How Catholic Conservatives Could Quietly Remake the Republican Presidential Race Read more: http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/28/how-catholic-conservative-could-quietly-remake-the-republican-presidential-race/#ixzz1cFfzsxFT

As this point in the presidential campaign cycle, those of us in the press corps have typed tens of thousands of words about the influential role of evangelicals in selecting the next Republican nominee. Sure, sometimes we use the phrase “social conservatives” to recognize that evangelical Protestants aren’t the only voters who care about social issues. When it comes to specifics, however, we cite polls that track evangelical preferences and we write about candidates appearing at evangelical churches or winning endorsements from evangelical leaders.

But what about Catholic Republicans? “They have as much or more influence than evangelicals, and yet all of the attention has been on evangelicals,” says Professor Mark Rozell, who studies the religious right at George Mason University. In part that’s because evangelicals are behind well-known political gatherings and organizations such as the Values Voters Summit and Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition. Evangelicals also have religious leaders who feel free to endorse candidates, which gives evangelicals in the pews a sense of whom the high-profile figures in their community are backing. Bishops and priests, on the other hand, don’t endorse candidates.

Given that Catholics make up about a quarter of the GOP primary electorate, the question is nonetheless critical. Will they simply follow the lead of their evangelical brethren? Or are they poised to sweep uber-Catholic Rick Santorum all the way to his party’s nomination? The answer is probably neither.

It may be tricky to divine the preferences of conservative Catholic voters, but it’s not impossible.(It would be even easier if more pollsters would ask voters about their religious affiliation, but that’s a column for another day.) So let’s take a look at where the candidates stand with them.

There is no natural fit for the conservative Catholic voter. Or, as Deal Hudson, who directed Catholic outreach for both Bush/Cheney campaigns, recently put it to my TIME colleague Elizabeth Dias: “All of the potential nominees will have their challenges with Catholics.”

That assessment, of course, excludes Santorum from the definition of “potential nominee.” Because if you’re a purist conservative Catholic, Santorum is your man. His credentials on the social issues are beyond dispute. The defining issue of his Senate career was the fight he led to ban so-called “partial-birth abortion.” “If I’m a conservative non-compromising Catholic,” says Rozell, “then I probably like Rick Santorum and want to give him support in order to make a statement.” Unfortunately for Santorum, only 1% of Republican voters appear to fall into that category.

Herman Cain might once have been a reasonable option for conservative Catholics. But his confusing statements on abortion have all but eliminated that possibility. At best, Cain’s remarks indicate a lack of familiarity with the political debate over abortion. And at worst, he sounds like a pro-choice politician. He can talk to Rudy Giuliani about how that works out in Republican primaries.

As with the Republican electorate overall, conservative Catholics currently seem to be divided between Mitt Romney and Anybody But Romney. Stephen Schneck, director of the Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies at Catholic University, sees more pragmatic Catholic voters drifting over to the former Massachusetts governor. “Establishment Catholic Republicans are lining up behind Romney,” says Schneck. And Romney doesn’t have the same problem with Catholics as he does with evangelicals when it comes to his Mormon faith. “The Mormon issue is not an issue for Catholics,” explains Hudson. “Catholics as a group are highly sensitized to religious identity and freedom. They have been through that.”

But while Catholics may not care about the specifics of Romney’s faith, they are, if anything, more concerned about his record and position on abortion than evangelical voters are. That may be the frontrunner’s biggest obstacle to attracting meaningful Catholic support. As Michael Sean Winters pointed out this week on the National Catholic Reporter, Romney’s health care law in Massachusetts provided direct government funding for abortions. For Catholics who have voiced outrage over the possibility of indirect funding of abortion through Obama’s health reform law, this is a problem.

