McCain = Bush = More of the Same. Maybe worse.

It's not about Palin. It's about McCain's judgment.

It is and WILL continue to be about the substantive issues.

McCain will make a new VP choice. Palin will head back to Alaska and do just great, a lot better than McCain.

Mark writes,

"Indeed, what drives the search for dirt is the pre-rational decision that she must be destroyed, no matter what the cost. "

Please, please admit that this is EXACTLY the same search and decision that the far-right has engaged in with Obama. Especially the "no matter what the cost" part.

There are some vicious comments up here already.

I do think this article gets at the banality of liberal thinking. Palin represents everything the beltway crowd is not and it makes them crazier than they already are. Her possible "heartbeat away" status causes virtual coronaries which is funny.

When the lovesick glaze from conservative eyes toward Sarah begins to fade (and it will) we'll be left with a competent, charismatic woman who happens to be a mother proceeding resolutely with the task at hand.

We'll also be left with a vice-presidential candidate who wholly embraces the neo-conservative agenda of her running mate. John McCain will perpetuate the Bush/Cheney agenda. He'll be surrounded with the same neo-con coterie which would like nothing better than another cold war, but will settle for a dusty oil war or two. Abortion and other domestic squabbles amongst the rabble will be further marginalized as we occupy more foreign lands and spread "democracy". Sarah Palin will offer no objection; on the contrary, she'll be more than happy to lead the crowd in cheering for her guy and his war. The cost in blood and treasure is merely an inconvenient truth.

Our two most recent popes were right about the injustice of our interventionist foreign policy.

The left is scared out of their minds. They thought the election was in the bag. They didn't count on a competent, charismatic firebrand named Gov. Sarah Palin.

RK, you forget. She has a son in this war. McCain hates war. As the mother of a future Marine, I will rest easy at night with them taking the 3 am phone calls. Obama's socialist world view and naivete and lack of executive decision making experience scare me. He is an empty suit. He would be a disaster.

I was very excited by the choice of Palin. (I'm also a working mother of 5, and a prolife conservative) but my friends and family that are to the left were INCENSED. I was very surprised at the vigor of their horror. I guess I shouldn't have been. It's been really funny to hear my left-leaning feminist friends moaning about how she should be home with her kids. I even have heard a couple of friends who went to the altar (no, I mean the civil registrar;s office) pregnant, moaning about her pregnant teenage daughter. No why didn't she get marched down to the abortionist again???
It's been really entertaining, to see the tables turned this way. Brilliant!

Laura,
Great statement. Thank you for your family's service. And therein lies the operative word: service. Here we have a ticket that exemplifies service. The Federal Government can't solve all our problems, as many liberals promise it can. But it can provide us with principled leadership. The choice is stark.

Come on everyone, this is no surprise at all. The mainstream press wants Obama to win this election, and in reality, their efforts to get him elected may end up defeating him. Go ask John Kerry how well those overseas polls (which showed him the overwhelming favorite of Europeans) taken in 2004 helped him here at home.

American’s don’t like having their intelligence insulted by the holier-than-thou types, be they on television or in the print media. This type of treatment of Palin and her family, as repulsive as it is, only demonstrates the degree to which the media is willing to go to promote their agenda, all the while feigning objectivity. Well, ask MSNBC how that’s working for their ratings. Ask the New York Times whether they’ve stopped losing money and stopped laying off employees. These two institutions are nothing more than a political arm of the Democrat Party.

McCain will make a new VP choice? Not after that speech last night. It’s too bad the press is so wrapped in trying to destroy Palin while they’re completely ignoring Obama’s connections to Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers. That alone should tip off everyone paying attention to this campaign as to who’s side the media is on.

The Democrat response was funny if it weren't so horrifying.

Their response? Joe Biden promised his knuckle-dragging fringe that, if elected, they would criminally prosecute and imprison the Bush administration.

The other side has nothing serious to offer.

Let's choose life.

"It’s too bad the press is so wrapped in trying to destroy Palin while they’re completely ignoring Obama’s connections to Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers."

Right, as if Obama wasn't asked about Ayers during the primary debates, on national television, in front of millions of viewers, and promptly dismissed these ridiculous allegations to the satisfaction of anyone who bothered to listen.

As if Faux News didn't inform its millions of viewers of the alleged Obama-Ayers connection, or suggest that Obama was a secret closet Muslim to play upon people's worst prejudices and fears. No. Honorable, stand up folks there. But they're not "the media", right? They just have their own 24 hour news network, a score of conservative anchors and pundits, analysts and spinsters, blogs, columns, and the finances of Rupert Murdoch.

....May God bless your son and other soldiers. While there may be heroism in the good intentions of those who fight, we should always question the motives and the justifications of those who decide they should fight.

The politicians and their associates are neither warriors nor heroes. Most lack prudence and wisdom and serve an agenda that may have little to do with defending America. John McCain has shown little to indicate that he's cut from a different cloth. Sarah Palin, who seems a good woman, may end up a sales girl for neo-con interventionism.

To the contrary, the "Left" is absolutely loving Palin's negative, divisive and empty speech. She offered no solutions for the critical problems facing our economy and the American people. That's because the GOP has nothing to offer. They ARE the problem they created. They have to try (and they will fail) to make this election about lies and smears.

I agree with Chet. More of the same, just further Right and worse for the country.

Keep talking, Sarah!

Actually, as I see it, the VP's job -- at conventions, anyway -- has usually been to whip up the enthusiasm of the crowd and leave the policy talk to the candidate. Biden's speech was long on character talk and short on solutions too, if I remember.

I have noticed that postings have radically changed over the past week. It is apparent that Democrats that support Obama at all cost are hitting every Catholic Site they can to confuse the issues.

McCain versus Obama is the first choice. Experience vs no experience. Pro-life vs Pro-choice (and murder of babies born alive), Maverick vs status quo (Joe Biden pick), Partiot vs Man that hangs out with Saul Alisnky a professed terrorist, supporter of religion vs a person that took 20 years to figure out his pastor was a hate monger, reformer vs a man that got his wife a promotion and 100% pay raise by giving special funding to her hospital, reformer vs a man that received a $300k discount from a convicted felon involved in Chicago politics (he didn't know anything wink nod nod)

The Democrats and probably not Catholics are hitting Catholic websites everywhere trying to confuse the issues.

A person only needs to look at the life of Sarah Palin to realize that she has already won!! She doesn't need us. We need her.

Brace yourselves, the worst is yet to come. When the Dems see that they are about to loose the election, we're going to see voter fraud on a cosmic scale. These people are without decency and they will stop at nothing to achieve their ends.

Joe H. I sure hope you are a seminar blogger and not passing yourself off as a committed Catholic. Even if you foolishly believe that the Socialist government solution proposed be Obama is a superior solution to a market economy, please tell me the guy who says it's ok to let a born alive infant die in a surgical basin with no care given to it just because the mother attended abortion, somehow has the moral high ground.

Did everyone see Peggy Noonan's article on attacks on Palin?

Once McCain wins the White House, we need to protect her by holding him accountable for a staff which will empower her and not put another glass ceiling in place when we have a long way to go to prevent interventionist foreign policy and advance the Culture of Life. Too many compromises in the Bush administration have lead to disastrous results when we could have gained more ground with forward thinking talent that did not have the '70's mindset -- calling us all "Wing Nuts".

Here's the excerpt . . .


That was a long way of saying: Dig deep into Sarah Palin, get all you can, talk to everybody, get every vote, every quote, tell us of her career and life, she may be the next vice president. But don't play games. And leave her kid alone, bitch.

***

Final point. Palin's friends should be less immediately worried about what the Obama campaign will do to her than what the McCain campaign will do. This is a woman who's tough enough to work her way up and through, and to say yes to a historic opportunity, but she will know little of, or rather have little experience in, the mischief inherent in national Republican politics. She will be mobbed up in the McCain campaign by people who care first about McCain and second about themselves. (Or, let's be honest, often themselves first and then McCain.) Palin will never be higher than number three in their daily considerations. They won't have enough interest in protecting her, advancing her, helping her play to her strengths, helping her kick away from danger. And – there is no nice way to say this, even though at this point I shouldn't worry about nice – some of them are that worst sort of aide, dim and insensitive past or present lobbyists with high self-confidence. She'll be a thing to them; they'll see the smile and the chignon and the glasses and think she's Truvi from Steel Magnolias. They'll run right over her, not because they're strong but because they're stupid. The McCain campaign better get straight on this. He should step in, knock heads, scare his own people and get Palin the help and high-level staff all but the most seasoned vice presidential candidates require.

Thank you DNC for finally showing the ugliness of dysfuction at large.

Finally I understand my arch liberal sister's hatred of me. She at age 50 defends her abortion and lifetime of mind/heart-numbed, canned liberal views, all the stuff in their slippery and double standard dung heap, to the gates of Hell and back again. Her hatred of conservative me and fellow members of my family, as well as the rest of America, is being echoed in the liberal media reports and blogs. All the vitriol is stunning. I could have predicted it had I understood it before. I thought it was just one twisted sister. The left is rabid and knows the jig is up.

I'm sitting back with horror and amusement at the Left.
Obama-Who?

The initail assault by the msm and the Dems other surrogates have failed. They have failed at their at their attempt to paint Governor Palin as some back woods rube that is dangerous in a position of power.

First the vetting process ('she wasn't proper;y vetted") and now the character assasinations. The Left will go as low as they feel they need to to derail the Straight Talk Express. But you know what? And you can make book on this. Apart from those in the Lib echo chambers on east and west coasts, Voter America isn't buying your hate. So move on and maybe in 4 years, the Dems won't nominate the most liberal Senator as their standard bearer.

Let's be honest here folks. The liberal nuts in this country are screaming like Linda Blair because they are truly on the verge of LOSING their most SACRED RITUAL........ABORTION.
You know, where they allow tiny innocent babies to be torn limb by limb, burned by saline, cut into pieces...because it makes women "free"?!?!
Palin is a REAL WOMAN in every sense of the word.She scares you to death.
Keep shaking, fools. The battle is nearly over and you are the losers.

I've been watching images speak at these conventions, but last night I believe I saw a real person.

Yes, the left's religious commitment to death and the destruction of this country's rootedness in life is now on display for all to see. The contrast between them and a woman whose commitment to life and just plain human goodness in the acceptance of a Downs syndrome child and a pregnant teenage daughter is so very clear.

Perhaps my 20 years service as a Navy pilot gives me insight into the laudable character of John McCain. I am sure my 40 years as the Father of three adopted children gives me insight into the genuine good character and values of Sarah.

And I like what I see!

Very simple people (just read their remarks:
THEY HATE CHILDREN.
They are scared and horrified; their holy trinity (abortion, sodomy, and earth-worship) shatters at the arrival of the truth. Babies, guns, and Jesus; praise the Lord (and pass the diapers).

Very simple people (just read their remarks:
THEY HATE CHILDREN.
They are scared and horrified; their holy trinity (abortion, sodomy, and earth-worship) shatters at the arrival of the truth. Babies, guns, and Jesus; praise the Lord (and pass the diapers).

That's what this election has been and will continue to be about.
The last 8 years. Everything else is a distraction and a sideshow. Palin is one more effort at distraction. It'll work for awhile. Whether it holds up for the next 60 days is another matter.

I'd love to hear someone substantially talk about our debt and the money we owe to China.
But I'm just concerned about the future of our country.

perryj: It is apparent that Democrats that support Obama at all cost are hitting every Catholic Site they can to confuse the issues.

Exactly. I didn't think so at first; I thought people were simply bringing up issues to discuss them. But then it got obvious: They are terrified. They're trying to throw cold water on this spitfire that is Sarah Palin. Try as they might, nothing's going to rattle that lady. I never cheered at my TV screen before, but I did last night, as well as laugh, cry and hold my jaw open at the exquisite job she did delivering that speech.

Life is the most important issue. The stand against letting newborn infants die is the most important reason I am voting McCain/Palin. (And my husband. And my kids who are of voting age. And so are many I know who, after last night, are energized enough to make actual donations to get this team into the White house.)

*sniff* *sniff* What's that smell? I think the Dems need to change their shorts.

1) Not only am I a committed Catholic, I'm a trad. And I form my political positions through the social doctrine of our Church, which you should try reading some time. It doesn't uncritically support the "market economy", and it wasn't drafted by the Cato Institute or Reason magazine. When you put your Catholicism first and your ideology second, its amazing what you might accomplish.

2)There's that scare word again - "socialism". Obama's policies wouldn't even bring the US close to a Social Democratic welfare state on the order of Europe; it seems that anything to the left of Ayn Rand these days is "socialism". Even so, have you ever heard of Christian Democracy? By American libertarian standards its socialism; by the Vatican's standards it is the perfectly acceptable Christian alternative to secular Social Democracy. But those European sissies - what do they know? Include every Pope in history on that list.

And you have the gall to question my Catholicism, as if Catholicism + American libertarian economic theories = the world's only acceptable Catholicism? More arrogant Americanism, as if there weren't a billion Catholics in the world, as if American Catholics were only 60+ million of that billion, as if American libertarian economic theories were popular ideological currency ANYWHERE outside the US.

No, as a "genuine" Catholic I'm part of an international Church where the leader is in Rome, not Wall Street, where the doctrines are formed from the standpoint of Christian theology and not in accordance with what American right-wingers, as opposed to their Catholic brothers and sisters all over the world, think about economic and social issues. Yes, I'm proud to be part of such a Church - maybe you'll join it sometime.

Finally, I'm not an Obama cheerleader, the point of the previous post was simply to address the ridiculous suggestion that the "media" (which includes Faux News) never covered the Obama-Ayers connection. They've done more than that - they've slandered him, suggested he was a closet Muslim, etc. Disagreement with him on abortion isn't a license to tell lies about him. But you're a good Catholic, so you should know that, a faithful Catholic who would never stretch the truth to score political points, right?

...FOR OBAMA!

Since Palin read the divisive remarks last night written for her by Bush's speechwriter, an additional 130,000 Americans have made donations to the Obama/Biden Campaign totalling $8 million. That number is expected to reach $10 million before McCain starts his speech tonight.

McCain's support from independent women has also dropped a few points since he announced his choice for VP.

Sweet.

This thread is starting to reflect the same puzzling and vitriolic statements from both left and right partisans. Can everyone just take a deep breath? Is it that difficult for those on the left to understand that most Catholics have serious concerns with Sen. Obama's views on abortion, Terry Schiavo, the Born Alive Infants Act, etc.? Must it be thought of a witch hunt that we have issues with his positions that clearly contradict the Church's teachings on life? Similarly, is that difficult for people on the right to understand that while we may applaud Gov. Palin's decision to uphold life and abhor the treatment of her family by the media, we may still have questions about her positions on issues in addition to abortion? Must that be though of "being scared" about Sarah Palin? More so than other election years, this year has been hijacked by emotionalism.

Chet,

So what? So the baby-killers are all the more eager to vote for Obama. They'd choose a man who says he'd abort his own grandchildren if his kids became pregnant out of wedlock to a woman who embraced her grandchild in love. So what? Why should that be reason to rejoice? It should be perfectly predictable, and it should be reason to grieve deeply for their souls.

This election, as Peggy Noonan said, will really be the testing ground for the culture wars. If McCain and Palin win, then it's time to revisit the proposal that Fr. Deacon Paul Weyrich sent out about ten years ago. This is the first truly pro-life ticket we've ever had.

Laura Bush is pro-choice
Barbara Bush is pro-choice
(I don't know about Elizabeth Dole; but Bob didn't win)
Nancy Reagan is pro-choice

No matter what politicians say, their spouses matter, and their children matter.

To say that Palin's children matter and that McCain's or Obama's or Biden's don't is pure sexism. CHildren need their faithers in their lives, just as much as their mothers. And we need people in Washington who actually *have* families and love their families, so that we will get decisions in Washignton that are truly family-friendly.

Cindy McCain is 100% pro-life; I didn't know that for certain till yesterday, but she's finally said it clearly. I've never heard a candidate's wife make such a strong pro-life statement as Mrs. McCain did yesterday.

Sarah Palin is pro-life. John McCain is "mostly" pro-life, but would obviously make the right presidential decisions.

Everyone's talking as if McCain is going to step into office and die. The Vice President is little more than a glorified Senator. Is Palin qualified to be a Senator? Then she's qualified to be president of the Senate. Give her a few months as a Vice President, and she'd know everything she needed to be a President.

And her kids aren't gonna be hurt by her being a professional politician any more than Rick Santorum's kids may or may not have been hurt by his political career.

"Kids need their mothers! Fathers are just there to bring home a paycheck! It's OK for men to be presidents and Senators and have kids at home. But don't let a woman do it! Kids need their mothers."

Every single Catholic blog I am on has been filled with posts from women who seem to think that if one has children one is to be no place except home, and all mothers of more than two should be silent.

I LOVE the spunk and family orientation of Sarah Palin! She is very much the sort of woman that John Paul II talked about in his encyclicals on women and their roles in the church and society.

She is a proverbs 31 woman!

She is dedicated to her family and they may be nice normal human beings (hence the daughters choice) but that hardly makes Sarah Palin less than good for the position of VP. In fact, that the family pulled together and supported these young people is another reason why I am so happy to see this VP nomination. Here is one daughter who will not feel that she HAS TO abort her child. This is in the trenches pro life.

Being a Catholic who DOES read all the social encyclicals, and today re-read several documents on the role of women, I find Sarah Palin a good pick.

Social teaching is about what we are to do for the poor--not HOW we believe it ought to be done.

I think Sarah Palin and John McCain will do less to harm the opportunities for getting out of the poorhouse and into the middle class, and maybe even manage to do something to help both here and abroad.

I do NOT think that the Democratic side will do any good for the struggling lower middle and below classes in this country and even less to help the people beyond our borders to get out of poverty.

Ann writes,

"Social teaching is about what we are to do for the poor--not HOW we believe it ought to be done."

This is just not true. The social doctrine of the Church is NOT an instruction guide or a list of personal suggestions about how to give personal charity to poor folks.

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is a statement of the moral priorities of society, the economy and politics in the light of Catholic morality. It states,

"The exposition of the Church's social doctrine is meant to suggest a systematic approach for finding solutions to problems, so that discernment, judgment and decisions will correspond to reality, and so that solidarity and hope will have a greater impact on the complexities of current situations." (paragraph 9)

I am NOT - repeat - am NOT arguing that McCain-Palin policies are outside the scope of Catholic morality. If you really believe that their economic policies are aligned with Catholic social teaching, be my guest.

But what I will not stand for is someone saying that I'm not a faithful Catholic because I disagree with that proposition. I think that is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion, given that Catholics in every corner of the world besides America support parties and governments and policies which are further to the left than Obama (who isn't that far from the center on economic issues himself).

Have you ever heard of Christian Democracy? By American standards it is practically communism, but by the standards of the rest of the world it is the religious, more conservative version of Social Democracy. Christian Democratic parties have supported welfare states, nationalized industries, universal healthcare - and they were all inspired by the social encyclicals of the late 19th and early 20th century.

I could if I were so inclined quote enough of the social doctrine to prove my case, but I won't do it here and now. Tim Shipe has done more than enough to bring these matters to people's attention, and I hope he will continue to do so. Americans need to get over their "center of the universe" approach to politics and realize that they are actually further to the right than the rest of the world, and that the social doctrine of the Church is written for the world, and not as a reflection of or an endorsement of American economic values.

Anyone who has a serious problem with that might find better company with the Gospel of Wealth crowd.

When Sarah Palin says that parents of special needs children have an advocate in the White House it is a breath of fresh air.
Finally we have an advocate who stands for something other that angry gays walking single file, lock step to take over public policy. Its refreshing to see someone who stands up for those without a voice and actually can't get assistance with their own political or financial pull.

