Huck supporter’s e-mail: Get pastors to endorse him privately, then pitch GOTV from the pulpit

posted at 3:03 pm on January 14, 2008 by Allahpundit

A distinction without a difference, since the sort of “private” endorsements he has in mind involve press conferences. They can’t endorse from the pulpit or else it jeopardizes their tax-exempt status so here’s the end-around, every bit as transparent as James Dobson’s pro forma disclaimers about speaking in his capacity as a “private citizen” when he sends out blast e-mails and chitchats with Sean Hannity about Giuliani’s unacceptability. If the objection to 501(c)(3) orgs politicking is that they’re deviating from the mission for which they’ve been judged exempt, how is it any less of a deviation for religious authorities to do it at a presser or on TV than at church? They’re still leveraging the authority that comes from their association with the exempt organization; the only difference is that they may be reaching more people that way.

Gary Glenn, a conservative Christian activist and a Huckabee supporter, sent the email Jan. 6. It encourages people to “distribute pro-Huckabee literature on the cars of church parking lots” and to “stand this Sunday on public sidewalks across the street from the parking lots of the biggest evangelical churches you can find, as people are departing church services, and wave Huckabee campaign signs.”

The email tells supporters to convince church pastors to personally endorse Huckabee (away from the pulpit), and then from the pulpit, to get the pastors to encourage their flocks to vote (without mentioning an individual candidate). “This is perfectly legal,” it says. “For those who will, schedule a news conference…at the public library or a local restaurant or hotel conference room (not a church), and invite all pro-Huckabee pastors to attend.”

The email asks supporters to leverage church membership lists as a way to spread the Huckabee message. “If a Huckabee supporter is unable to make the calls himself, ask him to share the membership directory of his church so that other Huckabee supporters who don’t go to that particular church can help call church members with a respectful polite reminder to vote on Jan. 15th (and hopefully for Huckabee).”

Other candidates play this game too, including the blogosphere’s favorite. But in their case the religious appeals are a garnish; in Huck’s case, with 80+% of his support in Iowa coming from evangelicals, they’re more of an entree, one which he’s happy to serve up himself by continuing to speak from the pulpit while he’s on the campaign trail. That’s the punchline to this strategy — as other pastors climb down from the altar to help him win, he climbs up.

Glenn (who isn’t affiliated with the campaign) defends the practice by saying this is where the votes are for Huck so it only makes sense to mobilize them, just as you’d canvass retirement homes if 80+% of his support came from senior citizens. But his support wouldn’t come from seniors because he can’t play identity politics with them, would it? That’s the whole point, along with the fact that by reminding people he’s a minister — a “Christian leader” — he can’t help but imply that he has a higher endorsement. See the exchange at the end here for an insight into it.

All that said, I think Geraghty makes a good case. Even if Huck flames out, he’s too smooth to disappear entirely. Four or eight years spent as the head of some social-con organization, during which time he tacks gradually towards the right on fiscal issues and it might be SECOND LOOK AT HUCK! in the next decade.

Assuming he doesn’t win tomorrow, that is.

Exit question for Mark Krikorian: Yes, McCain’s newfound enlightenment on immigration is utterly unconvincing. What about the guy who lifted your own plan wholesale? Does his good taste immunize him from the same charge?


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

Why would evangelicals want a liberal to get the nomination?

If they want to vote for a liberal evangelical, the Democrat party is chalk full of them.

EJDolbow on January 14, 2008 at 3:08 PM

God is on his side!

JayHaw Phrenzie on January 14, 2008 at 3:09 PM

the biggest turn of for me is the fact that Huckabee is basically saying “vote for me because Im a Christian”

offroadaz on January 14, 2008 at 3:10 PM

As a conservative Christian myself, this stuff drives me crazy. We are to render unto Caesars what is Caesars, and unto God what is God’s. The pulpit,and church, right down to its parking lot are for proclaiming the Gospel of Christ, not a politian!

debi118 on January 14, 2008 at 3:10 PM

ask him to share the membership directory of his church

Do they have a ‘do not call list’ for telemarketers from the Huck campaign? They should. Unfortunate for Christians who want to hear preaching instead of politicing.

Spirit of 1776 on January 14, 2008 at 3:11 PM

I’m sure there will be lots of video tape coming from Michigan on this.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

wccawa on January 14, 2008 at 3:13 PM

What the voice behind the sock-puppet is really saying:

You have to be an imbecile to be a Christian and, therefore, inasumuch as you are an imbecile, you’ll vote for who your Church leaders tell you to vote for. Christians are sheep, and sheep need to be led.

As for me, I’m a Christian who isn’t swayed by the fact that a politician calls himself a Christian. Nor am I swayed by any political statement that may be made from the pulpit, inasmuch as the pulpit is for spreading the Gospel, not political commentary.

But, what do I know, I’m an easily-led, sheep. A Christian, if you will.

OhEssYouCowboys on January 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM

Why would evangelicals want a liberal to get the nomination?

If they want to vote for a liberal evangelical, the Democrat party is chalk full of them.

EJDolbow on January 14, 2008 at 3:08 PM

Those supporting Huck don’t care if his positions are liberal or conservative, other than the abortion issue, and I’m not sure even that can be labeled as just a conservative position any more. It ties more into the religious side, although not entirely. They support him because of his use of faith as a campaign tool and emotional crutch. They want him elected because he will use government to drive evangelical agendas. We need to quit looking or classifying social policies as conservative or liberal. Huck has managed to destroy that concept.

a capella on January 14, 2008 at 3:22 PM

This is the kind of thing the Dems will drool over come general election time, among the obvious others…

don’t do it people, think about it…

stlpatriot on January 14, 2008 at 3:25 PM

I hope these organizations lose their tax-exempt status and have to start paying Uncle Sam. Maybe that will help them “get religion” on low-taxes and capitalism.

phronesis on January 14, 2008 at 3:26 PM

I might add that his supporters’ willingness to bend the 501(c)3 rules in order to get their way is very significant in terms of how he would govern.

a capella on January 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Senator Fred Thompson is far and away the best conservative candidate to represent those who live in Jesusland, according to David Jeffers, author of Understanding Evangelicals: A Guide to Jesusland. “Evangelicals are looking for a candidate who is strongly pro-life, is for traditional families, and who is an actual Reagan Conservative.” Jeffers explains, “Every GOP candidate is espousing Reagan-like characteristics, but only Thompson has the record to back it up.”

http://christiannewswire.com/news/957985342.html

Fred will get Evangelical votes, too. And he doesn’t even have to pander for them!

ihasurnominashun on January 14, 2008 at 3:28 PM

Using the church and who’s to blame?
Huck gives God a bad name……

bbz123 on January 14, 2008 at 3:29 PM

If the objection to 501(c)(3) orgs politicking is that they’re deviating from the mission for which they’ve been judged exempt, how is it any less of a deviation for religious authorities to do it at a presser or on TV than at church?

It’s not any different – which is what makes it unacceptable, in my view. As a pastor, I can have whatever private conversations or political involvement that I want…so long as I don’t use any “influence” to overtly campaign. For these guys to claim they’re acting in their private capacity this way is dishonest (at best) and deceptive (at worst).

Tim on January 14, 2008 at 3:31 PM

Bad name!

ronsfi on January 14, 2008 at 3:31 PM

I might add that his supporters’ willingness to bend the 501(c)3 rules in order to get their way is very significant in terms of how he would govern.

a capella on January 14, 2008 at 3:27 PM

Great point.

Tim on January 14, 2008 at 3:32 PM

Hey lay off! He’s on mission…frum Gad.

ronsfi on January 14, 2008 at 3:32 PM

Huck and Obama are very similar. And, AP also noted something above that has also been bothering me. If Huck doesn’t get the brass ring this time, he’ll bide his time burnish some newly found conservative credentials, and try again in 2012. Now that he has national name recognition, he’ll feed off it forever.

a capella on January 14, 2008 at 3:32 PM

To be honest, I have a far bigger problem with the whole absurdity of the tax system than I do with any religious folks getting politically involved.

LimeyGeek on January 14, 2008 at 3:33 PM

I agree as a conservative baptist, that churches should be for proclaiming the gospel, but why is there a double standard for conservative churches and liberal churches? How many politicians have we seen standing in Black Baptist churches stumping for themselves and being tacitly endorsed by the pastor and no one says a word about their tax exempt status, but let a pastor tell his people for vote for someone who opposes abortion or to vote for a particular issue, everyone gets in a uproar. I’m can’t stand the Huckster and wouldn’t vote for him in a one candidate race, but I can’t stand the double standards here.

flytier on January 14, 2008 at 3:35 PM

flytier on January 14, 2008 at 3:35 PM

I don’t like the double-standard either, but that’s not a justification for going down to their level. Sure is frustrating, though.

Tim on January 14, 2008 at 3:38 PM

I agree as a conservative baptist, that churches should be for proclaiming the gospel, but why is there a double standard for conservative churches and liberal churches
flytier on January 14, 2008 at 3:35 PM

Any church endorsing a liberal like Huck seems liberal to me. Or just woefully ignorant.

phronesis on January 14, 2008 at 3:39 PM

What the hell is GOTV? On my cable guide it is listed as the Golf Channel.

Just A Grunt on January 14, 2008 at 3:39 PM

GOTV =get out the vote.

phronesis on January 14, 2008 at 3:40 PM

For these guys to claim they’re acting in their private capacity this way is dishonest (at best) and deceptive (at worst).

Tim on January 14, 2008 at 3:31 PM

Right. It is an ethics issue. No different than an MD referring a patient from his practice to an acupuncture clinic which he secretly owns without full disclosure. In both cases, the trust of the patient or congegation member is being abused.

a capella on January 14, 2008 at 3:40 PM

In both cases, the trust of the patient or congegation member is being abused.

a capella on January 14, 2008 at 3:40 PM

It’s not just being abused, it’s reached battered women’s shelter status…

SkinnerVic on January 14, 2008 at 3:45 PM

What the hell is GOTV? On my cable guide it is listed as the Golf Channel.

Just A Grunt on January 14, 2008 at 3:39 PM

GOTV =get out the vote.

phronesis on January 14, 2008 at 3:40 PM

LOL! I was thinking the same thing.

Huckabee just seems to be a bit too “slimy” for me.

However, if the other candidates could do this, would they do it too?

Nineball on January 14, 2008 at 3:45 PM

flytier on January 14, 2008 at 3:35 PM

One of Hucks newly arrived supporters developed the vapors on another thread when I suggested that selective law enforcement is practiced in our system by the president through the Justice Dept. We all see evidence of it every day. Politicing at the pulpit could be stopped if the administration so wanted.

a capella on January 14, 2008 at 3:47 PM

Is there no depth, which this man will stoop to desecrate his position with the church?

Any Preacher that would profit from his pulpit is no man of God.

Mike Huckabee is a true politician.

TheSitRep on January 14, 2008 at 3:47 PM

There’s nothing wrong with openly and proudly being a Christian, but this is a Huckup. I don’t want a preacher for President and Huckabee is starting to act like Hillary…Do anything and say anything to get elected. He’s making a big mistake carrying his faith this deep into his campaign. Fine with me…I’m voting for Fred anyway.

orlandocajun on January 14, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Hillary was preaching from a pulpit this weekend, in a Presbyterian church I believe. It is shameless. I got nothing against a candidate going to church, but they need to be right out there in the congregation with everybody else and not up front.

Just A Grunt on January 14, 2008 at 3:56 PM

Tim on January 14, 2008 at 3:31 PM

Those that have a 501(c)3 who actually call “anyone” without the proper paperwork, such as a license to flyer (which is totally absurd), can have their status revoked if not on the ground of what the 501(c)3 represents. 501(c)3′s can/will lose their status if used for political or religious gain.

More or less, I wouldn’t want my not-for-profit revoked due to someone else’s problem and issues concerning politics or religious affiliations. This can go all ways and many have lost it due to this certain item.

upinak on January 14, 2008 at 4:02 PM

While I question the appropriateness of this practice as well, it raises another question for me – and I ask in all seriousness, as, I’ve never thought of this before.

Does the prohibition against political speech from the pulpit in a church because of the church’s tax exempt status, by default, limit the minister’s free speech? In which case, the only way that the minister could make a statement to anyone about anything political would be as a “private citizen,” or, at a place away from the church building and not in his or her official capacity as a minister? And, if that is the the only way that the minister could exercise his or her free speech on a political subject, is it really all that bad for him or her to do so?

I really am not sure…

nailinmyeye on January 14, 2008 at 4:03 PM

There’s nothing wrong with openly and proudly being a Christian, but this is a Huckup.
orlandocajun on January 14, 2008 at 3:53 PM

Oh, I agree. I like the way dubya lives his life and uses his faith as a source of strength and guidance. I could say the same for JFK, Mitt, Lieberman, etc. Some wear it openly, some do not, but those who use it for personal gain are repugnant.

a capella on January 14, 2008 at 4:03 PM

…how is it any less of a deviation for religious authorities to do it at a presser or on TV than at church? They’re still leveraging the authority that comes from their association with the exempt organization…

That’s rich: get ordained, lose your 1st Amendment right to free speech and petition. I don’t like Huck as a candidate, and find such tactics slimy. But the law that forbids pastors from giving biblically informed opinions about candidates was the brainchild and spawn of LBJ. “Hmmm… if they compare my policies to Scripture, I’ll come up short. Better stop all that free speech in them thar pulpits by threatening their tax exemptions.”

