Romney Advisor Says Obama "a Natural for the Catholic Vote"
(Hat tip: Todd Aglialoro at InsideCatholic)
What a crock:
... But now that Romney's out, whom might Catholics turn to? [ED.: Because, you know, Catholics were just turning out in droves to vote for Romney. NOT.] Since I served at one time as Reagan's constitutional lawyer, it would be natural for me to fall in line behind John McCain. Don't worry about his conservative lapses, says President Bush, the foremost expert on lapsed conservativism. [ED.: This coming from someone who supported a man (1) with absolutely NO history of conservative governance, (2) who ran as a "pro-choice" liberal against Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate just a decade ago, (3) who ran and governed as a "pro-choice" governor, (4) who suddenly at the age of 60 years old became a partially pro-life (pro-ESCR) conservative only when it dawned on him that he needed to in order to run for President.] There is no gainsaying that McCain is a military hero deserving of salute. But McCain seems fixated on just taking the next hill in Iraq. His Iraqi military objective is laudable, but it assumes good reasons to be there in the first place. It also ignores that Catholics are looking to bless the peacemakers.(emphasis and editorial commentary added)
Now, don't think me daft, but when Obama gave his victory remarks in Iowa calling upon America to "choose hope over fear and to choose unity over division," he was standing squarely in the shoes of the "Great Communicator." [ED.: Don't make me puke. Ronald Reagan was a great communicator because he was communicating great ideas, not empty rhetoric.] ...
Beyond life issues, an audaciously hope-filled Democrat like Obama is a Catholic natural... [ED.: Never mind all those depressing icky dead babies. He makes us feel good about ourselves.]
So, here's the thing: John McCain will have many Catholics in the pews a little while longer, but more than a few of us are thinking of giving him up for Lent. Reagan used to say that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, it left him. The launch of "Reaganites for Obama" might not be far behind. [ED.: Anyone who would do something like that has absolutely NO claim to being a Reaganite. I'm fairly certain that President Reagan, like his wife Nancy has, would enthusiastically endorse the GOP nominee for President.] We might not be there yet, but we're getting close.
So Mr. Kmiec once supported Romney - a man who at the age of 60 suddenly decided he needed to become a pro-life conservative after years as a pro-choice moderate/liberal in order to run for President (but hey, Romney looked good).
And now that his horse came up lame, Mr. Kmiec is not only considering supporting Obama, but claiming that the "audaciously hope-filled Democrat" is "a Catholic natural" who "stand[s] squarely in the shoes of the 'Great Communicator' "?
With all due respect, sounds to me like Mr. Kmiec may be more interested in style than in substance.
I am a consistent-ethic-of-lifer who is well aware of the GOP's shortcomings in this regard. Many like me are quite unhappy with the Republicans in general and with McCain as the nominee. More than a few of us may not go to the polls to vote for him.
But there are no circumstances under which I could ever be induced to vote for the so-called "natural for the Catholic vote" Moloch Obama. And anyone who does vote for him, in my view, has very little claim to being either "conservative" or "pro-life".
Brian Saint-Paul responds to Mr. Kmiec at InsideCatholic:
Reaganites for Obama? How precisely is Barack Obama like Ronald Reagan?
So Obama is ambiguously inspiring in the same way that Reagan was. That's great, but it doesn't take us very far. An inspirational speaker needs to inspire the listener to do something, or what's the point of it? Given that, what specifically does Obama want us to unify over? What are the particular fears he wants us to abandon? How does he think we're being divisive... and who are our nation's dividers?
These are all questions that Kmiec might have answered in his 1300 word essay. Of course, had he done so, he might not have ended up with much of an essay at all.
Brian Saint-Paul again:
Douglas Kmiec is pro-life -- let that be understood. But that doesn't stop him from employing the flawed ethical arithmetic of the religious Left...
... The Democrats support abortion and the Republicans support the death penalty, so it all comes out in the moral wash. But of course, this is wrong. While abortion is an intrinsic evil, the death penalty is not. We may oppose the death penalty vociferously, as I do myself, but it is of a different moral quality than abortion.
Douglas Kmiec knows this. So why didn't he say it?