When Sarah's young child slicked down the baby's hair after licking her own hand - well she learned that from somewhere.

When I see Dems savaging young Bristol, I see millions of 13-17 year olds voting Republican in 2012. I also see a possible Chelsea vs. Bristol in 2038.

When I see both McCain and Palin's son's in the military I know my son is fighting with the same noble ideals and people he was raised from and will be accorded the same from the Commander in Chief. No sloppy "salutes" to these lads/ladies in formation.

When I heard Palin sold the Alaska State corporate jet "because we don't do business like that here now," I was stunned with admiration. She knew her state was as big as half the continental 48. Still she flies a bit more reasonably.

Now I understand what McCain's been fighting for and against. Palin's co-pilot role articulates it perfectly.

I bet Geo W Bush stands in admiration of McCain's vision being painted on the political canvas even now. Up to know it was the clueless, hostile media holding the paintbrush.

One thing I miss this election is Bob Novak as he recuperates from surgery. Love and best wishes to you Bob.

Palin can take that 3 a.m. phone call for sure - she'll be up nursing the baby anyways!! I am thrilled with the McCain - Palin ticket. It's sad that the so-called Catholic candidate (Biden) is pro-death of the innocent. You go Sara!

I see "Chet" piped back in.

I have a sole observation: He was "first off the block" in this thread, predicting:
Anybody think that prediction has any merit whatsoever?

I bring it up because, when you're slightly wrong about something that a lot of other people got wrong, and which was a close judgment call to begin with, the fact that you were wrong doesn't entirely discredit your intelligence or judgment.

On the other hand, when you're wildly wrong on a matter that everyone else gets right, and where the evidence was so obvious as to make the wrong prediction too baffling to even be funny...that implies either no brains or utter ignorance.

Now, Chet's prediction in that first post wasn't really a near thing, was it? After that speech, and that reception? There are barnyard chickens whose heads have already been removed on the butcher-block, whose twitching corpses could make a more realistic prediction than that.

So I don't see much reason not to put Chet in the "no brains or utter ignorance" category. I mean, there's mistaken, and then there's cross-eyed badger-spit nuts.

But perhaps he'll redeem himself, the next time he pops in.

Hey guys -- I'm late to jump in, but a few of these comments have danced close to the line here. It isn't necessary to question individuals' faithfulness, or their intelligence -- let's stick to debating the issues. Maybe a night to sleep on things will help cool it down. Thanks.

As a Canadian I am not a Republican or Democrat but as a Catholic I need to say that the only choice in your election would be for McCain and Palin. McCain at least seems to have some respect for life at all stages compared to Obama's - even if they are born alive they can be killed attitude and there is no comparison between Biden and Palin. All I can say about Palin is WOW! Lookout America you may soon have your first female president and she will be a real Woman not one that has swallowed the poisonis "feminist" pill!

Margaret:

Yes, it's fair to say I danced close to the line, there.

Normally I try to be careful to apologize if there's a chance I've overstepped propriety...and I think other folks with whom I've had respectful disagreements on this site, will testify to that on my behalf.

Now with respect specifically to Chet: I don't think my assertion was over the line: I think it was reasoned and well supported, and even held out the hope that he'd do better on some later attempt.

Chet, in reaction to Palin's speech and the Republican reception of that speech, predicted as follows: (1.) "McCain will make a new VP choice"; and, (2.) "Palin will head back to Alaska."

Now if Sarah Palin should suddenly be revealed as schizophrenic or a necrophiliac, this prediction will come true.

But barring that, the notion that McCain, after that speech and that crowd response, is gearing up to replace his much-touted and now-beloved V.P. pick with some alternative is like predicting the National Geographic Society will merge with the Flat Earth Society.

The only thing to be made of such a loony post is that he author cared nothing for its plausibility or defensibility, but only about making a negative statement. Truth, or even the illusion of possible truth, is no object in Chet's eyes.

And that is what puts the post, and perhaps the poster, beyond the pale on this site.

Aren't Margaret's "a night to sleep on things will help cool it down" the last words before "Time Out"? Fair enough, but I know I have a tendency to Follow the Leader. So what if your leader is like Gloriam Steinem - whose opinion the LA Times merrily offered as purchaseable product today: "Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton. Her down-home, divisive and deceptive speech did nothing to cosmeticize a Republican convention...?" What is our standard? How can we avoid Margaret banishing us to Time Out? Steinem - my parallel pal in development - has clung, heartily and proudly to ANGER - she's quite up front about it, folks. But we don't have to follow this kind of leader. Before Margaret gives us all a time out, how about the 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 trick before we hit submit, eh? Don't approach the www.insidecatholic.com comments box with anger. Didn't I read that somewhere?

To the Democratically Liberal inclined, while some may see McCain as a continuation of Bush, this is an extremely false notion perpetuated by our left-wing liberal media.

John McCain doesn't just conform to one ideology. He has a fantastic ability to cross the standard party-lines to get real things done, to make real changes for this country, that the people want.

As for Palin, I have nothing but respect for this woman when looking at the character for which she has lived her life. We judge a person on their character, and her's is one that identifies with hard working middle-class families in this country. She embraces Life issues, and we should find common ground in her Christianity with our Ecumenical principles.

Honestly, John McCain has let the Dem's and Obama's camp say a lot of negative things, more than he should have taken. McCain generally takes the higher ground in speeches, and doesn't react to these things. Palin went to the heart of the Obama camp's false notions, false hope, and false change. With how messianic Obama has become in our culture, the media's love orgy with him, and his ardent support of abortion that is the "left of the left" to an issue that affects our human experience, I don't know how anyone can delude themselves into saying "Pro-Life issues don't matter", and vote for Obama merely on socially liberal terms.

Sarah Palin has not even been entirely honest about her own record, has shown a propensity to fire and hire people as if she is shuffling a deck of cards, and delivered a mean-spirited speech (even if it was highly effective; that just goes to show that politics in the end is a blood-sport).

I understand that you have to rough up the opponent a bit, but I think the GOP's mockery of Obama's work as a community organizer is just terrible. It leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I disagree strongly with Obama on abortion and gun control but I don't belittle the work he did with unemployed workers.

He supports a terrible, sinful policy of abortion on demand. I don't deny this and I wish he didn't. But he also invested his time in helping those whom Christ called "the least of our brothers", and maybe it didn't give him "executive experience" but it is a plus in my book, not a minus. There's no need to belittle the good a man does in order to point out his flaws and his evils, which we all have.

And I like the fact that he has vision, and is articulate, and that he "talks" - I've had enough of the stumbling cowboy politics we've seen for the last eight years, this shoot first, ask questions later approach to politics. Maybe we do need someone who can talk, and who can listen. That would be a nice change.

Okay, I slept on it.

And indeed, my conscience, and logic, were bothered.

So I need to admit fault here: Part of my assertion about Chet's post was in moral and factual error. Mea culpa.

I cannot give him truly conciliatory language, though, so I fear this won't come across as much of an apology. For in fact I think his "prediction" was exactly as absurd as I previously stated.

I think (after a night's reflection) that his prediction represented not so much a failure of his intelligence as, perhaps, a disrespect for the readers'. In an initial reading, I credited a certain honesty to the post, assuming that he wouldn't say it if he didn't think it true. (And reasoned therefrom: Only someone who'd lost use of critical faculties could think it true; ergo, he can't possibly be thinking straight.)

But that was my fault in two ways: (1.) People can lose the ability to think straight temporarily, through strong emotion, without thereby deserving the label of permanent imbecile; and, (2.) It's more likely he posted the assertion that McCain was likely/planning to drop Palin and send her back to Alaska, not because he thought it true, but because it would, if believed, dishearten those with whom Chet disagrees politically.

So in the first possibility, Chet was only blathering in a moment of temporary insanity. As I have previously done such things myself, I can't condemn him for it except to recommend, as Marjorie does, the "count to 10 before you post" method.

And in the second possibility, Chet's opening post was not the word of a fool, but rather that of a liar: Someone using the divine gift of language-and-meaning, not to impart truth, but to bludgeon those he scorned in hopes of fooling them.

I wish I could say I was certain the first possibility was the correct one. But in the spirit of charity, I'll suspend my own critical thinking long enough to pretend it was the more likely one.

And I apologize for not having been more even-handed about it, last night.

"I like the fact that he has vision."

WHAT???

How far does he have to look to see the dead babies?

His "vision" is the same old tired and failed nightmare of the secular left. Where have you been since 1789? The traditional family is the enemy of the state (classic enlghtenment and Marxist theory). The traditional family must therefore be marginalized, subverted, and ultimately replaced by the institutional appartus. Ever heard of secular public education, same-sex "marriage," abortion on demand up to and including and (for Obama), even after birth, state-sponsored suicide, gay indoctrination in elementary grades? Do you have any idea of the predicament of the Church in Canada, the UK? See any connection here with Obama and the Party of Death?

God save us from the visionaries of the left. Put your faith in the Church, and be very wary of those to seek to harm the least of God's children.

Hey Joe H. you sound like one of those angry traditionalists Mark Shea was describing last week. Warning bells go off when I hear a self-described faithful Catholic saying things like "I totally disagree with Obama's stance on the horrendous sin of abortion but... "There are no buts here,even if you actually believe that European systems of government conform more closely with Catholic social teaching ( which they certainly do not) it cannot be put on par with a concern for the unborn. Archbishop Chaput recently gave a talk discussing a person's responsibility to vote and if he felt someone in good conscience could place "social justice issues" on par with that of abortion, using the concept of proportionality he said he couldn't foresee a circumstance where this could be done. I never suggested that an Ayn Rand laissez-faire capitalism is what we should strive for, however for all its flaws I feel that the free market economy provides the overall best opportunity to live out Catholic social teaching.If European socialist systems sync so well with Catholic social teaching, why is it that the church is in such horrible shape in these same socialist countries. If you think Mass attendance is bad in the US just check out France, Spain, Italy and the like. When I tithe and give alms directly to the church I can be assured that the majority of what I give is going directly to the people and programs that need it. When the government confiscates large portions of my income much of it goes to a bureaucratic machine and what does make it through often supports programs which I find morally objectionable. I'm not at all against the idea of fair taxation, I just think the federal government should stick to the guidelines of the Constitution of the United States. Faithful Catholics and others of good will should then be taking care of the least of our brothers. I know of no centralized government that performs his duty well. But as you noted in a previous post you certainly can have your opinion about which government functions the best in allowing Catholic social teaching to be lived out, but there is no argument that can justify voting for a radically pro-abortion candidate because of your disagreements on these other issues.

