Let me get this straight... I'm supposed to take an article from The Nation at face value? No thanks. They can keep that one and, just to be fair, the Weekly Standard as well.

 

The more I hear about Huckabee, the more I like him. I think the far left is threatened by someone who is both pious and humble. It doesn't fit with their image of the crazy zealot that's easy to caricature. In an election filled with empty shirts and manufactured candidates, he's a breath of fresh air.

That's all fine and dandy to make jokes and stuff, but there are lots of crazies out there — such as the pre-millenial dispensationalists and others who advocate political action and aggressively fund political causes they think will help tip us toward The End Times — who just may believe Huckabee's that guy.

 

Absolutely. Or George Soros. The money is all green.

Where was all of the concern on the left when Bill Clinton, also a Southern Baptist, ran for and was elected president?

Why must we associate any religious with "crazies"? There are a lot of "crazies" out there in any religion and a whole bunch who practice no religion whatsover.

 

My Southern Baptist upbringing taught that the end times would be brought about by God when he saw fit and there was nothing man could do to prevent nor hasten it.

 

When did it become wrong to be part of a mainstream religion? It once meant a display of character.

 

Show me where I used the broad brush to paint all religious people as crazies, please.

Where was all of the concern on the left when Bill Clinton, also a Southern Baptist, ran for and was elected president?

 

I don't think anyone ever looked at Bill Clinton and had a rush of concern come over them that he would act in a "faith-first" manner about anything.

Let me get this straight... I'm supposed to take an article from The Nation at face value? No thanks. They can keep that one and, just to be fair, the Weekly Standard as well.

 

The more I hear about Huckabee, the more I like him. I think the far left is threatened by someone who is both pious and humble. It doesn't fit with their image of the crazy zealot that's easy to caricature. In an election filled with empty shirts and manufactured candidates, he's a breath of fresh air.

 

They sure are trying hard to paint him as a religious onetrick pony.

Show me where I used the broad brush to paint all religious people as crazies, please.

Sad but true. Many people would rather vote for a candidate that they know is faking it over somebody that they believe is devoted to their religion.

I agree also

 

but I think that is the big deal with most Americans is that he pushed for the release of a rapist and a murderer.. Thats the guy they think of not the other 1000 pardons as governor. Thats just what I think..... :argue::sssh::jump:

 

And, I don't necessarily disagree. But, I think the situation is magnified by the fact that he's pardoned so many people. I mean when you pardon a thousand people, the odds of one of them turning out like this is significantly increased. It's much different, IMO, than if Huckabee had proven that he'd gone through a vigorous analysis before granting pardons and only given out a handful and one of them went bad...then he could be cut more slack. Then people might be more willing to say it was a mistake, but Huckabee wasn't necessarily wreckless. In this case, the fact that he granted so many pardons and one of them resulted in murder makes him look a bit wreckless, IMO, to say the least.

 

Obviously the murder is the case they think of, but the evidence of a thousand other pardons makes him look careless and makes people think something like that was bound to happen. That's really the point I'm trying to make.

You might be right but if they do then it's a double standard. Michael Doukakis was fried by George the First on the Willie Horton story. He was a pardon that went out and murdered again. You couldn't see an ad vs. Doukakis without that being in there.

 

If Huckabee did the same, wouldn't you expect the same outrage or is it only for Democrats running for president?

 

(BTW, I'm not implying you feel this way 5Wide, just the hypocricy of the electorate that would choose to ignore the very same issue that hurt another candidate almost 20 years ago.)

 

I don't dispute what you're saying, and I may be wrong. Obviously, a guy is going to be hurt by this situation regardless of whether it was is first, and only, pardon, or his one thousandth pardon. The point I'm trying to make is my personal feeling on the subject I suppose. For me personally, the fact that Huckabee granted so many pardons really magnifies the result of one case, IMO. I would be more willing to cut him slack had he only issued a few well thought out pardons...and maybe his one thousand pardons were well thought out. Who am I to say? But, it certainly doesn't seem likely to me, so I'll just say I'm highly skeptical.

 

I think Huckabee would be taking heat in either case...just like Doukakis. In fact, I haven't even heard anyone make the connection that since he issued a thousand pardons there was bound to be one turn out bad. That's just the way I view it...I think it would be easier for Huckabee to defend this and weather the storm if he didn't have 999 more pardons under his belt.

 

As it is, this thing may doom is candidacy, if he doesn't come up with a great defense or political move and somehow move past it or shift the focus. I don't know if that's an overreaction on my part or not, but in a race with so many candidates and so close, I think one big strike against someone that starts gathering some steam could eliminate him from the race...his strong supporters will stay with him, but for swing voters, one black eye could be enough to make a lot of them move to another option.

