« Not at a loss for words | Main | More on Episcopalians and Druids »
October 28, 2004
Amazing Gall
Margaret Carlson sings the same old song in the LATimes:
Kerry supporters among the Catholic hierarchy have mostly remained silent. It's easy to see why. The gentle Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington said he felt "uncomfortable" with what some of his fellow bishops were doing. For his trouble, he got hit with an ad in the Washington Times with a picture of Jesus being crucified under the headline, "Cardinal McCarrick, Are You Comfortable Now?"Following a decade during which the bishops squandered much of their authority mishandling their own moral crisis, this would seem the wrong moment for them to go into politics. Their lawyers must have figured out that you can lose your tax-exempt status for endorsing a candidate, but not for excommunicating one. In the process, they've become the worst kind of cafeteria Catholics, choosing abortion while ignoring church doctrine on social justice, the death penalty (as governor of Texas, Bush led the Western world in executions) and war (on which God has sent a distinctly different signal to the pope). By singularly obsessing over abortion, the church runs the risk of becoming just one more special interest group, the NRA of the soul.
So - why does Margaret Carlson get to pull the big bucks at CNN and Time for being stupid, and the rest of us do our valiant, slighly more nuanced work for free?
(Isn't it interesting, too, that so many like Carlson are always scolding, say, those to whom life issues are foundational, for a lack of nuance or subtlety - and then they, in turn, produce garbage like this?)
I mean - who ran the anti-McCarrick ad? An arm of the Church? Archbishop Chaput's PR office? Uh - no, it was the American Life League, a pro-life organization that has no connection to the institutional Church (and is probably despised by much of it - remember back to the reception its group of touring students received in many dioceses last summer) and speaks only for itself. So they rake McCarrick over the coals? What does that have to do with anything?
And while at one point - about four or five years ago, I was really intrigued by the rather startling over-representation of Catholics in Punditry and even contemplated writing an article on the phenomenon, now I just want to haul them all into a room and at least try to educate them - every one of them, from Sullivan to Carlson to Dionne to Matthews to Dowd and yes, we will of course throw O'Reilly (once he gets off the phone) and Hannity in there as well. They are all, in their own way, responsible for spreading such misleading claptrap about Catholic teaching and belief, they could use it.
At the very least, what we're missing in their completely predicatable op-eds and appearances on Diane Rehm's show, is any sense of what the Catholic teaching on life issues is all about. We know this because none of them, including Carlson in this piece, will ever actually engage the issue and the basic question: "What are the moral dimensions, for a Catholic, of supporting a candidate whose record clearly shows that he is in the pocket of the abortion industry?" Amid all of the other verbiage on other issues, some of which can actually be valuable at times (although the case can and should be made that any opposition that Kerry expresses to any aspect of either the war or the death penalty (which he does support for terrorists) is not on moral principles, but out of strategic and policy concerns, so I fail to see how he gets a pass on those issues, from those who want to paper over his attitude towards the most vulnerable, either) - this fundamental question - which is really the question bishops like Chaput and Burke are posing - is never really confronted.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8343b624953ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Amazing Gall:
Comments
Nice post, ma'am, your indignation is palpable.
I'm so weary of hearing these essentially different moral issues, hugely different in kind and degree, all whipped into a homogeneous glop by this psuedo-intellectual commentary that it's become background noise to me.
Why don't you write something up and send it to one of these "big name" newspapers? A little sanity in the discussion would help . . . .
Posted by: Cornelius at Oct 28, 2004 9:56:06 AM
Well, first of all do the pundicracy and for that matter the mainstream press really report on anything at all, or rather what they'd prefer. When the pundits aren't "yelling" on Crossfire or Capital Gang, we're supposed to accept their prattle as "reporting" on "trends" or sincere "whistleblowing." But whoever drops in the sotto voce confidence man intonation, whether its EJ Dionne or David Brooks, or Steven Waldman on PBS's Newshour the other night, its basically someone trying to suborn you.
Kerry's position on the great moral issue of the age, an issue as great as slavery, is now as clear as his voting record.
He is a pro-choice extremist. He voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion. He voted against having parents notified when their teenage daughter is about to have an abortion. He believes we all must subsidize abortion for those who cannot afford to pay for them.
For Supreme Court applicants, John Kerry has hung out a shingle: "No Pro-Life Catholics Need Apply." That goes as well for Protestants, agnostics, atheists, Jews and any jurist who is either pro-life or a "strict constructionist" – i.e., one who would reinterpret the Constitution the way the Founding Fathers intended, rather than the way Earl Warren and Harry Blackmun distorted it to conform to their secularist ideology.
If Kerry wins, the pro-life movement in America becomes a hopeless cause for a generation.
John Kerry is the beau ideal of the National Abortion Rights Action League, an implacable foe of the pro-life position of the Catholic Church. Yet, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, who heads the panel of bishops debating what sanctions to impose on Catholic politicians who champion abortion rights, says, "I have not gotten to the stage where I'm comfortable in denying the Eucharist."
Let us hope His Eminence reaches his comfort level soon, before his silence contributes to the victory of a candidate committed to the death of a pro-life cause the cardinal professes to lead and love."
Posted by: al at Oct 28, 2004 9:57:00 AM
The underlying belief of the punditry class is that the sole motivation behind all actions is political. "Pro-lifers" (end quote) are only anti-abortion in an effort to get Republicans elected. "Pro-lifers" are Republicans in Popes' clothing. It is beyond the punditry to comprehend that a human being can have allegiances that are not political.
I hope against hope that I will one day be able to return to the Democratic party. At one time, I believe that the Democratic party was driven by a moral vision. Although, it has some remnants of that moral vision, it is presently more libertarian than the Republican party. The Democratic party (then the Progressives) was once the center of an admirable regulatory impulse, attempts to regulate human appetites toward the good. Now the discourse has degraded from the moral framework to a rights-based platform.
It will only take two advocacy changes to return me and millions of other. Convincingly jettison the advocacy of abortion and the gay agenda, and I'm back. I'm not in the Republicans back pocket, but I've been forcibly ejected from the Democratic tent. I will continue to support those who have at least some minimal level of moral vision on the lives of individual and specific human beings, rather than classes or populations of abstract homo sapiens.
Fiscally liberal and socially conservative. We're supposedly as rare as a passenger pigeon, but we once thought we could exterminate the mosquito as well.
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Oct 28, 2004 10:01:52 AM
Here is an excellent book on the Regulatory Impulse in US history. Prophets of Regulation: Charles Francis Adams, Louis D. Brandeis, James M. Landis and Alfred E. Kahn by Thomas McCraw.
When slavery, child labor, segregation, corruption, greed, etc. were opposed on "moral" grounds, the discourse was marked by great clarity. However, when revisionists recast these historical debates exclusively in the trappings of Western constitutional "rights," then it paved the way for abortion, euthanasia, pornography, promiscuity, etc.
Robert Kraynak of Colgate University, author of "Christian Faith and Modern Democracy: God and Politics in the Fallen World," is one of the leading critics of the "rights"-based program of Western liberalism. It is unfortunate that "rights"-based thought has increasingly been adopted in Catholic teaching, displacing the "morals" foundation.
I recommend that Democrats return to the moral vision of their early 20th century Progressive forefathers to regain the ascendancy of not only US politics, but the moral highground as well. We are waiting to join you, or you us.
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Oct 28, 2004 10:25:09 AM
Mark,
"The underlying belief of the punditry class is that the sole motivation behind all actions is political."
Would that include the pundits-to-be in the blogosphere?
I don't see Amy's cause for fussing. First, the piece is predictable, and it might have been a surprise to see Carlson write something about abortion. Second, if abortion is truly the issue that trumps all other things, why do Amy and other pro-life bloggers waste energy and time blogging about other topics? The cafeteria is indeed open for business.
Posted by: Todd at Oct 28, 2004 10:27:56 AM
Mark, I feel your pain, which I truly share.
Todd, that you don't see is your big problem.
Posted by: john hearn at Oct 28, 2004 10:30:49 AM
Todd:
"fussing?"
Thanks for the respect.
Further, I am a little tired of you reading into comments points that aren't there. What does your comment have to do with anything? What is your point, exactly? I say that Carlson and others, in engaging this whole issue, refuse to engage the real issue and the real question, which is not, as I described it in my post about "abortion trumping" all other issues - it's about framing the issue that the bishops she's taking to task want to engage accurately. Which Carlson doesn't, nor do any of her confreres.
Posted by: amy at Oct 28, 2004 10:46:20 AM
Amy,
Good observations so I'll add a couple of my own.
The bishops (not all but most) are doing a terrible job of communicating. Consequently, these ignorant pundits who make no effort to learn real church teaching get to spout off about the Roman Catholic church with no more knowledge than some catechism classes 20 years ago and the superstitions of their cafeteria Catholic parents. The bishops and other "official" spokesman (that they carefully chose) need to set the record straight.
Second, we need an informed Catholic in punditry to refute these nincompoops. Kind of makes you wonder if they speak with such authority about the Catholic church from such a small base of knowledge, is their knowledge of anything correct and/or comprehensive. I kind of doubt it.
Posted by: SiliconValleySteve at Oct 28, 2004 10:46:44 AM
Todd,
I am surprised at your response. I actually have something good to say about the Democratic party, the liberal project in the US, and you don't notice? I kiss your ring and it didn't even register. The gall, sir.
"[I]f abortion is truly the issue that trumps all other things, why do Amy and other pro-life bloggers waste energy and time blogging about other topics?" If you would read Amy's post and my replies, I don't see how you could ask that question.
Amy mentioned the centrality of "moral principles." That is what I bemoan in the present Democratic party, and it is what I pray they will return to.
As a Catholic, I believe in the immorality of the death penalty, of greed, of consumerism and consumption, of wealth, power and fame. I have posted against these as well. The Republican party is not the party of God. Yet, I have no problems with my conscience voting for candidates who hold moral positions and motivations on the most pressing moral issues of our era.
I believe that I would have been with William Jennings Bryan over McKinley. I would have favored Theodore Roosevelt in his fight against the accumulation of wealth. I may have even been able to support Eugene Debs in the repugnant 1920's. They were on the Left in their day, so I have no anaphylactic reaction to the Left.
But the Pro-Life stance today is the true Left, the actual avant-garde. We are not ascendant, and we know that Republicans, as well as Democrats, are co-conspirators in the Culture of Death.
I believe that I have far less allegiance to the Right (actually no loyalty whatsoever), than you appear to have to the Left. Wave your magic wand Todd over the Democratic party, make a couple of minor changes, and we'll be back.
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Oct 28, 2004 10:50:18 AM
Todd wrote:
Second, if abortion is truly the issue that trumps all other things, why do Amy and other pro-life bloggers waste energy and time blogging about other topics? The cafeteria is indeed open for business.
If Amy wrote about nothing but abortion, Todd and the other "Catholics for Kerry" would write her off as obsessed extremist and dismiss her opinions as not considering the "broad range of issues" before us in the election. But since she writes about other things, she's a "cafeteria" Catholic.
That's a clever position, Todd, as it enables you to dismiss pro-life arguments no matter what they are or who says them. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
This election is a good thing, because it is forcing the catholic Left to show its true character: like its paragon, John Kerry, the catholic Left will say anything to avoid assent to Church teaching on the primacy of life issues.
Posted by: Fr. Rob Johansen at Oct 28, 2004 11:21:45 AM
I'm with Amy on this one. Carlson's piece is intellectually lazy.
I remember in the lead-up to the Iraq war, one of the things that drove me nuts--even though I opposed the war--were the questionable arguments that were employed against it. I feel the same way about the essays that have been written by some (but not all) of Kerry's Catholic supporters. There may be a case to be made, but they are not making it well, and by arguing so poorly they create the distinct impression that the case cannot, in fact, be made.
This is not to imply, by the way, that one cannot find a certain degree of intellectual laziness among some of those who have criticized Kerry. It is certainly a bipartisan (or transpartisan) sin.
Posted by: Peter Nixon at Oct 28, 2004 11:58:11 AM
It amazes me that a mere Catholic like Kerry who is running for President is subject to anything other than respect for his Faith, however little or great it appears. I find is difficult to fathom how he can be called a creep or in the pocket of the abortion industry. He doesn't agree with your political stands, so his faith and honesty must be continually besmirched.
It clear to all that whether Kerry is a paragon of our Faith is irrelevant to his success as President. The current President rarely makes it to Sunday services, and seems to do quite fine with his faith-filled supporters.
As one of the punching bags of the Catholic left here, note that I don't avoid the Church's teaching on life issues and their primacy. I just don't buy the politicized Catholic Answers version of it especially designed for a political coalition with the evanagelical right. One thing that has surprised me during this election is how much the Catholic Republicans are in the pocket of their evangelical and fundamentalist allies.
Who's your daddy--James Dobson or Pope John Paul II? Many of you, including clergy, act like it is the former.
Posted by: George at Oct 28, 2004 12:05:01 PM
George, after Bush's GMA interview aired on Tuesday I think the Catholic Answers crowed may find inclusion of same-sex issues as "non-negotiable" somewhat "inoperative". I hear Dear Prudence calling.
Posted by: Esquire at Oct 28, 2004 12:17:21 PM
George,
It isn't that Republican-voting Catholics are in the pocket of evangelicals and fundamentalists. Rather, your word "allies" hits the nail on the head. It is in the intersection of Catholic interests and evangelical/fundamentalist interests that we become allies. Catholics certainly aren't 100% allies with Ev/F's, with their objective of converting Catholics to Protestantism. However, what we have in common, we have in common.
In the Venn diagram overlap between Catholicism and evangelicalism/fundamentalism is where the common ground of primacy of life is found. At this time in history, I believe that primacy of life is the most important matter facing this country. If a fundamentalist happens to agree with me, all the better. I won't necessarily recoil at the prospect of agreeing with one of the dread Ev/F's that abortion should be legislated against.
I'm fairly familiar with James Dobson. I see him as very strong on moral issues, but hardly a right-wing apologist for free-market capitalism or economic laissez-faire. If his moral stances overlap with mine as a Catholic, is it true that I am taking marching orders from him?
I see no a priori reason to be for or against the Republican or Democratic party. Do I have some undefined preference for the letter R or D better? I think you can give people a little more credit for their evaluation of the issues and their post-evaluation decision to vote accordingly.
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Oct 28, 2004 12:23:36 PM
Re: Abortion being like slavery
(Other than all the dead bodies it leaves strewn behind it, of course....) The real political problem with abortion is that, like slavery, it is so morally repugnant that it makes people complicit with it resort to ever-worse arguments and ever-deeper moral degradation. Deep inside, they know abortion is both wrong and fundamentally incompatible with American liberties and law. So they have to scramble deeper and deeper into the hole to avoid realizing just how much evil they're allowing to happen. So the more people become complicit with it, the harder it is to get rid of.
But there was a time when slavery was a private matter and a right, too. I've just been reading the slavery chapters of Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph J. Ellis, and I swear the parallels are chilling.
How dare those do-gooders poke their noses into the homes and farms of the South? Besides, the Southern people wouldn't be able to live if they had to support black people with wages...and we can't let anyone else have them. Oh, no. Slavery should be rare, but...somehow we don't do anything to discourage it.... But the rights of slavery must be protected at all costs, or the slaveowners are being oppressed.
It's hard to claim miscegenation or uprisings about babies, though, so the parallels aren't complete.
Posted by: Maureen at Oct 28, 2004 12:34:53 PM
I think that Amy is right to be upset about this article. To be intellectually honest, Margaret Carlson's claims - in particular, that the bishops have become the "worst kind of cafeteria Catholics" by "singularly obsessing over abortion" - need to be framed properly. That is, Carlson needs to engage magisterial thought about "fundamental and inalienable ethical demands." The CDF's recent Doctrinal Note on "The Participation of Catholics in Political Life," for example, suggests that abortion is a direct attack on "the basic right to life," and thus threatens no less than "the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person." Because of this, legal opposition to abortion is a moral principle which does not "admit of exception, compromise or derogation." Any responsible evaluation of the bishops' actions must take this into explicit account.
I don't think that what I've just quickly written will be new to anyone who has been reading this blog. But is there anything at all that we can learn from Margaret Carlson and the other pundits? I think that we need to grasp that, in the American public imagination, the issue of abortion has steadily become conceptually separate from the issues of social justice, the death penalty, and war. There is a clear danger that who are passionate about social justice, the death penalty, and war are increasingly unable to see their efforts as analogous to the aspirations of the pro-life movement. Furthermore, there is also the related danger that many others perceive that the intensity of the bishops' efforts against abortion completely secularizes these other issues, which then cease to carry any sense of theological urgency. Dead migrants become expendable.
I think that this unfortunate conceptual separation, evident in Margaret Carlson's claim that the bishops' concentration on abortion constitutes a form of "cafeteria Catholicism," is potentially disastrous. One of the major developments in John Paul II's thought has been the idea of "structural" or "social" sin. Starting from the exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, which spoke of a "law of descent," constituted by "the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins" which then result in sinful "situations" or "collective behaviors," the Pope has gone on to talk about a "culture of death." Far from being simply a mere slogan, the Pope's idea points to a "larger reality ... actively fostered by powerful cultural, economic and political currents which encourage an idea of society excessively concerned with efficiency" (Evangelium Vitae). Behind the sin of abortion lies "a certain Promethean attitude" marked by individualism, subjectivism, and a loss of "the sense of God and of man" at the hands of a "social and cultural climate dominated by secularism." As the theologian Fr Kenneth Himes has written, "Social sin is an aspect of our fated condition and we are ushered into the enveloping darkness of false consciousness from the outset of our lives."
That means that abortion is not just about abortion, but also indicts a "larger reality," a "false consciousness," that manifests itself at a multitude of sites. Thus, after condemning abortion, the CDF's doctrinal note quite naturally moves on to say that, "In the same way, one must consider society’s protection of minors and freedom from modern forms of slavery," and, "In addition, there is the right to religious freedom and the development of an economy that is at the service of the human person and of the common good ..." According to magisterial thought then, we might say that any political effort that treats the abolition of abortion as an solitary concern - one whose sacred prominence must inevitably detract from, rather than intensify, efforts to create a fairer economy - will be ineffective, if not destructive, because of a misunderstanding of the issue.
We can learn from Margaret Carlson and the other pundits that many Americans indeed feel, fairly or not, that the bishops' efforts against abortion are isolated from their efforts for social justice, against the death penalty, and against war. This is a disastrous situation that must be remedied.
Thannk you.
Neil
Posted by: Neil at Oct 28, 2004 12:39:42 PM
If you're frustrated now, Amy, wait until Kerry wins (which I'm afraid he will). The views and practice of Catholicism espoused by John Kerry, and such as Margaret Carlson, will become normative. Make no mistake: Kerry's victory will be for millions a vindication not just of liberal politics but of Carlson's brand of Catholicism.
She describes McCarrick as "gentle." In such a time as this in the world and in the Church, isn't gentleness in a bishop a fault rather than a virtue?
My unsolicited prediction: if Kerry wins, many of the gentle bishops of America will accomodate his view that a woman should have the legal right to abort her child, and urge Catholics to redirect their energies. They'll stop calling for the end of legal abortion.
Posted by: John Heavrin at Oct 28, 2004 12:41:03 PM
George and Esquire,
If there is something objectionable in the Catholic Answers stance to moral issues, I'd be interested in hearing it. The nudge, nudge, wink, wink, "can you believe these rubes" mode of dismissal just isn't sufficient for me to understand your disagreement.
On the other hand, if the bogeyman of the evanagelical right is invoked without any substantive exposition of your objection, then it seems that your complaint is purely political. You are opposed to Catholics joining forces with Ev/F's because....because....because....?
...the Democrats might lose? Not an answer.
...the Right will be in ascedancy? No answer.
Politics is secondary (at best) to morality. John Kerry's proclamations of his Catholicism have no weight for me. I hope to see respect for the most vulnerable human life instituted as the law of this land. Therefore, I cannot vote for Kerry.
However, as I stated above to Todd, you want me to vote for Kerry? Have him bag the advocacy of abortion and the gay agenda, and I'm back with him. It won't take much for me to move as, after all, the Republicans are hardly solid on these matters, but they at least have the consistency of warm jello whereas the Democrats are along the lines of evaporated water.
If your phone call doesn't convince Kerry to modify his stances, how does that make me a Republican hack? It doesn't, you know it, but it sure is fun to hammer away at folks as Right-wing Nut Jobs.
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Oct 28, 2004 12:45:24 PM
Neil, unfortunately abortion has been separated from other "social justice" issues by people like Karl Keating with his arbitrary "non-negotiable" list and the Bishops who've endorsed it.
They're the ones telling us to ignore the atrocities of Abu Graib and Guatantanamo Bay, and the fact that the penal system in most states virtually guarantees that people have and will be executed for crimes they didn't commit.
John, John Kerry's Catholicism won't become "normative" if he's elected. It IS normative, and depending on how the Catholic vote shakes out, may be the REASON he is elected.
Posted by: Esquire at Oct 28, 2004 12:47:53 PM
Mark:
If you don't recognize the CA guide as simply an arm of the Karl Rove/Tequila Deal attempt to suppress Catholic votes for Democrats, then you're simply naive. They arbitrarily picked 5 issues on which they felt George Bush was more in line with Catholic teaching, called those "non-negotiable" (i.e. you can't be Catholic and disagree with Bush on them) and ignored the remainder of the Church's teachings.
They then engaged in a side-effort to attack the USCCB's statement on Faithful Citizenship and the Bishops' questionnaire sent to the candidates as being too broad and considering too many issues.
But as the election gets closer and closer, Bush gets squishier and squishier on each of these issues. First he's bragging about providing the first federal funding for ESCR, then he's supporting civil unions for same-sex couples. Soon he'll join his wife and mother in supporting Roe v. Wade.
Posted by: Esquire at Oct 28, 2004 12:54:42 PM
Wait a minute! Amys's comments are pretty straightforward here. We have Catholic media pundits who could have made a point, but to do so they need to do two things:
1. clearly and accurately describe Catholic teaching itself.
2. Clearly and accurately ascribe the position being put forth by the political opponent (or Catholic Bishop, as the case may be). That hasn't been done very well and so I can see Amy's point: Why do these people get paid so well to do such a wretched job?
I've already said I think Bush should be impeached and I'll do what little I can to ensure he won't be re-elected but I'm certainly not going to suggest that Kerry is more pro-life than he leads us to believe or that the bishops are all wet because they don't react with the same vehemenence to the death penalty, Iraq war or (fill in social justice issue here:_________). Those arguments are weak and deserve to be ridiculed when they are made by supposedly intelligent people highly compensated for their intelligence.
Posted by: Joe Mc Faul at Oct 28, 2004 12:58:54 PM
Esquire,
Call me naive, oh great and wise one. How fortunate it would be if we all could be as omnipotent as thee.
By the way, I am aware of Bush's waffling and am not happy with it. I ain't happy with Rudy, Spector, or Arnold. Am I still in the Repub's pocket?
Yet, after the extinction of Robert Casey, I don't see much life for life on the Democratic side of the aisle. There are still life advocates in the Repub's...for now. I stay with them until the balances tip toward the Democrats.
Signed - A Catholic who happens to be voting for George Bush, but doesn't consider himself the chattel of the Republican party - yeah, I know, naive
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Oct 28, 2004 12:59:37 PM
"We can learn from Margaret Carlson and the other pundits that many Americans indeed feel, fairly or not, that the bishops' efforts against abortion are isolated from their efforts for social justice, against the death penalty, and against war. This is a disastrous situation that must be remedied."
Hunh? When have the bishops dropped the ball in efforts for social justice, against the death penalty, and against war? They're all over those matters, to the point of pointing to them to "balance" their pro-life position, for which some of them seem almost apologetic, before getting back to thundering about minimum wage.
Abortion is sui generis, Neil, because it is the killing of an innocent person every time. Surely you understand this, and that therefore it's more grave and more urgent, and needier of legal prohibition, than social justice issues not involving the exclusive killing of innocents.
The seamless garment can be a straitjacket, and is about to result in a Kerry Administration. I pray that good can somehow be drawn forth from such a situation, but I'm sickened that the right to kill the unborn will be enshrined safe, and sickened further that a Catholic president will be the one credited with the of Roe v. Wade. The impact of having a Catholic president who is a friend rather than a foe of abortion rights will be incalculably damaging, even if he manages to curtail combat deaths in the Iraqi war he voted for, supports still, and pledges to continue, and even if he manages to get an extra dollar for those earning the minimum wage.
What a literal disgrace is Kerry, pocketed rosary notwithstanding.
Posted by: John Heavrin at Oct 28, 2004 1:01:37 PM
Perhaps the only cliche that Ms. Carlson omitted was, "I was an altar server..."
Posted by: Zhou De-Ming 周德明 at Oct 28, 2004 1:17:23 PM
Esquire,
Exactly how is the CA guide issue selections "arbitrary"? I assure you that there is a great deal of thought that went into them and, as a matter of fact, they were written by men (my future father-in-law among them, in fact) who have no particular loyalty to Bush or to the GOP. As a matter of fact, my future father-in-law is a registered independent.
Please get your facts straight before you speak. Spreading innuendo for which you have no--absolutely no--basis for is not only deceptive, it is a slander against the fine, thoughtful men who wrote the guide. I think you owe them and everyone on this blog an apology.
Posted by: Tom Harmon at Oct 28, 2004 1:20:14 PM
