Obama Might Have Just Handed the Election to Romney

By mandating that Catholic universities pay for "morning after" pills, Obama has screwed up royally. I'm not Catholic and my opinion on abortion is irrelevant. Catholics are "swing voters". They are found in largest numbers, in big cities like NYC, Boston, Chicago, LA etc... In other words, the areas that Dems usually dominate.
Solid Dems and Repubs are going to vote for their party no matter what and both sides can give a million reasons why their guy is best. So it's up to we Indies to decide who wins. Obama just handed a LOT of independents to Romney and put even more votes that might have gone to Obama, into the "I just won't vote" category - effectively giving Romney an edge.
If he doesn't fix this very quickly, he's made a mistake that just might make the difference in the election.
Oops.

 

I haven't seen anything on this yet, but I find that interesting. This after the courts have ruled that religious jobs aren't held to federal laws of discrimination. I would think the same logic would apply to Catholic Universities also.

 

Independents going to Romney??? Not likely...

 

A Catholic hospital that doesn't take any public funding should be left alone.

A Catholic hospital that does take public funding, however, is more limited in its ability to put religion above service.

 

I doubt very much this will have much effect on voting.

The people who already believe strongly in pro life already vote republican and those that don't I doubt would make this a one issue swingpoint for them.

 

Who put out this bull.

 

Catholicism is the religion of the poor and oppressed. Particularly Hispanics. But if forced to decide between the church and their assumed right to be here illegally...and get away with it indefinitely..they will opt for being here. The Obama admin has opened the door to them voting illegally by opposing photo ID's. They will exercise that illegal vote to assure the 'friendly democrats' remain in power.

 

Independents going to Obama isn't very likely.

 

Independents are like those vast wheat and grass fields that make up our great plains. They bend whichever way the wind blows and any given moment. They are motivated by slogans and appearances. Whomever comes up with the best campaign slogans and looks the prettiest on the podium....will prevail.

 

This is just foolish. I'm an example that would disprove your assetion. I have VERY strong views on the vast majority of issues. The difference between me and a staunch Repub or Dem, is that my views aren't spoon-fed to me by party or ideology.
ConservaRepubs "Claim" they want less government control but they don't. They want more government control - they just want it in different areas than LibDems.
For example, I don't care if two women get married. Good for them. Whatever. Doesn't affect me in any way. But ConservaRepubs want the government to decide who can get married. That's more government control, not less.
On the other hand, I'm a Christian. LibDems were responsible for a lot of beautiful artwork and inscriptions being removed from a university in San Diego because it receives Fed Funding and heaven forbid, some atheist have to walk thirty feet below a painting of Jesus on their way to class. That's more government, not less.
I feel very strongly that private unions often abuse their power. I also feel very strongly that people should be allowed to own guns.
A pretty face or clever slogan isn't going to change any of my views but my bet is you're a Conservative. I've seen FOX et.al. Right Wing Media forward the view that anyone disagreeing with them on anything, must be a Liberal or a person of weak convictions. It's sad that so many people are willing to drink that kool-aid. It's just plain bs.

 

Indpendents are likely to go either way this year. It comes down to just a couple things:
1. If the economy continues to improve, Obama will probably win. Although I think he's been a pretty crappy president overall, he has had some significant victories and accomplishments. If the economy stagnates or goes back into decline, Romney will probably win. Obama has also had numerous screw-ups and has much to attack.
2. The Fcuk Up Factor. Obama has made many serious mistakes during his presidency that leave him vulnerable for attack - most significantly ObamaCare and smaller mistakes like the debacle with the Catholics. On the other hand, the Repubs have made complete azzes of themselves on things like the payroll tax. If one or the other makes a critical mistake, that could be a game changer. Romney keeps feeding the Dems soundbites ("I like to fire people", "I don't care about poor people." etc...) might do well to talk a little less but kinda hard to avoid when running for president.

 

Hm. So now church/state "separation" is about money?

No religious institution should be able to accept Government money in any way, shape or form.

Obama's actions "making law" wrt to the behaviours of Catholic Universities violates the First Amendment.

 

I'm curious. Although this is my OP and I think Obama made a huge political gaffe by doing this, I don't see that it violates the ability of Catholics to practice their religion. I just think it's stupid. So how do you think it violates their first amendment rights?

 

Most Catholics disagree with the church on contraception, so this looks like a vote-winner for Obama.

 

Of course it violates the ability of Catholics to practice their religion: it doesn't give the Catholic Church its own autonomy to practice what it believes is right in this regard. It is literally forcing the church to support what Catholics view as a mortal sin: abortion.

 

Principled people place protecting the Constitution, and protecting the right to worship as each church pleases - unfettered by Government interference - ahead of vote getting.

 

Okay I guess that's a reasonable interpretation. I disagree in that, it doesn't force abortion at all and that it doesn't force this to be administered to Catholics specifically but I think your interpretation is pretty sound.

 

Abortion? I thought the issue was that they're being required to offer contraception in their health insurance policies to women who want it. It has nothing to do with abortion as far as I know.

 

If Catholics are forced to pay for it, it is the same as forcing taxpayers to pay for abortion.

Both are off-limits to Government, but Obama doesn't seem to care about that.

 

Yeah yeah yeah, I get it. Anything Obama = he's evil and doesn't care about America and eats children and so on...

I think this is just plain stupid, politically but a Muslim school is forced to do many things that directly violate sharia law.
Did you run to their defense as quickly, when Boehner and Scalia declared that they could just go screw themselves if they wanted fed funding? That they would have to allow non-Muslim women to walk around (gasp!) burka-less! To eat pork ON school grounds! etc...
They declined the fed funding btw...

 

Ooooops!

 

Actually, I was completely correct! The last sentence "Unless he hadnles this quickly" which he did!
And the GOP? They handled it SLOOOOWLY! And alienated women voters and Independents and Moderates in the process!
That whole election was an example of the GOP being its own greatest enemy. I have the feeling they will repeat the process in 2014 too.

 

So much for that Romney landslide huh?

 

Don't fret it, NPA. Dick Morris made the same kinds of "analysis" ...and he has gotten to come back on Fox.

 

You are EXACTLY like the Right Wing whackjobs you always (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) about. If someone doesn't agree with the total liberal view on everything, every time, you label them, make assumptions, project false opinions and so forth.
Once Obama stepped away from this and the GOP adopted it (within a week of the post) I went back to the projection I'd made the entire pre-election season: That Obama would win the WH decisively, the GOP would hold the House and the Dems would hold the Senate.

Again, the words "MAY" and "IF" were rather critical above.