There's no way Huckabee goes third party. As people have pointed out elsewhere, he stands a good a shot as any at the 2012 nomination.

Dobson is not going to run a third-party candidate. He's going to get behind Huckabee for the Republican nomination. Huckabee has the momentum and the charisma to steal this presidential show.

I was planning on posting Nicholas' comment. Can I add more to it? I think so.

There is an interesting parallel between Huckabee and Bill Clinton. Clinton threw his hat in the ring in 1991 with an eye to 1996. Back in 1991, Clinton thought he would get a good loss to Cuomo, who would then lose to an immensely popular Bush. (Remember, Bush Sr. was intensely popular in 1991; he lost it in 1992.) The good loss in the 1992 primaries would propel Clinton to the Democratic nomination in 1996. Clinton made two miscalculations: Cuomo didn't run, and Bush Sr. lost his mojo. Therefore, we got Bill Clinton for President.

Today? I think that Huckabee assumes that he cannot beat Romney or Giuliani. I also think that Huckabee assumes that Hillary Clinton will become President. Finally, I think that Huckabee assumes that President Clinton (or Obama, or maybe even Edwards) will be easy prey in 2012: unable to get real health care reform and tied up in the Iraq war. Such a candidate could easily be beaten by a Republican who does not remind the voters of George Bush.

If Huckabee can beat Jeb Bush in 2012, he thinks he can be President. And he may be right.

Huckabee is a social conservative, but as a conservative evangelical myself, I don't see Huckabee as a "fiscal" conservative and that troubles me.

Candidate Huckabee supposedly rejects encroaching federalism, but Governor Huckabee praised NCLB which is a nothing but encroaching federalism of the worst kind.

But it's not just education where I'm concerned, healthcare seems to be another area where Huckabee sees a role for the federal government.

Even our “compassionate conservative” President had enough sense to veto a child health care bill that would have increased the size and control of the federal government. Not so Huckabee. He calculates the political loss of Bush's action as "enormous."

I don’t need tea leaves to see where President Huckabee will take us in terms of federal spending and central control. A governor who takes money, will be a President willing to give it out.

If Huckabee makes it to the top tier, I do hope that Christian conservatives are honest enough to admit that it’s not the role of the federal government to take care of widows and orphans and challenge Huckabee on his policies and not just blindly follow him like we did with Bush.

It is the role of the church, charity, and families to take care of those in need, not the federal treasury. It is NOT compassionate to take the money from one family and give it to another to win votes.

I'm glad Huckabee lost weight, but curbing childhood obesity is NOT a presidential issue, neither is providing "weapons of mass instruction" or providing art or music education for our kids. Those are parental issues. But alas I fear that I might be in the minority, even amongst Christians who seem to confuse the role of the church with the role of the government.

Huckabee may have come out from us and have a big heart, but I don’t have a big wallet. Some of us just can’t afford to fund compassionate conservatives anymore.

Here's a quote from Huckabee speaking to high school students about federal standards and testing in education that demonstrates candidate Huckabee has no problem involving the federal government in areas where it has no Constitutional jurisdiction.

"When asked by a student if he supports federally mandated testing, Huckabee invoked the Red Sox. He asked the students how many had watched the previous night's game. Hands shot up. Then he asked if they would have minded if nobody kept score.

"You wouldn't go to the football game or the basketball game or the baseball game and say, 'Just turn the scoreboard off,' " Huckabee said. "And neither could we realistically say we're really interested in improving the quality of education, but we're not going to keep score. So do we need tests? Yes."

So the federal government is supposed to "keep score" in education through mandatory testing? Where's that in the constitution, Mr. Huckabee?

Education is not a spectator sport, and the role of the federal government is not to score our nation's children based on what THEY think the standard ought to be.

It's up to parents and locally elected school boards to decide education standards, NOT the federal government. This used to be a "value" most conservatives held, until a "compassionate conservative" took over the Presidency and made NCLB his signature issue, a policy Huckabee praised.

Given the chance to come out strongly against federal control in education and demonstrate true conservatism, Huckabee did just the opposite and supported central control.

Gee, Larry Sabato's 23-odd suggested ammedments don't include marriage or abortion. Who wants to tell him?

Spunky,
Where does it say in the Constitution that "it's up to parents and locally elected school boards to decide education standards." It might be up to states, or might be up to the Federal government. I have no dog in this fight. But the Constitution does not recognize any other levels of government. Read it. And if you have the patience and discipline, read the case law that has grown up around it.

Spunky, I don't think you are a troll, so I'm responding to your post. Please don't confuse the Constitution with your personal political preferences. Localism is quite defensible, but localism is not a Constitutional concept.

Joe, it's simple:

Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Education is not delegated to the federal government -- heck, it's not mentioned. Thus it belongs to the states, and it's their business to decide what to do with it, not the feds'.

Joe S.

I'm not a troll, I've been reading this site for quite a long time, I just don't comment often.

Anonymous above provided the answer to your question and the exact wording I would have quoted.

From a strictly consitutional perspective, education is ONLY a state issue, not a federal issue.

Further suppport for this position can be found in the Federalist Papers,

James Madison, in The Federalist No. 45, maintained that the powers of a federal government are “few and defined” and extend “principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce,” whereas the powers reserved to the states are “numerous and indefinite” and “extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

It is not I who has confused personal preference with the Constitution but Mike Huckabee. His confusion about the role of the feds in education is shared by millions of Americans, but he's mistake is inexcusable, he's running for president. And if he doesn't know the limits placed upon the federal government by our Constitution, then in my opinion, has no place calling himself a conservative let alone running for the office of President.

Spunky,

You need to read the Preamble to the Constitution where it says that: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Education is part of that promoting the "general welfare" thing.

An educated citizenry IS a benefit to the people of the USA. Making sure that everyone, and not just the wealthiest amongst us, gets an education supports the economic, scientific, and artistic growth of our nation.

Kate Sheppard shows, once again, how little she knows. Huck is on the other side of immigration from the great majority of Americans - not to mention Republicans - and if that was a high point of his speech then he lied.

And, obviously, KS didn't know about his history (or thought you didn't) and didn't call him on his lies.