Digest of Today's Posts (23 May 2008)

New to the Blogroll: The Art of Manliness

John McCain's "Profiles in Courage": A Couple of Examples of Why I Have Not Backed McCain ...

First Things on "The Transformation of Belfast"

(Digest of Today's Posts (22 May 2008))

New to the Blogroll: The Art of Manliness

(Hat tip: Feddie)

That THAT'S a blog every man should read!

John McCain's "Profiles in Courage": A Couple of Examples of Why I Have Not Backed McCain ...

... both from Creative Minority Report:

McCain's Vociferous Defense of Marriage - NOT!

Call Catholics Satan? Yawn. But Don't Mention the Jews

Throw in McCain's support for ESCR and we have a trifecta.


UPDATE
McCain must REALLY NOT want my vote, if what Feddie reports is true:

. . . this, this, or this, simply will not do.

Even if he doesn't follow through on these things, the mere fact that McCain is considering them makes him completely untrustworthy in my estimation.

I suppose I'd prefer McCain over Obama, but it looks like the "maverick" is going to have to accomplish that feat without my vote.

First Things on "The Transformation of Belfast"

Sandra Czelusniak, an M.A. student at Queen’s University Belfast and a 2007 Publius Fellow with the Claremont Institute, writes on the changing face of Belfast and Northern Ireland at the First Things blog:

... The first word that comes to mind on visiting Belfast in 2008, ten years after the signing of the Good Friday Agreement that brokered a cease-fire between the various paramilitary groups and brought an end to the thirty-year period of sectarian violence commonly known as “The Troubles,” is change. In July 2007, the British Army officially announced the termination of its Northern Ireland mission and withdrew its troops from the region, with this news coming on the heels of a landmark power-sharing agreement between the Republican Sinn Féin and Loyalist Democratic Unionist party. This year, the omnipresent Reverend Ian Paisley, notorious for his longtime refusal even to so much as shake hands with a Catholic, is stepping down as the head of the Democratic Unionist party, bringing an end to a long chapter in the history of religious and political tension in Northern Ireland. This announcement came after Paisley’s having formed a political friendship with Martin McGuiness, head of the Northern Ireland Parliament’s Sinn Féin delegation. This odd pairing has given the duo the nickname “Chuckle Brothers” for their apparent propensity for laughing and smiling together in public.

***
But as eye-opening as the politically charged murals are, a deeper understanding of the Northern Ireland conflict comes from talking with the inhabitants of Belfast themselves, who know firsthand the complexities and realities of living in a such a politically charged atmosphere. One of the most surprising aspects of the Troubles was, for an outsider such as myself, the range and spectrum of experience and opinion found in both “communities.” These ranged from the young woman from Falls Road whose parents sent her to live with a family in Belgium every summer, to the Republican-sympathizing Protestants from just outside Belfast, to the students who lived in rural areas and to whom the nationalist-loyalist connotations of either Catholic or Protestant affiliation were as bewildering to them as they were to the non-Irish among us.

Hence my surprise upon hearing from a Protestant student that the Catholics were identifiable based on their last names, their pronunciation of certain words, if they said “Derry” instead of “Londonderry,” enthusiasm for the Irish language, or even what type of football jerseys they would wear. After listening to that explanation, one could almost be forgiven for thinking that being Catholic meant attending Mass and professing submission to the authority of the pope. It would be unimaginable in some parts of Belfast that a loyal British subject could be Catholic, or that an ethnically Celtic Irishman could be a Protestant, so inseparable were the political and religious affiliations. But this is indicative of how insular the two groups had become due to centuries of mutual hostility and myriad injustices towards the indigenous Catholic population of Ireland.

It is this very conflation of “Catholic-Republican” and “Protestant-Loyalist” identities that leads some Catholics in Belfast to regard Sinn Féin and Republicanism with disdain. “I tell Catholics not to vote for Sinn Féin. It’s basically a Marxist-socialist party, and their positions are very often against the Catholic Church,” the Catholic chaplain at Queen’s University told me. “I came from a very rural, very Catholic though not Republican small town where we were not terribly affected by what was going on in Belfast.”

These Catholics, though they certainly have no love lost for the Unionists, saw much of the violence in the Troubles as arising partly from the tendency of many Northern Irish Catholics to submerge their Catholic identity into the ideology of Irish Republicanism. This is illustrated in a perplexing mural on the Falls Road commemorating Irish participation in the (very anti-Catholic) Republican army during the Spanish Civil War.

Several others were likewise very quick to impress upon me that Catholic and Republican were not the same thing. When I expressed my surprise at having seen pictures of Che Guevara lumped in with those of Bobby Sands at a Republican pub, a lifelong Catholic Belfast resident answered: “Simplistic, isn’t it? Anyone who presents themselves as ‘freedom fighters’ will get these people’s praise.” He went on to tell me: “Yes, there was discrimination. Yes, things were difficult for many Catholics for a long time. But the Sinn Féin was always more concerned for their Marxist agenda than for Catholics and their families. I would sooner vote Unionist than any of these people. And my father was in the IRA, so that is saying a lot.”

[More]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
I've always had Irish Republican sympathies (even back when I was a Protestant), but I've also always recognized that Sinn Fein are a bunch of unreconstructed Marxists.

Below is a sampling of the sorts of republican murals discussed in the First Things piece. Not a whole lot to do with Irish independence in these things. And, for the record, the unionist murals are worse - nothing but a violent hodgepodge of threats and Orange chest-thumping intimidation.

Digest of Today's Posts (22 May 2008)

Light Blogging Today ... I'm Headed Up to "Enemy" Territory

Bill Donohue: "Catholic Left Hangs Itself"

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (21 May 2008))

Light Blogging Today ... I'm Headed Up to "Enemy" Territory

My Dad's in town from Texas for a few days, and we're headed up to Ann Arbor this morning to visit some of our relatives we haven't seen in 25 years (including my Dad's 90-year-old aunt who is also his Godmother).

I'll forego wearing either my Ohio State or Notre Dame colors for this visit ... although it is tempting.

Bill Donohue: "Catholic Left Hangs Itself"

The Catholic League's Bill Donohue writes at InsideCatholic:

The Catholic Left is hanging itself right before our eyes. Having never come to grips with the Church's teachings on sexuality, they are now tightening the noose on themselves in public. It is not a pretty sight. This month alone they have embroiled themselves in a debate with three separate archbishops, with no end in sight.

Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City recently rebuked Catholic Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius for vetoing a bill imposing new restrictions on abortion providers. Indeed, he publicly urged her not to go to Communion. The archbishop was not shooting from the hip: He has met with Sebelius on several occasions regarding her pro-abortion position.

Catholic Left apologists like Catholic Democrats have blasted Archbishop Naumann for doing his job. But in doing so, they have exposed themselves as lining up behind a public official whose record on abortion makes a mockery of their game plan to reduce abortions.

***
"Roman Catholics for Obama '08" is another group on the Catholic Left that now looks rather enfeebled. They deliberately took Denver archbishop Charles Chaput's words out of context, making it look like he was in the tank for Obama. Nothing could be further from the truth.

***
The third archbishop to become embroiled in a fight with the Catholic Left is Roger Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles. Mahony has denied Australian bishop Geoffrey Robinson permission to speak in his archdiocese, citing his dissident positions. The Aussie bishop disagrees with the Catholic Church's teachings on adultery, women priests, homosexuality, and "papal power." And who is sponsoring Bishop Robinson in his grand tour of the United States? Voice of the Faithful (VOTF).

***
If this isn't enough bad news for the Catholic Left, on May 13 Pope Benedict XVI told Italian pro-lifers that "the Church's Magisterium" has always proclaimed abortion to be "non-negotiable." He didn't use that term to refer to the minimum wage, dilapidated housing, or Third World debt.

At bottom, it is not the Catholic Left's quarrel with three archbishops that is doing them in; it is their total failure to convince Catholics (as well as non-Catholics) that it is okay to vote for NARAL-approved candidates for public office and then claim with a straight face that this adequately represents the Catholic position. Everyone knows this is bunk.

[More]

My Comments:
I'm glad Bill Donohue caught the number "Catholic Democrats" did on Archbishop Naumann. I hope he expands on his comments somewhat and takes them to task with a full-blown press release that calls them on their Bishop bashing.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Archbishop Chaput: Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08”

"Catholic Democrats" Attack "Registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City" for "Using Communion" to "Take Down" Sebelius

Digest of Today's Posts (21 May 2008)

"The Third Time It's Enemy Action."

Father Michael J. McGivney: A Saint for America

Digest of Yesterday's Posts (20 May 2008)

"The Third Time It's Enemy Action."

