Why would any Catholic vote for a man who left his sick wife for a rich socialite? McCain isn't a war hero, he was a war survivor.

He also is one of the new world order proponents.. read http://michellemalkin.com/ today and research the McCain....JUAN McCain...no border and Mexican, Canadian, USA block they are pushing....

JUAN McCain is talking out one side of his mouth while he has very sleezy people doing just the opposite on the side with his "think tank"... for making the Mexican American Canadian borders all one ...the word is BLOCK...

Why have we been confused about why Bush has done NOTHING about our boarders....it is the same old same old...they want the
NORTH AMERICAN UNION...

Michelle Malkin is not someone to get unnecessarily alarmed...she is always right on the issues as far as I am concerned. .

I wish I could figure out somewhere to go out of this country and find some way to save the value of what few "dollars" we have left.

JUAN McCain will drag us along by a ring of hope with his verbage while we think he is telling the truth...

GOD HELP US.

I think that name-calling which denigrates Hispanics everywhere gets us nowhere in the public debate on important issues, such as immigration.

I wonder if Senator Brownback will have any influence in changing McCain's anti-life stand on embryonic stem cell research. McCain is just another politician trying to please all the people all the time, not taking a firm stand on anything, drawing imaginary lines separating certain life that is worthy of protection, and that which is expendable...for the greater good, of course.

I don't trust John McCain. He's just too self-righteous for me. He continually accuses Romney of personal attacks while snickering at him and more than stretching the truth about the Iraq withdrawal date issue. He doesn't really stand stongly on legislation he has co-sponsored. He can make a grand speech, but start confronting him and you see the real persona come out. Catholics voting for him may get more or less than they bargain for.

I supported Sen. Brownback for President even before he entered the race. But this is another Catholic who hasn't yet followed him into McCain's camp. Stuff like this is a primary reason why I have not:

In today's Washington Post, columnist Robert Novak confirms John Fund's story that McCain referred to Samuel Alito as "too conservative", and would be reluctant to nominate someone like him to the Supreme Court.

It's stuff like that where McCain seems far too eager to avoid fights with liberal Democrats and far too eager to prove his "maverick" credentials by poking conservatives in the eye that has me worried.

Oh yeah, and McCain also stinks to High Heven on ESCR.

Well Deal it is no surprise that someone who longs for a Hillary presidency would promote a John McCain nomination as a "back up" plan. One does not have to look too far to find they are cut from the same cloth.

But your analysis of the numbers in Florida is quite flawed. To say that that a certain group's 63,000 votes accounted for 67% of the total margin of victory (95,000)in a race where over 1.5 million votes were cast is intellectually dishonest and you know that. The reason why McCain won that election is the fact that the conservative base of the party was split between the two conservative candidates in the four person race. What put McCain over the top is that he appeals to the moderate and liberal wing of the party (the pro death wing).

Deal this is one "Mass attending" Catholic that does hold contempt for John McCain over the Immigration bill. The bill that he tried to jam down our throats last summer - only to use for political gain with Hispanic voters - as you unknowingly point out in your column.

I am sure you bought into his lip service about treating immigrants with "Dignity" and as "Gods Children." This is I am sure the same dignity he treats the people he disagrees with - by blowing his temper and blurting out four letter expletives in the halls the United States Senate.

Finally, I have asked this before but you have not answered so I will try again. What is a non "Mass attending" Catholic? And why not throw them into a different category like say; people who do not follow their Faith or people who do not feel their or Faith is very important to them?

TED

I'm worried about McCain-Feingold and about McCain's support for the Fairness Doctrine. Also, I have some concerns about McCain's status as a "maverick" Republican and about his membership in the Gang of 14. Has McCain sponsored pro-life legislation? Isn't he suspicious of voters who are conservative and pro-life? I don't really trust him.

On the immigration issue, I don't think that wanting to reduce illegal immigration and to control our borders is necessarily the result of prejudice. I'd be happy to see LEGAL immigration made easier and more frequent, but there are politicians who prefer just not to enforce the existing law. That's not honest, is it?

Deal, I can see why you distrust Romney. But I don't see why you think McCain is better.

