Kerry May Sue O'Neill for Libel

Link

John Kerry may wage war against Viet war veteran :

New York, Nov 19 : After losing to George Bush in the presidential elections , John Kerry is now preparing for another fight with John O'Neill, the "Unfit for Command" author who claims some of the credit for Kerry's defeat.

In the book, O'Neill, who, like Kerry, commanded swift boats in Vietnam , severly criticised Kerry's war record and branded him a traitor.

O'Neill reportedly sold over 800,000 copies of the book and his group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, raised 25 million dollars to battle the Kerry campaign and ran TV ads trashing the candidate.

According to the New York Post, Kerry is said to be furious with his staffers who advised him not to fight back against O'Neill.

"The Kerry camp is thinking about filing a libel lawsuit against Regnery and O'Neill," a source close to the candidate's inner circle was quoted by the paper, as saying.

"I don't know if they will actually go forward, but consideration is serious. If Kerry plans on running again in 2008 - and I'm hearing he will - it would make sense that he'd file the suit," the source added.(ANI)

John Kerry and the Pluperfect Subjunctive Presidency

Bush and the Culture of Life: The "More-Not-Less-Nukular-Weapons" Edition

Via Steve Soto: The Left Coaster

Russia Developing Nuclear Missiles

MOSCOW - Russia is developing a new nuclear missile system unlike any weapon held by other countries, President Vladimir Putin (news - web sites) said Wednesday, a move that could serve as a signal to the United States as Washington pushes forward with a missile defense system.

Putin gave no details about the system or why Russia was pursuing it, and it was unclear whether the Kremlin's cash-strapped armed forces could even afford an expensive new weapon.

But in remarks that could also be aimed at a domestic audience, he told a meeting of the top leadership of the armed forces that the system could be deployed soon, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported.

"We are not only conducting research and successful tests on state-of-the-art nuclear missile systems, but I am convinced that these systems will appear in the near future," Putin said. "Moreover, they will be systems, weapons that not a single other nuclear power has, or will have, in the near future."

"We'll continue our efforts to build our armed forces and its nuclear component," he said.

ITAR-Tass indicated the new system could be a mobile version of the Topol-M ballistic missile, which have been deployed in silos since 1998. But Alexander Pikayev, a senior military analyst with Moscow's Institute for Global Economy and International Relations, said Putin seemed to be referring to the Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile, a solid fuel missile that had its first test in September.

"Putin apparently wanted to boast the success of his military reform effort ... to both the military and the broad public," Pikayev told The Associated Press. "His statement also intended to show that Russia is regaining its status as a great power which can't be ignored."

Russian officials had stated earlier that the Bulava could be developed in both sea- and land-based versions and equipped with warheads capable of penetrating missile defense, Pikayev said.

He said if the Bulava proves capable, it would represent a major success because it would show that Russia has succeeded in modernizing its missile forces despite the shortage of funds.

"It will ring the bell for the Americans, forcing Washington to reassess its estimates," Pikayev said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said it wasn't news to the Bush administration, and that President Bush (news - web sites) and Putin had discussed the issue previously. He emphasized there were agreements in place to reduce the two countries' nuclear arsenals and noted Moscow is now a partner in the war on terrorism.

"This is not something that we look at as new," he said. "We are very well aware of their long-standing modernization efforts for their military. ... We are allies now in the global war on terrorism."

McClellan suggested that close ties between Bush and Putin makes alarm unnecessary — but doesn't eliminate Washington's concern.

"We have a very different relationship than we did in the Cold War," he said. "The fact that we do have a good relationship enables us to speak very directly to our Russian friends."

Christopher Langton, head of defense analysis at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, said it appeared to be the first time that Russian officials had spoken publicly about a new deterrent, though he has no idea what the system might be.

"He said it was, firstly, unique and, secondly, capable of defeating any space-based defense system, which is clearly putting the spotlight on the anti-missile of the United States," Langton said.


Military reform is a high priority for Putin, Langton noted, adding that Russia's conventional forces have proved difficult to improve. Missile forces, however, serve as a deterrent simply by their existence, he said.

"He is sending a very clear message that Russia is not going to be rolled over by the United States or NATO (news - web sites)," he said.

A national security doctrine Putin signed in 2001 makes it easier for Russia's leaders to use nuclear weapons to oppose any attack if other efforts fail to repel an aggressor. The previous doctrine had stated that Russia would use nuclear weapons only in cases when its national sovereignty was threatened.

Military experts attributed the shift to the tremendous weakness of conventional forces, which might not be able to defend the country in case of an attacks.

Putin has made clear that improving the armed forces, which declined after the breakup of the Soviet Union, is a priority. In the past year, Russia defense officials have made several announcements about new weapons.

Col. Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, chief of staff of the armed forces, said in March that the military tested a "hypersonic flying vehicle" able to maneuver between space and the Earth's atmosphere. Military analysts said the mysterious new weapons could be a maneuverable ballistic missile warhead or a hypersonic cruise missile.

This month, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Russia expected to test a mobile version of its Topol-M ballistic missile soon. Topol-Ms have a range of about 6,000 miles.

News reports have said Russia is believed to be developing a next-generation heavy missile that could carry up to 10 nuclear warheads weighing a total of 4.4 tons, compared with the Topol-M's 1.32-ton combat payload.

Most analysts viewed the earlier announcements about "hypersonic flying vehicles" as Moscow's retaliation to U.S. missile defense plans. After years of vociferous protests, Russia reacted calmly when Washington withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 in order to develop a missile shield. Moscow has since complained about Washington's plans to build new low-yield nuclear weapons.

Other analysts said Putin's statement appeared to be as much show as military strategy.

"This is intended for the internal audience, an attempt to say that things are great, that defense is growing stronger and not falling apart, as it actually is," military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer said.

"Russian officials have a special attitude toward nuclear arms," said Alexander Golts of the magazine Yezhenedelny Zhurnal. "It is the last attribute of a superpower, it is what makes us equal to the United States."

___

Associated Press writers Vladimir Isachenkov and Maria Danilova contributed to the report.

Kerry Back in Senate

Kerry on 2008: 'Not opening any doors, not shutting any doors'
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. John Kerry, who has $45 million left from his record-breaking Democratic campaign, hinted on Tuesday that he may try again for the presidency.
On his first workday back in the Senate since losing his White House bid, Kerry remained far from the spotlight, granting interviews to hometown reporters and joining the depleted corps of Democrats as they elected the party's new Senate leaders.

In his first extensive interview since his Nov. 2 defeat, Kerry was asked by the Fox News affiliate in Boston about running again in 2008 and reminded the questioner that Ohio is still counting votes from 2004.

He then said, "It is so premature to be thinking about something that far down the road. What I've said is I'm not opening any doors, I'm not shutting any doors." Kerry added, "If there's a next time, we'll do a better job. We'll see."

Reflecting on his loss, Kerry said he was not sitting around thinking about it. "You've got to go on," he said. "Do I find it some mark of failure or distress, the answer is no."

The former presidential nominee described himself as a "fighter," and added, "I can envision a lot of years of fight ahead of me."

In an interview with WCVB-TV, Kerry said, "Fifty-thousand votes — we'd be in a different place, having a different conversation," a reference to Ohio, which decided the race.

The Democrats have no clear front-runner for the 2008 nomination. Kerry has a distinct financial advantage over any rival based on his fund raising.

Kerry had roughly $45 million left in his primary campaign fund as of mid-October and could use that as seed money for another presidential bid. In addition, he had about $7 million on hand in a legal and accounting compliance fund that he could use for legal expenses in a 2008 campaign.

Because Kerry accepted full public financing for the general election phase of this year's race, he will have to give any of that money that remains back to the government.

During his day in the Senate, Kerry's colleagues thanked him, congratulated him and wished him well.

"Every time his name was mentioned, there was enthusiastic applause. Literally, every time his name was mentioned," said Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.

Democrats met in a closed-door session to choose their leadership team for next year in what is certain to be an uphill struggle for the party. Not only did Democrats lose their second straight presidential election on Nov. 2, but the Republicans increased their numbers in the Senate and the House.

In January, the GOP will control 55 Senate seats to 44 for the Democrats with one Democratic-leaning independent.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., a former vice presidential candidate who lost in 2000 and a one-time presidential aspirant who fell short in the 2004 primaries, spoke from experience in offering Kerry words of support.

"He has a lot to be proud of, and I hope he'll find what I did — that it was great to have the U.S. Senate to come back to," Lieberman said.

Senators predicted that Kerry would find an expanded role as he eased back into his old job.

"Obviously, he brings some experience, and people are interested in what he has to say," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., pointing out that nearly half the country, if not quite enough to elect him president, voted for Kerry. President Bush received 60.5 million votes to Kerry's 57.1 million.

Kerry didn't make any remarks on the Senate's pending legislation nor did he deliver any speeches at the Democrats' meetings. He met privately with Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., the former Minority leader who, like Kerry, lost on Nov. 2. Kerry also thanked other Democrats one-by-one for their support.

Kerry got a two-minute standing ovation from his staff, whom he thanked for giving "your heart, your soul and even your vacation time," one aide said.

The day belonged to another Democrat, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the party's newly elected leader. Questioned on a range of issues as he assumed the job, Reid predicted that Kerry will find a role, pointing to the four-term senator's past work on banking and foreign policy issues.

"Senator Kerry is not a shrinking violet," Reid said. "We are looking for John Kerry to find what he wants to do. We are sorry that he's not in the White House, but we're glad that he's back on Capitol Hill."

Kerry also met with his policy staff to talk about health care, energy and other legislation that might build on themes from his campaign.

Not since George McGovern lost a bid for the presidency in 1972 has a senator returned to the Senate as a defeated presidential candidate, according to the Senate Historical Office.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

How do you ask this child to be the last to die for a lie and miscalculation?

Behold President Bush's culture of life: Fallujah Edition,Contd.

Fired Up Kerry, Returning to Senate

'Fired Up' Kerry Returning to Senate
Aides Say He Wants to Act as Counter to Bush, and Possibly Run in 2008

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 9, 2004; Page A02

Democrat John F. Kerry plans to use his Senate seat and long lists of supporters to remain a major voice in American politics despite losing the presidential race last Tuesday, and he is assessing the feasibility of trying again in 2008, friends and aides said yesterday.

Kerry will attend a post-election lame-duck Senate session that begins next week and has said he is "fired up" to play a highly visible role, the friends and aides said.

Aides said Kerry is relishing the prospect of renewed combat with President Bush, fighting such measures as the president's proposal to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Kerry has spent most of the past two years on the campaign trail, meaning that his return to Capitol Hill will be something of a reintroduction to colleagues.

Kerry's plans contrast starkly with the approach taken by former vice president Al Gore, who all but disappeared from the political scene after losing to Bush in the disputed 2000 presidential election.

Kerry fueled talk about a 2008 bid during remarks at a Washington restaurant Saturday night. He provoked a thunderous reaction by reminding about 400 campaign aides and volunteers that Ronald Reagan twice sought the Republican nomination for president before winning it in 1980.

"Sometimes God tests you," Kerry told the crowd at H20, a restaurant on the Potomac waterfront, according to an aide. "I'm a fighter, and I've come back before."

Bob Shrum, Kerry's chief campaign consultant, told reporters during a Democratic panel yesterday that Kerry "will not do what Al Gore did after the last election -- he will not disappear."

"He will be active and vocal," Shrum said. "He has one of the most powerful lists in the Democratic Party and one of the most powerful fundraising bases in the Democratic Party, and I think he intends to use it to speak out."

Several Democrats expressed skepticism about Kerry's plans, saying they believe the party needs a fresh face and must turn a corner. One well-known Democratic operative who worked with the Kerry campaign said opposition to Bush, not excitement about Kerry, was behind the senator's fundraising success. "If he thinks he's going to capitalize on that going forward, he's in for a surprise," said the operative, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Another Democrat involved in Kerry's campaign strategy -- who also spoke on the condition of anonymity, in order to be more candid -- said: "I can't imagine people are going to say, 'It worked pretty well last time. This is what we need next time.' "

Kerry has mostly remained at his Boston home since Election Day and has spent some of that time preparing for his return to the Senate. The friends and aides said he wants to use his new following and credibility to become a major force on legislation that will extend well beyond his previous portfolio of national security issues.

The senator from Massachusetts is also contemplating establishing a political action committee and perhaps a think tank to elevate his role during the jockeying over the definition and leadership of the Democratic Party. Kerry lost to Bush by three percentage points in the popular vote and by 34 electoral votes. The president carried 31 states to 19 for Kerry.

Shrum made his remarks in an appearance at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast with James Carville, chief strategist of Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign, and Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster. The session started out as a clinical dissection of what went right for Bush and wrong for Kerry.

But it quickly became a blunt, emotional discussion of the future of the Democratic Party -- a high-decibel preview of countless conversations that will occur as Democrats try to figure out how to retake the White House after winning only twice in the past seven elections.

"I'm not in denial. Reality hit me," Carville said. "Let's take the greatest morality story of all -- we're born again," he added, in a play on words connoting both his view that the party needs a fundamental change, as well as the importance of evangelical Christians to Bush.

"We have to treat the disease, not the symptom," Carville said. "The purpose of a political party is to win elections, and we're not doing that."

Carville said that the party's concern about interest groups had resulted in "litanies, not a narrative."

"The party needs a narrative," he said. adding later that one possibility would to become "an aggressively reform, anti-Washington, anti-business-as-usual party."

Greenberg said that big forces had been at work in the election, meaning that mere tinkering was not the answer for Democrats. He said Bush had cleverly freed himself from the normal standards by which an incumbent is judged.

"In being successful in making the election about security/safety and values," Greenberg said, "they don't say, 'Vote for us because we're making progress.' They say, 'Vote for our worldview.' " Greenberg said that "downscale America, starting with rural voters and cascading with older, blue-collar America, shifted to Bush" in the last 10 days of the race, including some union voters.

Shrum said of the campaign's decision to emphasize a final-week revelation about missing explosives in Iraq: "There wasn't disagreement inside the campaign about that. So if it was a mistake, it was a mistake that we all share responsibility for."

Shrum acknowledged that he had not seen the problems at the time, saying that he believed on Election Day and the night before that Kerry would win. "All the polls appeared to be moving in the right direction," Shrum said. "We thought, 'We're ahead in the battleground states, we'll win in the battleground states.' "

Also yesterday, the Associated Press quoted a party veteran as saying that Howard Dean, who lost the nomination fight to Kerry, is considering a bid to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Staff writer Dan Balz contributed to this report.

The Scorpion and the Duck

From the comment box:

>>>They are doing this to respond to Senator Kerry's call for unity.

But...

>>>From what I understand, neo-cons and the like, need not apply.

So much for that "unity".

A story is told about a scorpion who need to cross the river. He asked the duck to take him across on his back. "No way," said the duck. "If I carry you on my back, you'll sting me."

The scorpion replied, "But if I sting you, then we both drown and that wouldn't make any sense, would it?"

The duck thought for a moment. It did make sense. It was against the self interest of the scorpion to sting him. And the duck told the scorpion to hop on his back.

Halfway into their journey, the scorpion stung him. In pain, paralyzed and sinking, the perplexed duck asked, "Why did you sting me? Now we are both going to drown."

The scorpion replied, "I'm sorry but I'm a scorpion, that's what I do."

Moral of the story, don't carry scorpions, or in our present context, seeking unity among the divisive is counter-productive. It's a waste of time.

Common Ground Common Sense is the continuation of the John Kerry online forum. It is a forum for common ground discussion between moderates, progressives, and pragmatic conservatives. From what I understand, neo-cons and the like, need not apply.

The former administrators of the Kerry forum are in charge and will do a great job. They are doing this to respond to Senator Kerry's call for unity.

------

There is much discussion about Senator Kerry's future. I have argued that he is best positioned to run again in 2008. He has the money, he has been thoroughly vetted. Many who voted for Bush were quite prepared to vote for him, there will be a serious case of buyers remorse as this presidency progresses and people will wish we had Kerry instead.

In the meantime, I hope Kerry remains the voice of the Democratic Party. I hope he puts his policy proposals into legistlative action and use his celebrity status to push them. We may only have 44 Democrats, but we have Republicans in very blue or very purple states that see the anger in Democrats and would not be so willing to dismiss them outright. We no longer have to deal with embattled southern Democrats or Daschle types, so the Senators can give Kerry's proposals a full push.

Hughtim at Catholics for Democracy is involved in an effort to hold Catholic politicians accountable for all Catholic teachings. I believe this is a non-partisan effort. Here's the link:

Catholics for Democracy Petition

Catholics for Democracy is non-partisan. They endorsed Kerry this time and even though it evolved from Catholics for Dean, they are not an inherently Democratic group. The effort is laudable. I commend them for reaching across the aisle. So if you are interested in transcending partisan politics, you should give them a shot.

Of course, inherent in a Catholics for Kerry campaign is partisanship, which is also necessary in the broader picture. I, as many others, will remain dedicatedly partisan in helping build a winning coalition in the Democratic party and who knows, perhaps we can get Kerry to run again in 2008.

Around liberal blogdom, the grief is clearly over and the soul-searching is close to being done. There were many silver linings in this election that displayed the strength of our grassroots movments. For instance, we gave Tom Delay a scare to the extent that he could only get 55% of the vote against an unknown. We also gave Musgrave, the gay marraige ammendment initiator a major scare.

For the Democratic Party base, we are building something solid across the board and like Kerry says, "We've only just begun to fight."

As we wait to digest the final numbers, Ohio which was the decisive state and ground zero, gave Bush the Catholic vote 55-45. I have to confess, Ohio was not on my Catholic radar, PA, MI, IA, and WI were. For some reason, I saw the gun issue and economy issue as the key to Ohio, but not Catholicism.

Now, here's a study in contrasts, New Mexico, in which the Catholic vote was 32% of the vote, higher than the national average, gave Kerry 61% of the vote to Bush's 38%. Kerry got about 45% of weekly attendees. Obviously, it was more of a Latino and Native vote.

In PA, Catholics were 35% of the electorate, and Kerry won in 51% to 49%, in an electorate with only 3% Latinos. So those were mostly White Catholics. Even more interesting is that Kerry gets 45% of weekly church attendess and 38% of more than once a week church attendees. Looking for silver linings, those are interesting numbers.

But then, here's a good one: Maryland is a Blue state and Catholics are 24% of the electorate. Well, Bush trounces Kerry in the Catholic vote, 57%-41%, that is a stunning number. No easy explanation for that (I offer one later).

As for Minnesota, Kerry won the Catholic vote and got 41% of weekly Church attendees. Bush won the Catholic vote in Missouri by one point, which is interesting since St Louis was ground zero for Archbishop Burke's interventions. Kerry won IA Catholics 53-46, that's awesome! (I'm grasping for silver linings here!)He also got 45% of the Catholic weekly attendees.

The Catholic vote overall was 27% which is far higher than the percentage in the general population. I think one reason is that all the political talk keyed Catholics into the process and led to a higher Catholic turnout. We can say defintely that the Catholic swing vote is not dead by a long shot. 2004 shows that the Catholic vote is still crucial and can be decisive. Although, at this point, it is still not clear how to manipulate it. The Catholic vote was a factor in OH, it is not clear why and why not PA or MO, or WI or MN, which were all battleground, hotly contested states with Catholic emphasis. I happen to think that wherever there was focus by Kerry and Kerry Catholics, we muted the Catholic right and Kerry did well among White Catholics. But where we did not turn up the heat, we lost. Like I said earlier, I don't think we targetted OH in a Catholic sense and that was costly.

So what does it all mean? Not much, we lost.

On the other hand, it says that when we make our case as Kerry Catholics, U.S. Catholics are listening and accepting and that is something we can take out of all this.

Part of me believes that the Bishops have created another 1968 Humanae Vitae moment. They definitely crossed the line and it is clear that Catholics responded positively to Kerry when presented with an articulation of the Kerry Catholic view-IA, WI, MO, PA, MI, NM. (I say MD's numbers are the way they are because we weren't a swing state and the case for Kerry Catholics was never made to MD Catholics).

I'm still working on my seven stages of grief, I just can't figure where the heck I am in the process. I think I'm passed denial even though I believe that 250,000 votes will be found lurking in Diebold machines later this evening (Just kidding). But if we have the energy to go on after this, I think we can make some progress in creating a more progressive Catholicism in the U.S. Simply stated, the Pope-is-God, same-sex marriage-more-important-than-100,000-war-dead, doesn't work with U.S. Catholics.

The nation has definitely caught a conservative wave and it is not a good thing. But c'est la vie. I believe, like Paul says in Rom. 8, "All things work together for good with those who love God and are called according to His purpose."

There is still the issue of dialog between lib/mods and conservatives. I'm not a believer in that. Dialogue with pragmatic conservatives is possible, but not with ideological conservatives which is where the Catholic/Christian Right activists are coming from.

Anyway, as Paul says, "In all things, give thanks."

John Kerry Concedes: Bush Wins

By CALVIN WOODWARD and RON FOURNIER, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) won a second term from a divided and anxious nation, his promise of steady, strong wartime leadership trumping John Kerry (news - web sites)'s fresh-start approach to Iraq (news - web sites) and joblessness. After a long, tense night of vote counting, the Democrat called Bush Wednesday to concede Ohio and the presidency, The Associated Press learned.

Kerry ended his quest, concluding one of the most expensive and bitterly contested races on record, with a call to the president shortly after 11 a.m. EST, according to two officials familiar with the conversation.


The victory gave Bush four more years to pursue the war on terror and a conservative, tax-cutting agenda — and probably the opportunity to name one or more justices to an aging Supreme Court.


He also will preside over expanded Republican majorities in Congress.


"Congratulations, Mr. President," Kerry said in the conversation described by sources as lasting less than five minutes. One of the sources was Republican, the other a Democrat.


The Democratic source said Bush called Kerry a worthy, tough and honorable opponent. Kerry told Bush the country was too divided, the source said, and Bush agreed. "We really have to do something about it," Kerry said according to the Democratic official.


Kerry placed his call after weighing unattractive options overnight. With Bush holding fast to a six-figure lead in make-or-break Ohio, Kerry could give up or trigger a struggle that would have stirred memories of the bitter recount in Florida that propelled Bush to the White House in 2000.

President G.W.Bush wins???

Still open question, IA machines are down, election workers "fatigued", OH has a few thousand ballots yet to count that could very well give Kerry a win. However, it is very unlikely. I do think Kerry needs to follow the process in OH which is to wait for all the votes to be counted and then wait the 11 days for the provisional ballots to be counted. After that, if we are short, then I suspect he will and we all will be ready to call it a day.

The Catholic numbers are what's going to be interesting here to many of us observers of the Catholic church. Kerry, according to (unreliable) exit polls won the Catholic vote in Wisconsin 52-48, splitting the White Catholic vote there, 50-50. I haven't looked at other states, but I imagine a similar result. This tentatively means then the Catholic issues did not hurt Kerry in the upper midwest. In PA, Kerry won the Catholic vote 52-48, but lost the White Catholic vote, 49-51. (All this tentative). Either way, the Catholic issues were a wash. It still is all split down the middle.

The implications for the Catholic Church are yet to be seen and will be much discussed.

One good thing for the moderate and liberal Catholics, is that this whole election process brought about unprecedented organization. It is unclear if this organization can survive the dissappointment of a Kerry defeat, but I think it will.

The RNC has clearly won the battle for Catholic control. They spoke the right language, but I still believe they lack the right heart. It is yet to be seen if the Church will now absorb Bush's political mandate and make it it's own. I suspect this Bush result will embolden the conservatives nationwide and their agenda. The question is how the moderates and liberals would react. I suppose we'll see how it all plays out.

Winners? President Bush--even if he loses in a recount, he won the popular vote. I think it is a sad state of affairs and a sad day for our world, but it is the will of the people and we accept.
--the Catholic moderates and left: we win because we are now better organized and have been emboldened to articulate our differences with the conservatives. There is no reason to think we'll stop here. We are moving on the right track.
--the Catholic right:they win because their candidate wins and because the nation overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage, and conservative values won the day. But unless the Bishops step in, which I don't think they are capable of, there'll be a hard clash between liberals and conservatives moving forward.

Losers?
--Senator Kerry, for a great man, one who would have made an exceptional president, he has now been demonized by the Right in characteristic conservative fashion. History in the long run will be kinder to him. (of course if he wins OH, all this changes--unlikely)
--the Catholic moderates and left:conservatives are "merciless" and will do everything to whip us in line. We will fight back of course, but many of us will have to decide if we want to remain in the Church structure or tribalize on the margins. The conservatives definitely would not tolerate dissent in their structure. There will be no easy way to be a Catholic liberal or moderate in the next four years, given the present mood of the nation.

Either way, "In all things give thanks."

Kerry Scripture of the Day: E-Day

Psalm 118:24

24 This is the day the LORD has made; let us rejoice in it and be glad.

Kerry shares a laugh with his daughters

via first draft


Kerry and supporters invoke the gods

Kerry Catholics Scripture of the Day: Countdown to E-Day

Psalm 126:1-6

1 A song of ascents. 1 When the LORD restored the fortunes of Zion, then we thought we were dreaming.
2 Our mouths were filled with laughter; our tongues sang for joy. Then it was said among the nations, "The LORD had done great things for them."
3 The LORD has done great things for us; Oh, how happy we were!
4 Restore again our fortunes, LORD, like the dry stream beds of the Negeb.
5 Those who sow in tears will reap with cries of joy.
6 Those who go forth weeping, carrying sacks of seed, Will return with cries of joy, carrying their bundled sheaves.