Evangelicals warn McCain: Just say no to Mitt

posted at 10:50 am on July 29, 2008 by Allahpundit

We … knew this already, yes? After 16 months of campaign coverage, I can’t tell new news anymore from old news that’s been recycled and presented as new news. But I’m reasonably sure this qualifies for category two.

More news breaking at this hour: It seems Mike “Christian Leader” Huckabee’s supporters are the most adamantly anti-Mitt.

[Evangelical leaders] say Mr. Romney lacks trust on issues such as outlawing abortion and opposing same-sex marriage and because he is a Mormon. Opposition is particularly powerful among those who supported former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in the Republican presidential primaries earlier this year…

Other well-placed Christian conservatives say that although many evangelical leaders could accept and work for a McCain-Romney ticket, Mr. Huckabee’s supporters tend to be “rabid” in their views against Mr. Romney because of his faith: They do not regard Mormonism as a Christian denomination…

In conversations with The Times, several Republican officials close to the McCain campaign also played down anti-Romney sentiment among conservative evangelicals. They cited an online poll of evangelicals by 2000 presidential primary candidate Gary Bauer that found Mr. Romney is the top vice-presidential choice of born-again Christians…

An evangelical leader who, though he has close ties to Mr. McCain, confided to The Times that polling suggests that putting Mr. Romney on the ticket likely would cost Mr. McCain 7 percent to 10 percent of the evangelical vote – enough to spell defeat for Mr. McCain in a close race with Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Seven to 10 percent isn’t something McCain can afford to be cavalier about, needless to say, even with most prominent Christian leaders already on board. This makes twice that Huck and his fans have managed to thwart Romney’s ambitions; can’t wait for 2012.

If you’re wondering whether Pawlenty earns the all-important Good Evangelical Seal of Approval, no worries: He’s golden, and not just on abortion either.


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 3

I agree that it’s wrong to persecute anyone for his faith or lack thereof, whether it’s Mormon or Muslim or Hare Krishna.

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 3:41 PM

September Dawn, btw, was practically as trustyworthy as a micheal moore film–if even that.

Vanceone on July 29, 2008 at 3:43 PM

I read a variety of reviews for September Dawn, & they generally agreed that a lot of poetic license was taken, but it wasn’t necessarily anti-historical.

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 3:45 PM

If you’re wondering whether Pawlenty earns the all-important Good Evangelical Seal of Approval, no worries: He’s golden, and not just on abortion either.

Great, Pawlenty is an evangelical. But I’d still rather see Jindal, a Catholic, as veep. Or Palin. No boring White guys!

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 3:50 PM

Vanceone, as a fellow Mormon, I humbly request that you take it down a notch or two.

I agree with what many here have said – there is a big difference between “evangelicals” as a big tent, and that obnoxious, vocal minority of Huckabites who have generated so much heat and noise here.

I also agree that there is a substantive difference between those who oppose Romney for religious reasons (and whatever else they say, their bigotry eventually comes out so loudly that nearly everyone calls them on it) and those who oppose Romney for other reasons. Though their opposition to Mitt during the primaries was intense, I certainly wouldn’t lump Hollowpoint or The Chosen One into the “bigot” camp.

In some ways it boils down to a gut feeling. Some criticism of Romney simply feels like criticism of Romney. But when attacks on Romney feels more like an attack on me and mine, that bigotry line has been crossed. I’ve got a pretty thick skin for it, and aside from a handful of posters (whose names would probably be agreed upon near-unanimously), I don’t see bigotry here.

And I certainly don’t assign the comments of one extreme voice to evangelicals as a whole. In non-southern states, Romney usually came in first or second among evangelicals. Most of the self-described evangelicals on HotAir are not Huck supporters, and they’re usually the first to call out the lunatic fringe.

as for VP, I really don’t care. It won’t be Huck – thank heaven – and I can vote for pretty much anyone else, given the empty revolutionary Messianism of the Democratic alternative.

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 3:53 PM

“I agree with what many here have said – there is a big difference between “evangelicals” as a big tent, and that obnoxious, vocal minority of Huckabites who have generated so much heat and noise here.”

And not ONE of them display any bigotry toward Mormons.

Plenty of them display Huckabee-hate, though.

Now…who are the haters?

Al-Ozarka on July 29, 2008 at 3:55 PM

This is your brain, this is your brain on fictional stories. Any questions?

LevStrauss on July 29, 2008 at 3:58 PM

sulla

From an evangelical to a Mormon: Well said.

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 3:58 PM

“I won’t hold modern Mormons accountable for what happened in September Dawn. Mormonism’s core beliefs have changed as much as Mitt Romney’s.”

Neither will I…but Vanceone don’t mind…do he?

Al-Ozarka on July 29, 2008 at 3:58 PM

And not ONE of them display any bigotry toward Mormons.
Al-Ozarka on July 29, 2008 at 3:55 PM

On the contrary – most of the virulent Huckabites of which I speak have shown ample bigotry toward Mormons. if not in this thread, then in myriad previous threads. StOlaf is a bigotry hall-of-flamer.

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 3:59 PM

I also agree that there is a substantive difference between those who oppose Romney for religious reasons

Why does opposing someone for for religious reasons = bigotry = hatred?

Couldn’t opposing someone for religious reasons be a matter of following the content of one’s religious doctrine?

aengus on July 29, 2008 at 4:00 PM

Yeah there is a definite division among evangelicals, ones who don’t feel their intelligence is being threatened by having people of other faiths in office and those that have no intelligence to threaten.

LevStrauss on July 29, 2008 at 4:02 PM

“If it’s McCain/Romney, I’ll gladly campaign for them.”

I won’t. I won’t even campaign for McCain/Huckabee.

FTGOP, if McCain is its choice.

Al-Ozarka on July 29, 2008 at 4:03 PM

“On the contrary – most of the virulent Huckabites of which I speak have shown ample bigotry toward Mormons. if not in this thread, then in myriad previous threads. StOlaf is a bigotry hall-of-flamer.”

Yet…you give no example.

Maybe you could find a St. Olaf comment or two…I don’t know.

But we all know he/she’s a poser anyway.

Al-Ozarka on July 29, 2008 at 4:05 PM

And I don’t know if people have noticed, but the MSM seems to hate Mormons, or at least Romney, they were much more negative towards him than the rest of the candidates during the primary, for no rhyme or reason, and this is coming from someone that would never vote for him.

LevStrauss on July 29, 2008 at 4:05 PM

LevStrauss says I have no intelligence.

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 4:06 PM

Al-Ozarka on July 29, 2008 at 4:05 PM

Did you have an account during the primaries?

LevStrauss on July 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM

aengus on July 29, 2008 at 4:00 PM

If religion is the ONLY reason you oppose someone, that’s bigotry by definition. Especially when someone would otherwise support you enthusiastically. (and yes, I have run into people who were pro-Romney until they learned he was Mormon, at which point they decided they couldn’t in good conscience vote for him.)

If one’s religious beliefs translate into specific policy proposals that go against your beliefs (e.g. “I’m Al Qaeda, and if elected I will wipe Israel off the map”) then sure – vote away.

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 4:07 PM

Al-Ozarka

In “FTGOP”, what does “F” stand for?
I had the impression from your comments that you are a Christian…

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Ahh, so the hardcore Evangelicals don’t want a Mormon VP because in their view he isn’t a Christian.

Well, isn’t that charmingly bigoted.

Dave Rywall on July 29, 2008 at 11:04 AM

Probably this also means:
No Hindus
No Buddhists
No Jews
No Baha’is
probably no practicing Catholics
and probably tens of thousands of christian sects who don’t get it just right.

It goes without saying that agnostics or atheists need not apply.

Annar on July 29, 2008 at 4:11 PM

sulla at 4:07

Then not all bigotry is hateful.
(again, my congressman is Jeff Flake–a Mormon–& I think he would be a great President)

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 4:12 PM

As an Evangelical, this disgusts me. They are becoming the nutroots of the right.

I still think McCain’s best choice is Sarah Palin.

stenwin77 on July 29, 2008 at 10:54 AM

On the second point, Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. She vetoed legislation that would have barred state benefits to same sex couples, supposedly on advise the legislation was constitutional in that state. Had she supported that bill she should have signed it and let the constitutionality be decided in the courts. It was a cheap trick IMHO

entagor on July 29, 2008 at 1:49 PM

Ummmm, Feminists for Life is a pro-woman, pro-life organisation. Their goal is to show that abortion hurts women. They are the anti-NOW. That, my friend, is what we call an “asset”.

AND ZOMG!!! SHE GAVE STATE BENEFITS TO SAME-SEX PARTNERS OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS!!!

Gimme a break. Palin opposes same-sex “marriage” and supported the Constitutional ban passed in her State. I hardly see how following a Court order is a “cheap trick”. An Executive official must follow the law, not be an advocate who usurps the other branches of Government.

Damian G. on July 29, 2008 at 4:12 PM

Dave Rywall, Annar

I know a lot of Christians, & I don’t know anyone like that.

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 4:13 PM

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 4:06 PM

I rip religions all the time, but I would have no problem voting for a candidate that professes to belong to a faith that I don’t agree with, which is basically all of them. Made up stories about things that aren’t physically possible, nor have ever “happened” since should have no bearing on supporting a candidate or not. Positions matter. People who vote on religious affiliation are just as bad as those people clinging to identity politics in the Democratic Primary, but that’s how you get support for people like Huckabee, exploiting his religion all the way to the bank, just like Sharpton gets new suits for exploiting his people.

LevStrauss on July 29, 2008 at 4:15 PM

things that aren’t physically possible

With God, nothing is impossible. But for those who have looked in every nook & cranny of the universe & found no God, then I suppose some things are impossible.

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 4:32 PM

McCain will lose more by not choosing Romney than he will gain by choosing Pawlenty.

There are a lot of us out here who value competence and strength. Not choosing Romney indicates McCain may have a problem with both of those adjectives.

Courage, Johnny Mac. We know you have that. Pick Romney and face the hordes.

eaglesdontflock on July 29, 2008 at 4:52 PM

Evangelicals warn McCain: Just say no to Mitt

Jesus warns Evangelicals: My patience is wearing thin with some of you who claim to follow my teachings.

MB4 on July 29, 2008 at 5:01 PM

Sulla, I’ve consistently maintained a difference between rational Evangelicals and those of the St. Olaf stripe, or the Al-Ozarka. I’ve said Hollowpoint was opposed to Romney on political grounds; only once as far as I know Hollowpoint descended into the religious fray. The Chosen one, if I remember correctly, was another of the Huckabites who thought it was God’s Will that Huck be put into office (though how they know God wants Huck, since they deny any revelation from God later than the Revelation of John, is beyond me). I frequently read a site called EvangelicalsforMitt in the primary; I think lots of Evangelicals do lots of good things. It’s just the fact that Huckabee got into the race to prevent Romney from winning that makes me mad–a man who pretended to be an example of Christ and doing the slimy things he did–and STILL does. Why does he hate Romney so much? Just religious bigotry?

In any case, I see lots of the people here saying it’s Romney, not Mormonism, they object to. Very well–how about someone like Orrin Hatch, or Jon Huntsman–surely THEY have sufficient conservative cred?

Right2bright, for instance, is an example of someone with extreme anti-Mormon positions, yet doesn’t allow those positions to really impact their political views. But St. Olaf has said repeatedly that being Mormon disqualifies someone from being president–by virtue of their faith. Al-Ozarka has as well. The reasons are, presumably, that Mormons are either more devilish, or somehow an LDS president means he or she will convert millions to the LDS church (by what, his example of a Christlike life? I’ve never figured that logic out–Mormons act like Christ would want them to act, and we can’t have that!)

Jpaginoy: No, September Dawn got the facts almost completely wrong. It went out of it’s way to say Brigham Young ordered it, which is false. Here is a sampling of reviews, calling it anti-Mormon propaganda. And as for the “Core beliefs of Mormonism have changed a ton” charge, I totally and emphatically reject those charges. Our core belief is in the gospel: that a man must have faith in Christ, repent and be baptized, and endure to the end to be saved. That has not changed since the church was organized. We also hold that God didn’t abandon the world 2000 years ago but speaks in our day.

Vanceone on July 29, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Vanceone at 5:05
Significant changes in the Book of Mormon.
Again, there is no better Congressman than mine, Mormon Jeff Flake.

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 5:15 PM

Re. Jeff Flake, I met him once, & my at-the-time 8 yr old daughter was with me. He was very friendly to us, & he charmingly said that he thought she would be the first woman President. Great, principled conservative.

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 5:19 PM

Then not all bigotry is hateful.

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 4:12 PM

I agree with you there. Bigotry doesn’t necessarily mean hatred.

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 5:22 PM

I hope McCain does pick Romney. Romney’s religion has nothing to do with his ability to fill the shoes of a VP or to govern, if called upon to do so. He is a fine man with outstanding qualifications and strong family values. He would add a great deal of valuable expertise and fund-raising ability to the ticket. If bigoted evangelicals would rather allow “Obama the Messiah” to become President than support a fine man like Romney, I pity them for their short-sightedness and their political naivete.

NuclearPhysicist on July 29, 2008 at 5:35 PM

Vance, most of my comment was meant to be a general contribution to the thread, not directed specifically at you. I apologize for not making that distinction very clear.

The notching back I refer to is stuff like this:

How many thousands of Mormons lie dead on the plains of America because they were driven by the sword from their homes? And to this day you “hardcore” evangelicals don’t admit anything was wrong with it at all–some of you hanker to do it all over again!.

That’s overly-heated rhetoric for a forum like this, and too broad a brush. Stick to calling individuals out for their specific idiocies. “You, [], are a clueless moron,” etc. Bringing up the Extermination Order is like going straight to the triple-dog-dare, or Jesse Jackson comparing everything to Selma. I don’t think even Olaf wants to see us massacred on the plains; he just wants to see us marinating in brimstone over a sulfur hibachi for all eternity. Even then I don’t think it’s anything personal.

Yes, Mormons suffered terribly in the 19th century – my ancestors’ journals don’t mince words about what they endured – but it’s history. Comparing even the worst posters here to Gov. Boggs and his ilk is counterproductive; those who do indulge in over-the-top Mormon bashing also tend to bash Catholics, Jews, “phony” Christians, etc., and thus alienate EVERYONE. It’s not defending the faith to go after folks like that; it’s throwing fuel on the fire.

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 5:56 PM

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 5:15 PM:

You really need to get over your “Mormon” bashing tendencies. Maybe you need to read up on the difficulties of publishing books in the early 1800s. Substantial corrections to first edition books based on subsequent written manuscript reviews were not uncommon. So, what is your real problem with the “Mormons.” Do you feel somehow threatened by their devotion to God and their clean-living, family-centered lifestyle?

NuclearPhysicist on July 29, 2008 at 5:58 PM

I certainly wouldn’t lump Hollowpoint or The Chosen One into the “bigot” camp.

What?

peacenprosperity on July 29, 2008 at 6:00 PM

This thread is reason enough not to pick Mr. Romney as VP.mccain as pres

Got yer back.

peacenprosperity on July 29, 2008 at 6:10 PM

I hope Mike Huckabee is telling these people that what they are doing is wrong, and to lay off of the whole Mormopn thing.

AprilOrit on July 29, 2008 at 6:25 PM

Sorry non-Catholics, but unless you are part of the “one holy Catholic church” you are not Christian either. The Nicene Creed says so…

Voidseeker,

Are you talking about the “one holy Catholic church” that systemetically murdered Jews and non-believers during the Spanish Inquisition, that approved of the celebration of Adolph Hitler’s birthday in the German parishes during the Reich’s reign, turned a blind eye to the Holocaust (even assisted in some cases), turned a blind eye to centuries of boy rape by the priests and bishops themselves, burned countless victims at the stake, kept most of the human race illiterate and the “scriptures” out of their hands for centuries so they could not make an educated critique of the atrocities of the Roman House of Rape and Murder?

Oh, thought so.

The Nicene Creed was written by a group of men who had as much business dictating peoples spritual dispositions as you do.

revolution on July 29, 2008 at 6:30 PM

This is one evangelical that wants Mitt as the running mate.

Trtle2001 on July 29, 2008 at 6:44 PM

Sulla, I suppose bringing up the Extermination order is a bit “out of line” I suppose, but then, I wasn’t the one who claimed that Mormons were the ones who murdered people. That’s a gem from Al-Ozarka in this very thread, as I recall.

jpaginoy, I’ll listen to all those “thousands of changes” once you tell me which version of the Bible is the original, explicit, without question original version as dictated or written down by the original authors (such as Isaiah) themselves. I’d also recommend that if your goal is to prove that you aren’t an anti-Mormon, citing to known anti-Mormon sites such as “SaintsAlive” really doesn’t work. In particular, “SaintsAlive” is run by a certain Ed Decker, excommunicated for adultery and who puts out stuff that even the Jewish Anti-Defamation league said reeked of falsehood and was filled with unethical stuff. In fact, Ed Decker is the poster child for anti-Mormons who make their living smearing Mormons and getting Evangelicals who don’t know better to pay for his lifestyle.

Decker is about the last source you would want to use, if your desire is something approaching the same solar system as credible. Since I don’t think you knew that about SaintsAlive, I just wanted to warn you to not believe anything there.

Vanceone on July 29, 2008 at 6:46 PM

Give it a rest.
What a bunch of bigoted crap artists this anti-Mormonism attracts.

I never have felt comfortable with the whole moronic “compassionate conservatism” garbage that the evangelicals originally pushed through Marvin Olasky to George Bush. Now Olasky claims that “compassionate conservatism” was never meant to stand for “big government”.
But that is exactly what it helped to grow.
What kind of conservatism is that?

TexasJew on July 29, 2008 at 6:48 PM

Who cares what these bigoted tools think? If Romney brings the most to the ticket, he’s the pick. I supposse they’ll get over it and throw an anti mormon rally or something.

therightwinger on July 29, 2008 at 6:54 PM

peacenprosperity on July 29, 2008 at 6:00 PM

I only meant that Hollowpoint and Chosen One weren’t big Romney fans in the primaries, but their opposition had nothing to do with his religion. I remember being particularly appreciative of Hollowpoint’s tirades over Mitt’s 2nd amendment positions – some of them were downright poetic.

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 6:57 PM

The Nicene Creed was written by a group of men who had as much business dictating peoples spritual dispositions as you do.

revolution on July 29, 2008 at 6:30 PM

But they did dictate the Godhead. So I thought your post was very interesting.

I do think Mitt is the most qualified. However, I’m tired of all the anti’s and so I wonder about picking him as mccain’s choice.
By the way, I have never hear Mitt bring up his religion – only when forced to make a statement. And no, he’s not ashamed of it, but he isn’t running for pastor. Gee I wonder who used religion all the time?
He was a Bishop over 1 congregation and a Stake President over up to 5 or 6 congregations. (I hope if I’m wrong one of you will correct me – as far as numbers are concerned) He was never paid one cent to do it. This would probably entail about 4 years for each calling.
And of course he would go to China for the opening ceremonies because he was head of the Olympics in Salt Lake.
That’s a no brainer and to insinuate otherwise is just plain stupid.

Bambi on July 29, 2008 at 7:40 PM

I must say, I’m tired of most of the religious arguments on Hot Air. believer v. atheist, mountain Taoist v. valley Taoist, cross-league or intramural – it all boils down to Fight Club.

Everything discussed here tends to take the Hot Air Tone. Great for riffing on lefty antics or the latest “Dude” post, fine for the bar brawl that was the presidential primaries. But hopping into the Octagon for a doctrinal deathmatch isn’t my cup of tea caffeine-free Pepsi.

But perhaps that’s just me.

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 7:46 PM

The Chosen One was the worst poster on these Mitt threads. He hated Mitt’s whole family, especially his kids. I haven’t seen him around for a long time. Maybe he got banned because of the hatred for the family.

Anyway, I’ve said it many times before and I’m saying it again, because I live in liberal-looney-tune MN, I’m writing in Mitt for POTUS and voting for my repub senator Norm Coleman. COB won’t carry MN. That’s why I can do that.

cjs1943 on July 29, 2008 at 7:46 PM

The Chosen One was the worst poster on these Mitt threads. He hated Mitt’s whole family, especially his kids

cjs1943 on July 29, 2008 at 7:46 PM

true. He seemed to truly hate the “ROMEny” family…but the biggest burr in his saddle seemed to be Mitt’s wealth and his “spoiled” kids.

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 7:57 PM

Wow. I leave this thread for a couple of hours & the hatred of evangelicals (who hate no one) rears its ugly head again.
Repetitive, I know, but for those who aren’t paying attention, I love Jeff Flake, my Mormon congressman. I hope he’s President some day. I oppose Mitt because he was recently a lib.

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 8:00 PM

If Mitt remains conservative & serves in the McCain admin. in some capacity, I’ll support him for Pres at a later time.

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 8:01 PM

I think that the Dems are afraid of a Romney VP selection. They are aware of his strengths.

Whatever “rabid” evangelicals do to suppress the vote would probably be counterbalanced by Independents who are wary of an Obama presidency.

I have been annoyed by Huckabee, his vocal followers (especially on this site) and their network of smear mongers.

onlineanalyst on July 29, 2008 at 8:02 PM

sulla at 7:46

I think AP gets paid based on how many comments (“hits”) are in each thread. It doesn’t matter if he abets people hating each other.

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 8:03 PM

I must say, I’m tired of most of the religious arguments on Hot Air………mountain Taoist v. valley Taoist

You have to admit those mountain Taoists were asking for it.

/jk

aengus on July 29, 2008 at 8:06 PM

jgapinoy on July 29, 2008 at 8:00 PM

It bothers me too. I don’t like seeing anyone’s religion disparaged; it’s divisive at a time when conservatives desperately need more to unite them.

If I’ve said anything that comes off as hateful, I apologize.

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 8:07 PM

Thanks for the words regarding my post history.

Opposition to the likes of Huckabee isn’t comparable to opposition Romney on religious grounds. Nearly all of us opposed to Huckster did so on political, not religious grounds. Some of us also opposed Romney on the same political, non-religious issues.

I rarely take place in religion threads because I find them pointless and unwinnable- religion is based on faith, believing in what can accurately be described as the supernatural. When the belief of different religions contradict each other, it leads to an argument which can’t be won on evidence or logic- it’s impossible with the possible exception of specific, documented historical events.

Mainstream Christians believe the LDS faith is flawed, wrong and contradicts Christian beliefs- there’s no way around that, and to state those views isn’t bigotry or bias against Mormons. And vise-versa. I genuinely don’t understand why people engage in a debate that is impossible to win.

I find some LDS beliefs pretty odd. I find some parts of their history and founders a bit distasteful. However modern Mormons as a whole tend to be very productive, upstanding people and am not about to discriminate against them for having different religious beliefs or the actions of their early founders. Some mainstream Christians do just that, just as some Mormons discriminate against non-Mormons.

Will some Christians not vote for McCain if he picks Romney? Yes. Will some conservatives also not vote McCain if he picks Huckabee? Yes. Will some Christians not vote for McCain if he doesn’t pick St. Huckabee? Yes. Do some Mormons support Romney based almost soley on shared religious beliefs? Yes.

And there’s nothing you can do about it.

Hollowpoint on July 29, 2008 at 8:08 PM

aengus on July 29, 2008 at 8:06 PM

+1!

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 8:09 PM

Why can`t the evangelicals stop drag-assing and stone the man to death. (sarcasm)

ThePrez on July 29, 2008 at 8:14 PM

Opposition to the likes of Huckabee isn’t comparable to opposition Romney on religious grounds. Nearly all of us opposed to Huckster did so on political, not religious grounds.

Well said.

I rarely take place in religion threads because I find them pointless and unwinnable

Also agreed, though I have been sucked in from time to time. I usually regret it afterward. Like when I watch reruns of “Charles in Charge.”

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 8:20 PM

If I’ve said anything that comes off as hateful, I apologize.

This was not addressed to me but I’d like to comment on it.

We know from the article that a percentage of Evangelicals have said they will not vote for a Mormon President.

Then a deluge of comments appeared stating that Evangelicals are bigots, hate Mormons and are hateful generally.

Yet how is is possible to know that the personal feelings of said Evangelicals are driven by hatred, fear, bigotry etc.?

Its not possible. Its an in-built assumption so deeply implanted that to call it a knee-jerk reaction would be an exaggeration implying it was somehow formulated consciously.

I posited a scenario whereby Evangelicals were not in favour of a Mormon President because they were simply afraid that people would confuse Evangelism and Mormonism… to no response by anyone.

Now it is accepted by all liberals that Christians who believe that “lying with another man is a sin” believe this because they have a nasty, rabid hatred of homosexuals/feel threatened/are homosexuals themselves etc.

However you know as well as I do that this is a religious doctrine. Furthermore to vote for a homosexual President would automatically legitimise the political goals of homosexual lobby groups.

Basically, I do not accept that refusing to vote for someone on the basis on their identity alone constitutes either bigotry or hatred (the latter claim is laughable) especially in age of identity politics where a person’s identity is inextricably bound up with specific political agendas.

aengus on July 29, 2008 at 8:20 PM

Why can`t the evangelicals stop drag-assing and stone the man to death. (sarcasm)

ThePrez on July 29, 2008 at 8:14 PM

Mitt’s hair is impervious to standard-issue stoning rocks. there’s too much risk of Ricochet casualties.

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 8:21 PM

Yawn

ThePrez on July 29, 2008 at 8:23 PM

ThePrez on July 29, 2008 at 8:23 PM

Note to self: get new joke writers.

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 8:31 PM

The last time we listened to what newspapers said “Evangelical Leaders” were saying, we got McCain. Shall we make the same mistake again?

AbaddonsReign on July 29, 2008 at 8:33 PM

Again………Yawn.

ThePrez on July 29, 2008 at 8:47 PM

Besides, all the other joke writers are Mormons and they`re icky. :)

ThePrez on July 29, 2008 at 8:51 PM

Let’s face it: This election is going to be centered on energy and the economy. The best choice for VP is Romney, who offers expertise in both areas.

Social con issues are not even on the table in most discussions this election year. If they were such a burning issue (pun-aware, for the diehards), Congressional candidates would be pushing them, for Congress is the rightful place for enacting legislation.

onlineanalyst on July 29, 2008 at 9:06 PM

This Evangelical is total ashamed of the Yahoo branch of the “Evangelicals.”

