Why not Mitt Romney for Vice-President?
April 3, 2008 by Larry
There has been a lot of talk about whom John McCain will or should choose as his running mate and if you have read my blog for very long, you will know I have hoped he would chose Mike Huckabee. I have written a couple of articles about why I believe Huckabee would be a good choice for McCain to make, although I am not sure Huckabee is even on the short list of names being considered for the job. That being said, there is one person that I believe would be the death toll for the McCain campaign. That man is Mitt Romney.
Much ado has also been made about Romney’s economic credentials and how they would help shore up the McCain campaign. Admittedly, Romney turned around the Olympics and he has been the head of a big corporation, but I am not sure how well those credentials enable him to understand what the normal American is going through in today’s economy. After all, most of us don’t have millions of dollars in the bank. I am not sure Romney can understand the difference between corporate America and the America most of us live in.
I am not intending to go full negative in this article, but there are so many negatives about Mitt Romney, that I can’t believe McCain would even consider choosing him as his running mate. The main thing about Romney is his willingness to change his position on any given topic, at any given time, during any given campaign. He doesn’t carry the nickname Flip-Flop Romney for no reason. Looking at his past record, it is clear that he is not a true social conservative, at least not until he started running for President and realized he would need the social conservative vote if he were to win the nomination. That was all the incentive he needed to start changing his position on social conservative issues to match the campaign he was running. If you don’t believe me, just ask the voters of Massachusetts. The man they voted into the Governor’s office is not the man they thought he was. It is very clear, Mitt Romney can not be trusted.
While John McCain goes through the process of choosing his running mate, it is becoming clear that a lot, if not most of Mike Huckabee’s supporters do not want Romney anywhere near the White House. Why, you ask? Let me explain. During the campaign, Mike Huckabee was blasted because he supposedly attacked Mitt Romney about his religion, even though the statement that was written was clearly not an attack, but rather a question to a reporter who was entirely more knowledgeable about the Mormon religion than was Huckabee. Not only that, but Mitt Romney saw Huckabee as his main rival in Iowa and he went on the full attack. Instead of trying to speak to the voters and tell them about his own record and why they should choose him as the Republican nominee, he spent most of his time attacking Huckabee and distorting his record. That tells me that he really doesn’t have much of a record, at least not one that he wants to share with the voters.
So, if John McCain were to read this article, what would I want him to get out of it? Just this one thing. He can not possibly hope to beat the Democrat candidate, unless he has the backing of every part of the Republican party. That includes social conservatives, such as myself and other Huckabee supporters. I am not saying I, or others, will not vote for McCain if he doesn’t choose Huckabee or another credible social conservative as his running mate. What I am saying is that there is one sure way to make sure he doesn’t win this Presidential election. Just choose Mitt Romney as his running mate and he will see droves of voters voting against him and Romney or just refusing to vote at all.
That’s my take!
Larry
Isn’t April fools day over….? Look at their records.. If you have any truth in you at all you would see that Mr. Romney
gets the job done.
Larry,
Thank you for putting into words what many moral value conservatives feel. As I have stated many times; it’s Romney’s record I’m against, not his religion. Holding my nose to vote for McCain is hard enough. I cannot vote GOP if Romney or any other non-consistent moral values person is chosen for McCain’s VP. McCain better choose his running mate very carefully. Many of us are independent thinkers already. It won’t take much to get us to vote Independent.
Are you serious? Mike Huckabee, a college graduate with a THEOLOGY degree doesn’t know the basic doctrines of the country’s 4th largest Church? Seriously? If the voting public were to buy that, then it raises a lot of questions about what Gov. Huckabee really does know. On the contrary, I believe this was a calculated move meant to test the waters of religious and patriotic bigotry (similar to what Sens. Clinton and Obama are currently bathing in). If the “question” were well-received by voters (i.e. Romney’s poll numbers dropped), then I think the tactic would have been used more frequently, not necessarily because of Gov. Huckabee’s personal beliefs but because of political expediency. Luckily for America, such bigotted attempts at belittling anothers religion with half-truths (God is the Father of all things, so that would obviously include Satan, who rebelled as told in Revelations, so technically all Christians believe that Jesus, Mike Huckabee, the Pope, Adolf Hitler, and Satan are “related.”
Regardless of Gov. Huckabee’s personal views and political strategy, John McCain is at a crossroads. He needs to select as his running mate either Mike Huckabee or a similar candidate in order earn the votes of Gov. Huckabee’s supporters. On the flipside, he needs to select as his running mate either Mitt Romney or a similar candidate to earn the votes of Gov. Romney’s supporters. The third option is for McCain to select another centrist like himself, but that would probably spell the end of his campaign, since most conservatives (like myself) have little interest in voting for McCain.
I’m definitely curious to see who becomes the VP nominee, but I’m guessing that it will have a lot more to do with political expediency than anything else. McCain needs to get a lot of Republicans out of their homes to vote for him this fall (he appears to have Independents locked up), and since Gov. Romney earned millions more total votes than Gov. Huckabee, I’d guess that’s where the nomination is leaning. It is politics, though, so anything could happen on any given day!
Well said!
As Steve Kornacki wrote in the New York Observer:
“Gay rights, tax cuts, gun control: Over and over in this campaign, Romney’s convenient changes of heart—whether in his actual policy positions or just in the way he talks about issues—have been well-documented. On literally every subject in which he was vulnerable to criticism from conservatives, Romney shifted his attitudes before entering the campaign, meaning he has never been in position—as McCain has often been—to have to defend an unpopular view.”
Thus to deflect scrutiny from his own “flip-flopping” record, Romney “went negative, early and often.”
Romney as the Veep nominee would be a disaster.
He’s flip-flopping political novice who used his huge personal fortune to attack fellow Republicans.
He overwhelmingly alienates at least 1/3 of the GOP base.
He lost in many of the Red States where the GOP must win. (Romney didn’t win any place that McCain was uncompetitive so he adds virtually no regional balance to the ticket.
He stands for almost nothing solid (he’s grossly flip-flopped on nearly every issue important to social conservatives).
He is the perfectly-coifed poster child for almost every negative stereotype the electorate holds about the GOP.
If Five hundred million dollars worth of free media from Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity and a host of other GOP “attack radio” stars couldn’t “sell” Romney to the GOP base (who were primed and ready for SOMEONE to rescue the GOP in 2008), why would he “sell” any better among the more moderate (and more skeptical) general electorate?
It’s amazing to me how clouded intelligent people vision gets when they look at facts. Mr. Romney did NOT lose because of his positions, they are what the conservatives want. Mr. Romney lost because he’s a MORMON! I’ll be honest, probably the only one on this blog, but EVERY one of my fellow Huck supporters at one time or another INCLUDING myself, have stated that they would NOT vote for a mormon!!! and the count is in the hundredes. Let’s be honest. We still think that Gov. Huckabee would not only make the best president, but is the best choice. Please do not humiliate yourselfs further by attacking.
