[TallyW]

As pointed out in the debate tonight Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants so I suppose he wasn't a "true" conservative. He also built up a standing military which reflected a budget of 6% GDP so Ron Paul wouldn't like him. So I suppose you'd have to define what "true" means in your view.

In all honesty Fred Thompson seems to hold the line relatively well in comparison to the field. The aforementioned Duncan Hunter is seems to be the most "conservative" but he is doing so poorly that ABC News didn't allow him to be on the stage tonight.

These things move back and forth. The terms Liberal and Conservative are benchmarks but they are attached to a sliding scale. The message on both sides of the aisle that is obviously resonating is one of middle-ground and common sense optimism. Even Ron Paul (IMHO) is showing respectable numbers because of his mix of views (anti-war, pro-protectionism). In a unique way he is actually coming across as a centrist.

I suppose you'd have to decide which issues you most care about and go from there... you won't find anyone in the current field who fits a stereotypical view of a conservative.

Huckabee (to me) presents the most realistic conservative message. You can't get more conservative on tax-cuts than a guy who wants to destroy the IRS. His illegal immigration plan is the most thought out and spelled-out of anyone on either side. He is pro-life, pro-gun, he's a federalist (states rights), he's got a "speak nicely but carry a big stick" approach to the military, etc. For me he IS the conservative in the race with a brain and the ability to communicate. It's not about electability with me... I was supporting him when he wasn't supposed to win.

[Baldspot]

As for the charges leveled against Huckabee on this thread... they are tired and old. Every one of them have a rebuttal but some people aren't honestly looking at the race at this point, they're looking to fight off the other guy.

The idea that Huckabee would have a hard time in PA because Bush lost two races close seems very odd to me. On one hand the very far right is saying that he's too centrist... if that's the case we can't say that he'll lose where Bush won running as the "compassionate conservative". If anything he'll win over some of the independents out there.

To me he makes the most sense and he's not screaming at everyone. Is he "perfect"? No... I've never seen a perfect human apart from Christ. Is he electable? Absolutely.

Tally, why do you think my assertion odd? I pointed out that Bush lost twice in PA, and more recently Rick Santorum, to show it will be difficult for any conservative Republican to win in PA. For those interested, Bush's PA lost had everything to do with the migration of Blue Blood Republicans into five suburban Phila counties that used to be conservative. The change in demographics in my state is not "odd" just the facts. Bush and Santorum understood the changes and worked hard to overcome them but they still lost. Huckabee faces the same uphill battle in the increasingly blue state of PA.

Also, how about instead of knocking everyone on this board, as well as Rush Limbaugh, who has genuine concerns about Huckabee, actually give substantive rebuttals instead of just mentioning they exist and then demean those that ask the questions. I would really like to root for the guy but his economic and foreign policies for instance are really troubling. For instance, on Friday I listened to Huckabee on Hanity's program explain why he thought Arkansas tax $ should be spent to pay for illegal immigrants to attend colleges in his states.

[TallyW]

Tally, why do you think my assertion odd and who exactly is saying Huckabee's social positions are too centrist?

I believe I answered why its odd. On one hand conservatives say he's not conservative enough... Who is saying it? A lot of people who don't want to vote for him including but not limited to Ann and Rush. People on this board have mentioned Jimmy Carter as a case study. I'm not making up an accusation, I'm addressing one. Those who aren't in Huckabee's corner have asserted that he doesn't hold positions which are conservative enough (a charge not leveled at Bush from the right wing). A race is much larger than social positions. Elections aren't based on only one aspect. And by 'social' you refer to marriage and abortion. This election will not be based on those issues. The issue of judges has rarely come up in the last 4 months. The "conservative" base is wider than two issues. He's accused of being pro-tax, pro-illegal immigration and pro-big government. These are centrist-to-left views.

I pointed out that Bush lost twice in PA to show it will be difficult for any conservative Republican to win in PA. For those interested, Bush's PA lost had everything to do with the migration of Blue Blood Republicans into five suburban Phila counties that used to be conservative. That phenomenon still exists and makes Huckabee's cultural conservatism a tough sell to win the state.

