Powered by TypePad

« Libby Versus The Press | Main | Cheer If You Like Stephen Colbert »

May 03, 2006


richard mcenroe

Nobody besides the press and his AZ incumbents'
constituency has come out behind John McCain yet. Why assume they'll start now?

Appalled Moderate

Speaking as a member of the appalled middle,I can't stand McCain, who's quirky authenticty is really an appeal to "trust me rather than any guiding principles." He really is like his hero Teddy Roosevelt in his suspicion of any firm guiding ideological anything, but his message really boils down to "there are good people and bad rich people and bad rich people don't need stuff like the 1st amemndment because they just corrupt it with money."

There is nothing wrong with pragmatism. Reagan had it. Lincoln had it. FDR had it.
But they never lost sight of their principles and their underlying goals. McCain. What's his goal? No money in politics? I guess he figures folks don't have right to petition for redress of grievances if he figures they have too much money or power. That pesky 1st amendment...



My personal nickname for McCain is ATM:

"At The Moment"

Because pretty much anything he does, says or says he'll do is based on whatever is the topic du jour.

Frankly I'd rather have my eyeballs stabbed out with a pen than vote for McCain.


There will be SOMEONE to get behind. McCain can't win a primary, no way. I'm not convinced Hillary can, either.


This is the real developing struggle in the GOP right now. Republican conservatives are the dominant bloc in primary voting. If they don't choose a favorite for '08, they'll get a nominee they don't want or can't stand.

It goes essentially unreported in the media, which has already gotten behind McCain, all the better to cram him down our throats.

So far, I'd give the award for best political positioning to Mitt Romney.


McCains descent from the 'maverick' I.D. to
tender steer status began with his shameless
knee-cap sucking in June 2004. I can only
speculate that his ass-smooching was a trade
for Bush's promised endorsement. It might
have worked too, if not for the precipitous
Presidential slide into poll oblivion as well
as ignominous historical exile.


Shouldn't the ACLU (and the NYT and WaPo) be attacking McCain for his flippant dismissal of Ist amendment rights in favor of "good government"?

I know I will never vote for him until I hear a complete and abject apology for his shameful remarks.


He's being criticized for those comments in the lefty blogosphere as well, noah. Shameful.

I'm just glad you guys hate him so much. The pictures of him humping Bush's leg will pretty much kill his support in the 65% or so of the country that now despises Bush. I was actually nervous at one time that he had a shot at the nomination, but am delighted to watch him self destruct.

Face it, coming off the debacle that 2006 will likely be for y'all, it makes it all that much sweeter to know you got NOBODY clean or competent to put up in '08.


McCain humping Bush's leg. Wow that's brilliant.

I have no idea who there is out there that I could be enthusiastic about supporting in 2008. I have little confidence in the Republican party anymore. I sincerely doubt there is a serious national security voice that could be nominated by the Dems.

I'd really have to hold my nose to vote for McCain.



"Middle of the roaders" here in Michigan have been partial to McCain in recent presidential races. So you might be on to something. However, the drama that will be played out this November will very likely produce a new Repub direction and new candidates. :)


Look on the bright side. McCain may take away your 1st amendment rights, but he won't use torture to do it.

Why is Guiliani so quiet?


Syl, I read yesterday that Guiliani is thinking about a run. I sure hope so.


ed, what a wonderful observation, your At the Moment thought about McCain.

Well, live for the moment is wise counsel, but, and a big but, is this apparent lack of principle and the willingness to adjust to the flow a relic of his incarceration and abuse in North Vietnam. It fits the pattern of some abused people. And he's not above playing the victim card. I had almost decided to forgive him for Keating(well, I'd forgotten about it) when he betrayed the Swifties, WITHOUT BOTHERING TO INVESTIGATE. Exactly what his captors would want him to do. But what I can not forgive is that given the chance to investigate the Swifties and become knowledgable, he didn't. That is corrupt, or intransigent, or whatever, but it ain't presidential. In fact, I wouldn't want him in the next foxhole. Just an odd thought here.

Cecil Turner

McCain. What's his goal? No money in politics?

His campaign finance reform emphasis provides convenient political inoculation for past dubious activity. Similarly, his outrage over criticism of Kerry's VN record (and anti-torture stance) seem designed to fend off criticism of his own POW days (which at the least entailed code-of-conduct violations, which some claim amounted to collaboration). If he has a principled position on anything, I've yet to see it. (And it's probably obvious I won't be voting for him.)


