U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 28, 2008 04:30 PM UTC
126 Comments
Dave Barry: The DNC’s on, let the drama begin
Dave Barry: Freewheelin’ fun at the DNC
Dave Barry: Blazing a trail at the DNC
Dave Barry: On protesters, politics and porn
and some pictures
Haven’t heard from Dave Barry in 15 years. Now I know why.
Barry’s great. He wrote a great piece about Tancredo a while back.
That Bird Porn lady was for real. I saw her. Was wondering what the hell THAT was all about. (Afraid to type “bird porn” in Google.)
.
and don’t turn on the security safeguards.
Then, when your computer is seized without a warrant,
you can tell them that it must have been a neighbor that googled the bird porn.
.
“We’ll have a better photo tomorrow.”, maybe it should read “We’ll have another photo of victory tomorrow.” Remember we love Elway; if he was a Democrat we’d have had him speak at Pepsi too.
Just hoping the photo from tonight doesn’t have John Sweeney and Andy Stern hoisting Barry to locker room.
Secondly, that picture isn’t even in Denver. It is in San Diego when the Broncos won the Super Bowl.
And we know.
So how was the press box at the Pepsi Center on Monday?
…Drudge tell you that?
that I am one of the few Bronco fans in Colorado
http://www.236.com/news/2008/0…
“Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: In a moment of seriousness: he was probably escaping a POW camp, which I know about because I was in one.”
“There once was a man from Nantucket, whose dick was like John McCain’s in that, in a moment of seriousness, spent years in a POW camp being tortured.”
let me be the first to question your patriotism, spx. Actually, I take that back.
You have no patriotism to question.
Now, go back under your rock and stop destroying the Democratic party’s image among the millions of veterans who did serve our country so you would be free to mock our efforts.
If the two posted jokes were good samples of those in the link, they’re uncalled-for.
But so was McCain’s appearance on Leno the other night.
So for now, responding to uncomfortable questions with “for five and a half years…” or “I was a POW…” is pretty much a formula punchline joke at McCain’s expense. It’s not disrespect of veterans, or of POWs; it’s ridicule that a Presidential candidate falls back on being a POW rather than answering the tough questions that need answering in order to lead this country.
And you managed to nail McCain for playing dodgeball without insulting veterans and POWs as a class.
SPX did not and yes, he disrespects veterans, he disrespects POWs. This guy is seriously sick.
and it shows Schaffer losing to Udall and McCain losing to Obama!
They can’t even release internal numbers that look good for their party. But of course we’ll have Dick “Orewell” Wadhams spinning his loser candidate’s numbers as a good thing.
Yeah, but it’s good news because “it’s a statistical dead heat.”
How can anyone release an internal poll that shows you losing, that shows you haven’t moved a percentage point since April, and try to spin it as good news?
Wadhams has balls as big as Jupiter.
Don’t assault us with images of Wadhams’ privates.
Betcha he’s got a wide stance!
Then it means they are desperate for funds and are trying to show that they need money, but that with money they have a chance. And they show the McCain numbers because McCain must win Colorado and they want the same argument for him ad general Republican money helps both.
If after this their fundraising continues to suck, they’re toast.
Since he’s only losing in tihs internal poll by 3% instead of the 8-10% most other polls are showing, I guess this is good news.
You’ve been “outed” on NPR this morning for your great blogging efforts, including the bumper sticker story.
Also interviewed, Aaron and JohnE from SquareState, Markos from dKos, and one of the ladies from the Kansas credentialed blog Everyday Citizen.
I picked up on that, too. The way the “Morning Edition” reporter described the bumper sticker scenario was a dead giveaway. I hope your day job doesn’t involve espionage. 😉
I don’t have any desire to post redstatesblue‘s real name here, but it does go back to the question of why some many people here feel compelled to hide behind pseudonyms.
Do involve espionage.
But what about the in 90%, or so, of the rest of the mystery bloggers? I don’t think so. It’s mostly “Deep Throat” wannabees and inflated egos.
I’ve had this moniker for almost 20 years now, back when the most widely-known systems on the networks were called ‘batcomputer’ and ‘chud’ (Can’t Handle Users, Dies).
It is as much a part of my identity on the Internet as my real name.
In my senescence, I forget what it is, but it had a III or IV behind it, which you cited as one reason you use a nome de computer, since that tends to be a bit of a put off to folks.
As to getting old tales relating to computers, I not only remember what CP/M was, I had several of the buggers.
(actually, I didn’t know. Some sources said Control Program for Microcomputers, others said Control Program/Monitor. the latter is more consistent with the slash, but I saw both definitions in official books.
I wrote programs using Fortran on CDC Cybers, Pascal on CP/M and CP/M-86, and was one of the first to write programs on the PC when it was DOS 1.0.
I also worked on DOS 5 and Win 95 at Microsoft. Real men write the O/S 🙂
I wrote Fortran when there was no Pascal.
And CDC Cybers, yes. I have a memory module from a cyber 6600. 256 60-bit words. About the size of a toaster.
