My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (

The Curt Jester


Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« Twins Save Mom's Life, Kick Loose Deadly Tumor From Mom's Cervix While Still In Womb | Main | More "Straight Talk" »

Tuesday, February 05, 2008



I am sorry for you, Thomistic. You are not being, well, Thomistic in your analysis of the choices in November.

I for one will vote for Huckabee; I believe he is truly closer to Catholic Social Doctrine, including on immigration - considering that the extreme position on immigration is quite different from the position of the Catholic Church, before and after the Council.

Nevertheless, I will happily vote for McCain in November if he is the candidate, because there is an abyss between him and the Democrats. Between a pro-abortion, pro-infanticide (as is the case of Obama) and a pro-life (even considering the clear problem of stem-cell research*), there is truly no other choice than voting for McCain.

*Let us remember that most Republicans, including the current version of Mitt Romney and the President also support abortion in cases of rape or incest (the Mormon Church officially allows for abortion in such cases, and also in the all-encompassing case of "health risk" for the mother), which is also a problem for Catholics. But we have supported them in the past due to the fact that the option is still so much better than a 100% pro-abortion candidate.



Huckabee is a pro-life, pro-traditional family liberal. I support his pro-life, pro-traditional family values, but don't like anything else about him.

He also has zero chance of winning the nomination.

A vote for Huckabee is a vote for McCain.



Michael B. Layton

Of the remaining candidates who still have a chance of being elected President (McCain; Romney; Clinton; Obama) I am seeking the one who will stand up and commit to reduced taxes & spending; prsent a balanced budget and cease driving us toward complete socialism. As I haven't heard any politician since Reagan actually identify "government as the problem" I know full well that my ideal candidate is not among the last four still in the running. What a sad lot they are and what a downer it is for our children and grandchildren!


I for one will vote for Huckabee; I believe he is truly closer to Catholic Social Doctrine, including on immigration - considering that the extreme position on immigration is quite different from the position of the Catholic Church, before and after the Council.

That is bull. First of all, people are upset about illegal immigration--not immigration in general. The United States is, already, the most generous country in the world when it comes to legal immigration. The U.S. allows more legal immigrants than any other country in the world.

What many people object to is massive illegal immigration and chaotic, dangerous, uncontrolled borders in an age of terrorism. I don't seem to remember anything in Church teaching stating that we must allow that situation to continue.

Secondly, Hucksterbee is a fraud. If he really cared about the issues he would have dropped out by now and thrown his support to Romney. But, he is staying in and splitting the conservative vote. He probably wants to be VP. They are just a bunch of egomaniacs.


Well, another emotional rant.

Yes, you should vote for McCain in the Fall for the sole reasaon that "he's better than Hillary". That's pretty much it. At least you got the argument right. He's better on abortion, his party is better on stem cell research (although McCain, Arlen Spectre, Arnold, and some other prominant Republicans support it), he's WAY better on judges, he's better on taxes, better for the economy, better on jobs, he's better on immigration, he's better on health care, better on the I need to go on and on?

Yeah, when you minimize that he's basically a white Obama or male Hillary the way you do, you forget you're really talking about all these things and more.

You are not paying attention to the Democratic Race apparently. These aren't democrats anymore, they're socialists. And you have NO idea how bad a unified democratic trifecta (congress, judges, and president) would be...just as their party has lurched to the hard left.

You want federal funding of abortion again, don't vote for the better (not best) candidate; you want single payer health care, don't vote for the better candidate; you want a quick withdrawal from the war on terrorism, don't vote for the better candidate; you want more pro-abortion judges that will end the hope of overturning of Roe v. Wade for the rest of our lives, don't vote for the better candidate; you want immigration addressed, imagine what it will look like when republicans aren't consulted.

Now, the time may come where conservatives are being so ignored--and I think that time is closer than many think--that they need to sit some elections out or go elsewhere. I just don't think this one is it, not when so much is at stake.

I have no problem valuing the logic you so disdain: vote for McCain simply because he's better than Hillary. Yup, that about sums it up. I dislike Arnold's governing a lot, but I know things would be worse with a pro-la Raza, democratic governor (Cruz Bustamonte). It's hard to remember's hard to imagine that...but we all know it. McCain is better than Hillary and Obama. We all know that; we'd be foolish not to vote that way in the Fall.

But at least that weird religious, self-righteous part of us (super-ego) that so loathes to feel it is just settling for things will not feel piqued or offended.


Jimbo, what they say is different from what they do. I don't believe Hilary would govern as liberal as she talks. And, I don't believe McAmnesty can be trusted to govern as conservative as he SOMETIMES talks. Talk is cheap.

At this point, barring a miracle by Romney, conservatives should start focusing on the Congressional elections. Obama must be defeated. But, if comes down to Hilary vs. McAmnesty, money and energy would be better spent on Congressional seats.

You will need as many conservatives in Congress as you can muster to keep either Hilary or McAmnesty in check. If that could be accomplished, then all is not lost. Sometimes the best you can hope for is stalemate. :o)


There was a VERY interesting focus group evaluation last night on FOX's Hannity and Colmes...there were two focus groups; one all Republicans and one all Dems...the two questions that were most compelling and telling to both were:
1) What significant can you say about the accomplishments of McCain? And, then Obama...?"
2) Would, as a Republican you consider Obama for your vote? And, to the Dems, "Would you consider McCain for your vote?"

Breaking it down, both sides cited accomplishments of McCain...war hero, record supporting troops and surge, Reagan Republican, etc (How the last one, I don't know as he really is a liberal)...for Obama, neither side could cite ACCOMPLISHMENTS...just that he was an effective orator...

On the second question, NO democrat said they'd vote for McCain, but, about 20% of the Republicans said they'd vote for Obama.

What does this mean? To me, it means that the dems are so fed up with Republican leadership there will be no crossover vote...they will be UNITED for the democratic candidate...and that some Republicans (albeit moderate to left) will abandon the party line in favor of a socialist dem...why, because they're fed up sad...I've said here on this blog before...due to the inflexibilities of this administration to work with congress creating a bipartisanship to better this country not the excessive spending, a war that shouldn't have happened (although I don't support "cut and run" since we're there) no improvements to education, social security and, frankly, a division even within the Republican party I have not seen in my's sad really...the current administration is the reason we're in the position (for the next 4-8 years) we're in now. Then, it'll be VERY difficult to turn back to the true "Reagan Republican" White House that is so significantly blurred right now. This economy is heading for recession and a DEM will send us into a tailspin. People, keep your eye on the ball. Your future and the future of your children lay in the balance...and don't listen to the "noise" of people like Coulter who says she'll campaign for Clinton if McCain is nominated...she won't...She is VERY smart and has alot of good to say, but, she is a bit of a sensationalist and people listen to her...very confusing to the people that take her word as GOSPEL according to Ann.


Folks, Let’s have a chat … shall we?

McCain only cares about one thing and that is McCain. His stance on certain issues has nothing to do with his values or principles, it has to do with what he thinks is the best political position to take.

If something is good for McCain, he will see it as good for America.

BUT If something is good for America, but not necessaryily good for McCain .. he will choose what is best for him.

This man has taken his former POW status and made a political career out of it.

He doesn’t give a rats a$$ about anything or anyone except himself and his ego.

Did you know that he has been the biggest enemy to the families of Prisoners of War and those Missing in Action from Vietnam? He has made the efforts of these families a mockery by belittling witnesses during testimony at Senate hearings, supporting and passing legislation that weakened previous legislation which gave the families some sense of oversight. McCain just came in and gutted it - He has saw to it that documents remained classified LONG after their declassification date - Why? Because some of them deal with him and what he did while in captivity. Once again, he made the POW/MIA Issue about HIM!

for more - please go to

It will make you sick what this man has done to families whose fate was much worse than his own.

There is no denying what is there in black and white. Just watch the video … It will make you sick!

The man is a psycho - if elected, they will be adding a psych wing on to the West Wing! Maybe Brittney can come by for a visit and they can chat! UGH!


I just did some reading (online) about the 2008 Congressional elections. It was interesting.

The Democrats will have the advantage in the Senate because they need to defend only 12 seats. On the other hand, the Republicans must defend 23 seats. However, you never know what will happen. Bush and some corrupt Republicans really caused things to turn out bad for the Republicans (in Congress) in 2006.

Things look better for the Republicans in the House. Some analysts say that many rural districts (esp. in the South) could turn Republican from Democrat if it were too become apparent that a Democrat may be elected to the Presidency.

I know it isn't a likely scenario, but I would rather see a frustrated President Hillary battling a Republican Congress than a President McAmnesty having his way with both parties. The biggest problem is having enough conservative Republican senators who will block undesirables from the Supreme Court.


One more thing (I am really gettin' into politics today). I agree with what Donald aid about Coulter. As soon as McCain becomes the nominee, all the Republican pundits will probably shift gears and begin extolling his virtues. I still won't vote for him. I live in his home state. I see what he is like. The other Republican senator here isn't worth any rat's body parts either (Kyl).

**Okay, it's time to quit this nonsense (posting messages) and get some work done.**



Mormons are blasphemers. Blasphemy is worse than abortion. If Romney is a Mormon then his being "pro-life" (this week, anyway) is utterly irrelevant.

To vote for a Mormon is to slap our Lord in the face. No Catholic should behave with such contempt and disloyalty.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Mark Jacobson

I will be voting for Alan Keyes, as he is unabashedly Catholic, and is COMPLETELY in line with Church teaching. The media do not like him because he is conservative AND black... which doesn't fit their world view.


Protestantism is blasphemy, as well. So I guess Catholics should only vote for Catholics, right Adeodatus?

Adeodatus, I don't love Romney or support Mormonism. I'm not electing him as Pope.

Hiring a Mormon isn't blasphemy, and neither is voting for one, particularly if they are pro-life and running against pro-abortion candidates.





Here are some links as food for thought:

Bipartisanship is overrated.

A Bipartisan Compromise or a Conservative Sellout?


One should always become suspicious when the media and political establishment hail anything as a bipartisan compromise. What this usually means is that the Republicans have come out of the ‘negotiation’ process laughably empty-handed. In return for their gullibility, they get a couple of favorable pieces in print and invitations on leftwing TV network talk shows where they are praised for their sound judgment and wisdom. The adoration invariably lasts until the next time they vote on conservative principle or run against a liberal opponent, whichever comes first.

We know that things are getting really bad when Republicans are targeted for praise by their sworn enemies for putting the good of the country above conservative allegiances. It is a truth not often spoken but plainly obvious that many liberals do not like their own country and consequently pursue policies which they hope will harm it. Nothing could illustrate this better than the current immigration bill, for how can the open borders and amnesty be good for America? Only a madman or a seriously deluded Republican could ever think so.

Rather than letting themselves be played for suckers, Senate Republicans would do well to read the first page of the liberal playbook which is inscribed with Winston Churchill’s famous dictum:

“Never give in, never give in, never; never; never; never - in nothing, great or small, large or petty - never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.”

The first part liberals heed with fanatical zeal as they would rather shout ‘bigot’ and ‘racist’ a thousand times than to give one inch to the other side. The latter part they also keep close to their hearts but in a perfectly inverted manner, ready as they are always to give in where honor and good sense are concerned. This is why they almost never tell the truth or advocate policies that actually work. Case in point: open borders and amnesties.

Bipartisanship almost always means Republicans lose, Donald. The Democrats never, ever give an inch, but they'll happily take a mile.



mary g
The link above has a great election day prayer.
As St. Ignatius actually said (not reversed as is commonly done):
"PRAY as if everything depended on you; WORK as if everything depended on God."



Never giving in, while absolutely utopian and honorable, does not yield consensus judgement...I wish it were as you say, believe me...unfortunately, Hitler, Stalin, Marx, radical Muslims, the PLO (get my point, I'll go all through history if I keep going) all had a form of utopian thinking. I think that the writings you've presented have GREAT honor as a goal. But, I think you'd agree that compromise (which is a form of giving to get the greater good, right?) such as voting for say, Huckabee, or Romney, or whomever, is a form of seeking the better of candidates, because the utopian candidate is not there, nor electable...or so I've read in your past posts to Paul and Keyes supporters thus, compromising their respective view of utopian thinking?

Unfortunately, my point is that Nixon was unyielding...and a nut job...Bush and Cheney are unyielding, and have not moved this country properly...those are my points...Reagan was a strong leader, but, a consensus builder...a quality of working with others, even those that didn't totally agree with his principles. That's what I mean by bipartisanship.

I also agree that the Dems are unyielding...I can't nor won't vote dem...I'd rather see a Libertarian than McCain or a is, unfortunately, not a perfect world made up of imperfect people. Thanks for the reading materials and this GREAT blog, Thomistic!!


Although it cannot be disputed that the Most Blessed Sacrament is truly the Body and Blood of our Lord (and so eternally glorious and perfect), and the Protestant teaching of "consubstantiation" is thus a false and heretical doctrine, nevertheless I think there is a difference between that Protestant folly and the vile doctrines of Mormonism. "Consubstantiation" is an error born of pride and faulty intellect. What is the origin of the doctines of Mormonism? You know, the ones that teach that God has a physical body, that he had sex with the Blessed Virgin Mary, that Jesus is a "spirit brother" of the enemy?

Perhaps you will say that I'm splitting hairs, but I find the latter far more blasphemous than the former.

