Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Obama Picks Up Support from Romney Backer

By Robert Barnes
It might seem unlikely that if Mitt Romney was your first choice for president, Barack Obama would be your second.

But that is the case for constitutional scholar Douglas W. Kmiec, who shocked the conservative legal world on Sunday by endorsing Obama in a post on Besides serving as legal counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Kmiec was co-chairman of Romney's Committee for the Courts and the Constitution, which was to advise him on constitutional questions and judicial appointments.

"No doubt some of my friends will see this as a matter of party or intellectual treachery,'' Kmiec wrote. "I regret that, and I respect their disagreement.''
In fact, some of his friends on the right and at conservative legal blogs seemed ready to come after the constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University with a net.

The professor noted that "Obama and I may disagree" on abortion, gay rights and Supreme Court nominations, among other things. But he apparently disagrees even more with the war in Iraq, President Bush and perhaps Sen. John McCain.

"Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or a clear objective" and "has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen," Kmiec wrote. "In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment.''

By Web Politics Editor  |  March 24, 2008; 7:53 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton, Obama Camps Trade Outrage and Charges -- Again
Next: McCain to Address Economic Crisis


Great to know that there are some intelligent republicans, and Doublas W. Kmiec is one of them

Posted by: fedup6 | March 26, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Great to know that there are some intelligent republicans, and Doublas W. Kmiec is one of them

Posted by: fedup6 | March 26, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse


You are absolutely correct! The partial-birth atrocity was at least banned. But at least we had obstetricians on our side who couldn't think of any medical reason that it would be necessary for the health of the mother....

As for the regular garden brand of butchery, I sorta think we are stuck.

Now I think Ron Paul's suggestion -- that Roe v Wade be overturned and then get sent to the states (where it belongs) is likely the best solution for drastically decreasing abortion.

As for the bloodbath in Iraq and Afghanistan, I was referring not only to our own soldiers, but also to the innocent civilians who are taking the brunt of this. It's pretty shocking.

Posted by: carolm62 | March 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Several posters have suggested that some Republicans "support" Obama because they think he is more easily defeatable in November, I have to say that while that could possibly be true (I know I've heard the theory that Republicans in my home state voted for Hillary for the same reasons), I have to say that nothing suggests that Professor Kmiec is doing that here. I have disagreed with him over the years, but he's an extremely principled man who would never publicly endorse a politician unless he truly thought he was the best candidate for the job.

Posted by: E.B.Fowler | March 25, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse


More than 4,000 abortions happen EVERY DAY right here in the U.S.! That's why it's more important -- I understand your frustration, but we are literally ONE Supreme Court justice away from overturning Roe v. Wade -- also, you are aware that partial-birth abortion was finally banned, and the ban was upheld under the Reoberts Supreme Court, right? How can you say that "nothing changed" in that regard?

Posted by: JakeD | March 25, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse


I grow weary of the abortion issue being THE issue that makes or breaks the support of a particular candidate. Why...? Because despite having pro-life presidents for, like, ever, nothing changes in that regard!

Why would I reject an otherwise highly competent candidate who is less than stellar on this issue when nothing is going to happen on that front anyway...?

What I seem to get is an incompetent president who says all the right things regarding abortion with still nothing happening in that regard.

I think the pro-lifers need to be considerably more concerned about the bloodbath happening in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of an unauthorized war -- than worrying about abortion policies right now. That is a fight for another day.

Posted by: carolm62 | March 25, 2008 7:44 PM | Report abuse

I was a Romney supporter and donated heavily to his campaign till he dropped out. I was about to turn to Obama as well -- till I took a good hard look at Ron Paul's message.

Though Obama is correct about the war being unauthorized, I don't think he has a grasp on Middle East dynamics the way Ron Paul does.

And Obama is definitely a fan of high taxation and the whole redistribution of wealth idea. Paul's ideas on economics make much more sense.

Posted by: carolm62 | March 25, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Upon occasion I read the blogs to get a sense of what might be the thinking of "the general public." What I notice more often than thinking is a release of emotions. Those who support Obama are for the most part enthusiastic in their support and positive in their comments. Those against Obama fill their comments with viciousness and venom. Blog comments create a referendum that both serves and moves against careful political consideration and evaluation in preparation for voting. The eyes of the world are reading these blogs, as well as the voters in America. Clearly, bloggers hope to influence other bloggers. Can we put our best thinking into forming the thoughts posted rather than exuding vitriol?

Posted by: marcialou | March 25, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

Well, a change of party only shows a dissatisfaction to who won the nominee. I am a Democrat and have never voted Republican. However I rather vote for McCain then Obama. McCains voting history in the Senate is almost identical to the Democrats. And I respect him for being able to stand up to his party.

However, I disagree with his decision to keep us at war as long as he plans. Hopefully, and if elected in November once in office he will be persuade by Democrats to change his mind.

Furthermore, if you note Obama's voting history in the Senate is identical & consistant with the rest of the Republicans. He voted for the Energy bill in 2005. He has voted for the war since he was elected in the Senate. His voting history does not prove he was ever against the war prir to becoming a Senator. In fact his senior adviser who called Hillary a "monster" told BBC Obama was not planning to take us out of war. That it was all double talk as he did with NAFTA.

The only Democratic candidate who voted (in 2002) against the war and continues to vote against funding it, is Dennis Kucinoch.

So it does not surprise me that some of the Republicans would rather support a Democrat nominee who votes like a Republican; then a Republican nominee that votes almost always with the Democrats.

Hopefully, the Superdelegates will use their wisdom accordingly and select Hillary as the nominee. Neither Obama or Hillary will be able to reach the winning number; which is 2025. Hence, the only way it come be reached is by the Superdelegates. They are only bind by one rule; who will be the best qualified candidate and will be able to win the General Election in November against the Republican nominee. That person can only be Hillary.

Posted by: glrodriguez1 | March 25, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

It's hard to fathom how Professor Kmiec could endorse Barak Obama. Of the three remaining candidates, Senator Obama is recognized by NARAL as the most "pro choice" Indeed, he has voted to insulate abortionists from civil and criminal liability when they kill children born outside the womb in abortuaries, as the intent of the abortionist and the mother, was to kill the child before it exited the womb. The position Obama took on this issue goes beyond the recommendations of NARAL, and is the clearest expression of his moral philosophy. I don't care if people don't want to hear about what really happens in abortion clinics, or that some Catholics treat this issue as equal among many other social justice issues which they argue they are more in touch with than others. Senator Obama believes it is ok to kill a live human being because it was the intent of the mother and the abortionist that the child never survive outside the womb. I am awaiting his eloquent explanation of this moral position.

