Doing Food Right

Let me introduce myself. My name is Pauline Boren, the Conservative Cook. The Editors at LowDownCentral have encouraged me to share my conservative approach to creating a variety of recipes that you can easily incorporate into your busy, politically-charged schedules—recipes that tantalize the senses, and display your good kitchen sense.

You’ve probably heard many people say, “I can’t even boil water.” Here you’ll not only learn how to boil water, you’ll master some simple steps to making very delicious (and nutritious) dishes. I’ll show you how to effortlessly prepare tasty and pleasing meals while maintaining a full-time job, and/or handling the duties of full-time mom.

I prefer meals reminiscent of memorable home dining experiences with my family and friends, and sharing something special I made just for them. Many of my recipes were learned from my Mom. She never used a formal recipe, but inherited all her tried and true cooking techniques from my Grandmother. Because neither of them wrote down their recipes, it was difficult at best to recreate each dish. Over the years, with my passion for cooking and experimentation, I’ve successfully reproduced many of her recipes, and they have delighted both family and friends. My sister tells me they taste just like Mamma’s! Of course, I’ve also had a little of her input on some dishes along the way. Hopefully, what you learn from our time together will impress your toughest critic, while giving you that wonderful pride and satisfaction of having completed a delightful and tasty home-cooked meal.

My kitchen is in Arizona, and like most of the country now, the weather here screams for some hot comforting soup. I can’t think of a better way to begin our food adventure than to cook something that will take off the winter chill.

If you follow along with this first recipe, you will end up with a savory result and the ability to make a large variety of other soups. I often improvise and rarely cook a dish exactly as a recipe dictates. I will also teach you how to spice up a bland recipe and make it your own, sharing shortcuts garnered from the cooking school of hard knocks. Just remember to write down what you choose to “add” or “delete” from any recipe and you’ll be able to repeat it at a future date. There’s nothing worse than making a fabulous dish, getting rave reviews, and not being able to make it again.

Soup is actually one of the easiest dishes to make. It can be used as a starter, appetizer, or as a complete meal accompanied by hearty bread, biscuits or crackers. It can also be visually enhanced with a dollop of a contrasting ingredient such as sour cream, guacamole, grated cheese, a couple of croutons or a sprig of fresh herb. The varieties are endless.

Soup also happens to be one of my favorite dishes to make because I can ad lib as I go. Years ago I learned that the secret to a good soup is the flavor from the first sizzle of the onion sautéing in the butter. After the onion is golden you add the other ingredients—the liquids, vegetables, meat, fish, pasta or rice. If you’re making a cream soup, you can add cream or milk in place of some of the liquid. Of course, adding cream adds extra calories so you can substitute whole or low-fat milk. There is no difference in texture. Skimmed or canned milk also works well. The liquids can be chicken, fish, or beef stock and even plain water.
The next ingredient is the seasoning. Here you can add either spice or a fresh herb. Remember, dry herbs are stronger than fresh so a little goes a long way. Two of my favorite dry herbs are Herbs de Provence and Italian Seasoning. Both are simply a combination of many herbs and readily available at any grocery store. Fresh parsley or basil also enhances any soup—especially an Italian soup. It can be incorporated while cooking, or added on top as a garnish.

I have fresh butternut squash today, so I decided to make a very basic creamy soup. The first important step is to get all the recipe ingredients measured and ready to assemble before you actually begin. This way you won’t forget any ingredient, and with a little preparation, all will go smoothly.

Butternut Squash Soup 

1 butternut squash, sliced in half lengthwise and roasted (roasting note below)

1 whole onion – chopped (into about ½ inch pieces)

3 Tablespoons unsalted or salted butter

2 Tablespoons olive oil

1 14oz can chicken stock (low sodium or regular)

1 14oz can beef stock (low sodium or regular)

1 Cup low-fat or fat-free milk

1 Cup water

½ Cup sherry (optional--t he alcohol will cook out and just the flavor remains)

1 Teaspoon Chinese Five Spice Blend

1 shake red pepper flakes

Salt ( depending on whether you used salted butter and regular stock)

Pepper to taste
Remember that the cut size of the vegetables is not important in this cream soup because all the solid vegetables will be pureed in the food processor after they are cooked. If you were making a vegetable soup you may want more uniform pieces, but since rustic cooking is so popular now, irregular size is also find in soups. Food size (like of meats, chicken, fish or vegetables) is a little more important in stove-top or oven cooked dishes so all the ingredients will cook evenly.

