The Palin bounce.  :-)

2008 National Presidential General Election:

McCain vs Obama

www.pollster.com/.../08-us-pres-ge-mvo.php

I wish someone could explain to me why American Catholics who back the Church's position on abortion (and birth control, for bonus points) get to claim the mantle of being "pro-life" but they get a complete pass if they go against the Church's teaching on capital punishment, torture, war, care for the poor, etc.  I have never, ever heard a Catholic politician get called out for being pro-death penalty.  I genuinely don't understand it.

But then, I never got Papal infallibility (except when he isn't) or the transfiguration stuff (eww) either.  Those Catholics, so mysterious  :)

kagoss: Years ago, I remember seeing a study indicating that the largest number of Americans who could be identified by a specific religious affiliation were _non-practicing_ Catholics.

No doubt the distribution of Americans among specific religious affiliations has changed since then, but from my own experience, I would still accept the underlying message of that study: that for many Catholics, Catholicism is more of a cultural association than a devout adherence to dogma.

Given the Church's recent -- and historic -- problems standing by its own teachings, even unquestioning Catholics have to accept an unsettling degree of cognitive dissonance in order to practice without disillusionment. The Catholic Church calls that "faith".

I’ve been stewing over this Sarah Palin thing in a number of ways, with friends male, female, and Alaskan

Nice photo choice.

The Grand Old Bait and Switch

www.theroot.com/.../47886

[But what is being called a "maverick" decision by McCain, is in fact just another version of the old Republican game of bait and switch with identity politics. Starting with George H. W. Bush's nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, the GOP has been trying to convince Americans that any "woman," "African American" or "candidate of color" will do. And while the argument can be made that any diversity is better than no diversity, this Republican version is especially egregious because it often appoints minority candidates who vote against public legislation that insure that other members of their group have the same opportunities, choices and paths to success as they did. In effect, diversity, which dismantles affirmative action programs and women's reproductive rights, is the worse form of political fraud.

In 1991, when Thomas succeeded Thurgood Marshall, the Republicans created a new playbook for identity politics. Instead of re-creating an all-white Supreme Court, President George H. W. Bush maintained symbolic racial diversity while also appointing a judge who would vote against long-term diversity measures such as racial preference and affirmative action programs.

Even more cleverly, he nominated a significantly inexperienced African-American candidate whose presence reiterates the anti-affirmative rhetoric of unqualified minorities unfairly taking the jobs of more competent whites. With Thomas, the Republicans not only overlooked the exceptional and better qualified African-American men and women who did exist (and therefore could reinforce the benefits and necessity of affirmative action), but they appointed him with the intent of destroying that racial equity policies for which Marshall has so valiantly fought.]

[Today, as a result of the bait and switch of Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas, many African Americans are more prone to express racial skepticism rather than automatic racial solidarity with even highly qualified black politicians like Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Michael Steele because their political conservatism is often at odds with African-American group interest. Likewise, supporters of women's rights need to be pre-emptive and see Palin's nomination as a rejection of long-term gender equality.

In the end, McCain's is not as much a bold move as it is an old page from the Republican playbook.]

LIVE. MIC. DRAMA!

Why haven't you guys posted this yet?:

talkingpointsmemo.com/.../212920.php

maybe: Wow! Thank you. Murphy and Noonan are two of the best, two of the smartest. Holy Cow.

Very funny. :-)

fougasseu: Yeah, it's pretty unbelievable, right? Seems much worse than Jesse-gate (which may not have been so bad after all) beacuse Noonan and Murphy are, as you say, the real thing.

Not sure if coverage of this will bleed into the response to Palin's speech tonight (I live in Amsterdam. Our only US station is CNN Int'l, so we never get much of a sense of how this stuff plays back home), but I doubt it reflects well on Noonan after she wrote this mostly positive assessment of Palin's candidacy this morning: online.wsj.com/.../SB122044753790594947.html.

Noam: sorry for spamming your post with unrelated subject matter....  : D

Pat Robertson's dream rampant - he really can leg press 1000 pounds.  

This will be vote for Jesus, oh and that Senate guy too - maybe the Lord will take him.

We will see whether a motivationally driven base and flim-flam is enough to win the election.

Wasn't she christeed as a Catholic?  Makes her pretty lapsed, no?

Phyllis Schlafly 2.0 tricked up in a Phyllis George package.

Pure Eagle Forum. And pure Karl Rove: The media is the enemy, all identity/ignore the issues, all fight all of the time.

Are the rich going to continue to win through this intimidation? Belittle and mock is their strategy, bullying and refusing to acknowledge a challenge.

How will the Democrats counter this utter contempt for Barack Obama?