Funny Line of the Day ...

... from a commenter at Creative Minority Report:

Obama is not the messiah. Historically speaking, it is understood that the messiah can build a frickin' cabinet.

Victor Davis Hanson: "What is Wisdom?"

Victor Davis Hanson writes:

There is a report today (I think first offered in the Huffington Post) that David Brooks, the gifted New York Times columnist, has described Sarah Palin as a "fatal cancer" and part of a larger pernicious conservative trend:

But there has been a counter, more populist tradition, which is not only to scorn liberal ideas but to scorn ideas entirely. And I'm afraid that Sarah Palin has those prejudices. I think President Bush has those prejudices.

Brooks then praised the logorrhea of Joe Biden in his interview with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg as the proper antidote to Palin...

***
But Brooks' reflections about Biden, at least according to the reported transcript, are telling. We had a debate between the two Vice Presidential candidates. Biden was superficially the more impressive with his recall of facts, anecdotes (most of them not mysteriously with Biden at the heroic center), and broad assertions.

In contrast, Palin was direct and perhaps repetitive in her focus on lower taxes, less government, and individual responsibility (especially for personal debt) — and I suppose what Brooks would call populist in her vocabulary, tone, and Fargo-mode of expression. But when they were through, Palin proved the more truthful and pragmatic, inasmuch as the glib Biden turned out to have misled in almost everything he professed, from our own Constitution to Hezbollah's presence in Lebanon. Even the folksy reference to his hometown diner was inaccurate. And that raises the age-old Euripidean question, "What is wisdom?" or maybe those general Hesiodic warnings about the dangers of moral regress that sometimes can accompany intellectual progress...

One of the best lines in Hanson's piece is this response to Brooks' admission to having a Matthewsesqe tingle in his trousers over Sen. Obama:

This is sad — since everything from the faux-seal with its vero possumus pretensions, the Greek temple backdrops, the efforts to speak at the Brandenburg Gate, the mantra "we are the change we've been waiting for," the messianic idea that the seas and planet will likewise heel to His wisdom, and the inane 'hope and change' banalities do not suggest real wisdom at all, but a dazzling veneer that overlays a great deal of megalomania.

Read the whole thing.

Born-Alive Barry the Lying Liar [UPDATED]

What do pro-abort infanticide-supporting liars do when they get caught lying? They lie some more and accuse others of being liars.



This born-alive issue is toxic to Obama and he knows it (which is the reason for this despicable ad). His record coming to light completely wrecks his strategy for winning over so-called "values voters".

It's damaging him big time. Keep hitting him with it. I hope BornAliveTruth responds with another ad.


UPDATE
In case you haven't seen it, here's the ad the pro-abort liar Obama is responding to:



UPDATE #2
And, in case you couldn't tell, this lying ad really ticks me off, not the least of which because it lies about McCain's position on abortion - making McCain out to be MORE pro-life than he actually is, and acts as if that is a BAD thing.

Just more proof that Obama the pro-abort liar is not worthy of the support that some Catholics want to give him.


UPDATE #3
Ed Morrissey is on the case:

Barack Obama has decided to respond to Gianna Jessen’s powerful ad on his opposition to a bill that would have protected the lives of infants born from botched abortions. In essence, he accuses John McCain of lying, when the record speaks so clearly that Obama’s campaign had to admit they lied about his position on the Illinios version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This has produced a hysterical reaction from Team O that pretty much has become a One-Note Charlie when responding to any criticism...

***
The record here is very, very clear. Obama initially said that he opposed the bill in Illinois because it didn’t have the “neutrality clause” included in the federal version of the legislation. As documentation proved, Obama voted against it even with the neutrality clause added. The Obama campaign finally acknowledged that Obama had lied about his position a month ago. Why? Because it would have actually forced doctors to provide care for live infants from abortions — or in other words, it would have worked.

Obama attempts an end run around this by making the issue about abortions. It isn’t. Babies born alive from abortions got left in laundry rooms to die, a practice exposed by Jill Stanek, a nurse at Christ Hospital in the Chicago area. A subsequent investigation showed that as many as 20% of all late-term abortions resulted in live births — and that abortionists routinely allowed the infants to die by denying them normal medical attention. That was the entire reason the issue came before the Illinois legislature, but Obama reacted by denying the problem existed...

