Shock Potential Enormous

Sunday, October 23, AD 2016

 

 

Pat Caddell, who first came to prominence as Jimmy Carter’s pollster, looks at current polls and finds that something does not add up:

 

“All of the tracking polls keep holding at Trump being ahead,” he continued. “And then all of these other polls that are one-off polls, or whatever … I don’t know how they’re doing some of these university polls. You just put the name of some university and apparently it becomes credible, whether they know what they’re doing, or not.

Caddell was pointing out the discrepancy between the different types of polls. “But in any event, polling is all over the place…. Something isn’t adding up,” said Caddell.
“Something is going to happen here, I just sense it,” he concluded. Either “Hillary will glide into the White House, or we’re headed for one of the greatest shocks in American politics. I think it’s a very close call. I think the shock potential is enormous.”
Go here to read the rest.  Today IDB/TIPP showed Trump two points ahead.  ABC/Washington Post showed Clinton twelve points ahead.  I cannot recall disparity of that magnitude in polls this late in the race for President.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Shock Potential Enormous

  • Just curious- what caused the “Dewey Wins” polling errors?

  • Mr. Caddell’s conjectures are interesting. Something else I think is interesting is Mr. Trump’s ability to bubble back up in the polls a week or two after some event pounds his numbers down. Still, I don’t see any evidence of a groundswell of Trump support.
     
    Has anybody here been visited by a pair of cheerful, eager Trump fans going door-to-door in their neighborhood pitching their candidate? I haven’t. I haven’t heard from anybody who has, either. A million man-woman pairs of Trump fans walking their neighborhoods for their candidate would neutralize a lot of attacks and smears on Trump. Where are they?

  • Drudge has a link to zero hedge which has Podesta emails talking about how they told polling companies to significantly oversample D’s to create these polls. In one example, 9 percent more D’s than R’s, and from ethnicities or taxes highly favored to vote HRC. Podesta explains the point is to demoralize and act as if it’s a done deal.

  • I think some of these polls that oversample (D) voters are also being used
    to make the results of planned voter fraud more plausible. If I were planning
    to steal an election, it would be handy to have several polls out in advance,
    each showing me with the sort of lead I would have after my fraud.

  • Just curious- what caused the “Dewey Wins” polling errors?

    Polling was labor-intensive door to door work and not many were taken. I’m not sure there were many pollsters other than Gallup in 1948. The last polls taken were in late September 1948. Public opinion was protean enough at that time that a shift in the viewpoint of 9% of the electorate in 5 weeks was quite unremarkable. As late as 1980, a gap that large opened up between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter in a matter of days. IIRC, Carter’s pollsters informed him of this as it was happening, but it was not known to the public relying on Gallup, Harris, Roper, &c.

    One other thing: more than any other President since, the regard the general public had for Truman was variable, and, while it was on a downward trajectory in general during his administration, there was a great deal of flux. You haven’t seen that with his successors nearly as much.

    It is verrry interesting that Pat Caddell cannot figure out what’s the matter with these polls. Some of it is due to technology – the loss of universality with the landline network. Some of it may be due to a decline in industry standards as an antheap of polls conducted. As recently as 1980, you had about four pollsters whose work was published (Gallup, Harris, Roper, Yankelovich). News organizations were getting into the game, something considered a dubious enterprise at the time as news organizations were with these polls generating news rather than reporting it. Btw, Caddell cut his teeth working for George McGovern and later worked for Gary Hart. He was employed by one of Bill Clinton’s opponents in1992, but I forget which one (Bob Kerrey? Paul Tsongas?).

  • I think some of these polls that oversample (D) voters are also being used
    to make the results of planned voter fraud more plausible. If I were planning
    to steal an election, it would be handy to have several polls out in advance,
    each showing me with the sort of lead I would have after my fraud.


    The total absence of interest rank-and-file Democrats manifest in frankly criminal behavior is dismaying. The ones you encounter in fora like this just say things like ‘right wing noise machine’ and impugn James O’Keefe’s character. The very few prominent Democrats with some intellectual independence are either erratic in this regard (Michael Kinsley, who is half truth-teller and half apparatchik) or are vocational mavericks (Camille Paglia).

