While Huckabee is pro-life personally and politically, he is more liberal than Bush and nearing HIllary-lite on taxes and immigration and nanny-statism.

Romney is pro-life, supports the HLA and he is conservative on taxes and immigration.

Romney has all three legs of the stool. He wins.

Secondly, the Constitution isn’t silent on slavery, either. It actually endorses it.

Third, that “Hickabee” business is really distasteful. Whether you like the guy or not, that sort of thing reminds me uncomfortably of the substitution of ad hominems and silly nicknames for reasoned argument the Democrats and Lefties have been using against the President for the past seven years. I hate to see Republicans descend to their level- especially to attack one of our own.

Personally, I’m a Thompson supporter- but one very disturbed by his willingness to let Cruzan V. Director, or that portion of it which legally defines food and water as “medical treatment,” stand.

even though he couldn’t have known 20 years ago that the incompetent government would not enforce the laws he was enacting

Michael, do you think government was any less incompetent twenty years ago? forty years ago?

Human nature is timeless. Bureaucracies are, by their very nature, incompetent. You would do well to remember this whenever you have the impulse to expect government to fix something.

The Congress has before it several measures that would enable our people to reaffirm the sanctity of human life, even the smallest and the youngest and the most defenseless. The Human Life Bill expressly recognizes the unborn as human beings and accordingly protects them as persons under our Constitution. This bill, first introduced by Senator Jesse Helms, provided the vehicle for the Senate hearings in 1981 which contributed so much to our understanding of the real issue of abortion.

The Respect Human Life Act, just introduced in the 98th Congress, states in its first section that the policy of the United States is “to protect innocent life, both before and after birth.” This bill, sponsored by Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Roger Jepsen, prohibits the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother. It also addresses the pressing issue of infanticide which, as we have seen, flows inevitably from permissive abortion as another step in the denial of the inviolability of innocent human life.

I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity of human life.

I ask that honestly, because I have seen many people say that the GOP cannot win landslide victories by advocating things like this. However the last landslide victory was had by a President who was publicly adamantly anti-abortion and was in support of a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution. I know people look back and disagree with Ronald Reagan’s amnesty (even though he couldn’t have known 20 years ago that the incompetent government would not enforce the laws he was enacting), but I wonder if people also look back and disagree with Ronald Reagan’s active anti-abortion stance and consider it “nanny-statish”?

I should note that I don’t support Mike Huckabee, because of his big spending, big taxing policies and because he is weak on illegal immigration. But I am simply addressing this issue he has raised. People are saying he is pandering and radical, etc. If that is the case, then was Ronald Reagan doing the same? I consider a politician to be pandering if they do not believe in what they are saying. Is that what you are saying here? That Mike Huckabee does not believe in a Human Life Amendment as Reagan did and is just using the issue to gain social conservative support?