Drudge fronts totally unsurprising story about Huckabee; Updated
posted at 10:40 am on December 10, 2007 by Bryan
I’ve read this story three or four times this morning and I still don’t see why Drudge is fronting it with a banner headline. It’s about a speech/sermon that Mike Huckabee delivered in 1998. He delivered the speech/sermon in Salt Lake City, but if that’s a reason to give it the banner treatment at Drudge, then that’s a suggestion that Baptist ministers should stay out of Mormon country. That would be absurd. If this next line is the problem, then so are most sermons delivered in most evangelical churches.
“The reason we have so much government is because we have so much broken humanity,” he said. “And the reason we have so much broken humanity is because sin reigns in the hearts and lives of human beings instead of the Savior.”
There’s a lot of spiritual common sense in that paragraph — sin leads for example to broken families, which leads to fatherless kids, which leads to out of control kids, which leads to crime and drugs and whatnot. This, by the way, is a powerful small-government argument against libertinism, though not necessarily against responsible libertarianism.
Drudge’s banner headline screams that Huck wants to “take America back for Christ.” Well, Huckabee was a pastor at the time, and that line is just an expression of the Great Commission. This is not a call to “take America” by the sword or by force or by any means necessary, it’s a statement that the church needs to get off the pews and out into the world to do some good. Huck reinforces that by saying that if the church was doing a better job, government wouldn’t have to be so big. I hate to break it to Drudge, but that’s true, and it’s not an indictment of America, it’s an indictment of the church for not doing its job. If that’s controversial now, then we’re headed for even more problems and acrimony then we currently have.
I’m no fan of home run hittin’ Huckabee, but Drudge seems to be screaming religious intolerance with that headline.
Update (AP): I agree with Bryan that Drudge is making a big deal out of what amounts to boilerplate, but I can’t resist noting this detail tucked away at the end of that old story:
Other books given to reporters at the convention Sunday included a how-to boycott book aimed at the Walt Disney Co. by Richard D. Land titled Sending a Message to Mickey: The ABC’s of Making Your Voice Heard at Disney. The back cover features an outline of the famous mouse’s round ears and the words: “He who has ears, let him hear.”
The other book was Mormonism Unmasked by R. Philip Roberts, who examines the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Looks like an interesting read.
Update (AP): Like MK says, if Drudge is looking for religio-speak in politics, he doesn’t need to go back 10 years — or to the Republican Party — to find it.
Update: Huckabee was still governor when he made the comment that Drudge fronted. Nevertheless, as a minister what he said isn’t out of line. People have become way too sensitive about this sort of thing imho.
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: 1 2 3 Next »
Chicken or egg? I believe we have so much broken humanity because we have so much government. IMHO
sweeper on December 10, 2007 at 10:43 AM
There is a lot of Huck bashing going on from pundits from all over the place. Not sure what scares them about Huck, but everywhere I turn today I see it. NRO attacks him. George Will was on Laura’s radio show this morning bashing him. And it goes on and on. So I am not surprised that Drudge is bashing him as well.
Could this be an attack of the “elites” of America against the great unwashed who are finding a voice?
Disclaimer: Huck is not my candidate.
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 10:46 AM
Frankly, I’m surprised that a former pastor has come so far in the race. Nowadays it’s considered “heavy baggage.”
AlexB on December 10, 2007 at 10:48 AM
What suddenly you’re concerned about fair treatment of Huckabee? LOL
bj1126 on December 10, 2007 at 10:50 AM
Oh cry me a river that Huckabee is getting heat for his religious views. Come on. That’s the ONLY thing this guy has going. And the way he dances around, not coming out and saying that Mitt’s Mormonism shouldn’t be an issue… hey, the guy is getting the heat he deserves.
Sugar Land on December 10, 2007 at 10:51 AM
I think it’s just the usual game of ‘hey, let’s beat up on the frontrunner for awhile.’ The GOP base, as represented by conservative blogs, also seem to be doing their share of negative Huckabee stories.
Slublog on December 10, 2007 at 10:51 AM
is it bad that i dont hate huck, and im no conservative? His christianity seems inclusive to me. and frankly i think he hits the nail on the head here.
The reason we have so much government is because we have so much broken humanity
he loses me with the sin and saviour stuff but his point is well made.
zane on December 10, 2007 at 10:51 AM
I can understand the Drudge treatment of Huckabee either. The article is irrelevant, untimely and misplaced.