***
... Of course, I missed one important point: the Jessen ad wasn’t put out by McCain at all. Obama’s swinging at the wrong critic here. Why doesn’t Obama call Jessen a liar?

(emphasis added)

Obama Camp to Speaker Pelosi: "Shut Up, Already!"

The American Spectator reports:

The Obama campaign has asked Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to shut her mouth, but in as nice a way as they possibly can. That isn't to say they aren't mad about her recent activities.

"It's like 'Thanks, madam speaker, you've done quite enough. Please move along,'" says one Obama adviser. "She got us stuck on three different issues that we wanted no part of. She's no master strategist, no matter what she may believe. You may see more of her, but if her mouth is open, what comes out won't be anything that our campaign wants anything to do with."

***
Now Pelosi's big mouth has ensnared Obama in Catholic abortion issues, and campaign issues from four years ago that he wanted no part of and wasn't a part of just a week ago. Further, Pelosi's continued gaffes on the subject have renewed examination of Pelosi's poor standing in the Catholic Church. Given her position and votes on abortion and birth-control issues, she is not in good standing with the Catholic Church, despite what she may herself believe.

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Actually, Speaker Pelosi is only guilty of making worse a situation that had been brewing for some time - at least among Catholics who were examining Sen. Obama's abortion record closely, and which was exacerbated by Sen. Obama's performance at the Saddleback Forum, and was only going to become more intense with the choice of a "pro-choice" Catholic running mate.

Yes, Speaker Pelosi has helped to turn the abortion issue into a firestorm of controversy right in the middle of the Democrat Convention, but Sen. Obama himself had ensured that this was going to become a significant issue whether or not Speaker Pelosi had ever opened her mouth.

(Hat tip: HotAir)

Starting to Believe His Own Hype?

This comment, by itself, is reason enough not to vote for Sen. Obama:

"I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

Got Humility?


UPDATE
The other side of the story?


UPDATE #2
Peter Kirsanow writes at The Corner:

Simple assignment for the press corps: ask the senator to name three specific traditions to which America will return upon his election and why his election will prompt their return. No teleprompters allowed.

And follows up with:

Pop quiz for the press corps. Which of the following phrases is not attributable to Sen. Obama?:

—"People of the world — this is our moment."

—"We are the change we've been waiting for."

—"I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions."

—"I am the way and the truth and the life."

—"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment... when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

—"I am a ..Citizen of the World."

—"Vero Possemus."

“Faith . . . Hope . . . Obama.”

From Jay Nordlinger at National Review Online:

A reader writes,

Jay:

I know you’re always interested in chronicling the wonders of our bumper-sticker culture. so here you go: I was tooling about Bloomingdale, Ill., when I stumbled across the following very slight modification of Scripture: “Faith . . . Hope . . . Obama.”

Yes, and the greatest of these is Obama, right?

Oh, yes.

Swing State Issues

Peter Kirsanow writes at The Corner on National Review Online:

Fwiw—talked with some veteran Ohio politicos yesterday who relate that the number one concern among the state's voters is (no surprise) gas prices. Focus group data supposedly shows one of Obama's top vulnerabilities is his record of voting "present" 100+ times in the Illinois state senate—blue collar voters expect senators to work, not straddle. Sleeper issue is Obama's Induced Birth Infant Liability Act vote. Almost nobody knows about it but when informed the reaction is nearly always the same: momentary incredulity followed by revulsion.

(emphasis added)

Jilted Lover Cries Over Media Love Affair with Obama

Today, I received the following email from the McCain people:

It's pretty obvious that the media has a bizarre fascination with Barack Obama. Some may even say it's a love affair. We want you to be the judge. We've compiled two videos of the more outrageous moments of this not so secret love affair. Follow this link to watch the two videos and vote on which one you think is better. Your vote will determine which video we put on the air.

The media is in love with Barack Obama. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny.

Regards,

The McCain Campaign

Cry me a river, Maverick, you hypocrite! You've spent the last 8 years or more courting the media and basking in a media love affair of your own to the detriment of your fellow conservatives, who were the unwilling victims that you routinely sacrificed in order to attain such media adulation.

So, forgive me if I don't get too emotionally wrought over your hurt feelings in being jilted by that same MSM during their collective media Obasm.

Fr. Neuhaus Responds to Doug Kmiec

National Catholic Register has now made available online Fr. Neuhaus' response (originally published in the July 13-19 issue of the Register) to Prof. Doug Kmiec's pro-Obama sophistry:

... The question is that of justice for unborn children. When one candidate supports the unlimited abortion license and another wants the abortion question returned to the states, it is disingenuous to suggest that they are equally pro-choice. And to say that the first candidate’s position is closer to a Catholic understanding of subsidiarity is, I am sorry to say, risible. Catholic teaching and the mandate of justice is that all members of the human family, born and unborn, be protected in law. To deny that protection is a grave injustice.

The candidate who would return the abortion question to the states so that citizens working through their elected representatives can enact laws protecting the unborn is, in taking that position, pro-life. The candidate who, by supporting Roe v. Wade, would deny to citizens that opportunity is pro-choice. It is a great disservice to try to obfuscate such an obvious distinction.

***
It is deeply regrettable that Mr. Kmiec cites Archbishop Chaput’s 1976 support of President Carter, who endorsed Roe v. Wade, as evidence that one can rightly support his preferred candidate today. Archbishop Chaput can speak for himself, and he has, both on the First Things website (May 20) and in his new book Render Unto Caesar. He makes it unequivocally clear that he regrets that 1976 decision, which he rationalized at the time along lines very similar to those now employed by Mr. Kmiec.

The archbishop says that he does not believe there is a proportionate reason — a reason he will one day have to give to the aborted babies — to justify support for a pro-choice candidate. Nor has Mr. Kmiec indicated such a proportionate reason. Mr. Kmiec claims his candidate wants to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the incidence of unwanted pregnancy, and he will do that by encouraging “responsible sexual behavior.” One may be permitted to point out that four decades of sex education, including the massive promotion of contraception, has not been a great success in reducing unwanted pregnancies or abortions.

[More - by subscription only]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Deal Hudson's Open Letter to Doug Kmiec

National Catholic Register on Catholics, Kmiec, and Obama

Prof. Hadley Arkes: "Political Distraction Among the Catholics"

Doug Kmiec - What He Said Then vs. What He Says Now Re: Constitutional Jurisprudence

What is the "Pro-Life Position" Regarding Abortion?

Traumatized

Unrequited Love

Doug Kmiec: "After Meeting with Barack" [UPDATED]

Cranky Conservative: "But At Least He Says It with a Smile"

Doug Kmiec Again Places Platitudes Above Policy [UPDATED]

Prof. Bainbridge on "Obama, Abortion, & Catholics"

Prof. Rick Garnett on Kmiec's Latest Nonsense

Deacon Keith Fournier: "Why I Disagree with Doug Kmiec, Once Again"

Give It a Rest Already, Prof. Kmiec!

Deacon Keith Fournier: "No More ‘Left’ or ‘Right’, Time for a New Catholic Action"

Doug Kmiec's Newfound Celebrity Status Among Those on the Left

Doug Kmiec Soon To Be Sorely Disappointed

E.J. Dionne on Kmiec Being Denied Communion [UPDATED]

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

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

Despicable Clintonite Attacks Pro-Life Advocate Jill Stanek

So, Sen. Obama voted against giving medical treatment to babies born alive during botched abortions, and how do the sycophantic Democrat talking heads respond? Surely you recall the drill from the Clinton years, don't you?

Why, attack the messenger, of course. Deflect, distract, detract, and defame.

In this case, the messenger who has done more than anyone to bring attention to Sen. Obama's votes in the Illinois legislature is Jill Stanek. And the inventor and master practitioner of the Clintonian attack-the-messenger strategy, the despicable James Carville, wastes no time in going on the attack against Jill.

Matthew Archbold has the details at Creative Minority Report.

Yet Another "Non-Negotiable" Item ...

... on which Sen. Obama seems to be out of step with Catholic teaching.

