Catholics Vote for Trump: Patheos Hardest Hit

Wednesday, November 9, AD 2016

The poll, published by CNN, shows 23 percent of Americans who voted this election season identified themselves as Catholic, while 27 percent said they were Protestant, 24 percent “Other Christian,” 15 percent “No Religion,” and three percent “Jewish.” Of the Catholics who voted, 52 percent voted for Trump and 45 percent voted for Clinton.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Catholics Vote for Trump: Patheos Hardest Hit

  • I’m less interested in the laity’s vote, and far more interested in how the hierarchy voted, but I don’t imagine we will ever know.

  • Fr. Jonathan Morris! Useless. Worse than useless, detrimental. The answer to what Catholics want- religious freedom, ok. He says limited government?What’s he talking about? Nothing about abortion, assisted suicide, family & marriage, gender lunacy….His example of a friend who is pro-life with 5 kids I thought was invented. How would someone like that have any confusion about who to vote for? But then I had to recall so many pro-life Catholics who denounced Trump, Ross Douthat, Brian Burch & CatholicVote, the Manhattan Declaration crowd, etc.

  • One of the more disturbing trends leading up this election is watching orthodox Catholics try to attribute virtues to Trump he does not possess. Supporting him as the lesser evil than Hillary is one thing. But singing his praises outright despite the fact is not only a sexual predator by his own admission (more like bragging but I digress), was singing the praise of Planned Parenthood and waffling about whether or not they should be defunded, and calumnious crack pot conspiracy theories (going birther on Ted Cruz and linking his father to Lee Harvey Oswald) is not an act worthy of an orthodox Catholic by any stretch.

    Oh, and let’s not forget Raymond Arroyo’s softball interview with Trump letting the “it’s just locker room banter” go by without nary a challenge. Just one more thing Catholics should be ashamed of.

  • The Republican Party is the party of God and Country. It is the party of the working man and woman. It is a party where all good Catholics need to be.

    But how about Trump that loudmouth, scamp, womanizer and possible crook? He is the Prodigal Son come home to do the right thing and save his father’s estate from his small minded and self serving brother (Big Business, Wall Street, Cultural Marxism).

  • A bigger shame Greg, and as you know I have been unsparing in my critiques of Trump, was the attempt this election cycle by many “Catholic” blogs on Patheos to normalize casting ballots for the abortion fanatic Hillary Clinton. I am glad that their effort came up short.

  • Donald, I’m not going to defend the Patheticos paltrons endorsing Hillary outright or by implication. That’s a disgrace in its own right. Even there, they would at least admit Hillary was a reprobate whereas what I am talking about are orthodox Catholics portraying Trump as somehow virtuous. As much as I despise people like Mark Shea, I would to say found Arroyo’s not following up Trump’s “locker room banter” excuse with at least pointing out it sounded like something much worse even more disturbing given Arroyo’s stature.

  • I would say that the defeat of Hillary was a great thing for America. But having to elect Trump to do it is a far more terrible price to pay than most people realize.

  • Complete candor in regard to Trump Greg will be my guiding star over the coming years. I have considerable misgivings about him but I am curious about what he will do as President. I hope I am pleasantly surprised, but I am also prepared for my fears to be confirmed.

  • Nothing Raymond Arroyo did could be “far worse” than telling the truth that Hitlary had to be stopped, even if it meant voting for Trump. For the last time, Trump was a very flawed candidate. However, nothing compares to getting a chance to rollback Roe. We all have uncertainty over what Trump will actually do as President but, once again, we all were certain what Hitlary would do. God Bless Raymond Arroyo if he had any hand in bringing home the Catholic vote.

  • Trump was the imperative. Crooked Hillary would have packed the Court and eventually would result in outlawing the Church because of its “stand” on same-sex marriage, etc. Jill Stein knew it: corrupt, incompetent Hillary could have started WWIII with Russia. It’s what she and Bill do.

    Trump was a democrat when he was pro-abortion, was a sex predator and whatever other detraction that so-called Catholics throw.
    Millions of Americans voted Trump because they have been trodden under foot by lib billionaires, open borders radicals, anti-free market socialists, high tax Ali Babas. The hate-red-state-America crowd had been ruining America since Reagan left office. Red state Americans voted for their survival and against the evil.

  • You’re assuming that Trump would nominate pro-life Justices; that the Democrats wouldn’t filibuster those nominees; that the Republicans would break the Democrat filibuster; the the Senate would confirm those nominees; and the nominees are in fact solidly pro-life and wouldn’t grow in office.
    It’s going to take a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe
    At Trump is still a Democrat.

  • Even there, they would at least admit Hillary was a reprobate

    From what I’m seeing? No, at least some of them wouldn’t. People are talking about the woman who routinely engages in behavior that would have me investigated for assault, who destroys people– including women assaulted by her husband– and they call the other person ‘the bully.’
    The nasty audio on Trump, on the other hand, was most likely lockerroom baloney. If you buy that he does stuff like that, and nobody did anything up until now…right.
    Trump is still a Democrat, but every dang election half of the folks going for the Republican nomination are Democrats. He’s odd because, as Kresta was bemoaning yesterday, he doesn’t try to pretend to be a nice Christian. Normally Dems are either nice people (and want to make you be nice in exactly the same way, preferably while funding it), or they’re nasty people who use ‘nice’ to bludgeon you into doing what they want, with heavy sprinkles of Jesus’ name.
    Hillary we know would be worse than Obama– because she’d do the stuff he’s done, and she is competent. Evil– specifically, in the willingness to destroy humans, both the obvious and literal way in abortion, but the less obvious way of destroying lives if it is to her advantage, not even counting those dead from her poor security practices, and routinely putting people at risk because she hates and fears the military. She disarmed the military guards when she’d go to bases in war zones, for heaven’s sake. She put some of my friends at risk of death because she either thinks that her behavior is bad enough they’d be likely to put a bullet in her brain, or she thinks the tiny risk is worth exposing all of them to death.

  • The filibuster can be done away with a simple majority vote. It is a matter of the Senate rules not the Constitution. Harry Reid has already demonstrated how this can be done. I think Trump will appoint pro-life justices. I doubt if he cares about abortion one way or another, and this is a cheap way for keeping support in Congress and around the country from social conservatives. As for what they do after they are on the court, Quien sabe? All we can do is appoint justices with good track records and strong characters and pray that is enough. I can easily see Trump putting Pence in charge of ramrodding judicial appointments through the Senate.

  • I almost wish my kids were older, this election would be an incredible example of why it’s a sin to assume the worst about people without good evidence– while y’all here know that I’m one of those people who will go and find the proof, like Trump bragging about cheating on business in various manners (moral, not legal, cheating), it’s amazing how often stuff is less than rumor and gets treated as fact.
    But only against Trump.
    We have a chance that won’t take a miracle, or great suffering.
    I’ll take it.

  • Donald–
    the “he doesn’t really care about the Justices, and it’s a great sop to go ‘see, see, did what I promised'” argument is one I didn’t hear until yesterday, and it makes sense.


    Just had a thought.
    Basically: Trump’s world-view is, at best, barbaric; Hillary’s is post-Christian. The Barbarian will do stuff, right out there in the open, and refuse to be ashamed of them– the post-Christian will use the ‘outdated morality’ of the Christian as a way to identify vulnerabilities in a target.
    They’ll both view the restrictions they don’t share with contempt, but in different ways. The Barbarian can come to respect the person holding to the restrictions if they’re held to strongly and the person still succeeds; the post-Christian will only respect them when it turns out the restriction was a clever weapon.

  • HRC was for the infanticide of partial birth abortion. “I am going to pull this seven pound thing out of the vagina” said the doctor in the film. “Seven pound thing” “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created (not born) equal. “It is not that he is ignorant, but that he knows so much of what is not so.” author unknown
    HRC would create a vacuum filled by Sharia law under which no woman would get medical attention. This would balance Obamacare’s books.

  • Arroyo had a certain amount of discussion time – should he have spent it talking about Trumps sins or talking about what he planned and hoped to do.?
    We know the bad old news but can’t dwell there… it was imperative to give hope a chance

  • Liberty is to be reserved for a religious and moral people. It is unsuitable for any other. Our greatest concern is the breakdown of morals and the ridicule of virtue that has come to characterize society. Such a population cannot be at liberty. Set beasts free? No! Bring forth the muzzle and chains.
    Hillary would have further eroded the morals of our population and put the destruction of our free republic into overdrive. She would further institutionalize the religious persecution started by Obama.
    Let us hope that President Trump will bring us back from exile, like a modern Cyrus, and May the Grace of God Smile on Him in every Way.

  • Pingback: Post-Election Day in America 2016 Friday Edition | Big Pulpit

The Left Begins to Notice That the Catholic Vote is Slipping Away

Tuesday, March 17, AD 2015



Over at Salon Patricia Miller sounds the alarm bell for her fellow leftists that the Catholic vote is taking a walk:


There’s no “Catholic vote” in terms of Catholics representing an electoral bloc that votes according to what their bishops tell them, or in lockstep with the tenets of their religion. Yet winning Catholic voters has been essential to almost every presidential victory in modern times. And the defection of Catholics voters has played a role in some of the most consequential congressional turnovers in recent history — from 1994 to 2014 — making Catholics the ultimate swing voters. And for Democrats, that could be bad news.

While Catholics have been swing voters since Richard Nixon’s second term, white Catholics are now identifying as Republican by historic margins. According to the most recent polling from the Pew Research Center, 53 percent of white Catholics now favor the GOP, versus 39 percent who favor the Democrats—the largest point spread in the history of the Pew poll. And for the first time, white Catholics are more Republican than the voting group usually considered the ultimate Republicans: white Protestants (a designation that includes both mainline and evangelical Protestants).

These are ominous signs for the Democrats, evincing a new and growing allegiance with the Republican Party that has long-term implications.

Since Miller is a pro-abort Catholic she really does not understand why this is happening as the rest of her post demonstrates.  Allow me to clue her in:

When the Tokugawa shogunate was stamping out Christianity in Japan, it made use of Fumi-e (stepping on pictures).  Regime officials would place pictures of Jesus or Mary before suspected Christians and order them to step on them.  Refusal to do so, if persisted in, would end in execution.  In our own country we are seeing the growth of a movement just as antithetical in theory to Catholicism and traditional Christianity as the Tokugawa shogunate, and it finds its home in the Democrat party.

What we have seen over the past few decades is the evolution of the Democrat party into an overtly anti-Catholic party.  The Obama administration is the culmination of this trend.  This of course is deeply ironic, because the Democrat party is a major party in this country with the help of the votes of tens of millions of purported Catholics.

Continue reading...

39 Responses to The Left Begins to Notice That the Catholic Vote is Slipping Away

  • Democrats Boo inclusion of God. I was going to write that but I feel better knowing that it is written and will be written.

  • Hmmm, we’ll see. Many bishops, clergy, religious, and the entire “social justice” establishment will work hard to keep the sheeple voting Dem.

  • Polls that try to describe the political leanings of Catholics first must define
    who is Catholic. Too many carelessly designed polls simply rely on subjects
    self-description** when many being polled might be nominally Catholic but
    haven’t been to Mass in years and simply claim the description of “Catholic”
    for want of a more accurate description. Studies that examine the relationship
    between the regularity of Mass attendance and political affiliation indicate
    that if one attends Mass at least once a week, one also tends to hold more
    ‘conservative’ political views. Greater participation in the sacramental life
    of the Church, on the whole, appears to go with a greater incidence of
    having one’s head screwed on the right way, at least for those of us in the
    pews. The crazy left-wing priests and Church professionals out there
    seem to be working under a different dynamic.
    ** I make no claim that such people are not, in fact, Catholic. If they were
    baptized into the Church, then there they remain, barring apostasy. We
    should all be grateful that we needn’t be perfect Catholics to be in the Church.

  • I have heard Father Frank Pavone of Priest for Life say that if a Catholic votes for a pro-abortion candidate they have renigged on the right to call themselves Catholic. He says no abortion for any reason is a non-negotiable truth of the Church and you can’t be a Catholic in good standing with the church and support a pro-abortion candidate. How many democrat-voting Catholics know that? I’ll bet not too many. I know many I go to Church with that vote democrat and would argue with you till the cows come home that they are “faithful Catholics” and that the Church tells them they can “vote their conscience”, so they pull the lever for Obama and his Catholic-hating democrats. It would help if priests occasionally gave a homily on the ills of abortion and what is required of Catholics in the voting booth, but most priests never mention abortion or homosexual “marriage”. They avoid it like the plague……and that is the reason so many Catholics vote for democrats.

  • I hope and pray that the walk away of Catholics from the Democratic Party is due to their taking a closer walk with Thee, Lord. We are in danger of losing our country and our souls otherwise. Mere politics will save neither.

  • Donald’s analysis proves that Patricia Miller should have shut her yap after the first sentence. That is, there’s no per se Catholic voting bloc. What we’re seeing in the example Miller provides has at least as much to do with the Democrat party’s war on white working men (and the women who marry them –married women vote Republican more than Democrat while single women do the opposite), and probably more.
    The same thing is at play where commenter Clinton notes “Studies that examine the relationship
    between the regularity of Mass attendance and political affiliation indicate that if one attends Mass at least once a week, one also tends to hold more ‘conservative’ political views.” Studies show the correlation with Protestants who regularly attend church services and Republican voting patterns.
    I’ll have to find the reference again, but the guy who broke the Catholic voting bloc was himself a Catholic –but an advisor to the McGovern campaign and good servant of the Democrat party first.

  • Well, if Fr. Pavone said that he is plainly in error. Voting for a pro-choice candidate is not objectively sinful as such, and certainly is not inimical to being a Catholic. One must distinguish between voting for a candidate because he is pro-choice (impermissible for a Catholic) versus voting for a candidate despite his being pro-choice (permissible). A vote is a prudential calculus, and it is certainly possible to reasonably conclude in good faith that a pro-choice candidate is superior to an opponent, even potentially a pro-life opponent. Now before folks a chime in with the boringly predictable reminders that such prudential decisions are often masks for impermissible abortion support or indifference, well of course.

  • The only thing I have to say is that I shall never ever vote for a sodomy-sanctifying, baby-murdering liberal progressive Democrat. Never. I may despise and hold in contempt RINOs. But I utterly loathe to the depth of my being the liberal progressive Democratic Party.

  • I’m voting with Paul Primavera!

    The C.C.C. #2322 – 2323 is enough for me. It is a very poor choice to continue to think it’s okay to vote for a candidate that has difficulties prioritizing the gravest injustices in our land. If the murder of the innocents is not at the top of the list, well then we will continue to see the destruction of an America not worthy of Gods grace. Our foundations are crumbling because of the blood of the innocents.

  • I never vote for any Democrat. Even if they are pro-life, how can they belong to an organization that is not? It’s like belonging to the Mafia being okay so long as you don’t whack anyone yourself.

  • Further to my previous comment:

    Some commentators [like Miller here] still identify Catholics as an important swing group, but the figures don’t quite show it. According to the Pew Forum, in 2000 Gore got 50 percent of the Catholic vote and Bush 47–while the total for all voters was Gore at 48.4 percent and Bush at 47.9. In 2004 Bush defeated Kerry 52 to 47 percent among Catholics, and 51 to 48 among all voters. In 2008 Obama beat McCain 54 to 45 percent among Catholics, and 53 to 46 in the general population. These differences are small, and they suggest, if anything, that Catholics weren’t swinging elections; they were being swung by elections–moving a fraction more than other groups toward the national choice [bold emphasis added, italics original]. But even that effect disappeared in the 2012 election, when 50 percent of Catholics voted for Obama and 48 percent for Romney, basically matching the nation’s popular vote
    The major role–perhaps the only role– that Catholicism [as distinct from Catholic voters] genuinely played on the American stage is as a source of the vocabulary for phrasing moral issues. Sanctity of life, just war theory, natural law, dignity of the person: It became the single viable vocabulary for expressing moral concepts in a secular space. [….] [I]t was the genius of a handful of writers–laymen mostly, from Michael Novak to Robert George– to take what, circa 1959, was a liberal Catholic idea and turn it into a mainstay of contemporary coservatism. The horrifed fascination of, say, the New York Times with all things Catholic isn’t caused by worry about the religious authority of bishops or some monolithic Catholic voting bloc. It concerns the political Left’s desire to discredit Catholicism as an influence on secular thought[emph. added].
    Catholic voters in 2012 broke the way the rest of the nation broke: Hispanic Catholics in one direction, white ethnic Catholics in another; churchgoing Catholics trending one way, non-churchgoing Catholics a different way. Just drop the word Catholic, and you have areasonable idea where their votes went [bold emph. added] But the vocabulary of Catholocism, that way of bringing religiously grounded moral claims into the public square, and doing so nonreligiously, still somehow remains a force in American public life–incomplete and, I argue, declining, but nonetheless real. (Joseph Bottum (2014) An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America, 191-93.)

  • Dittos PWP

  • but the guy who broke the Catholic voting bloc was himself a Catholic –but an advisor to the McGovern campaign and good servant of the Democrat party first.

    There was no such person. What would have broken any voting bloc was the loss of a sense of distinction between the elements thereof and the rest of the population. You have the abolition of customary devotions (e.g. Friday abstention), the Novus Ordo, Marty Haugen, the priestly rebellion over celibacy and Humanae Vitae, and the implosion of the religious orders (and the knock-on effects of same) to thank for that.

  • And, of course, the teaching authority of bishops has been ruined because those bishops are, taken collectively, no longer trustworthy. Individual bishops may be conscientious, but it is difficult for the layman to see that as anything other than a personal predilection. Also, the better bishops often do little to clean up er the lousy bishops. Manifest investment by Bp. Robert Cunningham in liturgical renewal during his first 40 months in his see = nil.

  • There was no such person

    Then Fred Dutton is a non-Person (article behind a pay-wall, alas).

    link to amazon download if you really want to read the article but don’t want to subscribe to Commonweal

  • Catholic voters are the only reason Obama was elected twice. Catholic Democrats are the only reason Democrats get elected. They will have to answer to Jesus when he returns. The unfortunate thing is those Catholic Democrats don’t realize they are the only reason the murder of unborn babies remains the law of the land after 42 years, contrary to those Catholics saying they believe God is the giver of life. They give the Democratic Party the electoral power to attack God in this life. They will tell Jesus they were helping to care for the poor with their votes, but Jesus never directed his disciples to get Julius Caesar, i.e., government, to care for the poor, he directed them to care for the poor themselves. So, those Catholics who line up with the left in life will find themselves ordered to line up on Jesus’ left side with all the other goats when he returns to “judge the nations’ and they will hear those fateful words, “Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” (Mt 25; 41)

    They have time to make amends by leaving the Democratic Party and not vote for it again until the party repents and seeks forgiveness, which it will never do. They don’t have to join the opposing party which they detest, just stop endorsing and supporting the Democratic Party which proved its opposition to God in this famous voice vote in the 2012 National Democratic Party convention. It is a classic!

  • Voting for a pro-choice candidate under the belief that you are “voting” for something else may somehow make you feel like you did’nt vote for abortion, but the end result is still the voted to kill Our Lords children.

  • Couldn’t agree more. You either vote for the candidate from the Holocaust promoting party or you vote for someone else. Now, if you can justify a vote for the former on a prudential basis, perhaps your conscience needs to be better formed.

  • Catholic voters are the only reason Obama was elected twice.

    Blacks and unmarried women might disagree with you.

  • It’s interesting to note that many Catholic’s are switching to voting Republican. While the Democrats are often blamed for allowing abortion and homosexuality into the United, it’s worth noting that many Republican politicians have been pro choice. The Republican party are often seen as the party of God and the family, but many Democrat politicians have spoken with the same vision. Perhaps an example of a Christian vision in politics was the setting up of the National Health Service in Britain and was supported by King George.

  • “Perhaps an example of a Christian vision in politics was the setting up of the National Health Service in Britain and was supported by King George.”
    It is NOT the job of govt to dispense health care from the teat of the public treasury. The command to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, care for the sick, visit the imprisoned and welcome the alien is given to us Christians. Every time we evade our responsibility and abdicate our accountability to care for the sick onto Caesar, we sacrifice on the godless altar of political expediency our citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven and our adoption as children of God.
    “…it’s worth noting that many Republican politicians have been pro choice.”
    Some Republicans are pro-choice. Some Republicans are pro-gay marriage. They are called RINOs – Republicans In Name Only. The platform of the GOP is different. Here is what that platform says about marriage:
    “Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage: The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.”
    And here is what that platform says about protecting individual conscience opposed to abortion:
    “Protecting Individual Conscience in Healthcare: No healthcare professional or organization should ever be required to perform, provide for, withhold, or refer for a medical service against their conscience. This is especially true of the religious organizations which deliver a major portion of America’s healthcare, a service rooted in the charity of faith communities. We do not believe, however, that healthcare providers should be allowed to withhold services because the healthcare provider believes the patient’s life is not worth living. We support the ability of all organizations to provide, purchase, or enroll in healthcare coverage consistent with their religious, moral or ethical convictions without discrimination or penalty. We likewise support the right of parents to consent to medical treatment for their children, including mental health treatment, drug treatment, and treatment involving pregnancy, contraceptives and abortion. We urge enactment of pending legislation that would require parental consent to transport girls across state lines for abortions.”
    The Democratic Party on the other hand is utterly and completely evil, openly supporting the foul of sexual perversions as marriage, and openly advocating the murder of innocent unborn babies right up to the moment of birth. To be or support the Democrats is to willingly cooperate with grave evil. To support Republicans may involve holding one’s nose against the stench, but at least one’s conscience will be clear.

  • “The Democratic Party on the other hand is utterly and completely evil, openly supporting the foul of sexual perversions as marriage, and openly advocating the murder of innocent unborn babies right up to the moment of birth. To be or support the Democrats is to willingly cooperate with grave evil. To support Republicans may involve holding one’s nose against the stench, but at least one’s conscience will be clear”.

    My good friend you have made a number of valid points and I thank you for the clarity you have written them. The only thing is I feel calling the Democrat’s evil is a little judgmental and I am not a supporter of the Democrat’s. As for the murder of innocent unborn babies right up to the moment of birth, is something I have always had a problem with even when I once considered myself an Anarchist. As someone who has Autism and worked many years caring for individuals with Intellectual Disabilities, I believe all individuals have a right to live on this world. Discovering I was Autistic recently has made my pro life views stronger.
    God bless

  • Then Fred Dutton is a non-Person

    Sorry, Fred Dutton did not and does not move eight-digit populations of voters. No one does.

  • “The only thing is I feel calling the Democrat’s evil is a little judgmental…”
    Correct. 1 Corinthians 6:2-3 states:
    Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!”
    Then just a little later verses 9 and 10 state:
    “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
    And Jesus said in Matthew 7:16-17:
    “You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.”
    Everyone always seems to remember Matthew 7:1-4 about not judging lest we be judged, but then promptly ignores the rest.

  • James and Paul, you have taken the conversation around an interesting corner, that intersection of Who am I to Judge & Know them by their Works. I find it difficult to pontificate on a matter with which I somewhat struggle to fully understand but here’s my tentative take on it. If I love my neighbor, I place a kind interpretation on the state of the person’s conscience and leave that judgment to Christ. I won’t be called to judge anyone until that last great day in the “hereafter”. Concerning the “here-for” is another matter. Here we need to discern the works and fruits of people and human organizations. We need to be both gentle as doves and wise as serpents.
    So after many years of observing the Democratic Party, I may conclude that it is “effectively” the most evil organization in the country. The Communist Party is effectively less evil due to the miniscule influence it has.
    The Democrats often carry a majority of the electorate down the wide road to destruction. By the same token, I may conclude that the Republican Party is merely mediocre.

  • Voting for a pro -abort republican is just as bad as voting for a pro-abort democrat. I don’t know how remote guilt by remote participation can be, but giving any assent to someone far enough off their nut to be pro abortion is just not prudential.
    But the depths! How low can people go! of both parties. The idea that you can be conservative about economics and that is all. Making the Lie true- “It’s the economy, stupid”
    Common sense is not common enough to form a bloc.

  • Anzlyne,
    You are correct. However, many Katholycks use what you indicated – that there are pro-abortion Republicans – as justification to vote for Democrats under the pretext that Republicans are no better. However, the fact of the matter is that most Republicans are pro-life and pro-sanctity of marriage whereas most Democrats are anti-life and anti-sanctity of marriage. Furthermore, the Platform of the Republican Party is superior to the Platform of the Democratic Party. Yes, far too many Republicans are hypocrites and traitors to the cause of Republicanism. But the overwhelming majority of Democrats are purely evil.
    As for me, I defer to what the Psalmist wrote so long ago:
    “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help.” Psalm 146:3

  • Paul Primavera: ditto and ditto and ditto. The word is getting out-difficult as it is to spread-that it is a mortal sin for a Catholic with a wellformed conscience to vote for any Democrat at any level. This Party Of Death [a la Card. Burke] has not only promoted abortion and tax money payment for abortion, but it is the main purveyor or RETA – racial eugenic targeted abortion. Since Roe, tens of millions dead, but over 55% are minority babies – and it is the Democrats/Deathocrats who have made this national policy. Over 17,000,000 less Black voters; over 12,000,000 less Hispanic voters – this kind of holocaust numbers are no accident. at site:, Check out my Virtuous Citizenship 2014. And this destruction of the family is not lost on Hispanic Americans who love family. The Democrat may be able to hold a goodly number of priests and bishiops in lock step, but the sensus fidelium is beginning to relfect the truth. Guy McClung, San Antonio

  • I agree with you both. I was just warning about pro-abort republicans. We have to be careful of individuals as well as party. Especially at primary time.

  • You’re warning is well said, Anzlyne. People should review the stance of candidates on the issues. Here is a list of Presidential candidates and their position on abortion. Again, most Democrats are pro-death and most Republicans are pro-life:

  • We, a small group at the nursing home, recite the Holy Rosary on Tuesdays.
    Our intention was for St. Patrick to drive the snakes out of those who seek public service positions in 2016.

    Then this reading came to light.

    John xiv 16,17 ; “And I shall ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever. The Spirit of truth, whom ( the world cannot receive,) because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him: because he shall abide with you: and shall be in you.”

    So it’s the complete blindness of the world that knows not the truth, hence the disrespect for human life. You, the ones that abide in truth, must continue to pray fast and offer yourselves as examples of truth so the blind may come to see the truth for themselves.

    Pray for the great conversion. Vote as sons and daughters of God. Lead the blind.

  • Describing Democrat-voting Catholics is a complicated issue.
    Catholic immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries became faithful Democrats. They lived on the East Coast between Boston and Baltimore and in a “belt” that stretched from Buffalo to Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. They were Irish, Italians, Germans and from Slavic parts of Europe that were carved up among Lutheran Prussia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Russia.

    As the Republican Party of the day enacted Blaine Amendments in state after state and wanted immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe shut off, the immigrants of the day saw the GOP as someone who hated them.

    This Democrat Party loyalty passed from generation to generation. Today there are countless lapsed East Coast and Rust Belt Catholics in name only who rarely or never go to Mass but hold that inherited Democrat Party loyalty as if it were their religion. I can’t tell my 74 year old mother anything about politics as she reverts to what she learned in the Monongahela Valley in the 1940s and 1950s.

    Ted Kennedy, more than any other Democrat, was responsible for the Democrats being the abortionist party and he found clergy in Massachusetts who gave him cover for it. You can look it up.

    The USCCB has NEVER taken up the battle to end abortion with the Democrat PARTY. The Dems throw them a few bucks to fund Catholic Charities and this keeps the USCCB quiet.

    Latino Catholics do what most immigrant groups do – gravitate to the Donkey Party. They are usually poor and the Donkeys are right there to give ’em what they want in exchange for votes. The same principle works for the Donkeys and blacks.

    Both American parties have had their disgraceful bunch but the Donkeys have had far more of them. The Donkeys can take their abortion, their homosexuality, their atheism, their class warfare and their suck-up attitudes to Islamic terrorism, Communists and human rights abusers and shove it. I consider the Donkeys not to be a political party in this day and age but organized crime. They rig elections. Their judges overturn elections and make their own laws. Their presidents (as of late) have no regard for the Constitution or middle class taxpayers. Going back 70+ years, FDR was a liar, a habitual adulterer and he sold Poland down the river to placate Stalin. JFK was another who couldn’t keep it in his pants and allowed Castro to consolidate power in Cuba.

    I don’t like Republicans but the Donkeys make me sick.

  • Clinton- I much agree about defining terms being a very important first step. When they say “Catholic,” most people hear it as “people who are observant and practicing,” but when someone is asked, it’s more often “well, my parents are Catholic and when we visited grandma when I was a kid we ate tuna casserole on Friday.”
    When even the observant are offered such sadly lacking teaching– have I complained lately about total strangers in Church asking me when I’ll get sterilized? And not when the kids have been obnoxious?– it’s hardly surprising that those who are more of the world put more focus on the world.
    The Dem’s problem is, they keep picking an smaller and smaller area, and alienating their whole “nice” specialization. (Which means that if they attack someone, they make sure to attack their reputation, too.)

  • @Eric; “Blacks and unmarried women might disagree with you. ”

    Catholics are the largest single group in the Democratic Party. Their votes for Obama were twice his margin of victory. “Blacks and unmarried woman” are not on record as saying they believe God is the giver of life; nor are they praying the Our Father standing in front of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist during Mass, praying the only prayer Jesus ever taught us in which we pray for “God’s will be done on earth….” Is it God’s will that he creates life for it to be aborted? Catholic Democrats are the only group in the Democratic Party that professes to believe in God as the creator of life and prays for his “will to be done on earth” in contradiction to what the Democratic party believes and acts on keeping abortion-on-demand the law-of-the-land.” Therefore, Catholics give the Democratic Party the power to keep abortion legal. Those Catholics, including the clergy will find themselves being told to stand on the left side of Jesus along with all the other “goats” when he returns to judge “the nations.”

  • Catholics do not equal “Catholic Democrats” Obama’s margin among Catholics in ’08 was +9%, 2 points greater than amongst the general population. In ’12 it was +2%, 2 points less than amongst the general population, according to Wikipedia

    According to the same source, Obama’s margin over Romney among unmarried women was 36 points, and among blacks, 87 points. Women were 53% of the electorate, blacks 13%, Catholics 25%.

    I’m still going to agree with Bottum conclusion that there is no longer a voting block that is per se Catholic.

    I’d love to be able to drill down into those exit polls, and find out how the Catholic vote breaks down along racial/ethinic lines, as well as by income and geographic region, but I haven’t done any work along those lines since the Clinton administration (first term).

  • from another comment — >”Catholic voters are the only reason Obama was elected twice.” —

    My comment –> Remember it was Non-White Catholic voters who voted for him. You’ve got to wonder why the hierarchy and the gov’t. is so anti-white Catholic. For some both groups believe the illegal alien is the future of the church and the nation. However the Non-White Catholic voting patterns seem to indicate that the Non-White Catholics may be voting to abort and gay- marriage themselves [and the Church] out of existence in the USA. That being said, and having been a pro-life voter since I was first eligible to vote in 1980, I’m pretty fed and up disgusted with the Republicans’ lack of performance on moral issues. They seem to do just enough to keep the pro-life vote, while hanging onto their country-club pro-choice membership.

  • Pingback: We Are Synthetic Children & Agree with Dolce & Gabbana
  • supporting legal abortion was the first democrat decision that began to alienate catholics from the party. more recently, the democrat party’s decision to use the federal government and some state governments’ monopoly on the use of force against catholics has caused the alienation to grow.

    the democrat party using secular governments’ monopoly on force to condemn and punish catholics who only want to exercise their freedom of religion is becoming more widely known all the time. it is obvious to those who pay attention, but many Americans, catholic and non-Catholic do not take time to stay aware of societal issues and our governments’ responses to those issues.

    for example, the democrat party’s use of the federal government to try to force its faith, there is no evidence, that artificial contraception is good on catholics is becoming more widely known among catholics. the democrat party’s belief in the goodness of sexual perversion and the use of governmental force to punish catholics who do not have that democratic party belief is becoming more widely known.

    the democrat party’s belief that a child’s right to both a mother and a father is another belief that many catholics reject once they learn of it and how real the democrat’s attempt to attack innocent children is.

    finally, the democrat party’s belief that the unique relationship between men and women is prohibited by the law from being recognized by secular government’s will add to the exodus from the democrat party of everyone who is rational and strong.

  • The Left has no substance or Truth upon which to base one’s life and civil rights.

Why Polling Skews Against Political & Religious Conservatives

Tuesday, October 23, AD 2012

Some 20 years ago as I was finishing graduate school, I worked for a polling company. It was longer than I wanted to but it gave me some valuable insights on that business before I moved into the line of work that I wanted. I got to know the man who ran the company; he ran polls for national and international companies and occasionally dabbled into political polling. He was meticulous and it became very clear that this job was his life. Now I don’t know his politics but I would guess that he was left of center, at least on social issues. However, he was nearly fanatical about being impartial and getting the true response. Some twenty years later, all of this helps me to understand how political polling works, and believe me it is very difficult. In other words, if political polling isn’t done exactly right it becomes a terrible slanted mess.

Here’s how live polling works. Automated computer dialers call randomly generated phone numbers, which are often are disconnected, faxes and or not in service. In a four hour shift you would be lucky to get 8-10 complete surveys per poll taker in a hotly contested political race. Now mind you that was 20 years before cell phones, my understanding is that now because of cell phones and caller id many polling agencies are using brief computer automated voices to ask questions. Most polling agencies have given up on live survey results on such things as your favorite bar of soup, breakfast cereal, shoe company etc. Believe me there were nights that we would put in a four hour shift and call over 150 people and get one or two complete surveys concerning your favorite shampoo.

When it comes to political polling my old boss (who is a Ph.D and widely respected across the country) would fret about the way we ask each question, our tone and our attitude. He would drill into us that he needed unbiased surveys for his clients. He would remind us, and this is very important in today’s world, that conservative oriented people don’t like polling as much as liberals because liberals believe in proselytizing their views while conservatives feel their views are a reflection of their values, as well as their cultural and religious upbringing. This is why liberals tend to be oversampled in polling. By and large they don’t hang up on pollsters and surveys because they view it as their duty and mission to get the word out. Again, my boss was not a conservative and he could see this 20 years ago.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Why Polling Skews Against Political & Religious Conservatives

  • More recently, there’s the “there are a lot of nutjobs on the other side, and they’ve already proven willing to try to ruin someone’s life over political differences. Nope, not taking the risk that this number blocked guy who claims to be taking a “totally anonymous” political survey is for real” effect.

    As I told the poor guy before I hung up– “no, sorry, no political polls. I like my car.”

  • My one encounter with exit polling was when I was working at a polling place for a candidate, and a pollster was assigned to the same location. He had very specific procedures to randomize the voters he questioned, but he always seemed to end up talking to the young women. I’d bet that anything short of automated calling of random phone numbers, some guy is going to figure out a way to use it to hit on gals.

  • As Mr Hartline implicitly shows, accurate polling of “future behavior” is very difficult and expensive. However, since the Left has thrown off the mask and become much more menacing, as Foxfier notes, it does introduce yet another reason for skewed polling. It’s gotten to the point where anything advanced by the Left including polling (and most pollsters are Leftists) has to be viewed as agitprop unless independently verified. It will be interesting to see if the University of Colorado (Bickers and Berry) model of state (Electoral College) voting ends up more accurate than the public pollsters this cycle. It would even more interesting to see if the “internal” polls of the two Parties matched the model back in the summer.

  • Pinky, believe it or night there was a theory floated around the political blogosphere that in the midterm election of 2010 and earlier this year in the Scott Walker recall election, that male graduate students who were sent to do exit polls were asking an inordinate amount of women exit poll questions. Also the theory states, that female graduate students were asking too many other single female students to exit polls thus skewing the results. As you can imagine there was a lot of egg on pollsters faces after that fiasco.

    Rozin, yes some of the polls are nothing more than agenda driven polls. To save their own reputational skins, I can’t imagine that the final CBS/NY Times poll will have an Ohio sample at +9 Democrat. This number would be something you would expect to see in Oregon, Washington or Minnesota, though a Rasmussen poll today had the race there at 51 Obama 46 Romney. The last Republican to win in Minnesota was Richard Nixon, needless to say that poll has put the fear of God into Chicago HQ.

  • This conservative family can testify to not picking up calls from pollsters. We’ve had more than a few calls during the dinner hour from one or another questionable phone numbers. Since Maryland isn’t a battle ground state, I suspect that the polls are about one of the ballot initiatives. The gambling question seems to be the most well funded. We already had someone come to our door to ask where we stood on that one. I suppose Democrats don’t mind interrupting dinner or the kids’ bedtime to answer questions? I did actually answer a poll call a few months ago, and I found the questions confusing and poorly worded. I suspected that my answers would be twisted to mean whatever the pollster wanted. So I’ve been even more reluctant than usual to pick up any new calls.

  • I just got a call last night from someone wanting to know if I cared to answer “four brief questions” regarding a Democratic candidate for local office. I said no because I suspected that with that few questions, it was probably a “push poll” meant to contrive a certain result and I didn’t care to participate in that game. I’ve only responded to one poll this year, which turned out to be quite lengthy and asked about multiple races. Also, I made the mistake of responding to a poll in the mail that claimed I was a “carefully selected” voter and ever since I’ve been pummeled with junk mail and spam from the RNC and similar groups, so I’m kind of reluctant to encourage them further.

  • Two years ago, the first question they asked me when polling me is asking me about my religion. After telling them I was Catholic, the person hung up. At another time, my husband was asked the same question & when he wouldn’t answer the question, the same thing was done. I was polled once, again about 2 yrs. ago, by Rasmussen but was not asked about religion.

  • Exit polls do not require a likely voter screen and, as they are conducted in person, have a much higher response rate than telephone polls. Still, exit polls conducted in 2004 had some systemic error incorporated within them that proved decisive in context (and led knuckleheads at Harper’s magazine to promote the idea that Republican operatives had hatched some sort of insidious super-secret conspiracy to rig the tabulation machines). I think we have reached a point where anticipatory polling is so unreliable we really do not know what is afoot (but repeated instances of Mitt Romney tallied as leading among non-aligned voters but losing among the sum of voters are … inneresting).

  • Polling is much more sophisticated than 20 years ago. Surveys can get the phone numbers of registered voters from the database at the state’s Secretary of State.

    Some of the polls you get aren’t “push polls.” Rather, they are conducted by interest groups seeking information about voters so they can then follow up at a later point with mailed materials or a visit to your door. They probably put you in a database for future use.

    If you tell the “Obama for Colorado” surveyor you don’t like Obama, they won’t waste their time trying to get you to the polls or trying to persuade you. If you are on the fence, they might work on you some more.

    If you don’t reply, they won’t know enough about you to do one thing or another.

  • Surveys can get the phone numbers of registered voters from the database at the state’s Secretary of State.

    It would be the county Board of Elections in New York. I am not even sure the standard form has a space for a phone number, and it would be your landline number on the date of registration if they did. For thirteen years I voted from the same address on Rochester’s south east side. In that time period, I had five different apartments and four different landline phone numbers.

  • Actually Kevin J though polling may be more sophiscated than it was 20 years ago because of more advanced software, the same methods that were used 20 years ago are used today. Pollsters don’t want to call from voter registration lists, they want random numbers because as Art Deco has stated your phone number is not always provided or accurate on voter registration materials. Pollsters would rather get a variety of disconnects, faxes etc than just deal with provided lists that may miss substantial segments of the populace, i.e those who just have cell phones or those who have moved since they registered.

  • I’d have to completely disagree. I was called by a religious pollster who told me there three questions. When I disagreed with the first question about the definition of marriage, the call was discontinued. Only one question. It is hard to get an accurate poll when those doing them refuse to continue the calls that don’t give them the answers they want.

    There is a saying, “There are liars, damned liars, and then there are statisticians.” Whomever does them skews them in favor of their views. ALL OF THEM regardless of affiliation.

  • Or, possibly, they were polling for a group that you weren’t part of.

    Good heavens, haven’t you ever heard of a selection questions? That’s like claiming all polls are horrible because you’re asked if you’re registered to vote, then if you plan to vote, and saying “no” on either one means they stop asking questions.

    There are inherent flaws to polling, there are induced flaws, and there’s a difference!

When the Believers Lose Their Faith In The Religion Of Big Government

Sunday, October 21, AD 2012

President Barack Obama’s debate performances could never equal the expectations of the secular faithful. Many on the far left envisioned an American society where religion was about as important to the populace and politically influential as it is in Sweden. The land of the midnight sun has been a great hope to liberals ever since religion began to erode there in the 1950s and abortion became commonplace in the 1960s. Governor Michael Dukakis famously poured over Sweden’s great Welfare state enterprise to see what he might learn, which of course led to his electoral demise in 1988.

With all of his rhetorical skills, President Obama could never make Americans have a come to Pierre Trudeau, Willy Brandt, Jose Luis Zapatero (pick your favorite Western Democratic Socialist) moment like many Americans have a Come to Jesus moment over failings in their lives. Instead of realizing that not everyone can be suckered into buying Big Government swampland, the Left has taken their frustrations out on the President. If only he were talking more about rising and falling oceans and making them believe we are the ones we have been waiting for; the Left attacks the messenger and not the message.

Frank Rich, the New York Times columnist laments about this in a long New York magazine  article. The writer for the Old Gray Lady states the Americans are somehow too dumb to become like Europeans and surrender their lives to government and not God. He sees little hope and concludes the Tea Party will always prevail in the American persona rather than government control. Talk about a brain trust, can you imagine the anti-religious nuggets thrown around the water cooler when Bill Keller, the former New York Times editor was present. You may recall Keller infamously dubbed himself a “Collapsed Catholic,” fortunately reported to us by former Newsweek Religion Editor Kenneth Woodward, who is not Catholic and hardly a friend of conservatives, but a principled man who couldn’t take any more of the Times’ hypocrisy directed at the Church. I would strongly suggest you read this The New York magazine article for if conservatives mouthed these same thoughts about minorities instead of suburbanites and rural residents, we would be blacklisted.

In my just released book, The Catholic Tide Continues to Turn, I note how the Left turned on Al Smith (the first Catholic standard bearer) after he formed the Liberty League in the mid and late 1930s and told Americans he could no longer support President Roosevelt. This startling development occurred after a number of questionable instances came to light including the Supreme Court Packing Case and the Roosevelt 1938 purge of Conservative Democrats. By 1940 unemployment was still at 14% and if had not been for World War II who knows how long unemployment would have remained in double digits.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to When the Believers Lose Their Faith In The Religion Of Big Government

  • 1. “President Barack Obama’s debate performances could never equal the expectations of the secular faithful. ”

    They could but only if the polls said he won. The content or reality is not important to the Leftist.

    2. “The writer for the Old Gray Lady states the Americans are somehow too dumb to become like Europeans and surrender their lives to government and not God. ”

    This is so Last Generation. Today’s Leftists have moved on to adoring Castro, Chavez and the Chinese Politburo with a longing look at Islamic jihadists.

    3. “Perhaps the President’s lackluster and uneven debate performance comes from a man who no longer believes in what he is selling.’

    He still believes it but he has always been a lazy goofoff expecting other people to translate his TOTUS talk into stirring deeds.

    4. “The Left has morphed into a powerful money machine.”

    The Leftists only hide beyond populist rhetoric, they always prefer the limousine. And they have always been part of the well to do class.

    5. “Socialist thinker Joseph Schumpter (Shortly after World War II) believed that Socialism could eventually win because Capitalism would give the people all of their material needs while weaning them off religion.”

    Sometimes academics top the Stupid list. He could have seen that Socialism would promptly take away all that Capitalism had provided.

    6. “Some on the Left see it all slipping away, they will never have the 2008 perfect storm opportunity at least within my lifetime.”

    Never underestimate the ability of termites.

  • Once again another informative post Rozin. As I have indicated in previous articles (and perhaps should have for this one,) I have always believed there are two sorts of leftists. The first being the utopians (small in number) they cling to the 1960s as their model. They are the ones I wrote of living at one time in cramped apartments and VW buses. However, the second group (and larger of the two) are the true radicals (often dressed as if they were indeed the man himself) those who adhere to the ideals of the French Revolution and the tactics of Saul Alinsky.

    An electoral loss for the radicals would be devestating, whereas the utopians would take it in stride. In some ways the Utopians still haven’t recovered from Bob Dylan going electric, the end of the Summer of Love, along with the demise of the Eugene McCarthy candidacy.

  • Pingback: Age of Unbelief | The American Catholic
  • I thank you for bringing the new god to the readers attention, I hope more are listing, because our Creator is watching this culture of greed and death spread. Do you think He is going to stand back and not get our attention about almost 4000 babies a day killed in the US out of greed ? Do you think if this continues and other things you have talked about He will allow, not make, something happen that will make 9-11 look like a spark, that will bring us back on our knee’s to Him ? JMJ

  • I get the feeling that if I sat down with Frank Rich for ten minutes I could explain politics to him. He understands that political movements adapt, and that predictions of impending ideological collapse are faulty. But he doesn’t apply that to his own thinking, that the moderate Republican is disappearing and that Republicans can’t win women or minorities.

    You don’t have to be a fortune-teller to see that in a two-party system, each party is always going to present itself as nearly in the middle but a bit over to one side. On a four-mile stretch of road, the best position for one gas station is at the two-mile marker. The best position for a rival gas station is at just about the two-mile marker, but a little up or down the road (to be the closest gas station for 50% of the market). Three or more gas stations, there are different strategies, but with two it’s inevitable. The same is true with politics.

  • Being a faithful Catholic means being neither Left nor Right. Sure, we are to reject the extreme statism of the Far Left, but we must also equally oppose Ayn Rand atheistic capitalism, which is nothing more than libertarian anarchy. Both ideologies challenge and contravene Catholic faith and morals.

    God bless for this terrific article!

  • One question as to the role of Big Government and consistent ideology. The author presumably opposes abortion in all forms and promotes the abolition of that sinister practice. I concur. How would the author go about achieving this goal? Would it be through the use of Government to interject itself in the medical field and forcibly ban abortion?

    So, if it is acceptable to prevent the deaths of the unborn through the use of Big Government, why is it also not acceptable to utilize the power of government to prevent deaths of living people outside of the womb, vis a vis health care reform?

  • Benjamin a very interesting question with regard to the role of government. The single most important role of government is to protect her citizens. We naturally think of a foreign invasion, or a terrorist attack (The War of 1812, or 9-11-01.) However, we don’t have to go to far into the realm of history to see an era when lawlessness had the nation living in fear. For example, because of Prohibition outlaws were roaming the countryside (John Dillinger, Ma Barker, Pretty Boy Floyd) because the cities were teaming with mobsters shooting it out over liquor territory. Law enforcement, much like their current compatriots in Mexico, were hopelessly outgunned. Something had to be done, which is why J Edgar Hoover established the FBI.

    In our modern era, though there are far fewer abortions (Thank God due to the relentless efforts of pro-life forces) somewhere between 1-2 million of our citizens are killed in abortion facilities. The Constitution established the courts to administer the laws and law enforcement to enforce the laws. Once Roe has properly run her course (it was wrongly argued and established in the first place) the courts and law enforcement will remedy the situation.

    As for Government Health Care, this is not promised by our forefathers, as was Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If one says the government is responsible for you being happy one could argue health care could make you happy, or some illegal vice. Does that mean the government should provide you with that as well? This is a slipperly slope. The Catholic Church has always said health care is a right, but they never said it was a right to be provided for by the government. In the Renaissance era, the elite of the Church would provide hospital space for the poor and indigent. We should be our brothers keeper, not the state.

Soon To Be Released Polls Show Religious & Midwest Voters Moving To Romney

Thursday, October 18, AD 2012

Just a quick update to my post of some two weeks ago; I exchanged e-mails with two prominent pollsters who told me that not only are religious voters moving toward Governor Romney in a big way (we expected that) but so are voters in the Midwest. One of the pollsters read my article on The Data and Demographics That Detail Why Romney Defeats Obama in Ohio.

He told me he was “amazed” at the shifting demographics in Ohio in areas of the state that would help Governor Romney and hurt President Obama. He indicated that many pollsters hadn’t taken this into account (lots of population shifts since the Economic Upheaval of 2008.) This particular pollster, who you probably have seen on TV and or read his highly respected polls, is currently working on polls in Ohio and other Midwest states.

The other pollster told me that the religious vote which strongly went for Senator McCain in 2008 will be easily surpassed by 2012 totals. Now anything can happen from here to election day, yet as Don explained in his post on the Fat Lady Warming Up these are not bounces but surges. As I indicated in my just released book, The Catholic Tide Continues to Turn, the religious faithful are persistent and though they certainly don’t hang out with the pop culture and media movers and shakers and because of this are often overlooked, that doesn’t mean they won’t be heard at the ballot box on Election Day.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Soon To Be Released Polls Show Religious & Midwest Voters Moving To Romney

  • Well the U of Colorado model by Berry and Bickers predicted several months ago that most Midwest states would go for Romney including Ohio, PA, WI and MN. I still think Iowa will go for Romney although the model predicted it would stay for Obama. I believe Bush 43 came reasonably close in 2004 to sweeping the Midwest apart from IL. If the Repubs cannot lock up the Midwest for a generation after all that the national and local Dems have done to them over the years (eg flyover country, bitter clingers) it’s hopeless.

  • Rozin, keep in mind of the liberal history of Wisconsin and Minnesota and even Iowa to some extent. The Progressive Party (the 1924 LaFollette version) was very strong in Wisconsin and the Democratic Farm Labor Party was and still is very active in Minnesota. Some elements of these groups were very Left for their era. They live on in today and conservatism has a hard time breaking into some of these strongholds, even though some of these folks may be somewhat socially conservative. The last time Minnesota went GOP was 1972.

    While many on the coasts think the Midwest is all rural, though it is primarily the case in area, it is not the case in population centers (Off the top of my head I believe Pennsylvania has the highest rural population in America.) There are more people than you would think in certain midwest cities who live in urbane enclaves and wish they were in NYC or DC. As I indicated in my previous article on demographics, this is juxtaposed by a suburban populace that votes 2-1 against everything those in the urbane areas stand for. In the last three Ohio election cycles, it has been who can get the bigger turnout.

  • Mr Hartline,

    First thank you for a very detailed and careful exposition in your Ohio post. Yes I understand the history of these states. Also those state predictions were by the model not myself. I was just commenting personally about Iowa. I would be surprised if MN goes Repub too. However many of these states went for Reagan and even for Bush 41 in 1988. In addition Bush43 came somewhat close to sweeping them (except IL) in 2004. My point is simply that the Repubs need to make a more forceful effort to get these states. As we have seen with the Mountain states a few fleeing Californians can tip the balance in these lightly populated states to the Dems and FL and VA are no longer rock solid. If the Repubs don’t nail the Midwest down where do they go??

  • Rozin, excellent post. First of all let me say this about demographics. As much I like the research, they are only as valid as the current election. Case in point; in 1974 Democrats were ecstatic thinking that by 1976 they would have a foothold on the electorate for a generation. It didn’t turn out that way, had you told them that in 1980 America would vote in an old Hollywood actor and the youth would be his biggest fans, many would think they you were ingesting something that might be a felony.

    The Midwest is crucial to the GOP but President GW Bush won in 2004 without Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois. If Governor Romney would win and the youthful and athletic Paul Ryan and Senator Rubio continue to play a big roll in GOP politics, I could see a big upswing of young and Hispanic voters coming the GOP’s way. President Obama took advantage of a once in a lifetime perfect storm for the Democrats. However, it is doubtful that the sequence of events (economic meltdown, unpopular foreign policy and a charismatic candidate with a star studded entourage) will ever align themselves (at least in our lifetime, I am 48.) Time will tell.

The Catholicism of Joe Biden and Paul Ryan

Wednesday, October 10, AD 2012

The differences about to be exhibited in the Vice Presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan couldn’t be more striking, and no I don’t mean in just the political arena but in the religious realm as well. The Vice President proudly states he was never a “John Paul II guy, I was a John XXIII guy.” He relishes the fact that in class he openly doubted such central teachings of Transubstantiation during his Catholic school days. He tells us that when he went to Rome his mother told him; “don’t kiss the Pope’s ring.”  (Boy it is a good thing Mrs. Biden didn’t know my soft spoken mother, otherwise she would have received an uncharacteristic earful. Heaven help her if she met my German grandmother (my mom’s mother) who would have undoubtedly pulled a rolling pin, a frying pan and whatever else she could come after her with to put the fear of God into her.)

Congressman Ryan comes from generation John Paul II and is not afraid to tell us so. Faithful Catholics of Congressman Ryan’s age see the Joe Bidens of the world and roll their eyes. As one young woman once told me, “if they (Joe Bidens of the world) had any decency they would just tell us the truth; the only thing they believe in is their self absorbed, distorted views of their world. They should really leave since they are being disingenuous for staying in something to which they don’t believe.” she said. Well many have and the Joe Bidens of the world would have us believe that it is our fault for not “evolving.” This is a common word in Catholic liberal (and secular) parlance to describe their views on the world from abortion to same sex marriage.  In the case of the Joe Bidens of the world, if you can question the tenets of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular, the beliefs of the Founding Fathers outlined in their landmark documents are hardly safe from revision.

In my just released book; The Catholic Tide Continues to Turn, I delve into the rise in vocations, devotions and the fast growing orthodox Catholic college campuses like Franciscan, Ave Maria, Benedictine in Kansas, Wyoming College and St. Thomas Aquinas. Folks like Joe Biden just don’t get it. To them Notre Dame is too conservative for in their view how could the university lose $120,000,000 in alumni contributions and face such opposition among student groups and the Holy Cross Seminarians concerning the controversial visit of and award given to President Barack Obama.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to The Catholicism of Joe Biden and Paul Ryan

  • Pingback: The Catholicism of Joe Biden and Paul Ryan | The American Catholic | News 47News 47
  • “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” When I was in the USAF, I saluted the officer’s rank and authority, not the man. It was not difficult. Same same the Pope’s ring. For non-Catholics, It is being polite. For liberal simps, refusing to kiss the ring is their way of telling each other, “I’m special!”

    There is a village in Delaware that is missing its idiot.

    Is Uncle Joe liberal because he’s stupid? Or, is he stupid because he’s liberal??

  • The priests in cassocks are protected by their garb from losing their vows to those temptations to be one of the crowd. My pastors are cassock wearing men, not very young, but very in love with the Lord.

  • Gosh, God bless our popes. to me John 23, Francis of Assisi, angels — are ones who have been softened, misinterpreted to the point of disregard. People think of angels as pretty little girls in rose colored robes with golden hair – some people think children who die as children become angels. Francis has been relegated to a nice hippie environmentalist nature lover who hated corporations and wanted people to compromise for the sake of peace–they write his efforts to convert a sultan as a good example of peacemaking for us– not noticing that Francis did not make peace– he told the truth, he was spared but the franciscan protomartyrs were not– francis was brave and thoughtful– Not a sap. and John the 23’s life is similarly misunderstood– people take what they want to take, to prove their own points.
    Joe Biden should read more and think more deeply about his faith and our popes.

  • I like what Anzlyn pointed out about St. Francis confronting that Islamic sultan. A few years ago I had to endure a presentation on peace and social justice by a liberal Franciscan cleric who used the story of St. Francis’ encounter with that sultan to criticize the war on terror as a war against Muslims. Of course I spoke up to explain that the Koran specifically requires its adherents to subject Christians and Jews to Dhimmitude which St. Francis never once advocated or even accepted, and that is exactly what precipitated the war on terror. He had no response, and went on to some other topic. I despise and loathe liberalism, political and religious. It’s always the same: peace at any price, especially if you and I are the ones paying the price. I go by what Jesus said in Luke 22:36, “And let him who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.”

  • I’ll be praying the Chaplet of Mercy for Paul Ryan tonight. Let’s hope this night will be another nail in Obama’s coffin, but in all things, God’s will be done.

  • I just hope we don’t get over confident. Uncle Joe may be he national clown, as Donald M. says, but he does have decades of debating experience, and supposedly Paul Ryan is weak in foreign policy knowledge. I too will pray for Ryan’s victory, but I won’t watch the debate. I don’t need the anxiety. Voluntas Dei fiat.

  • Pingback: The Catholicism of Joe Biden and Paul Ryan | The American Catholic « therasberrypalace
  • “but he does have decades of debating experience”

    No he really doesn’t. He hadn’t had a serious challenge for his Senate after he won it in 1972. He had a disastrous run for President in 1988. In his 2008 run he dropped out fairly quickly and his debate performance could be considered undistinguished. Palin beat him in their one and only debate and Biden fell back on his preferred strategy when cornered: make things up.

  • And Sarah Palin wasn’t exactly an elite debater either.

  • I think it’s safe to say that Biden made up for not kissing the Pope’s ring by kissing a lot of butts.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY EVENING EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • The archbishop of Denver processed the Sacred Species through the streets of town 2 days before the first debate, and O was speechless. Yesterday was the first day of the Year of Faith, and Ryan schooled Joe on what a Catholic believes when it comes to taking care of the least among us. What is in store for the next debate? How will God work his Will into the outcome? Pray, people, pray. Prayer changes things.

  • Joe “The Plagiarist” Biden couldn’t find his rear end with both hands if you spotted him nine fingers.

  • I was struck by the comment the “Vatican II priest” made about the young priests in cassocks not being approachable. I heard a similar comment from an elderly religious sister explaining why her order’s abandonment of their habit. I don’t think that the habit made these sisters unapproachable, it was their demeanor. I was recently working with some of the Sisters of Life in the Archdiocese of New York. These sisters wear a very distinct habit. They are some of the most approachable people I have ever met, because of the joy that radiates from them due to their love of the Lord.

