Huckabee is courting the born-again vote

[stephanie]

Wow...can you believe the lamestream media actually pushing a religious candidate on us...When most of time they yell and scream about religion and politics.... Why do you think that is???
You decide??


y Dan gilgoff
Los Angeles Times

November 30. 2007 12:25AM



At the Values Voter Summit in Washington in October, Southern Baptist ex-preacher Mike Huckabee made headlines by imploring evangelical voters to stay true to their Bible-believing faith rather than sell their souls for the good of the Republican Party. What he meant, of course, was that they should back true-believer Huckabee, despite his long odds in the race for the White House, over impure candidates such as Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.
"Let me say that it's important that people sing from their hearts and don't merely lip-sync the lyrics to our songs," Huckabee told the crowd, referring to the presidential contenders. "I think it's important that the language of Zion is a mother tongue and not a recently acquired second language." The speech was a hit, but in the weeks since, most A-list Christian right leaders and organizations have shrugged off his advice.

read the rest of this amazing article...:lame2:

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071130/OPINION/711300360/1028/OPINION02

[avatar4321]

Two paragraphs I really wanted to comment on:



To many conservatives - and even to some liberals and neutral observers - the Robertson endorsement vindicated Huckabee's complaint that Christian right leaders "are more intoxicated with power than principle." The right-wing web site World Net Daily reported "Pat Robertson's sell-out," while left-wing evangelical Jim Wallis quipped that "according to Pat Robertson's twisted moral logic, forgiving the social conservative shortcomings of Republicans is a Christian virtue."

More intoxicated with power than principle? excuse me. This comment by huckabee sounds inredibly offensive to me. And im not easily offended. Did he ever stop to consider that the reason the conservative christian leaders are supporting certain candidates is: They actually agree with them?! And that they don't agree with Huckabee's value.

I know Huckabee is a former minister, but that doesn't mean that all christians are going to agree with his point of view.


Of course, Christian right backers of Giuliani, Romney and Thompson are driven by less noble causes than fighting human trafficking or climate change. They want to keep Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton out of the White House and don't think Huckabee has enough money to win. But their practical decision to compromise by supporting flawed candidates could open the door to healthy compromises on thorny policy issues.

This annoys me just because I think there are legitimate reasons to agree with all three of those candidates. I know I am not voting for the person i think can beat Hillary. I dont even really think Hillary will be the nomination. (Granted she has a high chance of it, but i dont know that she will). I want the best person running. I don't give a damn whether about whether I think they can beat Hillary now. They have 8 freaking months to make their case against Hillary and they will have a freakin strong case against her regardless who it is.

If I thought Huckabee was the best choice, I'd support him. I don't. If he gets the nomination ill support him sure. But I am not going to let some op ed tell me im selling out values simply because i am supporting someone I think is better than him for this nation.

[stephanie]

Two paragraphs I really wanted to comment on:



More intoxicated with power than principle? excuse me. This comment by huckabee sounds incredibly offensive to me. And im not easily offended. Did he ever stop to consider that the reason the conservative christian leaders are supporting certain candidates is: They actually agree with them?! And that they don't agree with Huckabee's value.

I know Huckabee is a former minister, but that doesn't mean that all Christians are going to agree with his point of view.



This annoys me just because I think there are legitimate reasons to agree with all three of those candidates. I know I am not voting for the person i think can beat Hillary. I dont even really think Hillary will be the nomination. (Granted she has a high chance of it, but i dont know that she will). I want the best person running. I don't give a damn whether about whether I think they can beat Hillary now. They have 8 freaking months to make their case against Hillary and they will have a freakin strong case against her regardless who it is.

If I thought Huckabee was the best choice, I'd support him. I don't. If he gets the nomination ill support him sure. But I am not going to let some op ed tell me im selling out values simply because i am supporting someone I think is better than him for this nation.



My point was...Why is it all of a sudden the lamestream media is in favor of a religious candidate??
http://i106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/alaskamomma/55971285.jpg

Look at Huckabees, Giuliani's and Romney's records.... They are NOT Conservatives..
I almost feel like I will just support the candidates who the lamestream media are NOT PUSHING ON US...


Well actually I am standing behind the ones the lamestream media isn't standing behind..because they have the strongest conservative values that I have...that is Thompson, Hunter and Trancredo...

:cheers2:

[82Marine89]

Huckabee is courting the born-again vote

What about those of us that were born right the first time?

[5stringJeff]

Wow...can you believe the lamestream media actually pushing a religious candidate on us...When most of time they yell and scream about religion and politics.... Why do you think that is???
You decide??


IMO, the GOP candidates that are getting a push from the media are Giuliani, Romney, and McCain. I hardly ever see stories on the others. I'm just now starting to see more stories about Huckabee because he's polling so well in Iowa.

[5stringJeff]

This annoys me just because I think there are legitimate reasons to agree with all three of those candidates. I know I am not voting for the person i think can beat Hillary. I dont even really think Hillary will be the nomination. (Granted she has a high chance of it, but i dont know that she will). I want the best person running. I don't give a damn whether about whether I think they can beat Hillary now. They have 8 freaking months to make their case against Hillary and they will have a freakin strong case against her regardless who it is.

If I thought Huckabee was the best choice, I'd support him. I don't. If he gets the nomination ill support him sure. But I am not going to let some op ed tell me im selling out values simply because i am supporting someone I think is better than him for this nation.

While I do support Huckabee, and I know you support Romney, your reasoning is right on. We each support the candidate we think to be the best in the field.

[Hagbard Celine]

This is proof that all of you are mentally retarded. The MSM isn't PUSHING anything on us. They're reporting the NEWS. It's what they've been doing all along. It's your warped views of reality that have blinded you to this FACT.

