« Bill Richardson's Blueprint For Victory In Iowa | Main | The Daily Five: Guess Obama Didn't Bring Her Flowers... »

Why Mitt Romney Faces Serious Challenges In Iowa

27 Nov 2007 02:00 pm

(embarrassing typo corrected - thanks JD)

He's ahead in the polls and there's a good chance he will win, but still, but ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney faces serious challenges in Iowa. Here are six.

First, savvy consultants look at two numbers to project whether, if a particular election were held today, their candidate would win. One is the head to head -- and Mitt Romney still leads, narrowly, in Iowa polls. The second is the degree of intensity -- and here, Mike Huckabee's surge breaks over the walls that the Romney Iowa organization has spent so many months carefully building. Every consultant would rather be behind by five points in the head to head match ups and ahead by double digits in terms of the level of intensity.

Second: The national political press corps and conservative political elites, aided by Nachama Soloveichik, are beginning to scrutinize Mike Huckabee, and they finding out some astounding things. Did you know that his administration was regularly censured by state ethics boards? That Huckabee once worked as a director of advertising? He certainly has his work cut out for him in trying to explain away some of the less salutary aspects of his record (in the eyes of conservatives, anyway.) But the Iowa press corps -- print and TV -- and the national TV networks -- have yet to follow. Huckabee is still the darling of the Iowa media now, and, frankly, they'll decide collectively whether to turn on the scrutiny spigot. In Iowa, Huckabee is not getting the scrutiny that leading candidates generally get.

Third: social conservative single-issue voters seem to have decided, en masse, to coalesce around Huckabee and use Iowa to prove to the world that they still matter in the Republican Party and are tired of being taken advantage of. This dynamic, which Republican operatives working for all candidates perceive, is hard to break. And Huckabee can run what would be, in effect, an anti-Mormon campaign solely by legitimately appealing to evangelicals' identity interests.

Fourth: Huckabee, by dint of his natural temperament, his preaching background or his skills as an ad man, is a more compelling, more engaging public personality that Romney. As TV coverage of the race ramps up, this matters. That said, Romney works a crowd better than Huckabee does. Also, the Romney family is beloved by Romney's volunteers in Iowa and is an undeniable asset.

Fifth: Romney's strategy was surely the only correct one for his campaign. But either his strategists did not count on running up the score in Iowa so early or the press did not give Romney due credit for chasing three rivals out of Ames entirely and beating Huckabee (aided by the FairTaxers) by double digits. The result: Romney, for some reason, just absolutely has to win Iowa or else his chances for winning the nomination are finished. Empirically, this is nonsense. Romney has unlimited resources and is the only campaign right now that has the capacity to challenge Giuliani through January and into February.

Sixth: Timing. For all intents and purposes, the race in Iowa ends before Christmas. Probably the week before Christmas. Romney has little time to mount a counter-offensive. And the ramifications of going negative against Huckabee are unclear.

None of the above is to suggest that Romney is going to lose Iowa. But it does suggest that, at a minimum, that victory is not assured. Romney's organizational is real and impressive, and note that Huckabee's rise has not, so far, come at Romney's expense.

Comments (114)

"For all intents and purposes, the race in Iowa ends before Christmas. Probably the week before Christmas."

While I understand where you're coming from here, Marc, I don't think this is correct.

The campaign is certainly going to look strange during the holidays, but there's going to be a huge amount of movement after December 20th.

For Iowans, this is going to be a campaign event holiday season.

What about money? Doesn't Romney have like 5 or 6 times as much money as Huckabee? Couldn't he squash Huckabee with a tsunami of negative ads that Huckabee doesn't have the resources to respond to? Are there any indications that he's planning to do this?

It is amazing to me that Iowans are willing to vote for Huckabee when they clearly don't trust him as president (correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember recent polls showing him scoring really low when respondents were asked about his competence on foreign policy, immigration, the economy, and leadership.) As his recent ad shows, his campaign is running completely on his ability to use Biblical terms. Iowans were mad about the comment they they pick corn not presidents, but this strange scenario only fuels that idea. Iowans out there, please tell me you'll base your vote on more than just religion!

GO ROMNEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mentioned this elsewhere ... won't the Club for Growth detonate Huckabee's campaign, even if it gets out of Iowa?

Anyone knows that Huckabee has no chance of winning the nomination. He traction in Iowa is clear evidence for anti-Mormon sentiments as stated in the above article. If evangelicals want to shoot themselves in the foot and allow Rudy to get the nomination because of religious bigotry than this country is going backwards and not forward.

Huckabee will almost certainly win Iowa, it appears at this point. It will be a big blow to Romney, but the dye is already cast. Romney is behind, if you look at the polling carefully. There is no way for him to catch up now.

Go MITT ROMNEY!!!! ROMNEY for PRESIDENT 2008!!!

I could see Huck pulling off an upset or strong second in Iowa, but the Club for growth hates his guts and Romney will soon have to stop ignoring him and go on the attack, or, ideally, maneuver one of the other candidates, maybe the incredibly shrinking Fred, to slam Huck on his Arkansas record.

With these obstacles, and Romney's firewall in NH, it's hard to see how Huck will have the money and unblemished aw-shucks appeal to carry on.

