[MikeA]

Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is looking more and more attractive given the paucity of the field...His state is a defect and he's the world's worst fundraiser, but the right could seek him out. He's lost 100 pounds, so he really must want the job.

If this is all conservatives are willing to be satisfied with to run for the GOP and not be a little pragmatic to go with a more marketable candidate, then it's going to be President Hillary Clinton and Vice President Barak Obama come January 20, 2009. We need to stop being so unbending and unwilling to accept less than a full plate in our candidates or we're going to be spending a long, long time in the political wildnerness as a party. Frankly it should be completely unacceptable to any thinking conservative to run a nobody like Gov. Huckabee (who with a name like that just sounds like a good ole boy) against a field of superstar Democratic contenders. Like it or not, it's wise up and be a little compromising or we've got Hillary Clinton for 8.

[dead]

Gov. Huckabee was also the guitarist in the party rock and roll band that was hired to play the 2001 FreeRepublic Inaugaral Ball in Washington DC.

The band rocked pretty good. That's gotta count for something. Or not.

[Alberta's Child]

There's a lot of truth to what you say, but supporting a candidate who is a liberal on 80%-90% of the issues ain't a "compromise" in any sense of the word.

[DugwayDuke]

"Like it or not, it's wise up and be a little compromising"

Looks to me like your idea of a compromise is for the 'base' to give up on everything important to them. In order for this to be a compromise, there should be some giving on both sides of the deal. Exactly what does the 'base' get out of this compromise? Exactly what distinguishes Hillary from Rudi or McCain?