If there's any chance to head off a Huckabee disaster, it may be that Rush is the answer.

RUSH: All right, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to take the gloves off here for just a second. Welcome back, by the way, to the Rush Limbaugh program and the EIB Network. We're getting a lot of people calling here, claiming to speak for all evangelicals. Even Huckabee himself said on Fox yesterday that he did not get all of the evangelical vote in Iowa. It is not true to say that the evangelical vote in this country is monolithic and in total support of Mike Huckabee. If you want to call and speak for yourself, feel free to do so. Most of the pro-life groups out there, by the way, not groups of religious people, but most of the pro-life groups happen to be supporting Fred Thompson. In another thing, we had a guy, Eric from North Carolina, who called and said and that the Home School Legal Defense Association endorsed Huckabee. That's not true. One of their top dogs did, a guy named Michael Farris, but the association did not. You can go through their website and you will find a lot of critical articles on Huckabee, re: home schooling. They had a press release saying that Farris' endorsement is not an endorsement from them. This is a guy that accused me of deceiving people. You can call here, you can say what you want, but be very careful, because I am an encyclopedia. If you're going to start making claims here, we're going to find out about it.

He then proceeds to take them to school.

There's still time to educate the evangelical (true) conservative voters in South Carolina, and here's hoping that a combination of Rush and an energized Fred can head him off at the pass in the next few days.

[Late evening update]

Fred is South Carolina bound. Send some money, if you believe in the cause, and can afford it.

Why would the evangelicals change their mind based on what Limbaugh says when they hear something different every Sunday? If Huckabee is now leading in National polls and is a clear favorite in South Carolina, the best strategy would seem to be for a couple of Repubs to bow out of the race in the interests of the country. Maybe everyone other than McCain drops out? Or everyone other than Romney? Country before self and all that kind of real patriotism.

Someone needs to be a martyr to save the party of God. What would Jesus do? Clearly Huckabee isn't going to volunteer.

oh dear, you mentioned you listened to, and worse provide a suggestion that you agree with, Rush Limbaugh. It's like breaking a mirror and will damn you as Republican, far right (as in nazi), neo-conservative, wingbat for at least 7 more months.

That said, Rush is right. Neither the evangelical vote is not monolithic, at least not in this primary. Yeah, if Huckabee pulls it out nationally, the vote will be monolithic and more so if Hillary also pulls it out. But every person I've talked to, religious or not, isn't fulled by Huckabee. Moreover, they are looking at the issues more than the rhetoric.

Unfortunately, there are still many that are also looking at the winnable, and Fred just isn't winning that point. Too many have acknowledged that Fred agrees with their concepts on the issues, but then discount a vote for him as wasted. It will take a lot of effort on Fred's part, particularly when he is denouncing a desire for President, to convince people he is in it for the long run and wants their vote.

Odd, my pastor hasn't even mentioned Huckabee's name once yet... or any other candidate.

I wasn't referring to a literal Sunday sermon so much as a general framework of beliefs or a belief-system.

If Thompson commits Hara-Kiri that should do the trick. That's about the number needed to send Huckabee over the edge and into hell. Thompson should quit and endorse McCain.

Why would the evangelicals change their mind based on what Limbaugh says when they hear something different every Sunday?

Mike Huckabee is an evangelical minister, not the evangelical minister. He does not preach in every church on Sunday. (Assuming your question was sincere and not just Christian bashing.)

If Huckabee is now leading in National polls and is a clear favorite in South Carolina, the best strategy would seem to be for a couple of Repubs to bow out of the race in the interests of the country.

Because not everyone agrees that socialism is "in the interests of the country" and those of you who do already have a party?

Why do you think America needs two identical parties reflecting your views, Mr. Toast? Are you afraid your ideas are so weak that you unless voters have no choice in the general election?

Actually, you pretty much have that already with George Bush and yet you hate him too.

Actually, it's kind of fun from my point of view to watch the recoiling horror that corporate-type republicans and similar types use to regard Huckabee. Bush didn't come from that wing of the party, and I think establishment Republicans are terrified that an evangelical might actually win a nomination rather than just provide phone bankers and contributors and so forth.

Bush didn't come from that wing of the party, and I think establishment Republicans are terrified that an evangelical might actually win a nomination rather than just provide phone bankers and contributors and so forth.

Actually, he did, but the conservatives didn't really believe it at the time.

I'm not an establishment (or any other kind of) Republican, but the prospect of a Democrat socialist versus a Republican socialist leaves someone like me quite depressed.

My only hope is that Bloomberg (yet another socialist) will run to dilute the votes for the other two, and that an actual capitalist and federalist will enter as well. This seems like a great election to break the party splits wide open.

But what if McCain is the only one charismatic enough to defeat Obama? What if the country has gone off the deep end, and will go for style over substance? McCain has enough style, maybe, to beat Obama.

Why is it assumed that evangelicals are all socialists?

Why is it assumed that evangelicals are all socialists?

Where is that assumption made?

Here's hoping that a combination of Rush and an energized Fred can head him off at the pass in the next few days.

A more realistic plan is that Thompson will put the evangelicals to sleep, so that they won't go to the polls to vote for Huckabee.

Meanwhile in all of the belly-aching about how the media has treated Thompson, Thompson himself has put forward one accusation which is both true and actually has hurt him. Namely, Fox News has been deeply biased in favor of Giuliani. Roger Ailes and Rudy Giuliani are pals, and that matters more to the "we report, you decide" folks than fair treatment of the Republican candidates. After all, the voters in the Republican primary already know that CNN is the Communist News Network, that ABC and CBS are run by terrorist-lovers, and that Charlie Gibson has sex with horses. They already know not to trust any TV news source other than Fox News. Carolyn Washburn has nothing on Thompson; he probably earned some extra votes from his great Reagan moment with her. The underhanded non-cooperation from Fox News is a real obstacle; Thompson is completely right about that.

If McCain or Thompson choose Huckabee as Veep then he is just "one heartbeat away" as they say.

If they do not, plenty of evangelicals are going to be rather angry at the Republican nominee.

And of course Mitt Romney may not be as dead in the water as some believe.

A great quote from an unkind pundit at Fox News: "The problem with coming in third in Iowa is that he had to stay in the campaign."

Don't worry, Fred; the next few primaries will solve your "problem".

McCain looks 400 years old.
To beat McCain all the democratic challenger has to do is replay that video where McCain looks dazed and confused and mutters to himself. His age is an issue
and the video that looks like early Alzheimer's
is the end of McCain.

Paul

Rand: Sorry, wasn't clear enough. I was responding to TNT, and similar "reality-*based*" assertions I've seen in comments.

I don't get the whole Hucksterbee rallying ALL the evangelicals thing, Never did. Many of his ideas are quite off base for conservative evangelicals.

There are, after all, very liberal evangelicals. Hucksterbee himself is proof of that. The very fact that he has gotten the NEA's nod shows just how liberal his views are, from the stand point of one of the most liberal groups out there in endorsement land.

While the term evangelical used to mean a finite thing it no longer does. It used to mean commitment to proselytize the unsaved, and a belief in the inerrancy of the bible. Many people who now consider themselves and their churches evangelical, don't believe the second part of that.

There are Southern Baptist churches that accept openly gay members. These consider themselves to be an evangelical church, but the bible is pretty clear on homosexuality. There are other churches that see this as out right failing to live by the word.

These churches also tend to split on views of taxation, school choice, government control of the lives of citizens and yes even abortion. That's my take on evangelicals as a "like minded group" after 40 some odd years of being around them.

There are huge divides in thinking among those who consider themselves part of the evangelical movement. Hucksterbee and his crowd are the liberal end of the spectrum.

I shouldn't have written a quick post. Ack, the grammar is horrible. The only redeeming quality is; it is more coherent than what TnT wrote.