There is some serious stuff that needs to be exposed about John McCain. His Hispanic Outreach Campaign advisor is in favor of open borders. That's more than just compassion and treating illegals with dignity. Apparently he calls for border security - well he's completely contradicting himself by having this guy on his staff. Read more here:

http://tinyurl.com/2692ww
http://tinyurl.com/38asyy

It is sad to see Catholics using accusation and innuendo to smear a candidate, in this case John McCain. I am sure Senator McCain is not perfect nut that is not the problem here. What we need is an effective President. Politics is primarily the art of doing what is possible. Right now Sen. McCain is a credible candidate with political and military experience. I don't think anyone has any doubts that he wants the best for his country because he has given the best of himself for his country over and over again. Has he made mistakes? Surely. Infallibility has been granted to only one man and under limited circumstances. Has Se. McCain learned from his mistakes? Those who take the time to carefully analyze his political career will answer yes to that question. Does he have the vision to dare to differ with his party? You bet. In past times there were many that opposed the Louisiana, Florida and Alaska purchases. No one remembers them now. Now that Europe is consolidating in one block (an idea of Catholic leader K. Adenauer) we may have to consider in what terms the U.S. should continue the partnership with Mexico and Canada to remain competitive in a world of economic blocs. I rather have someone intelligent and capable like Se. McCain presiding the discussion of those issues and not Hillary or Obama who make bring no more than ideological positions to that debate. I congratulate Sen. Brownback for his foresight and political acumen. I also hope to see his name in the Republican presidential formula.

Sounds like Carlos is advocating a North American block, which is exactly what McCain seems to be secretly doing, while at the same using the border security language that he knows the American public wants to hear. That's contradictory and deceptive.

I agree that illegal immigrants should be treated with dignity, but this is a major step further.

Brownbacks's endorsement of McCain was actually something I expected, mainly because they're both Senators, and Senators usually stick together.

As far as McCain, I have concerns with him just like I have concerns with all the candidates. I see him as a more liberal version of George W. Bush, and less likely to fight for conservative Supreme Court justices. I haven't forgotten that his spearheading of the 'gang of 14', which while enabling certain judges to get confirmed, also threw some qualified judges under the bus. I haven't forgotten what Charles Schumer and his Democrat buddies did to Miguel Estrada, and I would have liked to have seen McCain actually confront the liberals on this instead of negotiating with them.

Quite frankly, I was also disappointed in McCain's attempt to misrepresent Romney's stance on Iraq war by claiming that Romney had supported a timetable for withdrawal. If Romney had in fact made the statements McCain was claiming he made (in April of last year), McCain wouldn't have waited until two days prior to the Florida primary before calling him on it.

I hate to see all this bickering among Catholics. I do not disrespect anyone here because of their choice for President. There is no clear-cut conservative candidate in this race, and as we sort through each candidate's record, I hope we can get to the facts while still respecting each other's viewpoints.

If you are supporting Sen. McCain, please RECONSIDER your choice. While he has many good qualities, his iriitable temperament, impatience and impulsiveness, and his reckless disregard for the truth (re: Romney's statement about time tables in Iraq) are huge red flags. I question his psychological stability. As for the myth that he is the MOST ELECTIBLE Republican, you must consider the source, Washington Insiders and the Media Elite.

I have supported Fred Thompson, and I'm now supporting Mitt Romney. He has his flaws too, but none as serious as John McCain.

I think Romney is the best pro-life candidate and the only one who can beat a democrat in the general election. Gov. Romney has the insight, the integrity, the experience and proven track record in getting things done. Prominent Catholic Ave Maria University founder Tom Monaghan has endorsed Mitt Romney for all these reasons. Mitt turned a huge deficit around here in Massachusetts and he held to a pro-life policy fighting against the liberal legislature. Read the The Pilot (Boston Catholic's newspaper) article by the Asst Dir of the Catholic Conference where he speaks favorably of Romney and his authentic conversion to the pro-life position. Why is the liberal press supporting McCain? Romney has lived the Catholic value of family; McCain has had another family prior to his current one. Catholics should give Mitt Romney a close look for the strong leader that the country needs.

I think Governor Huckabee is the best nominee. He's level-headed, less likely to lose his temper, which would be a good thing in this world of war. He's pro-life, pro-family and because of that he's been dismissed by the liberal media as out of the race and not news-worthy. I feel he would make an OUTSTANDING president, but because folks don't/can't recognize a diamond in the rough, I will more than likely be faced with a less than my ideal choice in the general election.

ANYTHING is better than Hillary or Obama, though.

I couldn't believe the undignified virtual boxing match between McCain and Romney in the Rupublican Presidential "Debate". They seriously took the class out of what is traditionally a roundtable discussion of stances on the issues. I would question whether either one of them would be able to "keep their heads" in a crisis situation or in diplomatic relations with international leaders. If they could get past their own egos, they would be able to see that standing together and focusing on the strengths they each have to offer our country as a team would best exemplify service over self. Romney being more talented in the economic arena, with McCain more talented in the national security and the strategic military arena. Being able to get along with others, however, is something they both need to work on. No one is seeing the real issue and that's the basic right to life. Abortion is a security issue. If the tiniest of Americans is not protected in this country before they are even born, no one will ever be safe. If Senator Brownback can help McCain in this arena, it signals a willingness on the part of McCain to concede more on the Pro-Life side. More power to them!

