Krauthammer: Huckabee’s subtle Mormon-baiting is “un-American”

posted at 9:49 am on December 7, 2007 by Allahpundit

I was going to leave this in headlines but our commenters demanded a proper forum for thorough Huck pummeling. And so it came to be.

It’s a testament to his own immense personal charm and aggressive blog outreach effort that I feel guilty piling on Huck so much this week.

I’ll have to live with it.

Huckabee has exploited Romney’s Mormonism with an egregious subtlety. Huckabee is running a very effective ad in Iowa about religion. “Faith doesn’t just influence me,” he says on camera, “it really defines me.” The ad then hails him as a “Christian leader.”

Forget the implications of the idea that being a “Christian leader” is some special qualification for the presidency of a country whose Constitution (Article VI) explicitly rejects any religious test for office. Just imagine that Huckabee were running one-on-one in Iowa against Joe Lieberman. (It’s a thought experiment. Stay with me.) If he had run the same ad in those circumstances, it would have raised an outcry. The subtext — who’s the Christian in this race? — would have been too obvious to ignore, the appeal to bigotry too clear…

Huckabee has been asked about this view that Mormonism is a cult. He dodges and dances. “If I’m invited to be the president of a theological school, that’ll be a perfectly appropriate question,” he says, “but to be the president of the United States, I don’t know that that’s going to be the most important issue that I’ll be facing when I’m sworn in.”…

[B]y Huckabee’s own logic, since he is not running for head of a theological college, what is he doing proclaiming himself a “Christian leader” in an ad promoting himself for president? Answer: Having the issue every which way. Seeming to take the high road of tolerance by refusing to declare Mormonism a cult, indeed declaring himself above the issue — yet clearly playing to that prejudice by leaving the question ambiguous, while making sure everyone knows that he, for one, is a “Christian leader.”

Barnett made the same point last week. As for Mitt’s objectively great effort to counter Huck’s pandering, the Globe, and the Journal report mixed reviews from evangelicals this morning, although those who didn’t like it should, needless to say, be regarded as analysts not to be trusted.

Exit question one, per Slublog’s comment in the headlines item: Is this issue starting to break Mitt’s way? Note the quote from the pastor in the Journal piece about which candidate is “saved” and which isn’t. And note this headline, which drives home just how warm and fuzzy the press Huckabee’s getting is. And exit question two: Huck’s made bigger mistakes than the Wayne Dumond parole?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Maybe we should be leery of any one with a belief in any middle eastern based dogmas.

Go Thor.

TheSitRep on December 7, 2007 at 9:54 AM

I’ve got an evangelical friend who, for weeks and weeks, has been insisting that evangelicals are pragmatists and are no longer trapped in the 1990s “we have to assert ourselves” mode. The ascendancy of an open borders loving foreign policy disabled candidate who just happens to be Christian is not decreasing his frustration with fellow evangelicals.

omriceren on December 7, 2007 at 9:56 AM

It’s a testament to his own immense personal charm and aggressive blog outreach effort that I feel guilty piling on Huck so much this week.

Your sure it isn’t just to generate comments? :)

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 9:59 AM

It’s a testament to his own immense personal charm and aggressive blog outreach effort that I feel guilty piling on Huck so much this week.

His aggressive blog outreach makes it fair game for us, then. Just like Romney’s campaign making issue out of his religious affiliation. Fair game. Both ways.

Lawrence on December 7, 2007 at 9:59 AM

Go Thor.

TheSitRep on December 7, 2007 at 9:54 AM

A new Beowulf movie is coming out.

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 9:59 AM

If I say that Huck is in the wrong on this issue, am I then to be trusted?

Frozen Tex on December 7, 2007 at 10:00 AM

I don’t think religious baiting is Huckabee’s intention. That’s been almost verbatim his message from the beginning. He just has the funds now to put it into a TV ad.

bj1126 on December 7, 2007 at 10:00 AM

A new Beowulf movie is coming out.

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 9:59 AM

Another one?

Thats 3 in as many years…

Frozen Tex on December 7, 2007 at 10:01 AM

His aggressive blog outreach makes it fair game for us, then. Just like Romney’s campaign making issue out of his religious affiliation. Fair game. Both ways.

Lawrence on December 7, 2007 at 9:59 AM

I think Romney’s campaign played the blogsphere elegantly yesterday. Tons of blogs posted the pre-speech hype and pre-speech talking points then posted the live stream. Hopefully we will see more of that.

Frankly, I expected to see that from the Thompson campaign this year and didn’t.

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 10:02 AM

My prediction was a role reversal going Mitt’s way in Iowa, by Wednesday. Let’s see how close I get it…

Vizzini on December 7, 2007 at 10:04 AM

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 10:02 AM

Indeed.

Lawrence on December 7, 2007 at 10:07 AM

By the way, I don’t see anything wrong with Huck’s ad and I don’t see it as baiting anyone. It simply is an ad that helps Huck to define who he is to the voters. Krauthammer’s really reaching here, and engaging in his own baiting.

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 10:07 AM

Christian Leader who lets murderers and rapists run free.

Christ said to forgive – not reconcile at the cost of the of others around you. You can forgive someone and still keep them behind bars for the safety – and dare I say salvation - of themselves and others.

thareb on December 7, 2007 at 10:09 AM

It seems to me that there are two separate issues going on, at least for Evangelicals.

1) Choosing a President

2) The differences between traditional Christianity and Mormonism.

The two issues should be separate, and people should be able to keep them separate. As an Evangelical, I am continually frustrated with how the two are running into each other.

I happen to believe that #2 is a valid discussion in and within the Christian/Mormon communities – just not so much in relation to choosing the President.

But maybe someone said this already – or I’m crazy. I don’t know. This issue is tiring.

nailinmyeye on December 7, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Frankly, I expected to see that from the Thompson campaign this year and didn’t.

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 10:02 AM

Yep.

nailinmyeye on December 7, 2007 at 10:16 AM

From the video – Let us never sacrifice our priciples for anybody’s politics. Not now, not ever!

You mean like amnesty to illegal aliens, Mike? And citizen-paid benefits for illegal aliens, Mike? And redistribution of wealth, Mike? And granting clemency to murderers, Mike?

No thanks.

jaime on December 7, 2007 at 10:16 AM

I still don’t see the problem with the “Christian Leader” thing in his ad. Its a fact that he was a Christian leader, as a pastor of a large church. I like Charles a lot, he is my favorite panelist on Special Report. But people started moving to Huckabee long before this ad and any other supposed subtle mormanism bashing.

Complete7 on December 7, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Krauthamer’s right.

JiangxiDad on December 7, 2007 at 10:18 AM

It seems to me that there are two separate issues going on, at least for Evangelicals.

1) Choosing a President

2) The differences between traditional Christianity and Mormonism.

nailinmyeye on December 7, 2007 at 10:14 AM

I would define the issues differently for them:

1) Choosing a President

2) Allowing the LDS to have a platform for showcasing their religion (aka to them as “cult”) as Christian, which they don’t think it is.

Before anyone bashes me, I am not saying this is good or bad, just what I am hearing in my little corner of the world.

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 10:21 AM

Playing to his bass is all Huck’ll be doing in a few weeks.

And sobbing out a lonesome “Gladly, the Crossed-Eyed Bear” .

profitsbeard on December 7, 2007 at 10:23 AM

I still don’t see the problem with the “Christian Leader” thing in his ad. Its a fact that he was a Christian leader, as a pastor of a large church.

How is being a “Christian leader” relevant to his campaign for president, other than as a shameless pander?

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 10:23 AM

2) The differences between traditional Christianity and Mormonism.

The two issues should be separate, and people should be able to keep them separate. As an Evangelical, I am continually frustrated with how the two are running into each other.

I happen to believe that #2 is a valid discussion in and within the Christian/Mormon communities – just not so much in relation to choosing the President.

But maybe someone said this already – or I’m crazy. I don’t know. This issue is tiring.

nailinmyeye on December 7, 2007 at 10:14 AM

Brooks writes this morning:

When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 10:24 AM

How is being a “Christian leader” relevant to his campaign for president, other than as a shameless pander?

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 10:23 AM

Because it’s who he is and relevant to his decision making process.

bj1126 on December 7, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Well, I think it is the most brilliant political move that the Republican Party has cultivated in a long time.

