It seems what we have a real humdinger coming out of Team Huckabee:
“It was a wise move on his part,” said Chuck Hurley, a pro-family Christian activist and former Iowa legislator. “He is a gifted speaker and I would guess he will have mollified some people’s concerns. But the more people investigate the beginnings of the Mormon church, the more uneasy they will be, and there’s nothing he can do about that.” Empahsis mine.
This is from the Des Moines Register article that Rett posted a couple posts down.
Something the Des Moines Register seems to have failed to cover was this: Hurley gave this quote the same day Huckabee accepted Hurley’s endorsement. Huckabee accepts this line of talk.
Huckabee is more interested in gaining votes by refusing to say Mormonism is not a Cult (which it clearly is not)…
Huckabee has been asked about this view that Mormonism is a cult. He dodges and dances. “If I’m invited to be the president of a theological school, that’ll be a perfectly appropriate question,” he says, “but to be the president of the United States, I don’t know that that’s going to be the most important issue that I’ll be facing when I’m sworn in.”… Link
[In other words yes, he thinks it is. How difficult could it be to say no?]
…and his wife is making the case that God has his hand on his campaign over others…
Janet Huckabee also admitted she is “very disappointed” in the National Right to Life’s decision to endorse Thompson over her husband. “Mike has been a true Right to Life person,” she said. “He’s marched in the Right to Life parades for 13 years. He’s just been a big supporter pro-life legislation, and it was disappointing to him.”
“God’s a big God,” Huckabee continued. “If he wants us to continue to go and to fight the giants, we’ll do that. You remember Jesus feeding the 5,000 with two fishes and five loaves. So, we’re multiplying our money. Every dollar spends like a thousand and every prayer we get is like a million bucks.”
[Why does this remind me of a TBN telethon?]
Frankly this does little to help the GOP. If it does help Huckabee, it will be at Romney’s expense short term, the party’s expense long term. This isn’t an Evangelical party, it’s not a Catholic Party and it’s certainly not a Mormon Party, It’s the party of people with Conservative ideals. With Huckabee we become the party of “Born Again” salvation, mixed with a little populism, liberal fiscal policy and nanny statism. That is not a winning game plan against Dems, short term and long term. They already beat us on the liberal part, and we become a party of a single religion is truely limiting.
Do I disagree with Evangelical theology? You betcha. Much is contrary to what I believe. Do I feel the need to say it disqualifies one from office? Nope. Even if it could help my candidate in the short term, it hurts our party and society in the long term to exclude people based on a religious test.
Apparently though, this type of strategic exclsusivity is on the minds of Huckabee supporters:
That wasn’t enough for the Rev. Frank Cook, pastor of Union Park Baptist Church in Des Moines, who remains unconvinced that Romney would make a good president.
“He was doing the Potomac two-step around the issues that concern many evangelicals,” Cook said. “Most evangelicals, including myself and my church, agree with Governor Romney’s stand on most moral issues in our country. Our objection with his candidacy is not so much with his public stance as it is with how the Mormon faith has tried to disguise the tenets of their faith.” Link
In other words, Huckabee is moving up because he is attracting supporters like Rev. Cook who want a Evangelical vs. Mormon game. And unfortunately, he seems all to happy to play that card of bigotry.
The Huckabee campaign responded to Krauthammer’s same accusations:
Charles Krauthammer is an incredibily smart guy but, as sometimes happens with intellectuals, he’s overtthinking the issues. For example, he points out that Governor Huckabee’s ad uses the term “Christian leader.” Krauthammer claims that this implies that this is “some special qualification for the presidency.” The truth is much more banal: he’s simply citing his resume. Prior to his political career, Huckabee was pastor of several Southern Baptist churches and served as president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention. The ad was simply an introduction to who he is, not a claim about how being a religious leader makes him well qualified.
Jim Geraghty makes a great point here:
Carter is earning every penny Huckabee’s paying him, but something in this explanation leaves me with a furrowed brow. When Huckabee made his statement about his rise in the polls, “There’s only one explanation for it, and it’s not a human one. It’s the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people,” we were told no, no, no, we were completely misunderstanding if we thought he was saying God was propelling his rise in the polls, and Huckabee just wanted to give “God the credit for the blessings-particuarly the unexplainable good fortune-that come our way.”
Now that he’s got the words “Christian Leader” in an ad, and some folks see an implicit slam at Romney, and again, no, no, no, we’re misinterpreting Huckabee’s words and actions. Just him touting his resume.
Maybe. But as we’ve seen in the debates, Huckabee’s a really good communicator. Odd that his words would be so easy to misinterpret in this area.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
DEsperate Romney sleaze as he can’t even crack double digits in the RCP average:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/romney-goes-negative/
December 7th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
“Team Huckabee: Tacit Anti-Mormon Campaign?”
Yep, and I don’t blame him. Read Charles Krauthammer’s column today for more info.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Cliff,
I invite you to do the same thing that I’ve invited sampo, Metro and TLG to do. Just open up your Notepad , Wordpad or any other word processing instrument, type out your preferred “Look how badly Romney is doing in the National Polls” piece and hit Save. That way, you can just copy and paste every time you want to comment on a Romney piece.
December 7th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Cliff,
How about you actually respond to the post…
December 7th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
I found an interesting cartoon clip that
explains mormonism if anyone is interested.
http://intellectualize.org/archives/012555.html
December 7th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Argamenon, can you link?
December 7th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Rev. Cook is a BIGOT. And I’m Southern Baptist Seminary college educated and a member of NH’s largest evangelical church. This religious bigotry is insane and Huck finally needs to stand up and grow a sack and take on these bigots. If he doesn’t shoot these bigots down then he is one of them by association.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Argamenon, link please.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Jason,
Are we playing the victim card now?
December 7th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
MarK,
nope, just playing the expose-what-Huckabee-is-doing-to-my-faith-card.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
I can’t believe that religious bigots who call themselves “Christian” will do everything
they can to pull down somebody who says they believe in Christ. Where in biblical scripture
does this support the “Golden Rule”? Benjamin seems to be just another so called “Christian”
living the “Golden Rule” as it’s convenient to him.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Mormonism is a cult….But that is neither here nor there…if we want to get into the game of he said she said…fine…I’ll go get a bunch of Larry Craig stuff and we will post it up…This is starting to get hilarious with you rombots…It really is…
December 7th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Rett,
I think you just proved Jason’s point and aptly so. Aren’t you the resident pro Huckabee poster on this blog?
December 7th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Mormonism is a cult….But that is neither here nor there…
Maybe. maybe not. But with the context of this post and who you support, your saying it only contributes to your candidates game.
And frankly the idea that I am having my mind controlled is quite laughable.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Rett - u are pathetic … y not try to actually debate instead of name calling and Larry Craig references? What does Larry Craig have to do with any of this? Why not defend your man instead of attacking rombots?
December 7th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
#12 - say what? are you serious i can’t tell.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
#12 - why do you mention Larry craig???
December 7th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
In a case like this, where numerous supporters give voice to the intolerance that these have, it is incumbent on a leader to distance himself definitively from those statements. Failing to do so expresses approval of those viewpoints.
I’ll be surprised if Huckabee does so.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Rett,
I should talk but I think you should temper your rhetoric as a frontpager. Indeed, all of you need to call a truce on hitting other candidates unfairly. Or at least provide either some balance or objectivity, such as Jason should have asked whether this is bigotry instead of concluding that it is.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Oh, great, now we have a flock of anti-Mormons on a site that has nothing to do with religions.
Benjamin, as have been asked by a pundit this past week (name?), exactly what is wrong with Mormonism that it could inference with Mitt’s ability to lead us? Which doctrine is there that could disqualify him from being President? Is there anywhere in our doctrine like radical Muslims, that we need to kill all of you non-Mormons? That the women should be slaves? What is it specifically about Mormonism that is so wrong for Mitt to be President?
December 7th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
#6
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/unfortunate_playing_of_the_rel.html
It’s a safe bet that ol’ Charles is not ready to join in on the Huck wave quite yet. Here’s how he describes Huckabee’s strategy in Iowa:
“the kind of maneuver one comes to expect from slick former governors of Arkansas lusting for the presidency.”
Huck will start taking some fire now. Will he survive? We’ll see.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Feltcher,
I don’t need to ask what others think. This post was about my opinion, not yours.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
#1 - Cliff stop your trolling please.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Rett, much of evangelicalism is a cult. I suspect you’re a cultist by your remarks here. You make no friends by calling fellow bloggers cultists.
This is supposed to be about Romney and politics, not religion.
Kavon, can you ban Rett. And if you need to ban me too for calling him a cultist, be my guest!
December 7th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
I think the idea that Huckabee is running a tacit anti-Mormon campaign is certainly compelling. Krauthammer’s piece points this out starkly. Imagine Romney’s Jewish instead; now consider that “Christian Leader” ad of Mike’s. The outrage would have been deafening. But, because people are a little less quick to defend Mormons, and because some claim Mormons are Christians, Huckabee’s ad flies under the radar. Mike Huckabee’s message is subtle, but unmistakable, and it’s a message that EVERY evangelical in Iowa will hear; I’m a Christian just like you, wink wink, Romney’s not, and you better take that seriously.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
A candidate can’t go around defending or denouncing every statement a supporter makes. Its a stretch to automatically associate a candidate with a supporter anyway.
I must say, however, that the fates do conspire.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
If Huckabee won’t say if he thinks that the Mormon church is a cult, just go to just go to any Baptist website like this one here.
As a former Baptist preacher, why would Huckabee shy away from his beliefs? Would Huckabee at least state if hey thinks Mormons are Christians?
Again, Mike – why shy away from your Beliefs? Romney said if his faith dooms his bid, so be it.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Rett says: Mormonism is a cult…
Not that this is the place for it, but if you’d like to argue theology, I could walk you through the logic which would prove that while Mormonism might be a heretical belief, yours definitely is. However, that really belongs on a religious blog, not a political one. That discussion has nothing to do with chosing a president.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
This religious thing with Hick is growing by the day. History shows that people get sick of one playing his own religion card again and again.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Why is it a problem for a preacher to refute beliefs of another religion? Jason, you claim not believe evangelical viewpoints. You use synd comments in your posts against evangelicals.
This was my post on the previous thread, which should probably be posted here:
The views held by the pastor in Iowa are widespread. I think that this issue will be difficult to overcome. If there were a clear distinction between Mormanism and Christianity these problems would not exist. The issue is semantics, but evangelicals see it as an assault on Christianity to claim that anything other than the traditional definition of Christianity is “Christian.â€
Please understand, I state this not to encite people, but to help you understand why the pastor who say what he did.
I do not want to restart the debate about whether or not Mormonism is Christianity. All that I am saying is that these are the issues that I hear about. Evangelicals feel that Mormans are trying to redefine Christianity. It is similiar to the redefinition of “conservatism.†Obviously less important, similiar.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
I’ve already commented on this. Huckabee is clearly, with a wink and a nod, telling his would-be supporters that they should vote for him based on religious identity and that Mormons need not apply. I had thought of listening to the guy, after all he’s affable and funny and seemingly has a record, but then I caught him on Glenn Beck last night. Beck asked him, point blank a simple question: “Would you vote for a Mormon?” He hemmed and hawed and refused to answer, then gave some inane response. In other words, he could not do something as simple as recognize that in a big Republican party, he certainly could vote for someone of a different faith than his own. Why not? Because if he says that, then he validates the ability of religious identity voters to vote for someone besides himself.
I like religiosity, but I despise religious intolerance. He lost my vote–forever. I talked to two Mormon and Catholic friends last night, married to each other, and they both saw and heard the same thing, and came to the same conclusion. Huckabee lost their vote on that response. The word will get out on this, it already is. May not hurt Huckabee or the party short term, but he probably shouldn’t count on too many Mormon votes down the road in AZ, CO, UT, ID, NV, CA, OR, WA, etc. Religious identity politics–it will end up killing the party.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Huck is going to get busted for this. disgusting. Very bad for teh GOP. Rove was an idiot.
Krauthammer seems to agree as well. Pretty disgusting in my opinion.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/unfortunate_playing_of_the_rel.html
this video of huck makes me even more disgusted.
http://www.mittreport.com/huck_poll_and_God.html
The GOP is in a sad state right now. I hope the media does not give huckabee a free ride on this. i have noticed a fair amont of them aer starting to call him out on it.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Matthew,
As if this type of ad is something new. Indeed, other ads have been blatantly bigoted. I also have to disagree with the assumption that Huckabee’s ad is directed at Romney. It could simply be an overt appeal to christians, or a dig at Giuliani.
It strikes me as just a little ironic that this seems to be an argument for political correctness and secularism, two anathemas to conservatives.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
in iowa huck has made it a mormon versus ‘christian’ race. he will win that, but it is a pretty sad campaign strategy in my opinion.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
This whole argument is ridiculous. It seems that Jason wants Huckabee to denounce his beliefs.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
#12 - Mormonism is a cult….But that is neither here nor there…if we want to get into the game of he said she said…fine…I’ll go get a bunch of Larry Craig stuff and we will post it up…This is starting to get hilarious with you rombots…It really is…
Rett - you cant make a statement like that and then not respond to our questions about it. Ok you think mormons are cult (blieve what you want) but why do you mention Larry Craig?
