Good analysis, and I would agree.
Let me make another point as well. I know that you and I have had disagreements in the past regarding some issues, but I think we have converged on this point.
Some would say that Huckabee, being (arguably) the most Christian and (arguably) most socially conservative he’s the best choice. I disagree. I believe this is the most blessed nation in the world, for a reason. If we let it become a socialist hellhole, it will no longer be that. If God has indeed blessed this nation, He wants us to protect it, right?
I think our disagreements have been about tactics, not about long-term goals.
I’d vote for Mr. Huckabee if he were the nominee, but not happily.
However, he has come considerably back to the right to run for president. He signed the tax pledge, and I’ll take him at his word that he won’t raise taxes or make new taxes. That, by itself, significantly limits the capacity of the federal government to become increasingly socialist.
He’s also tacked right on immigration.
I think there’s some chance that he might govern as a moderate conservative. And on the issue of life, he’d be very good, perhaps the best of any of these candidates.
But I still prefer Mr. Thompson because I think all around, he’s more conservative, and his conservatism is more deeply-rooted in a coherent form of conservative philosophy, thoroughly bound to the form of federalism.
Mr. Thompson’s far from perfect, too, but he’ll more than do.
sitetest
And, given some of his positions on taxes and some of the tax cuts and reform he pushed through in Arkansas, it's ridiculous to call him a socialist.
His position on illegals and global warming are his successful efforts to get rapist Wayne DuMond released from prison are indefensible are disturbing.
“Some would say that Huckabee, being (arguably) the most Christian and (arguably) most socially conservative he’s the best choice. I disagree.”
“I believe this is the most blessed nation in the world, for a reason. If we let it become a socialist hellhole, it will no longer be that. If God has indeed blessed this nation, He wants us to protect it, right?”
You are right. Liberalism is bad enough, but it is obnoxious and near-blasphemy to wrap up your political program with a “God wants this” mantle. Huckabee has done that. Very wrong.
Also - It is quite odious of Huckabee to even bring up the Christian “God is behind our rise in the polls” stuff.
Huckabee has some good attributes, but his policies and positions and record is anything but conservative. It should be rejected.
“
Unfortunately, what Huckabee offers by way of solutions is a mixture of populism and big-government liberalism; the common theme of his policies is that they are half-baked. If an ill-considered slogan can be used to justify a policy, he is for it. He is a protectionist, because we need to have “fair trade.” He wants to put illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, because we need them “to do jobs that are going unfilled because nobody here wants to do them.” Energy subsidies and farm subsidies must be increased, because they’re a matter of “national security.”
When he was governor of Arkansas, these instincts led Huckabee to move farther and farther in a statist direction. (Education policy offers a nice example of what happens when his statism and his social conservatism conflict: He opposes meaningful school choice.) The Cato Institute gave him a D on fiscal policy, noting that spending had increased at three times the rate of inflation during his governorship. Not surprisingly, Huckabee is the one Republican candidate who flinched when President Bush vetoed the Democrats’ proposed expansion of S-CHIP. He says he is against socialized medicine, but don’t look for him to resist the drift toward it.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmI2ZWZmYTEyMTZhMGI3NTM2ZDRhZTNiMzk2YzU5ZDQ=