Fred Barnes at the Weekly Standard says:
The new 30-second ad that Mike Huckabee has put on the air in Iowa represents a quite remarkable step in presidential politics. Maybe my memory betrays me, but I don’t recall a major presidential candidate who made such an unabashed, unambiguous appeal for support on the basis of religious faith.
Even TV evangelist Pat Robertson, a leader in the emergence of Christian conservatives as a major bloc in Republican politics, didn’t appeal to voters with such a strong emphasis on his personal religious faith when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 1988 – and finished second in Iowa.
Barnes thinks this may cause a backlash against Huckabee, who has not received much negative attention from the press so far. While this is amusing from the gamesmanship perspective – one I consider unpleasant and wish was less relevant – it’s important to me that candidates for public office tell the truth about themselves, their policy plans, and the agendas they’ll be pursuing while in office.
I endorsed Huckabee recently because I felt like his views made sense, correlated to my own reasonably well, and that he was not contorting himself and his beliefs over much in an effort to appeal to more voters. Therefore, I’m glad to see that, so far, he has not proven me wrong in this.
Further, I’d suggest that if the pledges and promises that have to be made in order to get elected cause an unsustainable dissonance with an elected official’s fundamental values then the obligations he or she incurred along the path to office were bought at too high a price.
Barnes says Huckabee won’t run the "Christian Leader" ad in New Hampshire. I hope he does.
To call that state’s primary electorate eccentric would be putting it mildly. Looking at the past, it almost seems as if voters there consciously attempt to create upsets and make heroes out of underdogs.
Why not Huckabee in New Hampshire? And if not, why should he pretend to be something other than what he is?