Of course, as a Democrat, I'm happy to see all this strife on the other side and I hope the fighting is utterly acrimonious and convinces as many GOP voters a possible to stay hom in disgust.

And hey, Romney spammers, you got anything to say beyond "WOOOOOOOO!!!"?

>>> But either his strategists did not count on running up the score in Iowa

I think this is important to note. Outside of message (where I think he and his team have been much less than sure-footed) his campaign has been strategically textbook. Problem is they didn't count on McCain's early implosion, and the fact that it took 6 months before any of his competitors followed him on to Iowa television. I don't really consider it their fault that they've suddenly got competition -- I think all along they expected the caucus race to be tight. It just took longer than expected to emerge and it's coming from a somewhat unexpected source. They know what they have to do (stop Huckabee's momentum), the challenge is to execute well.

Petey's correct: there will be a lot of poll movement in the last week. Not much reason to think that things will be "over" by Xmas, although, I think that decisions made in media outlet conference rooms may have more influence on the electorate in that last week than decisions made in campaign offices.

I agree with mike. With the compressed schedule, even if Huckabee wins, he won't have time to raise the needed funds to compete with Rudy G. A vote for Mike H is just a vote for Rudy G. There are even rumors that maxed out Rudy donors are now donating to Mike H because it helps knock down Romney. If this happens, then I predict the Dems winning the White House. Rudy would be a disaster for the conservative movement. And the Repubs will have to learn the hard way that Rudy has a LOT of skeletons in his closet.

>>> Doesn't Romney have like 5 or 6 times as much money as Huckabee? Couldn't he squash Huckabee with a tsunami of negative ads that Huckabee doesn't have the resources to respond to?

Yes, and that's why I have a hard time seeing Huckabee winning the caucuses outright, at this point in time. Still the intensity of his support is such that a strong second (behind by only 3 or 4 points) is very likely.

Huckabaee is a liberal ankle grabber. If he got elected hee would sell the GOP out on taxes,immigration and global warming to name a few. Romney has a much broader based campaign than Ric Flair and Chuck Norris.

Huckabaee is a liberal ankle grabber. If he got elected hee would sell the GOP out on taxes,immigration and global warming to name a few. Romney has a much broader based campaign than Ric Flair and Chuck Norris.

Maybe someone can explain something for me.

Generally speaking voters are expected to cast their votes based on the candidates' beliefs, including religious beliefs, but if you don't want to vote for Romney because of his Mormon beliefs, you are a bigot.

Why is this?

Huck has moved into 2nd in Florida in the latest poll. Just from personal interactions, I know a few pragmatists that will reluctantly support the two pretenders, Romney and Giuliani. But, there is real excitement, from real people, for Mike Huckabee.

Watch for a surprise! The name is Ron Paul.

The only reason there is excitement behind Huckabee is because no one has spent any time focusing on him. He has so many potential negatives that have gone unsaid because he just doesn't matter. His success in Iowa helps Rudy and hurts Romney, but in the end it will not matter. Romney and Rudy are the only ones that can go the di$tance. And when R's have to choose between Rudy and Romney, they won't choose Rudy. As soon as Huckabee faces any scrutiny he is done. That might be before Iowa and will surely be after Iowa. But NH is not going to flock to a tax hiking fake conservative creationist with bad teeth.

great points. i agree. why is the media not pressing the scrutiny button? they either want giuliani to win the nod or they are just in need of ratings by shaking up the race.

if most iowans had a clue fo his past record, his support would not be close to what it is. people think ehi s everything romney is but more 'authentic' that is not true.

Ron Paul is the people's choice because he will restore our republic instead of selling it to special interests. He dominates in straw polls, debate polls, fund raising, web traffic and grass roots networking. I have created a website to support this statement.

Please visit www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.

The critics have been asking Huckabee about those ethics charges and other issues since January when he entered the race. They've been disproven every time. That's why Romney hasn't put up the attack ads yet: what would he say that Huckabee couldn't answer?
That and it would come back and smack him in the back of the head like a boomerang. Considering the kind of campaign Huckabee has run (mostly positive as far as the other candidates until the recent confrontation with Fred Thompson on abortion and a few comments on Romney flip-flopping), any negative attack ads will make Romney look like a bully.

Quote: ". . .if you don't want to vote for Romney because of his Mormon beliefs, you are a bigot.
Why is this?"

There are plenty Southerner Bible Preachers who preach at the pulpit to never vote for a Mormon. Period. Not even considering the man. Not considering his political stance. They will vote for an abortionist, pro gay marriage, liberal before they would vote for a Mormon.

Confused: What part of bigotry do you not understand?

Not voting for Romney based on his religion alone is a mistake the Religious Right that will come to haunt them, when the pro-life movement is put back thirty years, and gay marriages are the rage in America.

How many consultants would want their candidate to so throughly own Iowa that it's considered a hollow victory if their candidate won the caucuses? Not many considering IA's momentum is needed heading into NH.

Huckabee has re-created a race for 1st in IA, which didn't exist once Romney's poll numbers rose and the other top-tier candidates started playing for 2nd or 3rd. Romney's expectations rose as a result and Huckabee is bringing them down. This all means the nat'l press now have a reason to watch the GOP result and broadcast it to GOPers in NH and elsewhere -- instead of just focusing on the titanic Clinton-Obama fight.

