Laura Ingraham was not a Huckabee fan and in fact introduced Mitt Romney before his famous CPAC farewell. However, on the Greta Van Susteren show, she made an astonishing statement:

VAN SUSTEREN: Well, he’s got to pick somebody! He can’t — I mean, he’s got to — so he’s got to pick somebody. He can’t just go it alone.

INGRAHAM: No, but I think he has to pick someone who can connect with the broad base of conservatives.

VAN SUSTEREN: Like?

INGRAHAM:Oh, I think — I think — you know, Mike Huckabee — you know, I’ve — I’ve been fairly critical of him in the past, but he does have a presence and he does connect with people. I just think the problem with McCain…

It’s an amazing move and along with Glenn Beck saying something positive about Huckabee recently , it does indicate that at least some of the talk radio hosts are moving beyond the controversy of the last campaign.

This got a rise out of Nachema Soloveichik of the Club for Growth, who writes:

I’m sorry but what about Mike Huckabee appeals to “the broad base of conservatives?”

Well, it could be the fact that he cut welfare rolls in half while he was Governor in Arkanasas and that he pushed for pro-growth tax policies and opposed efforts to increase the income tax and strongly supported cuts in Capital Gains Taxes. It could be that he fought hard for charter schools and made it easier to fire bad teachers.

Perhaps, though, it could be that unlike the rest of the party, he can actually talk to the common ordinary American with some credibility and sense of empathy. It could be that he is an advocate of tax reform, that he signed a no amnesty pledge, and is unapologeticlaly pro-life. It could be that he favors restoring our military to the percent of GDP it was at under President Reagan. It could be that he favors exploring new sources of energy.

In an election were Barack Obama is making a play for disenchanted Evangelicals, and people are hurting economically under the yoke of high gas prices (though I would argue this is more the fault of the Senate than the current Administration), Huckabee would be the only one to counter the Democratic attacks. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that his proper place is 1-on-1 with Barack Obama, who could match Obama’s hope and change and raise him 14 years of executive experience.

The reason we don’t have that race is because the Club for Growth decided to spend $750,000 attacking Huckabee in South Carolina which bolstered the losing campaigns of Thompson and Romney, while allowing McCain, a candidate the Club described as having a ”marked antipathy towards the free market and individual freedom” to win the state and eventually the nomination.

Club for Growth was phariseeical in its attacks on Huckabee: Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. An SCHIP like health program, as well as a few tax increases to pay for roads were roundly condemned by the CFP in ad after ad (these ads never mentioned Huckabee’s tax cuts, nor that throughout his tenure he faced a legislature that was 75+% Democratic and could override any veto by a majority vote, nor court decisions that forced more spending), while Mitt Romney’s huge government health care plan (on which Hillary Clinton’s new plan was patterned) generated not one ad from the Club.

The Club continues their dogged anti-Huckabee pursuit for reasons that are beyond my reckoning. The Club makes great picks in Congressional races, but their obsessive behavior towards Huckabee calls into question their judgment for many people, as their one-sided attacks cost them credibility with new conservative activists.