Preheat oven to 400 ° . Wash the butternut squash and slice in half lengthwise. Place cut side up on foil-lined baking sheet. Sprinkle small amount of olive oil and salt and pepper on cut-side, then bake in center of oven—cut-side up—for 35 to 45 minutes, or until tender when pricked with a fork.

Remove from oven and cool slightly. Remove only the seeds and not the surrounding pulp. Cut in chunks and place in food processor. [You can remove the skin, but I prefer to leave it on. When pureed it adds flavor and body to the soup.] Now we’re ready to sizzle the onions.

Heat the butter in a large soup pan over medium heat, and add the onion. Cook slowly until clear and golden.

When cooked, add onions to the squash in the food processor. Depending on the size of your processor, you may have to work in two batches. While running the processor, gradually add a little of the water to combine and puree the mixture. When smooth, return the mixture to the soup pan. Now we’re ready to add the liquids and seasonings.

Next add the stock, remaining water, milk, sherry and spices. [The pepper flakes are optional and omitting them will not alter the flavor; however, a little shake will add a depth of flavor to the other ingredients]. Simmer covered about 30 minutes.

That’s it! It’s soup! Enjoy!

Contact Pauline: conservativecook@gmail.com

Ironically, the compressed 2008 primary schedule has resulted in an extended selection process–no candidate is running away with the race yet, though several are trailing into obscurity.

At this point, as voters of both parties realize they must eventually coalesce around one candidate, the choice is often between the candidate who is considered "electable" and the candidate who more closely represents the principles of the party.

In 2004, Howard Dean was much in line with the principles of the Democrats–strongly anti-war, supportive of socialized medicine, and an adherent to the priorities of the moveon.org party base. Nonetheless, the Democrats threw over Dean (even before his post-Iowa scream fest) for John Kerry, who was considered more "electable."

In 2003, when California voters chose to recall the hapless Democrat Governor Gray Davis, the GOP had two strong contenders to take his place. Arnold Schwarzenegger had worldwide popularity and solid gold electability. State Senator Tom McClintock, however, was a true, principled conservative with an agenda for change in California based on fiscal responsibility and small government. Republicans in the state voted overwhelmingly for Schwarzenegger, and now California has a Republican governor who is indistinguishable from a moderate Democrat.

In 1976, Ronald Reagan was clearly the flag bearer for conservatives, having governed California as a conservative, having written and broadcast his conservative ideas throughout the country, and advocating them at every public appearance. But the GOP nominated Gerald Ford, believing that his incumbent status made him more electable. Reagan’s convention speech pledging his support for Ford after the close-fought nomination process was a revelation, and ensured that Republicans would nominate the right man the next time.

For 2008, Republicans face a similar choice. Rudy Giuliani has been the front runner for months because of his reputation for cleaning up New York and his actions as mayor on September 11^th 2001. Both of these are legitimate accomplishments, but they do not necessarily reflect Republican principles. They are resume items that make him popular and electable. In fact, Giuliani is pro-choice, supported gun control in New York City, and conducted a very public affair while married.  

But Giuliani’s front-runner status is shifting to John McCain, a Vietnam veteran with an unswerving record of support for the war on the jihadists, and a reputation for going his own way. His own way includes voting against the Bush tax cuts, advocating relaxed immigration policy, and co-authoring the free speech-limiting McCain Feingold legislation. But McCain’s appeal to centrists and the main stream media, coupled with his maverick reputation and his recent surge make him appear electable.

Mitt Romney is pro-life, governed a blue state as a Republican, has a strong record of success in business and private enterprise, supports the current strategy and tactics in the terror war, supports tough immigration policy, supports gun rights and tax cuts–in other words, is the perfect embodiment of most conservative principles. He has won three primaries (Wyoming, Nevada, Michigan) and come in second in Iowa and New Hampshire. He has more delegates than any other GOP candidate, yet he is seldom referred to as a front runner. His change of heart on abortion, from pro-choice to pro-life, and his Mormon faith are often mentioned as barriers to his electability.

So Republicans will have to decide between electability, which is really just a subjective reflection of current polls and press coverage, and principle, which is a measure of character.

There are four possible outcomes. The first two stem from nominating a candidate believed to be "electable." He could win, and our party places in power a leader who has no loyalty to our principles and values, currently exemplified by Governor Schwarzenegger in California. Or our "electable" candidate could lose, thus disproving the single qualification that won him the nomination. Ask John Kerry supporters about that.

The other two possibilities stem from nominating a candidate who shares our values. It is possible that he could lose, but we could go home after the campaign with heads held high, because we fought for the things we believe and a man we believe in. Those who supported Ronald Reagan in 1976 saw their candidate miss the nomination, but they were proven right four years later when Reagan prevailed.

The fourth and final possibility is that we nominate the man of principle, campaign with all our hearts and souls, and he wins. We thus choose a leader who represents the values we live by and the principles we hold dear. Isn’t that what the whole process is supposed to be about?

=-=-=-=

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho and supports Mitt Romney for President.
http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/1/22/primary-choice.html

They deem them their worst enemy who tells them the truth .

- Plato

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

The primary election has moved with light speed into the category of historic firsts: defiance of historical statistics, legitimate polling results, demographics and the usually dependable predictions of high-profile pundits on both the left and the right.

What is the common denominator? The answer is becoming more apparent with each passing day, with each passing media report. Absent empirical evidence to the contrary (which may or may not be arrived at any time soon – okay, not), the excitement being built up by the media has thus far been principally aimed at the Obama-Huckabee, McCain-Clinton maelstroms, and, taking a wild guess at the upcoming South Carolina outcome: Obama-Thompson.

An effective (but questionable) tool was used for the first time in the election process: user-generated video propelled two unprecedented debates. On July 23, 2007 via You-Tube, candidates from the Democratic Party faced citizens’ questions. There were no journalists, no panelists, and no filters (at least not in the Democratic debate) – just the people’s questions and the candidates’ answers. As The Weekly Standard noted, the YouTube Republican debate was depressing. To add insult to injury, CNN neglected to properly vet their “ordinary” citizens’ agendas.

Additionally, and unforgettably, the Democrats refused to debate on the Fox Network. This inflamed viewers and served to distance constituencies from their candidates, as well as causing doubt amongst voters and drawing mockery from conservatives.

Adding fuel to the information bonfire are the number of Internet blog rolls that have increased like a computer virus with pro, con, undecided, levelheaded and often nonsensical commentaries. One could click on any dot com or dot org and find opinion editorials and/or lectures about every aspect of each candidate, from Hillary Clinton’s hairdo to, well, Mitt Romney’s hairdo and his faith.

Still and all, it remains that the MSM is the principal force driving the results of our national election in much the same way they disburse the daily news: skewed, slanted, inflammatory, and meant to produce specific negative results for conservatives and sane Democrats. Compounding the confusion amidst the radical opinions, the liberal mainstream media, in their standard undignified haste and lack of moral calling, are helter-skelter striking dumb the voters in Primary states, or even striking with purpose the dumb voters. It’s becoming more difficult to tell the difference. Piling on to this idiocy, the Daily Kos has suggested Democrats vote for Mitt Romney in the Michigan primary “because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us.” The Kos may unwittingly Cause a result they hadn’t banked on.

The MSM are prematurely birthing a successor to the same person they have painstakingly demonized for eight years -- George W. Bush – and it’s only January.

At the same time, the media, in concert with the Democratic Congress and their voodoo princess Nancy Pelosi (whose collective aim is to dismember the Protect America Act prior to its expiration on February 5, 2008), continue their efforts with sightless resolve to demoralize Americans and curtail or garble warnings issued by security agencies both here and abroad of terrorist uprisings and invasions.

Democrats, strongly supported by the liberal media, portend that those who stand in opposition to them are politicizing issues and are therefore accused of being puppets of the Oval Office. The cloister of Congress has even gone as far as stabbing in the heart official reports (i.e., hard evidence) delivered by Intelligence officials such as Mike McConnell and General David Petraeus in order to obscure the truth. And what was the gratitude shown the General for his devotion to America’s well-being? The wholly unmerited moniker of “General Betray Us” dished out by the low-lifes at MoveOn.org.

Likewise, the media, in turn supported and egged on by this nifty Congress, took perverse glory at any hint of failure on the part of President Bush . This has been particularly so since the invasion of Iraq . They pounce on him at every opportunity like near-sighted Ninja, or as we call it, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Agenda.

These are the same groups and individuals in command of the Republican and Democratic primaries for this presidential election – who think only in the moment and not in the years to come. They are the same groups and individuals who refuse to “carry the can” when it comes to responsible journalism, and are fanatically devoted to the sacrifice of common sense. The most disturbing point is constituents for both political parties might be buying the poison they print.

If voters allow themselves to be swept away by the undertow of the liberal media’s influence to elect a buffoon (or buffooness) as our next Commander in Chief, then “We, the People” deserve the Super-Duper Tuesday results.

by Lance Thompson

Primary season has just started, and it turns out very few predictions from the pundits over the preceding weeks and months came true.

At the beginning of this long campaign, Hillary versus Rudy was supposedly a foregone conclusion. She had the Clinton name, she was married to the Democrats’ star player and campaigner, she was owed favors by party stalwarts in every state, and she was widely recognized as the most likely nominee. Rudy was the mayor who cleaned up the Big Apple, then stood tall when his city was the target of the worst terrorist attack in history. His speech at the 2004 GOP convention was lighthearted, confident, and connected with regular people–he had the aura of rising star.

If Hillary and Rudy are still on top of the national polls, they can feel the breath of rivals on the backs of their necks. This isn’t how it was supposed to be.

Mike Huckabee was a second-tier candidate with a bad record on taxes and immigration, no money and no organization, running on a wing and a prayer. The pundits all dismissed him, but he connected with the voters, and he’s in with the in crowd.

John McCain was too old, voted against Bush’s tax cuts, was soft on immigration, and was foolish enough to put his name on McCain-Feingold bill. McCain has staged a comeback worthy of a Rocky movie, all predictions to the contrary.

Barack Obama wasn’t challenging Hillary enough, he was too deferential, didn’t have the experience–if you believed the professional political analysts. Instead, Obama deftly maneuvered around a slow-reacting Hillary to win Iowa and come close to taking New Hampshire.

Now, with each new primary, pundits are busily turning the momentary into the momentous, and turning every unpredictable instance into an undeniable trend. Rudy, once the presumptive nominee, is now finished, even though he has yet to be tested in a state where he chose to campaign seriously. Mitt Romney, who has finished in the one or two spot in every contest, is written off as not having connected with voters. Hillary, who was pronounced dead after Iowa, is on an upswing and may be unstoppable again.

All this tells us is that the states who spent much of the interval between elections leap frogging toward New Year’s Day in order to "have a say" in the process have attained what they wanted. The nominees of both parties are still uncertain, no real trend has developed, and the race is still up in the air.

One benefit of a bruising primary is that the contests bring the candidates into sharper relief, relative to each other. Supporters learn more about their candidates when they are battling hard for the nomination. Conflict exposes character. Some candidates are steady under fire, exude confidence under pressure, refuse to be rattled by setback and disappointment. These are the traits that become evident in a tight race, and the ones that separate the nominee from the rest of the field.

There will be more surprises, surges, and stunning reversals before the primary season is over. The support for once obscure candidates will soar, and that of front-runners will plummet. Revelations and recrimination will ricochet around the arena with increasing intensity. Look for the steady hand, the composed competitor, the undaunted determination of a leader. When the smoke clears, the choice will be clear. You won’t need a poll or pundit to tell you what a champion looks like.

-=-=--

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho and supports Mitt Romney for President.
www.lowdowncentral.com

The Democratic Congress must be breathing a hefty sigh of relief that it was Mike Huckabee , not Mitt Romney, who received the higher tally at the Iowa caucus. Relief because Huckabee pandered not only to evangelical voters but to all the independent secular malcontents that could ultimately swing the election to Barack Obama .

Huckabee is perceived by Democrats in the same way some of us Republicans had been tickled pink about the possibility of Hillary winning her party’s nomination. Mike Huckabee is one candidate the other party believes they can beat – and they would, because he is beatable. Susan Estrich almost did a jig at the Fox News Iowa post caucus analysis because Democrats see the end of moral majority influence on the political spectrum. Obama trumps a Huckabee in what is looking more and more like a hand of political poker where Liberal pundits do not play their cards close to the vest.

Huckabee now believes he has found his niche with the little guys and gals with statements such as “ … people had rather elect a president who reminds him of the guy they work with – not the guy that laid them off.”

Thank you, Governor, but speaking bluntly we would personally be more comfortable with a Chief Executive Officer leading our nation than the fellow in the mailroom (no offense intended). Without the large corporate CEOs and the small-to mid-size company entrepreneurs, there is no mailroom, no benefits, no paid vacations, no job, no production, and no income taxes. Yet this populist is attacking the hand that feeds him and everyone else in the U.S. like a rabid dog.

Huckabee has gone from evangelism to populism according to the prevailing political wind, but is still only delivering bologna politics: one slice at a time, rather than giving concerned voters the full canvas of his intentions if he were to be elected President.

This weekend’s presidential roundtable debate in New Hampshire was the first real opportunity for Americans to see the reality behind the sound bites, campaign ads, punditry gone awry, and which candidate has the best muscle memory. We were afforded an opportunity to see and hear the differences between the front-runners and to distinguish between solid leaders with ideas and glib personalities sans substance.

In a very clever and well thought out seating arrangement, Fair & Balanced Fox News sat Mitt Romney between what everyone thinks are his Nemeses. It was great orchestration as Huckabee demonstrated that he loses control of his emotions giving credence that he is a regular guy but not presidential material. He sniped at Mitt Romney for posing a question, and then brusquely told Romney he’s not the moderator. Someone should tell Governor Huckabee this was not a “high school“ debate.

In fact, Huckabee and McCain employed jealousy tactics by reminding everyone that Mitt Romney happens to be a self-made millionaire (throwing this in Mitt’s face like two courtesans elbowing their way to a better position). What those two really achieved was painting a picture of themselves suffering from an inferiority complex when it comes to other men who are richer (than both Huckabee and McCain combined). Why be so hostile, guys? After all, isn’t wealth part of the American dream? Mitt’s message is that everyone can achieve the American dream when they take personal responsibility and set goals. He wants Americans to keep their hard-earned money and turn it into something they can be proud of. As the only highly successful businessman on the political roster, it stands to reason he knows what he’s talking about—and they don’t.

It appears that perfection reminds McCain and Huckabee of their own shortcomings. They would rather have someone with flaws they can feel superior to. Shame on them both.

The pundits and MSM repeat the idea that Mitt is wealthy enough to buy the election. This idea is ludicrous. Mitt Romney has invested his own money into a campaign for the Presidency based on his unwavering belief that he can bring security, prosperity and stability to middle class Americans, in the same manner the majority of homeowners invest in a home for themselves and their children. A man cannot achieve success with his family and business without possessing good judgment. None of the other Republican candidates can claim this dual achievement.

Huckabee stated he understands the ordinary citizen -- Fine. But we’ll pay a shrink to understand us, and vote for the man who will guide us to a more prosperous and financially secure future. It’s time to state the truth about Huckabee’s pie-in-the-sky ideas, particularly with respect to abolishing the IRS. It might sound great on the campaign circuit, but with a Democratic majority in Congress the reality is completely different. He can promise every American a million dollars if he wants to, but he’ll have as much luck making that happen as the proverbial snowball in hell.

Delivering a realistic and viable savings plan, such as Mitt Romney’s, whereby all working Americans can receive tax breaks -- doing away with taxes on interest and capital gains in order that Americans may keep and/or re-invest their earnings is ultimately the sensible plan.

After the Iowa caucus results, Mike announced to his supporters, “This is a new day in American politics.” It seems Governor Huckabee is under the mistaken impression he doesn’t need to compete on the major issues affecting America and Americans.

For the record, we’re all bone-tired of politics and politicians.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon
http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/1/8/between-huck-and-a-hard-place.html

by Lance Thompson

Change is a strong theme in the presidential campaign. Enthusiastic backers of Democrat Barack Obama cite his promise to "change the culture" in Washington as a major aspect of his appeal. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have adopted this evidently winning argument, as have Republicans Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and to a lesser extent, John McCain. In fact, every candidate must at least touch the talisman of change during his campaign, because that is, in fact, why we hold periodic elections.

Two aspects of change naturally suggest the next two-part question: change from what to what? If there is a groundswell of support for change, there must be an existing situation which is intolerable, and a proposed change to a situation which is preferable.

What are the changers promising to change from? Is it change from a hard-fought, costly, but increasingly successful war on jihadist terrorism that has prevented any major follow-up attack on American soil to the devastating strike on 11 September 2001? Barack Obama proudly reminds us he was against the war in Iraq from the beginning, but doesn’t say how he would deal with the terrorist threat, other than to bring home the troops who are fighting it. Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war, but wants to stop the fighting as soon as she can. Mike Huckabee wants to bring the troops home as well. As promised, all intend to change from the fiercely-prosecuted war on terror that has severely routed al Qaeda, kept our nation safe, and nurtured the seeds of democracy in a nation that was once the dark heart of the Middle East.

What will be the result of the changed American policy? We will have no American troops involved in combat in Iraq. Perhaps democracy will flourish without our help and support, but unprotected fledgling states in the Middle East become targets for all the bullies, big and small, in the region. Just ask Israel. With no pressure on their organizations, and the ability to claim a big win against the Great Satan, terrorist groups would then be able to turn their attention, once again, to striking Americans on their home soil. Is this the change that voters are so enthusiastic for?

Maybe the candidates of change are talking about the economy. Despite a savage and severe terrorist attack in 2001, a double hurricane disaster on the Gulf coast, and a collapse of subprime mortgages and real estate prices, the American economy is strong. President Bush’s tax cuts increased revenue, unemployment remains historically low, American technology and manufacturing continues to lead the world. Boeing’s bet on the super-efficient 787 yielded hundreds of orders, while Airbus’ super-size jumbo A380 suffered delays of over a year, and sluggish sales. Our software and microchips are the underpinning of high-tech devices made throughout the world. Apple i-Pods are an international hit, with i-Phones poised to follow. Our factory workers turn out top-selling automobiles–now more often for Toyota and Honda than for Chrysler and Ford, but the point is that American workers are still making the world’s most popular cars and trucks.

Democrat candidates want to raise taxes rather than extend the successful tax cuts, penalize corporations for excess profits, and give more power to the unions that made American car companies less competitive in the first place. Is that the kind of change Americans are clamoring for?

Maybe it’s the political process, the well-known gridlock in Washington, that people want to change. But the gridlock is part of the two-party system. Bill Clinton had a Democrat Congress when he became President, a Republican Congress after 1996. George Bush had a Republican Congress when he became President, a Democrat Congress after 2006. Certainly the blame for gridlock must be shared by both sides, and exists no matter which party is in the White House or Congress. The only way to remove gridlock is to have one party–is that the change that candidates are promising?

Of course, there is another direction for change. In foreign policy, the change could be to prosecute the war on terror even more aggressively, in Iraq and throughout the world. In economic policy, the change could be toward more tax cuts, freeing corporations from regulatory manacles, and even greater support for free enterprise. In Washington, it could be a change toward smaller government, fiscal restraint, and individual responsibility. Those directions would also represent change.

The candidates that represent change in that direction are all on the Republican side.

