Could the same small town produce another President?
August 15th, 2007
Can Huckabee raise the money to build on his Iowa success?
This is a picture of the rail road station in Hope, Arkansas - a small town that calls itself a city and has a population of just 10,467. Just about its only claim fame is that it is the birth-place of the Bill Clinton, who, of course, went on to become state governor before running successfully for the White House in 1992 and 1996.
-
Extraordinarily Hope is also the birth-place of the current fourth favourite in the race to get the Republican nomination and another former state governor,
Huckabee is a baptist minister and represents the socially conservative wing of the party that has found the thrice-married Rudi Giuliani and the Mormon, Mitt Romney a bit hard to swallow. The other candidate who is aiming at this section of the party is the ex movie actor and senator, Fred Thompson who has yet to declare that he is running.
In the past few days all the media focus has been on him following his second place, with a respectable 18%, in the Ames Straw Poll. Judging by the coverage he’s the candidate that the media seems to be liking at the moment - helped by his self depracating sense of humour that seems to be going down very well.
His challenge is that his fundraising, so far, has been abysmal and unless he can match the millions of the other front runners then he simply is not going to make it. The next week or so could be critical as he seeks to build on last weekend’s success.
In many ways he seems the right man for the times and a lot could depend on what happens to Fred Thompson. I’ve got a small amount on at 60/1 that might yet prove profitable.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Mike, is that 60-1 for Republican nominee or president?
For the record, it’s Mike Huckabee.
He might be worth a punt as his odds could well increase, but he’ll never be in the running. His support for immigration alienates a lot of the fundamentalists and his support for creationism scares off a lot of the moderate and mainstream Republicans, who are trying to shake of the Christian right tag. Plus the fact he no money behind him, and his image as an emaciated little guy doesn’t help.
He looks kind of like an eery Kevin Spacey too.
He’s 50/1 with Blue Square for the Republican nomination. I’ve just had a speculative investment.
2. tjm. I don’t like the sound of that support for creationism though.
4 why not for god’s sake? You do not seriously believe in Darwinism- obviously a contrived plot by the Guardian and the Beeb to discredit the almighty.
Huckabee is an interesting wager . . . though would NOT bet the farm just yet.
Journos love it when a candidate who has been impressing them on the campaign trail starts to do well. For one thing, they like the guy; for another, his successs (however temporary) validates their judgement.
But with the glowing reviews of the moment, there is still a downside to consider. Check out this exerpt from Almanac of American Politics 2006 on Gov. Huckabee, after some very positive remarks, goes on to note:
“Huckabee started making astonishing mistakes; his job rating plummeted from 70% to 50%. Huckabee had a penchant for granting pardons; one felon he parolled in 1996 committed a murder in Missouri….In June 2002, he fired the head of the AASIS (Arkasas Administrative Stateiwd Information System) project, who promptly told reporters he and other employees had been pressured for campiagn contributions and that Huckabee had tried to stiffle news of cost overruns - nearly 100% - during the election year. Hucakabee also had been in the practice of receiving large gifts; he reported a total of $112,000 in 1999, which included $23,000 in clothes from one state appointee. Huckabee responded - in an election year! - with a lawsuit to allow him to receive more gifts and another lawsuit to stop the state ethics commission from investigating him.”
“Another self-inflicted wound came in March 2002, when Huckabee’s wife announced she was running for [Arkansas] secretary of state….She insisted on a 24-hour state police detail while campaigning across the state; when that was challenged, she at first said she had no control over it, then promissed to pay the cost, then said she would only pay up to $500.”
AAH 2006 furthers note that Mike Huckaby won the 2002 Arkansas governor’s race by only 53% to 47% (in 1998 he won 60% to 39%) while Janet Huckabee wsa crushed in the SoS race 62% to 38%. It also cites the fact that Huckabee was instrumental in passing “the largest tax increase in Arkansas history.”
Am NOT saying that Huckabee doesn’t have a shot. Think he does. Just do NOT believe a single swallow (or straw poll) a summer makes.
Huckabee’s Ames 2nd place will definitely boost his fundraising nationwide. And Fred Thompson is still officially playing Hamlet, though he and Guiliani and McCain (along with virtually all of the Democrats) are going are making high-profile appearances this week at the Iowa State Fair, which needless to say is a REALLY big deal for Hawkeye voters, activists, campaign flacks AND punters.
2. He wasn’t always that thin.!
http://www.voteforbreakfast.com/archive/minor_candidates/mike_huckabee_used_to_be_super.php
Everywhere calls itself a city in the US, even my aunt’s town which is a fraction of the size of Jope.
6. American conservatives have a tendency of believing that scandals are just the liberal establishment going after people it doesn’t like. However, raising the size of government is a cardinal sin among all Republicans (with the exception of a slim slice of Christian fundamentalists) unless its on the military. That could do him in. Everything depends on Thompson though.
9. Hasn’t bush increased the size of govt? Or is that just the deficit
Huckabee could get the slimmers’ vote anyway. Could be quite valuable in the US
I reckon Guiliani looks unstoppable. I know not all his views will chime with the right (don’t forget guns) but he’s their best hope.
The Democrats should be strong, but they can’t find a candidate (again). Hilary would be an unquestioned disaster and as much as I hate to say it, I’m not sure if Obama can win - or not yet anyway. Edwards is too soft. So my money is definitely staying on Rudi at 9/2.
Wendy Alexander confirmed she will stand for Scottish Labour Leadership. Margharet Curran MSP today said she won’t run and she will support Wendy. Andy Kerr MSP said that Labour “need to have is about the future of Scotland and Labour” and that he intends to be part of that debate and he believes that the best way for him to do that is not as a leadership contender but as an active contributor to it.
10. I think he’s spent more but taxed less. Everyone’s a winner!
Seriously though, most of the increase was on security and military, so thats allowed by conservatives.
Is Thompson aiming at the socially conservatve wing of the party?
To some extent yes, but if by that you mean the definable religious right, the answer is there has been no evidence that he’s aiming there at all. The religious right, who are over rated as a force and who had their heyday with helping to get Bush in are missing their man this time round and it won’t be Thompson. Huckabee is someone they’ve been keen on and may well pick up their support but it won’t carry him far enough forward alone. The religious right and the socially conservatives are not always one and the same.
