What am I missing here?

I'm talking about those recent essays calling upon Catholics who supported Obama to act as a restraining force on his policies for abortion, etc.

Exqueeze me? Baking powder? Asphinctersayswhat?

OK, so Zippy's is a rhetorical exercise, and no less illuminating for that--note the entertaining subject-change softshoe in the comments box there.

But let's say for the sake of argument that the bulk of them want to go that route (for counter-evidence, go here) and fully intend to tell the President "Whoa--stop right there."

On what basis could they credibly object? More to the point, why should President Obama take them seriously? It's not like he's betraying them--they signed on knowing where he stood. So much for their hypothetical objections to federal embryo farming.

More to the point, they've already conceded on non-industrialized abortion, having entrusted that portfolio to Doug Kmiec's mystical poverty-fighting unicorn, ridden into battle by the suitably-androgynous "Social Justice" (1) Fairy.

Sure, we're abolishing all of the modest limitations on abortion nationwide with FOCA and consigning the Hyde Amendment to the pyre, but it'll still come out a net plus with all of that new spending.

--Yours in Hope and Change,

Some Mid-Level Aide to the President.

P.S. Feel free to call us again starting some time in November 2011.

And they say pro-lifers are dupes of the GOP. What about Obama's pro-life contingent?

--------------
(1) "Social Justice" is not to be confused with actual Catholic Social Justice principles.