    That having been said, I doubt the Clinton people have managed to suborn the folks at Quinnipiac.

  • I’m shocked, SHOCKED !!!….

  • Check this out from ‘The Deus Ex Machina Blog’https://sarmaticusblog.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/rise-of-the-agitprop-media-and-fraudulent-polls-part-ii/

    “In yesterday’s post we began to explain how FRAUDULANT POLLS are disseminated and propagated. We observed that these polls that are being produced, have no grounding whatsoever in OBJECTIVE REALITY. We also OBSERVED that there is a “network” of pseudo-journalists who are COLLUDING with the Establishment/DemocraticParty/SickHillaryCampaign to create a VIRTUAL REALITY that does not exist in nature in general and in the US electorate in particular.” con’t.

  • Anzlyne asked, “Just curious- what caused the “Dewey Wins” polling errors?”

    The method of quota sampling used, designed to sample a representative cross-section of the nation is necessarily prone to error, for one can never be sure that every significant variable has been included in defining the quotas.

    Also, it was the first time telephone polling had been used, but, in 1948, those with telephones were not necessarily a representative sample of the population as a whole, even if they otherwise fitted the quota sampling criteria.

    Art Deco is also right to point to the interval between the conductng of the polls and the election.

  • People with 401’s, IRA’s etc. in the stock market might consider moving to cash within those programs if they can just prior to the election if they think Trump might win because Wall St. will sell on that news and whether that decline recovers quick is very iffy. Trump is unpredictable in general and Wall St. doesn’t like unpredictability nor does it like his non globalist side.

  • Still, wouldn’t it be just rich, incredibly rich, like the richest Sumatran coffee you ever ingested, to enjoy the faces of the likes of Anderson Cooper, or Katie Couric, or Martha Raddatz, and all the mefia-zoo, on the “day-after” a Trump victory.

    Just imagine those sad, confused, troubled, no-longer-so-smug faces. 🙂 🙂 🙂

  • Quite a few people I suspect will vote for Trump as a way of giving a one finger salute to the powers that be.

  • Also, it was the first time telephone polling had been used, but, in 1948, those with telephones were not necessarily a representative sample of the population as a whole, even if they otherwise fitted the quota sampling criteria.

    I do not think they used telephones. Telephone service was quite prevalent (but perhaps not universal) in 1948. It was, however, fairly cumbersome. Most people were on party lines, and phone calls to locations outside cities and adjacent tract development were commonly operator-assisted. Long distance calls were contextually quite expensive as well, so people still preferred telegrams for rapid communication.

Pat Caddell: These People Have No Honor

Sunday, October 28, AD 2012

Pat Caddell, Jimmy Carter’s pollster and a long time Democrat political operative, said it all last night on the Jeanine Pirro show on Fox  about the Benghazi coverup and the unwillingness of much of the Mainstream Media to cover it for fear that it will devastate the re-election prospects of Obama:

“been in the tank on this in a way I’ve never seen… I am appalled right now. This White House, this President, this Vice President, this Secretary of State, all of them, are willing apparently to dishonor themselves and this country for the cheap prospect of getting reelected…willing to cover up and lie. The worst thing is the very people who are supposed to protect the American people with the truth – the leading mainstream media…they have become a threat, a fundamental threat to American democracy and the enemies of the American people… these people have no honor… coverup is too nice of a word…”

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Pat Caddell: These People Have No Honor

  • Politics, The Golden Calf, Obama agenda for what … the UN?
    No honor among thieves.

    or Moses, The Law and the Land of milk and honey for His people.

  • It’s time to re-read Exodus chapter 32 as PM intimated.

