I was prepared to give Howard Dean a chance as DNC chair, to not immediately assume that he’ll be a disaster. My patience is rapidly waning:
“Moderate Republicans can’t stand these people (conservatives), because they’re intolerant. They don’t think tolerance is a virtue,” Dean said, adding: “I’m not going to have these right-wingers throw away our right to be tolerant.”
And concluding his backyard speech with a litany of Democratic values, he added: “This is a struggle of good and evil. And we’re the good.”
When told of Dean’s remarks, Derrick Sontag — executive director of the Kansas Republican Party — said he was “shocked.”
“My immediate reaction to that whole dialogue is, it’s full of hatred,” Sontag said. “The Democratic Party has elected a leader that’s full of hatred.”
So it would seem.
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt comments:
While political rhetoric can and indeed must become heated at times, the idea of tens of millions of Americans being “evil” is the sort of extreme, Michael Moore rhetoric which has taken the Democrats into the ditch and will keep them there. Will MSM follow up with the new DNC Chair and press him for details? Because Dean just labeled every Catholic Bishop and every major Evangelical figure “evil.” … So, does Senator Clinton agree? Senator Schumer? Senator Reid? Minority Leader Pelosi? Shouldn’t every Democrat in leadership be asked if those opposing them on abortion, gay marriage, and apparently everything else are “evil?”
|
Categories: Elections & Politics (U.S.)
|
February 28th, 2005 at 9:06:10 am
ugh.
February 28th, 2005 at 9:08:54 am
Hurray for tolerance!
February 28th, 2005 at 9:17:19 am
Hey: not two posts ago an article was linked to that accused liberals of not wanting to speak in terms of good and bad. Here’s Dean saying intolerance is bad, and calling out the Republicans, who voted against establishing MLK day as a holiday, who praise men like Strom Thurmond, who attack gays in their party platforms, and who champion judges who want their women to be submissive.
What’s the problem?
February 28th, 2005 at 9:33:39 am
What’s the problem??
Calling Republicans “evil”!!!
Democrats squirm at Bush talking about the “axis of evil,” “evildoers,” etc. … but they’re comfortable with calling their political opponents evil???
It’s just disgusting.
Moral relativism is bad, yes. But so is moral obtuseness.
February 28th, 2005 at 9:59:41 am
OK. Acknowledging this for what it is — political rhetoric — and also realizing that in this context he is talking about the Republican leadership, not the constituency, and seeing the appalling statements that the Right makes, I don’t find his comments as objectionable as (clearly) others do.
Moral relativism isn’t bad. Man is the measure of all things. Morality is, indeed, what we say it is. It is, in fact, not defined to some external absolute. “Some things are just wrong” is an unjustified statement; they are wrong for a reason, and that reason, when fully articulated, is in relation to something else, whether it be some abstract Social Contract or survival of the species (don’t kill your children ’cause that will be bad for your genetic line).
February 28th, 2005 at 10:08:52 am
To Hewitt’s commentary: it does not matter if the other Democratic leaders agree. The party is not a monolith. Dean’s comment: “This is a struggle of good and evil. And we’re the good.” may reasonably be interpreted as “Intolerance is evil. We stand for tolerance.”
Besides, maybe all those people are evil; even Bush says, “we’re all sinners.” Is he calling them evil too?
February 28th, 2005 at 10:08:57 am
and seeing the appalling statements that the Right makes
This seems to be a distressingly common line of self-defense from liberals: “We’re not as bad as them!”
Weak.
February 28th, 2005 at 10:13:47 am
Oh man. You couldn’t make this stuff up.
This guy is going to single-handedly drag the Democratic party into the abyss.
Brian: You can try and explain away these comments in any context you want. He implicitly called Republicans “evil”. Period. If this same comment was given by, hmmm, let’s see….any Republican, you would be spitting fire.
This along with his “hotel staff” comments last week simply prove this guy has gone off the reservation.
February 28th, 2005 at 10:15:13 am
Weak, perhaps. But meant to point out the hypocrisy of it all (on both sides, I grant). Would it be helpful for me to point to Luke 6:41?
Don’t most people choose the lesser of two evils on election day? :-P
February 28th, 2005 at 12:28:00 pm
Brian, if you’re going to hang your hat on moral relativism, isn’t that all the more reason to be appalled with Dean’s use of the words good and evil in this context? I’m a little confused by your reasoning.
February 28th, 2005 at 1:17:59 pm
Great. Dean just proved he’s no better than Dubbya.
Every day I wake up and wish I would find more differences between the two parties, and every day I get disappointed. And this coming from a true-in-the-blue Democrat.
February 28th, 2005 at 4:09:28 pm
“Moral relativism isn’t bad. Man is the measure of all things. Morality is, indeed, what we say it is.”
Hahaha–you know, as long as Democrats vomit this type of crap, they’re NEVER going to be an effective counterbalance to the Republican party in the age of terrorism–which is a very, very bad thing. You know, I’m a Republican, but the idea of a Republican Senate, Republican House, Republican White House, and quite possibly in the not so distant future…a Conservative Judiciary—is a scary thought. “Man is the measure of all things?” I’d hoped we’d learned more since ancient Greece and Protogoras (spelling?) That might have some stock in the classroom, but it means squat to the American people, and that’s who the Dems need to be attracting–not pseudo-intellectuals who reference catch phrases from Philosophy 101
February 28th, 2005 at 4:11:10 pm
Brian and Josh,
Don’t paint me with “who voted against establishing MLK day as a holiday, who praise men like Strom Thurmond, who attack gays in their party platforms, and who champion judges who want their women to be submissive.”
What you just typed does not represent me. We, the Republicans, have many diverse views. You Democrats have only one view of your nieghbor…that we must think like you or we are ‘evil’….Osama has the same policy.
Again, I am a Republican and I am okay with gays, Strom is dead and he was just as much a Klucker as Robert Bird, and I only champion submissive women when the want to be submissive…as if.
Grow up! Wake up! Don’t let Howard Dean brain wash you like this guys…
February 28th, 2005 at 4:21:58 pm
Republican red-staters are known for promulgating submissive women? Hmmm. How do you explain the popularity of a country song titled, “Save a horse, ride a cowboy” then?
February 28th, 2005 at 4:38:13 pm
It was Plato quoting Protagoras: “pantÙn chrÃ?matÙn metron anthrÙpon”, and it was Philosophy 310, I think, but that was quite a while ago.
That’s neither here nor there, though. What I’m saying is if Republicans keep saying “That’s just wrong” or “It’s wrong ’cause it’s against the word of God!” you’ll fool the rubes for a little while, but eventually when you’ve taken away all their rights and started expensive wars in a dozen places around the globe in His name, sticking them with the bill and leaving them no way to bitch about it, you’re going to run the risk of a f*cking revolt.
Don’t confuse moral relativism with moral arbitrariness. It’s not some wildly floating capricious thing. Even in a moral relativist sense outright murder is still wrong, because it is immoral in light of who we are are sane, social human beings. Saying that it’s wrong “just because” or “because God said so” is intellectually dishonest, and in the end, useless.
Taking a realistic approach, our leaders, past and present, are quite the moral relativists when it suits them. It’s why we can justify bombing the living sh*t out of civilian areas around the world. (…and we should, when it correctly serves a valid national interest)
Your dismissal of the classroom and of intellectuals in general bespeaks your own education, and even if you had one, it clearly didn’t stick. If you wonder why some of us feel superior it’s because gum-popping idiots like Britney Spears are representative of this vast twinkie-gobbling bachelorette-watching vidiot segment of society that votes Republican because Karl Rove convinced them that they needed to be afraid of a couple of queers in San Francisco.
Here’s a moral absolute for you: Thou shalt not hate people 1500 miles away for loving each other differently than was maybe referenced in a book written 2000 years ago.
February 28th, 2005 at 4:46:46 pm
Brian,
This time, my friend, you have gone off the deep end.
We are fighting in Iraq in His name? Is this a crusade now?
And you are far smarter than me?
I am a Britney Spears?
Keep going Deaniac….keep hating your fellow man.
February 28th, 2005 at 5:14:42 pm
Actually I don’t think I dismissed the classroom–I said that if the Democratic party wants to dig itself out of its hole, it needs to connect with the American people. I mean, you do have to see the irony of it–The Republicans, the party of “the elite,” are more in touch with mainstream America than the Democrats–the so-called “people’s party?”
As long as the Democrats continue to distance themselves from middle American values for the sake of embracing “coffee-house intellectuals,” the Democrats are going to continue to slip in the polls. For cyring out loud, listen to yourself: even in a time of war–after 3,000 people were murdered in a single morning–you continue to embrace moral relativism. Make as many distinctions as you’d like between “moral arbitrariness” and “moral relativism;” the line between the two is so blurred and obscure that no one will buy into it, nor should they.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not standing for the proposition that everything is black-and-white. Like Brendan said, moral obtuseness isn’t any better. I’m simply saying that as long as the Democratic party fails to resonate with the American people, the party’s future is doomed. And you don’t resonate with the American people by embracing moral relativism. Maybe I’m not as intellectually gifted as you are, but at least I can see the writing on the wall
February 28th, 2005 at 5:19:03 pm
Oh, and in case your ego is as large as your pomposity…the “intellectually gifted” part was sarcasm.
