Article VI Blog

There is no surer sign of the Democrats’ increasingly tenuous grip on power than the fact that they are trying to spin Scott Brown’s (R) incredible victory for the Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy’s death as problematic for Mitt Romney.  We first noted the spin on Politico early Monday morning.  In the wake of the election Investor’s Business Daily tried to point out how it was big for Romney, and yet the first comment on that post tried to show it as a downer for him.  Fortunately, other commenters quickly pointed out the error of that commenter’s ways.

Funny though . . . Romney was on the dais at Brown’s victory speech and Brown called him forward for thanks – the first call after his family.  Do you need other facts?  Calling this “spin” is actually being kind.  Romney played this just right – he was an enormous amount of help to the Brown campaign.  Cash from Free and Strong America was just the beginning – staff was loaned.  Let’s face it, there is no such thing as a Republican “machine” in a place like Massachusetts, but given that he came closer to beating Ted Kennedy than anybody and got elected governor there, Romney comes as close to having one as possible.  No Republican could have pulled this off without him.  But despite that, Romney stayed, as far as coverage was concerned “in the background.”  This was Scott Brown’s campaign, not Mitt Romney’s.

And that points out the huge difference between this administration and a possible Romney one.  This president enters the room and he insists that the spotlight shine on him.  When he went to Massachusetts to stump for Coakley, he sucked all the oxygen out of the room.   Romney did far more for Brown than Obama even thought of doing for Coakley, and yet he did it in a way that left the spotlight on Brown.  Service, not ego, was what mattered here.

And that seems to me the heart of where religion and politics intersect.  Good religion, regardless of theology, makes us better people – it makes us people of service and goodwill, not self-service and personal will.

Lowell adds . . .

Romney played this one very well.  Ed Carson at Investor’s Business Daily:

“Ex-Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney was . . . a key backer of the little-known state senator [Scott Brown] back when he was seen as a sacrificial lamb.

“While some are already touting Brown as a 2012 presidential contender, Romney could be the big beneficiary. He’s helped deliver the 41st GOP Senate vote, perhaps derailing Obamacare. Activists will remember that.”

I think so too.

John Updates The Next Morning…

Here from the local Massachusetts press is a recount of what went on in Brown’s suite as news of his victory spread.  Key ‘graphs for our thesis above:

He said he’s been “calling everybody I know, doing everything I can to make sure Scott Brown won. Finally we can tell Washington, ‘We want you to listen.”‘As 10 p.m. approached, and Brown prepared to go down to the crowded ballroom to give his victory speech, former presidential candidate and Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney looked over his speech of introduction for Brown. “This is heroic,” he said of Brown’s win. “It wasn’t expected that he would have a victory this big.”

With everyone piling out of the room to head downstairs, Ayla smiled, sending an affectionate glance toward her dad as he consulted withRomney.

Romney did introduce Brown at the victory celebration.  A sure sign that he was key to the campaign.  And yet, no mention of that on TV coverage last night (Even Fox which is what I watched) and when Brown thanked Romney, he had to step from way back in the crowd to receive Brown’s handshake.  So far back I did not spot him until he came forward – unlike the unmistakable visage of Doug Flutie and other Massachusetts luminaries.

And it was former (perhaps to be again?) senior adviser to Romney’s presidential campaign, Kevin Madden that had an op-ed in the WSJ this AM:

Republicans could easily recline and leave Mr. Obama and the Democrats to self-destruct. Majority status and control of Congress is conceivably in reach just by reminding voters you can’t blame Republicans for Washington’s current appetite for excess, since Democrats are in control of this mess. It would be a safe maneuver because it’s true.

However, for Republicans the progression from malcontent to sustainable movement involves learning from President Obama’s mistakes. Unlike Mr. Obama, the party can go beyond ideals and process ideas that deliver an actual reformist agenda. The party can prove to a disaffected public that we stand for more than just winning elections but instead are dedicated to reforming a broken system and governing a nation with public support. A Republican Party that avoids the same shortsightedness and reflexive partisanship that has defined President Obama’s first year in office will be one truly deserving of majority status and deliver on the promise of a remade America currently eluding Mr. Obama.

That sounds like the map for 2010 and beyond to me!

