Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

GOP prez candidate Mike Huckabee Says Christian Right Leaders Value Power More Than Principle

Heading into a major forum this weekend for "values voters," Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee complained that some Christian leaders haven't endorsed him because they "are more intoxicated with power than principle."

In an interview with "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly" on PBS, the former Arkansas governor and Baptist minister shared frustration with people who say they like him personally but don't believe he can raise enough money or win over presumed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

"I think that some of them, frankly, are more intoxicated with power than principle, and I know that's a pretty outrageous if not rather bold statement to make, but I think it's the truth," Huckabee said.

"Some have become so acquainted now with power and have been so close to it that they forget that the purpose for which they got involved in politics was not to be close to power; it was to speak the truth to power," Huckabee said. "It was to hold those in power, to hold their feet to the fire over issues they said got them involved and motivated."

Huckabee said he hears "so-called Christian leaders" who say: "Well, we love Huckabee. He really agrees with us, and he's one of us in terms of views. But, you know, we're looking for somebody that we're confident is going to win."

Huckabee had two messages for those people.

"First, a lot of these people, if they would get behind me, I'd be winning right now, and I think I will ultimately without them," he said. "But secondly, if they really are principled, it's not about who might win, it's about who stands with us."

Huckabee said such people "have forgotten the essence of what Jesus taught, and that is if you gain the whole world but lose your soul what does it profit you?"

Huckabee is scheduled to appear before an expected 2,000 social conservatives at an Oct. 19-20 Washington "values voter summit" briefing along with other Republican presidential hopefuls Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo and Fred Thompson.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, one of the sponsors of the event, told reporters last week he is "very optimistic" that one or two candidates will emerge from the briefing as a consensus candidate for religious conservatives.

In his PBS interview, Huckabee said he thinks Christian Right leaders are afraid of losing their place at the table. The tragedy, he said, is that some candidates will give lip service to get elected but won't waste time and capital after they are elected because the Christian agenda really isn't their agenda.

"A person maybe runs for office, and he goes and presents himself to that Christian community for votes," he said. "But there's a difference if that person comes from that Christian community in really understanding it. It comes down to whether the language of the church is a second language for the candidate or if it's the native tongue."

Huckabee also said he thinks it is healthy that more Democrats are talking openly about faith.

"I don't worry about people who talk about their faith," he said. "I worry about people who say they have it but they refuse to say that it affects them. To me that's disingenuous, or it's somehow indicative of a person who's almost ashamed of his or her faith."

Huckabee said he "would rather a person be honest and be an atheist than claim to be a Christian but then act like they can't talk about it 'cause they're almost embarrassed to bring it up." (10/16)
 

I thought power was the guiding principle of the Christian Right.
 

Proprietor: Bill R. is my first choice. That's good news.
 

"power... the guiding principle of the Christian Right"

For much of the "professed' Christian Right this is sadly true.
 

As a practical example of what Huckabee said the straw poll taken today awards a non-christian the most votes from the conservative christians.

from Reuters:
"Romney took 27.6 percent of almost 6,000 votes cast, just ahead of Mike Huckabee, the folksy former governor of Arkansas, who gained 27.1 percent at the conference organized by the Family Research Council."

Given that Romney may reflect the conservative christians' values I suspect never-the-less everyone there voting understood that Mitt is not from a "christian" church as they define one. What does that say again?

Grant you Mitt only got 30 votes more than Huckabee, but still nearly 1/3rd of the people voting coldly chose power over principle.

The "good" news, it was only 1/3rd.
 

First, this only emboldens my own view that the Christian Right is declining, even within the precincts of the Republican Party. The game-playing of James Dobson, especially with a candidate like Huckabee in the race only shows the myopia and lack of political insight these folks have. In the past, the Christian Right supported candidates that mouthed the platitudes without necessarily living their principles (ROnald Reagan comes to mind immediately), but they are under increasing pressure to rid themselves of the taint of hypocrisy. Alas, they cannot do it.

