In fact, you can go over this entire blog and not find anything I've written that posits what you say I believe. Go ahead and look. Take as much time as you like.

You, like Cole, are making up the argument that suits you no matter what my actual posts say.

Until you can come up with something here that proves that I have based any part of political philosophy on solely my religious beliefs, this discussion is over. You lose.

Oh, and again, I'm not a Republican. I haven't been for eight years.

"(1) Part 1 of the case against Huckabee winning [the nomination] is that he’s self- evidently clueless about international politics, and has bizarre ideas about domestic politics. But does this really hurt him with a Republican base which has been primed for decades to believe that book-larnin' and expertise are the tools of Evil Coastal Elites? Attacks on his lack of savoir-faire seem to roll off his back, or perhaps even to make his supporters more enthusiastic. Case in point: his ‘negative advertising without negative advertising’ press conference, which was widely portrayed by media elites as having cooked his goose, but which doesn’t seem to have hurt him one bit. [In this connection, see also Noam Scheiber's interviews with Christian Rightists in Iowa on their reaction to that famous press conference: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=4f9f81c... -- Moomaw.]

"(2) Part 2 of the case against [his getting nominated] is that Huckabee doesn’t have any sort of real organization. His decisive win in Iowa demonstrates that he doesn’t need one, at least in states that have a strong evangelical movement. He can rely on the pastors getting out the vote for him. This is one that I’m pretty convinced of – he’s demonstrated that much of the conventional wisdom on the need for organization was wrong. Think of this as the evangelical’s revenge on mainstream Republicans. Much of Karl Rove’s success in 2004 depended on using below-the-radar forms of organization in churches etc to get the vote out. This has created an infrastructure that Huckabee seems to be taking over in the absence of any other real evangelical candidate."

In the immortal words of Popeye the Sailor: you've buttered your bread, and now you've got to sleep in it.

As for the rest of it, well, that wasn't what Cole was saying when he used me as an example. He was pointing directly to what I was saying, which sort of makes that "while YOU don't believe" part of your comment a refutation of Cole as well. If it's obvious that I don't believe something, don't point at me and say that I do. Especially when your alleged proof of your assertion refutes you so clearly.

Cole was either being lazy or disingenuous. While that may work on his blog, it doesn't fly here.

Second, the point Cole was making is that — while YOU may not regard Huckabee's particular version of Christianity as a reason to vote for him — legions of registered Republicans in Iowa did, and they're the ones who put him over the top, precisely because they DO think one particular branch of one particular religion should be intimately linked with control of government policies. (See CNN's exit polls.) And this is precisely the outlook that the GOP Establishment has been deliberately — and in fact feverishly — whipping up ever since the days of Reagan, because it provided them with massive assistance in general elections. Now suddenly the GOP's carefully gathered and encouraged army of religious myrmidons is rebelling against the Orders from the Top, and you don't like that at all. Which puts you guys, as Cole says, squarely in the position of the Sorcerer's Apprentice. What a pity.

It's about honesty, and "staying-the-course" recognizing when you are wrong, being able to change but not changing positions just for the aspect of the "mood".

This is why I support Fred T.: Romney and Gulianni are not bad but they have changed positions, I am unable to tell if it is because of a true change in philosphy or playing to audience. I can support John too, even though I do not aggree with him he is mostly consistent so I'll know what I am getting by electing him for president.

Democrats, John E. picks the platform of the year and runs on it, one in 2004 and another one this year. HC, like her husband, try to capitalize on Day!

I can write technical step by step procedures but when it comes to commentary the words become jumbled with the thoughts, so I typically just read but this one needed a comment. Keep up the good job!

To clarify, though, I don't think Huckabee's values are passive-aggressive. I think the way he's conducted his campaign is that way. It's the difference between belief and tactics.

I haven't really discussed his beliefs here because I don't know enough about then yet to really dig into them. I don't think we've seen more than the very outer layer of his beliefs at this point.

And instead of a unfounded hate which the left has for Bush it was a consistent, inconsistent frustration with Bill C. and a lack of core values.

Be it right or wrong, Bush believes being in Iraq to be correct, and no unclear mandate or inaccurate public opinion poll will change that. Huckabee while exploiting his christian faith does not have a consistent set of conservatve values, you could say his values are "passive-aggressive" depending on how the wind is blowing.

Personally, I will not support him and if he is selected then I will most likely not vote.