I think that McCain should seriously consider Bobby Jindal. Jindal can serve to deflate Obama’s “American dream” bit. (Jindal is also the product of immigrants, with a similiarly inspiring story). Jindal is young and can add vitality to the ticket as well as governing and business experience (he’s also not disliked…as Romney is).
Another opinion from a Christian of the Anti-mormon variety masquerading as legitimate political opinion. What the writer will not say is “He’s a Mormon and I don’t want a Mormon president.”
Romney was by far the most talented candidate this year. As for so called “flip-flopping”, he was elected Governor in Massachussets. How could he be elected there on a hard pro-life stance? All of his ACTUAL activity as governor made him a conservative darling.
The flip-flopping screeching Mike Huckabee heads who are still out there decrying Mitt Romney are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Their real agenda is political power based on religious exclusivity. EXTREMELY UNAMERICAN. To deny a good man’s right to run based on his religion is dangerous to all of our freedoms.
In twenty years, secularists may make the same argument - “We don’t want people of ANY strong faith running for President.”
Sorry, speedzzter… Romney still got more delegates (by 2) than Huckabee, and Huck was in the race a lot longer. Had Romney stayed in the race as long as Huck was, he’d probably have a lot more. I know the state I live in would have voted overwhelmingly for Romney.
The reason Huck didn’t get lauded a lot by the media stars is that he’s unelectable. Period. Anybody that’s an independent thinker can see that. Obviously, you aren’t and you can’t.
I have a long list of problems with the Huck, foremost being he’s a religious bigot. And as such, he’s also a hypocrite, for someone who’s a “Christian” shouldn’t act that way. He’s also not a very educated man, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. So rant and rave all you want, but when it comes to pulling in the vote, Romney would make a better VP than Huck anytime. He’d also make a better VP when it comes to getting things done. With the economy having problems, there’s no stronger candidate in either party on the economy than Romney, and it’s a blind spot for McCain. McCain would strengthen the ticket by adding Romney.
The truth is, downing Romney is not going to make Huckabee the running mate. The choice is not between Romney and Huckabee anymore, so bringing one down won’t necessarily elevate the other.
The as-yet-unreleased short list for McCain’s running mate has 20 names, and there’s no guarantee that Romney or Huckabee are even on that list.
I’ll vote for any Republic tandem over whoever the Dems put up there. But if I had a choice, would definitely support Huckabee over Romney. Huckabee provides a much needed component for a McCain ticket - social conservatives. It’s amazing how much the media as well the Republican elites tend to forget what we did for the party in 2000 and 2004. Heck - even Limbaugh thinks he has a monopoly on the term “conservative”. The gall is amazing at all levels.
But if the GOP wants a lot of these social conservatives to stay home and not vote, then by all means, put Romney on the ticket. Look - Huckabee was able to do a LOT with very little media time or money. If he had the monetary support that Romney had, then we wouldn’t be talking about McCain as the Republican presidential candidate.
Romney has been touted as the economic genius to balance McCain in the general. Although he has been successful in building personal wealth, he did so by breaking companies up, selling them, sending jobs overseas, and putting “regular working Americans” out of work. Those policies aren’t good for America. When you look at what he did as governor, his record shows that Mass. was in worse shape due to his economic policies.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12568
(article quote)”Andrew Sum and Joseph McLaughlin of the Center for Labor Market Studies at Boston’s Northeastern University placed Romney’s rule beneath their statistical microscope. Let’s hope what they discovered is not contagious.
“Our analysis reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country,” the researchers wrote in the Boston Globe. Specifically, they found:
* As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts’ anemic 1.9 percent pace.
* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.
“Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents,” professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.”(end article quote)
The article also discusses how Romney’s health care plan hurt the state far more than it helped, how he hurt the automotive industry, and has a fairly detailed explanation of how the cuts he made in some areas like property-tax relief were far off-set by tax and fee hikes.
This is only one article that explains his record accurately and it only discusses his economic impact. There are many more on this subject as well as his negative impact on social issues. When his economic policies hurt a state far more than they help, it should be a clear warning signal that he probably won’t institute economic solutions that will help America. Romney’s record shows why he wouldn’t be a good choice for McCain or America.
There is such a ground swell of support for Mitt Romney that everytime he is in the news at all people come out of the woodworks with excitement. You don’t see that for Huckabee. Romney is the obvious choice for VP because his supporters are just itching to start donating to McCains campaign but only if Romney is on the ticket. Romney’s intelligence and poise would be a great balance to McCain. Sorry but there are a lot more people who would not vote for McCain if Huckabee was on the ticket than he will lose with Romney.
McCain/Romney in 2008!
Unelectable? Religious Bigot?
Unbelievable. You, sir, are an embarrassment to the human race.
Right on, Larry. Adding Romney to the GOP ticket would be the final straw for a lot of EvangeliCons.
Maybe some people find comfort in Slick Willard’s ability to change sides on an issue at whim. Remember what he said on Jan. 28? “I’m not going to be any vice president to John McCain either, that’s not going to happen.”
I can see the bumper stickers now:
McFlip - Flopney 2008
speedzzter, your posts are what is wrong with the Huckabee movement. You claim Christianity and then attack, attack, attack. Nice. “Jesus is love” but his followers can be just as nasty as they wish? Anything is OK because Mitt is the DEVIL? Your “witness” seems to be really lacking, not exactly the kind of thing that would bring a non-believer to Christ? Who cares, more welfare is all you really want anyway?
I don’t deny that Romney was less than the best choice for conservatives, but what you seem to keep missing is that Huckabee is NO choice for conservatives. NONE. He isn’t conservative, no matter what Romney did or didn’t do. He does not appeal to large segments of the population, again, regardless of who Romney is or isn’t.
Romney didn’t hold conservative positions as the Governor of Mass. so this makes Huckabee’s populist and clearly not conservative positions…conservative? Huh? Romney spent brazillions of his own money so that makes Mike conservative? again HUH? You forgot to add your “cost per delegate” mantra, getting tweepy? To busy attacking Mormons as being related to Satan worshipers? Confused if you should vote for McCain or Obama?
Reagan raised taxes so when Huckabee did the same it was “conservative”? What?
Why exactly did the “conservative movement” not jump on the Huckabee bandwagon? Satan? Leftards controlling their minds? Karl Rove tortured them into it? Because Mike is the one who defines “conservative”?
Maybe, just maybe, Romney held more conservative positions than Huckabee? Oh, I remember, those who support Up-Chuck-abee are honest, real conservatives, regardless of their candidate’s actual positions, but all who opposed the supposed conservative must be on Mitt’s payroll?
I may come back and respond to some of the individual comments later, but let me say this right quick.
Jgreaves, I am not surprised that I am being accused of being anti-Mormon, even though I did not bring up that in my article, other than to defend Huckabee when his comments were taken out of context. You can look on my blog and you will see that I have not ran Romney down because of his religion, ever.
