I was just reading the Brattleboro Reformer and I came across today’s editorial, Oval Office religion.
For the most part, it was decent enough. It compared Mitt Romney’s speech about religion to Kennedy’s speech in 1960, and did a good job of explaining why the two were not in the same league.
While Romney faces the same questions that Kennedy faced by being a member of a minority religion, the similarities end there.
But that is not the reason for this post.
There was one line that bothered me to no end, right at the end of the piece.
The fundamentalist Christians would rather support the fundamentalist Christian in the race — former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — than Romney, or worse, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.
I cannot stand it when people talk as if they know anything about a group that they know nothing about.
First, there is no unified “fundamentalist Christian” voting bloc.
If there was, perhaps they would all be supporting Giuliani. He did receive an endorsement from Pat Robertson, after all.
And what does the Reformer make of the fact that Romney has picked up the support of Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Moral Majority, and Bob Jones III. Are they not fundamentalist enough?
The fact is, there is no candidate in this race who has clearly captured the hearts – and votes – of fundamentalist Christians.
I propose the Brattleboro Reformer stick to editorializing a subject that they know something about.
Maybe anti-war activists protesting Vermont Yankee, while nude.
Just a thought.
************************************
Mostly pros go for 350-030 or 70-528 right after their comptia certification. Then they are eligible for ccna as well as mcdst. This gives them an a+ in their security training.
December 12th, 2007 at 1:27 am
I’ve seen plenty of Christian conservatives proclaim in the recent past that one of the most important traits a presidencial candidate need have, in their opinion, be that they are a “Christian”. Huckabee owes most, but not all IMO, of his recent surge in the polls due to him sucessfully courting a large part of the Christian Right so far (at least in Iowa). These types of conservatives do indeed compose a sizeable block (not a majority by any means for sure) of Republican primary/caucus participants.
I personally don’t think that Huckabee will get much support past Iowa, but we’ll see I guess. Who knows why Robertson endorsed Giuliani…that man’s a crazed homophobe anyway. I’m not sure how much endorsements count for these days. I can’t think of one endorsement that has ever swayed me in the past. We’ll see how much Oprah can do for Obama. Don’t get me started on the Jones family…
December 13th, 2007 at 2:53 am
Huckabee’s quite the idiot, he couldn’t survive the general election, let alone make it there. And yes, Charity, the religious right is a substantial voting blog, regardless of who their individual leaders endorse. Regardless of how unified they may or may not seem, they’ve owned the GOP for a long time, being played for suckers since day one. Anyone who’s paid serious attention to politics since 1980 knows that.
Perhaps you should stick to editorializing about a subject that you know something about.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:12 am
I hate to be rude because I do value my readers who take the time to comment, but I have to ask: Do you even read the post before you comment??
I said: “First, there is no unified “fundamentalist Christian” voting bloc.” [Emphasis not in original.]
I did not say that fundamentalist Christians to not constitute a large number of voters. I did not say the the Republican candidates do not pander to them.
I simply pointed out that in this election, there does not exist the one candidate that fundamentalists clearly support.
Sorry for the confusion.
“Perhaps you should stick to editorializing about a subject that you know something about.”
Gee, ya got me there, JD. I don’t know anything about fundamentalist Christians.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:27 am
“Regardless of how unified they may or may not seem, they’ve owned the GOP for a long time, being played for suckers since day one.”
Read that? And they are unified in that they throw thier unqualified support behind the Republican party.
December 13th, 2007 at 11:41 am
You can bicker over the use of the word “unified,” because by your definition there are NO perfectly unified voting blocs… The facts, easily verified by a visit to any number of polling data sites which have exit poll data from the elections starting in 1994, show that those who self-identify as “Evangelical Christians” vote together more consistently than any other group over the course of the last decade and a half.
There have been other self-identified groups that voted as a bloc with more consistency in individual elections (look at the numbers of self-identified veterans who voted for Dole/Kemp), but none that have come near the consistent and long-term unity of the “evangelical christian” bloc (some of the polls also used the term “Christian values voter” in the 90s).
So while you might feel like you’re being lumped in with voters with whom you may disagree, the facts are that if there is such a thing as a unified voting bloc, evangelicals are it, at least in our modern electoral history.
I find it particularly hilarious that you decided to take on the Reformer for “editorializing about a subject they know nothing about” given your history of being factually incorrect about the subjects of your crazy-headed rants… Its a strange day when “always incorrect Charity” is telling the newspapers that they are light on the facts….
December 13th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
I am going to have to address this in more detail in another post because either JD and Rediculous share a brain or I am not being clear. Though I have reason to believe the former to be true, in the event that the latter is true, I should expand on my thinking on this subject.
I know that evangelical Christians do constitute a significant voting bloc, but in this primary, I do not agree with the Reformer that Huckabee has run away with their support. I included names of well-known evangelicals/fundamentalists who have supported other candidates to support my claim.
I will, in another post, explain why I do not think that Huckabee is a good choice for conservatives despite his conservative Christian cred.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Would your disdain for Huckabee have to do with his supporting of quarantining AIDS parents? His lack of knowledge about the Iran NIE? His steadfast belief that “women shall submit to the will of their husbands”? His general corruption?
No, I know why, because he dared increase taxes several times in his life, and he’s told Grover Norquist to suck it.
December 13th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
All right, now you’re just wicked crazy… Where in the Reformer editorial does it suggest that evangelicals are supporting Huckabee as a unified bloc…. I’ll help you, it doesn’t… Particularly in this primary, all it says is that evangelicals are NOT supporting Romney as a bloc…
As a matter of fact, it seems to suggest that the evangelical bloc is split between Huckabee, Guilani, and, to some degree, Romney… What the Reformer was saying is that Romney missed an opportunity to get the support of the bloc… I don’t think anyone doubts that either…
You a crazy, crazy lady….
December 13th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Oh, my! Is this some kind of joke?
You ask:“Where in the Reformer editorial does it suggest that evangelicals are supporting Huckabee as a unified bloc”
I quoted it in my post!
The fundamentalist Christians would rather support the fundamentalist Christian in the race — former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — than Romney, or worse, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.
You interpret that to mean: “the evangelical bloc is split between Huckabee, Guilani, and, to some degree, Romney”
And I am the crazy one?
December 19th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Weyrich is a Catholic. All my fundamentalist friends are backing Huckabee and while I’m no evangelical I like him also.
December 20th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
I love the dynamic that’s taking hold. The corporate wing of the GOP has always just used the religious right to get votes, throwing them an occasional bone now and then, but by and large they could give two shits about them. Huckabee is like the crazy uncle who’s come home to collect, and the non-theocratic wing of the GOP is really starting to freak out, because they know damn well that if he somehow won the primary, he would get killed in the general.
What do you like most about Huckabee, N.P.? The anti-science young earth beliefs? The comparison of gays to necrophiliacs? His utter ignorance about foreign policy? His pardoning of a known dangerous rapist (and lots of other pardons)? His dog-torturing son? Do tell, I’d love to hear this one.
None of this matters much in the end, because the GOP has zero shot at the WH. None. Zip. Nada. The petals have come off the rose of modern conservatism, revealing a fetid, foul turd underneath. How’s it feel?
December 20th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
JD, what you don’t seem to understand is that people do not like Huckabee because he is not conservative in any other respect, other than the social issues. We need someone who is fiscally conservative and wants to limit government power to undo the damage that President Bush did with his big government, big spending policies.
I do not think that people are afraid of his religion. If he had the complete package, I doubt that people would hold his religion against him. The problem is that he has absolutely nothing else going for him.
December 21st, 2007 at 11:50 am
Oh, bullshit times ten, Charity. The kind of Christianity Huck proposes scares the shit out of most of mainstream America, at least those who are paying attention. The corporate cons and millionaires (the true base of the GOP, whether you admit it or not) want nothing to to with this batshit insane theocratic nonsense, because they know damn well it will keep most rational people away in droves. And yes, the idea that Huckabee has a small populist streak does indeed scare the hell out of them.. we obviously can’t have a GOP candidate concerned about people who make less than 250,00 a year, can we? That just wouldn’t be right.
So Huckabee raised taxes to pay for road improvements.. Oh, the horror! He actually acknowledges the problems of poverty, unlike any other GOP toadie. Oh, the humanity! I suspect there is no situation on earth in which you would find raising taxes okay. It’s all about greed with you people. Seriously.
Bush’s ‘big government’ crap has indeed harmed the country.. and by that I’m sure you mean the increased surveillance, bloating of the military-industrial complex, NCLB and an overall decrease in civil liberties, right? Because he sure hasn’t used any of that big government mojo to actually help regular Americans. But even if he did, I’m sure you’d still have a problem with that.
December 21st, 2007 at 6:29 pm
IMO, never underestimate the power of the Christian Right. They are one of the reasons Bush eeked out a victory in 2004…that plus bigotry against mostly gay people and the fear & ignorance that the Bush Administration cultivated in the 4 years after 2000 (when Bush lost to Gore BTW).
I’d also like to hear when it’s “OK”, in a “conservative’s mind” anyway, to raise taxes, and who they should be raised on first, etc.