I went into the debate last night really trying to like McCain. I was happy to send money to Sam Brownback during his campaign, and I loved the idea of him being on a ticket.

After watching an hour and a half of McCain's sneering and snickering everytime Mitt Romney challenged him, I walked away disappointed.

His demeanor is anything but Presidential, in fact it is downright hostile. I shudder to think how he would act in high stress political negotiations with other world leaders.

I'm going to go with Mitt. I understand those who are concerned with the evolution of his thinking; however I am less concerned where he was 10 years ago than where he is today.

Vote Ron Paul, if you are a Catholic! He has very good morals!

Ted, a Mass-Attending Catholic, according to the definition used by pollsters, is someone who attends Mass on a weekly basis. When you read the phrase "religiously active voters," it means the same thing -- weekly attendance at religious services.

Deal, thanks for the clarification on "Mas-Attending Catholic." But I understand that already as I am one. I asked you what a non Mass-Attending Catholic would be and why they would even be considered as Catholics.

My view is that you seem to be quick to lump non practicing or non Faithful Catholics into the same category when it fits your agenda. But the point is, in my view, that there can be no such thing as a non Mass-Attending Catholic. You are either a follower or you are not. You can not classify people by thier religion as you would their race.

Further, among the "Faithful" you often get an all together different picture then when including the Cathlic by name only group. I contend that among "Mass-Attending" Catholics that McCain has very little support. Because it is these people who are the most consevitive and most Faithful to the teachings of the Church.

TED

Am I correct that McCain supports fetal tissue research and would not support overturning Roe v. Wade? His footwork on the tough questions is similar to left leaning choice politicians. Can't we elect courageous defenders of the unborn?

I am disappointed that Deal Hudson, who I usually agree with, to distort the true nature of the debate. It is ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, not legal immigration that many people, including Mass attending Catholics like myself oppose. Deal's not using the term ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is not speaking the truth. Let's at least speak honestly!

William, McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade but unfortunately supports federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Ted, you're right non-Mass attending Catholics stop becoming Catholics, at some point, but pollsters don't observe theological distinctions.

I am surprised by those who think McCain changes his stripes for unscrupulous political advantage. This is the man who called for and backed the surge in Iraq, considered a politically suicidal act at the time. It turns out he was right. That took real courage and conviction. He refused to endorse ethanol subsidies in Iowa (a government boondagle is ever there was one), and would not pander to auto workers in Michigan about how they were all going to get their jobs back (a curious promise from the supposedly economically astute Romney. Like him or not, McCain sticks to his guns. That is valuable in a leader who also understands the continuing threat from radical Islam and insists on making it a priority.

Last I checked, anti-illegal immigration talk show host Laura Ingraham was Catholic.

And Deal, methinks you grossly overestimate Brownback's influence among Catholics.

Ted,

I can't help but feel your bitterness, the pulse of which I suspect is a causality of something much deeper than your willingness to reveal. Everything you write has an undertoe of sinister motives and plots.

Honestly, starting off by saying Deal has a secret desire to see Hillary in the White House is as peculiar as posting venom about McCain and then preaching about how McCain's temper precludes you from liking him.

As much as I disagree with McCain's position on immigration (because I do not believe he sees how illegals are impacting skilled laborers, health care, etc), I believe everyone who takes the position that attrition is the only compassionate thing to do under these circumstances are doing so because they have a genuine love for the poor (as we all hopefully do).

May the Peace of Christ be with you today.

Thanks for the great article. I would love for Senator Brownback's initiative to be a Catholic arm of the religious right. We have needed one for a very long time.

I'm still really struggling with who I am going to vote for but I believe I'm down to Huckabee or Ron Paul at this juncture - in spite of the flaws they have. I can with good conscience get on board McCain if he is the nominee because of his prolife record and work - which is a far cry from Romney (whom Catholics widely reject).

Ted, I'm sorry I missed your insinuation that I want Hillary to be in the White House. It was so preposterous that I didn't take it in the first time I read it. I think you are right, however, in your comment on the McCain victory -- there is a split presently in the GOP, even though some GOP conservatives, and pro-lifers, are supporting McCain. Once McCain's pro-life credentials are better known (and I am not saying they are perfect!), he will gain a wider following.

Deal, my insinuation about your support of Hillary (or more accurately) a democratic presidential victory in 2008 is derrived from reading between the lines in your previous columns. If I am wrong then please tell me who exactly do you support?

For full disclosure I supported Fred Thompson untill he left the race. Then after careful and thoughtful consideration of all the issues and the records of all three remaining republican candidates I have chosen Mitt Romney as the best candidate to support the causes of social conservitives.

And Carol, sorry for may lack of charity here but I think you are a hypocrite with a hidden ajenda and you are not fooling me. I read your venmous postings on the article by Tom Aglialoro about Mitt Romney. I am not interested in your lecturing, your psycological evaluations, or your well wishes.

