Coulter: “Huckabee is the Republican Jimmy Carter”

posted at 6:39 pm on December 14, 2007 by Allahpundit

Lowry opted for a Howard Dean analogy but the basic point abides. “I’m getting tired of this being blamed on the evangelicals,” says AC of Huckabee’s rise, laying fault instead at the feet of ye olde reliable mainstream media. That’s convenient nonsense: There’s been plenty of coverage of Dumond, and the NYT piece from a few days ago had some choice details about Huck’s ignorance in key policy areas. The simple fact is that he wouldn’t be on the cover of Newsweek if evangelicals hadn’t handed him 35% of the vote in Iowa. Krauthammer’s piece today focuses on Romney’s speech last week but his point, that piety is not itself a qualification for the presidency, applies even more forcefully to Huck. The question now is whether Iowa is an outlier, as it was for Pat Robertson in 1988, or whether Huckabee’s going to leverage his “one of us” appeal in South Carolina, Michigan, and Florida, too. Fred’s worried enough to be organizing photo ops like this in Mississippi.

As for the Dems, she shares my opinion that the sooner the Glacier melts, the better.

Update: Forgot to flag Nauert picking on Huckabee’s old quote about wifely service to her husband. As loathsome as her burqa comparison is, you’re getting a whiff here of the sort of contempt that’s going to greet that concept as it circulates through the public square. Meanwhile, See-Dub appeals to James Dobson’s critics to consider their hypocrisy if they threaten to walk away from the party over Huck after having howled at Dobson for threatening to walk away over Rudy. It’s not the same, though. For one thing, Dobson and the social cons made that move first and are forever holding it over the heads of the rest of the conservative coalition. There’s some savory payback here in giving them a taste of their own medicine. Also, the objection to Giuliani is essentially on a single issue. The objections to Huck are omnibus — so much so that religious conservatives should themselves be considering walking away, on conservative grounds, if he’s the nominee. The question isn’t why Ace or I might boycott Huck; it’s why James Dobson might not.


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

Comment pages: 1 2

The reason Huck is getting noticed is the MSM. Ann’s right.

Couldn’t be because he’s a story and they need to fill time between commercials? How interesting would it be to say about Iowa: Hillary and Mitt continue to lead by healthy margins.

What I find interesting from a media standpoint is that the Republicans could go into their convention without a nominee. All the candidates have had significant problems with the voters. I don’t think Rudy, Huck or Mitt can get the delegates needed for the nomination. The media would be thrilled to have a convention where some “news” actually happened.

dedalus on December 14, 2007 at 11:53 PM

Ann’s wrong if she thinks a smart path for the well-being of the GOP is to pit science and faith in confrontation.

dedalus on December 14, 2007 at 9:59 PM

You think? Even though 80% of the American population BELIEVES IN GOD? The reason the GOP is suffering is BECAUSE they’re listening to people who share your incorrect belief that Americans shy away from religion. The ONLY reason Huckabee is doing so well at the moment is BECAUSE he’s played that card.

When are atheists going to stop believing that 80% of the human race is wrong while THEY are right?

Sure, confrontation is Ann’s long suit but science is an area were one can be upstaged by facts.

Facts? I wasn’t aware there were any “facts” associated with the “theory” of evolution.

Gregor on December 15, 2007 at 12:17 AM

Huckabee is Democratic choice to be Republican candidate. He has even been called “reasonable” by lefty loons which should scare the pants off anyone to the starboard of Karl Marx.

Huck has no chance against Hill but if, by some miracle, he should prevail the Dems still win. Clemency to illegals, increased taxes, pardons for terrorists–Shmuckabee is everything the Democrats want. Even better, when the stock market crashes a Republican president can be blamed.

MaiDee on December 15, 2007 at 12:29 AM

Even though 80% of the American population BELIEVES IN GOD?

Many biologists also believe in God, and of the 80% of the American population you cite most believe in empirical science. Huck is smooth at resolving the two and I think there is an audience for him in the people who want to study and benefit from science but not abandon their belief in God.