Readers of this blog know that I have thus far refused to back John McCain. But there's one surefire way to get me to do that, and it's for Obama's sycophants to keep this shite up:

Three Oddly Similar Criticisms of McCain's Military Service

One:

"McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit," Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. said.

"What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

Two:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain's family background as the son and grandson of admirals has given him a worldview shaped by the military, "and he has a hard time thinking beyond that," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Ia., said Friday.

"I think he's trapped in that," Harkin said in a conference call with Iowa reporters. "Everything is looked at from his life experiences, from always having been in the military, and I think that can be pretty dangerous."

Harkin said that "it's one thing to have been drafted and served, but another thing when you come from generations of military people and that's just how you're steeped, how you've learned, how you've grown up."

"But now McCain is running for a higher office. He's running for commander in chief, and our Constitution says that should be a civilian," Harkin said. "And in some ways, I think it would be nice if that commander in chief had some military background, but I don't know if they need a whole lot."

Three (hat tip, RedState):

A prominent local Barack Obama backer bashed John McCain's military record Monday, calling the Republican presidential candidate a "self-promoter."

In a nearly-half hour speech, Democratic congressional candidate Bill Gillespie praised Obama, his party's leading White House hopeful...

"Admirals' sons," Gillespie said, unopposed for the Democratic nomination in the 1st Congressional District held by Republican Rep. Jack Kingston, "were treated like royalty. They were privileged people. They were given a silver spoon. Their careers were prepared for them."

Gillespie, a former Army officer who served in Iraq, said McCain was the kind of admiral's son who became a "maverick."

McCain, Gillespie added, was "somebody who needed to stand out, someone that needed to draw attention to themselves and ... was usually out for themselves."

He said his "heart grieves" for McCain's suffering as a POW.

"After that," Gillespie said, "he was somewhat of a celebrity and it went to his head. ... I think he was a self-promoter for the last four years (in the Navy.)

Asked to cite specific examples, Gillespie responded, "I don't have one right now."

To quote Auric Goldfinger, "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action."

Which is worse — that Democrats across the country are spontaneously choosing to cite McCain's military experience as a drawback or weakness, and a reason to not vote for him? Or that this is some sort of coordinated message effort?

Ed Morrisey sees this as some sort of effort to paint McCain as the true elitist in the race rather than Obama:

Now we have at least three Democrats and Obama supporters on the record as attacking McCain’s 24 years of service in the Navy: Gillespie, Jay Rockefeller, and Tom Harkin, as well as unnamed “colleagues” in the Matt Bai hit piece in the New York Times. The criticisms sound remarkably similar; all of them question the quality of his service, claiming that he grew up as a child of privilege and had his career handed to him, in a role where he didn’t know what combat was really like. He had a “silver spoon”, was “Navy royalty”, and so on.

This sounds like someone wants to fight the elitist stink that has attached itself to the Barack Obama campaign through the intrepidity of the candidate himself. Obama scorned middle-America voters as bitterly clinging to guns and God because of a lack of wealth redistribution in America, while his wife told audiences that she only starting taking pride in America when people supported Obama’s bid for the presidency, and his pastor and friend talked about the US government’s creation of the HIV virus as a genocidal tool against people of color. Team Obama has argued ever since that McCain is the real elitist, and not the Harvard-educated man who sat on boards with William Ayers and never knew he had befriended an unrepentant domestic terrorist.

If the Obama campaign wants to continue its denigration of military service, let them. It’s going to be difficult to sell McCain as a man who got a free ride through a distinguished naval career and attempt to turn a real war hero into a dilettante. That effort will reveal the anti-military animus that surrounds Team Obama and its supporters on the hard Left better than any ad the Republicans can produce.

How long would Obama have lasted in the Hanoi Hilton? Probably about a day before he made common cause with his VietCong and NVA comrades and gave them everything they wanted.

Not. Ready. For. Prime. Time.

Father Michael J. McGivney: A Saint for America

From the May 25-31 issue of National Catholic Register:

Father Michael J. McGivney (1852-1890) is a saint for America today, particularly regarding immigration and the renewal of the priesthood after the abuse crisis.

So said Msgr. Robert Sarno, an official at the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. This spring, Pope Benedict XVI approved a decree recognizing the heroic virtue of the 19th-century parish priest and founder of the Knights of Columbus. He now has the distinction of “Venerable Servant of God” and, if canonized, would be the first American-born priest to be so honored.

Edward Pentin spoke with Msgr. Sarno in Rome.

At what stage are we in the beatification process of Father McGivney?

At this point, Father McGivney has been declared to have lived a life of heroic virtue. This means he’s now given the title of Venerable Servant of God. What then is required for eventual beatification is one miracle granted by God through his intercession and confirmed as such by investigation and study and then confirmation by our Holy Father. At the present time, there is a case that is under study and, with the help of God, hopefully it will have a positive outcome. It’s still in the process of being studied at this point.

***
What were his great heroic virtues, his personal qualities?

First and foremost, he was a holy priest. And more than ever, as the Holy Father has mentioned recently in his trip to the United States, the holiness of priests is so essential, of course holiness of all people. But in a special way he is looking to priests to look towards a certain holiness of life.

Father McGivney, in being declared venerable by the Church, is basically giving us that message: that holiness of life and service to the ministry is essential to a priest.

The second point of course in which Father McGivney is so prophetic was his care for the laity, particularly the immigrant community. Now, when we look at the history of the Church in America and just the history of life in America, the political debate going on with the immigration question, Father McGivney once again comes to us as a prophetic voice on that whole question. He founded the Knights of Columbus as a fraternal order to help people not just spiritually but also physically, in their living in a new country, in what, to them, would have been a foreign land, which would soon become their new home. And that they would be able to live happily and have a good life and hopefully achieve the goals of their faith, in other words salvation...

[More - Subscription required]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Decree on Heroic Virtues of Fr. Michael McGivney, Founder of Knights of Columbus

Digest of Today's Posts (20 May 2008)

Make That a 101% "Pro-Choice" Rating

Archbishop Chaput: Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08”

(Digest of Yesterday's Posts (19 May 2008))

Make That a 101% "Pro-Choice" Rating

The editors of The Washington Times note:

... Mr. Obama's record on abortion is radical and extreme — even by the standards of his own party. He voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion and criticized the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the ban; he voted against prohibitions on taking a minor across state lines for an abortion; and most appalling of all, he voted against providing legal protection for babies who survive an abortion. Mr. Obama's inability to recognize the inhumanity of his position staggers pro-lifers: Partial-birth abortion is infanticide because the baby's brains are extracted during birthing. Mr. Obama does not even support providing legal protection for babies who survive an abortion. For his unbending pro-choice stance, the Illinois senator received a 100 percent score from NARAL in 2005, 2006 and 2007...

My Comments:
Make that a 101% "pro-choice" voting record because, on the issue of denying legal protection for babies who survive an abortion, Obama went even further than the abortion lobby was willing to go.

Yes, the man that Doug Kmiec and so many others seem to believe will seek "common ground" with pro-lifers has the dubious distinction of likely being the first presidential candidate ever to be MORE pro-abortion ... excuse me, "pro-choice" ... than the abortion lobby itself.

See also posts by The Cranky Conservative and The Curt Jester.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Archbishop Chaput: Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08”

Did Doug Kmiec Just Now Catch On That Obama and NARAL Are Politically Conjoined? [UPDATED]

Pro-Life Democrat Calls Being Pro-Life and Voting for Obama "A Psychological Impossibility"

National Catholic Register: "Obama and Abortion"

Deal Hudson on "How Obama's Catholics Will Dodge the Infanticide Question"

Kmiec's Dishonesty [UPDATED]

The Curt Jester: "Shameless Garment" [UPDATED]

Can a Catholic Vote for Obama?

Obama's Pledge to Planned Parenthood: “I Will Not Yield"

Sen. Moloch H. Obama Celebrates Abortion, Warns Supreme Court Could Reverse Roe

National Catholic Register: "Religious" Democrat Barack Obama Sticks to the Abortion Line

Litmus Test: Democrat Candidates Demand Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justices

Obama, Clinton Slam Supreme Court on Abortion Ruling

Democratic Candidates for President Give Unanimous Pro-Abortion Views

During First Debate, Democrats Back Abortion, Criticize Efforts to Save Terri Schiavo

Reaction to Court’s Abortion Ruling Falls Along Predictable Party Lines

Archbishop Chaput: Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08”

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, who "Catholic Democrats" recently accused of being part of a right-wing Republican cabal involving Catholic bishops in the Great Plains and Mountain West, writes about his involvement in the campaigns of Bobby Kennedy and Jimmy Carter at the First Things blog. He then fast forwards to how Catholics of today are justifying their support for the current Democrat frontrunner:

... In the years after the Carter loss, I began to notice that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be “personally opposed” to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand-wringing and a convenient excuse—exactly as it is today. In fact, I can’t name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life—not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there’s very little action. In the United States in 2008, abortion is an acceptable form of homicide. And it will remain that way until Catholics force their political parties and elected officials to act differently.

Why do I mention this now? Earlier this spring, a group called “Roman Catholics for Obama ’08” quoted my own published words in the following way:

So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics— people whom I admire—who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite—not because of—their pro-choice views.

What’s interesting about this quotation—which is accurate but incomplete—is the wording that was left out. The very next sentences in the article of mine they selected, which Roman Catholics for Obama neglected to quote, run as follows:

But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life—which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.

On their website, Roman Catholics for Obama stress that:

After faithful thought and prayer, we have arrived at the conclusion that Senator Obama is the candidate whose views are most compatible with the Catholic outlook, and we will vote for him because of that—and because of his other outstanding qualities—despite our disagreements with him in specific areas.

I’m familiar with this reasoning. It sounds a lot like me thirty years ago. And thirty years later, we still have about a million abortions a year. [ED.: Of course, we all know - as the Obamoloch Democrats are constantly reminding us - that this all the Republicans' fault for not waving their magic wand and bringing an end to abortion. Hardened Democrat opposition that has fought tooth and nail to prevent even the most minimal restrictions on the scourge of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with it.] Maybe Roman Catholics for Obama will do a better job at influencing their candidate. It could happen. [ED.: And monkeys could fly out of my nether regions.] And I sincerely hope it does, since Planned Parenthood of the Chicago area, as recently as February 2008, noted that Senator Barack Obama “has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate.” [ED.: Actually, it's a 101% voting record since he voted to deny medical care to already-born babies who had survived a botched abortion - even the abortion lobby didn't go that far.]

[ED.: Here comes the "money" quote.] Changing the views of “pro-choice” candidates takes a lot more than verbal gymnastics, good alibis, and pious talk about “personal opposition” to killing unborn children. I’m sure Roman Catholics for Obama know that, and I wish them good luck. They’ll need it.

[More]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
"Catholic Democrats" Attack "Registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City" for "Using Communion" to "Take Down" Sebelius

Archbishop Chaput Warns Catholics on Supporting Pro-Abortion Candidates

Archbishop Chaput: "Better Citizens, More Faithful Catholics"

John Allen Interviews Archbishop Chaput Regarding Catholic Voting Guides

Archbishop Chaput Not Satisfied With Proposed New USCCB Document on Voting

Archbishop Chaput: The Time for Behind-The-Scenes Diplomacy with Politicians Is Over

Digest of Today's Posts (19 May 2008)

Obama the Egghead Professor is Bound and Determined to "Explain" All Us Red Staters and Our Unwillingness to Support Him

"Casey Democrats" - Not the Party Faithful Anymore

Deal Hudson on Prof. Kmiec and Blurring the Lines Between "Pro-Choice" and Pro-Abortion

(Digest of Weekend's Posts (18 May 2008))



Highlighted from Friday:

"Catholic Democrats" Attack "Registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City" for "Using Communion" to "Take Down" Sebelius

Obama the Egghead Professor is Bound and Determined to "Explain" All Us Red Staters and Our Unwillingness to Support Him

Obama just doesn't know when to shut up about his lack of popularity among "red-state" and working-class voters:

... Move right along. Obama's our nominee. We're stuck with him. Here he explains his impending loss in Kentucky:

"What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle." [E.A.]

Cling Alert! ... As emailer "S" notes: 1) "Last time I checked, Illinois was more 'nearby' Kentucky than Arkansas. Heck, they even touch." 2) "[I]sn't there something a tad condescending in his reference to "some of those states in the middle"? ...

P.S.: Obama also said that Kentucky Democrats are fools who let themselves get pumped full of false rumors by Fox News, or words to that effect. But he'll rally them in the fall! ...

Note to Sen. Obama: Please stop explaining! ...

My Comments:
What a dolt! Not ready for prime time.


UPDATE
Exactly:

The very notion that people not voting for him **is a phenomenon that needs a complex explanation** is exactly why I think he (and even more so, his supporters) are arrogant patronizing sob's ...

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Democrats Fail to Learn Lessons of 2004 - Part 2: Why Red Staters "Vote Against Our Interests" [UPDATED]

Democrats Fail to Learn the Lessons of 2004

Attention Super-Delegates: Obama Cedes Ohio Valley?

Obama Disses Blue Collar Voters Again: Says They "Cling to Guns or Religion" Because They Are "Bitter" [UPDATED]

Obama's Problems in Pennsylvania Mirror His Problems in Ohio

Obama Attributes Support for Reagan by Blue Collar "Reagan Democrats" to "Anger Over Welfare and Affirmative Action" [UPDATED]

"Casey Democrats" - Not the Party Faithful Anymore

(Hat tip: Dave Hartline at The Catholic Report)

Mark Stricherz writes in The Washington Post:

Irmo Antonacci used to vote for Democratic presidential candidates. A son of Italian immigrants, the 80-year-old retiree lives in Jeannette, Pa., a down-at-the-heels smokestack city southeast of Pittsburgh. After dropping out of college in 1950, he got a job installing telephones with Bell Penn and joined a union. He registered as a Democrat and became a John F. Kennedy fan. A decade ago, he was the Democratic committeeman from the town's 5th ward.

But Antonacci no longer automatically pulls the lever for the candidate with (D) beside his or her name. "I'd seen the time from where the party used to be and where the party is now accepting abortion and gay rights," he says. "And I didn't go for that."

On the lawn in front of Antonacci's one-story brick house stands a foot-high statue of St. Francis and another of the Virgin Mary, symbols of a transformation that could spell trouble for the Democrats in November. It's the transformation of a group of voters we might call Casey Democrats, after the late Robert P. Casey Sr., governor of Pennsylvania from 1987 to 1995.

Like Casey, these voters -- blue-collar and religious, often Catholic -- are liberal on economic issues but conservative on cultural ones. Where they once looked to union leaders and their fellow union members for political guidance, they now look to their religious leaders and fellow churchgoers. And in the last decade, to the dismay of Democratic strategists, they've been voting for Republican presidential candidates. According to Democratic pollster and strategist Stan Greenberg, they made up the 10 percent of white Catholics who identify with the Democrats but didn't vote for Sen. John F. Kerry for president in 2004. And if Sen. Barack Obama can't do better with the Casey Democrats, his presidential bid may fare no better than Kerry's.

***
The bottom line is clear: The party must woo Casey Democrats in Rust Belt and border states -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan, Missouri, Kentucky. To win them over, it won't be enough for Democrats to hammer the GOP over the economy and the war in Iraq, as Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, did in 2004, or merely to use inclusive language and support partial-birth abortion, as Obama and Clinton have done. Instead, Democrats must address voters' real concerns about protecting families and human life, as Gov. Casey did. "Catholic voters have emerged more pro-life," pollster Greenberg wrote in a 2005 memo, "but they are very responsive to a broad initiative to reduce unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions."

[More]

My Comments:
Is it any wonder these Catholic "Casey Democrats" don't vote party line any longer when Bishop-bashing groups such as "Catholic Democrats" purport to represent them and their interests?


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
"Catholic Democrats" Attack "Registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City" for "Using Communion" to "Take Down" Sebelius

Democrats Fail to Learn Lessons of 2004 - Part 2: Why Red Staters "Vote Against Our Interests" [UPDATED]

Democrats Fail to Learn the Lessons of 2004

Attention Super-Delegates: Obama Cedes Ohio Valley?

Obama Catholics Blast Bill Donohue, Blame Conservatives for Failing to End Abortion [UPDATED]

Hey, You're Not Supposed to Say That

Rove: Hillary Over McCain; McCain Over Obama

Why North Carolina and Indiana Really Don't Mean That Much ...

Rich Lowry on Hillary the "Social Conservative" [UPDATED]

Why Is It Working-Class Whites That the Media Deems "Racist"?

Obama Campaign Seeks to Close Family Gap [UPDATED]

Dems Are Beginning to Believe They Can't Beat John McCain [UPDATED]

Obama Delegate Admits the Obvious: "Bitter" Was Indeed a Big Deal

"Mighty Casey Has Struck Out" [UPDATED]

On Disliking Obama for the Right Reasons

What Obama Really Meant Was "They're Nuts"

Obama Disses Blue Collar Voters Again: Says They "Cling to Guns or Religion" Because They Are "Bitter" [UPDATED]

Obama's Problems in Pennsylvania Mirror His Problems in Ohio

Obama Attributes Support for Reagan by Blue Collar "Reagan Democrats" to "Anger Over Welfare and Affirmative Action" [UPDATED]

National Catholic Register: "Soul of the Democrat Party Still Secular"

InsideCatholic on Democrats and the Catholic Vote

National Catholic Register on the Late Bob Casey, Sr.: "Mighty Casey and American Humility"

For Democrats, a Troubling Culture

Wary Democrats Discover a Severe "Parents Gap"

Deal Hudson on Prof. Kmiec and Blurring the Lines Between "Pro-Choice" and Pro-Abortion

Deal Hudson writes at InsideCatholic:

... It's one thing to read tortured logic in a liberal newspaper, but it's quite another to find it in a column by an esteemed Catholic law professor like Doug Kmiec. Kmiec's endorsement of Obama took the pro-life community by surprise, but next to calling Obama a "Catholic natural," nothing he has said up to now surprised me more than his saying that Obama "is not pro-abortion, but of the view that the civil law best leaves this question to the mother in consultation with their own clergyman and doctor."

Here Kmiec reveals how he has been able to justify for himself his support for a candidate who supports not only abortion-on-demand but infanticide. He has embraced the reasoning of pro-abortion Catholic politicians that being "pro-choice" is not the same as being "pro-abortion."

Indeed, Kmiec is forced to accept this distinction, because a document from the bishops on "The Duties of Catholic Politicians and Voters," which he had previously cited, reads: "A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals."

Kmiec's attempt to justify his endorsement ... represent[s] both sophisticated and clumsy attempts to fit Obama into a palatable moral universe... If Obama's support for abortion and infanticide is a problem for Catholic voters, it will be declared somehow "not pro-abortion."

Meanwhile, the plain-talking Donohue is not going to let Obama's Catholic supporters get away with it. While on Fox & Friends last week to discuss the Hagee affair, Donohue "broke" the story about the media blackout on Obama's support of infanticide -- the practice of providing no medical care to babies born alive after failed attempts to abort them. Donohue told me privately that no one he talked to on the Fox staff was aware that Obama held this position. (Kmiec has not addressed infanticide in any of his Obama apologias.)

[More]

My Comments:
This all sounds so familiar. I'm glad Regular Guy Paul and I aren't the only ones noticing the bogusness of the effort to paint one of the more clearly pro-abortion candidates ever (or as the USCCB might refer to him: "a candidate who takes a position in favor of abortion") as "not pro-abortion, but rather 'pro-choice' ".

Look, I understand that there might be (if I squint my eyes hard enough so that everything is all blurry) a conceivable philosophical distinction between a hypothetical "pro-choice" politician and the politicians we actually have who fight tooth and nail to protect the "sacrament" of abortion at all costs (even opposing small measures that just tinker around at the margins - like, for example, parental notification, laws mandating ultrasounds, waiting periods, etc.). All the Regular Guy and I (and, it seems, the Bishops) are saying is that such a distinction is meaningless in how it actually plays out in public policy and in the lives of the unborn.

Besides, any party and any politician who fights as hard to preserve the legality of abortion on demand as the Democrats do - even promising to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act as the first order of business - is PRO-ABORTION. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Bishops' Document on Voting Refers to Purely Hypothetical and Non-Existent "Candidate Who Takes a Position in Favor of ... Abortion"

Did Doug Kmiec Just Now Catch On That Obama and NARAL Are Politically Conjoined? [UPDATED]

Deal Hudson on "How Obama's Catholics Will Dodge the Infanticide Question"

Kmiec's Dishonesty [UPDATED]

Catholic Teaching and Political Risk Taking: When Credit Isn't Given Where Credit is Due [UPDATED]

Kmiec's Wishful Thinking on Obama and Abortion

The Curt Jester: "Shameless Garment" [UPDATED]

So-Called "Catholic Reaganite" Doug Kmiec Endorses Obama [UPDATED]

"No'bama for Me, Thanks"

Can a Catholic Vote for Obama?

Obama's Pledge to Planned Parenthood: “I Will Not Yield"

Deal Hudson: "Barack Obama's Catholic Problem"

"Why American Catholics are Supporting Barack Obama

Catholics at the Ballot Box

How the Catholic Left Will Tackle McCain

Why Does Kmiec Criticize McCain for Positions on Which He Gave Romney a Pass?

Deal Hudson on "Douglas Kmiec and the Lure of Obama"

Douglas W. Kmiec on "The Moral Duty to Inquire"

Professor Bainbridge: "Will Catholic Reaganites Go for Obama?"

Deal Hudson: "Preacher Man: Barack Obama and the the Gospel of Liberalism"

"Sorry, Doug Kmiec, But This Catholic Isn't Buying Obama"

Ramesh Ponnuru on Douglas Kmiec and "Catholic Reaganites for Obama" [UPDATED]

Romney Advisor Says Obama "a Natural for the Catholic Vote"

Obama "Post-Partisan"? Ask John Roberts

Obama and the "Pragmatic Center"

Digest of Weekend's Posts (18 May 2008)

Saturday, 17 May

Happy Birthday, Gracie!

And You Thought the Priest Who Denied Doug Kmiec Communion for Supporting Obama Was Hard Core ...

Bishops' Document on Voting Refers to Purely Hypothetical and Non-Existent "Candidate Who Takes a Position in Favor of ... Abortion"

(Digest of Friday's Posts (16 May 2008))

Highlighted from Friday:

"Catholic Democrats" Attack "Registered Republican Archbishop of Kansas City" for "Using Communion" to "Take Down" Sebelius

Happy Birthday, Gracie!

One year ago today, our little Grace Assumpta was born. Happy Birthday, baby girl!

And You Thought the Priest Who Denied Doug Kmiec Communion for Supporting Obama Was Hard Core ...

... one of Sarah's best friends told her this morning that her husband's sister and brother-in-law disciplined their 3-year-old son by giving him a time out for merely uttering the words ... "Barack Obama".

Now THAT'S hard core.

Bishops' Document on Voting Refers to Purely Hypothetical and Non-Existent "Candidate Who Takes a Position in Favor of ... Abortion"

During this election season, we keep hearing how "pro-choice" does not mean the same thing as "pro-abortion". And we hear Catholic apologists for Barack Obama - one of the most NARAL-and-Planned-Parenthood-friendly presidential candidates to come down the pike in ... well ... forever - tell us that "Obama is not pro-abortion". And, indeed, the candidate himself, with the eager backing of his sycophants, tells us that "no one is for abortion".

Which leaves me wondering just WHO in the hell the Bishops might have been referring to in the following passage from Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship:

A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion ..., if the voter’s intent is to support that position.

Can someone help me out with that? Of all the intrinsic evils out there that a given candidate might support, why did the Bishops choose to focus on addressing a candidate that, if we are to take the claims of our Obama-defending interlocutors seriously, appears to be purely hypothetical?

Let's just say that I remain unconvinced that the Bishops would go to so much trouble and expend so much ink in Faithful Citizenship talking about a type of candidate that doesn't really exist. So, I must conclude that the sort of candidate the Bishops were speaking about in describing "a candidate who takes a position in favor of ... abortion" is, in fact, the self-described "pro-choice" politician.

But, for the record, if you insist on drawing the bogus distinction between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion", and/or insist that one can be "pro-choice" and still be faithful to Catholic social teaching with respect to abortion, the Bishops have that covered, too:

It is a mistake with grave moral consequences to treat the destruction of innocent human life merely as a matter of individual choice. A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.

And how about this one?

Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.

Or this one?

Our Conference supports laws and policies to protect human life to the maximum degree possible, including constitutional protection for the unborn and legislative efforts to end abortion ...

Or this one?

We hope Catholics will ask candidates how they intend to help our nation pursue these important goals:
• Address the preeminent requirement to protect the weakest in our midst — innocent unborn children — by restricting and bringing to an end the destruction of unborn children through abortion.

(emphasis added throughout)

Still want to make the claim - contra to the U.S. Catholic Bishops - that the "pro-choice" position is effectively distinct from being "pro-abortion"? Still want to argue that "The dirty little secret is that advocacy of criminalization for abortion has no basis in Catholic ethics ..."?

Go ahead, but don't expect me to take you seriously.


UPDATE
Christopher Blosser points out that the Holy Father doesn't seem to have the same problem connecting the dots between "pro-choice" and pro-abortion as some of our Obama defenders do:

... We have seen this emerge in an acute way in the scandal given by Catholics who promote an alleged right to abortion.

(emphasis added)