Who would have thought that claiming to be ‘Christian’ is a negative thing in a campaign race. . . yet that is exactly what Krauthamer is saying. I generally agree with Krauthamer, but I don’t see it as anything but brilliant politics.

Now, a former Baptist minister can’t claim to be Chrsitian without being called ‘unAmerican’?

I’m no Huckster, but I can’t possibly see how the labelling of himself as a ‘Christian’ is a negative with all the hatred spewing constantly in this campaign. The only thing I could see is it is viewed negatively by people who are not Christian – and that’s bigoted against Christians.

If it’s political theater, at least it is good politics.

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2007 at 10:27 AM

Why does Mitt take the heat for leaving out the Zoroastrians, as somebody said elsewhere, but Huck can leave out so many more?

JiangxiDad on December 7, 2007 at 10:28 AM

If it’s political theater, at least it is good politics.

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2007 at 10:27 AM

For the primaries, maybe. Gen’l, death.

JiangxiDad on December 7, 2007 at 10:29 AM

The only thing I could see is it is viewed negatively by people who are not Christian – and that’s bigoted against Christians.

This Christian views it negatively, because I don’t like seeing my faith used as a political cudgel. This is a presidential election, not a faith-off.

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 10:30 AM

How is being a “Christian leader” relevant to his campaign for president, other than as a shameless pander?

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 10:23 AM

It is as relevant as Mitt’s speech yesterday. One’s faith has a baring on what kind of person you are. Rudy’s personal moral life is a valid political issue, as is someone’s personal convictions on other matters. An immoral leader could lead the country in a different direction than a moral one (e.g., in regards to abortion or torture). That Huck is a minister is relevant, as is Mitt having been a Stake President and having strong beliefs in what the LDS church teaches. Because those positions tell us somethings about the person. Not everything, but somethings.

I don’t by into the idea, though, that all faith is equal. Obviously there could be issues with a devout Scientologist or Wahabist Muslim as president.

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 10:31 AM

Why does Mitt take the heat for leaving out the Zoroastrians

He isn’t. He’s taking heat for leaving out the second-biggest faith-related group in America after Christians, i.e., the nonreligious.

Allahpundit on December 7, 2007 at 10:31 AM

My God!

Coolidge was a Congregationalist
Theodore Roosevelt was Dutch Reformed
Dwight Eisenhower was originally a Jehovah’s Witness
Richard Nixon was a Quaker (OMG!)
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist

We all know what kind of speaking platform those religions got from the Oval Office. It was a powerful, all encompassing, force upon the public. They changed the face of America. Be afraid…be VERY afraid.

Limerick on December 7, 2007 at 10:32 AM

I don’t recall a Republican primary season where so many supporters of different candidates were pointing fingers and screaming Bigot. First it was the Giuliani supporters. Then the Romney supporters. Now the Huckabee supporters. Is it now fashionable? A lot of people are sounding just like Lindsay Graham.

jaime on December 7, 2007 at 10:32 AM

The two issues should be separate, and people should be able to keep them separate. As an Evangelical, I am continually frustrated with how the two are running into each other.

nailinmyeye on December 7, 2007 at 10:14 AM

How does one vote their conscience without voting according to their religion?

What you are asking me to do is ignore my faith-based views while choosing who to vote for president. From an evangelical perspective, this makes no sense.

Lawrence on December 7, 2007 at 10:33 AM

For the primaries, maybe. Gen’l, death.

JiangxiDad on December 7, 2007 at 10:29 AM

So you are saying that claiming to be Christian is ‘death’ for someone running for president in the General Election?

If that’s the case, our Republic is facing many more problems than the prospect of Hillary Clinton for president. I fear for this Republic because of bigotry against Christians who have built this country.

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2007 at 10:33 AM

One’s faith has a baring on what kind of person you are.

Does it? It seems to me Huckabee is using his faith as a smokescreen to hide his political liberalism and shoddy record.

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 10:36 AM

He isn’t. He’s taking heat for leaving out the second-biggest faith-related group in America after Christians, i.e., the nonreligious.

