|
|
March 26, 2008From Romney to Obama in two easy stepsProf. Bainbridge wants to know, Seriously, how do you flip from Romney to Obama?:
As I responded to the Professor, It doesn’t seem so strange to me. He’s has responded to Obama positively because he’s been attracted by a rhetoric that appeals to most Catholic’s built-in desires for unity and oneness, social equality - all of the enlarging positions that made Catholics, for generations, largely Democrat in political persuasion, before Roe v Wade. On paper, Obama’s speeches appeal to all of our better natures, and to our intellects, as well. As Peggy Noonan writes on Obama’s recent speech on race:
There is no denying that Obama is a powerful rhetorician and an exceptional orator. A smart Catholic, hearing a man speaking about justice, morality, equality and HOPE - and mentioning Martin Luther King and Dorothy Day in the bargain, can hear such a speech and think: Oh, thank God - rhetoric to admire in an uninspired age! I believe that is why we have seen more than few “conservative” Catholics have their head turned by Obama, even if the turn was only brief. We have the inspiring and often spontaneous speeches of JFK and RFK still alive in our memories - who can forget Robert Kennedy’s eloquence upon news of the death of King? What we forget - often - is that for all of Bobby Kennedy’s smarts and good intentions, for all that his small-c catholic generosity and his Capital-C Catholic world view pined for heaven-on-earth, when faced with bare-bones reality, the rhetoric sometimes failed. Perhaps Kmiec is simply buying the speeches because he wants what they contain; particularly in this stagnated and balkanized era, he wants to believe that the perfect world of intellectual honesty, open debate and genuine progress toward utopia is possible. Obama has the perfect speeches, and for some the reasoning follows: if he has the perfect speeches, he must be the perfect canddiate. It’s analogous to someone who reads the rubrics of the perfect mass and believes since the rubrics are excellent, then all masses must be excellent. The rubrics are excellent, as is Obama’s rhetoric. But masses are often dreadfully done; they often fall woefully short of the rubrics, just as Obama, by talking unity while hanging with divisive and apparently bigoted characters, falls short of his own speeches. http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/03/26/from-romney-to-obama-in-two-easy-steps/trackback/ 12 Responses to “From Romney to Obama in two easy steps” |
Site SyndicationAdvertise on this blog   
      
 BlogrollMeta Data
|
March 26th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I almost dropped my teeth when I heard Professor Kmiec on Relevant Radio yesterday, trying to explain his position. Professor Robert George was on hand as counterpoint, though to my mind his worthy comments should have been unnecessary. Professor Kmiec’s argument was a non-starter. What part of “by their works shall you know them” doesn’t he understand. Just what sort of unity does he imagine Obama could possibly bring. There is something very odd at work here, especially in light of the previous Romney endorsement.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
What bothered me about the speeches of JFK and RFK is that the reality of them was so very different from the speeches. RFK spoke about how wonderful MLK was and yet it was RFK and J Edgar who had him wiretapped and followed and spied on. It was JFK and his speeches and yet it was not JFK who spoke out for and pushed for the civil rights. I see the same thing with Clinton and Hillary. They speak all about how they are for gay rights and yet it was Clinton who signed on for DADT and DOMA. It was Hillary who spoke out about how she was going to push for all the good things for gays and yet it was Hillary who did nothing about it at all. It was the Clintons who cut funding for AIDS research and Bush who the gays despise who tripled funding for AIDS research.
I see the same things with Obama. He gives a great speech and then look at the reality of what he actually does. He does not vote up or down, he votes present. He takes credit for all the legislation that the other state legislators wrote and got pushed through. He gives thousands of dollars to a church that if it were white would be the HQ of the local KKK but since it is black it is the source of the black power base (the black equivalent of KKK). He takes his daughters there for their religious training so what kind of rainbow coalition are they going to support. MLK’s main points, that the color of the skin should not matter and that is the point that should be strived for, is totally forgotten.
What I see with the LLL democrats is that so many of them hear the speeches and think that is the be all and end all of what should happen and then there is not follow through at all. It ends up being all words and no actions. That is why I cannot for the life of me see that there can be any connection between supporting Romney and then supporting Obama. Romney got things done. Obama has not and has just coasted on what others have done.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
[…] of my favorite bloggers, the Anchoress, seems to be experiencing Obama ambivalence….or perhaps not. Maybe I’m mis-reading her. Call me cold-hearted, but I see nothing at […]
March 26th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Genuinely or deceptively, Obama represents a movement away from a politics of enmity and towards a politics of hospitality. Whether he would truly bring an improved form of politics is very difficult to say. Our political climate is so polluted with self-serving fictions and deceitful masks that a politician genuinely concerned for the common good could walk upon the stage and be mistaken for a fraud or for a fool.
March 26th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
All I can say is Doug Kmiec is a VERY good man. I can’t understand his decision, but respect it. I know it’s not for a seat on the SCOTUS. I also know he really believes what he says, and the decision for him didn’t come easily.
I suspect God may be using him in ways beyond most of our understanding; allowing his “blindness” for a greater good. Despite the fact I believe with all my heart that Obama is a phony/fraud, it’s hard to deny that a voice as conservative as Kimec’s isn’t doing SOME good over there in the “death camps.” Who knows, maybe Kimec will get “heard” and actually facilitate a true “change a heart or two”; not just for abortion but for gay “marriage” also. He may have gone to the other side, but from all I can tell, he has taken his moral Catholic principles with him. He’s too good of a guy, IMO, for us not to take the “wait and see” approach.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Sorry, I just can’t forget about the abortion issue. Obama is about as pro-abortion as it is possible to be. He even believes that if an abortion somehow produces a live infant, that infant should be killed. He seems nice, he seems good, but this is the ugliness at the heart of the appearance.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
[…] right, brothers and sisters, share your personal conversion testimony. It’s soooo easy, man. Kum Ba Yah… and all […]
March 26th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
KIA,
I hate to be political Debby Dwwner here but I am afraid the good Prof will not have much effect in the Death Camps.
THe best Catholic liberal COngresswoman that was a voice in the wilderness , Lindy Boggs had no effect. THe past Democrat Mayor of Philly had no effect. However like both of them perhaps Prof Kmiec can become the Ambassador to the Holy See for his efforts and spend 4 long years explaining to the Pope why on numerous issues the United States is so anti-life. The past Governor of Penn for his efforts was treated with disdain at the 92 Dem Convention.
Numerous Cathllic and Protestant and Evangelical leaders in politics, in the puplit, and in Academia that have views similar to Kmeic had no effect.
The only effect Kmiec will have is to be a talking head to persuade Conservative and Christians to that voting for Obama is ok.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
“He even believes that if an abortion somehow produces a live infant, that infant should be killed.”
Really? I know he opposed legal protections from babies who survived abortions, but that isn’t tantamount to thinking the live infant should be killed.
March 27th, 2008 at 1:11 am
it’s also true that the longer we see them - or any candidate . . . (from the previous post)
Well, I’m worn out. Or maybe I’m just totally dismayed at the conduct of conservatives, whom I remember being better than they are acting now. But then again, maybe this explains why there was not even a single strong conservative running this year, much less the couple of dozen great conservative superstars we should have cultivated by now. Instead of promoting principle and philosophy, conservatives have been infected with the impulse to simply attack the person of the opposition. And here I had thought that that was merely a Clinton tactic. It’s very dismaying. Especially when much of those ad hominem attacks and appeals to the worst of our natures by conservatives are being waged to prop up the Clintons!
Meanwhile, Hillary is going around promoting things like corporate welfare for the mortgage speculators and the flippers (a double entendre there) who are to blame for causing the housing bubble, and she is seeking to place the federal government on the hook to guarantee TRILLIONS of dollars of housing loans. But we hear nary a peep of analysis or criticism of the substance of such a disasterous proposal from conservative commenters at NRO, etc. because they are still obsessing about the personal.
rhetoric [by Obama] that appeals to most Catholic’s built-in desires for unity and oneness, social equality
According to a recent poll of likely Christian voters, “If the general election were held today, McCain would lose the Christian vote to the Democratic nominee — 36 percent to 45 percent — with 19 percent of Christian voters currently undecided. Among Protestants, McCain pulls even with the Democrats at 40 percent. But the Democrats have a whopping 32-point lead over McCain among Catholics.”
Then the pollster asks, “How is it possible that McCain is doing so poorly among Christian voters, and the Democrats are doing so well among them? Especially as Reverend Wright Week kicked off? To be sure, the brouhaha over Obama’s pastor may take more time to sink into the public consciousness, particularly among self-described Christians.”
Might I suggest that the tactic of maliciously attacking a pastor — regardless of what he has or has not said recently or in the past — is NOT likely to appeal to those who take their Christianity seriously? A Christian — one who puts his or her faith before politics — is obligated to love their neighbors and exhibit charity in all things, including forgiveness, even those they disagree with — even those they do not like — and they have an in-bred respect and faithfulness that they exhibit toward their fellow Christians, especially religious leaders. To these Christians, Wright might have said obnoxious things, but he is (Christian) family, and given the history of racial injustices, they might be willing to cut him a little slack. (Besides, the Christian must acknowledge that one of its greatest teachers was once also one of its great persecutors.) This continual bashing of the person, as well as the mocking of things like hope (a Christian virtue), by conservatives is only likely to drive more Christian voters AWAY from McCain — certainly the liberal Christian/Catholic voters, but also a fair number of the conservative Christian/Catholic voters who find this whole episode very distasteful.
In any event, I STILL have yet to hear from ANYONE a positive reason to vote FOR the Republican or a positive reason to vote FOR conservative policies in this election season.
As for Kmiec, you know, at some point, conservatives (including pro-lifers) are going to have to try to win over the opposition — to work with them and try to change their hearts — rather than simply launching missile strikes against them. As some point, conservatives are going to have to realize that the views of individuals are not forever set in concrete, and if properly approached, and with the right kind of persuasion, opponents can actually be turned to our side. If conservativism has the deposit of truth that it claims to have, then perhaps we ought to try, every once in a while, to spread that truth in a positive manner and make new conservatives, rather than merely trying to destroy liberals.
March 27th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Pretty can be bought from a plastic surgeon or a good beautician, but ugly goes bone deep and lasts forever - and that applies to BOTH Democratic candidates in my view. I have put together just some of the reasons why I have - albeit reluctantly - decided to vote for John McCain and posted those today.
What really fascinates me is that both Obama and Hillary seemed to expect that they would be insulated by the mainstream media despite his associations (Rezko, Rev. Wright), his wife’s offensive remarks (She isn’t proud to be an American but if you elect her husband President she will be?), and Hillary’s voluminous catalog of lies that seem to go on into infinity.
Welcome to the age of the Internet!
March 28th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I can sorta get the appeal Obama’s speeches have for some people, but for me he has seemed like a hustler early on and more and more since. His big speech on race relations was evasive and manipulative. I disliked the intentional echo from the Gettysburg Address. His recent tap-dancing about Rev. Wright reinforces my impression.
However, I don’t think Obama is a bad person. I’ve been listening to audio excerpts of Obama reading from his memoir. My impression is that Obama is a lost soul who doesn’t quite know who he is, that the loss of his father at the age of 2 haunts him still, and this is a big piece of why he can’t let go of his surrogate father, Rev. Wright.
It’s all very understandable and I can sympathize with Obama, but I don’t think he is whole enough and tough enough to be president.