Did you know Rick Santorum is Catholic?

Well, a new poll says, incredibly, that most GOP voters don’t:

A new poll by the Pew Research Center asked voters what they knew of a candidate’s religion. Only about a third of Republican and Republican-leaning respondents correctly identified Santorum as Catholic. Republican white, evangelical Christians were as likely to identify Santorum as one of them as they were to identify him as Catholic (about one-third in either case).

Respondents were much more likely to know that Mitt Romney is a Mormon. About two-thirds of Republican respondents correctly identified Romney’s religion.

A significant number of evangelical Protestants do not consider Mormonism to be a Christian faith, and pollsters believe that some percentage of evangelical voters are reluctant to vote for a Mormon. The size of that factor is difficult to gauge in part because the same voters who might reject Romney because of his religion also tend to be conservatives who mistrust his ideology.

Comments

  1. midwestlady says:

    I’m not really sure this matters as much as it used to.

  2. I think if you took a poll in any election about what the average voter knows about the candidate, you would find a lot worse than this fact. Some believe Romney is a conservative just like some actully do not think Obama is a pretty fra left liberal. Many do not care anymore about what religion a candidate is because often the way they tag themselves has little to do with reality. Pelosi comes to mind. Look how many differ on the religious affiliation of president Obama. Could be because it is hard to tell by their actions. Most vote according to the label they have given themselves of D or R.

    I got an email from a friend who had an interesting viewpoint. He has believed for a long time both parties have sold out to evil in one form or another and that the political hacks who have not sold out are in a minority. He came up with the theory that Satan in his battle to win America from God set up a research and development program. He used this R&D program to first corrupt both parties which knowing politicians was not to hard. With both political parties, they would set up different gods for the people to worship, both with evil within them be it abortion or greed, that was part of the choice of pulling the lever. The PR department of both parites would make excuses for the evil and dress it up with new names. Soon, there was no choice that one a voter could make that did not involved sacrificing a part of their moral fibre. It was all there from the start of Satan R&D campaign and now when we vote, we choose either Research or Development, both filled with evil we have to choke down the lever R or D.

  3. midwestlady says:

    Sure, Mark. By the time a person gets to the elevated position where he can run for president, they’re usually so compromised that their religion means rather little, and Americans know this. I mean, look at JFK.

    The problem is that Americans usually vote for short-term economic gain, we just keep piling mess on top of mess, and many people just don’t even care to look at it closely. So people with horribly skewed personal histories can be elected if they can make it to the elevated position to be picked by the party. This is what happened with Obama. He has a crazy subversive and revolutionary past that people overlooked in 2008. He has close personal associations with people that should scare you.

    The truth is that people at that level aren’t generally very religious. On the other hand, some of them are most definitely better than others. We do have a clear choice this time, no matter who is the Republican nominee, if only because know what Obama did to us personally and as a religious group. He openly attacked us. Openly full-face attacked us. We don’t have to put up with that.

  4. Catherine says:

    This is most interesting. I can see why many conservative evangelicals think Santorum is one of them. The way he addresses certain issues seems to come more from the evangelical point of view than from that of the Catholic Church: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-pavelyev/rick-santorum-evolution_b_1208162.html. He keeps winning the evangelical vote in the primaries, as Romney keeps winning the Catholic vote. I wonder if the evangelicals who are actually voting for Santorum think that he is an evangelical, or if they are simply willing to vote for a Catholic?

  5. Yes, this is a clear choice in this election. We simply can’t afford as a country continuing the massive spending and I think a change could slow that down. I think the democratic party needs to get the same drubbing lesson the Republican got that gave us Obama. Maybe if their loses are enough and they see the Republicans get in and really do make some huge cuts, they will see this is their only way back into power.

    But I think we really need to have better alternatives and am growing to agree with those that if we care about all the issues like life and family and the poor and the schools and jobs and spending our kids money, neither party really answer all those issues. The question is if this is possible in the USA and how would it happen. Until then, we have to make choices now to save us from complete bankruptcy. If Romney is the one who can bring the most people who voted for Obama a place to land that is easier, then I can support Romney. What we have to do is make sure we do not see another Obama term.

    When it is over, I would love to see a group that really took on all the issues that would united the pro life people in the democratic party who also care about doing what is right for the poor join with Republicans who are pro life and do not want everything to be about unbridled greed. Maybe it could come about around someone like Rubio and help unite the Hispanic population as well.

  6. Catherine. No sure what that means. Santorum is strong pro life and up front about it. He shows his faith is important to him. He is pro family. He supports the Constitution religious liberty now under attack. Those are all both Catholic issues and Evangelical issues. Mike Huckabee said recently as a Southern Baptist he never thought he would hear himself say that today, under this attack on religious liberty, that we are all Catholics.

    This is exactly what the Republican southern strategy was all about starting with Nixon. Pat Buchanan, a strong Catholic who coined the term “silent majority”, knew that core Catholic beliefs were also held by a huge number of Evangelicals and Souther Baptist and at odds with the Democratic Party of abortion, free love and defiance of all authority, and big centralized secular government. Pat’s point was that the national media never allowed the voice against abortion or what they saw as grave evil from being heard, the silent majority. This really came to full fruition under Ronald Reagan. So it is no surprise to see them unite around Catholic leadership who has those same core values. What would be a surprise is to see them support a pro abortion, pro massive central secular government party.

  7. Catherine says:

    Abortion is an issue that unites Catholics and conservative evangelicals, true, but evolution? I’m not sure how old you are, but I remember the 1968 election, and the Southern Strategy, and abortion was not one of the issues, nor were other “family” issues. Nixon got 33 percent of the Catholic vote in 1968, and 52 percent in 1972. Abortion was starting to be an issue in 1972 (remember what the Republicans accused McGovern of supporting — “acid, amnesty and abortion”). Busing, and law and order, were big issues with ethnic Catholics back then. It was not a happy time in America.

  8. Catherine, since I am in my 70′s, I certainly remember the 1968 election. Many believe we are headed for another election of the same type this year for many of the same reasons.

    The southern stratgy was one that looked to bring those with strong religious values found in the Evangelical and Southern Baptist church pews toward the Republican Party by looking to make sure that the Party was on the right side of moral issues. This gave those who had strong religious values that were appalled by the state and local Democatic leadership a clear path out of the party to one whose values better aligned. While abortion became a bigger issue later, it was mentioned in the party platform as early as 1968 as part of this southern stategy. What also aligned were judges legislating from the bench to remove God from having any part in the public square which most saw as a complete reversal of the wording and intent of the Constitution. Thus when Roe happened, it further solidified this belief that out of control judges legislating from the bench would take the country to ruin and 54 million dead babies later, the results are clear. This is a very bad idea and we need judges who do their job and allow the constitution to work as established.

    What was on everyone’s TV for several years prior to 68 was free love, if it feels good do it, and the Democratic Party seeming to align with this movement. It is similar to today when so many Democratic leaders, including the president, have aligned themselves with OWS while ignoring the law breaking and violence around these groups. If these groups rekindle during the summer of 2012 and blow up like the groups did in 68, you will see the backlash of the voters huring the Demcrats for this alignment.

    By 1972, the party was so aligned to the left that they lost overwhelmingly and it had little to do with dirty tricks, but the democratic party out of touch with the country. Thus the move to have a preacher president in Jimmy Carter. However, the party aligned with abortion and gay activist, both thrust on the people by liberal legislating judges onto the people by edict. The southern strategy was complete and those with strong religious values would stay aligned with the Republican Party. Democrats have tried to make it a racist issue, but 90% of the Southern Democratic racist leaders remained Democrats, but soon lost power with the religious vote lost. It was all about aligning with the right morals and core values.

  9. Catherine:
    Interesting that five of the six living former ambassadors to the Holy See – Thomas Melady, Ray Flynn, James Nicholson, Francis Rooney and Mary Ann Glendon, – have come out in support of Mitt Romney in a statement:

    “We recognize the importance of family and traditional values in American life…
    We also share the conviction that Governor Romney has the experience, vision and commitment to the common good that our country needs at this crucial moment in history.”

  10. Joe Mc Faul says:

    The very vast majority of American vote for President on issues of the economy. All Presidents have a singular inability or unwillingness to control abortion, gay marriage or nearly any other major social issue (they dont’ affect ehe comony). The ecomony suffered a major shock of historic proportions in 2007 and 2008. Rightly or not, Bush was blamed for that. If Obama solidifies ecomomic recovery and people believe he can continue to do so, he will win re-election.

    My advice to Santorum: Start proposing specific details of plans to improve the economy. If you don’t, your’re unelectable.

  11. MarK:
    To be ‘fair and balanced” the motivations of the so-called “Southern Strategy” and also those of St. Patrick of Buchanan were much more complicated and nuanced than you have presented here.

    Lest you think I am too hard on St. Patrick of Buchanan, I will be celebrating his saint’s name day tomorrow with much enthusiasm.

  12. Catherine:
    Interesting that five of the six living former ambassadors to the Holy See, all Catholics – Thomas Melady, Ray Flynn, James Nicholson, Francis Rooney and Mary Ann Glendon – came out in support of Mitt Romney in a statement:

    “We recognize the importance of family and traditional values in American life…
    We also share the conviction that Governor Romney has the experience, vision and commitment to the common good that our country needs at this crucial moment in history.”

  13. While it is true, most do often vote on pocketbook issues, I think many in the end also take into consideration what they see as a moral decline and an open and outright attack on faith and this has an influence as well.

    For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?

    Just got this from a friend and had to go to the links to see if this is actually true myself. Check it out.
    Mark,
    You have to love the brass of the Democratic Party. At their own website who we are tab, it says:
    “For more than 200 years, Democrats have represented the interests of working families, fighting for equal opportunities and justice for all Americans.”

    They are counting on the media not pointing out this outrageous lie. “Representing the interest of the working families” — I assume they are referring to the plantation owners since they did not see slaves as human or Americans. Wonder if this is how they would justify the lie if challenged? They certainly were not fighting for the slaves and freed blacks for about 130 of those 200 years. Their terror arm, the KKK, also had huge issues with Jews and Catholics and had no problem lynching and beating them right along with blacks.

    Some may call this harsh, but notice no vile language, only facts of history against the Parties own words. Their own website is nothing by a total distortion of reality? http://www.democrats.org/about/our_party

    But it continues:

    “Our party was founded on the conviction that wealth and privilege shouldn’t be an entitlement to rule and the belief that the values of hardworking families are the values that should guide us”

    This is again a lie. Led by those very founders of the party, it was founded on wealth and privledge and entitlement to rule based on plantation system of government and land ownership to even vote which also barred women. Certainly those slaves were not considered as hardworking families as Democrats bought and sold them and had zero concern for their values. Anyone who knows the power of the south in framing the founding documents knows that if they did not support it, it did not go into the documents. Why doesn’t the party brag about there Democratis Founders?

    “We didn’t become the most prosperous country in the world by rewarding greed and recklessness or by letting those with the most influence write their own rules.”

    Come on now, we heard in the 2008 election that this was going to be the most transparent and lobbyist-free pure administration ever, unlike the evil Republicans. Bank lobbies wrote the Dodd Frank bill almost in total and lobbyist were all over Obamacare. The recent state dinner had 54 of Obama’s top donors being served on our tax dollars. Wall Street continues to be a top donor to Obama not surprising when one looks at how much money he sent their way. I know, Republicans do it to. But Obama ran on his pledge to not be like them..change. Should he not be measured on deeds versus his almost oath like pladge?

    But to really see the boldness of the distortions, when you go in one click from “who we are tab” to the “history tab” http://www.democrats.org/about/our_history

    Note where they start to actually talk about their history…
    “In the 1930s, Americans turned to Democrats and elected President Franklin Roosevelt to end the Great Depression.” ‘
    WAIT, I THOUGHT THE PARTY WAS 200 YEARS OLD.
    YOU THINK THEY WOULD HAVE AT LEAST MENTIONED THOMAS JEFFERSON OR JEFFERSON DAVIS OR WOODROW WILSON. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REBEL FLAG AND WAR TO SAVE SLAVERY OR THE DECADES FIGHTING EVERY CIVIL RIGHTS BILL EVER PROPOSED? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE KKK AND MASSIVE EFFORTS UP TO AND INCLUDING FDR TAKING A PASS ON PASSAGE OF ANTI LYNCHING LAWS?

    When your party for all those generations pointedly goes from bragging about 200 years to avoiding discussion about the first 130 years of their existence, something really begins to smell like dead fish.

    Has the Democratic Party ever come forward and issued a massive appolgy to the millions of people that their party enslaved, beat, and killed? No? I haven’t heard it shouted from on high. They want to deny it existed, while having the brass to tout the number of years. But they have moved on and learned from their lesson. we have to assume learning from history, anyone trying to kill 54 million babies would never have their support..if you don’t learn from history or worse deny it, you are bound to repeat it.

    Those who think talking about this is wrong should point out why when one party is flat out lying about truth.

  14. Catherine says:

    It is interesting, but not very surprising — these are all people who were appointed to an ambassadorship in previous GOP Administrations, so I am not surprised that the establishment candidate, generally deemed the most electable, appeals to them. Flynn (nominally a Democrat) endorsed Scott Brown for Senate, and Brown is a moderate like Romney. Flynn and Prof. Glendon would have known Romney personally from his time as governor of Massachusetts, and they may have helped persuade the others to join them in the endorsement.

Leave a Comment


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X