And on a final sad note, this “tweet” passed through our little twitter monitor at right this morning:

OMG Romney is on stage with Brown lapping up the victory. This is a nightmare. The Mormon takeover.

We certainly hope you all are taking our advice and actively engaging in comment “policing.”  See “Online Activism” above.  You might want to set up a Twitter account.  After all tweets are just comments without context.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Electability, News Media Bias, Political Strategy | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Time doesn’t permit a long post today, but we can offer a few quick hits:

Mike Huckabee, Convicts, and Religion

Anyone not living in a cave for the last 48 hours knows that Maurice Clemmons, the murderer of four police officers in Seattle, was once in state prison in Arkansas – until Mike Huckabee commuted his sentence.  Huck has been running away from that decision and attempting to spread the blame to others involved in processing Clemmons through the legal system.  It’s been suggested that Huckabee’s faith played a huge role in his clemency decisions as governor.  The man himself has not yet addressed that question, probably because he doesn’t want to touch it.

That’s understandable.

Consider:  While Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee issued 1,033 pardons, twice as many as the prior three Arkansas governors combined.  Just as a point of comparision, Mitt Romney did not issue a single pardon while Governor of Massachusetts.  I have a hunch that Huckabee, as a potential 2012 presidential candidate, is now . . . toast.

David Frum Thinks The Whole GOP Religion Situation Is Terrible

At least that’s what he seems to be saying here.  Frum, who’s unhappy with religious conservatives generally, sees the Manhattan Declaration’s failure to include Mormons as yet another example of Evangelical bias against that faith.  Well, the Declaration was authored not just by Evangelicals but also Catholics and Orthodox Christians, something Frum doesn’t seem to grasp.  Also, as I noted here, the Declaration is a doctrinal trinitarian document.  Mormons and other heterodox Christian faiths could not have signed it (to say nothing of Orthodox Jews), so the document’s drafters didn’t even invite them to sign.  There are political reasons to quibble with the Declaration’s narrowness, but to this Latter-day Saint it doesn’t look like a slap at Romney or Mormonism.

Meanwhile, this writer at the Frum Forum plows ground that have already been plowed ad nauseam.  An atheist, he thinks Romney’s religion is fair game:

Devotion to Mormonism, which is completely outside of the American mainstream, requires a certain level of commitment. To what extent will Romney’s faith influence his decision-making? I ask that question of devoted evangelicals and judge them accordingly, and I will do the same of a Mormon. And I am not going to apologize for that.

What a stunning insight.  Move along, folks, nothing here to see . . . .  (And thanks to our reader Mary Lynn, who told us about this piece.)

And Finally: The Question, Studied Once Again

This recently-published study reaches some intuitively unsurprising conclusions:

Our results do, however, indicate that there is something Romney’s supporters can do to assuage concerns about his Mormonism. People who objectively know a lot about Mormons — that is, those who scored 100% on a short quiz on facts about Mormonism — were much less likely to be bothered by the claim that Mormons are not Christians. In contrast, respondents who claimed they knew a lot about Mormons, but who actually did not, were bothered most of all by claims about Mormonism. . . .

In other words, our study suggests that Romney’s supporters would do well to encourage those who are troubled by his faith to become better informed about Mormonism.

Such a discussion would likely help Romney: Information helps and ignorance hurts his chances. More important, it would help broaden religious tolerance in America.

Well, we certainly agree with that.

John Adds His Two Cents

There is much I am tempted to say about Mr. Huckabee and the role religion played in his commutations.  It is an expression of much that is wrong on a religious level with the shallowness that has become Evangelicalism.   But this is not a religious blog so I shall let that be.

Huckabee has been striking out at his critics over this, even when he admitted he was unlikely to run just 24 hours before the story broke.  Therein may lie the problems for future politics.  Huckabee has been the standard bearer for many Evangelicals and as he plays this so are they likely to go.  Slipping into defensive “You don’t get it’s and “I told you so’s will not be productive for that group.

