Huckabee Picks His Own Poison
Don't Go There. Please, Don't Go There...Oh, He Went There.
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in 2008 | Mike Huckabee | Mitt Romney | Mormon Beliefs | Mormonism | NYT — Comments (138) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
If you've read CY's post below, you know that a New York Times profile on Mike Huckabee includes comments about the Mormon faith that are likely to stir up passions over religious differences between Evangelical Christians and Mormons - two faithful parts of the GOP coalition - that are best left untouched.
Preemptive note to commenters: please don't discuss the theological merits of Huckabee's remark here, or comments on this post will be closed as well. As Thomas noted on CY's post, once you start in on this, it's only a matter of time until somebody kills a guy with a trident.
Huckabee's camp responded to the initial leak from the NYT by pleading for context, as well they should:
In fact, the full context of the exchange makes it clear that Governor Huckabee was illustrating his unwillingness to answer questions about Mormonism and to avoid addressing theological questions during this campaign.
"Governor Huckabee has said consistently that he believes this campaign should center on a discussion of the important issues confronting our nation," said Senior Advisor, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, "and not focus on questions of religious belief. He wants to assure persons of all faith traditions of his firm commitment to religious tolerance and freedom of worship. Governor Huckabee believes that one of the great strengths of our nation lies in its diversity of thought, opinion and faith."
Now, the full article is online, so we can get the context that was missing from the teaser. Unfortunately, we can see from the context that Huck went and volunteered his thoughts on this point, even after admitting that he's not well-versed in LDS theology. Perhaps, as a man trained and experienced as a guider of souls, the former Baptist preacher couldn't resist the temptation to evangelize, just a little. But as a presidential candidate, he really should have known better than to go there. But he went there anyway:
Read On...
Huckabee is, indeed, a discreet fellow, but he has no trouble making his feelings known. He mentioned how much he respected his fellow candidates John McCain and Rudolph W. Giuliani. The name of his principal rival in Iowa, Mitt Romney, went unmentioned. Romney, a Mormon, had promised that he would be addressing the subject of his religion a few days later. I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. "I think it's a religion," he said. "I really don’t know much about it."
I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: "Don't Mormons," he asked in an innocent voice, "believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?"
The problem is obvious: while Romney is clearly having some troubles with voters who are uncomfortable with the doctrines of his church, the last thing in the world Huckabee should be doing, morally or as a matter of political strategy, is inflaming sectarian divides within the GOP. He shouldn't have gone there...but he just couldn't stop himself. And he will have nobody else to blame for Romney using this slap to attack Huckabee for doing exactly what Romney pleaded with his countrymen not to do to him.
PS - The Times profile is long, interesting and by no means entirely unsympathetic, and it makes good reading.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Huckabee Asks If Mormons Believe Jesus, Devil Are Brothers — Comments (97) »
Huckabee Picks His Own Poison 138 Comments (0 topical, 138 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
How does Huckabee's comment make Romney look unpresidential?
Its the whole situation - and to be honestly blunt - the behind the back stabs the Romney campaign has been doing against not just Huckabee, but other candidates as well.
My understanding is that the Romney campaign is being just as underhanded - just in a different way.
I really like the guy but a long time ago (it feels like forever ago) he admitted that his daughter works for Fred's campaign. Since then, I've seen multiple statements by him that make me believe that he supports Fred.
Obviously the voters are interested in theology, because the media and pundits keep making a big story out of it. Is this what you would call a snark?
How long do you expect an expert in theology to remain silent about the elephant in the room?
Its not an elephant. If Huck were really an expert on theology he wouldn't have asked the question. The "media and the pundits made me do it" is an excuse that won't fly.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
A means of asking questions in order to lead someone to an inevitable conclusion. The only conclusion he was leading toward here was "Wow, look at how weird those Mormons are." This was no mistake; that snake knew exactly what he was doing.
If stating his beliefs that Jesus and Satan are not brothers makes him a "snake"... what does that make you? Mike didn't say it hatefully, but all I hear in you is hate.
It works likes this... Bubba Jr. is running for President, not Pastor in Chief. The very fact that he would fall back and say something this stupid when "no comment" would have sufficed quite well and "You know, I'm running for President of ALL Americans and I will not be part of a divisive conversation like that" would have probably been at least a triple if not a home run.
This is a major red flag on his judgment, it's not about religion or hating BJ.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Perhaps the title of this post will give you a hint.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Not anymore than JFK's catholicism, nor WJC's methodism, nor GWB's evangelicalism, nor Huck's baptistism (sic).
Even less than Huck's because Mitt is a member where Huck is clergy. I know quite a lot about Mormonism that there's nothing there that would disqualify him from the office of President.
It needs to be left alone, because it's not important. Huck's gonna make it an issue because he can't make it on political issues alone.
==== 13 ====
I now think that this was an off-the-cuff careless remark from Huckabee, as this is probably one of the first things that many evangelicals think when they discuss Mormonism. And the reported didn't give an account of what happened after he asked the question.
This carelessness may hurt him, but I don't think it will hurt him much. After all, Romney wasn't hurt by his remarks about Muslims in cabinet positions.
Thus, I attribute this to carelessness. If Huck deliberately wanted to make it a wedge issue and take out Romney in Iowa, it would be easy to do it via an ad.
Careless? Sounds like a Mary Cheney to me. He won't do it in an ad because then even people like you would have trouble defending him.
This way he gets to attack Mormonism and pretend innocence at the same time.
We will quickly find out who's right, though. Will Huckabee apologize for bringing up this kind of religious attack--"I was wrong to bring it up and it won't happen again"? Here's betting he won't.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
I'm pretty sure this is carelessness because Mike is usually very tight-lipped about Mormonism. Mike refused to call Mormonism a 'cult' and instead labeled it a 'religion'. Reporters probably bug Mike about Mormonism every day, and a careless question was statistically bound to occur.
But it should surprise nobody that Mike has very negative views on Mormon doctrine, like many evangelicals do. I doubt this carelessness will be repeated.
Huckabee has already made Mormonism the issue. I don't expect to see any more carelessness like this unless Huckabee starts to slip in the Iowa polls.
Like I said, I'll believe that Huckabee--who is a very skilled politician--said this carelessly just as soon as he apologizes. I'm not holding my breath and, as far as I can tell, neither are you.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Romney's campaign has made Mormonism the issue. They've been the ones polling whether his Mormon faith matters. They're the one's who have pushed "whether or not he should give a speech" to the forefront of the news since the beginning of his campaign. And they're the one's that have fed questions to the media, and highlighted the slightest answer regarding Huckabee and where he stands on Mormonism.
Romney's campaign has made it a point to call any evangelical who questions how Romney's LDS faith has impacted him a bigot, while they make the same efforts to question how Huckabee's faith has impacted him. In fact now, individuals such as yourself are insinuating the same of Huckabee, for asking a question.
There's no need for Huckabee to apologize. What would he apologize for? For asking a question as to what Mormon's believe? Huckabee's been questioned from Evolution and Creationism to whether or not Adam and Eve had belly buttons. It's getting a bit ridiculous. I don't care if it's the Socratic Method or not, it's not a crime to ask a question (although I will say, Plato's dialogues on Socrates highlight a bit more than one question, rather a series of questions that lead an individual into a black hole of reason).
You've stated, as have leaders in the LDS community that all beings are God's spirit children, including demons and angels. Asking a question regarding this topic, without getting into a theological discussion is no crime and requires no apology.
Romney's campaign has never tried to tout Mormon doctrine or tried to curry favor by attacking distinctive evangelical doctrines.
Huckabee should apologize for "asking an innocent question" meant to benefit his campaign by stirring up religious strife.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Huckabee needs to apologize for making religious belief part of the campaign. I'm willing to believe that this was a lapse in self-control, but he needs to show that's what this was. He also can't avoid a church/state speech of his own at this point.
Huckabee could have indeed been trying to make this a wedge issue. He knows how a direct attack would play - badly. Nor am I buying that this was "one of the first things that many evangelicals think". This was an attack. I just hope it was not a deliberate attack, and that Huck will clear the air soon.
Do you believe Mike deliberately wanted these particular remarks to be published publicly?
The reasonable answer is no.
Is Mike Huckabee dumb enough to believe that the NYT is an objective news source that he just say anything to and not see it in print?
The obvious answer is "yes".
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Everyone has the right intentions except for people you disagree with. Thanks for showing your true colors.
Maybe you should worry about Huckabee showing his true colors sometimes.
My "cynicism" tells me that Huckabee won't apologize for this except grudgingly and belatedly. You apparently think otherwise. We'lll see who is right.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
The problem with your account is that it is internally inconsistent.
Look, who here thinks that Huckabee doesn't know what mormons believe? He can't on the one hand claim to not know much about mormonism, and then in the next instant, repeat a common anti-mormon slur.
No one here begrudges Huckabee for having a low opinion of Mormon doctrine; he was a Baptist pastor.
But the idea that Huckabee was genuinely inquisitive and uninformed when he asked the question is unbelievable.
If Huckabee "slipped up" or was "careless," he carelessly forgot that he wasn't supposed to be running an anti-Mormon campaign. I don't buy that he just happened to have this question about Mormonism that he thought a NYT reporter could answer for him.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Yeah, where's the proof? The only candidate proved to be running an anti-mormon campaign is Mitt Romney. After all, he's the only candidate in the campaign with the resources to spend money frivolously on these sly tactics.
Getting an organization to blast your religion in a phone call, and then trying to blame it on a different candidate has got to be the worst tactic I've seen in politics in a long time. Why doesn't Romney apologize for accusing his other candidates of doing such when the only campaign with direct ties to the calls is his own?
To repeat a phrase you should be familiar with, "where's the proof?"
Do you think that it was really Mitt Romney in a Huckabee mask who spoke to that NYT reporter?
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
If this is the kind of carelessness we can expect from Huck, then that is another reason to reject him. The guy is a pastor. He knows better. I think the problem is that this kind of rhetoric is part of Hucks natural personality and since he gets away with it with his flock, he projects that the rest of us feel the same way.
IT would be nice if people left other people's religion out of this debate--unless that religion involves strapping bombs to ones body and blowing up innocents.
In fact, it would be nice if people would not use the pretense of religious sanctimony to promote the superiority of their POLITICAL views.
But that entails getting EVERYONE to stop asking questions regarding religion. That includes pundits, the media, the various campaigns, the voters, the debate moderators and the "misinformed"(aka- everyone else) ceasing to ask questions regarding religion.
I would rather, when each candidate asked that they respond on how their personal faith has impacted their life and their judgement. If every 2nd question to a candidate wasn't about an opposing candidates faith, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
I don't buy that at all. I wouldn't excuse a presidential candidate for BDS just because the media has it, and I won't excuse a presidential candidate for making religious beliefs a political issue just because the media does it.
I think this is likely to hurt both Mike and Mitt; it'll hurt Mike because people will associate him with an unfair attack on another's religion, it'll hurt Mitt because discussion of some of the more esoteric parts of Mormonism will only widen the gulf between him and most GOP Christians.
On the other hand, bad news for 2 of the candidates is good news for the other leading 3, as long as they're careful to not touch this issue with a 200-foot pole.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Do committed evangelicals really want to marginalize themselves as the price of marginalizing Mormons?
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
And no one else breaks double digits. It's possible that someone else could rise to the top, but seems highly unlikely.
After all, weren't Gephardt and Dean running 1st and 2nd in 2004 before they obliterated each other leading up to the Iowa caucus?
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
"Most GOP Christians"? I am sure that most Christians are more than fine with an LDS president who holds to their values. Only bigots think Mitt's religion matters.
In the short term, stirring up anti-Mormon sentiment in Iowa helps Huck. But I think this is a bad strategy longterm, not just for the conservative cause but for Mike Huckabee.
Here's Jim Geraghty:
Huckabee's supporters may be inching down this path. Today, I don't want to hear from anybody trying to persuade me that Huckabee was right on the theological doctrine when he raised the issue of what Mormons believe about Jesus and the devil. I'm still waiting to hear from somebody a persuasive case that Mitt Romney's Mormon beliefs will somehow negatively affect his performance as President. If Romney had pledged to have multiple first ladies or to bring back Prohibition, we would be having a different conversation. He hasn't, and so when supporters of a particular candidate, or the candidate himself, seem a bit excessively focused on another candidate's faith... it doesn't reflect well on them or him.
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjJmOWZmMDA2ODM4ZmRiYjQwO...
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
effect his ability to get elected. Do not even think for a minute that the country will not get treated to extended write ups on Mormon theology should Mitt get the nomination.
He has, so far, mostly avoided answering questions regarding Mormonism, thereby keeping any possible bias he holds to himself. He obviously is calculating that by innocently injecting questions of his own into the debate that he will benefit.
Who knows, he might be right. But by doing so he has opened up all religions to attacks from the secular media.
Whose religion is next? Catholics? Southern Baptists? Evangelicals? Are any of them safe from scrutiny by non-believing secularists? Each of them hold beliefs that clever wording could distort for the less informed?
This is a frontal assault on one candidate's religion by the "Christian Leader."
I agree with you Dan, Huckabee has opened Pandora's box. I wish he hadn't, I wish he had left it to the Democrats to do, but now that he has, religion as a campaign issue appears to be fair game.
Candidates just need to remember to couch their bigotry as an innocent question.
I don't buy that he somehow accidentally said it. But he's got the skill to walk this back and take it off the table if he wants to. I hope he does.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
A little honesty would be nice. You hate the guy, and the only reason why you're posting on this site is because you feel you "got something" regular people just don't care about.
And he shouldn't, there's no need to. He's asked a thousand questions over the course of the week regarding both his and Mitt's religion; why isn't Mitt asked the same questions? And Why doesn't Mitt answer how his LDS faith has impacted him and how it will impact him while President?
To simply deny your faith has impacted you or will impact you raises serious questions regarding the sincerity of your faith and the explanations given. Why aren't those questions asked, and more importantly why aren't they answered?
If Huckabee apologizes, as far as I'm concerned the distasteful way Huckabee has been using religion is off the table. Don't be so cynical.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
...if you ask someone with even a passing acquaintance with LDS theology.
This isn't a legitimate question, it was a loaded "question" intended to end up in sound bytes that would prove prejudicial to voters.
I’m amazed at the amount and the level of repugnant baggage and scandal that has been uncovered on Huckabee in just the last week or two. And I’m sure we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg.
The Huckabee hype kind of reminds me of the stereotypical Christmas morning. The day starts with excitement, but within a few hours you realize there’s a lot of trash lying around and plenty of cleaning to do. Eventually, you set all that trash out on the curb which usually is twice as much as the trashcan will hold. You then wait impatiently for the garbage man to quickly remove the embarrassing mess in front of your house so that you can move on to the next joyful holiday.
I’m simply embarrassed of Huckabee and feel like he’s an embarrassing mess in front of the Republican house. Please haul him away so we can move on to a more qualified conservative candidate.
I agree with the analogy to the point. At least with Christmas, you still have the presents to enjoy which offset the misery of the trash.
Huckabee has no such luxury. With him it's more trash and less presents.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
I've made sure that ALL of my liberal, conservative, and non-political friends alike who basically know me as "the Republican" know that I have nothing but abject disgust and disdain for Mike Huckabee. I make sure that they know that I would not vote for him under any plausible circumstances whatsoever - in the primary or the general.
I have my own personal credibility to look out for and disassociating from Mike Huckabee is vital to maintaining that credibility amongst my peers.
Seriously, if this the best that Huckabee's opposition can bring on him, then he'll be in good shape and I'm not concerned at all.
And yet you keep posting on the subject. With no great sang froid either.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Nothing innocent here:
Pastor Huck and Mormons [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Arkansas journalist David Sanders e-mails:
I have a hard time understanding Huckabee’s claim that he doesn’t know much about Mormonism. I talked to a religion professor at Huckabee’s alma mater this morning, who assured me that Huckabee would have been exposed to enough teaching on Mormonism in college and seminary to have developed solid opinions about the religion.
He also said that in all of Huckabee’s years of pastoring churches he would be very surprised if Huckabee had not preached sermons aimed at sizing up Mormons, as well as other religions. Claiming that he doesn’t know much about Mormonism makes Huckabee's question, which was “asked in an innocent voice,” sound like an innocent question.
BTW — Baptist Press, the news arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, recently posted what appears to be its user’s guide to Mormonism on its website entitled “Romney and Mormonism.”
12/12 12:31 PM
As long as Huckabee isn't making his religion a big element in his campaign. So far he is.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
...but not Romney's?
This is why all the attacks on Huckabee over this comment are so disingenuous. Huckabee has been asked over and over, by pundits conservative, liberal, and everywhere in between, what his religious beliefs are, where he stands on Mormonism, etc.
These questions now seem to not be in good faith, but rather an attempt to catch him a "crazy Christian" moment. The anti-evangelical bias is quite apparent, as pundits from NRO to NYT rush to make Romney's beliefs off-limits even as they attempt to pry into Huckabee's.
to pry into one another's beliefs. And if it's ok for him, then certainly the media will assume it's ok for them.
That is the can of worms Huckabee has opened here.
The point of Romney's speech last week was that we are a nation that is tolerant of other people's religious beliefs, even those with which we may not agree. Asking purposely misleading questions about another's beliefs doesn't seem too tolerant, especially when the questioner is a candidate.
what he believed, it was a reporter asking Huckabee about Mormonism.
Had Huckabee said "You know, that Romney fellow, he thinks that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers," then maybe you'd have a point.
If you think that's what he was trying to do, well then I think you're reading your own bias toward particular candidates into the quote.
Huckabee's "innocent question" was not an answer to the reporter. Anyway, most reporters don't have serums that force you to answer their questions even if you think they are stupid.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
I missed the ad in which Romney touted his experience as a "Mormon leader." I missed Romney going to conferences of Mormon bishops and asking for their support. I missed Romney using Mormon church organization as his volunteer network.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Romney, feeling the pressure of not being the front-runner despite overwhelmingly outspending his opponents, gave a huge speech on his religion but then declared his individual beliefs off limits. And yet his supporters gleefully try and dredge up his opponents sermons to...let's see...get at his religious beliefs. Nope, no double standard there.
Maybe Romney should be focusing more about his own record than his own theology. Maybe then people wouldn't be focusing on his religion. But they would be focusing on his more-opportunistic-than-John-Kerry flip-flops on a wide range of issues.
If someone told you that it was "a huge speech about his religion," they lied to you.
It was a huge speech about how faith and politics intersect. One of his points was that we shouldn't turn elections into fights about whose religion is better. Do you disagree? Huckabee apparently does.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
"Mormon Speech" at face value.
Where does it say that I, as a voter, cannot take a candidate's religion into account? Nothing keeps a Wahabbi imam from running for President, just as nothing keeps me for not voting for him for that reason, if I don't want to.
And if you really believe this, maybe you should be on the front lines asking reporters to stop interrogating candidates about their beliefs, instead of calling it legit when one candidate talks about religion but not another.
Right now, you (and Romney's defenders, Mormon, secular, whatever) are saying it's legitimate to ask "do you believe Jesus is your savior?" but not "Do you believe that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers?"
When did Romney ask anyone whether they believed Jesus was their savior?
The media didn't bring up this question. Huckabee did.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
In the Republican debates, questions have been asked of candidates, not limited to but including "Do you believe every word of [The Bible]?", "Do you believe that Jesus is your personal savior?"
So, those are legitimate questions that the press can ask, but when the press asks Huckabee (and they have, repeatedly) about Mormonism, he shouldn't answer, or he should lie and say he thinks it's perfectly fine if he doesn't?
Got it. Warm-fuzzy questions about religion that give the candidate time to make a "look at me I'm just like you" soundbite are OK, but anything further is off-limits. Got it.
I thought those were stupid questions. The MSM always tries to stir up religious hatred on the right. Its to Huckabee's shame that he's going along with. Worse, he's initiating it.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
You will NEVER hear an LDS authority speaking against another faith from the pulpit, so that isn't an issue with Mitt. It sounds like some may feel Huck can't claim that. It will only matter to me if Huck continues to push his religion as a qualifier for the office. But then I have already rejected him for even suggesting it, so I guess it's moot.
...he knows damn well what the basic tenets of Mormonism are. He is a former pastor, and has such no doubt has studied Mormonism. He may not be an expert, but he's not clueless either. He is blatantly trying to drive a wedge between evangelicals and Romney on the basis of religion.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
You can take it to the bank that Hillary's operatives, including probably Bill himself, will engage in this same type of Mormon baiting.
Billary would trash the entire Mormon religion in a heartbeat if she thought it would win her the election.
Huck may in a perverse way be doing Mitt a favor, because Mitt better learn how to shut this type of thing down quick or his goose will be cooked by Hillary.
I've been feeling for awhile now that Huckabee has been playing a Clintonian game with Mormonism. The whole "Oh I don't really know if it's a cult or not" and refusing to comment when asked if God hears Mormons when they pray.
Then going and speaking to a Convention of Southern Baptists in Salt Lake- who are meeting there as a missionary effort to convert Mormons.
Now this! It strains credulity to believe that this was not intentional.
I find Huckabee's attempt to play dumb and pretend it was an ignorant question particularly offensive. He is a Baptist pastor, and every Baptist Church in Oklahoma had a copy of "The Godmakers" by Ed Decker, I don't expect Arkansas churches to be much different.
This comment about Jesus and the Devil being brothers comes straight out of "The Godmakers"- and is recommended as an opening line of attack when debating Mormons. This particularly ticks me of as I happen to be from Ed Decker's homestate (Washington), my father was partners with Ed Decker's cousin, and I remember when growing up always coming out of church and finding our cars covered with his anti-Mormon literature.
Ed Decker was excommunicated for Adultery, and has been trying to get back at the Mormon church ever since.
Huckabee has now hit the dustpan for me.
I been struggling for awhile with whether or not I could vote for Rudy if he became the Republican Candidate (I find his personal life very hard to swallow, as I think it important that the President be a moral exemplar), but I've held off saying I wouldn't vote for him, because I don't want to break from the party.
But I gonna say it right now. I will not vote for Huckabee ever. Not even for Dogcatcher.
If he becomes the Republican nominee, well... I guess I'll be voting third party this year.
Then going and speaking to a Convention of Southern Baptists in Salt Lake- who are meeting there as a missionary effort to convert Mormons..
This happened a decade ago, by the way. If it weren't for the other stuff, it should be a non-issue.
But you are aware, right, that The Godmakers is Frank Herbert's awful novel, and The God Makers is Decker's work, right? I only know this because when I moved to Arizona, everyone told me I had to read The Godmakers, and I did, and thought, What the heck does this have to do with the price of cheese? It was only years later that I found out about the other book.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
That was the only good book of the series- I was lucky to get tipped off that the rest were no good by my father.
(The same person who introduced me to Dune)
Sorry for the confusion, thanks for correcting me.
The prequels that came out over the last 10 years or so were fascinating. It was fun to see the genesis of the Dune universe. If you enjoyed Dune, try the prequels.
I agree with your dad's assessment of the sequels.
(Please return now to the real topic under discussion).
How hard is it for Huckabee just to say "I have no idea what the LDS believe and since I am not an authority on the subject I will refrain from speaking about it"?
The Huckster can't turn down an microphone.
Everyone's allowed at least one gaffe, but this is more like a Cardinal Sin. How could he possibly walk into this, much less volunteer an answer? Perhaps he can comment on how we should use nukes against Iran, then temper that opine by saying he does not know much about it. This is certainly one reason why the Dem.'s drool when Huck starts to look like a potential nominee.
By the way, there is no need to flood the Attic Plain. Although the subject may be religion, this is not about religious doctrine.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Contributor to The Minority Report
Marcus this is not the first mistake he has made though.
He has a history of foot in mouth disease. He tends to speak without thinking and we cannot have that in a POTUS.
His other mistakes (like the one about the divine miracle of his surge in the polls) were all things that would appeal to evangelicals but that he could plausibly explain away.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
"He shouldn't have gone there...but he just couldn't stop himself."
He can stop himself, but he he "asked in an innocent voice". So he takes his shots with pretended innocence. "I was just asking for information. I wasn't attacking Mormons, espcially ones that are running for President." So sweet.
Which is worse?
a candidate who was totally ignorant of the issues in his previous life "He doesn't know much about Mormons."
a candidate that can't stop himself
or
one that dissumulates so very well
what is is about Arkansas politicians? Is is something in the water?
Those of you who have read my blog and posts on Red State know I'm a Huckabee supporter and know I have criticisms of most of the major candidates. If this did indeed happen as reported I would say Huckabee made a mistake and I can't help but be disapointed. I don't think it's a capital offense but it was a mistake. I have heard that Mormons believe as the question implies but have no specific knowledge if this is true. I can see why he volunteered the question because he wanted to answer the question and that was all he could come up with but it was a mistake nonetheless. One of my best friends in High School was a Mormon and I knew him to be a very pious and moral person. I don't agree theologically with Mormonism but Huckabee should have left the theological discussion out of the debate as he's tried to do up till now.
Shame on you Huck
To compromise with evil is to corrupt good!
Go Mike Go!!!
We can all move on. It doesn't need to be elaborate: "I was wrong to bring that up and it won't happen again.:
I think your dissavowl of Huckabee's comments speak highly of you, and I hope your sentiment is widely felt among Huckabee supporters.
I do think, though, that this comment will come back to haunt Huckabee if he becomes our nominee. The media will gleefully depict the "intolerant" and "irrational" religious right during the general election. Huckabee was already setting himself up for this line of attack by running an Iowa ad highlighting himself as a "Christian Leader" when his primary rival in Iowa was Mitt Romney. His latest comment/question legitimizes that narrative.
I think its in Huckabee's own long-term interest to disavow this kind of thing.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
The more I think about this the more the uproar makes no sense. He was asked what he believes and he answered. The same thing Romney has done. I said the elephant in the room and its name is religion.
Every religion thinks it is the only true religion. Mormons think they are the only true religion... and if prodded long enough, a good Mormon would admit it.
Huckabee has been prodded relentlessly about his beliefs and Mormonism. If he has finely answered, fine... move on, next.
Huckabee has been prodded relentlessly about his beliefs and Mormonism. If he has [finally] answered, fine... move on, next.
The big difference is this time it is Huckabee himself raising the question. By doing so he has made all religions subject to the same type of underhanded attack. After all, if a candidate can innocently question another's religious beliefs, what's to stop the media from relentlessly questioning everyone's?
Do you think there is a religion immune to this type of intentionally misleading question?
It's not misleading, but finely (as in discerningly) queried. (The answer to Mike's question answers the reporter's question.)
We are precluded here from discussing theology, so you cannot say it misleading. Nor can I respond to why it is not misleading.
If Romney were volunteering in interviews "did you know that evangelicals think the Jews killed Jesus?" you would be rightly holding his feet to the fire.
Huckabee's disagreements with my religion have no place in a political campaign, especially when they are put across as Mary-Cheney style 'innocent' statements.
I can say it is misleading whether I can discuss my reasons or not. I know the answer. If you do not, you should check it out at LDS.org.
I apologize for incorrectly correcting your grammar.
Nor can CB discuss why it isn't.
Consider this the final word on the subject.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
. . . one of the other candidates, say Rudy, was constantly asked what he thought about the Southern Baptists and Rudy would typically decline a comment. But then on one particular occasion when asked, Rudy says that he doesn't know that much about the religion but says, "in the 1950's and 60's didn't they support segregation and the KKK, thought that blacks were not children of god, and accepted the murdering of blacks?" No big deal? And its not just this comment. Huck shadow supporter groups (e.g., TrustHuckabee.com) have been positively identified with anti-Mormon push-polling in Iowa (see Politico.com). Furthermore, do you think it would be problematic if a Christian candidate ran ads that he's the "Christian candidate" if a Jew were his top opponent?
No one has been tied to the initial anti-mormon push-polling. But a second round of negative push-polling (which did include anti-mormon questions) was conducted by TrustHuckabee.com.
I’m a Huckabee supporter and I read the article. I guess the only question I have is did he say something after he said this. Did he follow it by saying Christians should not be asked a dogmatic question like the one he just asked? My take is that he should not have asked the question even if he said it just to make a larger point on what type of silly questions they might receive. I understand things can be taken out of context and maybe this is a prime example. But to casually offer it up in a passive aggressive way is just wrong. It’s similar to Mitt saying in his ad that he did not support driver’s licenses for illegals but then leaving out that Huckabee did not support the same thing. Huckabee’s a political genius, and I think he question had purpose behind it. Why would he ask a reporter from the NYT a religious question? Like they have the answer… I’d like to hear what he said after he posed the question, though.
I'd just like to ask those defenders: what would your response be if Mitt Romney was our candidate, and Hillary Clinton asked the exact same question under the exact same circumstances? Would you defend her as having just asked an innocent question??
It's a lot more likely Huckabee knows the answer to the question than Hillary does, and it'd still bother me if Hillary asked it "innocently."
"Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I'm very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that." - Bill Shankly
No double standard from me. Although I cannot defend the particular precepts of Romney's faith. I would welcome Hillary questioning Huckabee's faith come the general election. And, I think questions about Hillary's faith (including Bill getting bj's on Sunday's after church, etc.) are fair as well.
Does anyone else out there think that Huck's rise is directly related to Pat Robertson's endorcement of Rudy. Cause I do! And I wonder if maybe Pat knew there might be a backlash and did it anyway!
Folks Gov Huckabee is the weakest of the candidates that has a real chance at the nomination and he'll be the easiest to beat. I said that the first time I heard the MSM talk him up and then the surge in the polls.
Friends, I know we want to vote on principles, but there other men out there who are social and fiscal conservatives that can win the general election. Huckabee cannot! I'm not saying; I just saying!
Pam
Romney posts an ad compairing his position on immigration with that of Huckabee, and the Huckabee folks say it is an "attack ad". I see it as a fair question regarding each candidates record as regards "illegal immigration and their prior positions on such.
Romney is an avowed Mormon. Anyone who knows people of the Mormon faith know that their faith is an integral part of who they are. Huckabee is a former So.Baptist minister and his faith is also a large part of who he is. Since the strength of their individual faith actually defines who they are, then why is it any less appropriate to bring out those differences than it is differences on any other socio/political issue?
I fully understand and agree with the "founders" position that there shall be "no religious test" for those who aspire to lead this nation, but that does not mean we cannot avail ourselves of as much information as we can about such an important aspect of those persons very core beliefs. It will surely give us better insight into how they might position themselves on very critcal social and political issues.