The religious right helped get Bush elected but they didnt do it alone. Bush had to win enough in the middle and some liberals who were just as important in his election victory as the religious bloc.
One has to consdier Guilainis comparatively liberal positions both economically and socially. He may not exactly enthuse the right of the GOP voter base but, how many of people in the centre could he take and how many of the right would ccome out anyway faced with say a Clinton presdiency. Its a fine line.
Hucakbee however could well be the religious rights man if they think that he can do damage and will gain from them and some of the social conservatives too. It should see his stock and his bank account rise if they back him. But a winner? Can’t see it at this time. There will competition with Thompson and Romney for certain blocs and neither have to take too much Huckabee for him not to make it. More pertiently, Huckabee has to gain off them.
7. Part of his winning over challenges back story.
2&4 - Fundamentalist Christians are rather divided on immigration, with some sympathizing with immigrant plight; its secularist conservatives who tend to be nativist hardliners. Creationism isn’t a plus, but don’t think it’s a killer negative, and certainly NOT in a GOP primary. And Ames will help Huckabee’s fundraising quite nicely I’m sure.
#6. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton had their own Arkansas scandals, arguably worse than the Huckabees. My basic point is as Huckabee starts going up, the press will start going into his rather colorful record. For example, he lost 110 pounds after he was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes) and wrote a best-seller entitled “Quit Digging Your Grave with a Knife and Fork”. (source AAP 2006) Which certainly contrasts him with Al Gore!
#8 - You are right but also wrong. For example, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania there are (or at least were) only 3 cities; rest of the municipalities were officially “boroughs” or “villages”. But there is many an American “city” that would make Old Sarum look like a thriving urban center!
RE: ARKANSAS - this is a state (like New Jersey & West Virginia) that traditionally gets little respect, nationally or (most especially) from its neighbors. It’s a poor state, but also rich in many ways (has a working diamond mine!). The successful sons and daughters of Arkansas learned long ago that, if they are going to be successful, especially outside Razorback borders, then they have to work harder and think smarter than the average bear.
Also note that the old politics whereby only a politico from a big state had a chance of getting elected, because of the electoral vote calculus, well that is history. As that 1st “Man from Hope” demonstrated in 1992.
Further note that Rudy Guiliani has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning New York State in the 2008 general election WHOMEVER the Democratic nominee may be. Over the year’s he talked a lot about running for Gov or US Senaator, but somehow it never happened. For one thing, plenty of NYC voters who supported Guiliani for mayor wouldn’t touch him with an authentic Erie Canal barge pole for statewide office, to say nothing of President of the US.
By same token, Mitt Romney won’t be winning the electoral votes of Massachusetts, where he served two terms as Governor (not that he want’s anyone to remember THAT until maybe after the convention!)
In fairness to Rudy & Mitt, don’t think ANY Republican has a prayer of carrying the Empire State or ANY New England state next year.
12. Andrea, in other words the leadership is all sewn up with deals already done behind closed doors. Oh dear, will the SNP be having a party to celebrate?
A clip of Huckabee here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-BFEhkIujA
He’s fearless if nothing else. Incidentally, I think a lot of the Right wing Republicans would be prepared to turn out for Giuliani if, and only if, Hilary got the Democratic ticket. She’s widely hated, but Obama talks about God so much they probably consider him no worse than Giuliani.
15. Secular Republicans are extremely rare. It’s just that most are more mainstream Christians aren’t as ravingly fundamentalist as the Christian Coalition, but they still distrust atheists and get het up about anyone who isn’t seen as living like a good Christian.
16.”in other words the leadership is all sewn up with deals already done behind closed doors.”
That’s the same the Tories did, isn’t it?
Any interest Jack W? Modest pied a terre in Fife going for a song at £3.5 million. Might not care for the political link, though.
http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1290352007
17, America is a religious country, in a way that most of Western Europe isn’t. Atheist politicians of any stripe are extremely rare.
Perhaps it might be more accurate to describe secular conservatives as those Republicans who are focussed more on politics than on religion.
20 Agreed, but I was referring also to supporters. 89% of Americans believe in the virgin birth. I bet that of the remaining 11%, 10% are Democrats.
20. Also, although the strict definition of “secular” is different from your religion, in the US “secular” is considered the same as “agnostic/atheist”.
22 Fair enough then. Atheist/agnostic conservatives are extremely rare in the USA.
11. Rudy Guiliani is FAR from unstoppable, though the weakness of the rest of the GOP field may help him snatch the nomination; but am sceptical of that.
For starters, much of his current national polling strength is name ID; his strength is wide but very shallow. Thought times have changed, his NYC persona & mannerisms are as nearly as offputting to many American’s west of the Alleghanies today as they were in Al Smith back in 1928 (wasn’t just religion that hurt Al).
Rudy is yet to be truly tested in this campaign. And he’s tended to fail the pop quizes. For example, he’s yet to deal with his challenging family situation. (Maybe he hopes to dodge the whole thing like Reagan did; but by comparision Ronnie looked like “Father Knows Best”!) His debate performances have been uneven at best, while his stump style is pretty awful.
Iowa State Fair may be a chance for Rudy to show us (and more to the point thousands of likely Iowa voters) something we haven’t seen yet.
As for Hillary while I think she carries her own baggage in steamer trunks, but juding her “an unquestioned disaster” is way off the mark. Just look at her NY State campaign (1st one) for US Senate; she won the race in UPSTATE New York, the most conservative part of the Empire State. Granted, she’s a one-woman GOP turnout program, which is one reason the GOP estalishment wants to run against her. BUT part of that equation has to do with OTHER races besides the presidential.
ALSO note that 2008 is shapping up to be a VERY bad year for the GOP. Hard as they try, they cannot escapte the fact that they remain lashed to the anvil that is W. The 2006 election was just the begnning of their sufferings.
OF course the Democrats could still blow it, the way that Kinnock did against Major in the 1992 UK election. But don’t bet on it.
