|
|
January 3, 2008Does Iowa really mean anything?After watching a little bit of the caucuses, and these interminable months of game-playing, nastiness, disingenuity and so forth, and after reading so many breathless bloggers following Iowa so closely, all I have to say is… It’s baloney. It’s hype. Iowa doesn’t mean anything, and I’m not convinced it ever has, but it’s been a very long (too long) election season and we’ve got 11 months to go, so Iowa has been pimped and played up as the be-all-and-end all - the staggeringly important end to the beginning of election ‘08. But previous presidents have lost in Iowa, and previous Iowa winners have seen the national ticket elude them, so let’s not overthink Iowa or lose perspective. Iowa is fun-n-games for political junkies and an amusing diversion in the months when fields lie resting - but I am not convinced it “means” much at all. This Iowa caucus is noteworthy for only one thing - but what a thing it is: Barack Obama today managed to confound those who live by the stereotypes about the Midwest. But really - if you think about it - it was not Obama who confounded them, but the people of Iowa, who have been caricatured as unsophisticated, bigoted rubes incapable of supporting anything but a white male, preferably one who thumps bibles. Of course, the GOP in Iowa did go for exactly that. But we’ll see what happens, now. I suspect that Mike Huckabee, like a cheap wine, will not travel well for long. Obama, however, I think will have a longer shelf life. He is a terrific orator and he’s run a classy campaign. New Hampshire is also meaningless. The fact that pretty much anyone can go up to New Hampshire and vote in the primary means it is a state ripe for manipulation and fraud and - like Iowa - it cannot accurately reflect America back to herself, or the rest of the world. I could be wrong of course - I often am (note, I made no predictions for 2008) - but my sense is that there are surprises in store for both parties and the whole electorate in the coming months. I think we will not be talking about Iowa for very long. Pajamas Media has a comprehensive round-up. Dr. Melissa Clouthier has an interesting post on the results. So does Ed Morrissey. UPDATE: I really like Peggy Noonan’s take on Iowa; she almost convinces me that Iowa means more than I want to believe, and she makes some clear and cogent observations about the players. Good work. UPDATE II: Huckabee quoted G.K. Chesterton tonight:
You know…if anyone else had quoted Chesterton I wouldn’t have given it a moment’s thought, but my distrust of Huckabee is so complete that I wonder if his using that line is meant to attract the Catholics? If that’s unfair, well, I apologize, but it’s also a telling measure of how much work I find this slickster to be. I don’t like having to wonder about a candidate’s motives and manipulations all the time. I’ve had enough of the energy-sapping dog-and-pony show. Related: Obama is the Moses of the Democrat Party http://theanchoressonline.com/2008/01/03/does-iowa-really-mean-anything/trackback/ 42 Responses to “Does Iowa really mean anything?” |
Site SyndicationAdvertise on this blog   
      
 BlogrollMeta Data
|
January 4th, 2008 at 12:01 am
Wow! Your condescension toward Mike Huckabee and his supporters(”bible thumper” and “cheap wine”) says more about you than it does about either Huckabee or Iowa Republicans who supported him. The East Coast, urban, Roman Catholic prejudices aren’t attractive when displayed so blatantly.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:22 am
Your condescension toward Mike Huckabee and his supporters(”bible thumper” and “cheap wine”) says more about you than it does about either Huckabee or Iowa Republicans who supported him.
Funny how that works both ways, isn’t it?
Nah, I don’t think I was condescending at all. If I were condescending to Huckabee, I’d be giving him some grudging props. Note, I’m not doing that. Nor, btw, have I said a damn word about Huckabee’s “supporters.”
This is not a case of “East Coastal” prejudice. I like plenty of folks who are not coastal - in my past, don’t forget, I’ve voted for Carter and Clinton and I’m even starting to like Thompson a little. I think the fact that I PRAISED the people of Iowa as more deserving of congratulations than Obama proves my complete lack of “coastal prejudice.” So does the fact that I call them “unfairly caricatured.”
And it takes a certain sort to call me out on “Roman Catholic prejudice,” usually the sort who already have their own prejudice against “Roman” Catholics, so be careful where you point that thing. I have lots of Evangelical friends, and I’m glad to thump the bible with them whenever we get together. I deride Huckabee’s “bible thumping” because he is so much the very stereotype I deplore. He came off as an Elmer Gantryish huckster; he used the cross as a subliminal prop and helped the whole GOP race dissolve into an absurd contest about who were the “real” Christians (”do Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?”) and who…were not! (OOOoooooh, scary, scary not-Christian-enoughs!). You’ll excuse me but I don’t think that sort of sectarian nonsense belongs in our political campaigns. So yes, “thumper” and “cheap wine”. That’s not condescension, brother, that’s serious distrust and dislike.
