TAC Presidential GOP Poll So Far

Wednesday, August 17, AD 2011

The American Catholic (TAC) GOP Poll is still accepting votes until this Friday evening.

Thus far former Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is leading with 22% of the vote followed by Texas Governor Rick Perry with 19% of the vote.

Texas U.S. Representative Ron Paul follows with 13% of the vote with undecideds rounding the top four at 11%.

Top tier candidates Michele Bachmann is way back with 2% of the vote with Mitt Romney at 5% of the total vote.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to TAC Presidential GOP Poll So Far

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY EVENING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • In regards to the TAC Presidential GOP Poll, it would be interesting how many “Catholics” would still vote for Obama.

  • Santorum has to be one of the dumbest dudes God ever created!

    Diane Sawyer said the presidenial candidates spend millions on their campaigns adfvertising and looked into their campaignt T shirts The 3 major candidates had shirts made in the USA. Then she showed Gingrichs’ and it was foreign made and when asked it took him a few minutes and he figured it out and replied he’d get USA made shirts….then Ron Paul, took him a few minutes to think about his foreign made shirts and he decided to dispose of them all immediately and get USA made ones. A llittle slow those two but they got the idea. When she asked Rick Santorum… his response…it’s hard to find anything made in the USA, and hard as she tried couldn’t get him to think about it and give the right answer. And he’s running for President, just a little scary!!

  • I will not vote for a cafeteria Christian in name only Republican thug and thief… nor a godless Democrat thug and thief.

  • Fr. Leo Padget,

    That would be interesting.

    We’ll do a poll on that later in the year, just for the record!

  • So Rick Santorum is dumb because he was the only candidate in the exchange who didn’t pander?

  • Will gladly vote in the 2012 election for any of these candidates to replace Pres. Obama.
    Still depressed at times that our country would elect someone with his background and lack of experience. Especially troubling that so many Catholics could vote for someone who is more pro-abortion than NARAL.

GOP Presidential Poll for August

Monday, August 15, AD 2011

The American Catholic (TAC) has been running a periodic poll of the GOP presidential field. So naturally following the Iowa Straw Poll we have this months poll for our TAC readers.  We have included candidates that have declared their candidacy as well as other speculative* candidates. As the primaries arrive the field of candidates should narrow down a bit.

Tim Pawlenty has dropped out, but Rick Perry has “officially” entered the race.  A newcomer to our poll is Representative Thad McCotter of Michigan.  Tim Pawlenty garnered 13 votes in our last TAC poll, we’ll see where Pawlenty’s supporters will go to next.  Rick Santorum won the last TAC poll.

You can view the results of our last poll here.

Update:  My apologies, I have added Michele Bachmann.

* For example even though Chris Christie has denied he is interested in running, he still will be in Iowa for an inexplicable reason. Until then, he will be showing in the poll until we don’t see his name on the actual roll.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to GOP Presidential Poll for August

WSJ Poll Alert, Should the Church Drop Celibacy?

Friday, September 24, AD 2010

[Update:  Great job TACers!  The poll has swung heavily to Catholic teaching.  It is now 83.3% wanting to keep to Catholic teaching, which was 44% previously.  See the updated poll below after the jump.]

The Wall Street Journal is running a poll on whether or not the Church should drop the requirement for celibacy by priests.

The results so far as of September 24, 2010 at 2:17pm US Central time:

We recommend our readers go visit the poll with fidelity to the Church.

Hat Tip:  Father Zuhlsdorf.

Continue reading...

30 Responses to WSJ Poll Alert, Should the Church Drop Celibacy?

  • Right now the poll is running 100% opposed in Vatican City, so tough noogies for the majority of the WSJ readership.

  • This is a discipline, rather than a doctrine. As Pope Benedict could wake up tomorrow and change his mind on the subject, I don’t see the harm in expressing an opinion either way.

  • John Henry,

    I agree that this is a discipline.

    But my reasoning for making this alert is that I don’t like a secular newspaper asking non-Catholics what to do with our faith.

  • What Tito said. Who cares what secular libertarians think the Church should do?

  • I didn’t vote, but I would actually vote yes. I won’t vote however because there is not an option for “Yes, when/if the Holy Spirit says it is time.”

  • Nothing wrong with voting “yes”. It does not go against any dogma of the Church.

  • Who cares what secular libertarians think the Church should do?

    I don’t see any reason to care about that; just thought it was worth noting that faithful Catholics can come down either way on this one.

  • just thought it was worth noting that faithful Catholics can come down either way on this one.

    I understand that, and I agree (though personally I think it would be the wrong move, and it certainly should not be done for the reasons outlined at the WSJ link, but that’s for another time).

  • The three obvious points here are:

    1. Nothing prevents the Church from permitting priests to marry.

    2. Whether the Church will/should do this doesn’t depend on what the polls say.

    3. Internet polls are worse than worthless.

  • It can’t be worse than sticking a pencil in my eye can’t it?!

    😉

  • Eric, any chance we can get a sketch of your rationale for why you’d voted yes? You’ve piqued my curiosity.

  • I get it. Marriage is bad, protecting pedophiles is a-okay. If Catholics are uncomfortable with others having thoughts on their practices, perhaps it is time for the RCC to butt out of politics. I am not a Catholic, and find it disturbing that money donated by the faithful is used to pressure my government to pass laws which will not pertain to Catholics. If you think abortion is wrong, fine. No argument. Don’t have one. And I’ll trust your god to judge me when my time comes.

    The word for religious people trying to legislate their doctrines onto non-believers while decrying reasonable attempts to stop the massive sexual abuses committed by Catholic clergy (all over the world!) is “hypocrisy”.

  • Redflags,

    Why you butt out of our affairs.

    For that matter, let us take you argument to the next logical conclusion.

    Stop forcing your morals and ethics on us, the American people.

    Abortion on demand was imposed on us by an unelected judiciary.

    Gay marriage is trying to be imposed on us by an unelected judiciary.

    As for the pedophiles, why you don’t take a look at the rampant sex scandals in the public schools and clean up your own “secular” schools for that matter.

    Your own hypocrisy knows no bounds.

  • Even though celibacy is a discipline, it has nevertheless deep theological roots, and it will never be discarded as a general rule. There have been several pronouncements throughout history regarding celibacy, starting with the council of Elvira.
    There are married Catholic priests – take Fr.Dwight Longnecker – and there will be many more like him with Anglicanorum Coetibus. And of course, the Eastern Rites.

  • Wow. Check the updated chart – the ‘no s’ are in the ascendency.

  • Blackadder,
    “Nothing prevents the Church from permitting priests to marry.”

    In my opinion, that is far more problematic than allowing currently married men to be trained and ordained for priesthood. It’s two different things. The Orthodox admit married men to priesthood, they don’t allow celibate ordained men to pursue a romance and get married in the course of their priesthood.

    I also want to point out that married Catholic priests are among the greatest promoters of the gift of celibacy. It is an AMAZING gift. It’s not very often accepted, though. I wonder, in the “mustard seed” Church to come, if this dispensation might be relaxed by necessity.

  • Karl,

    I’m confused at your comments.

  • The Orthodox in general promote adultery through their “penitential marriages” which should be anathemized, directly, ex cathedra, by the Pope.

    The dialogue between the Churches should have it CLEAR that this heresy must be stricken from their practices, no matter how far back it goes, BEFORE serious talks regarding “unity” can be taken with more than polite conversation.

    Obviously, since Jeuss had married Apostles

  • Tito,

    I think you got the wrong one(deleted post) but that is fine. Sorry.

    I do not separate the issues of marriage and celibacy as the priesthood and marriage are both sacraments relating to manifest sexuality and how it is addressed/practiced.

    Obviously, since Jesus chose married disciples any assertion that a married clergy is “wrong” cannot be defended. However, a married priesthood, in the current state of things, in my opinion, is lunacy. Marriage means nothing, inside and outside of the Catholic Church(big and little tent). The Catholic Church must restore itself regarding marriage or nothing really matters. Celibacy is secondary to marriage in my eyes. All the sacraments are secondary without people, who are supposed to get here through marriages.

    Perhaps a married clergy should exist but only with personal exemptions, very, very, very limited and granted only by a sitting Pope, in consultation with the bishops and laity, who have shown a dogged defense of marriages, not simply due to holy orders, or advanced degrees(both of which are increasingly meaningless as we see those with these “qualifications” exhibiting lack of wisdom, daily).

  • I know a married Catholic priest who I asked, begged is a better word, to intervene with a close friend of his who is a bi-Rite Catholic priest who supports the
    “orthodox” heresy of “penitiential marriages” and who supports my wife’s adulterous relationship, knowing she is MY WIFE. Both of the heretics know Rome upheld our marriage, TWICE.

    He refused. So much for the “wisdom” of marriage for a priest. I asked him to ask his wife about it or if I could talk to her about it. He refused!

    Corruption is corruption. Marriage will only divide the mind of a man. Only the truly exceptional man should even “think” about a married clergy.

  • Marriage was only exception made because the woman would get everything. If you look back at the start the true reason they made marriage illegal was because women would start to take wealth from the church. In the modern day the church has means to protect itself better than in the past so .. it is dumb not to allow priest to marry may stop all those homos that enter the priesthood

  • Alex V.,

    It’s quite apparent you’re here to provoke rather than engage in dialogue.

    You are on moderation now.

  • I doubt the discipline of celibacy requires more from a homosexual than it does from a heterosexual man.

    It is simply folly to think that a man can give himself fully to, two vocations.

    I have lived as a married husband and father. I have lived as a single(divorced) celibate man who remains a father(and a married man if one accepts what the Church teaches, I do).

    I could not be a priest and be married and be free enough to function as both. That is clear to me. In a perfect world, I would believe, such would be possible, but not otherwise. There are too many demands, that are legitimate ones, upon the life of a priest. Both his wife and their children would suffer, to their detriment.

    Especially, the sometimes necessary intimate contact that priests must have with women in some pastoral situations, makes them(both) very vulnerable to temptation.

    The agony, that I live with everyday, because it never goes away(from our divorce, my abandonment and abuse), fully, reminds me, graphically, when I must be, by necessity, in very close, personal, contact with women, on occasion, of what damage I could do in weakness, through temptation, to another man or to the children of the woman I am close to at that moment.

    It is, primarily, my personal suffering, that protects(all of us), in such a circumstance. It stands guard, right next to discipline and respect for the teachings of the Church when I am in situations of temptation, which are, thank God, very rare.

    I never, ever, want to cause or precipitate in anyone else’s life, the hell that never ends for me, or for our children.

    I might consider a man who has been maliciously abandoned and who has learned to cope with it for many years, as a “possible” candidate for married priesthood, but not many others.

    May God save the Catholic Church and its clergy from
    such a “pastoral response” to declining numbers of priests. The answer is not an end to celibacy or an openness to a married priesthood. The answer is supporting marriage.

