NYT shocka: Huckabee surging in Iowa partly on strength of anti-Mormonism
posted at 8:55 am on November 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Thin gruel without polling data (although polling data on this point is hard to come by), and not exactly breaking news in the macro sense, but noteworthy insofar as some Huckabee supporters are willing to cop to it on the record. Dean Barnett claimed the other day that Huck’s new “Christian leader” ad was a sly way of hitting this issue without hitting this issue. The Times doesn’t get anyone to confirm that, but, well…
Chip Saltsman, Mr. Huckabee’s campaign manager, said the campaign had no intention [in the ad] of making any kind of allusion to Mr. Romney’s being a Mormon, saying the idea was simply to introduce Mr. Huckabee to Iowans…
Mr. Huckabee’s advisers admit privately they are cognizant of how Mr. Romney’s religion can work against him and how Mr. Huckabee’s evangelical roots are to their advantage at least among some voters. They pointed out, however, that all candidates have aspects of their biographies that can be beneficial or not, depending on the audience.
Follow the link for quotes from supporters. My favorite, from a question posed to Huck at a recent event:
“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.”
She wondered, Would Mr. Romney’s prayers “even get through”?
Here’s the new Gallup; note the lower right-hand corner. Hillary’s gotten static over the number of voters who say they’d never vote for her, but not only isn’t she the candidate who’s worst off in this respect, she’s actually improved from 51% in January 2006. That’s good news since it shows that voters who say “never” don’t always mean it — something that had better be true for our sake if Mitt does pull this one out.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Like the sun rising in the morning.
right2bright on November 28, 2007 at 8:59 AM
I just posted this on ONE of the other whiny Mitt columns, but it seemed EQUALLY appropriate here.
Ex-tex on November 28, 2007 at 9:02 AM
Yeah, why wouldn’t it be worth talking about? The frontrunner in Iowa is in peril because of bias against his religion. It may affect the outcome of the election next year. Seems like a big deal.
And who’s being unfair to Fred? Or is this yet another attempt to blame Fred’s declining fortunes on media/blogger bias? I have nothing against him but I’m not a Fredhead. Sorry if that disappoints you.
Allahpundit on November 28, 2007 at 9:08 AM
I’m not a Fred supporter, but I’m really surprised at his “Definitely not vote for” number.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 9:09 AM
OK, this is it. I’m announcing. Vote Kansas 2008.
I’m an atheist. I’m not a Christian or a Mormon or a Muslim or a Jew or [your religion here]. Worship however the *#$ you want. I wish you inner peace and spiritual fulfillment in whatever form it comes. As long as you don’t start blowing sh!t up we’re cool. And yes, Islam, I’m looking at you.
Thanks for your vote.
saint kansas on November 28, 2007 at 9:15 AM
Fred must have really hacked some people off by stumbling in so ineptly.
Valiant on November 28, 2007 at 9:16 AM
These polls are not anything like definitive. The “might consider” columns are just too high. If the candidates go by these, two thirds of them might just as well quit now. I hope they have better sense. Also, the pollsters constant calling is getting very annoying. I’m hanging up on them lately. I wonder how many more people are? Also, candidates who use religion(even subtly)as an incentive should be suspect from the beginning.
jeanie on November 28, 2007 at 9:19 AM
Allah-
Some folks won’t vote for Huckabee because he’s open borders, some won’t vote for Fred because they think he’s lazy, some won’t vote for Rudy cause he wears dresses, and some WON’T vote for Mitt because they think Mormonism is a cult.
There’s ALL KINDS OF REASONS folks chose to support someone or not. And, like it or not, it AIN’T up to you to tell us which reasons are OKAY. Religion IS NOT RACE OR GENDER- it’s a choice- And I fer one, think it is ABSOLUTELY RELEVENT and bears lookin’ at.
THAT DOESN’T MAKE IT Un-AMERICAN or biased to LOOK at it. Nor is it a bigger deal than any other factor. Are you gonna raise this kind a fuss if folks say they won’t vote for Rudy cause he married three times? Or Fred cause he doesn’t go to church every Sunday?
Folks make value judgements Allah- It ain’t yer job to tell’em they can’t.
Ex-tex on November 28, 2007 at 9:20 AM
It is, however, perfectly appropriate for him or anyone else to offer their opinion of those who would base their vote on a person’s faith.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 9:22 AM
I’m not big on selecting a candidate based on what religion they practice, I’m more interested in their leadership skills, common sense, experience, knowledge of history and credibility.
But if I were scared silly over a candidate’s theological bent, I wouldn’t be worried in the least about Romney. I’d be concerned about someone like Hillary, who reminds me of the devil himself, or Obama, who has the teachings of Islam tucked away in that clever little mind of his.
fogw on November 28, 2007 at 9:24 AM
What decision, could President Romney make, that would reflect his Momonism? What decision, based on Momonism, will endanger the country, the economy, or Sean Penn?
Limerick on November 28, 2007 at 9:25 AM
If?
Indeed.
amerpundit on November 28, 2007 at 9:25 AM
This is the NYT saying that the rural uneducated people in the middle of the country, ya know, those crazy religious people, the ones who can be easily turned into bigots at the drop of a hat, uneducated kind of folks, are not sophistacted enough to resist the machinations of the right-wing Christian hate machine. Or something like that. You’ll see the same thing when the election swings South.
Never mind that the snotty-ass libs and atheists (in general, sorry AP) in the NE and out West are 100X more judgemental about people who are different than the rural people they consider so “unenlightened”.
RW Wacko on November 28, 2007 at 9:26 AM
And that’s fine- as long as he’s offerin’ his opinions on all the OTHER reasons folks aren’t votin’ for the other candidates. Remember- faith is a choice, just like all the other life style choices. UNLESS Mitt’s the only one gittin’ defended on this site??
Ex-tex on November 28, 2007 at 9:27 AM
I actually completely agree with that. Everyone’s vote is their own and to chose one person over another is a discrimination. I have no problem whatsoever with people voting according to what represents their values, even when I disagree with them.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 9:29 AM
Actually, he’s under no obligation to do that. That he has on a number of occasions should be reason enough for readers to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 9:33 AM
that poll is a month old.
amend2 on November 28, 2007 at 9:35 AM
Right now the 3 top stories on HA are about folk’s not bein’ fair to Mitt. Who’s whinin’??
Ex-tex on November 28, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Well, you seem to be doing a fair amount of that. I don’t recall supporters of other candidates being quite as touchy when Thompson dominated the headlines this summer.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 9:41 AM
Oh this ain’t whinin’. THIS is callin’ Allah out on his pro-Mitt, all you who don’t like/question Mormonism are BAD people comments.
Ex-tex on November 28, 2007 at 9:45 AM
Um, csdevin? I think he minded. Good guy, but man does he hate Fred.
sunny on November 28, 2007 at 9:46 AM
Again, it’s perfectly legitimate for a political commentator to offer his opinion on those who would base their votes on a person’s religion. Voters are free to make Romney’s faith the deciding factor in their vote. Allah and others are equally free to hope that votes would be based on more substantive matters.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 9:51 AM
Oh Hel* Yes! and tommylotto, and bkennedy and all the others!
Ex-tex on November 28, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Yes, he and a select few others do seem opposed to Thompson. What you do not see from them, and rarely see from others, is the opinion that in writing pro-Thompson headlines, they are somehow being less-than-fair to the other candidates. That’s the difference. The persecution mentality seems strongest among Thompson supporters.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 9:55 AM
Won’t somebody please think of Sean Penn!
saint kansas on November 28, 2007 at 9:56 AM
I just finished a Vulcan mind-meld with Allah, and he told me he’s not pro-Mitt. He’s perversely amused though, that people who worship an imaginary deity in one fashion can be so opposed to a candidate who worships the same imaginary deity in a slightly different fashion.
That’s the view from the sidelines, anyway.
saint kansas on November 28, 2007 at 10:01 AM
I think it’s a completely relevant subject. I know at least one person who absolutely will never vote for a Mormon, and she is utterly unbiased in every other way. But bring Mormon into the equation, and she hits the roof.