Is Drudge out to support someone in particular?
drewmesq on December 10, 2007 at 10:51 AM
I agree Bryan. Coming from a pastor, those statements are nothing to get worked up over. In a political theater, statements like that are taken out of context and morphed into some theocratic Crusader-like statement of conquest, which they are not.
Why is it still considered “heavy baggage” to have been a pastor? Isn’t the fact that he has come so far evidence to the contrary?
CP on December 10, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Still is.
There seems to be an awful lot of intolerance for Christianity and faith going on these days. I don’t know if it is a reaction to the fact that the PC police have not been able to de-Christ Christmas or some other factor but four evangelicals were gunned down in Colorado this weekend for no other reason than their faith. Yet- I haven’t heard one peep that this is a hate crime. What’s up with that?
highhopes on December 10, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Of course, Drudge’s headlines are always a bit…overstated. This is the same guy who calls hurricanes and blizzards “HELLSTORMS.”
Slublog on December 10, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Heh. Very true.
Bryan on December 10, 2007 at 10:58 AM
Yeah, I’m not quite sure why Drudge’s headlining this is surprising.
amerpundit on December 10, 2007 at 10:58 AM
LOL @ Hotair being annoyed at unfair Huckabee attacks.
EduardoOTI on December 10, 2007 at 10:59 AM
All of the Hot Air posts I’ve seen on Huckabee have been based either on his record, or on his statements as a presidential candidate. Both of those are perfectly legitimate areas for criticism.
Slublog on December 10, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Huck shouldn’t be any conservative’s candidate. He’s a hardcore fiscal liberal and weak on immmigration. How he ever got as much support as he has now is completely beyond my understanding.
davenp35 on December 10, 2007 at 11:03 AM
isn’t it a bit difficult to square this with his yearning to create a federal ban on tobacco? Seems to me he would need to create another DEA type enforcement group. BTW, how’s that WOD working, anyway? Would you say it creates a black market? I think the Huckster can’t wait to tap into that federal revenue stream to create more “compassionate” faith based intitiatives. No thank you. Not with my tax dollars. Let him satisfy his do-good impulses with private funds.
a capella on December 10, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Because religion has all but disappeared from American mainstream. People do not view religion as positively as they used to. They view it more suspiciously. In fact, the Church’s reputation has suffered greatly in the past decade (you know how…) So despite the fact that a pastor might be the most moral of the candidates, being one is not considered a plus.
AlexB on December 10, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Drudge will post anything for hits. Anything at all. He’s every bit as irresponsible as NBC. He gets a free pass regularly. I guess because he plays both sides of the fence. Apparently successfully.
Griz on December 10, 2007 at 11:05 AM
And there’s only more where that came from.
amerpundit on December 10, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Bryan
Your facts maybe out of balance – first he was governor when he gave that speech hawking his book on a book tour
EricPWJohnson on December 10, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Is it wrong of me to hope the Huckster gets elected? Because if the Christian haters are having the vapors over George Bush and his faith, can you imagine the strokes they’d have over a PASTOR being President of the United States????
Intolerance, she wrote!
P.S. Schadenfreude for me, I think.
mjk on December 10, 2007 at 11:08 AM
heh AP i noticed that at the end of the story…perhaps hes not as inclusive as i thought.
zane on December 10, 2007 at 11:08 AM
I don’t think Huck had anything to do with that book or its distribution. It was just handed out at the convention that he was at, along with a bunch of other books.
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 11:08 AM
What was the governor of Arkansas traveling on state expense on a book tour doing giving sermons?
That is where Matt was going with this….
EricPWJohnson on December 10, 2007 at 11:09 AM
Well, the “top” candidates’ weaknesses were fleshed out earlier, so he rose to the top. Now that he’s shown as being even worse, hopefully we’ll see the trend reverse in time for the primaries.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2007 at 11:10 AM
It’s not intolerance of Christianity or faith, it’s intolerance of government officials using (mis-using) Christianity or faith for there own agendas. When he says that the reason for so much government is because people lost their way, he is advocating for more government intrusion in people’s lives. That is the opposite of conservatism.
sweeper on December 10, 2007 at 11:10 AM
And – in fairness – what does that have to do with Huckabee? They gave it out at a conference that he spoke at?
nailinmyeye on December 10, 2007 at 11:13 AM
They have nothing to worry about. If he gets past the primaries, we’re doomed.
amerpundit on December 10, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Then that should have been the headline. It would have made more sense than bashing a Christian for being a Christian.
