“Our trust remains in God, not government,” said Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, who criticized an “ongoing effort of this administration and the liberal majority in Congress to take over our health care.”

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., predicted an “an avalanche of socialism” under Democrats and claimed they were “putting runaway federal spending on steroids.”

And Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., declared, “We cannot let a crippling debt or an ever-expanding government stifle the American dream.”

Republicans, and particularly the GOP’s right, are harnessing anger by using age-old us-vs.-them appeals and embracing issues like the economy, health care and big government to counter Obama in hopes of finding a winning strategy after consecutive losses in national elections.

By doing so, the party may have found a broader context within which it can fit cultural, religious and social topics that keep hard-core GOP voters happy but sometimes turn off moderates and independents.

During George W. Bush’s tenure, Republicans heavily promoted issues such as those dealing with God, gays and guns, and they got traction with religious conservatives. Speakers at gatherings like the Values Voters Summit, which got under way Friday, spent much of their time denouncing abortion, same-sex marriage and firearm restrictions.

But the narrow strategy had its limits because most Americans aren’t single-issue voters.

These days, such issues aren’t emphasized so much, though conservatives use the health care debate to fight abortion and government-mandated counseling in end-of-life decisions.

Enter the wider political opportunity created by a country that’s going through an acrimonious period in which people’s intense anger is motivated, perhaps, by fear of the economic recession, of the country’s uncertain future, of a new president who doesn’t look like others before him.

Reflecting the despair, 57 percent in a recent Associated Press-GfK poll said the country is heading in the wrong direction.

Despite evidence the recession is abating, many people aren’t sensing the economy turning around because job losses continue. Skeptical of both the public and private sectors, they are infuriated by government bailouts of the automotive, insurance and banking industries. At a time of huge budget deficits, they also have sticker shock over the president’s pursuit of health care and energy overhauls.

And, even though the nation elected Obama, many people still aren’t comfortable with the president who is biracial, who has a foreign-sounding name and who is trying to bring sweeping change to a country that instinctively cringes from it.

The anger has reached a boiling point. Consider Rep. Joe Wilson’s shout of “You lie!” as the president addressed Congress, the tens of thousands who marched on Washington to protest Obama policies and the hostile questioning of lawmakers during health care events.

It’s under such conditions that populist arguments tend to resonate because they tug at a universal belief among Americans that government should be working for the people in a democracy.

Since the 1800s, populism has been a powerful political weapon – particularly for out-of-power movements – during periods when the public, correctly or not, believes the elites are taking away that ideal.

“There’s always a suspicion of the concentration of power out there, and the question is who can mobilize that fear best politically,” said Michael Kazin of Georgetown University, who wrote “The Populist Persuasion: An American History.”

Democrats generally, and the left in particular, did it in 2006 and 2008, embracing the public’s anger over Bush’s policies in Iraq, his handling of Hurricane Katrina and the economic collapse. These days, Republicans, and the right specifically, are wielding the power of populist arguments.

“They work pretty well now,” Kazin said. “There’s a kind of anger out there, based on a sense of ideal betrayal.”

Populism can broaden the GOP’s appeal because it cuts across all ideologies; most Americans view themselves simply as people who want a responsive government.

Also, issues that directly effect people’s everyday lives, like the economy and health care, seemingly give the GOP an even wider net. Bread-and-butter subjects have risen in importance while cultural issues aren’t resonating as loudly in part because of what appears greater acceptance among Americans and an unwillingness by Obama to incite fights on such matters.

Republicans face a delicate dance with the strategy ahead of next fall’s midterm congressional elections.

They want to tap into anger but don’t want to be seen as extremists inciting it. That may be why many mainstream Republican leaders have distanced themselves from far-right comparisons of Obama and Hitler, and the widely debunked allegations that Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii and, thus, his presidency is illegitimate.

Populist arguments also can go too far, leading to cynicism and a lack of political involvement, meaning problems then don’t get solved. Democrats have accused Republicans of caring more about defeating Obama than actually serving the people.

And ultimately, there’s no certainty that this fickle public will continue to be angry and focused on broad-based issues. Republicans, particularly conservatives, are willing to take that chance.

On Thursday, for example, Republicans had hoped to force debates on abortion, school vouchers and medical marijuana, as well as gay marriage and gun control, as part of House consideration of the federal government’s contribution to the District of Columbia’s city budget.

No way, Democrats said.

At issue are 12 bills totaling more than $1.2 trillion in annual appropriations bills for funding most government programs – usually low-profile legislation that typically dominates the work of the House in June and July. For decades, those bills have come to the floor under an open process that allows any member to try to amend them. Often those amendments are an effort to change government policy by adding or subtracting money for carrying it out.

The tradition has often meant laborious debates. But it has allowed lawmakers with little seniority to have their say on doling out the one-third of the federal budget passed by Congress each year. It was a right the Democrats zealously defended when they were the minority party from 1995 through 2006.

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., insists the clampdown is to prevent debates from dragging on and on. Republicans, however, have agreed to limit the amount of time debating the bills.

Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., acknowledged in a brief interview that one reason for restricting amendments is to save members of his party from having to cast politically painful votes.

So instead of debating an attempt backed by House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio to allow more children living in Washington to receive school vouchers, the House will vote on a Quixotic attempt to eliminate the President’s Council of Economic Advisers.

“What they want to do is they want to avoid tough votes on appropriations bills,” said Rep. David Dreier of California, senior Republican on the Rules Committee.

Even some Democrats are chaffing at the heavy-handed clampdown on debate. Abortion opponent Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., on Thursday lashed out at his party’s leaders for denying him and others a chance to vote on restoring a long-standing directive by Congress blocking taxpayer-funded abortions in Washington, D.C.

Democrats effectively reversed that stance while the bill was still being considered by the Appropriations Committee. Stupak said the Democratic leadership’s new policy on floor debates “muzzles the voices of pro-life members.”

The process has become so relentlessly efficient that Democrats were actually forced to drag out action to Thursday on a $33 billion measure funding energy programs and water projects. The reason? They need to stretch the workweek into Friday to force lawmakers to remain in Washington for committee work on health care and other spending bills.

Republicans complain that unless a member of their party is one of the 60 members of the Appropriations Committee, he is essentially blocked from having any say in shaping the budget.

“That simply disenfranchises most of the members of this body,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

Democrats say that months ago, they offered Republicans the chance for a more open process in return for a guarantee that Republicans wouldn’t drag things out. Republicans initially said no but recently have agreed to limit how long a bill can be debated. Too late, say Democrats.

“We offered Republicans the opportunity to work with us in a bipartisan way to offer amendments so we could complete the appropriations process in a timely manner,” said Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “They rejected that offer and have repeatedly used delaying tactics.”

The Minnesota Democrat’s swearing-in marked the end of an eight-month political and legal struggle and drew thunderous applause and a standing ovation in the Senate chamber. His presence gives Democrats 60 votes, enough to thwart possible Republican filibusters.

Vice President Joe Biden administered Franken’s oath, slapping the former Saturday Night Live performer on the back, then embracing him in a full hug. Former Vice President Walter Mondale, a Minnesota native, accompanied Franken. Franken was introduced by fellow Minnesotan and Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

“I think it was Al who told me that the third year of his campaign would be the best,” Klobuchar said. “He was right.”

Franken arrives in the Senate more than eight months after Election Day. Last week the Minnesota Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Franken’s favor after a protracted recount and his opponent, former Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, conceded.

In the usually staid Senate, there were plenty of signs something unusual was afoot. The Senate Gallery, rarely full even with dozens of summer tours, was packed with onlookers. After Franken took the oath of the Senate, the gallery erupted in an unusual and lengthy applause that continued for several minutes.

Before the swearing in, Franken learned one truism of the Senate: nothing ever runs quite on time. Several senators read lengthy remarks from a Homeland Security bill as anticipation built for Franken’s arrival. Franni Franken, the candidate’s wife, smiled broadly and seemed to shift nervously in her seat.

Then, about 15 minutes later than had been scheduled, Klobuchar began her introduction. She said Franken would be a champion of average Minnesotans and played up his middle-class bona fides.

“He’s demonstrated to Minnesotans that he takes his new job seriously,” she said.

