Possibles, Pundits, Polls and 40 Pounds…
Starting With Our Friend Mike Huckabee . . .
The Huckster was typically petulant about his non-appearance at CPAC last weekend. Of course, such a “rift” among Republicans is cause for a story from the press. Which leads me to this bit by James Lewis at “American Thinker:”
See a pattern? If they can’t win honestly, the Left is happy to split the conservative vote by hook or by crook. They do it all the time.
Which leads me to wonder whose side the Huckster is on anyway? And while we are discussing Huck it seems that he was in Iowa this week, and according to the Des Moines Register, “shows no signs of running for president.“ The picture at left here is what appeared with the piece. It put me in mind of the oft-repeated quote from Haley Barbour at CPAC last weekend, “If you see me lose 40 pounds, you’ll know I’m running for president….”
I’d say the Register is dead nuts on with that one.
The Book Tour Begins . . .
Actually not. The tour for No Apology does not officially kick off until 3/13 in SLC, but the pre-release copies are out and the discussion is getting hot and heavy. Not to mention, Romney is on Letterman next week. The discussion of the week concerned Romney’s assertion in the book that the White House is “calling shots” at GM. I thought this NRO “Planet Gore” post took care of that pretty readily.
One more thing before we leave Romney: Was the rapper/plane incident pivotal? My thought is that if you are the kind of person that thinks TMZ is “news” then maybe, but if you are someone that actually pays attention to things like issues, probably not.
The Others . . .
Thoughts on Mitch Daniels. Interesting – good stuff, but I’m telling you, if Daniels runs this time it will be with a gun to his head. Not a winning formula.
Read this and remember. Marc Ambinder, while very smart, is a leftie with a vested interest in stirring the Republican pot.
Our best sources tell us Thune is in, so this is more than “buzz.”
Religion and Politics . . .
There was a conference between Catholics and Mormons this week at BYU. Here’s the Deseret News coverage and the audio and video is here.
“In recent years, Catholics and members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have stood more frequently side by side in the public square to defend human life and dignity,” Cardinal Francis George told nearly 12,000 students, faculty and community members gathered Tuesday at BYU.
“I’m personally grateful that after 180 years of living mostly apart from one another, Catholics and Latter-day Saints have begun to see each other as trustworthy partners in defense of shared moral principles.”
You know, Evangelicals might find themselves on the outside looking in when it comes to political activism when solid alliances like this get built.
According to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, secularism is not all it’s cracked up to be.
American foreign policy is handicapped by a narrow, ill-informed and “uncompromising Western secularism” that feeds religious extremism, threatens traditional cultures and fails to encourage religious groups that promote peace and human rights, according to a two-year study by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
The council’s 32-member task force, which included former government officials and scholars representing all major faiths, delivered its report to the White House on Tuesday. The report warns of a serious “capabilities gap” and recommends that President Obama make religion “an integral part of our foreign policy.”
And note that religion generally, NOT religion specifically, is what matters. Because tying religion and politics too tightly is not good for religion either. It is interesting that in the UK, conservatives are suspicious of religious influence. (HT: Ross Douthat)
That also seems to be a concern among younger Evangelicals in this country. My friend Matt Anderson thinks the problem is the appropriation of religious language for discussing American exceptionalism. I think such a mixture of language is unavoidable. It’s where the whole problem we look at on this blog arises. For the average American politics, patriotism, and religion are matters to a great extent of faith. Most people, through lack of interest or capability simply do not understand how the nation works, anymore than they understand how church works. They approach both in much the same fashion. That language would bleed from one to the other is almost unavoidable.
The difference lies in the fact that church really is an institution of faith, while government is an institution of immense practicality. As long as we have to convince people to vote one way or the other, we will borrow the tools of religion which is also in the convincing business. The question is how to motivate people to learn more how their government works. But then that’s a problem the church has as well.
Lowell adds . . .
Mike Huckabee’s weight is not something we bring up to poke fun. It’s simply an indication that he probably isn’t running in 2012, unless we see a rapid and dramatic weight loss. In addition to the photo John posts above, take a look at the video clip here. That’s a far different Huck than the one we saw jogging with reporters back in 2007.
