I have to say, the almost always dead-on Ms. Noonan is dead wrong this time. Mike Huckabee is in front in Iowa and surging to the front nationally for two reasons: he is sincere and he has a personality. Which is basically the same reason Ronny, held captive our country's attention for a decade. Don't misunderstand me - Huckabee is obviously not the conservative that Reagan was - and it was certainly his conservatism combined with his ability to communicate that made him the man we greatly revere. But I think the pundits are greatly underestimating Huckabee for a few reasons, not least of which is that most of them picked their guy long before Huckabee was even an option.

I like Huckabee for a couple reasons:
1) the options are limited
2) he is rock-solid on the things that matter most to me (tops on this list is the genocide of 1.5 million unborn babies per year), most of which are derivatives of him being a "Christian Leader", but aren't exclusive to it. which is incidently why I would, in good conscience, also vote for Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson or John McCain.
3) he is a great communicator - the best in this election on either side of the aisle. and the best conservative communicator we're seen since the gipper. obviously this is a secondary consideration, because what he's communicating matters - but I think Huckabee has the rare ability of uniting people and getting things done in this day and age. take a honest look at his record in arkansas, he got things done.
4) some of the issues he's not "conservative" enough on, have never been and will never be, my issues. perfect example: huckabee's stance on giving scholarships to qualified children of illegal immigrants. i love his position and i love his defense of it, even though its clearly not one thats going to win him votes.
5) his flaws as a big spender are overstated. i think the hit job put on huckabee in this respect is largely due to three factors: (a) as mentioned above, pundits have already stuck their neck out for another candidate - see this sadly all too true article at redstate: http://www.redstate.com/stories/archived/f_you_country_boy_jesus_freaks_... (b) huckabee is not a big money establishment candidate and so he makes the washington-new york big money establishment pretty nervous and (c) the other candidates are big money establishment types and so big money has been spent trashing his record. i think huckabees record in this respect is only slightly worse than Romney's, especially when you consider the billions American taxpayers spent on his great success, the salt lake olympics. and comparisons to mccain and thompson can't really be made b/c have a fiscally conservative voting record in congress is a heck of a lot easier than being a fiscally conservative governor. (note: i'd still prefer a candidate with a little less of a penchant for spending).

Does Mike Huckabee have his faults. Most certainly. But in my estimation, knowing what i know today, they are less fatal then those of the other candidates. Peggy and Norm, I just think you're wrong.

I saw that too, and think the topic bears examination. Would Reagan pass the litmus test of the far right today?

How people pick their candidate is actually rather complex. Religion is only one aspect of this choice. There are a number of issues, however, that correlate with religious attitudes, abortion and same-sex marriage being examples.

Relative to the traditional stance of the Republican Party on abortion and same-sex marriage, neither of the two leading Republican candidates, Romney and Giuliani, have good records. Huckabee obviously has the potential to capitalize on that fact. If he overplays his hand clearly makes the issue his religion versus the religious choices of his opponents, I suspect the issue will blow up in his face.

Note that Noonan offers relatively proof that Huckabee has made an issue of religion. In fact, it is the news media that has made the biggest stink about it.

Much, I suspect, of Huckabee's recent rise in the polls is due to the dissatisfaction with the choices we have been offered. There is also the simple fact that people are only just now starting to take Huckabee seriously. Can Huckabee stand such attention? I don't know.

What I found more interesting in Noonan's article was the part on immigration. I most of all liked this insight.

Because politicians see immigration as just another issue in "the game," they feel compelled to speak of it not with honest indifference but with hot words and images. With a lack of sympathy. This is in contrast to normal Americans, who do not use hot words, and just want the problem handled and the rule of law returned to the borders.

I actually think today's media and the left would excoriate Reagan for his views on God and the place the Christian God and religion have in American history. He would be more than accepted by the conservative wing of the Republican Party for the same reason he was in his time. I find it a bit offensive the suggestion that Christians are pegged today as only supporting people that say they are Christians. We pick those who by their actions show they support the same issues we do. As a Christian I have been burned far too many times by political flim-flam artists who talk the talk but don't walk the walk. I would support someone from any religion as long as he believed the values I believe in.

See another excellent article detailing the establishment's attack on Huckabee and why it is stupid:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/12/19/even_if_he_l...

In particular note what Medved has to say about Noonan's thesis that Huckabee is only in front because of religious faith (but read the whole thing before you attack Huckabee as a "pro-life liberal"):

"This is nonsense, of course. Evangelical voters may play a disproportionate role in giving Huckabee the lead in Iowa and South Carolina, but they can’t readily explain his similar polling advantages in Michigan, Delaware or Florida. The truth is that the polls indicating Huckabee tied with Rudy for the national lead indicate that his support is evenly divided between those who describe themselves as Evangelical Christians and those who identify with some other religious tradition or no faith at all. Not all Huck’s supporters are Evangelical, and not all Evangelicals support Huckabee.

In fact, very few prominent Christian Conservatives have endorsed the Arkansas Traveler – Romney in particular has drawn back from more famous Evangelicals than has Huckabee, while many others support Thompson, McCain or even Guiliani – just ask Pat Robertson. In other words, contrary to the Washington Post’s infamous (and long ago) description of Christian conservatives as “poor, uneducated and easily led,” the Evangelical community is decidedly split in this campaign. In addition to its other revelations, the Huckabee campaign shows that conservative Christians represent no dangerous or monolithic cult, but a diverse, complex and politically maturing community. If nothing else, the Huckabee campaign has provided a means for some disillusioned members of that community to rally behind a Republican candidate who offered a genial alternative when all his rivals seemed unacceptable for one reason or another."

Revisionist history is rampant in today's GOP "activist."

First, a lot of folks forget that the evangelical vote was heavily for Carter in 1976. A lot of GOP strategists didn't see it being a particularly ripe group of primary voters in 1980. The "evangelical swing" didn't occur until the summer of 1980 when Reverend Falwell came out strongly for Reagan. There wasn't a lot of pandering to this group at all in the 1980 GOP primaries.

Second, go and look at debates in the 1980 GOP primaries...."I paid for this microphone...." The debates centered on two main themes: 1. Economics: Bush bashed Reagan's tax cuts and Reagan bashed Bush's allegiance to gov't revenues. All the GOP candidates were offering prescriptions for inflation and the high interest rates of the day.

2. Foreign Policy: Specifically every GOP candidate, including Howard Baker, was screaming for a stronger military. Iran's hostage crisis and the failure of the rescue mission got GOP voters riled up more than anything else.

Now memories can be cloudy. However, if you can view the 1980 GOP debates, I don't think "social issues" were ever a major topic. Abortion was mentioned, but it was a very small part of the campaign/debates. I can't imagine that homosexuality was ever seriously addressed by the candidates. I would dare say that the all-but-forgotten principle of "federalism" and "state's rights" got just as much lip service and attention from the GOP candidates and voters in the primaries in 1980 than "social issues" did.

I'm not sure how Reagan would fare in today's GOP primaries. However, I think it is a bit of revisionist history on the part of some conservative activists to pretend that the focus of GOP campaigns in this day and age look anything similar to 1980.