Wal-Mart, cookie thief?

by Kim Peterson

Wal-Mart (WMT) has been called a lot of things, but Destroyer of Girl Scout Funding isn't one of them.

Until now.

One woman who spent years as "Cookie Mom" for her daughter's troop says Wal-Mart is copying two of the most popular Girl Scout cookies -- Thin Mints (pictured) and Tagalongs -- to sell under its own private label. The woman, a scholar and consultant named C.V. Harquail, says Wal-Mart is testing its Girl Scout knockoffs in limited release under the Great Value brand.

"Wal-mart can sell all the hunting equipment, cheap plastic gizmos and clothes made in sweatshops that it wants to sell," Harquail writes on her blog. "But why must they encroach upon the market of a non-profit? Why do they have to go after the Girl Scouts?"

Harquail said she sampled the cookies at a recent conference in Chicago. They were "reasonable facsimiles" of Girl Scout cookies, she adds.


Advertising Age tried to ask Wal-Mart about the issue, but a spokeswoman did not respond. A Girl Scouts spokeswoman said other companies have put out cookies similar to Girl Scouts varieties in the past. I can't think of anything resembling a Thin Mint that's ever been sold on a mass scale.

Girl Scout cookies are in high demand every year, and it's not hard to imagine Wal-Mart wanting to cash in on some of that fever. There's no law preventing the company from selling its own version of a Thin Mint, either. But the idea of a global retailing giant intentionally going after the Girl Scout cookie market isn't going to sit well with some of the mothers that are Wal-Mart's core customers.

"Just when you think your opinion about Wal-mart might be changing," Harquail writes. "Just when you think that maybe, just maybe, Wal-mart was learning to be a better citizen...Wal-mart turns around and does something really...despicable."

Cookie sales give the Girl Scouts much of their annual operational funding, and Thin Mints, the most popular flavor, brings in 25% of sales alone, Harquail says.

I gotta admit, I'm torn on this one. What do you think? If Harquail's report is true, should Wal-Mart be selling its own Girl Scout cookie knockoffs?

America’s New Nightmare

If you thought the longtime head of the Taliban was bad, you should meet his no. 2.

By Ron Moreau NEWSWEEK

Published Jul 25, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Aug 3, 2009

Soon after 4,000 U.S. marines flooded into Afghanistan's Helmand River Valley on July 2, Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar called top Taliban regional commanders together for an urgent briefing. The meeting took place in southwestern Pakistan—not far from the Afghan border but safely out of the Americans' reach. Baradar told the commanders he wanted just one thing: to keep the Taliban's losses to a minimum while maximizing the cost to the enemy. Don't try to hold territory against the Americans' superior firepower by fighting them head-on, he ordered. Rely on guerrilla tactics whenever possible. Plant "flowers"—improvised explosive devices—on trails and dirt roads. Concentrate on small-unit ambushes, with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades. He gave his listeners a special warning: he would hold each of them responsible for the lives of their men. "Keep your weapons on your backs and be on your motorcycles," Baradar exhorted them. "America has greater military strength, but we have greater faith and commitment."

In all likelihood, you’ve never heard of Mullah Baradar. The only Taliban leader most people know is Mullah Mohammed Omar, the unworldly, one-eyed village preacher who held the grand title amir-ul-momineen—"leader of the faithful"—when he ruled Afghanistan in the late 1990s. Omar remains a high-value target, with a $10 million U.S. bounty on his head. But he hasn't been seen in at least three years, even by his most loyal followers, and rarely issues direct orders anymore. In his place, the adversary that American forces are squaring off against in Afghanistan—the man ultimately responsible for the spike in casualties that has made July the deadliest month for Coalition soldiers since the war began in 2001—is Baradar. A cunning, little-known figure, he may be more dangerous than Omar ever was.

In more than two dozen interviews for this profile, past and present members of the Afghan insurgency portrayed Baradar as no mere stand-in for the reclusive Omar. They say Baradar appoints and fires the Taliban's commanders and governors; presides over its top military council and central ruling Shura in Quetta, the city in southwestern Pakistan where most of the group's senior leaders are based; and issues the group's most important policy statements in his own name. It is key that he controls the Taliban's treasury—hundreds of millions of dollars in -narcotics protection money, ransom payments, highway tolls, and "charitable donations," largely from the Gulf. "He commands all military, political, religious, and financial power," says Mullah Shah Wali Akhund, a guerrilla subcommander from Helmand province who met Baradar this March in Quetta for the fourth time. "Baradar has the makings of a brilliant commander," says Prof. Thomas Johnson, a longtime expert on Afghanistan and an adviser to Coalition forces. "He's able, charismatic, and knows the land and the people so much better than we can hope to do. He could prove a formidable foe."

No one among the Taliban—least of all Baradar himself—will say he's taken Omar's place. On the contrary, Baradar portrays himself as a loyal lieutenant carrying out the orders of his absent boss. "We are acting on [Omar's] instructions," he told NEWSWEEK via e-mail in a recent exclusive interview. He didn't reveal how or when he gets those instructions, saying only that "continuous contacts are not risk-free because of the situation."

Yet while Taliban fighters are reluctant to be seen criticizing Omar in any way, they clearly imply that his deputy has a more modern, efficient style of command. Baradar is consistently described as more open, more consultative, more consensus-oriented, and more patient than Omar. Taliban operatives say he's less mercurial and more willing to hear different views rather than act on hearsay, emotion, or strict ideology. "Baradar doesn't issue orders without understanding and investigating the problem," says a commander from Zabul province who met with him in March and asked not to be named so he could speak freely. "He is patient and listens to you until the end. He doesn't get angry or lose his temper."

That's raised another question: whether the Americans and the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai might ultimately be able to strike a deal with Baradar. His influence among the insurgents—and with Mullah Omar—is unmatched, and he's not as close-minded as many of the leaders in Quetta are. Back in 2004, according to Maulvi Arsala Rahmani, a former Taliban cabinet minister who now lives in Kabul, Baradar authorized a Taliban delegation that approached Karzai with a peace offer, even paying their travel expenses to Kabul. That outreach fizzled, but earlier this year another two senior Taliban operatives sent out separate peace feelers to Qayyum Karzai, the Afghan president's older brother, apparently with Baradar's approval, according to three ranking Taliban sources. They say the initiatives were quickly rescinded. Still, when NEWSWEEK spoke to the elder Karzai last week and asked him about the story, he did not deny that such contacts had taken place, saying only, "This is a very sensitive time, and a lot of things are going on." Publicly, Baradar, who belongs to the same Pashtun tribe as Karzai, has scoffed at peace efforts, denouncing them as a ploy to split the insurgency. But that may simply reflect his feeling that the insurgents currently have the momentum.

Baradar can take much of the credit for rebuilding the Taliban into an effective fighting force. For at least the past three years, Mullah Omar has had little or no say in the group's daily affairs. His most recent public pronouncement came last December, when two statements were issued in his name denying "baseless" reports of peace talks with the Afghan government and repeating his demand for the withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO troops from Afghanistan. Some Taliban members speculate that Omar might be dead, although Baradar, his lifelong friend and comrade in arms, denies any such thing. "He is hale and healthy, and not only taking part in but currently leading the jihad," he told NEWSWEEK. U.S. intelligence experts can't testify to Omar's health, but they believe he is alive. "Mullah Omar has put Baradar in charge," says Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the former Taliban regime's foreign minister, who first met both men in 1992, during the last days of the Soviet-backed regime. "It is Mullah Omar's idea and his policy to stay quiet in a safe place, because he has a high price on his head, while Baradar leads."

The two fought side by side against the Soviets. Omar, who lost an eye in the fighting, became renowned for his prowess at knocking out Russian tanks with rocket-propelled grenades. Later in the decadelong war, they traveled to Omar's home district of Maiwand, where Baradar served in a mujahedin unit under Omar's command. Along the way they're said to have married a pair of sisters, although Zaeef (who fought beside them in Maiwand) denies they are related by marriage and says it wouldn't matter if they were: "Their friendship is more important than any family relation."