  • Pingback: SUNDAY MORNING GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • Finally, someone who understands the press and how it operates has called the liberal press out for what they are Bias, untruthful and totally behind the election of Obama

    It is truly sickening that Americans gave up their lives to secure the freedom we enjoy, one being freedom of speech, and this mass of reporters continue to hide the truth from the American people. their freedom is to act responsively, transparent but also honestly and this has not been the case for a long time

    I salute Pat Caddell and ask that his voice become louder and that through his efforts the truth will come out and tell the American people what a bogus group of politicians, in this administration,and news corp we have and can call them out for what they actually are dishonest

  • Many of the leading people in the MSM have direct relations with the DNC either through marriage or work background (e.g Dem staffer etc.). In addition their livelihood or at least their high incomes are based on Dem support as is the case with the public sector unions. They are there precisely because they are political operatives. Their lack of honor is not so much in bias, but not stating forthrightly they are tied to the DNC and only present news from that perspective. I give Mika Brzezinski some credit in admitting they get memos from the WH on how to present the news. In addition Daily Caller showed the direct connection between the leftist blog sites and the DNC. I also seem to remember several years ago it was discovered that TV execs had regular conference calls with DNC operatives.

  • Pingback: WOW: Pat Caddell on Obama Admin’s handling of Libya: “These People Have No Honor!” | The Thinking Americanist
  • Has everyone forgotten ANOTHER horrific cover up? FAST & FURIOUS? This administration has been the height of deceit, dishonor, lack of ethics, and willingness to do anything for continued power, fame and money. It is disgusting!

  • God Bless Pat Caddell and his willingness to open his mind to truth.
    Also, today on Chris Wallace I heard two Democratic governors say Libya should not be politicized, questions will be answered later…. They posited that asking questions about Libya is politicizing the issue— so dishonest. Stalling, obscuring the people’s view of this issue so that no harm is done to Hizonor – that is the real politicization of the deaths of those 4 men.

    And speaking of positing– the out front woman on CNN posited an understood close-mindedness in her question to Ryan– ‘’given this information do you think you could become open-minded?

  • excuse me, the obfuscators were Senators–not governors

  • The godless liberals never hesitated to politicize George Bush being in a school with small children when 9-11 happened.

  • Yes, this is apalling. The info that has emerged over the past week or so is very damaging to Obama; but I simply cannot understand how his desire to be re-elected is numbing his judgement. His lack of action and decision while, on real time live video, he could see the events unfolding just stuns me. But for the media to be silent also – what has America come to?
    After Obama gets trumped, the citizens of the USA will have to deal to their media somehow, and ensure this type of subterfuge and cover-up is not repeated. Otherwise, goodbye free world. (except for isolated outposts 😉 )

  • I think that the media believe that this administration can still pull off a
    re-election, and that’s why they’re willing to risk a public spectacle of
    their sellout. If the whores in the media felt that their darling president
    had no chance of taking this election, it would behoove them to make a show
    of being impartial truth-seekers, if only to save their own reputations from
    the wreckage.

    I hope, for the good of this country, that Mr. Romney not only wins, but wins
    in such a landslide that Obama and his court eunuchs in the media cannot
    spin any post-election confusion into chaos.

  • This man has no integrity. He lies everytime his lips are moving. He is the one we need to be concerned about voter fraud. This man has become the president of the USA, to bring in a socialist nation. With the FEMA re-education camps and the loss of freedom of speech, this sounds more and more like Nazi Germany. He has people in high places who helped him to win so the one world government would come.

  • Don the Kiwi-
    How do we do it? The left will say we are trying to censor the press. We know that the msm is criminal in its disregard to be non-biased. So what is the solution to this problem in our era?

  • Philip says “We know that the msm is criminal in its disregard to be non-biased. So what is the solution to this problem in our era?”

    A spotlight and persistence will reduce the problem. This requires an attitude totally at variance with Repub SOP which is to wring hands and hope it goes away without saying anything. I think even they are beginning to see the media will not go easy on them however much the Repubs fawn and placate.

    Historically the press was always partisan but it didn’t pretend otherwise. Just going back to that would be better. The public seems to be gradually wising up but the indolence of the Repubs has slowed the rate of change.

  • RM Nixon must be having a good laugh.

