Catholics for Kerry

2005-06-02T07:58:00.000-07:00

NEW BEDFORD -- Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday called on Americans to be more aware of the "bait and switch" Iraq war and the "hollowing out" of the Army in the pursuit of a mistaken policy.

In a swing through SouthCoast, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee attacked the priorities of the Republican Party and President Bush, elaborating on what they are sacrificing -- health care for children, infrastructure, Social Security -- in the pursuit of tax cuts.

"The Holy Grail of the Republican Party is a tax cut, whether or not we need it," he said in a meeting with The Standard-Times editorial board.

Sen. Kerry puzzled over the apparent lack of interest by Americans in the Iraq war and the near silence in the U.S. mass media about the so-called Downing Street Memo.

That leaked secret document, the minutes of a 2003 cabinet meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, says bluntly that Mr. Bush had decided to attack Iraq long before going to Congress with the matter, and that "intelligence was being fixed around the policy."

It caused an uproar in Great Britain and badly hurt Mr. Blair in national elections but went almost unnoticed in the United States.

"When I go back (to Washington) on Monday, I am going to raise the issue," he said of the memo, which has not been disputed by either the British or American governments. "I think it's a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home. And it's amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It's not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."

He questioned Americans' understanding of the war and the sense that criticism equals disloyalty, saying, "Do you think that Americans if they really understood it would feel that way knowing that on Election Day, 77 percent of Americans who voted for Bush believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found and 77 percent believe Saddam did 9/11? Is there a way for this to break through, ever?"

Earlier in the day, Sen. Kerry met in a "town hall"-style meeting with about 75 seniors, where he assailed the recently passed Medicare prescription drug benefit, the GOP's tax cuts for wealthy Americans and the attempts to privatize Social Security.

He said to the largely supportive group, "The next time one of those conservative senators or congressmen comes to you and starts talking to you about American values, I want you to look him in the eye and say, what is the value that is represented in providing the wealthiest people in America with a great big tax cut at the expense of the poorest people in the country?"

"I went back and reread the New Testament the other day, and I've got news for you. Nowhere in the three-year ministry of Jesus Christ is there any suggestion at all that you ought to take from the poor and give to the rich and leave children at risk," he said to a loud round of applause.

Invoking the legacy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal's "safety net," Sen. Kerry accused Mr. Bush and the GOP of misleading the public about Social Security and their intentions. "They're never telling the truth," he said.

"There were people who opposed Social Security in the '30s and '40s. There were people who voted against Medicare in the last quarter-century. And they're still there," he said.

He dismissed claims that Social Security will be bankrupt by 2042 or 2052, but "Medicare Part A does go bankrupt in 2020. Why isn't the president talking about that?"

Several seniors quizzed Sen. Kerry about the practice of penalizing Social Security recipients who have other sources of income, especially those who have lost their spouses or who worked for some time outside the Social Security system. Sen. Kerry replied that he and others are backing legislation to ease those cuts, which one city resident said were causing her to have to sell her home.

Dartmouth resident Robert Michaud made a case for private retirement accounts, charging that they have been shown to produce a better rate of return than Social Security. A person making $90,000 a year puts $12,000 into Social Security, he said. Raising that income cap "is not tweaking, it's a crime," he said.

Later in the day, Sen. Kerry attended a forum in Fall River discussing the Head Start program.

2005-04-14T09:00:00.000-07:00

John Kerry wins a big victory for Military Families

From the Congressional Record, April 13, 2005

This debate on emergency funding for our military wouldn't be complete if we did not begin to address the crises military families face at home as well as abroad.

I am proud that the Senate has passed my two amendments -- one to allow families to stay in military housing for a full year after the death of a spouse, the other to ensure all military families receive $500,000 in total death benefits when a loved one dies in service to America - but I am also deeply moved by the stories I've heard from across our country in the last 24 hours about the challenges to military families every day.

Yesterday, I sent an email to Americans asking them to share their stories - of husbands and wives, sons and daughters, neighbors and friends who serve their country with courage but have been left on their own by our policies here at home. Within hours over 2,000 Americans sent me their stories. They took time out of their busy days to share their stories on the hope someone would listen. Their voices must be heard in the halls of Congress. Today, I enter a small sample of their stories into the Congressional Record to prove we are listening, and hope that today's victory marks a new beginning - -and that soon Congress will answer all their prayers and pass a comprehensive Military Families Bill of Rights.

--John Kerry

---------------------------

Alan - Aberdeen, SD

This is a story about my own family. In January 2003, my wife was called to active duty with her Army National Guard unit. She was inactive status and a mere 7 days from being completely out of the military when she was mobilized. She went from being a civilian attorney to a Sergeant/E-5 administrative clerk at a significant loss of pay. At that time, I became a single parent to four young children for one full year. In August 2004, I too was called to active duty with my Army Reserve unit. I went from being a university professor to being a Sergeant First Class/E-7. Once again, our four children were without one of their parents during their critical stages of development. We've done our part, now it's time for others to do their part. The burden placed on the National Guard and Reserve forces seems extreme. The morale among more seasoned soldiers, those with 10 to 20 years of service, is not good. Many are getting out of the military at the first available moment.

[...]

2005-04-05T08:19:00.000-07:00

Statement from John Kerry on the Passing of Pope John Paul II

Washington, DC - Senator John Kerry issued the following statement on the passing of Pope John Paul II.

"The Holy Father led the Catholic Church during some of the most challenging times the world has witnessed, and persevered through enormous suffering with inspirational dignity. Teresa and I were deeply saddened to hear of his passing."

"Drawing upon his enduring moral strength and conviction, Pope John Paul II advanced the cause of solidarity in his native Poland and helped to topple communism around the world. We will never forget the example he set by forgiving the man who tried to take his life, and by praying at the Western Wall to ask Jews for their forgiveness. He traveled to places forgotten by all but God to pray for the sick and the poor, and millions turned out to hear his voice, even when strained. In death, as in life, his incredible spirit provides every Catholic with strength and his memory provides us with wisdom. Teresa and I join people all over the world in mourning this tremendous loss. The Holy Father is in our prayers."

2005-02-06T09:32:00.000-08:00

Boston Globe: Weighing defeat, Kerry sees lessons to guide future

WASHINGTON -- Pained but not bowed, Senator John F. Kerry promised in an interview with the Globe last week to apply the lessons of a presidential campaign that he portrayed as ''so much bigger and more complex than people think" to bolster a Democratic Party that he indicated he might seek to lead again.

''I'm not going to sit around, you know. I'm going to learn a lot of good lessons," he said.

Sitting in a wing chair in his Senate office, opposite a historical print of Nantucket Harbor, Kerry offered a wide-ranging assessment of an election he lost by about 3 million popular votes and 35 electoral votes. He said he was determined to play a leading role in his party's efforts to integrate values and religion into its message, especially as directed at his fellow Catholics.

He also said he'd be eager to work at improving the party's grass-roots organizations alongside his former rival Howard Dean, now in line to head the Democratic National Committee, a man he said won his respect by campaigning tirelessly for the Kerry-Edwards ticket.

During the two-hour interview on Thursday, Kerry cited some impediments to his election as president, including the gay marriage referendums in 11 states (''I can certainly tell you it had an impact"), the financial disadvantage of the early convention (''We had a 13-week general election and they had an eight-week"), and surveys showing half of Bush voters believed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks (''Now, did I scratch my head over that? You better believe it.")

Kerry also said he hopes to sit down with President Bush to talk about foreign affairs before Bush's trip to Europe at the end of this month, in what would be the first meeting between the two since their final presidential debate.

Despite the contentious nature of the campaign, Kerry expressed no resentment toward the president, but revealed a simmering bitterness toward some of the president's staunch backers. Kerry demanded that the swift boat veterans who had criticized his military record agree to open up their own files because he knows ''one guy was busted" and another ''has a letter of reprimand."

The fight over the ads by veterans accusing Kerry of exaggerating his Vietnam heroism -- a period that marked a downturn in Kerry's polling numbers -- lingers as a key battle of the campaign.

Last spring, after securing the nomination, Kerry promised Democrats that he wouldn't fall victim to the character attacks that felled so many of the party's former nominees. Three months after Election Day, Kerry still appears angry with himself for allowing the swift boat ads, along with the Republican portrayal of him as a ''flip-flopper," to define his candidacy for some voters.

Read the complete interview

2005-01-09T14:24:00.000-08:00

Via Laura Rozen

Kerry in Syria

After Kerry left the Foreign Ministry on Saturday, 13-year-old Mustafa al-Nabulsi approached him with a drawing of the senator as a soldier in his Vietnam days.

"You have made me much more important than I was, though. You made me a general," Kerry said.

"I wish you were the president," al-Nabulsi said.

"Thank you very much. So do I," Kerry said.

2005-01-07T15:07:00.000-08:00

John Kerry Visits the Troops in Mosul

BAGHDAD (AFP) - Former US presidential hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites) visited US troops stationed in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, scene of a major suicide attack against on a US base in December, the US military said.

Kerry ate dinner on Thursday with soldiers at Camp Freedom, a former Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) palace, and met with Brigadier General Carter Ham, commander of troops in northern Iraq (news - web sites), and local provincial governor Duraid Kashmula, it said in a statement.

"Thanks for what you're doing," the senator from Massachusetts told soldiers. "The folks back home really appreciate your courage and sacrifice."

He arrived in Baghdad on Wednesday and is expected to make to more stops besides Mosul to meet soldiers and officials.

During the presidential campaign, Kerry was a strong critic of how the administration of US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) was managing its involvement in Iraq and said the invasion of the country in 2003 diverted resources and focus from the global war on terror.

2005-01-03T14:08:00.000-08:00

Catholics for Fatihful Citizenship from Eric McFadden, President of Catholics for Kerry 04.

2004-12-23T11:36:00.000-08:00

Democrats Rethinking Abortion Stance

[The key here is that Democrats are owning the message and not allowing Republicans smears. The idea is to let the Party's abortion stance actually reflect what Democrats think and not our opponents misrepresentations and lies. The Party defends its pro-choice stance, but also is a big tent allowing anti-abortion people and most importantly, the point remains that pro-choice is not pro-abortion]

Democratic Leadership Rethinking Abortion

Thu Dec 23, 7:55 AM ET

By Peter Wallsten and Mary Curtius Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — After long defining itself as an undisputed defender of abortion rights, the Democratic Party is suddenly locked in an internal struggle over whether to redefine its position to appeal to a broader array of voters.

The fight is a central theme of the contest to head the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites), particularly between two leading candidates: former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (news - web sites), who supports abortion rights, and former Indiana Rep. Tim Roemer, an abortion foe who argues that the party cannot rebound from its losses in the November election unless it shows more tolerance on one of society's most emotional conflicts.

Roemer is running with the encouragement of the party's two highest-ranking members of Congress, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco and incoming Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Dean, a former presidential candidate, is popular with the party's liberal wing.

If Roemer were to succeed Terry McAuliffe as Democratic chairman in the Feb. 10 vote, the party long viewed as the guardian of abortion rights would suddenly have two antiabortion advocates at its helm. Reid, too, opposes abortion and once voted for a nonbinding resolution opposing Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion.

Party leaders say their support for preserving the landmark ruling will not change. But they are looking at ways to soften the hard line, such as promoting adoption and embracing parental notification requirements for minors and bans on late-term abortions. Their thinking reflects a sense among strategists that Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry and the party's congressional candidates lost votes because the GOP conveyed a more compelling message on social issues.

But in opening a discussion about new appeals to abortion opponents, party leaders are moving into uncertain terrain. Abortion rights activists are critical pillars of the Democratic Party, providing money and grass-roots energy. Some of them say they are concerned that Democratic leaders are entertaining any changes to the party's approach to abortion.

A senior official of one of the nation's largest abortion rights groups said she would be concerned if the party were to choose Roemer to head the Democratic National Committee.

"We want people who are pro-choice. Of course I would be disappointed," said the official, who asked that her name be withheld because of her close alliance with party officials.

Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood (news - web sites) Federation of America, said Democratic strategists who were pushing for the abortion discussion had misconstrued the results of the November election by overstating the strength of "values" voters.

She said the party should remain committed to the "women of America, and their health and their lives and their rights."

Feldt said she had spoken to Kerry and Roemer on Wednesday, and that both had sought to allay her concerns. Both assured her that the party was not changing its stance on abortion, but merely wanted to be more "inclusive."

The debate among Democrats comes at a time when abortion rights supporters are feeling particularly vulnerable. Congress passed a ban on what critics call "partial-birth" abortion last year that Bush signed into law. Last month, abortion opponents were emboldened when four conservative Republicans were elected to the Senate. Also, anticipated retirements from the Supreme Court could give Bush the chance to nominate justices that would tilt the court against Roe vs. Wade.

The race for Democratic Party chairman remains wide open among Dean, Roemer and several other contenders, including longtime operative Harold M. Ickes, New Democrat Network head Simon Rosenberg and South Carolina political strategist Donald L. Fowler Jr. The field of candidates is likely to remain in flux until days before the February vote.

In an interview, Roemer said he would not try to change the minds of abortion rights supporters. But he also said he would encourage the party to eliminate its "moral blind spot" when it comes to late-term abortions.

"We should be talking more about adoption as an alternative, and working with our churches to sponsor some of those adoptions," Roemer said Wednesday from his Washington office. He said he was calling 40 to 50 delegates a day to make his pitch. Most of all, he said, he thinks that abortion opponents would be more comfortable if the party talked about the issue in a more open-minded manner.

"We must be able to campaign in 50 states, not just the blue states or 20 states," said Roemer, referring to the most Democratic-leaning states.

Dean declined through a spokeswoman to talk about the issue, but earlier this month he signaled that he would maintain the party's defense of abortion rights, telling NBC's Tim Russert: "We can change our vocabulary, but I don't think we ought to change our principles."

Votes will be cast by 447 members of the Democratic National Committee, many of whom are among the party's most liberal members. These members are thought to be friendly to Dean and less receptive to Roemer. But the former Indiana congressman is getting attention amid reports that Pelosi and Reid urged him to run.

Roemer has also highlighted his service on the independent panel investigating the government's response to the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that credential builds his appeal to security-minded voters. He noted that he was an elected official from Indiana, a "red state" where Democrats want to make gains.

A Pelosi spokesman said the House Democratic leader liked Roemer because of his national security credentials. But a senior Democratic congressional aide said Pelosi also thought that Roemer's stance on abortion could be an additional benefit.

"She is pro-choice and very staunchly pro-choice," the aide said of Pelosi. But at the same time, the aide said, "she supports showing that this is a big-tent party."

In the presidential election, Kerry, a Catholic, said he personally opposed abortion but did not believe in imposing that belief on others. He said he would not appoint antiabortion judges to the bench.

But after his election loss, the Massachusetts senator concluded that the party needed to rethink its stance. Addressing supporters at a meeting held by the AFL-CIO, Kerry said he discovered during trips through Pennsylvania that many union members were also abortion opponents and that the party needed to rethink how it could appeal to those voters, Kerry spokesman David Wade said.

On the other side of the debate, Wendy Wright, senior policy director for Conservative Women for America, which opposes abortion, said she thought it would be "very smart" for Democrats to elect Roemer chairman of the party.

"It would make sense for Democrats as a whole to recognize that Americans want protections for women and unborn children, want sensible regulations in place, instead of forbidding the law to recognize that an unborn child is a human being," Wright said. "To not pass legislation just to keep the abortion lobby happy is nonsensical, and it appears that some Democrats have recognized that."

Wright said it was too early to know whether Democrats would change their votes on upcoming antiabortion legislation, or would only change the way they speak of abortion. She said the comments of some party leaders led her to believe that "it would just be changing of wording, just trying to repackage in order to be more appealing — really, to trick people."

Some local Democratic leaders said they would be open to an antiabortion chairman under the right circumstances, but that it would be difficult to envision those circumstances.

"That would be a very large philosophical mountain for me to climb," said Mitch Ceasar, a Broward County, Fla., lawyer who is a voting member of the party's national committee.

Ceasar said he took note of Roemer's abortion stance when he received a letter recently from him. He said he was surprised to learn that abortion was an issue in the contest to succeed McAuliffe. "It never occurred to me before his candidacy," Ceasar said. "I never wondered whether Terry McAuliffe was pro-choice or not."

2004-12-12T16:59:00.000-08:00

Kerry Calls For Different Abortion Speak from Democrats

[Democrats have done a good job stressing their belief that a free and just society should be a pro-choice society. The failure of communication compounded by the lies and hypocrisy of the Right is that Democrats have not communicated clearly that we do not like nor approve of abortion, we actually do want to reduce and solve the abortion problem and that pro-life and pro-choice are not mutually exclusive.]

MSNBC.com
Anxiety Over Abortion
Pro-choice Democrats eye a more restrictive approach to abortion as one way to gain ground at the polls

By Debra Rosenberg
Newsweek

Dec. 20 issue - The week after Thanksgiving, dozens of Democratic Party loyalists gathered at AFL-CIO headquarters for a closed-door confab on the election. John Kerry dropped by to thank members of the liberal 527 coalition America Votes. When Ellen Malcolm, president of the pro-choice political network EMILY's List, asked about the future direction of the party, Kerry tackled one of the Democrats' core tenets: abortion rights. He told the group they needed new ways to make people understand they didn't like abortion. Democrats also needed to welcome more pro-life candidates into the party, he said. "There was a gasp in the room," says Nancy Keenan, the new president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

It might have sounded shocking, but John Kerry isn't alone in taking a new look at how the party is handling the explosive topic of abortion. As Democratic strategists and lawmakers quietly discuss how to straddle the nation's Red-Blue divide, abortion has become a prime target. "The issue and the message need to be completely rethought," says one strategist. Along with gay marriage, abortion is at the epicenter of the culture wars, another example used by Republicans to highlight the Democrats' supposed moral relativism. Polls show that most Americans support legal abortion, yet they also favor some restrictions, particularly after the first trimester. Strategists say that's where many Democrats are, too—the public just doesn't know it. With pro-life Sen. Harry Reid newly installed as Senate minority leader, Democrats are eager to show off their big tent.

No one's suggesting that the party abandon its pro-choice roots. With George W. Bush expected to nominate as many as three presumably pro-life Supreme Court justices this term, advocates worry that the right to an abortion is more imperiled than it's been in decades. But as a step toward ultimately preserving that basic right, some Democrats now favor embracing common-sense restrictions on it. One possible initiative: a bill banning third-trimester abortions with broad exceptions for the life and health of the mother.

Democratic lawmakers have found themselves boxed in by a pro-choice orthodoxy that fears the slippery slope—the idea that allowing even the smallest limitation on abortion only paves the way for outlawing it altogether. As a result, most Democrats opposed popular measures like "Laci and Conner's Law"—which makes it a separate federal crime to kill a fetus—and a ban on the gruesome procedure called partial-birth abortion.

A small group of pro-choice Democrats—mostly from Red States—bucked that trend, voting for one or both measures. Still, the issue is so thorny that nearly every lawmaker contacted by NEWSWEEK declined to discuss those votes or the topic in general. But a handful of those senators—including Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, Arkansas Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh—have joined a new progressive advocacy group, Third Way, that hopes to move the party to the center on a number of cultural issues, including abortion. The effort is headed by a team of strategists who helped the Dems find middle ground on gun safety.

It's clear that challenging the old orthodoxy won't be easy. Many advocates blame Kerry for not talking about abortion enough—especially the fate of the Supreme Court. "He did not help the cause," says Planned Parenthood president Gloria Feldt. Other pro-choicers worry that changing gears on abortion will look like flip-flopping. "If we try to be fake Republicans, that's not going to work," says Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette, co-chair of the House pro-choice caucus. "It would be a cynical political move." But some moderate pro-choicers already have voting records to back up their convictions. That's proof, strategists say, that they don't have to choose between values and votes.

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6700571/site/newsweek/

2004-12-03T15:42:00.000-08:00

Via Common Ground Common Sense

Former U.S. presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry (news - web sites) (D-MA), lays flowers on the casket of U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Dimitrios Gavriel during his military funeral at Arlington National Cemetery near Washington DC, December 2, 2004. Gavriel, from Haverhill, Massachusetts, died November 19 while fighting in Al Anbar Province in Iraq (news - web sites) and his funeral is the 99th 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' funeral at Arlington National Cemetery. REUTERS/Jason Reed

Penelope Gavriel (bottom L) kisses the U.S. flag that draped the casket of her son, Lance Cpl. Dimitrios Gavriel, as U.S. Senators' Ted Kennedy (2nd-L), D-MA, and John Kerry (news - web sites) ®, D-MA, stand alongside other family members during his honor guard funeral at Arlington National Cemetery near Washington DC, December 2, 2004. Gavriel, from Haverhill, Massachusetts, died November 19 while fighting in Al Anbar Province in Iraq (news - web sites). REUTERS/Jason Reed REUTERS

Former U.S. presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry (news - web sites) (D-MA) hugs an unidentified member of U.S. Marine Lance Cpl. Dimitrios Gavriel's family during his military funeral at Arlington National Cemetery near Washington DC, December 2, 2004. Gavriel, from Haverhill, Massachusetts, died November 19 while fighting in Al Anbar Province in Iraq (news - web sites), and his funeral was the 99th 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' funeral at Arlington National Cemetery. REUTERS/Jason Reed

2004-12-01T15:14:00.000-08:00

Kerry Plans "Thank You" Visit to New Hampshire

WASHINGTON - Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry [related, bio] plans to visit New Hampshire this weekend to thank supporters - a visit that could stoke speculation about his 2008 plans.

However, Kerry (D-Mass.) aides yesterday downplayed the Saturday trip to Manchester, N.H., saying it was solely an opportunity for the Bay State senator to meet privately with volunteers who worked hard on his unsuccessful 2004 White House bid.

``It's doing the work of thanking people,'' said Kerry spokesman David Wade. ``It's the kind of thing that too many politicians forget to do.'' The press will not be invited, Wade said.

Kerry aides insisted the senator was not seeking to fuel speculation about his political future with the visit to the Granite State, which hosts the nation's first primary.

``It's got nothing to do with 2008,'' Wade said.

Kerry has expressed his hope to remain a major voice in the Democratic Party. Some supporters, including his brother Cam, have said it is possible he could run again for president in 2008. While Kerry has not ruled out such a run, most political analysts consider a Kerry 2008 presidential candidacy highly unlikely.

2004-12-01T15:07:00.000-08:00

Edwards Staying on Stage

By Jim Schlosser, Staff Writer
News & Record

GREENSBORO — Sen. John Edwards can insist mightily — as he did repeatedly Tuesday — that he isn't giving any thought about whether he'll run for high office again.

Why, then, the fuss over the flags?

For 45 minutes before the boyish, blue-suited Edwards entered the auditorium of the Greensboro Historical Museum for a farewell town meeting with constituents, his aides furled, unfurled and kept repositioning five American flags and a North Carolina flag on the stage.

They'd move one flag forward, another backward. They twisted coat hangers and placed them inside two flags to make the fabric lean a certain way.

An aide picked a place on the floor in front of the stage and marked it with white tape. This is where Edwards needed to stand for the flags to be centered in the background.

The aides then changed their minds and moved the tape to the second step leading up to the stage.

One aide went to the back of the auditorium and folded his hands as if it were a camera lens. He squinted through his fingers and called for some more minute shifting of the flags.

The young staffers fretted about the lighting, worried it might be too harsh. Audio concerned them, too. It didn't sound "clean" enough.

Wait a minute. Don't these people know the election is over? Edwards, who sacrificed his Senate seat to be Democrat John Kerry's running mate, need not worry anymore how he looks in front of a crowd.

Unless, he's already running for president in 2008.

Edwards said no decision about what's next for him will come until his wife, Elizabeth, is well again. The day after the election, she received a diagnosis of breast cancer. She has responded to the cancer challenge as she did other crises, with toughness, Edwards said.

"We are going to beat this. We feel very good and optimistic about that," Edwards said to applause.

But constituents and reporters persisted in asking what's up for him now that his Senate term is ending. How does he stay in the public eye without a public office?

Plenty of ways, he said. He could do so through a public policy institution or think tank, by making speeches in the United States and aboard, by working in a university setting or by associating himself with a foundation that shares his concerns.

Those concerns include jobs, health care and fighting for "the kind of people I grew up with," Edwards said of his boyhood in Robbins in Moore County, where he played football on Friday nights and went to church on Sundays.

One of his former teachers at North Moore High School, Eva Rae Clark, drove from Davidson County to see him Tuesday.

Edwards did offer one firm answer about his future.

"I don't have any plans to practice law," he said of the profession that made him wealthy and earned him a reputation for shrewd maneuvers in the courtroom.

He also said he didn't take it personally that voters in his home state went for the Republican Bush-Cheney ticket.

"We were running against a popular incumbent," he said of President Bush.

There was speculation during the campaign season that Edwards may have had trouble winning re-election to the Senate had he chosen to do so. By North Carolina standards, his voting record tended to be liberal.

"I would have won re-election as a senator," he replied firmly when asked how he would have done.

Arriving 45 minutes late, Edwards spoke to an audience that filled the 150-seat auditorium and had people standing along the walls.

Greensboro was a stop in a three-day state tour to thank people for their support and to hear concerns that he'll pass on to Richard Burr, who won Edwards' Senate seat.

His loudest applause, except when he declared that Kerry "would have made a great president," came when he said: "The fight is not over. Not only is the fight not over, I'm not through fighting."

After answering questions from the audience, Edwards stood in front of the stage as people filed by to ask for an autograph and to be photographed with him.

"I can't tell you how proud I am of you," Terri Battle of Greensboro told him. "I cried all day that Wednesday. We need you so much up there."

"I'm sick you and John Kerry lost," Victoria Topkins of Greensboro said to him. "It just makes me sick."

Angie Smits of Greensboro said she attended because of her friendship with Elizabeth Edwards, whom she met 10 years ago during an Internet chat-room discussion of UNC basketball.

"She can do a very in-depth analysis of the game," Smits said of the senator's wife.

Few people probably know of Elizabeth Edwards' love of basketball or, for that matter, that her husband played on the freshman football team at Clemson University before he transferred to N.C. State, where he didn't play football.

Was he better than his soon-to-be successor, Burr, who played football for Wake Forest University? Like a good politician, Edwards dodged the question.

"I didn't know," Edwards said, "Richard played football."

Contact Jim Schlosser at 373-7081 or jschlosser@news-record.com

2004-11-23T09:24:00.000-08:00

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)

2004-11-17T13:17:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-11-16T16:04:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-11-11T05:25:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-11-09T09:04:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-11-08T10:06:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-11-06T18:36:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-11-04T13:24:00.000-08:00

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."

2004-11-03T11:30:00.000-08:00

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."

2004-11-03T08:31:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-11-02T22:42:00.000-08:00

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."

2004-11-02T05:00:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-11-01T21:33:00.000-08:00

Kerry shares a laugh with his daughters

2004-11-01T21:23:00.000-08:00

via first draft

Kerry and supporters invoke the gods

2004-11-01T15:49:00.000-08:00

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.

2004-10-31T19:31:00.000-08:00

Living in a purple area in a generally Blue State, I found our priest's election message interesting. Generally, he hasn't said much about the election. Today, all he said was "please vote," and expressed being sick of the whole process. I think at this stage, that may sum up how many of us feel.

Nonetheless, the next four years and more than likely the direction of this century, lies in what happens on Tuesday. So a little perseverance is necessary.

The archright/Rambo Catholics, etc, have sought to hijack the consciences of Catholics by badgering them into voting single issue on a candidates stand on the legality of abortion. The point is that single issue votes just do not make common sense in advancing the culture of life.

-why would you fight for a life for its first 9 months and then abandon it for the remaining four-score and ten?
-do these archright-ers not want clean air, pollutant-free water for their babies and children? Environmental issues are life issues too.
-do these people not want affordable healthcare for their children and grandchildren?
-do these people not want a solid fiscal environment so that their children grow up in a world that is stable and not on the verge of financial collapse?
-do these people not want a far-sighted sensible foreign policy that restores our leadership in the world and reclaims our allies? This means everthing in terms of the world that our babies are born into, i.e., will it be peaceful, will it be stable, it will be safe, it will respect human rights
-do these people not want a policy of peace and not war, especially illegal and unjust wars such as the Iraq war, responsible for the the death of 100,000 and the injuring and maiming of 100,000?
-do these people not want an energy policy that respects th environment, advances science, and reduces our dependency on Mideast oil?
-do these people not want a just society in which the criminal justice system does not put innocent men to death?
-do these people not want a world in which we all can dream again and humanity can hope together?

Gaudium et Spes, the crowing document of Vatican II, said a lot of revolutionary things. One very important contribution was that it defined human essence as not simple just having a will and intellect, but as being essentially in community. What that means is that human life CANNOT be understood, much less treated, as an isolated solipsistic entity, unrelated to the context of a community around it. The fight for life is a fight for an interrelated set of values. The archright argues that abortion is the sole and foundational issue that must be voted on. We argue that that is misguided. But even it that were the case. A foundation is inconceivable without the building it is grounding. You don't build a foundation for the heck of it. You build a foundation after you decided what type of house you want to build. You have to hold the whole of the culture of life in view, if you are going to fight for it.

The point is that even the idea of a foundation is locked in a complex of interrelated concerns. Jesus in Luke's gospel gives the example of someone who wants to build a house and builds the foundation, but then is stuck because he didn't have enough to complete the job. You have to understand the whole and then seek the whole through the part or else, the part becomes useless. The conservatives who vote on the abortion issue solely would be commendeded if in so voting, they were doing so in view of the whole culture of life. But that simply is not the case, because their votes and their concerns end with the birth of the child. They do not follow through for the lifetime of life issue of that human being. In fact, their votes militate against a culture of life post-birth. The archright has gotten so mired in their anger that they have lost sight of the whole, which is the dignity of the human life.

A vote for George Bush, does nothing definitely postive for the pro-life cause. We do know, though, that besides his tepid support for anti-choice ideas, his policies are a disaster for the culture of life. On the other hand, John Kerry offers a definite and positive choice for those concerned with creating a culture of life. With John Kerry, we can truly and authentically pursue the whole through the parts. We can look forward to the promise of healthcare, solving the poverty and social concerns, we can look forward to strengthening ourselves both at home and abroad, we can look for environmental progress, and yes, we can look for a reduction in the rates of abortion without endangering the lives and dignity of women.

John Kerry is a man that Catholics can trust to bring common sense Catholic values to the White House everyday he is offie. George Bush does not resonate with Catholic values, John Kerry does. John Kerry is the unequivocal choice for Catholics in this election.

2004-10-31T09:32:00.000-08:00

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

Wisdom 11:22-12:2 (Today's Mass reading actually)

Before the LORD the whole universe is as a grain from a balance
or a drop of morning dew come down upon the earth.
But you have mercy on all, because you can do all things;
and you overlook people's sins that they may repent.
For you love all things that are
and loathe nothing that you have made;
for what you hated, you would not have fashioned.
And how could a thing remain, unless you willed it;
or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you?
But you spare all things, because they are yours,
O LORD and lover of souls,
for your imperishable spirit is in all things!
Therefore you rebuke offenders little by little,
warn them and remind them of the sins they are committing,
that they may abandon their wickedness and believe in you, O LORD!

2004-10-30T17:36:00.000-07:00

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

James 1:5-11

5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and he will be given it.
6 But he should ask in faith, not doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed about by the wind.
7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord,
8 since he is a man of two minds, unstable in all his ways.
9 The brother in lowly circumstances should take pride in his high standing,
10 and the rich one in his lowliness, for he will pass away "like the flower of the field."
11 For the sun comes up with its scorching heat and dries up the grass, its flower droops, and the beauty of its appearance vanishes. So will the rich person fade away in the midst of his pursuits.

2004-10-30T09:33:00.000-07:00

This is more of what the culture of life looks like, helping people, bringing people together--not bombs, not war. This captures that sanity and love of life that we want. Bush wants war, Kerry wants peace. As Isaiah says: "And His name shall be called, Wonderful, Counselor, Almighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

Hey Osama, you wanna piece of me? Unlike GWB, I will hunt you down and kick your . . ."

Kerry supporters from the Elizabeth Community in Charlotte, N.C. erected a wall twelve feet high and forty feet long of carved lit pumpkins Friday Oct. 30, 2004. Over three hundred pumpkins were used in the construction. (AP Photo/Byron Baldwin)

2004-10-29T13:54:00.000-07:00

Via Welborn

Belienet article

John Kerry's Abortion Ban
The campaign confirms that Kerry supports a measure that could ban thousands of abortions

Sen. John Kerry supports banning most abortions of fetuses post-"viability," the campaign confirmed Thursday.

Roughly 10,000 abortions occur each year in the third trimester, after fetuses are commonly thought to be viable, so this approach could curtail a greater number of late term abortions than the "partial birth abortion" ban often discussed by President Bush.

In 1997, when Congress was first considering whether to prohibit partial birth abortion, Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota offered a compromise amendment that banned abortion for any fetuses that could be considered viable. [Text here]. Kerry voted for the amendment, which was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and liberal Democrats. [Click here for roll call.]

Kerry has never mentioned his support of such a ban in any major speeches, debates or campaign documents and usually emphasizes a woman's "right to choose." However, in response to questions from Beliefnet concerning the 1997 vote, campaign spokesman Jim Chon, emailed Thursday, "John Kerry stands by his vote."
The Daschle amendment stated: "It shall be unlawful for a physician to abort a viable fetus unless the physician certifies that the continuation of the pregnancy would threaten the mother's life or risk grievous injury to her physical health."

At the time Daschle proposed his amendment, also called the "comprehensive abortion ban act of 1997," the American Civil Liberties Union attacked it as "unconstitutionally narrow" because it didn’t allow enough health-of-the-mother exceptions. The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League president Kate Michelman said Daschle's amendment "goes too far" in restricting abortion.

Republicans opposed the Daschle amendment too, arguing that it gave too much authority to doctors to determine "viability."

Though President Bush has spoken in general about the need to "protect life" -- and the Republican platform calls for a constitutional amendment banning most abortion -- it is the partial birth ban he mentions most often. There has been much debate about the actual number of late term partial birth abortions, with most estimates ranging from a few hundred to 1,500. The ban signed by President Bush did not affect other kinds of late term abortions.

Medical conventional wisdom holds that fetuses generally become viable – able to live outside the womb - by the beginning of the seventh month of pregnancy. The Alan Guttmacher Institute has estimated that .08% of abortions, or about 10,000, occur after the 24th week. The Daschle bill also would have prohibited any "partial birth" abortions of fetuses that were viable.

The Bush campaign has criticized Kerry's votes against the partial birth ban and the Bush-Cheney campaign's official website notes several other examples of Senator Kerry opposing restrictions on abortion. As a result of his pro-choice record, several Catholic bishops have said that voting for Kerry is a sin.

The Church's position -- and the Kerry campaign's statement -- may be significant because several battlegrounds states have large Catholic populations: Pennsylvania (30%), New Jersey (45.9%), Ohio (28%), Michigan (28%), Wisconsin (34.4), Minnesota (28.7%) and New Hampshire (38.2%), according to the Gallup Organization.

A TV ad being run by National Right to Life states: "John Kerry supports abortion for any reason, all nine months of pregnancy." A voters guide being distributed to churches around the country by the American Conservative Union says Kerry "never met an abortion he didn't like."

The 1997 fight created some unusual alliances. Two pro-life academics Stephen C. Meyer and David K. DeWolf wrote in the Wall Street Journal at the time that the Daschle amendment would have stopped more than 10,000 abortions each year. The writers declared, "For Americans who want to limit abortion on demand, a historic opportunity stands open in Congress. Whether pro-life legislators seize this opportunity will depend on whether they prefer symbolic victory or substantive reform."

Several pro-choice groups opposed the approach. In a letter opposing the amendment, the ACLU stated at the time that the ban would "would prevent women with serious and legitimate health problems from obtaining the abortions they need."

On the other hand, Republicans argued that because the determination of "grievous injury" and fetal viability would be left to the physician, the ban would have been toothless. "If we pass the Daschle amendment and require this concept of physician certification, that the pregnancy would risk grievous injury, I believe that clearly would render this bill meaningless," said Senator Mike Dewine, a Ohio Republican. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania declared, "Put yourself in the position of the abortionist. Are you going to say the baby was viable and I killed it?”

In an article about the 1997 battle, former Daschle aide Amy Sullivan recalled that "the Alternative was never so popular as in defeat. Leading conservatives immediately scolded Republicans for missing their last best chance to cooperate with Democrats on abortion legislation, recognizing that the Alternative would have been a big step toward reducing abortion rates. 'You can't be so used to drubbing your enemy that you don't recognize it when they make some sense,' William Bennett told The Washington Times. 'If I didn't know who sponsored this, I would have thought it was a pro-life Republican.'"

The timing of the Kerry campaign’s acknowledgement may relate to the phase of the campaign. In a panel on religion and politics during the Democratic convention, Sean Casey, a professor at Wesley Theological Seminary, speculated that early in the campaign season, Democratic candidates highlight only their most-pro-choice positions because "there's so much early pro-choice money in the Democratic Party."

Now that the campaigns have progressed past the fundraising period and into the vote-gathering period, the calculus may have shifted for the Kerry campaign.

2004-10-29T13:04:00.000-07:00

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

2 Timothy 1:7

7 For God did not give us a spirit of cowardice but rather of power and love and self-control.

2004-10-29T11:48:00.000-07:00

U.S Newswire reports:

Catholic Group Condemns President Bush for Moral Failures; Launches Radio Spots on 45 Stations in 5 States

10/28/2004 1:21:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk, Political Reporter

Contact: Thomas Carroll of Catholics for Political Responsibility, 202-276-5155, thecatholicvote@yahoo.com

WASHINGTON, Oct. 28 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Catholics for Political Responsibility (CPR) has launched a stinging criticism of President Bush's "failure of moral leadership," citing mounting casualties in Iraq, the torture and rendition of detainees, the growing number of families in poverty and rising abortion rates. The rise in poverty and abortion rates reverse significant progress made on these "life issues" during the 1990's. CPR is airing these critiques in two radio spots in rotation on 45 stations in Ohio, Wisconsin, Colorado, West Virginia and New Hampshire (available at http://www.thecatholicvote.org with text attached below).

"I voted for Bush in 2000 because of my pro-life values but I am heartily sorry now. On war, health care, poverty and abortion, he has failed to promote the culture of life when it counts," said Sidney Callahan, award-winning Catholic writer and CPR Co- chair.

Professor of Roman Catholic Studies at College of the Holy Cross and CPR co-chair David O'Brien adds, "For all of Bush's talk about the Catholic vote, we find out from our Bishops this week that the President refused to complete the Catholic's Election Survey, the first major candidate to refuse their survey since it began in 1988. That is not surprising since Bush is on the wrong side of most Catholic teaching."

Catholics for Political Responsibility provides voice to serious Catholics inspired by the Church's call to serve the common good. This group of prominent theologians, clergy, and laypeople bares witness to the moral failures of the Bush administration, the Catholic values of service and stewardship lived by John Kerry, and the obligation of Faithful Citizenship to have an informed conscience on all Catholic teaching. Web: http://www.thecatholicvote.org

---

Text for Four CPR Radio Spots

"MORAL FAILURE"

I am Sidney Callahan, a wife, mother of six and a Catholic writer on moral theology. I voted for Bush in 2000 because of my pro-life values but I am heartily sorry now.

President Bush has failed to live up to his moral promises. He led us into a reckless and unjust war condemned by the Pope and other religious leaders. The violence has cost us 20,000 lives and brought the deep shame of torturing prisoners.

At home tax breaks for the wealthy increase the gap between poor and rich. Families struggle without health insurance. No wonder abortion rates are tragically rising again, after falling 18 percent in the 90's.

George Bush talks a lot about his religious values but he is not choosing life when it counts.

"BROKEN PROMISES"

President Bush, as pro-life Catholics, we made a deal with you. You were on the wrong side of most Catholic teaching, but you were with us on abortion, and that mattered.

You marched us into an unjust war, against the appeals of the Pope and your own Methodist Bishops.

The number of children in poverty rose and 5 million people lost health insurance.

You've controlled the White House and Congress for four years, but what have you delivered for the culture of life?

Now abortion rates are rising steadily, after falling 18 percent in the 90's. That makes sense, more women lack the health insurance or economic security that help them choose life.

Mr. President, we waited for your moral leadership - it never came. You've disappointed us on all life issues - war, poverty, health care...and abortion. That wasn't the deal we made.

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

You can still make a difference. Help them run their very effective ads. Visit and donate at Catholics for Political Responsibility

2004-10-28T17:04:00.000-07:00

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

Psalm 45:7-8

7 Your throne, O god, stands forever; your royal scepter is a scepter for justice.
8 You love justice and hate wrongdoing; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellow kings.

2004-10-28T09:37:00.000-07:00

Via MyDD

Kerry leads among Catholic voters 49%-44% (Zogby)

Zogby commentary:

Six days before the general election, the candidates are battling for support from several key constituencies. Zogby International considers the following demographics worth particular attention: Catholics, investors, non-investors, women and men, and 18-29 year olds.

The President leads among: investors (Bush 55%-Kerry 41%); and men (Bush 47%-Kerry 46%); women (Bush 48%-Kerry 47%).

Senator Kerry leads among: Catholics (Kerry 49%-Bush 46%); non-investors (Kerry 49%-Bush 44%); 18-29 year olds (Kerry 50%-Bush 47%).

I normally don't waste my time with these polls of Catholic voters, but I post this to give encouragement to Kerry Catholics: that even after all the negativity and the concerted effort by many bishops to derail Senator Kerry, Senator Kerry is doing well with Catholics.

Senator Kerry will be the one president that will most resonate with Catholic values. Can I get an amen? (Ooops, excuse me . . . wrong denomination.)

2004-10-28T08:45:00.000-07:00

Two Catholic groups fighting the good fight.

Catholics for Kerry 04

Catholics for Political Responsibility

It is crunch time and they are involved in medial efforts to let Catholics know that it is totally alright, totally cool and totally Catholic, to vote for Kerry.

If you can donate to these guys, I'm sure they'd appreciate it very much.

2004-10-27T18:02:00.000-07:00

Via First Draft

2004-10-27T16:30:00.000-07:00

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

Phillipians 4:4-8

4 Rejoice in the Lord always. I shall say it again: rejoice!
5 Your kindness 5 should be known to all. The Lord is near.
6 Have no anxiety at all, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, make your requests known to God.
7 Then the peace of God that surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.
8 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. 6

2004-10-26T18:32:00.000-07:00

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

Jeremiah 7:1-11

1 The following message came to Jeremiah from the LORD:
2 Stand at the gate of the house of the LORD, and there proclaim this message: Hear the word of the LORD, all you of Judah who enter these gates to worship the LORD!
3 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: Reform your ways and your deeds, so that I may remain with you in this place.
4 Put not your trust in the deceitful words: "This is the temple of the LORD! The temple of the LORD! The temple of the LORD!"
5 Only if you thoroughly reform your ways and your deeds; if each of you deals justly with his neighbor;
6 if you no longer oppress the resident alien, the orphan, and the widow; if you no longer shed innocent blood in this place, or follow strange gods to your own harm,
7 will I remain with you in this place, in the land which I gave your fathers long ago and forever.
8 But here you are, putting your trust in deceitful words to your own loss!
9 Are you to steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal, go after strange gods that you know not,
10 and yet come to stand before me in this house which bears my name, and say: "We are safe; we can commit all these abominations again"?
11 Has this house which bears my name become in your eyes a den of thieves? I too see what is being done, says the LORD.

2004-10-26T09:15:00.000-07:00

New progressive Catholic 527: Catholics for Policital Responsibility

Check it out!

2004-10-25T11:56:00.000-07:00

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

Psalm 1:1-6

1 Happy those who do not follow the counsel of the wicked, Nor go the way of sinners, nor sit in company with scoffers.
2 Rather, the law of the LORD is their joy; God's law they study day and night.
3 They are like a tree planted near streams of water, that yields its fruit in season; Its leaves never wither; whatever they do prospers.
4 But not the wicked! They are like chaff driven by the wind.
5 Therefore the wicked will not survive judgment, nor will sinners in the assembly of the just.
6 The LORD watches over the way of the just, but the way of the wicked leads to ruin.

2004-10-25T10:40:00.000-07:00

FYI-The Catholic Church Does Approve Terminating Pregnancies in Certain Cases

Even thought the conservative voices and the hierarchy prclaim loudly their absolute anti-abortion stances (even in cases of rape and incest), one thing they are hush about is the church's backdoor "approval" of abortion/abortive proceedures/terminating pregnancies.

In a comment box discussion with Catholics for Bush I make the point that the Church actually does allow abortions in certain cases. However, that approval is hidden its doctrine of double effect, a principle credited to Thomas Aquinas, who developed it to justify killing in self defense.

This Stanford website gives a good explanation of the principle of double effect. Basically the principle says:

The doctrine (or principle) of double effect is often invoked to explain the permissibility of an action that causes a serious harm, such as the death of a human being, as a side effect of promoting some good end. It is claimed that sometimes it is permissible to cause such a harm as a side effect (or “double effect”) of bringing about a good result even though it would not be permissible to cause such a harm as a means to bringing about the same good end. This reasoning is summarized with the claim that sometimes it is permissible to bring about as a merely foreseen side effect a harmful event that it would be impermissible to bring about intentionally.

Here are the classic conditions for double effect:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect” (p. 1021).

If we take the classic case used, that of an ectopic pregnancy. What is an ectopic pregnancy? (From Ectopic Pregnancy Trust)

What is an Ectopic Pregnancy?
Put very simply, an ectopic pregnancy means "an out-of-place pregnancy".

It happens when a woman's ovum when it has been fertilised by a man's sperm, instead of moving down her fallopian tube into the womb to develop there, remains "stuck" in the tube.

In the case of the ectopic pregnancy the fetus is stuck in the fallopian tube. If the fertilized egg is left there it'll rupture the fallopian tube and result in death for the woman (and the baby). Thus, the heartbreaking situation is that for the mother to live, the baby must die.

Now Catholic theology cannot allow for a direct abortion because such an action is seen as intrinsically evil and thus never justified. However, the principle of double effect kicks in and the baby can be aborted as a side effect or "double effect" or another proceedure. In this example classic Catholic moral theology says that the doctors may remove the fallopian tube with the direct of intention of saying the mother's life from a tube rapture. However, as a side effect of that action, the baby is inevitable killed. However, according to the principles of double effect, the death of the baby is tolerated because the good effect of saving the mother's life is sufficiently desireable to the bad effect of the baby's death. So as long as the intent was to save the mother's life and not the destruction of the baby, that situation is okay.

Now, the problem here is that this is not a case in which a pregnant mother has, say cancer of the kidneys and life-saving surgery is required which puts the baby at extreme risk. In the case of the cancerous kidney, it is possible to save both the mother's life and that of the baby's. (double effect can apply here to address the moral question of what level of risk is acceptable in order to save the mother's life.) However, in the case of ectopic pregnancies, the baby will be the ultimate cause of the mother's death and it is the baby that ultimately has to be terminated for the mother to live. Now, even if everyone directs their intention to the saving of the mother's life, it is still clear what the ultimate result needs to be that the baby must be terminated. This is done indirectly by removing the fallopian tube and thus, not called an abortion. But it is clear that it really is an abortion, or an abortive action.

I remember that one of the criticisms of Ru-486 or one of those pill contraceptives/abortifacients was that it worked, not by acting directly on the baby, but drying out the uterine wall or doing something indirectly to cause the baby to starve. The anti-abortion crowd argued that it was an abortive effect even if the pill wasn't acting directly on the baby and equally as rephrensible. It follows then, that in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, in which the baby must die for the mother to live, even if the direct action is directed at something else, it is ultimately designed to result in the baby's death. It is an abortive proceedure.

So the point here is that the Church allows for the termination of pregnancies in cases of ectopic pregnancies. I've heard people argue that it is not technically an abortion and does not fall into the AMA category of abortion, etc. It doesn't matter what it is classified as, the point is that we know ultimately that the baby has to be terminated by the actions of those involved; basically, we are giving the woman the choice in this very difficult situation to terminate her pregnancy.

The cries of the conservative anti-abortion movement for an absolute ban on abortions is not consistent with the Church's theology. The Church realizes that in certain situations the woman should have the choice (Does the woman have a moral obligation in an ectopic pregnancy to save her life? That's a discussion for another day and blog). For now, it is enought to acknowledge that the Church is more pro-choice than it lets on.

2004-10-23T22:59:00.000-07:00

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

Hebrews 10:19-25

19 Therefore, brothers, since through the blood of Jesus we have confidence of entrance into the sanctuary
20 by the new and living way he opened for us through the veil, that is, his flesh,
21 and since we have "a great priest over the house of God,"
22 let us approach with a sincere heart and in absolute trust, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure water.
23 Let us hold unwaveringly to our confession that gives us hope, for he who made the promise is trustworthy.
24 We must consider how to rouse one another to love and good works.
25 We should not stay away from our assembly, as is the custom of some, but encourage one another, and this all the more as you see the day drawing near.

2004-10-23T11:57:00.000-07:00

And George Bush said, "Ecce terroristem!"

BTW, Wolf Awareness Week in Michigan just ended.

"We were tricked, we thought it was a Greenpeace commercial!" Alpha Wolf
Wolf Packs for Truth

2004-10-23T11:31:00.000-07:00

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

1 John 1:5-10

5 Now this is the message that we have heard from him and proclaim to you: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all.
6 If we say, "We have fellowship with him," while we continue to walk in darkness, we lie and do not act in truth.
7 But if we walk in the light as he is in the light, then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of his Son Jesus cleanses us from all sin.
8 If we say, "We are without sin," we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we acknowledge our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrongdoing.
10 If we say, "We have not sinned," we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

2004-10-23T11:27:00.000-07:00

Via First Draft

2004-10-22T17:40:00.000-07:00

Over at Catholics for Bush there's a post about Archbishop Chaput's NYT op-ed piece, which I, as it goes, I have no interest in at the moment. Of course, the sentiment at that blog was too praise it and further bash pro-choicers as evil, etc.

What struck me though, was this comment from an anonymous poster. I suggest you read it. I think it is another example of why pro-choice is not pro-abortion and why these issues are difficult enough without the Right screaming how evil you are in your ear.

2004-10-22T13:50:00.000-07:00

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

1 All wisdom comes from the LORD and with him it remains forever.
2 The sand of the seashore, the drops of rain, the days of eternity: who can number these?
3 Heaven's height, earth's breadth, the depths of the abyss: who can explore these?
4 Before all things else wisdom was created; and prudent understanding, from eternity.
5 To whom has wisdom's root been revealed? Who knows her subtleties?
6 There is but one, wise and truly awe-inspiring, seated upon his throne:
7 It is the LORD; he created her, has seen her and taken note of her.
8 He has poured her forth upon all his works, upon every living thing according to his bounty; he has lavished her upon his friends.
9 Fear of the LORD is glory and splendor, gladness and a festive crown.
10 Fear of the LORD warms the heart, giving gladness and joy and length of days.
11 He who fears the LORD will have a happy end; even on the day of his death he will be blessed.
12 The beginning of wisdom is fear of the LORD, which is formed with the faithful in the womb.
13 With devoted men was she created from of old, and with their children her beneficence abides.
14 Fullness of wisdom is fear of the LORD; she inebriates men with her fruits.
15 Her entire house she fills with choice foods, her granaries with her harvest.
16 Wisdom's garland is fear of the LORD, with blossoms of peace and perfect health.
17 Knowledge and full understanding she showers down; she heightens the glory of those who possess her.
18 The root of wisdom is fear of the LORD; her branches are length of days.
19 One cannot justify unjust anger; anger plunges a man to his downfall.
20 A patient man need stand firm but for a time, and then contentment comes back to him.
21 For a while he holds back his words, then the lips of many herald his wisdom.
22 Among wisdom's treasures is the paragon of prudence; but fear of the LORD is an abomination to the sinner.
23 If you desire wisdom, keep the commandments, and the LORD will bestow her upon you;
24 For fear of the LORD is wisdom and culture; loyal humility is his delight.
25 Be not faithless to the fear of the LORD, nor approach it with duplicity of heart.
26 Play not the hypocrite before men; over your lips keep watch.
27 Exalt not yourself lest you fall and bring upon you dishonor;
28 For then the LORD will reveal your secrets and publicly cast you down,
29 Because you approached the fear of the LORD with your heart full of guile.

2004-10-21T21:28:00.000-07:00

Did Bill Donohue of Catholic League misrepresent the Pope's Position on the Iraq War on Hardball?

Here's a dkos diarist who thinks so:

President of Catholic League Lies about Pope on Hardball
Fri Oct 22nd, 2004 at 01:55:24 GMT
*** UPDATE - Audio link added see below ***
On Hardball tonight (Oct. 21, 2004), the President of the Catholic League, William Donohue flat out lied about the Pope's position on Iraq.
William Donohue said on this show: "The pope has never declared this war to be an unjust war." MP3 Audio This statement is a lie. On March 5, 2003 the Pope actually sent the White House a message saying that the war was "unjust and illegal."

The context of his lie was a flawed rationalization as to why Bush is a better "pro-life candidate" than Kerry for Catholics. This was a desperate attempt by the right-wing freaks to trick Catholic voters into voting for Bush by lying.
Here in Wisconsin, a good number of the swing voters are Catholic, and Bush and his ilk are desperate to sway them his way. But stooping so low that Catholic "leaders" lie about the Pope's stance on unjust wars and the death penalty could very well backfire.
People do not like being lied to, so please do what you can to spread the truth.Diaries :: kimg's diary ::
The news quotes and source follow:
"March 5, 2003, 11:18PMBush receives message from popeLetter says war against Iraq will be 'unjust and illegal'By BENNETT ROTHCopyright 2003 Houston Chronicle Washington BureauWASHINGTON -- A Vatican envoy Wednesday carried the pope's message to the White House that a U.S.-led war against Iraq without United Nations' approval would be "unjust and illegal." "

And by the way, why on earth do Catholic officials and Anti-abortion activists weasel out of the issue of punitive action for women who commit abortions? Both Msgr McSweeney and Bill Donohue weaseled out of the question when asked by Chris Matthews: What should the punishment be for the women who procure an abortion?

If abortion is murder then the women who commit abortions should get 5-10 years, at the least, right?

If you say, no, we make an exception for murder punishments in the case of abortions, then you emasculate the law. There is no longer equal protection, because in some cases, "murder/manslaughter/etc" is punishable by jail time, death, or whatever, but in cases of abortion, "murder" requires counseling and love. Go figure.

We make the case over and over again, the Church needs to go back to the drawing board and rethink its relationship between moral code and human law, there may be overlap, but the law is not and should not be based on the Church's moral code.

When it is all said and done, the Right and hierarchy will begin to acknowledge what moderates and liberals have known all along.

-That Pro-choice is not pro-abortion (this simply disqualifies all that talk of proportionate reasons)
-That human beings, most especially mothers, are good and naturally want to preserve their baby's lives; thus, in the case of an abortion, something must have weighed heavily on her to terminate her baby's life. (We believe in the goodness of human beings and humans naturally want to preserve life, thus in the case where life is harmed, we ask "why?"; anti-abortion activists believe humans lack a threshold of goodness, and that mothers may have, neutral, at best, feelings towards their unborn babies; otherwise, why would you think women want to have abortions for frivolous reasons or because a pregnancy was "inconvenient"?)
-That there is a consistent ethic of life from cradle to grave that must be respected
-That making abortion illegal does not solve the problem nor does it create a culture of life
-That creating a culture of life, which includes solving the problem of abortion, is hard work, and requires addressing the factors that weigh on women to make such an unnatural decision
-That the anti-abortion movement is more concerned with a principle than with life itself (the principle being that something that is "intrinsically evil" is never justified. Abortion [or substitute for contraception, same sex marriage, euthanasia, etc] is intrinsically evil, therefore, abortion [or X] is never justified. That's the principle which is the main concern, rather than actual existing human life. This explains the remarkable indifference to the 100,000 innocent Iraqis injured or maimed in this war, 20,000 innocent Iraqis killed in this war, 5,000 US troops injured or maimed, and 1,100 US troops killed (who cares if the war is just or unjust, war is hell!); or even the relative indifference to a baby, whose life was fought for prior to birth, two weeks after it is born, the anti-abortion movement is absent, even though it is the SAME life that they fought tooth and nail for two weeks earlier. )
-That the Republican Party is playing and has played Catholics like a drum and at some point, reasonable people begin to say enough is enough
-That John Kerry is and will be a more truly pro-life President than George Bush

2004-10-21T16:49:00.000-07:00

Senator Kerry will be talking about his faith in Florida next week. Let me rephrase that, . . . his faith in God somewhere in Florida (we do believe in FL too). Recently there has been quite a bit of commentary on George Bush's faith, or lack thereof. Most notably, someone noted that Bush's faith lacks content and his strategists have used that to their advantage. He simply states his faith in God, and Bush's worshippers fill in the rest, or should we say, project in the rest.

Senator Kerry's faith on the other hand is a wise and well thought out faith, much like most other things in his life. Kerry's religion has been very important to him for decades. He was an altar boy. He once considered the priesthood. After Vietnam, he had a crises of faith (something I wish he would talk about more, he has no idea how much that would resonate with Catholics), but then returned to the Catholic faith.

Christianity has always advanced by and because of men like Senator Kerry, who understand that the voice of God speaks as authentically to humans in history, nature and culture, as it does through the traditional religious symbols.

One of the great ideas of Gaudium et Spes, Vatican II document, was that the Church had finally learned its lesson that it was not the sole or complete voice of God in the world. The Bishops finally acknowledged that the secular world had much to teach the Catholic Church as the Church had to share with the world. But, alas, along with Dei Verbum, another Vatican II document, the Bishops have retreated from that stance and that document (way too progressive).

Now, in our day, the Church sees itself as the sole bulwark of truth and deigns to lecture everyone and anyone who does not subscribe the narrow ortthodoxy of the Catholic Right.

Senator Kerry, if he wins, will enbolden the liberal and centrist wing of the U.S. Catholic Church and restore sanity to Catholic discourse. If the Bishops refuse to listen to the voice of God in nature, science, history and the like, Catholics are just as equipped to hear God speaking unmediated through the Bishops. It appears that U.S. Catholics are expressing frustration with an Episcopacy that has lost its way and if Catholics vote for Kerry in larger numbers, it would send a definite message to the Bishops and to the Vatican.

But as they say, if lay Catholics send out a call in the forest, do any Bishops actually hear them?

The trend for Kerry among Catholics is positive. If nothing else, someone on a throne somewhere, needs to take note of that.

2004-10-21T13:31:00.000-07:00

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

1 First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone,
2 for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity.
3 This is good and pleasing to God our savior,
4 who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself as ransom for all. This was the testimony at the proper time.
7 For this I was appointed preacher and apostle (I am speaking the truth, I am not lying), teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
8 It is my wish, then, that in every place the men should pray, lifting up holy hands, without anger or argument.

2004-10-20T10:38:00.000-07:00

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

Romans 8:11-14

11 If the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through his Spirit that dwells in you.
12 Consequently, brothers, we are not debtors to the flesh, to live according to the flesh.
13 For if you live according to the flesh, you will die, but if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God.

2004-10-20T10:16:00.000-07:00

And the Lord spake thus to his prophet, George W. Bush, "Take thou the armies of compassion and conquer the foreign land filled with people who do not worship my name. I will give unto thee a great victory and thou shalt not lose even a single one of the souls in thy charge. Thou shalt have a great victory and the heathen shall marvel and say, "Truly, the Lord God is the God of Geroge Bush, and he is his prophet. In that day shall my name be glorified in all the earth. The heathen shall whisper the name of the Lord and his prophet in fear and truly all the earth shall know, I am the Lord God Almighty."

CNN.com: Pat Robertson to George Bush, "Prepare the nation for casualties."
George Bush to Pat Robertson, "There will be no casualties."

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The founder of the U.S. Christian Coalition said Tuesday he told President George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq that he should prepare Americans for the likelihood of casualties, but the president told him, "We're not going to have any casualties."

Pat Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, said he had that conversation with the president in Nashville, Tennessee, before the March 2003 invasion U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. He described Bush in the meeting as "the most self-assured man I've ever met in my life."

"You remember Mark Twain said, 'He looks like a contented Christian with four aces.' I mean he was just sitting there like, 'I'm on top of the world,' " Robertson said on the CNN show, "Paula Zahn Now."

Romans 2:23-24

23 You who boast of the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law?
24 For, as it is written, "Because of you the name of God is reviled among the Gentiles."

2004-10-19T16:21:00.000-07:00

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

Proverbs 1:2-7

2 That men may appreciate wisdom and discipline, may understand words of intelligence;
3 May receive training in wise conduct, in what is right, just and honest;
4 That resourcefulness may be imparted to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.
5 A wise man by hearing them will advance in learning, an intelligent man will gain sound guidance,
6 That he may comprehend proverb and parable, the words of the wise and their riddles.
7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; wisdom and instruction fools despise.

2004-10-18T17:10:00.000-07:00

President Bush gets a hand slap from fellow Methodists: Beleive or Leave. About time they called him out on phoniness.

Via dkos

2004-10-18T14:13:00.000-07:00

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

Rev 12:1-5

1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman 2 clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
2 She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.
3 Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems.
4 Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.
5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.

2004-10-17T13:22:00.000-07:00

From Kevin Drum's Comment box at the Washington Monthly:

Aborted fetal tissue is used by Merck in MMR vaccines. I did not know that.
[A] close reading of the literature published by Merck, the
primary producer of the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine, indicates that they use aborted human fetal tissue in the production of this vaccine. Not only that, but several other vaccines use it as well.

The USCCB has a statement on this:

To defend his recent decision on stem cell research, President Bush has compared it to the moral judgment that it may be acceptable to use a vaccine cultured in fetal tissue that ultimately came from induced abortions. The President's
analogy is invalid because it blurs together two very different questions arising from the use of fetal tissue in medical research:

Interesting. The Bush pro-life creds is slowly getting eroded each day it seems. Stats have been floating around showing that abortions have increased under Bush reversing the downwards trends of the Clinton/Gore years. Close examinations of Bush's prolife standing reveal more pandering and a true desire for fighting or protecting life. He did learn one thing from Deal Hudson, that Catholics are suckers for the phrase "Culture of Life."

Now this use of fetal tissue in MMR and other vacines and President Bush's chest-swelling-pride that he is the first president to support ESCR, further undermines and exposes Bush's commitment to the conservative anti-abortion principles.

Kerry Catholic supporters feel that one must show a commitment to life in one's fights, even if the approach differs. While the we may argue that the anti-abortion conservative push is misguided, I think we all respect the intent and commitment to the principle of life. We Kerry supporters fight for life by focusing on the social and demand side of solving the abortion issue. We fight for life also in the visible tangible lives we see, knowing that it rings false to claim love for life not seen, yet ignore the visible tangible manifestations of life we experience daily. Life is life, unborn and post-born.

As for the President, it is not clear where he stands. (Also see the following beliefnet article on the candidates and abortion.)

--He refuses to guarantee a litmus test for appointing SCOTUS judges.
--He has been silent about a constitutional ban on abortions
--He claims life begins at conception but then is proud to be the first president to sponsor ESCR.
--He supports the use of aborted fetal tissue in vaccines, which should be contrary to the conservative anti-abortion principles.
--Abortions have increased under his watch and should he have a second term, there is no reason to believe that the trend will be reversed. (Jcecil3 has a great post on what it would actually take to reverse Roe v Wade.)

The point is, what is Bush's pro-life principle? For Kerry and Kerry Catholics, it is a consistent demand-side approach, on the whole; while the conservative anti-abortion crowd has a consistent legislative prohibitive "supply-side" approach. Bush and the RNC, on the other hand, have shown no desire actually reduce abortions, rather they see this more as a political issue to build their base with.

The beliefnet article mentioned above says:

Is Bush really a right-wing pro-life hardliner who’s kept his real views quiet so he can be re-elected and then ban abortion and appoint a gaggle of Scalias to the court? Or is he a political pragmatist who has no intention of banning abortion but just wants religious conservatives think he will?

Also, via Welborn, this Denver Post article captures the sentiments of many in the conservative anti-abortion movement, that the Republicans have been playing them like a drum. Besides recounting the obvious fact that it has been Republican courts that established and upheld Roe v Wade, he adds to the list of what Bush has not done (or even proposed), if he really is interested in protecting life according to the conservative anti-abortion principles.

Bush's government has not stopped the use of the morning-after abortion pill, or privately funded stem-cell research using human embryos, or the slow, frozen, extinction of fertilized eggs in U.S. fertility clinics.

Many Catholics are begining the appreciate what "Culture of Life" really means. And one thing they are sure of is that "Culture of Life" is not synonymous with "Republican Party."

2004-10-17T11:54:00.000-07:00

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

Rom 13:1-10

1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
4 for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.
6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7 Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
8 Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
10 Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.

2004-10-17T11:22:00.000-07:00

"I'm going to be real positive, while I keep my foot on John Kerry's throat." George W. Bush.

Via Mark A. R. Kleiman

2004-10-17T10:21:00.000-07:00

Around the Web: Endorsements and Good Stuff!

The New York Times endorese John Kerry

Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we've seen. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.

We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.

The Dayton Daily News also endorses Kerry.

Bush failed; Kerry offers new start
By the Dayton Daily News

The nation confronts a failed presidency.

George W. Bush has done serious harm with his most important foreign and domestic thrusts, and he has managed this democracy all wrong.

John Kerry offers the fresh beginning the nation needs. He is greatly different in his view of the presidency. He has an incomparably more impressive biography, full of commitment, sacrifice and seriousness of purpose. By virtue of experience and ability, he is ready for this job.

And then this from belief net about the candidates and abortion:

Kerry left out something important, too. Though he has been a pro-choice purist during the campaign, in 1997 he voted for Sen. Tom Daschle’s "comprehensive abortion ban act of 1997" which would have outlawed abortions on “viable” fetuses. Most medical experts believe that fetuses usually become viable by the beginning of the third trimester.

The ACLU attacked the bill as "unconstitutionally narrow" because it didn’t allow enough health-of-the-mother exceptions. (Republicans opposed the Daschle amendment too, ostensibly because it gave too much authority to doctors to determine “viability,” but more likely because the Daschle amendment could have derailed the partial-birth ban, which seemed such a political winner.)

Two pro-life academics Stephen C. Meyer and David K. DeWolf wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the Daschle amendment would have stopped more than 10,000 abortions each year. (By comparison, estimates for partial birth abortions range from a few hundred to 1,500). The writers declared, "For Americans who want to limit abortion on demand, a historic opportunity stands open in Congress. Whether pro-life legislators seize this opportunity will depend on whether they prefer symbolic victory or substantive reform."

Had the Daschle-Kerry approach been in effect during the last four years, there would have been roughly 40,000 fewer abortions than occurred under Bush!

2004-10-16T10:58:00.000-07:00

John Kerry sends Catholics for Kerry 04 a letter!!

Nationwide, there are Catholics for Kerry events going on as Catholics everywhere are showing support for John Kerry. Exciting stuff!

Check back here, or at Catholicsforkerry04 or Catholicforskerry.net for updates.

2004-10-16T10:31:00.000-07:00

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

Titus 3:1-8

1 Remind them to be under the control of magistrates and authorities, to be obedient, to be open to every good enterprise.
2 They are to slander no one, to be peaceable, considerate, exercising all graciousness toward everyone.
3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, deluded, slaves to various desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful ourselves and hating one another.
4 But when the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared,
5 not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy, he saved us through the bath of rebirth and renewal by the holy Spirit,
6 whom he richly poured out on us through Jesus Christ our savior,
7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.
8 This saying is trustworthy. 3 I want you to insist on these points, that those who have believed in God be careful to devote themselves to good works; these are excellent and beneficial to others.

2004-10-16T10:09:00.000-07:00

Interesting article in the Washington Post today entitled "For the Candidates, Vietnam Choices Linger."

A few paragraphs struck me:

Of the four men, only Kerry saw combat in Vietnam. George Q. Flynn, a retired professor who has studied Vietnam War-era conscription trends, said the majority of students avoided going to Vietnam, either by joining the National Guard or by getting draft deferments. Less than 10 percent of college students volunteered for active duty.

"There was nothing atypical about Bush joining the National Guard, which was considered a nice, safe haven from Vietnam," said Flynn, author of "The Draft, 1940-1973."

"It was Kerry who was the exception."

Kerry was a stand up guy in his youth and remains a stand up man as an adult.

Kerry, by contrast, decided to volunteer for the Navy, inspired in part by the example of his political hero, John F. Kennedy, even though he had growing misgivings about the U.S. role in Vietnam. In a commencement day address to the Class of 1966, Kerry complained that the Johnson administration had moved from "an excess of isolationism" to "an excess of interventionism."

"We have not really lost the desire to serve," Kerry told classmates. "We question the very roots of what we are serving."

"Remember, we were the generation that heard John F. Kennedy say, 'Ask not what your country can do for you,' '' said Kerry's roommate, Dan Barbiero, who enlisted in the Marine Corps at the same time. "The doubts were not strong enough to fail to obey a call to arms."

Barbiero and others noted that there was a "huge difference" between Kerry's Class of '66 and Bush's Class of '68. While volunteering for active-duty military service was unusual in 1966, it was practically unheard of by 1968. A Bush roommate, Clay Johnson III, could think of only one close Yale acquaintance who served in Vietnam.

"By 1968, no one I knew would have considered going to Vietnam," said Lanny Davis, a Washington lawyer and former chairman of the Yale Daily News, who knew Bush and Kerry. "The place was awash with antiwar protests."

Bush, however, did not share those sentiments.

In an interview with The Post in 1999, he said he had no recollection of any antiwar activity on campus -- a remarkable statement, considering what was going on. The school's legendary chaplain, William Sloane Coffin, was a national leader of the antiwar movement and had been arrested for aiding draft resistance during Bush's senior year. Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey and Lady Bird Johnson were greeted by protesters when they visited Yale that year.

"George Bush had no political visibility whatsoever," said Gaddis Smith, professor emeritus of diplomatic history, who taught Bush and Kerry. "He was more like a student from the decade before, the mid-'50s, people who enjoyed their fraternity life."

According to Coffin, Bush "missed the great action and passion of his time." While Bush told The Post in 1999 that he generally supported the Johnson administration's position on the war, he did not feel strongly enough to speak out publicly.

"We were very apolitical," Clay Johnson said. "We didn't talk politics."

Some friends believe that Bush associated the antiwar movement at Yale with intellectual snobbery. "He had little sympathy for the antiwar people and their behavior and antics. They were pompous and pretentious," said roommate Robert J. Dieter. "They were 22-year-olds who thought they were going to run the world."

For Bush, deciding how to respond to the draft was a "practical" rather than a "moral" question, according to Clay Johnson, now deputy director for management of the president's Office of Management and Budget. Bush would later tell a reporter that he decided to join the National Guard because he was "not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun" to get another deferment and was unwilling to move to Canada.

Bush's lack of curiousity, intellectual and otherwise and his oblivion regarding national and international events is not new.

Cheney had dropped out of Yale four years earlier because he could not keep up with the academic pace. Returning to Wyoming to attend community college, he received four student deferments, plus a fifth for "family hardship." Critical biographers have noted that Richard and Lynne Cheney had their first child in July 1966, nine months and two days after the Johnson administration expanded the draft to include married men without children.

The deferments kept Cheney out of the military until 1967, when he turned 26 and became ineligible for the draft. He would later insist that he complied with the conscription laws and would have been "happy to serve" had he been drafted. But as he told The Washington Post in 1989, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

Pray tell, Mr. Cheney, what were those priorities? Were they to position yourself to be VP and send our kids and siblings in the military on suicide missions? Or embark on a unjust war with 1100 dead US Troops, 5,000-7,000 injured or maimed, 100,000 injured or maimed Iraqi civilians and 20,000 dead innocent Iraqis?

For people who were very eager to evade combat in the draft, Bush and Cheney sure have created draft-like conditions and if we have four more years of Bush/Cheney, it is hard to see how we don't have a draft.

2004-10-15T13:46:00.000-07:00

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

Micah 6:8

8 You have been told, O man, what is good, and what the LORD requires of you: Only to do right and to love goodness, and to walk humbly with your God.

2004-10-14T17:22:00.000-07:00

Here John Kerry like you've never heard him before: check out these short films by Cindy Windmiller

2004-10-14T16:45:00.000-07:00

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

Jonah 4:1-11

1 But this was greatly displeasing to Jonah, and he became angry.
2 "I beseech you, LORD," he prayed, "is not this what I said while I was still in my own country? This is why I fled at first to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger, rich in clemency, loathe to punish.
3 And now, LORD, please take my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live."
4 But the LORD asked, "Have you reason to be angry?"
5 Jonah then left the city for a place to the east of it, where he built himself a hut and waited under it in the shade, to see what would happen to the city.
6 And when the LORD God provided a gourd plant, that grew up over Jonah's head, giving shade that relieved him of any discomfort, Jonah was very happy over the plant.
7 But the next morning at dawn God sent a worm which attacked the plant, so that it withered.
8 And when the sun arose, God sent a burning east wind; and the sun beat upon Jonah's head till he became faint. Then he asked for death, saying, "I would be better off dead than alive."
9 But God said to Jonah, "Have you reason to be angry over the plant?" "I have reason to be angry," Jonah answered, "angry enough to die."
10 Then the LORD said, "You are concerned over the plant which cost you no labor and which you did not raise; it came up in one night and in one night it perished.
11 And should I not be concerned over Nineveh, the great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot distinguish their right hand from their left, not to mention the many cattle?"

2004-10-13T21:07:00.000-07:00

Debate #3 Kerry Sum-Up

We're all God's children

And as President Kennedy said when he ran for president, he said, "I'm not running to be a Catholic president. I'm running to be a president who happens to be Catholic."

My faith affects everything that I do, in truth. There's a great passage of the Bible that says, "What does it mean, my brother, to say you have faith if there are no deeds? Faith without works is dead."

And I think that everything you do in public life has to be guided by your faith, affected by your faith, but without transferring it in any official way to other people.

That's why I fight against poverty. That's why I fight to clean up the environment and protect this earth.

That's why I fight for equality and justice. All of those things come out of that fundamental teaching and belief of faith.

But I know this, that President Kennedy in his inaugural address told all of us that here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own. And that's what we have to -- I think that's the test of public service.

Everything is a gift from the Almighty. And as I measure the words of the Bible -- and we all do; different people measure different things -- the Koran, the Torah, or, you know, Native Americans who gave me a blessing the other day had their own special sense of connectedness to a higher being. And people all find their ways to express it.

I was taught -- I went to a church school and I was taught that the two greatest commandments are: Love the Lord, your God, with all your mind, your body and your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And frankly, I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbor to do in this country and on this planet.

We have a separate and unequal school system in the United States of America. There's one for the people who have, and there's one for the people who don't have. And we're struggling with that today.

And the president and I have a difference of opinion about how we live out our sense of our faith.

I talked about it earlier when I talked about the works and faith without works being dead.

I think we've got a lot more work to do. And as president, I will always respect everybody's right to practice religion as they choose -- or not to practice -- because that's part of America.

with faith in God and with conviction in the mission of America, I believe that we can reach higher. I believe we can do better.

I think the greatest possibilities of our country, our dreams and our hopes, are out there just waiting for us to grab onto them. And I ask you to embark on that journey with me.

I ask you for your trust. I ask you for your help. I ask you to allow me the privilege of leading this great nation of ours, of helping us to be stronger here at home and to be respected again in the world and, most of all, to be safer forever.

Thank you. Goodnight. And God bless the United States of America.

All in a day's work

2004-10-13T17:51:00.000-07:00

Via First Draft

2004-10-13T15:15:00.000-07:00

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

Proverbs 28:27-28

27 He who gives to the poor suffers no want, but he who ignores them gets many a curse.
28 When the wicked gain pre-eminence, other men hide; but at their fall the just flourish.

2004-10-13T14:23:00.000-07:00

Amy Sullivan weighs in on Kerry's abortion answer at Tompaine.com.

Newly minted Kerry adviser Mike McCurry acknowledged this reality recently when he told a group of campaign reporters that his candidate should talk about abortion in a way that acknowledges the genuine moral concerns and qualms of anti-abortion voters. John Kerry did just that in St. Louis last Friday night in his response to a rigged question about government funding for abortions—an issue that hasn't been the focus of abortion politics for 15 years now. Despite the setup, Kerry went out of his way to express his respect for those who oppose abortion. And then he correctly moved into a discussion of various ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

It's a conversation that those of us who are pro-choice should have an interest in supporting. Because the real solution to reducing unnecessary abortions in this country doesn't lie in banning specific abortion procedures or sending doctors to jail. It also won't be helped by marshalling all of our political resources to fight parental notification laws that strike most American voters as sensible (Bush highlighted them for a reason in his answer to the same question). Instead, abortion rates drop when unwanted pregnancies decrease, whether through better sex education (that includes, but goes beyond, abstinence promotion) or insurance coverage for contraceptives.

Bush immediately mocked Kerry's nuanced answer—"I'm trying to decipher that"—and it has been roundly criticized in the press for sounding tortured. But the reality is that the feelings of most Americans regarding abortion are tortured. It's easy to stake out a post as a pro-choice or anti-abortion extremist; it's much harder to articulate a desire to respect unborn life and protect women. I suspect, however, that Kerry's answer—particularly the reference to the influence of his Catholic faith—plays better with swing voters than with political reporters precisely because it reflects a genuine attempt to grapple with a difficult issue.

It may take a Catholic Democrat to lead the party out of an era in which politicians have lived in fear of sounding insufficiently supportive of abortion rights and of suffering the consequences of withdrawn endorsements or campaign funds from choice groups as a result. If that happens, we might actually see the day in which—upon hearing the legend of Bob Casey—listeners say, "Nah, that doesn't sound like the Democratic Party to me."

Jeanne at Body and Soul had this to say about Kerry's answer:

At the same time, I think Bush had some help in losing women, because I'm pretty sure Kerry won over a lot of women last night, especially in answering the question about abortion:. . .

After Kerry's straightforward defense of women's lives, Bush sounded like he just didn't give a damn about us.

Women are going to turn that contempt right back on him.

All around excellent post, highly recommended reading.

And there's the liberated feminist view from Amanda at Mouse Words, which indicated the converse of something Amy Sullivan notes, that

What was more important in terms of picking up those moderate Catholics who are still not in the Democratic camp yet is that for the first time in recent memory, the Democratic candidate expressed respect for pro-life views and acknowledged them as legitimate in a political forum.

The converse of this is that Kerry, who has credibility with the pro-choice movement, has made it clear that pro-lifers will have air to breathe in the Party and the pro-choicers are quite happy with that.

For the record, I do not believe the questioner, Sarah Degenhart at the St Louis debate was an RNC plant.

In the 90s I was not politically active and I never thought of what party I belonged to. I do note that my impression of the Democratic Party was that it was hostile to pro-lifers which I was at the time. It is ironic because Clinton was the one who coined the magic phrase that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare."

What struck me in the primaries, early on in the Kerry campaign was that even though Kerry was firmly pro-choice, conservatives, libertarians, moderates, pro-lifers, etc were more than welcome. I remember stuffing envelopes in the Kerry HQ and talking with other very pro-choice volunteers and it struck me that we ordinarily shouldn't be doing anything together, rather, our political leanings should force us at each other's throats. But early on, it was clear that Kerry and his campaign and eventually, his Party, has the capacity to bring people together.

Amy Sullivan has expressed quite well what many of us thought during that St Louis debate, that is was home run to actually acknowledge where the anti-abortion crowd was coming from and not dismiss it outright. Kerry has shown that his Party is for everyone, not like Bush's which is for the extreme Right.

2004-10-12T15:18:00.000-07:00

Come November 3, the U.S. Catholic Church is going to be needing some serious soul searching. If Bush wins, I fail to see how the same Bishops who have said Kerry and Democrats have made a deal with the deal or that a vote for Kerry is a sin, can hope to ever reintegrate the part of the flock that steadfastly supported Kerry. On the other hand, with a Kerry win, . . . I can't imagine what that would mean. I don't think the Catholic Right would quiet down (liberals tend to leave the Church quietly, which is what may happen in a Bush win)I think the Right would be more vociferous.

I don't suppose anyone knows what all this means for the US Catholic Church, but the trend is negative. The Bishops have succeeded in alienating liberals and many are leaving the Church because of what's presently happening. On the other hand, many are remaining firm in either supportive parishes or dioceses. We may be headed for spiritual civil war.

A Bush win would be a clear victory for the anti-abortion crowd and we would definitely hear about on this website.

Given the ferocity of the present division, I just don't see how reconciliation is possible. If the Bishops were wise, they would start now in preparing either group for the possibility of loss (no one believes they will lose) because it would be much harder to pick up pieces if everything is left unchecked.

All things work together for good, so in a sense we have to believe that God can bring good out of this, but this may be our faith generation's Red Sea moment. Given the level of vitriol, where does the Church go from here?

That said, I'd rather consider that question on the couch on Nov 3 watching President Kerry receive his congratulations, knowing that we've said yes to healthcare, peace, life, education, civil rights, human dignity, truth, and progress.

2004-10-12T15:14:00.000-07:00

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

Hosea 6:6

For it is love that I desire, not sacrifice, and knowledge of God rather than holocausts.

2004-10-11T13:02:00.000-07:00

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

Song of Songs 8:6-7

"Set me as a seal on your heart,as a seal on your arm;For stern as death is love,relentless as the nether world is devotion;its flames are a blazing fire.
Deep waters cannot quench love,nor floods sweep it away.Were one to offer all he owns to purchase love,he would be roundly mocked."

2004-10-11T11:20:00.000-07:00

Via First Draft

2004-10-10T14:00:00.000-07:00

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

1 Corinthians 3:9-13

For we are God's co-workers; you are God's field, God's building.
10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But each one must be careful how he builds upon it,
11 for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ.
12 If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw,
13 the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work.

2004-10-10T13:34:00.000-07:00

For all your "You Forgot Poland" needs.

2004-10-09T15:06:00.000-07:00

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

John 12: 42-43

42 Nevertheless, many, even among the authorities, believed in him, but because of the Pharisees they did not acknowledge it openly in order not to be expelled from the synagogue.
43 For they preferred human praise to the glory of God.

[Comment]
In this election cycle many conservative Catholics find George Bush reprehensible. Many have decided to vote for him while holding their noses, as it were. Others have decided that they can't vote for him, even if they won't vote for Kerry.

This scripture refers to Jesus's ministry and how many believed in him but were afraid to say so for fear of retribution. In fact, in an earlier chapter, a blind man who had been healed was excommunicated for believing in Christ. I liken this situation to the present. Arch-right, including the amplified voice of the Bishops, is pressuring and brow-beating conservative Catholics into voting for Bush because he is the"pro-life" candidate. On the other hand, many of these conservatives are not at all sold on Bush but do not want to risk speaking up for fear of a fierce backlash.

This scripture can serve as a point of support. Vote your conscience and if it is not Bush, then you don't have to vote for him. This is not to say that Kerry is the "correct" candidate, but that we need to return to the primacy of conscience even if means paying a price for it. For those conservatives, you may lose friends, "lose" respect in the eyes of the arch-right or even people who you respect, you may be called names, etc, but all that matters is what God calls you now and what He will say to you on that day.

When we all stand before God on that fateful day, no one is going to stand with you. You and you alone will be responsible for all your decisions. The Pope will not be there with you, no Bishop, no canon lawyer, no catechist, no priest, no parents, children, friends, no one; all you'll have is you and your conscience and the extent to which you honored that unique voice of God echoing in your depths. If we obey our consciences now, then we nothing to fear on that day, rather we can look for praise from God, on the other hand, if we act out of fear of other human beings and ignore our consciences, then would have much to be ashamed of.

For Catholics, this election is primarily about the future of our country and world and the visions of the respective candidates, but secondarily, it is about our consciences. Will we further refine and develope them by listening to them, or will we mute the voice of God because of pressure from self-serving intra-church conclaves?

As for you and your conscience, you will . . .?

2004-10-08T20:37:00.000-07:00

Another Strong Debate Performance by Senator Kerry

KERRY: Well, again, the president just said, categorically, my opponent is against this, my opponent is against that. You know, it's just not that simple. No, I'm not.

I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother.

KERRY: Secondly, with respect to parental notification, I'm not going to require a 16-or 17-year-old kid who's been raped by her father and who's pregnant to have to notify her father. So you got to have a judicial intervention. And because they didn't have a judicial intervention where she could go somewhere and get help, I voted against it. It's never quite as simple as the president wants you to believe.

Good old fashioned common sense just like Catholics like it.

As for Bush, did anyone think this made any sense?

BUSH: Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of life to create a stem cell. I'm the first president ever to allow funding -- federal funding -- for embryonic stem-cell research. I did to because I too hope that we'll discover cures from the stem cells and from the research derived.

ESCR is "destruction of life" yet I am proud to say "I am first to fund it." Then later Bush says:

BUSH: Let me make sure you understand my decision. Those stem- cells lines already existed. The embryo had already been destroyed prior to my decision.

I had to make the decision to destroy more life, so we continue to destroy life -- I made the decision to balance science and ethics.

Translation: it is okay to destroy life to an extent, or , the wrong deed was already done, so I figured I'd continue with it anyway.

Talk about waffling. He wants to be simultaneously acceptable to both the "pro-life" folk and pro-ESCR folks.

Back to Kerry

I think we can save lives.

Now, I think we can do ethically guided embryonic stem-cell research.

We have 100,000 to 200,000 embryos that are frozen in nitrogen today from fertility clinics. These weren't taken from abortion or something like that. They're from a fertility clinic. And they're either going to be destroyed or left frozen.

And I believe if we have the option, which scientists tell us we do, of curing Parkinson's, curing diabetes, curing, you know, some kind of a, you know, paraplegic or quadriplegic or, you know, a spinal cord injury, anything, that's the nature of the human spirit.

KERRY: I think it is respecting life to reach for that cure. I think it is respecting life to do it in an ethical way.

And the president has chosen a policy that makes it impossible for our scientists to do that. I want the future, and I think we have to grab it.

There's a Q&A on Catholics and Stem Cell Research questions here

Overall, Kerry again showed people that he is a more than capable advocate for the middle class and an excellent candidate for Commander in Chief. Pres. Bush was defensive and missed an opportunity to say what his vision is for both the world and the country. But we all know that with Bush it is more ofthe same, bad economy and war.

Kerry showed that he is a fresh face with fresh ideas that resonate with common sense values that we all hold. I think Kerry did a great job with the abortion question. He was able to reveal his heart and yet show why he voted the way that he did. Again, it shows the difference between liberals and conservatives. Kerry is concerned about people, Bush is not. If Bush and Tom Delay and the like really wanted to ban PBAs all they had to do was fashion a law that included an exception for the mother's health and it would have passed the Supreme Court muster. But as any clear thinking person knows, Republicans in Washington could care less about life, all they were interested in was scoring political points.

John Kerry is where most Catholics are: personally opposed to abortion, but do not think it should be illegal. I think Catholics are beginning to see that Kerry, not Bush, resonates with Catholic values.

2004-10-08T18:05:00.000-07:00

"Who is on the Lord's side!"

Via dkos

2004-10-08T17:58:00.000-07:00

Everyone's gushing over Kerry in this image over at dkos, so I thought I'd share the picture of a dashing, confident Catholic with our Catholic and Christian friends.

2004-10-08T14:30:00.000-07:00

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

Jeremiah 29:11

"For I know well the plans I have in mind for you, says the LORD, plans for your welfare, not for woe! plans to give you a future full of hope."

2004-10-07T16:05:00.000-07:00

Media Matters criticizes the New York Times for a flawed report on Kerry and Catholic Support.

2004-10-07T15:19:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago, I called the Heart, Mind, and Soul Blog (HMS blog) an "arch-conservative" site. Greg Popcak, site administrator objected and I justly defended that characterization. However, new and more recent events have caused a review of the current rating.

I am downgrading the HMS blog from "Archconservative" to "Very Conservative." The reason, an astounding turn of events as there appears to be a chink in the armor: a poster on that site, Woodene Koenig-Bricker, has declared that she cannot vote for Bush. That has to count for something, hence the downgrade.

BTW, the way the rating works is thus:

Wildly radical
Archconservative
Very conservative
Conservative
Moderate Conservative
Moderate Liberal
Reasonable and Orthodox
Liberal
Very Liberal
Extremely Liberal
Fringe Liberal

2004-10-07T15:17:00.000-07:00

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

1 Pet 2:1-3

1 Rid yourselves of all malice and all deceit, insincerity, envy, and all slander;
2 like newborn infants, long for pure spiritual milk so that through it you may grow into salvation,
3 for you have tasted that the Lord is good.

2004-10-06T16:32:00.000-07:00

Kerry Catholics Scripture-Countdown to E-Day

20 If anyone says, "I love God," but hates his brother, he is a liar; for whoever does not love a brother whom he has seen cannot love God 5 whom he has not seen.
21 This is the commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

1 John 4:20-21

[Comment]
Often pro-lifers "claim" to be angry that pro-choicers or pro-life supporters of pro-choice candidates live with the fact that millions of babies die from abortions and thus we get called those wonderful compassionate conservative names like "baby killers," etc.

What the "anti-abortion" crowd misses, and now pro-choicers are comfortable admitting, is that the abortion decision is a gut wrenching decision and you would be hard pressed to find people who are pro-abortion. Liberals agonize over death of both the unborn and the born, the difference between us and the anti-abortion crowd is that we agonize over the death of all because we care about life.

Now, the pro-lifers argue that is not the case. They view proof of love of life in a strict pro-chronological manner, i.e., from the the fetus up, i.e., how you treat the unborn is determinate of how much you respect life. On the other hand, liberals operate in a counter-chronological manner, i.e, how you respect and love life as mannifest in our concrete examples of life, that is, our fellow visible and tangible human beings, is the true indication of one's love and respect for life.

I think this scripture shows the merits of the liberal view. John is saying that claims to love based on principle have no basis in fact, unless they are validated by actual love to that which is visible. John's example is that someone may say how much they love God and may actually appear to be very pious and devoted and obedient to the Church's every maxim and whim. However, John's test of true love is how one loves his fellow man. He plainly says that if you do not love the one whom you see, i.e., is visible and tangible to you, then your claim to love God, who is not present visibly to you, is false.

In the same way, for us liberals, it is hard to see how conservative claims to loving life are based in reality. The test is our position not vis-a-vis the fetus, but our fellow visible man. How can you claim to respect the life of the unborn whom you cannot see and yet not respect and love the lives of the born that you can see? I often make the point that it is some sort of principle, not love of life, that drives the conservative anti-abortion movement. Otherwise, what would explain the inexplicable drop off in concern and action for baby that is 10 minutes out of the womb?

Conservative anti-abortion advocates are like people who do very hard work to mine gold only to abandone the ore when it is brought to the surface. Such an action simply shows that the gold was not the motivating factor in the first place, something else was. For anyone to claim to fight for the first 9 months of life, only to abandon it for the remaining 4 score and 10, cannot really be about life. It simply does not make sense.

This is not to question the sincerity or motives of the conservatives, because I think many (not all) really care for what they are doing.

I think true respect for life is shown in the respect given to visible tangible life that we experience everyday. If we are not moved to act on behalf of the poor and the oppressed and the needy that we see, then claims to act, out of love, on behalf of the unborn ring hollow. On the other hand, if we cultivate love of visible post-born life, that will translate, with hard work, to love of life in the case of the unborn.

2004-10-06T16:29:00.000-07:00

Happy Kerry Photo of the Day (Kerry in his 1996 Senate win)

Via First Draft

2004-10-06T11:17:00.000-07:00

Jesus was a Liberal

In a comment in a post below, Gerald says:

Jesus was a liberal? Is God a liberal too? Which party do they belong to? I know there's an election going on but I think you need to take a step back Ono.

Jesus was a liberal. Note the key word, "was," as in, "in his time." Jesus upset the leaders of his time because he so blatantly violated the existing religous rules and laws. For Jesus, people and relationship, trumped laws and regulations anytime and this is what being liberal is about. For instance:

--IN Jn 8:1-11 the conservatives thought they had Jesus cornered. They knew his "liberal" impulse would be forgiveness rather than condemnation, the woman's wellbeing over the Mosaic law which required that she be stoned to death. True to form, Jesus' liberal impulses kicked in, but the he who is the wisdom of God, turned the situation on its head . . . you all know the rest of the story. Jesus was more concerned about the woman, her dignity and her soul, than the precepts of the law.

--Also in Mt 12:1-14 (Lk 6:1-11), we note that the conservatives criticized Jesus and his disciples for plucking corn, rubbing it in their hands and eating on the Sabbath day. Again, the conservatives were more concerned with principle and regulations. However, Jesus justified it by saying that "man is not made for the Sabbath, rather, the Sabbath is made for man." Again, it is people and relationships over rules, laws (even religious laws conerning something as sacred as the sabbath), and regulations.

--The we have the case were Jesus heals the man born blind in Jn 9. The conservatives were upset because Jesus healed on the Sabbath day and because this man who was healed was carrying his bed on the Sabbath. The interesting thing here is the man's response in Jn 9:25-35. He is befuddled and asks, when, since the beginning of time have we seen the blind healed like this, yet the conservatives are quibbling over what day of the week it is.

--Then there is the healing in Lk 18:11-14, where the Lord heals the crippled woman and again, the conservatives are upset because this has been done on the Sabbath. Yet, Jesus points out that she is a "daughter of Abraham" who deserve healing, regardless of day of the week.

--Of course, we have the numerous cases of Jesus eating with the "sinners" "tax collectors" and such. The conservatives criticized him for the company he kept. These were sinners after all, rather he should eat with people who were more "sacramentally" acceptable. Jesus defied the conservatives of his time and their self-righteousness. He ate and supped with whoever opened his heart to him.

Jesus was disliked by conservatives in his time whose desire was to "conserve" and "preserve" the law of Moses, a worthy goal by all accounts. But here again, this is the danger of conservatism, their religious adherence to principles, rules, laws, regulations, can blind them to the fact that the point of all these rules and laws is people, not the rules themselves. Of course, liberals have the opposite problem in which one can committ to people and relationships at the expense of principles. However, it is clear that Jesus was firmly rooted in the left of the ideological spectrum, the golden question is "how far left?"

As to question if God is liberal? If Jesus was liberal, then I it would follow that God, of whom Christ is his purest expression, if cast in human terms, would be liberal. Besides, when we bring God into the equation, the liberalness expands, because we are all God's children, his creation that he loved and sent his only son to die for. So God is far more interested in saving people and not at all interested in the exclusivity proclaimed by conservatives.

Jesus is liberal, God is liberal, shouldn't you be liberal too?

2004-10-06T06:13:00.000-07:00

USCCB Guide - John Kerry RIGHT, Bush WRONG.

In their brochure, "The Challenge of Faithful Citzenship, A Call To Political Responsibility", the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops posed 10 questions to the Campaigns. It is evident that upon review and deep reflection as Catholics that we have found that John Kerry is RIGHT for Catholics on these issues that have been raised by our Bishops. Right not only as a Catholic, but as a compassionate human being. On the other hand we find Bush to be extemely lacking and WRONG for Catholics on all of these issues raised by our Bishops. We ask Bush; "Where is the Compassion"?

1. After September 11, 2001 how can we build not only a safer world but a better world, more just, more secure, more peaceful, more respectful of human life and dignity?

RIGHT: John Kerry voted for a comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
RIGHT: John Kerry cosponsored landmine elimination and victim assistance bill in 2001.
RIGHT: John Kerry cosponsored the U.S. code of conduct on arms transfers.
RIGHT: John Kerry supports preemptive war only when the U.S. is so threatened.
Right: John Kerry understands that the war on terrorism is different than the war in Iraq and both require different strategies.

WRONG: Bush rejected negotiation towards a peaceful settlement with Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
WRONG: Bush while Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, an estimated 20,000 Iraqi civilians and over 5,000 Afghan civilians have been killed in U.S. military operations. Over 500 children in Afghanistan have been killed by unexploded cluster bombs dropped by U.S. military forces.
WRONG: Bush created doctrine of preemptive war.
WRONG: Bush withdrew from the Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty and has supported the research and development of low yield tactical nuclear weapons and "mini-nukes".

2. How will we protect the innocent in our midst~innocent unborn children? How can our nation not turn to violence to solve some of it's more difficult problems~abortion to deal with difficult pregnancies; the death penalty to combat crime; euthanasia and assisted suicide to deal with the burdens of age, illness, and disability, and war to address international disputes?

RIGHT: Kerry opposes the use of the death penalty in all cases except convicted terrorists.
Right: John Kerry supports social programs which give women the choice to have their babies.
Right: John Kerry supports multilateralism to build strong effective global institutions to combat global problems.

Wrong: Bush, while Governor of Texas, presided over almost 1/5 of the nation's abortions in 2000.
WRONG: Bush supports the death penalty for all capital crimes, including those committed by persons with mental retardation and by juveniles. As governor of Texas, signed 152 execution warrants
WRONG: Bush created doctrine of preemptive war. Practices a policy of preemptive war in order to further American interests.
Wrong: Bush supports a policy of unilateralism which does not fairly share the burdenof national security.

3. How will we address the tragic fact that more than 30,000 children die every day as a result of hunger, international debt, and lack of development around the world?

RIGHT: John Kerry supports hunger policy that sets a goal of eliminating hunger among children and the elderly. Supported a policy of universal free meals in schools.
RIGHT: John Kerry supported the 2002 Farm bill that provides commodity payments and price supports for major export crops.
RIGHT: John Kerry sponsored Hunger to Harvest Bill-focused on reducing hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa, providing food and medicine and committing U.S. resources to global health, AIDS, education, agriculture, free market, and debt relief (House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HCR102 April 4, 2001).
RIGHT: John Kerry opposed to capping foreign aid at only $12.7B (0.7% of federal budget) in 1999 (H.R.2606 Conference Report, Bill HR2606).

WRONG: Bush signed the the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) about which the Catholic Bishops Conference in the US and in Central America have expressed concerns.
WRONG: Bush backed the the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The US and Central American Bishops and Human Rights Watch have stated that CAFTA lacks the sufficient labor protections.
WRONG: Bush called for cuts in funding to WIC Farmer Market program and the food commodity supplemental program. Supports welfare legislation that will allow states to cut access to Food Stamps and cash assistance.
WRONG: Under Bush hunger and food insecurity has increased over the last three years.

4. How can our nation help parents raise their children with respect for life, sound moral values, a sense of hope, and an ethic of stewardship and responsibility? How can our society defend the central institution of marriage and better support families in their moral responsibilities?
RIGHT: John Kerry supports raising the federal minimum wage and indexing the minimum wage to inflation.

RIGHT: John Kerry supports expanding public school choice programs to provide parents and students more educational options.
RIGHT: John Kerry voted for the Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004.
RIGHT: John Kerry supports the creation of an Education Trust Fund to fund education as an automatic budget transfer.

WRONG: Bush opposes an increase in federal minimum wage.
Wrong: Bush has taken away overtime pay to anyone who earns over $23,000/yr.
WRONG: Real wages have grown less than 2% (or $0.15) in the four years of the Bush presidency, largely because the U.S. economy has lost over 1 million jobs during the Bush presidency.
WRONG: Bush’s FY 2004 budget under-funded the “No Child Left Behind” programs by $8B (0.35% of budget). Proposed eliminating funding for 46 education programs.
WRONG: In Bush’s FY 2005 budget request he proposed funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) at half the level of funding that Congress committed to paying when IDEA was first adopted. The IDEA act is meant to guarantee all children with disabilities a free and appropriate education.

5. How will we address the growing number of people without affordable and accessible health care? How can health care better protect human life and respect human dignity?
RIGHT: John Kerry supports buy-in to health insurance through creating a federally subsidized plan.

RIGHT: John Kerry supports creating a group option to buy into the federal employee benefits program with a tax credit for uninsured individuals.
RIGHT: John Kerry supports limiting premiums to expand state programs for low- and moderate-income families, and provide a tax credit for small firms.

WRONG: Bush proposed a refundable tax credit for low- and moderate-income individuals and families who are not covered by their employers’ health insurance program. The proposed credit is $1,000 for individuals and $3,000 for families. Average family health care costs are estimated to reach $14,500 by 2006.
WRONG: Outside estimates find that the Bush proposal would cover 10% of the uninsured.
WRONG: Under Bush in 2003 there were roughly 45 million Americans without health insurance all year, and roughly 70 million who were uninsured at some point during the year.

6. How will our society combat continuing prejudice, overcome hostility toward immigrants and refugees, and heal the wounds of racism, religious bigotry, and discrimination?

RIGHT: John Kerry in the Senate, cosponsored the Fair Pay Act, which would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to require employers to provide equal pay for work in jobs that are comparable in skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.
RIGHT: John Kerry cosponsored the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would provide remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex.
RIGHT: John Kerry supports the full restoration of benefits for legal immigrants.
RIGHT: John Kerry supports a proposal to allow undocumented immigrants to legalize their status if they have been in the United States for a certain amount of time, have been working, and can pass a background check.

WRONG: Bush reduced funding for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency that enforces federal laws against discrimination and upholds the equal pay.
WRONG: Bush backed away from the foreign policy goal of reinforcing religious freedom in favor of support for the “War on Terror”.
WRONG: In the Annual Report on International Religious Freedom, the Bush State Department did not name Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam as "countries of particular concern," despite their systematic abuse of religious freedom, which is described in the report itself. Bush Considers many of these countries are considered important allies in the war on terror.

7. How will our nation pursue the values of justice and peace in a world where injustice is common, desperate poverty widespread, and peace too often overwhelmed by violence?

RIGHT: John Kerry Sponsored Hunger to Harvest Bill-focused on reducing hunger in Sub-Saharan Africa, providing food and medicine and committing U.S. resources to global health, AIDS, education, agriculture, free market, and debt relief (House Resolution Sponsorship 01-HCR102 April 4, 2001). Sponsored Vaccines for New Millenium Act-focused on boosting contributions to the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative.
RIGHT: John Kerry opposes the Central American Free Trade Agreement, about which the Bishops in the US and Central America have expressed concerns.
RIGHT: John Kerry advocates more cooperation with U.N. and other international bodies as essential elements for bringing peace to Iraq.
RIGHT: John Kerry supports U.S. participation in the International Criminal Court, an effort to create an international body to try human rights abuses.
RIGHT: John Kerry supported renewing the assault weapon ban.

WRONG: Bush refused to support legislation that would have renewed the assault weapon ban.
WRONG: Bush reduced funding for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria from $550 million appropriated by Congress for 2004 to $200 million for 2005, a 64 percent reduction.
WRONG: Bush signed the the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) about which the Catholic Bishops Conference in the US and in Central America have expressed concerns.
WRONG: Bush initiated the war in Iraq without a United Nations Security Council Resolution.
WRONG: Bush stated that he would still have invaded Iraq in March 2003 even if he knew at the time that there were no WMD in Iraq and that there was no link between President Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda.

8. What are the responsibilities and limitations of families, community organizations, markets, and government? How can these elements of society work together to overcome poverty, pursue the common good, and care for creation?

RIGHT: John Kerry favors allowing faith based community organizations to provide federally funded social services. Does not support their exemption from federal anti-discrimination safeguards. These safeguards do not allow funding to organizations that discriminate based on race, faith, gender, or sexual orientation.
Right: John Kerry will Protect Our Health By Reducing Dangerous Air Emissions.
Right: John Kerry will Restore America's Waters.
Right: John Kerry will Create Cleaner, Greener Communities.

Wrong: Bush failed to protect 3 million acres of th Tongrass National Forest from logging.
Wrong: Bush has made repeated attempts to legalize oil drilling in the National Wildlife Refuge.
Wrong: Bush has weakened enviormental laws and has allowed big business to pollute our enviroment.
WRONG: Bush liminated anti-discrimination safeguards that prevented faith based community organizations from receiving federal funding. These safeguards do not allow funding to organizations that discriminate based on race, faith, gender, or sexual orientation.

9. When should our nation use or avoid the use of military force forwhat purpose, under what authority, and at what human cost?

RIGHT: John Kerry Supports preemptive war only when the U.S. is so threatened that it is required for the security of our country or for the accomplishment of some extraordinary humanitarian goal

WRONG: Bush created doctrine of preemptive war. Practices a policy of preemptive war in order to further American interests.

10. How can we join with other nations to lead the world to a greater respect for human life and dignity, religious freedom and democracy, economic justice and care for God's creation?

RIGHT: John Kerry advocates more cooperation with U.N. and other international bodies as essential elements for bringing peace to Iraq.
RIGHT: John Kerry voted to strengthen enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Supports reducing automobile emissions by increasing the production of renewable energy like wind and solar power.
RIGHT: John Kerry supports a repeal of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans but supports middle class tax cuts and low income tax credits such as the child credit and the elimination of the marriage penalty.
RIGHT: John Kerry supports increasing tax revenues to provide additional funding for health and education programs.

WRONG: Bush initiated the war in Iraq without a United Nations Security Council Resolution. 3 of the 5 permanent members opposed the invasion of Iraq.
WRONG: Bush backed away from the foreign policy goal of reinforcing religious freedom in favor of support for the “War on Terror”.
WRONG: According to the Census Bureau, during the Bush tenure in office, median family income has declined $1,535 to $43,318.
WRONG: Under Bush the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 4.3 million, and a record 45 million Americans are without health insurance coverage. Programs to promote affordable housing, child care, environmental protection and veterans’ health receive less than a .01% increase in FY 2005.

2004-10-05T17:07:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Catholics for Bush for pointing out this article. Quite astounding, since it makes more of a case for Kerry than it does for Bush, or at least it counters the "you can't vote for Kerry if you are Catholic" nonsense.

There is a quiz after the article:

Catholic Voters Urged to Consider Respect for Human Life, Dignity

By Peter Finney Jr.
Catholic News Service

NEW ORLEANS (CNS) -- Catholic voters should make their political judgments based on the fundamental issues of respect for human life and respect for human dignity, an official of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said at a New Orleans seminar Oct. 2.

The seminar was on the U.S. bishops' political responsibility statement titled "Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility." The document describes "a consistent ethic of life" as the "moral framework" from which Catholic voters should address all issues in the political arena.

"Without life, nothing else matters," said John Carr, head of the Department of Social Development and World Peace of the USCCB. "Without human dignity, life is incomplete. They go together. The moral measure of something is whether it protects human life or harms it, whether it supports human dignity or does not."

The seminar, held at Loyola University, included commentary on the document by Jesuit Father Fred Kammer, provincial of his order's New Orleans province and a former head of Catholic Charities USA.

He said Catholics can contribute to the political process and the debate about the common good because of the church's "consistent moral framework rooted in the sanctity of human life" as well as "its experience of service" -- through schools, health care and social services -- and its diversity.

Carr acknowledged the pain and confusion among Catholic voters in evaluating the presidential candidates' stances on issues in the Nov. 2 election. He said the doctrinal note from Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the U.S. bishops at their June meeting was "a very powerful reminder that, to Catholic politicians, there can be no false separation between faith and (their) lives."

The "Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life" said that, while freedom of conscience leaves Catholics free to choose among political parties and strategies for promoting the common good, they cannot claim that freedom allows them to promote abortion, euthanasia or other attacks on human life.

Carr admitted that, in his own life, "I feel politically homeless sometimes." His mother is a pro-life Republican who ran a pregnancy program in Minnesota; his father is a pro-life Democrat "who believes his party should protect the weakest."

"This is not a cause for one month or one election," Carr said. "The fundamental issue is human life. I'm convinced we're not going to prevail unless we get it right about human life. We have to change hearts and minds."

"Our task is to persuade a majority of American citizens that the unborn child is not a thing," he said. "Abortion is the destruction of innocent, unborn human life. I respect those who say, 'This (issue) is it for me.' But it is not enough to proclaim. We have to engage and persuade."

Carr said since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks there is a more urgent need than ever for the church to refocus on its mission as proclaimed by Jesus in the fourth chapter of Luke: to bring glad tidings to the poor, proclaim liberty to captives and restore the sight of the blind.

"Responsible citizenship is a virtue. Participation in the political process is a moral obligation," he added.

Carr said he often encounters Catholics who talk about either rights or responsibilities, not about both.

"It begins fundamentally with the right to life, but it also includes what makes life truly human," Carr said. "It's morally wrong that 44 million Americans don't have health care coverage. We have the responsibility to secure those rights for ourselves and others."

The debate over the war in Iraq and terrorism has swamped any conversation in the presidential election about the "poor and vulnerable," Carr said.

"We are one of the few institutions that raised serious moral concerns about going to war in Iraq, and we have supported the president's faith-based initiatives while opposing some of his welfare policies," Carr said.

"I predict someone will ask the question in the next few weeks, 'Are you better off than you were four years ago?'" he said. "The question should be, 'Are we better off? Are the unborn protected, are the poor being lifted up, are the sick being cared for? This is about people, not principles."

He added that this presidential election is not about President George W. Bush, the Republican nominee, or Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the Democratic nominee.

"It's about whether the woman who cleans your office at night can take her kids to the doctor," said Carr. "The central question is who has a place at the table of life? I think we're white-water rafting against cultural forces."

Carr said the ultimate example of cultural disarray and violence is what is taking place in Florida. "The state of Florida is going to kill a man who killed a doctor who killed babies in order to tell us that killing is wrong," he said.

Carr said Catholics must try anything they can to change the culture, even if it means running for office in greater numbers.

"When so many of our leaders have their fingers to the wind, we need to change the wind," Carr said. "This is not the work of the month but the work of our lives."

QUIZ

Please select ONLY ONE of the following answers

1. When Mr Carr uses the phrase "a consistent ethic of life," does he mean:

a. From conception to birth?
b. From conception to toddlerhood?
c. From conception to end of life?
d. From the 2000 election to the Iraq war?
e. One of Bud MacFarlane's novels?

2. When Mr. Carr says "Without life, nothing else matters . . . Without human dignity, life is incomplete. They go together." What does the word "together" signify in the above statement?

a. It is an empty word with no meaning.
b. It signifies that pre and post birth life are equally important and it is inconsistent to fight for pre-birth life and then abandon that life once it is born like the Republicans and pro-lifers do.
c. "Together" comes the latin root "togethere" which means really means separation between two things. The english meaning is an abuse of the original meaning of the word.
d. The next smash hit novel from Ono Ekeh.

3. When John Carr says "I predict someone will ask the question in the next few weeks, 'Are you better off than you were four years ago?'" . . . "The question should be, 'Are we better off? Are the unborn protected, are the poor being lifted up, are the sick being cared for?" Are the unborn listed as a qualitatively different issue, or are they included with equal weighting as the poor being lifted up and the sick being cared for?

a. No, the unborn, the poor and the sick are all life issues confronting Catholics. To address one and neglect the others as the "pro-lifers" and Republicans do is to fail at the whole life issue.
b. I don't see why caring for the poor is a life issue.
c. Why can't the sick work hard and get health insurance like the rest of us.
d. making Abortion ilegal in all circumstances including rape and incest is the only possible issue any Catholic may consider when voting, ever, at any level.

2004-10-05T14:21:00.000-07:00

Scripture Countdown to E-Day

11 What care I for the number of your sacrifices? says the LORD. I have had enough of whole-burnt rams and fat of fatlings; In the blood of calves, lambs and goats I find no pleasure.
12 When you come in to visit me, who asks these things of you?
13 Trample my courts no more! Bring no more worthless offerings; your incense is loathsome to me. New moon and sabbath, calling of assemblies, octaves with wickedness: these I cannot bear.
14 Your new moons and festivals I detest; they weigh me down, I tire of the load.
15 When you spread out your hands, I close my eyes to you; Though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood!
16 Wash yourselves clean! Put away your misdeeds from before my eyes; cease doing evil;
17 learn to do good. Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan's plea, defend the widow.
18 Come now, let us set things right, says the LORD: Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow; Though they be crimson red, they may become white as wool.

2004-10-05T13:53:00.000-07:00

Via MyDD

Targeting Papers That Endorsed Bush in 2000
by Paul Rosenberg

What began in the Kos diaries as Operation "Shame on You" has matured into a standalone website project with a less accusatory title--Operation "Fool Me Once."
It's at http://www.youreaccountable.com.

The idea is simple: remind papers of what they said in 2000 when they endorsed Bush, and ask them, in the words of Al Gore at the 2004 convention, "I sincerely ask those watching at home who supported President Bush four years ago: did you really get what you expected from the candidate you voted for?"

Obviously, a lot of papers have already asked themselves this question, but being prodded publicly on their letters page--and privately in the letters they don't print--will certainly help the process along. We've got pages up for all the swing states, plus a few more. We'll have all the states up by the end of the week. Please check us out, and spread the word to others.
If you'd like to do more, we could the following help:

(1) Send us endorsement text (and link) or contact information where that is lacking for papers we already list.
(2) Send us information about papers we don't have listed.
(3) Contact us if you'd like to do more. Our primary needs are:
(a) Help maintaining our website
(b) Help doing outreach to more groups to make them aware of
our site.

Contact us at: contact@youreaccountable.com

Thanks!

We're still waiting for the Compassionate Conservative dream. Or maybe that's what it is . . . a dream.

2004-10-05T08:25:00.000-07:00

Greg Popcak responds to my post below:

Hi Ono,

Wow, I'm souless. Nice.

I stand by everything I wrote. You can whine, for example, the Burke's letter is unjust, but I defy you to back up your point with Catholic facts. This is supposed to be a site about Catholics for Kerry after all. Point to CST or other Catholic teaching to defend your position or admit you've got nothing.

Saying something doesn't make it so, Ono. I would be happy to discuss these issues with you, but only if you are capable of rational debate.

Let's see your facts.

Or is it just easier to call me names?

(And an arch-con is NOT opposed to the Iraq War, Capital Punishment, and in favor of gun control. But an arch-liberal does believe in supply-side trickle down abortion policy--which you propose. Its hysterical, but your supposed liberal solution to abortion is just moral Reaganomics. 8 years under Clinton produced nothing but increased abortion rates. And BTW, I supported Clinton the 1st time for the same reasons you're supporting Kerry now. The difference is I learned from my mistakes.)

Eagerly Yours,
Greg Popcak

By Anonymous, at 6:25 AM

Oh, and just by way of clarification, if you were honest, you would note that the piece on the "Brownshirt" was about a man who wanted to stifle the first amendment rights of a group of Catholics.

Anyone opposed to the first amendment is a brownshirt in my book. So, opposing censorship an archcon position? Thanks for the newsflash.

Or are you saying, that as a Kerry supporter, you would only allow free speech for those who agree with you? How is that not a fascistic position? At any rate, it would be a curious position for a compassionate individual such as yourself to take. I'm being totally serious here. Defend yourself. Or admit you've got nothing and apologize.

Unlike the Catholic/Christian Right, we liberals attack opposing viewpoints not people. You guys are obsessed with destroying people personally. When liberal or moderate Catholics are called "pro-abortion," "pro-death," "babykillers" etc you don't see us whine. Why, because we know what we are fighting for, we are fighting for life and human dignity. Something the Catholic/Christian archright needs to look into.

To be serious, "souless" "cruel" "heartless" and other words I've used refer to the policy positions and platform of the Republicans and archconservatives. Nonetheless, as individuals who vote for these legislators, we bear responsibility for their platform and policies. That's the story of James 2:1-15. It means absolutely nothing to swoon with compassion personally and then enact policies that simply blow the mind in terms of their heartlessness. I've maintained and continue to maintain that compassion and conservativism, as public policy, are mutually exclulsive. George Bush has proven it.

Okay, but I've surpressed the chuckles long enough as I re-read Greg Popcak asking for an apology. Is that like Tom Delay accusing someone of ethics violations or what? GP has frequently called people "idiots," (see link in previous post--someone I don't suspect he knows or who is certainly not an idiot), has called me a "hypocrite" (I don't Popcak from jack and don't suspect he knows jack about me), called Senator Edwards "pro-death" (a man who lost his son in a tragic accident-and is the reason he went into public life), calls an opponent who wanted the "Bishops to pull the plug" from whatever radio station a "brownshirt" yet GP relishes in Catholic U banning speakers and restricting speech in the one kind of institution in which free speech should be encouraged. This is the same person asking for an apology? I frequently use the word hypocrite and liars to describe the archright (I am fully aware that it is too broad a brush, but my fine narrow brushes are on backorder), but you have to wonder if it is not earned in this case?

As for Catholic positions vis-a-vis Kerry's platforms, etc, I refer you to my Q&A at Kerrycatholics.com, or you can go to Eric McFadden's site at Catholics for Kerry 04 or Dr. Whelan's site at Catholicsforkerry.net, there's also Catholics for Democracy, etc.

But the Archbishop Burke statement is revealing and confirms what I've thought and said all along. The "pro-life" movement so-called is not concerned with life. To be fair to the people I once walked along side with, many think that they are fighting for the life issue, so I grant that it is not intentional. What Abp Bruke shows, by saying that same sex marriage is a "moral priority" over war (and his argument is that it is "intrinsically evil") is that "life" is not the issue; rather, the all-important arch-point is "church law/mandate" or a theological principle or something (I still haven't quite figure out what). You just have to wonder when people are comfortable with saying that same sex marriage is a moral priority over war--don't you even feel in your heartor gut that something is wrong with that?

After the Iraq invasion, CNN had a program on Baghdad hospitals. Needless to say these hospitals were understocked, understaffed and filthy and staggering under the weight of the flood of casualties from the "shock and awe" bombing campaign (I need not mention the trauma the Baghad kids underwent with days of intense earth-shaking bombing--I did hear an NPR report in that regard but i digress). They then showed a young girl who had been injured by the bombing. She had a portable breathing mask over her nose and mouth and she was being kept alive by someone who was continuously manually squeezing the bag. The family had been doing this for days now and at some point they were going to have make the decision to stop. Mulitply this tragedy a thousands times--that is the reality that is Iraq today. All because this President lied. And yet we choose same sex marriage as an issue over the life of that young girl and thousands other innocent civilians. (I'm not even going to bring up our dead and maimed troops, the 15% who will suffer from mental illness, the 20,000 dead innocent Iraqis, the sub-human health conditions exacerbated by war, the real prospect of further civil war to devastate and set back the region and more).

If the best the archright and war supporters can do is quote a principle, but are not moved to recognize the horror of this war, then the sharpness of our criticism is more than justified. This is not about who can whip out Aquinas or CCC quotes, these are lives we are talking about. FYI, we liberals can whip out quotes and all that with the best of them but the difference is that for us, everything is ultimately about people. This is what Jesus was about, people, not rigid laws or rules. Jesus was a liberal and the conservatives hated him for it because he exposed their so-called piety for what it was.

This election is about a choice, life with a candidate, John Kerry, who appreciates human dignity, who will fight for healthcare, for education, for jobs, for a more progressive and humane society, or death, with a candidate in Bush who pays lips service to human dignity and then undermines it; someone who is devoted to padding the profits of big business at the expense of people.

As Joshua once said, as for me and my town home . . .

2004-10-04T22:01:00.000-07:00

Greg Popcak responds to this post thus:

Ono,

Greg Popcak here. Last week, I came across your rebuttal piece to my demographic breakdown on abortion. I tried to find an email for you, but you're apparently in hiding so this is the only way I could communicate with you.

This isn't the place to argue your misinformed notions on abortion, but I did want to take issue with your designation of me as "arch-conservative."

I wonder what you base that upon. As a Catholic who opposed the Iraq war, is pro-gun control, anti-Capital punishment, (and generally speaking, feels favorably toward contemporary Catholic music and hugging at Mass ;-)I think it would come as huge surprise to my conservative friends that in your estimation I have out-conservatived them. (You're best bud, Deal, sure as hell would have been shocked. Especially since I called him on the carpet for his ridiculous position on the UN on my radio show).

Now, it is true that in addition to these positions, I also believe (and Catholic Social Teaching agrees with me--and I defy you to prove otherwise) that abortion is the single most important social justice issue, that "gay marriage" is a disaster for society, and that NFP is actually beneficial to marriage.

So what does all this make me? (Now, now, watch your language...) I'll let you decide. But it sure as hell isn't an arch-conservative. So, before you go making a straw man out of me again, how about getting to know me?

I'll be happy to accept your heartfelt apology at gpopcak@exceptionalmarriages.com

Have a nice day.
Greg

Was I wrong in calling HMS blog an archcon site, or is it really a moderate-lean-conservative site? I proceed to study the evidence.

Now, let's see:

Has HMS blog been a poster child for RNC talking points? (too many links)
Is John Kerry smeared with impunity on the HMS blog? (mucho links, quick perusal)
On the blog entry about the Catholic U. snafu-GP's apparently believes that opposing viewpoints are not to be tolerated even in an acadamic setting: is this moderate-speak or archcon (surpress the heretics)?
On HMS blog, do we hear or see any objection or even caution or reserve about Abp Burke saying same-sex marriage is a "moral priority" over the war and the innocent lives losts and the devastation thereof? Moderate-speak or archcon?
CATHOLIC RADIO UNDER ATTACK BY LEFTIST BROWNSHIRTS OPPOSED TO FREE SPEECH. (How moderate!)
"The bottom line is that anyone who knew anything about CST could not possibly argue that a person could be both Catholic and pro-choice unless that person was either an idiot or a lying snake-in-the-(Catholic)-grass.
The question is; which one is Weber?
Sincerely, Gregory K. Popcak, MSW " (Remember that one Greg? Nice wholessome Catholic moderate-speak, or is it? Archcon perhaps?)
Why would the thought of anyone supporting Kerry really "honk" you off, even if a Bishop? Could it be that you are beyond moderate and firmly in archcon ground that opposition is simply intolerable and most be surpressed?
Cate Edwards there to "shill for her pro-death dad" Pro-death? Need I remind you this man lost a son not too long ago? I don't suppose that matters because after all, "pro-death" is moderate-speak and not archcon.

I am going to stop there, it is taking too much of my time.

I was listening to CSPAN the other day and couple of old time reporters were talking about the Swift Boat controversy (which in my opinion exposed the Catholic right for its dishonesty in its willingness to jump on a smear of a good man), and this reporter said the average of the truth and a lie is still a lie. Just because you have friends to your right, does not make you moderate. The Via Media is never a good guage for common sense, much less truth.

Catholics have a choice to make in this election. RCs can choose a good man, a sincere, earnest, spiritual man, with common sense progressive values, who is competent to lead this country and the world in the direction it should go or we can chose an angry Bush administration that is vengefull, war mongering, that lies and decieves, is hypocritical, and cold.

In conclusion, anyone who claims same sex marriage is a "moral priority" over the devastation caused by war, the tens of thousands of innocent livs lost, the thousands of soldiers maimed, and thousand killed, has no Christian values to boast off. This is NOT a pro-life position. It is simply a soul-less conservative position.

2004-10-04T16:05:00.000-07:00

St Louis Catholic responds to Archbishop Burke's letter that calls same sex marriage a "moral priority" over war.

2004-10-04T15:51:00.000-07:00

Now for some levity:

Via Needlenose

Needlenose caption:
"Oh dark lord, we offer this child to you so that we may win the next debate!"

2004-10-04T15:45:00.000-07:00

Kerry Catholic Scripture of the Day Countdown to E-Day

19 Know this, my dear brothers: everyone should be quick to hear, 11 slow to speak, slow to wrath,
20 for the wrath of a man does not accomplish the righteousness of God.
21 Therefore, put away all filth and evil excess and humbly welcome the word that has been planted in you and is able to save your souls.
22 Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves.
23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his own face in a mirror.
24 He sees himself, then goes off and promptly forgets what he looked like.
25 But the one who peers into the perfect law 12 of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed in what he does.
26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue 14 but deceives his heart, his religion is vain.
27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows 15 in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

Verse 27 is the heart of Christian faith. Our faith boils down to two things, social justice and purity of heart (Rom 12:1-2). If we want to vote our faith, we cannot neglect social justice: if we neglect social justice, then we do not vote our faith.

2004-10-04T15:41:00.000-07:00

Kerry-Edwards Prayer Circle

2004-10-04T08:49:00.000-07:00

Moral Blindspots:
Republicans Ignore Evil of Unjust War

By Michael and Linda Flynn

A strange thing is happening in our church. Many good and faithful parishioners are claiming to be “in line” with Catholic moral teachings – and yet they feel entitled to publicly support a political candidate who is openly violating those teachings. We are astounded that these fellow Catholics simply ignore the Pope’s forceful and repeated condemnation of George Bush’s preemptive war against Iraq.

Those who think they can vote for George Bush and still count themselves as faithful Catholics should pick up their copy of the Catholic Catechism and re-read the section about our church’s longstanding teachings on “just war.” Some have claimed, rightly, that the Church acknowledges war may sometimes be “justified,” as in World War II. But we are not talking about “any” war; we are talking about THIS war – the war in Iraq. Maybe we ought to consult the Catechism to review the conditions that must be met before war can be considered morally justified.

The Catholic Doctrine of Just War

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states (#2308) that “All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However,…governments have the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”

The following section (#2309) spells out “the strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force.” According to Catholic moral teachings, military force is never morally justified unless ALL of the following four conditions are met:

1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.

2. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.

3. There must be serious prospects of success.

4. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

Have these conditions been met, in the case of George Bush’s decision to launch a preemptive war against Iraq? Can this be called a “just war,” by the standards of Catholic moral teaching?
The Church says that all four conditions must be met – Let’s consider each one of them in turn.

1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.

It is hard to know where to begin in applying this requirement to our government’s action in Iraq. For starters, Iraq committed no act of aggression against us at all. Despite unsubstantiated claims of a connection, Iraq is not Al-Quaeda and Saddam Hussein is not Osama bin Laden. There was no damage caused to us by Iraq, let alone “grave, lasting and certain.” Even the supposed threat of damage was purely speculative, hypothetical, imaginary. So to begin, there was no “aggression” – the war was launched preemptively – but the Bush administration attempted to justify it as an attack necessary to prevent the use of weapons which in fact did not even exist. Since it is impossible to argue that the nation of Iraq had caused (or could cause) “lasting, grave and certain damage” to us, Mr. Bush’s war does not even satisfy the first of the Church’s requirements. Since all four conditions must be met, we can already see that according to Catholic teaching, Mr. Bush’s war is unjustified. But let’s look at the other three conditions to see if even a single one of the four is met.

2. All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.

The Bush administration was in such a rush to declare war on Saddam Hussein that they ignored the repeated appeals of the United Nations, our NATO allies, and the Pope himself, to allow the UN weapons inspections program to be completed. This would be an excellent example – but just one example – of the kind of actions that should have been fully tried before the “last resort” of war. Ironically, as we now know, the UN sanctions and weapons-inspection program of the 1990’s had already succeeded in eliminating the weapons of mass destruction that were Bush’s urgent justification for pre-emptive war.

3. There must be serious prospects of success.

According to Bush’s original pretext, “success” would be defined in terms of the elimination of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Since these did not really exist, success would be impossible; or better said, the war was completely unnecessary. But Bush soon admitted there was little expectation of finding weapons of mass destruction, when he began to say instead that “regime change” was the real purpose of the war. But why was the regime of Saddam Hussein any worse than that of North Korea (which clearly does have weapons of mass destruction), or Sudan (where full-scale genocide is happening), or Saudi Arabia (where most of the September 11 hijackers came from)? It seems that Bush must have had some other reason why he chose to launch a war against Iraq instead…. In any case, “success” in terms of regime change might seem attainable, except that toppling Saddam from power was the easy part – whereas establishing a new regime that is different, better, less brutal, or even just more pro-American, is looking less and less likely. If regime change were indeed the real objective of the war, the difficulties and dangers were foreseeable.

4. The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

Again, we should remember that the “evil” that Bush said he wanted to eliminate in Iraq, was not just the evil of a harsh and brutal dictatorship, of which there are many in the world. Rather, Bush claimed that Iraq was sponsoring Al-Quaeda, training terrorists, and mass-producing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons for terrorist attacks. No credible evidence has been produced to back up those claims. However, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq have themselves certainly produced great damage and disorder. Thousands killed and many more maimed and crippled, property and industry destroyed, vital alliances strained and international good will squandered – this damage done by us is definitely “lasting, grave and certain.” But even more disturbing is that Bush’s preemptive war on Iraq has provoked outrage and anti-American sentiment throughout the Arab and Muslim world, and beyond. The growing insurgency movement in Iraq has become a rallying point to inspire, recruit and train whole new legions of radicalized Muslim youth to carry out terrorist campaigns in the years ahead. What Mr. Bush has done is make our country not more, but far less safe than we ever were before.

In conclusion, when we examined Bush’s action in attacking Iraq, in light of our Catholic church’s teaching on “just war,” we were forced to conclude that not even a single one of the four necessary conditions have been met. If anyone wants to dispute one of the points we have made above, they should remember that according to the Church’s teaching, in order to demonstrate that Bush’s war IS a justified war, they would have to refute not just one, but all of our statements. Still more, they bear the burden of proving that all four of the Church’s conditions have in fact been met in the case of our preemptive war on Iraq. Frankly, to seriously suppose it is possible to justify this war would reveal a profound and even willful ignorance of both our Church’s teaching and the facts of this war. If a person simply doesn’t care about the teachings of our Catholic Church, well, that is their right. But for a Catholic to claim he cares so deeply for our beliefs that he wishes to excommunicate those who do not want to criminalize abortion, and yet to also claim with a straight face that good Catholics may legitimately believe that Bush’s war on Iraq is a just war – this reveals a double standard that can only be called self-righteous and hypocritical.

When evaluating what President Bush has done to Iraq, a nation with problems, yes, but not a threat to the United States (until now, that is) we are reminded of the story of King Herod. Recall the Gospel of Matthew (chapter 2) when Herod ordered that every infant in Bethlehem under the age of two be killed “just in case” one of them might be a threat to his political power. That is the nature of preemptive war.

George Bush has deeply alienated our allies in the international community whose cooperation we will need to rebuild Iraq and extricate ourselves from a worsening situation there. Bush has quite simply burned too many bridges. Only a new leader will be able to restore constructive relations with other countries. As devoted and faithful Catholics, we will vote for John Kerry, the best choice to safeguard freedom in our country and restore respect and good will in our international relations.

Cardinal Pio Laghi, who in February 2003 had delivered to President Bush an appeal from Pope John Paul II to resist the temptation of war in Iraq, recently stated, “[The United States]
must re-establish respect for human beings and return to the family of nations, overcoming the temptation to act on its own. If it does not stop, the whirlwind of horror will involve other peoples and will lead us ever more to the abyss.”

2004-10-03T21:40:00.000-07:00

Back on the subject of Bush not attending Church, the folks at Atrios and Washington Monthly are having a blast at the apparent hypocrisy. I suppose "it's hard work."

Someone, though, notes that Bush was at odds with the Bishops of his church, the United Methodists, who opposed the war.

Same article also talks about how Bush thumbed his nose at Cardinal Laghi, the Pope's emissary, regarding avoiding war.

An interview with United Methodist Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, ecumenical officer for the Council of Bishops, will air March 5 on "ABC World News Tonight" as part of a story focusing on American Christians' disagreement with a war on Iraq.

President George W. Bush met behind closed doors on Ash Wednesday with Cardinal Pio Laghi, an envoy of Pope John Paul II. Laghi was bringing the pope's admonition about a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq. Bush has said he rejects the Vatican's argument that pre-emptive war with Iraq has no moral justification.

"It saddens me that even before the papal envoy arrived, the message from Bush was clear," Talbert said.

Talbert was interviewed by phone at Brentwood (Tenn.) United Methodist Church, near Nashville, by ABC reporter John Cochran.

Asked why Bush, a United Methodist, has so far refused to meet with American church leaders about the issue, Talbert replied: "That's a good question. I cannot speak for the president.

"I like President Bush," he continued. "He is a great man; he is a great president. We just differ on this issue. I wish he were more open to dialogue on this issue, which is so important to the future of this nation."

Bush is amassing U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf area for a possible military action against Iraq, based on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's reported buildup of weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S. National Council of Churches and the United Methodist Council of Bishops have requested a meeting with Bush. "We regret the president has isolated himself from certain views," Talbert said. "He is only hearing one side."

Talbert was part of a delegation of religious leaders, led by the NCC, who visited Iraq Dec. 29-Jan. 3. The bishop is on the NCC's executive board.

Since that visit, he said he has committed himself to working to avert a war. Talbert has appeared in a 30-second commercial for cable television and has been interviewed by numerous news outlets.

"The Gospel compels me to speak up," he said. Too many innocent people, "our brothers and sisters," will die if a war is waged.

Talbert emphasized he supports "our sons and daughters and grandchildren" in the military who have a job to do.

"I love them, and I am doing all I can to support them by asking the policymakers to keep them from a war."

Of course, we also have Archbishop Burke who believes railing against same sex marraige is more important than the lives lost and devastation caused by war (hey war isn't intrinsically evil, but same-sex marriage is!). Actually he uses the term "moral priority." Let me rephrase Archbishop Burke's position using his phrase: opposition to same sex marriage is a moral priority than innocent lives lost and devastation caused by war. Fits quite nicely with the Catholic robust "pro-life" doctrine, don't you think?