  • Allowing priests to marry is definitely not the answer to a declining priesthood. The priesthood and marriage are reflections of each other – the priest being the good example to married couples with his fidelity to the Church and all of her teachings and a constant service to his flock, and the married couples supporting the priest in his vocation by their fidelity to each other and to the Church. There is a decline in all self-giving professions, (protestant ministry, OB doctors, nurses, etc.)of which only the Catholic Church requires celibacy. It is our self-serving versus self-giving culture that has caused the decline. We have become materialistic and do not tend to pursue any vocation that isn’t about making money or conferring status, which has made it very hard to hear the call of God to a vocation. A good friend of mine who is a very holy priest has often told me about how his parents taught constantly about selflessness. This man is always other-serving so as to serve Christ. He would absolutely have no time for a wife or children. He keeps his schedule busy 24/7 serving others. (When I need some direction from him, I often find my emails were answered at the early hours of 2 or 3 a.m. as it may be the only time he had that day to get to his email) He does a holy hour and says mass every single day. He comes from a household of 11 children from which came 2 very holy priests (out of the 3 boys) and 1 cloistered Carmelite nun (out of the 8 girls)! They were constantly focused on prayer and on others. They learned early about redemptive suffering and how to offer it to God and not place too much emphasis on their own problems – that to focus on others to serve Christ was the best way to deal with any problems. In our pursuit of wealth, our families have shrunk, leaving many parents loathe to plant the seeds of religious vocations in their own children so as not to lose out on their own possibilties of grandparenthood etc. It’s all about fidelity to all of the Church’s teachings, not just the ones that are comfortable for us…

  • OB doctors, nurses

    The decline at least in these professions is not just the lack of selflessness. Liability issues (and for nurses, the rather low wages compared to the effort invested) have as much to do with it.

    As for the celibacy practice, I can certainly see the good reason for having it. Being a husband and father, I don’t see how one could handle well the familial role as well as the priestly one. Some professions I suppose fall into a similar category (ER docs, criminal defense attorneys, police/firefighters) – where you have to give priority of one over the other because conflicting duties will inevitably occur. Perhaps some sort of limited role for married clergy to relieve some of the pressure off the parish priest (eg, hearing confessions, hospital ministries, last rites, etc.) might be a good idea. I don’t care much for the “part time” or “on call” priest inuendo that would develop from it (thus making the married priest appear less than a “real” priest”), so I can also see arguments against it. As always, the Church should take her time with such an important issue.

  • Don’t you understand that this WSJ poll is unscientific and that its results, therefore, are worthless?

  • Patrick,

    Yes.

    Catholics can have fun too.

  • Tito,
    It is said that this is an open forum to discuss our opinion yet you would censor my thoughts. It is fine since it is your blog, but I only stated what I said to stir discussion. I honestly believe that priest should be allowed to marry. I would challenge you to look up the history of this from the church. When did it start? Why was it done? That is all I am asking. I believe in a lot of teachings of the church, but some I do not. Not because I pick and choose, but because i look at logic and the church has gone back and forth in many other things. You cannot say that the modern church is the same church my grand parents grow up in. I am catholic because i believe Jesus founded this church even with its flaws (it started out good because of jesus) but remember it is still ran by men no matter how good the intentions.

  • Alex V.,

    Your views are similar to Truthers and Birthers line of reasoning.

    Hence why you put on moderation, plus your insults didn’t help much either.

    You’re off moderation and can post all you want without moderation.

  • Tito,
    I guess I deserve that slap. My apologies, in the future I will get into more detail than just slap mud on your blog. I will be the first to admit that I am quick to insult and not explain. Thank you for taking me off moderation, I will try not to insult but explain my point of view better.

    In this case I remember the history of the church:
    (Source: http://hnn.us/articles/696.html)
    “Peter, a Galilee fisherman, whom the Catholic Church considers the first Pope, was married. Some Popes were the sons of Popes.

    The first written mandate requiring priests to be chaste came in AD 304. Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira stated that all “bishops, presbyters, and deacons and all other clerics” were to “abstain completely from their wives and not to have children.” A short time later, in 325, the Council of Nicea, convened by Constantine, rejected a ban on priests marrying requested by Spanish clerics.

    The practice of priestly celibacy began to spread in the Western Church in the early Middle Ages. In the early 11th century Pope Benedict VIII responded to the decline in priestly morality by issuing a rule prohibiting the children of priests from inheriting property. A few decades later Pope Gregory VII issued a decree against clerical marriages.

    The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy.”
    I think that they should allow marriage. It may bring more men into the priesthood. They have already opened other priests from other faiths that allow marriage to convert to be a catholic priest why can’t roman catholic priest be permitted to marry.Outside the modern reasoning of the church why would it be bad?

TAC College Football Rankings: Week 2

Monday, September 13, AD 2010

Last week we debuted our fearless college rankings here at TAC. This week saw chaos in the middle and back as our #11, 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, and 24 teams all lost. Some of the chaos is surely due to this man:

The first lesson we need to learn is that if we keep ignoring the Federalist Papers, Madison will strike down our football teams. The other lesson is that it’s great to not be an ACC fan.

This week the rankings take on two new additions: our own Dave Hartline and Evangelical Catholicism’s M.J. Andrew. If you’re a Catholic blogger, and you’re interested in writing rankings, shoot me an email at michaelrdenton”at” gmail. com. Let’s see those rankings now, shall we?

Continue reading...

32 Responses to TAC College Football Rankings: Week 2

  • Tito, sir, you are a gentlemen. Gig ’em!

  • #25 I thought Air Force was one of the more interesting wins that seemed to go under the radar this weekend. COming off their Last season they could very well be legit

    #24 Fresno – I agree why not

    #22 WV I agree skeptical but it was one those game. 40th Annv of Marshal Plane Crash,Marshal feeling the heat to win because of the politics of keeping game going.

    #19 Miami(Fl) Your being generous

    #14 Arkansas- ULM did not play a game before this one so there was no game film. Also ULM has New Coach, so unknowns for Arky. Further believe it or not ULM has played them close before. So we shall see this week

    #13 Wisconsin Yall are on Crack. At the very least I would Wis change places with S.C

    #11 LSU I WISH!! The QB situation is just too unstable now

    #7 Oklahoma- Agree. Jimbo was running the show at Florida State last year. Why would this year be different. SO we don’t learn much

    #6 Nebraska I am a believer too

    #1 Alabama Yack Yack Yack!! but at this point true

  • JH:

    LSU is so high b/cit’s hard to figure out who’s ahead. 1-7 looks pretty good, 8-10 have some history of getting good later, but after that it’s a crapshoot between 11-20 and after 20 you might as well stop the ballot.

    I really don’t know what to do with Wisconsin, myself. They could be great; could suck. As for SCAR, a win over Georgia isn’t what it once was, and SCAR has had a problem with being a flash in the pan. We’ll see if they can keep it up, and if so they’ll rise.

  • I guess I just see SC wins more quality than Wisconsin. Of course with South Carolina one has a feeling that Garcia could implode at any moment

  • JH,

    If Air Force wins this week, I assure you that I’ll bump ’em all the way up into the top 15 in my voting. Maybe even top 10.

    For what it’s worth, I think they have a real shot at beating the Sooners.

  • Big Tex,

    If I’m not mistaken, one of the voters in this poll is an A&M alum, and he didn’t even give the Ags any love. I think the Aggies may be another one of Tito’s Idaho Vandal type picks.

    😉

  • A&M is grossly underrated.

    This is the year they get over the hump and finally beat Kansas State, Colorado, and TU-Austin.

    As for Idaho and Jay’s ‘comment’, Idaho played Nebraska pretty damn hard up until kickoff. That and their schedule get’s pretty easy so hopefully they’ll run the table and knock off WAC powers Boise State and Fresno State and prove me right!

  • I overlooked Houston (in my own backyard no less) and if they man-handle UCLA like they should, they’re getting my vote (assuming anyone in my top-25 loses).

    West Virginia won against Marshall because of a coaching decision of putting in a freshman RB when they had a seasoned back ready to go. The freshman fumbled inside the red-zone. If they would have scored there is no way WV would have had time enough to score 18-22 points.

    Fresno State takes on all-comers. They still have Mississippi and Illinois in their schedule.

    Not to mention WAC powers Boise State, Nevada, and Hawaii.

    If they can just win those close games watch them reek havoc in the polls!

  • Idaho played Nebraska pretty damn hard up until kickoff

    Lol.

    I’d agree with Houston getting a vote if they beat UCLA; I probably could have shoed them in to my rankins.

    West Virginia seems suspect to me. I just couldn’t figure out who to put ahead of them. However, if they try to play like that in Death Valley…well, let’s just say we came up with “Tiger Bait” (pronounced Tiii-GAH BAIT!) for a reason

  • I agree with WV. It doesn’t help that they’re in an overrated conference (thank goodness the Big Least is around, it makes the ACC look like the Black&Blue Division of the NFC North).

    LSU will walk all over them like a cheap rug.

  • I just noticed Jay putting in UVA at #25.

    They almost took out the University of Spoiled Children though.

    Tough cross-country road trip for the Cavaliers.

  • Yeah, that was a stretch, but I had to give some love to my alma mater for a late-night trip to the Colliseum that almost ended in an upset of USC.

    What does that say about the ACC that arguably the most impressive performance of the weekend came in a loss?

  • Sorry to dissappoint you Tito, but the A&M Gaggies will not beat The University.

  • …of Arizona?

    I agree, because Arizona isn’t on the schedule.

    😉

  • Sorry to dissappoint you Tito, but the A&M Gaggies will not beat The University

    I won’t tolerate anybody speaking badly about a future SEC team-which reminds me, when does the rest of the country decide to gang up to pummel UT for their nonsense this summer?

  • A&M would be a great addition to the SEC.

    I could see a great rivalry forming between A&M and LSU.

    Along the lines of the Red River Classic, games could rotate between Houston (Reliant Stadium) and New Orleans (Super Dome) every year!

  • Tito:

    We used to have that rivalry, but it got lost sometime in the conference shuffle. I have a great respect for the Aggies’ tradition and wished they could join us in the SEC (even though I don’t like the idea of super-conferences and like the SEC’s number). I hope LSU will notice the attraction of its fan base towards the Aggies and schedules a series in the near future-I think your idea of Reliant & New Orleans is a good one, though I think both schools have such great environments tha it would be a shame to be played other than Death Valley & the Home of the 12th man.

  • Jay, at A&M, we don’t have alumni. We have former students.

    cmatt & others… I didn’t realize A&M had the Volunteers on their schedule? UT is in Tennessee. If that was a typo, and you meant t.u., then yes, I think the Aggies have a better than good shot and sawing varsity’s horns off. Remember back a couple years ago, McGhee ran all over that horn defense… in Austin. Anything can happen, especially with the skill players the Aggies have on offense. Watch out for Johnson, Michael, Gray, Fuller, and Nwachukwu.

  • Michael,

    Everything’s on the table!

    A player for either school could play one game in College Station, one game in Baton Rouge, one game in the Super Dome, and one game in Reliant.

    During the course of the players four year career he would get the opportunity to play in all those great venues!

  • What a load of dung. Once again, southerners who seem to need to justify just how important they are to the world of sports spout on obnoxiously about how superior they are to the Big Ten. A careful study of Penn State history vs. the SEC will demonstrate they do pretty well thank you very much. In fact, since joining the league in ’93, PSU is 5 and 2 vs. the SEC in bowl games. In fact, only a closely contested match against Auburn and a game against Florida where PS was without Curtis Enis and Joe Jurivicius resulted in PS losses. In the SEC land, only the Bear owned Penn State and he owned everyone else too! I will take our record against the vaunted and mighty SEC any day of the week.

  • Oh and by the way, do you know the differnce between the SEC and the NFL? The SEC does not have a salary cap!

  • I follow the Big Ten and prefer it to the SEC. But the SEC is a stronger football conference. Obnoxiousness has nothing to do with it. The Big Ten has disappointed me for too long and I refuse to be in denial. That said, I still prefer the Big Ten. Overall I think they run somewhat cleaner programs more consonate with the stated ideals and objectives of college athletics. To be clear, I do not think the SEC was necessarily the stronger (let alone strongest) conference in the 90s; but it is today and has been for a while I think.