Which brings me to the Manhattan Declaration.  Religiously motivated political activism was, in the 2008 election cycle highly fractured.  It fractured along left-right lines, which is not new, but visible for the first time, and it fractured between the ideologues and the pragmatists.  The ideologues retreated to Hucks and Palins of the world- fueled no doubt by anti-Mormon sentiment amongst some as the study cited above demonstrates – and as a result hurt conservative effectiveness.  Unity needs to be restored amongst the traditional coalition or all is lost.

The trinitarian references in the Manhattan Declaration, as one of our commenters has pointed out, are pro forma and not necessary to the primary stances taken therein.  They are a reference that would come for many involved as straightforwardly as breathing.  Their inclusion is likely because to debate them would have increased the fracture lines that were attempting to be healed.  Little can be judged about the relationship with Romney and Mormons on a political level until the healing is complete.

Frum’s commentary is designed to foment fracture along any fault line he can find.  It’s quite obvious that is what is at play here.  And yet, the commenter at Frum’s site shows why we must heal all such fractures.  To the non-religious, who are primarily left-leaning, there is no real distinction between the orthodox and the heterodox – such distinctions appear to them to be infighting and to be politically exploited.  Huckabee’s defensiveness, and that of his supporters, is another such fracture line.

When things like this happen, we would be wise to look for ways to heal the fractures not widen them.

EVEN LATER ADDITION BY JOHN:

Our old friend Joe Carter has posted an important response to the Frum commenter (Alex Knepper) that we discuss above:

Knepper has a valid point about certain religious beliefs and traditions being fair game for scrutiny while others are off-limits. There is a peculiar double-standard in place, though the criteria for which ones are included is difficult to discern. I also agree that religious beliefs—indeed I would include all beliefs of any type—should be considered fair game when evaluating a candidate. The question Knepper leaves unanswered, though, is how such beliefs are to be evaluated in the public square. Where is the line between reasonable criticism and irrational bigotry?

Personally, I’m open to being exceedingly tolerant of raw religious bigotry as long as its accompanied by a healthy portion of religious liberty. When we enter the public square I’m willing to allow anyone to make whatever nasty remarks they like about evangelicalism as long as I can presents arguments that are rooted in my faith and that are given a fair hearing.

Interesting approach, but I am not sure it works.  The entire point of prejudice and bigotry is to discount arguments by the object of the prejudice and bigotry.  Hence prejudicial references are not admitted in courts because they mean the jury’s judgment is compromised with regards to the pertinent facts of the case.  In other words there is no religious liberty when there is raw religious bigotry – bigotry precludes liberty of any sort – total bigotry against blacks resulted in total slavery, the ultimate denial of liberty.

Bigotry and prejudice are the enemy of law and ours is a nation of laws, not men.

Lowell’s Postscript:

I’ll be more blunt than John:  Joe Carter’s argument is just plain nuts.  To say “raw religious bigotry” is just fine “as long as its [sic] accompanied by a healthy portion of religious liberty” is an argument so internally inconsistent as to be laughable. But there’s nothing funny about what Carter says. There can not be any acceptable level of religious liberty in the presence of raw religious bigotry. I fear that Carter is simply trying, however feebly, to make an argument that leaves room for his own approach to Romney’s faith in the public square. He needs to re-think his position, and soon.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Electability, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Pundits have been talking about the 2012 Republican field for some time now.  I’m not sure Byron York is the first major political soothsayer to mention Romney’s religion in the new presidential election cycle, but he’s surely one of the first.  Near the end of an otherwise policy-oriented Washington Examiner column on Romney’s activities, York tacks on this paragraph:

There’s also no way to know whether the Mormon factor will again come into play. In 2008, some evangelicals rejected Romney on the basis of his religion, even after he gave a much-publicized speech on the role of faith in his life and in politics. That might still be an issue next time around.

Does the expression “short shrift” come to mind?  Or maybe “understatement?”   Both do for me, but I can’t really blame Byron York.  His comment is accurate as far as it goes, and to York’s credit, in the 2008 cycle he always seemed most interested in policy issues and paid little attention to Romney’s faith.  In fact, I always felt that York considered “the Mormon factor” a distraction.  It is inevitable that the subject will come up.  What we don’t know yet is whether 2012 will be a replay of 2008 (a very depressing thought), or if the news media and the electorate will move on, at least to come extent.

Note:  Jennifer Rubin managed to write about the race, with prominent mention of Romney, without bringing up religion.  Kudos to her.  She’s a fine conservative thinker, so maybe there’s hope for the rest of the group.

I will succumb to the temptation to prognosticate just a bit.

• As John has written, politically conservative Evangelicals are in danger of isolating themselves from the rest of conservatism.  (For the record, I do not want to see them do that, if the majority of them want to play a constructive role and will resist the temptation to take their ball and go home.)  This will continue unless some leader steps forward who can pull them in a different direction.

• Sarah Palin will be a force to be reckoned with.  I cannot see her playing the Mormon card.  I have no idea how viable she will really be in 2012, but religious conservatives love her and will pay attention to what she says.  She may well be the leader I wish for above.

• Huckabee will be so busy fighting for his political life against Palin that he may not be able to play that card at all without looking terribly small and desperate.  (He looked that way in 2008 too, but he’s already shown he’s capable of blazing new trails of smallness and desperation.)

Beyond that I can’t predict anything, other than that it’s going to be an interesting ride. But you already knew that.

John comments: At this point I am not sure Palin will run, not at all sure.  In two recent and highly unscientific polls at Instapundit she blew away the field, but she has no organization to speak of.  The Values Voters Summit is a MUST for her and she did not show.  She has a huge fan base, but in terms of political insiders – people that matter – I just do not see a “camp” forming around her.  She is falling behind the curve rapidly.  Her family situation is such that she needs to make some serious money.  She was in Hong Kong speaking during the VVS, getting paid serious money.  She cannot make that kind of coin as a candidate.  That looks like her priority at the moment.  In this environment, coming to the game late will likely put her out altogether.

I do not think she is necessary to make the Huckster look small and desperate.  He is very capable of that himself, and doing a pretty good job so far.  The isolation of some conservative Evangelicals is inevitable and the Huckster will lead that parade.  Fortunately, in terms of numbers, it is not that many Evangelicals.  Only problem is they will take the label with them.

That crowd will only be a problem for Romney if the press enables it.  They should be ashamed for the way they handled it last time, and I think those that are not completely in the bag for the left (there are a few) are so ashamed.  Question is, how do we make the rest of the press feel it?

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Electability, Religious Bigotry | 3 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

. . . and they seem to like issuing news releases.  The last time we looked at a press release it was chastising Dobson organization for carrying a Glenn Beck interview because Beck is a Mormon.  That lead to days of controversy.  (See here,  here, here, and here.)  Well, here we go again.  This time “conservative leaders” are calling for Jed Babbin’s job (does anybody besides me see echoes of the GBLT activists’ strategy in the wake of Prop 8 in this move?) because:

The editor of what was Ronald Reagan’s favorite conservative weekly, Human Events, Babbin only recently admitted in an explosive radio interview that Mitt Romney illegally instituted same-sex “marriage” and $50 government-funded abortions.

Now, the first thing to remember is that the press release was made by Gregg Jackson, the radio talk show host who conducted this “explosive interview,” and its sole purpose was  get people to his web site and listening to clips of his show.  The release also bashes Fred Thompson and John McCain on their record on abortion, but it contains special vitriol for Romney:

On numerous occasions, Jackson and others had gone to great lengths to share Romney’s far left wing record with Babbin and other writers at Human Events such as Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh and John Gizzi, but they all chose to suppress Romney’s radical record in Massachusetts and in doing so deceived countless conservative readers.

If you go to this guy’s web site, (and I don’t recommend it – I hate to supply the link, but providing documentation of my claims demands it) he bashes even George W. Bush.

Unless this release gains more momentum I am going to leave an actual refutation of it lie – there is no sense arguing with an absolutist who is clearly beyond reason.  I will, however, ask a simple question:  If indeed virtually the entire Republican, and hence broadly conservative, leadership is so terribly inadequate, why is such special and thorough bile reserved for Romney?

I think we know the answer.

