman”. This is probably justifying or at least de-emphasizing his policy choice. These attempts at mitigating the significance of Obama’s abortion policy, coupled with your exaggeration of the significance of McCain’s rhetoric, lead me to say you were justifying his position. I think this is fair; I don’t think this is dishonest. I am sorry if it somehow is, but I confess I do not see it.
I’m an independent who really would like to vote for John McCain and Sara Palin, particularly for their stances on abortion. However, her speech was a solid C- in my book. Anyone can use sarcasm and cynicism in a speech to supportors to rouse them to their feet. It’s also a sign of an individual who has nothing to say. Look at Al Franken, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity: not the paragons of logical thinkers.
Now, I’m not saying that Gov. Palin has nothing to say, but why not discuss some real policy other than “evil-booga-booga liberal media”, tax increases and “Washington insiders”? Plus, she talked about an America that, in my opinion, frankly doesn’t exist anymore. What was all the talk about “showing strength”? With the dollar tanking, troops dying for Iraqi citizens, and the loss of much of our moral authority in the world due to defying the Geneva Conventions, now is NOT the time to toss around our “strength”.
Disappointing, disappointing….so much snark so little substance. It was almost like another version of Barack Obama (lots of idealism, little substance) except it was lots of sarcasm and little substance.
Congratulations Gerald. In leaving Catholicism you have found a new pope. And his name is Gerald A. Naus! Enjoy the slavery you now call freedom.
Lastly, you have the absurd notion that “God loves the poor” – absurd because it contradicts the “option for the poor”. If it’s such a blessed state, why end it ?
On the contrary, the idea option for the poor comes directly from the belief that God loves the poor. It is precisely a theo-centric principle.
To say that God loves the poor does not mean that God wants people to be poor. Just as to say that God loves the aborted does not mean God wants babies to be aborted.
And, if being poor is bad, how would a god that loves someone allow them to be poor ?
You could just as well say, then, “If abortion is bad, how could a God who loves babies allow them to be aborted?”
Do you now see how your “logic” is just a little off track?
The suggestion is that poverty is some sort of particularly blessed state, somehow more elevated. That’s what I meant.
I am all for small business loans, student loans, investment in infrastructure. It’s just that, usually, places run by Democrats have two things – high real estate prices/rents and ghettos. So, I am led to conclude that the policies they advocate aren’t all that.
I think the surest method to provide for upwards mobility is a strong economy, not a strong government.
Whether or not there is a God and whether she/he/it loves anyone is another story. If I remember correctly, the Buddha said since the question cannot be answered it is pointless to ask it.
I’m actually reading a few interesting books that deal with Jesus. I’m sure they’d all be on the Index if it still existed though :) One is called “Jesus for the Non-Religious”. Turns out someone whose kind I used to make fun of has some interesting things to say (Bishop John Shelby Spong).
I always wondered what role Geralds interacting with the crowd here at Vox Nova had on his leaving the Church. I never had the nerve to ask. I have read this blog since it started. I don’t recall any of the people he argued with ever really trying to convince him or change his heart. I could be wrong. Correct me if so. They only try to win the argument, prove their opponents wrong, and basically stomp them into the ground, so to speak. I think that’s what Mark Shea was getting at when he criticized it saying the blog was missing an opportunity. All you have to do is look at the responses to the people who throw up their hands and say “I am done reading this blog”. It’s basically “See ya”. “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out”. They really don’t care about spreading the Gospel, bringing Christ to anyone or bringing anyone to Christ. Only winning arguments and defeating their opponents.
Tim F. – no one should go online and chat. To paraphrase, Si tacuisses, Catholicus mansisses.
Between the social-justice-left and the Evil-sodomites!!!!!-right, the air gets thin.
God is dead, and it was us who killed him. We shall see him again beyond good and evil :)
Or: religious sentiment is killed by religious people. Or, again Nietzsche – beware of followers.
I am sure Jesus would be rather amused to see an archbishop prance around in a cappa magna. “Why, that’s more festive than Pontius Pilate !”
Ironically, the heretics I am reading make Jesus look the most appealing =)
We all (including me and everybody else on Vox Nova) at least to some degree are filtering what we see and hear, and unconsciously finding reasons to be critical of the candidates we already don’t favor and finding reasons to excuse the same kinds of flaws in the candidates we do favor.