  • Once reality comes a-calling, only the most zombie-like partisans will have any more use for the Lamestream. Simple free-market economics will take care of the rest. Network news viewership has fallen dramatically over the past 10-15 years and will positively plummet once the lies and distortions are brought to light. No more will need be done. I wouldn’t be surprised to see one or another branch of ABCNNBCBS abandon its evening news broadcast format and go to a web-based service where it can preach propaganda to its faithful, sometime in the next 3-5 years.

  • The main stream media in this country very seldom reports the whole story anymore. We get the revised edition, after it’s been flavored with their political bias. I digest their dogma just like that of the politicians…with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of skepticism.

  • WK Aiken-
    ….free market economics…

    Your right. The demand for snake oil will fall away. Good answer. Thanks.

A Fundamental Threat to American Democracy

Friday, September 28, AD 2012

Jimmy Carter’s pollster Pat Caddell calls out the Mainstream Media covering up the Obama administration’s lies on Libya as a fundamental threat to American Democracy:

PAT CADDELL: Thank you.  Glad to be with you.  This could take a long time, but we don’t have that, so let me just get right to this.  I think we’re at the most dangerous time in our political history in terms of the balance of power in the role that the media plays in whether or not we maintain a free democracy or not.  You know, when I first started in politics – and for a long time before that – everyone on both sides, Democrats and Republicans, despised the press commonly, because they were SOBs to everybody.  Which is exactly what they should be.  They were unrelenting.  Whatever the biases were, they were essentially equal-opportunity people.  That changed in 1980.  There’s a lot of reasons for it. It changed—an important point in the Dukakis-Bush election, when the press literally was trying to get Dukakis elected by ignoring what was happening in Massachusetts, with a candidate who was running on the platform of  “He will do for America what he did for Massachusetts”—while they were on the verge of bankruptcy.

Also the change from evening news emphasis to morning news by the networks is another factor that’s been pointed out to me. Most recently, what I call the nepotism that exists, where people get jobs—they’re married to people who are in the administration, or in politics, whatever.  But the overwhelming bias has become very real and very dangerous.  We have a First Amendment for one reason.  We have a First Amendment not because the Founding Fathers liked the press—they hated the press—but they believed, as [Thomas] Jefferson said, that in order to have a free country, in order to be a free people, we needed a free press.  That was the job—so there was an implicit bargain in the First Amendment, the press being the only institution, at that time, which was in our process of which there was no checks and balances.  We designed a constitutional system with many checks and balances.  The one that had no checks and balances was the press, and that was done under an implicit understanding that, somehow, the press would protect the people from the government and the power by telling—somehow allowing—people to have the truth.  That is being abrogated as we speak, and has been for some time.  It is now creating the danger that I spoke to.

This morning, just this morning, Gallup released their latest poll on the trust, how much trust—the Congressman [Lamar Smith] made reference to an earlier poll—when it comes to reporting the news accurately, fairly, and fully, and it’s the highest in history.  For the first time, 60% of the people said they had “Not very much” or “None at all.”  Of course there was a partisan break: There were 40% who believed it did, Democrats, 58% believed that it was fair and accurate, Republicans were 26%, Independents were 31%.  So there is this contempt for the media – or this belief—and there are many other polls that show it as well.  I want to just use a few examples, because I think we crossed the line the last few weeks that is terrifying.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to A Fundamental Threat to American Democracy

  • Wow! I have no other words. The new media is a threat to the very Democracy they say that they support. And that’s the problem. This is NOT a Democracy. It is – or is supposed to be – a Constitutional Republic where the individual right to life and liberty are sacrosanct and inviolable, whether by a simple majority or by dictate of political leaders.

  • I guess I’m too nice a guy to say those things about Romney although I did give a sanitized version of it in another thread But I don’t think he’s doing as bad as McCain who practically told people to vote for the other guy. Romney is merely saying it’s understandable why people would make the mistake of voting for the other guy because he deserves our complete sympathy.

