Is Huckabee Alienating Catholic Voters?
Mike Huckabee has almost constantly presented himself as the Christian candidate. He has been criticized for mixing religion and politics to too large a degree, but the Religious Right – obviously – doesn’t have a problem with that, which is why he’s still doing well in the polls in Iowa, South Carolina, Florida and nationally. But now Huckabee may very well have alienated one part of the Religious Right: conservative Catholics.
Conservative Catholics are part of the Religious Right, even though we mostly think of Evangelicals when we use the term. Historically, conservative Protestants weren’t exactly fond of conservative Catholics: quite some of them were even bigots. And some still are, of course. But, the two sides worked with each other for years because they share a socially conservative agenda.
In other words, if you want the entire Religious Right to support you, you’re wise to court Catholic voters, or at least not to alienate them. It now seems that Huckabee may have done the latter however:
Rising Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee risked his standing with Catholic voters on Sunday by courting his evangelical base at the church of a controversial preacher accused of disparaging Catholics. There are a few remnants of anti-Catholicism among evangelical Christians in the South…
But the visit to Cornerstone, pastor John Hagee’s imposing “mega-church” in the Texas city of San Antonio, was fraught with political perils for Huckabee given his efforts to woo conservative Catholics.
This puts him in serious contention with less than two weeks before the January 3 nomination battle in Iowa, which starts the state-by-state process to pick the Republican and Democratic candidates for November’s presidential election.
So, what kind of person is this Mr. Hagee?
Hagee is a fiery preacher best known for his writings on the Middle East, where he reads contemporary events as unfolding Biblical prophecy. He is staunchly pro-Israel, saying that God had made his love for the land and its people clear.
The Catholic League says Hagee is virulently anti-Catholic — a charge he denies — and it is getting the word out that Huckabee is rubbing shoulders with an anti-Vatican figure.
“Hagee has a history of denigrating the Catholic religion,” said Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, the largest Catholic civil rights group in the United States.
In his recent book “Jerusalem Countdown,” Hagee wrote: “Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.”
Ah yes. Of course it also has to be pointed out that, every Sunday, Catholics eat the flesh and drink the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. In other words: they’re cannibals. How they can call themselves Christians is beyond me.
Well, how they can call themselves Christians after Martin Luther came to the scene is beyond me, that should be. It’s clear that Christians were greatly misguided for one millennium and a half…
Yeah.
OK, seriously: the question is of course whether or not this will hurt Huckabee. Most members of the Religious Right are Evangelicals, but Catholics are among them as well. Obviously, if Huckabee said anything bad about Catholics himself, or would have done so in the past, he would have had a problem. In this case, he seems to have a clear record in this regard himself.
Such a reasoning would lead one to conclude that it’ll probably not make much of a difference.
But I think that this might hurt him more than he anticipated:
Catholic bloggers on the Internet were mostly critical about Huckabee’s visit. The Catholic News Agency ran the headline: “Mike Huckabee to speak at strongly anti-Catholic preacher’s church.”
One Catholic blogger said while Huckabee was an eloquent spokesman for the “culture of life” — code for the anti-abortion cause — his visit to “a church pastored by a raving anti-Catholic bigot” was deeply troubling.
I’ve found that American Catholics are quite sensitive when it comes to anti-Catholic bigotry (which is logical considering the past). Someone associating with such a bigot will probably lose the support of quite some of them. And rightfully so.
Rightfully, even when Huckabee doesn’t share those views? Yes, of course. He’s associating with Mr. Hagee and, as such, validating whatever the latter has said in the past. If you don’t want to be associated with bigots, don’t talk to them, and you should especially not hold speeches (sermons?) in their Churches.
As usual, I also have to point out that when you lie down with the dogs, you get flees.
More here.
I’m probably the worst person in the world to speak for Catholics but, though somewhat distasteful, I don’t know that it constitutes too much of a crime, really. I don’t know everything about the people who Obama has visited, but being that it’s almost certain he’s met with "leaders" of the African American community, I think it’s likely he’s met with raging anti-white racists and homophobes. In the absence of other indicators, I do not take that to mean he endorses their view, though I’d much rather he didn’t meet with them.
