How to get past the first sentence:
Republicans have won five of the last seven presidential elections by running candidates who broadly fit the Ronald Reagan model--fiscally conservative, and firmly but not harshly conservative on social issues.
Fund can honestly write - and his editors approve - the notion that Bush is now or has ever been a fiscal conservative. He has increased spending of all kinds by levels not seen since LBJ, is a big-government socialist compared to his predecessor Bill Clinton, and has uttered such statements, as in rebuilding Katrina, as" "it's going to cost whatever it will cost." As for not being "harsh" on social issues: does amending the federal constitution to render gay people permanent second-class citizens and locked out of the legal protections their other family members enjoy count? Does throwing a record of close to a million people into the criminal justice system for smoking pot count? Does supporting a constitutional amendment to criminalize all abortion count? Does throwing away every legal and constitutional barrier to grandstand over a vegetative woman in Florida count? I guess not. Sometimes, you begin to realize just how hermetically sealed the partisan right-wing cocoon is.
I'd mention the rest of the piece on Huckabee which echoes this post somewhat. But after that beginning, why should anyone believe a word Fund writes?