[ninenot]

Specifically of interest is the fact that denying Communion to the CINO's actually DOES hurt the CINO's in the ballot box.

[QQQQQ]

I am sure the Terri Schiavo tragedy will not help the Dems either.

[dirtboy]

This common ground approach is reminiscent of a recent speech given by New York Senator and likely presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton,

Memo to Dems: You think it will be sufficient to talk about values and spin a new position on values. It won't. Values are funny things - you have to actually believe them and live them for them to have any merit to others. Otherwise, it's just hypocrisy.

And Hillary Clinton is the last person in the world you should be emulating, as she doesn't mean a damn word she's saying. Now or ever.

[Patrick1]

Coming next a memo on loss of Latinos.
Then a memo on loss of women.
Then a memo on loss of blacks.
Then a memo on loss of Jews.
Then a memo on loss of Americans.

Finally a memo on how are party can survive as the party of the Islamists.

[Fido969]

So rather than stick to their true morals, they will change them (or make it appear that they have changed their morals) in order to get (or fool) a few more people into voing for them, so they can again get power.

Is anyone going to be fooled by this? The dems will NOT change their core beliefs and morals, they will just try to hide those better.

[kittymyrib]

Yes, but on that "common ground" there still lies a dead baby, and no amount of cleverly nuanced weasel-words can get around that.

[maryz]

The memo advises Democrat candidates to get around the issue . . .,

. . . the notion of actually taking a principled stand on anything being totally out of the question.

[Luddite Patent Counsel]

Heck, the Catholic Church in America can't even "keep" Catholics. If the Rats figure out how to do it, I hope they pass their secrets along to the U.S. Council of Bishops.

[OpusatFR]

"The memo advises Democrat candidates to get around the issue by presenting themselves as one who "[b]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."

Is it possible to believe everything? The dems seem to think so.

I dislike both parties but will not vote for the democrats. I'd like to see a monarchy but guess that will have to wait on heavens own time.

[B Knotts]

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.

Now, how can that be?

Weren't we assured, right here on this very website, by certain posters to remain nameless, that Apb. Burke and other bishops who insisted on enforcing canon law were going to end up helping the pro-abort politicians?

[e5man_r_u?]

Does anyone else remember the hand wringing by some pundits about efforts by the WH to reach out to Catholics? The reasoning went that the W campaign would never get the Catholic vote since Catholics don't vote as a block. Now we see that when a candidate espouses something close to Church doctrine on the life issue he wins. Will this cause the left to reevaluate their insistence that the decline in Church attendance is due to the Churches social teaching?

Never mind I know the answer.

[colorado tanker]

Bill Clinton lied to Catholics when he campaigned to make abortions "rare" and then did absolutely nothing about it. Lying and obfuscating about abortion won't work anymore - they're on to you, Dims.

[Dolphy]

It doesn't seem to me that the Dems are holding many cards on any social issue. I guess they will go with a strategy of muting their social and cultural positions while increasing the volume on the rest of their core convictions...just as soon as they discover a poll to instruct them on what those convictions are.

[SaltyJoe]

for the ping list

[FormerACLUmember]

Memo's purpose: How best can we fool these Catholics at the next election, much as we despise them and their so-called "God"?"

[HitmanLV]

American Catholics, sad to say, are by and large pro abortion. I think they are fairly democratic on balance, but the dems lose them when they get extreme on the issue.

Dems lose many Catholics when they overstate their support of abortion - against parental notification for minors seeking abortion, and against the ban on partial birth abortion.

[patent]

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.

That became obvious to us during the election. The Eucharist issue focused attention on the candidates abortion stances. The result was that the pro-life Catholics realized how bad the Democratic candidates were. Had that attention not been focused on the candidate's abortion stances, many voters might have ignorantly or foolishly pulled the lever for the Dem., thinking he wasn't so bad because he "seemed" pro-life when he talked to them. When the Bishops talked about denying the Eucharist, the naive among us started to realize that no matter how nice the guy sounded on abortion, the reality was that they voted for evil, and that the words were empty.

I'm convinced that the Eucharist issue could have hurt pro-lifers had it been pushed hard all the way to the conclusion of excommunication (during an election), but that its limited press play actually helped us, as it was raised, and then largely dropped, but the focus on abortion was still there.

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.

These results are nearly meaningless. Obviously 82% (49+33) of the Catholics were not swing voters who could be moved by a Bishop talking about denying the Eucharist. Obviously that isn't the case, so we are including quite a few people who are ALWAYS going to vote for one side or the other. These people may say the Bishop's actions make them more likely to vote a particular way, but in reality they are pretty well along the way already. What would be valuable is to poll only those who are swing voters on this question. That would tell us

Also, keep in mind that the poll group's population was already heavily weighted against voting for the pro-abortion candidate, so seeing 49% say "less likely" here is rather unsurprising.

The memo advises Democrat candidates to get around the issue by presenting themselves as one who "[b]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."

Maybe I missed things, but I thought this had been their approach for the last decade. I don't think it will work.

I'm pretty sure Kerry tried real hard to tell Catholics he "personally opposed" abortion.

patent

[GianniV]

Cottage Cheese Hillary's voting record for abortion is 100%, as reported by her friends at NARAL. Now, will CNN report that? Or will they talk about how she's now a "centrist?" (like John Kerry and Howard Dean were!).

[NYer]

Know your enemy, bump!

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[BlackElk]

Stanley Greenberg is probably the best the Demonrats have. It is likely that he invented the term "pro-choice" via his focus groups as the best marketing tool to make baby slaughter alomost vaguely tolerable. If he is warning the Demonrats on abortion, surrender by them may be in sight. Won't that be a lovely catfight?????