Perhaps Professor Kmiec was unaware of Obama's position on this issue, since Obama has such a minimal voting record (this one was in Illinois). If he was aware of Obama's position, then his endorsement is either grotesque or strategically placed to promote Obama's success in the primary in order that his true philosophy be so clearly exposed in the general. With that said, a candidate's position on respect for life is a litmus test for pro life advocate voters like me. That is not to say the other issues are not important or do not deserve our deepest intellectual and spiritual commitments. It is to say, however, that those who advocate the slaughter of innocents cannot be taken seriously in their approach to the other moral issues of the day, as all human rights derive from the right to life. And Senator Obama is the loudest in his advocacy of the slaughter of the innocent... born and unborn. It's pretty hard to be more hardcore than Hillary on this one, but Barak has found a way.

When circumstances give you no candidates who support life, your obligation is not to vote, or perhaps to vote for the least bad of the three. Under no circumstances are you required, and I daresay, even permitted, to endorse any of them, and Professor Kmiec should re-think his position. There was a time when he graded my work. And I suppose he was charitable. But I can't give him better than a D- on this effort.

Posted by: tdixon3902 | March 25, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

sheridan1 thanks for the observation. There seem to be many hate spewing computers with artificial intelligence ( sv..,jreno...etc) which dump the same stuff across ALL blogs. Hope someone can clean this up. I am an independent, I respect any civil discourse.

Posted by: DrCha | March 25, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I, too, backed Romney, and am now supporting Obama. I have his sign on my front lawn as I type this today. Anything to eliminate Hillary, whom I view as a complete and utter sociopath. She scares me to death, and her political machine is so strong, I still don't know that she can be defeated. I think she has slept her way to where she stands today, with both male and female partners, (as Bill himself stated, which comment was NEVER recanted) and she does not represent my views at all. I'm sure McCain doesn't stand a chance against either democrat, unless he chooses Romney as his running mate, which would truly balance the ticket and give some hope for the nation's economy, but frankly, I doubt he's bold enough to go there, and still fears the lies being spread about Mormons. (Which are so absurd I wonder if this nation is truly intelligent enough to decide upon a ruler in the first place!)
If he doesn't choose Romney, I will be casting my vote for Obama. Why? Because McCain does not support my conservative values, and Obama is young enough I feel he may see the wisdom in them, and move closer to the right during his presidency. (Don't talk to me about the Huckster. That man is a joke and an embarrassment to the party.)
By the way, I'm a white female senior citizen, and a solid Roman Catholic, if anybody cares about that at all.

Posted by: ikjirstin | March 25, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

People ought to start ignoring svreader the way they did Rufus. He/she (who knows?)seems to be working for the Clinton camp, never has anything intelligent or insightful to say, and tends to repeat the same shallow talking points without knowing much detail. 20 years, Jeramiah Wright, yaday yada, we know we know. Did you read the whole sermon? Would you say these same negative things about Dr. King, who used the same kind of firey rhetoric? It takes exposing anger to difuse it - Senator Obama is speaking to us as if we are grown ups; let's act like it, shall we?

sv - take a nap. All you do is acuse others of doing what YOU do - spew mindless nothings. Really, people. You would do well to just not respond to her/him.

Posted by: sheridan1 | March 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama's group of supporters are African Ameican, young people (18-35), higher income, and educated (college degree plus). That's his core group.

This endorsement comes from a Republican who has higher income and highly educated. While they may have policy differences such as the right to life, etc. He still likes what he sees in Barack. He knows that Barack is an honest, thoughtful and intelligent person who will do the right thing for this country. There are more similarities between these two men than there are differences and he has decided to embrace that instead of looking for things that divide them.

Maybe we should think about that more.

Posted by: ovwong | March 25, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

So winning all those Red states could be just because Republicans - those who are supposed to be conservative in this limited party system that we have - are voting for the most liberal senator in congress? And now a Romney supporter endorses Obama? Anyone see something wrong with this picture? The Reps must be dead certain that they can blast Obama out of the water on the national election, so they are touting his "leadership" (which has been conspicuous by its absence) and endorsing him, hoping for an easy contest in November. Anybody notice that Michelle has been laying low lately? Some of her comments have been edgy and potential fodder for the Republican smear machine. So the Obama campaign have effectively muzzled her - or so it would appear.

Posted by: zanne1 | March 25, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

I don't know of a single person with an IQ worth noticing that ever based their vote on someone else's endorsement. In this day an age, they are absolutely meaningless for a candidate but can substantially alter the life of the person offering it.

Posted by: drjesullivan | March 25, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Why should it be surprising that Romney voters would also like Obama? Of all the candidates of either party, these two are the smartest, most well-rounded, most public-minded, and least tied to the poisonous atmosphere in Washington, DC. Obama was always my first choice, but I would have been pretty happy with Romney, too. The only reluctance I would have had with Romney would be all of the Republican baggage he would have to carry.

Posted by: brent2 | March 25, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JakeD | March 25, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Well I would say that Hillary may not be our best choice, even tho she brings her husband to the mix, do we realy need that. Here is a question for us to think about...
Even tho Bill has been President already is there any law that prevents him from runninng for Vice President? there are a lot of people reading and comenting on this news event maybe one of you will be able to respond to my question. L.G.Borne

Posted by: dragon2112slayerborne | March 25, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

zien106...What makes you say that Obama is very easy to defeat in a general election?

I beg to differ. I think Obama would offer the greatest contrast to McCain on many issues like the Iraq War, foreign policy, the economy, climate change, the constitution, health care, and social security. Also picture the imagery on a general election debate when McCain at 71 years of age and 5-foot 7-inches is on stage with a 46 year old, 6-foot 2-inch Obama. It would be like looking at the past versus the future.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 25, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Sen Obama is the Democratic candidate of choice among supporters of the GOP. I don't know why, he just is.

The explanation is : It's very easy to defeat Obama in the General Election than dealing with Hillary Clinton

If Senator Obama is nominated by Democrats , we will have Republican President in 2008

Posted by: zien106 | March 25, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Sen Obama is the Democratic candidate of choice among supporters of the GOP. I don't know why, he just is.

