Comments on: Catholics Could Redraw the Electoral Map in 2008

By: Cokaygne

Cokaygne — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:32:23 +0000

i agree with Jeff. Catholics are as diverse as the rest of the population. Latino Catholics vote as Latinos and immigration might be their most important issue. Working class Catholics might pick the economy as their most important issue. Some Italian-American Catholics might turn out for Giuliani because of his name, but other Catholics, probably including most Italian-Americans, would judge him based on his record on issues important to them. The map that accompanies the post is instructive. If Roe v. Wade were repealed and abortion left to the states, predominately Catholic states like MA, RI, CT, NJ, NY, WI, etc. would have less restrictive abortion laws while states where Catholics are a minority, like UT, AL, MS, etc., just might ban abortion altogether.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:50:58 +0000

“Russia is more democratic then the USA.” Har har. If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. Democracy is about more than correct electoral procedures (for no procedure is perfect) but about maintaining freedoms and rule of law.

On the issue of what constitutes a religious test, Steve is technically correct in that the constitution does not forbid voting based on religious affiliation. However I don’t see what religious beliefs have to do with 99% of the job of being President. Was Clinton – a pro-choicer – particularly Baptist? Was Kennedy President in a particularly Catholic way? How about Bush, who started a war, IIRC, against the views of the Methodist church. Being President is about setting a domestic agenda for the nation that is mostly about rather mundane fiscal issues, lobbying to get it passed, formulating a foreign policy strategy, and carrying it out. I don’t see much room for religion in any of this.

By: The electoral pendulum

The electoral pendulum — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:08:34 +0000

Why do I get the felling that Americans think the world only revolves around the USA. (one of the most undemocratic country in te world today. Russia is more democratic then the USA. Do people really vote on the basis of their religion? What happened to separation of state and religion?

Time for the USA to review it’s electoral system and adopt preferential ‘Instantaneous run-off’ voting. Time to abandon the first-past-the-post system and update to a more democratic system of voting. People can read and write nowadays – well most of them.

By: Steve

Steve — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:57:14 +0000

It’s not just Giuliani that may have trouble holding the conservative Catholic vote. A number of Catholic bloggers are having trouble with Romney. This Catholic blogger makes a case for being a little suspect of the Governor, and yes it’s on theological grounds.

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/12/not-impressed.html

1) I’m not impressed with what Romney said, but before I go further, allow me to add that I’m not impressed with what John Kennedy did, either. Kennedy ran away from his religion in his speech to Protestant pastors in Houston, and while I understand the political expedience of what he did, I am fundamentally a person of faith and what I care about most is fidelity to one’s beliefs and not the political expediency of the moment.

2) A lot of what Romney said–in fact the whole first part of the speech–was simply wrapping himself in the flag and picking up the tacit endorsement of the first George Bush.

3) At one point in the speech, Romney states:

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.

Romney needs a lesson in constitutional law. This is flatly false.

Or let me rephrase: Romney either needs a lesson in constitutional law or he is deliberately misusing what the Constitution says in an effort to pull a fast one on voters. Your choice.

The prohibition on a religious test for office that the Constitution contains is a prohibition on a particular creed being a legal requirement for office. In other words, it prevents Congress from passing a law that says, “To hold this federal office, you are legally required to be an Episcopalian” or “you are legally required not be a Catholic.”

It has absolutely nothing to do with what decisions voters choose to make based on a candidate’s religion. To cite an extreme example for purposes of illustrating a principle, if I don’t want a Satanist in office, I don’t have to vote for one. …

By: John

John — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:16:22 +0000

By the way, I do enjoy your insight and your webpage.

By: John

John — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 05:13:06 +0000

I agree with the above post. Karl Rove understood “Micro-targeting” and I love how Penn uses “micro-trends” as he drives Clinton’s machine right into the ground. As a devote Catholic and having belonged to many parishes. The Pro-Life issue is huge. I understand that Catholics pick the winner, but I think that is more of a function of a “majority” of the nation leaning one way or another. As Rove said, wedge issues that you can drive against your opponent in order to achieve a great plurality of the vote. Never once was a Bush-Cheney mail piece sent out to just “Catholics”, like they were to Hispanics or other groups. It was always targeted at Catholics on conservative issues. (Pro-Life, Family, School Choice, ect.)

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:42:39 +0000

This post doesn’t really explain how Catholic voters are any different from the electorate as a whole. The gist of it seems to be that if the election turns on terrorism, Giuliani will do well; if it turns on domestic issues, the Democrats will do well; and that Giuliani’s stance on abortion might eliminate the edge Republicans have on social issues. Furthermore, the author of the post suggests that the only states that might be swung are Pennsvlvania and New Hampshire – which everybody already knows are swing states. What about any of this is uniquely Catholic?