Bryan on December 10, 2007 at 11:14 AM
He’s patronizing a conference at which they’re giving out what looks to be anti-Mormon polemics. If Pelosi spoke at some lefty conference where they were handing out “The Case Against Christianity,” you think we’d hear about it? You think you guys might say she bears some responsibility for attending a conference like that?
Allahpundit on December 10, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Seems to me Huck has quite a bit of intolerance for life styles with which he doesn’t agree, excluding convicted rapists who have been reborn, of course. What do you make of him referring to Mormonism as an “issue”, but not a major one that would require his attention if he is elected?
a capella on December 10, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Allah, it was a three-day Southern Baptist Convention
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Yes, and?
Allahpundit on December 10, 2007 at 11:20 AM
It’s certainly got an interesting cover. The moment I saw it, the opening bars to “Phantom of the Opera” when through my head.
Dun dun dun dun DUNNNNN…
Slublog on December 10, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Here is the official LDS Church response to Under the Banner of Heaven.
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 11:21 AM
LOL @ Hotair being annoyed at unfair Huckabee attacks.
All of the Hot Air posts I’ve seen on Huckabee have been based either on his record, or on his statements as a presidential candidate. Both of those are perfectly legitimate areas for criticism.
Slublog on December 10, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Couldn’t agree more Slublog! I don’t mind criticism when it is on record or statements…if a candidate makes a boneheaded mistake, it deserves the spotlight. Hotair has been fair across the board.
Dhornertx on December 10, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Ultimately, the plethora of material that no doubt exists will be used by some to make him out to be a small minded, intolerant, religious fanatic. The media will enjoy marginalizing Gov. Huckabee.
The story makes me want to vote for Huckabee all the more! Someone who gets it! Yes, I am letting my faith influence the way I live, approach, and perceive life (including something called politics). What a thought.
Christianity is true to reality. All people are sinners. Theologically we call that being depraved. This fundamental understanding of the nature of man is something I want to see in a President. For example, it might affect his choice of funding failed programs like midnight basketball and D.A.R.E.
leavenedbread on December 10, 2007 at 11:23 AM
So it is a large conference with all kinds of people lobbying for all kinds of causes. Kinda like a Democratic Party conference.
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Me thinks this is shaping up as a “what did the candidate say/do umpteen years ago” election…gonna be worse than Bush/Kerry. When the “presumptive nominees” are in place, the skeletons are going to be walking.
JetBoy on December 10, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Fair enough.
It keeps getting rehashed here, over and over and over again. Most Evangelicals (and Catholics) have a difference of opinion over theological doctrine with Mormons. Mormons have a difference of opinion over theological doctrine with evangelicals (and Catholics). I just don’t know why this is so strange to people.
What sucks is that for some, yeah, Romney’s Mormonism would preclude them for voting for him. I think it is terrible. But, I’m not convinced it is the majority, and I’m certainly not convinced that because Huck attended a conference where this book was handed out it taints his character.
It looks to me that at least some prominent Evangelicals are behind Romney.
nailinmyeye on December 10, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Really now?
Because tying him to any and all beliefs espoused at a convention he was speaking at is fairly based on his record. And that’s just in this post.
bj1126 on December 10, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Since he was governor of Arkansas and a public figure at the time, the question is a fair one. Public figures are held to a higher standard.
Slublog on December 10, 2007 at 11:31 AM
I’m sorry but I’ve got to disagree with your assertion that secular society isn’t intolerant of Christianity or any faith that is strongly expressed. It’s perfectly okay to be a “Christian” like Obama who attends a racist church that ascribes to all the secular humanist themes and completely ignores the Bible.
But….. dare point out that Scripture repeatedly and specifically states that homosexuality is a sin from which there is no salvation and you are called a homophobe. Dare point out that Scripture clearly defines the roles of man and woman and you declared a sexist. Do either while running for public office and your faith will be questioned in excruciating detail by those who are intolerant of Christians. It really is that simple.
As to Huckabee (not my candidate because he give me way too much of a Jimmy Carter vibe), I respect the fact that he doesn’t hide his faith the way Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama does. It is fair game to question how a candidate’s faith would influence his leadership but, so long as the candidate isn’t attempting to establish a theocracy, there should be tolerance and a place for faith in the public debate without the kind of attacks that Huckabee and Romney have suffered because they don’t hold with the “many paths” crap of those with a secular agenda.
highhopes on December 10, 2007 at 11:31 AM
I refer you again to the Pelosi example I gave. And of course, you conveniently neglect to mention that I said I agree with Bryan that Drudge’s headline is much ado about nothing.