I understand that they have different reasons for speaking about religion, but still don’t get how Huck leaves out not only the non-religious, but the non-Christian religious. That is how he offends me.

JiangxiDad on December 7, 2007 at 10:37 AM

He isn’t. He’s taking heat for leaving out the second-biggest faith-related group in America after Christians, i.e., the nonreligious.

Allahpundit on December 7, 2007 at 10:31 AM

I just didn’t hear him say this. I heard him say that he would not promote his faith as his main objective, but rather focus on his job as president in context of all citizens (which includes all ‘non-religious’ citizens).

Lawrence on December 7, 2007 at 10:37 AM

So you are saying that claiming to be Christian is ‘death’ for someone running for president in the General Election?

What I mean by that is that aside from Huckabee’s political positions, his emphasis on Christian leader as a political tool against Mitt and others, makes others feel left out, who might otherwise be interested in him. I am not a christian, so this is clear as day to me. But I am beginning to understand that it’s a very minority view.

JiangxiDad on December 7, 2007 at 10:39 AM

How is being a “Christian leader” relevant to his campaign for president, other than as a shameless pander?
Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 10:23 AM

So stating facts about your past is pandering? Being a Christian Leader, Governor, Authentic Conservative and Proven Leader(all bold headlines in the ad) define him and his bid for the presidency. He is simply introducing himself to the electorate not trying to trash anyone else’s religion or pander to a specific crowd.

Complete7 on December 7, 2007 at 10:40 AM

I understand that they have different reasons for speaking about religion, but still don’t get how Huck leaves out not only the non-religious, but the non-Christian religious. That is how he offends me.

JiangxiDad on December 7, 2007 at 10:37 AM

So would you rather he lie (like most politicians – Romney) rather than explain to you that he is a Christian? Would that make you feel better? You are offended that someone called himself a Christian. That’s amazing.

Now you offend someone by who you are, not what you do or say to or about them. It’s wonderful this freedom of religion thing we have here. I hope some day it becomes politically correct to be Christian in this Christian Nation. I’m not holding my breath.

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2007 at 10:41 AM

A new Beowulf movie is coming out.

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 9:59 AM

I saw it. It is pretty lame.

My God!

Coolidge was a Congregationalist
Theodore Roosevelt was Dutch Reformed
Dwight Eisenhower was originally a Jehovah’s Witness
Richard Nixon was a Quaker (OMG!)
Thomas Jefferson was a Deist

We all know what kind of speaking platform those religions got from the Oval Office. It was a powerful, all encompassing, force upon the public. They changed the face of America. Be afraid…be VERY afraid.

Limerick on December 7, 2007 at 10:32 AM

and Bill Clinton is an Orthodox Misogynist

TheSitRep on December 7, 2007 at 10:43 AM

So stating facts about your past is pandering? Being a Christian Leader, Governor, Authentic Conservative and Proven Leader(all bold headlines in the ad) define him and his bid for the presidency. He is simply introducing himself to the electorate not trying to trash anyone else’s religion or pander to a specific crowd.

If he’s a proven leader, then why doesn’t he talk about how he led his state? Why doesn’t he talk about his time as governor of Arkansas in detail and the policies he proposed and passed there?

He can’t, because he knows it would be political death. So he focuses on faith, and seems to be hoping none of us realize that he’s far, far from an “authentic conservative.”

That’s what makes it a pander.

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 10:43 AM

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2007 at 10:41 AM

Brian you have my quote right there. It’s clear I said I was offended for being excluded. But it is ok. Enjoy most of your other comments.

JiangxiDad on December 7, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Who’s Brian? I generally play word games like most journalists do, I just see things a bit differently than most people. Nobody ever pays attention to me though and that’s why I generally feel free to say whatever is on my mind.

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2007 at 10:47 AM

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2007 at 10:47 AM

LOL.
Remember when you offered to help somebody out with an ins. problem. Thought you said you were Brian then. My mistake.

JiangxiDad on December 7, 2007 at 10:51 AM

I’m trying to be stealth like AP. . . you know, like Spiderman, nobody knows who you are.

Although if someone wants to give me money, I’ll gladly provide more critical information.

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2007 at 10:52 AM

Let’s all be honest now. If Huck wasn’t running as a “Christian” candidate, touting that he is a Baptist minister and all, what would his qualifications be, and where would he be in the polls? This really disturbs me and pisses me off as a conservative former Republican. Mitt has to win despite his religous beliefs, while Huck is getting a large % of his support b/c of his religious beliefs. WTF is up with that?

RW Wacko on December 7, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Mitt has to win despite his religous beliefs, while Huck is getting a large % of his support b/c of his religious beliefs. WTF is up with that?

Thank you.

JiangxiDad on December 7, 2007 at 10:55 AM

while Huck is getting a large % of his support b/c of his religious beliefs. WTF is up with that?

RW Wacko on December 7, 2007 at 10:53 AM

I agree that most of Huckabee’s social positions are atrocious. But I am overjoyed that this is happening. If there was a good conservative candidate, this would not happen. But since we have RINO’s to choose from, Christians prefer the Christian RINO.

The reason I am overjoyed is because of the elitists who crowed that Christians (and pro-lifers) don’t matter. Yes WE do. . . and if you want the R nomination, you need to understand that.

The NRA matters too.

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2007 at 10:56 AM

I agree that most of Huckabee’s social fiscal positions are atrocious. Sorry

He’s also open borders, but so are the other RINOs. Bottom line is that we have crappy candidates, but Christians and pro-life matters.

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2007 at 10:58 AM

If he’s a proven leader, then why doesn’t he talk about how he led his state? Why doesn’t he talk about his time as governor of Arkansas in detail and the policies he proposed and passed there?

That’s what makes it a pander.
Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 10:43 AM

Focusing on your strengths and not your weaknesses or mistakes is not pandering its smart politics. And I’m sure as time goes by we will hear more about specific policies in Arkansas that he is proud of. He is just rising in recognition and has a shoe string budget and staff. Romney and Giuliani don’t focus on their more liberal positions in the past because that would be suicide also.

Complete7 on December 7, 2007 at 11:06 AM

How does one vote their conscience without voting according to their religion?

What you are asking me to do is ignore my faith-based views while choosing who to vote for president. From an evangelical perspective, this makes no sense.

Lawrence on December 7, 2007 at 10:33 AM

This is a good point Lawrence. And, as I believe that Christianity is not merely a belief system, or a set of propositional truths, but a life and a living process, and that one’s faith permeates every aspect of his or her living process, I agree with you.

On the other hand – the fact that Romney holds to a different faith system than I do does not, in my opinion, disqualify him from receiving my vote. I vote my faith/conscience as well – issues of life are especially important to me. That is something that I and Romney share under our respective faiths.

I just think that if there is a conflict for the sole reason that he is a Mormon, then that might not be a good enough reason.

nailinmyeye on December 7, 2007 at 11:11 AM

Christians and pro-life matters.

ThackerAgency on December 7, 2007 at 10:58 AM

I don’t doubt that at all, but I know a lot of people who wish it were not so, I will give you that. McCain is pro-life. As is Thompson. They are both more conservative than Huck, in my opinion. If evangelicals came out in force for a Mitt of a Fred, their importance would not be overlooked, in my opinion, and it would probably decide the nominee. Now the vote is fractured, and even if Huck gets the nomination, he will get eaten alive by Hillary.

RW Wacko on December 7, 2007 at 11:14 AM

Count me as one Christian who has seen enough smarmy Arkansas Governors attain the White House. One was one too many; remember that Billy Jeff was allegedly a Baptist.
I’ve been looking at all of the candidates-we all have-and Romney has my vote. If for no other reason, after eight years of the left screaming hate at President Bush, I don’t want to elect a President who has ex-wives and mistresses in his background (Guliani). The Left had to make up lies about Bush as he is a good family man-why elect Guliani who can be damaged by their telling the truth?

Doug on December 7, 2007 at 11:15 AM

and even if Huck gets the nomination, he will get eaten alive by Hillary.

true dat

nailinmyeye on December 7, 2007 at 11:16 AM

But yeah, if the evangelicals cause the ‘Pubs to crash and burn this time the fealty may increase next go around. Great.

RW Wacko on December 7, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Focusing on your strengths and not your weaknesses or mistakes is not pandering its smart politics.

