The Maverick Conservative

Yes, AOL is featuring another one of those fundamentally evil New York Times stories (see yesterday's entries for an especially disgraceful example).  Today's story attempts to USE Mike Huckabee (who leftists and the media think cannot really win the Presidency, and therefore is safe to promote) to place a wedge in "eangelicals" (with an eye to the general election).  The way the New York Times attempts to do this, in an article entitled "Huckabee Divides Evangelicals" (talk about PROJECTION of what the New York Times wants to do), is CLASS WARFARE (the classic Democratic Party, leftist, mainstream media tactic).  The article highlights the appeal of Hucabee's "populist" (non-conservative, from the view of the New York Times) message to WORKING CLASS and YOUNG evangelicals (pitted, by the New York Times, against their older, elitist LEADERS).  This is all junk, of course, to be ignored (by evangelicals and everyone else).

Another "story with an agenda" (AOL and the New York Times know no other kind.

"Obama candidacy splits African-Americans."  Yes, that headline is probably MORE accurate than "Huckabee splits evangelicals."  Andrew Young (remember the disgraceful speech where he suggested that Bill Clinton PERSONALLY has related to more black women than anyone else around), and a number of black leaders, have supported Hillarty Clinton.   An AOL featured story right now is about a black billionaire who supports Clinton, and not Obama.

To the media, and BIGOTED leftists who think race and religion--not to mention sex--are perfectly appropriate reasons to vote for a person, this all makes perfect sense.  It actually, of course, makes MORE sense (allthough not defensible in the end) for evangelicals to vote for a fellow evangelical that it does for a person to vote on the basis of the SURFACE characteristics of skin color or sex.   An evangelical might reasonably expect to have an evangelical pastor share his or her values (until you consider "born again" Jimmy Carter).

The point of this story, however, is merely to DIVIDE and confuse "evangelicals", who have never been a monolithic voting bloc in the first place--coming from people (New York Times and rest of mainstream media) who are anti-evangelical BIGOTS.

P.S.  I have endorsed Mitt Romney, and not Mike Huckabee.  Further, I am not an evangelical Christian.  However, I do support Huckabee over Giuliani and--especiall--McCain.  Democrats and leftists would like to face Huckabee in the general election.  As the old saying goes:  "Watch what you wish for; you may get it."  Even though Huckabee's "populism" bothers me, as a conservative, I WILL support him in the general election (if it comes to that).   I cannot say the same about non-evangelical McCain (or perhaps even Ruday; as stated, I prefer Huckabee to Giuliani as well).

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this