Duggars give Huckabee a nod!

Today's proxy battles bode well for Mike in 2012!

Today's primary elections in some key states gave some hints about how the electorate will vote this November and beyond. In the Colorado Democrat US Senate primary, the decisive victory for appointed incumbent Michael Bennet over challenger Andrew Romanoff (54 - 46%) will be widely viewed as a victory for Pres. Obama over Bill Clinton, who had endorsed the incumbent and the challenger, respectively. I think Bennet, however, will be crushed by the winner of the GOP primary race, Tea Party favorite and solid conservative Ken Buck, who edged out John McCain's favorite, Jane Norton (51 - 48%). In my view, this bodes well for a more conservative GOP contingent--hopefully the majority--in the next US Senate. As Norton told the Denver Post after her defeat: "This election is more than Ken Buck or Jane Norton," she said. "This election is about America and our future. We are losing our country and it is our job to take it back." Right you are, Jane, and I sure hope you will work just as hard to elect Ken Buck in November, to stop Obama's hand picked Senator Bennet from keeping his unearned seat.

So where does Mike fit in? Well, there is the matter of the Georgia Governor's race. In that GOP primary, it looks like Mike's pick--Nathan Deal--has edged out Sarah Palin's favorite, Karen Handel, by about 2,500 votes (50.2 - 49.8%). I suspect that I'm like most of Mike's supporters: I love Mike and I love Sarah, and in the back of my mind I worry about the prospect of the two of them splitting the vote in the 2012 primaries. Of course neither has declared his or her candidacy at this point, but assuming they both do eventually, I'd rather see Mike and Sarah finish 1,2. The way I see it, all you need to do is the math: Mike is 8 years older than Sarah, and he has 8 years more experience as a state governor. Let's see: 8 years of Pres. Huckabee and Vice. Pres. Palin; then 8 years of Pres. Palin. I could live with that!

Huckabee on the Prop 8 Ruling

Without exception - regardless of political ideology, judges should never legislate from the bench. Marriage has always been defined as being between one man and one woman. In fact, state after state has voted to uphold the definition of marriage whenever the question has been placed on the ballot - but for some reason activist judges keep trying to redefine it.

Today's ruling tramples on the will of the people and sadly, it seems judicial activists are determined to advance their personal radical agenda. That's why I believe it's time for a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. That is the only action that will truly protect marriage.

Posted at Huckpac