McCain Making Play for Blue-Collar "Reagan Democrats" with Early Visit to Ohio

From The Washington Times:

With all eyes on Pennsylvania's Democratic presidential primary, Republican Sen. John McCain yesterday slipped into Ohio, getting an early start on targeting swing independents and moderate Democrats in the battleground state.

Ohio has been decisive in each of the last two presidential elections, and no Republican has ever won the White House without winning there. While Mr. McCain's campaign hopes to expand the number of states in play this November, Ohio will most likely be one of just a handful of tossup states — again.

***
On his stop in Youngstown, the Republican sought to woo so-called "Reagan Democrats," moderates who helped deliver victories to Ronald Reagan and Mr. Bush.

Republican strategist Scott Reed said Mr. McCain's focus so early on Ohio signals the campaign's fall strategy.

"History matters in national politics, and no matter who the Democrats ultimately nominate, the Buckeye State will be one of the most sought-after Electoral College prizes in the fall. McCain's trip to Youngstown this week is just the beginning of a full-court press," he said.

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Obama Disses Blue Collar Voters Again: Says They "Cling to Guns or Religion" Because They Are "Bitter" [UPDATED]

Obama's Problems in Pennsylvania Mirror His Problems in Ohio

Obama Attributes Support for Reagan by Blue Collar "Reagan Democrats" to "Anger Over Welfare and Affirmative Action" [UPDATED]

Creative Minority Report: "It's Morning Again in the Catholic Church"

Patrick at Creative Minority Report has produced an ad modeled on the famous 1984 Reagan campaign ad: "It's Morning Again in the Catholic Church".

Inside Catholic: "McCain and the Pope"

Robert R. Reilly writes at InsideCatholic:

Sen. John McCain cannot win in November without the Catholic vote, which is around 25 percent of the electorate. How is he going to get it? The worst thing he could assume is that it is going to fall into his lap because Catholics will have nowhere else to go. Some people with nowhere to go simply stay home. Or they may go elsewhere, as it appears they have already been doing. The Wall Street Journal reports that in "a recent survey of 19 states that have held presidential primaries this year, 63% of Catholics identified themselves as Democrats." That's up from 42 percent in 2005. Not a good augury for McCain.

Senator McCain not only needs Catholics who will vote for him, but who will each find ten other Catholics who will do the same. That is not going to happen unless he galvanizes the Catholic electorate. He has an opportunity to do this when Pope Benedict XVI visits the United States during April 15 to 20.

I was President Ronald Reagan's liaison to the Catholic community from 1983 to 1985. In the 1984 election, President Reagan won the Catholic vote and was the first Republican to do so. Senator McCain might want to take a look at how that happened.

I recall a definitive moment when the Democrats vociferously complained about the ads run by the Reagan campaign in Catholic newspapers. The ads featured a photo of Reagan and John Paul II smiling together. Was this not politicizing the Catholic Church? How dare the Republicans do such a thing? At that time, Archbishop John Foley was the pope's minister of communications and principal spokesman at the Vatican. When asked, he responded to the complaints by saying that, since these two men shared so many fundamental moral principles in common, it was the most natural thing in the world that they should appear together in a photograph. Not wishing to hear that statement made again, the complaints from the Democrats immediately ceased. [ED.: LOL! I love it!]

The key here is that Archbishop Foley, who came from a Democratic family in Pennsylvania, did not have to make this up -- it was true. President Reagan had embraced moral positions on the family, on the sanctity of human life, on school prayer, and against pornography [ED.: Not to mention against communism] that were completely congruent with those of the Catholic Church. And, like John Paul II, he was fighting for them.

Can Senator McCain say the same? [ED.: Nope.] If not, a photograph with Benedict XVI is not going to solve his problem. [ED.: I sincerely hope none of the presidential candidates will be so bold as to try to stage some cynical photo op with the Holy Father while he's here.] He needs to campaign on these issues just as Reagan did. He cannot simply claim that point of view; he needs to promote it. He needs to articulate it. [ED.: Yeah, let me know how that works out.] In 1983, President Reagan wrote an article titled "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation," which appeared in the Human Life Review. That was an extraordinary thing for a sitting president to have done. The fact that he did it convinced many Catholic pro-lifers that Reagan was sincere in his beliefs and was not simply acting for political advantage. They rallied around him.

***
So what should Senator McCain do when Benedict XVI visits in April? This is his opportunity to demonstrate that he understands the significance of the pope's thought as it relates to the institution of the family, the sanctity of human life, and the threat of radical Islam. He needs to appear on EWTN with Raymond Arroyo and speak to that significance. He needs to do interviews in the National Catholic Register and other Catholic journals, and on Sirius radio's Catholic channel, which will cover the pope's visit by the hour. He needs to say that what the pope is expressing goes beyond a sectarian Catholic audience, as it addresses the core issues of Western civilization. He needs to say that Benedict was right at Regensburg in assessing moral relativism as the greatest threat to the West and to the integrity of reason, and that he was right also about the nature of the threat from an unreasoning version of Islam.

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

My Comments:
That may be what "the maverick" McCain needs to do, but c'mon. The likelihood of McCain suddenly becoming a culture warrior and alienating his "precious" support among the press hacks and "moderate" voters is about as likely as my becoming a transexual stage performer doing a Marlene Dietrich tribute.


UPDATE
Cross-posted at Catholics in the Public Square (but without my cynical commentary).

;-)

So-Called "Catholic Reaganite" Doug Kmiec Endorses Obama [UPDATED]

From Christopher at Catholics in the Public Square:

Douglas W. Kmiec endorses Obama.

"The Cranky Conservative" responds.

My Comments:
I thought Mr. Kmiec had already endorsed the man who Kmiec claims, "apart from the life issues", is allegedly "a Catholic natural". What a joke.

Well, I guess we have the answer to the question I posed to Mr. Kmiec in this post concerning Barack Obama's attributing blue-collar support for Ronald Reagan to racial animus:

Got that? Blue collar "anger" and "resentment" over race "have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation" - meaning that the conservative ascendency that began with the election of Ronald Reagan was a product of there being a whole lot of angry white male factory workers, whose anger was being misdirected toward black folks and exploited by cynical right-wing operatives "for their own electoral ends".

So, in those 3 paragraphs cited above, Obama regurgitates the tired old leftist meme that the only thing that could possibly explain traditional Democrat voters supporting Ronald Reagan - thereby forging the "Reagan Coalition" - was because Reagan "made us comfortable in our prejudices".

I wonder what self-described "Catholic Reaganite for Obama" Doug Kmiec has to say about that assessment?

I still want to hear Mr. Kmiec address Obama's assertion. No true "Catholic Reaganite" would stand silent while the mostly Catholic blue-collar "Reagan Democrats" are disparaged in such a manner.


UPDATE
Illinois attorney and frequent St. Blog's commenter Donald McClarey, commenting at The Cranky Conservative, has the best response to the Kmiec sellout that I've seen so far:

“But for Wales?”

In case you're unfamiliar with the reference, see A Man for All Seasons to get the meaning of Donald's allusion.


UPDATE #2
The responses at InsideCatholic should be interesting. Here's the first one from Margaret Cabannis. And here's what Deal Hudson has to say.


UPDATE #3
Feddie's "absolutely stunned" reaction is here. And Feddie's Southern Appeal co-blogger Hunter Baker also offers his take.


UPDATE #4
More reactions to Kmiec's endorsement.

WORLD Magazine's World on the Web has a good round-up of blogger reactions:

... Andrew Sullivan praises Kmiec’s integrity and open mind, but most conservatives find it hard to see how a president could accommodate both pro-life and pro-abortion positions, or how “understanding” a point of view is relevant if you’re going to oppose it anyway. Powerline blogger Paul Mirengoff deems it “one of the most vacuous statements I’ve ever read,” and Patterico calls it “one of the most puzzling pieces of writing I have ever read.”

Some conservatives, including Shannen Coffin on The Corner, already dismissed Kmiec as “off his rocker” when he published another piece saying Obama was a natural choice for the Catholic Reaganite vote. Like Reagan, Kmiec said, Obama has empathy and a desire to make Americans deserve to feel good about themselves.

Rod Dreher said he just didn’t get it: “I think the guy just loves the feeling Obama gives him … It wouldn’t require so much tortuous logic simply to say, “I’m a Republican who’s sick of the Republicans, and want change. Obama is a likable, decent guy, and I’m willing to take a chance on him.” ...

And Deacon Keith Fournier's commentary piece at CatholicOnline says "God is Not a Republican or a Democrat: But I Disagree with Doug Kmiec’s Endorsement."


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Obama Attributes Support for Reagan by Blue Collar "Reagan Democrats" to "Anger Over Welfare and Affirmative Action" [UPDATED]

"No'bama for Me, Thanks"

Can a Catholic Vote for Obama?

Obama's Pledge to Planned Parenthood: “I Will Not Yield"

Deal Hudson: "Barack Obama's Catholic Problem"

"Why American Catholics are Supporting Barack Obama

Catholics at the Ballot Box

How the Catholic Left Will Tackle McCain

Why Does Kmiec Criticize McCain for Positions on Which He Gave Romney a Pass?

Deal Hudson on "Douglas Kmiec and the Lure of Obama"

Douglas W. Kmiec on "The Moral Duty to Inquire"

Professor Bainbridge: "Will Catholic Reaganites Go for Obama?"

Deal Hudson: "Preacher Man: Barack Obama and the the Gospel of Liberalism"

"Sorry, Doug Kmiec, But This Catholic Isn't Buying Obama"

Ramesh Ponnuru on Douglas Kmiec and "Catholic Reaganites for Obama" [UPDATED]

Romney Advisor Says Obama "a Natural for the Catholic Vote"

Obama Attributes Support for Reagan by Blue Collar "Reagan Democrats" to "Anger Over Welfare and Affirmative Action" [UPDATED]

Barack Obama, in his "A More Perfect Union" speech yesterday, attributed the formation of the Reagan coalition to anger and resentment over welfare and racial preferences:

... In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience – as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding...

(emphasis added)

Got that? Blue collar "anger" and "resentment" over race "have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation" - meaning that the conservative ascendency that began with the election of Ronald Reagan was a product of there being a whole lot of angry white male factory workers, whose anger was being misdirected toward black folks and exploited by cynical right-wing operatives "for their own electoral ends".

So, in those 3 paragraphs cited above, Obama regurgitates the tired old leftist meme that the only thing that could possibly explain traditional Democrat voters supporting Ronald Reagan - thereby forging the "Reagan Coalition" - was because Reagan "made us comfortable in our prejudices".

I wonder what self-described "Catholic Reaganite for Obama" Doug Kmiec has to say about that assessment?


UPDATE
Tito noticed the same thing:

... Then Mr. Obama takes a swipe at white Americans by painting some of them as hate mongers in the image of Jeremiah Wright’s bigotry. Mr. Obama explains that this came to the surface in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan by those resentful of affirmative action and welfare programs; Mr. Obama calls those that voted for Reagan the “Reagan Coalition”. Imagine that, implying those that voted for the greatest president in the 2nd half of the 20th century as bigots. After insulting Americans who voted for Ronald Reagan he then went after conservatives with the following diatribe:

“Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.” ...

UPDATE #2
More on blue-collar whites and Obama's message:

... There's a new entry next to Mika Brzezinski's name in the annals of MSM elitism. The Morning Joe panelist today lamented blue-collar whites who "can't hear" the message Barack Obama propounded. Poor benighted souls. Joe Scarborough called Mika on it.

Brzezinski's comment came in response to Scarborough's exposition of why he didn't think Obama's speech would work with many blue-collar whites.

View video here...

It's not that blue-collar whites "can't hear" Obama's message; it's that they don't appreciate being accused of being motivated by biogotry, anger, and resentment in voting for Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.


UPDATE #3 (20 March)
It seems that the anecdotal data confirms that the Obama speech only exacerbated his problems with blue-collar voters:

PHILADELPHIA — Stephanie Gill, a bartender in a white working-class neighborhood in this Rust Belt city, noticed the shift immediately.

A week ago, her customers at Rauchut’s Tavern in Tacony didn’t have much to say about Barack Obama. But when she returned to work Wednesday, a day after the Illinois senator attempted to quell the furor over his pastor’s racially incendiary remarks, the reaction inside the corner bar was raw and unapologetic.

“People are not happy with Obama,” Gill said. “It’s the race stuff.”

Obama has always been a tough sell in largely white Northeast Philadelphia and in the city's blue-collar river wards, a collection of white ethnic enclaves where customers at the local watering hole are often born and raised in the neighborhood that supports it.

And his speech Tuesday, although widely praised by the pundit caste and Obama supporters, has only seemed to widen the gulf with the Budweiser class here.

***
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton relied on this blue-collar coalition — Catholics, union households, ethnic Europeans — to win Ohio. It accounts for her significant lead in Pennsylvania polls, and represents the demographic that political analysts say Obama needs to make gains with in order to present the strongest case possible for the Democratic nomination and the presidency.

***
Glenn Peter, 54, a patron at Rauchut’s Tavern, said he heard finger pointing, not reconciliation. He took issue with Obama’s explanation that Wright’s observations of a racist America were reflecting the racial scars of his past.

“I don’t want to hear that you are blaming us for him saying this,” said Peter, who is white and worked at an auto parts factory until it was shuttered several years ago. Cutting ties with the church “would have been the best way to do it. That way, I could have been able to listen to him again.”

Peter nursed his early evening cigarette and a beer at Rauchut’s, where Eagles memorabilia and decorative shamrocks feel secondary to an intimidating portrait of Frank Rizzo, the barrel-chested former mayor popular with white ethnic voters but with a mixed legacy on racial issues.

Peter said he’s never voted for a Republican for president, but if Obama is the nominee, he will support Sen. John McCain.

[More]

(emphasis added)

Last week, I mentioned some anecdotal evidence of my own in comments over at Vox Nova in regard to Obama's problems with blue-collar Americans.


UPDATE #4 (24 March)
Tertium Quid, whose writing at From Burke to Kirk and Beyond ... I hold in very high esteem, thinks Obama's speech was "brilliant". Posting in comments, I note my antipathy toward the speech, citing to Victor Davis Hanson's reaction at National Review Online.

National Review on "Obama Fatigue"

Yuval Levin, writing at National Review Online, argues that "Obama fatigue" and Obama's weakness among blue-collar voters could provide an opening for McCain to win back "Reagan Democrats":

... It is not actually clear that Obama has sought to make his campaign such a cult of personality, but whether sought or not, this is how he has been received. The traveling revivalist cabaret has certainly helped Obama immensely, and contributed to his electoral strength, but it also carries serious risks for him. In the long run, the messianic flavor of his campaign could endanger his support from the very quarters now most receptive to the message; and even in the short run it could hurt him with blue-collar voters who have little patience for the grand production.

***
The frantic pace of our cultural trends means Obama is running a very serious risk of making his most ardent supporters tired of him very quickly. A nasty turn in his press coverage in just the past week offers Obama an ominous preview of how that could feel. This may not be his fault, but it is certainly his problem.

McCain Democrats
Meanwhile, one crucial Democratic constituency may be tired of the show already. The elitist drift of Obama’s campaign inevitably weakens his appeal among blue-collar voters. And in this regard, it is more than the messianic excesses on the stump, but Obama’s style and personal history that could bring him lasting trouble. Throughout the Democratic primary season, we have witnessed a significant divide between highly educated white-collar voters and less educated blue-collar voters — a pattern powerfully evident in this week’s results in Ohio. Obama’s performance with black voters has masked some of this, but if you examine the white vote in state after state, you find that Barack Obama is the Ph.D.’s candidate, and Hillary Clinton the working stiff’s candidate.

***
Indeed, Obama’s underperformance with blue-collar voters is a very bad sign for his general election prospects. In this primary season, he has constructed a coalition of black voters and highly educated white-collar whites. This may well constitute a majority of Democratic primary voters, but certainly not of general election voters. To win in November, Obama would have to significantly improve his performance beyond those confines.

***
Blue-collar Democrats, especially in the upper midwest, are the voters Republicans used to think of as Reagan Democrats. For several election cycles now they have been more or less just Democrats. But given Obama’s apparent vulnerability among them in the primaries, Republicans may find an unexpected opening this year.

John McCain is better suited than most Republicans would be to appeal to such voters, as his deeply felt patriotism and old-fashioned sense of honor would speak to them. But he will need more than to win their votes. He will need a policy agenda that begins from their concerns, and appeals to blue-collar parents. McCain has at his disposal some of the elements of such an agenda, and it is not too late for him to gather more and to build his appeal to Reagan Democrats. He will get a fuller hearing than Republicans generally do, and Obama will get a colder shoulder than most Democrats do among these voters.

[More]

(emphasis added)


UPDATE
Rich Lowry calls it "The Sanjaya Effect":

We saw last night that "Yes, we can" doesn't have quite the same resonance when you've just suffered two big losses. How long before some journalists start writing that Obama's oratory is boring? What Obama has to worry about is the Sanjaya effect. Young girls swooned for him when the crooner was on American Idol and he was swarmed as the hottest celebrity at the White House Correspondent's Dinner last year. Now, if anyone remembers who he was, they have to wonder, "What the hell was that all about?" Obama's a talented guy with formidable advantages in the nomination contest still, but when people are routinely fainting at your rallies, it's probably a sign that you're a craze, which is wonderful—while it lasts. At the very least, Obama's halo has slipped, and he will have to spend some time down on Earth with the rest of us mere terrestrials.

LOL!

Lowry continues:

Polls show that older whites are relatively immune to Obama's charms. Was there ever a better time—if Obama is the nominee—for Republicans to turn to an old white guy?

Professor Bainbridge: "Will Catholic Reaganites Go for Obama?"

(Hat tip: Tertium Quid at From Burke to Kirk and Beyond ...)

Professor Bainbridge gets his shots in at Professor Kmiec's assertion that Obama is a "natural for the Catholic vote", and, in doing so, lists the sort of qualities/policies that might actually make one a "Catholic natural":

Rejects moral relativism

Supports the separation of church and state, but also believes that religion has a proper place in the public square

Subsidiarity is the candidate’s guiding principle on questions of the role of the government

Supports a ban on abortion

Supports a ban on embryonic stem cell research and cloning

Opposes the death penalty absent very unusual circumstances unlikely to arise in modern society

Believes that while the resort to military force is permissible when the circumstances allow a just war, peace is the default choice

Rejects the secular utopianism that claims humans can perfect themselves, while acknowledging that all must seek to work out their own salvation

Rejects socialism’s command and control of the economy, but also believes in the preferential option for the poor

Believes in private property, but also in the right of society to address market failures

Believes workers have a right to form unions

Believes that government has a role in assuring that society collectively acts as good stewards of creation

[Read the whole thing]

My Comments:
Looks to me like Professor Bainbridge's "Catholic natural" construct is a fairly close description of the sort of candidate we might have had if Sam Brownback had been able to catch fire.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Deal Hudson: "Preacher Man: Barack Obama and the the Gospel of Liberalism"

"Sorry, Doug Kmiec, But This Catholic Isn't Buying Obama"

Ramesh Ponnuru on Douglas Kmiec and "Catholic Reaganites for Obama" [UPDATED]

Romney Advisor Says Obama "a Natural for the Catholic Vote"

Obama "Post-Partisan"? Ask John Roberts

Obama and the "Pragmatic Center"

"Sorry, Doug Kmiec, But This Catholic Isn't Buying Obama"

John Jakubczyk, a lawyer and past president of Arizona Right to Life, writes at InsideCatholic:

There must be something about February that brings out the weird, the unusual, and the strange in politics. That was my reaction when I read Douglas Kmiec’s article in Slate, claiming that Barack Obama is a "natural for the Catholic vote." Now, I know and respect Doug as a brilliant legal mind and a good man. But I must take issue with him on his ability to take such talents and apply them to the current political situation.

Doug’s first error is comparing the substance and style of Ronald Reagan to that of Obama. Certainly anyone who gives a good speech can be hailed as a great communicator, but the reason that Reagan attracted so many Catholics and Democrats was because they knew him. They knew him as the actor who played George Gip in Knute Rockne. They knew him from the days when he introduced the stories on Death Valley Days. He was the governor in California who stood up to the student sit-ins, and did all of this with a smile. They remembered when he traveled the country giving speeches on economic freedom and against communism. And so when Reagan ran for president and repeated principles based upon respect for the sanctity of life, economic and personal freedom, and national security, much of the Catholic population responded positively. He never tired of reminding people that our rights are a gift from the Creator, especially the right to life.