It was stated above of Obama:

"But he also invested his time in helping those whom Christ called "the least of our brothers."

Would that be his own blood brother living in a hut on a dollar a month? (in Africa)

The South Chicago folks were not served by Obama's millionaire pals who fleeced the city (and Catholic charities) for $$ for"public housing" so substandard that it collapsed within 7 years.

The only people served by Obama have been his wife's bosses, his own fundraisers and that maniacal anti-America "pastor" of his. (who hates white people, but built his multi-million dollar "pastor" mansion in a white country club neighborhood.

Christian Democracy? Hasn't done much for Europe. Once great Catholic countries now abort more children than are born, the streets swim in porn presented as advertising, divorce and adultery are rampant, homosexuality is openly practiced in parks and the poor are poorer than the poor in free-market. economies.

You wrote: "And you have the gall to question my Catholicism, as if Catholicism + American libertarian economic theories = the world's only acceptable Catholicism?"

If every Catholic neocon would read this and see themselves reflected, it would be a start. Just add support for "preventive war" and you've got Catholic neocons in a nutshell (and that's truer than they know).

Wary Catholic,

Where do you get your information? It sounds like the standard grab-bag of lies cooked up in the kitchen of Karl Rove. Can I see some documentation on these claims about Obama?

What "millionaire pals" are you talking about? Can you come back to planet earth for a minute? We're talking about Obama here, not his alleged, fictitious, "I made these people up because I don't know what the hell I'm talking about" friends.

Oh, and still on Rev. Wright! After all the speeches and denunciations, after everything Obama has said to clarify himself, it still means nothing to you. Hey, I think next we'll hear Obama played hookie from school once, said a mean thing to a kid at school, yelled at a puppy, baked a child alive in a microwave, stepped on some flowers, peed in public, cut a man with a broken bottle in a bar fight, was responsible for 9/11, was responsible for the Vietnam War, went back in time and helped Judas crucify Christ, and was the original fallen angel, not Satan.

As for Christian Democracy, again - proof that it is responsible for those problems, or that these are even accurate descriptions of the problems?

There are enough GOOD reasons to disagree with Obama and not vote for him in November that you don't have to repeat these Rove-inspired fabrications, lies, and ridiculous smears.

Look, I understand what you are saying.

Europe really has degenerated, but I don't think that is because of Christian Democracy. I just mean to point out that the Christian Democratic parties were originally formed in the spirit of the ideas put forth in the social encyclicals. I don't really think they lived up to their promise, but the point is that I think you can be a faithful Catholic and support these things.

However -

I really don't support welfare states and the like, anymore than I do totally free markets. I consider myself a distributist, which I see as an alternative to the dominant philosophies in Western Europe and the US. I believe it is distributism which best aligns with Catholic social teaching, which finds the correct integration and balance of markets, property rights, dignity of labor, subsidiarity, etc.

All we need to agree on is this:

"But as you noted in a previous post you certainly can have your opinion about which government functions the best in allowing Catholic social teaching to be lived out, but there is no argument that can justify voting for a radically pro-abortion candidate because of your disagreements on these other issues."

As it so happens, I agree. But the more aggression and hatred I see aimed at Obama, and the more I see people uncritically embracing Palin, who has NOT been a model of honesty or fairness in leadership, the more I begin to worry.

Someone mentioned distributism to me years ago and I kind of snickered, having been raised believing capitalism was the perfect system on which to base a society. But as I've gotten older, my observations have led me to conclude that capitalism without the moderating influence of Christianity can become a nightmare, something like we are witnessing in the US right now (i.e. rampant consumerism, avarice, etc.). I'd now like to read more about distributism - am I correct that Chesterton may have written about it?

Having said that, Obama terrifies me. Christopher Ferrara says it better than I could, on The Remnant Newspaper website in a piece entitled "Why I am Voting Republican this Year (While Holding My Nose)". I recommend this piece to everyone.

Yes, Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc are the fathers of distributism. But so are Popes Leo XIII, Pius XI, and others, in that they provided the inspiration for the development of this idea.

Try this site if you want to learn more: http://www.distributist.blogspot.com/

Joe H.
Your last response to me seems well reasoned and at least it seems more measured in its delivery. Perhaps I was a bit hasty in my conclusions about you, mea culpa, but even those little emoticons don't help much in gauging a persons delivery on the internet. I don't think McCain and Palin are the bee's knees by any stretch, I'm just much more concerned by what I hear coming out of the Obama camp. I've got 8 children to consider when I vote. I see many negative signs in America's direction, I just happen to think Obama will get us there much more quickly than McCain.

If you truly believe in Catholic teachings and want to proclaim yourself as Catholic, the non-negotiables should be taken into account when voting. The war is not one of the non-negotiables. President Bush and the last eight years is not one of the non-negotiables. Social welfare, also, is not one of them.
The five non-negotiables are abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, cloning and euthanasia. The Catholic Church specifically (and clearly) speaks out against all five.

You may or may not be able to find a politician who is against all five but we all know of one who actually embraces most if not all.

I am a Catholic convert. I guess you can tell by now how I am going to vote. And it's not for Senator Obama.

Susan L.

I understand your point of view, it is one that I share as well, but in my view there is more than one way to build a culture of life.

I don't think it is entirely inappropriate to take a "long term" view towards these matters. I think the grassroots pro-life movement has done more to reduce the number of abortions by providing assistance and alternatives to pregnant women than the GOP has ever done with its rhetoric and platform planks. Real change comes from below.

I will give credit where it is due - GWB signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban into law. But there were a lot of Democrats who supported that too, because the overwhelming majority of Americans supported it.

I think we've seen a real shift in the last few decades on the abortion issue. The fact that Pelosi and Obama aren't being clear about their philosophical views on life should actually be an encouraging sign; they know that if they are too strong on this issue, the people will reject them. They know that the national mood is becoming less sympathetic to pro-choice rhetoric. I've been reading angry feminist columns deriding the Democrats for suggesting, through their pledge to "reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies", that abortion is not a morally acceptable choice.

They're nervous because the feel the American people moving further and further away from them on this issue. How far we've come from Governor Casey Sr. being barred from the DNC to his sone Seantor Casey being allowed to address the convention this time around. The tide is turning.

So, like my friend Tim Shipe, I think work can be done inside the Democratic Party to make it more of a pro-life party, and the Church doesn't oppose such efforts. At the end of the day though, you're right - Obama's abortion extremism is entirely unacceptable. But I'm not sure that a nuclear exchange with Russia is worth a small chance that RvW may be overturned. So I continue to weigh my conscience.

Had things been different - had McCain chosen Huckabee instead of the pitbull with lipstick (who, if the investigation into her POLITICAL background is accurate, is a dishonest, petty tyrant, issues aside), had the foolish and arrogant Georgian president decided not to provoke Russia and create an international crisis, this decision would have been easier for me. Now it is extremely difficult. We won't have any life issues to debate in a nuclear winter.

Your attempts to create a thinly veiled sheen of objectivity only expose you the more as a modern day Pontius Pilate of which no amount of water will wash away.

Joe H.:

I agree that there can be more than one way to build a culture of life. I applaud you in your attempts to create that inside the Democratic Party. I truly wish you success in that.

The fear of a nuclear winter with Russia or anybody else is not enough for me. This could happen with Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin. In fact, it is my belief that Russia would not back down from using if Obama was in office. That would only embolden them. That is only my opinion but one I suspect is very true.

No. The holocaust of Abortion is here right now. I do not believe that God (in his infinite mercy and justice) is going to continue to bless us if we continue to embrace abortion, euthanasia, cloning, same-sex marriage and embryonic stem cell research. He is much more likely to bless us if we fight those evils. Don't you think?

We need to do God's will here and now. That means fighting those things that are abominations to God. If we stand up and fight (which to me, in this case, includes not voting for someone who embraces the evils), then God will bless us. I am willing to trust God with the lives of myself and my children. (And believe me, even as a devout Catholic, that isn't easy. I'm only human, too).

What if that means the worst scenario happens? Nuclear winter (from your post). *sigh* I guess then that I have to trust God. Heaven can't be too far behind.

And before I forget...the investigation into Governor Palin's political background isn't complete. I've heard (just this morning) a Democratic pundit trying to pass off as fact innuendos that weren't true. This was after he claimed one thing in an interview and within 2 minutes (of proof from the other side) admitted what he said wasn't true. Now I'm supposed to believe this guy?

Give this a chance to play out. The other side wants to "kill" her quick and they don't care how it's done.

I lived in Europe for a long time. There are very few Christians there. The few that do still go to Church don't dare speak about their faith in public.

I came to the conclusion that Europeans have been seduced in to believing "the State is my shepherdr I shall not want." Having hired the government to provide for the poor, volunteerism was put to death. The colorful plethora of faith driven soup kitchens, inner-city tutoring programs, missions trips to Haiti, Mexico and Guatemala etc etc etc that flow forth from faith communities in America does not find its parallel in Europe. Why should it? they have paid their taxes to the state and the state can now provide for these people.

There is almost no pro-life speech in Europe. Abortion is accepted by all. To even bring it up is a social taboo, everywhere, even in church.