You want Giuliani to run? Rudy Giuliani?

Do you people just forget that you can't win elections without your God Squad on board? Rudy moved his mistress into Gracie Mansion while his wife and kids were still living there and flaunted it. He also supports gay marriage. He also supports gun control. He also has NO foreign policy credentials. The fact that just happened to be Mayor on 9/11 and didn't stay seated in a classroom reading to kids doesn't exactly make him an expert. We're all grateful to him, but seriously, without the most professional police force on earth - and the bravest fire department - he'd have looked a lot less "heroic".

Plus I think the whole country has had it with 9/11 being pimped by Republicans for political profit. We need evidence of competence this time. We're in the deep stuff now.

Rick Ballard


I wonder if his Swiftboat vet reaction was not anticipatory in nature. There are people who shared his situation, remember him and are quite willing to ask why someone who did not perform according to the code deserved the CMH. Quite a number of them, apparently.

His time spent in Keatings vest pocket is not forgotten either. The press loves him because there is no one around who would be easier to destroy. McCain has an ego which seems to prevent him from understanding the obvious.

That, and he's dumb as a box of rocks.


You know what gets me about McCain? His projection of his own failings onto others.

He gets caught with his hand in someone's pocket. His solution? Campaign finance reform.

McCain does something unethical and he can't even own that it was his own behavior that got him in trouble. Instead it has to be some flaw in 'the system'. As if we could ever figure out every single possible little crack allowing people to slither in and profit.

But no, McCain's problems were all about the way the laws were set up, not about his own actions.

Oh and now? Thanks to CFR where we used to have full reporting of contributions directly to the parties we now have a hundred murky 527's with the likes of Soros giving 20 million a pop.

Great. The only realistic brake - full reporting - on the very behavior CFR was allegedly supposed to address is undermined by CFR itself.


Not sure supporting gun control is a negative, but

--We need evidence of competence this time.--

This time? No offense AB but insert Clinton in your little diatribe and it all works.

Seriously, AB just credited the entire organized response on 9-11 to the professional police force and fire department (for which they deserve credit) but suggests NO leadership was required, that Giuliani played no role in the organization or decision making, that ANY figure head was unnecessary and would triumph by proxy.

Oh, OK AB...


Yes, topsekret, that's exactly what I'm saying.

Giuliani WAS a competent leader through the years. I give him credit for the drop in crime and the improvement in quality of life. But his 9/11 heroism is much overrated. And although he's a famewhore who loves praise, I think even Rudy would agree with me that all credit goes to the civil servants and the great people of this great city.

I'm never sure where the God Squad stands on gun control, but I know the rednecks won't let Rudy through with his positions there. Rudy's a nostarter for you guys. Sorry.


Republican primaries are dominated by conservatives and GOP loyalists. McCain is unpopular with both groups. He is liked by Democrats, the media, and people who don't know much about politics.

Conservatives and Republicans didn't vote for him in '00. He managed to stay alive in the primaries only by virtue of crossover Democrats.

Giuliani is acceptable to most conservatives but a Republican governor will emerge as an alternative to Giuliani and McCain. The GOP nominee will start with a substantial electoral advantage in the general election. He doesn't have to be perfect. He just has to beat whatever stiff the Democrats nominate.

Rick Ballard

"He doesn't have to be perfect. He just has to beat whatever stiff the Democrats nominate."

That's a decent summation. I don't believe that the actual nominee is sticking his head up at the moment. It doesn't make any sense to do so given that there is the small matter of the mid-term to get through first.

The Dem winner may not be a stiff this time either. The Dems are busy jiggering the first primary dates in order to give center leftists an even chance to compete with hard leftists. I sure hope they're successful, after all, the Captaincy of the Titanic is at stake.


But what I can not forgive is that given the chance to investigate the Swifties and become knowledgable, he didn't.

Kim, it was unforgivable. I could be forced to vote for him but he better hope I don't.
Have commented that I had rather pull my fingernails out than vote McCain.....but it's a FACT....I will not vote Democrat. They must find the real world first and prove citizenship.

Gary Maxwell

The Dem winner may not be a stiff this time either.

Key word here is "may". As in may not ( anything is possible ) but given the last stack of candidates, probably will be.


Of the currently rumored Dem candidates for '08, which one wouldn't be a stiff? Kerry, Gore, Rodham, Richardson, Biden, Feingold?

You know what gets me about McCain? His projection of his own failings onto others.
I was just about to post pretty much that exact brilliant rant when I read that Dwilkers beat me to it. So go read what he wrote again!

I think that "Angry Middle" is not quite exactly right. AM is closer with "Appalled Middle." But even that misses an important aspect I'll call the "Cringing Middle." That's when you feel empathatic embarrassment for someone who is humiliating himself in public, and more than anything, you just want him to stop! Or at least move it to somewhere that you don't have to see it and empathize with it. It's especially acute in McCain's case because his failing-on-display is so commonly human -- haven't we all tried to blame our sins on someone else at some point in our lives? Every time this guy opens his mouth with his the-system-made-me-do-it schtick, I have embarrassing flashbacks to when I was four and tried to frame my big brother for knocking over the Christmas tree...

cathy :-)


As a conservative, I'm not a huge fan of McCain. But, as someone who wants to win in 2008, I'd sure as hell back him if I thought he could win.


AB Pat Robertson supports Guiliani. As for gun control, I do so think this issue would be amenable to more lucid discussion if all sides could recognize that in cities with 911 responses minutes away, people have different attitudes than they do in suburban or rural areas . Yes, I know there's a constitutional issue, but there is also reality. Big city folks tend to approve of strict gun control laws and samll towns and rural areas do not. It's a big country.

Rick Ballard


You have to dig deeper in the dumpster. (S)he won't be on the retread and hack list. Aside from Blanco, I'm not sure there are any southern governers left - maybe a whitebread corn senator?


Oh, that's so strange, clarice. When it's a conservative in question, we can afford to have NUANCE in the gun control debate. How convenient.

And uh, Pat Robertson? I don't pretend to understand the Born Again/Evangelical/Left Behind-ers that the Republicans have so effectively exploited the last few elections, but it really seems to me that, for some unfathomable reason, they think homosexuality is just about the greatest scourge to mankind. So I'm thinking the endorsement of the demonstrably insane Pat Robertson is going to carry a little less weight than all those pictures of Rudy in a dress and lipstick...not to mention the ones of his wife & kids covering their faces from the photographers during that very noble interlude where he publically shat on them by strutting his mistress around.

Whaddaya think?

Mark Coffey

Tom, I'm not quite ready to volunteer Decision '08 as a hangout for the angry middle (we're just not that angry)...but, though we'd prefer Rudy G., I think most of my readership (most, I say) could get behind McCain...


Disgusted middle would be a better term.


Give me Rudy in a dress with lipstick. Choices. Hate his gun control but have yet to find perfection. Choices and sure hope no one forces me to vote McCain, as my keyboard might put Cheney's language to shame.


Why do people insist that McCain and Giuliani are the only possible GOP choices? They are just the highest profile names - Giuliani thanks to 9/11, and McCain as the media's annointed GOP candidate.

George Allen would be the conservatives' likeliest nominee, but so far he hasn't assumed the mantle. Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty and others have plenty of time to step up.


If those are your choices, I'm a happy camper. I agree Allen has the best chance of the nomination, since they like those fake Southerners for some reason. The fact that he has shit for brains can only help him in the primaries. They seem to really like that.


I don't think Allen has the best chance. I said he looks likeliest but hasn't grabbed the mantle. His support doesn't appear to be building. On the other hand, Romney is gaining credibility with conservatives.

But we're not even in preseason. There's plenty of time. I'm glad to hear that Democrats are happy campers, with Gore and Kerry and Warner and Hillary, et al. It sets the bar pretty low.


Romney's only a cut above Pataki.

You're right that it's too early to tell. Once the Dems take the House in '06 and subpoena power gets out of the lockdown, anything can happen.

Many people think having Congress & Executive in different parties is the best system, so that is also a factor. Certainly we've learned in the past 5 years that a one party system, such as we now have, leads to nothing but pork, corruption, waste and institutionalized incompetence.


I consider myself part of that middle and while I think some people on the right have gone insane over certain issues like immigration all I have to do is remind myself there are people like AB and to remember that people like AB drove me from the Democart Party and I know I will vote for McCain if the alternative is someone like Hillary.

I do prefer pragmatic problems solving to ideology in most respects but since the left thinks that Bush is the enemy and not those nice misunderstood suicide bombers I will crawl over broken glass to defeat them.