My first job out of college was writing MACRO-11 assembly language on the PDP-11. Patching code required programming in octal and using DIP switches on the front panel to load instructions into memory. I learned to program in PL/1 on an IBM OS/360 using a keypunch and punch cards.
I don’t use a ‘nym because of my name, which does include a roman numeral (that was a recent conversation, BTW). My real name and a link to part of my life is included in my profile, and has been ever since Drew started his crusade.
If I was being a real territory-protecting computer geek, I’d continue this thread by saying “oh yeah? Well I was programming LISP on an abacus before Babbage dreamed up the Difference Engine!” 🙂
In reality, I never dealt with CP/M, thank Ghu. I started on an Apple ][ Packard-Bell edition (it was black…) with the 48k RAM card (which came with Applesoft BASIC) – in middle school, 1980. Since BASIC was too slow for writing games, I rapidly moved to machine language programming (no assembler on the Apple ][ – just bare-bones hex code entry and a disassembler…) I wrote and sold what is to my knowledge the first Individualized Education Program software (and missed my chance to be rich) while I was still in middle school.
are within the Pols tombs.
One of the righties said I didn’t have the guts to identify myself. As usual, wrong.
There ARE higher motivations
Here’s what happened Drew. I was very concerned about my anonymity, until I did one of those google ego searches the night before I did that interview. What came up was a lot of pro=-Obama stuff (including money I’ve donated because, to my surprise, it was over $200.)
After we had our conversation about anonymity, I did that search to see if my point was valid. It wasn’t. You could easily see what I’d written on a different blog. So from now on, you guys know my real name, and identity, and I will probably reveal it soon enough to everyone else.
One point that I didn’t get to bring up during our previous discussion, Drew, why don’t you get mad that we don’t know who Colorado Pols is/are? I don’t either, and they are far more precocious in their reporting of insider info.
who the Dead Guvs are? You’re a better reporter than that, redstate. I bet you could figure it out.
I honestly don’t really care. I was just trying to prove my point. I know who one of them is. If I cared more, I could probably figure it out.
My concern about having a catholic on the ticket has been activated by chaput, the denver bishop, who has told Biden to voluntarily refrain from taking communion in this diocese,,,because of Biden’s stand on abortion rights…
this is the legal dilemma for catholics.. the constitution makes abortion rights the law of the land…catholics in public office or public employment take an oath to uphold the constitution. Virtually all catholics who take this oath are supporting abortion rights, and may say that they privately do not support abortion or have a pro-life position….this is by definition, the choice position, consistent with Roe v.Wade..
IMHO this is the political strategy of the catholic bishops
1) Cherry pick which catholic candidates they will attack and which they will not attack, depending on which state they are in, and what benefits the bishops the most
IN 2006, colorado bishops attacked Kerry; they did not attack Ritter…even though their postions on the issue are identical….even though Ritter as governor is charged with emforcing the laws of the state…which include the most liberal abortion laws in the country..
Ritter got a pass; Kerry did not. Bishops can attack catholic candidates because the candidates are catholic and have a religious relationship with the bishops..or something..
2) Cherry picking in which states bishops will strongly urge catholics not to vote for candidates which support the Constitution’s abortion rights…this is tricky because bishops cannot tell their people who to vote for, by name..they can “strongly urge” them to take a candidate’s stand on the constitution into account..
the bishops were silent during the primaries…I don’t know why… But, Hillary got the catholic vote. I don’t think Obama will…
IMHO, the whole thing stinks to high heaven…..but it will be a factor in a tight race….
(from an ex catholic)
I can count the pro-war politicians who were denied communion because of it on one hand.
Let’s see… Zero.
And then there’s the death penalty. Have to use the other hand for that.
Hmmm… 1, 2, no wait, zero.
These Catholic bishops are just like the Denver police: a few of them get off on flagrantly abusing their power, and the easiest way to do that is to officially endorse the authoritarian party. Don’t like it? Go to hell (literally, as they say).
I don’t like what is going on, but, my point is to trying to “deconstruct” it. I am interested in the legal and political strategies in play.
I believe that there should be no religious test for office. I believe that catholics laity should deal with their bishops within the confines of that religious community. However, the latter is not happening. Catholics make up a significant demographic and that is what is important here.
I also believe that if either side on the abortion issue is uneasy with the current law, they should pursue a constitutional amendment to put their particular position into the constitution. This would insulate the issue from the varieties of Supreme Court rulings….which is another related issue…
someone tell this guy he’s a supposed to be a spiritual leader to his dwindling flock that is still reeling from it’s largest crisis and scandal in centuries, rather than some goddamned political activist-gadlfy.
I think Chaput is trying very hard NOT to be “goddamned” , which is why he pushes his church’s views vigorously. I left that same church 45 years ago because I didn’t share its views but I certainly respect the right of Roman Catholics to take their faith seriously.
I respect the rights of all Roman Catholics to take their faith seriously. Including my father, my godfather, my brothers and their families, the nuns who instilled me with discipline and education, and everyone else involved in the catholic church.
Bishop Chaput, however, needs to get his own house in order before worrying about others’. He is involved in selective political advocacy, which is totally peripheral to the core duty of the church.
If the Catholic Church is supposed to be a democracy, they left that out of my Baltimore Cathechism. It’s their way or the highway, which is there right _ and also the reason I took the highway. But if you believe in the notion of apostolic succession (and I don’t, one of the many reasons I left) then its hard to defend cafeteria Catholics.
I join with you in that statement.
.
Doesn’t being a spiritual leader
DEMAND
that ABC, as he’s known in my house,
act as a God blessed political activist-gadfly ?
Wasn’t the guy who started it all, the real Chosen One, wasn’t he some God blessed political activist-gadfly ?
.
God is a woman, haven’t you learned that by now?
then Hagee is Jesus, hands down !
.
me, defending Hagee.
You really know how to hurt a guy.
.
.
Fine.
Catholic teaching says that Joe has Free Will to make his own choices, and he has done that.
He should do what most people who reject the magisterium and tradition and teaching of the Church have done, man up,
and say he is no longer a Catholic, and quit pretending to be one.
That’s what grown-ups do. See the comment of the guy who pays tribute to Castro below ==> “ex-Catholic.”
Ditto for John Kerry (D) and Rudolph Giuliani (R) and a hundred more.
I recommend they become Methodists. That confession has a very accommodating orthodoxy, as I understand it.
George Bush can start an immoral war, killing millions for the sin of having brown skin, and he remains in good standing.
Bill Clinton can essentially be himself, and remain in good standing.
Methodists seem to be quite tolerant of members repudiating various teachings of Jesus or their implications.
…………
For some of us, we believe that judicial activism made “abortion rights” the law of the land. We don’t see those supposed rights in the Constitution, or in the system of laws based on it.
That is a curious take on freedom of religion.
“Catholics in public life are not entitled to live out their core beliefs.”
I’ll have to think about that one some more.
…..
I think I get it. You don’t like people to disagree with your dogma, and believe it is inappropriate for them to do so.
When they imply that their position is morally more consistent than yours, it’s like salt in a wound.
If a candidate wants the cachet of being a Catholic, to garner support of Catholics, is it really too much to ask that they respect the core teachings of the Church ?
One cannot be a “free spirit” without boundaries, and still be Catholic. Membership has meaning and obligations.
Hypothetically, Dwyer, suppose you asked to become a Catholic. You kept your same values and beliefs that you hold now, and professed them openly, but wanted to join for some unspecified reason. How should a parish react ?
.
Says who? He leads the life of a Catholic. Since I’m assuming that you’re referring to the reproductive choice issue, let’s go with that.
I think it’s a safe assumption to say that Joe Biden has never had an abortion. I’m going to go out on a limb here, but my guess is also that he’s never encouraged any woman to have an abortion.
And based upon his legislative record of supporting human services for the poor, and spending on education and health care, he’s probably created an environment where a pregnant woman is less likely to have an abortion because she can’t afford to provide for a child.
I’m sick of listening to this crap from you people trying to tell us who is, and who is not, a Catholic based upon your litmus tests. I attend mass at Dignity, a group for gay and lesbian Roman Catholics. I suppose you would question my Catholicism, too.
Because I have enormous respect for you, personally, and for what Dignity is trying to do. But I do have to ask WHY you stay in a church that condemns you for the way God made you and, in the case of Lesbians, also denies their right to the priesthood based solely on their lack of a Y chromosone.
Why not become, say, a Lutheran?
I understand the concept of working from within for change, but a hierchial church like the Roman Catholic seems all but immune to that.
At least, as a Catholic, you can confess your sins. I usually just publish mine;-)
Good one….and true. I actually have considered going Episcopalian (aka “Catholic-lite”) but haven’t taken that leap yet.
I think it goes back to my upbringing, my family, and some notion (perhaps naive) that some day the Church will modernize.
All the salvation with one-third less guilt.
I started out Presbyterian, became Episcopalian, then signed on with the Catholics. I had the benefit of a Protestant upbringing, which means I don’t rightly feel like I have to follow a party line to belong to a particular church. I turned to Catholicism because that’s the faith that produced Mother Theresa. When I went through RCIA, I was taught that you have to follow your conscience, though you also have the duty to make sure your conscience is fully informed by the scripture and the teachings of the Magisterium.
So I read, and I pray, and I make up my own mind on issues such as abortion, and I feel that I am doing what my church and my God require.
I did have an email exchange once with Chaput, asking him why we should vote for Republicans who pay lip service to ending abortion but don’t do anything to stop it, either through legislation or by working to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and who pursue other policies that would be repugnant to Christ. He brushed me off at first. I wrote back, and he replied, “There’s one bishop in the Archdiocese and nearly 500,000 Catholics. I’m not able to find the time to respond in the extensive kind of way you ask me to respond…. I did not, and still don’t, want to answer many of your questions because they are so theoretical and complex that they’re not possible to answer in an e-mail.”
So there you go. He didn’t really do anything to further inform my conscience, so I’ll continue voting as that conscience compels.