So there is an upsidedownness at work. The desire that the poor be helped, if farmed out to a bureacracy, can become part of the way in which truly Christian faith, truly personal compassion, and truly Catholic life is slowly put to death.

I may not be saying this as well as I should, but I'd like you to step back and ask if there might be some truth here. I do not want America to go the route of the Europeans. The Christian Socialism failed to remain Christian.

I prefer the less than perfect somewhat chaotic freedom of America. Benedict, on his visit, marveled at a country where Christian faith is still part of the national dialog. That cannot be said of Germany, Holland, or Scandinavia and is becoming less and less evident in Italy, Spain and even Portugal.

my 2 cents

tom in ohio

Good response Susan L to Joe H.

The same applies for all other issues Democrats worry about: health care, taxes, education. These matters cannot be decided unless we are a free nation with an reasonable hope for peace within our borders, free from gross attack.

Obama invites attack, he is seen as weak and an easy dupe. He has marxist leanings that soften his ears to a Putin. He is glorified by Muslims and pals with Rezko, a Syrian national who helped him by his million + mansion. Obama signals weakness to our enemies.

McCain is hardly a good candiate, just the lesser evil.

At first I thought I was a bit hasty in drawing conclusions about Joe H., after reading his post number 48, his thought process and reasoning seemed very solid in this post. But after reading post 53, he seemed to be back to his previous bias. I reread all of his posts and I have to say that there is no question in my mind that he clearly has an ax to grind against the Republican Party and possibly conservatism in general. Susan L. makes a very good point in post 55 when she says that Obama's position on abortion is unequivocal and clear whereas the notion that a nuclear winter is on the horizon if the Republicans get elected really is nothing more than an arrogant speculation. In fact her analysis that an Obama administration might actually increase the likelihood of such an event is not without merit. I noticed that Joe singled out by name several people in the Republican administration with nasty comments but he there was no evenhanded criticism of any person in the Democratic Party. If he were a bit more objective in his criticisms on both side of things I would be a bit more willing to take his arguments seriously. Comments such as calling Fox news, Faux News shows his bias quite clearly. Even if I admit that Fox news leans to the right, it is laughable to try to argue that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CNBC etc. are straight down the middle objective news sources. Media watch.org has documented factually the extent to which all of these other new sources provide extremely uneven coverage of the two candidates clearly favoring Obama, I mean it's not even close. Even if you want to say that media watch is a right wing organization, you can't argue with the objective citations they provide. I'm back to thinking that Joe H. might very well be a sophisticated seminar blogger trying to confuse faithful Catholics into believing if they vote for McCain Palin that they may somehow be responsible for the wholesale slaughter of millions due to a nuclear war, while paying lip service to the wholesale slaughter that will continue unabated under an Obama administration when it comes to abortion. He can try and paint me as some type of rigid neocon whose knuckles drag the ground but I think I've been clear that I'm no water boy for the Republican Party, I just think they by far represent the lesser of the two evils based upon all the information I have gathered. Perhaps if Joe took equally scathing shots at Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, I might feel a bit more at ease that there was not some underlying hidden objective he was attempting to execute. As for his comments about Bob Casey Junior, I'm from Pennsylvania, I know the senator well as well as his father, Bob Casey Junior is definitely no Bob Casey Senior. If you look at the national abortion rights action league rating of these two individuals Bob Casey Senior always got a big fat zero from them whereas Bob Casey Junior has gone as high as a 40%thumbs up on his voting. Where Joe sees Bob Casey Junior as winds of change in the Democratic Party I see this for what it is, a sham to try and give the appearance of some sympathy with pro-lifers when there is no doubt in my mind it is just a political device to try and increase their base without any real concessions.

I need to correct myself I said media watch.org I meant media research center

Thank you so much for your post. This is something that I had not realized. What you say makes a lot of sense. If you don't mind, I'm going to print that off and retain it for future discussions. (not to mention send that in emails to my friends).

You make some very good points.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God, what is God's."

The plain fact is that our almsgiving duty is a duty we owe to God, not to Caesar.

The question, then, is whether it is a duty which God permits us to delegate to others, or is it a duty which (like, say, our "marriage debt") He requires that we undertake for ourselves.

If God permits us to delegate gift-giving to our employees, why then it's okay to let our secretaries buy all our Christmas-gifts for our wives, and equally okay to allow our government to give all our alms to the poor in our community, our country, and the world.

But if God requires us to be personally involved, why then allowing the State to provide for the needs of the poor is both an injustice, and a sacrilege, on our part.

And Tom in Ohio correctly noted: In Europe, they don't give to the poor. Far from saying, "I already gave at the office," or "I already gave at church," they say, "I already gave when I paid the VAT."

What a tragedy...that individuals would be so deprived of the joy of actually, voluntarily giving!

And what an injustice, that the poor who live by the assistance of others, should view that assistance as coming, not from their neighbor (an observation which would generate gratitude and humility) or from the Church (an observation which would allow Christ's Church to remain a relevant factor in the lives of many), but from the State (a belief which serves only to buy their votes for politicians, who in turn have every incentive to keep them in need.

Tom Wins The Thread.

Jeez,

RC & Tom,

Do I even get to counter-punch or did someone I didn't see throw in the towel for me?

I don't know if you're trying to bat me away by declaring a "winner", but I don't see this as a contest. It's just a discussion.

And I think all of Tom's points are valid, well, almost all of them. My point was, and remains, that Christians have and do support welfare state policies. It was Joseph who originally said that I was not a "faithful Catholic" if I did so (he assumed I did). It is a simple point.

Susan L,

Again, heard and understood, but I still disagree on the prospects of nuclear war. One thing old Cold Warriors never knew or would never admit was that the USSR couldn't attack the US if it wanted to. It was always the weaker power. Russia is even weaker than the USSR was. I do not believe Russia would strike first.

I think McCain really wants a war with Russia, though, based on what I've heard him say about it time and time again. He did tone it down a bit at the RNC, but of the two candidates he is still the more aggressive and belligerent. The Russian government thinks that McCain is insane - not in that, "hey we better not mess with the crazy guy" kind of insane, but the "his senile old fool is really trying our patience" kind of insane.

Joseph,

First things first: have you ever heard of paragraphs? I'm not trying to be rude, but space out your main ideas into coherent paragraphs. It makes your posts more readable.

"I reread all of his posts and I have to say that there is no question in my mind that he clearly has an ax to grind against the Republican Party and possibly conservatism in general."

I never made any secret of the fact that I don't like the GOP, I don't like its economic philosophy or its foreign policy. It isn't a "bias" - its an out right dislike. But I like to think I can still evaluate policies objectively.

As for "conservatism in general", what passes for conservatism today, yes, I have a problem with it. But if you mean the conservatism of, say, a Edmund Burke or of the Catholic Church in general, then no, I don't. Old conservatism had an organic view of society; new conservatism is often conservatism + libertarianism, leading to an atomistic view of society. Old conservatism understood the importance of small communities, and the new conservatism glorifies the triumph of global markets over local communities. I could go on. I won't.

"Comments such as calling Fox news, Faux News shows his bias quite clearly. Even if I admit that Fox news leans to the right, it is laughable to try to argue that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, CNBC etc. are straight down the middle objective news sources."

When did I ever argue such a thing, Joseph? Can you point it out? I don't think they are "straight down the middle" - I can admit that CNN and NBC lean a little left. But Fox is so far to the right it doesn't lean, it lurches.

"I'm back to thinking that Joe H. might very well be a sophisticated seminar blogger trying to confuse faithful Catholics into believing if they vote for McCain Palin that they may somehow be responsible for the wholesale slaughter of millions due to a nuclear war, while paying lip service to the wholesale slaughter that will continue unabated under an Obama administration when it comes to abortion."

I've stated what I believe to be my own personal dilemma for the election. I'm not trying to "fool" anyone or "confuse" anyone, I'm just giving my reasons. I haven't made up my mind yet and part of the reason I am talking about my dilemma is because I want to hear how others are addressing these issues and see if any of it can help me.

more in the next post

I could respond to more of this (Joseph's post) but I won't. Why are you on a bias hunt? I could find PLENTY of negative things to say about the Democrats, I don't love the Democrats, but when did you ask me? The GOP is the party in power now, that has been in power for most of the last 30 years. They have set the tone of the political mood in this country, they have been the driving force and mostly what the Democrats have done is adapt to it. The GOP needs to be criticized more.

But like I said, I'm not a Democrat or a Social Democrat, I lean more towards the Democrats in the absence of anything else. My true political philosophy is distributism, which is not left or right, Democrat or Republican, socialist or capitalist, but simply Catholic.

So I don't deny that my sympathies lean more towards the Democrats but that doesn't mean we can't have a rational discussion, that I won't listen to your points or consider what you have to say. Sheesh.

what was your sincere question, again?

Joe:

Sorry, I didn't mean that remark quite how you took it.

It's something I'd seen over at a rather different site (Fark); saying someone "wins a thread" or marking their post with a +1 is just a sign of approval.

No "conversation-terminating" meaning intended.

Joe:

Having said that, I am a little bemused about these some assertions in your last post:

In what sense was the old Soviet Union unable to attack the U.S. "it wanted to?" In what sense was it always "the weaker power?"

I mean, sure, in retrospect we know that things were even economically worse in the Eastern Bloc than we'd thought. But if you'll recall, in the mid-80's, very few people outside Reagan and some other "ideologues" thought the Soviet Union would fall apart in their lifetimes, let alone within a few years. I just watched Michael Palin's "Pole to Pole" last night: He traveled through the Soviet Union a scant two days before the coup by the generals which began the breakup, and at that time, nobody knew it was about to happen.

As far as the U.S. knew, the Soviet Union treated its citizens horribly, but kept its soldiers well-fed and had numerical military superiority in nearly every sphere. U.S. dominance hinged solely on technological superiority and superior training: One of those theoretical advantages you hope never to test.

Meanwhile it had a nuclear arsenal which we thought was the equal of ours. Sure, now we know that it couldn't afford the upkeep of the missiles and therefore half of them couldn't fly.

