Read the article at CatholicAdvocate.com.

Today, Catholics in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia are celebrating the installation of Archbishop Charles J. Chaput O.F.M. The question thus arises why Nicholas P. Cafardi, Dean Emeritus of the Duquesne Law School, would publish an op-ed in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer both maligning and accusing Archbishop Chaput of propagating a “one-issue” Catholic Church. That issue, of course, is abortion, a practice that Archbishop Chaput has consistently reminded all Catholics, including Catholic politicians, should be opposed rather than supported.

To imply that Archbishop Chaput does not care about the “broad spectrum of values,” such as caring for the poor and immigrants, is simply silly. This accusation will gain no traction among those who know the archbishop and his 23 years of revitalizing the dioceses of Rapid City, South Dakota and Denver, Colorado. It’s the predictable accusation of Catholics, like Carfardi, who have publicly supported political candidates, such as Barack Obama, with indisputable records of support for abortion.

Carfardi wants the bishops to back off the abortion issue because he knows the kind of candidates he  supports will lose their luster when bishops and priests remind faithful Catholics of their political responsibility. Carfardi even repeats the falsity reported in the New York Times during the 2004 presidential campaign that Archbishop Chaput said Catholics voting for John Kerry were “cooperating with evil.” Carfardi surely knows that the archbishop produced the transcript of the interview it was based upon, showing the New York Times simply got it wrong. It was disingenuous, if not outright rude, for Carfardi to put that bit of misinformation back into circulation.

Although he claims that polling data shows the “culture-war approach” is rejected by most religious voters, Cafardi describes the appointment of Archbishop Chaput to Philadelphia as having “national implications in the 2012 elections.” Though he downplays the effectiveness of pro-life convictions in attracting voters, Cafardi tries to paint Archbishop Chaput with a partisan brush, arguing his “disproportionate focus” on the abortion issue in politics “gives the false impression that the Catholic Church is a religious wing of the Republican Party.” Surely that concern was put to rest in 2008 when 54 percent of self-identified Catholics supported Obama over pro-life John McCain. Such remarks about the bishops and the GOP only serve to underscore the need for Catholic Democrats to put their own house in order.

At the end of his op-ed, Cafardi congratulates Archbishop Chaput for his “demonstrated integrity and strong leadership” in handling “sensitive assignments” given to him by the Vatican. But, it’s impossible to put balance into an appraisal of an archbishop that is intended to poison the well from the first day of his service to Catholics in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

Let’s hope such an initial volley from Cafardi will remind Catholics of Chaput’s archdiocese of the prayer and support he will need for that community to recover from its recent travails.

By Deal Hudson, Catholic Advocate President & Matt Smith, Catholic Advocate Vice President

New Gallup numbers tracking President Obama’s job approval rating in each of the 50 states makes clear that the 2012 election will almost certainly come down to ten swing states.

In each of those ten states — Iowa, Pennsylvania, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Mexico, Ohio, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado — the President’s approval rating is somewhere between 44 percent and 49 percent.

(You can see all of Gallup’s data — in map form no less! — at the bottom of this post.)

All told, the states will dole out 148 electoral votes, more than half of the 270 total that either nominee will need to claim the presidency next November. In 2008, Obama won nine of the ten — losing Arizona due in large part to Sen. John McCain’s homestate appeal.

While the Gallup numbers are lower than Obama would like, they reveal that each of the ten states is rightly regarded as tossup between the president and the eventual Republican nominee at the moment.

And the toss-up nature of so many swing states suggests that the campaign to come will matter as Obama seeks to find ways to convince voters that he has earned a second term.

The Gallup data, which was taken from tracking polls conducted by the organization over the first six months of the year, makes clear not only where the presidential race is likely to be fought but also swing states in past elections that might not see as much action this cycle.

Obama’s job approval rating in Indiana and Missouri — he won the Hoosier State and narrowly lost Show Me State in 2008 — are at 42 percent, territory that will make it difficult for him to recover in time for November 2012.

Perhaps the biggest shocker of the data is that Obama stands at just 40 percent job approval in New Hampshire, a state that moved heavily toward Democrats in 2008 but saw Republican gains across the board in 2010. Given the primacy of the Granite State in the GOP presidential fight and the state’s record as a swing state, it’s uniquely possible that it could wind up in our final list of swing states when all is said and done.

The news is better for Obama in Minnesota, a state that is regularly targeted by Republicans but hasn’t been won by a GOP nominee since Richard Nixon in 1972.

In Michigan, Obama stands at 50 percent despite the massive struggles of the state’s economy. (George H.W. Bush in 1988 was the last Republican to carry the Wolverine State.)

Wisconsin is not currently included in the ten states that will decide the presidency but may well jump into that category eventually given that Obama is at 50 percent approval in the state and it has emerged as a national lightning rod given the fight earlier this between Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) and organized labor over collective bargaining rights. (The recall elections in the Wisconsin state Senate are set for tomorrow.)

