The other thing that struck me about the WSJ piece David referenced was how Huckabee’s solid pro-life record really didn’t count for much. The Huckabee flaws, according to the piece, included:
“He’s hostile to free trade, hiked sales and grocery taxes, backed sales taxes on Internet purchases”
“His support for taxes split the Republican Party, and damaged our name brand”
“Mike has always sought the validation of elites”
He retained a number of Clinton people in state government

He has not supported Bush’s veto of the Schip health care program
He has backed “the discredited cap-and-trade system to limit global-warming emissions“
This tax-policy-trumps-abortion-policy position may make sense for the article’s author, John Fund, who is more of an economic than social conservative. But his piece also quotes the Arkansas director of the socially-conservative Eagle Forum who said, “He was pro-life and pro-gun, but otherwise a liberal.” Substitute “anti genocide” for pro-life in that sentence (as anti-abortion activists often do in other contexts), and her position seems a bit peculiar. Well, sure Huckabee’s good on stopping millions of murders but his position on cap-and-trade is really bad.
And there’s Phyllis Schlaffly, who said Huckabee “destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party a shambles.”
For some, the “rights of the unborn” are now just one item on a checklist of many factors including your record on tax cuts, fundraising prowess, and Republican Party loyalty. Which is fine, unless you happen to really believe abortion is murder.