A Democratic Congressional Majority in 2006

[JMHX]

Six months ago I would not have thought it possible, the idea of Democrats taking back the Senate or the House. Now, it seems, that idea is not out of the realm of possibility. Republicans have fumbled over the past year, and things aren't looking much better for them as they head into the months that count. Democrats hold fundraising leads, and host competitive candidates in previously solid-Republican seats. Take a look at the Senate:


Tennessee: Unknown vs Harold Ford, Jr. (D) - The race to succeed Majority Leader Bill Frist has a torn Republican field against popular moderate Democrat Harold Ford. This one's going to be a tossup, but it's much better than in 2000.

Pennsylvania: Rick Santorum (R) vs Bob Casey, Jr. (D) - Santorum, previously the darling of religious conservatives, is trailing moderate Casey by at least two dozen points, in what is widely seen as a gift to the Democrats in November.

Ohio: Mike DeWine (R) vs Sherrod Brown (D) - Ethical scandals in Ohio have been dragging down the incumbent DeWine, who now trails Sherrod Brown by three to four points. If Brown runs a tight race, he has the potential to pick up the seat for the Democrats.

Montana: Conrad Burns (R) vs Jon Tester (D) - In the heart of Republican territory, incumbent Burns is running five to seven points behind populist Jon Tester, who bested a better-funded Democrat in the primary and has garnered national support.

Rhode Island: Lincoln Chafee (R) vs Sheldon Whitehouse (D) - Chafee is a liberal Republican, but his floppiness and lack of spirit are holding him down. Whitehouse, previously a relative unknown, is ahead of Chafee by three to four points, and has been gaining in every poll. Whitehouse is also outrasing Chafee and garning the endorsements of organizations previously pro-Chafee.

Missouri: Jim Talent (R) vs Claire McCaskill (D) - McCaskill nearly won the governorship of Missouri in 2004, but her loss now seems like a blessing. McCaskill and her moderate positions are besting incumbent Talent by two to three points, depending on the polling service. Even mainline Republican pollsters SurveyUSA have McCaskill ahead.

Virginia: George Allen (R) vs Jim Webb (D) - A relatively unknown former Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan is giving George Allen, the darling of arch-conservatives, a run for his money. Webb, despite being less funded than the hugely wealthy Republican challenger, is within five points in every poll released.


Winning these seven seats will give Democrats a majority. Winning six will allow for a working majority, since the Independent from Vermont caucuses with the Democrats. Things look good for Democratic control of the Senate. The stem-cell veto only adds to the feeling that Republicans are increasingly out of touch, with their top man standing against his own party.

Good news keeps on rolling in.

[ziggytrix]

Meh, same shit, different party.

[JMHX]

Hardly - the lock-step fundamentalism of the right is what is leading to their downfall towards more independent candidates.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

These types of threads don't get much traction here, jmhx.

I like your analysis, however I think the Webb race is overrated. I think when push comes to shove, Allen will take it (it could however drain his resources a bit, hurt his presidential bid.....which is probably Schumer's hope).

I like Harold Ford.

[Preechr]

You guys are fun

[Preechr]

Sorry, I forgot:

:rolleyes

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Don't be jealous.

[mburbank]

I'd like to see it happen, if only becaue I'd like to see at least the possability of congressional inestigation of any on of a number of things on the table.

However, I'm not holding my breath.

The last two presientials were... too close to call, and there's been very little action towards voting reform. I think we'd need something WAY beyond a slight lead to make anybody afraid of fucking around a little. I don't mean big conspiracies, just little shit, like rejecting registrations because the paper is the wrong kind, or jamming phone lines, or sending only a few voting machines to Democrat strongholds so people have to wait six hours to vote. That kind of thing.

[Preechr]

Yes. Voting Reform. That's what the Democrats need to win. The only reason Republicans have power is because they cheat the elections. Uh-huh. Right there with you on that one. They've done everything right, and everybody likes them and wants them in office, but those damn Rs keep rigging elections in order to keep the Ds out of their rightful places in the government.

[JMHX]

They've done everything right, and everybody likes them and wants them in office,.

Eh, not any longer.

[Preechr]

Pow!

[mburbank]

Not what I'm saying, Preech. Don't get them panties in a bunch yet. But do look back at exit polls. What I'm saying is the split has been close enough to fifty fifty the last couple of times around for low level dirty tricks and scumbag chicanery to make the difference.

Now maybe both parties get caught, but it seems to me the big stories that came out, and the ONLY conviction so far where on the R side. Not to say it's beneath the D's, but the R's have a jump on them currently in organization and a better track reeocrd at playing hardball and lowball.

It's like those stupid roll playing card games, where one chracters special ability is "Wins all ties".

As long as we are a neck and neck country, or even close, I think the R's will hold onto power. All this talk about a Democratic retaking of either house relies on an awful lot of slim victories. I think only when folks are disgusted enough for polls to reveal significant margins do D's have a chance of getting back in the rivers seat and immediately seeing if they can be as or more corrupt than the R's have been.

[Preechr]

Sorry, my panties are still all bunched up.

What I was saying was that the Democrat demise really has nothing at all to do with vote rigging in the big picture. Sure it exists, and as you said, each side does it to the point that it works out to somewhere close to a zero sum. I just don't buy that it's happening on such a large scale as to be a major factor for the most part.

The problem with the Democrats is the Democrats. They have allowed themselves to become the not-Republican Party, leaving all of the responsibilities for shaping any debates to their rivals. The leadership is just a gaggle of shrill, impotent whiners with no answers, just complaints. They discarded liberal ideologies in favor of regressive, socialistic micro-management back when they started to call themselves "progressives." They fell so in love with the methodology of socialism that they lost sight of where their former ideologies wanted them to go.

Most Americans truly care for the indigent, ancient and disabled, yet they reject (or maybe endure regretfully) the Democrats insistence that the only way to help some is to hurt everyone else. Most Americans view our welfare state as incredibly inefficient, which it is, and so full of ridiculous priority systems, waste, grift and scams as to be unsalvageable, which is also is.

It would be very easy for the Democrats to capitalize on this, yet they refuse to do so. "Liberals" should be leading the fight to connect the last remaining third of the world to modern political, financial and social systems rather than supporting theocrats, despots and dictators. "Liberals" should be fighting for reforms of the decrepit social programs introduced in the 40's and 50's and then run into the ground since, yet they insist upon applying modern tactics to age-old problems, allowing themselves to further the issues they once sought to address. Well, in fact, the only remaining true liberals are fighting these fights, and the "progressives" call them Neo-Cons.

Neo-Cons are former Democrats that were "mugged by reality." they came to realize that the social programs they introduced to solve hunger and poverty only led to institutionalized hunger and poverty on a larger scale. They had to leave the party in order to apply the new knowledge, just as Joe Lieberman is facing excommunication because he's not following lock-step with the party's unfathomable opinion that whatever Bush does is inherently the most evil thing ever.

The Democrat Party has become the party of self-destruction, but that does not automatically make the Republican Party the opposite of that. The Republicans are screwing up almost as bad, but unlike the Ds, the Rs actually get a few things right every once and a while... probably mostly due to the former liberals in their midst. Both parties have become primarily authoritarian entities bent on removing the rights of anyone and everyone they can, whether it be gays, immigrants, husbands of human vegtables, or whomever else they can attain leverage upon during an election cycle, whenever they can get away with it.

As you said before, it's all just a power game now. There used to be a point to all this voting. For most Americans, politics is now just a sport useful only for entertainment purposes.

[mburbank]

I agree with everything youb are saying until you get to the Neo Con part. Whatever the roots of their ideology, the most notable feature of the most prominent neocons is that they are totally batshit crazy and refuse to reality test in much the same way an end of the worlder doesn't care when he predicts a date and time for the end of the world and nothing happens.

[JMHX]

I think only when folks are disgusted enough for polls to reveal significant margins do D's have a chance of getting back in the rivers seat and immediately seeing if they can be as or more corrupt than the R's have been.

Yeah, but you're forgetting that these are very popular, very rich incumbents in previously very safe districts, where they won by 15-20 percentage points. Now they're running even with unknowns. Think of it like this, in terms of the CA-50 race.

CA-50 is an incredibly conservative district. Duke Cunningham won it by 22% in 2004. Now, a new Republican is running for the seat against Democrat Francine Busby.

Republicans have spent close to 7 million dollars on this seat, and are still only running about 4% ahead of Busby. That's down from 20% with an expenditure of $1.1 million. By comparison, the Democrats have only spent about $3.5 million. If $7 million gets you that slim a margin in that safe a district, imagine how much you'd need to spend in districts with Republican Congresspersons where the population leans Democratic!

The bottom line is, Republicans do not have $7 million to give to each race that is close. They've only raised about $8 million in the past two months, compared to $16.1 million for Democrats. They will not have the funds to keep these seats as competitive as they are now.

[Preechr]

So YOU are the person that convinced Kevin that all candidates are equal and the only thing that wins races is funding and baby kisses!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Preechr's reality has been crushed. Apparently "the party" doesn't ultimately make the final decision on all matters.

jmhx, you are right about the funding in CA-50, however that whole argument was sort of a glass half empty/half full sort of thing. Yeah, it took the GOP that much to keep a tiny lead, but if a conservative seat didn't swing Democrat after a Republican commited a CRIME, what will make conservatives go Democratic...?

The problem sort of comes back to what Preechr had mentioned. No matter how down on the GOP people might be now, the Democrats haven't managed to properly capitalize on it and win support.

In November, if Dems take the Senate and/or the House, it won't be because voters were really impressed by the national agenda they've put forward.

[JMHX]

So YOU are the person that convinced Kevin that all candidates are equal and the only thing that wins races is funding and baby kisses!

If all candidates are equal, why the HELL would Dems choose John Kerry.

Like warmed over asparagus, I swear.

[Preechr]

Have you read anything that John Kerry published before he ran for President?

[JMHX]

Have you read anything that John Kerry published before he ran for President?

I've read a decent amount of his DLC essays, but admittedly not much from before he became a prominent national figure.

[kahljorn]

What did he write about? I like alot of what he said in the debates, if it's anything like that.

[Preechr]

His earlier stuff is nothing like what he said in the debates or the rest of his speeches while a candidate. Much better. John Kerry did not show up for his presidential run. Not that I like him any more or less, but it's amazing that he did so badly.

[JMHX]

His earlier stuff is nothing like what he said in the debates or the rest of his speeches while a candidate. Much better. John Kerry did not show up for his presidential run. Not that I like him any more or less, but it's amazing that he did so badly.

He had a lot of bad handlers early on, but a lot of the blame rests on him for becoming such a warmed-over candidate.

[Preechr]

I still wonder what the hell happened with that.

[kahljorn]

"His earlier stuff is nothing like what he said in the debates or the rest of his speeches while a candidate. Much better. John Kerry did not show up for his presidential run. Not that I like him any more or less, but it's amazing that he did so badly."

What did he write about?

[Preechr]

*sigh*

www.google.com

[kahljorn]

Yea, hey, why even have a message board? we could just google everything instead. Asshole.
And sorry for asking you to actually paraphrase something you've actually read, what a ridiculous request!

LETS NOT HAVE CONVERSATIONS OR EXCHANGE INFORMATION INSTEAD WELL JUST BLOW EACHOTHER AND CALL EACHOTHER NAMES THATS MUCH BETTER

[Preechr]

Trust but verify. Maybe part of the reason you're so damn frustrating to talk to is that you prefer being told things rather than finding things out for yourself. I've seen you say stuff that was obviously backed up by good, old-fashioned book-learnin... but you also have a tendancy to talk out of your ass.

You're asking me to nutshell everything John Kerry ever said before he started campaigning for President. I said it was, in a general sense, radically different. I said it's like Kerry didn't even show up for his own election. He lost to a mediocre Bush campaign. Can you not see that I believe he had proven himself better before, and then was worse for some reason?

He's a freaking SENATOR, Billy! They talk about a lot of things. Go find something that interests you. There's a lot out there.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Oh sweet jesus, just provide a couple links.

[kahljorn]

You're just making shit up now, I research stuff all the time.

It's fine don't worry about the links or information or anything.

ILL JUST HAVE TO REMEMBER IN THE FUTURE THAT ASKING A QUESTION OF SOMEBODY WHO PROFESSES KNOWLEDGE IN SOMETHING INDICATES THAT I TALK OUT OF MY ASS. OR MAYBE I SHOULD SAY I QUESTION OUT OF MY ASS.

[Preechr]

Jesus Christ.

Maybe it might be a bit more difficult to pull up links to stuff John Kerry wrote prior to 2003 if this were still sometime in 2003. Maybe I could check My Favorites in case I saved links, but I've burned through three computers since then. A lot of stuff has happened since then in fact, and I have neither access to Lexisnexis nor the inclination to spend hours digging through archived webpages in order to prove to you that I satisfied my own curiosity on something once upon a time.

Other people acknowledged my comment without demanding work from me. Maybe they also took the time to research him instead of relying on the condensed version of him provided for the networks. If you developed an impression of John Kerry without following the same path I did, then good for you. I'm sorry my thought processes are so interesting.

Here's an idea: ask Max. If I recall correctly, he spent a summer with John and Teresa in the Hamptons. Hell, he lives right down the street from one of their houses!

All kidding aside, I'd be more than happy to look some stuff up for you, because it's truly an interesting thing to see... but sadly, you just haven't proven that important to me. Maybe if you weren't so annoying all the time...

[kahljorn]

Whatever you little girl.

[Preechr]

Don't be bitter. You get all pouty when you get bitter, and the big, hairy boys you like don't like pouty bottoms.

[kahljorn]

I just called you a little girl, at least have some style(one that's not mine, preferably) when you insult me.

[Preechr]

You called me a girl, and I insinuated that you preferred your tops to be bears, but then I gave you advice on how to be more attractive to your type of gay man.

I just don't see how that's the same thing.

[kahljorn]

I like how you can waste time throwing bullshit insults but you can't paraphrase something. It's not like I expect more from you or anything, you're the guy who pussies out of every argument and debate on this board. You have no balls, and even less intelligence. You really want to talk about talking out of your ass? You're infamous.

The fact that you used the word "pouty" makes it pretty obvious that you were trying to act like I was a child, on top of that the format of what you said was obviously in baby talk. Also calling me gay is pretty lame, and also talking about little girls having sex with hairy men is pretty gross, you disgusting pedophile. Do you get your rocks off talking in baby talk about children having sex with hairy men?

[JMHX]

Okay, that's enough guys, let's keep it with the topic. No need for the back-and-forths. Here are a few writings of his I have saved.

http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=107&subid=294&contentid=2731
http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=3109&kaid=106&subid=122
http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=3112&kaid=140&subid=900055
http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=3032&kaid=106&subid=122
http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250872&kaid=106&subid=122

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Don't listen to him, guys!

I didn't realize how great this thread had become.

EDIT: Go DLC!

[Preechr]

I like how you can waste time throwing bullshit insults but you can't paraphrase something. It's not like I expect more from you or anything, you're the guy who pussies out of every argument and debate on this board. You have no balls, and even less intelligence. You really want to talk about talking out of your ass? You're infamous.

The fact that you used the word "pouty" makes it pretty obvious that you were trying to act like I was a child, on top of that the format of what you said was obviously in baby talk. Also calling me gay is pretty lame, and also talking about little girls having sex with hairy men is pretty gross, you disgusting pedophile. Do you get your rocks off talking in baby talk about children having sex with hairy men?

You're beyond help. You should be studied. You're like a freakin mental tornado, man. I am truly in awe. I keep saying I'm gonna stop reading what you write, but I always get sucked back in.

Tell me what you think about those links JMHX provided. I'm sure I'll be fascinated by your impressions of old John Kerry vs. new John Kerry.

[kahljorn]

WHAT A MENTAL TORNADO FOLKS ITS OUT OF CONTROL OMG WHATS IT GONNA DO NEXT LOOK OMG IT SAID THE WORD BULLSHIT THATS FUCKING INSANE I DONT KNOW WHAT THIS MENTAL TORNADO WILL DO NEXT IVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT ITS ABSOLUTELY AMAZING WHATS THIS IT CALLED SOMEONE BALLLESS MY GOD IN ALL MY WORK AS A TORNADO CHASER IN THAT MOVIE I WAS IN THAT SUCKED REALLY BAD IVE NEVER SEEN A TORNADO CALL PEOPLE BALLESS ABSOLUTELY AMAZING FOLKS AND NOW ITS MAKING VAGINAL JOKES AND IMPLYING PEOPLE ARE VAGINAS, OH WHAT A HUMOROUS SITE THAT WOULD BE!

I'm reading the john kerry stuff, so far it seems pretty boring, but i really wasn't expecting anything exciting..

So far I agree with alot of what he's saying, especially further education reform through technology. Really I just want an improved education system, though. Isn't it one of the forefronts of socratic philosophy that the youth should be educated as excessively as possible, and wasn't it that philosophy that invented/caused the greek philosophical era?
And yes i remember you talking about the topic of how america needs to be smarter to get better jobs and usher in a greater economy.

Alright do you have anything else that's not about "e-commerce"? This guy seems to fucking love the stuff, I bet he just wants faster access to porn. I'm reading the terrorism one now.
Finished the terrorism one, none of it's really anything new to me but I guess the fact it was written a few years ago is pretty good. The acknowledgement of the necessity of a so-called culture war to eliminate the perpetuation and production of terrorists, by means of preemptive developmental psychology, is good. Education is a pretty powerful tool, children are very receptive, especially when it's targetted at your "enemies'.
Talking about the need to fight 'terrorist forces' in a different manner is great, you'd think the history of america would've taught that lesson though with our "Minute men".

Thanks for the link and I HOPE PREECHR ENJOYED MY INSANELY BATTY INTERPRETATION

and just so you know what I liked about kerry in the debates was when he said stuff like, "MY RELIGION SAYS THIS STUFF IS BAD, BUT I DONT CARE BECAUSE MY RELIGION AND OPINION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CRIPPLED ATHEISTS WHO COULD BE SAVED BY STEM CELL RESEARCH"

two of those articles are nearly identical.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

and just so you know what I liked about kerry in the debates was when he said stuff like, "MY RELIGION SAYS THIS STUFF IS BAD, BUT I DONT CARE BECAUSE MY RELIGION AND OPINION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CRIPPLED ATHEISTS WHO COULD BE SAVED BY STEM CELL RESEARCH"

Yeah, unfortuantely this is the way Catholic Democrats have gotten around a lot of these soical issues. Kerry is pulling a Mario Cuomo here (btw, if you get the chance, go use google and look up some of Cuomo's speeches on being Catholic and pro-choice, good stuff).

Kerry wanted to have it both ways far too often, and it made him hard to get behind.

[kahljorn]

I thought it was impressive, personally, there was also alot of other stuff he said that I thought was fairly admirable as well.
He kicked ass in the debates, I still don't understand how he lost. I remember a few points thinking, "Fuck bush is getting his ass handed to him, kerry just won the election!", but then you have to think how many people in america actually watch debates and understand what's going on? I picture people staring dead-faced at the screen until they hear something about religion and then screaming and holloring.

Was it the speech he gave at the 1984 democratic convention?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The '84 speech was hot, but no , idon't think it's that one. GEEZ, I GUESS I'LL FIND THE LINK TO THE SPEECH I BROUGHT UP, OMG

I think you make a good point, overall, regarding kerry's performance. We tend to talk about him like he was Wendell Wilkie, which just isn't the case. He did quite well in the debates, and btw, it was a damn close election. A few thousand votes change in Ohio and we have a different president. The guy got more popular votes that pretty much every other Dem. in the 20th Century other than FDR.

I think the problem is that Kerry didn't make you want to vote for him. People did, but it was more of an Anybody But Bush sort of thing.

EDIT:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/cuomoreligiousbelief.htm

[kahljorn]

Yea, I guess he didn't do enough appealing to the common person or something ;/ Personally i was going to vote for nader because i knew it wouldn't really matter in california, but once i saw him in the debates i actually wanted to vote for him. In my opinion we need someone in office who thinks their opinion and personal ideas don't really matter, what matters is "Reality".

is it the one where he was invited by some church guy to give a speech, possibly someone from notre dam or something?

lol that's the one I was reading :O :O

I like how in this article it says the catholic church is going to try to stay out of elections and politics for the greater good or whatever, yet every election year there's a story about how such-and-such person is unchristianly and the catholic church is going to throw them out because of their political views(usually revolving around a pro-choice stance)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/cuomoreligiousbelief.htm

I think it's a collge commencement speech.

[kahljorn]

yea at notre dam or something like that

"I may use the prescribed processes of government—the legislative and executive and judicial processes—to convince my fellow citizens, Jews and Protestants and Buddhists and nonbelievers, that what I propose is as beneficial for them as I believe it is for me; that it is not just parochial or narrowly sectarian but fulfills a human desire for order, peace, justice, kindness, love, any of the values most of us agree are desirable even apart from their specific religious base or context."

I love it when people talk about being human, i think people forget that all too often.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I like how in this article it says the catholic church is going to try to stay out of elections and politics for the greater good or whatever, yet every election year there's a story about how such-and-such person is unchristianly and the catholic church is going to throw them out because of their political views(usually revolving around a pro-choice stance)

I think that's a bit overstated. The Catholic Church generally has done a pretty good job of not picking favorites throughout the years (which is why it was outrageous in 2004 when Evangelicals were pressuring the American Church to deny Communion to Kerry).

Kicking out someone for being "pro-choice", while it has its political overtones, isn't political in the way he's referring to. The Catholic Church rarely let's candidates speak at masses. I've been one all of my life, and I've been in Churches all over the country, and I've never seen it.

Other denominations are less strict about that. My friend from North Carolina is a Southern Baptist, and she heard Republican candidates all of the time. She was told to vote Republican by her minister.

[kahljorn]

Well, I wasn't trying to overstate it, I was just trying to convey the expression of the story. I understand it's generally the media or maybe some opposing political party exploding the story more than anything, but still.. it seems like there's a story like this every election year.

I don't know if this is a good source of information, but from catholic world news:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=32830
Washington dispatch?
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000665.html

It's obviously a religous slandering tactic ;/ I'm not really sure if the catholic church supports it, but that's the impression I got when I first heard about it.


And you're right this is an interesting read, he's a smart fellow. Should I throw in some quotes? Or would that just be clutter?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I like Cuomo, he's an intellectual who had a hard time figuring out how to be a politician. I actually just had to write a tediously long paper on one of his races, so bleh.

Those links are really the first I ever heard of Kerry REALLY being excommunicated. I'll have to look into that, I think that would've made bigger news than just a Catholic paper and the dispatch.

Those efforts were really unheard of, and from what I remember, they were pushed by GOP activists who weren't even Catholics. My Church back home was littere with anti-Kerry literature from Right-Wing Christian groups, it made me rather angry, since those folks generally have little time or use for the "Papists".

[JMHX]

Alright do you have anything else that's not about "e-commerce"? This guy seems to fucking love the stuff, I bet he just wants faster access to porn.

I tried to find more of his DLC stuff, but apparently the online archive of the website only goes back to 1996.

[kahljorn]

doublepost

[kahljorn]

Eh, no big deal thanks for the effort, JMHX.

"Those links are really the first I ever heard of Kerry REALLY being excommunicated. I'll have to look into that, I think that would've made bigger news than just a Catholic paper and the dispatch. "

I doubt he was actually ex-communicated, like I said this issue always comes up at election time and only at election time. I think it even happened with Gore and Clinton ;/ The story usually disipates not long after that. I remember hearing about it originally on fox news or something, though.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It always comes up for Democrats anyway.

It gets really sticky for Catholic Democrats, and I think an unfortunate precedent was set in 2004 with Kerry.

[JMHX]

I know there was some uproar with Kennedy, but is there any evidence that it ever reached the point of media circus that it did with Kerry in 2004?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Not that I can recall. It's always an issue when Catholics run, just look at JFK.

But what we saw with kerry was different. It was a deliberate effort by Republicans to push/guilt/whatever the American Catholic Church into condemning Kerry, all for political gains. I find that troubling.

[kahljorn]

"I like Cuomo, he's an intellectual who had a hard time figuring out how to be a politician. I actually just had to write a tediously long paper on one of his races, so bleh. "

I agree that he's an intellectual, I love his stances. Like when he talks about the seperation between what we believe is morally right and wrong and the laws that may be developed based on it, and how those laws themselves have political, economical and social ramifications that we can't necessarily resolve or understand by morality alone. That we should analyze what laws we're going to create, because they will actually have a REAL LIFE EFFECT that has absolutely nothing to do with morality itself. Seems realistic, to me.
The idea that politics and laws of the governing body actually shape the intellectual and moral bodies of it's populace, to me, should be the forefront to all forms of government. What does a government govern? A nation. What is a nation? A bunch of people. The reason government was established was to protect these people, and furnish a functioning establishment- through economy, morality, philosophy and whatever means are necessary to preserve their lives and functional, happy, existence. Isn't that what everything boils down to, really? Trying to survive? Everything after the effect just has to do with the extent of comfort involved in life, and the desire for society to become "perfect".
In some senses morality itself could be said to be society's struggle to survive. What is good for society is deemed moral, those things that are non-destructive and perpetuate a reverence for life and a shedding of our animalistic tendencies. Whereas what's immoral is those actions that are bad for society, what is selfish, animalistic and inherently "Natural", what will make ME survive best? The line between morality, in some ways, lies between survival of society and survival of the individual, prosperity of society versus instinctual preservation and glorification of the self.

"In some cases people might have been forced to go elsewhere to have abortions and that might have eased a few consciences, but it wouldn’t have done what the church wants to do—it wouldn’t have created a deep-seated respect for life. Abortions would have gone on, millions of them."
That's a pretty beautiful statement.

"Better than any law or rule or threat of punishment would be the moving strength of our own good example, demonstrating our lack of hypocrisy, proving the beauty and worth of our instruction."

Everything before that statement was great, but I thought that summed it up pretty nicely.

"We should understand that whether abortion is outlawed or not, our work has barely begun: the work of creating a society where the right to life doesn’t end at the moment of birth, where an infant isn’t helped into a world that doesn’t care if it’s fed properly, housed decently, educated adequately, where the blind or retarded child isn’t condemned to exist rather than empowered to live"

"We come together in worship as companions, in the ancient sense of the word, those who break bread together, and who are obliged by the commitment we share to help one another, everywhere, in all we do and, in the process, to help the whole human family. We see our mission to be “the completion of the work of creation.”"

Anyway sorry for the quotes i just enjoyed them alot.