Marc Ambinder has the details of the upcoming conference of pastors in Florida, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan:
Sources say that the Renewal Project, whose organizers are partial to Mike Huckabee, is planning three pastors conferences in Florida, one conference in New Hampshire (scheduled for Dec. 13 and 14) two in South Carolina and at least on in Michigan.
Huckabee’s opponents suspect the Project is a campaign adjunct in disguise. Its backers are wealthy and anonymous. Last week in Des Moines, they paid for 350 pastors to stay at downtown hotels, fed them good meals and paid Newt Gingrich’s speakers fee.
And only Mike Huckabee was invited to speak.
(The project’s organizers insisted that all the other candidates were invited, but, funnily enough, no other candidate seems to have gotten the invitation.)
How will these pastors help Huckabee?
They can’t legally endorse him from the pulpits.
They can, however, distribute voter guides. Problem is: because other candidates have answered questions the same way Huckabee has, for the guides to be effective in moving votes toward Huckabee, they’ll have to be revised somehow.
When combined with TrustHuckabee, a 527 that serves as a surrogate paid voter identification and contact effort, Huckabee has the makings of a complete field campaign. And his campaign is paying for none of it.
And short of proof of coordination, it’s all legal.
Wake me up when the nightmare ends.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
It’s a beautiful thing…And there are a lot more things going on you guys don’t even know about…
December 7th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
How do they keep their tax exempt status by doing this? It is blatantly political involvement by churches?
December 7th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Me too LJ. Apparently some sort of video was just released where Huckabee attributes his rise to “divine intervention”, which is eons worse then divine providence, or any of the other stuff he’s said so far. At least, someone said it showed up on O’Reilly. If true, and Huckabee can get away with that sort of thing, then maybe nominating Huck, and then letting the GOP die off as everyone but the rabid evangelicals bolts, is a pretty good idea.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Nice to know that our potential POTUS has all kinds of “back-room” dealings with people. Really comforting to know that the person I see is there by his own merits/money. Let me guess, Huck and God have met, and God is helping Huck with organizing these events, and hiding the ever-damning “coordination” to make sure that it is all “legal”. Nice!! Sounds like the makings of a nice puppet. I think I will start calling Huck “Pinocchio”. It is obvious someone else is pulling the strings for him to win, and he just gets out there and dances like he is told.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
In that video Huckabee is not claiming that God has chosen him to be the candidate or anything of the sort. He recently commented that he does not feel that God has chosen him or anyone and that to think as much is dangerous. He expressly related his thought to people having their prayer’s answered. People can pray for things and God will provide what they ask for. What Huckabee is saying then is not that God has chosen him but that God is giving people what they are asking for.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
There’s a lot of people praying that Huck doesn’t make it too… does God not care about their prayers?
Oh, and what about all the many more fervent prayers that will be uttered if Huckabee actually becomes POTUS?
December 7th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
#5 – “He recently commented that he does not feel that God has chosen him or anyone and that to think as much is dangerous.”
He says this, but then clearly sublty implies the opposite. I think it is becoming more and more obvious to people that Huck coming across as very UN-trustworthy. He seems very “slippery” to me at this point. As was said in a previous thread, Mike Huckabee is an excellent communicator, and to be having to continuosly come out and say that he is being misunderstood makes me feel like he is intentionally talking out of both sides of his face. Maybe the Clintons weren’t the only politicians from Arkansas with that ability?!
December 7th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
#6 – “Oh, and what about all the many more fervent prayers that will be uttered if Huckabee actually becomes POTUS?”
Maybe God IS supporting Huck
Then He knows that people will be praying more out of fear of the direction Huck will take us.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
#1 its this sentiment that quite frankly scares the Hell out of me about huck supporters. Lets ignore the greatness of our common religious heritage and promote, actively, from the pulpit a guy who is the walking image of everything wrong with evangelical christianity in this nation.
My name is Mike Huckabee and I am God’s only and anointed candidate all the rest of you are going to hell because you dont believe the way we do. dont bother thinking the rest of you have a chance because God will smite you down like he did the moabites before the israelite army of god. We are the modern day israelites all else will be trodden down before us.-
December 7th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Can we say that were not surprised by this. All these Christian groups and pastors should lose thier tax exempt status. Here we have Huchabee showing up at churches saying “I’m here to talk about Jesus today, not myself.” What a load of garbage. Call me cycnical but I just don’t trust someone that’s made his living off of selling God.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
8 – You make a compelling argument. Perhaps it is God then that is misunderstanding the prayers that are being sent His way…
Dear God: In regards to the mighty influx of prayers that you have been receiving recently that utter the words “Mike Huckabee”, or “Huckaboom”, or “Gov Mike” or “Gov Huckabee”, it has come to our attention that the prayers are not being uttered in their entirety. It seems that in everyone’s utter zeal to pour out the desires of their hearts, they are often omitting the word “don’t” after the “Dear God, please” and before the “Bless Mike Huckabee”. We’d appreciate your kind consideration of this very very minor clarification in your outpouring of blessings on January 3rd.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Southern politicans are as slick as they come. They come off all personal, and authentic but they are just power hungry. Look at Bill Clinton.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
10 – I suppose one could argue that the Huckabee’s skill-set is transferrable from the pulpit to politics
December 7th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Rett
And you guys say that Mormons are secretive, power-hungry, ambitious, and duplicitous?
December 7th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Can we now understand some of the reasons that McCain-Feingold is taking us down the path to destruction? Before that wonderful law, all this would be above board and we could see who was paying for it all.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Oh, this is so juicy to watch.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I’m so glad that my Church is out of politics and only into the work of saving souls and feeding the hungry. “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.”
Perhaps THIS GUY is in on the huckaboom as well (or is that the Buck-a-boom? or the take-over-the-world-and-disenfranchise-everybody-who-you-think-is-not-a-Christian Boom).
December 7th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
I saw the video of Huckabee. I think it was from his appearance at Liberty University. I have to say that it sounded to me like he was saying that God had picked him. He called it a miracle like using five loaves to feed 5,000.
It sounded like he believed it too.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
“Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?”
December 7th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Well, to paraphrase Peggy Noonan–Huckabee has certainly got the ‘idiot’ vote locked in. Perhaps the Southern White Evangelical can be the new Labor vote. It’s too bad they need a ‘guide’ to understand who to vote for.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Jeff, I agree that he’s using the same skills set. He used it to build his congregations in Arkansas and he is using it in politics. The truth is that he has a proven track record of speking nice and getting people to follow him. My big problems with him and this situation with the pastors is as follows: Christians are so concerned about getting one of thier own in the white house that they don’t care about the credentials of the candidate. That’s how we ended up with George W.. Huck communcates a lot better than W. but he is still from backwoods Arkansas. At least Bill Clinton left the south for college.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
It’s funny, because I distinctly remember Al Sharpton claiming in 2004 that he spoke with God daily and that God was not a registered Republican.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
“he is still from backwoods Arkansas.”
Conservatives complained that the Youtube questions painted the GOP as an @ssbackwards religious party. Were they wrong?
December 7th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
I can’t help but contrast this with what happened way back at the first of the year. Some supporter of Mitt’s went out to Salt Lake City to coordinate with them support for Romney. They listened to him politely, then told him in no uncertain terms that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not get involved in partisan politics. It does not endorse candidates, parties, or platforms. If Romney is going to become the President of the United States, it will have to do it without the help of the church.
What a difference.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Rombots, you know what you’re feeling now at the hands of Evangelicals?
Well, seculars feel the same way at the hands of religionists. Only several times stronger.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I’m a religious person, so don’t get me wrong, but I’m starting to feel a little ill-will towards Huckabee over this kind of thing. I have no problem with a man using their moral convictions as a guide, but it seems to me that Huckabee is trying to claim a monopoly on faith, which is blatantly false.
It seems to me that Huck knows that he lacks the correct political positions on immigration, taxes, etc., and that he is trying to bluff his way to the top using his faith.
It just seems a bit dishonest to me.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Does anyone else feel that its ironic that according to evangelicals, God cannot speak to prophets anymore, but He has the time to be a Huckabee booster? I wonder if God will comply with campaign finance laws?
December 7th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
“Rombots, you know what you’re feeling now at the hands of Evangelicals?”
I have no bone to pick with Evangelicals – my problem is with Huckabee. Evangelicals who are supporting Huckabee are doing so because they believe he is the best option to lead this country, and I have to respect that. I think they are wrong, but they are making a personal decision based on their values, and I can’t condemn them for doing that. Its the same thing I do, its the same thing you do. You choose the person who you believe is best based on your beliefs.
–
“Well, seculars feel the same way at the hands of religionists. Only several times stronger.”
Really? Because the fact that Christians want to protect life and the traditional family, and preserve the religious freedom this country was founded on (not forcing religion behind locked doors like they did in the USSR, and like they do in China), you are so severely damaged?
December 7th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Haha. I think its funny that last year the Boston Globe was calling for the Mormon church to have thier tax exempt status taken away for even talking to someone from Romney’s campaign even though the LDS chruch said they wouldn’t get involved and stay nuetral. Meanwhile Huckabee can run around and use all the Christian churches he wants for his campaign without the mainstream media saying a single word. Where’s the call to end thier tax exmpt status form the Boston Globe, Anderson Cooper and the rest of those guys.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
I’m no expert on evangelical Christians and I hate to lump them all together, but the rapid increase in Huck’s numbers says something about them. After reading this article on Christian celebrity worhsip, Huck’s rise is better understood.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/wmckenzie/stories/120407dnedimckenzie.67fecd0f.html
The Billy Grahams and Jerry Fallwells of the world are aging and the Christian right is eager to find a new shepherd. Huck said that he is “one of them” and they are voting with their hearts, the rest of the country be damned. And no amount of negative campaigning will change their minds, because it will cause them to circle the wagons around their Moses, just like they’ve defended George W. for 7 years.