John Houston may claim to be the only honest one on this blog, but the fact remains, my non-support of Mitt Romney has nothing to do at all with his being a Mormon. I am getting tired of being accused of things that are simply not true and have no bearing to the article that I have written. I am not downing Romney to try to get Huckabee in the position to be VP, I am not sure if he is on the list, or if he would take the job if it were offered to him. All I am trying to do is to show what I believe would happen, were Romney to be chosen as the VP.
There is no way you can honestly accuse Mike Huckabee of being a religious bigot. He is a Christian, yes, but he has had Catholics and people of other religions working for him as Governor and in his campaign for President. If you accuse him of this, you are doing so because of something else besides the facts. It simply isn’t true.
Republicans are going to vote for McCain. Regardless of how they may wish the nominee was more conservative, they’re not going to sit at home and risk possible 2 supreme court seats to a Democrat. It’s not going to happen. McCain needs to pick someone who will help him win… and that means a Governor of a swing state. I’m thinking that means Charlie Crist. He’s extremely popular in Florida and would almost lock the state in the red column. He’s also very energetic and personable — a real asset on the trail. He could always really shake things up and pick Leiberman, but I think that’d be more than the base could take.
Okay, folks. That’s enough. I have no intention of this blog becoming a place for people to call each other names, no matter if you are a Romney supporter or a Huckabee supporter. That goes both ways. I am moderating all comments, as always, and I will delete any comments that stoop to calling people names. Again, it doesn’t matter who you are supporting. If there is an honest discussion, so be it, but no bickering and name calling.
Mitt did not lose because he was a Mormon and he did not lose because of his positions. He lost because many people, like me, did not believe he was sincere in his positions. He came off like a snake oil salesman, plain and simple.
I’m fairly fed up with people referring to Romney as a flip flopper. The reality is that he flipped once, on abortion. And this he did, to go towads a pro life viewpoint. How dare he?
For anyone who is capable of looking at complex situations without immediately jumping to conclusions and lambasting somone for not openly attacking a groups (or groups) of people you don’t agree with, Romney is a treasure trove. Especially when viewed with the comparative ‘flipflops’ of Huckabee and McCain (of which there are so many).
More than anything, Huckabee has made himself a liability with any other constituency outside of the Evangelicals. He has no special expertise like the economy to recommend him as VP. He doesn’t represent a swing state like Michigan or Ohio. He does represent the South which invariably goes republican (McCain and Romney did pretty much as well as the Huckster did in the South during the primaries.) More importantly he turns off voters in the West. This is important as the Dems are looking to the West to turn their way. How could Huckabee keep Nevada from going blue? He couldn’t. Heck, Massachussets might not turn red, but even this is up in the air if Obama get’s the nod. Then a combination of McCain and Romney would have a good chance of taking the state. The same goes for Michigan. And even New Hampshire.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that people will view Romney in the light that they expect. Some will willingly seize on perceived faults and twist them until he looks like the AntiChrist (I’ve seen loads of people call him this). Others will be determined to like him. The careful student will see that he does indeed have weaknesses but he also has many strengths. Many more strengths than a certain Mr. Huckabee.
So-called religious conservatives are no conservatives at all! Conservatism has nothing to do with religion, it is a movement begun to limit government involvement in our lives and in our economy and to protect us from our enemies. Conservatives have accepted the support of evangelicals and paid them lip service, but it is and has always been a marriage of convenience. Mike Huckabee hasn’t the first clue about how a capitalist society functions and is much more akin to the self-described progressives than he is to conservatism. Same for his foreign policy outlook, in which he seeks to molly-coddle our enemies and shaft our friends.
This year’s primaries brought these facts in to sharp relief. The reason we have John McCain and not Mitt Romney as our standard-bearer is because religious LIBERALs in our party supported Huckabee at Romney’s expense. The religious element of our party represents about 25 to 30% of the GOP and about 12% of the country at large. That was Huckabee’s range and he could do no better and no worse. The fact is that the fundamentalist Christians in our party have tried to use Conservatism the way conservatism has used them.
We’re paying the price for dancing with the “saints”.
I fit the description–as does five other voting family members, plus four brother-in-laws plus their wives. I either want Huckabee or JC Watts. Any other choice will cause me to either not vote, or vote third party. I am not pleased with the other choices including McCain or Romney.
I know some don’t like it, but that is our stand.
(for you that can’t figure it out–that’s 13 votes–and I know of others.
Larry,
As an aside, I encountered Gov. Huckabee last Friday night in a hotel lobby in southern California. He was with his wife, standing in line to check-in. (I guess when the campaign is over, it’s really over!) I am not sure anyone else noticed him standing there. I walked up, said hello, exchanged a handshake and wished him a pleasant weekend. He smiled and thanked me.
In my opinion, McCain can’t select either former primary opponent. There is no upside to picking a running mate who was a recent foe in a contentious primary season. All the mainstream media will focus upon will be any and all critical remarks made by McCain about Huckabee or Romney, and similar remarks made about McCain by those two gentlemen.
It will not unite the party. The religious conservatives can’t endure Romney. The moderates who just want a competent VP can’t accept Huckabee.
McCain needs to make a courageous choice, maybe even a bold choice as his VP candidate. It is probably this choice that determines whether McCain can win in November.
I heard on a radio show while back…. This Romney supporter said that a few days after he voted for Romney, Romney suspended his campaign and he felt like he was slapped. Later Romney said he’s releasing his delegates (to McCain), so the supporter felt like he was slapped on the other side this time (sounded like he didn’t like McCain) and felt taken advantaged of, that his vote was not meaningful. He was very shocked and disapponted. He’s not alone, and these people might not vote for Romney as VP…
Larry - although you may be sincere about your ostensibly non-Anti-Mormon (is that a word?) position, you have to forgive me of being suspicious. (You actually haven’t stated you would vote for a Mormon yet. That would be the best way to put this to bed).
I have seen a number of Anti-Mitt blogs out there from “social conservatives” who supported Huckabee, and frequently they have links to pages on “Why Mormon’s are not Christians.”
I tire of it. We all know that if Mitt was an Evangelical Christian, he would have won Iowa and the whole thing would be over.
As a Mormon, I feel my rights to freedom of religion are infringed by religious bigotry. The old “there is no way we can support a Mormon in the White House” is a de facto infringement on religious freedom. If I wanted to run for President, but had to disavow my religion to be successful, I do not have a freedom of religion. Its more like a State religion.
I totally agree with this blog . Thank you for putting my thoughts in words
While I am a protestant Christian and have a strong relationship with my faith - articles such as this remind me as to how the merger between Christianity and the Republican party backfired this election year. Mike Huckabee is a horrible candidate - perhaps the worst possible candidate choice. Support for Huckabee comes from voters choosing a baptist preacher because they are baptist and believe that would be “God’s will.”
