Poll: Obama’s Standing with Catholics Taking a Dive in Swing States
Note how The Hill titles their post about this:
Protest by Catholic activists may hamper Obama reelection bid
It’s the Catholic protesters’ fault! What are they protesting? What has Obama done? Not important…
President Obama has seen his standing among Catholic voters, a crucial segment of the electorate, slip in recent weeks, and a looming confrontation with Catholic activists could make it worse.
Democrats want voters this year to focus on what they have branded a war on women, but the flip side of the debate — the so-called war on religion — is not going away anytime soon.
Two graphs into the story, The Hill still hasn’t mentioned what Obama did.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called for two weeks of public protest in June and July against what it sees as growing government encroachment on religious freedom.
What are they protesting? The Hill seems to think it’s a secret.
The protests are expected to include priests and nuns and thousands of Catholic parishioners. Some activists expect civil disobedience, which could lead to powerful images of priests and nuns being led away in hand restraints.
“This is the most dynamic situation I’ve ever seen since I’ve been involved in Catholics and politics,” said Deal Hudson, president of Catholic Advocate, who also headed Catholic outreach for the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign in 2000 and 2004. “I think civil disobedience is almost inevitable. I think that kind of protest is on the way.”
Republican strategists say the rallies and protests could become powerfully symbolic in the presidential election.
What. Are. They. Protesting? The Hill’s article was either incompetently written, or deliberately designed to make the Catholics look like the aggressors for protesting something that Roll Call deems unmentionable.
Skipping over a couple of paragraphs, none of which explain why Catholics may protest, we come to this:
Steven Wagner, the president of QEV Analytics, a polling firm that recently conducted a survey for The Catholic Association, said religion could emerge as a sleeper issue in the election: “Everyone says this election is about the economy. I can see the issue of religious liberty being what decides the race. If Obama continues to lose Catholics by the margin the Pew poll suggests, that means he could lose the key swing states of Florida, Ohio, Colorado and Iowa.”
Losses in those states could cost Obama the White House, and the states are likely aware of that fact. Wagner noted the administration will likely try to be careful and avoid provoking Catholic activists before the election.
Really? Weren’t they already provoked by something, Hill? What was it?
Let’s inject a little race into the story.
Obama has lost support among Catholic voters since the beginning of his term. A March 21 poll by the Pew Research Center found a “noticeable shift in opinions” among white Catholics in their views of the administration. Thirty-one percent of white Catholics now describe it as unfriendly to religion, compared to 17 percent in August of 2009.
Emphasis added. Now that The Hill has injected race into a story about a religious protest story for no real reason, it can get around to mentioning why Catholics are angry.
The administration’s mandate requiring faith-based organizations to cover the healthcare costs of contraception has been the biggest cause of Catholics’ concern.
Yeah, I love it. To listen to these media dirtbags, you’d think Obama has done absolutely nothing the last 3.5 years. Catholics are mad at him? Gee, how come? Obama’s popularity tanked and the Democrooks lost the House in 2010? Must be some kind of psychotic spasm or something. Hey, Obama’s not a shoo-in for reelection? These people must be nuts or something! Either that, or they’re raaaaacist.
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody
Yes, you’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well it may be the Devil
Or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody
/Bob Dylan/
A majority of American Catholics voted for the Devil. Got their just reward, so now perhaps it will be back to the Lord. Oh, yeah!
Freedom from government in general is going to be a big issue this fall and not just among religious voters. A federal government that can toss away the lunch a mother packs for her child and force the child to eat chicken nuggets from the school cafeteria is a federal government a great many people think has gotten way, too big.
I saw first hand this week the “chicken nuggets” being served at an elementary school in the Piedmont. I had to ask one of the kids if that “stuff” was nuggets. They were about the size of a nickel, looked more like fried okra. That move to trash a home made lunch was so wrong on so many levels. I soooooo hope we stay Republican after this election cycle!
Our choices are:
1) more Obama: more erosion of Constitutional rights, more demonization of the Church, more politics of division trending toward mob violence necessitating more police state
2) the Republican candidate with the same false promises as past Republican presidents of fiscal responsibility, limited government and rollback of the increasingly intolerant secularist orthodoxy
We will do the same thing we’ve always done while expecting a different result than the one we’ve always gotten. Hail Caesar.
Spudnik you have got it wrong.
Romney & the Republicans may need to be watched like all politicians.However,in the last analysis,Romney & the Republicans are completely sane & somewhat concerned about their homeland…AMERICA!Obama & his crew are crazy nihilists who want to murder the American Republic!
To paraphrase Winston Churchill,(If the Republicans win)”It will not be the beginning of the end” (of our problems)”but it is,perhaps,the end of the beginning”
retired, I have to disagree. That’s exactly the thinking that the two major parties have encouraged their supporters to use in order to play a rope-a-dope on all of us. In order to point to a Republican president who balanced the books you have to go back a long, long way. And the “Obama is a crypto Muslim/Manchurian Candidate” meme is a distraction from the fact that economic and foreign policy stayed the course after Dubya. The Democrats attack freedom of conscience as “right wing extremism” while the Republicans avoid the issue on the advice to shun “controversial” issues. The differences exist in the realm of rhetoric, not actual policy or demonstrated track record. The talking heads want to keep us so blind with fury at that dangerous extremist on the other side that we don’t notice that things continue in the same direction. We’ve been told every election for decades that *this* Republican is different than the rest, And We Really Really Mean It This Time For Sure, Part XVIII. They are just taking advantage of our wishful thinking.
“This is part of a very orchestrated campaign by the bishops to make contraception the focus of the 2012 election,” he said.
LOL! Somebody tell George Stephanopoulos.
That may be a good thing.
The fact remains that by compelling the Catholics (directly or indirectly) to pay for the murdering of babies, this administration has violated the Constitution, and the consequences should be way heavier than losing an election.
The Pilgrim Fathers came here to avoid that the powers of the world could rape their conscience.
The Constitution was written to protect all the Citizens from the same danger.
It is the extreme danger, because our only real possession is dignity.
Deprived of the Freedom of our conscience, we are slaves. Even if the chains are invisible.
This administration has violated the letter and the spirit of the Constitution.
But, nobody has called for the impeachment of this new king and his barons.
PS
It is philosophically evident that if “someone” is a slave, everybody is a slave. Including the “kings” and the “barons”.
They walked back to the chains.
And they are so ignorant and fanatic that they don’t even understand that.
Such is the game of evil.
If it’s the LSM, the moniker is: All the news we can skew to fit our view. (For example, NBC & ABC on the Zimmerman/Martin case.) But the headline I would really like to see is: Protest by JEWISH activists may hamper Obama reelection bid
I’d love to see it, too, but it almost certainly won’t happen unless O is seen to plainly stab Israel in the back somehow. New poll shows O has had a big erosion in Jewish support — from 78% in ’08 all the way down to 62% now. That’s right — 62% still back him! Incredible, but the Jewish romance/obsession with leftism is extremely strong.
And you’g think they’d be wary of left wing politicians, in light of the fact that a left wing politician made quite an effort to rid the world of them 70+ years ago. Apparently, ignorance IS bliss.
Very interesting article — reminds me of how my sister explained that the sewing machine had gotten knocked over into the floor — “Something was on it”, she said. “What?” asked my mother. “Me” she softly answered.
The only time Obama avoids the words “I, me, or my” is when it is time to take responsibility. I also see here that Roll Call has redefined “activist” into anyone who practices Catholicism and disagrees with Obama. The current media meme is all about painting the right as out of the mainstream, ‘activist’, or radical. Meanwhile the radicals in the WH are taking over what’s left of our civil liberties unobserved and unreported…
With regard to the First Amendment:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
And with regard to Mr. Obama:
When a man takes an oath, he’s holding his own self in his own hands like water, and if he opens his fingers then, he needn’t hope to find himself again.
–Sir Thomas Moore, ‘A Man for All Seasons’
So the “white Catholic” crowd has turned ther backs on The Won?
There was an increase of 14% who consider the administration unfriendly between 2 polls conducted 18 months apart.
Hmm, what changed in the past 18 months? Obamacare and the contraceptive issue?
Of course not! Has to be that “white Catholics” have become 14% more racist.
As a practicing white Catholic, I take offense to that insinuation. I haven’t liked the guy since 2008, and haven’t changed my opinion.
Well, it IS technically true: the one white Catholic in the family (me) is even less fond of Obama than I was in the 2008 election. (oh and the other nine people in the family dislike him more too)
So was Roll Call categorizing hispanic Catholics as white?
RollCall is part of the British owned The Economist Grp…the voice of the One Worlders and nothing more than a shill for the Corporate Socialistic Democrats aka Facism.
Roll Call gets it wrong, but that is of no consequence. This conflict with Obamacare is not only a Catholic issue, although the Catholic Bishops have played a part. There are a number of faiths who feel the 1 st Amendment threat, who are joining the bishops in strong resistance. The commonality is not birth control, as a dogmatic issue. Some faiths see nothing wrong with birth control. The WH and HHS attempted to fight on this divided issue, for tactical advantage.
The central conflict is abortion, which is considered homicide by most Americans. The conflict is forcing a religious self insured employer to pay for an act which they consider inherently evil. Politicians, masters of squaring a circle, e. g. President Obama, can not smooth this boulder in his road.
There is a wholly different voting block, the tea party, who sees red when the government funds some one else’s basic responsibility. The WH speaks to them with illogical arguments; here saying it does not cost much, the insurers will cover it for free, or there, saying it is very expensive, that poor little ladies should not pay for their fun.
If the other voting block is considered, those who fear mandated contracts between citizens and any party, are considered, it is difficult to see how this crowd will stay in office. The SC heard arguments on this aspect, and the only doubt is whether they will trash the entire law (it lacks a sever-ability clause), or just vital pieces.
With no bipartisan support, Obama rammed a program that restructured 1/6 of our national economy, by fraud (ex Congressman Stupak’s double cross) and by deeply offending many Americans, of diverse judgments.
This election is headed toward a Republican sweep, unless they screw it up.
Lefties and progressives ignore or are blind to the fact that Catholics don’t keep score based upon race, gender or ethnicity. Inferring that Obama’s Catholic opponents are racists will only increase their numbers and strengthen their resolve vote against Obama and other Democrats. I feel a Republican landslide coming.
the only religion he cares about is islamic religion to them they don’t believe there should be any other religion , and if obama does get elected again he’ll try his best to make sure that there’ll be no other religion left on this earth , he is a dangerious man , much like hitler looks as if he has already started his destroying civilians & citizens so whats next in his evil plans to become a world leader , he has proven to be the worlds biggest failure
Well, this is what happens when the socialists take over the government, not to mention government-run healthcare. What the bishops never actually believed was that once the socialists take over healthcare, the bishops had to dance to their tune, especially when the socialists are paying the bills. So it came as a great surprise that all of the promises that Obama made with Bart Stupack ment absolutely nothing. Abortion on demand was going to be in federal healthcare one way or the other, regardless of what those pesky churches had to say about it.
So now the bishops and their parishoners are having their say, and it’s a big one. Obama should have known better than to take on the Catholic church. He will lose this battle big time. This is an outright assault on freedom of religion and if Obamacare is upheld by the Supreme Court (let’s hope not), then next in line will be the Catholic church taking the government to the Supreme Court over this. And you know what? The church will win. I doubt even this court is going to force the Catholic church to pay for abortions. But if Obamacare is struck down, this whole argument becomes moot because then Congress will have to start all over again with healthcare.
Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, and Mr. Obama, eat your hearts out. Don’t ever, ever, mess with Catholic bishops. And they WILL take this battle to the streets and to the ballot boxes if Obamacare is upheld. Count on it.
That was The Hill and not Roll Call please. I’m surprised so many comments has flown around without a correction.
Obama’s war against the Catholic Church will be his undoing.
– prez and Salt watch Gangs of New York.
The punchline to the old joke about Catholic Alzheimers is: “You forget everything except your grudges.” Catholics have been a reliable Democrat voting block since the Blaine Amendments of the 1880′S and 90′s.
As late as the 1980′s, Catholic bishops were providing cover for Catholic Democrat pro-abortion politicians by means of the “Seamless Garment” doctrine, which equated the inherent evil of abortion with the conditional evils of capital punishment and warfare.
This shameful accomodation has resulted in arrogant Catholic politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius lecturing the Bishops on morals, and Former Catholics becoming the second largest religious denomination in the US.
Obama’s HHS overreach is creating a techtonic shift which is moving the Catholic Church, whose bishops have rediscovered their moral authority, over to the Republican side of the divide.
I have a secular objection to paying for someone else’s birth control. It’s one thing to ‘pay to play;’ another entirely to pay for someone else to play. If I have to pay for someone else’s sex, they could at least let me borrow their playmate for a a bit – at minimum, mow my lawn & do other husbandish things. I am being discriminated against in the sexual arena just because I’m old, fat and ugly and it’s not fair! Where’s MY level playing field? When do the Brittney Spears look-a-likes start sharing their boyfriends with me? Everybody talks about being oppressed by ‘The Man;’ being oppressed by the ‘The Woman’ isn’t so great either.
And really, since sex has been around much longer than birth control, it is truly a much more basic right.
Mah Buddy Barry aka Barack (Part One)
Ah ain’t used to writin much but ah tries and dats da main thing right? Ah gots lotsa help with dis so don’t complane bout my speling, ok? I jest wanna share mah o-pinions an complaints about our most awesomest president.
Most people call him Barack Obama or mebbe include his middle name, Hussein, but dat just be too Muslim, if yo catch mah drift. Anyways, to me he’s just plain ol’ “Barry,” the name he used fo years befo he got uppity and went to Columbia and Hahvard with a little help from his friends and learnt about his roots like Kunta Kinte.
I can call him Barry since him, Mishelle, and his honky veep an his dago campaign manager adress me by the name mah momma gave me when they email me once or twicet a week.
Ah signed up to be on Barry’s emailing list years ago and, since den ah be most proud to say I been invited to the White House a buncha times. Well, dey wasn’t invitations, dey was “opportunitys” to be invited if ah sent him money but ah consider them pretty real, specially dose extra-special invites to Barry’s and Mishelles birthday blasts.
Ah didn’t go because ah couldnt buy presents after we spend all our food stamps on some goodies, Ha, Ha, ya know wut ah mean. Ahm a responsibble person. Ah needed what was left to feed all my kids.
Yep, ahm what dey call a forty-seven percenter cuz 47% of Amerika is on food stamps and Barry is da food stamp prez and whats wrong with dat? They ain’t stamps no more, anyway. Now dey give us a credit card thing that makes us look like we’re acshully payin for our food!
Now, I can unnerstand the prez’s Wall Street friends like Goodman Sax are pissed at him for calling dem ”fat cats” but, c’mon, dey are fat, but why is it all about the green alla time, man? The Obama emails always go back to money like when ah was sorta invited to a party jest yesterday by some beatch, Ann Marie Habershaw.
She was nice tho and she gave me some good advise. She told me to ”Choose your guest wisely” when ah send her three my bucks–which i didn’t–to enter a raffle “to go to a party for the President at George Clooney’s house.” He’s dat actor that everyone thinks is gay but ah think he’s a lyin’ hypocrit for tryin to say he’s a ninety-nine percenter and we all know he’s a stinkin zillionire!
Just today, ah gots anudder emails what sez dey will pays mah aeroplane fair, dat is if ah coughs up dat tree bucks an ah wins da contest. Ahm not gonna tho. Ah jest don’t think no grate man like Barry shoud be rafflin hisself off like dat for 3 lousy bucks!
They all seem to have this thing about dat three number. My buddy hisself sent me an email last week. He sez, “The other side thinks they can win by trashing me” and axed me to give him three to help stop that damn trashing.
Ah couldn’t figger whose been trashing . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=22350)
Those people clinging to their religion and guns, you know.
Catholics get what they deserve if they get in bed with the Left.
I’ve read recently though, that when the Catholic Church uses the term “Social Justice”, they define it differently than the common Marxist definition.
I take the “white Catholics number” to be information that tells me that Catholics,if they are Black, will not leave Obama and I think that is true,
Obama will always have the Kennedy catholics with him. They are the well to do yuppies who have tried to prevert the Church so that it will approve of their immoral life style. Ted Kennedy a serial adulterer and possible murderer posed as a pious catholic and shamefully was given a Church funeral in Boston ( of course the Boston catholics have been in the tank for the millionaire Kennedy family since the days of Cardinal Richlieu Cushing a buddy of old Joe Kennedy, the crooked adulter). Also the Notre Dame crowd which has declared war on the papacy will be right up there with Obama and the abortion industry. We should also mention those staunch Kennedy Catholics like Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sibelius; they no longer worship Jesus Christ as the son of God but the have put up the false idol of Obama which they worship and bow to.
This piece should be retitled, I had to do a double take to see that HObama wasn’t standing along side with catholics
Catholic Susan Sarandon Blacklisted!
You would think that with his past, sleazey connections President Barack Hussein Obama would be ultra-tolerant of fellow leftists-liberals-radicals but that’s not always the case, especially when they become an embarrassment in an election year.
It was perfectly acceptable in 2008 for Obama to be bosom buddies with revolutionists William Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright, and other professed anti-Americans. Most voters knew about those illicit associations–or should have known– yet they elected Obama anyway.
When Obama appointed to high offices such reprobates and revolutionaries such as Harold Koh, Kevin Jennings, John Holdren, Van Jones, Dawn Johnson, Mark Lloyd, Chai Feldblum, and a slew of other sick fruitcakes, it seemed obvious that our president didn’t give a damn what Americans thought of his extremist background or of his far out nominees and his supporters didn’t seem to give a damn, either.
That view now turns out to be incorrect. Obama is in fact occasionally selective as to who is awarded the Obama imprimatur and who is consigned to executive oblivion. Apparently, the aging actress and radical poster “girl,” Susan Sarandon is now on the Anointed One’s S-list.
Denied a White House security clearance, Sarandon also claims her telephone has been tapped and that the government maintains a dossier on her. It all sounds like paranoia except that her whining might have a basis in fact. . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=22341.)
Obama will probably try to mollify Catholics by saying he will not push the mandate, but will drop it. But. Obama cannot be trusted. Scott Brown was elected by the Tea Party because of his opposition to Obamacare. Obama took him for a helicopter ride, and promised to issue an executive order prohibiting federal funds for abortion, etc. Brown voted for Obamacare. Obama went ahead with the contraception, abortion laws. Obama is a liar, and we must elect to office conservative local, state and federal officials.
Obama will probably try to mollify Catholics by saying he will not push the mandate, but will drop it.
Of course, he will have more “flexibility” after his last election.
Keep remembering that Obama was elected by only 30% of registered voters. There was a 58% turnout and of the people who actually voted, 52% voted for Obama. Multiply 0.58 and 0.52 and you get 0.30. Just 30% of registered voters saddled us with Obama. Forget about the polls and just vote. He has not gained followers.
IMHO, the Catholic Church IS a socialist organization with many US bishops who vigorously support Obama. Why do you think Europe has become so socialist. The Catholic Campaign for Human Development in the Archdiocese of Chicago provided millions to ACORN in the past and is probably still doing so. Catholic universities like Notre Dame are “Christian in Name Only” (also IMHO) as they support and defend Obama in every way possible.
By supporting corruption and stealing from taxpayers over the years in the name of “social justice,” the RCC has compromised itself in many ways. Claiming to care for children but allowing priest abuse situations to continue(with no legal penalties) also greatly compromises their moral position.
i have for a long time tried to reconcile all this with the scripture and it finally came to me John 8:44. that says it all