Facts? I wasn’t aware there were any “facts” associated with the “theory” of evolution.

There is the fossil record. They keep digging up bones that reinforce theories like common descent.

dedalus on December 15, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Even better, when the stock market crashes a Republican president can be blamed.

We are teetering on the edge of very substantial market problems right now–probably the worst since the Russian financial crisis of 1998 hammered our derivative markets. Hopefully, we avoid a recession before Nov 08.

dedalus on December 15, 2007 at 12:42 AM

I am a Christian and Huckabee is not my choice. He may be a Christian, but sure as heck isn’t a Conservative Republican. He is liberal when it comes to taxes and illegal immigration, both of which are my main concerns. I am leaning toward Fred Thompson, which I think is a loss cause.

Shelly on December 15, 2007 at 12:50 AM

When are atheists going to stop believing that 80% of the human race is wrong while THEY are right?

Gregor on December 15, 2007 at 12:17 AM

Wen the God of the 80% stops hiding.

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 1:16 AM

We are teetering on the edge of very substantial market problems right now–probably the worst since the Russian financial crisis of 1998 hammered our derivative markets. Hopefully, we avoid a recession before Nov 08.

dedalus on December 15, 2007 at 12:42 AM

We will be lucky to avoid stagflation.

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 1:18 AM

Someone on this site said it best: Huckabee is a Religious Progressive

Huck, like Carter and Bush, acts as if conservatism is itself not compassionate

The MSM is attempting to define an Evangelical voting bloc so that it can spend the campaign fighting a Straw Dog

It is so much easier to fight an enemy you have tailored to your needs than the real enemy who comes in many stripes

I am a one issue Evangelist Christian. I need this nation to survive for the sake of my religious practice and my liberty

Amnesty, open borders, importing and promoting a mass invasion of illegals to enrich the rich, and empower the powerful, and disenfranchise those whose only wealth is their vote is an act of war against my civil rights

I will not tolerate any candidate who is weak on this no matter how loud he proclaims his faith for he is not faithful to saving my land

From Isaiah 1:7
Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers

entagor on December 15, 2007 at 1:31 AM

Actually a stock market crash within the next year, albeit always possible, is unlikely for the following reasons:
1 bad mortgage loans have made the stock market volatile. However, the real estate market is also a rival market to stock investing. I don’t believe anyone is about to sell stocks and put their money into real estate just now.
2 The debt markets such has bonds. T-Bills, T-notes, Euro-dollars, munis etc. etc. are extremely low yielding.In many cases the interest can’t even keep up with the inflation rate. Higher paying debt instruments such as zero coups and other OIDs have distinct tax disadvantages since, among other things, taxes are due to income which you will not receive for years.

However, if some “bright boy” (Huckabee) or “girl” (Hillary) decides on tax increases especially on capital gains taxes, there will be a flight to debt instruments (low interest and all). The key to stocks in the future, in my opinion, therefor, is future tax increases (or lack thereof), With Hill and Huck tax increases are a certitude.

MaiDee on December 15, 2007 at 1:45 AM

Facts? I wasn’t aware there were any “facts” associated with the “theory” of evolution.

There is the fossil record. They keep digging up bones that reinforce theories like common descent.

dedalus on December 15, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Fossils are of dead animals during one period of time. There is no evidence that suggests things happened over a period of time. Actually there are many facts and evidences that disprove the concept of inter-species evolution. However, scientists don’t like to talk about that because they HOPE (ie, have faith) that they will discover something to explain it in the future.

A popular British expression is ‘at the end of the day’. Does that mean a 24 hour day?

Why is it that 80% of Americans believe in God (using a previous figure in this thread, I thought it was closer to 95%), but they want to believe in a God who is limited?

Science is imperfect. If someone found a dead person with a bullet through the head and a gun on the ground next to him of the same caliber as the gun and bullet fired, they would assume that he killed himself with that gun. However, the reality could be completely different even though the evidence scientifically appears to be obvious. It’s quite possible that someone else shot the person with the same type of gun and the dead person shot back before he died. . . however there would be no scientific evidence to point to a second gun or person.

Evolution ‘science’ is a series of stories more fantastic than the theory of Creation. Evolution can be disproven with science, Creation can’t be. That’s not to say Creation must be how life began, but it does mean that evolution ain’t how it happened. Sorry guys. They were just as shocked when the scientists found out that the Earth was not flat.

ThackerAgency on December 15, 2007 at 2:14 AM

I think Jesus wants Huck-me-please to be president. That’s all that matters to me, what Jesus wants.

Don’t ya’ll like Jesus?

All I care ’bout is muh beef jerky, muh fish’in pole, and Jesus.

revolution on December 15, 2007 at 2:26 AM

With Hill and Huck tax increases are a certitude.

MaiDee

Which may be why my stock advisor (and father) suggested I take 2/3rds of my capital gains in taxes this year, rather than be punished or trapped in the near future…

I wonder which party will prove him right… and why it would matter much which party I vote for seeing as both are angling to do so.

gekkobear on December 15, 2007 at 2:37 AM

Say what you will about her, but Coulter commentary is always 100% more interesting and insightful than just about anything else out there. That she is one of only a handful, at most, of pundits without fear is icing on the cake.

Halley on December 15, 2007 at 2:42 AM

Many biologists also believe in God, and of the 80% of the American population you cite most believe in empirical science.

dedalus on December 15, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Scientists are wrong 99.9 % of the time. They change their minds every few minutes and every time they change their minds … they love to throw out the following statement:

“Scientist now know …”

There is the fossil record. They keep digging up bones that reinforce theories like common descent.

You mean fossils like these?

Or, THESE?

You won’t hear about those, will you?

There are no fossils that show any evidence of an “evolution.” There are only fossils of species that “appear” to be similar to other fossils, which have led to “theories” that these similar species might have evolved from each other. But what’s interesting, is there are no transitional fossils. And the dating of these fossils are consistently being shown to be wrong as new fossils are being found. And just like with global warming “theories” … all evidence leading to opposing viewpoints are attacked and eventually kept from being reported.

Let’s take a look at the “evolution of a woodpecker.”

“no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.”- Richard Lewonton (evolutionist), 1982, Human Diversity, p.153

Gregor on December 15, 2007 at 3:59 AM

Many biologists also believe in God, and of the 80% of the American population you cite most believe in empirical science.

dedalus on December 15, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Let me correct my numbers.

March 30, 2007 – A belief in God and an identification with an organized religion are widespread throughout the country, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Nine in 10 (91 percent) of American adults say they believe in God and almost as many (87 percent) say they identify with a specific religion. Christians far outnumber members of any other faith in the country, with 82 percent of the poll’s respondents identifying themselves as such. Another 5 percent say they follow a non-Christian faith, such as Judaism or Islam. Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact. Seventy-three percent of Evangelical Protestants say they believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years; 39 percent of non-Evangelical Protestants and 41 percent of Catholics agree with that view.

Although one in ten (10 percent) of Americans identify themselves as having “no religion,” only six percent said they don’t believe in a God at all. Just 3 percent of the public self-identifies as atheist, suggesting that the term may carry some stigma.

Here’s the real interesting part:

Still, it is unlikely that a political candidate would serve him or herself well by declaring their atheism. Six in ten (62 percent) registered voters say they would not vote for a candidate who is an atheist. Majorities of each major party — 78 percent of Repulicans and 60 percent of Democrats — rule out such an option. Just under half (45 percent) of registered independents would not vote for an atheist. Still more than a third (36 percent) of Americans think the influence of organized religion on American politics has increased in recent years. But the public is still split over whether religion has too much (32 percent) or too little (31 percent) influence on American politics. Democrats tend to fall in the “too much” camp (42 percent of them, as opposed to 29 percent who see too little influence) as Republicans take the opposite view (42 percent too little; 14 percent too much).

