Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category
This is very important from over at MyManMitt
Posted: 21 Jan 2008 02:17 AM CST
Total voters thusfar: 1,731,000
Total “Evangelical/””Born Again” voters: 734,200
Total non-Evangelical voters: 996,800
Percent of total votes cast that were from Evangelicals: 42%
Evangelical Voters by candidate:
Huckabee — 36%
Romney — 25%
McCain — 24%
Thompson — 10%
Paul — 4%
Giuliani — 1%
Before SC, Romney was tied with Huckabee at 31% each with the Evangelical voters. Huckabee has an undisputed “base” among Evangelicals, but both Romney and McCain have proven that they can get a significant portion of the “Evangelical vote.”
Percent of total votes cast that were from non-Evangelicals: 58%
Non-Evangelical Voters by candidate:
Romney — 36%
McCain — 35%
Paul — 9%
Huckabee — 9%
Thompson — 6%
Giuliani — 5%
Yes folks . . . the appeal for Huckabee to non-Evangelical voters is on par with Ron Paul’s (before this Sat he actually trailed Ron Paul among non-Evangelical votes by quite a large margin). Huckabee definitely HAS NOT proven in any contest thus far that he can get non-Evangelicals to support him in large numbers.
Huck’s best showing for the non-Evangelical votes was 14% (both in IA and SC–4th place in both instances). In MI he got 8% of non-Evangelical votes. In NH he got just 6%, and in Nevada he got a Hunter-esque 3% of the non-Evangelical votes. This does not bode well for Huckabee from Feb 5th onward (let alone how in the world he could compete in a general election). He’s yet to prove that he can move beyond his base (and his gaffe-prone campaigning the last few weeks isn’t helping with any “outreach”). Additionally MI, NV, and even SC have shown that he’s even having a hard time “locking up” his Evangelical base effectively.
I maintain my position from last week’s similar post: Mike Huckabee’s sole purpose in this race right now is to dilute Romney’s access to social conservative voters so that McCain can win and then Huck can hope to be chosen as VP.
Now onto the Mormon vote in Nevada. Most media outlets seemed to delight in repeating that Romney got 94% of the LDS vote in Nevada. It was repeated time and again as I watched the coverage live and many pundits said/inferred that this factor accounted for Romney’s win. Actually, if you subtracted out every single Mormon vote for Romney he still would have won by a double digit margin and had nearly double the votes of either of his next two competitors.
But others seemed to express dismay that one religious group would be so absolutely monolithic in it’s support. However, they fail to recognize that Dems NV Exit polling shows that 3% of those participating in the Democratic caucus were Mormons. I’m guessing NONE of them voted for Romney (sarcasm intended).
With voting totals around 115,000 in the Dem race (I saw that number on Fox News) that would come out to approximately 3500 LDS voters NOT voting for Romney in the Dem caucus.
By contrast, 25% of the GOP caucus in NV that were Mormon with nearly 45,000 total GOP voters — therefore around 11250 LDS voters and 94% of them were for Romney . . . but that means nearly 500 were not.
So, 4000 LDS in Nevada voted “Not for Romney” and 10,750 voted for Romney. That breaks down to 73% LDS for Romney and 27% LDS that were not for Romney. Not quite the absolutely robotic block-voting group that many media outlets are trying to play up, but, still, a solid base for Romney in the western/mountain states.
An interesting counter-argument about such huge LDS support for Mitt is that LDS have absolutely NO reservations about or aversion to Romney based on his religion, and can therefore view him outside of that context (while most non-LDS cannot) and therefore judge him solely on his record, experience, and issue stances. Romney surely hasn’t “pandered” to the LDS base like Huckabee has to his Evangelical base. Historically speaking, there was no huge LDS groundswell of support for Orrin Hatch in 2000, or Mo Udall back in the 70s. Similarly, Harry Reid is a guy that only a tiny fraction of LDS would ever consider voting for based on co-religiosity. In Romney most LDS are able to see, outside of the context of him having a “weird religion,” that he is an incredibly competent, faithful, successful, and articulate leader with a record of conservative governance and broad-based executive experience.
I’ve never thought there was any “upside” for Romney or his supporters to decry the hard or soft bigotry that he’s faced because of his religion. Most of us have know it exists, but it is something difficult to quantify. It is what it is and it’s hard to change, so why focus on it, right? No one likes a “whiner” and Romney certainly can’t be criticized for being one.
However, a recent study out of Vanderbilt University provides pretty convincing evidence that religious aversion to Romney is very real, but has hidden under the cover of his branding as a “flip-flopper.” The researchers conclude that such negative perceptions and labels have “stuck” to Romney because of underlying or overt theological misgivings about his religion.
Bias against Mitt Romney’s religion is one of the reasons that the tag “flip-flopper” sticks with the former Massachusetts governor but not his Republican opponents, according to Vanderbilt political scientist[s] . . .
“We find that of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping, many admit it is Romney’s Mormonism and not his flip-flopping that is the real issue,” Benson said. “Our survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney.” Benson noted that the pattern is especially strong for conservative Evangelicals. According to the poll, 57 percent of them have a bias against Mormons.
The study’s findings suggest that criticizing Romney for flip-flopping is an effective campaign strategy because it sticks with two different groups: those who are genuinely concerned about Romney’s shifts on certain issues and those who use the label as cover for the fact that they do not want to vote for a Mormon for president.
“As the campaign continues to unfold, these data become increasingly relevant as the Republicans choose a presidential nominee,” Geer said.
Again, I present this not as a complaint or “whining” about it, but in an informational sense. Like Romney, I love data and believe in it’s power. Having this new data out there might help people see deeper into the dynamics of this race and self-analyze why there may be an aversion to Romney for which he can hardly be blamed. That he has succeeded and progressed despite this “handicap” is quite impressive IMO.
Give your thoughts over at MyManMitt
So the stats are in – the Mormon Factor is Big. Fresh from Florida For Romney.
“There is no question that Romney has changed his positions on some issues, but so have some of the other candidates,” Geer said. “Why does the label stick to Romney but not his opponents? At least some of the answer lies in Romney’s Mormon beliefs.”
“We find that of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping, many admit it is Romney’s Mormonism and not his flip-flopping that is the real issue,”…………“Our survey shows that 26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney.”
“Benson noted that the pattern is especially strong for conservative Evangelicals. According to the poll, 57 percent of them have a bias against Mormons.”
“The study’s findings suggest that criticizing Romney for flip-flopping is an effective campaign strategy because it sticks with two different groups: those who are genuinely concerned about Romney’s shifts on certain issues and those who use the label as cover for the fact that they do not want to vote for a Mormon for president.”
–News from Vanderbilt University
Now, we already knew that this was the case, but now there’s significant statistics and findings to go along with our assumption.
Posted in Campaign, Conservative, Family, GOP2008, LDS, Mitt Romney, Politics, Reagan, Religion, Republicans, tagged Campaign, Change In Washington, Family, GOP 2008, LDS, Mitt Romney, Politics, Society on January 17, 2008| Leave a Comment »
I had heard about this on Sean Hannity. Sean actually interviewed this pastor a couple month’s back. It was very interesting that this church absolutely has no problem with what it’s doing. Today, Rush is spending quite a bit of time on how the Democrats are in tangles with a racial civil war between themselves this week. I won’t go into that, but this is something everyone should know about. I love how the article draws a parallel to the LDS church because it just shows the ongoing hypocrisy going on here.
Monday, January 7, 2008 10:16 AM
Imagine if Mitt Romney’s church proclaimed on its website that it is “unashamedly white.”
The media would pounce, and Romney’s presidential candidacy would be over. Yet that is exactly what Barack Obama’s church says on its web site — except in reverse.
“We are a congregation which is unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian,” says the Trinity United Church of Christ’s website in Chicago. “We are an African people and remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.”
That’s just the beginning. The church has a “non-negotiable commitment to Africa,” according to its website, and its pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. subscribes to what is called the Black Value System.
While the Black Value System includes such items as commitment to God, education, and self-discipline, it refers to “our racist competitive society” and includes the disavowal of the pursuit of “middle-classness” and a pledge of allegiance to “all black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System.” It defines “middle-classness” as a way for American society to “snare” blacks rather than “killing them off directly” or “placing them in concentration camps,” just as the country structures “an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.”
Read more here…
Here’s the link to the Church’s talking points and defense of Black theology at their website. Here’s just a sample of some of the stuff they have that references this “Black Value System”. I know the point has been made before, but can you even imagine if every word “black” was replaced with “white”? This is unreal.
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.” Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.
Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:
- Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.
- Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.
- Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”
- So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method – the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness.” If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons.
9. Pledge to Make the Fruits of All Developing and Acquired Skills Available to the Black Community.
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions.
11. Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System.
