Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Leading Catholic Jurist Endorses Obama

Yes Professor Kimec the cards cannot lie, Obama as to important Catholic Fundamentals will as best as it is humanly possible, will respect and accommodate them

I have to admit this does surprise me in some ways , but it is still a tad of a shock. A lot of Catholics and other have been following Catholic jurist Doug Kmiec flirtation with Obama. After a month of this I still have yet to see his reasoning whether it is to the Catholic vote or just his own political principles. Not even considering the Catholic ethics of this how one goes from being an advocate , and advisor to Mitt Romney to now a supporter of Obama is beyond me. His reasoning that has been in the public square and has been of some debates is still to mind pretty flimsy.

If you put lets say 92 thousand Catholics in LSU Tiger Stadium and conducted a poll perhaps a hundred if that many would know of him. So in some ways the immediate impact of this is not huge. However he will be fronted in the future as one of the talking heads to get Catholics to ignore Obama baggage as to the Catholic vote in the future

Pro Ecclesia has a very good round up of reaction here at So-Called "Catholic Reaganite" Doug Kmiec Endorses Obama [UPDATED] which is a good read to come up to speed.

I am pretty taken aback when Mr Kimec says as to Obama and certain Catholic non negotiables:
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.

What in heavens name is he basing this on? Is it entrails?, Magic 8 ball?, Horoscopes?, Solitaire from Diamonds are Forever?, an ache in his left leg? It cannot be from any action or any public statement that at I am aware of he has made.

Also does one find it odd in his endorsement he goes on about Bush, but hardly mentions McCain?

No comments: