Mark R. Levin:

Huckabee continues to use his faith as a weapon against those who question not his faith, but his political populism — much of which he shares with secular progressives. And he is clearly hoping to stir up resentment among Evangelical Christians against the other elements of the conservative movement and Republican Party as a way of encouraging them to vote in the caucuses and primaries. This is a tactic right out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook. Of course he wants us to believe the Reagan coalition is dead because he cannot win with it intact. But he cannot win either the nomination or presidency with the narrow focus of his appeal. This is why I find Mike Huckabee’s tactics and candidacy so deplorable.

I’ve re-read this about six times and it strikes me merely as a series of non-sequiturs. Here’s the “logic”:

• Huckabee is using his faith as a weapon to deflect conservative criticism of his populism: Check.
• He wants GOP voters to believe the Reagan coalition is dead because if it is not, he cannot “win”
• He cannot win with such a narrow focus
• “This” is deplorable.

This is just such utter gobbledygook I don’t know what to do with it. The first point, actually, is interesting. But the second point — wha? The “Reagan coalition” consisted of conservative voters plus blue-collar, mainly unionized voters who tended to vote Democrat but who were moved by appeals to anti-abortion policies and strong foreign policy, and it mainly held for two elections. It was not the coalition between evangelicals and secular and Catholic conservatives. What does this have to do with what Levin is saying in the first point — or with Huckabee at all?

Then his last two points: He will lose, because he is reading someone — is it non-evangelical GOP voters? blue collar Democrats? free-love libertarians? — out of his electoral base… and “this” is what is deplorable.

It’s deplorable that he is going to lose — not even get the nomination, you say? If he loses, that’s good, because you don’t like him, right Mark? Isn’t it good if a political tactic you don’t like will lose? Or, it’s deplorable because it’s dishonest — how, again?

It sounds actually pretty honest: I am a real evangelical, says Huckabee, not a fake one, which frankly Ronald Reagan (an immensely greater man than Huckabee will ever be, but no evangelical) was; and if evangelicals want to try to control the party, I’m the man to do it. Sounds very honest.

It’s dishonest, maybe, because he is cloaking populism in the mantle of religious belief? Well, what is your source, Mark, for the proposition that populism is not consistent with being evangelical? From here — I’m not an evangelical, obviously — but it seems as if it is very consistent. He is daring the evangelicals to try to take control of the GOP. He’ll likely fail, but is there something “deplorable” about running on an actual discernible political platform just because it’s a platform neither Mark Levin nor Ron Coleman is likely to vote for?

I guess I understand why there are no comments on The Corner.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

The inestimable Ara Rubyan recently mentioned the infamous Florida 2000 “butterfly ballot” as an example of how Democratic voters have been “disenfranchised.”

I would like to take a moment to provide an honest-to-God of the actual ballot used in that election.

Now, there’s these black pointy things called arrows. The arrows “point” to the appropriate party.

For example, arrow #3 “points” to the Republican Party slate of GW Bush & Dick Cheney. Arrow #4 “points” to the Reform Party slate, while arrow #5 “points” to the Democratic Party slate. Feel free to click on the above image for a higher-rez photo.

Now. If you are too bloody senile, stupid, or stoned, to figure out that that arrow #3 points to the Republican Party slate, while arrow #4 points to the Reform Party Slate, and arrow #5 points to the Democratic Party Slate… I’m sorry. You have the mental process of a cracked soap dish, and are hence ethically and morally not allowed to participate in the electoral process of this country.

Folks, we used this exact same bloody ballot in Ohio for freaking decades. Literally. This image precisely reproduces the appearance of the Ohio ballot for the Presidential election for literally every year I’ve ever voted, except for 2006, related here.

Let us take a moment to note that Ohio voters have never attained national attention for the locals’ inability to comprehend the ballot. The “butterfly ballot” form has worked quite well in this state for literally over 20 years.

Still, there are those who would have you believe that this ballot form somehow disenfranchised Florida voters in the year 2000. I counter-propose that any putative confusion lies within the alleged minds of illiterate, illegal, or just plain decrepit & cornfused voters down there. I cite in evidence the above-mentioned simple fact that Ohio voters have used the same form for several decades with nary a hiccup.

I also note -not having reviewed my own 2004 post linked above recently- that Ohio now requires ID, but that it is not narrowly limited:

First I had to provide identification, something new for Ohio. The nice ladies at the polling station told me the requirement wasn’t restricted “official” IDs such as state of Ohio ID, or even a photo ID such as a driver’s license.. All that is required is a valid document with your correct name and address on it. One woman brought in her checkbook, and the the nice ladies told me a phone bill and/or electric bill were equally acceptable.

I repeat here my original thought: “This impresses me as a healthy compromise which helps eliminate vote fraud while not placing an undue burden on citizens.”

I therefore ask those generally opposed to required-ID for voting: do you consider the above an acceptable form? If not, why not?

Best line of the night? Instapundit:

I’M WATCHNG JOHN EDWARDS SAY “This race is not about me.” Not with those numbers it’s not.

They asked an NPR analyst, “Edwards says he’s staying in this race till the convention. Can he keep that up?” She said, “No.”

On the other hand, someone else made the point that, well, what else does he have to do till then? I’d rather not think about it.

He cannot go find that something else fast enough. Phony (I did not say “pony”!) class war waged by the super-rich, we don’t need.

The New Republic has recently become famous for its making-stuff-up journalism.

But they sure seem to have good sources for this — a collection of old Ron Paul publications that show him to be every bit the creep we thought he was.

A slimy creep. Time to go, Ronnie boy.

UPDATE:  More here, from David Bernstein.

If you want to feel like you know what’s going on with the debates and the politics and the whole thing, but like me you don’t really want to work that hard, I think Glenn Reynolds’s round-up here is a good place to start.  And finish.

Vodkapundit:

Bob Novak expects Hillary Clinton to come in third place in Iowa tomorrow.

That really would be something, wouldn’t it?  When’s the last time you even heard the word “coronation”!?

Ed Morrissey reports on a quickie blogger-conference-call from Huckabee:

I like Mike Huckabee, but this call was really a waste of time. It sounded like an internal conference designed to cheer the stalwarts rather than an opportunity to get asked something other than softballs. It’s not that Huckabee gave poor answers — he sounded very good, in fact — but the questions did nothing except tee up his well-known thoughts on his biography and education.

I wanted to give him an opportunity to address the fallout of his press conference in which he announced he would not run a particular attack ad against Mitt Romney and then screened it for the press anyway, as bloggers and pundits have been openly wondering what Huckabee intended with that move. I figured that if I didn’t get the chance to ask that question, someone else would — but we only got three softballs, and slow-pitched ones at that.

Chuck Norris may have been the most interesting part of this call.

Well, you’d have to say that!