The fact that a “successful” speech by Mitt coincided with a Mike Huckabee surge is really quite bizarre. So I, like the rest of the GOP Primary voters, am taking a second look.

To read too much into it: the social conservatives have handed their votes to the Wall Street Journal crowd for decades, and have finally realized that they are not getting much at all in return. In this crowded field of 6 significant candidates, 4 with a real shot (not McCain, not Paul), the foreign policy and Wall Street vote is split up, and the social conservatives en masse are going for Huckabee, almost by default: Guiliani has too many wives, Romney, even setting the wives thing aside, is wobbly on guns, wobbly on God, and wobbly on gays, and Fred Thompson has a young good-looking wife, so who else is left?

I like the “Club for Greed” comment. The lack of policy depth is a real concern though. It is one thing for Pat Buchanan to be against free trade, or for someone to advocate a flat tax, or for some fundamentalist to be anti-evolution. But you throw all of these very radical ideas out there, kind of on a whim, and you start to look a little naïve, a little low on IQ, and in trouble when the guns get turned on you.

Still, a social conservative “who isn’t mad about it” sells well, and so does someone who agrees that taxes are too high, but doesn’t quite make the issue into a false god the way the ‘Club for Greed’ does.