. . . we're supposed to bite off on what's clearly an ad hominem attack based upon a single source of information? You, my dear troll, have much to learn.
We all have opinions here, that's the nice part of a truly conservative blogsite. I don't agree with any one of the regulars all of the time, but at the end of the day I can pretty much guarantee you that when the dust settles we agree far more frequently than we disagree.
The really cool part about a place like Right Michigan is that we actually stick to the original intent of the First Amendment. You may remember it; freedom of speech. The caveat, which the Founding Fathers deliberately included in the same amendment, is that you are required to be peaceable about exercising that freedom.
We're the same way here. All of us regulars have our opinions about who should or shouldn't have been the first chair on the Republican presidential ticket of 2008. All of us will have our reasons for our opinions, and can readily support them if required to do so. And if we think that a particular opinion ought to be challenged, then we will do so.
However, unlike what you've just done, we will use logical, factual, respectful arguments. And we will back our arguments up with multiple credible sources of information. (The emphasis, by the way, is on the word "multiple.") And we never, ever, make it personal.
Besides all that, in a manner characteristic of every other troll we've dealt with here, you completely missed the point of the entire essay. I could give a rip about whether or not Mike Huckabee has any aspirations to challenge The Anointed One in 2012; the purpose was to highlight the activity of the Independence Caucus, and specifically to publicly challenge Mike Cox to submit to their vetting process.
If you're going to come after me, could you at least have the common sense to keep it on point?
Parent