But you sound like you think that the U.S. government was awash with analysts who were confident that, in a fight, the Russians couldn't do any more damage to us than, say, the Italians. Which is nonsense. (But perhaps I misconstrued your post.)

...continued...

Joe, here's the second assertion which made me go, "huh?!"

I think that "a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."

Here's what McCain said at the convention, which you describe as "toning it down a bit":
Now that sounds like a man passionately in favor of avoiding war. If that constitutes "toning it down a bit," then I guess his original rhetoric must have only been "a bit" warlike to begin with.

You can't have it both ways, so you need to either call his convention speech very warlike (difficult, given the above quote); or admit that his rhetoric before was not very warlike either and this is "a bit" less so; or, you admit the convention speech was not warlike, but fall back on the idea that McCain is lying, hiding his desire to go to war.

In which case, this detective would love to see a motive. Why does McCain want to...what? Invade Russia? Surely you can't think that. I don't care how bad his grades were at the Naval Academy, it's hard to believe he could graduate from any college, let alone an armed services college, and not learn that (a.) Napoleon didn't do so well invading Russia, (b.) Hitler didn't do so well, either, and (c.) Russia has nuclear weapons.

So is your assertion that McCain is suicidal? Why, in your view, does he "want" war with Russia?

...continued...

Joe:

Continuing re:McCain and Russia, you note that "of the two candidates, McCain is still the more aggressive and belligerent."

That's fair. But let's game this out with a decision tree:

Of the foreign powers who have interests in conflict with ours, who are willing to go to war with us, they fall into two categories: (a.) Those that can be deterred, and (b.) those that can't.

Now category (b.) is a big problem. We'll wind up at war with those that can't, no matter what. If it's a sufficiently low-grade war and we're not taking enough damage to really feel hurt by it, we'll just sit there and take it. (That's been the case in the ongoing U.S. conflict with Iran, which has simmered at low-grade & intermittent status since it began in 1979.)

But Russia is probably in category (a.). The game, then is to deter them from going to war with us (primarily) or our allies (secondarily).

Now, they've already had a taste of collapsing international support over their bad behavior in Georgia/S.Ossetia. The G8 became effectively the G7; even Europe showed some steel about it; Ukraine put limits on Russian vessels in their rented port area.

I think that it now becomes a question of resolve. If Putin wants empire and thinks he'll pay no cost for it, why of course he'll take it: in Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia, and maybe Lithuania. But if he thinks he'll pay a high cost, he won't.

Now history suggests that when leaders of Russia think the leaders of the U.S. lack resolve, they feel "unchecked" and expand. We see this with Khruschev: He misinterpreted Kennedy's few words as meaning he was young, out-of-his-depth, and cowed. The result: Missiles in Cuba, and the missile crisis. We see it also with Jimmy Carter, whose international reputation as a pushover led Khomeini to not fear overthrowing the Shah, and the Soviets to feel unconcerned about invading Afghanistan. (Though Zbigniew Brzezinski says this was actually Carter's intent all along: to give the Soviets a "Vietnam.")

I think Putin will play mostly "to type" in this regard, and therefore Obama's style is the last face we want to show him.

One piece of evidence for this is: Bush started out extremely friendly with Putin (embarrassingly so). Where, exactly did that get us?

No, no. Want to avoid war? Then deter it. Want to deter it? Show toughness without needless insult, and backed up by plausible force and the will to use it.

Want surety of peace? Well, vote for the Second Coming. But as that's out of our hands. So, to increase the likelihood of peace, you could do worse than voting for McCain. (In fact, you could do worse, by voting for Obama.)

I feel like you and I are constantly on the Inside Catholic version of "Crossfire", lol. I love these arguments! I want everyone else to look at how RC and I dance, because this is how it should be done - we disagree sharply with one another but we always keep it civil, we always keep it "above the belt". It's great fun that way.

Now, as to your questions and assertions.

Cold War:

"But if you'll recall, in the mid-80's, very few people outside Reagan and some other "ideologues" thought the Soviet Union would fall apart in their lifetimes, let alone within a few years. "

Well, this just isn't true. There were a lot of people who knew that the USSR was in big trouble for decades leading up to the collapse. Anyone who followed the policies of the Brezhnev regime or those of his decrepit successors understood that the USSR was horribly stagnating. Today Brezhnev is practically a synonym for "stagnat". There were analysts, maybe not in the US government, but long-time critics of the Soviet Union, that understood exactly what was taking place, even if they couldn't tell you the date and time of the collapse.

It doesn't matter how much military power you have if you can't effectively project it, and the Soviets certainly never had the will or the ability to directly attack the United States. "Peaceful co-existence" became the foreign policy mantra of the Kremlin since the end of WWII, and while it was justified on the basis of "Marxist-Leninist" ideology, it was in reality a pragmatic decision given the unavoidable reality of the inherent weakness of the USSR. Don't forget the devastation it underwent during WWII, from which it took decades to recover. It was never in a position to directly attack the US. Khrushchev bailed at the last minute because he knew they didn't stand a chance.

Regarding McCain:

I think I've seen McCain flip-flop enough times on enough issues to reasonably believe that he says whatever he feels in the moment. I don't think he's a liar, I just think he gets caught up in whatever his feelings are at the moment and goes with it. He may sincerely "hate war" and at the same time continue to believe that it is the only viable solution to our problems.

War of course is not the same thing as invasion - we couldn't invade Russia but we could nuke it if it came to that. And then they could nuke us. Or, alternatively, Russia, in response to these provocative attempts to build a missile shield in Europe, could strike first against a US ally, prompting retaliation, and then more retaliation.

McCain wants the missile shield. He wants to kick Russia out of the G-8. He wants to get Georgia into NATO. Obama says that too but I think it is election year pandering. I don't think he will push as aggressively against Russia as the Bush administration has, or as McCain will. McCain thinks Putin is "sticking his finger in our eye". It is clear that he wishes to provoke Russia into some sort of confrontation and now we have the Georgian crisis. This is nuclear brinkmanship, it is dangerous and reckless.

Frankly, I don't see how Russia consolidating power in its own sphere of influence is any reason for us to risk a nuclear war. We've declared for over a century now that all of Latin America is "our backyard", but we can't let Russia have South Ossetia? We have more important things to worry about than what Russia does in its own neighborhood. I don't think Russia wants to conquer the world. Russia is deeply suspicious of the rest of the world - what it wants and has always wanted is a buffer zone.

In short, I'm with Pat Buchanan on this one.

The man's legendary temper. Take it from Dr. Phillip Butler, once of McCain's fellow POWs:

"I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button."

NEITHER DO I.

Joe, thanks for the vote of confidence in our mutual-respect-while-sparring. It's always a pleasure.

I'm in a rush right now (and I've posted reams of text on here today and really should go try to have a life), so I can't give you the usual excruciatingly long reply.

I will say that my sense of nobody knowing the Soviet Union was going to fall comes from a book, in which people from that division in the CIA and at State are musing about how they got taken by surprise...not perhaps "the day of" like Michael Palin and company, but that some of them didn't realize how far and fast it'd fall, as late as "the week of." And the book quoted somebody respectable for his foreign policy acumen (maybe Kissenger? someone like that) only a few years earlier talking about U.S. policy being a matter of permanent containment "in future decades."

But (and I know it sounds lame) I can't for the life of me remember what book. I'll look around when I get time.

About the "hothead" problem: Now there you have my agreement. My only comeback to that is that I anticipate that to be a failing of McCain when speaking off the cuff: A time frame measured in minutes or hours, not days or weeks. One doesn't mobilize troops, position carrier groups, or even launch nuclear missiles, off-the-cuff; it's a physical procedural impossibility.

But I acknowledge it's one of the two character flaws that have significance for a person being president. (The other being his predilection for shooting verbal barbs at those who almost agree with him, while bending over backwards to be conciliatory to those who totally disagree. Nothing much wrong with the latter, but the former gets a little tiring for one's own troops.

But that's all I have at the moment. (Sorry!) Gotta go.

Joe H.
Now that I understand where you are coming from I have no beef, just wish I fully understood your political mindset from the beginning of the discussion. One thing I find hard to believe, given your obvious intelligence, is that you can sit there with a straight face (I'm assuming) and say that NBC is a little left but Fox is hard right. I guess we have a different definition of objectivity or something.

About the paragraph thing, no offense taken, my wife pointed the very same thing out to me. You are right, it is sloppy, but I'm just a bit lazy I guess.

If you want to know where I stand on things, all you have to do is ask me.

As for my media bias observations, I guess having once associated with the far left, to me NBC looks pretty centrist. I'd be happy to direct to some far-left websites that make NBC or CNN look like Fox News by comparison.

Believe me, the only people more appalled by my sympathy for the Democrats than some of the conservatives here at IC are the far left radicals I used to associate with. I left them behind as I became a Christian, and as I became pro-life.

That's why this election is so hard for me. I was looking forward to voting pro-life for the first time since I've been old enough to vote, but I just don't think I can vote for McCain-Palin. Four more years of the GOP is going to do serious damage to this country.

Obviously that lost post was by me, Joe H. Weirdness.

And Obama, Biden won't cause serious damage? The most serious damage ever done to this nation was under the Johnson administration, the great society programs have done far more to destroy the fabric of this nation than anything the republicans have ever dreamed up.

70% out of wed lock births in the Black community since the "great society". I don't know what the % is among whites but it is much higher since the "great society". When the government encourages women to have babies out of wedlock because they can have access to money they would otherwise not have if married, what do you think will happen? Are you going to claim there is no connection?

The Federal dept. of education formed under Carter has taken control from Parents and local school boards in favor of federal controls. Please compare test scores and international ranking since the Feds have gotten involved.Also The dems , in the pocket of the teachers union, have never supported choice in education. School choice has been given some support among republicans. I pay school taxes and pay a second time to send my kids to Catholic school. I don't find this fair. Why do you find this fair?