Owl and Terrye;
I Agree with you both and I think many of the repubs mentioned could fill in a possible VP position if they don't receive the nomination. There is a lot that can happen in the next 2 years. Most of the people you are considering could figure prominently in a new repub administration. Matthews is having technical problems today interestingly enough it's all repubs that he can't speak with. Is that karma or what?
Guiliana, Kerik and Pataki can't be heard from due to communication difficulty. Finally Guiliani is coming through.


It would be nice if somebody could sit McCain down and say, 'Look Wm. Proxmire won after specnding $1013 on his campaign;' and he would say, to himself, 'Father, forgive me' and come out and say 'never mind' about campaign finance reform.

Look, the only reason he was in a VN prison camp, was that he didn't accept what his rank gave him, a right to fly only in the southern part of north VN. If he is humping somebody's leg, he's humping mine on fighting in Iraq; and I appreciate it. He also seems good on spending. The 1st amendment issue bothers me. It also bothers me that it is in response to a trangresion of his that he is overreacting to. Is this a pattern for him; what would that mean for the future?

richard mcenroe

AB -- "Rudy moved his mistress into Gracie Mansion while his wife and kids were still living there and flaunted it. He also supports gay marriage. He also supports gun control. He also has NO foreign policy credentials."

In other words, he will appeal to mainstream Democrats...

Doug Book

..."who can't get behind someone like George Allen". WANNA BET?


I'm pretty used to not getting exactly what I want in any candidate, so I don't get too worked up when someone gets it wrong on one thing or another.

I'm upset about the direction of the country not becaue of the actual direction, but because of the vitriol.
Call me weak-willed, but I could get behind McCain simply because a wide range of people do like him and respect him. I'd rather have a few things not turn out the way I want than to continue to watch the anger permeate everything.

Guiliani would make me a most eager voter.

Rick Ballard

Giuliani would do better than McCain but there is plenty of time for a new name to pop up. This time next year we may be talking about someone whose name is unthinkable at the moment. Or at least unthought of.


McCain is toast. My vote is with Mitt Romney. And if Guilliani gets in, all bets are off. He might not get the far right, but he'll get enough dems to make up for them.


In other words, he will appeal to mainstream Democrats..

Well, on the gun control and gay marriage, he'd appeal to mainstream Americans, especially since clarice reminds us that Republicans, and only Republicans, are entitled to nuanced policy positions.

Last I looked though, those kind of people don't vote in Pubby primaries.

As for his gross personal immorality, I agree, Republicans have always been massive hypocrites on that issue."Moral values" were never anything more than a bag of slop they tossed to their God Squad...Problem you got is a good HALF of your support comes from those Left Behind-ers, and, strange as it seems, they actually beleive in that stuff. They'd as soon see Giuliani burn in hell as vote for him in a primary.


AB, thanks for the bigoted stereotypes. Is there anything about which you're actually informed?


I know it's convenient for you here to ignore the fact that your electoral wins were basically courtesy of religious cultism here in the USA, but you ignore it at your own peril. Karl Rove didn't get himself crowned a genius by doing that, trustme.

You're honestly willing to trade in rabid religious fanaticism on Election Day for whatever tepid support Giuliani might inspire in some mostly disaffected Independents?

Hey, go for it. Sounds good to me.

Cecil Turner

Republicans have always been massive hypocrites on that issue."Moral values" were never anything more than a bag of slop they tossed to their God Squad...

Yeah, those Christians sure are hypocrites. It's like they forgot that passage where Jesus says: "Stone that woman, for she has sinned." Seriously AB, you can't handicap GOP primaries if you don't understand Republicans . . . and you can't understand people you hate. Try a little empathy, or don't bother. The above is pretty much a complete waste of effort. (<--preferred conservative "tough love" approach)


Ab..try taking off those blinders and consider if you will whether the Dems have not focused too havily on the values of NYC and SF and LA and too little on those elsewhere. Reports today are that there is a growing support for the House Reps stronger stand on illegal migration and that larger number of Blacks agree with that, that support for Roe v. Wade is at its lowest.
Michael Barone who does know what he is talking about says that in Ohio where for a variety of reasons the Reps were supposed to be most vulnerable, they showed much more strength in the primaries than anyone anticipated.
You can open your eyes or start drafting your Diebold was fixed article ahead of time.


Cecil, I'm not calling Christians hypocrites. I'm stating the obvious about the Republican elite - who, if they are Christian, are of the "in name only" variety.