I can see the Huckabee supporters are going to be even whinier than the Fredheads. Looking forward to it.
Allahpundit on December 10, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Plus, as AP pointed out, imagine if Pelosi had attended a conference where they were distributing copies of “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins.
The reaction would be thermonuclear.
Slublog on December 10, 2007 at 11:32 AM
There is all manner of nuttery at the Yearly Kos conventions, we bring it up, and it never sticks to any Democrat candidate even though some of it should. If this book sticks to Huckabee, then we’re idiots.
And if that book was at the root of Drudge’s reason for fronting that story, he should have fronted that. But a headline saying “Huckabee attends convention at which anti-Mormon book that he didn’t write was given away” is less sexy than a headline bashing Huckabee for invoking the J-word.
Bryan on December 10, 2007 at 11:34 AM
I thought Romney’s religion was a problem for many “Christians”, not secularists.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2007 at 11:35 AM
So, are you saying he would fund only social programs which are successful, or just those with a different thrust than the ones you mention? How should success be measured? Which type of federal socially conservative programs do you think he should support?
a capella on December 10, 2007 at 11:36 AM
It absolutely should. That darned right-wing media keeps thwarting us, though.
Allahpundit on December 10, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Hmmm…”HELLSTORM: ANTI-MORMON BOOK DISTRIBUTED RIGHT UNDER HUCKABEE’S NOSE”
Nah, I don’t have Drudge’s flair for the dramatic.
Slublog on December 10, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Of course it sticks. Every far left wacko thing/group/ad etc. they associate themselves with sticks.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Bastages!
Bryan on December 10, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Whiney Fredhead? Moi?
As far as Huck goes….I’m one of those ‘get off my porch’ Christians….tell me you know ‘the way’ and I’ll point out the highway. All these discussions of Christianity here give the DUbots more ammunition to use against us then all the ‘hang-em-high’ talk ever will. I don’t expect that to stop, however, because ‘you know the way!’.
Limerick on December 10, 2007 at 11:39 AM
I agree that Drudge is being really tough on the Huckster, but the fact remains he is a big spender, high tax, open borders liberal republican who is pandering for votes. He deserves to be exposed.
GogglesPisano on December 10, 2007 at 11:40 AM
I’m taking your comment at face value but it sounds pretty fishy to me- as if you’ve misquoted or mischaracterized what was said to further an agenda of that good old-fashioned Christian bashing that goes on around here on a regular basis whenever Huckabee, Romney, or the Pope is on the radar. This is, of course, above and beyond the legitimate discussion of the role of faith in society.
That being said, I’d say that a President doesn’t have a right to deal with “issues” like the LDS any more than Congress has a right to demand a role in the deployment of troops. If Huckabee or any public official wants to “do something” about Mormons, they need to be part of the active clergy not an elected officeholder that swears to uphold the rule of law for all people.
As a Christian minister, I’m sure Huckabee recognizes that homosexuality is specifically listed as a sin which excludes the sodomite from redemption. So long as Governor or President Huckabee doesn’t criminalize homosexuality, what’s the problem with being “intolerant” of a lifestyle that precludes man from Christ’s salvation?
highhopes on December 10, 2007 at 11:41 AM
No it wouldn’t because you wouldn’t find a reporter who would print it first off. Secondly I can almost guarantee you stuff like that HAS been distributed at some of her speaking events. You don’t get elected to represent San Fransisco without a good bit of that crap.
As I’ve said many many times the negativity you show to all candidates is overboard. There’s crap dug up on this blog and arguments made that I don’t even find at places like DU. On the entire front page right now you do not have a single positive post about a Republican candidate. You have five negative ones, well six but I don’t really count Ron Paul. I can’t think of a single President in our history that you wouldn’t have been railing against during their campaign. You can’t possibly be this miserable in real life so cut it out here, or at least try to balance it out a bit.
bj1126 on December 10, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Yeah, this time around they pretty much all seem that way to me.