As for the study mentioned by the proprietor, it is an old study, and I do not believe it any longer reflects the views of the people. Since Sen. Clinton beats every Republican in head-to-head polling, and has increased her lead in recent weeks over purported Republican front-runner Rudy Giuliani, I do believe that Republican hopes being laid at the American people's alleged dislike for her are a bit much.
 

A negative based voter poll is always based on the familiarity of the voter with the candidate. So it is no wonder that the oldest presence is the least liked. It is not a good way to go about it. However, all Hillery needs to win is 50.01%of the electorial vote. In some ways I would hope that the election might actually be won by Hillery or her ilk like the 2000 one was by Bush. That way both sides would finally be ready to do something about our 17th Century electorial system and take it out of the hands of the states and make National elections National. I say that remembering that we in Oklahoma haven't had to listen to the damn presidential election ads for over a decade now.
Hell no body spends their ad monies here.
 

I would agree that should everyone get behind Huckabee, of course he'll win. Duh.

But it's a bit much to insist that because Christian voters have the sense to understand the probability of a Huckabee win as low means they are "craving power". It's more a question of craving security, of craving an administration that opposes the misguided belief system of the left. This is the mindset of the right in general. For a Christian who is really concerned about the character of the nation, electabiity of the "most Christian" candidate is very important. It may not profit a man who gains the whole world, but we're talking about the direction of the country. To lose the White House to Hillary or any of the other pretenders to the throne, profits no one.
 

So, an anti-left quasi-christian or tainted candidate that might win is better for the christian right than a principled christian that might lose?
So that old footbal coach was correct, winning is the only thing.
How is that different than gaining power? Winning gives you power. But you don't want to win to get power? If an atheist candidate held all the conservative views necessary for a christian on the right then they should vote for them?
 

Actually, Drlobojo, principle is more important-- to THIS conservative Christian --than electability.

Since this nation has become so polarized national elections have devolved into a contest of choosing the lesser of two evils. A lot LOT of people see it this way, including myself. However, there are a few on the Republican side I cannot vote for for the simple reason that to vote for the lesser evil is still to vote for 'evil'.

If I believe in God, I have to believe that He is in control, and that everything works toward HIS purpose. I have to have faith in that. That being said, I can't vote for Rudy, or Romney, or McCain for obvious and not so obvious reasons. The only Republican Candidate I feel I can vote for in the Alabama Primary is Mike Huckabee, whether he's still in the race by then or not-- If not, I'll write him in. And I'll write him in next November if he isn't on the ballot.

The thought that Hillary could win the presidency is bone-chilling to me. But I can't let that fear be motivation enough to vote for Romney, Giuliani, or McCain. The other candidates don't particularly impress me either, except for Huckabee.

If that gives the Left hope for a Clinton win... so be it, but we'll ALL pay heavily for another Clinton White House.

Personally, the thought of 32 years of passing the baton between two families is too close to... competing royal houses?... to suit me. If it has to be a Democrat-- and I'm not convinced it does --let it be someone other than Hillary.
 

Sorry... 28 years!

Sounds like a great horror movie, no?

28 Years Later
 

Dr. ER and I agree that if we have to have a Repub, then we could probably tolerate Huckabee. Myself, I see him as the other triangulation of Bill C., no liberal.

Hillary is no lib, either -- not compared to the rest of the Dem field. Not at all. I mean, left of center, of course; she is a Dem. I understand why the Left doesn't lkike Hill -- she's no lefty. But that's exactly why I don't understand the fear and loathing of her on the Right.

Is it health care? I suggest that anyone who has health insurance as a benefit through work talk to some people who do not.

THAT scares me more than anything: Having to go without health care because of a downturn in the economy. I honestly do believe it is a national sin that the provision of health care is considered a business. It should be a basic human right. My realistic fear is that rather than truly nationalize health care, what we'll get is another dang half-assed program continues to rely on the glorious "market place" to allocate this most important resource. Screw that.