February 28th, 2005 at 7:40:06 pm
My ego is even larger. You should the size of my head. It’s positively massive. I can barely fit through the door at night after a long day of reading classical literature and sipping rare wines.
I’m not going to pretend I understand the draw of NASCAR or Budweiser just to pander to “the people”. I’ll continue to use the language that I do, and hold the opinions that I do, and whether they appeal to the masses is no indicator of whether they are right. There are others to play the people’s fiddle.
February 28th, 2005 at 7:43:01 pm
Charles -
Yep, a crusade, apparently:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/10/17/boykin.apology/index.html
I will not address the “who’s smarter” thing; go find your buddy “Jeff Gannon” if you want to compare something.
I did not say you were “a Britney Spears”; I said she is representative of a certain segment of society. I think you vote Red for different reasons — part economic, part because of your misconceptions about military financing. But I’m making assumptions, which according to SLJ, makes an ass out of ‘u’ and “mptions”.
February 28th, 2005 at 8:10:57 pm
Brittney Spears isn’t a representative of any segment of society. The Democrats would love to think that they lost to a bunch of ditzy sluts who don’t give a damn about anything - the reality (unfortunately for the Dems) is that many intelligent and well-informed people voted Republican in the election. And those people represented a broad array of “segments” of the American society.
You know, I’m pro-life and against same-sex marriage, and I don’t believe I’ve ever used a biblical argument to justify those beliefs. In fact, I don’t know anyone who makes those arguments by quoting verses from Scripture. These Brittney Spears-type, unintelligent brats who say we should do things just because “God told us to” are mythical creatures that the Democrats invented to make themselves feel better about losing the election. And if some of these mythical creatures DO happen to exist, they certainly don’t make up over 50% of the nation.
The Democrats need to wake up and realize that that their party is dying. And it will continue to die for as long as they paint most of America as stupid, frightened, Rednecks and for as long as they continue to be morally bankrupt.
February 28th, 2005 at 8:20:28 pm
“I’m not going to pretend I understand the draw of NASCAR or Budweiser just to pander to ‘the people.’”
“If you wonder why some of us feel superior it’s because gum-popping idiots like Britney Spears are representative of this vast twinkie-gobbling bachelorette-watching vidiot segment of society that votes Republican because Karl Rove convinced them that they needed to be afraid of a couple of queers in San Francisco.”
-I think the point of Brendan’s original post (and my subsequent post) was that this type of language (besides being shameful and embarrasing) is all too illustrative of the off-the-wall rhetoric that the vast majority of Americans are too smart to buy into. Its certainly not going to win votes, which should be Dean’s number one priority.
And of course you can hold any opinion that you’d like. I mean, if you like to delude yourself with the belief that there is a distinction between “moral arbitrariness” and “moral relativism,” be my guest. Certainly, if you think that saying that “truth comes from God” is significantly different than saying “murder is wrong because it offends some undefined morality of being a sane human being,” then feel free to make yourself comfortable by whatever means of logical/moral/philosophical gymnastics that you’d like.
Let’s just hope that the Democratic leadership will have better sense.
February 28th, 2005 at 8:53:20 pm
I’m well aware that you’re pro-life and anti-gay, Rebecca. However, your argument — at least as indicated by your April 21 2004 column in the Observer — seems very much an appeal to God as the authority in the matter, so I believe you have used a biblical argument to justify those beliefs.
And the mythical creature you refer to does exist. At the very least, Britney Spears showed herself as exactly that on video. And does her sort make up 50%? No. According to the polls (which are probably less than perfectly reliable) it was about 22%. That plus the greedy (tax issues), the militaristic, and the gun crazy probably account for another large chunk.
Interesting that you think the Republican Party represents your interests best. The Democrats don’t actively encourage abortion and same-sex marriage (note just about all candidates this time ’round deplored it); they just realize it shouldn’t be legislated by the state. I suppose Catholic issues and interests include the death penalty and numerous wars? I do believe the bishop of Rome has said something about that. Something about values. How about charity to the poor? Thought the Church was big into that sort of thing. Funny that you vote to dismantle Social Security and welfare.
February 28th, 2005 at 9:10:31 pm
I don’t vote for anything in America because I’m a Canadian. I’ve seen what happens to a country when a liberal party takes control - it slowly dies.
Again, Democrats continue to use offensive language like “anti-gay.” Just because I do not think that same-sex marriage is a good thing for society does not mean that I am “anti-gay.” I know homosexuals and they do not perceive me in that way either.
My Observer article was addressed to Catholics at a Catholic institution. That made the teachings of the Church and the Bible relevant. In the political sphere the substance of my article would not have been offered as a real argument.
