Deal W. Hudson

Huckabee Supporters Spread Anti-Catholic Message in Iowa

Deal Hudson

Members of the Brownback campaign in Iowa have received an anti-Catholic e-mail being
circulated among Evangelical voters in Iowa.  They are certain that it came from a leader
at Walnut Creek Community Church in Windsor Heights, IA.  The pastor of the church is
Rev. Tim Rude.

They also know the email has been in circulation for the past two weeks.
It came to their attention a few days ago when it was sent to a key Brownback
evangelical supporter.

The author of the e-mail appeals to anti-Catholic prejudice in an effort to
discredit Senator Brownback's "discernment" and character. He says that
Huckabee is "one of us" and he makes a reference to Catholicism as if it's a
disease or affliction to "recover" from.

The author provides evidence of the whisper campaign in his comment that, "I
don't [know] if this fact [Brownback's Catholicism] is widely known among
evangelicals who are supporting Brownback."

Here is the text of the e-mail, with the names removed, that was supplied to the
Brownback campaign:

"Dear XXX and XXX,

"Pastors XXX and XXX relayed to me that you are both supporting Sam
Brownback for President. It sounds like there is, in fact, regular
contact with Senator Brownback and yourselves. I applaud your
participation in the selection of the next president of the United
States. It is our duty as Christians to take our stewardship of
this country extremely serious. And I am sure that you are aware
that our entire Walnut Creek leadership staff, to my knowledge, is
supporting Mike Huckabee.

"On July 20, we drove up to Ames and spoke with pastors XXX and XXX
about our position and were well received. However, it sounds like
you are the men we need to communicate with about our advocacy.

"I am interested in your decision to support this candidate. As you
know, both candidates are down in the polls. Nation-wide polls
show Brownback at 1% and Huckabee at 3% amongst Republican candidates.

"About 3 weeks ago, I met the Governor personally. I learned that
he was a Southern Baptist pastor for 12 years. The Governor told
us that he concluded that people needed to gain positions in the
government in order to safeguard our Christian values. People need
to make that sacrifice. He served as LT. Governor prior to serving
as governor for 10 and a half years.

"The second time he ran for Gov. he gained over 48% of the black
vote. That is remarkable and it conveys he can really broaden his
base. I think he is electable. He is a remarkable communicator. 
I believe as people listen to him, just like in Arkansas, they will
like what he says and like him personally. I have listened to him
in private and over the radio. He is the best communicator I have
ever heard run for office. President Reagan was a great
communicator but he did not as closely represent a Christian
perspective as does Huckabee, although Reagan did a very good job.

"Huckabee is an evangelical. He has not learned how to speak to
evangelicals; i.e. Bush 41 & 43. He is one of us.  I know
Senator Brownback converted to Roman Catholicism in 2002. Frankly,
as a recovering Catholic myself, that is all I need to know about
his discernment when compared to the Governor's. I don't if this
fact is widely known among evangelicals who are supporting Brownback.

"The one criticism of Huckabee is that he raised taxes in Arkansas. 
First of all, is that he had to raise money to meet some Federally
imposed funding initiatives. When he took office, Arkansas was
47th ranked state in education. When he left office, they were
23rd rank. The roads were in horrible shape in the aftermath of
the Clintons. He raised money for them. This is a
constitutionally sanctioned responsibility of government. He cut
taxes 86 times in Arkansas. He left with a budget surplus that was
significant. He also left office with an 86% approval rating. He
can build consensus even in a primarily Democratic state.

"Michael Ferris of the Home School Legal Defense Association
enthusiastically endorses him as does the former Promise Keeper
magazine New Man.

"There is much more to say. Like you, we are trying to make a 1st
or 2nd place showing in the Iowa Straw Poll to give our candidates
a boost and viability. Money and media attention would be gained to
the winners. All Huckabee needs is exposure in my opinion. The
money will come and will the volunteers.  I would ask you to
reconsider your support of Senator Brownback; and lead your people
in not splitting the Christian vote among the two candidates. I
have been impressed with the pastors across the Greater Des Moines
area switching their support or giving their support for the
Governor. We are in Iowa for 'such a time as this'.

"XXX church is trying to gain 1000 votes of people who were not
planning on going to the Iowa Straw Poll from our efforts alone. 
Would you join us in accomplishing this goal?

"Brownback is a good man but there is a better candidate in my
opinion. One that will gain momentum as he is heard. The Gov. is
of true presidential character.

"Well, I thought I would give this a shot. I know it is hard to
change horses in the middle of the stream but I know you will
prayerfully consider what I have to say.

" Your brother and friend,"

End of e-mail

I'm confident Gov. Huckabee will quickly repudiate this kind of anti-Catholic
campaigning.  But it does demonstrate the kind of unfortunate resistance
to Evangelical-Catholic political cooperation that still exists in the American heartland. 

Deal W. Hudson
Executive Director
Morley Institute for Church & Culture
Washington, D.C.

An Opportunity for Brownback?

Deal Hudson

The annoucement that Romney is reducing his forces in the Iowa Straw Poll may bode well for the candidacy of Sam Brownback.

With McCain and Giuliani not competing in Iowa, and Thompson undecided, Romney is shifting some of his forces elsewhere.

That means a candidate like Brownback who has a natural affinity with Iowa Republicans and has a committed ground game in the state may show well enough to garner national attention.

I had thought Romney's strategy was to win big in Ames and roll on from there.  I'm surprised he hasn't stuck to that.

The USCCB as Political Pawn

Deal Hudson

Marjorie writes, "I am not worried, as Teri is below, that the USCCB is being used as a pawn by anti-war politicians."

That's precisely what I am worried about since, in my opinion, it is the primary mission of these Democrats to appear in unity with the Catholic Church. 

The fact that half of them signed the letter rebuking Benedict XVI says something about their actual unity with the Church. (Rep. Ryan of Ohio excepted.)

I would have exactly the same attitude toward a group of pro-abort Republicans, as I have made clear in my numerous Giuliani posts.

In principle I agree with Marjorie that the bishops should meet with political leaders who request it.  But they should also be aware that once they accept such a meeting it is their responsibility to state publicly that the meeting is not an endorsement. 

I think Bishop Wenski's letter accomplished that very clearly.

But if you track the media coverage of the upcoming meeting you will find that the USCCB cannot control how this is played out in the public eye.  The Wenski message will disappear.

Media allies on the left will make it look as if the bishops have joined forces with the Catholic Democrats in the House to condemn the Iraq War and President Bush. That message will become a drumbeat toward the 2008 election. 

Meetings such as this are all part of the grand strategy of the Democratic Party to make themselves look more faith-friendly, especially among Catholics.

By accepting this meeting the bishops are helping the pro-abort Dems to implement the strategy cooked up Mara Vanderslice and her staff at Common Good Strategies.

If you click on the above link you will see the recent Time magazine article on "How the Democrats Got Religion" prominently displayed in the middle of the page.

The bishops are providing the Democratic National Committee several hundred thousand dollars, if not more, in positive PR.

The Catholic Church Has No Official Position on the Iraq War

Deal Hudson

Those who think that the Catholic Church has an official position opposed to the Iraq War should read the following from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

After the enumeration of criteria for a Just War the Catechism says,

"The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

2309

" Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.

2310

"Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.^"

In other words, it is the right and responsibility of the President of the United States to use his prudential judgment regarding war and what is necessary for national defense. 

Individual leaders in the Church have every right to disagree with the prudential judgment of the President, but they cannot present their disagreement as the official, authoritative position of the Roman Catholic Church or "the Vatican."

When it comes to statements of the Bishops' Conference, the USCCB, the situation is clear: USCCB statements on prudential matters have no official standing from the perspective of the Vatican. 

So what is going on when the bishops meet with the 14 Catholic members of the House?  Whatever comes out of that meeting will be the prudential judgment of both bishops and politicians. 

In other words, their opinion on the Iraq War -- an opinion with no special moral authority. 

Should Catholics listen? Of course!  But they should listen without the assumption that the "Church"  is speaking to them with a voice that must be accepted in obedience. 

When pro-abort politicians like Rep. DeLauro (D-CT) say they are in agreement with the "Vatican" on the Iraq War they are simply wrong. (By the way, I think they sincerely believe the Vatican has an official position on the war.)

They are in agreement with the prudential judgment of some bishops and perhaps the USCCB, but that agreement pales in comparison with their disagreement with the authoritative and non-prudential teaching of the Church on the protection of unborn life.

THIS SIMPLE DISTINCTION IS THE MOST MISUNDERSTOOD ISSUE IN DISCUSSIONS OF THE CHURCH AND POLITICS. 

Giuliani is More Than Late

Deal Hudson

Drudge reports that candidate Giuliani is late for his campaign events.

That's the least of his problems!

Talk to any pro-life leader you can name and he or she will tell you that blocking a Giuliani nomination is their #1 priority. 

No need to spell out the disaster of such a nomination once again on this Blog.

In town (Washington, D.C.) to court religious conservatives for Giuliani is Bill Simon, Jr., erstwhile candidate for treasurer in the state of California.

Simon's father is the late Bill Simon, one of the most powerful intellects I have ever encountered.  And a man, for all his flaws, who served the Church in many ways.

Simon is not doing the Church, or himself, any favors by trying to sell Catholics and Evangelicals on Giuliani.

It will be interesting to see what names pop up on the "I'm for Rudy" list. 

So far the only names I have seen are those I would have predicted to sign on.  These are GOPers who rode on the Bush bandwagon but were never committed to the same issues as the candidate.   

It's too bad, when Giuliani announced early in his campaign he was going to appoint justices like Roberts and Alito it sounded like sort of conversion was in the offing. 

Guess not.

Catholics Against Rudy Web Site Launched

Deal Hudson

Stephen Dilliard, an attorney from Macon, GA, has created a web site called "Catholics Against Rudy."

Take a look: http://catholicsagainstrudy.com

Giuliani Takes the Money Lead, Predictably

Deal Hudson

The news that Giuliani jumped ahead of Mitt Romney in fundraising is not surprising. "America's Mayor" is precisely the kind of candidate old-time GOP leadership would like to nominate.

Giuliani would de-emphasize social issues and re-emphasize national security and the economy. 

The only thing wrong with that is that we need ALL three, and there is no reason that the GOP can't have a candidate who is committed to life, security, and fiscal responsibility. 

True conservatism is, in fact, based upon the intrinsic connection between them.

Among political fund raisers it is well known that most of the Bush network is still on the sidelines.  And some of those who have already "committed" to McCain, Romney, or Giuliani will start jumping ship when Fred Thompson makes his announcement. 

Right now I think it is Thompson's to lose, although Romney will show well in Iowa and New Hampshire, and Giuliani will continue to poll well as the guy who can beat Hillary.

But what if it's Obama? Will he be able to survive the inevitable onslaught of opposition research attacks on his character and background? 

Obama can survive only if he fights back the way Sean Connery counsels Kevin Costner in "The Untouchables."  "If they bring a knife, you bring a gun...." Remember the speech in the pews at the Chicago cathedral?   

(That venue, by the way, was of Connery's choosing, as was his St. Jude medal, not the choices of director Brian de Palma. Connery also was the only cast member to refuse the costumes of Giorgio Armani and picked his own clothing.) Some fun facts for the Fourth of July. 

Hey, it just occured to me that Obama is from Chicago, maybe he knows how to fight. Remember the scene when the Canadian mounted policeman says to Costner, "I don't approve of your methods." Costner looks at Connery and smiles slyly, "You're not from Chicago."

Obama will have to be "from Chicago" to get through this campaign in one piece.

It's getting dark outside, and I have a 10-year old who has been asking all day when it is time to light fireworks. 

Bishop's Conference Loses Control of Bishops

Deal Hudson

As I argue in my upcoming book Onward Christian Soldiers (Simon & Schuster, Oct 2007) the biggest loser in the 2004 was the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 

The USCCB lost control of its bishops on the issue of abortion and politics. 

Bishop Raymond Burke opened the floodgates when he publicly criticized John Kerry. Instead of suffering the fate of the Lone Ranger, like Bishop Bruskewicz in the past, Burke found himself joined by at least a dozen other bishops, even after he kept up his criticism from his new post in St. Louis.

Cardinal McCarrick did his best to damp down criticism of the Democratic nominee with his awkward, at best, handling of a Ratzinger letter that supported bish0ps like Burke. McCarrick's attempt to misrepresent the letter was exposed and McCarrick lost his clout with the Vatican. 

Now we have pro-abort Catholics running the House of Representatives and seeking the GOP presidential nomination. 

Thus far only Giuliani has drawn direct fire (Bishop Tobin of Providence, RI), but Bishop Serratelli of Patterson, NJ, took more general aim, saying pro-abortion Catholics should not get communion, period . 

And, when 18 of the pro-abort Catholic Democrats in the House sent a letter criticizing Benedict XVI for his comments on abortion and communion, it fell flat. Even the USCCB had to distance itself. 

Look for more and more individual bishops to make their views known.  If Giuliani gets close to the nomination he will get the Kerry treatment, and maybe more, because he is a Republican.

Archbishop Chaput's recent Associated Press interview is a warning shot portending what is going to happen in the 2008 election.

The bishops are tired of being viewed as lacking the courage to address the issue, although some of them have. They are also tired of being shackled by "collegiality" with other bishops when all that means is "don't hurt the Democratic Party." 

Bishops like Chaput have been strong leaders but they have also held their tongues, trying to be team players. 

But that restraint, in my opinion, is coming to an end.  With Skystadt as president of the USCCB and Cardinal George as his successor there is not much that the Conference is going to alter its alignment with the Democratic Party. 

You may recall George's famous public comment from 2004, that the Democrats had "lost their soul," but the Republicans "never had one." 

If you want to know where George and most his fellow bishops are politically, just look at that comment and take it seriously.   

At present there are 30 to 40 of the nation's bishops who are ready to engage on their own -- and they will in the coming political season.

Why All the Attention to Romney?

Deal Hudson

My e-mail box keeps filling up with attacks on Romney's flip-flopping. OK! We get the message already!

Meanwhile the man who is posed to get the nomination, and who hasn't EVEN MADE THE PROMISES Romney has made, gets little attention from the other candidates. 

Where are the e-mails from the GOP candidates about Giuliani. Isn't he the real threat to the pro-life, pro-family coalition that has kept Republicans on the side of the angels for 30 years?

I don't think bombarding Romney will get anyone nominated.  And I don't think it serves the cause of the greater good.

Maybe the purpose of these attacks is to bring Romney down in Iowa and New Hampshire. If so, I would advise limiting them to those states.

Get a grip on the big picture, which is RUDY VS. FRED.

Fred is set to capitalize on Rudy's sinking popularity among social conservatives, and Romney will capitalize on any of Fred's mistakes, if and when he makes them. 

Meanwhile, beating on Romney looks like in-fighting over 5 percent of the vote.

It’s not really “for the children”

Connie Marshner 

What I object to, Deal, is the hypocrisy of using “the children” as pawns. I don’t believe for a moment that John Dingell and Hillary Clinton really care about children. What they want is universal health care, and they’re doing it through SCHIP because it makes the selling of the idea so much easier.  

Deal, why do conservatives have to offer government programs for children? Conservatives will always lose the bidding wars with liberals when it comes to expanding the size of government – though the Administration is in favor of re-authorizing SCHIP. 

Conservatives believe that parents are the best ones to address the needs of children. Thus, conservative health care reform (e.gg., Senator Coburn’s Health Choice Act and state health insurance exchange initiatives in various states) focuses on giving more choice to consumers, read: parents.

If there is consumer-driven health care, then and only then can there be values-driven health care. Let me explain. 

Yesterday I mentioned the $50 billion over five year price tag of some of the SCHIP reauthorization proposals.

But it gets worse. 

The enabling legislation does stipulate that the federal government shall not pay for abortion using SCHIP dollars except in the case of rape, incest, or life of the mother. It also stipulates that other state, local, or private funds are not affected. 

In at least one state, Michigan, state officials originally were under the impression that SCHIP was required to fund abortion, contraception, and sterilization services under SCHIP. (Never mind why a children’s health program would need sterilization services!). One very tough Catholic layman in
Michigan worked at it for several years, and finally got Michigan to pass legislation to explicitly prohibit abortion, sterilization, or contraception with SCHIP money.

Only one other state,Pennsylvania, is known to exclude the funding of sterilization and contraceptive services for children with SCHIP dollars. That is through the efforts of one very sharp nun, Sister Claire Christi Schiefer, who heads the Pennsylvania Catholic Health Association. She had her antennae up when Pennsylvania was implementing SCHIP, and let it be known that the Catholic health institutions in the state would not participate unless morally-objectionable services were prohibited.

Guess what?

Pennsylvania prohibited them straight away.

But what about the other 48 states? Some of those states fund abortion with Medicaid dollars, and Medicaid and SCHIP are combined programs in some states.

So it’s not all about conservative economic principles (though those are valid). It’s also about parents’ rights. It’s also about freedom of conscience. It’s also about morally-objectionable health services. It’s about the right of citizens not to be required to fund morally objectionable medical services.

 It’s not really “for the children” at all, is it?  It’s also about whether we will have socialized medicine now or a few years from now. 

In my next post I’ll talk more about conservative health care reform.