Lowell adds:  Well, I visited Mr. Jackson’s site and really invite any clear-thinking person to do so.  You’ll quickly see his colors.  For example, in this article, from February 4, 2008, he explains why he is supporting . . . you guessed it, Mike Huckabee for president.   It is actually kind of a fun rant to read, until one sees the special anti-Romney vitriol that Jackson uses on Romney, as John notes.  Remember that the kinds of falsehoods and distortions Jackson uses were apparently believed by many people. People like him are a disgrace to American politics, and I think he’s just as harmful as the crowd at the Daily Kos and MoveOn.org.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Electability | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

A Mormon-oriented website has named Mitt Romney Mormon of the Year.  I must admit that as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have mixed emotions about this.  Bear with me while I explain, because I have both personal and philosophical questions.

The web site, Times and Seasons, notes that in 2008, “Romney concluded the most credible presidential campaign of any Mormon to date.”  Personally, I wish that we Mormons could be a little less self-conscious about the achievements of our members.

An analogy:  I think it was Vince Lombardi, the legendary football coach, who didn’t want his players celebrating in the end zone after scoring touchdowns.   “Act like you’ve been there before,” he is reported to have said.

I concede that regarding the presidency, we Mormons haven’t “been there,” but Lombardi’s advice still applies:  We should act like the people we are.  We are no longer a small, struggling, persecuted sect.  We are the fourth-largest religious denomination in the USA and our members are sprinkled throughout American society.

Too often, however, we act like a small, struggling, persecuted sect.

We shouldn’t.  We shouldn’t act surprised or bemused that one of our co-religionists actually became governor of Massachusetts (of all states) and was a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination.  We have been there before, in the person of George Romney.

I also wonder how Mitt Romney feels about being named Mormon of the Year.  I have a hunch he would rather be seen as a national political leader who happens to be  a Mormon, instead of a Mormon who happens to be a national political leader.  But that’s just me.

Philosophically, I suppose identity politics are unavoidable, but I am hard-pressed to think of a president who won because he ran as a member of an identity group.  (President-elect Obama worked very hard not to run as an African-American candidate, and did not do so, in my opinion.)

In short, winners don’t think that way.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Electability | 5 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Hugh Hewitt finally got his interviewing claws into Mike Huckabee yesterday.  Here is the transcript.   I was suffering from a serious case of employment during the interview and did not get to hear it.  Continue to be so.  So this post is going to begin briefly.  As both of us can find a minute today, maybe even over the next few days, we will try and add our additional thoughts and commentary.  I will begin with two exchanges:

HH: Now Governor, about a year ago, actually next month, you were quoted in the New York Times Sunday Magazine as saying, “Don’t Mormons Believe that Jesus and the Devil are brothers?” Now I know you’ve explained that before, but it’s not in the book, which is a memoir of the campaign. Why would you leave out that major issue?

MH: Well, because it was a completely misrepresented issue. It was a conversation with a reporter. It was an 11,000 word story, or 10,000 word story, and there were 11 words in it that really was a question that came in the context of the conversation because he was explaining to me specific doctrines of the Mormon Church. He was quite familiar with it. I wasn’t. And I asked him if that were in fact the doctrine of the Church. And the next thing is it ended up in the article as a part of it. The Associated Press lifted that out as if that was main focus of the conversation. I personally went to Mitt Romney in Des Moines, on a stage, looked at him in the face, told him I was sorry, that I would never had intended to have done something that would have been disparaging, and that it absolutely was not my intention to disparage any doctrine of his faith. And that’s just the long and the short of it.  

HH: Where did you get that idea? 

MH: Well, frankly, I’ve been told by people who had been Mormons that they did believe that Jesus and the Devil came out of the same stock. One went wrong, one went right. That’s why I asked it. 

Now anybody that has watched a courtroom TV show of any sort should knows this trick.   Lawyer says “X” – Other Lawyer objects – Judge sustains the objection – First lawyer “withdraws the question.”  The key concept in such an exchange is “the bell has rung.”  The jury heard “X” and despite being told to disregard it, it just lies there, in the mind of the jurors and influences the thinking of those inclined to agree with the lawyer who said it.  Mike Huckabee may have apologized to Mitt Romney, but the bell had rung. He had sent a signal to the anti-Mormon crowd in Iowa.  They heard it and they responded.  Too little, too late, Governor, the bell had rung.  Personal apologies were insufficient.  What was called for was returned donations, and asking, publicly, certain groups not to work on your behalf.

