Michael Sean Winters's blog

The decision by Attorney General Eric Holder to bring Khalid Sheik Mohammed to justice in a New York courtroom has occasioned all manner of comments, most of them absurd. Finally, today, an op-ed in the Washington Post attains the sublime. Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith, both former Bush administration officials point out better than I can why Holder’s decision is defensible.

The most salient arguments they make are that the military tribunals are no panacea and the civilian courts have already handled these kinds of cases. Under the military tribunals erected by President Bush, a grand total of three prosecutions have been achieved in eight years. Conversely, Zacarias Moussaoui, a co-conspirator with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, was successfully prosecuted in a federal court as were other terrorists from the infamous “shoe bomber” Richard Reid to the “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh.

Another poll, this one by CNN, says that 61% of Americans do not want federal funding of abortion coverage in the health care reform bill. 37% said that they do support such funding.

These findings, combined with those from the polls cited below, should stiffen the resolve of centrist Democrats – and the White House – to keep the Stupak Amendment largely in tact. These numbers come in spite of the disinformation campaign of the past two weeks conducted by the pro-choice forces which made it seem that Stupak would thrust Western civilization back into the dark ages.

I know that some felt nothing but shock and dismay at Cardinal George’s announcement that “we have recently begun discussions on how we might strengthen our [the bishops’] relationship to Catholic universities, to media claiming to be a voice in the Church, and to organizations that direct various works under Catholic auspices.”

There are many things about a USCCB meeting that are, well, strange. Walking into a room where everyone is dressed identically is strange. Seeing an altar with a large crucifix in a hotel ballroom is strange. Seeing Archbishop Timothy Dolan in running shorts and a sweatshirt at lunchtime returning from some exercise is strange. But, for me the strangest thing is to encounter a former schoolmate among the assembled hierarchs.

For two years in the mid-1980s, I was an inmate at Theological College, the national seminary attached to the Catholic University of America. In 2005, one of my former classmates, Joseph Tyson, was named auxiliary bishop of Seattle. Earlier this year, John Barres was ordained bishop of Allentown. I ran into John in the hallways of the Marriott where the USCCB meetings are being held. He looks none the worse for the intervening years, indeed he has scarcely aged. This would be sufficient grounds for intense dislike, except that Bishop Barres is, and was two decades ago, one of the most likable people you could ever want to meet.

What do Democratic Senator from Iowa Tom Harkin and former New York mayor Rudy Guiliani have in common? Usually, not very much, but this past weekend, both of them decided to indulge the politics of fear-mongering.

Harkin is joining the backlash against the Stupak Amendment. He told the Iowa Independent that he was distressed by the concern of pro-life Senators, and citizens, that the government not provide subsidies for abortion. “You can take this on down. You could just say that anybody that got a federal loan for housing could not get an abortion,” he said. “You can take this and just keep going on and on and on with no end in sight.” Actually, Senator, the legislature of which he is a part gets to decide where to draw, or not draw, the lines on abortion subsidies. They should do so thoughtfully, not by scaring people into thinking that the USCCB is going to turn the Farmers’ Home Administration into a pro-life outfit.

This morning, I was on NPR’s “Tell Me More” with Michel Martin. You can hear the interview here.

My interview followed an interview with Rep. Diane DeGette who is the head of the pro-choice caucus on Capitol Hill. I did not get to reply to one of her assertions on the show, but wish to do so here. Congresswoman DeGette argued that no one should have to purchase a rider for abortion coverage because an unplanned pregnancy is, by definition, not planned, so no one would purchase the rider. The show’s host, Michael Martin, pointed out that people get riders for insurance policies for a variety of reasons, such as having an expensive wedding ring for which you want additional coverage. DeGette said that weddings are planned, but that misses the point. Burglaries are not planned, and that is why you are getting additional insurance.

Readers will have detected, I hope, a certain attentiveness to the ambiguities of life, including the life of faith, in my sense of the world. The “all or nothing” disposition of some is rarely accurate and almost never helpful. There is often a lot of pride in a good deed and misplaced hope in some bad ones. Life is messy, filled with conundrums, and navigating the moral choices we face and formulating the moral conclusions as human beings is the price we pay for being human.

But, the news that Lou Dobbs has been pushed out of his high profile perch at CNN is the exception to the rule. It is good news, pure and simple, no ambiguities involved nor qualifications needed. He had become the most visible bigot in America, casting aspersions against Latinos, documented and undocumented, in his crusade against immigration reform. He indulged crackpot theories when he coddled the “birthers” who questioned whether or not President Obama had been born in the U.S. His understanding of economics was laughable in an eighteenth century kind of way. And, for someone who seemed positively fetishistic about the English language, he often mangled it horribly.

Suddenly, everyone in Washington is talking about abortion and the media has pronounced the dilemma facing Democratic congressional leaders will nigh insoluble. “’No easy way out’ for Democrats on abortion” is the caption of the leader at Politico.com.

The President’s speech at the Fort Hood memorial service this afternoon was a difficult speech to give. Grief is a complicated emotion in any circumstance, but when it is combined with feelings of shock and anger, it is difficult to hit the right emotional balance. President Obama, known for keeping his emotions in check, struck exactly the right note by focusing his words on the lives of those who died in last week’s mass murder, mentioning details about their life and work and, especially, their families. He personalized the loss of those who were killed in an impersonal act of murderous rage.

Most importantly, the President put the sordid act of last week in perspective. He called for justice, not vengeance, and made the important point that the accused will receive all the rights that his victims enlisted and died to protect. His entire speech was a tribute to the military and to their grief. And, he made a specifically theological claim when he said that the perpetrator of this murder would meet justice not only in this life but the next.

The significance of Ahn "Joseph" Cao's vote in favor of the House health care reform bill should not be understated. Especially because you can already imagine the nastiness that is about to be hurled his way from extremists within the GOP. He will, in short order, replace Dede Scozzafava, the woman pushed out of the race in NY-23, as the favorite target of those in the GOP who think that voting in favor of a bill supported by President Obama is akin to heresy. The two might consult with Cardinal Sean O'Malley to see what it feels like to be pilloried by people you thought were your friends and allies.

Hallelujah! The Stupak Amendment just passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 240 to 194, with one member voting present. Earlier reports had predicted 225 votes for the amendment which bars federal funding of abortion as a part of health care reform but Congressman Stupak was able to whip up 64 Democratic votes. (Yes, 64 votes from what was recently called “The Party of Death.”) To be clear, only Democrats who favored health reform but oppose abortion could achieve this outcome. One of the fringe Catholic websites earlier was urging Congress to vote yes on Stupak and no on the final bill, which just doesn’t make much sense since the prohibitions on abortion funding in the Stupak Amendment would only take effect if the bill they amended takes effect.

The House is currently voting on the ridiculous GOP alternative plan, which will fail, and then they will proceed to a vote on the final health care bill.

The National Right-To-Life Committee has sent a letter to all members of Congress urging them to vote for the Stupak Amendment which will ban all federal funding for abortion coverage. The key section in the letter reads: “As NRLC’s congressional scorecard for the 111th Congress will clearly explain, a vote against the Stupak-Pitts Amendment can only be construed as a position-defining vote in favor of establishing a federal government program that will directly fund abortion on demand, with federal funds, and a second federal program that will provide government subsidies to private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand. NRLC regards this as the most important House roll call on federal funding of abortion since the House last voted directly on the Hyde Amendment in 1997. If you do not wish to go on record in support of creating major new federal programs that will both fund abortions directly and subsidize private abortion coverage, please vote for the Stupak-Pitts Amendment. NRLC will regard a ‘present’ vote as equivalent to a negative vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment.”

A couple of different sources, online and in the midst of the action today, are suggesting that GOP Congressman Ahn ‘Joseph’ Cao from Louisiana’s Second District might vote in favor of the final health care bill, provided the Stupak Amendment passes. Congressman Cao is a devout Catholic who won the seat held by indicted Congressman William Jefferson. He indicated back in August that he was undecided, but leaning towards supporting, the bill. His office is not taking calls today, but I hope he and Archbishop Gregory Aymond exchanged cell phone numbers at the latter’s installation at St. Louis Cathedral just a couple of months ago.

At a late night meeting of the House Rules Committee, it was decided to allow the Stupak Amendment to come to a vote on the floor. The Stupak Amendment will conclusively bar any federal funds from going to support abortion coverage in the health care reform. It actually goes further and bars any of the private plans that participate in the planned “exchanges” from offering abortion services.

Some progressive members of the Democratic Caucus are threatening to withhold support from the final bill is the Stupak Amendment passes, which it is expected to do. But, I suspect the President will be able to rally them at the last minute and keep them on board. The Democratic Party has come so close to passing universal health insurance, closer than ever before, it is inconceivable that any but the most determined pro-choice members will bail on the bill now.

Deal Hudson is all in a lather because of a well-reported article by Amy Sullivan in the current edition of Time magazine. Sullivan accurately reports on the virtually unprecedented criticism Archbishop Burke leveled at Cardinal O’Malley for presiding at the funeral of Sen. Ted. Kennedy. I say unprecedented because what Burke was criticizing very clearly was not a theological point, nor a canonical interpretation, but a pastoral judgment, indeed, a judgment that was O’Malley’s to make and no one else’s.

The unemployment numbers are grim indeed, hitting a 26-year high. Nor will these numbers turn around tomorrow: Companies have learned to survive with a leaner workforce and they will not start hiring until they must. That is why unemployment is always the last economic indicator to rebound. This fact requires the Obama administration to recalibrate its political strategies going forward.

In retrospect, the economic benefits of health care reform should have been highlighted more clearly. With more than thirty million new customers coming their way, surely insurance companies should start hiring soon. More importantly, companies that have foreign competition must recognize that they are at a distinct disadvantage as they face increased health care costs for their employees while the foreign companies against which they must compete do not have any such concerns.

Yesterday was not only the anniversary of the coronation of Pope John XXIII. It was also the one year anniversary of the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. The historic aspect of that election tended to obscure the darkening economic clouds that had been rushing in for the previous months, but now one year later they are still there, still dark and ominous.

Turning around the economy is always a slower process than one would wish, especially if you are now the incumbent. Some of the same people who voted for change in 2008 also voted for change in 2009, because they do not like what they see when they read the newspaper. Of course, voting for change in 2008 meant voting for the Dems and this year it meant voting for the GOP.

The health care debate, which has taken longer than Obama wished, is reaching its conclusion. Certainly the Senate should, like the House, move quickly to finish work on that bill and begin considering how government expenditures can best be used to promote job growth. There will be a wind at the Democrats’ back again as soon as they pass health care reform.

Today, the feast of St. Charles Borromeo, marks a very special, and very telling, anniversary for it was on this feast day in 1958 that Angelo Roncalli was crowned Pope John XXIII. Pope John remains the best loved Pope of recent times, even if his memory has been somewhat overshadowed by the long and undeniably significant pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

The coronation itself, and the date he chose, are instructive. Pope John, like Pope Benedict, had a certain love for the Baroque ceremonies of the Church. He loved the pomp and circumstance. Those who see him as a champion of reform in the Church are correct to do so, but he was nobody’s liberal and those who cast him in such a light misunderstand the man and his sense of the Church.

The fastest growing part of the electorate are neither the Dems nor the Republicans. It is independent or unaffiliated voters. And, among all the soothsayers and talking heads tonight, the one thing to look for is how these independents vote tonight.

I base my analysis on my experience of working on a campaign in Connecticut’s second congressional district, where independents hold the balance of decision in the electorate. Whoever wins them will win the election as there are neither enough registered Democrats or Republicans to carry the district. It is a classic swing district.

Which is not to say that all independent voters are necessarily swing voters. A large chunk of them are more properly identified as Perot voters. This slice of the electorate is deeply suspicious of all elites and specifically of big government, big business, big unions. They are well represented at the Tea Party protests. They usually vote Republican except when the GOP has been in power for too long and then they respond easily, albeit somewhat uncritically, to the mantra “It’s time for a change.” I suspect some people voted for Perot in 1992 and Barack Obama last year, but not many.

The fracas in Brooklyn over the recording by Bishop DiMarzio on behalf of a candidate is telling in many ways, but none more so than the way the Church’s culture tends to lag behind the mainstream culture. DiMarzio is old enough to remember a time when dealings between the Church and the State were conducted personally, and when the laity were not inclined to question their religious leaders, and religious leaders were not inclined to become publicly involved in political storms. Those days are gone.

We saw another leftover of the old days earlier this year when a Connecticut legislator questioned the way Catholic parishes were incorporated in that state. Those laws were put on the books in the 1950s and, without any particular historical research, I can guarantee nonetheless that what happened in the 1950s was the Governor of Connecticut called the Archbishop of Hartford and asked, “How do you want us to do this?”

“Out of the mouths of Fox News reporters…” Politico.com has an interesting article about former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s declining to officially endorse Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the three-way race in New York’s twenty-third congressional district. Hoffman has been endorsed over his Republican and Democratic rivals by such GOP luminaries as Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty and Fred Thompson.

The comments of conservative activists show why the GOP will have a hard time climbing out of the ditch into which they have thrown themselves. They voice disappointment, surprise even at Huckabee’s unwillingness to back Hoffman. They want him to “take a stand.” This small upstate contest has become a battle for the soul of the Republican Party, and there will attach a sense of betrayal, not disagreement, to those who do not sign on.

The USCCB has prepared a bulletin insert for all parishes regarding health care, entitled “Tell Congress: Remove Abortion Funding & Mandates from Needed Health Care Reform.” There is one word in that title of the insert that, unfortunately, fails to find any amplification in the rest of the text – “Needed.”

I am distressed at the way many Catholics are responding to the Vatican’s initiative regarding Anglicans seeking full communion with the Catholic Church. The latest is in these pages, below, where my colleague Ken Briggs assertion that the proposed apostolic constitution is a “slap in the face” to the churches of the Reformation and decidedly not an instance of ecumenism.

Also critical was James Carroll, who writes in the Globe, “Last week’s anti-Anglican salvo from Rome shows how far the Catholic leadership has fallen from the heights of Vatican II.” Actually, the Pope who approved the apostolic constitution, who in fact puts the “apostle” in “apostolic” was also at Vatican II. Now, it is not unknown in the history of our civilization that some people rise with their years and others diminish, but where is the evidence for this fall Carroll sees?

Yesterday, I argued that the outcomes in the two gubernatorial elections next Tuesday will not portend very much for the more important 2010 midterms. But, there is one race that is worth watching, the special election in New York’s Twenty-Third congressional district. The incumbent Republican left to become Secretary of the Army. The local Republican committee nominated a moderate, Dede Scozzafava, but that did not sit well with social conservatives who have rallied around the Conservative Party candidacy of Doug Hoffman.

The race has become something of a proxy war for control of the Republican Party. The leadership in Congress, and their political arm, the National Republican Campaign Committee, backs Scozzafava but those with their eyes on the GOP nomination in 2012 have broken ranks. Former Senator Rick Santorum and former Governor Sarah Palin have both endorsed Hoffman as has Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. It tells you something about what they think of Minority Leader John Boehner that they are willing to stick their finger in his eye so blatantly.

As we head into the final week before the off-year elections, be prepared to read a lot of nonsense. The governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey will tell us next to nothing about the national political winds for next year’s midterm elections.

In Virginia, governors are limited to a single term. If you follow the logic of some populists, this should result in enlightened government as the incumbent does not have to consider his re-election prospects when making decisions. But, in fact, gridlock has afflicted Richmond because the GOP has maintained control of one or both houses of the legislature while two back-to-back Democrats have been in the governor’s mansion.

Yesterday, I was a guest on NPR's "Tell Me More" with Michel Martin, discussing the Vatican's announcement of an apostolic constitution aimed at helping disaffected Anglicans join the Roman Catholic Church.

Is the public option back? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi thinks she has the requisite 218 votes in her chamber and increasingly it looks like some compromise version of a public option, most likely with a trigger, will pass muster in the Senate. Still, it is strange the way the public option has become so defining an issue in the health care debate.

The Obama Administration’s “Pay Czar” has announced that the government will require several firms that participated in the bailout of the past year to cut the executive compensation for their top corporate executives. You can already hear the howling from the free marketers.

The funniest of the objections to the pay cuts is that these large Wall Street firms need to pay enormous bonuses in order to retain the best employees. Funny, you would think that people who ran their companies into the ditch and needed to turn to the government to bail them out might not be prime candidates for being re-hired. Human nature being what it is, and the effects of original sin being what they are, I suppose someone hired the architect of the FBI building after he designed that ugly blot on Pennsylvania Avenue. Some move directors still hire even when they have proven they can’t act their way out of a paper bag. So, maybe this concern is valid but I say – let’s put it to the test.

Others worry about excessive government interference in the free market. This is a concern that could have been raised before the bailouts. Now, it seems perverse.

Chief Justice John Roberts expressed his chagrin that his colleagues declined to take up a Virginia drunk driving case in which the conviction of a drunk driver was thrown out because the arresting officer was acting on a tip, and had not seen the driver actually break the law. “The decision below commands that police officers following a driver reported to be drunk do nothing until they see the driver actually do something unsafe on the road - by which time it may be too late,” the Chief Justice wrote in an opinion joined by conservative stalwart Justice Antonin Scalia.

I have no opinion one way or the other whether or not there were sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to take this case. But, I find Roberts’ argument intriguing because it sure sounds like he is expressing empathy for the victims of drunk driving.

The Washington Post this morning has a useful “Status Report” on the health care debate. It lists eight key questions about health care reform such as “What are the major differences between the various bills?” and “Where do the major health-care stakeholders stand?”

Nowhere on the list are the central concerns raised by the USCCB. There is nothing about the status of abortion coverage in either a public option or through subsidies. There is nothing about a conscience clause. And, there is nothing about extending health care coverage to immigrants. In short, this “Status Report” confirms a sad, and important, fact about the political culture. The concerns of the Catholic Church have been marginalized.