I’ve noticed that there are a number of Christians who say reflexively, “They’re not REAL Christians” when you bring up Mormons. That’s newsworthy.
Me? I’m not voting for Mitt because he’s too conservative for my tastes.
Meryl Yourish on November 28, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Let me give you one example…you asked.
If the President/Prophet (Hinckley) of the LDS church makes a proclamation from God (which he does and can because be basically speaks for God on earth) that no Mormon should fight in the armed forces or take command of armed forces, by the declaration of God. Where does that leave us as a nation, if we have a President Mitt?
He has to choose between his faith, and his leadership.
He either denies his faith, or resigns as Commander in Chief.
Far fetched? Probably, but an example.
No other religion has a living Prophet who speaks for God, I consider that a potential conflict, and dangerous.
right2bright on November 28, 2007 at 10:04 AM
Really?
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 10:07 AM
Golly, Allah seemed pretty worked up about it here:
Ex-tex on November 28, 2007 at 10:08 AM
You just lost my vote – buddy!
nailinmyeye on November 28, 2007 at 10:13 AM
I’ve always seen AP as a Rudy guy (just like Hannity and O’Reilly – child molester on the payroll and all). In this instance the anti-Mitt stuff seems to be the only way that Rudy will get the R nomination.
If Rudy gets the R nomination, he won’t win. You can’t tell New Yorkers that because they know everything – even how YOU think. Look at the poll with good ole Rudy right smack dab on the top and Huckabee not even on the list.
Rudy Rudy Rudy Rudy. . . It’s Dem vs. Dem as the best case scenario for the media.
Politics has become just like sports. The substance no longer matters. It is all entertainment – whatever can make a buck.
ThackerAgency on November 28, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Don’t blame the messenger… I’m just telling you what I sucked from his brain!
Allah watches us with interest from on high (or whatever floor his apartment is on) and I’m tellin’ ya, his interest in this infighting as a socio-religious phenomenon far surpasses his political interests at this point in the game.
I’d bet an iPhone on that.
saint kansas on November 28, 2007 at 10:19 AM
You must live in a state they care about. The pollsters never, ever call me. I live in a tiny, insignificant, LATE-VOTING state called Texas. It’ll all be decided before we get to vote.
aero on November 28, 2007 at 10:20 AM
Were doomed. We will be saying the pledge to Hillary all too soon. The country has lost it’s collective mind.
saiga on November 28, 2007 at 10:21 AM
I can see it.
nailinmyeye on November 28, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Well, Mitt certainly won’t come anywhere close if he’s our nominee. Did you even look at the poll numbers Allah posted? Mitt may succeed in buying the early states (at extremely great cost), but most of the rest of the country still doesn’t even know who he is. Uneducated voters in the rest of the country may follow Iowa, NH, et al like lemmings, assuming the early state voters know something they don’t, and nominate Mitt out of ignorance. But Mitt can’t buy the votes of the entire country, which is what he’d need to do to win the general. Hillary has far more money than Mitt does, even if he spends his entire personal fortune. And she can get more from China any time she wants. And she can use our children’s and grandchildren’s future earnings to buy votes with socialist entitlement programs. Mitt has no chance in the world against her.
aero on November 28, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Time to start campaigning for Newt in ‘12.
aero on November 28, 2007 at 10:31 AM
You know, why bother with an election at all. Let’s just coronate Hillary Clinton and be done with it.
For crying out loud, when did conservatives get so blasted defeatist? Keep this up and Zombie Reagan will come and kick some sense into the lot of you.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 10:32 AM
I don’t know about defeatist, but I got really pessimistic around the time I started reading Allahpundit!
Seriously though, I think we have a good shot at it. I’m still lost on who I want the candidate to be who goes up against her. There are things I like, and dislike about each one of them. I think the state I would be eligible to vote in (California) goes on Super Duper Tuesday, if I remember correctly.
nailinmyeye on November 28, 2007 at 10:40 AM
I thought you knew religion, the pope is no prophet.
All official Catholic documents…a far cry from speaking for God on earth. Yeah, I know your out it he “interprets”, but that is reviewed by clergy (bishops as pointed out) and his people, he does not “speak” with the tongue of God. He organizes church doctrine.
