DBWI: Can a Roman Catholic Be Elected President?

Now that Mitt Romney, (or should I say President Romeny?), has been sworn in as the first Mormon President of the United States, I've got to wonder, could the same happen to a Roman Catholic?

In 1960, of course, John Kennedy famously ran for President, and he was a Roman Cahtolic. He lost to Nixon, but it's never been found out for sure if he lost because of his religion.

Personally, i've never understood what the reason for all the Anti-Catholic sentiment in the US. Most of the US is Christian anyway, so what's the problem with Catholics?

OOC: to clarify this takes place in current time, the POD being Kennedy losing the 1960 election.
 
Now that Mitt Romney, (or should I say President Romeny?), has been sworn in as the first Mormon President of the United States, I've got to wonder, could the same happen to a Roman Catholic?

In 1960, of course, John Kennedy famously ran for President, and he was a Roman Cahtolic. He lost to Nixon, but it's never been found out for sure if he lost because of his religion.

Personally, i've never understood what the reason for all the Anti-Catholic sentiment in the US. Most of the US is Christian anyway, so what's the problem with Catholics?

OOC: to clarify this takes place in current time, the POD being Kennedy losing the 1960 election.

Come on!

This question should have been answered with Al Smith getting nominated in 1928! We know he secured the nomination, and given that Hoover bought the farm in that term, its quite possible that Smith could have been elected if FDR hadn't emerged to run for the presidency instead.

So, what, that's:
Al Smith (1928)
John F. Kennedy (1960)
John Kerry (2004)

If there were something against running Catholics for President, its a dead issue.

The problem is that this scenario seems much ado about nothing. All we need to do is get Cal Coolidge to run for president a second time in 1928 and Al Smith wins the US Presidency.

Frankly, I wonder if a Black Man can be president.
 
This question should have been answered with Al Smith getting nominated in 1928! We know he secured the nomination, and given that Hoover bought the farm in that term, its quite possible that Smith could have been elected if FDR hadn't emerged to run for the presidency instead.

So, what, that's:
Al Smith (1928)
John F. Kennedy (1960)
John Kerry (2004)

If there were something against running Catholics for President, its a dead issue.

Unfortunately it's not. We'll never know for sure if America has overcome it's old biases until one actually wins.
 
Unfortunately it's not. We'll never know for sure if America has overcome it's old biases until one actually wins.

This is just code. Remember, all of the Catholics running for office have been--Democrat. The Republicians running Mitt Romney--and winning--suggests that its not the religion, its the platform.

Also remember, Abe Lincoln was an Atheist. And he's one of the best presidents in history.

Given the large proportion of the United States Population IS Catholic, I don't see how this assertion can be made. It was interesting in 1928--and that was even a part of the concern, that a Catholic President might take orders from the Pope. It wasn't really raised much in the Kennedy campaign and NOT AT ALL in the Kerry Campaign. I think that its it the platform, not the religion, that makes the candidate.

As for an Asian Lesbian--Remember that Asians are going to become a larger and larger part of the United States Population, and that Lesbians tend to have a dominant streak in relationships. Its not implausible to suggest 2100 as a possible date.
 
Well, after Ted Kennedy's unsuccessful bid for the nomination, and depending on how John Jr.'s campaign goes, the Kennedys may end up as one of the most successful political families in American history never to have a president.

Is it just me, or do the majority of Catholic candidates seem to come from the Democrats? You just don't seem to see many Catholics riding the upper ranks of the Republicans.
 
I really don't see the connection. Mormons may be not very mainstream, but the LDS is a movement that is America's own, born in the heartland and desert of the interior of this nation. Catholics follow some Austrian guy all the way in foreign Europe. There's just no comparison.
 
OOC:
Reading some of his private notes and diaries, if he wasn't an atheist he was damn close.

The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party -- and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true -- that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds

Lincoln 1863
 
The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party -- and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true -- that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds

Lincoln 1863

Was it a speech or other public document or a private document like a letter or a diary? Because Lincoln might have lied to the public.
 
Back on topic--why is JFK so important to this question? Other than being photogenic, what is he really so much better than Al Smith for? Indeed, if Al Smith had ran in 1932 instead of FDR--perhaps owing to Hoover's bad economic position--he'd have won.

