Home › Blogs › Allen's blog ›

The Last Time I saw Peggy Noonan She Was At The Vatican

Submitted by Allen on Sat, 11/01/2008 - 10:49
in

Several  years ago, I sat through a somewhat annoying program at the John Paul II auditorium in Vatican City moderated by Peggy Noonan.

Noonan embarrassed the Cardinal in attendance by repeatedly referring to the living Pope as a Saint. She was clearly off base and a young monk sitting near me said so.

Noonan has worn her Catholicism on her sleeve in books and in appearances.

Now this public Catholic has come full circle. She has endorsed Barak Obama for President.

I guess her conscience compelled her to fleetingly address Obama's abortion stance. But even here she pulls her punches. She does not mention that Obama supports partial-birth abortions, the barbaric killing of humans. Instead she chastises him for being too much of an intellectual when he said that the abortion question was above his pay grade.

In her endorsement, she declares that liberalism has triumphed (while on the same page Democrat Doug Schoen argues that Obama's victory is not a mandate for specific change) and she paints a most unflattering personal picture of McCain.

I know people who worked with Noonan in the White House who accused her of  taking credit for work others had done. Now, out on her own she seems like a valueless political pundit who is throwing Reaganism out the window.

Don't be surprised if she is the first "conservative" to interview Obama, if he wins.

5
Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

Comments

The Last Time I checked, the Pope doesn't vote.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sat, 11/01/2008 - 11:11.

The Catholic Church is no longer a wing of the Republican Party.

For some Catholic voters, it's a no-brainer to support Republican John McCain, whose anti-abortion platform is in keeping with their religion's belief that abortion is a sin.

But this year, other Catholics aren't so sure. They see Democrat Barack Obama's stances on an array of issues — from poverty to the Iraq war — mirroring the social and economic justice teachings of the church. Abortion isn't the paramount issue for them.

Catholics, who make up an estimated quarter of the nation's electorate, are a much-followed constituency during presidential elections. The church includes members from the racial, geographic and economic diversity of the population at large. Their support helped President Bush win two consecutive terms.

Among all Catholics, Obama was ahead of McCain in most major polls last week, with the margin of 12 to 28 percentage points. Link.

 

Catholics, life issues, and the GOP

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sat, 11/01/2008 - 23:11.

Catholics have NEVER been a reliable GOP group, they were a traditional Democratic voting bloc and drifted into 'swing' voter status with the rise of the Reagan Democrats. Culture issues were the cause. The prolife issue is an ongoing driver.

Bush successfully cultivated the Catholic vote in 2004 on the back of pro-life issue and touting 'compassionate conservatism'.

Church-going catholics are increasingly voting GOP as the Democrats go further left on social issues, undermining marriage and the sanctity of life. If you compare those catholics who attend weekly and those who attend not at all, the differences are dramatic - church-goers are heavily Republican, and non-attendees are heavily Democrat. This will be true in this race as well.

The real shocker is, why is Obama polling above single digits among catholics when the catholic position is that life is 'non-negotiable' and Obama is the greatest enemy the prolife movement ever faced in a presidential candidate? ie this is real deal:

"As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: the protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family — as a union between one man and one woman based on marriage…; and the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children." - Pope Bendict XVI, 2006

There has been a deliberate and dangerous bamboozling operation going on with the Obama camp, attempting to claim pro-life bona fides for Obama, when in fact he is the most pro-abortion candidate ever. Further, the catholic left is attempting to befuddle issues wrt life's importance, so much so that bishops had to make public pronouncements to correct the record:

http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/10/catholics-obama-and-life-issue...

 

... The Obama campaign created catholic front groups to tout obama but it was exposed that were staffed by pro-abort catholic renegades. Oh, and funded by Soros, who also bankrolled anti-catholic group moveon.org:

http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&...

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=270

The head of another Soros-funded organization, a former chief-of-staff to President Clinton, is on the record for his ties to both organizations, Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United:

John Podesta, who runs the Soros-funded organization, Center for American Progress, admits that he works closely with Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United. The Center for American Progress is also the sponsor of Faith and Public Life.

The question Donohue raises is the obvious one: Why would Soros want to fund the "non-partisan" Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United?

“The reason Soros funds the Catholic Left is the same reason he lavishly funds Catholics for Choice, the pro-abortion group that has twice been condemned as a fraud by Catholic bishops: they all service his agenda, namely, to make support for abortion rights a respectable Catholic position.

If you can make support for abortion respectable among Catholics then you can vote for Obama/Biden without a twinge of -- shall I say it -- conscience.

When Archbishop Chaput said Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United are doing a "disservice" to the Catholic Church he did not know about the Soros funding. As Donohue adds, "And now we know what really makes them tick.”

The Catholic News Agency article on the Soros funding contains additional information on the close ties between Catholics in Alliance and Catholics United and the Democratic Party.

Just like the Soviet Union created "FRONT GROUPS" to infiltrate the west and engage in Communist agit-prop, what we have here are Democrat front groups that engage in infiltration and agitprop to undermine the pro-life cause in the catholic community. It's a disgusting, repulsive and extremely cynical act of deception on the part of Soros, Obama campaign and their pro-abortion agitating allies.

sure about that?

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 11/01/2008 - 11:14.

I bet ACORN's got him on the registration rolls in at least a couple of states

Good one!

Submitted by NextRightNando on Sat, 11/01/2008 - 11:46.

Funny!

In CT at least

Submitted by Ironman on Sat, 11/01/2008 - 11:55.

McCain is doing much better among Catholics than non-Catholics. Not many traditional protestant voters up this way, though.

You're right that Catholic

Submitted by T D Williams on Sat, 11/01/2008 - 22:41.

You're right that Catholic teaching is clear that abortion is wrong and that candidates who support abortion shouldn't receive the vote of the Catholic faithful who take communion.  That Noonan doesn't acknowledge this demonstrates a willingness to leave out essential facts. 

She continues the pattern in lauding Sen. Obama even while admitting that his election will mean the triumph of liberalism.  That would be fine if Noonan claimed to be a liberal--or even a moderate.  But, she says she's a conservative.

How strange would it be for Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd to laud President Bush and call for kum-ba-yah feelings toward him even while strongly supporting a liberal agenda?  Just as strange as for Noonan, Brooks, et. al., having tingly feelings toward Sen. Obama.  They have lost their intellectual moorings and are running on personal vibe politics.

It doesn't get much more anti-intellectual than to say that a candidate should be supported because of personal charisma rather than the substance of their positions and policies.  And if their policies oppose yours, you need to be part of the "loyal opposition"--not personally vindictive (as the left has been toward Bush), but clear in where their policies will lead the nation in a wrong direction and giving counsel on what the right direction is.

Noonan's Vapid Narrative

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Sat, 11/01/2008 - 23:23.

 

You're right that Catholic teaching is clear that abortion is wrong and that candidates who support abortion shouldn't receive the vote of the Catholic faithful who take communion.  That Noonan doesn't acknowledge this demonstrates a willingness to leave out essential facts.

Absolutely! There are many things Obama and Mccain will be constrained by events to not implement their 'own thing' - Iraq is such an item.

But Obama is radically for such a pro-abortion agenda and such left-wing activist judges, and for taxpayer funded abortions and the rest of the radical "Freedom of choice" Act, ironically named because it would take away th choice among the 50 states to make even minor regulations on abortion ...

Instead, she waxes lyrical about the 'liberal moment':

But let's be frank. Something new is happening in America. It is the imminent arrival of a new liberal moment. History happens, it makes its turns, you hold on for dear life. Life moves.

Imminent? Lets be frank. Nobody ordered it. There is zero callout from the American people for more liberalism. Rather, Obama ran on "not Bush" and "middle class tax cut" and "get out of Iraq" and a lot of panders.

How strange would it be for Paul Krugman or Maureen Dowd to laud President Bush and call for kum-ba-yah feelings toward him even while strongly supporting a liberal agenda?

Strange indeed! We had a GOP control of both branches as recently as 2004... So why didnt we have such sweeping talk of a CONSERVATIVE MOMENT? Or the "We are now one unified nation under GOP conservatism"? Hmmm? Because the Liberal MSM would have none of it then.

We remain a divided  50/50 type nation - no matter who wins. We remain a nation that is not majority conservative, (maybe 30%) , and has around only 20% self-identified liberals.  The media and the political establishment is to the left of the people.