Reagan’s impact is also salient in the current Republican primary. Republican presidential candidates claim the mantle of Reagan. As they jockey for the presidential nomination, they invoke Ronald Reagan: “I believe as Ronald Reagan believed….”

Well, what did Ronald Reagan believe?

Three times this month and still more in the months ahead, I’m giving a lecture titled, “What is a Reagan conservative?” Among the venues where I’m addressing that question is the CPAC conference, the annual political Mecca of the conservative movement. Modern Republicans—especially younger ones who were children during the Reagan years or not even born yet—are hungry for that answer, for that ideological clarification. In my lecture, I lay out what I consider the seven core fundamentals of “Reagan conservatism.”

I will not address all seven of those fundamentals here, but there are two that strike me as being of special interest to the current scandal known as the “Obama mandate;” that is, President Obama’s shocking executive decree mandating that all Americans—Catholics and Catholic organizations included—forcibly pay for contraception, sterilization, and birth-control drugs that cause abortions. Two of the seven Reagan fundamentals stand out: 1) Reagan’s belief in the sanctity and dignity of human life; and 2) Reagan’s belief in American exceptionalism.

On the first, Reagan insisted that without the right to life, there can be no other rights. The right to life is the first and most fundamental of all human freedoms, without which other human freedoms literally cannot exist. Notably, this is a very Catholic sentiment. Reagan used words identical, almost verbatim, to those used by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (the Gospel of Life), among other Church documents.

In 1983, President Reagan stated: “My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land. And there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.”

For Reagan, that right to life began in the womb. Deeper still, it began at conception. As president, Reagan supported a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would have inserted into the Constitution these words: “the paramount right to life is vested in each human being from the moment of fertilization without regard to age, health or condition of dependency.” He favored providing every human being—at all stages of development—protection as “persons” with the “right to life” under the 14th Amendment. (On this, click here for a terrific op-ed piece in the New York Times by Bill Clark, Reagan’s closest aide and a lifetime Roman Catholic.)

The leading proponent of a Constitutional amendment was the late, great Congressman Henry Hyde (R-IL.), a Roman Catholic and stalwart fighter for the right to life.

At the time, even some conservatives were critical of an amendment. It never passed.

Yet, it strikes me in this current debate that such an amendment would have killed Obama’s mandate. Here we Reagan’s wisdom.

In addition, Reagan preached American exceptionalism, believing that America—while hardly perfect—was a blessed land. It was a country founded on timeless, even eternal values: on universal, God-given inalienable rights. Here, too, given the Obama mandate, I’m struck by a statement that Reagan gave way back in June 1952 at tiny William Woods College in Missouri.

There, Reagan said that America is “less of a place than an idea,” a place that resided deep in our souls. “It is simply the idea,” said Reagan, “the basis of this country and of our religion, the idea of the dignity of man, the idea that deep within the heart of each one of us is something so God-like and precious that no individual or group has a right to impose his or its will upon the people so well as they can decide for themselves.”

Well, the Obama mandate imposes President Obama’s will upon all of the American people, and especially Catholics. It violates something God-like and deep within the heart of each of us. As Catholics and as Americans, we profess the dignity of unborn man, and our faith implores us not to violate that dignity. President Obama, via his fiat, has instructed us not only to go against our Church’s teachings but to subsidize the transgression.

When people say, “We need another Ronald Reagan,” they have no idea how true that is.

Don’t get me wrong, I love LifeNews. Few publications are so thoroughly excellent in what they do. And I like Rick Santorum. As for Mitt Romney, he is not my top choice for president, but I can’t say I dislike him.

But what about this headline? The article reports that a President Romney or Santorum would favor overturning the deadly Roe v. Wade, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court 39 years ago this week. Santorum’s position is not a surprise. He has been a superb, reliable pro-lifer. Romney’s position is great to hear, a further sign of his gradual evolution in favor of the unborn. Romney said of Roe: “I don’t believe they decided that correctly. In my view, Roe v. Wade was improperly decided…. And in my view, if we had justices like Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia, and more justices like that, they might well decide to return this issue to states as opposed to saying it’s in the federal Constitution.” Romney stated clearly: “Do I believe the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade? Yes, I do.”

I applaud this. It’s good news. It’s a commendable position.

But it also elicits a big “I doubt it.”

Why? Because overturning Roe under a President Romney or Santorum is largely a moot point. It’s very unlikely that Roe v. Wade will be overturned under any Republican successor to Barack Obama. Why? Brace yourself for the ugly truth: Because of Catholics. Yes, that’s right, Catholics.

