Damn, the Huckabee posts are coming so fast, I'm getting lost in the shuffle.

Huckabee is a tool for Giuliani to win back the social cons. They're both sleazy, they're both open borders types.

I wonder how Ace is going to feel about Giuliani after Huckabee joins his ticket.

I think Huckabee's about to be buried so hard on fiscal and immigration issues that he's not going anywhere near anyone's ticket, in spite of what the secular establishment beltway types think.

If he ISN'T then it's a bad sign for the Conservative coalition, because it means a large portion of the base is ripe for European-type Christan Democrat wannabes. AKA Big government-socially conservative. Bush selling government as a solution to social problems wasn't a good precedent in this regard.

Great post Slu.

But those who back Rudy for the nomination?  Going straight to Hell.

There's a lot of talk about how Huckster's numbers will tank as more are familiar with his dismal record; I wish I could believe that, but my confidence in the electorate is such that I don't.

They've already demonstrated that they're willing to overlook Rudy's liberal stance on abortion, guns, immigration and his other faults both personal and public.  They've overlooked Romney's opportunistic flip-flops and pandering.  Why wouldn't they also be willing to overlook Huckster's fiscal record, immigration stance and nanny statism?

I'd like to see Huck tank and see his current support shift to Fred, but I'm not that optimistic- it seems that style rules substance with the masses, and Huck seems like such a gosh darn nice guy.  Hell, if he had Mitt's hair he'd probably have it sewn up by now.

As aldolfo pointed out, Huckabee's and Rudy's sucking up to each other while misstating Romney's record as governor makes me for the first time, hesitant to vote for Rudy if he is the nominee. I still will but all of Rudy's negatives, both political and personal, have shot to the forefront for me, where before, I considered them just part of Rudy being a New Yorker and doing business in NYC.  I see him in a different light now and its casting a bad shadow.  

They've already demonstrated that they're willing to overlook Rudy's liberal stance on abortion, guns, immigration and his other faults both personal and public.  They've overlooked Romney's opportunistic flip-flops and pandering.  Why wouldn't they also be willing to overlook Huckster's fiscal record, immigration stance and nanny statism?

That's because enough people have been running interference for Guiliani that there's enough doubt for people who think only he can win to support him.

I can't see as many people doing the same for Huckabee.

Same for Romney, who also has support in the establishment and conservative press.

Huckabee doesn't, so far as I can tell. He's come out of the background, not many people already set to carry his water.

Huckabee sees no problem using the power of the presidency or the amendment process of the Constitution to create laws that impose a particular viewpoint on the entire country.

Bingo. And I say this as a radical fundamentalist myself (Unitarian Jihad Lives, beeyotches; don't forget it).

Pray with me:

O God, ease our suffering in this, our moment of great dispair. Yea, admit this kind and decent woman into thy arms of thine heavenly area, up there. And Moab, he lay us upon the band of the Canaanites, and yea, though the Hindus speak of karma, I implore you: give her a break.

Baruuuuuuch Ataaaaaaah Aluuuuuuuyah...

What exactly is so wrong with Duncan Hunter that Rudy wouldn't pick him for veep?  He's a much better conservative, both social and fiscal.  Huckabee gives me the creeps.  I won't vote for a ticket he's on.  If I'm gonna have a big government Arkansan, I'll take Hitlery.  At least right-thinking citizens will see through her abuses of power instead of thinking she's just doing the "Christian" thing for people.

That's unfortunately not a joke.

What exactly is so wrong with Duncan Hunter that Rudy wouldn't pick him for veep?

The main factor in choosing a VP is how well they'd improve your election chances.  No matter how good he is on most issues, a VP candidate with 1% support doesn't go very far in improving one's electabilty.

Slub, a very well-reasoned post. It's obvious you have given this some thought, organized those thoughts and laid them out so us morons could understand. Next time, though, link to some titties. 'Kay?

And I didn't realize you were this committed to Christ. I understand now why you wouldn't let us crucify that hobo under the South Street Station. (You were right on that, torching him actually mitigated the stench somewhat.)

Wow, I just read all the other Huckster (great nickname) posts from today.  Awesome stuff guys.

Again, if the Huckster wins Iowa, please, please can we all just agree to ignore the idiots in the cornfield from now on?  WTF does it matter which candidate can carry Iowa?  Since when is Iowa supposed to represent "electability" for the entire nation?

Good post!

Here's my $0.02:  no matter who's president, abortion rights and gay rights are going to tread water or go somewhat more left-y in the next 4-8 years.  However, fiscal and judicial conservatism have quite a good chance.  So, vote for the person who has your views on those, and pray for a miracle otherwise.

Hey!  There's plenty of us in "cornland" who are supporting viable candidates (I'm a Fred! man myself).  It's just that the Huckabee supporters like to hear themselves talk, and are monopolizing the airwaves right now.  Huckabee's a likeable sort, unless you stand in his way politically & get called "un-Christian", and that'll get him some votes in Iowa; however, saner minds will prevail on caucus night.  Huck will finish in the Top 4, but it won't give him enough of a bounce going into the rest of the season to make up for his financial situation. 