23 - Christopher Hitchens is pretty conservative in some ways now, and he’s not exactly a regular churchgoer.
18. Andrea, at the time the Tories were desperate to get away from some bad headlines. Labour on the other hand should be desperate to try and grab them, if only to curtail Alex Salmond’s media tart tendencies.
19 Blue Moon. Thank you kindly.
It’s a good Z plan tower house with an interesting history but appears to have been “restored” to within a inch of its life in a “schlock jock” fashion. Only 200 acres with it too.
And IMO £3.5M appears way too much …. but I dare say some savvy Edinburgh advocate will think it a steal !!
26. “at the time the Tories were desperate to get away from some bad headlines”
so do you think a Tory contest would have generated further bad headlines? You don’t have much confidence in your party, do you?
#23 & etc. I was using “secular” in the Sean Fear sense, not the ideological weapon sense.
There are PLENTY of rightwing, conservative Republicans (libertarians, country clubbers, warhawks) who are NOT fundamentalist or evangelical Christians. Indeed, the evangelicals tend to get under the skin, in part because they are forced to hang out with them so much. BUT these non-Christian Conserative conservatives do appreciate the work ethic & organizing skills of the religious right.
Even more, they REALLY appreciate that the religious right has been turning out low-turnout, GOP-leaning voters. Which has been a HUGE plus for all kinds of Republican candidates at the polls. THAT’s what makes makes these non-evangelical GOPers stand up and shout “Hallaluja!”
24. SSI - thanks for a number of very well written and argued posts.
I agree with pretty much all of that assessment. Giuliani has been front-runner for 2008 ever since late 2001 but a lot of that remains public memories of his response to a single incident, which was judged outstanding at the time but has been a little tarnished since. Of course, he did other things in New York and had a very good record but it will be over six years ago by the time the primaries begin. In addition, you rightly point out a number of his downsides. There’s at least one other he’ll have to watch and that’s being snappy and ill-tempered at the wrong time (ie when your opponents can paste it all over the web).
Romney still looks the best alternative to me. I know there’s the Mormon thing, but he’s looked a pretty solid campaigner and that counts. While he’d be far from the GOP’s ideal candidate, against other Republicans in the primaries or Hillary or Obama in September / October, he shouldn’t compare too badly in the eyes of the electorate.
As for Huckabee, I did back him as an outside bet a few months ago. I really can’t see the Republicans going for him, still less the electorate at large - and without money, his campaign will be brief. But he got a useful boost with the straw poll and that will have given him some of the momentum that matters in fundraising and keeping or getting the media to follow him.
With the front runners being as weak as they are, there’s certainly space for another candidate, the question is whether Huckabee fills that gap. When I backed him, I got 33/1; that still looks about right.
28.”so do you think a Tory contest would have generated further bad headlines? You don’t have much confidence in your party, do you?”
Andrea, it would have kept reminding people why we had to have the contest. I am a lot more confident about the party now, but back then…..
31. Chris, ahah, you’re winning it now
Welsh Labour party is “unfit for purpose” and needs to be radically overhauled:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/6946718.stm
Looks like Labour are developing public splits on the direction the Labour party should take. It is an unfortunate descent for the Labour party to begin internal feuding.
I still think Labour are “Chicken for October”
:lol: 
24 Sea Shanty. “Rudy is yet to be truly tested in this campaign.”
I disagree. Many commentators believed that G’s early lead would disappear as soon as Republican voters were made aware of his liberal positions on some issues, especially abortion and his various “likeability” and other “issues”. Over the last months, he has been tested in the debates and by the media on the abortion question, and has clarified his position. On gay rights, there seem to be some back-tracking, but no obvious flip-flop. Dirt on his family relationships has been dug up and spread wide. Firefighters and others have tried to Swift-boat him over his 9/11 record - and on an on. Nothing has stuck.
Does this mean that these issues and more won’t come up again later? Or that it is impossible that he will blow a fuse, or be tripped by some scandal? Of course not.
But untested - no.
Martin Day. Only three silly smileys? Where’s Ave it 07?
35. That was not me!
Unlike many i admit when caught out!
35. Don’t encourage him!!
35. Where’s Ave it 07 36. That is what i was reffering too.
35 - hello all!
Bit of word from Russia. Ivanov is so much the front runner. However, if Putin wants a puppet then Ivanov is a bit strong. There is some speculation that Putin may not endorse Ivanov for this reason. And whoever gets Putin’s endorsement is likely to win. Anyone for Medvedev?
Who ever wins in the states in 2008 - the next President will have to do some series belt tightning. The person who heads the equivalent of the “public accounts” commitee in the states - which is run by a “politically Independent fellow” has said that the US. has policies that are unsustainable and if not rectified will lead to a Roman Empire style collapse.
So, the states on that level needs to get a candidate like Newt Gingerich in terms of Tax and spend to curtail the proflegate government spending.
New prediction:
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/
Ld’s look as out of it as Skeleton!!!
42: N1
LDs out of it - bye bye bye
The way political interests in the US become entrenched means its extremely difficult to control long term spending. Look up “iron triangles” on the web to understand the complex system. The AARP is especially powerful and won’t budge on any reforms to the pension system, which will become a huge problem in 20 years. Also, 44% of US debt is owned abroad, much of it by China, and that can be a powerful tool for foreign states to use. Clinton has spoken out about the problem.
I found this news article by the BBC interesting:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm
They fail to mention that BBC IP addresses have been editing a lot of pages, including one on BBC bias. One BBC editor also changed an article that mentioned Palestinian “terrorists” to the phrase “freedom fighters”.
42/43. That sort of prediction is the kind of thing that completely undermines a site’s credibility. The Lib Dems have a long track record of doing at least as well in the seats they hold as in the ones they don’t; that prediction assumes the opposite.
If Ming’s merry men (and women, though not many of them) do poll around 15.5%, they’ll certainly lose seats, but over two-thirds of their current crop? Unlikely. One-third would certainly be possible; as many as half of them if there was a big Tory lead, given where the Lib Dem seats are and who are their main challengers, but I find it difficult to see more than that.
