Palin Boosts Mccain With Catholics

[dominicansoul]

[url="http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_mccain_catholics/2008/09/18/132268.html"]http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_m.../18/132268.html[/url]

[quote]Palin Boosts McCain With Devout Catholic Voters

Thursday, September 18, 2008 5:27 PM

By: Tim Collie

The McCain-Palin ticket may be locking its huge lead on a crucial voting bloc: church-going Catholics.

The development — contained Thursday in a poll by the Pew Research Center and backed by other polls — could be crucial to victory in November.

Why? [b]Catholics are the ultimate swing voters[/b] and make up as much as one-third the population of battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Moreover, some 40 percent of U.S. Catholics have no affiliation with either party.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain now has opened a 16-percentage-point lead over Democratic rival Barack Obama among observant Catholics, according to the Pew poll. The lead began to widen with the selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate, who, unknown to most voters, was baptized in the Catholic Church but raised in primarily Protestant evangelical churches.

The gain was noted earlier this month in a Zogby Online Interactive poll that showed 54 percent of Catholic respondents endorsing McCain’s choice of Palin for his running mate. Thirty-one percent believed it would hurt the campaign. Seven percent believed it would not make a difference.

But there also was good news in the Pew poll for Obama: his is gaining among Hispanics, two-thirds of whom are Catholic. He’s also even with McCain among so-called “lapsed Catholics” who attend mass occasionally or never. Because of their dramatic growth in the electorate in the West over the last decade, a large Hispanic turnout could tip the election for Obama if he wins at least 40 percent of that bloc, according to experts.

For decades, Catholics have been leaving their traditional home in the Democratic Party, with more-observant Catholics in the vanguard. Northeastern Catholics were a huge factor in the victories of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. But over the last four years, pollsters and religious experts have detected a reconsideration of Democrats.

McCain may be winning them back.

“We have strong evidence that the Palin pick was the big part of it,” Scott Keeter, director of survey research at Pew, told The Christian Science Monitor. Palin’s large family and her decision to bear her fifth child despite a diagnosis of Down syndrome lit a spark with observant Catholics who are staunchly against abortion. Palin also reassured these voters on “a whole constellation of values issues that are important to conservative Christians,” Keeler said.

What’s now up for grabs is the vote of white, less-observant Catholics.

“To the extent that there would be a group within the Catholic population that is swingable, it would not be the frequent mass-attending [nor] those who never attend church,” says David Campbell, a political scientist at the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind. “In the middle, however, is a fairly large group of Catholics who still think of themselves as Catholic and they still go to church periodically.”

If conservative Catholics have any reservations now, it’s based on McCain’s support of stem cell research — Palin is on record against it — and the question of Palin’s devotion to motherhood over her skyrocketing political career, according to some Catholic bloggers.

“The questions that fellow Catholics have raised have been… concerned with the Catholic understanding of the complementarity of the sexes and the vocation to motherhood. For instance, I've had a number of younger Catholic mothers raise the question of why the mother of a four-month-old child, especially one with special needs, wants to put her family through the grueling process of a presidential election campaign, much less the prospect of four years in the spotlight as vice president,” wrote blogger Scott P. Richert at the About.com Guide to Catholicism.

Richert stressed that most of his conversations were with Catholics who have long voted Republican.

“The other concern that both men and women that I've talked to have expressed is the sense that John McCain would not have picked Sarah Palin if she were a man,” Richert wrote. “The Church teaches that men and women have equal but complementary roles — that each sex is suited to different vocations and responsibilities. That doesn't necessarily mean that a woman couldn't be an outstanding vice president or president. But to choose a woman on the basis of her sex rather than her qualifications seems to undermine the Church's understanding of complementarity.”[/quote]

[ardillacid]

They wouldn't have to fight so hard for our votes if they didn't pick people who may or may not be on our side


Bob Barr 08

[princessgianna]

that is all very interesting! thanks for sharing domincan soul

[Adrestia]

These are all over the place.

[img]http://store.barackobama.com/v/vspfiles/photos/RS29552-2T.jpg[/img]

Does McCain even have a version of this sign?

[Resurrexi]

It seems so strange that there are people who claim to be Catholic who vote for people like Barack Obama. I mean, in my diocese (and I assume in most other places) there is a big emphasis voted on being pro-life in general and especially voting.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1660776' date='Sep 21 2008, 08:43 PM']It seems so strange that there are people who claim to be Catholic who vote for people like Barack Obama. I mean, in my diocese (and I assume in most other places) there is a big emphasis voted on being pro-life in general and especially voting. [/quote]
Well, I "claim to be Catholic" - I'm at Mass every Sunday - and yet I won't vote for McCain / Palin. That they may be "pro-life" - and in McCain's case, I'm not convinced - doesn't give them an automatic pass on all the other issues on which they're terrible: the "war on terror," torture, the erosion of civil liberties, and the smoking shell that is the US economy as a result of policies which McCain / Palin would continue.

Note: that doesn't mean I'll vote for Obama nor am I advocating for him. But the Bush administration has been a trainwreck, and McCain / Palin offer only more of the same. Their "pro-life" stance doesn't whitewash the fact that they'd be a disaster in every other way.

[Terra Pax]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1660956' date='Sep 22 2008, 09:38 AM']Well, I "claim to be Catholic" - I'm at Mass every Sunday - and yet I won't vote for McCain / Palin. That they may be "pro-life" - and in McCain's case, I'm not convinced - doesn't give them an automatic pass on all the other issues on which they're terrible: the "war on terror," torture, the erosion of civil liberties, and the smoking shell that is the US economy as a result of policies which McCain / Palin would continue.

Note: that doesn't mean I'll vote for Obama nor am I advocating for him. But the Bush administration has been a trainwreck, and McCain / Palin offer only more of the same. Their "pro-life" stance doesn't whitewash the fact that they'd be a disaster in every other way.[/quote]
I agree. Just because a candidate is pro-life does not give them a free pass. I will not vote for McCain/Palin either. Nor will I vote for Obama. But it sickens me when Catholics decide that just because a candidate is pro-life, they are automatically what the country needs. Not necessarily true. Being pro-life is an absolute necessity for a politician, but that doesn't mean they ought to be elected. And I don't think the "well, the other guy is pro-choice" is a good argument. Find someone different to vote for, someone who is actually fit to serve.

[dominicansoul]

[quote]It really is quite simple. VOTE PRO-LIFE. As Catholics, we need to ALWAYS go for the PRO-LIFE ticket, not the radically ABORTION-FREE-FOR-ALL candidates. People on this forum don't seem to understand that ever since ROE V. WADE...this has been THE ONE ISSUE. We CANNOT have all the rest without the LIFE issue being resolved first. You want our country out of the war, end abortion in our country. Violence begets violence. We're slaughtering our own children, and yet, WE DON'T EXPECT TO BE SLAUGHTERED? War is a PUNISHMENT for our evil crime. You want to help the poor and needy in our country? Stand up for the poor and needy in the womb. You don't want torture for criminals? End the torture of the babies in their own mother's wombs. IT IS SIMPLE. VOTE PRO-LIFE![/quote]

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote]What you call foolishness, I call discretion. Under no circumstances will I vote for Obama because of his pro-abortion stance. Having said that, under no circumstances will I vote for McCain:

1. I don't believe he is "bullet proof" pro-life.
2. I think that he's simply "playing" pro-life voters.
3. His policy positions on everything else have already been proved to be disastrous.


In other words, unlike you, with respect to McCain I have lots of questions.[/quote]

[dominicansoul]

ken,

I can respect that. I just believe the other candidates don't stand a chance. It's basically between Obama and McCain. So, if you don't vote against the Pro-Death candidate, he's gonna win. If Catholics don't vote against the pro-death candidates they always win...we will probably never have a "perfect" pro-life candidate, but at least the pro-life candidates don't make things worse for babies. Bush is a horrible prez, but at least he passed laws to protect the babies born alive. If Obama wins, all these laws will be history. It'll be once again, "massacre-at-will" without any restrictions. I know our laws do next to nothing to help these poor children, but at least we have some hope with a pro-life candidate. We never know what they can accomplish in their terms. But we definitely know what the pro-death candidates will accomplish!

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1661790' date='Sep 23 2008, 11:12 AM']ken,

I can respect that. I just believe the other candidates don't stand a chance. It's basically between Obama and McCain. So, if you don't vote against the Pro-Death candidate, he's gonna win. If Catholics don't vote against the pro-death candidates they always win...we will probably never have a "perfect" pro-life candidate, but at least the pro-life candidates don't make things worse for babies. [color="#FF0000"]Bush is a horrible prez[/color], but at least he passed laws to protect the babies born alive. If Obama wins, all these laws will be history. It'll be once again, "massacre-at-will" without any restrictions. I know our laws do next to nothing to help these poor children, but at least we have some hope with a pro-life candidate. We never know what they can accomplish in their terms. But we definitely know what the pro-death candidates will accomplish![/quote]

This is somehing I see a lot. Bush has not done everything I would like a president to do, but I hardly think he has been a horrible president. But rather than debate that, let me ask a differant way, who in your opinion has been a good president?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1660956' date='Sep 22 2008, 09:38 AM']Well, I "claim to be Catholic" - I'm at Mass every Sunday - and yet I won't vote for McCain / Palin. That they may be "pro-life" - and in McCain's case, I'm not convinced - doesn't give them an automatic pass on all the other issues on which they're terrible: the "war on terror," torture, the erosion of civil liberties, and the smoking shell that is the US economy as a result of policies which McCain / Palin would continue.

Note: that doesn't mean I'll vote for Obama nor am I advocating for him. But the Bush administration has been a trainwreck, and McCain / Palin offer only more of the same. Their "pro-life" stance doesn't whitewash the fact that they'd be a disaster in every other way.[/quote]


The smoking shell that is the US economy? Well first the president has very little to do with economic anything accept regarding the facat that he appoints the head of the Fed, congress has a lot more to do with that, but what exactly so horrid about the US economy? We had 3.3 % growth in the second quarter, hardly economic collapse. We aren't even in a recession? we have not nad negative growth but one quarter in 6 years, and no negative growth in 2008? So why exactly is the economy a "smoking shell"?

Edited September 23, 2008 by Don John of Austria

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' post='1661813' date='Sep 23 2008, 11:12 AM']This is somehing I see a lot. Bush has not done everything I would like a president to do, but I hardly think he has been a horrible president. But rather than debate that, let me ask a differant way, who in your opinion has been a good president?[/quote]

I know, I was a bit harsh...I say horrible, because he should have obeyed Pope John Paul II and never invaded Iraq. I dont' think we needed to go there. So many lives lost...

I think Lincoln is the only "good" prez we ever had...not perfect, but he had a passion I believe was absent in most of our presidents, and is absent in the presidents of today. Everybody in politics seems to be in it for themselves, and not for the American people. I believed Lincoln genuinely loved our country and did all he could to keep it together...

I think Reagan was probably the best out of all of the presidents in my lifetime...again, not perfect in any sense...but better than most

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='original article']If conservative Catholics have any reservations now, it’s based on McCain’s support of stem cell research — Palin is on record against it — and the question of Palin’s devotion to motherhood over her skyrocketing political career, according to some Catholic bloggers.

“The questions that fellow Catholics have raised have been… concerned with the Catholic understanding of the complementarity of the sexes and the vocation to motherhood. For instance, I've had a number of younger Catholic mothers raise the question of why the mother of a four-month-old child, especially one with special needs, wants to put her family through the grueling process of a presidential election campaign, much less the prospect of four years in the spotlight as vice president,” wrote blogger Scott P. Richert at the About.com Guide to Catholicism.[/quote]

amen

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1661817' date='Sep 23 2008, 12:18 PM']I know, I was a bit harsh...I say horrible, because he should have obeyed Pope John Paul II and never invaded Iraq. I dont' think we needed to go there. So many lives lost...

I think Lincoln is the only "good" prez we ever had...not perfect, but he had a passion I believe was absent in most of our presidents, and is absent in the presidents of today. Everybody in politics seems to be in it for themselves, and not for the American people. I believed Lincoln genuinely loved our country and did all he could to keep it together...

I think Reagan was probably the best out of all of the presidents in my lifetime...again, not perfect in any sense...but better than most[/quote]

Lincon was a mass murderer, his crimes are staggering. I sincerly would like to see him tried post humously for war crimes, and genocide and his temple pulled down like the pagan edifice it is. Of all the preidents in history, I would say he was the worst, as a human being at least, but as a holder of the office, well he did a pretty good job, but Attila the Hun and Stalin did pretty well in there offices as well.

Regan, well Regan bankrupt the Soviet Uniion and ended the Cold war without a nuclear exchange, that puts him pretty high, but his supreme court appointments, and economic policies still haunt us today.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Don John of Austria