The economic "misery index" was highest under Carter, remember 18% mortgage rates, and gas rationing? Why is this better than the Reagan years? Is there something in Catholic Social teaching that favors this environment?

Bush senior had some real disappointing picks to the supreme court but Regan's as well as Bush II have had Justices appointed that have generally been pro life as well as much more strict in interpreting the constitution, look at what Clinton got us. Don't you think that the legislative branch of the government should make laws rather than the court ruling by fiat? What about the mind of Scalia ,Thomas or Alito do you find so out of step with the Church that you find Ginsberg preferable?

Under Clinton my taxes went up and I was not able to give as much money to the Church accordingly. The overall economy looked good primarily due to a tech boom which had everything to do with advancement in technology unrelated to government intervention and nothing to do with Clinton's policies. when Bush cut my taxes I was able to give more. Seems simple, what about this do you find objectionable?

I'm curious, I'm asking you directly since you indicated that I need to ask to get this kind of info out of you. You have admitted to liking neither party but find the democrats more palatable than the republicans. What is it about the dems that you find more appealing? What have they done in the last thirty years that has in any way supported a culture compatible with the teachings of the Catholic Church?

Joseph,

I think there are many ways, many very different lenses, through which we can evaluate the performance of the Republicans and the Democrats over the last several decades. I think Mr. Carlin in his latest article here did a good job tracking the pros and cons in the evolution of the Democratic Party from the party of Roosevelt to the party of abortion.

I do not believe in the Republican myth that social programs always fail and always do damage. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. I don't have a philosophical viewpoint that says, prima facie, social programs cause damage, and I really haven't been convinced by the empirical evidence that they ALWAYS do more harm than good.

What I do reject is the GOP philosophy of "trickle down", that you give more and more to people who already have the most, and then that ends up benefiting everyone in the end. I think the evidence shows that this doesn't work, that it is in fact a ruinous policy that encourages corporations to loot the country and then leave it in worse shape than they found it. It emboldens a parasitic financial caste that owes absolutely nothing to the community or to the country at large.

I support home and private schooling myself, but you're asking why it is fair to tax people to pay for education. Well, first of all, I think that this is one of our basic social obligations, to try and provide everyone with an education. The market won't do that - even Adam Smith knew that. Education promises little in the way of immediate return, of big profits. It is a social investment. When more people have more education, it is better for society as a whole, and you do benefit from it. There are less criminals on the streets so you are safer; there are fewer people in prisons so we don't have to spend as much on that; there are less people in need of government assistance and so that is more money saved. Education is a good investment. Whether or not there needs to be a government monopoly is a different matter, but I see that Obama has not opposed and has embraced "faith based initiatives", which would presumably include things to improve or expand private religious education too.

I don't think Jimmy Carter was directly responsible for the economic mess of the late 1970s. He inherited a mess from his predecessors, Republican and Democratic alike. He happened to become the president at a time when the post-war economic consensus was completely breaking down, when Keyensian economic theories had been stretched to the limit and beginning to fail. I don't doubt that some of the slashing and burning Reagan did was necessary - but it wasn't replaced with anything. As one commentator put it, the real message of the "Reagan Revolution" to the workers of America was, "you're on your own".

There was no great revival of the American community as promised; instead there was widespread economic desolation as more companies packed up and moved out, wages declined and failed to keep pace with prices, and consumer debt went up. It was the irresponsible lending policies the Reagan years made possible that lead to the whole housing crisis we see today.

To say the least, I find your comparison of the Clinton and Bush years problematic. I don't think the modest Clinton tax increases really affected the lives of ordinary Americans; it was the extremely wealthy who were the most angered by those policies. Meanwhile Clinton initiated welfare reform. Wasn't that enough?

There are individual responsibilities and social responsibilities, and the Catholic Church recognizes this. Contrary to RC, whom I have argued with over this over and again, just because we are called to give individual charity does NOT mean - according to the Church, not just me - that society in general, and the state in particular, has no role to play in alleviating difficulties which CANNOT be solved by the free operation of markets.

If I had my way tax money would not go to government programs but would be directly invested in communities, in economic infrastructure, with the aim of self-sufficiency. You can teach a man to fish but if you don't give him a fishing rod or a net that information is rather worthless. I don't the the GOP is interested in small towns as anything other than a campaign pitch, and its mockery of communities shows where its real priorities lie.

Joe H wrote: My point was, and remains, that Christians have and do support welfare state policies.

My point was, while agreeing that it is factual to say that, especially in Europe, yes, Christians support welfare state policies, it is also factual that this was part of the death of Christianity in Europe.

To this Joe H did not respond.

I also pointed out that America is a land where faith still matters, even in public concerns. As you look around the world, you beging to appreciate this truth, for it is rare, possibly unique. I believe it is a "good". I believe it is fragile, and I believe it needs to be protected and defended, lest we lose it.

Joe, couldn't you hear the joy in Benedict's voice when he was here? He rejoiced that we have this rare national trait. He grieves that Europe does not. So why try to be like Europe?


Joe H. further writes

If I had my way tax money would not go to government programs but would be directly invested in communities, in economic infrastructure, with the aim of self-sufficiency. You can teach a man to fish but if you don't give him a fishing rod or a net that information is rather worthless. I don't the the GOP is interested in small towns as anything other than a campaign pitch, and its mockery of communities shows where its real priorities lie.


I respond:

Joe's cynicism about the GOP is not helpful. Many on the right say the same, with equally destructive cynicism, of those on the left--lumping all of them together and judging--they aren't really compassionate, they use compassion to gain political cachet. These negative statements are true of some members of both parties, but they are not true of the whole of either.

We should approach both parties with the assumption of good will on the part of most of its thinkers, not losing sight of the fallenness of all. We should never forget the insufficiency of all political ideas to bring heaven to earth. All solutions will be less that perfect, thus always assailable by those who prefer a different solution.

Tom in Ohio

Re. welfare state:

It isn't just Europe, either though - there's also Latin America, where, correct me if I am wrong, the faith is stronger than ever, possibly moreso than the US.

Latin America to me is a breath of fresh air on this increasingly miserable planet, and they have managed to combine left-leaning economic policies with traditional culture and Catholicism. It is a good antidote to the secularism of Europe and the materialism of the United States.

Why try to be like Europe? I think I said I support an alternative to both the US and Europe's systems. I wouldn't mind if in spirit we looked a little more like Latin America, come to think of it.

Cynicism on the GOP:

Hey, I make a big distinction between the GOP and the average Republican, with whom I am always willing to dialogue. But regarding the party, I'm sorry, I can't unlearn what I know about it. The Democrats aren't wonderful either but, the abortion issue aside, they look like saints compared to the house that Karl Rove built.

This is the party that sent a delegation to South Vietnam to put off peace talks and prolong the war in 1968 so Richard Nixon could secure re-election, the party that stretched out a hostage crisis in Iran to increase Reagan's prospects of beating Jimmy Carter in 1980, the party that fell asleep at the wheel and ignored several reports about "bin Laden determined to attack US" in 2001.

And after Guliani and Palin's disgusting mockery of community service at the convention (and Obama did that work with Catholic charities, lets not forget), after the endless appeals to small talk folks, the endless railing against "elitism" - it smells rotten to the core. What sort of anti-elitist populist makes fun of community work?

why is this article even on a catholic website? mccain is the only choice for catholic voters who want to vote according to the faith, so we might as well make the best of it and not write as if we agree with the liberal pro-choicers(obama supporters!)

You come to the table with an animus against Republicans. People who come to the table with equally animated animus against Democrats can make comments as "devastating" against them as you do against the Republicans. It is not hard to find really mean things to say about Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, or Bill Clinton. Talk Radio is full of people who do so. Your comments put you in league with them. InsideCatholic participants usually rise above that particluar level.

I will give you an example. Palin was not making fun of community work as you imply, much to the contrary. It is simply true that such work does not carry with it the same sort of responsibility nor provide the same sort of executive experience that running a small business or even mayoring a small town does. That is simply a truism. It does not mean she belittles community service and for you to say so makes meaningful exchange basically impossible.

Joe, you are not participating, you are ranting.


tom in Ohio

Joe H,
I'm going to give you the chance to put me in my place. I'm assuming some things about you which might be in total error. So let me know if I'm wrong because a good dose of humility, while hard to swallow, is usually a good thing spiritually.

First, let me preface this by saying, I'm glad you are a brother in Christ in the Catholic Church, a mind such as yours can ultimately only benefit us. you have much to add to the Body of Christ in a beneficial way. Your intellect is a gift, don't forget that.

I'm guessing based upon our conversations, that you are not the owner of a small business, and don't employ people and see to their welfare. If I'm wrong please thump me.

Your comments about trickle down are dead wrong. I can tell you from personal experience and from the experience of dozens of small businessmen I know.

You might be absolutely right about big business not providing proof for the efficacy of trickle down, I don't know the statistics about how "Reganomics" affected fortune 500 companies. They are a big and easy target to focus on. Let's talk about where real economic growth and jobs occur, in the small businesses that account for 70 to 80% of new jobs in this country. I don't think you have good statistics on this because you are so busy fixating on wall street and evil big corporations, where you might actually have a point. Unfortunately you missed the biggest slice of the pie. Trickle down worked exactly as it is supposed to in my business,the government took less, I gave my employees more, and yes I took more. Although proportionally not as much as my employees.

Please give me hard statistics about trickle down not having a positive effect on small business. I don't care about the minority of jobs created by the fortune 500, I want to kow about small business, and the millions of families it gainfully employs.

I'll be honest, your input will be much more effective if you are running a small business and providing for the welfare (well God if ultimately providing) of some families. If you are just quoting NPR or others in the MSM your assertions will ring hollow.

Also please respond to my question about the supreme court, which could be the most important issue. What have Democratic administrations given us in the way of appointees that you find superior to the mind of a justice Scalia?