The explanation is : It's very easy to defeat Obama in the General Election than dealing with Hillary Clinton

If Senator Obama is nominated by Democrats , we will have Republican President in 2008

Posted by: zien106 | March 25, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Wow. That's what I call an endorsement with weight.

Posted by: queenskid | March 25, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I recently listened to the infamous Rev. Wright's sermon where the "God D**n America statement is heard. Placed in context the statement looses most of it's controversial "appeal". There's an old school statement, "believe half of what you see and none of what you hear", that could be relevant in this instance. We heard excerpts of the sermon, greatly edited I might add. Now, if you're open minded enough, listen to what was said, but this time in context.

Please listen to the entire video 9:57 minute message rather than the "edited" FOX video -- you will be shocked (or maybe not) to see how the media distorted Rev. Wright's message. Copy and paste the You-Tube link below:

Posted by: mskate | March 25, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

The obvious similarities between Romney and Obama is that they are perceived as people from outside Washington that would be willing to change the entrenched positions of the insiders on things like foreign policy, international relations, economics, etc.

Would McCain or Clinton change anything? In short, no.

Romney and Obama might not either, but there is at least a chance that they would.

Posted by: steveboyington | March 25, 2008 11:04 AM | Report abuse

For: SVreader

By all your posts it's evident you hold Sen. Obama with no regard. Please inform me who is on the fence - what Sen. Clinton brings to the table. I'm having a conflict with all the lies she seems to be telling.

Looking for enlightement!!!

Posted by: mrmc23320 | March 25, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

RNC says: "Bring on Obama! FOUR MORE YEARS!"

Posted by: lithium452 | March 25, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

The Bible tells us that we are supposed to be subject to the atorities that are placed above us because he,God... put them there for a reason. Well maybe Mr. Bush was put there to get us on the road to peace because everyone will get fed up with war. War we all know the end result to it,DEATH, and does war resalve all issues...NO it does not, yeah as I write this I think you are saying,"you mean God put A.Hitler in power," sad to say yes he did, why you might ask, read the Bible and find out why. Every thing has a place and purpose to help us see and understand all good and bab. Not every one will go to Heaven tho we all have the choice to. If you see something that seems unjust then it is if we lived in a perfect world there would be no need or reason for God. There is bad and good and as we see G.W.Bush as a bad man his place in history was plotted out already, he is a reason for us to see what we dont like about war to begin with and now what we do with this knowlage is important. We can rant and rave all we want to but nothing is going to help after the fact. If you and we want to stop war we need to go to the highest power God and ask him for the wisdom and knowlage and ability to prevent these thing, tho we are on a coures to the end as it is. Read Revalation in the Bible its easy to find it's the last book in the Bible... Bible to me means B. asic I. nstructions B. efore L. eaving E. arth ... This is L.G.Borne say in take care and may we be guided down the right path

Posted by: dragon2112slayerborne | March 25, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

His description of the current presidency is very well put:

"Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or a clear objective" and "has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen" and "In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment.''

Hear hear.

Posted by: poortrekker | March 25, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

He moved from one religous nut to another religous nut.
WHat's hard to see about that?

He's picked 2 loosers

Posted by: newagent99 | March 25, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

Influenced by the paragon of truth and virtue to whom she is married, Hillary stepped across the line of good judgment and common sense and has suffered a wound fatal to her Presidential aspirations over five years ago. Yes - 5 years ago!

Why? How?

Hillary Clinton's YES vote on October 10, 2002, to authorize H. J. Res. 114 [107th]: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq aided and abetted George W. Bush in his frontal assault on the U.S. Constitution when she agreed to authorize him to invade Iraq.

"Our Constitution expressly PROHIBITS an unprovoked and pre-emptive war against any nation in the world. It also prohibits the Congress from delegating the authority to declare a war to the President of the United States. This is one of the major pillars of the separation of powers."

Furthermore - Senator Clinton voted to give President Bush the authority to go to war - AFTER - she discussed with senior Democratic colleagues the likelihood that he would take the authorization and use it to cover an invasion. Indeed just ten (10) hours before her YES vote on the authorization resolution, she voted NO on the Levin amendment which would have mandated Bush to work through the United Nations (without subjugating our armed forces to UN leadership). Hillary voted against a majority of Democrats in both cases.

Since then, in increasingly clumsy attempts to re-write history, she claims that all she did was to authorize an invasion if all other diplomatic negotiations failed. Despite the weasel words in her floor speech that day, her assertion is not compelling. In this explanation she is once again standing with her finger in the wind trying to position herself for a general election.

To most American, it is better that she stands for her vote - or admits she was wrong - but again, as we all saw in the televised (one on one) L.A. debate, she refused once more to choose on which side of the issue she stands....

She spent over 6 minutes in that debate flip-flopping around on stage in embarrassing fashion simply trying to explain HER war authorization vote. She never did. Finally the moderator had to ask was she "duped by the dope." No, she said, adamantly.

Okay, then WHY did she vote FOR the WAR?

She knew the Democrats would not carry the issue...and a No vote would have cemented her in opposition to the stupid war. It would not have affected the vote outcome.
More significantly, Hillary's N.Y. Democratic constituents would have cheered a NO vote!

So, -- Why did she vote YES????

Why did she vote to join with the Republicans and give to George Bush the authority to take this country into a pre-emptive war that has killed and maimed tens of thousands of American soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors?

She brags about her support of children...what about our sons and daughters in uniform?

It seems obvious that Hillary voted to authorize the war in Iraq because she did not want to poison the well from which she thought (way back in 2002) she would have to drink when going up against a Republican in 2008.

She voted "YES" to insulate herself from Republican attack.

In other words, she took a position with an eye on HER future - NOT the future of the United States.

She did not think the issue through. Just like George Bush. Ready - fire - AIM !

Hillary Clinton took her stance on the War with her eye on her political career. There is no other explanation for her vote - unless she actually supported the war and is now ducking that conviction.

Either way - she comes off looking like a cheap politician parsing her answers so as to deflect the truth. But again, remember who she learned from - for 35 years - she was trained by Bill.

Hillary is guilty of political posturing for the most common of political reasons - her own career. But, this vote was not on some procedural matter...this vote led ultimately to the War. The Republicans have their knives and spears sharpened and ready for the thrust.

McCain will simply say, "But Hillary - YOU voted FOR the WAR." "You used your 30 years of experience and judgment and voted YES for the language of the bill....

