Huckabee no longer for a nationwide indoor smoking ban?

That's the headline, but I don't read it that way. He doesn't come out and say he'd veto a bill that Congress passed:

In its statement to The Hill, the campaign stated, “At a Lance Armstrong cancer forum last August, Governor Huckabee said that if Congress presented him with legislation banning smoking in public places, he would sign it, because he would not oppose the overwhelming public support that such a congressional vote would reflect. However, since such sentiment for federal legislation doesn’t exist at this time, and since he has said that the responsibility for regulating smoking initially lies with the states, the governor believes that this issue is best addressed at the local and state levels.”

That's pretty weak stuff. Why is he backtracking anyway? Because his stance is not popular among conservatives and he's getting pounded on it:

Huckabee’s initial position on a smoking ban provided his opponents with fodder to pad their argument that the ex-governor lacks the conservative credentials to represent the GOP in the 2008 general election.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) chose tobacco-rich South Carolina as a staging ground to attack Huckabee on a smoking ban last week.

“He said he would sign a bill that would ban smoking nationwide. So much for federalism. So much for states’ rights. So much for individual rights,” Thompson said during a debate in Myrtle Beach.

Thompson is not the only conservative who has attacked Huckabee’s embrace of a smoking ban.

Conservative columnist George Will and American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene, a columnist for The Hill, each raised the smoking issue to criticize Huckabee, as have countless conservative and libertarian bloggers.

As much as I dislike smoking bans, a federal one would be worst of all. Why should that be the federal government's concern? It's a different argument than the one I would use against state and local bans. (I do like how I am included in that last part! Hey, it's technically true.)