As for interfaith alliances, it will be interesting to see if Mormons and Evangelicals can openly join forces on matters of joint interest the way Mormons and Catholics are doing that. A lot of progress in that direction was made in California’s Prop 8 election, but the uneasiness remains. That’s a subject for another post, I think. Maybe for a book!
Posted in Political Strategy, Proposition 8, Understanding Religion | 5 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Lori on 26 Feb 2010 at 9:23 am #
About the once again rotund former governor from Arkansas….in his recent interview on Huckabee with First Lady Michelle Obama on her efforts to stop childhood obesity, he told her that he planned to get back on the wagon as a salute to her work on this issue. Due to the relative recency of this commitment, I doubt the folks in Iowa could have noticed. If he was serious, then in a month or so, we should notice a gradual thinning out.
But he has plausible deniability now that the weight loss indicates a coming campaign. Rather he can just point to the First Lady and his support for her. Yeah right.
AZCON on 26 Feb 2010 at 10:04 pm #
Just a point of clarification. Cardinal Francis George spoke at BYU’s monthly “Forum.” Three weeks a month, (Tuesday mid-morning) BYU students and faculty gather in the Marriott Center for “Devotional.” This is usually a 20-35 minute talk by either one of the General Authorities of the church or a member of the university administration or faculty. The other week of the month, a speaker is chosen from a wider field. This “other” week is called “Forum.” These speakers may chose either religious or secular topics, with religious topics usually being of a more general nature. t is customary to have 12-20,000 in attendance. When it’s done, they all go back to class.
Otherwise, thanks for the work you both are doing.
As for additional potential entries for 2012, I believe Thune, Daniels, and Gingrich will all give it a hard look. The GOP has only selected a single candidate as their nominee who has not previously run, that being George W. Bush. I chalk the first two of these, and Pawlenty and Santorum, as primarily positioning themselves for a second run, and beginning to build the organization that can win both a primary and a general.
There will have to be more conservative entries to fill the vacuum when neither Palin or Huck run. I think the odds are less than 25% for each.
I actually think that Mitt is marginally in favor of all of their entries. I see several as conderable for the VP nod and think that Romney would prefer someone who has been publicly vetted and sharpened. (So it is for pragmatic competents.) All of these people would represent the very conservative wing. (I think the only thing that would really hurt him is someone who enters from his left.)
I think Newt has to run to “burn out the dead wood” left from past years, like audultery/divorce. If he can do that, I think he could do a great job managing Mitt’s legislative agenda.
Just some thoughts.
Doug King on 26 Feb 2010 at 11:37 pm #
Up or down, body weight is irrelevant to political office. Unfortunately, stage persona has been a major factor with voters which is why superficial factors like weight, hair, dress, glamor, etc. receive so much scrutiny. Even our Presidential “debates” have been dumbed down into contests about who can appear the most regal while stating the obvious.
As rough as our economic problems are, I hope they make voters somewhat wiser and that voters increasingly elect experienced leaders based on past performance. Preoccupation with style and sound bites helped get us into our current mess.
John Schroeder on 27 Feb 2010 at 5:34 am #
Doug:
Acknowledging and agreeing with your central point that substance matters more than style, I have to disagree that body weight is a matter of style.
As you can see, Lowell and I had a bit of a disagreement on bringing up the Hucksters weight, Lowell being far more sympathetic towards it than I.
Bottom line is this – it is a matter of personal discipline and THAT matters tremendously when it comes to being POTUS.
While analogies to alcoholism are overwrought, weight problems like those Mike Huckabee struggles with, share many aspects of addicition and if he cannot overcome that is is not suited for office.
I know how harsh I sound here, but I speak from personal experience. I have lost about double what the Huckster lost – though I started about a year earlier and have continued after the election – and I HAVE KEPT IT OFF.
Not trying to brag here – simply establish some credibility.
A Root of Evangelical and Mormon Political Conflict? | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 28 Feb 2010 at 9:19 pm #
[...] Comments John Schroeder on Possibles, Pundits, Polls and 40 Pounds…Doug King on Possibles, Pundits, Polls and 40 Pounds…AZCON on Possibles, Pundits, Polls and 40 [...]