All Kerry's aides need to do is ask for priest recommendations on a Catholic blog, and I'm sure they'd be deluged with the names of holy priests who would not only turn Kerry away, but take the opportunity of his presence in their parish to lovingly evangelize him!
I for one hope he does it. The American public will eventually catch the unmistakable stench of the victicrat.
"From March 4 through March 26, (a) Fox News poll reports that Kerry's negative rating has zoomed from 28 percent to 36 percent while his positives have dropped from 46 perent to 43 percent. Issues come and go. Bush's ratings will rise and fall as his conduct as president oscillates with events. But Kerry's negatives are forever. Without the power of the presidency to help him define himself, he lacks the tools to convert negatives into positives. He cannot act, as a president can, to change events and consequently recover lost ground. His negative ratings will never go down. They will only stay put or rise. When they get above 50 percent, Kerry will have
no pulse."
-Dick Morris, New York Post, March 31, 2004, p. 33.
Hey, what good Catholic wouldn't try to use his God for a cheap political trick? Kerry's only swimming along with the tide, right?
That was me - even though I'm an all-but-anonymous lurker anyway. :o)
What an utter slime.
Republicans exploit religion on a daily basis - it's not unique to John Kerry or either party.
Yes, I know the Reps aren't shining examples. Lord knows, if I see one more bulletin ad proclaiming the religiousity of various candidates, I'm going to implode. Then there's the pulpit whistlestops, coming Sunday, weekly, until November.
Here, the problem is that Kerry is considering (if the story is accurate) turning the central ritual of his faith into a photo op confrontation. If he wants to slap down the bishops, that's one thing. Doing it via the Mass at some Catholic parish is another.
If the story's bogus, then the Spectator's got to pay for that.
If, in fact, that is what Kerry is trying to do, then I agree wholeheartedly. However, I'm generally skeptical of stories that use unnamed sources regardless of the publication. The aricle doesn't show up in snopes.com, for what that's worth. I also have trouble believing that Kerry would try a stunt like emabarrasing a bishop during an election campaign - it's too risky without much upside, politically.
Hey, at least he hasn't worn a yankees hat yet (unlike hilary). I'm certain the forces of good can agree on that ecumenical sentiment.
Actually, challenging the bishops wouldn't be the riskiest strategy these days. Given the bang-up job they did policing the priestly and episcopal ranks for sex offenders, the esteem for the collective institution hovers somewhere near pimps and loan sharks.
Good point on the unsourced nature of it--it's unconfirmed. It's also the Spectator, not exactly Kerry-friendly environs. Then again, getting confirmation will require nothing short of a document leak or the event occuring. It doesn't have the ring of urban legend implausibility, however.
Ecumenical types agree: Wearing a Yankees cap?! He'd be better off campaigning in drag. At least Hilary has "D-N.Y." after her Senate tag. For Kerry, the hat would be a sign of clinical insanity. That act would instantly put Massachusetts' electoral votes in play.
P.S.--Is it true that the Sox and Yankees play seven games in April?
re: urban legend plausibility. I usually check stuff like that out on snopes.com before forming any sort of critical thought. And it is not on snopes - meaning that it probably isn't an urban legend.
The Sox play the Evil Empire seven times in April without Trot and Nomah.
Commenting by HaloScan
