Skip to comments.Obama Is Alienating Catholic Voters
Posted on 10/18/2011 7:42:32 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand
Catholics make up about a quarter of the American electorate and have backed the popular-vote winner in every presidential election since 1972. That track record continued through 2008: While weekly churchgoing Catholics slightly favored Sen. John McCain, Catholics as a whole backed President Barack Obama by a margin of 54 to 45 percent.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
They also make up about a quarter of his administration. Curious.
He alienated this church going Catholic a long time ago. Communism is not compatible with the Catholic Faith.
And many, many others.
Probably ones like Pelosi who ‘claim’ to be.
Word of mouth in the pews, is the key.
>Communism is not compatible with the Catholic Faith.<
And neither is socialism, but how many Catholics are aware of it?
Catholics, in general, are a socially liberal bunch. The bishops made it clear in 2008 that Catholics cannot vote for someone in favor of abortion — 52% did it anyway.
REAL Catholics didn't.
You mean his advocacy for partial-birth abortion didn’t already alienate them? Before he was elected, it was well known that he fought as a state senator to force doctors to allow babies born of a botched abortion to die, yet most Catholics still voted for Obama. I think the mistake is looking at the majority of Catholics as religious when in fact, the majority are “culturally Catholic” and nothing more. I’m not criticizing Catholics, rather those people who call themselves Catholic but show no signs of it. Nancy Pelosi, for instance.
I’m amazed anybody but those camel humping sand flea mooseSlimes would vote for him. Not with what he and his wookie wife have in store for us.
How shameful. An anti-life radical and community organizing black racist. He had a track record before they elected him. What were people thinking?
Then every election... guess who the catholics vote for? It never fails.
If abortion and pro homosexual agenda haven't turned off catholics in 30 years, why would they be turned off to the 'Rats now?
Catholics who regularly attend Mass seem to understand that pretty well. CINO's are another story entirely.
This exposes the silly idiocy of the GOP’s open-borders wing. They’re seized with the notion that because Mexicans are (nominally) Catholic, that they’ll vote conservatively based on social issues.
This has been proven to be incorrect, election after election.
The start of the slippery slope for the US was the huge wave of Catholic immigration over 100 years ago, which brought in a large bloc of voters who have been taught the Church’s “social justice” ideas from an early age. Guess which party’s rhetoric more closely hews to the Church’s doctrine on this issue?
Three guesses and the first two don’t count.
Take away the so-called "socially conservative" Hispanic Catholics and a majority of Catholics (Polish, Irish, Italian-Americans, etc.) did NOT vote for Obama and his pro-abortion agenda. It was the Hispanic Catholics heavy support for RATs that resulted in his slim majority of the "Catholic vote". Most Hispanic Catholics I've met in the Chicago area support abortion and the gay agenda (they turned out in droves for this year's "gay pride" parade in Chicago -- as much I as tried to avoid the facebook photos showcasing it). Yet the GOP leaders assure us they are "socially conservative" and "natural Republicans".
Maybe Republicans should stop pandering to ethnic groups and focus on appealing to the Catholics who actually ARE "socially conservative".
You seem to be confusing us with Jewish voters nationally. Catholics are a swing group that has voted against the Democrats on many occasions... a majority Catholics voted for Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush for President. (by comparison, Jews voted for Stevenson, Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry in those election cycles).
It has been proven that Catholics will vote against RATs in certain circumstances. The same can't be said of other religious groups that will blindly vote RAT no matter who they nominate.
Liberal Catholics knew about Obama’s abortion stance, and looked at it as just one issue among others. They think Republicans hate poor people, and they are the type of Catholics who tend toward the ‘preferential option for the poor’, so they won’t support Republicans, no matter what.
Ping for later
I just wish he would alienate faster...;-)
No offense but that's just plain nonsense.
The Catholic vote is special in Obama's case because it was (imho) delivered in exchange for the fulfillment of Ted Kennedy's nationalized healthcare dream. That's why Catholics got the positions they did in the cabinet, and the token Catholic became VP.
The exit polls divided voters into "all Catholics" or white, non-Hispanic Catholics. Fifty-two percent of white Catholics supported McCain, and 47 percent voted for Obama. Majorities of white Catholics also voted for Bush in both his elections, by 56 percent in 2004 and 52 percent in 2000.
Latinos nationwide voted for Obama by 67 percent to 31 percent for McCain.
Most Irish/Italian/Polish/Slovak/German, etc. Catholics = OPPOSED Obama
Most Mexican/Puetro Rican/Latin-American, etc. Catholics = SUPPORTED Obama
That's the facts and that's what the data shows about the so-called "socially conservative latinos"
I believe it. Especially regarding the Jesuits. There didn't seem to be a communist movement in Latin America that they didn't support.
For some reason a lot of unsavory groups targeted the Catholic church for infiltration. Communists, and homosexuals. The pedophile events that plagued the church were the results of homosexuals that had infiltrated their priest ranks.
The crux of the problem is lack of church discipline and lack of excommunications. Turning a blind eye to apostates in the midst of the church is destructive.
