Why Iowa Chose Huckabee

If there is one thing that Iowa is consistent about it is that they are terrible at choosing the eventual nominee.  That is good, because Mike Huckabee would be a disaster of a candidate for the GOP.   Mitt Romney had a bad night last night.  There is no denying that.  And kudos for the Huck team for implementing a winning strategy.

So let’s talk about that strategy.   It is reported that the GOP had a turn-out of over 120,000.  That is massive.  About 80-90,000 were expected.  Of those, about 60% were evangelicals; so let’s say about 70,000.  And of that 70,000, Huckabee probably won a good 70%.  So we are looking at a huge percentage of Huckabee’s final numbers coming from evangelicals.  This is all well and good, they are entitled to whom they care to vote for as much as the next person, but it is how they seemingly chose Huck that is disconcerting and we will get to that in a bit.

The Romney campaign is reporting that they got out everyone they were planning on getting out, so if this were a normal turnout caucus, Mitt would have run away with it.  So what made this year different?

First, this is a historic election and the most wide open in a long time.  More people are personally interested in it, I also think that the fact Hillary is running on the other side helped draw out more voters.  This reasoning of a historic election will likely drive voters from all other states, but it makes little sense when one considers the choice of Huckabee. 

If the reason turnout was high was because of the elections historic nature, voters likely would have voted more for actually electable candidates like Mitt, McCain, or Rudy.  But they didn’t they voted for Huck.   So why Huck?

Well, call me a sore loser or a conspiracy theorist or whatever you want, but the only reason Huck was chosen was because of one word: MORMONISM.

Huckabee was the evangelical response to Mormon Mitt Romney.   The only way Huckabee could turn out such a massive number of voters is because of the Churches.  They have a dedicated following and are extremely well organized.   Many of them feel that Huckabee’s rise from such unlikely circumstances indicates that Huckabee is God’s candidate.  Many others follow the counsel of their pastors like sheep.  I cannot understand how some of those Churches keep their tax emempt status following this charade.  Consider this from the Associated Press:

Cradling a cup of coffee on his knee, the Rev. Paul Porter welcomes five neighbors to his home, leads them in a brief prayer and gets down to business.

“We’re here to help elect Mike Huckabee the next president of the United States,” he says. “He’s a decent, moral man.”

His neighbors nod their heads

“When you go to the caucuses,” Porter continues, “are there any questions about Mike Huckabee that you’re nervous about answering?”

Again, the heads nod.

“Is it the attacks?” he says “Are you worried that he can’t withstand the attacks?”

Nan Cooley, a rail-thin woman who belongs to the Baptist church run by Porter, says yes — she’s worried. “There are a lot of questions, you know.”

So what bothers me from this (and the rest of the article)?  First, It is that a Reverend, whose pay is likely tax exempt and whose Church certainly is, is campaigning for a specific candidate with likely no repercussions.  If you read the article he basically outlines a list of talking points for the Huck camp and tries to convince his followers to vote for Huck, almost as if they have an obligation to.

But consider this, and this is what really, really gets me mad:

“He’s a decent, moral man.”

“There are some things I disagree with him about, but at the same time when I look at the big picture, I see him as somebody who would be a good, moral president,” he said.”

So why does this make me mad? Because it appears to me that the Pastor is trying to make a distinction between Huck and Mitt, implying that Mitt is not decent, moral, or good.  Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but its how I feel.  I also take this as a direct hit on my faith.   You see, what is decent and moral for many pastors and reverends is not just being honest, having integrity, or being a faithful husband and father, no it is being a “Christian” according to their definition. And hence, anyone that would believe in Mormonism, despite their positive characteristics in many respects, are not moral and decent because they are leading souls to hell.  

Iowa evangelical leaders made a concerted effort to beat “the Mormon”.  That is all there is too it.  Because I guarantee that if Mitt were a Baptist or Lutheran or any other “Christian” or protestant religion, Huckabee never would have had his rise and surge, and Mitt would have won Iowa and the nomination in a land slide.  

Huckabee is easily the least qualified of all the five major GOP candidates in the field.  He is terrible on foreign policy, has a shoddy campaign organization, has been involved in numerous scandals verging on corruption, and did nothing of note as governor of Arkansas.  Yet because he was a humble Baptist preacher, he became the figurehead for the evangelical right in Iowa.   