Fortunately, Steve writes better. I think Democrats, who believe Huckabee is winning because of the evangelical vote, are delusioned by hope. As Jane puts it, they think it is funny that Republicans would be repulsed by the same thing that has repulsed Democrats for so long. The problem is that I have no issue with Huckabee's religion. My problem is his compasionate socialism.

I thought Huck's Christmas ad was great, and wish Fred had come up with something like that (because it got the media talking). It certainly was better than Hillary's "I'm going to take your money and use it to buy you gifts you won't need or want" ad. The problem is when you get pass the religious message, Huckabee's actions in government look a lot like Hillary's.

What is scary to conservative and liberterians is a Hillary vs Huckabee race. In that scenario, fiscal conservatives and libertarians don't have a candidate. They with have to vote for Hillary and hope Congress will go Republican and restrain her. Or vote Huckabee to make sure Hillary stays out, and then hope Congress goes far left or right to keep Huckabee in check. That's a bad gamble either way. It gets easier to not vote at all when Huckabee is paired with someone other than Hillary. I'm sure that is what makes Huckabee a favorite among Democrats.

This may be the most interesting election cycle of our lifetimes. The religious right has their Huckabee horse in the race that the conservatives feel may lose it for the party, and the Democratic left-wing-anti-war-bush-is-hitler crowd has Obama whom the rest of their party feel will alienate me and all the rest of the unwashed undecided. Frankly I think for once in my life both parties have it exactly right. This may turn out to be the first election where both parties go to the polls holding their noses. That leaves me and mine to look over these poor examples of citizenship and decide which will do the least harm. America, I Love this country.

Obama whom the rest of their party feel will alienate me and all the rest of the unwashed undecided.

Absolutely not, jjs. Obama and Clinton are both entirely respectable candidates; the hard question is which one is better.

That leaves me and mine to look over these poor examples of citizenship and decide which will do the least harm.

If that is what you're left to consider, then you've learned something. 90% of the job of being president is doing the least harm. It has always been a job in which you can do vastly more harm than good. It's like the job of a traffic cop or a construction worker --- they should be eagle scouts, not action heroes. It's also why Bush and Cheney have done such a stinkeroo job these past 7 years: they're revolutionaries who upended half of the system.

If that is what you're left to consider, then you've learned something. 90% of the job of being president is doing the least harm. It has always been a job in which you can do vastly more harm than good. It's like the job of a traffic cop or a construction worker --- they should be eagle scouts, not action heroes. It's also why Bush and Cheney have done such a stinkeroo job these past 7 years: they're revolutionaries who upended half of the system.

Written by a person supporting candidates that spent the weekend talking about "change". Add to that the previous Democratic Administration still talk about their "reinventing government". If I thought Hillary or Obama would simply manage and not muck with the system, they would get my vote. Alas, they've never claimed that they would, and their history suggests a desire to "change the world".

Written by a person supporting candidates that spent the weekend talking about "change".

You're right, it's a fatuous campaign theme. The candidates on both sides are all talking about change, but all of the ones who are leading are conservative insiders. (Conservative in the unreconstructed sense, not in the new sense of radical Republican ideologies.) As they should be!

The one argument in defense of the "change" slogan is that after 7-8 years of the elephant in the porcelain shop, stability will feel like change. That's why every candidate, whether conservative or not, has a reason to ask for change. (Okay, not a fossilized candidate --- there is one of those in the race.) Even so, the wisest argument for my own vote would have been prudence, not change.

It's also why Bush and Cheney have done such a stinkeroo job these past 7 years: they're revolutionaries who upended half of the system.

Supporting the largest expansion of liberal programs since the 1960s was a stinkaroo job that upended half the system?

Thank you for that admission, Harry.

There is change, and there is improvement.

If Huckabee or Romney gets the nomination, the fiscal republicans will stay home, and Obama wins.
If Hillary has the nomination, the fiscal Republicans hold their nose and vote for whomever has an R after thier name.

I still think McCain gets the nomination. :-(