I first saw this video at Evangelicals for Mitt. This was their commentary:
The Weekly Standard notes that:
In case Huckabee talking about the importance of his faith didn't make things obvious enough, the ad's first caption reads, “Christian Leader.”
But wait – there's more! Huckabee says in the ad, “I don't have to wake up everyday wondering, 'What do I need to believe?'” This is obviously the standard flip-flop charge aimed at Romney.
What takes this spot into unexplored territory is the fact that the term “Christian Leader” pops up during this seemingly shopworn attack. Was the term “Christian Leader” supposed to draw a contrast between Huckabee and another candidate, maybe the Mormon one he was referencing when the term swept onto the screen?
What's most disturbing about this spot is it hits the Mormon angle with the same kind of elusive slickness that John Edwards used to go after Dick Cheney's daughter. The Huckabee campaign has the same kind of plausible deniability with this ad that Edwards had after his debate with Cheney.
Perhaps I'm just paranoid and all of this is just a strange coincidence. After all, the Huckabee team is new to running TV ads. Then again, it would be a very strange coincidence.
Huckabee is clearly making an appeal to Christians. His record alone can't make the sale. So, he decides to tell 'em Mormon's ain't Christians.
"But I am," says Huck. (Even though I'm not behaving as kindly as Jesus taught.)
This is ridiculous. Religion in this context doesn't belong in politics.
2 comments:
It's not a very "Christian" thing to try and make yourself sound better than someone else based on religion.
Huckabee sounds like a con man. Would we really be proud of a president who flaunts that he is "better" than the rest of the world?
The "angling to be Giuliani's veep" is a far more damaging story. The "bigot" attack is doomed to fail because the vast majority of Republicans will relate far more to Huckabee the Baptist than Romney. Conservatives believe in larger entities than themselves: God, truth, humanity, the sexes, etc. and further believe in objective truth and seek it and when we find it, defend it and believe anything contradictory to be false. Thus, saying to conservatives that believing one thing to be true and another thing to be false is morally wrong, will be rejected since you are in essence asking them to subscribe to moral relativism. Worse, it will make them defensive and cling more to the guy "under unfair attack".
A different argument is needed to persuade Conservatives. The opportunity has just presented itself, by the way, in the first story...
How deeply does one revere what is right, good, and true when he is willing to be a part of, and give legitimacy to views that are clearly wrong and in some cases, downright evil?
Post a Comment