They would rather have an incompetent like Huckabee as President or Vice President than one of the most qualified and prepared men to ever seek the office of President.

Stupid.

EJDolbow on July 29, 2008 at 9:21 PM

Basically, I do not accept that refusing to vote for someone on the basis on their identity alone constitutes either bigotry or hatred (the latter claim is laughable) especially in age of identity politics where a person’s identity is inextricably bound up with specific political agendas.

aengus on July 29, 2008 at 8:20 PM

Although I agree with much of what you say, I have to disagree with one of your assumptions, and your conclusion. It is NOT TRUE that someone’s religion is equal to their identity and thus to their political agenda. Romney is a Mormon; so is Harry Reid. So is Orrin Hatch. So is Gordon Smith of Oregon. Do they march in ideological lockstep?

Politically, there is no monolithic Mormon “identity.” I’m not even sure a majority of the Hot Air Mormons are Romney supporters, let alone all of them.

I hate identity politics. I won’t vote for (or against) anyone JUST BECAUSE they are … whatever they claim to be. Had Hillary won the nomination, I wouldn’t support the Republican just because he’s a man. If their identity is all they have to offer, they aren’t offering much (see Obama, Barack).

I look for things like record, policy positions, etc. Character matters, and one’s religion can play a role in that. But it’s hardly the full story. (See Reid, Harry.)

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 9:36 PM

Right2bright, for instance, is an example of someone with extreme anti-Mormon positions
Vanceone on July 29, 2008 at 5:05 PM

Anti-Mormon religion, not the people, just the doctrine and what/who it was founded by.
Jerald Tanner had it right, he has never been found to be wrong on his historical writings. Battered, but his research is flawless.

right2bright on July 29, 2008 at 9:38 PM

Besides, all the other joke writers are Mormons and they`re icky. :)

lol!

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 9:38 PM

onlineanalyst on July 29, 2008 at 9:06 PM

I keep hearing this from his supporters, why is he an expert on the government or world economy?

right2bright on July 29, 2008 at 9:39 PM

I believe this to be an over-stated “issue”. My whole family is evangelical and they love Romney.

SouthernGent on July 29, 2008 at 9:42 PM

I look for things like record, policy positions, etc. Character matters, and one’s religion can play a role in that. But it’s hardly the full story. (See Reid, Harry.)

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 9:36 PM

great points.

dedalus on July 29, 2008 at 9:48 PM

Although I agree with much of what you say, I have to disagree with one of your assumptions, and your conclusion. It is NOT TRUE that someone’s religion is equal to their identity and thus to their political agenda. Romney is a Mormon; so is Harry Reid. So is Orrin Hatch. So is Gordon Smith of Oregon. Do they march in ideological lockstep?

Hi sulla,

Thanks for replying.

I personally won’t vote against someone because of their identity unless there is some overriding reason to but if someone feels they want because of some aspect of their religious doctrine or because they believe they have a sound reason to do so then I will not condemn that person – or even more importantly I will not assume they are acting out of malice.

That Mormons have a common political identity was not my assumption. I was already aware that political opposites (Mitt and Reid) can both be Mormons.

I do think that people can generally be opposed to a candidate based on their identity for political or religious reasons without being knuckle-dragging bigots.

In any case our discussion is moot due to the secret ballot (and thank God for that) which allows us to vote for whomever we want based on whatever we think.

aengus on July 29, 2008 at 9:55 PM

Romney has no one to blame but himself for this predicament. I had significant difficulty believing the words I heard come out of his mouth and find him even less trustworthy than most politicians. I am reluctant to trust any man who openly declares his affiliation with a group and than denies that he believes specific details that make that group unique.

To be clear, I don’t have a problem with people who fail and come up short in the sight of God. I believe we all do. I certainly know that I do. When Romney denied central tenets of the Mormon faith for political expediency he made it very difficult for Mormons like me to defend him and gave his political opponents a perfect reason not to trust him.

Mormon Doc on July 29, 2008 at 10:23 PM

Thanks for replying, aengus. (and once more, bravo for that Taoist comeback. :) )

Perhaps my problem is the choice of words.

I’m not a big fan of the word “bigot,” because it is an imprecise and emotionally-charged term. What I mean when I say it and what it means when you hear it could be wildly different.

I don’t equate “bigotry” with “hatred” or with “knuckle-dragging” or “malicious”. But I just checked a couple of dictionaries, where “bigot” and “hate” seem to go together. So I’m gonna drop the word and back away slowly.

I’m not sure which word or phrase best fits what I’m trying to say. Thread’s beat to death already, so maybe I’ll stop trying for now.

But, as you say, the secret ballot lets us throw the lever for whomever we will, for whatever reasons we choose, including the superficial. (if it’s a close call, I might well vote for the person who would look best on the money a hundred years from now. I mean, who wants to buy a Happy Meal with a Kucinich?)

Friends?

sulla on July 29, 2008 at 10:54 PM

Ah, schismatic sectarianism.

Such a fine and admirable example that presents to the foes we face, and to the embattled masses we hope to lure into the fresh air of Civilization.

Shiny.

Noocyte on July 29, 2008 at 10:59 PM

Friends?

Yep. Thanks for the argument.

I think the word we were both searching for was “prejudice” which has the usual negative liberal connotations but I am totally comfortable with using it myself.

aengus on July 29, 2008 at 11:21 PM

All the brilliant banter above aside, and some of them are indeed thoughtful comments, the issue is not so much whether or not evangelicals should discriminate against a Mormon, it’s whether or not they will.