By a decisive majority in November 2008, Catholics voted for Obama, enough to make the difference in Obama defeating John McCain and taking the White House. In so doing, these tens of millions of self-identified, self-professing Roman Catholics guaranteed this nation more bloody decades of Roe v. Wade. It’s a done deal, already decided.

Let’s recall the situation in 2008:

The November 2008 election was a pivotal moment for Roe v. Wade, a literal matter of life and death. The balance of the Supreme Court was at stake, precariously positioned to become either pro-life or anti-life. The next president would surely get two Supreme Court picks, probably three. A radical “pro-choice” president would choose “pro-choice” nominees. A pro-life president, which John McCain would have been, would opt for justices who would likely overturn Roe, or at least not affirm it.

And what happened? Obama won, and he got two picks right away, in both instances picking not only very liberal “pro-choice” women, but very young (by court standards) women. If Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor enjoy a normal life span, they will be loyal pro-Roe votes for decades to come. If Obama wins in November 2012, he’ll get a third pick, likely a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In fact, even if he loses, he might quickly get a chance to replace Ginsburg with another (much younger) pro-Roe judge. Believe me, Ginsburg and the “choice” crowd know what is at stake—better than oblivious Catholics do.

Source: Pew Research

Did we see this coming back in 2008? Of course, we did. I did dozens of commentaries warning about this, as did countless pro-life Catholics who understood the enormity before them. This was obvious.

To be fair, I don’t want to indict all Catholics. The data shows that Catholics who attend Mass regularly or more than once a week voted against Obama and thus against Roe in 2008. Unfortunately, those are not the majority of Catholics.

George W. Bush won Catholics in 2000 and in 2004. In turn, Bush made wonderful Supreme Court picks that were positioned to overturn Roe; that is, if he was succeeded by a pro-life Republican. That would-be Republican successor lost, defeated because he failed to get a majority of Catholics.

I’m convinced that if you really want to discern the underlying currents of history, watch the happenings in the Catholic Church and her people. November 2008 was one spot where the Church’s people blew it big time.

So, back to that LifeNews headline: Romney and Santorum believe Roe should be overturned? That’s good, but it’s unlikely to happen in their administrations.

That said, all hope is not lost. On a positive note, we can be content to know that these two men would select nominees who, in the long run, would make a pro-life difference, and could eventually help to overturn Roe, and at least not solidify it. They could again redirect the ship. But overturning Roe? No, not anytime soon. Thanks to Catholics.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand (Ignatius Press) and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.

Romney is campaigning now in eastern Iowa, where he did well in 2008. http://is.gd/Dr8LRd

Noteworthy: Romney did well in an area dominated by Catholics. (Dubuque is 75% Catholic). Just look at the map from 2008. http://is.gd/6vaE99

Rich Lowry says Santorum’s focus on families and the working class sets him apart from the GOP field. http://is.gd/hkpks0

I like Rick Perry for promoting federalism. But then why is he suing Virginia in federal court to get on the ballot? http://is.gd/lEKYWn

Rick Perry no longer supports abortion in the case of rape. He was convinced after talking with pro-life attorney Rebecca Kiessling, who was born after her birthmother was a victim of sexual assault. http://is.gd/aqBrsh

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson formally joins the Libertarian Party, ending his bid for the GOP presidential nomination and declares himself a candidate for the president under the Libertarian Party. We might make a difference on who wins New Mexico. http://is.gd/oumNsV

With the retirement of Sen. Ben Nelson, D-NE, the Democrats’ chances of retaining the Senate in 2012 get dimmer. But they’ll face an even harsher 2014. http://is.gd/5Svqqi

She notes that “Catholics make up about a quarter of the GOP primary electorate” but only Rick Santorum, himself Catholic, has actively tried to court Catholic voters.

Sullivan states: “[I]f you’re a purist conservative Catholic, Santorum is your man. His credentials on the social issues are beyond dispute.” But she notes that he is only at 1%, suggesting that such purist Catholics are not that large in number.

I’m sure that Santorum’s campaign is also wondering why they aren’t closer to 25% support given the number of Catholic voters in the Republican Party.