45 - if you look at some of the results in Baxter they are laughable. LD may lose Manchester WIthington - but by 18%?
SBS I’ll be very surprised if the LDs go below 45 seats personally. I’d also be very surprised if they lost Manchester Withington; didn’t they do well there in the local elections?
I realise its difficult to model LD seats taking account of particular poll levels but Baxter ought at least to try.
47.”I’d also be very surprised if they lost Manchester Withington; didn’t they do well there in the local elections? ”
They’re naturally in the lead at local level in Withington wards. They did well in 2007 gaining back a seat from a defector (and Lab won the ward in 2006). In 2006 their lead over Lab was cut at local level, but in 2007 it returned to 2004 levels.
If you apply Baxter’s method to the actual 1979 GE result, the Liberals are reduced to one seat.
24. To reply re the Democrat runners, I’d agree with most of the post there as well.
Hillary carries a lot of baggage but the good news (from her point of view) is that it’s all known about. How much more damage can it do? Were she up against a strong Republican candidate, she’d probably be struggling - but that seems unlikely. What’s more, she’s being tested strongly already and will continue to be through till March. If she comes through, she’ll be a formidable challenge for the GOP nominee. That said, odds of 4/6 do look on the short side.
Barack’s star seems to have faded a bit; perhaps that was inevitable after the way it took off. All the candidates will make the odd gaffe during the long campaign and he should be able to shrug off the odd silly comment at the moment, providing he doesn’t compound it. I’d say 7/2 on Betfair looks generous; 5/2 at the bookies is more like value.
After that, the field’s pretty thin. Edwards should have the ability, money and name to go a fair distance, but what does he bring to the party? That he should have been nominated last time? It’s a different field he’s running against, and in different circumstances. I wouldn’t write him off yet by any means but the 12/1 on Betfair seems nearer the mark than the bookies’ 9/1.
Gore as third favourite? Now we’re being silly. Had some fate befallen Hillary and Barack, he’d have made a powerful candidate - but he was never likely to run without a clearish path to the nomination. That’s not going to happen now. Should be nearer 50/1 than tens.
And that’s just about it now. There are enough heavyweights left with time running out that unlike with the Republicans, I’d be extremely surprised if anyone now manages to break into the front three.
as has been mentioned on here previously the Baxter PS model does the LDs very badly because if they lose only a small percentage vote then they are decimated in seats where they do well.
#34 Jan, you make some good points (as always). Perhaps what I should have said, is that Guilani hasn’t been tested ENOUGH.
For the real test is votes - or some reasonable equivilent - on the board. Such as:
–actual results from actual caucus/primary
–results of Ames straw poll and similar events that are a semi-credible measure of a candidates support
–state polls of likely caucus/primary voters (but not until a month or so before C-Day or P-Day)
–hard evidence from the field based on realistic, comprehensive voter IDs from targeted precincts (propriatary to each campaign, but if news is good you may hear of it).
By this tough standard, only candidate “tested” by actual/putative votes so far is Mitt Romney, with honorable mention to Mike Huckabee.
Can someone explain to me what the problem for Republicans is about a Mormon president? As a non-believer I tend to think of all believers as having a fair amount in common (indeed fundamentalist Christians and militant Muslims seem to me a lot more similar than either would like), and would have thought that an enthusiastic Pentacostalist, say, might feel it’s a pity that Romney follows the wrong sect but hey, his heart’s in the right place? FWIW I went to school with three Mormons - very nice kids, and apart from not drinking Coke perfectly normal.
Electoral Calculus: thanks for the link, Martin. Probably not a bad site for Tory-Labour fights (I note I’m supposed to be ahead by over 7%…) but I agree with David Herdson (as usual) that it doesn’t work for LibDem seats, where the situaiuton tends to resist national swings. If the Tories are marginally down on 2005 and Labour a bit up, I’d think most LDs will hold their seats - are there many Lib-Lab marginals?
53 - Nick Mormonism is a cult NOT Christianity! It would be worrying to have a cult member as a national leader especially of a super-power! Pentecostalism is a recognise denomination of Christianity, Mormonism is not.
53. The main problem is that Mormons believe that Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are three separate beings, and thus reject the trinity. Evangelican Christians thus regard Mormonism as a polytheistic cult, in disregard of the commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods but Yahweh.”
53.”I’d think most LDs will hold their seats - are there many Lib-Lab marginals? ”
The 2005 LD gains from Labour + Chesterfield (2001 gain who has remained marginal in 2005).
Among 2005 gains, Cardiff Central is probably not a marginal anymore as LD took it with a 15% majority
54. “Mormonism is a cult NOT Christianity.” That all depends on definitions. Mormons consider themselves Christian, and as they worship Jesus Christ, as a neutral I think it’s a fair description.
55 - tjm it is more than that - it is founded on a lie and a load of mumbo jumbo!
Mormon theology teaches that god is only one of countless gods, that he used to be a man on another planet, that he became a god by following the laws and ordinances of that god on that world, and that he brought one of his wives to this world with whom he produces spirit children who then inhabit human bodies at birth.
58. “it is founded on a lie and a load of mumbo jumbo”
Sorry, how does that not make it Christian?
Why do you consider the Mormons to be a cult particularly, Rik? I’ve known a few and they didn’t strike me as any more cult-ish than most other denominations. They have a special book of course, but is it really radically different from any other denomination which piles interpretation on top of scripture?
55 they also believe Jesus was purely human, that an angel descended and imparted the (secret) words of God to a chosen prophet and many other things that make it impossible for even the most laid back C of E member to regard them as Christian - not just evangelicals. A mormon won’t become US president unless the angel Moroni descends to the Rose Garden and gives a press conference telling everyone Mitt Romney is a stand up guy.
Whereas mainstream Christian denominations recognise one another, even if they disagree, the mainstream Church does not recognise Mormonism as Christian because it is not based on Biblical truth or universal Christian understandings of truth.
Have a look at this for starters:
http://www.carm.org/lds/compare.htm
Isn’t the point of a “cult” as traditionally used that it is a religious group which deliberately places itself outside conventional society?
