Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Clinton Makes a Pitch For Catholic Voters
New York Observer ^ | March 27, 2006 | E.J. Kessler

Posted on 03/31/2006 3:25:28 PM PST by siunevada

The hunt for the great American Catholic voter of 2008 started in earnest last week, led by none other than New York’s junior Senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Speaking about a Republican-passed immigration bill that would make it a felony to be in the United States illegally, or to aid an illegal immigrant, Mrs. Clinton said, “It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because the bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself.”

Not coincidently, on the same day that Mrs. Clinton was channeling the late Catholic agitator Dorothy Day, the Democratic National Committee was disseminating via e-mail an opinion article voicing similar sentiments written by Cardinal Roger Mahony, the archbishop of Los Angeles.

The gambit shows the lengths to which Democrats will go to recapture Catholic voters, a quarter of the electorate, 55 percent of whom cast their ballots for President Bush in 2004 notwithstanding the Catholic faith of Democratic nominee John Kerry. It’s fair turnabout: During the 2004 campaign, Mr. Bush paid a high-profile visit to the Vatican, and months later, some Catholic bishops urged voters to shun politicians like Mr. Kerry who support abortion rights.

Now, Democrats want to woo back the many Hispanic Catholic voters who deserted them in 2004, hence their emphasis on immigrants’ rights, ventured out of conviction but also with the hope of flipping into their column states like Colorado and New Mexico, which went narrowly for Mr. Bush two years ago.

Mrs. Clinton, however, has positioned herself way ahead of her party and any of her putative 2008 Presidential rivals by championing initiatives that appeal to middle-class, white-ethnic, suburban Catholic voters, especially married women (another group that swung heavily to the G.O.P. in 2004). She knows that Catholic defections kept the vote uncomfortably close in some heavily Catholic states that Mr. Kerry won—including Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Pennsylvania—and contributed to Mr. Bush’s single-point victory in Iowa.

So we find Mrs. Clinton advocating “pro-family” legislation: for example, joining with the Senate’s two most conservative Catholics—Republicans Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania—to push for a bill authorizing research into the supposedly pernicious effects of electronic media on children. And there she was late last year, in a heavily Catholic Nassau County suburb, touting her bill to make cars safer for children. (As The New York Times noted this week, she has made herself an expert on the infrastructure issues of the aging suburb.) Need we mention her conciliatory language on abortion?

Strategists have been saying for some time that Mrs. Clinton will use her re-election campaign in the heavily Catholic areas of upstate New York as a laboratory for her expected 2008 Presidential bid. “Her spin is, ‘Hey, look, I can win Catholic votes. If I can win the western tier of New York, I can win Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,’” said veteran Democratic operative Hank Sheinkopf. If religion-tinged issues such as abortion and gay marriage can be neutralized in those areas, the Democrats can win on economic issues among hard-pressed Catholic men, Mr. Sheinkopf argues.

Illinois-born Mrs. Clinton, contra her Republican caricature as an angry liberal, can claim an advantage with Catholic and other so-called values voters: Unlike most Democrats, she sounds sincere when she employs Jesus language. Her problem regarding religion and the American electorate is not that she’s a heathen: In fact, she qualifies as one of the most overtly Christian politicians in the country. It’s just that, with conservative evangelical Protestants ascendant, she’s the wrong kind of Christian. Raised in the United Methodist Church as a Goldwater conservative, in college she embraced the movement’s modernist “peace with justice” wing just as liberal Protestantism began a long decline. But she did learn how to speak to conservative Protestants as the First Lady of Arkansas, and once upon a time a follower of an evangelical denomination—a Baptist named Bill Clinton—begged her to marry him.

Even as some recent polling shows the G.O.P. losing its edge with Catholics, Republicans will counter with their accomplishments and positions. Mr. Bush elevated two Catholics to the Supreme Court—in part on a bet that abortion will remain a helpful issue for Republicans. He named the first Hispanic U.S. Attorney General. G.O.P. positions against embryonic stem-cell research closely track Catholic Church stands. The gay-marriage issue—which Mr. Bush cynically leveraged, then dropped like a hot potato after the 2004 election—could be reinvigorated. No strategist ever went broke overestimating the Democrats’ capacity to shoot themselves in the foot on national security.

’Tis true. But count on this: With Catholics or any other faith-based voters, Hillary Clinton will be the Democrat best positioned to speak to their issues.

You may reach E.J. Kessler via email at: ejkessler@observer.com .

copyright © 2005 the new york observer, L.P. | all rights reserved


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: catholicvote; hillary2008
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last
a Baptist named Bill Clinton

Not too many Sunday photo-ops of of them coming out of church together these days. Easter's coming. Maybe one more for old times sake.

Hope that big ol' dew-honkin' Bible of Bill's can still be found in time for the next election.

1 posted on 03/31/2006 3:25:29 PM PST by siunevada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: siunevada

The Marxist Medusa just wreaks of hypocrisy. There will be no place for her and her accomplice in heaven...Satan is waiting for them. Blatant hypocrisy.


2 posted on 03/31/2006 3:28:29 PM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA

Satan has a book of Scripture? Live and learn.


3 posted on 03/31/2006 3:29:47 PM PST by romanesq
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: siunevada

I'm Catholic.....a Clinton making a pitch for my vote?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

ROFLMAO

LOL


4 posted on 03/31/2006 3:29:49 PM PST by Jrabbit (Kaufman County, Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: siunevada

Hillary's gonna be the first Black Southern Baptist Catholic Episcopalian Jew that ever ran for President.


5 posted on 03/31/2006 3:33:39 PM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: siunevada
Hillary now speaking for Jesus.

For those who thought that Hillary would be tough on illegal immigration, take heed.

6 posted on 03/31/2006 3:36:04 PM PST by My2Cents ("The essence of American journalism is vulgarity divested of truth." -- Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: siunevada; Mia T; anymouse; AnnaZ; Humidston; humblegunner; 4CJ; Flyer; Victoria Delsoul; ...
Strategists have been saying for some time that Mrs. Clinton will use her re-election campaign in the heavily Catholic areas of upstate New York as a laboratory for her expected 2008 Presidential bid. “Her spin is, ‘Hey, look, I can win Catholic votes. If I can win the western tier of New York, I can win Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,’” said veteran Democratic operative Hank Sheinkopf.

Beastwoman-rising ping.

7 posted on 03/31/2006 3:37:15 PM PST by lentulusgracchus ("Whatever." -- sinkspur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: siunevada
The last time the Clintons were seen together in church --


8 posted on 03/31/2006 3:40:14 PM PST by My2Cents ("The essence of American journalism is vulgarity divested of truth." -- Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: siunevada
It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures

Understanding of the Scriptures?

Just MHO, of course, but Scriptures aren't understood...they are taken to heart. Of course, when one doesn't have a heart...

9 posted on 03/31/2006 3:42:49 PM PST by Dark Skies ("The only way to find yourself is in the fires of sorrow." -- Oswald Chambers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: siunevada
“It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures...

I saw Tom Tancredo on Sunday morning with George Stuffin-envelopes, Georgie asked Tancredo about this quote and Tancredo laughed. He said something like "I'm not surprised at Senator Clinton's 'understanding' of the scriptures."

10 posted on 03/31/2006 4:25:30 PM PST by infidel29 ("We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." --Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infidel29

Does this mean tha she knows that she will never get the protestant vote?


11 posted on 03/31/2006 4:33:57 PM PST by tenn2005 (Birth is merely an event; it is the path walked that becomes one's life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: siunevada
Illinois-born Mrs. Clinton, contra her Republican caricature as an angry liberal, can claim an advantage with Catholic and other so-called values voters: Unlike most Democrats, she sounds sincere when she employs Jesus language. Her problem regarding religion and the American electorate is not that she’s a heathen: In fact, she qualifies as one of the most overtly Christian politicians in the country. It’s just that, with conservative evangelical Protestants ascendant, she’s the wrong kind of Christian.

Bartender, I'll have a double of whatever this writer is having....

12 posted on 03/31/2006 5:15:30 PM PST by Alex Murphy (Colossians 4:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus
HILLARY DOES JESUS
"FURTHER EVIDENCE WHY SHE IS ONE OF THE MOST DESPICABLE POLITICIANS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW"

by Mia T, 3.26.06



From a Christian (Catholic) theologian:



his is just further evidence of what, in my opinion, is why Hillary Clinton is one of the most despicable politicians that is out there right now in the sense that she's absolutely chameleonlike.

When she is pandering to the Left, she wants nothing to do with religion. She sounds like the ACLU. When she's voting against [the banning of] partial-birth abortion, I don't see her invoking the name of Jesus there because I'm sure she can't picture Jesus doing something like that. And she also knows it doesn't play with her far-left base.

And now she wants to pander to the center, so she starts invoking the name of Jesus.