She added that he carried, “the same passion as Paul Wellstone,” who was famous for his populist roots. Franken took the oath on a Bible that belonged to the family of the late Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn.

Franken exchanged hugs with most of his Democratic colleagues and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent.

He acknowledged a section of the Senate Gallery that included Franken’s wife, Franni. Franken waved to his wife and children while behind him his friend Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, gestured with his hands to raise the roof, prompting a fresh burst of cheers.

The hullabaloo that accompanied Franken’s swearing in was in some ways a contrast with the image the former comedian is trying to project as a serious-minded senator. Since moving back to Minnesota in 2005, Franken has sought to tone down his image as an irreverent performer and satirist casting himself as workhorse and policy wonk.

Franken said in an interview with The Associated Press on Monday that while he is still garnering attention for his career as a comic, he expects the publicity to die down once he is able to establish himself in the Senate.

“I think they’ll get to used to the idea that I’m a senator, that I’ve kind of changed careers,” Franken said. “I just don’t think it will take that long. They’ll see what I do and what I say. Mainly I’m going to put my head down and get to work.”

Democrats said Franken will assume seats on the Senate Select Committee on Aging, the Committee on Indian Affairs, the Judiciary Committee and the Committee on Health Education Labor and Pensions. Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Tuesday Franken will not join the HELP committee until after the current health care bill goes through budget mark up.

Franken’s most pressing business will be the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. He told the AP Monday that he would like to serve as a “people’s proxy” on the committee.

But he’s still willing to take money from a reliably Democratic constituency – he was sending Vice President Joe Biden to a Democratic National Committee fundraiser Thursday evening with gay and lesbian donors.

Some gay donors called for a boycott after Obama’s Justice Department, in a court filing, compared gay marriages to incest.

“I don’t think it’s an appropriate time to be raising money. No one is happy now,” said Richard Socarides, who advised former President Bill Clinton on gay issues and did not plan to attend the event. “On gay rights, the country is already in the age of Obama, but he’s governing from the Clinton era.”

Obama issued a presidential memorandum that expands some federal benefits to same-sex partners, but not health benefits or pension guarantees. He has allowed State Department employees to include their same-sex partners in certain embassy programs already available to opposite-sex spouses.

But that remains far short of his campaign rhetoric.

“At its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans,” Obama said a 2007 statement on gay issues. “It’s about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”

Since then, he publicly has committed himself to repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that allows gays and lesbians to serve in the military as long as they don’t disclose their sexual orientation or act on it. On Jan. 9, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs answered “yes” when asked whether the administration would end the policy. But as president, Obama hasn’t taken any concrete steps urging Congress to rescind the Clinton-era policy that even some former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have described as flawed.

Obama pledged during the campaign to work for repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, which limits how state, local and federal bodies can recognize partnerships and determine benefits.

In a letter sent to gay-rights groups in February 2008, the president said “I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) – a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate.”

But lawyers in his administration defended the law in a court brief. White House aides said they were only doing their jobs to back a law that is on the books.

At the time, even Democrats in his party criticized the move.

“I was profoundly disappointed by this action, particularly coming from this administration,” said Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., the first openly gay nonincumbent to win election to Congress.

Even so, Baldwin and other high-profile gay and lesbians and their allies still planned to attend Biden’s fundraiser. The minimum donation was $1,000 and some tickets went as high as $30,400. The event was expected to draw 160 people, although the DNC was not releasing estimates on how much money the event would net, especially given some high-profile defections.

Human Rights Campaign grass-roots chief Marty Rouse, Gay and Lesbians Advocates and Defenders projects director Mary Bonauto and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund President Chuck Wolfe all withdrew. Several other high-profile activists also did not intended to participate, hoping to pressure Obama to make good on his promises now.

The White House plans an East Room reception on Monday for gay and lesbian advocates to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Greenwich Village demonstrations at the Stonewall Tavern in New York City. The demonstrations are viewed as the start of the modern gay rights movement.

“Unless the president on Monday articulates a strong action plan, and is willing to do it with cameras rolling, it is going to go from bad to worse,” said Socarides, the Clinton adviser.

State Supreme Court Justice Thomas McNamara is dismissing the case, saying it’s improper for the court to get involved in a legislative tussle. He recommends the legislature resolve the question of who’s in charge of the chamber.

Meanwhile, Gov. David Paterson says he’ll step into the Senate session and run the chamber as he did while lieutenant governor. He says that will temporarily help Republicans and Democrats pass critical bills.

One of the two rogue Democrats who helped Republicans seize power returned to the Democratic fold Monday, putting the Senate in a 31-31 split between the Democratic conference and the uneasy coalition.

“We need to take back the Senate,” said Sen. Hiram Monserrate of Queens, insisting Democrats were united.

A seven-day stretch that began with a shocking parliamentary revolt orchestrated by a coalition of Republicans and the two rogue Democrats – Monserrate and Sen. Pedro Espada – resulted Monday in a 31-31 split between the Democratic conference and the uneasy coalition.

Republicans and Espada held a brief session, but no other Democrat showed up, denying a quorum.

Although there was no agreement on how to share power, Democratic Gov. David Paterson stepped in Monday to try to broker a deal. A state court that threatened to mandate a power-sharing structure, heartened by Paterson’s involvement, gave senators until Tuesday morning to agree on a way to share power.

But Republicans and Espada say the coalition created a week ago remains firmly in place, with Democrats unable to muster a 32-vote majority to undo the action.

Espada, of the Bronx, maintained Monday that he is majority leader, the Senate’s top position, because 32 senators voted for him during the takeover a week ago. Even though Monserrate has since rejoined Democrats, the party has only 31 votes, not enough to overcome what Espada says was last week’s legally binding vote.

Democrats claim the coalition’s parliamentary revolt was done after shocked Democrats hastily adjourned the session, making it invalid.

The 31-31 tie is possible in the 62-seat Senate because there is no lieutenant governor to break deadlocks. Paterson was lieutenant governor in 2008 when Gov. Eliot Spitzer resigned in disgrace amid a prostitution investigation.

Wisconsin Democrats elected Mike Tate as their new chairman Saturday at their convention in Green Bay. He just turned 30 in March.

Tate has been involved in state Democratic politics for more than a decade.

He has worked for several politicians and led the Fair Wisconsin campaign in 2006 that attempted to defeat a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Tate is straight, but he has said, “I’ve always felt that this is a state where everyone gets a fair shake. This is too important to not become involved. If you’d told me 2 years ago that this is what I’d be doing, I wouldn’t have believed you, but I believe that it’s the civil rights fight of my generation.”

In the nation’s two marquee primary elections this year, Democrats in Virginia and Republicans in New Jersey selected moderate candidates for governor, rejecting people whose views were further left or right.

Certainly, it’s hard to draw conclusions about the country’s political mindset from just two races in just two states – primaries in which few voters participated, at that. But the results of Virginia’s Democratic primary on Tuesday and New Jersey’s GOP primary last week provide the only 2009 window into where voters in both parties may stand in Democrat Barack Obama’s first year as president and as the out-of-power Republican Party seeks to rebound.

The results are all the more noteworthy because primaries usually attract only the most motivated voters, typically people at the extreme ends of the political spectrum.

But in these cases, voters seemed to chose nominees who may give their parties the best chance of winning in November given each state’s political traditions. Moderate Creigh Deeds won the Democratic nomination in Virginia, which until recently has tilted to the right nationally, and moderate Republican Christopher Christie won the GOP nod in New Jersey, historically a left-leaning state.

Ideologically, each appears positioned to attract independents and moderates from the opposite party in the fall.

The races are shaping up to be bloody; Democrats control both states but Republicans sense opportunity.

Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine by law must leave office after one term. The three-way Democratic primary fight to succeed him was ugly – and expensive. Conversely, Republican Bob McDonnell, a conservative who is Virginia’s attorney general, had a clear path to the GOP nomination – and has a hefty bank account.

New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine is seeking re-election and has the White House’s backing. But Republicans are buoyed by the fact that his support has tanked along with the state’s economy. Already, a series of polls has shown Corzine trailing Christie, a centrist former federal prosecutor.

“It sounds pretty consistent with the trends that we’ve been observing nationally – that the moderates have more sway these days than they did in the early part of the decade,” said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.

He added: “Primaries tend to draw more of the party regulars who tend to be more ideological, either left or right. But these results would suggest that even the true-blue Democrats and true-red Republicans have more moderate impulses these days. Voters also are very pragmatic in times of trouble, and these results may reflect that as well.”

Kohut’s nonpartisan organization recently released a survey that found that the country is in the midst of an era of centrism and has experienced such a boost in independent voters that they now make up the largest proportion of the electorate in 70 years. The survey also found no evidence that the country has become more ideologically liberal or conservative, despite sweeping Democratic victories at all levels of government last fall and shrinking GOP ranks.

Still, the ideological extremes in both major political parties have been vocal.

Obama, who had a liberal Senate voting record but is trying to govern from the center as president, is facing resistance from his party’s left wing. At times, he has been at odds with the Democratic-run Congress spearheaded by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco liberal, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Republicans lack a standard-bearer since George W. Bush left office. Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a hero of the right wing, have emerged as the loudest voices in a debate over whether the GOP should adhere strictly to its conservative roots or broaden itself to attract followers from across the political spectrum.

In Virginia, Deeds, a state senator from a rural part of the Southern state, is moderate, if not conservative, on guns, gay marriage and the death penalty. He promised primary voters that he would govern much like centrist Democratic governors Kaine and former Gov. Mark Warner. In the end, he thumped two opponents who ran to the left of him.

They were a well-funded Terry McAuliffe, a former Democratic National Committee chairman and longtime Clinton confidant who modeled his campaign after Obama’s, and Brian Moran, a former state House Democratic Caucus leader who promoted liberal positions like reversing the state’s same-sex marriage ban.

Deeds is trying to become leader of a state that until recent years was long considered a Republican bastion. Last fall, Obama became the first Democrat to win Virginia in a presidential race since 1964. And Virginia is now represented in the Senate by two Democrats, albeit moderates, Warner and Jim Webb.

In New Jersey, Christie had the backing of much of the GOP establishment and raised the maximum campaign cash allowed for the primary. He entered the race with nonpartisan rhetoric that sounded much like Obama. After a spirited contest, Christie easily dispatched Steve Lonegan, an ultraconservative one-time small-town mayor who pushed him to the right throughout the campaign, calling for massive state government layoffs, a ban on abortion and no business taxes. Less of a threat to Christie was conservative assemblyman Rick Merkt.

Christie is more moderate than them, though he has staked out conservative positions on school vouchers, abortion restrictions and regulatory issues. He also was nudged to the right on economic issues through the campaign, but is likely to tack back to the center as he tries to prevail in a state that has more registered Democrats than Republicans.

For years, moderate Republicans ruled in New Jersey. But, like in much of the Northeast, the GOP has sustained heavy losses in recent years, and Republicans see the New Jersey’s governors race – Christie’s candidacy coupled with Corzine’s unpopularity – as a chance to reverse that trend.

I’m going to give President Barack Obama points for nerve. When asked by NBC’s Brian Williams if gays and lesbians, who want to get married, have “a friend in the White House,” Obama looked in the camera said yep, emphasized his commitment to civil unions, noted marriage was a state issue that was not the providence of the federal government, and talked a little bit on how he would fight discrimination.

Man he’s good. Sure that answer is going to make most of the folk here apoplectic but he wasn’t talking to us. His words were for the dwindling majority of American citizens freaked out not only by gay marriage but anything to do with the dignity of gays and lesbians. Essentially told them discrimination on sexuality is wrong and like them he would prefer unions.

As a politician, Obama understands the tenor of voters and same sex marriage might be the thing in New England and Iowa (hello Hamer family!) but it is DOA in Texas and Georgia. Texas voters might look at New Hampshire with skepticism for its gay marriage legislation, but citizens of the Lone Star State are not going to blame Obama and are relieved (i.e., more likely to vote for him) when he says the federal government isn’t going to make states jump on the gay marriage express.

Is this helpful to anyone here? Nope. Would it be nice to have a president who was for same sex marriage? Sure, but when we were having that debate, the people who supported marriage equality had NO shot at winning the White House (and please Clintonistas: don’t leave any stuff how your lover’s best friend’s hairdresser knows for a fact that if she had won Hillary would have come out for marriage rights).

None of this means that suddenly we should be happy with Obama. I would repeat that but what’s the point? Too many of you are already writing comments about how I’m throwing the community under the bus. When it comes to gay rights, Obama is following a trend the Democratic Party is known for. Talk a lot and do less. We are all adults and that should not surprise; however, if you are already yelping how your vote will be going to Gavin Newsom in 2012, riddle me this. If Obama is punting on gay rights, why nominate a Republican for the secretary of the Army who favors changing DADT?

Let’s push Obama to do better, but let’s not forget that he has other political realities (voters) outside of our concerns and he might have to take a circuitous route to get where we want. Doesn’t mean we should wait patiently. That would be silly. It does mean thinking long term.

PS: And maybe the problem really isn’t Obama. As former LOGO correespodnet Jason Bellini reported, it could be us.

Gay marriage became legal in Iowa in April after the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that denying gays the right to marry is discriminatory. In New Hampshire, the Legislature approved a gay marriage bill Wednesday that will take effect Jan. 1.

While some see opposition to gay marriage easing nationwide, that’s not the case among Iowa Republicans – especially the relatively small number who dominate the state’s leadoff precinct caucuses. Social and religious conservatives dominate that group, and their opposition to gay marriage is solid.

To be competitive among Iowa Republicans, presidential candidates likely will have to toe that line, key strategists said.

“I’m guessing that most of the serious candidates will be for a constitutional amendment to define marriage,” said David Roederer, a veteran activist who managed John McCain’s campaign in the state. “I don’t think there’s going to be much of a difference.”

Steve Scheffler, head of the Iowa Christian Alliance, said the debate over gay marriage is part of a larger discussion of what he sees as the declining social culture of the country. Candidates must address that, he said, and gay marriage is a key element.

“I think there’s a whole wide range of issues they need to address – the state of our economy, the decline of our culture. All of those things have to be put on the table,” said Scheffler. “It’s absolutely essential, and it would behoove them to talk about it. I don’t think they can dodge it or duck.”

That isn’t the case in New Hampshire, where Republicans tend to be more fiscally conservative and socially moderate. New Hampshire has allowed civil unions since 2007; Iowa never allowed them.

“When presidential candidates campaign here, they have traditionally focused on the economy, foreign policy, health care,” said political analyst Dean Spiliotes. “Social issues have never really played a major role here in the campaign.”

A poll conducted by Dartmouth College in May found New Hampshire voters evenly split on gay marriage. Broken down by party, gay marriage had the support of 63 percent of Democrats, 43 percent of undeclared voters and 17 percent of Republicans.

Although the two states vote only days apart, candidates have a history of switching gears between Iowa and New Hampshire and will continue to do so, Spiliotes said, pointing to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won Iowa’s GOP caucus in 2008.

“When he was in Iowa, it was all about social conservatism, and then when he came to New Hampshire, that almost completely vanished,” he said. “So I don’t think that it’s going to have a huge impact on how people campaign here because I think to some extent, the state already had the reputation for being more libertarian, if not more moderate.”

New Hampshire’s primaries are open to independents, who outnumber those registered with either party and hold significant sway. Many are likely to vote Republican in 2012 if President Barack Obama seeks re-election and faces no primary opposition.

In Iowa, there’s very little party switching or involvement by independents, and history shows that a relatively small number of the parties’ hard-core activists determine the outcome. Giving an easy victory to Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister, speaks volumes of the mindset of the Republican activists who dominate the party and the precinct caucuses.

“We’ve gone so far to the social right, particularly in caucus attendees, that unless you meet certain litmus tests, you have a very difficult time competing in Iowa,” said Doug Gross, the party’s 2002 gubernatorial nominee.

Gay marriage might pose a different kind of litmus test in New Hampshire, said Jennifer Donahue, political director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics.

“The way people interpret this issue tells more about their feelings about government’s role in their personal lives than it does about gay marriage,” she said. “It becomes almost a litmus test for the candidates as to how libertarian they are.”