kopphanatic wrote:On the one hand I would love to see Palin somehow make it to the general election season in 2012, either as the GOP nominee or at the head of a splinter group, because it would finally expose the insanity of that wing of the Republican Party. She would be crushed in the fall after the American public finally saw how dangerous and utterly insane that kind of ideology is, combining a proto-Fascist view of economics with an extremely repressive Evangelical social policy. After her defeat, the moderate and sane voices in the GOP that have been shut out for 30 years would finally reassert themselves and provide the necessary balance that has been missing in our politics. But on the other hand, I really want to see her disappear from the national stage and do not want her coming anywhere close to the White House. I despised Bush, but Palin would be indescribably worse. I'm not exaggerating when I say that a Palin presidency would mean the end of the republic, either by a full-scale nuclear war that she would start or the complete takeover of far far right wingers who would scrap the Constitution in favor of a dictatorship.

Stephanopoulos reported on This Week that the possible Holder investigation is going to be very narrow and will not pursue policy makers or anyone who took orders directly from the policymakers. He's going after "rogue interrogators" who inflicted more torture than was strictly allowed.

The Village roundtable all gasped in horror anyway because who knows where such an investigation might lead and as Cokie complained, it would mean that the whole town would be mad at each other again and nobody wants that! "Everybody hates each other and the poison gets very thick." She did finally come down on the side of following the rule of law even though it would make her uncomfortable at cocktail parties, but it was a close thing.

Bob Woodward was very upset at the idea that the government can't keep secrets because "we need them!" Besides, Holder shouldn't be like Janet Reno and just initiate investigations willy nilly. (He seems to think that Reno authorizing independent counsels to investigate her own president for trivial political reasons is the same thing as investigating whether the previous administration tortured prisoners.) They all chuckled at the notion that Holder was really independent and if he is, that means he's a rogue interrogator himself.

George Will thought it was all just a bunch of balderdash because nothing bad ever happened during the Bush administration. Sam Donaldson said that reporters should probably pursue stories and Donna Brazile added that these things were coming out anyway so they might as well be investigated.

They all snorted and giggled and laughed throughout the whole segment about how silly it was to be upset that the CIA lied because well, that's what it does. And they all thought it was a ripping good joke that Cheney kept everything secret because well, everyone knows that's what he does. Hahahahaha.

And then they talked about Michael Jackson.

dajafi wrote:I know I shouldn't be shocked at this, but such clear evidence that our political elites are above all else a self-preservation society--that, to put it plainly, they play by enormously different rules than the rest of us--still upsets me every time.

What I'm talking about:

Stephanopoulos reported on This Week that the possible Holder investigation is going to be very narrow and will not pursue policy makers or anyone who took orders directly from the policymakers. He's going after "rogue interrogators" who inflicted more torture than was strictly allowed.

The Village roundtable all gasped in horror anyway because who knows where such an investigation might lead and as Cokie complained, it would mean that the whole town would be mad at each other again and nobody wants that! "Everybody hates each other and the poison gets very thick." She did finally come down on the side of following the rule of law even though it would make her uncomfortable at $#@! parties, but it was a close thing.

Bob Woodward was very upset at the idea that the government can't keep secrets because "we need them!" Besides, Holder shouldn't be like Janet Reno and just initiate investigations willy nilly. (He seems to think that Reno authorizing independent counsels to investigate her own president for trivial political reasons is the same thing as investigating whether the previous administration tortured prisoners.) They all chuckled at the notion that Holder was really independent and if he is, that means he's a rogue interrogator himself.

George Will thought it was all just a bunch of balderdash because nothing bad ever happened during the Bush administration. Sam Donaldson said that reporters should probably pursue stories and Donna Brazile added that these things were coming out anyway so they might as well be investigated.

They all snorted and giggled and laughed throughout the whole segment about how silly it was to be upset that the CIA lied because well, that's what it does. And they all thought it was a ripping good joke that Cheney kept everything secret because well, everyone knows that's what he does. Hahahahaha.

And then they talked about Michael Jackson.

The dribs and drabs of stuff that I've read suggests that, one, the Bush administration kept knowledge of some wiretapping and surveillance programs from Congress, to the point where CIA officials flat-out lied; and two, that these programs weren't particularly useful anyway for counter-terrorism purposes. So I got to wondering if, given everything we know about the politics-first inclinations of the Bush White House, there was maybe the tiniest possibility that rather than eavesdropping on suspected terrorists, they were eavesdropping on Democratic candidates and their staffers. Remember, this was 2002, when the Republicans did a lot better than expected in the mid-term elections. Would you really put this past Karl Rove, who within three or four months of 9/11 was talking about how the Republicans could run on anti-terror?

FWIW, I have no idea whether or not anything like this happened, and just the logistics of it might suggest it's pretty far-fetched. Honestly, though, what really bothers me is that I can't shake the thought that if Rahm Emanuel got incontrovertible evidence that something like this had happened, he'd probably make a political determination that the political cost of announcing it would be too high, and squash the story.

