9 Responses to Obamas Counterfeit Catholics

  • Truth.

    Maybe, maybe not.

    Not my blog, but I wouldn’t post anything with the term “Counterfeit Catholics”. I don’t object to saying “Counterfeit Catholicism” or something to call out viewpoints falsely labeled as Catholic.

  • Spambot,

    Interesting point about the headline.

    Charity is certainly needed in the blogosphere.

    I was simply retyping the title they placed on their YouTube video. I’ll be more prudent the next time and consider a more appropriate name depending on the column.

  • Spambot – please do consider actually watching the program – you will see what that title refers to. And how accurate it truly is.

  • To Catholic Forums,

    At the beginning of the second episode of the video titled “Obama’s Counterfeit Catholics,” produced by the Catholic Investigative Agency, Michael Voris began the presentation by pointing out to what does it mean to be a Catholic according to the Catholic Catechism, Paragraph 834, which states, “Particular Churches are fully catholic through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.” “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord.”

    So, there is no doubt that the Catholic Church in America is one and the same with the Church in Rome, and there is no doubt that in 1954 the Catholic Church in America has surrendered her voice to Caesar under the IRS 501c3 Tax-Exempt Code, with the full consent of the Church in Rome, under the following Popes, Pius XII (1939-58), John XXIII (1958-63), Paul VI (1963-78), John Paul I (1978), John Paul II (1978-2005), and Benedict XVI (2005—).

    Therefore, since Jesus Christ has been silenced and pushed aside by agents of darkness, now the devil is the spiritual head of the Catholic Church. If you have any doubts, look at the destructive bitter fruits harvested in the last sixty-three years, which God hates with a passion, such as Separation of Church and State, Affirmative Action, the Theory of Evolution, Abortion on Demand, Euthanasia, Divorce, Sodomy, and Same Sex Marriage.

    Jesus said in Matthew 12: 29- 30, “How can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can rob his house. He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”

    At the end of the second episode of Obama’s Counterfeit Catholics, Michael Voris said, “The Bishops must do something to stop this matter, clap, clap, clap… this is an evil coapting of the truth of the faith given to us by Jesus Christ, protected by the Holy Spirit, and it is not their church. This Church belongs to Christ and they have the duty, and obligation to tell the truth no matter what is the cost to them. Souls are a stake, clap, clap, clap, clap…clap.

    Well, that sounds very impressive, but it does not conform to reality. Please explain. how in the world the Bishops are supposed to tell the truth, since the US Government through the IRS 501c3 Tax-Exempt Code gags them? The entire Catholic Clergy is prohibited by the US Government to preach against all legislation, and all US Government legalized abominations such as Separation of Church and State, Affirmative Action, the Theory of Evolution, Abortion on Demand, Euthanasia, Divorce, Sodomy, and Same Sex Marriage.

    You just don’t get it that the IRS 501c3 Tax-Exempt Status is gagging the Christian pulpits of America since 1954. That fact just can’t enter your mind, you just keep beating the horse not realizing that the spokes of the wheels have come undone, that’s why you are stuck in the same rut, and regardless of the severe beating you are inflicting on the horse.

    I have been locked out permanently from the Catholic Forums, One True Faith (Michael Voris) vs. other Christians for agenda posting, but according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary the word “agenda” means: an underlying often ideological plans or program. How can you say that an undisputable evil fact such as 501c3 Church Incorporation is someone’s underlying ideological plan? When did the truth metamorphosed into an agenda?

    RealCatholicTV.com is not a non-profit organization therefore it is not 501c3 tax deductible, but RealCatholicTV.com is connected to Saint Michael’s Media, a Catholic television production company which is 501c3 tax deductible. So who is the one with the agenda? Michael Voris of course. Michael like thousands of gagged opportunists under the IRS 501c3 Tax–Exempt Code go for the gusto of fleecing the deluded unsuspecting dumbbells under the guise of fighting against the evils of society, and Michael Voris under the guise of fighting against the evils inside the Catholic Church, go on deceiving and fleecing the so-called Catholic dumbbells.

    In reality, you bow down in submission to your god, whose name is mammon. Only an unscrupulous imposter would have the temerity to trample on the Holy name of Christ, and sell out his voice and his Lordship to the US Government for thirty silver coins. Consequently, the wicked for the last sixty-three years has successfully usurped the pulpits of America launching and legalizing one abomination after another, such as Separation of Church and State, Affirmative Action, the Theory of Evolution, Abortion on Demand, Euthanasia, Divorce, Sodomy, and Same Sex Marriage.

    Lets face it, Christianity began as a way of life consisting of a personal relationship with God the Father through the sacrificial death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, best illustrated in John 4: 19-24, “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

    But when Christianity reached Athens it became a philosophy, in Rome it became a religion, in Europe it became a culture, and in America it became a business. The Clergy of the Catholic Church are nothing more than self-gagged underlings of Caesar or the Federal Government under the IRS 501c3 Tax-Exempt Code, seeking after filthy lucre. Jesus said in Matthew 6:24, “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” There is no alternative, you will either serve God or you will serve money, regardless of what you say.

    The Catholic Church is a failure, it is no longer the bacon of truth, her lamp has gone out and the wicked rejoice. She is working in unison with the wicked on a daily basis by keeping silent to all government legalized abominations, and to all present, and future evil legislation. In reality the Catholic Church has failed most miserably as ambassadors of Jesus Christ, and as a beacon of truth. The Church no longer has the life giving, and cleansing truths of God, or the lifeblood of the culture, which is supposed to keep it from moral degeneration and self-destruction.

    He who has ears to hear, let him hear, Jesus Christ will build his church, if not with this generation, with the next, or the next, but the gates of Hades will not overcome it, and at the end of the age Christ will gather his Church in triumph, but the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars, their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

    Henry

  • Henry,

    Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!

    –Isaiah 5:21

  • Just to make sure people know, that Henry certainly was not me.

  • “Obama’s Counterfeit Catholics” follows the MONEY funding for fake Catholic groups, And points out heretical Catholics who have been inside the USCCB. Great written documentation is provided as well.

    Our Pope has stated there are enemies within the Church.

    To know the truth, read the Bible and Church Doctrine. Church Doctrine is contained in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” first printed in the US in March 2000.
    Every home should have one, and they make great gifts.

  • “Obama’s Counterfeit Catholics” (and probably most of what I’ve seen on that silly network!) is absurd and tends to stoke the flames of fear stoked by the Radical Right and their conservative agenda. I suggest Sandy track the “MONEY” of so called pro-American organizations, such as the Tea Baggers, to see where the destructive influences in America and the church are coming from. I’d say track the funds backing ultra-conservative Republicans but they have conveniently shrouded their records in secrecy and foreign sources of income!

Examining the "Youth Vote"

Friday, November 7, AD 2008

Ever since McGovern, Democrats repeatedly staked their electoral hopes on an expended avalanch of young voters. This year, it appeared to happen, with Obama winning the votes of 18-29 year olds in a landslide:

Democratic brand domination was the corollary to Obama’s 66%-32% blowout among 18-29 year-old voters. The youth also voted 63%-34% for House Democrats. So, young voters also voted straight ticket for the Democrats down ballot. The real story about the youth vote is not how many “new” voters Obama got to show up, but rather how he produced a gargantuan 34% differential in the youth, versus a 9% margin for Kerry in 2004.

In 2008, 18% of the electorate was comprised of 18-29 year-olds. That figure, when multiplied by the 34 percent differential in Obama voting equals 6.1 points, or a majority of Obama’s popular vote margin. Had the Democratic 18-29 year-old vote stayed the same as 2004’s margin, Obama would have won by about 1 to 2 points, and would not have won 73 electoral votes from Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, or Indiana. “The Electoral College result would not have been the same, nor can we say that Obama would have won the election,” said Greenberg.

Does this overwhelming Obama victory among young voters represent a strong likelihood that the Democrats have a long rule ahead of them?

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Examining the "Youth Vote"

  • It’s probably also important to look at what was happening when these kids grew up. For Bush 2004, the 9/11 generation got to vote for the first time. For Obama, it’s the Iraq war generation.

    I think in general the youth vote is fickle. Bush voters in 2004 were very optimistic, then disappointed, then Obama supporters. With the hype and hope for obama super-high among the youth, Obama is doomed to disappoint. The question is how much and how angry they will be. Counting on the youth is a good move for the challenger but not so dependable for a re-election.

  • Only makes sense that our youth would favor the hip young Democratic candidate over the old guy on the GOP side who always looks ready to blow a gasket. But in reading stats, numbers, analysis above, I conclude:

    1. If you are a political candidate and you expect young voters to carry you to victory, think again. This Rock The Vote and it’s hep to the jive to vote and such silliness is still an illusion. Most young people know little about politics and care less. Just as well. Real Life will run over them like an 18-wheeler sooner or later.

    2. I get the logic that people are inclined to vote Demo tend to be rootless, restless, devoid of kith and kin, not occupying space in church pew. They also tend not to be people who reproduce other rootless restless types. In fact, they tend not to reproduce at all. Thus the conundrum of the Death Party. Not producing enough future Democrats. A little too much like their Western European models- the distinct aroma of Eau de Death Wish.

    3. Obama brought the many and varied Democratic coalitions together as one- African-Americans, unions, enviros, gay/lesbian/transgender communities, etc. They will fly apart in the mad dash to monopolize his attention and plead for the superiority of their individual causes. Amazing that the majority of feminists who supported La Hillary opted for him with little fuss. If their concerns aren’t heard- possibly my least favorite lib cliche of the moment- those voting patterns can very easily go askew as early as the 2010 midterms. The only certainty about voting patterns is that there are no certainities. Except for- don’t rely on the youth vote.

  • Hep to the jive?
    From one oldster to another, take care! You’re dating yourself.

Reflections on a Defeat

Wednesday, November 5, AD 2008

So we lost. I don’t like it a bit, but it’s not exactly a surprise, and there it is. What is one to make of it all?

The Historic Moment
A great many people have commented on the historic nature of a black man being elected president of the United States — when in some states he would not have been served at many lunch counters fifty years ago.

I’m glad that those who are deeply inspired by that are having their moment — people should realize that skin color is not a barrier to achievement in the US and if this helps people (black, brown and white) realize that, all to the good. I must admit, as a 29-year-old who grew up in the working class suburbs of Los Angeles, I’ve figured for basically all my life that it was simply a matter of time till we had our first black president, our first hispanic president, out first female president, etc.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Reflections on a Defeat

  • I think your last paragraph was particularly on target. Conservatives can tailor their message to the middle class without necessarily giving into Douthatism and the whole party of Sam’sClub, big government “conservatism” ideal. One thing we do need to keep in mind is that while we need to return to traditional conservative principles, doing so without also educating the electorate as to why these ideals work is pointless.

  • Progressives will now have more opportunities to put their ideas to the test. The near future of conservatism will be contingent on how well or poorly those ideas work out in practice and how well or poorly conservatives respond to their consequences. I’d like to think that we’ll learn from our and each other’s successes and failures, but that’s not likely to happen.

  • One thing we do need to keep in mind is that while we need to return to traditional conservative principles, doing so without also educating the electorate as to why these ideals work is pointless.

    Yes. And conservatives need leaders who understand conservative principles and can intellegently and effectively communicate the prudence of their principles to the public.

  • Bush simply went the big government route, with programs like No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug Benefit.

    Respectfully, McCain didn’t lose due to either of those issues. Neither issue is particularly responsible for Bush’s unpopularity.

    The GOP would be especially wise to find a way to appeal to socially conservative Hispanics.

    I don’t believe the GOP can be effective in doing so. Unlike some of their white counterparts, they at least aren’t voting against the GOP based on social issues. The issue the GOP has with Hispanics is that they are in the habit of alienating them. Given that Hispanics (like blacks) tend to be urban, they are often the “them” in the us v. them debates. This has been amplified in the foreclosure crisis. Until the GOP has an urban agenda, they will not be ‘relevant’ to Hispanics.

  • Respectfully, McCain didn’t lose due to either of those issues. Neither issue is particularly responsible for Bush’s unpopularity.

    No, McCain lost to the economy totally tanking, Bush being widely unpopular, and McCain not having enough of a set of policy principles to differentiate himself from Obama. McCain is essentially an old-fashioned, honor-focused man, but he’s without political philosophy. Since he wasn’t able to make Obama’s positions look sufficiently dishonorable or scary, he didn’t really have much of a way to present an alternative vision to Obamas.

    I don’t believe the GOP can be effective in doing so. Unlike some of their white counterparts, they at least aren’t voting against the GOP based on social issues. The issue the GOP has with Hispanics is that they are in the habit of alienating them. Given that Hispanics (like blacks) tend to be urban, they are often the “them” in the us v. them debates. This has been amplified in the foreclosure crisis. Until the GOP has an urban agenda, they will not be ‘relevant’ to Hispanics.

    You’re right that when Hispanics vote against the GOP, they do so because the GOP is in the habit of alienating them.

    However, in the California and the Southwest (which is where this matters) Hispanics are most definitely not a strictly or even primarily urban group. A lot of Hispanic voters in Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and many regions of California are rural and small town people. (Significant parts of the Mexican-American side of my family still live in small towns in New Mexico and Nevada.) Those Hispanics have concerns very much like rural and small town white voters — if it can be made clear that the GOP is not out to get them.

    Getting into the cities — I don’t think it’s necessarily as helpless as you’re painting it. Democratic big city politics are one of the clearest failure stories of the last 15 years. It’s well past time for Republicans to start seriously contending for those big city mayorships. And 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics tend heavily towards the sort of blue collar small business/contractor lifestyles (pretty much describes my Ramirez relatives back in LA) which among white voters trend well towards the GOP much of the time. Those are the folks the GOP should be going for.

    Hispanics are far too diffuse a group to ever massively in one side or the other (and many of us stop listing ourselves as “Hispanic” after a few generations and a bit of intermarriage) and the GOP will certainly never have a lock on them. However, it does need to be able to get close to 50% of the Hispanic vote in key Southwestern states if it’s ever to get that region back in play again. And given how increasingly hostile to religion and traditional culture West Coast Democrats are, I don’t think it’s necessarily a stretch at all.

  • “I can’t imagine that if a Clarence Thomas type figure had been running for the GOP and won, there would [not] be all this rejoicing.”
    I seem to recall a Condi Rice-as-Prissy-from-GWTW cartoon that would indicate otherwise. BTW, I don’t think you intended that “not”; it makes for a double negative and counters your point.

    “I think it’s rather early to start imagining that the US will become a Sweden or even a France any time soon.”
    My DH proposes the slogan, “Obama’s America: Like France, only without the culture, wine, and cheese.”
    But you’re right; I wouldn’t expect it to take. We Yanks really don’t cotton to being told what to do.

    I have the impression that the Obama campaign did a fair amount of outreach to Hispanics. It’s a shame that McCain, whom one would think would have an advantage there as a Southwesterner, did not–the socially coservative Hispanic community would seem to be natural allies to the GOP.

  • BTW, I don’t think you intended that “not”; it makes for a double negative and counters your point.

    Fixed. Thanks. Two conflicting layers of edits…

  • I was heartened to notice that the Catholic Church did some outreach regarding the candidates’ abortion positions. I’m afraid churches may have to take up the slack in Hispanic outreach. Many of them are already doing it anyway, and I’m afraid the old guard GOPers can’t be relied upon.

  • “As Reagan said after losing the primary in ‘76: It’s time to get to work.”

    Yep. Losing in anything is always a painful experience, but it can be extremely useful if it is also a learning experience. This year has taught us many valuable lessons if we will only have eyes to see them. One lesson I would suggest is that it is foolish to write off any part of the country. Obama made early and strong efforts to take Red states that looked to be completely out of his grasp and it paid off. People are certainly not going to vote for a party if it doesn’t even ask. The Republican party needs to implement a strong rebuilding effort in every state in the Union. Next time we fight a truly national election and not give our opponents the luxury of not having to play defense.

  • Awk. I meant to say, “outreach to Hispanics.” Duh.

  • Pingback: Party building | The Cranky Conservative
  • This is tangential at best (although Douthat was mentioned earlier in the thread), but this quote is priceless, particularly since it is given in the context of a panel discussion which includes Kmiec. I know Douthat comes in for a lot of criticism among small-government conservatives, but his willingness to write forthrightly about topics such as pornography and abortion in places like the Atlantic or Slate is certainly admirable:

    “I am sure that Kmiec is weary of being called a fool by opponents of abortion for his tireless pro-Obama advocacy during this election cycle, but if so, then the thing for him to do is to cease acting like the sort of person for whom the term “useful idiot” was coined, rather than persisting in his folly.”

    http://www.slate.com/id/2203800/

  • Ha! How true.

    I’d seen round one of that discussion, and Douthat’s piece struck me as pretty solid. Kmiec’s was, of course, totally idiotic — and verging on incoherant. Not sure why he was invited to participate in a forum on conservatism in this case.

    I enjoy reading Douthat, though I certainly don’t agree with everything that he says. He may get a somewhat overly hard rap on the big government question, though, in that although he’s certainly an advocate of “programs” for the middle class (and I think he _does_ go too far on that) I don’t think he’s necessarily a centralizer. My impression is that he’d be just as much if not more behind approaches such as charter schools that take what was previously a centralized program and open it up as a decentralized, locally run one.

  • “What is one to make of it all?”

    For a nation in which a large percentage of the population claims to be Christian and yet they asked for a pro-“choice king”, and for a good economy over the right to life, they were granted their desires. Why does the image of Saul come to mind?

  • I really don’t understand the repeated assertion that the choice of Obama represented desire for “a good economy” over the right to life.

    Obama’s stated policies will be disastrous for the US economy. Anyone who wanted economic sanity was out of luck this election, but McCain might have been marginally less disastrous.

    Neither party mounted a candidate with a sane approach to economics.

    So can someone explain how the “a vote for Obama is a vote for a good economy” meme got started?

  • The perception is out there, for whatever reason, that the Democrats are good for the economy. I think it is based on fond memories of the dot.com bubble which crested during the Clinton years, and a misplaced belief that George Bush and the Republicans somehow were responsible for the current financial crisis. There is not a solid basis for these perceptions, but one of the common features of democracies is that they act irrationally. Nevertheless, Barack Obama did well among voters who listed the economy as their top concern.

  • Thank you, fus01.

    I heard the sentiment several times from our parish priest, certainly no fan of Obama, but I haven’t had a chance to ask him about the rationale behind it.

    It frustrates me, due to what seems to me the evident falsehood of the assertion.

    I should get out more. 🙂

  • Obama’s stated policies will be disastrous for the US economy.

    Yeah, just look to Michigan to see how Obama’s stated policies will work out. There’s always the hope that once he’s in office he’ll take a little more sane approach to things, but alas, he just announced his economic team, in which Jennifer Granholm is a key adviser. Trust me, you don’t want Obama to do for the country what Granholm has done for Michigan.

  • Since you refer to me in a section of “Obama voters,” one thing I want to say — I did not vote for Obama, ok? Nonetheless, we are required as Christians to work with the situation as it stands; he is the candidate who won. So, instead of giving up hope, the Christian response is to have hope — as Pope Benedict has shown many times. Sure, we might not get what we want, but we certainly will not if we sit around just telling each other how bad Obama is.

  • I certainly agree, Henry, that Christians must never abandon hope. The future of Christianity does not rely on some particular party in some particular country winning. It’s always problematic when people identify their religion with their party so closely as to see that as being the case — though I flatter myself this does not happen terribly often among Catholics in our country.

    However, I don’t think that hope necessarily means making efforts to actively work with the Obama administration on some topics — at least in ways that betray our fundamental principles. Personally, I find place rather more help in taking the next four years to achieve a clearly articulated positive political philosophy — and then defeating the Democrats (or at least those who reflect Obama’s ideals in regards to life issues) at the executive and legislative levels.

    But to each their own.

  • Obama will now find that voting “present” is no longer an option. The ball is in his court now. It will be back in ours soon enough unless he performs much better than I expect. I think the election of 2008 is merely Act I in a new stage of the political history of the nation. The Democrats routed the Republicans in Act I. The curtain is now going up on Act II and the audience is leaning forward.

  • Genesis 1:27, “So God made man in his own image”.
    Genesis 2:7, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground.”
    Genesis 2:21-22, “And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, …the Lord had taken from man, made he a woman, & brought her unto the man”.
    From the above verses, it is obvious that God formed man/woman from dust instead of transforming apes to human beings.

31 Responses to There isn't anything I could say on tonight's election…

  • Jay said it very well.

    Kmiec, Iafrate, Policraticus… all there efforts to prevent a pro-life candidate to win the presidency, they will be held accountable.

    And I will stand by my comments.

  • Time for me to begin stocking up on “Don’t blame me I voted for McCain” bumper stickers!

  • Good one.

    I’m getting my Palin/insert your VP candidate here bumper sticker for 2012.

  • Donald, when you locate them, let us know where you found them. OK?

  • The Democrats are at 56 seats….

  • Powerful, eloquent words by Jay. Preceded by offering from the prophet Chesterton. My disappointment at a McCain loss is tempered by the thought that our President-Elect may utterly overwhelmed at this time. By one faction after another crying me first Mr. President no me first Mr. President. By a House Speaker who when she sees him, views a giant rubber stamp instead. By world bad guys seeking an opportunity to test the new POTUS-Elect. Minus the help of a gumflapping VP who predicted- wished for?- such a confrontation on September 19. As for the pro-life movement- it survived the Disco 70s. It survived the weirdness of the Slick Willie years. It now has more, and greater support from our esteemed bishops than at any time since Roe v. Wade. The movement and the GOP will just have to learn from each other- to get leaner, tighter, more focused before 2012. No more McCains with minimal ideological underpinning. No more concessions. As Tom Peters notes on Americano Papist, hold the Kmiecs and Cafardis to account if FOCA or other abominations against the unborn become law, de facto or de jure. Let the wheat split from the chaff. Let us go underground, plan, lick wounds, pray. Always looks darkest before dawn. Future babies are counting on us.

  • -It now has more, and greater support from our esteemed bishops than at any time since Roe v. Wade-

    Good point! That really is wonderful isn’t it? The country may not feel like it is going in the right direction, but the Church is in awesome shape with these great new bishops.

  • Wahoo! Looks like common sense has saved the day!

  • Kmiec, Iafrate, Policraticus… all there efforts to prevent a pro-life candidate to win the presidency, they will be held accountable.

    Wow, I didn’t know I was as well known and influential as Prof. Kmiec. But I’m curious as to who’s going to hold me accountable, why, and how. Am I to be held accountable for the election of a candidate for whom I did not even vote?

  • “But I’m curious as to who’s going to hold me accountable, why, and how.”

    Tito is starting an AmeriCatholic League, in order to try to outdo even Bill Donohue.

  • Probably referring to the guy of whom it is said: “He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.”

  • “Wow, I didn’t know I was as well known and influential as Prof. Kmiec.”

    You aren’t. But, if it makes you feel better, I would prefer you were. Of course, I also wish Prof. Kmiec hadn’t decided book sales, NYT/LAT op-eds, and being one of the cool kids was a good trade for intellectual integrity in support of the pro-life movement. Instead, he has repeatedly used his status as a ‘Catholic’ to further his professional reputation. while advancing variations on Maro Cuomo’s ‘personally opposed’ stance to abortion. You, at least, have the integrity to call a spade a spade – Obama has promised to be a disaster for the pro-life movement. My hope is that it is about as reliable as his other campaign promises: not very.

  • I see little sense in trying to “hold people accountable” for their votes. If a person comes to view a prior vote for Obama with regret or decides not to vote for a similar candidate in the future, this is all to the good, but I do not thinking that being hectored about such votes by third parties is going to make Obama voters any more likely to do this.

  • Agreed BA, particularly with regard to Poli. As for Kmiec, I think it is important to point out that the ‘personally opposed’ line of argumentation he advanced is incompatible with Catholic teaching. Kmiec’s argument below is likely to be used again…and again…and again, and we should point out that it is inconsistent with the Church’s commitment to protecting human life:

    “Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space. This does not, of course, leave the right to life undecided or unprotected. Nor for that matter does the reservation of space for individual determination usurp for Caesar the things that are God’s, or vice versa. Rather, it allows this sensitive moral decision to depend on religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual’s voluntary embrace of one of many faiths.”

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-kmiec17-2008oct17,0,2107469.story

  • Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively.

    On many matters I’d agree with that statement, but abortion is different. It’s the direct killing of another human life, and that is not defensible under the guise of pluralism.

  • Agreed BA, particularly with regard to Poli. As for Kmiec, I think it is important to point out that the ‘personally opposed’ line of argumentation he advanced is incompatible with Catholic teaching. Kmiec’s argument below is likely to be used again…and again…and again, and we should point out that it is inconsistent with the Church’s commitment to protecting human life.

    It’s also important to point out that neither Poli (who did not vote Obama) nor I (who did) agrees with the “personally opposed” line of reasoning pushed by Kmiec, Biden, Kerry, etc. I reject it.

    I don’t expect folks like Tito are capable of making such distinctions, though, and will carelessly continue to lump together everyone who did not vote for McCain and/or everyone who defended those Catholics who chose to vote for Obama.

  • Michael I.,

    Stop with the backhanded insults.

    I said you all should be held accountable for swaying Catholics away from voting pro-life for the way you all twist Catholic teaching.

    Don’t commit calumny my friend.

  • Opponents of abortion voting for the most pro-abortion president in our nation’s history is akin to advocates of civil rights back in the 60’s voting for George Wallace. Obviously Catholic Anarchist the struggle to make abortion illegal is very low on your list of priorities.

    And now we all get to be complicit in abortion through funding it since the candidate you voted for even opposes the Hyde amendment.

    “Does Sen. Obama support the Hyde amendment? Under what circumstances does he believe that Medicaid should cover abortions (all pregnancies, life- or health-threatening pregnancies, pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest, extreme fetal malformation)?

    Obama does not support the Hyde amendment. He believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman’s decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.”

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/12/21/sen-barack-obamas-reproductive-health-questionnaire

    With pro-lifers like you Catholic Anarchist, who needs pro-aborts?

  • Tito

    I did not insult you. You are obviously not able to make distinctions because you made none.

    I said you all should be held accountable for swaying Catholics away from voting pro-life for the way you all twist Catholic teaching.

    I didn’t sway anyone to vote any way at all. I did not endorse Obama or encourage anyone to vote Obama. What I did was tell the truth about both candidates. I shared my own reflections on whether or not I was going to vote and why I chose to vote. And I indeed voted pro-life. I am not pro-choice. That you continue to imply that I am shows you to be a liar or tremendously stupid.

    As usual, Donald is not worth a reply.

  • As usual the Catholic Anarchist has nothing to say in his defense. Good choice Catholic Anarchist.

  • Michael,

    You may not like Tito, but when you say “I don’t expect folks like Tito are capable of making such distinctions” you are indeed delivering a “backhanded insults”.

    And I indeed voted pro-life. I am not pro-choice. That you continue to imply that I am shows you to be a liar or tremendously stupid.

    You certainly may not yourself be pro-choice, but it would not be accurate to say that you “voted pro-life”. You voted for a rabidly pro-choice candidate. Your intentions are your own, but your vote itself is pretty objective.

    Come now, would you honestly take someone seriously who said, “I have consistently voted against war, torture and capital punishment when voting for Bush as president and governor”? So don’t expect others to take your contention seriously.

  • I voted for a pro-choice candidate. But I voted pro-life.

    Let us understand our terms the way the Church understands them. Just for once. Can you do that for me?

  • I voted for a pro-choice candidate. But I voted pro-life.

    Let us understand our terms the way the Church understands them. Just for once. Can you do that for me?

    I don’t believe the Church formally uses the term “vote pro-life” at all, so I’m not clear what you mean.