After the Soviets withdrew and the Kremlin's puppet regime in Kabul collapsed, Omar and Baradar tried to settle down in Maiwand and run their own madrassa. But they were disgusted by the behavior of the local warlords, who had taken to kidnapping and raping village girls and boys. Omar led a revolt against them with a tiny force of some 30 men and half as many rifles, and Baradar was among his first recruits. The movement grew until it controlled most of Afghanistan. Baradar served first as Mullah Omar's right-hand man in Kandahar—his headquarters—then as his corps commander for western Afghanistan, and later as the Kabul garrison commander, where he directed the fight against mujahedin commanders in the north. Muttawakil says Baradar became Mullah Omar's most trusted and important military commander. He was there for Omar at the end as well. As U.S. bombs pounded Kandahar in November 2001, Mullah Baradar hopped on a motorcycle and drove his old friend to safety in the mountains.

Baradar has no office and no fixed residence now. Working 18-hour days, he rarely sleeps twice in the same place. He meets with senior Taliban leaders, commanders, and common petitioners in the ethnic Pashtun enclaves around Quetta, capital of the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, where the Taliban leadership effectively hides in plain sight. Islamabad has declared the place off-limits to U.S. forces, and Pakistan's own troops want no trouble with the Afghans. Despite the threat of U.S. electronic eavesdropping technology, Baradar uses mobile phones, changing SIM cards frequently.

The Taliban's de facto leader travels simply, often in a small car driven by a longtime aide. His chauffeur carries with him a supply of Baradar's personal stationery, emblazoned with the logo of the defunct Taliban regime, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. On it, Baradar writes instructions to commanders, letters of safe passage, and orders for disbursing funds, for settling disputes, and for appointing or dismissing personnel. On occasion he visits Karachi, where the Taliban maintains a widespread network of operatives and businesses, but he rarely travels to Peshawar, where security is less certain, let alone to Afghanistan.

Baradar operates like an old-fashioned Pashtun tribal head. He sits and talks not only with his senior military men and political officers, but also with low-ranking commanders and tribal elders. When he meets with civilians, whether they're local sheiks or members of the Taliban's political elite, the Quetta Shura, he exudes a relaxed, traditional, even deferential manner. Baradar even frequently takes notes at meetings, and he constantly refers to Mullah Omar and his pronouncements, Akhund says. The Helmand subcommander and other Taliban sources say Baradar adopts a sterner, more martial air with his military council, but even in those strategy sessions he tries to elicit opinions and bring everyone together in some kind of consensus. Taliban sources say he's making a particular effort to address the problems of ordinary Afghans. In the past year he has set up two new committees, one to handle complaints from commanders and fighters, and another to deal with villagers' grievances. The military committee is headed by Abdul Qayum Zakir, who was released from Guantánamo last year and is now back operating as one of Baradar's top commanders.

Torak Agha, the head of the civilian complaints committee, has a particularly tough job. Taliban suicide bombings and IED attacks kill more Afghan civilians than foreign troops. Some commanders have amassed fortunes by siphoning off funds earmarked for fighters, their families, or villagers, and by not sharing money collected from kidnappings and roadside toll collecting. To stop that practice, fighting units are now required to account for all the money and weapons they receive. The Taliban's central treasury was being drained by payouts to local commanders for ambushing military convoys and similar operations. Some had taken to filing claims for attacks their men had no part in. Baradar decreed that henceforth units would have to provide video evidence of attacks before getting their reward payments.

Baradar himself will dive into local issues when necessary. Earlier this year, the Zabul province commander says, he mustered the nerve to seek Baradar's help. Three of his fellow Taliban commanders in the province had become more intent on feuding with each other than on killing Americans. They were quarreling about where each one's territory ended; about who could set up roadside checkpoints to extort money from travelers on which stretch of highway; and about women who had been so bold as to marry outside their tribes. Two of the rivals were even plotting to unseat the Taliban's provincial governor.

The Zabul commander had never met Baradar before and hardly dared to hope his call would be taken seriously. But within three weeks he was summoned for a face-to-face meeting with Baradar in Quetta. He and Baradar talked for two hours. "He listened attentively to my complaints and suggestions, asked some questions, and said he'd see what he could do." The results were apparent within two weeks. Rather than keep the sitting governor or replace him with one of the competing commanders, Baradar brought in a tough new governor, Maulvi Ishmael, from neighboring Ghazni province. Baradar then clearly delineated which parts of the main highway would be under the control of which commander, and ordered them to share their income from roadside checkpoints more equitably. Finally, he flatly ordered the guerrillas to drop the dispute over the women. "I certainly didn't come away from the meeting empty-handed," says the Zabul commander. "The jihad has been clearly strengthened."