It strikes me that the Mormons just have some beliefs you disagree with, Rik. A lot of people have religious views I think are nonsense (indeed just about anyone with any religious views at all). I don’t think they are all in cults, just that they are probably wrong.
61. They certainly do not believe Jesus was purely human, thats Arianism. Mormons view Jesus as divine and part of the Godhead.
And in traditional Christianity, God had lots of individual prophets who he gave private instructions too - Moses, for instance. I agree a Mormon would probably not become President in the foreseeable future, but thats because of the prejudice of other Christians - not because Mormonism is any more bonkers than other religions.
62. Just because other religions claim to be the “one true Christianity” and insist on the Nicene Creed being a critical defining point doesn’t mean its not fair to describe Mormonism as Christianity. It’s not for one lot to decide the other lot don’t qualify.
63 - the Mormons are based on the teachings of Joseph Smith who was a convicted felon. He claimed to have stumbled down a hole in the USA and found tablets of gold with strange writing on that only he could read with special glasses!!
Mormonism is not recognised by any Christian denomination as Christian, in fact most consider it anti-Christian. See also http://www.lcms.org/graphics/assets/media/LCMS/wa_mormonism.pdf
62 - where did you get that wacky site, Rik!?!
If the choice is between “The Bible is authoritative in all areas” (mainstream) and “the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated properly” (Mormon) (and actually I agree with neither), then I am backing the “cult”! There are a lot of other statements of mainstream Christian views on that site which are highly, highly arguable but I will not bore you.
65 - Jesus was a convicted felon himself! Not comparing, just saying like….
o/t
Im watching the evening news of scenes of 250 dead in Iraq. You Labour supporters on here should hangs your heads in shame for what you have done to that country. i am so angry about this. if that odious liar brown is going to pull out in october to suit his own political agenda then he should be ashamed of himself, pull out now because we are doing no good there and it cant be worse if we are not there.
how can you people support such a morally repellent government?
Anyway Nick, I think we’ve answered your question. For religious people it’s not enough to believe in God per say, you have to believe in exactly your creed, otherwise you are a heretic. That’s just the reaction of the (largely) sensible folk on pb.c boards. Now imagine the reaction in small town Texas and you’ll see why I’ve been disagreeing with people playing down the Mormon factor.
66 - james - the quotes are almost all from the Bible itself!
The choice is not between ““The Bible is authoritative in all areas” (mainstream) and “the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated properly” (Mormon)”. See my post at 65 above. There is the Book of Mormon which was made up by Joseph Smith.
You can protest all you like but Mormonism is NOT Christian it is a cult with all the dangers that cults represent.
68. Yeah. 250 dead, Gordon’s fault
I can see the clear connection…
65. And Christianity is based on the teaching of St. Paul, a guy that claimed he broke down and communicated with a dead rabbi in the Roman Levant! What’s your point?
These sites you’re sending us are ridiculous. I noticed the first one even claimed that certain Protestant-only beliefs (being saved by God’s faith alone) were necessary for Christianity. I’m not going to accept that a categorisation of religion based on what believers of what particular religion think!
68 Did the news say whether US troops had planted the bombs by any chance?
69 - “you have to believe in exactly your creed, otherwise you are a heretic” - that isnt what I or anyone else has been saying!
There are many differences in the difference branches of Christianity but Mormonism is NOT one of those branches!
63. Isn’t a cult just a religion that hasn’t (yet) survived long enough to gain the respectability of age?
To claim any religion is based on a lie because it contradicts the tenets of another is logically daft. The whole point of religion is that you have to take it literally on faith; they cannot be proved true or false but must be believed to be true.
That said, in the context of this string, there are plenty of Americans who are devout enough in their own beliefs, which don’t permit Mormonism as a legitimate faith, to have an impact on Romney’s chances. Even so, he did get elected as a Republican to be governor of Massachusetts, so it can’t be a fatal flaw.
72 - none of those sites says you should be saved by “God’s faith alone”! It is a fundamental tenet of Protestantism that people are saved by faith alone and NOT by works. Roman Catholicism has some differences from that but BOTH would agree that Mormonism is a cult! End of!
70. The Bible contradicts itself in enough places! As well as the fact that there are numerous translations by various people. The Book of Mormon was probably made up by Joseph Smith, just as the various writings that went into the Bible were made up by ancient writers. And for the record, Mormons follow both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. What special dangers are there to Mormonism over Evangelical Christianity? Answer me that. In my experience Mormons are a lot nicer and less fascist than the latter.
74. Yes but none of thosse differences break the Nicene Creed. Ancient Christians considered Arianism a cult for the very same reason, but you clearly can’t claim they weren’t Christian.
69: Um, yes, I see what you mean. It’s all a bit reminiscent of my student days, Communists vs Trotskyists vs Maoists, and anything except the correct version worse than not believing in anything at all.
Lots of denominations have a set of beliefs additional to scripture, Rik. And I was quoting directly from the link you posted at 62.
The essence of a cult is separating yourself from society, not recognition. Non-recognition is just widespread fact, sadly. The Catholic church’s official position reaffirmed by the current Pope recently is that all other churches are “false” churches, except the Russian and Greek Orthodox churches which are merely “defective”.
It’s all pointless and boring squabbling of course, but there’s no point running around screaming “cult” like you do at people you just happen to think are wrong. There are plenty enough malicious cult-ists ripping off their feeble minded followers to worry about a pretty benign bunch like the Mormons. They believe some odd stuff but no more than most people.
Where is tpfkar when I need him!!? lol
Anyway enough on Mormonism for now!
72 - none of those sites says you should be saved by “God’s faith alone”!
Look at your link again:
http://www.carm.org/lds/compare.htm
‘It is a free gift received by God’s grace and cannot be earned.’
“It is a fundamental tenet of Protestantism that people are saved by faith alone and NOT by works.”
Yes, that’s what I said. And just because two denominations club together to exclude another doesn’t make the other one excluded!
Ironically the only leading GOP candidate married once is the mormon! That said he’s far too smarmy for my liking. Of the three front runners he’d perform the worst against Clinton IMHO.
