"Huck"ing Romney

It was amazing to read about the meteoric rise to the top that Mike Huckabee did in the Iowa presidential caucus. He surprised everyone, especially Romney's camp, who had expected to do very well. Romney's obvious plan was to spend a lot of money in the two early primaries and jump start his little known campaign. But Huckabee stole the show. Of course, Huckabee's explanation was that his message just rang true among Republican faithful. Others were suspicious that he had simply rallied the Evangilical forces.

I'm just a basic guy so I took everyone's word for it... they're all smarter than me anyway. But it kept eating at me. I read an article that suggested that Huckabee's rise to the top was really very simple... Huckabee is just a likeable guy. Well, that was obviously true. I had seen the man in the debates and on TV... he did seem likeable. In fact, I could probably vote for the guy under the right circumstances. He and I saw eye to eye on a few issues. But when he didn't score so well in Hew Hampshire, it got me thinking again. Was his rise to the top simply because he was likeable? I began to doubt it.

The thought that really stuck out to me was the heavey Evangilical vote. Could it be that his rise was less likeability and more a movement against Romney? In fact I started wondering if it was really a vote against a Mormon. Huckabee's second place win in South Carolina was largely Evangelical again. His candidacy looks more like an effort to ensure that a Mormon doesn't win. I know, I sound like a conspiracy freak. I don't mean to. I'm just suspisious of the whole thing.

Being a basic guy, I'd normally worry a bit about being labeled a conspiracy freak. But this time other things came to my attention that kept me sane. One was a University of Vanderbilt poll (survey by political scientists John Geer, Brett Benson, and Jennifer Merolla). The authors of the survey found that 57% of the Evangelicals admitted to having a bias against Mormon's. Now in my mind, that would be votes against Romney. I didn't want to believe it at first, but then it started to make sense.

Would I vote against Huckabee because he was an Evangelical? Not at all. In fact, I don't remember asking what a candidates particular religion was in the past. Then I wondered if I would vote for Romney just because he and I share the same religion. Then I remembered Harry Reed, the Nevada Senator. There is no way he'd get my vote. When I settle all of this in my mind, I wasn't very happy with what appeared to be an Evangelical effort to keep a Mormon off the Republican ticket.

If that was all I'd probably give up on the issue and write it off and a lame-brained idea. I came across another article that moved my suspisions to fact. Jonathan Martin, writing for Politico, revealed Huckabee's real agenda. He gathered his thoughts from Huckabee's own speech after the prmary in South Carolina and described the Evangelical presidential hopeful as a "Mitt Killer" (see http://www.politico.com:80/neews/stories/0108/8003.html). Huckabee's plan is to steal conservative Evangelical votes from Romney so McCain can win the nomination.

Not only does that show a certain level of unchristian activity, but it also shows that Huckabee is not a true conservative. A true conservative would not help a liberal to moderate McCain win the Whitehouse. That seals the deal for me. I've lost the respect I once had for the "likeable" Huckabee. He's helped me narrow my own field of possible contenders for the Republican nominee. Thanks Huck for "Huck"ing Romney. Basically speaking, you've made my job much easier, especially now that Thompson has called it quits.