The compromise.

[rjmacs]

mattkime wrote:
>>Bonehead move by the administration to piss off mainstream Catholics

In another thread it was cited that there is almost universal ignorance of the ban on birth control among the parishioners. don't confuse the politics of the leadership of the church with that of the followers. we've seen this in start relief on a certain issue that can't be left alone.

As i pointed out in another thread also, the mistake the administration made here is that it misled the bishops about how this would be handled. When it made this announcement it caused a furor because the bishops felt double-crossed. Mainstream Catholics may not support the Church's birth control policies, but they do care whether the President can be trusted when he talks to Church leaders. THAT's what pissed off mainstream Catholics, not who pays for birth control pills.

[Spock]

billb wrote:

I'm gonna miss Michelle.

You emigrating?

Bon Voyage.

[Grace62]

It's not the White House that played games here, though opponents of the President have portrayed it that way. The rule was presented last August, and Catholics and some Republicans didn't like it. The Pope commented on it. And the battle began. I think the compromise makes sense, but I doubt it will change the tone or the rhetoric coming from the Bishops against anyone perceived as liberal on social issues in the White House.

This is a NY times editorial from last fall:

"The Obama administration made the right call in August when it issued new standards requiring all insurers to cover contraceptives without a deductible or a co-payment, starting next year. The White House now needs to resist pressure from House Republicans, the Roman Catholic Church and other groups out to eliminate or significantly weaken the contraceptives mandate.

The new rules already exempt churches and other religious institutions from having to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees. That is similar to provisions in state laws upheld by the highest courts in New York and California.

Nevertheless, church leaders are calling for an expansive exemption for all employees of Catholic hospitals, charitable organizations, elementary and secondary schools, and colleges and universities. That would, in effect, deny coverage for contraceptives for millions of women who may not be Catholic and may disagree with the church’s stance on birth control."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/opinio....html?_r=1

[Grace62]

This sums up my take on the political outcome pretty well. ymmv

Unicorn Sighting, a political compromise that makes both sides happy

"A genuine compromise. By arriving at a solution that satisfied all direct parties to the controversy, Obama finally gets one of his desperately desired compromises. And it's a compromise that gives up nothing—women will still be able to make their own decisions on birth control without having to run it past a bureaucrat, politician, or church official.

Obama scores with his base. The president has shown that sometimes, he actually can stand up for what's right in the face of a full-on conservative shit storm. We've seen enough retreats that for once, we can applaud enthusiastically at the resolution.

Conservative true anti-sex agenda revealed. The forced-birth industry has finally outed itself—their primary obsession isn't abortion, it's sex. They hate it. They want women to stop doing it. And if they do it, they want babies to result. (And yes, it's directed at women, because they have no problem with Viagra being covered by insurance.)

In other words, they don't want people to have sex for pleasure. And that's not going to be a winning position because, quite frankly, people like to have sex, and they like to have it without fear of making babies. Conservatives want to wage a battle about the morality of birth control, and they're going to get crushed doing so.

GOP's hypocrisy on religious freedom revealed. Republicans are such staunch defenders of religious freedoms that I'm sure they'll stop opposing the construction of new mosques! And I'm sure they'll jump on the rest of the Catholic social agenda, such as extension of unemployment benefits, passage of the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform, more aid for the poor and needy, and opposition to unnecessary wars like Iraq, right?

There's a lot of win to go around. The only downside is that Obama has further eroded his support amongst people who think he is the anti-Christ or can do no right. But yeah, who cares. Among people who matter, this was a genuine home run."

[cbelt3]

Grace, your second post rather conflicts with your first post wherein you commented:
"... from the Bishops against anyone perceived as liberal on social issues in the White House"

In your opinion, are the American Catholic Bishops "Liberals" or "Conservatives" ?

I'll help out.. most Catholics in the US that I've meet style themselves as Conservatives... of the compassionate sort.

[$tevie]

Speaking strictly in terms of soundbites in the media, I believe that "compromise" being affixed to "Obama" is not really a home run to a lot of folks. Whatever the details may be, that word is a thorn in many people's side, and the White House should try to spin it into something else, I dunno, maybe a Decision or a Solution or anything but a Compromise.

[beagledave]

Grace62 wrote:
This sums up my take on the political outcome pretty well. ymmv

Heh. I like how the story implies that Obama came up with this compromise all by his awesome self to calm the waters.

You know, not that it's the compromise that has been pushed for months by others who have been advising him on the issue. You know the same compromise that he turned down the first time around.

But, like I mentioned earlier, I agree with this decision. He had his own Susan G. Komen moment..recovered and moved on.

The usual suspects from all sides will gripe about this, but it's the right call.

[beagledave]

$tevie wrote:
Speaking strictly in terms of soundbites in the media, I believe that "compromise" being affixed to "Obama" is not really a home run to a lot of folks. Whatever the details may be, that word is a thorn in many people's side, and the White House should try to spin it into something else, I dunno, maybe a Decision or a Solution or anything but a Compromise.

Yeah the WH is trying to spin it in to an "accomodation"...because they can't be caught "compromising" on women's reproductive health!

[Grace62]

He had his own Susan G. Komen moment..recovered and moved on.

You have got to be kidding.

[beagledave]

Grace62 wrote:

He had his own Susan G. Komen moment..recovered and moved on.

You have got to be kidding.

No. In terms of political miscalculations, I think that they are quite comparable..you don't ?

Both parties underestimated the reaction to a policy decision.

Both parties, within the space of a few days, changed or modified their decision to deal with the fallout.

What part of the above do you disagree with?


And hey...lookie here.