If people could simply vote based upon qualifications, candidate potential, experience - Romney would be the choice. Open your minds people..it isn’t a sin to…
JP,
I’m afraid that’s a terrible argument. Your rights to freedom of religion are infringed because I take into account your religion when determining whether to vote for you as the leader of the free world? What about my freedom of religion (and freedom to vote for whomever I want)? What if my faith tells me that I should carefully consider a leader’s most fundamental beliefs before deciding to push him into power?
And how is that a state religion, if I personally disagree with you religiously?
According to your reasoning, I can vote against a candidate because I dislike his hair, his speaking style, his suspicious smile, the hitch in his step, the brand of suits he wears, his politics, his record, or any other reason–trivial or serious–but I shouldn’t take into account his beliefs on the most foundational issues of one’s worldview? How can that be?
I’m not ashamed to say that I contemplate a candidate’s personal faith, because my doing that is not based on blind hate or mindless prejudice. It’s based on the fact that I think one’s relationship with God is an immensely important part of one’s life, including that of a politician’s.
In any case, Romney is not a true conservative anyway, so, as Larry and many others have made the case, his Mormonism need not play the deciding factor.
“If people could simply vote based upon qualifications, candidate potential, experience - Romney would be the choice.” –Joe
10 1/2 years of gubernatorial experience; lieutenant governor before that; selected as one of America’s top five governors; selected as a “public official of the year”; elected by his peers to chair the National Governor’s Association; consistently pro-life, in favor of the Human Life Amendment, opposed to exceptions; consistently pro-marriage, in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment; consistently pro-Second Amendment.
Those are all “qualifications, candidate potential, experience” that belong to Huckabee, not Romney.
Great blog Larry you explained exactly how I feel. I will say that in the beginning I was for Mitt Romney, until all the facts about the man came out. I could not support a person who believes it was ok to harm the innocent, and what has confused me so badly is I thought Mormons were pro-life. For all of those that keep saying Huckabee and his supporters are nothing but bigoted anti-Mormon voters, I can attest that nothing is further from the truth as a matter of fact I think it is the other way around. Glenn Beck has always detested Governor Huckabee because he is an evangelical, consistently criticizing him on everything he could find as if Mitt didn’t have many faults of his own. I never once heard Mr. Beck slam Mitt on any of his liberal positions, Mitt got a pass from Glen because they share the same faith. Here in my district in California our congressman is a Mormon, now the overwhelming number of people that vote here are evangelical Christians. So if we wanted him gone because of his faith that would have happened years ago, but that hasn’t happened and it never will because he shares our values. During our primary here he never endorsed Mitt because he knew that Mitt truly didn’t share our commitment to life. So I believe some of the people that are commenting here that are of the Mormon faith need to grow up, because they are criticizing Huckabee of being the bigot when in fact the true reason they dislike him so is because he is an evangelical and the evangelical community supported him.
“For all of those that keep saying Huckabee and his supporters are nothing but bigoted anti-Mormon voters, I can attest that nothing is further from the truth ”
This is an absolutely false statement. The only people who ever mention Romney’s religion are the Huckabee supporters and rarely, if ever, in a charitable fashion, either. Mike himself said “‘Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?” He was quoted as saying it in the New York Times and, to date, no lawsuits have been filed.
Spin it as a “joke” if you like, he tried. For most people, if it were a joke, it is one, bigoted, joke. If you read the rest of the numerous blogs for Huckabee you will also find tons of references to Mormonism. Kingdomadvancer wears her religious bigotry like a badge of honor on this very post. Religion, not actual positions or actions, is the lens through which she sees the world.
She actually wrote “his Mormonism need not play the deciding factor” Need not? The term for respectable people is WILL NOT. Need not? but will to all decent people? But can because it is Mormonism, after all? A bigot’s words without doubt.
[quote] MJBrutus
So-called religious conservatives are no conservatives at all! Conservatism has nothing to do with religion, it is a movement begun to limit government involvement in our lives and in our economy and to protect us from our enemies.[/quote]
Some of us care a lot about restoring traditional values.
[quote]con·serv·a·tive
–adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.[/quote]
Joe,
You couldn’t be further from the truth. I did not choose to support Mike Huckabee because he or I was Baptist. I am Pentacostal, actually, but again, that had nothing to do with my support of Huckabee. I supported him because of his stance on the issues I care about. Just as Romney’s religion had nothing to do with why I am so distrustful of him.
Romney was listed as a RINO and the 7th most liberal electd Republican in the United States by Human Events, a respected conservative magazine, in 2005. The positions he took on many social issues were dramatically opposite his church. Mormons for the most part are social conservatives. My older brother always use to say judge politicians by what they have done, not what they promise during elections i.e. Romney’s promises are not worth anything.
One major advantage to having Huckabee as the VP candidated is that the religious conservatives could heal their splits and get behind McCain. Gary Baeur, Tony Perkins, Pat Robinson and others supporting Huckabee as VP would be good for our movement. Paul Weyrich and Dr. Dobson did endorse Huckabee.
I also like J.C. Watts, and Ducan Hunter as VP canidates.
BigMeanUglyOgre
I’m fairly fed up with people referring to Romney as a flip flopper. The reality is that he flipped once, on abortion.
Looks like you’ve been mislead.
Twelve years ago, Romney boasted that he would be more effective in fighting discrimination against gay men and lesbians than Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), distanced himself from some conservative policies of the Reagan administration, and proudly recalled his family’s record in support of abortion rights.
The apparent gulf between the candidate who ran for the Senate in 1994 and the one getting ready to run for president has raised questions as to who is the real Mitt Romney. Is he the self-described moderate who unsuccessfully challenged Kennedy in the year of the Republican landslide, the self-described conservative now ready to bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, or merely an ambitious and adaptable politician?
http://tinyurl.com/36sum6
ROMNEY would be the best thing that ever happened to our economy, especially for middle class Americans. GET OVER HIS RELIGION, right wing nuts!!!! You’re messing up our party! This author is very uneducated about Romney.
I believe Gov Romney is the only hope the Republican Party has this year and the future. After watching Huck and his “I’m the only Christian Leader.” It really turned me off. I watch Romney never boast, just shows us over and over again, he’s got the whole package. I will not vote for McCain or Huck, they will not win. The Democrats hate Mitt the most, because he’s a threat….bottom line. Wake up!
Been in the Military 32 years and I don’t know many who will vote for anybody but a strategic, smart thinker. I am not worried about our military, I am worried about global competition and the USA taking a back seat.
Get over the Religious thing….Mitt is a very good man and to tell you the truth, I like Mormons. They live as good examples in our society….unlike many groups I see. They are not prideful like so many I see that tend to where there faith in word only.
Ralph
The Republican party seems to have done a strong job in pulling together behind McCain (a poll done yesterday by Gallup showed that just 3% of Republicans would rather vote for either Clinton or Obama than him). He doesn’t need to do much from the look of it to shore up his support but that doesn’t mean he can blow it either.
You are right that Romney would bring with him questions of trustworthiness. Whoever McCain chooses needs to be a fundamentally safe choice. The “heartbeat away from the Presidency” argument very much applies here.
