Democratic Strategists Issue Memo on Loss of Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
A memo authored by a prominent Democratic strategy organization calls the decline in support of white Catholics for Democrats “striking” and “a big part of the 2004 election story.” One of the analysis’ key findings is that Catholic voters are becoming more pro-life which the authors called “a factor in the recent losses and one of the blockages for Democrats, at least in the Midwest.” The data also reveals that young Catholics are more pro-life than their parents and that bishops who speak out against pro-abortion politicians help bolster the pro-life vote.

The abortion issue is particularly potent for a group called “Democratic defectors” who either identified themselves as Democrats or voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 but voted for President Bush in the last election. Among this group, “26 percent believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases, nearly three times the number for all Catholic Democrats.”

The memo was issued by Democracy Corps, a research and tactical advice organization founded by Democrat strategy virtuosos James Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Bob Shrum. Titled “Reclaiming the White Catholic Vote,” it is based on data from a nationwide survey of more than a 1,000 white Catholic voters. The decline in the white Catholic vote has been steady over the last decade. Clinton won it by seven percentage points; Al Gore lost it by seven points; and Sen. John Kerry lost it by 14 points. The data provided in the report provides a fascinating window into the much discussed Catholic vote and makes it clear Democrats are losing ground because of their stance on a range of cultural issues.

It turns out that one of the most contentious and visible issues in the 2004 election, the denial of the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians, did not hurt the pro-life side as many said it would. The poll found that when white Catholics were asked whether or not they were more or less likely to vote for a Democrat that “is denied communion by the area’s bishop for voting to support abortion rights” 49 percent said they were less likely while 33 percent said they were more likely.

The memo also made it clear that the abortion issue is not going away. “Although the pro-life position is strongest among seniors, Catholics current pro-life position does not appear likely to lessen with time. While middle-age Catholics lean toward keeping abortion legal, voters under 30 are more pro-life: 53 percent believe abortion should be illegal in most cases.” The pro-life position could be a winning one for Democrats according to the study. Fifty-nine percent of white Catholics say they are more likely to support a Democratic candidate who is pro-life and 35 percent say they are less likely, giving a pro-life Democrat a 24 point advantage. Even on the East Coast where Catholics are less pro-life, a pro-life Democrat has a 12 point advantage over a pro-abortion candidate. The memo advises Democrat candidates to get around the issue by presenting themselves as one who “**elieves in a woman’s right to choose but believes all sides should come together around the common goal of preventing and reducing the number of abortions, with more sex ed, including abstinence, access to contraception and more adoption.” This common ground approach is reminiscent of a recent speech given by New York Senator and likely presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in which she softened her approach to abortion by calling it a “tragic choice.” In the speech she said faith-based abstinence should be embraced but also called on increased funding for “family planning services,” a euphemism for contraception, abortifacients and abortions.

christianity.com/cultureoflife**
 
Proof that the tide is turning. Thanks be to God! All we need do is remain faithful and continue to pray, pray, pray!
 
Funny how Democrats try to trivialize those who didn’t vote for their candidates saying “It’s not all about abortion and gay marriage!” What they don’t understand is that while it’s not ALL about abortion, this one issue is a deal killer for many, myself included. I used to be a Democrat but as my understanding of prolife issues increased I realized I could not in good conscious vote for a Democrate who supported abortion regardless of his other stellar qualities.

The sad thing is that the Democrat party is SO beholden to the proaborts that it will be extremely difficult to extract themselves. They are going to have to decide if alienating their base is worthwhile to attempt to gather in former Democrats or those who are looking for a different message. I’m doubting they will take the step although there will be lots of talk.

Lisa N
 
To: LisaN’s post

From what I’ve read here from supposed Catholics, you are all pro-war, and the Democrats aren’t. Quite frankly, I’m shocked at the blood thirsty attitudes here from Christian people about the war in Iraq. You really have to twist yourself into a pretzel to justify a “war” against a 3rd world country and the slaughter of innocent citizens and children. It’s shameful. This is just blatant partisanship, it’s NOT worship of faith or Christianity.

Yet, it’s clear to see from recent elections how the “undecideds” or the “mushy middle” voters are so heavily courted by both political parties. More people are middle-or-the-roaders concerning politics. Given the extreme right-wing base of core voters (or one-issue voters) versus the extreme left-wing base of core voters (or one-issue) voters, I do think you’re correct, and the evidence is clear in the last elections, that the right-wing base can and will be influencing elections more than the lefties will.

For instance, I’m pretty middle of the road, for the most part. Yet, I absolutely do NOT support gay marriage. I would support someone’s right to religion before I would support two gay people making a sham of marriage by becoming Husband and Husband? Wife and Wife? It’s ridiculous that gays would impose their will to an institution like marriage when just basic biology dictates that it doesn’t translate! Call if whatever you want, but it’s NOT marriage.

Didn’t mean to get on a soapbox. Over.
 
40.png
delcor:
To: LisaN’s post

From what I’ve read here from supposed Catholics, you are all pro-war, and the Democrats aren’t. Quite frankly, I’m shocked at the blood thirsty attitudes here from Christian people about the war in Iraq. .
Being for the liberation of Iraq doesn’t make us pro-war. You would be surprised at the number of wars I have marched against in my day. Maybe you can say I am pro-freedom.

But it is fun to poke at the pro-Marxists who post to this list.
 
From what I’ve read here from supposed Catholics, you are all pro-war, and the Democrats aren’t. Quite frankly, I’m shocked at the blood thirsty attitudes here from Christian people about the war in Iraq. You really have to twist yourself into a pretzel to justify a “war” against a 3rd world country and the slaughter of innocent citizens and children. It’s shameful. This is just blatant partisanship, it’s NOT worship of faith or Christianity.
  1. Depending on which poll you looked at 60-70% of ALL voters supported the war. That means quite a few democrats did too. Alot of democrats voted for Bush btw. Quite a few conservatives stayed home because they were against the war. Hardly partisanship, eh??
  2. “blood thristy”. Hmmmm. Hunt down machette-waving granade-throwing, suicide-bombing terrorists before they kill more innocent women and children…is “blood thirsty”??? Removing a sadistic-murdering-oil-for-palaces dictator from office, freeing 25 million from tyranny…is “blood thirsty”???
  3. The Just War Doctrine has been argued over and over. I respect those that are, on principle, against all war. But the Catechism of Catholic Church does not make it a sin to support a war.
Terrorists do not listen to reason, dialogue, negotiation, UN resolutions, etc. They do respond to bribes. They do respond to weakness. They CAN’T respond if they are captured or killed.
 
jlw said:
1) Depending on which poll you looked at 60-70% of ALL voters supported the war. That means quite a few democrats did too. Alot of democrats voted for Bush btw. Quite a few conservatives stayed home because they were against the war. Hardly partisanship, eh??
  1. “blood thristy”. Hmmmm. Hunt down machette-waving granade-throwing, suicide-bombing terrorists before they kill more innocent women and children…is “blood thirsty”??? Removing a sadistic-murdering-oil-for-palaces dictator from office, freeing 25 million from tyranny…is “blood thirsty”???
  2. The Just War Doctrine has been argued over and over. I respect those that are, on principle, against all war. But the Catechism of Catholic Church does not make it a sin to support a war.
Terrorists do not listen to reason, dialogue, negotiation, UN resolutions, etc. They do respond to bribes. They do respond to weakness. They CAN’T respond if they are captured or killed.

Everything you’ve described here is PURE partisanship. At least be honest about it, and don’t sully the Bible or religion in the name of a phony war.

It was President Bush’s father, George Herbert Walker Bush who decided that Saddam should stay in power and he imposed economic sanctions on Iraq after the first Bush war there. We already had a war with Saddam, Desert Storm. President Bush (the father) handled it brilliantly. Did you read about that war when President Bush 41 was in office? This current “war” is just a shameful blood thirsty sin against humanity, painted over by a broad brush hoodwink to the public in the name of “9/11.” So where is Osama anyway?

Take a look at the slaughtered children in Iraq. They have a right to life just like anyone else. So much for your Christianity. Nothing Christian about an irresponsible abuse of power.
 
40.png
delcor:
So where is Osama anyway? .
Well, apparently not in control of Al Qaeda anymore.

WHEN the Taliban fell, two visions emerged within the Islamist terror movement. One vision, identified with Osama bin Laden, wants the movement to continue targeting the West, especially the United States. The other, advocated by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s No. 2, wants the “holy war” concentrated in Muslim countries, especially Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
The events of the past year or so show that the al-Zawahiri vision is in the ascendancy.

nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/44301.htm

You see, like we have said here over and over again: terrorists need a home base upon which to launch attacks. This is not a new idea. Mao wrote about it extensively. Afghanistan has been removed from them. Pakistan is to strong for them to defeat. Iraq didn’t work. So now they are trying to get Saudi Arabia.

Unless they get another home base, we can say we are winning the war.

So where are you in all this anyway? Want them to win this war?
 
Although, the Post is pretty good if you follow Yankees baseball. Good luck getting decent coverage if you follow the Mets, though.
 
Philip P:
Yeah, the Post is a real paper… Look, complaining about media bias is only convincing if you can offer a genuinely better alternative. Otherwise what you’re really saying is that bias is perfectly fine, so long as your bias.
Do you know who Amir Taheri is? He happens to be one of the world’s leading experts on Al Qaeda.

So don’t poo poo what you don’t read. But I suggest you actually read the article, I think you will find it not that bad. Really.
 
40.png
gilliam:
It was said, Al Qeada, was a name given to Osama’s group by the US after 9/11 (before only calling it Osama Bin Laden’s group), I guess it wouldn’t matter. From what I hear, Osama might already be dead, but is perhaps useful as an ‘Immanuel Goldstein.’ Anyway there’s a lot more angry Muslim people than before, so whether they call themselves Al Qeada or not…

Also the many Al Qaeda cells uncovered turned out to be Mossad or CIA pretending to be Al Qaeda in order to find Al Qeada 😃

And have they managed to find any evidence to convict Saddam Hussein of the crimes they accused him of? How’s that trial coming? Or Michael Jackson’s for that matter?

Some bits I picked up here and there… are they right? Who knows? But yeah… interesting memo, hope we win. G’night everybody…👋
 
40.png
jdnation:
It was said, Al Qeada, was a name given to Osama’s group by the US after 9/11 (before only calling it Osama Bin Laden’s group), I guess it wouldn’t matter. From what I hear, Osama might already be dead, but is perhaps useful as an ‘Immanuel Goldstein.’ Anyway there’s a lot more angry Muslim people than before, so whether they call themselves Al Qeada or not…

Also the many Al Qaeda cells uncovered turned out to be Mossad or CIA pretending to be Al Qaeda in order to find Al Qeada 😃

And have they managed to find any evidence to convict Saddam Hussein of the crimes they accused him of? How’s that trial coming? Or Michael Jackson’s for that matter?

Some bits I picked up here and there… are they right? Who knows? But yeah… interesting memo, hope we win. G’night everybody…👋
I hope so too. But you need to read up on the history of Al Qaeda tomorrow. We didn’t start calling them that on 9/11. Send me a note if you need references.

G’night.
 
40.png
gilliam:
But I suggest you actually read the article, I think you will find it not that bad. Really.
I’ll probably take a look at the article. I’m not familiar with the name, but if he’s really that good, it’s a shame he’s writing in the Post. There are far more reputable papers out there, even among the conservative media.
 
40.png
gilliam:
Well, apparently not in control of Al Qaeda anymore.

WHEN the Taliban fell, two visions emerged within the Islamist terror movement. One vision, identified with Osama bin Laden, wants the movement to continue targeting the West, especially the United States. The other, advocated by Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s No. 2, wants the “holy war” concentrated in Muslim countries, especially Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
The events of the past year or so show that the al-Zawahiri vision is in the ascendancy.

nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/44301.htm

You see, like we have said here over and over again: terrorists need a home base upon which to launch attacks. This is not a new idea. Mao wrote about it extensively. Afghanistan has been removed from them. Pakistan is to strong for them to defeat. Iraq didn’t work. So now they are trying to get Saudi Arabia.

Unless they get another home base, we can say we are winning the war.

So where are you in all this anyway? Want them to win this war?
Oh, please. Don’t insult me with biased cut and pastes that paint over the real issue. This could go on forever. Where is Osama? And what a transparent attempt to browbeat; I don’t want anyone in “war.” That’s clear from my positions, and your transparent attempt to paint me as unpatriotic is beyond pathetic and stale.

You know as well as anyone else in the USA who can or will read that Saudi Arabia is primarily responsible for 9/11, yet the Bush Administration just figured we wouldn’t notice if we (the US) pretended that Saddam Hussein/Iraq sounds Arab enough to sell support of an attack to the public.

I noticed you avoided mentioning the slaughtered Iraqi children. How Christian of you partisans…
 
40.png
delcor:
Oh, please. Don’t insult me with biased cut and pastes that paint over the real issue. This could go on forever. Where is Osama? …
Personally, I think he is dead.
 
40.png
delcor:
You know as well as anyone else in the USA who can or will read that Saudi Arabia is primarily responsible for 9/11,

I know no such thing.
yet the Bush Administration just figured we wouldn’t notice if we (the US) pretended that Saddam Hussein/Iraq sounds Arab enough to sell support of an attack to the public.
Boy, where did you get this?
I noticed you avoided mentioning the slaughtered Iraqi children. How Christian of you partisans…
The slaughtering of Iraqi children? Are you talking about the terrorists who use them as human shields, and put them in “safe houses” to drag out their bodies after they incite an incident and then run and hide in them (if no mosque is available)?

Never mind, I guess I am talking to a pro-Baathist pro-Saddam loyalist here. You should tell us that from the start and save us a lot of time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top