Ed Schultz on How Dems Should Govern: Invite GOP But Tell 'Em to 'Shut Up'

Photo of Jack Coleman.
  • Bookmark and Share

Back in the summer of 2003, members of the Wellfleet Harbor Actors Theater on Cape Cod sponsored a public forum with the memorable title, "Dissent=Democracy: A Teach-In on the 'New McCarthyism' ".

Speaking as panelists were historian Howard Zinn, authors Norman Mailer, Sebastian Junger and Marge Piercy, actor and playwright Eric Bogosian, director Andre Gregory and other left wingers. The event was organized by Jeff Zinn, son of Howard and a director at the Wellfleet theater.

Yet for a public gathering devoted to "dissent" and one equating it with democracy, something was conspicuously absent when it came to the panel -- dissenters.

Here's how it was described in a story that ran in the Cape Cod Times on Aug. 8, 2003 --

The high-wattage panel of writers, artists and performers (Jeff) Zinn pulled together for the forum, the proceeds from which benefit the theater, purposely does not include people from the political right.

"They've got their own forums," Zinn says. "I'm not required to provide balance; I'm not PBS."

Oh but you are, Mr. Zinn, more than you know. I so wanted to attend the "teach-in" (stay within the lines!) but couldn't find a barf bag of sufficient capacity to get me through all that consensus.

I was reminded of this example of liberal hypocrisy on Monday while listening to radio host Ed Schultz, the top-rated "progressive" talker in the country. Schultz is getting annoyed with Democrats he sees as too willing to cave to Republicans, such as Obama including tax cuts in his stimulus plan.

Expressing his irritation, Schultz said more than probably intended in describing how Democrats should govern --

Look, I'm just getting a sense that Democrats are afraid to be Democrats right now. They're afraid to tell Republicans that, you know, you can be in the meeting but shut up.

So much for being the party of inclusion. Agreed, not as priceless as excluding dissenters from a forum on dissent, but still, it's up there, and likely to resonate with anyone who's worked with similarly overwrought liberals.

Schultz often describes his show as "Where America Comes to Talk" and boasts of allowing people with all points of view to call in. But he often becomes bellicose and shouts at callers if they aren't receptive to his point of view. In other words, welcome to the meeting -- but shut up. Such an approach toward diversity of opinion is barely distinguishable from telling people of a different skin hue to sit at the back of the bus. And those deserving of the Schultz approach to governing represent, let's see, just under half the electorate.

Liberal media darling Rachel Maddow engages in a similar practice, such that she'd have been snug as a bug at the dissenter-free forum on dissent. When Maddow's MSNBC cable show began in September, it was refreshing to see conservatives appear as guests -- since Maddow rarely shares a microphone with them on her Air America Radio show.

Between the premier of Maddow's MSNBC show on Sept. 8 to the election on Nov. 4, conservatives or Republicans appeared 17 times, including seven by fellow MSNBC analyst Pat Buchanan. Others included Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, Matt Continetti of The Weekly Standard, Republican congressmen John Culberson of Texas and Steve King of Iowa, former Bush speechwriter David Frum, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

But since the election, with Maddow apparently unburdened of the journalistic obligation for balance or even its facsimile, right-of-center guests have appeared all of three times on her MSNBC show -- former Rhode Island Senator Lincoln Chaffee on Nov. 5, Mike Huckabee on Nov. 20 and Buchanan on Dec. 17, nearly a month ago.

The demarcation may not have been the election, however. More likely it was this contentious exchange between Maddow and Frum on Oct. 13. In the two weeks that followed, only a single conservative guest appeared at her TV show, the ubiquitous Buchanan. 

Maddow shows a similar aversion to callers on her radio show, going through all manner of machination to avoid them. In the spring and summer, Air America Radio host David Bender sat in for Maddow in the third and final hour of her show while she was called to frequent pundit duty on MSNBC's "Race for the White House." For reasons that defy explanation, Maddow would not take calls during the first two hours of the show but Bender would during the last hour. 

The likelihood of Maddow dealing with questions out of right field from callers has diminished further since her MSNBC show began in September. Maddow's radio program shrank by an hour -- and the second hour is a rebroadcast of Maddow's MSNBC show from the previous night.

Not that any of this bothers Maddow's admirers, as shown by their year-end tributes in praise of her rapid ascension. One of the compliments I hear most frequently about her is that Maddow doesn't shout at her guests and treats them with civility.

Which is true -- unlike those bearish types over at Fox News arguing with guests whose opinions they don't share, thereby running the risk of viewers learning something in the exchange.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

"I'm not required to

"I'm not required to provide balance; I'm not PBS."

As is so often the case, the irony, alas, is lost on the libs.

These are the same type

These are the same type of people that want the Fairness Doctrine.

Rich isn't it?

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Since when did PBS provide

Since when did PBS provide balance??????

Ever watch The McLaughlin

Ever watch The McLaughlin Group?

Jer

Wow, one show. Are you

Wow, one show.

Are you saying PBS is balanced?

Motherbelt, I think you

Motherbelt, I think you caught Jer without his teleprompter.

PD... I think you've been

PD...

I think you've been caught once again not reading closely enough.  Motherbelt asked for an example of balance being provided by PBS.  I gave her one.

Jer

Projecting your

Projecting your short-comings on me is pretty pathetic.  Motherbelt asked: Since when did PBS provide balance??????

The information requested, which you failed to comprehend, does not ask for "one" example or any examples for that matter.  It's simply a rhetorical device asserting the observed policy of an organization, in this case, PBS.

Still want to participate, Hawking? 

Sure, Einstein...

Still want to participate, Hawking? 

Sure, Einstein, it will only take a brief moment of my time.

I knew to what motherbelt was most likely referring, but that was not the question she posed.  The one she asked, I answered.  Accurately.

Any more theories?

Jer

I knew to what motherbelt

I knew to what motherbelt was most likely referring...

Theories?  Try this: it must be waaaaay past your bed time and any minute, Mom is coming downstairs to yell at you for burning up her computer.  I developed this theory based on the fact that you've jacked up your syntax and can't form thoughts this late at night.

Here're another - you suffer from delusions.  I base this on the fact that I actually pasted the words motherbelt typed in front of you and you still can't come to grips with the obvious fact that your extrapolation (that's when you form conclusions from observations) is in error.

But motherbelt can speak for herself.  You and I are done in this thread.     

PeskyDane... I don't need

PeskyDane...

I don't need any vocabulary lessons from you, Mr. Roget, so put away your thesaurus.  Then take a few hours tomorrow and work on the fine art of absorbing and comprehending the "plain meaning of words."  It's a useful skill when posting commentary at political websites--a skill which in your case is woefully underdeveloped.  Maybe it will save you further embarrassments.

You were "done" about three posts ago.  You're now dismissed, junior.

Jer

ONE show indeed mb! Hard

ONE show indeed mb!

Hard enough just keeping it there the whole 26 minutes because of Clift's screeching "Excuse Me! Excuse Me...It's My Turn to Talk!" oh, she drives me insane, and good ol' John says to others..."Let her talk....let her talk"....

Talk about insanity!

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

motherbelt...

It appeared to me you were asking for an example of balance at PBS.  So, I gave you one.  [Technically, however, TMG is imbalanced in favor of conservatives.]

As far as an overall ideological comparison reflecting a conservative tilt, you may be required to return to the 90's when--with respect to political panel/talk shows--conservative and right-leaning pundits outnumbered liberal and left-leaning pundits.  Of course the right still howled that PBS was completely dominated by liberals. 

Jer

Yes

Besides being horrifically boring, I have watched it. It is somewhat even, not really, and if you consider PBS in toto, then forget it. I do listen occasionally to one person on PBS, and unfortunately hear way too much in between. If you find the whole network fair, then I imagine you ride an unicorn that poops skittles, also.

 

 

Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

tbdi...

Better do a recount of TMG,

John McLaughlin--conservative

Monica Crowley--conservative

Pat Buchanan--quasi-conservative

Mort Zuckerman--center right...splits time with Clarence what's his name--center left

Eleanor Clift--liberal

Jer

Sorry Jer

We will have to agree to disagree. I said it was fairly even. That's the way I see it. Your idea of a conservative and mine differ, as we have seen on different posts. It is an o.k. show, but it only makes up a tiny fraction of their total broadcast time. I have heard some crazy stuff on there,PBS, way past what you seem to expouse.

 

Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

Fair enough, tbdi...but

Fair enough, tbdi...

but if you personally told McLaughlin, Buchanan, and Crowley they weren't conservatives, and called Zuckerman a liberal, they would either laugh you or throw you out of the room.

How about this:  3 1/2 non-liberals vs. 1 1/2 liberals.  (Since Zuckerman and Clarence Thomas [just remembered his last name] split time.  Any problem with that? :-)

Jer

wait a minute, it's not Clarence Thomas [I'm an idiot].  I guess I'll have to google it.  D*mn!

Not CT Jer

Yeah, CT is a true conserv. in my book. I wish he was on t.v. I can't think of who you are talking about. Hasn't Larry Elder been on there a few times? Thomas Sowell? I actually like Crowley, despite the fact her sister is married to Alan Colmes, more than Pat. McLaughlin is o.k. Zuckerman, doesn't do much for me.  I really don't follow it that closely, I will watch it again so I can be fair to you, o.k.?

 

Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

Extremely fair, tbdi... I

Extremely fair, tbdi...

I like the show...probably my favorite of that genre.  I watched for years, then stopped for a couple of years, but resumed several months ago.  It airs at 8:30 a.m. Sunday in the Atlanta area [do you live here or am I confusing you with someone else?]

Anyway, I don't believe Elder or Sowell have ever been on tbe panel, but I like both of them.  [And I still can't remember Clarence's last name.]

Jer

Jer

 I don't remember if Sowell or Elder have been on or not, either. It has been awhile since I turned it on, I pretty much hate television. I wouldn't have a clue what was on, if I didn't read the net. I do live in the ATL area, NE. I either listen to the radio, read and post stuff here, or just read. I usually get through at least 10 books a week. I am kind of weird. I used to be more social, but now, just don't like most people very much.(In person, not on here).

 

Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

tbdi

Wow!  Ten books a week!  I would call that impressive and unusual, but not weird.  Sure cuts down on the time for socializing, but there aren't many better ways to spend your spare hours.

Talk to you later...

Jer

Jer

Other than my family, and occasional work requirements(few), I just prefer to be alone. If I skip the net, I go through about 20 books. Most people think that's weird, I don't care. Have a good nite!

Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

Clarence Page, Liberal who

Clarence Page, Liberal who on occasion rises above his cacophonous ideological brethren.

Zuckerman, not the same ideologically as he used to be - still pulls the Corporate cart but ventures Left at the fork in the road more often than yesteryear.

Buchanan, chimeric conservative who throws down ideology that disturbs both Left and Right nearly once an interview - sometimes out-Lefts the Left.

McLaughlin, taking more Centrist to Liberal positions in recent years.  The old grey mare just ain't what it used to be.

Crowley, the stalwart Conservative of those mentioned - factual and reliable to give the straight scoop.

Clift, Leftist shrill agitprop who throws hardlined verbal molotov's - has difficult time with honesty on every show due to lockstep ideology. 

PAGE! Thank you, strat!

PAGE!  Thank you, strat!

I agree with much of your ideological breakdown of the group--particularly the delicately nuanced portrayal of Clift.

Jer

Wry Reply Appreciated!

In my defense, Jer, it is difficult to nuance "shrill".

BTW, I'd love to see Clarence Thomas on McLaughlin Group once.  Since he needn't ask questions we might hear opinions.  (gratuitous Liberal joke in your honor - I honestly believe he has a helluva mind)

 

strat...

 it is difficult to nuance "shrill".

Agreed.  If I didn't have the costly hi-def LCD, I might throw the can of ossified fruit cake my aunt gave us Thanksgiving right through the screen.

BTW, I'd love to see Clarence Thomas on McLaughlin Group once.  Since he needn't ask questions we might hear opinions.  (gratuitous Liberal joke in your honor - I honestly believe he has a helluva mind)

Thanks for the bone.  But why do you believe Thomas has a helluva mind?  It's never been revealed.  His opinions are wrtitten by a clerk who just rearranges Scalia's words.  [Just kidding.  He's plenty sharp and doesn't deserve the abuse that's been thrown at him.]

Jer

Clarence Page, Clarence Page, Clarence Page

Do NOT throw out that

Do NOT throw out that fruitcake! 

There are those like my mother that believe it requires years of refrigeration before consumption readiness.

I'm sure we can find a loving home for your Auntie's brick, er I mean, delicacy.

BTW, are you familiar with the Fruitcake Lady?

strat...that was

strat...that was hilarious.  It was just what I needed after dealing with PeskyDane.

Jer

I had never seen the fruitcake lady,

Since I watch very little tv, but that was wild. Is she an actress, or a real woman?? She has a bit of a nasty mouth, doesn't she?

 

 

Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

AFAIK, the fruitcake lady

AFAIK, the fruitcake lady is 100% real (inasmuch as Wiki might be factual).

 

OMG....ROFL! strat...I

OMG....ROFL!

strat...I had forgot all about the Fruitcake Lady...she was the best...hopefully still is!

Thank you so much for the reminder let alone the real laughter at the end of a night...another day done.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Glad you enjoyed the

Glad you enjoyed the fruitcake lady.  She is a real hoot and an American original.

I would have been scared to death of her as a child but now appreciate her homespun sensibilities delivered with Southern flair. 

After discussing the political turmoil of today, we all need a little laughter in our lives.  H/t to Jer for sparking the thought.

Chat tomorrow, friends.

 

Stratman

I think that was what I was kind of trying to say, earlier, I just didn't do it very well. Excellent summation.

 

 

Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

strat... Just as an aside

strat...

Just as an aside real quick, since I have watched this show more years than I care to remember, John started going to the squishy leftist middle since he fell in love and married some big-wig connected lib gal...

Can't think of her name, if I wasn't so lazy I would google it....but I'm telling you, that is when he started changing.

Jer, they change guests all the time...can't count on all guests you mention all the time except for The Screech.   ;-)

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

bt...

I'm afraid I must disagree.  If you watched the two-part end of the year Special Awards show, it would have given you a clue regarding the regular panelists.

For the first installment, the panel consisted of Crowley, Buchanan, Clift and Page [thanks again, strat] and for the second installment Crowley, Buchanan, Clift and Zuckerman.

Sure, they occasionally will have a fill-in, but those are the regulars.  [Although Page may appear a little more often than Zuckerman.]

Jer

Jer... I watched it...I

Jer...