81 - no you didnt say that, you said by “God’s faith alone” - it is the individual’s faith NOT God’s faith that saves. Salvation is a gift from God that is accepted through faith.
You have misread what is written!
78. I’ve thought the very same thing myself before. I think it’s that any belief steeped in an ideology will always get caught up in semantic logical problems that can’t be tested and thus you get bitter divisions. This contrasts with scientists and non-ideological politicians who actually back their reason with evidence and experiments and will listen to each other. These people usually come to a consensus (well, close to one). Hence the “problem” with our modern party system. On all the big issues the three main parties agree because of evidence, but the fundamentalists on the wings can’t ever see eye-to-eye with anyone else!
83. Sorry! I meant God’s *grace*, not faith! Isn’t an individual’s faith predestined in Protestantism anyway? I never quite worked out the difference between single predestination in Lutheranism and double predestination in Calvinism but there you go.
I’ll agree to end the Mormon debate too, we’re probably boring everyone.
79. So the chronology goes something like:
1st century foundation: the True Church
pre-12th century schism: defective church
16th-18th century schism: false church
19th-20th century schism: cult
Just as a matter of interest, if cults are designedly seperate, to what extent would that apply to (for example) Judaism?
85 - aha you have alighted on one of the great debates in Protestantism - Predestination vs Free Will! But both are readable within the Bible. Mormonism isnt!
86 - no not true - Methodism, Baptists, Congregationalist, Prebysterians are not false churches or cults, they are recognised demoniations because they adhere to basic common Christian beliefs!
It looks as Wendy will be leader for the joy of ChrisD.
Her allies, however, seem to be aware she needs to impreve her presentational skills.
All serious contenders seem to have decided not to stand. Only the hard left now has to decide if put up a candidate and/or to see if they’ve the numbers to do so. Alexander seems to prefer a contest because it would give her “extra moral authority”
As for the Left at Holyrood, who are the leftist MSPs left? I know Elaine Smith, I think there’s a regional list MSP who is on the Left…but is there anyone else?
O/T and completely irrelevant, this was one artist who was stupid enough to sign their work. Graffiti daubed at historic site
80 - this is an alarmingly dangerous habit, but I agree with Rik W on Mormons. They’re decent enough folk in my experience, and I don’t regard them as a danger (like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists and Scientologists), but they’re a cult.
Reminds me…
Father Dougal: God, Ted, I heard about those cults. Everyone dressing in black and saying our Lord’s gonna come back and judge us all!
Father Ted: No… No, Dougal, that’s us. That’s Catholicism.
David .
I’m not necessarily including mormonism but there are some extremely nasty cults which go in for brainwashing lonely and impressionable people. David Koresh’s outfit for instance. They should genuinely be distinguished from religions where you can come and go as you please.
I think mormonism was tarnished by their belief in polygamy which presumably they’ve had to give up for some time.
88. But apparently not according to the Catholic church?
Argh… I’m pulled back in.
“But both are readable within the Bible. Mormonism isnt!”
That surely depends which Bible you’re using. There are plenty of translations and I’m sure a lot are quite a way of the original scrolls. The Bible is just one particular selection of Christian writings chosen at the Council of Nicea anyway. All the Arian and Gnostic stuff was left out, plus a dozen or so gospels.
“they are recognised demoniations because they adhere to basic common Christian beliefs!”
Well all of those ones are Protestant, and why should the mainstream larger denominations get to decide what counts as “basic common Christian beliefs” for classification purposes? Would you deny Arianism was a form of Christianity?
91. What are the criteria differences for a cult or a religion in your view then? I’ve visited Scientology centres. That’s a cult. Mormons just seem like other religious folk.
92. I have to admit that Mormons were outwardly racist for a long time, believing that black people were descendants of Cain, and inherited his mark and his sin. But they’re not a cult!
93 - hmmm dont go there!!
93 - quite. But then ROMAN Catholicism is a cult - see 91
92 - Mormonism has multiple offshoots, some of which still operate monogamy (for men only though!)
89.Andrea, words cannot describe my joy at the thought of listening to that hectoring voice almost daily in the Scottish news.
“Alexander seems to prefer a contest because it would give her “extra moral authority”, something tells me that she would welcome a genuine contest as much as Gordon Brown did a few months ago.
I loved Andy Kerr’s comment, “I intend to be part of that debate and I believe that the best way for me to do that is not as a leadership contender but as an active contributor to it.” Obviously nobody told him that no leadership contest means no debate.
Should we hope Wendy will be an improvement from McConnell at least in the fashion department?
http://images.newsquest.co.uk/image.php?id=637716&type=full
94 - “There are plenty of translations and I’m sure a lot are quite a way of the original scrolls.”
Well the Book of Mormon was written on Tablets of Gold, not scrolls. Must have been quite a bit of gold too, as the book is quite long. This gold has been lost, and must have had some melt value. Perhaps it will materialise in Romney’s campaign fund.
94 - OK if you dont think they are a cult try this site for a change!
http://www.exmormon.org/
87.”words cannot describe my joy at the thought of listening to that hectoring voice almost daily in the Scottish news.”
So you will have the head teacher (Wendy), the matron (Annabel), the dream boy who is not so dreamy afterall (Nicol) + Salmond (who I like, but in too large doses can become too much as his ego will crush everything).
101. Andrea. You are as ever a mine of information on all things political. But you seem particularly interested and informed regarding the Scottish Parliament and their personalities.
Any reason? Just wondered.
100. So its had a dodgy history, the original teachings were made up quite fancifully, its beliefs have been confused at time and sometimes contradictory, it doesn’t like people to marry outside the faith, it asks for donations a lot, doesn’t like homosexuality.
How is this any different from most other religions? I’m sure I could come up with a list of all the crimes of Christianity and all its silliest beliefs and contradicitions. If Mormonism qualifies as a cult, most Christian sects do. With the exception of Quakers. They’re just really, really nice.
I’ve spent a lot of time in Utah, and have a fair few Mormon acquaintances. I’ve even been to Colorado City, the famous town in the southern Utah desert where the polygamists live.
