Newt Gingrich, citing this Forbes cover story by Dinesh D'Souza, talks to NRO:
Citing a recent Forbes article by Dinesh D’Souza, former House speaker Newt Gingrich tells National Review Online that President Obama may follow a “Kenyan, anti-colonial” worldview.
Gingrich says that D’Souza has made a “stunning insight” into Obama’s behavior — the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama.”
“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”
Hmm - why can't we just describe Obama as an utterly banal lib who hasn't offered one insight that wasn't a Columbia University bull session staple in 1981? Why can't we agree that Obama is a classic Blame America Firster as described by Jeanne Kirkpatrick back in 1984 (when Obama was forming his worldview)?
Ramesh Ponnuru is unconvinced, yet unconvincing:
I didn’t find Dinesh D’Souza’s cover story in Forbes as “stunning” or “profound” in its insight into the president as Newt Gingrich did.
D’Souza argues that President Obama’s “strange behavior” is explicable by his adoption of his father’s anticolonialist ideology. Among the alleged “oddities”: “The President continues to push for stimulus even though hundreds of billions of dollars in such funds seem to have done little.” Does this mean Paul Krugman has a “Kenyan, anti-colonialist worldview”?
Another “oddity”: The president used the Gulf spill to talk about his general approach to oil policy and decry America’s “addiction” to oil. You know who else used that (inapt) word? George W. Bush. Another Kenyan?
And another one: Obama’s comments about religious freedom and the Ground Zero mosque are “utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero.” Basically every liberal journalist or blogger has made comments similar to Obama’s–except that they have gone further than he has.
Yes, but...in principle, D'Souza ought to lay out a smorgasbord of positions held by Obama. His challenge would be to argue that some of Obama's views may be held by both conservatives and anti-colonialists, others may be held by both liberals and anti-colonialists, but only anti-colonialists hold Obama's full range of views.
With such an argument, it would not be a rebuttal to note (as Ramesh does here) that specific views held by Obama are also held by libs such as Krugman or conservatives such as Bush. The motivated rebutter would have to pin down all of D'Souza's points and identify other groups that might hold that mix of views.
But why bother? There is a superficial daftness and complexity to D'Souza's view that Ramesh correctly identifies:
I think that it is a mistake to imagine that Obama is a deeply mysterious figure, as opposed to a conventional liberal. He is no stranger than contemporary liberalism is.
A more diligent rebuttal can be found at The Fourth Branch. D'Souza's facts don't withstand a whole lot of checking.
However, an Iron Law of Blogging is that weak arguments will reliably spawn even weaker rebuttals. Adam Serwer of TAP illustrates this:
Forbes Embraces Birtherism Lite.
Sometimes it's best to think of racism as intellectual laziness. That is, it reflects a failure to evaluate people for who they actually are, because it's easier to slip them into a familiar, predetermined category that doesn't upset other related conclusions a person might have come to as a result.
If racism is sometimes a symptom of intellectual laziness, what are charges of "birtherism-lite"? I would exhort Mr. Serwer to have a self-awareness moment here. Let's press on:
In an essay for Forbes, [Dinesh D'Souza] concludes that the animating philosophy of the president is "Kenyan anti-colonialism." The purpose of the essay is to synthesize the most idiotic conservative criticisms of Obama into one handy term:
A casual reader might infer that the phrase in quotes, ""Kenyan anti-colonialism", is taken from the D'Souza article (to which Serwer did not link). The casual reader would be wrong, although that mis-impression is reinforced a bit later:
This is birtherism with big words. This is the witchdoctor sign without Photoshop, WorldNetDaily without the exclamation points. D'Souza doesn't need to stare at Obama's birth certificate for hours to come to the same conclusion as the birthers, which is that the president is a foreigner. But neither is "Kenyan anti-colonialism" a superficial term. At once, it engages all the racialized elements of the conservative critique of Obama -- not just that having an African father means he isn't really an American but that his inner life consists of a deep anger toward white people, and the office of the presidency is merely the means to secure a collective payback.
