For those of you closely watching the 2008 election, it is impossible to miss the rise in the polls of Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister. Huckabee will probably win the Iowa caucuses, and just might win in South Carolina as well. I still predict the Mitt Romney will win New Hampshire, Michigan and Nevada (and Giuliani will win Florida, New York and New Jersey), but Huckabee is eating into the alternative-to-Giuliani wing of the party and confusing things mightily.
From the perspective of this conservative Mormon, it does not help things that Huckabee is not a conservative and that he is succeeding with thinly-veiled anti-Mormonism.
Let’s first deal with his anti-Mormonism. As this article details, Huckabee was asked on Sunday if Romney is a Christian, and his answer was to avoid answering. This was Huckabee’s opportunity to do what McCain and Giuliani have done, which is to basically say that religion should not be an issue in the campaign. Instead, Huckabee stoked the fires of anti-Mormonism by saying you would have to ask Romney if he is a Christian. Strike one.
Take a close look at this Iowa commercial put out by the Huckabee campaign. It is striking to me that Huckabee’s emphasis is on faith and his being a “Christian leader.” As Fred Barnes points out, this is unprecedented in modern campaigning. Pat Robertson campaigned as a conservative first and a Christian leader second, and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton campaigned based on beings liberals first and religious leaders second. But for Huckabee, the single most important issue in Iowa in November 2007 is that he is a “Christian leader” driven by his faith.
It is clear to me that this appeal involves subtle anti-Mormonism. Huckabee and Romney are both trying appeal to Christian conservatives, who hold a preponderence of influence in the Iowa caucuses. Mitt is appealing to them based on his agreement with them on the issues — Huckabee is appealing to them based on agreeing with their religion. Listen to how he words it in this audio bite. His campaign is intended to drive home the fact that he is a traditional Christian and Romney is not. This is why he refused to say Romney is a Christian in Sunday’s interview. Strike two for Huckabee.
There are several other worrisome signs for Huckabee. One is his campaign’s acceptance of push-polling in Iowa. The other is some rumblings in the Brownback campaign about anti-Catholic slurs by Huckabee supporters. For me, this adds up to strike three for Huckabee, whose campaign crosses the line into the arena of whipping up religious prejudice.
It is important to note that Huckabee is not a conservative. He raised taxes again and again in Arkansas. He is against free trade. He is a smooth-talking economic populist, a social conservative Lou Dobbs who has never learned the primary lesson of the 2006 elections, which is that voters want lower taxes and less government, not the “compassionate conservatism” of President Bush, which increased the role of the federal government. And don’t get me started on foreign policy, where Huckabee is the biggest light-weight of all of the Republicans.
Anybody who wants to learn more about Huckabee (and his liberal bona fides) should check out this web page and this article.
Huckabee is certain to tear apart the conservative coalition that is needed to keep Hillary out of the White House. Business-oriented Republicans will never vote for him. Conservatives for whom national defense is important will reject his lack of experience and knowledge. His populism will scare many independents as well. The happiest person of all about the rise of Huckabee is Hillary.
Despite the fact that I am a social conservative, Giuliani is a notably better candidate than Huckabee. And I am not enthusiastic about Giuliani either. But the most distressing thing in all of this is that Huckabee’s campaign in Iowa is based on appealing to religious intolerance. We should all decry that.
It’s hardly surprising. Remember Ted Kennedy’s campaign against Romney. Yes Kennedy rejected some of the overt anti-Mormon stuff but you could tell his campaign benefitted tremendously from it.
I’m astonished at how quickly Huckabee has seemed to gain popularity. If Huckabee were smart(and a little more of a scumbag), he’d come right out and say Romney isn’t a real Christian. He’d only lose the few Mormons that were going to vote for him, and probably get every single “Mormons area cult” vote. I’m guessing in some of those southern states the latter outweighs the former by a bunch.
I don’t want to blame the victim here, but don’t you think Romney should have given the “religion” speech months ago instead of waiting for Huckabee to gain ground? Instead of cowering and trying to make himself out to be exactly like the Evangelicals, he should be addressing exactly why he is Christian, and how that Christian faith combined with his other attributes will help him be a great President.
Not that I believe he will be a great President, but avoiding this issue like he has mystifies me. It doesn’t matter that religion shouldn’t be part of this, Romney makes it part of the campaign in every speech by trying to appeal to the Christian Right, and he has to take the bad side of that with the good.