Fortunately, Huckabee’s rise will be short lived.  He will be hard-pressed to win anything before South Carolina, and that won’t be a shoe in either.  However, if the evangelicals in Michigan and South Carolina can mobilize their faithful as Iowa did, he just might come out ok, but I doubt it.  If he does it is the end of the GOP and a sad day for America.  He will divide the GOP vote and likely lose republican strongholds of Utah, Idaho, and much of the inter-mountain West.

I long for the day when the GOP breaks free from the grip of the religious right.  I never felt isolated from the religious community as a Mormon before I started blogging and started actually educating myself.  I always knew that Mormons were never accepted and we were considered fringe, but I always thought that Americans and Christians were more open and accepting. Now I am not as sure.  I suppose, that I need not fear too much, for I still believe most are welcoming, but there are still too many who are not, and that is sad.

Advertisements

34 Comments

Filed under Christian, Christianity, Conservative, Election 2008, Iowa, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Mormon, Mormonism, Politics, Religion, Republicans

34 responses to “Why Iowa Chose Huckabee

  1. Big Jay

    Interesting take. In my precinct, Romney blew everyone else out of the water, so I was surprised to get home and see that they had already called it for Huck.

    This phenomenon you described, and other similar things I’ve read elsewhere says to me that there are going to be a fair number of people who will work to take away Iowa’s first in the nation status. Some other state, somewhere will pass a law through the state legislature saying that their primary is held the same day as Iowa no matter what.

    The question in my mind in regards to a Mitt candidacy was if the Evangelicals would actively try to derail him because of his religion. If only there were a lutheran or methodist as qualified as Mitt Romney eh?

    We’ll see what happens in New Hampshire.

  2. I have no problem picking a winner this time around. It’s Huckabee, all the way.

    I will say that I was glad Romney had to eat crow last night. I’m predicting defeat for Romney and victory of Huckabee in this new song:

    The White House is not for Sale
    Dr BLT
    [audio src="http://www.drblt.net/music/WhiteHouseDem.mp3" /]

  3. Pingback: No Runny Eggs » Blog Archive » Iowa fallout - the best of the field

  4. Thanks for the update. I didn’t know the news.

  5. tim

    It’s “Mormonism”! Amen! Amen! and Amen! A sad, sad, sad day for Iowa, and America! But Romney will be BACK! …in 2008…no doubt! Bigotry should NOT, will not and CANNOT prevail!

  6. ama49

    This is funny…I just said the same thing to my wife this morning…something along the lines of “If Romney were a Methodist or some other born again Christian, he would have blown out the other candidates”…

    I’m not sure what the big deal is with Mormonism and why the Ev’s are so dead set against it. They feel threatened? I don’t know. But one thing is for sure. Mitt’s the best candidate and I hope people in other states are more open minded.

  7. Fletch

    There is no other way to see this. Iowans turned out in droves to vote for anyone but the Morman. It’s my opinion that even Obama picked up a few votes from undecideds who couldn’t stomach to vote for Huckabee or any of the other lineup and certainly wouldn’t support a Mormon.

    These are the same people that descend on Salt Lake City every General Conference in an effort to convert Mormons. An effort, I might add, that has been led by Huckabee himself in the past. This guy hates Mormons… hates them with a passion.

    Why won’t Huckabee release his sermons he gave from the pulpit? I’m willing to bet everything I am that he’s preached venomously from the pulpit against Mormons for years.

    Huckabee won this round, but in the end he’ll only succeed in tearing apart that evangelical/Christian vote till there is nothing left, and they are completely marginalized.

    Nice work, Iowa… you did exactly what the liberal media wanted you to do. They lead the horse to the water and you drank and drank till your bellies burst.

  8. Ryan Hawkins

    As I look at the election map, Mitt seems to have done well in the metropolitan parts of Iowa, but it looks like Huck got the country bumpkins out in droves under the direction of their local pastors.

    Those Iowans are obviously a bunch of mindless cattle. Don’t expect THAT to continue through other states!!