Huckabee has repeatedly said "Oh I shouldn't have to answer religious questions. I'm not going to answer whether or not Mormonism is a cult because that isn't my job." However, as usual, he is an absolute master of innocentspeak, and while disavowing talk on such subjects, he plants little seeds every time he speaks. This "innocent" question is an example of that. "Oh, it isn't my job to speak about religion, but isn't mormonism [insert x slur about mormonism]."
The result is brilliant in its cunning. He gets to plant all the negative doubts about his opponents religion without ever explicitly playing the religion card. I'm starting to think that Slick Willy had nothing on this guy.
So you think a President will govern differently based on how he understands the Trinity>
Nonsense is calling. He wants his stilts back.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Honestly, I think so many people are at fault for religion playing such a dominant role in the Republican race: the press, Mitt Romney’s campaign, Mike Huckabee, and the networks that ran all the debates. The godless press wants a fight and does not understand faith, Mitt Romney’s campaign is trying to fight a battle he can not win and basically believes people have a problem with his religion, and maybe some people do, but it’s really his lack of trust on major issues for socons and his inability to connect, and then Mike Huckabee goes around talking about his faith because it comes as naturally as breathing to him, but then he gets all the religious questions and plays the victim in a passive aggressive way.
...is it so unfair and wrong to ask about a fundamental difference regarding the beliefs tightly held by he who would rule our world.
Romney is saying in his campaign to the Christian base, "I am one of you", he has placed faith IN GENERAL, religion IN GENERAL (e.g., against the atheist) into play. Traditional Christianity sets some lines of heresy, Christ being God and not created one of them. I do not see this as a big issue as a Presidential candidate, but it is relevant in a representative democracy (not as a GOVERNMENTAL test) as to what a candidate's fundamental beliefs are.
In keeping with the terms of this comment string where Huckabee can be attacked on the issue but we are not allowed to debate the substance in answer to the question, I am not discussing the THEOLOGICAL MERITS of Huckabee's response, which would involve comparing who's right on the issue... but without going to the substantive merit of the positions theologically or philosophically, it does need to be said that the LDS church does answer Huckabee's question in the affirmative, as stated at their own official website here
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM10...
(scroll down to the 2nd question) where they say under their "I Have A Question" section, citing their authoritative references:
"How can Jesus and Lucifer be spirit brothers when their characters and purposes are so utterly opposed?
Jess L. Christensen, Institute of Religion director at Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,” a “son of the morning.” (See Isa. 14:12; D&C 76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C 93:21.)"
Again, I do not here argue the merits of their position.
But the LDS official teaching clearly answers Huck's question in the affirmative, and this is relevant to know in this type of post where people are trying to make Huck into an ignorant rube.
He's not an ignorant rube. He's a sleazy politician who's deliberately trying to turn political elections into religious contests.
This is a moral, not a political, mistake.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
If not, care/dare to explain why it is off-limits in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy for a voter or journalist to even ask about the religious beliefs of our leader of the free world who is telling us "I'm one of you."
www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d8...
Scroll down to 2nd question.
It is not much different than Huckabee saying "I'm a conservative." And, all the fiscal conservatives saying, "no you're not."
The link is not about proving one religion true or not, but about proving that what Huckabee said was accurate.
Its technically accurate, IMHO, but its still a smear, like saying that Christians think the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus.
So what? Moral candidates don't try to foment religious divides to help their campaigns.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Thank you for the brief, limited theological exposition. I'm one comment from ending comments on this story, and Dan did a nice little writeup -- but then again, CY did, too.
THE NEXT COMMENT DISCUSSING THEOLOGY ON THIS STORY ENDS COMMENTING ON THE STORY.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
These Huckbots keep bringing the stuff up, but I'm the one you slam down for posting an extremely minimal defense? Criminy.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Dan beat me to chaplain -- one of the Huckbots -- by picoseconds, and so he's no longer with us. You got a blanket warning. Right Again got one too. I'm trying the gentle touch because you didn't bring this up.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Religious tolerance and civil peace means not making elections referendums on religions. Huckabee is trying to do that, however, and so are you. Shame on you. Get lost.
You have a right to ask, but a Bible thumper that's running for President does NOT!!! Don't attack a religion if you want to be President. If you are not smart enought to figure that out, you have no place in politics!
Don't call a Baptist preacher a "Bible thumper" on this website. While it doesn't cross the theology line, it moves well into the off-limits-religious-attacks territory.
Your one warning. You're a good commenter; please don't make me do what comes next.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I didn't mean that as an attack, nor do I think it was an attack... Many Evangelicals I know, I used to be one, often refer to themselves as such. Is this a "N word" issue? Some can use and others can't? I think you maybe off base on this. Out of respect or your earned status on this board I will refrain from using the term again, but I would like to see some clarifacation on this before I get myself banned for saying something else that to me seems extremely ordinary.
Lots of things are. As a Mormon I can call myself a "cultist" and its funny. If you do it, its insulting. That's just the way it is.
So let me put this gently:
I'm Catholic, not Baptist, evangelical, fundamentalist (as the word is properly applied), Protestant, Mormon, nor any of what I perceive to be the Protestant groups that believe they're the true Church, and not Protestant. The word, in context, is offensive. Your use of the word was offensive.
