He charges that one can still make the argument that Huckabee is a compassionate conservative. I said so explicitly. It happened to follow the part he excerpted, so I don’t think his point is all that revelatory. In doing so he misses the point made in the following sentence that I’m addressing those who use the appelation for their own agenda.

He then attempts to argue greater spending without identifying that spending. Considering that I identified Medicare, Education, and misc. small social programs, am I to assume that he is referring to Homeland Security, Transportation, and Defense? His dismissal of the Medicare expansion also ignores that no candidate is offering to repeal it. I don’t mind disagreement, but if he does have significant disagreements with Bush’s spending priorities, and he is presumably willing to support the Defense and Homeland Security expenditures, and he is unwilling to attribute those spending failures to Compassionate Conservatism, then he really needs to enlighten us as to where this unliked spending is coming from. Bonus points for him if he can argue that Huckabee is philosophically inclined to do the same.

As far as insulting to intelligence, to call a candidate who has had no fewer than 5 hit pieces written about him in a month, opposition from the Club for Growth and National Review, and anemic fund raising numbers an establishment candidate is a joke and a cruel one at that. I hate feigned ignorance. In his competent Bush analysis he conveniently leaves out foreign policy, something I was pretty explicit about. He ends up in substanciating my argument that people are using the label compassionate conservative to serve their own agendas.

Huckabee’s record on immigration is hardly fair to the people he would be electing. Don’t get me started on his clemency for major criminals.

What’s so bad about that? Are we thinking as Catholics or as Republicans?

His record on illegal immigration was weak,

What does this mean? And how as a “Catholic faithful to the Magisterium” you would want a candidate who is “strong” on illegal immigration? What “Magisterium” are we talking about here? The bishops and even the Popes have been very clear on the fair and humane treatment that illegal immigrants deserve as human beings. This is not the same treatment being trumpeted by most in the Republican platform.

Let me put it a different way. The British dealt with IRA terrorism for years. They correctly say that the best way to defeat terrorism was through the criminal justice system, and an attempt to alleviate the underlying problems. There was no talk of bombing west Belfast or declaring a war on “Catholic fascism”. There was no over-reaction because the Brits did not feel an existential vulnerability after being hit by terrorists, a fear that shook the core of the very sense of self in the world order.

Dr. David Banner for President, then?

He has much ethical baggage from his governorship, and his record regarding clemencies and pardons was atrocious. His record on illegal immigration was weak, and he was a tax and spender. If I didn’t know better, I’d think we were nominating a pro-life Democrat. Doesn’t conservatism within the Republican Party matter anymore? Or are we as a party susceptible to anyone who has a silver tongue and can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn?