More Bad News for Obama 2012: Catholics Elect Dolan

Now that the libtards have lost the Catholic vote pretty much. How soon will it be before they also lose the Jewish vote?

Were those votes in line with other ethnicities? Standing alone, those numbers don’t tell us much.
-
Also, can anything ever be reported as straight news? Or does it always have to be, “The San Francisco Giants won the World Series today. It’s more bad news for Obama, as a national focus on San Francisco can only hurt the image of liberals…”

The Pew numbers seem off. How was Catholic turnout in the midterms as compared with 2008? Was it in line with turnout generally (meaning that more older, self-identifying conservatives voted)?

Also, how about some context, since you claim this is bad news for Obama in 2012. Has the president of Catholic Bishops ever seriously affected the outcome of a presidential election?

I read this and thought it’s going to be a long two years.

Well we know the opposition of the Catholic Bishops stopped health care reform from passing. Oh wait…
.
Amy Sullivan wrote many posts with every pronouncement of the Bishops breathlessly recounted. Didn’t seem to make much of a difference.

The problem for Obama’s opponents is that the Catholic Church is losing Catholics, too.

Has the president of Catholic Bishops ever seriously affected the outcome of a presidential election?

I seriously doubt most Catholics, myself included, even knew (or know) there is a president of bishops. On top of that, I seriously doubt his views are going to change anyone else’s.

If this a problem. I suggest it is a greater problem for the church as opposed to Obama. It furthers divides the church between the socially conservative Catholics and the more moderate ones.

CALABRESI is without doubt the worst writer on this blog at the moment.

Someone should inform the good bishop that we have separation of church and state, If he is entering the political scene, his church should lose it’s tax exempt status. The bishops should worry more about the child molesters within the church rather than who can take communion.

Democrats are already losing Catholics.

While the Catholic Church is already losing Americans. I’m sure that can be taken as bad news for Obama, somehow.

(it’s nice when the clergy inserts themselves into politics, isn’t it?)

And Time continues to speculate on Obama’s chances in 2012 against Mr. Candidatetobenamedlaterthatwillbelovedbywhiteindependentwomenandconservativeminoritiesandwillsurvivetheteapartytest.
-
Yeah, we get it. Most white males hate Obama. Obama can’t be elected unless the majority of white males love him. Your logic will never be proven wrong… ever.

No worse than Washington giving an overpaid quarterback a bailout….

I was thinking that as I was reading this “post”. No one else is even a close second.

Is Dolan going to beat the door of the White House down and say the president needs to be prosecuted for abortion tolerance? Maybe he can do Issa’s job with the presumable air of a higher authority.

“He was elected president of the bishops’ conference in a third-round upset over Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson, who had been vice president for the last three years. Since the organization was established in 1966, vice presidents have routinely moved up to the conference’s presidency. The only exceptions were a vice president who died before the next election and another who retired?”.
.
The story is much more about where the Church is headed and less about doom for BHO.

If Catholics don’t really go with the flow of the pope, why would they care what a bishop thinks? That’s like someone who’s never been married giving married couples advice about marriage.
.

Wait, what?

I think the word in your vernacular is ‘Jewtards.’

As a non-Papist, I really don’t care what the Bishop’s think.

And since most of them are under some form of law enforcement investigation for, at the very least, participating in the cover-up of the largest child abuse ring in history, neither should most Americans.

It happens with Baptists as well. Or any other religious denomination. I guess it’s more so in the CC because they are “celibate” (why I don’t know). Their problem is not that the abuse is happening but that the church let it happen and doesn’t seem like it’s in any hurry to eliminate it.

I know that the order of the day is to cast gloom and doom for the President because of the mid-term results, but this is kind of silly. Conservative Catholics did not put Barack Obama in the White House. Obama won in 2008 because of unprecedented voter turnout: minorities and young voters showed up as never before. I don’t have time to fish for the link, but Obama actual lost white voters in every demographic outside of college-educated 18 – 30 year olds. In 2010, those groups didn’t show up as they had in the past.
.
So, let’s not look at what’s going on in a mid-term year and view that as indicative of what will happen in a Presidential election year; particularly with a president who is still fairly popular with the demographics who put him in office the first time around.

I am sure you will inform the Rev Jackson, Rev Sharpton and Rev Wright of your epiphany of church and state. As well as all Team Donkey candidates that campaign in churches

And as a final note, as someone who does market research as a living, I find it highly doubtful that “independents” are as schizo as pollster seem to want to paint them. I’m an independent voter and I’m not interested in voting for Sarah Palin or any other know-nothing Republican candidate.
.
The simple fact is that every mid-term election has a different universe of voters than Presidential election voters. So, the independents who showed up in 2010 out of anger toward Obama probably aren’t consistent with the universe of independents showing up in 2008. Considering mid-term voters are older and whiter, that would certainly have carried over to independents.

…why I don’t know…
.
[Here ya go.]
.
Nutshell is that it’s supposed to make the clergyman focus on matters of God versus those of a more mundane nature.

See 7.1

How mighty selective of you.

This is a Massimo Calabresi post, koabd, what are you doing bringing facts, reason, logic, and perspective into it?
-
You’re right, of course, to the extent that it’s relevant here.
-
Here’s a fun fact: “true, honest-to-God independents are about 10% of the American population.” http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/01/argh_argh_argh_argh_argh.html

“How mighty selective of you.”
.
As is your integrity

“So, the independents who showed up in 2010 out of anger toward Obama probably aren’t consistent with the universe of independents showing up in 2008.”
.

Quite an interesting description! 2010 were angry voters while the 2008 were just what? well informed intellectuals?
.

You as many liberals hide behind the label of an independent (falsely). There is nothing independent about the way you described a Republican candidate or the voters.

Ah, a Catholic post. Where’s Amy when we need her?

Calabresi is becoming a Pat Caddell-like concern troll of the first order. The Catholic hierarchy if full of pederast enablers, so their opinion on any matter, especially of a secular nature, should be discounted.

Freeinpa has no integrity to select from.

Not nearly as selective as the way liberal like you and grape see the world. You show no integrity on ANY issue but you harp about someone else’s. Selective, delusional and morally bankrupt–you hit the trifecta!

I didn’t welch on a bet with another commenter like you did, free.

“Freeinpa has no integrity to select from”
.
Gee that would make me a liberal and free to say anything about anything sort of like all the liberals do here.

There’s fewer & fewer Catholics everyday…and the ones that are left as pointed out by flimnoia are pederast enablers…so who cares, really?

How mighty selective of you.
.
How so? Jackson and Sharpton actually ran for office, while Wright was inserted in to a campaign by your side of the aisle, Freeper. Unless you can find a statement where they’ve refused to minister to a politician because of how they’ve voted, I have to say that you’re pretty full of sh*t, as usual.
.
Even beyond that, mixing politics and religion in general isn’t a good thing. Thank God our founding fathers recognized that.
.
…Gee that would make me a liberal and free to say..blah blah blah
.
Ye olde “I know you are but what am I” defense…the final refuge of losers who’ve just been pwned. Just like you were on that bet you made, Freeper. The fact that you’re welching on that bet makes you out as all the more pathetic, you honor-less loser.

No, it was to insure that church property stayed church property and didn’t go to the family of a priest who died. It started to maintain financial control of assets back when the church actually controlled large properties..

You as many liberals hide behind the label of an independent (falsely). There is nothing independent about the way you described a Republican candidate or the voters.
.
Well, freeinpa, “liberal” and “conservative” have nothing to do with party afiliation: these are stances upon the spectrum of our liberal democracy. Your conflating of the two has more to do with your outlook than my alleged political leanings (for the record, I don’t label myself a Democrat or a liberal). I am curious how my labeling Sarah Palin a “know-nothing” (a position that even Karl Rove took prior to being cowed by the Tea Party rabble-rousers) projects to all other Republican candidates, as you seem to allege. Mike Castle wasn’t a know-nothing, but he was Tea Partied out by Christine O’Donnell’s voters.

The traditional media meme right now is everything means doom for Obama. The message is out and circulating in the cw of the Village.
.
Conservative Catholics of the Donovan variety have been affiliated with the Rep theocrats for some time. Nothing new here. A marriage of convenience not respect.
.
Obama didn’t win with the backing of WASPs or anti-abortionists. Again, nothing new here.
.
The election of a conservative bishop. Nothing new here. More endangered than Obama are American nuns who have become the bete noire of the Pope and the male hierarchy. They, like Obama, are just too uppity.
.
http://www.womensenews.org/story/religion/100209/vatican-probe-us-nuns-moves-quietly-forward
.
Keeping the attention off of pedophelia with political distractions is the current papal plan.

Pieces of property…is that how the pedophiles disguised as priests thought of their victims??? (I mean Eddie Long – allegedly – too.)

.
Celibacy is not a requirement for other faiths and they seem to be doing quite well drawing in believers for the most part. Outside of Paul doing so for his own purposes, there’s nohing in the Bible that says you can’t be married and preach. Or have to be a male (new can of worms opened).

There was nothing illegitimate about many Americans, whose moral convictions were shaped in part by their religious faith, campaigning for the abolition of slavery.

For Americans to campaign for equal rights for legal protection against homicide for all children, regardless of their age or natal status, is equally legitimate, and the fact that their religious faith has contributed to their belief in human equality is irrelevant.