  • I’m a Southerner who now lives in Big 10 country, and who has been an Ohio State and Big 10 fan for most of my life. I also like Penn State and LOVE Joe Pa.

    Believe me, there is a lot of respect for the Big 10 reflected in this poll (Michael’s whiny comments about having to play on anything other than pristine field conditions in anything other than sunny 75-degree weather or inside a dome notwithstanding).

  • Speaking of respect for the Big 10, I just noticed that Michigan is missing from this poll, despite the fact that the Wolverines appear to have received votes from all the voters.

    What gives?

  • Speaking of respect for the Big 10, I just noticed that Michigan is missing from this poll, despite the fact that the Wolverines appear to have received votes from all the voters.

    What gives?

    Um…I screwed up. 🙁 I’ll fix it.

  • “Speaking of respect for the Big 10, I just noticed that Michigan is missing from this poll,”

    I think all Illinis would say Michael that whenever you wish to forget Michigan, that is fine with us. 😉

  • That would make Michigan come in at #20.

    Bumping the three-way tie at #25 into ‘honorable mention’ territory.

  • Believe me, there is a lot of respect for the Big 10 reflected in this poll (Michael’s whiny comments about having to play on anything other than pristine field conditions in anything other than sunny 75-degree weather or inside a dome notwithstanding).

    I actually gave a lot of respect to the Big 10 in my ballot; I think they’re either the second or third best conference right now in the country. But I do reserve the right to jab Penn St. for barely beating the worst offense in LSU history on “turf” that gave advantages beyond what proper conditions should give to a Big 10 team. (See addendum in post above)

  • @Michael Denton, @Jay, et al,

    It’s hilarious that Michael is complaining on what definition of the word “field” should be, since most Louisianan’s call the northern seabed of the Gulf of Mexico “New Orleans”.

    So I take his comments with a ginormous grain of salt.

    “You call it dinner, I call it roadkill.”
    –Tito driving through the Louisiana portion of I-10 circa 2002.

  • It’s hilarious that Michael is complaining on what definition of the word “field” should be, since most Louisianan’s call the northern seabed of the Gulf of Mexico “New Orleans”.

    Yes, but we’ve never called it a field. You’ll find that we New Orleanians have the technology to produce flat fields as opposed to Marshes, a technology we apparently have to share with the good people of Orlando.

    We will provide ginormous grains of salt from Avery Island, if you would like.

    And we don’t call it dinner; we call it “gumbo” or “boudin” and it’s delicious. 😉

  • Mike-

    Granted, I am a bit sheepish about the Cap One Bowl victory last January but not because of the field. I am a bit embarrased about the horrible unsportsmanlike conduct penaltly at the end of the game that should have been called against PSU instead of LSU. I don’t apologize for our ability to play in crappy weather. In fact, that’s my beef against the SEC outside of Bama whom we have a history with. I think Bama is the only school SEC we have ever seen in Happy Valley and I am looking forward to the battle in 2011. I sort of bristle when we are lumped in with the rep the rest of the Big Ten has. Penn State has always held its own vs. the SEC.

    I do not doubt that year in and year out the SEC is the deepest conference in football but let us just agree that the SEC with the exception of Vandy operates froma different set of rules than the SEC when it comes to “student” athletes, OK?

  • Note: should read “from the Big Ten”.

    It’s late.

Political Miscellania 6/16/10

Wednesday, June 16, AD 2010

1.  As the above video indicates, Congressman Bob Etheridge (D.NC) does not realize that he is living in the age of video cell phones and Youtube.  His GOP opponent, Renee Ellmers, reminds him of the current facts of political life.

2.  If you are a Democrat, you know that political times are bad for you if National Public Radio runs a poll which indicates that your party is going to be creamed in November.

Democrat Stan Greenberg and Republican Glen Bolger conducted the first public battleground poll of this election cycle. They chose the 70 House districts experts regard as most likely to oust incumbents this fall. What they found was grim news for Democrats.

For this poll, Bolger and Greenberg chose the districts where incumbents are considered the most vulnerable, and, in the case of open seats, the ones most likely to switch party control in November. Sixty are currently held by Democrats — many of whom won these seats even when voters in the same district preferred Republican John McCain for president in 2008. The other 10 districts are the flip side — held by Republicans in the House, even though their voters went for Barack Obama in 2008.

These are this year’s swing seats — the political terrain where the battle for control of the House of Representatives will be won or lost. In this battleground, voters are choosing Republicans over Democrats 49 percent to 41 percent.

Continue reading...

One Response to Political Miscellania 6/16/10

  • Nothing like speaking in clicks and grunts then grabbing a juvenile by the scruff of the neck. Cavemen everywhere are embarrassed by Bob E. who obviously left his large club behind in the bar, or perhaps the bordello.

Gallup: One Point Difference In Party ID

Saturday, April 24, AD 2010

Further evidence that the Democrats are looking at an electoral disaster of epic proportions is given by a Gallup poll on party ID released this week.  The polls show Democrats at 46% and the Republicans at 45% in party ID.

The advantage in public support the Democratic Party built up during the latter part of the Bush administration and the early part of the Obama administration has all but disappeared. During the first quarter of 2010, 46% of Americans identified as Democrats or leaned Democratic, while 45% identified as or leaned Republican.

The latest results, based on aggregated data from Gallup polls conducted from January to March of this year, show the closest party division since the first quarter of 2005, when the parties were tied at 46%. Democrats enjoyed double-digit advantages in party support in 11 of 12 quarters from the second quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2009.

By the end of last year, the Democratic advantage had shrunk to five points (47% to 42%), and it narrowed further in the most recent quarter.

The six-point rise in Republican support since the first quarter of 2009 is due entirely to a growing proportion of independents who lean to the Republican Party, rather than an increase in the percentage of Americans who identify as Republicans outright. (Gallup measures party identification by first asking Americans whether they identify as Republicans, Democrats, or independents. Those who are independent or express no party preference are then asked whether they lean more toward the Democratic or the Republican Party.)

In fact, the 28% of Americans who initially identify as Republicans today is identical to the figure Gallup measured in early 2009, when the Democrats still had a double-digit advantage in support. Since then, there has been a three-point reduction in the proportion of Democratic identifiers, and a three-point decline in the percentage of Democratic-leaning independents.

Continue reading...

ObamaCare Bounce? What ObamaCare Bounce?

Wednesday, April 14, AD 2010

Perhaps a sign of public discontent with the passage of ObamaCare, the Republicans now lead by four points, 48-44, on the Gallup Generic Congressional ballot among registered  voters.  It is rare for Republicans to take the lead in this poll as Gallup notes:

The trend based on registered voters shows how rare it is for the Republicans to lead on this “generic ballot” measure among all registered voters, as they do today. Other recent exceptions were recorded in 1994 — when Republicans wrested majority control from the Democrats for the first time in 40 years — and 2002, when the GOP achieved seat gains, a rarity for the president’s party in midterm elections.

On the other hand, the Democrats are not performing in the poll as they have in years when they have won Congress:

In midterm years when Democrats prevailed at the polls (such as 2006, 1990, and 1986), their net support among registered voters typically extended into double digits at several points during the year — something that has yet to happen in 2010.

Gallup notes the enthusiasm gap that currently exists between the parties:

Gallup will not begin identifying likely voters for the 2010 midterms until later in the year. However, at this early stage, Republicans show much greater enthusiasm than Democrats about voting in the elections.

In other poll news, the Republicans retain a nine point lead, 45-36, over the Democrats on the Rasmussen Generic Congressional ballot of likely votersRasmussen also reports that in his latest poll on repeal of ObamaCare, 58% of voters support repeal.  Nate Silver at 538, a site which leans left politically, states the following in regard to current generic ballots:

Their bad news is that the House popular vote (a tabulation of the actual votes all around the country) and the generic ballot (an abstraction in the form of a poll) are not the same thing — and the difference usually tends to work to Democrats’ detriment. Although analysts debate the precise magnitude of the difference, on average the generic ballot has overestimated the Democrats’ performance in the popular vote by 3.4 points since 1992. If the pattern holds, that means that a 2.3-point deficit in generic ballot polls would translate to a 5.7 point deficit in the popular vote — which works out to a loss of 51 seats, according to our regression model.

These sorts of questions have been the subject of many, many academic studies, almost all of which involve far more rigor than what I’ve applied here. This is just meant to establish a benchmark. But that benchmark is a really bad one for Democrats. One reasonably well-informed translation of the generic ballot polls is that the Democrats would lose 51 House seats if the election were held today.

Continue reading...

20 Responses to ObamaCare Bounce? What ObamaCare Bounce?

  • The Dems are trying to reassure themselves by pointing — of all places — to Reagan’s somewhat similar circumstances in 1982. Ramesh Ponnuru and Jonah Goldberg briefly discussed this yesterday at the Corner here and here.

  • Not to crap in the cornflakes, but I really do think this is not a Republican surge. Its a anti-Obama/Pelosi/Reid, anti-government surge that will probably be greatly disappointed when STILL nothing changes after the GOP is back with increased power.

  • This is the same sort of surge that brought Obama/Pelosi/Reid to power. They greatly misinterpreted their victories as a mandate from the American public as “Yes! Democrats!” as opposed to “No, not Bush & Co.” As the GOP is set to make gains this November, my hope is that they do a better job of reading the public’s sentiments than did their opponents.

  • I ran the numbers using a “corrected” version of Nate Silver’s methodology and came up with a 51-57-seat pick up for the GOP. http://restrainedradical.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/extra-extrapolating/

    But as I also note, the rage may subside by November and the economy is a gigantic unknown.

  • If the Dems allow themselves to be caught without a response, they deserve to lose the mid-terms.

    That said, it was the Republicans who gave us two immoral and ludicrously expensive wars, plus half the bank bailout. They have no cred on the economy, and truly, the other party isn’t much better. Eighteen months out of the meltdown and we still have no meaningful reform, only the promise of more money.

    If we had a multi-party system, the GOP would already be down the drain and the Dems would be circling it.

  • That said, it was the Republicans who gave us two immoral and ludicrously expensive wars

    The Taliban and al-Qaeda mount an unprovoked attack on a trio of office buildings, kill nearly 3,000 civilians, and a war to expunge them is ‘immoral’; we devote < 5% of our military manpower to the task and it counts as 'ludicrously expensive'.

  • Thank you for saving me the work Art!

  • You’ve pretty much nailed it, Art. But I forgot to mention “incompetent” in my description of GOP Adventurism. The Taliban is still going strong. We still don’t have the Al Qaeda head. And we took out a non-aligned dictator instead. Good work, Mr Bush.

    Maybe Mr Obama should have asked for another trillion to lay waste to Southwest Asia.

    On the other hand, when other presidents have prosecuted a war against unjust enemies, people were asked to make sacrifices. Our previous president: just go shopping.

  • Non-aligned dictator? Was it in the alternate bearded Spock universe Todd where Saddam was not a dedicated enemy of the US?

  • Don,
    Todd’s point is that Saddam opposed both the US and the no longer existing Soviet Union equally. LOL.

  • Well, if you insist on being dense, Saddam was unaligned with the 9/11 attacks. If the Al Qaeda and the Taliban were such significant threats, why did the Bush administration allow itself to get distracted by Iraq? The war was incompetently waged. Enemy prisoners were tortured and killed. Whatever the initial motivation for protecting the nation after 2001 was lost in a neo-con jungle of ends justifying the means. Plus it was a hideously expensive adventure, one in which US citizens were not called to sacrifice. Only our military. And their loved ones.