In remarks to the European People's Party on 30 March 2006, Pope Benedict XVI said the following:

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today:

- protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;

- recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

- the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

(emphasis added)

As to the first item, "protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death", Sen. Obama has said the following:

"I will never back down in defending a woman's right to choose. That's what's at stake [in this election]... Senator McCain has made it abundantly clear that he wants to appoint justices like Roberts and Alito - and that he hopes to see Roe overturned. I stand by my votes against confirming Justices Roberts and Alito."
~ Barack Obama, 10 July 2008

"On this fundamental issue [the so-called "constitutional right" to abortion], I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield."
~ Barack Obama in remarks to Planned Parenthood, 17 July 2007

"Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect [legalized abortions]... Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of [so-called abortion "rights"]."
~ Barack Obama, celebrating the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, 22 January 2008

"I think professionally the biggest mistake that I made was when I first arrived in the Senate. There was a debate about Terri Schiavo, and a lot of us, including me, left the Senate with a bill that allowed Congress to intrude where it shouldn't have. And I think I should have stayed in the Senate and fought [that bill].
~ Barack Obama during a Democrat debate, 27 April 2007

So, mark the "not negotiable" issue of "protection of life in all its stages" off the list.

Let's move on to the Holy Father's second "not negotiable" item, "recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defence from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union". Here's Sen. Obama on that issue:

"[I support extending] fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states."
~ Barack Obama, letter to LGBT Democratic Club at the group's annual Pride Breakfast in San Francisco, 29 June 2008

"I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) -- a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate."
~ Barack Obama in an "open letter concerning LGBT equality in America"

"As your President, I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws."
~ Barack Obama in an "open letter concerning LGBT equality in America"

"I don't think it [a same-sex union] should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state. If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans."
~ Barack Obama, speech to Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio

I guess that means we can also mark the "not negotiable" item of defending marriage "from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union" off the list, as well.

Finally, let's turn to the Holy Father's third "not negotiable" issue of "the protection of the right of parents to educate their children" - which provides us with the most recent example of where Sen. Obama seems to be out of step with Catholic voters.

In a recent speech to the teachers' union, Sen. Obama stated unequivocally that he opposes private school vouchers:

“[McCain's] only proposal seems to be recycling tired rhetoric about vouchers and school choice... what I do oppose is using public money for private school vouchers. We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools, not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.”

Now, I'm not sure whether the specific issue of vouchers, in and of itself, is one that the Church would necessarily deem "not negotiable", but certainly in the case of the Washington, D.C. voucher program, which Obama favors repealing, the loss of vouchers gives poor parents in the District one less option for providing their children with a decent education, given the failing nature of the D.C. public schools.

But even beyond that example, "parental choice" in education is fundamental to Catholic social teaching, as Deacon Keith Fournier points out today in this piece at Catholic Online:

... Rather than focus on the word “School”, which often is then used to arouse a “public” school vs. “private” school debate, I prefer to use the term “Parental Choice”. That is because Parents are the first teachers of their children and the family is the first school.

To support "Parental Choice in Education" is to affirm that Parents are the ones who should be able to make the choice of extending their own teaching mission.

The teaching of the Catholic Church on this issue is not only clear, it is refreshingly forthright. If understood properly it can truly provide insights for our National educational policy which can promote the common good.

The primacy of the family as the first cell of society, the first church, first government, first school, first hospital, first economy, and the first mediating institution of society is at the heart of Catholic Social Thought. It should also lay the foundation for building a truly just public policy.

A just philosophy of government is predicated upon the understanding that the family is the first government and that all other government must first be at its service. In his marvelous apostolic exhortation on the family ("The Role of the Christian family in the Modern World") the Servant of God Pope John Paul II affirmed the social and political role of the family and called for the development of a “family politics”.

Catholics, other Christians, other people of faith and all people of good will should embrace this challenge to develop just such a "family politics". It is time to help people understand that what is really behind the issue of Parental Choice in education is the recognition of the family as the first vital cell of human society.

Parents simply are the first teachers of their children and all education begins in the home.

We need all of our candidates to affirm their support of the fundamental educational mission of parents as the first teachers of their children. We also need them to acknowledge the parental right to choose, for their children, from a full array of options, public, private, parochial, charter and home schools, no matter what their economic status, as an extension of their educational mission.

We then ask that they support any effective and constitutionally sound effort to encourage, empower, and support all parents in extending their educational mission, no matter what their economic conditions, through Parental choice in education.

The teaching of the Catholic Church on the primacy of parents in the education of their children is fundamental...

***
There appears to be a confused record on Senator Obama’s part. Does he support empowering parents, through the use of constitutionally sound vouchers or credits, to choose from among the full array of educational options for their children?

***
Now it is reported that he told the American Federation of Teachers recently that he opposed vouchers.

***
Parental Choice in education is a social justice issue. Senator Obama has repeatedly expressed his support for the poor and his support for the primacy of parents in the lives of their children. It would seem to be a matter of consistency for him to support Parental Choice in education and thereby offering all parents, and their children, the opportunity which he and his wife have.

[More]

(emphasis added)

So, once again, it could be argued that Sen. Obama, by opposing parental choice in education via vouchers, falls down on yet a third "not negotiable" matter of key concern to Catholics.

At this point, I'm left wondering just how it is that Sen. Obama is a "post-partisan" candidate who will reach out to the "pragmatic center" and will "respect" the views of Catholic voters on issues the Holy Father deems "not negotiable"? At least on these issues highlighted in this post, Sen. Obama appears to be nothing but a typical left-liberal Democrat politician toeing the party line.


UPDATE
And before anyone comes on here and responds "Yeah, but John McCain ...", I've also pointed out in a previous post those "not negotiable" items on which John McCain is out of step with Catholic teaching, and that "we're left with the prudential analysis of which candidate is the lesser of grave evils".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Deal Hudson: "Barack Obama and the Non-Negotiables"

One Year Ago Today ...

... Sen. Obama said the following in a speech to Planned Parenthood:

"On this fundamental issue [the so-called "constitutional right" to abortion], I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield."
~ Barack Obama in remarks to Planned Parenthood, 17 July 2007 (Transcribed by Laura Echevarria, www.lauraechevarria.com)

Since that speech 1 year ago, Sen. Obama has followed up on his promise to Planned Parenthood with additional commitments to the abortion lobby. Such as this one on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade:

"Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect [legalized abortions]... Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of [so-called abortion "rights"]."
~ Barack Obama, celebrating the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, 22 January 2008

And this one just last week:

"I will never back down in defending a woman's right to choose. That's what's at stake [in this election]... Senator McCain has made it abundantly clear that he wants to appoint justices like Roberts and Alito - and that he hopes to see Roe overturned. I stand by my votes against confirming Justices Roberts and Alito."
~ Barack Obama, 10 July 2008

UPDATE:
This may be the most offensive line in the whole speech that Obama delivered last 17 July:

Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women all across the country and for families all across the country — and for men, who have enough sense to realize you are helping them ...

First off, thanking Planned Parenthood "for all the work that [they] are doing ... for families" is a little like thanking General Sherman for all his contributions to the prosecution of just wars.

But its the second part of that quote to which I take particular offense: "... for all the work that you are doing ... for men, who have enough sense to realize you are helping them ..."

That's disgusting. First, it is offensive to all those men who would do the right thing by their children, but who are powerless under Roe v. Wade to have any say in ensuring that their children are born. Second, it is offensive because the greatest beneficiaries of Roe v. Wade are the deadbeats who want to get their rocks off and then walk away without being burdened by the consequences of caring for the women and the unborn children they leave behind.

Yes, Planned Parenthood, thank you for all the work that you are doing on behalf of those members of the male sex (I won't call them "men" - men own up to their responsibilities) who are horny, selfish, and irresponsible, and who, I am quite sure, are well aware of the service you are providing for them.

The Catholic Left Meets in Philadelphia

(Hat tip: Custos Fidei)

Deal Hudson reports at InsideCatholic:

The Convention for the Common Good was held in Philadelphia over the past weekend. When I wrote about the gathering in early April, Catholics Organize to Elect Obama, one of its co-sponsors wrote to me saying that I had mischaracterized their "non-partisan" effort to bring Catholics together to discuss public policy. Further, they told me I was welcome to attend.

I chose to decline, for reasons I'll explain.

The political preferences of the co-sponsors -- Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Network, a national Catholic social justice lobby -- are clearly for the Democratic Party and its presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama.

Alexia Kelley, the founder of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, was the religious outreach director for the Democratic National Committee during the Kerry campaign. Network, a Catholic social justice lobby founded by a group of 47 Catholic sisters in 1971, which lobbies Congress on everything but abortion. Bill Donohue has written recently about both organizations as part of the Catholic Left "boxed in by abortion."

In my view, the Convention for the Common Good was going to be nothing more than an extended diatribe against President Bush, the Republican Party, and John McCain. If this had been an invitation to a real discussion before open minds, I would have been happy to attend, but I was not interested in providing "bi-partisan" cover for their convention "platform," wholly in conformity with the Democratic Party.

According to a recent college graduate who attended the conference all day on Saturday, my expectations were largely realized...

***
When the platform was voted upon, the audience was given green, white, and red cards. They were told to hold up green for agreement, red for disagreement, and white for uncertainty. Every plank received unanimous support. It was announced that an amendment to support the ban on partial-birth abortion was going to be introduced at a later time, but it was never put up for a vote.

[More]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
I'm guessing they decided against introducing the amendment supporting the partial-birth abortion ban because they know it wouldn't have received the unanimous support that the "other important issues" received. Better not to introduce such "divisive wedge issues" at all than have a non-unanimous vote that makes it plain for all to see that the convention's delegates really DON'T "give a s--t about the unborn" compared to those "other important issues".


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Convention for the "Common Good"

Bill Donohue: "How the Catholic Left Is Boxed in by Abortion"

I Missed the Seminar [UPDATED]

Deal Hudson: "Catholics Organize to Elect Barack Obama"

Democrat Front Group Posing as Catholic Org Calls for End to "Christmas Culture War"

Hilliary!'s "National Catholic Steering Committee"

Democrats Set Their Sights on Winning Back Catholics

Mark Shea in National Catholic Register: "Richard Rich Lives"

Edwards Blogger Flap Discomforts Religious Left

Mark Shea: "Whores for Edwards Swings into Action"

Catholics in Alliance Respond With Letter to Editor

Continue to Raise Our Voices on Issue of Voting

In January's Catholic Chronicle - "Vote Your Values" Revisited

Vote Your Values

"NOT An Approved Catholic Voter Guide"

What's Missing?

Toledo Blade: "Catholic Voting Guide Gives Church Perspective"

Weigel: "An Electoral Battle of the Booklets?"

More From Amy Welborn on the "Dueling Catholic Voter Guides"

Columnist: "Christian Right Driving Wedge Into U.S."

More on Catholic Voter Guides

Dueling Catholic Voter Guides

The Anchoress' Take on the "Seamless Garment"

We've seen A Regular Guy's Take on the So-Called "Seamless Garment".

Well, here's Elizabeth Scalia's (a.k.a. The Anchoress) "interesting spin on the old 'seamless garment' argument" (hat tip to Margaret Cabaniss):

... The moral calculus does look easy until one considers that war, torture, the death penalty, poverty, racism, and even the excesses of capitalism — those evils so well defined in Catholic social teaching, and of concern to Catholics of all political persuasions — are fully present in the act of abortion...

[More]

Obama's "Director of Catholic Outreach" Won't "Reach Out" to Catholics Who Listen to Catholic Radio

(Hat tip: Fidelis)

Catholic News Agency reports:

Ann Arbor, Jul 11, 2008 / 02:11 pm (CNA).- Mark Linton, director of Catholic Outreach for the Obama Campaign, refused to appear on a Catholic radio show to explain Obama’s views regarding abortion and address his accusations of supporting infanticide.

The Detroit-based radio show, hosted by Al Kresta, founder of Ave Maria Communications and best-selling Catholic author, wanted to invite both Mark Linton and Deal Hudson, the director of InsideCatholic.com, onto his radio show. Nick Thomm, the producer for Kresta’s show, explained to CNA, “[Linton] is the National Catholic outreach guy and he disagrees with Deal Hudson over the facts surrounding Obama’s record on abortion. So we figured we’d have them both on the show to hash it out.”

Hudson has written several articles questioning Obama’s stance on abortion and infanticide due to his refusal to pass the Born Alive Infant Protect Act in the Illinois Senate. Linton responded on July 4 by sending out an email criticizing Hudson and attempting to clarify Obama’s abortion position.

[More]

My Comments:
"Linton responded on July 4 by sending out an email criticizing Hudson ..."

As I noted Friday and earlier today, the M.O. of the Catholics supporting Obama is not to address the abortion issue head on, but rather to deflect attention by changing the subject and/or criticizing the other side.

That's some "Catholic outreach" guy Obama has who won't even go on one of the most-listened-to Catholic radio shows to explain to Catholics how his candidate is "a Catholic natural".

Perhaps it's some indication of the sort of Catholics to whom Obama is "reaching out"?

Deal Hudson's Open Letter to Doug Kmiec

Deal Hudson has penned an "open letter" to Doug Kmiec at InsideCatholic:

... Whether you intended to or not, you have become the Catholic poster boy (no slight intended) for Catholics for Obama, as was recently exemplified in your PBS interview and the TIME article on the Catholic vote by Amy Sullivan. The first two words of the article are “Doug Kmiec.”

This is a heavy burden to carry, and I am sure you have prayerfully and studiously considered your public role in the 2008 election. I had to reflect upon such issues in the 2000 and 2004 elections, so I know that you have contemplated that you will share responsibility for the consequences of Obama being elected president.

For example, when Sen. Obama promised a year ago, at a NARAL convention, that he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act, saying it would the “first thing” he did as president, doesn't that worry you about the depth of his commitment to “reducing abortions?”

That's looking forward, but when we look back at Sen. Obama's record on abortion, partial-birth abortion, and protecting infants born in spite of abortions, we see a politician firmly committed to protecting “abortion rights.” So committed is Obama on this issue that he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act twice as an Illinois State senator and opposed it in committee all three years it was introduced.

I don't believe Sen. Obama when he says he will work to “reduce abortions.” This is not to say he has no compassion, but to recognize his compassion does not extend to the unborn, because he does not view them as human persons. As he said in 2003 on the floor of the Illinois legislature about why he opposed BAIPA:

Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute.

If Sen. Obama has had a change of heart since 2003, or since his 2007 NARAL speech, then he should just say so; he should repudiate his votes against BAIPA and his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

His recent attempt to support some states’ limits on late-term abortions was better than nothing, as they say, but his subsequent back-peddling illustrated clearly his fear of alienating feminists and the pro-abortion lobby. What Obama says about abortion is another repackaged version of what pro-abortion Democrats, including many Catholics, have been saying for thirty years.

It’s precisely this kind of obfuscation on the key issue in politics – the inalienable right to life -- that I thought you and I both opposed.

As a Catholic jurist, you must surely have been disappointed, as I was, when Obama publicly refused to back the California marriage amendment. Judges, not legislators, have created gay marriage in the United States; the only way to stop judges from legislating is through the Federal Marriage Amendment or amendments to state constitutions.

Obama called the marriage amendment “divisive and discriminatory,” a view which I doubt you share. Frankly, I thought this statement gave you the opportunity to depart, gracefully, from the Obama campaign, but you didn’t take it...

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
National Catholic Register on Catholics, Kmiec, and Obama

Prof. Hadley Arkes: "Political Distraction Among the Catholics"

Doug Kmiec - What He Said Then vs. What He Says Now Re: Constitutional Jurisprudence

What is the "Pro-Life Position" Regarding Abortion?

Traumatized

Unrequited Love

Doug Kmiec: "After Meeting with Barack" [UPDATED]

Cranky Conservative: "But At Least He Says It with a Smile"

Doug Kmiec Again Places Platitudes Above Policy [UPDATED]

Prof. Bainbridge on "Obama, Abortion, & Catholics"

Prof. Rick Garnett on Kmiec's Latest Nonsense

Deacon Keith Fournier: "Why I Disagree with Doug Kmiec, Once Again"

Give It a Rest Already, Prof. Kmiec!

Deacon Keith Fournier: "No More ‘Left’ or ‘Right’, Time for a New Catholic Action"

Doug Kmiec's Newfound Celebrity Status Among Those on the Left

Doug Kmiec Soon To Be Sorely Disappointed

E.J. Dionne on Kmiec Being Denied Communion [UPDATED]

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

Notre Dame Alums Behind "10,000 Catholics for Obama" Website

InsideCatholic has the details:

... “We take the abortion issue very seriously but at the same time abortion has been used as a wedge issue to divide voters. We have seen some resistance in some circles but we want to express some facts about the senator's record on abortion and change the dialogue on this issue.”

My Comments:
I notice that the same old tired rhetoric about abortion allegedly being a so-called "wedge issue to divide voters" keeps coming up among Obama's Catholic supporters. Well, if your guy and his party didn't support killing the unborn, it wouldn't be an issue at all.

Slavery and it's progeny such as lynching and segregation were "divisive" as well. Does that mean we should have just ignored them in favor or "other important issues"?

