Merry Christmas, everyone!

Here at Election Projection, The Blogging Caesar has created a handy resource for tracking the proceedings.  You'll find all the primary dates and delegate allocations for each state and party, as well as scorecards for both party races, on EP's new 2008 Presidential Primaries page.  Check it out now and once the primaries get underway.  I will be updating it throughout the coming months as the results come in.

Update:  Also posted is an expanded 2008 Election Calendar.  It contains the filing deadlines, presidential primary/caucus dates, and congressional primary dates for all 50 states.

The nomination is more up in the air than ever, and if Huckabee has peaked and starts a downward trend heading into January, then my first edict of the season may be in jeopardy.  Over the last year, we've seen Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Thompson, and perhaps now Huckabee grab frontrunner status only to fall back once the light of popularity brought its intense focus on their campaigns.  Will Ron Paul be the next one to fill the void?  That may be doubtful, but in this political climate, anything can happen.

Update:  The poll has gotten links in a couple of Ron Paul forums and on Digg.com.  As one might expect, it has skewed the results a bit.  (To put it mildly!)  That's ok with me - I like the increased traffic.  A word to the Paulites - Welcome!  Be sure to check back often once the election heats up.  I'll be tracking all the major races next year.  To see how I've done in the past, check out my 2004 and 2006 results.

It is not clear how the government of Iraq will respond as things improve on the ground.  So far, the military situation has given considerably more cause for optimism than the political situation.  Nevertheless, the outlook has changed radically over the past several months.  For that, we can be glad.

In national polling, Giuliani holds an aggregate 3.5% lead over Huckabee in all December polls except Rasmussen.  By contrast, Rasmussen's 4-tracking poll show Huckabee leading Giuliani by 4%.

In Iowa, the three latest polls other than Rasmussen give Huckabee a 9-point lead over Romney, compared to 16 points in Rasmussen's latest.

And in Florida where a recent SurveyUSA poll had Giuliani enjoying a 14 point lead over Huckabee, a December 13th Rasmussen poll showed Huckabee leading Romney by 4 with Giuliani 8 points back in third.

I'm not sure what to make of these descrepancies, but I'm beginning to doubt the dependability of Rasmussen's polling model in some of these primary races.  I still remember well the problems he had in 2000.  Could it be he is having trouble again?  Rest assured I'll be keeping a close eye on his numbers.

Lost in the hunger to create a scandalous story and infuse controversy into the campaign is the actual answer to the question Huckabee asked.  That answer is a resounding "YES!"  Here is an excerpt from a Q & A on the official Latter Day Saints (Mormon) website.

On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some - especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations.  But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers.

There you have it.  (For those who may not know, Lucifer is a biblical reference to Satan.)

What Huckabee asked is a simple question of Mormon doctrine.  It would be no different than a Muslim candidate asking, "don't Christians believe Jesus was born of a virgin?"  And it would no more an attack on someone's religion than that.

Yet, Romney chose to accuse Huckabee of that very thing.  Either Romney is ignorant of his own religion's teachings, or he is using a valid question in an opportunistic and disingenuous way to gain political points while harming a political rival.  This whole episode is just another indication of the untrustworthiness of Mr. Romney.  My unwillingness to support him has everything to do with that and very little to do with his Mormonism, strange and anti-Christian doctrines notwithstanding.

Unfortunately, none of the other men is without at least one glaring flaw.  Here a list of the candidates with what I see as their biggest drawbacks.

• Mike Huckabee - liberal, fiscally and on immigration
• Rudy Giuliani - socially liberal (morally corrupt)
• Mitt Romney - untrustworthiness
• Fred Thompson - lack of charisma
• Ron Paul - foreign policy

John McCain is not on this list because I don't see a huge singular problem with him.  His negatives are more a collection of less severe issues - maverick status, campaign finance reform, etc.

For me the ideal candidate would be a man (or woman) with Mike Huckabee's delivery, stage presence, and social positions, Fred Thompson's fiscal positions, Rudy Giuliani's leadership experience, Mitt Romney's personal fortune, Ron Paul's consistency and integrity, and John McCain's history of service to our country.  That would be an unbeatable combinaton.  Alas, it would also be a super-human which does not and probably will not ever exist.  So, we're left to choose from the imperfect.

In one sense, I'm glad my vote is only one out of millions.  I would hate to be charged with appointing the GOP nominee given this group of contenders.  As it is, I'll vote for the person who once again fills the role of the lesser of two, or in this case, eight evils.

I hereby seal and deliver this edict today, Tuesday, the 11th of December, in the year of our Lord 2007.

For example, I had begun my post describing Paul as a libertarian-leaning isolationist due to his disdain for every free trade agreement known to man.  Further research revealed that he is in fact staunchly supportive of free trade (a traditional libertarian stance) but against treaties, agreements and organizations that restrict our sovereignty in the matter.  Other preconceived impressions of him were also found wanting.  I realized that his message sounds a lot different coming from him than from the mainstream media.

As one would expect from a former libertarian presidential candidate, Paul never met a tax increase he liked and never met a tax cut he didn't.  On taxes specifically and fiscal issues in general, his views are very compatible with my own.  On most social issues, again as expected, his views are more liberal which does present some difficulties for me as a social conservative.  While he opposes hate crime legislation, he does not want to define marriage as a union between one woman and one man, and in terms of human relationships, he supports permitting "any association that's voluntary," at least at the federal level.  (Yikes!)

All is not amiss in the social arena, however.  Regarding abortion, I was surprised to see that Paul diverges from the normal libertarian view that the choice should be left up to the mother and her doctor.  Paul is pro-life, and apparently decidedly so.  The former obstetrician who has delivered over 4000 babies has said, "I can assure you, life begins at conception."  Yet, his overriding desire in the abortion debate seems to be to get the federal government out of it entirely.  He wants instead to let the states decide how to handle abortion legislation.  Given his vote against a bill restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions, one might surmise his concern for the life of the unborn is less important to him than his eagerness to adhere to his federalist ideals.  On the plus side, if he were president, his libertarian convictions would lead him to appoint strict constructionist justices who would not legislate from the Supreme Court bench.

The biggest point of conflict between him and me is his foreign policy stance, specifically regarding the military.  Whether you agree with the Iraq war or not, I strongly believe we should not abandon the Iraqi people prematurely.  The surge has been showing definite progress, and I believe a significant window has been opened for Iraqis to achieve a stable Iraqi form of democracy.  Paul's view is that we should get our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.  But his radical designs wouldn't stop there.  All troops now serving outside the United States would be brought home if he had his way.  These intentions are disturbing to me and represent drastic measures I would not support.  That said, if the Iraqi withdrawal could be done over time, enough time realize the potential progress we've seen underway to date, I might be able to accept it so long as the terrorists do not see a deadline.  That would serve to strengthen their resolve and weaken the willingness of Iraqi men and women to help us defeat them.

Overall, much of what Paul stands for connects with me and much does not.  On the positive side, it has been a while since a legitimate small government personality like Ron Paul has gained such prominence.  And his radical notions of abolishing the Departments of Energy, Education and Homeland Security and the Internal Revenue Service, while probably too outlandish to the see the light of day in Washington, strike a cord in my fiscally conservative heart of hearts.

On social issues, his personal pro-life stance and libertarian judicial restraint convictions adequately, if not fully, satisfy my stipulations on abortion.  His federalist ideals on the issue do raise concern, but I am convinced that he would do no harm to pro-life causes as president.  On the negative side, his view that we should "repeal the whole drug war" and legalize illegal drugs does not sit well with me.  And I do not like the fact that Paul does not support a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, though I appreciate that his views preclude his support for hate crimes legislation and sexual orientation clauses in business practices.

On a personal note, Ron Paul does have something that very few politicians have - character and consistency.  On Capitol Hill, he has a 20-year record of loyalty to his ideals.  Even if I disagree with more than a few of his positions on the issues, I do believe Mr. Paul will remain true to his convictions regardless of what external forces vie to influence him.  Beyond him, Mike Huckabee and perhaps John McCain, I see very little in the way of character among the presidential hopefuls in 2008.

In the end, contrary to what I had expected before I started this venture, Ron Paul is not a bad second option for this conservative Christian.  I cannot say I am a Ron Paul supporter - Huckabee is still clearly my first choice - but the idea of President Paul is immeasurably more appealing to me than President Clinton, Obama, or Edwards (or President Giuliani or Romney, for that matter).

Even more noteworthy is the fact that Huck's gains have been realized without a lot of money.  He is contesting to win the Iowa Caucuses outright with barely a whisper of a campaign presence on the ground.  How he fares in Iowa, of course, remains to be seen, but without money and organization, he faces a difficult task capitalizing on his polling numbers and turning them into actual votes on January 5.  I do believe Huckabee can pull it off and ride the momentum into subsequent primaries.  He can be a force for the nominatioin, a true contender.  However, eventually, he must compete with the big guys in fundraising.

I wrote last month that his lack of money right now doesn't doom his candidacy, and I stand by that assertion.  It is, though, an assertion that hinges on one pivotal and crucial development.  He must be able to translate increased support in the polls into much increased campaign contributions.  Most political pundits still see Huckabee as just a spoiler, as the one who will weaken Romney, Thompson, and McCain and pave the way for Giuliani to stroll to the nomination.  Almost invariably, the main reason for such sentiment is the diminutive size of Huck's campaign wallet.

Unless he is able to change that current circumstance, indeed, he will likely be banished to that role, and his candidacy will not be sustainable.  We've seen a recent uptick in his fundraising, but nothing like what we need to see before Iowa.  One candidate has done a tremendous job raising money.  Ron Paul looks like he will raise more in the fourth quarter than any other candidate.  What a waste!  In the previously mentioned post, I made the point that much of the GOP money had not yet been given which explains the financial deficit GOP candidates are facing when compared to the Democrats.  I did not see, however, the growing Ron Paul sink hole that would devour so much of that latent GOP money.  Instead, I believed it would go in large part to Huckabee.  I can only hope that there is enough still left ungiven to make the Huckabee campaign viable for the long run.  He's doing well in Iowa right now.  But without money, and tons of it, his shot at the nomination - and even more so the presidency - will be short-lived.

This week's poll takes a look at the sentiment surrounding this holiday season and the use of the term 'Christmas.'  Do you think people should avoid the term so as not to offend those who for whatever reason may be offended by it?  Or do you believe Christmas should be spoken freely during this time and that some people are just too easily offended?  The poll is located in the right sidebar.  Please be sure to cast your vote.