If Romney’s record on abortion is bad from a pro-life view, his position falls apart under scrutiny. During Romney’s 1994 Senate campaign, he told voters that he was a consistent supporter of abortion rights, adding “You will not see me wavering on that.” Although Romney’s position has changed several times since then, in this election, he and Cain are the only candidates who have refused to sign the pledge sponsored by the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List. Republican leaders hardly want to be in the position of appealing to Catholic voters in the general election by arguing that Romney is less “pro-abortion” than Obama. But that could happen. “The Catholic left has already published an article trying to tell Catholics that Mitt Romney is not really more pro-life than President Obama,” says Hudson. “There will be a vulnerability for Romney on that issue.”

For many conservative Catholics, that leaves Rick Perry as their default candidate of choice. It’s not an obvious match–Perry’s enthusiasm for the death penalty stands in harsh contrast to the Catholic church’s condemnation of the practice. And he does hang out with John Hagee, a Texas pastor whom Bill Donohue of the Catholic League once called “the biggest anti-Catholic bigot in the evangelical community.”

Looking closer, though, Catholic support for Perry makes sense. Opposition to capital punishment is far less important to the average Catholic than opposition to abortion. A poll released by Schneck’s institute earlier this week found that only 29% of American Catholics say that opposition to the death penalty is an aspect of Catholicism that is very important to them. “Politically conservative Catholics have been willing in the past to support pro-death penalty candidates as long as their position was right on other so-called life issues,” says Rozell.

In much the same way, Catholics who might have been put off by Perry’s very evangelical style have had eight years of George W. Bush to get used to evangelical culture. At the beginning of the campaign season, in fact, Baptist pastor Mike Huckabee was the favorite candidate of Republican Catholics. As for Perry’s evangelical bedfellows, Donohue has made peace with and now vouches for Hagee, turning his considerable ire instead on those who hold his former view of the Texas pastor. So Perry’s aggressive support for the death penalty and evangelicalism may not alienate conservative Catholics. And Hudson thinks the Texas governor’s more moderate approach to the immigration issue might actually be a selling point for them. “If you compare all the potential nominees’ positions on immigration,” he says, “Perry has the closest to the position of the Catholic bishops.”

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.

Henry Skinner Execution Approaches, Rick Perry Called On To Allow DNA Testing

A group of current and former lawmakers, judges and lawyers is calling on Texas Gov. Rick Perry to grant DNA testing for a convicted murderer with an execution less than two weeks away. The letter, also sent to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Gray County District Attorney Lynn Switzer, arguesthat the state should "ensure certainty" before carrying out the execution. A Perry spokespersonsaid that the governor wouldn't comment on the case and that it is a matter for the courts.

Henry Skinner, 49, has been convicted of the 1993 deaths of his girlfriend and her two sons in Pampa, Texas. Skinner, according to the Houston Chronicle, has said that he was too intoxicated with alcohol and codeine to have committed the crime. The Chronicleadds that multiple items from the crime scene have not been tested.

He came within one hour of execution in March 2010 before the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a stay.

The Huffington Post's Jason Linkins reported on Perry's role in the 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was convicted in 1992 of the murder of his three young children in what was deemed to be arson. Yet, subsequent evidence cast doubt on the forensic science behind the burn pattern. Perry scuttled the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which was looking into the Willingham case, in 2009 by firing three members.

Perry has overseen at least 236 executions, more than any governor in modern history. When askedin a September Republican presidential debate whether he ever lost any sleep over the possibility that someone innocent was executed he said, "No, sir. I've never struggled with that at all."

Skinner's execution is set for Nov. 9.

HuffPost's Jason Linkins reported on what Perry had to say when pressed on the death penalty during a Republican presidential debate last month:

[NBC's Brian] Williams simply asked in general if Perry had ever struggled with the idea that someone who was killed via capital punishment was innocent. The weak sauce allowed Perry to wriggle off the hook: "No, sir. I've never struggled with that at all. The state of Texas has a very thoughtful, a very clear process in place of which -- when someone commits the most heinous of crimes against our citizens, they get a fair hearing, they go through an appellate process, they go up to the Supreme Court of the United States, if that's required.

The Lone Star State Republican said, "But in the state of Texas, if you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you're involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas, and that is, you will be executed."

Jack Abramoff, In New Book, Decries Endemic Corruption In Washington

WASHINGTON -- Former superlobbyist and ex-con Jack Abramoff describes himself in his forthcoming book as a creature of a corrupted system.

"I wasn't the only villain in Washington," he writes in the book set for release on Nov. 1. Abramoff cops to the de facto bribery of public officials -- but writes that such conduct is "the way the system works."

The book, "Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America's Most Notorious Lobbyist," was published by WND Books -- a division of the "birther" websiteWorldNetDaily.com. The Huffington Post received an advance copy.

Abramoff describes how he "lavished contributions, meals, event tickets, travel, golf and jobs on innumerable federal public officials with the expectation or understanding that they would take official actions on my behalf or on behalf of my clients."

"As a lobbyist, I thought it only natural and right that my clients should reward those members who saved them such substantial sums with generous contributions," he writes. "This quid pro quo became one of hallmarks of our lobbying efforts."

He also describes wooing congressional staffers -- particularly chiefs of staff -- with the lure of future employment. "After a number of meetings with them, possibly including meals or rounds of golf, I would say a few magic words: 'When you are done working for the Congressman, you should come work for me at my firm.'

"With that, assuming the staffer had any interest in leaving Capitol Hill for K Street -- and almost 90 percent of them do, I would own him and, consequently, that entire office. No rules had been broken, at least not yet. No one even knew what was happening, but suddenly, every move that staffer made, he made with his future at my firm in mind."

Abramoff points out that he was "not alone in this method" and that "it continues today, unabated by reform campaigns or public ire at the Congress."

Abramoff was the central figure in a wide-ranging public corruption and influence-peddling scandal. He pleaded guilty in January 2006 to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials, and served three years and seven months in prison before his release last June.

His business partner, Kevin Ring, wassentenced to 20 months in prison just this past Wednesday -- the 21st person, including one congressman and two Bush White House officials, to either plead guilty or be found guilty in the scandal.

In the book, Abramoff mocks the ethics reforms adopted by Congress in the wake of his downfall.

"Is corruption in Washington really ended by insisting congressmen eat their food with their fingers standing up, rather than seated with forks and spoons? Yet, this is the kind of reform which Congress proposes, passes, and then congratulates itself about," he writes.

That's not to say reform bills aren't good for anything. "No bill is more likely to pass than a reform bill," he writes, "so smart lobbyists always keep an eye out for reform bills."

But Abramoff reserves his most scathing criticism for the members of Congress who never complained when he showered them and their staff with money and gifts -- then self-righteously hung him out to dry.

Abramoff famously remained silent -- taking the Fifth -- when he was called to testify before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in September 2004. In his book, he hints at what he might have said had he opened up.

"Most of these legislators had taken thousands of dollars from my clients and firms, and now they were sitting as impartial judges against me. Washington hypocrisy at its best," he writes. "Members swim in a swamp of corruption, and thrive in it, but they are able -- with a straight face no less -- to accuse others at will and sanctimoniously punish what they see as malfeasance."

And finally Abramoff shares his own plan -- concocted as he "paced the track ... day after day" at Cumberland Federal Prison in Maryland -- to end the undue influence of special interests. (Although, he writes: "I know that, barring a torch and pitchfork uprising, no real changes will occur.")

He proposes that anyone who lobbies the government, receives federal contracts or benefits from public funds should be entirely prohibited from making campaign contributions or giving any gifts at all to public officials.

To end the revolving door, "the lure of post-public service lobbying employment needs to be eliminated," he writes. So: "If you chose to serve in Congress or on a congressional staff, you should be barred for life from working for any company, organization, or association which lobbies the federal government. "

He also supports term limits. (As a lobbyist, "I didn't want to have to build relationships with new members constantly," he writes.) He furthur proposes that senators no longer be elected directly -- but rather by their state houses -- and that no representative be allowed to propose, lobby for or even vote on projects in their own districts.

