The Contrast Is So Plain, The Whisperings Are Noted, and more… (UPDATED)
Let’s Compare and Contrast Once Again…
Yesterday we compared and contrasted Huckabee’s and Romney’s approach to religion. In an op-ed yesterday, the Philadelphia Inquirer joined in. But let us today compare and contrast Huckabee and Tom Tancredo. Consider first Tancredo:
Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo has denounced an online group called “God Voter.org” for anti-Mormon attacks on fellow candidate Gov. Mitt Romney.
Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks in an upcoming article, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
The article, to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, says Huckabee asked the question after saying he believes Mormonism is a religion but doesn’t know much about it.
One candidate attacks the attackers, the other is the attacker. I will leave it to Lowell to explain what Mormons do or do not believe about the devil, but I will tell you is that this kind of thing is guaranteed to lose Huckabee the election. It will get him some small time, limited wins, but it cannot win an election. This lacks Huck’s usual slickness. Maybe he isn’t as smart as I want to give him credit for? But I don’t think so. He has to be smart enough to know he cannot say things like that and win.
So what is his game? I have thought for a while now he was “playing for position.” Party Chair a la Howard Dean or convention broker of some sort. Of course there are the rumors of a deal between him and Guiliani, but Rudy isn’t that dumb either. I am beginning to wonder if Huckabee’s motive is not genuine anti-Mormon sentiment? The only thing his campaign can accomplish long term, when he is running it this way, is create headaches for Romney.
Well, the last time someone muddled the political picture that way his name was Ross Perot and his personal beef was with George H.W. Bush – that brought us Bill Clinton. I really hope we are not stupid enough to fall for that bait-and-switch again.
Lowell: First, as for Huckabee, I think what he is doing with the religion card is cynical, nasty, perhaps cunning, and ultimately foolish. One can be both cunning and foolish at the same time; just look at Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton. Dan Riehl has more on that, and nails Huck pretty hard:
At best, he’s ignorant – there is no context for the question, it’s left to hang. And a guy with his media savvy and years in politics knows how the game works. He’s either a dope, or a cagey dirt bag, neither one speaks well of him as a potential president.
Also, Jim Geraghty comments on the question of whether Huck was taken out of context.
Rather than get very deep into Mormon doctrine (like many religious beliefs, this one can’t be distilled into just a few words), I’ll quote an official Church spokeswoman, who’s a lot more articulate about such things than I am:
A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee’s question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.
“We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all,” said the spokeswoman, Kim Farah. “That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for.”
What Huckabee is doing this time is time-honored tactic among attackers of Mormonism: Take a complex doctrine that is not well-known and toss out a half-truth about it. It’s very effective, and very sleazy. If you want to see for yourself how that particular smear derives from actual Mormon belief, that belief is described here.
In a way, I am impressed. It looks like Huck’s really decided to get down in the gutter. What a spectacle.
John responds: Let’s see, we creedal Christians believe Satan is a fallen angel; therefore created by God. Save for the by now widely known and completely irrelevant to politics differences in views of the Godhead – Where’s the beef? Sorry to go all theo-nerd there for a minute, but I just cannot see why this came up at all - save as a direct and intentional religious smear. Mike Huckabee may be a fine Southern Baptist, but I am beginning to wonder how good an American he is.
Update from Lowell: Romney was just on “Today” with Matt Lauer, responding to Huckabee’s smear. We’ll get the transcript later. (video here) Lauer noted that Huck phrased the question “innocently,” clearly suggesting that Lauer thinks it was not innocent at all. He asked Romney if he had any response. Romney said that the LDS Church has responded already to the doctrinal issue many times over the years and has again “straightened that out,” or words to that effect. He then went on to note that the nation has lots of important issues to talk about and that we ought to be comparing the candidates’ records, not religious doctrines. When Lauer asked Romney if he thought Huckabee’s comment was “innocent,” Romney, smiling, simply said he thinks Huck is a good man and he isn’t going to go after him for this. (Why should he? The press and the blogosphere will will do that for him.)
More to come on this one.
UPDATE FROM JOHN (9:22AM PST): Huckabee is trying to clean this steamy pile off his shoes.
News Release: Huckabee Campaign Responds to AP/New York Times Report
December 11, 2007
LITTLE ROCK, AR – A report released tonight cites an upcoming article in the Sunday edition of The New York Times Magazine which quotes former Arkansas Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee asking a question about the content of the Mormon faith. 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.”
I hate to be so graphic, but it is just flat out too late, he has the stink. As they say in the court room, “The bell has rung.” This is tactical – play the religion card and then act innocent.
Jim Geraghty points out in the linked item, this kind of step in it, back away from it, is becoming a pattern for the Huckabee campaign. So what happens when he accidentally , but instinctively, tells the press, when asking about his policy towards Israel that they are a nation of “Christ killers?” That one will be much harder to back away from . . . .
Lowell: Huckabee is not foolish enough to make an anti-Semitic crack. He probably thinks he can get away — for now — with attacking Mormonism in ways that would never be acceptable if used on other faiths. It’s part of the strange and widely commented-on “Mormonism exception” from the rules of civil discourse.
What I thought was going to happen . . .
. . . with The Question in this cycle was a whisper campaign. I had no idea this thing would go as above ground as it has. But there are whispers going on. From the Caucus Cooler blog in Iowa:
The Cooler has received a copy an email from Marion City Councilman Craig Adamson that calls Mormonism “a cult” and calls the faith “secretive.” This email was a response to an invitation to a Mitt Romney event tomorrow night at Linn Mar High School.
