. . . discussion of “silly” things like religion gets really thin.

Although…

The AP’s Glen Johnson thinks that Romney can attend Gordon Hinckley’s funeral this weekend because:

The difference now is that Romney approaches both his ongoing campaign and the funeral rites with less tension over his religion. Contests in Iowa and South Carolina, which both have significant evangelical voting blocs, are behind him.

I disagree. While I agree that the overt religious attacks on Romney are at an end, I think the religious tensions are far from out of the picture. Rather they are “coded.” Consider the anti-Romney post from leading evangelical blogger and former Huckabee staffer Joe Carter today. Joe argues on the issues but concludes that Romney “cannot be trusted.” This from a man who openly supported the Joel Belz’ “Mormons lie” argument. In such a circumstance it is difficult to know where the argument ends and the motivation behind the argument begins. Prejudice and reason have often been known to hold hands.

Then there are questions about Huckabee’s continued presence in a race he cannot win.

As to attending the funeral, my sources tell me Romney and Hinckley were personally acquainted. I’d go too under such circumstances.

What is really key from the Johnson peice is this little tid-bit:

According to exit and entrance polls for The Associated Press and television networks, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s initial win in the Iowa caucuses was fueled by the 60 percent of GOP voters who called themselves born-again or evangelical Christians.

Many of them have been taught that Mormonism is a “cult” and not a Christian faith. They flocked to Huckabee, once a Southern Baptist minister.

Yet their dominance has dissipated. [Emphasis added.]

INDEED! And therein lies a post to be written over the weekend. It is food for much thought.

Lowell adds: It seems to this non-Evangelical that Huckabee’s run has done great things for Huckabee, but not so much for Evangelicals as a group.

About those Evangelicals “flocking” to Huckabee

Lowell continues: We said it here first, several times, but now MSM analysts are starting to talk about the catastrophic effect of Huckabee’s religion-based candidacy. MSNBC’s Chuck Todd:

[W]e’re starting to hear from a lot of smart Republican strategists about what happened. And the thing that everyone seems to come back to is Romney’s religion. Why? Ask yourself: Without the issue of Romney’s religion, does Mike Huckabee ever take off? Because Mike Huckabee is the single biggest obstacle to Romney coalescing economic and social conservatives behind him to take on McCain. Take a close look at the Florida results by county from Tuesday night. In more than half of Florida’s 67 counties (37 to be exact), the Romney-Huckabee combined vote total equaled or surpassed 50%. And in those counties, 17 of them tipped to McCain. Well, extrapolate this out to, say, Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee or Georgia this Tuesday. Will the combined Romney-Huck total surpass 50% while delivering all four states to McCain? Now, if Romney hadn’t given evangelicals second thoughts simply over his religion, would Mike Huckabee have happened? It may be Romney needs another four years to convince evangelicals his religion won’t interfere with their priorities.

(Emphasis added.) I suppose people like Joe Carter are watching Huck’s “stop Romney” effect with some degree of satisfaction. I wonder if they stop to think about how happy they will be with a President McCain, or, more likely, another President Clinton?

Update: Rich Lowry has more, in a must-read column.

Update 2: K-Lo has more. So does Geraghty.

Back to John:

The Wall Street Journal Wonders . . .

If John McCain can appeal to Evangelicals. They conclude that he can, and do so on the basis of the fact that Evangelicals are not quite as monolithic as usually thought. But in this first paragraph, they say everything that this Evangelical needs to hear:

So how is McCain — who in 2000 called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance” —

Which begs the question: Can I as an Evangelical trust this guy? Either he is pandering or he can’t remember what he said. Neither are what I am looking for in a candidate.

But in Missouri . . .

. . . they are still talking about Huck. Oh sure, they know he is a loser, so they carry McCain(!?) as a back-up. Go figure. Huck’s continued appeal is startling to me. The end result of his candidacy is a minimization of the Evangelical voice, particularly those that back him, since he won’t win. More on that later.

Finally…

My friend, Lutheran pastor Mark Daniels says a mouthful:

Because much of what happens during a presidential term of office can’t be anticipated, there is something far more important to consider when deciding who will get our votes for president. In short, the characters of the people who vie for the presidency are more significant than their political philosophies or their position papers.

Character is forged in personal experience with adversity, not only in the adversity we personally experience, but also in the extent to which we’re willing to stand with others in their adversity.

John McCain is a bona fide war hero, rumors to the contrary notwithstanding. That said; however, I know people that served with him in the military after Vietnam. There is very little I am permitted to say, but being a war hero does not bear a direct correlation to overall character. And as to Huckabee? — well, just explore this blog, you’ll know all you need to know. Besides, the hits just keep on coming for Huck.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | No Comments yet » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• Stuff That Has Been Hanging Around
• Wrong-Headed Blogging
• Some Things Are A Little Hard To Swallow…
• Will Rudeness and Misunderstanding Rule Tonight?
• The Shoe Is On The Other Foot Now
• Things Get Complicated, And Yet . . .
• An Example of Inter-Religious Cooperation
• 2008: The Year of the “Biographical Candidate” and Religious Attacks
• Exploring the Line
• So Much for “Adieu”