Lots of reasons, most of them sort of historical, but not all of them.
First, most Catholics take seriously the much-repeated Biblical injunctions (both OT and NT) to give to and take care of the poor. Due to Dem self-congratulation and MSM reinforcement (and no counter-arguments from Republicans), I'm sure a lot of them accept the Dem assumption that, with Republicans in power, the poor, the halt, the lame and blind will be left to starve in the streets (actually, a likely prospect if some FR posters had their way!).
It doesn't help that too many Catholic bishops go with the Dem line, and it's totally unnoticed and unremarked (even by Republicans) that Dem welfare schemes are, today at least, less geared to helping the poor than to keeping them poor and -- not so incidentally -- to providing lots of Dem gov't jobs to their hack supporters and voters, with the further benefit that they can use the poor as a stick to beat those "eeeevil Republicans". I think Rush cited recently that typical welfare costs are 70% administrative and 30% to the purported beneficiaries.
Then there are the (for want of a better word) the "historical" reasons. Many Catholics are the grandchildren of immigrants -- all those Irish, Italian, Eastern European, etc., hordes that the Republicans of the time looked down their noses at. (Are you familiar with the phrase "No Irish need apply"?) Remember, these were legal immigrants, who had to go through health screening to enter the country and be guaranteed by a friend or relative so they wouldn't become public charges.
I think there's still some sort of "historical memory" of the same kind among Jews: it was the DEMS who fought against the old Ivy League quotas that limited artificially the number of Jews who would be admitted. Anti-Semitism used to be a Republican thing. As was anti-Catholicism. And some people have long memories.
Actually, as late as the early 70s, Dems were the ones opposed to abortion; Republicans -- especially the northeast, Rockefeller type who dominated the news and the party -- were for it.
Not everyone reads FR. A lot of people see the major papers, turn on GMA or Today while they're getting ready for work, and maybe watch the 7:00 p.m. network news -- and consider themselves reasonably well informed. They're too busy with work and kids and family problems and whatever to think of looking more deeply into it.
I do have to say that the Republicans make their case poorly.
Too sadly true. And it will take a LONG time to change folks' minds on that.
Those conservatives who have railed against illegal immigration in such a way that has a whiff of xenophobia haven't helped people's attitudes about Republicans, either. You can talk against illegal immigration without smearing people from certain other countries. And there HAVE been those who have done that, when discussing ANY subject of a negative story who might happen to have an Hispanic surname, and start making assumptions about his status, when that person's family might have been in this country legally longer than the family of that person making the comment.
Words MEAN things, folks, so make sure that what you say conveys what you truly mean. If you don't like illegals coming into this country, that's fine, and I agree, but that doesn't mean you starting making disparaging comments about immigrants in general, or saying things in such a way that could be interpreted in that fashion. Instead of bitching, why not start offering positive solutions to the problem? There are many things that could be done to fix the system that makes it near impossible for some folks to get into this country legally, but who could be great contributors to our society.
Our nation was built on immigration. Our ancestors ALL came from somewhere else, even the 'Native Americans', so let's be more accepting and open to those who want to follow our laws, and not lump them in with illegals.
maryz:
You are quite correct on this. People forget that Ronald Reagan became pro-life later in life, and in particular after the attempt on his life. However, he signed the most liberal abortion law when he was governor of California back in 1966 or 1967. The Northeast Republicans, i.e the Cabot-Lodge and Rockefeller type Republicans were all Pro-Choice and as maryz noted, many ethnic Catholics rememembered the anti-Catholic sentiment expressed by the Republican party in the early part of the 20th century.
I think Catholics now being a swing vote is a remarkable transition when you realize that in 1960, JFK got 80% of the Catholic vote and 44 years later in 2004, John Kerry got only 47%. Of course this go around, it was McCain who would get 47% and Obama, unfortunately, got 53% of Catholic voters.
Please note that the “Catholic Vote” is not monolithic as you are lumping orthodox Catholics [i.e the Catholics who regularly attend Sunday Liturgy] on one extreme, these tend to vote more Conservative, and the cultural Catholics on the other extreme, who tend to vote more Liberal.
Regards