U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
40%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
December 12, 2007 10:15 AM UTC
58 Comments
.
Question to the LDS participants in this community:
does your church teach that authentic Christianity died out in Europe/ Asia/ Africa almost 2,000 years ago,
and that LDS is the only true Christian faith ?
That’s something I’ve heard about your church,
and it seems to be consistent with the little else I know about it.
If I’m right about this,
then would you say that your church considers my church,
the one that the New Testament says was established by Jesus, and continued to this day through “apostolic succession” (the Popes,)
now called Roman Catholicism,
to be a “cult ?”
It wouldn’t bother me if the answer is “yes.”
I expect that to be the case.
So why get on my case when I characterize your church, or L. Ron Hubbard’s, or Charles Taze Russell’s, as a cult ?
.
Huckabee is toast.
Many have long predicted that Romney’s Mormonism would prove a hindrance. It can only be that if many social cons who are not Mormons are bigoted and it’s clear that Huckabee is betting that they are. (Keep in mind that these were largely the same people who swallowed the McCain “black baby” line in 2000.)
And wins the nomination, I’d be interested to see how Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona go.
All have significant numbers of Mormons who typically vote heavily Republican. If Republicans nominate someone preceived to be a religous bigot that hates Mormons we could see some surprises on election day.
A) Mormon voters hold their nose and vote Huckabee
B) Mormon voters hold their nose and vote for the Democrat
C) Mormon voters say “screw it” and stay home
D) God makes the Prophet president, and delivers OBL to Guantanamo just because He can
Vote third party
Whether that’s an exsisting party or another one, who knows.
Other than “E”, “C” would probably be the next likely.
Just to throw out some numbers…in 2004 Nevada cast 829,587 votes. Bush carried Nevada 51-47%. About 9% of Nevadans (??) are LDS and if that amount carried over to the election results, that means that LDS members cast approx. 74,662 votes. Mormons are the best group for Republicans, they typically vote 88%-15% for Republicans.
So in Nevada one could say that Mormons gave Bush 65,703 votes in a state that he won by 21,500 votes. If you lower the amount of votes cast by Mormons in Nevada to 5%, Bush would have lost the state by about 17,000 votes.
Rewind to 2000 and the same senario means Bush lost the electoral college with or without Florida.
Aside from all the moral reasons why one should not bash another’s religion, it doesn’t make too much sense politically either
My guess is that Hillary stands a reasonable chance of carrying Nevada and Arizona with or without the Mormon-basher on the GOP ticket (remember, her husband carried Arizona in ’96 and Nevada in ’92), but I still don’t see Utah and Idaho ever going blue.
That depends on whether you are Mormon Harry Reid, or Orrin Hatch.
I think mostly A, and a few C’s is the likely course for conservative Mormon’s.
L.D.S. are a forgiving people.
History shows they have had to be.
My favorite answer is D. Wouldn’t that surprise those holier than thou types. The Atheists might want to re-consider that no praying on public property thing in that case too.
That’s not a surprise….it’s mind-blowing shocker!
No. But they could go for Reps by small enough margins to give a glimmer of hope for the Dems in that area.
But Arizona could be more competitive then it usually is and Nevada would definately lean Dem
Many will remember that this 1998 meeting of Baptists in Salt Lake City where Huckabee spoke had the intent of proselytizing Mormons to become “Born Again”
That Huckabee, as a Political figure (governor at the time) would participate in a convention in Utah with such anti-Mormon messaging may tell us where he really stands on Mormonism.
More coverage of the convention here.
http://www.ardemgaz.com/prev/j…
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…
http://www.baptiststandard.com…
http://cnview.com/news_service…
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f…
http://www.shields-research.or…
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/…
To paraphrase the words of Ronald Regan.
The trouble with our “Arkansas friend” is not that he is ignorant, but that he knows so much that isn’t so.
I usually try and read every post, but there are too many links.
This is where my ignorance comes into play. How is proselytizing a city that is predominantly one religion a sign that he is anti-mormon. In the two passages you quoted, I see nothing that is inherently anti-mormon.
I guess, to me, it is profoundly ironic that you find proselytizing, something which both religions in question consider tenets of their faith, to be anti-religion. Of course, to a certain degree, proselytizing is a sort of affront to the person being proselytized to, but I fail to see how that is anti-mormon.
On another point, a person who is proselytizing, or a person who is on a mission, does not need to know anything about the person or persons they are talking to. It has been my experience that they in fact dont care where you stand, only if you are receptive to the message.
