The 900-Pound Gorilla — RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY
Though I provide analysis below, I do not suggest I have answers to the questions I raise. But I do raise questions that I think are of critical importance and consideration; not just to this current presidential contest, but more importantly to America. These are questions I think nobody wants to discuss (see photo below).
Tonight (1/29), I have heard the term “lick their wounds” several times. That is not at all how I feel about the loss in Florida. It is fair to say, I believe, that America as a nation, has matured in its history to a point in which a woman or a black man can be elected President by a majority of both sexes and a majority of those of the white or black races. I believe that America has come of age to the point that the bigotry we call sexism and racism, though still engrained in some people, has been marginalized.
What about the bigotry of religious intolerance? In an enlightened age, it is known by all that bigotry of any kind is not acceptable. In this modern day, we don’t generally hear statements of bigotry in common language in ways that were pervasive as recent as the 1950s and 1960s. Religious bigotry was even out in the open at that time as evidenced by evangelical ministers that routinely and publicly denounced the idea that Americans might vote for a Catholic. Today, bigotry of any kind, as a matter of common discussion in mixed company, is simply unacceptable in today’s diverse age. As a result, we do not hear public discussion about religious bigotry. Does that mean that this form of bigotry has also been marginalized to the point America can elect a Mormon? I do not believe it has. In fact, I think it is still pervasive, if now private.
In the states in which GMR won the Silver, by how much did he miss the Gold? Usually around 5%, maybe 10%. Today, he missed the Gold by 6% in a very large state. Since I began to seriously pay attention to presidential politics for 2008 back in 2006, I have seen poll results showing that a fair number of Americans are unwilling to ever vote for a Mormon; anywhere from about 20% of those surveyed to 40% recently. Since I have always concluded that America has matured to the point at which religious intolerance has been effectively marginalized, I more or less dismissed those poll numbers as based on simple ignorance, not bigotry.
Then, as the early state caucuses and primaries became history, I started to see a trend that I saw repeated today in Florida. It is fair to say that a majority of Americans do not find McCain acceptable as President as evidenced by his votes of 35% compared to 65% to all others. But to understand whether bigotry is at work against MR specifically, we need to drill down into the numbers. Is it not also fair to say that the most conservative voters of all would not be generally attracted to McCain, who is a well-known liberal Republican, or at least a Republican that cannot be trusted?
[In order to keep this commentary from becoming longer than it is, I use only the initials of candidates’ first and last names and any time there is a number, it represents a percentage]
In Florida, among evangelicals, the votes were JM(30), MR(29), MH(29). We can conclude that the 29 who voted for MR are not bigots. My presumption is that the reason MH’s 29 did not go to JM is because they consider him way too liberal to represent their values and principles. But if MH were not in the race, would all 29 go to MR? As you think about that answer, if they would not all go to MR, why would any significant portion of them go to JM? Incidentally, as MH keeps smiling and telling the world he can be the nominee, he knows he cannot. He won exactly 4 of all non-evangelical votes; that is par for the course for him. Since day one in Iowa, there has never been broad support for MH. Why does he stay in the race?
White evangelicals voted this way: MH(31), MR(31), JM(28). I think it is fair to say that those who voted for JM would be the more moderate or less orthodox evangelicals, simply because they could have chosen an orthodox evangelical in MH, and they did not. If true, and MH were not in the race, would MH’s 31 go to JM or MR and why? Why would an orthodox evangelical vote for the more liberal, twice married, untrustworthy Republican when they have MR, whose values and principles are much closer to theirs by comparison?
Of voters who think abortion should be illegal, the votes were MR(35), JM(29), MH (21). These are very conservative voters. We know 35 are not bigots and since MR won the majority here, we know that a very high percentage of voters know him to be strong pro-life. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 21 go to MR or JM and why? Of voters who think abortion should always be illegal, the votes were MH(32), MR(30), and JM(26). These voters are even more conservative overall. If MH were not in the race, would most of his 32 go to the more conservative candidate MR? If they would not, why not? Why would more than a handful go to JM instead of MR? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?
Voters that identified themselves as very conservative were MR(44), JM(21), MH(20). It is well known by now that MR is the most conservative of both JM and MH. That being the case, if MH were not in the race, would his ‘very conservative’ voters go to the known, more conservative MR or to the less conservative, more liberal JM? And why? Could bigotry influence their decision to go to JM?
Over at Evangelicals for Mitt, both Steven Muscatello and Nancy French think MH should do “the honorable thing” and drop out. Read their excellent arguments here and here. But think of the context of my rhetorical questions above and consider this. If RG could so easily see the vanity of continuing the race, knowing he could never win, why can MH not see it? Or is it that he sees it and has ulterior motives? Think of the irony. RG, the person many have derided as ethically challenged, drops out seeing the reality; there are no ulterior motives really. MH, whose supporters consider the most ethical and upstanding man in the race, who would consider himself the most humble among them all, plans to “win the nomination” to quote him. Right. And pigs will fly for the first time in February. We now have resounding proof that MH cannot garner more than 10% of all non-evangelical votes and he has only nearly received 40% of all evangelical votes in one state. Clearly, he has no broad support, unlike GWB did as an evangelical. So, his decision to stay in the race is based on what? Ego? Vanity? Love of the sport? Is he lying to us when he says he is not running for Pastor in Chief? Or does he want to influence his voters away from MR and if so, why?
