elfs | Politics: Iowa yesterday, and silly stuff.

If I had all the time in the world, I'd write about:

The Revealer explains why evangelicals don't like the NYT:

Noting that Huck drew a third more evangelicals to the polls -- 60% of the Republican turnout -- than in years past, Michael Luo and David D. Kirkpatrick fail to quote any of them. Instead, they echo establishment G.O.P. talking points by pointing out that Huck's "natural allies among Christian conservative leaders" don't like him. By this, they mean Paul Weyrich, Jim Dobson, and Pat Robertson -- precisely the people so many evangelicals have been saying don't represent them anymore.

Frankly, Huckabee scares my socks off precisely because he's one of these "culture warriors" who benefits from the anger of the O'Reilly zombie crowd, but who talks a kinder, softer line-- one that could put him into the White House, complete with the power to nominate Supreme Court justices. But Sharlett's also right: the NYT didn't bother to quote anyone from Huck's supporters about why they support him. The NYT doesn't know how to talk to agents of change, and so misrepresents Huckabee the same way they sadly don't know how to talk about Linus Torvalds.

Speaking of the NYT: Michael Tomasky writes about Republican structural problems:

The party is still in the hands of three main interests: neoconservatives; theo-conservatives, i.e., the groups of the religious right; and radical anti-taxers, clustered around such organizations as the Club for Growth and Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform. Each of these groups dominates party policy in its area of interes-- the neocons in foreign policy, the theocons in social policy, and the anti-taxers on fiscal and regulatory issues. Each has led the Bush administration to undertake a high-profile failure: the theocons orchestrated the disastrous Terri Schiavo crusade, which put off many moderate Americans; the radical anti-taxers pushed for the failed Social Security privatization initiative; and the neocons, of course, wanted to invade Iraq.

I have to say that he's right, and anyone unwilling to play along with all three is going to be in trouble. I can't say that Two-Buck Huck (is that too liberal a joke?) isn't willing, but he seems too earnest about his theocracy to be chained down by the others.

Brad DeLong quotes Hilzoy approvingly (okay, I'm just being an echo chamber here, now) and adds:

Every serious Republican policy person I know would give at least one organ of generation and one eye and one toe to have in their current mix a candidate half as qualified as the least qualified of Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Richardson, or Dodd.

This is what the Republicans face: Huckabee, Romney, and Guiliani simply aren't qualified, not in character, experience, or moral worth, to lead this country.

On a lighter note, if you're willing to cough up the cash, WorldNetDaily warns us that witchcraft is alive and well in America:

Wicca is an official, legal religion in the U.S., and a fast-growing one at that. Judges have ruled that witches must be allowed to lead prayers at local government meetings, and that Wiccan convicts must be provided with requested "sacred objects" so they can perform spells in their cells. Witches in the armed services have even formed covens and routinely "worship" on U.S. military bases.

How did this happen - and why?