fpb: (Default)
fpb ([personal profile] fpb) wrote2010-03-20 05:17 am

I told you all two years ago

As for President Obama:
1) he has broken his own promise on Don't Ask Don't Tell, something to which few reasonable people would have seen an objection. (That at least one right-wing columnist broke Godwin's Law in trying to find an argument against accepting homosexual soldiers just shows how poor the arguments for this really are.)
2) He has broken his promise on torture and even let into his administration a couple of people whose hands are dirty in the matter, such as Robert Gates.
3) He is wrecking his own proposals for health reform rather than give up a sneaky and unprincipled attempt to break the consensus on abortion (no federal monies for), and he is lying about it.
4) He is guilty of deliberately stirring up trouble against Israel, with the miserable Quartet all too happy to follow his lead.
5) He has ignored both the hideous threat of an Iranian atom bomb and, more disgracefully, the desperate struggle of the Iranian people against a bloodthirsty and disastrous tyranny. He has repeatedly spoken as though the mullah's government were the legitimate leadership of that unhappy country.

Oh, and strictly for Catholics:
6) According to Life Site News International, he has deliberately egged on Catholic Health Association, and possibly the Leadership Conference of Religious Women (although that lot don't need much egging) to revolt against the Bishops. I quote: White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs revealed to reporters today that President Barack Obama actively promoted the Catholic Health Association's public break with the American Catholic bishops to support his health care legislation.
Gibbs also suggested that the CHA and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious' (LCWR) break with the U.S. Bishops has provided legitimate political cover for pro-life Democrats to switch their votes from "no" to "yes."
(...)
Gibbs said that the president had been engaged on the issue, and a reporter asked if he had reached out personally to the groups.
"The President met earlier this week with Sr. Keehan of the CHA," said Gibbs, saying the meeting took place in the Roosevelt Room, but that he "did not get a detailed run-down of the pitch that [Obama] made."
"I do know that he was effusive about her support and her as a person for making the courageous statements that she has," he said.

Well, at least he was not shameless enough to tell his own spokesman what he had done with or offered to this rebel nun.
During the Paris negotiations of 1782-3, the reigning Pope offered Franklin and Adams that the USA government could have a veto over the nomination of Catholic bishops (something that many European governments had at the time). In keeping with their principles, the Founders - few of whom had any sympathy for the Catholic Church as such - nonetheless refused this offer and allowed the Church to organize itself in the new nation as it saw fit. Since then, I know of no President who has ever, for any reason whatever, thought to meddle in the Church's internal affairs and organization.

Hope? Change? Change, all right; hope - that he does not get re-elected.

[identity profile] redcoast.livejournal.com 2010-03-20 06:19 am (UTC)(link)
they were there because Obama had flip-flopped on DADT.

Nuh-huh!

[identity profile] fpb.livejournal.com 2010-03-20 06:22 am (UTC)(link)
And you don't think so because?

[identity profile] redcoast.livejournal.com 2010-03-20 06:24 am (UTC)(link)
That's not what they were protesting, dude. They were saying Obama's moving too slow, not that he's suddenly supporting DADT.

[identity profile] fpb.livejournal.com 2010-03-20 06:27 am (UTC)(link)
And the difference is? He could have killed it stone dead with a one-line bill.

[identity profile] redcoast.livejournal.com 2010-03-20 08:12 pm (UTC)(link)
You think so? I thought it would take an act of Congress to repeal DADT.

[identity profile] fpb.livejournal.com 2010-03-20 08:24 pm (UTC)(link)
And I thought a bill was something that went on to become an act of Congress. With a majority in both houses, and probably some support among the less idiotic Republicans, how much would it take, really? This is not abortion, not a matter of life and death. And if the military have serious problems with it, I have to worry that the military can override a clear electoral mandate. In a democracy, they should not be able to.

[identity profile] redcoast.livejournal.com 2010-03-20 08:27 pm (UTC)(link)
THEY'RE DOING THAT RIGHT NOW.

[identity profile] fpb.livejournal.com 2010-03-20 08:26 pm (UTC)(link)
One thing, Rebecca; I think perhaps we had better leave this issue. I don't even think that we disagree that much on the issue itself, and it's not worth an argument. Today has been a rotten day and I would as soon not end it with this.

[identity profile] redcoast.livejournal.com 2010-03-20 08:28 pm (UTC)(link)
Aww, I'm sorry you had a rotten day; it's 3:30 here so my day is far from over. I hope you have a good night!

[identity profile] fpb.livejournal.com 2010-03-20 08:29 pm (UTC)(link)
You too. When it comes.