All this baggage with a phrase D'Souza never used. Oh, well. Apparently, noting that the author of "Dreams From My Father" has a father from Kenya who influenced his - dare I say it - "dreams" is now "birtherism-lite". Maybe we can find other examples:
With a father from Kenya and a mother from Kansas, President Obama was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
or from 2008:
Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story - of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well-off or well-known...
I deplore this dog-whistling by Obama and his Administration.
Pofarmer,
Could it be just a phase? Time may ease the intensity. That seems to be the nature of such things, in my experience anyway.
It isn't the same, I know, but my husband (a Dem) would prefer I not be reading so much about politics.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 14, 2010 at 12:16 PM
It's hard to believe that anybody is unelectable for the former seat of the biggest ignoramus ever to ooze out of Scranton.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 14, 2010 at 12:16 PM
I know, Jim. Maybe, I'm just grateful I don't have to vote in DE. OTOH, as Jacobson notes..I'm getting sick of the nuts and sluts stuff against all women candidates. She's not the best candidate by a long shot, but she wouldn't vote for cap and trade.
Posted by: Clarice | September 14, 2010 at 12:17 PM
It is, isn't it Capt?
Posted by: Clarice | September 14, 2010 at 12:18 PM
I just don't see O'Donnell as a "pure of heart" candidate. She may be more conservative than Castle, but she has a lot of problems on her own.
We'll see what people in DE choose.
Posted by: MayBee | September 14, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Yesw and they have chosen to attack, not justify Castle's record, we've seen this movie
before with Specter, Chaffee, Jeffords, et al,
at least Graham and McCain had the support of
the surge as their saving grace
Posted by: narciso | September 14, 2010 at 12:24 PM
I agree with the Jacobsen article Clarice cited. Every candidate has "problems." No candidate is "pure" or "perfect."
I especially appreciate Michelle Malkin's comments on this today (she supports O'Donnell) pertaining to those on our side who are getting all lathered up and name calling, etc.:
Posted by: centralcal | September 14, 2010 at 12:26 PM
The way I figure it, a vote for O'Donnell, even if O'Donnell can't win, is a message to Castle. How else will Castle that Castle isn't all Castle is cracked up to be.
Posted by: sbw | September 14, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Savvy DE Dems may vote for O'Donnell today. The primary is closed, but many may have changed their affiliations in time.
Posted by: DebinNC | September 14, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Yeah Clarice, and I firmly agree with the nuts and sluts argument being applied toward women candidates; and I'm as far from a fembot as you can get. Also except for the posters here, everybody that seems to be against ODonnell are the people whose judgement I've found to be extremely sketchy in the past; including the Hammer.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 14, 2010 at 12:27 PM
The election of Castle would, if there is not a significant Republican majority, spell the end of any serious reform in the Senate.
Castle is one of the reasons the Republicans lost the House and Senate in the first place. Earmarks, cronyism, a lack of ethics and irresponsibility are marks of the problem, not the solution.
I can understand Boehner's triangulation, and take glee in the fact he just wasted the NYT's, CBS's, and the Democratic Party's attempt to create a boogieman. He may, to an extent, get it.
Castle on the other hand never will. Empowering him, either as a republican or closet dem, does nothing to solve our overarching national problems.
The only value whatsoever is that it would give the Republicans control, which may not necessarily be the best thing.
The one thing that has to come through in 2012 is that the Dems own this lock, stock, and barrel.We are going to need a massive national consensus to cancel out the leftist agenda.
When the Dems continue to legislate through litigation as in gay marriage and DADT, one can better understand the damage being done to our institutions.
Posted by: matt | September 14, 2010 at 12:27 PM
bubu:
The only war I fought in we lost close to 55K and it was started and amplified under a Democrat President and a Democrat Congress. And it wasn't the War on Poverty which the Dems started and are now amplifying. You need to get your history straight and stop making such foolish ignorant posts. Ask any air crew up until 68 where they got their target lists from and they will tell you - the WH after lunch. That is where LBJ and McNamara sat down with the "experts" from his political party and made decisions about life and death - the generals be damned. So don't go giving me this "starting war" carp - I lost more friends than you have pimples on your face because of that farce.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | September 14, 2010 at 12:27 PM
A call to vote for someone who "can win" is a call to substitute one logic for another.
Posted by: sbw | September 14, 2010 at 12:28 PM
" Does her "hyperness" have to do with the religious ritual "
Catholic ritual and Catholic Church. If it were otherwise, it would be tolerable. That, and I think she's starting to idolize her mother, who was a very strong Catholic, and, quite frankly, neurotic about it. My wife knows this, but can't quite put the 2 and 2 together as to why it's the source of her Mom's problems. ie, you can never be perfect.
Porch, I've hoped it's a phase for 2 years now. How long do these things last? She got an email this morning that she's wanting to get together once a month with one of her groups she was in. Hell, WE don't go out once a month. One of the problems we've had is she's spent so much time with these damn catholic groups, we never see each other. She was trying to find stuff for a while to convince me that Methodists were wrong, or Devils spawn, or something, and now, not finding that, she's just gone back to the, I'm Catholic and that's the way it is. I'd love to break this cycle.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 14, 2010 at 12:29 PM
O'Donnell is far from ideal and does have a lot of problems as a candidate. But I'm not worried about how she'll vote.
Of the three choices, she is the only one of whom that can be said.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM
matt just said what I wanted to say, except he said it much better than I would have. How can you count on reform if you keep putting squishes in the Senate? Better to support the conservative candidate, and let the Dim's continue the slide on their own.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 14, 2010 at 12:31 PM
I meant to say that I agree with what Clarice said about the nuts and sluts argument being applied.....
In case there was any confusion.
Per what Malkin said (along with a few sane individuals @ AoS): Isn't this what a primary is supposed to be about?
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 14, 2010 at 12:32 PM
The arguments here, especially matt and Prochlight's, have changed my mind. I now hope O'Donnell wins today.
Posted by: DebinNC | September 14, 2010 at 12:33 PM
You have a point there, Captain, they kept Biden, "Mr. Malaprop" in word and deed, and they retired Roth, the good Senator
Posted by: narciso | September 14, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Maybe we should focus on Linda McMahon rather than slaughtering defenseless pixels over Castle. That's a decent poll and Blumenthal is very susceptible to a nice dirty October surprise revelation (beyond his pathetic lying about his military record).
It would be great fun to watch McMahon slamming his head against the ring post with something salacious enough to drive down his support among women. Something using the same journo standards used by the NYT in their McCain hit would be fine with me.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 14, 2010 at 12:35 PM
Clarice - Please look at the Power Line posts on this race. And the Weekly Standard articles on O'Donnell.
I did, and remain torn. In the first place, the polling data is not dispositive. The most compelling is the latest PPP one; but besides not wanting to hang any important decisions on the input of DKos's pollmeister, a late surge for O'Donnell invalidates some of the "can't win" analysis. And if we're getting up to something like a 33% chance of having an actual conservative in the seat (even if she is a bit nutty), I might be willing to roll the bones. The alternative of having a squish in a position to refuse to join filibusters and provide "bipartisan" cover for liberal legislation does not hold much attraction.
If there were a significant chance of taking the Senate this year, the calculus shifts somewhat . . . but I don't see that as a very realistic likelihood.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | September 14, 2010 at 12:36 PM
Pofarmer,
I'm sorry, I misread your post and didn't realize it had been going on that long. 2 years is a long time.
