I'm not a Huck fan but I didn't take it that way. I hear him saying I've answered this 1,000 times and I'm proud to answer it again but can't we focus a little bit on some issues that are really relevant to the race and also to people who aren't religious but I'm asking them to vote for me. Huck's got the religion thing going nicely, now he needs to reach out to some other blocks.
I find it funny.
That said, I actually think he answered the question quite well.
I see he’s now trying to capture Fred’s federalism...sorry, Mike, Fred’s is genuine.
Because such questions are not intended to allow people to better know the candidate, but simply meant to humiliate or degrade them.
Consider the responses and subsequent spin on them:
"Yes, I believe it should be taught."
"Huckabee is a religious whackjob who wants to create an American Taliban!"
or
"No, I think it should be left to Sunday Schools"
"Huckabee's so-called faith flounders in the election!"
A typical case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." I would get upset, too.
When a man believes in the power of the state (taxes, spending and morality laws at the Federal level), it's fair to ask just what it IS they believe from a religious perspective.
How would a Baptist preacher do in the general election if he believes in a constitutional ban against abortion and gay marriage...and believes creationism should be taught in the public schools?
Hillary would win in a landslide. Easily 60% of the vote and at least 45 states, possibly all of them.
The nanny staters by far prefer the vague etherial promises of evolutionism. It’s their rejection of the real world, and it’s ridgid requirements that makes them nanny staters and evolutionists.