    The Church teaches that you are not necessarily guilty of personally supporting abortion because of your vote — though I think any reasonable understanding of the Church’s teaching and the realities of the country at this time would clearly indicate you made an imprudent choice.

    However, a vote is simply a vote — an expression of preference that one particular candidate be the one (of the options given) to hold office. You chose that it was (for whatever reasons you managed to convince yourself of) better that pro-aborts run our government at least until the midterm elections. You voted pro-choice.

  • The Church uses the term “pro-life.” I’m asking you, for once, to consider using the term the way the Church uses it, not the way your political party uses (and abuses) it.

  • “I voted for a pro-choice candidate. But I voted pro-life.”

    You may have voted pro-choice with a hope that it would advance pro-life interests broadly understood, but you voted pro-choice. Voting for pro-choice candidates is voting pro-choice, regardless of your subjective intention. You can advance an argument about how you intended it to be ‘pro-life’ vote in a broad sense, however it must be acknowledged that this broad sense included supporting politicians who have pledged to defend and expand pro-choice policies.

  • Michael I.,

    Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Woe to you that rue wise in your own eyes, and prudent in your own conceits.

    — Isaiah 5:20-21

  • “I voted for a pro-choice candidate. But I voted pro-life.” Michael Iafrate

    Wow…this is definitely my new favorite quote. Wow.

    He’s got a point though. Voting for a guy who is okay with 6.3 million + babies being murdered legally since the beginning of the Iraq War is voting pro-life.

    Voting for a guy who voted that a baby may be left to die even when they survive an abortion attempt is voting pro-life.

    Speaking up for and praying for the unborn definitely means voting for the most pro-abort candidate in history. He makes a great point.

    Voting for a spokesperson of Planned Parenthood is voting pro-life.

    I wish the rest of you guys could just see this truth and understand.

    Solid quote. That’s definitely one I would only expect from a Saint, haha. Priceless.

    I guess when Obama signs the Freedom of Choice Act we can all get our “I voted pro-life/ Obama” signs out and hold them high in the air for everyone to see.

    Quote of the month. Solid.

  • “I voted for a pro-choice candidate. But I voted pro-life.”

    I couldn’t help but say it one more time just for fun. Woo, i’m really Catholic now, haha.

  • The Church uses “pro-life” to mean, at a minimum, people who oppose abortion. Obama doesn’t oppose abortion. Therefore, Obama is not “pro-life.” The best case you could make is that Obama was somehow better on other issues tangentially affecting “life” in a way that supposedly outweighed abortion, but that doesn’t suffice to make Obama truly “pro-life.”

    Therefore, you did not vote “pro-life,” and it is a delusional lie to suggest that you did.

  • Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Woe to you that rue wise in your own eyes, and prudent in your own conceits.

    – Isaiah 5:20-21

    Tito: I did not call abortion “good.” Abortion is evil.

    The Church uses “pro-life” to mean, at a minimum, people who oppose abortion. Obama doesn’t oppose abortion. Therefore, Obama is not “pro-life.” The best case you could make is that Obama was somehow better on other issues tangentially affecting “life” in a way that supposedly outweighed abortion, but that doesn’t suffice to make Obama truly “pro-life.”

    Therefore, you did not vote “pro-life,” and it is a delusional lie to suggest that you did.

    Then it is likewise delusional for you to claim that you voted “pro-life” when you voted for John McCain. Neither candidate was truly “pro-life” in the Church’s understanding of the term. Do we really have to have this discussion again? Why distort what the Church says about the meaning of “pro-life”? Why reduce it to a mere sliver of its meaning? Ah, I know! Political convenience. Neat and tidy categories that keep your soul clean and in the clear.

    When I say “I voted pro-life” I am saying that I brought the Church’s teaching on the dignity of human life — in its fullness — to bear on my decision. I am aware that Obama is pro-choice and not pro-life in the fullest sense. Indeed, he is glaringly not pro-life on a very basic level. But so is John McCain whose policies on stem cell research and so many other issues are conveniently cast aside in your moral calculus. I guess some embryos are less important than others to you?

  • Then it is likewise delusional for you to claim that you voted “pro-life” when you voted for John McCain.

    That too is a delusional strawman on your part: I didn’t claim that I voted pro-life by voting for McCain. In fact, I didn’t even vote at all. You’re the only one distorting “what the Church says about the meaning of ‘pro-life'” by trying to claim that a vote for Obama was “pro-life.”

American Catholic Election 2008 Coverage

Tuesday, November 4, AD 2008

270 Electoral Votes Needed to Win

McCain/Palin: 155

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming

Obama/Biden: 338 (Obama wins the presidency)

California, Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin

McCain has conceded and called Obama to congratulate him.  I’m done for the evening.  Another AC contributor can take up the running commentary.

Virginia goes to Obama.  Obama has the election all but wrapped up, barring a major surprise in the evening which none of the pundits, including the McCain campaign, foresee happening.  For now, we probably should begin contemplating an Obama presidency and congratulate him for an excellent campaign.

McCain aides have all but conceded the election to Obama when announcing they see no other pathway to 270 electoral votes.

Ohio goes to Obama.  This election is almost over for McCain.

McCain won the Catholic vote in Pennsylvania 51-49%, but still lost the state to Obama. 

Exit polls are not matching up with actual votes in Indiana, Florida, and North Carolina.  Hence why they haven’t been called yet.  The exit polls favor Obama, but the actual results do not reflect this.

Updated 11:22 PM CST

Continue reading...

45 Responses to American Catholic Election 2008 Coverage

  • Well, we tried…

    Fox called Pennsylvania for Obama with Catholics as the only major demographic which went majority McCain in the state. Catholics make up 30% of the Penn electorate, but we weren’t enough.

  • A bad year for the pro-life cause, but we will have good years in elections to come.

  • There’s still a glimmer of hope, but it doesn’t look good.

  • The constitution of the Supreme Court will now be firmly pro-Roe; the prospects for pro-life legislation are now officially NIL

  • We need to trust in God’s will. Vengence is His.

    People like Michael Ifrate and Policraticus will have to answer to God for their efforts in swaying away votes from a pro-life candidate.

    What we can do is to continue in our faith and persevere.

  • The bad news is that the pro-abort Democrats are in charge. However, that is also the good news. With power comes responsibility. The Republicans have had two elections in a row where they were rejected by the public. Now the Democrats are solely in charge. They will find it somewhat more arduous than being in opposition, especially in what I believe will be very turbulent times. For Republicans it is off to the political wilderness, to lick wounds, learn and gather strength for the next round of elections. Obama has raised expectations to a fever pitch among his followers as to what he can accomplish, and the entire nation will now see if he can meet those expectations. If, actually I think it is when, he fails, the Republicans will have their opportunity. I don’t think many of the voters who cast their ballots for Obama realize how radical he truly is. They are about to learn.

  • Hah. Scapegoating Poli and myself? Please.

    We can either get to the task of fighting whatever pro-abortion legislation comes forward together, or you can keep up the moping and scapegoating. Your choice.

  • We can either get to the task of fighting whatever pro-abortion legislation comes forward together, or you can keep up the moping and scapegoating. Your choice.

    We? You’re the one who was voting to put the pro-aborts in office, Michael. If we get FOCA in return for this, it’s because you asked for it.

    How are you going to “fight” it when you consistently vote for the people who want it?

  • “We can either get to the task of fighting whatever pro-abortion legislation comes forward together, or you can keep up the moping and scapegoating. Your choice.”

    Hard to do that Catholic Anarchist when the Presidency and Congress are now firmly in the hands of pro-abort Democrats. The Republicans in the Senate will do their best, but at this point I am unsure as to whether they will have enough votes to sustain a filibuster after tonight. The forces of the Left have triumphed and that means the pro-aborts have triumphed. I expect several pieces of pro-abort legislation to be rammed through Congress in the next 100 days. The pro-life cause will be spending the next decade at least recovering from the results of tonight.

  • Michael I.,

    You’re the one that voted for Obama.

    You answer to God for your own actions. Don’t blame us for your vote.

  • “I expect several pieces of pro-abort legislation to be rammed through Congress in the next 100 days.” in my above post should have been “I expect several pieces of pro-abort legislation to be rammed through the next Congress in the first 100 days.”

  • Tito – I empathize with your frustration, but, respectfully, could we avoid the ‘you answer to God’ language? Michael is often deliberately irritating – and his comments about FOCA are ridiculous – but that statement seems to imply an unfavorable judgment on him as a person that seems inappropriate to me. Also, since Poli explicitly said he would not vote for Obama, I am not sure it’s entirely fair to criticize him.

  • I second fus01’s comments

  • “We can either get to the task of fighting whatever pro-abortion legislation comes forward together, or you can keep up the moping and scapegoating. Your choice.”

    Well, if we are going to fight together, I’d like some assurance that your new strategy is markedly different than your previous strategy – voting and actively promoting politicians that promise to pass pro-abortion legislation.

  • Also, since Poli explicitly said he would not vote for Obama, I am not sure it’s entirely fair to criticize him.

    Yeah, Poli can be annoying on politics, but he is a man of principle when it comes to not supporting pro-abort politicians.

  • Michael, I still can’t get over the logic that let’s you reason from anarchy to a candidate who supports giant governmental control of every aspect of human life.

  • Poli twists Catholic teaching to push away Catholics from Pro-life causes. He obsfucates and insults good Catholics when he doesn’t get his way.

