The more I learn about Huckabee, the less appealing he becomes:

Huckabee doesn

Well, actually, replace “sincere” with disingenuous. Nonetheless, this is one of the reasons that, if I were a Republican, I’d be voting for Fred Thompson.

And I should add that I don’t actually agree with the Cuba embargo, but it’s not a huge issue for me either way.

And speaking of Huckabee, one can see why the Dems would think him the most beatable candidate. I pretty much agree with everything here. I can’t stand Huckabee, either. My nightmare is a Hillary!/Huckabee choice.

Oh, one more comment. I was listening to Dennis Miller this morning in the car on the way to the dentists, and they said “Hey, he misspoke about Mormons thinking that Jesus and the devil were brothers. He meant to say Jews.”

Lee Harris points out the fatal flaw in the argument of the “non-interventionists“:

We may agree with Ron Paul that our interventionist policy in the Middle East has led to unintended negative consequences, including even 9/11, but this admission offers us absolutely no insight into what unintended consequences his preferred policy of non-intervention would have exposed us to. It is simply a myth to believe that only interventionism yields unintended consequence, since doing nothing at all may produce the same unexpected results. If American foreign policy had followed a course of strict non-interventionism, the world would certainly be different from what it is today; but there is no obvious reason to think that it would have been better.

Lee Harris points out the fatal flaw in the argument of the “non-interventionists“:

We may agree with Ron Paul that our interventionist policy in the Middle East has led to unintended negative consequences, including even 9/11, but this admission offers us absolutely no insight into what unintended consequences his preferred policy of non-intervention would have exposed us to. It is simply a myth to believe that only interventionism yields unintended consequence, since doing nothing at all may produce the same unexpected results. If American foreign policy had followed a course of strict non-interventionism, the world would certainly be different from what it is today; but there is no obvious reason to think that it would have been better.

Lee Harris points out the fatal flaw in the argument of the “non-interventionists“:

We may agree with Ron Paul that our interventionist policy in the Middle East has led to unintended negative consequences, including even 9/11, but this admission offers us absolutely no insight into what unintended consequences his preferred policy of non-intervention would have exposed us to. It is simply a myth to believe that only interventionism yields unintended consequence, since doing nothing at all may produce the same unexpected results. If American foreign policy had followed a course of strict non-interventionism, the world would certainly be different from what it is today; but there is no obvious reason to think that it would have been better.

Joe Gandelman thinks that the Hillary! campaign shot itself in the foot. But I find this comment kind of naive:

After this episode, it will be difficult for Ms. Clinton or her husband Bill Clinton to ever denounce

That’s Huckabee’s new campaign slogan. The comments are great: “In this election, we obey the laws of thermodynamics.”

Radley Balko has a long, but interesting (and sad) report on the ongoing injustice in the Cory Maye case:

One of the people I spoke to during my visit two years ago is Linda Shoemaker, who runs the Prentiss tobacco shop. Shoemaker

Ramesh Ponnuru has a great question, that occurred to me as well, when I read this. This discussion is in the context of whether or not earmarks are a winning issue for Republicans. Well, they certainly aren’t unless they’re willing to embrace it. Which apparently they aren’t…

Common sense, from Jimmy Carter.