TED

Ted,

I'm a lot of things,but if it's the last thing anyone who even knows me remotely could ever accuse me of, it would be refusing to be above board on my thoughts and sentiments. In fact, they at many times wish I could or would. May I suggest that reading between the lines is not your forte?

I supported Brownback and then Fred when Brownback dropped out and as I've said, in the primary it's between Huckabee and Ron Paul but I will support McCain if he is the nominee.

You are inhaling too many second hand fumes from the Romneybots' conpiracy theory crack pipes.

My agenda, which I believe you read in Todd's posts, is to flush everyone's money down the pooper at the GOP who believed we were foolish enough to fall for their extreme makeover and pocket full of lies.

Grassroots prolifers have been simply firing warning shots across the bows of the portfolios at the GOP. Give us a prolifer with a nice long decade or two of a demonstrated record or gird their loins for four years of democratic control at the White House because we are no longer willing to sacrifice our poor.

If you mosey on over to NRO, you'll see that it's working:



John McCain didn't win this nomination. Everyone else lost it.
Mitt Romney had every chance—and then some—to win this nomination. He campaigned hard, and with lots of money, in every key primary state. And in every key state where his father never served as governor, he lost. He came, he saw (and was seen), and he got 31% of the vote. He wasn't defeated by McCain. He's just a mediocre candidate....
The lesson: You can't beat somebody with nobody. So how about it, conservatives—who you got for 2012?


On Tuesday at the voting booths, we're hoping and praying that the message has gotten through.

By the way, can you enlighten us as to why the people supporting Romney are so nasty and intolerant? It's a boggling phenomenon.

Ted, your reading of the empty spaces between the lines is far-fetched, so I will leave at that. Anyway, it looks at if Obama will be the nominee. Oh drat!!!

Deal, there is a lot of emptiness wihin the lines you write as well. If you read closely I said you long for Hillary but more importantly a Democrat. Your comment here verifies my suspicion.

This article from the weekend's Washington Post confirms suspicions echoed by Senator Rick Santorum about John McCain's indifference about social issues.
"McCain seems distinctly uninterested when asked questions concerning abortion and gay rights. While campaigning in South Carolina, he told reporters riding with him on his bus that he was comfortable pledging to appoint judges who would strictly interpret the Constitution in part because it would reassure conservatives who might otherwise distrust him."

"'It's not social issues I care about,'" he explained.

http://tinyurl.com/2hsq8q

When we refer to those who are here illegally, remember that they actually are illegal ALIENS, not illegal IMMIGRANTS. "Immigrant" denotes lawful entry.

I find it very sad and disheartening that so many otherwise sane Catholics have been taken in by the warmongering neo-cons (Brownback included, unfortunately).

The only truly pro-life, pro-peace candidate is Ron Paul, who was always against this disastrous, completely un-Catholic "pre-emptive war". (As were both recent popes.)

If the number of signs at the recent March for Life were any indication (as many Ron Paul signs as pro-life signs), at least the hard-core Catholic pro-lifers get it.

McCain and Romney are just Tweedledum and Tweedledee--differing here or there in some minor point of dispute, and only "conservative" (vaguely) in comparison to Clinton or Obama.

If you still have a chance, vote your conscience for Ron Paul in the primaries. You'll be forced to choose between Tweedledum or Tweedledee in the general election, anyway.

"non-Mass attending Catholics stop becoming Catholics, at some point"

No, once you're baptized Catholic you are a Catholic forever. The sacrament of baptism is an indelible mark that cannot be removed. If a person turns away from his faith or decides that he wants to practice another religion, it does not mean that they're no longer Catholic, it just means that they are a bad Catholic. Even if a person never knew they were baptized Catholic as an infant, they're still a Catholic, despite what they do and how they classify themselves.

As for how it pertains to this story, I think it would be more appropriate to differentiate between "faithful" Catholics (those who are faithful to the teachings of the Magisterium, as defined by the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church) and those who, for one reason or another, are not.

This is the primaries, not the general election. Vote for who you _WANT_ to be the president. If that doesn't work out, there will be plenty of time to vote for the lesser of evils later, I promise you that.

I am Catholic through and through. I live, think, breathe, pray, love my Catholic faith. I believe it is my means of salvation.

I was not thrilled with the choice of McCain as the Republican nomination. However, since hearing his answer to the question of when life begins, or when a person has rights, and he answered at the moment of conception, he won me wholeheartedly. For I am a one-issue voter and that is FOR LIFE. I also subscribe to the fact that: You cannot be both pro-choice and catholic. Bishops of America, speak out to your flock, be the shepherds you were called to be. Tell them, please.

An ex-Democrat for over 20 years. Catholics, wake up!!!!
D.Franer, Cincinnati