Hillary's experience and judgment failed her in 2002, just as it is failing her now in 2008 in the woefully inept management of her own campaign.


Posted by: gandalfthegrey | March 25, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

You'd think this would be a sore point for Magoo but, in fact, he thought Romney was in the Democratic race.

Posted by: filoporquequilo | March 25, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Yes, and I bet McCain picks up a lot of Hillary and Obama ex supporters too, the more they find out about what both of them will really do to expand government in major ways.

Posted by: ekim53 | March 25, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

You here again, svreader? How do you defend your attack on Hillary about her Iraq vote in February? Are you ever consistent about anything? Aside from personal attacks?

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 25, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

"Will OBAMA inspire us to be PRO HAMAS."
Posted by: mjno

One of the dumbest things any previous administration has done in trying to bring peace to western Asia is to exclude Hamas from participation in peace talks. Obama may not bring them in either, but how in the world are you going to have peace without Hamas involvement? The only alternative is extermination--but that would make things even worse.

Posted by: edwcorey | March 25, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

What is up with Obama and Emil Jones?

Posted by: thejaner | March 25, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I pray that God help us all to think clearly and to rise up over our bigotry and prejudices, so that we can restore this nation to the dignity that we once had. May God bless Douglas Kmiec for showing us the way.

Posted by: alzach | March 25, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

This campaign has certainly generated very strong personal feelings for and against the candidates. These feelings can even transcend the issues for some people. The acrimony between Romney and McCain was as obvious as it seems to be deep. The continuing internecine brawl on the Democratic side will deepen the rift between not only Obama and Clinton but their partisans as well. McCain will certainly lose some disaffected Romneyites, but I can't help but believe he will garner more support among disaffected Democrats than Clinton or Obama will find among rebel Republicans.

Posted by: b.aller | March 25, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

HRC lies about the Bosnia trip and check these lies too and you be the judge!

Posted by: bafagih_a | March 25, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

There he goes again telling lies about Al Qaeda to the American people. Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq are in Sunni areas of Baghdad, non-Kurdish Mosul, and uncontrolled areas mostly in the northern Sunni triangle. We are presently pushing them out of Mosul, have a way to go in Baghdad and the northern triangle. Al Qaeda in Iraq has maybe 5000 hardcore fighters left with at best 200,000 people giving strong support. The Afghan Pakistan theater have over 100,000 hardcore fighters with millions giving strong support. The thousands of newly brainwashed Pakistani's coming out of fundamentalist madressahs are easy recruits for the Taliban. You can make you own choice as to where our war on the terrorists is central.

Posted by: jameschirico | March 25, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

I bet he will pick up many of these endorsements because the repub's think McCain will fair better against Obama in the general election. If Obama thinks he is in a fight now, just wait until McCain get going.

Posted by: ray_herbst | March 25, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

A story in the NY Times today argues that Obama hasn't really been a political uniter. In the article, Obama blames this on the structure of the Senate--that it's ideologically polarized. But then he says, "But as president, I would be setting the terms of debate." Sometimes B.O. describes his version of the presidency as a Dictatorship. How would he set the "terms of debate"? Does B.O. believe in dissent and free speech?

Posted by: jj394857 | March 25, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

I want a centrist DEMOCRAT on the Democratic ticket--not a post-definition-post-partisan Centrist "whatever"; why is B.O. running for the Democratic ticket? What does he stand for? I think it's cool that he's still in the processing of defining himself (I'm a literature person and believe the "who am I questions" form great books/poems), and figuring out the bureaucracy of the country, but it would probably be better if he waited to run until he sorted some of that out. I believe in specialties. When I need my clothes mended or altered, I take them to a tailor. I don't take them to someone who just seems to have a snazzy appreciation of fashion.

Posted by: jj394857 | March 25, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

I hope Keith Olbermann won't mind, but I'd like to say, "svreader -- today's WORST .... BLOGGER .... IN THE WORLD!" He has earned the honor by tenacity and hard work, looking for truthiness by the repeated telling of lies, having raised the practice of cut and paste to a fine art and by taking smug satisfaction in his clog the blog strategy. Take a bow.

Posted by: optimyst | March 25, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

He's just broadening his range of supporters. That's all...

Posted by: parkerfl | March 25, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Kmiec gives us all hope that "set in their ways" Republicans can think and speak outside of the box.

Posted by: g-lo | March 25, 2008 7:33 AM | Report abuse

Wow. Nice endorsement from one of the "bad guys". More evidence to backup Obama's claim he can reach across the isle.

Posted by: zbob99 | March 25, 2008 7:29 AM | Report abuse

I can understand why some people are either not smart enough or not open-minded enough to see that we cannot have Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, we cannot have two presidents (Billary) ....

I can even undertand how some people might dismiss gutter politics and outright lying as 'just being tough'...

What I cannot for the life of me understand is how anyone can be deaf dumb and blind to Obama's greatest asset:

He inspires people.

He inspires people to be 'better'.

He even inspires geniuses like Kmiec.

Look at the faces of the tens of thousands who flock to his rallies.

They are inspired and motivated to be better people, better Americans.

Hillary just doesn't have that; most people don't like her. It's nothing personal --- it's just a cold hard fact.

The Clintons should stop trying for a third term; they should step aside and let a brilliant Constitutional scholar (Obama) lead us away from the old and into the new.

Posted by: skyriak | March 25, 2008 6:55 AM | Report abuse

The crossover voting is for one reason only---defeat the opponent Republicans are most concerned about : Hilary Clinton.

Narcissistic Obama is rather delusional in believing thay are going to support him for President. He could cost the Dems the Presidency.

Posted by: accountability_in_gov | March 25, 2008 6:42 AM | Report abuse

It might be noted that Chuck Hagel merely treated the question as premature when George Stephanopoulos asked Sunday if Hagel would welcome a Presidential Obama appointment of him as Secretary of Defense.