But I don’t think the answer is a total mystery. Catholic Republicans have been voting for non-Catholic candidates for decades. Many pro-life and pro-family Catholics simply want the strongest candidate on these issues who they deem have a good chance of winning the nomination. If that man is Catholic, all the better. So far, many pro-life Catholics have doubts that Rick Santorum can win the nomination. (Santorum fans have certainly hoped that he could duplicate a surprise performance like Huckabee in 2008, but so far that hasn’t happened.)

In fact, when the topic of Catholicism is brought up in public debate, it usually is a scandal for pro-life Catholics. Catholic Republicans have long been embarrassed by the large number of high-profile Catholic Democrats who have caused scandal by supporting abortion and/or same-sex marriage. The roster is long: Mario Cuomo, Geraldine Ferraro, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo, and Joe Biden. To pro-life Catholics, voting for a candidate who shares your faith tradition is not as important as voting for a candidate who recognizes the right to life and the importance of marriage. Thus, the Democratic Party nominated Catholic John Kerry, but the Methodist George W. Bush was able to win the Catholic vote because he emphasized the pro-life and pro-family issues. In 2008 McCain did not and lost.

In fact, Sullivan notes that the evangelical language of George W. Bush didn’t push Catholic Republicans away. In fact, it might make them open to supporting Rick Perry. Looking across the field, Sullivan says Mitt Romney’s flip-flopping on abortion worries Catholic pro-lifers and Herman Cain’s baffling answers could show that he’s not up to the challenge of defending and debating the right to life.

“For many conservative Catholics, that leaves Rick Perry as their default candidate of choice,” says Sullivan. Making the Catholic case for Perry, Sullivan said that for pro-life Catholics, Perry’s support for the death penalty isn’t a deal breaker and many Catholics are closer to Rick Perry’s views on immigration than evangelical voters.

Sullivan concludes:

“If Rick Perry is looking to turn around his campaign, he might want to focus less on hiring big-name GOP consultants and more on finding some Catholic outreach staffers in Iowa.”

The Republican Party needs to realize that the Catholic vote is important not just in the general election, but also in the primaries. The candidate who best understands that best might be the one nominated in Tampa next August.

President Obama’s political team today will announce a new effort to court RELIGIOUS VOTERS in 2012. Democratic officials say they see an opening with Christians on immigration, the budget and other issues.

Okay, let’s stop right there. Immigration was an issue Obama and the Democrats completely failed to do anything about in the first two years of his administration when they had total control of the House and Senate. Talk about an empty promise.

For the past two years, the White House has had an intentional program of outreach to centrist Christians on issues like adoption and fatherhood, with programs that include an Easter Prayer Breakfast in the East Room.

“Centrist Christians” is of course code for “Christians who compromise on fundamental issues such as the right to life and protecting marriage and family.” As usual, this administration has a very specific type of Christian they choose to work with.

This cycle, the new DNC effort will be headed by the Rev. Derrick Harkins [...] Harkins will report to DNC Executive Director Patrick Gaspard and Director of Constituency Outreach Brian Bond. Harkin is a board member of the National Association of Evangelicals, and works with Catholics as a board member of Faith in Public Life, launched in 2006 to take the partisan edge off faith in the public square, dominated by the GOP in 2004.

That’s a nice little line: “take the partisan edge off faith in the public square.” What hypocrisy. So, in other words, it is “partisan” to disagree with Democrat policies such as unfettered abortion access, taxpayer-subsidized contraception and dismantling and undermining laws that protect marriage as the union of husband and wife, not to mention conscience protections to shield people of faith from being forced to violate their beliefs.

Harkins’ one tie to Catholics is a group called “Faith in Public Life” (FPL) whose website currently has this image adorning its homepage:

… a golden calf they brought to the Occupy Wall Street protest. Nice.

PFL explains its history beginning this way: “Following the 2004 election, in which faith was often deployed in service of a narrow and partisan agenda…” again, no need to go any farther. My simple question is: how has Obama’s faith-based outreach not been marked with anything except a narrow, partisan agenda that marches in lock-step with his political ideology and goals?

The great irony of this effort to confuse court religious voters is that President Obama has been the most anti-freedom of religion and anti-freedom of conscience president in modern American history.

Whether it’s working to destroy the traditional legal definition of who qualifies as an exempted religious minister, nominating an appointee to the EEOC who is on record saying sexual liberty should trump religious liberty every time, suing Catholic Colleges to force them to pay for contraception in their health care plans, the HHS forcing Catholic Hospitals (and all medical plans under Obamacare) to subsidize contraception and abortion providers with taxpayer money, claiming that Catholics and other Christians who believe marriage is between a husband and wife are guilty of animus towards gays and lesbians and … golly, that’s just the stuff I can name off the top of my head! There is more, so much more that this administration has done to erode religious liberty and marginalize Christians and Catholics in particular.

Bottom line: Catholics and Christians may have been fooled once in 2008 by President Obama’s promises but they won’t be fooled twice in 2012 with the same patently false promises.

So here’s my message to the DNC: Game on. It’s time to win back religious voters from a President who opposes their values every single time they come into conflict with his and the Democrats’ political ideology.

The Obama administration is treading on dangerous water here. Catholics don’t vote as a straight bloc, but winning the Catholic vote is critical to winning elections.

Catholics also don’t necessarily all agree on every issue. There are plenty of pro-choice Catholic voters, just as there are orthodox Catholics who agree with the pope on everything.

But what Catholic voters don’t like is the idea of the federal government attacking the church for being what it is.

That last line is the money quote: Catholics don’t like being attacked for simply being Catholic.

That’s what the Obama administration has been doing when it, for instance, mandates Catholic hospitals to cover contraception [help CatholicVote oppose this], or when the (Obama-stacked) National Labor Relations Board decides that St. Xavier –a Catholic university– is not Catholic enough, and that it can force the university to accept labor unions.

These two issues are only the tip of the iceberg. I’ve chronicled in the past years numerous other instances where Obama has made it difficult for the Catholic Church to pursue her mission: on conscience rights, on protecting the unborn, on preserving and promoting the institution of marriage, on religious liberty — you name it. But don’t just take my word, read what Feehery writes.

In fact, there’s good evidence to suggest that Obama has already lost the Catholic Vote. The question is whether he can possibly get it back. It’s critical that he does — because, as Feehery and others point out, if you lose the Catholic vote in the presidential election, you lose. Period.

Here’s why Obama has probably already lost the Catholic Vote — or why it is at least up for grabs. Exit polling from the last national elections in 2010 show, depending on which polls you consult, anywhere from a 24-point to an 18-point Catholic swing from supporting Democrats to supporting Republicans. The Associated Press claimed Catholics supported the GOP by 58%, CNN said it was 55%, and a CNN exit poll pegged Catholic support of the GOP in 2010 at 53%.

Bush beat Kerry in 2004 with only 52% of the Catholic Vote. Which means that whatever poll you consult, Obama was already at least 6 points behind Bush’s 2004 winning-level of support in 2010, and Obama’s poll numbers have only decreased since then.

Here’s the caveat: lots of Democrats didn’t go out and vote in 2010, and off-year elections are always tougher on the incumbent party in power (in 2010 that was the Democrats). Additionally, Democrats largely neglected Catholic outreach in the 2010 elections. So 2012 will be more of an uphill climb because we can count on Democrats to have learned their lesson about not courting Catholics. But the prognosis remains favorable if the current trends hold.

That’s why we’ll need all hands on deck to keep Catholics in the column of the candidate and party that best represents Catholic social teaching on foundational issues as life, marriage, family, subsidiarity, and religious freedom in 2012.

Please visit CatholicVote’s homepage to see how you can immediately help.

And continue to prepare for the good fight ahead.

Deal Hudson writes about the new emerging Catholic Vote:

Pushed, in part, by concern about the health care bill, Catholic voters across the nation returned to the GOP in numbers resembling the presidential victory of George W. Bush in 2004. CNN exit polls record 55 percent of Catholics voted for the GOP while AP polling showed a whopping 58 percent, a twenty point increase since 2008. Either way, the 2008 Catholic support for Obama has completely reversed itself, perhaps with a vengeance.

In all, over 17 pro-life Catholics will be added to the Congress, while roughly 26 pro-abortion Catholics will be departing.

George Marlin adds in “Catholics and the Mid-Terms“:

This switch had a major impact on elections in the key swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana. Two years ago, a large percentage of pro-life, GOP-voting Catholics in these economically troubled rust-belt states were AWOL on Election Day. They stayed home then because they could not, in good conscience, vote for pro-abortion Obama, but they were uninspired by McCain’s anemic economic vision.

But this year Catholics came out in force and provided the votes needed to defeat one Congressional Democratic incumbent in Indiana, and four each in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Flipping these closely-contested seats was the sine qua non of the GOP master plan to retake the House, and Catholics provided the margins of victory.

It doesn’t help that Democrats appeared to have given up Catholic outreach this year:

Among the many reasons Democrats are giving for why so many lost faith in them at the polls on Tuesday, some are blaming the party for losing faith itself – for neglecting religious outreach and messaging in the run up to Election Day.

“It’s been a real challenge organizing at the level of what was done in the last couple of cycles in faith constituencies because of a smaller staff and a small overall commitment,” from the Democratic Party, said Burns Strider, who was hired by the party to help with faith outreach this year. [Dan Gilgoff at CNN's Belief Blog]

Liberal Catholics, meanwhile, continue to scratch their heads over what went wrong, as this Religion News Service article (pointed out by Brian Saint-Paul at Inside Catholic) illustrates:

Independent liberal groups such as Catholics United battled for several Democratic candidates through radio ads, phone banks, and legal maneuvers. In those campaigns, the Democrats, all Catholics, were blasted by conservatives because they voted for health care reform over the U.S. bishops’ objections. The candidates — Reps. Tom Perriello of Virginia, Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania, and Steve Driehaus of Ohio — all lost close races on Tuesday.

“Those are folks who are really committed to the common good, with a strong sense of Catholic social teaching,” said Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK, a national Catholic social justice lobby. “But they really got lost in whatever this fear is that is gripping our country.”

… “Whatever this fear is?”

To paraphrase a common saying: “It’s not fear – it’s the faith, stupid.”

America now once again has a pro-life majority in the House of Representatives. Catholyc Nancy Pelosi, after a lame duck session, will no longer be Speaker of the House. Across the nation, pro-life, pro-marriage conservative candidates pulled off impressive victories. All told, Republicans picked up 60 seats in the House of Representatives, and 6 in the Senate. Many races have yet to be finalized.

CatholicVote President Brian Burch and I had a chance to watch some of the election returns together last night here in DC, while co-founder Josh Mercer held down the online CatholicVote digital fort with constant twitter, facebook and blog updates (and looking at all the posts published and in the queue – he’s still at it!).

Here’s my highlights from last night’s results.

CatholicVote-supported Robert Hurt defeated Catholycs in Alliance for the Common Good founder Tom Perriello. CatholicVote ran radio ads in this district and successfully overcame the coordinated efforts of the Catholyc left to keep him in office. This means we successfully destroyed the “Catholyc firewall” in VA-5 as I had hoped.

Kelly Ayotte won her Senate race in New Hampshire, with the tireless help of the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List. We once again have a pro-life woman in the Senate!

CatholicVote-endorsed candidates Frank Guinta, Mick Mulvaney, Bobby Schilling, Jeff Fortenberry, Sean Duffy all won their races! CatholicVote-endorsees to win also include Dan Benishek (who won Bart Stupak’s old seat in MI-1) and Democrat Dan Lipinski (the one Catholic Democrat who did not sell out for Obamacare). The only CatholicVote-endorsed candidates not to win in the House were George Phillips (a long shot in NY-22) and Keith Fimian (by the narrowest of margins, he currently stands 600 votes shy of a victory, and may yet claim victory when all the absentee ballots are counted).

7 out of 9 is a very strong showing for CatholicVote’s first endorsement batch! Congratulations to all the fine candidates who will soon be legislating in Washington.

Supposedly pro-life Democrats who supported Obamacare and flawed Catholic Democrats suffered big defeats last night. In addition to Tom Perriello, Kathy Dahlkemper, Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney (who were both the subject of CatholicVote ads in their district), Steve Dreihaus (who tried to silence the Susan B. Anthony List because of their political billboards) and nine other “Stupak Democrats” who sold out and supported Obamacare were defeated last night. Anti-life votes have bad consequences.

[View SBA's full election pro-life scorecard here.]

Also not to be missed, the National Organization for Marriage successfully led an effort to kick out three state Supreme Court Justices who legalized same-sex marriage in Iowa.

(Honorable mention: Pro-Life Democrat Joe Manchin defeated Pro-Life Republican John Raese in West Virginia’s Senate race. I welcome the election of any pro-life Senator and hope that Manchin stands true to his pro-life convictions once in Washington).

Now for some disappointments: my three favorite House candidates all lost their bids. Keith Rothfus narrowly missed defeating incumbent Jason Altmire by a mere 5,000 votes out of 250,000 cast (Rothfus will be back next cycle I’m sure). Michiganders in the 15th District failed to elect challenger Rob Steele and instead sent John Dingle back for his 29th term (talk about more of the same). Finally, in Virginia’s 11th District, Keith Fimian trails Incumbent Gerry Connolly by less than one percentage point.