But Abramoff still remains very much a movement conservative, and he puts the fundamental blame for corruption not on flawed laws or weak people -- but on big government.

"The reason there are tens of thousands of lobbyists is because the ever-expanding federal government creates ever-increasing opportunities for abuse," he writes. "The more the federal government does, the more lobbyists there will be to protect special interests at the expense of the common interest."

For years, Abramoff has routinely been described as "disgraced" -- the walking embodiment of political corruption. But he is being feted with a book party at the home of Daily Caller editor Tucker Carlson in November -- potentially a sign that, at least in some political circles, redemption is at hand.

Pentagon: Afghanistan Strategy Remains 'Risky'

WASHINGTON -- As the U.S. war in Afghanistan enters its second decade, a new Pentagon assessment acknowledged that the Taliban insurgency remains "resilient" and able to mount spectacular attacks and assassinations even in the heavily fortified capital city of Kabul.

A senior defense official insisted that President Obama's plan to withdraw all 33,000 "surge" troops deployed last year by the end of 2012 is "on track."

"We are succeeding," said the official, who cannot be identified under Pentagon ground rules. "We're going to advance our goals [and] draw down as we've said."

But the official, who briefed reporters at the Pentagon Friday, acknowledged that "the whole effort remains risky.'' Asked to be more specific, he replied: "We see risk everywhere."

For instance, a key U.S. objective has been to protect ordinary Afghan civilians from the Taliban. To that end, the U.S. and its allies have poured $29 billion and years of effort into building the Afghan army and police forces. Under the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy, American troops have pursued the same goal by walking foot patrols in villages, meeting with village elders and trying to foster cooperation on development projects.

But Afghan civilians are dying in record numbers, according to the report. Civilian casualties -- most caused by the Taliban -- reached an all-time high this summer with approximately 450 civilians killed in July. Attacks using homemade bombs, or IEDs, also reached an all-time high this past summer, with about 750 IED detonations recorded in July.

The numbers reflect what Pentagon officials say has been a shift in Taliban tactics. With some 97,000 U.S. troops deployed around the country, the insurgents are shunning large armed confrontations with American and Afghan troops. Instead they are setting up more IED ambushes, mounting sporadic but high-profile attacks such as the attack on the U.S. embassy in Kabul in September, and on high-level assassinations, such as the killing in September of former Afghan president Burhanuddin Rabbani.

Despite the massive effort to recruit, train equip and deploy competent Afghan security forces, thenew Pentagon report said that none of the 218 major Afghan National Police units were able to operate independently. Of 204 Afghan army battalions, one one was rated able to operate on its own.

Senior U.S. military officers have said in the past that high civilian casualties erode Afghans' confidence in the ability of their government -- and American forces -- to protect them. In interviews, many Afghans have said they refuse to cooperate with U.S. troops by alerting them to the presence of Taliban fighters or arms caches because they fear Taliban retaliation. The high numbers of civilian casualties underscore that point.

"The change in Taliban tactics has kept up the number of civilian casualties," said the senior defense official. Even though there are fewer Taliban attacks overall, he said, the Taliban "are killing more Afghan civilians."

Among other risk factors detailed by the report are "widespread" Afghan corruption, which the United States has been unable to control, and the inability of the government in Kabul or the provinces to effectively govern.

The new Pentagon assessment came as a new poll showed that U.S. public support for the war has sunk to its lowest point. Only 34 percent of respondents said they were in favor of the war, while 63% of respondents opposed it.

The new Pentagon report is the latest in a series of semi-annual reports mandated by Congress since 2008. In contrast to past reports, this one does not use the phrase "fragile and reversible" to characterize progress in the war. That, said the senior official, was a deliberate effort to suggest that U.S. initiatives in Afghanistan, including the clearing out of Afghan safe havens, seizing of Taliban arms caches and disruption of their supply lines to Pakistan, are having a permanent effect.

Although the new Pentagon report is more upbeat, it reflects the generally dismal security trends detailed in independent assessments of the programs in the war.