December 7th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
I have been reading commentary on this site
for a couple of weeks now. I have made a
number of comments concerning all the candidates.
But, I have never attacked Romney due to his
mormonism. I have never said that Romney should
not be president or could not be president. In
fact, I have said several times that I thought
this was going to be a two person race involving
both Governors.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Sean,
You make an interesting point. What does happen to the mormon vote if Huckabee gets the nomination?
December 7th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
#36 - oh yeah what about #5 your little cartoon clip - it’s a bogus mormon smear. So if you are not using this site to attact Romeny then the conclusion must be your using it to smear mormons. Even worse!
December 7th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Michael,
He’s trying to have it both ways. When someone asked Sam Brownback earlier this year, if he thought Mormons were Christians, he said “sure” and moved on, or something to that effect. Huck’s saying “golly, I’m above that sort of question. I’m not here to answer religious questions”, and then he goes back to Iowa, pow-wows with pastors, runs ads touting his credentials as a “Christian” (credentials as a Christian, in an election? Goodness gracious), and generally, and unsubtly, proclaims that if evangelicals don’t vote for someone who is “one of them” (hint hint, wink wink), there’s going to be a backlash. It’s dishonest, underhanded, and it’s caused me to lose alot of respect I had for him. Similarly, his Glenn Beck interview, when he just dodged the whole issue of “would you vote for a Mormon”, was stunning. He bobbed and weaved, and winked to the evangelicals back home: “see, if you like, you can interpret me as sharing your concerns on Mormonism”. I think it’s one of the outrages of the campaign season.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
#25 - I completely agree.
Huck is trying to make it sound holier than thou, and I think it is going to come back to bite him. It is hilarious that people attack Romney’s speech and say, “He completely left out the agnostics and those who don’t believe in God, and that will hurt him in the General Election.” What about Huck?? His ENTIRE campaign is based on him being God’s Choice. He has ZERO chance at POTUS. He can’t defend his stances on the issues in the GOP primary. How well do you think he will do in the General when you have all the liberal attack dogs going after him? He would be toast. With the Dumond case, his recent blunders on MAJOR issues such as NIE, Guantanamo, etc. This guy would make the GOP a laughing stock, if we aren’t there already. Again, nothing against the man, just everything to do with his stances on the issues. ( . . and I am also a little offended at his assuming the “God’s Choice” mantle.)
December 7th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I also think that it is people not the
candidates that are putting words in
the mouths of the candidates saying
that they are attacking each others
religion. I don’t believe that Romney
or Huckabee is attacking each other
on religion. I do think that the media
raised up the issue of Romney’s religion
to create a fight that is really unnecessary.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Huckabee is about religion and only religion. I think people see this. It does define him, and it also isolates him in a national race. In the end, I think it will work against him in a big way, and we’ll all be saying that his downfall was his overplay of religion and God in his campaign. It really seems that he is running for Pastor-in-Chief, and he would be good at that - no argument here.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Benjamin,
You are obviously for the Huckster and are doing everything possible to bring Romney down
ie posting Anti-Mormon lies (the cartoon you posted) and are playing the religion card. Let’s talk
political issues about how the Huckster released a convicted rapist who then killed somebody, let’s
talk about how he’s going to raise taxes, let’s talk about how he doesn’t know that the
INS was done with in 2003. That’s what matters, they are both men of faith we know that.
Who has been more successful in their endeavors, well I think that Romney takes Huckster there,
but that’s just my opinion
December 7th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
#42, That is ridiculous.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Romney should not have appealed so vigorously to the religious right. It seems clear to me that he shares their values, which could have made for a good soft sale. By arguing that he shared their faith-based values, he practically invited them to look at that faith more closely. A certain amount of blow-back was the expected result.
Same thing could have happened, albeit to a lesser extent, if Rudy had transformed himself into a conservative Catholic. Evangelicals would likely have been crawling over Rudy the “Papist.” Huckabee’s beliefs have a much more complete overlap.
It’s just plain silly for Mitt’s supporters to start crying foul when Huckabee can sell Mitt’s message on a much broader scale.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Steve & Michael,
Why won’t Huckabee be forthright and honest about his Baptist beliefs?
-When asked if Mormonism is a cult, why won’t he say so?
-When asked if Mormonism is not Christian, why won’t he answer the question?
-When asked if he’d ever vote for any Mormon, again he won’t he answer a yes or a no?
Why does Mike continue to run from his beliefs? If I were a baptist preacher who believed these things, I would not shy away from it. I’d proclaim it during any interview.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Lets talk about how Romney supported abortion.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Question: Are there any CONSERVATIVE Huck supporters who comment on this blog who are not evangelicals?
I doubt it. The reason being Huckabee appeals to no one who is a fiscal conservative or a defense conservative, and only appeals to a narrow set of “Christians” based on his recent campaign tactics. The only way a conservative could swallow him is if you are “one of him” in the religious sense.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Huckabee’s primary campaign will doom him in the general, should he be lucky enough to make it that far. He is coming off as a religious extremist intolerant of other faiths. Barack or Hillary, with the help of the mainstream press will have little trouble disposing of him in the general. If he gets the nod, I expect to vote third party.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Fletcher,
I am a Mormon and I can tell you that I would not vote for Huckabee if he were the nominee. I do not see how he could be the voice and representation of the ENTIRE nation, regardless of religious affiliation. As a president, you must represent all people, not just those people who believe the same as you. He has basically said that he believes that Mormons are wrong and that they do not have the ability to do anything that a “real” Chrisitan could do. (e.g. Be the President of the United States) (As a note, I would vote for anyone else for the Republican ticket, as long as they will represent every person.)
December 7th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
cwpete - why are you lumping me in with Michael?
December 7th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
#46, So then your saying that Mitts exclaimation of who Jesus was in “The Speech” was Mormon doctrine?
I think that declining the question is the best that he can do. What other choice does he have?
December 7th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
#37 - Well, you can make the argument that the “Mormon vote” is irrelevant and flies far below the radar in a campaign like this. The only problem here is that it’s not just the Mormons who vote, it’s fair-minded people who get turned off by the “God card” or the blatant display of religious intolerance by Huckabee in this case. While he may say that he believes in Article 6, he then clearly turns around and applies a personal litmus test that he would not vote for a Mormon. And he clearly shows that on national TV to Glenn Beck, a Mormon?! Totally dumb. Mormons know who Beck is, and Beck already was on CNN with Wolf Blitzer and said that he thought Huckabee’s comment, or lack thereof, was “reprehensible.”
Look, Mormons vote something like 85-90% Republican. The Republican party has relied on them big in the last two elections for a boost in some critical and close states, as well as for campaign volunteers, etc. One of Romney’s guys in IA told the political reporter there, Yepsen, that they don’t have to work the Mormon vote in IA or get them networking, because “it works itself.” It’s a very strong grassroots social network, though not a campaign network. However, they email and talk and send notes to each other. There are 22,000 Mormons in IA, and I have no idea how many, if any of them, will vote in the caucuses or who they will go for. But I’ve already seen one outraged email about Huckabee’s “Christian candidate” strategy by a very influential Mormon, and the clear slap toward Mormons. It was sent out to a huge network today.
I have no idea how it will impact Mormon turnout or voting, but as I said, last night my Mormon and Catholic friends both eliminated Huckabee based on the Beck performance. How widespread will this be? I don’t know. But I can bet that if this gets more legs, and it seems to be moving forward, there will be a heavy backlash and Mormon voters will not, in any sizeable way, contribute to support for Huckabee. Does not matter in some states, but others it might. The South is heavy Baptist. The West is heavily Mormon. That’s a fact. A million Mormons in CA, hundreds of thousands of voting Mormons in OR, WA, ID, AZ, NV, CO, WY, etc. I don’t think you want to ignore that vote totally, but Huckabee seems willing to split it out and ignore it in hopes of getting the nomination. May come back to haunt him.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Michael, when did Romney support abortion. He has always been personally against abortion. He questioned the role tat government should play in individual abortion decisions, and he ended up becoming a pro-lifer from a public standpoint. He was always pro-lifr personally. I know you realize all of this, but I don’t think that matters to you. You’re just one of those guys who will support his guy no matter he does or says. The issues don’t matter anymore.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
You want it both ways. You want Huckabee to say he is exclusive and explain his beliefs in detail, but you disparage anyone who would ask the same of Mitt and you cry foul. That is hypocritical.
Your just mad because your candidate will not get the nomination.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
My bad steve #51, since quotes were not used I took it to be your comment.
My bad..
December 7th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I think Huckabee is responding to mormonism
because he wants people to make up their own
minds and because he wants to talk about other
issues like Health Care, Education, War on Terror,
Border Security and Illegal Immigration, and the
need for Energy Independence. I would rather talk
about Huckabee’s record and the criticism made
against him than over religious commentary.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I ment isn’t responding
December 7th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
People will not admit to a pollster on the telephone that they won’t vote for a Mormon.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Michael, still waiting for your answer #46…
Romney is not running for pastor in chief, Huckabee is.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
#54, That is what you are doing. Not being against it is supporting it. There is no other way to look at that. He did it for political gain, and he would be deceptive again. That is my fear with him. He uses the polls to decide what to stand up for. There is no real conviction.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Iteresting how Rett makes some blazingly awkward statements and then goes silent…
December 7th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
#39 Matthew,
I agree with your point. Brownback never attacked because he was a Mormon. He attacted because he thought he was much better on abortion which is a politcal argument. I don’t know that I have ever heard Huckabee draw a distinction between he and Romney other than he is the true Christian. Am I wrong?
December 7th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
“I think Huckabee is responding to mormonism because he wants people to make up their own minds ”
A Baptist preacher wanting someone to make up their own mind with respect to Mormonism? That is the most outlandish thing I’ve heard today.
If that were true, Romney would not have needed to give that speech yesterday.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
When Chris Matthews asked Pat Buchanan those questions Pat said that Huckabee could not say mormons are chirstians and risk offending evangelicals. In a way asking Huckabee about mormons is more offensive than asking a mormon himself. How can Huckabee make a decision about a religion he is not familiar with?
Richard P,
I am a non-evangelical conservative who likes Huckabee. That is not to say I would vote for him.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
I think we need a new guy to cover and post for Huckabee on this site. I think the front-page posters needs to have some sense of objectivity.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
#60, You are the person that you claim others to be. He has never claimed that.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I don’t want Huckabee or Romney to have to answer questions about each other’s, or anyone else’s, faith beliefs or practices. That’s not the issue here. The issue is one of political gamesmanship versus tolerance. Huckabee looked in that camera, thought he might lose evangelicals if he even admitted that it’s permissible to vote for a Mormon, and so refused to say it was legitimate to do so. Gained himself some votes he already had - but what if the question had been about Catholics or Jews? Look, he probably lost himself a ton of Mormon votes on that question, which he obviously doesn’t care aboout. But will Catholics, Jews, or others then wonder that if he’s unwilling to defend the right of the average voter to vote for a candidate of a differing faith, that he’d also throw them and their religion under the bus? I would.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
The Huckster is playing the religious card and it’s going to end up hurting his
chances. Wonder what he’ll say when his poll numbers go down. Is God still
helping him or did God suddenly realize that Mormons are Christians too.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
#34 - “This whole argument is ridiculous. It seems that Jason wants Huckabee to denounce his beliefs.”
No, you clearly miss the point. He doesn’t want Huck to denounce HIS beliefs, but to stop denouncing the beliefs of Romney, (and more than 13 million more LDS members world-wide) Huck’s whole stance is to *wink & nod* that HE is the Christian in the race, and that God has chosen HIM to be POTUS. This is a silly strategy, and it is going to EXPLODE in his face.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
#66, This is crazy that we can come to the same conculsion about this site. i was going to comment that this site is obviously pro-Mormon and anti-Christian.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
#62 I would too if I had just called follow bloggers MattC, Justin and Jason cultists.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Who is hosting the last debate? Would Huckabee ever get the question “could you vote for a Mormon?” I would like him to say yes or no and finally put it on record. If he were truly tolerant of other people he would say he could and that no one should attack Romney’s faith…that will never happen I know.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Michael,
“You want it both ways. You want Huckabee to say he is exclusive and explain his beliefs in detail, but you disparage anyone who would ask the same of Mitt and you cry foul. That is hypocritical.”
No, I don’t. But, I’d rather not have Huckabee pretending on national TV that religion isn’t an issue, while hedging on what to fairly easy religious questions (would you vote for a Mormon?), then going back to Iowa and making his Christianity (hint hint, wink wink) the number 1 appeal of his campaign. It’s schizophrenic and dishonest, with more then a little bit of malicious thrown in for good measure.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Richard,
MattC isn’t a Mormon.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
#70, No that is the point, he wants it both ways.
December 7th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
“How can Huckabee make a decision about a religion he is not familiar with?”
OK, now this is getting really ridiculous.. I am to believe that Mike Huckabee, an ex-Babpist preacher, is not familiar enough with Mormonism to make any sort of comment? Mormonism is smeared as a cult on many baptist websites and we are expected to believe that a former baptist minister is not informed enough to have any opinion?