The only hope for the rest of the party is to coalesce around a single candidate who best represents the 3 branches of the party. With Guiliani beginning to slide, it appears that man is Mitt Romney. I pray the country comes to this conclusion in time, and doesn’t embrace nanny-state Huckism.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
All Huckabee has to do is get some pastors to tell their congregations to go out and campaign for him and it will be done. I find it ironic that all the attention has been on whether the Mormon Romney would follow his prophet on issues while the truth is Harry Reid, Gordon Smith or Orin Hatch all are Mormon, all have different views on Iraq and health care and every thing else, and all are supporting different people for president. Huckabee has his lemmings. I just hope the media lets us actually get a look at this guy and the issues before the Republicans are stuck with him as a nominee.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I would really like to listen in on the strategy sessions of the other candidates. I wonder what they are thinking, what their strategies going forward are, and whether they believe Huckabee is someone they trust to carry the GOP banner in the fall.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
Guys take a deep breath and relax. I’ve driven through Arkansas and it’s still there after 10 1/2 years of Huckabee leadership.
You don’t like Huckabee; You think he’ll be a bad President?
So what we had Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and we’re still here.
If Huckabee is everything you claim it will only hurt the religious right in the Republican Party whether he wins or loses.
The sense of desperate fear actually makes you guys seem unstable. Relax. There’s more to life than politics.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
#12 You said: Southern politicans are as slick as they come. They come off all personal, and authentic but they are just power hungry. Look at Bill Clinton.
I agree. So much for Southern charm. Huckabee is just another Southern snake oil salesman.
God help us if he gets the nomination. I feel sick to my stomach tonight to think that so many conservatives can be so blind to his positions and who this “nice guy from Hope” (like another nice guy from Hope) really is.
December 7th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
#12 You said: Southern politicans are as slick as they come. They come off all personal, and authentic but they are just power hungry. Look at Bill Clinton.
I agree. So much for Southern charm. Huckabee is just another Southern snake oil salesman.
God help us if he gets the nomination. I feel sick to my stomach tonight to think that so many conservatives can be so blind to his positions and who this “nice guy from Hope” (like another nice guy from Hope) really is.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
And how long did it take Pastor Huckabee to forgive his son for this animal cruelty?
Governor’s son 1 of 2;fired at Scout camp;after stray dog killed Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock, AR) August 07, 1998, Friday
The younger son of Gov. Mike Huckabee and another teen were fired last month from jobs at a Boy Scout camp after the killing of a stray dog.
Marcal Young of Texarkana, scout executive of the Caddo Area Council that operates the camp where the dog was killed, said this week that two boys violated a Scout law, “A Scout is kind.”
Danny Frady of Texarkana said his son, Clayton, 19, was the other staff member who was fired.
The elder Frady said his son told him he came upon one or more Scouts who had the dog “hung over a limb and choking” so the younger Frady helped “put it out of its misery.”
December 7th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Jacks, You forgot Mike Crapo
Sorry, I know I am being juvenile. I can just imagine all the kids in Idaho asking him if his name is spanish for something.
Ok, Sorry, I’ll stop the bad name jokes.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
#24 – marK – you are correct. They are very independent that way. I invited the two elders that visit my house in my town to come to the party I was having at my house for the first debate — to support Mitt. They said, in no uncertain terms – that they would not be able to attend because they were not allowed to talk about politics. I did invite them for the food before the debate. They came for that only.
Also, one of my Mormon friends in town gave me the address book of the LDS church down the street from me. I called several people in the book to come to my “Support Mitt At The Debate” party. A few days later, one of the men in the church told me that that directory was not for solicitation and to please not do that again.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
#29 – yeah, and what about the Democrats? They only pay attention to their Black base at election time. Remember Kerry going to speak at a Black church and handing out fans with his name on them? Unbelievable!
December 7th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
#29 – yeah, and what about the Democrats? They only pay attention to their Black base at election time. Remember Kerry going to speak at a Black church and handing out fans with his name on them? Unbelievable!
December 7th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
The problem with Huckabee isn’t that he’s religious. The problem is that that is just about his only saving grace. This guy is a statist through and through. The Club For Growth, CATO, Barrons, The Wall Street Journal, etc., all have it right about that. He raised the state tax burden by 47%, raised spending by 50%, and increased the number of state employees by 20%. He will be stopped, God willing, and the only guy who is positioned to do it is Mitt. If Mitt doesn’t stop him, it will be up to Hillary or Obama, who would be just as bad.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
I forgot to post a link to the article detailing Gov Huckabee’s son’s hanging of a dog…
Maybe this helps us to understand the man Mike Huckabee and how his compassion for murderers and rapists as demonstrated by his unusually high clemencies may be driven out of guilt… who knows…
http://library.ardemgaz.com/ArchiveSearch.asp?SearchWords=dog&inField=All&SortBy=DateDesc&DocsPerPage=20&eventStartDate=08%2F07%2F1998&eventStopDate=08%2F07%2F1998&go=+Execute+Search+
December 7th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Haha Mike Crapo. That’s funny. He hasn’t endorsed anyone yet I don’t think. As for John Kerry and his hand fans in the churches it just goes to show you what people will do to get a vote.
That Huckabee dog story puts the Romney’s poor Seamus to shame. It’s funny that the media can only talk about Mitt’s family as being too perfect. The biggest story they could run on him was dog diarhea on the stationwagon.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Sorry – the story gets worse:
BOY SCOUTS KILL DOG!
ACTION NEEDED: DEMAND INVESTIGATION
(Miller County, Arkansas) Two boy scout counselors, 17 year old Clayton Frady and 18 year old David litickabee, the son of Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, have admitted to catching a stray dog during their summer session at Camp Pioneer in Hatfield, AR, and hanging the dog by his neck, slitting his throat and stoning him to death.
Camp officials, who did not report the crime to law enforcement officials, have admitted that the act did occur and have fired the boys from their positions. However, no charges have been filed against the young men.
Arkansas State Police conducted a perfunctory investigation, but did not attempt to locate witnesses to the crime.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Corntact: Mr. Tim Williamson, Prosecuting Attorney, 18th Judicial District, West, P.O. Drawer 109, Mena, AR 71953; Fax: (501) 394-6173
Please contact the prosecutor; request that the case be investigated thoroughly and that animal cruelty charges be filed against Frady and Huckabee. Cruelty to animals is a Class A Misdemeanor in Arkansas and if convicted, Huckabee and Frady could be sentenced to one year in jail and fined $1,000.00.
Also Contact: Chief Scout Executive Jere Ratcliffe, Boy Scouts of America National Office, P.O. Box 152079, Irving, TX 75015-2079; Phone: (972) 580-2000; Fax: (972) 580-2502
Demand that the Boy Scouts’ National Office conduct an internal investigation of the killing.
http://www.utopiarescue.com/oldsite/stop_animal_torture.htm
December 7th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
Was this the same kid who was arrested with a gun?
December 7th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
45 – indeed it was
is there an alagorical lesson to be learned in the story of a child stoning a dog to death? me thinks there is but I’m not waiting on pastor mike to fill in the meaning
December 7th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Does dragging the children of our candidates through the mud improve the level of political discourse on this site?
December 7th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
if the Mormon churches were coordinating on this level, the whole world would be up in arms, and demand that mitt withdraw. i sadly have to agree that part of me hopes he succeeds so there can be some backlash against the current state of GOP and evangelical movement.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
48 – One reason that I assert as to why the Mormon church is such an easy target in these arguments is due to its organizational structure. You have the church run out of salt lake with non-paid clergy and volunteers effectively running the church throughout the country. So it is simple to look to salt lake as calling the shots if you will. That organizational structure is not very common. Many other denominations, including evangelicals as I understand it, are more or less autonomous in that the local paid clergy exerts latitude in the way in which their local congregation is run (guests, quasi-political involvement, etc). I tend to think of it in a franchise vs corporate way. It becomes a challenging argument to tie the actions/activities of a local ‘franchise owner’ (i.e. the first such and such church of so and so) to the denomination in such a way that it sticks.
So in this situation here with the Renewal Project, you have evidenced orchestrating of events and people for political purposes, however you don’t have a clear cut organizational structure with which to challenge effectively – just a group of concerned citizens reaching out to community faith leaders. (wink wink)
December 8th, 2007 at 12:10 am
It will be interesting if Huckabee and Clinton are nominated and Bloomberg runs.
Then, in Bloomberg and Clinton, we will have:
Social Liberal
versus
Ultra-Social Liberal
In either event, the social liberals who are constantly posting to this website will have plenty of choices, and will hopefully stop complaining about the voters who make up the Republican Party.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:19 am
I’d vote for Clinton in a Clinton/Bloomberg/Huckabee matchup. Bloomberg’s a disaster. If I want a liberal nanny-stater, I’d take the pro-life version in Huck. Clinton’s at least plausibly less then disastrous on a few issues.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:27 am
Matt,
I respect the views of people like yourself who think that Huckabee’s positions are those of a “nanny-stater.”
But I think we’re going to find that not much of the Republican electorate thinks that way.
We’ll see.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:41 am
Perhaps mmm. As I’ve said, at this point, nothing would surprise me about the Republican electorate. But, if it turns out the Republican party is the party of Christian Socialists, I don’t much care what they think; I’ll find a new home with the Constitution Party, and work towards a day when freedom returns. Men have labored in the darkness before.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:52 am
Aw, how sad to see us all potentially going our separate ways. Matthew E. Miller leaving for the Constitution Party. TLG leaving for the Libertarian Party. The Christian Socialists staying in the Republican Party to rally around their new Compassionate Conservative leader.
A fork in the road…we pick it up…
no, bad joke…
We take separate paths..!
Our coalition…dissolving. All because of one man.
This is an emotional moment, you guys.
I’ll be back later.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:59 am
It’ll be a sweet irony that Rudy ends up being the one saving the GOP coalition from a near breakup caused by another candidate.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:01 am
if huckabee is the nominee, i will leave the GOP for the libertarian party. so what happens if huckabee wins iowa, romney wins NH, and huckabee wins SC. where does it go from there?
