Hillary Clinton is not the only candidate hanging in there, against the odds.
Mike Huckabee is still around, and looks to be…for a while longer.
“You can beat me but you can’t make me quit,” he said,
talking to reporters following a speech before hundreds of locals and
Baylor University students.
Clearly, Huckabee is not going to quit. And he hasn’t been ‘beaten’ at this point, and won’t be next week, either.
Even if McCain were to win each of the combined 256
delegates up for grabs in Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont and here on
Tuesday, he’d still fall short by some estimates of the 1,191 pledged
delegates needed to clinch the nomination. And 1,191, Huckabee
reiterated Thursday, is “the magic number.”
“That’s when you have to recognize somebody else has secured the nomination,” he said. “That hasn’t happened yet.”
While he’s still in it, he knows he has a platform and a microphone.
He’s saying the right things to social conservatives. And he’s funny.
“Let’s win Texas and let’s absolutely just shock the
daylights out of [television newscasters] and make them stand there for
about two hours just blubbering all over themselves trying to figure
out…” he declared, drowned out by applause.
Speaking of the MSM, there’s some concern among them that Huckabee’s draw in Texas will have other consequences. Like rewriting evolution out of textbooks.
Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister who expressed his
support for creationism while serving as governor of neighboring
Arkansas, has been pressed several times during the presidential
campaign for his view of teaching evolution, but has evaded the issue.
“It is interesting that question would even be asked of someone running
for President of the United States,” Huckabee responded in a
presidential debate last June. “I am not planning on writing the
curriculum for an eighth grade science book — I am asking for the
opportunity to be President of the United States.”
Which raises an interesting point. On this issue and others, the
liberal media have tried to instill fear in Americans about what a
social or moral conservative president would do to this country. Their
clear message is that a president can change the culture, the
textbooks, the fabric of American life by imposing his ideology on laws
and institutions and even family structures.
So by extension, that reasoning implies that a liberal president
would impact the culture as dramatically by imposing his or her
ideology and values on the courts and doctors and families.
Why don’t we hear their reports about that?