If Nixon were alive today, I imagine he'd be thinking he was born just a couple decades too soon. Because now if the president does it, it really is legal, or at least we're willing to pretend it is.

NYTimes Op-Ed guy Ross Douthat wrote:
The Audacity of the Pope

....Benedict’s encyclical is nothing if not political. “Caritas in Veritate” promotes a vision of economic solidarity rooted in moral conservatism. It links the dignity of labor to the sanctity of marriage. It praises the redistribution of wealth while emphasizing the importance of decentralized governance. It connects the despoiling of the environment to the mass destruction of human embryos.

This is not a message you’re likely to hear in Barack Obama’s next State of the Union, or in the Republican Party’s response. It represents a kind of left-right fusionism with little traction in American politics.

But that’s precisely what makes it so relevant and challenging — for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

We’re passing through the worst economic dislocation of the past 80 years. Our politics are polarized; our institutions gridlocked. The governing party is mistrusted, the minority party despised.

Yet there’s remarkably little radical thinking taking place. The Republican Party is retrenching, falling back on Reagan-era verities. His promises of post-partisan change notwithstanding, Barack Obama’s agenda looks like the same old Democratic laundry list, rewritten in a sleeker, Internet-era font.

This doesn’t mean that America needs a third party with “Caritas in Veritate” as its platform. The church is not a think tank, and there’s room for wide disagreement about how to put its social teaching into practice.

But Catholics are obliged to take seriously the underlying provocation of the papal message — namely, that our present political alignments are not the only ones imaginable, and that truth may not be served by perfect ideological conformity.

drsmooth wrote:Douthat: Down with the Nazi Pope?

NYTimes Op-Ed guy Ross Douthat wrote:
The Audacity of the Pope

....Benedict’s encyclical is nothing if not political. “Caritas in Veritate” promotes a vision of economic solidarity rooted in moral conservatism. It links the dignity of labor to the sanctity of marriage. It praises the redistribution of wealth while emphasizing the importance of decentralized governance. It connects the despoiling of the environment to the mass destruction of human embryos.

This is not a message you’re likely to hear in Barack Obama’s next State of the Union, or in the Republican Party’s response. It represents a kind of left-right fusionism with little traction in American politics.

But that’s precisely what makes it so relevant and challenging — for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

We’re passing through the worst economic dislocation of the past 80 years. Our politics are polarized; our institutions gridlocked. The governing party is mistrusted, the minority party despised.

Yet there’s remarkably little radical thinking taking place. The Republican Party is retrenching, falling back on Reagan-era verities. His promises of post-partisan change notwithstanding, Barack Obama’s agenda looks like the same old Democratic laundry list, rewritten in a sleeker, Internet-era font.

This doesn’t mean that America needs a third party with “Caritas in Veritate” as its platform. The church is not a think tank, and there’s room for wide disagreement about how to put its social teaching into practice.

But Catholics are obliged to take seriously the underlying provocation of the papal message — namely, that our present political alignments are not the only ones imaginable, and that truth may not be served by perfect ideological conformity.

Sounds more like Huey Long wielding a crozier to me, but I'm the impious type

TenuredVulture wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Douthat: Down with the Nazi Pope?

NYTimes Op-Ed guy Ross Douthat wrote:
The Audacity of the Pope

....Benedict’s encyclical is nothing if not political. “Caritas in Veritate” promotes a vision of economic solidarity rooted in moral conservatism. It links the dignity of labor to the sanctity of marriage. It praises the redistribution of wealth while emphasizing the importance of decentralized governance. It connects the despoiling of the environment to the mass destruction of human embryos.

This is not a message you’re likely to hear in Barack Obama’s next State of the Union, or in the Republican Party’s response. It represents a kind of left-right fusionism with little traction in American politics.

But that’s precisely what makes it so relevant and challenging — for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

We’re passing through the worst economic dislocation of the past 80 years. Our politics are polarized; our institutions gridlocked. The governing party is mistrusted, the minority party despised.

Yet there’s remarkably little radical thinking taking place. The Republican Party is retrenching, falling back on Reagan-era verities. His promises of post-partisan change notwithstanding, Barack Obama’s agenda looks like the same old Democratic laundry list, rewritten in a sleeker, Internet-era font.

This doesn’t mean that America needs a third party with “Caritas in Veritate” as its platform. The church is not a think tank, and there’s room for wide disagreement about how to put its social teaching into practice.

But Catholics are obliged to take seriously the underlying provocation of the papal message — namely, that our present political alignments are not the only ones imaginable, and that truth may not be served by perfect ideological conformity.

Sounds more like Huey Long wielding a crozier to me, but I'm the impious type

One of the things I think you might see happen is serious rupture between conservative Catholics and conservative evangelicals. Indeed, the alliance between the two groups is a relatively recent phenomenon in American politics. But on immigration, school prayer, health care, and a host of other issues there's less and less common ground. If gay marriage recedes as a significant flash point in American politics, all you'll really have left is abortion.

And in my experience, conservative evangelicals are horrifically ignorant concerning Catholicism.

kopphanatic wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Douthat: Down with the Nazi Pope?

NYTimes Op-Ed guy Ross Douthat wrote:
The Audacity of the Pope

....Benedict’s encyclical is nothing if not political. “Caritas in Veritate” promotes a vision of economic solidarity rooted in moral conservatism. It links the dignity of labor to the sanctity of marriage. It praises the redistribution of wealth while emphasizing the importance of decentralized governance. It connects the despoiling of the environment to the mass destruction of human embryos.

This is not a message you’re likely to hear in Barack Obama’s next State of the Union, or in the Republican Party’s response. It represents a kind of left-right fusionism with little traction in American politics.

But that’s precisely what makes it so relevant and challenging — for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

We’re passing through the worst economic dislocation of the past 80 years. Our politics are polarized; our institutions gridlocked. The governing party is mistrusted, the minority party despised.

Yet there’s remarkably little radical thinking taking place. The Republican Party is retrenching, falling back on Reagan-era verities. His promises of post-partisan change notwithstanding, Barack Obama’s agenda looks like the same old Democratic laundry list, rewritten in a sleeker, Internet-era font.

This doesn’t mean that America needs a third party with “Caritas in Veritate” as its platform. The church is not a think tank, and there’s room for wide disagreement about how to put its social teaching into practice.

But Catholics are obliged to take seriously the underlying provocation of the papal message — namely, that our present political alignments are not the only ones imaginable, and that truth may not be served by perfect ideological conformity.

Sounds more like Huey Long wielding a crozier to me, but I'm the impious type

One of the things I think you might see happen is serious rupture between conservative Catholics and conservative evangelicals. Indeed, the alliance between the two groups is a relatively recent phenomenon in American politics. But on immigration, school prayer, health care, and a host of other issues there's less and less common ground. If gay marriage recedes as a significant flash point in American politics, all you'll really have left is abortion.

And in my experience, conservative evangelicals are horrifically ignorant concerning Catholicism.

Or worse. Evangelicals have a long history of bigotry toward Catholics.

kopphanatic wrote:It really irritates me when I occasionally see a Baptist or Methodist preacher or minister on tv refer to "Christians and Catholics". I'm a Catholic and I have plenty of problems with the way the Catholic church runs things, but that kind of statement indicates that there is still a bias against Catholics in some areas.

allentown wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:It really irritates me when I occasionally see a Baptist or Methodist preacher or minister on tv refer to "Christians and Catholics". I'm a Catholic and I have plenty of problems with the way the Catholic church runs things, but that kind of statement indicates that there is still a bias against Catholics in some areas.

Certainly Catholics are Christians, but religion is the original zero sum game. It is all about you can only be saved if you belong to this denomination or sect, otherwise not a chance. The whole reason for being of the Protestant church was the original allegation that the Catholic church was corrupt. That and British kings wanted divorces whenever they wanted them and monarchs objected to the Pope meddling in their politics. Don't feel bad, that Baptist or Methodist minister doesn't think the northern Presbyterians, or Lutherans, or Episcopalians are going to be saved either. Everyone outside their circle is worshipping false Gods.

jerseyhoya wrote:If my family is in any way representative (no reason to believe it to be true) the Catholics I'm related to are far more likely to believe the Protestors aren't saved than vice versa.

kopphanatic wrote: If God exists, and I can't say with certainty that he does, I believe that we will all be judged individually instead of being saved or damned based on the religion that we were assigned to.

drsmooth wrote:

kopphanatic wrote: If God exists, and I can't say with certainty that he does, I believe that we will all be judged individually instead of being saved or damned based on the religion that we were assigned to.

Yea, but you also can't say with certainty that you won't be judged by the diameter of your adenoids

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:If my family is in any way representative (no reason to believe it to be true) the Catholics I'm related to are far more likely to believe the Protestors aren't saved than vice versa.

They're unlikely to believe the saved aren't "Protestors"?

Though you may be using "vice versa" in some unfamiliar configuration

kopphanatic wrote:It's just so wrong that one group of people can condemn another group to an eternity in Hell because they happen to believe in something else, whether its Catholics attacking Protestants or Protestants condemning Catholics. If God exists, and I can't say with certainty that he does, I believe that we will all be judged individually instead of being saved or damned based on the religion that we were assigned to.

Werthless wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:It's just so wrong that one group of people can condemn another group to an eternity in Hell because they happen to believe in something else, whether its Catholics attacking Protestants or Protestants condemning Catholics. If God exists, and I can't say with certainty that he does, I believe that we will all be judged individually instead of being saved or damned based on the religion that we were assigned to.

The people aren't doing the condemning. They just believe that's what God will do. It's a minor point, but it's important to consider that these people aren't necessarily judging you themselves (although many may individually be judgmental).