Mike Huckabee... Pastor or President?

Is this guy serious?




It makes sense that this guy is the front-runner in Iowa and struggling in New Hampshire, an obviously more secular state. With ads like this it's hard to believe it's endorsed by his campaign. With all the fallout over Romney's comment at College Station that "freedom requires religion" and Russert's subsequent grilling, it is surprising that Huck let this thing leave the producer's head. It's a sad day for a country that professes to have no litmus test for office, when an ad like this can be run by a presidential campaign. Actually, it's downright scary. I may not fit with a lot of conservatives on the ideas of church and state, but there is no place for this in presidential politics. I worry more about what impact Huckabee may have on the White House than the impact this ad will have on the Republican Primary. Church and state have their respective spheres of influence, as Romney reminded Russert on Sunday, but I wonder if Huckabee sees the importance of keeping the two separate. It is important that they be separate not only for the sake of minority rights, which poses a significant case in and of itself, but for the sake of religion itself. If we allow our religious beliefs or lack thereof to be drudged through the secularity of politics and government, both will be irreversibly altered for the worse. We will then have a litmus test for public office, and unpopular church doctrines will be altered so as not to offend. Is this really what we want?

Beginning of the End?

I have been following the
Presidential primaries closely, not sure of who gets my vote. In the Republican primary, there's not one that really gets me excited. I almost jumped on the Huckabee bandwagon for a couple days, until I learned about his love of the regressive flat tax and realized how really unelectable he is. A Huck nomination would be the Dem's Christmas present for the next four years. And while Hillary has had Republicans trembling in their shoes with the possibility of the Dems extending the Clinton dynasty, it appears that the trouble for the Republicans is just beginning. Truth is, Republicans should be more concerned with an Obama nomination, which they might just be getting. Howard Fineman of MSNBC said today that the Clinton campaign could be in major danger of losing all four of the key early states despite a double-digit lead in national polls. What does this mean for the Republicans? Obama's surge means that the Republicans better get serious soon about finding an electable candidate and forget this fleeting love affair with Huck. The Dems would love to see a Huckabee nomination; they're waiting until the general election to tear him to shreds. With this in mind, I am rather reluctantly thinking about supporting Romney. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, that is, I am Mormon. I am leaning toward supporting Romney despite his religion, not because of it. However, that is not the main issue in the Romney campaign for me. While I believe he may be the most electable in the Republican field, I have been reluctant in my support of Romney 1)because I'm not a huge fan of the way his health care plan is carried out... I don't think it helps enough, 2)I am worried about the impact that United States foreign policy would have on the image of my religion if Romney were President, and 3)I have worried about his chances of beating Hillary. However, after Romney's performance at the latest Iowa debate, realizing Giuliani's authoritarian personality, and McCain's anemic campaign, I have reluctantly turned to Romney. If he is able to come back and win Iowa and hold onto his lead in New Hampshire, and gain the nomination, though, he will have a tough road ahead if he has to face Obama in the general election. A Romney-Thompson ticket might just be the one to beat Obama.