What the Gallup data confirms that 2012 is likely to feature a smaller number of true swing states than we saw in 2008.

That’s good news for the Republican nominee who almost certainly won’t have the financial might that Obama has already demonstrated in the early days of the 2012 campaign.

The smaller the number of targeted states, the easier it will be for the Republican nominee to match — or come close to matching — the incumbent dollar for dollar on the ground and on the television airwaves.

Expect Obama to spend the vast majority of his time between now and next November in these ten states. He and his political team know that his presidency rests on his performance in them.

“After quite a battle we finally got "In God We Trust" on the wall in our City Chamber. Praise be to God!”  -Scott Voigts

LAKE FOREST After 100 hours of work Ricky Hoffman has completed the city's "In God We Trust" sign and with it finished his Eagle Scout project.

The 14 year-old Boy Scout from troop 747 hopes asked for City Council approval in May to create the city's motto after a council majority voted in January to put it behind the council dias. 

City Councilman Scott Voigts and City Councilwomen Kathryn McCullough and Marcia Rudolph supported Hoffman's idea.

Hoffman oversaw a group of 34 people including fellow Boy Scouts, friends, family members and friends from church who all helped him work on the project. The letters were made from redwood, sanded and painted.

But the project was harder than it first appeared, Paul Hoffman, Ricky's father, said.

The two made several trips to Lake Forest City Hall seeking approval on the size and font of the letters. On the first visit only three letters were approved. Hoffman and his father enlisted the help of fellow Lake Forest resident Robert Adams, who does woodworking as a hobby. He suggested a process to make the letters more precise.

With new letters in hand, the Hoffman's went back to see Bob Woodings, the city's public works director. He approved them. The motto was installed on Friday and will be presented to the full City Council on Tuesday.

In the spring, Rick Perry made an official declaration that April 22–24 were to be “Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas,” saying it was “right and fitting that the people of Texas should join together in prayer to humbly seek an end to this devastating drought and these dangerous wildfires.” It was not a one-off. Next up on the official schedule is “A Day of Prayer and Fasting for Our Nation,” to be held on August 6. Perry will be joined by thousands of Texans and a who’s who of evangelical leaders at Houston’s Reliant Stadium. Quoting the Bible, Perry asked Texans to join him in a prayer “for unity and righteousness — for this great state, this great nation and all mankind . . . for the healing of our country, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of enduring values as our guiding force.”

Such declarations may carry an electoral advantage. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and an honorary co-chair of the August day of prayer, says Perry’s public faith professions will make a “big difference” to evangelical and social-conservative voters.

“I think that was very important for George W. Bush that he talked about his faith. Rick Perry actually seems to be even more comfortable,” Perkins observes. He also sees Perry’s organization of this prayer day as what ignited the ever-increasing grassroots calls for Perry to jump into the race. “Prior to his call for the prayer, there was not a lot of discussion about him being a presidential candidate . . . I think this gave rise to that, which speaks to the fact that people are recognizing his leadership in this area.”

“He knows how to talk like an evangelical,” remarks Richard Land, director of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, and another honorary co-chair of the prayer day. “His heart is in the right place. On most [cultural conservative] issues he’s had a good record as governor. He will appeal to evangelicals.”

Ralph Reed agrees, noting that Perry is “very comfortable” talking about his faith and pointing to his gubernatorial record of promoting and signing “legislation that was pro-family and pro-life.”

“Not unlike [Michele] Bachmann, he has a very unique appeal both to social conservatives and tea-party activists,” Reed remarks.

But while evangelical leaders laud Perry’s willingness to promote prayer publicly, they are hesitant to immediately anoint him as 2012’s Mike Huckabee.

“He’s got some bumps to explain,” says Land. Perkins concurs, arguing that Perry has some “chink[s] in his social conservative armor.” Indeed, Mike Huckabee himself wrote a scathing e-mail last week lambasting Perry. “For all his new found commitment to hyper-conservatism, he’ll get to explain why he supported pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage Rudy Giuliani last time,” chided Huckabee.

Huckabee is not alone in his unease. Over in Iowa, social conservatives have also expressed concern. State representative Dwayne Alons, who endorsed Huckabee in 2008, criticized Perry for his assertion last week that it was “fine” for New York State to legalize gay marriage. “That may be the case that the state can decide, but I do think a person running for president, who has strong family values, should still come out in strong support of maintaining leadership . . . having marriage defined as between one man and one woman,” Alons says.

Bob Vander Plaats, head of an Iowa social-conservative organization, the Family Leader, and Huckabee’s Iowa campaign chair, noted likewise that Perry is “going to have to address” his positions on several issues, including gay marriage, the Giuliani endorsement, and the 2007 executive order that mandated all sixth grade girls receive Gardasil, a cervical-cancer vaccine.

Yet, despite the crowd of social conservatives already running (notably Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, and Michele Bachmann), there seems to be a willingness both to welcome another entrant and, in Perry’s case, to forgive or overlook some flaws.