I think his comments were basically in reference to Thompson because the whole "liberal" label was untrue, but effective. Thompson mananged to destroy Huckabee by taking away the precious few very conservative votes available. As I mentioned earlier, Huckabee was the national leader among "conservative" and "very conservative" Republicans despite the assertions of a lot of conservative "experts" in the media. Well, they did it... Fred managed to eke out enough of the conservative vote to end Huckabee's entire campaign. I hope all the Thompson supporters enjoy this "victory"... and have lots of fun dealing with this McCain problem that never should have been. (Hey, I invested a lot of money, time and effort into the Huckabee campaign, so I'm entitled to a little bitterness for one night, I would hope).

I heard several Thompson uses of the "liberal" label against Huckabee, but always in relation to a specific policy criticism. If thinking the federal government has any role in what private companies pay their CEOs, or proposing taxpayer-funded scholarships for illegal immigrants, or pardoning brutal murderers aren't "liberal" positions, I'd be hard pressed to name one.

The "push" calls made on Huckabee's behalf were much worse, distorting the records of those they targeted.

Oh, yeah, they are "independent" supporters Huckabee is just powerless to stop. Right. I get it.

Give me a break - I may be from South Carolina, but I didn't just fall off a turnip truck.

Blaming Thompson or Romney for siphoning off "your" votes is nonsense. If those people were your voters, you should have kept them in the fold. McCain won because no one presented a credible conservative alternative to him. Romney saw the polls this week and ran like a scalded dog. Thompson never showed the will to campaign as long and hard as it takes. South Carolina might even have gone for Giuliani if he had seriously contested the state, but he didn't.

Of those who did, McCain won. Like a great running back, he spotted the holes and ran straight through them. South Carolina Republicans REJECTED John McCain by a 2-to-1 margin.

Huckabee's problem was his decision to go after the evangelical vote on faith and social issues alone. He built himself a ceiling that just wasn't quite high enough.

The Huckster was exhausted from all the high road lies and low road push polls. He is a real piece of work, you have to admit. I think the Huckster just talks for the sake of talking, like most preachers. What he says, I doubt he remembers tommorrow.

Have to admit, 72 year old AMNESTY man looked good as well. I wonder what he will look like after the drive bys drop him on his head for Hillary?

"Blaming Thompson or Romney for siphoning off "your" votes is nonsense."

Good grief, just look at the numbers. As Thompson attacked Huckabee, he increased and Huckbee decreased. He managed to take away enough votes to give McCain the win. I don't understand the argument there. Nobody's "blaming" anyone... it's just a fact.

You relentless focus on things such as the scholarships for the CHILDREN of illegals (most of whom were actually legal) or the pardoning of convicts (the vast majority of whom had already completed their sentences) is an unfortunate result of your misunderstanding of that campaign. Again, Huckabee was the national leader among Republicans who consider themselves "conservative" and "very conservative". He is way behind McCain and Romney among voters consider themselves "moderates". So these liberal flaws you keep pointing out obviously did not bear out in the results.

The actual reasons Huckabee's campaign fell short were as follows:

1. He never actually planned this far ahead when he decided to run for president. He came up with significant parts of his platform as he went along. This allowed his opponents and conservative media to define him. Even at this late date, he has never gotten around to establishing a concise foreign policy. McCain killed him on this.

2. He made the fatal decision to out-Maverick McCain. While McCain is scrambling to mend fences with the Republican establishment, Huckabee sought to dig into the pool of independents with the populist rhetoric and the conservative media chewed him up.

3. He never had enough money. The reason Huckabee never went negative is because he could not afford to engage anyone in such a battle.

alan, depends on what you mean by conservatives. if you mean social conservatives, maybe. but huck has never been liked by foreign policy or economic conservatives. and that's because he's neither.

yeah, thompson attacked huck. that's because they were going after the same voters, and huch has some very serious deficiencies. if pointing those out is attacking him, then he deserved to be attacked. should thompson have just given him a pass?

looking at your reason why huck lost, i'm confused why you are an apologist for him. those are all good reasons NOT to support him. and that doesn't even get into his horrible policy specifics

Yes, the term "conservative" has grown to mean just about anything these days, so I do understand your point. I'm simply referencing a recent Rasmussen poll that allowed respondents to identify themselves as "conservative" or "very conservative".

Of course Thompson should have pointed out their differences. I am not using the word "attack" as a bad thing... in fact, if Huckabee had more money, I'm sure he wouldn't have taken the high road and he would have responded in the same manner.

One thing about the "attacks" though is that Huckabee will eventually bow out of this thing. His supporters are more in line with Romney (regarding issues), but he was a major league A-Hole for so long that Huckabee supporters may not help him as much. Romney should reach out to Huckabee soon because those 20 percent of the Republican electorate could tip the scales in this nomination.

Could be an IRS coalition against Huckabee and his FAIR Tax platform, in which case Huckabee should assess in cold light just when his and McCain's informal relationship should come to an end.

Perhaps Fred always knew his role is to play the stalking horse against any reactionary candidates viz. Bush policies. Which would explain Fred's foreign policy focus being tight and completely neoconservative while his domestic policy views are murky and famously requiring Few Words.

So my advice to Huck: beat the FAIR Tax like a bass drum and explain how hapless Fred has been hired by mobsters to act as stink bait for hicks and "you dummies are falling for it".

Also. Huck, quit grinning so much! The only person who effectively grins is Phyllis Schlafly.
----------------------------------------
Excellent HBO movie: HACKING DEMOCRACY:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018776.html

Conservatism has not changed, simply those that claim to be Conservative change. The word has been distorted over the years by politicians who like the label because it can get them elected, but never truely understood what it means. Being a Conservative means less government interference in your daily lives. It means lower taxes, and a federalist approach to social issues, and protecting our country. It means the people decide on what is best, not judges and lifetime politicians.

Huckabee scores low on all of those criteria. He wants to create social policy from a fedaral platform, instead of allowing states to form their individual policies as is by design of the Constitution. He raised net taxes in Arkansas so much that the state tax burden rose from one of the nations lowest, to almost being in the top ten highest tax burdens. He has supported numerous policies that act as incentives for illegal immigration.

So why did he score so high among 'Convervatives' and 'Very Conservatives'? Because the perception of Conservative is misunderstood. Most people now think that being 'Christian' or 'Very Christian' is the same as being 'Convervative' or 'Very Conservative'. Being a 'Social Conservative' should mean allowing state and local governments to decide social policy. Roe v Wade is not a liberal position because it is pro or anti abortion, it is liberal because the federal government is grabbing authority that the Constitution does not grant it.

The great irony is that Huckabee has gotten such large support because of his being a 'Baptist Minister', and yet if he were my preacher, I'd find another Church. I expect my preacher to be less deceptive. I also expect him to not resort to potty humor and false accusations when asked to discuss his positions. I expect him to honestly discuss what he believes and why his record is what it is. For some reason, people seem to think he should get a pass on this because he is a Baptist Minister. I expected more and better from him because he IS a minister.