When I was a chaplain and deeply involved in matters religious and spiritual, I attended a service at the Metropolitan church in Capitol Hill. Let me say that that was one of the most powerful religious services I’ve ever been to. First, just knowing that almost everyone there was an outcast, a societal sinner, made Jesus that much more present.
Then, when it was time for communion, the congregation received theirs first, and then the minister and deacons. It was like a slap on the forehead! I’m sure it’s not the only church doing it, but I’ve not seen it before or since. It was a metaphorical washing of the feet, putting service before self.
Seldom has Jesus been so present in a gathering.
I took my family there when they dedicated it, mostly to show my kids that gays don’t have horns. I was impressed with the fervor of it all, except for their views on homosexuality, you could have thought you were in any other “I have a personal relationship with Jesus” evangelical church.
I am not a Christian and obviously didn’t share their beliefs. But I found them a lot more real than the Unitarians I once hung out with. Unitarians, the old line goes, stand for just three things:
1-The Brotherhood of Man.
2-The Fatherhood of God.
3-The Neighborhood of Boston.
It really is impressive.
.
To me, being “Catholic” entails obedience to doctrine; being Catholic is conferred at baptism, but can later be rejected or die of neglect.
You are free to choose whatever you want to believe.
I am also free to choose.
I choose to accept the teachings from Rome, and apparently you choose to reject at least one of those teachings.
There are many groups that want the doctrine to be different, whether it has to do with a married priesthood, or whatever.
Church teachings are what they are.
Why would you claim to be Catholic, but reject core teachings ?
You don’t need to answer that, I think I already know.
You want to lead the Church in a different direction, to change the Church, in a way that you have discerned is correct and appropriate, but in a way that the Church has not decided to go.
I myself think that the Church is wrong on celibacy of the priesthood. I have a son that may have been called both to the ordained priesthood and to matrimony. It’s troubling. But I accept what the Church has decided, even when I disagree with it.
If you believe that you personally get to choose what should be doctrine, then you really aren’t a Catholic, regardless of where you were born, how you were raised, and how you now act.
Part of being Catholic is accepting the authority of the Bishops.
I fear that the “cultural gravity” that binds people together and helps to define personal and group identity is so strong in some cases that people who are “ethnic Catholics” but not religious Catholics are unable to distinguish between the two.
.
I don’t reject core teaching. I do reject some of the stuff that’s been embellished over the centuries which did not exist when the Church was founded.
Maybe I was a little harsh in my rsponse to what you posted about Joe Biden. I respect your right to adhere to the Church’s teaching on everything and anything. I have a cousin in my family who during the last 45 years, continued to attend masses celebrated only in Latin.
You (and my cousin) are free to adhere to every single pronouncement made by the Pope but quite frankly, some of them are silly (i.e., contraceptives, to name but one… which by the way, reduce the number of abortions, but that’s another argument for another time).
.
I am not sure how much of a “core teaching” the proscription on Homosexuality is. Paul mentions it only tangentially, as I recall.
It remains a Church teaching, but not a central one like the teaching on the dignity of all human life.
My bad.
.
That’s my understanding as well.
it was also a core teaching that you had to root for Notre Dame. That got me in trouble in the Army because I was stationed at West Point and we had to play Notre Dame. I damn near lost my security clearance rooting for the Fighting Irish. But at least I didn’t root for Navy…
Hail Mary full of grace, Notre Dame is in second place
.
Do you think there shouldn’t be any ?
Wouldn’t that deprive the word “Catholic” of all meaning ?
If you agree that there has to be some way of differentiating between a Catholic and a non-Catholic,
something more than self-identification,
then who but the Bishops would you have decide what those discriminators are ?
……..
I’m pretty careful not to challenge anyone who claims to be a follower of Christ. What would I know about their interior spiritual life and how Jesus has spoken to them ?
Golly, I don’t even question Hitler’s claim of Christian faith. Above my pay grade, as famously stated recently.
But being Catholic is like being a member of a club. The club has rules. One rule says that, if you advocate for abortion, then you have put yourself in a state of sin and cannot receive the body or blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
I assume that most folks at Dignity services do not receive Communion.
Sinners can still be Catholics. In fact, I believe that Paul, the guy who really made the Catholic Church viable, said that all Catholics have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.
What effectively self-excommunicates a person is the open rejection of the authority of the Church to decide matters of doctrine.
In this situation, excommunication, that is, separation from the communion of (sinful, yet still holy) Catholics, is not a punishment. It is a recognition of one’s new status.
There does not need to be any formal decree by a Bishop for a person to be excommunicated; that person can make it happen all on their own, and either tell others about it or not.
So I generally don’t know if a person is “Catholic” or not, regardless of their attendance at Mass, or their self-identification as Catholic.
But when a person opens their mouth and rejects the authority of the Bishops, then I know.
Senator Biden has publicly rejected the authority of the Bishops on this matter of abortion. He excommunicated himself.
For the time being, he is not a Catholic.
The Church awaits his return to the fold, should it come to pass.
.
Actually, most do receive the Eucharist.