Jindal would certainly be an interesting choice though perhaps a bit too green just now.
Governor Pawlenty strikes me as the most obvious name, though with McCain’s unpredictable nature I am fully expecting to be surprised.
Marshall,
First of all, I’m a he, not a she. Although that’s not too relevant to this discussion, it lends itself to the fact that you don’t know as much about me as you think.
Yes, I wear like a badge of honor that I think one’s relationship with God is important. For some reason, you seem to think that the devil himself would not be so evil as to think that.
But it’s not bigotry. If you and those like you had your way, any reference or consideration for one’s faith would constitute “bigotry.” That’s simply not the case, but I can see why you continually assert that, and take advantage of emotionally-arousing language as you have done when debating me previously, a tell-tale sign of one whose footing is weak.
Anyways, to assert that I don’t consider positions or actions is ludicrous, as you would see if you actually read my blog.
As for my closing statement, the point was that Romney supporters are so disillusioned that they convince themselves to believe that the only reason any conservative would not vote for Romney is that they’re bigoted. In reality, Romney was burying himself with his positions and past before you even bring Mormonism into the equation.
Jack,
How can I be uneducated about Romney, when his record speaks for it’s self. Time after time, he has changed his position on the issues. That doesn’t sound like a man whom I would want as President or Vice-President.
Ralph J,
You need to go back and check your facts. The ad Huckabee ran did not call him the only Christian leader. It called him a Christian leader. There is nothing wrong with him being a Christian leader.
Mike Huckabee would be the best choice for VP. His authenicity and ability to speak to the average American is what attracted me to his campaign last fall. His record in Arkansas as governor and the way he ran his campaign demonstrate that he knows how to handle money as a public servant with fidicuiary responsibilities. He has not changed his positions on crucial social issues as Romney has. Mike Huckabee can relate with American’s middle class because he is one of us; Romney hasn’t a clue what it costs most people to just get by every week, because he doesn’t just get by. He talks of buying cheap stocks when most of us wonder how we will buy groceries and fill the gas tank until the next payday. Romney is part of big business, a venture capitalist, who will continue to ship more jobs overseas and allow our national security to be further threatened. Mike Huckabee was so strong on border security that he received the endorsement of Duncan Hunter and Jim Gilchrist. He is likeable and compassionate and gets along well with McCain. He will not alienate independents! Huckabee is the best choice for VP!!!
Those who are bashing Huckabee supporters… please remember that Huckabee was discriminated because he was a Christian minister before. Romney supporters seem to be feeling victimized but so many people made fun of Huckabee’s faith, and kept people being blinded. I hope you feel more compassionate towards another group. Larry’s discussion is not about Romney’s religion.
TS,
Thanks for pointing out what I thought was very obvious. When I wrote this article, I had no intention of bashing Mitt Romney because of his religion, no matter what any of his supporters try to say. They have only to look at my blog posts and see that I have never been guilty of that.
If you believe Romney lost because he is a Mormon, then why do you think McCain would want him on the ticket when McCain clearly dislikes him personally and, by your own admission you don’t think he can win (because, you say, he is a Morman). Personally, I don’t think his religion has anything to do with the fact that he wasn’t able to garner conservative support. He should have run on his strengths instead of trying to reinvent himself to fit the conservative picture that his record betrays. I was possibly most disturbed that he had gone on and on about how great Reagan was and how Reagan would surely have endorsed him, when in fact, Romney was an independent during the Reagan era and DID NOT even support Reagan at all!! That was the final straw for me. It’s ok for someone to change their minds on an issue once in a while, that’s growing. But not every single issue and Romney didn’t even know what was in his attack ads. He denied to McCain that he had an ad out accusing him of supporting amnesty. They played the ad for him and he then said he did not know what was in his own ad?????
Good grief all the vitriol.
Supporters of any candidate should use caution when attempting to invalidate an opponents position by accusing them of some kind of bigotry. It appears to be an attempt to trump an opponents position rather than using reasoned arguments, diverting attention with emotion if you will. This is a common rhetorical device.
Back to substantive politics: McCain should not pick any of his primary competitors. To do so alienates too many. There are many good VP candidates out there that could bring conservative voters to McCain’s side and unite the party.
Many dyspeptic conservatives, animated more by scorning of liberals and liberalism than selling conservatism, like Romney. I suppose they do because whether he had only recently started, he was the only one now singing their tune. Rush, Coulter, Ingraham, etc., took the bait. Selling principal is not their game: devouring liberalism is.
Most of those conservatives don’t like Huckabee. The “Huckabee’s a liberal charge was phony. Both his words and his record make that plain. But, these garbage-eating catfish bought it for a reason best summed up in Huckabee’s common statement: “I’m a conservative, but I’m not mad at anyone about it.” What kind of a conservative is that?
If these people don’t see the scorn, they don’t see the conservatism. I think Huckabee would be spectacular! Barack’s famed appeal to moderates and conservatives would evaporate. Together, McCain and Huckabee would suck it up.
But, they would have a job to do to convince these conservative cannibals that they aren’t going to break in the back door, try to run American lives, and wreck the economy. Both support maintaing the Bush tax cuts. Huckabee signed the Americans for Tax Reform “no-new-taxes” pledge, and he advocates The Fair Tax, the most provocative plan for economic activity on the map. No matter, no attacking, no conservative, for these people. And, they would have to sel these people and hold the moderates and Independents at the same time. I think Huckabee can do it, if anyone can, but he isn’t going to turn into a Piranha. I don’t know how many of them can live without that.
To me, Romney was a detestable candidate. The best thing I could say about him was that is you look at his clean lifestyle and great family, you think he must be a better man than the miserable candidate he was. And, Romney is a scarecrow for the biggest cornfield that Democrats have: “Republicans are just for rich, white guys.”
Oh, it’s true that a lot of Christians just won’t vote for a Mormon. Glenn Beck is a Mormon I would support. He doesn’t have the impressive resume that Romney has, but he seems sincere. Romney???
Donna
Twelve years ago, Romney boasted that he would be more effective in fighting discrimination against gay men and lesbians than Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), distanced himself from some conservative policies of the Reagan administration, and proudly recalled his family’s record in support of abortion rights.
I’m afraid I haven’t been confused. I’ve read the platform he was operating on for the 94 election. I’ve seen the footage where he said this and many more things.
-What’s incorrect about fighting discrimination in the homosexual community? Although I may not agree with their choices, it is their choice to make. Where I draw the line is with affirmative action but I have nowhere found Romney espousing this.
-Reagan was great but like so many leaders that have been put up on a pedestal, he had his weakneses too. People very rarely choose to look for them.
In Romney’s case he was running in an actual liberal state (Arkansas does not qualify comparatively as their is a difference between corrupt and liberal.) and it was indeed wise to distance himself else he would have had even less chance than he did. Even with all of the negatives, he still almost pulled it off. That says alot about Romney.
