Leon Suprenant looks at an article that claims that Catholics prefer Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. The author of the piece he’s dissecting is Melidna Henneberger, and she says that while it would seem that Catholic should prefer Obama—a dubious claim in itself— Hillary is getting the majority of the “white Catholic” vote. As Leon points out, since Clinton is winning the white vote by a landslide anyway, this is hardly revelatory.
Looking even deeper, Leon discovers that the definition of “Catholic” is pretty muddy, especially since Henneberger calls out “devout Catholics” in her figures, naming them as those who attend Mass weekly. That’s not a “devout” Catholic; that’s simply being Catholic.
What we have in this campaign season is an attempt to “win back” the Catholic vote from the Republicans. After all, the GOP has done little lately to endear itself to pro-life, morally conservative Catholics, i.e. those who believe, accept, and put into practice the Church’s teachings in their lives. But is the Democrat Party a serious alternative? Not so long as it tries to advance every moral evil to come along as being the God-given right of those who crave it.
I really do wish the Democrats offered a real alternative, if only to keep the Republicans honest, but as Mark Shea says, our choice is between the “Evil Party” and the “Stupid Party.” Whee!
I wish I could vote “none of the above” and we could all start with a clean slate next November.