The irony of the Democrats whining about trying to get Hillary out of the race before "all the votes are counted" (in lieu of their pushing Al Gore to continue his futile 2000 crusade in the general election under that very mantra) is simply too much!!! The Germans call this schadenfraude and yes folks, that is what I feel as I review the comments on this thread.

I simply want to reiterate what I said earlier about Senator Clinton and her chances at this time{1} and remind readers of why I have long said that "a year is an eternity time in politics." I predict this move by Howard the Duck Dean will benefit Senator Clinton in Pennsylvania's primary on April 22, 2008.

Note:

{1} On Senator Hillary Clinton and Her Nomination Chances (circa March 7, 2008)

On Principles and Consistency:
(From the Mailbag on Sean Hannity and Problematical Strains of "Conservative" Catholicism)

The words of the emailer will be in dark green font.

Just looked at your comments about Hannity on RN. If the allegations are true, it wouldn't surprise me; just look at Pat Buchanan.

I would rather not consider Pat Buchanan actually. I spent far too much time in years past giving him too much credit for the parts he does get right{1} when he (i) misses the boat so often and (ii) so often makes statements that are imprudent at best or antisemitic at worst. I have no desire whatsoever to defend such people and will not give passes to Buchanan that I will not to others. Unlike many Catholics, I am not a provincialist{2} nor have I ever been one.

There's an element of conservative Catholicism that, if it isn't anti-Semitic outright, ignores the issue or tries to cozy up to Muslims too much. One example is a piece on insidecatholic.com (the online remnant of Crisis Magazine) that criticizes U.S. "imperialism" (obviously, in reference to the war in Iraq). Go to the site yourself and click on the icon on the right side featuring Teddy Roosevelt superimposed over an early-20th century battleship.

Oh yes, the usual suspects whose understanding of the Constitution results in practice in something that fails. Their instincts against this "evolving constitution" schtick which is common today are good but methodologically misguided to no small degree. Their hearts are in the right place though -that is where I will leave it for now.{3}

Of course, the last article written by Deal Hudson for Crisis criticized the Israeli security fence as injurious to Palestinian Christians (who are mostly in communion with Rome). Never mind that the fence saved innocent lives from suicide bombers.

Well, I do not have much interest in Catholic publications when they discourse on geopolitical matters because far too often it is embarrassing. As long as they do not try to make others believe that they are required to give assent to the opinions they espouse on geopolitical matters, then I do not care what they say. But when they do dogmatize on derivative issues, then they make themselves subject to a possible fisking should I have the time or otherwise feel the inclination to.

Notes:

{1} One example of which comes to mind offhand from the archives is this one:

I have noted my reservations about Patrick J. Buchanan before but to remind readers who may have forgotten:

This writer has often noted in the years since he was an avid Buchanan supporter[...] that Patrick J. Buchanan is a streaky kind of writer. I say this in the sense that when he is on, he is quite often not merely on target but indeed en fuego....In closing, though Buchanan is a streaky shooter, as I noted above, when he is on, he tends to get it on the bullseye. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 01, 2004))]

And on CAFTA, Mr. Buchanan gets it right on this subject in so many ways in the opinion of your weblog host. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 29, 2005)]

{2} See a recent bit on provincialism as posted here for more information on this matter.

{3} Except to note that a piece on a necessary third way in political understanding on constitutional issues which has often been mentioned on this weblog as being on the way at some point (most recently here) had the first parts of a rough draft composed and was first publicly mentioned as forthcoming a year ago today. The draft itself was revised into the form it is in now back in December but needs one final review before it will be ready for posting. (I have not had time to do that yet for many reasons including the ones noted here from January of 2008.)

Briefly Revisiting An Argumentation Fallacy From Years Past:

As one of the posts I will be blogging soon mentions the subject of provincialism, it seems appropriate in light of the importance of this subject to revisit this matter matter briefly for those who have either forgotten or were unaware of our previous expositions on the matter.

To start with, I recorded an audio post on the argumentation fallacy of provincialism back in May of 2005 but for some reason, none of the audioblogger recordings are accessible anymore despite the promise that they would be.{1}

Without exhausting much type on the matter at the present time, let it suffice to say that fallacious provincialism is present whenever a party engages in double standards with moral and ethical principles. The most prevalent one is where they give a free pass or promotion of various sorts to those who are their positional allies while either not giving a free pass or condemning the same things in those who are not their positional allies that they let those who agree with them get away with.{2}

A lot more could be said on the matter than that but that is all I presently have time for.

Notes:

{1] I keep the audio post links in the archive on the long shot that the company who now stores them will eventually keep their promise and allow access to them.

{2} For those who recall various postings in the archives which have taken issue with these kinds of double standards, this is one of the fallacies at the heart of my criticisms of not a few either rationally oblivious or profoundly disingenuous partisans.

Points to Ponder:

No talk of peace, justice, truth, or virtue is complete without a clear understanding that certain individuals, movements, and nations must be met with measured force, however much we might prefer to deal with them peacefully or pleasantly. Without force, many will not talk seriously at all, and some not even then. Human, moral, and economic problems are greater today for the lack of adequate military force or, more often, for the failure to use it when necessary. [Fr. James V. Schall SJ]