Skip to comments.My Fellow Evangelicals Blow It By Supporting Mike Huckabee
Posted on 01/08/2008 5:56:29 AM PST by Invisigoth
Secular America looks at the rise of Mike Huckabee and fears the growing influence of evangelical Christians in the political process.
This evangelical Christian columnist fears it too, for exactly the opposite reason.
Huckabees win in the Iowa caucuses, and his sudden viability as a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, owes to one thing and one thing only. Large numbers of evangelical voters are looking for someone to represent their values, and Huckabee is the only candidate who seems to do so.
(Excerpt) Read more at northstarwriters.com ...
We can only hope that the candidates that best represent all three legs of the stool will still be in the race by then.
>How about Islam?
Absolutely not. Islam has a lot of redeeming virtues. It’s the radicals if Islam that I would be intolerant of. But I don’t consider radical Islam to be a mainstream faith (though it seems like a lot of people like living in the 7th century).
They didn't bother to look too long or hard.
IMO, they stopped looking when they saw his religon.
Do you not recognize reality? There is no chance Huckabee will win, because conservatives won't vote for him. There are clearly some Evangelicals who are so angry at their perceived snubbing by the GOP that they will do anything to get a fellow Evangelical elected, never mind the fact that he is a socialist who advocates for illegals. Does that seem like a winning strategy to you?
“There are perhaps more churchgoing leftists than this nation realizes.”
But Huck is not their candidate, Obama would be.
To what end?
Surely you see it is not working? Your list of grievances above have all occurred under the Presidents and Congressmen that have been elected under the evangelical litmus tests.
So obviously it is not a change in government that your seek.
What have you produced, what is the result of your imagined battle with the “establishment-suits-elites”?
So what. Piss off a bunch of Mormons and Catholics and you still have a sure-fire win in the works. Who needs the votes of members of those wacko religions...
Wow! You really drank the left's koolaid where Falwell is concerned.
If a religious war is what you seek, I'm certain you can find yourself one.
I know several Huckabee supporters. I am not really concerned with them, because I think that Huckabee will not get the nomination.
In all honesty, I want to see Fred Thompson get the nomination. If it happens that Huckabee has to drop out, Fred will get his votes.
It is my honest opinion that Fred will win the nomination. We cannot use Iowa and New Hampshire as the entire test. This test has several pages, and Fred has not yet beeen tested down south, where he should be expected to do better.
The truth is that even Romney should be blowing everyone away in New Hampshire. Even Mitt were to win New Hamphire, it will not be a blowout.
Who says it is a fake war? Not the bible, not Jesus, not Paul.
Surely you see it is not working? Your list of grievances above have all occurred under the Presidents and Congressmen that have been elected under the evangelical litmus tests.
Evangelicals have been the red-headed stepchild of the party. I think that was valid in the past because they were less potent of a force, but that is changing. Unfortunately, the party elites are laggind indicators.
Are you nuts? Roe is law. Has been for years. You can only change it with Supreme Court justices.
What is POTUS supposed to do? Whack one of the sitting lib judges?
Yup, starting with control of the Republican party, the media, and academia.
I disagree. Obama believes in abortion at any time, Huck does not. That’s the only difference between them.
You’ve had an evangelical in the White House for the last 8 years, elected with the help of many non-evangelicals, so please spare me the notion that non-evangelicals have been spurning evangelicals.
I could understand the pro-Huckabee position if there -weren’t- a candidate that was right on pro-life issues -and- conservative issues. But there is - Fred Thompson.
And not only that, but Thompson’s approach to pro-life issues (first getting Roe v. Wade overturned) is infinitely more realistic and productive than going straight for the (for now) overkill HLA which will only drive people away from the pro-life position and which this country won’t be ready to pass for some years, at -least- not until we’ve had 3/4 of the states largely ban abortion so that an amendment is feasible, and the way to start that -requires- eliminating Roe v. Wade and -then- fighting the fight among the states.
But by demanding that no one but yet another evangelical, socialist or otherwise, will be acceptable to you, you are practicing the ugliest of identity politics. That and your other posts make it very plain that you are a liberal across the board, so why do you even post here?
You forgot the next verse.
“For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a mans enemies will be the members of his household.”
You certainly seem to see a lot of Republicans as your enemies.
So basically you want what the Church of England had before the shooting started.
If I'm not mistaken, more evangelicals voted for someone else than voted for Huckabee. I don't believe his premise is correct.
The answer is more "cultural" than "evangelical." And "evangelical" has been so misused and overused as to render it almost meaningless. Example:
"There are some voters over here who think Jesus is okay! Hoo-boy! ...those evangelicals are really out voting today"
The seeds are in place to overturn Roe. It just needs the right lawsuit before the court. We need to keep a true conservative majority on the Court in order to protect that.
Huck would protect it.
Romney would protect it.
Thompson would protect it.
Giuliani and McCain? Not so sure.
I guess it depends on what you consider to be intolerant. If tolerance means you ignore key differences between religious faiths and accept them all as equally valid paths to enlightenment, then I (along with most evangelicals) would be considered intolerant. If it is intolerant to recognize that Jesus claimed to be the only Son of God and furthermore claimed that the only way to the Father was through Him, then count me (along with Paul, Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, and the other apostles) amoung the intolerant. I guess that makes us religious bigots. OTOH, I am also an economic bigot, since I think free enterprise capitalism is good and big government socialism is bad. And I guess I’m a political bigot since I think right of center limited government policies are good and leftist, excessive regulatory government policies are bad. Welcome to the Intolerant Republican Party.
I am an evangelical and a Pastor, and I am not voting for Huck in the Georgia primary.
The real truth of the matter is that most of America is asleep at the wheel in regards to politics, including the church. I am not attempting to justify that; I only feel that it's the truth.
The evangelicals are watching from a distance and seeing that Huckabee is espousing Christianity, so they jump on board.
Like most Americans, they really don’t know one candidate from another.
For what it’s worth, I think that there are many many Baptists who will vote for Huckabee, just because he is one of the. I also expect Romney to do well where the LDS are in large numbers. That’s just how it goes.
In the end, I am hoping that revelation comes to the masses about Huckabee, and his supporters move to Fred. I am sure that Fred would get the lion’s share of Huckabee’s supporters.
Bush is a pet of the Republican elite establishment. He is the son of Bush Sr. His family's political ties as country club Republicans and secularized noblesse oblige elites are long and distinguished. And let's also not forget that Bush is a Methodist, which is a liberal mainline denominiation, *not* evangelical.
We do not have a true conservative court right now. Everyone knows it. We need one more to get the edge.
I assumed the next line in the verse was obvious. It is for me, as a Christian in a family of atheists. And yes, secular Republicans elites are the enemy: “He that is not with me is against me.”
The real reason the Soviet Union failed was atheism, not socialism
I assume you are simply offering your opinion, as I notice no historical analysis follows to defend that comment. Do you have one? With the specific events that led to the failure of the Soviet Union, and how atheism is at their core.
You may be the first evangelical freeper to admit (that I’ve read, I should say) that socialism is not the worst thing that can happen to a nation. You almost sound like you want it here in the US.
I completely agree with you. You forgot “criminal releaser”.
I agree COMPLETELY with the writer. But it’s also important to not overlook sleazy stunts and cheap shots the Huckster has recently made:
—The anti-Mormon “Jesus and the devil are brothers” jab, followed by “Who me? I didn’t mean to offend anyone or stir up religious bigotry! I’m innocent! “ Year, right.
—Running the floating cross commerical, then pretending he didn’t know there was a cross image in the background. Again, when he’s called on it he does the fake innocence routine: “I don’t know what you’re talking about, I wasn’t trying to be manipulative, you must be imagining things.”
—The “I’m-not-going-to-run-negative-ads-against-Mitt-Romeny” press conference stunt. What an insult to voters’ intelligence.
—His “Bush has run foreign policy with a bunker mentality” cheap shot.
—His “Bush hasn’t read the intelligent assesment reports for 4 years” cheap shot.
—His “I’m more like the guy you work with than the guy who just laid you off” class warfare cheap shot. (BTW, it’s clear he’s insanely jealous of Mitt Romney’s success and wealth)
Huckabee is not conservative, is a foreign policy moron, and he’s made a habit of taking cheap shots to manipulate voters or get a laugh. If I were Southern Baptist, I’d be ashamed.
Although Romney is full of $hit and a double-talker, he does not deserve that.
What we have been doing IS NOT WORKING.
Even RR and Helms could not get a RTL amendment passed.
Nor has a marriage amendment.
BUT, in the meantime government becomes more enormous, our bureaucracies are stacked with more and more liberals, who STAY decade upon decade.
And more and more Americans are turning to government for every need, want, grievance, whether real or perceived. Our public schools remain cess pools of propaganda, K-12.
IMO, more work should concentrate in the state and local level to educate grass roots. Electing state and local governments to our liking is easier and will be our political strength to force the hands of the Fed. Our obsession now with “calling DC” is not working.
Our President in 08 must be a CIC, this is reality, and he must be ruthless and cunning, in dealing with the UnAmerican Democrat Party, the MSM, and with Federal Bureaucracies of the State Dept, the CIA, and domestic depts.
No new tone, no speaking of bipartisanship or uniting or working together.
Only the tone and attitude of defeat of our enemies, here and abroad.
We don’t have a 6-3 conservative court. Talk to a liberal and he’ll strongly argue that he’s fighting against a majority of five.
See my post #40
Does that seem like a winning strategy to you?
Winning to evangelicals would be the same for you - to have a voice in government. If they loose their voice in the party, it doesn't matter who wins, they loose.
You may be the first evangelical freeper to admit (that Ive read, I should say) that socialism is not the worst thing that can happen to a nation. You almost sound like you want it here in the US.