But that’s what’s concerning to me, David… if we all in fact share the same faith, *should* our disagreements be this substantial? I fully recognize that our faith is more symphonic than monolithic, but the disagreements here of late strike me as breaching the walls of the orchestra hall.
“Obama is not “pro-abortion.”
He is complicit, yes, but he is not “pro-abortion” in the sense of pro-moting abortion as a good.
You have GOT to be kidding. This is rationalizing at its most basic level. Have you heard the man speak on the subject? Have you heard the commercials that he says “I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message”?
Oh, but he says it’s a “difficult” choice so that makes it OKAY? Disgusting and twisted, even I expected more from your intellect Michael J.
MM and Michael didn’t care for the speech at all, and we conservatives loved it. Is anyone surprised by this? *Why is this*?
Because we were looking at the speech through rose colored glasses, and the liberal contingent was looking at it through “moose pie” colored glasses? Just a guess.
Perhaps this will be edited out by the commentators, but here goes…
Gerald:
Your post here is another example of how you blame others for why Catholicism ‘didn’t work’ for you. This may seem harsh, but I wish to offer you a little charitable feedback. You and only you are responsible for your separation from the Church. Although you are probably close to 35 years old, it appears as if you are a man who has not learned some simple life lessons. Accepting responsibility for your own actions is one of them.
How do we know this? From your own blog posts. You asked for contributions from the bloggers for your former blog because you just couldn’t stand to return to work full time-like the rest of us-because you wanted to take photos, blog and travel. These sound like great hobbies or past times, but adults and particularly healthy grown men need to work.
I think some may suspect that your parents have continued to support you. How else can you afford the trips, new cars, computers and whatever. Also, you apparently don’t have a problem with your wife working full time–as long as you can do want your want.
One of the reasons that Catholicism ‘didn’t work’ for you is that you haven’t had to modify your own behavior and live up to expectations. Yes, that includes following Church teaching on sexuality. We all know all too well, because you have screamed your preference for oral sex over the internet! How sorry I am for your wife that you have violated the privacy that belongs to a married couple.
Gerald, another root issue with you is your pride. Through regular confession, this flaw could have been addressed, but I suspect that you didn’t get yourself to the confessional too often. Better to make psuedo intellectual blog posts. Am I right?
The measure of someone who is ‘gets’ Catholicism is not just what he/she knows, but how he strives to model himself/herself to Christ. This is extremely difficult, but this is where the action is at. It’s in the doing. Mass, Confession, Prayer–listening to God to hear how you can serve Him.
Why don’t you either stop trolling the Catholic blogs blaming others for the problem you created or get down on your knees and ask the Blessed Mother for pray for your return to the Church? Oh, and call that wonderful monk, Fr. Stephanos and ask him to meet with you and your wife.
You have GOT to be kidding. This is rationalizing at its most basic level. Have you heard the man speak on the subject? Have you heard the commercials that he says “I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message”?
Yes I have heard him speak about abortion. And I have yet to hear an Obama quote where he encourages women to have abortions. Or, in McCain style, where he jokes about pregnant women smoking, saying “Maybe that’s our way of killing babies.” If you can produce one of these “abortion is good” Obama quotes, by all means.
From the Obama website:
“Obama and Biden Unequivocally Support Roe v. Wade and A Woman’s Right To Choose. Obama Has A 100% Pro-Choice Voting Record. Obama has received a voting record of 100% from NARAL Pro-Choice America.
Obama: “It’s Never Been More Important To Protect A Woman’s Right To Choose.” On the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Obama said “it’s never been more important to protect a woman’s right to choose.”
Definition of support: “To argue in favor of; advocate.
Definition of encourage: “To give support to; foster.
little gal,
Do you agree with John McCain’s support for firing all gay people from their jobs, leaving them unemployed and destitute?
Kurt: Oh, for God’s sake’s, provide a link for that. I don’t believe for one second McCain wants to fire all people from their jobs. And the Left accuses the Right of trafficking in fear? Pot, meet kettle.
I mean “all gay people.”
Ooooh, the big, bad Republicans who want gay people sleeping on the sidewalk!
Better let the Log Cabin (gay) Republicans know then. They endorsed McCain/Palin. Bush did not get their endorsement in ’04.
Little gal, don’t bring facts into this. Let Michael J. still think that Obama doesn’t think abortion is a good thing.