Following the recent GOP debate in which CNN chose to air a YouTube question putting candidates on the spot as to their belief in the literal truth of the Bible, there was much breast-beating as to the inappropriateness of religious tests for office.
But that didn't stop Tucker Carlson's two liberal guests this evening from taking potshots on religious grounds at President Bush and Mitt Romney.
View video here.
Liberal talk radio shot host Ed Schultz was first, mocking President Bush's faith:
ED SCHULTZ: [Huckabee] is juggling a couple of stories that are potentially dangerous to his campaign. Number one, this country has already been down the road of having a president that's real short on details and high on Jesus. We've had enough of that, OK?
A bit later, normally mild-mannered Dem strategist Peter Fenn took an ugly -- and flatly unfounded -- shot at Mitt Romney. The topic was Romney's scheduled speech of tomorrow regarding the relationship between politics and his Mormon faith.
PETER FENN: I think Romney's an empty suit. And this is where I disagree with Ed. Look, he is not going to call, Ed, for the separation of church and state tomorrow. In John Kennedy's speech in Houston, his quote was that the separation of church and state is absolute. That was the exact words he used. There's no way this guy is going to do this. He is walking a tightrope on this. And you know that latest poll is really interesting because it's the first one that really in depth has looked at people's feeling about religion. It found more people with concerns about Mormonism than voting for an atheist for president. Holy cow, I mean, that's pretty scary right now in this country.
He has to say "religion should be not a part of the political process." But he can't say that because he believes that religion should be a part of the political process.
Fortunately, Carlson was there to rectify what can only be seen as Fenn's smear.
TUCKER CARLSON: I don't think there's any evidence that Mitt Romney believes that religion ought to be part of the political process.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
As cleverly designed by our
December 5, 2007 - 21:54 ET by TruthMongerAs cleverly designed by our founders we've been a theocracy our entire history - it's worked splendidly - so why stop now:)?
Another day in Paradise
December 5, 2007 - 21:57 ET by third eyeED SCHULTZ: [Huckabee] is juggling a couple of stories that are
potentially dangerous to his campaign. Number one, this country has
already been down the road of having a president that's real short on details and high on Jesus. We've had enough of that. OK?
The left has a void to fill in the absence of some scandalicious gossip to hit Republican Presidenitial candidates Huck and Mitt with, so they channel their superficial dislike of these men via their respective religous affliations. And you would think these guys, as champions of tolerance, would know better than to judge other people entirely and with no evidence but their own bias - on their religous beliefs.
Well said!
December 5, 2007 - 22:01 ET by Mark FinkelsteinWell said!
Can you imagine what the
December 6, 2007 - 00:34 ET by mostlymoderateCan you imagine what the Anti-Defamation League would do if it were a Jew that was being persecuted for his beliefs? How about a gay person? Afterall, isn't being a homosexual, politically atleast, somewhat a "religion"?
There is a difference in being "religious" and being "biased". If you say YOUR religion is the ONLY religion worth practicing, then you should not be the President. I don't think Romney has ever declared this.
If it wasn't for MSNBC, no
December 5, 2007 - 22:04 ET by fitzfongIf it wasn't for MSNBC, no one would no who Ed Schultz is. Wait a minute. Who's Ed Schultz?
The left are constantly bashing religion
December 5, 2007 - 22:23 ET by c5thenEspecially any form of Christianity, because it reminds them that there are absolute standards of right and wrong and they can't stand being reminded of that.
I can think of many President's who were "high on Jesus" but no one would argue were "bad": George Washington, John Adams, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincol, Harry Truman and most recently, Ronald Reagan.
I would rather a President (or any elected official) who believed his faith and lived his religion than one who used it as a suit to put on and take off when the "occasion" waranted.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes in '08! RenewAmerica.us
No, It's because people
December 5, 2007 - 22:26 ET by LeonNo,
It's because people pretend to be certain of the unknown.
And it's scary.
It's because people pretend
December 5, 2007 - 22:30 ET by fitzfongIt's because people pretend to be certain of the unknown.
Yes, people like Al Gore.
Wrong Fitz, He's not
December 5, 2007 - 22:34 ET by LeonWrong Fitz,
He's not certain of the unknown.
He's supportive of what we do know.
Ah, allow me to rephrase, what every legitimate scientist does know.
