Catholics, Democrats, Abortion, and Communion

Many political analysts agree that one of the primary reasons George W. Bush won the 2004 presidential election was that he won the Catholic vote--in particular, he won the Catholic vote in Ohio and Florida.

I and many others argue that since Catholics seem to split their allegiance somewhere within the 60-40 range there is no such thing as the Catholic vote yet somehow in recent elections the Catholic vote (or at least the voting patterns of American Catholics) have proved pivotal. This is evidenced by the fact that every candidate who has won the popular vote since 1960 has also won the Catholic vote. The 2004 election seems to be one the first times that the "Catholic vote" had a major impact on the electoral vote. Most commentators and several political scientists I have spoken to or have seen speak attribute Bush’s courting of socially conservative (though economically moderate or liberal) Catholics in Ohio as perhaps what put him over the top in the electoral vote. What makes Bush’s popularity amongst Catholics so shocking is that he was running against a Catholic.

Before John Kerry, the last Catholic to run for president not only won, but John F. Kennedy took 78% of the Catholic vote. (Annoyingly, something tells me that good portion of the 22% that didn’t vote for him lived in Orange County and San Diego and that all four of my grandparents fell into the latter category.) So what was it that caused so many Catholics to vote against another Catholic in a presidential election? The answer lies in the fact that more than in any other presidential election in US history several US bishops and archbishops, led by Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis (the neo-conservative, pre-Vatican II archbishop who excommunicated most of Polish Catholic population after they refused to conform to his conservative policies), publicly stated that John Kerry could not participate in Communion in their diocese, leading many Catholics to ponder if they could vote for him in good conscious. Following the 2004 election, many commentators stated that the Democrats had a Catholic problem.

Unlike the majority of Americans, the majority of Catholic Americans are pro-life. In addition, most Catholic Americans who are “pro-choice” have a “moral objection” to abortion but they feel either it is not the government’s place to legislate on abortion or that their moral standards should not be imposed on others. The latter view is the view of many “pro-choice” non-Catholics as well. However, the Church’s teaching is clear, a Catholic is to be pro-life in all circumstances (with the rare exception of an ectopic pregnancy in which neither the mother nor child has a chance of surviving if the pregnancy is carried to term). Catholic lobby groups lobby for pro-life judges and limits on abortion within the existing laws that allow for abortions. However, to be a Democrat you almost always have to be pro-choice. Certainly to win a democratic primary in a “blue-state” you have to be pro-choice. Granted there several prominent pro-life Democrats but they are the extreme minority (Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, for example).

On the other hand, the Democratic Party’s platform is far more inline with Catholic Social Teaching than the Republican Party’s platform on just about every issue besides abortion. The Democratic Party is far more likely to be against capital punishment and for just immigration reform that respects the human dignity of the undocumented immigrants already in this country. The welfare policies of the Democratic platform are much more in tune with the Catholic Social Teaching’s emphasis on the preferential option for the poor and vulnerable in society--a Judeo-Christian value with its roots not only in the teachings of Jesus but also in the teachings of the prophets of the Old Testament. The fact that the Democrats are more likely to support the major tenets of Catholic social teaching are evidenced just by the names of the other tenets so I won’t go into or explain them all: Call to Family, Community, and Participation; Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers; Solidarity; Subsidiarity; and Care of God’s Creation.

That all being said, many good practicing Catholics are also Democrats and some of them are bound to run for office. Yet to win an election as Democrat in this country you almost certainly have to be pro-choice--at least publicly. Until about a month ago, abortion had managed to stay out of the major public debate in this election cycle. Since then, two very prominent Catholic Democrats have given answers on their publicly held pro-choice views. Nancy Pelosi gave a ridiculous answer saying that it is a topic still being debated in the Church and that the Church hasn’t been all that clear on its position until about 50 years ago. Her answer didn’t have an ounce of truth in it and was an embarrassment whether you were a Catholic or a Democrat but especially if you were Catholic Democrat. Joe Biden’s first answer, given to Tom Brokaw, was excellent until he tried to play the role of theologian much like Pelosi had. He explained that he personally opposed abortion and he had voted to limit abortions and to get rid of government funding for abortions. However, he said, he could not in good conscience impose his religious views on others. It was a great answer. Then his tendency to keep talking after he should stop got the better of him and he tried to bring up something about Thomas Aquinas. The next day he was questioned about his reference to Aquinas and gave an even worse explanation than the first time.

Since Burke’s declaration that John Kerry could not receive communion in his archdiocese in 2004 many bishops see it as their role to get involved in presidential politics. This year, it is the Bishop of Denver who encouraged his diocese to pray that the Democrats would change their position on abortion while they held their convention in his diocese and the Bishop of Scranton who declared that Joe Biden could not receive communion in his diocese--odd since Biden made it clear he personally opposed abortion. Luckily, Burke has been transferred to Rome and no longer has a large public microphone at his disposal. But these two bishops I’m sure will do their best to get their brother bishops to be more vocal on the issue of abortion as the election nears.

In my opinion, the fact that bishops are getting involved in presidential politics is bad enough, but the fact that they are doing it by denying Communion to faithful and practicing Catholics is despicable. The celebration of the Eucharist is a celebration of community and communion with one another as the mystical body of Christ as we all receive and partake in the Body and Blood of Christ fully present in the transformed bread and wine. The Eucharist should never be used as a weapon to make political point and it should never be used to create divisions in the Church, the ever present mystical Body of Christ.