Happily I don’t have to worry about this issue by voting for those Godless heathens on the Democratic side 😉
Hillary or Obama would crush Huckabee. Maybe that’s why Huckabee is getting talked up in the media.
Geoff B., I think it might be wise to tone down the persection complex rhetoric a notch or two. Your logic seems careless at best, and downright hypocritical at worst.
On the one hand, Mormons always complain about being denied the title of “Christian” when they are so adamant that they are. Mormons want to be the ones who declare whether they are Christian or not. So how do you react when someone (in this case, Huckabee) defers answering the question for a Mormon and instead explains that Romney should be the one to declare whether or not he’s Christian? You accuse Huckabee or thinky-veiled anti-Mormonism.
I watched the video. Romney wasn’t mentioned. C’mon. This isn’t Missouri in 1838. Not everyone is out to “get us.” Lastly, how can you trash on Huckabee for not consistently having the most conservative record, when neither Romney nor Guliani does either.
Ah, so you don’t believe people actually support Huckabee, but instead the LIBERAL MEDIA is propping him up knowing the Democrats can beat him?
Yeash.
jjohnsen, I don’t believe popular support and media support are mutually exclusive. I think Condor has a point.
Patrick, your #4 merits a response. Huckabee had an opportunity when asked that to say something like, “look, I want to make this very clear: according to my understanding, Mormons call themselves Christians. It’s not my role to say who is and isn’t a Christian, but I am opposed to religious intolerance, and I will not be a party to that. It is un-American.” Giuliani and McCain have both said similar things. Huckabee could not because his campaign is based on being the guy who is “not Mormon.”
I would like you to name for me another prominent candidate in the last 60 years who has run his campaign entirely on being a “Christian leader.” Pat Robertson, who is a Christian leader, did not do this. He mentioned his positions on the issues first. Jimmy Carter, who is a Christian leader, did not do this either, nor did Jesse Jackson, nor Al Sharpton. There is a huge difference between saying, “Christ is my favorite philosopher because he changed my life” (George W. Bush) and saying that the most important thing about you is the fact that you are a “Christian leader” and concentrating almost exclusively on your faith.
I agree not everyone is out to get us, and the rhetoric is much softer than it could be, but it is there, and the voters in Iowa (the target audience) understand exactly the message Huckabee is trying to get across.
As for being a conservative, Romney’s record on economic policy is notably and undeniably more conservative than Huckabee’s. He favors free trade and Huckabee does not. I can tell you that Republican business leaders, an important part of the party, completely reject somebody like Huckabee because of his populism. This is a bottom line issue for Republicans and something that the president has a huge ability to affect. The president is not the primary arbiter of social issues — the Supreme Court is today — but he clearly sets the economic agenda. Having a liberal like Huckabee in charge of economic policy would be a huge disaster.
Regarding #3 and #5, the main reason Huckabee is being talked up in the media is that he is leading in Iowa right now and surging elsewhere. If Tancredo were leading Iowa right now and surging elsewhere, he would get a lot more media attention as well. However, it is worth pointing out that the media is a lot more sympathetic to Huckabee than they would be to Tancredo because he is A)a more likeable guy and B)he is a liberal on economic policy and therefore somebody the media can like because he’s not too much of an “extremist.” Having been a journalist myself for several years, I don’t think the majority of journalists say, “let’s give Huckabee more attention because Hillary and Obama would crush him.” That is simply not the way journalists think. However, I do think they are more likely to be sympathetic to Huckabee because they can describe him as a “moderate” on economic policy.
I didn’t claim that any other presidential candidate ran his campaign on being a “Christian leader.” But does Huckabee doing so make him anti-Mormon? I would argue that the answer is “no.”
What message is it that the voters in Iowa are getting? That Huckabee is an up-front (perhaps overly up front) Christian? Or that Mitt Romney is evil? I would guess the former (though I’m sure you’ll disagree).
Regarding each candidate’s “conservatism”, I would argue that “conservative” (and “liberal”) is an ever-changing and self-defined label. I can tell you that Republican Christians, an important part of the party, seem to support somebody like Huckabee because of his religion.
Question: suppose Huckabee won the nomination. With his anti-Mormon behavior, would he still get Utah’s votes? Would Utahns pick Hillary over Huckabee? (I doubt it.) Would they pick Obama over Huckabee? (Maybe?) Would the loss of Utah’s electorates decide the election? (I can’t do the math.)
