Wednesday, February 06, 2008

McCain, Romney, and Huckabee

Why are people voting for Huckabee over Romney? By now, it had been predicted that Huckabee would be no more than a fleabite on the hide of the Big Elephant.

At this point, most conservatives dislike McCain (which is why over 60% of the vote is going elsewhere). *I* am moderate, but I am moderate in the areas McCain is not, and I am conservative in the areas in which he is liberal. Apparently many Republicans agree with me, so McCain may not be electable. If the race comes down to McCain vs. Clinton or Obama, many of us will throw the election to the Democratic candidate because the difference is negligable and we'd like some true change and a fresh party in the White House may be just what we need.

The Republican candidate needs to be distinctively different from the Democrats if he's to garner Republican loyalty. Despite popular opinion, I don't think McCain can win. So we are left with two candidates: Huckabee or Romney.

Before I say any more on this subject, I'd like to make a caveat. I have some friends and acquaintances who are Mormons, and I have nothing at all against them. A fellow blogger (3 Score & 10) is a good family man, interesting writer, and someone I am always happy to see over here at my blog. My favorite talk show is Glenn Beck (a Mormon), and generally Glenn Beck represents my views over 90% of the time.

However, Mormons are still considered to be misled (at best) or a cult (at worst) by many people. There are few (if any) Protestants or Catholics who will place them in the category of "Christian", despite Mormon protests to the contrary. As is commonly said, "If I stand in a garage and call myself a car, I'm still not a car."

This religion has beliefs that deviate greatly from the mainstream such as:

1) Jesus and Satan are brothers (see renowned Mormon John A. Widtsoe's work Evidences and Reconciliations, Pg.209).

2) It's OK to marry multiple wives (even though some of the Mormon leadership backed away from this doctrine eventually because too many of them were getting into legal trouble). Their church split over this doctrine, and hardcore Mormons still practice polygamy.

3) There have recently been many books out on the wide-spread child molestation that goes on in the Mormon culture. Yeah, yeah, the Catholic church has also had it's share of child molesters. However, we're dealing with a flaw in the Mormon church at the moment. We can table the discussion of the Catholic church's failings for now.

I do want to point out that the molestation in the Catholic church primarily revolves around their priests. As for the Mormon church: Although there have been cases in which boys have claimed that they were molested by church leaders, there are many young girls who have reported being molested or are married off very young. Why? Because the Mormon religion has many loopholes which actually encourages this for some sick individuals. And, after all, if their founder (Joseph Smith) had multiple wives (some very young), it's difficult to argue against the practice.

Yes, the more modern Mormons (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or CLDS) are eager to distance themselves from the other branch of Mormonism (the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or FLDS) and I am sure that the FLDS has more victims of molestation. But the FLDS can rightly claim that they continue to follow their founder's teachings to the letter, and many people wonder how much CLDS really differs from FLDS.

It's one thing to have the head of the Senate be a Mormon, as the American people didn't elect him to head the senate. But when it comes to electing the head of the USA, most voters hesitate because of all this.

And that is where Mitt Romney's problems stem from. This may also be why Mike Huckabee is so adamantly opposed to him and so willing to hang in as long as he can. On the other hand, perhaps Huckabee simply dislikes Romney's polish and Ken doll good looks.

We now see that there are many voters who are also united in their dislike of Romney. And though there have been cries for Huckabee to quit, perhaps we need to honestly ask ourselves if Romney is electable.

The sad truth is that none of the candidates are our Dream Date.


Anonymous said...

I have to be honest, the fact that Romney is mormon makes me not want to vote for him.


Ed Abbey said...

"If the race comes down to McCain vs. Clinton or Obama, many of us will throw the election to the Democratic candidate because the difference is negligable..."

I'm still in shock that you of all people would believe something like this is even remotely close to being true. You sound like Rush. What about getting a chance of selecting up to get three moderate conservatives for the Supreme court instead of up to three liberals? It's been a long time in getting the court to where it is and it seems a shame to give it all up just because McCain is 'liberal' (i.e. not as conservative as Rush) on a few issues.

Saur♥Kraut said...

Ed, Heaven forbid I sound too much like Rush, but we are occasionally in agreement. I definately understand the Supreme Court argument, but we may just have to white-knuckle it for a while if we're to maintain our principles. What it comes down to is "Do we allow the neo-cons to hijack our party?" I am sick and tired of them. And since there's not a viable third party in the works, I am going to join the boycott in an attempt to insist that we return to our roots. And, may I point out, there are many good points in Hillary's favor and Hillary will undoubtedly cinch the Democratic nomination.

Ange, many feel as you do. Thanks for the honesty.

Bot said...

Mitt is not a Creedal Christian. However, he does believe in the Jesus Christ of the New Testament:

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion. This article helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early Christianity's comprehension of baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres more closely to First Century Christianity and the New Testament than any other denomination. For example, Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”

One Baptist blogger stated “99 percent of the members of his Baptist church believe in the Mormon (and Early Christian) view of the Trinity. It is the preachers who insist on the Nicene Creed definition.” It seems to me the reason the pastors denigrate the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is to protect their flock (and their livelihood).

Evangelicals should read:

Edge said...

Maybe the questions should me, "Why are people voting for Romney?" His religious constituency is smaller than Huchabee's.

Really, no matter who we choose, aren't we just shuffling people around in Washington?


The Lazy Iguana said...

Huckabee is just another neo-con. More con than neo really. He has the support of the most rabid and the evangelicals (who are the most rabid). He can get the support of the base, but I think those who are more moderate and/or indies will avoid that guy like t he plague.

Romney is just a goof. His being a Mormon (and Mormonism IS a cult if the evangelicals really want to be honest with how they feel) will keep the rabid base from going for him. His constant marathon running references are not impressing anyone. He likes to talk about how great he is at business, but look at his pathetic returns he has got for all the money out of his own pocket he has dumped into the race. Someone needs to do a better job with ROI calculations.

McCain has already lost the support of the base. But the base are all voting for Huck anyway, as he is one of them. The rabid, who are also the loudest, are FINALLY finding out that they are not the "moral majority" that they think they are. They are just a very loud minority.

It will be McCain or Romney. Huck's supporters will yell and scream and jump up and down - and the campaigns will not care. If McCain wins he will try to get Romney's supporters and indies and other moderates. If Romney wins then he will go after McCain's supporters, and other moderates and indies.

The Democratic candidates will do the same. But so far, Democrats have turned up in larger numbers to the primaries. So Obama with Edwards and Clinton's supporters can beat McCain with Romney's and Huck's supporters - if the same people who voted in the primaries are the only ones who show up in November.

And IF Huck's supporters can handle not getting their way (after owning the party for at least 12 years) and vote for a cult member OR someone who wants to play nice with moderates on the other side. Which they can't. They are the three year olds I see at the airport screaming and crying because they can not keep a hand held metal detector while the parents frantically run around trying to find anything they can to buy and shut the kid up, teaching them that crying and screaming gets you what you want.

The Democratic party is much more united than the Republicans, although the hard left really does not like Hillary.

Three Score and Ten or more said...

Well, today's activities proved most of you wrong, and bot is accurate on the church doctrines, as you are not. Polygamy has been forbidden in the church since the late 19th century. Many of those fundamentalist crackpots are proven child molesters, and I suspect that there are some in the body of the church, as evidence shows that there are some in virtually every church. As for the brothership of Jesus and Lucifer it is only as we are all brothers and sisters and children of God. Lucifer was one of many cast out before the biginning of the world. If you'd like scriptural references (from the Old Testament) I will be glad to provide them.

As for the "cult" garbage, I defy you to look into the history of all churches and find ANY which were not identified at one time or another as a cult. (Look up cult in the dictionary, I am not sure about wikipedia since I am somewhat suspicious of the way it is developed, but Mirriam Webster oron of that ilk would suffice.)