You shouldn’t take it so personally. After all, I think somewhere in my archives I referred to Mitt Romney as a competent “middle manager” with the personal charisma of a washer repairman. THAT may have been condescending!
I got fooled once before by a slick Arkansan with a glib tongue. Won’t be fooled again simply because he has a cross on stage with him. He might be a “social conservative” but the fact is, I’m not a very good GOP’er, so I need a little bit more than that!
January 4th, 2008 at 12:32 am
[…] doesn't really matter anyway. Three out of the last four times they've picked a loser. The Anchoress is on the same page: It’s baloney. It’s hype. Iowa doesn’t mean anything, and I’m not convinced it ever has, but […]
January 4th, 2008 at 12:46 am
Iowa Cauci…
Congratulations to Mike Hickabe and Barak Obama on their wins in the Iowa Cauci. I really don’t think that the Cuaci in Iowa is a bellweather for the rest of the country. The Anchoress agrees.At lest now we have the…
January 4th, 2008 at 12:50 am
I agree also. The Iowa Cauci and New Hampshire do not show the true feeling of the whole country. I really don;t think that Huckabe will go that far, he did get the Evangelists out in Iowa, but across the country there are not near as many that are in Iowa.
I agree with the Anchoress on the whole I am more Christian than you in the campaign. I am not voting for a Ministir, I am looking for someone that will be the leader of the whole country.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:25 am
As a resident of Iowa, I went to the Republican caucus for the first time tonight… a very interesting experience. I was simultaneously surprised and not surprised by the Huckabee blowout. I thought that Romney would have come in a closer second than he did, but I was not at all surprised that Huckabee won (just disappointed). To be honest, it confirmed my suspicions about the bulk of Iowa GOP voters… they’re not interested in trifles like foreign policy, fiscal responsibility, or decreasing the size of government, they’re mainly concerned with Conservative street cred on social issues.
Sorry to sound bitter, but my candidate didn’t win tonight.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:35 am
I admit I never quite “got” the Iowa thing, however…
Hillay coming in 3rd in a such a big spotlight HAS to shed some doubt if she could win,which I believe could factor into “changed minds”, especially with Obama. It might be more psychological than factual, but I do think it matters that Hillary came in 3rd. If nothing else, it was a win for me againt the pathetic MSM.
As for Huckabee, I had a similar debate over Christmas with family. “What’s not to like” they say. Plenty if you ask me, I just can’t pinpoint it; only know it’s a “creepy sense.”
January 4th, 2008 at 2:03 am
I think Iowa is just one part of a long campaign.
I am not a Huckabee supporter myself, but I live in the midwest and I know a lot of people who are. They do not drink cheap wine, they are not hypocrites, they are not mindless minions or white trash. They are good people who think that being a Republican does not have to mean they are indifferent to the poor or the working class. Huckabee is not anywhere near the huckster to them that an actor/politician might appear to be.
So while I do not support Huckabee, I am not going to exhibit some sort of Huckabee derangement syndrome or regional snobbery just because he won an election. The people have spoken, like it or not.
BTW, Anchoress, not all the people of Arkansas are related. Just because the man is from the same state as Clinton, does not mean he is the same guy.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:19 am
I meant to mention as well, that while you say you are not a very good GOPer {neither am I}, it is worth noting that Huckabee did not have the endorsement of the GOP establishment. Obama did not have the machine of the Clintons. I think both of these candidates won because the people were tired of pundits and bloggers and shakers and movers telling them who to vote for.
I also doubt that it will last. I still think Giulliani has a shot on Super Tuesday.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:25 am
Terrye, good comments, although I don’t think I called the people of Iowa who voted for Huckabee “hypocrits” or “mindless minions”, or “white trash” - or even accused them of drinking cheap wine - good heavens! I just said (apparently badly) that I don’t think he will travel well. But clearly my distrust of Huckabee has caused me to write a little more recklessly than normal
Ah, well…as I said in the post - I’m often wrong!
January 4th, 2008 at 4:08 am
Anchoress as always you are one my favorite bloggers. I know in political things people often disagree. I will not be one of those that like during the immigration controversy just quits reading you
because people that agree often on 99 percent of things disagree on one percent
As to Huckabee heck I am a Catholic supporter of his. Again I am not buying that Huckabee was sending sublimnal messages in his Christmas ads. I think talking about Christ in the ad really rejects the need to go subliminal.
I also realize that people react to people in different ways. So something has turned you off to Huckabee. I can accept that
However let me point something out. I was glad you pointed the Chesterton thing out. I am a first glad a Catholic noticed it. I talked about it here.
I am not sure if he put that line in there to attract Catholics or not. As I noted in that LOndon Telegraph link they picked something else up.
However what if he did? I know that dispells the myth some(not you) are trying to make him only a Evangleical thing. To put him in a box. It does seem like that is happening. However I can’t help but note that when Bush talks to Catholic audiences he does things similar. In fact he is very good at it.
I like that about Bush. He is attempting to reach out. I don’t think that makes Bush a “slickster”.
So Huckabee wants to be President and PERHAPS used a line of Chesterton to reach out to Catholics. Well I got to say I find that as a compliment.HE doesn’t just want to President of one group or click. Well that makes me feel better.
ANyway always your loyal reader and linker
JH
Louisiana
January 4th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Nor, btw, have I said a damn word about Huckabee’s “supporters.”
The following is not to be considered as criticism of Huckabee’s “supporters” in Iowa?:
This Iowa caucus is noteworthy for only one thing: Barack Obama today managed to confound those who live by the stereotypes about the Midwest. But really - if you think about it - it was not Obama who confounded them, but the people of Iowa, who have been caricatured as unsophisticated, bigoted rubes incapable of supporting anything but a white male, preferably one who thumps bibles.
Of course, the GOP in Iowa did go for exactly that.
Really?
As to the “sort” who calls you out on your “Roman” Catholic prejudices, that “sort” is another Roman Catho0lic who thinks that your use of the “bible thumper” evidence of a deep prejudice against evangelical Protestants, who get enough of that snide insult from non-believers that they hardly need more of it from fellow Christians.
That said, it appears that you have more problems with your perception of Mr. Huckabee’s character flaws than you do with his professed beliefs. If that’s correct, then making statements such as the ones you’ve made in this post, and in other posts where you’ve asserted that we don’t need a Baptist preacher in the White House, might mislead your readers as to the basis of your problems with Mr. Huckabee. Moreover, other well-intentioned people might “perceive” Mr. Huckabee’s character to be more genuine than do you. At the very least, many find his political theatrics no less cynical or offensive than those of any other human being who makes politics his or her profession. Parsing Huckabee’s character flaws for special condemnation in a crowd of people filled with similar character flaws seems a difficult task.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:00 am
[…] UPDATE: Speaking of Iowa… and here, too. […]
January 4th, 2008 at 8:15 am
I think both of these candidates won because the people were tired of pundits and bloggers and shakers and movers telling them who to vote for.
I think so too, because apparently a whole lot of Iowans like that cheap populist nonsense–Edwards’ showing proves that as well. (Obviously, I can’t stand populist politics–I consider it pandering at its absolute worst.) I mean, look at who Iowans actually elect. Populists, every time. Not that I’m a fan of slick Washington insider types either (to say the least), but I’m not fooled by that fakey “I’m for the little guy” schtick. Pbbbbbt.
they’re not interested in trifles like foreign policy, fiscal responsibility, or decreasing the size of government, they’re mainly concerned with Conservative street cred on social issues.
:sigh: TSUGambler, if only there were more of you at the caucuses…
The East Coast, urban, Roman Catholic prejudices aren’t attractive when displayed so blatantly.
Well, that was charming. Is it okay for me to not support Huckabee, since I’m not Catholic (or “Roman!”) and I’m from Alabama?
January 4th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Also, Huckabee’s quoting Chesterton is even more appalling to me than his outrageous appropriation of Reagan’s name. Who does he think he’s kidding???
January 4th, 2008 at 8:20 am
As an Iowan who has been a long time participant in the caucus process, I am beginning to wonder, after last night’s results, if Iowa’s job as “winnower of the field” might be best left to someone else.
With all due respect to my Iowa brethren, our susceptibility to religionist candidates (Carter, Robertson, and now Huckabee) who make their religious beliefs central to their campaigns as opposed to informing them, improperly deprives the rest of the nation of much of their choice on the matter.
As a result, more mainstream candidates are waking up this morning to discover their path to the GOP nomination a bit rougher than it perhaps should be in a party full of broad based coalition conservatives.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:57 am
[…] Anchoress corrals context and perspective on all […]
January 4th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I’m not much of a party-line-girl either.