  9. Joe

    My only question for any EV out there is this… If you had voting power and interest in a values based company that employeed good folks of all persuasion and the company was facing new challanges internally and externally and it was in obvious decline on many fronts, who would you vote for of the available leaders to turn things around? Romney or Huckabee, Romney or McCain, Huckabee or McCain? Remember that your vote has both personal and collective impact.

  10. I am supporting Huckabee but I have to agree that there is till a lot of hostility towards many groups when it comes to election time. Mormons are just one of several groups that the voting public still irresponsibly look upon with dubious concern. On a poll I took over on Yahoo! Elections called the most likable candidates the individuals polled showed a disheartening capacity for using bigotry towards ethnicity/Mormonism, race and even age discrimination when deciding upon candidates that they would have trouble voting for in an election. This country still has a long way to go in accepting others as equals.

    http://news.yahoo.com/polls;_ylt=AkvLVgjHQnWY1n5lNK81_tNsnwcF

  11. cory

    There have been a few key states (every state was key come to think about it) where Huckabee being the candidate will cost Republicans the White House. Mormons are a key voting block in Utah and Idaho which will not be happy with the anti-mormon Huckabee but you also have Nevada and Arizona which have been 51-49 states the last couple of elections that have large mostly republican mormon voting blocks that would likely stay home if Huckabee is the candidate. Obviously republicans need Evangelicals to win the white house, common knowledge, but the republican party needs mormons to be there for them as well. I don’t think that is understood very well by those in the south.

  12. Jay

    I must admit I was surprised by the margin Huckabee won in IA. You’re right that Romney lost in Iowa because he is a Mormon. While the media isn’t saying that, it is pretty obvious that religious bigotry played a part (60% of the people that showed up were evangelical voters). This shows what a powerful sway the evangelical pastors have over their flocks. Scary! Huckabee has only a very very slim chance of getting the nomination and anyone thinking he will is dreaming. They can ride the fantasy now, however, it will soon be over and they will have voter’s remorse when their only choice is liberal or more liberal.

    If Romney can pull off NH he is back in it full steam. Coming in second in IA is a slap in the face to Romney, but given that he only lost because of the evangelical rally call, it really won’t have a lasting affect. I predict Huckabee will dry on the vine while Romney goes forward with Guliani and McCain. I don’t think he will win, but he has a fighting chance.

    Huckabee is about the worst thing that could happen to the Republican party right now and Republicans know it. If he did get the nomination (which he won’t) Republicans would be leaving in droves, voting for Democrats or Independents. The only ones left would be the 25% of the base that support him.

    Only the far right religions wing finds him appealing. He has no national appeal and if he went up against Obama or Hillary he would be pounded. Really the only conservative Republican that has a chance at beating the Democrats is Romney. Guliani and McCain might have an even better chance, but then you have to swallow their liberal ideals like Pat Robertson did.

    I think Huckabee is a nice, decent guy, I just dislike the way he won in IA. He even bragged about how in some meetings he held the only camera present was someone’s cell phone. This tells me that pastors had a huge roll in him winning in IA, promoting him heavily to their congregation. This is unacceptable. Religious leaders should not promote politicians, period. Teach your values and let people make up their own minds. The saddest thing is that people just let themselves be manipulated.

    I feel the same way about Romney and LDS members that are voting for him just because he is Mormon. It makes me sick. If you think the person will make a good candidate then good, but please don’t just vote for him because he shares your religion.

  13. Kermit

    Funny thing is – when you talk about the number of Mormons in this country, it is really low. And not all of them are voting for Romney, just because he’s a Mormon. A lot of them like Ron Paul; I saw an Obama bumper sticker in the temple parking lot last week. And why is that??? Because Mormons think for themselves. Say what you want, but they do. Furthermore, you would NEVER in 10 million years have a Mormon bishop stand at the front of the congregation, or even make calls and have private meetings with a political candidate to support his candidacy. It will NEVER be done in the Mo church. Mormons take too seriously the tax-free status of churches, along with the requirement of not supporting political candidates from the pulpit. Now, out of church?? yes, Mormons can be pretty community minded – in whichever party they choose. There are about 5 million Mormons in the country. Figure half are active members. How many of that number are children and non-voting age??? Yep… you probably got about a million Mormons who can vote. When people talk about the Mormon Vote, I always have to chuckle…. It carries sway in Utah….. maybe somewhat in ID and AZ, but really…. that’s about it. The people who are voting for Romney are people who have brains; people that see he is truly the only conservative in areas of economy, foreign affairs, illegal immigration, health care, etc. Get on board the Romney bus people…. or you’re looking at a Dem for president.

