Looking over some of the recent vitriol directed at our man Huckabee, I have observed a particular constant among them: They all make allegations, but offer no proof from more unbiased reliable sources. Chuck Baldwin's latest hate-Huckabee piece is a prime example:

He opens fire with the statement: "Robert Novak recently wrote a column about Mike Huckabee entitled, "The False Conservative." Robert Novak had some things to say, but only cherry-picked evidence to back up his points. He pointed to Huckabee's raising taxes by “47%”, [the legislature is actually responsible for this] but of course left out any mention of the circumstances, or of the fact that he also proposed and signed the biggest tax cuts in the state's history. Oh, and I’ve heard from others that it was more like 36%. Or was it 57%? Or…you get the idea. Hard to get everyone’s accusations the same, you know. ;)

Baldwin quotes Novak, who goes on to quote a known anti-Huckabee journalist named Quin Hillyer, who accused Huckabee of unethical dealings with state funds (again, no evidence, just accusations), and personally attacked Huckabee by labeling him "thin skinned," "nasty," and "vindictive."

And this is the "evidence" Baldwin produces to show that Huckabee isn’t the man people think he is. Pitiful. Frankly, this a pretty low blow coming from a conservative Baptist pastor. In fact, I’m hard pressed to find a non-Christian who has been more vigorous in attacking Huckabee. Sure, there’s a post or two on a blog out there, but you expect some words from non-conservatives.

Then Baldwin really stretches it by quoting one person’s letter to the World Net Daily Editor. For all we know, this person (David Ulrich) might be an anti-Huckabee activist too, or in the pay of Ron Paul or some other rival of Huckabee’s.

A reference to Jerome Corsi, founder of the Minutemen, says that Huckabee’s actions with regard to Mexico “may have been illegal.” A whole slough of conclusions is then drawn from that statement. By the way, statements like “may have been illegal,” “may be guilty of the following,” etc., are common attack statements used by any candidate’s opposition against them. Inference is a powerful weapon.

Then this reference to “the ethics commission.” What ethics commission? I assume it is some commission based in Arkansas. I’ll believe that junk when hell freezes over. I know a couple government officials who were referred to this state’s ethics committee. Every time, it was trumped-up charges of one sort or another. To its credit, the committee usually throws them out, at least here. This whole ethics thing is just more boilerplate that is usually rolled out by opponents against their most hated candidate.

As if the first reference was not enough, Baldwin goes on to quote someone who quoted that Quin Hillyer again, leveling all sorts of horrible accusations, without any evidence produced. Also, I wouldn’t blame anyone, especially Huckabee, if they attacked an enemy’s methods of criticism, particularly when they reach a desperately low level, like Hillyer’s attacks have. But to Robert Novak and Chuck Baldwin, that must mean “thin skinned.” I would love to see their reactions to similar baseless attacks on their character. If they defend themselves and criticize the attacker for unfair methods, they also should be considered “thin skinned,” by the same line of reasoning.

Then this talk of Mike’s smoking ban proposal. Who cares? He can’t enact anything like that anyway unless Congress is in agreement. I wouldn’t howl too loudly about the right of people to commit gradual suicide by inhalation of tar. :D

And Chuck tops off his smear piece with the warning “Mike Huckabee will ‘most definitely’ endorse Giuliani.” Oh??? Is that so? Did Mike say something? Did he tell Baldwin something that he wouldn’t tell the rest of us? I don’t like Giuliani any more than Baldwin does, and I probably would be at best very reluctant to vote for him.  However, such speculation is unnecessary: Mike’s on a roll, and he won’t have to endorse Giuliani—because I expect Mike to get the nomination. I’m not so sure that Mike would endorse Giuliani anyway. He’ll probably just bow out and leave the scene.

“Big government, establishment politician”: Doesn’t everyone say this about their most-hated candidate? ‘Nuff said.

It’s obvious why Baldwin is rolling out these overused, stale arguments: Huckabee, probably more than any other candidate, stands in the way of Ron Paul’s chances at the nomination. Baldwin is a total Ron Paul nut. He wrote an article stating that the evangelicals’ only choice in ’08 was Ron Paul.

Sorry Mr. Baldwin, but you’d have to be kinda liberal to go with the real Ron Paul. I’ll just hit the “highlights”:

1.       Ron Paul opposes federal marriage and pro-life amendments, or any sort of federal law in general.

2.      Ron Paul has been very friendly in his voting to the narcotics industry. A hemp activist group gave him very high ratings, according to Ontheissues.org

3.      Ron Paul is shrilly anti-Iraq-war, proposing that we withdraw our troops immediately. He doesn’t want to let the troops accomplish the task that they desperately want to finish. Also, it seems he agrees with the ludicrous allegations that President Bush staged 9-11 to get “his war.”

4.      He is against federal regulations on pornography (which should be enacted on that level) and other “private” issues.

5.      He is essentially anti-Israel, considering them a “waste of resources.” He has also attracted support from anti-Jew groups.

If that is Chuck Baldwin’s idea of a “perfect candidate,” then he’s not quite the Christian he seems to be. Using his own reasoning, how could someone like Baldwin (who I assume is very pro-life and pro-traditional-marriage) support someone who finds measures to protect those things across the states “unnecessary?” He couldn’t…unless…

Also, Ron Paul isn’t even Christian himself: he believes in evolution, thus refusing to acknowledge the creation, which I would think Mr. Baldwin believes in.

I have no problem with people bringing up legitimate, verifiable concerns. But simply quoting other people’s statements which also provide no evidence is unacceptable. Mr. Baldwin should quit demonizing his fellow Christians just because he considers them a threat to his favorite candidate.