A Memo to Sens. Obama and Biden

NOTE TO READERS: This post is meant to be addressed to the Democratic Ticket, sort of as a means of catharsis for me after watching them flounder the past two weeks:

The time for a clean campaign has past. Sen. McCain threw his clean campaign pledge out the door the second he hired Steve Schmidt to take over the day to day operations of the campaign. Every gaffe Sen. McCain or Gov. Palin makes needs to be broadcast all over. You need to call them liars and then say what they are lying about. Explain that she completely supported the bridge to nowhere until Congress killed the idea. Only then was she against it—hell, supporting the damn bridge was one the major planks of her platform when she ran for governor. Ask how someone who was raised by his grandparents and a single mother on food stamps can be called an elitist by someone who has nine homes and his running mate who had a tanning bed installed in the governor’s mansion. Why are the words “Beltway Johnny” not being uttered every time you talk about “Change?” Why won’t you point out that Sarah Palin doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is instead of leaving it to the media to do your bidding? If I were you I would fire your entire campaign staff and beg on hand an knee that James Carville and Paul Begala run your campaign. Please, please, please, take Jon Stewart’s advice and simply, “SHIT ON THEM WITHOUT REGARD!!!!!” They don’t respect you, so don’t respect them. And by the way, for every campaign stop that Sarah Palin makes with John McCain, you need to make one with Hillary Clinton. And for every snide comment she makes about community organizing, Joe Biden needs to make a comment about Wasilla having the worst crystal meth problem per capita in the country or a crack that just about everyone in her administration graduated high school with her. Finally, call both of them liars about you’re tax plan and point out the fact that even Fox News and Karl Rove have admitted they are lying about this. Then tell the American people that you want to do to lower taxes for the lower, middle, and even upper-middle class. Also, will you PLEASE run footage or audio of the Kennedy’s saying that you are the closest thing to Jack (that’s JFK’s personal name for those who are confused) and Bobby Kennedy since they were assassinated—Ethel, Teddy, and Caroline (Matriarch, Patriarch, and Matriarch-in-waiting) have all said you are their natural political successor! Finally put the picture of John McCain awkwardly hugging George W. Bush in every damn add you run (print or tape). That thing needs to be as familiar to people as the picture of a young Bill Clinton shaking JFK’s hand was in 1992 and 1996.

And two more things, for Sen. Biden. One: Why did you fuck up your answer on abortion so badly? You gave the perfect answer: You are pro-life and as a Catholic that is your choice and your opinion but you do not think you should impose your belief on others. Likewise you don’t think others' beliefs should be imposed on you and so you don’t support legalized partial birth abortions or government funding for abortions. Why did you have to try and play theologian at the end of your answer. You’re a senator and law professor not a theologian. Secondly: Don’t worry about being called mean or sexist in your debate. Dick Cheney by all accounts won the VP debate in 2004 and he was the meanest son of a bitch he could be.

Democratic Convention Recap

Ted Kennedy: No one can argue that this was not the most emotional moment of the convention. When the Democratic icon, suffering from brain cancer, walked out onto the stage and gave his impassioned speech he set the tone for the convention. Plus, he and his niece Caroline were once again able to present Sen. Obama as the successor to his slain brothers’ message of hope, peace, and justice.

Michelle Obama: Mrs. Obama has not been the stereotypical candidate’s wife. Perhaps because her husband was running against a woman until three months ago, she was not a very visible presence on the campaign. For that reason, no one really knew much about her and Republicans were somehow able to float a rumor that she was unpatriotic. She masterfully portrayed her and Senator Obama a happily married couple and ‘true American’ family (whatever that is). With help of the video narrated by her mother and the introduction buy her NCAA basketball coach brother, she portrayed her story as a true American success story—the story of the ever elusive American Dream.

Bob Casey, Jr.: Not really a media highlight but it was a big deal for me to see the DNC let a fellow Pro-Life Democrat speak in primetime at the convention. It was a good speech too.

Brian Schweitzer: Gov. Schweitzer gave a great speech on the need for energy independence. His speech is seen as energizing (no pun intended) western, moderate Democrats like himself.

Mark Warner: This was not exactly a highlight of the convention. His story really didn’t have much credibility a night after Mrs. Obama told her story. People didn’t want to hear about how he got rich by investing in one of the first cell phones right after they hear about a woman from the South Side of Chicago who got through college and law school only to leave a high paying corporate law job to do community work. In short, the speech was missable.

Hillary Clinton: Senator Clinton took her message of party unity to the next level. She went from telling her supporters that she supports Sen. Obama and they should too, to telling them why she supports Sen. Obama. In addition, she explained why McCain cannot be the president. Furthermore, she came off as sincere. It was not the half-hearted speech we have come to expect from Sen. Clinton since her appearance with Sen. Obama in Unity, NH.

The Roll Call Vote: A great display of both democracy and party unity. Sen. Clinton followed her show-stealing speech up with an even more profound call for party unity by ending the roll call and calling for the nomination nominate Sen. Obama by acclamation.

Bill Clinton: President Clinton finally publicly endorsed Sen. Obama and made it clear that he feels Sen. Obama is ready to be the president. He effectively explained that Sen. Obama was qualified to be a world leader. It was good speech and he, like his wife the night before, did a good job of attacking John McCain’s record.

John Kerry: To be honest, I was surprised that the DNC gave him a primetime slot--especially between the two speakers that he was between. However, he did a great job of doing what the GOP did to him so masterfully four years ago—pointing out every time John McCain reversed his position on a major issue. He also told the story of Sen. Obama’s great uncle who helped to liberate a concentration camp in WWII. On this point, I just have to quote Jon Stewart: "Are you fucking kidding me?! Barack Obama has an adorable, white, war hero uncle. Why is this the first time we're seeing this?! If I'm Obama, every time I campaign down South, I'm having that guy strapped into a Baby Bjorn and walking around!"

Joe Biden: Joe Biden did his job and did it pretty well. First through the video and introduction by his son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden (who is shipping out to Iraq as a member of the JAG Corps in a few weeks) the DNC portrayed Joe Biden exactly as they want the public to perceive him. He was portrayed as blue collared man of faith who holds close to him traditional family values and has overcome incredible tragedy in his life. Second, he assured voters of his foreign policy experience and finally he masterfully tied Sen. McCain to President Bush (especially through his now famous ‘Freudian slip’). Bonus Points: In case they didn't pound the fact that Sen. Biden comes from a big, blue collar Catholic family down everyone's throats enough, his whole extended family (his mother, wife, children, in-laws, grandchildren, brothers' families, and his sisters' family) came out on stage to close the night reight before a Catholic Sister of St. Jospeh offered the Benediction.

Bill Richardson: I just had to mention him because Gov. Richardson was the first one to use the term “Flip Flop” in reference to Sen. McCain reversing his views on several issue since declaring his candidacy.

Tim Kaine: Gov. Kaine’s role was similar to that of Gov. Schweitzer. Whereas Gov. Schweitzer energized moderate and conservative, western Democrats over Sen. Obama’s energy credentials, Gov. Kaine’s job was to energize moderate and conservative, southern Democrats over Sen. Obama’s work as a community organizer. Furthermore, he portrayed both Sens. Obama and Biden as men guided by their faith. He, like Sens. Casey and Biden, also made several references to his Catholic so as to help draw in undecided voters (who in this election, according to a NBC/WSJ poll are overwhelmingly Catholic women).

Al Gore: While the substance of his speech on the importance of this year’s election in light of Global Warming was good, his delivery left something to be desired. As Pat Buchanan said, “It seemed like he thought he was talking to a group of 20 people not a stadium of 80,000.” I can’t believe I’m agreeing with Pat Buchanan on anything but he really is right; Vice President Gore didn’t even pause to acknowledge the crowd’s applause most of the time. To be honest, I was disappointed.

Barack Obama: What can I say about the speech? I really think that the speech said it all. The video and introduction by Sen. Dick Durbin told his story and it worked perfectly as a bookend to Michelle Obama’s presentation of their story as the American story. His speech was specific about what he means by “change” and he finally took off the gloves and went after Sen. McCain’s record. What’s more is that he completed what Pres. Clinton, Sen. Kerry, and Sen. Biden has done the night before and tied Sen. McCain to Pres. Bush. The speech has been called one of the best convention speeches ever and I think that it was. Even Pat Buchanan was impressed. But what’s more, Sen. Obama was able to show that a McCain presidency would be disastrous not just for liberals or Democrats but for the whole country.

I think I've seen this one before

Many who know me know that I am a huge West Wing fan and have seen every episode of the show several times. That being said, it’s not surprising that I often see things in the actual news that remind me of a plotline from the show; and I’m sure I’m not the first person to make this observation, but this year’s election cycle is eerily similar to the election cycle that was portrayed in the last two seasons of the West Wing. So here is a list of similarities between the show’s election and this year’s real-life election:

Democratic Primary Candidates:
The West Wing: Party heavy weight and current Vice President Bob Russell had a huge lead going into the primaries; former Vice President John Hoynes was seen as a major contender early on; Junior Congressman Matt Santos is a young, minority candidate whose upstart campaign relied heavily on his message of Change and grassroots efforts amongst young voters
2008: Party elder Hillary Clinton was seen as the front runner going into the primaries; former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards was seen as a major contender; Barack Obama is a young, minority candidate whose campaign is based on a message of change and whose lead in national polls is largely due to support amongst young voters

Republican Primary Candidates:
The West Wing: Longtime, western Senator Arnold Vinick campaigned on his moderate viewpoints and maverick tendencies; the last major candidate to withdraw was the darling of the evangelical right and minister
2008: Longtime, western Senator John McCain has campaigned on his moderate viewpoints and calls himself the original maverick; the last major candidate to withdraw was Gov. Mike Huckabee whose support came largely from evangelicals and

Democratic Primary Results:
The West Wing: Going into the primary there is no presumptive nominee however after a fourth candidate enters the race on the convention floor Santos delivers an electric speech that unites the party behind him as the nominee; Hoynes was practically a non player in the party by the time of the convention due to a sex scandal
2008: The primary fight lasted until the last primary though it was settled before the convention, some Clinton supporters were hoping she would not concede and would attempt a floor fight for the nomination; John Edwards was a non-player at the convention due to a sex scandal

Democratic Vice-Presidential Selection:
The West Wing: Plagued by accusations of being inexperienced and having weak foreign policy credentials, Santos picked party elder, Leo McGarry, to be his running mate; McGarry came from blue-collar Catholic roots and made it as a major political player in Washington, his career almost ended when he suffered a near fatal heart attack earlier in the show
2008: Plagued by accusations of being inexperienced and having weak foreign policy credentials, Obama picked party elder, Joe Biden, to be his running mate; Biden came from blue-collar Catholic roots and made it as a major political player in Washington, his career almost ended when he suffered a near fatal brain aneurism in 1988

Republican Vice-Presidential Selection:
The West Wing: After he is unable to get the evangelical base of the party excited over his candidacy, Vinick chose a relatively unknown and inexperienced small state governor, Ray Sullivan of West Virginia.
2008: After he is unable to get the evangelical base of the party excited over his candidacy, Vinick chose a relatively unknown and inexperienced small state governor, Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Our Differences Make Us One

