Huckabee 2008, indeed

Here's a compelling op/ed about a viable campaign for Mike Huckabee in this two thousand and eighth year of our Lord (Libs, don't freak out, that's just an expression, not code for "theocracy") . . . challenging incumbent Mark Pryor for the U.S. Senate Seat.(Phil Kerpen on "Mike Huckabee for Senate"). From the article:

"In contrast to the drama unfolding in the Democratic presidential race, the Republican contest has been reduced to one mild amusement: What is Mike Huckabee doing? He has already established himself as a brilliant natural campaigner with a strong base of support within the party. He will be a GOP force in years to come, and just may make another run for the White House. But for 2008 he has been mathematically eliminated, his quip about miracles notwithstanding. So why continue? If he really wants to serve his country and his party, while consolidating support for the long-term and advancing his policy ideas, Mike Huckabee should step out of the presidential contest immediately and put his energy into a run for the United States Senate."

This recommendation resonates with me because, even assuming the GOP failed to pick a nominee in the first round of voting at the Convention, I'm not convinced that Huckabee would be "the Conservative choice" (as Huckabee is asserting) of the GOP's delegates.

Why? I think much of the resistance to Huckabee--from day one, was his Evangelicalness. Simply put, I believe a majority of GOP stalwarts are plenty happy to have Religious Conservatives in the fold, they (the stalwarts) just aren't interested in a Religious Conservative playing Alpha. That's fine, but it really bothers me when the contempt for Huckabee (or similar Religious Conservatives) is cloaked in "fiscal conservative" or "corruption watchdog" smears. Huckabee was no worse on either of these counts than any of the other GOP candidates this cycle . . . he just wasn't. Now whether he would have been the best GOP nominee or not is another question, but his record did not warrant the special targeting of Club for Growth, unless you factor in his so-called "social conservatism."

All that being said, Huckabee isn't likely to be the candidate of choice of a majority of GOP establishment types, so I don't think that he would emerge from a brokered convention as the nominee. There's just too much "history" (from this particular primary) and too much resistance to his Social Conservatism (in general) for Romney delegates or McCain delegates to jump to Huckabee's ship. So, I say why not force the Democrats to at least defend Pryor's seat and at best start down the path to someday becoming the third sitting U.S. Senator to successfully run for the White House?

Also on WisdomIsVindicated.

Dobson endorsement of Huckabee is huge

Although people like Mitt Romney are now arguing that it is time to unite behind John McCain for the GOP nomination, news today (here) that James Dobson has given his personal endorsement to former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee demonstrates that at least some Religious Conservatives plan to contend for the steering wheel of the GOP. This is interesting because it throws down the gauntlet for the many Evangelical Republicans who have yet to cast a ballot. This is huge.

Though Dobson stated earlier in the week that he did not intend to support a McCain candidacy,* endorsing Huckabee is a whole 'nother level of fuel for the "Not McCain" movement. I don't think that people like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham are likely to rally around Huckabee, but I don't think that matters many people who fit into the "Religious Conservative" category. If nothing else, this can perhaps motivate McCain to pay attention to the largest single voting bloc in the GOP. This is huge.










*In a letter released on the Laura Ingraham show, Dobson wrote:

"I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem-cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

"I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

"But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should Sen. McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country." (emphasis added)

This is huge.

What is "Fiscal Conservatism"?

I went to the Mike Huckabee campaign blog Mike Huckabee for President - Blogs - Romney is leaving race... to see what they were saying about Romney's departure, and for some reason, this comment jumped off the page (By the way, the campaign has officially said next to nothing about Romney's decision, but there are tons of comments.):

"Mike Huckabee is a true fiscal conservative."

It occurs to me that "fiscal conservative" means different things to different people.

In our family's finances, being "fiscally responsible" means spending less (or certainly not more than) what is coming in, right? But what about taking on the debt of a car loan or mortgage? Our family's income/revenue is the proper context for knowing how much debt is "safe," right?

I caught some of Dave Ramsey yesterday, and heard him counsel a caller that she and her husband needed to focus on increasing the income side of their ledger instead of just sitting tight and slowly paying off a debt . . . is that "Conservative"?

I perceive that--among the general population, the understanding of "fiscal Conservatism" is rather cloudy. When I use the term I have in mind small government (hence a small-er gov't budget) and low taxes, in sum supply-side economics, but I think others focus more on the balanced aspect of it and don't give much thought to where the money is coming from--as long as they perceive that it comes from someone else. Democrats have capitalized on this confusion in recent decades, seizing on the appearance that Reaganomics--in and of itself, is somehow fiscally irresponsible.

Another element of this issue that bears on the current campaign is that increasing spending on government programs--if existing spending is perceived to be too low, is not anathema to the average voter.

I suspect that Mike Huckabee's fiscal record in Arkansas (and McCain's reputation as attacking pork but not so much buying the supply-side argument) are having a significant impact on how the GOP race has played out. It will be interesting to see how the issue of "fiscal Conservatism" will play out in November.

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.

And then there were two . . . Romney out

Mitt Romney announced in a speak before CPAC2008 that he is dropping out of the race for the GOP nomination. ("The Page "- by Mark Halperin - TIME). Here is the key passage from his CPAC speech this a.m.:

"Even though we face an uphill fight, I know that many in this room are fully behind my campaign.” You are with me all the way to the convention. Fight on, just like Ronald Reagan did in 1976. But there is an important difference from 1976: today… we are a nation at war.

And Barack and Hillary have made their intentions clear regarding Iraq and the war on terror. They would retreat and declare defeat. And the consequence of that would be devastating. It would mean attacks on America, launched from safe havens that make Afghanistan under the Taliban look like child’s play. About this, I have no doubt.

I disagree with Senator McCain on a number of issues, as you know. But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq, on finding and executing Osama bin Laden, and on eliminating Al Qaeda and terror. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose. My family, my friends and our supporters… many of you right here in this room… have given a great deal to get me where I have a shot at becoming President. If this were only about me, I would go on. But I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, I feel I must now stand aside, for our party and for our country."

It's a great speech, by the way.

Also at wisdomisvindicated.

I'm endorsing Mitt Romney

I know this post will come as a shock to many of you visiting the blog. Hopefully no readers will take offense, but regardless, I hope you'll better appreciate the complexity of choosing a candidate in the primary process.

Things are happening fast and furious in the political world. John Edwards drops his official bid for President and begins his official bid for vice president.

And on the GOP side . . .:

"John McCain’s wave of political momentum is building as he comes off a major win in the winner-take-all Florida presidential primary and prepares to receive the endorsement Wednesday of one-time Republican national frontrunner Rudy Giuliani."

At least for me, the decision to back a candidate is generally very complex. Character. Political positions. Track Record. And finally, "electability."

The GOP primary in Tennessee is in less than a week. The GOP race has (likely) narrowed to McCain, Romney and Huckabee (oh, and Ron Paul). And despite much research/consideration, I have long been unsure about whom I would be supporting for the GOP nomination. But the deciding factor for me was the extended conversation I had today with a former Arkansas state legislator who worked closely with former Governor Mike Huckabee while they both were in office. In sum, all the negative things I've heard about Huckabee's views on spending reminded me too much of former Tennessee Governor Don Sundquist. And all the negative (regarding fiscal policy) things I've heard from Huckabee's detractors were accurate. That being said, I still disagree with the focus by Huckabee detractors on Huckabee (to the exclusion of other candidates). But that leads me to my last point: electability.

In light of recent GOP political developments, I do not believe that Mike Huckabee is going to become the Republicans' nominee for President. With or without my support . . . with or without my vote. And among the two Republicans likely to be in the running at the end of the day, I unreservedly believe that Mitt Romney is the better candidate.

Now where can I get a yard sign . . .

Duncan Hunter endorses Huckabee

Huckabee has passed a significant milestone in his campaign for presidency: he has gained the endorsement of a former rival for the GOP nomination:

"Mike Huckabee got a welcomed endorsement today from one of his former rivals for the GOP nod to the White House. Rep.Duncan Hunter (R-CA) endorsed Huckabee, citing his”outstanding character and integrity.”"

I think this is significant on a number of fronts, but particularly in Huckabee's case, it counters the perception pushed by some in the GOP that his is an "outlier" candidacy.

And I think Hunter's statement is significant in that it focuses on Huckabee's character. I think a candidate's dependability and forthrightness are even more important in a campaign where issues (and past records) aren't providing an obvious standard bearer for the Party.

Cross-posted at Wisdomisvindicated.

Who's hurting the Reagan Coalition?

This story from Orlando (Mike Huckabee for President - Newsroom) is an example of Mike Huckabee's seemingly unique abilities (efforts?) to appeal to what used to be called "Reagan Democrats." For the first time in its 119-year history, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers is "endorsing" a Republican primary candidate.

I'm not sure whether it is because Huckabee, alone among the GOP candidates, is willing to speak to such audiences (ref. NH chapter of the National Education Association); or whether it is his message, but it does resonate with me that the Conservative (or modern-day Republican) message would be appealing to such audiences if they heard it from the right messenger or were just willing to listen to the messenger. It makes me wonder if a lot of our failure to appeal to traditional Democratic audiences is simply because we don't try.

This is an issue of rhetoric, I'd say, and I've long perceived that much of the criticism of Huckabee is related to the fact that he articulates his policy views in a way that is inoffensive to "non-Republicans."

Cross-posted at Wisdomisvindicated.

Theocrat my ear

I was a bit out of pocket at the end of last week, so I didn't get the opportunity to respond to the religion-baiting based on Mike Huckabee's "easier to amend the constitution" statement from last week.

Take a deep breath, Libs. You, too, squishies. Huckabee's comment (which is either intentionally or ignorantly quoted without context) was in reference to claims by some Republicans that attempting to pass a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not possible, or not wise (or whatever). Frankly, I think that various Republicans have discovered "Federalism" as a Stephen Douglas-like middle ground on issues like abortion and homosexual marriage. "I'm not for slavery, I'm just for Federalism." Okay, whatever. But back to Huckabee.

Huckabee thinks that humans in the womb are deserving of protection. This conclusion is based on the sacredness of innocent human life as nobly advanced in the Bible (aka "the living Word of God"). Of course, there are compelling non-Biblical, scientific, secularly philosophical bases for protecting innocent human life prior to birth (bases for which "Pro-Choicers" likewise have no compelling answer). Were Jim Crow laws consistent with the Bible? How about the laws upheld in the Dred Scott decision?

In the context of questioning whether Christians should ignore fundamental values (like, say, the ones that motivated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to demand social change) because they happen to be rooted in the Christian faith or because they may require some hard work . . . the answer's kind of obvious, isn't it?

Also at wisdomisvindicated.

Why not McCain?

George Will opines about John McCain and provides some perspective for the "wide open" Republican primary race ("Waiting for Straight Talk"). I'm not sure that he can be accused of not "talking straight" for espousing his all-over-the-map political views (historically and even in the present). I think he's just being himself--a career politician with a seemingly undisciplined mind, respected by almost all Americans for his pre-political biography and beloved of the MSM for his propensity to make mischief in the opposing political party.

Kicking the snot out of that strawman

Writer Jeffrey Lord has a rambling, bullying op/ed at The American Spectator On-line about some Mike Huckabee statements in reference to American corporate greed as reflected in CEO salaries. I say "bullying" (and "rambling") because Lord spends way too much of the piece beating up on a strawman . . . perhaps he's actually building the strawman for most of that copy--I don't know.

But the important thing to remember is that such rhetoric is usually called forth in service to some other purpose, and it isn't "Conservatism" with a capital "C" or "the movement" (unless you're referring to a particular candidate). I will say up front that populist rhetoric from a candidate raises a red flag with me. That's probably because Democrats have long used those words or themes to demonize the affluent, foster class envy and argue for redistributing wealth (read: trusting gov't to determine what is a fair distribution of material things). Jeffrey Lord hammers that point and loosely connects it with allowing gov't to determine whether human life in the womb should be protected). From the beginning of his article:

"CEO pay and abortion.

On the surface, there would appear to be no connection. But that appearance would be wrong.

One of the more startling aspects of this GOP primary season is to hear a serious Republican candidate like Arkansas ex-Governor Mike Huckabee make an issue of executive pay in the private sector. Huckabee is not thrilled at the salaries paid various CEO's (not, I should say, this one!) by the freely elected boards of directors of free market companies. He leaves hanging the populist implication: let the government decide who gets paid how much compensation."

But as I've observed this campaign and thought about the 2006 campaign and witnessed how the Left (and its willing accomplice--the MSM) has much of the populace effectively sensitized to inequities in our system and in our economy. That's fine; nothing new there, but the problem comes when we (Conservatives or Republicans) categorically dismiss concerns about inequities in economic outcomes while ignoring inequities in economic policy. So-called "corporate welfare" and government bailouts and corporate lobbying scandals reflect that government is very involved in how corporations are run and how much profit corporations "make" and so on and so on. Something can be wrong or immoral and still legal. And law or government policy is a mishmash of such distinctions.

Mike Huckabee isn't proposing--as Jeffrey Lord and other interested parties have implied, that government regulate the salaries of CEOs. But what Huckabee is saying sure resonates with almost all those Americans who are not able to have their cake and eat it, too when it comes to advocating for a market free of government interference.

Also at WisdomisVindicated.

Paul Supporters Target Fox News . . . and Republicans

This article about how Ronbots were mobilizing against FoxNews caught my eye a week or so ago. Ron Paul's supporters are indeed impressive--for their idealism if not for their ingeniousness. That being said, unfortunately (for Paul's supporters), their candidate's message is not resonating with voters--despite respectable fundraising . . . despite tireless politicking by supporters. Because I have long felt that paring down the number of candidates in debates is essential to have meaningful debates, it is completely appropriate to begin weeding out un-credible candidates.

But I thought this comment about why Ron Paul deserved to be included in any GOP debate was hilarious. Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Paul Supporters Target Fox News:

"An accomodation should be made for Ron Paul. His supporters are highly educated (but not necessarily via the formal route of college), have studied his voting history, have read his policy proposals, and have judged his ethical standard to be acceptable. Though polls indicate that Paul ranks in the high single digits, the quality of Paul’s supporters is extremely high.
.
By contrast, most supporters of the other candidates ignore the voting records of the candidates, ignore their policy proposals, and shockingly ignore their ethical standards. What counts for these supporters is gotcha’s, imagery, and glitz. Just look at all the dumb image posturing before the start of the Iowa caucuses. That posturing occurs because the candidates know that the typical American (who enthusiastically supported sending a too small military force of 170,000 soldiers to Iraq) is an ignorant fool who is easily swayed by some sound bites."

Attaboy . . . that's how you attract support. And there's even more to this comment. Is it any wonder that most Conservatives aren't interested in Paul? That sounds like a comment from a Liberal, pseudo-intellectual if there ever was one.

Also at WisdomisVindicated.

Club for Loathing

This video clip kind of reflects the suspect obsession of Club for Growth's Pat Toomey with Mike Huckabee--even the host (Chris Matthews) seems to point it out.

It's one thing to pick between two candidates in a primary so as to advance a group's particular issue (actually, CfG is one of the few special interests who is willing to do this--to their credit) but targeting a single candidate in a crowded field of candidates with inarguably mixed records on economic policy is, frankly, suspicious.



Also, at WisdomisVindicated.

Picking a candidate

Party politics are fascinating to me. Why? Because of the organic/complex process by which people pick a candidate. You could call it "messy."

And the process for special interest groups is almost as messy. I've commented extensively on the Club for Growth and its extraordinary opposition to a single candidate--Huckabee, early in the GOP primaries.

And today I've gotten several emails noting Fred Thompson's endorsement by pro-life organizations in Wyoming and New Hampshire. This follows the November endorsement of Thompson by the National Right to Life Committee.

In November, the largest factor in the process was Giuliani's perceived front-runner status, and the importance of folks-for-whom-Giuliani-was-not-acceptable (for policy or other reasons) coalescing behind another candidate so as to deny Giuliani the nomination. For Social Conservatives (wary of Romney's reliability and averse to McCain) Thompson seemed like the best bet at the time, and the NRLC even said at the time that he was the most electable candidate. And "single issue" organizations are rarely "single issue" inasmuch as they have to consider the issue of whether a candidate could ever be in a position to influence policy.

Well, today the landscape is different. Huckabee, once viewed by Social Conservatives as a hopeless underdog, is well-positioned to get the nomination, and his record is plainly, demonstrably more "Pro-life" than that of any of the other credible candidates. There is more information available about him and his record at this juncture, but the same can be said of all the candidates (and I'd submit that the information is not as cut and dried as many pretend).

So, "single-issue" Social Conservative organizations, by choosing someone these groups either (a) are more interested in other issues on which Huckabee is purportedly "weak": immigration and spending or (b) are concerned that Huckabee cannot win in a general election or (c) view Huckabee as too independent of them (read: less dependent on their endorsement). Or it could be a combination of these factors . . . see how complicated this is?

I'd say that emphasizes the respect and charitableness with which we should treat others' good-faith conclusions in a primary race.

Also at WisdomisVindicated.

Say what you mean . . . and don't be mean

Byron York reports ("Byron York on Iowa Caucus" on National Review Online) about the Iowa campaigns of Huckabee and Romney and hints at what is perhaps the key to Huckabee's success:

"[Romney Spokesman Eric] Fehrnstrom, like the rest of Romney’s team, was unfailingly professional. But his analysis pointed to a blind spot in the Romney campaign, a blind spot most likely shared by the candidate himself. For all his money, and all his energy, and all his organizational skills, Romney could not put to rest the doubts many Iowa Republicans felt about his genuineness, or lack of genuineness. As they paid more attention to politics in the days leading up to the caucuses, some of those voters came to believe that Huckabee had more of that indefinable something that they want in a candidate. In the end, the race wasn’t about infrastructure at all — something Romney never figured out but Huckabee knew all along."

I think that Huckabee's appeal actually hinges on his seemingly un-Conservative message and--here's the point, his willingness to stand by those sentiments. His famous line, "I'm Conservative, I'm just not angry about it," encapsulates this quality well.

Now I'm not convinced that his governing philosophy is as un-Conservative as his "soft" rhetoric sounds, but I think that people are attracted to someone who believes what he believes and seems willing to stand by those beliefs, even when it seems in his interest not to.

Also at WisdomisVindicated.

The Club for Growth: slouching towards irrelevance

I have long supported the mission of Club for Growth, but I have been concerned by their--in my perception, exceptional attacks against Mike Huckabee in the GOP primary.

Courtesy of Blue Collar Muse at Tennessee ConserVOLiance is an interesting discussion of the subject ("The Club for Growth: slouching towards irrelevance"):

"Over the next few days, we will hear a great deal about the meaning of the Iowa Caucuses, as pundits and bloggers will sift through the demographic data to interpret trends, and voter preferences. There were two obvious winners. There were several losers.

The Big Loser tonight in Iowa: The Club for Growth.

I’ve written quite a bit about The Club for Growth’s ongoing jihad against Mike Huckabee.

With each salvo launched by Pat Toomey and the Club for Growth, the Huck has seemed to gain additional momentum. Each time a new “White Paper” has been released (there have been three so far) the level of skepticism towards CfG has grown. Among a large portion of the conservative coalition, the Club for Growth is no longer viewed as an honest broker. After spending upwards of $700,000 in attack advertising with the stated aim of derailing Huckabee, and future buys pending in Carolina, Huckabee went from low single digits in the polls to this solid victory in the opening act of the 08 election.

Toomey will, no doubt, claim that the message just isn’t getting out, and will order his troops to increase the volume, exaggerations, demonizations, polarizations, and continue the promotion of small-tent conservatism that continues to drive the Club towards irrelevance."

Perils of political procrastination

I've always struggled with procrastination. So even though I am very interested in politics, and even though I KEEP UP (much to my wife's chagrin) with politics, I still feel like I'm cramming for the GOP primary; scrambling to pick a candidate.