Councilman Adamson “replied all” and included dozens of Iowa conservatives on this disturbing email. For an elected official to send out this kind of message. Well, it doesn’t reflect well on the Iowa caucuses or Iowans in general.
You know, it was that kind of stuff that got this Bush labeled as the “Evangelical” candidate. I got dozens of emails from a variety of sources, mostly friends passing on emails from friends, purporting to tell me how Bush was “one of us.” At the time I found them silly and not good for American politics. Right now I find myself wishing this campaign was that genteel, religiously speaking.
Speaking of disgusting…
I cannot believe this piece has actually been written. Someone, taking advantage of a social invitation, actually examined the Romney’s underwear in their private bathroom in their home. The person that writes it up actually sounds congratulatory, like that is even a civil thing to do. God help us all.
Lowell: I cannot believe I am writing about this. Can you imagine such a smug, smirky tone in an editorial making fun of candidate’s yarmulke or rosary beads, which are sacred symbols to those of other faiths? I can’t either. Again, I don’t like to make a big issue of Mormonism’s exclusion from the rules of decency that apply to other religions, but this is a fine example of that. One is tempted you as Ms. Vozzella, “Have you no decency?”
But we Mormons are used to people, who are not our friends, obsessing about our underwear, which we call temple garments. The garments are reminders to us of the promises we make to God in our temples. Because they represent to us sacred convenants, the garments are sacred to us.
Now, for the record, I visit a gym almost every day and when I am changing clothes, you’d have to look awfully closely at my underwear to be able to tell it’s different from anyone else’s. And if Romney did own a pair of Fruit of the Loom briefs (oh, man, am I really talking about this?) he probably wore them for exercise, which is a very common practice. The columnist here, Laura Vozzella, snidely refers to underwear that is
the Mormon kind – a garment similar to an old-fashioned union suit that’s sacred to Mormons and, well, a little odd to the rest of us.
No, Ms. Vozzella, wrong, no union suits. And by the way, I am finished discussing this subject on this blog, forever.
What are the polls saying?
Well, Jim Geragthy reports that now 80% of Americans would vote for a Mormon. That’s a switch from when we started this whole thing.
The Salt Lake Tribune looks at a poll that says The Speech did nothing to change voters feelings about Mormons. Well, that would be news if such were the intention of The Speech, but of course it was not. We really needed a poll for this?
Speaking of The Speech…
I guess there was one pundit who had yet to talk about it. Never let it be said we are not thorough here at A6B! Well, except for the atheists that are not through whining about not being included. Oh yeah, and did this guy just miss all of last week?
Truth from ravings?…
The latest Colorado shooter said this prior to his rampage (HT: Instapundit):
“You Christians brought this on yourselves,” Murray wrote on a Web site for people who have left Pentecostal and fundamentalist religious organizations.
[...]
God, I can’t wait till I can kill you people. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don’t care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you … as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world.”
You know, if we keep fighting over doctrinal differences in the political realm, I am going to think the guy might have a point.
Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
JLFuller on 12 Dec 2007 at 9:06 pm #
What a proud moment that was for Ms. Thompson when she got the chance to actual see Romney’s underwear. Laura Vozzella’s reporter friend, Candus Thompson, actually bragged about it. Apparently the “peek” opportunity came to her while an invited guest at the Romney’s Park City, Utah residence when she was offered the use of the master bedroom john before leaving a party. Do you suppose she will ever get an invite to the White House? Maybe the out house.
coltakashi on 12 Dec 2007 at 10:26 pm #
The Drudge Report has quoted from a speech that Huckabee as governor of Arkansas gave at the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention in Salt Lake City, in which he calls on the ministers present to “take back America for Christ.” He also describes going into politics as being like entering the belly of the beast and attempting to implement Christian principles there. He clearly was portraying himself as trying to convert government into a Christian institution. Based on Clinton’s tenure in Arkansas, the statehouse could probably use some repentance. But Huckabee is clearly continuing the same message in his campaign.
I seriously cannot envision Huckabee winning the electoral votes of Utah in light of the strong commitment of the SBC to the position that Mormonism is a non-Christian cult, including disseminating videos and books to its member churches with that message. I think a lot of Mormons will pass on the presidential contest, or even write in Mitt Romney or some third party candidate, rather than help elect someone who has used his campaign to paint Mormons as unworthy of full participation in politics, so that the Democratic candidate could get the plurality of votes and Utah’s 5 electoral votes, meaning a 10 vote switch. Huckabee as the Republican nominee would cast a pall over Republican Party campaigns all through the Mormon west, including Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming and Nevada. Money and volunteers will dry up, and then votes. When the Electoral College margins are as slim as they have been, and the margins of victory in several of these states has been so small, even the small number of Mormons can tip the balance, especially since they tend to volunteer and vote out of proportion to their numbers in the population. I can imagine a nominated Huckabee making the traditional visit to the LDS Church leaders, to try to counteract this problem, but it seems that his core constituency would be upset at him for doing so. And what kinds of demands will they make of him if he were elected? He would have to say something along the lines of a positive commendation of the LDS Church, which would mean that he DOES know something about it, meaning he was lying before. The Church leaders will maintain their neutrality and meet with him, and they will give him his genealogy, but I wonder how nice he can be to them in return without alienating the rabid Anti-Mormons among his supporters. He has dug himself into a hole by playing off one element of the Republican base against another. He is a divider, not a uniter.