This is a non-issue. Politics and religion should not intertwine to this extent unless there is a direct political tie in.
If Romney had made a speech 10 years ago about wanting to convert Baptists to Mormons it wouldn’t make me think less of him. In fact, I would expect people with strong religious convictions to be proselytizing. If you truly believe that you know how to attain salvation, wouldn’t it be logical that you would want to share that with others?
This is a total non-issue. Huck apologized for his comments, Romney accepted the apology, lets get back to deciding who can win in November.
Having a convention of a religion other than LDS in Salt Lake City is not anti-anything. (A good case could be made that the convention was good for the Mormons are about 50% of the SLC area population is LDS, so when the local economy is benefited all benefit etc.)
Below is my point:
Huck’s claim that he doesn’t know much about it does not ring true for me.
I for one am disappointed, as Huckabee was among my top 3 picks for the GOP nomination. This latest incident, coupled with revelations on Huck’s poor record on fiscal issues have caused me to re evaluate Huckabee, and put him in the same “last resort” column as Rudy.
HUCKABEE is NO CONSERVATIVE http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
How long was this conference? For the sake of argument lets say he was there for a week (7 days). I have spents weeks in foreign countries, but that does not mean I know much about the countries. I even did research before I went, but that still does not mean that I know much about them.
I could talk about magic underwear, magic hats, gold plates, Illinois, sand creek, but that does not mean I know much about mormonism.
I got to be honest, I am having a real hard time believing that this has moved Huck from top three to last resort. Yes, you do qualify it with, as you put it,
but it seems to me this is an issue on equal footing with you “revelations.”
I’m sorry NEWSMAN, but who in the name of Brigham Young remembers this outside of the state of Utah?
And is there something wrong with Baptists “proselytizing” Mormons? I remember being woken up almost every Saturday of my childhood by the gang of bike riding Mormons banging on our door at 7 or 8am even though they were well aware our family was Catholic. Was that anti-Catholic of them? Was it wrong? No, they were just doing their “jobs,” so to speak.
I’m sorry Huck isn’t Lamborn-esque enough for you; but, if you want to attack him, come up with something better than this…
But I remember this convention. These conventions are typically anti-mormon or anti-catholic depending on which one they target. I don’t see anything that Huckabee said that is down right anti Mormon, but it makes me uneasy that he went. Comparing attendance to this event and just giving a speech about your faith isn’t comparing apples to apples. As a former missionaries who served in Baptist areas in Southern states I can tell you that some of these meetings (not this one but these kinds of meetings in general) villify Mormons, Catholics, JWs, etc to the same degree in which the KKK villifies Jews and blacks. Meetings like this typically aren’t about building their own faith as much as making others think they’re going to hell if they even as much as associate with us.
That being said, I don’t know if this particular meeting was like others that I’ve seen. I wasn’t there and this doesn’t change my views on Huckabee. But it makes me very uneasy that he was there.
I wish we didn’t have to take time to discuss this. I really really wish that whatever someone’s particular religion is wasn’t playing such a big role in this cycle. Nothing good can come from this sort of back and forth or division between Mormons and Baptists over what is a political campaign.
It doesn’t bother me that Huckabee is a Baptist, so I don’t get why the hell it should matter that Romney is a Mormon?
It’s just stupid to make such an important choice like selecting a president over something like religion
Though, I do think there is some room for discussion about one’s religion, wayyyy to much time has been spent on it so far this cycle. I think is has a lot to do with the lack of info people have on the LDS Church. I sure as hell don’t know much about Mormons. For all I know, that episode of South Park about them is entirely correct (I’m kidding of course). And for that matter, I don’t know much about Baptists either. A dozen years of Catholic school is still taking it’s toll…
As for the event itself, I really have to wonder if Iowans care all that much. The final Repub debate was really telling of the MSM’s lack of understanding when it comes to Iowa voters and caucus-goers. Almost everything I’ve read critiques the debate as boring and narrow in scope. But read the perspective of people inside Iowa and it was fine (save for David Yepsen, aka Iowa Political god, feeling the candidates didn’t have enough time to fully answer q’s). Having spent 6 months there last time ’round, Iowans seem to care about Iowa, not what may or may not have gone on 10 years ago at a Baptist conference…
Anyway, I’m rambling now…trying to avoid going out in the snow. Good points as usual ,Haners.
If I may. I’m not sure if anyone else here is LDS.
Yes, our church teaches that the church that Christ established fell away during an apostacy. Many teachings remained, so were injected with incorrect philosophies, etc.
We believe that Christ’s church was restored by Joseph Smith.
So yeah, we believe our church is the only true church.
But so what? Why would you go to a church that doesn’t believe that it’s right? Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and all the other churches I know of believe that they’re correct. So I don’t see what’s so strange about that.
In regards to your other question about whether we believe other churches, religions, etc are cults the answer is no. Not just “no”, but
We believe that other religions have great things to offer, and respect their right to worship as they see fit. And everything that I’ve ever been taught has indicated that when the dust settles at the last day that good and honorable Christ loving people from all religions will be there. We don’t maintain that any other religions are cults, evil, “hell-bound”, or anything along those lines.
That would require us to step into the judgement role reserved for God. And I don’t know of any sane Mormon who is comfortable with that prospect.
Hope that answers your question!
but I think this is both stupid and shows bad things about Huckabee. While I have major religious issues with the LDS church, I have precious few (if any) political disagreements. This is a political debate and Romney’s religion should not come into the argument unless his religion directly impacts his political views or indicates how he will govern. Huckabee’s statements have nothing to do with how Romney would govern and therefore it is a completely irrelevant and disgusting attack.
Disagreement is one thing, prejudice another. If you disagree with my faith I don’t hold that against you or anyone else. I can respect an honest disagreement. But any time that disagreement turns into prejudice…well then we have a problem!
When I make decision about who to vote for, I don’t look to see if the candidate agrees with me on religion, I look at if they agree with me on the issues and has a strong moral compass. As such, I agree with Mitt Romney on issues and religion, so that’s a plus. But I wouldn’t ever vote for Harry Reid even though we agree on religion.
It saddens me to have Romney’s religion be an obstacle. I honestly thought we were beyond that.
Not anyone here specifically
but I saw this coming a while ago. Sadly, I am not sure that evangelicals are ready for a Mormon yet even though he may be the best candidate. In this case, I am starting to think that the Mormon is most in line with my political views and thus the best candidate.
By the way, my issues with the LDS church are purely ones of religious doctrine. It’s not at all personal as I have liked nearly every LDSer I have met.
It’s nothing personal towards Mormon people. I can respect not agreeing with the doctrine just like you respect me even though I don’t agree with yours! (whatever religion you are…:-) )
I guess would be the closest. But as I always say, we should leave religion to churches unless there is a good reason to bring it into this arena. BTW, I got in a huge debate about religion last week with Brave Sir Robin and a couple other folks. I was hoping you would jump in but I never saw you. Did you miss it or were you just abstaining?
I was sick for most of last week and didn’t keep too much of an eye on things. Sorry I missed it.
What thread was it?
But it was two weeks ago (November 28th I think). BSR and I got into it over some scripture quoting he did. It was a great debate and it would have been nice to have you along. See if you can go back that far to read it because we had a dandy one going for a few days.
Thank you all for your comments, both left and right. Now that others have weighed in, let me explain what I meant by my provocative headline, and What and Why Mike Huckabee must stop.
Mike is violating the commandment.
No, not necessarily those written thousands of years ago on tablets of stone by the hand of god. (But maybe that ” Love thy neighbor” one could use some work).
The commandment I am referring to is Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment:
“Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.”
Huck is doing damage to himself, Mitt, and the entire party. I think he should carefully read Mr. Romney’s speech on religion.
It is not only a wise political guideline, it is the “Christian” thing to do.(and many other religions and societies codes of conduct). More importantly for the election context, It is the American thing to do.
btw. Those concerned with what it may mean to non Mormons to have someone of the Mormon faith in the White House. I have heard it suggested that perhaps Romney’s not all that strict a Mormon, and that would be better for the rest of us some how.
I take the opposite view. I hope Mr. Romney takes his faith very seriously for lots of good reasons. I’ll share just one.
As a student of history and religion, I take comfort in what I know about my Mormon neighbors, and the LDS faith.
Mormon’s have 13 Articles of Faith. You might be interested in Article 11 and 12.
LDS Articles of Faith > http://www.lds.org/library/dis…
Now as for me, I hope my next President, Republican or Democrat, believes in the principle’s stated in those two Articles, regardless of which church they attend.
NEWSMAN
this is a serious question for you. You have correctly criticized Huck for what he has done. Please tell me how you can do that and justify what Doug Lamborn and his supporters did in the last election. This is my biggest beef with Lamborn, and it seems that we both agree that Reagan was right on the 11th commandment. I am really curious and would like a candid answer of how you can criticize Huck for doing this but support Lamborn.