December 7th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Michael #67:
“#60, You are the person that you claim others to be. He has never claimed that.”
Right.. Huckabee was a baptist postor, his religion states proudly that Mormons are ‘non-Christian’ cultists. So since you say that “He has never claimed that” , I have to believe that Huckabee thinks Mormons may be Christians? Then why won’t he just say so?
December 7th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Thanks matt.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Again, Huckabee should not be forced to opine on Romney’s Mormon beliefs, or Romney on Huckabee’s, or anyone else’s. That is plainly different than the standard of basic religious tolerance, which is whether you could vote for a candidate of another faith. Huckabee refuses to answer, he uses it as a poltical game to badger his opponents’ stands on issues, rather than being honest. It’s a “yes or no” question, Governor. And we thought Hillary was evasive on driver’s licenses for illegals? Politicians. Yikes.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
This whole discussion is rather phoney and irrelevant because a candidate does what he has to do to win. Some people get their feelings hurt and their toes stepped on. Well, I am sure Huckabee will apologize at the convention.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
I think the Hucks have some explainin’ to do, but this isn’t the smoking gun.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Greg - as a fellow Romney supporter I think u should be a little bit more honest about his abortion position. He, himself, said he was effectively pro-choice up until 2002. He also said he was WRONG! I think being honest about his change is more effective than trying to only focus on the the personally pro-life.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
So, does bigotry only flow in one direction?
December 7th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Sean:
“Again, Huckabee should not be forced to opine on Romney’s Mormon beliefs, or Romney on Huckabee’s, or anyone else’s.”
Not true, If one of those beliefs routinely smears another with terms such as ‘non-Christian cultist’ then I think it is appropriate. That shows a lack of tolerance and respect which should be questioned in my opinion.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
After reading some of the comments, I think a great point has been made and one I would like to see clarified.
There are many Evangelicals calmoring that Romney did no good for himself by not “explaining” his faith and for that he cannot be trusted.
However, when asked whether he thinks Mormonism is a cult or not, Huckabee dodges the answer and plays politics. And we here nothing from Evangelicals that he is not defending ther belief that Mormons are a clut.
So what now? Is Huckabee keeping his true feelings secret (seeing as how a quick search of Baptist websites show they clearly believe Mormonism to be a cult) or is he doing the same thing Evangelicals are claiming Romney is doing by not being “honest”?
December 7th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Hey all you Hucksters, just to make sure you do know that the INS, Immigration
Naturalization Services was disavowed in 2003. If you know that then you know
more than your candidate who is running for POTUS. Unbelievable how you can
support that ignorance!! Can somebody get this guy a team of people to help
with the basics such as NIE, INS, foreign policy. Please don’t let this guy run
our country just because he’s a Baptist Minister.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
If Huckabee is going to make it
to Super Tuesday I would vote for
him. If Romney were to be the
nominee I would vote for him. So,
if I am willing to vote for Romney.
I like Romney I just prefer Huckabee.
I opened the door talk about the
criticisms of Huckabee, but yet the
conversation is still on religion.
Maybe there is some anti-christain
positions here and that is why there
is such a dislike for Huckabee among
some. I even heard some would prefer
to vote democrat over Huckabee. But,
yet I will get attacked despite my
admission that I like Romney and would
vote for him if I weren’t voting for
Huckabee.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Yes #81,
Very true, politics can be very dirty, nasty game - especially coming from the likes of a former preacher.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
#78, I was reffering to the Pastor-in-Chief comment. Yes, I am sure that he does believe it to be a cult, by definition. Are you saying that your beliefs that you are not, more important than his beliefs that you are? If that is what you are saying you are hypocritical.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
#81 - Sure, politics is rough and tumble, but I think you underestimate how much Huckabee is playing with fire here. Religious identity politics has the potential to explode a candidate, a campaign, or a party. The Mormon I spoke with last night, a long-time Republican, told me that she would, and I quote, leave the party and not vote for a Republican again if Huckabee won or such nonsense continued. And this is a very reasonable woman. It’s explosive stuff. The Republican party has to be careful here that this religious divide does not cause a huge fracture of its coalition. There are no longer six Mormons in the US. There are six million. Spread out all over as voters in a key and growing region of political influence, the West, as well as swing votes in other locales. Huckabee might burn the bridge, but I think he and others underestimate the peril of doing so. Of course, he just figures it would be a hell of a lot worse to burn the bridge to the evangelical right.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
#86, That is what I am getting at.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
cwpete,
just a slight correction. You refer to the Huckster as a “former preacher”. It seems that out on the trail he has reverted to his Baptist Preacher status. He has preached from the pulpit on more than one occasion during the campaign.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
#91, Where is he trying to burn bridges? Your making this stuff up. Of course he does not believe what you believe.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Benjamin,
Why do you like Huckabee? Is it because he’s a Baptist rather than a Mormon?
Or do you agree with his stance on taxes, immigration, foreign policy etc.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
#93, many others during this campaign have spoke from a pulpit, are they preachers too?
December 7th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
#90 Michael,
Romney for all the “phoniness” he has been accused of by his many detractors, stated in his speech yesterday. If my beliefs sink my bid for the presidency, “so be it.” He did not run from them, he did not hide from them.
My problem with Huckabee is that he is clearly running as Pastor in cheif by covertly smacking Romney with comments such as “I’m the Christian candidate” and by implying God’s endorsement.
If Huckabee believes that Mormonism is a cult as his faith clearly states, then he should be a man and stand by his faith.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Good point Irish Right #93..
December 7th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
65 - “How can Huckabee make a decision about a religion he is not familiar with?”
Seems that question could apply to the most ardent and active anti-mormon posters on this board and in society, eh?
December 7th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
You are doing the same thing that you accuse Huckabee of, You are making an issue of the fact that he was a Baptist preacher. Just as you claim others are making an issue of the religion of Mitt.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
#97, So then allow Huckabee to express his beliefs as well with out being belittled by you.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
96,
That is bull. Huckabee’s play for the evengilicals is so obvious it stinks up the room. That he is doing it in a slick way only makes it worse. Giuliani isn’t playing in Iowa! There is no question the “Christian leader” obviously is a dig at Romney. The fact that he can’t decide whether he would ever vote for a mormon certainly isn’t going to play well in the west or for those 6million mormons spread in many important close states.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Benjamin, please accept my apology. Yes, we should be here to discuss about the candidates. And we also need to discuss strengths and weaknesses of each candidates. All of us recognize the “Mormonism Factor” that Mitt needs to get around. But, to claim you have the explanation of a religion of which you do not belong to, please do not do that again. I do enjoy some of your comments other than that one. Truce?