As weird as it sounds, I have been thinking about language and its relation to liturgy a lot over the past few months. While this coincides with the recent documents regarding a new translation of the English Mass, it’s not the cause of this musing but presents an interesting backdrop to the situation. About two weeks ago I attended a Mass back at my parent’s home parish, St. Edward. During the Mass, I was a little shocked to hear them sing several of the Mass parts in Latin. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not a fan of the Latin Mass and that I think a Latin form of the Mass should have died out long ago with you know the Latin language seeing as how no one has spoken it in everyday life for over a millennium. However it wasn’t the Latin that upset me the most it was the explanation given the priest (let me make it clear quickly that the priest presiding the Mass and offering the explanation was not Fr. Steve, Fr. Joe, or Fr. Avelino and Fr. Loc was not there yet so use the process of elimination to figure it out if you really want to know). He offered the explanation that Vatican II stated the faithful should have a working "Church" knowledge of Latin despite the fact that Mass is now celebrated primarily in the vernacular. He then went on to state something to the effect that with "all the different languages we have in the community" it’s important to have one that we can all have in common. Let me first refute his explanation then offer my own reflection on multicultural liturgy. The first part of his explanation may at first appear to be the more legitimate of the two as he cites Vatican II. However that is not what Vatican II said at all. The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, does state that "Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites." (36.1) However this statement was intended to mean that the official texts of the rites were to be kept in Latin and all translations into various other languages be done from the Latin. This prevents, for example, the texts from being translated into Spanish then into English from the Spanish translations. The text then goes on to state that using the mother tongue (or vernacular) is of great advantage as it allows the people to participate more actively and better understand the liturgy. (36.2-4) No where does it say that the people of the Church should retain a working "Church" knowledge of Latin, in fact it says quite the opposite: that the reason for the vernacular is so many people don’t understand Latin. It basically implies that using Latin discourages active participation as although the people may be able to memorize the Latin words, they may (and probably) don’t know what they mean. The second part of his explanation hardly needs much refutation after looking at why his first argument was ill-based. It’s not hard to recognize that using a language that no one understands is much worse than using a multilingual setting in which everyone offers some of her own culture and receives some of another’s culture. All this is especially interesting in light of the new English translation of the Mass sent down by Rome as it uses a more literal word-word translation of the Latin rather than an American-English translation. The reasoning is that Rome (really, Cardinal Arinze and Pope Benedict--neither of whom speak English as their primary language) feel that the new translation better reflects the theological and catechetical mysteries being communicated. However, to any English speaking American the syntax and diction of the new translations come off as awkward and overly-regal and seemingly does not necessarily promote better or fuller active participation on the part of the assembly or the presider. I feel that if the translation is to be kept in the Spirit of Vatican II they would have consulted the American Bishops more in the process (or at least not have disregarded their suggestions as they did throughout this process).

Now that I have offered my rebuttal to Fr. (fill in the blank)'s comments about Latin in the liturgy, I have to praise him for his homily this past Saturday evening. Going into it I was not expecting much after being so put off by comments about Latin, he offered a beautiful reflection on who all are equal before God and even challenged those in the assembly on an issue that many would find "too sticky" to approach in Orange County. Several weeks after my first encounter with the Latin being sung at St. Edward’s I was forwarded an article in which my friend (and one of my mentors) John Flaherty quoted about the importance of multicultural liturgical music in today’s Church--particularly in the multicultural setting of Southern California. The article stated: "'By our very tradition,'" [Flaherty] said, 'liturgy is based on inculturation. We all surrender a little of what we hold onto so we can become a new creation. It especially applies to those in power. The only way the stranger (the disempowered) is welcomed in our midst is if we stand up and let them have a seat. It's up to the people in power to do the welcoming. When I have to do anything on an archdiocesan scale, I think of language and culture,’ said Flaherty, who believes everyone brings their cultural experiences to the Eucharistic table. Multilingual hymns and multicultural musical rhythms and instrumentation, he asserted, have the ultimate goal of creating a new culture where all ethnicities are woven together in one body of worship." I had this in the back of my mind as the priest eloquently preached on how all are foreigners in the Church, as there is not one chose people but that all were welcome in the Church. He went on to point out that throughout the Gospel, Jesus welcomed strangers, foreigners, and the disempowered to his table. It is in this spirit, he asserted (and I full heartedly agree), that all are welcome to the table at Mass--that all are invited to celebrate the Eucharist as One Body. He even went as far as to challenge the assembly that regardless of their political and legal views on immigration and undocumented immigrants, that they must welcome them into the community and at the Eucharistic table in order to call themselves Catholic. I don’t mean to pontificate on this subject by any means (no pun intended, honestly) but I found it odd extremely odd that such a homily would come from the same priest who just two months earlier had stated why the Latin rights were better than a multilingual setting. Perhaps he will reflect on his own words and realize that he was in many ways saying the same thing John was saying when he stated that what the makes us one is that we all offer a little bit of ourselves and accept the others at the Eucharistic table.

And the winner is.....

Like most people I am getting a little annoyed that neither candidate has selected a running-mate yet and I am getting a little tired of trying to guess who each will pick. (Although, I will let you know that as much as I would love to see Tim Kaine as Obama's running mate, it looks like he won't be the choice due to Mark Warner's speaking spot at the convention. In fact, its looking more and more like it will be Joe Biden, especially with his trip to Georgia--the country not the state--to evalutate the situation over the weekend.)

Candidate speculation aside, I've decided to play a new game and try to guess when the candidates will announce their running mates. According to an email sent from the Obama campaign to supporters, it is fair to assume that the selection will be made before the convention and not at the convention. With that in mind, Obama has to compete with the Olympics for press coverage, something that will be immensely easier this week now that Michael Phelps has finished his races and the gymnastics team and all-around competitions are done. That being said, based off of the Olympic TV schedule, my guess is that Obama's decision will come Tuesday. Yes, it is the same night as coverage of the last of the gymnastics individual apparatus finals but any other night and he would risk competing with coverage of any number of team finals that are likely to feature American teams (Beach Volleyball, Indoor Volleyball, Women's Soccer, Basketball, etc.) and several track and field events that highlight promising American talent. As far as McCain's pick goes, he has to navigate Olympic coverage as well as the Democratic convention. This makes guessing his time-frame a little more tricky. My guess is that it will come on one of three days. He will announce on Tuesday (which if Obama announces on that day as well could be disasterous for both camps as far as press coverage is concerned), on the first of the Democratic Convention to try and steal some of the press coverage away from the Democrats (Monday is really the only night that this could work as the other nights are too top heavy with significant Democratic speakers), or on the Friday after the Democratic convention in order to try and control press coverage after Obama's acceptance speech on Thursday night (that day will also be McCain's 72nd birthday and could help deflect attention from the fact that his turning 72).

