The RNC plans to keep grabbing the Catholic vote, as in '04

[ginnyinWI]

Glenn Greenwald discusses in today's post how they did it in 2004 and how they plan to continue:

Noonan gave a hint of what is to come this year by claiming that GOP's pro-Catholic approach stands "n contrast to the insult offered Catholics by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee" (meaning opposition to Sam Alito's nomination), and then spat out this religiously exploitive claim, which we are going to be hearing a lot more of:


Because we aren't wanted in the Democratic Party. Oh, sure, the Democrats will take a "Catholic" who essentially denies his faith - like a Kennedy or Kerry - and comes out against core Catholic morality on issues such as abortion, but let there be a Catholic who takes his faith seriously, and the Democrats want nothing to do with him.

There you have it: Democrats hate real Catholics who believe in Catholicism rather than just pretending to believe in it. The only place for real Catholics is the Republican Party. And the media has clearly internalized this theme. To them, the notion that any Democrat could possibly claim to be Catholic is just so very hilarious and absurd. Everyone knows that all real Christians are Republicans and that any Democrat claiming to be religious -- like John Kerry, or Bill Clinton -- is just doing that because he knows that it will be politically helpful, not because he's genuinely religious. That's just obvious.

The reason why it is so nonsensical that this tactic works -- and so infuriating that Republicans are allowed to get away with this -- is because scores of Republican policies, including their most prominent ones, are plainly contrary to Catholic doctrine and have been vigorously condemned both by John Paul II and by the current Pope. Those policies could not be any more anti-Catholic.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/


I think most Democrats prefer not to mix politics with religion at all--but the RNC has no such scruples. Any future Dem candidate is going to have to address it somehow.
I noticed JK's comments on the recent Larry King show, where he did not shy away from spiritual references. I do believe he was totally sincere and that it was totally appropriate in that context. But I also think maybe he sees now that you have to be more open about your faith, now that the other side has made religion fair game.

[beachmom]

1. Here is my simile

These two paragraphs:

Noonan gave a hint of what is to come this year by claiming that GOP's pro-Catholic approach stands "n contrast to the insult offered Catholics by the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee" (meaning opposition to Sam Alito's nomination), and then spat out this religiously exploitive claim, which we are going to be hearing a lot more of:


Because we aren't wanted in the Democratic Party. Oh, sure, the Democrats will take a "Catholic" who essentially denies his faith - like a Kennedy or Kerry - and comes out against core Catholic morality on issues such as abortion, but let there be a Catholic who takes his faith seriously, and the Democrats want nothing to do with him.


Something about it reminded me of the Jihadists in Iraq. No, these rightwingers are not violent, but they're just as extreme in what being a "Catholic" or a "Christian" means as a Jihadist has decided what being a "good Muslim" means. Utter and total bullshit. I can't stand dogmatic, arrogant, self righteous a**holes like these who have DECIDED who's a good Catholic and who isn't.

Please note: I was born and raised Catholic, and have since left the Church because of their intolerable dogma. Kerry has a safe church he can go to in Boston, but if he had to put up with some of the priests I had to, I wonder how he would stand it . . .

[ginnyinWI]

3. Also, what they are doing is so clearly unconstitutional

There simply should be no religious test for a political office. I wonder if the Dems can turn this back on them somehow. Because I agree--they are just like jihadists--only they use words instead of bombs.

[karynnj]

2. As I read the first part, I also immediately thought of the Larry King

show too. Just from the tone of voice, I really don't think he calculated anything in what he said. He was clearly very broken up about it and the emotion showed, especially when he spoke of young people dying. The only time he hestitated was when he started to speak of consolation from reading the letters of (st ?). In the middle of saying it - he was obviously shy about speaking about religion.

But the more significant religious things he said were the simplest and truest. In response to Kings question of what he made of her death - his answer was very deeply religious that that's for God to know. Also, when he spoke of checking your life to see if you were doing what you should. These were more personal and hit more than comments of reading the Bible for comfort.

I think it might have helped that he has intentionally spoken about religion in his speeches and it could be that I am naive in thinking he didn't think out the pretty predictable questions he got - but it struck me as genuine. (More so as he didn't sound as smooth as he usually does).