Its Over.
Martha Coakley just conceded!
WOW WOW WOW.
Open thread. Is Obamacare dead?
Update Matt: I don’t think it’s a headshot to healthcare but it’s definitely a gut shot.
This is almost surreal in that two weeks ago we saw the polls and dreamed about a moral victory that could scare the Dems a little. A week ago we started wondering maybe this could actually happen. And then last night I just kept waiting for the rug to be pulled out from under us.
All in all I’m just glad he won big because I think it’s outside the margin of theft. I think.
Update 2 from Matt: I’m excited so I’m blogging. That’s kinda’ sad. I blog when I’m happy. Hey, it beats being a sad blogger I guess.
I hope someone’s taking away Keith Olbermann’s belts and shoelaces tonight. I wonder if Chris Matthews leg is tingling tonight. Maybe – but it’ll only be because he voided himself. (Sorry! But this is great news!)
Update 3: As weird as it was rooting for a pro-choice Republican, the truth is that pro-choice Scott Brown is doing more for pro-lifers than “pro-lifers” Ben Nelson and Bob Casey ever did. Sad but true.
January 20, 2010 at 3:51 pm
This is a perfect example of when it's acceptable for a Catholic to vote for a pro-Choice candidate. Both candidates are pro-Choice, but the degrees are very different. It would be similar to supporting a law that allows abortions to continue but limits it to cases of rape and incest…it's not the perfect choice, but it improves the situation by reducing the overall number of abortions.
Step by step, not leaps and bounds.
One can look at it as the lesser of two evils, but I prefer to look at it as a single step in the right direction, as opposed to a headlong rush in the wrong.
January 20, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Early Riser wrote:
Paul, spare me your moral relativism. The fact is he is yet another pro-abortion polititian that we have to deal with.
Let's not lose all sense of proportion, here. Should we grieve the fact that Brown is pro-abortion? Definitely; I'm heart and soul with you, there. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with rejoicing over the fact that a major catastrophe-in-the-making (i.e. the misnamed "health care" bill) has taken a serious blow (and might be dead). It's a bit like grieving the loss of 100 people, while rejoicing over the fact that 1,000,000 people were saved.
In short: we can walk (rejoice in the perhaps fatal damage done to the death bill) and chew gum (lament and work against Brown's pro-abortion stance) at the same time.
January 20, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Craig wrote:
Stupak has been touted for the hope that it kills the bill, not for the hope that it passes with Stupak intact.
Of course… since there's far more wrong with even the House's bill than merely its explicit pre-Stupak promotion and funding of abortion; that was yet another instance of rejoicing over an averted calamity, while trying to undo the rest of the evil, as well (e.g. rationing, lack of health care conscience protection, etc.).
January 20, 2010 at 4:02 pm
It occurred to me, reading the posts above, that if Ted Kennedy is in Purgatory, he must be rejoicing right now at the results of the electio.
JSM
January 20, 2010 at 4:57 pm
Thank God the opposition did not try their nasty tricks and because of that, reform has started with ballots and not bullets.
January 20, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Craig,
Your comment still doesn't make sense in the light of the overall bill. How would language inserted into a bill that prevents the federal funding of abortion throw our goals under the bus? What, do you think we have to oppose any and all legislation that doesn't explicitly eliminate the legality of abortion (whether that's possible or not)?
According to your point of view, we would be throwing abortion (though I assume you mean unborn babies) under the bus if we didn't stonewall budget bills that didn't explicitly outlaw abortion; or immigration legislation that didn't explicitly out law abortion; or any Senate resolution congratulating the winning team of the World Series that didn't explicitly state that abortion is wrong.
January 20, 2010 at 6:46 pm
I was simply agreeing with Early Riser's comment on moral relativism, no need to extrapolate.
When it's politically convenient to thrwart the supposedly islamofascist democrats, "abortion = MURDER!!!" need not apply.
January 20, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Palladin, that's pretty much what I said in my first post. Although I didn't use the word "rejoice"
January 21, 2010 at 2:10 am
Is that our resident liberal trollfish Craig accusing someone of moral relativism? Ha Ha hahahahaha.
January 21, 2010 at 12:31 pm
The references to "head shot" and "gut shot" were unnecessary and crass.
AuntieD
January 21, 2010 at 2:50 pm
Yep, P Button,
Much like the Cistercian Catholic nuns at Mt. St. Mary’s Abbey who I see have not refused any gifts from Mr. Brown despite his so-called pro-abort, "culture of death" stance.
"Abortion = MURDER!!!" and the "traitor to life" labels only apply when the guy is on other side of the political fence, apparently.
January 21, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Craig,
Sorry, but you're sounding rather confused.
If Senator-elect Brown were an abortionist who *made* his money by abortions, I could see your complaint; but could you explain to me how his donations to a good cause, from funds of his own, could be a moral problem? Why do you think that the sisters should have refused the gifts?
January 21, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Craig – paladin is correct here. Throughout history the church has taken donations from amoral people and turned it into something good. One of Christopher Hitchens' biggest accusations against Mother Theresa is that she took donations from Baby Doc Duvalier, former dictator of Haiti. To the rest of the world, this is an obvious "so what?" I'd gladly take money from the Obama's and turn it over to the charity of my choice. Would I praise Obama for his stance on abortion? Nope. I'd thank him for his donation and remind him of the good work it is going to. This is not hypocrisy or moral relativism.
I DO think calling every Democratic politician "pro-abortion" while calling Brown "pro-choice" and saying, "eh…he's not all THAT bad. I mean, we can work with him." is moral relativism. This is exactly what Catholic leaders who voted Bill Clinton in thought. And that was the furthest from the truth. We can't give up on ANY politician on either side of the aisle. But we don't give a "pro-abortion pass" to anyone just because they sit on the side we like.
January 21, 2010 at 8:56 pm
One more note: would I prefer Brown to win? Yes. Of course. Like I said, he was the lesser of the two evils, and that is no victory for us. Would I have voted for him? No. I have never voted for a pro-abortion candidate and could never do so with a clear conscience.
January 21, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Early Riser:
I just now had a chance to read your post of Jan. 20, 1:13 AM, in which you call me–and by implication, all who agree with me–a moral relativist.
I am not a moral relativist. That is both insulting and also flatly wrong. You have no idea how wrong, or how much heat I've taken from my academic colleagues and my university students, over the years, for not being a moral relativist. You owe me an apology.
Moreover, your position is indefensible. Do you really want to change the law and save innocent lives, or would you rather retreat to your tower of ideological purity and sulk?
For myself, I'd rather start saving babies and persuading people.
I understand your disgust with having to support people who do not understand that abortion–all abortion–involves the death of an innocent child, and I share it. I will never give up on working to make abortion completely illegal.
But in the meantime, I won't stand by and refuse to help save some babies, just because I can't save them all. Grieve for the ones I can't help–yes. Ignore the ones I can–no, certainly not.
I suggest you go to CatholicVoteAction.org and read the excellent letter which Brian Burch sent out today. It may be found here:
catholicvoteaction.org/blog/cva/index.php?p=515#more-515
Brian addresses all these issues, but he is also aware of the delicate balancing act between theological correctness and political effectiveness. This balancing act is one we all have to figure out how to perform if we want to get anything done (besides pontificating, that is). Brian is also aware of the importance of working for the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity, something we should also take into consideration.
In the meantime, I suggest you not call people moral relativists when you do not know what they believe.
I'll wait for that apology.
January 22, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Early riser wrote:
Palladin, that's pretty much what I said in my first post. Although I didn't use the word "rejoice"
Well… you wrote: "I'm glad the Democratic machine suffered a victory, but I am disheartened that once again, the Republican party (just like the Catholic church) has allowed pro-abortion […] to represent the party. It sickens me. This is hardly a "victory", it is just the lesser of two evils. And I'm sick and tired of it."
Believe me, I don't want to celebrate Brown's election for its own sake, per se; but as I said: we're capable of walking (rejecting pro-abortion candidates per se) and chewing gum (celebrating the defeat of an evil much larger and more pervasive than Brown's position).
BTW: I can't speak for the Republican party (and anyone who's read my comments at all knows that I couldn't care less about the GOP per se, but only about what they happen to get right), but the Catholic Church is doing what I described: breathing a sigh of relief that a major disaster has probably been delayed, if not averted altogether, while still lamenting the lesser (though grave) evil of Brown's pro-abortion stance.
It's not moral relativism to rejoice in the defeat of a larger evil by tolerating a smaller evil, so long as the smaller evil is not willed for its own sake (or allowed for insufficiently grave reason).
January 24, 2010 at 12:51 am
Well said, Paladin, especially your last sentence.