A powerful man, but not a prophet.
right2bright on November 28, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Did ya’ll NOT HEAR Allah??!
Quit foolin’ around now and DO SOMETHIN’!
Ex-tex on November 28, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Well, it looks like Mitt might very well be headed for the nomination. Convince me that he has a chance in Hades to win the general–I doubt you can. And if not Mitt, any of them. I was feeling pretty confident about Rudy’s lock on the nomination and chance for success in the general for quite awhile, but I’m seeing now that Mitt’s buy-the-early-states strategy is proving to be more effective than I thought it would be, and social cons’ stubborn opposition to Rudy is stronger than I anticipated as well. I am losing faith in the system if it’s a matter of the nomination simply going to the highest bidder focusing heavily on a few small states. (Plus, we just have a crappy crop of candidates this time around.)
I would be thrilled to feel even a smidgen of optimism at this point. I still have a small desperate hope, but not optimism.
aero on November 28, 2007 at 10:46 AM
No, he’s much more powerful than a prophet. He’s the vicar of Christ and considered infallible when speaking ex cathedra on Catholic doctrine.
I may be a lapsed Catholic, but I remember some of what I was taught.
Slublog on November 28, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Heh, he might need to, however I’d recommend he start with the GOP leadership first. Those guys need some sense smacked into them worse than anybody else.
As for the rest, yeah, it oughta be talked about. Both the concerns about what it says basing votes on the dude’s church instead of his policy(policy that I’m not wildly impressed by either BTW), and what this issue will bring to the table nationally should he be the nominee.
Bad Candy on November 28, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Isnt this old? I could swear i read this story a couple of weeks ago.
amish on November 28, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Give me a break. That’s pretty lame.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 11:03 AM
I thought it brilliant. I’m sure it’s just too sophisticated fer ya.
Ex-tex on November 28, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Ah, my bad. I didn’t realize it was humor. I read it as cynical complaint.
Spirit of 1776 on November 28, 2007 at 11:11 AM
All this Mormon bashing on the part of evangelicals keeps reminding me of a cartoon I saw in Mad magazine when I was in High School.
The first caption showed three “ugly” girls walking down the street. One was real fat, one was real real bony skinny and one had a whole bunch of pimples. There were the “voices” of three guys driving by in a car, making fun of them and saying that they should not be allowed to be seen in public.
The second, and last, caption showed what the three boys in the car looked like, and guess what?
MB4 on November 28, 2007 at 11:28 AM
I dunno, but were they carrying a Mister Microphone?
“Hey, good lookin’, we’ll be back to pick you up later!”
saint kansas on November 28, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Thanks for the response. I guess my next question is this…
Do you believe Mitt Romney, as President of the United States, would go in front of a camera, or sign a proclamation claiming he is the voice of God? Congress would run him out of the WH before the day was out.
Limerick on November 28, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Popular joke in Iowa
Never go hunting with just one Mormon; always take at least two. Why? Two Mormons will keep an eye on each other. Just one Mormon will drink all your beer.
DrW on November 28, 2007 at 12:24 PM
No, guess again.
Although that was an interesting take.
MB4 on November 28, 2007 at 12:32 PM
In the current crop I don’t see anyone who is my definition of hard core Christian including Huckabee with his ‘I have never seen a man who lost a job to an illegal’ yuk yuk comment. If a man cannot see the his neigbor fighting to survive, but only the stranger, his empathies are more political than Christian.
The candidate I will choose will be the one who exhibits the most integrity and trustworthiness. Since I love America and it provides even now the best greatest sanctuary for my Christianity I need to find the one who will not dissolve America or participate in forcing the multicultural society upon us that would inevitably fragment as all cultures are given equal time including those that despise liberty
In that culture I include the leftist priest whose desire to share his neighbor’s perceived wealth with everyone outside our borders makes him a warrior for open borders. Huckabee is not a priest but I see him wearing the uniform. In that ’share the nation, share the jobs’ philosophy is a hard core jealousy and coldness that denies the mandate to not covet they neighbor’s property
entagor on November 28, 2007 at 1:27 PM
*sigh* Right2bright, right2bright…. still fearmongering, I see.
