WDTPRS POLL: Had this been Pres. Obama’s 2nd term, would he have offered any “accommodation”?

Posted on 10 February 2012 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

I put it to you.

I offer a two-tier answer option.

Had this been Pres. Obama's 2nd term, would he have offered any "accommodation"?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in POLLS and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Comments

  2. digdigby says:
    10 February 2012 at 8:23 PM

    If this was Obama’s second term, he would offer the bishops accomodations – in Civilian Service Corps run Re-Education Camps.

  3. ies0716 says:
    10 February 2012 at 8:35 PM

    I voted Yes, because even if Obama was in his 2nd term, he would still be looking out for the fortunes of Democrats in the House and Senate. Even the most sacred of liberal principles must take a backseat to Democratic control of Congress.

  4. NoTambourines says:
    10 February 2012 at 9:19 PM

    I expect he’d be even bolder in a second term, because there’s no re-election at stake — with term limits, it’s all the time he has to work with. Similarly, if he winds up being a one-term president, one can’t rule out some executive orders near the end of the line, and whatever else he can foist on the country on his way out.

  5. Elizabeth D says:
    10 February 2012 at 9:21 PM

    I received from the White House a response that absolutely makes me gag, to that petition on their website regarding the HHS mandate. They explain they’ve completely resolved the conscience issue to every reasonable party’s complete satisfaction, and provide quotes from both Catholic groups and anti-life groups all expressing complete satisfaction and happiness.

    We need to redouble our efforts.

  6. Tradster says:
    10 February 2012 at 9:34 PM

    The man is evil.
    His people are evil.
    His agenda is evil.
    Evil never compromises.
    Evil never quits.

  7. Barnabas says:
    10 February 2012 at 9:39 PM

    @ Elizabeth,
    I got the same email. It was all praise for the compromise from Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and Catholics United. Oh, Catholic Health Association’s comments were there too. Not one orthodox Catholic comment was included. I think that email only furthers the likelihood that Fr. Z was dead on when he said that Obama is working to undermine the Church’s authority.

    Let’s keep praying for our bishops and priests, and for the conversion of those who show no respect for the dignity of the human person–especially people in authority positions.

  8. pm125 says:
    10 February 2012 at 10:01 PM

    Accommodation amount would be directly related to needed poll numbers – if anyone weren’t too sickened or bankrupted to contend by then.

  9. Mdepie says:
    10 February 2012 at 10:15 PM

    While It is good that the Bishops continue to oppose Obama’s mandate, the initially muted response has probably hurt politically. Catholic World News was initially reporting the following :
    “A USCCB statement said that the group “sees initial opportunities in preserving the principle of religious freedom” in the new plan, but “continues to express concerns.” As it happens the official response was more of a rejection than what came across in the CWN report . Still I think there remains a fundamental problem with the way the Bishops see this administration. The take home message here is that the Administration is at its root a threat to the Church and its members. While its fine to press for passage of the bills in Congress designed to reverse this ruling, neither will pass since the Democratic Senate will not vote on them and Obama would veto them. The only thing thing that will stop Obama, is 1) being defeated in November, or 2 ) A court decision that rejects Obamacare and/or this regulation. The focus needs to be to make it clear that Obama holds policy positions that make it impossible for a serious Catholic to support him. Catholics are about 1/4 of the electorate, so a swing of about 5%-10% either way can tilt the election. Obama got 54% of the Catholic vote, and won, while John Kerry got 47% and lost. A sustained effort by the Bishops, with attention to the Hispanic American Community ( were Obama won by significant margins last time). Short of this we are playing games. Any hint that Obama has conceded anything, undermines this relentless opposition. If Obama wins a second term, and has 4 years of judicial appointments to make, the marginalization of the Church will be pitiless, relentless, and will not stop until it is complete.

  10. Centristian says:
    10 February 2012 at 10:28 PM

    I voted “Yes”…but not because I believe that he cares about the good of America. I voted “Yes” because having watched this mess unfold I find myself coming to the conclusion that the President is a grossly inexperienced and hopelessly childish narcissist who, like a teen hearthrob, is most concerned by how many “fans” he has. I think he believed that this move would give him more “fans” on the Left, without ever imagining that it would rob him of so many “fans” for him in the mainstream who would so loudly quit his fan club.

    I think Kathleen Sibelius is probably the President’s least favorite person in the world right now, in fact. “Oh, Catholics won’t mind, Mr. President, trust me. They all hate the bishops, anyway…they’re mostly all just like me and Nancy.” That’s no doubt something along the lines of what he heard from her and others and, not being Catholic, himself, assumed that he was getting solid advice…advice being all he acts upon because he has no core of his own to rely upon. And anyone might have bet that would be good advice except for the “That’s my Mom you’re picking on” factor that I think came into play. A non-Catholic would have no sense of such a possibility. Many Catholics may disagree with their “Mom” and may not obey her…but woe betide you if you attack our “Mom”.

    No, I don’t think he’ll play with fire in his second term, either. He has his legacy to consider and he’ll need as many “fans” as possible if he wants to create the illusion of the great man, beloved of his people, who lived up to his Nobel Prize. I could be wrong, but that’s how I’m starting to read this.

  11. S. Murphy says:
    11 February 2012 at 12:32 AM

    He’s not evil. His agenda is evil, but he doesn’t know that. He’s committed to his ideology, and he’s egotistical and ambitious enough to have seized every opportunity to run for the next highest office, without having stayed to do or learn much in the one he was running from. He wanted the power to fix everything he sees as a social justice issue. His mom died young – she didn’t have good insurance or healthcare. That’s personal to him, then. He’s been in lefty circles all his life. Even when he was working with Catholics on community issues in Chicago, he probably never had a serious conversation with someone who could or would explain the Church’s stance on contraception. He probably thinks it’s purely a dogmatic thing. Anyway, he’s never had to not take his ideology for granted. Pray for him to see the reality of the child in the womb. Pray for him to see that the Church has always seen this reality.

  12. samgr says:
    11 February 2012 at 2:42 AM

    The sainted but not saintly John F. Kennedy got the whole ball rolling downhill in 1960, when he denied his faith to the Southern Baptist ministers in Texas to win their votes. Since then, Catholic beliefs have been an object of scorn to the punditocracy, as has been the hierarchy. S. Murphy is right on target. Oooorah!

  13. Supertradmum says:
    11 February 2012 at 6:42 AM

    Centristian,

    Narcissist he is but with the long training of the mixture of Saul Alinksy Chicago tactics, Black Liberation Theology, and believing in eugenics.http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_and_race/ http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.htmlAny black man who encourages abortion to the extent he has, when 70% of Black women admit to having an abortion, that is 30% of the total number of abortions overall and a 12% of Blacks in the overall population, has to be convinced that only an elite should be allowed to live. Do not kid yourself. The man has been chosen by the Democratic party and others to push the socialist, tyrannical agenda. Remember, more than once he has said he could govern without Congress and he would ruin the Constitution in order to make the executive branch totally in control. Just look at the power these narcissists were given in the past, and remember, Hitler was elected. Narcissists are given power by other narcissists.

  14. BenedictXVIFan says:
    11 February 2012 at 7:32 AM

    S. Murphy offers Obama a far too weak intercession by saying “Pray for him to see the reality of the child in the womb.” It ought to be “Pray for him to see the reality of the child outside the womb after a failed attempt at aborting it.” Obama is a little more evil than many people are aware of.

  15. chcrix says:
    11 February 2012 at 7:34 AM

    I submit that Mr. Obama is neither “evil” or an “ideologue” in a technical sense. He is bereft of any chains of moral philosophy and also of any principle whatsoever.

    He is however, a Chicago machine democrat through and through. As with any machine politician his every move is only understood in terms of power and organizational leverage.

    Both his original mandate and his “accommodation” are pure grandstanding for political advantage. Throw a sop to his left wing supporters, then throw a counter sop to try to split the opposition.

    Let me say once again: The USCCB have in part brought this on themselves through their decades of lobbying for state run health care.

    This is not a “religious liberty” issue, it is an issue of liberty pure and simple. The Federal government’s writ does not extend to health care mandates, despite Ms. Peliosi’s “Are you kidding me?”

  16. disco says:
    11 February 2012 at 7:59 AM

    I voted no because he didn’t offer an accommodation this time, just a steaming pile of BS that only a moron would buy. He may have actually made it worse because a self-insured religious institution may now not be exempt.

  17. wmeyer says:
    11 February 2012 at 8:28 AM

    Not only has Obama been working to undermine Church authority, but the “Catholics” who have been so very selective in their practice of faith these last 40 years have mad common cause with him, as seen in the press release comments from Catholics United, and CHA. At this rate, the American church will be reduced to something akin to the Protestant mega-churches, albeit without the impassioned sermons.

    There has been no accommodation, merely a devious diversion which provides a distinction without a difference.

  18. wmeyer says:
    11 February 2012 at 8:29 AM

    Tradster, evil does compromise, just as the progressives have done the last hundred+ years, by taking incremental victories so we don’t notice the water temperature till we’ve been boiled.

  19. irishgirl says:
    11 February 2012 at 9:51 AM

    I only hope and pray that he does NOT get a second term, which is why I voted for ‘he’s an ideologue’.
    God help this country if he gets re-elected.
    Please, dear Lord, come soon….come soon….

  20. tealady24 says:
    11 February 2012 at 3:28 PM

    If this was BO’s second term, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because the Emperor would have already shut down the internet!

Comments are closed.