My analogy was a general one...namely that assumptions don't translate into reality.
Catholics are going to be naturally suspicious of a former Baptist pastor, especially one who called the best known Catholic bigot in the country “one of the greatest Christian leaders in America.”
Was the above true of Romney as well? Were Catholics naturally suspicious of a former LDS bishop, especially one who whose ancestor called the entire Catholic church "the whore of Babylon" & who believes that ALL Catholics--Pope and all--are apostates of the faith?
who whose ancestor called the entire Catholic church “the whore of Babylon”
The fact that you would track down what someone’s ancestor said in order to bash them is sick, in my opinion.
As I clearly stated, odds are very good that the plurality of Catholics are going to vote for the Dem in a three way race.
The point is that those Catholics who would be most likely to vote for the Republican, namely, people like me who are devout social conservative churchgoers, are also the ones most likely to be offended by Huckabee’s statement about Hagee. IOW, Huckabee ticked off the very group of Catholics he otherwise had a good chance of grabbing. And in a country split 50-50 where every vote counts, Huckabee doesn’t have any spare votes to piddle away.
As for Romney, I’m not all that concerned with what someone’s ancestor said, especially since the descendent is going out of his way to be inoffensive. My problem with Romney is that he’s too liberal. My problem with Huckabee is that he’s too liberal and offensive. One I can maybe get over in the general election, albeit with a large clothespin on my nose. But there’s no clothespin big enough to get me to vote for Huckabee.
Keep telling yourself that Huckabee can win Catholics if it makes you feel better. But he can’t and he won’t.