I don't know why birthright citizenship keeps tripping Mike Huckabee up, but it does.

He was asked at last night's debate whether he supports "making changes in the law" to end the policy, which says almost all children born in the U.S. are automatically citizens, even if they are born to illegal aliens. Here's his answer:

MR. HUCKABEE: I think the Supreme Court's already ruled on that. The real issue is, that doesn't fix the problem.

Compare that to what he told this blog in August:

"I would support changing that. I think there is reason to revisit that, just because a person, through sheer chance of geography, happened to be physically here at the point of birth, doesn't necessarily constitute citizenship," he said. "I think that's a very reasonable thing to do, to revisit that."

Click here for audio of the conversation

And to what he said in a written statement last month:

"If the Supreme Court chooses to review lower-court decisions regarding the 14th Amendment, that is their prerogative, but my priorities for constitutional amendments are to protect human life and traditional marriage."

So here's the time line. In August he said he supported changing it. In December his chief immigration surrogate, Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist, said Huckabee called for a constitutional amendment to change it. Asked about it at the time, his campaign said they shared Gilchrist's view. After we printed that, Huckabee said he wasn't pushing for an amendment, and it would be up to the Supreme Court to take a case. For that matter, he told CNN in an interview he hadn't given the issue any thought. Now he says the court has already ruled on it — that point is in dispute among legal scholars — and says it's not the issue anyway. What happened between August and now?

-- Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

In one of the classic scenes in the movie Animal House, the Delta boys are on trial for their fraternity hijinks. One of them, Otter, takes the floor and in his defense manages to spin the charges against the fraternity into an indictment of American society in general. In the climax he announces, "Well, you can do what you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America." (NOTE: The clip is an unedited clip, so be prepared for the same language and themes that earned the movie an R rating.)

Rep. Don Young has just tried the same thing in defending his pork-barrel spending to Citizens Against Government Waste, a spending watchdog group that annually declares a "porker of the year" -- the lawmaker with the most extreme pork-barrel spending habits.

Earlier this month CAGW nominated Young along with five other members of Congress as finalists for the porker of the year award -- Young already won the porker of the month designation last April.

But Young fired back, in a stern letter accusing CAGW's president, Tom Schatz, of not caring about the lives of American troops.

His argument is one of his earmarked projects went to technology that allows troops to monitor enemies behind walls. He said a combat team out of Fort Wainwright, Alaska, will be deployed to Iraq with the new technology in September.

"Essentially what you are saying is that countless Alaskan lives (and the lives of our military in general) are not worth $1.6 million?" Young wrote in his letter.

And then comes the Animal House part:

"In short, Mr. Schatz, I invite you to travel to Alaska and talk to our military using new technologies that will save their lives; talk to the Alaskans who frequent food kitchens so they can feed their families; or those Alaskans who visit the new Salvation Army Center so they can have a safe, warm place to sleep. All of these things are possibly because Alaskans requested assistance and I was able to secure some funding to help them. Visit them after you sit down to a meal with your family, and tuck your children into bed at night, on any given day when you are enjoying being a free citizen because of the United States military, and tell these agencies and the people they serve what a waste of money their earmarks were," Young wrote.

Schatz was not impressed, and fired back his own response:

"We are well aware of the pride you take in your pork, to the extent that you referred to the taxpayers' dollars as 'my money' on the floor of the House of Representatives on July 18, 2007. That misguided use of the possessive alone epitomizes why Americans are fed up with earmarks and why opinion polls show Congress inspiring an even lower level of trust among Americans than President Bush," he said.

As for Young's argument about American lives, Schatz said: "In reality, earmarks hollow out national security by taking valuable defense dollars and placing them into programs and projects that are not viewed as essential by military experts at the Pentagon."

The back and forth can be found here.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

For months pundits told us this year was different. The calendar was too compressed, the big states were front-loaded, and someone -- in this case Rudy Giuliani -- could win the nomination without winning a single early contest.

You can now put that to rest: Meet the new primaries, same as the old primaries.

So what happened? In a word, the media.

Look at all the attention the networks gave to the Democratic contest in Florida, even though as of now not a single delegate will be seated from their primary. When there's a contest going on, we'll cover it. Giuliani thought he could survive past all of that, but he got steamrolled by the lack of attention. The rise of Mike Huckabee, the resurrection of John McCain and the back-and-forth between those two and Mitt Romney sucked all of the attention away from Giuliani, and he has spent the last few weeks trying to find it again. Instead, all voters have heard is horse-race stories about Giuliani's strategy.

