Elizabeth Warren was supposed to be the next liberal star, but at least for now, that's hit a stumbling block.

Elizabeth Warren is the anointed one of the Left in Massachusetts this time around and the polls currently have her trailing Brown by 5-6 points. While Senate polls are a little more volatile than presidential polls, we should note this is outside the margin of error. Voters may warm up to Warren in the final two months of the campaign, but the results of this summer make one thing clear—the left wing can no more trot just anyone out on the field and expect to win public support anymore than the Boston Red Sox can.

Potts’ piece in the Prospect is a lengthy and good read, and while much of it is on the missteps of Warren’s campaign, another acknowledges the point above. The Left has misread the state and outside the walls of Harvard and the cocktail circuit in the Hub, there is concern that a small cabal of elites are running the political system.

I’ve had the good fortune to sit down with a once-prominent Democrat from Boston,  a former state Speak. On St. Patrick’s Day six years ago, with one of the worst snow storms in history pounding the outside of an Irish pub, with the NCAA Tournament in the background, he vented that in his career he’d pushed for public housing, civil rights and environmental cleanup, “and now they’re telling me I’m not a liberal just because I don’t think boys should sleep with boys!”, he thundered. A friend of his, not employed in politics, lamented that he wished he could change the party, but the demands of work and family kept him tied up.

I’m not sure if either toe the party line in November or if the cross the aisle. But if indisputably true-blue Democrats like this are feeling the angst, is it possible others, who would have less of an emotional tie to the party in November, are feeling the same way?

Massachusetts is hardly about to become a red state. But the initial win of Brown, and the tough fight he’s waging this year, make it clear that the Left doesn’t own Commonwealth politics. And  if they don’t own it here, they don’t own it anywhere.

If traditionalist Democrats speak up, there’s no reason we can’t at least compete and end the bitter exile that’s existed since 1968.

Dan Flaherty is the author of Fulcrum, an Irish Catholic novel set in postwar Boston with a traditional Democratic mayoral campaign at its heart, and he is the editor-in-chief of TheSportsNotebook.com

At the South Boston annual St. Patrick’s Day breakfast Brown quipped that Santorum’s Secret Service detail was “the first time he’s actually ever used protection.”

HA! SO FUNNY! Get it? Because he’s got lots of kids? They multiply like feral cats, or something, which is REALLY FUNNY!!11!!!1!1!!!!!1

*ahem.*

The Family Santorum

Which leads to the question, which of the Santorums’ children does Scott Brown think ought not to be alive? Which should have been denied conception? Because “protection” does that: it directly and intentionally denies the possibility that this person-creating act could create a new person. It is utter and complete selfishness in the most sacred action God created man and woman to perform. It is a contra-life action. It is an abuse of the gift of sexuality. It is a denial of the meaning of marriage.

And as such, it is a punch line to those who have bought the lie.

My dad is the third of eleven kids and I am the second of six. I cannot tell you what a blessing a large family has been.

I work at Franciscan University of Steubenville. Four kids is “a good start” around here, with a number of families in the double-digits. And the kids of the large families are some of the most well-behaved, capable, happy, and interesting people we’ve got.

I wonder how many of them (us ?) should not live due to such “protection.” Seems all you’re protecting in so doing is your own cowardice.

Life is a bold endeavor; love includes risk. Don’t think so? Don’t think it should? Ask this guy…

"For God So Loved the World."

Catholics, especially in Massachusetts, can let their voices be heard by calling Senator Brown’s office at (202) 224-4543.

Here’s the statement that Senator Brown issued today:

“I support family planning and health services for women. Given our severe budget problems, I don’t believe any area of the budget is completely immune from cuts,” he said. “However, the proposal to eliminate all funding for family planning goes too far. As we continue with our budget negotiations, I hope we can find a compromise that is reasonable and appropriate.”

Except it isn’t reasonable or appropriate to give this notorious organization another dime.

How to interpret events is a tricky business, especially when they’re so unexpected. I was very surprised to see my facebook page light up with many congratulations and celebrations from pro-lifers, despite the fact that Brown is pro-abortion.

Presumably this celebration can be explained because of what Brown’s election will mean to the pro-life movement: namely, the probable death of the health care bill (though in truth, I’m kind of disappointed that it may die now instead of putting the pro-life Democrats to the test to see if they would be strong enough to kill it. Then again, they still may be put to that test and I should just be glad that the Planned Parenthood Stimulus bill seems destined to the oblivion of nothingness it so richly deserves). But still we have to ask the question: what to make of so many pro-lifers supporting Brown?

There are a few ideas, I’ll toss out a few of them with their names (names I just gave them, to take a cue from Russell inUp-

Theory 1: the Pessimist. This reveals how closely wedded Catholics & pro-lifers are to the Republican party. They are willing to abandon their ideals in favor of party politics; preferring no health care in pursuit of fiscal conservativism rather than a true pro-life agenda.

Theory 2: The Apologist. This election just shows that pro-lifers can be prudent and can be pragmatic. (I think our own Matt Bowman gives us this position in his post).

Theory 3: The Liberal-This election shows that Catholics can put aside their abortion opposition, so hopefully this will lead to more a left-leaning and left voting Catholicism.

Now, it’s hard to sort out which of these is true, in part b/c I think a little of each is true. There are certainly many pro-lifers who have sold out to the Republican party, believing the party line that abortion will end only w/ Republican victory, and so Republican victory is the goal. But I tend to think that this is a small group (and the 08 election and the lack of enthusiasm for McCain may validate that). And the apologist is true; the pro-life movement did show prudence in holding their noses and cheering, supporting, and even voting for a pro-abort in order to make sure Coakley went down. But this is a different line from what we are used to hearing (which gives “The Liberal” some hope and grain of truth).

We used to hear that abortion was a “non-negotiable” and that any candidate who favored abortion rights shouldn’t be voted for. There wasn’t any exceptions for if both candidates had abortion; instead the argument was that if you voted for the candidate you voted for the abortion policies.

That’s going to be a much harder argument to make now that the pro-life movement just supported Brown (and I do agree with those criticizing pro-life groups for pushing Brown; attack Coakley but don’t support Brown that way you can not be entangled and try to get a pro-lifer next time). I think it may be fair to say that from the Catholic angle, that Catholics are ditching the “non-negotiable” approach.

So this isn’t merely “how we’ve always worked” as the Apologist might say. Is this a bad thing though? Will this mean more GOP loyalty as the Pessimist thinks or a chance for Democrats as the Liberal hopes?

I don’t think either. Instead, it’s about time this framework vanished. It’s unworkable in modern politics. When the GOP was pro-life and the Dems were pro-abort, then sure. But now we have too many Republicans merely paying lip service to abortion and family values; pro-lifers competing in red states in different parties and pro-aborts competing against each other in blue states, not to mention the left’s (rather astute) observation that Republicans post 9/11 are very much into the intrinsically evil stuff as well (see Bay, Guantanamo).

Indeed, this is exactly the kind of framework that Cardinal Ratzinger was encouraging in his famous letter addressing in part voting on abortion. The relevant part

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

I think many Catholics have been wary of applying this b/c of the gross abuse it has received by the left to justify voting for terrible candidates (including Coakley). “Proportionate reasons” is a much more difficult test than say “non-negotiable” in forming and defending a voting decision.

But it’s a test that pro-lifers need to embrace. We should be eager to demonstrate that abortion is so damaging that there exists almost no issues that outweigh its damage, hence making the “proportionate reasons” that Benedict calls for impossible. Besides the liberty of not being beholden to a candidate if they merely lip the words “against abortion,” it allows us to argue why abortion is THE political issue of our time. Saying it’s the most important issue b/c it’s intrinsically evil or b/c it kills so many is true but lazy. The destruction abortion has wrought in such areas as racism, sexism, the family unit, homosexuality, poverty, etc are areas that desperately need to be explored, explained and defended by every pro-lifer. Benedict XVI has given us a great example in his latest encyclical Caritas in Veritate, which connects so many issues to the loss of human dignity, a loss reinforced so much by abortion.

This moment is then a great opportunity for the pro-life movement to embrace an intellectual rigorous and prosperous approach to defending the pro-life vote, and approach that I think will help broaden our appeal, untie our fortunes from that of the GOP, and ultimately achieve our goals of an end to legal abortion and a pro-life culture.

There are some in the pro-life movement who disagree with this type of pragmatism. They stand for the ideal and for that I commend them. Those who take an all or nothing approach to candidates and legislation have a place in the movement. They are here to keep the rest of us pragmatists honest. But in the end politics is not religion. Politics is the domain of prudence, as Aristotle taught us so many years ago. When making political decisions, the pro-life movement must take the prudent course. We seek to deal with the political realities as they stand and in today’s political climate we needed someone to block the authorization of taxpayer funded abortions, a piece of legislation which would have cost so many more unborn their lives. We must be prudent because the stakes are so high. We must make political alliances with people who we not always agree with us on other political issues, because we are in the business of saving human lives.

But amidst our pragmatism we must remember that we are pro-lifers first. We must not forget the ideal. We must strive for the day when we no longer have to vote for candidates who are pro-life and against those who are pro-abortion. Until then we will chip away at abortion. We will pass a bill that will allow women to view ultrasounds and in so doing save some lives. We will protect the Hyde Amendment and other restrictions on taxpayer funded abortions and in so doing we will save some more lives. We will elect a Scott Brown who will help us where he agrees with us and we will re-elect a Bart Stupak who will stand in the face of his own party to protect our consciences and those who are weakest. Yet, we will never forget the ideal for which we enter into the public arena, the end of abortion and a society which truly embraces a culture of Life.

In conclusion, John Paul II has provided support for this type of pragmatism on Life issues. As he tells us in his landmark encyclical Evangelium Vitae:

When it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects (No. 72).