Of course, there are limits to this. I would reject or at least seriously reconsider any candidate that met with David Duke, or even Pat Robertson, since they are way too inclined to gleefully wish death and destruction on those who are "different". Maye this preacher is of the same cut. In that case, I could see where Catholics would be very angry. Perhaps Christine could enlighten us, assuming she has a single free minute this Christmas Eve?
Which reminds me, I have to go finish the apple pie lol.
Hah, I’m about to start my pie baking too, Lynx, but was taking a few minutes with my morning coffee first.
I think politically this doesn’t hurt Huckabee at all- mainly because the evangelical block is far more monolithic than is the Catholic conservative block. There are a fair number of Catholic conservatives in my area, but they’re still not a real voting demographic, I don’t think- and in other regions of the country Catholics tend to be far more liberal in their political views and are often Democrats (could this then hurt Huckabee in the general election if he were to get the GOP nomination? That’s a possibility I guess.)
Personally I’m not worked up over it either, but that may be just me. Bill Donohue and the Catholic League are not accurate barometers of Catholic reaction, even for Catholic conservatives, I don’t think, because he tends to be so hypersensitive to any Catholic criticism. I feel it’s probably good to have such a watchdog, but it’s like the watchdog who barks at every neighbor passing by and you end up not paying much attention.
Is this particular evangelical leader someone who should be kept at arm’s length? I don’t know, I’ve never heard of him. The Nazi comment is certainly over the top, and false. If he has a habit of spreading disinformation like that, then I certainly denounce that, but like Lynx I’m not sure that puts him in the ‘untouchable’ league like David Duke. Sounds to me like this pastor might be on par with the Bob Jones crowd, and I didn’t think twice about changing my view of Romney when he courted and got that endorsement. Maybe these things should be more important, because certainly the people who espouse bigoted views shouldn’t be given political clout, but somehow I can’t muster any outrage. I guess Romney’s explanation about the Jones’ endorsement (on Meet the Press, I think it was) was sufficient for me: that you have to put those things in context of the ‘competitive’ environment among religious sects.
Christine and Lynx: interesting. I think that I might agree that it won’t hurt him terribly politically, but it does hurt him in my eyes. It’s once again a clear sign that he wants to present himself as the real protestant Christian and that he’s willing to court whoever he has to court in order to do so.
It’s also a sign that he’s too religiously conservative for my, and I bet many others.
If you’re willing to associate with people like mr Hagee, well, that says a lot about you.
This isn’t some photo op, this is a speech.
Michael: Why don’t you say the same about Romney and Bob Jones then? He actively courted that endorsement- so it wasn’t simply a photo op type of relationship either- and he defended the relationship when questioned by Tim Russert about it, not by denouncing any of the anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, and racially bigoted stances of Bob Jones (I think it’s B. Jones II), but just by saying that religions are in competition with each other and people say these things, but it doesn’t matter. To a large degree, I agree with him- but I wonder why you aren’t making a big deal about that even though a very similar circumstance here with Huckabee and you seem to hold it against him. Were you aware of the Bob Jones situation, or do you feel it is different for some reason?
Pattern Christine. Patter.
Huckabee won’t get past Iowa, the only reason he’s doing well is because people aren’t familiar with his record on illegal immigration and crime. He offered in state scholarships to illegals that should’ve gone to citizens and he pardoned over 1000 criminals, 12 of them convicted murders!His Christmas ad has no effect on me other than show he’s doesn’t have an effective rebutal to his newly ‘made public’ criticism.Mitt Romney is such an outstanding candidate it amazes me how much petty criticism he gets…his hair is too perfect, he’s family is too perfect, he’s too smart, he’s too successful…give me a break! His opponenets and liberals just can’t find any mud. Romney is the real deal.
Look at his record!
Look up National Review’s article on why they’re supporting Romney, which also gives an excellent critique on the Republican field.VOTE ROMNEY!
Bill Donohue, professional defender of Catholicism, reminds me of the saying of Jesus to take the log out of your own eye before you try to take the speck out of someone else’s. As Mr. Huckabee said, "I’m a conservative who’s not mad at anyone." And he’s not! On the other hand, Mr. Donohue seems to specialize in being in a continuous state of outrage – and at times not only seems, but actually is, paranoid. Give it a rest!!