Defense Guy on December 10, 2007 at 11:43 AM
The Huck heads are are all probably good people, God -fearing and all that, but America is indeed overwhelmingly secular. What is ‘Huck’ going to do about everything else besides God? Taxes, illegals, oil, Iraq, the Russians are realy, really important stuff to a large part of the country. How you worship on Sunday and everyday is important too, but having a guy named ‘Huck’ parlaying with world leaders doesn’t cut it. Ronny gat away with the ‘aw shucks’ stuff, but proved himself as a hard bargainer as governor. Huck hasn’t proved anything. Besides having a country guy named Huck is a little to close to Huckleberry Finn or Huckleberry Hound. The MSM would have a field day with the name alone. Outside the South he ‘ain’t gettin’ the votes to win.
countywolf on December 10, 2007 at 11:46 AM
I have to strongly disagree with you. I have gotten the best education about these various Rep. candidates than in any election ever before in my life. I am very glad to know about all their warts and blemishes, flip-flops and mistakes. The stakes are high and I’m going in with my eyes wide open. I appreciate the circular fire during this primary season.
That being said, I will vote for the Republican candidate, even though I’m in NY and it doesn’t count– (I’m afraid to tell my kids that yet so I bring them into the booth to watch.)
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Yes he does, but on those issues and not in a way that appears to be intolerant of millions of very mainstream Christians. Drudge’s headline hits Huckabee for being a pastor saying pastoral things, which is where he’s actually gaining support, not on the issues where he could lose that same support.
I’m a Southern Baptist myself. I like that aspect of Huckabee’s background. But I strongly oppose him on the issues, and I believe that more conservative Christians would oppose him too if they knew all of his issue weakpoints.
Drudge’s headline strikes me as unfair and counterproductive. It’ll probably generate sympathy for Huckabee among the people that need to be shown where he’s a problematic candidate on the politics.
Bryan on December 10, 2007 at 11:50 AM
Whether you hold Huck responsible for this book going around or not, the fact that it was going around at this convention does not speak well of the attendees or of evangelicals in general. While on one side, some (note the emphasis before you blow a gasket) they accost others for religious intolerance, they are on the other hand fomenting the same thing, and I suspect that is in no small part what is fueling Huck’s rise. It’s disgusting.
I’m not a religious person myself, but I’ve usually taken a pro-evangelical position regarding their presence in the conservative movement, and have argued on many message board against intolerance of Christians in general by non-Christians. And I realize it’s not ALL evangelicals that should be tarred with the same brush that those passing around the anti-Mormon book should be. Nevertheless, between some of Dobson’s pronouncements, the subtle-yet-obvious anti-Mormon bigotry in play here, I’m beginning to wonder if I have been sticking up for the wrong people.
thirteen28 on December 10, 2007 at 11:51 AM
I’m sure there are some evangelicals that won’t vote for Romney because of his faith in the same way that Obama will lose some votes because he is black (or not black enough), Hillary will lose some votes for being a female, and Kucinich will lose votes for being a garden gnome.
What’s your point here? There’s a big difference between voting for a candidate that happens to be LDS or Jewish or atheist and one who runs on a platform that would enact change based specifically on that doctrine. The secularists have attempted to make Christianity into a wedge issue from the beginning. That’s why the gay-loving, multi-divorced “Catholic” Rudy is being forced down the GOP’s throat with a flurry of anti-Christian “issues.” I’ve seen some of the most impressive Christian baiting propoganda on this forum which, apparently, has made it a crusade to disgrace Huckabee by posting story after story in the same way that Greta Van Sustern can’t drop the Natalie Holloway story.
highhopes on December 10, 2007 at 11:53 AM
And just what is that supposed to mean? Since when have any of us Fredheads been “whiney”? I am not whiney!
Maybe a litte….
JetBoy on December 10, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Bryan on December 10, 2007 at 11:50 AM
But Drudge is not a Southern Baptist. And I don’t think Drudge understands Sountern Baptists.
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 11:59 AM
I think there are people who ask the question: will the Mormons gain having someone in the Whitehouse and is that good or bad for Christianity?
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 12:01 PM
It’s probably worth noting, though not necessarily wrt the book mentioned in that article (which I haven’t read, fwiw), that pointing out doctrinal differences does not equal “bigotry.” We throw that word around far too much these days in situations where it doesn’t apply all that well.
Bryan on December 10, 2007 at 12:02 PM
That’s why Huckabee’s constant and overt references to his religious beliefs scare people that he will do just that.