-Again his family history with abortion is well known for those who care to look. Understanding the bitterness at having lost a family member through an unsafe abortion should lead christians to feel sympathy and sorrow for his burdens however incorrect his views were. This then of course would lead to rejoicing when he was first confronted with abortion in his governorship and his struggle led him to change his views to a pro life agenda.
I’ve already admitted that he flipped on the issue of abortion. What else have you mentioned that would lead me to question my support for him? Nothing.
BigMeanUglyOgre,
Can you refute everything on this site?
http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/
I haven’t read it all, but I’ve read a good deal of it. One thing about the site is that it really downplays his terrible record on the Second Amendment.
By the way, for many conservatives, the homosexual agenda (under the guise of “gay rights”
is unacceptable. For many of us, it’s NOT just marriage that we’re worried about.
There are potentially many good candidates for VP, but for all you Huckabee fans, you really need to find a different candidate to represent you. Huckabee simply cannot help raise the incredible amounts of money needed by the McCain camp; he does not bring in any electoral votes that the Republicans will need in order to win in the fall; he has no serious connections anywhere regarding politics/foreign policy, etc.; and last, for probably many reasons, being a former minister with only a theological degree is not going to sway people to vote for him over someone who has more impressive work history and prestigious degrees (i.e. Harvard, Princeton, etc.). Finally, I haven’t observed Huckabee even trying to campaign or fundraise for Republicans, McCain included.
Also, Greg is right on- Huckabee knew exactly what he was doing by “merely asking a question” about Mormonism- even Wolf Blitzer reproved him on CNN. Unfortunately, Baptists and others preach frequently from the pulpit against Mormons, how terrible they are, stay away, etc. Baptists have a budget for anti-Mormon propaganda, which included movies, books, and pamphlets. I’m not aware of Baptists going after Catholics, Buddhists, or Muslims or any other religion like they do Mormons. Is it any wonder Mormons are touchy about this? So, as naive as it is to get religion out of politics, it’s just as naive to think that sincere deep rooted prejudice against Mormons didn’t affect the primaries. The RNC agrees that religious bigotry affected the primary way too much.
Karl Rove, Andy Card, Jeb Bush, Pres. Bush and others think Romney would make a great VP. I think he’d be a great VP, but also others could make a great VP- Huckabee is truly, simply not one of them.
K.R. Marabou,
Mike Huckabee represents us just fine, thank you very much. Since when is raising money for John McCain a requirement to be considered a candidate for VP? As for his work history, you need to look at it a bit more closely, it appears to me. Yes, he is a former minister, but he was Governor of Arkansas longer than he was a minister. If you will examine his record as Governor of Arkansas honestly, you will see the mess he inherited from the Clinton years and how he improved the state. It was certainly in better shape when he finished his 10.5 years as Governor than it was when he first took office.
Once more, I am sick of hearing how Romney lost the primaries because of his religion. He lost because of the way he conducted the campaign and because people examined his record and found him wanting. I know of people in Massachusetts that will tell you if you want your taxes raised, just vote for Romney. His state was glad to get rid of him and it didn’t have anything to do with his religion.
BigMeanUglyOgre,
You said, “The reality is that he flipped once, on abortion.”
Romney flip flopped on more than just abortion. What about his flip flop on 2nd amendment rights?
http://tinyurl.com/4cknjz
What about his flip flop on auto-emissions standards? (Not to mention the lousy job creations and manufacturing job loses in comparison to the rest of the country under his leadership in MA)
http://tinyurl.com/3dg5o6
You said, “What’s incorrect about fighting discrimination in the homosexual community? Although I may not agree with their choices, it is their choice to make.”
I don’t agree with their choices either OR having tax dollars spent to support it. (as in having significant others covered under government funded medical coverage)
I also do not agree that teaching the Bible should be classified as hate speech. (as it has been in other countries)
You said, “In Romney’s case he was running in an actual liberal state”
Huckabee didn’t compromise his values. Romney supporters make excuses for his actions because it was in a highly Democrat state. They imply Huckabee had it easy in Arkansas. Yet, Huckabee ran his campaign on his honest views in a state that was so Democratic that after he won the office of Lt. Gov. his door was NAILED SHUT.
It’s interesting to read both sides of this argument, including the intelligent comments that state neither Romney nor Huckabee should be the VP. Those that understand politics (and I don’t claim to be one of them) would know that using either of these two politicians as a VP candidate would only hurt McCain. He needs to find someone that doesn’t have haters/lovers. And unfortunately religion has become much too touchy of a subject. Sad isn’t it, when that is what our country was founded on.
There are some very funny comments here on the site. I especially love the ones like DB and Larry Perrault. You know big words don’t mean you are smart. (What a crack up!).
And yes, I hate to say it but the ability to raise money does matter. The individual who stated that should never be allowed to post another blog about politics…..ever!
I love this time, the time when the presidential election is coming close and people start hating each others candidates. It’s funny how similar it is to sports. I am a huge Dallas Cowboy’s fan and all I could do during the 80’s and 90’s was defend them during all their bad media attention. Let’s face it, our candidates do not really represent us. They all have money (if you don’t think that you are an idiot). They all have gone back and forth on issues depending on where the votes were. They all have decent backgrounds, seem to be somewhat intelligent, and have some things in their past that don’t seem quite so impressive. It’s all in how you look at it. Based on the definition of honesty, I think it would be tough to say any of them are honest. I guess unless you truly knew them personally, you couldn’t really speak for them.
Sort of like having a favorite NFL football team and when you watch them play, you can’t believe the refs aren’t being fair to them. It’s all in how you look at it!
I’m out!
P.S. I still don’t know who I’m going to vote for. This only helped me a little.
Fred, all candidates may “have money” (Don’t we all to some extent?). But there is an absolutely monumental difference between Romney’s wealth and Huckabee’s.
After reading the rebuttal comments from Donna and kingdom advancer, I for the most part remain unperturbed. Most of it is taken directly from newspapers and unsubstantiated by other sources. There is also quite a bit of innuendo which we are supposed to immediately accept as fact. I guess the best term I can apply to the links is ‘leading’. That aside it still didn’t bother me overly. I must admit that I disagree with his decision regarding the boyscouts (and one other thing that I can’t seem to recall at the moment) but I can understand the circumstances enough to avoid condemning him.
I personally found their attacks on his fiscal/economic prowess laughable. They harped on and on about the fees and then deliberately choose to avoid the fact that he did raise taxs. Atleast in the sense that he found and highlighted the loopholes in the tax system where rich individuals were taking the mick and he then closed them. This quite easily could be viewed as a tax rise but those seeking to libel him never really give it much notice or traction because he was sticking it to the rich people.
I also enjoyed all of the different comments (and they were incessant) that said that Romney did nothing during his term as Governor. If he did nothing, then where are all of these complaints coming from? He must have done something. Healthcare, Education, and roads jump immediately to mind. Or the legislation he fought for and enacted which changed the way insurance was brokered in Massachussetts (which was horrific until of course he left office and the democrats reinstated the legislation).
