After watching Huckabee in the debates so far, I think he just might be the republican’s best hope for 2008. So far the guy has never given a straight answer, and so far nobody has taken him to task.

I like the guy, but his record has some scary parts to it, suggesting he’s a bit of a ‘nanny-state’ type. And with Democrats power in the legislature, that would be a bad combination.

But it is a great video and I think he would do fine in the most critical area, national security.

For now, I’m sticking with Fred, though; I think everybody is underestimating him. The vast majority of voters don’t pay much attention to much yet; primarily activists do. I’m hoping he’s saving his punch for then. His policy statements are the best of any of them, but his campaign style in this crowded field is not very inspiring.

I still like Fred too. Foreign Policy, while not as pressing of an issue compared to Immigration or Social Security, is something most candidates either “get” or “don’t get” in my opinion. Fred is one of the guys who “get’s it,” meaning he won’t go all isolationist and pretend the US can get ahead by pulling back from the world stage. Any candidate who believes in an isolationist or passive role for the US in our foreign relations hasn’t studied 20th century history.

Any candidate who doesn’t recognize the generational war we are in with Islamofascism and the type of enemy we face will put this country at risk.

Myself, I figure we have a 40% chance of a nuclear attack of some form in either New York or Washington in the next decade. And what will we do then, especially with no one state immediately provable as the source? Would we sink into the abyss to mosque burnings and lynchings? God, I hope not.