1960. That’s when the second Catholic in the history of the US was nominated for the POTUS. Had JFK been a member of any mainstream Protestatant religion, the results of the election might not have been so close. Had Pope John XXIII invited JFK to meet with him during the election, he would probably have lost.
In 2013 as the College of Cardinals were gathering to select Pope Benedict XVI’s successor, I looked at the list of those that someone had put together as being “papable.” When the puff of white smoke was followed with the announcement that the new pope would be Jorge Mario Bergoglio, my response was a delighted “uh oh.”
Bernie Sanders meets Pope Francis at the Vatican —The Guardian.
The Hillary fans worked themselves into pretzels when it was announced that Sanders had been invited to a conference at the Vatican being held by Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. The pretzels included:
-Sanders wasn’t invited. He’s a gate-crasher.
-It wasn’t “The Vatican” or Pope that invited him. Bernie lied! (Didn’t matter that Bernie never said the Pope had issued the invitation.)
-The invitation isn’t an honor. It’s just a stupid conference.
-The Pope won’t meet with Bernie. Bernie lied and said he would. (Didn’t matter than Bernie didn’t say that.)
-Best of all, as reported by The Hill, Biden: ‘I doubt’ Pope Francis embraces Sanders’s ideas.
…to suggest that the pope embraces Bernie’s policies, I doubt that very much,” he told CNBC reporter John Hardwood. “I don’t know, [but] I doubt it very much. No, I don’t think it could be read that way at all.”
…
Biden on Friday explained how his understanding of Catholic doctrine might depart from Sanders’s rhetoric.
“I was raised in a tradition called Catholic social doctrine,” he said. “It is that is legitimate to look out for yourself, but never at the direct expense of someone else. It is legitimate to do well, but never at the expense of not looking at what’s behind you.”
…
That “understanding of Catholic doctrine” fits well with Biden’s IWR vote and his sponsorship of the 2001 and vote for the 2005 Bankruptcy bills. (Italics for corrections) Neither fits well with Catholic doctrine since Pope John XXIII. Perhaps it’s easier for lapsed Catholics than practicing Catholics to see that.
In keeping with the Vatican’s practice of releasing limited information, we are told the following about Sanders’ visit after the conference:
Sanders and his wife, Jane, stayed overnight at the papal residence, in the Domus Santa Marta hotel in the Vatican gardens, on the same floor as the pope, and were spotted at the hotel reception carrying their own bags.
…
Dr Jeffrey Sachs, a Sanders foreign policy adviser and adviser to the UN on climate change, said there were no photographs taken of the meeting.He said the couple met Pope Francis in the foyer of the hotel as he was leaving for Greece. The meeting lasted about five minutes, Sachs said.
…
White House Overnight Guest price? A modest $400. The Domus Santa Marta hotel, priceless?
The Domus Sanctae Marthae, named after St. Martha, is a five-story building on the edge of Vatican City.
While offering relative comfort, the residence is not a luxury hotel. The building has 105 two-room suites and 26 singles; about half of the rooms are occupied by the permanent residents. Each suite has a sitting room with a desk, three chairs, a cabinet and large closet; a bedroom with dresser, night table and clothes stand; and a private bathroom with a shower.
In addition to the monsignors who live there, members of pontifical academies who have meetings in Rome (for example, members of the Pontifical Academy for Life and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences), can also reside for a few days in the Domus. Other visitors have occasionally been permitted to stay there, and I too have had the great privilege of staying in the Domus on occasion. [emp added]
So, Hillary fans and Mr. Vice-President suck on that — the Sanders were invited because Bernie is a good man.
InteGritty That time the Clintons invited Pope Francis to come hang out with the 1% and he said no.
What’s the world come to when it’s easier for money to buy the White House than the Papacy?
The Papacy doesn’t need more money. God prints it for them and then ensures that it isn’t taxed. No off-shore money laundering for the Papacy, just secret cellars full of treasures. Bet on it. Been working that scam for almost 2,000 years and counting. Bet on that as well.
AG
“Secret treasures” and public treasures that up to this point they can’t really sell. So, the Vatican still needs money. But that is beside the point.
One can still buy a crypt at the new LA Cathedral for $2,000/sf, but I believe one has to be dead to buy those cribs. (Also note that the general contractor for the LA Cathedral was the best for the job and just happened to be owned by a good man that was also a Jew.)
The current valuation of the Papacy is just a temporary downturn in a stock that had=s been blue chip for going on 2000 years, Marie. The smart money bets the long-term winners. Always and everywhere. With a hedge on the newcomers just to make sure…
AG
It’s stock has been going down for five hundred years now. Still plenty of “widow’s mite” around the world to keep it as a going-concern for some time to come. But it’s not like the old days when they could dictate to monarchs.
Dana Houle tweet at 6:08PM, April 15, 2016:
I may take more delight in Houle being both a dick and wrong than others because he’s long been both. Somewhere around mid-2003 (give or take a couple of months), he showed up at dKos as a Wes Clark supporter without ever identifying himself as a professional campaign operative. Someone later outed him which iirc he took great umbrage at.
Such an insufferable ass. Luckily I only see Houle’s thoughts when I go to LGM, so my exposure is minimal.
○ Pope Francis brings 12 Syrians to Vatican from Lesbos
○ Photos: Pope Francis visits Lesbos
What’s with this uh stuff that the right wing is spouting about Bernie spending $1,000,000 on a private jet to see the Pope? I can see going by private jet, but unless he bought the plane, how could a charter cost $1,000,000. If that is verifiable it would sure slap the little people sending their average $27 contributions, so I have a very hard time thinking he would be that dumb.
Found this on the internet:
1.65 is sooo much a ton more than 1.50
Sounds bad, but how to you move a campaign staff and their equipment quickly by scheduled aircraft?
Do they think the President should visit Angela Merkel by Lufthansa?
The HRC and GOP fans are just going nuts looking for anything to criticize Bernie about. He was flying coach (not even business class) on commercial planes long after he shouldn’t have been doing so. The Clintons haven’t flown commercial in decades; although Snopes reports that Hillary flew commercial at the beginning of her 2016 campaign – probably for publicity reasons like her Scooby Doo van.
Secret Service Protection does make travel more complex. Charter planes are practically a necessity at that point. And more staff on the travel team is required. Don’t know if the campaign picks up the charter plane travel costs for the Secret Service, but do know that reporters that get a seat on the campaign’s plane have to pay for it.
NYC to Rome is about 1.8 times further than NYC to SF. Big deal. His supporters should be glad that he has the stamina to make such a trip and be a credit to his campaign while he was there.
Biden is such a pompous ass. As if he even knows anything about Pope Francis’s ideas. In fact some of his ideas are very much in line with Bernie’s. others not so much. So what. At least we’ve been spared a Biden candidacy/presidency. Give me a credit card scam and I’ll give you a Biden…from the onshore tax haven of Delaware.
Ah yes, “the Senator from Citibank”. I wonder if he bumped into Hillary in the revolving door.
At the end of Bernie’s press conference after his Vatican visit, a reporter asked if this would help him with the Catholic vote in New York. IMHO, that’s why VP Biden was pontificating about doubting the Pope’s endorsement of Bernie’s policies. It’s obvious that issues relating to income inequality are very important to both Pope Francis and Sen. Sanders and have been a main focus for both throughout their lives. Interestingly, back in January of this year, VP Biden praised Sen. Sanders’ stance on income inequality. Biden also mentioned that HRC was a newcomer to the issue of income equality.
“Vice President Joe Biden offered effusive praise for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders Monday, lauding Hillary Clinton’s chief rival for doing a “heck of a job” on the campaign trail and praising Sanders for offering an authentic voice on income inequality.”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politics/joe-biden-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-income-inequality/
Doubt that Bernie has have been shy or reticent to reference those that have informed or inspired him, or to name those, living or dead, that he respects or is in agreement with, but always seems to frame the area of agreement, etc. He has cited Pope Francis’ position on income/wealth inequality and the environment in speeches and has indicated respect for him. It could be nothing other than the way he plays politics, but it does seem genuine since he hasn’t changed his stances on anything over the decades.
I get why the HRC and GOP fans are freaked out about Bernie being invited to the Vatican. They feared that 1) this would be something that the MSM couldn’t ignore if the anti-Berns didn’t make a stink about it and 2) it would boost Bernies’ standing with voters enough that he could beat all of them. Bernie is the only candidate that has net positive favorables and they haven’t dropped by much as more people learned of him. The others have had net unfavorables for a long time and no upticks.
Cruz and HRC are sitting at 52% and Trump is at 41%. How did this guy get there with the MSM doing its best to shut him out and the Hillary campaign throwing everything they’ve got at him for the past year?
Bernie is scary because he doesn’t represent neoliberal income/wealth inequality. The long-con of the GOP and DEM elites.
They feared the Vatican invite could be the game changer or black swan.
Can an assassination plot be far behind? The big boys like to play rough and human life is as cheap to them as it was to Pol Pot.
Bolivia’s Morales Praises Bernie Sanders ‘Anti-Capitalism’, Tells Him to ‘Be Careful’
The picture of Evo and Bernie gave me some warm fuzzies. Evo (like Hugo Chavez) knows how dirty the USG and political operatives can play.
They did succeed in getting Lozada elected and the people loathed him.
Considering the net unfavorables of HRC, Cruz, and Trump, we could find ourselves in a similar situation come next November.
They help right wing candidates when they’re campaigning outside the US. Jim Messina helped Cameron and the Tories. Now that’s intersectionalism and diversity!
Every time I think of Messina, I think of SpongeBob Squarepants:
Yeltsin as well during Clinton’s administration. A reason to consider why HRC seems to have it in for Putin. (Yeah, Putin was aligned with Yeltsin back then, but they were none too pleased about the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 and USG support for KLA.)
that was fun!
Please don’t go there.
Why? You don’t think that the Koch’s haven’t killed to defend their empire? In Chicago, within my lifetime, businessman and politicians have killed for far less than billions. Sometimes for as little as millions.
I keep forgetting that although you are close to y age, you are younger. You don’t remember the trauma of the Kennedy assassination.
It’s not an age difference but a cultural difference. Out here, killing one’s business or political opponent is simply not done. No classic mob* running things and no machine politics. No elections fixed at the ballot box or the vote counting room.
At election time 1990, I was at a business conference in one of your n/w Chicago suburbs. That morning the local TV news carried the story of some local politician’s campaign office having been shot up the night before. This was outside my frame of reference and therefore, shocking to me. At lunch a Chicago CPA tried to explain to me why it was no big deal. Just a minor example of how Chicago does elections which he proceeded to elaborate on with large amounts of humor and all of which were foreign to me.
I most certainly do remember the JFK assassination. Know exactly where I was when the news of the shooting was announced. The mourning that ensued. Perhaps I’m a bit sensitive on this point because RFK was killed on CA turf. We don’t joke about such things.
*Once had a boss (a New Yorker who’d also lived in Chicago for about five years before landing in the Bay area) who preferred doing business in NV before the suits took over. When the mob ran the casinos, they took care of their own problems and didn’t bother to report the problem to outside officials like my boss.
OK, I see that. I vaguely remember the 1990 incident you mentioned. Vaguely, because you’re right, it wasn’t a big deal. All the things you mention in the first paragraph were known and accepted by us kids back in elementary school.
Wasn’t joking about JFK! Even Republicans here were in mourning for Republic if nothing else. They wanted him gone, but not that way. Republican voters, I;’m talking about here. I have no idea how the pols felt.
Wasn’t joking about sanders, either. I think it’s a real possibility if he were to show signs of gaining the white House. I don’t think HRC would be behind it (I could be wrong.) but Wall street, yeah! Those guys make the mafia look like saints.
Wall St plays by different rules than the mob. Both ruthless but the banksters aren’t really into contract killings. Easier to bankrupt a guy and let him choose life or death on his own. Now with the USG, the story is a bit different.
Neglected to include a comment about Sanders. The risk to him seems extremely low to me. We’re far less naive than we were fifty years ago and communication systems are fast and ubiquitous today. The percentage of people that view him unfavorably is extremely low. Those that could possibly benefit from him not being around are too well known and not viewed favorably by the general population. IOW — do that and the pitchforks come out.
Yes, assassination to stop a political movement usually has the opposite effect because the assassins create a martyr.
Is that a true aphorism? I suppose if the leader = the political movement, it can be closer to being true. Does seem to be more operative in religious movements than political movements. But even in the case of Jesus Christ, there was a long lag time between when he became a martyr and when his movement amounted to much of anything other than followers willing to martyr themselves in his name.
Leaders are important to political movements, but a martyr doesn’t seem to make them stronger and more often without the leader, they get weak very quickly. Dead leaders are generally just dead, regardless of whether or not their death results in him/her being accorded martyr status. Can’t think of any leader since WWII that was offed and it didn’t benefit the killers.
That liberal Israeli premier?
I’m a blank on that reference,
There’s no need to do that with someone like Sanders anyway. Just follow the François Mitterrand model. Of course, as the US is in charge of the Reserve Currency, do they have the same powers in that regard? I’m not sure they do.
My ideal leader would be someone like Olof Palme. We don’t know what happened or how/why he actually died, but it’s hard to believe the PTB had no involvement.
Perhaps. I doubt any clarity will come, unless a) it turns out that a state organisaiton (in Sweden or elsewhere) did it, b) they kept the records and c) said state opens the archives (which probably means some form of political revolution has happened).
Speaking of martyrs, if Palme had not been shot he would probably not been seen as much as a saint today. The Social Democratic party had started the process of turning towards Third way-ism / neoliberalism light under Palmes rule and he was closer with the economic right then the economic left within the party.
Yes, Palme was past his peak liberal prime. It’s for that reason that I discount his assassination as an organized conspiracy.
Well, there is that. On the other hand the cold war was still going strong and South Africa could have had their own motives considering the considerable aid Sweden gave ANC. And also, he was hated with red hot fury in right wing circles as a traitor to his class (Palme is a noble family, such things count). So it could have been a geopolitical affair that went different from the US-USSR main axis (of course there are theories pointing out CIA and KGB), or a local conspiracy.
I think the main argument against conspiracy is that the Palme couple did not follow any particular routine when Olof Plme was gunned down. On the contrary, Lisbeth Palme decided on a whim the same day to buy movie tickets, which is also why there was no bodyguards, they had gone home for the night after Olof Palme had finished his planned schedule. So either meeting the gun man was a chance encounter or there was an ongoing plot that seized the moment. Given the relative lack of surveilliance equipment in those days, and the lack of results when such equipment was searched for, such a plot would need to include policemen or really good covert operatives. Which it might, but the random circumstances could also mean it was a random murder by someone who had consumed to much anti-Palme stuff.
The initial investigation failed to round up the shooter, no gun has ever been connected to the shots (despite comparing all of the right caliber that has since turned up). The case is still open, and statute of limitation has been removed so that it will stay opened forever.
Unless there is a credible deathbed confession or opened archives (speaking of which: Stasi did their own investigation, it turned up nothing) I doubt we will ever know.
Valid points. Now see that I should have said that I discounted a US/UK/western European conspiracy. Also doesn’t compute for me that it would have been directed from within the USSR or one of its satellites as they had their own internal problems at that time (Perestroika was just beginning) and the cold war was a lot less hot by that time. The logistics wouldn’t have been difficult for a local group with patience. And as Sweden is not without rightwing (Nazis or neo-nazis) groups, there is that to consider for those with far more knowledge and interest than I have.
The political establishment doesn’t know what to do with someone like Bernie, because he doesn’t play by some of their rules. It’s fun watching them trashing around, dazed and confused, when they’re so used to having $$ take care of any problem. Now, the PTB have a “rockstar” Pope meeting with an FDR Democrat. Both are principled men and that’s really a problem.
Would be interesting to know all the real WH discussions about this election last year. Had a run by Biden been ruled out long before ’15 or was he toying with it until his son’s health didn’t look good (that would have been some months before it was made public in May ’16)? Was Obama gobsmacked to learn of HRC’s private server in March 2015? If not for Beau’s health, would Biden have jumped in at that point?
Beau’s death did lead to more public awareness of and sympathy for Biden. Was that why his name began to be floated for a POTUS bid? Or was it concern that HRC wasn’t going to survive the server issue? While Bernie was in the race by the first of May, doubt that he was then considered a serious challenger. The major impediment to a Biden run at that point was that HRC had appropriated the Obama funders and campaign operatives. So, was the “will he or won’t he” buzz the only option as they waited to see how it would shake out for HRC?
Polls back then indicated that Biden would have taken enough support from Sanders that Sanders wouldn’t have been viable in a three person race. But they also indicated that Biden was unlikely to get enough of HRC’s support that he could challenge her either.
The great thing about history over real time is that one can go back and pick up the pieces and threads that weren’t so apparent. For example, HRC’s contract with that tiny CO operation to “upgrade” her server. When that was disclosed, it seemed odd but inconsequential. Going back, it’s a lot clearer. The timeline indicates that it was the hack of Blumenthal’s email that put HRC on notice that others could learn of her private server and that’s when she and Bill began the clean up effort. Not possible that between the two of them that they wouldn’t have had access to the best in the IT world. So, who were they trying to keep this hidden from?
We don’t have all the pieces to the puzzle yet and the best can make mistakes.
my theory is 1st order of business, WH wants a dem, 2nd order of business preferably not HRC due to her undercutting Obama with email server and Ukraine; ostensible strong support of HRC makes that easier to accomplish. now that Sanders is looking more viable things seem to be happening to dislodge her [Carter’s statement most recently].
wonder what Obama and Sanders talked about in their meeting a few months back.
Wouldn’t put much weight on whatever Carter says about Hillary. Carter isn’t a DC insider and relations between the Carters and Clintons have been strained for decades. If given a choice, the Clintons prefer to hang out with the Bushes.
Of course a DEM WH would want to be succeeded by another DEM administration; the same is true for Republicans. But that’s at the public and institutional level. At the personal level, several other things come into play. At the top of that list is that few people are keen on a successor, even one of their own, that gets higher marks than his/her predecessor.
The Obama-Sanders talk probably concerned the need for Secret Service Protection.
My take is that we’re seeing a combination of an old agreement and more current issues. The old: the two would let ’08 bygones be bygones and everything that could be done to assist HRC to become his successor, if she chose to run, would be done. The new: the dawning realization that the Clintons aren’t like him, but as POTUS, HRC would make Obama look even better by comparison. There are differences between the two on foreign policy (significant but not huge differences), but otherwise, very similar. Biden would be an Obama third term which would please Obama, but short of a black swan that’s not to be.
you’re completely missing my point. Carter hated Clinton, Carter and Obama get along great; Carter statement now, part of Obama push against Hillary now that Sanders is viable
Only partially missing your point. I used more polite phrasing for the Carter-Clinton relationship. However, doubt that the Carter-Obama is more than one of mutual respect which is a long ways from having Carter act as a secret surrogate for Obama. Agree that Obama would prefer someone other than HRC to succeed him, but disagree that he’d prefer that person to be Sanders. Not sure why so many people continue to view Obama as authentically progressive. If he ever was, which I doubt, he’s far too invested in the neoliberalcon political position to walk away from it.
He’s also a decent enough person not to recoil from the possibility of Trump or Cruz as his successor. He’s stuck with HRC and wasn’t an innocent bystander in how that came to be.
well we disagree about Obama, that’s been clear for ages. and since you view him as a a neoliberal con you’ll never agree with my take on what’s happening now. secret surrogate isn’t the word I’d use for Carter, he’s a statesman and very concerned about what’s happening. btw look at the new poll with HRC unfavorables higher than ever.
Sanders is the only option other than HRC, given that his first priority is electing a dem, so Sanders is the one he’ll support – I’m assuming you have a typo in your last sentence.
but I view Sanders as phase II of what Obama set in motion, as I said, I know you don’t share my view of Obama. OTOH I’ve been pretty accurate guessing what Obama would do in fp, so I have plenty of confidence in my reading.
Go to disagree with you and agree with Marie3. Obama ran a con game to get progressive support. Obama doesn’t want Sanders but would have been glad to have Biden succeed him. I think he would prefer someone else to Clinton, but it would be someone like Cuomo, not Sanders.
He does play 11th dimensional chess but not on policy. he plays it on power politics. His game is power. I doubt if he gives a hoot about policy other than to satisfy his backers, who are the same as Hillary’s backers. I should say puppet masters rather than backers.
“[Biden’s] sponsorship of the 2005 Bankruptcy bill. “
This is one of those zombie lies. Biden did not, in fact, sponsor the bankruptcy bill. That particular piece of shit was co-sponsored by Tom Carper and Chuck Grassley and many others, but not Biden.
Biden did, however, vote in favor of it.
Biden was the co-sponsor of the 2001 bankruptcy bill. Had a fleeting moment of doubt when I typed 2005 in the diary and should have stopped and checked my facts. Will edit the diary. Thanks.
Joe Biden was a leading sponsor of a 2001 banking-industry-backed bill that would have made filing for bankruptcy more difficult. Elizabeth Warren, with the help of Ted Kennedy, succeeded in stopping this particular bill. The bill eventually passed in 2005, and as you state, Joe Biden voted for it.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/24/434331154/the-biggest-divide-between-joe-biden
-and-elizabeth-warren
“Hillary fans and Mr. Vice-President suck on that”
What exactly was the point of this remark? It seems to me that in your evident desire to feel superior to “Hillary fans”, you’ve done a nice job of demonstrating precisely the sort of attitude that Pope Francis himself does not demonstrate. I am a huge skeptic of Francis’ ability to change the course of the Vatican ship of state, but it does appear to me that he is personally a pretty decent guy, and does not go around telling people to “suck on it”.
What was the point of Hillary fans concocting all sorts of disinformation to denigrate the Vatican invitation to Sanders? Or Biden saying that Catholic theology is unlike what Sanders advocates for? Why couldn’t they just say, “That’s nice.” Or ignore it completely?
Are Sanders’ supporters supposed to be Christlike and keep turning the other cheek as HRC, her campaign, and fans pummel Bernie and his supporters with lies, disinformation, and any low down trick that they can come up with as they have been doing for almost a year now? Why doesn’t the behavior of HRC, etc. offend you? Would you have chastised me if I’d said that GWB/Cheney, etc. and all those the voted for the IWR and supported the war to suck on it when no WMD were found (as anyone with half a brain should have known before that “excellent adventure would be the case)?
I make no secret of my dislike, etc. for liars, propagandists, cheaters, etc. They aren’t good people and do much damage in the world. So yes, in those instances when they are quickly exposed for what they are, I’ll say something like “suck on it.”
Bernie was honored to have received the invitation and understood that it wasn’t political but a shared values on the environment on income inequality. As those are important components of his campaign, he could hardly have been expected on to point that out.
I think Pope Francis will make some important changes to the Catholic church, but he knows what he is up against. The last pope resigned, which is significant in itself. You may find this article interesting. If this happens, it will be “yuge.” Recognizing divorce and allowing priests to marry? What’s next?
http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=59123
The canonization of Martin Luther?
Good one. If I was in charge, Luther would be canonized. Many times I have said, “Thank God for Martin Luther.” I say this as someone who attended Catholic schools from 1st grade through college. Luther is considered by some as one of the most influential people during the last milleunimm, consistently maintaining a very high rank.
http://www.wmich.edu/mus-gened/mus170/biography100
http://www.dlmark.net/hundlife.htm
People forget that his original aim was to reform the Catholic Church.
But Luther was so rude and his tone was all wrong. He should have kissed the ring and prostrated himself before the Pope and politely asked for less, a few small and incremental changes.