Posted on 10/07/2012 11:02:48 PM PDT by neverdem
Are Catholic voters getting "push calls" that question how they can vote for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon? According to President Barack Obama's re-election campaign, the answer is "No."
When the issue was raised earlier this week in this column, the Obama campaign, through a spokesman, reiterated its position that a candidate's religion was "out of bounds."
"The activity being attributed to the Obama Campaign and our Catholics for Obama program is categorically false," the spokesman said.
Well, as Trace Adkins says, "Whooo-eee. Shut my mouth. Slap your Grandma." It's not clear from the carefully worded statement provided by the campaign to U.S. News and World Report whether they are simply denying they are behind the calls or are claiming they are not happening.
It's easy to infer the latter. Nevertheless, someone is making them. And they can't be traced back to their origin because the number appearing on Caller ID is nonexistent. According to one person who received a call, the person making the "push call" she received identified herself as an Obama-supporting Catholic. When asked about the president's support for legal abortion and gay marriage, the person making the call asked how Catholics could in good conscience support Romney, a Mormon "who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ."
In addition, the president's supporter making the call also said Planned Parenthood does not promote abortion, that President Obama does not support abortion, and also asked how the person receiving the call felt about the anti-Paul Ryan "Nuns on the Bus." Someone is making these calls, in a pattern that suggests they are looking for young voters, newly registered and Catholic, which suggests a level of political sophistication above and beyond that of the average activist.
The Obama campaign's statement, which some might read as a "nondenial denial" represents a failure of leadership on the president's part. Remember that when Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin left jaws agape after saying women had a natural biological response that prevented conception from occurring during a sexual assault that a number of senior party leaders, Romney among them, quickly stepped up and called for Akin to reconsider remaining in the race.
That was leadership. Even though Akin apologized for the remark and admitted he had been wrong in making it, the support of the national GOP for his candidacy has remained tepid—even with control of the U.S. Senate potentially resting on the outcome.
In the case of the pro-Obama "push calls," the president's campaign denies it is behind them but, rather than call on those making them to stop, wants people to believe they aren't happening. That's not good enough. How many times have liberals used a statement made on a candidate's behalf by a supporter or third party to blacken the reputation of every Republican, finding code words where none exist, demanding immediate denunciations and insinuating the statement proves the party is full of closet bigots, secret misogynists, or worse? Quite often, as memory serves.
The Obama campaign needs to do more than deny they are behind these calls. They need to come clean about what they might know. If the political operatives on the president's or the party's payroll know who is behind them, they need to identify the guilty party or parties. And the president needs to say, explicitly, that whoever is making these calls needs to stop—and that they need to stop now.
What does it mean when a group of people who lie for a living use the term "categorically false" to try and prove that they are not lying?
Ping
Of course it is the Obama Campaign trying to get Catholics to vote for him. Real Catholics won’t do it on their own.
But, I don’t understand. If they’re going to deny it anyway, why would they let the caller identify themselves with the Obama campaign? And why are their arguments so piss poor? Anyone with a brain knows Obama is pro-abortion, and there are better ways to tear apart the LDS, which I actually commented on the first time I saw this story. The Mormons believe in a fellow named Jesus who happens to be the brother of Lucifer, created through celestial sex, and the last article I saw on this mentioned that the person claimed the LDS does not believe in Jesus at all, which is an easy point for the LDS to dispute to a person who doesn’t understand that they preach a false gospel.
Here’s a hint: maybe some of the Mormon-haters here might know about some fake-a** PAC or something?
The party of re-defining words to suit their agenda, who often re-define said words to be the exact opposite their original meaning... could they be working on a new meaning for "categorically false" meaning "well, maybe... possibly"?
Of course it is for them, it saves the Obamas to have defend Baraq Hussein's pro Islam bent..
And so we Catholics shouldn’t vote for a Mormon becaue they don’t “believe in Jesus Christ”, but we should vote for the most radically pro-abortion President ever (he voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act) and one who is now promoting the redefinition of marriage to include public recognition and celebration of unnatural unions. That’s hardly consistent with Catholic moral teaching. Two can play at this game: “How can you think of voting for Black Liberation Theology-believing Christian?” Unlike some, I take Obama at his word that he is a Christian, but if it is the sort of Christianity that his former pastor and spritual mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright promotes, i.e., a racist form of anti-American Marxism with a little Christian lingo thrown in to fool the boobs, then I take exception to that rather more (since it is more likely to affect political decisions) than the somewhat unique 19th Century sect of Mormonism (so long as Romney doesn’t push or promote polygamy).
If they denied it then they are doing it.
LLS
The libs have been using similar tactics for months now.
On Algore’s Current TV network, they have been running “documentaries” about Mitt and another on the Mormon religion.
Their fixation is odd.
This statement makes no sense and, as I read it, is not a denial of their involvement in the activity.
any idea what the ratio is of "real Catholics" voters to Obama voters is?
There is no need to redefine words to see the lawyerly dodge in this statement. The root of the sentence is “The activity is .... categorically false.” This is not a denial that the Obama campaign was involved somehow but an assertion that the activity is false, whatever that means.
There is no need to redefine words to see the lawyerly dodge in this statement. The root of the sentence is “The activity is .... categorically false.” This is not a denial that the Obama campaign was involved somehow but an assertion that the activity is false, whatever that means.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.