[theHawk]

This is proof that all of you are mentally retarded. The MSM isn't PUSHING anything on us. They're reporting the NEWS. It's what they've been doing all along. It's your warped views of reality that have blinded you to this FACT.

You are so full of crap sometimes Haggy. You know damned well they push their views onto the public. All of them are guilty of this. How much air time has CNN or even Fox given to guys like Trancredo and Hunter, compared to Hillary, Obama, Mitt or Rudy?

[bullypulpit]

<blockquote>But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. - Mike Huckabee</blockquote>

Such blind dogmatism is not what America, or the world, needs right now. We've all seen the tragic results of rigid, dogmatic adherence to religious or political ideologies many times in recent history, and most recently from the current occupant of the Oval Office.

St. Augustine clearly warned those who would blindly follow whatever dogma they adhere to, whether it be religious or secular.

<blockquote>"If we come to read anything in Holy Scripture that is in keeping with the faith in which we are steeped, capable of several meanings, we must not by obstinately rushing in, so commit ourselves to any one of them that, when perhaps the truth is more thoroughly investigated, it rightly falls to the ground and we with it." - St. Augustine</blockquote>

[avatar4321]

<blockquote>But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. - Mike Huckabee</blockquote>

Such blind dogmatism is not what America, or the world, needs right now. We've all seen the tragic results of rigid, dogmatic adherence to religious or political ideologies many times in recent history, and most recently from the current occupant of the Oval Office.

St. Augustine clearly warned those who would blindly follow whatever dogma they adhere to, whether it be religious or secular.

<blockquote>"If we come to read anything in Holy Scripture that is in keeping with the faith in which we are steeped, capable of several meanings, we must not by obstinately rushing in, so commit ourselves to any one of them that, when perhaps the truth is more thoroughly investigated, it rightly falls to the ground and we with it." - St. Augustine</blockquote>

nevermind the fact that he is right and your view that science doesnt change with each generation is dogmatic.

[Abbey Marie]

<blockquote>But if there's going to be a conflict, science changes with every generation and with new discoveries and God doesn't. - Mike Huckabee</blockquote>

Such blind dogmatism is not what America, or the world, needs right now. We've all seen the tragic results of rigid, dogmatic adherence to religious or political ideologies many times in recent history, and most recently from the current occupant of the Oval Office.

St. Augustine clearly warned those who would blindly follow whatever dogma they adhere to, whether it be religious or secular.

<blockquote>"If we come to read anything in Holy Scripture that is in keeping with the faith in which we are steeped, capable of several meanings, we must not by obstinately rushing in, so commit ourselves to any one of them that, when perhaps the truth is more thoroughly investigated, it rightly falls to the ground and we with it." - St. Augustine</blockquote>

St. Augustine was an amazing man, and I like that quote. It is always important, too, to keep in mind the spirit in which someone makes a particular statement.

[MtnBiker]

This is proof that all of you are mentally retarded. The MSM isn't PUSHING anything on us. They're reporting the NEWS. It's what they've been doing all along. It's your warped views of reality that have blinded you to this FACT.

Yup, CNN's YouTube questioners are a good example of that. :rolleyes:

[bullypulpit]

nevermind the fact that he is right and your view that science doesnt change with each generation is dogmatic.

Huh? How did you jump to that conclusion? Science changes every time we uncover something we didn't know before. That's the nature of the beast. New information can lead to new conclusions in any given field...except religion.

Religion relies on the absolute certainty claimed by dogma to provide a sense of stability and safety to its adherents. Anything new can threaten the status quo and turn the dogma on its head. Rather than face such uncertainty, the dogmatist ignores or suppresses anything which would tip over his/her ontological apple-cart.

And while scientists can become locked into their own peculiar dogmatism, consistently repeatable experimental observations made by independent observers can scuttle even the stubbornest dogma. There is no such mechanism for deflating religious dogma.

[Hugh Lincoln]

Huckabee is courting the born-again vote? I heard only if you were born in MEXICO!

Huckabee sucks. He's the biggest amnesty-supporting, Latino-loving, white-hating piece of crap running. When he lost all that weight, he lost his brain cells, too. Maybe this is why the MSM likes him.

[Roadhouse158]

Um...Huckabee is starting to get coverage because he is surging in polls without being covered in the past...The vast majority of his donations have come from people; Not businesses. I guess some are getting worried that someone can surge without any real reason as to why. The reason why is because of him. He is great in the debates. He is socially conservative, and economically more liberal. He appeals to a lot of people. That's why he's moving up and starting to get coverage. I would hardly call his coverage "pushing him on the public" though. I just hear reports about his surging.

[Hugh Lincoln]

I just heard Ann Coulter describe Huckabee as the "new McCain" for the media, i.e., their pick.

[stephanie]

There's an agenda behind...anytime the lamestream Media starts loving a Republican candidate...Think about it...

GO Thompson/Hunter..:cheers2:

[Psychoblues]

The ignorance of Fred Thompson and the hateful agenda of Duncan Hunter will not go unnoticed.



There's an agenda behind...anytime the lamestream Media starts loving a Republican candidate...Think about it...

GO Thompson/Hunter..:cheers2:

Good luck on your own misguided aspirations.

---emoticons deleted for the satisfaction of the others---

[PostmodernProphet]

I know I am not voting for the person i think can beat Hillary.

let's be honest......is there any reason for a Republican to consider ANY candidate that they don't think has a chance at beating the Democratic candidate?....it would be a lot less effort to simply stay home than to field a candidate who has no chance, wouldn't it?.......

[bullypulpit]

I just heard Ann Coulter describe Huckabee as the "new McCain" for the media, i.e., their pick.

And you actually believe anything that junk-totin', plagiarizing, stick-figure has to say about anything? Talk about delusional...