If this were truly a matter of strengths versus weaknesses, Huckabee should be able to point out where he’s different from the other candidates on issues. He can’t, because his record is actually worse than that of a few of the candidates considered too liberal to get the nomination by the people supporting Huckabee.

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 11:23 AM

To continue (hit post instead of preview)

Social conservatives declared Giuliani, McCain and Romney unacceptable for their liberalism and many threatened to bolt the party if they didn’t find the perfect candidate. And yet they’re supporting a guy who is just as, if not more, liberal than any of those three on many issues.

Slublog on December 7, 2007 at 11:26 AM

I think Romney’s campaign played the blogsphere elegantly yesterday. Tons of blogs posted the pre-speech hype and pre-speech talking points then posted the live stream. Hopefully we will see more of that.

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 10:02 AM

Yeah. Too bad Hugh cast a shadow over it.

Dusty on December 7, 2007 at 11:44 AM

I would define the issues differently for them:

1) Choosing a President

2) Allowing the LDS to have a platform for showcasing their religion (aka to them as “cult”) as Christian, which they don’t think it is.

Before anyone bashes me, I am not saying this is good or bad, just what I am hearing in my little corner of the world.

Yeah, how dare those Mormons be allowed to talk about their religion as they define it–anywhere! What do those evangelicals think this is–America?

Seriously,this exclusion of Mormons as Christian based on their own definition of what a Christian should be is just ridiculous.

drflykilla on December 7, 2007 at 12:10 PM

Social conservatives declared Giuliani, McCain and Romney unacceptable for their liberalism and many threatened to bolt the party if they didn’t find the perfect candidate. And yet they’re supporting a guy who is just as, if not more, liberal than any of those three on many issues.

Yes, that’s exactly why I’m feeling pretty steamed about the big deal they are making about Romney’s faith. As far as fiscal and social issues go, even McCain would be better than Huck on almost every issue. If Huck gets the nomination, I will be hard-pressed not to think he got it just because he’s supposedly more Christian than the others. And in that case, we’re screwed whether he or Shrillary get elected. Hello nanny state and higher taxes, good-bye Dunkin’ Donuts.

drflykilla on December 7, 2007 at 12:15 PM

It’s a testament to his own immense personal charm and aggressive blog outreach effort that I feel guilty piling on Huck so much this week.

Your sure it isn’t just to generate comments? :)

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 9:59 AM

Of course it’s about “generating comments.” To be more specific, it’s about generating anti-Christian and Christian vs. Christian comments. The Apostle Paul said “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; …” 1 Corinthians 1:10. And, this is why. “Divisions” among Christians are used by the spiritually dead to create havoc and dissent among those who believe. This is an ongoing effort to create such havoc. And, also, to instigate the ridicule of Christians, by the spiritually dead.

This effort will continue.

OhEssYouCowboys on December 7, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Krauthammer’s article spoke to my feelings perfectly. As an LDS faithful it makes me crazy to see this ever happening. I’d so much rather talk about political issues than this crap. And to see the implications of weirdness and oddity involved in many discussion of Mitt’s faith also burns me up. It made me glad to see this article on NRO:

Now imagine yourself trying to persuade our perfectly rational robot that the following statement is true:

Everything was created by an all-powerful and all-knowing being who exists outside of space and time. This being impregnated a human woman through non-physical means and was born as her offspring. Within space and time, the being was executed as a criminal and spent three days in a tomb. But then it came back to life and went up to a place called Heaven, which we cannot detect or observe. We eat this being’s body once a week. By doing this — and sundry other things, such as getting sprinkled with water by a man in a robe who utters an incantation, or telling the man in the robe all the bad things we do — by doing this, we too can go to Heaven after our own bodies come up out of their graves.

What will you tell the robot? Can you marshal empirical evidence demonstrating that these claims are true? Can you show their truth by logic alone?

Let’s have a campaign already!

jusstjones on December 7, 2007 at 1:22 PM

By the way, I don’t see anything wrong with Huck’s ad and I don’t see it as baiting anyone. It simply is an ad that helps Huck to define who he is to the voters. Krauthammer’s really reaching here, and engaging in his own baiting.

