Then I'll make my choice based on the choices I have available at that point.
However, Huckabee is not our only choice right now, and isn't anywhere close to our best choice.
We can't afford to elect someone that clueless about foreign policy while we are in the middle of the War on Terror.
Huckabee is likable and a slick politician. So was Bill Clinton. It's apparently a requirement to be governor of Arkansas. However, he is very lacking in substance.
I like his anti-abortion stance. I like his openness about religion. However, that's about all I like about him.
Rudy in bad in many ways, but he probably has more strong points than Huckabee overall.
McCain is a genuine war hero, but he's also a horrible choice for President.
Ron Paul wants smaller government, but that's about the only thing good about him.
Romney tailored his stance on issues to get elected in liberal MA and is not shifting more to the right to be attractive on a national level. He does appear to have flip-flopped on a lot of issues, but at least he has done a pretty good job of presenting a good conservative message since he started running for President in earnest, which is better than you can say for most on his opponents. It's hard to tell if he will stick by those relatively new stances, but at least he isn't as clueless as Huckabee, and has the skills necessary to lead.
Fred Thompson is my favorite. He has experience. He has well formed, conservative positions on the issues. He's presenting a consistent message. He's the more credible conservative candidate. However, the liberal media hates him and is doing their best to either ignore him, or discredit him.
If I have to pick the best of bad choices, I will do so, but Huckabee isn't even in my top three.
Fred Thompson has absolutely NO governing experience whatsoever.
We do it with virtually every presidential election. Wasn't it Bush who flubbed up the answers about Pakistani leadership in 2000? Citing foreign policy experience is a red herring.