I think he has problems with all 3 wings. His attitude about Mormons and the implied threat that a vote for Mitt Romney would put his Evangelical supporter's souls at risk was just scum. His religious bigotry is so blatant, it sickens me. Ronald Reagan would never ever have countenanced such an insult against a large and very supportive group of voters. It may have played in Iowa, but it sure isn't playing out here in So. Calif. or with anyone else I know either.

Indeed in the aftermath of the Iowa Caucas, there are lessons to be learned; and Republican voters must heed them, and soon coalesce around their most formidable candidate. What are these lessons, and who is this candidate?

See the link below for the complete assessment:

http://sheetanchor.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/a-house-divided-will-not-stand/

You are absolutely correct. Huckabee is terrible for the republicans, he is just a weak individual all around and for some reason everytime he starts on his rants it reminds me of a "republican" John Kerry. I am very much pro-life but unfortunately roe v wade will never be overturned and republicans have got to look past that issue-- especially with regards to Rudy. The bottom line --Rudy is the most electable candidate-- and I feel that a lot of independents and even the democrats who have not gone off the deep end will vote for him. I will take a person who may not be as socially conservative as some others over the guy who is going to tax us left and right and who won't make the tought decisions Bush has made to keep us safe for all these years. The bottom line is Bush is a president who will be viewed with the likes of Ronald Reagan in time. I have never admired a public figure like I do President Bush. God was looking our for the sake of our country in 2000 and I thank him everyday! The other question you may want to ask yourself-- Who is the candidate the terrorists want to meet the least

To answer your question - No.
Gov. Huckabee's populist appeal does not as some would suggest make him a liberal, it means he is effective at communicating conservative ideals. As Governor, Mike was fiscally conservative as well as responsible and left Arkansas in better shape than when he started. As President, Mike Huckabee supports the FairTax Bill, and has signed the no tax increase pledge.
For the Defense Hawks I would refer you to Mike Huckabee at CSIS Candidate Forum - http://youtube.com/watch?v=bzb02nDQFKk
or Mike's essay - America's Priorities in the War on Terror -
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/special/campaign2008
Mike clearly understands foreign policy issues.

An honest look at the Iowa polls on caucus night reveal Mike didn't even carry a majority of evangelicals but they mirrored Iowans in general.

* Won 46% of Evangelicals

* Won the female vote with 40 percent
* Won across all age groups, but did disproportionately well among younger people
* Won voters who decided on caucus day
* Won voters most concerned with illegal immigration, the economy and the war in Iraq
* Won conservative and somewhat conservative voters
* Won voters who strongly or somewhat support the Bush administration
* Won middle class and lower income voters
* Won all three regions of Iowa --East, West, Central -- in the poll

As a Canadian,we see Huckabee as a breath of fresh air. We are standing with you in Afganistan, and will remain with you. However it is time for a different approach when dealing with other countries. Your image has been hurt on the world stage. It is time for your leadership in the USA too stand strong, but to once agian, demonstrate empathy and compassion, once again. I believe Mr.Mike Huckabee is the by far the best candidate to regain your respect and recognition world wide.

Enough about Huck, lets talk about Mitt. here's something I wrote, what dou think?

I realize now that I’ve been wrong about Mitt Romney all along. I have been mystified by the ability of Republicans to support George W. Bush when they know he is lying to them, but that somehow Republicans did not extend Mitt the same support given his repeated problems with the truth. But now I think I understand it.

George Bush is a straight ahead liar, he can lie repeatedly with a straight face to his adoring Republican adherents, people know he’s lying, but since they like him they are OK with it. They believe (like most sentient beings on the planet) that Bush is an amiable dunce, but they just plain like the guy so they’ll accept what he says, even if they know that he’s not being truthful with them.

Mitt, on the other hand, is not a straight ahead liar; at least he’s not perceived in that way. He is viewed (by most sentient beings on the planet) as a panderer, one who will change any position, wiggle out of any past opinion, slither away from any previous statement, all with a pasted-on smile. Bush’s lying is straightforward, bold, readily apparent, free from nuance. Mitt is all about nuance; it’s actually entertaining to watch him try and explain his past support of gays, of abortion, seeing his father march with MLK. His slick rationalizations, professionally packaged, rehearsed and delivered with a faux-conviction that makes his new position seem somehow heroic, its marketing genius. Except that people aren’t buying it. Clearly they will accept lying from people they like, but they can’t accept pandering insincerity from somebody they don’t like.

Of course Mitt is well-schooled in the insincerity business. He’s the guy who told you (and expected you to believe it) that when Bain Capital bought your company and you were one of the 25% of employees to be laid off, this was actually a good thing for you. He was the person who, when Bain bought the factory where you worked and shut it down to move the operation to China, that this was progress. He was the guy who, when he bought the business where you worked and cut your benefits, told you that it was for you and for good of the company.

What Mitt knew then, and knows still today, is that those things actually were good. But they weren’t good for you, your co-workers, your friends, they were good for him, and the small group of managers who would buy a company, gut it, break it up and re-sell it at an enormous profit. Mitt and his partners were left with millions. You were left without a job, and with Mitt’s voice ringing in your ears telling you how great the whole thing was. The thing is, Mitt wasn’t exactly lying to them, he was simply, painfully, obviously, insincere. Bottom line: people will accept lying from a known liar as long as they like him. People will not accept insincerity from one well known for it, even if they do like him. Of course, with Mitt, they don’t seem to like him, either.

It’s clear that, with Mitt and his handlers, the belief is that it’s all about marketing. If they package the product in a certain way hopefully enough people will look past their misgivings about the brilliant panderer and vote for him anyway. But over the long haul, people will inevitably see through the packaging and get an unadulterated view of the product, and when they see the real Mitt they don’t like what they see. Would that all Americans are able to get a similar, unvarnished view of the man. If they do, then the Mittanic, which has struck dual icebergs in Iowa and New Hampshire, will slip quietly beneath the surface of the political landscape in our beloved country. Here’s hoping!

Have a nice day,

Phil

I think there needs to be a republican with a strong business sense in the White House next. It will be important in the coming decade. I actually talk a lot of politics and business at http://republican.konnects.com Mitt was not the answer and McCain and Huckabee do not have the business sense necessary. Maybe in 4 years we will have a better choice.

In any case, Huckabee is the best man, but for w h a t e v e r reason, the best man doesn't always win.