A narrow Romney victory over Huckabee would be more valuable to him than a rout over Rudy McThompson. Like high-stakes betting, there's more to gain and more to lose.

Huckabee will win the nomination. Romney has spent more time and much more money in Iowa, but now Huckabee is tied with him. Why should lack of money stop Huckabee elsewhere? Romney's 5,000 TV spots have not worked. What about Florida, where Huckabee is now running 2nd? It's a huge market and he hasn't run a single ad.

What amuses me is that even though the better-financed candidates have largely succeeded in painting Huckabee as a fiscal liberal (which is a lie), he is still gaining momentum. That is because you can't fake sincerity and optimism. The same establishment folks who are digging in their heels against Huckabee now will be lamenting the GOP field in 16 years or so and looking in vain for the "next Huckabee."

Howard, you're a poor excuse for a political pundit.

Romney, Huckabee, Rudy- they all are pretenders to the Reagan throne. The closer you examine their records, the more you realize that they are trying to court a constituency that is opposed to the great number of policy positions they took over the course of their respective political careers.

Fred Thompson is running a campaign that closest resembles a Reaganite-inspired platform, and he has the credibility to boot- he doesn't have to run away from his record.

As such, his campaign will show late momentum and be the surprise performer in the Iowa and beyond- Mark it.

Confused asked: if you don't want to vote for Romney because of his Mormon beliefs, you are a bigot. Why is this?

Because guilt is often a very effective motivator. We are told, "If you don't vote for Romney you are a bigot." So to avoid having anyone call us a bigot, and to prove to others and to ourselves that we are not, we may just vote for Romney.

Romney tells us that Mormons are Christians, very much like most other Americans. Why then would we, vote against Romney who says that his Mormon "Christian" beliefs are very little different than our own, unless we are a bigot?

I would not vote for Romney, not because I dislike his religion, but because he dislikes mine. Mormons believe that their church is not just one of many Christian denominations which are equal in God's sight, but that it is the only truly Christian church. Mormons teach that all other Christian denominations are actually inspired by Satan. Mormons teach that their church is "the only true church" and that the only way non-Mormons can ever gain entrance into the kingdom of God is to reject almost everything we now believe about God and accept in its place all that the Mormon Church teaches about him.

As I said, I would not vote for Romney, not because I dislike his religion, but because he dislikes mine. The way I see things, Mormons are the bigots.

Romney will win Iowa because of superior organization and message. Huck's record in Arkansas will catch up with him. The last thing we need is another glib/phony politician from Hope. Been there, done that.

Those who are doubtful of Romney have good reason to be. His past lack of support for the GOP includes "Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found. Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats." - Boston Globe 7/25/2005
His tacit support for pro-abortion and pro-homosexual policy throughout his term as Governor in Massachusetts is well documented by the Parents' Rights Coalition and Mass Resistance. They have produced a 20plus page report of Romney's record. It is quite sobering.

There are plenty of other articles about Romney's faith. Please take the religious arguments there. Thanks.

"That said, Romney works a crowd better than Huckabee does."

Don't know what crowds you've been watching, but Huckabee clearly bests Romney in that department. Huckabee's crowd appeal is how he came in 2nd in Ames with no money or organization, and ended up with votes that Romney paid for.

Huckabee's the genuine article. Mitt withers when confronted with a real, honest conservative.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Michael Satterlee is actually very similar to a Mormon; just one letter off: Moron. The church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints teaches that many people and many religions have truth in them, and in fact, invites people to bring along whatever truth they have found when they join the LDS church. The LDS church teaches it is in fact the restored church of Jesus Christ and as such has been given the complete gospel including the restoration of prophets and apostles. The catholic church also teaches that it is the one church with the complete gospel, it's first Pope having received authority from the last of Christ's Apostles; so should we call Catholics bigots. If a church doesn't teach that it's doctrines are true, how can it call itself Christ's church. Think about it.

i find it interesting that the financial futures market favors Huckabee over Romney to win Iowa.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html

The biggest thing Romney has had going for him has been Huckabee's "unelectability" ... that wall is slowly coming down as Huckabee is surging upon the support of grassroots social conservatives in Iowa, Florida, and Texas (and the surge is mounting in South Carolina).

As a Huckabee supporter, I take GREAT offense with the "anti-mormon" label. If anything, this surge is based upon the authenticity of Huckabee's social conservatism and practical executive experience as opposed to Romney's apparent willingness to say what he thinks needs to be said to get elected.

A new poll has Huckabee's surge extending to Florida where he is now a strong second. He is truly on fire everywhere.

Pretenders like Rudy, Thomson, McCain, Huckabee are MORONS while Romney is a MORMON plus MORON.

to Gideon's comment; I agree. Huckabee's experience and especially his sincerity is obvious. I like Romney a lot, but I am starting to see some great potential in Huckabee as our man to beat the Dem's this year.

to GOP. That was hillarious!!! There should be a joke in there somewhere: how about " whats the difference between a MORMON and a MORON? answer: one letter. (p.s. since I'm Mormon myself, is it prejudice to make fun of my own?)

I agree with John Micheals as to the own bigotry and hatefullness of Michael Satterlee. Check your facts Satterlee, ask any member of the mormon faith and they will tell you that mormons do not in fact believe that all other faiths are drived from satan or any of the other many falsehoods circulated by preachers and pastors of many denominations who are willing to say anything to keep people from leaving their congregation. Although you really can't blame them, those congregations are how they support themselves, even though the bible forbids it. It all goes back to the old saying, you don't go to a ford dealer to ask about chevys, so why would you do the same with religion?

Huckabee is now beeting Hillary by the widest margin (Zogby) of any GOP candidate.

Also do you research folks. Reagan raised taxes as well.

People are supporting Huckabee because he's authentic and likable. He's surging in every poll. He has the momentum. If Romney starts turning negative, this will hurt Mitt even more.

Romney thought he could just buy the election, but is finding out you can't

It is interesting the Romney propaganda says if Christians bypass Romney and support say Mike Huckabee they are bigots , but when the flip side will inevitably happen , namely Romney winning the Utah primary and Huckabee is no where that is OK . Is there any serious pundit who doubts that Romney will not carry Utah and probably Idaho because of the Mormon communities . Thank God most Bible believing Christians will not vote for a man who believes that Jesus is the Devil's brother and that God the Father is married and over him is another god who is married and over him is yet another god who is married and so on .
Christians will see it for what it is namely paganism .

One person alot of individuals are ignoring is McCain and I think that is a big mistake. Here is a scenerio that I can see play out.

Huckabee beats romney in Iowa by 5-10 percentage points. McCain comes in third barely a blip above Guliani. Thompson comes in 5th, effectively ending his campaign.

NH comes rolling around and Romney starts dropping in the polls. Thompson is done and is a none factor. Huckabee gets strong momentum but social conservatives do not dominate NH, independents do. McCain pulls off the upset and wins NH, with Romney second and Huckabee in a strong third. Guliani again finishes 4th. Thompson ends his campaign with a 6th place finish behind paul

Here is where it really becomes interesting. Along comes south carolina. Huckabee is the darling of the evangelicals and they start rallying around him. Numbers start going up. McCain gets a strong boost from the NH bump. Northeast liberal from NY who hasn't come in a top three finish yet? Numbers start coming down. Romney has alot of cash so he is going to try to survive until the big primaries. Romney and Guliani battle it out for 3rd and 4th.

I believe ALOT and I mean ALOT of of Guliani and Romneys support is soft. I think voters will think that if they can not win any of the first three events, what makes them think they can win the general election.

Should make it an interesting election year.

Probabilities keep on improving that Mr Huckabee will win in Iowa.

People in general are aware that Mr Romney was for abortion and for the homosexual agenda before and of course when Mr Romney decides to switch positions now they wonder about his integrity.

One thing that most people are not aware is what the Mormon Church believes and preaches.

Specifically the fact that they believe that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers.

When people get informed about this fact and many others, they will say "under no circumstances" I will vote for a man whose church have such beliefs.

Myself I do not believe that within the Republican field of candidates there is a man whose views are more in tune with the general public than Mr Huckabee.

Once again we all see just how blinded people like andrew price and pedro delgado really are. Am i the only person concerned that thousands maybe even millions of people just like them are so willing to blindly accept anything their pastor spoon feeds them on sundays no matter how ridiculous it may sound without even questioning its validity? It's no wonder there are so many denominations out there, the vast majority of americans are too easily manipulated. Getting back to politics, which is what this thread is supposed to be about, not different peoples views on who is a bigot and who is not. Mitt Romney is the only GOP canadite who can beat Obama, Edwards, or God help us Hillary, hands down. We all know it, and so do the Democrats, why else would they target him more than double of anyone else, because he's the REAL threat to them. Case closed.

The "correctness" of a religion has no place in these discussions. Nor does fighting or attacking of any sort. Compare records, discuss thoughts, but don't attack. Romney and Huckabee are both good men who have been married for a long time, and have (what at least appears to be) a lot of integrity.

Is someone a bigot for not voting for a Mormon? No. But they are a bigot if their only reasoning is because he or she is a mormon. I would love to vote for a woman, but it won't be for Hillary. Mitt's character is strong. The flip-flop title is cute, but (like with many other contendors) just a negative tool. As can be read on occasion in blogs, Romney changed positions on few items: abortion once, and that's about it. If he were such a fraud and a flip-flop, and an evil man, would his wife stick with him? There's love in that family, and respect. I just feel good when I see them together (I realize how silly that sounds. Check their video about the christmas decision to run for president... that's the one that got me.)

Which brings my next point. I consider each candidate on three scales: first, their integrity, second, their positions, and third, their competence. As an example, Giuliani would score low on integrity, and half way on positions (social issues bad, other things good) but he would do well in the realm of getting things done, or competence.

I think Huckabee is nice, but I worry about how well he would do at actually getting things done. He speaks well, and has good ideas, but he seems to be the cheerleader, more than the football player. He didn't fundraise at all, until the success came to him. Romney, an unknown governor, has fundraised, and more importantly, made his campaign happen.

Romney and Giuliani both got things done. I like Giuliani, but I have issues with his social positions. Romney could actually balance our budget.

I also like to remind people that Thompson, or Huckabee is far better than Clinton, and I would vote for them if it came to it. But I'd rather have someone who gives me as much as I want.

After all, why do people not like a flip-flopper? Because he's dishonest right? Well, the only problem with that is that he kept all of his campaign promises in MA, even after changing his positions. If he changes positions while president, he'll do what he told you he would. If anything, I think he was pro-choice to win in MA, and is switching to his true position now, not vice versa.

Second, the main reason that I see Governor Huckabee surging is because of the word "hype." It isn't permanent--just ask Howard Dean. Or Fred Thompson.

It is shocking that so many citizens of Iowa can have their votes bought by Mr. Romney's money, as at the Straw Poll with his buses, tents, entrance fee "bribes". As we learned in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney will say anything to win. Did he lie to us when he told us over and again what a strong supporter he was of women's and gay rights and gun control? Or is he lying to the people of Iowa and the Nation with his transparent and politically self-serving "conversions". I'm not opposed to wealth, but he wreaks of it and its entitlements. He and his family--he brought them into this discussion, not us--seem like something out of the Stepford Wives.

Mike Huckabee has indicated that his religion is above his politics, and would not mind having a state-sponsored religion, namely baptist. This seems to be what a lot of evangelicals want. Also, he seems to feel that his religion requires him to help the poor and downtrodden and he doesn't mind raising taxes to do that.

It seems that with Mike we would be voting more for a pastor-in-chief rather than for a president and one who has some rather socialistic economic views.

Low blow Northlite. Just because Romney has the family we all wish we had. Again, he did not change positions on gay rights, he has always opposed gay marriage, and has always opposed federal discrimination against gays, a position I find myself and most other christians in. He didn't bribe anyone at that Straw Poll, any more than any other person there did. He just had the money. If any others had had the money, they would've done the same. He is a supporter of women's rights! When was he not?

Most people in MA that stopped liking Romney forget why they put him in in the first place: 3 billion deficit. And he solved it, didn't raise taxes, raised extra money, and kept his campaign promises from start to finish.

Friend, your post was ill-informed, and not thoughtful. If you don't like him, that's fine, but keep the level of conversation higher. It's like telling someone they're ugly and their mother dresses them funny.

By the way, it's reeks, not wreaks. Wreak is like, wreak havoc. Reeks is smells.

Concerning Charles Bates's comments , insult is always a poor substitute for reasoned argument . If he is denying that Romney believes that Jesus and the Devil are brothers then he is either ignorant or being dishonest . May I suggest he speaks to the next Mormon Missionary he meets - after all Romney himself was one or he could consult the Mormon hymn O My Father , which speaks about a Heavenly Mother or the Mormon hymn If I Could Hie To Kolob , which refers to the star which has a planet nearby which man is supposed to originate [see also the Mormon scripture The Pearl of Great Price ]

I make the observation again - the apologists for Romney cry bigotry if Christians bypass Romney , but if the Mormons in Utah overwhelmingly support Romney and bypass the Christian Huckabee in their primary that is OK .

I am sorry but Romney and the Mormons have got to understand that we Christians find deeply offensive the view that Jesus is the Devil's brother.

And in any case in the light of Romney's remarks aboout Muslims in his cabinet and his absurd play on Obama's name who is playing the religion card ?

The key to understanding whether someone’s motives are based on religious bigotry, is in recognising the difference between casting a vote on doctrinal difference as apposed to a value based vote.

Values, whether derived from a candidate’s faith or some other place, directly affect their decisions in office. Doctrine on the other hand, whether it is doctrine “A” or doctrine “B”, don’t matter so much as long as they both lead to say … shared value “X”. Forgive the algebraic example.

It is fine if we want to not vote for a candidate because we disagree with there stance on something like gay marriage, abortion rights or even say fiscal policy. However, the moment we start voting based on whether someone does or does not believe the same things we believe or speak the same “language of Zion” that we speak, the flood gates will be opened for all sorts or religious scrutiny. And, don’t think the left isn’t going to have a hay day pursuing that line of fire.

We risk opening the doors to making it acceptable public discourse to judge candidate base solely on the tenants of there faith. Eliminating there validity as a candidate based on there religious denomination, doctrines, or the fact that they are crazy enough to believe in any of that religious mumbo jumbo.

The point is, values not doctrines are what really matters in public office and flirting with confusing the two will only come back to bite all people of faith.

In talking to people on the ground in Iowa, Huckabee is the clear favorite. I cannot seem to find a lot of people that Romney and especially find people that like him enthusiastically. Never underestimate momentum. Even more stunning is this recent poll out of Florida tonight:

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/11/new_ia_gop_poll_for_florida.html

Huckabee is now second to Giuliani in Florida. That is huge for a candidate who spent next to no time in the state. This could be the year that the Internet proves to be the most useful tool in organizing a campaign. Huckabee, like the Ron Paul folks, has really developed a great buzz by the massive amounts of communication centered around the Internet.

I am excited about the Huckabee surge in Iowa and nationally (3rd place in today's Rasmussen national tracking poll). I long ago concluded that he was the GOP's best candidate. However, as an evangelical (with no fondness for Mormon theology), I think when it comes to politics we need to be more tolerant of a candidate's differing religious views than some of the commenters on this blog are. If Mitt Romney had been more consistent in his views over time, I think I would be very impressed with him, regardless of his religion. I will still be pleased to support him if he wins the nomination. Evangelicals don't want others to marginalize us politically because of our faith, and we must not do that to others. As Gov. Huckabee has said, "Real faith makes us humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own."

Now with regard to Dr. J's assertion that Gov. Huckabee wants to make Baptist the state-sponsored religion, that's just silly. Huckabee's actual position is diametrically opposed: "The First Amendment requires that expressions of faith be neither prohibited nor preferred. We should not banish religion from the public square, but should guarantee access to all voices and views. We should share and debate our faith, but never seek to impose it." (Source: www.mikehuckabee.com)

Charles Bates wrote: Check your facts Satterlee, ask any member of the mormon faith and they will tell you that mormons do not in fact believe that all other faiths are drived from Satan ...

Really?

Joseph Smith asked, "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the DEVIL, by which he deceives the whole world" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270).

President Joseph Fielding Smith said: "There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190).

Brigham Young stated: "no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289).

Brigham Young also declared, "he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.312).

Bruce McConkie stated: "If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormon Doctrine, p.670).

Brigham Young stated this repeatedly: "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness" (Journal of Discourses 5:73); "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" (Journal of Discourses 8:171); "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" (Journal of Discourses 8:199); "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses 10:230).

Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" (The Seer, p. 255).

President Joseph Fielding Smith said: "For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.282).

More recent statements by apostle Bruce McConkie are also very clear: "Apostasy was universal...And this darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol 3, p.265); "a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom" (Mormon Doctrine, p.132); "virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit" (Mormon Doctrine, p.269)

President George Q. Cannon said: "After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon" (Gospel Truth, p.324).

President Wilford Woodruff stated: "the Gospel of modern Christendom shuts up the Lord, and stops all communication with Him. I want nothing to do with such a Gospel."(Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.196).
Charles Bates further wrote: or any of the other many falsehoods circulated by preachers and pastors of many denominations who are willing to say anything to keep people from leaving their congregation. Although you really can't blame them, those congregations are how they support themselves, even though the Bible forbids it.

"The Bible forbids it?" Obviously you have never read the entire Bible. But then why should you? Your leaders in Salt Lake strongly imply that it has been so often corrupted by mistranslation there is little to be gained from reading it. Why do they tell you this? Because if you actually read it you would see that what the LDS church teaches on this and other matters is simply untrue. As a "for instance" let's take your false statement that the Bible forbids ministers from making their living serving the spiritual needs of their congregations.

Paul's words in 1 Cor. 9:3-12 deal very directly with this subject. There we read, "This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don't we have the right to food and drink? Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: 'Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.' Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?"

Now pay very close attention to Paul's words in verses 13 and 14. "Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel."

Also consider the fact that the hightest leaders of your church are compensated for their service to the Church, just as full-time non-LDS clergy are compensated for their service to their congregations. The LDS Church clearly employs a double-standard on this issue. The LDS Church teaches that a paid clergy is wrong, yet the LDS Prophet and Apostles are paid a salary. Why is it acceptable for LDS leaders to be paid but wrong for Protestant clergy to be given a salary?

You wrote: It all goes back to the old saying, you don't go to a ford dealer to ask about chevys, so why would you do the same with religion?

Because I have found that when it comes to the members of some religions, they actually know very little about some of their own church's more contoversial teachings and history. For their leaders have in tried their best to hide both from their members by "sanitizing" church teachings and church history and strongly advising their members not to read anything about either which is written by others.

Mr. Satterlee,
Take your comments elsewhere. That was offensive.

As a Democrat, I have some distance on Republican candidates. I think many Republicans overestimate Giuliani's electability - he has a lot of baggage, especially when the NYC firefighters start running ads against him.

Huckabee is the strongest candidate the Repblicans have for the general election. He is articulate and a good campaigner (an underrated ability); he appeals to conservative evangelical voters, a large portion of whom will stay home if Giuliani is nominated; he has a powerful populist message, including calling the Club for Growth the "Club for Greed" - Norquist's people have a lot of money but have insignificant votes. Huckabee also has a compelling message on health care, after his own weight loss.

Whether Huckabee can actually win the Republican nomination I don't know, but he has done more with less than any of his opponents. Finally, the media narrative is extremely important. So far, the mass media have largely ignored Huckabee, but if he wins Iowa he will become the media darling: the David who beat two Goliaths. He has a good shot at the nomination and is perhaps the most worrisome opponent for Clinton or Obama in the general.

I have been telling people, Huckabee is not only electable, he is the best situated to beat Hillary in the General Election. Now the numbers are in to prove it. Huckabee beats Clintion by the widest margin: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews2.dbm?ID=1393
Huckabee is polling 2nd in Iowa and Florida, and 3rd nationally 1-point behind Romney.

Donate now and help defeat Hillary Clinton:
http://tinyurl.com/2jjrbn

Concerning Layne Pitcher's remarks - values do not exist in a vacuum , the reason why I am opposed to abortion and same sex unions is the same reason that I am opposed to the notion that Jesus is the Devil's brother or that Black people are cursed because of the colour of their skin [Romney's view in the 1970s ], namely because of my understanding of the Bible - because I am a Christian.

Morality and ethics etc are defined by God not by man . An atheist has a value system rooted presumably in what he thinks is superior in man , a Muslim defines his values by the Koran etc .

Mitt Romney has frequently alluded to the fact that America needs a President to be a man of faith - fine so dont cry foul when his faith comes under scrutiny .

By the way for the benefit of those who view this blog I have many Mormon friends who I love dearly and desire greatly that one day they will become Christian and know the true Jesus

If you are against abortion and against same-sex marriage, but also would like changing position on the same issues every election, Romney is your candidate.

If you are against abortion publicly while privately make money helping those who kill babies, then you should vote for Thompson.

If you want illegal immigrants take one-quarter of all blue-collar jobs over night, then McCain is your man.

If you want your children to smoke drugs publicly and legally, then vote for Ron Paul.

I think a Romney-Huck ticket would be a monster.

Regarding Iowa, anything but a Romney win would be devastating to his plan. He's spent SO much money, and it would be sort of a repudiation of his message to have this guy who had NO money to come out of nowhere and take first place.

You can't spin that.

GO HUCK!

Romney and Giuliani are the only games in town. The rest of the R's are background noise that will fade away by February. Huckabee is a one state side-show. Romney is poised to win Iowa. I don't care if it is by 4 points or 14, I would take a win any day. Huckabee is taking away points from Thompson, who was the last great social conservative hope. Thompson is a goner -- which is a shame, since he is the more consistent conservative (too bad he's so lethargic!).

Come Super Tuesday, it will be Mitt and Rudy and it's anybody's guess who will win it there. As much as I don't like Rudy's social positions, at least he is strong on economic and fiscal issues (not 1/10th of Romney, but still good).

Huckabee is a fiscal disaster waiting to happen.

Finally, about Mitt's Mormonism -- you can debate it all you want BUT doing so is a waste of time. On a non-political note, I must address, Michael Satterlee's string of quotes from apparently Mormon leaders, I don't find them to be much different than quotes from leaders (especially founding generation leaders) of any other Christian denomination about the fate of non-believers (or, if you know your history outside of Mormonism, what other 19th century religious leaders said about followers of other Christian sects or denominations -- they all condemned eachother to hell: Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc.). The reason different sects exist is because each sect's founders believed they found the way to heaven that the other sects were missing. What does that have to do with the fact that Mitt Romney is an extremely capable leader? Nothing. I hope Mitt wins just to make people see that trying to make a big deal about his religion is about as silly as making a big deal about JFK's religion was 47 YEARS AGO. GROW UP AMERICA! Besides that, Mitt Romney is the best leader of the bunch. We need leadership now.

Latest Florida CNN/Opinion Poll research 11/27/07 4 p.m. If election were held today;

Giuliani 26%, Romney 17%, McCain 14, Huckabee 12%, Thompson 7%, Paul 4%.

Romney is up 6 points in FLA since September. Go Mitt, Go! Kick some wagon train dirt in their eyes tonight in St. Petersburg.

On to Iowa, and victory!

Concerning Christian in NY'S comment about Romney showing leadership . Did Romney show leadership in the following and what sort

1 What was Romney saying and doing in the 1970s when there were protests in Salt Lake and Provo [Romney's university town ] concerning the Mormon organisation's awful views on race ?
2 Did Romney object when the Mormons started baptizing dead Jewish holacaust victims ?
3 What sort of leadership did Romney adopt on abortion when he stood for Governor of Mass?
4 What sort of leadership did Romney adopt on homosexuality and same sex unions when he stood for Governor of Mass?

Is not voting for Romney only because he is a Mormon bigotry?

Is not voting for Obama only because he is black bigotry?

Is not voting for Clinton 46 because she is a womn bigotry?

Find another decent reason to not vote for them so you can hide your bigotry. You and your conscience will be the only ones who know if you keep quiet about it and don't don your white sheets.

"One person alot of individuals are ignoring is McCain "

Good reasons:

Reason #1: immigration. McCain is from Arizona and what he did is unforgivable. He stabbed his own state in the back.

Reason #2: age.

Reason #3: he is a media wh*re that spent the last 8 years kissing the MSM b*tts and bad mouthing the President to get on TV in order to keep his name in front of the public. The MSM loves RINOs and uses them. Now he is Mr Big Time Conservative Republican. Bull droppings.

Reason #4: can we really respect a man who blatantly uses his honorably, even heroic, military service to further his political aspirations?

Romney and Gulliani are going to beat each other up really bad. Both have enough cash to last the long haul but I do not see either of their support as being strong. The question becomes whether Huckabee can be the "conservative candidate". Social conservatives may rally around Huckabee but Fiscal Conservatives detest him (or will once they see his track record in Arkansas). McCain may have a resurgence as the "conservative candidate" if Thompson falls apart (a fourth place finish in Iowa and a 5th or lower finish in NH will eliminate Thompson).

Iowa could eliminate thompson with a dismal showing. If romney comes in second, it would be a crushing blow.

What is more interesting is the dynamics of NH. If Obama or Edwards wins Iowa, many independents will vote in the democratic primary. If clinton wins by a healthy margins, I think those independents will vote in the republican primary. The more independents that vote in the republican primary will give McCain a big boost in NH.

Gov Romney position on abortion seems difficult to understand. I understand his position this way:

As an individual he apparently abhors abortion and always has.

As a public official sworn to uphold the law he has had to support laws that permit women to have abortions and had to say he would.

If my understanding is correct then I have no problem with Romney vis-a-via the abortion issue.

How does this square with what Romney actually did in MA when opportunities to oppose pro-abortion and related (like parental notification) issues were presented to him?

His actions must have made some pro-life people happy because Massachusetts Citizens For Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis said "Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review, 1/10/07)

Romney has not hurt the anti-abortion movement as some of the other candidates have.

Mad Jayhawk

I disagree with your immigration take. Living in Phoenix, Immigration reform is a must. I believe he needs to revise his position to secure the borders first but he has a pretty good handle on what's needed for our state.

As for Age, you may be right on this one.

McCain has always been a conservative republican, he just didn't always follow bush's marching orders. That's why the independents like him.

Whether you like it or not, he has courage and served this country with honor. That is part of his resume and he should be proud. Military service is nothing to be ashamed of and I would hope that most americans agree. I know alot of veterans that find military service an important part when deciding who to vote for and I believe, he is the only canidate out there with military service.

Huckabee didn't raise taxes. Only the legislature, propositions, and initiatives can do that in a State. He signed into law the will of the people. If 80% of the people want to raise taxes to improve the roads, he'd better sign the darn thing.

Huckabee is a uniter. He doesn't care about Romney's faith. He cares that Romney says he's a conservative, but only recently changes his views on issues that define social conservatism.

If you actually read your Bible once in a while, you'll see Huckabee's opinions on healthcare, schools, illegal aliens, and the environment aren't wacko, they are Christian views.

Please tell me what Romney is going to do to all the millions of criminal illegals running around. What is his solution? Catch them, and what?

Why is Fred Thompson loosing so much traction? Because he's never run anything in his life. At least Romney was a buisness man and Governor. Huckabee was the leader of a church, which is sometimes like a small buisness, and a Governor, for 10 + years. How did he get re-elected in a 60% democratic state so many times? If you want someone to beat Hilary, think about why Huckabee is beating her by such a wide margin.

I'm tired of hearing a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Guiliani. What about McCain, and Thompson. If Thompson were to drop out today, do you really think all his Conservatist votes would go to Romney? No way. Every vote Thompson's been loosing for the past 2 months, have been all the votes Huckabee's been gaining. Thompson drops out, and now Huck's tied with Guiliani, and a vote for Romney is a vote for Guiliani.

Romney's religion does matter. I know what Mormons believe in. They tell me all the time. Most of the things are great and wonderful. Some I feel makes them look like an accult. How can we vote for someone that believes with all his heart such things.

Money always comes up. Do we really want a rich guy, who was born with a silver spoon represent the middle and lower classes of our country. No way. Romney did earn anything, he bought it all. He's not going to buy the Presidency. There are too many of us in the middle class who are tired of rich people telling us all how we should act and vote.

Remember Ross Perot's famous comment about Bill Clinton's experience as governor of Arkansas, a beautiful state with wonderful people: Being governor of Arkansas is similar to managing a Wal-mart?

Gov Huckabee (and his wife) had a lot of problems in Arkansas that are going to come back and haunt him. He is pretty glib about deflecting questions about his ethical lapses, but he will get nailed sooner or later.

Some people will look at his degree from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and years of trying to get people saved as a job as a plus when they look at his presidential candidate resume. Myself, I think I had rather my kid go to Southwestern than to Harvard in a way.

"Whether you like it or not, he has courage and served this country with honor."

Totally agree, but...

In my opinion, I think that he uses his service to further his political career.

I can appreciate his service to our country and disrespect his almost flaunting it everywhere he goes. Kerry did the same thing. Most people do not know my personal military history because I don't talk about it, wear hats or other military paraphernalia or call attention to myself at every opportunity. I resent those who do. They are not better than the rest of us grunts who did what we were asked to do, sometimes at great sacrifice.

Mad Jayhawk asked: Is not voting for Obama only because he is black bigotry?

I say, yes it is.

Mad Jayhawk asked: Is not voting for Clinton 46 because she is a woman bigotry?

I say, yes it is.

Mad Jayhawk asked: Is not voting for Romney only because he is a Mormon bigotry?

I say, no it's not. Because a person has no control over their race and gender, and neither of these things can tell us anything about their character or their good judgment. But a person does have control over their choice of religion. And I believe their choice in this matter can tell us a lot about both their character and their good judgment, or lack thereof.

It seems to me Romney is just about right at this point. Huckabee isn't really going anywhere, and Giuliani is pretty much blown out of Iowa water. It'll all come together for him is my bet. He doesn't need the nomination by a landslide, just by enough. He for sure is a long way from the "stick a fork in 'em" posts of several months ago. I want more bang for my tax dollar go ROMNEY

Why do we have so many different Christian religions and different interpretations of the Bible?

If God created us, who created Satan?

What would have happened to us if there was no sin and no Satan?

I think it would be better to select a leader with leadership, familiy values, experience, and sincerity. The only person with all that is MITT ROMNEY!!!

I like Romney or Rudy. I am looking forward to them duking it out and will fully support the winner. On a side note... I am definitely not voting for whomever Satterlee is voting for hahahaha. I dont think Stephen King could come up with a better whack-job... you're killin me dude!

Jared,

"whack-job"? Have you studied the nutty teachings of the Mormon church? Here's a free sample. According to Mormons, the God of our planet lives on some far off planet orbiting the star "Kolob", who himself worships a God who lives on another planet, who himself worships a God who lives on another planet .... etc., etc., etc. .....

I believe that only a fool could believe such foolishness. I don't want a fool running the U.S. government.