Gotta love Simcha Fisher

Gotta love Simcha Fisher January 5, 2012

Support Mitt Romney! Because he will only do a little bit of harm! You really should read everything Simcha writes. She’s fantastic.

She captures perfectly the “Man, this guy sucks but he’s the least sucky of a sucky field of suckish candidates” mood of the electorate. With the exception of true believer Paulites, I seen nobody talking about their candidate (even Obama) as though they support him. They merely talk as though he might act as a barrier against the still more terrible other candidates their party has on display, or against the unthinkably awful alternative of the Other Party winning. As I say, people no longer vote *for* candidates. They vote against all the other people they fear even more. Could there be a more damning assessment of the detritus our Ruling Classes cough up for us to rubber stamp?

I prefer to vote for candidates who, at the very least, do not ask me to support grave moral evil. Since my vote will have absolutely no effect on the election, but a huge effect on me, I think this the prudent thing to do. You should too.

"The notion that the Most High creator of all that exists would deny a person ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"The Catholic Church is a good deal more reasonable and compassionate now than it used ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"The number of Christian missions isn't an indicator of the health of a society.Good grief."

Dear Prolife Suckers
"Observing history and the magisterium's own teaching isn't "hate."Wow.The Catholic Church did abuse Native Americans. ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Noel

    May a great many Americans take to heart your last paragraph, and choose THE good.

  • Mike Petrik

    I respect your position, Mark, I do. My view is all candidates in every election are morally imperfect, both in deed as well as moral calculus. I vote for the one who I believe will be best for the country. Since voting for morally imperfect candidates is not an intrinsically evil act (assuming one is not voting for them because of their moral shortcomings), I think this is the most prudent course. I understand you see it differently, and I respect it — just disagree with it. That said I do not pretend that my calculus is morally superior to yours — just believe that it is prudentially superior. I can respect the fact that you believe your view is prudentially preferable, but your constant implication that it is morally superior is uncalled for and not in keeping with Catholic moral thinking. I realize that your inflammatory postings may well be a response to criticisms launched at you which you perceive to be both harsh and wrong, fair enough; but those my impression is those criticisms do not suggest any deficiencies in the sense of Catholic morality, but just prudential considerations. People should be free to criticize your prudential conclusions and accept your criticisms of theirs in return, but neither you nor I are entitled to claim the moral high ground with respect to this assessment. Yet it is difficult to read your postings without getting that message.

    • Mark Shea

      I’m sorry you have a problem with your perceptions. I hope you can straighten that out since I have made clear numerous times that my prudential judgements are mine and I do not sit in judgment of other’s prudential judgements.

      • SKay

        In the news this morning–the Bunny Ranch is encouraging it’s “coustomers” to donate to Ron Paul because of his position on states being allowed to legalize things they(Bunny Ranch) are involved in. They probably have ideas of a franchise.

        We have a President who is shredding the Constitution(t he said in a radio interview in the ’90s that he has a lot of problems with the way it is written) in front of as well as behind the scenes every day. He is using Obamacare and ssm to battle the beliefs of the Church and other Christians as well.

        As much as I am not for Ron Paul only because of some of his libertairian views – if he were the Republican nominee-I would not walk away and vote for someone else. Four more years of Obama will leave my grandchildren to live with what the idiology he and those surrounding him are pushing in theis country. It looks like he read Hugo Chavez’s book and took it to heart. He just made unconstitutional appointments to the Labor Relations Board. Of course he can just say it’s the Republican’s fault –they made me do it because I knew they would not approve of these appointments–and the media will say -OK- it fits our templet. They will help him get away with it.

        How many more Catholic adoption agencies will be closed?

        I know what my vote is about.

  • MM

    Embrace the suckitude!

    If the election of 1860 taught us anything, it is that the Abe Lincolns of the world only get in by a fluke.

    • Thomas R

      There might be Paul supporters here who don’t think real well of Lincoln. And even in my case I think he was kind of bad about Indians.

  • It’s the proverbial elephant in the room and I find it disconcerting that no one appears to giving this serious thought. I can honestly write that I support Dr. Paul in part due to the fervor of his supporters. There is something to be said of zeal as we Catholics should know.