When Huckabee first garnered some attention, to tell the truth, I was intrigued. A man of faith, etc., blah blah blah. But as the days and weeks went by, he came to look more like Slick Willy v2.0.
I didn’t pick any air of “condescension” in your post. Funny though, how people will read anything into nothing when they are pissed off because they didn’t get their way.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Kevin:
The Anchoress says above : “…the people of Iowa, who have been caricatured as…
To me it’s clear that she is reporting what others have done, not her own personal thoughts…
January 4th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Well, that was charming. Is it okay for me to not support Huckabee, since I’m not Catholic (or “Roman!”) and I’m from Alabama?
By all means, Beth, go ahead and “not support” whomever you don’t like. If your statement is an example of your application of a logical thought process to a set of statements, I’m sure the reasons for your non-support of any candidate will be breathtakingly nonsensical.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Kevin, I can’t help how you took the “bible thumper” comment but it was made about Huckabee and specifically about the opportunism I perceive in him. If I seemed to be criticizing Huckabee supporters in my comments, then that’s just bad writing on my part. Anyone who reads me regularly knows that I’m I have no animus toward Evangelicals - I invite you to wade into my archives and see if you can find more “evidence” of this “prejudice” of which you accuse me. Since I had just finished praising Iowans in the previous ‘graph all I can do is re-iterate (and I won’t beat this to death) that my criticism was for the guy who struck me as a huckster, not his supporters.
I did say I didn’t know if we need a real preacher in the White House - that’s quite true - but that is not, again, some specific charge against “Baptist ministers,” it is an observation that having a preacher (or a priest) in the White House simply seems inappropriate to me. The priest or preacher might be a spectacular administrator but I still don’t think I’d be comfortable with a minister - or for that matter a Rabbi - as my president. You want to call that prejudice, be my guest.
Yes, my problems with Huckabee have nothing at all to do with his beliefs and a great deal to do with the fact that - as I wrote yesterday when discussing Fred Thompson - there is an “ooze” factor about both Huckabee and Romney that I simply do not trust. I cannot see either of the men without feeling like a really smooth salesman is trying to massage me at the precise spot he thinks feels good…and it sort of grosses me out.
At the very least, many find his political theatrics no less cynical or offensive than those of any other human being who makes politics his or her profession. Parsing Huckabee’s character flaws for special condemnation in a crowd of people filled with similar character flaws seems a difficult task.
Hey, if you perceive him to be a wonderful guy, I have no problem with that. We all have the right to love whom we choose, and to distrust whom we choose, as well. I never said there was anyone in this campaign (or in politics) who is flawless. And I think I do a fair job of “parsing flaws” of pretty much everyone in politics. I “parse” my own flaws, too!
If we’re not allowed to do that to Mike Huckabee, then I don’t get it.
I know there are Catholic supporters of Huckabee, btw. I disagree with them, too, although I can frankly understand why they like him; Huckabee is a social conservative and a fiscal liberal, and for many Catholics (and to me, to a point) that’s a cogent and attractive blend of sacred and secular fidelity to scripture. My problem is…I just don’t know if I trust Huckabee. To me, there is something “off” about him.
And since I respect your right to like him, I hope you’ll respect mine to…not!
January 4th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Kimsch:
It’s clearly a criticism of the plurality of GOP caucusers in Iowa who voted for Huckabee. They fit the stereotype, that’s what they “went for,” while the plurality of the Democrats who caucused for Obama do not fir the stereotype.
January 4th, 2008 at 11:23 am
BEth:
I guess I am not so sure what is so bad about Huckabee talking about Chesterton. BY the way I found out quite a few non Catholic Evangelicals are aware of his work. More are today. SOmehow I view that as a good thing.
TO everyone else
I do hope that no matter who people support that we do not do mortal damage to each other and eat our own. I see a lot of terms like “liberal” “Socialist” and various misued terms used as to Christians thrown around in a very careless manner by all sides. Words have power and sometimes they wound. I am beginning to think that people need to take a deep breath before hitting that submit button all over the net.
As to Huckabee and the comments here. I do get a sense that people are looking at what happened in Iowa in a limited way. A vast part of of message was that despite a good economy people are hurting. I would suggest this one reason why some polls shows Huckabee in a tie with Romeny in Michigan. Michigan is not exactly a Evangelical mecca.
