In Bob Novak’s latest column, the nationally syndicated columnist boldly assaults Mike Huckabee as a “false conservative.” The writer claims that Mr. Huckabee is credible on social issues such as gay rights, abortion and gun control but is not a conservative-libertarian in the tradition of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. In particular, Mr. Novak references Mr. Huckabee’s tenure as governor of Arkansas: he has a high-tax record and a penchant for interventionist policies. In other words, according to the author, the Baptist preacher is not a champion of limited government and individual freedom. He is therefore not an authentic conservative and ought to be rejected by Republicans as their nominee for the presidency.

We must ask Mr. Novak: Which of the leading candidates in the current campaign is less of a “false” conservative? Is it the thrice-married, pro-choice and pro-gay rights Rudy Giuliani? Or is it the flip-flopping and opportunistic Mitt Romney? Is it the lethargic, completely out-dated Fred Thompson whose campaign has been languishing for months? Is it the maverick John McCain, who has supported constitutional abominations such as McCain-Feingold? Among the current possibilities of likely winners of the Republican nomination, all have major flaws.

The best we can do is to find a capable, devoted leader who most approximates and embodies our ideals in the era in which we live—as Reagan did in his time.

In reality, Mr. Novak is not searching for an authentic conservative; his recent column is simply a cheap way of trying to sabotage Mr. Huckabee’s surging campaign. To the surprise of many Washington insiders, the fiery preacher has exceptional charm, power and flair; his has been a steady ascension which has astounded even the most experienced observers. With a shoestring budget, Mr. Huckabee is now virtually in a dead heat with Mr. Romney in Iowa. Mr. Huckabee is not gaining ground simply because he is currently palatable to the liberal media and is soft on the issues; he rises because he has that rare kind of moral authority which resonates with the electorate—even with some who are on the left of the political spectrum. We conservatives have a word for this: character.

This will in fact be the defining question for conservatives in the 2008 campaign: do we still care about character?

During Bill Clinton’s tenure in office, conservatives relentlessly assaulted the president for his lack of “character”—by which they meant both his shameless behavior as a philandering husband and his inconsistencies as a leader. Conservatives also systematically chastised Democrats for abandoning their core values in the mere pursuit of political power. It is now the most appalling hypocrisy to whitewash the sins of the national frontrunner, Mr. Giuliani, and to turn a blind eye to the doublespeak of Mr. Romney—all in the vague hope of capturing the White House. Even if victory is achieved, to what end, exactly?

In a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible, many conservatives are becoming entangled in their own web of deceit and are engaging in triplespeak. Triplespeak is even more reprehensible than the doublespeak which Mrs. Clinton regularly uses—that is, saying two different things at the very same time. Instead, triplespeak is to make one argument in defense of a position or candidate in an effort to really endorse its complete and total opposite.

For example, Pat Robertson weaves a tall tale: Mr. Giuliani is indeed pro-choice but he will appoint judges that will be strict constructionists and therefore—wink, wink—Mr. Giuliani will end up defending life itself. Thus, according to Mr. Robertson, a devout Christian can support Mr. Giuliani without a pang of conscience because in fact Mr. Giuliani’s policies will turn out to be pro-life even if Mr. Giuliani is pro-choice—Voila!

In a similar manner, many hawkish neoconservatives have begun triplespeak: Mr. Giuliani is pro-choice and supports the killing of innocent babies but he will defeat the terrorists at home and abroad—and wink, wink—that is the first principle of life; it is the defense of Western civilization itself. And hence, magic trick performed: Mr. Giuliani is the ultimate pro-lifer!

In the world of triplespeak, conservatives can all be one big happy family.

Yet, neither the hollow charges of “false conservative” nor any amount of triplespeak can obscure the essential issues for us in 2008: how vital are social issues to the conservative movement? Are they merely peripheral? Are they subordinate to economic policy and to foreign policy? Do social issues not contain our very first principles—such as the belief in telling the truth, faith in a transcendental moral order and the inviolable nature of life—from which all else follows?

Mr. Huckabee is rising in the estimation of conservatives precisely because many recognize that we must make a fundamental choice: either we abandon our core principles and embrace the likes of Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney or hold true to our primordial Christian values. If we choose to remain wedded to upholding our most sacred and cardinal beliefs—and if character counts at all—then Mr. Huckabee is indeed the “truest” conservative we can vote for.

In contrast, Mr. Romney and Mr. Giuliani merely inhabit empty suits. All who defend them should have coffee with Mrs. Clinton: it will be a fascinating conversation.

-Washington Watch is a regular column published in Insight on the News (www.insightmag.com)