Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Just Curious -- Huntsman

Jon Huntsman is smarter than the rest of the GOP field combined. Why is it that the Republicans cannot see this and embrace him as a candidate? He has the best shot at knocking off Obama. Isn't that the party mantra? Seems like a gentleman and a scholar to me. Might be a fine US President. Hello! Anybody home?


Baxter said...

I think Huntsman is positioning himself to pick up the pieces of the party in 2016. He would also be a great VP on the '12 ticket if the standard bearer is on the far right.

Huntsman seems very solid and would pick up most of the middle. That said, he has the same problem as Romney - he won't satisfy the Tea Party and thus would have to fight a two front war in the general election.

Jim G. said...

Huntsman is not a Conservative, Conservatives win. He speaks moderately.

Right now, Obama loses big, very big. Unfortunately Perry is not performing well in the debates.

Romney is the likely nominee. I just love what Cain is saying about race.

The debate are now to the point of drawing a distinction without a differnece and throwing mud when possible.

The best thing for my party is for the Wall Street protestors to last a long, long time and show sane America again what fools occupy the left. Dangerous fools.

Baxters stupidity aside (as always distorting) the TEA party remains united and engaged. Granted their importance may have been exaggerated in the mid terms, however, the current protestors draw much closer to the idiots of the 60's and (as I hope) they just might bring their outrage to the convention.

Disagree, fine, let's have a vote.

Jim G. said...

The Tea Party’s splendid successes, which have altered the nation’s political vocabulary and agenda, have inspired a countermovement — Occupy Wall Street. Conservatives should rejoice and wish for it long life, abundant publicity and sufficient organization to endorse congressional candidates deemed worthy. All Democrats eager for OWS’ imprimatur, step forward.
Its meta-theory is, however, clear: Washington is grotesquely corrupt and insufficiently powerful. From 1965 through 1968, the left found its voice and style in consciousness-raising demonstrations and disruptions. In November 1968, the nation, its consciousness raised, elected Richard Nixon President and gave 56.9 percent of the popular vote to Nixon or George Wallace. Republicans won four of the next five presidential elections.

terry said...

Obama Loses Big To Who ?
Rick Perry could not be elected Dog Catcher in a general election. Romney will keep the tea party away from the polls.
Huntsman couldn't lighten up a room of light bulbs.
Cain is interesting with the 9-9-9 but independents and republicans think giving that revenue stream to congress will someday turn into 15-15-15.
Let's Face it Jim the Right wing Tea Party has ruined your chances not increased them.
Hell! Bush couldn't get the nomination of your party now. It will be interesting if they let him speak at their convention
Republican party is dead for the next 10 years.
Cut the budget but not the military.
Cut the budget and by some unproven theory everything will turn out peachy.
Sell that fairy tale somewhere else. We have had low unemployment with budget deficits, what makes you think by cutting deficits that will create demand for goods. WHERE IS THAT EMPIRICAL DATA FOUND?

Baxter said...

Right now, the latest polls show Obama wins - he beat Romney by 2 (46-44) and he bests Cain and Perry by 11 and 12 points.

I agree with Jim about Huntsman - he is in the wrong party. He'd do a great job as a DLC/Clinton Democrat.

Romney should be the nominee. Cain, Palin, Bachmann - or most likely - Ron Paul with be in the general election as the Tea Party candidate.

Latest polls show 37% of Americans tend to support the 99% Group (OWS) while 16% tend to oppose.

If the Tea Party were united and engaged would Mitt Romney be gliding into the nomination? I can't remember the last time it was this easy. All but over before the first ballots cast...

Jim G. said...

Cut the budget because it is starting, or better said, is no longer just starting to overwhelm us. Unproven theory? Terry, you keep acting like it is the government's job to create jobs. Its not, they are not good at it and are always wrong. Two words, solar energy.

What we are trying to do is avoid becoming Greece.

How about Romney/Perry with a Cain Secretary of Commerce.

Jim G. said...

Also, you keep acting like 2010 never happened.

You keep acting like the OWS crowd didn't know where to vote...OK you might have a point there.

Baxter said...

General elections are a much better gauge of the American peoples political views than midterms. The electorate is larger, younger, and darker. Don't forget about 2008 - the people spoke loud and clear. They will do so again next year.

terry said...

Terry, you keep acting like it is the government's job to create jobs
Jim where in my post did you get that!! But since you asked? Policeman, Teachers, Air Traffic Controllers, Park rangers, Firemen, etc.
The question was the national debt and getting it down is the right thing to do BUT will it alone create jobs. The reality is create demand for a product ex. I phone, I pad, HD tv, new cars, creates jobs, i haven't heard anything except the trickle down theory, which did not work the last time. Why hasn't the Bush tax cuts worked Jim. The rich don't purchase as much as the middle class, and making money with money does not create many jobs. We are at a tug of war in this country and neither side sees the value in giving and inch and all pulling in the same direction.

Baxter said...

Cutting spending in a deflationary downturn is the last thing one should do as Hoover (R) learned the hard way. Such cuts will only depress the economy further reducing revenues.

So what about tax cuts?

Clinton raised taxes without one Republican vote, balanced the budget and produced surpluses. 22 million net jobs were created on Clinton's watch.

Bush cut taxes, brought relative receipts to a 60-year low and doubled the debt in eight years. ZERO net jobs were created under Bush.

It seems rather obvious, doesn't it?