Michael: You didn’t write this piece about a pattern, though, you wrote it as criticism of this one particular association between Huckabee and an evangelical leader who has made anti-Catholic statements. So what I’m asking is why is that any different than Romney associating with and courting the endorsement from Bob Jones II?
Christine. It’s all part of Huckabee’s "I’m the Christian [read: protestant] leader"-pattern. If you didn’t notice that pattern, well, what can I say?
I didn’t say I didn’t notice it (though I do think people make too much of it.) What I’m saying is that I don’t see that as reason to apply a much different standard to the two men when comparing their associations with evangelical leaders.
IOW, Michael, I think you’re using a different standard just as people do when they overlook, for example, Obama’s courting black evangelicals. It’s the same tactic, so why should one candidate be criticized with it while others are not? You are saying that Romney should get a pass because his overall campaign isn’t carrying the same religious message as Huckabee’s is, but that’s the same excuse used by liberals who don’t mind their candidates pandering to religious groups but will refuse to vote for Republicans who do it.
No it’s not and… where did I do that? I believe that they shouldn’t do it at all, but ok: it’s the US, they all do it. The question then is to what degree? Huckabee, then, doesn’t do ‘degrees’ he just panders. And panders. And panders.
O, and he panders.
Christian leader this, Christian leader that. Cross here, cross there. Talking to God here, talking to God there.
In other words, if you believe I’m measuring with two measures, it seems to me that the nuance escapes you.
Christine: pattern. Listen, if Romney used the same idiotic rhetoric and tricks Huckabee uses, I would blast him for it. I don’t blast Huckabee for it because I don’t like Huckabee – in fact, I thought very highly of him (even though I disagree with him on some issues, but you can’t agree 100% with any of the candidates) until he suddenly started presenting himself as the Christian candidate, the only Christian leader, the second coming of Christ, etc.
Michael: I don’t know how else to point out, you wrote this criticism based on an association with ONE evangelical leader. What is the pattern of Huckabee also getting endorsements and such from other evangelical leaders who are anti-Catholic? You take this one instance and add it to ‘pandering’ where he uses references to his religious faith, which is a different thing altogether.
Separate out the part where these candidates give speeches, make appearances, and court evangelical leaders- on that one basis alone, do you not see that Romney has done exactly the same thing as Huckabee (in fact considering that those people would be more likely to gravitate toward Huckabee, it’s apparent that Romney’s done even more pandering to earn the support of people like the Bob Jones crowd.)
Christine, it’s quite alright that you’re charmed by Huckabee and that you think it’s not a problem that he mixes religion and politics to such a large degree, but the pattern I’m talking about – as should be clear – isn’t one of anti-Catholicism, just, it’s part of his "I’m the Christian leader" pattern. And that most certainly is a pattern, which is why his speaking at this particular Church deserves extra attention: if he’s presenting himself as the Christian candidate, it becomes even more important to look at with what religious figures he associates and to take that into consideration.
Again. No. Romney talks about values. Huckabee talks about him being the Christian leader. There’s a difference. If you don’t get that, well, then I’m afraid that it’s difficult for one to understand where the line between Church and State exactly is (which isn’t easy to determine in the US at least).
Not only that, Huckabee has presented himself as the Christian leader. Did you see the ad in which he’s called like that? Did you see how his campaign is presenting him? Did Romney’s campaign do that? Did any of the other campaigns do that? No. Bush was seen like that, not by his own campaign but by Evangelical voters. Huckabee, however, is clearly one of them and presents himself like that.
Frankly, it surprises me a bit that you believe that they do the exact same thing (or that you at least say you think like that). It’s alright to be a fan of Huckabee, but then at least admit that he’s playing the religion card much more than the others and more than most other candidates in recent history have done.
By the way: I find it interesting to see that this campaign is exposing our differences of opinion on a number of issues, and especially on what kind of conservatives we exactly are.
What’s also interesting is that I think that both of us could agree on one compromise candidate: John McCain. No? I’m beginning to believe that he could indeed make a historical comeback.
You don’t seem to be following what I’m trying to say, at all. It’s true that it’s less of a problem to me, the use of Christian rhetoric. But you are making the case that the whole idea that Huckabee uses religion in that way (which I don’t see as pandering because I believe it’s authentically who he is- and whether or not voters will embrace or reject that will be determined; but it is completely different than candidates pretending to be Christian in order to win votes.)
But do you not see that you are making the same arguments that Democrats use when they criticize Republicans generally for playing the Christian card? That it matters more, and they’ll hold the GOP accountable for it, because of how religion in general factors into the political positions? So they feel that it’s fine for Democratic candidates to pander to religious groups, because in the end they’re not going to give them anything they want anyway, because they don’t really believe in the religious views-in this view, it’s fine for politicians to pretend to be very Christian as long as we know it’s all an act. You’re opinions of Romney vs. Huckabee seem very similar to that, IMO. You don’t mind that Romney has faith, as long as he keeps it to himself. I find that much more offensive than someone who honestly says that his faith is what forms his values and he’s not going to apologize for it or pretend otherwise.
And again, we’re discussing two separate but related things; one is the general use of religion in campaign messages (and I do think Huckabee has overdone that a bit, though I think it is a strategy for the early primaries and then he’ll probably shift away from this, particularly if my hunch is right about how Ed Rollins will direct his message now.)
The other issue though, is whether or not these candidates are willing to pander in order to gain the votes of bigoted evangelicals- and that is the particular thing on which I don’t see you holding the two to the same standard. And your reasoning for that seems exactly like the reasoning of those who feel that the Democrats don’t need to be held to the same standard. If it’s a problem to court the endorsements of people who spread bigoted views, then this criticism should be equally applied to all candidates for that practice. Obviously the candidates calculate if these endorsements will help them more than they’ll hurt them- and you seem willing to allow Romney to make that calculation when he accepts the endorsements without also criticizing the bigotry, but you say this lowers your opinion of Huckabee. If it’s the general use of religion that lowers your opinion of Huckabee, I can understand that even if I don’t agree- but that isn’t the point that you raised in this post.
Yes, I agree about McCain- he’s becoming more and more my choice. My hesitations about Huckabee though aren’t primarily because of religion, they’re more to do with policy (concerns of whether or not he’d be fiscally conservative enough- though I think he’s getting a bit too hard of a rap on that because a governorship is much different than the presidency- and also concerns about whether he has a sufficient grasp of foreign policy issues. Good advisors would help a lot and would probably allow me to support him with much less hesitancy- and having McCain on the ticket in either order would do a lot of good IMO.)
Oops- in comment #16, I didn’t finish a sentence. The point I was trying to make in the first paragraph was that you make the case that the general use of religion means that Huckabee should then be held to a different standard on the specific cases of evangelical leaders’ endorsements- and I disagree.
Remove the Christian label from Huckabee, and what is left? Would anyone vote for him based on his experience and policy?
Christine: how’s that the same? That’s not the same. I will use that stick for everyone. The liberals you talk about have no problem with Obama’s use of religion because they agree with him / they think it won’t influence his policies too much. That’s not the reason I oppose Huckabee in this regard / think that Romney uses religion differently and better. I use the same rule for everyone, regardless of their political views.
And yes: you should keep your faith to yourself in my opinion. But I’ve always said that.
McCain/Huckabee: I’m beginning to think that the two of them agree
They seem to respect each other and don’t attack each other. Huckabee’s policies: I agree, he’s not fiscally conservative enough, but I don’t think he’s getting an undeserved bad reputation in that regard. He’s a big government conservative. That’s not a problem, but if you don’t want that, you shouldn’t vote for him.
I’ve also got a post coming up about another issue: immigration.
Bob A: I think yes. He’s a moderate and has the kind of communication skills and likability to appeal across the aisle. The only questions in my mind is whether or not he’ll find good advisors on policy to create a more intellectual aura (which is a problem for me personally with him right now- he comes across as a lightweight on foreign policy) and whether or not people who aren’t part of the Christian right will back him or oppose him on that basis.