I'm also a Director of the site. That ends this discussion.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
6 7 8 9 10 Ok got that out of the way. The word, or more correctly words, is and was IMHO no more offensive than one saying "Sweet Jeebus"... I understand that you are a Director and will live by your rules. If I offended anyone with my remarks, I apologize, that was not my intent.
We said it before, repeatedly. I'm leaving it to others to decide whether to turn your account back on if you ask nicely.
I said it was morally wrong because he should not be inflaming this issue in his position. It's fine for preachers to preach, but his words get extra play, and he has extra responsibility, speaking as a candidate for president. Our party doesn't need this.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
I don't think Huck's rightness or wrongness is the point - my guess is he knew the answer before he asked. I think there's no reason to ask that question except to try to get some points on his opponent.
It renders the topic highly prejudicial. Thus, it's clear that Huckabee was trying to slander Romney without looking like that's what he was doing. Did he think the NYT reporter had the answer to that question?
but did Romney say he's one of them or he's with them?
I think Romney implied that he was with evangelicals when it came to values issues.
They that are with us are more than they that are against us.
Ignorant rube is the best case explanation for Huckabee's gaff. If the case can be made that it was all done in simple bumbling innocence that would be in keeping with the "aw shucks" every man persona he is putting forth. Far more concerning is the possibility that it was a premeditated attack disguised as misplaced curiosity. I am leaning towards premeditation, but so far there has not been anything clear cut that would sink his character and end his campaign. If he is another Arkansas snake with an (R), the question is can he maintain plausable deniability for long enough to get the nomination and essentially force the party to support him.
All of this commotion reminds of a passage from the The Federalist Papers:
The Federalist No. 10
The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)
James Madison, November 22, 1787
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
...The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
I track the Saudi-backed expansion of extremist Wahhabi Islam
http://wahaudi.blogspot.com
The truths we can gather from this comment is that Huckabee was insensitive about Governor Romney's Religion. He should know better.
The fact to be determined is whether or not anybody will care that he made a callous comment about Mormonism. I'm not saying he was right or wrong and I'm not saying it shouldn't matter, I'm just not sure that it will.
Gov. Romney has lots going from him. He has the look, the sound and the business back ground to be a first rate Republican. Whichever God he prescribes to knows that Romney has more money that HE has. Two things keep Romney from being president. He's had two or three shifting (conviently shifting I might add)views on core social issues. Gov. Romney has only one other difference from say, Fred "everybody loves his views but thinks he looks to old and sleepy to support" Thompson. He's a Morman. There, I said it. Don't shoot the messanger folks. I'm not saying he's wrong or right, but he is a Morman. No matter how much you compare him to JFK, people are uncomfortable with Mormanism. For the people who are uncomfortable with Mormanism, they are already thinking along the lines of what Huckabee said in the Times article. The ones who would be offended probably are the same folks who wouldn't support Gov. Huckabee because he's a Baptist.
I hate that Romney is judged bases on his religion. I wish folks would openly just say they are not comfortable that a Massachussets Liberal turned Conservative in the 2 years prior to needing Conservative support to get elected.
Huckabee made a mistake by saying what he said. He entered a subject he shouldn't have gotten into. I agree with all that. Will it matter? Probably not. The guy is made of rubber.
Mike Huckabee’s interview with the New York Times proves he is a deceiver. Like most politicians, Huckabee can feign ignorance when it’s politically convenient.
Let’s examine some recent quotes by the Governor of Arkansas from his New York Times interview.
In regards to the Mormon Church: “'I think it's a religion,' he said. 'I really don't know much about it. (New York Times)
Mr. Huckabee has a degree in Theology and is an ordained Southern Baptist Minister….Either he is lying or incompetent as a person of his religious education and professional background to profess not knowing anything about Mormonism.
Any lay (non-professional) Baptist Minster can tell you about Mormonism to the full degree.
Gov. Huckabee was so in the dark about Mormon beliefs that he still knew about the Evangelical code words that every LDS Missionary hears from Evangelicals around the world: “Don’t you Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers?”
He wasn’t taken out of context nor misunderstood. Another deceitful denial. Every Evangelical Christian in the world knew what he meant by the comment.
He is certainly playing the religious card for both receiving the Christian Right votes and to slam the former leader in Iowa, a Mormon. There is no ignorance involved on his part as he claims.
Seems like this election will included a religious test by the Republican Party for fitness to run for President, not a candidate’s previous record and political values.
It’s sad that Hillary Clinton will get the Democratic vote by sole virtue that she’s Bill Clinton’s wife and a woman; not her experience and political record (or lack there of).
It may be even sadder that Mike Huckabee is going to get the Republican nod by virtue of being an ordained minister and not on his record –including being soft on crime and immigration.
Like another Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee has much in common with Bill Clinton: both are liars and Southern Baptist; except Clinton may have been tougher on crime.
Go Ron Paul!
Just when you thought Harry Reid's mouth was a "dangerous weapon" by shooting him self in the foot. Ouch.
I think there is a lot good about Huckabee (more than a number here give him credit for), but its stuff like this (and Romney's back stabbing maneuvers as well) which make me glad I a Thompson supporter.
I think I read somewhere on NRO within the last day or so that Bill Crystal commented that this conflict between Romney and Huckabee could leave the door open for McCain or Thompson as it makes both look unpresidential.
I think he is correct and I hope he is right.