    As for the press I agree with Caddell’s alarm only because the strength of the government today vis a vis earlier times to enforce its will in micromanaging everything. Periodically there has been a rabid partisan press as in Jefferson’s day or in the 1930s where most of the papers were anti FDR (rightly or wrongly). What’s different now is that the Repubs and Romney are so comfortable with being the butt of all the attacks and not hiring their own press to communicate through. After all they are more ashamed of talk radio than they are embracing it (and they hate the Repubs who fight back or even speak up). The Repubs Stockholm Syndrome, which started at the Congressional level in the 1960s and at the Presidential level perhaps with Daddy Bush seems unshakeable now. The Repub convention except for Eastwood was a perfect demonstration of it. Gingrich and Reagan seem to be the aberrations not the standard bearers. If they lose under these circumstances it may well prove fatal.

  • But I don’t think he’s doing as bad as McCain who practically told people to vote for the other guy.

    Can you give an example?

  • Yeah look up what he said to the NAACP.

  • The bias has grown much worse this election cycle so I don’t watch most of it. I just wish they would actually report the news from both sides but what we see now is the constant attack on Romney & Obama always gets a pass.

  • The threat to our way of life isn’t solely from the lying, liberal media, it’s also raging in unionized, public education and clueless academia.

    The election will tell us more about the soul of America than about Obama or Romney.

AP's Article On The Catholic Blogosphere & NPR's Firing Of Juan Williams Are Par For The Course

Monday, October 25, AD 2010

National Public Radio’s ludicrous firing of Juan Williams and a subsequent mainstream media article on Catholic bloggers may seem to be two separate issues. Some may say what does the overwhelmingly conservative leaning Catholic blogosphere have in common with the liberal leaning Juan Williams? The answer is quite simple; both scare the mainstream media because Juan Williams and the majority of the Catholic blogosphere put forth interesting solutions to often discussed questions.

The modus operadi of some in the mainstream media is to find a couple of unnamed fringe Catholic bloggers, who few read, and then make them become bigger players than they really are. Combine this with a Juan Williams quote which most of America agrees with and voila you have it; the ultimate straw man from which you can tear apart any minority who appears on Fox News or any Catholic blogger who faithfully defends the teachings of the 2,000 year old Catholic Church.

In this Associated Press article on the Catholic blogosphere, the piece mentions Thomas Peters and Michael Voris (who is known for his videos not his blogging,) but focuses on harsh unnamed Catholic bloggers. The article quotes John Allen who calls elements of the Catholic blogosphere “Taliban Catholicism.” The highly respected Mr. Allen, who though working for the dissident leaning National Catholic Reporter, is often known for his many high ranking Church contacts and his fairness. He should have know better than to give the quote that he did. To take a few bloggers from the right (or even from the left) and call them the Catholic blogosphere is the type of journalism that would not pass muster for a high school paper, let alone the AP. This would be akin to taking the worst rated college or pro football team and telling the world this is the best of American football, or perhaps watching the Walla Walla Community theater production of Hamlet and saying this is Hamlet at its finest. John Allen should have realized where this article was going and chosen his words more carefully.

The AP article continues by naming a Church official who seems worried about the Catholic blogosphere. One wonders if the Church official would know the difference between Father John Zuhlsdorf from Father Richard McBrien, Amy Welborn from Aimee Semple McPherson, Mark Shea from Mark Sanford, Rocco Palmo from Rocco Mediate, or Tito Edwards from Tito Santana. I worked for years in a diocesan office and I have yet to meet, even in my travels, a diocesan official who is well versed in the blogosphere. It seems to be a generational thing and most diocesan officials are not to be confused with the younger, more conservative seminarians or young priests being ordained.

While some in the mainstream media snicker at the Pope and Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Catholic Church) they in reality have their own magisterium. In their secular magisterium anyone who believes in the Catholic Church’s authority is hopelessly outdated, because according to gatekeepers in the mainstream media, true thinkers are those in the dying liberal churches who don’t know what they believe. Sadly, GK Chesterton prophetically predicted this would happen. He said, “It’s not that atheists and agnostics believe in nothing, they believe in everything.” In modern parlance, “It’s all good.” How sad that some who proclaim to be “open minded” can’t see the obvious; liberal Christianity is dying on the vine.”

