Former Governor Mike Huckabee is an extremely likeable fellow, and in the CNN/Youtube debate, his charm was on full display. After having a less than stellar first half, he stepped up his game during the second hour. For the first time, I think he might win the nomination, riding a wave of evangelical unity to the grand prize of GOP politics. In an election year where there is no majority support for any one candidate, this strong showing among one particular faction of the party might well be enough. Huckabee’s rise is due to the fact that he’s a strong speaker, a good campaigner, strong on some social issues, and a person who is genuine and wears his faith upon his sleeve.
There was one glaring omission from Huckabee’s performance last night: there was nothing to give limited government or movement conservatives any hope or confidence that he would be any more of a friend to us than George W. Bush has been. Huckabee was able to use the absurdity of the whole debate format to his advantage, championing his Christian credentials throughout the second hour. However, between “what would Jesus do” and talking dollar bills, there was nothing there. Zero. Zilch. Not one significant thing did he mention that would excite this member of the Federalist Society. Sure, he talked about abolishing the IRS, but that is part of his FAIR tax plan that he has tied himself to. When confronted directly by Governor Mitt Romney, Huckabee came dangerously close to showing his obnoxious other half; the “other half” that is notorious for not being able to handle criticism and shifting the blame onto others, getting the scrutiny off of his back. It’s somewhat ironic that while Romney has been unfairly criticized for his selection of a judge who freed a murderer (judges in Massachusetts must appear before a panel to be confirmed), Huckabee has so far gotten a free pass in the mainstream media for his own role in the Wayne DuMond incident, fair or not.
Today, Huckabee likes to blame former Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker for DuMond’s release, but that reflects very badly on him, in this voters eyes. It shows a very worrisome trait that he seems to share with George W. Bush; an inability to handle criticism or take responsibility for mistakes that happened under his tenure, and by people that he reappointed to the parole board that helped release DuMond. Another instance where Huckabee has shown extremely thin skin is his handling of criticism directed his way from the Club for Growth. The actual report the group filed on Huckabee is pretty well balanced, and they gave him credit on a number of issues. The concluded that he had a mixed record, but one would be forgiven if they believed the group had referred to him as Lucifer, himself, if they listened to the all-out war that is going on between the two camps.
One of the governor’s biggest weaknesses is his record in Arkansas. While Huckabee did cut taxes during the early years of his tenure, the fact remains that he had a net tax increase under his watch, and the increase in Government size is terrifying. 21 tax increases went into effect, increasing tax revenue by almost $890 million under Governor Huckabee. These increases include the income tax, the sales tax, a cigarette tax, and a gas tax. Not only did he raise taxes, spending “more than doubled under Huckabee. “During Huckabee’s 10 years as governor, state spending more than doubled, from $6.6 billion to $16.1 billion in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006.” There was an increase in state spending of over 65% during his tenure, and the size of the government increased by 20%. According to the Americans for Tax Reform, the states general obligation debt went up by “almost one billion dollars.” Arkansas state tax burden was at 9.8% when Bill Clinton left office in 1992. Under Huckabee, it was at 11.1%, reaching the rank of one of the top fifteen state tax burdens.
The blame for the rise of Mike Huckabee’s candidacy can be squarely placed on the shoulders of the purist conservatives who have let Goldwater’s legacy die a slow, painful death in their search for a “new Reagan.” Instead of a united party, the GOP is now fractured between five candidates, four of whom the elites spent the better part of the last year chiding for their shortcomings. Rudy Giuliani is still the national frontrunner, but in reality, that lead is very unstable. The contempt in which some have held him in has been sad, because whether or not he is the best candidate, and that’s debatable, he’s got a lot to offer the Republican Party. Purists have blasted John McCain, despite the mainstream respect he has, for the better part of seven years. McCain might be the best overall candidate running. He can win the independents, and is fiscally a conservative. I can name many unpopular positions taken by many great politicians over the years, but McCain has suffered more for his shortcomings than any other candidate in the race.
Mitt Romney has tried to rally the conservative wing of the party, but despite some major endorsements and fundraising, he has never been able to reach 20% in any poll, and now with his lead in Iowa possibly gone, he faces the very serious threat of blowing the enormous expectations he tried to build up there. Romney is likely never going to be the candidate that the party unifies around, but if he campaigns on his history as a problem solver instead of his history as a late bloomer, then he might have a chance to regain momentum. Romney’s taking the right positions now, and by trying to convince the public that he has the best policies to solve the problems he can regain his footing, instead of trying to convince people he speaks for “the Republican Wing,” which antagonizes those who are skeptical, but might be open to the idea of uniting around him. At the same time, the purists have viewed Romney with such skepticism that it damaged his credibility on issues he should stand out on. Romney’s record as governor of Massachusetts wasn’t as conservative as some have made it out to be, but it is undoubtedly stronger than Huckabee’s fiscally, from a conservative viewpoint. Fred Thompson has been damaged by the superhuman expectations that were placed upon him, and the glee in which some in the media used to try and rapidly tear him to pieces. Matthew Miller probably said it best when he said that in the end, Thompson is a human, and not the superhuman that his supporters made him out to be. Like Romney, some of the fault lies with the Thompson campaign for not controlling the expectations game, waiting so long to get in the race, and for the length it took for him to become comfortable on the trail. While all the other contenders had months to hone their campaign skills, Thompson has had to get re-acclimated to the campaign trail, and the press was brutal to him. Thompson is still the candidate who could unite the wings of the party, but just like they did with Romney, the purists put his weaknesses under national scrutiny. After they criticized him for not having any idea or platform, they have been silent since he’s turned into the candidate with the policies to match. Thompson can still win, but he has the job of proving that he can unite the base.
In the end, we now have five candidates who are imperfect, and in each case, borderline unacceptable to a certain faction of the party. Instead of rallying to one, they have put unrealistic expectations on all of them, and there is a chance it could cost the party the election because they have weakened our strongest candidates, and will likely do the same to Huckabee. Huckabee, like the other candidates, has something to give to the party and some admirable strength’s as a candidate and a person, but he is no more of a true conservative than anyone else running. Now, with little over a month to go, they will probably do the same to Huckabee that they have done to everyone else. Despite his above mentioned vulnerabilities, Huckabee is a good candidate, but he can’t hold the coalition together. If he wanted to win the presidency, he’d have to make up for his weaknesses among the right wing with conservative democrats. Is it the best way to win the election? Not for the Republican Party, but it might be the way Huckabee has to win if he were to become the nominee.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Here are some conservative (small government) things that Huckabee did:
” Huckabee Pushed through a Democrat legislature the first, major broad based tax cuts in the state’s history.
” Huckabee Pushed through a Democrat legislature an $80 million tax cut package.
” Huckabee Cut the state’s capital gains tax by 25%.
” Huckabee Established a Property Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights
” Huckabee Limited the increase in property taxes to 10% a year for individuals and 5% per taxing unit
” Eliminated the income tax for families below the poverty line.
” Increased the standard deductions.
” Eliminated the marriage penalty.
” Eliminated bracket creep by indexing the income taxes to inflation, thereby preventing taxpayers from moving into a higher bracket when their paychecks increase due to inflations.
” Doubled the child care tax credit.
” Eliminated capital gains tax on the sale of a home
Check this out to see more: http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=TruthSquad.ClubforGrowth
November 29th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Tommy,
Dave G. spoke best for the anti-Huckabee faction last night when, confronted with the polling numbers showing Huckabee won the debate, he said: “The Republican Party is leaving me.” It seems that what matters most to these anti-Huckabee people is NOT WHAT THE REPUBLICAN VOTERS THINK but WHAT THEY BELIEVE THE REPUBLICAN VOTERS SHOULD THINK.
The folks who do most of the posting on this blog:
(1) Are well-meaning Republicans.
(2) Are excellent debaters.
BUT THEY COME NOWHERE CLOSE TO REPRESENTING THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
The polls are proving that many Republicans do not trust anybody but Huckabee on abortion and other social issues. And for all your eloquent, intelligent arguments as to why those social issues should be less important, or as to why they should trust others on those issues, you are not going to convince them.
STOP WISHING THAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WAS MADE UP OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE. IT WILL NOT HELP THE PARTY.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Tommy, I thought the CNN debate was a joke. I agree with you that the expectations of his supporters and the nastiness of the media has been a big problem for Senator Thompson. But Senator Thompson so far continues to offer ideas. Our party desperately needs all of the candidates to have substantive discussions about the direction they want to take the country in. I can support any of the candidates, but I was disappointed in Mayor Giuliani’s personal attack on Governor Romney. I had hoped for more from all of the candidates. In the end, I hope that our party unites behind the candidate, whoever that is.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
mnm, then it’s time for the party of limited government to dump your theocratic asses to the curb. Please go back to the Democratic party, where you originated, and where you fit philosophically.
And then millions of educated metropolitan independents will come to the GOP after you take your taint of bigotry with you.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Ideas are great and Thompson may have some good ones. But a strong, motivated leader must stand behind them. Sadly, I do not see Thompson as that leader.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
“mnm, then it’s time for the party of limited government to dump your theocratic asses to the curb.”
and maybe its time we dump your self-worshiping, abortionist, bigoted asses in the same place.
November 29th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Hillary nurses her 5 point lead over McCain…. in MASS-A-FREAKIN-CHUSETTS!
MA:
McCain 45
Clinton 50
Giuliani 40%
Clinton 54%
Romney 35
Clinton 59
Oh, and McCain is beating Obama in MA. Rudy? Losing. Romney? Crushed.
Maybe this is an outlier. Regardless, I’m stunned.
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=56c7136d-0bae-4729-91d8-3a764d8aa5da
November 29th, 2007 at 10:58 pm
if anything would create a viable third party in this country, it would be the GOP dumping socially conservative values – if we do that, you can kiss the south good-bye, and with it, any hope of the GOP winning back Congress or keeping the White House.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
“Regardless, I’m stunned.”
I’m not, MASS is the most liberal state in the country – our chances of winning there are small – better to focus on states like MI, where we can capitalize on Democratic failures and the declining influence of unions.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Act Blog, you aren’t surprised to see McCain within the MOE of Hillary?
November 29th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
beth,
Besides the point that Thompson might be the candidate with easiest path to being accepted by the base, where exactly in this article is Thompson the focalpoint of discussion?
November 29th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Tommy, I agree. Our party disintegrates when we don’t accept converts to the party, when 90% conservatives are called RINO/libs, and when we start applying religious litmus tests. I don’t like what’s going on.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Huckabee is rising in Iowa for one reason and one reason only: the Evangelical Christians who the majority of
hate Mormons with a passion and would vote for the devil before voting for a Mormon.
If Romney were a Baptist, the Iowa race would not be even close.
I am so tired of the so con evangelical stranglehold they have on the party.
Give me a problem solver that can tackle real problems. Giuliani or Romney then McCain and Thompson.
Huckabee is GWBush part 2. Please not again.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
#13 Ben
YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!
I’m sorry for the caps but that’s exactly how I feel.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Prediction for Iowa Jan 3rd. Huckabee 30%, Romney 26%, Fred Thompson 16%, Rudy 13%.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Ben,
Come on. Not everyone is a bigot. You’re insulting the intelligence of those voting. Huckabee has worked as hard as anybody else to win in Iowa. If there is one lesson to be learned this year, it’s that no one can take anything for granted. Not Romney, not Thompson, not Rudy, not McCain. What you are failing to realize is that freaking Ronald Reagan would probably have a hard time beating Huckabee for the Evangelical vote because Huckabee is an evangelical minister.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Metro Republican says:
“Mnm, then its time for the party of limited government to dump your theocratic asses to the curb.”
Metro:
Get all your insults in on this blog now because your candidates do not have the votes. Republicans will not nominate somebody who is not pro-life. That is a fact of political life. Get used to it.
There are plenty of atheists who are pro-life. Belief in God is not a prerequisite to a conviction that slaughtering human fetuses is wrong.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
It’s hard to disagree with anything in this article. It’s true that the GOP needs to look at the entire picture, not just the candidate who can rally the evangelicals. I think that’s ultimately the reason why Bush/Rove have fractured the party. I think Bush is a good man, but he is far removed from the intellect and problem solving skills of Romney, Guliani.
November 29th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Tommy,
I have to respectfully disagree with you on your comment about my previous post. I am not sure anyone who is not a
Mormon or an evangelical would really understand the dynamic.
As I said before, the majority of evangelicals hate Mormons, not all.
Let me put it another way. If there is any way possible to not vote for a Mormon and have even a remotely close altenative,
evangelicals will take it all day. For most evengelicas, it is a huge and I mean huge “grin and bear it” to vote for a Mormon.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Today at the Merecomments blog I had somebody tell me that they wouldn’t vote for a mormon under any circumstances. Those guys aren’t country bumpkin Iowan’s, but smart and articulate Christians. They don’t like being called bigots, but they have no problems assuming Romney is some kind of a secret charlatan since he is a Mormon. I don’t know why it is happening now (and what WE ever did to those evangelicals), but anti-mormon bigotry is very real. I am hopeful that Romney (the last great hope for SoCons in this election) will assuage the monsters in the evangelical psyche.
If the evangelicals reject Romney in the false hope of increasing their exclusion of, and political domination over religious movements they don’t like, then this country will suffer for it. For some reason there are those evangelicals that use material influence (like forcing an indonesian to listen to a sermon before giving out humanitarian aid), and it seems that they have become a little bit more militant recently.
With Thompson down, McCain on life-support, Romney is the only one that has a chance to win the nomination with broad support and beat Hillary (or Obama). Huckabee simply doesn’t have the money, support, conservative positions to pull it off. Evangelicals are going to find out that even though they are a majority group, you can’t win without having to associate yourselves with ‘unclean’ Mormons, Jews, and perhaps even Muslims.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Ben, I have to agree with you on that. Evangelicals essentially believe that Mormons are purely satanic. When you believe that it is hard to vote for a person even if they are right in many other areas.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Ben,
I live in the buckle of the bible belt, the most evangelical area in the country. I think I have an understanding how evangelicals think.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Oh yeah…
Three words… Bob Jones III
November 30th, 2007 at 12:22 am
True, it would be bigoted for a Mormon to say that ALL evangelicals hate the idea of voting for a Mormon, but the fact remains. Some people wouldn’t vote for an african american, but they would never tell you that. The fact that some people openly seek to win others over to their side of never voting for any Mormon is telling.
Besides, Pastors can’t necesarilly endorse Huckabee, but the next best thing to endorsement is telling their congregation that they need to ‘retain our Christian roots as a nations.’ Many pastors already preach that ‘Mormons are’t Christians,’ so 1+1= I’ll vote for Huckabee since voting for Romney would put a heathen at the helm of this Christian nation.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:35 am
Tommy,
Let me relate a personal experience of a friend of mine who lives in Arizona and is a state representative.
He told me this.
In his district, there are 40% Dems and 60% Republicans.
Of the 60% Republicans, about half vote in the elections. Of the half that vote, 30% are evangelicals.
There are 2 state rep seats in his district. The other representative who is evnagelical wins by several thousand votes year after year.
My friend who is Mormon wins by a few hundred votes. Both are very conservative, both have been in office for a while.
My friend told me that after studying why this was the case, he found out that evangelical left there ballots blank for his name
and filled out the other reps ballot.
Bob Jones did not endorse Romney other than the fact that he felt he was picking the lesser of two evils in Romney
or Rudy. He even denounced Mormon doctrine while making the endorsement. Most Iowa votes don’t care about or have never heard of
Bob Jones.
Does flip flopping have something to do with it. I am sure it has some.
But ask yourself this, if Romney was Baptist, do you really think Huckabee would be in it? I’d like to hear your response.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:38 am
i know evangelicals dont like mormons, but can anyone go deeper and explain to me why they don’t like mormons, besides “they’re a cult” ? It seems like they have enough shared values, that both groups should get along.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:43 am
“The blame for the rise of Mike Huckabee’s candidacy can be squarely placed on the shoulders of the purist conservatives who have let Goldwater’s legacy die a slow, painful death in their search for a “new Reagan.—
…and also some of Huck’s rise should be credited to the liberal leaning pundits and bloggers who have recently talked up Huckabee so as to challenge Romney in IA.
Even if Huck wins IA, there is no time for him to organize and seriously compete afterwards with this front loaded primary schedule.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:45 am
Look, you’re going to have racist and bigots everywhere you go. But don’t speak for a majority of voters.
Do I think Romney would beat Huckabee if Romney were a Baptist? No. What you have to realise is that Huckabee is not just an evangelical, he’s a preacher for crying out loud. For example, I watched both speeches at the Values Voters Summit, and while Romney gave his usual, polished, somewhat effective speech. Huckabee knocked it out of the park. The guy knows how to hit it out of the park with the values voters. Plus, the whole inevitability thing Romney tried to pull leading up to the Summit left a lot of bad tastes in peoples mouths after Huck dominated the whole event.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:45 am
if romney was baptist, he would be in as good of shape as hillary clinton is right now. its a shame evangelicals hate on mormons. there are more productive things to do then disparage other religions, especially when both groups have a lot of the same goals.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:48 am
I think Huck would just ignore NH and MI and he could win big in FL and super Tuesday. I am glad because Huck could win in the general and I think he would be good fiscally (he may have stubbed his toe but that was mandated from his Supreme court).
November 30th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Tommy,
I never said Huckabee does not have talent or that he is not a talented speaker etc.
You have to have some talent to pull off what he has.
I’ll simply say this. Despite what you may
think, Mormonism will play a huge role in the Iowa caucus and beyond especially in the south. I can quote numerous pundits
who have made the same argument and most pundits are crediting Huckabees rise to his evangelical support. Google it and you will
find plenty of articles to back it up.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:04 am
Joe, I’ll give you my take regarding your #26. I’d appreciate other’s viewpoints on Joe’s #26 also.
Historically speaking, Evangelicals have just not been nice to Mormons. There are many documented cases of beatings, rapes, burning of homes, trashing of businesses, vandalism of farms and property, and even murder as the early Mormons were driven from city to city, state to state, and then ultimately to unorganized Indian territory (what became the state of Utah. During that trek to Utah, countless Mormons died from exposure and starvation. This is all documented history. Governor Boggs of MO instituted an extermination order against the Mormons expelling them from their homes and farms with winter coming on. No other group or people in the history of the US has had an extermination order issued against them.
I think the motivation for doing these things to Mormons back then is the same as the motivation of Evangelicals smearing Mormons with “cultists” presently. Evangelicals feel threatened by Mormons, more so than any other religions group. It has to do primarily with competition for converts. There is not secret regarding the growth of the LDS church. Mormons are lay clergy which means that their leaders are not living off the tithes & offerings of the congregates. Therefore, 100% of the donated money goes for what it was intended for. As a result, the Mormon church has been able to expand quickly by having the finances to build more buildings etc.. I think due to the successes of the Mormon church by growing their numbers the way they have, Many evangelicals feel threatened. Just as they did in the 1800′s when their numbers grew too much too fast.
Such a level of exceptional criticism from Evangelicals towards Mormons has to be more than just doctrinal differences. I can’t understand what it is that Mormons have done to warrant this continual disdain and distrust especially since they share the same values and culture. I’m not aware of any situation where Mormons have reciprocated such animosity.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:17 am
there has been a lot of criticism of moderate muslims, saying they should denounce their more radical brethren. but by and large, they have not. i think the same thing is going on with evangelicals. i’m not saying they need to support mitt romney ( i think they should support mike huckabee, he is a better fit for them ) but shouldnt there be people in the evangelical movement saying ” hey, you know what, we dont hate mormons, we try and love our neighbor”
If mike huckabee was truly “real” and a good guy, and not a political opportunist, he would come out against anti-mormonism. but he won’t, because it could cost him voets.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Huck is the only Republican candidate who can credibly reach out to black and hispanic voters. Everyone else shunned the Baltimore Debate.
Let that sink in.
November 30th, 2007 at 8:40 am
I have a question. If Huck won the primary and went on to lose the election, whould it change the face of the GOP? Would the SoCons lose their clout with the party? If Rudy lost they could blame it on the Evangelicals staying home but if Huck lost it would be just the opposite.
November 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
Joe et al.,
“i know evangelicals dont like mormons, but can anyone go deeper and explain to me why they don’t like mormons, besides “they’re a cult†?”
Not that the purpose here debating theology, but since you asked (I am a former evangelical and now a Catholic convert), it pretty well boils down to this:
Mormons deny certain dogmas considered essential to Christianity and have added new, unique dogmas considered outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. For Catholics, that would include deviations in Mormon beliefs concerning Christology and the Trinity, notions of the afterlife, etc… as well as the Mormon belief in the Book of Mormon as the inspired word of God. That last point is particularly problematic for evangelicals who follow a strict sola scriptura doctrine.
In short, for both Catholics and evangelicals, the deviations of Mormonism from essential doctrine disqualifies it from being Christian. Now obviously, lots of folks are not Christian, but what rankles some evangelicals and Catholics is the Mormon claim that they are authentically Christian. To accept this, Catholics and evangelicals would have to deny the significance of our essential doctrinal differences with Mormons.
November 30th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Joe,
I grew up in a quite militant evangelical Bible church. Many of its members consider Mormonism a cult, but nobody there that I knew of “hated Mormons.”
We have strong disagreements over theology. That does not mean that Catholics and evangelicals hate Mormons. You can climb down from your cross now.
November 30th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
Tommy (#16), Many evangelical churches do have quarter after quarter after quarter, year after year after year, of class about Mormonism. Perhaps many of them do not attend those classes, but they are always posted and announced in their own churches. Perhaps most of evangelicals are ignorant as to what is funny about Mormons’ beliefs, but you cannot claim they are not somewhat hesitated to consider Mormon as a president. They will definitely have a trust issue!
November 30th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
cwpete (#32), actually, there is more to why the persecution of LDS members in 1800s occurs, other than religious reasons. Many present scholars of that era has pointed it toward economy as the main cause — the LDS were doing so well fiscally, and they refused to deal with anyone who are not honest, which were pretty much everyone else out there on the froniters. The political reason was also a big one. For instance, Missouri (the Governor Bogg’s infamous Mormon Execution Order) was leaning toward supporting slavery right before the exdous of Mormons. The state then found itself swang back over to anti-slavery overnight because Mormons were vicous against slavey. The politicans also found themselves threatened with losing the majority of their votes, with a rapid growth of the Mormons population, regardless of their mostly seclusive existance. They feared the future for themselves. Religious reasons, let alone the evangelical churches, did not play that much of a role on the froniters as those two issues.
I really never understand why Evangelicals has started their Anti-Mormon Movements from middle of 1800s, way after after the martyr of their church leader – Joseph Smith, and after LDS has migrated to the Great Valley in Rocky Mountain Region. I know the religious persecutions started out in other countries before it did here in US — like Great Kingdom, but then, they have had the history of religious persecution. Evangelicals started to pick up the slack of persecuting LDS after they have settled down in the west — especially when the polygamy issue has gone public. But the polygamy was not the cause, as many persons of influencal positions back then had mistresses. I believe many scholars are still studying this issue, but there is no hard fact on why it has occurred, other than that their missionary effort may caused the evangelical leaders to feel threatened.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Tommy, I’m with you. I think both Huckabee and Giuliani would do some serious damage to the GOP coalition. Maybe aa Giuliani-Huckabee frankenstein wouldn’t, but that’s not a gamble I’m willing to take.
I would have said the same thing about McCain until recently but I think he’s started to waffle enough on immigration that he wouldn’t turn off a big segment of our support, though obviously he wouldn’t win over any of the independents who are worried about immigration either.
November 30th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
We have strong disagreements over theology. That does not mean that Catholics and evangelicals hate Mormons. You can climb down from your cross now.
Yeah, its our fault that some evangelicals preach that we’re satan-worshipping cultists who want to take over the United States. Maybe we shouldn’t be so sensitive.
November 30th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Henry,
“some evangelicals preach that we’re satan-worshipping cultists”
That’s news to me. Do you have any examples?
November 30th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
MWS, here’s one about a peacher claiming a vote for Mitt is a vote for Satan. He said it on his radio show. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55642 But yeah, I have been asked a few times if it is true that some LDS members have horns. Fortunately, they are in a very small minority.