The best Sarah Palin line so far!

Our friend Cacciaguida (one of the best online handles I have ever seen) has an interesting post about GOP VP candidate Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) – who she is, what she has done, and what people are saying about her.

My very favorite line picked up from LadyBlog:

It’s like NASCAR meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
 
This, folks, is going to be great!
FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

91 Responses to The best Sarah Palin line so far!

  1. Ruth Lapeyre says:

    I have a candidate I can vote for instead of one I had to vote against. God bless McCain for selecting her, haven’t heard anything I don’t like so far.

  2. James says:

    Is she wearing something that looks very much like a Rosary?

  3. Deusdonat says:

    LOL. Cacciaguida is pretty obscure. Maybe I should change my screen name to Ugolino to follow a particular theme.

    If I had to summise my first impressions of Palin, I’d say Tina Faye meets Patty Duke.

  4. Joe says:

    I am envious of you Americans with such a good person to vote for. My only question is, what did she do with the kid on the fourth day?

  5. Chris says:

    hang on. she is a protestant. How can you guys support her? [So what?]

  6. KK says:

    Brick by brick, Chris ;-)

  7. KK says:

    That’s a protestant rosary. It’s shorter.

  8. Dr. J says:

    Who else thinks Saturday Night Live has an *obligation* to get Tina Fey back to do impressions of her? LOL!

  9. shadrach says:

    Beware of political enthusiasms. They always disappoint.

  10. Tim Ferguson says:

    Chris, I guess those who care about accurate translations of the liturgy and celebrate the distinctiveness of Catholic culture and yearn for a restoration of much that has been lost in the last forty or so years are not as monochrome as the left likes to portray us.

  11. Jerry says:

    If the liberals really think about it they have to be in panic mode given the addition of Palin to the ticket. Obama’s biggest (and only) selling point has been “change”. Well Palin has them beat all to heck on that: a woman and one who reflects good old American values. She hunts, she fishes, she flys an airplane, she took on the establishment and won, she lives in an environment harsher than Obama and Biden have ever seen. Short on experience? Maybe not. Running a city (even a small one) and serving as Governor means making decisions daily that you will be held accountable for. What decisions do individual Senators make that bear the same responsibility and consequences? None! Besides if you are an Obama you can simply vote “present”. She has to make tough yes or no ones.

    All of the above is separate from the pro-life and pro man/woman marriage issues. Add to those who will be attracted to her “frontier experience” those of us who are strongly pro life and pro traditional family and you have a broad base of support. Finally we know a whole lot about Palin (and McCain)unlike what we don’t know about Obama. Those who want to take a chance on “change” are much more likely to vote for the change Palin clearly represents than the uncertain change Obama can’t even define. Yes, Palin is a question mark and somewhat risky IF McCain keels over and dies early in his Presidency. I’ll take my chances on that (and her ability) any day over a socialist.

  12. ThomasB says:

    Little known facts about Sarah Palin here:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2072079/posts

  13. Catherine says:

    Let’s all thank McCain for this wonderful GOD BLESSED PICK!

  14. Garrett says:

    I believe she might be a grandmother…

  15. John Polhamus says:

    I wrote the following comment on Jack Cafferty’s “Cafferty Files” CNN blog. It never got moderated (they closed the comment box shortly after I posted it), but it appeared anyway. The question was, “What do the republicans have to do to top the Democratic National Convention?” My answer was as below, but now they have Hurricaine Gustav helping them in the humanity stakes as well. I’m telling you, the stars are aligning!

    “They already have, thanks to Sarah Palin. I hate to tell you, but she has more charisma than any American politician since Bill Clinton, and that goes a LONG way past the Obiden ticket. Unless I miss my guess, this choice is going to give John McCain a bigger bump than Sarah Palin’s last preganancy. Tough luck, old bean.”

  16. ThomasB says:

    Chris – she’s pro-life, unlike certain “Catholics” (one of whom is on a national ticket). Did you know that?

  17. Paul Stokell says:

    Garrett, that might work in the virtual cesspools known as Daily Kos or Huffington Post, but leave the calumny-filled memes there. Three well-attended internet fora were gummed up today by repeated, full-on ignorant posts such as what you mention, none of which were based on anything resembling fact-checked, ethical reporting.
    In other words, FAIL.

  18. ThomasB says:

    Thansk Paul – you saved me from probably posting something I’d regret.

  19. ThomasB says:

    Here’s what I think: I think ignorant attacks against Saracuda are going to backfire big time.

  20. John says:

    In a previous comment section, Father Z asked me to post the address of my blog should I ever create one. I have, and thought I would kill two birds with one stone and post the link here, since it also has a post about Sara Pallin that might interest some folks who were interested in this blog post:

    [Did I ask you to post your address? I wonder. I usually say people are free to say what they want on their own blogs. Did I invite you to post your address?]

  21. John says:

    I should probably note that I have at least one more contributor coming online as a member of the blog soon, so it’s not going to be just my enterprise.

  22. Steve says:

    I heard a caller on our local radio station call her a “female Teddy Roosevelt”. This seemed so fitting w/her hunting, fishing, flying, etc. For Catholics, her prolife stance is incredible. She is a living witness to fulfilling God’s will and accepting her fifth child w/ love. She is an example for our nation and the world. Especially in the same week when Nancy Pelosi and J Biden scandalized the Church with their positions on abortion. May God Bless her and her family, and may she lead our country to a better place.

  23. John says:

    Father,

    I went back and looked, and your exact words to me were “Give me the address of your blog, and I’ll take a look!”. Granted, that was not in and of itself an explicit invitation to post a URL, but posting a URL is one way of fulfilling your request.

    Here is the comment section where you said it, in case you do not recall doing so:

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/08/what-does-augustine-really-say-what-does-pelosi-not-understand/#comments

  24. Steve says:

    John’s website sure appears to be supporting a candidate who is supporting infanticide and abortion. He is trying to justify this bad support for all “Catholics”. I hope no one here bothers to go to his site. It is not worthy of our “clicks”.

  25. Joseph says:

    Just when I was worried about a not finding a late nite snack, John announces that the cafeteria (Catholic) is opened once again. Whoo-hoo and whew knew!!

  26. Jerry says:

    I went to his blog, found it offensive, and left. Those who are pro life don’t waste your time visiting it.

  27. Tioedong says:

    When she was named, the Lord put onto my heart that I needed to pray for her.
    This doesn’t happen very often, but after the filth being smeared about her on the left wing blogs, could I ask you and your readers to do the same?

  28. RBrown says:

    And John, did you say Sarah Palin is “not intelligent?”
    Comment by Joseph

    This always happens. The Dems can nominate mediocrities like Al Gore and John Kerry, and then want to portray them as intellectually gifted. They forget that FDR, who came to the White House with zip in national political experience–was anything but gifted intellectually.

    And, btw, Joe Biden is no Einstein.

  29. John says:

    As a blog, we take a pro-life position that is in accordance with Catholic teaching. There is a post right now highlighting the convention speech of Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, and his pro-life voting record.

    However, also in accordance with Catholic teaching, the blog agrees with the 2004 comments of Cardinal Ratzinger, who said “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”. There is also a post about that up, and the comment section is open.

    [I'll be clear. I will look at your blog. But if you ever attempt to use my blog as a free advertising spot for yourself again, I will ban you by IP so that you won't be able even to read here. I am happy to have other points of view, but what you did really annoyed me. If I think your blog worthy of promoting on my own blog – entirely my place and my choices entirely governing it – then I will allow you to push it. If not… no. Clear enough? – Fr. Z ….

      UPDATE:


    I looked at the blog, and I see nothing very interesting so far as it relates to the general topic of my blog or of the topic of this entry in specific. Keep at it.

  30. RBrown says:

    On John’s blog he refers to Douglas Kmiec as a theologian. I realize that Mr Kmiec is a lawyer, but I can find no mention of any theological qualifications.

  31. RBrown says:

    I went back and looked, and your exact words to me were “Give me the address of your blog, and I’ll take a look!”. Granted, that was not in and of itself an explicit invitation to post a URL, but posting a URL is one way of fulfilling your request.
    Comment by John

    Not really. It wasn’t even an implicit invitation.

  32. malta says:

    *Sarah Palin fishes salmon by convincing them it’s in their interest to jump into the boat. Comment by Jordanes >*

    You are a freak, dude :)

  33. John says:

    RBrown:

    Kmiec is credited as a “moral law scholar” here:

    http://www.sentinel.org/node/4964

  34. John says:

    I apologize if I misinterpreted your comments (as appears to be the case) in the previous comment section I linked back to, Father. It was not my intent to annoy you. I appreciate you taking the time to look over my blog.

    I only thought to post it here because this is one of my favorite Catholic blogs (Though I’ll admit the recent political posts here have not been to my taste) and because you seemed to have previously expressed an interest in it. I’ll gladly refrain from posting links to it here in the future, unless you decide to authorize it on some future occasion.

  35. John says:

    I want to clarify that the link that appears by my name in the previous post was accidental — the result of my web browser or the website automatically remembering my identity. I have removed it from this post, so it shouldn’t happen again (as it seems to remember settings from only the previous post).

    I do notice that other people have names that link to their blogs. If you don’t want me in particular to, as I gather from my name no longer being a hyperlink in previous posts, that is, of course, your prerogative, and I will respect that, though I am not sure why I would be singled out in that regard. It’s your blog to do with as you wish, obviously.

  36. Emilio III says:

    John, I believe the link to your blog in your signature is OK. My impression is that the objection was to advertise your blog as if it were something specifically requested by Fr Z. Lots of people have links to their blogs in their profiles, so that’s not a problem.

  37. Joseph says:

    It is interesting to note that (from John’s site and other references) Kmiec makes this grand appeal to the idea that somehow, Obabma is not like the old pro abortion dems, that he shifts the onus, formerly portrayed as having been on the state, (he says)to that of the moral choice of the mother. This, in Kmiecs mind is some sort of sea change in the arena of aborto politcs, setting Obama apart from that traditionally served up by the dems. Huh? Like, hello? –when has it not been the moral choice of the mother that drives all of this.. as if making more state authored assists available, for prenatal care etc., will perhaps lower the rates of abortion, whereas, he argues, the continued battle through the use of the courts has gotten pro life folks almost nowhere. He sort of argues in a circle, for it is, again – in his senario as he sees the Obama prescription – really putting the state there as the central difference maker. The mother, now has more reasons to not abort. Underwhelming, and does little really to get to the heart of the issue, which he is right, is not something for the courts to deliver, but it is a battle for the hearts and minds of the bulk of the nation. so Obama give us?? what, a softer gentler pro abort???? Huh, not with that voting record.

    It is bizarre how he is giving the moral high ground up to Obama, the one who said, regarding “moral choice of the mother” ‘ would not want my pregnant young daughter “punished” with a baby.’

    Well, that is kinda like electing OJ Simpson to the “Office of Race and Domestic Relations” based on the idea that his willingness to marry outside his race and befriend whites on the golf course, etc.,would be a boon for race relations. You don’t reward bad behavior morally with some sort of shell game philosophy about the greater good would be (= might be = pie in the sky, believed only by academics and wishfull thinking dreamers) better served by honoring BS and high falutin rhetoric – never mind behavior, voting records, photo opps with Planned Parenthood, 100 % voting pro abortion, including defending partial birth abortion in his state and in the Senate, receiving funding from these groups and on and on, just amounts to scandal heaped upon scandal. This is also served up with other salacious fare, homosexual marriage, etc. etc. and is Satan’s best plan in this country to destroy the moral fabric. and lofty language does not help, just gives cover to even some well meaning, i guess, “intellectuals,” like this dummie, who perhaps, like most of his his ilk, must now check common sense at the door of modern academies.

    Mind blowing.

  38. Joseph says:

    BTW, Father Z, could you have picked a less flattering picture of our new VP?

  39. Andrew says:

    Perspective from Australia

    I get the impression that there are a lot of uncharitable comments here.

    In 2005, Pope Benedict in an address in Valle D\’Aosta told a group of priests that the practice of the Catholic faith was much weaker in Both Europe and Australia (my country)than it was the United States of America.

    I am sure that is the reason why the Pope decided to give us World Youth Day recently.

    So my friends from the red, white and blue, we over here are hard pressed to get any politician to take such an unequivocal prolife stance, and you have such a marvelous person being nominated for VP, and there is discussion whether being Catholic or not makes her suitable? (Forget my comments in a previous entry wondering how one could do that work if you had a family!)

    In a pluralist society, there is no moral problem for a Catholic voting for a non-Catholic individual, if they uphold Christian values paramount of course of which is the right to life.

    As the example of Catholic politicians shows, by and large they are pretty disappointing, but for a few exceptions.

  40. Chris says:

    Let me clarify. My post was a (tongue in cheek) response to the huge enthusiasm she has generated, given some previous comments on this blog re our seperated brothers and sisters in Christ. Assumptions that I was anti protestant were understandable but innacurate.

  41. Catnip says:

    If you people, including you, Fr. Zuhlsdorf, could be serious for a moment, you might reflect on the fact that Sarah Palin, approves of abortion in the case of the “health of the mother.” As you know, the health of the mother can be used in almost any situation to excuse an abortion. Seems she’s not quite as pro-life as you thought.

  42. Vincenzo says:

    Fr. Z:

    “My very favorite line picked up from LadyBlog:

    It’s like NASCAR meets Buffy the Vampire Slayer.”

    Click here.

  43. ckdexterhaven says:

    Folks, We need to keep this great lady and her family in our prayers. The left is saying ugly things about her and her teenage daughter. (including someone on this blog- I’m looking at you-Garrett) Despicable. Please pray for them.

  44. Bob Shelton says:

    *Show me one church document which states categorically that Protestants are not going to hell and will in fact obtain the salvation in Jesus Christ*

    Nothing states categorically that anyone *will* get into heaven. Even devout Catholics. But I can sure show you documents saying that the means of salvation are open to Protestants. Let’s start with Dominus Iesus and Unitatis redintegratio. Here is Dominus Iesus 17 speaking about Protestant communities:

    “..the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.”

    I think that’s pretty clear.

  45. Crusader Airman says:

    Protestant or not, Sarah Palin defends life. I’d happily vote for her even if she was Muslim, so long as she promised to defend life, marriage, et al.

    It is a shame, no, that’s not right…”scandal” is a better word…that the Catholic VP candidate in the race is less faithful to Catholic teaching than the Protestants on the other side of the aisle. Good lesson there…

    As for, “”Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”,” the Catechism says this:

    817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church – for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.” The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body – here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism – do not occur without human sin:

    Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

    818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

    819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

    ===
    To me, this means we know where the Church IS…and we don’t know where the Church is NOT. All validly baptized Christians are Catholic…some imperfectly so, but members of the Body of Christ nonetheless. God will save persons according to His plan, not ours, and woe to us if we attempt to sit in judgement over our fellow Man. Evangelize..YES! Declare someone is going to Hell…at your own peril.

  46. CarpeNoctem says:

    Father, I have been thinking about the whole Pelosi thing again.

    Do you suppose that Pelosi knew exactly what she was doing when she became an Augustine scholar the Sunday before the DNC? I mean, the attention of faithful Catholics and even all those bishops statements have been primarily focused on correcting her rather than on Obama and Biden and the DNC.

    Yeah, other democrats are guilty by association when these critiques are made, but the heat is off of the top of the Democratic ticket. After all, Biden didn’t make these statements, and he can deny he agrees with them if he were challenged, slipping into what appears to be a more ‘moderate’ line of dissent against Church teaching. Folks who are on the fence or who are truly confused about what their priorities are as Catholic voters can say, “Yeah, he is anti-life, but he is not a monster like Pelosi”.

    Obviously, Pelosi can get away with anything because her constituency probably applauds her ‘sticking it’ to the Church.

    Upon thinking about the last week more deeply, this just smells bad. I think we’ve been had… I think we have been manipulated by the master deceiver, or at least I think we need to ask ourselves if this is the case.

  47. THANK YOU Crusader Airman

  48. BobP says:

    >Chris – she’s pro-life, unlike certain “Catholics” (one of whom is on a national ticket). Did you know that?<

    That certain “Catholic” was very influential in getting Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, at great political risk to himself and several other Democratic Senators. This is a fact. Don’t believe all the stuff you read. “Pro-life” is only a label used for political purposes; it is a very shallow measure of the true person or what he or she can accomplish. Try selling the NRA in high-crime, inner-city areas with massive populations, for example.

  49. Jordanes says:

    Catnip said: If you people, including you, Fr. Zuhlsdorf, could be serious for a moment, you might reflect on the fact that Sarah Palin, approves of abortion in the case of the “health of the mother.”

    Yes, I’ve heard that claimed already, but still haven’t found any evidence for it. And even if it’s true, how do we know it’s not referring to operations in the case of pregnancies when the embryo attaches inside the fallopian tube, which is not direct abortion? Until we see some quotes and context, how can we judge whether or not your assertion is true?

  50. Phil (NL) says:

    BobP,

    “Don’t believe all the stuff you read.” you say. That’s sound enough advise. I do believe NARAL ratings though. One judge supported does not negate years of aiding and abetting killing the not-yet-born.

    Crusader Airmen,

    Well said. One can have grave doubts about anyone’s salvation, but the judgement is God’s, not ours. There is no telling what exactly would be justice, not with our limited human capabilities. Moreover, God is mercyful, and may extend that mercy – again, there’s no telling how far. Hell will probably full enough, but would anyone really want to say in this life ‘that person is doomed’ only to find out on Judgement day he or she isn’t? There are plenty of means to show the erros of someone’s ways or condemn their actions without assuming the ultimate status of his/her soul. In my opinion, anyone’s salvation is a topic (perhaps the topic) on which one better does not judge.

  51. Jordanes says:

    Yes, I’ve heard that claimed already, but still haven’t found any evidence for it. And even if it’s true, how do we know it’s not referring to operations in the case of pregnancies when the embryo attaches inside the fallopian tube, which is not direct abortion?

    Okay, now I’ve seen a few quotes about the “health of the mother” exception. Again, I’m going to need more information to see what she means by that. It could be a reference to the so-called “tubal pregnancy exception” that the Catholic Church allows (it’s not really an exception, of course).

    As for Garret’s snark above, I don’t pay attention to the Angry Kook Left conspiracy rumor mill, so I hadn’t heard what revoltingly outrageous things the Left has been saying about Sarah Palin’s fifth child. Just goes to show their moral calibre.

    As for Doug Kmiec, no, he’s not a theologian, nor does he have anything to say about pro-life issues worth listening to, not since he hopped on the Obamamania Bandwagon. The fact that he overnight went from being a Romney supporter to an Obama devotee tells you all you need to know about his political and moral sense.

  52. Jordanes says:

    You are a freak, dude :)

    Um, thanks. Humor in these situations is always welcome, even if the humor is a little, er, odd.

    And just so everybody understands, I got the above list via email, as I said. I didn’t write any of it myself, and actually several of the lines I find much less funny than other lines (or not funny at all). If Father Zuhlsdorf has a problem with anything in it, of course I have no objection to his deleting some or all of it.

  53. Joseph says:

    Bob, what are you smokin over there (wherever over there is!)

    Your beloved Biden was responsible for presenting the whole Anita Hill debacle, and the principal “interrogator” raking now justice Thomas over the coals. His demeanor was shameless, arrogant, snide and disgusting towards CT, a fellow Catholic, BTW. Only Thomas’ deft appeal to the public’s and especially the black community’s sense of fairness by his “high tech lynching” rejoinder caused Biden et al to back down. The political heat was at that point just too much. NO kudos to Biden here at all. In fact, just the opposite. And, his objections were all, for all intents and purposes, (as it always is now in Supreme court nominations) concerned with the “abortion as litmus test” issue. So Biden not only accepts abortion as a political reality, he is the watchman at the gate for its defense perpetually. As staunch and as strident supportor as there is with a couple of exception. With Biden, stem cells, cloning is perfectly OK as well. Want to know more, or is this quite enough!

    To quote Thomas:

    Throughout my life I’ve often found truth embedded in the lyrics of my favorite records. At Yale, for example, I’d listened often to “Smiling Faces Sometimes,” a song by the Undisputed Truth that warns of the dangers of trusting the hypocrites who “pretend to be your friend” while secretly planning to do you wrong. Now I knew I’d met one of them: Senator Biden’s smooth, insincere promises that he would treat me fairly were nothing but talk. Instead of relaxing, I’d have to keep my guard up.

  54. Brian Day says:

    I think we have been manipulated by the master deceiver, or at least I think we need to ask ourselves if this is the case.
    Comment by CarpeNoctem

    I disagree. There are 64 days left until this election. The Pelosi scandal will fall off of the political radar, one way or another, in about a week. That still leaves eight weeks of intense focus on Obama/Biden.

    The current focus on Pelosi has been a good thing. American bishops have spoken out against her statements. That would have been unheard of just four years ago.

  55. RBrown says:

    That certain “Catholic” was very influential in getting Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, at great political risk to himself and several other Democratic Senators.
    Comment by BobP

    The committee did not vote to recommend Thomas for confirmation.

    That certain Catholic was also a key player in rejecting Robert Bork. If Bork had been confirmed, Roe v Wade would have been overturned, and abortion would once again be a decision for each state.

  56. RBrown says:

    Kmiec is credited as a “moral law scholar” here:
    http://www.sentinel.org/node/4964
    Comment by John

    Since when does that make someone a theologian?

    He is a lawyer.

  57. Al Stakhanov says:

    I confess that I’ve not read all the above comments, but I fear very good people have put great trust in an unknown candidate. Why this rush to judgement? Has the GOP (God’s Own Party) become that despirited and desperate?

  58. CarpeNoctem says:

    Brian– I agree wholeheartedly that a lot has happened in four years and it is good to use this as a teaching moment. Indeed, I too wonder if such a discussion would have been possible four years ago.

    But my objection is that Pelosi (who is safe in her district) is now presenting a new, more extreme ‘wacko’ edge of anti-Church rhetoric, making much more measured, ‘politically-correct’ formulas, such as that which we can expect from Obama/Biden (“oh, we want fewer abortions and all children to be wanted”) to seem less extreme.

    My concern is with those who are on the edge… Catholic and otherwsie. The party regulars on both sides are not going to budge regardless of what happens… it is those moderate “undecided” voters who will be seduced by what appears to be a run toward the center of the rhetorical landscape, which has now been re-defined by such an extreme statement on part of Pelosi.

    Ultimately there is criticism for all involved (politicians, bishops) for letting the range of acceptable debate to go so far without a check. No doubt Obama/Biden are out of the range of what is morally acceptable, but if all the firepower is aimed at the extreme edge where Pelosi is (and where the offense to the Church becomes a personal dispute between the honor of the Speaker and individual bishops, rather than a thoroughly comprehensive teaching moment), we miss the true debate which is going on in this country.

    I’m sorry, Father, if this is going into a rabbit hole… maybe further responses should go to your new posting on this whole Pelosi mess?

  59. RBrown says:

    BTW, if teaching and writing on moral law makes a lawyer a theologian, then it also works the other way–theologians who teach courses that reference moral law also can be considered lawyers.

    Signed,

    RBrown, Esq.

  60. ckdexterhaven says:

    Bob P, Kennedy and Biden (both Catholics) were the guys responsible for making Alito’s wife cry when he was in front of the Senate Judiciary committee. Both of these Catholics voted against Alito precisely b/c they were afraid he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. If I’m not mistaken, I think they voted against Roberts as well.

  61. johnny says:

    McCain fully vetted Gov. Palin, and decided he was satisfied. Gov. Palin made the decision that she and her family were willing and able to take on the challenge. McCain listened to his base and picked a solidly pro-life candidate, we should be glad. Sarah is going to be a solid pick, and a good vice president.

  62. Hugh Dyment says:

    I’m a convert to to Catholiscism, father of six, twenty year Alaskan teacher and former small town Alaskan mayor. I’ve met Governor Palin a number of times. She’s a classy lady. I assume the readers are familiar with her sincere anti-abortions views. Readers may not be aware that the Governor attended the Catholic Church as a small child, but began attending and was raised in an Assembly of God church when her mother left the Catholicism.

