You’re probably right. However, it’s one thing to compare education levels, and it’s another to mock or belittle a person because of their education or lack thereof. Generally, however, that hasn’t been a problem in politics. The problem now is religion. “Finn” is running for Pastor-in-Chief while desperately trying to make it look like Romney is.

Huckabee: BA in Biblical Studies, graduating magna cum laude from Ouachita Baptist University

Romney:

- BA with Highest Honors from Brigham Young University (1971) (Romney began as an undergraduate at Stanford University and completed his first year there but transferred to BYU after his LDS mission to France)

- MBA from Harvard Business School (1975), where he was named a Baker Scholar;

- JD, cum laude, from Harvard Law School

This seems relevant to me, Andrew Miller, and is not in the same set as race, gender, or religion in assessing a candidate’s qualifications and competence in running for President.

If Romney or Hillary or Obama or anyone else were critical of Huckabee for his religious faith, I’d be just as annoyed. I have no problem with evangelicals in public office. I voted for Bush both times (and would again). It’s Mike Huckabee’s bigotry and double-talk that is so problematic.

For a person to attack another’s political views is fair game in a political contest. To attack them on the basis of their gender, race, religion, education, etc is another issue all together. While political attacks get old, it is not bigotry (Even if some are dishonest).

You just can’t say the same thing about Huckabee.

And by the end of this Presidential campaign, do you think every candidate should be apologizing? Or is it exclusively to one group of religious people that there should be apologies?

To demolish bigotry is to in equal measure attack strongly every wrong by every candidate. Right?

Lead the way, Andrew.

Hi!

I authored one of FAIR’s “leading the charge about bigotry,” and I’d like to set some things straight:

1. For the record, I HAVE supported non-Mormons against good members of the Church–many times. I agree that religious grouping is usually a poor reason to vote either for or against a candidate.
2. Even though Utah is 70% LDS, inhabitants seem to have had no problem electing qualified non-Latter-day Saints (For example, Utah was the second state with a Jewish governor! Neighboring Idaho, with a large LDS population, was the first–by two years. See http://www.havelshouseofhistory.com/Jewish%20Governor%20Political%20Items%201.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses_Alexander.).
3. On the other hand, in my home state of Florida, with inverted ratios of Evangelicals to the LDS, in the entire history of official LDS presence in the state, there was only ONE LDS who was ever elected to statewide office: Paula Hawkins, who lost the next election to Robert Graham, a Baptist [See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Hawkins..
4. I have no problem with “Finn” using his Church’s social network as a political base, or with his championing Evangelical Christians as a whole. Evangelical Christians have been getting some bad press over the past several decades. While their worst elements have no doubt deserved that bad press, the vast majority do not. My problems with “Finn” began with his targeted appeals to those in the “worst elements.”
5. I am not categorically refusing to vote for “Finn,” but he will have to take some substantive steps to undo the harm he did over the last few months. That, however, would cause massive problems with those less savory elements that “Finn” specifically appealed to.

The guy has been spouting off a lot of the racial stuff before on Islam and Mexicans. While Romney indulged on the immigration thing I am sure that “Finn” has been much worse.

His positions are as suspect as one would imagine.