My last thougts are this. Lets all be care of sterotypes. As a former Evangelical, I pick up some things that I know are resented by them for instance in this case. I feel it and yes some things that some conservatives were saying the past few weeks seems like the Jesusland comments or in that tone that the Dems did on 04. It is hurtful. It hurts me even though now I am Catholic. Religion is also a cultural thing that touches our traditions and lives in a million non theological ways. Just like some Evangelicals and Secular conservative types too soon pulled the Catholic card(getting mores warm bodies in the pews) for those Catholic conservatives that supported immigration reform. I was hurt by that too. Again it is a contact sport. However I am tad more concerned about those voters that our in our Coaltion that don’t engage in this full time and who we have the prvildge of getting their vote.
Even as a Huckabee supporter I am trying to go out of my way to hear what message the other hopefuls in this race is catching on with their supporters. TO put it more precise what is the message that the either Huckabee, Romney, or Thomposn, Mccain or Rudy is hearing from their people. THey are all part of the GOP. I think in the emotion of the primary season it is easy and natural for all of us in separate camps to dismiss each other as naive idiots
However the people are speaking through their various hopefuls. If we decide not to listen I suggest it is at our own peril
January 4th, 2008 at 11:24 am
lsus - good comments - thanks for not accusing me of “prejudice”! Thanks also for the link to your post. I have not read Shea’s piece or the response to it, so I will try to get to them today.
In one respect, I am glad Huckabee used the Chesterton quote - I like the idea of more and more folks being exposed to that tremendous writer and thinker. And it was a great - very apropos line to select. I can’t help it that my first reaction when I heard it was to roll my eyes and think, “I’m being massaged again…”
Hey, look. Huckabee may end up being the great wine who travels well and if everyone starts to get around him I may be forced to take another look and consider whether my ooze-meter is wrong, but for now…well, I’ve said it enough. Let’s see how the man does in the long haul. As I mentioned, New Hampshire is hard to take seriously, seeing how easily it can be manipulated, but the rest of it should be interesting.
And you guys, play nice in here while I go do the laundry!
January 4th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Anchoress one last thing you just said:
” Huckabee is a social conservative and a fiscal liberal, and for many Catholics (and to me, to a point) ”
I strongly urge people that are not voting in the early primaries in the next 10 days to with hold their judgement of the fiscal liberal thing. I think that is perception is what is getting to some of us Huckabee supporters as to policy questions. I think some groups like the CLub for Growth(which is mainly funded by a Ark Billionaire that is still amd at Huckabee) have done a fine job distorting that. I n fact I see it parroted all over blog world in a full cut and past form.
I suppose living just 15 miles from Arkansas and seeing their media Huckabee being a Fiscal liberal is sort of the last thing that comes to mind after obseraing his GOvernance for 8 years.IF HUckabee is a fiscal liberal then Ronald Reagan was a extreme spend maybe spend GOvernor when he governed California. Which of course he was not
Anyway I don’t want to get into Fiscal and deep policy matters on this thread but I thought i would throw that in
January 4th, 2008 at 11:40 am
You know…I re-read what I wrote, just to see how my remarks could have so offended Kevin…and I realized…okay, it was “bad writing,” but I understand how I got there. It was just a mindless toss-off.
I wrote: But really - if you think about it - it was not Obama who confounded them, but the people of Iowa, who have been caricatured as unsophisticated, bigoted rubes incapable of supporting anything but a white male, preferably one who thumps bibles.
Of course, the GOP in Iowa did go for exactly that.
Ba-dumpbump. It was an irony and a joke. I think if I’d verbally delivered it, it would have worked better. In writing, I can see where - if you’re looking for it - you might think I meant something more (and more negative) than I did.
My observation, though, is true: the GOP in Iowa did - after all - go for a white guy with a bible. That’s not me saying something mean about them…it’s simply what they did.
I am guilty of writing badly and too fast. For that I will apologize most sincerely. The rest of it? I’ll allow readers to go through my archives and look under “faith” and “prayer,” and the rest of it and decide for themselves if I am a religious bigot. You can start here in the post I put up yesterday where I express admiration and humility in the face of a story about non-Catholic Christians who give an enormously inspiring example of raw courage, mercy and faith.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
[…] UPDATE: I completely agree with this post Iowa assessment from The Anchoress. […]
January 4th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I doubt if the G.K. Chesterton quote was Catholic pandering. I doubt if enough Catholics know the quote for it to be worth pandering to. Though as a love of G.K. I would love to be pandered to.
