The Politico has come under fire by the Obama campaign for an article posted on Saturday, originally called, Obama Support Soft Among Catholics, but changed to Obama Slow To Gain Among Catholics, to (apparently) placate angry campaign workers. But the difference in the two titles is a subtle one, and the fact remains that Catholic voters have been voting in larger numbers for Hillary, (which is disturbing, in and of itself).
In How The Sausage Gets Made, the Politico gives us the play by play of the behind the scenes turmoil that took place almost immediately after the article was published; most notably a call from the combative deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer:
Mahtesian, who has written about national politics for nearly two decades, said Sunday he was taken aback by Pfeiffer’s bellicose tone.
“Who are you? I’ve never heard of you. What’s your background?” Pfeiffer demanded to know, Mahtesian recalled.
Some more phone calls and email exchanges ensued with different members of the Obama campaign. The Politico changed the headline, but stood behind the story.
By Sunday, Pfeiffer was having second thoughts about the conversation the night before. In an e-mail to Mahtesian, with me copied, he apologized if asking about Mahtesian’s background came out the wrong way.
“I was not questioning anyone’s credentials or trying to be a jerk for the sake of being a jerk,” Pfeiffer wrote. “I remain convinced that the story is based on a fundamentally flawed logic [because] it suggests that we have a problem with voters because they are Catholic, when instead the more likely and obvious conclusion is that the groups we have always trailed Clinton with (most notably Latino voters) are disproportionately Catholic and the groups that overwhelming support Obama (most notably African Americans) are disproportionately not Catholic. My point was that there is scant evidence that someone’s Catholicism is determinative of their choice in the election. Having said all that, I appreciate the willingness to listen and make some changes to the story including adding Roemer’s voice to the story. I will now leave you guys alone about this.”
Now, I realize the Obama team prides itself on its ability to win religious votes. But I must disagree with Pfeiffer’s contention that someone’s Catholicism is not determinative of their choice in the election.I don’t know if I can speak for Catholic Democrats. Whenever a I hear that a Catholic is a Democrat, I want to say, “But I thought you were Catholic”. I tend to think that these are your “Social Justice Catholics”, (who really mean well, but don’t seem to know about the 5 non-negotiables*), “cafeteria Catholics”, and “twice a year if at all Catholics”. But I suspect, that however liberal a Catholic may be, his Catholic conscience can’t abide this:
Not only did Barack Hussein Obama oppose the partial birth abortion ban, he voted against a bill in the Illinois legislature that would have required medical care for aborted babies who survive an abortion.
I’m heartened to hear that liberal Catholics are balking at voting for Obama, who for them, is otherwise, a very attractive candidate.
*In voting for people, there are THE FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES
These five issues are called non-negotiable because they concern actions that are always morally wrong and must never be promoted by the law. It is a serious sin to endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any of the five non-negotiables.
3. Fetal Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual Marriage