Professor Knippenberg: Yes, Veep. And only if it's clear that Huckabee adds the most to the ticket politically. A question about which I'm agnostic. President? No. Huckabee is in no way a serious opponent of liberalism. More can be said of Thompson and Giuliani, and even McCain, in this regard. Brooks is right about Huckabee to this very limited extent: that the GOP could benefit by nominating a "regular guy" and (for lack of a better word) a guy with a "coolness" factor. But Rudy and Thompson have some of this as well. Both are more serious conservatives -- by which, ultimately, we must mean: anti-liberals and anti-leftists -- than Huckabee. Pro-life is a dangerously shallow standard by which to evaluate the conservatism of a presidential candidate or a potential president. It is only the tip of the iceberg, even in terms of social conservatism, let alone conservatism generally. Pro-life aside, Huckabee doesn't seem to "have it" in conservative terms. He's also not a fighter. Only a fighter has a decent chance to beat Shrillary and her ruthless machine. We won't do it with a shoeshine and a smile.

You want someone rock-ribbed on the social issues? Huckabee's your guy.

No, I don't think so. There is more to social conservatism than being opposed to abortion.

John-could you offer an example of Huckabee's weakness on social issues?

Problem: Huckabee supports the third-world invasion of the U.S. and thus is guilty of treason. Problem #2: The NY Times is endorsing Huckabee, which shows how how much of a globalist he truly is.

That last comment, aside from being weird, is false.

Brooks' case for Huck is pretty strong.

Huckabee is a liberal fraud. If he gets the nomination, I'm voting third party. Here's a great piece by Ann Coulter: https://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2007/10/10/fred_sawyer_and_huckabee_finn