What are your thoughts?
Brian J., what “anti-Mormon behavior”?
BrianJ, my guess is that Utah and Idaho Republicans would pick Larry Craig, even post-“wide stance,” over Hillary and/or Obama. Huckabee will not lose those few electoral votes.
Huckabee will lose votes in key places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida because of his liberal economic policies. He has no chance of beating Hillary or Obama in those states, and those are the key states in the election. Huckabee will win the South and places like Kansas and Nebraska and Wyoming. He will win Utah and Idaho and perhaps Alaska. But he would lose the rest of the country, and if you do the math, it’s a landslide for Hillary or Obama.
Patrick, the point is one of timing and tone. If Huckabee’s commercial had said, “I’ve always been a conservative on economic policy. I favor continuing the fight against Jihad. And by the way, I am a Christian leader who is serious about his faith,” I would have no problem with it. Read the Fred Barnes article I linked. He is a much better political analyst than either or us, and he has a problem with Huckabee’s timing and tone.
How I long for the days when Pat Paulsen was a presidential candidate. Now there was a man I could get behind without hesitation or reservation!! 🙂
So the timing makes him anti-Mormon? I can see the argument that the timing is demonstrable evidence that he is trying to establish himself as the Christian candidate, and might be insinuating that Romney is not Christian. I guess if you label people who think Baptists are more genuinely Christian than Mormons as “anti-Mormon”, then you might have a valid point. I, however, don’t feel that way, and thus disagree with your argument.
Dude, timing and tone are everything in politics. People who don’t vote for somebody because they are Mormon are anti-Mormon, or at least anti-Mormon with regard to politics, which is the subject we are discussing.
It definitely shows a lack of courage on Huck’s part to be waffling this one. Between that and his proposed tax plan . . . yeah, can’t really see myself going for him if the Speech falls flat.
No, him being anti-Mormon makes him anti-Mormon.
Seriously, one of our hometown radio guys just endorsed the Huckster. He’s a conservative Mormon and somebody I respect a lot, so I started checking Huckabee out, thinking I’d probably like him too. Not so. The guy certainly sounds hostile to Mormonism- not so much in what he says but in how he says it.
he is a liberal on economic policy
If you are referring to tax increases, I call it “balancing the budget.” If that is liberal, good for him. On the other hand, he favors a national sales tax, which is anything but liberal.
If you are referring to his protectionism, I acknowledge that way too many Democrats are following that path, but historically, free trade has been the liberal position.
If you are referring to his relatively enlightened position on immigration, I happily agree with your “liberal” label.
Back to the original post, somebody should ask him whether Billy Graham is a Christian. Does anybody imagine the answer would be “Billy Graham has to answer that. … It’s not for me to determine what somebody else’s faith is.â€?
I can’t find the article anymore, but I remember reading a theory that conservative Christians would rather lose with Huckabee than forever lose the pro-life card by supporting Romney/Giuliani and that in 2012, they could return with “one of their own” as a viable alternative (I’m not judging the soundness of the strategy, just that it was out there as a theory).
Of course, we don’t have an anti-Mormon litmus test in our constitution, right? So it’s entirely plausible that tossman’s local radio host might like Huckabee, because he’s not using religion (or anti-religion) as a litmus test.
To his credit, Huckabee was asked about Mitt’s religion today, and it appears (depending on the context and tone) that his answers were appropriate:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TAPTSG0&show_article=1
queuno, I think Huckabee would be a better president than any of the Dem candidates and half of the GOP candidates. I use electability as a litmus test, not religion. That doesn’t make Huckabee not anti-Mormon, nor does it mean I have to like him.
Last Lemming, re: your #18, it is simply impossible for a candidate to win today with the record on taxes that Huckabee has. You can also cut spending to balance the budget, and that’s not what Huckabee did. Please visit the web sites I link in the original article. The record will show that Huckabee has a horrible tax-and-spend record in Arkansas. Hillary will make mincemeat of that record if Huckabee is the Republican candidate (which may be what you want, but certainly is not what I want).
You’ll notice that I don’t criticize Huckabee on immigration because he has one of the more sensible records among the Republicans on that issue, so we agree there. As for the national sales tax, that is a complete non-starter, and he knows it has no chance of passing, so it’s a throw-away position that’s easy for him to take.
Thanks for the clarification, tossman. I know quite a few LDS people who wouldn’t vote for anti-Mormon, under any circumstances.
Huckabee is NO conservative:
Mike Huckabee was regarded by fellow Republican governors as a compulsive tax increaser and spender. He increased the Arkansas tax burden by 47 percent, boosting the levies on gasoline and cigarettes. The Arkansas Leader.com editorialized that Mike Huckabee raised more taxes in 10 years in office than Bill Clinton did in his 12 years.
The Arkansas Ethics Commission held proceedings 20 times on the former governor. During his tenure, Huckabee accepted 314 gifts valued overall at more than $150,000, according to documents filed with the Arkansas secretary of state’s office. (He accepted 187 gifts in his first three years as governor but was not required to report their value.)
Two months after taking office, Huckabee stunned the state by saying he questioned rapist Wayne DuMond’s guilt and that it was his intention to free the rapist, DuMond murdered a women in Illinois after Huckabee set him free
Huckabee battled conservatives within his own party who were pushing for stricter state-level immigration measures, such as:.
– proof of legal status when applying for state services that aren’t federally mandated
– proof of citizenship when registering to vote
– Huckabee failed in his effort to make children of illegal immigrants eligible for state-funded scholarships and in-state tuition to Arkansas colleges.
Does Huckabee subscribe to his spiritual advisor Timothy LaHay’s views of the Rapture, United Nations, and a Palestinian state?â€
Mike fails on so many levels as a true conservative.
Looks like Huckabee is facing his own religious test – from the creationists… http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071205/D8TAUN3O4.html
I have evangelical friends who consider a belief in creationism to be an essential part of being Christian, but I think someone who says Creationism should be taught in the schools would turn off a lot of the country.
WillF, that’s another example of why Huckabee is unelectable in the general election.
Can anybody explain how religion came to be such a big part of modern presidential campaigns?
We got Hillary and Obama out preaching in churches. Obama even spoke at his denominations “general conference”.
religion seems to be a even larger part of the repub primary.
When did this all start? What is driving it?
Patrick, #10: I shouldn’t have written “anti-Mormon.” I was writing quickly from work during a brief break and was just trying to get the question out, without worrying about the exact wording. Do I think Huckabee is trying to utilize a “Mormons aren’t really Christian” stance? Yes. Do I think that is fair and honest treatment/portrayal of Mormons? No. Is that in some sense anti-Mormon behavior? Yes.
Geoff: thanks for the reply. That makes sense.
Re 28
It was a huge part of the 1796 and 1800 campaigns, too, when Jefferson was accused by the Federalists of being anti-religion.
Here, for example, is one bit of Federalist electioneering from 1800:
THE GRAND QUESTION STATED.
At the present solemn and momentous epoch,
the only question to be asked by every American
laying his hand on his heart, is
Shall I continue allegiance to
GOD–AND A RELIGIOUS PRESIDENT [John Adams]
Or impiously declare for
JEFFERSON–AND NO GOD!!!
It didn’t start with Jimmy Carter, or Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.
Mark B, but it is worth pointing out that religion is a bigger part of politics now than it was through most of the 20th century. FDR was not overtly religious, nor were Ike, Nixon, Ford, LBJ or Truman. Jimmy Carter used religion to prove he would be honest compared to Nixon/Ford. The Moral Majority in the 1980s (which helped RR get elected) continued the trend started by Carter. Religion was not a big issue for the first Bush, but it was for Clinton and the second Bush.
But with all of that, NONE of these candidates ever made religious appeals like Huckabee is making, which is basically a blatant plea for evangelicals to vote for him instead of the Mormon. That is what is astonishing.
Go Ron Paul!
Seriously, on the Republican side, is there a candidate out of all of them that really fits the rigid, ideologically pure litmus tests that conservatives want out of their candidates?
Dan, is there a candidate that fits your rigid, ideologically pure litmus tests as a Democrat?
Um, I don’t have rigid, ideologically pure litmus tests, Tossman. 🙂
Of course, you’re a Democrat. No rigid ideological agendas there. The party of honesty and no litmus tests at all. My bad.
C’mon guys, settle down. To answer Dan’s question on #32, I proudly support Romney because he comes closest to my personal litmus tests. Everybody has litmus tests for candidates — to claim you don’t is silly. Of course you’re going to choose a candidate based on 1)their positions on the issues 2)electability 3)your perception of their probity/integrity.
I disagree with Romney on immigration but agree with him on just about everything else. I also think he is the most honest and most electable Republican. I disagree with Giuliani on social issues but agree with him generally on foreign and economic policy. I disagree with Huckabee strongly on economic policy, he does not have a foreign policy and he appears to be appealing to anti-Mormonism. Huckabee has many, many strikes against him.
But to answer Dan’s bigger question, if Huckabee knocks Romney out of the race, and the perception is that Romney lost because of anti-Mormonism, you would be correct that Romney apparently failed in only one area: he is not acceptable because of his religion. That would be a horrible thing for our republic.
I do have a few litmus tests, of course, as anyone has. But I abhor “loyalty tests” that I’ve seen on the Republican side, whether you’re loyal enough to attend a Bush speech to blackballing people for daring to consider supporting a candidate of the other party, as is found in the Republican party in both Virginia and Kansas. Thankfully Virginian Republicans backed down their loyalty test.
Aside from getting out of Iraq and obliterating torture, there is nothing else I really care about from a candidate. Most everybody out there (outside of someone like Tancredo or Giuliani) should govern actually fairly well. I am a moderate. I considered strongly John McCain in 2000. Unfortunately Republicans went with the extremist, and I’ve been against him every single day of his unfortunate reign.
so yeah, I really don’t have an ideological agenda.
Geoff
You’ll get no disagreement from me on the trends in religion and presidential politics in the past century.
My point in raising the Jefferson issue was to show that the ‘Era of Good Feelings’ on religion in politics was a mostly 20th century phenomenon, but that it had not always been so.
Perhaps more that ‘Era of Good Feelings’ we could call it the ‘Era of No Feelings’–whereas the candidates were nominally religious (no atheists there), they were only nominally religious, and nothing more. Jimmy Carter was the first president in my lifetime who acted as if he took his religion seriously.
Nixon’s Quakerism did result in an amusing quip in the Mad Magazine Primer on Religion, which must have been published about 1970.
It went sort of like this (37 years of memory later)
There are 643,233 Quakers in the United States.
Quakers believe in peace and love, and in being honest and kind to their fellowman.
Richard Nixon is a Quaker.
Make that 643,323 Quakers in the United States.
Huckabee has surprised me by his recent rise. I’m not impressed by either his position as a Baptist minister or Romney’s faith background. Though I think their faiths are important as a part of who each one is, and I wouldn’t want someone who considers themselves something else first and then adherents of a particular faith, I am a little tired of hearing about it on the news. There are real issues about which all the candidates need to explain and defend their true views. Whether they believe in a 6-day-creation or the Book of Mormon takes a backseat, in my opinion, to what they plan to do about immigration, the free market and Iraq.
Geoff
The other day I went around my neighborhood, asking neighbors to sign for my friend to be a TN delegate for Mitt, most everyone did, and I recieved good responses. I only had one lady turn up her nose and say “isn’t he the MORMON?!?” I laughed and she realized I must be one too. Anyway she would not sign, and I smiled and told her thank you anyways. I walked away shaking my head, not because she said no (it’s a free country) but because she was so hateful and rude.
I get really frustrated sometimes, but then I remember that I have a loving Heavenly Father, and I can go to Him in prayer. So that is what I have been doing, I pray for Mitt and I pray for the American people, that they will soften their hearts! Oh the power of prayer! 🙂
For what it’s worth, I am involved in the Romney campaign in FL, and none of the main organizers are Mormon. I went to a volunteer event , and there were 100 people there — only two Mormons. That’s about the percentage we have nationally, so it’s representative. Lots of conservative Catholics and Protestants who love Mitt. That made me feel better.
Let us assume for a moment that Mike Huckabee gets nominated by the Republican Party for the presidency. I know it is a bold assumption. Let us examine his chances of his winning the general election without Mormon votes or even a large segment of the Mormons staying home. Given current American voting trends and demographics, he would have no chance. If the Huckster is nominated, the swing states of Nevada (about 10% Mormon), Oregon (4%) and New Mexico (4%) will swing to the Democrats. Remember that President Bush lost Oregon by a couple thousand votes in 2000; New Mexico by a few hundred and picked it up in 2004 by an equally slim margin. Besides losing swing states in 2008, Republicans could also lose solidly red states if they embrace soft bigot Huckabee for president. What would losing Idaho (15%), Utah (1,800,000 Mormons), and Arizona (6%) (you don’t hear McCain bashing Mormons, do you? in fact he’s done just the opposite) do for Republican hopes? Defections of Mormons in Colorado (130,000) and California (750,000) might cost a few Republican congressional seats or a senate seat along the way if Huckabee’s coattails were in play. Losing the most-solidly Republican block in the country, the Mormons, or even putting it in play, could turn red states purple or even blue in 2008.