    I’m ashamed and saddened when I compare the God inspired pro-life actions and beliefs of my formerly Catholic Governor with the pro-abortion actions of Catholic House Speaker Pelosi and Senator Biden. Something went wrong somewhere. Governor Palin has a deep courage of conviction, but at least some Catholic politicians seem to have none and may be doing so such harm to the souls of others.

  63. ThomasB says:

    Garrett – my apologies for thinking you were spreading Daily Kos/Move On rumors. Your information was apparently accurate.

    http://www.newsweek.com/id/156549

  64. Father Totton says:

    To respond to Carpe Noctem,

    The more I reflect on it, the more I think Pelosi was running a sort of interference. I think her comments were made to further confuse those Catholics (many of them from “The Greatest Generation”) who have long harbored a(n almost religious) loyalty to the Democratic party). Remember the old saw about the southside pub. O’Malley says to Fitzsimmons: “Did you hear about old McGillicuddy?” “No, what happened?” “Voted Republican” “impossible, I saw him at Mass this morning!”. Well, Pelosi and her dem strategists saw this as an opportunity to shore up that support by confusing the issue “oh, this has been debated and debated in the Church and St. Augustine says thus and so”. So O’Malley and Fitzsimmons, and Stefanowski are confused, but they can still in good conscience vote for Obama and his “Catholic” running mate Biden because Pelosi (another “Catholic”) has muddied the waters. Nevermind the terrile time Fr. Bernie O’Dunuvan has been giving them for their pro-abortion politics, St. Augustine said it was okay! Must be fine.

    Yes, her comments were calculated, but I think even more so than you suggest – calculated to bolster the old-school illogic connecting Catholic voters with the (“new” and vastly degenerated) Democratic party.

  65. Father Totton says:

    One more note on the whole Pelosi matter – Please realize that this citation of hers (wrongheaded as it was) was lifted directly from the playbook of the infamous and ill-named “Catholic for Free Choice” a PAC propped up by $$$ from Planned Parenthood. I could have sworn I had read this sort of thing verbatim from their propoganda.

  66. Matt Q says:

    Steve wrote:

    “I heard a caller on our local radio station call her a “female Teddy Roosevelt.” This seemed so fitting w/her hunting, fishing, flying, etc. For Catholics, her pro-life stance is incredible. She is a living witness to fulfilling God’s will and accepting her fifth child w/love. She is an example for our nation and the world. Especially in the same week when Nancy Pelosi and J Biden scandalized the Church with their positions on abortion. May God Bless her and her family, and may she lead our country to a better place.”

    Thanks, Steve. Much more hopeful and encouraging than the lot of other smarmy, nit-picking comments made. Sarah Palin is the fresh air in the fetid halls of our Govt. All we have are rotting old men and hysterical women who run around with their hair on fire.

    This is a critical juncture in the nation’s history. We need this Ticket in the White House. The alternative is too horrible to comprehend. Any Catholic out there who would even consider voting for the Opposition is betraying the Faith and literally condemning all future unborn children. This election, folks, also determines who next gets on the Supreme Court. Ginsberg and Stevens both have one foot in the grave and the other on an icy sidewalk. If anyone is truly pro-life, then this is your chance to prove it.

    Whatever the weakness or foibles of the two may be, they can be dealt with as they go, but the pro-life package they bring is more than we’ll ever get or have gotten.

  67. ThomasB says:

    …lifted directly from the playbook of the infamous and ill-named “Catholic for Free Choice”….

    Fascinating, Fr.! So she really does not think for herself at all, which is what I’ve always suspected. I also found it curious that a media leftie like Brokaw would even do a follow-up that began the whole thing – I bet that was contrived too.

  68. Deusdonat says:

    Hello Father Totton, I agree with your conclusions. After watching the video, it really did seem contrived (notice the slip of “senator…er…saint augustine”). I think she had been rehearsing it in her mind as she knew the question was coming. I have a very difficult time thinking she did not know such a correction would be forecoming were she to say what she did. And not only is it interference, but I think it was also to take the limelight away from Biden in a way.

  69. Deusdonat says:

    UPDATE * – the 17-year-old daughter of Palin has a bun in the oven. The spokespeople for the family say she is planning on keeping the baby and marrying the father. Watch for attacks from all sides on this one.

  70. Chris says:

    I do hope the couple are allowed some privacy and the time to decide re marriage, certainly not in the glare of the campaign season.

  71. Deusdonat says: UPDATE * – the 17-year-old daughter of Palin has a bun in the oven. The spokespeople for the family say she is planning on keeping the baby and marrying the father. Watch for attacks from all sides on this one.

    I know the Dems will use this without mercy. It doesn’t change my mind one bit. Parents today can raise a child in the best of Christian environments, but look at the flood of immorality seen by the kids which is difficult to control. Also, I know many kids today committed to chastity, but society doesn’t support it, so practicing it in today’s culture can be harder than a salmon swimming upstream. There are so many things which counter the morality parents want for their children to accept, from magazines, viagra ads, billboards, and so much more.

    What stands out for me is that she and the young man have the courage to accept the life given to them in a moment of weakness, rather than making a selfish choice to abort the child for the sake of convenience.

  72. It’s not a Sarah Palin line, but a bumper sticker she is rumored to have had on her car:

    VEGETARIAN—OLD INDIAN WORD FOR “BAD HUNTER.”

    LOL!

  73. Deusdonat says:

    Diane – you’re assuming it was “a moment of weakness”. I can’t count how many girls that age I have known who intentionally become pregnant for a host of reasons. One of them may have been that she wanted to get married to that boy, but her parents told her to wait, so she did the thing which would force her parents’ hand. I’ve seen it over and over. Yes, teen-age pregnancy is many times unwanted and unplanned. But other times it is a girl ascerting (erroneously in my opinion) her adulthood (i.e. look, Mom! I’m old enough to have a baby, so you have to respect me now!). Also, in poorer areas, having a baby is a path to independence for many girls, since they then are qualified for their own public housing, welfare benefits etc, which means they can move away from home.

    Anyway, I’m just saying, there could be many reasons for this girls’ pregnancy, so while it may be a mistake, it might be far from an accident.

  74. Kradcliffe says:

    But, one thing we can be sure of: IT’S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS!

  75. Mike says:

    When the attacks come, Palin would do well to defend her daughter by saying that sex within marriage is the ideal which we don’t always reach – we’re all human after all, thank God. Also, at least it appears her daughter and boyfriend weren’t using contraceptives (not that it matters so much in terms of moral law as sex outside marriage already falls short ethically).

  76. Garrett says:

    Testing…

  77. Garrett says:

    Oh, good, that worked.

    Ok, first of all, I wasn’t insinuating that Sarah Palin was her son’s grandmother, only that the rumors were out there! For Heaven’s sake, I certainly never thought that.

    Anyway, her silly daughter is now, unfortunately, an unmarried teenage mother pregnant with bastard child and planning a shotgun wedding. It’s too bad the abstinence that Gov. Palin has preached didn’t even sink in on her own daughter.

    I do feel that with five children, one that is an unmarried pregnant teen and the other a very young baby with special needs, all the while still serving as governor of a state and having only been in office for less than two years and now being the VP nominee of a national campaign, if this path is really for the best of Governor Palin and her family. Can she, with all of this, be an effective VP and possible even step in as PRESIDENT if, God forbid, something happens to John McCain (which is not beyond reason to think might very well happen given his age and medical history)?

    Too much drama! It makes my head hurt to think of all that. I don’t know, I’m kind of thinking this choice was disastrous, or, paraphrasing Paul Stokell’s words to me earlier: “FAIL.”

  78. Deusdonat says, Diane – you’re assuming it was “a moment of weakness”. I can’t count how many girls that age I have known who intentionally become pregnant for a host of reasons….

    No. I’m doing what the Catechism teaches us to do:

    2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.

    What is rash judgment?

    2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

    - of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

    I would rather stick with the most charitable excuse here, my friend.

  79. Anne says:

    Barack Obama as a pro-abortionist was asked what advice he\’d give his kids in this situation and he said he\’d advise them to have an abortion – \”a baby would be a punishment.\” He not only approves of abortion but voted to prevent medical treatment for a baby born alive after an abortion. Would he vote for Eugenics?

    My favorite quote from Sarah was when she said she was used to switching from the blackberry to the breast pump. The left are \”concerned\” about her ability to do the job because of her recent baby and now her daughter\’s baby. They don\’t have any idea. I\’m Irish and come from a family of 9 plus my parents. My father worked and my mother, not only worked in a small shop we owned, but also took care of the house and us. We also had our chores and helped raise each other – the older took care of the \’younger ones\’ as we called them. Sarah Palin reminds me of my mother. She has the spirited \’can\’ do of the American pioneer about her. She\’s already gathering huge crowds and the campaign has gotten millions in the last few days – an indication of her popularity. She gets 80% approval rating from the state she was running which is a statement in itself. This lady has true grit.

    The lefty MSM had better be careful with their poisoned darts as Sarah\’s history is mainstream America. Everyone can identify with her and any perception of foul play by the \’elites\’ and it may backfire.

    Bottomline – I agree with kradcliffe – It’s none of our business!

    Vote McCain/Palin ’08

  80. Deusdonat says:

    Diane – I understand what you are saying. I on the other hand prefer not to assume anything about the situation and instead just rely on the facts. Using a term like “moment of weakness” already paints one picture, whereas like I mentioned, the case might be entirely different. So, rather than “momentary weakness” or “calculated pregnancy”, let’s just all agree she’s got a bun in the oven and the baby-daddy is going to do the right thing.

  81. Joseph says:

    It annoys me to no end the invective placed on any child, earned through nofault of the child’s; words such as “bastard” as in “bastard child.”

    Bastard parents maybe. Bloggers for sure.

  82. Matt Q says:

    What is rash judgment?

    Well, that’s thinking you have hives when in reality you have ring worm. Just a thought.

  83. Deusdonat says:

    Anne – couldn’t agree more.

  84. Deusdonat says:

    You know, on further reflection, the media picking this story up at this point in time does seem a bit suspicious. I mean, apparently Palin told McCain about her daughter’s pregnancy last week. If the husband/daughter are going to get married anyway, why the need to announce that she is pregnant to the world to begin with? That is such a private issue.

    I’m actually wondering if this move was calculated on the part of Palin’s team in some effort to further humanise her. I think we are seeing some morality play unfold befor our eyes here.

  85. Garrett says:

    Merriam-Webster’s definition:

    Main Entry:
    1bas·tard
    Pronunciation:
    \?bas-t?rd\
    Function:
    noun
    Etymology:
    Middle English, from Anglo-French, probably of Germanic origin; akin to OldFrisian bost marriage, Old English bindan to bind
    Date:
    14th century
    1: an illegitimate child

    No one’s saying it’s the child’s fault.

    I do feel sorry for the heat Bristol Palin will have to endure because of this.

    Does anyone believe the McCain campaign knew of this beforehand like they’re saying? I find that pretty unbelievable, literally. If he knew about this and still chose her as VP, that would be pretty puzzling given how much flack Palin and her daughter will undoubtedly receive. I surmise the McCain camp simply didn’t know, and it’s possible Gov. Palin didn’t know, either.

  86. Ruth Lapeyre says:

    Deusdonat, “If the husband/daughter are going to get married anyway, why the need to announce that she is pregnant to the world to begin with? That is such a private issue.”

    They might as well announce it as it is no longer “private” thanks to certain blogs and mainstream media.

    Deusdonat, “I’m actually wondering if this move was calculated on the part of Palin’s team in some effort to further humanise her. I think we are seeing some morality play unfold befor our eyes here.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by the term “further humanize” is Palin not human?

  87. Deusdonat says:

    Garret – I honestly can’t determine if you are being spiteful or just plain clueless. First, since you bothered to post the dictionary definition, I’m puzzled at the fact that you don’t see how foolish that made you. First you say Palin’s daughter is having a “bastard child” then in the same sentence you babble about a “shotgun wedding”. Can you not see how moronic it is to say the two things in the same sentence? Either the child will be born a bastard (and excuse me please anyone offended by the word, as I am simply going by Garret’s dictionary definition) meaning without legitimate/married parentage or it will not. The act of procreating outside of marriage does not mean the child is a bastard. And since the father will marry the mother and thus laim the child, it will be in no way a bastard.

    You are indeed either being cluelessly foolish/ignorant or are trying to slander with your spite-filled comments to further your own agenda. Either way, you are looking very foolish at this pont so you might want to choose your words more carefully here. And learn how to use the dictionary you are so eagerly referring to.

  88. Deusdonat says:

    Ruth – They might as well announce it as it is no longer “private” thanks to certain blogs and mainstream media.

    That’s just it. I’m not entirely convinced it wasn’t leaked to the media by Palin’s camp to begin with. How difficult would it have been for Palin and her family to keep it quiet? How simple would a discrete trip to Las Vegas have been? THEN, after the elopement, how easy would a very grand announcement of the daughter’s pregnancy have been? It just doesn’t add up at present.

    I’m not sure what you mean by the term “further humanize” is Palin not human?

    Uh…yes. Palin is ineed human. I’m sorry if you had any confusion there. I forget many people may have never taken biology. What I meant (and I think everyone else understood) was that McCain is “selling” Palin’s very human “story”, and her daughter going through this particular challenge publicly seems to not only underscore Palin’s commitment to her cause, but legitimise her stance (i.e. “Even when I faced this issue with my own daughter, there was never an question she would not give birth to the child”).

  89. Bob K. says:

    I just heard her 17 year old UN-WED daughter is pregnant. “SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE HERE”. Real good morals!!. NOT!!. Are we going to feel sorry for her!. NO!!. Couldn’t wait till she was married!!. Could she?.

  90. Ruth Lapeyre says:

    “I’m sorry if you had any confusion there. I forget many people may have never taken biology.”

    No confusion Deusdonat… on my part.

  91. Deusdonat said, “That’s just it. I’m not entirely convinced it wasn’t leaked to the media by Palin’s camp to begin with.”

    I think a village has lost it’s idiot.

    Look, some things cannot be hidden – especially a growing belly in maternity and it’s better it came out now, up front. McCain didn’t hide from it – he knew about it.

    I’m going to leave this my last comment on this topic and won’t even post on it at my own blog after further reflection. The best way to handle it is to drop it and leave this 17 year old girl and her boyfriend in peace.