Baradar determines much of the Taliban's grand strategy as well. In late 2007 he ordered Taliban forces to focus their attacks on disrupting the flow of U.S. and NATO military supplies, and to push closer to the cities, especially Kabul. U.S. military chiefs were dismayed by his success. This spring he issued another battle plan, code-named Nusrat ("Victory"). Taliban sources say the new targets are the previously safe provinces of Kunduz, Takhar and Badakhshan, where military supplies flow in from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Baradar has also ordered his senior commanders to spend at least two months a year on the ground with their fighters inside Afghanistan. Taliban attacks and U.S. deaths have now hit unprecedented levels. According to iCasualties.org, 120 American soldiers have died in Afghanistan this year, compared with 155 in all of 2008.

Current and former insurgents are divided over whether Baradar would be as effective a peacemaker as he is a general. "I get the feeling that he is not as tough and hardline as Mullah Omar," says Akhund, the Helmand subcommander. Mullah Hamdullah, a senior Taliban intelligence operative from Ghazni province, agrees: "He's not an extremist like some commanders. If there were ever to be negotiations, Baradar would be the best man to talk to." Partly because of Baradar's strong roots among the Popalzai—Afghanistan's largest and most influential Pashtun tribe—he could bring a number of tribal leaders onboard in the event of serious peace talks. But for now, Taliban leaders seem convinced that negotiations are merely a ploy to peel off elements of the insurgency, which U.S. commanders have more or less acknowledged. "We see no benefit for the country or Islam in such kind of talks," Baradar told NEWSWEEK.

Of course, Baradar would not be where he is now if he were not ruthless about maintaining power. All his main rivals within the Taliban movement have met with suspicious ends. Of the four other Taliban leaders who had served with Mullah Omar since his 1994 revolt in Maiwand, two were captured by the Pakistanis and two were killed by the Americans. Most notable may have been the U.S.-led commando raid that killed Baradar's bloodthirsty rival Mullah Dadullah Akhund in May 2007. Since the 1990s Baradar had loathed Dadullah's reckless brutality, while Dadullah despised Baradar's cautiousness and resented his close relationship with Mullah Omar.

Their rivalry came to a head after the U.S. invasion, when the surviving Taliban took refuge in Pakistan. With Mullah Omar already in hiding, Dadullah asked Baradar, as the group's bursar, for funds to regroup and rearm. According to several Taliban sources, Baradar refused, saying it was too soon to start a guerrilla campaign and advising Dadullah to spend a few months studying in a Karachi madrassa. Dadullah rejected the advice and built a force that began spreading the insurgency deep into Kandahar and Helmand provinces. By 2006, he had become the Taliban's most successful and feared commander. Other insurgents who were nominally serving under Baradar began looking to Dadullah for leadership and funding. He was giving press interviews in his Waziristan base camp and putting out egomaniacal videos of himself selecting and training suicide bombers, executing alleged spies, and, worst of all, publicly meeting with his Qaeda allies.

Baradar ordered Dadullah to quiet down, but Dadullah refused. "Let me do what I want," several Taliban sources quote him as insisting. "I'll arm all of Afghanistan." The raid that killed him was clearly guided by inside information, and his bullet-riddled corpse was displayed like a trophy by the governor of Kandahar province. After Dadullah's younger brother accused Baradar of sending men to kill him, too, he was expelled from the movement. Within a month, he ended up in a Pakistani jail.

While Baradar now stands alone, however, he knows that his own fate depends on the perception that he's been blessed by the amir-ul-momineen. "Without Mullah Omar, I don't think Baradar can hold the strongest commanders together," says Rahmani. "The fight would go on, but perhaps with every commander for himself." Many Taliban say they wish Omar would release a new audio recording, just to prove he's not dead. So far it hasn't happened. "I think Mullah Omar's alive," Rahmani says meaningfully. "But perhaps in name only." For now, that may be how Baradar wants it.

