I've been involved in a few debates over at Hugh Hewitt's comment boxes.  I've been "informed" the following:

    1.)  Romney supporters are running an Anti-Evangelical offensive in their attempt to stop Mike Huckabee for the GOP nomination, mocking his Evangelical Christian beliefs.

    2.)  This will cause a blowback, as it will become increasingly difficult for Romney to carry Evangelical conservatives.

    3.)  Since part of Romney's supposed appeal is his ability to appeal to all spectrums of the conservative movement, #2 is a reason why we shouldn't support him.

I disagree in whole or in part with all 3 of these assertions.  Over several posts I intend to demonstrate this.

1.)  Anti-Evangelical Offensive?

    I believe that this is absolutely false.  The attacks on Mike Huckabee are not coming at him from the majority of conservatives because he's an Evangelical Christian.  Rather, it is my assertion that he is the wrong kind of Evangelical.  I know that sounds a bit offensive, but I'd like to explain myself.

    There was recently a statement where Governor Huckabee and his wife, on seperate occasions, stated that the campaign's success has as its source the same power that caused a few loaves of bread to feed 5,000.  Christians are going to realize that as one of the miracles in Scripture that Christ performed.  A lot of people who weren't Evangelicals got quite offended by this.  The Evangelical stated "What's wrong, are you saying he can't thank God?"

    The issue is the way with which he did it.  Had Huckabee simply stated that he was thanking God for giving him the opportunity to spread his message, and the opportunity for people to receive it, I don't think many people would complain.  Yet in explaining his success, he envoked the power of the Almighty himself as to why he is successful.  The implication is that he is God's candidate.  The inverse is that the other candidates are not God's candidates.  People of God, vote for me!

    The same with the "Christian leader" commercial.  In addition to his accomplishments, Huckabee is a "Christian leader."  What is a "Christian leader."  If it is meant in the sense of a cleric, let us remember Article VI of the Constitution.  Furthermore, if experience has taught us anything, a man who is openly Christian means absolutely nothing as to the competence of how he governs.  (Carter and Bush were both avowed Christians.)  Furthermore, if Huckabee is a "Christian leader", the implication is again given that the others are not "Christian leaders" and Christians are doing something wrong if they choose to back these other guys, going "with the world" rather than a Christian.

    Considering Huckabee has apologized for his remarks in the NYT magazine, we won't go into those too much.  The remarks were either a blatant attempt to appeal to anti-Mormon prejudice, or further example of just how naieve Huckabee is.  (You go to an interview with a major paper and don't record it, you claim ignorance about mormonism and decide the time to learn about it is during an on the record interview with a NYT reporter, etc.)

    Pointing these out is not Anti-Evangelical.  It is combatting the idea that Christianity is not only a politicized religion (which it is not, for "my kingdom is not of this world") to the idea that political candidates are chosen by God (the divine right theory.).  For the record, I'm Catholic.  I say Evangelicals are a neccessary part of the conservative coalition.  Let us focus on Christian values that are in many instances inherent within conservative thought, and apply those as we best know to the candidates.  If that brings you to Huckabee, so be it.  Yet others can, applying those same principles, vote differently.  Challenge them on those principles, and expect to be challenged.  Neither side has any business raising the "bigot" charge just because they are being questioned.  It is how one questions.