Nothing could more obvious – and to a progressive, encouraging. Barack Obama has managed, particularly since the disaster of the 2010 midterm elections, to box in the GOP into narrower and narrower confines. And in doing so he has opened up a 15 point lead in some polls over his likely challenger, the erstwhile “severely conservative” Mitt Romney. Obama, by luck or design, is beginning to stand out as the only sane guy in the room.
On issue after issue, the GOP exposes itself with out-of-touch positions on nearly everything from a woman's sexual health, to extended payroll tax cuts, to foreign policy, to jobs creation, and darned near anything else of major or minor importance. Whatever position the President stakes out, the GOP can dependably be certain to not only disagree with, but press it home, bullhorn in hand (aided by Fox News Channel and Rush Limbaugh (along with a host of minor media “conservalebrities”) with the electorate.
And the electorate seems to be responding in ways in which the Grand Old Party may pay a significant price in November. Though 9 months is an eternity in politics, the trend is working for the President at this juncture, and may even work for the Democrats in general come November
Birth control: Not again!
The latest dust-up over whether or not a Catholic organization operating a medical or other business (not just a hospital) must abide by the same work rules as any other business hiring non-Catholic employees and treating non-Catholics is the latest installment of GOP polemics and the Catholic Church's totally out-of touch hierarchy. Once again, the subject of birth control seems to be being re-litigated in the public commons and it is clearly going the wrong way for the GOP and the bishops. (My God, this issue has so much dust on it that it's like the old Singer sewing machine in the attic.)
And once again, the likes of hyper-Catholics like Rick Santorum, a current pretender to the GOP nomination for the presidency, Newt Gingrich, recent convert to Catholicism (after having wandered in the desert trying out multiple wives and faith traditions), House Speaker John Boehner, the leader without a following, have declared the godless chief executive of the United States of America to be waging a war on faith itself.
Wrong voices, wrong messages
It was bad enough watching every Republican who can get in front of a TV camera or grab a microphone rail on about the coming culture war. But it was even worse to see Catholic bishops – a class which is so divorced from reality, so out-of-touch with its flock of self-described Catholics, 98% of whose couples have used birth control - call out the President for his policy of having religious-affiliated medical institutions and insurance companies provide full service coverage to anyone who asks for birth control pills, or even to carry condoms in its dispensaries. The fact that the average number of children in white Catholic families has dropped from between 4 and 7 a couple of generations ago to about the same as non-Catholic families now, somewhere slightly north of 2, would seem to lend credence to the notion that most Catholic couples are simply doing what they want to do. Somewhere along the way, Catholics figured out that sex is fun, and not just a way to make women have as many kids as they are biologically capable of producing.
I can't help but think that a television viewer who sees a bishop complain about Obama's health plan details sees not a shepherd to his flock but someone who has been part and parcel of the Catholic Church's continuous predations of children on the part of significant numbers of its clergy by simply hiding errant priests. There simply can be no traction with any pronouncements of a Catholic bishop anymore, not after a decade or more of continuously bad press and continuous refusal to flush out the bad apples among its clergy for decades. The tragedy of predatory priests is too fresh, too current, in the public's memory.
As with abortion (which, oddly, has taken a back seat to this discussion in recent days), the church believes that it can and should be the arbiter of morality not only for Catholics but for all Americans. Thus, it would deny certain services to non-Catholics as well as forbid any non-Catholic employee from providing them. The Catholic Church, like its evangelical counterparts among the Protestant traditions, conflates choice and freedom with moral imperatives based on the Christian bible.
The GOP blatts and mouthpieces have, as usual, grabbed the issue, caressed it and made it its own so they can show the world the callousness of this President. It will not work. Once again, as with the payroll tax deduction issue, the cessation of the war in Iraq and the removal of American troops from that sad country, the refusal to equalize the tax liability of the rich with that of the middle class, and the refusal to look at anything which might lend a helping hand to the jobless by actually creating jobs, they find themselves on the wrong side of both history and the politics of the issues.
Obama: lucky or brilliant?
It hard to imagine that Barack Obama could be so consistently lucky to have as his opposition a political party and slate of potential electoral opponents who are so outside mainstream American political thought. About a third of the electorate are doctrinaire, hard right-wing conservatives. The other two-thirds are hard core liberal/progressive types and independents. It is this last category of voter which, even though polling miserably last summer, is slowly but inevitably migrating over to the Democratic Party and its sitting chief executive.
By the same token, Obama has learned his lessons well, as must all first term presidents learn. He has learned to stand his ground, filling blocked high level jobs with recess appointments, taking his jobs program (and now his budget proposal) to the people and generally building his rapport with the electorate. He is finally drawing lines in the sand and daring the GOP to step over that line. (The word is out that the GOP House will vote to continue the payroll tax exemptions - and without asking for a thing in return! They know that it's a loser to oppose the President again. So much for deficit reduction, Mr Cantor.)

Has Obama resorted to “Rope-a-Dope” in the year of his running for a 2nd term? It may be that the GOP - and even the Catholic hierarchy - is punching itself out. There is no groundswell for any of its current positions. The anger and discontent of 2010 has perhaps made them realize that they threw the baby out with the bathwater (with current congressional approval at around 9%). And while Mitt, Rick and Newt decree that the imminent destruction of America is at hand, there has never been a politician who has been elected without something positive to ask the voter to imagine.
So far, all they ask of us is to allow them and their obscenely rich friends to keep their hands in the cookie jar a while longer, while we all sing “America the Beautiful.”
###


Salon.com
Comments
Like a lot of women, I'm damned if fossilized celibate Catholic priests are going to take away my reproductive rights.
rated
You are making this about birth control and the church. It has nothing to do with either. The problem here is where does the power of the government end? What really is a right and where do we get them?
The church, hospitals etc have employees. Like most employers they make choices about how to run their businesses. The government wants to tell them how to run their business. What rules to make. This isn't like OSHA telling you that you have to have a safety device. This disrupts the normal employee-employer relationship.
Now those on the left, like this article, want to make it a "woman's right" or a "woman's health" issue. It's neither. Where does a woman get the right to demand that I pay for a program that I don't want to? I'm not telling them that they can't have birth control. I'm not telling them that they can't use it. All I'm saying is that when I write a check for the health insurance ever month it is my choice on how much I can spend and what programs I can afford. If you need more insurance than I provide then they can purchase it on their own.
So what is a right? A right is something where I can tell you that you must do something, or I can do something, and you have no choice in the matter and it doesn't affect anyone else.
I have a right to breath. It doesn't bother anyone. I don't have the right to make you pay for my lunch tomorrow. It takes your money for my use without you freely giving it. So does a woman have a right to free birth control? No. Somebody else has to pay for it. They can pay for it themselves, that's fine. Women and the government are telling me that I must pay for it. Maybe they should be forced to pay for my lunch.
Women have a right to get health care including birth control. They do not have the right to demand that someone else pay for it.
As we say in Mexico: "Andale!"
@RAZZ:
Excellent point and one Which slipped my thought process. You are correct. They have actually started the conversation, I think. And the Prez- and the Congressional Dems would do well to acknowledge their value. This Spring will be very interesting when the Occupiers restart the motor.
@Laura:
Nothing is etched in stone. There is plenty of work to do, not the least of which is to energize the voters while at the same time, telling the Democratic Party leadership that they can't take their constituency for granted. They are no band of angels.
@Jersey Girl:
One of the great political paradoxes of the last 30 years, and particularly, the last 4 years or so, is the disconnect between lower and middle class voters with the political party which has most often represented their interests. For some reason, many of them are ready to sign up for another dose of the corporate kleptocracy of the Bush years. Why some poor soul who's upside down on his mortgage would re-elect Republicans mystifies me.
@Patrick:
Indeed. Obama's first year accomplishments will get him extra pages in college texts in years to come, or his presidency will be just an asterisk. All hinges on re-election.
@Dennis & Raymond:
You're too generous... Many thanks.
More importantly, what you're arguing for is the Right of the Employer to tell the Employee what they can and cannot have on their health plans out of a moral point of view. A point of view that enforces a payment that doesn't come out of their paychecks, it comes out of the employees. Or does your employer pay 100% of your health care premiums?
If a church is going to run a hospital, the answer is easy: Devout and faithful parishioners won't ask for birth control or contraceptives or abortions, being the good little Christians they must be. The others, employees, patients and others have a right to expect that if they have coverage, it should be on a par with a national standard. Separation of Church and State doesn't mean that the Church can tell people what they can and cannot have on their health plans or what sort of care they are allowed to recieve, or whether they'll honor someone's health plan in their Church -- errm, hospital.
Maybe we could settle the argument by taking away the tax exempt status of all church properties that provide medical services?
It apparently IS about Birth Control, because as I have been hearing in all the media, no-one is driving the argument about government telling businesses how to run their benefits. It's all about how the Church ain't happy because a comprehensive health care plan has to allow for contraception. Boo Hoo, you're infringing on my moral high ground.
Fricking hypocrites.
Wonderful little selfish argument you have there, though. Right to breathe. Don't you have a right to pay into a socialized series of programs to help support society as a whole, also being able to recieve whatever benefits it provides you when you require them? And yet, a woman's reproductive rights don't enter into that socialized system from your perspective?
Mmm. I have seen these "counter-arguments" repeatedly from you and others and I have to say, in true George Carlin fashion -- "he sounds intelligent. He seems to be on the ball --- Ah! Ah! He's full of shit!" They don't hold any real weight as a valid point from a societal conscience. They are purely selfish and do not recognize a sort of shared responsibility to ensure that all members of society have a certain amount of leeway to live, be cared for and to also do their best to pay into that system as a form of social insurance.
I know you don't see it that way. I've heard all your arguments before. I just have to say that, upon review, I don't buy the point of view you're touting.
--R--
You are wrong about this also. I am the employer so I look at the plans and costs and pick the one that seems to fit most of my employees and that I can afford. My employees had to pay part of their insurance coverage if they wanted it. Now I don't supply any insurance benefits. If they want insurance coverage they go buy it for themselves. It was my insurance plan and they could take it or leave it. They had no right to tell me which plan I was going to make available.
"More importantly, what you're arguing for is the Right of the Employer to tell the Employee what they can and cannot have on their health plans out of a moral point of view." Moral doesn't have anything to with it. It's my plan and if you don't like my wages or benefits you can work someplace else. You are not forced to work for me. If the labor market gets to the point where I have to have benefits or something else to get quality employees then I will consider it. I have a job. This is what you get to do the job. Do you want it or not?
"Church can tell people what they can and cannot have on their health plans or what sort of care they are allowed to recieve, or whether they'll honor someone's health plan in their Church -- errm, hospital." First the church -- errm hospital, isn't telling people what they are allowed to receive. They are telling people what they are going to pay for or provide or which insurance they are going to accept. I don't work for anyone who wants my services.
It's not just the church that has to have birth control. It's going to be required. What is the limit to what the government can tell me I have to do? You may have the right to what ever service you can pay for and can find a provider to provide, but that doesn't mean I have to pay for it or provide it.
Encouraged by everything that you point out, I'm less enthusiastic about the ability of a huge part of the population to vote based on reason. R
I can buy the idea of Team Obama setting this up, as it's such an obvious way to get the otherwise pointless GOP to stab themselves repeatedly with this point. It won't sway away the Catholic vote, as those voters are used to rolling their eyes when the hierarchy starts condemning birth control. It might even add to the Pro-Obama turnout.
Now, if Team Obama could find a way to finesse the Repubs into demanding chastity belts as an insurance requirement...
I'd say Obama has had some good luck that he has masterly channeled into effective strategy hemming in the GOP. He is now gaining independents back as the primaries push the GOP candidates farther and farther and farther to the right. Romney, if he wins, will be back pedaling all summer to get back to just right of center. This of course will open him up to more body blows for flip-flopping. Obama could very well win just on asking voters, "Which Mitt will show up on the first day?"
And then I saw a blog recently about Norquist's comments at CPAC postulating that Romney would be the perfect puppet president for a Republican-controlled Congress. The legislative branch would run the country and Mitt would just sign whatever they sent him.
That does introduce a scary scenario, realistic or not.
Catnlion said this: "...If the labor market gets to the point where I have to have benefits or something else to get quality employees then I will consider it. I have a job. This is what you get to do the job. Do you want it or not?" This is the absolute truth of American business. Competition for employees (remember that?) is the only reason any of them will stretch their consciences on any social issue; medical coverage, vacation policies, hiring non-mainstream workers such as blacks and LBGTs. Now that business is down and they can exercise their real prejudices with abandon, they are doing so.
One question: Do Catholic hospital insurance policies allow coverage for viagra?
Lezlie
Have you been noticing that the GOP switched to Obama-as-Religion-Hater just about the time that all the good news about jobs started hitting the news cycles?
But the real numbers, aren't there yet. The missing piece of this election is the resentment of a threatened white majority, and the 49 million who vote "fundie."
I think it would be a stupid mistake to assume under any circumstance that Obama will win this election. This is a country that re-elected one of the most inept and corrupt presidents in history AFTER HE TOOK THEM TO WAR UNDER FALSE PRETENSES.
The questions these polls probe have little to do with the real agenda of Obama's opposition and it is absolutely foolish to discount what is the most obvious.
The right are past masters at stating untruths or partial truths that are often illogical over and over until it is believed by some to be true
Santorum doesn't have that problem, being sanctified, certified and certifiable. This issue is, ironically, considering his gay bashing, right up his alley. It doesn't matter to him, as he knows he's gotten as far as he can go. Meanwhile, the issue will stick to nominee Romney through November.
In other words, Romney needed a moderate prophylactic before making tepid love to the religious Right but, once challenged, had to go in bareback. He's humpin' like a rabbit, but he's only making a big mess, covering himself in Santorum.
--Being the sitting President
--His huge campaign warchest
--The mainstream media loves him and has his back.
Obama's approval ratings are improving, but still abysmal --- nowhere over 50%.
Rope-a-Dope?
That's an insult to Ali.
Looks more like Bum Fights, volume 1.
Actually this is two different things. So let's start with "hiring non-mainstream workers such as blacks and LBGTs". First, what do you have against blacks and LBGTs? You seem to think they are non-mainstream workers like there is something wrong with them. I assure you they are not. They are just like every other employee. Some are great, some are good, some are lazy. They are no different than their co-workers. You, on the other hand, think there is something wrong with them that would make them "non-mainstream". I have found over the years that they are just like everybody else. No better, no worse.
Now about the first part of the sentence. You answered that a little later when you said "Now that business is down...". Business isn't down, it sucks. New and expensive regulations hit what seems like almost every day.
I feel that I have families to watch out for and I assure you there are times when there is nothing left for me or I have to short term borrow to cover payroll. You want me to provide those items? Right now, that would kill the goose that laid the golden egg and then who would be better off. What about the grandmother who I employee who takes care of her father, daughter with issues, and granddaughter. Do you think she would be better off with her current $50k job, or going back to her last job making minimum wage? Granted right now she doesn't have health benefits. She also doesn't have an eviction notice, her lights being turned off, and she has good food on her table. She knew what the job was, what it paid, and that it didn't have health insurance. She took it and we both agree that she, and her family, are way better off that where she was. What do you think?
r./
Let's see, they just cut the number of hours I can operate per day and per week. They now tell me when I must take a lunch break and how long it must be. They now tell me that even though I'm available 24 hours a day that for two overnight periods I can operate or my hours are reduced even more, and they go on.
BTW, that is the ones just this year and it's not March yet!
Allow me to introduce myself, Catnlion. Apparently you don't know that I am black. I have nothing against myself. You have a problem with the word mainstream? Does "minority" work better for you? I have no doubt whatsoever that you knew what I meant, but have chosen to obfuscate the point, a favorite tactic of the right.
I have written numerous posts in support of social justice for the LGBT community, so no, I have nothing against them either. Nice try.
As for the rest of my comment about businesses feeling free again to exercise whichever prejudices they happen to harbor, I stand by what I wrote the first time.
Lezlie
Let's see, they just cut the number of hours I can operate per day and per week. They now tell me when I must take a lunch break and how long it must be. They now tell me that even though I'm available 24 hours a day that for two overnight periods I can operate or my hours are reduced even more, and they go on.
BTW, that is the ones just this year and it's not March yet!
Let me say a little about me. I'm not black. My last extended girlfriend was. As far as any difference it makes me, you could be purple for all I care.
The reason I challenged the non-mainstream point was to see where you wanted to go with it. It seems to me that liberals (as a general group, not in total) want to put people in groups then say we have to defend that group as they are not able to defend themselves. I find that totally wrong. Would General Powell need defending? Condi Rice? So while all of (pick a group) don't need defending, you don't have to defend them from all (pick another group). You seem to have done quite well for yourself. Did somebody have to defend you? Somehow I don't think so. I think when you meet the jacka$$ you just took care of it yourself.
AS for business I think they are taking care of the goose that lays the golden egg. Because if the goose dies, it's bad for everyone.
Thanks for replying. I love a debate. You learn so much from what people are thinking.
Have a nice day.