Write me down then: Jibaholic is the first freeper you've known who thinks that atheism is worse than socialism.
1. Communism never established itself in Christian, particularly Protestant, nations. Particularly those with a strong Protestant working class, such as the methodists in England.
2. Communism was brought down by Christians, namely the Catholics in Poland and elsewhere. Interestingly, they were members of labor unions, which are hardly the vanguard of free markets.
3. If the problem with the Soviet Union were simply it's economic policies then the Soviet Union should have been able to rebound when it changed them. For the most part, the Soviet Union has been unable to rebound despite some years with good economic growth. Alcholism, broken families, and low birth rates reign.
What has not changed since the end of the Soviet Union? The people are still atheists.
>I guess it depends on what you consider to be intolerant. If tolerance means you ignore key differences between religious faiths and accept them all as equally valid paths to enlightenment, then I (along with most evangelicals) would be considered intolerant.
Nope. It’s the inability to accept people into the mainstream political life because you disagree with their religious beliefs.
It’s the Mormon who won’t vote for a Catholic. The Baptist who won’t vote for a JW. A Jew who won’t vote for a Muslim.
>If it is intolerant to recognize that Jesus claimed to be the only Son of God and furthermore claimed that the only way to the Father was through Him, then count me (along with Paul, Peter, John, Luke, Matthew, and the other apostles) amoung the intolerant.
Gee. You sound Mormon, because that’s exactly what it teaches. Welcome to the fold!
That is not correct.
Remember the "woman of the city" that the Pharisees brought to Jesus for judgment? Her sin required that she be stoned, yet Christ said "He among you that has not sinned, let him cast the first stone". He then forgave her and told her to "go and sin no more".
Name a candidate that the evangelicals did not get, that they wanted?
And in what year?
>Remember the “woman of the city” that the Pharisees brought to Jesus for judgment? Her sin required that she be stoned, yet Christ said “He among you that has not sinned, let him cast the first stone”. He then forgave her and told her to “go and sin no more”.
He rejected the manner. He did not go out and urge the state to get rid of the laws (and punishment) prohibiting adultery.
Do you believe that it is not Christian to impose a punishment for the violation of the law?
I'm for FRed Thompson because I believe he would be the best man for president, not because I want a "voice" in the party. If Evangelicals are willing to vote for the wrong man simply because he shares their faith, they are dooming this country's future.
That short bald-headed guy from FRC.
I’ve never gotten the candidate I wanted, until Huck (I would prefer Huck to have Romney’s economics, but that is negotiable). The party elite filters candidates so as not to be excessively Christian. By the time you get to Presidential contenders you only get a little tokenism.
Make that all the older, mainstream denominations. With these groups, Huckabee's economic liberalism and family values might sell very well to the people in the pews. These people like government "do-goodism" but are appalled at the behaviors they see in society. Mike Huckabee plays right to that.
I'm not sure who evangelicals wanted in 1996, but it sure wasn't Bob Dole. The field was so weak that year, and nobody ever rose up to pick up the mantle of conservatism so we looked around and turned the GOP nomination into some kind of Lifetime Achievement Award for Dole. Had we selected a true conservative and contrast to clinton rather than just a "clinton Lite", we wouldn't have had to endure those last 4 years of clinton and hillary wouldn't even be on the radar today.
‘Social conservative’ is a misnomer. Many are not conservative at all - they just oppose values held by many liberals.
Many ‘social conservatives’ don’t fear the Nanny State - they just want to be the ones hiring the Nanny.
If worshiping God is the most important part of your life, you want small government. Only by allowing others the right to live in ways we don’t approve can we assure ourselves of the right to live and worship in opposition to their beliefs.
But many evangelicals either don’t understand that, or don’t care - but a government powerful enough to run other peoples’ lives is powerful enough to run yours as well. And all it takes is one election to change the course...
That is very true, but by the same token, If the Pubbies had not tried to shove Giuliani down the Christian's throat, they would not have the bit in their teeth right now.
It is PARAMOUNT that each of the factions respect the others, and only vote for a candidate that is palatable to ALL, including the Christians.
United we stand, Divided we fall.
I am a news-polictical-GOP-Republican-activist-value voter junkie, and I have NEVER heard of this huge development, ever.
Please give me more info.
And please do not think that I nor anyone else want to “saw of the leg” of the Republican stool.
Quite the opposite.
I appears, with all due respect, that this victimhood routine is imaginary, and being used for votes, frankly. I see it here more and more, how the GOP is abusing VV, there is a conspiracy by the “suits-countryclub-rich-ceo-establishment”?
Where is your evidence?
Values voters have complete and total control over the litmus test for our candidates, and have for decades.
Do you deny that?
We all know that, if they did, the final decision would end at the Supreme Court.
Giuliani is a bad candidate, no doubt about it, but Huckabee is also a bad candidate.
Neither should be running as a Republican.
How do they filter candidates exactly?
And what candidate did the value voters not get, that they wanted? What primary? Who?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.