1. I am not addressing actions “by his supporters” in regard to Huckabee. I am addressing Huckabee’s actions.
2. Lamborn did not say Jeff Cranks religion believes in eating their young.
The CC a 527, (which the candidate is PROHIBITED from directing or coordinating with) criticized some votes and statements from Mayor Rivera and Mr. Crank. I believe the Mayor’s votes were fair game. I think the overall idea of the piece may have been appropriate, but the execution was tasteless.
Doug Lamborn did not “approve this message”.
Lamborn did not at all distance himself from the 527s. In fact, the brother of his campaign manager runs one of them. Furthermore, when asked the sign a campaigning with integrity pledge, Lamborn declined. This pledge stated that candidates would publicly denounce false ads made on their behalf by their supports. That is not only legal, it is the moral thing to do.
We both know that if Lamborn had wanted to stop those ads he could have done it both legally and practically. But instead he has still courted the CFG and CCC which indicates he believes they are ethical and their tactics are fair.
Let’s not confuse “ethical” with “legal.” Even if you buy that CCC acted with no collusion with Lamborn’s campaign (a highly credulous supposition, IMHO, given the Hotaling brothers connection), it’s not like Lamborn had no recourse but to throw his hands in the air and say “They said it, not me.” (And as robert points out he didn’t even do that.)
If character matters, Lamborn’s inaction demonstrates an area where Doug needs to improve.
I support the Club For Growth, both philosophically and financially. The Christian Collation, not so much.
Will you come out and say that they are ethical in their approach, follow the 11th commandment, and act in ways we as Republicans can be proud of?
CFG runs factual ads that expose the statements and voting records of those CFG sees as not supporting their cause.
They also point out and support the records and statements of those they feel do support their principles.
I support the club for growth.
Now tell me what this has to do with Huckabee.
so this now has very little to do with the Huckmeister.
So let me clarify, you think that the wedding cake mailer was factually correct and complied with the 11th commandment? A yes or no answer will suffice.
1) If I wasn’t clear, let me be clear,
I DO NOT support the Christian Collation.
I did not receive a copy of the ad.
I saw reports in the paper, and think it was tasteless. Was it accurate? Maybe.
Doesn’t make it any less tasteless.
2) The 11th commandment doesn’t apply here.
The CFG and the CC are not candidates, and NO, the rule DOES NOT apply to them. They are advocacy groups. Their job is to advocate for their cause.
I can’t wait to hear what you have to say about my latest post on the house vote to recognize Christmas and Christianity.
I have always wanted to know how Lambornites justified this. Now I know.
So if Jeff Crank is supported by a 527 that sends out fliers saying that he routinely gets drunk at lobbying parties, that would be okay. Just wanted to be clear that you would not mind that since it would not be breaking the 11th commandment; and, unlike the attack on Crank and other candidates, is based in documented truth.
The CFG and the CC are advocacy groups. Their job is to advocate for their cause.
Its your job to consider the source, evaluate the material presented and make your choice.
I won’t blame Crank or Lamborn in the next campaign for things the 527’s will say.
I will blame John Mc Cain.
I’ll give you that even thought I disagree with you on this one. I blame McCain as well for all of this, but personally I like it when a candidate steps up and denounces this type of behavior.
It shows a lot of moral courage and leadership to tell someone who supports you to knock it off even if it risks their support. That is what I want to see in candidates for the Republican party in all races. I feel that we dont have enough of that today and that too many Republicans are hiding behind technical rules and not standing true to their values. It’s one thing to follow the law, it’s another thing to do the right thing when doing the wrong thing is allowed by law.
For Conservatives, this quote by respected conservative Robert Novak may be more concerning than Huck’s alledged anti-Mormon comment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
Ok, so Huck isn’t a real conservative.
GWB isn’t one; look at the crazy spending he allowed the Repub and now Dem Congress to slide through.
GHWB wasn’t one…and even if you consider him to be so, the voters booted him out after one term.
Reagan wasn’t one. Need I mention more that the insane deficit?
Ford wasn’t one. Most repubs would call him a RINO if he was a politician in current times (perhaps not you…but many would).
Nixon wasn’t one. Again, RINO.
So, in the last 30+ years, the voters of this country have never wanted a “true conservative” as President.
Thus, my question to you NEWSMAN is, why are you so intent on bashing Huck (and Rudy…but moreso Huck) when they fit the build of the type of Repubs that tend to get elected President? Do you really think a real conservative could even win? Maybe one can…but the last few decades don’t suggest it.
On your definition of Conservative.
Rich Lowery agrees with me on Huckabee.
http://article.nationalreview….
None of this is a winning formula.
By MY definition,
Ronald Reagan was a Conservative.
George W. Bush ran as a conservative, but his record is mixed. Tax policy, Supreme Court, and some social issues, he fits my conservative label.
On spending requests and not vetoing bloated spending he does not. On other social issues he was Moderate to liberal to some degree.
Mitt Romney fits my definition of a conservative, although some of his statements and record as Mass. Governor would not, most would.
For me, Ronald Reagan is the best model. His tax policy (with a hostile Democrat congress) and its underlying principles of lower and simpler rates are a good goal.
A flat tax or a sales tax are interesting ideas (eliminating the IRS has a nice ring to it), but they are so close to impossible in the current climate that they are just campaign attention getters, not real possibilities. Now making the Bush cuts permanent, eliminating the inheritance tax, and the AMT is do-able.
A big task, but possible.
For now, I am leaning toward Romney.
Romney/Rice sounds like a good ticket to me.
But I am not set in stone yet. I am still looking and listening.
Thanks for your response. I find your take on Bush’s conservatism interesting. I never though he ran as much of a conservative. Mind you, I’m not a repub…but I was never put-off by Bush in 2000 when he ran as a “compassionate conservative” the same way Romney and Thompson rub me the wrong way. Were it not for Iraq, I think I actually would have liked Bush to a certain extent. Not enough to vote for him over a Dem…but if I was questioned in an approval poll of some sort, I probably would have said I approved.
And I find this debate over changing or scrapping the IRS absolutely ridiculous. Sure, it should be simpler…perhaps even flatter…but as you say, these “attention getters” are just dumb…
One final question though (Growing up in Berkeley and now living in Boulder, real live conservatives are hard to find and ask questions). Why are you against the inheritance tax? I’m one of the handful of Dems (outside of the south) that is against it as well…but in all honesty, it’s because I’ll be one of the few people actually affected by it when my parents kick-off. Just wondering…
Because it is a destroyer of small business.
I have seen families literally forced to sell a going company a family worked decades to build, because the major stockholder, or in a proprietorship, the proprietor dies.
A similar thing also happened to family and friends in the Midwest with family farms.
And, it is one of the most unfair acts of double taxation in many average middle class voters minds.
I’m thinking either Gravel or Kucinich put this together.
I don’t know which is worse…the 178 year-old McCain or Mitt’s special underwear…
I knew there was a reason I could never vote for any of the Repubs running… 😛
Man, I don’t often use that word, but it is appropriate here. Trying to raise fears about brown folks dancing with your (presumably) white farm daughter!
Then the slam against Rudy’s indicted and gay friends. Wow, I didn’t know that there was a connection.
And against the Mormons and their temple underwear..
Not quite David Duke, but close!
If this is the work of a 527 Huckabee needs to state in no uncertain terms that he disagrees with this message. If not, he accepts a responsibility.
Do you seriously think this is “the work of a 527?” It’s a freakin’ parody…it’s satire…it’s the work of a computer savvy guy w/ too much free time and a blog.
Here’s the anti Huckabee one.
And remember, “Mitt Romney is opposed to giant, gay, flesh-eating rats. Mike Huckabee loves them.”
As they said in old Rome, mea culpa!
This should be a non-issue. The political differences between Southern Baptists and LDS are pretty much nill. Huck’s stock has gone way down in my book over this.
The most perfectest of all Republican candidates. He’s going to crush in Iowa.
As many of you know, I’m not a big Mitt Romney fan. But this latest stunt by Huck and the nut cases who are advising him is so outrageous that even I almost feel sorry for Romney.
Almost, that is. Romney’s problem is that he is trying to appeal to the evangelical conservatives, so it should have come as no surprise that some of their more fanatical and bigoted members would rise up with something like this. You play with fire and sometimes you get burned…
I’m not sure that we’ve heard the last word on this yet. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a full 90 minute GOP debate on the issue of whether LDS Church members are Christians, and if so, where they fit in the pecking order of Christianity. Perhaps Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Jimmy Swaggert could serve on the panel of moderators.
I would also not be surprised to see a section in the GOP platform next summer setting out those theological doctrines to which good Republicans and Christians must adhere.