George Will doesn't like him. Neither, apparently, does Rush Limbaugh. The Bush wing of the party now apparently distrusts him. He hasn't done well by Drudge (at least so far) and today even Peggy Noonan has her reservations.

The good news for Mike Huckabee is that he's doing one hell of a job of reuniting significant portions of the old Reagan coalition. The bad news is that it's increasingly arrayed against him.

The point, of course, is that in this case, what looks like bad news may well be the opposite. Insurgent, dissident candidates always feed off the attacks of the establishment in ways other candidates don't. It was General Edward Stuyvesant Bragg who said of Grover Cleveland, "They love him most for the enemies he has made," and in Huckabee's case, his supporters might well be thinking the same thing.

It's true that Limbaugh and Drudge aren't commonly thought of as establishment figures. But the truth is that they've now been around long enough to be, well, part of the woodwork. To a discerning observer, they're not part of the chattering class. But to an evangelical voter who doesn't follow politics that closely or a new voter angry enough by the turn of events in the country to finally get involved? Limbaugh, Drudge, Will - what's the difference?

Jim Pinkerton astutely put his finger on all this recently. Look at what's dominating the news - school and mall shootings, Britney's sister is pregnant, baseball is full of cheaters. The only candidate even remotely addressing the crisis of the American spirit - and that's what it is - is Mike Huckabee.

If Huckabee's opponents want to undermine his campaign, the best way to do that is to begin talking about the issues he's addressing. Until then, it's possible that all they're doing is pouring gasoline on a fire.

To read Steven Stark's complete "Presidential Tote Board" blog, go to www.thephoenix.com/toteboard/