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 10:07 AM

Krauthamer’s right.

JiangxiDad on December 7, 2007 at 10:18 AM

And the winner is… … … JiangxiDad by a country mile!

MB4 on December 7, 2007 at 1:40 PM

A lot of people are sounding just like Lindsay Graham.

jaime on December 7, 2007 at 10:32 AM

That’s funny…

juanito on December 7, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Schmuckabee is just using the Republican party as a vehicle for his own personal ambitions.

aengus on December 7, 2007 at 1:56 PM

Mitt has to win despite his religous beliefs, while Huck is getting a large % of his support b/c of his religious beliefs. WTF is up with that?

RW Wacko on December 7, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Further deterioration in America from the founding fathers and their principles.

MB4 on December 7, 2007 at 2:05 PM

and even if Huck gets the nomination, he will get eaten alive by Hillary.

true dat

nailinmyeye on December 7, 2007 at 11:16 AM

It would come close to the Nixon/McGovern landslide.

Which would be kind of fitting as Hillary does remind some people of Nixon.

MB4 on December 7, 2007 at 2:08 PM

His ads should run like this:

“I am the only real Christian running for office, and I believe in second chances and forgiveness. I granted more clemencies than six neighboring states combined. No one is perfect and all have sinned. How can any of you just sit there and let people rot in jail? What kind of person would do that? Well, I didn’t. Vote me ME!”

nottakingsides on December 7, 2007 at 2:27 PM

We’re not electing a national chaplain here, and a denominational brawl is no freakin’ substitute for a presidential primary. So far, Huckabee is the quintessential special interest candidate — if you’re looking for someone to lead the Republican party off into the wilderness for the next forty years, he’s your man! If wearing your religion on your sleeve is the centerpiece of your campaign, you’re in no position to complain if your opponents consider if fair game. Until Huckabee fans start defending his political judgments instead of his Christian credentials, what else is there to talk about anyway?

ThackerAgency:

“Who would have thought that claiming to be ‘Christian’ is a negative thing in a campaign race. . . “

Yeah, it’s just killing Obama isn’t it? Oh wait… who is claiming to be the non-Christian candidate?

JM Hanes on December 7, 2007 at 4:35 PM

bnelson44 on December 7, 2007 at 10:02 AM

The Fred team posts all over the place and there are 100s of blogs. I guess we just don’t have any scandals that draw the same attention as those who do. Maybe we should create one or two? /s

By the way, we have a new FredHead.

Official post supporting Fred Thompson for President

As far as Huck & Mitt go, Huck is becoming nauseating, and whereas yesterday I knew nothing, really, about Mormonism, Jake Tapper’s article got me thinking about Smith calling himself the second Muhammad, so now I wonder if Romney would actually be able to discern moderate Muslims from domestic political jihadists.

I’m beginning to think that both Huckabee and Romney have religious issues that could, as Fred warned, impact the way they would do their job as president.

Connie on December 7, 2007 at 8:30 PM

Jake Tapper’s article got me thinking about Smith calling himself the second Muhammad,

Let’s remember that Brigham Young said that Joseph Smith would judge mankind along with Christ.

Brigham Young said: “If I can pass brother Joseph, I shall stand a good chance for passing Peter, Jesus, the Prophets, Moses, Abraham, and all back to Father Adam, and be pretty sure of receiving his approbation…. If we can pass the sentinel Joseph the Prophet, we shall go into the celestial kingdom, and not a man can injure us. If he says, ‘God bless you, come along here’; if we will live so that Joseph will justify us, and say, ‘Here am I, brethren,’ we shall pass every sentinel.” – Journal of Discourses, Vol.4, p.271-272

He declares further: “No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are – I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent. He holds the keys of that kingdom for the last dispensation – the keys to rule in the spirit world.” – Journal of Discourses, Vol.7, p.289

There’s faith in the Jesus of the Bible but Mormonism is something else altogether. Call it what you will, it’s not Christianity by any stretch.

Mojave Mark on December 8, 2007 at 1:37 AM

Do we really want to give Hucklebee a national platform to define what Christianity is? (Or how about Carter?)

Tzetzes on December 8, 2007 at 6:43 AM