Pres. Obama’s attack could have consequences for dems in Congress

Pres. Obama’s attack on the Catholic Church is going to cause trouble for democrat members of Congress.

Everyone is worried about Obama’s reelection. In other news, there are 191 current democrat House seats subject to elections this year. There are 20 democrat Senators who have to be reelected.

I wonder if, when the White House was thinking about slapping Catholics in the teeth, anyone consulted the House democrats.

Pres. Obama’s move may have hurt more than one democrat who has to run for office.

Technorati Tags: ,

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Brick by Brick, Religious Liberty, The Drill and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Pres. Obama’s attack could have consequences for dems in Congress

  1. Microtouch says:

    I pray your word are prophetic.

  2. Supertradmum says:

    I have highly intelligent, pro-life Catholic friends in Massachusetts. Both mom and dad have doctorates. The woman weekly works as a volunteer for Birthright. She has for years. She and husband vote Dem all the time. I gave up trying to help change the schizophrenic mind-set of this Catholic couple. Their families vote Dem consistently. I do not know what is will take to get these and others like them to stop voting for the party of death and destruction of religious life in the States. Obviously, the rational approach does not work. They have had a love affair with the Kennedy family for years. Someone please explain to me how to move this type of stubbornness and close-mindedness to reality? I am not even sure this situation will change their habits.

  3. downyduck says:

    I’m pretty sure he doesn’t give a rat’s hiney- this was the man who called his grandmother a racist to score political points. Nothing is sacred to him.

  4. disco says:

    Supertradmum,

    As a Massachusetts resident let me tell you: New England Republicans are not pro life. A pro life candidate would be the exception not the rule around here, regardless of political affiliation. Neither Romney nor Scott Brown are pro lifers (though they are less proabort than Obama to be sure) so it’s the lesser of two evils at best. Perhaps your friends agree more fervently with the other parts of the Democrat platform.

    In any event, you are right that the current administration is unacceptable and must be removed.

  5. Supertradmum says:

    disco,

    The party platform stands separate from the individual politician. I can understand that it would take a little bit of energy to actually read the GOP and Dem websites, but as Catholics, people should have been doing this since at least 1999, when published online.

    A Dem has to follow the party line and stands for that; a GOP does not have to be pro-death, as it is not part of the party platform. If they choose to do so, the local party can and in some places, does choose someone else. The GOP Catholics are then responsible to get alternatives. Either we believe in grass roots democracy or we do not. No excuses. There are no excuses.

  6. Choirmaster says:

    The whole business is worrisome all the same. We could, in the US, see a reprise of the Bush administration years, when the Democrats (I forget how) dropped in favor among the electorate and so the Republicans gained control of the House, Senate, and Presidency concurrently.

    I don’t remember any wonderful, conservative, life-affirming, free-market reforms forthcoming from that regime (we hadn’t even considered religious liberty as a hot topic); only a sort of Democrat Light, and barely even lip-service pandering to the base. Indeed, their legacy seems to be the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.

    How would a Romney administration, backed by Republican majorities in the legislature, be received by the electorate? Do not all indications point to a disaffected conservative base, and a swing back from the veiled left-wing policies of the “right wing” to the unapologetic, Soviet-style left-wing policies of the Democrats?

    Do not forget that Bush gave us Obama. Compare Bush to Romney, and I dare not even imagine what kind of candidate would pass muster against Romney’s second term, or worse, after his terms are up!

  7. Joseph-Mary says:

    .

    Pres. Obama’s move may have hurt more than one democrat who has to run for office.

    LETS HOPE SO!

  8. JohnH says:

    Yes, it will hurt them, it will especially hurt the Nelson type democrats. Here in PA, I imagine Sen. Casey will have difficulties being re-elected because of this. He even opposes this mandate, as he should. But the fact that his constituents called on him to oppose Obamacare, foreseeing these kinds of issues, means that he will have an uphill battle to regain PA’s trust. The writing is on the wall for moderate democrats. Nelson’s already out. Casey might be. And I imagine the Stupak congressmen will also be very vulnerable. In a sense though, this is not good. It will mean that there will not be rational democrats left to oppose their party’s lunacy. It also means that the Republicans will not have to worry about losing the pro-life vote, which they should. They are NOT pro-life. They use us as a tool for votes. But now they don’t even have to pander to us anymore. Don’t expect a Republican President and Congress to end abortion.

  9. wmeyer says:

    I sincerely hope that Obama’s move will hurt ALL Democrats in the coming election. We need a sea change in Congress if we are to undo the evil which has been done in the last three years.

  10. SimonDodd says:

    Yesterday morning, Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Cal.) was on Meet the Press, and he’s asked about the DHHS thing and the reaction of Catholics. And Becerra says this:

    You can, you can try to make this a religious issue, … [but that doesn't fairly represent the White House view on this, and it] doesn’t represent the Catholic view either. I’m a Catholic. I think the Constitution got it right, protect religious liberty. But if my church wants to start being an insurance company, if my church wants to be an Internet company, it doesn’t have the same religious freedoms to discriminate against women, not letting them become priests, and it shouldn’t have the same rights as it has as a church to do business. So if it wants to be in the business of providing health insurance, it should, it should do what every other health insurer must do under our laws.

    It’s tempting to simply dismiss Becerra as a “Sixth Sense catholic”—you know the type, they don’t realize that they’re protestants. After all, he just pilloried the Church on a completely unrelated issue and dismissed the bishops out of hand on the issue of the moment. But I think it would be naive to think that he’s a rare bird. Call me presumptuous if you will, but I’m willing to bet that most of the “catholics” who voted for Obama last time are Sixth Sense catholics, and that most of them are in open dissent on a whole range of issues, especially birth control. So they hear “the hierarchy” (as distinct from “the Church,” which is we, which is to say them) talking about how the administration’s at war with Catholics because it’s mounting an attack on a teaching that they don’t believe in anyway; I think such a person is likely to have two reactions: “I’ve got no dog in that fight,” or even “good for the administration, I appreciate their help breaking this regressive teaching by the hierarchy that has been ‘rejected by the laity.’” Call me a pessimist if you like, but I find it hard to believe that such folks will abandon the Democratic party; they will vote for Obama and the downticket candidates. All this furore will do is make clearer that like Bruce Willis, the catholic left have already, ahem, moved on.

  11. Choirmaster says:

    @SimonDodd: I believe that you are right on, even understated. Those catholics who align themselves with the Democrat political party (no, even more, with the global socialist movement, including the standard Culture of Death issues as well as environmentalism) count that philosophy, that ideology as their true religion. They are nominally Catholic (or Christian, Jewish, etc.) but worship, rather, the State. They will not defect from their politics. They will worship the state even if all three branches of the US Government were controlled by the truest of men of goodwill or by men of evil persecuting them to their deaths. Would that God grant me such resolve for my faith!

    The solution? I guess the bishops just have to start excommunicating people left and right (no pun intended). At some point they will have to draw a line in the sand or disperse their churches. Some things, no matter how politically expedient or fashionable, cannot stand publicly and must be clearly shown to be altogether distinct and different from the Catholic ideal.

    Would it not send a much more solid and believable message if the bishop of a certain administration official solemnly declared (however that may be) that she is, without a doubt, altogether distinct, different, and not representative of the teachings of the Church? Would not any hoped-for and prayed-for conversion be that much more real and effective as well?

  12. KAS says:

    I cannot believe how the justifications blow hot and wild for a Democratic vote even though the current president is soundly pro-abortion and pro-infanticide and pro-euthanasia.

    Republicans are significantly better on life issues and on freedom issues. Abortion may not become illegal under a Republican congress and president but at least we the people have a shot at getting through support for conscience exemptions and free us from having to PAY for that evil. An improvement is still an improvement and in the primaries we should keep on pushing candidates who are true pro-life candidates and keep on moving in the right direction.

    This mess didn’t happen overnight and it is unlikely the fight will be won over-night. Demanding perfection (elimination of abortion) and making that an excuse not to vote for the Republicans is to choose to support Obama’s path to elimination of the first amendment and abuse of Catholics.

    I may have to spit before I vote for the more pro-life candidate, but I will do it to move the government in the LIFE direction even if it will only be a slight movement.

    Then I will follow the the next primaries from our local ones on up and vote every opportunity for pro-life candidates, and pro-God-given freedoms candidates so that down the road there may be people more worthy of my vote at the federal elections.

    But excusing a pro-abortion vote because the Republican is not perfect on that point is inexcusable because even an imperfect prolife candidate is better than one who is in favor of abortion and making everyone else pay for it.

  13. PA mom says:

    Yes, Casey “opposes” this mandate. In his response to me, he attested to being upset enough about it to have written a letter to the President about it. Not that he is signed on to the bill, no, I guess he is not that upset. Party affiliation does not tell you everything, but when you can compare a man like Toomey to a man like Casey, it sure does make some issues so clear.

  14. Son of Trypho says:

    As a non-US reader, I don’t think Obama is particularly concerned about the impact on a few Democrats who are answerable to Catholic voters over the abortion issue.

    I would suggest that his advisers calculate that the Dem Catholic politicians and voters will support him no matter what because they are already fundamentally compromised in terms of their faith i.e. they are members of a party which has anti-Catholic teachings/practices as part of their platform and put the party over Church.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if you see a particularly nasty anti-Catholic backlash from the left (more so than usual) – expect the politicians and activists to be briefed with talking points about gender discrimination, sexuality discrimination, anti-choice, undemocratic, wealthy prelates etc.

  15. Alexis says:

    Since when did “Democrat” stop being a proper noun? What is lower-casing the word supposed to imply?

    I hold my tongue when people foolishly change “Democratic” to “Democrat” even when it’s not supposed to be, but come on, Father!

    Pro-life, orthodox Catholic Democrats do exist. Like me. At least, here in Georgia we do, where even most of our Democratic representatives are pro-life.

  16. AnAmericanMother says:

    I used to be a Georgia Democrat myself.
    But I figured out – even back when I was an Episcopalian – that conservative Georgia Democrats in the U.S. House or Senate accomplish nothing to promote pro-life legislation. All they do is inflate the caucus numbers, and they are only allowed to vote their consciences when the whip knows that a bill will pass (or fail) without their votes being needed. Then they come home and tell their constituents that they really ARE pro-life.
    Conservative national Democrats are exploited in precisely the same way that the Obama administration exploited naive or unbelieving Catholics.
    Obama’s and Sebelius’ stand on abortion funding simply makes this exploitation more difficult for Catholics and conservative Democrats to ignore. Sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating “LA LA LA I can’t hear you!” only goes so far.
    Conservative Democrats in the GA General Assembly are in a slightly better position. But not much.

  17. Supertradmum says:

    Alexis, if you support a Dem, you support a pro-death platform. Read your own party’s statements, please. “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.

    The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to affordable family planning services and comprehensive age-appropriate sex education which empowers people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortion”

    And, just to underline this, here is the article from a leading Dem feminist group. Explain how you as a Dem deal with these people in your party?http://www.ourbodiesourblog.org/blog/2012/02/now-about-planned-parenthood-and-the-bishops

  18. pjthom81 says:

    Excellent point Father Z. Lest we forget, the Senators must vote, in 2/3 bloc, for the nominees to the Court.

    Meanwhile, I think we have had enough of what is an increasingly fascist political movement. We have, I am confident, the ability, the arguments and the votes. Let’s knock them out of power once and for all.

    On a related note and as I never tire of reminding people, primaries are the secret to who gets in. Voting in the right people in the primaries helps us avoid Democrat lite on the Republican side, and voting in Democrats that do not feel an overpowering urge to declare war on religious faith would help.

    Alexis, I hear where you are coming from….but it occurs to me that while “pro-life Democrats” exist they have not taken any leadership on life issues whatsoever since Byron White. Please feel free to prove me wrong, but I find that the Republicans are far more able to bring in leaders who disagree with them on economic policy (like Chris Smith) than the Democrats are able to bring in pro-life leaders. As Obamacare proved, the vast majority of pro-life Democrats buckle under the slightest pressure from the administration. They are, in a word, frauds. I am waiting for them to prove me wrong by passing the override of Obama’s contraception and abortion requirements by huge bipartisan majorities. Some leadership….perhaps a co-sponsor in one of the chambers would be nice. I am STILL waiting….

    Tis time to part!

  19. Pingback: THURSDAY U.S. POLITICS EXTRA I | ThePulp.it

  20. Scarltherr says:

    I agree with Father that we need to regain a significant majority in both Houses of Congress, but we need to be very careful. So many politicians will pander to our sense of betrayal that it will be difficult to discern who is really on our side. Romney is a perfect example of this. His record shows nothing to suggest that he is pro-life or pro-family. He presided over the Massachusett government’s attack on Catholic adoption providers and their healthcare bill. Much of this was done by executivee order, allowing exemptions for some groups but not Catholics. Same method Obama is using.

    If we had a majority in Congress, and Obama was re-elected, impeachment proceedings could begin immediately. If we had Romney elected with a friendly majority in Congress, there is no tlling what he would do. If Rick Santorum is elected with a friendly majority, his record shows that he would immediately undo all of the executive orders that have violated our Constitution and our consciences.
    We need the whole package.
    Suzanne Carl, aka Ranting Catholic Mom