Continue reading...

19 Responses to AP's Article On The Catholic Blogosphere & NPR's Firing Of Juan Williams Are Par For The Course

  • Pingback: AP’s Article On The Catholic Blogosphere & NPR’s Firing Of Juan Williams Are Par For The Course: The American Catholic « Deacon John's Space
  • Keep preaching brother!

    I nominate the following excerpt to be the quote of year here at The American Catholic.

    “One wonders if the Church official would know the difference between Father John Zuhlsdorf from Father Richard McBrien, Amy Welborn from Aimee Simple McPherson, Mark Shea from Mark Sanford, Rocco Palmo from Rocco Mediate, or Tito Edwards from Tito Santana.”

  • Nothing to “wonder” about. The answers are self-evident.

  • Well said, excellent, wonderful!

  • Uh…it’s “magisterium.”

    Good piece, though.

    🙂

    -Theo

  • It’s not clear to me that Allen was interviewed for the AP story. He was using “Taliban Catholics” in his own writing at least as far back as February.

  • Great piece with good insight. I especially like your quote about people not knowing the difference between Catholic bloggers and others.

    One note: Allen’s quote reveals more about himself than it does about Catholic blogging or orthodox Catholics. For all those who believe him to be fair, you might want to read his work more closely and don’t forget that he chooses to work for the dissident Reporter. His work displays some real blind spots.

  • It’s just funny that in article that to some extent is bemoaning in the incivility of the blogosphere, the term “Taliban Catholic” is so casually tossed about as though there is nothing uncivil about that comparison.

    But that, of course, is par for the course for people who yelp the loudest about tone and the harshness of dialogue. What it really is is an attempt to change the topic and avoid having to defend indefensible positions.

  • Defending the indefensible?

    As in an article that defends the civility of Michael Sean Winters but paints Catholics who are righteously standing up and saying enough as fringe.

    30-40 thousand readers a month may be ‘nobody reading’ to you, but I think it is enough to get an army of Catholics to get folks who espouse the opinions of dissent, silenced.

    It is half past time we take our parishes and schools back.

    We’ll look forward to more armchair criticism from you.

    Carry on.

  • Someone should ask John Allen when was the last time a Catholic blogger destroyed millenia-old works of art. Or shot a woman in the back of the head as halftime entertainment at a soccer match. Or sponsored terrorists who flew airplanes into buildings killing 3000 people.

    For the life of me, I’ll never understand why people who should know better consider John Allen to be “fair”. “Fair” people don’t make such idiotic comparisons.

  • We’ll look forward to more armchair criticism from you.

    Umm, what? I was critiquing the Allen quote and the condescending tone of the AP article, not Dave’s post.

  • Please, please, please – check your spell-check and correct “magEsterium” to “magIsterium”. The word comes from the Latin – magister.

  • Paul,

    Yes, my comments were about the article, not your comments which I completely agree with and thank you for stepping up to the plate to say.

  • p.s. I am not of the opinion that the article had coded message in it that needed to be cracked.

    There are many of us that are finished with letting teachers and priests preach and teach dissent and we area shutting it down by exposing what is going on with teaching, sanctifying and governing.

    Writing intellectual treatises on the internet is swell but it is not helping our children down at the local school being hoodwinked by Sister Mary Wear the Pants and Fr. Hehirtic. We have had to flee from our parishes, pull our children out of schools.

    What are we running from? It’s time to go back and demand our religion be taught.

    1. Pour through every bulletin and expose every problem, naming names and exercising your gifts by explaining the theological problems and consequences to our children.

    2. Start holding the priest accountable.

    3. If the priest won’t be held accountable, go to the Bishop.

    4. If the Bishop won’t be accountable, go to the Nuncio.

    5. If the Nuncio won’t hold them accountable, go to the Holy See.

    Round up as many in your area who are willing to do it.

    If in time, they do not intercede and do something to stop the people poisining the wells our children are drinking from, start a campaign to hold up the money on the annual Bishops appeal.

    Build it and they will flee.

    People may call it harsh. People like this author will call it fringe. Whatever hits you have to take from the author of this article on The American Catholic or anyone in the AP – Do it anyway.

    :O)

  • Anna, I do hope your not talking about me as being part of the dissent, or just sitting at my computer composing essays while Rome burns. I do think my bona fides as a writer, educator (working in the Church and taking a lot of heat from Church liberals) etc should fit pass muster. I would hope so anyone, considering how many nasty names I have been called by the liberals in the Church. If I have misinterpreted your remarks, please forgive me. However, it would appear to me that you think this article is somehow not orthodox enough. I don’t know how that is possible. It would seem to me that the first three or four commentors (among others) like what I have to say. Anyway, God Bless & take care!

  • David,

    I actually never knew you existed before I found your article, but I can see that you are not a dissident.

    It has been such a refuge to come to the internet and read solid opinions. But we need those opinions to get into our schools and parishes and it is time to do something a little different.

    As a Boston activist who is part of the blogging community described in the AP, those of us on the ground doing this difficult ministry not only get called ‘names’ by dissidents, we are undermined by people on the right, sitting staring at their computers using their orthodoxy and bonafides to take cheap shots at us.

    ” to find a couple of unnamed fringe Catholic bloggers, who few read, and then make them become bigger players than they really are. ”

    Is blogosphere a game of “who is the bigger player”? Is it about chumming around with folks who post comments telling you how great you are?

    Oh wait…

    Look, I’ve done my share of years of writing and defending the Magisterium.

    But you know what we realized?

    Not a single dissident in our children’s schools been removed from teaching children by the things we are writing on the internet (myself included)

    A lot of us have been parish shopping for ten years.

    It’s time to go to plan b.

    I can appreciate your frustration with the article that they failed to recognize the big wazoos who have been banging away at their keyboards. But the work we are doing is critical new work and the author of the AP article knew more about that then you did!

    Nobody on the ground is a threat to your thunder. We will not be competing in who is the greatest of them all contests. At ease.

    We are people who are trying to focus getting orthodoxy to our own children, family and friends while you bang away at your ministry doing it for people in the com boxes. Not as worthy as the work you are doing, but it is nonetheless, worthy work that did not deserve your cheap shot.

    The kicker was your respectful attitude towards John Allen, who in between working with Joan Chittister, Tom Roberts, Michael Sean Winters and Bishop Gumbleton (talk about fringe!) serving up poison to Christ’s souls, characterized parents fed up with dissent that is continuously being taught no matter how much you write with concerns to your Bishop, as lecherous murderers.

  • Goodness Anna I think the liberals have got the best of you. I spoke kindly of John Allen? I took him to task for his comment. I only said he was respected by many. Have you ever read what Father Zuhlsdorf says about John Allen? Father Z calls him “his friend and highly respected.” Do you think Father Z has gone wobbly too?

    I understand what you must be going through living in Boston. You may remember that I mentioned in my article that my childhood parish was scourged with not only one priest sent to the slammer for molestation, but two. Some of those these two deviants molested were my friends, so believe me I don’t need any lectures on that subject.

    I would suggest you take some time to pray over the whole matter, calling those that are on your side not wholly orthodox doesn’t help. God Bless & take care!

  • David,

    I must not be making myself clear.

    I have the greatest respect for Fr. Z. But I disagree with his characterizations of John Allen. I am NOT attacking Fr. Z or his orthodoxy. Nor, am I attacking your orthodoxy. Nor am I attacking you.

    Phew.

    There is no need to be defensive. Be at peace.

    The AP wrote an article about a new ministry in the Church and your reaction to it was a knee-jerk.
    Look here:

    ” to find a couple of unnamed fringe Catholic bloggers, who few read, and then make them become bigger players than they really are. ”

    The good people in Boston are getting off their fannies and taking our schools and parishes and chancery back. That’s what the article was about.

    What is it about that you wouldn’t embrace?

  • Anna, there is nothing about what you said that I wouldn’t embrace. God Bless you and the good people of Boston who are helping turn the tide. May God Be With You All!