  14. Let’s not confuse “the church” with the actions of a clergyman conducting himself according to conscience as a citizen. Because his “pay” comes from non-profit sources does not eliminate his rights as a citizen. Let’s get real here. When the civil rights movement came to the national scene in the sixties with clergy leadership, few if any on the left cried “foul” then. Why now? Though laws may have stiffened in the area of non-profit political involvement, we should not create an environment in which people are required to refrain from expressing their personal views just because they have strong connections to a particular faith group. Other people of influence and power have no such restraint placed on them. Is it because we disapprove of his views that we advocate a clergyman’s influence be silenced?

    Churches as organizations, not clergy, must remain neutral on political issues. But even that said, may we never come to the place where the church is somehow forbidden to speak in the public arena on issues it understands to be a part of its body of faith. In the view of many people of faith, social issues such as justice, poverty, etc. are defined and addressed by their faith. Should we then forbid clergy from addressing these issues when they are debated in the political arena? I think not. Why then should other matters of equal importance to a large segment of the faith community be off limits? We need the faith communities of our nation to provide dialogue, even debate, on issues held important to them. The very debate provides necessary adjustments to the moral compass of our nation.

  15. Swint

    Steve, I understand what you are saying. But what you are saying is not what was going on. A Reverend was telling his followers that they should vote for Huckabee. If he had said, I personally am voting for Huckabee and here’s why and left it at that, it would be fine. But he didn’t he practically actively campaigned for Huck. That is the difference.

  16. Any pastor caught actively campaigning should have to pay taxes. No fair to those of who do pay taxes. You don’t support the government? Don’t get involved in the politics; you can’t be 2-faced here.

    All my relatives out here and my church are for Huckabee because “wow, he’s a conservative christian” and something about how he was a much better governor for Arkansas than Clinton. (My husband’s family are all from there.) Me? I am a LIBERTARIAN, baby. Republicans are trying to push their religious agenda and fight for a dying way of life while Democrats are too socialist and try way too hard and are usually too much for gun control. Minimal government, direct democracy baby!!!

  17. nat

    I’m a staunch Republican but I will NOT vote for Huckabee in the general election. He would be the demise of the Republican party. If Romney or Giuliani are the Republican man then I’m voting for them. If it’s Huckabee, I’ll stay home because thinking long term, 4 years with Huckabee would do more irreparable damage to the Republican than 4 years of a Dem. If it’s Huck for the nomination, we’ll just have to wait for 2o12 for a Republican prez.

  18. Pot calling the kettle black.

    “Evangelicals won’t vote for Mitt because he’s Mormon” followed up with “I won’t vote for Huck because he’s a country bumpkin fundy evangelical.”

    Your own bigotry is showing. Let me give you a clue here, the turn out for Mike is about things that transcend Mitt’s religious beliefs. Mitt (and Rudy… and McCain…) is the darling of the beltway elites, and if you don’t understand what that means to the real red staters, you’ll never have a clue about the real appeal Mike has.

  19. Michael

    Bingo. I couldn’t agree more.

    It’s a sad, and truthful view, of my Republican Party. I can honestly say that I’ve never had my candidate lose any election due to a high turnout of evangelical voters.

    Blindly voting because of man’s religion? Are you kidding me? The vast majority of his support came from folks that likely couldn’t correctly state more than two of his positions.

    Huck will be lucky to come close in any other primary. He’ll be so far out of the race following Feb.5 that it will leave the Iowa evangelicals with their jaws dropping.

  20. Cypress

    “He’ll be so far out of the race following Feb.5 that it will leave the Iowa evangelicals with their jaws dropping.” -Michael

    Although I would hope so, I don’t see that happening. Huckabee is polling well in both South Carolina and Florida. He will probably still be around on Feb. 5th.

    This contest may go on for some time folks.