=-=-=-

Lance Thompson lives in Idaho, a recent change from his previous address in Southern California.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

In the past eight to ten weeks, Mike Huckabee has proffered to anyone with a news camera and microphone his now-familiar negative rhetoric about anything and anyone crossing his line of sight that he perceives as a threat to his presidential aspirations. Sandwiched between those unpleasant brainteasers are his pet statements about Christians, the Christian faith, Christian community, him being the “Christian Leader,” and every vote for him is a vote for God. Holy Moley! Huckabee has elevated himself to the not-so-lofty position of the Republicans’ answer to Jimmy Carter -- and Heaven help us if this turns out to be true.

In particular is Huck’s claim that his religion defines him (and therefore he is more remarkably suited to run this country – as though implying that everyone else’s faith and method of worship in America is less crucial and down low on the spiritual totem pole) or, in “normal guy” speak: Give me a congregation and I’ll give you a presidency (and don’t forget to pass the hat!).

Another woebegone Huckabee remark was published in an interview with the New York Times: “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”

Not only was this stunningly rude, it was as stunningly stupid a statement as Harry Reid’s assertion “This war is lost.” No wonder Democrats are hoping Huckabee wins: unlike Romney, the Huckster can be manipulated nine ways to Sunday.

Just out of curiosity, is it our imagination or are evangelists disregarding separation of church and state to boost their candidate’s platform? Stumping politics on sacred ground is downright sacrilegious ladies and gentlemen.

Huckabee followed with a left, right and center apology to Mitt Romney about the Jesus/devil proclamation. And always gracious, Mitt accepted Huck’s request for forgiveness. Mitt wasn’t about to stoop as low as Huck and ramrod him with a counter-statement about Holy Rollers. In fact, Romney even went on record and said: “Mike’s a great guy.” That’s more than Huckabee deserved, given his misplaced and malodorous comment (that’s “dumb and stinky” in cornpone). And Huckabee has perfected negating a ceaseless flow of gaffs by tossing out his “aw shucks I didn’t mean that” routine -- like the first pitch in the World Series of Political Hardball.

Another immoral sound bite from Huckabee is about suicide: “… and the point is, with limited resources, if you look at where we are, even in the national polls, we’ve spent a nickel to the hundred dollar bill of some of these guys. It’s not that I’m depressed thinking where we are, heck, I’m pretty discouraged. If I were some of the these guys who spent tens of millions of dollars and weren’t any further ahead, I’d have to be sitting in a warm tub of water with some razor blades in both hands at this point saying how much money does one have to spend uh, you know, to get on track?”

Well, heck, Huck. You must’ve gathered all these ditties for the campaign trail the same way squirrels horde their nuts for winter – and then forgets where he stored them and why. Then again, you always have Ed “I want to kick Mitt Romney ’s teeth in” Rollins to deliver you from evil, dontcha?. After all, Rollins said openly, “He’s (Huckabee) praying for me and I’ll help him brawl…” Maybe Huckabee should also pray for atheist world leaders to turn their other cheek as part of his foreign policy.

Let’s not forget that genius observation made mere hours after Benazir Bhutto’s death -- connecting our illegal immigration problem with her assassination: “That’s a lot of illegals from Pakistan who come into our country…” It seems Huckleberry believes one could fish a Pakistani out of the Ganges River .

We’re not finished. Here is his coup de grâce :

Recently, while stumping in Iowa, Huckabee went into the wilds of that state for a pheasant shoot – presumably to puff up his “regular guy” character. After felling some hapless birds, he pointed to his fresh kill and said (we assume jokingly): “Don’t get in my way. This is what happens. You vote for me you live. You don’t…there you go.”

It’s no wonder Democrats consider you an “easy kill” if you get the Republican nomination. They can’t believe their luck over Republicans meeting all their expectations of choosing Gomer Pyle as their leader. Sheezaaam!

And just for the Huck of it, let’s add Mike’s statement that “the U.S. government has an arrogant bunker mentality.” Salaam-Alaikum , Osama bin Luckabee.

We think it’s time this Arkansas Governor received a backwoods shellacking before handing the presidency to secular progressives . W e dread – and we do mean dread – there might not be a wood shed big enough to accommodate his over-inflated and very dangerous ego.