You yourself said he may be intolerant of gays because it precludes man from Christ’s salvation.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Why is this book any different than a book by Dawkins or Hitchens that speaks against belief in God? Couldn’t a book like this be seen as an educational tool for religiously themed debates?
Defense Guy on December 10, 2007 at 12:03 PM
What is it that people should know?
Also, if Huck uses this to win the primaries, will he be forced to give his own religion speech explaining S. Baptists to the rest of the voting public?
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2007 at 12:05 PM
I’m not the only one who posts here. If there are no positive posts on the front page, that may be because (a) it’s attack season and the dirt is coming out, and (b) the field is underwhelming. Do you see a lot of cheery posts from MM or Bryan about the candidates?
Allahpundit on December 10, 2007 at 12:05 PM
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhh…
I thought Drudge had it up there because he said it at the debate or at some recent political speech and was aghast that the MSM hadn’t run with it yet.
Drudge just went down a few notches for me as a relevant source.
(No I don’t expect him to be 100% factual and am well aware that he’s a muckraker… but digging up an old story and misconstruing its context as a banner headline is just wrong…Republican or Democrat…)
Skywise on December 10, 2007 at 12:06 PM
I agree about how this man has managed to do so well, so far. Talking about sin is about the toughest thing you can bring up in our culture. We have meds and Oprah to tell you it doesn;t exist. He’s not saying anything that any Christian does not believe.
Hening on December 10, 2007 at 12:07 PM
No Shmuckabee, the reason we have so much government is because Nanny-staters like you think that taxes are just an extention of pious (if coerced) charity.
The reason we have so much broken humanity is because Shmuck nanny-staters like you think there is not enough pious (if coerced) charity and that of we just keep increasing the gubmint charity train our problems will be solved.
“Christian leader” my posterior. If this man put as much faith in freely given charity as he does in the government coerced variety, he might qualify for leader, but otherwise he’s just another poverty pimping Reverend. At least his theology degree is real.
BKennedy on December 10, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Mitt did an examplary job on Glenn Beck’s show last night I thought, but I got into it near the end and I don’t know whether Glenn keeps video copies of his stuff.
BKennedy on December 10, 2007 at 12:09 PM
I think part of the problem is that we’ve already heard where the big four stand on most issues so even when they do well, there’s nothing especially newsy about it except “the interview went smoothly.” Huck’s stances are now being examined and most righty blog readers seem lukewarm.
Allahpundit on December 10, 2007 at 12:13 PM
I agree with the idea that pointing out doctrinal differences does not equate to “bigotry”. Almost anytime a religious person points out what they believe, they are highlighting a doctrinal difference between their beliefs and mine, since I’m more or less agnostic. No problem with that at all, and I even have some admiration of people of faith.
But I do have a problem, big time, with the particular book that is the subject here, the full title of which is:
(my emphasis).
That smacks of big time intolerance, and you don’t have to read much further than that to see it.
thirteen28 on December 10, 2007 at 12:13 PM
It would definately be interesting if the race ended up being Obama v Huck
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Hey guys, how about this statement in there.
Now, perhaps we all should be giving our 10%, but what scares me is this. It was ultimately Mr. Tax Hike Mike that rose taxes in his state. This paragraph was disturbing to me, because he was blaming the rising taxes on the people. In other words, if the people won’t give to the poor, then we’ll just use the government to take it from them. After all, this is what Jesus would do, right? This just feeds my fear that he would try to do his good deeds by forcing everyone to through government crutch programs.
Jay on December 10, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Yet Huck is shooting up in the polls. What does that say about righty blog readers?
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 12:17 PM
I have no problem with his opinions on lifestyles as a private citizen. I wasn’t referring to specifically homosexuality, but more his fixation with using elected authority to generate federal mandates to replace state legislation, and his reference to those who opposed his bill for tuition breaks for illegal immigrants as being un-Christian and nativist. I’ve had enough compassionate conservatism.
His remark about Mormonism came in response to a question regarding Mormonism as a cult, in the Iowa campaign, around the time Mitt gave his speech. I can’t give you the link, but it was in a Q & A with reporters.
a capella on December 10, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Someone (maybe you) said the other day that Obama is very adept when discussing religion– I’ve never heard him speak. Obviously, Huck is.
Do you mean interesting to hear religion debated, or interesting if it’s those two?