I did not say that the Republican party represents my interests the best. It is the only option for those who are attempting to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. (I do not believe the death penalty should be used the way it is used right now in America - which is basically all that the Pope said. There is no Church doctrine that says the death penalty can never be used. There is, however, doctrine that says abortion is an OBJECTIVE EVIL. Abortion issues trump the death penalty)
February 28th, 2005 at 9:47:41 pm
(Wow, hasn’t this discussion strayed far from the original post; I suppose I’m more guilty of that than any here. Oh well.)
1) I didn’t know there was a hierarchy; what trumps abortion? Or is that the ace of spades when it comes to sins? Is it above Vanity? I would have thought it would have been slipped in around Wrath or something.
2) It was part of Church doctrine until 1869 that abortions were not Really Big Sins until 40 days after conception; you know, the whole ‘ensoulment’ thing. What changed?
February 28th, 2005 at 9:55:28 pm
So all Democrats are the same but Republicans are varied and nuanced in their opinions Charles? Sorry but your partisan bias is showing. Both sides have a variety of opinions on a variety of issues. There are Pro-Life Democrats and Pro-Choice Republicans. There are atheist republicans and religious democrats. You have Republicans who support environmental laws and democrats who belong to the NRA.
Whats ridiculous is how each side tries to portray the other as flat and one-dimensional.
February 28th, 2005 at 9:59:03 pm
1) Murdering an innocent human person is at the very height of mortal sins. Vanity is a venial sin.
2)Thomas Aquinas was the one who said that abortion was only a venial sin before 40 days after conception. The Church made a guess because they didn’t have advances in science to figure out the right answer. They didn’t know that a human being existed before 40 days. The doctrine still remained that you don’t kill an innocent human being - there was just no way of knowing whether or not it was a human at 40 days gestation.
February 28th, 2005 at 10:08:31 pm
I love how everything in this school always turns to abortion and homosexuality. But that serves Brian well here–he can dodge the fact that his rhetoric illustrates the very problem the original post calls to attention, all while “aspiring lawyer nun” falls into the ever-predictable abortion tirade. Haven’t we heard all of this before?
February 28th, 2005 at 10:36:07 pm
I Love Howard Dean he is PERFECT
In fact most Republicans I know think he is Perfect…
Yeah Go Dean Go!
March 1st, 2005 at 12:25:10 am
Beef is right… the abortion debate is an issue on which reasonable people can disagree (alas, it’s also an issue which makes many reasonable people act unreasonably), but what no one can deny, unless they have ideological/partisan blinders on, is that Brian’s anti-Republican rhetoric is both objectively appalling and electorally disastrous, fortelling the doom of the Democratic Party. There’s a reason Toni and other conservatives love Howard Dean, and it’s not because they’re stupid Britneyphiles. How ironic, really, that the “stupid” conservatives understand better than the “smart” liberals how the inane arrogance of lefty attitude will elevate Republicans to a generation of political dominance. You’re whistling past the graveyard, Brian.
March 1st, 2005 at 1:04:39 am
You would give nuns a bad name.
From your comment:
“many intelligent and well-informed people voted Republican in the election”
That’s a fair enough statement. However, the reasons that these intelligent and “well-informed” people voted for BushCo are likely substantially different than the reasons that the masses voted for him. The “informed” people, to use your misnomer, voted Republican probably because they truly believe that the Bush fiscal policy is better, that they will pay less in taxes and live a better life, economically. The rest of the BushCo supporters, and what I guess is a vast majority, voted ‘Pub because they were afraid of gay people. Did you happen to watch/listen to the exit interviews last November? Or were you too busy praying to your money god for a BushCo victory? The “masses” were truly afraid that the country would be overrun by gay people. Oh, the horror!
That leads me to my second problem with your comment:
“as long as they continue to be morally bankrupt”
As long as who is morally bankrupt? You choose BushCo as your guiding light of moral values for this country? Bush, who has recently appointed Rove, the evil (and it applies here all of you who are afraid of the word “evil”) genious who engineered an unbelievably malicious, dishonest and morally bankrupt attack upon John McCain, is now the moral center of our country? Keyes, who kicked his daughter out because she’s gay, is leading our country to moral wealth?
As an aspiring nun, perhaps you should read this:
http://www.usccb.org/laity/always.htm
I really don’t think that the ‘Pubs have the market cornered on moral values. Democrats favor social justice. Republicans favor social conservativism. While they are not mutually exclusive, BushCo ran on a campaign of fear — that, in short, is Brian’s point (I think). The ‘Pubs didn’t vote because they had *good* morals, they voted because it is easier to point at thos faggoty bad morals, ban them and be safe forever.