A report by the International Crisis Group, for instance, examined security incidents around the country as well as progress in building Afghan security forces and governmental capacity. The report concluded that the U.S.-led intervention in Afghanistan is failing.

"Time is running out before the international community transfers control to Kabul by the end of 2014, and many key objectives are unlikely to be achieved by then," the report said.

The international coalition of nations that have contributed forces to Afghanistan agreed last year to a plan to transfer all security responsibilities to Afghanistan by the end of 2014. That would mark the withdrawal of almost all foreign forces, according to the agreement.

President Obama, in a speech last June, laid out a plan to withdraw 5,000 forces immediately, an additional 5,000 by the end of this year, and the remainder of the "surge" of 33,000 troops by the end of next year.

Obama Jobs Bill: President Cites Income Gap To Push Stalled Legislation

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is banking on a new report detailing the income disparity in the country as further evidence of the need for his $447 billion jobs bill.

A report this past week by the Congressional Budget Office found that average after-tax income for the top 1 percent of U.S. households had increased by 275 percent over the past three decades. Middle-income households saw just a 40 percent rise. For those at the bottom of the economic scale, the jump was 18 percent.

Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address Saturday that he would pay for his jobs plan with an added tax on people who make at least $1 million a year.

Senate Republicans have blocked action on the bill, which mixes tax breaks for businesses and public works spending, because they oppose much of the increased spending and the tax on millionaires.

"These are the same folks who have seen their incomes go up so much, and I believe this is a contribution they're willing to make," Obama said. "Unfortunately, Republicans in Congress aren't paying attention. They're not getting the message."

Obama is now trying to get Congress to pass the individual components of the bill. But Senate Republicans also stalled progress on the first of those measures, $35 billion to help local governments keep teachers on the job and pay the salaries of police officers, firefighters and other emergency services workers.

Saying the country cannot wait for Congress, Obama has begun bypassing Congress and taking steps on his own that he says will encourage economic growth.

On Friday, Obama directed government agencies to shorten the time it takes for federal research to turn into commercial products in the marketplace. The goal is to help startup companies and small businesses create jobs and expand their operations more quickly.

The president also called for creating a centralized online site for companies to easily find information about federal services. He previously had announced help for people who owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth and for the repayment of student loans. The White House also challenged community health centers to hire veterans.

"We can no longer wait for Congress to do its job," Obama said. "So where Congress won't act, I will."

The congressional report, based on Internal Revenue Service and Census Bureau data, was released as the Occupy Wall Street movement spreading across the country protests bailouts for corporations and the income gap.

In the weekly GOP message, Illinois Rep. Bobby Schilling urged Obama to support bills that Republicans say would help create jobs by blocking various energy and environmental regulations and streamlining administrative procedures. The bills, passed by the Republican-controlled House, await action in the Democratic-run Senate.

Shilling said the bills give the White House and Congress an opportunity to build on the common ground created by the passage of recent free-trade agreements, and a measure to void a law requiring federal, state and many local governments to withhold 3 percent of their payments to contractors until their taxes are paid. Obama included repealing that tax in his jobs plan.

"Republicans have a jobs plan, one with some bipartisan support, but it's stuck in the Senate," said Schilling, owner of a pizza parlor in Moline, Ill. "We're asking President Obama to work with us and call on the Senate to pass the `forgotten 15' to help the private sector create jobs, American jobs desperately needed."

Obama Lost Many Donors from '08 Race

(WASHINGTON) — President Barack Obama has lost millions of dollars in support from former donors in Democratic strongholds and in districts that he won narrowly four years ago, according to an Associated Press analysis of the most recent federal campaign finance data.

Tens of thousands of supporters who gave him hundreds of dollars or more in the early stages of the 2008 campaign haven't offered him similar amounts of cash so far in this campaign. And in some cases, former Obama contributors gave to GOP candidates, such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.(See pictures of Barack Obama's family tree.)

Obama's re-election effort is hardly hurting for cash: His campaign and the Democratic Party raised more than $70 million for Obama's re-election in the July-September period, outstripping all Republicans combined by tens of millions of dollars.

But the AP's analysis indicates that Obama, beleaguered by a struggling economy, has lost early support from some of his larger financial supporters and will have to work harder to win back party stalwarts and swing voters alike. Obama's approval ratings have slumped to 41 percent in a recent Gallup poll, as steadfast supporters have found themselves less able or less willing to open their wallets again.

"He was our state senator, and when I looked at the Republican side, I thought, `We need some fresh blood in the campaign,'" said Janet Tavakoli, 58, a financial analyst from Chicago who gave $1,000 to the president in 2008. "But I was dead wrong about it," she said, and isn't supporting any candidate this time.

Obama faced then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democratic nomination in 2008. This time he is running unchallenged and has no primaries or caucuses looming, as the Republican candidates do, so potential Obama donors may not be feeling any sense of urgency. But typically early donors tend to give again, as money is a sign of enthusiasm — something Obama had in spades four years ago.

For its analysis, the AP compared the names and addresses of Obama contributors who gave between $200 and $2,500 from April to September 2008 with those who gave amounts in the same range during the same period this year. The AP adjusted its analysis to compensate for contributors who might have moved and listed a new address, or whose name or address was listed slightly differently last time.

The Obama campaign said most of its contributors gave small donations this year; it is not required under federal law to provide names of donors who gave less than $200. About 40 percent of total fundraising came from amounts greater than $200 this year, not adjusting for inflation, compared with more than 75 percent during the same period in 2007.

Obama's missing contributors live across the country, mostly concentrated in the Northeast and the West Coast. Obama also missed support from early donors in parts of Texas, Illinois and Michigan — areas he narrowly won in 2008. But he also picked up some new sources of cash in those places.

"I have little discretionary money, and I just have to take care of myself," said Roger Hodges, 45, an urban designer in Richmond, Calif. Hodges gave Obama $250 four years ago but doesn't plan on donating in this election. Hodges said friends in the liberal-leaning San Francisco Bay Area have become disappointed in Obama.

Romney, a leading GOP contender, has closed in financially in areas of the country that gave a solid stream of checks to Obama in the 2008 campaign, including Southern California, Florida and New England. Records show a handful of Obama contributors from 2008 donated to Romney this time; few, if any, appeared to give to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, another front-runner.

Lynda Marren, 48, of Hillsdale, Calif., usually supports Republican politicians, but she paid $500 to hear Obama speak four years ago.

"I wasn't persuaded then, and still am not," she said, and gave $1,000 to Romney this past June.

Many Obama supporters said they will vote for his re-election even if they don't write big checks. About 4 out of 5 of those who voted for the president in 2008 say they are likely to do so again, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

But Obama's contributions this recent fundraising quarter — absent support from the Democratic National Committee — are less than the combined cash given to all GOP candidates, hinting at an influx of money to whomever Republicans chose as their nominee. Observers have said this election likely will cost more than $1 billion.

The Obama campaign, for its part, said more than a million people have given to the president's 2012 re-election efforts, a mix of hundreds of thousands of new and returning donors that spokesman Ben LaBolt said points to "evidence of a growing organization." All told, Obama received donations from a wide swath of the United States from the Plains, the Midwest and parts of the South since April, the AP's analysis found.

Among those donors was Laurel Cappa of Washington, who gave $300 to the president four years ago and opened her wallet again this year.

"It was a birthday gift to myself," she said, having turned 70 this year, "and I expect to be giving more."

The campaign reports offer a complicated financial picture for Obama this election cycle. Recent reports show a mixed level of financial support from Wall Street, and an AP analysis earlier this month found Obama garnered continued donations from the nation's most economically hard-hit areas.

The campaign figures, however, didn't capture money raised by new, outside groups known as super political action committees, which can collect unlimited amounts of cash to influence elections. Obama and leading GOP candidates all have super PACs working in their favor, not counting groups like the GOP-leaning American Crossroads that have raised hundreds of millions ahead of the general election.