Mike Huckabee deserves criticism, just not of the kind he's getting. Huckabee's compassionate conservatism is heavy on compassion and light on conservatism. His support of a fascistic national health law banning smoking in public places is all any conservative needs to know to disqualify him from the "acceptable" list of candidates. Yet, it's generally not Huckabee's big-government "conservatism" that has raised the ire of Republican scribes (Bush's economic liberalism never seemed to bother party conservatives, so why should the economic liberalism of his ideological heir, Huckabee?). It's his mild rebuke of the Bush Administration's disastrous foreign policy and his conservative stand on social issues.

Huckabee bravely, and quite rightly, criticized the Bush White House for its "arrogant" foreign policy, to which Mitt Romney charged that Huckabee was running for the wrong party's nomination. For such common-sense criticism of the president, who should be a pariah to anyone wanting to win the presidency, Huckabee earned the designation of "the Republican Jimmy Carter" from Ann Coulter. No, Ann, George W. Bush is the Republican Jimmy Carter. "Not that what one blogger thinks matters that much," the Ace of Spades blog notes, "but if Huckabee gets the nomination, I'm voting Democratic." The reason cited? Huckabee's foreign policy departures from the Bush Administration, including his call for diplomatic overtures to Iran.

Rich Lowry oddly points to Huckabee's social conservatism, which seems the most creditable thing about the former governor of Arkansas: "[N]ominating a Southern Baptist pastor running on his religiosity would be rather overdoing it. Social conservatism has to be part of the Republican message, but it can't be the message in its entirety." Does Lowry know the candidate his magazine just endorsed held a high position within the LDS church?

Conservatism has changed so dramatically during the Bush presidency that many so-called conservatives are more apt to vote for a candidate based on whether he wants to talk to the leaders of Iran than on whether a candidate wishes to allow the slaughter of the unborn to go on unimpeded. Many of Mike Huckabee's critics, like Mike Huckabee, aren't very conservative--at least if we are conserving the definition of "conservatism" that has reigned for all of my lifetime.

Mike Huckabee's surge in support can be explained by the vaccum on social issues among the major candidates for president. Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney governed as social liberals, John McCain, despite a stellar pro-life voting record, is despised by the religious right, and Fred Thompson's record is as sketchy as his campaign. No candidate carried the banner of the religious right. Huckabee filled that void--and a huge void it was. He leads in key states because of the power of social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Republicans wanted to act as though those issues no longer existed. Reality check. They do.

Ron Paul just shattered one-day fundraisung records. This man is clearly the peoples' choice. Say hello toy your next President ladies and gentlemen, unless of course "they" JFK his ass. Today is a great day. EAT A BIG ONE neo-con slime, liberal douchebagsss, and the criminally owned corporate mainstream media and your blatant disregard for this grassroots success story. Be afraid

Oh yeah, I forgot to say f%ck Huckabee... he's a pathetic excuse for a presidential candidate, and a human being. But I guess its cool that he thinks the planet is only 6,000 years old! LOLZ
Direct your energies to something just a little more worth your while. www.ronpaul2008.com

Despite his shortcomings, I might vote for Huckabee in the general election. Whereas, I would not, under any circumstances, vote for Giulliani or Romney.

On the bright side, perhaps the world will end next Spring, and save us misery of enduring the next president.

I would like to see Huckleberry die a quick political death. His stand on illegals is appalling and his Bible thumping routine is wearing thin.

Dan,

You are of course correct about why Huckabee saw a surge in numbers, by his appeal to religious conservatives. Why do pundits and the media pretend to not see that? Is it simply b/c of their animosity to Christians?

I think the better choice for Christians is Dr. Paul (read this from him if interested: Statement of Faith ) but the cause of Huckabee's rise is obvious.

As for his mild criticism of Bush, I disagree w/ your take on it. He clearly is trying to coopt some of Ron Paul's views but in being another example of his cynical calculation regarding his political views it is very telling in its attempt to try to have his cake and eat it too. On the critical of Bush side he definitely takes a more diplomatic approach to Iran in it and sounds very similar to Paul on it.

But in most other areas he is trying to out-hawk Bush and the neocons like Lowry really should love what he is saying. As for me I find it largely disturbing.

For example:

1) He wants the military to be 6% of GDP (that is double its current size). If you think our current debt and tanking dfollar is alarming, well, let's double the size of our military spending, or rather double its size relative to the national economy which is a ungodly ammount of money he is talking about.

2) He wants the army expanded by 92,000 soldiers in less than three years, which can probably only be done by hiring Hessians in the form of illegal aliens.

3) He thinks we need more troops in Afghanistan, so he wants to continue these ineffectual wars of occupation indefinitely.

4) He wants to allow Turkey (actually give them intelligence) to go after Kurdish terrorists in Iraq . . . he has no recognition what a disaster for us, while we are there, allowing Turkey to start air strikes in northern Iraq would be.

5) He also thinks sanctions are a "peaceful" means of engaging another country or avoiding war, when they are by definition and impact an act of war. He has an unrealistic view of what containing Iran entails.

6) He is hawkish on Russia, again no difference from Bush or the neocons, if anything he is worse b/c of his openness about calling Russia (mistakenly) an imperialist power.

7) Worst of all, he thinks that we have to invade Pakistan, attack Al-Qaeda there, that not doing so means we are becoming more and more vulnerable to attack.

He shows a sad lack of concern for what the impact of US invasion there would be on Pakistan's stockpile of nukes. The likelihood that they fall into terrorist hands is not part of his calculus.

This isn't much of a course change from Bush . . . more diplomatic language on Iran w/ insane hawkishness elsewhere. What a joke, the entire essay reads as such an attempt at political triangulation and arranging one's views according to a vote-gaining calculus it is obscene. Matters of national security, life and death issues of warfare shouldn't be handled so brusquely as fodder for attracting votes of one group or another. Principles are hard to come by w/ these candidates. Huck has them on social issues (somewhat) but not on spending, limited government, or foreign affaisrs while the Giuliani's and Romney's have them on basically nothing. This is why Paul is such an anomaly, he actually takes personal responsibility for thinking of issues and coming to principled conclusions about them.

It is wrong to say that Romney governed as a social liberal. He may have made statements in the past that were different than his current views, but he did not break any campaign promises or govern as a liberal. He came down on the side of life as a governor and fought for traditional marriage as governor, and he was an articulate spokesman for traditional marriage. Huckabee is wrong for many reasons including the ones you state.

Dal: Romney's health care plan, which he pushed and then signed when passed, pays for abortions with taxpayer dollars. Do you really think taxpayer subsidized abortion is coming "down on the side of life"?

Dan,

Do you really think any governor of MA could ever get away with not having tax-payer funded abortions?? He'd be tossed out on his butt by the pitchfork wielding libs in 3.6 seconds flat.

Huckabee really scares me as the GOP candidate. I think he represents "compassionate conservatism on steroids" domestically speaking. His position that advocates a nation wide smoking ban tells me enough about what he feels the role of government should be in people's lives.

Huckabee scares me. How can you advocate more federal control over personal choices such as smoking and abortion and still advocate less gov't? How can you accept( and encourage ) the outrageous "gifts" that took place while governor and still expect be be viewed as independent? How can you fight so hard to get the chance to stand with your hand on the Bible and swear to uphold and defend the constitution, while defying the constitutions ban on a test for religion? How can you expect me to believe that you have a foreign policy, when everyone in America knew about the NIE but you? How can you decry the fanaticism of the Islamists and shout your brand of fanaticism from the rooftops? When you can answer these get back to me, I have more.

Great info on Hucksterbee....

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/12/the_huckabee_hustle.html

Best quote:

Expanding on the Clinton comparison, Fund also wrote,

"‘He's just like Bill Clinton in that he practices management by news cycle,' a former top Huckabee aide told me. ‘As with Clinton there was no long-term planning, just putting out fires on a daily basis. One thing I'll guarantee is that won't lead to competent conservative governance.'"

I agree that Ron Paul's performance on Fox and Friends this morning wasn't good. Then again: 1) He clearly is not a morning person. Every time he has been interviewed before 8AM his performance has not been good. 2) Fox is the most disrespectful media outfit there is. They introduce Ron Paul and first question out of the box is about a Huckebee ad Paul has not even seen. And then after the commerical they ask him to give a series of "one word answers" designed to make him look foolish. These guys are pathetic. Wisely, Paul didn't play their stupid game.

Fortunately, Ron Paul gets better as the day goes on. For example, his performance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" at 8AM this same morning was fantastic. Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alxjl4IjZ9k

sorry - commented to wrong post...