Obama’s Amazing Improvement Among Traditional White Catholics – Steven Waldman

“For years, pundits believed that the only Catholics a liberal Democrat could win en masse were theologically liberal, “Cafeteria Catholics” who don’t attend mass or listen to the Pope very often.While Obama did clean up with those lefty Catholics, a new survey by Professor John Green of University of Akron, shows that he also made stunning improvements among more traditional white Catholics.”

Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University is, hands down, the most eloquent voice of the pro-life movement; and his latest essay, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism,” is nothing short of a masterpiece. Here is just a taste of Professor George’s must-read compilation of Senator Barack Obama’s radical views on abortion and embryonic stem cell research:

What kind of America do we want our beloved nation to be? Barack Obama’s America is one in which being human just isn’t enough to warrant care and protection. It is an America where the unborn may legitimately be killed without legal restriction, even by the grisly practice of partial-birth abortion. It is an America where a baby who survives abortion is not even entitled to comfort care as she dies on a stainless steel table or in a soiled linen bin. It is a nation in which some members of the human family are regarded as inferior and others superior in fundamental dignity and rights. In Obama’s America, public policy would make a mockery of the great constitutional principle of the equal protection of the law. In perhaps the most telling comment made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: ”that question is above my pay grade.” It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator’s pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy – and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

Read the entire piece, and email it to everyone you know (especially those who claim to be pro-life and currently support Obama). Voters need to know just how extreme Obama is when it comes to abortion and other “culture of life” issues.

Joseph Curl brings up an excellent question in the Washington Times today, what would happen to the country if John McCain and Barack Obama each ended up with 269 electoral votes and the election was thrown into the Congress.

Sound implausible? If Obama flips Iowa and New Mexico, and wins all the other states Kerry won, then we are at a 269-269 deadlock.

Then the election goes to the Congress (the incoming Congress). Each state delegation gets one vote in the House. All sorts of crazy things could happen because the Senate would elect the Vice-President and the House would elect the President. It could be possible to have a divided executive branch with Obama-Palin. Or McCain-Biden.

Each state has as many electoral votes as they have Representatives in the House plus two for their Senators. So when you add up the 435 members of the House, plus the 100 Senators, plus the 3 electors from DC, you end up with an even number: 538. Thus the potential for a tie.

To prevent a tie, the U.S. House ought to increase its membership to an even number.

If there were 436 members (instead of 435) , then the total number of electors would be 539. If only two candidates received electoral votes, you would never tie. The closest you’d get to a tie is 270-269.

This fix only prevents a 50% tie. If three candidates split the electoral college vote and no one gets a majority, the election is thrown into the House. The Constitution requires a majority, not just a plurality in the Electoral College vote to get elected president.

UPDATE: I’m not the first person to come up with this idea. I just found an article by Prof. Robert Bennett of Northwestern University, written in 2004, that had this same idea.

The Wall Street Journal features a front page story today on Planned Parenthood detailing the booming business. “Flush with cash…” is how the article begins. Enough said.

Kathryn Lopez of NRO also references the WSJ piece in her excellent article today:

Further, Planned Parenthood is a booming business. The Journal article this morning reports that PP took in $1 billion in its last financial report. According to the piece, about a third of that revenue comes from federal and state grants for low-income women. “The nonprofit ended the year with a surplus of $115 million, or about 11% of its revenue, and net assets of $952 million.”

The WSJ article implies, accurately in my opinion, that Planned Parenthood is quickly becoming the WalMart of the abortion industry – the ubiquitous national mega health center invading neighborhoods with their anti-women, anti-child billion dollar business. Their big box centers (see new 52,000 sq. ft. center opening in Denver) are growing larger and larger, all with the help of the American taxpayer.

Interestingly, the WSJ reports approximately 40% of the space in the new Denver center will be used for “meetings, including political work.” Thus it should come as no surprise that Obama opted out of public financing for his campaign when the American taxpayer is helping fund the infrastructure for some of his biggest backers, including Planned Parenthood, who has pledged to spend $10 million this election cycle.