Please, rethink your idea of moral bankruptcy and recognize that you’re not exactly swimming in moral values over there.
March 1st, 2005 at 1:24:35 am
“You would give nuns a bad name.”
Why, because she disagrees with your political views?
This is just the sort of unjustified vitriol that I’m talking about. Aspiring Lawyer Nun makes a bunch of points that, whether you agree or disagree, were articulately expressed and not demeaning to anyone. You respond by attacking her because you think she’s an idiot for holding those views. It’s downright pathetic.
Perhaps you and your ilk — liberals who feel totaly justified in calling the other side nasty names because you think you’re so superior — are the reason many people voted for Bush. Maybe they couldn’t stand the alternative. Frankly, even as one who reluctantly voted for the crappy candidate the Democrats put up, I can’t blame them. I’d much rather have George Bush as my president than you or Briandot.
March 1st, 2005 at 2:02:57 am
First, I think the attack on ALN is indicative of the anti-religious overtones of the left.
Having said that, I think that your statement that the only true Catholic way to vote is Republican ignores a great many aspects of Catholic teaching.
For instance, the environment. God told us to be stewards of the Earth, yet time and again Republicans have opposed efforts to promote the enviroment in the name of buisness or other reasons.
Or societal welfare. For years Republicans have sought to scale back social welfare programs, saying that the government wastes peoples money,etc etc. No where is this me first, everyone on their own attitude more apparent than in the Republicans view of Social Security as a personal retirement program. SS was never set up to be that, it was set up to be a system where the workers of today support those of the past.
I also disagree that the Church is ok with capital punishment.
My point is that in my mind, neither party best exemplifies Catholic teachings at the moment. Its up to each individual person to judge who they feel will do a better job.
March 1st, 2005 at 2:10:02 am
You know, as a moderate Republican, it’s been difficult at this school from time to time. There are so many fervent conservatives here who can be so overbearing in their beliefs–it gets a little disheartening. They use such inflamatory rhetoric that it makes me feel apologetic, even though I don’t have anything to apologize for! Well, I’d bet that Brendan and other level-headed Democrats are feeling the same way after a post like that last one.
First off: Who the hell is afraid to use the word “evil” around here? Are you dense? Everybody thinks everything is evil around here! Vagina Monologues are evil; Karl Rove is evil; Rummy Rumsfeld is evil; gay marriage is evil; Bush is evil; Kerry is evil. Give me a break!
Secondly: Are you serious? Karl Rove is “evil?” Listen buddy, count your lucky stars that you have the luxury to believe that Rove is “evil.” Have you watched the beheadings? Have you seen the pictures of the kids blown apart by suicide terrorists and “smart” bombs? Have you seen the bodies of soldiers who have literally melted into themselves from the heat of roadside bombs? Rove is evil because he played dirty politics during the 2000 primaries? Get some perspective.
And don’t play the card that Rove is evil because he helped Bush get elected knowing that Bush would “start” this war. If you think that what’s going on in the world is part of some global power struggle to dominate energy resources and wealth–get real. It’s far more complex. (and yes, i know that sounds like a weak argument–an excuse to “hide myself from the truth.” But it is complex, and there’s no easier way to say it–it’s not all Bush’s fault–not even remotely close).
You think people like me, who don’t view the world from a leftist-Marxist paradigm are wearing blinders? Have you ever thought that your ideology might be covering your eyes with blinders? When you equate a political advisor like Karl Rove with Adolf Hitler, or with a terrorist like Zarqawi, or some other murderous thug–you lose your credibility. (And please, don’t think I’m a fan of Rove. I just don’t equate being an asshole with being evil–I like to think I have mroe sense then that)
March 1st, 2005 at 2:34:50 am
thebeef
while it is certainly true that there are terrible things done by terrible people in this world, I don’t think that necessarilly disqualifies Rove from being considered evil. I don’t know if I would elevate him to a highly evil position.
On the other hand I don’t think its unreasonable to raise certain comparisons between the tactics of Bush and Rove to those of certain European leaders in the 1930’s. Yes I realize its an overused way to exagerate a situation, but just because the boy sometimes cries wolf, doesn’t mean a wolf doesn’t come along once and a while.
While you may not be wearing those blinders thebeef, the reason a moderate person like myself fears the Republicans so much is that the leadership appears to. And there are many examples of Republicans on this blog who exemplify this same behavior on the right that you are accusing those on the left of (where it is also present). Take Charles statment that the right is full of a variety of ideas but the left is lacking in that same type of variety.
March 1st, 2005 at 8:51:45 am
My statement bares truth.
The Republican party ideas and ideals are invoking real change.
We are not taking any rights away from anyone except terrorists and foriegn nationals that wish to do us harm.