Let me get this straight... I'm supposed to take an article from The Nation at face value? No thanks. They can keep that one and, just to be fair, the Weekly Standard as well.

 

The more I hear about Huckabee, the more I like him. I think the far left is threatened by someone who is both pious and humble. It doesn't fit with their image of the crazy zealot that's easy to caricature. In an election filled with empty shirts and manufactured candidates, he's a breath of fresh air.

 

I'll preface this by saying I could be wrong, but I'm not so sure the "far left" are the ones threatened by Huckabee and trying to make him look bad. I think the the "far right" is just as threatened by Huckabee and are the ones who are more aggressively trying to bring him down. It wasn't the "far left" that basically called Huckabee a liberal. Huckabee has some differing views on a few issues, that some of the "right wing" powers that be are afraid of, IMO...that's who is focusing more on tearing him down. The far left, from most accounts, would prefer to face Huckabee in a general election, so they're not going to start tearing him down now.

I don't think anyone ever looked at Bill Clinton and had a rush of concern come over them that he would act in a "faith-first" manner about anything.

 

 

A truer (or more true?) statement has not been posted on here than this.

I don't think anyone ever looked at Bill Clinton and had a rush of concern come over them that he would act in a "faith-first" manner about anything.

 

Very true. The Republicans get painted as a faith-first, which ends up getting many people to hate them. I don't think they are "faith-first" but unfortunately, the Republicans are usually the ones painting the religious picture on themselves

Very true. The Republicans get painted as a faith-first, which ends up getting many people to hate them. I don't think they are "faith-first" but unfortunately, the Republicans are usually the ones painting the religious picture on themselves

 

Not true. There is a link on here in P & R that Dems are making a concerted effort to bring faith into their campaigns. For the first time, each Dem candidate has a faith advisor to their campaign.

 

They indicated that each and every Dem candidate is promoting faith and religion in their campaigns.

 

It is just not getting the national media coverage the Republicans are getting.

 

It would appear that the national media want to continue to portray the Republican party as being the religious party.

Here is the article and some things from it.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7850.html

 

Obama asks S.C. black voters to have faith

CHARLESTON, S.C. — One of the most striking aspects of Barack Obama's pitch in the Palmetto State, where roughly half the Democratic voters are black, is that it isn’t dominated by the issue of race. It’s about faith.

 

Through the psalms and verses of the Bible, Obama is seeking to connect with South Carolinians at a deeper place than the color of their skin, a place where belief in modern miracles may linger, including the election of the first African-American president.

 

Now, on Jan. 26, comes the first true test of his faith-infused message as the two front-runners square off here in the Democratic primary.

 

Obama’s strategy carries risks. More so than any his adversaries, Obama is plowing turf his party tiptoed or blundered through in 2004, allowing President Bush to capture, by a wide margin, the votes cast by churchgoing voters.

 

That loss to Bush became a wakeup call to all Democrats, and every one of them is talking more openly this cycle about their faith. Clinton, who has said she prays daily, has sought to organize strong support in her church, United Methodist. John Edwards, also a Methodist, has spoken about how faith helped him endure after his son’s death. For the first time, all of the leading Democratic candidates have senior religious outreach advisers.

 

Obama’s campaign is unique among Democrats in that it has adopted faith as an organizing tool, a tactic mastered by the Bush-Cheney campaigns in 2000 and 2004.

 

The effort officially kicked off in the summer after Obama delivered a major address on faith in Connecticut. “My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won’t be fulfilling God’s will unless I go out and do the Lord’s work,” he said, linking his support for expanded health care, social justice, immigration and the environment to the foundations of his Christian faith.

 

About a thousand people attended those combined events. Among them was the Rev. Joe Darby, pastor of Charleston’s Morris Brown AME Church, who attended two sessions and was struck by their stimulating nature.

 

When a candidate meets with minister-backers, the focus is on what “we need to do to mobilize voters. It’s more political,” said Darby. In the Obama sessions, “the discussion was more about how your faith guides you on issues. I think that puts faith in the right perspective.”

I have stated many times that there is nothing wrong with using your faith to guide you in how you vote, but there is a huge problem with trying to make religion the law of the land. If a Republican gets up and says "I'm against abortion b/c I'm a Christian" then fine. If a Democrat says "My faith in Christ has led me to believe we should provide healthcare for everyone" then OK.

 

The problem is when a politician says "We need to take America back for Christ," and “I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And thats what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than trying to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”

That kind of rhetoric scares me. And those are both things that Huckster has said.