Iowa is the moment when the big money hate machine finally received its comeuppance. Huckabee, Obama and Edwards are all candidates for change and populist reaction against the greed of corporatist interests and the arrogance of beltway elitists. People are turning their backs on the politics of division and hate. So, of course, establishment punditry is worthless chatter.

In the case of Huckabee, there is only effete disdain, fear, and the hatred that the rich and powerful have for ordinary Americans. The pundits are lauding Obama, while all but dismissing Huckabee's chances. Of course, Obama is more nearly one of them.

I think Huckabee's campaign is poised to take off. The pundits confine his support to the Christian Right. I think this is a grave error. As the campaign unfolds I expect him to garner more and more mainsteet support, while sending wall street and the beltway into a tizzy.

Glenn, this post is right on target. The effect of this behaviour is to cheapen electoral politics, avoid substantive discussion on issues, and debase the democratic process. It's deja vu all over again, making the point made by Al Gore in his book THE ASSAULT ON REASON.

Edward R. Murrow would be proud of you, Glenn. The issues have not changed much since his day, nor has the situation improved. By the way, the recent movie by the above name is a great flick. Take it in some time, if you have not already done so.

Glenn, is it possible that one of the reasons leading Democratic Senators who are contenders for the presidency do not oppose Telecom immunity is that they fear that to do so will result in a hit to their campaign financing efforts?

Could this be the reason that politicians on both sides of the aisle do not want to confront this issue in an election year? If so, it makes a compelling argument for campaign financing reform.

I like Mike Huckabee, and believe he will be a very good, and greatly beloved president if elected. But that does not mean I think he will succeed at bringing in these two constitutional amendments.

Even if Huckabee is nominated and elected, I think he will have to work with a Democratic Congress. This will curb his excesses and accentuate his good points.

The real debate about abortion and gay rights in America, and the intersection of faith, ethics, and the Bible with law and public policy is a debate as to the nature and function of the law itself in American society. Is the law primarily normative, setting out an idealistic societal blueprint as to what is right and wrong? Or is the law primarily regulatory, setting out prohibited conduct with punitive consequences?

I would argue that in the evangelical community, law is too often seen as normative, the equivalent of giving a Bible thumping, hellfire and brimstone sermon about sin. It is meant to shake a disapproving finger at behaviour people do not like.

By contrast, a regulatory approach suggests not enacting prohibitions unless there is a very broad and deep consensus supporting them, and otherwise leaving matters open to personal taste and choice. So you allow abortion because of the deep societal and personal divisions on the matter.The same rationale ended prohibition.

Gay rights and gay marriage are like racism and slavery. Under the regulatory view slavery and racism were left alone to quietly simmer until societal tensions led to change. This appears now to be the case for gay rights and gay marriage.

The debate needs reframing in terms of freedom, particularly religious freedom. There can only be one absolute truth in religious matters, so it would make sense to discover it, and enforce it with the full arsenal of the law. This was the approach of the medieval world under the papacy. Recant or burn. That is not the approach the Founders adopted or the protestants supported. They wanted security and liberty in their religious diversity. The same rule should apply in matters of abortion and gay rights. These should be matters of conscience and individual rights, subject to persuasion in the marketplace of ideas.

Having said all of the above, I still like Huckabee.

I have been increasingly uneasy for some time now at the slavish deference Congress shows to this president. It is reminiscent of the role of legislative bodies in the former Soviet Union. Their role was to laud, approve, and clap for whatever policies the fearless Leader might choose to pursue.

The latest excuse is the need for a show of bipartisan unity in dealing with the economic crisis. Guess who got us into this mess? Many experts now fearfully suspect that the situation is out of control. So the elite will mouth pious platitudes as the fallout continues and accelerates.

Had seventeenth century Englishmen taken the path of the current Congress, all people in the English speaking world would be ruled by an absolute monarch under the theory of the Divine Right of Kings.

This is an extremely moving and uplifting post,Glenn.

I was reminded while reading it of a Peter, Paul, and Mary Christmas show which generally airs during the holidays on PBS. One song celebrates Hannukah and the tradition of lighting candles to remember the deeds of the Macabees and the rededication of the temple- LIGHT ONE CANDLE. It is a rousing tribute to hope and the valour of the human spirit in seeking justice and in doing what is right.

Another thing that came to mind was the first reading of Christmas at midnight mass every year, Isaiah 9:2:

The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them a light has shined.

Your own candle is burning brightly, Glenn, and bringing restored hope and faith to those who love America, its people, and its liberty.

All the best,

Tom