December 8th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Huckabee is the rival wedding singer: He’s losing his mind (Romney) and I’m reaping all the benefits!
December 8th, 2007 at 1:05 am
joe c, Rudy runs in FL on national security, upon which both are weak, and reminding FL they became an early state to exercise their influence over IA and NH.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:05 am
Yes, the conspiring of the christian pastors is going to cause a huge upheaval in the party. Oh, and I thought children were a reflection of their parents. On the other hand, I think that if Mitt loses Iowa but manages wins in New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada & Wyoming, we will still have a race. I think Huck’s dealings will hurt him in California, New York and other states.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Wyoming is not a popular vote and are only awarding 6 delegates. Not gonna count for anything.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:13 am
i think wyoming nevada and michigan are winnable for romney. i think regardless of what they award, they will be a big boost to the winner. so if rudy wins florida, does he then win the majority of states on 2/5? what if huckabee wins FL?
December 8th, 2007 at 1:15 am
two words: brokered convention
December 8th, 2007 at 1:16 am
joe c, yes, if Rudy wins FL, he dominates Mega Tuesday.
I ran the #s on Huck winning FL, and determined Rudy and Huck would each get around 550 delegates on Mega Tuesday. The reason it’s not worse for Rudy is that the southern states split their delegates proportionally, but in Rudy’s strongholds (NY, NJ, CT, DE), delegates are winner-take-all.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:16 am
And, yeah, in that scenario it’s probably a brokered convention. Probably a Rudy-Huck ticket.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:17 am
BTW, in a brokered situation, the VP is brokered along with the nominee.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:20 am
If Huckabee wins Iowa, SC and Florida, and Mitt holds New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada & Wyoming – we will have a two man race on our hands. I don’t know that Huckabee can win Illinois, New York, Ohio, California and some of the other states. I think Mitt will still be in it. The Huckabee rise could be enough to kill Giuliani and really make it a Mitt/Huck race. The big thing is when and how big will the backlash be about Huckabee organizing religiously to take the nomination. The path Huckabee is choosing is very divisive – it might be the only path he can take. These backroom dealings with pastor networks is sickening, but maybe the general public will get put off by it.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:23 am
First of all, Huckabee will not have the kind of money to compete in Florida and he won’t have the evangelical organization to turn out voters.
But should Rudy and Huck be on the same ticket, I guarantee that those socons who said they would never vote for Rudy will hold their noses and pull the lever for Rudy. The only thing more important than values is winning. Otherwise, why would they be voting for Huckabee when they know a vote for Huck is a vote for Rudy?
December 8th, 2007 at 1:29 am
I was listening to the radio, and a republican strategist said that Hucks sudden rise is not the worst thing in the world for Romney. He maintained that even without Iowa, Romney has a real path the presidency if he holds New Hampshire. No one candidate has ever won both before, and Romney does not have to win both. He said that Giuliani’s fall in the national polls could be indicative of an even greater fall if he shows poorly in Iowa and New Hampshire. In that case, a Romney win in New Hampshire would make him the anti-Huck and the potential savior of the republican party.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:33 am
Greg, re #68, that talk show host is not aware of Rudy’s strategy to time the apex of his blitz a week before voting begins.
re #66, I ran some numbers. Let’s say Huck has won IA, SC and FL. And Mitt has won NH, MI and NV.
Here’s how Mega Tuesday might break down:
AZ to McCain, UT to Mitt, AR to Huck.
NY/NJ/CT/DE are winner take all, and Rudy takes 201.
The remaining Southern states mostly award delegates proportionally. So I give 65% to Huck, 25% to Rudy and 10% to Mitt.
Of the remaining states, such as CA, IL and smaller ones, I give 1/3 each.
The resulting Mega Tuesday count is: Rudy 403, Huck 353, Mitt 194.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:34 am
And McCain 53.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:36 am
#69, Thats probably fairly accurate.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:37 am
That’s some pretty biased math, A lot of people are beginning to think that Giuliani will be snuffed out after New Hampshire. He’s already polling below 20%, and he hasn’t lost any states yet. I know you don’t like to admit this, but you have to entertain the notion that Huck and his backroom pastors network may be pushing Giuliani out of the race. His only hope may be to win Florida, but that’s really tenuous, at best.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:38 am
The difference will come down to the smaller states. This will be a fight to the end.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:38 am
I may have been a little too generous to Rudy, but this is why Rudy is a formidable candidate even without an early state win. Even without a FL win!
December 8th, 2007 at 1:39 am
He’s already polling below 20%? You mean in one poll, right?
December 8th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Greg, I think you know there is little overlap between Huck and Rudy. Only among the 10% of poll respondants who regurgitate whatever name has been in the news most.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:41 am
P.S. to #75, by your logic, I’d say Mitt’s behind by 20 in Iowa.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:42 am
Metro is surely right about this:
“NY/NJ/CT/DE are winner take all, and Rudy takes 201.” And he will get more where the votes are divided proportionately.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:43 am
Greg is right. If Huck wins Iowa and Mitt wins NH, the media will be playing Mitt the Mormon vs. Huck the Baptist preacher in SC and Florida. Rudy will be completely marginalized by a flood of free media going to Huck and Mitt. The base will then gravitate to Mitt to defeat Clinton-clone Huckabee. How does Rudy win significant delegates in California if he’s totally out of the conversation by Super Tuesday?
December 8th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Metro man you really piss me off with your comments. Giuliani would be a nominee I would support and vote for. He’s got strength and leadership skills, experience, backbone….I completely understand you support of him.
But your senseless hate of Romney to the point that you cheer on Huckabee is something I can’t understand. Imo Huckabee’s nomination is all but a forgone conclusion and all you can do is laugh at Rombots about it? What about Giuliani supporters, Thompson supporters, McCain supporters?? Every qualified canidate is going down under b/c of this garbage (see Rett’s post and #1).
Ugh this whole thing makes me sick
December 8th, 2007 at 1:45 am
asparagus, no, if the media is characterizing it as a Baptist vs Mormon race, then sane Republicans and those concerned with electability will swarm to Rudy.
They no that no GOP candidate who emerges from a religious war is electable in a general election.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:45 am
Rudy will probably be given a mic no matter what.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:46 am
Tarheel, no worry, as it boils down to a 2-man race, every candidate in the race will endorse the anti-Huck. Except Keyes.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:47 am
#83, No way.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Just imagine a podium, with Rudy, McCain, Fred, Mitt, Tancredo and Hunter all behind it, saying, Mike Huckabee is a nice man we like a lot, but we cannot cease being the party of economic conservatism and muscular foreign policy.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:49 am
Michael, who would not be at that podium?
December 8th, 2007 at 1:49 am
The Fair Tax crowd will also be helping Huck for free I’m sure.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:50 am
they may not come right out and say that, but that will be the media template for SC. And you can bet Huck will be using the most dirty tricks we’ve ever seen in SC. That’s why I say Mitt should save his ammunition on Huckabee until South Carolina. It will get downright dirty and will give Mitt cover to go super-Dumond negative on Huckabee. So given that scenario, where does Rudy fit? He doesn’t. The media will be obsessed with this Huckabee-Romney grudge match that nobody is going to pay attention to Rudy. With Iraq winding down, the 9-11 angle is going to be really old news. You may be right about the delegate count, but I’m starting to see some real potential for a two man race in SC and FL. As TO said, “getcha popcorn ready!”.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:50 am
BTW, I redid the math with Rudy getting 25% and Mitt and Huck 37.5% each in CA, IL, CO, MN, AK, ND.
And in the south, with Rudy at 20% and Mitt at 15%.
Revised totals: Huck 369, Rudy 356, Mitt 224, JMac 53.
You can see Mitt is not really a factor. His only hope was to sweep all the pre-FL states.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:51 am
asparagus, if I may be right about the delegate count, well, my friend, the delegate count is what decides the nomination.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:53 am
Metro, if the Huck rise has showed us anything, it’s that a lot of Rudy’s support is soft. There’s no guaranteed wins for Rudy.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:54 am
This race a good potential to become a Mitt-Mike race with Rudy fighting to be included in the news. The simple fact of life is that the majority of voters will make up their minds in the days before each primary and if Rudy hasn’t won any previous primaries(and excluding some miraculous fulfillment of metro “peaking” predictions), he will simply be left as a 2nd tier candidate to the news broadcasters and talk show hosts. Naturally this will influence the voters in Florida and on Feb 5. Sure he won’t lose NY or Jersey but I wouldn’t bet on him winning much more. Metro, you underestimate the “10% of poll respond[e]nts who regurgitate” names. Most people decide in the last few days. Regardless of a Rudy “surge” around New Year, wins by the Huckster in won or more states, and by Mitt in one or more states, will erase all memory of the Rudy campaign. It is a lot harder to play catch up in primaries than it is in sports and my money isn’t on Giuliani.
Sadly, I would bet on Huckabee to win the nomination unless Mitt can win NH, MI, NV, and Wyoming. With these wins he could threaten to be the anti-populist/nutjob in the race.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:54 am
not by Super Tuesday it doesn’t. I live in Texas. We don’t vote until March. So the race will certainly not be over by Super Tuesday given your scenario. If all Rudy has by Super Tuesday is NY/NJ/CT and DE, what is the point of his candidacy? Those are all Blue states. What’s the point of nominating a Blue state candidate? No, whoever wins Florida will be the nominee. Write it down. Underline it. Cirle it.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:54 am
I just don’t think it will boil down that way. Frankly I’m not sure any of the endorsments would be worth much. I think that most will endorse McCain on their way out minus Tancredo. And you also forgot Paul, who won’t be endorsing anyone.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:56 am
Do the “math” again with Rudy being a non-factor, winning 0 states, because everybody has concluded that he can’t win by February 5th. Then give Huck the majority of the South and nowhere else, that’s just as possible as your scenario.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:57 am
bjalder26, no, see #76.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:58 am
Mcon, do you really think TV announcers/pundits will not be discussing Rudy, as the year-long national frontrunner whose strategy was BASED ON the big states, as we approach them?