  21. Jay

    Mormons think for themselves. Say what you want, but they do.

    True there are a few Mormons that will think about who they vote for, but my experience has been that the vast majority will vote for Romney solely based on his affiliation with the LDS Church because they will assume he must agree with them on the issues. If he wasn’t Mormon I can almost guarantee that they would be calling him a flip-flopper just like the evangelicals are.

    Let’s not confuse “the church” with the actions of a clergyman conducting himself according to conscience as a citizen.

    Yes a clergyman has the right that all private citizens have. The problem comes when he uses his non-profit connections to promote his political views. His people wouldn’t listen to him if he was just a concerned citizen knocking on their door and I seriously doubt he could reach as many people if he didn’t already have their friendship and respect. In other words, these clergyman aren’t going out to the general public they are just influencing the people that attend their church. This is wrong for them to use their position of influence this way.

    We need the faith communities of our nation to provide dialogue, even debate, on issues held important to them.

    Discussing moral issues is entirely different than saying that one candidate should be preferred over another. That is a decision that should be made by an individual, not told to them by someone in authority over them.

    … if you don’t understand what that means to the real red staters, you’ll never have a clue about the real appeal Mike has.

    In another month you will see what kind of real appeal he has nationwide, not much. He just simply can’t beat any of the Democrats and Republicans know this. If (and that’s a big IF) Huckabee starts gaining more momentum, mainstream Republicans will get off their butts to make sure the religious right doesn’t take over the party. They will likely vote in Giuliani or McCain, who will then lose to one of the Democrats (i.e. Obama or Hillary) because the evangelicals won’t come out to support them.

  22. andrew

    Important fact: Huckabee has raised $350,000 since he won! Ron Paul raised 6 million in a day and didn’t win any state. Mitt Romney has the support of the great american people and yes all the donations proves it. They keep talking about Mitt’s money like it is a bad thing. He is using the money I donated and many many thousands of others have who truly support him. If Huckabee had the support of america he would have 130 million dollars by now like Pres Bush had in 2003 year before the election. Mitt Romney is the most qualified to be our president for our uncertain future. Here is the main question I am asking right now? Who can propel the economy? This is the most important issue of this election! We need a ceo president! South Korea just set an example for us by electing a ceo as the new president, we must follow that wisdom.
    We need a republican that is a fiscal conservative, social conservative, and a national security conservative. Mitt has all 3. Rudy has 2 and McCain and Huckabee have 1. You need all three to be a Reagan conservative and bring the 3 parts of the republican party together. Huckabee is liberal and so is McCain. If either of them win the nomination I can not vote for them. I voted for Bush twice and support him all the way. Sadly if either Huck or McCain win I can’t call myself a republican anymore. Then republican will stand for something which is not conservative and I will not be loyal to such a party. I will leave the party and be independent. I support Mitt Romney all the way and hope he wins in NH and MI and then on from there. I sincerely hope the baptist right (wrong) won’t destroy the union of conservatives Pres. Reagan/Bush brought together.
    I believe in Mitt Romney as the man who can unite all parts of republicans to defeat the rise of the most liberal socialist democrats.
    May we not waver in this dangerous time.
    As yet your fellow republican, Andrew D.

    p.s. with the advent of the internet we need to have a revolution in America. Representitive form of government is obsolete. Let each citizen represent themself! I propose secure and independently audited voting over each bill and amendment over the internet. No one in government can represent me like I can. No one represents you and someone who is against you at the same time. Representitive is really partial delayed democratic republic. The eliteists must be abolished and we must be free to represent ourselves each week voting on the issues for ourselves. Voting on the spending budget ourselves and not giving the public credit card for politicians to use to help themselves get reelected for 10 terms or more! This is my great hope for our future American government!

  23. Jay

    Then republican will stand for something which is not conservative and I will not be loyal to such a party.

    News Flash!!! Republicans already have left conservatives behind. The only reason conservatives are still around is because there is no where else to go. Who passed the biggest social program in the history of the U.S. since social security (i.e. prescription drug plan)? REPUBLICANS. Who’s has been spending out of control for the past 8 years. REPUBLICANS. Republicans had control of two of the three branches of government, not to mention making appointments to the supreme court, and yet our country is in worst shape than it was before. Our economy is diving and we are still stuck in a war that is draining our coffers. Ask yourself why. It’s because Republican politicians are no better than Democratic ones. The two party system is meaningless because neither of them really believe their platforms anymore.

