Let me preface these comments by saying that while I am sure that many people not like them I absolutely think that Romney supporters need to consider what I am saying if they want to have any hope of seeing Romney being the nominee.



Concerning Romney and Huckabee, I have yet to hear one individual anywhere say that they would support Huckabee over Romney because Romney was a Mormon. Instead I have heard Huckabee supporters such as the Jewish Michael Medved and very liberal Frank Rich talk about Huckabees positive message and stance on illegal immigration. And Romney supporters such as Hugh Hewitt  and George Will(I know Will is technically a Giuliani supporter but between Huckabee and Romney he would definitely favor Romney) whine that the only reason Huckabee is winning is because he was a southern baptist minister and Romney is a mormon. My thought  though is that the very arrogant condescending stance that the only possible way anyone could support Huckabee is because they wouldn't want to vote for a Mormon that was epitomized in Romney's entirely unnecessary religion speech  is hurting Romney and the poll numbers are entirely on my side.  

On the newyork times piece, I can only guess since it HASN'T BEEN RELEASED YET\(note no one unless they work for the Times has any idea what it says exactly and entirely) that Huckabee is making a satirical jab about just how absurd the religious issues surrounding this race have been in which case the controversy surrounding it is actually very funny.

All that said Huckabee does have some very serious questions to answer about religion in the public square. In many ways, Romney said a lot of the things in his religion speech that Huckabee needs to say. I have confidence that when asked about religion today Huckabee will give the right answers but if on the off chance he doesn't give the right answers loud and clear I will have to seriously consider changing my support back to McCain (note: I never have supported Romney and I don't think most other Huckabee supporters have either)

I am just as concerned that Romney supporters have shown a complete incapability to evaluate why Huckabee has surged in the polls outside of saying that Huckabee supporters are bigots, ignorant, or that Huckabees support is part of a media conspiracy  as I am that people might be voting against Romney because he's a Mormon. 

I’m a Republican and I go to church on regular basis but I’m not a social conservative. I don’t think a federal marriage amendment is a good idea, I think abortion laws probably should be changed but I don’t think courts should overrule the opinion of the public no matter what it is, and I’m not a ‘cultural’ warrior of any sort in fact I find a great deal of enjoyment in what I’m sure many conservatives consider distasteful entertainment.

 

Yet despite this fact I find myself leaning towards Huckabee that may sound strange considering a lot of people think the only way anyone could support Huckabee is if they also believe the Bible should be the law of the land. According to Sam Donaldson Huckabee wants to establish a religious theocracy, Salon.com mused that Huckabee might want to issue the death penalty to adulterers and homosexuals and Newsweek compares Huckabee to the fire breathing demagogue Pat Robertson. Even conservatives such as George Will have hinted that Huckabee wants a religious test for office and Townhall.com has run several pieces that assumed that the only reason people might like the lively, genuine Huckabee more than the corporate-shill Romney is because of theological believes.

 

So what’s to love about Huckabee you might ask? Well actually quite a lot. The Arkansas Republican won re-election twice in what was a heavily democratic state that he inherited from a governor who resigned after being indicted on criminal charges. Huckabee was governor for ten years or as long as George W. Bush and Mitt Romney combined during this time he was by almost all accounts highly successful being named one of the five best governors in America by Time which sited him turning the states budget from a deficit to a surplus, revamping one of the worst highway systems in America, and instituting a revolutionary fitness program.

 

Despite his reputation as a hard-core fundamentalist Huckabee is actually very much a middle of the road republican who Barack Obama said was the one Republican candidate with integrity. He wants to shut down Guantanamo, opposes the harsh rhetoric on immigration most of the republican presidential candidates are bringing to the floor, and thinks the environment should be an important issue. In fact, his record and style seem much closer to that of McCain who called Jerry Falwell an ‘agent of intolerance’ than a stereotypical Southern Baptist minister. Huckabee’s book From Hope to Higher Ground: 12 STOPS to Restoring America's Greatness actually included ideas that may sound like they came from a 'do-gooder liberal' to more cynical Republicans like , “listen to more music and less talk radio, do volunteer work, and have regular conversations with people of other ethnic, religious, or political backgrounds.”

 

Huckabee is the one candidate who can legitimately run counter the President as a different kind of Republican. Unlike his rivals, he’s a Washington outsider, brings a positive upbeat message, and is truly a ‘man of the people’. Republicans shouldn’t be afraid of someone who is different than the Republican mainstream. Contrary to what to some pundits may think Huckabee’s rise doesn’t mean that Republicans are religiously intolerant but that they want someone fresh in terms of perspective. If the GOP doesn’t listen to this grass-roots movement for change and either re-tool their strategies or nominate a non-establishment candidate they will lose the presidency.  

