Really?  His remark about Romney sounded awfully close to class envy, if not warfare.  His remarks about GWB sound like an anti-war subtext.  He gave more pardons & commutations & one  of his pardoned criminals promptly murdered a woman after being sprung by Huckabee. The guy is out of his depth, though he has the clever comebacks that the thundering herd of the mainstream media adore.  Yes, he was elected twice as governor. 

But the metamucil remark demonstrates this dude is a nasty little [insert four-or five- or seven letter word beginning with s, p, or a] with a thin skin whom Arkansans will tell you is a Republican version of Jimmy Carter, only slightly less light in the loafers.

He wouldn’t have been able to respond to all of them point by point in 90 seconds, although he has responded to the charges a lot in interviews and talk shows, as he’s been attacked by Romney too. He’s talked about the charges that he is responsible for the guys commutation, he’s responded bout charges that he’s pro illegal immigrant or soft on crime. Etc. (In fact on the illegal immigration issue, he’s recently been endorsed by Jim Gilchrist of the minutemen)

So what is he to do in 90 seconds? Give a more general answer, that he did a lot as governor that earned him a reputation as a conservative, but that the Club for Growth’s standard for conservativism is out of the mainstream and would exclude Ronald Reagan.

I don’t think Huckabee’s answer was crisp and clear enough, but he answered in the way he had to in 90 secs.

Except I think Thompsons policy criticisms are a little dishonest, both on substance and how he’s carrying out the attack. I mean jeez, look at what he did in the debates, if you blurt out a list of 10 things, your opponent isn’t going to be able to respond to them all cogently in 90 seconds.

The problem is he didn’t seem to try to answer ANY of them, he asked for time to respond then proceeded to give a stump speech instead. I think Fred did a good job and people are going to ask themselves after Huckabees lame jokes, do we want "children" running our country or adults?

If you want you can make the right criticisms against Huckabee like you did. I don’t support his tax plan either. I think his candidacy shows a little naivite.

But the list Thompson rattled off and expected Huckabee to respond to was a little dishonest. Huckabee isn’t pro-illegal immigrant, a class warfare liberal, anti-Iraq War, soft on crime, or any of those other things.

Huckabee frankly scares the hell out of me as a leader.  I think we’d have GW II, who I like as a person, and who is Christian, but who is above his head both on economic policy and foreign policy. 

Huckabee has proposed a tax plan that is simply unrealistic.  There is no possible way he gets it through 2 Democratic houses.  And he’s already shown he doesn’t know what he’s talking about re: Pakistan and Guantanomo.

As I said, I think Huckabee is a good guy, and I respect him (though that has wained some after his weak responses/personal attacks now), but we’re electing a president here, not a pastor.  To Huckabee supporters, I ask you this; what social issues that Huckabee supports would Fred Thompson NOT support?  There aren’t any.  I don’t see the difference that Huckabee brings from a "Christian" perspective.

The sheep that have followed him because he’s a "good guy," a Christian, and a good speaker need to wake up and vote for a real conservative.  It’s about time.

Now, I am not necessarily a Huckabee supporter. I’m not a Republican or Democrat, I’ve worked in the past with third parties and consider myself a centrist. Huckabee definitely does have flaws as a candidate as do others. But I am sympathetic to him on attacks against him, based on the fact that I think the attacks on him have been very blind partisanship–which is part of the problem that we have in politics, and what voters mean by "change" when they say they want "change". I neither believe the conservative attacks that he’s a "class warfare liberal" nor the liberal attacks that he’s a "religious fanatic".

I’ve also been sympathetic to Thompson based on the fact that I think all the charges that he talks too slow and lazy to be inspiring are stupid. You vote for a candidate because of substance, not because he isn’t hitting enough talk show circuits and sounds grumpy.  I think Thompson is a humble person, and I think he believes his attacks against Huckabee. On the other hand, I think he has a really narrow understanding of politics and so the substance and manner of his attacks are not that honest.

In the long run it doesn’t matter much, except to say that the parties end up with the candidates they deserve. For the last few elections, every party has picked a candidate based on political factors rather than substance. George W Bush (name recognition) vs Al Gore (name recognition). George W Bush (president) vs Kerry (looked like he could win, was in Vietnam). There are many ways the primaries can go this time. In any case though, you can be sure a lot of candidates are being excluded just because they can’t be used for politics (Richardson is one example)