Your hypothetical that President Hinckley would suddenly try to prevent Mormons from being in the military is simply, totally absurd. It is literally insane. The LDS church encourages patriotism; we have chaplains, and in fact have had a history of supporting the military (sometimes because we had to have one ourselves to protect our right to worship from people like you).
If anything, the LDS church would be getting knocked for supporting the military too strongly by people like AllahPundit, as contradicting the whole “turn the other cheek” bit.
Here’s a clue, right2bright. I know you don’t have one, and won’t accept one, but it’s here anyway: the LDS church believes in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates; and in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law. That’s one of our articles of faith. We believe that the Constitution was ordained by God Himself, including the 1st amendment.
Here is Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants; this is the guiding LDS scripture on relations with government. What, exactly, would you disagree with in that scripture? Remember, it was promulgated while slavery was still legal. And slavery is STILL legal in many places.
For your fearmongering scenario of “President Hinckley would rule the US by diktat, as Romney will just execute Hinckley’s orders!!!!” I challenge you to demonstrate from history since Utah was admitted to the US where the LDS church has ever taken political power and tried to further the LDS church over anyone else. We strongly believe in the Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars.
Vanceone on November 28, 2007 at 1:52 PM
Disregarding what Vanceone is rambling about. I get it, Limerick, good point. This is the point I was making (with an example that I said was unlikely). Following a living prophet I consider dangerous. You have a leader that has two masters…the Church and the State. Which one does he follow? He followed the Church when he was 31 and blacks were denied privileges afforded to whites. Historically, faith groups who follow “seers” or people who talk to God that give them commands, have not had the best record. I am playing the odds, what religion, with a walking talking prophet, has not ended up in ruin?
And no where did I say the LDS wanted “political Power” that is a lie and fear mongering. What I was attempting to show, is with a living prophet, Mitt may have to make a choice (as in pre 1978). I never said “execute his orders”, I am saying he has to make a choice. All choices are not so blatant, nor known to the public.
And was that (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132) 132 number 60-63 concerning multiple marriages? That is also in your D & C (oops, why was the left in?). He can argue and point to 134 (just don’t tell them to read 132), and the people will understand…and then he can call them fear mongers for asking.
You can ignore or point to whatever D & C you want and weasel your way out of a statement. Remember your motto “as it is properly interpreted”, and proper means a Mormon official.
Anyway, I used one example, it was an example to ask the question…Which master does Mitt serve? And would he turn his back on his faith to lead the nation?
Rudy answered it…
Quit playing the victim card. It is a legitimate question.
What’s amazing is I use a hypothetical and you go berserk, I use actual quotes and you get angry at me for quoting your prophets. You are the one throwing out names, calling people fear mongers, stating “I don’t have a clue”, generally making disparaging remarks. I have kept it civil with you, not personal. (BuyDanish I had to put in her place, she like you begin crossing the line). Argue the point, calling me names doesn’t make you right.
right2bright on November 28, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Fine, Right2bright. I’m glad you think that having a prophet (a man in communication with God) is a bad idea. Good to know that you could not in good conscience have lived in scriptural times! After all, what if Peter had told you to do something…. you would have the same issues, right? And Moses certainly had conflict with the government.
But aside from that, what on earth does section 132 have to do with anything? Why would we remove it? The practice is overridden by official declaration 2. And that is church wide–no polygamists are allowed anywhere in the church, worldwide, even in countries that allow it.
I am sorry that you seem to think that the state overrules your religion though. Nice way to represent Lutheranism.
Vanceone on November 28, 2007 at 3:20 PM
I think this point could be made even better by noting that there are probably a fair number of Mormons who will vote for Romney because he is a Mormon. Not all, certainly, but probaly not none either. The interesting questions are what percentage and is that percent higher or lower than the Evangelicals who won’t.
As Allah says, we will probably never know those numbers. But until we do, this whole issue seems to me to be mere paranoia and ultimately plays into the hands of big media, who love to make conservatives and evangelicals look small-minded.
JackOfClubs on November 28, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Comment pages: