RSS Feed MenuThe story so far:
Danielle Crittenden, aka Mrs Frum, posted an entry at NewMajority here regretting the decision of Mary Ann Glendon not to share a platform at Notre Dame with President Obama. It should probably be mentioned that Glendon and Danielle are associates from former days at the Independent Women’s Forum, whose quarterly used to be edited by Danielle.
Danielle’s blogpost provoked some criticism from our friends over at the Corner, see for example here by Ramesh Ponnuru, who suggested with his familiar suavity that Danielle’s regret was “idiotic.”
To these criticisms, Danielle posted a reply here.
That second post excited Maggie Gallagher to complain, again at the Corner, that failure to apprehend the total reasonableness of Glendon’s action was “childish, silly, and ignorant.”
Ignoring these repeated hints that this was one discussion that preferred not to be elevated, Danielle has now posted directly on the Corner a words-of-one-syllable version of the argument, which follows below:
A Public Fight [Danielle Crittenden]
I figured that when I waded into the Mary Ann Glendon/Notre Dame affair, it would be a little like wandering into an Irish bar and asking, as the joke goes, Is this a private fight or may I join in?
While I expected criticism (to which I replied in a second take here), I probably did not sufficiently recognize how beleaguered and isolated strong prolife Catholics such as Maggie Gallagher and Ramesh Ponnuru now feel. It’s only 100 days into the Obama administration, but they are already at second-term despair.
I’d hoped I’d phrased my critique of Mary Ann Glendon’s decision respectfully, acknowledging from the start that I could not enter into the internal Catholic politics of Glendon’s refusal to accept an award from Notre Dame if that meant sharing a platform with President Obama. I won’t restate the argument: interested NRO readers can follow the links above.
Let me instead just say this: My criticism of Glendon’s decision was expressed from the point of view of a conservative who is watching her movement self-destruct before her eyes. Glendon (and Maggie and Ramesh) may of course choose if they wish to view her decision entirely from within a Catholic frame of reference.
But Glendon (and Maggie and Ramesh) live in a country where other frames of reference coexist as well. And the many Americans — many of them also Catholics — who participate in these nonreligious frames of reference may see in this decision something more than a private act of conscience. They may see one of America’s leading religious conservatives repudiating the moral legitimacy of the president of the United States.
There was too much of that in the past eight years. And now, with year one of a new administration barely begun, prominent conservative voices are accusing this new president of instituting fascism, of falsifying his birth certificate, of sympathizing with Somali pirates over American sailors. For one of our most serious and most conscientious moral thinkers to join the radical rejectionists is alarming, no matter how well stated her reasoning. For Ramesh and Maggie to cheer her on — well that is disheartening. If NR has historically stood against anything, it has stood against this sort of conservative migration to the fringe.
And that is how I arrived at my final conclusion:
“I fear our side is becoming like the leftists we used to mock. We refuse to recognize the American president as our president. And we reduce our politics to a single issue, showing no tolerance or desire for engagement with our opponents, including those who dissent within our own ranks.
In the coming four years, all conservatives will have cause to oppose and fight the Obama administration on many, many fronts. But let’s not imitate the past eight years of political opposition. We are better than that. And we should—we must—be willing to share a platform with our elected President.”
You can keep trying to insist the Glendon/Notre Dame debate is a private fight. But whether you like it or not, it’s a public fight as well.
Let me add here a personal editorial comment. A large part of the secret of President Obama’s political success is his self-presentation as calm, judicious, and fair-minded – and his ability to depict his opponents as intemperate and extreme. You’d think by now that Obama’s opponents would have figured out this trick. You want to beat him? Great. Be more calm, more judicious, and more fair-minded. Don’t be provoked. Don’t throw wild allegations. Don’t boycott. Don’t lose your temper.
Instead, we get Anger Theater. It’s not smart. And it’s not working.
ChristianMiller // May 3, 2009 at 12:41 pm
sinz54,I am a default Christian, as are most Americans. I learned this by living for a full year in Cairo, Egypt at the age of 26. It took me years to process what I saw/learned there. America IS a Christian country, like it or not. As someone who questioned the teachings of the Catholic Church from the age of 12 and then stopped going to church, then rebelled and had very negative things to say, I have later come to be more mature and accepted that religion is not exclusively a negative force and that EVERYBODY has a belief system they operate out of, and who am I to judge them. I am pretty jaundiced about the Catholic Church still since they have some inherent philosophical contradictions they can’t seem to escape and this issue is one of them. But at least most religious people KNOW they are believers whereas the leftists and others think they “know” something we don’t. And on that basis they are absolutists and fundamentalists. “It’s a proven fact! You must agree!” IE Global Warming.What I learned by living in a Muslim country (and reading and collating a lot) is that so much of culture is borne from religious philosophy and is reinforced by it as well. We are so immersed in cultural Christianity here we are like fish swimming in water…”what water?” asks the fish. So many Americans think others naturally think like they do. This was what I had to grapple with in Cairo, until I realized… they don’t! They don’t believe in “tolerance” -very Christian POV, much less “turning the other cheek” It is preposterous to them. Christianity outside of its fundamentalist sects, has integrated Western reason and logic. Islam is dominated by imams who preach absolutism without shame and without restraint. That is, they feel fully justified in advancing their religion and/or cause without regard for human life. You could say that Christianity was like that once, but the religion did mature to what it is today which is way ahead of Islam and the fruits of Christianity are widespread. The fruits if Islam? And think where they would be without oil.Another significant difference. Islam is deeply against separating church and State. This goes against everything Islam represents. Islam IS the law; they call it sharia, and there can be no other. That is what they believe.Much of Christianity is outright communistic when you take their beliefs into the political sphere. But even non-religious leftists are preaching Christian principles when they rail against the death penalty, inveigh against war ( as though we can, like Christ, convert our enemies with love, which is a fundamental Christian concept)Most leftists are profoundly influenced by Christian values. They hate religion but they preach all this self-righteous moralism, they actually want to be the high priests and consider all the ordained priests (in the generic sense) hypocritical charlatains. THEY are the real disseminators of truth and morality. So I am not a believer, but I am a “respector”. I believe (there is that word again) that people are believers inherently and that without a religious object, they will choose something else for their believing tendencies. Usually this gets converted to politics, or to a human, a celebrity, a President or some constellation of orphaned beliefs. Therefore I don’t see religion per se, a big problem.
sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Franco: I agree with much of what you wrote. But what you wrote doesn’t change what I said:The GOP party platform includes calls for a new Constitutional Amendment that would make every woman who has an abortion guilty of violating the 14th Amendment. It also includes a call for a new Constitutional Amendment that would define civil marriage; overriding the marriage laws, customs and case law of all 50 states.Why do we need a Constitutional Amendment on civil marriage? What part of the Preamble to the Constitution motivates this?And how is overriding the marriage laws, customs and case law of all 50 states consistent with the conservative principle of federalism?Since America cannot have an official endorsement of religion, what non-religious arguments can be mustered in support of such Amendments?For those of us who are not part of the Religious Right (wherever we fall on the political spectrum on other issues), these Amendments are a show-stopper. They’ve got to go.
ChristianMiller // May 3, 2009 at 1:27 pm
And I am a proud hard-core “right winger” in that I will give no quarter to the left and leftists. I sympathize with Christians who have a right to their beliefs. That is ALSO separation of Church and Sate. I don’t really CARE about “gay marriage” I think it is a bogus issue. I do know that changing culture radically is usually a bad idea. Twenty years ago, anyone promoting gay marriage would have been booed off the stage at a gay rights rally, proving this is just another fad, and an issue that isn’t vital. Gays are a small( but vocal) minority, and most of them don’t themselves want to marry anyone. Civil unions, or some mechanism to give gays and others rights in lieu of marriage, is fine.I am a hard core because the left is hard core, and I think the Republican party are a bunch of frightened wimps for the most part who are out of touch. Globalism, computers/internet and years of regulation has turned this country into a quasi-fascist state (and I don’t mean that the way leftist use the term fascist). The government and industry are in cahoots. But not just Halliburton and Boeing, but Microsoft, Google, Time-Warner, Disney, Wall mart, Archer-Daniels Midland, GE, you name it. It is now essential that these corporations donate to both parties and lobby both parties for regulations that give them advantage over smaller competitors, etc. Enough corporations will gain from the Global Warming State imperative that they will gladly go for more regulations, and politicians will gladly accept their money and influence. The game is the same, only bigger stakes and it is quite a bit simpler now, since competitors are kept from emerging because of the overwhelming size a company has to be before making a profit.Government now has the power, with computerization, to monitor 1984-like, every one of the 280 million of us and is doing so aggressively. It isn’t just the Patriot Act, it goes way beyond that. The Patriot Act as implemented was pretty harmless, it is just the metastasizing of it, and other laws which are infringing on our rights and will become worse – not better, under Democrat administrations. More and more police are targeting middle-class, non-threatening citizens for traffic offenses, while leaving whole criminal enterprises intact because it is difficult and dangerous to fight them.Our government, at every level is LYING to us, and the MSM is in on the game.
sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Purple Fury: Are there any nationally known liberals whom you respect–perhaps even admire?Or is it impossible for you to respect someone on the diametric opposite side of the political spectrum?
Purple Fury // May 3, 2009 at 1:44 pm
sinz:Interesting question, and I’ll be happy to answer, but before I do, what’s that got to do with my views being hard-core right wing?Also for what it’s worth, I’m opposed to pro-life & traditional marriage amendments to the Constitution.
ChristianMiller // May 3, 2009 at 1:47 pm
sinz, I don’t know much about these Constitutional amendments, so I am not disagreeing with you . I think people try various ways to get their agenda passed and sometimes they are ill-advised, even hypocritical, but there is nothing we can do.There is no monolithic conservatism any more than there is a monolithic Republican (or Democrat) Party. Sometimes these debates are blown way out of proportion by the media and people react. Personally I find it ludicrous that we are spending so much debate time on the gay marriage issue. It isn’t a civil right, and most gays don’t want to get married. Hell, most straight men don’t want to get married either!But I don’t see the down side to fighting these things either, as Frum apparently does. His strategy is to acquiesce, but he doesn’t seem to realize that as soon as we give in, another issue takes the place and the fight begins anew. Nothing changes. Look at the history of the civil rights movement, the women’s movement (that is VERY revealing) and the gay rights movement. They used to clamor for civil unions. Now, people who aren’t fully supportive of gay marriage are called homophobes! So it doesn’t matter politically the left always uses some civil-rights issue as a cudgel, and at this point they are literally making up these issues.
danoand // May 3, 2009 at 2:36 pm
re: ottovbvsFirst of all, kudos to your wife for work with the Church and those in need. But by far the most important issue is that Notre Dame, the premier Catholic university in the country, is essentially losing its core principles. If any other person holding the office of the presidency (President Obama or a President Pelosi, Reid or McCain) held the same views and took the same governing actions I’d feel the same way. At the end of the day, this is (sadly) fundamentally Notre Dame’s own, self-inflicted damage. It isn’t the President’s fault. If you’re not Catholic or a Notre Dame alumni or supporter then okay but dude that’s the core issue. Notre Dame then compounded the issue by putting McGlendon who they were attempting to honor in an untenable position, where she would have to reject those same core principles as a Catholic and reject the explicit guidance of US bishops. From my vantage point, there is only one group of people playing politics here and that is the Notre Dame administration who were framing her honor as a way to do some last minute CYA. I respect your wife’s admiration of the President and I admit there is much to admire about the President – he has charisma, ambition, eloquence. But my admiration is but a feeling about personal traits that are in the end unimportant or even superficial. Conservatives assess the President (any President) by the power of their ideas and the impact of their action. For many reasons to list here Conservatives are concerned by the President’s ideas and governing to date. Pushing a budget that will incur a debt level in excess of all the federal debt built up since the beginning of the republic is one example and it’s alarming indeed.In your post you completely miss my first point and don’t even attempt to explain why you feel this sad episode is merely a hijacking for “political points” or why the harm is greater than the good. But without any grounding, you claim that I must therefore have some sort derangement syndrome. This is the classic ploy of the left, let’s not argue on the merits but start the name calling – for just one example see the mainstream media’s treatment of the recent tax protests (the protesters are just a bunch of rednecks from flyover country; too dumb to understand the tax code; add in a dash of race baiting and some cheap, sophomoric double entendre regarding a term depicting a sex act. This was from so called “respectable” journalists like Anderson Cooper!)Self awareness is what this is all about. In my opinion, Notre Dame is losing its identity. Self awareness truly comes about when people define and steadfastly hold their core principles. As I mentioned in my last post, there is an abstract lesson here for Conservatives, if an institution such as Notre Dame can lose it’s identity on such a core principle as the right to life so can any other institution. For this we as Conservatives need to be on guard because many of those on the Left will be more than happy to step aside and watch our ideals implode.
balconesfault // May 3, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Sadly, much of the public front for the GOP today comes from media outlets which depend on allegations, outrage, and extremism for fuel. Just like there is too much sports radio – and as a result you have personalities competing for airtime and attention with the hyperbole of turning everything into a crisis … perhaps the conservative media has been a victim of its own success, with the hyperbole of turning everything into a crisis. Sadly, these conservative “shock jocks” aren’t going to tone it down … because that’s a direct path to irrelevance for all but the best of them. On the flip side, any conservative politician who tries to back away from the most inflammatory rhetoric will him/herself become a target of their wrath. It’s a really tough problem, and I don’t see a way out of it right now.
krove // May 3, 2009 at 4:19 pm
In the last paragraph Frum says. “A large part of the secret of President Obama’s political success is his self-presentation as calm, judicious, and fair-minded”If you had been paying attention since 2006 you would have seen this as more than as “self presentation” as though it was some sort of act. It’s who he is.Also he says “and his ability to depict his opponents as intemperate and extreme. “The truth is that many of his opponents are intemperate and extreme. He has no need to depict them as such.The Bachmans, Hannity’s, Limbaugh’s, Grinrichic’s of this world are just that. Add in the congress critters on the GOP side and you have a boatload of crazy.
sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Purple Fury: I stand corrected. Your views on a number of issues are more moderate than I thought.Now how about answering my question: Does your personal dislike of Obama automatically follow from his political liberalism? Or, as a counterexample, are there some other liberals whom you at least respect as decent human beings?
sinz54 // May 3, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Franco: I happen to agree with you, that “corporate welfare” is nothing but a socially benign form of fascism.The GOP got off the track, when it switched from advocating *across-the-board* tax cuts (and then letting the free market pick winners and losers), to instead huddle with industry lobbyists to craft special-purpose legislation to grant favors to the agribusiness and energy industries (essentially allowing Republican legislators to pick winners).On top of that, the GOP had the gall to defend these corporate welfare acts as “supply-side economics” or “helping the free market” or whatever other Reaganite phrase they could yank out of its original context and slap onto corporate welfare to cover their unethical deeds.If I was a Congressman, and a lobbyist from Enron showed up, I would tell him that since I believe in the free market, I will continue to try to cut taxes for all, not just Enron. And in the meantime, he should get the heck out of my office before I call the security guards.
vwcat // May 3, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I thought maybe I could give my perspective from the ‘other side’.I see a few different issues here.One is the refusal to stand on the same stage as the president because he holds opposing views is just rude and disrespectful of the office.I was no fan of Bush but, if I was in a similar situation I would have stood on the same stage and treated him with respect and graciously.And that is the problem these days.We do not see the other side as just holding a different view but we demonize and even hate and vilify them. Cable and talk radio hold much responsibility for the current state of our sorry politics and our awful behavior to our fellow citizens.Casey. He is pro life and a democrat (yes, there are democrats whMy side is the same way and I have scolded them for hypocrisy and unreasonableness for indulging the same behavior as those they criticize.So, why can’t republicans and democrats behave in the same manner when they disagree? Why is it always trying to show how big a jerk you can be and prove you lack manners or class.And sadly this behavior is not just encouraged but, cheered.We all need to take a hard look at a republican who was much liked and respected, even by most democrats. The recently passed Jack Kemp.This is how we should demand our politicians act and for us to act as well.And this is how this woman needs to act.
larryo // May 3, 2009 at 8:24 pm
“I doubt you’ll find anything like that in the Federalist Papers.”No, nor in his Journals of the Constitutional Convention, sinz. I often wonder what the founders would have done had they been fated to do it amidst or after the industrial revolution, which gave birth to things of which the founders, for all their insight into human nature and repressive government, simply could not have foreseen.And I stand by that sentence you quoted – you are so inured to the Bushes and the Boehners and the rest of the reactionary Babbitts that you don’t know what a real moderate conservative looks or sounds like. That’s why I mentioned Tom McCall.
Purple Fury // May 3, 2009 at 10:07 pm
sinz:Re: respectable liberals, Joe Lieberman and John McCain come to mind.And no, I don’t automatically dislike Obama because of his politics, in the same way I don’t automatically dislike many of my personal friends, just because they hold liberal views. I dislike Obama mostly because — as I’ve shown numerous times in my earlier posts — he refuses to deal honestly and fairly with the actual views of his political opposition. Instead, he minimizes them or carries them to a ridiculous extreme, and by doing so casts himself as a “moderate”, and his opponents as “extremists”. To the extent I happen to hold some of those opposing views, I find it insulting when he does this.
barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 7:07 am
Re: Sinz54; 11:51 AM –”I just wish there was room in the conservative movement, not just for the votes of non-Christians like me, but for our ideas as well.”Oh, cry me a frigg’n river, Sinz. I don’t know where your obvious problem with Christians comes from, but clearly you have one. BTW… the Catholic Church is very liberal on social welfare, immigration, the use of force in foreign policy… etc. My own Episcopal Church – and the Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalists, etc., are often far to the Left on both “social” and “security” issues.You ever hear of Liberation Theology…? How’bout…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqtX4qZBdRsJeez, Sinz… they were all on the cover of Newsweek for God’s sake!(*GRIN*)”We cannot abide advocating the passage of Constitutional Amendments that have no philosophical justification other than that the Church might like them.”I agree. HOWEVER… folks have a right to advocate for what they want to advocate for. When you disagree with them state your case… don’t try to shut them down for stating theirs. The whole point of the constitutional amendment process is to give citizens the right to advocate for change… yes… up to and including changes in the constitution.”For folks like me, that is a show-stopper.”Diversity of opinion is a “show stopper” for people like you…??? See… THAT’S a problem, Sinz; and the problem is with YOU.”If the Vermont legislature, through the democratic process, legalized same-sex marriage, what right do you have to tell them they cannot have that?”We’re on the same page, here, Sinz, but again… you need to show a bit more open-mindedness – not to mention confidence in your own beliefs – by trying to convince “the other side” (aka “those damned Christian Right Wingers) (*GRIN*) that when it comes to the Constitution… well… Jesus did say “Give unto Caesar…”(*WINK*)Seriously… Sinz… you come across as having a real intolerance for religious Christians if their ideology is more politically conservative than not on social issues.BILL
barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 7:13 am
Re: Purple Fury; 12:35 PM –”I respect people who hold pro-life and pro-traditional marriage views in good faith…”And Sinz… er… doesn’t. In fact, Sinz actively disdains such folks.(*SHRUG*)Sinz… that’s how it comes across.(*SHRUG*)BILL
barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 7:33 am
Re: Sinz54; 1:27 PM –”Since America cannot have an official endorsement of religion…”Nonsense, Sinz, as I explained to you over on another thread. (*SHRUG*)(See the thread: “Don’t Know Much About Science Books” by David Jenkins.)”Since America cannot have an official endorsement of religion, what non-religious arguments can be mustered in support of such Amendments?”Sinz. You’re giving me a headache. We’re talking about Constitutional AMENDMENTS…!!!!AMENDMENTS…!!!Now I’m with you in opposing these particular Amendments and indeed my default position is “Stop Screwing Around With The Constitution,” but the whole PURPOSE of the amendment process was to allow future generations to ADVOCATE for (and with enough popular support achieve) change of any kind… for ANY REASON.(*SIGH*)Sinz. You should have learned this stuff in Elementary School.BILL
barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 8:02 am
Re: Franco; 1:27 PM –(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)Franco gets it.(*NOD*)Re: Sinz54; 1:30 PM –”…is it impossible for you to respect someone on the diametric opposite side of the political spectrum?”You ask that as if you doubt any of “us” on what you seemingly consider the “irrational Right” could response in the negative. (*SNORT*) (*SMIRK*)There you go with the Left-Right spectrum as opposed to the principled-unprincipled spectrum. This is your hang-up, not ours, Sinz. Ralph Nader. I respect Ralph Nader. (Just as one example…)Btw… your “Right-Left” spectrum is so limited as to be worthless in the way YOU use the term. Again… what’s “Right,” Buchanan, Dobbs, and Nader on “fair trade” with nationalism a key component of the first two’s argument or are they “Left” because support of “Free Trade” is an absolute pillar of the GOP?(*SHRUG*)Re: Sinz54; 4:39 PM –It’s not a question of “like” or “dislike,” it’s a question of respect. Let me give you tw examples of where Obama could have had me singing his praises:1) If he had privately (and if necessary, publicly) used every resource at his disposal – official and unofficial, governmental and Party, reaching over the heads of both government and Party to go directly to the People if necessary – to “purge” Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank from their House/Senate committee chairmanships.No… neither Rangel nor Dodd has been convicted of criminal activities… but I hope that regardless of ideology we can all agree that these two are corrupt… and as for Frank… along with Dodd and a fair number of former Clintonistas… he and his policies led to economic disaster with the real estate bubble and Fannie/Freddie as personal piggy bank of the Clinton administration retirees…(*TAKING A BREATH*)Ideology aside… partisanship aside… Obama could have hit the ground running in January and acted as a true reformer. Instead… instead of going after the bad guys… he appointed tax cheats to high office.(*SNORT*)2) He could have DEMANDED the pork be taken out of the Stimulus bill. He didn’t.(*SHRUG*)BILL
sinz54 // May 4, 2009 at 9:39 am
barker13: “Sinz actively disdains such folks.”FALSE.I don’t “disdain” them. I always respected the Christian evangelicals tremendously. I know a few personally. And when, in the late 1970s, they starting coming into the GOP in large numbers, I was glad that they saw how liberalism was hurting them too.BUT then they started taking over everything. They pushed the GOP platform on domestic issues way to the right. They started excommunicating moderates like myself as “RINOs.” They got their own guy, George W. Bush, a born-again Christian but an economic moderate, into the White House. They even had their own private agenda for the War on Terror: It was Christianity that was going to vanquish Islam! And finally, they stopped McCain from picking a popular moderate–say Tom Ridge–as running mate, thus losing Pennsylvania for good.You and Franco should stop inverting the truth. We moderates are fighting a last-ditch effort to keep from being expunged, after which the GOP will turn into the Southern White Christian Party, a rump party that is virtually dead in the Blue States, and nearly so in many Purple States.
sinz54 // May 4, 2009 at 9:45 am
barker13 sez: “When you disagree with them state your case… don’t try to shut them down for stating theirs. “I’m NOT shutting THEM down. They’re try to shut US down, can’t you see that? Every time there has been an attempt to moderate the platform or its candidates, the Religious Right threatens to walk out.Here’s what the 1976 GOP Platform said about abortion:”The question of abortion is one of the most difficult and controversial of our time. It is undoubtedly a moral and personal issue but it also involves complex questions relating to medical science and criminal justice. There are those in our Party who favor complete support for the Supreme Court decision which permits abortion on demand. There are others who share sincere convictions that the Supreme Court’s decision must be changed by a constitutional amendment prohibiting all abortions. Others have yet to take a position, or they have assumed a stance somewhere in between polar positions.”We protest the Supreme Court’s intrusion into the family structure through its denial of the parents’ obligation and right to guide their minor children. The Republican Party favors a continuance of the public dialogue on abortion and supports the efforts of those who seek enactment of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children.”Notice the difference? Back then, the GOP majority could call for a Constitutional Amendment on abortion, while still recognizing that there was a sizable minority who disagreed on this.But in the 2008 Platform, that language is gone. All that’s left is the call for the Human Life Amendment, with no acknowledgment of dissenters. And the wording on the Amendment got much stronger; it now says that even an embryo deserves 14th Amendment rights.
barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Re: Sinz54; 9:39 AM –Sinz. I’m just informing you how you come across to me.(*SHRUG*)”I always respected the Christian evangelicals tremendously. I know a few personally.”Hey… and I bet some of your best friends are black!(*CHORTLE*)Hey… you and the wife treat Juanita the cleaning lady like FAMILY, right…?(*GRIN*)Sinz. Obviously I’m busting your chops, but you get the picture. Your proclamation that you “know a few” doesn’t exactly put paid to my… er… suspicions. (*SMILE*)”They started excommunicating…”(*SNORT*) Rim shot, Sinz. (*CHUCKLE*)”They got their own guy, George W. Bush, a born-again Christian…”No, Sinz. The fact that George W. Bush was the SON of former PRESIDENT George H. W. Bush was what cleared Dubya’s path to the White House.Bush’s faith… (*SHRUG*)… sure it helped him with the “Christian Right,” particularly in the face of McCain’s relationship with them, but long before Dubya this nation elected a “wear it on your sleeve” Christian named James Earl Carter.”…they stopped McCain from picking a popular moderate–say Tom Ridge–as running mate…”Popular with who – you? My guess is that McCain would have lost even worse with Ridge on the ticket.Palin gave McCain a shot at winning, but of course McCain – being McCain- just had to waste her and had to waste his opportunity to reject Bush’s socialistic bailout. If McCain had campaigned as a true conservative – an economic conservative and not a “Bush moderate” as you use the term – he might well have pulled the election out and won.(God only knows if as a result I’d be more or less depressed today if McCain had won the presidency… but he COULD have won.)”You and Franco should stop inverting the truth.”(*SNORT*)”We moderates are fighting a last-ditch effort to keep from being expunged…”Sinz. GO! Join the Democratic Party! Work from the inside to move it to the Right and then at election time… in the privacy of the booth… if the Republican candidate is the more conservative… vote for the Republican.What else do you want me to tell you?BILL
barker13 // May 4, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Re: Sinz54; 9:45 AM –”I’m NOT shutting THEM down. They’re try to shut US down, can’t you see that?”No. Obviously not. (*SHRUG*)”Every time there has been an attempt to moderate the platform or its candidates, the Religious Right threatens to walk out.”All I can tell you is where I stand on issues… issue by issue.What the Religious Right does… it does… “they” do. Just as you’re gonna do what you feel you have to.Sinz… frankly… people tend to take Party platforms about as seriously as Justice Ginsberg takes… er… the text of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders.(*RUEFUL SMILE*)Still… for what it’s worth… I’m sure you and I – working together – could improve upon any Republican Platform in recent memory.BILL(And Franco and I could REALLY improve upon any existing GOP platform!!!) (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*)
celtoid2 // May 5, 2009 at 7:03 am
This fight IS about Catholic orthodoxy and is not really about politics.