Is it Mike Huckatorum or Rick Santuckabee? I can't keep them straight. Or does it matter?

No it doesn't matter because you cannot parody these two. I've used the Huckatorum / Santuckabee labels since 2012 when it became obvious that Rick Santorum was following the same narrow cynical niche strategy in Iowa as did Mike Huckabee four years earlier. More on that in a minute.

And this past week, as they both lined up to kiss the ring of the Donald (peace be upon him) at his non Fox non debate -- they turned my parody into nail on the head prophecy. 

This bizarre beta male groveling display was done after going after Ted Cruz -- directly and through Super PAC ads -- with shameless misleading non-sequitur attacks from both camps. This was a naked attempt to sidle up to Trump, a man much further philosophically away from the Huckatorum than is Cruz on the very issues these two claim to care so deeply about. Claim being the operative word. 

This makes no sense  -- that is, until you rip the mask off this toothless monster. Pardon the reference to Huckabee and naked in the same paragraph, but understand that both men are clearly angry and hurt as jilted lovers that Cruz has now caught the eye of most of "their" voters. And they are both lashing out angrily as they see it all slipping away.

They so obviously resent the fact that Cruz, who also has appeal outside of this evangelical niche -- is now dominating that very niche along with Trump. To me, this reaction was predictable. For a number of years I have contended that there is not really a dime’s worth of difference between these two -- that is, beyond the commitment to physical fitness versus the commitment to biscuits and gravy. Rick does push-ups while Mike sops. Okay, that was too easy.

As Larry the Cable guy would say, "Jesus forgive me...and bless the little pygmies."

The fact is, Huckabee in 2007-08 and Santorum in 2011-12 both ran virtually the same campaign in Iowa. That is, move to Iowa for a year and thump the Bible hard, loud and often for the entire time. Period. Get the endorsement of evangelicals like Bob Vander Plaats. And do this to hide the fact that you are not much of a conservative beyond the social issues. Do this also because in a crowded field -- and isn't Iowa always crowded -- there are about a third of Republican caucus goers who are also social conservatives with little regard for the other tenets of conservatism as well. A third of Iowa will almost always win a caucus with 5,6,7 candidates or more.

Thus, you can win Iowa and create the illusion you have a national campaign. And it is but a delusion if you niche your way to an Iowa win. (By the way, when either Trump or Cruz win Iowa -- it won't be the result of a single niche campaign). And why Santorum and Huckabee were blind to the fact their Iowa niche isn't big enough for the both of them is beyond me.

Full disclosure: I am a born again Bible believing Christian and agree with the "Huckatorum" on the social issues, if not always on strategy. I understand the validity of Santorum's oft-repeated point about the economic cost to society resulting from social problems. However, I also happen to loathe cynical niche political strategies -- especially when performed by candidates who have no chance of expanding their base beyond that niche.

Moreover, I happen to think our Founding Principles were divinely inspired, and the Santuckabee monster is more than willing to toss aside The Constitution and the entire concept of limited government in a campaigns that sound more like tent revivals than anything else. Nothing against revivals by the way -- I've been to more than a few. They weren't disguised as campaigns however.

My faith does not require a President who shares it. While that would be preferable, it can lead us down a dangerous road when such a candidate is not also committed to limited government and liberty. All we should require from our government is to get out of our way and let us walk out our faith in our homes, families, businesses and other activities. This includes respecting the Tenth Amendment, without which the idea of limited government is useless.

But there's really something much more sinister at play here than just the debate over the role of faith in the Oval Office.  I submit that in many ways both Huckabee and Santorum are flat out phonies. Now let me hasten to add, I'm not talking about their personal relationship with the Creator. I trust God to handle them without my input -- and I've got my own fear and trembling to walk out anyway.

I refer to the integrity of a candidate. If the causes that Huckabee and Santorum both drone on about endlessly are truly their concern, they would not be doing what they are doing. Ye shall know them by their fruits comes to mind. Hey Donald, isn't that in two Corinthians or something? (No, Matthew 7:16).

So let's look at the fruits of the Santuckabee's recent actions. It is clear, upon even a cursory examination, that a Cruz presidency would be far closer to what either a Huck or Santorum presidency would be on the very principles these men claim to care about. Thus, logic dictates that perhaps neither man is quite as committed as they claim to these principles.

Which is what I have always believed. It's why I've always opposed both men while agreeing with them on many issues. For all of their bluster, they both have shown a propensity to embrace big government liberalism and even to sneakily support establishment candidates over conservatives for political expediency.  History is clear on these points.

Which is why I prefer both Trump or Cruz or most anyone else to either half of the Huckatorum. But I would be remiss not to thank them for recently validating my long held theory. The Santuckabee lives...if only for a few more days. 

Edmund Wright is a contributor to American Thinker, Breitbart, Newsmax TV, Talk Radio Network and author of Amazon elections best seller WTF? How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost…Again.