 

I must admit that I did a poor job of articulating my thoughts on the upcoming Iowa Caucus to say the least in the previous entry. So, I figured that I needed to add more commentary concerning the matter.

Over the past eight years social conservatives have been the dominant force in the bush administration.  Given just how lame-duck the bush admin. has been of late I think there is a feeling among many in the republican party that a new direction is needed.

Romney represents in many ways much more the party of Norman Rockfeller than the party of George W. Bush or Karl Rove. For many aggravated with the current state of things with in the party this no doubt a good thing.

When the Iowa Caucus takes place it will be as much about which direction the party should go as any other issue. The fact a former Massachusetts governor whose done poorly for the most part in debates, is known a social flip-flopper, and OMG is a mormon stands a chance to beat out a former Baptist minister, and Tennessee attorney in Iowa speaks volumes about just how aggravated some people are with the party.

Of course, the flip-side is what if Romney doesn't win or what if he takes say 25% of the vote and Huckabee comes in second with 20%. You think newspaper headlines are going to be praising Romney? probably not..

If Huckabee is the winner in Iowa it would be a resilient message about just how conservative and how populist the Republican party has become.

I was taking a poli-sci class during the 2004 election and my professor was very aggravated about the results of presidential election. He complained about how Bush had been successful in creating a sort of populist vibe in areas of the country like Missouri despite being perhaps the closest thing to royalty in the U.S.  

His complaints in my estimations were not entirely fair but he did get one of part of it correct the Bush campaign did have a strongly populist tone. Huckabee has that same populist tone that would resonate to most of the same states where Bush won in 2004.

It's important for conservatives to consider that while things may not be perfect or even neccessarily very good in the GOP that nominating an east coaster like Guilliani or Romney who isn't primarily a social conservative could have negative effects in places like Iowa, Missouri, and Arkansas where Bush had a lock in 2004.  

It occurred to me today while I was looking over a number of online articles just how significant the upcoming Iowa caucus elections is . For those of you not following the iowa primaries, basically it boils down to this Romney will most likely win but Huckabee could spring an upset or be considered the 'true winner' if he places a strong second ahead of Thompson.

What seems to be at stake is the direction of the party. There's no question that if  a candidates social conservatism is their most important critieria that the former Baptist minister Huckabee should get your vote. Similarly it's true that if economic conservatism is considered the most relevant criteria all else being equal that the former hedge manager/CEO Romney should get your vote.

Perhaps what's most interesting about the two candidates though is not what they bring to the table in terms of their conservatism but what they fail to come with. Despite being a strong religious conservative Huckabee has been accused of not being a 'real' conservatve whatever that's supposed to mean.  Apparently Wall-Street interests don't think there's room in the 'big tent' for people whose policies they don't like either that or they think over-hauling the IRS is a truely 'liberal' idea you can figure out which.

Romney  on the other hand who some say would not be able to be relelected in Massachusetts because of his flip-flopping on social issues flexes his ex-CEO muscles when it comes to dealing with economic issues but can't connect with the religious base of the party the way he should be able to. Part of the problem is no doubt his Mormonism a Newsweek poll showed that 35% of the country would under no conditions  vote for a Mormon. The bigger issue seems to be his flip-flopping though if there's anything social conservative can't stand it's someone who seems wishy-washy whether this makes them simple-minded or principled well you decide. They don't like it though. Beyond that social conservatives tend to be overwhelmingly evangelicals who get over it might just like the midwest girl a lot better than the slick east-coast CEO.

So what does all this add up too? Well in a nutshell conservatives in Iowa  among other things need to decide whether social  or economics issues are most important in picking a candidate.Very rarely has an electorate  been given a choice where  two candidates have reversed eachothers stregnths and weaknesses so clearly. Simply put Iowans can choose between a candidate who probably be Alan Greenspan's favorite or a candidate who would be James Dobson's favorite. 

The 100,000 Iowans who cast their votes in the caucus have always had a hugely dissproportionate amount of influence this year though they seem to have even more given how tight the race is. I may just be naive but at the end of the day I think Iowans will choose the social conservative baptist minister from Arkansas over the mildly socially conservative or according to some even socially liberal ex-Massachusetts govenor it just seems like the more natural pick of Iowans.

I read once that fear of public speaking was the greatest fear among Americans. In some ways, that sounds bit odd; is public speaking really feared more than death, disease car accidents, or poverty? However, if you’re anything Hal Hefner (Reece Thompson) the stuttering hero of Rocket Science that probably would be understandable.

            Hal is such a sad case that if he can barely tell you his name but somehow despite this he aspires to be a champion debater not that he ever would have ever came up with the idea of his own. He’s smitten with a crush for Virginia Ryerson (Anna Kendrick) who also goes by Ginny the runner-up in the states debate competitions the year previously. Ginny is Hal’s opposite, a bold orator who speaks so fast and ferociously she seems like she might be practicing to be the next Anne Coulter.