I seriously can’t understand how people can even remotely compare Arkansas to Massachussetts. But oh well. To each their own.
Sorry folks
It is all about the best qualified man…there is no doubt that is Romney. I am a catholic, and the did not appreciate the Mormon comment, nor the other comment “I will not say a negative comment about Romney, but if I did..this is it.” This does not speak well for a former preacher. But the choice is McCain”s. I hope he chooses well…We need to pray and ask our heavenly Father to guide Senator McCain in making the best choice to balance his ticket. It is about the future of our country and welfare of our families.
MarshallGill -
Actually, it’s usually Romney supporters who bring up Mormonism. Like other liberals, they ignore an entire critical argument and sum it up as, “You just don’t like Mormons.” Apparently, they insist on affirmative action for LDS Presidential candidates.
I might back Orrin Hatch, were he running, because of his consistent record. Romney flipped on abortion, a key issue for me, as well as gun control and gay marriage. He allowed the Commonwealth to put Catholic Charities out of the adoption business because of non-discrimination laws, and he directly repudiated “the days of Reagan/Bush” when discussing taxes.
While he sanctimoniously declares that he never raised taxes, he did “close loopholes” on NH residents working in MA (thus raising their taxes). While he claims to be a great foe of illegal immigration, he did nothing about the sanctuary cities in MA.
My reasons for opposing Romney have nothing to do with Mormonism. If you’d like to discuss doctrine, I’d be happy to do it. But it doesn’t factor into my opposition to Romney as a pol.
Greg said, [quote]“…Mike Huckabee, a college graduate with a THEOLOGY degree doesn’t know the basic doctrines of the country’s 4th largest Church? Seriously? If the voting public were to buy that, then it raises a lot of questions about what Gov. Huckabee really does know. On the contrary, I believe this was a calculated move meant to test the waters of religious and patriotic bigotry…”
I honestly don’t know whether or not Gov. Huckabee studied anything about the Mormon religion; much less that particular topic. Even if he did, is he REALLY expected to remember something he studied MANY years ago? Not to mention the fact that while he WAS in school his young bride had cancer AND he was working to support his family. Could that topic have been discussed at a time his mind was on something much more important than a religion he didn’t practice? Is knowing about someone else’s religion a requirement for being president? I never read that requirement in the Constitution. In fact it states: [quote] The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. http://tinyurl.com/7lmmx
Gov. Huckabee said the reporter “knew more about the Mormon faith than I did.” (From his interview with Larry King) http://tinyurl.com/3hzkzk
Huckabee goes into more detail in a news article. [quote] “Huckabee apologized Wednesday, saying he had asked an innocent question during a lengthy conversation and was shocked to see it taken out of context. “I was horrified when I read that, and I apologized to Mitt Romney, because first of all, I don’t think that his being a Mormon or not being a Mormon has a thing to do with his being president.” Huckabee said his discussion with the reporter, Zev Chafets, lasted several hours. “He was saying, ‘But there are some different things about Mormonism.’ He obviously knew more about it than I did. In the course of that conversation, honestly, I raised the question.”
Read more: http://tinyurl.com/4b5n7e
Greg’s comment caused me to post an article on my blog. You can read my article at http://tinyurl.com/4yvps7
@ Granny T
While I can fully understand that Huckabee might have been distracted during his degree because of the reasons you mentioned, I think we’re missing the whole story.
Huckabee has had a long history in the anti mormon propaganda machine during his ministry. This was one of the reasons why he was chosen as the keynote speaker at a baptist conference held in Salt Lake City (1998 if I’m not mistaken), which was arranged for the sole purpose of telling the Mormons just exactly how wrong they were.
I had friends who were confronted by baptists during this and other conferences. While some of the discourse was polite and some wasn’t, they all came fairly well educated on the Mormon faith. Atleast to the level that they would know the answer to Huckabee’s question.
That Huckabee then went on to try and cover it up, shows a distinct dishonesty.
BigMeanUglyOgre,
Okay, I am going to call you on this statement. You are saying Huckabee has had a long history of anti-Mormon propaganda? I ask you to show me proof that this is true. Just because he is a Baptist does not mean he is anti-Mormon. Just because he was chosen as the keynote speaker at a Baptist conference does not mean he is anti-Mormon. Just because your friends were confronted by Baptists during that conference does not mean Mike Huckabee is anti-Mormon. Nothing you have said proofs any so-called distinct dishonesty on Huckabee’s part.
Larry, I wouldn’t even bother asking for this proof. For one thing, you’ll never get it.
For another thing, the question isn’t even whether Huckabee differs with Mormon theology (which he does) — the question is whether we just hate Romney for being Mormon, which is a stupid thing to say.
Apparently, we can cite all the reasons we want for not having voted for Romney, they’re just going to accuse us of being bigots.
@ Larry
I would entirely agree with you if:
-The conference’s entire agenda wasn’t to convert the heathen Mormons.
-This conference wasn’t subsequently followed by all of those baptist ministers, et al going out and attempting to convert via proselyting. This is where the aforementioned conflicts/discussions regarding my friends occurred.
-Although, I don’t live in Salt Lake (I am currently living in Scotland but come from Missouri) I also happened to physically be there for their first conference when a purported 10,000 baptists swooped down upon Salt Lake for no other purpose than to convert the whole lot of Mormons. Having been there for this conference, I can attest that it was pretty darn anti-mormon. I have little reason to doubt that subsequent conferences changed tone.
-In a set of conferences in which in which I have first and second person experience as being anti-mormon, why would the keynote speaker know nothing about the Mormons?
-Living in Missouri as I did, I have many Baptist friends and many of them are very good people. But their actions are very telling. Most would avoid telling their friends, family, or church members that I was Mormon so as to avoid receiving the “lecture”. This was pretty much standard with all of my friends save one who happened to be rebelling against his father who was the minister. He of course enjoyed flaunting his friendship with me.
I can’t count the number of times I’ve been told I was going to go to hell. Sometimes it was because they found out I was Mormon. Other times, I was playing cards (solitaire). I was even told I was going to hell because I was reading a mild as milk fantasy book. Heck, I’ve even been physically attacked because someone found out I was Mormon (yes he was baptist).
All this aside, I could really care less. Nothing they ever did ever actually bothered me. But from my experience, it is highly unlikely to find a baptist who doesn’t know about the Mormons. Even less so if they were a preacher. Compound this even further by the fact that my experience was in Missouri and it was a 3-4 hours drive from my home to get to Arkansas. I can’t imagine the baptists being so different as we more or less resided in the same region.
Now, I could of course go back and look at the speeches given by Huckabee (they have to be available somewhere) but I really don’t care. Huckabee will have his big press conference in a couple of days and will let the world know that he’s got his own little tv or talk radio show and he’ll be out of my political hair.
@ Wickle
I didn’t bring up the Mormon argument nor did I call anyone a bigot. I was simply responding to Granny T’s comment to explain that things weren’t quite as plausible as she was making it seem.