Thinking and saying you’re the best vs. Knowing you’re the best

So here I am on the eve of my seventeenth year at Bruin Woods and even though I won’t be there the whole week, I can’t wait. I know it’s hard for people to understand why this place is so much fun unless you have been there, so I thought I would give a brief reasoning of why it’s so amazing. It’s not the Honor Bar deal ($25 all you can drink, all week), the fishing, or the beautiful views (not that those three hurt). Rather, it’s the people that you see year after year and sense of community that is created by everyone.

Now that I have explained that, this is also one of the few times of the year when my hate for USC hits a peak (being around UCLA people for a week has the wonderful affect on you). Really the only other times it gets this high are when the two schools play each other in football and basketball. So what does all of this have to do with the title of this post? Today, a family friend and her college roommate (both LMU alums) met me at LMU. Hearing them talk about their days up on the bluff reminded me of how great a place LMU really is. And what makes LMU so great,? It's the same things that make Bruin Woods so great. It’s not LMU’s amazing campus, beautiful vistas, or constantly improving academics that make it so great, it the people and community. You can’t get that same feeling at USC because it is so big. Yet, USC constantly tells everyone they are the best; LMU doesn’t need to say it, we know we are the best. It’s like Bill Maher once said about being patriotic, “Being patriotic is kind of like having a big dick; if it’s really true you don’t feel the need to tell everyone about.” So even though I just said LMU doesn’t feel the need to say we are the best, I’m going to do so and give the list of the top ten people and community-builders that make LMU the best. (Notice I am artfully ignoring UCLA because this will just be about the best private school in LA.)

10. ROAR: An odd choice, I know, but it’s easy for students to get excited about a successful sports program like some at USC, ROAR is able to get people excited about a team that went 5-22

9. The Jesuits, Marymount Sisters, and Sisters of St. Joseph: USC has nothing like these three communities whose members have dedicated the majority of their adult lives to LMU to make it a place for students and alumni to call home

8. The Alumni Barbeque: Really no other school in LA can claim to have an event where alumni come back to campus just to hang out rather than also attend a sports game

7. Sacred Heart Chapel: There is no place on either campus that can make anyone feel at home as much as Sacred Heart

6. LMU Service Organizations and other service groups: Yeah I might be a little biased but these groups do more than any group at USC to make LMU an integral part of the larger LA community

5. Fr. Robert Lawton, S.J.: No president at LMU has done so much to make LMU be the best it can be than him; his leadership has truly allowed the sense of community to thrive even as the school has doubled in size

4. Fr. Rich Robin, S.J.: No one can be quite like him, though he is almost completely behind the scenes, he does his best to make sure that LMU is a place where everyone can come home and has been doing it for over thirty years

3. The Campus Ministry Staff: Though it had a tough time under its immediate past director, the current staff is amazing and does more than any other staff at LMU to make students dell at home

2. LMU’s Liturgies: At no other college campus can you participate in liturgies quite like this

1. Sr. Peg Dolan, R.S.H.M.: USC has no one that can compare to her, she is one of a kind and she is LMU.

Veepstakes

With every other political blogger out there commenting on the “Veepstakes” I figured I might as well do the same. And like most, I’m going to focus my energy on the Democratic side because McCain really only needs to fulfill three criteria to give him a boost in the polls and make sure the evangelical vote actually votes. He needs to pick someone under the age of 55 who is a devout Christian with little to no affiliation to the Bush administration. That will help allay the fears of those who think he is too old or too much in the front pocket of Bush and Cheney and will make sure that the Christian Right can get excited about his ticket rather than stay home on Election Day. Obama’s predicament is a little more complicated. While most of the worries that people associate with McCain are cosmetic and can begin to be fixed with a quick photo-op the day he announces his running-mate, the fears that many undecideds have about Obama need to be allayed by the prior experience of his running-mate and his (or her) performance in the VP debate.

There are eight names that have been mentioned the most throughout this process but really only three are getting much media coverage now that we are only three weeks out from the Democratic nominating convention. So right away let me cross off five names and give a brief reason why they won’t get the nod: Hillary Clinton (too polarizing to be a VP candidate), Kathleen Sebelius (doesn’t do any harm but doesn’t bring enough to the ticket), Chris Dodd (too dull), John Edwards (he lost four years ago as a VP candidate and did not do well in the debate), and Bill Richardson (there are rumors and regardless of whether or not they are true the last thing the Democrats need in a close election cycle is another ‘zipper-gate’). With those four names gone it leaves three serious contenders for the Democratic Vice Presidential spot: Sen. Evan Bayh, Gov. Tim Kaine, and Sen. Joe Biden. There are a few factors that Obama has to consider: party unity, his lack of foreign policy experience, his lack of executive experience (however, it is something McCain will have trouble attacking as he lacks it as well), what states will the VP selection help swing towards his favor, and how compatible his VP selection is with his ideas and policies.