I’m not 100% certain yet, but no, I don’t agree that he should be dismissed as a big government supporter. Why does he get that reputation? Two things come to mind: one is that his rhetoric isn’t anti-government, it tends to be more positive about what government can accomplish. That is a red flag to some degree but it doesn’t necessarily mean that he’ll embrace big government programs. He could just as well talk about how to make government work better and more efficiently, and that’s a message I could definitely support (and I think it’s more pragmatic than saying that we should make big cuts, because I don’t think the public will support that right now.)
Second reason is that he didn’t uniformly cut taxes in AR- he raised some taxes and fees. First, that’s largely due to the fact that federal mandates force the states to spend money, and if a governor doesn’t raise the revenue somehow then they face big deficits or less money to do things they need to do locally. So to a large degree, raising some taxes in that situation is the fiscally conservative thing to do rather than allow debt to accumulate. Tax cuts are not always appropriate, and politicians should be willing to tell people that even if it’s not popular and even if it makes political enemies from people like Club for Growth.
Plus, Romney also did some similar things, raising ‘fees’ instead of taxes. Both of them were in a similar situation as governors needing revenue, but Huckabee faced that in a state that is much less affluent and had far more problems with its education system, roads, etc, so his need for cash was much greater. Again, none of that necessarily means that they’d approve high spending as president, in fact both could make the case that they saw how the federal mandates cause problems like that for the states and so those programs should be curtailed.
C. Stanley, I’ve got to side with Michael here. I don’t think that he’s being unfair with Huckabee by giving him heat for courting evangelicals while not doing the same for Romney. Considering the stone-age views on sexuality (and whether they admit it anymore or not, race) of the folks at Bob Jones, I find it disgusting that Romney would court them, but I also found it disgusting that Obama would court black religious leaders who often hold a history of racism and anti-semitism. However in both cases, since it didn’t seem to be part of a larger pattern of behavior, I let it go, at least for now.
Huckabee has bent over backwards to convince people that he’s not just going to be commander in chief, he plans on being pastor in chief. He stops just short of saying that a vote for him is a vote for Jesus. I find the implied intentions very disturbing. You object to the term "pandering" because it implies non-sincerity, but to me this is besides the point. If he’s really sincere in wanting to be a Christian Leader and not just a leader who is Christian, then I think I can finally think of a reason I’d vote for Hillary in a general election, should it come to Huckabee vs. Clinton.
I was just thinking about that and if I were American, I would vote for the Democratic nominee if Huckabee would be the Republican one.
Christine, I agree with Mike. I think you two are talking about two totally different things.
Let’s say Adolf Hitler endorses a presidential candidate as the strongest leader. That would be a huge compliment. He is arguably one of the strongest leaders in history. Now if he endorsed a candidate as a compassionate equal-rights liberal, that would be the touch of death and absolutely ridiculous.
I think that there is a big difference between being endorsed as a social conservative vs. a Christian conservative.
Bob Jones basically said that Romney as a Christian conservative sucks. He gave an anti-endorsement in that regards, but said that as a social conservative Romney is great. On the other hand Huckabee is going to church with this other guy, and implicitly saying, hey, we are church buddies, both Christian conservatives… embracing that side of this guy we have never heard of. I think that is very different.
Now Christine, I get the impression that what you are saying is that these guys are bigots and shouldn’t be allowed to contribute in any way, they should be boycotted, which I agree with, but I don’t think that is Mike’s argument in this case.
Mike Huckabee is not electable. Sorry for him. I couldn’t vote for him for very biased reasons (and I am very biased – just look my name up in a Google search). First, he’s from Arkansas. I wouldn’t vote for anyone from Arkanasas due to the Clintons just like I wouldn’t vote for a Democrat from Massachusetts due to Ted Kennedy. Second, Huckabee is like another Jimmy Carter who is a lost soul (good guy though). Third, who cares if Huckabee associates with a pastor who says Adolf Hitler was an Austrian Roman Catholic. If Huckabee were President he would also be in photo ops with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (both racist black shysters). He would also be in photo ops with many other reprehensible people. Thats why they are politicians.
mr hagee just says what the word of GOD says and no where in the WORD can you find to pray to mother mary or that a pope has the athorty to forgive sin, and i believe that is where most catholics think john doesnt like them, as far as the other items with hitler look them up they are part of history