With Michael Hirsh, John Barry, and Mark Hosenball in Washington

America's Pursuit Of Happiness

Public Opinion: Each time you open a newspaper or turn on a TV, you'll hear how unhappy, glum and dissatisfied Americans are. Don't believe it. The U.S. is, to borrow a phrase, the happiest place on Earth.

A long-forgotten 1960s movie title pretty much sums up how Americans feel about their lives: "What's So Bad About Feeling Good?" According to a new Gallup Poll, for most people that's not just a rhetorical question.

"Most Americans say they are generally happy, with a slim majority saying they are 'very happy,'" according to the Gallup Poll released on the final day of 2007. "More than 8 in 10 Americans say they are satisfied with their personal lives at this time, including a solid majority who say they are 'very satisfied.'"

Another extensive survey conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center found that 65% of Americans termed themselves "satisfied" with their lives. That compares with the four economic powerhouses of Britain, France, Germany and Italy, which averaged about 53%.

This difference isn't something new. It's been around for a long time. It's a part of what foreign-affairs mavens call "American exceptionalism." The question is, why are Americans so darned happy?

For one thing, Americans are far richer than those in other countries. And yes, this matters. Contrary to popular belief, neither the Europeans nor the Japanese lead better lives than Americans.

A study a few years back by Sweden's Timbro think tank came to these startling conclusions: Virtually every nation in Europe lagged the U.S. in income. Indeed, if it were a state, the EU would rank 47th in per capita GDP -- on par with Mississippi and West Virginia.

Americans' homes have roughly twice the square footage per occupant as those in the EU, Americans own more appliances, and, on average, they spend about 77% more each year than Europeans.

Yet, though the U.S. economy is head-and-shoulders above the others, you'd never know it from our friends in the mainstream media. As repeated surveys show, U.S. media coverage of the economy is overwhelmingly slanted toward the negative side of things.

But a look at the facts shows something quite different.

U.S. household wealth climbed from $38.8 trillion in 2002 to $58.6 trillion in the third quarter of 2007, an unprecedented 51% surge in just five years. That includes the recent meltdown in home prices.

By any historical standard, Americans are unbelievably wealthy.

Moreover, despite the near-collapse in housing, the U.S. economy remains strong. It grew at a 3.1% rate during the first three quarters, and almost certainly kept growing in the final three months.

Economist Irwin Stelzer adds another reason why Americans are happy right now: a million new jobs over the last year, a milestone that is underpinning U.S. economic growth right now.

But can economics really matter that much? You bet. Money may not buy love, but it helps buy happiness. In fact, according to the Pew folks, there's a 72% correlation between per capita GDP growth in a country and its citizens' happiness.

What about social trends? As economist Irwin Stelzer recently noted, "teenage drug use, pregnancies, smoking and drinking are all on the decline; welfare reform is working, bringing down child poverty, and the divorce rate is falling."

Oh, and we're having more babies than at any time since the 1970s -- not something that a gloomy, depressed society does. Our 2.1 babies per adult woman puts us at the top of the developed world's fertility rankings (Europe, by comparison, has a population-shrinking 1.5 rate). A child is the biggest bet on a happy future that two people can make.

Then there's religion. A 2006 Harris Poll found on average that 43% of those in Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain and France believed in a Supreme Being. In the U.S., it's 73%. That suggests a link, in developed nations anyway, between religiosity and happiness.

Face it, Americans are an unusually happy, optimistic people. In a way, it defines us. A big reason is our economy -- huge, innovative, low-tax and less regulated than others.

That's what makes us different. Vive la difference!

Americans frustrated by influence wielded by Iowa, New Hampshire

All eyes may be on Iowa and New Hampshire, but many of them are rolling.

Despite efforts to evict the two states from the front of the presidential calendar, both managed to hang on for another election cycle that culminates with the Iowa caucuses on Thursday and the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8. As a year of media attention reaches its crescendo, voters in other states are saying enough is enough.

According to national survey conducted for The Associated Press and Yahoo News, just over half of all voters said New Hampshire and Iowa have an extraordinary amount of influence over who wins the two nominations.

"They have way too much — WAY too much — say," said Kevin Thomas of Tacoma, Wash. "California's a big state and they don't have any say, and Iowa's not even half the size of California. It really makes me as a voter wonder what's going on."

Fewer than one in five voters said they favor the current system that allows Iowa and New Hampshire to hold the first contests, while nearly 80 percent would rather see other states get their chance at the front of the line.

"I think they should take turns, maybe take it to a small state like Rhode Island that doesn't have a whole lot of voting power," Thomas said.

Both states have been criticized as unrepresentative of the country given their size and lack of racial diversity. Iowa — population 3 million — is 95 percent white; New Hampshire — population 1.3 million — is 96 percent white. Democrats tried to inject more diversity into the process by adding early contests in Nevada and South Carolina, but Iowa and New Hampshire moved even earlier.

The system became so scrambled last year that New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner was prepared to move the primary into December to keep ahead of other states that scheduled their own early primaries and caucuses. If anything, the front-loaded calendar made Iowa and New Hampshire more important.

Gardner and other defenders of New Hampshire say the country — and the candidates — are well-served because the primary requires close contact with voters, not just a big advertising budget and name recognition.

"It gives the little guy a chance," said Gardner.

He wasn't surprised by the poll results and negative reaction toward the early states given that most of the country knows nothing about the primary's history or the state's uniquely inquisitive and democratic culture.

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat who has not endorsed any candidate, argues that New Hampshire's retail politics cannot be duplicated anywhere else in the country.

"We have made it possible for the so-called unknown candidates to make their case without having millions of dollars in the bank. And in turn, we demand that candidates move beyond the rope line and scripted town hall meetings, and directly answer the hard questions from voters," he said. "As a result, the voters, the candidates and the political process all benefit from the New Hampshire primary."

Unsurprisingly, every one of the 21 Iowans who participated in the AP-Yahoo survey think their state and New Hampshire have just the right amount of influence over the presidential selection process. Not so in New Hampshire.

There, two of the five participants said the two states don't have enough power.

Basic facts on the Iowa caucuses

Some questions and answers about the Iowa caucuses this Thursday:

Q: What is a caucus?

A: A party meeting at the precinct level at which citizens express their candidate preferences and pick delegates to their county conventions. It's the lowest level of party politics — the real grassroots. These meetings, held in each of the state's nearly 1,800 precincts, typically draw anywhere from a handful of people in rural areas to hundreds in suburban areas.

Q: Who takes part?

A: Anyone who is old enough to vote in the November general election and is a member of the party is eligible, but traditionally only a small number of Iowans show up. This year, about 120,000 to 150,000 people are expected to vote in the Democratic caucuses, while 80,000 to 90,000 are likely to participate in the GOP contest.

Q: Why is it politically significant?

A: Persuading a group of average citizens to show up in support of a candidate is considered a sign of organizational strength. Each candidate courts politicians and activists at the state and local level in hopes of getting strong numbers of supporters to show up and participate. At the same time, the caucus system allows candidates to develop and hone their message before relatively small groups.

Q: What happens at a caucus?

A: Participants, led by a chairman or chairwoman, indicate their preferences for their party's presidential nomination, pick delegates to their county conventions and discuss party business, including their party platforms.

Q: What happens next?

A: Delegates chosen at the caucuses go to the county convention later in the year. There, the field is winnowed and delegates are chosen for the district convention. This happens again at district meetings and again at the state convention, where delegates are named to attend the party's national convention.

Q: Why are the numbers different?

A: The Republicans essentially hold a straw poll — a head count — at their precinct caucuses, reporting real numbers. One head, one vote.

The Democrats do not report straight numbers, but use a mathematical formula to determine support for a presidential candidate in percentages. A candidate must have the support of 15 percent of those present at any meeting, precinct caucuses through the state convention, to remain "viable." This is meant to ensure greater consistency throughout the process.

Q: Will there be exit polls in Iowa?

A: Yes. The Associated Press and the television networks will survey voters as they enter the caucus sites. Those surveys will help readers understand what issues and qualities motivated Iowans to vote for a specific candidate.

Q: How did the Iowa caucuses get started?

A: A commission appointed after the riots disrupted the 1968 Democratic National Convention recommended proportionate representation and affirmative action. Iowa Democrats decided to use new rules in 1972, adopting a regulation that there must be a month between events — the caucuses, county, district, state and national conventions. The caucuses wound up being held as early as January.

Ann Coulter: Huckabee Like GOP Jimmy Carter

Conservative pundit Ann Coulter says GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is the “Republican Jimmy Carter” and nominating him would be a big mistake for the party.

Appearing with John Gibson and Heather Nauert on Fox News’ “The Big Story,” Coulter was asked about Huckabee’s recent surge in the polls.

“I’m getting tired of this being blamed on the evangelicals,” said Coulter.

Huckabee’s rise is actually “bad for the evangelicals,” she asserted. “Mike Huckabee is the Republican Jimmy Carter.”

Nominating the ordained Baptist minister “would be a big mistake,” Coulter opined. “He has many good qualities. Unfortunately, the things that are upsetting to the mainstream media about Huckabee are what normal Americans like.”

She cited as examples Huckabee’s “religiosity and his questioning of Darwinian evolution.”

But she criticized the former Arkansas governor for opposing a bill that would have required Arkansas residents to prove they are Americans before they could vote or get social services.

Coulter — whose latest book is “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans” — was also asked about Hillary Clinton’s recent decline in the polls.

“Hillary really is in trouble, which would be fantastic,” she replied. “But I won’t believe it until we see the dead body.”

When Gibson asked if she meant that literally, Coulter declined to answer. But she did go on to declare, regarding the Clintons: “I would love to see this national pestilence finished off once and for all. The primary would be great. If not, I’ll take the general election.”

Imus: Hillary ‘Still Satan’

Don Imus returned to the radio with both barrels blasting on Monday, calling Vice President Dick Cheney a “war criminal” and reiterating his charge that Hillary Clinton is “Satan.”

Referring to his disparaging remarks about the Rutgers University women’s basketball team that got him pulled from the air nine months ago, a somewhat contrite Imus did say that he “will never say anything in my lifetime that will make any of these young women at Rutgers regret or feel foolish that they accepted my apology and forgave me.”

But he told listeners: “Dick Cheney is still a war criminal. Hillary Clinton is still Satan. And I’m going on the radio.”

Imus was joined by his longtime sidekick Charles McCord and producer Bernard McGuirk.

But he has added two new cast members, both of them African-American — comedian Tony Powell and Karith Foster, an Oxford-educated “Texas cowgirl” whose career has ranged from broadcast journalism to stand-up comedy, according to the New York Post.

They were brought aboard to ease tension stirred up by his racist comments about the Rutgers team, sources told the Post.

Despite her Texas roots, Foster jokes on her Web site: “I’m really a Jewish girl from Long Island trapped in this body, which technically makes me a JA-AP [Jewish African-American princess].”

Imus’ return makes him a potential new force in the presidential race.

His new talk show is being broadcast on WABC-AM in New York and is syndicated nationally on the ABC Radio Network. But it remains to be seen if political figures will appear on his program as often as they did before he was pulled from the air.

“Presidential candidates in both parties now face a new and unpredictable danger: the rebukes and ridicule of the politically incorrect Mr. Imus,” the New York Sun reports.

“How much influence the recalcitrant broadcaster will have on the candidates entering into the final month of campaigning before the Iowa caucuses will depend on how quickly Mr. Imus can recapture his lost form after so long an absence.”

Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee agreed to do an interview on Imus’ debut show on Monday, telling USA Today: “He’s continued to have me on his show when I said stupid things. What Imus said was wrong, but he seems genuinely sorry.”

Democratic strategist James Carville also agreed to appear today.

Huckabee’s fellow Republicans Rudy Giuliani and John McCain “have both made it clear they would be happy to be interviewed by Mr. Imus,” according to the Sun.

But Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are “thought be wary of resuming their link to him,” the Sun observes.

Imus’ scheduled his debut show to air from Town Hall in Manhattan, with seats in the audience selling for $100 each. The money is earmarked for his charity, the Imus Cattle Ranch for Kids With Cancer. On Tuesday the show will move to a studio across the street from Madison Square Garden.