The problem with the Reagan coalition is that it has always been more rhetorical than real. It requires rhetorical assent to a suite of issues, but not actual action. And it has always seemed more interested in maintaining the coalition for the sake of the Party, the next election, and the integrity of the "movement" than it has been about actually accomplishing anything.

That is why some of the establishment hysteria about Huckabee has been so obviously manufactured. Huck doesn't rhetorically genuflect enough on taxes and spending. OK, got it. But for that to actually be held against him you have to believe that Romney/McCain/Giuliani/Thompson are actually credible budget cutters. Give me a break. RINO Romney a budget cutter? Please. All four of the anybody but Huckabee "mainstream" candidates are don't rock the boat, centrist conservatives.

None of them can be counted on to change a darn thing. If these defenders of the coalition against the heretic Huckabee were really interested in cutting spending and taxes they would support Ron Paul.

Didn't time implode the Reagan coalition?

Huckabee is but the symptom. He's the result of 12 long, VERY LONG years of Bush family governance. It wasn't Huckabee who separated himself from Reagan in his nomination acceptance speech, by saying he wanted "a kinder, gentler America," thus validating and corroborating Democrat criticisms of the Reagan years as "a decade of greed." That was George Herbert Walker Bush. It was GHWB who had a do nothing domestic agenda and flip-flopped on a tax hike.

It wasn't Huckabee who promised judicial picks like "Scalia and Thomas" but then tried to shoehorn in Gonzales and Meirs. It wasn't Huckabee who thought it a good idea to deliver American ports over to creepy, shadowy types from Dubai. I could go on and on, and on.

Huckabee is the backlash from a decade plus of Bush family led derision of the base of the GOP.

Reagan NEVER attacked the base of the party like the Bush family has.

Huckabee had NOTHING to do with it. People that support Huckabee are livid and frustrated with an ostensibly Conservative leadership that oozes and drips disdain for them, and everything they cherish and hold dear.

When you have a leader who says mockingly "See you at the signing ceremony," I suggest that's where you focus your attention, and leave poor old Huckabee houndog be.

The Huckster is only opportunizing on a frustration created by others. But he never caused that underlying anger and fury. He only identified it and capitalized on it.

Oddly enough, the noncoservative commentators of public TV are saying sensible things about Huck being the story of the year and the nature of the Rep. vacuum he filled. More fair and balanced that NR, for example.

It's as I mentioned earlier Peter, NR can't be trusted right now, because they've sold themselves over to Romney. Once the nominee is known, perhaps then NR can regain their mental composure, but for the time being, NR is not to be trusted.

Huckabee has caused a good deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Powerline has pronounced Iowa, get this, "meaningless." I couldn't help but burst out laughing when I read that one. But that's the type of intellectual contortions one is forced to go through once you've purchased into the Romney campaign, as Powerline has. Old Huckabee houndog buried his teeth into the leg of their fair haired boy, Romney. And Romney is in serious trouble, for he's lost Iowa, and he'll likely lose New Hampshire to McCain. And Romney's campaign wasn't designed for the long haul, despite the emotional outbursts of his minion, Hugh Hewitt, who is now saying that Romney is ready for the Mao like "Long March." Just weeks ago Hewitt said that winning Iowa is a sine qua non for the Republican nomination. But now that his boy got manhandled by the Huckster, he's singing a different song.

The contortions that people are putting themselves through for Romney is simply amazing, absolutely amazing.

And Jon Schaff, it wasn't time so much as it was neglect. Reagan laid a foundation that Gingrich went on to construct majority status on, but unfortunately the Bush family allowed that foundation to be overgrown by weeds. It's no coincidence that the first Bush was a one term presidency, and that the 2d Bush lost us the Senate and the House. The Bush men are Whigs, not true Republicans. Reagan by contrast was NEVER a Whig, he was the antithesis of everything that the two Bush men are.

Which is to say, Dan, that the Reagan coalition was about Reagan. Gingrich couldn't hold the thing together, more because of himself (personality and marital problems) than because of his politics. Bush, Dole, the closest contender actually was the current Bush who, in the first election pulled to himself some pro-life voters I know who wouldn't vote for Dole and stayed home in 96.

Those of us accused of looking for another Reagan are looking for someone who sings all the right notes, because tone and pitch perfect in the same innate sense that Reagan was.