              She wants Hal to be her debate partner whether she actually sees something in him, is playing a cruel joke, or merely is the writer’s way of showing a contrast in communication styles is unclear. What is clear, is that Hal is smitten with her and sees performance in debate competitions as a way of earning her approval.  Unfortunately for Hal though after slow progress Ginny decides to drop Hal as a partner and a failure in his first debate makes his coach decide that he’s not fit for public speaking. What ensues afterwards is a series of sometimes funny and sometimes heartbreaking reactions on the part of Hal that climaxes in one of the strangest displays of public speaking you’ll ever see.

            In one sense Rocket Science is a goofy high school comedy in the vein of recent cult classics such as Napoleon Dynamite, and Rushmore.  Likes those movies it has a drab look, and the characters recite absurdist lines such as “I’m through with masturbating” with a clueless irony.   

Beneath it’s rather goofy exterior though there’s an almost fairy-tale-esque story about a boy looking for his voice both figuratively and literally. At the end of the movie there’s a brief hope given that Hal might some day find his voice which is almost reminiscent of Pinocchio’s earning to be a ‘real boy’.

To call Hal’s story a tragedy would probably be a misnomer it is definitely bleak in parts though he shares a rather awkward kiss with Ginny that as far as the audience can tell is the only sexual contact he has ever had, befriends Ginny’s neighbor who is a much younger boy that has a crush on her, gets overbearing advice from a thieving abusive older brother, and has a mom who seems to run hot and cold with lovers. In many ways though, Hal’s struggles and nervousness while exaggerated reflect the feelings of many high-schoolers.  

The lead actors do an excellent job Reece Thompson gives a knock-out performance as one of the most lovable losers to ever brace the silver screen his stutter is so convincing that at times it’s painful to watch. Anna Kendrick is so cold and calculating that she seems believable when she tells Hal that she’s not particularly fond of having personal opinions because they get in the way of her being able to debate effectively from both sides.

Writer-Director Jeffery Blitz does an outstanding job with his first script providing both insightfulness and humor. Rocket Science unfortunately though is too painful to be a truly funny film even though it has several very funny moments and too weird to be taken too seriously despite its keen social insights resulting in a film that much like its hero has trouble finding its voice.

“Demons are only demons till you shine light on them and then they are merely befuddled scared creatures.”

 

“Knowledge brings light to all things”

 

“On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"”

 

I was reading over an article on Mother Teresa in Time magazine(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1655720,00.html ) about how she had, had a crisis of faith for several years. In one sense it was amazing to hear how someone who had walked with God and whose faith seemed apparent even to non-believers had felt such a spiritual longing. On another hand though Mother Teresa’s crisis of faith more than any other possibly reminded of the story of Elijah in the Old Testament how he looked for God in the whirlwind, and tornado but then found in the simple small voice. Too many times in our life as Christians we look for God in the spiritually phenomenal and elegant but more often he’s found in the people we see day to day or in the beauty of nature or in a provoking piece of art. I’m reminded in thinking of this of the scriptural passage in which Jesus said “What ever you did for the least of these you did it for me.”

 

The other thought that came to mind while reading the above mentioned article was a reminder of my own crisis of faith that occurred a few years ago around the time I was eighteen. I imagine that such a process is a natural one and part of any thoughtful person’s walk of faith. Like most irrational thoughts it was motivated by an extreme fear that was not only illogical but also very counterproductive. The reason it probably scared me to think of a universe without God in it is that I had never considered the idea of a godless universe outside of the context of religion. Too often as Christians when we speak of the concept of atheism we generally refer to it either as being a state of hopelessness or amorality both of which are accurate within the context of a religious mind as anyone who has ever read some of Darwin’s fears about the social implication of theories could tell you.

 

Considering the concept of a Godless universe from a pragmatic standpoint though I found that even if theoretically there was no God, (for record having listened and read a fair number of well educated atheists and see no such evidence) I probably would not change the way I live my life very much. Christianity teaches humans to view their lives in a cosmic sense which is perfectly fine if you are asking a question like where did I come from or what happens when I die? However it muddles the waters considerably when asking pragmatic philosophical questions such as it important that I go to church on Sundays? Which are answered much better on a practical and personal level. A universal mindset would say that one would go to church if they believed in God or if they thought the Bible was true. Those are very difficult questions to answer at times though and ultimately none of us will ever truly know the answers to them.

 

Perhaps the better question to ask would concerning the benefits of spiritual practice would be more personal ones such as do I feel comforted when I pray? Or do I sense peace when I sing a hymn? Or does my church family provide for my social needs? The point is not that universal questions are not important or that they have no place in religion but that maybe simple questions provide a better language to evaluate whether one should be religious in a formal sense or not.