Bermudez answered; ‘the “Francis effect” is probably the best name, as vague as it is, to describe this phenomenon, since I find hard to pinpoint what has made Pope Francis such a colossal figure in today’s world. Is it his warm, loving concern for the little ones? Is it his testimony of a simple, humble life? Is it his message of mercy and forgiveness? Is it a combination of all those or something else? I don’t think anyone can pinpoint it. But the fact is that Pope Francis has revitalized the presence of the Catholic Church and opened new opportunities to re-propose the tenets of Christianity to a confused world. That is the “Francis effect.”’
Who is capitalizing on this “Francis Effect” and does it even involve Pope Francis??
Kicking off the show will be Erin Mersino from the Thomas More Law Center to discuss with us the Oral Arguments that took place for the Hobby Lobby/HHS Mandate Supreme court case.
After that, Michael will welcome John DeJak, President of the Bellarmine Forum.
Also, joining Michael to discuss his book, “The Vatican Diaries”, will be author, John Thavis.
In the Bulk of the show Michael will welcome Joe Garcia and Kate O’Hare, two writers who have discovered massive errors in what Pope Francis has said compared to how Pope Francis has been translated.
After yesterday’s “media tempest in a teapot” over some misquoted lines from a Mike Huckabee’s speech, pundits are debating whether Republican men should discuss women’s issues or just zip it. In a speech before the NRC, the former Arkansas Governor said Democrats want to “insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government.” Some media outlets reported the line as if Huck himself believed women can’t control their libido. Many took offense that he characterized Democrats as believing the same.
John Hayward weighed in at the Conversation,arguing that men shouldn’t shy away from important issues, but learn to avoid certain words and phrases that can be easily mischaracterized.
The other conservative backlash I’ve noticed against this specific passage of Huckabee’s speech is that he was foolish to set himself up for misquote mania by daring to talk about women’s libidos and reproductive systems, even if he was sarcastically describing Democrats’ views of women, or more precisely their political agenda to make women see themselves that way. Republicans are therefore supposed to avoid using any words that could be randomly resorted to make them look really bad. In fact, maybe it would be best if male Republicans avoided talking about women altogether, especially in the context of social issues.
There are a few topics that could be judged especially radioactive – the fallout zone around Todd Akin is large, and it’s got a half-life that take years to decay. But it seems to me that backing male Republicans away from “women’s issues” entirely would be ceding a great deal of rhetorical territory to the Democrats, who incessantly make proclamations on those subjects. In fact, if male Republican candidates never say a word about women, they will soon be attacked for their silence on women’s issues. Is the challenge really more about avoiding certain words and phrases? That’s really a universal political skill, when you think about it. Every conceivable segment of the electorate has words and phrases that are guaranteed to provoke a negative reaction. And when you’re a Republican, you can guarantee the media will never, ever ignore your utterance of those hot-button phrases.
Bret Baier asked the panel to weigh in on the question on Special Report, Friday evening. He noted that Republicans (ever in a defensive posture)had chosen Congresswoman Kathy McMorris Rogers to give the Republican response to Obama’s State of the Union speech – hoping to mitigate the Democrats’ “War on Women” b.s.
Krauthammer declared, “that kind of cosmetic change is not going to work if you keep having people talk about the psychology of women’s sexuality. For God’s sake, why do you have to talk about that?!” My thoughts exactly. Republicans are not impressed with symbolic gestures – (if that’s what it is.) They need to learn how to talk about women’s issues without giving Democrats any openings to attack them on, and go on the offensive where we’re on solid ground.
Dr. K.’s advice to Republicans is for them to talk about issues like late term abortions – which everyone agrees are an abomination – or the Regime’s attacks on the Little Sisters of the Poor.
“When there’s a suit between the leviathan State of Obama and the Little Sisters of the Poor”, Krauthammer declared, “take the side of the Little Sisters of the Poor. You can’t lose.”
As Catholic bishops across the country speak out against the Obama administration’s contraception mandate during an election year, one would think Democrats in private are suffering severe heartburn. In public, however, they’re showing a united front in support of Obama. Nicholas Ballasy of The Daily Callerasked Reid if he thought it was a good idea, politically, for the president to go against the Catholic Church on the provision.
Acknowledging that it is “not good for Democrats” to go “head-to-head” with “any church,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told The Daily Caller that he and his Democratic caucus “totally” support President Barack Obama forcing religious institutions to cover contraception in employee health insurance plans or pay a federal fine.
Catholic bishops across the country are speaking out against this provision of the health care law.
TheDC asked Reid if he thinks it is a good idea, politically, for the president to go against the Catholic Church on the issue.
“Of course it’s not good for the Democrats to go head-to-head against any church, so we certainly don’t intend to do that,” Reid said at the Capitol on Tuesday. “But we had a good discussion in our caucus today and the caucus totally supports the president. I do.”
What an awkward position to be in. “No, we certainly don’t intend” to go “head to head against any church”, yet here we are doing just that. In an election year. The feminazis love us. Mainstream Americans are recoiling in horror. It’s a risky strategy to be sure.
Charles Krauthammer, after noting how badly the Obama administration misjudged the issue, predicted on Fox’s Special Report that they would eventually cave:
1. Heat oven to 350. Prepare cake mix as directed on box using water, oil, and egg whites; bake in 13×9 inch pan. Cool completely.
2. Pierce cooled cake with fork at 1/2 inch intervals. In medium bowl, stir geletan and boiling water until dissolved. Stir in cold water. Carefully pore mixture over entire surface of cake. Refrigerate at least 3 hours or until serving time.
3. In large bowl, mix pudding mix and milk until well blended. Gently stir in whipped topping. Spread over cake. Arrange strawberries and blueberries on top of cake to resemble flag. Store in refrigerator.