I’d say that as far as Republican candidates go … you’re incorrect to believe voters don’t want their candidate to campaign on their Christian faith. It’s exactly what they want.

Gregor on December 15, 2007 at 4:12 AM

I won’t vote for Rudy or Huck either one. Not sure where that leaves me…

Gianni on December 15, 2007 at 6:04 AM

Allah, it must be hard medicine to hear Ann Coulter speaking your words. She looks great, though, doesn’t she?

Jaibones on December 15, 2007 at 7:42 AM

That she is one of only a handful, at most, of pundits without fear is icing on the cake gall shows her marketing genius.

Halley on December 15, 2007 at 2:42 AM

Let’s save the hero adulation for those who put on the uniform for far less compensation than Ann expects or demands.

Bradky on December 15, 2007 at 9:17 AM

I wonder how many Dems registered Republican to vote for Huckabigot in the primaries?

davenp35 on December 15, 2007 at 9:23 AM

I am a devout, born-again Christian (not an “Evangelical”) and I don’t support any candidate. I am SO disappointed that
none is like W was to me in ’00 and ’04. I don’t “feel good about”,”like” or support any of them enough to vote for any of them. There are millions of us who feel this way. I still don’t like Huck even though he has the Christian thing going for him. He’s too weak on everything else. And he looks like a deflated balloon with bad teeth.

PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on December 15, 2007 at 10:09 AM

The evangelicals that support the Huckster appear to be those who are older who get all their info from TV. They are the ones who watch Christian TV all day and Fox at night.
I think their views will slowly change as the Hound’s positions on illegal immigration etc. get more coverage.

SunSword on December 15, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Coulter: “Huckabee is the Republican Jimmy Carter”

..And people wonder why he’s had a surge in popularity?

Reaps on December 15, 2007 at 10:09 AM

A bit OT, but I see Robert Bork has endorsed Mitt.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
So, Rudy has Ted Olsen and Mitt has Bork. I’ve learned one can’t have everything one wants in a candidate, but still think Rudy, Mitt, Fred, or even McCain would handle the presidency well, and have decent chances of winning the general, if conservatives don’t go all pouty over single issues. But, after the primaries, we have no more flexibility in choices.

a capella on December 15, 2007 at 10:51 AM

I’d say that as far as Republican candidates go … you’re incorrect to believe voters don’t want their candidate to campaign on their Christian faith. It’s exactly what they want.

Thanks for the numbers. My point wasn’t that the GOP candidate should be an atheist, Huck isn’t.

My point was that Huck’s take on Christianity works better in the general than Coulter’s. Huck is a “Golden Rule” Christian whereas Coulter is an “us & them” Christian.

dedalus on December 15, 2007 at 11:02 AM

As I read through the posts I’m seeing a lot of angst about losing in 08. We elephants have something going for us in 08 that will make us win…

the Dhemmocrat nominee.

Mojave Mark on December 15, 2007 at 11:02 AM

I wonder how many Dems registered Republican to vote for Huckabigot in the primaries?

davenp35 on December 15, 2007 at 9:23 AM

Good point

The MSM wants him too much to be true

Of course I may be giving the MSM too much credit. Likely the real puppet masters are feeding them the line like a bunch of fish

entagor on December 15, 2007 at 11:07 AM

As I read through the posts I’m seeing a lot of angst about losing in 08. We elephants have something going for us in 08 that will make us win…

the Dhemmocrat nominee.

Mojave Mark on December 15, 2007 at 11:02 AM

I believed this, too, until we saw Huckabee rising. If the GOP nominates this clown, it’s the GOP’s candidate that will be the dem’s best weapon. For God’s sake, people, they’ve got him on tape talking about wives “submitting” to their husbands. He’s the southern Baptist arm of the freakin’ Taliban.

I’m tellin’ ya’, I have never voted for a dem in my life — not even for dog catcher – but I will vote for Hillary before I’ll vote for this guy. Religious fanaticism is the world’s problem right now, not the GOP’s solution. Add that to his liberal agenda, and Huckabee is the death of the Republican Party. If he’s nominated, it’s lights out. Go home. Game over.

Rational Thought on December 15, 2007 at 12:57 PM

He’s the southern Baptist arm of the freakin’ Taliban.

RT,

Bite me, buddy.

see-dubya on December 15, 2007 at 1:11 PM

For God’s sake, people, they’ve got him on tape talking about wives “submitting” to their husbands. He’s the southern Baptist arm of the freakin’ Taliban.

No, it’s not Huckabee that will be the end of the Republican party. It’s people like you who can’t see past the nose of their face who will be the end of the Republican party. I’m an Evangelical, and I’m getting sick and tired of being compared to people who blow other people up without a second thought. Also, I’m sick of being talked of in condescending terms like I have no intelligence because of what I believe.
The Republican party had no real power until Christians became a part of it, and it will be that way again if Christians leave. I for one have been a Republican since I was 10, about 25 years ago. I have voted for every Republican presidential nominee since George H.W. Bush, and wish I would have had the opportunity to vote for Reagan. However, I have no wish to be a part of a party where people compare evangelicals to the Taliban. (That happens very regularly here. I can take it coming from Rosie, but not from fellow Republicans!)
Some of you are just as bigoted toward Evangelicals as you say the “Huckabigot” is toward Mormons. I do understand your frustration and don’t blame you for expressing it, but when you compare Evangelicals to jihadists, you are crossing the line.

Oh and FWIW, I can’t stand Mike Huckabee, and would rather see Guiliani get the nomination than him. I am at present planning to vote for Fred Thompson in the primaries.

Jodella on December 15, 2007 at 1:59 PM

People can boycott all they want, as long as we don’t get a Democrat for president.

Hening on December 15, 2007 at 2:00 PM

I am a devout, born-again Christian (not an “Evangelical”) and I don’t support any candidate. I am SO disappointed that
none is like W was to me in ‘00 and ‘04. I don’t “feel good about”,”like” or support any of them enough to vote for any of them. There are millions of us who feel this way. I still don’t like Huck even though he has the Christian thing going for him. He’s too weak on everything else. And he looks like a deflated balloon with bad teeth.

PoliticallyIncorrectSandy

As a born again christian what did Bush do to make you feel he was a good pick? As soon as he said that christians, Jews and Muslims pray to the same God that told me all I needed to know.

There’s no way for a christian who has spent more than 2 minutes thinking about it to come to that conclusion considering the differences between what’s written in the Koran and the Bible. Unless of course you believe that God was “just funnin” about certain parts in each book.

Benaiah on December 15, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Now if only Coulter can do like she tried to do with Imus – and somehow ram it through Huck’s head that he should quit apologizing.

Ryan Gandy on December 15, 2007 at 2:32 PM

Hmmmm. From the “The Next Reagen” in HA’s breaking news, we get this for Huck to explain.

However, Rollins has been accused of voter suppression while running Christine Todd Whitman’s successful gubernatorial race in New Jersey. In 1993, he said GOP operatives paid Democratic precinct workers in black areas to sit back on election day, and he also said the campaign contributed to church charities in return for black ministers to not talk to their congregations about Democratic incumbent James Florio.

a capella on December 15, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Wen the God of the 80% stops hiding.

MB4 on December 15, 2007 at 1:16 AM

Funny you should mention that. God does hide Himself (Isa. 45:15), and if you wait too long, it becomes too late.

Moreover,

stagflation

Stagflation? Really?!?!? with never-been-lower, record-low, historically astounding, almost non-existent unemployment? And the best anyone has to offer is the merest hint of inflation.

I heard an MSM type say “stagflation” Friday in the news blurb right after Rush’s show. He should be shot for gross incompetence.

urbancenturion on December 15, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Rational Thought on December 15, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Nobody told you that Hillary claims to be a devout Christian. Knucklehead…

Jaibones on December 15, 2007 at 3:37 PM

And the best anyone has to offer is the merest hint of inflation.

