Huckabee - "I've heard he has real problems"

Sorry for another political post, but I had a couple of comments on the last one and I posted a comment that I thought I would post here:

Interestingly, most of the bad things I have heard about Huckabee are exactly that, things I "have heard." Quite a few radio talkers have picked up the gauntlet against him, mostly because that's what all the other one's are doing.

He doesn't say all of the right things and I'm not a huge fan of the populism twist that he puts on things. However, when I hold him up to the other candidates I don't see anybody who is better.

Go through the other candidates (in no particular order):
1. Thompson: What has he done? Where is the experience? One-term senator. Doesn't seem to want to be president. Has problems with his positions on a few social issues. Personal life is not exactly exemplary.
2. Romney: Elected governor in incredibly liberal state. One term governor. Had to say a few things that maybe he doesn't really mean to get elected there. Disavows those things now. He's probably second my second choice at this point.
3. Guiliani: Atrocious personal life. Liberal on social issues. We have one of these now as our governor in California. We call them RINO's. Ahnold got elected on a fiscal responsibility platform, but that quickly disintegrated. Now, we have neither fiscal nor social conservatism.
4. Paul: I like some of the things that he says, but then he comes out with absolute crazyisms.
5. McCain: Almost forgot him. He might do better in the Democratic primary. Wildly unpredictable. Created huge problems with judges, when he supported democrats in the obstructions in the Senate. Not sure exactly what he stands for. Another RINO type.

Then, we look at Huckabee:
- Accusation that he is populist that thinks government can solve all of our problems: just about everyone but maybe Ron Paul and Thompson are going to fall into the same problem. G.W. Bush has the same problem. I don't really like it, but who is really better (considering the other problems of those other folks).
- Weak on illegal immigration: This was based on a few things he did as governor. I am not sure I agree with the few things he did, but I think just about every other candidate would have to answer for similar problems in their record, if they have a record (except for maybe Ron Paul). If you look at his campaign position on this issue, I think he has an excellent position.
- Liberal tax and spender: He was part of raising taxes in Arkansas because a court ordered them to do so for education and because their roads were the worst in the country. Well, it seems to me that roads are one of the few legitimate purposes for taxation. He also cut taxes numerous times. He has taken the "no new taxes" pledge and complains loudly about spending.

So, my question is "who is better?" I don't see anyone better at this point.