I’m a Catholic. I am not socially liberal. Not liberal at all. And I am definitely NOT one of the 52% that voted this drek into the Oval Office.
Neither am I, but I know of many well-meaning Catholics who voted for Bambi and will probably do it again.
Why? Please don’t ask me — I wish I knew the answer.
>Maybe Republicans should stop pandering to ethnic groups and focus on appealing to the Catholics who actually ARE “socially conservative”.<
The GOP should not have to appeal to “socially conservative” Catholics — it should be second nature for them NOT to vote for those who promote abortion and same sex marriage.
Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) is a prominent member of my “Catholic” parish in suburban St. Louis, MO. AND, I would guess about 80% of my parish voted for oBOMBa. Disgusting.
Don't forget though that white Southerners also voted solidly Democrat for almost a hundred years and a number of "Jeffersonian" palaeoconservatives still reminisce about the pre-FDR Democrat party as the truly "conservative" party (neo-Confederates are now claiming the Republican party was founded by Communist revolutionaries from Central Europe).
Entirely correct. The Democratic party changed as a result of that huge influx of Catholic immigration about 100+ years ago. The southerners that held on to the post-FDR era were the last vestige of the old Democratic Party. The 20th century Democratic Party’s canons and platforms became aligned with the “social justice” ideas of the Catholic Church by the 1960’s and they’ve been getting more and more extreme ever since.
Now we have the same sort of infection happening in the RNC, ala all the northeastern “moderate” Republicans. I’m well weary of hearing these planks of the RNC that sound like something straight out of a papal encyclical. National Review is a great example of this on display for all to see.
My ancestors left Europe to get away from this unctuous papal twaddle. I have the right to be left alone by Catholics, and the First Amendment says that I don’t need to suffer under some state-mandated religion. I’m four-square in favor of making a point that we who view the Constitution in originalist terms draw a line, and that line starts with telling the RNC that no, we don’t need any more pandering to Catholics and their social justice doctrine by politicians.
Rhode Island and Massachusetts are both strongly non-hispanic Catholic. RI is majority Catholic and MA is slightly less than 50% Catholic. Looking at the voting records of those states and who they send to Congress tells us everything we need to know here.
Something weird in that state, what with Sebelius and Planned Parenthood, etc. I have a hard time defining the locus of evil anymore. It used to be so easy. Now it's Pinellas County, Florida, and it's Chicago, and it's St. Louis...etc.
You're completely missing my point. Catholics and Southern planters embraced a European, almost feudal worldview that was hostile to capitalism from the Right rather than from the Left. As I said, European Rightism is very different from the American variety. It is anti-capitalist, preferring the pre-capitalist system just as Leftists prefer a "post-capitalist" system.
The European Right very much believes in "social justice," but in an ancient, organic, and Catholic form. This is different from the liberalism of the Democrat party. But since America didn't have a party that embraced this view in its totality they seized on the Democrat party as being as close as they could get. Catholics today have drifted Left with the Democrat party. That party tends to do that to its members.
Again, Catholics and Southern agrarians regarded the Republican party and its big city Hamiltonian capitalism as subversive. I don't agree with this, being a nineteenth century Hamiltonian Republican myself, but this is how they saw it.
And again, though I think it's nuts, some old time Democrats claim that the Republican party was subversive and Marxist from the beginning and that the Democrat party is the party of "true conservatism." I disagree, but that is their position.
At any rate the current liberalism of the American Catholic Church doesn't come from the Catholic tradition but from the Leftward drift of the Democrat party. And I'm one of the most anti-Catholic posters on Free Republic.
The southern agrarian Democrat viewed the bankers and Hamiltonians of the North through the perspective of debt and monetary antics the likes of which we’re seeking today.
Remember, the only POTUS (that I know of) who paid off the national debt was Stonewall Jackson, who, BTW, sacked the central bank of that era. Check out what happened in the 1830’s in agricultural markets and land in the US. Bankers, were as usual, to blame.
IMO, the view that the Hamiltonians were subversive was the correct view, just as those suspicious of the Fed are now pretty much correct that it is screwing the public for the benefit of the bankers. Central banks exist to prop up bankers, not to benefit the population at large. Now, just as in Jackson’s day, the banks have speculated and lost, and they want to use the central bank to absorb their losses.
The problem today is that both parties view the Fed as something that can’t be questioned and both parties step-n-fetch for the bankers’ every whim.
I’m not sure I agree with your view that agrarian southerners of the pre-civil war era (and certainly not the post-war era) embraced a European feudal worldview. There’s a difference between the lord/vassal and plantation/slave/indentured servant views of the world. The plantation owners weren’t charged to defend their slaves/servants from invaders and depredations of invaders, as the lords of medieval Europe were.
Hamiltonianism is the true American conservatism. It put America on its feet under Washington and Adams and the first Bank of the United States (1791-1811) signed into law by George Washington was very much a part of that.
Since you share the European right wing view of capitalism that the Catholic Church and antebellum South shared, I am scratching my head at why you bash the Catholic Church or the Democrat party, since that seems to be your natural home.
Because, as I said, the party was changed by the wave of Catholic immigration in the late 1800’s to about 1920 or so. A huge wave of immigration swelled the eastern cities, mostly from places like Ireland, Italy, Greece, et al, and that started the hard-core union movement, which then morphed into the labor movement as we saw from the Depression until the 80’s.
Since Vietnam, the DNC morphed yet again, and now it is the home of the “bobo” class, along with a bunch of racial minorities who are beyond gullible. The Democratic Party has been plenty happy to change what they believe in on the spur of one electoral cycle to remain in power. Before 1930 or so, they were four-square for segregation. Now they want people to forget that they used to be for segregation and before that, pro-slavery. In the 1920’s, the Democrats were anti-immigration, and then in the 60’s, Ted Kennedy decided that they need to be for immigration. The Democratic Party has only one firm belief: that they need to stay in power, regardless of the cost. Other than that, all principles (such as they are) are negotiable and easily disposed of when they cost too much.
Thanks the invisib1e hand.
Hispanic immigrants are poor, dependent on government, and alienated from the American mainstream. They are definitional Democrats as a whole. Are many socially conservative, yes. What of it? Have you noticed how pro-life anti-gay blacks vote?
And going by your logic, Washington state and Oregon and both mostly white, heavily protestant states (Catholics are less than 15% of the population in each, whereas Protestants over 50%), and the largest share of protestants in those states are Evangelical. Looking at the voting records of those states and who they send to Congress, it tells us that Evangelical Protestant voters in America love liberal Democrats. Does it?
No, of course not, it reflects the voting patterns of some liberals who live on the west coast in cities like Portland or Seattle, not Evangelical Protestants as a whole. Yet you look at the voting pattern of some small liberal New England states on the east coast and try to make it represent Catholic voters nationally. Very few Catholics nationally have much in common with elite New England families like the Kennedy's. On the flip side, the most recent election we had in this nation was for Anthony Weiner's seat in Congress, in a Brooklyn based district that was mostly Catholic. Exit polls showed over 70% of Catholics voted for conservative Republican (Bob Turner), but barely 50% of protestants did. Does this mean Catholics nationwide are overwhelmingly Republican? No. The numbers don't lie. I've repeated it here but people seem to want to ignore the facts. Nationally, a MAJORITY of non-hispanic Catholic voters OPPOSED Obama. However, a MAJORITY of hispanic Catholics SUPPORTED Obama. If you want to know why there are so many Catholics voting Democrat, there's your answer.
>> The GOP should not have to appeal to socially conservative Catholics it should be second nature for them NOT to vote for those who promote abortion and same sex marriage. <<
It should, but I can think of three reasons why they're not:
1) The American Catholic church does a poor job communicating its stance on social issues, and the liberal media distorts the church's positions and gives ignorant voters the impression that the church is adamantly against the death penalty but "divided" on abortion, when in reality the opposite is true.
2) Many voters are "socially conservative but fiscally liberal" and want handouts, and the Catholic Church again does not educate its members that social issue triumph other issues. Thus people get the impression that it's OKAY to vote Democrat if you're morally opposed to their position on abortion, as long as you agree with their position on free education for everyone.
3) The media insists voters feel the OPPOSITE way and want candidates that are "fiscally conservative" and socially "moderate" (the media will NEVER refer to a candidate as 'socially liberal' no matter how far left they are on social issues... being for partial birth abortion and gay marriages makes you 'moderate'), and the GOP leadership happily buys this kool-aid (don't wanna scare away the "moderate suburban moms") and runs RINOs that promise "less spending" and "lower taxes" but that they can't interfere with "a woman's right to choose". Thus, socially conservative Catholics have no interest in supporting these candidates.
>> Hispanic immigrants are poor, dependent on government, and alienated from the American mainstream. They are definitional Democrats as a whole. Are many socially conservative, yes. What of it? Have you noticed how pro-life anti-gay blacks vote? <<<
Actually, I would argue that Hispanic voters (as a whole) are not nearly as "socially conservative" as the GOP leadership claims and wishes they are. In addition to the above three factors, many are just plain socially liberal... moreso than black voters I think (though they don't vote Democrat by as big a margin). During the last "gay pride" parade in Chicago (yes I know it's liberal Chicago but they come from all over the midwest, and there were certainly more hispanics than blacks promoting the gay agenda), I saw a huge outpouring of support for the gay agenda and attendance from those "socially conservative" Hispanics. I personally know alot more Hispanics that support abortion and gay marriage than blacks. And remember the Prop. 8 proposal in California and how black Obama voters crossed over to vote "YES", giving it enough margin to pass? Did you hear about big crossover support from the "Hispanic community" in California to vote YES on 8? Me either.
There are certainly some "socially conservative" hispanics, but the idea that they are "overwhemingly" supportive of the GOP positions on social issues seems to be a fairy tale.
NY-9 is about 50% Catholic, 1/3 Jewish and the rest Protestant and other. White Christians voted for Turner. Latinos split the vote. Asians voted for Weprin, because of Turner's position on immigration. Jews split for Turner, but the real division here was between the different Jewish communities in a diverse district.
The Pacific Northwest is nominally Christian. Low church attendance, highly socially liberal.
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.