Skip to comments.My Fellow Evangelicals Blow It By Supporting Mike Huckabee
Posted on 01/08/2008 5:56:29 AM PST by Invisigoth
click here to read article
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.