As many at this site have shown, MH revealed his stripes when he let slip his rhetorical Jesus/brother question in an interview. He also ardently campaigned in Salt Lake City to save the Mormons there from hell at the evangelical convention.
My opinion is that the frequent citing of 20 to 40 percent of all Americans unwilling to vote for a Mormon for President, the bigots are at the low end of the range. I may be naïve, but I do not believe that 40% of all Americans are religious bigots. Now, we know that when MR loses the Gold, the margin of loss is only 5% to 10%. That margin of difference is well below the 20% conservative estimate. Where are those 20% or so aligned? Are they divided among RG, MH, and JM? Are they mostly with MH or JM?
My conclusion is that the margin of victory that JM has enjoyed in any state, is a direct correlation to the reported bigotry still pervasive in America. If so, how does MR overcome this obvious bigotry, to win? These less than 20% “unwilling voters” are currently aligned with RG, JM, and MH, in some unknown mix. But knowing this does not help, does it? By definition, if they are bigots, MR will never be their choice. It cannot be argued that all 20% of these “unwilling” voters are in JM’s camp. Yet, it is he that is the beneficiary of their unwillingness to ever vote for MR. And clearly not all of the supporters left in RG’s and MH’s camp are bigots; but some are. So it is fair to say that if both RG and MH were not in the race, a fair number of their non-bigoted supporters would back the most conservative candidate in the race — MR. And why are the voters not following Rush Limbaugh’s advice to not vote for JM and MH?
So again, what is the motivation of MH to remain in a race he knows he cannot and will not win? Is his primary motivation to steer as many evangelicals to the Protestant JM, away from MR? If so, is that reason enough to not drop out of the race?
I think this issue is the 900-pound gorilla in the room with which nobody wants to make eye contact.
~ Vic
[Source of exit poll information above: CNN Politics]
.
.
.
NOTE: Any comment left at this post that is primarily religious based or which contains vitriol, is antagonistic, or generally obnoxious, will be deleted without notice. Please set a standard of discussion that is productive and illuminating. If you have religious opinions, please leave them out of the discussion at this post.
.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:23 am
Excellent post. You have really delved into the Mormon issue big-time. If Romney supporters just understood that “Flip-Flopper” means “Mormon”, we could all learn to speak the same language as the MSM, you know?
Regarding Huck, yes, he is in it for McCain. The love never ends, does it? When I think of a McCain/Huck ticket, I actually get nauseaus.
Before Huck, the evangelicals were starting to turn to Romney, if anybody can remember that far back. It was about to happen, until the Value Voter’s Conference in October. Then there was the controversy about who really won. Well, Mitt won, but Huck was the last speaker, and then everybody who saw him speak went to vote for him. Then those who attended Huck’s speech cried foul when everybody else voted for Mitt, from home on the internet. It was such a sham, manufactured by the media, and the stir created this Huck frenzy.
Basically, Huckmemtum ruined Iowa for Mitt. With an Iowa win, Mitt would have been unstoppable. I have choice words for that man that I cannot use in polite company.
Today, most evangelicals with an IQ over 70 have figured out that Huck-a-bee is now Huck-a-was, and I believe they will turn to Mitt as the last person standing to carry the social conservative flag. Only the most bigoted will vote for Huck now, as a protest vote against the Mormon. So we can expect Huck to shave off about 5-10% of Mitt’s support — just enough for Mitt to lose Super Tuesday to McCain.
Yes, the republicans have a little religion problem, and yes, Mitt lost because he was a flip-flopper, er, I mean a Mormon.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:35 am
Huckabee is staying to see how he fares in Super Tues in the South he reasonably hopes to win one or two southern states. He obviously wants to be VP. What else does he have to go back to Arkansas for? Go back to pastoring?
After FL, McCain will wrap up southern states because MH voters will go JM. The place where Mitt’s religion hurt was from DAY ONE. Only Romney has been questioned on his religion. Only Romney’s religion was a question that was polled. Other than MH, I don’t know if ANY of the other candidates on either side are really active Christians?
January 30th, 2008 at 5:41 am
Good points. When GMR gave his Faith in America speech, MH whined about how he wished he could make such a speech.
He has always been able to give such a powerful speech to publicly denounce religious bigotry as did JFK and GMR. But he will never do so. Why is that?
January 30th, 2008 at 7:46 am
MH is staying in just to take votes away from GMR so the JM is the nominee, hoping the MH will be VP.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:00 am
I have a friend who is LDS and is having a problem with MR Flip Flopping. Any suggestions? I have a speech Romney gave. Maybe that will help her understand him better
Gulianni is saying McCain is honest. It appears to me that MH, JM and RG are going to be saying that MR has been dishonest in his attacks and he has been a negative campaigner.
Also, I heard a right to life group was going to be running negative ads against Mitt.
It is going to be a long week.
January 30th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Why aren’t more conservatives coming out to support Mitt Romney? Is it his religion or do they think he is Flip Flopper?
January 30th, 2008 at 8:54 am
The reason why conservatives are not coming out in droves to support Mitt is simply because more than 53% of Americans rely on TV to make a decision and only 15% use information via the Internet. There are several people that I know said that Mitt is not even winning at all therefore he has no chance… how did they make the conclusion? They watched TV. TV is the biggest problem than people realize. People must go out and talk to people OFFLINE away from TV… don’t assume TV will not be a factor. It is!
Secondly, once a person heard that person is a Mormon, then so be it.
From what I heard from Mitt and his wife Ann… it’s not the end. It’s the new beginning. We are going to continue all the way to nomination. So they know all of us must continue the uphill battle, he cannot win if we give in or give up hope… as I can get a sense there are more people giving up already… and that’s not good!
Get out of the comfort zone and into the ‘deeper’ challenge zone and keep on fighting for Mitt. For one thing, I know I will NEVER vote for McCain, or else I would have sided with the “devil”! Don’t give the West an impression we have given up! We fell last night, we stand up today…
GO MITT!
January 30th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Thanks for another excellent post Vic! This has been the question all along. I liked Lowell Brown’s question on “The Question” over at Article VI blog as well as the posts from Nancy and Steven that you referenced above. There is no doubt that MH’s presence in a nomination race that he cannot personally win is drawing crucial social conservative votes from GMR. I know I am asking the obvious - but why is MH (who claims to be a true social conservative) staying in the race when he knows that #1 - he can’t win, and #2 - by staying in the race he may likely ensure that the other solid social conservative (GMR) doesn’t win the nomination either. It seems that if MH were truly and honestly dedicated to the cause of conservative social and family values - i.e appointing conservative justices, protecting the family, etc., he should gracefully bow out now. Otherwise, isn’t this self defeating for social conservative values?
On another note - vice presidents (if that is what MH is after) don’t really have much to do with the justice nomination process anyway, unless of course the POTUS passes away in office from all of that accelerated aging that occurs.
January 30th, 2008 at 9:45 am
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
I am a widow with not much money. But I am sending you $100 today to do my part to help save this nation from evil. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for all that you do!
January 30th, 2008 at 9:54 am
I agree with you Vic that Huckabee is McCain’s foil against Romney. That is why Romney’s Super Tuesday strategy should be to go after Huckabee in the states Huckabee thinks he can win. I think that Romney needs to focus on ending Huckabee’s run. He can only do that by beating Huckabee soundly on Super Tuesday, in essence denying Huckabee any wins. What Huckabee is banking on is for Mccain and Romney to be tied up in fights in the big states, allowing him to float under the radar and consolidate the Red States. Romney needs to do well in the proportionally allocated big states (needs endorsements! Tom McClintock in CA comes to mind) of CA and IL and battle against Huckabee in the winner take alls Huckabee is targeting for wins. Romney vs. Huckabee is a matchup Romney can win. If he wins this, Huckabee will not be able to continue on after Feb 5th. And though Huckabee will endorse McCain if he is forced out of the race, it will truly be a one on one race for the nomination between McCain and Romney. So take heart! If Romney employs the right strategy on Feb 5th of focusing on ending Huckabee’s bid he can be back on track. In reality there have been various alliance forged against Romney among his competitors and the principle alliance agent has been Huckabee. Romney has to see this and do something about it if he is to emerge as the nominee.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:36 am
This morning Laura Ingraham said that if she were Mitt, she’d be calling Huckabee & giving him anything he wants. I’m not so sure.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Marybeth:
I have no idea what Mitt could offer Huck. Huck has all but endorsed McCain. The two are buds, don’t ya know?
January 30th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Yeah Mike Huckabee is the clear roadblock standing between McCain and Romney. If Huckabee was not in this race, if it was a McCain vs Romney choice, I am very confident Romney would win that race. In such a race, Romney would sweep through the south, Midwest, Mountain West and southwest. He’d win enough conservative votes in other places to win the nomination. However throw Huckabee in the race and the conservative vote gets split and Romney needs every conservative vote to defeat McCain. Of course Huckabee knows this and is trying to stay in the race to get the VP spot. A McCain/Huckabee team would be a GE disaster, heck, any ticket with Huckabee on it would be a disaster. However at this point, I agree, Mitt needs to offer the family farm to Huckabee because with him in the race, Romney is toast….
