Call to arms for motivated Catholics

Call to arms for motivated Catholics

Massachusetts conservatives (yes, there are a few) are appealing to Catholics who protested Mayor Menino’s honoring by Catholic Charities not to let up next year when the governor’s office is in contention.

The Corner Office has been held by Republicans for the past 15 years—albeit none of them all that conservative—and Democrats are champing at the bit to win it back and cement their control on all three branches of government. While their nearly absolute majority in the Legislature has kept them veto-proof, there’s still all that control over executive branch patronage they want. And so the extreme left-wing of the party is gearing up for what should be their best chance in years.

Arrayed against Republican Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey we have media-hound flip-flopper Attorney General Tom Reilly and Deval Patrick, whose main qualification if you go by the fawning Boston media is that he’s black. He was an NAACP attorney who eventually became Bill Clinton’s Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Yeah, he’s a liberal all right. Since 1999 he’s worked as a vice president for Coca-Cola in Atlanta.

Do these Catholics care about electoral politics?

Technorati Tags: , ,

Written by
Domenico Bettinelli
  • I think we’re going to have our hands full trying to hold onto the seats being vacated by Travis, Goguen et al. 

    But given that Reilly deigned fit to attack Healey during his announcement speech for not supporting embryonic genocide, I wonder if pro-lifers will be able to stay out of that race or not.  If both become too odious, a pro-life independent with a bit of cash might be able to split the two down the middle.

  • As a practical matter, Dom, I would think that conservative Catholics would have every motive to participate in next year’s election to vote for the anti-gay marriage referendum and the state legislators who have supported that cause.  Though i’ve not seen any polling data, I suspect that the referendum is much less a slam dunk than some may suppose based on the signatures it garnered. 

    As for the gubernatorial candidates, it would seem that not just conservative Catholics are being presented with unprepossessing options.  I won’t quibble with your description of Tom Reilly, but to say that Deval Patrick’s “main qualification if you go by the fawning Boston media is that he’s black” is the sort of slur I would not expect of you.  The Boston media fawn over Patrick because he is a liberal who also happens to be an affirmative action baby.  Were he not so inclined to genuflex befoe the altar of the teachers’ union, the professional peace lobby and other Democratic interests groups, he would be no less black—as there is no fundamental contradiction between being black and being conservative, moderate or anywhere else on the ideological spectrum—but he would be much less attractive to those pundits looking for a more reliably liberal alternative to Reily.

  • I don’t understand why you would call it a slur since I said essentially what you said. I’m sorry, Tony, but for much of the media—and you obviously wouldn’t be included in this—black is a synonym for liberal affirmative action recipient. Mind you, I am not describing Patrick this way. I am describing how the media sees him. There is a distinct difference.

    Frankly I’m a little surprised that you responded so reflexively. You’re usually more discerning than that.

  • Patrick is an excellent nominee for the Democrats and I may re-register as a Democrat for a bit so as to get him on their ticket.

    Lets see how far the Demoncrats support Affirmative Action.

  • Excerpts from an update from Christi Fideles re: Boston’s Catholic Charities: Next Steps (complete text at

    Dear fellow Catholics,

    We’re pleased to update you on the outcome and next steps in the communications campaign to Archbishop O’Malley concerning Catholic Charities of Boston. You asked that the pro-abortion Mayor of Boston be uninvited from the Dec. 9 fundraising dinner in his honor, and below you’ll find a brief summary of the results. If you’re pressed for time, please simply read the following paragraph and you’ll know the most important next steps. Additional details are [available at ]]


    More than 700 people wrote to Mayor Menino, the Catholic bishops, and the Vatican in just 4 days, but unfortunately Menino still spoke at the December 9 event and continued to misrepresent Church teachings there. In follow-up of our efforts, two officials in Rome have let us know the messages are getting through to the people concerned with the situation! In light of growing concerns around the crisis of the Catholic faith in Boston—the Menino situation, the disclosure of 18-years of Catholic Charities-sponsored adoptions by homosexual couples, a key staff departure from the Church’s public policy arm, and a move by the State of Massachusetts forcing Catholic hospitals to dispense emergency contraception against our beliefs—we have been urged to take a next step. All are asked to visit and send a new message today to Archbishop O’Malley, the Congregation for Bishops, and the newly appointed papal nuncio,. This message urges them again to remove Catholic Charities leadership, and to more courageously and proactively defend the Catholic faith in the public square. (Feel free to stop now, submit the new petition, and share this message to others if you wish!).



    1. Visit and sign our newest petition to Archbishop O’Malley, the Bishops of Massachusetts, the new papal nuncio (Archbishop Sambi), and the prefect of the Congregation for Bishops (Cardinal Re). Through the generosity of a donor, electronic faxes will be sent to all three individuals—but just for the next few days, so please act quickly.

    [Text of other “actions” available at ]]

  • I hope I’m not beating a dead horse, in that the discussion has since I, among others became preoccupied with celebrating Christmas and the flow of your blog has moved to other channels, but let me try to clarify what I think is not an unimportant thought.  I think that most members of the media—including our most liberal local commentators—would strongly object to your claim that they use black as a synonym for liberal, affirmative action recipient, pointing out that they describe a number of public figures who are neither liberal nor have benefitted from affirmative action as black. Thus, I would suggest that it was you, in attempting to employ a shothand to summarize the views of the liberal pundits rather than these pundits themselves, who made a point that the best of them, at least, take care to avoid, in lumping anyone who happens to be black as a conventional liberal Democrat. So, to that extent, I must take exception to the notion that you are merely quoting or paraphrasing what some liberals in the media have said about Patrick in describing him as black and would insist that it is you, not they, who have attempted to construe black as being tantamount to being a card-carrying liberal.

    To be sure, Patrick is both black and very liberal, but one needs look no further than Condi Rice and Clarence Thomas to find people who are indisputably black but also very conservative.  Some liberal pundits have tried to diminish the standing of such black conservatives with the canard that holding conservative views are incompatible with being black in an effort to make Rice, Thomas and other black conservatives pariahs among Afro-Americans.  And I think that, perhaps unwittingly, your remarks about Patrick have strengthened the hand of those whose objectives you would oppose.

  • Of course I know about Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice. But I have heard more than one liberal politican or pundit refer to Thomas as not being a “real” African-American or black.

    I know that there are plenty of black conservatives, but many liberals have turned black from being a race to a political ideology.

  • Let these liberals conflate being black with being liberal if you must and thus permit them to attempt to marginalize those blacks who don’t drink the Kool-Aide as race traitors.  I pray only that you don’t adopt the strictures that such liberals would wish to set to the discussion, as in doing so you only contribute to the distortion of the views black Americans actually hold, which, for instance, are more conservative on issues such as abortion and gay marriage than those of the American population at large and underplay that the Bush administration, for what other faults one might wish to cite, was the first to appoint an Afro-American as Secretary of State in Colin Powell and to replace him with an Afro-American woman, who, in Condi Rice, many conservatives see an attractive presidential contender in 2008.

    Believing as I do that you don’t have a racist bone in your body, my intent was only to steer you away from language, that, even in shorthand, might convey a contrary view and, in so doing, provide ammunition for your enemies and ward off potential friends.