I watched it...I rarely miss it.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Wow...Strat, Jer others

Wow...Strat, Jer others interested in John McLaughlin....even though this is from wiki, it does sum it up all up for me...I am very well familiar with all the players...with the exception of his present wife, which was the reason I even googled real quick.

this is rich though...says it all....for me anyway.

Reminds me of the Concord 7 from way back when, McCain was/is tied with this type.

Oh well, been a long day...outta' here pretty quick, not that I've been on the board that long anyway.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

McLaughlin Conservative??

BT: According to the Wiki entry, McLaughlin announced he was voting for John Kerry in 2004.  'NUFF SAID!

Found a NYTimes marriage announcement.  Seems the bride-to-be was 36 and the dapper groom was 70.  Maybe instead of "dapper" I should have said "diapered".

Of humorous note, I found one link connecting Christina Vidal McLaughlin to John McLaughlin the guitar player!

Amazing odds she would date two senior citizens with the same names.  Sounds a little OCD to me.

bt and strat...

bt and strat...

Sooo....wiki is the bible now? ;-)

Actually, when I started watching TMG again, it did seem that McLaughlin was not quite the righty ideologue I recalled.  Still, the Kerry support shocks me.  But, in my opinion, he remains, on most issues, firmly right of center [just not as far to the right.]

Now, when you have the chance, check out wiki's Buchanan page--or scan it...it's very long.  There's no way the man can be described as anything but a conservative.

Jer 

The last word Jer... LWJ

The last word Jer...

LWJ for short.

Nice chatting again with ya'...

Bye.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

TCBT

TCBT [take care bt]

Jer

Good night, BT

Sleep well!

 

Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

Jer: You are correct

Jer:

You are correct about relying on Wiki for factual content.  I do read it out of convenience, but, one cannot trust its content.

Case in point is the unsupported comment that John McLaughlin voted for Kerry.  I found only one other link that reports this and it reports it IDENTICALLY, including the absence of citation.  It seems that NationMaster.com is puppet or plagiarizer of Wikipedia.

wiki isn't my bible by any

wiki isn't my bible by any means, most here like Jer know that, I just used that as a quick reference...as I just betcha' Jer know full well too by now.

Anything for a distraction from the main point when it comes to Jer.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

bt...

geez...so I can't make a harmless quip and put a little sarc emoticon at the end of it without being scolded?

Jer

BT: I know what you

BT:

I know what you mean.

I was only speaking for myself, not about you.  I use Wiki for easy, quick reference and will then dig deeper as required.  Sometimes, Wiki is acceptable as long as medical safety, political factual purity or financial advice are not required.

;-)

Evening strat... I knew

Evening strat...

I knew you what you meant...I more or less meant that for good ol' Jer.  ;-)

"You've gone beyond the law"... Sen. Kerry~ Head of Foreign Relations Committee to Hillary at Sec.of State confirmation hearings~1-13-09 

BT: Wouldn't surprise me

BT:

Wouldn't surprise me at all.  It would be difficult to not be influenced at all by one's mate.

There is a lot of truth to the old adage "behind every great man is a great woman".

Strat... ...Exactly

Strat...

...Exactly right, we both agree on that if we've lived any life at all...but did you glance over that profile of his real quick?

OMG! I had no idea about 3/4's of this about his earlier life.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

I recalled he was in the

I recalled he was in the Jesuit priesthood and drifted into politics and marriage, but I didn't recall or know all the particulars recounted in the Wiki entry.

It is a bit shocking to learn he was so anti-war initially but then flipflopped and actually worked to support the war, and Buchanan was instrumental in this metamorphosis.

 

Strat/Father Drinen

strat...

You know who Father Drinen was don't you? If not here...this is what surprised me but really tied the knots up together for me.

This man was pure evil as far as I am concerned....do not care what anybody else says.

I watched this pure devil in disguise on the Hill, before congress ect.

I still get my hair raised thinking about the likes of him...if you don't read this link, you will never understand where I am coming from.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

BT

I barely remember him, but he no doubt was evil. After reading the link I was appalled, I didn't know 1/3 of that stuff. Wow. And did you know he was suceeded by Barney Frank?? There must be something wrong with that seat. Father? I think not.

 

Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

Fwank is a Saint compared

Fwank is a Saint compared to him.

I kid you not.

Veins of ice. He was one spooky figure.

I rarely talk like this..I mean the guy was creepy.

I cannot explain what I mean I guess well on this board, I am talking about years of watching him, as much as I could stand that is, pure destruction.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Good morning BT

I remember him quite well. If the WW2 vets I was working with back then could have gotten their hands on him he would have had a shorter career.

Jesus loves you

coco... I'd like to say a

coco...

I'd like to say a lot of things in regard to your post...but I will say I can very well understand how you felt...heck, I did myself.

Pure, bone-chilling evil.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

BT

Thuse vets had friends dying over there just like some are dying in sand people country.

Yes.  Drinan was a real

Yes.  Drinan was a real piece of work. 

I believe I read via NB's today about his connection with the Kennedy's and other Catholic politicians in helping them find theocratic coverage for supporting abortion while remaining proper Catholics.  Abominable.

I sent an email to my fellow John Carroll University alumni friends about the involvement of Jesuits in this tragic abrogation of a foundation of Christianity. 

Ya gotta problem wit da Jesuits????

I'm an ex-Jesuit, on good terms with my former brothers, and so I have a unique perspective here. I read that WSJ article yesterday, and I thought it was unfair.

  • John Courtney Murray was unfairly represented. Murray was a great Jesuit, and he basically wrote Vatican II's Declaration on Religious Freedom. Murray was an expert in church-state relations, and in that context, he acknowledged that there was a difference between the morality and the politics of an issue. In that, Murray wasn't talking about abortion - he was making general distinctions. He certainly never taught that moral principles could be ignored if it made for unpopular politics -- which the article suggests. Besides, these guys were using Murray's theory for their own purposes; that doesn't prove that Murray agreed with that. 
  • As for Drinan, I plainly disagree with his approach, as I've written about before. I thought he was profoundly wrong on abortion, as did most other Jesuits. But the idea that he was an evil creep is just unfair. (I met him, for what that's worth, and he was more than gracious to me.) It should be noted that when John Paul II ordered him to leave politics, Drinan left without complaint - he was faithful to his vow of obedience, and that gained him a lot of respect among Jesuits.
  • The Jesuits are the largest religious order, and are unquestionably the most important order, in the Catholic church. As a result, they have more than their fair share of "extreme" people; radicals as well as reactionaries, and it's all magnified by the fact that they are among the most talented and educated people in the world. Like the Berrigans, within the Jesuits, they have people who support them and those who oppose them.

It's unfair to categorize this as "the involvement of Jesuits," as if creating excuses for abortionists was Jesuit policy. I speak from experience - it is not now, nor ever was, Jesuit policy to excuse abortions. Period.

KC

Why ex? (just curious, if it's too personal I understand)

In order to be pro-choice, one must first be born. Ah, the irony.

Way too long a story

I don't mind sharing my personal experience, but it's way too long a story for here. Suffice to say that I was disenchanted when I discovered that the Jesuits were, after all, mere human beings. I couldn't forgive them for their humanity ... although I was being fairly immature myself. And when you think about it, the inability to forgive is a fatal attitude for someone training to be a priest. Forgiveness is the chief job skill. My "hardness of heart" drove me away from what I loved. I basically crashed my vocation, all along thinking that I knew what I was doing.

Lucky for me, God doesn't take human stupidity personally. It was as if God said, "OK, idiot, let's try this then ... " and Plan B is working out great. I have a wonderful wife, four great children, not a lot of money but a lot of happiness.

As for the Jesuits, amazingly, they seem to be doing OK without me. I stay friends with a few, and the order as a whole is doing great things. Last year they elected their first new leader in a generation, and they're very strong throughout the world. Jesuits have a history of good work in China and India, although they're in the middle of the anti-Christian violence in Ossia, India - violence against Christians still goes mostly unreported.

So much for avoiding the long story ... Thanks for asking, though ...

Good evening KC

Father Drinan's stand against the Vietnam war made it personal for me. I have a very low opinion of him.

I had no intention to demean the Jesuit order. I studied for the priesthood under the Benedictines and have nothing but respect for the Jesuits and all other orders. The person responsible for me being a committed christian is the late Father Cohen, a Jesuit priest.

Unfortunately the reputations of organizations suffer because of the shortcomings of the individual members.

Jesus loves you

KC:It is unfortunate you

KC:

It is unfortunate you took my words as inference about Jesuits in general.  I meant, and still mean, the specific Jesuits involved.

From the article I linked:

The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen, emeritus professor of ethics at the University of Washington, recalls the meeting in his book "The Birth of Bioethics" (Oxford, 2003). He writes about how he joined with the Rev. Joseph Fuchs, a Catholic moral theologian; the Rev. Robert Drinan, then dean of Boston College Law School; and three academic theologians, the Revs. Giles Milhaven, Richard McCormick and Charles Curran, to enable the Kennedy family to redefine support for abortion.

At least 4 of the theologians (highlighted) that the Kennedy's recruited to provide religious cover for their quest to gain and maintain power were Jesuits.  I do not know Milhaven's background.  Curran appears to not be a Jesuit but he does seem the type of maverick to employ for religious abortion rationialization:

Curran was removed from the faculty of The Catholic University of America in 1986 as a dissident who unapologetically maintained the right to dissent from official Church teachings which had not been issued as ex cathedra statements, thus rejecting the concept of the Ordinary Magisterium and the teaching authority of the Pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The Kennedy's carefully chose renegades to find a rationalization which completely bucked the then current and traditional teachings.  Perverting logic and foundational Christian priciples to provide religious cover is despicable, no matter who is involved.

I am an alumnis of John Carroll University.  I respect the Jesuits I came into contact with while a student.  I can not imagine a single one of them justifying abortion, including the professors of biology and chemistry. 

Before meeting, my best friend at school had intended to become a Jesuit priest and was in training when he decidied (divinely?) to go in a different direction.  I emailed this man and his wife this story because of common interests on multiple levels.

I had not heard of this collaboration previously and it was like a punch in the stomache.  My comment on NB's was bourne out of an embarassment and anger that any Jesuit, the people I hold in esteem respect, would be involved in this Kennedy abomination at all.

But, as you said, the Jesuits are a big Order and you're bound to have some granola in the mix.  It appears, though, that the Jesuits/the Church know to eventually clean/arrange their house.

Again, no offense taken

And to be clear, stratman, I'm not that crazy about it, either. When I first read the article yesterday, my first thought was - oh, jeez, this isn't good. It was nauseous, just as you said.

As the day wore on, I started to think about it. These theologians that were quoted ... these aren't mealy-mouthed dummies. They're certainly radical, but they aren't stupid. And remember, this all happened years before Humanae Vitae, when the Catholic teaching was laid out definitively. We can't try to evaluate them as they were in 1964 with the eyes of people in 2009. For instance, this was before any Catholic suspected that birth control would be outlawed. Also, at the time, they were going through the civil rights movement. The argument was that even though ending race-based policies was morally right, it would cause so much political upheaval that you had to weigh the moral value of ending slavery against the moral damage of social chaos. So, by the same token, if outlawing abortion would cause political chaos, better to take what you can get.

  • Speaking from the advantage of time, I'd say we now know that political policies don't much limit abortions anyway. Only a liberal would believe that we can defeat poverty through politics, and that all abortions would stop because liberals "fixed" society. Instead, the very fact that religious leaders don't vigorously oppose abortion, by itself, gives people comfort in thinking that abortion is really OK.
  • They were living, at the time, in the post-Dallas, 1964 Voting Rights Act, the "I Have a Dream" environment. That hazy belief that they could limit abortions through society-repairing politics was still their assumption.
  • Also, this was years before Roe v. Wade. They assumed that the abortion issue would be decided politically, not railroaded and stolen through the courts.

Even with all those mitigating factors, I still cringe if they did what was alleged. I still don't believe the story as written, that a bunch of Catholic theologians advised the Kennedys that abortion was OK -- that just doesn't smell right. There's something wrong in that picture, and since the story was based on the reminiscences of a liberal ex-priest, some twenty years later ... I have to wonder if that story is framed in its proper light.

Hey, I'm skeptical of every story. But even if this one is mostly true, I agree with you stratman ... they were wrong.

The road to Hell is paved

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

You're right about the accomplishment of the theologians involved.  If they weren't already greatly accomplished in their respective fields, they certainly became more so since their meetings with the Kennedy's.  (Aside--- I wonder how much of their future elevations were due to the influence of the grateful Kennedy's?)

I am glad you clarified the uninvolvement of Rev. John Courtney Murray.  I wonder how he would feel about being the unwitting grandparent to this rationalization.

Since the author, Jonsen, cited in the article was a participant in the Hyannisport meetings, I imagine the conclusion he recalls is fairly accurate: 

"It was the consensus at the Hyannisport conclave that Catholic politicians "might tolerate legislation that would permit abortion under certain circumstances if political efforts to repress this moral error led to greater perils to social peace and order."

So we should have allowed a little slavery as well in order to have avoided the Civil War?  Infantcide is less important?  Margaret Sanger is pleased, I'm sure. And isn't "moral error" a bit of a whitewash as a descriptor for abortion?  Sounds like LibSpeak to me.

Then there is the quote from Milhaven, another theologian participant, that reaffirms the results of the Kennedy insurrection:

"Though the theologians disagreed on many a point, they all concurred on certain basics . . . and that was that a Catholic politician could in good conscience vote in favor of abortion.""

I did try to keep things in the historical perspective of the time.  I readily admit my religion history ignorance, but, I am fairly confident that the Church was NOT ok with abortion in the 1960's.  How was it these theologians were not heretics?

In essence, the "accomplishments" of these men was and still is a perversion of religious ethos.  They are purported to have extricated political action from human action and removed God and Christianity as known from the equation.  These men behaved radically different from their teachings and produced a fallacy gravely worse than the Clintonian "whatever is is" convolution.  But, hey, we get a pass from God since it's only politics, right? (all sarcasm direct at them, not you, KC)

Yes, we as humans are all flawed, some of us seriously flawed.  Still, I cannot comprehend how Christian theologians can rationalize abortion for convenience-sake whether it be the actual procedure or the political/legal acceptance for such potential action.

Why were these men selected by the Kennedy's?  I would assume because they were the ones known most likely to give the Kennedy's what they wanted and have enough gravitas to create the desired effect in the targeted populations.

It would be interesting to read the actual logic they used to come to their conclusion.  How different would it be from that used in Germany during the 1930's?

Here is another article on this event:  http://unbornwordoftheday.com/2008/09/02/father-robert-drinan-the-kennedys-and-the-genesis-of-us-catholic-pro-abortion-politicians/.

Here are a couple of accounts of Drinan, one which comes from a blog with a unusaul name that may amuse an old Jesuit like you, KC, the other which is quite flammable:

It has never been my intent to offend you.  Some of the trolls on NB's maybe, but never you. 

Yeah, Drinen was a

Yeah, Drinen was a detestable scumbag, but I found something rather interesting in looking at that Wiki link.  Drinen was succeeded by Barney Frank...and if you look at the Banking Queen's Wiki entry, they've totally whitewashed the prostitution ring running out of his place (and they seem to have totally ignored his nefarious influence with Fannie & Freddie that caused the collapse of the financial industry).  Absolutely shameful.

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan

fitzfong.blogspot.com

I know this is O/T, but I

I know this is O/T, but I haven't gotten anyone to answer me. Did anyone listen to Rush yesterday or today? He said yesterday he might go to Washington, I thought it was a throw away thing, just him musing, but he went today. I wondered if he was at the Dinner at George Will's house that all the "so-called" righties like Frum, Will, Brooks, and Krauthammer had with Obama. According to Huffer Puffer, then no. So why did he go? Do you think he went to see Bush? Or did he talk to Obama?

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/obamas-dinner-with-conser_n_157701.html

 

 

 

Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

butler... I too was

butler...

I too was thinking about that earlier today. Here's my wild ass guess... Rush stated a few days ago that he has started a new partnership with the Heritage Foundation, and my guess is he went to D.C. to talk business with them. Not very sexy, but probably closer to the truth than anything else.

Comrade Clinton Worried “Sky Is Falling”

 

 Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/  

Shhh..you two..secret info.

Shhh..you two..secret info. not to be revealed until tomorrow.

It should be fun.

tbdi...those comments on HuffnPuff were anusing to read.  ;-)

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

BT

I know we all here butcher the English language, and our spelling varies, but what is the deal with those people at HP? Are they all children? Semi-retarded? You have to read their comments several times, just to decipher them. Clear, you are probably right, probably nothing too exciting or sexy, but I just thought, hmmm. Funny, the dinner with the sorta-conservs and Rush rushing to DC?

 

Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

LOL tb... Speaking of

LOL tb...

Speaking of spelling, I like how I have anusing as amusing above...too danged lazy to go correct it, or anything else tonight, too danged tired.

As to Rush, I didn't hear the end of his show yesterday and was pretty well busy today here, when I heard he wasn't on, I listened to the confirmation hearings with Hill for the most part going about my work, so I didn't even know why he left until your post....so I thank you for the post/info. plus the mystery....I mean that too.

I also didn't hear Rush's show today, with the exception of the first half hour or so, here and there, so I am assuming he will be back tomorrow...do you know?

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

BT

I am home all day/night for the most part. I listen to the radio on the net, and try not to miss Rush. I have been doing it for 20 yrs, and always watched his show, and I was barely out of my teens! I said on here before, I have met the man, and I genuinely like him. He is great. I assume he will back tomorrow, I actually only listened for about the first hour, and even though Jason Lewis is nice, I turned on  Glenn Beck.

 

Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

Hehehee...I did the same,

Hehehee...I did the same, just to a different talking head, seriously though, I was so busy, heard a little of BOR because it was about illegal immigration while the confirmation hearing was on lunch break, or vacuum going, or phone ringing/business ect....know what I mean?

I like Jason too, just sick of the stimulus stuff...$$$$ other half of the bail-out package, nothing we can do about it at this point...seriously, I am so tired of the subject also.

On and on it goes....

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

I wonder....

Will dissent still be patriotic 8 days from now...?

 

Because with a name like Obama you know it has to be good.

Heck, no! When a

Heck, no!

When a Republican is President, that's when dissent is the "highest form of patriotism."

They are already talking about how important it is for everyone to get behind President Obama.

I'm feeling a little patriotic.

How about you...?

 

 

Because with a name like Obama you know it has to be good.

Boy, have you ever got that

Boy, have you ever got that right mb!

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Get with the program....

Get with the program.... paying taxes is the "new patriotism".  

When asked if he went to war with Iraq  to derail the impeachment vote:  “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

Subliminal liberals

But MB {get in line}, now is the time where we all need to come together {shut your mouth} and work together {do what we tell you} to solve our nation's problems {which were all your fault}. President Obama needs your support {your silence}, and it's time for you to put country first {where's your purse?}. Only the worst partisan wouldn't support our president {you rotten conservative}.

We need to move forward into the future {send Cheney a subpoena}.

We're gonna stick it to you conservatives so bad ... oh sorry ... I said that out loud, didn't I? 

KC

 KC must have already received the Obama reign decorder ring for conservatives.

 

 

Bringing the government in to run Wall Street is like saying, "Dad burned the dinner, let's get the dog to cook." PJ O'Rourke

I think they're putting it

I think they're putting it inside boxes of CoCoa Puffs and Count Chocula.

"tell them to shut

"tell them to shut up.."

And this is different from what they have always done... how?

When asked if he went to war with Iraq  to derail the impeachment vote:  “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

" Where America comes to be shouted at "

I need a barf bag of sufficient capacity just looking at that picture of Ed Schultz let alone having to listen to him blah, blah, blah on.

I have seen him on some panel discussions on Anderson Cooper's show during the primary process  and he was just so rude and shouted  over everyone else, even those that may have shared his thoughts. I wanted to put an X over his square, just to block.

He appears to have  a very high opinion of himself and what HE has to say.

The alcoholic loud-mouth Ed

The alcoholic loud-mouth Ed Schultz should learn to shut-up!

Comrade Clinton Worried “Sky Is Falling”

 

 Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/  

Ed Schultz on Dems

Ask Ed what happened to his hunting dog.  Bang Bang!  Four years ago he was the biggest conservative in North Dakota. 

 

Before we have a government that can supply us with everything we will have a government that can provide us with nothing.

Ah yes, an early whiff of

Ah yes, an early whiff of that Hope-N-Change.

Everybody now...c'mon, you way in the back there!

"I'd like to teach the world to sing,

in perfect harmony...."

One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.

Shut UP

Shut Up You Big Dope!

Sorry, channelling Michael Savage for a moment.

Perhaps An Ed-Head's Perspective Is In Order...

I confess to being a Ed-head in addition to being a Med-head (a listener to Michael Medved). Being so, I have tried to listen to his show every day it's broadcast. Unfortunately, it has gotten difficult in my area (Los Angeles) to find his show since so many of the AM talk stations always drop him even though he is the most-listened-to liberal talker

I have not once heard Big Eddie ever advocate for the Fairness Doctrine. He's clearly said several times that he is against it because he is (prepared to be shocked) ... a Capitalist. Allow me to give you all a minute to let the shock wear off.

And the point that he talks over people during roundtable discussions: That is because they INTERRUPT him in the middle of his monologue, a pet peeve of his in the same way a liberal doesn't directly answers a question asked by a conservative (a conservative pet-peeve) Yes, I am acknowledging the faults of liberals, for better or worst, but that is not to say that conservatives are absolutely perfect, either. Both sides are flawed in various ways, so I try to pick the good from the bad on both sides, hence me being both an Ed-Head and a Med-Head.

As for those times you claimed he obnoxiously yells back at dissenting callers, I happen to recall that these very callers were almost, if even more, as obnoxious as Big Eddie was in the first place. It is a tactic that most talk show hosts use to , whether on the left of the right, as I can avow to have experienced listening to both types of talk.

If you are telling me Ed Schultz is a hypocrite, you've more than failed to convince me otherwise. He seems to use the same type of tactics other talkers, mainly conservative, also use. Now if you excuse me, I've got some Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles DVDs to pop into my player. I need to take my mind off of politics for one day and enjoy some classic Saturday Morning cartoons.

"Whatever I lack in size, I more than make up for in... OBNOXIOUSNESS!"

- From The Simpsons episode "Sunday, Cruddy Sunday"

I once called Ed Schulz'

I once called Ed Schulz' radio show years ago.

In the course of our exchange, which of course I can't recall verbatim, Ed told several outright blatant lies.

He was so outrageously dishonest that I later emailed XM Radio and asked them why they were even carrying this guy.

(I was a bit more naive back then.) 

LIBERALS LIE, ALL THE TIME, ABOUT EVERYTHING.

Shut up, he explained.

The motto of modern liberalism:

"Shut up," he explained. 

Welcome to the era of unity, you racist!

Democratic version of post-partisan?

They're afraid to tell Republicans that, you know, you can be in the meeting but shut up.

Can anyone explain why Republicans should bother working with the Left?  I understand that they have the power to do whatever they want but why should Republicans be complaisant with them? 

Does anyone think the Democrats will share any credit when things go well?  IMO they're just looking for Republicans to share the blame when disaster strikes. So why are Republicans so afraid of being called obstructionist? 

 

Lincoln Chaffee is not

Lincoln Chaffee is not "right-of-center".  He is the epitome of a Northeastern liberal legacy who found it easier to get ahead by pitching his tent with the Republican Party.  For some reason, the Party has embraced losers like Chaffee as part of a "Northeastern Strategy".  Then the likes of Chaffee, Jeffords, Collins, Hagel, Snowe, Specter and, yes, McCain use their status as pseudo-Republicans to embrace and even advocate for Liberal/Democrat policies.  The Northeastern Strategy, in its current form, is a failure and should be abandoned.  By the way, Chaffee endorsed Obama. 

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -Ronald Reagan

fitzfong.blogspot.com

That's why I find the worry

That's why I find the worry over the Dems getting to 60 such a laugher.  They're already there.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."  - Sir Winston Churchill

Agreed, fitzfong

Chaffee was RINO, not Republican, and that he was a post-election guest for Maddow underscores my premise. She brought in someone nominally GOP, but not really.