Obama to speak at Kennedy's "Catholic" Funeral.
#41
I would expect nothing less than one liberal elitest eulogizing another liberal elitest. I pray that Our Lord has mercy on Mr. Obama and shines the light of His Truth on him and brings Mr. Obama to the Church. I think that is a serious long shot, but worth praying for none the less.
Reply
#42
I hope that some top-flight liturgical dancers are supplied, like the Rockettes. That will make Mahoney jealous.

In all seriousness, I suspect that they'll have a fairly traditional-looking funeral to paper-over a life spent outside of the teachings of the Faith.
Reply
#43
(08-28-2009, 11:10 AM)epalinurus Wrote: I don't recall any Republican saying after Reagan died in 2005 -- "Reagan's strength in confronting tyranny during the Cold War shows how we must expand/fight the war against terrorism, etc etc.  Let's pick up the Reagan cudgel and win one for the Gipper." 
True, Republican canonization of Reagan is both more subtle and more far-reaching (though if I recall correctly, the GOP was invoking Reagan long before his unfortunate death in 2005).  My chief concern is that many on these boards tend to attribute such actions to one party, thus implying that the other party doesn't engage in such actions.  It's, of course, a subtle kind of hypocrisy, but it's still hypocrisy...
Reply
#44
(08-28-2009, 01:05 PM)Pilgrim Wrote:
(08-28-2009, 11:10 AM)epalinurus Wrote: I don't recall any Republican saying after Reagan died in 2005 -- "Reagan's strength in confronting tyranny during the Cold War shows how we must expand/fight the war against terrorism, etc etc.  Let's pick up the Reagan cudgel and win one for the Gipper." 
True, Republican canonization of Reagan is both more subtle and more far-reaching (though if I recall correctly, the GOP was invoking Reagan long before his unfortunate death in 2005).  My chief concern is that many on these boards tend to attribute such actions to one party, thus implying that the other party doesn't engage in such actions.  It's, of course, a subtle kind of hypocrisy, but it's still hypocrisy...


I'm not talking about "canonization."  Everybody does that to their heroes.  We're talking about exploiting Ted's death within minutes of him dying to achieve passage of a particular bill.  If the Reps were invoking Reagan before his death regarding a particular bill, then they weren't exploiting his death.  Dems could and did do that while Kennedy was alive.  "Ted wants this."  "It would be different if Ted was here."  FIne.  No problem.  And I'm not talking about people eulogizing Ted as an inspiration etc.  I'm talking about trying to pump life into a dying piece of legislation by appeals to the dead person's desire for the bill to become law, as an emotional ploy.  It's a cheap trick by Democrats that reflects a manipulation of, and a lack of respect for,  the electorate.  And I'm not aware that the Republicans have done it any time lately, so I don't see the hypocrisy on this issue.  If they've done it, I'll object to it, too. 
Reply
#45
(08-28-2009, 01:54 PM)epalinurus Wrote: I'm not talking about "canonization."  Everybody does that to their heroes.  We're talking about exploiting Ted's death within minutes of him dying to achieve passage of a particular bill.  If the Reps were invoking Reagan before his death regarding a particular bill, then they weren't exploiting his death.  Dems could and did do that while Kennedy was alive.  "Ted wants this."  "It would be different if Ted was here."  FIne.  No problem.  And I'm not talking about people eulogizing Ted as an inspiration etc.  I'm talking about trying to pump life into a dying piece of legislation by appeals to the dead person's desire for the bill to become law, as an emotional ploy.  It's a cheap trick by Democrats that reflects a manipulation of, and a lack of respect for,  the electorate.  And I'm not aware that the Republicans have done it any time lately, so I don't see the hypocrisy on this issue.  If they've done it, I'll object to it, too.   

Perhaps it's just poor timing.  If, say, Reagan had died during the tax cut debate of 2002, we probably would have seen the same circus with different performers to get even more votes for that particular piece of legislation.  My point is that in today's politics, neither party is above such tactics and we should stop pretending that either party holds the high ground in such situations.

I also very much doubt that anyone will vote for a bill of this magnitude just because of Kennedy's death.  The issue has been hashed and rehashed so many times (even before its current incarnation) that the number of people who are truly on the fence is probably pretty small.  Of course, I could be very wrong.  I wonder if such an emotional response could even be quantified...
Reply
#46
Today, I made the mistake, while sitting in a restaurant, to actually pay attention to the television.  After seeing the gush-fest, I've come to the conclusion that we need to make some space on the calendar for saint Teddy, patron of abortionists, heterophobes, and socialists.
Reply
#47
(08-28-2009, 10:34 AM)Pilgrim Wrote:
(08-27-2009, 09:29 PM)Mhoram Wrote: I don't think the body was even cold yet when I saw the first quote from a Democrat saying this might turn health care around, that people might want to pass it "in Teddy's memory," or some such nonsense.  Of course they'll take that angle if it helps; the end justifies the means.
Something that no Republican would ever dream of doing, right? ;)

Generally, no.  Not that Republicans are wonderful and moral in all ways; I spend more time cussing them than praising them.  But there's definitely a stronger tendency to say that the end justifies the means on the Left, and the Democrats are further to the Left than the Republicans, in general.

If you want to know how it would go if the roles were reversed, just think back to when that abortion doctor was shot a couple months ago.  A few fringe types (not leaders and statesmen of the party equivalent to Pelosi and Gore) said good riddance, and the entire pro-life/right-wing/Republican population shouted them down and said we don't want any part of that kind of thinking.  If, say, Reagan had died in 2002 and that same day Bush and Hastert had started pushing the idea of a tax cut to commemorate him, the loudest outrage would have come from Republicans.  (Of course, all this is one reason the Left usually wins over time in a democracy.)
Reply
#48
(08-28-2009, 03:18 PM)Mhoram Wrote: If, say, Reagan had died in 2002 and that same day Bush and Hastert had started pushing the idea of a tax cut to commemorate him, the loudest outrage would have come from Republicans.  (Of course, all this is one reason the Left usually wins over time in a democracy.)
I can't say I agree with you there, Mhoram.  Given the vast importance of that particular issue in the 2000 election, I think the GOP would have turned a blind eye to such a move.  Also, let's not forget that most Republicans were all too willing to allow Karl Rove-style politics to dominate in the 2004 elections.  If the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth wasn't "ends justifying the means," then what is?
Reply
#49
[
[/quote]
I can't say I agree with you there, Mhoram.  Given the vast importance of that particular issue in the 2000 election, I think the GOP would have turned a blind eye to such a move.  Also, let's not forget that most Republicans were all too willing to allow Karl Rove-style politics to dominate in the 2004 elections.  If the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth wasn't "ends justifying the means," then what is?
[/quote]


ummmm... the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was just that.... the TRUTH... I happened to be related to one of those guys, so I know from whence I speak.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)