I have no use whatsoever for any so-called Christian leader that would dismiss a political candidate because of his religion.

Never mind that Romney’s position on abortion as governor was to the right of McCain’s

I’m sorry but you are absolutely wrong!

John McCain has a very strong pro-life record; indeed, an almost perfect pro-life voting record in the Senate. His only error is that he has supported limited ESCR; a position that, unfortunately, is not uncommon among many who consider themselves pro-life (eg. Nancy Reagan). The argument is that you might as well put the “tissue” to good use. Note that I personally disagree with that line of argument.

Also note that as governor, Mitt Romney also supported ESCR and supported the Massachusetts state legislature in advancing research in that area. I am sorry but there is no way you can say that Romney was to the right of McCain on abortion (or on just about any other issue) when he was governor of Massachusetts.

But if it makes you feel better, I would much rather have Romney on the ticket than Huckabee. Huckabee is completely unacceptable to me.

that would exclude Romney for the reasons cited. They are utter Bull Snit.

1. Social issues. Anybody who can’t see that is a total non-issue is braindead. First of all, VP’s don’t have input on policy. Second, the only thing that will impact social issues in any meaningful way is two new conservative SCOTUS justices. Constitutional amendments are utter non-starters. Third, like it or not social issues will (and should) take a back seat to the War and to the economy.
2. Huckabee is a complete pinhead. He will lose the election for McCain in a big way. BIG way. We’ve already beat this subject to death and I don’t feel like rehashing it. I will say though, that I have no problem begrudging people their personal preferences when it comes to Huckabee.
3. He’s a Mormon. I’m an Evangelical and I have serious theological problems with LDS. I’m not going to debate them here. I also don’t give a rip if Mitt’s a Mormon or a Wiccan.

All that said, I’d rather see Rudy (won’t happen).

Most of these so called evangelical leaders no more lead the average evangelical than I do. They have sold a few inane books, or they have a mega church and they get a little ink or TV coverage.
They for the most part are very superficial and live in their on little biased world.
I am a life long evangelical,have been in numerous evangelical circles for many years, and have practiced and preached the evangelical message.
There is now and has been for years a certain mix within the evangelical movement that is made up of phony self promoting charlatans that would gag a maggot. No self respecting evangelical would give these clowns the time of day.

or stir one up?

Frankly, I don’t think Romney has much to complain about if some leaders want a stronger social conservative. There are people with better credentials. There are even people with better credentials who aren’t fiscal liberals like Huckabee. If McCain is a little weak here, all the more reason to seek a commitment expressed through a VP pick.

But let’s take the case that’s obviously causing most concern: some voters who distrust Romney because of his faith. I’m sure there are some, which is as much as the article claims. Here Romney is stuck in a catch-22 situation. Are the values of his church important to him, affecting his behavior? Then his religion is a relevant issue. Is he going to supercede his specific church values for the sake of political correctness? Then he’s arguably a squish on values. It would take masterful skill to successfully navigate between the two. Romney hasn’t demonstrated it so far.

I point out that any member of a minority church with strong views, Christian or not, has the same problem. Heck, Methodism is highly regarded in the USA, and Bush had to directly repudiate anti-Catholicism to win the 2000 primary. At some point, the successful candidate has to stop blaming the establishment and voters for doing what they think is right, and instead find a way to establish trust.

IMO, Romney’s inability to establish trust extended far beyond Evangelicals, and explains why he lost the primary despite his financial advantages. This doesn’t strike me as a good trait in a VP either.

Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Some religious leaders are suspicious of Romney’s Mormon faith, considering him to not be a Christian, and therefore diminished in standing in their eyes.

Jesse Jackson is a Race Hustler…What does that make the “Christians hate Mitt because he’s a Mormon” crowd. Someone last week told me they never see this as a standard attack by Romney supporters yet I see it in two separate diaries on the same day…You and others always say “Some religious leaders are suspicious of Romney’s Mormon faith” yet no one ever quotes any of those so called religious leaders. Most of the ones you could come up with if you tried to back up your statements would be toothless hillbillies but that doesn’t matter…they provide the wood for your fire doesn’t it?

It’s kind of like the press with their “sources say” meme which they use to smear their targets yet they never have to produce those so called sources.

There are many reasons to object to Romney as VP without the “Mormon” excuse…and his supporters are no better than Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson when they smear Romney’s opponents as anti Mormon bigots without any proof to back up the claim…I for one am sick of it!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/story/gamecock/2008/07/26/dobsonsmomentsandevangelicalselectiondays#comment-4363

http://race42008.com/2007/12/27/bigotry-identity-politics-class-envy-and-reaching-out-a-devine-primer/

I think it is the media that advances the idea that identity politics is behind Huck’s rise.

Huck rose due to:

1) Having a pulse, esp in debates, as compared to the rest, (See passion, vision and reaching out) on religious and mostly non-religious issues;

2) Mitt was in Iowa too long; and

3) The rest were in Iowa too little.

Huck is admired for being unashamed to take on the PC police by being very public with his faith and not being afraid to say the name of Jesus in public.

But Huck’s rise is quite limited in substance and he will fall. But let’s not insult his supporters as he falls by labeling them bigots.

The Pope gave a grand sermon a few years ago explaining to secular Europe how all religions are not equal. That judeo-christian values made civilized and free europe possible.

Moe, Radical Islamists are monotheists. You wouldn’t vote for them for Pres.

Wiccans are polytheists and so are Hindus, but the polys for Wiccans are evil. The Bible warns that these powers are the enemy of God. They woship evil.

Hindus don’t.

Mormons don’t.

I am not saying that we can’t be friends with wiccans to some extent, but to make them President.

Hell, literally, no.

While we are at it, let’s discuss the word cult.

I was for Mitt for pres for over a year. I would vote for him today for president. But, as I wrote in a blog a year ago, the dominant religion decides what is a cult, and by the age old technical definition, Mormon Church is a cult because they add to the canon and other things on doctrine.

All cults are not created equal. I don’t use the term as it has evolved after Jim Jones, etc.

Now, to say that the confession of the LDS is a cult, does not meant that any Mormon is not a Christian. Mitt says Jesus is savior. John3:16 confession. I take him at is word and would say he is a Christian in that most important sense.

for “stalinist” remark (too much mark levin?) and appreciates the RS commutation of original 24 hour ban to less than 7 hours.

God bless Redstate and his Moeness.