Thanks for the comment. I think your assessment of the phenomenon is dead on. It makes me wonder even more about how someone without the resources can make such a splash, and it actually gives me some hope for the electoral process in America. Looking forward to anything you write on Mitt’s resigning from the race!

George Bush is a big spender, I’ll grant you that one. But in looking through both your websites, I doubt very much you’ll be voting Republican. Which means you must support either Hillary or Obama–both of whom are big government people (and big spenders). So I find your first argument specious.

You are right that people get the government they deserve. I, for one, like President Bush. There are many things I have disagreed with (he’s not conservative enough for me), but on the whole, I think he’s done a pretty good job.

On your main point, however, I believe you are wrong. God *is* in government–in the sense that He ordained it and set it up. It is God that has given us government to help control the sin that runs rampant in the world. It is God that wisely designed a way to control the chaos that would otherwise ensue.

As for the fatalistic view that “God is in control so it doesn’t matter,” I do not subscribe to that either. Yes, God is in control, but part of that control has been to offer man free will–the ability to make certain decisions and live with the consequences of those decisions.

I’ll tell you my own philosophy, taken from someone you likely don’t like (Jerry Falwell): He once said, “I’ll work 17 hour days for 7 days a week as hard as I can to do what I can do, and then let God do the rest and perform the miracle.” I think that’s a healthy way to look at life. God is in control, but he expects us to take action. I suspect it’s the “taking action” part that has so frightened the left all these years, and now the left salivates to think they can demoralize evangelicals into inaction again.

Sorry to ruin your day, but the genie is out of the bottle and not going back. While some evangelicals may decide to sit out the election this fall, we will not be silenced in the political process as we once were.

And a brief history lesson for you: We the people ARE Caesar in the United States.

Nice try. Please visit and comment again.

Nice to hear from you! Hope things are going well. And a great question you’ve asked. Frankly, it’s caught me off guard. I did not expect such a showing of support.

A few observations: Huckabee’s wins, except for Iowa, have all been in the south. His message is one of populism–for “the little guy.” As in the little guy is getting shafted. Huckabee is a talented speaker and gives good speeches. And he was once (years ago) a Southern Baptist pastor.

Then you have Romney, who is Mormon, from the northeast, and someone who changed positions on a number of key social positions (from more liberal to more conservative). I’m guessing all of these things kind of go into the mix when the southern Christian voters consider whom they will support.

I’m guessing they support Huckabee for the same reason a number of “conservatives” support McCain–they are making a decision based on the person rather than that person’s policies and actions. I’ve pointed it out before–they’re all deeply flawed (from a conservative’s perspective) and all have baggage.

For instance, Huckabee talks about the Fair Tax and closing the IRS. Most Republicans like that idea! And most would support it (I sure do). But then you look at his record…he raised taxes and fees repeatedly in Arkansas during his 10 1/2 years as governor. So what does a supporter do with the disconnect between words and actions? He or she must think something like, “Well, Huckabee is down-the-line solid on the issues MOST important to me (social issues), and he’s talking the right talk on these other issues, I’m going to take a leap of faith and support him.” That’s the only thing I can figure.

We’ve heard people like McCain and Huckabee complain about Romney’s money and commercials, but we’ve seen in election after election that money won’t buy the election. It can help, but it certainly can’t make up for a flawed candidate. It didn’t help Steve Forbes when he ran, and it’s not helping Romney nor Hillary (backed by George Soros’ billions).

In the end, people talk to each other and reference each other and then make a decision. That’s how I explain the Huckabee phenomenon in the south. If you notice, he does not run well in other states, coming in near the bottom. He has no “legs” and cannot win the nomination. He’s angling for the Veep spot. Not sure McCain will add him, but from a purely political standpoint it may make sense to add Huckabee to bring along the social conservatives that support him.

In the end, it won’t be enough for McCain to win. That’s the sad part.

People get the government they deserve. And the evangelicals put Bush in the white house and that’s what they got. Are you happy yet?

History lesson for you all. God is not in government. Render unto Caesar. But only a fool would put his trust in our corrupt government by the corporations and for the corporations. As for me, I will serve the Lord and I could care less who wins for President because the game has been fixed for a long time.

Question for you. Why do you think Huckabee has been able to get so many conservative votes despite his lack of money? I am fascinated to see how someone the media has tried very hard to condemn is still not that far away from Romney in delegates. What’s the comparison in dollars spent? I for one don’t accept the evangelical vote thing the media keeps using as an explanation… Anyway, it’s still a train wreck, I agree with that assessment. We may disagree on what the actual wreck is, but a wreck it is all the same.