I heard an MSM type say “stagflation” Friday in the news blurb right after Rush’s show. He should be shot for gross incompetence.

Bernanke and the Fed likely cut 25bp on Tuesday instead of the 50bp the market wanted due to inflation concerns. On Friday the equity markets fell about 1.3% in reaction to higher-than-expected CPI data. I think the Fed knew the CPI number or had a strong feeling about it when they elected to not go 50bp.

The MSM has little effect on traders or economists at investment banks. Inflation is a concern and there is consensus on an economic downturn in 2008, with 1% to 2% economic growth for the year and maybe a flat DJIA. You could have a combination of a recession and inflation.

I hope things are better but there is a lot that the economy has to work through with subprime, liquidity, and real estate prices before we can return to growth.

Your employment observations are correct but employment is a lagged indicator. Businesses wait to hire after the start of a boom and layoff happen just after the markets head downward.

dedalus on December 15, 2007 at 4:17 PM

No, it’s not Huckabee that will be the end of the Republican party. It’s people like you who can’t see past the nose of their face who will be the end of the Republican party. I’m an Evangelical, and I’m getting sick and tired of being compared to people who blow other people up without a second thought. Also, I’m sick of being talked of in condescending terms like I have no intelligence because of what I believe.

I didn’t paint evangelicals with a broad brush, nor did I suggest that you have no intelligence. I said that Huckabee endorses a brand of Christianity which implores wives to “submit” to their husbands. We don’t practice submission here in the US; we’re in the business of liberty. Therefore, he is an intolerable candidate. I never mentioned evangelicals at all. Are you defending Huckabee’s religious “interpretation” regarding women? If not, your response is just overblown. Hmmmm, religious people over-reacting, seeing full-scale condemnation of their faith where there is none, demonizing their critics, and claiming victim status? What does that remind me of…oh, never mind.

Rational Thought on December 15, 2007 at 12:57 PM

Nobody told you that Hillary claims to be a devout Christian. Knucklehead…

Jaibones on December 15, 2007 at 3:37 PM

Well, I don’t believe a word Hillary says. Are you suggesting that Huckabee is a sham artist, too? Good. Then all the more reason he is a disaster for the GOP. Thanks for clearing that up.

Rational Thought on December 15, 2007 at 4:49 PM

Evolution can be disproven with science, Creation can’t be.

Yes, the theory of evolution is testable and falsifiable. That is part of what makes it a scientific theory. Evolution doesn’t seek to explain the origin of the universe nor does it say anything about God’s existence.

What Huck does a good job of is allowing the scientists and theologians to coexist. The Catholic church has also been quite thoughtful on this point, not seeing it as essential to deny science in order to maintain belief.

dedalus on December 15, 2007 at 5:27 PM

He is liberal when it comes to taxes and illegal immigration

Huck is a very vocal and strong supporter of the Fair Tax.
Doesn’t anyone think thta might have something to do with his lift in the polls?

conservativecaveman on December 15, 2007 at 7:40 PM

The simple fact is that he wouldn’t be on the cover of Newsweek if evangelicals hadn’t handed him 35% of the vote in Iowa.

That could be the dumbest sentence I’ve ever read here! I guess someone here thinks the Iowa caucus has already happened. I mean no one can be so intellectually vacant as to believe a poll a month before the votes are actually counted.

Capitalist Infidel on December 15, 2007 at 8:03 PM

Jaibones on December 15, 2007 at 3:37 PM

*Ahem* …

Hillary IS a devout Christian. She and her husband are Methodists.

If I were you, I’d think long and hard on who you shoot your mouth off to and call “knucklehead.”

Ryan Gandy on December 15, 2007 at 11:16 PM

R.T.,

To be honest it was your “Southern Baptist arm of the Taliban” comment that set me off. There have been many comments on this board comparing Evangelicals to the jihadists. In case you didn’t know, most people consider Baptists to be Evangelicals, which is why I was assuming you were talking about Evangelicals.
Also, many people make condescending blanket statements about Evangelicals on this site, implying that they are like sheep with no faculties to think for themselves. You in particular did not do that, so I apologize if I sounded like I was blaming you.
The comment about wives submitting to their husbands came out of Ephesians 5 and was taken out of context. As a Christian, it is hard for me to see scripture taken out of context and then in the next sentence see my denomination talked about as being an “arm of the Taliban.” Men in the Taliban who follow sharia law share no characteristics with Southern Baptist men. I don’t think my response was overblown, sorry. I don’t notice any Evangelicals on this site comparing anyone to Jihadists or the Taliban in some ad hominem attack.

Jodella on December 16, 2007 at 12:37 AM

implications for the future of not just the Republican party, but for all conservatives.

Nessuno on December 14, 2007 at 7:22 PM

I’m going to read the rest of the thread now… but this really jumped out at me…

RushBaby on December 16, 2007 at 12:42 AM

R.T.

Just wanted to address one more aspect of your reply.

I never claimed to be a “victim” of anything. I was frustrated to see my faith misrepresented yet again by someone who knows nothing about it, so I responded.

Jodella on December 16, 2007 at 12:42 AM

Jodella on December 16, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Neither do I. That sort of attack is completely baseless, stupid and actually sounds like something Rosie “Fire Can’t Melt Steel But It Melted My Brain” O’Donnell would engage in.

Ryan Gandy on December 16, 2007 at 4:59 AM

Well maybe we can get him to skip the white house and go straight to building houses.

boomer on December 16, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Ryan Gandy on December 15, 2007 at 11:16 PM

I beg your pardon; my sentence was supposed to have a question mark at the end. I don’t claim to know other peoples’ faiths, so I try to state only what they claim.

As for Rational Thought, she was stating that the Huckster is a religious extremist Christian, and that she would sooner vote for Hillary, and I was trying to point out that Hillary also claims to be a devout Christian, so there’s not much to differentiate.

Jaibones on December 16, 2007 at 1:29 PM

What’s wrong with being an extreme Christian? The worst we’re going to do is call you a sinner? Some people simply cannot abide that. Beyond that we might build a fresh water well, or a hospital, a university, a school, feed the hungry, perform free surgery. Extreme indeed.

Mojave Mark on December 16, 2007 at 1:33 PM

Dear Ann, “normal Americans” are not evolution deniers. Please get your stuff out of my apartment. /fantasy

ronsfi on December 16, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Mojave Mark on December 16, 2007 at 1:33 PM

Throw you down the well, hang you, throw in a pit and burn you,
Extreme indeed.

ronsfi on December 16, 2007 at 3:10 PM

ronsfi on December 16, 2007 at 3:10 PM

That was dumb, made no sense, and shows just how much you know about Christians.

Ryan Gandy on December 16, 2007 at 11:39 PM

Here’s my question:

Is there a single Huckabee supporter in the world who is NOT an evangelical Christian?

Since we can’t really answer that, is there a single one posting on this site?

I get a kick out of AC, and I’m no defender of the mainstream media, but if Huckabee is the nominee we have no one but the Christianists to blame.

peski on December 14, 2007 at 6:45 PM

Don’t blame us. How about blaming those in control of promoting nominees? Most evangelicals I know, especially Baptists, are backing Duncan Hunter.

Sensei Ern on December 17, 2007 at 11:05 AM

IF the evangelicals were to stay at home then they would only have theirselves to blame for the next 25 years of liberal policy, liberal judiciary and liberal hollywood assaulting their lives, their children’s lives and the lives of every innocent law abiding citizen in America.

This is ‘The Big One’ folks. I know you might of heard it before, but this is it. The one. The only. The decision.

Griz on December 17, 2007 at 5:19 PM

Comment pages: 1 2