Would you forbid pastors from writing letters to the editor? Talking to neighbors? Sheesh.

Akzed on January 14, 2008 at 4:17 PM

Does the prohibition against political speech from the pulpit in a church because of the church’s tax exempt status, by default, limit the minister’s free speech?

nailinmyeye on January 14, 2008 at 4:03 PM

No…it limits their tax-status, but not their constitutional rights. It’s completely legal for the pastor to say anything he wants to say – but if the church wants to maintain a special tax-recognition under the law, they have to agree to certain guidelines.

Technically, no church *has* to be 501c(3) exempt. They could change their tax status and have as much political involvement as they desired.

Tim on January 14, 2008 at 4:18 PM

What ‘double standard’, flytier? You’re suggesting hypocrisy where none exists. Now if the posters on this board were Democrats, you’d have a point. The Dems regularly turn a blind eye to the illegal and (imo) immoral use of black churches for political purposes.

However, as it happens, 99.9% of the people here are highly critical of that practice. The fact that we are just as critical when a Republican candidate does it makes your outrage sound a little foolish, doesn’t it?

Maybe the reason your stomach is turning is that your head isn’t on straight. Just sayin’…

grits on January 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM

I’m calling it right now: Mike Huckabee wins South Carolina in double digits and the momentum sweeps him to win the republican nomination!

Also I’ll call the general election: Huckabee Vs. Hillary

Huckabee wins by 8%+

I said it first…remember it.

HaraldHardrada on January 14, 2008 at 4:24 PM

Ideally all churches would renounce their tax exemptions tomorrow. More practically, the law should be revoked that prohibits pastors from political comment from the pulpit.

Right now pastors must (and may) dance around the issues, such as, “Abortion is murder. You shouldn’t vote for candidates who advocate shedding innocent blood,” and everyone knows which candidate he’s not endorsing.

Churches were both tax exempt, and free to comment on issues and endorse candidates, until about 50 years ago. Back then the worst offenses in your typical public school were chewing gum and talking out of turn, before AIDS, before abortion on demand, before condom/cucumber demos in class, when the teachers said grace before taking the kids to the cafeteria, and so on. Man it was awful back then.

Akzed on January 14, 2008 at 4:28 PM

HaraldHardrada on January 14, 2008 at 4:24 PM

Ffffft

peski on January 14, 2008 at 4:32 PM

Akzed on January 14, 2008 at 4:28 PM

This is not the first post I’ve seen from an (apparently) evangelical harking back to “the good old days”. It’s an utter crock, and those that see the past through these “Christian nation” rose colored glasses are probably the same non-thinking lemmings that are trying to give us the Huckster as the Televangelist in Chief.

peski on January 14, 2008 at 4:36 PM

Like I said peski, I don’t like Huck or his tactics. I prefer the government staying out of politics. What are you a HuffPo troll? You like AIDS, abortion, comdoms in class and school shootings? I mean, give us an argument if ya has one.

Akzed on January 14, 2008 at 4:40 PM

McCain’s “newfound enlightenment on immigration” is no such thing. McCain claims that he “gets it” now — but he clearly does not. What McCain claims to “get” is that the American people want secure borders, which is true, but it’s certainly not all we want. We also want enforcement of existing immigration laws, and no new massive amnesties for millions of foreigners who have spent years flaunting their contempt for our laws. McCain, in contrast, STILL supports amnesty (which he prefers to call “a path to citizenship”) for foreigners living illegally in the U.S. McCain just thinks we should secure the border first, before starting the next massive amnesty program.

AZCoyote on January 14, 2008 at 4:40 PM

I didn’t like it when Bush used church rolls to GOTV and I don’t like it with Huckabee, either. But he’s not alone in that, on either side of the aisle. Churches have a much higher calling that political endorsements. They shouldn’t stay out of politics completely, but it should not be their focus.

I’m not sure why you give him so much flak AP for preaching in the pulpit, though. Are they somewhat of a campaign stops? Sure. But he is a former pastor and he preaches a straight forward sermon.

