Still Not Ready For Prime Time

Seems like a long time ago now that Mike F'ing Huckabumpkin won the Iowa Caucuses, doesn't it?  After finishing a distant third in New Hampshire last week and Michigan tonight, South Carolina looks as if it could be his last hurrah.

I also recall from a few weeks ago that Huckles' biggest problem was that, for {ahem} God only knows what reason, he suddenly shot up in the GOP polls in December based more on what he was - a former Baptist preacher - than any inherent abilities as a national candidate, or a Reaganian issues stances.  Indeed, his penchant for gaffes made his soaring past Mitt Romney to take Iowa all the more perplexing.  How could a man who appeared to be so mentally undisciplined in his off-the-cuff choice of words possibly have the stamina to remain a front-runner all the way to Minneapolis?

The answer is he probably can't, even if he does hold on in the Palmetto state this Saturday.  Tonight provided one more stunning example:

[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Let's reiterate for the record that I am adamantly opposed to the Huck candidacy because he is left of center on pretty much every issue other than moral issues.  He's a single-issue, identity-group candidate; he's either, depending upon how you look at it, the John Edwards or the Jesse Jackson of the Republican Party.  He's sitting atop the evangelical vote, which is enough to keep him in the GOP nomination race but not enough to enable him to win it.  That close identification, and unwillingness to reach out to the rest of the Reagan coalition, guarantees that while he's found his floor, he's also found his ceiling, and there's not a lot of clearance between the two.

But even narrowing the context to moral issues, I still have this against Huckles (to employ the LORD's rhetorical device from Revelation 2 and 3): He appears incapable of phrasing his rejoinders in any way that doesn't feed right into the liberal stereotype of conservative Christians.  I am a conservative Christian, and his statement above has me wailing and gnashing my teeth right along with the denizens of the Corner.

I understand what Huckleberry was trying to say - basically what Peter told the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:19-20:

"Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard."

Pagans are trying to use the courts to eviscerate the sanctity of life and divinely ordained institutions that have existed across the world for thousands of years.  It's a shame that it's come to the place where we have to contemplate amending the U.S. Constitution in order to protect the unborn and formally define marriage as what God created it "in the beginning" - between a man and a woman.  That is simply the arena that the godless have chosen and if societal virtue is to be restored, that's the venue in which the battle will take place.

That is, of course, not to say that it won't be a very, very long battle, and that the brethren don't need to pace themselves for it, a point that John Mark Reynolds was making yesterday.  Part of that patience is understanding the need to build, or maintain, coalitions that make it possible to win elections, even if our candidate isn't just a religious conservative.  I think that moral issues would get as much attention from Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson as they would Mike Hucksaplenty; as, indeed, they have gotten from George W. Bush.

The difference between the latter three and Huckles is that they are nationally electable figures (probably not this year, given the viscerally anti-GOP tides, but work with me here).  The reasons for that is that they are more broadly acceptable to the electorate as a whole, and they - even Dubya - are able to communicate their views on "controversial" issues without making themselves look like complete asses.

In the quote above, Huck is fine through, "...what we need to do is to amend the Constitution...."  That's reasonable, even if you disagree with his policy stance on abortion and marriage; it's using the means the Founders gave us to effect a change he seeks to make.

It's his choice of words AFTER that point that is so amateurish, and make him sound like the knuckle-dragging hayseed he is: "....so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."  Leave aside that God's standards are immutable, and any nation that flouts them long enough will come under God's judgment.  That's God's business; our duty as believers is to pray for our country and its leaders (whoever they are) and try to be "salt and light," including in the public square.

But we won't be in the public square for long if we don't listen to how we come across to the lost.  Case in point:

What do you think God's standard is on anchor babies and birthright citizenship? (Manger!) Does Huckabee's God believe in borders? What is God's monetary policy? Is Jesus a capitalist? How much economic disparity will he tolerate? Wouldn't God want us all to have health care? Nice shoes?

What about rendering unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, and unto God that which is God's? Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation of church and state. He is the best advertisement ever for the ACLU.

I don't actually know Lisa Schiffren's spritual condition.  Ditto Andy McCarthy's....:

Huckabee is made to order for the Left:  his rhetoric embodies their heretofore lunatic indictment that we're no better that what we're fighting against.  Let's "amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards"?  Who needs to spin when the script speaks for itself?  Where has Huck been for the last seven years?  Does he not get that our enemies — the people who want to end our way of life — believe they are simply imposing God's standards?

....but if neither of them is saved, they can at least be assumed to be somewhat sympathetic to evangelical causes.  And yet look at the volcanic reaction (some might say overreaction) they had to Huck's verbal turd!  Goodness gracious, he was speaking of amending the Constitution, a process that is excruciatingly democratic, not "imposing God's standards" like the Islamists strive to do (i.e. by acts of war).  If either a Human Life Amendment or a Marriage Amendment ever do pass, it won't be any time soon, if ever.  Yet for simple want of rhetorical circumspection, Rev'rund Huck has sent two NROids scurrying to reconsider purchasing time-share condos in hell (politically speaking).

But remember to whom Huck is speaking: evangelicals, and no one BUT evangelicals.

He's got his niche in the same sense of a car battery collector paying a nocturnal visit to pit row at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway the day before Memorial Day.  His collection will swell impressively, but the cars won't go anywhere - and neither will he.

God willing, though, the "batteries" will stop following this Sawyeresque pied piper and return from whence they foolishly came, before they end up flat as pancakes, in more ways than one.