Politics in this country is tricky. The nano-second you think things are under control and - pop - everything goes wild.
Tuesday night - two nights ago! - began with Mitt Romney owning the Republican presidential nomination. By night's end he'd been beat badly - beaten in the all three states where he was running. All that money of his, all that power of the Republican wait-your-turn crowd, all that media statement that things were just swell - and, guess what! - the voter had something to say.
I am so happy. I am so happy that voters don't listen to the money men, don't listen to the power of what they're supposed to do, don't listen to us on TV, by that I mean people who are paid to tell you what's going on, what's going to happen, the decisions that have already been made, what you're allowed to do in the voting booth - no, don't listen to anyone; they just go in those voting booths and do what makes them feel good.
Ernest Hemingway once described his moral code as really quite simple. "Good" is what you feel good about afterward. "Bad" is what you don't.
I don't think people feel good, especially, about voting for Newt Gingrich, just too much stuff there. After voting for Mitt Romney, it's even worse: they don't feel anything.
The same thing goes for this matter involving the church and birth control.
If anyone in the White House told the president this thing was cooked they were so wrong-headed, the president should reconsider their value. The job of people in politics, the pro's is to warn the boss of trouble ahead. If they did, fine. If they didn't, not fine, not good.
The Democratic coalition, if it is to be a protest faction, can afford to be about 35 percent or 40 percent of the country. If it is to be a governing coalition, a Democratic governing coalition it needs to be at least 55 percent. That's what it takes to govern. It takes 60 senators - remember! - to get anything through Congress, to get anything done.
To keep that coalition together takes care, especially in an election year that may well be decided by a few percentage points. Remember, President Obama was elected with 53 percent. He's done important historic work - like health care - that could cost him much of that 3 percent that took him across the finish line. He can't afford to give away a one or two more points by a poorly played performance on an issue that cuts close to the grain of those very voters who, like it or not, tend to decide elections.
Leave a Comment:
Are you really falling for this Catholic ploy? Can't you see the narrow-minded Bishops have decided to take Obama down? Do you really think they are moral leaders, and not political calculators? What they have really done is try to take American women back to the 19th century. Don't go there. All feminists will abandon you.
Of course your right and Chris is wrong. Chris is letting his own personal opinion and that of those inside the beltway interfere with the facts. Twenty-eight states have ALREADY made this law. That's more than 50 % of the U.S. Dozen's of the so called Catholic institutions that would be so direly affected by this already provide the coverage.
This is a religious right wing attack on what is perceived to be Obama's weak spot, and that is his health care package. I'm still waiting to see the death panels. Chris just happens to have joined in with the Fox guys and Rush this time around screaming that Obama's allowing of the freedom of choice for our citizens is somehow a separation of church and state issue when in fact the refusal of the church to allow the coverage is the actual separation of church and state issue.
I'm just embarrassed and ashamed of what we call our mainstream news media every time one of my friends visits from another country (it's even worse when it's an American whose been living abroad for a number of years). They see the "journalists" screaming to high hell about this kind of crap but saying nothing about the states passing laws requiring the teaching of creationism in our classrooms, the recital of prayers in our schools, the denial of climate change by corporations who advertise on our news shows thus dictating the opinion of our journalists and their producers that climate change may be a myth. It's almost as if we're being distracted by ridiculous issues so that the real meaningful issues will just be glossed over or ignored altogether.
Conspiracy theory or devious truth? The Republican establishment understand that none of their current crop of Presidential candidates (clowns) can win in a general election. They also know during the primary race they need to pander to the far right to keep the Teapublicans from going rogue and running a third party candidate. So what if all those behind the scenes pulling the strings of these puppets are doing so to get their message out and just planning on hanging all of them out to dry in the end. Allowing this group of misfits and "Wanna bees" to cheer for their causes, take the heat and ridicule, and get their portion of the GOP fired up, may only be cover for the real presidential bid. If they can go to Tampa without a winner then they can chose a candidate without all the baggage that all of the current group of clowns has. The current group of candidates will have gotten the message out to each of their portion of the party (especially the far right or "flat world believers"). The GOP then could pick a fairly unknown candidate (or at least a candidate with broad appeal from just not having to much to dislike), that would have little to target, would not have all the baggage of the primary race, would not be beholden to any specific donor or segment of the party, and would have the dexterity needed to run in the general. Could the Democratic Party be being set up to be blind sided? Just saying.....
