Huckabee

I have done my fair share of interviews, and although I've never interviewed a Presidential candidate I've interviewed some important people and it's not *that* difficult. You prepare. You listen. You think. So when Mike Huckabee says something this stupid and offensive:

Well, I don’t think that’s a radical view to say we’re going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we’re going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again.

You call him on it. You immediately stop and ask him, are you really equating the love between two human beings with that of a man and an animal? And on what grounds? What is your logic?

That the BeliefNet writer didn't even do this tells me he is probably biased to believe what Huckabee said about gays without really thinking about it, that he (or she) more or less agrees with Huckabee on this issue and finds nothing remarkable that need to be verified. Either that or they're just an idiot giving him questions at rote. He just goes on to the next question, as if he's not even listening and doesn't even realize that something remarkable has been said. Which I wouldn't doubt at all. I just can't understand it.