« Abortion Marching On | Main | Over in Illinois.. »
April 20, 2004
Must have been a good meeting
Between Kerry and Cardinal McCarrick.
Kerry's going to run right-to-choose ads in conjunction with Sunday's march.
Likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has started running television ads blasting President Bush for his pro-life position -- specifically his nomination of pro-life judges to various federal courts. The ads are timed to coincide with the national pro-abortion march on Saturday."The Supreme Court is just one vote away from outlawing a woman's right to choose. George Bush will appoint anti-choice, anti-privacy justices. But you can stop him. Help elect John Kerry and join the fight to protect our right to choose," the ad says.
"I promise to take the fight to George Bush every single day," Kerry says, closing the ad.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8342b221553ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Must have been a good meeting:
Comments
The man is a walking sacrilege. Enough reason not to vote for him.
Posted by: Charles M. de Nunzio at Apr 20, 2004 1:15:21 AM
This seems to me to be the wages of passivity and timidity on this issue by all of us as Catholics - bishops, priests, lay voters. It signals the real contempt of the pro-abortion political camp for the Church and for Catholic voters. Not just that we don't matter, not just that we are powerless, but that they are going to take this battle to us and crush us politically, as the abortionists do the bodies of American children, so that we know whose is in charge. We have heard so often that confronting these erring "Catholic" politicians might bring about worse problems. I suppose it could always get worse, but I'm afraid that it is hard to see how. At least if there is open, out-and-out persecution we would have the comfort of knowing that we had done the right thing, rather than muddle along in craven silent cooperation in this gastly business.
Posted by: Glenn Juday at Apr 20, 2004 3:35:55 AM
These ads reveal a fair amount of political stupidity. Pro-aborts are already going to vote for "Catholic" Kerry. Running these ads gains him nothing and makes him appear, which is a correct perception, as a pro-abort fanatic. Very bad for him in the red states. Kerry has yet to learn that he is running for President of the United States and not governor of Massachusetts.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Apr 20, 2004 6:29:05 AM
Kerry correctly surmises that:
1. Catholic voters who aren't for him on the abortion issue never will be.
2. A plurality of Catholic voters are in fact pro-choice.
3. Politics is about motivating your base to turn out.
I'm not saying I like it, but those are the facts on the ground, as it were. Mass. and R.I. are 60 percent Catholic and routinely give pro-abortion politicians wide margins of victory. There's no downside for Kerry on this - unfortunately. All he has to do is keep the blue states and add Florida and he has the presidency with a popular vote victory.
Some poll numbers (2001):
abortion mostly legal / mostly illegal
All adults 52% 43
Evang. white Protestants 34 63
Catholics 55 43
Non-evang.white Protestants 66 33
Posted by: WRY at Apr 20, 2004 6:52:09 AM
I didn't put much hope when it came out that Kerry had asked for the meeting with McCarrick rather than vice-versa.
Posted by: TSO at Apr 20, 2004 6:58:49 AM
WRY: lies, damn lies and polls. On the abortion issue pro-lifers have never been stronger. 2000 exit polls showed that Gore lost two-thirds of all voters who said that their votes were cast on the issue of abortion. In the 2002 elections to the Senate pro-life Republicans made impressive wins in Missouri, Georgia, Colorado and Minnesota against pro-abort Democrats. Those are the facts on the ground.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Apr 20, 2004 7:59:10 AM
Why the Demos keep trotting out Clarke's book, Woodward's book, 9/11 hanging jury- uh, commission. To get the press' attention off their likely standard-bearer. Check back next Wednesday, if/when GOP Pro-Life Congressman Pat Toomey terminates Arlen Specter's career in the PA Primary. Kerry is so dull, so inept, so alienating to Pro-Life people. Who vote, Consistently. As a bloc. And in the next few months, let's deal with the issue of just how Kerry cut loose from his first wife. If the Demos could slam GWB in '00 for his party boy days, well......
Posted by: Gerard E. at Apr 20, 2004 8:45:10 AM
You know, I tried to pony up some hope like a good little Catholic and look for a positive outcome from the McCarrick/Kerry "summit."
But, ladies and gentlemen, as the threads here have been speculating for so long - it's all so much smoke and mirrors. It is at this juncture evident that the only positive outcome that can be expected is ecclesial recognition that our "Catholic" politician has apostacized, and though we'd love to have him back when he's ready, he ain't livin by Church rules so he don't belong under the Church roof. Period.
How about NOW, oh hapless bench? We have a public indication of a private meeting that bore no fruit. CAN WE NOW have some substantive LEADERSHIP from our American Bishops on this (or any) ISSUE? Please?
Posted by: Steve Skojec at Apr 20, 2004 9:04:23 AM
I am confused. I would be less so if Church hierarchy spoke clearly, forcefully, consistently and continuously (and then backed these words up with non-equivocating action) on matters such as abortion, death penalty, war, society's obligations etc. In my own life I have been swayed from being in favor of the death penalty to opposing it because of Church pronouncements and in some cases Church leader action. This has not been an easy or always direct change in sentiment on my part. If Kerry is an embarassment as a Catholic, the Catholic hierarchy is an embarassment in the matter of leadership. It is either OK for Catholic politicians to claim Catholicism and receive the sacraments while actively suporting positions inimical to the Church and society, or not. For the Church to equivocate is a scandal. For the Church to become "Democrat" or "Republican" is to sacrifice its rightful role as teacher.
Posted by: tom at Apr 20, 2004 9:12:25 AM
The Catholic bishops , top to bottom , have a common problem , The Devil has their tongue .
Satan must be shaking his head in dis-belief ! How dumb they are and how easy it is
to pull their puppet strings and watch them
jiggle and dance to his tunes as the clowns and fools they are . " Good Show " As Rome burns and the " pew " catholics slowly writhe in agony , distress and heartbreak . AND THE MONEY
KEEPS A ROLLIN ' IN ! ! ..............
.
UNBELEIVABLE!......bennobody.....benkulp@juno.com
Posted by: ben kulp at Apr 20, 2004 11:29:27 AM
The Catholic bishops , top to bottom , have a common problem , The Devil has their tongue .
Satan must be shaking his head in dis-belief ! How dumb they are and how easy it is
to pull their puppet strings and watch them
jiggle and dance to his tunes as the clowns and fools they are . " Good Show " As Rome burns and the " pew " catholics slowly writhe in agony , distress and heartbreak . AND THE MONEY
KEEPS A ROLLIN ' IN ! ! ..............
.
UNBELEIVABLE!......bennobody.....benkulp@juno.com
Posted by: ben kulp at Apr 20, 2004 11:29:32 AM
Thank God for John Kerry! As the Boston Globe demonstrated in 2002, it is only persistent public humiliation that will force our bishops to even consider doing their job. Nowadays, I think that it is only Kerry's unremitting onslaught against the Faith, if anything, that will prompt our bishops to teach about abortion and public life, if only so that they can try to salvage some modicum of respect. ("Hey Ted, who's you're daddy?")
Posted by: Bill at Apr 20, 2004 12:18:06 PM
Amy,
A good meeting indeed!
Charles M. de Nunzio writes, "The man is a walking sacrilege. Enough reason not to vote for him."
But the conclave is likely a long ways off! :)
Posted by: Ian at Apr 20, 2004 1:10:50 PM
Same stuff, different day...and as I said a few days ago, we've still 8 months to endure this "walking sacrelige."
Posted by: Peggy at Apr 20, 2004 1:24:22 PM
Sorry: I can't spell "sacrilege"
Posted by: Peggy at Apr 20, 2004 1:29:20 PM
Three words:
Bell, Book, Candle.
Posted by: Puzzled at Apr 20, 2004 1:44:10 PM
Our priests and our bishops came from families which had voting patterns largely determined by the Great Depression as voting patterns in earlier American families were once largely determined by the Civil War. When they became priests and bishops did they transcend their birth families' voting patterns? I suggest that our clergy by and large are still caught up in the voting patterns of their birth families even if their families' parties now espouse some positions flagrantly contrary to church teaching. They are inwardly driven to see their familial parties with all their contemporary positions as somehow still compatible with at least some church teaching. This is my explanation of the inability of our bishops and priests to speak out against pro-abort Catholic politicians of the democrat party. To denounce them would be to denounce their pre-ordination roots reaching back to parents and grand parents suffering from the Great Depression. The tribe, the clan, family in the my and mine sense, not Christ, not the Church is still first.
Posted by: caroline at Apr 20, 2004 4:19:14 PM
Two excellent articles from the Liberal Media on this site's favorite issue:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/20/politics/20TALK.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1082481500-F20P7MwkrWTiN6QDlVgjkA
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/04/index.html#002860
By the way, I accept the Church's teaching, to the extent that it identifies abortion as an abomination and something always to be avoided. Never a good or acceptable choice.
What I don't accept is the Church's political strategy of attempting to compel, with the full force of the law, mothers from having abortions. It is, in my view, impractical (i.e., won't stop abortions even if the laws are passed) and unwise (alienates potentials allies on life issues--like me).
Posted by: George at Apr 20, 2004 4:33:28 PM
By the way, given the choice (no pun intended), in a primary I will almost always vote for the Democrat who is pro-life or for the candidate who my pro-life friends says they know and trust.
I usually avoid supporting candidates who have worked for NARAL and/or the abortion industry.
I even worked a pro-life Dem, come to think of it.
Occasionally, I stop by the Democrats for Life website: http://www.democratsforlife.org/.
Saw my first odd couple bumper stickers this weekend. J. Kerry for Prez and I Like All Babies, Born and Unborn. I assume the latter is pro-life, but maybe they didn't mean it that way. Probably not too common, but as an active Dem, I hear it all the time.
So maybe I will be allowed to receive His Body and Blood in the Reformed Catholic Church you all are planning? Sadly, probably not.
Posted by: George at Apr 20, 2004 4:57:07 PM
Thank God for John Kerry! As the Boston Globe demonstrated in 2002, it is only persistent public humiliation that will force our bishops to even consider doing their job.
Would rather have them just do what their state in life calls them to do, and forget about considering it their job.
I accidently figured out how to bold. Cool.
Posted by: Chris at Apr 20, 2004 5:24:57 PM
Caroline is right--the Democratic party at prayer is conditioned by the politics of their sainted parents and not by what is happening politically in front of their eyes.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Apr 20, 2004 6:48:58 PM
Caroline and Sandra Miesel,
Could you share the social science research that led you to your conclusions?
Posted by: Frank Gibbons at Apr 20, 2004 7:01:32 PM
Interestingly, abortion and Kerry's profession of Catholic faith were the only items that Russert left untouched on Meet the Press, Sunday. I guess Russert would be in the same trouble as Kerry and it helped them both not to talk about it? Nonetheless, Russert had plenty to challenge Kerry on and did a good job all in all.
Posted by: Peggy at Apr 20, 2004 9:32:49 PM
In response to George:
While I agree that law must conform to the culture (which makes a broad ban on abortion inconceivable in the near future), the moral gravity of the act makes it impossible to support its lawfulness. Arguments to the contrary remind me of those champions of states rights who, while expressing personal dismay with Jim Crow, thought that the imposition of federal civil rights laws was excessive. The horror of abortion, like that of legal segregation, has to be directly confronted. To do otherwise turns it into an anesthetized abstraction.
Posted by: Daniel Baker at Apr 21, 2004 1:04:16 AM
"It is, in my view, impractical (i.e., won't stop abortions even if the laws are passed)...." Excuse me for being blunt, but that's a silly thing to say. No law prevents anybody from doing anything: if any did, then we wouldn't have murders, rapes, robberies, etc. Laws provide punishment for prohibited, therefore criminal, activity. Besides, I think it's probablyh incontrovertible that some criminal acts are prevented because they are criminal and the potential criminal wants to avoid punishment.
Posted by: ELC at Apr 21, 2004 8:45:59 AM
