Why I'm not blogging here anymore

For some time, I've been absent from this page. This is because I'm now blogging at Inside Catholic, run by the former editors of Crisis Magazine. It's a group blog, actually, with about ten of us blogging near-daily (or several times daily, if we're inspired). Politics, Catholic spirituality, movies, and odd little details. Very fast-moving.

If you want to see just my blogs, without everyone else's, click here.

Hope to see you at Inside Catholic!

What I'm giving up for Lent

The snooze button.

If this isn't purgative, nothing is.

The challenge, of course, is to do it cheerfully instead of spitefully. Nothing like those Lenten sacrifices that get us really grumpy, right?

I'm also giving up comics for lent in favor of redoubling my efforts to get through St. Faustina's Divine Mercy in My Soul (which I'm loving, but which doesn't, for some reason, hold the same instant appeal as a really cool 1960's Superman or 1970's Marvel Two-in-One comic book, not to mention 1920's Popeye stories). Again, the key is to do it cheerfully instead of resentfully...

Matchups

Okay, now that I've dissected all four major candidates, here's what I see. This DOES NOT COUNT Vice Presidential candidates (for which a fascinating list of possibilities can be found here).

While looking at my predictions, keep in mind that I'd officially predicted that Romney would drop out if he lost both Iowa and New Hampshire, and I was wrong about that.

Clinton v. McCain: McCain wins, with virtually the same electoral map as 2004. Not so much that people love McCain, but that they're too nervous about Clinton.

Clinton v. Romney: Toss-up; too hard to call. What do you do when no one (except a small 20% base on either side) likes either candidate? We're back to Bush v. Kerry, each side playing to the base instead of the center, leaving most Americans disspirited.

Obama v. McCain: Obama. Hit the American people with the choices of either hope or truth? Hope wins every time. (That's not a knock on Obama; it's just part of their slogans.) But it'd be a great race, and one I'd love to watch.

Obama v. Romney: Obama in a landslide that includes many states from the South and the Southwest, breaking up the electoral map the Republicans had held for so long.

A lot could change between now and November--Vice presidential candidates, at a minimum--but this is what I see right now.

Handicapping Romney

Almost done!

To Romney's advantage:
He has money. Money. Money, money, money.

He immediately puts the normally Democratic-stronghold states of Michigan and Massachusetts into play.

Church of LDS members ("Mormons") would be energized by his campaign--and lemme tell you, they know how to volunteer.

He's a governor, and America likes electing governors.

He's a master of negative campaigning.

He's anti-immigrant, which seems to fit the mood of the country right now.

He has a business background, and Americans like that background when they fear that the economy is heading towards a recession.

To his disadvantage:
He's painted himself into such a hard right position that it would be extremely hard for him to swing to center attract independents.

His Church of LDS faith does make some of the Republican "core" nervous about him.

He has a well-deserved reputation as a flip-flopper, one the Democrats could (and should) capitalize on.

He has a too-polished image; one of my colleages at school refers to him as "the Ken doll" of this race.

He lacks a sense of humor, of quipping the quotable line. Politics is done in sound bites, and he doesn't have any.

He goes negative so early, so powerfully, and so repetitively that it turns some people off. (A friend asked me if I didn't like Romney because he was a Mormon; I replied, "No, I don't like him because he's a jerk!")

He's defended Bush so much that it will be easy for the Democrats to draw a connection between Bush and Romney. That's how the Democrats won House and Senate races in 2006.

The longer he runs, the more enemies he makes in the Republican party. Any favors done to him would be grudging, and that's not how elections are won.

Total handicap: -2

Handicapping Obama

What does Barack Obama he bring to the table?

To Obama's advantage:
He is an amazing orator. If he's nominated, his acceptance speech is likely to echo in people's hearts for a long time. When even Rush Limbaugh throws compliments his way, you know we have a rare speaker.

Given the historic nature of this election, African-American turnout would be extremely high, making a big difference in "Swing" states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Additionally, his message resonates in the South, which has been out of Democratic hands lately.

He has a good "storyline" about his personal life, well-documented in his book.

He's young, which compliments his message of hope nicely.

He can raise large amounts of money.

He attracts people to vote for the first time.

He attracts votes from independents and even some Republicans.

The media's love for him to some degree insulates him from negative campaigning. He's the new teflon man.

To Obama's disadvantage:
He's from a state that's already "Blue," depriving him of a "native son" boost.

He a senator, and America doesn't like electing senators president (only twice in the last 75 years).

He's a Democrat, and Democrats have only won 3 of the last 10 presidential elections.

Hispanic voters, never having connected with Obama, could stay at home--or, if McCain is nominated, vote for him instead.

I hate to say it, but some people who say they'll vote for an African-American when they're polled don't actually vote for the man when they're in the polling booth. It may not be true racism, just some kind of subconscious reaction, but it is a factor.

He has a connection to the recently-indicted Mr. Rezco and that minor drug incident in his history, both of which could be used by Republican candidates. He also has to explain his string of "present, not voting" entries in the Illinois legislature.

He holds a position on immigration that a Republican candidate could use against him. (I personally like his position on immigration, of course, but I'm in the minority.) In fact, his voting record in the Senate is more liberal than Sen. Clinton's, which could prove challenging when it comes to his wish to be seen as a unifier.

Total Handicap: 0

Handicapping McCain

Okay, back to it. John McCain is easy to write too much about, but I'll try to be brief.

To McCain's Advantage
McCain is a war hero. Double that; he's a war hero and we're essentially a nation at war.

McCain has more experience than Clinton and Obama combined.

McCain is from the southwest, which should help solidify that part of the map.

McCain stuck to his guns about Iraq and was proven correct. This might make people more willing to trust him on other issues where they disagree. He has a reputation for sticking to his guns, as it were, and Americans like decisiveness in a president.

He draws from independents and Democrats, partially due to his moderate views. Traditionally, nominees become president by swinging to the center (the 2004 race excepted), and McCain actually is a centrist.

He's a Republican, and 7 of the last 10 presidential elections have gone to the Republicans.

He's clashed enough with Bush to provide "plausible denial" when the Democrats try to link him to the unpopular president.

He's already been "vetted," and it's unlikely that any more negative information about him will come out than is already known.

To McCain's Disadvantage
McCain may be vulnerable on ethics (and negative ads) due to his involvement in the Keating Five incident.

He's a senator, and Americans don't like electing senators president.

Many elements of the far right haven't yet forgiven him for championing campaign finance reform (which they feel put pro-life groups at a disadvantage), partnering with Ted Kennedy on immigration reform, opposing the Bush tax cuts, opposing torture for suspected terrorists (like, why is this even an issue?), or supporting embryonic stem cell funding. Taken together, this could cause problems when it comes to mustering turnout, especially if a third party mounts a Buchanan-like challenge from the Right (unlikely, but possible).

Republican turnout has been depressed this year.

He's had some fundraising problem, especially compared to Clinton and Obama.

The man is 72, and that makes some people nervous.

The nation is in danger of a recession, which always works against the party holding the presidency.

His penchant for proclaiming unpleasant truths could get him in trouble, as it recently did in Michigan. Mondale's honesty (saying he'd raise taxes, for example) got him the worst drubbing in the history of politics. Some people want hope, not facts.

Total Handicap: -1 point

Next, Obama.

Overheard

Myxl in the middle of extemporizing a story to Zorg: "... and he has the same intelligence as if his braaaaaaiin [Myxl pauses for emphasis] ... were exactly the same size and shape as a hot dog!"

Handicapping Clinton

I've decided that before going at the match-ups, I'd better review the candidates themselves.

To Clinton's advantage:
Voter turnout among Democratic women should be very high, given the historic nature of the election. She has also shown the ability to connect to Hispanic voters, a trait that will help with picking off states in the Southwest.

She's likely to be competitive in Arkansas, a pick-up necessary in electoral college computations.

The economy is in danger of recession at this point, and that always works in favor of the party that not holding the presidency.

The Iraq war may have dwindled in importance at this point, but certainly the many who list opposition to it as a big factor will vote for Clinton.

She and her husband are experts at negative campaigning. If it's there, they'll dig it.

Contrarywise, she's already been thoroughly "vetted" herself. She's a known quantity. If we don't know it by now, we're just too young to have heard it the first time.

Finally, turnout has been good for Democratic primaries this year, which bodes will for Democrats in general.

To Clinton's disadvantage:
Clinton has the highest negatives of any of the four major contenders (Clinton, McCain, Obama, Romney). Many people who aren't even registered to vote would suddenly become campaign volunteers in order to ensure her defeat.

Obama and Edwards have successfully painted her as the "champion of the status quo" in several debates, and we should expect the Republican nominee to do the same.

Clinton's campaign hasn't done itself any favors with the way it's handled African-American voters in general or Obama in particular this go-around, and there's a serious risk that many of them will stay at home or jump ship.

Clinton's views on immigration leave her vulnerable to attack. I will not agree with those attacks, but they'll come.

She's a senator, and America doesn't elect many of them president.

She's a Democrat, and Democrats have won only 3 of the last 10 presidential elections.

Finally, Clinton herself isn't making all that many mis-statements, but her husband sure is. 'Nuff said about that.

Total handicap: -2 points.

Next, McCain.

Handicapping

It's pretty clear by now that the Democratic nominee will be (using alphabetical order) either Clinton or Obama. It's similarly clear that the Republican nominee will be either McCain or Romney. That leaves four possible match-ups:

A) Clinton v. McCain
B) Clinton v. Romney
C) Obama v. McCain
D) Obama v. Romney

Over the next few days (who knows? Maybe even today), I'll post my analysis of these four races. Admittedly, we don't know VP candidates yet (though Huckabee does seem to have a 50-50 shot as McCain's #2), but that will probably even out in the end.

Little Things, try this movie!

This movie took me completely by surprise. Given the title, I had been expecting a high-handedly preachy movie. Nothing doing. Yes, the lead character is a Christian, but it's such an important part of his personality that one never feels lectured at or "finger-wagged." It's simply who he is.

This is the story of British parliamentarian William Wilberforce, who, in the late 1700's and early 1800's, led the drive to end the slave trade. Compelling acting, a gripping plot, a firm basis in history, and beautiful period sets/costuming. Wonderful supporting characters, each of whom, you get the sense, could actually support their own movie themselves. Definitely the best movie I saw in 2007.

Some of these kinds of movies are what my better half calls "spinach movies," films you watch because they're good for you, not because you'll enjoy them. Not this one. Humor, romance, pathos--everything but swordplay. Truly a great movie, as even my spinach-movie-avoiding spouse agreed. Tell me what you think.

Patience

Last time I saw my spiritual director (a funny guy up at the Dominican House of Studies), he made a very interesting point.

I asked him, "Father, as far as I know, the word patience just means, 'Not outwardly showing one's impatience.' If that's so, than how is patience compatible with joy?"

Father cocked his head in consideration. After a few moments, I asked, "Do we need to get back to this one next month?"

He answered, "Yeah, I think so. But I will tell you this: I do know that impatience is not compatible with joy." After a brief anecdote illustrating the point, we discussed some of the saints, and in every case where joy was one of their gifts, we found superhuman patience with it (St. Dominic, of course, being a prominent example). But which proceeds from which--the joy from patience, or vice-versa? Or is it a simple correlation? Father promised to do more research into patience (and joy) and get back to me next month.

When I got home, I took it upon myself to do some research myself. I found this definition of patience in John Harden's Pocket Catholic Dictionary (copyright 1985):

"A form of the moral virtue of fortitude. It enables one to endure present evils without sadness or resentment in conformity with the will of God. Patience is mainly concerned with bearing the evils caused by another. The three grades of patience are: to bear difficulties without interior complaint, to use hardships in order to make progress in virtue, and even to desire the cross and afflictions out of love for God and accept them with spiritual joy. (Etym. Latin patientia, patience, endurance; from patiens, suffering.)"

Wow--I'm at zero-for-three, there. Joy, on the other hand, is one of the "fruits of the Spirit," which means that it's a product, not the source; an end, not a means.

End analysis: If you want joy, work for patience! Impatience is not compatible with joy.

Now, uh, how exactly do I avoid that "interior complaint" that dictionary mentioned? That might be, well, kind of tricky . . .

Great Huckabee quote

From the Republican debate January 25:

"The fact is, this country has always been a country where people were able to respect people who had faith. And frankly, we ought to be able to respect people who don't have any. I mean, I don't feel like a person has to share my faith to share my love of this country. But if a person hates me or dislikes me because of my faith, I'm not sure if they understand what it means to truly be an American, where we can live with each other no matter how different our faith is."

Love it.

Movies

I'm usually not a big person for wanting to see new movies. I tend towards older movies, classics, or oddball foreign films.

This year is different. Either Hollywood is getting better at making my kind of movie, or I'm declining in my old age.

I have two that I "must see" in the theater:
-The Dark Knight--> Batman Begins was so compelling, and Christopher Nolan so talented a director, that the thought of missing this in the theater is just painful.
-Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian--> I used to say that I didn't have a favorite movie. How could one compare Ghandi with Mary Poppins? I have different favorite movies, I would say: a favorite drama, a favorite comedy, etc. No more. Not since I saw The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. That is my favorite movie of all time. Seeing it in the theater, I started crying before the opening credits were over, and I didn't stop until the end credits. It was SO good. So the sequel is a must-see. (Plus, I want to promote Christian films, but that's a quibble.)

I have three that I'm so interested in that I'd like to see in the theater, but probably won't due to lack of funds/time:
-The Spiderwick Chronicles--> Had no interest until I saw the trailer; now, I'm dying for it. It's my favorite story concept: it's our world, nothing is unusual, but right outside the window, whenever we're not looking, is a world full of fantastic creatures and events. Looks sumptuous. (Divorced mom; not sure how they'll handle that, so I'm avoiding taking the kids.)
-Iron Man--> Again, had no interest until I saw the trailer. Looks fantastic. A little wary because in the comics, Tony Stark (Iron Man) is a known womanizer, and I'm not sure how bawdy the scenes will get.
-Wall-E--> Come on , it's Pixar. How could they go wrong with a cute little space robot? Seriously, have you seen The Incredibles? Rattatouille? This is an easy decision.

And I have a disgusting seven that I'm interested in seeing on DVD:
-Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull--> I was never much of an Indy fan, but I may as well see what the talk is about. Plus, it's 1957, and he's fighting Commies instead of Nazis. That oughta be fun.
-The Forbidden Kingdom--> Jet Li and Jackie Chan in the same movie? Added to the world-outside-my-window storylines? Sold.
-Journey--> A 3-D version of Journey to the Center of the Earth? Color me curious.
-Star Trek XI--> I'll support any post-Berman Trek just to give it a shot in the arm. Hope they can pull it off, though, and re-invigorate the franchise.
-Incredible Hulk--> Never saw the last one, but I understand this is a re-boot. May give it a pass, just as I ignored Daredevil and Ghost Rider.
-Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince--> I've seen the first four on DVD, so I may as well continue. (Planning on seeing #5, too.) And no, I'm not interested in starting a who-said-what battle over the merits and demerits of Harry Potter when the Catholic community ignored the much more serious danger of Pullman's Golden Compass for nearly a decade. Let's not confuse prudential judgment with dogma. (Sorry. Pet peeve.)
-Horton Hears a Who--> Mostly, my kids want to see it, but I have to preview it because of how Carrey and crew made so many other Seuss movies unwatchable through lewdness, etc. The movie preview, discussing both bathrooms and regurgitation, did not fill me with great hope.

Later, I'll post some movie reviews, including one that caught me way off guard.

Providence

God's trying to teach me something.

First, I wanted for Myxl to stay with his current scouts group instead of having to transfer. However, when he crosses over from Cub Scouting to Boy Scouting, meetings will land on Thursdays, which are completely unworkable for us. I knew that if God wanted it to work out, He could. Lo and behold! A friend of mine, a scout leader with a cub Myxl's age, is moving three blocks from my house! Problem solved! Except then, a week before closing, he finds a better house further away and cancels the contract. So Myxl has to transfer troops after all.

In a related story, last week, I made a major genealogical breakthrough (with help from an online friend). The "wall" had been there for over a year, and now that it was down, the chain opened up from 1813 back to 1440! Woo-hoo! Except then, a cousin found out that there was a case of mistaken identity, and the brick wall wasn't down after all. Major disappointment.

These two events, happening within a couple of days of each other, are so similar that it's obvious to me that God is trying to teach me something. Emotionally, I have to tell you, it feels like the Lord is just yankin' my chain. It's like it's hard to trust (which has been an issue with me before), you know?

But at a deeper level, I wonder if God is simply asking me to be attached to Him instead of to my preferences for outcomes. I mean, my tastes are often mistaken: I voted for Clinton the first time and against him the second. I voted for Bush the first time and against him the second. Is there a pattern here? (Gives you pause in my support for Huckabee, eh?) And maybe God is just saying, "Let go. Let Me."

In the end, I don't need for Myxl to be in the same scouting group. The new one will probably do great things I can't predict right now. Similarly, I don't need to know that genealogical line before 1813. Most people can't even name all of their great-grandparents. What I need is God. And He, by pointing out that I can do without most of what I think I need, is sharing an intimacy with me: He wants me to need Him alone. As St. Teresa of Avila wrote, "God alone suffices."

And maybe when I understand that, He'll stop yankin' my chain.

Something odd going on

I don't understand what the media are doing. Time and again, I read that Obama is the new frontrunner after winning Iowa by 8 points, but I also read that McCain seems to be the new frontrunner after--uh, placing fourth in Iowa and polling high in New Hampshire? What happened to Huckabee, who won Iowa by 9? He has "limited appeal," I read in article after article.

It is with much amusement that I note that the people giving these analyses never cite polls. What do the current polls actually reveal?

On the Democratic side, two of the the three most recent U.S. polls show Clinton twenty or twenty-two points ahead of Obama. And Obama is the frontrunner. Interesting math. (The other shows them tied.)

On the Republican side, the math is more complicated:

USA Today AP-Yahoo Pew
Huckabee 25 22 17
McCain 19 14 22
Guliani 20 21 20

So McCain is on top in one of three polls, but in third place in the other two, where Huckabee is in first place, nationally. And yet he has "limited appeal," say the pundits.

I don't have an answer to why this is going on; I only observe it. Any ideas?

A good night in Iowa

Well, if Obama and Huckabee go all the way, we'll have the most polite general election campaign in a century.


I'm on record as having supported Obama and Huckabee for quite a while. Both face huge obstacles on the road to the nomination, but both have thin paths that might just come to pass:



OBAMA

Wins New Hampshire Jan 8; loses Michigan Jan 15 and Nevada Jan 19. Edwards then drops out. Obama then becomes the anti-Clinton and sweeps South Carolina 1/26, Florida 1/29, and a majority of states in 2/5's mega-primary. Clinton, though winning large states like California and New York, loses the delegate count to Obama, who squeaks through and wins the nomination.



HUCKABEE

Comes in third in New Hampshire Jan 8. Virtually ties McCain in Michigan Jan. 15, with Romney coming in third. Romney drops out. Virtual tie between Huckabee and Guliani in Nevada Jan. 19. Huckabee wins South Carolina Jan. 26, and Thompson drops out. Huckabee wins Florida Jan. 29 hands-down. At that point, the 2/5 mega-primary kicks in: Guliani wins NY and NJ, but McCain (helped by endorsements from the departing Thompson) and Huckabee each earn more delegates than Guliani does on that day, and Guliani drops out. With a bit of luck (especially if he wins CA), Huckabee can stave off McCain long enough to win the nomination.

Very tricky, and a lot of if's.

I still haven't figured out who Romney endorses when he leaves.

By the way, I repudiate what I said about Romney possibly being Huck's VP pick. There may be too much bad blood by now. Maybe McCain himself?