Huckabee’s problem with conservatives is that he is another federal interventionist like Harriet Miers, whom President Bush tried and failed to put on the Supreme Court a few years ago.
A strict constructionist view would have issues like abortion dealt with by the states.
Huckabee likes a federal solution to abortion, even a constitutional amendment.
The same for marriage as well.
That puts him in hot water with conservatives just like Miers was in a few years back when the president backed away from her nomination.
Huckabee will not last much longer.
He doesn't have the organization and money to keep going.
Iowa was a fluke, just as it was when it nominated Pat Robinson.
Barring a last minute comeback by Rudy, I think it will come down to Romney and McCain.
So, I think conservatives need to look at that alternative very seriously.
There are problems with Romney, but the alternative is McCain, who holds the idea that he is never wrong!
Once in the office that he has sought all these years, McCain would be implacable, taking council from no one.
We could not even hold him in check with the concern about running for a second term, since at his age and declining health, he will not be able to do so.
I think either man would win the General election, since Romney won an election in Mass.
Probably.
But personally would support a global ban on abortions (including for rape and incest) except when life-threatening, so if the option of ending abortion nationally is available, would readily take that option.
Interestingly, Huckabee championed the true Federalist solution, returning the question to the States as befitting the language of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and he was very public on this for many years, and as recently as a year ago; the position espoused by Thompson.
Questions about this are obfuscated with a statement of his "being consistently pro-life," which may, admittedly be true, but does not explain his change from a one solution to another. He simply refuses to explain this, but I think we can guess his Life Amendment position, his new position, has been taken up as a bromide to folks with little historic perspective on Constitutional history, who default to Washington literally because so few of these folk will be satisfied with progress using a finer tool than a sledgehammer.
There are good reasons for a Marriage Amendment because the wide protections given this institution are likely to be made subject to the reciprocity clause, requiring North Carolina to respect the anti-Marriage laws adopted in Hawai'i.
A Human Life Amendment to the federal Constitution is unnecessary, and, if you'll pardon me, divisive. Such language in the several State constitutions takes work and knowledge of things as who one's state legislator is. Right to Life in every state is fighting on a more than fifty fronts. In each State, Right to Life is fighting over a mind-boggling array of life erosion questions, some of them very complicated, like fetal murder, End of Life issues, etc.
But, this requires leadership and thinking, if not by the sheep than by the Under-Shepherds.