Via Amy welborn's site, Karl "Kerry is a non-negotiable" Keating has a letter to his followers critical of what Crisis magazine has become. Let's see some highlights, shall we:

In its early years, though, the proportions were different. "Catholicism in Crisis" ran articles about Catholicism in crisis. The 1986 name change did not see a major change in focus. Two decades ago the magazine was mainly a vehicle for the critique of the wider, secular culture, secondarily an analyzer of the way that culture impacted the Church (for the worse, mostly). There were articles that were overtly political, but they were the exception.

About a decade ago the emphasis changed. The magazine moved from South Bend to Washington, and Deal Hudson became involved in Republican politics, which meant "Crisis" also became involved in Republican politics.

When the offices were moved, I had a sense of unease. A magazine can be produced anywhere. Nowadays the offices don't need to be close to the writers. Many editorial tasks can be done via e-mail. So why the move to Washington? Maybe it was in part to give "Crisis" more credibility with decision makers, people who might be able to put into play (or to obstruct) Catholic social and moral principles.

Fair enough, but still I was uneasy. My unease increased when Hudson became the liaison from Catholics to the Bush White House. Such a position is needed; I like the idea of a Catholic voice being heard at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But should the liaison be the head of a Catholic magazine that might need to editorialize against Administration policies?

The intractable problem is partisanship. You can't escape it in such a situation, either personally or professionally. And over time it showed. "Crisis" became accused of being a Republican house organ. Usually the criticism was made by heterodox Catholics or by Democratic Party agents, but more and more the criticism seemed to have some merit. I can't recall anything in the magazine that criticized the Bush Administration but plenty that criticized its opponents.

What a load of hogwash. Karl Keating, Deal Hudson, etc are all in the same partisan hackery crowd. They all voted for and worship George Bush and the Republican Party. They are Republicans in Catholic skin. So whence cometh this "balanced," "objective," introspection nonsense. Unlike Hudson, Keating is trying to be Republican but appear neutral. But he gives himself away when he says, "Usually the criticism was made by heterodox Catholics or by Democratic Party agents." That "or" is either means "heterodox Catholics"="Democratic Party agents" or "or" implies that "heterodox Catholics" and "Democratic Patry agents" are in the same class of people on the inherently wrong side as opposed to the Righteous "orthodox" Republicans.

Why not just get a spine and say "I am Republican and damn proud of it"? Deal Hudson does. We Catholic Democrats don't tip toe around, we are Democrat and proud to be.

It is amazing how since the election, Republicans of all stripes have been backsliding from George Bush. They don't want to associate with him because everyone knows that when the dust clears, George W. Bush would have the disctinction of being one of the worst presidents in U.S. history. The man lacks, intelligence, integrity, competence, and character and he has been nothing but a puppet for unseen malignant forces, who manipulate him by proping up his ego. But that's a post for another day.

For the record, there are some decent Republicans out there, they still have to explain that vote for Bush.