I make it a point not to inquire as to the tideness of their souls, nor do I ask when others last made a confession and received absolution. That’s above my pay grade, at the risk of wearing out the now-famous phrase.
Besides, I have enough on my plate by way of making amends for my own mistakes without concerning myself with the trangressions of others.
Maybe failing to pass judgment on others doesn’t make me a very good Catholic. And I know that I’d be an absolute failure as a fundamentalist Christian with such a attitude of humility.
I think you make a cogent argument, but I find 2 flaws.
1. one can personally oppose a thing and still believe it is not the province of law. I personally believe adultary (as opposed to fornication) is wrong and have never committed adultary (other than in the “Jimmy Carter” sense) and do not believe it should be against the law.
2. If a Catholic is required to legislate in accordance with Rome it disqualifies every practicing Catholic from office. Why? It would make every Catholic subject to the authority of a foriegn soveriegn power–not acceptable. It was the fear with Kennedy, that he would be ruled by Rome, and why we had to make the bid speech proclaiming he would not be ruled by Rome.
Barron, do you think Catholic politicians are required to vote for all bills that limit abortions? Or are they required to support legislation that would make abortion a crime (and the only existing crime that fits would be first degree murder, committed by the woman and the doctor, resulting in a sentence of death or life without possibility of parole)? Can a Catholic politician abhor abortion but decide not to vote for a bill that would limit abortions in a way that would be overturned by the courts, but only after costly litigation that takes resources away from important programs?
With respect to abortion, what exactly does the Church require its faithful office-holders to do? (That’s the question Chaput wouldn’t answer, by the way.)
.
I think we should meet face-to-face so you at least have the opportunity to punch me in the nose to express your disagreement.
I know almost nothing about you, except your earnest search for truth and justice, as reflected on these pages.
You are the right kind of person to be a Catholic priest or apologist.
How about this:
come to Colorado Springs or elsewhere in CD-5 when we finally get a candidates’ debate scheduled, walk up to me and break my nose. Preferably after the debate is over.
That way I’ll know its you. Then we can have a cup of hot chocolate, my treat, and sort this out.
I think you’ll find I’m as poor a Catholic as you’re likely to ever meet. But I’m still Catholic as long as I respect the authority of the Bishops.
If you explain how the Bishops got it wrong, that they misunderstood Jesus’ message of repentance and forgiveness, but you still respect their authority to make (wrong) decisions, then I get to punch you back,
since I will admit/ confess that you are as much a Catholic as me.
.
People who take public office or public employment in the United States swear, as a condition of that office or employment, to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Currently, that Constitution holds that abortion is a civil right, subject to certain state restrictions. PERIOD.
I am speaking specifically about catholics who take public office or public employment. On the face of it, catholics are dammed if they do and dammed if they don’t. They are in a bind. I contend that bishops are exploiting this legal tangle for their own political purposes.
For all the x alter boys on the blog…who are evidently legion….This, Barron X, is a non sequitar:
Has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
Now, bob ewegen, are you suggesting that all catholics who hold public office or public employment, must leave the catholic church? I must say, that position would be logical.. … perhaps reflective of the Baltimore Catechism or even a jesuit or two…
Article VI specifically forbids a religious test for public office, so there goes your idea (which you voiced, not I) that catholics can’t hold public office.
And I’ll give you $100 if you can cite the section of the constitution that holds that abortion is a civil right”.
No such clause. OK, a very shaky 5-4 majority of the SCOTUS is cool with abortion. But Catholics, or anabaptists, if we have any left, are free to vote for presidents who will appoint pro-life judges and senators who will confirm them.
Personally, I left the Catholic church at 18. I don’t denigrate those who stayed, but am always a bit curious as to why they stay if they disagree with its core beliefs. It seems to me that there are thousands of religions, and the only tenet they all share is that they are each the only and only true faith.
Anyway, I eagerly await your citing of the clause of the constitution that permits abortion. The 3rd Amendment, maybe? I always tend to forget about that one.
You are begging the question,bob. I wrote earlier:
I pointed out that catholics in public office and public employment are in a legal bind. Their oath of office demands that they support the Constitution, including the civil right to abortion. their bishops say “no way.” You had already said that when you couldn’t accept the authority of the bishops, you left. I did not know if you were proposing that as a solution for catholic public officials and public employees, so I asked you:
Now as for the crap about abortion not being in the Consitution..gd. You are a CU grad, right? If you never took the undergrad course in Constitutional Law, it was your loss. Let us review:
Marbury v. Madison…..When the Supreme Court rules, that becomes the Supreme Law of the Land and part of the Constitution. Desegregation of schools is not spelled out in the body of the Constitution, it is the Law of the Land, having constitutional import, because of the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Topeka. Eisenhower publicly decried the ruling, but he sent federal troops into Little Rock to enforce the ruling. That is what the Oath of Office means.
The issue of the catholic bishops and their political strategy has been identified. The legal bind which catholics are in has been described. This issue has not been resolved, but it has been joined. I will return to it, each time, a bishop makes a declaration.
in the majority opinion for Roe v. Wade, Justice Black cites privacy right contained in the Fourth and Ninth Amendments to the Constitution. The ten Amendments are collectively known as the Bill of Rights, and are a part of the United States Constitution, as are all the rulings of the Supreme Court.
all Supreme Court rulings are “part of the Constitution,” how’s that Dred Scott thing holding up, anyway?
If it were part of the constitition, it could only be changed by a constititional amendment. If its only a 5-4 whimsy, it caq be overturned by a 5-4 whimsy.
Dred Scott WAS part of the constitution for years, until it was superseded by the 13th and 14th amendments.
Same with Plessy v. Ferguson being overturned by Brown v. Kansas Board of Education.
Opinions are NOT part of the constition. They only have the force of law while a majority of the court says so. No constitional amendment overturned Plessy. The court changed his mind.
This thread started because DWyer made a rather incoherent argument that said because officholders take an oath to uphold the constitition, that they had to uphold abortion rights since the court says the constitition provides that. Of course, that isn’t true in the sense of forbidding pro-life legislators from working to overturn those rulings, which is all they are trying to do. Anything you can put into the constititon by 5-4, I can take out 5-4. That’s why rulings aren’t really part of the constitition. If there were, it would take a constitutional amendment to change them, rather than just a shift of one justice.
SCOTUS is a strange animal.
In the case of the Executive, whose Constitutional duty it is to enforce the law of the land, failure to uphold those laws is unconstitutional in its own right.
There’s a big difference between being advocating for a change in the law and failure to execute the law.
He was arguing in his murky way that anybody who has taken an oath to support the constitition had to support Roe vs. Wade. That’s a far stretch. As to your point, there is also Andrew Jackson’s line: “Chief justice Marshall has made his decision. Now, let him enforce it.”
It’s kind of a sore subject right now. The only enforcement for violation of sworn Constitutional duties is impeachment, and our powder is now so dry it could absorb Lake Superior and remain usable.
There is nothing murky about the Constitution of the United States. Yes, the oath of office means supporting the Constitution of the United States, including Roe v. Wade.
I never said that public officials couldn’t work to change the law. I said their responsibility is to support the law, as long as it is the law. That means enforcing it. That means not trying to circumvent it.
“Pro-life” Ritter has to protect abortion clinics. He cannot sign an Executive Order denying women employees of the state the right to use medical leave for abortions, for example.
When Owen vetoed the Emergency Contraception legislation, he said he did it to prevent the catholic hospitals’ from participating in the crime of abortion. The comment made me sick to my stomach, and he got away with it. Now, be, do you think that Owen should have ordered state police to raid hospitals to see if any were giving out Emergency Contraception and if so, charge them with a crime???? That would be the next logical step of refusing to support abortion rights.
“
That goes to the heart of the issue, and of course, the life of this constitutional republic. It is the duty of the Executive to enforce the law, including the rulings of the Supreme Court. If he refuses, and Congress refuses to impeach, there is nothing to be done. The Constitution is dead.
I remember well Brown v. Board of Education. That Supreme Court ruling became the law of the land. A law which was ignored by the Southern states. Time and time and time again, African-Americans and their supporters had to go to court to try to get it enforced. The state courts would not; the federal courts would issue rulings…but it was up to the Executive, the President, to enforce it, with federal troops. Eisenhower did, and the Republic survived.
When General Robert E. Lee could no longer honor his oath to support the Constitution of the United States, he resigned his commission, and publicly joined the insurrection against that Constitution. Robert E. Lee understood what an oath of office meant.. He learned that in a place called West Point. Too gd bad, you didn’t.
But while I may be making sense, you aren’t.
The Constitution in no way enshrines or encompasses Roe v. Wade or any other law, treaty, or Supreme Court decision. It merely enacts the framework under which these lesser rules are rendered.
To suggest that the Constitution “includes” Roe v. Wade is misleading and inaccurate.
The original Constitution of the United States included the first ten amendments. The Constitution of the United States also laid out the three branches of the federal government (it also described the federal relationship between the federal government and the several states…but god, let us not go there) It is the function of the legislature to make law; it is the function of the Executive to enforce law; it is the function of the Supreme Court to INTERPRET the law, to decide if laws passed by the legislatures, local, state or federal, are consistent with the Constitution. The original Constitution also laid out the manner in which the original Constitution can be changed by Amendment.
A few years into the nation, the Supreme Court in Marberry v. Madison, ruled that it had the power to overturn any such lesser law in the country, if it held that such law was not compatible with the Constitution, and in so doing, its ruling became the Supreme Law of the Land.
The study of Constitutional Law is the study of cases. When the Supreme Court decides whether or not a law is constitutional, it not only looks at the original Constitution, it also looks at all the previous rulings of the Court.
Now here is where I think the confusion lies. A new Constitutional Amendment can overturn a Supreme Court ruling. So, the 13th,14th,15th Amendments gave civil rights to former male slaves, and delineated certain civil rights. Women attempted to vote, based on these Constitutional Amendments. The Supreme Court held that those amendments did NOT apply to women, only men.