    The GOP has learned no lessons from its recent tail whuppings. The Dems are little better. We need new parties and new ideas. Not the same old protectionism disguised as deregulation as an excuse for lawlessness.

  • “Well, if you insist on being dense, Saddam was unaligned with the 9/11 attacks.”

    As Hitler had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor Todd which made him no less an enemy of the United States. Why we went to war with Saddam is set forth below in the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force:

    “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
    Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

    Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

    Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

    Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

    Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations” and urged the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (Public Law 105-235);

    Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

    Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

    Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

    Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

    Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

    Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

    Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

    Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

    Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

    Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677”;

    Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),” that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and “constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,” and that Congress, “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688”;

    Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

    Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to “work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge” posed by Iraq and to “work for the necessary resolutions,” while also making clear that “the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable”;

    Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

    Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

    Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

    Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

    Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

    Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq”.

    SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

    The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to–

    (a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

    (b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

    SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

    (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

    (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

    (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

    In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

    (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

    (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

    (c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. —

    (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. — Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

    (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. — Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

    SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

    (a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

    (b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

    (c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.”

    “If the Al Qaeda and the Taliban were such significant threats, why did the Bush administration allow itself to get distracted by Iraq? The war was incompetently waged. Enemy prisoners were tortured and killed.”

    The US Todd had more than enough power to wage war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The initial campaign in Iraq was a masterpiece of how to topple a regime with few casualties to your side. The insurgency was a problem which, far too late it is true, the surge countered. As for enemy prisoners being tortured and killed, unfortunately that is something that occurs in all wars. Unlike most nations, the US does try individuals guilty of those offenses. If the administration you voted for wishes, it could bring charges against Bush administration officials for such offenses. Why they have not, I will leave to your musings.

    “We need new parties and new ideas. Not the same old protectionism disguised as deregulation as an excuse for lawlessness.”

    You do love Mother State don’t you Todd? I think the big lesson of the Obama debacle that you helped curse the nation with, is that most Americans now realize what a sham Nanny State truly is. We shall see.

  • Donald, either you are a super fast typist, or you have totally mastered Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V. Good work. And again, I think Mr Bush contributed far more to your so-called debacle than I did. The GOP couldn’t conduct a war, and couldn’t protect a homeland from disaster. They were bounced for good reason in ’06 and ’08. 2010 would be too soon for a comeback, I would think. But I never discount the short memory of angry citizenry. Good thing we’re not a parliamentary democracy, eh?

  • Copy and Paste were made for comboxes Todd. 🙂

    “The GOP couldn’t conduct a war, and couldn’t protect a homeland from disaster.”

    I missed the other 9-11s Todd. Keeping the US safe from a repetition of that attack was a major achievement of the Bush administration. We will see how Obama does on that score by the end of his term.

  • You’ve pretty much nailed it, Art.

    Irony is dead.

    Mr. Bush’s critics might consider the following:

    1. Decisions in war and diplomacy are commonly made under conditions of uncertainty;

    2. The Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration faced a disagreeable trilemma concering the Iraqi regime: take the sanctions off and live with the consequences, leave the sanctions on and live with the consequences (were not the humanitarian aid hucksters assuring us that there were six figures worth of excess deaths in Iraq every year?), or eject the government and live with the consequences.

    3. Institutions have skill sets useful for some purposes and not others. The measure of them is how adaptable they are to circumstances. That includes learning techniques of counter-insurgency in novel terrain.

    4. People of integrity keep their hands off the goalposts.

    5. People with a lively sense of who they are and what they amount to generally need not be reminded that if they are vociferious in their judgment that others are small, they had better be big.

    6. Self-aggrandizement is a common purpose of political discourse. It shouldn’t be, but it is.

    http://www.amazon.com/Vision-Anointed-Self-Congratulation-Social-Policy/dp/046508995X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271336185&sr=1-1

  • Yes, there was quite the push to end sanctions because of all the secondary deaths that were supposed to be caused by them. France, if I recall correctly was calling for their repeal and I believe even JPII chimed in.

    Some perspective on this from the time:

    http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/170/41947.html

    The push to keep sanctions came only after the US threatened war with Iraq.

  • “John Paul II said in his address, sanctions are “an act of force,” and current experience demonstrates that a policy of sanctions “inflicts grave hardships upon the people of the countries at which it is aimed.” Indeed, after a March 1995 meeting with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister,Tariq Azi, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican secretary of state, said that sanctions “must not be used as a means of war or to punish a population.” For all of these reasons, the criterion for sanctions cannot be reduced to the one of effectiveness.”

    The end of sanctions were being pushed for, Saddam continued to defy the conditions for the end of the Gulf War and diplomacy was (as is often the case) ineffective.

    The longer I think on it the more the Iraq War does seem just.

  • Pingback: Looking into the Cloudy Ball « The American Catholic
  • “Keeping the US safe from a repetition of that attack was a major achievement of the Bush administration.”

    Except they didn’t. The anthrax attacks ended, but were never solved. And despite a beefed up Homeland Security, Katrina was a disaster after the disaster. Political cronyism, including defense contractors, dogged the Republicans for years.

    That’s not to say the Dems would have fared better. In nearly every way, they’re just as bad.

    But hey, on the bright side, with $700B a year, at least some of that says stateside to enrich the coffers of warmongers. The alternative is to clean up health insurance. That will certainly ship American money overseas to good use, eh?

    Take the last word, gents; you’ve earned it on this thread.

  • The Anthrax attacks Todd I suspect were domestic loon based and had no overseas terrorist involvement. Katrina was mishandled, but unless I missed something had no terrorist affiliation. Political cronyism and corruption indeed helped bring down the GOP Congress.

    As always I will happily take the last word until you come back for more. 🙂

Poll Shows Americans Would Like to Have Their Cake and Eat It Too

Wednesday, February 10, AD 2010

The Washington Post has a new poll out which will please both political parties, since the American people in the main agree with both of them. A majority of people want Congress to scrap the current Health Care Reform bills, and a majority also think Obama has done a bad job of handling the health care issue. Yet a majority also want Health Care Reform passed this year and blame Republicans for lack of progress.

Solid majorities think that the current HCR bills are too complex and too expensive, but majorities also approve of the main components: require employers to provide insurance, require people without insurance to buy it, subsidize people who can’t afford insurance, and require insurance companies to give everyone insurance regardless of their medical histories or problems. So basically, people would love the bill as is, so long as it didn’t cost anything and wasn’t complex.

And in the results most likely to give legislators pause: People say they’re looking for new candidates of incumbents in the next congressional election by a 56 to 36 majority. 71% of people disapprove of how congress is doing its job. And of the 62% of the population that has private insurance (15% have MediCare, 3% have Medicaid and 17% have no insurance) 74% trust their insurance companies to do a “good” or “great” job of processing their claims fairly.

If people like the idea of health care reform, but don’t want it to cost anything or be complex, while distrusting congress and trusting their insurance companies, it sounds to me like nothing is likely to happen on the health care front this year.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Poll Shows Americans Would Like to Have Their Cake and Eat It Too

  • Over four decades of brain-washing has caused cognitive dissonance and an inability for critical thinking. Oops, sorry I didn’t regurgitate a talking point. I promise not to think anymore and fall the alleged left-right divide.

    If nothing happens on the health care front this year is that an accident or is that by design? Could it be that despite the political class completely ignoring the Constitution and the general populace completely ignorant of the document it might actually still be working and preventing the trans-national elites from completely destroying this country?

    Me thinks the Founding Fathers might be smarter than our history books tell us.

    Shakespeare posited that first we should kill all the lawyers. I disagree, some of those lawyers are my friends. Perhaps we can just exile all the politicos and their financiers to Gitmo and start over from the Constitution, properly amended.

  • Harvey Mansfield is relevant to some of these points, Darwin:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-obama-isnt-saying

  • Truly people – regarding human nature, who doesn’t want their cake and eat it too?

    The problem is that our recent presidents and presidential candidates have for many years told the American people that they CAN have their cake and eat it too.

    I can’t remember the last time Mr. Obama has been truthful about the healthcare bill. He ascertains that it won’t cost the American people more but will cover more people and contain no cost control measures that are readily understandable.

    How about pulling a rabbit out of a hat?

    Both common sense and reality dictate that we have not been told the truth. I think that is why there is such a lack of consensus regarding this issue. Who really KNOWS what this bill is truly about? Who wants to both read and study over 2600 pages? Who would trust that.

    You can fool only some of the people some of the time…

    Thank God our founding fathers created a system of power separation, which causes all change to be slow.

  • What Americans (and the rest of Western civilization) will get is:

    No electricity, lighting or heating as our power plants shut down
    No fresh food
    No medicine
    No refridgeration
    No gas for cars, so no car travel
    No nothing.

    50 years of neglect with no investment in cheap clean energy like nuclear – we’re gonna get it right up the whazu! And we deserve it.

  • Given that this polling would seem to suggest the status quo will continue, I would think that Americans will continue to get very much what they’ve got in the past.

  • From a purely materialist perspective America has been getting better and better. We have the fattest most well entertained poor people. The cleanest air and the biggest cars, etc. As for energy and the rest of Paul’s list we will keep getting more of that too. The question is what are we selling to keep material enriching ourselves? Perhaps that price is too big.

    It is just as foolish to think any materialist solution is the answer whether it is altruistic (universal health care) or selfish (monopoly privileges). We are not ordered toward God; however, if I am going to live in an ungodly world for a while I’d rather live in a materially successful country and not an impoverished one.

    Perhaps it is time to give up this idea that government fixes things and makes life better. May be instead of forging new progressive ways of empowering government to do more for or to us. What would happen if we went back to the Ten Commandments, The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, properly amended we may actually be free to reach for higher things.

    God made Creation good and He made us very good. Although sinful, we can participate in his creativity to improve things, as in order them more to Him. Government cannot be creative, it is only coercive.

    Americans are naturally looking for men of virtue to wield the reigns of power and knowing that the most virtuous man is still a sinner we shackle government with the Constitution.

  • Americans are schizophrenic !

  • No I’m not. Me either. 😉

  • Among the more interesting points is that employers should pay for health insurance. Then when the insurance becomes too costly for the employer, he goes under: leaving the former workers without insurance.

    This also affects employment. The attempt to increase the minimum wage law is similar. It makes the hiring of new employees more expensive.

  • I’m sorry the blog post seemed like the old ‘bunny in the hat’ trick, jillions of little baby bunnies just jumping out of that proverbial hat. Which little bunny to attempt to catch first?

    After a year of President Obama’s open discussion with the American people, I’m pretty sure most folks have got to realize a change simply has to happen…
    sky-rocketing costs…spiraling fragmentation of services…increasing levels of disparity among those working or disabled and even those that can afford paying cash (Warren Buffet? Self-pay? Doubt it.)

    In my early professional health care training many years ago, it still seemed debatable whether it was as bad it seemed. Back then, the main focus was ensuring that Social Security funding would last through the time the baby boomers would be eligible. It seems as if we were still quibbling about funding Social Security not that long ago while allowing the snowballing of events that led to the crash, while events were ‘crashing and burning around us’.

    I never in my wildest dreams considered the solution to insufficient funds for retirements would be resolved by perpetuating iniquities in health care; resulting in poor statistics about chronic illness and inadequate prenatal care as evidenced by one of the lower live birth rates due to prematurity compared to other civilized countries.

    The words paint a more vivid picture than simply saying health care reforms has been needed for a long time, and the business stockholders in health care businesses have been the major beneficiaries in the advanced health care available to US taxpayers.

  • Truly people – regarding human nature, who doesn’t want their cake and eat it too?

    The problem is that our recent presidents and presidential candidates have for many years told the American people that they CAN have their cake and eat it too.

    Yes, but the politicians tell us that because that’s what we want. The American people aren’t willing to sacrifice so we elect politicians who tell us that we don’t have to.

    He ascertains that it won’t cost the American people more but will cover more people and contain no cost control measures that are readily understandable.

    I don’t think he’s ever said that it won’t cost more. In fact, he’s been pretty explicit about the fact that he’s going to raise taxes to pay for it.

    The cost control measures aren’t readily understandable because the implications of cost control measures are not easily predictable. That’s why it’s a shotgun approach. Future reform will have to build upon what we learn from these measures.

    Thank God our founding fathers created a system of power separation, which causes all change to be slow.

    We could have a system that requires consensus that isn’t so darn slow. After all, good changes should be made immediately and bad changes never made. The founding fathers had to settle for this highly flawed system because it was too politically difficult to ratify a better one. Would it be so bad if we abolished the Senate and the presidential veto but required a 2/3 majority in the House?

  • “After all, good changes should be made immediately and bad changes never made.”

    Too bad the changes never seem to come with identifying signs on them?

    “Would it be so bad if we abolished the Senate and the presidential veto but required a 2/3 majority in the House?”

    For people who live in less populous states it would be a staggering loss of influence on the Federal government. It would be also another step down the road to treating states as mere provinces rather than co-equal members of the Union.

  • For people who live in less populous states it would be a staggering loss of influence on the Federal government. It would be also another step down the road to treating states as mere provinces rather than co-equal members of the Union.

    So are there any negatives?

  • Only for those who support the framework of our Republic restrainedradical as established by the Founding Fathers.

  • Of course everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too.

    Cut government spending — but only on programs “other people” less worthy than me use (Medicaid, food stamps) and not those I use (student aid/loans)

    Raise taxes if we must — but only on people who make more than I do, or on stuff I never do or never buy (cigarettes, liquor, gambling).

    Get rid of corporate and government waste — as long as it’s not my job that gets cut.

    Stop all pork projects — unless those projects are in my district or my community.

    Soak the rich — but only until I become “rich.”

    Vote all the “bums” out — except for my Congresscritter, legislator, mayor, alderman, etc.

  • What we should do is go back to Senators being representative of the state or commonwealth instead of popular elections. Repeal the 17th.

    The House is supposed to represent the passions of the people and the Senate is supposed to sober those sentiments when made into law. Both are bound by the Constitution.

    When you destroy this, and we have eroded it dramatically in the last 100 years, we are on the road to serfdom. It is called the Tragedy of the Commons. What belongs to all, belongs to none, or sometimes one. As Elaine illustrated, when we vote for largess at the expense of the ‘other guy’ we fall victim to the lie. As Thatcher stated, I am paraphrasing, “the problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

    People with an attitude like (notso)restrainedradical will be the ruin of what’s left of the Republic if we allow them to get their way. A Constitutional Republic is a bulwark against tyranny, a Democracy is a sure way toward anarchy followed by absolutism.

    Long live the Republic. In the end the Jedi win and the Empire loses. Darth Obama and his minions will be evicted and sensibility will be restored. Pray, vote, pray!

  • A faulty diagnosis, Darwin.

    A solid minority–and I would include myself in that–aren’t wild about insurance reform as it sits today in Congress because it doesn’t go far enough. The reform–including the president–tacks strongly to the middle, tries to ameliorate insurance companies, who obviously have large profits at risk, and who care little that middle class folks like me rack up four-figure hospital bills for our families as deductibles and premiums rise.

    As for those who favor keeping the status quo, I can’t identify them as pro-market or pro-business. With medical costs going way up, there’s no practical way for comparative shopping and competition. And my employer only offers me one choice of insurer. The GOP has taken “Just Say No” to a new and more ineffective level.

    So all the fears the insurance companies are drumming up: death panels, and the like, are already in place.

    If only we had a third and fourth choice in political parties: more difficult for corporations to spread their money around, more ways to represent the interests of citizens, and a way to ensure that being in last place as a political party was no guarantee of being second. As far as I’m concerned, the Dems are in second-last place in voters’ minds. And if you don’t believe it, consider what the effect of having a ballot line of “none of the above” would do to congressional races this Fall.

  • http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/11/30/bisb1130.htm
    Aetna drops 600,000 to boost profit margins–likely those overweight cake eaters….with diabetes.

  • Todd,

    That might explain why people want to throw incumbants out, but it doesn’t show why people are saying they want to vote for Republican congressional candidates at the highest levels since 2002, nor does it explain why people think the current HCR bills are too expensive (more reform would be more expensive, not less) and why they generally rate their insurance companies highly. Clearly, there’s a small core in the progressive camp who think that insurance companies as wicked and out to get people, but overall people who have insurance trust their insurance companies to do a good job much more than they trust congress.

    That may well not be a reasonable attitude for them to have, but it is what the poll shows.

  • I guess we’ll see how it plays out on Election Day instead of in the heads of pundits.

    The last polling I saw had about a 40-40 split between support and oppose, with about 16% thinking insurance reform was too timid. Thirty million-plus adults is hardly a small core.

    I’d have to say I also have confidence in the job my insurance company does: they are efficient; they let me delay payment on many co-pays and on my deductible. They haven’t cut me off yet for being in middle age.

    That’s not to say I don’t think the profit margin for stockholders is too high. I have a basic objection to making profits without working for them.

    I’m no polling expert, but I bet I could come up with some questions that would swing the confidence away from the corporations.

    Nevertheless, I think your title diagnosis is inaccurate. I think Americans want a greater degree of fairness, and frankly, I don’t see any other entity capable of enforcing it other than the federal government. If I thought my city council or state senate or the president of my neighborhood association could stand up to BC/BS, I suppose I’d be for “small guvmint” too.

  • Hmmm. Well, one assumes that the stockholders earned the money which they then invested in stock. For stance, if you have a 401k invested in mutual funds, or participate in a pension, which in turn invests in mutual funds, you may well be a stockholder of one or more insurance company.

    I’m curious: What profit margin do you think that the stockholders are currently getting for major insurance companies? What would be a fair profit margin?

  • DarwinCatholic…like the little bunnies analogy, let’s keep the focus on ensuring a certain level of quality health care is available to everyone (especially the workers in the US economy on Main Street, if they still have their jobs), and not go off on a tangent whether stockholders ‘earned’ their berth in the business? Most, if not all Americans contributing to the tax base have ‘earned’ a certain measure of tangible health benefits, that shouldn’t be doled out dependent on the beneficence of the stockholders of health business companies.

Generic Congressional Ballot: Nine Point Republican Lead

Thursday, January 7, AD 2010

Scott Rasmussen, the best political pollster in the country in my opinion, had a stunner yesterday in his latest generic Congressional ballot:  the Republicans have a nine point lead, 44% to 35%.

The latest generic ballot numbers highlight a remarkable change in the political environment during 2009. When President Obama was inaugurated, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point advantage on the Generic Ballot. That means the GOP has made a net gain of 16 percentage points over the course of the year. Support for Democrats has declined eight points since Obama’s inauguration while Republican support is up nine points.

The Republican gains began in February when Republicans in the House unanimously opposed the $787-billion economic stimulus plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats. At that time, Republican gains came almost entirely from the GOP base. Currently, just 30% of voters believe the stimulus plan helped the economy while 38% believe it hurt.

The two parties were very close on the Generic Ballot throughout the spring, but Republicans pulled ahead for good in late June. Those GOP gains took place after the health care debate began and unaffiliated voters began to shift away from the Democrats. Only 40% of voters currently favor the health care plan, while 55% are opposed.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Generic Congressional Ballot: Nine Point Republican Lead

  • “A nine point gap, or anything close to nine points, indicates an electoral disaster of truly epic proportions for the Democrats.”

    If it were already September or October I’d say that’s true, but 9 1/2 months out from the general election, I’m not so sure. Was the “gap” as big or bigger than this in early ’94?

  • In March 1994 Elaine the Democrats had a one point lead in the Gallup generic Congressional ballot. The largest lead the Republicans had on the Gallup generic ballot in 1994 was 5 points in mid August in 1994.
    http://www.gallup.com/poll/124010/generic-ballot-provides-clues-2010-vote.aspx

  • Here’s another very significant Rasmussen poll result: in Massachusetts the GOP candidate in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat is only 9 points behind the Democrat — very unusual for a state as “blue” as Massachusetts.

    Among poll respondents who say they definitely WILL vote in that election, the GOP candidate is behind by only 2 percentage points! And that election is less than 2 weeks away (Jan. 19).

    If the GOP pulls off this upset — or even if they just make it a close race, say within single digits — then we’ll know something really is brewing.

  • Quite right Elaine. If a Republican takes Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat there will be few Democrats in Congress outside of major urban centers who will not be feeling very nervous. It is an extreme long shot, but the fact that people even think it is possible is an indication of what a different type of political year 2010 may well be.

  • While I’m not excited about Republicans taking power, oh how I love seeing the Dems take it on the chin.

  • Steve, I feel the same way.

    The idea that either one of these parties will ever change society for the better is a joke. I have no faith in the GOP. But I do believe the Dems deserve to lose, and badly.

  • “The idea that either one of these parties will ever change society for the better is a joke. I have no faith in the GOP. But I do believe the Dems deserve to lose, and badly”

    Well I am not so down on the GOP as some folks are. I realize its limitations. I am not sure I want the GOP to change society. Or at least do it by itself. Often political parties are rather bad vehicles to do it. Though in the past at certain times they were in the forefront on important issues.

    Parties are just one of many vehicles to do it but they cannot do it on their own.

    Right now I just want the GOP slow some this down. I think using raw political power the powers that be in the DEM party wanted to change society on many fronts. We are seeing how the public is reacting to that.

  • My party, the Republican party, often fails to live up to my expectations when the GOP is in power. The Democrats on the other hand usually have no difficulty in exceeding my fears when they are in power.

  • Donald I think that is a good point. One of the problems is the GOP is if I might say a tad more diverse than the Democrats. Thus getting this coalition to agree on stuff is a tad harder.

    THe Dems used to be this way when Conservative blue dogs were not on the endangered species list.

  • I am bewildered that any one who knows how to think would expect a political party to change society. The parties are symptoms of the problems, not possible cures.

    The difficulty with democracy is that the representatives are indeed representative of the populace, whether Joe Six Pack or members of Mary Daly’s academentia.

  • “I am bewildered that any one who knows how to think would expect a political party to change society.”

    The Republican Party and its anti-slavery and pro-Union policies changed society radically, as did FDR and his New Deal. Political parties change societies all the time, for good and ill.

  • Don’s right. Political parties are important institutions, and they are quite often change agents, for better or worse.

  • I’m with Steve and Joe,

    I have little or no faith in either party.

    Bring back the WHIG party!

  • Tito,
    The Whig Party had its imperfect platforms and leaders too, and I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we should have “faith” in a political party. While Catholic teaching requires that we be socially engaged to appropriate ends, and even favors political engagement, it is not at all necessary for that engagment to involve the support of a political party. But nor does Catholic teaching disfavor political party involvement, even acknowledging the inevitable imperfections of all political parties. It is important that our political parties include serious lay Catholics who work to advance policies informed by Catholic teaching. The temptation in various Catholic quarters to declare some type of moral (and often intellectual) superiority derived from a self-removal from party politics is just smug nonsense. There are many trenches to be worked, and political parties are among them.
    That said, it is true that there is also the temptation for Catholics to allow their Catholicity to be subordinated to party loyalty. There is a place for loyal opposition within political parties, and perhaps Rep Stupak is giving us a lesson in it.

