What’s Wrong with the World

Oddly enough, in this election Obama is so bad that almost any Republican looks very good in comparison, just by listing objective facts and without puffery.

I think literature that talks about McCain as "pro-life" would be more problematic along the lines you argue, than for example the top half of this leaflet, which simply lists relevant factual comparisons.

There is also a difference between a partisan leaflet like this and what Catholic and pro-life leaders say in their official communications.

And there is a difference between one isolated communication and the totality of what pro-life sources are saying. If you consider, for example, SDG's treatises on voting, he hasn't buried the point.

If you say, well voters in the pews need to hear it too, maybe they are hearing it from the other info they are getting, such as FC derived stuff, or anything from the bishops.

But maybe many of them read nothing or only one thing: for those people, can the one thing be that McCain is some kind of pro-life champion? No I wouldn't agree with that.

But can it be McCain is right on issues 1-6 like FOCA and Obama is wrong on those, and they are a very big deal, and draw your own conclusions? I think so.

Must it also say, or lead with, the idea that McCain is also wrong on some life issues? If the premise is that these people are only going to process only one basic idea, I think the idea can be OBAMA VERY VERY BAD, MCCAIN NOT. I agree it can't be MCCAIN VERY GOOD.

I don't think it is absolutely necessary that every communication say MCCAIN BAD TOO, BUT BETTER. But it has to be said, and I think people are saying it.

P.S. an even better approach would be not to talk about McCain at all, but just to tell people how horrible Obama is.

Zippy Wrote on his blog:

If Obama is elected, conservatives should keep in mind who principally got him elected: Bush, and supporters of Bush.

Talking about "Pro-Lies", let's not forget to add those folks who've engaged in Anti-McCain campaigns here & across the Internet as well. Those who would go so far as to deny that are only decieving themselves as well as those millions of victims who are soon to become casualties of Obama's hideous Pro-Abort policies!

Ari:

If you want to comment on this post, feel free.

Guilt by endorsement? It's not like McCain even associates with Republicans for Choice.

Zippy,
McCain has not been "unwavering in his support" of ESCR. He has changed his mind on the issue, and is perhaps reachable on the point. Further, he chose as his running mate a person who opposes it.

I'm still shocked that you refuse to vote in such a way as to save as much innocent life as possible. You refuse to vote in the only way one can to defeat the most consistently pro-death candidate ever. Refusing to vote for someone like McCain, who is largely, though not consistently, pro-life, and thus to make more likely the victory of a man who is not pro-life at all, seems to me the embodiment of political lunacy for a pro-life Catholic. As a pro-life Protestant myself, I'm certainly glad the Catholic bishops know better than that, and instruct their flocks accordingly.

Dr. Bauman Writes, "I'm still shocked that you refuse to vote in such a way as to save as much innocent life as possible."

Quite frankly, I don't really fault Zippy for his refusal to vote for McCain as this is his personal choice & right; what I find reprehensible is how he has conducted Anti-McCain campaigns all throughout the Catholic blogosphere, which inevitably may subtract potential votes for McCain amongst impressionable minds who may, in turn, discourage other folks within their sphere of influence in similarly doing the same.

A lower tally of votes for McCain can only help Obama especially in a tight race, whether folks refuse to acknowledge the reality or not; for it is only when Obama seizes more votes than McCain can Obama become victorious!

It's not like McCain even associates with Republicans for Choice.

According to RFC, if you read their site (linked in the post), the McCain campaign worked with them to get more definite "big tent on abortion" language into the Republican platform. The reason the attempt failed was because the McCain campaign did not have enough supporters on the platform committee to make it happen. That isn't guilt by association: it is direct collaboration, at least according to RFC.

...which inevitably may subtract potential votes for McCain amongst impressionable minds...

The feedback I've gotten does not lead me to believe that I've had much of an impact on what very many people will actually do in general; but to the extent that I have, my further impression is that it has helped Obama supporters seriously consider the "neither of the above" option as much as McCain supporters. Which it should, frankly, because my net conclusion is that while I don't view a vote for either as justifiable, I view it as far more obviously unjustifiable to vote for Obama, and as more difficult to reach the (correct in my view) conclusion to vote for neither.

He [McCain] has changed his mind on the issue, and is perhaps reachable on the point. Further, he chose as his running mate a person who opposes it.

That's beautiful: "changed his mind" "is reachable."

In your case, Zippy, I'd give it about 48 hours rest.

