"Obama just may have lost the election": Losing the Catholic vote

And yet 97% of "Catholic" women take birth control at some point in their lives.
http://www.health24.com/news/Contraception/1-900,62370.asp

Isn't there some exemption that they are working on anyways?

I don't get how Catholic or religious people can vote against helping the poor, curing the sick, and living the teachings of the bible. Because the people who are watching Fox News don't care about the disadvantaged, sick, or living like a real Christian.

 

This battle has been brewing. I've been curious to see which way Obama would go with it. I'm pleased. Will it hurt him with the Catholics? I' not convinced it will. US Catholics (ok, not counting Rick Santorum) are generally NOT in agreement with the Vatican's stance on contraceptives. Abortion in the form of morning after pills might be a bigger pill to swallow. If they were casting votes based on this one issue, I'd say it might be a toss up as to how Obama would fare, but there are much bigger issues, as we all know. I don't think he would have signed his name to this, in an election year, if he thought it was likely to cause him much damage.

The glitch in that theory of course might lie with the Hispanic vote.

And I find Peggy Noonan's assessment of the situation wildly over the top, btw.

I could be wrong, but I believe the majority of non-Hispanic Catholics reside in Blue States which vote primarily Democratic though there are large Catholic communities in FL, PA and OH.

Is it going to get nasty? Of course. First presidential election following the Citizen's United decision. SuperPacs rule. Look what they did to Newt in FL. Negative ads are effective. I can only imagine the amount of money which will be thrown towards these types of ads in the GE. This, more than whether or not he can count on the Catholic vote, concerns me. Obama is, so far, SuperPac shy. He could easily be annihilated by a mass ad offensive, considering the way so many voters are swayed by such things. I don't get it, but it's true, nonetheless.

 

If Romney gets a Marco Rubio type to be his VP, it would give Romney the best shot.

 

In light of Obama's HHS decision, I'm sure he's considering it, if he wasn't already.

Of course, Mark Rubio could definitely round up the Cuban vote, but in some ways that bloc remains isolated from the greater Hispanic community. Recent Mexican and SA immigrants are not as settled as the Cubans - they are still looking at the more socially liberal candidates. The Sharron Angles and Jan Brewers don't help the cause. They're pretty much a Republican candidate's worst nightmare in terms of garnering the wider Hispanic vote.

 

There is a VERY large gap between the preaching of the Catholic church and the practices of its members. And it is amazing how many devout practising Catholics have no issue with that. I think the issue, while valid from the church's point of view, is a non-winner for them. The congregations will see the church's position as another "no condoms, no pill, no homosexuality, no female priests" stand on the part of the church - out-of-touch with modern society, and something to be ignored when choosing a president.

 

Considering the alternative and their extremists stands on women rights, I dont see it as a significant issue. In fact, i think it will be more than offset by the hardcore position of Republicans on the other side, including their vilification of Planned Parenthood and denial of basic women's health issues.

Catholic men, particularly blue collar (ie Reagan democrats) vote pocket book, not pill.

 

peggy noonan is a conservative political operative. the right has a brand problem--that is obvious---one of the approaches that the right has used with the tea party is to create an illusion of movement in their favor. that's what she's trying to do here. the right also sees such hope as it has organizationally as laying with religious institutions.

but in addition to noonan hyperbole---i mean come on, who the fuck takes a ronald reagan speech writer seriously as a journalist?----it's well known that the american catholic church is well to the center of the reactionary who is now pope, and that, while this does not please benedict, there's not a whole lot he can do, particularly given the magnitude of the scandal involving sexual abuse on the part of some priests--but especially the church's actions to protect the priests who has carried out these actions. and this is not even to start talking about the longer-term shifts in physical mobility amongst americans that undermined (fatally, it seems) old-school relations to the church (think any catholic city neighborhood into the 1950s and those same spaces now---totally different world. the examples are everywhere.)...so there are factors quite apart from and bigger than the specific incoherences of rome's positions on contraception etc. that pretty much guarantee nothing like the top-down unified mobilization of catholics as a population in favor of the right.

plus, if you ask a lot of evangelical protestants, catholics aren't christian.
but i digress.

 

If you ask a lot of evangelicals, most Christians aren't Christians. Not unless they've gone through the "saved" process and have been born again. That quick fix measure that completely eliminates the need for Christians to act in a Christ-like manner.

 

Interesting poll out today on the subject:



More Catholics agree than the general public, with evangelicals the least supportive and they wont vote for Obama under any circumstances.

 

Obama used the word "free" when describing contraceptive services in his compromise solution today. Do you think he really believes insurance companies would provide anything for "free"? If not "free", who is going to pay? What a convoluted mess!

As I have been saying the uncertainty has crippled job creation, and will continue to do so because we still don't know the much in terms of details - worse is they seem to be making it up as they go along and constantly shifting and making exceptions to please people. It is clear, they need to go back and reconsider this mess, there is no need for us to wait for the Supreme Court to say it is not Constitutional.

 

I said convoluted, because it is. If the government requires everyone to have insurance, and those who can afford it pay out of pocket or face fines/penalties/jail - how is that different from a tax? I think we agree that a simple single payer system have been easier to understand and implement. How does Canada handle contraceptives and other sexuality related issues, i.e. - erectile dysfunction, gender change, implants, abortion, etc?

 

I often say Obamacare is destine to fail. I say this for several reasons, one being the failure to get commitment for its success from the very beginning. As people complained about the process being rushed, as I recall many in support were saying things like "let's get something passed, we can fix it (read it) later. Not only did you have about half immediately working against it or to end it, you had a portion of the other half that lacked true commitment to what passed or perhaps did not even understand what was passed. A person schooled in the art of diplomacy and compromise would immediately know any agreement under such circumstances would not last.

I don't know. I have been writing about the uncertainties created from passage. We had a 2,000 page bill, to be followed by 100's of thousands of pages of regulations - insurance companies have been increasing premiums, few have gotten any benefit and most are waiting for the details. As details come out we get exception after exception and we get convoluted decisions like the one played out today. The Obama-care hybrid in my view is unworkable.

 

You miss the importance of my point. Assuming two opposing parties, one side can come up with the greatest possible solution, it will be rendered meaningless unless you have commitment from both sides to make it work. I personally would never walk away from a negotiation without knowing the other-side has made a commitment to the solution. Unless, I had the power to impose my will and just didn't give a "F" about the long-term consequences.

 

I am following the cable news coverage of this issue, CNN, Fox, MSNBC and I am not hearing any concern from Obama supporters regarding the fact that if Obama can designate contraceptives as preventative care and can mandate insurance companies to provide coverage, that the next President can come in and do the exact opposite. Why isn't that a concern?

 

It is hardly rendered meaningless when it has widespread public support. The compromise offered today will result in even wider support, yet the extreme evangelical right, not Catholics, who still wont buy into it because they want to continue to use it as a wedge issue...at their own peril. And then of course, you have the Catholic bishops who want to ban all contraception and further alienate themselves from parishioners.