With the recent of rise in popularity of presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, I wonder if Pat Robertson is having doubts about his endorsement of the more centrist, and sometimes liberal, Rudy Guliani. But what I really wonder is this: Is Huckabee the Christian leader that this country needs? Or is his guise of Christianity all talk and no action like so many other candidates? Let us look at his webpage for more information: 1. Huckabee plans to “expand the military and increase the defense budget.” This, to me, is the first fallacy of any president. If we want to help the Middle East, we will send more humanitarian aid, not more troops. I know this sounds idealistic, but the Arab people need to know that we care about them, not that we are willing to send more troops to cause more war. A truly Christian president would begin the disarmament process when he is elected president so that there is no need for war. Am I so idealistic to think that we are past the place where we need weapons that can destroy entire cities? We are in an age of economics, not imperialism. Capital is valued today more than territory, and I don’t believe we need these weapons of war. They have only brought harm to us. The only reason the terrorists have weapons is because there are so many of them floating around in the world today. 2. Huckabee plans to “get tought with president Musharaff” in India so that it will no longer breed terrorist camps. He is tired of Musharaff playing the middle ground, while terrorist cells are being trained and sent out simply waiting for us to leave Afghanistan so they can overtake the country. He seems to be support a hard-line stance against Musharaff if he does not produce results. While this is a good idea, how is he going to do it? How would he change the situation in India so that these terrorist camps no longer existed? 3. Huckabee prefers “America to be safe and secure within her own borders rather than loved and appreciated abroad.” He does, however, think we can accomplish both of these if he is elected president. I am not sure how he can accomplish both if he cares more about America than about other countries. I know that he has to be elected president, but should not a Christian care more about others than about himself? 4. Huckabee uses his religious language suggesting we have to get beyond the ideas of “doves and hawks” to be people who will rise from the dust of the 9/11 to be reborn with a new strategy on foreign policy. Such rhetoric, while nice to the ears, accomplishes little in the real world. I want to know what Huckabee actually plans on doing if he is elected president. Such metaphors mean little to me. 5. Huckabee suggests that we can work with friendly governments to crush terrorist cells, citing Somalia as an example. I have a question for Mr. Huckabee: Has he ever seen Black Hawk Down? Does he know the rhetoric he is spitting? 6. Huckabee, to his credit, does not believe that we should view the world in the black and white prism that seems to have plagued the Bush administration. He is correct that we need to realize the differences between the different sects of the Islamic faith, and realize that there are disparities between them. They do not all have the same goals. Very few, in fact, have the same agendas as other extremist Islamic organizations. Huckabee has some good ideas, but he is speaking in political rhetoric. Such rhetoric means little to the American people. Huckabee will have to take it down a notch, or all his Christian rhetoric will become old news. The media is ruthless, once the ratings drop, so will if he is not built on more than a Christian persona.