Plus, the afternoon drive guy on Iowa's biggest AM talk station (WHO 1040 in Des Moines) has totally been sucking Huckabee's joint since July.  He basically reads Huck's campaign talking points every day on the air, while jabbing at all the other candidates - he's declared that Romney's the biggest whore in the race (other than John Edwards), and he's also said that "Giuliani & Clinton are basically the same person - you'd might as well vote for Hillary & get the "real thing" instead of Hillary Lite".  Now, don't get me wrong, I've got issues with Rudy & Mitt, but I'd hardly consider them to be "worse than voting Democratic".

somebody photoshop this with the Huckster's face.

http://www.rclabaugh.com/images/corn6/franklin.jpg

Fred is too old for VP.

The dude won't live 16 years.

Seriously though, another 8 years, and he will be too old to run anyway.

So glad to see this post and I pray there are lots of evangelicals who feel the same way, because I keep running into the ones who don't seem to give a damn about any issue but abortion.

Can't go with Rudy because of his 2nd amendment stance.

The thing about Rudy is -his personal beliefs aside- when he makes a clear public promise about something he will/won't do, he sticks to his word. At least, that's been his history. If he says he'll appoint strict constitutionists to the bench, he means it. I may have concerns about his immigration stand, but I believe our guns would be safe under Rudy.

PS - Ain't no way Ruy picks Huckabee to run as his veep. No way.

I need to see a response to this from Rudy's people as it is pretty damning to what I thought was Rudy's strong point as indicated by TiredWench. 

Link=

Just remember, we are usually right when we nominate our candidates in the Straw Poll (occurs in the previous year than the election, this summer of this year), and Mitt won it this year.  Huckabee did well in that, but he didn't win.  Much as I see the caucus turning out for him, I don't think he'll win it.

And Russ is very right.  WHO is tooting the horn for the Huckster really loud right now, and you know what they say about the squeaky wheel.  Doesn't mean all of us "idiots in the cornfield" are going to lose our minds when we caucus.  Mitt spent the money here, and that's where my money is getting bet.  Although my support lies with Fred! too.  I just don't see him pulling it off.

Thanks A. Weasel. 

Now I can picture him preaching the message!

Huckabee is a dumb name for a President.

And I'm a Roman Catholic who would take Huckabee over Giuliani (or Romney) any day of the week.  I tithe, go to mass, and am hard at work on building a good, old-fashioned, clan of Irish-American hooligans.

Go figure.

Huckabee is straight up on social issues.  Though I wonder about his tax record, I imagine that much of the hysterics are overblown by people who have invested money in the former frontrunners.  And, I have to say, if you've ever been to Arkansas, one can't help but reflect on Reagan's own defense of the "truly needy."  They do exist, and sometimes states need money to help these people (though, private citizens are the ones who have the moral obligation to feed, clothe, and shelter to help out of their own free will).

So to sum up:

1).  a bunch of us are uncomfortable with the Huckster because he's nannystated and taxed and been on the wrong side of the immigration fence.

2). Rudy has crapped it up with the guns, immigration and abortion.

3).Rommney has been to opportunistic and lawyerly with his answers.

4). Ron Paul is a nut sack.

5). The Fred! is now just Fred and in danger of being fred because he can seem to bring the heat.

6). McCain has a record with a big "McCain/Feingold" and a "We'll build a damn fence" on it.

Did I miss anything, because the way i see it the top two are shaping up to be deal killers and #4 is loonier than a Shit house bat?

I can only assume by your postings oops that you rank the conservatism of the candidates as follows. 

#1 Ron Paul

#2 Huckabee

I see an inversed conventional wisdom ranking trend developing.

  Huckabee's riding a wave right now, but it's too early to say that he's going to finish strong.  Romney's early presence in Iowa tied up a lot of activists who won't want to jump to another candidate because then they'll have to admit they were wrong in the first place.  He's got the whole "I'm a CEO" thing going for him, which is OK, but is the president REALLY equivalent to a business CEO?

  Fred's had a rocky patch, but if he can keep his head up & keep putting out the best position statements on the GOP side, his support will increase.  Right now, the media "he's lazy/waited too long/too old" spin is hurting him somewhat.  He's going to have to kick it into gear to make a run, but I think he'll pick up more support as we get closer to caucus time.

  I admire Huckabee's Christianity, but like Slu, I can't vote for the man.  He's got way too many positions where he's just talking out of his ass. 

The Flat Tax?  Greeeeeeat idea.  We'll have a whole 4 years of tilting at windmills from our executive branch - or worse yet, we'll have a Flat Tax AND the regular progressive taxation we've already got.  Huck's current position on economic issues is to the left of GWB, and everyone knows how THAT'S worked out so far.   

Constitutional amendments regulating abortion?  OK, but does anyone remember the ERA?  If not, go back & re-read the constitution on the amendment process.  Even if President Huck could get it passed, he's still got to count on the States to run with the ball, and there's a finite time available to pass it before it becomes invalid, sort of like the ERA did.  I think Thompson's "federalist" stance makes much more sense here:  Overturn Roe v. Wade & let the fight happen at the state level.  "Red" States will ban or heavily regulate abortion quickly, and conservatives can incrementally work their way through "Blue" states to push the issue on a more friendly level than Washington DC.  Getting the Feds out of the abortion debate is probably the best thing anyone could do to forward the Pro-Life position.  Huck's abortion position is great if you're more interested in religious purity than in making serious inroads on the number of abortions performed in America, and I can see him spending quite a bit of time in the bully pulpit scolding the nation, Jimmah Carter-style, on their wickend unwillingness to follow his lead unquestioningly.

Immigration?  Huck's an open borders guy.  I can see his point from a religious standpoint, but as far as government goes this is one time when I'm glad for the wrong-headed "separation of church & state" doctrine.  If Huck wants to throw open our social welfare system & student aid system to newcomers, I'd have a lot more respect for the man if he'd say "..and when the bill comes due on this issue, send it to MY denomination".  There's a lot that can be done for immigrants, illegal & legal, but I'd rather not have MY federal government in the business of handing out goodies to illegals.

Foreign policy?  I can't tell where Huck's at.  I've heard him say that we should partition Iraq, which is a complete dumbass idea:  If things are going so badly for America right now, how will having our troops enforcing a partition plan work out better?  That just makes us bigger targets for the disaffected.  He's also on record as saying that we should TALK to Iran instead of threatening them with military action if they don't stop enriching uranium.  Hey Governor Huckabee; Neville Chamberlain's on the line, and he wants to know why you're not giving him credit for his peace plan.

Second Amendment issues?  Any candidate who would ban smoking has got to have thoughts in the back of his head about how to "reasonably regulate" gun ownership, and that dog just won't hunt.  I don't mind "reasonable" regulations on gun ownership, but I DO mind when what's "reasonable" is decided by a Nanny-Stater like Huck.

And last, but not least, a Nanny-Stater like Huck will eventually get around to regulating bacon.  BACON!  Well, Sir, I can assure you that you can take away my life, but you can NEVER take away my BACON!

(Seriously, he can't do it.  I can get the bacon myself from my brother-in-law's hoglot.  The rest of you non-farm morons?  Shit out of luck.)

And lastly.......

Gabe, what have you ever read in my writings that makes you think that I give a flying fuck about what "Mr. International Law" thinks of my choice of Presidential Candidates?

Slublog, excellent! I mean it. I haven't even read any of the comments yet, because I wanted to rush down here to the bottom and say you did a wonderful job on the presentation of your position on Governor Huckabee. I concur.

Just wow!

Slu, thanks for the thoughts.  Great post, but one quibble:

I thought the FMA was an attempt to prevent the federal constitution from providing an endrun around all the state constitutions.  Once CaliMass legally redefines marriage, all the other states will be sued at the federal level to recognize the new marriagePlus, and the FMA would attempt to disallow those tactics. 

Am I mistaken about the FMA, or miss a memo that changed the basic idea of the FMA?  If not, I would think the FMA would underline federalism, rather than dilute it.

Won't work, though.  All the SCOTUS has to do is rule the FMA unconstitutional and rule marriagePlus the new law of the land, just as they did with abortion.

I was turned off of Huckabee when I heard he wanted to send everyone to college on the taxpayer's dime.  Conservative?  They keep using that word.  I do not think it means what they think it means.

Thanks, Throbert

My brain shorted out while adding the unconstitutional bit in my comment.  You're right, SCOTUS shouldn't be able to overrule a constitutional amendment. 

But it looks like I'm right about DOMA/FMA not mandating a particular definition of marriage on the country, any more than a repeal of Roe v Wade would force individual states to outlaw abortion.  In effect, it embraces federalism by leaving the matter for state law to decide.

So was that a slip, or am I missing your point, Slu?  Sorry for being a pedantic old fart, but it's not like I'm taking up *my* server space with needless bickering. 

What exactly is so wrong with Duncan Hunter that Rudy wouldn't pick him for veep?

The main factor in choosing a VP is how well they'd improve your election chances.  No matter how good he is on most issues, a VP candidate with 1% support doesn't go very far in improving one's electabilty.

Rudy's picking Hunter for Veep (assuming he is in fact the nominee) would go a long way toward assuring us that he isn't another wretched RINO, especially on the immigration issue. In that sense, Duncan Hunter as Veep goes a LONG way to improving Rudy's electability, 1& notwithstanding.

Rudy the RINO is already "reaching out" to the great undecided. Picking Hunter as a Veep shores up the disaffected base.