More disappointing still, Barbara Boxer defeated Carly Fiorina for another 6-year term in the Senate. We still have a long road to travel before California becomes a state capable of sending a conservative Senate candidate to Washington. Until then, we’re stuck with six more years of Boxer’s harmful agenda.

When it comes to tracking the Catholic vote, Josh points out this CNN exit poll claiming the GOP won 53% of it this year. In 2008, Republicans trailed the Democrats by ten points, so this translates to an 18% swing in favor of the GOP, focused in the Midwest. More thoughts on this later.

Bottom line: the candidates elected last night were more pro-life, pro-marriage, conservative, and better reflect Catholic values than the Congress we currently have, so we can be rightfully proud of all the progress we made in this critical election cycle.

Now, with unflinching resolve, we prepare for the work of holding this new pro-life majority in the House accountable to the promises they have made, while also beginning to look forward to the next set of elections where we can further multiply the number of elected officials in Washington who will best serve the common good as revealed by the Church. We have only just begun to become the Catholic Vote.

Deo Gratias!

Have you reminded your papist friends to do so as well?

It’s a brisk morning here in Washington, DC. This evening will be stacked with election return-watching festivities, and today is packed with last-minute writing.

Here are a handful of links I haven’t gotten a chance to post yet today, which have relevance to the topic of the Catholic Vote:

1. Video: Cardinal-designate Burke on Abortion and Voting

2. CatholicTV.com’s video series on Catholic Citizenship

3. Deacon Keith Fournier: “Time for US Catholics to Vote and Build a Truly Free and Good Society”

4. AirMaria Video: Bishop Bruskewitz on Voting and Heresy

5. Aggie Catholics: An Open Letter to Politicians

6. My submission to the Washington Post’s “On Faith” panel answering the question, “Is voting a religious act or purely political?”

7. Special Bonus: An election-themed political cartoon by my brother, Charles Peters:

Understanding the Catholic Vote can be daunting at first, but some insights are straightforward enough, such as the five points presented by Deal Hudson. Here’s my list of five:

The First point to understand about the Catholic Vote is that it does not matters if someone identifies themselves as Catholic, what matter is if someone is a practicing Catholic who believes in the teachings of the Church. Poll after poll shows that Catholics who attend Mass weekly (i.e., Sunday Mass) are far more likely to vote for candidates who are pro-life (for instance) than Catholics who do not even attend Sunday Mass regularly. This is not surprising, if someone does not even attempt to honor the most elementary obligations of their faith, why should they be expected to honor the moral commitment to vote with a Catholic conscience?

Outside groups attempting to twist the Catholic Vote (Reproductive Health Reality Check is a good example) spend most of their time talking about Catholics in general, as opposed to examining the voting habits and trends of active Catholics.

Second, Catholics don’t simply vote for other Catholics. They vote for candidates who share their commitment to the values highlighted by the Church’s social teaching. A strong pro-life, pro-family Lutheran (for instance) will garner more of the active “Catholic Vote” than a Catholic candidate who is totally pro-abortion and pro-same sex marriage. Active Catholics aren’t “tribal”; they vote to promote the common good.

Third, active Catholics care about many issues, but their litmus test for supporting a candidate is normally limited to foundational issues, such as human life and dignity, the institution of marriage, freedom of religion, etc. If a candidate gets one of these foundational issues wrong, they cannot expect enthusiastic support from active Catholics.

Fourth, the Catholic Vote is in need of further education and initiatives to promote greater involvement. Catholics tend to view private institutions (such as Catholic charities and pregnancy centers) as the institutional vehicle for helping society. This is a very good thing, but at the same time, Catholics need to realize that they must also take an active role in shaping a government that promotes (not hinders) private institutions.

Fifth, the Catholic vote is still up for grabs. What we are witnessing today is the interplay between the generational transition from the Baby Boomers to the “John Paul II Generation.” The emerging group of young Catholics have little patience for the tired arguments of John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi. Rather, the next set of Catholic leaders and voters is excited about bringing their Catholic convictions into the public square.

One of the many fascinating events that will (probably) take place tomorrow, is the number of Catholic Democrats who will be swept out of office. Catholic Democrats (an organization whose efforts I must regretfully oppose), in a recent campaign mailing, provided this chart of vulnerable Democrats:

As you can see, 42 Catholic Democrats stand to lose their jobs tomorrow.

Why do you think this could be, based on the five points I have listed above?