This big old talk about JFK is just hype and exaggeration. Come on, does anything think that a womanizing playboy like JFK would have been a successful president? Nixon squeezed some hard deals out of Khrushchev for his Berlin Wall; do you really think JFK would really be able to get Cuba for Berlin like Nixon did? And what about Nixon recognizing Maoist China after the Sino-Soviet Split?

See, we forget, in the wake of the Rogers and Manfield scandal and the subsequent humiliation of the Nixon Presidency, that Tricky Dick managed to get a good one over on the Soviets.

JFK could not possibly have pulled off anything like this. Indeed, try not to forget that the Kennedy Family has some really ugly connections--Joe Kennedy Sr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy

Guy was in organized crime. And you really think JFK is clean? Come on, its suspect as hell. Al Smith was trying to get booze legal again; Joe Kennedy Sr. was cheating the system.

JFK has been the most hyped candidate I've ever heard of. Some playboy who can't seem to stick to even two girls at a time, and then dies at age 52 from conditions he's managed to hide from the public? I mean, this is like Bill Clinton times TEN. He would have to die in office spectacularly to have a shot at being a good president.

John Kerry? Reasonable enough fellow--although that was a dirty campaign on both sides. Pitting McCain against Kerry like that was dirty, low, and had more than a few Vietnam Vets rolling their eyes.

Really, honestly, truly, what's so great about the Kennedy Family? They're well connected--sure, but consider the Rockefellers for an even better scenario--and they made their money legitimately.

So, what this question really should be focused on is getting Al Smith to get nominated in place of FDR in 1932, and then HE gets elected. Not some silly buzzword hypster who can't keep his pants on.
 
Well, I must say that Kennedy seems to be the best candidate for a Roman Catholic President, but it requires a quite massive POD to avoid the controversy about his father's pro-Nazi sympathies that was raised during the 1960 TV debate; even it didn't happened, Nixon landslide victory seems still quite impossible to avoid.

But this raises the following point: if Nixon hadn't been elected, he wouldn't have been shot in Dallas on 1963. Without Cabot Lodge as President, would the Vietnam War have began later or ended sooner?
 
Well, I must say that Kennedy seems to be the best candidate for a Roman Catholic President, but it requires a quite massive POD to avoid the controversy about his father's pro-Nazi sympathies that was raised during the 1960 TV debate; even it didn't happened, Nixon landslide victory seems still quite impossible to avoid.

But this raises the following point: if Nixon hadn't been elected, he wouldn't have been shot in Dallas on 1963. Without Cabot Lodge as President, would the Vietnam War have began later or ended sooner?

OOC: Privately, I think Kennedy was shot to some degree due to unsavory connections; like the mob his dad got rich in. I doubt Nixon would wind up dead in nearly the same circumstances. Finally, remember that Nixon was extremely defensive, if not Paranoid. In OTL, JFK had been warned not to go to Dallas due to security concerns. I doubt Nixon would ignore this kind of warning. I would think this would get butteflied, big time.

IC: To get rid of Cabot Lodge, you just need to shake up the Republician Primary a bit. No big deal.

As for the Vietnam war--there weren't many doves on Vietnam floating around at the time. Ironically, Nixon talking to China was probably more productive than Lodge's decade long stupid occupation that didn't work. Its a shame Lodge was so bull-headed about it, but the whole Saigon Incident turned out to have been a fake.
 
OOC: Privately, I think Kennedy was shot to some degree due to unsavory connections; like the mob his dad got rich in. I doubt Nixon would wind up dead in nearly the same circumstances. Finally, remember that Nixon was extremely defensive, if not Paranoid. In OTL, JFK had been warned not to go to Dallas due to security concerns. I doubt Nixon would ignore this kind of warning. I would think this would get butteflied, big time.

Blue Max: Aware of it, with all the butterflies away, but the temptation was too heavy for me.:cool:

ITTL: I have read somewhere that Kennedy's younger brother, Robert, had considered participate to the 1968 Democratic Convention, in the trouble that followed Cabot Lodge's decision to run for an authorized third term. Do you know if he actually tried? Except for Ted, the Kennedys are rather political nobodies, so I doubt he had a great score.

About another Roman Catholic: do you think Joe Biden had any chance in this election? I mean, even being picked as running mate by Clinton...
 
Top