Ronald Reagan spoke a language that Catholics and those who believed in God could understand.

***
Obama -- to his credit -- has run a positive campaign (notwithstanding his positions on issues that are not very positive at all). People like positive messages. They may not have much substance, but people like them. A lot of people are simply tired of the Clintons, and Obama gives them the chance to vote for something new.

But that should not translate into Catholic support for Obama.

***
... Educated, practicing Catholics are not going to vote for a person who supports partial-birth abortion and voted against a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act while in the Illinois Senate.

Barack Obama is a co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, a proposed federal law to nullify virtually all federal and state limitations on abortion...

***
I can't imagine anyone who knew and appreciated Ronald Reagan joining the bandwagon of a pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage, anti-family radical like Obama, once they know his positions and can envision what he intends to do to the country. On the contrary, Catholics will find it "natural" to vote for the candidate who chooses life and will protect the lives of all Americans.[Read the whole thing]

My Comments:
The Kmiec Slate article may well turn out to be the Mark Roche moment of the 2008 election cycle.

By the way, check out Deal Hudson's comment under the linked article. Double ouch!


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Ramesh Ponnuru on Douglas Kmiec and "Catholic Reaganites for Obama" [UPDATED]

Romney Advisor Says Obama "a Natural for the Catholic Vote"

Obama "Post-Partisan"? Ask John Roberts

Obama and the "Pragmatic Center"

Ramesh Ponnuru on Douglas Kmiec and "Catholic Reaganites for Obama" [UPDATED]

[UPDATED and bumped to the top]

Ramesh Ponnuru writes at The Corner on National Review Online regarding Douglas Kmiec's Slate piece dubbing Obama the "natural" choice for the Catholic vote:

I don't think I have ever found him persuasive on any topic—the nomination of Harriet Miers comes to mind—but his Catholics/Reaganites for Obama piece is the weakest effort of his that I have yet read. It is entirely possible, of course, that Catholic voters will back Obama in the fall, for the same reasons that he is likely to win. But the notion that Obama is "Reaganite" because he is an effective public speaker—well, when Kmiec has to preface that comment by saying "don't think me daft," it's a bad sign.

What's most irritating about Kmiec's method is the fact-free speculation that most Catholics—and Reaganites!—must naturally share his sensibilities and reactions. So, for example, Kmiec has a soft spot for Huckabee; therefore there is something Catholic-friendly about him. Never mind that, based on every exit poll and, for that matter, other type of poll, actual Catholic voters have run screaming from Huckabee.

I can't say that this passage was the weirdest bit of Kmiec's essay, but it's certainly odd: "But if either Clinton or Obama would acknowledge the myriad problems associated with a declining population in the developed world and affirm the importance of both having and raising children (and not just punting these duties over to Hillary's 'village'), Catholics could well contemplate a Democratic adoption." He certainly has his finger on the pulse of American Catholics.

Kmiec holds it against McCain that he hangs out with Joe Lieberman and co-sponsored legislation with Russ Feingold. That counts as evidence that he's not a conservative. And therefore we should vote for . . . Obama? There may be a good reason to support Obama, but darned if I can find it in Kmiec's op-ed.

(emphasis added)


UPDATE (15 February)
Kmiec responds in a lengthy letter.

To which Ramesh replies:

I found much of Kmiec's letter incomprehensible, so I will not make a detailed response. (I am, by the way, using his last name, where he uses my first, not to indicate any hostility, but merely because I don't know him.) I will say only that I do not think it odd "to be concerned about the declining population of the Western world including the United States, and its significant impact on human freedom, economic prosperity, and even military defense." I do think it is odd to assert that Obama or Clinton would make serious inroads among Catholic voters by expressing that concern. It is an odd assertion because there is no reason to expect either candidate to say any such thing, and it is odd because Kmiec adduces no evidence—nor do I think any evidence exists—that significant numbers of American Catholic voters share this concern. If Kmiec had written an essay on why one Catholic Reaganite was attracted to Obama, it might have been interesting and worthwhile. Instead he repeatedly made dubious claims about the political psychology of Catholic Reaganites in general, which happened to line up very conveniently with his own sentiments.

Shannen Coffin offers this take on Kmiec's Obasm:

I have a lot of respect for Doug Kmiec, but with respect to his latest missives on Catholics and Obama, he is, respectfully, off his rocker. Whatever can be said of John McCain, I fail to see how his perceived imperfection would lead faithful Catholics to support a candidate who has a zero rating on life issues from the National Right to Life Committee, who voted against a state ban on partial-birth abortion, who has supported expanded stem-cell research, who emphatically supports Roe v. Wade, and who opposes even reasonable restrictions like parental notification or even a state version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (which passed the federal Senate 98-0). Faithful Catholics would seem to have an obligation to consider Sen. Obama's positions on the sanctity of life, and Professor Kmiec's recent response to Ramesh, while acknowledging Obama's general pro-abortion positions, fails to offer any hope that this particular "vineyard" would yield any fruit. There is no indication in Obama's record that he has anything but a reflexive pro-abortion bias or that he would not further ingrain the "culture of death" into our political and legal institutions. I appreciate Professor Kmiec's enthusiasm for "change," but think this is an area where Obama would be as status quo as any Democrat.

To which Kmiec replies:

Abortion as an intrinsic evil necessarily governs the public choices of Catholics. I did not, as you note, say anything to the contrary. I do believe, however, that some are missing the point of the Slate essay — which, by the way, had a question mark at the end of its title for a reason. The point was not only to take Senator Obama up on his invitation to get passed the negative, anti-approach that so typifies and blocks meaningful solution to a myriad of problems, but it was also to put a direct challenge to a rather complacent Republican party seemingly marching in oblivious defeat in November. Meaning no dishonor to Senator McCain, he is widely perceived as a candidate of the status quo, rather than of needed cultural and economic and ethical change. If that is so, the Senator's likely nomination now invites a serious Catholic to actually ask: "how well does the Republic status quo meet the social teaching of the church on topics other than abortion?" The answer, it turns out, is not particularly well, especially when the candidate of the status quo has a military occupation position ("100 years, sure, maybe a 1000") that is far too flippant for an issue of human life or national security and that is directly contrary to an equally resolute teaching of the Church. So if the primary process takes out a candidate like Governor Romney who had a grasp of the kind of humanitarian rebuilding necessary to stabilize (and not merely occupy) Iraq, who stood for religious liberty in an eloquent and historically-informed way, who had the intelligence to make conservatively-based steps to meet the economic realities facing the working class, middle-income families that came to the Republican party because of President Reagan almost 30 years ago, and most of all, who had a genuine passion and understanding for the significance of family as a cultural building block, there is then a reasoned, rather than "on the rocker," basis to evaluate what else is being said, and said very well, by one's opponents in a national campaign. Now, Governor Romney has loyally endorsed the Senator as a matter of party. He is an honorable man to do so especially given the ill-considered manner in which the Senator acted especially in Florida and at the last Reagan Library debate. The Governor calls upon us as a matter of politics to fall behind Senator McCain. Perhaps, eventually all or most of us who supported the Governor will do so because, as you say, the other vineyard will yield less. Nevertheless, I, for one, will be waiting to hoist my rocker upon that wagon since talk of the wagon-master has been anything but straight, and since, as a matter of faith, there is more to consider than one — albeit overriding — issue, and thus far, what Senator McCain has said or ignored has been troubling or unpersuasive. Republicans should not think Catholics incapable of broader considerations because of the ethical stumbling block that abortion represents. It would be wrong to use one aspect of ethics to defeat ethics.

At which point Ramesh says "ENOUGH!":

Kmiec Slimes McCain

He writes, below: " the candidate of the status quo has a military occupation position ('100 years, sure, maybe a 1000') that is far too flippant for an issue of human life or national security and that is directly contrary to an equally resolute teaching of the Church." Well, no. McCain has said that a military presence could be sustained for a long, long time if violence subsides and both governments consider that presence in their interest. He uses South Korea as an example. He has not said anything about a 100-year "military occupation," and the notion that McCain's position contradicts the "resolute teaching of the Church" is simply an invention. It looks more and more as though, once you take away Kmiec's sour grapes over the primaries and his fuzzy thinking, there's nothing left to his case.

Ouch.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Romney Advisor Says Obama "a Natural for the Catholic Vote"

Obama "Post-Partisan"? Ask John Roberts

Obama and the "Pragmatic Center"

Michael Reagan Says "Ronald Reagan Would Back John McCain"

Doug Kmiec may be able to envision "Reaganites for Obama", but Michael Reagan assures us that the Gipper himself, were he still alive, would not be among them:

In 1976 the Ford vs. Reagan campaign for the Republican presidential nomination got so heated it looked as if my father and Jerry Ford would never again talk to one another.

When it was over and Ford had won, what did Ronald Reagan do? He simply went all-out to help Ford win his re-election, as did I and as did my sister Maureen. My dad simply followed his rule of backing the Republican candidate no matter who he was.

Assuming that John McCain will be the Republican nominee, you can bet my father would be itching to get out on the campaign trail working to elect him even if he disagreed with him on a number of issues.

Unlike my father, a lot of conservatives stayed home in 1976, and we got four years of Jimmy Carter, whose main legacy was to drive the Shah of Iran from power and create the Islamic Republic of Iran with a bunch of wild-eyed mullahs running the show. He also gave us 20 percent inflation and long, long lines at the gas pumps. And don’t forget 440 days of Americans held hostage by the mullahs.

By staying home those conservatives made possible the future election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

We are still suffering from the legacy of James Earl Carter, thanks to the conservatives who refused to follow Ronald Reagan’s example and instead sulked at home while the nation was being handed over to the worst president in American history.

[More]

My Comments:
I think Reagan makes some decent points, at least when it comes to an arguably "conservative enough to qualify as a conservative" candidate like John McCain.

But Ronald Reagan would also have probably supported Rudy Giuliani had Rudy won the nomination, and under NO circumstances would I have voted for Giuliani.

There IS a tipping point at which conservatives SHOULD just stay home or vote 3rd party. I'm just not convinced McCain's nomination qualifies as such a tipping point.

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.

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.

[More]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)

My Comments:
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".


UPDATE
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.

UPDATE #2
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?

Regular Guy Paul on "The Breakup"

Regular Guy Paul has yet another outstanding post on the breakup of the conservative Reagan coalition:

... This is the sort of thing that's only noticed in presidential election years. In the column I've linked, Austin Hill seems to be blaming... well, I can't really tell. Outside of this remark, "...and as shameful and narrow minded as it is, many religious social conservatives (including the movement‘s “leaders” ) simply refuse to embrace a candidate whose theology isn’t 'correct,' even if his policy positions are," I don't see who Hill may be blaming for the breakup.

Well, as a pro-life Catholic, I'm quite used to voting for people whose theology is wrong. If I refused to do that, I'd have to write in Alan Keyes, Sam Brownback, and Rick Santorum for every office.

As a voter, what I'm looking for is someone who's reliably pro-life. And as a voter, I spent a few months last year being told from every direction that I should "get past" my issues, that a pro-abortion, pro-gay-"marriage" social liberal was the inevitable nominee of my party. The party was ready to throw us under the bus. Not exactly the best way to build party loyalty.

So when a pro-lifer who's not so good on economic or defense issues shows some strength, the fiscal and defense crowds start complaining about the break-up of the party. The irony. Guess what guys, it turns out that Party Unity Avenue isn't a one-way street after all!

I have no problem with supporting a small-government fiscal conservative. I have no trouble supporting a hawk with a strong foreign policy. So why do they expect me to vote for someone who's right on their issues but wrong on mine? Especially when, while it's reasonably debatable just how best foreign policy should be managed, or how best a war may be begun or prosecuted, or exactly what degree of government involvement in free markets is appropriate, it is not reasonably debatable whether human life begins at conception, or whether society is dependent on the stability of the traditional family unit...

[More]

National Catholic Register: "Bill Clark, the Catholic Leader America Forgot"

Paul Kengor, author of The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007), writes in the January 13-19, 2008 issue of National Catholic Register:

One of the most consequential Catholics of modern times is also one of the least heralded and most enigmatic.

His name is William P. “Bill” Clark, known as “The Judge,” because of his decade of service on the bench, including the California Supreme Court. Those appointments followed his service as chief of staff to Gov. Ronald Reagan in the 1960s and preceded his service as President Reagan’s deputy secretary of state, national security adviser and secretary of the interior in the 1980s — the positions through which Bill Clark changed history as Reagan’s most trusted aide and adviser.

The Clark story is a moving saga of what was and what might have been, a remarkable trail of footprints in the sand — a fitting image, given that every one of us acknowledges the footprints but are unable to see the figure who left them.

***
In June 1981, Bill Clark was serving Ronald Reagan at the State Department when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart announced he was resigning. Reagan called “The Judge” into his office to ask him if he would like to be considered for the position.

***
... Bill Clark, however, declined the president’s generous offer.

The quintessential citizen/public official, the lawmaker or policymaker who puts down his plow for a few years to serve his country, and then returns to the plow, Clark had come to Washington to serve his president and his country, to accomplish some goals and then to return to his family and his ranch. This was selfless service, as America’s Founding Fathers envisioned public life.

Clark did not go to Washington to pad his resume, become famous and die on the Supreme Court. Ronald Reagan knew that, which is one of the reasons he so liked and trusted Clark.

“That’s what I thought you would say, Bill,” said President Reagan with a grin, as he crossed Clark’s name off a short list of potential replacements for Stewart.

Instead, the position went to Sandra Day O’Connor. And that is the story of what might have been: If Clark had taken that Supreme Court seat in 1981, he would not have voted the way that O’Connor did on pivotal abortion cases like Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992). If Clark had taken that job — which I have no doubt was his for the taking — Roe v. Wade would have been reversed.

***
Six months later, he was tapped by Reagan to run the National Security Council, the nation’s premier body for implementing national security and foreign policy. It was in that capacity that Clark, as Reagan’s closest and most influential adviser, became — by all accounts — the most powerful man in Washington (next to the president himself) and, by extension, one of the most powerful men in the world.

It was there, too, from that position of remarkable power and influence — to which he never aspired — that Clark from January 1982 through October 1983, often working in consultation with only Reagan and no one else in the room, laid the foundation to undermine the Soviet Union and win the Cold War through a series of extraordinary and only recently declassified National Security Decision Directives.

***
It was Clark who helped set up the June 1982 meeting at the Vatican when Pope John Paul II and the president confided in one another that they believed that God had spared their lives from assassination attempts the previous year for the purpose of undermining atheistic Soviet communism.

From there, Clark (along with another instrumental Catholic, CIA director Bill Casey) met weekly, sometimes daily during moments of crisis, with Cardinal Pio Laghi, the apostolic delegate to the United States, at Cardinal Laghi’s residence or other undisclosed locations, at times via a back door at the White House.

By the time Clark left the National Security Council in late 1983, the pieces were in place for the Soviet downfall.

Clark was arguably the most important American Catholic in the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War, and, in that respect, the second most important Catholic worldwide, behind only Pope John Paul II.

Yet most Catholics have never heard of the man.

[More]

Notre Dame Legend George Gipp's Body Exhumed for DNA Testing

(Hat tip: Dale Price)

From Associated Press (via The Evansville Courier & Press):

Park in Laurium, Mich., dedicated to the memory of George Gipp,
the Notre Dame football legend known as "The Gipper."
The park is located near the cemetery where Gipp is buried.
Photo source: AP Photo/John Flesher
TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (AP) -- The body of George Gipp, the Notre Dame football player who inspired the rallying cry "Win one for the Gipper," was exhumed recently for DNA testing in his Upper Peninsula hometown.

The test was sought by the Gipp family and met legal requirements, Houghton County Medical Examiner Dr. Dawn Nulf said Wednesday, although it angered some relatives who live in the area where Gipp was born and raised.

Nulf declined comment about why the request was made.

An ESPN crew filmed the exhumation for an upcoming story, but a spokesman said the network played no role in arranging it.

Gipp's remains were taken Oct. 4 from Lake View Cemetery near the village of Laurium, about 550 miles northwest of Detroit, where he was buried in 1920 after dying from pneumonia and a strep infection during his senior year at Notre Dame. They were returned to the grave the same day, Nulf said.

Gipp was a prolific runner, passer and kicker who was Notre Dame's first All-America selection. He scored 83 touchdowns and held the school career rushing record for more than 50 years.

But he's best known for the deathbed exhortation attributed to him years later by coach Knute Rockne. During a pregame pep talk, Rockne inspired his underdog Fighting Irish with the story of a dying Gipp urging the team to "win one for the Gipper."

The phrase became a political slogan for Ronald Reagan, who portrayed Gipp in the 1940 movie "Knute Rockne, All American."

[More]

George Gipp at Notre Dame
Ronald Reagan starred as George Gipp
in "Knute Rockne - All American"

From the National Archives:

In 1989, just two days before he left office, President Reagan received a visit from sixty Notre Dame players, their coach, and the university president. They presented the President with a priceless university relic: the monogrammed letter sweater that the real George Gipp wore during his 1917 - 1920 tenure with the Fighting Irish. "That's a great sacrifice by the university," said Reagan. "No one will treasure it more than I will."

George Gipp's Notre Dame sweater.
Photo source: National Archives/Ronald Reagan Library

"Pro-Life" Candidate Huckabee Clueless on Mexico City Policy

Christopher Blosser reports over at Catholics in the Public Square that Mike Huckabee recently embarassed himself in a debate by his lack of knowledge of one of (if not THE) key policy in President Ronald Reagan's pro-life agenda:

Bill Clinton knows about the Mexico City Policy. Immediately upon taking office as President, on behalf of his virulently pro-abortion base of support, Clinton rescinded Ronald Reagan's prohibition on U.S. taxpayer funding of abortions overseas.

George W. Bush knows about the Mexico City Policy. When he became our country's Chief Executive, one of his first acts was to restore the policy's protections afforded to the innocent unborn around the world, and to American taxpayers.

But in last Monday's Values Voter debate in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, candidate Mike Huckabee proved that he doesn't have a clue about this landmark pro-life foreign policy.

Here's the relevant portion of the debate:

JANET FOLGER: The Mexico City Policy states that as a condition for a foreign organization to receive federal funds, they will neither, quote, "perform nor actively promote abortion." Would you work to apply this Mexico City Policy to organizations within the United States, as well as abroad?

MIKE HUCKABEE: I just want to clarify, and I'm not trying to be difficult, but I want to make sure we're not being asked to apply a Mexican law to United States law. Is it the principle you're after, or the law itself?

FOLGER: It's the principle of not giving our tax dollars to organizations within our country that actively promote or provide abortions.

HUCKABEE: OK. I just want to make sure that we were not in essence agreeing to abide by a Mexican law.

FOLGER: No. It's an American law.

HUCKABEE: OK. All right.

READ THE REST.

My Comments:
Uhhhhhh ... just ... WOW!

And this is the guy who's going to be the social conservative standard-bearer in saving the GOP from Rudy McRomney Thompson?

So-Called "Social Conservatives" for Giuliani Smear The Gipper

(Hat tip: Catholics Against Rudy)

Details here:

The lead article, "Rudy--The Candidate for Social Conservatives," at the website of Social Conservatives for Giuliani, includes this passage:

Some of the greatest conservative leaders in America have had less than spotless personal lives, but that did not stop them from doing what is right for our country. President Reagan's divorce did not stop him from vaulting a country languishing in the failed liberal policies of the Carter administration into a new era of prosperity and safety...

To lump Ronald Reagan's personal life in the same class with Giuliani's is despicable. Yet it is exactly what I have said all along must happen as a result of the Giuliani candidacy and a Giuliani presidency. A quick review of well-known facts: Ronald Reagan's first wife, Jane Wyman, left him and ended their marriage, primarily over the fact that she didn't like his politics and his political activities. He was wounded and devastated by this, and didn't fully recover until he married his second wife Nancy Davis several years later. There was no public adultery, there was no private adultery that anyone knows of, there were no public attacks on his wife, there was no attempt to remove his wife and children from their home. There was nothing spotted about Reagan's behavior at all. Yet these "social conservatives" for Giuliani are perfectly willing to suggest an equivalence between Giuliani's catastrophic marital and family history and Reagan's blameless history, purely for the sake of removing any criticism from Giuliani.

[More]

20 Years Ago Today ...

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
V for Victory has the story.


UPDATE
See also Tertium Quid's post at From Burke to Kirk and Beyond ....