In any event, I'm taking a second look (not in the usual way) at Huckabee. I always bristled (here, for example) at the term "Compassionate Conservatism" particularly inasmuch as it was crafted (and claimed) by a purported Conservative. It implies that "compassion" is anomalous with "conservative." And I may be concluding that it will be hard to support Huckabee for president. I know that sounds squishy or waffly, but I am just keeping it real. This may be an example of the dog who caught the car . . . Huckabee's ascendance was always a long shot, and I wanted to make sure that the GOP candidate wasn't selected for me by the "GOP establishment" or the MSM, so I have long considered supporting him. Unfortunately, I now have some misgivings which are the result of all the disclosures and discoveries that come out over the course of a campaign.

It's Huckabee's premises that concern me. I concede that we as individuals are more interdependent than ever in the history of America, and that our interdependence blurs lines between accountability and how my life affects others. But I don't think that it has to be that way, and it is a wrong direction to go in arguing that "healthcare costs" will be less if I let the government/state encourage/underwrite others' efforts to lose weight, for example.

Take this recent Time op/ed:

When the Republicans met in Dearborn, Mich., to debate the economy, most of the candidates maintained that times were good and that people who thought otherwise just hadn't seen the statistics.

Huckabee had a different message: "For many people on this stage, the economy's doing terrifically well, but for a lot of Americans, it's not doing so well." He talked about people who have trouble paying their rent or getting health insurance or paying for college. Huckabee does not always have convincing answers to these problems, but at least he recognizes them.

On environmental issues, too, he has broken from the pack. Only John McCain and he have urged the Federal Government to combat global warming. "I'm one of the few Republicans who talk very clearly about the environment, health care, infrastructure, energy independence. I don't cede any of those to the Democrats," he says.

In addition, while acknowledging the importance of magnanimity and Huckabee's appeal to moderates (largely due to his "presentation"), I think Huckabee--like Dubya, may be too inclined to compromise.

Believe it or not, Huckabee's alleged siding with Liberals in the struggle within the SBC is a significant issue for me. His seeming pragmatism in rolling-over for or compromising with Democrats in Arkansas in regard to any and every taxing/spending issue. The potential–as evidenced by his SCHIP debate comment (seeming to say he would not have vetoed the Dems’ bill), to act the same way if he were to get into the White House concerns me.

From a John Fund article about Huckabee.

Rick Scarborough, a pastor who heads Vision America, attended seminary with Mr. Huckabee and is a strong backer. But, he acknowledges, "Mike has always sought the validation of elites." When conservatives took over the Southern Baptist Convention after a bitter fight in the 1980s, Mr. Huckabee sided with the ruling moderates. Paul Pressler, a former Texas judge who led the conservative Southern Baptist revolt, told me, "I know of no conservative he appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention."

To be clear, I have never "endorsed" Mike Huckabee, though I admittedly have been eager for him to get a fair listen and for his articulation of social conservative principles to be heard. I started blogs for him and Sam Brownback at the same time (and reserved blog names for a handful of other potential acceptable-to-socially-conservatives candidates at the same time). I have attempted to give fair consideration and critiques to all the GOP candidates (except for Ron Paul and some other Grandstandidates ©) It may seem odd to say that but I have long worried that accelerated primary schedules coupled with the dominance of "the Media" in shaping perceptions (and a desire so to shape, frankly) can result in voters making hasty and perhaps ill-advised decisions about whom to support for President. I am just thankful that I'm not going to have to vote tonight on who I want to represent the GOP in '08.

I'm leaning Thompson (you can do a search of a particular candidate's name to get a feel of my feelings about him/her).

I like his demeanor/temperament, his communication skills, his charisma and his rather consistent conservative record. I think that the MSM (and any Republican already committed to another candidate) have a stake in hyping the perception that Thompson is lazy or disinterested or arrogant. This Newsweek article from September provides both sides of this argument, I think.

But as soon as I'm close to picking Thompson, I get an email notification of some lame google hit piece (here) from the Thompson campaign. Face it, people . . . there is plenty of legitimate stuff with which to hammer Huckabee . . . and that stuff resonates with me. The other stuff just irritates me and reflects poorly on your boy. And news like today's report that Thompson would back McCain if he dropped out concerns me . . . I'm not a McCain fan.

As I wrote to David Oatney earlier today, I--like most people, have a number of variables that I'm considering before making my choice, and despite what supporters of various candidates say, there's not a no-brainer choice.

Cross-posted at WisdomisVindicated.