PS The prime minister of Australia is not a scientist. Neither is that leader dude from Czech Republic
neither
December 5, 2007 - 22:41 ET by dervishis Al Gore
No, Leon. Al Gore is a
December 6, 2007 - 02:02 ET by fitzfongNo, Leon. Al Gore is a fraud. And anyone you define as a "legitimate" scientist must be viewed with extreme skepticism.
"PS The prime minister of
December 6, 2007 - 03:59 ET by ckc1227"PS The prime minister of Australia is not a scientist. Neither is that leader dude from Czech Republic"
PS: Neither is Al Gore, or Laurie David, or Barbara Boxer, etc, etc, etc.
He has a degree in
December 6, 2007 - 06:49 ET by Jack BauerHe attended Brno University of Technology and has a degree in Mechanical Engineering.
In case you were wondering Engineering is the profession of applying scientific principles to the design, construction and maintenance of engines.
As such is is way more qualified to talk about scientific principles that say someone who has a pass in Divinity. Which last time I checked does not particularly qualify one to make scientific evaluations.
Good point JB, and
December 6, 2007 - 12:28 ET by MightyMouthGood point JB, and parenthetically, he's not very good at "Divinity" either!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Historical Reality
December 5, 2007 - 22:56 ET by Lame CherryI wanted to add 2 points. Fenn in speaking about John Kennedy is completely taking Kennedy out of context.
JFK in that speech was doing what all Kennedy's and Democrats do, they were saying whatever required saying to get elected. People who do not remember 1960 forget Americans did not trust Catholics. Most Americans of that period still had immigrants families from Germany who were toasted and roasted by the Vatican in the European purges.
Kennedy was trying to convince Protestants and Jews that he was not taking marching orders from the Pope........that is all.
Without taking a cheap shot at Kennedy, he could have used more seperation of his manhood from women who were not his wife and more union with Catholic dogma...........he would most likely be alive today if he would have.
The second part is Ed Schultz who like most liberals mocks George Bush on his faith in Christ. I would though like bloggers here to note a historical pattern in that EVERY MAJOR FIGHT George Bush has been in when certain defeat was certain..........George Bush not only survives by God's grace, but is given a victory.
Not once in major policy has George Bush been defeated. That is God working for the good of America through this man. I have stated I do not agree with all President Bush did and was part of the group who spanked him on Harriet Miers and by God's grace received a real Conservative to the Court, but in Truth George Bush is given victories out of impossible situations.
Ed Schultz is too blind to notice this, but right now history is about to judge George Bush as one of the most aggressively remarkably successful Presidents in history. Those are the facts and even though the current peace policy in the Middle East will bring war it appears he will be successful in that too.
George Bush has played world class poker with Putin and the Chicoms and he has beat them time and again.
That is the historical reality..............for the current reality, can not Tucker Carlson get someone on that program worth watching. I mean for eye candy sake why doesn't he interview the Jets and Redskins cheerleaders every other week as Ed Schultz is snore city.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Number one, this country
December 6, 2007 - 00:06 ET by MidAmericaNumber one, this country has already been down the road of having a president that's real short on details and high on Jesus. We've had enough of that, OK?
I doubt the country holds Bush's faith against him. But I am pretty sure of one thing, when he leaves office he won't steal the furniture.
There's no rule that says
December 6, 2007 - 01:23 ET by wiwfThere's no rule that says we cannot have religion in politics
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Sorry, but I very much feel
December 6, 2007 - 03:28 ET by KeithSorry, but I very much feel that a candidates Religious views, should be a part of the "discussion" how silly would it be to ignore them? What if a candidate is a satanist? And NO I'm not comparing Romney to a satanist. But what if down the line some liberal running for president is caught on some video talking about how "wicca"changed his life or waxing eloquent about his love of "Satan", you telling me the press should HIDE this from the people? This is an extreme example I know but it smokes out the falsity of the "it doesn't matter what a guy believes", position. Because it WOULD matter. Mormon's AREN'T Christian, and to the degree that they try to PRETEND to be Christian people ought to know about it. If for no other reason than the fact that the LDS has spent MILLIONS to further this particular LIE. A quick perusal of their records indicates that they adopted the guise of "Christian" for political expediency, check for yourself.
