Deal W. Hudson

Am I too Cynical?

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Am I too cynical?  This week's Mr. Obama-Rev. Wright media-fest seems completely staged and contrived to me.   Rev. Wright is saying nothing different than what he's always said over the years when Mr. Obama sat in his congregation, and even as Mr. Obama made his March 2008 race relations speech.  But, of a sudden, Rev. Wright got big gigs to repeat himself for another repetitive round of national consumption - the only difference being that this time, Mr. Obama shrieks "I've had enough" and columnists scramble to assert "this will now put the whole issue behind him."   This looks more like stage play than news. 

(click on cartoon ... reprinted with thanks to and permission of Keith Rains at http://faithkartoons.com/)

A Word On Behalf of Balance

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Marc wrote:  While many of the readers of this blog are heading in front of their televisions or to attend Super Bowl Parties tomorrow, they should ask themselves who's got the best team spirit between McCain and Romney?  The loyal soldier who played in the team against all odds or the disproportionate ego who flip-flopped his way in political life?

Well, my goodness, Marc.  I know you are dying to get some Scotch from me, but I still get to pick out the bottles should your candidate becomes The candidate  - a little balance on your part might go a long way at the liquor store on my part.

More, balance in discussing Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney is intellectually appropriate.  Neither has a lock on legacy here - both have much to be said for their accomplishments and temperaments - and their "egos".  Indeed, one of the greatest observed weaknesses of Mr. McCain appears well-stated this morning at the Wall Street Journal and raises the very real worry that, under the pressured headiness of the Presidential Race to the Finish, Mr. McCain's unpolished performances may punch serious punctures in his support ( particularly in contrast to the oratorical excellence of Mrs. Clinton or, even more, Mr. Obama):

The [debate with Mr. Romney] exchange, along with some others, reflects a couple of Mr. McCain's less appealing traits. One is his occasional penchant for antibusiness demagoguery, as when he attacked drug companies in a previous debate, only to have Mr. Romney respond, "Don't turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys." Mr. McCain shot back, "Well, they are."

It's also obvious that Mr. McCain takes politics personally, which can shade into self-righteousness when people oppose his positions. One of our colleagues called Mr. McCain's performance on Wednesday a "victory snarl," which was about right. Should the Senator sew up the Republican nomination, none of this is the way to unite his party, or to reassure conservatives that his fall campaign will be about more than his personal honor or renegade habits of mind. (read more).

But it does not take Mr. McCain's awkward flairs of emotion, embellishment and ego, or the Wall Street Journal's editorializing,  to recommend a more balanced, analytic approach to this contest, Marc.  Consider the "Catholic" comments taking exception to points in Deal's column at InsideCatholic.com "Is The Catholic Vote Giving John McCain the GOP Lead?"   

Maurice Theriault wrote, "I don't trust John McCain. He's just too self-righteous for me. He continually accuses Romney of personal attacks while snickering at him and more than stretching the truth about the Iraq withdrawal date issue. He doesn't really stand stongly on legislation he has co-sponsored. He can make a grand speech, but start confronting him and you see the real persona come out. Catholics voting for him may get more or less than they bargain for."

Jeanine echoed the same concerns, "I'm worried about McCain-Feingold and about McCain's support for the Fairness Doctrine. Also, I have some concerns about McCain's status as a "maverick" Republican and about his membership in the Gang of 14. Has McCain sponsored pro-life legislation? Isn't he suspicious of voters who are conservative and pro-life? I don't really trust him. "

Then, on January 31, reader Judy Keeven sincerely added, "If you are supporting Sen. McCain, please RECONSIDER your choice. While he has many good qualities, his iriitable temperament, impatience and impulsiveness, and his reckless disregard for the truth (re: Romney's statement about time tables in Iraq) are huge red flags."

On the same day, Chris remarked, "His demeanor is anything but Presidential, in fact it is downright hostile. I shudder to think how he would act in high stress political negotiations with other world leaders."

As I posted on January 18, you may get the King you long for - but it is not the obvious choice you seem intent to bark upon.  We'd all do well to take Francis Wippel's advice:  "I hate to see all this bickering among Catholics. I do not disrespect anyone here because of their choice for President. There is no clear-cut conservative candidate in this race, and as we sort through each candidate's record, I hope we can get to the facts while still respecting each other's viewpoints."

Hard Not to Chuckle: Son Fools Father

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

It's a tad early for April Fools' jokes, but I am perennially entertained by the efforts my sons undertake to fool their Dad with fake award notices, false calls for help and phony messages.  For some hidden, gender-related reason, the telephone remains their tool of choice.  So, it's hard for me not to chuckle at Matt Romney's call to his Dad, posted on YouTube.  Cut and paste if you cannot pull up the video below or here.    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW-ecNxaycg

">

Getting the King You Want

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Today's reading gives me the encouragement I need to butt in here among the parsing posts directed at Mr. Romney.  "When Samuel had listened to all the people had to say, he repeated it to the LORD, who then said to him, “Grant their request and appoint a king to rule them.”   It's one of God's tricky tools - to give us what we beg for.

God's done this to me so many times I've developed a reflex against myself which I tend to extend to discussions like the one at hand about Mr. Romney.  For example, when I find myself extolling the pure virtues of one of my three children by lengthy dissertations on the faults of the other two, my reflex sounds the alert . . . "take care what you wish for, girlfriend."  Or, at least, "hush up for a few minutes and get some balance."

Now, call me silly, but the compounding, pounding posts on "he's no Reagan" Romney have started to seem more like a tirade against the candidate, in favor of the seemingly above-question, non-pandering, Churchillian Mr. McCain.  Perhaps I read too much into your fuss, or got lost in the length and detail, Deal and Marc, but I detect a tilt that some might call "one-sided".   

Surely, you neither intend to deflect the blogging world's discomfort with Mr. McCain by sheer din directed at Mr. Romney.  Whether you tap into Senator Santorum's recent expressions of concern about Mr. McCain ("John McCain looks at things through the eyes, on these kind of domestic policy issues, looks at it through the eyes of the New York Times editorial board, and accepts that predisposition that if you are not, if you stand for conservative principles, there’s some genetic defect."); or Michael Gerson's reservations (I don’t think he buys the kind of supply side ideology that has really determined American economic policies the last 25 years, particularly under both Reagan and the current President Bush. And so that is, I think, the real problem. I mean, he has a soft spot for regulation in his record."); or Judge Bork's warning ("“I don’t think that Senator McCain or Governor Huckabee deserves to be called a conservative.” );  or even speculations about Mr. McCain's commitment to pro-life ("McCain is campaigning on pro-life issues in South Carolina but he's not helping his cause by stoking the fires of speculation that he could pick pro-abortion Sen Joe Lieberman as his running mate if he wins the GOP nomination."),  there's no fair assertion that Mr. McCain is above question among conservative, church-going Catholics.

And talking about questions, I have two.  What do you think about a Mr. McCain-Mr. Lieberman ticket?  And, doesn't Fred Thompson warrant some cyberspace here?  ("The issue for us -- and for the conservative community -- boils down to which of the candidates is most representative of the fundamental conservative principles we believe in. The answer is Fred Thompson.")

If Mr. Romney Were Catholic . . .

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

My colleagues here have left me puzzling, “if Mitt Romney were Catholic” would they be forgiving Mr. McCain’s unCatholic position on embryonic stem cell research, his flagrant tampering with First Amendment rights and his equally disturbing flair for disregard of Republican conservative positions?  Hmmmm.  I wonder.

Marc wrote “In the Republican field, who can win the hearts and votes of the Catholics?  Romney - forget it” only shortly after Deal wrote “For many grassroots conservatives, and those from the Religious Right, Romney may be too big of a stretch.”  What explains this dismissive shorthand for a candidate who has garnered the endorsement of the National Review as “a full-spectrum conservative: a supporter of free-market economics and limited government, moral causes such as the right to life and the preservation of marriage, and a foreign policy based on the national interest." 

I do not think “flip-flopping” or “waffling” explains the current Catholic curry of enthusiasm for a candidate indisputably less “Catholic”, at least on embryonic stem cell research, than Mr. Romney.  I rather suspect, without charging, an unease with all things Mormon.  I understand this.  Fox’s own, typically-tolerant Father Jonathan Morris issued a suddenly detailed demand to account for faith disparities between Christians and Mormons when he faulted Mr. Romney for not injecting and explaining Mormon dogma in his December 6 Faith In America speech.  Curious what Father Jonathan would require of Mr. Romney when Catholic politicians are not called upon to use their political podium to explain the Immaculate Conception or the Eucharistic Presence.

Still, I think I understand.  I have spent a significant portion of every year over the last 7 years in Utah and count among my friends many Mormons.  That I find odd some of their beliefs has proved no stumbling block to friendship or admiration.  To the contrary, I find myself similarly disposed to admire the values and culture of this people as I once developed, years ago, in a Christian minority among practicing Jews in New Jersey.  I found agreement on doctrinal details quite secondary to shared values in family, social and political life, which abound and bind.

I do not find, in Mr. Romney, many of the reservations I have with the "I am Legend" McCain candidacy – which I outlined on November 30.  Indeed, Mr. McCain’s unwillingness to reconsider his position on embryonic stem cell research – even confronted with developments that appear to eliminate the need to create and kill embryos - and his history of flying solo on significant party issues like Mr. Bush's tax cut, the elimination of the death tax, judicial nominations (Gang of 14) and, of course, immigration leaves me wary of his ego-driven approach to leadership. 

So I am left thinking, like Mr. Novak, that “the attacks upon Romney's religion . . . are just not fair.”  More, I am left thinking that, if Mr. Romney were Catholic, instead of Mormon, the choice for church-going, conservative Catholics would not be difficult.  Am I missing something?

Seeing Mrs. Clinton's Selective Compassion

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Seeing what we want to see can be a willful trick of the human eye.  Mrs. Clinton's handlers, particularly Burns  Strider, her faith outreach "guru", know this.   From her 2005 assertion that abortion is a "sad, even tragic choice", to her "faith saved my marriage" comments in June, to her recent, personalized email outreach to "people of faith", Mrs. Clinton has mounted an impressive campaign to convince religious, values-voters that she is the "moral conservative" noted in your post, Deal. 

No illusion, however, can conceal the raw fact that Mrs. Clinton's moral concerns extend no concern, no relief, no dignity and no protection to unborn children, regardless their age, health or viability.  Mrs. Clinton recognizes the beating heart of an unborn only as a "reproductive" issue for women, with claim to "reproductive health services" which include killing the unborn life, without restriction and without even the basic human concerns (extended even in administration of the death penalty) for alleviating the pain suffered by the unborn child.   

In an effort to keep the religious eye turned from this glaring gap in compassion, Mr. Strider has launched an email campaign filled with religiously-appealing portrayals of Mrs. Clinton's faith in action.  One recent email, for example, trumped Mrs. Clinton's tenderness for AIDS-HIV victims and the role of the faith community.  She wrote:  "Our churches have a powerful role to play in raising the consciousness of the nation and the world to this pandemic and urge compassion for the sick and the suffering. When we come together, seeking the common good, we can find solutions to our biggest challenges and reinforce our faith that a call to action can change lives."

But even as Mr. Strider builds for her an Internet profile of faith, compassion and religious participation, Mrs. Clinton stumps her liberal, pro-abortion profile for consumption by the secular press anxious not to hear such religious chatter.  On the recent Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart upholding a partial-birth abortion ban, Mrs. Clinton dropped all pretense of compassion, all concern for the common good, all enthusiasm for the role of churches and religion and all interest in the suffering, remarking, "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health….  It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."  

Will voters compare the competing profiles of Mrs. Clinton as they weigh the candidate?  Will the email readers see a face of uncompromised compassion or hear a voice of fraud?  Will the seculars ignore the Burns Strider compassionately religious Mrs. Clinton and cling to NARAL's darling child?  Can we see Mrs. Clinton's selective compassion - her religious profile being cleverly overlaid upon her liberal, secular agenda, confusing . . . like the two images in this picture I have posted.  Can you see both images? - a face and a word . . . that begins with "l"? 

Mrs. Clinton Wants My Vote

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Mrs. Clinton wants my vote.  And, she has Burns Strider working to get it for her.  I caught glimpse of this outreach to Catholic independent voters, like me, at a blog post at Ad Majorem Dei Gloriem.  It's a bold move, part of a larger strategy to win back Catholic voters like me.  Will it work?

The effort, reportedly, consists of a circulating email, reprinted in full below.  Note:  at the link, you can sign up to be part of  "The Faith and Values Steering Committee: Building a Community of Supporters United in Faith, Family, and Values" but I can't, as yet, find the referenced document discussing Mrs. Clinton's faith record.  Given her 100% NARAL rating,  I know I'll find her as wanting as Mr. Giuliani on pro-life issues. 

But I have to admit, I'm interested.  I'm interested in this woman's faith, which, she says, "saved her marriage," a feat the star Republican candidate can't claim.      

Dear Friend,

We are starting a conversation with Catholics across America and hope you will join us. Hillary shares your vision for the common good -- quality, affordable health care for all Americans, better educational opportunities for our children, and a plan for peace and stability from Baghdad to Darfur. Together we can make this vision a reality.

Join Hillary's National Catholic Steering Committee to be a part of this campaign to make history.

To sign up, visit our Faith Steering Committee website:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/faith

Thank you for your support!

Sincerely,
Burns Strider
Senior Advisor
Director of Faith Outreach

P.S. I have attached a document that discusses Hillary's record on issues of faith. Please read it and pass it along to your family, friends, and neighbors.

The Catholic Tilt and Dems

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Well, Deal, Steve Wagner's predictions for the 2008 tilt of the Catholic vote may well prove true.  But it's hard, really hard, for me to buy into a Hillary Clinton "social justice package" that - no matter how the Dems spin it - excludes all unborn life, embraces expanded use of the death penalty and embryonic stem cell research, protects life in Darfur but not dying life in the United States and rejects a parental role for pregnant minors.

Can't the GOP, even with Mr. Giuliani, do any better than that?

Giuliani Celebrated as "Dionysian Catholic"

Deal Hudson

If you are a "Law & Order" fan, then you will know the name Michael Moriarty.  I got to know him from his wonderful 1973 film, "Bang the Drum Slowly," which you may remember.

Well, as it turns out (or as a Google search has revealed), Moriarty is a politically-active Canadian who has opinions about Mayor Giuliani. 

In this op-ed from December, 2001, he celebrated Giuliani as a "Dionysian Catholic."

Moriarty hoped at the time that Giuliani would replace Bush as the presidential nominee.  Perhaps he will get his wish in 2008?  Who knows! 

In the meantime, it may be instructive to ask just what is a "Dionysian Catholic," and what does it mean if Giuliani is one?

According to the star of "Law & Order," America's mayor earns that approbation by virtue of leaving his second wife and moving in with a gay couple.

"After leaving his wife, he moved in with a gay couple, openly celebrating their right to choose this alternative sexual lifestyle. His appearances in a rainbow of theatrical costumes sent the message   that the North American citizen will not be circumscribed by hypocrisy and smugly judgmental Pharisees."

Moriarty may have a point here, but he misses the more important issue: It's one thing to show publicly that you have a wide range of friends and can have a good time at your own expense. 

It's quite another thing to be "Dionysian" at the expense of Church teaching that protects innocent life. 

Dionysus was the Greek god of wine but also of passion and irrationality. When Dionysus takes hold of characters in a Greek tragedy people can literally get ripped apart.

So, yes, Moriarty has a point.  The "Giuliani Catholics," as I call them, are Dionysian but not in the sense of having a good time and wide array of good friends, but as those who reject the "mind of the Church."

And in the embrace of this impious unreason, death and destruction is the result.

No less than the atheistic philosopher Frederich Nietzsche recognized this long ago in one of his two doctoral dissertations, The Birth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Music.

A few years after writing this book, Nietzsche would announce "the death of God."

"Giuliani Catholics"

Deal Hudson

According to the Des Moines Register, Giuliani faced the Catholic question one more time yesterday.

Asked whether he was a traditional, practising Catholic, Giuliani invoked the "individual conscience" clause of the Catholic left.

He added that his candidacy had no "special appeal to the Catholic vote."

I wonder if he really believes that?  I think it is smart to distance himself from any overt appeals to Catholic voters, but I doubt if he really believes that he has no "special appeal" to them.

I think he views most Catholic voters as being much like himself -- Seeing their faith as a matter of "individual conscience," so much so that marrying outside the Church does not present a problem of remaining in the Church. 

What Giuliani needs to know is that the kind of Catholic he is, and the kind of Catholic voter he represents, is not a "Catholic" voter in any meaningful sense. 

"Giuliani Catholics" don't vote any differently than the general voting population. Catholic voters only begin to show distinctive voting patterns when they are deeply involved in practising their faith and upholding its teachings.

Giuliani as the GOP nominee, or Giuliani in the White House, adds legitimacy to the "Giuliani Catholic," the Catholic that neither partakes of the sacraments or defends Church teaching in the public square.