Posted by: FirstMouse | March 25, 2008 6:25 AM | Report abuse

Getting past the rants of the Obama-bots here about how Obama is the natural choice of Republicans, Democrats, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Martians, the Communists and the KKK alike, (in a grand and loving coalition), there is something else afoot in American politics. There are certain people, intelligent people, who can't bring themselves to support a moderate. Both Clinton and McCain are moderates, and that turns people off. Some people prefer any candidate, such as Obama, who is closer to the fringe, without regard to whether that fringe is on the left or right. Gore was a moderate and that turned off many liberals (ie. Maureen Dowd) more than did Bush's conservatism. The commentariat as a whole prefers a fringe candidate and abhors "triangulation"- perhaps because they don't understand how government works. Governments need moderates, not the ideological candidates preferred by the press.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 25, 2008 5:28 AM | Report abuse

This is pretty amazing however more so from the stand-point of jumping party lines (which I always thought was rubbish anyway) and going with the right candidate, at least in his mind. Or is it maybe he is simply choosing the better party this time around, as these figures would also suggest?

Obama vs Clinton vs McCain -
The Google Effect:

Posted by: davidmwe | March 25, 2008 2:28 AM | Report abuse

Well, according to the Clintons, his endorsement probably doesn't matter much or he's from a state with a high percentage of blacks or he's from a caucus state. You know, it seems like there's getting to be more and more people from all these categories.They all must be looking for 30 pieces of silver.Or maybe he wants a president who can manage something and get us out of the war in Iraq and get something done here at home.

Posted by: majorteddy | March 25, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse

Read the article "Both Obama And Clinton Embellish Their Roles"...pretty well sums it up.

Posted by: ekim53 | March 25, 2008 2:21 AM | Report abuse

Here are two articles to pump up Obama's supporters, and to destroy any hope among the FOX News pundits for a Clinton nomination (they don't believe in hope anyway):



Game over!

Posted by: Logan6 | March 25, 2008 2:17 AM | Report abuse

It must be the schizophrenic Romney supporters. Romney promised to scale back the already big and bloated government rich with wasteful and ripe for fraud programs and Obama promised to EXPAND it with billions more in the budget putting more people in bondage to it.
Kick this Snake Oil Salesman bu## to China.

Posted by: ekim53 | March 25, 2008 2:16 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Kmiec is a man of unshakable integrity. I think that fact, every bit as much as a mutual interest in Constitutional Law, drew him to endorse Senator Obama.

I, too, will only vote for a person of demonstrable integrity and (after over 7 years of Bush/Cheney) a personal dedication to the Constitution sure doesn't hurt, either.

OBAMA '08!

PS to "svreader": I find your online persona too extreme to be authentic and have so decided that you are, in fact, a Republican shill.

Posted by: miraclestudies | March 25, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

Thank you, Doug Kmiec!!!



Posted by: drama_king | March 25, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

As a libertarian Aussie with an abiding interest in US politics I still can't quite understand the incredible tension between the camps of the two dem contenders. I always thought that fools like svreader (who continuously clutters up these threads with kneejerk smears) belonged to the other side of the political divide. I read these postings in search of light not heat. REMEMBER NOVEMBER. Either Clinton or Obama would be a big improvement on Bush etc. But my gut reaction is to side with the Obama camp - not because of any pre-existing bias but solely as a result of reading the sometimes libelous crap that is spewed out by Clinton supporters. At least the Obama camp seem to be sticking to consideration of policy.

Posted by: jamesmoylan | March 25, 2008 1:30 AM | Report abuse

According to the Clintons, he must be endorsing Obama as part of a Republican plot to get the weakest D-candidate. OR Obama's ability to bring people with differences together is real. That, unlike the idiot son of the former CIA chief, George, Obama may be a real uniter, not a divider.

America can't take four more years of division. It's time to end the Drama, support Obama!!

Posted by: thebobbob | March 25, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

Will OBAMA inspire us to be PRO HAMAS.

Why is the media keeping the voters uninformed????????

Posted by: mjno | March 25, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

I am a liberal Obama supporter who had the great honor of learning Constitutional Law from Prof. Kmiec when he taught at Notre Dame. While I often disagreed with his politics, I always had great respect for his intellect. The news that he has endorsed Obama makes me inordinately happy. If you read his full endorsement - - you will see that he is an extremely principled, devoutly conservative man. The key to his endorsement is simply this:

"In various ways, Sen. Barack Obama and I may disagree on aspects of these important fundamentals, but I am convinced, based upon his public pronouncements and his personal writing, that on each of these questions he is not closed to understanding opposing points of view and, as best as it is humanly possible, he will respect and accommodate them. "

I cannot tell you how much I appreciate this, coming from Doug Kmiec. It speaks volumes about the appeal Obama has for people of all stripes who value character, rigorous intellect, and good judgment. It is a striking example of Obama's very real ability to inspire people to work together for our common goals, rather than sniping at one another from our partisan bunkers.

Posted by: E.B.Fowler | March 25, 2008 12:38 AM | Report abuse

Why didn't he just not endorse anyone? Perhaps Kmiec is angling for a job, because it should be obvious to him that for every way that Obama would be better than Bush, there are several ways he'd be the same or worse. For instance, just like Bush, Obama supports illegal immigration. And, Obama even recently came out in support of Bush's SPP scheme (, aka "NAFTA on steroids":

Not only that, but Obama had to speak in code when he gave his support to Bush's scheme.

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | March 25, 2008 12:26 AM | Report abuse

I've never seen a more arrogant group of folks than Obama supporters.

You've in for a rude surprise.

Barry Obama is nothing like the kind of guy you think he is.

Just like Bush.

You'll see.

Posted by: svreader | March 25, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

Kmiec is one of many repubicans supporting Obama. See this Philadelphia Inquirer piece

Posted by: Michael531 | March 25, 2008 12:16 AM | Report abuse

You know, back in 2000, when moderates in both parties told me they were voting for Bush bec. he was a "nice, ordinary guy" I just didn't see it. I tried, I really did. I even agreed with those people that Gore was like the kid everyone hated in grade school, the know-it-all, prissy, boring geek. But all I could see of Bush was his arrogance and that smirk. I saw a smug drunken frat boy, like the ones I had always avoided in college.

I'm delighted that all of the Democrats and a LOT of those same moderate Republicans I are not only willing to vote for Obama, they are ENTHUSIASTIC about it. My sense is that not only will he be elected president, but he will have a mandate, and bring along a lot of new Democratic members of Congress. This will be a watershed election (and not a minute too soon!)

Posted by: smeesq | March 25, 2008 12:15 AM | Report abuse

svreader...if the Iraq War violence worsens again which I'm sure it will some time in late summer and the economy is still bad by late summer, the Republicans talking about Rev. Wright and out-of-context phrases like "typical white person" will get them crushed in a general election against Obama.

Also the more Obama's church is push to the forefront, the more churchgoing-folks of the Christian faith (white and black) will see the positive work done by his church in the community which will increase Obama's appeal in some Republican and Democratic Christians. Trinity United Church has done a lot of good work in their community which goes well beyond the 4 or 5 10-second sound bites the media keeps running.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 25, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

I believe that their are many more disenchanted Republicans who were followers of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul that find Obama a good second choice. Kmiec's endorsement is not surprising since he and Obama both have taught constitutional law. If look at all the hoopla surrounding Obama and his former pastor Rev. Wright, this negative interest in the relationship between the two has become greater than the two. Obama's church and faith seem to be on "trial" in the media. This is eerily similar to Mitt Romney's faith being on "trial" in the media. For some of those Christians who supported Romney, Obama is not ashame to profess his faith and worship of God and Jesus. Of all the remaining candidates both Democratic and Republican, Obama has the most religious focus.

Secondly, for Ron Paul supporters, Obama believes in the constitution and opposed the Iraq War from the beginning like Ron Paul. I have seen many posts here and elsewhere of Ron Paul supporters saying Obama would be there second choice.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 24, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

All this can be solved by Obama dropping out.

There's no way he can win nationally and both him and his supporters know that.

Republicans will loop his "Typical White Person", play it 24/7, turn it into a ring-tone, and use it to prove, that in his heart, Obama he feels the same way as Rev Wright does about everyone who isn't Black.

Obama can't hide from 20 years of standing with Rev. Wright, and from choosing Rev Wright as his "spiritual advisor"

Obama supporters can't deny the facts.

All they can do is drag the Democratic party down with them.

The need to wake up and smell the coffee, before its too late.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Awesome. The broad support for Sen. Obama continues to grow. What is now a stream will soon be a waterfall. After a couple more primaries, when it's obvious who the winner is, we can have our candidate and get on with destroying John McCain in November.

Posted by: tokyoboe-online | March 24, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the best choice.
Think about it. He can bring people together. Now I know what you're thinking.
All those conservative republicans that listed to his preacher last week may be a little upset with Obama.

That is just the Fox network. Believe me, once he reaches across the isle to all the gay hating racist corporate pigs, they will welcome his ideas.

For instance, they will love giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens. Barack thinks it's a good idea so all the republicans will jump on board.

The comments his wife made, don't worry about that. She didn't mean anything bad.

All the programs he wants to put in place to help the poor black people. Don't worry. The republicans will vote for the heavy tax increases to the rich and middle class.

The republicans he treat him like the superstar that you think that he is...

Wake up America. There is no bringing the country together. The republicans think Bill Clinton was a terrible president. At worst he was average. If Barrack ever did get elected (don't bet on it), the republicans would be on his every move.

After all. This is the US of KKK A!!

Posted by: crananon | March 24, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse






Posted by: bafagih_a | March 24, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse


If a conservative constitutional law professor did not see a good natured phrase "typical white person" problematic, then everyone should just recover their sense of humor. BHO loves his grandmother. So you should relax and quit being so paranoid.

Posted by: pinepine | March 24, 2008 10:39 PM | Report abuse

What was the context of Obama's comment, svreader?

Posted by: dbog | March 24, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

WOW! This is wonderful Mr. Kmiec and

the article was great!!!

What a happy day this is!!!

Posted by: Iwantmyvoicetobeheard | March 24, 2008 10:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama can never escape his "typical white person" comment.

It came from his own lips.

It shows what he feels in his heart.

Republicans will use as a ring-tone.

Posted by: svreader | March 24, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --


"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!


The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

Posted by: jreno20 | March 24, 2008 10:03 PM | Report abuse

You're delusional!! Never heard of the guy, couldn't care less who he supports and it doesn't mean a thing to 99.99999% of Democrats.

Posted by: mo897 | March 24, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

This does bode ill for McCain's possible VP Nomination.

IF, the Guy does not pick Mitt, I will seriously have to reconsider my opinion of his Judgment!

Posted by: rat-the | March 24, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

A Constitutional Law Professor ran off to a Constitutional Law Lawyer.

Good Riddance! Don't you guys have a Supreme Court to go play in? ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | March 24, 2008 9:30 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Mitt but now will vote for Obama. They are both great people and wither would be a great president. I think this is more common than you think among Romney supporters. We liked him because he was smart and had a god vision for the country, Obama is more like Romney is this aspect than McCain.

Posted by: tyson_hafen | March 24, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Just to amplify zukermand's comment with an anecdote--

When I was holding an Obama sign at a Metro stop some time before the Potomac primaries, a local voter came up to me and literally confided in my ear that he was voting for Romney (who was on that day still in the race). But, he went on to say, if Romney wasn't the nominee, he was voting for Obama "and there are more of us--you'd be surprised."

Well, I certainly was surprised, but I thanked him for his comment and thought no more about it. Now I wish I had asked him to connect the dots for me on that one. Frankly, I'm still not sure there are more than two such persons -- Kmiec plus that Fairfax County voter -- but it would interesting if there were!

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | March 24, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: bafagih_a:
"This is evidence that Obama can penetrate into the Republican mainstream and appeal to some of their supporter in issues which are paramount to America as a whole..."

Perhaps. Or, it might mean something else altogether. I do know if Mr Kmiec ever endorses a candidate I support, I will double check my math.

Posted by: zukermand | March 24, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: zukermand | March 24, 2008 9:08 PM | Report abuse

Here's one response, from Keith A. Fournier


Catholic Online

God has called each one of us into this real world, a world which he fashioned, and given to us the capacity to exercise our human freedom for the good. We make our choices and in those choices we change ourselves, as well as the world around us, for better or for worse. One of our choices is how we choose to govern ourselves and whether we will do so for the common good.

LOS ANGELES (Catholic Online) - Today, I was greeted with the news that Doug Kmiec, a top notch pro-life Constitutional lawyer and a man whom I deeply admire for having stood for the rights of an entire class of persons, children in the womb, when so many have failed to hear their cry, has made a Presidential endorsement.

Professor Kmiec holds the distinguished Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University. He is a legal scholar of the highest order. He is also a dedicated and sincere Catholic Christian.

He has an accomplished record of public service. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He is the former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, and was a member of the law faculty for nearly two decades at the University of Notre Dame.

So, who did Professor Kmiec endorse?

Senator Barack Obama. His decision is sending shock waves throughout the Pro-Life community.

