As I said, my point is that Huckabee went from one position to another seemingly in contradiction to his previous one.

That position speaks to a substantial opening on the anti-globalist right. As I have noted on several occassions on this this blog, if he put that coalition together, starting with the supporters of the people above, there’s the beginnings of a powerful operation.

“now it seems that Governor Reverend Huckabee wants the votes of racists and nativists…

There is a powerful coalition of Huckabee, Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, and Duncan Hunter supporters out there…”

I never said that Huckabee’s position was the same as Tancredo’s or equated them. I did say that if he adopted more aggressive language on immigration, he has the opportunity to suck up those supporters and energy. Especially once Tancredo, Paul, Hunter, etc. drop out.

Each of these is running on a kind of nativist and anti-globalist agenda, with different emphases. Tancredo wants to pull out of NAFTA, which is crazy left-quackery. And Hunter wants to stop trade. And Huckabee’s anti-”Wall Street” rhetoric is convertible into that.

And, for the record, I do think that Tancredo is a xenophobe and a racist. And the party will be better with him gone.

You know, as well as I do, that while Huckabee has toughened his immigration talk, particularly around border security (as with Rudy), he’s a long way from the Tancredo position on immigration. His opposition to “anchor baby” citizenship is supported by many, many people who see the current practice as exacerbating the problem of illegal immigration. But that opposition does not equate to the Tancredo position of seeking to deport all the illegals currently here, or, at a minimum, make employment enforcement so strict as to “starve” the remaining illegals into leaving.

Of course, you don’t seem interested in allowing for such differences, as you’ve conflated the Huckabee/Hunter/Tancredo/Paul camps and thrown the words “xenophobe” and “racism” in for good measure.

What about the Catholic Church?

Those are real secular.

And you seemed to miss my point that he characterized this kind of positioning as racist just a year ago. And the analytic point that he is (1) flip-flopping and (2) giving up on his (religiously grounded) principles to pander for votes.

Ah yes, the secular-progressive wing of the party strikes again. And it sounds strikingly similar to the race-baiters that liberals and Dems have been pushing on us for years.

Seeking to improve upon the current law granting citizenship to “anchor babies” is not a part of “comprehensive immigration reform” (as any liberalization of current law would be termed), but rather an indication of personal malice. Rather, it is an indication of the desire to court “racists” and “nativists” (as anyone who believes in any sort of increased enforcement must be deemed). One doesn’t have to read far between the lines to see “racist” and “xenophobe” are labels being tossed into the same sentence with the governor himself, and not by accident. After all, he’s a Christian AND a southerner AND thinks 500,000 new illegals a year and 12-20 Million illegals in the US in the midst of the GWOT (where open borders are an invitation to strike) is a problem. Yeah, he must be a racist.

You’re doing Jesse proud, Soren. Keep up the good work.