Just Listen to These Devils in Human Form

Who can dispute our urgent need to go to war with them and slaughter as many as possible? As this well-conditioned child of the Thing That Used to be Conservatism teaches us with the Wisdom of the Children:

In other news, the overwhelming favorite of Faithful Conservative Catholics[TM], bloodthirsty warmonger, torture fan, (and supporter of pro-abort Arlen Specter) Rick Santorum hints that he will be back in 2016 to do what he always does: push hard for more and more war, cheer for the murder of civilians as a “wonderful” thing, and prove that the GOP (and his fanbase in Faithful Conservative Catholicism[TM]) have not learned one damn thing from the debacle of the Bush years.

And if he gets the nomination, we will be told, yet again, that we have to support him since This is the Most Important Election of our Lifetime, and You Can’t make the Perfect (meaning “Those who refuse to commit cold-blooded murder”) the Enemy of the Good (meaning “Those willing to slaughter innocents if it will buy them a vote”). And, of course, we will hear If You Refuse to Support Him You Are Really Supporting Hillary Even if You Vote For Some Third Candidate. It will all be the same old round of crap we heard with Romney.

Nope. I refuse. I will not play their game. I will not vote for these butchers who fuel their campaigns with pledges to shed the blood of the right sort of innocents.

  • Scott

    That last one was a fake. No doubt about it.

    • Timbot2000

      Sorry Scott…it was not Fake. Next News Network is not a fake news outlet, unlike the Onion or CNN.

  • http://catholiccinephile.wordpress.com/ Evan

    After the filibuster, doesn’t Rand Paul at least have a slight chance of getting the nomination?

    But you’re right. The other day, I just told someone that Hillary is a shoe-in unless the Republican party wises-up, which I don’t see happening.

    • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

      Whoever the Democrats nominate is a shoe-in. We’ve already turned that corner.

      • Peggy R

        If the media cared as much about issues such as F&F, Benghazi, Gosnell’s trial or the O’s profligate expenditures for pleasure, as they do about the murdered children in Newtown (who are worthy of attention, yes), the GOP (yes, with a fairly decent candidate) might have a snowball’s chance of winning.

        The media mock and have impatience for any GOPer or conservative who is concerned about any of these items and others. The public hears that and public opinion reflects that bias.

        Sorry, I guess I just blamed the media. But it’s true what they’ve done.

    • cowalker

      I’m a Democrat who wouldn’t have believed it in 2008 if someone had told me that the Republican Party would proceed to make Hillary Clinton a shoe-in for 2016. The uneasy truce forged under Reagan between factions standing for amoral greed and regressive social policy appeears to have fractured irretrievably. Each faction has gone so extreme that the only common ground is–The Most Important Thing In The World Is To Reduce Taxes. That doesn’t appear to be enough to enable an appealing party platform or candidate, even though it is certainly ham-stringing the federal budget process. I attribute that “success” to all the gerry-mandered Congressional districts. We’ll see if that proves sufficient to keep a large majority of Republicans in the House next time around.

      I’ve always been amazed at how little the Republican Party had to do for conservative Christians at a national level while commanding their support. It was always so clear to me that nothing but lip service was being paid to conservative Christian values while the GOP focused on making sure that nothing, domestic or foreign, interfered with wealth accumulation. Mark Shea has seen through the charade. Judging from the last election, he is not the only one.

      • Jon W

        The Republicans seduced conservatives back when certain social practices were taken so for granted that they couldn’t imagine that they were enabling the Wall Street goons they were getting in bed with.

        It’s interesting to me how people who went Democrat back in the 60s now find themselves making excuses for total familial breakdown, even though they never would have endorsed those positions then and that’s not why they joined the Democrats; and people who joined the Republicans then, now find themselves making excuses for complete economic libertarianism and jingoistic war-mongering even though they would never have endorsed those positions then and that’s not why they joined the Republicans.

      • InsaneSanity

        And how has the party of evil (Democrats) maintained your loyalty? I see plenty of hypocrisy in your commentary. There is plenty of solid, social reasoning to reduce taxes. How do you reconcile that critique with the Democrats common theme – The Most Important Thing In The World Is Abortion?

      • bookmom

        Amen to what cowalker says. I’m not a Democrat, but Republicans seem to trot out the so-called ‘prolife plank’ every four years to placate their Christian voters. As George Bush Sr. said to his son ‘don’t worry about prolifers… they have nowhere else to go.’ GW Bush said “hearts need to change before the law can be changed.” if Catholic Republicans keep voting only on that single issue, tolerating other Republican policies that are evil, it will continue to be a lose-lose every four years. Seems to be a divide-and-conquer among the two party system in our country.

  • Angela

    Here is what I would like to know.. If Santorum isn’t your guy for the various reasons you listed.. Who is..

    What does he/she look like? Is there a perfect candidate that even exists? What if the candidate has 5 out of 6 of your things? Is that good enough?
    Or is it that you have a particular bone to pick with Santorum?
    What the real deal?

    • Mark Shea

      Given that it’s 2013, there is no field of candidates. My bar for acceptability is incredibly low. *All* I ask is that a candidate not advocate policies worthy of the everlasting fires of hell. I’m not looking for “perfection”. I’m looking for refusal to commit cold-blooded murder. And, incredibly, most Catholics on both sides of the aisle regard that as fussy perfectionism.

  • Peggy R

    It can be mathematically proven that, if there is a third candidate leaning to the right politically, (s)he would amass votes that would reduce the percent of votes that would go to the GOP candidate, thereby increasing the percent of votes that the Dem candidate would receive in an election. It would be equally correct that a third party candidate to the left would decrease the share of votes the Dem would receive and would give a greater share of votes to the GOP candidate, who would more likely win in such a case.

    Whether your personal intent is to elect the Dem candidate, that would be the likely outcome of voting third party to the right.

    That said, I am not fundamentally opposed to voting third party. I take it on a case by case basis.

    • Liam

      I wish it was mathematically proven that a third party candidate will amass votes.

      • Peggy R

        Ok. “Amass” might be an overstatement, but you get the point. Right?

        • Stu

          Peggy, I think you many have missed Liam’s lament (assuming I read it correctly). I believe he is reflecting on the fact that it is tough for a third party candidate to even be competitive, thus adding to the increasing false dichotomy we have with the “two” parties.

          • Peggy R

            I understood his lament to be that the word “amass” means the third party gets lots of votes. I concede perhaps I am overstating the quantitative impact of a third party candidate who is not likely to amass a large number or percent of votes.

            • Stu

              Yes, wouldn’t it be nice if a third party could “amass” votes and actually be a viable alternative?

    • ivan_the_mad

      Let’s be more accurate. That is the outcome in the aggregate if:
      1) the Democratic candidate wins the majority of the electoral college,
      2) the number of right-leaning third-party votes exceeds the difference of votes between the Republican and Democratic candidates in each instance of determining the assignment of electoral college votes for the number of electoral votes by which the Democratic candidate won ,
      3) the assumption is given that the right-leaning third-party voter would otherwise vote for the Republican candidate, and I guess this is predicated on a hypothetical wherein you *have* to pick between the Republican and Democratic candidates and none others?.

      I don’t disagree, but so what? I’m sure many, if not all, intuit that, and #3 is false for many, if not all, third-party voters.

      • Peggy R


        I think we could look at the situation as either a fixed number of voters or that perhaps the third party candidate causes people to vote who might not have otherwise. I can’t demonstrate equations very well in a combox, however. Let’s see what I can show.

        X=total voters. D=Dem, R=Repub, Ir=3rd party to right

        Assume fixed #voters allocated among the 3.
        X=D + R + Ir
        100%= D/X + R/X + Ir/X
        In order to stay at 100%, when one share increases, another must decrease. If Ir voters might otherwise vote R, then R/X goes down. It may be some come from D, but not likely. So, D/X could decrease a bit as well.