I wanted to get out ahead of this story before all the discussion, both charitable and uncharitable, began. I also wanted to use it as a framework for a broader discussion. So, I grabbed your attention with this title, didn't I?

I will probably get a lot more than just attention. I am sure I will receive angry E-Mails. Political discussion is all getting so, well, "un-civil" and we have not even made it through both major party conventions. I am tired of the stridency, the talking heads and the messiness of it all! I am also tired of the unelected talk radio hosts who have appointed themselves as the new oracles and I can barely listen to their wasted words.

Let me make myself and the title of this article a bit clearer, "God is not a Republican or a Democrat". Nor is He a member of the Constitution Party, the Libertarian party... or any of a growing number of political "alternatives" that reflect a growing dissatisfaction with both major political parties.

Nor can God be placed within the numerous categories bandied about these days in the kind of "Balkanized" landscape of political discourse. You know the labels like "liberal", "conservative", neo-conservative", "neo-liberal", "paleo-conservative", or any permutation of them.

Political parties are our creation, not God's.

In fact, it seems like the political labels we currently use in our public conversation go through a change almost every twenty years. Yesterdays "liberal" is today's "neo-conservative". Or, are they actually? Most of yesterdays' "liberals" would have opposed the initial decision to enter into Iraq with no justification.The "neo-conservatives rattled their verbal swords and led the charge. So, are yesterdays "liberals" more like the "paleo-conservatives"?

Well, you see the problem with all these labels.

God has called each one of us into this real world, a world which he fashioned, and given to us the capacity to exercise our human freedom for the good. We make our choices and in those choices we change ourselves, as well as the world around us, for better or for worse. One of our choices is how we choose to govern ourselves and whether we will do so for the common good.

We who live in this wonderful Nation call the United States of America will soon be faced with one of the most important choices in my lifetime, electing the next President of the United States. This is an election of particular importance for Christians because of the issues that most of us hold as vital to a truly just and humane society.

Over the years I have come to group those issues in categories around what I call "four pillars of social participation"; the dignity of every human life (from conception through to natural death), the primacy of true marriage and family (as the first vital cell of all civil society as well as the first church, first government, first school, first economy and first mediating institution); authentic and responsible human and religious freedom; and our obligations in solidarity with all the poor and the needy.

I have worked for decades to encourage Christians, indeed all people of faith and good will, to build a more just and human society around these four pillars. I have participated in, and helped to build, movements and associations oriented toward this vital work because I have long believed and proclaimed that my faith compels me to live a unity of life.

I reject the so-called "private/public" dichotomy of some Catholics and other Christians in public life as heresy. My faith is profoundly personal but it is radically and fundamentally public. It is not a coat that I put on when I enter a Church building but rather a center from which I live and a lens through which I view all of human and social existence. There simply are objective moral truths that must guide truly human behavior and authentically free and just social community life.

For example, the position I hold on the right to life and the dignity of every human life at every age and stage is NOT, in the first instance, a "religious" position; it is a human rights position and I know that it must become the polestar of all good public policy. Without the right to life and the freedom to be born, as well as the further right to live a full life and die a natural death, unimpeded by euthanasia, passive or active, there simply are no other rights or human freedoms.

If human freedom becomes reduced to a notion of doing whatever one "chooses", including the intentional killing of children in the womb, the elderly, the "dependent"... it has been ripped away from its true meaning and reduced to some fabricated "right" to exercise a raw power over others.

This counterfeit definition of freedom of "choice" as a right to do what is wrong will not promote true freedom. It will inevitably lead us all to a new and profane form of slavery.It has already effectively consigned an entire class of human persons, children in the first home of their mothers womb, to the status of property to be disposed of.

Like most folks, I have tried to use my prudential judgment in exercising a treasured right, the right to vote as an American citizen. I believe that there is a hierarchy of values which should be applied in the application of this kind of judgment. I have sought to order the issues in deciding for whom I would vote. Of course, I will do so once again this vital election year.

However, it is getting increasingly difficult to live through the political chicanery and reinvention, the glitz and image, and the increasingly hostile responses of even good people to the growing hostility of our political dialogue and climate.

For example, every morning I receive several missives (that is what they are) by E-Mail telling me why one party is "evil" and implying the other party is somehow "good". Frankly, I am growing sick of them all.

To any political "experts" reading this article, I am a "swing" voter. I write this article to give some insights into the issues that will determine my vote. Maybe the so called "experts" will pay some attention.

I officially left the party called Democratic years ago. The last Democrat that I enthusiastically supported was Governor Bob Casey. I could not be associated with a party that claimed to care for the poor and failed to hear the cry of the "poorest of the poor" children in the womb. Though I never "officially" switched my registration, I have been "lumped" with the other major party called "Republican."

I have seriously considered trying to launch a new party, one that is pro-life, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-peace and pro-poor. I am still leaning heavily in that direction.Maybe some of the readers of this column have had similar thoughts.

I am whole life, pro-life. I absolutely oppose the taking of innocent human life in the first home of the entire human race, the womb. Science has confirmed what our conscience has long known; the child in the womb is out neighbor. It is always and everywhere intrinsically evil to take innocent human life. Senator Obama is wrong in his support of legalized abortion. It is also intrinsically evil to "manufacture" human embryonic life to then kill that life for spare parts.Senator McCain is wrong in his support for deadly research on human embryonic life.

I also oppose capital punishment, though on different moral grounds. I accept the refined teaching of the Catholic Catechism and the modern encyclical letters that insist it is no longer defensible in the West because it is no longer necessary to protect or preserve and promote the common good. Bloodless means are available to protect society and "punish" the criminal.

Also, as a former prosecutor, I know that there is simply no doubt that mistakes have been made in its application and we have executed the innocent. So, I believe that mercy should trump justice. Vengeance is never ours.

Marriage must be defended and protected from the current assault against the institution. Marriage is what it is and we all know it. There is a word used in Philosophical and theological discourse to speak about the nature of things. It is the word "ontology". It refers to the essence of something. There is an "ontology" to marriage.

A cabbage is not a rock. A dog is not a human person. Homosexual relationships and the sexual acts accompanying such relationships cannot ever constitute a marriage. They are not capable of being open to the fullness of the love that is at the foundation of the unitive nature of marriage and for which even our bodies are constituted, that is the total gift of self to the other in faithful, lifelong love. Nor can such sexual acts, or the relationships formed around them, ever be procreative, open to new life in children. Social groupings built on such relationships are also not families.

There is an intense effort underway to categorize those who still support this objective reality as uncaring, bigoted or antiquated. We are not. Marriage and the family founded upon it are the future of freedom. Redefining marriage and family will not help anyone, including those who are self defined homosexuals. It is also destructive of the social order. Marriage and the family built upon it is the solid foundation of civil society. It is the first vital cell of that society.

Of course all persons must be treated with human dignity and not be discriminated against and that includes homosexual persons. However, there are other ways to protect against discrimination than the current efforts to redefine the fundamental social institution of marriage, the defining cornerstone of our social order.

To destroy marriage through redefining the word in some verbal form of alchemy, especially under the guise of "tolerance", is dangerous and corrosive to the common good and horribly intolerant of those who feel as I do.

I opposed the pre-emptive war in Iraq. I rejected then- and still reject - any notion of a "pre-emptive" war as ever being acceptable under any analysis of the Just war teaching within the catholic tradition. Like all Americans, I believe that prudence and justice now require that we assist the people of Iraq in their hour of great need.

I do not see all that much difference between the two major parties on how we must act going forward in Iraq. Rather, there is a debate over whether we should ever have gone in. Perhaps this may speak to judgment, but I find the discussion to be wearying.

Now, a word to probably well intended Republicans; repeatedly telling people like me that one candidate opposed the war in Vietnam, as if that fact would make people like me feel more negatively disposed to him simply because of that, is not helping you with us.

I opposed that war also!

In fact, I marched in Washington against the Vietnam War. That's right! I am a former "hippie" of sorts. My desire back then to reject materialism and unjust war was sincere. I believe it helped me to continue to follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit and come home to the faith of my early childhood as a young man.

I believe the Catholic Faith is the fullness of the Christian faith and, when truly lived, is to actually be the true "counter-culture", intended by its prophetic presence in the world to act as a leavening agent in the loaf of human culture.

Perhaps some of my 'conservative" or "neo-conservative" colleagues have either forgotten their opposition to that Vietnam war or they have morphed into some sort of "Alex B Keaton" kind of "conservative from birth" caricature. I have not. War is always horrible and must be strictly evaluated according to an authentic application of the principles of the "just war" analysis.

At the outset of this last war, under the leadership of our last great Pope, John Paul II, the Church opposed the incursion into Iraq. Our current Pope has taken the same position. The efforts to change the mind of the Servant of God John Paul II by neo-conservative Michael Novak were ineffective. he actually went to Rome on some kind of lobbying mission.

Anyone who says that the Church did not oppose the intiail foray into Iraq is simply wrong, or engaged in verbal gymnastics masquerading as prudential judgment.

I am deeply concerned that in the wealthiest Nation on earth we still have not solved the real health care crisis. I personally dread the idea of a "nationalized" solution because big Government has not proven itself to be very efficient nor is it very good at compassion and care. That is part of why I have so strongly supported the "faith based" and community initiative of the current administration as a part of fulfilling our national obligation to the poor.

Churches and religious institutions ARE good at compassion and care and need to be seen as partners in solidarity! The principle of subsidiarity which holds that government is best when it is closest to those being governed and the principle of solidarity that reminds us of our obligations to one another and that we are our "brothers (and sisters) keeper" have found a wonderful meeting place in this great new (really quite old) initiative. It is fresh, creative public policy.

We MUST now find the creative solutions to providing health care for all Americans. We can not selay any longer. The "market" will not solve this crisis without leadership. I have an ever increasing disdain for what is called in catholic Social teaching an "economism", an approach to economic issues which somehow posits "freedom" as best advanced through a kind of economic Darwinism.

Freedom is a good of the person.

Our market economy is a tremendous vehicle for freedom but it must always be placed at the service of the person, the family and the common good. We simply MUST hear the cry of the poor! We cannot ascribe to a notion of an "invisible hand" which may, if not guided, strangle the poor.

Expanding economic participation to all is a vital part of making sure that "free" is the operative description before the phrase market economy! That must be true in our international economic relationships as well.

You can see just from what I have written thus far, that I am neither Republican nor Democrat, neither "liberal" nor "conservative." I am, however, very politically engaged. I am also not ready to join any of the current "Third Party" efforts, though, as mentioned,I have "flirted" with the notion of starting one, based on the great principles of Catholic Social teaching. I feel that it will throw away my vote at this time.

I also cannot "opt" to "not vote" -as a growing number of people whom I respect are choosing to do.

I will vote. Here is one of the main reasons why.

The next occupant of the Whitehouse will choose at least one Supreme Court Justice. That choice will, at least in this Constitutional lawyers mind, determine whether the current "culture of death" hiding under the profane precedent of Roe v Wade will take another generation of our children before they are able to breathe our air and be welcomed into our family.

The next President will be called upon to provide the genuinely moral leadership so desperately needed to prevent the new cultural revolutionaries from eliminating marriage and family from its favored social status by equalizing homosexual and heterosexual relationships outside of marriage and using the power of the State to enforce this new order.

The next President will be called upon to extract our troops from Iraq, while also ensuring that the Iraqi people, who have suffered so greatly from the War and what led up to it, are given the help they need to rebuild from the devastation of the last five years.

The next President will have an opportunity to solve the health care crisis, expand economic opportunity, bring our troops home from Iraq with honor and dignity and continue to open up our market, and our National embrace to the poor in all of their manifestations.

This is an extraordinarily important election.

God is not a Republican, nor is God a Democrat....and, neither am I. However, I will continue to follow this campaign with great interest. I hope we all do. And, I will vote. There is too much at stake.

On many important public policy issues I agree with my friend Professor Doug Kmiec. I also admire him and believe that he is sincerely pro-life. However, I respectfully and strongly disagree with his decision to support Senator Barack Obama.

In the application of issues in accordance with the hierarchy of values, I choose to hear the cry of the ones whom Blessed Teresa of Calacutta called the "poorest of the poor", the children living in the wombs of their mothers. After all, they have no voice but ours.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

This is evidence that Obama can penetrate into the Republican mainstream and appeal to some of their supporter in issues which are paramount to America as a whole. Go Obama '08.

Posted by: bafagih_a | March 24, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

I, for one, am not surprised. Sen Obama is the Democratic candidate of choice among supporters of the GOP. I don't know why, he just is.

Posted by: zukermand | March 24, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2008 7:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company