Huckabee vs. Stewart

Mike Huckabee was the guest on last night's Daily Show, and quickly walked into an interesting debate over the appropriate role government should play in our lives.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 1

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Veepstakes Continued...

The Financial Times provides an interesting run-down of potential running-mates for John McCain and the positives and negatives for each.

Charlie Crist, 51: (+) Popular first term Florida governor; Credited with helping McCain win the Florida primary and would probably deliver the Sunshine State again in November if chosen as VP. (-) Too moderate for many conservatives; At 51, his bachelor lifestyle is a source of intrigue – rumour mongers cannot decide whether he is a playboy or gay.

Mark Sanford, 47: (+) Second-term governor of South Carolina; Crusader against government waste – once brought live pigs into the state legislature to protest against “pork-barrel” spending. (-) Did not endorse McCain (or any other candidate) before the South Carolina primary.

Tim Pawlenty, 47: (+) Second-term governor of Minnesota – a key Republican target state; One of McCain’s staunchest supporters and a conservative rising star. (-) Failed to deliver his home state for McCain in the Republican primary.

Haley Barbour, 60: (+) Second-term governor of Mississippi; Competent and well-connected operator; One of the few people to win praise for their leadership after Hurricane Katrina. (-) His background as a powerful Washington lobbyist clashes with McCain’s image as a crusader against special interests.

Matt Blunt, 37: (+) Young first-term governor of Missouri -- traditionally an important bellweather state in presidential elections; Won the highest rating of any governor from the libertarian Cato Institute for reducing state spending; Recently announced he would not seek a second term, making him available for the VP job. (-) Backed Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination; His youth could raise doubts about his readiness to be Commander-in-Chief and undermine Republican attacks against Barack Obama for his inexperience.

Bobby Jindal, 36: (+) Corruption-busting governor of Louisiana and Republican rising star; His youth and Indian-American ethnicity would help neutralise the appeal of Barack Obama. (-) Less than two months into his first term – it would surely be too soon for him to quit.

Sarah Palin, 44: (+) First term governor of Alaska, with an approval rating above 80 per cent; Solid conservative; Considered the brightest female prospect in the Republican party; Mother of four and wife of a commercial fisherman, giving her populist appeal. (-) Relatively inexperienced; Comes from a politically peripheral state.

Rick Perry, 58: (+) Governor of Texas since George W. Bush stepped down in 2000; Would be a popular choice among ”red state” conservatives. (-) Is America ready for another Texas governor on a presidential ticket?

Condoleezza Rice, 53, and Colin Powell, 70: (+) Secretary of State and former Secretary of State, respectively; Would add to McCain’s foreign policy credentials and bring racial diversity to the Republican ticket. (-) Too deeply associated with the failures of the Bush administration; Both say they don’t want the job; Powell is only a year younger than McCain.

Rob Portman, 52: (+) Former US Trade Representative and White House economic adviser; Would bring economic clout to the ticket and could be an asset in his native Ohio – a crucial swing state. (-) Little known outside economic circles. Closely tied to the Bush administration.

Christopher Cox, 55: (+) Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and a former congressman and editor of the Harvard Law Review; Would bring economic and financial experience. (-) Lacks star power.

Joseph Lieberman, 66: (+) Independent senator for Connecticut and running mate to Al Gore on the 2000 Democratic ticket; Quit the Democrats because of his support for the war in Iraq; Would strengthen McCain’s appeal among independents and moderate Democrats. (-) Liberal views would alienate conservatives.

Mike Huckabee, 52: (+) Presidential candidate and former Arkansas governor; Popular among evangelical Christians and widely admired for his good-humoured approach to campaigning; Refrained from attacking McCain. (-) Socially conservative views could alienate moderates, while his populist rhetoric alarms economic conservatives.

Mitt Romney, 60: (+) Former presidential candidate, business executive and Massachusetts governor; Emerged as McCain’s fiercest opponent; Would provide executive experience and economic knowledge. (-) Hostile relationship with McCain could be difficult to overcome.

Rudy Giuliani, 63: (+) Former presidential hopeful; Highly-respected for his leadership as New York mayor after the 9/11 attacks. (-) Could overshadow McCain; Too socially liberal for conservatives; Volatile private life.