        Assume X+I= number of voters. Say all Ir voters would not have voted otherwise.
        (X+I)=D + R + Ir
        All the votes are still 100% of votes.
        100% = D/(X+I) + R/(X+I) + Ir/(X+I)
        Again, since we have a fixed 100% of votes, when one ratio increases, another must decrease. The candidate from the right could bring in voters who would not have voted otherwise, the R% of votes and perhaps the D percent of votes would decrease, but given the presumed ideology, those Ir voters could have voted R and R may be small than otherwise. But certainly, the pool of voters is larger with a 3rd choice. The magnitude pf effect depends on share of votes between D & R that might have been w/o Ir. That’s hard to measure. If the GOP could appeal to and inspire these folks to vote, but for their guy, not Ir, then they’d inoculate themselves here. They have to minimize this effect to win. They don’t always try to do this, needless to say.

        In real life, we have some situation in between cannibalization of votes that would have been cast anyway and new votes that maybe, could have been, acquired by an R candidate. They may or may not have voted at all, but these voters found the Ir candidate to be most attractive or inspiring and got off their butts and voted.

        And the inverse would be true with a Id candidate (Independent Dem leaning). There may be a Im–moderate independent–whose views could pull from both sides more evenly. That’s pretty hard to estimate the effects on both parties and presents a different situation. Statisticians love this stuff.

        • ivan_the_mad

          Again, and respectfully, I don’t disagree, but so what? Are you just making the observation for its own sake out of academic interest?

          • Peggy R

            Mark insists repeatedly, that voting for a third party is not going to put a Dem in office. That is not correct. While a 3rd party candidate may not attain enough votes to win an election, (s)he can obtain enough to change the outcome of an election. I have wanted to demonstrate the falseness of Mark’s assertions for some time now. So, today I got the bug to do it. There ya go. Have a nice day.

            • Mark Shea

              Tom Kreitzberg summed things up pretty well. Instead of spending all that energy trying to insist that people vote for crappy candidates who urge policies that conflict with their most fundamental moral beliefs, why not spend that energy nominating good candidates?

              • Peggy R

                That’s what the primaries are for, right? We can’t make people stand up for office. We’re stuck with those willing to stick their necks out and give it a shot.

                Or work through another party…

            • ivan_the_mad

              “Mark insists repeatedly, that voting for a third party is not going to put a Dem in office.”

              He has asserted that categorically, or asserted that it is unlikely? If the former, then the assertion is false, as you have shown and indeed I think was already obvious. If the latter, then it is a reasonable assertion, and this past election bears such out quite handsomely, since every state which Obama won was by a difference greater than that of the combined Ir (to borrow your label) third-party votes.

              Or has he argued that such is not a consideration for him when selecting a candidate for whom to vote? That I am certain he has written.

            • Mark Shea

              Actually, I insiste repeated that voting third party *in a national election* will have no effect on the outcome of the election. In a local race, different story.

              • Peggy R

                Thanks. I am glad you responded for yourself. I hesitated to speak for your. My recollection is you’ve generally poo-poohed the idea of a 3rd party having an impact on national elections. Actually, we have 50 state elections for president. A third party candidate could attain 5-10% of votes to tip the outcome in a state. A third party candidate could concentrate on a few states where he’d have the most impact and cause a candidate not to win the electoral votes there. There’s a lot gamesmanship that hasn’t been tried yet, I suspect. Many state results were within 10 percentage points, I’d say for at least the last election cycle. It was believed (on the left) that Ralph Nadar’s presence on the FL ballot contributed to W winning that very close state.

                • Peggy R

                  i meant in 2000.

                  • Peggy R

                    P.S. These state by state results show that Perot has a huge impact in many states, garnering 20% or more of the vote, most people speculate from the right–people looking for an alternative to Bush but not ok w/Clinton. Perot appears to have gotten at least 10% in each state (quick perusal, subj to correction).

                • Beadgirl

                  Mark has also written quite a bit on how voting affects the individual, regardless of how the numbers work out. That is why I am unmoved by the argument that too many people voting third party help the bad guy win. If there is a third party candidate, liberal or conservative, whom I feel I can vote for in conscience, I will. But if no such candidate exists, then I would most likely abstain, because under no circumstances will I vote for a Republican like Santorum.

                  • Peggy R

                    That’s your moral judgment and your right. I take no issue with that. I just want us to understand what the impact on the results is and not deny it.

    • Mark S. (not for Shea)

      No mathematics known to man can predict the future.

      God made economists in order to make astrologers look good. And the devil made pollsters to make them both look great.

      • Noah D

        What’s the difference between economists and meteorologists?

        The meteorologists agree on what happened yesterday.

    • Cinlef

      Right but the thing is that’s less of a problem if you look longer term. So say a 3rd party conservative candidate (who differs form the GOP largely on war and abortion) amasses enough votes he/she costs the GOP the election. Yes your then stuck with a Dem till the next election. But the flip side of this is that the GOP now knows it cannot take the support of that 3rd party candidate for granted, and is forced to woo them back by changing their positions. And at the subsequent election you potentially have a candidate more in line with your positions. This happens all the time in Westminster style democracies like Canada (Liberal party moves too far to the right starts to bleed support to the farther left NDP, Conservatives move to far too the left they start to bleed support to the Reform party etc). The main leverage you have with a party is the power to withhold your support. If they know in advance you will never do this their is literally no incentive to care about positions you care about.

      • Beccolina

        Excellent point. I feel it’s more important to them in some states than others. In a state that is overwhelmingly red or blue, it will take a lot more people voting for a 3rd party for anyone to notice.

  • http://creativefidelity.wordpress.com Dan F.

    Don’t feed the troll Peggy…

  • http://www.cfmpl.org/blog Alberto Hurtado

    Mark: I’m curious—do you think Mr. Santorum should not present himself for communion?

    • Mark Shea

      Not my job to adjudicate such matters. The world would be a happier place if combox warriors did not perpetually imagine that God had died and put them in charge of excommunicating people.

      • http://www.cfmpl.org/blog Alberto Hurtado

        I don’t really ask for “Santorum qua Santorum”. And if you notice I didn’t ask “should X not give Mr. Santorum communion.” I ask in terms of conscious. If “war mongering” ought to be something that weighs enough on the conscious (“if your brother has anything against you…” Perhaps?) that ought to give those of us pause who might so war monger.

        Friend, not all of us are “com box” warriors :)

    • Dan C

      The right has a difficult time with this matter, but let us proceed anyway…
      Self-presentation for Communion is a matter of individual conscience. Mr. Santorum clearly believes strongly (if errantly) in the varied policies he proposes. As such, 1) he is not going to avoid Communion 2) it is up to him and his conscience to sort such out.

      Also, let us proceed even further with this discussion. This whole “presentation for Communion because I am a voter advocating for ‘x’” is a very new matter. As Michael Sean Winters points out, this was never discussed in the days in which the government killed marriage with the advocacy of no-fault divorce. Only as a consequence of the Blessed Holy Culture War (may it last forever, Amen) have we begun using the Eucharist as a political weapon. To clarify: Mr. Santorum is a private individual. While he advocates for a certain position, he himself is not executing these activities. Let us just assume he is wrong, and that he is cheering for the wrong policies. He himself is NOT waging war with Iran, for example, or torturing, for example. Should his views get a public airing on a Catholic podium, probably not. But it is unclear that the Church indicates coherently that such advocacy excludes one from Communion. He himself is doing very very little, actually, just flapping his gums.

      Ms. Sherry Weddell has this discussion in another place and noted the insanity of the diversity of the policies of Colorado between the varied prelates in 2004. The rest of the Church is not having this discussion. Just those in America fighting the Blessed Holy Culture War (may it last forever, Amen).

      • Beadgirl

        “Blessed Holy Culture War (may it last forever, Amen)”

        This made my day, Dan C!

  • Andy, Bad Person

    If Bernadin was running, I’d probably vote for him, too, since he’s been dead since 1996.

  • Mike

    WOW dude, you sound like a crazy lefty! This is unbecoming of your stuff. I read it and I like it but this turns me right off. This is exactly the sort of stuff that turned me off the MSNBC lefty clap trap non-sense but it looks like its followed me.

  • TheRealAaron

    I am amazed at the comments every time Mark posts something about politics. This is the same thing he said leading up to the 2008 election, the 2012 election and the post-election moaning and groaning finger pointing analysis. Yet commenters are shocked—shocked!—to learn that Shea isn’t falling in line with the Republican platform this time. He may be wrong (I don’t think so), but he’s nothing if not consistent.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    I don’t agree with Lewis Back on a GREAT many things, but on this issue he is right: If you have been even a little bit awake and aware over the past 20 years and you’re still voting Democrat or Republican, you seriously need to pull your head out of your ***.

  • Bob

    You know, the last time you blogged about Santorum, you chastised any comboxers for even coming close to criticizing him. If I recall (and I can’t find that post), you even kinda warned readers that you would find it uncouth if anyone took the opportunity to criticize Santorum. You chastised me for criticizing him, even though I was actually questioning something else. I got the distinct impression that you liked him.
    But, I guess it’s OK to call him a “bloodthirsty warmonger.” Any OTHER criticism, like of some of his other positions — well, that’s just a low blow.

    • Mark Shea

      I don’t remember, but likely it was the substance of the criticism, not “daring to criticize Santorum” that was the issue. Try to get past your polarized politics and you will discover that there are whole rainbows of nuance possible in political discourse. It is, for instance, possible to criticize Santorumn when he advocates cold-blooded murder, while still agreeing with him about something else.

  • Benjamin

    Small-c conservative Catholics, being more or less from what I understand as socially conservative and economically liberal are in a very rough spot politically. Not many Americans, let alone American politicians are both things. In fact American culture at large has usually been pushing for the opposite in both spheres for most American history with a few exceptions. Both American Movement Conservatives and American Liberals are individualists in different ways–something that (at least from what I can gather) Catholic thinking is not.

    • Jon W

      You finally wrote something I agree with 100%, Benjamin. ;-)

  • http://agapas.me Bob LeBlanc

    Don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos.

  • brian_in_brooklyn

    Thank you for the first video, Mark.

    “Give peace, O Lord, in all the world;
    For only in you can we live in safety.”

  • http://pavelspoetry.com Pavel Chichikov

    What’s in the video? All I hear is a foreign language.

    • Mark Shea

      If you click on the caption feature it gives the translation.

  • Holy Fool

    Ron Paul should have won the election (and he would have had not fiat ballots dilluted his percentage) then the college of Cardinals should have elected Ron Paul Pope, since clearly Paul is a prophet from God according to Mark. With both spiritual and temporalv authority Ron Paul would trigger a great Hoppeian anarcho-capitalist Renessiance. I could see it now, Jeffery Tucker could lead the choir(himself signinng the especially high notes) and then every Tom Woods book would be placed on every high altar next to scripture and the summa. Last Rothbard would be declared doctor of the Church.

    • Mark Shea

      Paul is a prophet from God according to Mark

      Uh. No. Just a politician. Didn’t advocate grave intrinsic evil so he met my incredibly minimal standards for bare moral decency. You don’t really seem to know much about me, do you, if you think I’m a libertarian.

  • http://lolbamas.com/ DRH

    The phrase ‘cheer for the murder of civilians as a “wonderful” thing,’ is a rather startling way to obscure the concept of preventing deaths of millions of innocent people.

    • rakowskidp

      Because the ends justify the means, right?

      CCC 1759: “An evil action cannot be justified by reference to a good intention” (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Dec. praec. 6). The end does not justify the means.

      Oh, snap!

  • enness

    Rhetoric at this pitch is why I rarely share your stuff, no matter how spectacular it is.

  • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

    In the event Amerika hasn’t collapsed by 2016, then I’ll consider voting for Rand Paul if he wins the nomination for the GOP. The other candidates I know of – Rubio, Santorum, etc. would not get my vote. Chris Christie and Condi would have even less chance than Santorum or Rubio if that were possible.