And as a Christian, I'm offended by her use of Jesus for what I see as her very, very--uh--very self-interested political partisan ambition. I think this is simply a craven attempt to use the name of Jesus for political purposes....

To demonize either side of the immigration issue by invoking the name of Jesus is precisely the point..

This is an issue of prudential judgment that reasonable people can disagree about. They're weighing competing values--humanitarian values vs. values of national sovereignty in the age of terrorism. Neither side of this debate has the moral corner or the moral high ground.

Both sides have good points to make and to demonize the other side by invoking the name of Jesus [is despicable].

Larry Chapp, Ph.D.
Professor of Theology
The O'Reilly Factor

READ MORE

also:
WHY THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT MUST MOBILIZE AGAINST HILLARY:
CLINTON CONFLATES EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS AND ISLAMO-FASCIST TERRORISTS


AFTERWORD: A note to the Religious Right

13 posted on 03/31/2006 5:21:34 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
I'll have a double

Well, it is a New York paper. And she can actually pronounce the name Jesus which does give her a decided advantage over most other Democrats.

She'll never be Slick, though. If only she had allowed him to fulfill his true vocation as an Elvis imitator, we'd all have been so much happier.

14 posted on 03/31/2006 5:28:34 PM PST by siunevada (If we learn nothing from history, what's the point of having one? - Peggy Hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: siunevada; lentulusgracchus; All
Mrs. Clinton, however, has positioned herself way ahead of her party and any of her putative 2008 Presidential rivals by championing initiatives that appeal to middle-class, white-ethnic, suburban Catholic voters, especially married women (another group that swung heavily to the G.O.P. in 2004).

Clinton Makes a Pitch For Catholic Voters
New York Observer ^ | March 27, 2006 | E.J. Kessler





Right demographic, wrong issue. And there is nothing missus clinton can do to make a clinton acceptable to that demographic.


 

'04 ELECTION PROVIDES CLUE

To better understand why this move is fatal for missus clinton, we must go back to November 8, 2004, which is exactly six days after the re-election of George W. Bush.

The venue is Washington Journal (C-SPAN).

Enter Harold Ickes, looking weirder, more Ichabod-Crane-on-crank, than usual. Looking weirder still when one remembers that Harold Ickes is a strictly behind-the-scenes sort of guy.

Only something very important could have coaxed Harold Ickes onto center stage....21

Forgoing the standard niceties, Ickes launches into his planned tirade. He accuses Bush of terrorizing white women to get their vote.22 (The way he carried on, you would think he was accusing the president of rape or something.)23

"If you look at white women, and I think that was the key to this election, Kerry won 45% based on the exit polls--but they're generally in agreement--Kerry won 45%, Bush won 55% of white women.

By contrast, Bush won only 45% of white women in 2000, so he upped is percentages by 10 points.

In 1996, bill clinton won 48% of white women compared to Bob Dole's 43%.

That is a huge, huge difference. I don't think you can lay all that at the doorstep of moral values.

I think that this president unabashedly and abjectly took the issue of terror and used it to terrorize... white women."

HEAR HAROLD ICKES
Washington Journal
Nov. 8, 2004
C-SPAN

Now fast forward to October 11, 2005. Susan Estrich, alignments adjusted upward--ALL alignments--is on Hannity and Colmes. She is there to huckster The Case for Hillary Clinton, 24 both the book and candidate.

Estrich's spiel turns her recent dire warning to the Democrats ("The clintons are sucking up all the air. Get them off the stage!" )25 on its literal head.26 (Air? Who needs air when you have a clinton?)

ICKES + ESTRICH PROVIDE ROADMAP FOR HILLARY DEFEAT (oops!)

Susan Estrich attempts to tie the fate of all women to the fate of the hillary clinton candidacy in a cynical attempt to get the women's vote.

She argues that hillary clinton is the best chance, probably the only chance, for a woman president in our lifetime.

The false and demeaning argument and offensive gender bias aside, someone ought to clue in Susan Estrich. Gender feminism requires as its token a functional female.

So why is Susan Estrich making such a transparently spurious and insulting argument? She isn't that dumb.

For the same reason Harold Ickes is fulminating on C-SPAN.


The election of 2004 confirmed missus clinton's worst fears:
9/11 and
the clintons' willful, utter failure for eight years to confront terrorism) were transformative. They caused a political realignment--for all practical purposes permanent--that is not good news for clinton, or for the Democrats, generally.

The white woman, the only real swing voter, the demographic the Democrats MUST get in order to win the White House, has turned red.


Next installment...
THE ROADMAP FOR DEFEATING HILLARY

In the immediate aftermath of the 2004 presidential election, a journalistic consensus emerged to explain George W. Bush's victory. Despite the sluggish economy and deteriorating situation in Iraq, voters supported Bush primarily because of his values. One prominently featured exit poll question showed "moral values" to be the most important issue for voters, ahead of terrorism, Iraq, and the economy. Backlash against the Massachusetts court ruling allowing gay marriage and attraction of Bush's appeals to Christian faith helped bring out socially conservative voters and cement Bush's second term. This explains why Bush won Ohio, for example, where an anti-gay marriage proposal was on the ballot. However compelling this story might be, it is wrong.

Instead, Bush won because married and white women increased their support for the Republican ticket....

In this article I briefly account for the factors behind Bush's rise in the state-by-state popular vote between 2000 and 2004. This is not the same as identifying who elected Bush. That sort of analysis would put responsibility on white men since they voted 61-38 for Bush and comprise almost half of the active electorate. Instead, I focus on what changed between 2000 and 2004. In this view, it is white women who are responsible because they showed more aggregate change.

Identifying a cause for this shift looks for an explanation also in things that changed in the past four years. For example, John Kerry was not exactly Al Gore, so differences between Bush's two opponents could be a factor. But I suggest that such differences are dwarfed by a much larger intervention: the attacks of September 11. Turnout was up in 2004 because the perceived heightening of the stakes after 9-11 and because of intense competition between the candidates in a small number of battleground states. Higher turnout also appears to have helped Bush slightly. But it was the shift of married white women from the Democratic camp to the Republican camp that gave him the edge in 2004.

Post Election 2004: An Alternative Account of the 2004 Presidential Election
BarryC.Burden
Harvard University
The Forum
, Volume2, Issue 42004 Article2
burden@fas.harvard.edu



READ MORE:
IMPERIOUS HILLARY
(THE REPORTS OF HER DEATH ARE GREATLY UNDERSTATED)

Mia T, 12.05.05

WHY HILLARY MUST NOT WIN. WHY HILLARY CANNOT WIN.

(ICKES + ESTRICH PROVIDE ROADMAP--oops!--FOR HILLARY DEFEAT)

Mia T, 12.10.05

December 7, 1941+64

AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO

RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton



Dear Concerned Americans,

Hillary Clinton's revisionist tome notwithstanding, 'living history' begets a certain symmetry. It is in that light that I make this not-so-modest proposal on this day, exactly 64 years after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The context of our concern today--regardless of political affiliation--is Iraq and The War on Terror, but the larger fear is that our democracy may not survive.

We have the requisite machines, power and know-how to defeat the enemy in Iraq and elsewhere, but do we have the will?

In particular, do we have the will to identify and defeat the enemy in our midst?

Answerable to no one, heir apparent in her own mind, self-serving in the extreme, Hillary Clinton incarnates this insidious new threat to our survival.

What we decide to do about Missus Clinton will tell us much about what awaits us in these perilous new times.

COMPLETE LETTER

December 7, 1941+64
Mia T
AN OPEN LETTER TO TIM ROBBINS, DAVID GEFFEN, CHRIS MATTHEWS, MAUREEN DOWD + JEANINE PIRRO
RE: a not-so-modest proposal concerning hillary clinton


COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

 




IT TAKES A CLINTON TO RAZE A COUNTRY
by Mia T, 11.14.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2006


15 posted on 03/31/2006 6:11:10 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mia T

Thanks, Mia T!


16 posted on 03/31/2006 6:16:34 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Mia T
Right demographic, wrong issue. And there is nothing missus clinton can do to make a clinton acceptable to that demographic.

I only hope that she will really be herself on the campaign trail. She'll never make it to the convention if she lets loose. The containment vessel has already shown a few cracks this year.

17 posted on 03/31/2006 6:23:52 PM PST by siunevada (If we learn nothing from history, what's the point of having one? - Peggy Hill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

you're welcome :)


18 posted on 03/31/2006 6:25:38 PM PST by Mia T (Stop Clintons' Undermining Machinations (The acronym is the message.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: siunevada

The Clintons (and everyone associated with them) are so September 10th.

They've been irrelevant since the '94 Republican Revolution.


19 posted on 03/31/2006 7:35:21 PM PST by Carlos Martillo II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

I don't think she'll have any problem getting the votes of the so-called Catholics ala Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. :-)


20 posted on 03/31/2006 8:12:23 PM PST by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson