In hindsight, I should have used Huck instead of Christie for that joke in the Lovitz post, huh? Ah well.

Mitt needs someone who can turn out the south, reassure social cons, appeal to disaffected blue-collar voters, and serve as a media-friendly attack dog against Obama. Hucktastic?

Yes, according to several sources close to the Romney campaign, who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the vice-presidential search, the 56-year-old Arkansan may be included in the veep mix.

To many Republicans, a ticket with a Mormon bishop and a Baptist preacher isn’t far-fetched. “In a way, it’s almost a dream ticket,” says Ed Rollins, the chairman of Huckabee’s 2008 presidential campaign. “He’s substantive and knows domestic policy, and his personality wouldn’t overshadow Romney’s.”

For now, it isn’t clear whether Huckabee is going to be vetted, or that he’s anywhere near Romney’s short list. But he is, at the very least, being discussed…

The growing buzz about Huckabee within segments of Romney World delights social-conservative leaders and Huckabee allies, who have long hoped that Romney would reach out to the GOP’s evangelical voters with the veep selection. “If he’s not on the short list, somebody ought to put him there,” says Hogan Gidley, a former adviser to Huckabee. “He’d bring excitement to a ticket that’s lacking that, to some degree, right now. Beyond that, he’d bring a huge grassroots organization, and, to put it simply, the South.”

According to one Romney aide, Huck’s on the list — the long one, not the short one, that includes something like 40 prospective vice-presidential candidates. Which means he’s in the same position as, er, virtually every other prominent Republican in the country. Given that Mitt’s wealthier fundraisers have been known to mention Huck as a worst-case scenario for the party, I’m guessing he’s not near the top of that 40 either. Still, if you’re worried about the southern base mobilizing for the Massachusetts moderate, there’s arguably no one who could do more to solve that problem in one fell swoop than Huck. In fact, here’s his latest fundraising plea at HuckPAC:

Barack Obama just announced he supports same-sex marriage. Nancy Pelosi immediately jumped on the announcement and emailed Democrat activists nationwide promising to continue their fight. This is going to be a defining issue this election. Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats have been a complete failure on economic issues so now they are going to focus on issues that will rile up their base.

Well, Mr. President it’s going to rile up our folks also. Men and women who support traditional marriage.

That raises an interesting election question, actually, about the end of Obama’s game of Charades. By finally endorsing gay marriage, did O just solve Romney’s potential problems with the base? Obviously the south is going to turn out and vote for Mitt no matter what, but he needs more from them than just votes; the higher their enthusiasm, the more GOTV volunteers he’ll get and the more their campaign and Super PAC donations will flow. If Obama had steered clear of “values” issues, enthusiasm among social cons would be high but not as high as it will be now. Which is to say, thanks to O’s big fake “evolution,” there’s probably less need for an outspoken social conservative as VP today the GOP ticket now than there was 24 hours ago. Hard luck for Huck, but maybe good luck for Chris Christie. Or Jon Lovitz. Either way.

Exit question: Did Huckabee really say in that fundraising pitch that gay marriage will be a “defining issue this election”? An issue in which the president plays no actual legislative role? C’mon.