I wouldn’t like to see either of them win, so interesting isn’t the word I would use.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2007 at 12:19 PM
If Huckabee had attended that convention while campaigning for the Presidency I think it’s fair to say that he would have had to answer for the anti-mormon book distribution. Since this goes back to 1998 it’s a bit difficult to hold him responsible at this point in time, although I suppose it would be fair to ask him what he would do now under similar circumstances.
Of course they do, but do Mormons distribute anti-Catholic or anti-evangelical books when they convene or do they stick with promoting the virtues of their own doctrine? That is not a rhetorical question – I don’t know the answer to that, although I would be surprised if the answer was yes.
My reading of the Romney family is that they are very welcoming and tolerant of other religions.
Buy Danish on December 10, 2007 at 12:20 PM
Ahead of the curve.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2007 at 12:20 PM
It wasn’t me.
Both
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Just because you’re governor, it doesn’t mean you give up your life…his life was a pastor’s life. I disagree with being a pastor and a politician, I think Christ covered that quite well..you can’t serve two masters.
However, he gets nailed for passing out anti-Mormon materials during a speech…and Mitt spends a couple of years passing out anti-Christian materials. Every time a Mormon knocks on your door, they are passing out anti-Christian materials.
That’s what happens when people are trying to convert you, they are saying what you believe in is wrong and what they have is right.
That’s newsworthy?
right2bright on December 10, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Why you hatin’ on Ron Paul, d00d?
John from WuzzaDem on December 10, 2007 at 12:25 PM
40% of Voters Don’t Know Which Republican Gave Speech on Faith and Religion
Gotta love the voting public!
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Aside from being a fiscal, foreign policy, education, immigration, and law-enforcement liberal, Huckabee is a lunatic who has paroled a long list of disgusting, greusome murderers.
Lehosh on December 10, 2007 at 12:28 PM
More than 50% of voters aren’t Republicans. There hasn’t even been a primary yet, and the gen’l election is 11 mos. away. I’d say that’s a pretty good statistic.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Other than that, you don’t have an opinion on Huck.
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 12:32 PM
A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 60% were able to identify Romney as that candidate. That figure includes 66% of Republicans nationwide, but just 52% of Evangelical Christian voters.
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Getting some people back on the straight and narrow moral path is indeed important but its not the job of the government to do it, in fact its the job of the people to keep the government on the straight and narrow.
Speakup on December 10, 2007 at 12:37 PM
So this is good, right? I don’t get your point.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Ditto. Every single post about Huckabee that people are crying about involved something that Huck said, did, or both. That’s all part of a candidate’s record, and it’s fair game whether you whiners out there like it or not. That kind of scrutiny is something that every top-tier candidate has to endure, and the only thing that protected Huckabee up to now is the fact that nobody thought he had a shot. Both Bryan and Allah think there’s nothing to this Drudge headline (and neither do I, for that matter), so they both pointed out that fact. That’s called being fair.
I know some of you think that your candidate (whoever he is) deserves a free pass, and that Hot Air is here for no other reason than just to serve you. Well, if you’re in that group, I suggest you keep your crying towels handy, because chances are you’re going to have to deal with the horror of ideas that you don’t agree with. I know it’s traumatic for you, but it’s something that the rest of us have to deal with on a daily basis, so you can manage it too. It’s called adulthood. Maybe you’ve heard of it.
ReubenJCogburn on December 10, 2007 at 12:42 PM
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Point is that one third of the Republicans surveyed didn’t know who made the speech and half of the Evangelical Christians.
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 12:42 PM
And I said it’s early, and those numbers are good. Most people don’t sit and read political blogs 11 mos ahead of the election.
JiangxiDad on December 10, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Oh I dunno, I think you could work with “Mitt made list of 100 promises entering gubernatorial office, claims to have kept all of them. — ‘Promise.’ ” is potentially worthy of discussion.
BKennedy on December 10, 2007 at 12:46 PM
I agree most people don’t pay attention. The primaries are next month though.
bnelson44 on December 10, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Dig into Fred’s past – you’re intruding
Dig into Romney’s past – you’re a gibot
Dig into Rudy’s past – (ohhhlala!) – no wait you’re a judgementalist
Dig into Ron Pauls past – zzzzzzzzzzz
Dig into McCains past – you’re anti American
But? – dig into Taxforthee’s past – you’re anti christian antigod, antifamily values, anti anticholestoral and anti that strummin earth grains eatin; Euell Gibbons and Anita Bryant love Child; and all around preacherman from Arkansas
Man don’t go there
EricPWJohnson on December 10, 2007 at 12:47 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »