By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Just this past summer, American Roman Catholic bishops were decrying the Obama Administration for forcing its ancillary institutions like colleges and hospitals to pay for reproductive health services for its women employees. Lawsuits were filed, press releases were released, and commentators were assembled on cable news to express the outrage. The holy fathers even channeled Rev. Martin Luther King (never a favorite of the Catholic hierarchy — how could he be with that name?) calling for civil disobedience to contest the mandates of the new law. Letters were written to the flock (with approved language, of course) from the bishops bellowing, ““We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.” The bishops even marketed a catchy name for their protest: the flag waiving, patriotic sounding, Fortnight for Freedom. (Yes, His truth was marching on in full display!)
The dire predictions from the Catholic leadership: Obama will have a tough time this fall among the RCs. Romney must have been reading the church bulletin because it was surely no coincidence that he chose Catholic firebrand, Rep. Paul Ryan, as his running mate. The not so subtle GOP even traipsed out anti-abortion, anti-homosexual, anti-Obama, Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, the president of the Conference of Catholic Bishops, to deliver the closing prayer at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., next week. Catholics were being seriously wooed with everything Madison Avenue and the Business Roundtable could muster.
But a funny thing happened on the way to Romney’s coronation. A new Pew poll shows that Americans Catholics are embracing the incumbent’s campaign to the tune of 15 percentage points. Obama leads Romney 54% to 39% among likely Catholic voters in a poll released September 12 by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press. That’s up from Obama’s two percentage point lead over Romney in a June poll by Pew. What accounts for the anti-establishment surge?
The Catholic vote is not as monolithic as some would have you believe. Obama won the Catholic vote in 2008 due in large part to the votes of Hispanic and African American Catholics. That coalition seems to be holding and Obama has drawn even with Romney among Caucasian Catholic voters. Add to that Obama’s edge among female voters (56% to 37%) and you get a serious headache for Romney strategists.
But how strong is Obama’s support versus Romney’s and how likely are voters to change their minds? More bad news for Romney. Pew finds that Obama has the strongest support of any incumbent since Bill Clinton and perplexingly for Romney his support is more positive than negative calling into question Romney’s negative ad blitz.
At this stage in the campaign, Barack Obama is in a strong position compared with past victorious presidential candidates. With an eight-point lead over Mitt Romney among likely voters, Obama holds a bigger September lead than the last three candidates who went on to win in November, including Obama four years ago. In elections since 1988, only Bill Clinton, in 1992 and 1996, entered the fall with a larger advantage.
Well, things can change, right? Pew says maybe not:
Compared with many previous elections at this point in the campaign, more voters this year say they are absolutely certain to vote for their chosen candidate. Only 22% of registered voters (and 18% of likely voters) can be classified as swing voters …
Romney faces an uphill fight but surely not an insurmountable one. His problem may be that some of his most trusted allies from the pulpit might be leading only themselves with the rank and file having a mind of their own.
Source: CNN and throughout.
~Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
We ‘nuns on the bus’ don’t like Paul Ryan’s idea of Catholic values
It has been inspirational to go on the road and meet people affected by Ryan’s disturbing, supposedly ‘Catholic’ budget
By Simone Campbell
guardian.co.uk
Friday 28 September 2012
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/28/nuns-on-the-bus-paul-ryan-catholic
Excerpt:
My organisation, founded by Catholic sisters 40 years ago, lobbies the US Congress for economic justice with a strongly progressive faith voice. This year, motivated by a disturbing proposal for a new national budget, we decided to try something new for us – a 2,700-mile bus tour through nine states that would connect us directly with people who would suffer if the budget were approved.
Catholic sisters work daily with people who live at the economic margins. We planned to stand with our sisters and the people they serve, to hear their stories, and to bring their voices back to Washington. We felt we must do this as our response to calls of the gospel and Catholic social teaching to actively challenge injustice wherever we find it.
The budget proposal we opposed was authored by House of Representatives budget chairman Paul Ryan. The so-called “Ryan budget” would slash funding for programmes that serve people in need while giving bigger tax breaks to the wealthy. He had the backing of fellow Republicans, who hold the majority in the House. His budget was also endorsed by presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who in August named Ryan as his vice-presidential running mate. For two years, we had lobbied Congress to oppose such budget cuts, and we also encouraged thousands of our members to contact their elected officials to voice their opposition. It was time to go out on the road to amplify our collective voices.
Particularly appalling to us as Catholic sisters, Ryan announced that the values in his budget proposal reflected those of his Catholic faith. This is emphatically not true, and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote a series of letters stating that programmes that help people in poverty must be protected.
On June 17, we “nuns on the bus” began our journey in Iowa. We met with people at the economic margins and those who served them, and also visited congressional district offices to talk about how the Ryan budget would harm our nation. What astonished us were the crowds of people who met us throughout our trip. Thousands of people who clearly hungered for a stronger church voice in behalf of social justice – and a US Congress that would move past partisan bickering to a genuine concern for those in need.
Elaine Bush also cut off solandra they knew it was going bankrupt, but Obama balied them out
“The Catholic vote is not as monolithic as some would have you believe.” (Mark)
I would certainly agree with that. Movement is what analysts look for in polls, especially consistent, slow and steady movement. That is what the prediction of a win relies upon. Obama’s movement in the Catholic polls has been consistently slow and steady upwards.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/30/elizabeth-warren-senate_n_1926144.html Hope she carries the catholic vote.
SwM,
If I start getting fundraiser emails from Hillary in Jan. 2013 then yep … she’ll be on for 2016
Blouise, Of course Texans don’t like Obama but although Romney will carry the state they don’t like him much either. The visibility of his campaign pales compared to the McCain Palin one four years ago.
Dems want president amoral back, who balanced the budget with the social security taxes. no thanks
SwM and nick,
Yes but did you look carefully at the poll? Either candidate can claim either percentage … it’s so … Texan.
Clinton’s approval rating is close to,70 percent nationally not just among democrats. Don’t look for any viable third or fourth parties any time soon. If Hillary decides to run, she wins.
Joe Biden vs. Paul Ryan: Smart vs. Dumb Visions for America
By Steve Clemons
AUG 13 2012
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/08/joe-biden-vs-paul-ryan-smart-vs-dumb-visions-for-america/261049/
A devout Catholic who listens to the pedophilepriesthoods about such crap as keeping the faith will still have a problem with a gypsie Mormon. If they had one bad experience getting their driveway sealed by a gypsie or knew one tidbit about the eightwives thing then they will avoid voting for the guy named Willard who calls him self Mitt. Some will stay home from the polling place, some will vote economics and vote for Democrats, some will stay home from church–for good.
Joe Biden’s value to this Administration is the depth of his relationships on the Hill. Most importantly, those relationships with democrats. It’s his job to line them up behind the Administration’s policies and keep them in line.
That was LBJ’s job under Kennedy, Humphrey’s under LBJ, Mondale’s under Carter etc.
His good Catholic boy status is a bonus at election time but his real value is the ability to make deals with the democrats in the legislative branch and for a man who everybody says runs off at the mouth, he’s very good at keeping those deals quiet.
Bruce,
Exclusive Timeline: Bush Administration Advanced Solyndra Loan Guarantee for Two Years, Media Blow the Story
by Stephen Lacey and Richard Caperton
9/13/2011
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/13/317594/timeline-bush-administration-solyndra-loan-guarantee/
Excerpt:
It’s often claimed that the Solyndra loan guarantee was “rushed through” by the Obama Administration for political reasons. In fact, the Solyndra loan guarantee was a multi-year process that the Bush Administration launched in 2007.
You’d never know from the media coverage that:
The Bush team tried to conditionally approve the Solyndra loan just before President Obama took office.
The company’s backers included private investors who had diverse political interests.
The loan comprises just 1.3% of DOE’s overall loan portfolio. To date, Solyndra is the only loan that’s known to be troubled.
Because one of the Solyndra investors, Argonaut Venture Capital, is funded by George Kaiser — a man who donated money to the Obama campaign — the loan guarantee has been attacked as being political in nature. What critics don’t mention is that one of the earliest and largest investors, Madrone Capital Partners, is funded by the family that started Wal-Mart, the Waltons. The Waltons have donated millions of dollars to Republican candidates over the years.
With a stagnant job market and Obama sinking in the polls, the media has decided on a narrative that matches right-wing talking points but not the facts. For instance, Bloomberg had this incredibly misleading headline yesterday, “Obama Team Backed $535 Million Solyndra Aid as Auditor Warned on Finances.” If you replace “backed” with “touted,” that would be accurate. But the headline makes it seem like the White House had decided to give $535 million to a company after an auditor had said it was financially troubled.
You have to read half the story to learn that the loan guarantee was made in 2009 and the audit was done in 2010 after market conditions had sharply worsened! And the Bloomberg story never explains that the company itself raised $250 million from private investors after the supposedly devastating audit!
To set the record straight, Climate Progress is publishing this timeline — verified by Department of Energy officials — that shows how the loan guarantee came together under both administrations. In fact, rather than rushing the loan for Solyndra through, the Obama Administration restructured the original Bush-era deal to further protect the taxpayers’ investment:
May 2005: Just as a global silicon shortage begins driving up prices of solar photovoltaics [PV], Solyndra is founded to provide a cost-competitive alternative to silicon-based panels.
July 2005: The Bush Administration signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law, creating the 1703 loan guarantee program.
February 2006 – October 2006: In February, Solyndra raises its first round of venture financing worth $10.6 million from CMEA Capital, Redpoint Ventures, and U.S. Venture Partners. In October, Argonaut Venture Capital, an investment arm of George Kaiser, invests $17 million into Solyndra. Madrone Capital Partners, an investment arm of the Walton family, invests $7 million. Those investments are part of a $78.2 million fund.
December 2006: Solyndra Applies for a Loan Guarantee under the 1703 program.
Late 2007: Loan guarantee program is funded. Solyndra was one of 16 clean-tech companies deemed ready to move forward in the due diligence process. The Bush Administration DOE moves forward to develop a conditional commitment.
October 2008: Then Solyndra CEO Chris Gronet touted reasons for building in Silicon Valley and noted that the “company’s second factory also will be built in Fremont, since a Department of Energy loan guarantee mandates a U.S. location.”
November 2008: Silicon prices remain very high on the spot market, making non-silicon based thin film technologies like Solyndra’s very attractive to investors. Solyndra also benefits from having very low installation costs. The company raises $144 million from ten different venture investors, including the Walton-family run Madrone Capital Partners. This brings total private investment to more than $450 million to date.
January 2009: In an effort to show it has done something to support renewable energy, the Bush Administration tries to take Solyndra before a DOE credit review committee before President Obama is inaugurated. The committee, consisting of career civil servants with financial expertise, remands the loan back to DOE “without prejudice” because it wasn’t ready for conditional commitment.
March 2009: The same credit committee approves the strengthened loan application. The deal passes on to DOE’s credit review board. Career staff (not political appointees) within the DOE issue a conditional commitment setting out terms for a guarantee.
June 2009: As more silicon production facilities come online while demand for PV wavers due to the economic slowdown, silicon prices start to drop. Meanwhile, the Chinese begin rapidly scaling domestic manufacturing and set a path toward dramatic, unforeseen cost reductions in PV. Between June of 2009 and August of 2011, PV prices drop more than 50%.
September 2009: Solyndra raises an additional $219 million. Shortly after, the DOE closes a $535 million loan guarantee after six months of due diligence. This is the first loan guarantee issued under the 1703 program. From application to closing, the process took three years – not the 41 days that is sometimes reported. OMB did raise some concerns in August not about the loan itself but how the loan should be “scored.” OMB testified Wednesday that they were comfortable with the final scoring.
SWM, Again those myopic eyes!, Most Dems want Clinton back, most Repubs want Reagan back.
Blouise, Until we have viable third/fourth parties, I’m looking for None of the Above!
They call me Bruce Wayne on my days off. Today I am going by the handle Cherry Picker. So Bruce, when is the last time you argued with an idiot and won? You copy, good buddy, I copy and that’s a Big 10-4, watch the bears behind you, you roger that?
Blouise, the truth is that most Americans want Bill Clinton back.
Blouise, Neither man is really that popular and with good reason. The problem for Romney is that he is majorly unpopular.
There was a recent result from a poll question published in a Texas newspaper and, honest to god, it is markedly funny:
“If the election were today, would you vote for Obama or Romney?
Yes — 44% No — 56%”
So go ahead and vote for someone who took a half of billion tax payer dollars to bailout his democratic bundlers at solandra. The man’s a crook. As for a radical budget, I guess it’s better than no budget.