Party unity is something that Obama has tried to address ever since Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign in early June. He has done a decent job on this front and really the only way he would be able to sway those who voted for Hillary but now support McCain back from the GOP would be to put Hillary on the ticket and that just won’t happen. Some argue that putting an early Hillary supporter like Bayh on the ticket would further his cause of party unity but it is not likely a lightweight like Bayh will be able to pull disenfranchised Hillary supporters back to Obama. Tim Kaine would help alleviate the fears of many moderate and conservative Democrats as he is fairly conservative for a Democrat on social issues like abortion. Biden could do the same as both men have publicly stated a personal opposition to abortion but politically support a woman’s right choose.

Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience is perhaps what is getting the most attention right now due to his recent trip to the Middle East and Europe. Biden clearly offers the most in this category as a result of his thirty-six years of experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. However, there is a fear in the Obama camp that Biden would overshadow the top of the ticket in this area and only highlight Obama’s inexperience rather than fill the void (this is likely why Biden, who publicly expressed interest in participating, was not invited to attend Obama’s recent overseas trip). Bayh also offers some experience in this area as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee but nothing compared to Biden. Kaine has no substantive foreign policy experience to speak of outside the time spent as a Jesuit Volunteer in Honduras during Law School.

Obama’s lack of executive experience is something that is not as vital for him to cover in and VP selection as McCain lacks the same experience. In this category, Biden would not help—he was practically born in a legislative committee meeting (to steal a line from The West Wing, Season 7 Ep. 2). In this case, the conventional wisdom choice is Bayh who served two full terms as Indiana’s governor. He can bring more executive experience to the ticket than the other two. While Kaine also has executive experience, he has much less than Bayh as he is only three years into his first term as governor and his four years as lieutenant governor will not get much play in the press as substantive executive experience.

Thirty years ago there was only one thing a candidate considered when choosing a running mate: how best to create a geographical balance on the ticket that would help swing states in his favor that he would not have won otherwise. For example, John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson could not stand each other, yet Kennedy being from New England needed someone to help him in the South and West. Of late, however this has not been much of a concern on the winning tickets. Bill Clinton (of Arkansas) chose Al Gore (of Tennessee) and George W. Bush (of Texas) chose Dick Cheney (technically of Wyoming but in reality he is a Texan and changed his residence to be on the ticket). However, with the potential of this year’s Electoral Map being turned upside down as Obama mobilizes the African-American vote and puts the South into play for the first time since Johnson was president, the home-state of one’s VP selection could be crucial. For Obama, all three candidates can help him in some fashion. Bayh will most certainly deliver Indiana and perhaps carry some of that momentum into the ever crucial state of Ohio. But Indiana has only 11 electoral votes and Obama, though only slightly, has led in the state fairly consistently. Kaine would obviously help Obama not only in Virginia (13 electoral votes) but could help in other Southern states as a moderate, Southern Democrat. Biden’s help is less obvious as Obama is almost guaranteed to carry Biden’s home state of Delaware and its measly 3 electoral votes. However, as a northern, Catholic Democrat he could help Obama enormously in Pennsylvania as well as with northern, blue collar voters everywhere, a group which Obama lost to Clinton miserably in the primary season.

The last factor that Obama has to consider is whether his selected VP would continue, for the most part, the policies he set in place—an easier way of putting this is will the guy down the hall from you be on your side of the battlefield or the other guy’s. In this case, Bayh finishes last since he backed the other candidate in the primary. Biden finishes somewhere in the middle as he was running against Obama for a short while; however he threw his support and money behind Obama pretty early on into the primary season. Plus, Obama can’t really count on Biden to always back him up as Biden is a bit of a wild card and has made several gaffes in several campaigns and has no problem speaking his mind. Kaine wins by far in this category. Though is a moderate Democrat who is (or was) close allies with Joe Lieberman (who is stumping across the country for McCain) he is a strong advocate of “changing” how Washington works and carries no baggage of being a Washington insider like the others.

So who do I think Obama should pick you ask? Well to be honest, I keep going back and forth on this one. I do not think it should be Bayh, he doesn’t have the name recognition that Obama needs on his ticket. Obama needs to make sure that he does not completely overshadow his VP so any benefit the VP might bring to the ticket would be dwarfed. That leaves Kaine and Biden. Kaine has been staunch supporter of Obama since he announced his candidacy; Biden has both charisma and experience. However, I fill like this election cycle its going to come down to who will give Obama the most electoral help. Sadly, the South is unlikely to vote for a Democratic ticket that boasts both an African-American and a Catholic (both Kaine and Biden are practicing Catholics). So the help that Kaine could potentially bring in the South is thrown out. Kaine can help Obama win Virginia but Biden can help Obama in Pennsylvania and Ohio as a northern Catholic with foreign policy experience (both are states that Obama lost to Clinton mainly because he lost the blue-collar white vote). That all being said, I think Kaine makes the better choice. Simply because he helps with three of the five factors I just discussed: he has executive experience, he can help deliver Virginia (as well as possibly help with some of the northern, blue collar, Catholic voters that Biden might deliver), and he is more or less from same mold as Obama as a reformer and Washington outsider.

(Plus, Biden would be an AMAZING Secretary of State!)

Barack Kennedy?

This election cycle, many people seem to be obsessed with the notion of comparing Sen. Barack Obama to President John F. Kennedy and Sen. Robert Kennedy, including the Kennedys. While comparisons of the Democratic nominee and the late Kennedy brothers are nothing new, what is new is that they are being made by the Kennedy’s rather than the candidate’s top aides.

President Bill Clinton and his campaign communications team presented him as the natural heir to President Kennedy during both the 1992 and 1996 campaigns. It made since at the time as well; Clinton was youngest and arguably most charismatic nominee either party had seen since Kennedy. George Stephanopoulos made sure that there was no media outlet without a copy of the picture of a young Bill Clinton shaking the hand of then-President Kennedy. Clinton said often that Kennedy was his political hero as a young man. Once in office, Clinton prided himself on his work with Sen. Ted Kennedy, the late president’s youngest brother (former First Lady and Sen. Hillary Clinton did the same once she took office in the Senate).

While Al Gore never tried to position himself as a successor to Kennedy, he did cast himself as Clinton’s hand-picked successor. However, in many ways this worked to his advantage as many had already associated Clinton with Kennedy.

In 2004, John Kerry’s campaign began making Kennedy connections to their candidate as well. However, they focused on biographical connections rather than drawing connections between the two men’s age and perceived charisma. This was most likely because Kerry was not young at the time of his candidacy (and rumors of Botox injections also through out any hope of him being perceived as young) nor was he perceived as charismatic (he in fact was perceived by many as an Ivy League snob). The Kerry campaign aides had plenty to work with though. Both men were of Irish-Catholic descent with fathers who served in the diplomatic CORE. Both were graduated of Ivy League schools and had distinguished, wartime military records as naval officers. Finally, both men were senators from the state of Massachusetts (Kerry also serves as a senator with Ted Kennedy) and both men had the initials JFK.

Now again in 2008 parallels are being drawn between the Democratic nominee and the late President Kennedy. This time however, Obama’s campaign staff hardly has to lift a finger, the Kennedy family is doing most of the work. Ted Kennedy has served as the family patriarch since the assassination of his brother, Robert, in 1968 and Caroline Kennedy is the sole surviving child of John. So when the two of them took the stage with Rep. Patrick Kennedy (Ted’s son) back in January to endorse Obama, Obama’s top campaign aides had to be doing cartwheels.

A day before the endorsement event, Caroline Kennedy had written an op-ed for the New York Times titled “A President Like My Father” in which she stated that Obama was the only candidate since her father that she felt could inspire people the way her father did. What’s more is that she credited Obama with inspiring her children who in turn inspired her to be a part of Obama’s campaign.

At the endorsement event, the Kennedy’s constantly drew parallels between the late president and Obama. However one theme was constant throughout the entire event: that both President Kennedy and Sen. Obama have the capacity to inspire people of all ages. With two generations present on stage and numerous references to an inspired generation of “young people” the Kennedy’s made it clear that in their opinion Obama, like their father and brother, is a candidate for people of every age.

Not mentioned as much as the endorsements of Caroline, Patrick, and Ted are the endorsements of Robert Kennedy’s children and widow. Robert Kennedy Jr., Kerry Kennedy, and Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend all originally endorsed Hillary Clinton and were frequent guests on cable news shows in her defense. However both Max Kennedy and Rory Kennedy Bailey (also children of Robert) endorsed Barack Obama. Most significant, and perhaps the least covered, however is the early endorsement of Ethel Kennedy for Barack Obama who said in her Huffington Post endorsement, “Barack is so like Bobby…With courage, caring, and charisma, Senator Obama is leading us toward a kinder, gentler world.”

For forty years a generation of progressive baby-boomers has been waiting for a presidential candidate to pick up the torch of hope and inspiration they felt was lost with the assassinations of Kennedy brothers. Now the Kennedy family (or most of them at least) has said that Barack Obama is the person to pick up that torch—in fact they all said he already has.

So what does all this mean now that we are in the general election and past the primary? Mobilization. While few people would have been drawn from the undecided center by a simple press release endorsement by Ted Kennedy, the Kennedys endorsing Obama brilliantly used the political capital of their fallen patriarchs. Undecideds are not voters who are looking for a polarizing figure, they are looking for a figure that can unite the country—they want a “rally around the flag” president without the tragedy of a “rally around the flag” event. Both John and Robert Kennedy were those figures (or at least that is how their folklore is remembered today). Undecideds looking for unity and people who stopped voting because are disenchanted by the polarizing political process of today now have a candidate to rally around. Young people who couldn’t get excited about a candidate in the past now have people telling them that this man is not just the John Kennedy of their generation or the Robert Kennedy of their generation but both the John and Robert Kennedy of their generation and that may just be the thing to get the youth vote out of the cave.

Los Angeles: TitleTown USA

Recently, Sports Center has been profiling various cities across the country looking to crown a new city as “TitleTown USA.” While this miniature competition is most likely a time-filler for the program in the midst of the slow drawl of the American summer sports scene (baseball, NASCAR, and Olympic trials), it is fun competition that is well overdue. For years Green Bay has claimed the name of “TitleTown USA,” a claim that is pretty bold when one considers that the city hosts only one major sports team—the Packers. The name was claimed by the city because of the Packers dominance of the NFL in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1960s however since 1968, the team has claimed only one championship (Super Bowl XXXI).

Many Green Bay fans and residents were incensed when ESPN announced the competition. As soon as ESPN whittled the competition down to its top twenty teams they began flooding the sports blogosphere with their predictions of how the top twenty would eventually be ranked—all of which have Green Bay ranked as first. Most of these lists with Green Bay at first have Los Angeles ranked somewhere between five and ten. This is understandable as the Green Bay fans, bitter over the fact that they have finally been called out on this, are simply trying to discredit the city that has the truly has the right to claim the name “TitleTown USA.” But, what is most disturbing is the lack of support for Los Angeles to claim the title and even more so, the poor reasons given for Los Angeles to claim the title by those supporting the city.

Now, if you know me at all, you know I am quite possibly the biggest homer ever born. The San Francisco 49ers are the only one of my teams that is not from Los Angeles. Yes, I know I come dangerously to close to committing a mortal sin in the sports world by rooting for a Bay Area team while being from Southern California but my reasoning is simple. When the Rams left Los Angeles (really Anaheim) like the feckless wimps that they are, I shifted my alliance not only to their rivals but to a team with family connections (I have family members in the Bay Area who are huge 49ers fans). That being said, I now offer my completely biased (no that is not a typo I meant biased) opinion as to why Los Angeles truly is TitleTown USA. Granted, it shouldn’t be hard considering almost three-quarters of the top twenty teams are one-team-towns.

(I think I’m going to have to start with the most obvious reasons and then work my way down the list.)

Clearly, the most obvious reason why Los Angeles is TitleTown USA is UCLA. UCLA has won more NCAA team championships than any other collegiate team with 103. While cynics are quick to point out that this count does not include football since the NCAA does not officially grant the football championship trophy, UCLA still has more than any other team, still is the first team to 100, and their count goes up to 104 (UCLA shared the title with Ohio State in 1954, finishing first in the Coaches’ Poll) if you do add football to the totals,. But let’s break down that number a little to show UCLA’s dominance in some of the individual sports. First and foremost is Men’s Basketball; with eleven titles, it is clearly the most successful program in the history of the sport. Ten of those titles came in a twelve year span and seven were won consecutively. The mastermind behind those titles, John Wooden, is widely considered the best coach ever in any sport (even by USC head football coach, Pete Carroll). The program also produced the two best men’s college basketball players ever in Lewis Alcindor (a.k.a. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) and Bill Walton. But basketball is not the only sport that UCLA has dominated over the years, they have won 19 Men’s Volleyball NCAA titles (in fact in the 39 years that the NCAA has awarded a title in Men’s Volleyball, LA or LA-area teams have won the title 30 times—Pepperdine 5, USC 4, Long Beach State 1, and UCI 1). UCLA has also dominated in Softball with ten titles, Track and Field with eleven titles, Men’s Tennis with sixteen titles, Men’s Water Polo with eight, and Women’s Gymnastics with five in the last eleven years. Furthermore, UCLA has sent more athletes to the Summer Olympics than any other school in the country.

As much as it pains me to say it, the second most obvious reason for Los Angeles to win the title is that school downtown, USC. Please keep in mind that as I write about this school’s athletic success I am dying a little bit inside. Only two college football program have more national title’s than USC in the modern era and neither of them have won a title in the last fifteen years (two more teams have won more titles if you include the pre-modern era but neither of those teams have one since 1927). USC is also tied for most Heisman Trophies won with seven being taken home by their players. However, like UCLA, USC’s dominance is not limited to one sport alone. In all, USC has amounted 88 NCAA National Championships and 97 if you include football. Prior to UCLA’s dominance in Track and Field, USC won 26 titles. They also accumulated twelve titles in Baseball (eleven under coach Rod Dedeaux) and seventeen titles in Men’s Tennis. While no school has more Summer Olympic athletes than UCLA, no school’s athletes and former athletes have come home with more Olympic gold than USC.

On the professional side of things, you can’t think of the NBA without thinking of the Lakers. They have appeared in the NBA Finals more than any other team (29 times, 23 in Los Angeles) and have won the second most championships (14, 9 in Los Angeles, second only to Boston). Over the years, the Lakers have shown what it means to have a dominant center down low, starting with George Mikan in Minneapolis and continuing with Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabar, and Shaquille O’Neal in LA. Jerry West was Mr. Clutch, Magic Johnson created Showtime, and Kobe Bryant proved himself as one of the greatest guards of all time in Los Angeles. But nothing tops perhaps the most beloved member of the Lakers Family, the voice of Chick Hearn, the greatest basketball broadcaster of all-time who coined terms like “no harm, no foul,” “brick,” “he throws up a prayer,” “triple-double,” and “Slam Dunk.”

As far as baseball goes, Los Angeles has two teams (well only sort of, but the Angels started off as the Los Angeles Angels and right now are called the Los Angels so who cares what they were called when they won their World Series title in 2002). Regardless, since the Yankees fall from absolute power at the turn of the century, the only other consistent threats to win the pennant in the American League have been the Red Sox and Angels. And when you think of the greatest AL-NL rivalry in baseball, you immediately think of Yankees-Dodgers. Sure, it’s a carry over from the Dodgers’ days in Brooklyn but there still is no team in baseball I hate more than the Yankees. In addition, the Dodgers have been the World Series more than any other National League Team and are fifth on the list of most World Series titles with six (five in LA). One of the greatest moments in modern baseball history is Kurt Gibson’s walk-off homerun in Game 1 of the 1998 World Series, only the Dodgers broke their own record of four straight Rookies of the Year between 1979 and 1982 by getting five between 1992 and 1996, and only the Dodgers have Vin Scully to call their games.

Now for the miscellaneous reasons:

No other city has a cross-town rivalry as intense and heated as the rivalry between UCLA and USC.

As for past championships, Los Angeles actually is home to two Super Bowl titles since the Raiders won two of their titles while in Los Angeles.

Los Angeles is one of only two cities to host the modern Summer Olympics twice. In 1932, Los Angeles was the first city to create an “Olympic Village” for the athletes and in 1984 Peter Ueberroth and the organizing committee pulled off the most successful Summer Olympics ever.

Hockey has somehow managed to thrive in Los Angeles and hosted Wayne Gretzky as a King for most of his career. Plus, the Anaheim Ducks (an LA-area team) brought the West Coast its first Stanley Cup ever.

The Galaxy, in addition to winning the MLS twice, have rejuvenated professional soccer in this country by signing David Beckham.

And finally, because you knew I had to somehow shamelessly pull LMU into this argument, perhaps no other team has been a “champion of people’s hearts” quite as much as the 1989-1990 LMU Lion’s Men’s Basketball Team, led by Bo Kimble, as they defied all odds and marched into the Elite Eight of the NCAA Tournament after Hank Gathers, their captain and teammate, died suddenly during a game just weeks before.