The solution for women was to pass the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote. Now, when the Supreme Court considers the voting rights of women, it is bound by the 19th Amendment, not by its own rulings prior to the passage of the 19th Amendment.
So, PR, you are right in one sense. The Supreme Court can overturn its own rulings, it cannot overturn an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Right now, there is no Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which overturns Roe, therefore, Roe is the Supreme Law of the Land. It is part of the body of law which constitutes the Constitution of the United States. Until or unless, it is overturned by another ruling of the Supreme Court or by the passage of a Constitutional Amendment, Roe is part of the Constitution. Public office holders and public employees take an oath to uphold that Constitution. It doesn’t mean that they cannot work to change the Constitution. It means that they have to honor the law, and or attempt to change it within legal means.
For the record, I have consistently argued, here, that the proper response to Roe, for those who are in disagreement with the ruling, is to pass a Human Life Amendment, or an Abortion Rights Amendment.
Court rulings and law are not a part of the Constitution – in any way. The Constitution is just the document and its amendments, nothing more.
Roe v. Wade is based on the Constitution – specifically in the 9th Amendment “un-enumerated rights” provision – and it is certainly part of the law of the land, but it is not a part of the Constitution.
Supreme Court rulings become the “Supreme Law of the Land.” A Supreme Court ruling overrides existing federal, state or local law. It is supreme. That is because it is the an interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, A ruling of the Supreme Court can be overturned by the a subsequent ruling of the Supreme Court or by Constitutional Amendment. A Supreme Court ruling cannot be overturned by simple Executive or Legislative action at the local, state, or federal level.
A Supreme Court ruling is not on an equal level with “the laws of the land.” It is superior.
Are we in agreement?
Many Supreme Court rulings occur only within the premise of the law, or because no law has been written to cover the circumstances of the case; and in most other cases the Court “requests” the action of Congress to implement their decision rather than “creating” law. Congress also has the power to forbid the Court from trying certain cases – which has rarely if ever been used before the recent Republican-controlled Congress.
As an aside, treaties are defined as the “Supreme Law of the Land” as well, yet they too can be overturned in many ways, including actions spelled out within the treaties themselves – sometimes by legislative action, sometimes by executive action, and often by the breach of the treaty by foreign nations.
What is the status of the ruling if Congress declines to act?
Treaties and funding of the Court are beside the point.
This is the issue: I say that the ruling in Roe v. Wade (as well as myrid other cases, such as Brown, Miranda,) identified a constitutionally protected civil right, under the 4th and 9th amendments. And you say what?
I was a bit surprised to see this article.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/denver…
Weather clearly won’t be a factor, but one would hope that the “80,000 cheering partisans” would realize that they are not at a rock concert or football game. I’m sure the DNC delegates and alternates will behave appropriately. It’s the tens of thousands of other — no doubt mostly Obama fans — that are of concern.
By the way, Gov. Bredesen pretty much “threw in the towel” as far as Obama’s chances in Tennessee, according to the DNC Roundup on page 26 of today’s Rocky Mountain News.
So much for Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy!
It’s a long term thing. Tennessee will not vote Democratic this year, but in 10, 20, or 30 years, they might. The 50 state strategy is about having people already there when people are finally ready for it.
Oh wait, you’re a dishonest hack. Never mind.
He’s way over on the right but he is thoughtful and discusses things. The fact that someone disagrees with you does not make them a hack, or even necessarily wrong.
Drew’s posts generally consist of long copy-and-pasted lists or articles written by other people, with minimal original commentary. My judgment stands.
As for the content of this post, Drew’s interpretation of the 50 state strategy is nonsense. He’s either utterly clueless or dishonest. I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
He is wrong on the 50 state strategy and you are correct.
As is usually the case his points are generally logical though incorrectly based on false premises.
Th point of the 50 state strategy is not neccarily to win, but not to cede the ground. Defend the whole field, the whole political spectrum and to prevent the Democratic party from being turned into a charicature.
Maybe after building up a farm team in local races, and the county parties to support it, Democrats will be able to compete state wide in the deep red states, but for now the 50 state strategy has a different mission.
I don’t see too many Democrats having second thoughts. Most of the ones who still talk to me are pretty excited.
But you can spin this wonderful event tonight any way you want.
And the folks quoted in the article were Democrats, not Republicans. You might want to check your own house first, Ralphie!
“It’s the tens of thousands of other — no doubt mostly Obama fans — that are of concern.” You didn’t write that? Concern to who? Why?
As the article pointed out:
My writing regarding “the tens of thousands of other — mostly Obama fans — that are of concern” dealt with the the “unpredictable audience reaction” and the “high-risk endeavor in an uncontrollable environment” comments that were attributed to top Democrats. I was pointing out where I thought their concerns might be justified. I am not the one who raised the concerns in the first place.
Not just excited, but exceedingly proud!
“He needs to talk to people who haven’t made up their minds yet,”
It is so baffling to me that there’s someone, ANYONE, out there that hasn’t made up his or her mind up yet. With the complete over-super-saturation of all the candidates which gets worse with every election, how could they possibly not have an opinion ?