Huckabee hasn’t been too worried about Catholic pandering since he never gave an adequate apology to Sen. Brownback over what one person in his campaign had said and Huckabee’s non-apology after speaking at extreme anti-Catholic Hagee’s church was pretty lame. “I would certainly never characterize the Catholic Church as being pro-Nazi, never.” Well thanks a lot, how you you characterize her?
I do wonder if those sermons his campaign won’t release contains any anti-Catholic tropes? Deal Hudson mentions that Huckabee’s mentor as a pastor was certainly known for anti-Catholic tropes.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Curt - that’s one of the things about Huckabee that bothers me and strikes me as Clintonian - the unwillingness to release his documents - the whole sense of something beneath that doesn’t jibe with the surface.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
[…] more like a joker) so perhaps Obama would be a better choice for Democrats. But a lot of people in states other than Iowa will have to believe he can win the presidency before they will vote for him, and maybe they will. […]
January 4th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Curt Jester:
I have tried as well as many other Catholics in the Blogsphere to explain the Huckabee and Catholic thing. I still contend and as well as biggies such as Rod Deher at Cruncy Con that this is largely a Faux Contorversy. Rod was Catholic but is now Eastern Orthodox. However Like me he was raised amidst Evangelicals and especially Penetecostals that are anti Catholic. Here in Louisiana Catholic Politicins go and speak from the altar of the most anti Catholic(theological wise) Churches. I will note this. When the State Democrat Party here tried to run anti Catholic commericals against Catholic convert Jindal(just int eh protestant part of the state) they were the first to be appalled. A line had been crossed. They came publically to his defense.
If we wish to go down down this line we must address why Catholic Alan Keyes, Catholic Convert Jeb Bush, President George Bush, and Mitch Romeny all spoke at the anti Catholic mecca of the SOuth Bob Jones University.
As to sermons. I don’t want them released. As a Huckabee supporter we had to watch a serious man that was a governor of 8 years endures numerous debates on where the only question he was asked was about evolution. Mike Huckabee’s positions or viewpoints on issues such as what his views on the Lordship COntroversy is of little consequence. Huckabee wants to talk about the Fair Tax. He wants to talk about other issues. Releasing decades of Sermons will in effect side line him for a month. In a month this might be over. Why would anyone in their right mind fall for that. As a Catholic you know the Press horribily misrepresents what the Pope says!!! They do it on a monthly basis. They are the last people to handle that storyline.
As a former SOuthern Baptist I can tell you that Catholic Theology were of little concern in most Churches. I expect , based on my experience, that a mainline Southern Baptist Church would not be engage in REAL anti Catholcism. It might occur on occasion but it very outside the norm in this day and age. It must be remembered that Southern Baptist in the rural South are usually the established Church and thus are not going to go into Jack Chick Theatrics
LEt us also be clear about the Brownback Situation. If we have to start apologizing for what supporters all over the place say then we will never talk about the issues.
I see a ton of Catholics with blogs that are supporting other people throwing around the word heretic and yes even anti Evangelical stuff all the time. It is a two way street.Shall we go down it? Shall Brownback if he teaches CCD have to turn over his teaching notes? I will not even go down the road of what we see on some traditional catholic sites. What they say about Protestants and I hate to say it Jews at times leaves me agahst. In a word we are not electing the COmmander of Chief of Nice and Pleasant Theology. They go to where the people are. That is why people like Jeb Bush and Keyes went to Bob Jones
By the Brownback said nice things about Huckabee the other day
He did that while being Co-Chair of Catholic for McCain Coalition.
[Edited to insert link - again. And I’d like to point out that Giuliani also said friendly things to Huckabee - that’s just gracious politics, and Brownback is a gracious fella…btw, the “Bob Jones” controversy was a manufactured one. Most Catholics don’t care who goes there for a stump speech - admin]
January 4th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
BY the way I think the one sane voice in conservative radio Michael Medved had a great piece today That is:
Stop Lying About Huckabee and Evangelicals!
I enjoy Medved. He was the only sane voice we had in the Immigration debate that was so horrible. He is in a word fair. I aslo believe that Huckabee is not his first choice.
Again time to turn the temperature down. We shall soon so distrust each other that we can hold the Republican Convention in a phone booth when this over. If we start down the line of excluding people because of misconceptions over who believes what we are in trouble. I am also telling the Huckabee supporters to hold their emotionsin check too.
[Edited to insert link - admin]
January 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Just because the topic has been opened and the question asked what Huckabee thinks about Catholics. Huck responded to Catholic Online here.
If anyone has any question as to his views on Catholics I shall attempt to answer them and if I don’t know the answer I shall attempt to answer it.
[Edited to insert link - lsus, you can do that here, you know!]
January 4th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Sorry Anchoress
Unless there is a button that I can push I am clueeless. I don’t enough HTML to even do the italics thing
January 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Oops I gave the wrong link on the Catholic Online article
I will now go and find out how to do a link on here before I post again and quit hogging the forum.
[Edited to insert link - admin]
January 4th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Lsus - I appreciate your passion, but I hope you will calm down a little. If you have seen Catholic bloggers throwing around the word “heretic” (and I don’t doubt you) you never saw this Catholic blogger doing it. There will always be people who get excessive - I myself get plenty of emails from evangelicals telling me I’m not a Christian or paying me the backhanded compliment of suggesting that “for a Catholic” I have a credible grasp of scripture. I really never intended for my thrown off little piece about last night to devolve into a “Catholics vs Evangelicals” moment, especially since on this blog I have hoped to be part of the whole, very positive, movement of Catholics and Evangelicals coming together over their common beliefs. Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical, whatever…my issues with Huckabee have to do with what my perception of him as a phony, and nothing more.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Oh Anchoress. Make no doubt this is not directed at you.
However Curt Jester proposes as I see his comment that Huckabee start making apologies for every thing an outlandish supporter say. My point is , especially in this day of the net and blogs, that to do so opens up a pandora box. It is quite literally impossible. Also those standards can backfire in a big way. The only reason that I mentioned Catholic blogs is that some don’t seem to realize how exciteable their defense of the faith becomes and it can become as offensive as what that Huckabee supporter said. I guess I am thinking down the long term road. THere is a standard here that I think if imposed would bite us all.
I guess in the end I don’t see what pastor X who likes Huckabee thinks about Catholics ,or what Catholic Blogger Convert x who likes McCain but thinks Pentecostals are not Christians because they don’t belive in the Trinity has much to do with running the country.
However make no mistake the media would love to run with the goofy Christians fighting each other story forever. A point I think I recall you made when you commented on this during the summer.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Beth:
Populism killed Hostettler here in Indiana in 2006. You might think it is nonsense, but to people in states like Iowa, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan where traditional industry has suffered…that messages resonates. I know lifelong Republicans around here who consider free trade to be a menace. And these people did not need to hear that message from Huckabee, in fact my guess is he heard it from them.
January 4th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
to people in states like Iowa, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan where traditional industry has suffered…that messages resonates.
Yeah, I suppose so. I still don’t like it, though.
Kevin:
I’m sure the reasons for your non-support of any candidate will be breathtakingly nonsensical.
Right. I don’t like Huckabee because he’s got a funny name! And he’s from Hope, Arkansas! And has a bald spot! Those are the only reasons!
P.S. Toughen up. You sound as thin-skinned as Huckabee has been accused of being. Sorry, but people aren’t always going to agree with you or your candidate, and you’re doing a lousy job of recruiting.
January 5th, 2008 at 1:43 am
lsusportsfan,
If he had adequately explained himself in regards to the Brownback thing or the Pastor Hagee speech he would not need to do anything more. It is only when conservatives themselves broach or appear anti-Catholic that an explanation must be made. Obviously Protestants don’t accept Catholicism. But when a staffer says Catholics aren’t Christian or that they speech at a church that says Catholic Church supported Hitler and makes other claims then an explanation is necessary.
Pres Bush after he spoke at Bob Jones wrote a letter to Cardinal O’Connor saying he disavowed any anti-Catholicism at Bob Jones University.
Mike Huckabee has not said what his position is towards Catholics is. If these controversies had not come up he would not have had to. In his statement about Hagee he said that he said things 20 years ago that he doesn’t believe now. If some of those things were anti-Catholics what were they? It would be nice to know what he is apoligizing for.
I would really like to like this Gov since he is right on pro-life and social issues. Though I feel he is too much like another pro-life Southern Baptist on foreign policy - Jimmy Carter - at least when it comes to Iran. I voted for Jimmy Carter as a youth and I don’t want to make that mistake again.
January 5th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Curt Jester:
Ok, First as to the Brownback situation. You are one of several people in Comment sections of Catholic blogs that has mentioned that a Huckabee Staffer criticized Brownbacks conversion. I would appreciate if you have learned this from a mass email if you can shoot me a copy at biglsusportsfan@yahoo.com. It just appears something under the radar has been released that perhaps does not have its facts straight.
No Huckabee Staff critcized Brownback being Catholic or the fact he converted. Much of his staff is Catholic and that staff is very small. His Catholic Staff includes his national campaign manager, hisnational campaign director, his policy adviser and his campaign’s chief operating officer.”
It was a someone that liked Huckabee that sent a email to 3 folks. Can we be honest here. We are both political in a way. It was a nice issue to keep a campaign in the news that was struggling for media time. Huckabee came out and then came out again and even the Catholic League came to Mikes defense.
As to the Hagee situation: Mike Huckabee made this statement to a newspaper. (Soory Anchoress I will learn how to insert the link by myself soon)
”
“Cornerstone is one of the nation’s largest churches, with nearly 17,000 members. John C. Hagee, senior pastor at the church, has told his congregation in the past that the Beast referred to in the Bible is actually the Catholic Church and the so-called Anti-Christ is the Pope.
“I have to say that I don’t agree with those teachings,” Huckabee told the Iowa Independent following a speech in Sheldon. “Several members of my staff are Catholic and have marched shoulder to shoulder many times in pro-life marches with people of the Catholic faith.”
When he was asked if he was aware of Hagee’s teachings about the Catholic Church, Huckabee said he wasn’t. “There are things that he believes that I wouldn’t agree with and I am sure there are things that I believe that he wouldn’t agree with.”
So he did disassociate himself from those statements. Plus he took time and talked to Cathoic Online in the article I linkled above. By the way he does not believe the Pope is the anti Christ. Which is more progressive than one of the largest mainstream bodies of Lutherans in the US ( The Missouri Synod) that has official Doctrine that the offic eof the Papacy is the anti Christ. I shall stay tuned to see if Catholic bloggers demand clarification from Politicians that appear with Lutherans
So what is he position on Catholics? I am not sure what more you can ask. IN the articles I have linked and also that he has put Catholic at the heart of his campaign to get him to the White House I think needless to say his view is pretty good!!! Besides Huckabee entering a RCIA class I am not sure what people want
One word other on Hagee. I think we need to be real here as to double standards. You know , I know , the potted plant in the corner knows the reason he appeared there was because of the Israel vote.
Now I must ask this. It is well known that very Catholic Former Senator Rick Santorum is associated with Hagee political groups appeared in the same stage with him as did people like Sen Joe Liberman and many other conservatives. We also learn. And seat down for this That Catholic Sen Brownback is assoicated with him too
Now I have not checked the FEC filings but I would not be surprised if both Santorium and Brownback recieved a contribution from his PAC and no doubt had his access to his mailing lists and everything. In fact many Republicans do.
However as a regular reader of your fine blog, that is one of the best in Cathoic blogsphere, I saw neither you, nor anyone else in the Catholic Blogsphere ask Senator Brownback, Senator Santorum, or the the then Chair of the Republican Party to disassociate himself from his anti Catholic views.
If I had a day , I bet it would bevery interesting to see what other leading Catholic figures in political life have associated themselves with Hagee.
In the Republican party we have an alliance with these particular Evangelicals that are a specific subset that have strong beliefs on the support of Israel. That is what is going on here.
One final matter. I wish you would expand why you think Jimmy Caterviews and Huckabee views are similar on Iran. I am not sure where you are coming from.
Oh by the way the Latin Mass for Dummies pic I saw I think on your blog yesterday was hilarious
[Edited to insert links - admin]
January 5th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Curt Jester:
Just so we don’t concentrate on the negative, even if people don’t like Huckabee or have reservations that perhaps will be lessen as we go on . I think we can all agree that when a Presidential Hopeful talks about a theme from the Catechism and Catholic Social teaching that it is indeed a good day
From Todays Corner Blog:
Huck and Chuck [Rich Lowry]
I only could stay for Huckabee’s 15-minute opening remarks at a packed—I mean packed—event at a gym in a Londonberry middle school this morning, but it was brilliant, absolutely brilliant. It was one of the most stirring and persuasive defenses of self-government and limited government—including the doctrine of subsidiarity—that I have heard in a long time. This guy is very good, and very shrewd—after playing the evangelical card in Iowa, today he was saying how America is all about “live free or die.” If McCain beats Romney here, you have to favor McCain for the nomination, but you can’t totally discount the possibility that Huckabee wins it, if it turns out that McCain still has limited appeal to bedrock Republicans despite a win here (and perhaps Michigan too) and if Huckabee can broaden out from evangelicals.
01/05 06:16 PM
SO at least if Huck is talking Subdidiarity and getting it int othe public debate it is a good day for all of us
From the Catechism
1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”7
1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.
1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.