Let's put it this way, Michael: "Since Nancy Reagan convinced him, John McCain has been unwavering in his support of ESCR." That seems to me absolutely undeniable. I don't think he's even a tiny bit "reachable," and even if, improbably, he were later to stop supporting it, it would be for _pragmatic_ reasons (because ESCR doesn't work and adult stem-cells do) not for moral ones. The statements he has made which pro-lifers have most anxiously scried for signs of "reachability" make this abundantly clear. ("Recent research may make the issue moot.")

But more importantly (I do get a little tired of repeating this) McCain *sent his campaign representative* to _The Hill_ to _reassure_ supporters of ESCR that these statements don't mean what pro-lifers want them to mean and to gloss his recent ad about stem-cell research as meaning all forms of research, including ESCR. I mean, how "reachable" is that? How much clearer does he need to be? That strikes me as an absolute back-hander to his pro-life supporters: "There, I gave you Sarah Palin [who makes it clear in interviews that she isn't even going to nag me about ESCR but is rather capitulating to my being in charge on this one], now support me and shut up. I'll do what I always intended to do on this one."

I think the Republicans for Choice stuff is somewhat of a distraction from a legitimate issue Zippy is addressing, but nevertheless it is worth noting that RFC seems to have abandonned their own principles (which is good) in the way that Zippy thinks pro-life groups are abandonning their principles (which is bad), and this came to a head over Sarah Palin:
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/091208.html

All the good things they say about Palin don't take anything away from her 100% pro-life position. On the contrary, they consider her "ardently anti-choice." The worst they say is that "social issues are not her front and center agenda," but that opinion, from people who don't have their own heads on straight, doesn't undermine Palin's unswerving record of commitment to the pro-life, pro-marriage agenda.

So if RFC says something good about a Republican, it's not exactly the equivalent of a Planned Parenthood endorsement. It doesn't seem to be worth much at all, unless they cite some evidence outside their own opinions.

Zippy,

...my further impression is that it has helped Obama supporters seriously consider the "neither of the above" option as much as McCain supporters. Which it should, frankly, because my net conclusion is that while I don't view a vote for either as justifiable, I view it as far more obviously unjustifiable to vote for Obama, and as more difficult to reach the (correct in my view) conclusion to vote for neither.

I don't think your impression here corresponds to the actual reality of your acts.

The general impression has been such that much of the persons you have thus far reached found both candidates equally vile since, in accordance to your broad brushstroke, they both murder the innocent.

To actually conclude that it did not discourage potential McCain voters let alone think that it actually caused Obama supporters to reconsider their choice is as flawed as thinking that a Jack Chick tract discourages potential Protestant converts from the Catholic Church let alone cause Protestants to reconsider their Protestantism.

"Since Nancy Reagan convinced him, John McCain has been unwavering in his support of ESCR."

Lydia I think Zippy was more careful, and correct, in framing this issue when he said:

McCain's unwavering support for embryonic stem cell research performed on 'leftover' embryos

McCain in fact has opposed funding HESCR that makes and kills new embryos, while Obama has supported it. This is not an insignificant fact--it amounts to really a lot more killings.

McCain also seems to be insistent that funds also go to adult and reprogramming research, which will probably reduce how much funding would have gone to ESCR, and will allow adult research to continue to outpace ESCR and make it less relevant.

So it's inadequate to just say "unwavering in his support of ESCR," without the added clause "on 'leftover' embryos". You can fall back on the legitimate criticism that this guy still wants some killings, but that doesn't mean you can say he unswervingly supports all embryo killings and anything like a maximum expansion of the same. It's an important distinction.

The Purist vs Incrementalist debate has been informative and sometimes entertaining. Now, though it has the morbid feel of past disputes. Like the ones that occured amongst leaders of the Warsaw Uprising, or Spanish Catholics choosing between enslavement and/or annihilation at the hands of the Republicans, or moral compromise with Franco's Moors.

Perhaps there could be a regular place at W4 where we could chronicle our activities and suggestions. Something like; "What I Did this Week To Stem The Red-Rimmed Tide". We may not share a physical trench, but we do inhabit the same spiritual one.

Kevin,

While there is still a battle to be fought where this particular election is concerned, I refuse to go quietly into that night[mare] where Obama is victor and additional millions of pieces of carcasses of aborted [massacred] children fill up the biohazard wastebins across our nation's abortion clinics & hospitals where the latter may end up being Catholic-owned hospitals if Obama has his way!

I don't think your impression here corresponds to the actual reality of your acts.

You don't get the same email I do, nor perhaps read all the same things in all the same places. My hopefully principled arguments against the justice of the Iraq war, and against torture, and against killing civilians in wartime, and on various other subjects have resulted in a rather eclectic, though very small, audience.

When all we are dealing with is vague impressions I suppose speculation on the mix is moot; though again, it is just silly to suppose that the election outcome will hinge on anything I've said to anyone. Someday God will tell us, perhaps, in His mercy; or He will tell us "nobody gets to know what might have been, child". Either way I am content.

So if RFC says something good about a Republican, it's not exactly the equivalent of a Planned Parenthood endorsement.

That is fair enough, but again, what RFC says is not just that McCain was the best candidate for them next to Giuliani, but that they collaborated with the McCain campaign (unsuccessfully, but not because of lack of support from the McCain campaign) to get big-tent-on-abortion language into the Republican platform, and that furthermore this is the first time ever that the campaign of a major candidate has collaborated with Republican pro-choicers in that way.

KW,

Being willing to change one's mind does indeed indicate intellectual reachability. McCain changed his mind on this issue precisely because he was reachable -- unlike some politicans (and bloggers.) If either candidate is persuadable on the point of outlawing ESCR, that candidate is McCain. His personal history says so, as does his choice of a running mate.

If you think not, then the burden of proof is on you. Prove McCain's not reachable on the point, something your snide remarks failed to do earlier.

I await your evidence.

Dr. Bauman Wrote, "McCain changed his mind on this issue precisely because he was reachable -- unlike some politicans (and bloggers.) If either candidate is persuadable on the point of outlawing ESCR, that candidate is McCain. His personal history says so, as does his choice of a running mate."

As I have posted thrice before:

McCain originally was against ESCR (and continues to be against destructive embryo research) until Nancy Reagan convinced him otherwise:

"Should McCain refrain from public funding, it would be a return of sorts to his original position against embryonic stem cell research funding, adopted before Nancy Reagan lobbied him on the issue in 2005, The Hill indicates."

While McCain supports public funding, he opposes the purposeful creation of human embryos for destruction, he supports funding adult stem cell research and opposes both forms of human cloning.

That's a contrast to the position pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama takes -- as he has said he would use an executive order to mandate funding for the grisly research as soon as he takes office.

SOURCE:
http://www.lifenews.com/bio2546.html

Dr. Baumann, my comment was sincere. It really is a beautiful thing that we can change our mind.

msb:

It's an important distinction.

I disagree. You'd see why I disagree if we were talking about "leftover" 5-year-olds. Numbers are unimportant. These are tiny human beings we're talking about vivisecting. This is a matter of absolutely evil actions. The fact that one person doesn't support performing these evil actions on persons we've created for the purpose just doesn't get a big yee-haw from me. There are no leftover people. That's what we pro-lifers think. When we start making out like it matters whether someone is "leftover" or not, we've been confused.

Michael:

McCain changed his mind on this issue precisely because he was reachable -- unlike some politicans (and bloggers.)

The fact that years ago he changed his mind in the wrong direction and has held to his new, wrong position through thick and thin, against his own party, during the time when the issue has been most hotly contested, against conservative opposition, and _through_ the election which is his one best chance at the White House means that he should be now regarded as "reachable" w.r.t. changing his mind back in the _right_ direction? I'm sorry, but that reasoning is just completely wrong.

KW,
I misread your comment, for which my sincere apologies.
Best to you.
MB

Always knew you'd come around in the end Zippy. It is not as though the Democrats had nominated an amiable liar like Bill Clinton. In Obama one has the real thing. About the only thing thing substantial that this law prof has written concerns so called partial birth abortion. Anyone who reasons like him about defenseless and innocent human beings, completely unmoored from any consideration of mercy or justice deserves comparison with Mengele. And he was what 8 years old when he supported it? Already an old bull with faculties to match; the Germans would call him a Schreibtischtäter.

When we start making out like it matters whether someone is "leftover" or not, we've been confused.

You and I don't disagree on the issue of whether it is absolutely evil to experiment on the frozen embryos. It is.

But that doesn't allow you to state the facts incorrectly. Just because McCain is very wrong on an issue, doesn't mean you can misstate the facts by expanding that wrongness to anything related. His error doesn't give you license to mischaracterize the actual situation.

Let's say federal funding for research on frozen embryos will lead to the killing of, I don't know,53000 embryos. Then let's say Obama's plan to fund creation of new embryos and divert funds from adult research will lead to the killing of 50,000 embryos. (The numbers are guesses--insert your own.)

And let's say that McCain is in favor of the former and against the latter. That matters, not for whether supporting the former is excusable or OK. It matters as one fact in the calculus of whether there is a proportionate reason to vote for McCain/Palin. I'm not even saying it is dispositive--maybe you still think there's not a proportionate reason. But an accurate description of the facts matters.

Just because McCain supports some killings, that doesn't give you free reign to describe him as supporting killings that he has actually opposed.

oops--that should say "Let's say federal funding for research on frozen embryos will lead to the killing of, I don't know, 3000 embryos."

Also I think Bob Dole tried to water down the platform too. Not sure why RFC doesn't mention him.

McCain is an avowed supporter of embryonic stem-cell research. He wants to do that research with your and my tax money. That's what the acronym ESCR stands for. It isn't "expanding" anything to say that he unwaveringly supports ESCR. It's just that you, msb, think that the numbers of embryos killed matter in such a way that one should qualify this by saying, "He's an avowed supporter of ESCR, but with fewer embryos being dissected with your tax dollars and mine on McCain's plan than the number Obama would support dissecting." I happen to disagree that that is an important qualifier to add. I'm not mis-stating anything or expanding anything by disagreeing with you over the importance of the utilitarian "innocent people murdered counting" calculus involved there.

Are you or are you not willing to admit that McCain opposes much or most ESCR that would occur under Obama, as a simple factual matter?

I'd never dare speak for Lydia, but whether she is or is not, it is not, she has made repeatedly clear, in any way germane to her claim.

And it's not Tito, either.

Her claim was a dispute with Michael, above, about the unswervingness of McCain's support for embryo killing. The fact that McCain has developed a position, which apparently was not present at first, by which he opposed much or most of the killing that the industry is pushing, is certainly relevant to how unswerving McCain's support for embryo killing is. McCain has swerved solidly in opposition to much or most embryo killing. That is relevant to how to describe his position.

But the particulars don't matter so much now. The point remains to this extent: will the pro-life movement oppose embryo killing when it is introduced? If they don't, because they supported McCain/Palin, Zippy and Lydia will have been right to that extent. But I think the pro-life movement will oppose embryo killing despite having supported McCain/Palin. But it won't matter, because the Dems will push it through.

Catholics and the financial meltdown have put Obama into office. But I think we should acknowledge that Obama did not win because of Zippy and Lydia. He won because of Kmiec and Catholics-in-Alliance. Zippy and Lydia have tried to keep pro-life principle pure and for that effort I commend them. Believe it or not I have long shared much of their view and fought in that same battle. I just thought that voting for McCain/Palin this time was not incompatible with it. Nevertheless, I hope we can unify now under a pure pro-life position. I also hope that Zippy is right, that in losing Palin will better maintain her purity, and that political pro-life leaders will be of the Jindal/Palin mold rather than whoever McCain's successors may be. Maybe that's a common ground for all of us to start with.

The fact that McCain has developed a position, which apparently was not present at first, by which he opposed much or most of the killing that the industry is pushing

Actually, as far as I know, msb, all of his movement has been in the other direction (the wrong one). At the time that Nancy Reagan converted him to ESCR, _everybody_ was talking about doing it only on "leftover" embryos. He did not go for creation-for-purposes-of-killing and then convert _backwards_ to "only on leftovers ESCR." The "position that was not present at first" in him was *support for embryonic research*. See, long ago, he opposed it. And what that meant back then, as it should mean, was opposing it, period. (Back then, the bad guys were still in the mode of saying that "embryo farms" were a "scare tactic" by the "right.") He developed a new position of _supporting_ it. The only thing he did was to say, "Oh, well, but of course I wouldn't support creation of embryos just to destroy them," and he has not given up that limitation. But that isn't a matter of "wavering." Ever since he came to support ESCR, he's supported it the same, all the way through. Perhaps that is clarifying.

Btw, my crystal ball is a little cloudy, but I would predict (and I believe I've said this elsewhere) that now that Obama has been elected the rtl organizations will go back to opposing ESCR loudly and clearly, because when Obama authorizes federal funding for it they can criticize that move loudly without criticizing someone they have supported. In other words, they'll probably rediscover the issue. Its disappearance would likely have proceeded step by step had McCain been elected. I'm sorry if that sounds cynical, but I believe it to be the best factual prediction.

Yes on your last prediction. The flip side of that, however, is that McCain would have vetoed most embryo killing, whereas Obama will sign it. So at worst, the pro-life groups would have stopped talking about some embryo killing while actually stopping most of it. Now they'll talk about it all and it will all happen.

"I'm sorry if that sounds cynical"

Do you really think a McCain victory would have resulted in NRTL abandoning ESCR? They made an electoral calculation, and whether we aree with it or not, their tactical move does not make them unprincipled or morally flawed. NRTL
is not perfect, but they have battled nobly and more effectively than any comparable organization for 3 decades.
NRTL would have fought ESCR under McCain as hard as they will under Obama. There is no rationale basis to suggest otherwise, save personal frustration.

Kevin Wrote:

NRTL is not perfect, but they have battled nobly and more effectively than any comparable organization for 3 decades. NRTL would have fought ESCR under McCain as hard as they will under Obama. There is no rationale basis to suggest otherwise, save personal frustration.

Thank-you, Kevin, for being the voice of Reason here!

Lydia's constant distortion of the matter is getting, quite frankly, out of hand.

She unjustifiably throws out vicious accusations as the one she's leveled here and elsewhere against the Right-to-Life folks without first establishing if there is genuine evidence for her scurrilous claims in the first place other than some personal vendetta against them for backing a candidate she has the utmost hatred for (I mean, come on -- in her own thread, she practically called McCain a Pro-Abort until Red Cardigan called her on it), without realizing that the scandal she's unjustly causing would do the organization irreparable harm (vicious rumors do go a long way, believe or not) where, in the end, the innocent children that organization and all of us have been fighting for would be the ultimate victims of such actions (what kind of 'Christian' would support an ignoble organization as that which Lydia claims it as being?)!

Some of us had better reflect who are the persons ultimately harmed by our actions and if there is actually just cause for it.

MSB:

I also hope that Zippy is right, that in losing Palin will better maintain her purity, and that political pro-life leaders will be of the Jindal/Palin mold rather than whoever McCain's successors may be. Maybe that's a common ground for all of us to start with.

Lydia:

Btw, my crystal ball is a little cloudy, but I would predict (and I believe I've said this elsewhere) that now that Obama has been elected the rtl organizations will go back to opposing ESCR loudly and clearly, because when Obama authorizes federal funding for it they can criticize that move loudly without criticizing someone they have supported. In other words, they'll probably rediscover the issue. Its disappearance would likely have proceeded step by step had McCain been elected. I'm sorry if that sounds cynical, but I believe it to be the best factual prediction.

Actually it will be really interesting to see if RTL organizations resurrect fetal tissue research as an issue, now that "our guy" who supported it is on his way out the door. A positive step here would be to lobby them to do so, to debrief publicly on why the issue was silenced in the first place (as you've started, Lydia), and to take steps to prevent that from happening again. Is anybody listening?

NRTL would have fought ESCR under McCain as hard as they will under Obama.

We'll never know now, Kevin, and I hope I'm wrong. But the disappearance of the issue from their voter comparison (when it had been on previously) was a very bad sign. My guess is that they would have _reported_ the passage of any law authorizing federal funding for ESCR under McCain, but that the president's role in it understated. I base this statement (which now can't be tested directly) on the fact that this was approximately how they treated Bush's flip-flop on McCain-Feingold. The headline was, "Senate passes McCain-Feingold." No mention of Bush's signing it in the headline, though one was buried in the text of the article. Even this isn't quite the same, though, because Bush had campaigned on _opposing_ M-F. He only converted afterwards. So they had not had to airbrush anything out of his profile during the 2000 campaign; they had only to deal with his flip-flop during the term of office. I base it, of course, also on what I've already carefully documented--the deliberate, explicitly justified, and complete dropping of the ethical argument against fetal tissue research and of any legislative attempt to restore the Reagan/Bush I ban on funding for it after Bush's NIH funded it.

Basically, the whole field of play would just have shifted to new attempts to draw the line at creation-for-destruction. ESCR on "leftovers" would have become the "new normal," with a report of the move in obviously negative terms but little or nothing in the way of making McCain pay for it electorally or calling him on signing it. That seems to me an amply justified prediction.

I'm not sure at all what Aristocles is talking about re. my calling McCain "pro-abort until Red Cardigan called me on it." Let's not forget that back in the 1990's he expressly said in an interview that he would not support overturning Roe either in the short-term or in the long-term. It was, indeed, NRLC that publicized this statement and kept it alive as an issue right through the 2000 primary season as part of their primary campaign for Bush.

We'll never know now, Kevin, and I hope I'm wrong.

Lydia, past performance is a good predictor of future behavior and NRTL's track record is very good. Let's remember several things; they labor within the Hive and against the Zeitgeist. Going back to the Reagan White House, they've always been treated as the embarrassing and needy relative who just won't go away. The pro-life cause is exceptionally ill-suited for the sausage-making, soul-bartering world of lobbying and legislating. The routine temptations that come with life in the New Rome and the need for perpetual fund-raising are ingredients for reducing the best of people to compromised careerists. There have been the strategic missteps and petty indiscretions that naturally follow when a grass roots movement becomes institutionalized, but all in all, we should be grateful for their service.

By all means keep them honest, but let's be careful about vague insinuations of moral turpitude. NRTL will cease to exist before they drop their opposition to ESCR.