December 7th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
#102, Who was Romney trying to cozy up to with “The Speech?”
December 7th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Michael #100,
To my knowledge, Mormons don’t make issues with Evangelicals. The reverse is not true. It has been well documented that many Baptists for example, openly state that Mormons are a ‘non-Christian cult.’ That is a smear which shows a lack of religious tolerance.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
I would also like to do the same as 103.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Michael,
We’re making an issue of it, because Huck’s making an issue of it. If he’s going to say “you should vote for me because I’m a Christian”, and he absolutely is saying that, then we have a right to know what he means by “Christian”, or how it’s plausibly relevant to his candidacy. Romney’s saying nothing like this. In fact, if any message can be gleaned from yesterday’s speech, it’s this: “you should be WILLING to vote for me because I’m an American”.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
I am telling you that most of the main posts on this sight have comments that do the same thing that Huck is being accused of.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Huckabee has boxed himself in. If he says “religion shouldn’t matter in voting”, he puts the lie to a major part of his entire Iowa strategy. If he says “Don’t vote for the Mormon”, he is labeled as a bigot.
It was he who decided to go the “Christian” route. Now he is enjoying the consequences.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
#107, You are mischaracterizing Huckabee, isn’t that what you are claiming Christians are doing to Romney?
December 7th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
michael,
There is a big difference between playing up your faith, claiming God’s support, claiming evangelicals should support one of their own, refusing to defend another’s faith, refusing to say if you could even vote for one of another faith, etc. and what Romney was forced to do.
Romney was forced to defend his faith partly because of the shtick that Huckabee is pulling. Huckabee is using his faith as a sword and shield.
However, my comments were actually directed towards your 94. Luckily it also applies to here as well.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Did any of you anti mormons know that the LDS do not have a paid clergy, unlike
the Huckster who’s livelihood was tied to the wallets and pocketbooks of his
congregation.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
#84 - “So, does bigotry only flow in one direction?”
Please clarify what you are referring to.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:33 pm
#94 - I’ve stated numerous times this has nothing to do with Huckabee making a confession that he believes what someone else does. That’s a red herring, and not what I said, and you know it. I’m not calling Huckabee out for not believing what someone else does, or for not commenting on others’ beliefs. I am calling him out for his blatant political moves to “divide and conquer” the religious identity vote, and his clear display of religious intolerance for refusing to answer a yes or no question about whether he’d vote for someone of a different faith, in this case a Mormon. I would vote for pretty much anybody of a different faith than my own. I’m not “making this stuff up.” As I noted, I’ve already talked to two friends, a Mormon and a Catholic, who crossed Huckabee off their list for playing this card and countenancing religious intolerance by his silence and waffling. I crossed him off for the same reason. Emails are already circulating that tag him for this. He’s already burned the bridge. You can stick your head in the sand, but it surely is happening, and not because of disagreement over faith beliefs. Like I said earlier, if he won’t vote for a Mormon, why not cross off Jews, Muslims, Adventists, Witnesses, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, Catholics, and others too? Voters aren’t totally stupid.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Way too much is being made of the reference to Christianity. He has said that yes. It is who he is. He is a Christian before he is an American. Just as me, my allegience is to God first.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I don’t think some here are understanding that Huck has made mormonism an issue as a part of his campaign. He was the first to overtly do it. to deny this is clearly against the facts. Its obvious for any sophisticated observer.
The question is, is this a good thing for our party? I think it is deplorable. It is religion at its absolute worst. Huckabee should be ashamed.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
michale. take your blinders off buddy. this is politics not church.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
#116 - see #91 and #53 - my point exactly.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
115,
Come on! Whether you’ll admit it or not, we all know that wasn’t just making an innocent comment when he said HE was a Christian leader. We all know what he was doing when he couldn’t decide if he could vote for a Mormon. We all know what he is doing when he organizes the baptist preachers en masse.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
#113, how about #112?
December 7th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
I think Huck is painting himself into a corner her. I can see this strategy blowing up into his face. Like someone mentioned earlier, he is painting himself into a corner. If the redstate article and krauthammer’s articles or line of thinking begin to get more play, that will be serious and will likely help romney.
romney has put him on the defensive here. If the debate were next week, Huck would be in trouble. Oh wait, is there a debate next week?
December 7th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
no kidding mcon. hello. i imagine this story may get bigger. especially with these pastors organzing get togethers in all early states and only inviting huck. hmmmmmmm. if you want the pastor in chief, huck is apparently your guy. vote for huck or go to hell like the mormons.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
#119, That is blatantly untrue, He would vote for a Mormon just as I would.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Michael, there are times when religions beliefs are relevant, for example, when a belief would dictate policy. Huckabee is a Southern Baptist who might believe, consistent with his religion, that Mormons are cultists. So the question is, would this view, influence his policy decisions?
What of the Mormon cultists? Should they be banned or discouraged? Are they a plague on society? If Huckabee holds this view, would he try to thwart the Mormon religion through public policy?
Call them non-Christians, or a new religion (who themselves claim to be true Christians), I do, but the term “cult” is extremely loaded. If you use it, plan on dealing with the consequences.
Huckabee didn’t reject the label, so by default he accepts it.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
You all know who has led the debates, this will not help Romney.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
I am reminded of John Kerry in 2004. He brought up his service in Vietnam as part of his qualifications for office. Then he complained when people began to focus on that.
Huckabee has brought up religion as part of his qualifications for office. He stated it. He brought it into the campaign. Now he is complaining when people focus on that.
This is the man you Hucksters want as President? A man who can’t predict a simple cause and effect?
More and more Huckabee reminds me of Allen in 2006. He was a man who was to be force in the 2008 Presidential campaign. But his “macaca” moment, along with others like it, showed to the whole world that here was a man who simply wasn’t ready for prime-time national campaign.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
John Galt
I have to agree that the supposed “Christian” is coming off oh so not “Christian”
and very ugly indeed.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Michael,
I’ve heard Mike Huckabee say, numerous times, to evangelical audiences or evangelical types that “I think if you don’t vote for someone who comes from you (wink wink), it’ll have a chilling effect on future evangelicals seeking office”, and some considerably more overt appeals. He runs ads touting himself as a Christian Leader. He tells Biblical stories in debates and speeches, and offers to answer Biblical questions for the other candidates in these debates. He touts his rise as “inhuman” and a result of “divine providence”. The idea that Huckabee isn’t making an explicit appeal based on his religion, that essentially says “I’m a Real Christian”, the subtext being, someone we all know and…well, someone we all know isn’t a real Christian, can’t be taken seriously. And Huckabee crying foul, against that backdrop, when others question on some fairly low level religious questions, makes him seem fairly thin-skinned.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Michael (#84), oh yes, the LDS members are purely bigots against other religions, as shown by this point from a document that is considered as their own creed:
“We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
Michael, the problem is not what Huckabee is saying, but how and when he is saying about his Chritianity credibility in this race. He is claiming in a subtle way that he is the best person to lead our country because of his Christianity. Whereas Mitt (and others, like Fred and McCain) tried to emphasize on the values they have obtained from their religious background, among others.
Also, Huckabee has not directly comparing himself with Mitt, but he does it in a subtle way that most of us, both LDS and non-LDS, got the impression — again, that’s the impression and he being a ordained minister KNOWS how to reach out to people — that we should not vote for Mitt on an account of his Mormonism. That is the problem. Perhaps you do not see it, but it is too obvious to too many of us. Huckabee does need to tune down on his perspective of Mormonism. He will be able to do it only if he admit his bias against it, or to recognize the goods that have come from it, like Brownback did.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
“What of the Mormon cultists? Should they be banned or discouraged? Are they a plague on society? If Huckabee holds this view, would he try to thwart the Mormon religion through public policy?”
I’m all for criticizing Huckabee on this issue, but this is pretty silly. I don’t think Huckabee needs to answer any such questions, simply because he’s a Baptist. They’re absurd and leading. But, he should be forced to deal with this “wink and nod”, vote for me since I’m a Christian (and the other guy’s not), but I’m going to pretend that I’m above talking about religion when it’s inconvenient.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
#120 - I don’t see that as bigoted. Is it true? Was his livliehood tied to his parishioners wallets and pocketbooks? Would he tell you the same? It would be bigoted if it were precluding him from being elected, and we were attacking him because he was paid, and because he was paid, we said he was “un-Christian”. We are not saying Huck isn’t fit for office because he is a Baptist. That is clearly what Huck and definitely his supporters are saying about Romney. They are insinuating that because he is Mormon, he is unfit to serve as POTUS. THAT, my friend is bigoted.
#123 - “#119, That is blatantly untrue, He would vote for a Mormon just as I would.”
I would like to hear it from Huck if you don’t mind. But it isn’t like he wasn’t given ample opportunity to say so.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
#124, I agree with that. But he also believes in religous liberty, soul competency, and the priesthood of the believer.
I will tell you this I would die defending religous liberty in this country and I am in the SBC. There is no precedent for anything otherwise in Baptist history. Baptists were beaten and killed in the early years of this country and in England. They have fought alongside other faiths defending their right to worship. Because of Isaac Baackus, who led the Grievence Commitee, and john Leland who wrote “The Rights of the Conscience Inalienable” those freedoms exist for everyone.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
#123 - “He would vote for a Mormon just as I would.” He might - he was just unwilling to say that he would do so, or that anyone else should do, on national television last night with a well-known conservative commentator, Glenn Beck, who happens to be a MORMON!! What is the conclusion? He is either honestly unwilling to vote for a Mormon and voiced that by his silence, thereby promoting religious intolerance and a litmus test for public office, or he is willing to vote for a Mormon but publicly withheld that belief and willingness to stand for religious tolerance, thereby playing politics and sending a clear message to other religious voters that it is okay for them to use religion to differentiate candidates. It’s just bad politics. Or, maybe it will be good for him, I just hate religious identity politics and think that Mormons and lots of other voters, of any religion or no religion, will be offended and decide if that’s his schtick then maybe they don’t need to vote for a Southern Baptist. It’s not that it hurts him just with Mormon voters, thought that it will do. It sends the message that voters of other religious stripes, or none at all, should worry about his commitment to whether it disqualifies a person of a differing faith or none at all to be voted for - Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist or agnostic, Adventist, Witness, Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Moonie, or whatever.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
michael. yeah, huck has done well in debates because up to this point he has been irrelevant. that means no tough questions or critical review. we know huck to be thin skinned. just wait until he starts getting nailed. he has never had that. only one that has not been vetted yet.
so, you can tout his performances, but it doesn’t mean much given how cushy he has had it.
just wait until they say, did you push to have the rapist murder paroled and did you dod it becuase of your view that governmetn should be ‘compassoinate’ does this compassioante mindset affect yoru ability to make good judgements? then he will lie again or fib at the least and the media will be right there with cold hard facts to make it a bigger issue.
where is tim russert when you need him? no more anderson cooper plpease. who is in charge of the next debate?
December 7th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
#132
Everyone except for the Mormon’s right cause they’re not Christian.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Michael
That was the same reasoning that many people had when they violated the law by assasinating Joseph Smith. Now many of you are trying to assasinate Romney’s character.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Jason,
Looks like I missed a big debate.
Back when we were discussing whether Huckabee claimed God’s endorsement, didn’t you say you want a Mormon president?
December 7th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Now many of you are trying to assasinate Romney’s character.
Romney’s character as a politician has no mind, body, or spirit. It does not enjoy the status of a human being. There’s no life there to protect against assassination.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Sean (#133), umm… your comment bring to my mind that Huck could have said something along this line: that he will not vote for Mitt himself, but if there is a strong social conservative who happens to be Mormon, he could vote for him. This is a safe way to put Mitt aside from the Mormon Question. His affirmative answer won’t show any support for Mitt. This is perfectly fine. His dogging the question makes it sounds like Huck has problem with voting for ANY Mormon.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Looks like I missed a big debate.
No, it’s pretty much a retread: Anyone who criticizes Mitt or fails to praise him as superior when advertising one’s own selling points is an anti-Mormon religious bigot.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Matt, it’s easy to say you disagree with Mormonism without having to resort to inflamatory language.
This whole thing is crazy. On the one hand, who cares, on the other, why is it so difficult to act civil and refrain from the name calling? Just say they’re not cultists. What, is a Baptist damned to hell if thinks that Mormons are not cultists? The whole thing pisses me off. This is not healthy for Republicans.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
MarkG:
How do you feel about a pastor saying that he would never vote for a Mormon in any way? Don’t you think Huckabee is taking advantage of that religious bigotry?
December 7th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I wonder if the Huckster were to win the Presidency how many rapists and
murderers he would let back into our society.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
How do you feel about a pastor saying that he would never vote for a Mormon in any way?
Pretty bad if he said it explicitly. If he said what I’d say, it wouldn’t bother me: I’d eagerly vote for a Mormon candidate — just not this one!
December 7th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
The Boston Globe which is usually highly critical of Romney said this:
While Huckabee is stagnating in the backwoods of bigoted pastors vitriol, Romney is showing real acts of leadership, and statesmanship. The Nation is watching, and lots of people don’t like a good man going down because of some cowardly bullys (all these Anti-mormon Pastors, and the candidate who panders to them).
December 7th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
So when is Huckabee going to give THE SPEECH to explain his faith and the really unbelievable and weird and strange teachings???
December 7th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
#139 - Of course, that’s a perfectly acceptable answer. Huckabee should pay you some big bucks for coming up with it. I’m sure members of his campaign team troll this blog, and if they do, they should write it down and Huck should say it and you, SGS, should get the credit. He may not believe it, who knows, but it’s a much more politically acceptable and less risky answer than what he’s doing now, which is playing with the fire of religious identity politics.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
MWS,
I think if I said that, it was in sarcasm and jest.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
#143 - That was not necessary. I DO NOT support Huck AT ALL, but these types of comments are just what I despise about politics. Can we not challenge a man’s ideas without attacking the man?? Mike Huckabee is a good man. I disagree with his subtle insinuation that he is God’s candidate, but that is politics. If I am going to blast people for attacking Romney the man/mormon, in fairness, I have to defend Huck the man/baptist.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
#143, Probably not many, 19 people were sentenced to the death penalty during his time as governor.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
This thread is quickly turning into a mud-fest, and I am moving to hopefully more meaningful threads
December 7th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
#149, Thank you.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Sean (#147) Should I trust the paycheck from Huckabee? I mean, they could be telling me, “Here is your tiny bity small pay, and you can see that amount increased by 5,000 times sometimes soon, you know like the miracle of 2 fish and 5 breads, eh?”
December 7th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
One final post on this thread however (in light of the update I didn’t see earlier)
I think that the Jim Geraghty’s point is very valid.
“Jim Geraghty makes a great point here:
Carter is earning every penny Huckabee’s paying him, but something in this explanation leaves me with a furrowed brow. When Huckabee made his statement about his rise in the polls, “There’s only one explanation for it, and it’s not a human one. It’s the same power that helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a crowd of five thousand people,†we were told no, no, no, we were completely misunderstanding if we thought he was saying God was propelling his rise in the polls, and Huckabee just wanted to give “God the credit for the blessings—particuarly the unexplainable good fortune—that come our way.â€
Now that he’s got the words “Christian Leader†in an ad, and some folks see an implicit slam at Romney, and again, no, no, no, we’re misinterpreting Huckabee’s words and actions. Just him touting his resume.
Maybe. But as we’ve seen in the debates, Huckabee’s a really good communicator. Odd that his words would be so easy to misinterpret in this area.”
Huckabee’s campaign is having to use that line all too often at this point. “No,no,no . . you are misunderstanding our intentions” I agree Huckabee is a great communicator, and I find it hard to believe that someone who communicates so well has difficulty getting his message across the way he intends it. As Hillary Clinton would say, “It requires a willing suspension of disbelief.” to accept that Huck is not communicating EXACTLY what he wants to communicate. You know what they say, “It is better to ask for forgiveness rather than for permission.” I think he makes the subtle statements that he is, and then hopes not to get called on the carpet. And when he is called on the carpet, he says, “No,no,no, you misunderstand me.” I think that the impression Huck is giving me is that of a elusive communicator whose statements can carry a duality of intention. At least that is what his campaign is making it to look like. I really would like to hear some direct questions and answers from Huck himself regarding this whole Mormon issue, etc.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
#153 - ROFL - That was funny!
December 7th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Jason,
“I think if I said that, it was in sarcasm and jest.”
Are you indifferent to Romney being Mormon, or is it a plus for you?
December 7th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
The Huckster is the ultimate Democrat in sheeps clothing.
December 7th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
SGS,
#153 was pretty funny.
You know, we could eliminate the deficit overnight if we just started paying government employees in loaves and fishes.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
“The Huckster is the ultimate Democrat in sheeps clothing.”
You know, the hysterics now are getting just a little out of hand.
By January, Huckabee will be branded a ful fledged communist. If he’s still around in Feb. they’ll say he masterminded the Russian Revolution. If he’s still around in March, he will have coauthored “The Communist Manifesto” and “Das Capital.”
Whatever.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
The only thing the Huckster is Republican in is Pro-life. He supports raising taxes, he’s soft
on crime, he’s soft of immigration, he’s clueless about foreign policy. Sounds like
a “Victocrat” to me with exception to the pro-life.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
I learned about Romney from people who knew Romney in Boston, back when I lived in Ohio in 1995.
Then I lived in SLC during the Olympics.
His choice of faith really has nothing to do with my support.
My wifes family is close friends with Harry Reid. I would have nothing to do with him.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
MWS,
Is this a trap?
December 7th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
What is even more galling to me than Huck’s blatant use of anti-Mormon stereotypes for his own politicial advantage, is the fact that he’s doing so at the expense of the religious right in general. Opening the door to the examination of a candidate’s beliefs, and the criticism of said beliefs as a legitimate political weapon is the opportunity the left, and their cohorts in the media, have been waiting for. If it’s legitimate for Huckabee, even tacitly, to attack Romney’s religion in an effort to win votes, why isn’t it equally legitimate for the left to attack all right wingers for their religion? Doesn’t anyone see just how dangerous a slippery slope this is? Is Huckabee really so desperate that he’s willing to sell his whole party down the river just to get a leg up on one competitor? If so, that may be the most dispicable thing we’ve seen yet in this election.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
I’m trying to wrap my mind around the Huck-a-boom, and I’m drawing a blank. Can someone help me understand how the recent polling trend can have anything to do with anything OTHER than the fact that Huck is an unmitigated “Christian?” What I mean is, what other basis could there possibly be for his recent rise in polling data? He’s taking multiple hits on immigration and taxes, and he has no real foreign diplomacy to speak of. So what are these voters basing their changed mind on?
December 7th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Jason,
Well, there’s something I’ve been meaning to ask. If people are supposed to be indifferent to candidates’ religions, does it bother you that Romney is doing so well among Mormons?
Or maybe Mormons are just smarter than your average voter?
December 7th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
MWS,
No because Harry Reid is a Mormon and there is no way I’d ever vote for him.
December 7th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
To sum up:
1. Huck has played the Mormon card for all it’s worth.
2. It potentially loses the GOP millions of Mormon votes.
3. His strategy may win him the nomination, while costing the party the election.
4. This was avoidable, but probably wasn’t avoided intentionally because Huck really believes that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians. This angers a lot of us.
December 7th, 2007 at 6:04 pm
So I guess if Hillary were to win the election because of the Huckster
we’d all have to put bumperstickers on our car that say “Blame Iowaâ€
December 7th, 2007 at 6:09 pm