  • victor

    She totally nailed my reservations about Santorum in a remarkably succinct (and witty!) way that I hadn’t previously considered.

  • Matthew

    Cthulu in 2012 – Why settle for the LESSER evil?

    • Heh. Are you by any chance a forum poster on Dragonsfoot?

    • Dan C

      It says something about my geek barometer that I laughed-a lot- when I read this.

  • Michelle

    “Even a purely moral act that has no hope of any immediate and visible political effect can gradually and indirectly, over time, gain in political significance.” –Vaclav Havel

    • Oregon Catholic

      Great quote. I think doing the right thing (by what our conscience tells us) and entrusting the outcome to God always works the best. God’s ways are not our ways and making the moral choice, instead of the merely practical one for this moment in time, is bound to work best.

      It is the same moral argument I have with pro-life strategies that don’t address the core issue of personhood at conception but just nibble around the edges of abortion. The longer we avoid the real issue, the longer we will have legal abortions.

  • Carpy

    “I prefer to vote for candidates who, at the very least, do not ask me to support grave moral evil”

    Can you give an example of a presidential candidate who fits this bill? Perhaps you voted for Jimmy Carter, as I did, who really did not ASK voters to support evil. He conducted his evil in secret, with the CIA, just after teaching Bible study, and a as a result a million Soviet and Afghan souls perished over a ten year period.

    I agree with you that voting comes down to Prudence, but we cannot forget the other six virtues which include Justice, Courage, and Charity.

    Mark, who have you cast presidential votes for?

    • Mark Shea

      I voted Republican from 1980 to 2004, when I started to finally wise up that the GOP was a) not interested in doing anything about abortion and b) as committed to grave intrinsic evil in defiance of the Church as the Dems were, just with different sins worthy of the fires of hell. I declined to vote for McCain due to his support for ESCR and his tepid and transparently fake come to Jesus moment regarding Roe. I voted third party then and will likely continue to do so, unless I write in Ron Paul. i did vote for Carter. I was young and dumb.

      • Carpy

        *** GOP not interested in abortion ***

        Beg to differ. The GOP SCOTUS appointments have been very good over the last 30 years in their legal opposition to R v. W. And since the court created our present mess; it will be up to the court to (we pray) fix it, or at least make it better.
        The GOP congress, on the other hand, has done very little except keep their heads down and avoid the issue.

        • I wouldn’t say “very good”. Clearly better than the Dems, yes. But a mixed bag. If they had been “very good”, Roe vs. Wade would have been overturned by now.

        • Mark Shea

          Miers, Roberts (“Roe is settled law”), Souter, Kennedy, O’Connor. Yeah. Great appointments.

  • Jack

    Loke Mrs Fisher I disagree with Ron Paul on a number of issues, but If I was an American I would back him purely because he is an honourable man who has something that approaches an intellectual plan for presidency unlike the other GOP candidates (with the possible exception of Huntsman) who I consider to be 5th rate idiots and sleezeballs who whould trade their Daughter’s virtue to sit behind the Resolute desk.

    It may sound stupid but one of the ways in which I figure if a pollitician is worth supporting is by asking myself the question “If I were a father of a nice Catholic girl/guy (delete as appropriate), would I be happy to see him/her marry this candidate?”

    Like I said I disagree with Ron Paul on a number of issues but I believe that he is both an honourable and intelligent man who would be a reasonable if not great President.

    If I could give him one piece of advice It would be to drop the campaign for the republican nommination, find a decent pollitician whom I admired (100% agreement on the issues is nice but not neccessary) on either side of the Asle and ask him/her to be my running mate in a third-party bid for the Presidency.

    • “th rate idiots and sleezeballs who whould trade their Daughter’s virtue to sit behind the Resolute desk”

      What country do you live in that men can look into the hearts and souls of others and judge so freely? One more big reason not to support Paul – his followers. Either Paul’s own attitude about himself versus others causes this sort of thing, or it feeds into what was always there, I’m not sure. But it pretty much sucks, and goes to show how easily Christians put blinders on for the latest, hippest fad.

      • David Bennett

        Say what you will about Paul’s supporters, but very few of us got on board with Paul because it is trendy. Most of us have to endure criticism, since it may be trendy online, but outside of that many people don’t get it.

        I don’t pretend to be able to judge any candidate in their heart, but I will take their records seriously. If they want to take away my rights, force me to buy health care, torture people, detain me without constitutional due process, shut down my website because a forum contributor posted a photo of Barney, hand money to big banks while my neighbor gets foreclosed on, etc, then I can honestly form certain opinions about them. Ron Paul is treated like a rockstar because people like him and his policies, and like him or love him, he has been consistent.

    • ds

      “If I were a father of a nice Catholic girl/guy (delete as appropriate), would I be happy to see him/her marry this candidate?”

      I’d be urging them to consider religious life.

  • Mark, I agree with you that nobody is talking with much enthusiasm (Paul supporters excepted) about their candidate. If you don’t mind my sharing, I wrote this on my blog yesterday:

    I mean, those of us who have been accustomed in the past to voting for Republicans are used to the rallying cry of “Hold your nose and vote for X!” when it comes time for the general election. I can’t, though, for the life of me remember this rallying cry being so prevalent during the primary season. “Hold your nose and vote for one of these clowns, because even though they’re all deeply flawed and have no real ideas and would (with one possible exception) have signed NDAA 2012 right alongside the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania to say nothing of declaring preemptive war on any nation that has threateningly large amounts of oil and approving of super-duper enhanced interrogation which is not torture for reasons that are deeply personally linguistic, they’re all we’ve got!” is not exactly the most inspiring Republican message I’ve ever heard. (Too wordy, for one thing.)


  • Ghosty

    It’s worth correcting Simcha on one point about Paul: he never said we shouldn’t have gotten involved in WWII. He said we shouldn’t have gotten involved just to stop the Holocaust, and of that isn’t even remotely what got us involved. He’s also never said that he wouldn’t go to war, just that he’d follow Congress to war.

    Peace and God bless!

    • Yep, that’s why I don’t support him. I don’t like someone telling me to do evil to keep my freedom. But guess what folks, I don’t want a nation that says let the world burn as long as I keep my freedom. Blinders.

      • Ghosty

        I don’t think there’s a potential presidential candidate that would get us into a war over a genocide. It’s never happened in the history of the world. Good luck finding one. :shrug:

        Peace and God bless!

        • That’s an argument from silence, isn’t it. I know there were other reasons for fighting WWII, but the reality of the Holocaust simply validated the decision to do so. Therefore, I do know that a person who says the genocide wasn’t a good reason to fight the war flies against almost everyone who has said that it was one of the best reasons to fight the war, and the best justification for it. Paul’s “hell no, we’re not our brothers’ keeper” approach to international policy is not part of Christian morality I learned as a Protestant, and I hope to hell it isn’t foundational to Catholic teaching.

          • Thomas R

            I don’t think it is. For example I actually think the Catholic approach would actually be that the US give much more to foreign aid, not less. For whatever reason Americans believe we’re giving enormous amounts of money to crooked foreigners, which might be true in a way. But in a more real way it’s “enormous” because we’re big. In per-capita terms we aid foreigners way less than even many large nations.

            And in terms of international peacekeeping the Canadians and French are maybe more heavily into that than us.

          • Ghosty

            It’s not really an argument from silence, it’s a simple fact of history. No nation has made war simply for the prevention of the genocide of a third party. There have been times when an ethnic cleansing has caused third parties to declare war, but always because the “cleansing” was causing a burden on them by pushing people into their care.

            I’m not saying that going to war on the part of a third party is wrong, and I would argue that it can be right, especially in the case of genocide. I’m just saying that holding this against Ron Paul when it is the basic stance of every government in history, and when the Faith makes no demand that we go to war in such instances (note that going to war isn’t the only solution to such evils, and the Faith does demand some kind of action other than mere silence) is hardly fair or rational.

            A government’s primary job is the care of the people under its jurisdiction, just like the furnace of a house is only supposed to heat the house it’s built into. As people we should extend our care to everyone else, but we can’t expect a government to function with that purpose without distorting and destroying it.