And while we're on the subject of who is or isn't Catholic... would you care to explain why immigration from Mexico is such a crisis for us Catholics? Most Mexican and Latin immigrants are Catholics. The percentage of American Catholics is actually increasing due to the influx of these brothers and sisters. Now, some will say it's costing "us" money. Who is this "us"? I'm poor - it's scarcely costing me a dime. Maybe it is redistributing money from our wealthy elites (mostly non-Catholic) to these salt-of-the-earth Catholics. Why should I be crying about that?

Anyway, the immigration issue is just a side show compared with the possibility of winding up with a President who teaches Mormon blasphemy. If a Mormon despiser of our Lord with access to the world's largest nuclear arsenal wouldn't turn out to be the Antichrist then I'm not sure who would.



I want to be clear that in saying I won't vote for McCain, I'm not endorsing a vote for a Democrat or third party candidate.

I'm also not saying I won't vote. I'll just vote for everything but President of the United States.

I also want to be clear on why i won't help McCain. McCain hasn't given any indication that will be in the best interest of my values and a lot of reasons to believe I'd essentially be helping him undermine my values.

McCain can have my vote if he gets the nomination and can prove he won't undermine my values.

If not, I can't feel compelled to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, even a lesser one who "only" supports developing killing babies for scientific research.

Perhaps John McCain will come around.

I'm not holding my breath.




Totally understood, Thomistic and I agree with you 100%...let's pray that Senator McCain understands that too...from the Republican base for which he has turned his back on. He kind of scares me though the more he speaks...I think you've had him pegged all along.



1) Consubstantiation is a Lutheran doctrine. It is not held by all or even most Protestants. Most Protestants believe the Lord was speaking symbolically at the Last Supper.

Most Protestants reject belief in the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin and deny her Immaculate Conception and sinlessness after her conception in the womb of St. Anne. They insist Our Lady was a sinner and just like any other woman. They maintain that God could have chosen any woman to do what He planned for Our Lady from all eternity and accuse Catholics of idolatry because they love and honor the Holy Mother of God. In fact, most of them hate hearing Her called the Mother of God.

All Protestants deny that the Catholic Church is the one, true Church. They reject the Holy Father. They reject most of the seven sacraments. The list of ways in which they deny Christ's teachings and misuse Sacred Scripture would fill volumes of books.

Their error may not be as bad as that of Mormons, but their error is egregious in that it is contrary to the truth and the Holy Will of God.

It is a sin to believe what Protestants believe if one knows that it is an error, and their errors are blasphemous. Make no mistake about that. They essentially refuse to believe what Christ taught.

They are not culpable, and can (and often are) good people.

The same can be said of Mormons, who generally do not know any better than a garden variety Protestant that they are in error.

2) Antichrist will claim to be Jewish. He may or may not actually be Jewish, but the Church Fathers taught that he would and cited Our Lord in John 5:43:

"I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me; if another comes in his own name, him you will receive."

He will set himself up in the Temple of Jerusalem:

"Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God." (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4)

Jesus mentioned this in Matthew 25:15:

""So when you see the desolating sacrilege spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place..."

The antichrist will therefore not likely be a Mormon.

As for a President teaching Mormon blasphemy, you keep seeming to think the President of the United States is some sort of religious leader. He's not. Hiring a Mormon as president is not intrinsically immoral. It's as moral as hiring a Mormon to work as your employee.




Realize that the same people you quote would be vehemently against Romney if it was a Thompson v. Romney race. It wouldn’t be: “they are both Regan conservatives with strengths and weaknesses.” Instead, they would attack Romney accusing him of being a fake conservative opportunistic flip flopper who couldn't be trusted on life, private healthcare, traditional marriage, Regan coalition, etc...

I understand being for Romney when its Romney v. McCain. But making McCain out the be the devil is a little much.

The issues conservatives have with McCain are as follows:
1) He limited how much one can contribute to political campaigns; 2) wants to allow illegal aliens become citizens if they have no criminal record, pay a fine, learn English, and pay all back taxes; 3) supported federal funding of embryonic stem cell research; 4) voted against two of Bush’s tax cuts because Bush would not rain in spending; 5) worked with democrats to form the “gang of 14" to allow Roberts and Alito to be confirmed, but prevented the republican majority from using the nuclear option (which is good now that the dem’s are in power); and 6) opposes water boarding and other coercive interrogation techniques because he was tortured while a POW in Vietnam.

The embryonic stem cell research support is troubling. Everything else I can live with because I know it’s better than what I would get in a democratic administration. McCain is the more pro-life candidate (vs. the dems), will reduce government spending, and will not pass universal healthcare or push through liberal judges.

Other than stem cell research, my main problems with McCain are the side issues (his anger, his twisting of Romney’s “time tables” quote). I worry that he has lost his “straight talk” and has turned into the very thing he claims to be fighting against.

In all honesty, I don’t care that he may have pondered switching parties. As you said, simply having a (R) next to your name is meaningless. I’d trust him with our armed forces in Iraq, I can’t say the same for Hillary.

November will become a referendum on the war. If you want us out, vote for the democrat. If you want us in, vote for the republican. Despite all the big talk, that will be the only realistic policy “change” that could come out of the election.


1. Romney: I don't care what Mormonism *teaches*; I do care that he says, in regard to Mormonism, what Kennedys say in regard to Catholicism. If he said, "I'm a devout Mormon and my religion is the most important thing in my life," I'd respect him. As it is, he's a flip-flopper. Like Schwarzeneggar, he's only a Republican because of the state he governed, and he suddenly became a "conservative" when he decided to run for president.

2. Can't stand McCain, but if I have to hold my nose and vote for him in November, I will--if he has Huckabee or Brownback as a running mate.

3. I voted for Huckabee. He's firm in his religious convictions. He's not perfect (what politician is), but he's strongly pro-life (wants to be an activist president and not just settle for "appointing justices); He supports homeschooling and traditional marriage. He opposes divorce. I strongly support the Fair Tax plan (which is badly misrepresentated in the media and by conservative pundits). And Huckabee still has a chance. People say he can't win the election, but I think just the opposite. Since Reagan, history has proven that there are three swing groups who win for the Republicans:

a) Libertarians (if Ron Paul runs 3rd Party, we can count them out)
b) extreme Evangelicals who would rather abstain than vote for a mediocre candidate (Huckabee, Brownback, or maybe Paul could win them over).
c) "middle-of-the Road" Catholics: the people who consider themselves "Democrats at heart," and care about pro-life somewhat, but justify their vote by "The Republican's aren't much better." THese people won it for Reagan, and they won it for Bush in 2000 & 2004.

Groups a) and b) are predictable. Group C) is not. But a ticket with McCain and either Huckabee or Brownback would probably win group C over, easily.

Dan Hunter

The more I read this garbage the more I realize that we all must vote for Alan Keyes.
He is Catholic through and through and our sweet Saviour will bless this country when he is elected,
Romney and McCain will keep the abortuary, that America has become, churning away and we are dead if either one of them is elected.
Ut Prosim


Not that I'm for McCain (I'm not), but if it makes you feel better, even though McCain is for federal funding for embryonic research, I have reason to believe that he will NOT remove the ban on it.


This is an article from the National Catholic Register and the article supports McCain and is written by Senator Brownback. Now normally, this would just be just an endorsement by another senator. But there are two differences:

-He's solidly catholic. That should make even Thomistic's eyebrows raise just a little.
-He's the AUTHOR of the ban on federal research money for embryonic stem cell.

This article basically says that McCain is prolife. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

TRANSLATION: "Please notice that I wrote about ALL the pro-life issues EXCEPT the ban on embryonic stem-cell research. And considering that I'm the author of the ban, not mentioning it is to be taken as a message to you all which is this: I spoke to McCain about the whole ban-thing, and don't worry he won't take it away."

I can't be sure that that is what the article means, but it gives me a little relief.


american patriot

3 points here....

1)Appointing pro-life Justices

With McCains voting for liberal justices Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer and of colluding with Democrats in their campaign to kill the most conservative Bush nominees, what guarantee is there a President McCain will nominate and fight fokr the fifth jurist who would vote to overturn Roe v Wade?

2) Vote for McCain because he was a War hero.

Benedict Arnold was a war hero! Enough said.

3) McCain is anti-America.

Why does McCain have Juan Hernandez who is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Mexico however was born in Fort Worth Texas as his Hispanic Outreach Director for his campaign?

Juan Hernandez was head of Vincente Fox's Presidential Office for Mexicans abroad. In this capacity he was a tireless advocate for amnesty, driving license for illegals and most importantly the non-assimilation of Mexican immigrants and the Mexicanation of the United States. He is a senior fellow of the Reform Institute of which McCain founded and is funded by George Soros.

Go to to learn more about how McCain is Anti-American by his actions of the past and the many speeches he has made about America. For example that America does not have a culture however the Mexicans have a culture, what! Yes, there is more at check it out.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic