Thursday, January 03, 2008
|
|
A Mormon in the Dog House?
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
9:58 PM
|
FOX is speculating there was a 46 percent Evangelical turnout in Iowa, which obviously benefited Huckabee. There didn't seem to be a whispering campaign, or any sort of anti-Mormon attacks, but there is no doubt that Christian-conservatives got behind Mike Huckabee in Iowa tonight.
Is there some deep-seated concerns about Romney's faith, or was this just a result of Mike Huckabee -- a former Baptist Pastor -- having better credentials?
Regardless, Romeny's path is now very difficult. He will have to contend with McCain in New Hampshire and Michigan, and Huckabee and Thompson in South Carolina ...
|
|
Let's see, The Huckster got 34 percent, Mitt 25%. Evangelicals were 60 percent of the caucus-goers this year, compared with 40 percent in 2004. If my math is correct, if we exclude the extra 20 percent which were hyped by the Evangelical pastors to go to the polls to keep that "heretic" (Mitt) from gaining the nomination, the Huckster would have had 22 percent, and Mitt would have won.
Is my math correct? Why must Evangelical pastors be so negative and engender bigotry in their adherents? The pastors don't sound like Christians to me.
|
|
It is unfortunate that Evangelical Christians appear to have voted for their own, instead of the best candidate. I'm a Romney fan and a Mormon but, Thompson and McCain are much more conservative than Huckabee...yes, even McCain. I had hoped that Mitt's Mormonsism and Huck's Evangelical Christianity wouldn't be the deciding factor, but apparently it has.
http://www.mittsmormonism.com |
|
Just saw Huck's interview on Fox. He was at is best and, I must admit, he channeled Ronald Reagan in the sense that he articulated Reagan's empowerment message.
If only Huckabee's governing record matched his rhetoric - instead of being the exact opposite. And if only his Clintonesque campaign tactics (despicable personal attacks and fueling religious bigotry) were other than they are. Reagan was affable too, but his affability was not skin deep. He didn't have a mean bone in his body. These are two reasons why Huckabee is not and can never be Ronald Reagan. Wolf in sheeps clothing. |
|
I flat don't know what else Mitt could have done, to garner a win in Iowa. He had all the answers to the conuntry's problems and articulated them well. It's like this one Iowa woman said on FOX News last night when Frank Luntz asked a woman why she was voting for Huckabee and not Romney, she relpied that Romney was vague in his responses and she wanted to know what he was going to do for her? This I see as a sickness across this land, a sickness that is "Me first" Me! Me! and "What can you do for poor little ol me". I guess JFK really didn't have the vision of this country after all, but then maybe he was right in saying: "ASK NOT WHAT THE COUNTRY CAN DO FOR YOU, BUT WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY!"
Yeah, Romney shook a lot of hands and spent a lot of time and money in Iowa to be sure, only to see a lot of Iowans who had supported him at first turn their backs on him in favor of a deceptive self annointed mouth piece for the Christian Right and Evangelical like Mike Huckabee.
Hmmm! Wonder if those Iowan back stabbers would be up to returning some of the money he spent on them? |
|
Yes, you read it right.
not Hillary nor Huckabee.
anyone else will get my vote.
I'm done. |
|
|
Go comment on Hugh crying in his beer over getting smoked. Romney is a fake. Iowa got a good look and decided not to vote for him. |
|
Let's see, The Huckster got 34 percent, Mitt 25%. Evangelicals were 60 percent of the caucus-goers this year, compared with 40 percent in 2004. If my math is correct, if we exclude the extra 20 percent which were hyped by the Evangelical pastors to go to the polls to keep that "heretic" (Mitt) from gaining the nomination, the Huckster would have had 22 percent, and Mitt would have won.
Is my math correct? Why must Evangelical pastors be so negative - they don't sound like Christians to me |
|
But chin up folks. There may be some anti-Mormon dumb-as-a-post voters in Iowa, but Huck won't win anywhere else. Especially with his abrasive and mean campaign manager. Between the 2 of them, the number of gaffes are going to increase expotentially, and the rest of the country will not look the other way. I don't know who is more disgusting - Huck or Ed.
Rush was so right. The Huckabee supporters in Iowa voted entirely on religion/anti-religion. They are allergic to the truth about Huck. And anyone who says otherwise is simply not being honest. |
|
Anti Morman bigotry probably didn't play a big part in the Iowa Caucus results. A well timed media blitz pushing this idiot probably did. Every mainstream media outlet posted the Huckster mug on their website with a winner designation within an hour of the caucus start.
If you Hucksters are successful, and Obama is the Democrat Candidate, look for a third party run from Micheal Bloomberg. Then we'll probably see the Republican finish third.
Great job you gullible fools. |
|
|
I take exception to the reported "lack of an anti-Mormon whisper campaign." There was and is such a campaign being hosted on up-cHuckabee's own official website where the blog holds hundreds of hate-and-bigotry-filled anti-Mormon posts. It is absolutely sickening. And what's worse, is this charlatain of a faux-conservative, up-cHuckabee, is using this religious bigotry to drive his underfunded and poorly executed campaign forward. The political process has sunk to an historic low today... |
|
|
The word Republican shouldn't be synonymous with Evangelical Christian. I'm very pro-life but we should be picking the candidate that is best fit to be President and is the strongest conservative. Those men were Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. Both men were full spectrum conservatives--Fiscal Conservatives, Social Conservatives, and strong on homeland security. Huckabee only fits one of these traits. Just because someone shares your brand of Christianity, doesn't mean he should be President. The numbers of Mitt and Fred combined beats Huck's numbers, and that tells me that the REAL CONSERVATIVES beat out the FAUX-TAX RAISING, BIG SPENDER SOCIAL-ONLY CONSERVATIVES, but this Huckabee craze has really got me scared for the future of the Republican party. |
|
This was about Romney not having a vision, being a phoney, and resorting to misleading negative attacks in a last-minute panic.
There has never been a reason to vote FOR Romney, at least not one that his campaign could articulate.
Romney outspent Huckabee 20-1, and it still wasn't close, like everyone said it would be.
Being a Baptist preacher probably didn't hurt, I'll give you that, so what?
He's a likeable, down-to-earth Baptist preacher that even non-Baptists can like.
Just keep his campaign manager off the TV... |
|
I read most of Hugh's book on Mitt and I feel he is the best person to represent all of America as President in 2009. I am disappointed but the nomination is yet to be awarded.
What topped the cake for me was Ed Rollins complaining, after winning the caucus, about Romney's negative ads. That after Huckabee said "I thought about running a negative ad but we should take the high road. So here is the ad" Saw it on the Bill O'Reilly's "the Factor" last night. Huckabee wasn't negative, just said Mitt was dishonest and, to paraphrase, lying about the Huckster's record.
So, here is an article I had read some time ago, probably in the summer or fall, can't remember exactly when. But I just Google'd a name. Check it out. And if you support huckabee, please just read the entire article.
Link to Arkansas Times Article - Updated: 9/1/2005
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?Article ID=154e1aad-fd18-4efd-8d80-b5dab8559419
|
|
Huckabee fueled anti-Mormon bigotry to get where he is. . .the most public episode being the NYTimes interview where he "innocently" asked a question designed to perpetuate a smear on Mormons.
I'm appalled that Huckabee could have prevailed. While I love his sense of humor and his affability, but that affability is only skin deep. He is a mean man and under no circumstance will I vote for him. He destroyed the Republican party in Arkansas and the conservative coalition there as well. Now he is on his way to doing the same nationwide. |
|
|
I knew you could do it! May you continue with such success in future contests! |
|
|
|
|
He must be crying in his beer tonight - what a disaster for book sales. |
|
|
|