On MEET THE PRESS on NBC on Sunday, Mike Huckabee received an appropriately aggressive grilling from Tim Russert --- and showed, once again, why those who write him off as a country-bumpkin/religious zealot/political-flash-in-the-pan utterly underestimate the guy and his appeal.

Yes, he couldn't defend his own stupid "plan" on immigration-- no one could -- but he was no more embarrassing on that issue than is Romney or Thompson (they're all pathetic -- and Rudy isn't much better. Only McCain speaks with anything like credibility on immigration).

Meanwhile, I've attached some of the excerpts of the transcript where Huckabee is hit hard-- and hits right back, effectively it seems to me. The selections begin with his response to Romney criticism about his foreign policy...

-----------------------------------------------------

 

And it's interesting to me that while a few weeks ago on this program Mitt Romney was very critical of me for making that statement, a few months earlier on MEET THE--rather, on "60 Minutes," he himself had talked about the major mistakes that had been made by the administration.  He demanded of me an apology, but he did not demand of himself an apology for also being critical, as have most Republicans.  Now, I think Republicans are big enough and maybe wise enough that we can be in disagreement with certain policies and still be behind our president and behind this administration in many of the things which they have done right.  And I've been very complimentary of the president on the issues where I think he's been right.  I stood by him in the war, I stood by him in the surge.  I wasn't a latecomer like Mitt Romney was to believing that the surge was effective.  And we've seen 76 percent decline in civilian deaths, 62 percent decline in military casualties since the surge began.  It is working.  We are finally beginning to see those signs of victory in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT:  You're suggesting that Mitt Romney's not running an honorable campaign.

GOV. HUCKABEE:  I've been very clear about it.  Mitt Romney is running a very desperate and, frankly, a dishonest campaign.  He's attacked me, and, and yesterday--or Friday, I guess it was, he launched then just a broadside attack against Senator McCain.  Now, Senator McCain and I are rivals for the presidency, but I've said on many occasions, I'll say it again here today, Senator McCain is an honorable man, and I believe he's an honest man.  I believe he's a man of conviction.  And I felt like that, when Mitt Romney went after the integrity of John McCain, he stepped across a line.  John McCain's a hero in this country.  He's a hero to me.

And I just felt like that when Mitt Romney gets on your show and says that he had the NRA endorsement when he didn't; when he comes on and says he's pro-life and yet he signed a bill that gives a $50 co-pay for an elective abortion in his state's health care plan; when he claims that he's really for the Second Amendment, but he--on this show he talked about how he supported limitations and restrictions on lawful, law-abiding citizens having gun ownership rights, those are not the marks of a person who's pro-life and pro-Second Amendment.  And then the things where he's made up these visions that he's had of marching with Martin Luther King and his dad marching with him.  You know, Tim, what I've said, and I've been pretty blunt about it, if you aren't being honest in obtaining a job, can we trust you to be honest if you get the job?.....

------------------

MR. RUSSERT:  Do you think some of the commercials that have been on the air talking about your record have hurt?

GOV. HUCKABEE:  Well, they may have.  I mean, people in Iowa have been bombarded.  I mean, bombarded.  Not only on commercials, but in the mail, at a time when most people were kind of looking forward to going out to the mailbox and picking up some nice Christmas cards, instead they were finding out what a bum Mike Huckabee is.  And I don't know what kind of effect it has.  People of Iowa, I think, like a positive campaign.  But the relentless attacks--and they have been relentless.  And when you're outspent 20-to-1, as I have been here in Iowa, you know, I think it's pretty amazing that I'm where I am.

MR. RUSSERT:  But has Mitt Romney said anything that's untrue about you?

GOV. HUCKABEE:  How long do we have on the program today?  He's said many things that are untrue.  He said that I reduced methamphetamine sentences in Arkansas.  Truth is I signed a bill in 1999 that doubled those sentences.  We did not reduce them.  Our sentences were four times harsher than they were in Massachusetts.  He said that I supported special breaks for illegal aliens. That's not true, Tim.  We supported simply giving children who had earned a scholarship the same--it never happened, it didn't make the legislature.  He made allegations that our increased spending by ridiculous amounts, and The New York Times came back and defended that, and said that's just simply not true.  And they took him apart and showed that the increases in spending were, frankly, the same if not a little better than his if you took into consideration the accounting methods we changed in Arkansas, very modest gains in spending.

He made claims about things like tax increases, but he failed to mention that some of those were either court ordered or they were voted on by the people and approved by the people for things as roads.  And I left my roads in great shape, took them from the worst in the country to what Truckers magazine said were the most improved.  He left his roads in a mess in Massachusetts, with huge problems in the infrastructure.  He claimed that he didn't raise taxes, but, in fact, he did raise taxes by half a billion dollars.

MR. RUSSERT:  Fees.

GOV. HUCKABEE:  Fees.  It's a tax.  If you're a small business person and you pay more money than you paid last year to the government, you can call it a fee, call it a tax, it's a three letter word that means the same.

..



--------------------------

On faith as central to America...

 

MR. RUSSERT:  But where does this leave non-Christians?

GOV. HUCKABEE:  Oh, it leaves them right in the middle of America.  I think the Judeo-Christian background of this country is one that respects people not only of faith, but it respects people who don't have faith.  The, the key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone.  And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else's faith or to restrict.  I think the First Amendment, Tim, is explicitly clear.  Government should be restricted, not faith, government.  And government's restriction is on two fronts:  one, it's not to prefer one faith over another; and the second, it's not to prohibit the practice of somebody's religion, period.

MR. RUSSERT:  So you'd have no problem appointing atheists to your Cabinet?

GOV. HUCKABEE:  No, I wouldn't have any problem at all appointing atheists. I probably had some working for me as governor.  You know, I think you got to realize if people want--say, "Well, you were a pastor," but I was a governor 10 1/2 years.  I have more executive experience running a government.  I was actually in a government position longer than I was a pastor.  And if people want to know how I would blend these issues, the best way to look at it is how I served as a governor.  I didn't ever propose a bill that we would remove the capitol dome of Arkansas and replace it with a steeple.  You know, we didn't do tent revivals on the grounds of the capitol.  But my faith is important to me.  I try to be more descriptive of it.  I just don't want to run from it and act like it's not important.  It drives my views on everything from the environment to poverty to disease to hunger.  Issues, frankly, I think the Republicans need to take a greater leadership role in.  And as a Republican, but as a Christian, I would want to make sure that we're speaking out on some of these issues that I think we've been lacking in as a party and as, as a nation.

-----------------------------------------------

on homosexuality....

 

MR. RUSSERT:  But this is what concerns people.  This, this is what you did say about homosexuality:  "I feel homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural and sinful lifestyle." That's millions of Americans.

GOV. HUCKABEE:  Tim, understand, when a Christian speaks of sin, a Christian says all of us are sinners.  I'm a sinner, everybody's a sinner.  What one's sin is, means it's missing the mark.  It's missing the bull's eye, the perfect point.  I miss it every day; we all do.  The perfection of God is seen in a marriage in which one man, one woman live together as a couple committed to each other as life partners.  Now, even married couples don't do that perfectly, so sin is not some act of equating people with being murderers or rapists...

MR. RUSSERT:  But when you say aberrant or unnatural, do you believe you're born gay or you choose to be gay?

GOV. HUCKABEE:  I don't know whether people are born that way.  People who are gay say that they're born that way.  But one thing I know, that the behavior one practices is a choice.  We may have certain tendencies, but how we behave and how we carry out our behavior--but the important issue that I want to address, because I think when you bring up the faith question, Tim, I've been asked more about my faith than any person running for president. I'm OK with that.  I hope I've answered these questions very candidly and very honestly.  I think it's important for us to talk about it.  But the most important thing is to find out, does our faith influence our public policy and how?  I've never tried to rewrite science textbooks.  I've never tried to come out with some way of imposing a doctrinaire Christian perspective in a way that is really against the Constitution.  I've never done that.

MR. RUSSERT:  But you said you would ban all abortions.

GOV. HUCKABEE:  Well, that's not just because I'm a Christian, that's because I'm an American.  Our founding fathers said that we're all created equal.  I think every person has intrinsic worth and value...

MR. RUSSERT:  But many Americans believe that that would be, that would be you imposing your faith belief...

GOV. HUCKABEE:  But, no.  It's not a faith belief.  It's deeper than that. It's a human belief.  It goes to the heart of who we are as a civilization. If I believe that your intrinsic worth is not changed by your ancestry, your last name, by your IQ, by your abilities or disabilities, if I value your life and respect it with dignity and worth because it is human, then that's what draws me to the inescapable conclusion that I should be for the sanctity of every and each human life.  That's why we go after that 12-year-old boy in the woods of North Carolina when he's lost, not because he has greater worth than someone else, but because we believe he has equal worth as everyone else.  I like it that in this country we treat each other--at least we should--with that sense of equality.  Our founding fathers penned that in the Declaration of Independence when they declared...

 

MR. RUSSERT:  Some Americans believe that life does not begin at conception, and that it's...

GOV. HUCKABEE:  Well, scientifically I think that's almost...

MR. RUSSERT:  But...

GOV. HUCKABEE:  ...a point that you couldn't argue.  How, how could you say that life doesn't begin at conception...

MR. RUSSERT:  Right.  Do you respect that view?

GOV. HUCKABEE:  ...biologically?

MR. RUSSERT:  Do you respect that view?

GOV. HUCKABEE:  I respect it as a view, but I don't think it has biological credibility.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that Huckabee does well on Thursday. A strong showing in Iowa for the former Arkansas governor would constitute an appropriate rebuke to the negativity and saturation advertising by the Romney campaign. Even if Romney goes on to win the nomination (still a very real possibility) he will help himself, the party and the country if he turns away from the idea of spending millions of dollars to distort the records of his opponents. Surely, the Mittster has a more positive message to offer the nation about his own vision and leadership abilities (both of which command respect) than concentrating all his resources on sliming Huckabee and McCain. 

Meanwhile, good luck to all our candidates and heaven protect us from the Democrats.....

 

In the last week before the fateful Iowa caucuses, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto will influence the national debate at a crucial moment in the presidential campaign. The horrifying events in Pakistan carry five powerful messages for American voters – and candidates.

 

1. The terrorist threat remains the most important issue confronting the next president. In the campaign so far, candidates have spent most of their time debating domestic issues -- health care, immigration, the weak dollar, abortion, Congressional earmarks, tax reform, US attorney firings, energy independence, sub-prime mortgages, environmental warming and so forth. The Pakistani crisis reminds us that none of this matters as much as very real terrorist threats—especially with a nuclear-armed nation confronting the danger of “creeping talibanization.” Pakistan currently controls an estimated 90 nuclear weapons. If these devices came into the hands of Islamist fanatics (like those who finally succeeded in killing Madame Bhutto, their long-time target) the potential for world war becomes fearsome and immediate. Aside from the risk of thousands of casualties, intensifying terrorist threats bring the acute possibility of economic collapse – on a worldwide scale and, certainly, domestically. As we endure the pain of gasoline costing more than $3.00 per gallon, we ought to consider how we would cope with gas that set us back $6.00 or even $10.00 per gallon. Mike Huckabee eloquently emphasizes his Christian faith, Mitt Romney focuses on his business experience, and Barack Obama appeals to the public on the basis or sheer charisma and charm. The assassination proves, however, that the most important question for the next president involves his (or her) ability to lead the country in military, foreign policy and counter-terror efforts. The only candidates with impressive credentials and demonstrated competence in terms of national security are three Republicans: John McCain, Duncan Hunter (both combat veterans) and, to a lesser extent, Rudy Giuliani. Since Congressman Hunter (an admirable chair of the House Armed Services Committee for many years) maintains only a shadow campaign with minimal public support, this means that undecided or shaken voters may well take a fresh look at McCain or Rudy.
2. With all our complaints about the quirks our electoral system, the Bhutto assassination should renew our gratitude for our stable, honorable, and functioning democracy. The assassin gunned down Madame Bhutto as she left a campaign rally for parliamentary elections scheduled for January eighth (three days after our New Hampshire primary). Her father, a prior Pakistani President, had been imprisoned and executed by political rivals; her two brothers had been previously murdered. President Musharaf  (Bhutto’s rival) has survived five different assassination attempts so far. No matter how fatuous our campaign ads or disappointing our candidates, despite fears about voter fraud and inaccurate recounts, we’re privileged to live in a Republic that’s handled its disputes peacefully and effectively for more than 200 years (with the bloody and glaring exception of the War Between the States). Seeing democracy so clearly imperiled in Pakistan should encourage us to protect and cherish our own precious electoral system, and to put its embarrassing or corrupt aspects in proper context.
3. The isolationist arguments of Ron Paul and leftist Democrats look ridiculous in the face of Pakistan’s agony.  The “Blame America” school of international relations loves to ascribe any danger or setback to the failed policies of the Bush administration, the machinations of the CIA or the “neo-cons,” U.S. support of Israel, or the devious intentions of the CFR, the Bilderbergers and the North American Union. The bloody chaos in Pakistan, however, goes back several generations – reflecting blood feuds, ethnic rivalries, and Islamic extremism that have polarized the country since its founding sixty years ago. With revenge riots already unleashed against hapless targets around the nation, it’s hard to see how a cutoff of American aid, or a new U.S. determination to “go home” and leave other nations to their own devices, would bring peace to Pakistan, or reconciliation between that country and its nuclear armed neighbor and rival, India. Rational analysis suggests that abrupt American disengagement would make the situation more dangerous, not less explosive. The current crisis serves as a reminder that America can’t control events in every corner of the globe, and we therefore can’t be blamed for those brutal happenings that we don’t control and can’t avoid.
4. Politicians always look better after death, but ought to be appreciated while they’re alive.  The instant canonization of Benazir Bhutto ought to embarrass the pundits and journalists who now talk only of her saintly aspects—featuring glamorous photos or video from twenty years ago showing the lady at the peak of her stunning beauty. As a matter of fact, her two previous terms as Prime Minister both ended in failure, embarrassment and rejection, along with widespread and credible charges of corruption. It’s natural to remember her best characteristics after her sudden death, and compared to General Musharaf or her Islamist rival Nawaz Sharif she may indeed look enlightened, even heroic, but the posthumous praise on cable news networks sounds embarrassingly overwrought. By the same token, the tributes to all dead politicians tend to go too far – as if to make up for the lack of respect we accorded them while they lived and served. Gerald Ford represents a striking recent example. Americans derided him during his presidency, and replaced him with the utterly feckless and feeble Jimmy Carter, but at the time of his funeral the belated tributes treated Ford like a candidate for Rushmore. The sudden death of Bhutto, a vital, 54-year-old Pakistani politico, ought to encourage more appreciation for our own candidates for top office. Like her, they boast plenty of faults, and often display puffed-up egos, but they still deserve credit for the sacrifices and dangers they accept for the sake of an impassioned desire to serve their country.
5. Leaders are fragile and mortal, and so they should choose Vice Presidents instantly capable of assuming command.   In this complicated and unpredictable political season, we tend to consider potential running mates on the basis of the electoral advantages they might bring to the ticket. That’s a mistake, of course: on nine occasions, a Vice President has taken over the White House due to the death or resignation of the President. In the 133 years between the death of William Henry Harrison in 1841 and the resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974, the Veep assumed the top job once every fifteen years. It’s now been more than 33 years since a President failed to finish his term, so we’re long overdue for another Vice Presidential succession. The death of Bhutto demonstrates how quickly a commanding figure can disappear from the scene, and how much we need a potential replacement who is prepared in every way. In choosing Vice President Cheney, President Bush showed the right idea: largely ignoring fleeting political advantage by selecting a grey, charisma-free candidate from an inconsequential state, but with peerless preparation for the presidency. Cheney had served five terms in the House of Representatives, helped run the White House as Chief of Staff to President Ford, and led America’s military as Secretary of Defense for the previous President Bush. Whoever wins the Republican and Democratic nominations ought to look for a running mate with comparable preparation.

 

The Bhutto assassination and the world-wide reaction will continue to dominate the news cycle for another day or two, after which attention will return to the looming Iowa Caucuses next Thursday. When we do get back to politics, however, we ought to recall the recent killing as a basis for sharpening and refocusing our choice for the next holder of the world’s most powerful job.

 

With Iowa Caucuses only one week away, the latest poll from ARG (American Research Group) delivered huge surprises for both Republicans and Democrats. 

On the Democratic side, a tight-as-a-tick three way race (between Hillary, Obama and Edwards) has turned into a Clinton blow-out: the survey of 600 likely Democratic caucus goers (completed on December 23^rd) showed Hillary with a commanding 34%, to Edwards’ 20% and Obama’s disappointing 19%. If she wins Iowa with that sort of margin (after the relentless focus on the state by her two rivals) she will wrap up the nomination for all intents and purposes, and become unstoppable in other early primaries. 

Meanwhile, as the Democrats watch the New York senator reasserting her status as clear front-runner, the Republican field looks more muddled than ever before. In the previous survey, Mike Huckabee held a substantial 11% lead over his chief opponent Mitt Romney in a two-man race that left their rivals far behind. The new ARG poll (surveying 600 likely Republican caucus goers) shows erosion in Huckabee’s support along with sudden and unexpected strength from John McCain --a candidate who had written off Iowa several months ago and devoted no visible time or money to the Hawkeye state. For the first time, the GOP contest in Iowa looks like a startlingly close three-way battle, with 23% for Huckabee, 21% for Romney, and 17% for McCain. When combined with all the recent polls from New Hampshire – which show the Arizona senator either tied for the lead with Romney or running a close second  – the new Iowa numbers reflect undeniable momentum for a candidate whose campaign a few weeks ago looked disorganized, moribund, under-funded and irrelevant. 

What’s behind McCain’s Big Mo?  

Two factors figure most prominently:  

1)      Negative advertising and nasty attacks have damaged his principal competitors. Three weeks ago, Mitt Romney began unleashing a series of slashing attacks against Iowa front-runner Mike Huckabee, focusing on the former Arkansas governor’s “record” on illegal immigrants (Huckabee once supported an unsuccessful drive to allow children brought to Arkansas illegally to compete with their classmates for university scholarships), and clemency for criminals (he generated intense controversy with his pardons and commutations for serious lawbreakers). Romney’s negativity produced predictable results--: driving down Huckabee’s numbers without winning new fans for Mitt. In multi-candidate contests, attacks often damage both the target of the assaults and their initiator, benefiting other contenders. In Iowa, some potential caucus goers may feel weary and wary of the nasty tone of the campaign, feeling disgusted with both Romney and Huckabee (despite the fact that the former Arkansas governor has tried for the most part to maintain a positive approach). McCain, by contrast, not only looks like he’s above the battle, but absent from it – stirring up little or no controversy in the state because he’s not competing. In the same way, prior sniping between Mitt and Rudy (remember the cringe-inducing exchange about “sanctuary city” vs. “sanctuary mansion”?) helped fuel Huckabee’s rise several weeks ago. A candidate who roughs up his opponent may indeed damage his rival (as Romney apparently has damaged Huckabee) but in the process he makes himself look desperate and un-Presidential – especially when he’s delivering the attacks in person, rather than using surrogates. 

2)      In the last week before the caucuses, voters are finally taking a serious look at which candidate represents the most plausible commander-in-chief. McCain’s biggest advantage in Iowa, New Hampshire and across the country involves his military background, personal heroism in Vietnam, and courageous consistency concerning the Iraq War. The unmistakable success of the surge (even Harry Reid now admits that the new policy has delivered big time military progress) validates McCain’s leadership and underlines his expertise on defense and foreign policy. A month before making up their minds, citizens may cast about for a “fresh face” or an “agent of change,” but when they face a fateful decision on caucus night or primary day they generally prefer a president who’s ready to lead the ongoing war on Islamo-Nazi terror from day one. This factor undoubtedly helps to explain Hillary’s sudden rise in Iowa – as pathetic as her national security credentials may seem to her critics, she’s clearly more prepared to take command in the Oval Office than Obama or Edwards. By the same token, it’s vastly easier to imagine McCain leading our military than Huckabee or Romney. Even though Mitt earns points as a successful business executive, his slick leadership of the Winter Olympics can’t compare with McCain’s history as a combat veteran and long-time Congressional leader on military issues and strategy. If his rivals ever wanted to undermine Romney’s defense policy credibility, they need only fashion a TV ad replaying one of Mitt’s major gaffes from the debates: asked about the President’s authority to unleash a strike against Iran, the former governor suggested that his first priority would be to meet with his lawyers. McCain is unlikely to turn negative at this stage in the campaign and to recall that disquieting interchange (since the Arizona solon has gained so much from his dignified, grown-up, above-the-skirmish posture). But an increasingly desperate Giuliani might well challenge Romney’s preparation for confronting our enemies (Rudy’s new slogan – “Tested. Ready. Now.”—seeks to re-focus voter attention on his own admirable record of fighting crime and confronting terrorism). 

Despite the powerful factors behind John McCain’s new found strength, it’s still unlikely that he could actually win the Iowa Caucuses. He boasts only a flimsy, rudimentary organization in the Hawkeye State, while Huckabee and (especially) Romney should fare much better in the “ground game” that may determine victory. Both former governors boast the manpower strength to overcome the challenge of dragging their people out of the comfort of home on a cold Thursday night (next Thursday, as a matter of fact) to spend significant time in a neighbor’s living room. 

Nevertheless, one more joker in the deck might yet assist McCain at the last minute. Under caucus rules, if a candidate draws less than 15% of the participants in any local neighborhood, the votes won’t register for him and his supporters get the chance to support their second choice. In the latest poll, Rudy Giuliani runs fourth and pulls 14% in Iowa-- meaning that in many precincts he’ll win support, but not enough to allow the votes to go to him. If Giuliani regularly finishes out of the running in local caucuses with, say 6% to 14%, then his voters can easily decide the outcome. For several reasons, Rudy backers should prove far more willing to throw their support to McCain than to Huckabee or Romney. For one thing, Giuliani voters will likely view terrorism and military strength as their chief concerns—focusing on issues that constitute the very heart of McCain’s appeal. Moreover, people who are drawn to Rudy won’t likely be swayed by the social issues that animate Huckabee’s legions, or the bombastic hard-line on immigration that’s been a big focus of the Romney campaign in Iowa. Even if McCain makes no further progress in statewide polls – remaining just behind the frontrunners (with 17% to their 23% and 21%, respectively) he could plausibly win the Iowa caucuses, or at least finish a strong second, by winning second-choice votes from Rudy’s backers. Either way, he’d get a powerful boost for New Hampshire (just five days after the caucuses) and beyond. 

With just seven days to go, the race remains shockingly fluid and unpredictable. If Romney wins his twin wars (Iowa and New Hampshire) against his two challengers (Huckabee and McCain) he’ll be tough to beat for the nomination—and could cruise to victory as a lavishly well-funded, magnetically mediagenic golden boy candidate. If, on the other hand, he loses both early states (despite his prodigious investment of time and money) he looks instead like a golden turkey and he’s probably through. On the other hand, if Huckabee prevails in two of the early contests (where he could win both Iowa and South Carolina very plausibly) he may well win the nomination. McCain must win in New Hampshire and Rudy must win in Florida – otherwise they’re each out of the running. Thompson (who’s rapidly fading in polls despite his much improved performance as a candidate) needs a miracle win in South Carolina to stay in the race – otherwise, insider gossip suggests he’ll drop out and endorse one of his best friends from the Senate, John McCain (provided that the Arizona senator is still a factor).  

Meanwhile, McCain needs to succeed in his must-win New Hampshire struggle, and then knock off one other early state before “Tsunami Tuesday” on February 5^th; South Carolina (with an abundance of military veterans) and Michigan (where he beat George W. Bush handily eight years ago with the aid of independents) represent his best bets.

If the white-thatched Arizonan somehow beats the odds and scores an upset win in Iowa, it’s entirely possible that he sweeps to early victory and unites the party. Romney might well drop out if he lost both Iowa and New Hampshire (or else fight on to Michigan, Nevada and Florida, badly weakened). Thompson (as mentioned above) would almost certainly leave the race if he posted a weak showing in South Carolina. Huckabee might continue to compete (as a regional candidate with a primarily Southern and rural base) as would Rudy (who must somehow maintain the nation’s attention until the February 5^th primaries in California, New York, New Jersey and other big states provide him with sympathetic settings for his urban appeal).  

Anyone who tries to predict the final outcome with any reasonable degree of certainty deserves dismissal for arrogance and irresponsibility. Nevertheless, McCain’s apparently energized Iowa campaign makes it clear that he’s re-emerged as one of the viable contenders for the nomination.       

With Christmas approaching in a matter of days, and countless shoppers seeking a novel, beautiful, thoughtful, unexpected gift, I’ve stumbled across a perfect recommendation --- tender, tuneful, fresh, folksy and eminently affordable. 

There’s a newly released album of enchanting music by the English composer Gustav Holst (1874-1934), and for the ridiculous price of $5.99 you can provide someone you love with an hour of delight that’s worth more than the cost each and every time you listen. 

Holst is best known for his astrological blockbuster “The Planets,” but the small pieces on this album (“Gustav Holst: Orchestral Music”, from Arte Nova recordings) are less dazzling and bombastic --  more intimate, more gentle, more connected to the English folk tunes that inspired Holst throughout his life. In his student years, he tramped through the British countryside with primitive recording equipment (and occasionally with his great friend Ralph Vaughan Williams) to capture the sounds of the authentic (and fading) English folk-song tradition. This new album provides some rarely heard arrangements of such earthy, ancient material “Six Morris Dance Tunes,” “Seven Scottish Airs” and, most unforgettably, the haunting and spiritual “In the Bleak Midwinter” (appropriate for late December, indeed). There’s also the spirited romp for strings “St. Paul’s Suite” (written for the girls school at which Holst taught), the “Brook Green Suite,” and the precious, jewel-like, deeply affecting “Lyric Movement for Viola and Small Orchestra” – 11 minutes of ethereal, yearning meditation I had never heard before. 

The performances by the London Festival Orchestra conducted by Ross Pople are consistently lively and affectionate, even if this energetic band can’t quite match major orchestral ensembles in terms of precision or virtuosity. The sound quality is appropriately intimate, with surprising attention to detail. 

This sort of music can induce a dreamlike state, or provide a background soundtrack as appropriate as a crackling fire for holiday get-togethers. Familiar melodies like “Greensleeves” and “Auld Lang Syne” and “Country Gardens” pop up from time to time and deserve welcome like old friends. 

The serial number for this exceptional Compact Disc is Arte Nova/ANO 340220, and it’s available at most Borders, Barnes & Noble, and other prominent book and music stores for $5.99 (click here for purchasing information) – even less if you use one of the coupons these merchants often provide on demand at this time of year. 

It’s a bargain-hunters dream for enhancing your gift-giving or your own musical enjoyment of the holiday season. 

The State of New Jersey just voted to eliminate capital punishment, and death penalty opponents argued that murderers suffer more through life imprisonment than quick execution. Ironically, the day after New Jersey’s vote, a story in the Dallas Morning News described the love life of prisoners on the Texas Death Row—many of whom “romance” up to ten women at a time, in-e mails, phone calls and visits. Most of these women are Europeans, some of them spectacularly beautiful, recruited by anti-death penalty groups to come live near the maximum security prison where they get to see the convicts, through plexiglass, up to four hours at time.  

Some of the women marry the inmates, and send them provocative photos which then become status symbols on death row. This sickening pattern explodes the notion that imprisonment is a harsher penalty than execution—especially after the spate of recent studies showing capital punishment does produce a powerful deterrent effect. 

Does failure to support Mitt Romney’s presidential bid qualify an individual as an anti-Mormon bigot?  

That’s the annoying message subliminally conveyed by the Romney campaign and expressed far less subtly by some of the governor’s increasingly desperate supporters. At a loss to explain the under-funded Mike Huckabee’s polling leads in Iowa, South Carolina, Florida and elsewhere, Romney loyalists assume that the Arkansan’s startling electoral rise depends entirely on prejudice against the LDS church. According to this theory, Evangelical Christians are too suspicious of Mormons even to consider supporting one of them for President, so instead they turn to an unqualified, unimpressive, unknown country bumpkin. 

For the record, let me say that I for one would be honored and proud to vote for a Mormon for president. As I’ve made clear on my show many times, members of the Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints are good citizens and great people – hard-working, generous, morally serious, patriotic, and pro-family. All Christians and Jews can learn a great deal from the spectacular success and refreshing wholesomeness of this vigorous religious community.  

But the fact that I’d be glad to vote for a Mormon, doesn’t mean that I want to vote for this Mormon ---and.Governor Romney looks less and less like a viable candidate to me. Part of the problem is the arrogance behind the current posture of the Romney camp. His backers suggest that their guy is so obviously qualified and brilliant and charismatic and wonderful that the only possible reason anyone could fail to endorse him must have something to do with his religious faith. 

There’s an odd sort of jujitsu employed in some of the public arguments: the only way you can prove, definitively, that you’re not an anti-Mormon bigot is to support Mitt. That line of reasoning parallels the notion that you can’t show you’re not a woman-hater unless you endorse Hillary, or that you won’t demonstrate that you’ve conquered racism without backing Barack. 

Come on, guys – there’s plenty of reason to oppose any or all of these candidates without imputing racism or sexism or religious bigotry to your opponents. 

It’s troubling that it was Mitt Romney, not Mike Huckabee, who gave the campaign’s biggest address on religion and politics, and it’s the Romney rooters, not the Huck-a-Nuts, who seem most eager for every opportunity to discuss the role of faith in the campaign. 

In response to this manipulation, we need a clear assertion that refusal to join the Romney bandwagon doesn’t provide evidence of religious bigotry. It may, however, indicate a need for the former Massachusetts Governor to upgrade his campaign with a more positive focus, a clearer issues message, fewer attacks on rivals, and a less defensive edge.   

Americans can’t agree on key issues in next year’s election, but we all expect integrity in the electoral process itself – which means, in part, making sure that only U.S. citizens get to cast a ballot. With at least twelve million immigrants living here illegally, the threat of non-citizens swaying elections is very real and the need for producing tamper proof photo ID’s at the polls is clear and obvious. Nevertheless, a new survey by Parade Magazine showed an overwhelming majority – some 61% -- gave a “No!” answer to the question, “Should You Need a Photo ID to Vote?”  One typical opponent of requiring identification for voters said: “Mandating photo IDs would adversely impact the poor, young and elderly and skew the results toward what privileged voters want.” Another survey participant said that “voter fraud isn’t a problem in the U.S., but getting people out to vote is.” Unfortunately, those who want to expand the number of voters at all costs – even if it means giving the franchise to those who are legally ineligible – are often joined by conservatives who are allergic to any form of national, government issued identification card. Attempts to require ID for voting ran into judicial trouble – and solid Democratic opposition – in Georgia and the evidence suggests that officials across the country will be forced to accept hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of questionable votes in the election of 2008. When we can’t even organize and require identification for voting, how can we ever hope to put in place a functional national system to demand that only legal residents get  to work in this country? The first step toward any meaningful reform is a standardized, tamper-proof identification card (probably with some form of biometric verification) that would be restricted to legal residents and would clearly note citizenship status – making sure as quickly as possible that no non-citizens are allowed to vote. 

. Recent headlines announced a sudden rise in the teen birthrate and Planned Parenthood and CNN lost no time in blaming the abstinence education programs backed by Christian conservatives. For one thing, the unexpected increase in pregnancies among teenagers hardly represents a crisis: it’s a 3% increase after 14 straight years of decline, and teen pregnancy rates are still more than 30% lower than they were in 1991. It’s also ridiculous to single out the limited funding for abstinence education, when the federal government still devotes six times the money toward programs that emphasize birth control and that Planned Parenthood enthusiastically supports. Moreover, most commentators forgot to mention that birthrates not only increased for teenagers, but also went up for women in their 20’s, 30’s and even 40’s. This increase could even indicate a cultural change that’s basically positive: with more and more Americans looking at children as a blessing rather than a burden. Unfortunately, it also no doubt reflects the rapidly disappearing stigma attached to out-of-wedlock birth and the general obsession with sexuality in our society. In any event, it’s outrageous to blame religious conservatives who are the strongest voice for placing that sexuality in a responsible marital context.  

Every year, the media churn out stories about the so-called “December Dilemma” --- accounts of mixed families trying to balance Christmas or Hanukah. Considering that far less than a million households feature partners of split Jewish and Christian commitment this fascination seems odd, even bizarre. A recent New York Times story called “A Holiday Medley, Off Key” focused on these Jewish-Christian conflicts, citing the absurd figure of 28 MILLION mixed-religion households – when the highest number ever cited for all Jews in the United States is 5.2 million. The times featured a gay couple in which the Jewish partner said he “felt guilty” about decorating their Christmas tree. Actually, Jewish tradition is far more emphatic in disapproval of homosexuality than of hanging ornaments. The problem with all these stories – about blending religious elements, with Menorahs and “Silent Night,” dreydels and manger scenes – is that they trivialize both religious traditions. One of the couples described by the Times made that trivialization sickeningly explicit by describing a Jewish husband married to a Christian wife who honored his “tradition” by taking a bagel, covering it with shellac, inserting a red Christmas bulb into its hole, and placing it atop their tree as an interfaith ornament. I don’t believe that the Children of Israel have survived exile and pogroms and holocausts over the course of two millennia in order to see their faith expressed by a non-edible (and no doubt non-kosher) “Everything Bagel” that’s been carefully shellacked. The truth is Christmas is a serious holiday about the birth of the Savior; Hanukah (just concluded tonight)  is a serious holiday about resisting assimilation and standing up to paganism. Both deserve more respect than they get in cutesy stories about the “December Dilemma.”

Within hours of his triumphant and historic speech on religion and politics, Mitt Romney faced a shabby embarrassment closer to home. The Boston Glone discovered that the landscape company he employed to take care of his lawn still hired illegal aliens to provide that service – some three months after Romney had promised publicly to deal with the problem. The former Massachusetts governor is right that he shouldn’t be expected to check personally on the papers of his hired gardeners. But the fact is that Romney, like other immigration hard-liners, has called for a massive crackdown, even criminal penalties, for all businesses that hire illegals. If he’s serious about that, why would he keep the same landscape company for months after he first learned they had a problem with undocumented workers? The deeper question for Romney – and the rest of us – is whether we really want to divert limited law enforcement resources to pursuing and busting companies that provide services that even presidential candidates, apparently, find indispensable? If we do, we’ll have to reassign police and prosecutors from going after violent criminals to going after lawn care businesses—or else we’ll need a massive expansion of law enforcement and a big growth of government.

In his big speech on religion and politics, Mitt Romney sought to achieve two blatantly contradictory goals. 

First, as a member of a minority faith that’s viewed skeptically by many Americans, he needed to persuade people that his religion shouldn’t matter in a political context. 

Second, as a conservative and a candidate for the GOP nomination, he needed to identify with the Republican majority that believes religion in general should matter a lot – and should play a role in informing governmental and political decisions. 

How, then, could he simultaneously argue that faith must be an important factor in politics, but that his faith should count for nothing in evaluating his candidacy? 

To an amazing extent, Romney’s speech earlier today succeeded brilliantly in satisfying both goals. The key to that notable and perhaps historic success involved the candidate’s eloquent ability to insist on the proper distinction between religious values (which nearly all Americans share), and specific doctrines and traditions (on which we differ dramatically).  

The former Massachusetts governor drew this distinction with the most memorable rhetoric of the Presidential campaign so far.  

He satisfied his first goal – arguing that his Mormon faith shouldn’t disqualify him – and he did so while affirming his personal loyalty and devotion. While acknowledging that there are some who “would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion…or disavow one or another of its precepts,” he stoutly and emphatically refused to bend. “That I will not do,” he declared. “I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs. Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it.” 

This is, frankly, precisely the sort of clarity and courage Americans expect of a presidential candidate. Romney would have already locked up the GOP nomination had he applied the same consistency and precision in facing other issues. 

Meanwhile, in today’s Texas speech he also refused to try to defend the history or theology of his church from its sometimes virulent critics. “There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines,” he said. “To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.” 

In other words, he expressed the same refusal to discuss dogma as has his rival Mike Huckabee. When the former Arkansas governor is asked his opinion about whether Mormons are Christians, for instance, he doesn’t  “waffle” or “dodge,” but appropriately points out that such questions might be appropriate for a potential president of a theological school, but not for a potential President of the United States. George W. Bush similarly avoided questions about whether he personally believed that Jews and other non-Christians would go to heaven, as did Joe Lieberman when he firmly closed the door on all inquiries on why he didn’t embrace Jesus as his Savior. 

If Romney sounded persuasive about the inappropriate nature of theological discussions in a political campaign, how then could he simultaneously make the case -- as he emphatically did – that religion should play a greater, not lesser role in our public life? 

He did so by stressing the common beliefs of all major American faiths. “We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders- in ceremony and word,” he said. “He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places…I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’ Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty. They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.” 

Even the most embittered critic of the LDS church must read these words and agree with them – and grant that Romney and his rivals for the GOP nomination all share the values he describes. Would an outspoken atheist share the core religious values of the rest of the populace? Probably not, and that’s why judging a devout, church-going Mormon is different from evaluating, say, a Christopher Hitchens or a Richard Dawkins who is openly hostile to organized religion.  

The key question that divides people of faith from militant secularists is the utility of religion for this society. Does America benefit – or suffer – from the tens of millions who regular attend church, synagogue, temple or mosque?  

Romney aligns clearly with religious Christians and Jews in his affirmative view on the role of faith – and the desire to see not just his faith, but all faiths, vital and flourishing and nourishing the Republic. 

In the most memorable words of a wonderful speech, Mitt Romney declared: “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom…Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.” 

I’ve been critical of the former Massachusetts governor in other contexts, but these words deserve to be remembered. It’s possible – desirable, even – that future school children will recall them for their power and elegance. 

There’s still more than three weeks before the Iowa Caucuses and I still feel potent admiration and affection for Romney rivals Huckabee, McCain and Giuliani. 

But in Mitt’s remarks today, he not only looked and sounded like a President – he actually looked and sounded like a great one. All Americans should feel encouraged and grateful.    

The new movie “The Golden Compass” is a slick, expertly crafted and captivating piece of pop culture entertainment but it goes out of its way to convey aggressive anti-religious messages. The bad guys in the fantasy film are involved with an international conspiracy called “The Magisterium,” headquartered in imposing cathedrals, and trying to force free-spirited children to follow its rules. Unlike the Harry Potter series, the movie is based on books by an author who’s proud of his atheist, anti-Christian agenda. Some commentators say that children should be allowed to reach their own conclusions about the messages of the movie, but parents who make big sacrifices for religious education should think twice before exposing their kids to such seductive propaganda for allowing emotion to triumph over authority. After all, how many religious households would welcome the idea that the word “daemon” applies to cuddly, protective animal companions that accompany each child—until the mean, fun-killing Magisterium tries to remove them?  

The brutal truth about the holiday of Hanukah, which begins this year on December 5^th, is that it is intensely and incurably politically incorrect. The heroes of the Hanukah story—the Maccabees—were uncompromising zealots and fundamentalists, vigorous representatives of the Judean “religious right” of the Second Century B.C.  

There was nothing tolerant or relativistic about them: they risked their lives to take back the Holy Temple in Jerusalem from the Hellenistic multi-culturalists who had installed a variety of idols and pagan gods to provide worship alternatives. The very name Hanukah comes from the Hebrew for “dedication” or “consecration”: it’s about purification and re-commitment on a national and personal level, and standing up to misguided alien cultures, no matter how popular, seductive and powerful.

This year, when the Jewish holiday arrives nearly three weeks before Christmas, there’s a good chance to keep its bracing and challenging themes appropriately distinct from the generalized seasonal cheer. 

  Why is Mike Huckabee surging in the polls?

  He’s not only moved into a five point lead in Iowa (according to the latest Des Moines Register Poll) but he’s also in second place in Florida and within striking distance of the lead in South Carolina (which is virtually a four way tie).

   Some voices in the Romney camp suggest that the recent strength of the former Arkansas governor derives from religious bigotry. According to this logic, Evangelical Christians who can’t accept Mitt’s Mormonism, have rallied to the Baptist Pastor, Huckabee. Romney’s scheduled speech on Thursday at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library in Texas will confront the doubts about his affiliation with the LDS church and, Romney supporters ardently hope, show skeptical Christians that he shares their values. Meanwhile, they focus on the religious prejudice against their candidate because it offers the only comfortable explanation for the fact that no poll shows him with a strong Iowa lead over Huckabee despite outspending his Arkansas rival by a ratio of some 20 to 1.

    Meanwhile, other campaigns (Thompson, Giuliani) dismiss Huckabee’s growing support as a fluke and a flash-in-the-pan, focusing on his tepid fund-raising success (even Crazy Uncle Ron Paul has raised far more) and his lack of organization in the states that follow Iowa in short order. Some talk show hosts have even discerned a media conspiracy in the press coverage of Huckabee in the last few days—suggesting that liberal journalists are building up the former clergyman as a way of discrediting the Republican Party as rural and fundamentalist, while undermining the only GOP contenders with a real chance of winning in November.

   Actually, it seems obvious that the real reason for the intense media attention to the Huck Man involves an irresistible story line: the ultimate underdog coming out of nowhere with charm and folksy humor to challenge established candidates with vastly more financial resources and greater name recognition. In baseball, the Colorado Rockies became a huge story for a few weeks, beating teams with big-name stars and lavish payrolls in a hugely improbably winning streak – until the well-funded Red Sox machine crushed them in the World Series.  America loves “Cinderella” stories in politics as well as sports, and in that context the “Impossible Dream” of a President Huckabee makes a great fairy tale--- at least until he wakes up during he primary process and finds out the glass slipper doesn’t fit, or that his White House coach has turned back into a pumpkin.

     Aside from eternal affection for an underdog, there’s another crucial factor driving Huckabee’s surge: he’s run a far more positive, less petty, less bitter campaign than his prominent rivals. “I’m a conservative, but I’m not angry about it,” Huckabee tells eager crowds. Meanwhile, Rudy and Romney snipe at each other with childish, demeaning, “gotcha” assaults (who didn’t cringe at the “Sanctuary City” vs. “Sanctuary Mansion” exchange in the last debate?) and damage their credibility, dignity and stature.

    For Giuliani in particular, his recent counter-punching with Romney makes America’s greatest mayor look sad and small: in asking the confidence of his fellow citizens for the nation’s highest office at a time of terrorist and economic threat, does it truly matter that his opponent once contracted with a landscaping company that may have employed illegal aliens?.

   Huckabee, meanwhile, floats above the battle and conveys an unshakable sense of warmth, decency, good humor, and unmistakable (and appropriate) affection for his Republican opponents.

   It’s not an accident that in nomination battles since 1980, the most affable, positive, optimistic Republican candidate always wins. Reagan and both Bushes earned the Presidency because they shunned anger (unlike rivals like Bob Dole or Pat Buchanan or the 2000 model John McCain) and came across as pleasant personalities, comfortable in their own skin.

   In this sense, Huckabee fits the bill – and naturally gains on his bickering competitors.

   Meanwhile, it’s also worth a few lines here to defend the Arkansan from the claim that he’s a secret “big government liberal” or, in the phrase of the Club for Growth, “Tax Hike Mike.”

   According to figures from the non-partisan Tax Foundation (based on data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Department of Commerce), Huckabee’s term as governor (1996-2007) led to a modest increase in the overall State-Local tax burden for Arkansas: from 10.1% in the year he became governor to 11.1% the last year he served. In terms of overall tax burden (state-local-federal) Arkansas remained virtually unchanged--- from 30.3% (39^th among the 50 states) to 30.5% (32^nd place).

   Mitt Romney, on the other hand, saw sharper increases in taxes during his single gubernatorial term (2003 to 2007) in Massachusetts. The state-local burden rose from 9.8% the year of his election to 10.5% his last year as governor. Meanwhile, the total tax burden went up from 31.2% to 33.9% -- vaulting Massachusetts from 9^th place to 7^th place in the nation.
   These numbers don’t prove that Huckabee was a great governor, or that Romney was a poor governor: actually, both men count as exemplary public servants and authentic conservatives (and both of them have taken Grover Norquist’s “No New Taxes” Pledge—in contrast to their rivals Giuliani, Thompson and McCain, who have refused to do so). Both candidates deserve respect for doing a solid job in handling state legislatures with overwhelming Democratic majorities and scoring some notable achievements as governor (though both states flipped to Democratic control in 2006).

    For those who are interested in the truth, however, the growth of the tax burden in Arkansas under 11 years of Huckabee looks no worse (and actually a tad better) than the growth of taxes in Massachusetts under 4 years of Romney.

   Oh yes, and as to the total tax burden under President Bush---

   Federal Taxes went down from 22.5% in 2001 to 21.7% this year, and the total tax burden (including state-local-and-federal) shrank from 33.0% to 32.7%. Inspiring progress? Hardly. But in view of the substantial cost of defending the nation against the terrorist threat, it certainly counts as a step in the right direction.

   One can only hope that Huckabee, Romney or any other Republican will more decisively in that direction (particularly through tax simplification), while all Democrats have announced their attention to raise taxes. On this particular Democratic promise, there's every reason to believe them.       

Polygamy advocate Mark Henkel asks a powerful question: “If it’s all right for Heather to have two mommies, then why can’t she have two mommies and one daddy?” His challenge provides perspective on current demands that government endorse same-sex marriage. Why should society support the novelty of gay relationships ahead of polygamy, which was practiced nearly everywhere for thousands of years and would probably appeal to far more people than homosexuality?  

The right answer to polygamists should be government neutrality: if private relationships involve consenting adults, then it makes no more sense to prosecute a male who claims he has two wives than to go after a guy who boasts of two girlfriends. But that doesn’t mean government should license polygamous relationships, any more than it should sponsor homosexual coupling.  

In both cases, those who choose unconventional alternatives to one-man/one-woman marriage—still the best situation for child-rearing—shouldn’t be punished, but they shouldn’t be promoted either.