Yeah, I bet you would like to "change the dialogue" on abortion. When it comes to non-negotiable (I use that term because the Pope does) issues like abortion and so-called "same-sex" marriage, all you got is changing the subject. As Dale stated so eloquently on Friday:

"We don't give a s--t about the unborn or marriage. Much, much less associating with the great unwashed who do care and thus embarrass us before our secular friends."

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Deal Hudson: "More Obama Catholics on the Internet"

One Thing I've Noticed About Catholics During This Presidential Campaign ...

... is that there seem to be very few uncritical supporters of Sen. McCain among Catholics who may end up voting for him (in fact, some of us conservatives have have been so critical that we have refused to come out in support of his candidacy), but the support among Catholics who intend to vote for Sen. Obama seems to be completely lacking in any criticism whatsoever.

Conservative criticism of where McCain falls short of Catholic teaching runs rampant, and the support for his candidacy appears to be of the "hold-my-nose-and-cast-my-vote" variety. I haven't seen the same sort of criticism from Obama's Catholic supporters (with one exception) regarding where Obama falls short on Catholic teaching; in fact, I've seen Obama's Catholic supporters try to square Obama's position on abortion, for example, as a legitimate position that Catholics can and should support (see, e.g., Gerald Campbell, Morning's Minion, Doug Kmiec, etc.).

The argument from those Catholics supporting Obama instead focuses exclusively on where Republicans have fallen short on Catholic teaching. I won't argue with them in that regard (although I do believe their whole "Republicans have done nothing on abortion" meme falls flat and is easily rebuttable by the facts). But their argument rings hollow as long as they're willing to uncritically support a candidate who is so wholly lacking in some key areas of Catholic teaching.

At least be willing to vocally criticize your candidate - in no uncertain terms - where he falls short of Catholic teaching. Don't make excuses. Don't point fingers at the other side. Acknowledge that he is VERY BAD on issues like abortion and same-sex "marriage". Criticize him for it. Harshly. Obama and the Democrat Party have no incentive to change their anti-life policies if they can expect your uncritical support regardless of these shortcomings.

By the same token, those Catholics supporting McCain should continue to harp on ESCR and other areas where their candidate and his party are out-of-step with Catholic social teaching. But at least you've done a better job of it, to date, than those Catholics supporting Obama.

Deal Hudson: "More Obama Catholics on the Internet"

Deal Hudson writes at InsideCatholic:

A new web site has appeared, 10,000CatholicsforObama. Obama will need over 15,000,000 Catholic voters to win in November, so he has long way to go.

What's important to notice about the web site is that Obama is already on the defensive.

In a section called "Fight the Smears," there is list including infanticide, the "Abortion President," "abortion extremism," and Jeremiah Wright.

The list will surely get longer as the campaign wears on.

It also talks about "after years of gridlock and wedge politics."

Let me translate, "After years of debate over abortion and, now, gay marriage, let's just throw those issues overboard and move on to things we agree about."

[More]

Obama Clarifies Just How "Accomodating" He Will Be Toward Those With "Differing Viewpoints" on Abortion

(Hat tip: Brian Burch at Fidelis)

Associated Press reports:

... "I will never back down in defending a woman's right to choose," the likely Democratic nominee said, drawing a sharp contrast with his GOP rival.

"That's what's at stake," Obama added ...

***
Seeking an edge, the Democrat also raised the issue of abortion rights, which is shaping up to be a major point of difference between the candidates. Obama supports keeping the landmark decision that legalized abortion, Roe v. Wade, intact, while McCain opposes abortion rights and wants to appoint Supreme Court justices akin to Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

"Senator McCain has made it abundantly clear that he wants to appoint justices like Roberts and Alito - and that he hopes to see Roe overturned," Obama said. "I stand by my votes against confirming Justices Roberts and Alito."

In other news, Obama received the endorsement of Planned Parenthood today.

My Comments:
Awaiting Prof. Kmiec's mental gymnastics in trying to explain it all away as Obama being "closer to the Catholic view" on abortion than McCain.


UPDATE
RobK has more on the Planned Parenthood endorsement.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Did Doug Kmiec Just Now Catch On That Obama and NARAL Are Politically Conjoined? [UPDATED]

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

Obama "Post-Partisan"? Ask John Roberts

Former Head of "Catholics for a Free Choice" and So-Called "Philosopher of Abortion Movement" Says Obama A Better Choice than Hillary

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