Interesting you should mention Central and South America in your previous post. Have you been there? I know several that have on mission trips, there is Real poverty there, not the kind that the MSM declares here in the US. Actually their leftist governments have done very little in the way of supporting their citizens, the one exception being Costa Rica which has this weirdly democratic, capitalist type of government,if you have been there personally, please put me in my place and tell me I have this wrong. Otherwise be measured in the presentation of your opinions until you have sufficient evidence to the contrary.

"You come to the table with an animus against Republicans."

No kidding - I don't like the GOP. But I present what I believe are objective reasons for not liking them. And I don't have a problem with most people who call themselves Republicans. I try to understand their reasons for being so and I accept that there are different sets of priorities and values that lead one to that position.

I think its absurd that you're suggesting that I can't dislike the policies of one party more than another and still not be objective and fair. At some point the facts have to mean something.

You say you can come up with all sorts of bad things to say about Democrats. Well how many times do I have to say that I don't really think the Democrats are that much better? I lean towards the Democrats because I think they're right about more things than the GOP, and because, frankly, the GOP has time and again resorted to dirty, rotten, underhanded politics on a scale that would make Machiavelli blush.

But by all means, say whatever you want to say about Bill Clinton or whomever. It doesn't bother me, because I don't consider the Democratic Party to be "my party". You can complain about "my level" all you like, but I think I've been a lot more reasonable and accommodating to the people who participate here than some of the folks who regularly trash Democrats, liberals, and anyone who looks or sounds like them.

As for Palin, she was making fun of community work, and so was Guliani. She said community organizers had "no real responsibilities" - really? That's not an insult to community work? I'd rather have a community organizer in the White House, someone who is motivated to serve the less fortunate, than a woman who wants to empower people to shoot wolves and bears to death from airplanes. But that's just me.

Joseph,

I understand your argument about small businesses, but when we are talking about the economic problems facing this country we are not only talking about employment. We're also talking about the rotting financial sector, whose crises have a rippling effect on the rest of the economy.

But the fact is that I am looking at the effect of supply-siding from, yes, a statistical point of view. I'm not going to write a research paper for you here but I will just tell you that, on the whole, trickle down did not lead to more job growth, higher wages, or greater investment in the community. All of these indicators have been going straight down hill for the last 30 years, since this craze began. There is a negative correlation between the tax decreases of the last 30 years and the real wages of workers, the number of DECENT jobs created (low-wage service sector jobs replacing high-wage manufacturing jobs is not a net improvement, in my book), and the number of businesses that stay in this country as opposed to high-tailing it overseas.

Which just goes to show you that even if the effect trickle down economics has on small businesses works as advertised, it is entirely negated by the effects it has on the rest of the economy. The economy is not an aggregate of businesses, it is an organic whole.

Here's where I'm willing to compromise with you, though, and so is the Democratic Party - tax breaks for small businesses can be granted without doing the same for medium or large businesses. We can develop a sufficient criteria for what is a small business and give it the breaks it deserves. I am ALL for that. But we have to be able to do that without empowering the financial parasites who are hollowing out this country's economy to enrich themselves.

And this is what I have heard Obama talking about. Tax relief for working families and small businesses, but increasing the burden on the wealthy, closing up the tax loopholes that enable them to pay almost nothing in taxes, etc. Now if you say I have a valid point about big business, and I say you have a valid point about small business, I see no reason we can't meet in the middle on this.

As for the justices, I'm not going to argue with you there. I'll concede that one, though I don't particularly care for Scalia, or for "originalism" or whatever the fad is these days. I am actually happy with some of the recent SCOTUS decisions, especially the one securing the 2nd amendment.

As for Latin America, that would take a whole other essay. I've heard the "Latin America sucks except for Costa Rica" narrative before, and I have my reasons for disagreeing with it. When I look at the history of countries such as Bolivia and Argentina and Chile, I can't come to the same conclusions you do. The insulated economy and public sectors of Latin America may be problematic but compared to the absolute chaos and madness unleashed by the policies of the IMF and the World Bank, I think the people were better off. The point is, they can lean in those directions and STILL remain Catholic, STILL oppose abortion and other secularizing trends. I think it's wonderful.

Thanks for the info on distributism, I look forward to learning more about it. From my limited reading thus far, I do remember someone (Chesterton?) referring to the "twin evils" of socialism and capitalism. Interesting, no?

On a different note, I think you must have still been a Democrat during the Clinton years, otherwise you wouldn't believe that welfare reform was Bill Clinton's idea. If memory serves, it was a Republican idea that he co-opted when he saw no way out, and then received accolades when it worked! (others who may remember better, please correct me if I'm wrong!).

Likewise, your discomfort with the Fox News channel, which I believe cut it's teeth during the Clinton Administration, as an ANTIDOTE to the already biased news giants, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN. One has to SEEK OUT the conservative view - the liberal view is spoon fed to anyone who doesn't go out of their way to get both sides. You still see the GOP with the jaundiced eye of the liberal that you no longer are. I am no fan of Bush, by the way, but can I see that you don't realize the media annointed Barack Obama and literally hand-carried him to this point in his career (ask Hillary Clinton).

For sport my husband put on both CNN and FOX during the conventions and we compared coverage. It was illuminating to say the least.

An interesting survey was done on college students who were journalism majors, asking them why they were interested in this field of endeavor, and the answer was usually "to enact change and make a difference in the world". Also illuminating.

"I'm going to give you the chance to put me in my place. I'm assuming some things about you which might be in total error. So let me know if I'm wrong because a good dose of humility, while hard to swallow, is usually a good thing spiritually."

Is this necessary? Whatever you're assuming about me is probably true (unless you're assuming malice or closet atheism). I lean left. I was once an atheist and quite the leftist radical (I was raised Catholic originally, though). That's where I come from. But I'm not a liberation theologist or anything like that. I go to the traditional mass because, though you may not know it from my political "ranting" here, it is the foundation of my day to day life. And I've become far more conservative than I ever thought I would on a number of things. The modern day economy just isn't, and never will be one of them. Neither will foreign policy. But talk to me about our degenerating culture, home schooling, gun rights - I'm with conservatives on those issues, 100%.

I don't want to "put you in your place". I just want to have a civil discussion. I want to be able to talk politics without it being insinuated that I'm not a faithful Catholic or that I'm deliberately trying to confuse people.

Good volley Chap, you have convinced me that you aren't deliberately trying to confuse. I just think the proof is in the pudding so to speak, you speak of the theoretical, I speak to what I know from experience. Perhaps I can't see the forest through the trees, but I think you got it wrong, at least more so than me. I still think that the deterioration in the culture in terms of worsening education, increased out of wedlock births, the general breakdown of the family, is largely bolstered by governmental policies which are inspired by and put in place by the democratic party.Furthermore I know without question that the poor in this country enjoy a standard of living far in excess of their peers around he world.I have never claimed in this fallen world that Republicans represent any type of utopia. I just have not been sufficiently convinced, most likely due to good old practical experience, that you are correct(in the big picture) in your opinions.I was hoping to effect you enough to bring you over to fight corruption and hypocracy in the Republican party. If you insist in trying to effect change in the Democratic party, so be it, I just see it as a waste of your talent as they have gone beyond a point of no return as far as I can tell. Short of divine intervention, I don't see that party ever supporting policies in line with the "non negotioables".

Good volley Chap, you have convinced me that you aren't deliberately trying to confuse. I just think the proof is in the pudding so to speak, you speak of the theoretical, I speak to what I know from experience. Perhaps I can't see the forest through the trees, but I think you got it wrong, at least more so than me. I still think that the deterioration in the culture in terms of worsening education, increased out of wedlock births, the general breakdown of the family, is largely bolstered by governmental policies which are inspired by and put in place by the democratic party.Furthermore I know without question that the poor in this country enjoy a standard of living far in excess of their peers around he world.I have never claimed in this fallen world that Republicans represent any type of utopia. I just have not been sufficiently convinced, most likely due to good old practical experience, that you are correct(in the big picture) in your opinions.I was hoping to effect you enough to bring you over to fight corruption and hypocracy in the Republican party. If you insist in trying to effect change in the Democratic party, so be it, I just see it as a waste of your talent as they have gone beyond a point of no return as far as I can tell. Short of divine intervention, I don't see that party ever supporting policies in line with the "non negotioables".

Yeah, I realize I may still be in my old framework sometimes, so I don't mind people pointing it out.

Distributism is the middle ground between capitalism and socialism. Like socialism the emphasis is on a social or collective form of ownership - in this case, worker ownership (not state ownership, NOT state ownership!). But like capitalism, these collectives compete in the marketplace - no command economy.

See my last article on workers cooperatives (you can find it if you scroll down), if you haven't already. We find distributism is deeply rooted in Catholic social teaching. It isn't a violent revolutionary doctrine, it is crafted within the framework of the social encyclicals of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Mr. Joe H
Distributism argument: As mentioned 70% to 80% of all new jobs in the U.S. come from small business. It’s never been better for someone to be self-employed, and our federal government in spite of itself has limited “big evil corporations,” monopolies, and such.

And the facts clearly demonstrate that the Democratic Party are clearly leaders in this endeavor to tax and regulate our society into some sort of socialist utopia. The simple fact that 72 Democrats in U.S. Congress openly proclaim there membership to the Congressional Progressive Caucus (politically correct for Socialist Caucus), which affiliates with the Democratic Socialists of America, which affiliates with the Socialist International is proof enough.

Prove your dyspepsia for Republicans by naming names and the “capitalists of America” like organizations that seek the demise of our country while filling the coffers with mammon.

It appears to me that your political rants point to a utopia where the federal government will “distribute” out of its goodness a basket with a small business and all its social benefits to every family in America.

I’ll paraphrase a quote from Thomas Jefferson, You desire and presume what never was and never will be.

And more importantly you are dodging the Catholic five non-negotiables (the anti-thesis of the Democratic Party Platform) while at the same time ranting political demagogy brings to my mind the scripture verse of gaining the world (mammon) and loosing your soul.

Your wash bowl over floweth Mr. Pilate.