The formal trinitarian doctrine which we don't accept and for which so many condemn us was essentially developed at the behest of Constantine, who demanded that the various sects of Christianity (all of which were Catholic) get together and unify their doctrine to avoid the wrath of Constantine.)

By the way I have been a Mormon for seventy plus years and have never heard the acronym CLDS, where did you get that?

I think I am sorry that Mitt dropped out, and I suspect that everyone who has to suffer through Hillary presidency will someday regret it too. ( I confess I sidn't support Mitt at first either, I was a Fred man, but---)

Disappointed in the shallowness of your research. You are usually better than that.

Saur♥Kraut said...

3 Score & 10 and Bot, (Welcome, Bot)

I didn't have time to do a great deal of research on this one. I DO know that what I put in there is accurate. I didn't say, for instance, that your branch of Mormonism believes in Polygamy any longer. It IS true that they used to.

And as for Jesus and Satan being brothers: I realize that Mormons believe everyone is. The point here is that to equate Jesus with Satan, no matter how it's presented, just doesn't sit well with Christians.

And as for the definition of "Christian", believing that Christ existed isn't the same as believing he is God, as classic Christians believe. After all, I believe Hitler existed, but I'm hardly a Nazi.

This isn't an attempt to bash the Mormons - it's an attempt to detail the differences that are seen between the Mormon beliefs and Christian ones.

As for the definition of cult, I'm sure there have been charges of "cult" leveled at everything. The question is, does the MAJORITY find it to be a cult? That is usually how it's termed. Again, I am not trying to pin labels, but I am stating how Mormonism is perceived: I am trying to be objective here.

As for trying to compare Bible verses, the Mormon Bible is vastly different than the Protestant or Catholic Bibles and thus it is almost impossible to fairly compare anything when a lack of agreement on terms isn't there. I think you would find it a waste of everyone's time and frankly, I'm not interested. The point here is to discuss why people aren't happy with a Mormon candidate, not compare Mormonism with Christianity.

OK? No hard feelings on this side. ;o)

Lazy, I always enjoy your analysis. On this one, I have to disagree slightly. I don't think Huckabee is necessarily a neo-con - I think its too early to tell. I know that I didn't trust him after I heard about his pardoning those criminals (one who tortured a woman to death in an absolutely unbelievable, mind-boggling way).

However, Huckabee stood up well in the last Republican debates. Being a preacher, I'm sure he's at home on the stage and he carried himself well. I think that changed many minds.

On the other hand, do we really want him running the country when we truly find him to be ignorant on certain major world topics? Does he have time to catch up and even if he did, who knows how he will handle it?

As for McCain, he is too liberal by far. I would actually prefer Hillary at that point for two reasons:

One, I think it's time to stop rewarding neo-cons by handing them elections just because they are Republican and we must be reverent Republicans (*I* am a moderate and there's nothing reverent about ME).

Two, I think it's time to cut government spending, stop funnelling money into the war, and bring on National health care. The Republicans haven't done well with the economy or the budget - let's see what a seasoned veteran like Hillary can do.

However, if Obama gets elected instead of Hillary, all bets are off. I will have NO idea what to do, as I dislike Obama's past Muslim ties and am suspicious of them.

Jef/ Edge, Yup. :P

Three Score and Ten or more said...

Sorry Saur but it wasn't accurate. I have seen proof-texting before, even (to my embarrassment) done some but it has always been in scripture not in books written by what we call general authorities or by various pastors in various churches. Surprise yourself, read the whole book.

The Mormon Bible is the King James translation of the Bible. We do have additional works which we consider ALSO to be scripture, but I clearly stated that I would send you scriptural references in the Old Testament.

I just say again, what you wrote was NOT accurate. It was a shallow repitition of baseless charges. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has about thirteen million members all of whom believe that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament and the creator of this world (as well as the Savior of Mankind).
The Fundamentalist Churches (there are at least four) of Jesus Christ (the polygamists to which you refer) have about two to three thousand in the aggregate. Most of them have never been members of the "Mormon" church. Any who have been have been excommunicated.

Your mention of "The Mormon Bible) is enough to prove that, in this case, you don't know what you are talking about. I like you, but I am embarrassed for you.

Bryan said...

They're all globalists, both Democrat and Republican, with the exception of Ron Paul. Almost every one of them is or has been a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a powerful group comprised of academics, entertainers, politicians, journalists, captains of industry and so forth and so on, whose sole aim is to destroy U.S. sovereignty and replace it with a supranational governing entity (World Government). Huckabee is not an official member but when quizzed as to who he leans on for his foreign policy advice he said Richard Hass, a high-ranking member of the CFR. And it is also no coincidence that the Huckster's popularity began to soar right after he gave a speech at the CFR. It was, I believe, at that point that the ruling elite first realized they could trust him to do their bidding if in fact he did get elected, because you see Huckabee is just another evangelical (or more likely a wolf in sheep's clothing) who has been "Neo-conned" into believing that all of our societal ills can and should be cured at the federal level. While on the surface this may seem a righteous path to ignorant Christians, nothing could be further from the truth. Not only does it continue a dangerous precedent, but it is also un-Constitutional and therefore illegal. When Christians themselves are promoting lawlessness then America is indeed in deep trouble. Centralization of power is not what the founders had in mind: Whatsoever powers are not specifically enumerated within the Constitution as belonging to the federal government are left to the states to decide. Historically this has been part of our checks and balances.

When power of this kind is handed to the federal government to decide such issues as abortion, the legal definition of marriage, the No Child Left Behind legislation and more, what is to keep the federal government from deciding an outcome opposite of what Christians want?

Nothing. Nothing all. Generally speaking state governments are more likely to bow to pressure from their people than the one-size-fits-all federal government approach. And if my facts are straight, we've had mostly GOP appointed federal judges on the bench since Roe vs. Wade, yet we still have abortion on demand. Hmm. What's up with that?

Yes, the states are a better avenue to decide such issues, and a constitutional one at that. There are already numerous states that have passed anti-abortion legislation, but because this issue remains in the jurisdiction of the federal court, the states remain impotent.

If Hillary gets elected, as I believe she will be, then not only will the welfare state see exponential growth, but she has also vowed to continue the warfare state of the Neocons. Saur, how are we going to pay for all of this? Currently we are spending 1 billion dollars every three days just to keep this illegal police action going on oversees. And I see signs that it is about to burst our economic bubble. The reason we are paying higher prices at the pump is not because oil prices are necessarily rising, but because the dollar isn't worth as much as it was. And it isn't worth as much because the Federal Reserve is having to pump 1 billion dollars of new currency into circulation every three days just to be able to finance this so-called War on Terror, this occupation, this acquisition of more empire. Too much money in circulation has the effect of debasing our currency and it only hurts the poor and middle class. Those who receive the new money first don't feel the effect like we do at the bottom of the food chain.

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
-Sinclair Lewis

Three Score and Ten or more said...

I apologize Saur, not for what I said, because it was true, but for the tone. I reacted as if you were intentionally attacking my faith, and I know that wasn't true. I am sure that we will have disagreements about something else down the line, but I will try to react in a more civilized manner. I don't know if you ever check out my blog anymore, but I wrote (more charitably, and with no reference to you, since your post came after mine) about this subject just a couple of posts ago. Still friends I hope.

Saur♥Kraut said...

3 Score & 10, Of COURSE we're still friends. I appreciate the apology and I also appreciate the corrections (I haven't studied Mormonism in detail and didn't realize you consider Jesus to be God - I'll have to do some REAL research soon). But this goes to illustrate my point: This is what the majority of Americans perceive Mormonism to be. Thanks for weighing in, my friend.

Bryan, EXCELLENT observations. Thank you very much for taking the time to make them. I agree with you and Sinclair Lewis entirely... and it's frightening, as I know you agree.