Lopez urges McCain to push the issue:

John McCain has an opportunity to legitimately use his record to differentiate between himself and Senator Obama in a way that will both help social and fiscal conservatives support him. Opposing Planned Parenthood funding meshes with McCain’s contention that abortion is a human-rights issue and his continuing campaign against wasteful government spending. Planned Parenthood doesn’t need or deserve federal funding.

AP reports: McCain, Obama fail to agree on town halls

McCain wanted 10 town hall meetings, Obama wanted 1.   Obama instead wanted 5 joint appearances (1 town hall, 3 traditional debates, and 1 foreign policy debate.)

The disagreement deserves some scrutiny.   On the surface, McCain clearly preferred an open format with real Americans asking the questions.  Obama opted for the media controlled scripted debates.

Hmmm.

Stu Rothenberg thinks there is a decent shot that Obama could best McCain by half a million votes but still lose to McCain.

Obama is likely to “waste” votes in Illinois, New York and California (winning them with large majorities), and he may gain some ground in normally Republican states — getting closer than most Democrats normally do, but not winning.

If this happens, and if Obama narrowly loses one or two larger, traditionally Democratic states, such as Michigan and Wisconsin, we could see an updated version of 2000, with McCain winning the White House at the same time that Obama gets more than half a million more votes.

If two men are elected president within eight years who lost the popular vote (especially if they are the same party!), can the Electoral College survive?

I really hope that Obama agrees to McCain’s call for regular town hall debates or they agree on some other kind of regular debate format. I really don’t even care which format they choose.

The media controversy over Jim Johnson illustrates what we have in store for the next five months if we don’t do regular debates. Watching both campaigns argue back and forth over The Scandal of the Day just pushes back the real debate over entitlements, abortion, energy, health care, etc. I’m not saying that we can’t argue about Jim Johnson’s mortgage deal or Cindy McCain not releasing tax returns. But, please, can’t we have the real debate on the issues, too?

The 24-hour news media loves the gripe back and forth, just like they love high-speed car chases and drunken Hollywood celebrities. But just because it makes for great TV, doesn’t mean it’s a good way for Americans to decide who becomes president.

Kathryn Jean Lopez on Catholics & Barack Obama on National Review Online:

Catholics need to know what their Church teaches. Know your candidate. Know abortion isn’t just any issue. It’s a grave offense and betrayal to fail to protect the most innocent human life. If you’re a Catholic who honestly can see how Barack Obama’s election as president won’t contribute to or compound that offence, go in peace. I don’t see it. I don’t see how anyone can see it. And so for those who don’t get a vote, for those who have been mutilated and murdered in the name of “choice,” this Catholic will cast hers against him in November.

Emily’s List is, to no one’s surprise, now on board with Obama.

Meanwhile, Professor Kmiec continues to make the case to Catholics as to why they should vote for the most prochoice presidential candidate in our nation’s history.

There are obvious reasons that conservatives have hated McCain in the past. Not just immigration, campaign finance, but also the Gang of 14. And it’s true that McCain would spout off against conservatives like we were the enemy.

But Quin Hilyer has an excellent article in the American Spectator telling conservatives that while another Reagan isn’t in the offering, McCain is very much like the next Goldwater. In other words, Hilyer says, He’s One of Us:

No major party nominee since Goldwater, Reagan included, has been as consistently and bravely dedicated to fiscal discipline as has McCain. Last week he both made a superb campaign speech and penned a hard-hitting column for the Chicago Tribune blasting the bloated, irresponsible Farm Bill for which 80 percent of his colleagues were cravenly voting.

Hilyer also points out the great initiatives that McCain has offered on the hot-button issues that voters care about:

McCain has proposed the most free-market-oriented health care reforms imaginable from a national party nominee during a contentious campaign. And on taxes, the fact remains that McCain has never, not once, supported an income-tax rate hike. He calls for corporate tax deductions and seems genuinely committed to fighting, really fighting, to make most of President Bush’s tax cuts permanent.

Hilyer admits the disagreements about McCain and picking federal judges, but he notes quite truthfully that the decision on this is a no-brainer:

I, for one, do not believe that he cares enough about textualist judges to make appointing them a priority. But even here the choice is clear: With McCain, if we are unlucky, we will get appeals court and Supreme Court judges and justices of the Sandra Day O’Connor/Anthony Kennedy variety, or maybe like uber-moderate Lewis Powell; better still, we may get lucky and get an occasional Sam Alito through the Senate gauntlet. With Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, though, the best we’ll ever get is another Stephen Breyer — and that’s only if Obama/Clinton makes a mistake. Most likely, we’ll get William Brennans and Ruth Bader Ginsburgs aplenty. I’ll take an O’Connor any day over a crafty, heavily politicized Brennan.

For conservatives, staying home is not an option. The choice is clear, from judges to taxes to health care to the Right to Life: Support John McCain for President.

MoveOn.org’s latest solicitation message asks subscribers to help out Swift Boat the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Their complaint: the independent group that helped defeat John Kerry in 2004 is now gearing up to go after the presumed Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.

But what is laughable is that they are asking for support to combat the “nasty attacks” they expect from groups that oppose Obama. Come to think of it, “nasty” is an apt description for much of what MoveOn spews. Their hosting of an ad depicting President Bush as Hitler, or the full-page NY Times “General Betray Us” ad come to mind. Yet MoveOn writes of “underhanded online campaigns” where “there’s literally nothing that’s off-limits for these people.” If that description is not yet in MoveOn’s own Wikipedia entry, someone please copy and paste.

Finally, they need help because…get this…they don’t have any “billionaire donors.” Huh? Maybe they meant no billion dollar donations. But last I checked, Mr. Soros was still in the billionaire club.

Then again, after spending $12.5 million in 2004 for nothing, maybe he plans to be more selective this time around.

Their latest:

Yesterday a top official from Swift Boat Veterans For Truth—yes, those Swift Boats—vowed to use the same tactics to take down Obama, saying, “We will attack Obama viciously.” This race is going to get very ugly.

The only way to counter these kinds of nasty attacks is to make sure voters are armed with the facts. That’s where we come in—our plan is to target 1.6 million voters in swing states and talk to them to make sure they know the truth about the candidates and the issues. That kind of personal contact will beat the negative ads every time.

But it’s going to take a lot of work—and money—to build that organization. We’ve been in meetings all week crunching numbers to figure out how many states we can afford to work in this fall, and we need to make a decision soon. MoveOn doesn’t have billionaire donors—it’s just all of us, chipping in together…

That’s what the Cook Political Report predicts Democrats are likely to gain in November. Congressional scandals, 29 Republican House retirements (vs. six Democrats), and overall low approval ratings are difficult to overcome, which means November could be a bloodbath for Republicans. It also suggests, contrary to the inevitable media spin, that Democratic gains will likely come more from a combination of fortunate circumstances than a new national embrace of their party ideas.

House Minority Leader John Boehner disagrees, suggesting Republicans could actually gain seats. The only hope, it seems, is that fortunes change as a result of the infighting between supporters of Obama and Clinton.

Yet, most pundits agree that Democrats are well positioned to improve their majorities in both houses. Which makes preserving a pro-life voice in the White House that much more important.

I watched Tim Russert on the Today Show and he mapped out a plausible scenario. What if Democrats won every state John Kerry won in 2004, and also picked up Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico? 

Iowa and New Mexico voted blue (Gore) in 2000, but red (Bush) in 2004. They could easily flip back to blue. Nevada went for Bush by 20,000 votes, Iowa went for Bush by a margin of 10,000 votes. In New Mexico the margin was only 6,000 votes.

So, if Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico flip to blue and all the other states stay the same, then there will be a 269-269 tie in the Electoral College. (Check out the Washington Post’s interactive Electoral College map.)

Under a tie, the election would be thrown into the House of Representatives. Each state delegation in the House of Representatives would caucus individually, with each state getting one vote. How does this work? 

Arkansas has four members in the House of Representatives: Three are Democrats and one is Republican. They would caucus together and cast their one for Obama (assuming he’s the nominee of course.) So the people of Arkansas could have voted for McCain, but in the House, they might likely vote for Obama. Ironically, John McCain might not win his home state of Arizona in this scenario, because there are 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans in his state’s delegation. A tie yields no vote obviously.

The Democrats have more state delegations than Republicans, and thus a 269-269 tie would elect the Democrat as President. Unless, Republican make some gains in the Congressional elections.

If the election gets close and talk of a 269-269 tie arises, look for it to become an issue in states like North and South Dakota, which have only one seat in the House, both held by Democrats. In fact, this has already come up, South Dakota’s Rep. Stephanie Herseth, a Democrat, said in a debate back in October 2004, that she would vote for George Bush if the 2004 election were tossed into the House of Representatives. Of course, she could always “change her mind” once she got to Washington.

And of course, the state delegations could look a lot different in January 2009. I suppose if John McCain won the popular vote, tied in the Electoral College and lost the election in the House, we would have an interesting scenario: Conservatives who claimed Bush had won based on the Constitution might have major second thoughts on the Electoral College system. They might even declare that Obama hadn’t won fairly.

One wonders then if liberals will suddenly consider the Electoral College to be a “cherished tradition” rather than a 17th Century holdover.

UPDATE: I now have a plan. No, it’s not named after T. Boone Pickens.

In a new poll reported today, 28% of Clinton supporters say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

Much more has already been said on the subject, but Pepperdine Law Professor Douglas Kmiec’s Easter Day endorsement of Sen. Obama seems to ask more questions than it answers, particularly for a Catholic.

Kmiec openly wonders whether Obama’s experience “is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency,” and admits that he likely disagrees with Obama’s positions on “fundamental issues” such as abortion, marriage, subsidiarity, judicial activism, and his understanding of religious freedom. Yet he is hopeful Obama is not opposed to “understanding” his point of view, and may even “respect and accommodate” people like him (and me).

A glance at both Obama’s record and stated positions hardly offers much encouragement, particularly when it comes to the critical role of the President and the Supreme Court, an area about which Professor Kmiec cares deeply. Most notably, Obama has consistently bragged about his votes against both Roberts and Alito. Recall that Kmiec rightly described Roberts as “superb” and Alito as a “standout.” In a post-endorsement interview Kmiec dismissed concerns over allowing Obama to control the future of the Court suggesting that there are people in both parties capable of practicing judicial restraint. Call me naive, but while this is technically true, I have yet to hear Obama discuss in any meaningful way a vision of judicial restraint, and have little confidence that he will anytime soon. And given the fact that the Court has assumed the crucial role that it has, is there any doubt that a President Obama will choose nominees that are committed to his “values” and those of his political base?

For Catholics, the sanctity of life and the protection of marriage and the family are paramount. Obama has made the point that on the “fundamental” issue of abortion he “will not yield,” while also pledging last month to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to fight for homosexual rights including the complete repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by President Clinton.

Kmiec does take issue with the foreign policy of President Bush, arguing that the decision to invade Iraq was done without “sufficient justification or a clear objective.” This issue, it seems, remains a legitimate question for debate. Yet the contrast is hard to ignore – for Kmiec, the prudential decision to play offense in the war on terror in the crucible of having been attacked is beyond the pale, yet “playing offense” (Obama’s words) on abortion with the clear intent of making permanent the legal fiction of abortion “rights,” is also wrong, but does not disqualify him from receiving his support.

Professor Kmiec is widely respected and deservedly so. Having served as Director of the Office of Legal Counsel under both President Reagan and President George H. W. Bush, including serving as Dean of the Law School at Catholic University of America and teaching at Notre Dame Law, his astute commentaries and commitment to an understanding of the proper role of the judiciary and his defense of the natural law tradition have been both admirable and persuasive. Regrettably, he is far less so in his endorsement.

In the newest issue of the National Catholic Register, Fidelis President Brian Burch lists the reasons why — from abortion to marriage to torture — a McCain Presidency would be close to Catholic principles.