“If that was true then he never would have asked his rhetorical question about Mormons and Jesus and Satan. He would have said something to the effect, “I respect people of different religious beliefs and feel that you are free to worship as you please in this country. It would be inappropriate to comment on another candidates religion. I think I’ll just talk about mine if I choose and Governor Romney can talk about his if he chooses.”
So what is the answer to that rhetorical question? You keep trying to sell us that a Jewish writer and an ex-preacher would know the answer to such a simple question, what is that answer ?
LOL, by the way is this the way that people talk on your planet?
“He would have said something to the effect, “I respect people of different religious beliefs and feel that you are free to worship as you please in this country.”
First and foremost he is a candidate so, to steal a line from Obama via Deval, "Words matter."
You keep trying to make it sound like two average Joe's sitting on a park bench flippantly discussing religion. This is a Presidential candidate...millions of people will parse a candidates words, from the average Joe voters to media pundits to competing campaigns (in both/all parties). There are strategies developed on how one will parse their public statements depending on the subject, whether it be a current event or a boilerplate issue or a response or comment to/about another camapign. Yes there are off-the-cuff remarks but even those areas have been refined. Religion is a biggie particuarly if you are discussing another candidate's faith. Therefore when you ask...
LOL, by the way is this the way that people talk on your planet?
..the answer is that is how the Planet of Politics talks, ten-fold when it is Presidential politics. So if a candidate is asked about another candidates religion where in this case the issue of Romney's being a Mormon had had thousands of articles written about the subject then, yes, a smart and reasonable response to being asked about Mormonism would have been...
“I respect people of different religious beliefs and feel that you are free to worship as you please in this country.”
Sure that sounds stilted but that would have been the reasonable and smart template a campaign would have chosen. It's the more successful candidates (good and bad) that are able to take talking points on an issue and make them sound natural and even off the cuff.
That's what Huckabee did here. He and the sleazy Ed Rollins (who if I remember threatened to punch Romney in the nose - there's maturity) decided that Huckabee would let slip his Jesus and Satan question at an opportunity of his choosing.
To pretend that couldn't have been such a choice is to be ignorant of the most rudimentary strategic planning a candidate develops when interacting with the media elements of a national political campaign - especially in todays internet age. Mike's not dumb - Mike is just sleazy like Rollins. And remember Rollins was the same guy that ran the spoiler's campaign that put Bill and Hillary in the White House - Ross Perot. As of now Huckabee is the Perot of the Primaries and Rollins is...Rollins.