Michael Bloomberg, 66: (+) Widely respected mayor of New York, philanthropist and billionaire owner of the Bloomberg news organisation; Recently ruled himself out as a third-party candidate; Would bring executive experience, economic clout and bipartisan appeal. (-) Quit the Republican party last year to become an independent; Too moderate and metropolitan for many Conservatives.

Steve Forbes, 60: (+) Member of the Forbes publishing dynasty and twice a Republican presidential contender in 1986 and 2000; Campaigner for lower taxes and small government. (-) Anti-tax views may be too extreme for some; Out of frontline politics for years.

John Thune, 47, Richard Burr, 52: (+) Young and solidly conservative senators for South Dakota and North Carolina, respectively. Frequently named among the Republican party’s brightest rising stars. (-) Conventional wisdom suggests it would be unwise for McCain, a longtime senator, to add another lawmaker to the ticket, given the unpopularity of Congress. The same reasoning could rule out several other senators that have been linked with the job, including Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Sam Brownback of Kansas and Kay Bailey-Hutchinson of Texas.

Voices

Mike Huckabee, on why more and more Democrats are looking past Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama: “The American people are not looking for someone who can fix a carburetor. They’re looking for someone who can drive the car.”

The Irony of a McCain Candidacy

As we’ve seen, the inevitable candidacy of John McCain has left the various elements of the Republican Party struggling to mend fences while trying to drown out the voices urging conservatives to sit this one out.

In the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger, debates the proper course for Republicans: “McCain or Wilderness”?

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham aren't the only conservatives in agony over John McCain. The base is bummed. There are murmurs of heading into the political wilderness. Sit this one out. Rather than sell the party's soul to John McCain, let Hillary have it, or Barack. Go into opposition for four years while the party gets its head together and comes up with an authentic conservative candidate. If this sourness takes hold at the margin, say among GOP anti-immigrant voters, it might happen.

The wilderness is a good place to find yourself, if you're a prophet. There are reasons, though, why a principled political retreat won't make conservative prospects better. The point of a principled retreat would be to rediscover coherence amid doctrinal confusion. The exact opposite is likely to happen.

Most of the distrust of the McCain candidacy is rooted in personal ill will. He's a hard case, and activists are often brittle. The fear is that one of the strongest impulses in a McCain presidency will be payback, and that he might sell out conservatives on taxes and the judiciary. That is possible, though by now it would require an act of deep duplicity by Mr. McCain. Here again, the conservatives should show more self-confidence.

This isn't an apologia for the senator. Unlike Reagan, he is too self-preoccupied. There is a danger his presidency would be mainly about legacy, and therefore disorganized. This is a call to play the cards on the table. Conservatives are not in the wilderness. They should get back in the game.

Former Bush speechwriter, Michael Gerson, speaks to why some conservatives have found relief, not contempt, in a McCain candidacy.

The attacks of movement conservatives - particularly the talk radio and blogging crowd - on John McCain have reached a shrill, off-key crescendo. McCain is not only "dangerous" and "stupid," he has "contempt for his fellow humans." His opponents will refuse to vote in the general election, or even will campaign for Hillary Clinton. With McCain now almost the last man standing, it will be interesting to see how, or if, these pledges are fulfilled.

For some conservatives, the frustrations run deeper than resentment for a single, outsized, prickly, infuriating man. Early in this cycle, many elements of the Republican coalition rooted for - and fully expected - a decisive, ideological break from the compromised Bush years on issues such as immigration and foreign policy. Those hopes have been disappointed.

The lessons of the McCain resurrection run deeper than the limits of talk radio: Candidates of unity are more appealing and electable. American ideals are indispensable in the conduct of American foreign policy. Some conservatives have reacted with anger. For others of us, there is only relief.

Gerson is not alone. As Politico points out, “Conservatives have already found something to like about John McCain: They think he can win in November.” Former Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating elaborates: “The public who wants change is comfortable with John McCain, whom they view as someone who is not a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bush administration." Keating believes the very issues that have estranged McCain from much of the conservative base “have actually strengthened him with moderates.”

That may be. But as McCain treads his political tight rope toward the general election, his balancing act of appeasing conservatives without alienating moderates will continue. With Mike Huckabee and the base tugging from the right and President Bush beginning to embrace his candidacy, McCain could topple. The ultimate irony could become reality - the more popular McCain becomes with conservatives, the more likely he loses that trait that they find most appealing - his electability.

Election Forecast

The Prince of Darkness offers his political forecast following Super Tuesday.

1. Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) late-night Super Tuesday victories in Missouri and then California give him half the convention delegates needed and all but clinch the nomination for him. Once again, Romney's tactics such as pouring $10 million into California worked in theory but not in practice.

2. The anti-McCain barrage from conservative talk show hosts led by Rush Limbaugh did not work. The old GOP tendency to get behind the presumptive leader trumped irritation with McCain. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour went on TV last night to say it was time for McCain's opponents to get out and make him the nominee.

3. There is now no clear path for Gov. Mitt Romney to the nomination. The former Massachusetts liberal never was able to sell himself as a conservative, finishing third behind former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and McCain in Southern states.

4. McCain is still a heartily disliked figure in the Senate, but usually soft-spoken Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), uncharacteristically, was the only anti-McCainiac to speak out. The reason may be that Cochran is the Senate's king of pork while McCain is a leading anti-porker.

5. A test for McCain comes Thursday at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), an event he stiffed last year. He has to repeat what he has been saying lately: First, he will veto any tax increase passed by the Democratic Congress. Second, he will name Supreme Court justices in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. More than that, he has to say he is one of them.

6. McCain's asset is that there is no genuine conservative left against him. Huckabee is an evangelical, not a conservative (which is one reason he is unlikely to be picked as McCain's running mate). In next week's "Potomac primary" (Virginia, Maryland, and D.C.), it looks like McCain will be the winner, with Huckabee a strong second in Virginia.

7. Thanks to proportional representation, the Democratic fight will stretch out into April. It would have been a very big night for Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) had Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) not squeezed out a win in Missouri. The next really big tests come March 4 in Texas and Ohio.

8. The overriding story is that twice as many Democrats as Republicans voted on Super Tuesday, and the gap in enthusiasm was even larger. McCain as nominee faces a massive task ahead.

The Pandering of Huckabee

As the South Carolina primary has emerged as a battle between McCain, Huckabee and (to a lesser extent) Thompson, it's been interesting to see how the candidates are tailoring their messages in the final days. It appears that McCain is courting moderates and the military crowd (both demographics he should easily carry) while Huckabee and Thompson are fighting it out for the Evangelical vote.

In doing so, the religious pandering of Huckabee is reaching new lows. His tactics may pay off short-term but will only hinder his longer-term chances in both the Republican primaries and the general election. In other words, they may be effective with the Christian Conservative base of the Republican Party but they will not be effective with the majority of Americans who have moved beyond such divisiveness. The pandering of Huckabee is nothing new, as noted in an earlier post:

Sadly, to cement his base of support among Iowa Evangelicals and fend off Romney down the home stretch, he has resorted to the politicization of his faith – a disturbing and growing trend in Republican politics. Americans have almost become resigned to these tactics but we also thought Mike Huckabee was different. He was the Baptist Minister with the theology degree who relied on his faith to bring us together, not tear us apart. Now he is the candidate who plays the religion card to exploit the insecurities of those who hold prejudice against others who may or may not be “Christians.”The temptation for Huckabee to employ these tactics was inevitable but we hoped he wouldn’t take the bait. Now that he has, it has cheapened his campaign and it has cheapened the very faith he espouses.

In South Carolina, intolerance plays well with certain demographics and Huckabee has sought to exploit that as much as possible. When questioned by a religious website about how some of his beliefs could be interpreted as "radical", he responded:

"I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again."

Give me a break. It remains truly baffling that certain segments of the population (often those who preach acceptance and love for their fellow man) are so threatened by two loving adults who choose to legalize their partnership through the institution of marriage. Doing so would apparently lead to the crumbling of the foundations of "traditional marriage", demean the "sanctity" of this holy institution (with a 50 percent failure rate - an unspoken topic amongst these guardians of marriage), and ultimately lead to a windfall of benefits and privileges such as (gasp) hospital visitation rights.

Huckabee asserts that allowing two loving and consenting adults to marry could lead to government-sanctioned bestiality. Really? How utterly distasteful and offensive is that? As a serious candidate for President of the United States, he has to realize that there are serious implications to his words. The next time he panders to one crowd while demonizing another, I hope he remembers that. Preying on insecurity and bigotry for a few votes is beneath any politician, and is particularly deplorable for someone who boasts of being a "man of the cloth".

Standing on the center stage of American politics, his audience is much bigger than just those directly within the sound of his voice. Failing to appreciate that reality has led to the downfall of numerous political candidates who have sought to pander first and apologize to those offended later. It simply does not work because the American people can see right through it. In this case, Huckabee may never seek the support of the gay community, but he will undoubtedly need the support of their family members, their friends, their loved ones, and the countless Americans who find intolerance and prejudice offensive.

Nevertheless, the path Mike Huckabee has chosen is clear and he is charging full steam ahead - head down and straight back toward irrelevance.

Thompson Comes Out Swinging

As Slate reports, the most noteworthy aspect of last night's debate was that Fred Thompson finally came out swinging.

No one got teary-eyed at the Republican debate in South Carolina Thursday night, but Fred Thompson did try to make Mike Huckabee cry. Early in the 90-minute event, Thompson laid out a bill of complaints about Huckabee's heresies on tax cuts, immigration, and foreign policy. He went after him several more times during the night accusing Huckabee of political expediency and cluelessness about the Pakistani military. The governor didn't represent "the model of the Reagan coalition," said Thompson, but the "model of the Democratic Party." That crack may seem a little weak on the page, but given that Thompson normally proceeds like cold syrup, his consistently aggressive posture was as striking as if he'd broken out into jumping jacks.

In the Republican primary, the battle lines are clearly being drawn. With Romney focused on Michigan and Giuliani focused on Florida, Huckabee, McCain and Thompson are left to fight it out in South Carolina. The bad news for Huckabee is that Thompson and McCain are former colleagues and old friends. And as the futility of the Thompson campaign becomes more apparent, he'll undoubtedly throw his support to McCain in an attempt to bolster his old friend's credibility with the conservative establishment. Last night was a good indication that it may already be happening.

Too Little, Too Late?

While the Giuliani strategy of laying low until Florida could still work theoretically, it's going to be tough for him to become relevant again. His opponents have shared the media spotlight for the past month so he's essentially competing in a race in which each of his competitors have a running start. That's why we're starting to see Huckabee close quickly in Florida. To counter, Giuliani unveiled a new ad today.

"Iowa's Histrionic Hucksters"

George Will, the Washington Post's conservative sage, wrote a scathing column about the populist rhetoric used by Edwards and Huckabee. Will's best shot was at Huckabee's and Edwards' policy solution to battling the "special interests" that have a stranglehold on our Democracy --

"Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to change Washington's culture, each would aggravate its toxicity... The way to achieve Edwards' and Huckabee's populist goal of reducing the role of "special interests," meaning money, in government is to reduce the role of government in distributing money. But populists want to sharply increase that role by expanding the regulatory state's reach and enlarging its agenda of determining the distribution of wealth. Populists, who are slow learners, cannot comprehend this iron law: Concentrate power in Washington, and you increase the power of interests whose representatives are concentrated there."

There are other comments worthy of praise. Read it here.

The Caucus Breakdown: The Morning After

Stuart Rothenberg analyzes the winners and losers from last night:

Iowa Winners

1. Barack Obama. The easiest pick of the night, Obama’s win means that he goes to New Hampshire as a winner. No, the Democratic contest is not over, but if he wins in the Granite State, he’ll be hard to stop in South Carolina. And if he sweeps those three, he may never look back.Entrance polling showed Iowa Democrats responded strongly to Obama’s message of change – half of Democrats said that the top quality they were looking for in a candidate was his or her ability to bring about change, and of those respondents, 51 percent voted for Obama. The Illinois Democrat’s campaign also clearly benefited from the surge in Democratic turnout and from the participation of Iowans who had never before caucused. Obama won among caucus-goers who said the war was the top issue, as well as among those who identified the economy or health care as the most important issue. He won “very liberal” and “somewhat liberal” Democratic caucus attendees handily, and nosed out Clinton among self-described moderates. All in all, an impressive performance.

2. Mike Huckabee. In May, Huckabee wasn’t even on the radar screen in Iowa. At the end of the day, he was outspent, and he won what is always regarded as an “organizational race” without much of an organization. Huckabee clobbered the rest of the GOP field on two key candidate qualities: “shares my values” and “says what he believes.” That’s a good place to start when you are running for your party’s Presidential nomination. But Huckabee did as well as he did on Thursday only because of the make-up of Thursday’s Republican caucus-goers. The former Arkansas Governor won the caucuses because he cleaned up among the most conservative and most religious attendees. Six out of ten GOP caucus-goes were evangelicals, and he won them 46 percent to 19 percent over Mitt Romney. Among the 36 percent of GOP attendees who said that the religious beliefs of the candidates matter “a great deal,” Huckabee won 56 percent – five times more than Romney, McCain or Thompson. But New Hampshire doesn’t look like natural Huckabee territory, and the Arkansas Republican’s long-term prospects in the race are not as bright as they may look today.

3. John McCain. Sure, McCain finished essentially tied for third with Fred Thompson, but Romney’s less than sterling showing could dry up some of the former Massachusetts governor’s support in New Hampshire, and that could boost McCain’s prospects on Tuesday. The only problem for the Arizona Republican: If the Obama bandwagon draws even more Granite State Independents into the Democratic primary, depriving McCain of potential supporters.

4. Rudy Giuliani. The win by Huckabee means that the GOP race is as confused as ever, and that’s a plus for the former New York City mayor, who benefits from confusion in the early contests. Giuliani’s chances for the Republican nomination don’t look all that bright, but he would have been much worse off if Romney had won in Iowa.

Iowa Losers

1. John Edwards. Anyone who listened to Edwards’s caucus night speech had to be asking, “What’s he smoking?”After drawing 32 percent in the 2004 caucuses and spending the next four years camped out in the state, Edwards finished essentially tied for second on Thursday. To make matters worse, the other “change” candidate in the contest, Barack Obama, finished first. And, Obama’s optimistic change message trumped Edwards’s angry, populist message. Edwards, who railed against corporate greed, focused on jobs and trade and aimed his message at the “little guy,” lost union households to both Clinton and Obama. Edwards will now have major resource problems, and he isn’t likely to do well in New Hampshire. If his comments last night are any indication, he isn’t likely to go quietly. But the former North Carolina senator is in serious trouble. He needed to win in Iowa, and he didn’t. It’s just that simple.

2. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Clinton’s problem isn’t that Edwards nosed her out for second; it’s that caucus attendees preferred change over experience, raising questions about her fundamental appeal. The calendar isn’t her friend over the next month, and she’ll be peppered with process questions when she’d rather talk about things that voters want to hear. Nobody should count the New York senator out. Iowa, after all, is just a single state, and Clinton and Obama ran virtually even among self-described Democrats in Iowa, which offers her hope in true closed primary states. But Clinton no longer is in the driver’s seat, as indicated by the fact that she lost women, 35 percent to 30 percent, to Obama in the caucuses.

3. Mitt Romney. How do you go from a prohibitive favorite in the Iowa caucuses to a surprisingly distant runner-up to Mike Huckabee? Ask Romney. He did it. Romney won with upscale Republicans, more moderate and urban GOP caucus-goers and those for whom the religious beliefs of the candidate didn’t matter a lot. But he got swamped by conservative evangelicals who wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. He won’t have that problem in New Hampshire, but he has a different one there: John McCain.Romney needs a win in the Granite State or in Michigan to stay in the hunt. One of his biggest problems is that caucus attendees didn’t think that “he says what he believes.”

The Caucus Breakdown

Chuck Todd provides a thoughtful breakdown of the potential outcomes of the Iowa Caucuses and what they would mean to the various candidates.

In summary, John Edwards has to win because he has invested so much time and effort in the state over the last few years. A loss would be devastating. Because of the resources at their disposal, both Clinton and Obama need to win but could stomach a loss. Meanwhile, Richardson, Biden and Dodd are fighting for 4th place. Finshing behind the Big 3 would be considered a victory while anything less would make their campaigns more irrelevant and most likely knock them out of the race.

A win for Huckabee would obviously be huge but, considering the amount of time and money spent by Romney in Iowa, he could also declare victory with a strong 2nd place finish. A win by Romney gives him momentum going into New Hampshire while a 2nd place finish would shift that momentum over to a surging McCain (who will be rooting hard for Huckabee) in New Hampshire and South Carolina. A respectable showing by McCain ("north of 15%") would be considered a victory for a candidate who hasn't put much effort into the state. And the only thing keeping Thompson in the race would be a top 3 finish and if that doesn't happen, he will likely throw his support to McCain.

It's still muddled but I can see some possible trends developing. The significant outcome of the Democratic Caucus will be the fate of Edwards and to whom the third tier candidates will shift their support. My guess is an Obama victory in Iowa, followed closely by Edwards and Clinton in a near statistical tie. Biden comes in a strong 4th followed by Richardson and then Dodd.

On the Republican side, it seems more clear. Huckabee wins in Iowa, followed by Romney then McCain (at around 17%), Thompson, Paul then Giuliani. Thompson then drops out and endorses McCain, who then crusises to a victory over a staggered Romney in New Hampshire and South Carolina. Romney has to bow out and Giuliani's irrelevance in the early states prevents him from competing with a surging McCain. McCain then outlasts Huckabee, who has a more difficult time winning with less resources and in states with smaller Evangelical populations. Soon after, Huckabee bows out and is picked as a running mate by McCain who attempts to shore up support from the Republican base.

Political Transformation in Iowa

Former Bush speechwriter, Michael Gerson, comments on the recent endorsement of Mike Huckabee by Jim Gilchrist. Gilchrist is founder of the Minuteman Project, an activist anti-immigrant organization that many have called a hate group or, at the very least, a xenophobic organization that espouses intolerance and relies upon the exploitation of American fears and insecurities.

While many would spur, or at least blush from, Gilchrist’s endorsement, the Huckabee campaign has fully embraced it. The candidate who speaks of bringing together, the candidate with reasonable and humane stances on immigration as Governor, again shuns his principles for political expediency by further kowtowing to the Republican base that will ultimately derail his message and his entire campaign. Gerson writes:

I am predisposed to like Mike Huckabee for his commitment to economic mobility, his firm but nonjudgmental social conservatism and his Christian concern for the poor. But Huckabee's embrace of Gilchrist and his recent shifts on immigration policy undermine the core of his appeal: authenticity. From the G-rated, family-values candidate, this is the kind of politics that should be covered with brown paper, kept under the counter and hidden from children.

Gilchrist is not just another voice on immigration. He is one of the most divisive figures in the most divisive debate in American politics. In 2006, responding to pro-immigration demonstrations, he told the Orange County Register, "I'm not going to promote insurrection, but if it happens, it will be on the conscience of the members of Congress who are doing this. I will not promote violence in resolving this, but I will not stop others who might pursue that." Note the oily formulation -- not promoting, but also not criticizing, the resort to political violence. "I'm willing to see my country go into battle if necessary," he added, "for our sovereignty and to be governed by rule of law."

Gilchrist has called for the impeachment of President Bush over the issue of border enforcement. He has made noises about running for president as a third-party candidate because of his disdain for Republicans. This is an odd choice of company for a candidate who promotes a conservatism without anger.

…Huckabee has accompanied his choice of new friends with an immigration plan that would require 12 million illegal immigrants to return home before applying for permanent status -- a completely unrealistic approach borrowed from anti-immigration activists. Huckabee's campaign regards this evolution as immunization against Mitt Romney's immigration attack ads -- and it may work in the short run. But a political shift this transparent raises questions about the quality and seriousness of Huckabee's campaign.

Huckabee's main appeal has been his homespun decency. But his behavior on immigration has been a kind of politics-as-usual so blatant it is actually unusual. Huckabee is managing to compromise his most distinctive virtue at the very moment the attention of the public is focused on his candidacy. In politics, a candidate can bend over backward so far that his spine snaps.

I can’t help but think that the blatant pandering of Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani to the Republican base will ultimately leave the door wide open for a John McCain resurgence.

Romney Goes Negative

In the first negative ad of the Iowa Republican primary, Romney comes out swinging against Huckabee. Given recent polling, it was obvious that the Romney campaign had no choice but to go negative. And it’s not surprising that the attack would be leveled against Huckabee’s record on immigration – something the two candidates had debated on a number of occasions.

What’s interesting is that the move appears to be backfiring on Romney, not because he is better on the issue than Huckabee (which he certainly isn’t), but because he’s the first candidate to go negative on the airwaves - and who does so against the one candidate that has nearly universal likeability. Whatever initial appeal the Romney ad had to staunch opponents of illegal immigration has quickly been tempered by the folksy tone of Huckabee’s response and a timely endorsement by the founder of the Minuteman Project.

It’s ironic that the antagonist who raised the stakes by politicizing the issue of faith is now being portrayed as the victim, while the candidate who was merely trying to change the subject is vilified. Score another one for the Teflon preacher.

The Huckabee Crusade

In Iowa, the growing appeal of the Mike Huckabee phenomenon can be largely attributed to the way his style and manner contrasts with Mitt Romney. Romney is the Ken Doll of presidential candidates – his shameless pandering and flexible principles, as well as his perfect hair and expensive suits, embody everything we have grown to distrust in politicians. On the other hand, Huckabee is one of the rare candidates who can draw you in with his eloquence, his genuineness, and his natural charm. If Romney was cold and calculating, many saw Huckabee as sincere and principled. If Romney is ivory towers and country clubs, Huckabee is the neighbor you’d invite over for dinner. And to top things off, he was the candidate who ushered in the much-anticipated arrival of Chuck Norris into presidential politics.

But as the issue of faith becomes more prominent in this campaign, some of Huckabee’s luster is wearing off and he’s beginning to resemble the typical politician we so desperately hoped he wasn’t. Don’t get me wrong, I respect Huckabee because I truly believe his sincerity of faith may run deeper than anyone else in the race. And it’s important that he has invoked the tenants of his faith in commendable efforts as Governor to provide health insurance for lower income children, alleviate poverty, and support a humane immigration policy…even if he distances himself from those stances today. Until recently, he spoke of his faith sincerely and articulately, and in a way that even secular Americans could clearly understand and appreciate.

Sadly, to cement his base of support among Iowa Evangelicals and fend off Romney down the home stretch, he has resorted to the politicization of his faith – a disturbing and growing trend in Republican politics. Americans have almost become resigned to these tactics but we also thought Mike Huckabee was different. He was the Baptist Minister with the theology degree who relied on his faith to bring us together, not tear us apart. Now he is the candidate who plays the religion card to exploit the insecurities of those who hold prejudice against others who may or may not be “Christians.”

The temptation for Huckabee to employ these tactics was inevitable but we hoped he wouldn’t take the bait. Now that he has, it has cheapened his campaign and it has cheapened the very faith he espouses. In the end, is it more about the origins of a particular faith and which bible you read (or do not read), or is it more about how the followers of a particular faith, or even those who don’t adhere to a particular faith, choose to live their lives? Calling someone out for falling under a different religious category, especially if you are a “Christian leader” such as a Baptist Minister, is nothing more than a shameless way of appealing to the worst in people.

His tactics may ultimately appeal in a Republican primary where a number of ideologues genuinely believe someone is a lesser person because of their particular faith, but it will surely backfire. When it comes to faith and politics, I believe the American people, even a good number of Republicans, want change. We are tired of a president who uses his faith to justify waging war, to veto vital funding for medical research, and to write discrimination into the Constitution. We want someone to bring us together, not someone to tear us farther apart.

Connecting with an Audience

Another reason for Huckabee's rise? An interesting take on the role that body language plays in influencing how voter's will make their decision. Check out Drew Weston's book, "The Political Brain," for a good analysis on the role that emotion plays in influencing the way people vote. Drew cites some interesting studies demonstrating that how someone "feels" about a candidate is the best predictor of how they'll vote. Where does policy fall? 5th on the list.