Second exchange:

HH: Governor, the e-mails are coming in. Here’s one from a Mormon listener [Lowell!]. “Why didn’t the Governor ever denounce the scurrilous anti-Mormon attacks against Mitt Romney by Huckabee supporters? They were even left on the Huckabee website, e.g. Romney referred to as ‘Mormon garbage.’ Governor Huckabee always denied that he ever said anything playing on Governor Romney’s religion, but he never once denounced such attacks, and he benefited from them.” Governor? 

MH: That is not true, and I consistently denounced attacks against the Mormon Church. And as I have said, if you watch my show, if you’ve read my publications and what I’ve written, I have often defended people of the Mormon faith, because I have great respect for them. They’re people who have great convictions, they hold to them, they are an example of charity, taking care of the members of their own Church. I think it’s, you know, something that is irrelevant to a person’s being elected. And I have said repeatedly that in no way would it affect my vote for or against somebody depending on what Church they belonged to or didn’t belong to.

“Watch your show?!” WOW – he’s good, a plug and a denial in one useless sentence.   Way too little, way too late – the primary is over, Governor, what is said on your show now is irrelevant, it is what happened in the campaign that matters.  See, Mr. Huckabee, this is not about you, it is about the people that followed you.  You did make statements about attacks on another’s faith being inappropriate, but they were generic and they were made only around Super Tuesday and later when the heat on you for the Iowa crack became unbearable.

What’s more, your web site was never edited.  Those comments were never deleted.  A comment policy forbidding then was never published.  You never sought out the numerous backers you had that were indeed nasty, ugly, bigoted anti-Mormon types and directly and by name repudiated them.  Then there are the uncountable bulletin boards and other web sites run by those officially unaffiliated with the campaign – Where were your campaign workers posting on those sites, denying such as having anything to do with the campaign?

Mike Huckabee can claim his personal innocence all he wants, but the fact remains he provided political cover for anti-Mormon bigotry to operate.  He let anti-Mormonism fester like a boil.  His campaign was indeed bigoted and anti-Mormon.   He had no control over his campaign, which gives one no confidence in his ability to govern the nation. But then he never wanted to – “Watch his show” indeed – I think that just about says it all.

More to come as time and employment allows.

Lowell finally shows up:  What a stroke of luck.  I was driving home a little early and, as I always do on those occasions, I turned on Hugh’s show.  Lo and behold, he had Mike Huckabee on for the entire final hour.  For months now I had wanted to see someone ask Huck why he never denounced the anti-Mormon bile that came out of his supporters.  Since Huck wasn’t taking calls, I pulled off the road and sent my e-mail question.

Huck gave almost exactly the response I expected:  Religion “is irrelevant to a person’s being elected. And I have said repeatedly that in no way would it affect my vote for or against somebody depending on what Church they belonged to or didn’t belong to.”

How utterly gutless and lame.  That’s all he ever said during the campaign as well.  Well, Mike, let’s play my favorite game:  Replace “Mormon” with another candidate and faith.

When your website refers to Joe Lieberman as “Jewish garbage,” would you simply say in response,”Religion is irrelevant to a person’s being elected?”

When your website refers to Rudy Giuliani as “papist garbage,” would you simply say in response,”Religion is irrelevant to a person’s being elected?”

Yes, it is hard to imagine letting those statements go with such a limp and general response, isn’t it?  But you knew that a large part of your base would be offended if you said anything more to denounce their naked, unapologetic and unabashed bigotry.

I beleive Mike Huckabee is a serious danger now facing the Republican Party.  He is silver-tongued and he has a loyal base.  He has a mean and nasty streak and obviously loves to nurse a grudge.  (Witness the many pages of his book devoted to Mitt Romney, who had the temerity to be handsome, rich, have a beautiful family, and beat up on Huck politically everywhere they competed other than Iowa.)  Worst of all, his aiding and abetting of the dark bigotry of his supporters proves that he lacks the courage to do the right thing. Not a good combination in a would-be national leader.

All that, combined with the man’s ego and charming narcissism, make for a very negative influence on the party.   Just imagine what Huck would do to Sarah Palin, once she started making him look bad.  (And she will, if Huck takes her on.)

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Doctrinal Obedience, Electability, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post