I know you pointed out that Bush lost twice in PA to show it will be difficult for any "conservative Republican" to win in PA. I read that. My point is that we can't handicap it that way considering the right doesn't call him "conservative enough". My point is that he will not run like George W to the voters there. All of the attacks from the far right help his cause to win in places like PA. When the PA voters look at him they won't see a guy that the far right is falling over. They will see a guy who when it made the most sense for his poverty stricken state... got some money to pay for roads and education. That's the common sense side of him that the far right doesn't like. That will in fact sell. While people have an ideology... they want a leader who will help the people, not work to just help themselves. So my contention is that we can't have it both ways...calling him a centrist and then say he wont win because he's "conservative" in the mold of past losers of PA.

The first time Bush ran he was running against Gore who just had 8 years in the spotlight. The second time he ran he was in the middle of a war that Democrats weren't pleased with. Those are different positions from which Huckabee is having to run.

Also, how about instead of knocking everyone on this board, as well as Rush Limbaugh, who has genuine concerns about Huckabee, actually give substantive rebuttals instead of just mentioning they exist and then demean those that ask the questions.

I wasn't aware I was "knocking everyone on this board". Rush Limbaugh is a very public and vocal opinion maker. He's fair game. Besides I pointed out my substantive rebuttals. Huckabee's record is getting distored on this thread every time this discussion is brought up. The far right "kingmakers" are ticked off that they don't have a horse in this race and they are pouting. It's plain to see. Even the far right evangelical community can't get its act together. Dobson is still scratching his head and nearly everyone else is splintered among the rest of the field.

Lighten up. I'm not bashing other people... just pointing out why Huckabee is the guy I support and why others have reason not to want him in. Feel free to dispute whatever I've said.

[Baldspot]

As for the charges leveled against Huckabee on this thread... they are tired and old. Every one of them have a rebuttal but some people aren't honestly looking at the race at this point, they're looking to fight off the other guy.

The idea that Huckabee would have a hard time in PA because Bush lost two races close seems very odd to me.

I guess I was asking why choose the word "odd" as a response to another person's analysis of what Huck faces in one state which the poster (me) is very familiar. Then ask that person (me) to "lighten up" when I pointed out that your questioning the "honesty" of posters and describing their views as "tired and old" may be a little over the top.

In the same post you indicated there are simple answers to questions being raised but then failed to elaborate which prompted my inquiry. My apologies if this is old news but I just listened to Huck's interview on Hannity's program three days ago where the following was discussed:

--Huck believed Arkansas tax $ should be used to pay for illegal immigrants college tuition.
--He discussed needed infrastucture in his home state to increase commercial activity and as governor felt the only way to pay for the
expenses was to raise taxes. Raising taxes spurs economic growth??
--Huck's Willie Horton moment where he publicly supported the release of a convicted rapist, despite the victim's personal plea,
who went out and committed murder. Huck's letter of support was read on the air and it didn't sound good (the girl was a cheerleader,
can you envision the commercial she will make during the general election?)I heard Huck say in another
interview he supported releasing inmates in some instances because he thought God had forgiven the criminals.
--His previously held position that Aids victims should be quantined. (This may have come up on another interview I heard recently
but his views appear to have been held after we knew how the disease was spread).

I certainly will not disparage anyone who disagrees with me when I state I currently think Huck will have a difficult sell in PA. I also feel that way about most of the Republicans except Guiliani which saddens me. Let's hope Huck can come up with some better answers to the soft ball questions he got from Hannity.

[JDUB]

As a North Carolina resident, I beg you not to vote for John Edwards.

i second that. there are a lot of reasons, but just don't vote for him.

[TDDance234]

As a North Carolina resident, I beg you not to vote for John Edwards.

i second that. there are a lot of reasons, but just don't vote for him.

It's a telling tale when your own state doesn't even vote for you. He got slaughtered in NC in 2004, if I remember correctly.