I know it's from the dusty past, but once upon a time this guy named Christ spent his entire life preaching a very incredibly SIMPLE belief system - based on love, of the poor, of the least among us, of everyone. Christians, by definition, can not kill another human being. True Christians that is. They must turn the other cheek. They can not accrue personal wealth at the expense of those who suffer. In fact, in order to enter the Kingdom of God, they need to leave behind all worldly things.

Now I understand that this particular faith is inconvenient in the modern world, as it was in the primitive world, but that was entirely the point...It is one of the great shames in the history of a great world religion that it was hijacked by the proponents of antithetical faiths - capitalism and imperialism - and the docile nature of its followers abused in pursuit of power. A great tragedy.

I don't ever doubt the sincerity of the Left Behinders. I know they beleive what they say they believe and that's why Giuliani is a loser for you. In the endtimes, they are not going to allow themselves to be led by an unredeemed Papist bigamist sodomite.

The hypocrisy lies with those "moral values" pimping Pubs that have no problem with giving press passes to friendly male prostitutes or enjoying the delicious brand of bribery offered by Duke Cunningham's prostitution ring. I know those guys wish Giuliani's piggish moral past could just be disappeared, because he's only one of their own in that regard, but...sorry, ain't gonna happen. There are pictures, there is video, there are screaming NY Post headlines!

Keep trying.


Gee, clarice, Rudy's also pro-choice. How could I leave that out? A Catholic pro-choice candidate? Think the bishops will preach from the pulpit that a vote for a pro-choice candidate is a vote for your own damnation?

Or maybe he gets some free nuance on that one also.


Every other Catholic pol has gotten a pass if not an annullment no matter what the bleatings are..seen any bishop kick Ted or John to the curb?

OT:Juan Cole, the loony professor and Islamofascist supporter got taken to the cleaners by Chris Hitchens.http://slate.com/id/2140947 Satirist Iowahawk "defends" Cole.http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2006/05/juan_cole_the_f.html


Uh, yes, darling, my mother's Church ran editorials in every weekly missal that good Catholics could not vote for Kerry. As a matter of fact. Methinks I'm not the one who doesn't understand the role of religion in modern American life. When was the last time YOU entered a Catholic Church?

As for your poor sozzled boyfriend Hitchens, you really should try and be a little fair and balanced once in awhile, even though I know how it hurts you.

Cecil Turner

Christians, by definition, can not kill another human being. True Christians that is.

Oh, please. Are you suggesting the Bible doesn't acknowledge war? You are aware that Just War Theory is primarily based on the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas?

. . . based on love . . . can not accrue personal wealth . . . worldly things . . . it was hijacked . . .

The problem with your analysis is that you obviously don't share those beliefs, misstate them, and then conclude it must be hypocrisy. For those who do believe, it isn't. And obviously they don't see those things the way you do. Your predictions of their behavior is flawed for the same reason.

The hypocrisy lies with those "moral values" pimping Pubs that have no problem with giving press passes to friendly male prostitutes . . .

Are you seriously suggesting sexual orientation ought to be a qualification for a press pass? And, back on point, Giuliani's past transgressions seem relatively minor to me. (An ongoing lifestyle of irresponsible sexual behavior would be far worse.) And at any rate would hardly disqualify him. The two pertinent aphorisms are: "love the sinner, hate the sin"; and, "forgive and forget." I personally think he's a non-starter for President due to his limited experience (others disagree vehemently), but I think you seriously overstate the traction of his marital woes on the "left-behinders." (The same goes for the impact of bishops' endorsements on political candidates.)

The Unbeliever

once upon a time this guy named Christ spent his entire life preaching a very incredibly SIMPLE belief system - based on love, of the poor, of the least among us, of everyone. Christians, by definition, can not kill another human being. True Christians that is. They must turn the other cheek. They can not accrue personal wealth at the expense of those who suffer. In fact, in order to enter the Kingdom of God, they need to leave behind all worldly things.

I don't think I've ever seen a more complete misunderstanding of Christianity condensed in one place before. You've basically taken a set of far-left beliefs and dogma, and projected them backwards in time with a sanctimonious hateur because you think you understand Christ better than the billion or so Christians who've spend their lives for the last two millenia studying his words.

Combined with your overuse of inane stereotypes, AB, I think it's safe to label you a perfect contrarian indicator whenever you apply these "insights" to the political process.

Rick Ballard

It's just the elevation of Marx to the godhead - neither new nor surprising. As with all things Marxist, the intellectual depth and rigor are easily contained within a thimble.

I believe this thing to be faux to the core - if it has a core. I'm not sure that responding does more than feed the most pathetic of needs.


No actually Un, it's based on twelve years of Catholic school education. I'm aware of the permutations set loose by Thomas Aquinas and their worship among the right wing who want fervently to believe that the simplest religion on earth should best be interpreted - not through the words of Christ - but through the "learned scholars" who followed through the centuries enabling kings and presidents alike to kill and rob in his name.

Memo to those whose Christianity comes with a convenient slip off wrapper - Your abuse of this religion for political profit is going to come around and bite you. It is impossible to parse the words of Christ to justify either war or exploitation of the poor. It IS possible, as we've seen, to convince the politically inattentive that they must vote a certain way because of an isolated issue. In that regard, abortion has been the gift that keeps on giving for the Pubs. But you can only rely on that kind of political apathy for so long, and Lord help the Pubs if Roe actually does get overturned.

Cecil, you sound like a Protestant, and I am indeed unfamiliar with the ways your myriad churches have warped the simple, clear teachings of Christ. I've only heard some of your more unintelligible brethren screeching on Hannity's show from time to time, from which my conclusions of their illogical fanaticism derives. Hopefully I'm wrong...I'm not suggesting it was Gannon's sexual orientation that was the problem. The fact that he ran an online prostitution service, with very explicit self advertisements, might have been a red flag. But the hypocrisy of a political party that blatantly exploited homophobia for partisan gain, then had this unqualified shill given daily press passes, is what I was referring to. As you well know. The blind eye your hypocritical friends turned on this whole thing bodes fairly well for you, and brings me back to the central point - You'd best hope your Christian followers are hypocrites, or you're doomed.

P.S. I'm glad you think Giuliani's indiscretions were "tame". His humiliated wife and children probably don't agree.


So tell me what Jesus said about homosexuals.

The Unbeliever
No actually Un, it's based on twelve years of Catholic school education.

Actually AB, that confirms what I thought: just enough knowledge of Christian texts to make idiotic assertions that sound plausible. You're hardly unique in this regard.


Sherbet to clear the palate: Iowahawk on Juan Cole.(Swallow before reading) http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2006/05/juan_cole_the_f.html


Unbeliever, you are clearly not able to engage me on this topic, most likely having twelve years LESS education on the matter. But bloviate away. You're good at that.

kim, amazingly enough, Christ never spoke a PEEP about homosexuality...leading one to believe it was irrelevant to his teachings. Saul turned Paul is responsible for the tiny morsels of homophobia that exist in the New Testament. Yet, stunningly, gay hate is an even more potent political weapon for the GOP than even abortion when dealing with their massive - and indispensable - God Squad. Irrational, yet true. They use Christ for their political agenda even on issues about which Christ was 100% silent. He's convenient for them that way.


Saul turned Paul is responsible for many bad things--Nevertheless, it is idiotic to suggest that people who oppose gay marriage are all homophobic. Many may be. All are not.


AB, I had sixteen years of Catholic education. I guarantee my schools were better than yours. Does that mean I win, bigot?

The Unbeliever

AB, I had 12 years Christian education as well (various denominations, though not Catholic). Of course since I'm not trying to make an argument from authority like you are, it doesn't actually matter; you may want to avoid that pitfall in the future.

You seem to be big on stereotypes, short on data, and devoid of reasoning on this line of argument. I am not the one asserting superior interpretation over the billion or so followers of Christianity; you may want to rethink your own ability to "engage on the topic".

Cecil Turner

. . . my mother's Church ran editorials in every weekly missal that good Catholics could not vote for Kerry.

I suspect that's a bit overstated. The stuff I saw and heard were carefully-worded exhortations to consider abortion as a moral and policy issue. (And, hypocrite that I am, I consider public policy and individual choice two completely separate issues.) Moreover, I see the exit polls scored the Catholic vote 52% to 47% for Bush.

Cecil, you sound like a Protestant, and I am indeed unfamiliar . . .

Nope, Catholic. And I think it's fairly obvious your "to kill and rob in his name" diatribe doesn't mesh terribly well with any mainstream church. Again, you can't understand what you hate.


Show some evidence of it, lyle & Yellow Un. You haven't made a single cogent argument, just the usual ad hom.

Cecil, overstated only in the sense that Kerry wasn't mentioned by name. It said "a presidential candidate who does not vote to support pro-life legislation"...Didn't take a rocket scientist to connect those dots.

I don't hate, Cecil. You project. And I do understand that no faith that has ever been used to prop up a political agenda can be untarnished by it. Perhaps that's why Christ originated the doctrine of separation of Church and State by explaining we do not render unto Caeser that which belongs to the Lord. Too bad his modern followers are more obsessed with the things he never said (i.e. homosexuality ) than the things he actually did.


I seriously doubt that if Christ had okayed gay marriages 2000 years ago his name would be known today. Even the Greeks who had no aversion to the practice acknowledged the need to propagate and the wisdom of families to raise issue.


Stop giving catholics a bad name on this thread. I like Lyle also had 16 years of catholic education. We don't pick and choose like a smogasbord, what we sincerely believe. Kerry was shopping around for communion and that was offensive to me. I'm pro-life ans anti-death penalty. I have done inner-city immersions and have worked with the homeless, destitute and dying. Service and commitment to social justice is what everyone wants. President Bush is a compassionate conservative and dems blocked his faith-based initiatives to inner city homeless programs because they let the ACLU get in the way distorting religion for their own political agenda. Repubs are an open party-we accept all religions.


Propagation is hardly a pressing need in today's world, clarice. And I'm guessing just about all of the world's rapists, murderers, perverts, addicts, etc. were raised by heterosexual parents...It's a dead issue in our world. No one really cares about it except the zealots. But politically, you guys are superior at marsalling that zealot energy, even when you secretly loathe them.

Come on. If you can warp Christianity to justify war and exploitation of the poor, in effect negating the entire basis of the faith, surely you can amend it to address an issue on which it is completely silent . Well, actually, you don't even have to amend it. Because it's a Jewish prohibition, NOT a Christian one.


That's nice that you aren't a cafeteria Catholic, maryrose. So you are also against the war and don't support economic policies benefiting the rich at the expense of the poor? That's good. Wouldn't want you to pick and choose what's convenient. That might give Catholics a bad name.


Well, Ab, I am Jewish so what do I know? Come to think of it so was Jesus and except for some minor details he appears to have hewn to his religion as well.

As for propagation--the demise of the West which will soon be overwhelmed with Moslems (esp. in Europe) --is directly related to the benighted notion that propagation is irrelevant. When you find Jesus denouncing "be fruitful and multiply" let me know.


Don't look at me, clarice. I've multiplied plenty. But the free market paradise just doesn't seem to encourage that, does it? Since we're all on our own, our wages dropping, our health, housing and tuition costs rising, just doesn't make a lick of sense to propagate these days. It ain't the gay marriage that's cutting into our population growth, so what's all the noise about? All those inconsistencies, they just bite and bite and bite.


Actually, the welfare state seems to encourage that even less, AB. Look at Europe where Italians and Germans are not replacing themselves .

Cecil Turner

I don't hate, Cecil. You project.

Somehow I'm having a hard time believing this (must be a crisis of faith). AB, you're trying to predict the thought processes of people with whom you have no common ground. Surely you can see the problem with that. The "I know what you're thinking and you're all evil hypocrites" meme is obviously not going to work. Unlike you, I actually know what I'm thinking . . . I know the extent of my own hypocrisy far better than you ever will.

That said, I don't support the proposition that being a soldier is sinful, or that institutionalizing gay marriage is a moral imperative, that I need to wear sackcloth and live in a cave, or that I need to convert to Zoroastrianism because of those beliefs. And the fact that you apparently see that as a deep-rooted conflict with Christianity causes more of an idle head-scratch than any real concern. Cheers.


Well, you know deep down they're not exactly welfare states, right clarice? But we won't go there. In fact, it's simply modern existence, love of comfort & leisure, that discourages reproduction. Also the desire to carefully and diligently parent each child. Also the fact we don't use children for labor. It's entirely a good thing, speaking as a parent myself,not to overburden oneself - or the planet - with too many children. You can't counteract that. Intelligent modern people will simply refuse to reproduce more than they can support, emotionally or economically.

Again, nothing to do with gay marriage. So why do the GOP mouthpieces keep pulling that old haircloth out of the closet? Maybe because it preys on unfounded prejudices that sound sensible, but are asinine?

The Unbeliever
Show some evidence of it, lyle & Yellow Un. You haven't made a single cogent argument, just the usual ad hom.

This from the person who, in two short paragraphs without any citations, posited that the entire Christian faith was based on sham and distortions?!? Now that's comedy! How about you show some quotes and reasoning for your wacky assertions before you start accusing others of the same? (Or, in the words of Christ, "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye". Ironically, I think that marks the first actual quote from the source, on this thread purporting to debate the meaning of the source.)

Again, nothing to do with gay marriage. So why do the GOP mouthpieces keep pulling that old haircloth out of the closet? Maybe because it preys on unfounded prejudices that sound sensible, but are asinine?

Or maybe because the Bible has two parts, the Old and the New Testament, and God was rather emphatic on the subject in the former. I find it hard to believe you went through 12 years of school only reading the four Gospels, and ignoring the rest of the book. (And don't jump back in with the usual strawman of "aha, so you think gays should be stoned! Homophobe!" I sincerely hope I won't have to explain the concept of Old Testament Law vs New Testament Grace--I assume you had some religious teaching during 12 years of Catholic school.)


Unbeliever, you yellow bellied ditz, you can't even read and you're lecturing me! I never said the faith was based on sham. I said YOUR party's abuse of it for partisan political gain negated its very basis by using it to excuse hatred,war and the exaltation of privilege.

As for the OLD vs NEW Testament, Catholics do not rely on the Old Testament and I wasn't aware that other Christian faiths did either. The Old Testament is historic, the New Testament is the text we abide by. New overrides Old. It's NOT "An eye for an eye" AND "Turn the other cheek." It's not pick and choose whatever cafeteria dish suits your political agenda (thanks, maryrose). It's just "Turn the other cheek." Simple. Clear. Radical. Extremist. Sorry if you don't like it. But you don't get to rewrite it.


AB, Here's what I mean by bigotry and, let me add, ignorance:

'Problem you got is a good HALF of your support comes from those Left Behind-ers, and, strange as it seems, they actually beleive in that stuff.' Posted by: AB | May 04, 2006 at 06:25 AM

Half? You're as illiterate politically as you are theologically.

You went on to describe Republicans who are people of faith as the 'God Squad'. You refer to electoral victories 'courtesy of religious cultism' and 'rabid religious fanaticism'.

Sounds like bigotry to me.

Your description of the dissolution of Giuliani's marriage would be unfamiliar to anyone who witnessed the actual events. They were complex, they unfolded over a period of years, and they were painful even from a distance. Hero and villain were not immediately obvious.

But lucky you, you got the politicized version with predigested moral outrage.

But I guess you needed it because you can't manage a coherent moral judgment on your own. For example, your insistence that people of faith who vote for a sinner are hypocrites. But all people of all faiths understand that we are all sinners. If we could only vote for the sinless, Jesus would win every election.

Please stop lecturing Republicans on who we are and what we believe. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Gary Maxwell

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

And hasn't for some great while now, on this or any other topic under discussion.


Lyle, I have no respect for those who abuse religion for political gain. It disgusts me, it's anti-American and it's a transparent, cynical device. Use your faith personally, privately, to make decisions and keep your YAP shut about it beyond that.

I DID witness Giuliani's marriage in real time, from engagement ring to the breathless reports of him moving a socialite into his own home while his family still lived there. I have to thank Rupert Murdoch for keeping us all so very well informed. And yes, to those who HAVE morals, the villain was crystal clear...though probably less so to those whose morals have a GOP-installed on/off switch.

But like I said, let your own Evangelical voting bloc be the judge. It would be fun to watch.

The Unbeliever

Unbeliever, you yellow bellied ditz, you can't even read and you're lecturing me!

Yeah, shame on me for being the one throwing ad hominems around. AB: log, eye; extract, carry on.

At this point, we could get into a theological war over points you are obviously far away from understanding (though not above twisting to your own ideology), but considering you have yet to introduce any actual theology or scripture to support your end of the argument, I'll just let the thread drop.


here's AB's party chairman showing their commitment to gay rights

Dean fires Dems' gay outreach chief

Hitchcock's dismissal came after Yandura created a stir among party activists, both gay and straight, by sending an open letter on April 20 to gay Democrats criticizing Dean and the party for not getting involved in state ballot measures seeking to ban gay marriage.

Yandura charged that the DNC failed to counter efforts by Republicans to promote the anti-gay ballot measures as a wedge issue to win elections. He suggested that gays withhold donations to the Democrats until the party formally addresses issues he raised


they are so behind this issue eh AB??

The comments to this entry are closed.