For clarification purposes, I think those opposing Romney do so in shades of grey. Some because he’s Mormon. Some because of his political stands. Some because he’s seems like a snake oil salesman (don’t know where this comes from). Some because he has lots of money (how republican). I do however feel that a large porion view him more critically because of being Mormon.
Now let me clarify what I mean when I say view him critically. In any exchange of information, there has to be a certain measure of trust to view the information as real and honest. I feel many are looking at him without this trust because he’s Mormon. The natural result of this is of course viewing him critically as I mentioned. Just like I feel many view Huckabee with a positive eye and thus overlook his many faults (yes I’ve visited his site, viewed his statements/platform, and read everything that anyone ever asked me to read about the candidates. Except for there books as I’ll only go so far. I’m not buying books).
BigMeanUglyOgre,
I understand why you must think the way you do about Baptists, given your experience with them. Let me see if I can explain something to you.
Firs of all, I am not a Baptist, I am Pentecostal and we are more strict than the Baptist ever thought about being. That being said, I have seen some of our faith act in a way that I consider completely unChristian like. I know of some Pentecostal churches who would not welcome some people because of their lifestyles, actions or any given number of things. I can also tell you that the church I attend wouldn’t even dream of doing something like that. My Pastor, Brother Terry, has been given down the road by some of our faith because of it, but he figures we need to try to help everyone.
Following that line of reason, let’s look at Mike Huckabee. From resarching him myself, I have found that he is not your normal, everyday Baptist. He has intergrated one church himself and he had to stand against his own congregation to do so. He is very willing to go against his own denomination, when he deems it appropiate. I believe Huckabee is not anti-Mormon because he has not shown me to be so. Unless you can show me where he has been, I will not believe he is, just because some of the Baptist faith are so.
As for his announcement in a few days, I can’t begin to know what is on his mind and what he plans to do, but I somehow doubt it is going to be a TV or radio show and I suspect strongly that he will not “be out of your political life”. Mike Huckabee is going to be around for some time.
Yes, and LDS says that I still follow the Great Apostasy because I don’t think God lives near Kolob and I can become a god. Interesting how it never comes up that Mormons say we aren’t real Christians, isn’t it? The attacks only go one way.
Question - When Mormon missionaries show up at my door, hear that I’m a Baptist, and yet go on to try to convert me, does that mean that they’re bigots? Or does it mean simply that they think they have a message that I need to hear? Perhaps, that I’m missing the truth?
They don’t, by the way, have to know the differences in doctrine between Baptists and Mormons, and I don’t expect them to be experts on Baptist teaching. All they need to do is positively present their beliefs.
wickle,
I have looked into the whole mormons becoming gods thing and have found lots of evidence in the Bible about everyone who follows Christ becoming joint heirs to him. Mormons dont believe that they will ever become what Christ is, they will always be under him and worship him, they believe and will try and become more like him and they will have God like characteristics like eternal life. I think people think Mormons think they will become Christs equal and that is what really turns them off, but that is not the case.
@ Larry
I can completely understand where you’re coming from and there are indeed exceptional people who step outside of the molds which they find themselves in, doing so against the weight of the world.
But if Huckabee was such an individual, why did he accept and receive the position of keynote speaker of an Anti Mormon conference? Note, just because he did so doesn’t mean he’s an evil person. It does however mean that he does have enough knowledge to know what his comments to that journalist meant and what kind of response they would trigger in the masses opposed to the Mormon faith. Then he lied about it afterwards.
I can understand you not wanting Huckabee to get out of my/our political hair and go into entertainment. My big question is, why did he just sign with the largest entertainment agency in the states if not the world (Creative something or other, I can’t remember it all)? Although my guess isn’t founded in knowledge, it’s definitely a gut feeling that I have.
@ wickle
I completely agree that anyone should feel free to proselytize to whomever they feel. I did so on my mission to Italy. There is however a distinct difference to encountering whoever you meet in the street or in their homes irregardless of their beliefs or lack thereof and that of getting 10,000 baptist preachers to fly to Salt Lake City, home of the Mormon faith, for the express purpose of converting Mormons. If 10,000 preachers flew across the Atlantic to Vatican City for the sole purpose of proselyting amongst that population, you better believe that the catholics would be a bit cheesed off.
As for your first comment, Everyone believes that they’re right and that anyone else who doesn’t believe the same is wrong. Just like you think I’m wrong in my beliefs. Just like I’m certain that Larry believes he’s walking down the correct path and that ours is not quite right. Just cause you don’t believe that we have the potential to become like Heavenly Father doesn’t mean that you aren’t Christian. Just like my belief in the Godhead doesn’t preclude me from being Christian.
I guess the best way I can put it is this. I believe that you have many good beliefs. I just don’t believe that you have ALL good beliefs. In the words of the now past President’ Hinckley, “Bring all of good that you have and we’ll bring ours. Let’s see if we can become better people because of it.”
I used to be proud to be in the so-called Christian Conservative movement. Conservatives who were God fearing, Jesus following people who wanted to better this wonderful country by putting good people in office. But, since this whole Huckabee/Romney debate has started over who is the true Christian, I am now embarressed to be identified as a Christian Conservative.
The way I look at it, you shouldn’t have to go around telling everyone that your a Christian just to be recognized as such. I believe you can tell a true Christian by their actions. I work with a couple of Mormons and have a Mormon family as neighbors. There is no doubt in my mind that they are God fearing, Jesus following people. They are honest, hard working people. I have talked to them many times about their beliefs and they truely believe that it is only through Christ that they can be saved. That is all I need to know. Forget the rest, that is between them and God.
For those of you who dont like Romney for his positions, or question his sincerity, so be it. But those of you so called Christians who dont like Romney because of his Mormonism are in my mind a bigot and are un-American. I feel you have done more harm to the whole Christian Movement that you will ever know.
I think Romney may be McCain’s best choice for vice-pres. I’ve been following the news and especially the primaries closely for about a year. Romney does have deep support in several key states and would bring fine credentials to a republican ticket. Objectively, I think McCain Romney would seriously concern either democratic candidate. As of 2/08 McCain and Romney had already won about 24 states between the 2 of them. As a team, there would be vast support across America.
mccain will get my vote if he chooses romney for VP…if he doesn’t then i vote democrat in november
A McCain/anybody ticket it going to get trounced. The republicans screwed up as soon as they gave him the nomination. Dems are showing up 2-1 voters vs. the republicans. Dems actually want either Obama or Clinton. Republicans don’t want any one of their candidates. I’m a republican but it’s not hard to do the math. It will be a landslide victory for the democrats in November and this country will got to *&^& in a handbasket with either Obama or Clinton. Trouble is, it will with McCain too.
the writer of this artical is simply focusing through a narrow looking glass. the composition, organization, and cleaver delivery underscores the writer of this articals` abilities, but the bias content must widen the scope if truth is object.
McCain will be sick. Who answers the call?