Just the sad state of our uninformed electorate.
Maybe in the eye of Gov. Bredesen Obama should start turning over rocks that these people live under and shout out HELLO THERE, I’M BARACK OBAMA, AND I’M NOT A MUSLIM !
It isn’t just because of the “sad state of our uninformed electorate,” although I do agree with much of your sentiment there.
Most voters are not “political junkies” and don’t really have strong ties to one political party or the other, if they are even affiliated to begin with.
I fear the negative attack ads have turned off a lot of people, but hopefully they will be drawn back by the convention speeches of Barack Obama and John McCain. (I really do want to see the TV ratings for both conventions once they are over.)
More than ever before, I believe the three presidential debates are going to have a huge impact on how people vote this year. There are legitimate misgivings about both candidates. Voters want to see how they stack up to each other in face to face format. It may very well be the “make it or break it” moments in the respective campaigns. A large amount of undecideds at this time shouldn’t be too surprising, nor should it be a concern to either campaign.
A-please note that Obama did call it that, its proper, God-given, name, not “A failed financial services company paid us to slap their name on this stadium and we never got around to reselling naming rights to a viable business” stadium.
B-An estimated half of those 80,000 people are supposed to be Coloradans. Obviously, most are Ds anyway, but talk about energizing the base! It certainly gives Obama a big lift in Colorado for November to fire up those 40,000 ambassadors.
It won’t hurt in New Mexico and Nevada either.
and I caught that myself last night. If that was intentional he got some great advice.
Long live Mile-high !
(I need to go check my PSInet stocks now)
will be in attendance too. I have talked to several R’s wanting to watch a historic event happening in Denver and they have their tickets. They are not the fervent anti-everything in the world Repubs, they are very nice people. I am sure they will enjoy the evening with the rest of us, and maybe find filling in the Obama circle on their ballots very easy.
He’ll be an Obama supporter by midnight.
I think it is great that LB – and there are other Pubs – who want to see a bit of history and feel the excitement.
If McCain gave me the same opportunity, I’d do it in a heartbeat.
I wanted to grill him a little tomorrow about it !
I love Obama, but I gotta ask: whazzup with the Mount Olympus, Hercules-movie-channeling stage being built for Mile High?
The right wing is having a field day with it:
“Temple of Dem.”
“Mount O-Lympus.”
Et cetera. Et cetera.
And did I read correctly that the designer of the stage also did the staging for the BRITNEY SPEARS tour? Ouch.
But nothing Obama does can ever trump McCain’s infamous lime-green backdrop. I hope McCain’s fashion sense continues to fail him in Minneapolis – but I fear that his new Karl Rove Mafia handlers are keeping him as tightly controlled as possible.
http://www.time.com/time/polit…
BTW the stage doesn’t look that bad to me. With what I had been hearing from the right I thought it was going to be over the top. Maybe the should have put out a red pickup and a couple of straw bales.
Or, he can borrow Ken Salazar’s. Nothing like a bit of cowshit on your boots to insulate yourself from the charge of elitism. It works for me.
…so that’s what that smell was when I used to ride the elevator with you!
I just thought it was how all you press people smelled… :>)
You’re really Bob Beauprez.
That’s below the belt! I am but a humble servant of the people.
along with Bob Beauprez standing next to Mr. Ed’s butt?
you guys would make an issue out of it.
It is NOT an issue.
It is complete chaos at Invesco. This stadium speech may not have been such a good idea.
No one is giving directions, no one knows where to go. This whole afternoon and evening have the makings of a disaster. He should have given the speech from the Brandenburg Gate.
go towards there. Glad to help.
As we were standing in the bottleneck to get to the Broncos Bridge last night, for hours and hours and hours, one man turned and shluted, “They’re using the Bush-Cheney exit strategy!”
“Shluted”? Meant “shouted,” of course. I don’t know what “shlute” means, but I hope I never see anyone do it!
http://tpmelectioncentral.talk…
T-Paw has cancelled all appearances tomorrow for unspecified reasons.
Is it possible that McCain is going to leave Mittens standing at the altar and elope with the Guv on Minnesota?
Could this just be a diversion to build up some hype for someone other than T-Paw?
Does any of this really matter?
Of course, that may be simple misdirection. But I’d guess he’s going with tpaw and sending out the signs now hoping that dimwits like cnn will go gaga about it and draw their attention away from obama tonight. Until today, I bet on Romney, who would be the most formidable here in the West. But we’ll all know Friday.
an intelligent person understands the brainwash…..and the hypocrisy…..of the Catholic Church?
Give me a break.
before I can give you a break. I’m not sure what you’re reacting to. Of course, an intelligent person can disagree with the Catholic church. I’d like to think I’m intelligent and I certainly disagree with that church (and all the other ones, frankly, with the exception of certain strains of non-theistic Buddhism). My puzzlement is that intelligent people can strongly disagree with the Catholic Church and remain Catholics. Yet, many, like OQD, do.