    As far as ‘answer to God’ language I understand where you’re coming from. I don’t want to push away good Catholics, but in the case of Michael Ifrate and Policraticus, their pride and ego’s prevent them from understanding how wrong they are on many issues.

    As far as Poli being a ‘man of principle’, I respectfully and adamantly disagree. Poli is a man that uses profanity and insults people’s character, even when he’s wrong one to many times for my taste.

    They both will ‘answer to God’ for their actions.

    And I am not bashful using that language considering they’ve already damned every other good Catholic I know (including myself).

  • If we get FOCA in return for this, it’s because you asked for it.

    I didn’t ask for it. I oppose it.

  • I could list off a lot of beefs I have with Policratus — who I think often comes off as quite arrogant and prefers to insult than to argue — but I do have a certain respect that despite the fact that he’s arguably farther left than the average Democrat he does not (unlike many of his co-bloggers) endorse or vote for pro-abortion politicians.

    Not like that will prevent me from smacking him down on other issues. 🙂

  • I didn’t ask for it. I oppose it.

    You say you do, Michael, but the only political voice that you have on the issue is how you cast your vote for congressmen, senators and the president. When you vote for Democrats, you make FOCA happen.

    You just spent your only opportunity for two more years supporting those who want to pass FOCA. We’ll see if it’s too late for you to change your mind two years from now, but I must admit a certain doubt whether you’ll vote GOP even then.

  • Darwin,

    I do acknowledge his excellent knowledge on many things Catholic, especially Philosophy and to some extent Theology. Unfortunately he uses this knowledge as a sledgehammer by twisting it to suite his leftist and Marxist views. You know what Jesus said about people like him and millstones.

    Though he doesn’t vote for pro-abortion, he says enough to discourage others to vote pro-life.

  • Agree with Darwin. Poli is often condescending and/or obtuse, but he should be given credit for his principled condemnation of an otherwise very attractive Democratic candidate.

  • I’ll give Poli that he condemned the Democratic candidate.

    Poli’s a very bright and telegenic man. He, like me and many others, have faults.

  • Poli’s a very bright and telegenic man.

    Oh, I’m not saying we have to be that positive.

    I just don’t want to nail him unjustly.

  • “Though he doesn’t vote for pro-abortion, he says enough to discourage others to vote pro-life.”

    But Tito, Poli genuinely believes that Republicans promote an ideological agenda hostile to Catholic Social Teaching, apart from the abortion issue. He believes that the Republicans use pro-life language as a purely symbolic issue to lure in pro-life voters. I don’t share his premises, but I can see how someone could believe that. I think the most we can ask of such people, in fairness, is that they acknowledge the all-too-obvious failings of the Democratic party, and refuse to vote for the Democrats just as they refuse to vote for Republicans.

    Granted, given my many disagreements with Poli, I think he goes too far sometimes, and I understand how you may have been deeply offended by him. Nevertheless, I think it is good to have people like him around to remind conservatives that there is plenty we should be working to reform in the present Republican party.

  • Sorry, wouldn’t have posted the above comment if I had seen the two that preceded. Have a good night all.

  • FUS01,

    I agree that we need people like Poli to remind conservatives that there is plenty we should be working to reform. I absolutely agree. I just wish he knew the virtue of charity and prudence when he loses his cool.

    But we’re not all perfect, especially me.

  • FUS01 and all others,

    I hope that you all understand that I appreciate and am open to fraternal correction. It’s always appreciated.

  • I broadly second Darwin’s and fus01’s comments… I disagree with Poli in some ways, but I don’t think he’s a Marxist or leftist… he’s just trying to concretely translate CST into policy.

    Michael, I share DC and fus’s puzzlement… it seems that you want to have your cake & eat it too, i.e. vote for (and endorse) pols who support policies you abhor. What am I missing?

  • And I think we see eye to eye at root. Not trying to ride your tale into the ground, Tito.

    Just want to make sure we don’t get hyperbolic — like those who annoy us.

  • Michael, I share DC and fus’s puzzlement… it seems that you want to have your cake & eat it too, i.e. vote for (and endorse) pols who support policies you abhor. What am I missing?

    You voted for Bush, right? Are you then saying that you voted twice for unjust war and torture? Really?

    You just spent your only opportunity for two more years supporting those who want to pass FOCA.

    My only opportunity for being political is voting? Really?

  • You voted for Bush, right? Are you then saying that you voted twice for unjust war and torture? Really?

    Well, we weren’t at war in 2000, so that only leaves once, and — as you know from previous discussions — I didn’t think the war was unjust, or more precisely, I didn’t think it was as clear-cut as opponents thought.

    *Nonetheless*, you have a valid point, at least on torture and the ’04 election.

  • Tito – no worries. I am as guilty as anyone…poli just doesn’t happen to be at the top of my list today. ;-).

  • You voted for Bush, right? Are you then saying that you voted twice for unjust war and torture? Really?

    The Iraq War was certainly an issue in 2004 — though I do not think it was an unjust one — and I certainly am comfortable with it being said that my vote in 2004 supported Bush’s actions in that regard. I’m not comfortable with some of the choices made at Guantanamo, but I am comfortable with having voted for Bush in the face it (to the extent it was even in issue in 2004 — which it wasn’t much.)

    However, outside the fever swamps of internet opinion, the Bush policy on “aggressive interrogation” was shut down as soon as light was shone on it. I don’t think a Bush victory in ’04 was a mandate for “torture” in the way that Obama and the congressional Democrats’ is for FOCA.

    My only opportunity for being political is voting? Really?

    No, but your only chance to strike any significant blow to prevent FOCA from passing was today — and you used that chance to support it.

    You can blather all you like, but the representatives you’ve voted for have no reason to listen to you if they know that you’ll vote for them anyway.

  • I take my lumps with a smile!

    🙂

    I like dialogue and I enjoy reading the comments more than posting columns. All you all have contributed to my better understanding of our beautiful faith. Thanks!

  • I don’t think a Bush victory in ‘04 was a mandate for “torture” in the way that Obama and the congressional Democrats’ is for FOCA.

    Except, of course that torture is and was a REALITY and the FOCA is still simply just an idea. You voted for what was already a reality. I voted for a candidate who simply has an idea.

  • You voted for what was already a reality. I voted for a candidate who simply has an idea.

    Whatever makes you sleep tonight.

  • Ummm. So your argument is that because a Republican president ordered the waterboarding of half a dozen terrorists and then stopped and never did it again, that therefore I was voting “for torture” — whereas when Obama specifically promised to sign the FOCA he “only has an idea”.

    Perhaps you are one of these clever people who believes that one can throw the barn door wide open and then express surprise when the horses get out?

    If Bush had specifically run on a platform of, “If I am re-elected I promise to torture people,” you might have a point, but that is not what happened.

  • Darwin, you are woefully ignorant of this country’s history of torture. Torture is as american as apple pie.

  • But the fact that Bush didn’t run on a platform supporting torture — as Obama has with abortion rights — is relevant, Michael.

    He’s the biggest supporter of abortion rights to hold the office he was just elected to… I know you cannot be surprised if he, well, actually does what he said he would.

    I’m hoping he won’t, but I won’t be surprised if he does.

  • Tito,

    You are rabid this evening.

  • It’s extraordinarily silly to suggest that torture and FOCA are similarly situated. Obama has promised that his first priority in office will be to sign FOCA. Bush never campaigned (either in 2004 let alone 2000) saying that his first priority in office would be to torture people. Voting for Bush and then finding out later that a handful of guys got tortured in secret . . . hardly the same thing. But voting for a guy (Obama) whose highest and most sacred priority is something you claim to abhor is, at best, confused.

    I just hope that Michael I., Morning’s Minion, and the other pro-Obama Catholics spend 1/100 the time over the next four years trying to persuade Democrats to be pro-life and pro-marriage, as they have spent over the past year trying to persuade independent and Republican Catholics to vote Democrat. Otherwise, your commitment to Church teachings is just a sham, a cover for your partisan proclivities.

  • I just hope…pro-Obama Catholics spend 1/100 the time over the next four years trying to persuade Democrats to be pro-life and pro-marriage, as they have spent over the past year trying to persuade independent and Republican Catholics to vote Democrat.

    Ain’t gonna happen. I don’t think there’s a will to do so, otherwise they would have been already doing so before and during the election cycle. That’s when it counts most. As it is now the Dems have a mandate for a host of anti-life initiatives and views. They have no reason to listen to pro-life voices within party (if they sincerely exist at all). Their mandate entails preserving and advancing abortion on demand, funding ESCR, promoting gay marriage, and putting personal economics and comfort above morality, justice, and plain old human decency. The only tools a pro-lifer has within a party is his mouth, pocket book, and vote. If a party is assured of the vote regardless of of the other things, there is no reason to change. Coupled with the fact that those who still offer their vote usually end up lending their voice and pocket book come election time, you can be assured of no change.

  • I just hope that Michael I., Morning’s Minion, and the other pro-Obama Catholics spend 1/100 the time over the next four years trying to persuade Democrats to be pro-life and pro-marriage, as they have spent over the past year trying to persuade independent and Republican Catholics to vote Democrat. Otherwise, your commitment to Church teachings is just a sham, a cover for your partisan proclivities.

    Amen to that. One day when our government finally gets the nerve to start putting the screws to the Church for having hospitals that don’t perform abortions, or schools that don’t teach gay marriage, or whatever other doctrine the Left hates about Christianity, I hope these guys get all the heat they deserve for electing their “Messiah.” All because they didn’t like somebody’s health care plan or his foreign policy.

A.C. '08 Election Coverage Tonight

Tuesday, November 4, AD 2008

Dear American Catholic readers, this evening I’ll be online with continuous updates on American Catholic with election news and commentary.  I’ll provide links and information as I gather them for you to peruse.

 

Political pundits are predicting an easy Obama victory probably early in the night.  

 

My personal prognostications are that it’s going to be a long night due to heavy Republican turnouts.  In addition the P.U.M.A.’s and independents have been breaking late for McCain these past three days according to most polls.  Senator McCain should win it.

 

Continue reading...

6 Responses to A.C. '08 Election Coverage Tonight

  • Karl Rove is predicting an easy Obama victory.

  • PUMAs, Independents, Reagan Demos, Bitter Clingers, people who are neither reached nor have interest in reaching out to polling organizations in these and other miscellaneous categories. They may be the ones lifting the Jet Jockey to 1600 PA Av, particularly in PA, OH, W VA, FL, COLO, VA, other states on the edge. Oy such an outrage that may come from this city tomorrow from the hardcore worshippers of Sen. Obama. I can tune out wailing and gnashing of teeth. Not to mention barking between pollsters and their soon to be ex-allies in the Obamaite Media. In quiet satisfaction.

  • Oh don’t forget another smashing day on the markets. Dow ended up nearly 300. No one quite understands why. Makes life easier for McCain, harder for Obama. Guess we don’t have a Great Depression and Collapse of Capitalism coming our way, regardless of prez winner. Poor Dems- the financial sector collapsed too early. Market-based solutions- quite the concept.

  • “Karl Rove is predicting an easy Obama victory.”

    In the paranoid left tradition, it’s simply a cynical Rovian ploy to suppress Democratic voter turnout by luring them into a false sense of security. 😉

  • Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are scheming behind the scheme’s and have fooled most if not all liberals with their manipulation of the leftwing media and blogosphere.

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha

  • Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are scheming behind the scheme’s and have fooled most if not all liberals with their manipulation of the leftwing media and blogosphere.

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha

5 Responses to Into the Storm

  • Very interesting. I hope you’re right. But the article says “the flaws did not produce a single incorrect projection of the winner in a state on election night”. So, while the popular vote numbers may be off, I still worry that the state by state electoral predictions are accurate.

    Any other info to encourage me on that one?

  • The only reason there were no incorrect projections is because the networks quickly realized the exit polls were garbage when comparing actual votes to exit poll results. The exit polls were off by 6.5 points overall in Kerry’s favor. If the networks had called states based upon the exit polls, many states would have been called for Kerry that went for Bush.

    Here is a good article on the subject: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_overlooked_exit_poll_quest.php

  • What Donald said.

    It’s interesting in 2004 how a state like Maine which was heavily contested was quickly called for Kerry with barely 1% of the votes coming in. But for West Virginia where Bush was defeating Kerry handily, it wasn’t called for Bush until near midnight with Bush crushing Kerry and 90% of the precincts reporting in.

    I hope they don’t do this same garbage again come election night.

  • I pity anyone who is holding out hope that this election can still be won by a Party whose ideals have been proven to be ineffective and out-of-step with Main Stream America. For the good of the US as well as the world we should all pray that enough Americans have wised up over the last 8 years and will do the right thing and vote for Barack. Go Dems!!!!

  • “I pity anyone who is holding out hope that this election can still be won by a Party whose ideals have been proven to be ineffective and out-of-step with Main Stream America.”

    I concur. We merely differ as to the party in question.

Catholic Vote: 51-38% For Senator McCain

Sunday, November 2, AD 2008

The most accurate poll from the 2004 Election, the Investors Business Daily (IDB) Poll, has been showing a trend of Catholic voters moving away from Senator Obama and into Senator McCain’s camp.  Since I first reported this a little over a week ago I can now say that this trend is real and Catholics are now leaning to McCain as of today.

Again, this is only a snapshot and outside of the IDB and Gallup polls, I don’t put much into any other poll.  But it is interesting to note that the Catholic vote has switched over to McCain, 51-38%.  A solid majority so to speak.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Catholic Vote: 51-38% For Senator McCain

Obama to Coal States: Drop Dead!

Sunday, November 2, AD 2008

Obama doesn’t believe we should use coal to generate power.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

I guess under an Obama administration coal miners, bitterly clinging to their God and their guns, can go on welfare.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Obama to Coal States: Drop Dead!

  • Many of us from coal states agree that our coal addiction needs to die. In fact, many pro-coal (in the sense that it brings jobs) folks in WV have been resentful of the U.S.’s coal addiction for decades. Here again, folks like you, Donald, think you’re speaking for everyday people, but you contribute nothing when it comes to justice for the people who provide you with energy. Your backwards, dying politics is literally killing people in Appalachia. Green Appalachian energy jobs now!

  • It’s amazing the arrogance of Senator Obama to think he will openly admit this thinking his position is secure in the polls.

    He probably realizes he isn’t going to win West Virginia, but Pennsylvania is far from a lock. If McCain wins PA, this comment could be the decisive turning point of the election.

  • Senator Clinton destroyed (understatement) Senator Obama in West Virginia. And the polls showed Senator Obama leading.

    Senator McCain is leading in West Virginia, I predict 75% vote for McCain in WV. Unless a couple of million dead West Virginians come out in vote, it aint gonna happen.

  • Michael, I spent a few years in the Ohio Valley, and I didn’t see much effort to move beyond the steel industry… kind of sad, actually. For a variety of reasons, it doesn’t seem that the area wants to face reality and move ahead.

  • I’d rather incentivize industries that we want to grow and promote than “disentivize” ones that we want to leave behind… in some ways, this seems typical of the difference between liberals and conservatives… my intuition is that the latter are quicker to “disentivize” while the latter are quicker to incentivize.

  • A WV official no less responding to Senator Obama’s remarks. It’s going to be a slaughter in WV… and possibly Pennsylvania?!

  • Michael, I spent a few years in the Ohio Valley, and I didn’t see much effort to move beyond the steel industry… kind of sad, actually. For a variety of reasons, it doesn’t seem that the area wants to face reality and move ahead.

    I suspect a good part of it has to do with steel and coal jobs remaining some of the best paying jobs for those without college degrees. At the call center I worked at for nine months or so in Wellsburg, WV landing a steel mill job was seen as something akin to winning the lottery since it payed 3x what most of those guys could make anywhere else. (And the jobs were about as scarce as winning lottery numbers two, since the mills were only a gradual slope of constant downsizing.)

    I’d be very, very surprised if Obama took WV, though. I was working there for the 2000 election, and everyone was pulling very hard for Bush over Gore — at least up in that region.

  • Good thing Obama didn’t spout this stuff round these parts. For all his incongruities, PA Gov Fast Eddie Rendell is gung-ho coal. Talks up useful and clean ways to dig it/process it/use it. Helpful as no other area of the planet boasts it in such large quantities. Only demonstrates the Empty Suit Tendencies of Demo standard bearer. No doubt Fast Eddie will downplay pro-coal remarks in any future interview for say HHS Secretary job.

  • On the other hand, many of us from coal states look at coal as the future of our nation’s energy. If mining is becoming too hazardous in West Virginia, by all means, quit mining coal there. It means more of a market share for Wyoming. Our coal is cleaner, anyway.

    I find it astounding that people are so irate against coal. Our technology has advanced to a point where we scrub out all the deleterious materials (down to maybe a few parts per billion), and if you’re worried about carbon dioxide, don’t. CO2 isn’t a problem, no matter what the hysteria says. CO2 makes us less than 5% of all greenhouse gases, and anthropogenic sources are only a tiny portion of that, anyway.

    Coal is necessary for electricity until or unless we make a wholesale switch to nuclear. It has to be one of the two (given our lack of producing energy from cold fusion). Why? Because in order to power a city, you have to have a stable base load. Wind, solar, and other renewable sources just can’t foot the bill. They’re too unstable, too inconsistent. You can’t simply have the city shut down when a cloud passes overhead (yes, I know, the reality is a little more complicated than that, but hyperbole has its uses).

    Moreover, unlike all the renewable sources the left touts as being the “cure” for our oil addiction, coal can actually cover that, too. Using coal-to-liquids technology, from Wyoming coal alone we can provide all the gasoline, diesel, and kerosene our nation needs for the next 250 years. We would have to fix the price at about $75 a barrel, but I’d be willing to accept that if it means $700 billion/year stays in the states and we don’t have to worry about foreign powers creating huge fluctuations in the market.

    The coal/energy issues are important for my wife and myself, mainly because my wife is a Chemical Engineer, and her focus is on coal technology. If you want to know anything about coal, e-mail me, and I’ll ask her, and relay the answer.

  • Yes, it probably hurts Obama to have said this — such is electoral politics — but I’m all in favor of getting our electricity from a clean source like nuclear plants rather than coal (dirty and dangerous). More people die from coal mining every year than have ever died from nuclear power in the West.

  • Ryan is right. Coal is the future for the time being. For one thing, there are still tons and tons of it in the Earth. Just the stuff we have located could last centuries even with our increased usage. We already have “clean-coal” technology that will only get better.

  • SB,

    You are right, coal miners die from mining coal. But that is in underground mines. Again, as my husband said earlier, feel free to let those underground eastern mines fail. Wyoming will pick up the market share and my salary will go up. Ok, so I’m joking about the salary. Wyoming strip mines it’s coal. We have had one coal mining death this year. Someone backed one shovel into another and crushed the cab, as well as the driver. It made major news in this state. We don’t have the dangers underground mining faces. Also with the laws requiring 3-6 inches of topsoil in every area mined, the earth is put in a better state than what is available in Wyoming. Only in reclaimed land do we have that kind of topsoil.

    As for dirty, well, coal can be dirty if you are using an old plant. However, any new plants that would be built are required to meet increasingly stringent environmental regulations. Wyoming coal, in small quantities is clean enough not to require cleaning for most regulations, and we still clean it very strictly for any new plant designs. The “dirty coal” idea is an incorrect advertisement, at least out here

    However, I will agree that nuclear is “cleaner” if no carbon capture is used and if we used nuclear for power, coal could be used in place of our petroleum products. Don’t count coal out just because it’s “dirty.”

Video: Senator Obama Praising Jeremiah Wright

Saturday, November 1, AD 2008

Kerry Picket of NewsBusters posted a 1995 video of Barack Obama talking about his book, “Dreams From My Father”.  In it Senator Obama says of Reverend Jeremiah, “wonderful man” and “the best of what the black church has to offer“.  In the video excerpt Senator Obama gives high praise and further positive commentary to the bigot Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Video: Senator Obama Praising Jeremiah Wright

  • S_T_A_L_E_ D_E_S_P_E_R_A_T_I_O_N_!

  • Oh no! He said LIBERATION!

    So do the documents of the Catholic Church.

  • Listen to the words of Obama (hear them yourself at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpzHQ_PC1uI).

    “I’ve got to give a special shoutout to
    • my pastor
    • the guy who puts up with me
    • counsels me
    • listens to my wife complain about me.
    • He’s a friend, and
    • A great leader (not just in Chicago but all across the country).”

    But who is Jeremiah Wright?
    • Pastor of Trinty United Church of Christ, the church that gave a lifetime membership to the racist, anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, who has said that “Hitler was a great man” and ”White people are potential humans; they haven’t evolved yet.
    • A man who encourages blacks not to say “God bless America” but rather “God damn America.”
    • A man who INSPIRED Barack Obama TO TEARS (according to Obama’s own book) with an epiphany at the first sermon of Wright that Obama heard. In this sermon Obama spoke that Wright spoke of “white folks’ greed runs a world in need.” Clearly Obama (despite his disingenuous disclaimer) was fully aware of Wright’s anti-white rants from the FIRST SERMON HE HEARD.

    Can America really afford a President, who is so enthralled with a man who “counsels” him, is a personal “friend” and a “great leader.” Yet he was fully aware of the fact that the man he praised so was actually a vehement racist.

  • We know so little about Senator Obama it’s frightening that he’s close to being President of the United States.

  • I’d take Wright over a neo-conning clergyman any day.

  • I wouldn’t take either.

    I’m so glad I’m Catholic.

  • I wouldn’t take either.

    Riiiight. You prefer neo-conning lay persons. I get it.

    I’m so glad I’m Catholic.

    Yes, it’s nice being safe and perfect and right, isn’t it?

  • Michael I.,

    Yes, you know me so well.

13 Responses to What Blogs & Sites Will You Visit First on Nov. 5th?

Catholics Continue Trending Toward McCain

Thursday, October 30, AD 2008

The latest poll* that came out today, the Fox News Poll, show’s that Catholics are still trending away from Senator Obama and towards Senator McCain.  The poll today show’s whiteCatholics are now evenly split, 46-46%, between Senator Obama and Senator McCain.  Previously in the Fox News Poll it showed Senator Obama with an 11 point lead among white Catholic voters over Senator McCain (emphasis mine).

The race has tightened in part because of changes in a couple of important swing voting groups. Independents back Obama by 5 percentage points today, down from a 9-point edge last week. Similarly, among white Catholics, Obama held an 11-point edge over McCain last week and today they split 46-46.

 

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Catholics Continue Trending Toward McCain

  • I heard an interesting theory today regarding the polls. Currently, the media actively supports Senator Obama. Many Americans don’t want to appear to be against him, so either indicate they are undecided, or perhaps that they support him. Historically, the polls have over counted democrats, both in pre vote polling and in exit polling. It will be curious to see how the actual voting goes this time. Pray for pro-life positions.

  • I heard the same theory except the caveat is that these are democrats that are still upset with Hilary not getting the nod, but tell all their liberal friends and pollsters they’re going to vote for Obama so they won’t get ostracized. But come election day they’re pulling the lever for McCain.

A Huge Switch Among Catholics Towards McCain

Thursday, October 23, AD 2008

The most accurate poll from the 2004 presidential election, the Investors Business Daily (IDB) poll, shows a phenomenal 20 point switch towards Senator McCain among Catholic voters .  In the previous IDB tracking poll Senator Obama once held a commanding 11 point advantage among Catholic voters.  In the latest tracking poll Senator McCain now has a nine (9) point lead among Catholic voters over Senator Obama.  Senator McCain leads Senator Obama among Catholic voters 48% to 39%.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to A Huge Switch Among Catholics Towards McCain

  • I wouldn’t trust IBD too much. Further down that first screenshot you can see that they have McCain ahead 74-22% among 18-24 year olds. Yeah right. Besides, any time you see a 20 point swing in any demographic it’s got to be exaggerated by polling error.

  • I agree with you. I noted that at the bottom of the my post.

    The point that I was trying to make that there is some sort of shift towards Senator McCain among Catholic voters.

  • When I was driving home today, Huge Hewitt was saying the same thing… about the 20 point shift in the Catholic Vote. He was on CNN with Wolfe Bitlzer and he said what you were saying, and when they left; the CNN commentators were laughing at him.

  • There is a note that says that the 18-24 subsection is not reliable due to the small sample size taken, presumably because most don’t vote, they don’t poll many.

  • A couple of points, the IBD poll is the poll that most insiders closely watch. The young vote for McCain, as noted by Jeremy, receives an asterisk because there weren’t enough young people surveyed. However, keep in mind that despite the mainstream media telling you that every young person is going to vote Obama-Biden, many young people aren’t in the tank for Senator Obama. Finally, check out the 1972 election. Senator McGovern had huge crowds and lots of young people at them. Yet, Senator McGovern lost 49 states and the 18-30 vote.

  • I am so glad to see this trend. Sometimes, I think to myself, ‘What’s wrong with us Catholics?’ Then I see this trend and I see we are voting more and more pro-life. Thank goodness!

    You know, every day, we get bombarded with the MSM telling us that “it’s over” and Obama will win. It can be very depressing, but I believe we must not give up and we must continue to fight for life. I really think McCain has a shot and we cannot give up! I pray the rosary every day and ask God to help this country elect the leader that follows in His ways.

  • My personal opinion is that Senator Obama has a 3-4 point lead. But the undecided’s are leaning towards Senator McCain but still trying to figure out if they see something in Senator Obama that the mainstream media continues to spew out worth voting for.

    It’s going to be a nail-biter and it could go either way. In no way do I believe that Senator Obama is going to win or win in a landslide. If he does win, it’ll be something similar to the 2000 election. Except there won’t be recounts, it’s that the contests in so many states, especially Pennsylvania and Ohio, are going to be so close that the networks won’t announce a winner until the wee hours of the morning of November 5.

  • This is great news; and I agree, the bishops deserve the credit.

  • I can not believe that catholics are swinging for McCain. The republicans have used this issue to get votes from conservative christians. I am against abortion but voting Republican is not going to get rid of it. There are 5 catholic supreme court justices right now and we still have abortion. Abortion is not going to to away and voting for McCain is not going to help it. You have to look at all the issues and see what each candidate going to do but basing your vote on the abortion issue is voting for something that is not going to happen.

  • If Catholics go for McCain, but McCain loses anyway, what will happen to all those media stories about how critical the Catholic vote is?

    It’s common filler for news stories to note how Catholics have gone with the presidential winner in the past X elections. Will the filler change, or will the news stories just stop running?

  • Patrick,

    The Pro-Life movement is fighting an uphill battle. Just because there ‘may’ be 4-5 SCOTUS justices that ‘may’ potentially turn over Roe v. Wade doesn’t mean that it happens automatically. This takes time, but unfortunately we live in a culture where people expect instant gratification.

    That is why prayer and fasting is so critical. This disciplines us in our fortitude for the right to life as well as helps us adjust to changing circumstances, especially if Senator Obama wins, to better cope with.

    Your argument is a straw man. Though your concern is legitimate.

  • I can not believe that catholics are swinging for McCain.

    Yes, I have seen reports saying the exact opposite.

    It’s common filler for news stories to note how Catholics have gone with the presidential winner in the past X elections.

    And really, it’s only filler, considering the almost 50-50 split we had during the last election. Catholics “went with the winner” but by what, 2% or something?

  • 0bama’s stay at the hate church that makes all of Christianity look loony is another item to consider. The swing to McCain should be much larger.

  • Daledog,

    Let’s pray and fast that’s true.

  • Pingback: Catholics Continue Trending Toward McCain « The American Catholic

Both Candidates Are Wrong on Taxes

Wednesday, October 22, AD 2008

With each presidential debate it struck me more that both presidential candidates are wrong about taxes: wrong both in that neither man’s proposals are realistically enactable, in that they are not the correct responses to our current circumstances, and that they suggest some basic problems with their political philosophies.

McCain wants to provide a tax cut to all tax payers — though since the vast majority of real tax dollars paid by those in the top 10% of the income spectrum, the greatest savings will be experienced by “the rich”. McCain also wants to cut the corporate tax rate to bring it in line with other developed nations. And he promises to cut spending so much that he’ll nonetheless balance the budget.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Both Candidates Are Wrong on Taxes

  • You see, as of now it is already the case that roughly 50% of US citizens pay no taxes.

    No income taxes. Those who don’t make enough to pay income taxes still pay other sorts of taxes (e.g. payroll taxes).

  • Even if you would have already got back every dollar of income tax withholding that had been taken from your paycheck during the year, Obama’s plan would provide you with additional money back. The check for your “refund” at the end of the year would be hundreds or thousands of dollars more than the total amount that had been withheld.

    It’s already that way. I receive a refund of thousands more than I put in, in large part to Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich”. It’s both a good thing and a bad thing. It’s good in the sense that it helps keep lower income families in the game, so to speak, rather than in the desperate cycle of the public dole. Bush’s cuts gave more relief to larger families like mine – though I’d rather see more proportionality in that regards. I don’t necessarily view it that 50% of the people don’t pay taxes. I know you were referring to federal income taxes, but the reality is that everyone pays taxes. It may not be a right or wise way of doing it but the current scheme merely serves to offset some of the tax burden that low income already bear (gas taxes, utility taxes, property taxes [very punitive in some communities], sales tax, state income tax [even some cities have income tax – Detroit taxes your income if you live in the city and all who work in the city, meaning a double hit if you dare live and work there], and let’s not forget insane tobacco taxes, which like the lottery are taxes directed at the poor who have little of anything but to look for some simple pleasure to cope or a gamble for hope.

    It would seem to me that if we’re going to have a progressive income tax, the standard deductions should be far higher, giving everyone, rich and poor alike a certain threshold of untaxed income.

    Means testing Social Security has benefits and could be just, but I don’t trust the same people who have made it insolvent to do something wise and just. First step I’d like to see with Social Security/Med would be to remove the cap on the base contributions and perhaps create a threshold before employee contributions actually kick in (the numbers would have to be crunched). I’m not a class warfare kind of guy, and don’t like to see anybody soaked, but to keep contributing 7.65% of your wage after $100 K a year doesn’t seem over the top to me and if as a society we’re going to consider SS a good thing, we should do it wisely.

    On the other hand, capital gains taxes shouldn’t be punitive (certainly shouldn’t be taxed higher than your income tax bracket and should have inflation factored in – a long term investment may appear to have a huge gain, but could be an actual wash due to inflation). The idea of an inheritance tax strikes me as outright criminal.

    Still, the problem is that we let the government get too big and screw too many things up. Policies should be made that direct the order of things to desirable outcomes (less burden and assistance of the poor and low income, more of the burden for those who can bear it), rather than merely soaking one person to hand it over to another while skimming off the top to administer it and perpetuate the cycle.

  • Good point on other taxes — I’d been trying to explicitly say “income taxes” since that’s what’s been in play, but I missed a few instances — and as you say: everyone pays payroll, gas, sales, etc. taxes.

    I would have no problem with taking the cap off payroll taxes, and perhaps putting in a floor where the first 2k/mo or something aren’t taxed at all. I know there’s the theory out there that social security and medicare are social services that everyone pays for rather than a welfare/safety net function (and thus the idea of everyone paying alike) but it seems it’s well past time we admit that was pretty much always a fiction.

    Given that social security was all “invested” in the government loaning itself money to spend on other things, we ought to go ahead and develop a slightly more progressive way of funding it just like other government programs, and make it clear that those who are able are expected to fund their own retirements.

    I take your point, Rick, that there are already refundable tax credits via the child tax credit. (I had two years where I got more money back than I put in, and that was with only one and two kids.) However, it strikes me that Obama’s proposal takes things in a significantly worse direction on that, given that he wants to simply issue a credit of $500 per adult, plus other credits for child care and college and such. I’d rather see a move dispense with the tax credits and exemptions for children and instead do income tax on the basis of per capita household income (divide the total household income by the number of members). That would provide a significantly greater benefit for parents of dependant children, and more accurately reflect the real costs people are dealing with.

  • By the way, my understanding is that Obama isn’t proposing to give a $500 tax credit to every adult so much as he’s proposing to keep that credit from going away when the Bush tax cuts expire. The tax credit, in other words, is already in existence, and Obama’s plan counts this as a “cut” only by treating the expiration of the Bush tax cuts as a baseline, rather than a tax increase.

  • Hmmm. I thought the only refundable tax credit I’d seen on my taxes the last few years was the per child tax credit — but I suppose I may be wrong on that.

    Clearly, it would be in the partisan interests of both parties to deny it was a Bush carry over if that’s correct.

  • I think Obama has a lot of other refundable tax credits for things like energy efficiency and college education (from $2000 to $4000).

    I sympathise with your arguments about how everyone should pay taxes, but don’t you think income inequality makes that not very feasible? The median household income doesn’t provide all that much room for taxes if your paying rent/mortgage payments, kids’ college or your own student loans, payroll tax for two income earners, and trying to save a little money.

Powell for Obama

Sunday, October 19, AD 2008

I just read over at Vivificat that former Secretary of State Gen. Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama for President. To tell the truth, although Powell is a Republican, I am not surprised. I am shocked and saddened though that another African American political figure has decided o support the most pro-abortion candidate in the history of the US. Does Gen. Powell not know of the genocide of his people, not in Darfur but here in the abortion mills of America? As I stated months ago on my personal blog, as much as I would love to see a black President I can never support an African American candidate like Obama. Despite his smooth words, his downright hostility to the pro-Life cause is sickening and keeps me from ever supporting him, even if I agreed with his other economic and social policies. It saddens me to see that so few of the black electorate and elected officials care at all that the future of their community destroyed.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Powell for Obama

  • Michelle Malkin nails it. Powell has always been a pro-abort. It is Obama’s social liberalism that attracts Powell. Additionally Powell believes that Obama is going to win. Throughout his career Powell was famous for his caution and never sticking his neck out. That is why he waits until two weeks out with Obama ahead in the polls to announce his support.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/19/the-colin-powell-endorsement-triumph-of-hope-over-reality/

  • Colin Powell was one of my favorites instead of Dole in 1996. I even read his autobiography which was ok to read, but his life story is very fascinating. He styles himself a Rockefeller Republican. I didn’t know what that meant back then, but looking back it makes a whole lot more sense.

    On another note, I wouldn’t look at the polls right now. I think it’s much closer than the mainstream media wants us to believe.

  • Indeed Tito. In the teeth of the polls, which are beginning to close, I believe that McCain-Palin will win and that their margin of victory will be greater than the margin of victory for Bush over Kerry. For once in his life, I think Powell backed a losing horse.

  • Count on it every time; pro-aborts will stick together, and they will stick it to pro-lifers whenever they can.

  • I like Colin Powell, and I understand his concerns about the GOP (I’m not a republican and don’t agree with the party 100%). But, obviously, he doesn’t think child murder is a big deal.

  • Birds of a feather, i.e., abortion advocates, stay together.

  • Whatever one makes of Powell’s endorsement, my understanding is that he has always said he’s a pro-choice Republican. (As is, to my recollection, Secretary of State Rice.)

    So while one can certainly be disappointed with his decision, it doesn’t represent a change on the abortion issue for him. He’s apparently reconciled himself to that some time ago.

  • “Throughout his career Powell was famous for his caution and never sticking his neck out.”

    Donald, you are correct on this which is one reason i didn’t like him back when presidential rumors surrounded him. He, like Wes Clark, seemed more inerested in being political proteges than military men.

    Yes, Tito, this race is not over and I do still think McCain/Palin can eek by with a victory. Unfortuantly, I think it will be close and we may have another Florida 2000 on our hands and, I fear, violence because of it.

  • Mega Ditto’s!

    And thank you for the link. It is an honor.

    In Christ,

    -Theo

  • This is a classic dog bites man non-story. Powell was only a Republican because of career expediency. When he did his White House fellowship Nixon was the resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. He aligned himself with Republicans and advanced to the highest levels of the Army.

    As far as the pro-life implications, Powell was very clear that concern that McCain would nominate more justices who read and understand the Constitution influenced his decision.

  • Many Catholics and other good Christians are praying and fasting for this election. For my part, I find that I am frequently invoking Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Patroness of the Americas, imploring her prayers for this country to remain a stalwart of freedom for this hemisphere and to protect us all from an even more widespread slaughter of the innocent unborn.

  • General Clark always came across as one of those career minded officers who always seemed to jump into the spotlight whenever he could find it. Powell seemed less flamboyant, but also very conscious of political reality and where he could fit in. Out of all the higher up brass in the last few years, the only one I really had a sense of respect for was Gen Shelton.

  • Non-story. Powell is the D.C. Insider’s Insider. He speaks for David Broder David Rodham Gergen Margaret Carlson etc. Time for him to get a little attention. Will sway about seven votes mostly in D.C. Oh Wow General Powell Supports Obama Whoopie Doo. I got more important things to watch. Like Phillies in World Series the very surprising Tampa Bay Rays. I have my priorities y’know.

  • As in ‘Phillies AGAINST very surprising Rays.’ Whoopie doo.