Posted in Circus Politics, GOP2008, Huckabee, LDS, Religion, Whisper Campaign, tagged anti-Catholic, Anti-Mormon, GOP 2008, Huckabee, Michigan, Pulpit Endorsement, Shadow Campaign on January 14, 2008| 1 Comment »
Some amazing comments and posts out there today. I’d like to highlight a comment by “John Doe” over at Marc Ambinder’s post listing some pretty good Huckabee facts that were sent out in an Catholics beware of Huckabee emailer. The religious intolerance is pretty much alienating him from the rest of the country. Huckabee is in big poo because of his playing the Evangelical stuff to the hilt. He and his following are making a lot more enemies than friends. If Evangelicals think they are going to get anywhere, there have been more than a few people saying they would vote for Hillary before they would vote for him. This is also coming down to how people are looking at their Evangelical neighbors now that they know how they “really feel”. I know quite a few Utah Mormons are for Ron Paul, and while I understand their points, it’s just a wasted vote at this time. I’d be hard pressed to say that when it came down to it, Mormons, including the Ron Paul Mormons, are not going to vote a Mormon-hater into the White House. So, Huck’s low IQ didn’t seem to factor in the Mormon factor either.
Here’s the comment:
MIKE HUCKABEE INTOLERANCE PROBLEM….
Let us assume for a moment that Mike Huckabee gets nominated by the Republican Party for the presidency. I know it is a bold assumption.. Let us examine his chances of his winning the general election without Mormon votes. Given current American voting trends and demographics, he would have no chance. If the Huckster is nominated, the swing states of Nevada (about 10% Mormon), Oregon (4%) and New Mexico (4%) will swing to the Democrats. Remember that President Bush lost Oregon by a couple thousand votes in 2000; New Mexico by a few hundred and picked it up in 2004 by an equally slim margin. Besides losing swing states in 2008, Republicans could also lose solidly red states if they embrace the bigot for president. What would losing a large voting block in, if not the states of, Utah (1.8 million Mormons), Idaho (15%), Wyoming (14%), and Arizona (6%) (you don’t hear McCain bashing Mormons, do you? in fact he’s done just the opposite) do for Republican hopes in 2008? Defections of Mormons in Colorado (131,000) and California (750,000) might cost a few Republican congressional seats. Losing the most-solidly Republican block in the country, the Mormons, or even putting it in play, would turn red states blue and eliminate any hopes of Republicans holding Colorado in the Senate or retaining the White House.
Mormons are tolerant folks, but they don’t tolerate anti-Mormon hostility, especially the bigotry that has been demonstrated by Huckabee’s supporters and, by extension Huckabee, for Huckabee’s failure to call them on it. So, when all of these Mormons decide that they are not going to tolerate an anti-Mormon bigot in the White House, will Mormons in those states vote for a third party or just stay home? Both options are being openly discussed in Mormon circles. If it is a third party, Mormons trend Libertarian; but that is beside the point. How could you vote for someone who is completely intolerant of your faith? Mormons have marched along supporting the candidates of the evangelical right for decades (who voted more reliably for Bush than Mormons? Not evangelicals.) and this Mormon and many others he happens to be talking to are ready to leave the party if Huckabee is nominated or his anti-Mormon campaign continues to be tolerated by the party.
Think of Idaho, Utah, Nevada and Arizona turning blue? Impossible? Not if an anti-Mormon is on the Republican ticket. People say Romney can’t win without evangelicals, well, Huckabee or any other Republican can’t win without Mormons in 2008. It’s a two-way street. No Republican will win the presidency in 2008 without us.
Before anyone discounts the idea of blue Mormons, consider that Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate is, a Mormon, who, despite being a Democrat, has enjoyed splitting the typically Republican Mormon vote in Nevada. More telling is that Utah County, the home of BYU and the most densely Mormon and Republican area in Utah had a Democrat representing it in Congress for most of the 1990s.
If anyone has any questions about how strongly many of us feel about this, let me say that I am as likely to support Mike Huckabee as Jesse Jackson would support David Duke. Is that clear enough?
Here’s the anti-Huckabee email going around:
Michigan Catholic Voter Alert:
What Michigan Catholics MUST Know About Mike Huckabee
FACT: Mike Huckabee has exhibited a willful blindness in associating with anti-Catholicism when it has benefited him politically.
FACT: Instead of supporting a healthy expression of religion in the public square, Mike Huckabee has used his evangelical protestant faith as a wedge to divide the Republican Party and gain support from fellow evangelicals.
FACT: While claiming to believe Catholics are fellow Christians, Mike Huckabee has kept close acquitance with evangelical leaders who have:
- Compared Catholicism to a disease requiring ‘recovery’ and rehabilitation;
- Said the Catholic Church collaborated with the Nazis to exterminate Jews;
- Accused the Catholic Church of pulling mankind into the ‘dark ages’.
FACT: Mike Huckabee has been endorsed by anti-Catholic author Tim Lahaye , who called Catholicism a “false religion” Lahaye’s Church also funded “Mission to Catholics”, a virulently anti-Catholic ministry.
Read More: Catholic.org: False Profit: Money, Prejudice, and Bad Theology in Tim LaHaye’s Left Behind Series and at The Catholic League: The Best-Selling Bigotry of Left Behind
FACT: Mike Huckabee has also played up anti-Mormon sentiment against Governor Mitt Romney by asking a reporter if it was the Mormon Church that taught that Jesus and the devil were half-brothers. For more information, click here .
FACT: Mike Huckabee turned a blind eye to an anti-Catholic whisper campaign waged against Catholic Senator Sam Brownback in the run up to the Iowa Straw Poll in July 2007. For more information, click here .
FACT: While Mike Huckabee has declared himself to be the authentic pro-life candidate in the 2008 Republican primary, in 2006 alone he accepted $35,000 in cash from Novo Nordisk, a company dedicated to promoting research on human life through destructive embryonic stem cell research.
Case in Point: Mike Huckabee was the guest speaker at the notoriously anti-Catholic Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, TX on December 23, 2007.
Huckabee was hosted by the Rev. John Hagee, who has written that the Catholic Church collaborated with Hitler in staying completely silent during the Holocaust. This would be a surprise to millions of Catholics who struggled against Nazism, most especially St. Maximillan Kolbe.
Here is a sampling of Pastor Hagee’s writings:
John Hagee: “Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.”
John Hagee: “The Catholic Church plunged the world into the dark ages.”
John Hagee: ” When Hitler became a global demonic monster, the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII never, ever slightly criticized him.”
What does Mike Huckabee think about John Hagee?
Huckabee said John Hagee is, “one of the greatest Christian leaders of our nation.”
But the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights has a different opinion of John Hagee:
READ MORE: “John Hagee: Veteran Bigot.”
What did Mike Huckabee do when presented with these vicious statements made by John Hagee about Catholics and the Catholic Church?
Nothing, but Huckabee did make this very equivocal statement: “I can’t speak for (Hagee) anymore than he could speak for me. I’m sure that there’re things I’ll say that he disagrees with… I would certainly never characterize the Catholic Church as being pro-Nazi, never.”
Just imagine if a politician:
Spoke at a church/organization which denied the Holocaust ever existed;
Said he did not agree with this statement of the church/organization;
But then went on to call the leader of this church/organization (who made the statement denying the Holocaust) one of the finest leaders in our nation.
Imagine this scenario no longer: Mike Huckabee has put forward this ridiculous line of reasoning.
And to top it off, Huckabee accepted $10,000 from Hagee for speaking at the church!
Why did the self-anointed authentic pro-life candidate in this election—Mike Huckabee—accept $35,000 in 2006 from Novo Nordisk, a company that conducts life-destructive embryonic stem cell research?
While this story line sounds too salacious to be true, Mike Huckabee did in fact accept $35,000 from Novo Nordisk in 2006, a company that is one of the largest embryonic stem cell research firms in the world.
What was the reason for these payments? Huckabee accepted the money for ‘consulting services/speaking fees’. Huckabee accepted this money nonetheless while he was the sitting Governor of Arkansas.
How can pro-lifers trust this man when he has taken so much money—for so little actual work– from a company that profits from the destruction of human life? Simply, put, they can’t. At minimum, why won’t Mike Huckabee return this money?
Sadly, Mike Huckabee would seek to divide conservatives and Republicans along religious lines for political gain. While America needs a more robust expression of faith in the public square, it does not need a preacher politician who has shown a repeated pattern of dividing people along religious lines. The shared values of Protestants and Catholics are too important to risk endangering this important coalition by nominating Mike Huckabee, a candidate who has demonstrated a blind eye to anti-Catholicism.
Michigan Catholic Voters:
Do you want a president who rubs shoulders with Anti-Catholic Bigots?
On Tuesday, January 15th , you have a chance to be heard.
Vote Against Anti-Catholic Bigotry.
Vote Against Mike Huckabee .
Also, I must not forget Mark Levin’s post who says it wonderfully – and I have to say that I am so thankful for the work Mark does – especially the terrific impact he has on Sean who get this message out there for some of us, the only way we can get our right-wing fix on some day is the car. This is tireless work so here’s
Mike Huckabee: “Many of us who have been Republicans out of conviction . . . the social conservatives,” he told reporters, “were welcomed in the party as long as we sort of kept our place, but Lord help us if we ever stood forward and said we would actually like to lead the party.” More here.
Huckabee continues to use his faith as a weapon against those who question not his faith, but his political populism — much of which he shares with secular progressives. And he is clearly hoping to stir up resentment among Evangelical Christians against the other elements of the conservative movement and Republican Party as a way of encouraging them to vote in the caucuses and primaries.