The Democrats used to be the Irish-Catholic Party

They are now, in the Jury Box’ view (and much to his regret), the Anti-Catholic Party.

Your thoughts?


10 responses to “The Democrats used to be the Irish-Catholic Party

  1. Good. Catholics should not be in control of any country. Especially America.

  2. Fear and Loathing in Georgetown

    While it’s not quite so simple, I think it comes down to this — the basis for social justice changed.

    Social justice in the Catholic sense was always rooted in our duty toward our fellow man and God. Today, social justice, as commonly understood by the political left, is some based around an individual’s right to health care or right to a decent living or right to choose.

    Basing it around rights instead of duties has a huge impact and drove a wedge between the Catholic Church and the Democratic party.

  3. Here are some thoughts from Saul Alinsky via Andy McCarthy at NRO,

    “Saul Alinsky on “reconciliation” in our “world of irrationality” – in which the pragmatic radical is instructed to work within the system to achieve revolution:

    “It is a world not of angels but of angles, where men speak of moral principles but act on power principles; a world where we are always moral and our enemies always immoral; a world where “reconciliation” means that when one side gets the power and the other side gets reconciled to it, then we have reconciliation[.]”

  4. Alinsky is be proud of his disciples -just in from The Corner:

    Lambs to the Slaughter [Daniel Foster]

    I’ll be honest. I had started to wonder whether this Slaughter Rule business was a bait-and-switch. I couldn’t imagine that, with the pounding Democratic leadership have taken over the deem-and-pass strategy, there was any profit left in pushing it. After all, the point was to provide Democrats with political cover, via procedural obscurity, for a vote in favor of the Senate bill. But the procedure is no longer obscure and the cover is now a fig leaf.

    That’s why I find it genuinely amazing that the House just defeated a Republican measure to block the Slaughter Rule by a vote 222 to 203.

  5. This week The Jury Box is serving up some people who sound like they would fit in with Daily Kos or at a KKK rally. Strange that merely switching from Irish Elk to a different hosting service would so seriously degrade your readership.

  6. I must admit that I was, until this afternoon, buying the idea that there were still a couple of functional pro-life people among the Democrats in the House of Representatives. Now that Bart Stupak has joined the proabortion side of the health care fight, it is clear that there is no way a serious person can claim to be a “Democrat” and “pro-life.” There are two good posts on The Corner already which describe how utterly meaningless is the piece of paper that President Obama will sign to induce Stupak to surrender. Stupak can stand with Neville Chamberlin waving over his head the new “executive order”–too bad Stupak doesn’t go over to Reagan Airport and wave it so the comparison will be complete. Here is a good summary at The Corner of why this is not abortion funding peace in our time:

  7. Steve, did any of the folks at Irish Elk who defended Obama last Fall come across as serious people?

  8. Speaking of serious, seriously Steve, NOW can’t be serious here – they won.

    NOW “Incensed” With Obama
    March 21, 2010 6:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) |

    Share This
    By Tim Sahd

    The National Organization for Women is “incensed” that Pres. Obama agreed with Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) to issue an executive order clarifying restrictions on abortion in the bill, and it just released a statement questioning his commitment to his pro-choice base.

    “President Obama campaigned as a pro-choice president, but his actions today suggest that his commitment to reproductive health care is shaky at best,” NOW pres. Terry O’Neill wrote in a statement. “Contrary to language in the draft of the executive order and repeated assertions in the news, the Hyde Amendment is not settled law … The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn’t disagree more.”

    Through two procedural votes on the rule, it doesn’t appear the agreement between Stupak and Obama has angered pro-choice Dems enough to threaten passage of the overall health care bill.

    But Dems believe passage of the legislation will help rally a slumbering base ahead of the midterm elections, and the last-minute deal with Stupak may put a damper on some of those hopes.

  9. Fear and Loathing in Georgetown

    “did any of the folks at Irish Elk who defended Obama last Fall come across as serious people?”

    Hey, I’m serious.

  10. I know.

    You also didn’t defend Obama.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s