For clarity: I’m evangelical, and his choice of religion gives me pause. But I was very disheartened as well by the overwhelming support of Huckabee within my caste. We can (and have before) go round and round about the merits of discounting an otherwise fairly good candidate based on his profession of faith, but I think the larger reality is that evangelicals will likely stay away from him in large enough numbers to seriously hurt McCain.

Evangelicals already don’t particularly get excited about McCain; his ticket doesn’t need two strikes.

TexasDan on July 29, 2008 at 11:26 PM

Politically, there is no monolithic Mormon “identity.

as demonstrated by the Republican primaries in Utah.

freevillage on July 30, 2008 at 12:44 AM

All the religious hypocrisies aside, and the fact that Mr. Romney is a good man, McCain needs to get a woman on the ticket, and fast, even if it’s Hillary.

Entelechy,

It’s called Thorizine, pup. Might want to pick up a bottle.

revolution on July 29, 2008 at 1:52 PM

Actually I believe that you probably mean Thorazine. It does have a calming effect, pup, sometime so much so that it causes one to not pay much attention to ones spelling. Always be careful about how much you take within a 24 hour period.

MB4 on July 30, 2008 at 2:57 AM

revolution, rule number one, and a very polite one, in e-communication, is to never, ever, use all caps.

Entelechy on July 29, 2008 at 1:36 PM

YES, AS IT, WELL, IT, IT, IT SHOWS A LACK OF GOOD BREEDING.

MB4 on July 30, 2008 at 3:04 AM

Huckabigot is such a POS I can’t even stand it. Only a complete egomaniac would ever attack another man like this just to keep himself “higher” in the political pecking order.

davenp35 on July 29, 2008 at 1:40 PM

Oh to only see the look on Huckabee’s face when Jesus tells him he can’t come in.

Priceless!

MB4 on July 30, 2008 at 3:08 AM

That is why I hate Huckabee. He’s like the Republican Hillary. I didn’t support Romney (or McCain) in the primaries… but I recognize that he’s been screwed and is being screwed. At the end of the day, all the differences aside, Mormons have been some of the nicest, family oriented, decent people I have ever met. Shame on the evangelicals for giving the children on the left more ammo for the republican = bigot mantra. They are the ones acting like children here and Huckabee is their immature babysitter.

BadBrad on July 30, 2008 at 5:49 AM

The type of superstitious twaddle a person believes in should remain personal and if they keep it that way should have no bearing on their running for or being elected to public office unless said candidate were to say he/she would not enforce a law which violates the dictates of their cult or decides to engage open proselytization while campaigning.

Annar on July 30, 2008 at 7:22 AM

So – they would vote for Obama instead? I mean, we’re all making compromises with McCain, they should too.

matd on July 29, 2008 at 10:57 AM

Well said. I agree with other comments here, also, and as a Christian, the complaints about Romney and his Mormon denomination/theology is the political equivalent of sinking the boat because you’re hungry.

S on July 30, 2008 at 8:38 AM

Ummmm, Feminists for Life is a pro-woman, pro-life organisation. Their goal is to show that abortion hurts women. They are the anti-NOW. That, my friend, is what we call an “asset”.

It is an asset with groups that are not suspicious of feminists. The reason the group is called Feminists for Life is to identify themselves foremost as feminists. That is a big leap in conservative appeal and not an asset with groups that distrust persons who find a need to identify themselves as feminists.

There is a large conservative bloc that considers Feminism an extemist agenda and not primarily for being pro abortion but for being matriarchical and anti family

AND ZOMG!!! SHE GAVE STATE BENEFITS TO SAME-SEX PARTNERS OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS!!!

Gimme a break. Palin opposes same-sex “marriage” and supported the Constitutional ban passed in her State. I hardly see how following a Court order is a “cheap trick”. An Executive official must follow the law, not be an advocate who usurps the other branches of Government.

Damian G. on July 29, 2008 at 4:12 PM

A court cannot issue an order to prevent a governor of a state from signing a bill passed by a legislature. Not even in Alaska. A court can rule whether a bill signed is unconstitutional and strike it down but it cannot stop a governor from signing a bill. Palin explained she signed the bill because she was advised the bill would not stand constitutional test. A law does not receive constitutional test until it is signed into law, and challenged.

That is why I call it a cheap trick. She was fully empowered to sign it. There are no good explanations for her actions

1. She wanted to save the citizens of Alaska the cost of a judicial review so she prevented a review of that law

2. She did not understand she had a right to sign the bill and was tricked by the attorney general

3. She was devious and wanted the bill passed but did not want to be seen supporting it so she pretended she was being forced to veto

4. She couldn’t admit to herself she supported the bill so she told herself it was better to veto it anyway since she just knew the judges wouldn’t allow it to stand

5. she regards the constitution of her state and the nation like putty to be molded for the good of the people

6. She is dumb as a brick

Palin effectively prevented the final examination of the law by the courts on the grounds it would not survive examination by the courts.

Palin was not required by the law to veto the bill. She was empowered by the law to sign, or veto the bill as she chose.

This is a blot on her record to any conservative

Palin pre-empted judicial review. This is a bad bad decision for an executive and sufficient reason for me to not want her as chief executive.

entagor on July 30, 2008 at 9:33 AM

Apology: my post is so badly written I have to resubmit it. I typed it in while I picked up an important phone call and it got submitted before I fixed it.