I do sympathize. I am not Catholic, but I have seen some similar issues in some Catholic friends' marriages. With kids and work there just is so little time to spend together as it is. My husband would prefer I not volunteer much at church for that reason.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 14, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Excellent comments, Matt! (as usual, grin)
Posted by: centralcal | September 14, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Why is the WH playing such games with Elizabeth Warren's nomination?
Posted by: MayBee | September 14, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Po- I saw my father in law, who had always had a difficult relationship with his mother (who was a very difficult woman) begin to idolize her after her death. I think there's a guilt thing there, and it can manifest itself in different ways.
My FIL never returned to his Catholicism as a result, but he romanticized his prior relationship with it (and her).
I don't have the answer, but I feel for you.
Posted by: MayBee | September 14, 2010 at 12:45 PM
Good luck Po; a lot of Catholics seem to have very tortured concepts of how they identify with the church. I've seen a number of people who are pro-abortion agonize over how this puts them at odds with the church; rather than just say "Well that's that" they dwell on it to the exclusion of almost everything else.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 14, 2010 at 12:47 PM
Dave, Rocco and anyone else in MA, make sure you write-in James McKenna 28 Miles Street Millbury for AG. Let's get rid of Marsha.
Dave, Lynch is about the most conservative democrat we have in MA - not that that means a damn thing - which brings me to Castle and O'Donnell. I'd have to vote for O'Donnell based on the impeachment thing.
Maybee, (Happy Birthday) - I think Warren is not confirmable.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | September 14, 2010 at 12:49 PM
MayBee
Catholics are incredibly good at guilt, and my wifes mom is a master at it. She has been using that on the boys, and I finally had to tell her to quit it, and I'm going to have to back it up. Number one, it doesn't work on boys ages 10 and down, and #2, it just ain't right for a person to feel guilty about EVERYTHING! If there's one thing that's incredibly unproductive and wrong, it's persistent guilt.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 14, 2010 at 12:51 PM
All right remember that Afghanistan slide, earlier, here's another slightly more rational one
Posted by: narciso | September 14, 2010 at 12:51 PM
She has been using that on the boys, and I finally had to tell her to quit it,
Your MIL is using it on your boys? Oh no, I wouldn't stand for that either.
Posted by: MayBee | September 14, 2010 at 12:55 PM
BTW, at the polls they check you off by street. So you tell them where you live, they turn to that street and number and put down which ballot (R or D) each person votes. ON my street there were 6 voters and all voted R - in MA
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | September 14, 2010 at 12:57 PM
DebinNC,
Thanks for your comment. This has been a helpful discussion for me, too. Far, far better than what's transpiring on other blogs. Love JOM for that reason (among many others).
Posted by: Porchlight | September 14, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 14, 2010 at 12:59 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 14, 2010 at 01:01 PM
"Your MIL is using it on your boys? Oh no, I wouldn't stand for that either."
No, the wife, sorry about not writing clearly. It was what was used on here as a kid sooooooooo-
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 14, 2010 at 01:02 PM
Jane
Will do!
Posted by: Rocco | September 14, 2010 at 01:03 PM
"Good luck Po; a lot of Catholics seem to have very tortured concepts of how they identify with the church. "
Problem is, she's identifying with the church to the exclusion of all else. The one tortured here, is basically me, then I say something, and she gets all emotional, and, yeah, it sucks.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 14, 2010 at 01:05 PM
Fantastic news, Jane. I'm looking forward to reading many more such stories today.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 14, 2010 at 01:06 PM
Dave,
Well it's not like being the least liberal in MA is anything but certified moonbat - just sayin'
And true also about McKenna, but hey, why not?
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | September 14, 2010 at 01:06 PM
No, the wife, sorry about not writing clearly. It was what was used on here as a kid sooooooooo-
Oh ok. But yeah, I'm with you. Guilt doesn't teach kids how to make choices, which I think is one of the most important things you can teach your child.
Posted by: MayBee | September 14, 2010 at 01:08 PM
Look at the bright side, Po. Guilt tortured female Catholics never eat the last big of goodies on the platter.
I had a friend with a mother like that you worked as a hotel maid and was wracked with guilt because they made her put those little paper rings on the glasses and toilets which said they'd been sanitized when they weren't. She herself was upset when to sit more conveniently near her to talk on an empty subway train I sat in a spot reserved for the disabled.
Posted by: Clarice | September 14, 2010 at 01:12 PM
Po
The Catholic Church would probably not be happy to learn that religion is causing familial discord. What about some commons sense Catholic marriage counseling which might benefit your wife and tone it down it bit (as long as it doesn't proseltyze your conversion)?
Posted by: Chubby | September 14, 2010 at 01:12 PM
Po - So each spouse is trying to change the other? That is always a hard time in marriages! Whether the strife if religion, politics, child rearing, money, or just general treatment. My experience has been that I could only change myself...I try to be a better wife, try to focus on all the good qualities of my husband, try to show respect & love....and somehow, the miracle is that he becomes a better husband! Even if only half of the couple is doing it, it causes the two of you to be drawn together more.
Posted by: Janet | September 14, 2010 at 01:13 PM
***last biT of goodies******
Posted by: Clarice | September 14, 2010 at 01:14 PM
**strife is**
Posted by: Janet | September 14, 2010 at 01:16 PM
When I asked the priest to attend my wedding at my wife's Protestant church he asked me why I wanted a priest there. I told him that I had many practicing Catholics in my family to which he called me a hypocrite, telling me I should want a priest at my wedding because I wanted one there, not my family. He had a valid point but when he told me I couldn't get married outside the church without dispensations and I'd have to agree to raise my children Catholic, I told him I couldn't do that. He told me that in the eyes of the Catholic church, my marriage wouldn't be considered sacred. I thanked him for his time and haven't been back since.
I'm 55 years old now but when my mother left my father 53 years ago, the church told my mother that if she remarried she would be excommunicated so the poor woman worked 80 hours a week to support my sister and me with no child support from my deadbeat dad.
Posted by: Rocco | September 14, 2010 at 01:17 PM
Pofarmer,
I think Chubby's is a good suggestion. I think it is very likely the priests have seen this before, and would be understanding. It might shed some light for her and help give her some perspective.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 14, 2010 at 01:17 PM
--I just don't see O'Donnell as a "pure of heart" candidate.--
Yeah, I was in a hurry maybee. I should have said "idealogically pure of heart".
*********************************
All I know is I'm sick of Republicans easing us slowly into the eurotrash mold of the welfare state, as opposed to the Dems who wish to get us there at ramming speed.
I hope I live long enough to see a Repub party which has as its platform the dismantling of the monstrosity the left has already wrought, rather than being its tax collector.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 14, 2010 at 01:19 PM
A senate majority would be more important for a 2012 Republican president. IMO now it's more important to asses T-party strength. Think early bid in bridge for the game theory.
Never complained myself about squishy Republicans or porkbusting or bad PR, but Castle is pretty awful. If now isn't the time to cull the RINO herd ... when?
There is such a thing as being too greedy. Given a choice between T-party and RINO ...
Posted by: boris | September 14, 2010 at 01:19 PM
--If there's one thing that's incredibly unproductive and wrong, it's persistent guilt.--
Not only that Po, but it is contrary to Christianity.
The good news Jesus brought is that He could and would set the captives free. He paid the penalty for our guilt and no church or man has the power to reconvict us unless we let them.
There are many Catholics who understand this truth. I hope your wife can find one and will listen so she can be set free.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 14, 2010 at 01:25 PM
Ha! Interesting blog post at Gateway Pundit:
Posted by: centralcal | September 14, 2010 at 01:27 PM
((My experience has been that I could only change myself...I try to be a better wife, try to focus on all the good qualities of my husband, try to show respect & love....and somehow, the miracle is that he becomes a better husband!))
Wow Janet, imo you've summed up genuine Christian practice in a nutshell. Seeing all those great qualities in your husband is "loving your neighbor", even if that neighbor is your husband and seems to be your enemy. :)
Posted by: Chubby | September 14, 2010 at 01:30 PM
Well in this LUN, Gaffney, who was the one who gave her that tough interview seems to hold out hope, ironically Matthews, brings
up the fact that Biden pulled a similar upset
Posted by: narciso | September 14, 2010 at 01:30 PM
I'm going to jump in here on the side of "Lose with O'Donnell rather than win with Castle." The Reps can take the Senate and the presidency in 2012 if they stick to principle. That's more important than a narrow majority in the Senate for two years with a Dem president vetoing any legislation they pass. And then we're stuck with Castle for four years after that.
No one replied when I posed the question about Paladino vs. Lazio in the NY governor primary, but I'm going to vote for Paladino warts and all. I hate the NY Republican party with a passion, and while Lazio is a decent sort, he's still a Casper Milquetoast type that won't shake things up.
Posted by: jimmyk | September 14, 2010 at 01:37 PM
I think that the best thing that O'Donnell has going for her is that Palin is backing her. Palin is not into political suicide, for herself or Republicans and would do nothing to further that end. Palin's political instincts are excellent imo and if she is going in that direction, I think it's safe and wise to go there with her.
Posted by: Chubby | September 14, 2010 at 01:39 PM
Jane's neighbors listed themselves as "r" undoubtedly because they feared the wrath of JANE!!!
Janet, what can you say about Janet? Nothing much more than that she's a truly great person..but you have to say it fast and run or she'll enlist you in her do good stuff.
Posted by: Clarice | September 14, 2010 at 01:39 PM
BTW I brought my newly Caro-designed Sturbridge Tea Party poster to the polls and everyone holding a sign there (about 5 people) wanted in. I left it with a republican and will go back later with a sign up sheet. You guys better get your plane tickets soon, lest all the airlines sell out. And I'd post a pix of the sign if I could but I'm an idiot about those things.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | September 14, 2010 at 01:41 PM
"Po - So each spouse is trying to change the other?"
I'm not trying to change anybody, I'm just rather apalled at the change that's going on.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 14, 2010 at 01:42 PM
Mark Levin reminds that Castle voted for Bush's impeachment
Levin is throwing spitballs
read Patterico re: the impeachment vote BS
Posted by: windansea | September 14, 2010 at 01:49 PM
The Catholic Church would probably not be happy to learn that religion is causing familial discord. What about some commons sense Catholic marriage counseling which might benefit your wife and tone it down it bit (as long as it doesn't proseltyze your conversion)?
The current priest made it plain a couple times that I was welcome to convert, so, I don't see it working, and, he's a large part of the problem.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 14, 2010 at 01:51 PM
Ah, sorry to hear that, Pofarmer. Please disregard my suggestion about the priest(s), then. Although perhaps an independent Catholic counselor could help, if there are such people available.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 14, 2010 at 01:58 PM
Jane,
I'm recruiting a girlfriend to come (almost the only conservative woman I know here in this lib town) and as it happens she also grew up in CT, though we met here in TX. So if she's interested we may combine it with a visit to our old stomping grounds. Looks like we may have to beat the rush!
Posted by: Porchlight | September 14, 2010 at 02:00 PM
The more the merrier Porch - I mean it.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | September 14, 2010 at 02:03 PM
So it looks like DoT's law school classmate,
will be allowing the Obamacare lawsuit to go on in part
Posted by: narciso | September 14, 2010 at 02:10 PM
Po, obviously counselling from someone who is part of the problem would never work. I just did a quick Web search and it looks like there are many Catholic marriage resources out there that promise not to pressure anyone to convert ...
Posted by: Chubby | September 14, 2010 at 02:19 PM
G'mornin'
Late as always.
"We spent over $800k of stimulus funds to teach African men to wash their penises after sex."
Yes Clarice, and from this story yesterday, ">http://www.medindia.net/news/Disinfectant-Hand-Gels-Found-Ineffective-Against-Swine-Flu-73934-1.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+allhealthnews+(Medindia+Health+News)"> Disinfectant Hand Gels Found Ineffective Against Swine Flu, chances are that that 800 grand was wasted on a procedure that is mostly ineffective in the first place.
Posted by: daddy | September 14, 2010 at 02:46 PM
Thanks Chubby.
My opinion of the Catholic heirarchy, and Catholic counseling in general, is so low, that I don't see that working. You see, part of the problem is that the diocese is pushing to have people become better Catholics. Unfortunately, this does not necessarily lead to people becoming better Christians. Have you ever dealt with Catholic priests? I've never dealt with a more closed minded, arrogant, sanctimonious, self important lot. And, those are the good qualities.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 14, 2010 at 02:49 PM
An interesting tidbit in that all too deserved skewering of Meggie Mac, is that Lincoln Chaffee is running as an independent
for Governor, even though the GOP had helped him defeat a conservative, they've learned nothing
Posted by: narciso | September 14, 2010 at 02:58 PM
Oh, and after the Diocese started this crap, church attendance is DOWN, and they can't figure it out. I've tried to explain it to my wife, to no avail.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 14, 2010 at 03:09 PM
Tammy Bruce is really taking the Hammer to task for being reflexively against any endorsement Palin makes including Joe Miller. CK has owned up to misunderestimating her in the past but he doesn't seem to have learned anything from it.
Oh and regarding Castle's great impeachment vote to "let it die in committee": Is that one of those "heads I win; tails you lose" votes and it was impossible for him not to be against the impeachment? How 'bout if he voted against it there would be no doubt about what his vote really meant instead of playing this stupid guessing game.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 14, 2010 at 03:30 PM
No, Captain, they are as clueless as those folks who avoided the first series of traps
in the Grail temple, just in time to trip the other set, after words .Just to show you, after this dreadful last minute back stab for Christine's former manager (whose last name is not Wallace) reports are a National Committee woman is doing calls for Castle,
'They Thirst for Death" I tell you
Posted by: narciso | September 14, 2010 at 03:48 PM
That's good to hear Captain Hate,
Wish we had Tammy Bruce out here.
When asked during the single Primary debate she bothered to show up for (she was too busy in DC she told us) in response to the question "If you lose this Primary Election will you support your opponent?", she answered "I will respect the will of the Electorate."
Well that's already been proved to be a lie, and I expect her to announce her Write In candidacy within the next 48 hours.
Once that happens, we are going to need as many Tammy Bruce's as we can dig up to counterattack the MSM media onslaught that is going to come like a Tidal Wave against Joe Miller. Get out your ADN Ellie Light monikers JOMer's, I'm afraid we're really going to need your assistance in the comments sections.
Posted by: daddy | September 14, 2010 at 03:53 PM
Po, if this isn't hormonal in nature, I hope her religiosity can be channeled to prayer for your marriage, your family and their health.
Posted by: Frau Nebenan | September 14, 2010 at 03:55 PM
By voting for the win and not for what matters you get Arnold instead of McClintock. The GOP screwed McClintock in all their ads. The radio hosts spent all their time crying about handing the win to the Dems. So thanks to the partyline voters, California got the worst Governor in recent times.
I believe if the 3rd party candidate makes a good run for election and screws things for the sure bet, people will wonder why their party had somebody so weak that they could not prevail. This should repair the two party system.
I know many people that were pissed at me because I was voting for McClintock, and sticking to my morals. They now sing, “Won’t get fooled again.”
Posted by: Threadkiller | September 14, 2010 at 04:02 PM
My comment above was about Lisa Murkowski. Sorry, I left her name out.
Here, let me write it in: B E N E D I C T A R N O L D M U R K...