  • Mike P.,

    I agree with you on your points.

    Probably what I am yearning for is more a parliamentary type of governance that the U.K. has. Which would allow for more specialized parties that would cater to Catholic’s interest more effectively.

    Rather than working through the Democratic and Republican Party’s infrastructure which can be daunting at times.

  • Probably what I am yearning for is more a parliamentary type of governance that the U.K. has.

    No thanks. A parliamentary or multi-party system is not something we should ever desire, nor is it the way the country was designed.

  • No thanks. A parliamentary or multi-party system is not something we should ever desire, nor is it the way the country was designed.

    I see both the benefits and drawbacks of this, but with wishy-washy Catholics infecting both parties, ie, Nancy Pelosi and Rudy Guiliani, we get drowned out by these dissidents and end up with tools such as Bob Casey Jr. and Olympia Snowe.

  • A parliamentary or multi-party system is not something we should ever desire, nor is it the way the country was designed.

    A country is not a thing ‘designed’. Separation-of-powers and bicameralism are mere instruments, and disposable at that.

    One trouble we have is a crappy political class. A discussion of some of our predicament is here:

    http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGM0ZmJlZmU0Yzg2YjM5YmIzM2M1YzEyN2JmNDcwODA=

D.C. Council vs. the Catholic Church Poll

Sunday, November 15, AD 2009

The Washington Post has a poll out on whether or not Washington D.C. should require the Church to follow a law it considers immoral?

This is in regards to whether Catholic Charities should be forced to go against the Catholic Church teachings because they receive funding from the Washington D.C. city council.

In previous TAC posts we wrote about DC Bigotry and about Setting the Record Straight on the Church in D.C. (by Donald R. McClarey and Joe Hargrave respectively).

Of course not, but the Know-Nothings are in force and are skewing the numbers so go to the poll to vote!

To vote click here.

So far as of November 15, 6:15pm CST:

D.C. Council vs. the Catholic Church

The D.C. Council is considering a law forbidding discrimination against those in gay marriages. The law would apply to all groups that have contracts with the District, including Catholic Charities, one of the city’s largest social services providers. The Archdiocese of Washington says that because of the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage, it would have to suspend its social services to the poor, the homeless and others rather than provide employee benefits to same-sex married couples or allow them to adopt.

Should the city require the Church to follow a law it considers immoral?

chart

Father John Zuhlsdorf and I voted “NO”.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to D.C. Council vs. the Catholic Church Poll

  • I voted no. Surprise!

  • The presiding Priest at the 10:00 Mass this morning at St. Matthew’s Cathedral (Fr. Knestout) preached on the controversy surrounding Catholic Charities as it relates to this bill. Fr. Knestout is very reserved, but you can feel the force of his disgust with the media coverage of the situation. He suggested that after all the emails he received from irate individuals, perhaps those emails should now be sent to the people on the City Council responsible for this unconstitutional abomination.

  • Sadly we can expect this sort of mess when the Church accepts terms and missions from pagan governments. We should stay clear. The Church is not a welfare agency. Before you bleeding hearts jump on me for being callous and unCatholic, I am not suggesting that we do not have a commandment to feed, clothe, etc. and take care of the poor and infirm; I am saying that it is more important for the Church to help get their souls saved than to feed them.

    Ideally the Church will do both; however, when the Church begins to take money and queues from pagan governments the worshipers of the spirit of the present darkeness will seek to silence the Church (no proselytizing). DC has decided to bunt the Church – good. Do the work anyway and preach the Gospel while doing it.

    BTW – I voted no! Did you read the misinformed venom in the comments? This is scary stuff – its not funny and it should not be taken lightly. Hating Catholics that aren’t with the program, nudge, nudge, wink, wink is cool. Bring it on!

  • Thanks guys for voting.

    It seems to be helping a little. The ‘No’ are now 26% instead of 25%.

    There must be a lot of bigoted people in DC for the numbers to be skewed that way.

  • Tito,

    That comes as no surprise to those of us trapped behind enemy lines in enemy-occupied Northern Virginia (Greater Washington, DC).

    Pray, pray, pray.

    St. Michael the Archangel defend us in battle. . .

  • So much for democracy, the best form of government?

  • I voted “no” – It is an act of charity to give those with same-sex attraction a united Catholic face- that stays with the truth/mercy of our Catholic teaching. Those who enable sin may be even more accountable for that sin than those who ignorantly engage in the sinful act itself. The sin of misleading the little ones- with the image of the millstone tied around one’s waist and being cast into a deep Sea- should be sobering for any Catholic who seeks to re-write the Catechism.

  • the father z approach to online witness! way to go!

  • Here’s another lesson in the difference between charity and government. Would that our bishops learn from these lessons and lose their habit of plumping for government spending labeled ‘welfare.’

  • P.Z. Myers has posted this poll on his blog and has asked his readers to skew the results.

  • While I agree with Fr Z on the question the poll asks, I’m not sure starting a poll skewing war with the sundry inhabitants of cyberspace is .. a worthwhile pursuit.

Doug Hoffman Takes Lead in Poll

Tuesday, October 27, AD 2009

Take this with more than a grain of salt, since the Club for Growth supports him, but in the latest poll by the Club for Growth Doug Hoffman, the pro-life Conservative Party candidate  in the special election in the New York 23rd Congressional District endorsed by Sarah Palin and other Republican Party luminaries, leads with 31.3% of the vote to 27% for Bill Owens the Democrat and 19.7% for the pro-abort leftist Republican Dede Scozzafava., with 22% undivided.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Doug Hoffman Takes Lead in Poll

  • If anything Mr. Hoffman’s support has gone up. The question is, is it enough to lead the polls?

    I’ll believe it when I see a more credible poll. Though a 5% margin of error isn’t bad for the Conservative Party candidate.

  • “Maddeningly the Republican National Committee is pumping money into Scozzafava’s campaign and running adds against Hoffman. This is an excellent way to alienate the conservative base of the party. Idiocy, sheer idiocy.”

    THE GOP is doing what it is suppose too. At least some of them. The GOP is a party that has “moderates” too and we shall see what can of worms have been opened up by this.

    The problem is in New York and people would be much better off changing the leadership there in the party. THE prob;lem is not the National GOP.

    I hope I don’t wake up and see Republicans for Free Choice and the Olympia Snowes of the world campaigning for conservative yet pro choice “independents” against GOP pro-lifers we picked in our primary. If they do then a lot of people will not have a moral arguement against it

    I think in the long run this will backfire but again the GOP has no choice here. Unless we are taking a stand that local control of the party should be micromanaged from Washington?

  • My Lord! No other phrase captures what I am thinking other than “Idiocy!” How could the republicans be stupid? This is a telling display of how the republicans are losing voters. Pro life is 98% of the reason I vote at all yet alone republican. I wish they would get that through their heads…

  • It sounds a lot like the kind of craziness the GOP pulled on Congressman Paul in the 14th District of Texas. In ’96 they recruited the DEMOCRAT to switch parties and run as the G.O.P. -backed candidate. Paul was able to survive into the run-off , and then won by simply reminding everyone how liberal his ‘establishment’ opponent really was.

    If the Republicans insist on choosing ‘winners’ over their principles, I hope more and more people defect. They have not learned their lessons after 2006 and 2008.

  • Robert I agree with you in the need to keep the GOP as Pro-life as possible. But the problem here is not the National GOP but the New York GOP. Again do we really want the National GOP to decide what races it will fund and not fund. The local party in New York needs to change

  • jh is right. The national GOP cannot be expected to overrule the state GOP; that is just not realistic. NY conservatives cannot bolt from the GOP in favor of the NY Conservative Party and then feel entitled to get angry when the National GOP supports the GOP candidate over their own party candidate.

  • I’m nervous about the 23% that are undecided. Expect more of Scozzafava’s numbers to migrate to Hoffman and then hold your breath for the next 7-8 days!

  • The Republicans are showing their true colors – this is another momment of decision. Will the Republican party hold to authentic conservative and traditional values or will they be run by liberal, establishment Democrat-lite insiders?

    This is not a political question – it is a question of culture. Are conservatives and traditionalists strong and principled enough to rout the liars or will we be left with the choice of speedy progressives and not-so-fast progressives again?

    Goldwater, Reagan, Paul and Hoffman (and Palin) are examples of the people choosing principles over political-pragmatism. You can either change the Republican party or migrate to another. Perhaps the Conservative Party will grow and the Republican party die, or publically merge with the Democrats, rather than keep up the farce that they are two different parties. In fact, the Republicans and the Democrats are just slightly different factions of the same oligarchy.

  • NY conservatives cannot bolt from the GOP in favor of the NY Conservative Party and then feel entitled to get angry when the National GOP supports the GOP candidate over their own party candidate.

    Once more with feeling. Mr. Hoffmann is an enrolled Republican. Ten county chairmen in the North Country selected Mrs. Scozzafava as a candidate by a weighted vote among themselves per the Election Law of New York. There was no petition process or primary. The North Country is not the east side of Manhattan or Westchester. Common-and-garden Republicans can and do poll well there. The county chairmen have been playing an obscure insider game and expected (as New York pols do) that the electorate would suck it up (as that electorate generally does if you do not poison the water table or forthrightly and transparently raise their property taxes). These ten individuals cannot legitimately complain if their own committeemen flip them the bird, much less if everyone else does.

  • Art, I agree, and admit that you have a far better grasp of the facts than me. My only remaining point would be that it is difficult to expect the national GOP to ignore or overrule the decisions of the local GOP, regardless the mechanisms or machinations behind those local decisions. It would be different if the national GOP were complicit in such insider games, but no one has suggested that, but instead some seem to want to count deference to local decisions as complicity. That just strikes me as unfair and unrealistic.

Gallup: More Americans Identify as "Pro-Life" Than "Pro-Choice" For First Time

Friday, May 15, AD 2009

This is only one survey, but it is encouraging all the same. The denial of legal protection to an entire class of human beings is one of the most serious human rights issues of our time. Here’s an excerpt from the article, with some thoughts below:

A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.” This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.

Gallup1

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Gallup: More Americans Identify as "Pro-Life" Than "Pro-Choice" For First Time

  • I’m going to put the comment I left on this same survey at Inside Catholic here.

    Of course it is always encouraging to see pro-life numbers on the increase.

    The problem is that these numbers tell us nothing about what is likely to happen in the future. Not only can one be ‘personally’ pro-life and politically pro-choice – one can even be politically pro-life, in theory, and have higher priorities than abortion.

    I suspect this is a major reason why, in spite of such numbers, there aren’t enough pro-life politicians to push through a serious pro-life agenda. When was the last time abortion ranked anywhere near the top of the list? Not any time recently, if this list of polls can be trusted:

    http://tiny.cc/wQPX6

    Time and again, the economy is at the top of the list, and abortion, when it even makes the list, is at the bottom (you may have to scroll down to see some of those polls). Given these priorities, it makes no difference if one is pro-life or pro-choice. The status quo wins.

    As some have suggested in a discussion over the plausibility of a pro-life Democratic campaign at American Catholic, we basically need a pro-life Obama – someone who people will vote for on the economy, who also happens to be pro-life. It doesn’t need to be the Obama brand of neo-Keyensianism, but it had better not be laissez-faire, give the top .01% a massive tax cut supply-side nonsense either.