AND ZOMG!!! SHE GAVE STATE BENEFITS TO SAME-SEX PARTNERS OF GOVERNMENT WORKERS!!!
Gimme a break. Palin opposes same-sex “marriage” and supported the Constitutional ban passed in her State. I hardly see how following a Court order is a “cheap trick”. An Executive official must follow the law, not be an advocate who usurps the other branches of Government.
Damian G. on July 29, 2008 at 4:12 PM

A court cannot issue an order to prevent a governor of a state from signing a bill passed by a legislature. Not even in Alaska. A court can rule whether a bill signed is unconstitutional and strike it down but it cannot stop a governor from signing a bill. Palin explained she veto’d the bill because she was advised the bill would not stand constitutional test. A law does not receive constitutional test until it is signed into law, and challenged.

That is why I call it a cheap trick.

She was fully empowered to sign it. There are no good explanations for her actions

1. She wanted to save the citizens of Alaska the cost of a judicial review so she prevented a review of that law

2. She did not understand she had a right to sign the bill and was tricked by the attorney general

3. She was devious and wanted the bill veto’d but did not want to be seen supporting gay benefits so she pretended she was being forced to veto

4. She couldn’t admit to herself she supported the bill so she told herself it was better to veto it anyway since she just knew the judges wouldn’t allow it to stand

5. she regards the constitution of her state and the nation like putty to be molded for the good of the people

6. She is dumb as a brick

Palin effectively prevented the final examination of the law by the courts on the grounds it would not survive examination by the courts.

Palin was not required by the law to veto the bill. She was empowered by the law to sign, or veto the bill as she chose.

This is a blot on her record to any conservative

Palin pre-empted judicial review. This is a bad bad decision for an executive and sufficient reason for me to not want her as chief executive

entagor on July 30, 2008 at 9:50 AM

We’re down to the wire against Marx.

McCain needs whoever will be a conservative bulwark in order to get elected. If McCain determines Romney’s his VP, then so be it.

Huckabee refutes the experience that converted Saul of Tarsus to become Paul. Huckabee plays Saul the assassin and refuses to fall off his horse and accept the epiphany God holds in store. Pride goeth before the fall. Get it over with, Huckabee, so you can measure up to your own talents to actually bless instead of curse America. Christians repudiate Saul but love Paul. Besides, where is Huckabee’s attack on Obama’s “Christian” “conversion”. If Huckabee has to be a hate monger throughout eternity, at least knaw on Obama’s Marxist bones and quit being such a Republican cannibal.

maverick muse on July 30, 2008 at 10:31 AM

You have to wonder whose side is Huckabee on after indicating on FOX that McCain appears like an angry Bob Dole. Maybe he does, but leave the attacks to the other side. This is all about his quest to sink McCain and build himself up. He’s probably imagining how big of a wedding registry he could get as president since it worked so well to get gifts as Govwerner.

hanzblinx on July 30, 2008 at 10:37 AM

Romney is not a viable VP candidate END OF STORY.

He has so many negatives he is not even worth discussing as a candidate.

If Mccain picks him…he will lose. It’s pretty simple.

NEXT.

SaintOlaf on July 30, 2008 at 11:40 AM

The dems would love nothing more than for Mccain to pick Romney as VP candidate.

Then they could air documentary after documentary about the mormons long history of racism..how they believe blacks are cursed with black skin because of a curse the mormon gods have placed on them..and how they forbid blacks from joining their religion and forbid them from becoming priests, and the clip of how romney cried when they allowed blacks to join their religion etc. etc….not to mention Joseph Smith’s long history of child molestation and inbreeding with his dozens of 14 year old brides.

By the end of the MSM campaign against him…the majority of America will believe that all republicans are greedy racist billionaires.

SaintOlaf on July 30, 2008 at 11:51 AM

When are the Huckbee hit squad going to quit, he is a pundit now, he isn’t going to be Vice President.

Dr Evil on July 30, 2008 at 12:58 PM

SaintOlaf on July 30, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses.

sulla on July 30, 2008 at 1:23 PM

The dems would love nothing more than for Mccain to pick Romney as VP candidate.

Then they could air

…video of the endless sniping between Mitt & J-Mac.

jgapinoy on July 30, 2008 at 4:29 PM

dozens of 14 year old brides.
SaintOlaf on July 30, 2008 at 11:51 AM

This is what drives me nuts about you…you are so wrong.
Show me Smiths “dozens” of 14 year old brides…lying is a sin, and false accusations is a sin, are you ready to accept that? Or do you think you are above the God’s law…

right2bright on July 30, 2008 at 4:31 PM

Right2Bright,

Supposedly he had nearly three dozen wives…are you trying to insinuate he was a monogomous man without hordes of underage wives?

Of course you’re not.

I notice that you’re always trying to insult me in petty ways..I hope you notice that I do not do the same thing to you.

SaintOlaf on July 30, 2008 at 4:53 PM

Olaf,

You really have no idea what you’re talking about.

Bluster doesn’t make you less wrong. It just marginalizes you further.

sulla on July 30, 2008 at 6:08 PM

St. Olaf is awesomely unbalanced. I can just imagine the veins on his head ready to explode as he types up his screeds. I don’t know why anyone engages him. He isn’t interested in a discussion, he just to decry all teh evil Mormunz!!11!

Mormon Doc on July 30, 2008 at 10:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3