Posted on 02/18/2012 10:05:25 AM PST by pinochet
For the first 100 years of its existence (1860 to 1960), the Republican Party was viewed as a Protestant political Party. In 1928, liberal and conservative Protestants united and campaigned against Al Smith, who was the Democratic candidate for President, because he was a Catholic. How things have changed!
The Democrats, for a long time, were the home of American Catholics. With the contraception controversy, Obama has made it clear, that practising Catholics are no longer welcome in the Democratic Party. Some Catholics were willing to vote for the pro-choice Democratic Party, in the belief that Democrats would not force the pro-choice position on the church. But they were wrong. Democrats want to shove forced contraception down the throats of American Catholics.
Ronald Reagan once said that, he did not leave the Democratic Party in 1962, but that the Democratic Party left him. Today, the Democrats have not only left American Catholics, but Obama is actually pushing the remaining Catholic Democrats out of the party.
A Gingrich-Santorum ticket would be historic, in that it would feature a cradle Catholic (Santorum) and an adult convert to Catholicism (Gingrich). I predict that this year, Republicans will receive the highest percentage of the Catholic vote, that they have ever received in their history.
Romney should drop out. Gingrich and Santorum can agree that if either wins they will put the other on the ticket and choose Ron Paul for treasury secretary. LOL
The the beltway crowd would commit mass suicide.
Cool.
"This shows that there may be hope for Jewish voters as well, as they come to realize that Democrats are the anti-religion party."
Back in the early days of the campaign, I remember dealing with people who didn’t want Santorum (or Bachmann or Cain) who were saying “We don’t want a Pastor-in-Chief”. Well, I’m not Catholic. I disagree strongly with Roman Catholic teachings and practices. But I am a long-time supporter of Rick. I don’t support him because I’m Catholic. I’m not. I’m not looking for a pastor-in-chief (or bishop-in-chief). I support him because I agree with him on the issues.
I still deal with people who insist that I don’t support Romney because I am an anti-Mormon bigot. Wrong. I don’t support Romney because he is a social liberal.
I would be very happy with a Santorum/Gingrich ticket. I’ll debate Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, or whatever on the side.
From your lips (fingers) to God’s ears!
** predict that this year, Republicans will receive the highest percentage of the Catholic vote, that they have ever received in their history.**
Do we need more historic presidencies based on something outside of the President’s accomplishments?
Toss Ryan and Rubio into the mix and you get the same result, plus you have chance of winning.
The the beltway crowd would commit mass suicide.
***************
They sure would!!!
I think pinochet was just pointing out something that many may not realize......how the Catholic pendulum is swining to the right both in idealism and in liturgy.
**Do we need more historic presidencies based on something outside of the President’s accomplishments?**
Do you think Obortion O met thesepresidential accomplishment requirements? <sarc
RUBIO not NBC
Oops,
swining = swinging
That's not going to happen. Look at the states where the most Catholics live.
Catholicism versus Protestantism used to be one of the major dividing lines in US politics. It really isn't any more.
A lot of Catholics are only "culturally" or "ethnically" Catholic -- they don't go to church. Some of them go in heavily for the Kennedys, but they weren't enthusiastic about Biden or Kerry because of their religion, and they won't be enthusiastic about Santorum.
Nor are they going to be any more favorably disposed to Newt. I don't even think he really registers as a Catholic with voters. He has the problem that a lot of people who moved around a lot as a kid have in politics: he doesn't seem to be from anywhere or inspire great loyalty in any particular part of the country.
The Republican candidate who won the highest percentage of the Catholic vote was Richard Nixon, of all people, who won over 60% in 1972. Neither Gingrich nor Santorum, nor Gingrich-Santorum would top that.
Santorum/Ryan would be better.
Well said and straight forward.
Well said.
A Santorum/McDonnell ticket would have a native of Virginia who is a resident of Pennsyvlania teamed with a native of Pennsylvania who is a resident of Virginia.
McDonnell is the father of five children (including a set of twins); Santorum of course has 7 living children (and one deceased). I don't how far back you'd have to go to find a ticket whose families included 12 living children--perhaps the 19th century.
Rob Portman is another name sometimes mentioned. He is a Methodist. He is currently senator from Ohio but I don't know if he would be able to guarantee that his state went for the Republican ticket.
I’d like to see Santorum/Thad McCotter simply for the comic relief a McCotter/Biden debate would provide. The proverbial “one legged man in an ass kicking contest”.
** predict that this year, Republicans will receive the highest percentage of the Catholic vote, that they have ever received in their history.**
__________________________________________________________
I agree. I can also tell you that this is the second time in a few weeks that the Diocesan paper has been, not only front page, but full of of articles about this mandate.
I think the anti-freedom of religion, radical Alinksy types who are running this nation into the ground are in for a BIG surprise!
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.