The Final US Election Thread

Lemur:

The Church deals in morality, not popularity.

Abortion has long been held, by the Church, to be little different than murder. Therefore, it considers it sinful to support a politician who unequivocally advocates/supports such a practice in the same fashion as it would decry -- on moral grounds -- a politician who wished to legalize manslaughter or agravated assault. To question the sanity of those following this line of reasoning is unkind -- it is neither poorly thought out nor done frivolously.

Catholics vote in the privacy of a voter's booth like anyone else. How they vote is their business. The Church renders judgement of the morality of one's choices -- including voting -- and encourages any who have 'strayed from the path" to seek Reconciliation.

Because the Church has (rightly) chosen to follow a neutral path on most political issues does NOT mean that the Church wishes to abrogate its responsibilities as a moral force for good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Because the Church has (rightly) chosen to follow a neutral path on most political issues does NOT mean that the Church wishes to abrogate its responsibilities as a moral force for good.

---

I just find it astonishing that on this, of all issues, the Church is telling its members that to vote in a certain way is a sin which one must atone for. Frankly, I think it's insane.

Are they pretending that a McCain administration would somehow have done away with abortion? Because that would not have happened. Are they imagining that an Obama administration will lead to a rise in abortions? If so, they should have the wherewithal to make that argument.

And to pretend that one political party holds the moral high ground is equally insane and selective. The Republicans authorized torture during their watch, not to mention a war which the Pope himself has condemned. I've yet to hear Catholics who voted for George W. Bush being asked to atone for that particular sin.

Frankly, the whole thing is arbitrary and ill-conceived, and only robs the Church of authority. I think they're just having an ecclesiastical hissy fit because a majority of Catholics voted for Obama, despite clerical pressure not to do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Minnesotans have a fairly long tradition of electing "unusual" politicos. In my opinion, they have a rather rich collective sense of humor and they do it for the entertainment value.

---

[/innocent]

My dear Seamus, whatever are you talking about? Surely I know know not of which you speak....

[/innocent]

Another highly questionable move from another Catholic priest:

Elizabeth Caster said the Rev. Sebastian Meyer humiliated her in front of the congregation at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in Fairfield, saying from the pulpit, "We cannot have a car with Obama signs written on it on these premises. And I don't care who Obama is."

He continued: "I want this car off the premises in 10 minutes or it will be towed. Whoever's vehicle this is, I want it removed. I don't want to see that car anywhere around here," she said. [...]

Caster said the priest followed her and her 10-year-old son out of the church and refused to let her move her Toyota Sequoia, which was parked between two other cars in a loading zone outside the church, anywhere else in the parking lot.

Caster, who was contacted by many concerned church members the next day, believes it was the Obama slogans that riled the priest. Among those who watched Sunday's incident was Joanne Smith, who said she has seen vehicles parked in the yellow zone with signs supporting John McCain. She also was curious about why Caster's vehicle was singled out.

If you read the article, you'll see the priest also gets physical with a reporter who asks him about this incident.

It's not surprising that the Catholic Church contains some priests who are a few wafers short of communion; what's interesting is how they are dealt with by the Church hierarchy. Or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil anti-Obama Catholics

"It took a lot out of me to sit there and not walk out," Sherrod said.

---

How about they do walk out then?

I mean, it's fine with me that people spend their weekends listening to grown up men prancing about in purple Roman toga-party outfits and telling them that wine is blood and Obama the antichrist. Why would anyone cry over it?

I once went to a hippie gathering. Lots of old guys in druid dresses who gave out magic potions that made me invincible and who told me to vote green or the sky would come falling down. Didn't mean I went crying to the press over it either.

What's next? People complaining that their Santa Claus at the shopping mall was collecting for the wrong charity?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I just find it astonishing that on this, of all issues, the Church is telling its members that to vote in a certain way is a sin which one must atone for. Frankly, I think it's insane.

Are they pretending that a McCain administration would somehow have done away with abortion? Because that would not have happened. Are they imagining that an Obama administration will lead to a rise in abortions? If so, they should have the wherewithal to make that argument.

And to pretend that one political party holds the moral high ground is equally insane and selective. The Republicans authorized torture during their watch, not to mention a war which the Pope himself has condemned. I've yet to hear Catholics who voted for George W. Bush being asked to atone for that particular sin.

Frankly, the whole thing is arbitrary and ill-conceived, and only robs the Church of authority. I think they're just having an ecclesiastical hissy fit because a majority of Catholics voted for Obama, despite clerical pressure not to do so.

---

I find your use of the term "insane" somewhat offensive. The Church is a part of my identity.

You are correct in assessing the likely efforts of a McCain administration on this issue, and you make telling points about how other inconsistencies undermine the efforts of the Church to communicate clearly and effectively on some moral issues. The Church does not agree with a number of the policy decisions made by the Bush administration and has spoken against them, but the pre-vote message from the bishops did not address this inconsistency -- which may well have washed out any effort made.

I certainly think you make a good point on the "hissy fit" comment, as your "parking lot priest" example in a later post underlines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

I find your use of the term "insane" somewhat offensive. The Church is a part of my identity.

---

Hmm, I certainly don't mean that the Catholic Church is insane, but rather that this particular take on this particular issue* is insane. I never intend to insult or demean the Church, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression somehow.

Reading a bit further on the subject, it seems that what we have here is a few isolated priests allowing their political disappointment to overwhelm their good sense. There is a bit of movement from a certain Archbishop, but he's not the force behind these two priests' looniness.

I think the conclusion is obvious: Priests must not be allowed to watch Fox News immediately before services.

*And as it turns out, it was only a particular priest whose actions may or may not be within orthodoxy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And to pretend that one political party holds the moral high ground is equally insane and selective. The Republicans authorized torture during their watch, not to mention a war which the Pope himself has condemned. I've yet to hear Catholics who voted for George W. Bush being asked to atone for that particular sin.

Frankly, the whole thing is arbitrary and ill-conceived, and only robs the Church of authority. I think they're just having an ecclesiastical hissy fit because a majority of Catholics voted for Obama, despite clerical pressure not to do so.

---

Do the numbers. Yes, the church has come out against the war and torture, but we're still looking at around 1 million abortions a year aren't we? If those really are murders, as the church believes, why wouldn't that be the number 1 issue?

Xiahou, as I have made clear in two posts since the one you quoted, it's now clear that these actions were the aberrant hissy fits of a couple of priests with no backing from the Church hierarchy. It's also clear that a few priests with Republican sympathies have become unhinged by the notion that a majority of their flock supported Obama.

Speaking of which, Joe Carter finds an interview where Obama expresses views that diverge from the Nicene Creed, and concludes that the President-elect is a "fake Christian." Lovely. Never mind the fact that Mormons, Christian Scientists, Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses also fall outside the Nicene Creed. It seems to me that this is a nasty little road that has no ending, where Christians of no real standing or authority get to decide who is a "real" Christian and who is not.

Here are a few of my takeaways from reading the interview:

1. Obama is not a orthodox Christian. He may call himself a "Christian" in the same way that some Unitarians use the term to refer to themselves. But his beliefs do not seem to be in line with the historic definition.

2. In the 20 years that Obama attended Trinity, did he never hear a clear exposition of the Gospel? Did the Rev. Jeremiah Wright never once preach on the need for a saving faith in Christ? If not, then that is more scandalous than any of the anti-American remarks Wright made from the pulpit.

3. Although I already pray for Obama (as the Bible commands me to do) I now realize that I also need to pray for his eternal soul and not just that he be an effective leader of our nation. I also pray that he will find a spiritual leader who will help lead him to a true knowledge of Christ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Here are a few of my takeaways from reading the interview:

1. Obama is not a orthodox Christian. He may call himself a "Christian" in the same way that some Unitarians use the term to refer to themselves. But his beliefs do not seem to be in line with the historic definition.

