instructions to voters
By Diogenes ( articles ) | Apr 03, 2007
New York Post columnist John Podhoretz thinks that Rudy Giuliani stumbled in his early presidential campaign by talking about how much influence his (latest) wife could have in the White House. It was a rare mistake, Podhoretz observes:
Until that moment, he had handled his presidential bid as perfectly as could be imagined - maintaining the enthusiasm of social conservatives even as they learned of his stances on behalf of abortion rights and gun control.
Huh? Show me a social conservative who's enthusiastic about Giuliani's campaign, and I'll show you the product of a neoconservative imagination.
This column is based not on reporting but on wishful thinking, and on a desire to instruct conservative voters. Republican strategists who are not particularly keen on the social issues fervently believe that the social conservatives should swallow hard and accept a candidate like Giuliani, since (where have we heard this before?) he'd be better than Hillary. And from the observation that they should do it, it's a short step to the observation that they have done it. If they haven't, you see, they're disobeying instructions from their betters. So it's really more charitable to keep saying that they are accepting Giuliani-- enthusiastically, mind you. And keep saying it often.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: a son of Mary -
Apr. 18, 2010 9:12 AM ET USA
Uncle Di - yet another well done piece! Thanks brother.
Posted by: -
Apr. 14, 2010 4:44 PM ET USA
In the secular world, it is assumed that one is innocent until proven guilty. It is not so in the Church. We are all sinners. Now it is indeed a scandal that some [a few] priests used their position to manhandle youngsters. It is greater scandal when bishops did not act immediately to root out the malefactors. It is no great difficulty for a bishop to quietly cut out from the flock a priest who has been accused.
Posted by: samuel.doucette1787 -
Apr. 14, 2010 8:18 AM ET USA
As the Pope is trying to root out the filth in the Church, perhaps he should disband the non-canonical, suprefluous idea of bishops' conferences such as the USCCB. Bishops' conferences were NOT what Vatican II meant by "collegiality", but their apologists have twisted that otherwise excellent notion to justify the existence of these corrupt bureaucracies.
Posted by: doceo4186 -
Apr. 13, 2010 7:09 PM ET USA
Does anyone else have access to the statistics so an accurate accounting can be done? Or do we already have a pretty good idea which dioceses are most culpable? It would be nice for confirmation!
Posted by: Hal -
Apr. 13, 2010 5:53 PM ET USA
I fear corruption at the very top of the USCCB; only those in power could influence the outcome through the manipulation of the method. Although, the citation to the 1972 Kennedy Report makes me despair that it was ever thus. Where does one go from here?
Posted by: KL Flannery -
Apr. 13, 2010 2:13 PM ET USA
Thanks for this, Diogenes.