I’ve been thinking about the Presidential primary elections so far and it seems that John McCain has gained some momentum after his narrow South Carolina victory over Mike Huckabee. That gives McCain two solid first-place finishes and some other good showings as well. Huckabee has done very well also with a strong first place finish in Iowa and some impressive double-digit performances in other states including a close second in South Carolina.

Looking at how both of these two men have campaigned — especially with respect towards one another — and how their strengths are perceived by many, I see some potential synergies with them working together. Here are some of them.

• McCain has vast foreign policy knowledge and experience that Huckabee lacks while Huckabee has almost 10 years of chief executive experience that McCain lacks.
• McCain attracts the votes of independents and the national security wing of the Republican Party while Huckabee is strong with values voters.
• Both are known as mavericks within their party and could not be labeled as part of “the Establishment.”
• Both would not be perceived Washington insiders.
• McCain attracts older voters while Huckabee attracts younger ones in droves.
• On the issue of life, both have lifelong pro-life records.
• Both support gun rights.
• Both are known for being honest communicators and getting things done.
• Both are proponents of change and change seems to be the buzzword of the moment.

While I’m not sure anyone will get their ideal candidate elected this year, I think a team made up of these two men could end up being the winning ticket. I feel that together they would produce needed change and are well-suited for the task of keeping a liberal out of the Oval Office.

Any thoughts on this?

A headline seen on the Drudge Report today states “Huckabee Delivers at NH Church: ‘We have signed up to be part of God’s Army, to be soldiers for Christ’…” and links to a Washington Post article by Perry Bacon, Jr. entitled “Huckabee Steps Back Into the Pulpit at Evangelical Church in N.H.” While many will try to paint Huckabee as a religious extremist, I think a few things need to be put into perspective before jumping on these headlines and running wild with them.

First, as clearly stated in the article, Mike Huckabee, who is a former Baptist minister, stated the above quote in a 20+ minute sermon he delivered on January 6 in a church. His sermon was on how to be part of “God’s Army” and was for the church members and not for the campaign. Bacon’s article clearly states that the Huckabee campaign “did not allow cameras into the church, and the candidate did not make an appeal for votes as part of his sermon.”

I have a problem with those who attempt to take obvious spiritual quotes out of context and apply them within a political context.  He was delivering a sermon, not a campaign speech! Mike Huckabee is a former minister and has deep church ties so what’s strange about him delivering a sermon on Sunday in a church. Is there anything sinister in that? While the church in general does not have a perfect track record, think of all the good that has come out of churches in this country — movements like abolition, women’s suffrage and civil rights to name a few. What other organization can provide the clarity of purpose, vision and moral authority needed to tackle problems of those magnitude?

Obama and Clinton have both spoken in churches and used spiritual analogies within their campaigns as well. All candidates regularly tout their past experiences and Huckabee is doing no differently. To fault him for having a Christian resume is like saying we don’t want a President who might actually believe in right and wrong or obey the Ten Commandments.  Such would be utter foolishness yet it seems some argue in a way that suggests they actually prefer somebody like John Edwards with a trial lawyer’s past over Mike Huckabee with a minister’s past.

And there’s one more issue that concerns me. It seems that many people want a President who attends church and occasionally acknowledges God and religion but at the same time they want his or her religion to be superficial and almost meaningless. For example, many argue as if no Presidential candidate should actually believe that God created the universe in six literal days — even if they were a Baptist minister. You could liken this to wanting the President to have a military background but then expecting him to be opposed to using guns in war. Such would be ludicrous.

So with this in mind, let’s not take Huckabee’s preaching and campaign messages out of context.

The recent success of Mike Huckabee in Iowa and in many polls suggests that many Republicans are not happy with their party in general and are looking for a leader who is not part of “the establishment.” While some may say otherwise, I don’ think a vote for Huckabee is an outright rejection of Republicans in general or Bush in particular since President George W. Bush remains popular with most Republicans. I do feel, though, that most Huckabee supporters are very dissatisfied the poor performance of the previous Republican-controlled Congress and are eager to see real change. Let me explain.

In spite of the low approval ratings of Congress, it seems that Congressional Republicans did make some strides in redeeming themselves this past year while in the minority. I feel they have a lot more proving to do before voters wish to trust them with majority status again.

In 2006 enough Democrats were elected to punish big-spending and out-of-touch Republicans and thus they narrowly gained control of both chambers of Congress. While Democrats became the majority party, I don’t feel they received a strong mandate for many of the policies they began to push and thus they ended up squandering most of their political capital last year.

So with this picture in mind, I think Mike Huckabee is a breath of fresh air within a stagnating Republican Party. He is in touch and personable. Even better, he is a communicator and not a Washington insider. He brings hope and new ideas. He demonstrates a willingness to tackle problems in a different way than simply throwing money around. The strategy he is successfully employing in his campaign shows he can be frugal and is one who actually thinks “outside the box.” That’s great news.
These attributes are good news for the Republican Party and will bring much needed energy and enthusiasm to the debate. His quick thinking “on the stump” and his ability to articulate in 8-second sound bites is essential in the current superficial environment, especially if another strong communicator like Barak Obama wins the Democratic nomination. Huckabee’s heartland approach and non-Washington style makes him more appealing to non-Republicans and that will be essential if the GOP is to win the Presidency in 2008.

Think of this: Mike Huckabee teamed with a strong and respected running mate with vast foreign policy experience (somebody like John McCain, for example) just might be the winning combination for November. Such a ticket would shake up (think freshen up) the Republican Party’s image and energize the conservative base in ways that would impact millions — including the campaigns of other Republicans. Since he can bring people together and offers hope and vision, that would be good for the Republican Party. Actually, a campaign of ideas like these is long overdue and would be good for the nation.

Obama and Huckabee’s win in the Iowa caucuses yesterday suggests that at least a plurality of voters in both parties are seeking significant change in Washington. I could easily see both of these candidates securing their party’s nomination and facing each other in November.

If such a contest materializes, I predict we will experience a political debate that energizes people beyond anything we have seen in decades. Such a national debate would be good for the country since both men are able communicators of bold ideas. Both Huckabee and Obama also appear to be less partisan than many others in their parties and more willing to focus on ideas and bring people together.