As a Huckabee-leaner, I'll take up his defense here. Evan, some of your points concern me. Huckabee is not a perfect candidate, by any stretch. I'm sure I don't have to chronicle the problems with him here, Evan linked to a letter from an Arkansas political observer that pretty well sums them up.

But Mike Huckabee is a conservative. It's somewhat strange to see the rush to condemn him by the conservative punditocracy. Obviously they're seeing something a little different in Huckabee than the average voter does, and the dissonance is growing.

Conservatism is widely believed to be a fusion of free market, limited government classical liberals, social and cultural conservatives, and foreign policy hawks, those who believe that America has a duty to keep its citizens safe from enemies both foreign and domestic.

If these are the criterion, as I think we can agree they are, Huckabee is a conservative. Not a perfect conservative, but a conservative nonetheless.

He's been hit by anti-tax/anti-spending groups like the Club for Growth, but his record on taxes and spending is, at very worst, mixed and leaning conservative. The average tax burden on citizens actually increased less during his 10 1/2 years as governor of Arkansas than it did on Massachusetts residents in Mitt Romney's four years. This is not to say that either candidate is perfect, but that Huckabee's record is comparable to Romney's, a record that has been praised by the Club for Growth. Huckabee has endorsed the Fair Tax system, which has its flaws, but is an essentially conservative solution that would eliminate the power of the IRS, which would in turn end Congress' regular practice of giving out tax breaks to selected groups, often based on their lobbying clout. And it would put many, many Washington bureaucrats out of work, which can't be a bad thing!

Much of the opposition to Huckabee's economic credentials is based on his populist rhetoric. I can't say I love the rhetoric, but I do believe that Huckabee is tapping into a widely held discontent in the working class, one that the GOP must address to keep Reagan Democrats in the fold. A Republican candidate that understands the legitimate concerns of the middle class is a breath of fresh air. We should be on the side of small business and the middle class, not cede that territory to the Dems.

Huckabee's social conservative credentials don't need much explanation. But this fact is key: Huckabee is the most powerful and articulate defender of social conservative ideals currently on the national stage. For those of us who believe that abortion is a stain on the conscience of our nation, a Huckabee presidency would be a dream come true. Huckabee is capable of changing the terms of the debate, and truly changing hearts and minds in a way that we hoped Reagan would, and Bush would. This is a fact worth considering for any social conservative. If the status quo is OK, if token opposition to abortion and gay marriage is enough, then any of the candidates would be fine, heck, even Giuliani pledges to leave marriage to the states and appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito. But if we want a champion for life and traditional marriage, Huckabee is the closest we've ever been to the White House.

Let me speak to your concerns about Huckabee being unfairly labeled by the Left and the MSM as a theocrat or an American Taliban-like figure. How would this be a new thing? It happened to Reagan, and it happened to Bush. In both cases, it backfired, and Huckabee's sincere faith would be an asset, not a liability. Following your logic to its inevitable conclusion, no sincere Evangelical Christian could ever be nominated to national office, because the Left and the MSM would cry "Theocracy!" and let slip the dogs of secularism. You know what? This will backfire, as it did on Kerry and Gore and every Dem candidate that looked too aggressively secular. A Huckabee presidency would just as easily improve the perceptions of Evangelicals in public life as it would hurt them.

It's late, and I can't go too deeply into Huckabee's foreign policy views. But in the essence, he is no weaker than any GOP candidate but McCain on national security and foreign policy. He supports the surge, he seems to understand that we are in a long war with Islamic radicalism, and he speaks often about his belief that military strategy should depend more on the opinions of our generals and less on that of civilian advisers. In the wake of the Iraq experience, how is this a bad thing? I don't like Huckabee's lack of experience, but he has no less than Bush did. He seems to have the big issues right, and I don't think there's any doubt that a Huckabee administration would be filled with capable foreign policy wonks.

By any objective measure, Mike Huckabee is a member of the Reagan coalition, and is a conservative. Is he the best one? Maybe, maybe not, it depends on what issues matter most to you. And that's what the primary process is all about. But let's call Mike Huckabee what he is, a conservative, an imperfect one in an imperfect field.