All told, it's a spectacular collapse. In 2004, Howard Dean led for a brief period of time in national polls before faltering in Iowa and quickly fading. But Mr. Giuliani led for most of last year, and had a lot of very smart people declaring he had the magic key to the new primary system.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Before there are voters, there has to be money to tell the voters about your campaign. So candidates want to know what issues really get voters going. David All, the boy genius of the conservative movement on the Internet, has been compiling those stats from Slatecard, his political action committee designed to harness online donations for conservative candidates.

In addition to asking which candidate a donor wants to contribute to, All asks donors to choose one of about 30 issues they say is driving them to give.

While it's still in its infancy, the early results are in, and with nearly 500 donations calculated, the top issue driving donors to give was to "cut the pork." More than one in ten voters chose that cause. Second was voters who selected "pro-life," followed closely by defense-oriented voters who wanted to "protect and defend America."

At the bottom of the list were free trade and "net neutraility."

In terms of dollar amount, contributors interested in health care gave the most per donation — more than $400 per check.

The full list can be found here — be sure to scroll down for the full chart.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

John McCain thinks he's found Mitt Romney's soft point.

The senator's campaign went into overdrive this weekend in arguing that Romney was a lukewarm supporter of the surge in Iraq and, in fact, supported "secret timetables" for withdrawal.

McCain's campaign fired off statements from just about every senior official they could — from Sen. Lindsey Graham to former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger to former CIA Director James Woolsey.

So you can decide what you think, here's the McCain campaign's argument, as expressed in one of the myriad press releases fired off this weekend on the issue, followed by the actual interview Romney gave that has McCain worked up:

"Mitt Romney's position on the war in Iraq has been a study in flexibility. Like every other issue of importance in this race, Mitt Romney has changed his position. On April 3, 2007, he advocated secret timetables for withdrawal from Iraq. His exact words were 'of course you have to work together to create timetables and milestones.' In October 2007, Romney said that Hillary Clinton, who supports Iraq withdrawal, is 'not going to be demanding a dramatically different course in Iraq than the Republican nominee will.' These statements, along with Romney's inability to stick with a consistent position, provide further evidence that he lacks the critical experience and judgment necessary to lead as commander in chief."

Here's what Romney said exactly in the April 3, 2007, ABC interview in question:

ABC's Robin Roberts: "Do you believe that there should be a timetable in withdrawing the troops?"

Romney: "Well, there's no question that the president and Prime Minister al-Maliki have to have a series of timetables and milestones that they speak about. But those shouldn't be for public pronouncement. You don't want the enemy to understand how long they have to wait in the weeds until you're going to be gone. You want to have a series of things you want to see accomplished in terms of the strength of the Iraqi military and the Iraqi police, and the leadership of the Iraqi government."

Roberts: "So, private. You wouldn't do it publicly? Because the president has said flat out that he will veto anything the Congress passes about a timetable for troop withdrawals. As president, would you do the same?"

Romney: "Well, of course. Can you imagine a setting where during the Second World War we said to the Germans, 'Gee, if we haven't reached the Rhine by this date, why, we'll go home, or if we haven't gotten this accomplished we'll pull up and leave?' You don't publish that to your enemy, or they just simply lie in wait until that time. So, of course you have to work together to create timetables and milestones, but you don't do that with the opposition."

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

We should have seen this fight coming when news hit yesterday that Sylvester Stallone was backing Sen. John McCain for president.

Chuck Norris has been a prominent backer of Mike Huckabee, and the action star recently said he thought McCain, at 71, was too old to be president. At last night's debate in Florida Huckabee said the only reason he didn't disagree at the time was fear.

"I was standing with him and I didn't disagree with him at the time, because I was standing next to him. It's as simple as that. This is a guy who can put this foot on that side of my face, and there's nothing I can do about it," Huckabee said.

McCain then chimed in that he was going to do something about the pesky Norris: "Well, now that Sylvester Stallone has endorsed me, I'm sending him over to take care of Chuck Norris right away, and I'm going to get him."

For good measure, McCain added he would also deploy another recent endorser to deal with Chuck: "Stormin' Norman, General Schwartzkopf, has endorsed me as well. I'm very honored. We'll send him, too."

Any bets who wins?

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Year-end 2007 campaign finance reports are due to the Federal Election Commission a week from today, and while the information will already be a month old, Mitt Romney's number will get extra scrutiny because it will give a hint of how much of his own money he's put into the race.

Other things to look for will be Sen. John McCain's fundraising and what sort of bump it got in December, as he was creeping back up in the polls. Unfortunately, the numbers won't include his performance post-New Hampshire.

Ron Paul has already announced he raised more than $19.5 million in the fourth quarter, nearly $8 million more than the target his campaign said it needed to run the ads necessary to compete in Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond.

We don't know much else for sure. Newsweek reported that Mike Huckabee raised about $8 million in the fourth quarter, and Rudy Giuliani's campaign said it raised $15 million and had $7 million cash on hand.

But Giuliani's senior aides have given up their paychecks for this month to help him conserve his resources, and Huckabee has reportedly cut his staff as well to try to stay competitive.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Duncan Hunter, who dropped out of the presidential race over the weekend, today endorsed Mike Huckabee. Here's his statement:

"I got to know Governor Huckabee well on the campaign trail," said Hunter. "Of the remaining candidates I feel that he is strongly committed to strengthening national defense, constructing the border fence and meeting the challenge of China's emergence as a military superpower that is taking large portions of America's industrial base.

"Along with these issues of national security, border enforcement and protecting the U.S. industrial base, I see another quality of Mike Huckabee's candidacy that compels my endorsement. Mike Huckabee is a man of outstanding character and integrity. I saw that character over the last year of campaigning and was greatly impressed. The other Republican candidates have many strengths and I wish them all well. My personal choice is Mike Huckabee," Hunter concluded.

It's unclear how many folks this swings to Huckabee. Hunter never had a big following, drawing only about 5,000 votes across the five primaries and caucuses that reported vote totals. But he did win one delegate to this summer's national convention, from Wyoming.

Still, the endorsement is sure to anger some Hunter supporters who have questioned whether Huckabee is serious about border and immigration enforcement.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

So far, Mitt Romney is winning overwhelming support, according to a poll at FreeRepublic.com, which had been a place where Fred Thompson's supporters congregated.

Notice that John McCain, the man who most pundits expect would get Thompson's endorsement, is getting about 3 percent of Thompson's voters. That's only slightly higher than the "anyone but Mac" vote.

And are the folks who answered "none of the above" in the poll all Ron Paul supporters, or do they have another name in mind?

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

As an update to my earlier blog today wondering what Fred was up to, he has dropped out. Now the real speculating begins. Here's his statement:

"Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people."

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

One way to tell who's running a broad-based campaign is to look at total votes scored across all of the states that have voted in primaries and caucuses so far. And by that measure, Mitt Romney is in the lead, with John McCain close by and the rest of the field trailing substantially.

With five states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada and South Carolina; Wyoming didn't report a popular vote figure) having voted, here's the totals as taken from www.thegreenpapers.com, my top Web site for information on the primaries.

Mitt Romney	529,511
John McCain	507,933
Mike Huckabee	336,954
Fred Thompson	121,259
Ron Paul	106,171
Rudy Giuliani	60,072

Notice that Giuliani, at one point the clear front-runner in the field, has less than half the votes of Paul, and Paul is running close to Thompson — though Paul has put an effort in more states than Thompson, who focused closely on Iowa and South Carolina.

On the top side, McCain's showing comes despite not having competed in Nevada and having all but ignored Iowa — two states where Romney made substantial efforts.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Fred Thompson has been awful quiet since his third-place showing in South Carolina. After saying he was shooting for first place and needed a strong showing, finishing with less than half the votes of first-place finisher John McCain is a serious dent.

And it comes after Thompson finally put his best effort forward, dominating the pre-South Carolina primary debate, spending 10 days on a continuous bus tour of the state and finally crystalizing his argument: he was in a fight for the heart and soul of the Republican Party.

The problem, it turns out, was Mike Huckabee. They fought for the same voters and Huckabee's head start, religious appeal and magical campaigning abilities were too much for Thompson to overcome so late in the process.

Now, Thompson has a couple of options:

He is not putting any effort into Florida, which votes next week, but could keep in the race through the Feb. 5 states to see if he can pick off some of them. If the nomination does go to a brokered convention, Thompson could become an attractive option as a consensus candidate. For that matter, he could "suspend" his campaign, which could also leave him viable for a convention pick.

But most pundits expect he will drop out, and soon, and the conventional wisdom is that he endorses McCain. There are plenty of political observers who think the only reason Thompson is in this campaign right now is to keep votes away from Huckabee, thereby helping McCain.

That endorsement may happen, but there are plenty of signs it won't, also. Thompson has attacked Huckabee relentlessly, but he has not been silent on McCain, particularly on the issue of immigration. It would be quite a shift to pick him, particularly when Mitt Romney — at least with his present stance on issues — more closely matches Thompson.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Mike Huckabee figures the best way to receive is to give.

His new fundraising pitch includes sending a dollar bill to potential contributors, "because I need your undivided attention."

