We smelled a rat…

When the anti-Mormon push-polling scandal erupted just before Thanksgiving. Well, the push-polling, though not anti-Mormon in nature, has begun again, and this time we know who is behind it. Surprise, surprise, they are a pro-Huckabee 527. We seemed to be pretty alone in our pre-Thanksgiving conjecture that pro-Huckabee forces were behind the anti-Mormon push-polling and there is no evidence that this group was, but my nose has gone from mere odor detection to outright twitching here.

Now, Huckabee has denounced the tactic:

“Our campaign has nothing to do with the push polling and I wish they would stop,” Huckabee said. “We don’t want this kind of campaigning because it violates the spirit of our campaign. I don’t want to become President because I disabled the other candidates, I want to become President because I am the best candidate.”

I wish he had been that forthright in opposition to the anti-Mormon stuff - everybody else was. I have never met Huckabee and the people I do know personally that are working for him are good and honorable people, but some of the people that would be attracted by his plausibly deniable approach to The Question are of a type - a type that is not at all pretty. That much is now completely in evidence.

Speaking of the Huckster…

The AP Says: Tough Road Ahead for Huckabee, and CNN says: Rising In The Polls, Huckbee Comes Under increased Scrutiny. You bet he does and it is not a pretty picture:

That video is cute but creepy as far as I am concerned. If he is not claiming that he gets unique insight directly from God, he is demeaning to God. Either way it makes me shutter just a bit.

Lowell: From the cultural irony department: Most Mormons would be uncomfortable with Huckabee’s schtick here and would consider it disrespectful to the Almighty. Just one of those things, I guess. We try not to use the name “God” or the Savior’s name unnecessarily or in any light-minded setting. For example, we’d never use the term “Jesus juice.” Our view of Jesus Christ is deeply reverential. And yet Huckabee’s supposed to be the enlightened Christian in the race. My gag reflex is acting up . . . .

The Dallas Morning News profiles South Carolina voters, notes that Huckabee once again PREACHES A SERMON in a church and paints him as darn near a throughly educated Jed Clampett.

Lowell: Just try to imagine a graph like this about Romney doing something similar:

There’s a band in blue jeans, and only Mr. Huckabee and the senior pastor, Don Brock, are wearing suit and tie. Still, Mr. Huckabee, an ordained minister, is in his element as he gives a guest sermon – a well-crafted talk on discipline and sacrifice, by soldiers, and by soldiers for Christ.

Romney would not dare show up at a Mormon church and give an address, because of the way it would be used against him. Isn’t there something wrong with that?

And along those same lines . . . How badly do you think Romney would be bashed over making statements like these Huckabee remarks below? Think about it.

John Opines: The picture choice for Huck is unflattering and perhaps below the belt (it’s pre-weight loss) but the comments are beyond the pale. Frankly, they cross the line, making the theocracy fears of the left no longer fevered fantasy, but ugly, suggested reality. These statements alone disqualify Huckabee in my book from the presidency, they simply violate the spirit of the constitution and our nation. What is he gonna do about cabinet appointments for pete’s sake!? And Romney got in trouble for his comments concerning Muslims and the cabinet? “Oh, there is no bigotry here,” he said dripping with sarcasm.

Well, No Duh with a GREAT Retort…

The AP says, “Mormon Teachings Upset Some Christians” - that’s your “no, duh.” But Jonah Goldberg over at The Corner challenged his readers:

What I would like to know, however, is what exactly these people think a Mormon President might do that would be so unacceptable? Are there Mormon public policies I do not know of that would be implemented? Is there a Mormon faction in foreign policy?

And he is still waiting for an answer:

Well, waiting for specific examples of what, exactly, a Mormon president might do that warrants explicitly voting against a Mormon is a bit like waiting for Godot.

Biting perhaps, but very funny.

In the background…

These lefties blame it all on Reagan, but it sounds to me like Clinton has been the worst of the bunch since then. Besides, Carter was the one that ran on the strength of a Playboy religion interview! As we are seeing, things in the religion and politics intersection have gone a bit too far, at least in some circles, but a return to the pre-Reagan days - nope, Reagan restored what was the natural balance, a balance that had shifted off of religious neutrality and onto religious opposition.

A Pittsburgh columnist manages to be quite uninsightful on the whole thing.

Finally, A Smackdown

John and I saw this on Hugh Hewitt’s site (John adds: In a post where Hugh is also quite kind to us - many thanks!) and think it’s worth adding here. Romney appeared on NPR today and this exchange took place in his interview with Robert Siegel:

One last point: In the CNN-You Tube debate, there was a moment when one of the people who submitted a question asked all the candidates whether they believed in every word of the Bible, and two of your rivals — Mayor [Rudolph] Giuliani and Gov. [Mike] Huckabee — both made a point of saying, “Well, in some parts it’s allegorical, in some parts it should be interpreted, but yet, I believe in the Bible.”

And you seemed — if I read you right — to make a point of saying it’s the word of God, and even when considering some modification, you backed up, said, “No, I’ll just stick with that. It’s the word of God.” [That] left the impression — and I want to ask you — do you hold a literal belief, say, in the Genesis version of creation?

You know, I find it hard to believe that NPR is going to inquire on people’s beliefs about various parts of the Bible in evaluating presidential candidates, and actually, I don’t know that that’s where America has come to — that you want to have us describing our particular beliefs with regards to Genesis and the Book of Revelations, so —

I raise Genesis only because creationism is a national issue in a variety of ways, and —

Well, but then you could ask me a question and say, “Do you believe that we should teach creationism in our schools, in our science classes and so forth?” and I’m happy to give you an answer to that. But I don’t know that going through books of the Bible and asking, “Well, do you believe this book? And do you believe these words?”, that that’s terribly productive. Particularly when we face global jihad, when we have 47 million people without health insurance, when we have runaway costs in our entitlements, to be asking presidential candidates about their specific beliefs of books of the Bible is, in my view, something which really isn’t part of the process which we should be using to select presidents.

My point is the Bible is the word of God, and I try and live by it.

“I find it hard to believe that NPR is going to inquire on people’s beliefs about various parts of the Bible in evaluating presidential candidates . . . .” You go, Governor!
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• A Complete Breakdown in the Religion/Politics Line
• Obama’s Policies and Religious Issues
• The Price Of Being Who We Are
• This IS Interesting
• Here’s Something to Talk About Over The Weekend
• Is History Doomed To Repetition?
• Go Join The Discussion
• Recall Jerry Brown? And Yet Another Mormon Hit Piece
• Weekend Reading
• Proof - Biased Media