    I propose secure and independently audited voting over each bill and amendment over the internet.

    You’re proposing we destroy the republic for a democracy? That would require people to be knowledgeable and think. I guess I have less faith in the American people than you do.

  24. Peg

    Just surfing through and thought I’d toss in my 2c…

    I don’t think Mormonism has anything to do with it. For me at least it doesn’t. I’m a moderate evangelical independent-leaning voter and at the moment I’m undecided between Huckabee and Giuliani.

    I like Huckabee because everyone calls him “unelectable”. This tells me he’s outside the party machine and the powers-that-be who keep their names and faces out of the news but pull the strings of government quietly in the backround, don’t like him and won’t support him. For that reason alone I like him.

    And I like Giuliani because I know New York (I have relatives in the suburbs) and I know what a fantastic job he has done there.

    I don’t really know anything about the other candidates except McCain and given the choice between him and Giuliani I’d vote for Giuliani.

    It would be nice to have just one election where evangelicals aren’t all painted the same color and stuck in a corner. We’re not, and we won’t stay there. 😉

  25. Swint

    He’s unelectable because he is not a fiscal conservative. Most GOPers would trust Hillary with our economy and on foreign relations more than they would trust Huckabee. Huck is a social conservative and fiscal liberal.

    It is also funny that you support Giuliani as he is the polar opposite of Huck. Rudy is a fiscal conservative and social liberal. Huck is from AR, Rudy from NYC. Strange.

    The fact is, only two candidates are across the board conservatives, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. Mitt is a harder worker and smarter than Fred, so that puts him over the top. Fred doesn’t have the drive or work ethic to beat a ridiculously well funded Dem in the fall.

    Speaking of outside the party mainstream; note that Romney is attacked more by all fronts — dems and GOP. That should tell you something; it tells me something and I like it.

  26. Kermit

    Jay – your comments concerning Mormons and who they’ll vote for are not based on fact, but conjecture. As a Mormon, I can personally tell you that initially, I was NOT going to vote for Romney, becuase I did not want to endure a rectal exam of my Faith. However, Romney is THE only candidate who is a conservative across the board on the 3 issues that matter most to me: illegal immigration, the economy and foreign policy. Three stars across the board. Consequently, I have no choice but to vote for him. Nobody else comes close.

  27. Jay

    Kermit,
    I guess I’m running into the wrong Mormons then. Most I’ve listened to have more of a cheerleader attitude than a pensive one. I’m glad that you have thought about it. I’m also Mormon and I will not be voting for Romney.

  28. Brad

    it is pretty obvious that religious bigotry played a part (60% of the people that showed up were evangelical voters). This shows what a powerful sway the evangelical pastors have over their flocks. Scary! (Jay)

    It’s not religious “bigotry” – it’s a person’s RIGHT to choose whatever criteria they wish when casting their particular vote. If you choose to use other criteria, that is your right which nobody can take away. But it most certainly cannot be considered bigotry – that’s ridiculous.

    The saddest thing is that people just let themselves be manipulated. (Jay)

    Welcome to the Mormon church.

    Any pastor caught actively campaigning should have to pay taxes. No fair to those of us who do pay taxes. You don’t support the government? Don’t get involved in the politics; you can’t be 2-faced here. (Jersey)

    Jersey, apart from being an idiot, I think you’re confusing a “church’s” tax-exempt status with a “pastor’s.” A “church” is tax-exempt, due to it’s status. A pastor is employed by the church, but DOES pay taxes. You may want to check the tax laws a little closer before you speak on this subject again.

    Pot calling the kettle black.

    “Evangelicals won’t vote for Mitt because he’s Mormon” followed up with “I won’t vote for Huck because he’s a country bumpkin fundy evangelical.”

