Caucus Catch-up

I am a Mitt Romney supporter, therefore disappointed with last night's caucus results. Only time will tell if he fares better in other states. There is some interesting commentary worth reviewing:

• At In Rare Form we have had an interesting discussion on how we feel about Huckabee, and whether or not we would vote for a Democrat should he win the nomination.
• Michael Barone looks at the "16-year Itch." That is the name of the cycle that some see in the periodic rejection of establishment politicians from office (see Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter).
• Kim Strassel looks at the future of the Republican party and posits the continued relevance of the "Reagan Coalition."
• Peggy Noonan examines the defeat of "Inevitable Hillary" and Huckabee's acension. She is not kind to his campaign chair Ed Rollins. Her criticism is well-founded.

Finally, David Brooks wrote a piece in today's New York Times that I reacted to with a visceral concern. I'm going to quote liberally to indicate my concerns (any emphasis is mine):

Most importantly, [Huckabee] sensed that conservatives do not believe their own movement is well led. He took on Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth and even President Bush. The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed.

Huckabee attacked a conservative icon and the sitting president. He attacked Rush on influence and Bush on foreign policy. The former is unquestionably powerful. The latter is strongest in precisely the realm that Huckabee criticized. Conservatives don't doubt the President's broad initiatives, but their implementation.

A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.

Pays attention to? YES. Panders to? NO. And to indicate that a distrust of capitalists is a good thing? A conservative principle? In my mind this is heresy to the conservative movement. Conservatives distrust socialists and those who threaten property rights. In other words, economic liberals.

Will Huckabee move on and lead this new conservatism? Highly doubtful. The past few weeks have exposed his serious flaws as a presidential candidate. His foreign policy knowledge is minimal. His lapses into amateurishness simply won’t fly in a national campaign.
So the race will move on to New Hampshire. Mitt Romney is now grievously wounded. Romney represents what’s left of Republicanism 1.0. Huckabee and McCain represent half-formed iterations of Republicanism 2.0. My guess is Republicans will now swing behind McCain in order to stop Mike.
Huckabee probably won’t be the nominee, but starting last night in Iowa, an evangelical began the Republican Reformation.

Ick. I just discount this whole idea of a new conservatism. If such a thing exists, call it by a different name. I discount the idea that Huckabee has started something in Iowa. I don't want to be associated with that movement.