Posted by: daddy | September 14, 2010 at 04:05 PM
daddy, I'll refrain from making Polack jokes for now but the air of entitlement that all these tone-deaf RINOs have shown is such an indictment of the past judgement of the party that it makes me think that Michael Steele is the least of the worries with the Repubs. I'm kind of surprised that the majority of Alaskans aren't completely turned off by it
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 14, 2010 at 04:08 PM
No, it doesn't matter whether you are Greek, Crist,Jewish, Specter, Baptist, I assume for
Kay Bailey, or Mormon, Bennett, they all feel
entitled to the office Captain
Posted by: narciso | September 14, 2010 at 04:21 PM
Pofarmer
Do you know any Catholic priests who have been military chaplains? or ones who did not join the seminary right after high school? My father's best friend was a chaplain and he seemed to understand people on a level the parish priest did not.
My Dad converted to catholicism after the war and his attitudes surely influenced his children. My mother's family was very involved and I can remember the family having many of the members of the monastery out to the house for dinner with the family. Religion was never the subject under discussion. Their visits managed to teach the children how to play poker.
Now to get to the point of the story. My dad's best friend was the military chaplain for his reserve unit. He was a bit younger than Dad, but more of a realist than the other priests we met. It was wonderful when Uncle, Father Jim became one of our parish priests. He had life experience and was able to talk with us in a way none of the other priests could. He always told us that how you lived your life was more important than being a Sunday Catholic and then gave examples. The best example he gave us was the last. He died trying to rescue a man and his son from drowning.
I think your wife need to talk to someone who leads by example and does not use verbal coercion.
Now this is a lapsed Catholic speaking but I am still a Catholic and a product of 12 years of Catholic school. Father Jim is still one of my heroes and helped me to understand that priests and nuns are still only human and many of them lack the life experience necessary to advise people. Unfortunately, success is still measured at the collection plate and the number of attendees at Mass. There is no category called souls saved.
Posted by: MaryW | September 14, 2010 at 05:08 PM
What's sickening is the GOP cries for party loyalty to gin up votes for RINOS, but it's precisely the RINOS who have no party loyalty.
If a conservative loses fair and square they step aside. It's the Murkowskis and Chafees and Sessions who demand loyalty from the voters and then bolt as soon as that's the only way to hold onto power.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 14, 2010 at 05:43 PM
It's the Murkowskis and Chafees and Sessions who demand loyalty from the voters and then bolt
Sessions? Did you mean Spector?
Posted by: jimmyk | September 14, 2010 at 05:45 PM
When they gave money to Chaffee without even getting a promise in return that he'd support the President's judicial nominees, my pocket book to the party slammed shut. I give only to individual candidates.
Posted by: Clarice | September 14, 2010 at 05:47 PM
narc, that runs so against what was one of the underlying planks of the Contract With America, the last time the Repubs reversed control of Congress in a major way, that it makes me think that all of them are dumb as well as power-hungry and drenched in hubris. This is something I wish Newt would address instead of his usual chat-show blah-blah which makes me hit the mute button and wish permanent laryngitis on him.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 14, 2010 at 05:53 PM
The 'other' Roger Simon has an interesting piece at Politico with this lede:
Simon has always been a Dem jock sniffer so I'm a bit surprised by the lede. I don't doubt the veracity or the fact that a "big-time" Dem would acknowledge the bleeding obvious. It's the "those close to him" that is intriguing. I have the feeling that the WH is starting to resemble his dad's house in Kenya on "beat the wife" night with "those closest" stepping in for Michelle - who would stuff BOzo in a sock drawer if he ever summoned the courage to lift a finger.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 14, 2010 at 06:19 PM
--Sessions? Did you mean Spector?--
No jimmyk but Specter is another one.
Who I actually meant was that block of smelly Vermont cheese Jim Jeffords.
Don't know how Sessions got in my head.
Posted by: Ignatz | September 14, 2010 at 06:47 PM