Of course that plays into the “Christian leader” cred he’s establishing, but he really can’t do anything else. If he doesn’t go to churches, he’s “running from his Christian past.” When his campaign was in single digits, churches were probably the only place that would have him speak. But all the candidates make church visits and speak religiously, even Rudy and his recent “pray for me” spiel.

wardrobedoor on January 14, 2008 at 4:40 PM

The first time my preacher tells me something about how to vote will be the last time he gets anything in the collection plate. If someone puts fliers on my car in the church parking lot or bothers me before or after church I’ll be PO’d and there will be a huge backlash from folks like me. Leave my Sunday morning worship time to me.

roux on January 14, 2008 at 4:47 PM

Before the Revolution, many American pastors preached about biblical government, and about what was unbiblical about British tyranny. In one instance after such a sermon the preacher doffed his gown to reveal his uniform, and then marched off to war. I guess you woulda sicced the IRS on him.

Do you really want a situation where moveon.org spies are sitting in the pews to see if the pastor slips up, however innocently? Must a preacher become an IRS code afficianado in order to protect himself and his parish from govt intrusion because he identifies the advocacy of sin as such? What you advocate is only about 60 years old in a nation (at least) 232 years old. Think about it.

Akzed on January 14, 2008 at 4:48 PM

That’s rich: get ordained, lose your 1st Amendment right to free speech and petition. I don’t like Huck as a candidate, and find such tactics slimy. But the law that forbids pastors from giving biblically informed opinions about candidates was the brainchild and spawn of LBJ. “Hmmm… if they compare my policies to Scripture, I’ll come up short. Better stop all that free speech in them thar pulpits by threatening their tax exemptions.”

Would you forbid pastors from writing letters to the editor? Talking to neighbors? Sheesh.

Akzed on January 14, 2008 at 4:17 PM

Why should they be granted a tax exemption if they are operating as a political advocacy group? What would stop political advocacy groups from registering as churches to gain the exemption, then just serve as lobbyists?

a capella on January 14, 2008 at 4:49 PM

That was LBJ’s thinking, and it was effective in shutting up preachers – conservative ones at least. Look around you; liberals with no interest in religion at all preach literal sermons in liberal churches with impugnity, but let a conservative say anything political and all hell breaks lose. All legislation is moral. Someone though 55 mph was a moral speed limit. Our most prolific moral arbiters have become those not bound by such restrictions – the press. Maybe that was a bad thing.

Gotta go.

Akzed on January 14, 2008 at 4:55 PM

Let them reap what they sow. If these churches demand a huge and ever expanding welfare state while demonizing those that actually create the wealth that they plan to forcibly redistribute, let them pay taxes too.

phronesis on January 14, 2008 at 5:00 PM

“Why would evangelicals want a liberal to get the nomination?”

Maybe because evangelicals regard him as a conservative and not a money-grubbing immoral politician who sticks his finger into the wind before each and every statement he makes.

Maybe evangelicals believe that progress is indeed good if done in a responsible and conservative way.

Maybe evangelicals believe that a leader grounded in moral principles and who has proven he will STAND FIRMLY upon those principles even amidst stiff opposition is what America needs in this time of little to no leadership.

Maybe evangelicals, like Huckabee, care about others besides their damned selves!

Al-Ozarka on January 14, 2008 at 5:45 PM

They can’t endorse from the pulpit or else it jeopardizes their tax-exempt status so here’s the end-around, every bit as transparent as James Dobson’s pro forma disclaimers about speaking in his capacity as a “private citizen”…

That isn’t “transparent;” the word for that is “fraudulent.”

logis on January 14, 2008 at 5:58 PM

Few if any churches could be considered conservative anymore. Well maybe they’re Huckabee conservative in the sense that he isn’t. The Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and many more follow the liberal Blame America First agenda to the letter these days. The amounts of money we’re talking here are huge and that’s why the Catholics as well as others pay people to file law suits against anybody who tries to pass illegal alien laws or tries to enforce the existing laws. Personally I’d like to see someone file RICO charges against some of them but I’m not so crazy about using tax exemptions to quash political speech. Remember the separation of Church and State only meant to protect the church from the government until the 1950′s when the anti Christian movement got into full swing.

I certainly think that Huckabee is riding the cross to the Presidency and I don’t like his politics a bit but it would be pretty darned Democrat of me to start wanting to quiet anyone’s free speech. We can beat Huckabee in other ways without acting like the other side.

Buzzy on January 14, 2008 at 6:04 PM

how is it any less of a deviation for religious authorities to do it at a presser or on TV than at church? They’re still leveraging the authority that comes from their association with the exempt organization; the only difference is that they may be reaching more people that way.

I would say that the reason is that otherwise, they lose the right to support and promote a Presidential candidate. A right that all citizens have.

Wise Golden on January 14, 2008 at 6:10 PM

Maybe because evangelicals regard him as a conservative and not a money-grubbing immoral politician who sticks his finger into the wind before each and every statement he makes.

Maybe evangelicals believe that progress is indeed good if done in a responsible and conservative way.

Maybe evangelicals believe that a leader grounded in moral principles and who has proven he will STAND FIRMLY upon those principles even amidst stiff opposition is what America needs in this time of little to no leadership.
Maybe evangelicals, like Huckabee, care about others besides their damned selves!

Al-Ozarka on January 14, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Hey, how about those ethics violations while he was governor, and his lawsuit against the ethics committee when they investigated? And the drapes in the mansion he tried to abscond with, the wedding shower/registry two decades after the wedding, and the front organization designed to direct contributions from donors like embryonic stem cell researchers and tobacco companies into his pocket in secret?
Those kinds of principles?

a capella on January 14, 2008 at 6:17 PM

Maybe because evangelicals regard him as a conservative and not a money-grubbing immoral politician who sticks his finger into the wind before each and every statement he makes.

Maybe evangelicals believe that progress is indeed good if done in a responsible and conservative way.

Maybe evangelicals believe that a leader grounded in moral principles and who has proven he will STAND FIRMLY upon those principles even amidst stiff opposition is what America needs in this time of little to no leadership.
Maybe evangelicals, like Huckabee, care about others besides their damned selves!

Al-Ozarka on January 14, 2008 at 5:45 PM

Yes you are right about all of that.
And evangelicals are wrong on all counts. Huckster is just pulling the ol’ Jim Baker on them.
I have to ask you, what do you think of a guy that would desecrate the sanctity of his relationship with the lord to further his political endeavors? Where I come from that is pretty sick. You know like those people that put the fish symbol on their signs and business cards to help them sell their wares.
I did not know that ones relationship with Jesus Christ was a negotiable commodity or mammon.

TheSitRep on January 14, 2008 at 6:51 PM

How long does it take for all real conservatives to realize they must oppose both Huckabee and McCain? Romney and Thompson are getting most of the conservative vote but there are still millions of them supporting Huckabee or McCain. What’s the matter with these people? They need to wake up very soon!

davenp35 on January 14, 2008 at 8:06 PM

Yoke their non profit status damn-it!

sonnyspats1 on January 14, 2008 at 8:36 PM

Also I’ll call the general election: Huckabee Vs. Hillary

Huckabee Shrillary wins by 8%+

I said it first…remember it.

HaraldHardrada on January 14, 2008 at 4:24 PM

Fixed it.

Gianni on January 14, 2008 at 11:44 PM

Hopefully, the GOTV push will motivate the rational evangelicals to vote Mitt or Fred.

csdeven on January 15, 2008 at 1:06 AM

Hopefully, the GOTV push will motivate the rational evangelicals to vote Mitt or Fred.

csdeven on January 15, 2008 at 1:06 AM

Together at last, you and E – what a long and treacherous road we’ve traveled, together. I really don’t care now who buys that drink :)

Entelechy on January 15, 2008 at 1:09 AM

Together at last, you and E – what a long and treacherous road we’ve traveled, together. I really don’t care now who buys that drink :)

Entelechy on January 15, 2008 at 1:09 AM

Ahhhh. But my dear friend, I fear we will be at odds after Huckafake and McShamnesty are out of the race.

csdeven on January 15, 2008 at 8:46 AM

Gott mit Huck.

Tzetzes on January 15, 2008 at 8:59 AM

Last time I got something political on my windshield in the church parking lot, it was two whole issues of Lyndon Larouche’s newspaper. That’s no reflection on the church; I think it was just a target of opportunity for the Ronulans Larouchies.

Michael Bates on January 15, 2008 at 5:45 PM

While I am totally against Huckabee, I don’t see a problem with this. If anything, I believe it was unConstitutional for the law to be passed restricting Pastor’s freedom of speech in Church’s.

This was probably not the best post for my first post here, was it?

ilja on January 15, 2008 at 8:53 PM