    In the end, the average hedonistic American has his priorities, and we have ours. If ours are important to us, and we are in the minority, then we have to find a way to attach our priority to the majority. The pro-choice lobby isn’t that strong. If abortion is a low priority for Americans, radical feminist ideology barely registers. Give them the choice between ‘guy whose economic policies I like, and who is pro-life’ and ‘guy whose economic policies I don’t like, but who is for a woman’s right to choose’ and the contest is over.

  • I agree to a certain extent, Joe, but with the following caveats (disagreements are more interesting anyway):

    1) I think you overstate the importance of the economy. While any time we are in a severe recession the economy takes precedence, the 2000 and 2004 elections really had very little to do with the economy. When we aren’t in a recession, other policies can matter an awful lot, and politicians generally try to cobble together an attractive menu of positions. The level of pro-life sentiment is important in shaping politicians views. If, like Tim, you want to see pro-life Democrats, well then one of the most likely ways for that to happen is for a majority of Americans to be pro-life.

    2) Some judges are heavily influenced by opinion polls. Justice Kennedy is a good example; he changed his mind on overturning Roe at the last minute, but he upheld the popular Partial Birth Abortion Ban. As Constitutional Law scholar Michael Klarman observed, “Any court on which Justice Kennedy is the median voter will never do anything to provoke dramatic backlashes.” On these and other issues, his opinions seem to track neatly with public opinion polls.

    3) Additionally, your assertion that “the pro-choice lobby isn’t that strong,” is simply false, at least with regard to the Democratic party. Name a prominent Democrat who says they are pro-life, and is willing to vote against their party on judicial nominees or even on something less significant like the Mexico City Policy. The pro-choice lobby is extremely influential in the most influential party in the country, and the status quo is in their favor; I’d say they are operating from a position of strength.

  • It’s fun to disagree. As long as you’re not E. I’d rather go to the dentist in that case.

    1a) The economy is always somewhere near the top. And in an economic system with a boom-bust cycle, you never know when it is going to be at the top.

    1b) But even if it were nowhere near the top, abortion rarely is. The real point here is that an affirmation of the pro-life position doesn’t necessarily translate into a prioritization of that position. This time it was the economy, next time it may be something else. Strategies must be formulated accordingly.

    2) I don’t know if that fact makes me cringe or not. Opinion polls can’t always be trusted. I just pointed out one reason why. But hey, if a judge wants to misread to poll to our advantage, that’s alright by me.

    3) I wasn’t speaking in regards to the Democratic Party. What “is” the party? If it is the party politicians and functionaries, you have a point. If it includes registered Democrats, the power of the point diminishes. If it includes all people who might be inclined to vote Democratic, it is irrelevant.

    Party loyalty and even basic party identification is diminishing. People didn’t vote for a Democrat, they voted for Obama. The average voter doesn’t give a rats behind what Planned Parenthood thinks. Sync up pro-life politics with whatever their concern is at the moment, and you will have a pro-life victory. That’s how Casey won PA. A real pro-life candidate could do it too.

    The point is, they have no real power or influence over the American voter. Let them huff and puff. They know as well as we ought to know that the battle over abortion will always take a backseat to some other issue for most Americans. With things the way they are now, and are likely to be for some time to come, its going to stay in the backseat, maybe even the trunk, indefinitely.

    The good news is that means they will let their guard down. 2010, mid-terms, lets get guys like Tim on the ballot in districts where there are pro-choice Democrats or Republicans, promoting a pro-worker, pro-family, pro-second amendment agenda.

  • Pingback: Twitted by newadvent
  • Though obviously polls can deviate a bit based on sample, it seems like an encouraging point in that it shows people prefer the “pro-life” label.

    The challenge will to be to come up with a pro-life agenda which can successfully capture this sentiment, which I would imagine is in many cases a rather soft sentiment and not ready for bruising clashes.

  • John Henry,

    I like this bit: fourth grade biology.

    Hilarious!

    DarwinCatholic,

    Yes, a pro-life agenda is needed to capture this sentiment.

  • I love seeing Prof. Klarman quoted.

    😉

  • Yeah, he was my 1L con law prof. Great guy. I was sorry we lost him to Harvard.

  • I didn’t realize he had left UVA. That’s bad news.

    For the life of me, I can’t figure out why anyone would leave the cozy confines and laid-back atmosphere of “Whithers High” for snooty Cambridge.

  • Agreed, although Klarman is an ardent Red Sox fan; love for Fenway can make people irrational. Plus, I think his kids were heading off to college so it was a good time to make the move.

    Did you know Stephen Smith ’92? I think he was there around the same time as you; he’s leaving for Notre Dame this year. I’m sad to see him go, but glad that Notre Dame is attracting high-quality Catholic faculty.

  • Yeah, Steve and I are friends (although, since moving to Ohio, I’ve been out of touch with him for a few years). We got to know each other in the Federalist Society when we were at UVA together.

    I hate to see him leave UVA as well, but if he has to go somewhere, I’m glad it’s Notre Dame. One more good guy (solid Catholic, a member of the K of C, and politically conservative) on the faculty will go a long way.

  • My favorite Steve Smith story:

    Shortly after Justice Thomas was confirmed, the UVA Federalist Society went to visit the Supreme Court for oral arguments and to have an audience with the newly minted Justice.

    Justice Thomas was still vocally bitter about the confirmation hearings, especially the racial component of his being unacceptable because he was a black conservative. The Justice saw Steve amongst our group and told him how glad he was to see a “young brother” who could think for himself, and told him to look him up if he was ever interested in clerking.

    Of course, Steve went on to clerk for Justice Thomas after he graduated.

  • Small world. I didn’t realize you and Prof. Smith knew each other. He is a student favorite; I had dinner with him a few weeks ago as part of a conservative group at the law school. Very funny and insightful guy.

    I hadn’t heard the Justice Thomas story, although it’s not surprising that he stood out in a crowd; he and his sons (also tall) are hard to miss at Mass.

  • His height, yes, as well as the fact that he was the only African-American in a group of mostly white conservatives and libertarians. Given what Justice Thomas had just gone through, I’d have been surprised if he hadn’t noticed Steve (and seen him as a kindred spirit) in that particular setting.

  • Yes, that was an ugly, ugly confirmation battle, and it’s not surprising that Justice Thomas noticed Prof. Smith in a group of Fed Soc students – of course, Prof. Smith’s excellent credentials (law review, order of the coif, etc.) certainly didn’t hurt his SCOTUS clerkship chances either. It is tough to be a conservative African-American.

    During the Dartmouth Board of Trustees battles a couple years ago, I read articles which devoted several paragraphs to describing his selection as a huge setback to campus efforts for diversity and inclusiveness (because he was conservative); curiously omitted from the narrative was the fact that Prof. Smith was himself African-American and had a fairly inspiring personal story.

  • In my humble opinion, Steve Smith and his fellow Federalist Society, Law Review, and Order of the Coif cohort, Adam Pritchard (now at U. of Michigan), were the most intelligent people with whom I went to law school. And I say that not to take anything away from people like Laura Ingraham, Prof. Todd Zywicki, etc.

    I apologize that I’ve taken this thread off track, but I’ve certainly enjoyed having done so.

  • “I apologize that I’ve taken this thread off track…”

    Not at all. I’ve enjoyed it as well, and, for once, I’m taking one of my own threads off track rather than someone else’s. 😉

    I didn’t realize that Todd Zywicki, Adam Pritchard, and Laura Ingraham went to UVA. It will be interesting to see who goes where in the next twenty years…

  • Hey, I don’t mind either but I also wouldn’t mind continuing our friendly disagreement 🙂

  • I heard this poll mentioned at the end of a drive-time newsbreak on one of the local radio stations in Springfield today… could be getting some MSM attention soon.

    Gallup says one explanation for the shift could be that the sharp leftward turn in Obama’s policies have moved what most people think of as “pro-choice” farther to the left. IOW, “real” pro-choicers believe in virtually unrestricted abortion, and those who think abortion is morally wrong and favor at least some restrictions (no partial birth, no taxpayer funding, etc.) are starting to think of themselves as more pro-life than pro-choice.

    While we may think of them as the “mushy middle” and not consider them truly pro-life, politically speaking, they will probably be the key to reversing or at least halting the damage now being done by the Obama administration and a liberal Supreme Court.

    Still, it appears that the number of people who think abortion should be “illegal in all circumstances” is up slightly as well.

  • Notice also the really significant shift toward pro-life since the early to mid 1990s, which some observers attribute to the publicity surrounding partial-birth abortion. In some ways, the partial-birth controversy turned out to be a blessing in disguise for pro-lifers as it called attention to just how gruesome the method (and by extension, all abortions) really was. Perhaps the various Obama-related controversies (Mexico City policy revocation, the threat of FOCA, Canon 915, Notre Dame scandal) have had a similar effect.

  • Being a black conservative is difficult.

    The same can be said of latino conservatives (I don’t care what we’re called, I’d prefer to be called a Castillian-Portuguese-Mexican, but that’s my axe to grind… and mock Politically-Correct liberals).

    The name-calling from the hispanics on the left are downright rude and inappropriate. The b*%$ing sessions amongst active latino conservatives concerning how their treated by latino liberals that I witness really paint most liberals (at least in the city of Houston) in the political arena in a very bad light. The vitriol and hate is disturbing.

    Sorry to jump in the thread that way, but I had to let it out to show our “superior”, “tolerant”, and “open-minded” liberals how demeaning they can be.

  • Hey, I don’t mind either but I also wouldn’t mind continuing our friendly disagreement

    Apologies, Joe. I owe you a response – it will have to wait an hour or two, but I will respond soon.

  • 3) I wasn’t speaking in regards to the Democratic Party. What “is” the party? If it is the party politicians and functionaries, you have a point. If it includes registered Democrats, the power of the point diminishes. If it includes all people who might be inclined to vote Democratic, it is irrelevant.

    Well, from a pro-life perspective, what I care about is how the pro-choice lobby is able to influence policy and judicial appointments. And, along those lines, I find your assertion that “the pro-choice lobby isn’t that strong” puzzling. There is a pro-choice litmus test for any prominent national Democratic politician. Is there any doubt that Obama’s SCOTUS nominee will be a strong pro-choicer? That is the type of influence that matters in the legal/political realm, and it seems to me the pro-choice lobby is very influential from that perspective.

    Party loyalty and even basic party identification is diminishing.

    I think your assertion that party loyalty is diminishing is unsupported by the evidence. If anything, party identification is hardening. It’s difficult to imagine a better recipe for a landslide defeat than the 2008 election (unpopular incumbent, unpopular war, crashing economy), and Obama’s margin of victory was around 6%. Contrast that with Reagan’s 18% margin of victory in 1984, and consider the close elections in 2000 and 2004, and it’s hard to conclude party loyalty is waning.

    People didn’t vote for a Democrat, they voted for Obama. The average voter doesn’t give a rats behind what Planned Parenthood thinks. Sync up pro-life politics with whatever their concern is at the moment, and you will have a pro-life victory. That’s how Casey won PA. A real pro-life candidate could do it too.

    I agree that an attractive spokesperson is essential for the success of any party, and many voters aren’t going to base their vote on abortion. That does not necessarily mean, however, that public opinion polls are unimportant; they have a very real effect on the bundle of policies politicians use to market themselves, and, as I suggested above, judicial, journalistic, and academic perceptions of the popular will.

    The point is, they have no real power or influence over the American voter.

    Again, I would say a lobbying group doesn’t need influence over voters if they have a litmus test veto over national candidates; the NRA doesn’t control voters – no lobbyist does directly. To influence policy it’s sufficient to have an institutional presence, and the support of a vocal portion (and preferably large) of the party’s base. As the pro-choice lobby has both of these things, they are quite influential.

    Let them huff and puff. They know as well as we ought to know that the battle over abortion will always take a backseat to some other issue for most Americans. With things the way they are now, and are likely to be for some time to come, its going to stay in the backseat, maybe even the trunk, indefinitely.

    Well, that’s certainly not the case with judicial appointments (the most significant legal/political tool for protecting the unborn), and possibly not for conscience protections and perhaps some of the more palatable components of FOCA, if they are enacted piecemeal. I am not sure in what sense it’s ‘staying in the trunk’ when the pro-choice lobby is basically checking off the wish-list items it has received and is likely to receive from the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats.

    The good news is that means they will let their guard down. 2010, mid-terms, lets get guys like Tim on the ballot in districts where there are pro-choice Democrats or Republicans, promoting a pro-worker, pro-family, pro-second amendment agenda.

    As I’ve said before, I would love for this to happen. It would be great to have pro-lifers in both parties, and even better to have some legitimate pro-life European style-social democrats; nevertheless, I think the reality is that the pro-choice lobby is very effective in establishing litmus tests, that the Democratic base, by and large, is heavily pro-choice, and that these factors provide the pro-choice lobby with a lot of influence.

  • John,

    I don’t think we should mistake political polarization for party polarization. It’s similar but not identical. Obama’s 6% is considerably larger than either margin Bush won, and not much smaller than the ones Clinton commanded. The country has become more polarized since Reagan, so I don’t think you can go that far back for a comparison for today.

    Bottom line is, I think people voted for a man, and against the GOP.

    As for the power of the pro-choice machine, again, I want to restate that it depends on what level of the process we are talking about. Holding the levers of power is one thing; winning the hearts of the people is another. I think there are enough people who would vote for a pro-life Democrat to make the abortion lobby irrelevant. I think that is why Casey won, and why any pro-life Dem could stand a chance. The key is to have the people driving the process, like they did for Howard Dean, like they did for Obama, instead of letting the party grandees control everything.

    Call it my instinct. If you have a pro-life Dem promising pro-worker economic reforms, relief for families and expecting mothers, second amendment rights, and other issues near and dear to the hearts of the American worker, no one is going to care what NARAL says. No one. You will hear the crickets chirping. The voters are who count. The voters elect people who appoint judges and form policy.

    The DNC wants to win. It is a party machine first, an ideological apparatus only second, like any other political party. Parties shift all the time. Sometimes slowly, sometimes more quickly. They shift because they want to survive, they shift under pressure. At the start we may have to rely on more grassroots means of support, but a few victories will convince the national party of the merits of pro-life Dem candidates. Pragmatism will trump radical feminist ideology and pro-life Dems will emerge in greater numbers. It could happen.

    I meant, also, ‘in the trunk’ for voters, as long as the economy is as bad as it is.

    In the end if you want to change the status quo you have to win the support of the people, not judges and party grandees. And it is among the people that the abortion lobby has less influence. The key is to find districts where a pro-life Dem could more easily defeat an incumbent Republican than a pro-choice Dem, and go to town.

  • Another thing this poll indicates to me is that when some “teachable moment” occurs that forces people to seriously think about abortion — instead of simply ignoring the issue as most do during times of war, economic crisis, etc., — a distinct shift toward pro-life usually takes place.

    My guess (and it’s only a guess) is that most people who don’t take the abortion issue seriously, who haven’t studied it or been taught anything about it one way or the other, or who prefer not to think about it at all, will say they are pro-choice, simply because it sounds good to them. After all, having a choice is always a good thing, right? It is only when they are confronted with the true nature of the “choice” they are defending that some (not all) will reconsider their position.

  • Pingback: Res & Explicatio for A.D. 5-20-2009 « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Obama Demonizes Pro-Lifers With Reckless Rhetoric « The American Catholic

The Mythical National Champion

Friday, January 9, AD 2009

Now that the mythical national championship has been won by the University of Florida Gators as per the bowl oligarchy, I’d like to ask The American Catholic readers whom they would pick as their N.C.A.A. F.B.S. national champion.  My pick goes to the University of Southern California Trojans.  They’ve destroyed all non-conference competition by wide margins and play in the toughest football conference in the nation where the Pac-10 went five-and-0 (5-0) in bowl games this year.

UPDATED (1-13-2009 A.D.): ESPN crowns the Utah Utes the National Champions of college football.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to The Mythical National Champion

  • My vote goes to watching professional football, where the action is much better and they have this crazy thing known as a playoff.

  • I go with Gators. Tebow took care of business in the second half. Keeping it ahead of an Oklahoma team that handled itself well in regular season but went kaff kaff kaff for the big ugly glass trophy as they often do. Here are some scary thoughts for ’09. Tebow is likely to return. Their other major offensive and defensive starters are mostly sophs or juniors right now. Urban Meyer, probably the leading offensive mind in the sport, is staying put. And from what I hear, a remarkably soft schedule in that replication of the Civil War known as the Southeastern Conference. I see three teams vying for two spots in the 2010 BCS scrum- Gators, Longhorns, Trojans. USC looked comfortably and overwhelmingly better than Penn State in the Rose Bowl. Texas will be snorting for payback over the way the BCS Cartel jobbed them in ’08. Again, Sun Belt Ball whips Frost Belt Ball from here to Pasadena. Cannot wait for next September.

  • Pro football doesn’t hold a candle to the awesomeness that is college football.

    The BCS sucks, but a playoff would be even worse. It would destroy that which makes college football great: the fact that EVERY WEEK matters (by the way, is anyone really paying attention to what’s going on in college basketball – you know, where they have one of those precious playoff thingies – right now?).

    They should go back to the old bowl system and let the voters decide the “National Champion”. There wasn’t nearly as much bitching back then as there is now.

  • I’ll just put it this way. If I had the choice between going to the Kennedy Center to watch an opera performance, or to watch the George Washington University players perform an opera, I wouldn’t be alone in choosing the former. Yeah, it’s elitist, but that’s me. Then again, I admit that growing up in New York city with 6 pro sports teams and zero good college teams (though St. John’s was good in basketball when I was growing up) does color my thinking.

  • PAC 10 best in the country HA!!!

    Florida Baby nothing mythical about last night

  • The AP poll results:

    Florida #1
    Utah #2

    Anyone know what these two programs have in common?

    Clue: he’s named after a pope and Notre Dame wishes they had him instead of Charlie Weis.

  • Pac-10? The best? That has to be sarcasm.

    The SEC had more bowl wins and more bowl teams, with a 6-2 record. USC lost to Oregon State, which got pounded on several different occasions and only beat Big 10 teams Ohio State and Penn State, which isn’t a terribly impressive resume. The Pac-10’s 5-0 might look nice, but 4 of their wins were before New Year’s Day (against a fairly unimpressive lineup, with the exception of OSU). Both SEC losses came on New Year’s Day in the bigger bowls.

    I would take Florida over USC any day of the week.

  • The NASCAR mentality of the SEC at work:

    “If my guy in the Chevy can’t win, I’m going to cheer for some other Chevy driver. Ford sucks.”

    The SEC has proven itself over the years to be the strongest conference top-to-bottom, and winning the “National Championship” 3 years in a row, in addition to its overall bowl record, gives testament to this fact.

    But you’d never know it by the chip-on-the-shoulder SEC homerism mentality of its fans.

  • Or maybe you WOULD know it by the chip-on-the-shoulder SEC homerism mentality of its fans, since they tell you how great they are and how much you suck at every opportunity.

  • Urban Meyer coached Utah to a BCS bowl game and an undeafeted season.

    Don’t get me wrong about USC, I loathe them very much since I’m an Arizona alum. But growing up out west (Hawaii) and attending school in Arizona I have experienced the bias against the Pac-10, WAC, and the Mountain West conferences.

    When the Big East and ACC continue to get unwarranted attention and bids to the BCS while the Boise States and Utahs of the west continue to get the shaft of BCS bids is ridiculous.

    Pile in the fact that the Pac-10 has argueable the best football in the nation then you can see why I chose USC over the rest.

    On a side note, I attended the Sugar Bowl last year when Hawaii got stomped by Georgia. I have to admit the narcissism and self-centeredness of the Georgia fans were pretty ugly (not all just the ones in my section on the 50 yard line). It’s a football game folks, and Georgia won and their fans were still bitter and nasty towards the Hawaii fans.

  • At last, an issue raised on this blog on which I have absolutely no opinion!

4 Responses to Younger People Are Not More Pro-Choice

  • I’m somewhat confused – what does the yellow line represent?

  • Apologies – I did not prepare the graph and the labeling is confusing. The yellow line represents the percentage of respondents who stated that homosexuality is ‘always wrong’.

  • I certainly think that the reason that the pro-life argument has been comparatively successful in the wider culture is that it has utilized “rights talk” in regards to the unborn child — and the right to not be killed generally comes off as more sympathetic (until people are asked to “judge” in a particular situation) than the right to terminate your child and get on with your life. That combined with the advancements in medical science which have given us such a good look at the unborn child have provided the pro-life movement with very much needed support.

    However as the above graph points out, the rights-talk approach cuts against traditional culture as much as or more than it supports it. It’s very difficult to formulate a personal freedom argument _against_ gay marraige — and I think that’s why we see increasing acceptance of the idea among the young.

    I think there’s certainly room for hope in this regard, in that not only does a more traditional culture result in much higher likelihood of having children to make up future generations, but also I think people often realize the necessity of duties and cultural norms rather later in life than they realize the attractiveness of rights. Getting something is always more attractive than having to follow rules much less having duties towards other people. But enough life experience can often teach that these are as important or more important than “rights”.

    Still, it’s certainly an uphill battle that we have to fight.

Catholic Vote: 51-38% For Senator McCain

Sunday, November 2, AD 2008

The most accurate poll from the 2004 Election, the Investors Business Daily (IDB) Poll, has been showing a trend of Catholic voters moving away from Senator Obama and into Senator McCain’s camp.  Since I first reported this a little over a week ago I can now say that this trend is real and Catholics are now leaning to McCain as of today.

Again, this is only a snapshot and outside of the IDB and Gallup polls, I don’t put much into any other poll.  But it is interesting to note that the Catholic vote has switched over to McCain, 51-38%.  A solid majority so to speak.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Catholic Vote: 51-38% For Senator McCain

Catholics Continue Trending Toward McCain

Thursday, October 30, AD 2008

The latest poll* that came out today, the Fox News Poll, show’s that Catholics are still trending away from Senator Obama and towards Senator McCain.  The poll today show’s whiteCatholics are now evenly split, 46-46%, between Senator Obama and Senator McCain.  Previously in the Fox News Poll it showed Senator Obama with an 11 point lead among white Catholic voters over Senator McCain (emphasis mine).

The race has tightened in part because of changes in a couple of important swing voting groups. Independents back Obama by 5 percentage points today, down from a 9-point edge last week. Similarly, among white Catholics, Obama held an 11-point edge over McCain last week and today they split 46-46.

 

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Catholics Continue Trending Toward McCain

  • I heard an interesting theory today regarding the polls. Currently, the media actively supports Senator Obama. Many Americans don’t want to appear to be against him, so either indicate they are undecided, or perhaps that they support him. Historically, the polls have over counted democrats, both in pre vote polling and in exit polling. It will be curious to see how the actual voting goes this time. Pray for pro-life positions.

  • I heard the same theory except the caveat is that these are democrats that are still upset with Hilary not getting the nod, but tell all their liberal friends and pollsters they’re going to vote for Obama so they won’t get ostracized. But come election day they’re pulling the lever for McCain.

One Response to Polls and polls and polls and polls and polls