    Your own bigotry is showing. Let me give you a clue here, the turn out for Mike is about things that transcend Mitt’s religious beliefs. Mitt (and Rudy… and McCain…) is the darling of the beltway elites, and if you don’t understand what that means to the real red staters, you’ll never have a clue about the real appeal Mike has. (Glenn)

    Great post, Glenn, and exactly right.

    with the advent of the internet we need to have a revolution in America. Representitive form of government is obsolete. Let each citizen represent themself! I propose secure and independently audited voting over each bill and amendment over the internet. No one in government can represent me like I can. No one represents you and someone who is against you at the same time. Representitive is really partial delayed democratic republic. The eliteists must be abolished and we must be free to represent ourselves each week voting on the issues for ourselves. Voting on the spending budget ourselves and not giving the public credit card for politicians to use to help themselves get reelected for 10 terms or more! This is my great hope for our future American government! (Andrew)

    While I didn’t agree with much of what you wrote, I do like this idea. Although I doubt it would ever happen, I think the concept is good.

  29. Jay

    It’s not religious “bigotry” – it’s a person’s RIGHT to choose whatever criteria they wish when casting their particular vote.

    I guess it is the right of every KKK member to vote against someone because of the color of his skin, but that doesn’t make it right. Not voting for Romney because of his religion is bigotry, just like not voting for Huckabee because he was a Baptist preacher would be bigotry. Romney is not running as a representative of Mormon Church. You should not vote for him based on his stance on issues.

    The saddest thing is that people just let themselves be manipulated. (Jay)

    Welcome to the Mormon church.

    It’s good to see you have a sense of humor. However, many would say that any religious person is manipulated, including you Brad. And btw I never said that Mormons don’t just follow like sheep (Many people do, regardless of their religious affiliation).

  30. Brad

    Jay, voting by whatever preference you choose is either a right, or it isn’t. There’s no in between. That’s what makes it a “right” to choose whatever criteria I wish. If I want to only vote for people with 6 letters in their first name, I can. You may not agree with that methodology, but here’s the great thing – you don’t have to, and I don’t have to care whether you do or not. If a KKK member only wishes to vote for whites, that’s their right, and I support their “right” to do it. I don’t like that being their criteria, but I support their “right” as an American to HAVE that criteria. You may not like my “criteria”, but you don’t have to – I get to use it anyway.

    Many would say that about all religions, as is their “right.” Doesn’t matter to me either way – I know the difference.

  31. cory

    You all really are smoking some pretty good ganja…Huckabee is a bigot and a liar and those of you that are supporting a “good man with my values” are as bad as he is.
    Huckabee went to SLC as a keynote speaker at the Baptist convention where they openly attacked the LDS. He then attacked LDS again during the interview with the New York paper and has repeatedly lied about it ever since. He used the most common attack by anti-mormons and lied that he was asking an innocent question of a reporter, a claim that the reporter (non-LDS) has refuted. So all you Huckster fans go ahead and continue supporting the liar and feel good about yourselves cause you go to church on sunday……By the way, when did it become a bad thing to make a lot of money? I thought that Republicans were the party of people that believe in the american dream. You “Populists” can just go back to the democrat party where you belong…

  32. Brad

    Huckabee said things about Mormonism that you disagree with. Boo-hoo. They’re true.

    But, then again, if Romney isn’t President, it’s hard for the White Horse prophecy to come true, isn’t it?

  33. Swint

    It’s not him saying things about Mormonism that are not true that bothers me. I am used to that.

    What bothers me is that he is using Churches, his religion, and anti-Mormon sentiment to win the Presidency of a supposedly secular office. I don’t mind candidates being people of faith and I require them to be of good moral virtue. But I do not want a President who will be viewed as a theocrat and I don’t want pastors, bishops, mullahs, stake presidents, reverends, or anyone of a religious leadership “recommending” their followers whom they should or should not vote for. There is a big difference.

  34. Brad

    No, Swint, there’s not. It just happens that your criteria for voting (or not voting) for someone for President are different than my criteria, or other’s criteria. That’s all.

    What Huckabee said (or questioned) about Mormonism WAS true, and you know it, though you won’t admit to it. A cursory review of the official LDS website can confirm that it is true, so there’s not much of a leg to stand on in that respect.

    The office of President IS secular. But the criteria people use to vote for a person doesn’t need to be. Mine isn’t – your mileage may vary.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s