The hope is that folks will not want to deplete his treasury of the money and will send it back with a larger check. And Huckabee ups the importance by telling donors he's worried about being swamped with negative advertising.

He's not the first to try it. Bob Ehrlich tried the same thing in his Maryland governor's races but ran into trouble when someone complained to state officials it violated state laws prohibiting vote-buying.

In the end, the state prosecutor's office said there was no criminal violation.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Ron Paul's campaign is chafing over his continuing to be relegated to lower-tier status. His campaign chairman, Kent Snyder, sent out a memo pointing out that Paul has garnered more votes over Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan than Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani -- two Republicans who are usually considered top-tier candidates.

"If I had predicted that result when this campaign started almost 12 months ago, I would have been laughed out of the room by the so-called experts. Currently there is no frontrunner and this race is wide open," Mr. Snyder said.

According to their math, Mitt Romney leads with 443,139 votes across those three states, followed by John McCain with 361,546 votes, Mike Huckabee with 207,308 votes and Paul with 84,554 votes.

Giuliani has garnered 50,925 votes while Thompson is slightly behind at 49,198 votes.

It's worth noting Mr. Paul has competed seriously in all three states he points to, while Giuliani spent little time in Iowa and Michigan and Thompson ignored New Hampshire and Michigan.

South Carolina, which votes Saturday, should be a good test to see how Paul stacks up head-to-head with those "upper-tier" Republicans.

-- Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC says the top Republican candidates are so bad on the issue of immigration they are trying to draft CNN anchor Lou Dobbs into the race for president in case a "pro-amnesty" candidate emerges from the Republican contest.

"Ninety percent of our supporters are behind either Romney, Thompson, Paul, or Hunter for President because they appear truly opposed to Amnesty for illegal aliens," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "Eighty four percent of our supporters say they would support Lou Dobbs for President, if the GOP primary fails to yield a candidate opposed to Amnesty."

He has registered the site www.LouDobbsforPresident.org as a placeholder and says all information gathered about potential supporters will be passed on to Mr. Dobbs if he does join the presidential race.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

With candidates picking and choosing where they compete, this year's Republican primaries and caucuses are turning into a round-robin tournament.

John McCain and Mitt Romney went head-to-head in New Hampshire and Michigan, splitting the two. Romney and Mike Huckabee went head-to-head in Iowa, with Huckabee winning out.

Romney has scored two second-place finishes, McCain has a second and a fourth, and Huckabee has two third-place finishes.

Now with South Carolina looming, the field expands: McCain, Huckabee, Romney and Fred Thompson all have different reasons to claim supremacy. Only one of them can emerge the winner.

That won't seal the nomination — particularly with Rudy Giuliani still lurking out there in the later states — but it should solidify the winner's claim to be the front-runner. Unless Thompson wins, that is. At that point we're looking at four contested battles, four winners and absolute chaos in the field.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

An intriguing post over at National Review's The Corner from last night suggests that even if Fred Thompson does drop out of the presidential race, he is not likely to endorse John McCain.

That should settle the rumors reported the day of Iowa's caucus vote that Thompson was about to drop out and do just that.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Many of those voters who favored John McCain tonight had to hold their noses, according to MSNBC's version of exit polling from New Hampshire.

Among those who voted in the Republican primary, 36 percent said they had reservations about their choice — and nearly half of those ended up pulling the lever for McCain. By contrast, just 29 percent of those with reservations about their choice went with Mitt Romney.

Among the 60 percent who said they "strongly" favored their candidate, Romney actually topped McCain, garnering 33 percent of those voters to McCain's 32 percent.

That could be one explanation for McCain's resurgence over the last month. Many Republican voters remain completely conflicted over their choices, and feel they are left with no great option. In a field with so many flawed candidates, McCain appears to more voters to be the best of a bad lot. Is that enough to carry him to the nomination?

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Sen. John McCain already is worried about having to face a repeat of his South Carolina primary defeat in 2000, when rumors and a whisper campaign helped stall his momentum from his New Hampshire win that year.

His campaign today announced a South Carolina "Truth Squad" to counter attacks on his record.

"Our goal is to set the record straight," said Henry McMaster, a McCain supporter and state attorney general. "As soon as one of these negative attack ads goes up on the air or hits the mailboxes, we'll let the voters know the truth. Hopefully candidates will have learned, given what happened in Iowa, that negative campaigning just doesn't work. But, just in case, we'll be ready."

You might suspect they'll be awfully busy. There are bound to be some dirty tricks, but most of their time probably will be spent trying to explain McCain's positions on immigration, tax cuts, campaign finance reform, global warming and gun shows.

