Would Jesus vote Republican?

On Nov. 7, 2007, prominent conservative Christian leader Pat Robertson endorsed Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. The endorsement came as a surprise to almost anyone familiar with these two men and their records. Giuliani supports abortion and gay rights and is a known adulterer. And Robertson vehemently opposes abortion rights and wants a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage – two issues that have been a staple to values voters lately.

But the shock of this endorsement was not based entirely on the men’s starkly differing views. It is also rooted in the fact that Robertson wouldn’t have had a problem finding a candidate who shares his bottom line – to implement a socially conservative agenda. In fact, Robertson could have selected a candidate who appears to be groomed by the movement the televangelist helps lead.

Mike Huckabee is the only presidential candidate who identifies himself as an evangelical Christian. He is a former Baptist preacher and Arkansas governor who is genuinely a part of the precious right-wing Christian vote the Republican Party has been courting, and successfully gaining, since the Reagan years. He grew up in a working-class family and became a born-again Christian at age 10, when attending vacation Bible school with his sister. He is strongly pro-life, speaks compassionately about health care and the middle class and supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage – in fact, he recently said he wants to amend the Constitution to fit God’s standards.

Really, conservative Christians could not ask for a better candidate. And they haven’t been. After months of coasting under the radar, Huckabee began surging in the polls in November and won the Republican Iowa caucuses, where 60 percent of GOP voters described themselves as evangelical Christians.

But despite his genuine beliefs and his success, Huckabee has failed to rack up influential evangelical endorsements. Instead, most have gone to other candidates whose views either aren’t in line with those of values voters, like Giuliani, or who have not been consistently conservative, like Mitt Romney (who also belongs to the Mormon church, which has a bit of a rift with evangelicals). The National Right to Life Committee endorsed Fred Thompson, and when bona fide conservative Christian candidate Sam Brownback dropped out of the race he endorsed John McCain, who has never been a favorite of religious right-wingers.

Huckabee has the beliefs and the popularity to be a favorable candidate for evangelical organizations, whose goal in political involvement is to back someone who will push their religious agenda. So why hasn’t he gotten more endorsements? There is at least one obvious reason: his populism.

Those closely following the campaign have labeled Huckabee’s economic policies as populist because of his desire to help out the middle class, his sympathy for labor unions and his criticism of excessive executive salaries, among other things. And herein lies the problem with the overall Republican profile of the past few decades – Jesus was a populist, not an advocate of laissaz-faire economy that can often leave the poor in the dust.

Some prominent Republicans have done their best to disguise this disconnect of the party pillars by lumping Huckabee in with the Democrats. Thompson has criticized him for his “liberal economic policies” (you know, those that employ compassion) and conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh has derided him for engaging in “class warfare.”

Shouldn’t it be a sign to evangelicals that their leaders aren’t getting behind a candidate who is also fervently opposed by the anti-tax group the Club for Growth? Did Jesus advocate that people hoard their wealth and not share it to help others who are less fortunate?

Conservative Christians have had their day in the sun by allowing their faith to be snagged by politicians and power-hungry preachers who use it to get insensitive and questionably religious people in power. They have either been in the dark or allowed the hypocrisy to continue in their quest for religious control of this secular country.

Huckabee’s candidacy has created a documented divide in the evangelical community between its leaders and followers. And those who have long realized that Republican Party leaders care very little about “family values,” the sanctity of every human life or even morality can only hope that this divide remains and the party becomes honest with itself and all of its followers.

GOP still scrambled

While most news reports are talking of the wide-open Republican race for president, nearly every strategist I have heard who has been asked to predict the party's nominee for president says it will be John McCain, who still trails chief rivals Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee in the delegate count. And I hope that Romney's victory in Michigan's Republican primary yesterday (his first major win in the nominating contest) will severely dampen McCain's chance at the nomination. I don't by any means wish victory for Romney in any contest, but I would rather pad his ego for now than see the moderate, independent-voter-attracting McCain win the Republican nomination. Hillary Clinton sure wouldn't beat him, as far as I'm concerned, and the only hope Democrats would have is the inexperienced Barack Obama (unless John Edwards somehow gets the nomination, which, as my friend who works for his campaign points out to me, might be the best thing for the Democratic party since some polls have shown he is the only Democratic nominee who could beat all potential Republican nominees in the general election). It would be interesting to see a showdown between the young, inspiring Obama and the old, straight-talking McCain, but I'd rather see any Democrat stomp flip-flopping Romney or foreign-policy-ignorant Huckabee. I was happy for formerly ailing McCain when he won the New Hampshire primary, but now I would be happy to see him lose all the other contests, especially the upcoming one in South Carolina, where Republicans are now focusing their efforts and the state where, since 1980, the eventual Republican nominee for president has won the primary.

Meanwhile, Democrats have been focused on Nevada, which holds is caucuses on Saturday (a day I will be away from Internet access, ouch). The three front runners, Clinton, Obama and Edwards, engaged in what has been described as a friendly debate in Las Vegas last night that started off with questions about race, which has been the hot-button topic lately between the Clinton and Obama campaigns. But the candidates played nice on those questions, and for the rest of the debate tried to avoid the topic all together. But Clinton and Obama are still battling it out in the courts, arguing over the legitimacy of holding caucuses in casinos. And so the fighting, although civil, continues.

More Obama momentum

Barack Obama received two big endorsements this week, one from a union in the next caucus state, Nevada, and one from John Kerry, who slighted his former running mate, John Edwards, in favor of the freshman senator from Illinois. During his announcement of the endorsement, Kerry too used the theme of change and "transformation" as justification for his choice. So Obama's momentum appears to be continuing, despite his surprise loss in New Hampshire. But, as if almost to stump for Hillary Clinton, the Washington Post's Dan Balz points out that the problem du jour for Democrats, the economy, may provide some momentum for Clinton; by looking at exit poll results, he predicts that Clinton may be able to win the economy argument and therefore the presidency.

And while the Republican presidential field continues to be wide open and full of candidates, even those who clearly have no hope, the Democratic field is slimming by the week. Christopher Dodd and Joe Biden dropped out last week after the Iowa caucuses, and now, despite denying it yesterday, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson appears to be leaving the race as well, after a disappointing fourth-place finish in New Hampshire. No word yet on whether he will endorse anyone, but I've thought all along he was running for either vice president or secretary of state (as I hope Biden was), so my prediction is he won't publicly back any candidate.

Let the conversation continue...

Hillary Clinton pulled it off tonight in New Hampshire, winning the Democratic primary despite nearly a week of negative press and talks today of major shake-ups in her campaign following her third-place finish in Thursday's Iowa caucus. Pundits on TV are attributing her comeback after Barack Obama's recent surge and expected New Hampshire win to two main things: Saturday's nights ABC debate and Clinton's show of emotion yesterday. There is also talk of New Hampshire voters' defiance and desire to be heard after most everyone had already called the nomination for the seemingly unstoppable Obama. And they truly did reopen the race, even though the majority of them think Obama would fare better in the general election. So much for my "Meet the Press" bad-omen prediction yesterday, and so much for all the poll numbers strongly indicating an Obama win today. The conversation with Hillary Clinton has just begun, and I think it will be an interesting dialogue between Clinton and Obama in Nevada and South Carolina right through Feb. 5.

But, did Obama's Iowa momentum already destroy one potential presidential candidate? I found this story in The New York Times late last night, and will be keeping an eye on any decisions by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in the wake of Clinton's defeat over Obama.

While the Democratic race has really come down to just Clinton and Obama (sorry, Edwards), the Republican race is still very wide open. John McCain delivered somewhat of an upset to (again) former front-runner Mitt Romney, who came in second, as he did in Iowa (though he won the little-talked-about Wyoming caucus on Saturday). So the Republicans have had three caucuses and three winners (Mike Huckabee won in Iowa). And don't forget about Rudy Giuliani, who is relying on a national strategy that doesn't put too much pressure on these early states. I am listening to MSNBC in the background right now, and just as I am trying to sum up this paragraph, I hear Tim Russert do it for me: "Who is the Republican front runner right now?"

The Obama bandwagon

We won't find out until tomorrow's New Hampshire primaries just how much Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's momentum from winning the Iowa caucuses will really affect the entire race, but polls released today are not looking good for his chief rival, Hillary Clinton. While I have seen many polls, all with Obama leading by various margins, perhaps this CBS Poll is the best indication of how the results in Iowa have directly affected New Hampshire voters' decisions. It has Obama leading Clinton by 7 percentage points, but here's the twist: the same voters in November gave Clinton a 20-point lead over Obama.

I guess with that last paragraph I am guilty of this as well, but it seems as though once voters cast Obama as the successful champion of change and Clinton as a generator of negativity, so did the press. Most of what I have read since Thursday casts Obama as an unstoppable force with the only message that is resonating with voters and Clinton as the desperate, dull establishment candidate playing catch up. I feel like Clinton can't catch a break, but all the negative press about her campaign clearly has some very real basis, as the anecdote about the Iowa caucuses in this story demonstrates.

And for more on the media's influence, consider yesterday's "Meet the Press." Last week, before the Iowa caucuses, Obama and Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee appeared on the show. And both won the caucuses, on their respective sides. Coincidence, yes. But I can't help but think it's a bad omen for Clinton when she, the front-runner in New Hampshire until today, is invited on the show with Republican New Hampshire front-runner John McCain and refuses the invitation two days before the primary, leaving McCain alone with Tim Russert for a half hour. And the other half of the program didn't bode well for her either, with two political strategists, one Democrat and one Republican, predicting that Obama and McCain will be battling it out in the general election, which, as I've pointed out before, will make for a very interesting race between two moderates popular with independents.

Clinton, who made headlines today with her show of emotion, is spending the day trying to quell Obama's momentum, saying she has been making changes for the past 35 years, not just talking about it for the past year. But as if to enforce the success of Obama's rhetoric, Republicans have jumped on his bandwagon, too, particularly with Mitt Romney portraying McCain as part of the Washington establishment. But McCain fired back in Saturday's New Hampshire debate with my favorite quip of the night that flips the rhetoric of change to reflect Romney's history of taking on politically convenient views:

"We disagree on a lot of different issues," said McCain. "But I agree with you that you are the candidate of change."

Poor Hillary

I know it's not over yet, but I have to say I feel bad for Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton. With Barack Obama coming in first in the Iowa caucuses and John Edwards coming in second, Clinton was left with third place, a disappointing setback for her campaign, even though her husband won the presidency without competing in the Iowa caucuses.

Republican presidential hopeful and former Iowa front-runner Mitt Romney experienced a similar setback with Mike Huckabee winning the caucuses today. But I don't feel badly for this phony.

As a former figure skater, I can't help but be reminded of the 1998 Winter Olympic Games when I think about Clinton's candidacy and its current condition. In the skating contest in Nagano, everyone expected Michelle Kwan, the longtime favorite who was well-known in the skating world, to win. But out of nowhere came Tara Lipinski, a 15-year-old who had technical elements Kwan couldn't match. Just as Obama seems to have something innate that Clinton does not possess and is using it to take away her lifelong dream that if she doesn't achieve this year she may never fulfill, Lipinski snatched away Kwan's Olympic gold medal, a defeat Kwan was never able to overcome (two subsequent Olympic tries resulted in a bronze medal and a last-minute drop out).

I am having to realign my vote now that Joe Biden dropped out of the race, and I can't say I will vote for Clinton, despite the fact that I feel she is the most qualified candidate for the job and I love the idea of having a woman president. I don't think my pity should result in a vote, but I can't help but feel that Clinton has worked hard for this for so many years, she has dreamed about this since at least college, and it could all come crashing down before her eyes at the hands of a newcomer whom in some ways she just can't compete with. I am pretty new to politics, hence the figure skating comparison, so I'm not sure if this kind of thing happens all the time, but, despite how I feel about Obama and his policies (both of which I like), I know I will feel as though the world is so unfair if he gets the nomination.

Election tipping points

Not long before the end of 2007, the Des Moines Register released its final poll before tomorrow's Iowa caucuses. On the Democratic side, Barack Obama got a huge boost, with 32 percent of the vote, compared with Hillary Clinton's 25 percent and John Edwards's 24 percent. Mike Huckabee is leading Republicans with 32 percent, while former Iowa front-runner Mitt Romney has 26 percent. There was much debate yesterday about the importance of the Register's poll, with the Clinton and Edwards campaigns questioning this year's untraditional method of polling more independents. Of course so much will depend on turnout, thus making the caucuses fairly unpredictable, but ever since I read the results I have been saying that if Obama wins Iowa and subsequently the nomination, I will credit his boost in this poll. As one of my political-science friends pointed out to me and as I discussed in my last post, so many people vote based on who is leading the pack, who they think is going to win and not who they actually want to win, which makes the results of polls like the Register's almost unfairly important because they have the potential to tip an election.

Another important thing to take from the Register poll is that Obama does well with independents, showing he has the potential to bring a lot of them in during the general election. What an interesting showdown it would be Obama and John McCain, who is doing well in New Hampshire, got the nomination on each side.

But Obama's, or any Democratic nominee's, ability to win over independent voters may be hindered if New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg runs, which has been in the works even before he left the Republican party in June. He has so far denied he chasing a presidential bid, but news stories and blogs follow his every move, including an upcoming conference in Oklahoma that many suspect will be the kick-off of his presidential run as an independent candidate. Just as many blame Ralph Nader, who endorsed John Edwards today, for Al Gore's loss in 2000, Bloomberg could tip the 2008 general election in favor of Republicans in a year Democrats cannot afford to lose.