This guy is so hip! I imagine this surprise guest appearance will jump-start his
fledging campaign but at least 2-3%. Good, bad or indifferent, Hunstman remains
a non-entity in the national GOP discussion.
So. Cal Reader is unfortunately pretty much right. Huntsman is easily my
favorite candidate in the GOP field. He's light-years ahead of the pack on
foreign policy, and his willingness to embrace science is refreshing (I loved
his aside a couple of weeks ago, "...that was back when Republicans
apparently believed in science....'). I find little fault in his social policy
ideas. And I believe he would actually do as well as even Mitt on economic
policy, as much as anything because he would probably build a good cabinet.Every politician has their soundbites and talking points, but I have
concluded that Huntsman actually has some sound principles that guide his ideas,
where the rest of them (Paul excepted) are shallow and reactionary. Huntsman
could actually LEAD, engage all parties, find solutions. Too bad he can't get
the attention he merits.
Re: Joe Moe. I've honestly thought the same question-- why hasn't Huntsman
garnered more Natl attention from the get-go. I imagine it has something to do
with him being a governor of a very conservative state whose total population is
similar to San Diego County, and who worked with a state legislature that
largely shared the same belief system and political persuasion as the governor
did. Pretty easy to accomplish a lot when both executive & legislative
branches are 'singing the same song.' Hes far from an ideal candidate, that's
why I'm much more impressed with what Romney accomplished while he was governor
over a much, much larger state that consisted of much more diversity-- both in
the statehouse and amongst the residents.
Huntsman is the only decent candidate in the race. Of course the far right
don't like him -- he's a true conservative, not a far right radical extremist.
I really hope people will start paying attention to him before it's too late.
If he stood more of a chance of getting elected I may vote for him over Obama
and I am a big Obama supporter. I have been a fan of Huntsman from the get
go.Republicans don't like him because he makes sense, he is
intelligent, he is not wacked out crazy and he hasnt waged a hate war against
our President nor the Democratic Party. He is not a loyalist to his party, I
believe he would follow his conscious and not be affected by party lines.Not a chance in 2012 but maybe just maybe there could be some hope for
Re: So.Cal Reader. You make a good point about the experience Romney has
working in a divided state, unlike Huntsman. That is perhaps the one area that
gives me pause about Huntsman. But I think he has sound philosophies, would
build a solid executive team, and would make things work. I think that, as
something of a moderate conservative, his is a voice that Middle America and
even some liberals would at least listen to, and some common ground could be
found. Intransigence is our biggest problem in Washington right now.On a tangent, I have always balked at the "vote the bums out"
philosophy of voting out every politician, worried about throwing the baby out
with the bathwater. I'm rethinking that. Could we possibly do any worse with
535 new faces in DC? And we might have a chance of actually making things
I thought Huntsman did a poor job in early debates.. terrible actually.These last 3 debates, he's done so much better. Too little too late it seems.
He does seem to be having fun, win-don't win, either way, he is still a
As a Republican, of course I can't support Huntsman because he is intelligent,
he is not wacked out crazy and he hasn't waged a hate war against our President
nor the Democratic Party. Hey sid6.7 - I get it that understanding opposing
political philosophies is probably not your strong suit, but at least try to
step into the shallow end sometime.I'll pit Romney's intelligence
against high-school dropout Huntsman's any day of the week, and by nearly all
accounts Romney is winning or nearly winning every debate so far in a
"non-crazy" statesmanlike manner. They've all declared political war
on Obama and the Democratic Party, including Huntsman, regardless of the
blinders that may prevent you from seeing reality.
Huntsman is the only good thing repubs have going for them and they just aren't
smart enough to nominate the guy.
looks like Huntsman's jumping the shark....and of course the lib's on here love
Jon, he's going to end up as Obama's VP candidate by the end of it all, and
still won't end up in the WH.
Huntsman is a Democrat so, of course SNL (Liberals All)would embrace him.
@sid6.7 - so, you're opposed to waging hate wars against the opposing party, but
you're a big Obama supporter? Considering that Obama has never yet faced a
problem that was not the fault of Bush and/or the Republican party, I'm
surprised the stark irony of your comment didn't occur to you.
Heh, Huntsman a Democrat... Democrats don't have 80% approval ratings in Utah as
they cruise to re-election. Are we sure Huntsman is the one who changed or is it
just that he went out to China and when he came back found that conservatives
had just gone off the deep end?
Des-per-ate.Huntsman is a phony. He's a democrat. Did not like him
as governor. Would not vote for him unless it's him vs. BO.
Huntsman did better in his appearance with Elmo. I think Sarah Palin did so
much better when she appeared on SNL. On SNL, you could actually
see his eyes moving as he read the cue cards, and you could see him smiling as
he read ahead to the punch line before he even said it. I think it would have
been more funny if he would have faced Seth Meyers when he spoke with him,
instead of the cue cards the whole time. Will he be another telepromter
president?But, he does have a "stage presence" and
enunciates very well. But face it, he's really a democrat--maybe a blue dog
like Matheson. I really have a hard time following him when he
answers the debate questions. I can follow the following candidates much
better.1. Mitt Romney2. Herman Cain3. tie between Newt
Gingrich and Michelle Bachman.
Too bad he was obviously reading the teleprompter. Came off a bit sing-songy,
not at all natural.
'@sid6.7 - so, you're opposed to waging hate wars against the opposing party,
but you're a big Obama supporter? Considering that Obama has never yet faced a
problem that was not the fault of Bush and/or the Republican party...' - DSB |
3:03 p.m. Nov. 21, 2011 "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and
produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.' -
George W. Bush - Ohio Speech 10/7/2002 *'Hatch, Republicans
challenge tax cut expiration' - By Becky Bruce, Deseret News - 12/01/10
'WASHINGTON, D.C. Republicans in the U.S. Senate are drawing a line in the
virtual sand, vowing to keep all legislation off the Senate floor unless
Congress extends the Bush-era tax cuts...' *'GOP contenders argue on
Iran' - By Kasie Hunt - AP - Published by DSNews - 11/12/11 "If we
re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt
Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon," vowed the former
Massachusetts governor.' I'm glad we agree, DSB. I
completely agree with sid 6.7 | 1:05 p.m. Nov. 21, 2011. Maybe not
2012. But I would vote for Huntsman in 2016.
@Pagan - I'm wondering if it's ever possible for you to give an opinion without
a pointless list of irrelevant headlines. Whenever I read comments, I generally
just skip past those of you and Brother Chuck because not only is it usually the
continuation of ad nauseum repetitive drivel (emphasis on the nausea), but it
usually has nothing to do with either the topic at hand, or the comments of
whoever you are responding to?How in the world do your headlines
rebut my argument that Obama is without equal in the political hate war? And,
if rising above the fray of political hate wars is someone's reason for
supporting a candidate, how is it possible to be a "big Obama
supporter" without being blinded to Obama's position of Commander in Chief
of the political hate war?
Pagan,I must admit I'm having difficulty following your logic.
Sid6.7 doesn't like politicians who engage in a "war of hate" against
their political opponents, but supports Obama who obviously engages in a
constant war of hate against Republicans, and DSB calls out sid6.7 over the
obvious inconsistency. And, your response is to cite Bush's allegedly dishonest
war against Saddam Hussein? I really don't get the connection.Nor
do I understand how Republicans drawing a line in the sand against legislation,
or Romney's opinion about Iran getting a nuclear weapon, have anything to do
with the allegation that Obama is clearly engaged in a political hate war
against Republicans.Do your headlines somehow prove that the
"hate war" goes in just one direction, and that Obama has avoided it?
That's a rather embarrassingly ridiculous logical construct.Is it
your position that since Republicans engage in political hate wars - which
nobody has disputed - this somehow excuses Obama from doing the same? I thought
one reason for Obama's election was that he was going to heal that kind of
poisonous political warmongering. I think he foments the partisan divide and
bickering more than anybody else in Washington.