    I think our “Vatican II priests and religious” might have something to learn from the John Paul II generation.

  • Catholic Democrats use “caring for the poor” as their reason to remain Democrats even though the Democrat Party is solely responsible for the continued murder of unborn babies now at 52,000,000 dead. And to “care for the poor” they support sinning against the 10th Commandment; they support “coveting their neighbors’ goods.” And Catholic Democrat legislators like Biden, Pelosi, and Durbin are in the lead promoting that morally warped thinking which enables them to sin even more by “slandering their opponents” claiming they don’t care about the poor and want to “do them harm.” And that position enables the lay and clergy Catholic Democrats to commit “the sin of pride thinking they are ‘better,” than their political opponents.

    I’m so glad the Holy Spirit led me out of that sinful party a long time ago. I have never heard anyone in the party I eventually joined ever speak and act that way towards Democrats. In fact, it is said the main difference between the two major parties is that “Democrats think Republicans are evil; Republicans think the Democrats are just wrong.”

    The Democrat Party survives on the psychological illness of “projection;” which is “the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people, especially the externalization of blame, guilt or responsibility as a defense against anxiety.”

  • Obama/Biden (far left policies) have created more poor people. O/B will continue to create poverty.

    Romney/Ryan will work to restore prosperity to more Americans.

  • true you T. Shaw- that lie from college professor catholics
    (about poverty > abortion and obama being anti poverty hence working against abortion) is even more egregious if possible because they (those who justify their margins to the left) are actually causing poverty.
    Obama is bought and paid for by planned parenthood. And planned parenthood is not about poverty.

  • I am glad you spoke up defending the Catholicism of Saint Francis Paul Primavera! Just this last St Francis day I heard again about how he was about compromise and he taught us to compromise. This seems to be the interpretation of today’s Catholics still loyal to the Democratic party.
    Just as it says in the story of the Fall of Man– the devil is very subtle (cunning)

The Data and Demographics That Detail Why Romney Will Defeat Obama in Ohio

Sunday, October 7, AD 2012

 I am going to take a break from promoting my just released book, The Catholic Tide Continues to Turn to write about another interest of mine; election polling and demographics in my home state of Ohio. Lately my dander has been raised more than once by polls which are totally inept in their sampling rational. This article will attempt to explain why at this point Governor Mitt Romney is in the driver’s seat in my home state. Full disclosure; I did not vote for Governor Romney in the GOP primary, my vote went to Senator Rick Santorum. Also until the mid 1990s I was a conservative Democrat; my political work began in the 1980s as in intern in the Ohio State House and then continued for the Democratic Leadership Council on Capitol Hill in 1994-95. I saw no hope for conservative Democrats like myself after my stint in Washington DC. I view myself not as a Republican, but a conservative.

The 2008 General Election was a perfect storm for Democrats across the country and Ohio was no exception. By 2010, the gains the Democrats made had evaporated and the GOP returned to the levels it had enjoyed in the 1980s. However, political polling across the country has not reflected this change. Obviously this makes a huge difference in Midwestern swing areas, especially suburban locations, the area of most states that continue to grow, even if that state’s total growth is stagnant.

For example in Ohio the area surrounding Franklin County (Columbus) and the area surrounding Hamilton County (Cincinnati) are the fastest growing areas of the state. These areas generally go GOP 65%-35%. Conversely, the Democratic strongholds of Lucas (Toledo,) Cuyahoga (Cleveland,) Summit (Akron,) and Mahoning (Youngstown) are the areas of the state that have seen a freefall in residents since the late 1970s.

While many people are aware of this statistic, one area few seem to realize is the age demographic, Democratic voters are dying off faster than the younger (40 and 50 something) Reagan era GOP voters of the fast growing GOP strongholds of suburban Columbus and Cincinnati.

Now let’s take a look at raw voter counts in Ohio and what we can expect after the polls close at 7:30 PM on November 6. A cursory glance of the 2004 and 2008 election results in the Democratic strongholds in the northern part of the state might make one reason that a serious error had occurred. How could Massachusetts Senator John Kerry possibly get more votes than the first African American standard bearer, then Illinois Senator Barack Obama in areas like Cuyahoga County which is over 30% African-American, the highest percentage in the state?

The answer is simple, thousands of voters had died or moved from that area of the state in those four years, and many more thousands have done so since the economic meltdown of 2008. For example in 1980 Cuyahoga County had 1,500,000 residents compared to 1,280,000 in 2010, Lucas County had 471,000 in 1980 compared to 441.000 in 2010 and Mahoning County had 290,000 residents in 1980, compared to 239,000 in 2010. Many left for southern and western states. As recent as a few days ago (early October 2012) election officials had reported a huge drop off in eligible voters for this Democratic rich area of the state.    Let’s give the President the benefit of the doubt and say his numbers in Cleveland, Toledo and Youngstown only drop 5% (due to shifting demographics) this is still a nightmare scenario for the Obama-Biden ticket when one realizes that Romney-Ryan ticket will certainly gain at least 5% in the Columbus and Cincinnati fast growing suburban areas.

Now let’s take a look at the GOP strongholds of suburban Columbus and Cincinnati. In 1980 Butler County (outside of Cincinnati) had 258, 000 voters compared to 368,000 in 2010 and Warren County directly north of Cincinnati had 99,000 residents in 1980 versus 212,000 in 2010. Let’s look at Columbus, Delaware County which for years was the fastest growing county in the Midwest had 53,000 residents in 1980 compared to 174,000 in 2010 and Fairfield County had 93,000 residents in 1980 versus 146,000 in 2010.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to The Data and Demographics That Detail Why Romney Will Defeat Obama in Ohio

  • Too bad none of what you cite will make any difference, since we have a criminal administration willing, and certainly capable of stealing this election. And should this not succeed, there are Obama’s minions – The Muslim Brotherhood, ACORN, The New Black Panters, etc., ready to riot, claiming WE stole the election. Then, of course, the Dictator in Chief will use his self-appointed powers to declare martial law, and void the election.

  • That all worked real well for the Democrats in 2010. Most of the states now have Republican governors, including all the swing states. This election is not going to be decided by the margin of fraud.

  • The thing that has me worried, is that in our town–once a bastion of conservatism–there are Obama/Biden signs everywhere. I’ve never, ever seen this many signs for a Democrat president. Heck, I’ve never seen that many signs for a Democrat anything. It could simply be that a local Catholic (“seamless garment” type) is running for state house on the Democratic ticket. She is very well organized and well known among the liberals, social justice community and her own parish (which may still be the largest in our diocese although it’s population has been declining over the past few years).

  • “in our town, once a bastion of conservatism, there are Obama-Biden signs everywhere”

    Well, I’m seeing far FEWER Obama signs in Central Illinois today than I saw four years ago. I’m seeing plenty of signs for local level Democratic candidates (Congress, state legislature) but hardly any for Obama. I don’t see all that many Romney signs either, though.

  • Re: Edie Eason – I wouldn’t put anything past Comrade Barry, or more precisely the Axelrod/Peoples’ Democratic Party inner cluster. The phrase “cyber security” keeps popping up lately . . . I won’t really relax until the Oath of Office is taken by a non-incumbent on Jan 20, 2013. And even then I’m not going to be totally off guard.

  • From Instapundit:
    “DEMOCRATS GONE WILD: Obama supporters ‘key’ cars displaying pro-Romney bumper stickers.” …
    Posted at 11:59 am by Ed Driscoll

    Young, footloose, and ‘care’free under the influence of media and – well … .

  • @Elaine:

    Thanks; need the boost. Think I will chalk it up to union politics (the unions have a proposal on the ballot. An important one) and the local democrats being amazingly organized. One of the funniest yard displays I’ve seen though is one for Obama, the democratic state representative, and then our representative to Washington. Obama and the local democrat are hard left; our representative to Washington is well to the right of middle.

  • Thanks WR Aiken, I did see that and that is the reason I wrote this article. I did not want on Election Night to say, I told you so when I didn’t do anything about it. My article is an attempt to spell out everything I have been seeing, reading and hearing around me. As I wrote in the article, I dare say Ohio isn’t the only state that fits the criteria of which I wrote.

    The anti-suburb and anti-rural pitch has been the clarion call of the far left for some time. This is not your Flower Power Left but a more aggressive and wealthly Left which I describe in my book; “The Catholic Tide Continues to Turn.” Whereas the old left admired the Berrigan Brothers, Father Cool and Sister Sunshine; this new left is fimly in the camp of Saul Alinsky and Richard Dawkins.

  • Pingback: The Catholicism of Joe Biden and Paul Ryan | The American Catholic
  • Hopefully there is political action aimed at convincing Catholic democrat voters to abstain from voting for Nobama. Even if they vote an otherwise democrat ticket. Direct action outside RC church’s on Sunday should urge Catholics to abstain on behalf of the Church. This could peel off enough votes to win the Ohio. Lets face it; blind loyalty prevents many old-timers from voting for any GOP canidate. But appealing to their conscience & love of Church might sway them & reduce turnout for the vile Nobama.

  • _________________________________________________________________________________



    “The question to ask is this: Are any of the candidates of either party, or independents, standing for something that is intrinsically evil, evil no matter what the circumstances? If that’s the case, a Catholic, regardless of his party affiliation, shouldn’t be voting for such a person.” – Archbishop William Lori, Diocese of Baltimore, Maryland

    Journalist: “is it ever licit for a Catholic to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? Is it ever valid?”

    “No. You can never vote for someone who favors absolutely the right to choice of a woman to destroy a human life in her womb. Where you don’t have a candidate who is proposing to eliminate all abortion (voters may) choose the candidate who will most limit this grave evil in our country. But you could never justify voting for a candidate who not only does not want to limit abortion but believes it should be available to everyone.” – Cardinal Raymond Burke

    “I certainly can’t vote for someone who’s either pro-choice or pro-abortion. Jesus tells us very clearly that if we don’t help the poor, we’re going to go to hell. But Jesus didn’t say the government has to take care of them, or that we have to pay taxes to take care of them. Those are prudential judgments. You can’t say that somebody’s not Christian because they want to limit taxation. To say that it’s somehow intrinsically evil like abortion doesn’t make any sense at all.” – Archbishop Charles Chaput, Diocese of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    “One might argue for different methods to address the needs of the poor, to feed the hungry and to solve the challenges of immigration, but these are prudential judgments, not intrinsic evils… You need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in jeopardy.” – Bishop Thomas Paprocki, Diocese of Springfield, Illinois

    “Other pieces of legislation touch on the building of a good and just society and may be open to prudential judgement, … (but) ‘Forming Consciences’ tells us that in the political debate today there is no other issue that rises to this level of moral certitude: Abortion is always wrong. To support political platforms that protect so-called ‘abortion rights’ is to participate in the inexorable conclusion: many, many innocent unborn children will be killed. Sometimes a single issue will be so important it overrides a whole range of lesser issues.” – Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, D.C.

    “Could a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports legalized abortion when there is another choice of another candidate who does not? Could a voter’s preference for the candidate’s positions on the pursuit of peace, economic policies, health care, etc., overcome a candidates support for legalized abortion? The Catholic voter must ask and answer the question: What could possibly be a proportionate reason for the more than 45 million children killed by abortion? We cannot conceive of such a proportionate reason.”- Archbishop Joseph Naumann & Bishop Roger Finn, Diocese of Kansas City, Kansas

    “In all of Church teaching, the Life issues, particularly the protection of unborn children against the crime of abortion, has to be our greatest priority. This is an ongoing slaughter of 4,000 children every single day for the last 40 years. If we support and promote persons who have pledged to extend it and intensify the slaughter, then we bear great responsibility with them.” – Bishop Robert Finn, Diocese of Kansas City, Kansas

    “A committed and convinced Catholic is always pro-life on the issue of abortion and euthanasia, and that includes in the voting booth.” – Archbishop Dennis Schnurr, Diocese of Cincinnati, Ohio

    “The failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful.” – _U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

  • The bishops calling to vote for “life” means that Catholics should vote for candidates that support quality life for impoverished, medically fragile, disabled, illiterate, marginalized, disenfranchised, and homeless in the way Jesus served humanity, right? Voting for candidates that support “pro-life” are the candidates who work to make things equitable and fair for people who are not born into privilege or luck. I am a Catholic “pro-life” who is supporting the Obama/Biden ticket because they support “life” for all Americans regardless of the way they come into this world.

  • “because they support “life” for all Americans regardless of the way they come into this world.”

    Actually they are against a great many Americans coming into this world at all, those whose mothers decide to slay them through child murder euphemized with the term abortion.

  • Pingback: Soon To Be Released Polls Show Religious & Midwest Voters Moving To Romney | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: When the Believer Loses Their Faith In The Religion Of Big Government | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Why Polling Skews Against Political & Religious Conservatives | The American Catholic

Paul Ryan & Subsidiarity

Thursday, April 12, AD 2012

Ever since Congressman Paul Ryan announced his budget plan, claiming that it was inspired by his understanding of Catholic social teaching (CST) in general and subsidiarity in particular, old debates about the meaning of CST have flared up once again. Michael Sean Winters of NCR blasted Ryan’s conception of “subsidiarity”; then Stephen White of Catholic Vote critiqued some of Winter’s own oversimplifications. Since everyone and their aunt in the Catholic blogosphere will weigh in on this at some point, I’ll get it over with and throw in my two-cents now.

First: I do believe that some of Ryan’s statements are oversimplifications. For instance, he claimed that subsidiarity and federalism were more or less synonyms for one another. They are not. Stephen White pointed out that these concepts are complimentary, however, and they are.

Secondly: Winters, and he is not alone in this, repeats Vatican statements about “access” to health care as if they were an exact equivalent with Obamacare or other types of government-run healthcare schemes. As White pointed out, Winters presents his leftist policy preferences as non-negotiable points of CST.

Third: I think the entire framework of this discussion needs a serious overhaul.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Paul Ryan & Subsidiarity

  • Very good, you added to excellent White’ piece.

  • As well, Rights being naturally endowed unto us by God, their exercise cannot entail any kind of need to obtain the service or labor of others, except in their mutual defense. If Health Care (or housing, or food, or any other lefty favorite) is a natural right, then this entails the enslavement of those who provide it, as rights cannot be purchased, but only exercised.

    How this quiet little piece of logic goes unshouted by the establishment GOP is, or at least used to be, beyond me.

  • generally I agree with you, but here ( in your “on one level” paragraph) something sticks:
    to me “precedes” the State does not just mean preceding in time, but precedes in another way– a ranking — now that we are technologically capable, for instance, of feeding and hydrating T Schiavo, charity calls us to that–
    we are not called to live like we are BC era,; I think we are called to work with what we have.. natural law does not take us back to some primitive state-but applies here and now with what “wherewithal” we have… that’s why “precedes” does not necessarily mean “precedes in time”
    once again I am more than willing to be corrected as needed!
    I think you are saying extraordinary measures are not a human right — like heart transplant etc–

  • Anzlyne,
    I suspect that you and WK are not in agreement. WK is making the fairly time-honored case in favor of the proposition that rights are negative rather than positive. Libertarians point out, quite correctly, that the trouble with affirmative or positive rights is that they logically require the functional enslavement of others. This position has never been accepted by the Church, and in fact has been pretty directly criticized. That said, my sense is that the Church’s view and that of libertarians in this limited respect are not necessarily contradictory insomuch as libertarians are criticizing affirmative “rights” that are enforceable by government whereas the Church is affirming the importance of such rights vis-a-vis society, and government and society are not synonymous. More specifically, the Church is saying that society must be ordered in a way so that its members rights to basic needs are satisfied; liberarians do not oppose that as such, as long as the term right does not mean a legal right that can be enforced against others via government coercion. The Church does not oppose the latter, but does not require it either.
    All that said, I like the fact that Ryan seems to take his Catholicity seriously. I worry that he also takes Ayn Rand seriously, and while Rand had her insights her “philosophy” is ultimately not remotely compatable with Roman Catholicism.

  • All good points here. Consider that Mortimer Adler in his book “10 Philosophical Mistakes” makes the point that a human right to something doesn’t mean that a person must have that thing provided by either the government or his neighbors if he can’t get it for himself. It means that no one, whether government or anyone else can morally PREVENT the person from fulfilling that right. Often fulfilling that right is based on good fortune and circumstance. We see that in the right to bear arms. The government or anyone else doesn’t have the resposnsible to buy you a gun if you can’t afford one.

  • I think I am not in opposition to WK Aiken’s post– I do think that our rights precede the state, that they are not “posited” by the state… they are negative in that they are not imposed but are natural– I apologize that I wasn’t very clear who I was responding to– it was Bonchamps paragraph:

    ” On one level, something that has only been available for roughly a century or so cannot possibly be a “basic human right.” Rerum Novarum establishes that the natural rights that belong to each individual precede the state; this
    categorically excludes something as specific and dependent upon a high level of technological development as a lifetime of health services. Such goods and services can only be “accessed” to the extent that a technologically advanced society can produce them, and this capability in turn depends upon on a level of economic freedom that cannot be attained with purchasing mandates, excessive tax burdens, and bureaucratic control.’

    And I do agree with Bonchamps about all of this generally –at the end of the paragraph
    I agree we have to recognize that economic ability/ freedom to act which describes the level of burden to provide access to advanced health care. I agree that none of this burden (brother’s keeper) can be coerced by the state, but is social construct of individuals within families/ communities.
    my only question to Bonchamps was about our social burdens/responsibilities in his words since “roughly a century ago” — it sounds like our rights are defined a bit by the technical ability to intervene..
    so I say we do have the rights and mutual responsibilities and some of those responsibilities depend upon our “wherewithal” what we can and should do here and now is different than what would have been morally required back then or over there : )

    once people didn’t know how to read, but an education I think is a basic human right– provided first and foremost by the parents

  • I think I am not in opposition to WK Aiken’s post– I do think that our rights precede the state, that they are not “posited” by the state… they are negative in that they are not imposed but are natural– I apologize that I wasn’t very clear who I was responding to– it was Bonchamps paragraph:

    ” On one level, something that has only been available for roughly a century or so cannot possibly be a “basic human right.” Rerum Novarum establishes that the natural rights that belong to each individual precede the state; this
    categorically excludes something as specific and dependent upon a high level of technological development as a lifetime of health services. Such goods and services can only be “accessed” to the extent that a technologically advanced society can produce them, and this capability in turn depends upon on a level of economic freedom that cannot be attained with purchasing mandates, excessive tax burdens, and bureaucratic control.’

    And I do agree with Bonchamps about all of this generally –at the end of the paragraph
    I agree we have to recognize that economic ability/ freedom to act which describes the level of burden to provide access to advanced health care. I agree that none of this burden (brother’s keeper) can be coerced by the state, but is social construct of individuals within families/ communities.
    my only question to Bonchamps was about our social burdens/responsibilities in his words since “roughly a century ago” — it sounds like our rights are defined a bit by the technical ability to intervene..
    so I say we do have the rights and mutual responsibilities and some of those responsibilities depend upon our “wherewithal” what we can and should do here and now is different than what would have been morally required back then or over there : )

    once people didn’t know how to read, but an education I think is a basic human right– provided first and foremost by the parents

  • Throughout 2009 during the purported “health care debate”, the version of CST as has been corrupted by modernity, legal positivism (as nicely mentioned by MP), liberation theology, etc., was manifest in ways not herebefore many Catholics had known with the exception of the flick in time CHD scandal. I can leave to others the root causes of that corruption but the domestic policy people at the USCCB and many bishops contributed greatly to the present day impoverished notions of what constitutes CST. I haven’t done this in a while as it’s simply too depressing but over the years one could witness first hand how the USCCB gave the Democratic Party platform its “theological” approval as it promoted higher taxes, cap and trade, mortgage bailouts, the Fannie/Freddi debacle, and many other statist oriented laws. Subsidiarity gets nothing but lip service. Free enterprise receives nothing but disdain.

    I like what George Weigal said in a lecture, From Centesimus Annus to Deus Caritas Est, The Free and Virtuous Society of the 21st Century, about subsidiarity and federalism:
    “The principle of susidiarity teaches us that decision-making in society should be left at the lowest possible level (i.e., the level closest to those most effected by the decision), commensurate with the common good. American ‘federalism’ is one empirical example of the principle of subsidiarity at work in actual political life. Articulated under the lengthening shadow of the totalitarian project in the first third of the twentieth century, the principle of subsidiarity remains today as a counter-statist principle in Catholic social thinking. It directs us to look first to private sector solutions, or to a private sector/public sector mix of solutions, rather than to the state, in dealing with urgent social issues such as education, health care, and social welfare.”

    As I’ve stated before, our constitutional federalism offers us the template for the reality of subsidiarity, which we should cherish.

    Finally as to any “worry” that Paul Ryan takes Rand’s “philosophy” seriously, I find that not being helpful to the discussion inasmuch that it is a random perjorative. Ryan, like many of us, have read Rand and particularly Atlas Shrugged. I would hope most college students do read it. Rand, as Ryan read it and as most of us have, provides keen insight into the simple understanding that economics, at its heart, is a behavioral ‘science.’ Where Ryan and any Catholic reading Rand depart radically from her is with her depressing notions of glorifying human depravity, egoism, selfishness and objectiveism…..but then that is the flip side of the coin known as freedom….the same coin which gives us the choice to obey Him, to live out authentic Charity and not the faux charity of government coercion, confiscation, dependency, etc. And when you really think about Rand’s depressing view of human nature, it’s not much different than the ideological ingredient found in socialism, or statism.

  • Paul Ryan speaks the truth regarding destructive, massive government spending and sky-rocketing debt that will enslave your children.

    The truth damages Obama’s narrative.

    Paul Ryan must be destroyed.

    Left-wing gangsters cloaking themselves in their version of CST politicize the Gospels to smooth the way for socialist serfdom.

  • Anzlyne,

    Thanks for the comments. By “precedes”, I actually think that Rerum Novarum – other natural rights doctrines too, in fact – really means “morally precedes.” It is a way of stating that man’s rights are not derived from the state, they do not depend upon the state, and the state can’t have some obligation to actually provide things for people; the state is instituted for a very specific purpose, which is to safeguard natural rights.

    “my only question to Bonchamps was about our social burdens/responsibilities in his words since “roughly a century ago” — it sounds like our rights are defined a bit by the technical ability to intervene..”

    That’s now how I would have it. I don’t think our rights should depend on technology. I don’t think new technologies that make the mass production of goods and services possible can create new rights to those goods and services. If something was not recognized as an entitlement 1000 years ago mainly because of reasons of scarcity, it can’t be recognized as an entitlement today, because we still have scarcity – just less of it. It is still impossible for everyone to get everything they want.

    The main reason people are agitated and clamoring for egalitarian “social justice” is precisely because the system they despise, capitalism, has made so many people so much better off that the presence of a marginalized underclass really sticks out like a sore thumb. But even this underclass, at least in the Western world, lives better than much of the rest of the world today and most of humanity throughout history. So there is a lot of impatience.

    More people die each year in auto accidents in this country than die from a want of health insurance. I would say that there’s just as little we can efficiently and justly do at the federal/bureaucratic level to prevent all auto accidents as there is all deaths related to a lack of health insurance. The amazing thing is that this rules out nothing for people whose imaginations can possibly operate outside of federal bureaucracies. But you’d have to be uninterested in controlling and plundering your neighbor for that, and I guess that’s too much to ask from fallen man.

  • Hi Bonchamps
    so we agree on what “precedes” means– that it is a moral ranking so to speak –
    your reference to our rights as related to time ( last century) and the development of technology threw me. I think you said that the ability to offer these things only for less than a century means we cannot see the application of technology as something that could be coerced by the state– ok
    I have no probem understanding negative or natural rights given by God preceding the state– but our real choices change a bit because we
    live now

  • Anzlyne,

    My point is to warn against the illusion that things have changed so much that we can declare specific goods and services “rights”, as if they existed in super-abundance and only some sort of irrational prejudice was preventing an unlimited supply to meet an unlimited demand.

  • Yes. Good point. Thank you. Also BPS point is well taken.

  • First among the many things I like about Paul Ryan is that he sees the need to take the CST narrative away from the left (which unfortunately includes the USCCB when it comes to issues like this) and proceeds to do just that.

  • If it’s Socialist to have Social Security, Medicare, and Medicade, than count me as a Socialist! What we need now is Socialized Healthcare. Healthcare for PROFIT no longer works! 50% of the population can no longer afford Healthcare! And 50% of the Country lives at or below the POVERTY LINE! Remember, the early Christians were Socialists! They held everything in Common! Don’t tell me that there is no money for these programs-that is pure BS! Stop giving BILLIONS of dollars away every year as “Foreign Aid”! Stop trying to police the world and cut back on the more than 1000 military bases we have around the world! Tax the RICH! Vote Democratic! Let Obama lead-not the Rich Republicans!

  • The notion of subsidiarity has captivated my attention for years, and I’m hoping that this concept soaks in to the public mind. As stated by others here, subsidiarity can be applied more broadly than rule-making. Specifically, charity needs to happen in person to person contact rather than through the organs of the State. State-run charity, welfare, had the promise to be more efficient than churches operating through disorganized but well-meaning individuals, but the state operates as would a machine between the donor and recipient. Without contact between the donor (taxpayer) and recipient (poor) there is no sense of charity and thankfulness, but only their opposites. A machine cannot convey love.

    In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the first two passers-by likely wished that someone else would help.

  • Richard,

    Use your inside voice.

    The “poverty line” is an arbitrary line. To be at the American “poverty line” today is to be wealthier than at least half of the people in the world, if not many more than that.

    I do agree that we should stop policing the world and slash the military budget significantly. But that money ought to be returned to the taxpayer, not siphoned into an inefficient bureaucratic monstrosity.

    I also think it is pretty absurd to cite such concerns and then scream about voting for Obama and the Democrats. Obama went into Lybia and is threatening Syria and Iran. And in case you’ve forgotten, Bill Clinton went into the Balkans, twice, and LBJ gave us the Vietnam War. If you want to go even further back, it was FDR who got us into WWII and Wilson who got us into WWI. I’ll leave aside the value judgments of these military adventures. The point is that Democrats get us into more wars than Republicans do, because they have always been more idealistic and willing to believe that ideas can be spread and imposed by force. It is nothing but an extension of their socialistic philosophy, which imposes ideas by force domestically. Republican war-idealism is a new thing (hence why we call those who promote it NEOconservatives).

    Obama is a warmonger. And unlike Bush, his war in Lybia had no Congressional approval.

  • Richard you are a thinking person and I invite you to read about the “Light to the Nations” Pope Leo XVII. That would be a good start.

  • Anzlyne,

    You mean Pope Leo XIII, right?

  • hahaha
    sorry sometimes I type too fast! ha– I do mean Thirteenth! and I see that I also wrote light to the nations! Lumen gentium! what a goofy post– I meant Light in the Heavens! ( remember St. malachy called him that)– Thanks Bonchamps


  • yes I know very well he didn’t write that– I was just saying that in my gooofy post I meant to write” Light in the Heavens” but my brain slipped to that other familiar phrase– which is the title (taken from the first sentence) of the Dogmatic Constitution–

  • I really don’t follow the argument that a service that has become highly technical cannot be a right.

    Whether we have a right to healthcare, or to access to healthcare, depends on the fundamental nature of the service (that is, the removal of suffering and the preservation of life), not the cost or sophistication of the technology. People are not to be left to die on the street, because they have a right to life. If, for example, someone passes out in my house, it is my obligation to apply CPR. This is my level of knowledge. CPR was unknown in prior generations, but I have the knowledge, and I am duty bound to apply it. If someone was shot on the battlefield during the Civil War, there was an obligation to perform an amputation or apply a tourniquet.

    It seems to me you are saying that, if someone is ill, they are entitled to whatever care one could naturally give them without technology – bed rest, dressing a wound, etc., but otherwise it is moral to let them die. This seems so ludicrous that I can’t imagine that is your position.

  • “I really don’t follow the argument that a service that has become highly technical cannot be a right.”

    I don’t know why you would try, since that isn’t my argument at all. My argument is that something that hasn’t been a “basic human right” throughout most of human history cannot possibly be a basic human right today because it suddenly looks like we might have the wealth and resources for everyone to have it (we don’t). Scarcity isn’t an “injustice”; its just a natural condition that all of the ideological temper-tantrums in the world can’t make go away.

    “Whether we have a right to healthcare, or to access to healthcare, depends on the fundamental nature of the service (that is, the removal of suffering and the preservation of life), not the cost or sophistication of the technology. ”

    My point is that you can declare whatever you want a “right”; if reality prevents it from being produced and distributed for all who might need it, then such declarations are not only meaningless, but potentially harmful to society.

    ” If, for example, someone passes out in my house, it is my obligation to apply CPR.”

    That’s not “healthcare.” That’s charity. And it isn’t your legal obligation to apply CPR, but the advocates of universal healthcare want to force us all to pay into a healthcare system to satisfy their social ideals.

    “This is my level of knowledge. CPR was unknown in prior generations, but I have the knowledge, and I am duty bound to apply it. If someone was shot on the battlefield during the Civil War, there was an obligation to perform an amputation or apply a tourniquet.”

    Yeah, I don’t know what this has to do with anything. I mean, if in your battlefield there are more injured people then there are tourinquets, no one is going to say it is a situation of profound injustice that some people will simply bleed to death. The reality of scarcity was understood by all. There isn’t always enough to go around. If and when there is enough, then YES, of course charity obliges us to provide what we can for those who need. My argument is against those who think they can overcome the realities of scarcity with government edicts and philosophical pronouncements of new rights.

    “It seems to me you are saying that, if someone is ill, they are entitled to whatever care one could naturally give them without technology – bed rest, dressing a wound, etc., but otherwise it is moral to let them die. This seems so ludicrous that I can’t imagine that is your position.”

    I certainly never said that. If you think I said that, maybe you could copy and paste what I said that gave you such an impression.

  • You in fact said:

    “On one level, something that has only been available for roughly a century or so cannot possibly be a “basic human right.” ”

    Now, you pretend you didn’t say any such thing, and that you were only talking about “scarcity.” It’s quite plain where I got the idea that I considered your argument to be based on modern technology – because there is no other way to intepret the sentence quoted above. So much for intellectual honesty.

  • I can see why your comments are put on moderation. It doesn’t occur to you that there might be a miscommunication here: you jump right to the uncharitable accusation of dishonesty.

    This is how you cast my position: “if someone is ill, they are entitled to whatever care one could naturally give them without technology – bed rest, dressing a wound, etc., but otherwise it is moral to let them die.”

    First, I never said anyone was entitled to anything. No one has ever been entitled to any of these things. People have had individual moral obligations to provide what they can, when they can, for those in need.

    Secondly, what I said has only been available for a century or so has been cradle-to-grave healthcare. This is what is demanded by those who classify “healthcare” as such as a “basic human right”, and who believe that this “right” obliges governments to provide it.

    And yet this thing they demand as a right, has only been available for about 100 years. So how can it be something that people have always been entitled to? No one in the past insisted that cradle-to-grave healthcare was a “basic human right” because it would have been impossible to provide it for every single person. Such a thing couldn’t even be imagined. No one said, “we live under a regime of injustice because we can’t snap our fingers and make the resources to provide everyone with this basic human right appear before us.” It was just a fact of life. There was no “right” to that which couldn’t exist.

    My argument is that it still doesn’t exist today. It just so happens that our level of technological advancement has made it so that SOME people, and in fact, a significant majority of people, can afford it, while others cannot. And this strikes people as unfair. And so they imagine that what some people have, everyone ought to have in order for fairness to be achieved. And they then insist that the government has an obligation to make it fair. And they clothe these presumptions in the language of “rights” in order to strike a chord in our hearts.

    You accuse me of saying that it is MORAL to “let people die.” I am not proposing that it is some positive act of morality to say to a person, “we’re not going to give you what you need because you can’t afford it.” But I would say that you can’t classify a situation of scarcity itself as a state of injustice or immorality, because that is simply the way the world is. Nor can you overcome such a state by saying that the thing which cannot be made available to all is a “basic human right” that governments MUST make available to all.

Rick Santorum & the Data Behind the Catholic, Evangelical, Youth & Women’s Vote

Wednesday, March 7, AD 2012

The divide between the truth of the election results and the punditry of the mainstream media is seemingly growing every major primary election night. Perhaps none more than the recent Super Tuesday results, especially those of Ohio. How could it possibly be that Rick Santorum, the former Pennsylvania Senator won the youth vote, all voters under 44, and the married women vote? If one listens to the mainstream media, especially that of NBC, MSNBC and the New York Times one would think the only people voting for Rick Santorum would be rust belt pre-Vatican II ordained Catholic priests, and an amalgamation of southern characters such as Jed Clampett, Mr. Haney, as well as some assorted extras from the set of Deliverance. However, the true exit poll results tell us something quite different.

The mainstream media seemed shocked that Rick Santorum didn’t win the Catholic vote and won the Evangelical Vote as well as the others I indicated earlier; young people and married women. I want to delve into the nitty grtty of the statistics and demographics in a few paragraphs but first let me give you some background on those in the heartland who became liberals even though they grew up in GOP circles and folks like myself who became conservative after growing up in a Democratic household.

I grew up in a working class steel and railroad town in Ohio. My family, like many around us was Democrat in party affiliation and social conservative in our mindset. I was educated in Catholic schools (during the 1970s & 80s) and though it was the warm fuzzy era of Catholic education, our nuns and lay teachers never completely bought into the liberal model that was so the rage in cool, upscale areas.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Rick Santorum & the Data Behind the Catholic, Evangelical, Youth & Women’s Vote

  • “The area west of I-75 in western Ohio might simply be some of the most conservative political real estate in America.”

    The same could be said of the area south of I-80 in Illinois, with a few exceptions such as East St. Louis and university communities like Champaign-Urbana. Our primary is less than 2 weeks away and it will be interesting to see whether the results reflect yours.

    Perhaps it ought to be emphasized here that — in my estimation — while it would be extremely difficult if not impossible for an observant Catholic at this point to vote in good conscience to reelect Obama, I don’t think we should assume that a “good” Catholic MUST or will always vote for Santorum over Romney or Gingrich or Paul. A faithful Catholic could vote for any one of them for a number of reasons and we should not presume Santorum is the one and only “true Catholic” candidate.

  • I love this:

    “Ohio voters who think Paul is too conservative went 45% for Romney. Voters who think Paul is not conservative enough went 39% for Romney.”

    Even The Weathervane’s supporters blow with the predominant breeze.

  • It’s a shame R.Paul is not more eloquent in speech and better looking. He is the better candidate because he is better for America overall than anyone else running on either side. When we focus on “wedge” issues, we lose sight of the bigger picture. He fully supports the constitution, wants to get rid of the FED and his ideas of foriegn policy make much more sense than what we’ve been doing for many decades. I would rather lose a fight that is important to me now (say abortion), but to continue to focus and educate on it locally and get someone in the white house (or senate/congress) that is a true statemen and patriot. Everyone else are simply politicians…

  • Excellent article, David, which I hope the Democratic strategists never read.
    At a pro-life pancake breakfast on Long Island, former friend of Rev Jackson and frequent guest on EWTN, Delores Bernadette Grier, told how Jesse who was himself nearly aborted as a baby, was a pro-life activist with the Archdiocese of New York,and convinced her to become active in the pro-life movement. She said he was told he had to be pro-abortion in order to run for the presidency and gave in.
    So many Catholics followed suit, in order to be accepted by the wider culture, and have the luxuries they craved, they used birth control and voted pro-abortion. They are the Cathoiics who voted for Obama and like, Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, are cultural Catholics from the Coast.
    They have no clue that there is a large, vibrant John Paul II generation just now coming of age to vote. Its been said that home-schoolers are Rick’s secret army, and even here in Eastern CT we are organizing for him, and praying for him. Rick knows, I think he intentionally chose Steubenville, OH for his speech on Super Tuesday, since it is the home of JPII Catholic bastion, Franciscan University. I bet he has a lot of support there.

    John Kerry, another cultural Catholic found this out the hard way in 2004 during a campaign rally there. Catholic Evangelist Scott Hahn’s son led half of t he student body to the rally carrying signs reading, “You can’t be Catholic and Pro-abortion!”.
    I pray that such a surprise awaits our president on a November evening when the new wave of Catholics deliver a Santorum victory.

  • Very interesting analysis. Dave Hartline and many other “socially conservative” Catholics were Democrats back in the day. Same could be said for countless others–Abp Chaput, for instance, wrote about working on the Carter campaign. Obviously back in the day the parties were not clearly defined on abortion and, in fact, the Democratic party was actually more socially conservative than the “country club / wasp” dominated GOP prior to Reagan. GW Bush’s whole “compassionate conservative” campaign was specifically designed to win these largely Catholic socially-conservative, economically moderate voters.
    Which brings me to Santorum, whom I find interesting b/c on the one hand he appeals to the same folks as the compassionate conservatives (think Huckabee in ’08, Chris Smith, Norm Coleman in MN, et al). Yet on the other hand he has won the support of many “tea party conservatives” whose anti-government liberterian-laced rhetoric does not jive very well with the Catholic communal ethos. In this light, it makes sense that Romney wins with Catholics b/c he is perceived as more “moderate” and less draconian. Note I am not talking about actual policy differences so much as perceptions, taste and culture.
    Santorum has more appeal with these voters, but as Thomas Sowell pointed out, it is not clear that he is the best candidate to take on Obama. Running for President is ultimately an audition for a job, and the successful business doesn’t hire someone b/c they like them best or b/c they have the same sympathies, but b/c they have the best skills and will do the best job. On the other hand Romney has failed to convince many that he is the one best qualified to knock off Obama and address the nation’s pressing economic and social issues.
    I will continue to follow the votes of Catholics in this election with interest.

  • “Younger Catholics who attend Mass regularly are more pro-life and adhere to the Church’s teachings more than their baby boomer parents.”

    This may be true. However what percent of the population are these younger Catholics?

  • First of all, I’ve never liked the “compassionate conservative” schtick of GW Bush. It unwittingly implied that conservatism, in and of itself, was lacking in compassion. Likewise, I find Santorum’s “supply side economics for the working man” suffers from the same type of false dichotomy, albeit unwittingly. I think what made Reagan’s approach so effective is that he saw the natural win-win in his conservatism.

    I also think Santorum being an orthodox Catholic and assuming he is knowledgable enough about the faith, I think he needs to start presenting his economic policy in the context of the principle of subsidiarity, which is in line with mainstream conservatism, especially when he speaks to Catholic audiences. He would also do well to show its consistency with mainline conservatism to non-Catholic audiences, particularly in light of the HHS Mandate viz. Obamacare.

    To my knowledge, Santorum has yet to do so.

    Believe it or not, that would be well received by most of the Tea Party. Given their cohesiveness (which smacks of a “communial ethos) and political effectiveness, they are not like Libertarians in that sense who are, to quote Michael Medved, “Losertarians”.

October TAC GOP Presidential Poll

Tuesday, October 11, AD 2011

Rick Perry has suffered in the secular polls due to his performance in the debates, Herman Cain has gained traction, Mitt Romney has remained stable and just received an endorsement from Chris Christie who himself has officially stated he will not run for president (this time around).  In addition both Sarah Palin and Thad McCotter have also announced they will not pursue the nomination, in all this, Rick Santorum has maintained a lead among TAC readers of all candidates.

Will Santorum continue his popularity among Catholics or not?

Here’s our latest poll so please vote after watching tonight’s GOP debate:

Continue reading...

29 Responses to October TAC GOP Presidential Poll

  • Santorum would help his case if he didn’t sound like a whiny jerk, because he’s an A+ on the substance. Perry helped himself tonight, and I think Cain hurt himself just a little. Newt’s still the most impressive guy on the stage, but I’m not sure he can overcome his baggage.

    As for the rest of the field – who cares?

  • Perry is old news. Maybe that’s supposed to be impressive in Texas but on the national stage, he’s no match.
    Cain has peaked. He bet the farm on 9-9-9 and Bachmann and Santorum took the wind out of that sail. Maybe he has other tricks but it’s a very difficult task to stay fresh.
    Newt is running for VP.
    Santorum has two problems. He always looks like he’s about to explode and the Google problem. It’s nearly impossible to shake off a negative first impression.
    None of this matters since Romney is the Republican nominee. At this point I can guarantee it. The more contested race is for running mate. Marco Rubio is the front-runner but there’s a long list of real possibilities.

  • because he’s an A+ on the substance.

    If he is not proposing a credible plan to balance the books, he is not A+ on substance. His career before politics was truncated and his executive experience is nil. Only three or four of these candidates have what might be adequate preparation for the job and two or three of them have serious issues over and above the usual nonsense on fiscal policy. The stage manager’s cane, please.

    None of this matters since Romney is the Republican nominee.

    What is the point of making statements like that?

    Marco Rubio is the front-runner but there’s a long list of real possibilities.

    There is no front-runner because there is no contest for this position.

  • What is the point of making statements like that?

    What is the point of making a statement like that?

    There is no front-runner because there is no contest for this position.

    There’s no popularly elected position of running mate but there certainly is a contest.

  • I didn’t watch the debate.

    Four more years of Obama and we’re finished. You need to prepare for it.

    Anyone had better beat the incompetent community agitator (pitting against each other haves vs. have-nots and foisting class envy and social unrest are not leadership) whose last best hope is a couple hundred unemployable hippies “occupying” Wall Street and his lying, lap dog media.

    Pray for the best. Prepare for the worst.

  • If you wish to beclown yourself by making declarative statements about things the answer to which you do not know, be my guest.

    The only ‘contest’ for the vice presidential slot goes on in the head of the nominee and the nominee will likely be unknown for another four or five months. Since most recent nominees have made choices apparently driven by idiosyncracy and short-term contingencies, you are not going to have a clue even if you know the nominee.

  • For me, Santorum is the best by far, and I can understand his behavior, he is hardly mentioned in any TV show (look O’Reilly), even when he present much substance in debates. And even during the debates, rarely he is called to the center of the discussion.

    Maybe, if he feels he is better positioned, he can show more calmness.

    Cain is out with his 999, he is trying to be VP, as well Bachmann, Paul, Huntsman. So, there are four candidates Romnoway, Perry (good candidate), Gingrich (carrying stones) and Santorum.

    Santorum 2012.

  • Who is Buddy Roemer, a NASCAR driver?

  • Just wondering with Cain’s 999 plan whether that includes a free topping : )

  • *This* is the cream of the GOP crop, eh? And against a badly-flawed, detached incumbent whose term has seen unemployment hover at 9+%?

    Astonishing. I’m reminded of this:

  • I’ll take Santorum ANY DAY OF MY LIFETIME over any GOP or Democratic candidates these past 30 years (with the exception being Ronald Reagan).

  • I am afraid that I am gravely dissatisfied with all the Republican candidates, although, except in the case of Ron Paul, I would vote for any of them over Obama. (In a Paul-Obama race I would write in Bob McDonnell.)

    1.Michele Bachman-Bad habit of making things up. Knowledge base that is broad and an inch deep. Poor presentation of herself when coolness and a calm head are needed from a candidate.

    2.Herman Cain-His 999 plan is rubbish and would lead to lower income individuals paying far more in tax than they do now. Personally an impressive man, he gives little indication of having thought deeply about most of the problems confronting the country. If the country is fed up enough with professional politicians however, he has a definite shot.

    3.Newt Gingrich-Just go away Newt. You aren’t going to be getting the nomination and you are wasting our time. More skeletons than a small town graveyard.

    4.John Huntsman-Would be surging to the lead if Democrats were Republicans. Wrong party.

    5.Ron Paul-Klaatu barada nikto!

    6.Rick Perry-An astonishingly bad candidate after so many elections! The speed with which he went from front-runner to pack trailer is truly amazing. If he is going to have a comeback he is giving no sign of it.

    7.Rick Santorum-Closest to my own political positions, Santorum is a lousy candidate. His 41% to 59% loss to Casey the Lesser in 2006 was stunning, since Casey was a pretty weak candidate. Pennsylvania was going to be tough for any Republican in 2006, but bad tactics by Santorum turned a tough race into a rout. Has a talent for making enemies within the party. All the Touhey supporters are nodding their heads.

    8.Romney-The weather-vane. Pro-abort and now pro-life. In favor of Romney care; opposed to Obamacare. Moderate to liberal governor of Massachusetts, and now a born again conservative. I have absolutely no trust in him. I also doubt if he has the fighting instinct for the 2012 race. The Left will be throwing every thing imaginable against the Republican nominee next year, and I doubt if Romney can stand up to it.

    Time to pray for a dark horse, although if the economy continues to tank, it may not matter and Obama may be dead meat in any case next November.

  • Huntsman keeps getting described as a moderate or a liberal, but this seems to be more over matters of style than substance. On policy he seems pretty conservative (note: this is not an endorsement of Huntsman).

  • Huntsman is a conservative trying to run as a moderate who went too far and is now perceived as a liberal. He forgot that he has to win the primaries first. He’ll make a great Secretary of State.

  • Santorum (is that Latin for Saint?) is likely best on so-con issues, but his foreign policy is essentially a W redux, which is largely what got us in the mess we are currently in.

    Ron Paul looks crazy because he is the only sane person left in this country. That said, if you want to get elected, you need the crazies (i.e., the rest of the country) to vote you in and therefore must speak their language. Klaatu barada nikto, indeed.

  • Ron Paul looks crazy because he is the only sane person left in this country.

    Yes yes, he’s the only true patriot, liberty, constitution, blah blah blah. Meanwhile he’s hanging out with the 9/11 truthers, urging us to go back to the gold standard, and pretending that those craze moolahs would just love us if weren’t for those damned dirty Jews.

    If that’s sanity, I’m happy to be crazy.

  • Count me in, I’m happy to be crazy as well.

  • Gosh- dismissive comments – “lousy” “go away” about these good, intelligent, hardworking and very capable people doesn’t help the social or fiscal conservative cause. Pres. O’s team doesn’t need our help casting aspersions on our candidates. Santorum and Gingrich are my choices.

  • “O’s team doesn’t need our help casting aspersions on our candidates.”

    But we certainly do. In politics it does no good to ignore the flaws in the primaries only to have the adversary party rip into the flaws in the general election.

  • Please, please, please do not vote for Rick Santorum. The man is as thick as a plank. EG: Diane Sawyer said the presidenial candidates spend millions on their campaigns adfvertising and looked into their campaignt T shirts The 3 major candidates had shirts made in the USA. Then she showed Gingrichs’ and it was foreign made and when asked it took him a few minutes and he figured it out and replied he’d get USA made shirts….then Ron Paul, took him a few minutes to think about his foreign made shirts and he decided to dispose of them all immediately and get USA made ones. A llittle slow those two but they got the idea. When she asked Rick Santorum… his response…it’s hard to find anything made in the USA, and hard as she tried couldn’t get him to think about it and give the right answer. And he’s running for President, just a little scary!!
    As a Pennsylvanian who suffered him as senator, believe me, I know this is typical. Also, he has a bad habit of maintaining a position until (apparently) someone explains to him that he will get more votes for saying the opposite and then – VOLTE FACE! I know he is really, really pro-life but he is not presidential quality.

  • I love Herman Cain! He has to be our next president! None of the other candidates can even come close to the character he possesses, and I look forward to him getting the nomination…

  • Rasmussen: Cain 43, Obama 41

    Mitt Romney hardest hit.

    In all seriousness, it’s futile to trust in polls this far out. That being said, anybody voting for Mitt solely because he’s the most electable candidate should be forced to hand in their voter registration cards.

    Which, of course, is nothing more than a symbolic gesture since you generally don’t need them to vote.

  • Cain for President, Santorum VP

  • CAIN for president, John Huntsman vp

Last Call to Vote in GOP Presidential Poll for Catholics

Friday, August 19, AD 2011

The American Catholic (TAC) GOP Poll will be accepting votes until tonight, so if you haven’t voted, now is the time.

Thus far former Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is still leading with 23% (up 1 point since Wednesday) of the vote followed by Texas Governor Rick Perry with 17% (down 2 points since Wednesday) of the vote.

Continue reading...

TAC Presidential GOP Poll So Far

Wednesday, August 17, AD 2011

The American Catholic (TAC) GOP Poll is still accepting votes until this Friday evening.

Thus far former Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is leading with 22% of the vote followed by Texas Governor Rick Perry with 19% of the vote.

Texas U.S. Representative Ron Paul follows with 13% of the vote with undecideds rounding the top four at 11%.

Top tier candidates Michele Bachmann is way back with 2% of the vote with Mitt Romney at 5% of the total vote.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to TAC Presidential GOP Poll So Far

  • In regards to the TAC Presidential GOP Poll, it would be interesting how many “Catholics” would still vote for Obama.

  • Santorum has to be one of the dumbest dudes God ever created!

    Diane Sawyer said the presidenial candidates spend millions on their campaigns adfvertising and looked into their campaignt T shirts The 3 major candidates had shirts made in the USA. Then she showed Gingrichs’ and it was foreign made and when asked it took him a few minutes and he figured it out and replied he’d get USA made shirts….then Ron Paul, took him a few minutes to think about his foreign made shirts and he decided to dispose of them all immediately and get USA made ones. A llittle slow those two but they got the idea. When she asked Rick Santorum… his response…it’s hard to find anything made in the USA, and hard as she tried couldn’t get him to think about it and give the right answer. And he’s running for President, just a little scary!!

  • I will not vote for a cafeteria Christian in name only Republican thug and thief… nor a godless Democrat thug and thief.

  • Fr. Leo Padget,

    That would be interesting.

    We’ll do a poll on that later in the year, just for the record!

  • So Rick Santorum is dumb because he was the only candidate in the exchange who didn’t pander?

  • Will gladly vote in the 2012 election for any of these candidates to replace Pres. Obama.
    Still depressed at times that our country would elect someone with his background and lack of experience. Especially troubling that so many Catholics could vote for someone who is more pro-abortion than NARAL.

GOP Presidential Poll for August

Monday, August 15, AD 2011

The American Catholic (TAC) has been running a periodic poll of the GOP presidential field. So naturally following the Iowa Straw Poll we have this months poll for our TAC readers.  We have included candidates that have declared their candidacy as well as other speculative* candidates. As the primaries arrive the field of candidates should narrow down a bit.

Tim Pawlenty has dropped out, but Rick Perry has “officially” entered the race.  A newcomer to our poll is Representative Thad McCotter of Michigan.  Tim Pawlenty garnered 13 votes in our last TAC poll, we’ll see where Pawlenty’s supporters will go to next.  Rick Santorum won the last TAC poll.

You can view the results of our last poll here.

Update:  My apologies, I have added Michele Bachmann.

* For example even though Chris Christie has denied he is interested in running, he still will be in Iowa for an inexplicable reason. Until then, he will be showing in the poll until we don’t see his name on the actual roll.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to GOP Presidential Poll for August

2012 TAC GOP Presidential Poll

Monday, June 13, AD 2011

The American Catholic will be running a periodic poll of the GOP presidential field. We have included candidates that have declared their candidacy as well as other speculative* candidates. As the primaries arrive the field of candidates should narrow down a bit.

* For example even though Chris Christie has denied he is interested in running, he still will be in Iowa for an inexplicable reason. Until then, he will be showing in the poll until we don’t see his name on the actual roll.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to 2012 TAC GOP Presidential Poll

  • The poll is seriously flawed.

    It does not include an button for “ANYBODY but Obama.”

  • Be careful, T. Shaw. Anybody could be Hillary or Pelousy or Andy “I live with my concubine and take Holy Communion from Bishop Hubbard” Cuomo. There are plenty of unacceptable choices and too few acceptable ones.

    While I voted for Chris Christie, I would nevertheless be more than happy to vote for Sarah Palin if only because her winning would send the liberals intto a fit of apoplexy. 😉

  • Wow, I can’t believe Santorum is the top choice at the moment….

  • So the top 5 are people who either probably aren’t running or have no chance of winning the nomination. #6 is undecided. Newt and Buddy got votes? Must be an error.

  • RR,

    Your optimism knows no bounds!

  • I chose Tim Pawlenty for the simple reason that I would prefer the next president be un-flashy, and NOT a “rock star,” media figure, or conservative mirror image of Obama with an equally strong cult of personality. We need someone who will simply do the job and has held a major public office long enough to prove he can do the job (which, for me, rules out Palin and Christie).

    Pawlenty is in somewhat the same position right now as Jimmy Carter was in mid-1975, or Bill Clinton was in the summer of 1991 — a dark horse candidate who emerged from the field after all the early favorites had imploded for various reasons. I know Santorum is especially good on pro-life issues but I just don’t think he can win — he might end up as a running mate to whomever does win, though.

  • Elaine,

    I think that may be one of the things Americans will be looking for. Like Boehner, someone who is not a demagogue nor a narcissist. An American who gets the job done, not someone who promises a socialist paradise.

  • Obama meets all three criteria:

    (1) Demagogue with a teleprompter
    (2) Narcissist
    (3) Promiser of a socialist paradise

    Yet a majority of the American “peepul” voted for him in 2008.

    It’s 1st Samuel chapter 8 all over again.

  • I also support Pawlenty, though I actually prefer him to Santorum outright, not merely because Santorum can’t win (I still don’t understand why social conservatives should trust Santorum now, and I think he’s become far too focused on his very hawkish side). Pawlenty has yet to break out, but among candidates who are in the race and could conceivably win, he seems to me the best candidate out there, and he seems capable of presenting a serious conservative message vs. Obama without appearing angry, which I think will be important (however justified some level of anger may be).

  • It’s interesting that Santorum is doing especially well among us Catholics. Even more surprising is that Ron Paul is attracting more votes than I thought he would.

  • Of course Santorum would do well among ultra-conservative Catholic Republicans. That’s about the only demographic that he does well among.

    Ron Paul does well in any online poll. Paulites sit in their college dorms scanning the internet 24/7 for polls. That wasn’t a joke. That he’s not winning all the online polls suggests that his support has dropped significantly from 2008.

  • RR,

    “ultra-conservative Catholic Republicans”.

    You mean as opposed to the mainstream perverted-sex-adultery-prone-left-wing-america-hating demographic?

  • I agree with the comparison Tito made. It’s going to come down to a division exactly as deep as that.

    See Michael Voris’ latest video, “The End of America”, here:

  • Tito, as opposed to people like Justice Thomas who said he opposes anti-sodomy laws.

  • Justice Thomas is a great man!

    . . .and opposition to anti-sodomy laws isn’t a big issue item.

  • If we became the Christian Constitutional Republic that we were always intendedd to be, then there would be no need for anti-sodomy laws even as there would be no need for anti-adultery laws or anti-fornication laws. But a people which rejects morality is ever in need of more and more laws to regulate its conduct, hence our burgeoning regulatory bureaucracy.

    Last week I went through a two hour on-line virtual training course at the new company where I work. Of course such courses are required by the public masters – er, I mean servants – in our federal nuclear regulatory agency. This course was all about business ethics. Things like “don’t use company computers for browsing pornography sites,” “don’t use your knowledge of the company’s business tactics to manipulate stocks,” and “don’t take favors from officials in return for a contract” that seem so obvious to a moral and ethical person were the subject of the training. Hey, what’s up with that? Don’t parents teach Christian morality any longer? The answer is NO. So now we have all kinds of business ethics training courses.

    Maybe we do need anti-sodomy laws. And anti-adultery laws, and anti-fornication laws. A perverted culture knows no bounds, but I can’t fault Justice Thomas for assuming that we SHOULD be responsible adults, acknowledging that taking another man’s wife to bed or sticking your reproductive organ in another man’s orifice are both abominations against the Lord God which merit the punishment of the eternal fires of hell. But talk like that is bound to get me reviled, criticized and condemned for being intolerant, divisive, unkind and the worst of all crimes, “not nice.” Hell ain’t nice, either.

Catholic Vote: 51-38% For Senator McCain

Sunday, November 2, AD 2008

The most accurate poll from the 2004 Election, the Investors Business Daily (IDB) Poll, has been showing a trend of Catholic voters moving away from Senator Obama and into Senator McCain’s camp.  Since I first reported this a little over a week ago I can now say that this trend is real and Catholics are now leaning to McCain as of today.

Again, this is only a snapshot and outside of the IDB and Gallup polls, I don’t put much into any other poll.  But it is interesting to note that the Catholic vote has switched over to McCain, 51-38%.  A solid majority so to speak.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Catholic Vote: 51-38% For Senator McCain

Catholics Continue Trending Toward McCain

Thursday, October 30, AD 2008

The latest poll* that came out today, the Fox News Poll, show’s that Catholics are still trending away from Senator Obama and towards Senator McCain.  The poll today show’s whiteCatholics are now evenly split, 46-46%, between Senator Obama and Senator McCain.  Previously in the Fox News Poll it showed Senator Obama with an 11 point lead among white Catholic voters over Senator McCain (emphasis mine).

The race has tightened in part because of changes in a couple of important swing voting groups. Independents back Obama by 5 percentage points today, down from a 9-point edge last week. Similarly, among white Catholics, Obama held an 11-point edge over McCain last week and today they split 46-46.


Continue reading...

2 Responses to Catholics Continue Trending Toward McCain

  • I heard an interesting theory today regarding the polls. Currently, the media actively supports Senator Obama. Many Americans don’t want to appear to be against him, so either indicate they are undecided, or perhaps that they support him. Historically, the polls have over counted democrats, both in pre vote polling and in exit polling. It will be curious to see how the actual voting goes this time. Pray for pro-life positions.

  • I heard the same theory except the caveat is that these are democrats that are still upset with Hilary not getting the nod, but tell all their liberal friends and pollsters they’re going to vote for Obama so they won’t get ostracized. But come election day they’re pulling the lever for McCain.