I have been pulled over for speeding within the last three weeks and none of my rights were violated.
What is the matter with you guys?
You keep putting freak stories and wild accusations to bolster this on going war thread.
You Libs bring the same hollow accusations as Barbara Boxer brought to Condi Rice. Empty and propped accusations…and personal attacks too. Nothing with any merit.
March 1st, 2005 at 10:13:27 am
David,
First, I did not say that Catholics can only vote Republican. They might have been forced into it for this election, but it will not always be that way (and doesn’t have to be that way).
Second, I want to clarify the death penalty vs. abortion thing: The death penalty in the U.S. violates human rights. It isn’t necessary to contain an aggressor and therefore should only be employed RARELY. That is as far as the Church as gone in speaking out against the death penalty. On the other hand, the Church has always spoken through its doctrine that abortion is an INTRINSIC EVIL (which means that it is wrong in every case). That fact, and the fact that millions and millions of human beings die every year because of this scourge forced Catholics to vote based on “number of killings.”
I do not think that Catholicism fits into either party very well. It’s just that social justice doesn’t mean much when your rights to health care and social security depend on whether you survived the womb.
March 1st, 2005 at 10:36:34 am
David,
As a moderate Republican, I certainly sympathize with you. Indeed, my first post stated that my real concern was with the Democratic leadership, who spew forth rhetoric that is only going to further marginalize the Democratic party in a time in which we so desperately need a VIABLE counterweight to the Republican party. Perhaps there are those in the Bush administration acting with blinders on…that’s a problem, as are the blinders of the Democratic leadeship.
As for Rove being evil…it just seems a touch hyperbolic–to say the least. That word has a lot of meaning for some people, because they’ve had the misfortune of tasting it. I’d be reticent to throw a word around like that so lightly. And I’d most definately be VERY cautious using it against a political rival in a democratic context such as ours.
March 1st, 2005 at 10:49:10 am
I can’t wait until this thread gets aborted, or executed, or something. Can’t we all just talk about Brendan’s fish?
March 1st, 2005 at 11:24:43 am
that’s because you made an ass of yourself on this thread
March 1st, 2005 at 11:49:42 am
Yeah, that must be it. Wow, I can’t wait until I’m a sage like you, beef.
March 1st, 2005 at 12:43:52 pm
Brendan,
So now that I’m a nun, am I (or my ilk) free to attack? Is that it? You accuse people of spouting vitriol, but only certain people. Look closely at ALN’s post. It wasn’t terribly civilized and it was very demeaning to people who did not vote for Bush. I’m sorry, but I refuse to sit around while the hard-line right calls me morally bankrupt. That is an attack, unjustified and perhaps a “downright pathetic” one because she fails to back it up with reasons why the ‘Pubs are morally superior. She’s entitled to the baseless attack because that’s what she thinks.
All of the Patricks and Nuns of your world are free to make demeaning remarks, and the moderates are to refrain from countering?
How “pathetic” is that?
March 1st, 2005 at 4:54:36 pm
Wow.
Looks like the Republicans and conservatives won.
A little bloody and bruised, but I think we came out on top…
Not that it was a fight or anyone was taking sides, right Brian and David?
We are all Americans and we are in this together.
March 1st, 2005 at 11:39:23 pm
The Republicans/Conservatives won? How do you figure?
March 1st, 2005 at 11:44:01 pm
I just re-read all of ALN’s posts on this thread, and I see nothing insulting or demeaning. All I see a spirited expression of her beliefs. Sorry.
March 1st, 2005 at 11:46:39 pm
P.S. If I really want to search for something objectionable in ALN’s comments, I guess I could take issue with her broad-brush-painting use of the phrase “the Democrats.” Strictly speaking, it would be more accurate to say “many Democrats” or “most Democrats.” However, I think we all know what she means, and as someone who has occasionally fallen into that trap myself when talking about “The Left” or “The Right,” I’m not inclined to get too picky about it.
Beyond that, I really can’t see what you’re talking about.
March 1st, 2005 at 11:47:29 pm
Okay, I just caught the phrase “…and for as long as they continue to be morally bankrupt.” I had missed that before, having focused on the entirely valid and non-insulting points that preceded it. I’m not sure exactly what she means by “morally bankrupt,” but I can see how you’d be offended by that characterization.
That’s it, though. Everything else in her comments is completely fine — not insulting, not demeaning. On the other hand, many of your comments have been absolutely filled with vitriol. So I stand by what I’ve said.
March 1st, 2005 at 11:48:53 pm
ALN,
The fact that you think that Catholics were somehow forced to vote Republican in this election was my entire point. Catholics aren’t forced to vote anything but with their conscious.
You are more than welcome to vote any way you like, and to feel that abortion somehow trumps all other sins, but doctrine does not support this.
Personally I think people who vote based on litmus tests like that are dangerous.
I would prefer to look at the whole picture. Yes I think abortion is terrible but do I really think that electing Al Gore or George Bush or John Kerry will change that? Even if George manages to appoint a majority of conservative judges to the court there is no gaurentee that the court will overturn Roe v. Wade. See when you have a lifetime judgeship you don’t have to worry about pleasing any political masters, and you can rule based on the law, not just your beliefs or the beliefs of others.
In addition one could argue that abortion is an issue that can be combated without relying on legislation. Effort can be made to convince women not to have abortions. I think it will be much harder for example to convince buisness to raise the minimum wage or provide better benefits without federal laws. Nor do I think it will be possible to be as effective at protecting the environment.
I vote for a candidate because I feel that overall they will be a better leader for our nation, fully realizing that there may be areas in which we disagree. If you truly feel that GW Bush and all of his policies are more in line with Catholic teaching than by all means vote for the man, but to claim that my Catholic faith some how obliges me to vote for him is not right.
I should point out that the Catholic Church also opposed Bush’s war on Iraq. Following your logic we shouldn’t have voted for the man because of that.
March 1st, 2005 at 11:57:42 pm
David’s comment hints at an interesting point. Granting for the sake of argument ALN’s contention that abortion is an objective evil that trumps everything else, should we vote for a candidate merely because of his/her stated position on abortion, or should we vote based on the actual changes in the reality of abortion that are likely to result if that person is elected?
For example, if (for the sake of argument) a Bush presidency is likely to have zero impact on the number of abortions performed in America, because of the realities of the Supreme Court and so forth. Should Catholics still feel compelled to vote for him, just because he says he’s pro-life, even though it doesn’t actually make a difference?
What if (hypothetically, again for the sake of argument) you could show that a Kerry Presidency would have led to a stronger economy and a better urban policy, which would in turn lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies and thus fewer abortions being performed? Would it still be un-Catholic to vote for Kerry, just because he personally says he’s pro-choice, even though the objective evil of abortion would actually be statistically reduced if he were in office?
What exactly is the basis for the vote: the candidate’s stated position, or the actual likely result of his/her policies?
And if the likely result is minimal — if the candidate’s election would make little or no difference — don’t other issues begin to creep into the picture, the “objective evil” of abortion notwithstanding? For example, if you believe a Bush Presidency would result in 0.01% fewer abortions, but 1000% more civilian deaths overseas, do you still vote for Bush? Must a Catholic still vote for Bush? I don’t share ALN’s views on abortion, but even if I did, I think I’d find that awfully hard to swallow.
March 2nd, 2005 at 1:07:27 am
Brendan, I agree with your last point; I can’t stand how abortion is used as a litmus test in the GOP, especially in local elections where the power to influence anything having to do with abortion is close to nil.
David, my faith asks me to be a good steward of the environment and to help the poor. I’m not sure where the doctrine says that I accomplish that by voting for rules, regulations, and legislation that takes rights and money away form other people to accomplish what I happen to think is social justice or good for the environment. I try to recycle occasionally, I try to drive cars that don’t use a lot of gas, and I don’t litter, but I don’t believe good environmentalism is the government quashing local property rights because the bushy-eared black-eyed rat is on the endangered list and lives on a piece of that property.
“The rest of the BushCo supporters, and what I guess is a vast majority, voted ‘Pub because they were afraid of gay people.”
I still think that’s an overstatement. Would I therefore be allowed to say that most Dems only voted against Bush because they felt like Bush=Hitler, or because all Republicans are racist?
April 22nd, 2005 at 6:25:23 pm
Brian, if you are ever in Austin, I am buying you a Guinness. I’m tired, getting off work, have to pee, and worried about a ton of other crap. For once, I can honestly just point and say, “Yeah!….what he said.”
No one has bothered to point out that Dean made the comment about rabidly CONSERVATIVE right-winger Republicans. He expressed respect and solidarity for moderates, which almost all of you claim to be. So where’s the problem again? Besides….Republicans have attacked Democrats for being less forceful and definitive in their statements in the past, thereby trying to gain broader appeal. Dean was being blunt and honest from his gut. This kind of oversensitivity and reaction to a statement taken out of context in the first place is exactly what spawned the pathetic epidemic of side-shuffling doublespeak we have in politics today. There are extremists on both sides, and moderates stand around arguing rhetoric.
By the way; on the subject of abortion…..if you are truly concerned for the social welfare of your nation, and reducing the overall number of abortions, you would focus on improving economic situations and attitudes toward family and responsibility (especially for men)across the board, but certainly in the disadvantaged. You all seem to be fairly priviliged kids. Good for you. However, poor people can’t afford to take care of a bunch of kids, especially when daddy says “buh-bye” as soon as he finds out mommy is preggers. And don’t give me the “well, don’t have premarital sex” argument….poor, working class people don’t have much else in life beyond drinking, dancing, and screwing. Accidents happen. If you think the life of their current or future children, the welfare system, and the crime/health/unemployment problems will be benefitted by even more unwanted births into poverty, I suggest you take a stroll off Notre Dame campus. Everyone needs to stop making such a fuss over the UNborn, and consider the BORN for a minute. We could lower the occurence of abortions, too, if birth control were taught, encouraged, and given out. But the same ultra-conservative right-wing religiosos that hate abortion (it’s no wonderful thing, I’ll give you that) also condemn birth control and sex-ed. Stop shooting yourselves in the foot.
April 22nd, 2005 at 11:25:23 pm
Brian, if you are ever in Austin, I am buying you a Guinness. I’m tired, getting off work, have to pee, and worried about a ton of other crap. For once, I can honestly just point and say, “Yeah!….what he said.”
No one has bothered to point out that Dean made the comment about rabidly CONSERVATIVE right-winger Republicans. He expressed respect and solidarity for moderates, which almost all of you claim to be. So where’s the problem again? Besides….Republicans have attacked Democrats for being less forceful and definitive in their statements in the past, thereby trying to gain broader appeal. Dean was being blunt and honest from his gut. This kind of oversensitivity and reaction to a statement taken out of context in the first place is exactly what spawned the pathetic epidemic of side-shuffling doublespeak we have in politics today. There are extremists on both sides, and moderates stand around arguing rhetoric.
By the way; on the subject of abortion…..if you are truly concerned for the social welfare of your nation, and reducing the overall number of abortions, you would focus on improving economic situations and attitudes toward family and responsibility (especially for men)across the board, but certainly in the disadvantaged. You all seem to be fairly priviliged kids. Good for you. However, poor people can’t afford to take care of a bunch of kids, especially when daddy says “buh-bye” as soon as he finds out mommy is preggers. And don’t give me the “well, don’t have premarital sex” argument….poor, working class people don’t have much else in life beyond drinking, dancing, and screwing. Accidents happen. If you think the life of their current or future children, the welfare system, and the crime/health/unemployment problems will be benefitted by even more unwanted births into poverty, I suggest you take a stroll off Notre Dame campus. Everyone needs to stop making such a fuss over the UNborn, and consider the BORN for a minute. We could lower the occurence of abortions, too, if birth control were taught, encouraged, and given out. But the same ultra-conservative right-wing religiosos that hate abortion (it’s no wonderful thing, I’ll give you that) also condemn birth control and sex-ed. Stop shooting yourselves in the foot.
April 22nd, 2005 at 11:25:23 pm
Brian, if you are ever in Austin, I am buying you a Guinness. I’m tired, getting off work, have to pee, and worried about a ton of other crap. For once, I can honestly just point and say, “Yeah!….what he said.”
No one has bothered to point out that Dean made the comment about rabidly CONSERVATIVE right-winger Republicans. He expressed respect and solidarity for moderates, which almost all of you claim to be. So where’s the problem again? Besides….Republicans have attacked Democrats for being less forceful and definitive in their statements in the past, thereby trying to gain broader appeal. Dean was being blunt and honest from his gut. This kind of oversensitivity and reaction to a statement taken out of context in the first place is exactly what spawned the pathetic epidemic of side-shuffling doublespeak we have in politics today. There are extremists on both sides, and moderates stand around arguing rhetoric.
By the way; on the subject of abortion…..if you are truly concerned for the social welfare of your nation, and reducing the overall number of abortions, you would focus on improving economic situations and attitudes toward family and responsibility (especially for men)across the board, but certainly in the disadvantaged. You all seem to be fairly priviliged kids. Good for you. However, poor people can’t afford to take care of a bunch of kids, especially when daddy says “buh-bye” as soon as he finds out mommy is preggers. And don’t give me the “well, don’t have premarital sex” argument….poor, working class people don’t have much else in life beyond drinking, dancing, and screwing. Accidents happen. If you think the life of their current or future children, the welfare system, and the crime/health/unemployment problems will be benefitted by even more unwanted births into poverty, I suggest you take a stroll off Notre Dame campus. Everyone needs to stop making such a fuss over the UNborn, and consider the BORN for a minute. We could lower the occurence of abortions, too, if birth control were taught, encouraged, and given out. But the same ultra-conservative right-wing religiosos that hate abortion (it’s no wonderful thing, I’ll give you that) also condemn birth control and sex-ed. Stop shooting yourselves in the foot.