Yes Mormonism is a cult, but all religions begin as cults. The only difference is time. It’s the same process that turns yesterday’s terrorists into tomorrow’s freedom fighters.
My favourite way of seeing this is to imagine a bunch of cultured Romans, circa 300 AD, discussing the latest Oriental faith of Christianity.
‘What, you mean they really think they are eating their God?’
‘Yes, in the bread and the wine.’
‘Ugh! These horrible Asian cults! Disgusting!’
Mormon beliefs are very eccentric to our eyes - they even wear sacred undergarments. But in a couple of hundred years they will seem perfectly normal, like Methodists today. Mormon beliefs are inherently no more illogical than those of Muslims, or indeed communists.
I should add that I like Mormons. They are incredibly friendly and hospitable. And Salt Lake City is maybe the only big city in America which you can walk through at 2am, knowing you are MOST unlikely to be mugged.
That’s a good thing.
I’ll try and make a serious point as a final contribution from me this evening.
There are certainly some nasty groupings which use fear, coercion, blackmail and other forms of psychological abuse to intimidate vulnerable people in the name of a religion, and we can call these cults if it helps. As a contrast, the established religions have generally come to some accomodation over the centuries with the states in which they operate and as such have dropped their more extreme edges.
Even so, they still tend to operate on the basis that if you don’t follow them, then you’re damned for all eternity - which is certainly a more severe sanction than an ASBO (that’s not necessarily true of the Eastern religions, but I’ll leave them out for now).
Even now, if any of the ‘great’ monotheistic religions are taken at their most basic, they come back to ’salvation is through me and me alone’, ‘believe in me and follow my teachings and you will live in paradise’, ‘all other paths are false’, ‘all else is irrelevance’.
It could be argued that it’s only because of the practical accomodations that have been made that the great religions stopped behaving like cults. Alternatively, it could be argued that it was the catastophe of the Thirty Years War that embarrassed the religions and civil leaderships into being quite so strident.
Either way, the potential to act in the same way as a cult is still there for ‘mainstream’ religion should their leadrships wish to. For practical purposes it is limited by the advance of scepticism, humansism, materialism, rationalism and technology. But those practical limits don’t really change the nature of the religions themselves.
98. Andrea, Jack displaying a chav like need to give the kilt a modern twist which IMHO is a disaster. All you need is a good pair legs and a decently made traditional outfit.
101.Andrea, putting Salmond and Goldie up against those two in a live debate is going to be cringe worthy.
105. Ah David, the voice of reason. I think you summed it all up nicely.
Run for parliament. Go on. You know you should really.
RE; MORMONISM
The fact that Mitt Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) is a political problem stems from the fact that a significant number of conservative Protestant fundamentalists, evangelicals and even more “mainstream” demoninations do NOT believe that Mormons are Christians and DO believe the LDS Church is a cult.
Roots of the traditional conservative Protestant dislike of Mormonism are:
–LDS believes Book of Mormon is divine scripture, in addition to Old & New Testaments
–Until 1890s LDS doctrine promulgated by Joseph Smith sanctioned and actively promoted polygamy
–Following serious unrest across the Midwest (Joseph Smith was murdered by a lynch mob) Mormons established their Salt Lake colony, which led to further unrest (Mountain Meadows massacre; military occuption) before the Civil War
–Mormons are noted for the communalism but also charged with being clannish, with a VERY tight hierarchy and organization chart; non-Mormons are banned from most Mormon religous sanctuaries
–Mormons believe that eventually everyone will become a Mormon (crudely stated but basically correct)
Note voters most prone to anti-Mormonism are overwhelmingly Republican, and conprise a significant minority of the GOP electorate in just about every state.
Also note that many, even most of these folks don’t have a problem with Utah, etc electing Mormon politicians to state & federal office. And many are even OK with voting for Mormons themselves - but NOT for President.
This is VERY similar to traditional anti-Catholicism in the US up to 1960. The concerns expressed by conservative Protestants (and some anti-clerical liberals) back then against JFK’s religion are echoed in most of the concerns currently being expressed againt Romney’s religion. ‘Tis a soupcon of genuine angst well-flavored with old-time bigorty.
Major differences between JFK 1960 and MR 2008 are
–no big Mormon vote to compensate for anti-Moronism (in 1960 Kennedy may have gained more votes than he lost on religious ground; for example, certainly helped him in Illinois if not Texas).
–in 1960 big Democratic bosses (mostly Catholic) didn’t want JFK to run (at first) because it might hurt their other candidates AND the Catholic Church wasn’t all that eager to test the envelope either; but today Mormons across the US have contributed major sums to the Romney campaign, and the LDS establishment appears to be 100% behind him.
–JFK dealt with the anti-Catholic issue head-on, in several ways: by appearing before Houston Ministerial Association to answer questions from hard-core evangelical ministers (LBJ’s contribution was to put the meanest-looking preachers in the front row, where the camera would highlight them) and winning the West Virginia Primary; so far Romney has done NOTHING comperable.
Incidentially, many of the stout Mormon residents of Utah and vincity are decended from ENGLISH ancestors who were converted in mass meetings across the UK. These people (mostly poor) traveled by ship and train as far as it went (railroad didn’t get to Salt Lake City until late 1860s) then they went the rest of the way to Utah cross mountains, rivers, deserts, you name it PULLING HANDCARTS. Must say that we Americans (most of us anyway) sincerely thank Her Majesty Queen Victoria and HM govt for driving these pioneers as wretched refuse to our teaming shores!
Finally note that one of the classic anti-Mormon screeds of all time was written by SIR ARTHUR CONNAN DOYLE. His classic “A Study in Scarlet” pits Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson against a despicable gang of Mormon enforcers directed by a sinister LDS cabal motivated by lust, greed, pride and other deadly sins.
NOTE that I also know & have known a number of Mormons, and I’ve never found them to be weird in any way. Also know number of ex-Mormons (”Jack Mormons” in LDS parlance) who of course have their own perspective.
108. A few last remarks.
Regarding the ex-Mormons. Religion is generally a lot more militant in the US, and thus ex-religious people can be a lot more bitter about it. I have a friend in his mid-20s who rails against his parents Catholicism. He really hates what he considers the judgemental nature of Catholics.
I once had a haircut in Salt Lake City. The barber (non-Mormon) asked me if I’d been up to see the LDS temple yet. I said that I hadn’t but was planning to. He said “Oh the Mormons… they’re good people. If we all adhered to our beliefs as devoutly and finely as they do, there’d be a lot less strife in the world.”
Finally, while a non-Mormon girl was showing me round the temple, she explained that Mormons believe their prophet was God’s divine messenger on Earth, with special powers for interpreting God’s will, and some of his statements were infallible.
Me: “It’s ridiculous what some people believe isn’t it?”
Her: “I’m Catholic. We believe the same thing.”
Me: “Oh… right.”
107. Nice of you to think so but my political ambitions are now purely local.
(the second-last paragraph in [105] should of course have read “… embarrassed the religions and civil leaderships out of being quite so strident.”)
102.”Any reason? Just wondered. ”
stjohn…actually I don’t know the reason why I look to Scottihs politics so much…which is quite worrying!
Sean T, you sure get around a lot! BTW, when you next connect with your Yezidiz friends, please convey the horror and sadness people around the world feel for their recent tragedies.
One of the worst features of the Iraq war has been the devestation amounting in some cases to outright genocide against religous minorities.
BTW, are there any connections between the Yezidiz and the Druse? Sounds very similar.
111.Andrea I don’t think it can be because of the wealth of talent so it must the fun of watching some of the characters?
106. Very true, if alarmingly prolix.
Many of my own family in Cornwall emigrated to Utah, and converted to Mormonism, in the 19th Century.
Indeed one of my direct ancestors, surnamed Moyle, was a crucial figure in the building of the first great temple in Salt Lake City. I think he was so inspired by the fires of faith he personally hauled enormous loads of bricks on a handcart.
I sometimes wonder if this ancestry of mine accounts for my susceptibility to good ol’ fashion, firebreathing, hymn-singing, heart-on-your-homespun-sleeve evangelism.
112. I’m talking to the Yezidi tomorrow. Truly a horrible atrocity.
The Yezidi really hate the Muslims and the Muslims hate them right back. This has been the case for centuries, but this bomb is going to make these divisions even worse, as Al Qaeda must know.
114. I believe there have been studies showing a genetic link to religious belief. I belief Myers-Briggs personality types also are a factor, with NTs like myself being the most likely to disbelieve.
Another thing re: Mormons - they are VERY active proselytisers. And they go recruiting everywhere you can do it and survive (which leaves out Saudi Arabia and parts of several southern US states). Naturally this puts them into conflict with evangelical congregations in many communities (similar to how the Catholic Church is bent out of shape by pentacostals in Latin American)
All over the US it is not uncommon to see well-scrubed, typically good looking, frequently blond young men in their early 20s walking in pairs in a wide variety of socio-economic settings. These are Mormon missionaries, who follow LDS teachings by dedicating a couple years or so to active missionary work. Indeed, the practice is so common that the State of Utah raised both Cain & a federal court case when they protested that the state lost a seat in the US House of Representatives because Mormons domiciled in Utah but out-of-state on church business were NOT counted as state residents in the 2000 census.
111. Andrea. Your surname isn’t by any chance Rizzio is it? If so it could explain a lot. Mind you, should it be so, Jack W may take a dim view.
OT- Business News!: Dow Jones down today again. Has droped over 2000 points in less than a month. First time that the Dow Jones had closed below the 13,000 mark since 24 April.
Possible recession about to happen in America maybe?
#82 EXCELLENT point!
Over a hundred years ago, when Utah was admitted as a state (which was delayed for MANY decades until the LDS Church renouced polygamy) it naturally sent a Mormon (think just one at first) to the United States Senate.
The arrival of this gentleman caused a stir, because a number of senators argued that Mormonism was a pernicious cult, etc. and that no Mormon should be allowed to take a seat in the US Senate. (The US Constitution provides that each house of Congress is the judge of its own membership.)
So the debate raged for day, covering the ground and more explored on this blog. Non-religous considerations (the Senator-Elect was a Republican but also for Free Silver) crept into the arguments but religious & moral feeling was paramount.
Finally a grizzled old senator who hadn’t said much up to then finally spoke up:
“Well” he said, regarding his fellow solons with an even gaze, “when it’s all said and done, I think I’d rather have a Polygamist who doesn’t Polyg in the Senate, that a Monogamist who doesn’t Monog!”
The Senate voted to seat the new Senator from Utah.
Well what a fascinating thread!
I’ve been out all evening, which is just as well because I would probably have added a lot of heat and no light to the debate, so can I just say…
SeanT - May I too, through your good offices, ask that you pass on some form of commisseration to these poor Yezidi people.
As for the people who perpetrated the crime, it doesn’t matter what creed or faction they call themselves - gobshites are gobshites the world over.
Sea Shanty - Some great posts. Like a number of others here, I have stayed in Salt Lake City and can confirm - very nice, safe, friendly, etc. But just a little spooky. Can’t quite put my finger on it, but something not quite right about it all.
Finally, I can begin to see why Mitt’s Mormonism might be fatal to his political aspirations. Previously, I had some difficulty. To me, his religion is no more wacky than anybody else’s, but I can now see why many key voters would see it differently.
Thanks everybody. Truly great thread.
Off to uncle now. Nite nite.
Interesting thread
I have also just got back from Salt Lake City and agree that it and Utah generally are very friendly, safe, family oriented places, with little crime and considerable charitable work going on. I wouldn’t be Mormon myself, but you could do a lot worse for neighbours, or for a prevailing culture.
I would also point out that Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate Democrats is a Mormon, and hence would be surprised if the Democrats explicitly made an issue of it. Ted Kennedy tried to when Romney ran for his Massachusetts Senate seat in 1994, and it backfired hugely.
David Brooks in the New York Times wrote an interesting piece on Romney’s candidacy this weekend which suggest Romney’s broader problem is he is trying too hard to be like a generic Republican
http://greenpagan.blogspot.com/2007/08/straw-poll-man.html