            That being said, the fact remains that Ron Paul has said that if Congress voted to declare war, that means there will be war. His point is that the President is not the sole arbiter of the use of military force.

            Peace and God bless!

            • I’m fine with his view that we should actually let congress declare the wars. I have problems with saying that genocide wasn’t enough. Sure, we didn’t go into the war because of the genocide – we all know that. But the genocide gave moral weight to it. Of course there may be reasons not to go to war over genocide, or any other horror visited on people. Though we did go after Serbia for similar reasons. But to say it wasn’t a reason to do it, well that’s a problem with Paul – this election’s number one legalist. Politics means some heart and soul, not just strict analytical readings of legal documents and philosophical algorithms.

              • Ghosty

                He was asked whether he as president would declare war to stop the Holocaust, and he said no; so did FDR, for that matter, and every President since then, with their actions if not their words. He wasn’t asked if the Holocaust gave WWII added moral weight.

                If you want to criticize Paul, at least criticize him for the answer he gave to an actual question. I agree with your position that genocide is reason enough to go to war (at least in some cases), but that’s simply not a position that has historically been taken by those responsible for making the decision. It’s certainly been used as a rallying cry, however, and I don’t we can glean Paul’s feeling for that just from his answer to the question, especially since we don’t know for sure exactly how the question was phrased and in what context.

                Peace and God bless!

            • Tominellay

              I agree with Ghosty.
              The federal government has a contract with the people of this country that doesn’t involve the protection of people and property in other countries.

        • Thomas R

          Weren’t troops sent to the Balkans, largely/mostly, over reports of ethnic cleansing?

          • Ghosty

            The conflict in the Balkans had a lot more to do with settling the borders of the post-U.S.S.R. Central Europe. There was definitely ethnic cleansing that took place all over the region, but for much of the period nations simply stood by and let it happen.

            When borders couldn’t be settled, and there was a mass migration of people fleeing the violence, NATO got involved. At that point it had become a matter of “national interest” for the various European nations, and understandably so. The matter was always addressed first as a border issue regarding the former Yugoslavia, however, and only when various parties turned away from international mediation, and refugees started spilling over the borders, was military action taken.

            Peace and God bless!

            • I don’t think so. Perhaps the ‘national interest’ was what motivated it behind closed doors, but ‘they’re murdering people by the truck loads! We have to stop them!’ was the rallying cry to get support.

              • Ghosty

                Yes, and it was a great rallying cry. It wasn’t sounded when the killing started, however. So long as the conflict stayed contained there was little push to stop the killings. Once the conflict caused the displacement of a million hungry people across the borders, and threatened to spread the battles to the surrounding countries, other European countries and the U.S. got involved with direct combat. If genocide had been the primary reason the air-strikes would have begun a lot sooner than they did.

                No one is saying that stopping genocide doesn’t make a great rallying cry, not even Ron Paul. It’s still not a primary reason for going to war, historically speaking. Perhaps it should be, but again it’s hard to fault Ron Paul specifically for a position that is held by all leaders of nations.

                Peace and God bless!

  • Rebecca in ID

    So obviously I’m out of my league in that you (and Simcha, and other commenters here) know way more about the history and positions of these politicians than I do. But I did notice that Simcha, while not loving Santorum or thinking he has a good enough chance of winning, is not putting him on the same level as Pelosi, Biden, and Catholics for a Free Choice. While I understand the reservations about Santorum, I still don’t get why you think of them as having the same type of moral fiber. The issue of torture, once you see it, you see it clearly, but I can understand someone having a blind spot there. Every age has its blind spots. Washington had slaves, Lincoln would’t want his daughter to marry a black man. Talking about how to treat someone who has shown murderous intent, many lives may be at stake, etc, all of that can really cloud judgment. Just as I understand how some people don’t get right away that it’s not okay to induce labor before viability because of remote danger to the mother, when the baby has a fatal condition…it’s just a confusing situation and the person may have a difficult time relating the word “abortion” to that situation. So what seems clear to me is that Pelosi et al know very well that the Church has taught clearly on abortion, and they choose to flaunt defiance to that teaching. If you told them “that’s not in keeping with the teaching of the Church”, they would laugh and say “so what? The Church is wrong.” It seems clear to me that someone like Santorum, if the Church or the American Bishops were to speak clearly on what does or does not fall under the definitions of torture, would allow himself to be corrected. In other words there does seem to me to be a vast difference between material and formal heresy. Most of us are or have been in material heresy on one point or another, even on important points, but it’s the difference between a mistake (albeit maybe a culpable one) vs. outright purposeful heresy.

    Further, while I understand that abortion is not the only issue–I was a very zealous member of Amnesty International before it became evil, and I understand how serious is the obligation to uphold human rights in all situations, at all stages of life–it does seem like the main thing to be addressed. I mean, if I lived in Hitler’s Germany, and there had been some chance of replacing Hitler with a leader who did not believe that Jews should be slaughtered, that would really be the foremost thing on my mind–to reverse that. There are millions of lives being destroyed by abortion right now and that is a dire situation–and the longer we are up to our neck in it, the more callous our culture becomes toward all life. It seems to me that once this is rectified, there will be more humanity on all fronts.

    I am speaking as someone who reads your blog semi-regularly and I admire you and take what you have to say truly to heart, so I am not challenging you just to challenge, but to learn more if possible. I am asking myself whether or not I would be heaving a huge sigh of relief, if Santorum were elected instead of Obama, or whether I’d be thinking “Oh great, just another evil guy in power”…and I have to admit I am very inclined to think that I would be praying many prayers of thanksgiving. This is without the consideration of his position on war, however–if as you and others seem to be saying, he really would intend to go target civilians in Iran, I’d not want him in office. If, as the commenter Peggy says, the targets would be the nuclear facilities, that would be a question mark but I don’t automatically know that this would be wrong or imprudent.

    • Mark Shea

      In part because Santorum sponsored a bill to legalize human cloning. His “100% prolife” facade is bunk. He’s a neocon first and a Catholic second.

      • Rebecca in ID

        Okay, wow, that really surprises me.

      • Rebecca in ID

        take a look at the bottom of the page…
        This says he voted “yes” on banning human cloning. He has a 0 percent from NARAL…this is just from a google search, but would you mind providing a reference?

        • Mark Shea

          See my link to Scott P. Richerts’ piece. He documents Santorum’s perfidy on the matter. Remember that Pro-choice organizations often exaggerate the “threat” they feel from prolifers in order to galvanize their constituents. The are not an perfectly reliable measure.

          • Rebecca in ID

            well, he links to an article by Judie Brown, and The Judy Brown article says, “while some lawmakers believe that human embryos will be safeguarded from government research by the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, the amendment has been violated in the past and it may be violated again.” If this is the perfidy we’re talking about, I’m not sure how fair you are being. It looks like Santorum may have missed a possible loophole which might allow for the cloning, which is a far cry from voting for cloning?

            • WJA

              I don’t support Santorum. Regardless, if you actually read the bill referred to in the press release from Brown that is linked to by Richert — you can read it here — it is obvious that Richert’s paraphrase of Brown’s press release is misleading and that Brown’s press release itself imposes an interpretation on the bill that is, at the very least, questionable.

              The bill said you can “take into account techniques outlined by the President’s Council on Bioethics” when deriving non-embryonic stem cells; Brown complained that one of those techniques could result in the destruction of human embryos; but she does not mention the fact that the bill required that any techniques taken into account must be “consistent with” with the purpose of the bill, which is defined as developing stem cells that are *not* derived from human embryos. Maybe she believed someone bent on evading the purpose of the law would do so. Santorum wasn’t bound to reach that conclusion and the fact that he didn’t doesn’t mean he “sponsored a bill to legalize human cloning.”

              • Rebecca in ID

                Yes…look, I’m not fishing around for evience to like someone I shouldn’t like. I was completely, perfectly resigned to finding all of the Republican candidates barfy. But yes, this seems like a far cry from being a neocon sell-out…I am prepared to accept hard evidence. I’m not even a Republican so I have no attachments here.

  • Carpy

    *** …not much enthusiasm… ***

    I think our standards are too high. Sometimes a steady, competent manager is really best. After all, enthusiam is generally reserved for charismatic idealists, like Reagan and Obama. Our best presidents have been rather dull, non-idealogical, like Ike.

    • Some would put Reagan in the best president category. But that, like all, is opinion.

  • caroline

    Maybe we should just get rid of universal suffrage. Then everyone couold admire his own clean conscience which is, after all, the most important concern for each of us.

    • Mark Shea

      Curious to hear a Catholic mock the idea of keeping one’s conscience clean. A testament to the corruption the politicization of the Faith has wrought.

      • Thomas R

        That was maybe inelegantly said, but this plus the semi-support of Paul does at times seem like a “not do things” way of viewing conscience. One that I don’t think is what you’re saying, but could sound like it and be troubling/irritating.

        I get the sense some of the Pharisees had “clean consciences” because they just avoided all kinds of things. They didn’t talk to sinners, or dine with Gentiles, so kept “clean” of their influence. No fear of accidentally eating pork that way, having a promiscuous woman come-on to you, etc. In the modern age if we avoid gay people, drug-addicts, and criminals we avoid the risk of materially aiding their sin or being tempted by it so maybe “stay cleaner.”

        But that wouldn’t really fit Jesus. He allowed the Apostles to, basically, dine with “the corrupt ruling classes.” Or meet adulterers or the like. I do see that it’s different, Jesus obviously didn’t have his disciples build swords for the Romans or anything, but I think an over-obsession on cleanness or the appearance of cleanness could become a lack of charity. Ideally as Catholics we are to still love Gingrich, Santorum, Obama, Paul, and even Pelosi. Or to hope for their betterment. Even if I don’t manage that a 100% either.

        • Mark Shea

          We’re talking about voting for people who wish to enact grave sin as policy, not about avoiding ritual impurity by shaking hands with people who touched pork or a menstruating woman.

          • Thomas R

            I guess I should have been clearer or just more concise.

            I wasn’t really meaning ritual impurity alone, that was largely an analogy. I think what I was thinking is most of us Christians or Catholics are going to live in the world even if we can definitely see an appeal in not doing that. (A part of me would still like to be a monk, for real) And if we live in the world there’s going to be situations that aren’t entirely “clear and clean.” Yes we can perpetually fold-our arms and not really participate in Presidential voting because it’s all just “serving a lesser evil.” I’ve done the write-in thing myself and I’m not opposed to doing it. But I think for many of us perpetually shutting ourselves out of the political process, because all mainstream politicians will support enacting an evil, is going to start feeling almost like some kind of fear of ritual impurity. Or at least awkward, like a constant statement of “I really must leave the US when I get the money to do so.” At least I think it would for me.

            • And that’s OK. The Bishops have made it quite clear that ‘holding our noses’ is one possible option. We shouldn’t think lesser of those who choose that option. Or, for that matter, not acknowledge that anyone who votes is most likely holding their nose about something – and that’s fine.

  • Confederate Papist

    That’s it! I’m writing in Simcha!!

  • John C

    I was enthusiastically for Romney in ’08, and I am enthusiastically for him this time around. I do not believe he is an “empty suit”. (This type of facile criticism is stupid and juvenile. Usually there is a human being inhabiting the suit, even in the case of Barack Obama.) No, Romney is a very solid guy. He comes from a fine family, and he has a fine family. He was the governor of a large state, and he has a great deal of business experience. (“The business of America is business”, said one of our more successful presidents.) I do not subscribe to the “Mark Shea 99.44% pure test” for political candidates. And I don’t care if he’s a “flip-flopper”. That’s just a foolish media game, and if you’re falling for that one, you’re not as smart as you think. Bottom line: You can have a sane and decent man for president next year, — or you can have Barack Obama.

    • Thomas R

      I don’t care for him, but from all I’ve seen I think he seems to be fine as a husband and father. Thing is I think I would say the same of Obama, more or less.

  • Hezekiah Garrett

    Well, if you ask Santorum to choose between babies and power, he chooses power.

    Or maybe he’s just really into shriveled old dudes. (Sad, that a sodomy joke is actually more charitable than real events. )

  • Nice point. I’m sure what you said could be taken to extremes, but I think I take your meaning.

    • This was in response to some comment I’m not seeing. Didn’t see a problem with it, so must be a glich. But thought I’d clarify.

  • kenneth

    Very telling, isn’t it? A nation which was once held even by our enemies to have the best and brightest people and ambitions now chooses its leadership on a loss cutting/intellectual and moral short sale basis!

    Our only bottom line standard is that they’re not too stupid to put their own pants on and not flagrantly criminally insane, although we offer generous waivers on either standard so long as they tell us what we want to hear. On a good day we aim as high as Prince Charles, settle for someone like Snooki and pray we don’t end up with Nero! We’re in the terminal phase now, as every empire is sooner or later…..

    • “A nation which was once held even by our enemies to have the best and brightest people and ambitions”

      When was that? Ambitions maybe. But since I can remember, Americans have always been portrayed as stupid compared to, well, everyone else. That’s how it’s been in America at least. We’ve been singing the ‘America Sucks’ song since I was a kid. Who knows? Maybe that’s the problem if you think about it. After all, if a man tells himself he’s a loser long enough, chances are he’ll become a loser. If a nation is only united by the universal claim that it is stupid and inferior long enough, maybe it will eventually become just what we are today. You never know.

      Also, it might be why there isn’t more outrage at some of the obvious threats to our freedom. I’ve been hearing that our country is big brother, Big Brother, BIG BROTHER! since I was old enough to watch the news. After three or four decades of hearing it and yet never seeing it, maybe people just don’t believe it any more. Cry wolf once, after all. Cry wolf for fifty years…

      • Thomas R

        I don’t know. I think we were at least seen as attracting the “best and brightest” from the 1930s to maybe the 1960s. Smart people fleeing Nazism, Fascism, and maybe Communism too would come to the US. Some of our native-born were impressive too. In the 1930s three Nobel Prizes for Literature went to Americans, two Nobel Prizes for Chemistry went to Americans, three Americans won or shared Nobel Prizes for Physics, and four Americans won or shared Nobel Prizes for Physiology or Medicine.

        And we still have some of the top-ranked Universities in the World. By most global metrics I find the majority of the “Top 10 Universities of the World” are in the US.

  • Obpoet

    John C.,

    You rock man!

    It’s him or Obama. Cast your vote.

    I am curious, just exactly how do people think Roe can be overturned?

    • orthros

      At this point? Guns. Lots of guns.

      As Concrete Blonde said, the war is over and the good guys lost.

    • Michael in ArchDen

      “I am curious, just exactly how do people think Roe can be overturned?”

      Same way all change happens in this world…through prayer and the conversion of hearts (starting with our own).

    • It could be, eventually, if an actual principled President was elected who would only nominate judges who would follow the actual meaning of the Constitution. Yet another reason to vote for Ron Paul. Santorum would probably be reliable on this point as well (at least for pro-life issues, maybe not for other issues)

      The track record shows that GOP Presidents nominate some good judges and some bad. Dems nominate all bad. If they had nominated all good ones, Roe vs. Wade would be ancient history by now. I don’t trust the GOP to make progress on this issue, but I do trust Paul.

      I do concede that Romney would pick better judges than Obama, but it would be more of the same mixed bag.

      • Mark S. (not for Shea)

        Judges smudges. Very sincere pro-lifers have been browbeating me into voting Republican for 20 years with this particular nugget. I used to fall for it. But then I noticed those dear Republican Presidents ended up nominating worthless judges and doing nothing about this issue. It’s a carrot they’re dangling in front of you that you’re never going to get.

        Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me four or five times, and you really think I’m drinking this swill any more?

        Romney is as sincerely pro-life as Jenna Jameson is devoutly Catholic.

  • Mark S (not for Shea)

    Am I the only one who thinks Romney is eerily reminiscent of Guy Smiley?

    • ds

      Hah good one. There’s also something not right about the way words start flying out of his mouth like they’re pressurized when he gets rolling.

    • Oregon Catholic

      I was watching a segment on Huntsman last night and he kept reminding me of Mr. Rogers.