2. In the 20 years that Obama attended Trinity, did he never hear a clear exposition of the Gospel? Did the Rev. Jeremiah Wright never once preach on the need for a saving faith in Christ? If not, then that is more scandalous than any of the anti-American remarks Wright made from the pulpit.

3. Although I already pray for Obama (as the Bible commands me to do) I now realize that I also need to pray for his eternal soul and not just that he be an effective leader of our nation. I also pray that he will find a spiritual leader who will help lead him to a true knowledge of Christ.

---

What is wrong with that? He is entitled to his own opinion. Unitarians that I've met are rarely any more Christian than Muslims that I've met. The United Church of Christ is pretty much the official church of U.S. Progressives who don't want to give up Religious affiliation.

Obama doesn't seem to have an in-depth knowledge of his faith aside from a few key buzzwords. (I'm still in search of Dreams and Audacity). He's probably a "Sibboleth Sayer" - he wouldn't be the first US president to be one. His Religion is a socially progressive brand of U.S. Politics. He views God as a tool to communicate with constituents.

Christians need to pray for everyone's soul - from the murderous atheist to the Pious Pope.

I shall happilly leave their uneasy balance between church and state to our American patrons.

Meanwhile, Obama is surrounding himself with former (Bill) Clinton aides. There is even talk of naming that woman Secretary of State. I, for one, am quite happy with this recent turn of events. :knight:

Anybody else happy / disgusted at the prospect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I shall happilly leave their uneasy balance between church and state to our American patrons.

Meanwhile, Obama is surrounding himself with former (Bill) Clinton aides. There is even talk of naming that woman Secretary of State. I, for one, am quite happy with this recent turn of events. :knight:

Anybody else happy / disgusted at the prospect?

---

Oh, utterly disgusted, but not suprised.

Obama's first 2 orders of business will be to appoint Emanuel and Clinton to his Cabinet. Congratulations people in the middle who voted for Obama in order to close the doors of the present to the social conflicts of the past 20 years.

I want Chuck Hagel to get a nod in this administration.

clinton..... as secretary of state..... thats scary...
:ahh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Oh, utterly disgusted, but not suprised.

---

Seconded. It's already bad enough that she's a Senator. The notion of her wielding even more power and influence is abhorrent to me.

Let's see... Clinton behaved like an spoiled child throwing a tantrum during the primaries, and provided John McCain with arguments (albeit bad ones) against Obama, using ad hominem arguments just like McCain did, and almost buried the Democrats in resentment over her failure to win the nomination, with many choosing not to support the ticket even though the policies were nearly identical, and instead sit out the election or support the rival ticket, which directly contradicted their stated philosophy.

Clinton is therefore an unwise choice in such a responsibility-bearing position in our government, because she's low, dirty, and unethical. She'd step over her own mother to seize power.

My first mark in the dissatisfied column for Obama thusfar. I hope I'm wrong.

I hope the rumours are wrong and that he gives the Secretary of State position to Richardson instead. He is much more qualified and I think would make a great Secreatary of State.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I hope the rumours are wrong and that he gives the Secretary of State position to Richardson instead. He is much more qualified and I think would make a great Secreatary of State.

---

I'd be much happier with Richardson.

Agreed.

Richardson is experienced, qualified, and very good at what he does. I also don't get a lot of "partisan idealogue" from him.

I think Reps and Dems alike would prefer this man. Hillary is a bitter, divisive, fake politician.

I don't understand the Clinton pick, if true. The two biggest organizational challenges she ever faced -- healthcare reform and her Presidential campaign -- were utterly dysfunctional. She has not demonstrated that she can organize a one-person parade without infighting. Sure, the Clinton name has tremendous cachet overseas, but last I heard the State Department was in bad need of rebuilding after the neglect and abuse the Bush administration heaped upon diplomats and diplomacy. Why would Hillary Clinton be the right person to rebuild?

Also, her hubby has gotten into a slew of shady deals around the world. Won't his business shenanigans create a series of conflicts-of-interest for Madame Secretary?

Trial balloon either by Clintonites and "we want them both" dem supporters who like her still OR by Obama's team trying to learn if he can stiff her without ticking off too many in the party. The current lack of enthusiasm suggests it will not be she.

Do you see him tapping McCain for a slot? SecDef?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Do you see him tapping McCain for a slot? SecDef?

---

An interesting question, Seamus. I personally would certainly have no objection, as I've long been a fan. Could cause some major head-butting between him and Barack, though, if he were offered (and accepted) the post.

I am most surprised at the lukewarm reception here of Hillary's possible promotion to SecState. ~;)


McCain for SecDef would be fantastic. A whopping bipartisan statement for one. And McCain would simply be an excellent SecDef. Some reasons that immediately spring to mind: credibility within his own ranks, no torture, he's usually right about Iraq.
I don't see it happening, but it would be great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Sure, the Clinton name has tremendous cachet overseas, but last I heard the State Department was in bad need of rebuilding after the neglect and abuse the Bush administration heaped upon diplomats and diplomacy. Why would Hillary Clinton be the right person to rebuild?

---

She wouldn't be the right person. I think I am the only one abroad who likes Hillary. The name Clinton is remembered fondly, but remembered as a name of the past. Might as well send Carter. The rest of the world just wants to see Obama at the moment. It's Obama this and Obama that. A complete mania. If I were him right now, I'd seize the opportunity to get myself elected God and Eternal Overlord of all Man.

I think Obama ought to keep Gates around for a little while at SecDef. He seems qualified and competent, but this might just be my reaction after having Rummy in the spot...

Hillary for State would be a disaster. She and Bill would try to steal the spotlight whenever possible. Pros would include more situations of "sniper dodging" though.

For this libertarian/conservative, Attorney General is the position I'm looking at closely. Justice is in serious need of an overhaul, and OLC need to be both completely exposed and disbanded. Hopefully he picks somebody with at least a vague working knowledge of the Constitution. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Do you see him tapping McCain for a slot? SecDef?

---

While I think he is a good man for a job, I would also be hoping a qualified Democrat could be found - it would help the party break out of the mould of being weak on national security and defence. Perhaps Wesley Clark could fit in well there? Love him or hate him, you have to admit he would be qualified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I hope the rumours are wrong and that he gives the Secretary of State position to Richardson instead. He is much more qualified and I think would make a great Secreatary of State.

---

I quite liked Richardson at first; then his primary campaign when to :daisy: and he tried to gather scrap votes by promising that he'd pull back all troops from Iraq instantaneously when elected. The other democratic candidates reprimanded him for it.

I'd still pick him instead of Clinton, of course.

A good, pithy summary of why Hillary R. Clinton should not be SecState:

1. Hillary Clinton will have her own agenda (as will her husband). She’s not a team player and will bring in a crew of cronies whose chief aim will be to promote the boss, not the administration. Obama may wake up one day and discover that Hillary has decreed a new “Clinton Doctrine” of foreign policy.
2. It would be impossible, politically, to fire Hillary. No matter what she says or does, or how insubordinate, Obama will be stuck with her as long as she wants to stay.
3. Her husband is a walking conflict of interest. Bill helps a Canadian businessman land a uranium contract in Kazakhstan, and soon afterwards the businessman contributes to the Clinton Foundation. Bill’s personal and business dealings are embarrassing enough without Hillary heading the State Department.
4. The Clinton style of management–for example, pitting one faction of staff against another–would be a disaster at the State Department. Just look at how well it worked on the campaign trail.
5. And the strongest strike of all against Hillary as secretary of state… look at who endorses her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A good, pithy summary of why Hillary R. Clinton should not be SecState:

1. Hillary Clinton will have her own agenda (as will her husband). She’s not a team player and will bring in a crew of cronies whose chief aim will be to promote the boss, not the administration. Obama may wake up one day and discover that Hillary has decreed a new “Clinton Doctrine” of foreign policy.
2. It would be impossible, politically, to fire Hillary. No matter what she says or does, or how insubordinate, Obama will be stuck with her as long as she wants to stay.
3. Her husband is a walking conflict of interest. Bill helps a Canadian businessman land a uranium contract in Kazakhstan, and soon afterwards the businessman contributes to the Clinton Foundation. Bill’s personal and business dealings are embarrassing enough without Hillary heading the State Department.
4. The Clinton style of management–for example, pitting one faction of staff against another–would be a disaster at the State Department. Just look at how well it worked on the campaign trail.
5. And the strongest strike of all against Hillary as secretary of state… look at who endorses her.

---

I would rather see Obama go across party lines and take some one like Dick Luger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I don't understand the Clinton pick, if true. The two biggest organizational challenges she ever faced -- healthcare reform and her Presidential campaign -- were utterly dysfunctional. She has not demonstrated that she can organize a one-person parade without infighting. Sure, the Clinton name has tremendous cachet overseas, but last I heard the State Department was in bad need of rebuilding after the neglect and abuse the Bush administration heaped upon diplomats and diplomacy. Why would Hillary Clinton be the right person to rebuild?

Also, her hubby has gotten into a slew of shady deals around the world. Won't his business shenanigans create a series of conflicts-of-interest for Madame Secretary?

---

Well if you buy into the whole, 'time for change', 'audacity of hope', fresh start, new American era B.S. then Clinton's appointment makes absolutely no sense.

However, if you look at this using a purely political lens then Hillary Clinton's appoinment as Secretary of State makes total sense.

First and foremost it helps ease the pain of Obama's victory. People seem to forget that Obama's whirlwind campaign threw a giant wrench in the grand plans of the Democratic party (as orchestrated by the Clintons). Obama's nomination not only knocked the Democrat's favorite daughter out of the race but it also ran afoul of that same daughter's monstrous political machine. Let us also not forget that Hillary had great difficulty keeping her campaign funded in the latter stages of the primaries. Obama's piles of campaign money isn't enough to dull the pain but an appointment to the most prestigious cabinet position could do wonders to cure what ails Hillary's ego.

Secondly it shows Obama is thinking far enough into the future in that he is lining up his support ducks for when he runs for re-election in 2012. If Obama and his advisors have an eye for matters not related to running for office then they can see the writing on the wall which spells 'ONE TERM PRESIDENT' in big, black, bolded letters. This recession has just begun and things are going to get really nasty. The stock market is still floundering, the credit market is in shambles, massive layoffs have begun and to make an already terrible situation worse a giant question mark hangs over some of the cornerstones of America's shrinking industrial sector. The ill effects of this recession will easily melt through Obama's teflon coating and sticking to him like dried bird droppings as the country enters 2010/2011. Let us also not forget nobody has a clue what our orthodox & unorthodox enemies will do once Obama is sworn in. Some people expect the excrement will hit the fan the moment Obama wraps up his inauguration speech. Obama's team must know this so they are looking to stack the deck now so that it pays off during the next presidential election.

If anything we should be questioning Clinton's sanity if she accepts the appointment. Closely associating with a President who will preside over one of the worst recessions in the country's history as well as one that will inherit the messy situations in Iraq & Afghanistan can only bring bad things to someone who is still adamant about seeking high political office down the road. Hillary should steer clear of Obama in an official capacity and simply keep on being the dutiful Senator from NY until she gets another shot at the brass ring in 2016.

Things are going to get so nasty that I'm confident there is a part of Obama that wishes he had checked his ego and stayed in the Senate for 4-8 years while this thing blows over.

So much for real change:
the Guardian is saying Hillary Clinton will accept.

Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.

CR

This interview seems quite revealing:

Quote:

---

Mr. Obama: Yeah. I’ve been spending a lot of time reading Lincoln. There is a wisdom there and a humility about his approach to government, even before he was president, that I just find very helpful.

Kroft: Put a lot of his political enemies in his cabinet.

Mr. Obama: He did.

Kroft: Is that something you’re considering?

Mr. Obama: Well, I tell you what, I find him a very wise man.

---