Obama General Discussion, vol. 3 - Page 58 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-11-2012, 07:08 PM   #856
Blue Crack Supplier
 
coolian2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hamilton (No longer STD capital of NZ)
Posts: 42,920
Local Time: 04:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HBK-79 View Post
What makes you say that? What does Obama have about him that the top GOP leaders don't have?
support from his party voters, voters in urban areas, doesn't need to have the entire stadium accessible for the elderly?

i could go on. most would be joke points though.
__________________

__________________
coolian2 is offline  
Old 02-11-2012, 07:41 PM   #857
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 04:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 View Post
1997? You must be joking...American music was largely dominated by the resurgence of manufactured groups of pop stars designed to appeal to the teenie-boppers.

I think the boy band / girl group craze was firmly there in 1997, supplemented by euro dance pop singles from one-hit wonders from across the pond.

Grunge as a large movement was gone by the late 90s, left to fill the alternative radio playlists until the god-awful rap rock bands came in the early 2000s.
Never mind the fucking charts, American music was dead as a doornail in 97.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 02-11-2012, 07:43 PM   #858
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 63,720
Local Time: 07:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HBK-79 View Post
What makes you say that? What does Obama have about him that the top GOP leaders don't have?
Sanity?
__________________
corianderstem is offline  
Old 02-12-2012, 02:55 AM   #859
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 04:56 PM
Interesting reflection on the contraception showdown by Joan Walsh over at Salon. This echoes many of the comments I've heard from Catholics I know (practicing and 'lapsed') about their own conflicted feelings on the matter.
Quote:
Catholic Tribalism and the Contraceptive Flap


The resolution to the contraception contretemps seems mainly designed to do one thing: mollify the Catholics who defied the US Conference of Bishops to support the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Church leaders are unlikely to officially back this so-called accommodation--the White House isn’t calling it a compromise--just as they continued to oppose the ACA even after President Obama did everything imaginable to insist the new law wouldn’t provide federal funding for abortion. But the new agreement makes it possible for women’s groups and some liberal Catholic leaders to maintain a truce on hot-button social issues while working together around issues of women’s health and universal access to healthcare. Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America are happy with the solution, and so is Sister Carol Keehan of the Catholic Health Association, who endured withering heat from the bishops and their right-wing allies over the ACA. Kristen Day of Feminists for Life likewise backs the deal.
Quote:
But what just happened? Why did we spend 10 days listening to prominent Catholics, including even some liberals and Democrats, insist that the White House had overreached and trampled on “religious freedom”--in this case, the “freedom” of the Catholic hierarchy to impose rules that even most Catholics don’t live by? The great E.J. Dionne led the charge, but Catholic Democrats like Sens. John Kerry and Bob Case and Virginia’s Tim Kaine joined in, and occasionally, liberal TV hosts like MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell and Chris Matthews seemed inclined to depict the controversy as being about the church’s right not to violate its own values. Vice President Joe Biden was said to be the leading voice within the administration warning Obama away from the issue.

“This has struck a tribal nerve in Catholicism,” conservative Catholic scholar George Weigel said to Chuck Todd on “The Daily Rundown” last Monday. “The Catholic Church has been beaten up over the last 10 or 11 years and I think Catholics are tired of the government and others beating up on the church.” His liberal co-religionist on the panel, E.J. Dionne, agreed. I found that fascinating, especially because most of us consider tribalism a bad thing in a multi-ethnic democracy. Still, while I didn’t share that reaction, I recognized it. It amazes me sometimes, the extent to which Catholics still see themselves--ourselves--as outsiders. There’s a vestigial impulse to circle the wagons and protect our right to practice our persecuted religion (even if it’s no longer persecuted, and many of us don’t practice very much of it anymore).
Quote:
There may be an element of remorse involved when liberal Catholics defend their faith, especially among those who defy the church (rightly, in my opinion) on its most blinkered teachings in the realm of women’s rights, gay rights and sexuality. For some it may be guilt: OK, I might not listen to the bishops, but I think we ought to demand that they’re respected in the public sphere. And for some it may be grief: We grew up with a rich tradition of social responsibility and spiritual meaning that’s unfortunately been warped by leaders who worship worldly power and have odd views about sex as well as women. While the child abuse scandal makes most Catholics sick, sometimes even I wince when non-Catholics judge the whole church by the corruption of a comparative (though very powerful) few. I have cousins and uncles and aunts who’ve joined religious orders (though, truthfully, most of them left). I don’t like seeing all of them considered perverts or pedophiles, or people who cover up for predators.

How Catholics work out their complex feelings about the church matters beyond the tribe, if only because they’re crucial to the 2012 election. One in four voters is Catholic, and Obama won a majority in 2008, while Republicans won them back in 2010.
Quote:
I grew up in a huge Irish Catholic clan on Long Island, but as an adult, I put away childish things (in the words of St. Paul, though not as he intended them) and became a secular feminist liberal Democrat. The first time I remember feeling anything like tribalism was after Sept. 11. Many liberals around me criticized the overt religiosity of the public mourning for those killed that day, all that talk about God, which struck me as reflexively and needlessly anti-religion at a time when many Americans--dare I say most--found comfort in their faith. Then, after a benefit for survivors’ families turned a little rowdy, with one cop taking to the stage to say “Osama bin Laden can kiss my royal Irish ass,” the heavily Irish and Catholic cops and firefighters in attendance were roundly derided as right-wing tribalist rubes. That bothered me, too: Who did we think died trying to rescue those trapped in the World Trade Center, Susan Sarandon and Michael Moore? Members of my own family had worked in the rescue operation after the towers fell. I wasn’t down with the mockery. A lot of my belated tribalism was a class thing: I’m not working-class, but my parents and aunts and uncles were, and some of my cousins are still part of that ill-defined and disappearing demographic. There’s clearly an element of snobbery in the way the white working class is routinely run down as backward, racist, narrow-minded yahoos, and I’ve grown to resent it.

Yet in general, Catholics are doing pretty well for themselves. We’re well represented in certain segments of the American elite, especially elite punditry, it seems. It’s understandably hard for some people to imagine, in a world so striated by race and class, how Catholics could feel like oppressed outsiders. Yet it’s also true that while we’ve only elected one black president, we’ve only elected one Catholic president as well. I’m not trying to equate the struggles of black people and Catholics. In fact, it’s especially when you understand how relatively privileged Catholics have been, compared to African-Americans, that having only one Catholic president stands out, and makes you wonder: Why? It’s hard not to conclude that some residue of the religious nativism that persecuted and stigmatized Catholics in the 19th century, defeated Al Smith in 1928, and forced John F. Kennedy to promise he wouldn’t take orders from the pope in 1960 persists to this day. So even if we haven’t personally experienced anti-Catholic prejudice, and I can’t say I have, there’s an atavistic memory, something bred in the bone, that forces many of us to defend our once-persecuted church, even when we profoundly disagree with it.

But it wasn’t until I debated the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins on “Hardball” this week that the craziness of the right-wing Catholic alliance with conservative evangelicals became particularly obvious to me. They’ve locked arms with some of the very forces that once persecuted their ancestors--some of whom still despise Catholicism to this day. On “Hardball,” Perkins posed as a defender of the Catholic bishops’ position on Obama’s contraception rules. But he’s also been an ally to virulent anti-Catholics like Rev. John Hagee, who called the church “the great whore” and a “false cult.” And Rev. Robert Jeffress, who likened the church to Satan and labeled Catholicism a “fake religion.” Like Zionist Jews who’ve made common cause with right-wing evangelicals over Israel, some Catholics are lining up, in the name of religious freedom, alongside folks who want to wipe out their religion. I’ve heard some liberals express disdain for some of the church’s teachings, but I’ve never heard anyone compare it to Satan or call it a whore.

Zealous right-wing Catholics are in the minority, even if blowhards like Bill Donohue sometimes make the most noise. In the end, I think the contraceptive flap forced a lot of Catholics to reckon with the gulf between what they practice and what their church preaches. The truth was always there, if we wanted to find it, not merely in polling data that said 98% of sexually active Catholics have used birth control, but that solid majorities of Catholic voters supported Obama’s contraception regulations applying to large Catholic institutions, like hospitals, charities and universities, that employ non-Catholics. I loved the fact that students at Catholic universities held a press conference Thursday to support the president, and that organizations like Catholic Democrats and Catholics for Choice were active and vocal in standing up to their own bishops.

There are a lot of outstanding questions about the implementation of the administration’s non-compromise. But I have to disagree with Esquire’s Charles Pierce--I’m not sure that’s ever happened before--and say I don’t consider this any kind of cave on the president’s part or victory for the bishops. I prefer the interpretation of Frances Kissling, founder of Catholics for Choice, who wrote on Friday that the “accommodation” made the bishops the “losers” and women the winners. ”When the White House cares more about what a simple Catholic sister, [Sister Carol Keehan], thinks than about what the bishops think, Catholic women can applaud. Perhaps the crack in the patriarchy is becoming a deep canyon.” I can’t go that far--especially after seeing this Think Progress report that documented what we all knew: that men dominated the debate over the controversy on cable news. It’s also a little sobering that so many of the liberal Catholic voices questioning the president were male, while most of the liberal voices backing him were female. But between this and the victory for Planned Parenthood in the Komen mess a week ago, I see evidence that we’re reaching a new place in the battle over gender. At the very least, being a woman is no longer a preexisting condition, as the Catholic Nancy Pelosi likes to say.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 02-13-2012, 02:13 PM   #860
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:56 AM
beginning to wonder if Obama didn't push the birth control issue to actually give Santorum a boost among the base and further damage Romney.

of course, it's easy to look like a chess master in retrospect. but if religious voters feel under siege, why wouldn't the gravitate towards Opus Dei rather than the Mormon guy?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-13-2012, 02:40 PM   #861
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:56 AM
it is pretty early to call these things

but, with a few more wrong moves, the independents could move decisively for Obama

and what was once considered a contestable election, will not be, at all.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-13-2012, 02:56 PM   #862
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:56 AM
if Santorum's the nominee, Obama wins 40+ states.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-13-2012, 03:08 PM   #863
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 09:56 AM
It's too early to call it.
But it's not too early to prepare for the anti-climax.

There will be a period, particularly in the summer (Republican convention) where Romney will look strong, and may even pull slightly ahead in the national polls. And then the 'referendum' kicks in, where it becomes all about on the incumbent.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 02-13-2012, 03:28 PM   #864
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
if Santorum's the nominee, Obama wins 40+ states.
and if Romney is the nominee

Obama wins how many electoral college votes?

a. 280 -290

b. 295 - 320

c. 325 - 350

d. 355 +
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-13-2012, 04:15 PM   #865
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,493
Local Time: 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
and if Romney is the nominee

Obama wins how many electoral college votes?

a. 280 -290

b. 295 - 320

c. 325 - 350

d. 355 +


hard to say. depends on the unemployment rate. if present trends continue and nothing terrible happens, he wins by about the same as he did in 2008. he possibly flips Missouri and Indiana. maybe loses New Hampshire. Clint Eastwood just won him Michigan and thereby PA and OH.

but, hell, i'm just talking out my ass.

in the end, i think a Romney election would be contested, a Santorum election would be a blow out.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-13-2012, 04:37 PM   #866
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:56 AM
My guess is with Romney
it is either a. a fairly close race or b. a decent win for Obama.

I don't think Obama will do as well as in 2008.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-13-2012, 06:12 PM   #867
War Child
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 705
Local Time: 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
I don't think Obama will do as well as in 2008.
Same here. But only if Romney gets the nom.

I could see Obama losing the states he narrowly won back in 2008. Those include Indiana, Florida, Virginia, Nevada (?), Colorado (?), New Mexico (?), and North Carolina (which is why I think it's strange that the DNC is being held there this year).
__________________
HBK-79 is offline  
Old 02-13-2012, 06:21 PM   #868
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,252
Local Time: 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
he possibly flips Missouri and Indiana.
Obama won Indiana in 08.

If Romney carries the McCain states, and picks up the 6 states of Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana and New Hampshire, he wins. I'd say in FL, NH, VA and IN he would start with a slight advantage, and probably start with a slight disadvantage in OH and NC.

If Gingrich is the nominee, it will be a McCain-style blowout. I think Santorum would actually fair slightly better, but still lose handily.
__________________
2861U2 is online now  
Old 02-13-2012, 06:25 PM   #869
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
Obama won Indiana in 08.

If Romney carries the McCain states, and picks up the 6 states of Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana and New Hampshire, he wins.

that's a lot of hopin and wishin, for all those ducks to line up.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-13-2012, 06:27 PM   #870
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 10:56 AM
I think gas prices, if they go the way they are predicted to go, will really hurt Obama because the overall economy will suffer such a negative impact.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com