Rev 22:18, 19
18. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
By claiming to have revelation from GOD that is in DIRECT VARIANCE with the words of Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith and his cult have accomplished the almost unimaginable feat of both ADDING and TAKING away from the Bible! By implying the the Bible is "incomplete" and needed Joe Smith to write a new one, this is taking a "wide stance" dump on the Scriptures of our Lord and ADDING prophecy that is a LIE. The garden of eden was NOT in Missouri. By implying that the Bible is deficient and that MAN can attain big "G" Godhood through works this is blashpemy most foul. This is something that REAL Christians out in America somewhere who take the scriptures seriously, need to know. Not saying that they shouldn't vote for him, although i certainly wouldn't, but they should know.
}}---> I agree, Keith
December 6, 2007 - 08:00 ET by Cool ArrowCertainly we would question a Muslim's beliefs. It is silly to expect ourselves to ignore our prospective leaders' core values.
My take on this is that Romney is opening up a big box he can't repack neatly. Rather than expose some sinister anti American plot, he'll likely open his religion to public ridicule.
I like the guy, and I could vote for him if he becomes the only alternative to any number of milquetoast Democrats, but that's true of the other Republicans as well.
FORNICATION BABIES RISE: A LIST TO THANK
December 6, 2007 - 09:49 ET by reelman46FORNICATION BABIES RISE: A LIST TO THANK
Teen Birth Rates Up for First Time in 14 Years, U.S. Reports
Birth rates among unmarried women, C-section deliveries also hit new high last year
By Steven Reinberg, 12/5/07
WEDNESDAY, Dec. 5 (HealthDay News) — For the first time in 14 years,
the number of teenagers having babies in the United States rose last
year, according to a new government report released Wednesday.
That startling news was accompanied by additional data showing that
last year also had record high rates for unmarried women having babies
….. The findings are in preliminary birth statistics compiled by the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and were based on 99
percent of all births in 2006.
“The finding on teen pregnancy was a surprise,” said Stephanie Ventura,
head of the CDC’s Reproductive Statistics Branch. “Even though the rate
of decline had slowed down, we didn’t expect an increase.”
She added, “It’s too soon to say if the increased birth rate among
teens is a trend. It could be just a one-year blip, or the start of a
turning point.”
CRAWFISH NOTE: Startling news? Teen pregnancy surprise? Says who?
Permit us christian conservatives to provide the list of daily contributors to this ugly trend…
thanks spineless parents, thanks liberal-secular culture, thanks
liberal judges, thanks mushy churches, thanks weak schools, thanks
gutless minority culture preachers, thanks hollyweird, thanks libmedia,
thanks rappers-hip hop goons and thanks to all those millions of adults
who never recognize basic morality or defend moral principles. Enablers
and deniers all.
(Remember the saying: “Life without discipline means death without dignity”…?)
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
}}---> 1 hour minutes to Romney?
December 6, 2007 - 10:05 ET by Cool ArrowI don't have a warm fuzzy feeling about this speech.
"warm and fuzzy?"
December 6, 2007 - 10:40 ET by RJOk, you got my attention, Cool:
Not "warm and fuzzy" because....
...of what you expect his speech to be?
...of how we can expect the liberal media to react?
...or, how the evangelicals will react?
Romney's speech
December 6, 2007 - 10:49 ET by Cool ArrowI just don't see an upside.
True, cool
December 6, 2007 - 10:56 ET by RJMy second and third questions were sort of rhetorical.
But regarding #3, the MSM isn't likely to have to go far to push that storyline.
Upside? Let's wait and see how it plays out. Kennedy had to make 3 "Catholic" speeches....2 in the primaries, 1 in the general), not the single speech that is usually portrayed.
CNN didn't even wait for the end of Romney's speech
December 6, 2007 - 11:47 ET by RJThey've been using a split screen to run negative Mormon "factoids" DURING Romney's speech.
Just when you think CNN can't sink any lower.....
Excellent. Romney just took on the secularists
December 6, 2007 - 11:50 ET by RJ...who would eliminate religion from the public square....those who would "impose a religion of secularism."
So far he is hitting the
December 6, 2007 - 11:56 ET by Airforce_5_OSo far he is hitting the nail right on the head...Good stuff.
I have a fish named Mohammad, and my son has a stuffed toy named Jesus. The Muslims want my head and Kieth says I'm going to Hell.
Just when you think CNN can't sink any lower.....
December 6, 2007 - 12:40 ET by Chris NormanRJ,
I'm surprised CNN doesn't run a crawler on the bottom of the screen during a Bush speech, relaying the Democrat response simultaneously...