You ever travel in the middle of an election, and turn on a TV and see campaign ads, only you don’t know the candidates or what it is they’re fighting about? It’s like walking into the middle of a private conversation among members of a particularly dysfunctional and combative family.
I’m back in Pennsylvania for a couple of days, and I’m catching bits of campaign ads that say things like, "Rick Santorum — His Record and His Attack Ads are a Disgrace," and, alternatively, "Senator Santorum Provides Hope."
And I’m thinking, OK, I know who he is… he’s one of those really partisan jerks out there, right? I don’t know whether he’s a Democratic jerk or a Republican jerk, I just know there is a vague negative association in my mind. And I realize that my memory might be totally unfair. Just because he’s not one of favorites — the ones who work together to get things done — I’m dismissing him without having considered him.
(Those of you who follow the Washington partisan back-and-forth the way some follow football are no doubt agog at my ignorance. But I really don’t care about that stuff. I follow what’s important to South Carolina, and what is truly of importance to the nation — not the stuff they yell about on television and on those other blogs.)
So I look him up, and it turns out he’s a Republican, and he’s in a heap of trouble. But his Web site doesn’t really help me locate him on the spectrum, because it seems he’s trying to moderate his message (he even has an issue heading called "compassion") because he’s about to get his clock 
cleaned by a moderate Democrat, Bob Casey. At least, I’ve heard him called "moderate." In this case, that means "anti-abortion," which would make me want to vote for him (early in the year, Kate Michelman had threatened to run as an independent because of her dissatisfaction with Mr. Casey).
But then, I worry about his commitment on Iraq. He says a lot of good stuff, but I always back away a little when people use those words, "exit strategy." Whether you’re talking the ’91 Gulf War, Somalia or Iraq, it’s a fancy phrase for "leaving the job undone."
But you know what? I don’t have to vote for either of these guys, and I don’t have to endorse either of them, and it’s my day off. So, ‘bye.
Related Posts
Casey’s father, the late ex-gov of Penna, was not allowed to speak at the Dem Nat’l convention in 92 because he was pro-life. Casey had been a very popular governor but the abortion fanatics running the DNC would have none of it. If the jr. Casey wins, he will be voting for pro-life judicial confirmations which isnt all that bad. Santorum has a tough road to hoe in a blue state.
It is amazing how long fake urban legends live. Casey was not allowed to speak for one simple reason, he refused to endorse the nominee.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406250007
If he had made the endorsement, he would have been been on stage, it was his choice that led to his silence.
Brad just used the “cut and run” strategy here!
Brad, what do you mean by “finishing the job” when you discuss Iraq? That is nothing but a simplistic weasel phrase. If that means continuing our current troop commitment, we know for certain that won’t finish anything. The IAE report removes any doubt of that. So do we increase our troop levels? If so, how? You’ve offered up a bunch of weasel words in the various posts on this issue but no plan. What would President Warthen do?
John, this is an article from The Evening News, who covered a recent speech from Bob Casey Jr. at Catholic University.
The most shocking point of the talk came when Casey emotionally described that “dark night,” of the 1992 Democratic National Convention when his father, the late Governor Robert P. Casey, was denied the opportunity to address the convention because of his pro-life views. Recalling that night, he stated that the party “insulted the most courageous pro-life Democrat in the land, who asked that those who believed in the right to life be accorded the right to speak.”
What is shocking about this is that the late Governor’s son continues to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from those radical groups who denied his father the opportunity to speak at the convention. And these same groups fight ferociously to protect and advance the policies his father opposed, namely the sanctity of all human life and traditional marriage. Casey appears indifferent and unprincipled, having refused to return any of these contributions and supports many of their positions.
Dave writes:
“What is shocking about this is that the late Governor’s son continues to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars from those radical groups who denied his father the opportunity to speak at the convention.”
It’s really quite simple, Casey is so disgusted with the GOP that he’s willing to shrug off some long-ago slights for the sake of the national interest. Whatever happened 20 years ago pales in comparison to the insanity that taken hold of the neocon GOP in 2006.
John’s right of course. The whole right-to-life thing is one of those oft-repeated lies that continues to get passed along by the republicans as fact. We’ve already discussed the obsurd Willie Horton episode. The republican party can only win with lies and scare tactics.
Since the abortion issue has been raised let’s explore it a bit. This is one of those wedge issues that the Republican’s use shamelessly to win a few votes from those on the far right that simply don’t know how to think. If the right-to-life crowd really supported the sanctity of human life as a point of principal they would never, ever allow exceptions (to women having abortions)for rape and incest. That is the perhaps the most untenable possition to take on any issue. If you believe in the sanctity of life you would not make exceptions for rape and incest.
With all due respect, Mr. Warthen, I find it awfully hard to believe that you truly didn’t know Santorum was a Republican, especially given that he’s quite outspoken in tying his politics to his Catholic faith. Assuming that was just a little poetic license? 😉
“If you believe in the sanctity of life you would not make exceptions for rape and incest.”
Red herring. There are political realities that make it very difficult to ban abortions after rape or incest. So it becomes a question of the good versus the perfect. What’s better? 99.X% of a loaf or nothing at all?
For once I agree with Lex. The taking of a human life is very serious, but anyone with any sense must realize that there is a limit in being able to legislate righteousness, especially in cases where injustice is the cause of the problem.
Warthen pretends that what’s important is process – the idea of cooperating with others, the idea of “getting things done” – whether or not what is done is good or bad for the nation. For example, Warthen has his head so far up Lindsey Graham’s alimentary canal that he can see daylight through is mouth because Graham promotes “compromise” – that is, making a few “maverick” poses for the camera before signing onto whatever it is that Bush wants.
But not only are Huckleberry Graham’s ideas bad for America, his adherence to “process” is also a sham. The “Gang of 14” “compromise” was simply an agreement to violate the rules of the Senate.
Huckleberry Graham also conspired with John Kyl to file a fraudulent brief before the U.S. Supreme Court, and when the viewpoint he promoted in his brief was repudiated, joined in a pantomime to present Bush with a list of rules combined with the explicit right to ignore those rules as he saw fit. The “compromise” in which Huckleberry Graham participated was a sham. The substance of what he did was to endanger our troops and to guarantee that some of them would be tortured.
But that’s OK with Warthen, because the same cowardice that kept him from serving in Vietnam also guarantees that he will not encounter danger in Iraq. Therefore, increasing the danger to our troops is less important to Warthen than is the fact that Huckleberry Graham was willing to “compromise” in order to pass a measure endangering our troops. To Warthen, the willingess to “compromise” to achieve something is more important than the fact that was was achieved is bad for America.
As for deprecating an “exit strategy” as “leaving the job undone” Warthen’s words are the words of a chicken-hawk. Warthen advocates perpetual war until all his fantasies are fulfilled because, of course, HE is not the one making the sacrifices required to promote the war.
Warthen’s cowardice kept him out of Vietnam. His cowardice keeps him out of Iraq (just as Meredith Howard’s courage sent her to Afghanistan), and keeps him from exhorting his relatives and acquaintances to volunteer for service, thereby lessening the burden on people like Meredith Howard. Warthen does not make any net positive financial contribution to the Iraq war. His SOLE “contribution” is to sit, spinning out dreams of how wonderful the world would be if his ideas were put into practice, and the results of putting his ideas into practice were exactly as he envisions.
It’s true that having an “exit strategy” means “leaving before the job is done”. But the United States at present simply does not have enough resources to “do the job”. This is because not everyone is shouldering his share of the burden.
There is ONE WAY, and ONE WAY ONLY that the United States can “do the job,” and that is for Brad Warthen to do more than simply sit around and advocate “doing the job”. In order to the mission to be accomplished, Brad Warthen will have to take some positive action to accomplish it. He will have to make a positive financial contribution to America, he will have to do everything he can to assist the United States in mobilizing manpower, and he will have to do everything he can to personally shoulder the burdens involved in “doing the job”. Whether this involves volunteering full time at a veteran’s hospital, doing volunteer civilian service in Iraq or Afghanistan, or taking some other action, I don’t know. But the burden is to great to be borne unless Brad Warthen bears a portion of it.
The success or failure of our missions in Iraq or Afghanistan is in the hands of Brad Warthen. He can personally shoulder a portion of the burden he urges upon others, or he can stand by as an outside observer and watch us lose. The choice is his.
Which will he choose?
A world of peace, democracy and freedom, where everyone has a pony, hangs in the balance.
Let’s move from the abstract, “Let’s protect the sanctity of life” to a practical abortion bill that makes exceptions for rape and incest. Here are the questions we need to answer:
1. Are all rapes subject to the exception.
2. Does concentual sex between an 18 year old and a 17 year old count as “rape”?
3. Does a rape involving 2 married people count?
4. Would the rape include a statuatory incident between a 35 year old woman and a 16 year old boy?
5. How would the rape be established?
6. Would an arrest be required?
7. Would we have to establish a board or commission to certify that a rape has occurred?
8. Or, would a criminal trial be necessary?
9. If an abortion was committed in sprite of board certification what would the penalty be for the mother?
10. The doctor?
11. Is there a time limit after the rape that would apply? I.E. would a third tri-mester pregnancy have the same legal standing as one that occurred within a couple of weeks?
12. What level of incest qualifies for the incest exception? sibling, first cousin, second cousin?
13. What proof would be required to show incest?
14. Would we need to establish an incest board to determine if an incest qualifies?
15. Are third trimester pregnancies for an incest treated the same as first?
16. In the event that a rape or incest incident is not established (by whatever means) who will pay the medical costs of the unwanted pregnancy? the mother? the state?
If all of the above questions can be successfully addressed and sanctified by a law would we may not reduce abortions simply because women would have a huge incentive to establish a rape incident had occurred. Or they would simply go underground. If our goal is to reduce abortions there are much better ways than this clumsy rape/incest approach.
Despite our political disagreements, I do owe Brad a note of thanks for introducing me to a leader of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship some time ago. Recently, my son and I have been attending a local CBF church based on Brad’s advice, and we are very happy to attend a church that is Baptist to its core and that emphasizes the Gospels. Thanks Brad.
The Health Costs of Wealth Inequality
by John Robbins
Not that long ago in this country, you could raise a family on a single paycheck. If you were working, you didn’t have to worry about an unexpected medical bill making you homeless. If you were disabled, your basic needs were taken care of, and if you were elderly, you could count on benefits that made your final years restful and safe.
But real wages have been declining since the 1970s, and benefits have been deteriorating. Every year, more working people are losing their pensions and their health insurance.
Meanwhile, our wealth distribution has been becoming increasingly disparate. Today, many corporate executives earn more money in a couple of hours than the average factory worker makes in a year. The wealthiest 1 percent of America’s population owns more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined. And the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, has fallen by 37 percent since 1968, and become the lowest of any industrialized nation.
What impact is this having on the health of our people?
Depends on who you ask. Some republicans, and many on here I believe, would say tough noogies, that’s the market economy; these people can pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
The premise that every American can pull themselves up is built on the underlying fallacy that there are jobs for everyone as they move up.
Someone has to work on our roads, cart off the garbage, work at BK, clean motel rooms etc. We have seen the a new class of people these past few decades, as Mark alludes – the working poor.
A full time worker making minimum wage makes $5.15/ hr times 40 hours = 206/week or roughly $824/month. Subtract Fed Tax and it’s roughly $780. The cheapest rent for a couple bedrooms is maybe 400 etc. A person can put in a full 40 hour week and maybe can scrape by – no American dream there.
I think I’ve figured out the GOP strategy for the fall elections. In order to take the voters attention off any given scandal they create a new scandal. The old scandal quickly fades from memory while the new scandal runs its course. Once a bit of good news surfaces the GOP propaganda machine, which has been waiting in the wings, goes into action and blows the good news up into something far more important than what it deverses on the merits. The voter is left with the impression that only the scandal of record is worthy of consideration and the relatively minor good news is really what should be considered. Voila, 10 scandals trumped by one small bit of good news. How ingenious is that?
Sorry, Laurin, but it’s true. I thought of Mr. Santorum, vaguely, as “one of them” — with a sort of nonspecific, negative connotation. For Democrats, “one of them” means a Republican; for a Republican, it means a Democrat.
To me, it means a strident partisan of either flavor, and I have to take a look at the label to remind me which bitter flavor it is.
Once I took a moment to read up on him, there was a sort of “oh, yeah, he’s the Republican kind” in my head. But before that, I would not have risked any money on my guess either way.
And Mark, that’s wonderful that my tip about the moderate Baptists worked out. I sort of thought it might, but it’s great to hear about it.
If this blog never does anything more than help one person, in just this small way, get closer to God, I would look back on it as a tremendous success.
That sounds sort of prideful and arrogant, but I don’t mean it that way. I think your own aspirations are what caused you to reach out that way. I’m just saying that’s infinitely more important than anything else we discuss here.
I have a strong belief in God but do not believe in religion(although I get dragged to Mass a lot and do like the music).I refuse to genuflect.I think it’s a “mass” OCD.
“Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires.”
Sigmund Freud
Brad, I’ve been pondering this whole “winning in Iraq” concept that the hawks on this blog continue to throw at us. And frankly it has had me befuddled tremendously over the past few months. No one seems willing to define what constitutes a victory there.
But I believe I have it figured out. What is unspoken is this: Victory is achieved once we have a strong, central government in Iraq that is friendly to the U.S. and one that is capable of controling it’s people. It doesn’t have to be democratic, nor do it’s people have to be free. It doesn’t have to be effective in delivering a good quality of life to it’s citizens, and in general doesn’t have to treat it’s people well. For all the bluster concerning the well being of the people of Iraq the “victory” hounds are really concerned only with how well the new Iraq conforms with the American vision of the world. And of course that vision includes access to cheap oil.
A victory of that type would prove, in the end, to be a Phyric victory in the long run. Just review the history of Iran from WW2 to the present. We had this same friendly nation during the Shah’s reign. But in the end the people rejected his strong-armed approach and friendly U.S. ties. And we’re now paying a huge price for our meddling.
I think I’ve figured out the GOP strategy for the fall elections.-bud
Watch this documentary and you’ll find out their strategy for the last two presidential elections.It’s out on DVD.
American Blackout
2005-US-Special Interest
N.Y. Times Review
Critic’s Pick
REVIEW SUMMARY
Few things in a democracy are more sacrosanct than the right to vote, and in his furious documentary “American Blackout,” Ian Inaba assembles compelling evidence to support his claim that African-Americans — who are traditionally more likely to vote Democratic — are being deliberately and systematically excluded from the political process. Though occasionally inflammatory — one interviewee talks about being “slingshotted into slavery” — “American Blackout” isn’t a conspiracy rant. It’s a methodical compilation of questions and irregularities that deserves a wider audience. — Jeannette Catsoulis, The New York Times
The desparation of the Republicans is obscene. The American Spectator just released a video showing Jack Murtha declining, yes, declining a bribe in the Abscam scandal 26 years ago. Although some of the language Murtha used was a bit salty and perhaps raised some doubts about his long-term motives what’s clear is that he DECLINED to accept the bribe. No law was broken. No indictment handed down. The right is desparate, no doubt about it.
For all those who are seeking God and not particularly enamered with religion, I would just like to write that Christ and religion are not the same; nothing is more fulfilling than the former, and nothing can be more deadening than the latter. And a quote from C.S. Lewis, from his Screwtape Letters, might help some of us to understand the hidden nature of God’s approach to us, or what one theologian has called “the modesty of God.” (Keep in mind that the following is Lewis’ imagination of a senior devil writing advice to his nephew apprentice):
Mark, I too am glad that you have found a home, but I still think it is a caricature of the Apostle Paul you have rejected, and not the real Paul.
Jesus and Religion (Church) go hand in hand. He is the “Lord of the Sabbath”; the Head with Church as the body; the Church is the bride of Christ.
Herb, the caricature of Paul was (is) the likes of Jimmy Swaggart, Tammy Faye et. al. Yet Swaggart is still preaching and collecting tithes from the witless followers. I think the Pope is the rightful person who received the mantle of Peter, who was the rock upon which the “church” (i.e. religion) was built.
When I contrasted relgion and Christ, I wasn’t meaning to disparage the church in general. I was trying to encourage those who have sometimes looked at “religion” in the hopes of finding God, and been disappointed by power-grabbers and edifice builders.
There is a true religion which James describes in James 1:26-27:
And by “not being polluted,” James obviously did not mean “uninvolved.”
And no, Dave, I don’t think the real caricature of Paul is Jimmy Swagghart, etc. I’m assuming you know your church history, so you will know that the history of the church includes some pretty awful popes, living in opulence and debauchery. No church has a corner on purity. The caricature I was talking about is “Paul the chauvinist or woman-hater,” “Paul the gay-basher,” and yes, dare I say it but “Paul the tee-totaler,” but most of all, the Paul who disagrees with and tries to contradict Jesus. A close reading of the New Testament will not allow for disparaging Jesus’ disciples and apostles, as imperfect as they were.
I have many Catholic acquaintances and friends, and have been in Bible study groups with them, so I do not wish to be understood as anti-Catholic. But I am still very glad that there was a Reformation!
And I do have a question for you Catholics, and it is an honest one (I am not asking a “trick” question—I am not smart enough for those, anyway). If Peter was the first pope, then how come he was married, and how come then priests have to be celibate?
You don’t need religion to find God.You can be a “spiritual” person without it.I’m amazed by people who actually believe that Mary was a virgin,Jesus rose from the dead,walked on the water,etc.It’s mostly fiction and is not the “word of God”.God doesn’t write books.
Bill, how do you know that “it’s” fiction? Is anything outside of your realm of experience ipso facto fiction?
And your statement, “God doesn’t write books.” What if God’s preferred way of working is to use people to convey what he wants to say?
I’m just questioning your presuppositions. What if God decides to work in ways that don’t fit them?
That’s pretty much God’s M.O. — working in ways that don’t fit our presuppositions.
Herb, priests and bishops were often married in the early centuries of the Church. Somehow, possibly because of the development of the cult of Mary, possibly from other cultural influences, the notion that one must be celibate to be pure became an inextricable part of the Church’s view. It’s not something I’ve made a study of.
Despite the hierarchical structure of the Church, some things bubbled up from below. Consider Mary again — her elevation was something that came from the common folk, and it took a long time for the Church leaders to embrace it. Ditto (I think) with the idea that Mary was a virgin all her life, despite the fact that the Bible specifically mentions Jesus having siblings.
Catholics have traditionally approached that the same way Baptists — the biblical literalists — have approached turning water into wine. It wasn’t really wine, they say, it was more like grape juice. They weren’t really his “brothers,” Catholics say; they were more like cousins.
As a convert (baptized Baptist, confirmed Catholic), I tend to be somewhat bemused by all these rationalizations. A lot of pieties of the Church, including some pretty wild stuff — such as the Sacred Heart statues — are very much outside my experience of the faith, but I just chalk them up to being fascinating cultural manifestations of the universal, timeless church. People come to it in as many different ways as there are people, I suppose. But once they come together, they become the One Body.
I’m just questioning your presuppositions. What if God decides to work in ways that don’t fit them?-Herb
Are you assuming that he works in ways that fit your presuppositions?Maybe I’m wrong.Are you so blinded by your “faith” that you can’t admit that you could be wrong?
Herb-
Read “Falling in Love with Mystery” by Richard F. Elliott, Jr.,It’s available online and it’s free.
ps Don’t get me wrong,I have great respect for you and your beliefs.I don’t really want to argue about this.That’s why I spend so many Sunday evenings at Mass.
Good dialogue.
Herb, I wasn’t taking your statement as anti-Catholic but as an honest contribution of perspective. The input is appreciated.
bill, same with your input, thanks. I do offer this reply. Is it surprising or even crazy to believe that God may communicate with us? If so, how? Wouldn’t he want to provide some guidance for us? If we are left to our own discernment as to his message, then the message becomes almost opinion.
I think this is a little reasoning as to why there can be formal religion as outlined to some extent by God.
Hey Bill,
Well, I certainly want to be able to admit I am wrong, except that would be somewhat like a married person denying he/she was married. I mean, if you know you know something, there’s not much use in saying you don’t, is there?
I guess I’d say that I’m not in love with my faith; my faith is pretty weak at times. But weak faith in thick ice is all I need, if you get my point.
Well, I’m not interested in arguments, either. I just find it interesting to know what makes people “tick” when I have the opportunity. Thanks for the dialogue. I’ll have a look at the book you mentioned when I get a chance. Right now I just kind of come up for air between projects. This blog is like a breath of air, when it isn’t polluted by name-calling, that is.
Brad, that was interesting. I’ve heard that angle on Jesus’ siblings, but not on celibacy.
And I grew up listening to the argument that Jesus didn’t turn water into wine, because He just wouldn’t have done that, it must have been grape juice.
But I don’t believe it is helpful to deny historicity, just because it doesn’t fit our filter. We have to adjust our view to the facts, and not v.v. Otherwise we raise a whole generation of young people who can smell the hypocrisy, and understandably don’t want it. The same in the political realm, by the way.
So to me, Luke’s prelude in his Gospel (where he says that he has searched out everything carefully from the beginning) is an indication of the key to our faith. I want to know whether the body of Jesus rose from the dead, literally. It has implications for the dead bodies of my loved ones, and my own, of course. Which is a much more important issue than whether Mary was a virgin, or not, I’ll admit (and I’ll not go any further on that subject).
In the meantime, the church I grew up in has taken a much better approach to the whole subject of alcohol and the Biblical approach to it. It’s understandably conservative, given the problem of drinking in our society, but doesn’t try to use arguments that don’t exist.
It just occurred to me that maybe this blog isn’t a breath of air, maybe it’s escapism. I mean, a guy shooting little girls in a one-room classroom? Somebody throwing a puppy onto a grill? Good grief! No, there’s nothing good about it.
Herb, you asked to explain why Peter was married. Well, back in those days no one had invented the dishwasher yet, and he needed one. Ok, I think that is funny.
Note to self – don’t let wife read blog.
I hope you find that couch just as funny.
Randy,
I get your point.The Bible has some great rules to live by and I have no promblem with religious people(I’m the son of a preacher man)or religion.It’s just not for me.Considering my upbringing,maybe I’m taking it a little too for granted.I know it is of great solace to so many and there’s nothing wrong with that.What I appreciate about the Catholic church is the music and that the Mass is so short.I don’t know if you’ve been to “preachin” at a Methodist church,but those things could go on longer than an Allman Brothers’ concert.
Never ben to an AB concert, how about the Doobie Brothers?
I listen to Catholic Latin classics music during lunch at work and find it very relxing. My Faith can be a source of solace, but mostly it gives me a sense of purpose – a compass for life. Maybe one day it will be for you.
been
Now Dave, was that really Mrs. Dave, or did you write that bit about the couch?
Herb, Since I didnt write it and wasnt relegated to the couch, that may be someone who would like to be Mrs. Dave. hahahahahah
Fess up out there.
I confess, it was me 😉
Mark, you and I could make beautiful music together. Ping me.
“Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires.”
Sigmund Freud
A fascinating statement by a very troubled man… and yet is it therefore true that food and sex and air are an illusion that simply derive their strength from our instinctual desires? Oh but those are physical – I can see them with my eyes….I cannot see God, therefore He must be a figment of my imagination….but my love for my husband and children is absolutely real and it cannot be seen, other than in ways I choose to demonstrate it …. perhaps in that same way we cannot see God with our eyes except for the ways in which He chooses to demonstrate Himself….in the glory of a sunset, in the beauty of a maple tree in the fall ….could it be that our instincts are just such and so strong because God is actually real?