That is extremely naive and wishful thinking, and contradicted by how you know pundits handicap races on TV.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:58 am
#93 is right, Florida will again be a pivotal state.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:59 am
asparagus, some people are calling Mega Tuesday Super Tuesday.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:59 am
bjalder, huh? Everybody has concluded that? Huh?
December 8th, 2007 at 2:01 am
Michael, regarding endorsements, you are not factoring in the context: stopping Huckabee and saving economic conservatism. THAT’s what will propel all the other candidates to get behind the strongest guy emerging in the 2-man race against Huck.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:03 am
#95 The media template will be “What happened to Rudy?”. All the talking heads will be talking about how far Rudy has fallen. It will be the other headline besides “Mitt vs. Huck” showdown. Rudy just isn’t charismatic enough to come back and I think his story of turning NY around just won’t be compelling enough. People hate NY and they’re not going to like a bitter, unhinged Rudy (see McCain). No he has to win or come 2nd in NH to compete. Forget the delegate counts! We’re electing a President, not playing Dungeons and Dragons.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:04 am
asparagus, WTF??? Your last 2 sentences? WTF???
Do you not realize that delegate counts are what determines the nominee??????????????????????????
December 8th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Metro,
He probably will be discussed but I can guarantee you that if he has not won anything before Florida all of that discussion will be about how he really messed up and how his “unproven strategy” led to his downfall.
Why? Two reasons: first, the story will be the “Mormon vs. Baptist”(why on earth would the media want something else?); second, the drive by media barely knows anything about politics yet almost all will know the historical significance of Iowa and NH. The “Giuliani can win this thing” story will not be nearly as interesting. He would be left as a 2nd tier candidate who made critical errors that caused his downfall.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:04 am
Did you people just get into politics last month, or what?
December 8th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Mcon, as I’ve said, if the story is the Baptist vs. the Mormon, that will cause a huge groundswell for Rudy.
Too many Republicans are savvy enough to know if that is the storyline that produces the GOP nominee, then the GOP is absolutely doomed. Downticket candidates too.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:06 am
No one cares about delegate counts. We are going to consolidate around a nominee because they are the best candidate. If we play this delegate game, its like “my NY crime fighting spell beats your sanctuary mansion, score 10 points for Sir Rudy. Ordinary people do not care about delegate counts. Its meaningless.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:06 am
#105 was connected to #103.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:07 am
asparagus: DELEGATE COUNTS ARE HOW CONVENTIONS ARE DECIDED.
Are you absolutely ignorant?
December 8th, 2007 at 2:08 am
I really don’t thinkthat the media will be touting Mormon vs Baptist. I’m sure there will be some other story to follow.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:11 am
I get it. I just don’t think its going to play out the way you think it will. By Jan 31, there’s going to be a clear leader, and it won’t be Rudy. Do you really think that voters in CA or Illinois give a flying flip about what blue states like NY and NJ do with their delegates? In addition, the Southern states get way more delegates thanks to their slavish devotion to the Republican party. If Mitt gets all the headlines for having defeated upstart Huckabee in Florida, do you really think the party is going to give the nomination to Rudy because of what NY/NJ/CT and DE did? If so, you are in the wrong party.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:11 am
If you notice they change the story about every two weeks. Journalists will be finding the new breaking news.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:12 am
OK, that is a different argument. I have no idea why you stated twice that delegate counts are irrelevant.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:13 am
asparagus,
You aren’t making too much sense there.
Metro,
I have been following this election since before the last one. I have also stayed up watching the election results for every national election since 98. In a previous thread you dismissed my claim that in a McCain vs. Rudy showdown, McCain would have more GOP elite support. You failed to take into account that the situation would come about because of Rudy’s failure to win an early state. If Rudy doesn’t win early, he will leak supporters in the media, among the elites, and among the voters. People will not be drawn to a “loser”. If Rudy doesn’t win at least one state before Florida he will not be a significant factor in the rest of race outside of the NE.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:14 am
Regarding that argument, Mitt does not win FL if Huck has won IA and SC. Northern FL is just like SC and AL. Rudy’s stronghold is southern FL, with the New Yorkers and Cubans. It’s a Rudy v Huck battle, and Mitt won’t be a factor in FL.
And Mitt cannot win the nomination without FL.
Mitt’s only hope was to win EVERYTHING before FL. And now that looks lost.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:16 am
Delegate counts are secondary. Momentum is king. Right now, Huck has all the momentum. Thank God there’s a month before Iowa. He really scares me with his “love everyone” attitude. That’s not the “let them eat cake” Republican party that I grew up in. I’d love to have Rudy as President. Believe me, he would be an excellent CIC and he’d really stick it to the liberals good.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:17 am
Mcon, I think it’s at least 50/50 that Rudy WILL win a state before FL.
If not, he still goes into FL with everyone in the media KNOWING his main strategy was to rack up wins in FL, CA, NY etc, so all the talk will be about… will that work? Keeping him very much in play. Team Rudy will be telling FL voters they BECAME and early state for a REASON and now’s the time to exercise their will!! It the previous contests are split Huck/Mitt, Rudy will emphasize national security, where he is very strong and which plays strongly in FL with military, veterans, and Cubans — and both the other candidates are weak on it. If it’s Huck/McCain, Rudy will emphasize tax-cutting, where he is has a fantastic record and both of them don’t, and plays strongly among GOP primary voters anywhere.
And if Rudy still loses FL, I’ve already done the math showing how he comes out of Mega Tuesday tied in delegates.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:18 am
asparagus, I still don’t get why you are saying that. Momentum matters only if it results in DELEGATES. Delegates are what determines the nominee.
Unless it’s a brokered convention, and then delegate counts will count for something but not everything.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:19 am
It certainly appears be damaged with Iowa slipping away. One giant Care Bear stare from Huckabee and momentum slips away. Still, Mitt’s speech and the positive feelings among bloggers and radio talk show hosts may be enough to help Mitt with damage control between Iowa and NH. As long as he comes in 2nd, he can say “No one has won both NH and Iowa in the modern era. We never expected to win both.” I don’t think he has to win all the states to win FL but he has to win NH. There is no doubt about that.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:19 am
It is already a week into December. In a very short time people will turn off politics and turn them back on at the first of the year. If there is no change from the current trend within two weeks Huckabee will win the nomination.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:20 am
Mitt can’t say “we never expected to win both” because Mitt and his minions have been telling everyone they are on track to win both.
Don’t you see how they screwed the pooch on the expectations game by saying that?
December 8th, 2007 at 2:22 am
That is absolutely false. They have been saying from day 1 that they expect both races to narrow and did not expect to win both races. This is like Mike Gallagher this morning saying that Mitt said he wasn’t going to give the speech. No, he said, he probably wouldn’t give it but we’ll see”. You are ascribing expectations the media have had because of polls to Mitt’s campaign and that is just unfair.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:23 am
I believe that Mitt is finished. Without him its Rudy and Huck to the end.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:23 am
Metro, Mitt does not need everything before Florida if Huckabee is the frontrunner. It’s a whole new ball game. If Rudy is out of it by then, and it is a scenario you won’t even consider, Mitt will be getting most og Giuliani’s vote. Mitt will be the anti-Huck. The real contest now is who will be the anti-Huck.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:24 am
The expectations that the media exclaims is the expectations the people have.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:25 am
asparagus, we’ve all heard it a million times, how he is going to win both.
And everyone is forgetting, when Mitt was expected for months to win Iowa, by a large margin, bought and paid for, etc, bragging by Team Mitt about it — and in the final weeks, Iowa turns on Mitt BIGTIME in the very first contest — that is a DEATHBLOW.
And you guys talk about him winning a bunch of the following states. Don’t you GET what this TOTAL REJECTION in Iowa means for him in successive states? Haven’t you LECTURED us for months about the fallout of earlier contests on successive ones?
December 8th, 2007 at 2:25 am
Ugh we need to stop fighing amongst ourselves and take down the only canidate who can destroy our party.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Greg, see #126 and #117 and the delegate math I did.
All of that combined tells you Rudy is major factor, even if he doesn’t win an early state.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:28 am
Tarheel, don’t worry. All the other candidates will rally around the anti-Huck around Feb 1, if it comes to that.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:31 am
Rudy created this mess by creating a power vacuum in Iowa when he skipped the straw poll. If Rudy truly intended to make it a two-person race and compete with Romney one-on-one, he should have stayed in Iowa and given Mitt the real head-to-head race everyone was hoping for. Instead, he chickened out and created a giant free-for-all which invited both Huckabee and Thompson into the race. I sortof hope that Rudy loses only to defeat this idea that small states are no longer important. Rudy made the field even more fractured by skipping the first states, which resulted in a minority (evangelical Christians) having an inordinate effect on the race. Its resulted in absolute chaos and if the race lasts until the convention, we might as well give the Presidency to Hillary, because she will be sitting on a huge warchest.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:32 am
Metro,
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could decide the story that media would run with? Your rosy scenario fails in several regards.
-I do think Rudy has a chance to win a pre-Florida state. I think his best chance would be Michigan if Mitt lost in the two first states. In this case I think he wins Florida. However, I think that is extremely unlikely simply because if McCain won in NH he would win in Michigan as well. Certainly not 50/50 for Rudy.
-The media will not focus on the losers. It is that simple. The media will focus on the two man race angle. Rudy would still have a chance though if there were multiple winners splitting the vote. Otherwise he would left out of most of the discussion. He will probably get mentioned but most of it will be about his failure, not his potential.
-IF it is a Mitt/Mike race going into Florida I would give Rudy a 10% chance to pull it off. I would favor Mike to win this scenario unless he has only won Iowa and SC. It all depends on how the media assigns “momentum”.
-If Rudy can’t win in Florida you will not be voting GOP in the generals. It is really that simple.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:33 am
asparagus, as of Ames, Rudy expected Fred would be his main competition. Fred was already expected to enter the race before Ames.
In any case, it’s a time-honored strategy to skip an early contest when it’s not friendly turf.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Then lets blame McCain. Everybody hates him anway.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:36 am
Mcon, I simply disagree. When the year-long frontrunner, national hero, biggest warchest, etc, has said from the beginning his real strategy is based on FL + CA + NY, he won’t be left out of the discussion.
If it’s Huck v Mitt going into FL, as I said, Rudy’s got the national security trump card, which plays to 3 constituencies in FL, and his opponents would be weak on this topic. And split in the small states.
I’ve also proven that even if Rudy loses FL, he comes out of Mega Tuesday in a near-tie among delegates, because of how delegates are awarded and his NY/NJ/CT/DE stronghold.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:37 am
#133, LOL. Indeed. That’s why I have a very hard time seeing him win this thing.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:41 am
On a lighter note…I’d like to see some cheap political stunts to get votes. If the primary lasts until the spring, Romney could go down to Guantanomo for Spring Break to get waterboarded so he can prove its not really torture. “Man, I really thought I was going to die”. Soon, waterboarding will be a new ride at Six Flags. Or, he could ride on a roof in a kennell as a tribute to Seamus.
But then again, I was hoping that one of the candidates would begin their debate answer with “I personally believe that US Americans…” and it didn’t happen.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:44 am
Huck will win the nomination, since he has the right balance of social and fiscal conservatism, as well as very strong positions regarding national defense, the military, and terrorism. And did you see his new immigration plan?
1st in Iowa
2nd in NH
1st in Wyoming
1st in Nevada
1st in South Carolina
1st in Florida
And then he will trounce Hillary like Reagan trounced Mondale.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:44 am
Well Metro somebody will be proven wrong.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:45 am
You didn’t like the Rudy King Kong ad?
“Time Magazine called him Man of the Year. Newsweek called him The New Mayor of America. Hillary Called him [CENSORED]… but she probably planted the question.”
December 8th, 2007 at 2:46 am
It ain’t gonna be Huckabee. He shot up like a rocket, coming down like a bowling ball. Got no substance. Plus that story about his son and the dog creeps me out. Good night.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:46 am
wiseguy,
You just made yourself seem like a complete fool. Perhaps you should change the screen name.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:46 am
WiseGuy, OMG, get a clue so we can have an objective discussion.
There is a CHANCE Huck could be the nominee. Let’s discuss the REALISTIC possibility.
When you say crap like he’ll win in a 1984-style landslide you lose absolutely all respect.
Particularly when half the Republicans on this board say they would vote for Hillary Clinton rather than Huck.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:47 am
WiseGuy, your buddy MWS is a much more reasonable person. You should have him stand in.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:47 am
I would vote constitution over Huckabee.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:50 am
Mcon, as much as we can argue about social issues, I have so much more respect for a SoCon who realizes that the issue of the government and the economy (not to mention national security) are much more significant political issues than gay marriage or abortion.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:51 am
I blame Karl Rove for inviting Evangelicals into the party without regard to limited government.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:55 am
Huckabee camp announces campaign theme song.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-DEcdYL1FAM
December 8th, 2007 at 2:55 am
There is a CHANCE Huck could be the nominee. Let’s discuss the REALISTIC possibility.
When you say crap like he’ll win in a 1984-style landslide you lose absolutely all respect.
Did anybody predict a couple months ago that Huck would be leading in both Iowa and South Carolina? I have said that Huck would win Iowa and SC for some time.
Did anyone anticipate that Huckabee would be in 1st place nationally according to Rasmussen?
Who is the better politician: Huckabee or Hillary? Who is the better communicator? Most Americans would pick Huckabee because he is the safe non-threatening choice.
Hold on to your hats everybody, ’cause Huckabee express is only beginning to take off! Just wait until Huck has cash!
December 8th, 2007 at 2:58 am
WiseGuy, actually, I did predict he would lead IA and SC.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:59 am
Can you imagine a campaign with Obama and Huckabee? There would be so much caring and sharing going on.
MIKE HUCKABEE FOR PRESIDENT
A Caring Christian Leader
(who doesn’t have Hussein
for a middle name…
WTF is up with that?)
December 8th, 2007 at 3:00 am
democrats are scared to death of john mccain.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j28IuBvdxuY
December 8th, 2007 at 3:01 am
I blame Karl Rove for inviting Evangelicals into the party without regard to limited government.
Maybe people should blame the Moral Majority for helping Ronald Reagan win the nomination.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:01 am
Huck could nominate his son to oversee Al Queda interrogations.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:01 am
Actually the bottom line is no frontrunner has really tried what Rudy is trying so these predictions are somewhat lacking in historical backing. It’ll be interesting. By guess though is that many voters equate winning primaries with electability. Since electability is one of Guiliani’s strong points I think he needs to win a state before Super Tuesday to have a chance. if he doesn’t his chances are almost 0. He may win NY/NJ, but I don’t expect he’ll get much else.
So then the real question is, can Guiliani win FL if he hasn’t won a state beforehand? i think it depends. I think if Huck and Mitt split the early states Guiliani is still in it come Florida since both Mitt and Huck appeal to more socially conservative voters. If Mitt runs the table obviously he has it. If Huck wins Iowa/SC and McCain NH/MI I’d expect a lot of Guiliani support to swing over to McCain, rendering Guiliani pretty much dead by Florida. Luckily for Rudy, Romney is likely to keep NH I think.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:02 am
WiseGuy, SoCons of that era supported economic conservatism.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:03 am
Metro,
I am coming to believe that a Huckabee presidency would be worse for America than a Giuliani presidency. I firmly believe in my stances on gay marriage and abortion but I think Huckabee would further Bush’s efforts in marginalizing the GOP with substandard leadership and ideas on everything but social issues(Bush at least has shown excellent leadership on terrorism but I have no faith in Huckabee on that).
It kinda sounds like you’re saying you respect me somewhat but I’m not sure there….
December 8th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Mcon, yes, I respect you because we agree on the bigger issues that are 95% of what government and the Presidency involve.
I disrespect SoCons who are economically liberal (populists), and even more, disrespect those don’t acknowledge the importance of economic/regulatory issues at all, as if they don’t even matter.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:09 am
#153 LOL. Good stuff. The Care Bear video was better though, admit it. Seriously, though, I kindof think of Huckabee as a giant care bear. I’m trying to imagine him negotiating with I’manutjob with his carebear stare. “Would you like some Jesus juice, Mr. President?” The similarities between he and Clinton are striking. This guy cannot be nominated. It would be a mockery. And the idea that he and Obama would be running against each other is just scary. At least Hillary would have the stones to launch an invasion if necessary.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:11 am
Metro,
You could think of me as a Fisodcon. I want the complete package and Huckabee sure as hell leaves me wondering where the rest is. Then again I can’t support Giuliani because he does the same things with the socon in me.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:14 am
Metro: Huckabee also supports economic conservatism. He fought for fiscal conservatism in Arkansas, earning the profuse praise of the Heritage Foundation and causing the Americans for Tax Reform to mimic his tactics. Huckabee has supported free market solutions in many areas (e.g. health care).
Huckabee vs. Fred: Fred has refused to sign the standard “no tax” pledge. Grover Norquist calls him the “worst” candidate on taxes. McCain also refuses to sign this pledge. Huckabee has signed this pledge.
Huckabee vs. Romney: Romney refused to openly support Bush’s tax cuts, earning the praise of Barney Frank. McCain also opposed Bush’s tax cuts. Huckabee has consistently supported Bush’s tax cuts.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:16 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OphAcf3Ml4&NR=1
December 8th, 2007 at 3:17 am
WiseGuy, you can find some good kernels on Huck and economics, just like you can for a lot of Democrats.
When he calls the Club for Growth the Club for Greed, and lambastes big business, then you know exactly where his heart is. The exact opposite of Ronald Reagan when it comes to free enterprise.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:20 am
McCain also opposed Bush’s tax cuts.
Yeah, maybe we wouldn’t be paying over 3 buck a gallon for gas if he had his way. bush devalued the dollar and passed a trillion dollars of debt onto our children. how is that being conservative?
December 8th, 2007 at 3:20 am
Mcon, a few thoughts:
1. Rudy is trying not to run on cultural issues one way or the other. While Huckabee openly runs as a liberal on everything else.
2. Cultural issues make up 5% of the Presidency. Everything else is what matters most.
3. Rudy has the best credentials on judges in the race, given his background and endorsers.
4. By not being a so-con in name, he makes millions of independents comfortable in voting for him. They end up getting massive cuts in the federal workforce, taxes, private accounts, and an extremely aggressive war on terror. Joke’s on them.
5. I’ve got more but I’m tired. Need to go to bed.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:21 am
wiseguy,
I wouldn’t care if Alan Greenspan had spoken good of Huckabee. Anybody who can talk about raising taxes so willingly and so happily as Huckabee did isn’t a fiscal conservative. Calling the club for growth the “Club for Greed” makes me want to gag. And people like EGS should know better.
Both Fred and McCain have a better record on taxes than Huckabee. You should be laughed out of this forum.
Romney didn’t endorse or refute the Bush tax cuts and I don’t care either way because as he said he was a Governor in an uberliberal state where he didn’t need to give his opinion on those tax cuts.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:21 am
#162….not to mention playing the race card on immigration issues. Huckabee is the perfect Democrat. He probably could get nominated in the Democratic party, even with his pro-life views. He’s a Republican version of John Edwards, but with authenticity.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:25 am
MetroRepublican, the Club for Growth would have sought to take Reagan down too, since Reagan signed a 1 billion tax hike after campaigning against higher taxes. The Club for Growth has been unfairly biased against Huckabee. They tried to stop Huckabee back at Ames when Huck was
December 8th, 2007 at 3:26 am
sampo, you’ve got it totally backwards. That’s like taking a family who’s struggling with their budget and preventing the breadwinner from getting a degree that would increase their income, and instead force them to be poor and cut their budget even further.
That is backwards. Everything depends on growth. You grow or you die. McCain doesn’t get that. Same with his cap-and-trade position on global warming.
He is far more dangerous than a Democrat, because Senate Republicans would filibusters these things coming from a Democratic President. If they came from a Republican President such as Huck or McCain, they wouldn’t, and our economy would be sabotaged.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:27 am
WiseGuy, I don’t care what your beef is with the Club for Growth. When your guy chooses to call them the Club for Greed, we KNOW he’s a John Edwards.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:28 am
And that’s not the only class-warfare statement Huck has made.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:29 am
… (continued from 167) less than 2% in the polls. A major donor to CfG (and a past chairman who probably still wields a lot of influence in the organization) is a personal political rival of Huckabee back from Arkansas days:
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004079.html
This tidbit of information is crucial to understanding the dynamics of Huck vs. CfG.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:31 am
i like the fact huckabee is brave enough to lob back the grenades the CFG has thrown him. i’m not a fan of politicians cozying up to special interest groups. besides, the CFG is one reason the republicans lost control of the senate in 06.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:32 am
Both Fred and McCain have a better record on taxes than Huckabee. You should be laughed out of this forum.
Not according to Grover Norquist, president of the Americans for Tax Reform. He has been around Washington for decades making sure that candidates are fiscally conservative. Norquist said specifically that Huck would be fine (comparing his record to that of Reagan) on taxes.
Fred is the worst on taxes:
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Kessler_Thompson_taxes/2007/11/08/47885.html
December 8th, 2007 at 3:33 am
Metro,
I agree with 1,4, and 5.
I think that leadership and example is more important on social issues.
I also believe that Romney would be better on judges for a variety of reasons regardless of Rudy’s advisers.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:34 am
Mcon:
“And people like EGS should know better.”
I should know what better? I’m curious what you think I’m missing.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:35 am
Night, folks.
EGS: Huck’s and McCain’s support for Cap-and-Trade, for starters.
Inexcusable and disastrous. I’d vote Democrat on that alone, because Senate Republicans would filibuster it if a Democrat tried it, and they wouldn’t/couldn’t if a Republican President took up the issue.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:36 am
If the CFG is a special interest group then the AfTR certainly is as well. While I like the no tax pledge it doesn’t make Fred the worst on taxes.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:37 am
#173 “Huck would be fine”. Should we get used to hearing “I’m fine with that” from Huckabee? Might want to stay away from that one.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:37 am
I sure hope that it is a 2 man race between Romney and Giuliani. Huck would lose and severely damage the Republican party with his populist/democrat views. Although Giuliani is not a SoCon, he is strong otherwise and I think would maintain the stauts quo on social issues (better than a Democrat in WH). Romney is the best to maintain the Conservative Coalition, and he looked Presidential in his speech (if only the SoCons would act Christ like and follow the Bible in regards to Mitt’s mormonism, is there hope?)
Romney and Giuliani could win….
December 8th, 2007 at 3:42 am
SoCons would act Christ like and follow the Bible in regards to Mitt’s mormonism
I hate to break it to you, but in the planet i live in, mormonism came around 2 thousand years after the Bible was written. as such Jesus and the Bible said nothing about mormons.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:43 am
Econ,
Supporting Huckabee is fine but calling him a fiscal conservative isn’t something I would expect from someone who has a degree in Economics. (Actually, is your BA in economics? I probably shouldn’t jump to that conclusion.)
Metro makes a good point in 175. I would also point to his record on raising taxes, the tax burden, the video of him happy with the idea of raising taxes, his “Club for Greed” comment, his desire to give gov money to illegals, and his general like for nanny state policies. Those are just some points off the top of my head.
My degree is in Economics but then again I suppose you could have gone to a liberal school.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:46 am
well there are so many things I could say…but obviously you don’t know the doctrines of Mormonism, thats ok because many do not take the time to actually study something before bashing it, but…
What does the Bible say about righteous judgment?
What did Christ think of the Jewish actions toward the Samaritans?
Who are God’s children? Only those of a single doctrine?
What did Christ say of the over-rigtheousness of the Saducces and Pharisees?
December 8th, 2007 at 3:47 am
Econ,
I should probably change that last sentence to say “a more liberal school”.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:54 am
Mcon I have a B.S. in Economics and History. I’m in graduate school just for Economics.
I’ve been taught Classical, New Classical, Keynesian, New Keynesian, Institutionalist, and other schools of Macroeconomics. I embrace economic views solely based on their empirical support.
I still don’t see what my education in Economics has to do with my political preferences in Republican primary.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:00 am
It has nothing to do with your political preferences. It has to with saying Huckabee is a fiscal conservative.
Interesting to note however that you share my love of history.
my degree is in Econ and Latin American studies but I am more interested in history and political science to be perfectly honest.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:00 am
nothing sampo??
December 8th, 2007 at 4:09 am
Mcon my understanding of the term “fiscal conservative” is based on the original meaning of the term. I don’t mean fiscal libertarian which has always meant something different.
A fiscal conservatism has historically been concerned more with balanced budgets than the level of taxation or spending.
As the one politician who has always had a balanced budget Huckabee is a fiscal conservative. He’s not an anti-government ideologue like CFG or Cato and other libertarian groups.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:19 am
many do not take the time to actually study something before bashing it,
no bashing was done. you aren’t a victim here.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:22 am
I never said I was a victim….you say that Mormonism is not mentioned in the Bible, yet what authority is that?
December 8th, 2007 at 4:23 am
when was mormonism mentioned?
December 8th, 2007 at 4:24 am
econ,
This article sums up many of the reasons for my dislike of Huckabee on purely fiscal grounds.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/huckabee_is_far_from_reagans_h.html
December 8th, 2007 at 4:24 am
probably the same time that Trinity was, no?
December 8th, 2007 at 4:25 am
Sampo…
Mormons would say that the Stick of Joseph, the voice coming out of the ground, and the resotration of all things in the latter days are all mentions of Mormonism!
December 8th, 2007 at 4:26 am
dude, if you’re gonna tell me mormonism is in the bible do it now. i’m losing patience with you.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:26 am
I just did, DUDE!
December 8th, 2007 at 4:27 am
i’m unfamiliar of the gospel of ‘the Stick of Joseph’.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:27 am
and thats aside the talk of apostles, prophets, etc.; temples; baptism for the dead; the Abrahamic covenant; etc.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:28 am
Have you ever read the OT?
December 8th, 2007 at 4:29 am
Ezek 37: 16,19
December 8th, 2007 at 4:30 am
Isaish 29:4 re: the familiar voice coming from the ground
December 8th, 2007 at 4:34 am
Any response Sampo?
December 8th, 2007 at 4:49 am
if you’re trying to convince me those verses prophesy mormanism, i cannot agree. but honestly, how can you even tout prophecies from the Bible if the LDS church admits it has errors?
Latter-day Saints revere the Bible. They study it and believe it to be the word of God. However, they do not believe the Bible, as it is currently available, is without error.
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=59a22f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
BTW, is Mitt in danger of excommunication when he said he believed every word of the Bible?
December 8th, 2007 at 4:52 am
No Mitt is not in danger, Mitt said he believed the Bible to be the Word of God (100% correct)
I am not trying to convince you, you have every right to disagree, although I would be curious as to your interpretation on any of those, if there exists to be one?
I doubt anyone believes the Bible has no errors? If they do, then they cannot believe in a perfect God.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:54 am
Sampo…tell me of one church today that has the church organization and half the ordinances and doctrines of the church established by Christ in the NT???
December 8th, 2007 at 5:02 am
Only 1 purports to be that NT church….
December 8th, 2007 at 5:07 am
Let’s not get into bible bashing. There is enough contention as it is.
Having said that, here are some excellent passages that tell us how to treat other religions that you disagree with. One of my favorites is Matt 15:1-14. Pay close attention to versus 13 and 14. Verse three is certainly food for thought when someone says, “Mormons don’t believe in traditional Christianity”.
A couple of other excellent passages on this general subject are Mark 9:38-40 and Luke 9:49-50.
Notice that our Lord repeatedly says to “Leave them alone”. Don’t attack them. Don’t publish books against them. Don’t preach against them. “Leave them alone.”
December 8th, 2007 at 5:07 am
and that one church is?
December 8th, 2007 at 5:08 am
Well said Mark
December 8th, 2007 at 5:10 am
well do you know of any….
The LDS Church purports to be that NT church
December 8th, 2007 at 5:13 am
Sampo,
The LDS church “Believes the bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly.” That’s your stance too, isn’t it?
Do you accept as without errors those translations that convert all references to the “Son” of God, “Father” in Heaven, “King” of “Kings to “Child” of God, “Parent” in Heaven, and “Ruler of Rulers” and other such nonsense?
Do you accept as without errors those translations that have a particular axe to grind, such as homosexuality is not a sin?
Do you accept as without errors the Reader’s Digest version of a few years back that cut out vast tracts of the bible in order to shorten it?
If you don’t, then you really aren’t that different from the Mormons, are you?
December 8th, 2007 at 5:22 am
what mistakes are so bad in the Bible where mormons have to throw up their hands and say “this cannot be right”?
December 8th, 2007 at 5:24 am
209, Catholics. Matt 16:18. Peter. First Pope.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:28 am
Where does the Bible show that Satan and Jesus are brothers? Would the mistake-free Bible include that?
And who was Genesis 11:7 talking about when it said “us”?
Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”
Mistake?
December 8th, 2007 at 5:29 am
Mormons never say “this cannot be right” in regards to the Bible as a whole…but there are parts. Ex: God repented (Genesis). Sorry but I think all “Christians” would believe that God is perfect and therefore cannot repent. No?
Peter was an Apostle and leader of the Church. However, all other Popes have not been Prophets or Apostles, nor do they hold the Melchesidek Priesthood (See Book of James)
What temples do the Catholic church have? What about baptisms for the dead (1 Cor.), baptism, etc.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:34 am
The Bible does not say that…neither did the people of Moses have everything in the Bible? Also, where is the Trinity defined in the Bible? If that is your only argument, then it should at least apply to all “doctrines.” No??
Well I imagine in Genesis 11:7 (I am not looking at it right away) is the same “us” used earlier in Genesis 1:26 “let us make man in our image.” I would imagine it would be two separate people, based simply on english grammar, and therefore probably the Father and Son. Your thoughts on who us is?
December 8th, 2007 at 5:38 am
The theory that Jesus and Satan are brothers arise from the fact that we are told in the Bible that we are all sons of God, including those that were hewn down to the earth (including Satan).
Therefore, how is not logical, although maybe not conclusive, that Satan could be a son of God and therefore brother of Jesus who is the son of God? Christ did refer to God as his father and our father?
Unless you know of a scripture that defines Satan’s relationship to God that I am not aware of, which is possible!
December 8th, 2007 at 5:41 am
you asked who claimed to be the church Christ established. I don’t agree, just answered your question. With two thousand years of history, 1 billion members, and no need to appeal to the ‘Book of Catholicism’ I think their arguments hold far more water than yours.
Personally, I believe the church is not a temple or organization but the relationship he establishes in people’s lives. There’s a good reason no one fully mirrors what’s in the Bible (see romans 3:23)
17His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”[b] 18Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?” 19Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” 20The Jews replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:46 am
I agree…but why did Christ organize the 12 Apostles, establish missionary work, establish the sacrament (communion, etc.), establish an org. (priests, bishops, seventies, apostles, prophets), temples (existed from the at least the time of Moses until the end of NT)(even the Apostles frequentetd the temple after resurrection), etc.
I respect your personal values, but why question another’s faith, when if one really studies it, the LDS Church is much closer to the BIBLE then most, if not all, Christian religions. When other doctrines and practices that were introduced by the Catholic Church a few hundred years after Revelations was written, then the LDS Church is not so Christian.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Sampo have a good night!
December 8th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Show me in the Bible where people have a previous existence, where Christ and Satan are brothers, and where people can become God. Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims all believe the Bible to some degree or another and represent probably over half the the population. None of us agree with these Mormon doctrines and find it blasphemous to think one can become God.
December 8th, 2007 at 5:57 am
Job is a good example of pre-existance
December 8th, 2007 at 6:01 am
221, for Mormons, maybe. but the founding fathers disagreed when they said ‘all men are created equal’.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:01 am
So too is the part when God speaks that I knew you before you were born…also the fact that Christ was chosen as the Lamb and Savior before he was born to Mary
Christ himself said…Ye are gods (John 10:34)
Sampo if you thought it was blamphemous for us to become gods….well you are in good company with many Jews…who wasnted to kill the savior for saying the same thing
December 8th, 2007 at 6:02 am
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:04 am
I think you would enjoy reading the Bible….it is excellent, contains the word of God!
In regards to Satan, you neer responded to my previous post on it. Didn’t Christ teach that God is all of our father, including Christ? If so, then wouldn’t Satan, who fell from heaven, also be a son and therefore Christ’s brother??
December 8th, 2007 at 6:06 am
I dont understand the “all men created equal” point?
December 8th, 2007 at 6:09 am
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, Jer. 1: 4-5
God chose us before the foundation of the world, Eph. 1: 3-4.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:10 am
blacks refused to side with Jesus, right? thus they became black. marked. i’m sorry, but that is not being created equal.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:11 am
No your thoughts on blacks are wrong and disgusting!! You should be ashamed of yourself
December 8th, 2007 at 6:14 am
it is sad that a somewhat bright person would speak such deplorable things and attempt to discredit a religion for such beliefs without studying that church’s doctrine…
What’s even more sad…is that you have been unable to respond to my answers to your previous questions so you have to bring up a ridiculous theory….
Wasn’t it the non-Mormon Christians that considered balcks to be 3/5 of a person!?
December 8th, 2007 at 6:14 am
227, jews, protestants, and catholics are well aware of those verses. they interpret them FAR differently. so you’ve got a few billion people interpreting verses on way, and a few million mormons interpreting them another….
December 8th, 2007 at 6:15 am
Reallt what do the other religions, or more importantly yourself, say….
The closest I have gotten from leaders of those religions (not Islam) is that it is a Question of Faith…(Exact words of a high level Catholic official from Rome)
December 8th, 2007 at 6:15 am
that’s what mormons believe, which was why they were banned from certain positions in the church. when the federal government called the LDS church a racist organization and in the 70′s they had a change of heart.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:16 am
Wasn’t it the non-Mormon Christians that considered balcks to be 3/5 of a person!?
some. see 217.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:17 am
You are right….according to your logic…Christianity is wrong!!!
At the time of Christ….a few thousand, maybe million pagans, didnt believe in God. A few thousand Jews didn’t beleive in Christ. And a handful of followers believed in Christ!
Thank God..that people did not use stupid logic back then!
December 8th, 2007 at 6:20 am
233…you dont know LDS doctrine (already proven tonight) and no that wasn’t the reason (which wasn’t completely bad if you knew LDS doctrine or the BIBLE)
Which Mormon was it at the Constitutional Convention that supported the 3/5 argument? Which Mormon on the SC came up with the Dred Scott decision??
December 8th, 2007 at 6:23 am
You may want to attempt understanding the BIBLE which will allow you to understand LDS doctrine.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:24 am
The issue re: Blacks and the Priesthood (which is what you were referring to) is from the Bible and not something from Mormonism! Read the story about Noah…yes there is more to it than a big ark!
December 8th, 2007 at 6:26 am
so why did the church drop it’s ban? what if tomorrow they drop the book of mormon all together?
December 8th, 2007 at 6:29 am
The reason they dropped is because God dropped it! Simple. Similar to Peter in the NT dropping the ban against preaching to non-Jews (see the discussion between Peter and Paul). The decision occurred because God revealed it to Peter (the leader of the Church).
I doubt they would drop the BOM nor would they drop the Bible…those are the standards of the Church.
December 8th, 2007 at 6:31 am
Sampo…Read the Bible, then we could actually discuss religion.
Have a good night!
December 8th, 2007 at 6:34 am
The reason they dropped is because God dropped it!
or more accurately, the leader of the Mormon church said God dropped it. Very convenient how it coincided with a crackdown by the federal government. Did God tell the polygamists Mormons outside the LDS church to cut it out yet? surly you identify with these rogue mormons more than you do with protestants and/or catholics.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:10 am
Dang sampo you are one sad angry person.
December 8th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Angry . . . maybe but smart nonetheless. And ilfigo is also well versed in mormon theology. I found their discussion interesting to read.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:28 am
Goodness gracious. I go to bed at 12:30, and we add 200 comments.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:38 am
“I’m concerned a lot of Christians are thinking about the values issues and forgetting about the creator behind the values issues,†Ms. Gherkey said. “I guess I feel like this country and this world needs a president who would be able to pray to the God of the Bible and he would be able to hear his prayers.â€
-Mike Huckabee
Is there ANY doubt….any doubt at all, that Mike Huckabee is running a tacit anti-Mormon campaign with that statement? It sickens me. Absolutely sickens me. I go to church every week. I’m a Protestant. And I’m starting to REALLY dislike alot of evangelicals; Mike Huckabee foremost.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Nm. Huckabee didn’t say that himself. I misread. Someone else said it, and here’s how he responded.
“She wondered, Would Mr. Romney’s prayers “even get throughâ€?
In response, Mr. Huckabee said he did not want to “speak for any other candidate or denigrate them at all.â€
But he added: “My views are what they are. I don’t think I’ve ever hidden where they come from.â€
He then tried to make a joke: “I’m glad you’ve made your choice for me. I don’t care why. I’m just glad you did.â€
That’s not nearly so bad, but it still reflects poorly on Huckabee.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:48 am
246 – this ‘joke’ from Huckabee immediately after that question is more telling… he outright condones this sentiment “I’m glad you’ve made your choice for me. I don’t care why. I’m just glad you did.â€
December 8th, 2007 at 8:52 am
Are there any conspiracy theorists out there making the argument that Dick Morris is orchestrating Huckabee’s rise to pit him against Hillary in an effort to secure the POTUS for her highness?
Underhanded back-stabbing seems right in line for Dick Morris – just not sure if anyone was connecting the dots in this manner
December 8th, 2007 at 8:55 am
Flashback – Huckabee’s campaign seems to have changed it’s sites, but using the same playbook:
Anti-Catholic Bigotry? http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/07/anti-catholic-b.html
July 31, 2007 6:13 PM
We’ve already seen allegations of anti-Mormon bigotry in this campaign … now come charges of anti-Catholic bias.
This fight is between the presidential campaign of Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, who converted to Catholicism, and the campaign of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
According to the Catholic League, a letter “is being circulated among evangelicals in Iowa asking them not to split the Christian vote between former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback; they are urged to vote for Huckabee, an evangelical, over Brownback, a Roman Catholic.”
The letter was written by Pastor Tim Rude of Walnut Creek Community Church in Windsor Heights, Iowa. A Huckabee volunteer.
He writes that “Huckabee is an evangelical. He has not learned how to speak to evangelicals; i.e. Bush 41 & 43. He is one of us. I know Senator Brownback converted to Roman Catholicism in 2002. Frankly, as a recovering Catholic myself, that is all I need to know about his discernment when compared to the Governor’s. I don’t if this fact is widely known among evangelicals who are supporting Brownback.”
Says the Brownback campaign: “Governor Huckabee should apologize and denounce this prejudiced whisper campaign,” says Brownback’s Iowa communications director John Rankin. “Political campaigns should focus on the issues that Americans care about, not make bigoted slurs aimed at a person’s faith and character.
We are waiting for a response from the Huckabee campaign
December 8th, 2007 at 9:05 am
This comment section is another fine example for the argument that Americans of all political stripes should swear noisily at any politician arguing that his/her religious faith explains why s/he is the right candidate. Yes, I’d really like to hear a lot more voters cursing such a candidate.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:27 am
“Fred Thompson has decided to take his campaign and virtually all of its resources to Iowa in an all-or-nothing attempt to register a strong showing in the caucuses here on January 3. “We’re getting ready to make this not only our second home, but our first home,” he told a small gathering of supporters at the Polk County Convention Center on Friday night.”
Fred Thompson moves to Iowa
December 8th, 2007 at 9:30 am
I have to say, I think Mike Huckabee’s going to be our next president. I despise his policies, his priorities, his class-warfare, his utter ignorance on foreign policy, etc. But, whenever I watch him speak, I feel an inexplicable desire to vote for him. You can’t buy that sort of thing. It’s invaluable. And I think it’s probably enough to overcome his awful policies, awful record, and awful rhetoric.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Matt,
Oh, not you too! Please don’t even say such things.
That is just too scary. Whenever I hear him speak,
I just want to throw up.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Go Fred! Steal some of Huckabee’s support. Most of us are willing to unite behind you, if it comes to that.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:41 am
The sad thing about Huckabee, is he’s the most genuinely skilled politician I’ve ever seen. Better then Clinton. Better then Reagan. And I feel this overwhelming sense of waste; what could we have done with a conservative with Huckabee’s abilities? What sort of lasting movement could we have created?
December 8th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Huckabee might just get the nomination, but he can’t beat Obama or Hillary.
Huckabee will get the GOP base and could even peel away some socially conservative democrats, but where does he expand his reach?
Can he carry New Mexico, Colorado, and/or Arizona? Recently polling shows hispanics are moving to the dems. Yes, he has been liberal on illegal immigration but in order to get the GOP nomination he will have to get a lot tougher.
Can he carry catholic PA? He was accused of anti-catholic bias earlier in the campaign.
Can he carry war defense hawks with no foreign policy credentials? He loses these voters to Hillary and probably splits with Obama.
Is being a white male enough against a woman and a biracial guy with an African name? To be blunt, Hillary and Obama are closer to white elites than Huckabee. Sure, Huckabee gets a lot of white southerners and some westerners, but Oregon, Wash, Wisc, CA, NH, and maybe even Utah will go to the dems.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:01 am
I’m open to Huckabee, unlike Romney and Paul. Matthew has it right, I think, that Huck has a raw, natural talent for politics.
Some of you are really going all out to knee-cap Huck at this stage, which is kind of humorous. While it’s fine to look for things to trash in any candidate’s personal and political history, it does become more destructive than enlightening at some point.
What keeps me open to Huckabee is not so much his past, where many weak spots can be accounted for, but what sort of vision he offers. My impression is that Mike’s firm on SoCon issues that matter less to me, but malleable on FiCon issues, on which he has sounded encouraging on occasion, but inconsistently. Since he’s soft on fiscal conservatism and smaller government, the broader party should have a good bit of influence over his platform if he gets the nomination.
We tend to forget that this is all about our nation’s future, not the details of each candidate’s past.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:24 am
#253 Matt, Don’t go to the dark side. When I hear Huckabee talk I get sick. He reminds me too much of Bubba Clinton. Come back Matthew, come back to us.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Huckabee is not saying anything negative about anybody’s religion. Not Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Muslims,
not anyones. That is what has the MSM so frustrated right now and why they continue to try and make it like he has said something about Mormons. When asked about anyone else’s religion he simply says, “I can’t speak for someone else’s faith only my own. I can only tell you what I believe, and how my faith affects me.” now you please explain how that is running a negative or tacit campaign against some one? Also, he did say that he didn’t agree with Pastor Rude’s comments, and the candidate can’t be expected to control every supporters comments or apologize for them all when they disagree. My question is, how come nobody from the Romney campaign is jumping all over Bob Jones the III, he has blasted mormons more than anyone, I guess it is ok to blast Romney for being a Mormon and call him a member of a cult and so on as long as you support him? He also has blasted catholics repeatedly how come no one is demanding an apology from Mitt on that? This is completely ridiculous to say Huckabee is being nasty when in fact he has done nothing but try to keep it from being about religion.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:26 am
#257 Huckabee will not get the GOP base…he will get the evangelical base. I don’t see any ficon voting for him.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Feltcher,
He’d go after Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania, all states with sympathy towards protectionism, and varying levels of acceptance for social conservatism (Pennsylvania and Ohio in particular). And I think he has an excellent chance of carrying at least two of four, possibly all 4. And no, Utah will not go to the Dems. Not even if Huckabee openly calls Mormons cultists (though I think that’d likely end his campaign before he got a chance to fight in the general).
December 8th, 2007 at 10:30 am
I think it is a stretch to say that Utah would go for him. Way too many interested in boarder security and taxes to get behind the Huck.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Erik,
Oh don’t worry, I’m not going to vote for Huckabee. In a primary or a general. I’m just expressing the feeling I have when watching him speak; and it’s a very positive feeling. Of course I soon wake up, and realize that what he’s just said could have come from Karl Marx, John Edwards, or Williams Jennings Bryan. But, I’m skeptical that the general public will see this.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:31 am
…#263 alot of people in Utah would just stay home if that were the race.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:32 am
…#262 alot of people in Utah would just stay home if that were the race.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Erik,
I don’t think you help your case, by veering off towards the laughable. Any Republican wins Utah. I don’t care if they promise to annex Mexico, so that we have people to do the jobs Americans won’t do. I don’t care if they promise to withdraw all of our military forces to the Gallapagos Islands, so that we can observe finches more carefully. Utah is the reddest state in the union. And Huckabee won’t lose all 50 states, even under the most nightmarish scenario for Republicans.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:55 am
The best way to judge how Huckabee will do is to remember how Pat Buchanan performed. Buchanan also ran on a economic populist, socially conservative platform. But Huckabee injects way more religion, and rejects evolution. I can see ads using the Geico cavemen, “Running for president. So easy, a caveman can do it.” I like Huckabee, but he represents a look backwards when most people, particularly those in Oregon, Wash, FL, and elsewhere are looking forward, embracing technology and science.
As to Utah, mormons are not going to vote for a guy who they will rightly believe relegated their faith to a cult. I suspect the Prophet will say as much.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:15 am
The prophet never says anything about politics, especially as it relates to candidates seeking political office.
Huck could denounce Mormons as the most evil cult in the world, and the prophet wouldn’t even mention it.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:15 am
I agree with Matt Miller that Huck is electable. Likability is absolutely huge and the vast millions of unaffiliated tend to vote on it.
Also, millions of blue-collar/union Democrats would vote for Huck on protectionist/class-warfare issues and social conservatism.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:16 am
And while millions of economic/libertarian conservatives would vote against Huck, they would probably be offset by the two groups I mentioned in #270.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Basically,
We have a choice. We can either unite behind a party unifier like Romney, Thompson, etc. or we can suffer through the nightmare that Huckabee would bring.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:34 am
I should have been clearer. I don’t think the prophet would address politics specifically. But one can say that the faith is under attack and that the faithful are called to protect and defend. I see nothing wrong or political about that.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Feltcher, I assure you that unless the Government starts messing with affairs of the Church (confiscating land, putting Mormon’s in Concentration Camps) the Church will never say that their ‘faith is under attack’ or that anybody is ‘called to protect and defend.’
Nauvoo had the largest Army in Illinois with Joseph Smith as a its general in 1844. Regardless of this fact, Joseph Smith went to turn himself in, was Murdered, the Mormon people volunterilly disarmed themselves, and were forced at gunpoint to leave Illinois.
It would take serious danger to the life and limb of the members before the Church started organizing paramilitary or political groups to “protect and defend” the Church.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
James Boulder#230
What GOOD is Huckabee saying about other faiths?
As for Bob Jones, I have little problem with him saying Mormons, SDAs, JWs, Catholics, or anyone else are cults. I certainly disagree with him, but since that is his belief, he has a God-given right to it. I also disagree with him if and when he states that certain religions aren’t Christian, but again that is his God-given right. He also has the right to try to persuade others of his belief. But I would have a problem if he started saying, “Vote for this guy because he is Christian”, or “Don’t vote for this other guy because he is not”. That becomes identity politics, and that is where I draw the line.
Like it or not, Huckabee is practicing identity politics. Us verses them. The poor versus the rich. The Christian versus the non-Christian. He is emphasizing what divides, not what unites. And THAT is what worries me the most about him.
Compare that with what Romney said the other day. The President is the President of all Americans, not just one group.
December 8th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
We have a choice. We can either unite behind a party unifier like Romney, Thompson, etc. or we can suffer through the nightmare that Huckabee would bring.
By definition, if Huckabee convincingly wins the party nomination, then he is the party unifier, not Romney, not Thompson, not Rudy.
December 8th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
WiseGuy,
Huckabee would cause a mass exodus from the party a la 1912 when Taft was nominated instead of Theodore Roosevelt. We might as well give another 70 years to the Democrats because the Republican Evangelicals are too concerned with electing somebody like themselves than somebody who would actually do a good job.
I can imagine Huckabee sitting down with Putin: “you know there was once a man who sold dog food.” I think Putin would just start slapping Huckabee around for being so cheesy. I try to imagine what a Huckabee/Ahmadinajad meeting would look like, but every time I make any progress, I just get sick to my stomach.
December 14th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
I was at the NH renewal project – the organizers stated Huckabee has been involved in these meetings for the past 15 years. The endorsed no candidate – they particularly stated they were endorsing no one but Jesus Christ (although I think He’ll have to be a “write in”).