If ObamAcorn can't spin baby killing by churches into a winner for Himself, He's not a very good marxist. Next, He's going to come out and say, "Jesus would believe in funding abortion". Now, His media is saying the churches need to fund abortion by law. A good marxist would be on the attack, You know, pick a target and never let up. And as a top representative of Acorn, He stands to make them look bad if He backs off on the march for infanticide. He has saved the race card for last, but that is usually deployed by the media for Him. Instead of baby killing, He could be a hero , and screw a couple white house interns. Chris, The dead baby thing is a real winner in 2012 !!!! Keep up the great spin. ;)
Let's see if Chris like all of the old white guys in Washington Libs and Conservatives alike will actually pay attention to the demography as it comes in on the birth control issue. Obama won because he received support from women (who are now the largest segment of the voting population), the youth and minorities. He lost the older, white, male population. All statistics that are now coming in show that the majority of the former fully support Obama on the birth control issue. The latter does not. Additionally by pressing the issue (by that I mean the attacks on women's rights plus the attacks on the rights of all middle and lower class citizens), the Republicans are alienating the women, youth and minority votes over what will probably be the long run.
This is just another not so thinly veiled attack on ObamaCare. But let's not forget, the Health Plan proposed by President Obama and passed by Congress was actually developed over years and years by dozens of high profile Republicans and crunched in the Republican think tanks to be highly UN-controversal, having been already in effect by the majority of states, and in effect in the majority of institutions (including religious institutions). We didn't have "death panels" and this is not going to cause anyone to compromise their religious beliefs. If it does than maybe the Bishops really have outlived their effectiveness and authority and perhaps that's their biggest fear.
Chris,
I read today that the bishops say that using birth control is immoral and that this is why they oppose having it as a benefit in their health care insurance. As the devote Catholic that you profess to be, could you please explain its immorality to the rest of us, the audience, so that we can better understand the church's objection to it? There has to be some objective reasoning behind it. Just saying its wrong because it is isn't an answer. That's like the father saying to his child its wrong because I said it is. Thanks in advance!
the Church has lost it's moral compass years and years ago. Let's start with the subjugation of women through original sin and go through all the women burned at the stake by the church no less, merely on this premise. Then we can move through the Spanish Inquisition when over 100,000 men women and children were tortured to death by who, the Dominican order of the church. Then we can move to the conquest of South America, where the Church stood by and allowed the conquistadors to murder 11 million Indians in the name of Christ so SA could be the only Catholic continent in the world. Or how about the Pope standing silent as the holocaust happened. Why didn't he tell all the priests in a predominately Catholic country(Germany) to speak out and stop it before it started, so another 6 million wouldn't die, and lets not forget that the Vatican helped smuggle all those high ranking Nazi's to SA, where they were welcomed by local priests. How about how Drugs got started here in the urban areas where the mafia and all the cops were Catholic and most on the take to allow drugs to be pushed to the black folk. Why were none of the mafia or the crooked cops excommunicated. Why wasn't every priest shouting to stop this? And finally lets not forget about the rape of children that went on in many countries by the priests, with guilty ones being moved from Parrish to Parrish so then can strike again, and again on more defenseless children.
So you mean to tell me that this Church is taking the moral high ground on birth control. Is women being able to enjoy sex with out making a child so vile to these people and nothing I mentioned wasn't?
Please give me a break on the morality thing
The only thing it will take for Democrats to govern will be for Justice Kennedy to retire. At 76, that one is on the horizon; five more years of Obama and four years of a Democratic successor should accomplish that one...