By Selwyn Duke

The only difference between Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee is their choice of instruments.

After my expose of presidential aspirant Mick Huckabee (properly known as Huck "the Huckster"), I received numerous reader emails wherein people asked me, essentially, who was a better viable alternative.  A few of these emails follow along with my response. 

A asks:

"I get that you are not too into Huckabee, but I can’t tell who you do find to be better?"

DC says:

"Reviewed your article. I can’t say I agree with you – not because you
said anything wrong. It just sort of struck me that you don’t like
Huckabee because he isn’t a true conservative. You may be right. But
take a look at the choices that we have. Mitt and Rudy are no better on
border security and they have themselves behaved like liberals in
several of their key positions."

JB says:

"Help me understand, however, how Rudy or Romney are any better than huckabee? 
Romney takes John Kerry’s flip flop of the year award doesn’t he?  And judging
by Rudy’s history he’s a republican in name only."

PS says:

"Does that make Mitt a Conservative?"

I’ll start by saying that I can understand why many voters have latched onto Huck.  With the wanting candidates we’re presented with, voters are desperately seeking a palatable traditionalist.  And, on the surface, Huck seems to be that man.

Unfortunately, ideological resplendence, like beauty, is sometimes only skin deep. 

To condemn Huck is not synonymous with ascribing great leadership qualities to the other front runners.  If I had my druthers, I’d like to see someone such as Alan Keyes, Duncan Hunter or Tom  Tancredo as president.  And I do like Ron Paul’s respect for the Constitution.  But right now you could put a Wal-Mart between the front runners and these fellows, and that won’t change.  So we have to talk about those who actually have a chance at the nomination.

It’s true that Giuliani is a fairly typical New York Republican, in that he’s liberal on many if not most issues.  As for Romney’s positions, he has flipped more than a breakfast cook at the International House of Pancakes.  This is why I long ago wrote articles critical of both of these gentlemen (they can be found here and here).

So what is a good traditionalist to do?  I won’t endorse any candidate or try to tell you who to vote for, but I will tell you my philosophy.  To take a page out of Dick Morris’ book, it’s "ABH."  But while he’s directing his ire at Lady Macbeth, I mean "anybody but Huck" in the Republican primaries.

I know that many of you are wondering how I differentiate among all these highly flawed candidates.  It’s simple: Principle.  That’s not to say Huck isn’t principled.  No, he’s quite so.

The problem is that he has the wrong principles.

An article I’ve written about this in which I explain the matter in detail will be released just after Christmas, so now I’ll just explain it in a nutshell.  Yes, all the front runners have checkered ideological pasts, but there is something that makes Huck singularly dangerous.

He believes it’s his Christian duty to impose statism.

Being a man of faith, this scares me.  I understand that when you believe your principles reflect God’s will — when you think your very salvation may hinge on your advocacy of them — you won’t ever bend.  This is a terrific quality when you have the right principles; when you don’t, though . . ..   

You can finish the sentence.

So here’s how I see it.  Although Giuliani’s pro-abortion stance and other liberal views are anathema to me, I would trust him more than Romney or, needless to say, Huck.  But Mayor 9/11 won’t be winning the nomination. 

Now let’s talk about Romney.  Although I haven’t said it publicly, I have long believed that he’s going to win the nomination.  I do think he’s a panderer; however, I believe he’s a panderer who, at least in some measure, will listen to the traditionalist base (you can thank me for the kind words later, Mitt).  In contrast, Huck is a panderer who will only obey his misguided passions. 

There is a great saying that explains the danger of this:

"A man who is only capable of deceiving only others is not nearly as dangerous as a man who is capable of deceiving himself."

Now, as for specifics, I’ll mention just one issue here.  Although none of these candidates would be Tom Tancredo on immigration — let alone yours truly — Huck would be a disaster.  He believes it is his Christian duty to grant amnesty to the 30 million invaders in our nation, a treacherous act that would forever alter our cultural landscape.  It would be the last nail in our already well-secured coffin.

Huck is the Jimmy Carter of the Republican party.  He is basically a Christian Democrat, and we cannot afford a Huckster presidency.  Although, I suppose we wouldn’t have to worry too much about that because he couldn’t win the general election.

ABH.