January 30th, 2008 at 10:56 am
This is exactly how I have been feeling since last night’s disappointing result in Florida — the anti-mormonism was the difference on the margin.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22896871
January 30th, 2008 at 11:07 am
There will always be those hard core would never vote for a Mormon, a black, a woman, or whatever people. But IMO they are a very low insignificant group less than 10 maybe less than 5% this day in age. The rest that have some sort of unhealthy bias are soft followers. They may seem staunch but they are very weak in substance on why they feel the way they do. What they look for are excuses to justify their positions. Any excuses at all. To get to the point what they have found are numerous past sound bites of Mitt Romney that they can cling on to. What Mitt and his supporters need to do is to take the excuses away from people completely. Totally annialate their reasons for entertaining any bias for Mitt. You do this with details. For instance the pro-abortion claims. Mitt doesn’t
t need to say he changed he needs to fully admit the sound bites out there do sound very pro-abortion sounding. Then the details need to get out there. Not saying he voted for pro-life every time. But the real meat. Tell people what those things are. Shove the facts right in their faces. Same thing on Gay rights vs Gay marriage. Those with a bias and the media are framing Mitt on this and it is slow going to convert people back from the onslaught that happened earlier on. If Mitt doesn’t frame it others will such as the media, the pundits, other candidates and it will continue to stick with many and sway this weak biased group that I’m talking about here. I heard moveon.org is planning a huge campaign of these types of things for Super Tuesday. It is clearly a Mitt Romney weakness and everyone is playing on it. Nip it in the bud with the truth and real facts. Take any reason for not voting for Mitt away from folks and make the critics who use the words flip flopper look like complete idiots.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Most Mormons all over the country have been convinced that Mitt Romney could never get the nomination because of anti-mormon bias. As a people we have had to deal with it constantly. It is not a big deal to us, we just go about our lives. We live as we believe is right. However, we are also realists. While we know that there are many people that are not suspicious of the LDS people, we also know that there are many who are. This is driven by a huge effort by evangelicals. I have many friend that are evangelicals. They have told me and my children about the many anti-mormon sermons they have had, usually on Wednesday night meetings. I have seen their literature. It is an eye opener to many evangelicals to get to know real Mormons and to learn that we are good people who are intelligent and educated and not some wacked out cult group. This evangelical push to distrust all Mormons has had a tremendous effect on Romney’s chances here in the south. Another big group that has pushed the anti-mormon theme, usually with the excuse of just reporting on it, is the media. It suits their purposes. That has really hurt Romney.
The truth is that I support Romney because of his stand on the issues and his skills as a leader to solve problems. As a Mormon, I will be sad for America if he is not nominated because he would be a great President but I will not be surprised. Mormons know that as a people we are one of the last groups for which it is still acceptable to be prejudiced about. I don’t say this by way of whining. It is just fact. We live with it. It doesn’t change our joy in life and our desire to live as we believe God wants us to. It does make the nomination of a Mormon highly unlikely until things change. But I’m not giving up. I hope there are enough people left in the country that can see how Mitt Romney would be the best choice, without being prejudiced by his religion that will vote for him on super Tuesday. I’m voting for him and so are all my many family members.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Not speaking of voters here, but I don’t think religious bigotry has anything to do (well maybe just a tad) with Huckabee’s desire to enter or stay in the race. The powers-that-be (the owners of the Fed and the MSM, the Wash establishment [the CFRs of the world], in short the money people who are no secret and known by name and who govern through democratic governments), they control Huckabee.
Huck was created by his handlers and given his marching orders at the last minute to derail Romney in Iowa (a brilliant strategy) and then McCain was miraculously resurrected in New Hampshire by the same powers.
The sole reason Huck has been asked to stay in the race is to take votes from Romney. He will not withdraw until maximum damage has been done.
Rudy, McCain and Thompson are all insiders. Why Thompson didn’t endorse McCain, makes no sense to me (maybe that endorsement is coming). But I’m sure Rudy will endorse McCain. Which I think is a potentially bigger story than the Huckabee steal from Romney.
Where will Rudy’s votes go? If the majority go to McCain, then even if Huck were to drop out then any of Huck-to-Mitt votes might be canceled by the Rudy-to-McCain.
As for the voter bigotry. Not sure what you can do about it if you’re Romney except come out in the open and act a little like Huck, meaning, talk about your faith in Christ, your pro-Life support, your values. Apparently Mitt has decided not to do this.
So what else can be done?
The only other thing might be to pull of the gloves and unveil the true evil behind McCain (how he helped the North Vietnamese WHILE a prisoner, how he is basically a traitor and only a few of his military colleagues know it, and to document is vicious temper and basically assassinate his character with true stories). This is what the Democrats may very well do to him (oops, maybe not, since they have plenty of skeletons in the closet themselves). It’s not unethical, it’s telling the truth. But it may not be wise, or the “right” thing to do.
And since Mitt stayed clear of “negative” campaigning against Kennedy, I doubt he’ll do it this time.
So it’s going to come down to Mitt battling the MSM and trying to get his message out through them (which is watered-down by the MSM) and through his own ad /campaign efforts.
My thought, and I think it’s still brilliant, is that Mitt should go to the true conservative of the race (who has tremendous support nationwide) — RON PAUL — and strike up a deal with him. Come out swinging. I believe Ron Paul would listen. This is it. It’s win or lose.
Romney doesn’t have to say, “I endorse everything about Paul.” He can, however, say: “Ron Paul is a man of principle, and has many good ideas worth exploring.” That would be enough to keep distance (for political reasons) and most importantly immediately gain the support and vote of millions nationwide, including a massive grassroots organization that would increase substantially overnight Romney’s own formidable.
The message of liberty, which Ron Paul represents, could be artfully incorporated into Romney’s message. THIS, in my opinion, is the best way for Romney to win. If he doesn’t do this and fails with his message (which is good but is it enough?), then he will go to his grave wondering if he should have kept his love for freedom and the constitution so far in the background of his message.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:38 am
It is political calculus: Huck attracts a certain percentage of the vote. If Romney had that vote he would win. Without it he can’t.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I saw this on another blog.
I was a volunteer for the Romney campaign in Jacksonville, Florida this week. What you probably didn’t hear about from the MSM were the robo-calls from the McCain camp saying that Mitt Romney wanted to “take God out of America”. These attacks were focused on areas like Bay county in the panhandle where evangelicals are prevalent. These were also tag-teamed by the Huckabee campaign, who we confirmed was using our call list to “spam” potential voters with messages from Mitt Romney. They set up their robo-dialers to call the same household four to five times with back to back calls playing one of our messages. The aim was to anger the many undecided voters and turn them to other candidates. We talked to several angry voters who reported upwards of 20 calls the same day from Romney. Many of them in turn went to vote for McCain as a result of their frustration. We asked what number they saw on the caller ID for these calls, and we repeatedly traced them back to Huckabee. With the obvious back-alley dealings that are going on between the McCain/Huckabee/Rudy camps, it is no wonder that Romney lost Florida. PLEASE read this to your audience. It is only fair that we report the truth.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:56 am
As a LDS myself, I am not giving up.
Help Mitt get rid of the 900 lb. gorilla! Tell your Mormon friends to stand up and act, don’t let the past religious bigotry stop them. Don’t use Mormonism as an excuse for not letting Mitt win. Prove the world wrong that we are not cultists or crazy Christians as people see us. We must do it for America. Get up and move! GO MITT!
January 30th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
So, flip - flopper is code word for Mormon? I didn’t know that John Kerry, to whom that charge was famously attached in 2004, was Mormon. I thought certain that he was Roman Catholic! Now you can either lie and pretend that flip - flopper is code word for Mormon akin to how Ronald Reagan and the rest of the Republican Party used “welfare queen”, “gang member”, “drug dealer”, “welfare cheat”, “unqualified”, etc. as code words for blacks (please note how Hillary Clinton is also using similar code words to play on the right’s longterm anti - affirmative action discourse, and yes there was a time when affirmative action and even quotas were once needed … we do remember when there were no black firemen in Boston, Chicago, and New York don’t we?), or acknowledge that Mitt Romney went from being a pro - abortion pro - gay rights antigun candidate in 1994 and 2002 to social conservative in 2006. Republicans For Choice was furious with Mitt Romney and hammered him in Iowa, and his support dropped like a stone because of it.
Romney created his own problems by moving so far to the right and trying to court evangelicals as a politically calculated attempt to step into the void left by George Allen not being in the race, Fred Thompson joining way too late, and Rick Santorum going nowhere. It would have worked had he been the only option, but when someone with an identifiable and consistent social conservative rhetoric came along, social conservatives naturally backed him.
By the way, instead of asking “why didn’t social conservatives listen to Rush Limbaugh” … well first Rush Limbaugh is not an evangelical. Second, Limbaugh and the rest of the opinionmakers for the right showed their contempt for evangelicalism (both their faith and the evangelicals themselves) in response to the rise of Huckabee. That ugliness plus disenchanted evangelical David Kuo’s book … well let us just say that had Romney won, a lot of evangelicals angered by the tactics of Limbaugh and the other attackers would have been a hard sell.
But the truth is, Limbaugh and the other sharp knived anti - evangelical bigots (including those that resurrected the same anti - Catholic tales that McCain tried to use against Bush in election 2000 against Huckabee) were the ones that cost Romney the nomination. Two ways.
1) Their trashing him in favor of Romney knowing full well that Romney’s social and economic record does not match his conservative rhetoric (Romney got a “C” from the Cato Institute for his fiscal policy) convinced Huckabee that it was just a case of a bunch of guys from New York and the beltway who quite honestly find Mormonism less objectionable than his own fervent evangelicalism (the thrice divorced recovering drug addict Limbaugh fully qualifies!) choosing the old money northerner over the working class midwesterner. So, knocking their guy out of the race is payback for their sinking his own bid. It may not be “the honorable thing to do” but Huckabee wasn’t exactly treated very honorably either, especially by Limbaugh and other conservatives that have a long history of baiting blacks all of a sudden caring about the evils of bigotry.
2) Huckabee acknowledged that his only shot was to win a few early primaries and then start garnering enough donations to build an organization and get on TV. That did not happen. So Huckabee never had a shot at the nomination. Huckabee’s biggest critics admitted as such. So why attack him so hatefully and vehemently? A) See 1), it was personal because of religion and class. B) Because they knew that Huckabee could win a lot of states and delegates and play a major role at the convention and in the future of the party. While the GOP has been more than willing to take evangelical votes, they do not want to give evangelicals major roles in policy, party leadership posts, or (as the reaction against Alberto Gonzales and Harriet Miers showed) important federal judgeship posts, which they want mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics (both of whom have religious and cultural issues with evangelicals) to continue to dominate. They figured that if Huckabee won Iowa but no more, he could be written off as another Pat Robertson (again similar to the Clinton race - baiting of falsely claiming out that Obama’s winning South Carolina was no different from Jesse Jackson doing so in the past), one that would influence evangelicals to support the ticket while not ever receiving any real influence.
Again, Huckabee had no shot. So suppose they left well enough alone? Huckabee not only wins South Carolina, but finishes second in New Hampshire, Michigan, and Florida. That would have made him a formidable challenger in a 2 man race, but one that would have been out of the race by February 5th nonetheless. Who would have he been in the 2 man race against? ROMNEY. Had the Huckabee boom been allowed to run its course, sure, Romney would have lost Iowa and South Carolina (which he lost anyway) but he would have won not only Michigan, Nevada, and Wyoming but also New Hampshire and Florida. Translation: NO JOHN MCCAIN!
All you guys did was make sure that the guy that had no chance of winning the nomination lost South Carolina to the guy that had a great chance of doing so. And guess what? They didn’t even stop Huckabee either. Huckabee is still going to win some southern states and show up in Minnesota #3 in delegates. (There are some scenarios where he could finish #2!) That would make Huckabee much more than simply the next Pat Robertson, but rather a significant player in GOP politics for the near future, if for no reason other than he will have the support of a ton of evangelicals that now know what the rest of the party really thinks of them and their beliefs.
Long story short, the anti - Huckabee faction blocked Romney and gave McCain his victory. (And by the way, those Willie Horton style ads that Romney ran against Huckabee in Iowa would be plenty of incentive for Huckabee to stay in the race by themselves. Or have you forgotten about those?)
January 30th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
TAKE HEART! Just for the record, I am totally excited about GMR’s prospects. I am not quite as excited as I would be had GMR trounced JM yesterday, but I am very excited for his prospects. I would not have spent four hours researching and writing this post last night if I were not excited. I just want people to look the 900-pound gorilla in the eyes and take it on!
You should have heard Laura Ingraham today. She challenged JM to a one-on-one debate between JM and GMR. She said something like, “Well Mr. McCain, if you won’t come on the conservative talk shows to debate us, then debate the true conservative int he race!”
One question I left out of my post last night: “Does anybody think for one minute that GMR would not already be the Republican nominee if his religion were creedal Christian or Catholic?”
He absolutely would be the nominee. The difference is religious bigotry; the national whisper campaign being waged by MH and team.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Joe- I think your Ron Paul plan is pure brilliance! Paul isn’t that far off and is truly an ‘honable man’. Romney teaming up with him would maybe put him over. I knew politics was a dirty business but I had no idea. Can’t wait for tonight’s debate. It is really down to political savy at this point. Romney’s chances in California anyone? Is it winner take all?
January 30th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I really think religion is incidental. It’s convenient attacking point for Mitt’s opponents. If he had been a millionaire Baptist and a true outsider, he would be just as much an enemy and climbing an uphill battle. However, they would have found something to slam that candidate on as well, even if harmless and true. Being a Mormon is just convenient.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Vic,
There is a small percentage of people who do not want a Mormon in the White House. But for the most part, people do not support GMR because he is a sometimes conservative. We’ve had this conversation a lot. But to say that GMR didn’t win because of his religion….is a bit of a stretch.
If GMR were a Christian or Catholic, and that were the only difference from what he is now, I would still be against him, because of what he did and did not do trying to win in MA.
Matt
January 30th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Excellent post Vic! I woke up this morning thinking the same thing…there is an underlying issue that seems to have been dropped from the discussion and that is preventing Romney, by far the superior candidate, from coming up just inches from the goal line. I believe you have nailed it.
This mornings posts by Kevin Anderson and John Cronin were equally as excellent. Keep up the fine work guys and keep fighting the good fight. There’s a lot of game left!
January 30th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
“By your fruits you shall know them.” I don’t think evangelicals need to be afraid of Governor Romney.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
” By Their Fruits You Shall Know Them.” I did not sleep much last night.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Joe & Matt:
Thanks for your comments. I strongly disagree (obviously), since I wrote this post. There is no question whatsoever in my mind that if GMR were a creedal Christian, or even a Catholic, he would be the defacto nominee.
To suggest that the Republican party has overnight shifted completely to the left to embrace JM, a liberal and untrustworthy Republican and MH, a populist, also left of center in the Republican party, is simply ludicrous. The solid conservative movement or coalition did not just shift to the far left inside the party.
Questions for Joe and Matt: If religious bigotry has little to nothing to do with the 5% losses by GMR, then what do the regular publication of the 20% to 40% of all Americans who state flat out they would never vote for a Mormon? Are you saying those surveys are simply wrong? Religious bigots are only 0.0003% of all Americans? I stated in my Op/Ed above that I may be naive to think that the number of bigots is above 20%. I am beginning to believe you are naive. Do you really believe what you wrote above? The people who answer those surveys are camped somewhere and with the field dwindling away with FT and RG leaving, they are going somewhere.
They are going to MH and he knows it. Let me say this, Matt Prihoda you are not a bigot and I would never think that of you or suggest it (for those who don’t know, Matt and I have exchanged many emails on a number of topics of difference between GMH and GMR).
MH knows intellectually he cannot win the nomination. He is not dumb. He is a smart man. RG is a smart man and an honorable man. RG knows he cannot win the nomination as well. FT knows he cannot win the nomination and he is an honorable man. Both RG and FT are honorable men; both are very bright and know they cannot win and made decisive choices.
I believe that MH is also bright and I also believe he has made a decisive choice.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
I am starting to wonder if the McCain/Huckabee one-two punch was a sinister plot to get rid of Mitt. By who, I don’t know. I know the conservative establishment likes what Mitt stands for, so were evil powers behind this, or was it the Huck/McCain campaigns themselves that figured out how to dispatch Romney. Maybe politics is just too dirty a game for Mitt. He is so above the fray, so unwilling to go there, that he becomes a target. I can’t wait to see what the dems dig up on McCain. I’m sure it will be fabulous. I’m serious, I’m looking forward to it.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Vic,
I didn’t say bigotry had nothing to do with it. I agree with you 100%, from the voter’s perspective. And that’s the main thing you’re saying, so we’re agreed. My point was that the Huckabee’s bigotry has little to do with him staying in the race. He’s staying in not because of a personal cause against Mormons, but because he’s being asked to stay because he’s taking votes. In the end, your analysis is spot on. But MH’s decision is not a decision made by him, it’s being made from the RNP and the establishment. They want and need McCain in, not outsider Mitt.
MY POINT, was that if religion was not an attacking point, another “Mitt” (who’s fairly conservative AND anti Washington establishment) would be attacked incessantly and unfairly ON SOMETHING ELSE. Which means bigotry is really NOT the issue, but just the latest convenient attacking point.
Vic, and with all due respect to you (as I know you’re a good man and have studied politics for some time), the Republican party, my friend, has not shifted overnight to a position left of center. This has happened years ago. The Bush’s are very big gov’t people, heck even Romney is on many subjects (that’s “left of center”), Dole was, all the major candidates, whether Demo or Rep have been “left of center”.
The Rep Party, as you want it to be, is not. The ideals are there in name only, but there’s no substance.
Even Reagan, was virtually all rhetoric and no substance. He does get credit for some good things done, but he surrounded himself with bad advisers, and he either did that knowingly (and thus is complicit) or unknowingly.
I believe Mitt would be a dramatic improvement on many levels. He’s righteous, he’s smart, he’s a leader, and I believes he understands the evils of the established power in control now.
THAT IS WHY, whether he’s Mormon or Protestant, that he would get such mis-treatment by the MSM and his opponents.
January 30th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Leslie,
Absolutely it was planned. As soon as the main pick was faltering and apparently not going to work out, they had to devise a plan to hurt Romney in Iowa. It’s quite simple logic, and MH’s payout will be nice for playing his role.
Then, they had to do something in New Hampshire. McCain was the obvious choice, and his political ambitions could easily be preyed upon. So he was chosen and resurrected.
And yes, I think Mitt is too clean for this race. His strategy may be right, I don’t know. But there is a tremendous amt of dirt on McCain that could be brought up, which Mitt is choosing to not bring up. And neither did he when he had ample opportunity running against Kennedy.
But Mitt believes he can win.
And he said he knew what he was getting into.
All we can do his trust his strategy. He may be right. We shall see.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
If the problem were merely Romney changing a position or two (or every position as his opponents like to claim but has no basis in the facts), why did Huckabee get a pass for his flip-flops on illegal immigration, school choice and the Cuban embargo? Huckabee’s flip-flops occured DURING this campaign, not years before like Mitt. In fact, on illegal immigration, Huck’s 180 degree flip-flop was about 2 months ago. Maybe its because, unlike Mitt, Huck “speaks the language of Zion as a mother tongue” as he liked to remind everyone during the Iowa campaign. What I would like to know is what exactly have Mike Huckabee, or John McCain for that matter, accomplished for the pro-life movement as “lifelong, never-wavering” pro-lifers? Mitt at least vetoed pro-abortion bills as governor.
January 30th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Your post is right on the money. Before I read your post I heard that some southern baptists from Kansas were going to protest Pres. Hinkley’s funeral for leading people to hell. This may only be heresay, but if true, bigotry raises it’s ugly head once more. Huckabee is more against the thought of a mormon becoming pres. than he is for himself becoming pres. It is hard to believe that religious hatred still exists in America and it is very, very sad. But bigotry stems from ignorance and self-righteousness. Therefore, it will be with us for a long time.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I have been covering this issue for awhile. Check out TrustMitt.org
If Mitt loses when he is obviously the best candidate, then it has to be due to religious bigotry. On my site I have a link to a speech from a Princeton professor who delineates this truth.
I CAN NOT VOTE FOR MCCAIN! I am proposing a protest vote. I am not very religious or live in Utah, but I am proposing that Utah vote for a democrat in the national election if McCain is the nominee, in this way you will draw national attention to the bigotry.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
There are other factors as well.
First, it is suicide to allow independents to vote in a Republican primary. No conservative stands a chance. We need to return to a system where an individual must be a member of the party for at least six months or receive a ballot according to the affiliation he or she voted in the last election. Remove the independents who switch back and forth to cause mayhem in the party. It’s killing us.
Second, Americans are not as conservative as they once were. You can trace that right back to the schools. Whether in politics, religion, social engineering, abuse, etc, how you form a child greatly impacts him for the rest of his life. The family has a great impact, but the schools do too, perhaps more so if the family bonds are not strong. The schools we have today produce the adults of tomorrow. How many times a day do you encounter people who are barely literate, even those who are college graduates? How do you think they vote? The media continues the job into adulthood. The average adult is more concerned about his or her immediate pleasures than issues facing the world. A dumbed down populace obsessed with base desires is much easier to control and will vote for the person who asks little and promises much.
Bigotry has cut into Gov. Romney’s support among conservatives which he should be winning by a wider margin but there is much more to the story. It’s been an uphill battle against the media and the format since the beginning.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
When making phone calls for Romney in Florida, I had one woman answer who told me that she was considering voting for Romney, but was concerned because of the “Mormon” thing. She sounded very nice (otherwise), and it was surprising to hear a friendly, well spoken person voice this concern so openly. I told her that I knew lots of Mormons and they were very good people; she replied that she knew she knew some as well….but still…
It was very disheartening and certainly made me wonder how prevelant this bias.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I forgot to add regarding schools - the conservative answer is often homeschooling or private schooling. While that protects the children of that particular family, it doesn’t change the indoctrination effect public schools have on society among those other children who aren’t fortunate enough to escape it.
January 30th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Former member of the Huck team (Joe Carter-still his cheerleader: http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com) freely admits Huck’s only motivation now is to bleed votes from Romney. How can social conservatives rationalize supporting Huckabee at this point? With only McCain and Romney still in the race it’s clear Romney is the candidate most aligned with the value voters agenda. If you are actively trying to keep the only viable faith and values candidate out Office are you not working against the social conservative agenda? It seems hypocritical to the point of dishonesty and I don’t understand it.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Ronald Reagan opposed bigotry of all kinds including religious intolerance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOp8fpfBa2o
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:05 pm
As an outsider, and a liberal democrat, may I offer a non-aligned analysis for your consideration? (Please feel free to exercise your blog-o-sphere right to tell me I’m crazy…)
First some observations:
1) Mitt Romney seemed like a moderate Republican in MA. Perhaps his personal beliefs were more socially conservative, but he seemed to govern toward the center.
2) Romney chose to position himself (whether in fact or in appearance) as the most conservative candidate on vying for the nomination.
3) Romney has lots of money and is not beholden to the political establishment.
4) Romney is LDS.
The contrast between (1) & (2) has alienated moderate Republicans. Given a choice, they’ll take McCain, who appears more independent — more “his own man”. Sad, but I believe it’s true.
The facts of (1) and (4) represent a gross miscalculation on the part of Romney’s team in courting the evangelical vote. Whoever suggested that he try to do so should be fired. The hard-core evangelical will not overlook (1) because (from an outsider’s perspective, to be fair) the evangelical vote is (a) intolerant, and (b) unforgiving (not very Christian in my opinion, but that’s another story…)
The fact of (3) is why all the other candidates seem to hate Romney. Why should they bow out? He’s rattling the system, he’s getting a “free” ride (in the sense that he doesn’t have to dirty himself with quid-pro-quo machinations), and he doesn’t have to beg for money. You bet they’re going to find him irksome.
In short, the evangelical vote doesn’t like MR because he’s demonstrated even-handed, tolerant governance and calls himself a Christian. It’s both. One or the other might be easier to overcome, but since they have both, they can stand on (and hide their intolerance behind) principle.
The other candidates don’t like him because they’re jealous.
Hmmm? Make sense?
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
COMMENTATUS:
I agree. Also consider this outstanding view:
http://blog.electromneyin2008.com/2008/01/26/why-they-hate-mitt-romney/