Mormons are tolerant folks, but they one’s I know don’t tolerate anti-Mormon hostility, especially the bigotry that has been demonstrated by Huckabee’s supporters and, by extension Huckabee, for Huckabee’s failure to call them on it. So, when all of these Mormons decide that they are not going to tolerate an anti-Mormon bigot in the White House, will Mormons in those states vote for a third party or just stay home? Both options are being openly discussed in Mormon circles I am a part of. How could you vote for someone who is completely intolerant of your faith? Mormons have marched along supporting the candidates of the evangelical right for decades (who voted more reliably for Bush than Mormons? No one not even evangelicals.) and this Mormon and many others he happens to be talking to are ready to leave the party if Huckabee is nominated or his “under-the-radar” (yet well known) anti-Mormon campaign continues to be tolerated by the party.
Think of Utah, Nevada and Arizona turning blue? Impossible? Not if an anti-Mormon is on the Republican ticket. People say Romney can’t win without evangelicals, well, Huckabee can’t win without Mormons. It’s a two-way street. No Republican will win 2008 without us — the blue and red divide is still so stark that Republicans can’t afford to lose even one or two Western states that Bush won….
Before anyone discounts the idea of blue Mormons, consider that Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate is, a Mormon, who, despite being a Democrat, has enjoyed taking a good chunk of the typically Republican Mormon vote in Nevada. More telling is that Utah County, the home of BYU a gravity center of Mormon and Republican activity in Utah had a Democrat representing it in Congress for much of the 1990s — why? The Republican Party nominated bad candidates and the Democrat was a decent guy. Having been a part of the Mormon community in Utah, Washington, Nevada and elsewher, I can tell you that anti-Mormon plays will not go over well with many people. If only 1/3 of the Mormon vote that usually turns out for Republicans stays home in November, a Democrat will be assured victory in New Mexico, Arizona, Oregon and Nevada. I don’t think electoral math works for any R at that point.
We should work with people of all faiths (or no faith at all) to build up our country but only if they will work with us, too. I can’t see a Mormon supporting Huckabee any more than I could see Jesse Jackson supporting David Duke — why? Huckabee is not working with us; he is against us. Some may say he is only against Romney. That’s not true. Attacking or commenting on Romney’s positions, experience, etc. are open game. Running an anti-Mormon attack campaign, a clear strain of covert bigotry represented by Huckabee must not be rewarded. He could put an end to it but chooses not to.
Just say no to the Huckster. I don’t care if you go for Romney, Giuliani, McCain, Thompson or even a Democrat…. Unless Huckabee comes clean and stops the underground anti-Mormon campaign, he needs to go down. Get the message out! If Huckabee is the Republican nominee, the word in the Mormon segment of Republican voters is that they will stay home or maybe even support a third party candidate!
TC, I don’t agree with everything you write here, but I still think it needed saying. I hope Huckabee’s campaign is listening. Every successful candidate since McKinley has courted the Mormon vote. He cannot win without some Mormon support.
Having said that, I will still support the Republican candidate — even if it is Huckabee, who I think is tied with Tancredo for the worst Republican running for president — rather than Hillary or Obama. This is not a litmus test issue — I agree with Huckabee on more issues than I agree with Hillary or Obama. It’s really that simple.
TC,
Mormons in strong Mormon populations like Utah and Idaho will, unless directed by some leader, continue to vote for the Republican nominee, no matter how rabidly anti-Mormon he is, because in their eyes, the anti-Mormon bigot is better than the commie, terrorist-loving librul.
I appreciate the idea that many Mormons will continue to vote R even if the Huckster is nominated. If he doesn’t do something to turn his camp’s campaign around, I believe he will lose enough Mormon support to lose in a few key states. I don’t make being Mormon or even pro-Mormon a litmus test but I do make being someone who does not attack religious beliefs as a manner of campaigning a litmus test. When a campaign is centered around attacks against my beliefs, then that campaign won’t get my support.
I worked for candidates who are Mormon and not Mormon in various western states for about 15 years. I was impressed with, and worked for, many evangelical Christian candidates. They tended to share values with Mormons. Too many times, I saw Mormons go out to support evangelicals, only to get stabbed in the back when they ran for office themselves with under-the-radar anti-Mormon campaigns.
The problem Huckabites have now is that they are not only not courting the Mormon vote, they are courting and stirring up the anti-Mormon vote. I and politically powerful Mormon Republicans (and some of our non-Mormon party affiliates) I have wired into in Oregon, Washington, Nevada and New Mexico are prepared to make life very difficult for Huckabee if he tries to come back and win votes there in 2008. Open schisms in the party are in the offing in at least 3 states. One state I know of is geting ready for a party implosion. I think the party needs to think about that.
Dan, Mormons who are not in Idaho or Utah, the ones in swing states are a very tight group and we can take them out from under the Republican banner if Huckabee is nominated. They are very insular and easy to find. I usually don’t like to give tips to Democrats but my party loyalty only goes so far. Just like many people speculated that a chunk of evangelicals would stay home if Romney is nominated, I will encourage Mormons to stay home or vote against him. Push polling Mormons away from the polls with a little truth about Huckabite anti-Mormonism will almost surely make New Mexico and Nevada blue in 2008.
Geoff B, if you are Mormon, you can support a Boggs-lite candidate if you like. I think it is time that the Mormons stop being taken for granted by the Republican party. I view this as our moment to either stand up for ourselves. I may be a loyal Republican but I am not someone who will vote for bigotry, especially bigotry against myself. I hope you would repsect yourself enough to make the same stand.
More subtle anti-Mormonism from Huckabee: he attended a Baptist anti-Mormon meeting in 1998 in which anti-Mormon books were handed out to reporters:
http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/jonesboro/afhuckabee08.asp
If Romney is not nominated it will be because of religious bigotry. If this happens, then the evangelical right will get what they deserve… four years of Hillary or Obama.
Re: TC in #45, I still think even a bigot like Huckabee would be a better president than Hillary or Obama. But you make some good points, and depending on what happens from now until Nov. 2008, I could change my mind.
Huckabee’s religious views are not as likely to affect my life as his political views are. Politically, he’s still closer to me than anybody on the Dem side. When it comes to politics, a candidate’s views on foreign policy and national security issues trump his religious prejudices any day.
I’m still willing to give Huckabee the benefit of the doubt on all this. By virtue of his position as a minister in an SBC-affiliated church, it would have been hard for him not to have come across “anti” material or sentiments. Given that, he has been very restrained with Brother Romney and their other opponents. Calling himself a “Christian leader” is just part of his vocabulary. If he wanted to be mean he could say Romney isn’t a Christian because of the church he belongs to, and what it teaches. He hasn’t said anything like that – yet.
This is interesting from the Drudge Report: the DNC has, according to Drudge, decided not to criticize Huckabee because they believe he will be the easiest candidate to beat in the general election. The candidate the DNC criticizes the most? Romney.
http://drudgereport.com/flashhu.htm
Conversely,
which Democrat does the RNC criticize the most? Hillary. Does that mean that the RNC thinks she’s the candidate to beat? Does that mean the RNC fears her candidacy the most?
I think just about everybody in the Republican party thinks Hillary will pull it out. She has been the leader in the race since Kerry lost in 2004. As to whether Republicans fear her as a candidate, I think there are mixed feelings. On the one hand, he is a formidable campaigner and has a great organization. On the other, she has very high negatives. But you can definitely count on anti-Hillary rhetoric to rally the Republican troops.
Don’t you think Huckabee would be easy to beat? There is no way he can win the swing states like PA, Florida, Ohio and Michigan. He might even lose a lot of safe red states.
If the DNC feared the front-runner among the Republicans, they would have been concentrating their attacks on Rudy and then started criticizing Huckabee two/three weeks ago. Giuliani has gotten relatively little criticism compared to Romney, and Huckabee almost none.
Geoff,
Huckabee will be very easy to beat. He has too many skeletons from Arkansas.
As for Giuliani, the media has given him little criticism, but trust me liberal bloggers have been relentless in pressing all his skeletons.
I don’t know if Republicans realize that if they nominate Giuliani, they will further send their party down the spiral of doom. He has got to be the worst nominee for president in my lifetime. Mitt Romney may actually govern fairly well. It’s just the issue of torture that keeps me from supporting him.
Cute, real cute:
“Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks in an upcoming article, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
“The article, to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, says Huckabee asked the question after saying he believes Mormonism is a religion but doesn’t know much about it.”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TFI3VO1&show_article=1
I’d have to actually read the article before passing judgment. After all, the technically correct answer to that question is yes – it’s just not the whole truth.
What I mean is, it’s the way a Baptist minister would ask about Church teachings. I have no idea whether Governor Huckabee will attack Church teachings, or merely express his lack of understanding of them. (Same for whether he’ll try to blame Brother Romney for those teachings, or his misconceptions. I just don’t know yet.)
Actually, the Republican the Dem candidates hammer the most is Bush. I’ve watched all the debates and I usually catch most of the interviews, and if you didn’t know better, you’d think they were all running against Bush. Kinda funny.
I agree with Dan that any Dem could eat Huckabee’s lunch in a general election. And I think the media’s holding back on Rudy’s negatives until he’s nominated. Romney’s the only candidate without skeletons in his closet, and as time goes on he’s looking more and more like the best option.
The former Mayer has been slipping here in Florida..His staff is as we speak, bailing on him..recently his staff attended the fundraiser for the Pinellas County REC..He could only muster an elderly woman in a funny hat…this was very obvious and noted…to say He will take Fl. is to be very generous to his campaign here in Fl.
A lot of comments here refer to Huckabee as being bigoted. Dictionary.com defines bigotry as “stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.” Firstly, the LDS seems to be in a weak position to claim that someone else suffers from this malady. Secondly, Huckabee seems to have a raised a substantive issue of LDS dogma with which most xtians disagree. If someone had asked him about a Budhhist candidate’s beliefs and he’d asked, “Don’t they believe in reincarnation?” would that be bigotry? He may well be striving to elicit bigotry from his audience, but I don’t think he’s expressing it himself.
Of course from outside the loony bin, all these dogma questions seem insane. No wonder he back-pedaled fast. Imagine presidential debates centering on the candidate’s interpretations of meaningless documents.
Huckabee is treading into dangerous territory. He will tear the party apart and turn it into permanent minority status.
Check out stopbigots.com
The Huckster attacks all religions except his own brand today…what would you expect from a former governor of Arkansas…?
Mormanism is NOT a form of Christianity. It’s not a denomination of Christianity. Romney is a Morman, NOT a Christian. They are 2 completely different faiths.
Phew! At least he’s a MorMAN and not a MorWOMAN. That would be really embarrassing!
So, are you saying Mormans are Christians? If so, read the last page of Revelation in a Christian Bible. I’m not trying to say anything negative. I’m just trying to be truthful, and in my opinion Huckabee asked an honest question. Do Mormans believe Jesus and Satan were brothers. The answer to that question is yes. Now Christians believe what is written in the Bible. Satan was one of God’s most beloved Angels, but he chose to go against God and is fallen.
[blockquote]I’m not trying to say anything negative.[/blockquote]
Oh totally. And neither was Huckabee! Just an uninformed theology grad innocently asking a NYT reporter about the LDS faith. It’s a total coincidence that the question in question also happens to be loaded anti-Mormon tripe designed to pinch the evangelical “Jesus-equality” nerve. Nah, just an innocent question.
Dang Mormans!
Amy, if you’d like to debate these issues, you need to go someplace else. This particular blog has a different mandate. Please see our comments policy for more.
https://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2005/03/02/lemgmillennial_starl_emg_comments_policy
Heheh. Mormons are Christians because they say they are. Period.
Main-stream Christians disagree with Mormons on several important points of theology. By their reckoning that means Mormons aren’t Christians.
However, until the Nicene Creed of 325 nailed down those points (at sword point under a pagan Roman emperor), the views held by Mormons were held by many Christians. Even after the Creed was established those views continued to be held far into the Middle Ages.
I’m an atheist, but for my money people should stop picking on Mormons for their theology. In many ways it’s less silly than the byzantine maze of strangeness that is mainstream Christianity, and the bits in Mormonism that seem to strike people as silly are certainly no less silly than any given bits from mainstream Christianity.
Of course, in a perfect world people would just not know what anyone’s religion is because people would be too embarrassed about that… but that’s just my atheism speaking. ^_^
Huckabee is innocent like a fox. He brought his group to Salt lake loaded with anti “Mormon” literature to be distributed house to house during the convention.
They were welcomed in and I assure you, they learned more about the church than the members learned about them. Huckabee knows all about the church. That “Who, me?” response is a sham.