The real question is not what tricks are played, but how Republican voters decide to view McCain — who has spent the last seven years championing issues dearer to Democrats than Republicans — in the context of a surging Barack Obama and a flawed Republican field.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Both Mike Huckabee and Barack Obama, the two men who won their party caucuses in Iowa yesterday, managed to expand the playing field.

It's just one of the similarities between the two, but for electoral politics it may be the most important.

Obama tapped into the anti-Washington sentiment to argue for change, to "turn the page," to bring back hope. Young voters in particular responded, and helped him to a stunning victory over the old guard.

Huckabee, of course, is the second governor from Hope, that town in Arkansas that gave us Bill Clinton. But Huckabee also expanded the Republican playing field, drawing in new evangelical Christian voters who had never played in party politics before.

If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, his win yesterday leaves little doubt he can expand the reach of Democrats and turn out folks who usually stay out of the voting booths altogether.

Do Republicans swallow their misgivings and turn to Huckabee, who has shown there are plenty of conservatives who can also be tapped into as a counter to Obama?

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Mike Huckabee's win in the Iowa caucuses was impressive, but he should expect his road to get rockier from now on.

The Club for Growth, the free-market advocacy group that has pounded him all year, can be expected to redouble its efforts. And other conservative leaders now might decide they need an anti-Huckabee as much as they needed an anti-Giuliani two months ago.

Richard Viguerie last night called Huckabee a "Christian socialist."

"He is a good man, but with a Big Government heart," Viguerie said of the former Arkansas governor. "He is the most liberal of all the Republican presidential candidates on economic issues."

Pat Toomey, president of the Club for Growth, said Huckabee is more in line with John Edwards than with Republicans.

But Huckabee's win, coupled with Sen. Barack Obama's on the Democratic side, suggests a desire across both parties for something new. In each case, voters chose the man who appeared to be the least "Washington." So maybe attacks from Washington-based pundits, strategists and interest groups won't take Huckabee down.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Sen. John McCain's recent rise in the polls has been accompanied by something just as valuable with a string of primaries ahead: cash.

McCain, talking to reporters in Davenport, Iowa, last night, said December was his best fundraising month so far.

"There's been more money coming in the last month than at any time in our campaign," he said.

That could explain why he's suddenly got the money to run ads looking ahead to Michigan, and if it's true that money is flowing back to him, even as voters apparently are, then McCain may be in this race longer than anyone would have guessed three months ago.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

The voting hasn't begun, so it's time for some what-ifs.

Number one, what if Ron Paul beats a supposed top-tier candidate here in Iowa tonight? It will obviously be brutal for the politician who comes in lower, but does Paul get a second look from Republican primary voters? His strategy has been based on drawing disaffected voters in to take part in the process, but he can't win a Republican primary from them alone. A strong showing here, plus the giant campaign treasury he's amassed, put him in good shape to argue for another look.

As an aside, if Paul beats one of the five other major candidates, how can future debates justify leaving him out?

Number two, what if Mike Huckabee wins the Iowa caucuses and Sen. John McCain wins the New Hampshire primary? So far, they've been incredibly cordial to each other, mainly because they have a common foe in Mitt Romney right now. But if they have to go head-to-head as the front-runners after Jan. 8, who goes negative first? For that matter, After Huckabee's odd press conference earlier this week, can he ever go negative again?

Number three, how does McCain spin his finish here? If he's third, it means he topped Fred Thompson, who put in a major effort here. But if he's not third, can he still claim not to have cared much about Iowa, given his last-minute swing through here and his on-ground operation thanks to Sen. Sam Brownback, the former candidate who is now backing McCain? McCain yesterday told reporters it's up to them how to portray it.

— Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times

Ron Paul raised nearly $20 million in the final fundraising quarter of 2007, the second-best quarter any Republican has had in this election so far.

The top quarter so far came from Mitt Romney, who in the January-March period raised nearly $21 million. But both he and Rudy Giuliani had been showing a slide since the summer. Neither has announced final totals for 2007, and the official reports aren't due to the Federal Election Committee until the end of January.

But campaigns are free to boast, and Paul's campaign released a statement touting his figures.

"Only Dr. Paul has the ability to inspire Americans to contribute and take action that is necessary if Republicans want to defeat the Democrats in November," said his campaign chairman, Kent Snyder.

More than half of Paul's take came from two one-day blitzes, Nov. 5 and Dec. 16, which supporters organized to coincide with Guy Fawkes Day and the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

Paul keeps a running tote board on his Web site, and as of 10 a.m. East Coast time had raised more than $15,000 in the new year.

-- Stephen Dinan, national political reporter, The Washington Times