www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Rove had Sen. Hilary Clinton's office exorcised?

Dear Lawrence:
What you have described is unfortunate. I would add that I agree with those who love to point out that there are serious moral problems posed by the Democratic Party; however, I would also insist that the Republican Party is no better-it's just that there issues are often different. I think that Christians like us who believe that our faith should determine our politics need an alternative to our current two-party system, in which both parties take positions that are in opposition to Christian teaching.
Sincerely,
Ryan

Abortion is a paramount issue about which there can be no compromise. It is always wrong.

The Wars of Liberation in Afghanistan and Iraq and other things the Republicans stand for are not wrong. One can support these efforts and still be a good Catholic. One reject these efforts and still be a good Catholic. So said John Paul II.

David Broder of the Washington Post wrote a column last week admitting that almost everything written about Karl Rove in the recent scandal was invented by the media and false. He also called for an apology from the biased, liberal media to Rove.

Hillary Clinton is a shrewd politician and a very talented lady. She should be voted out of office for her support of the death penalty for innocent children.

The problems I had in mind with respect to the Republicans were not so much the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (although I completely disagree with your claim that they are not wrong). Democrats and Republicans both have a history of being pro-war and giving insufficient thought as to whether any given war is morally justifiable. I had things like the Republican idea of what I call the preferential option for the rich and their record on civil rights and race relations over the last 3 or 4 decades. As for the abortion question, I agree with you that the Church should not compromise its position. I would also point out that there are quite a few pro-choice Republicans out there. So I stand by my earlier assertion. The Republicans are just as problematic as the Democrats. Those of us who are Christians and insist that we not leave behind our values when we enter the political arena need another option. We need a political party that is committed to upholding the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Sincerely,
Ryan

Dear CJ you said:

I say:

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were necessary. What President Bush is trying to do in Iraq is establish a democracy. If a democracy can be established, and the people can have jobs and a certain amount of contentment, then Iraq will cease to be a problem. The hope was that how Iraq goes, the rest of the Middle East will go.

Today of course we don't know if a civil war will occur, but again, that has happened many times in history. I know in Greece after the war with Germany, there was a civil war between the loyalists that were fighting the Germans, and the communists that were fighting the Germans. I also know that until after the Second World War, democracy was very rare. It was and is a hard thing to establish in any country. If the worlds nations became democratic, it was do to us and the influence we had since the Second World War because of our immense wealth. Yet the belief is and has always been, that democracies do not start wars.

You said:
I say:

The pity is that even if an apology is offered, most people won't even know about it. All they will remember is the lies and slanders that were said before.

So before I finish, I will mention one thing. The word devil, comes from the Greek word 'deavolos' meaning slander.

Zenovia

Ryan,

"I had things like the Republican idea of what I call the preferential option for the rich and their record on civil rights and race relations over the last 3 or 4 decades."

You have certainly listed some prejudices against the Republican position but could you be specific. It is my observation that the Republicans have done much better in supporting civil rights and in helping the poor than have the Democrats. That's why I'm no longer a Democrat but am a Republican. Though I wish we had a serious alternative to the two parties I see none on the horizon. Given what I've seen I'm unconvinced that the Democrats have anything to offer of a positive nature. It may change in the future but as of now they will not get my vote.

CDL

Yes, Alice, I noticed that my post was removed and Zenovia's post with the insinuations about Senator Clinton was kept in.

Dan, Could YOU be more specific in how they have done this??? That is a very remarkable assertion given the Party's modern history.

That is exactly what figures on the Right did with President Clinton and they have not repented of it.

As I said previously, listen to the interview. It is at the very top of the page.

Alice,

I believe that Brian is referring specifically to the text by Zenovia on which he commented:

And while she may hate to say it, she did. Rumor-mongering and speculating about others in political circles may have a time-honored place in American political circles, but it remains a nasty, dirty tactic in which no self-respecting Christian should choose to engage.

My grandmother, of blessed memory, was wont to say "if you didn't see it with your eyes, or hear it with your ears from one who did, then let your tongue be silent, lest your mind be poisoned or, worse yet, the minds of others by you - for which God will call you to answer".

I rather think she was right.

Many years,

Neil

CDL:
I just really don't see how Republicans have done anything positive about civil rights or that they are interested in helping the poor over the last three or four decades-not necessarily over the entire history of the party. There certainly was a time when Republicans had a far better record on seeking equality for African Americans than the Democrats did. In the 1950s and early 1960s, a great deal of opposition to the civil rights movement came from Democrats. However, I would say that since about the time of President Nixon, the Democrats have a better record-which I think is reflected by the fact that African Americans overwhelmingly vote or Democrats in presidential elections. President Bush got about 9% of the African American vote in 2000 and about 11% of the African American vote in 2004. As for their recent record with respect to economic issues-it seems to me that Republicans are firmly in the camp of corporations and the wealthiest among us-not that the same couldn't be said about Democrats-but I think to a lesser degree than Republicans.
Sincerely,
Ryan

Slater contends that Rove is an agnostic. But has Rove said he was. Rumor is a funny thing. It usually is not correct. But I will give you this. You have produced someone else besides yourself you contends that Rove is an agnostic. But I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean. Are you suggesting that no corruption should exist in politics? I wish that were so.

The interview brings up something else that may be related.

Slater does a good job of creating dichotomies that do not really exist in reality. E.g., see his false dichotomy he potulates between Rove's love for his father, which is magnificent considering what his father did to his mother, and his supposed "anti-gay" agenda, which does not in fact exist.

Given the fact that I've been around long enough and have studied history enough to not be alarmed by what secularists will do in a secularist system and that even "religious" people often succumb to secular temptations I find little to be alarmed about in this interview. I doubt that there has ever been a secular leader who did not have at least one "architect". It's all very interesting but there's nothing alarming in it.

What we do know is that someone who may know the truth says that Karl Rove is a shrewd political operative and does a pretty good job of it who may be an agnostic, at least about some matters. Even if the statements are true, so what?

CDL

CDL:
I have offered what I believe to be legitimate criticisms of President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. I can see that my criticisms have been very forceful and could be seen by some as being harsh. However, I have re-read my posts on this thread and I have not called them by names except those of the offices they hold.
Ryan

Ryan,

As my black former pastor friend who is now president of the Knights of Columbus group that I'm in says, "The issue isn't race. It's class." Since the Democrats have done a pretty good job of keeping many blacks poor and uneducated and the Republicans have given blacks a way to move out of poverty and have helped to improve education he is now a Republican. When it finally dawned on me how patronizing the White Democrats really are towards blacks and how many of the Black Democratic leaders are corrupt I agree with his analysis.

I have found that certain groups have had a strangle hold on the rhetoric of politics of victimhood but when I saw that productive actions do not follow I switched.

CDL

CDL:
I don't see that Republicans have improved education and I don't see that they have done anything to move anybody-regardless of race-out of poverty. I don't see any hope that I can persuade you on this issue and I am convinced about my own position. I don't think that the African American population needs whites-or the very tiny minority of their own population who support the Republican Party-to tell them what is in their best interest. To do so is very condescending in my opinion and I fear that it leads down a path that is very dangerous. I will let the fact that they have overwhelmingly supported Democrats ever since President Nixon chose to appeal to White Southern hostility to the civil rights movement to gain a political advantage speak for iself. I think that you and I are both fully convinced in our respective positions and that there is little chance that either of us will persuade the other. Perhaps we should agree to disagree and go our separate ways on this issue.
Sincerely,
Ryan