Consider the 3 elements: (1) social conservatism (2) economic conservatism (3) national security. You cannot be a conservative and be a Big Government nanny-state socialist. Your big 3 misses the Big Question: What about government taxation, regulation, spending, and power of Government over individuals and the economy?
On immigration, Huckster is for in-state tuition for illegals in Arkansas, Romney was against it. Club for Growth gave a scathing review of Huckabee's records, because Huckabee raised taxes and spending, and Romney got a better review because unlike Huckabee he didnt jump at tax increases and fought to keep spending in check. (Thompson even better mainly on spending restraint.)
Huckster's been doin' his populist thing, stirring up anti-business sentiment with populist name-calling akin to what John Edwards goes around saying. Huckabee's response to CfG's review was to call CfG 'club for greed'. Well, no, Club for Growth is one of the best groups for trying to get Republicans to stick to fiscal conservatism out there. They are RINO hunters and they have been very good.
Romney is prolife, pro-2A, supports Federal Marriage Amendment, supports overturn of Roe v Wade and appointment of the kinds of judges who will make it happen. Huck surely is as well, but you cannot be a good conservative without being a fiscal conservative. Huckabee couldnt stand behind Bush's veto of SCHIP in the debate last week, which to me was telling ... he's a 'compassionate conservative', which after 6 years of experience tells us it means he wont do a d*mn about keeping the budget in check. Meanwhile at CPAC in March, Romney pledged to keep discretionary spending to no growth at all. So looking all the factors, Romney as fiscal/economic conservative would be better than Huckabee. And on social issues as President they would not be much different.
Huckabee is a nanny government guy when it comes to health issues. Smoking, food, drink...he’s all about saving us from ourselves, whether we like it or not.