Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
He said Obama was a remarkable leader (and underlined remarkable). That was enough for me to doubt his judgment or think he sucked up for a job.
That could work to his advantage in the general if he plays it as his ability to work across party lines to pull us out of this mess. You're right though--it kills him with the portion of his own R base in the primary who are highly partisan and hate the democrats at all cost--the ones who see no need to work together. Here's the problem--I think the majority of people in this country are really tired of the bickering and they want someone who'll actually be able to pull folks together and finally get something--anything--accomplished. You know the polling numbers on dissatisfaction with Congress right now--historic low. It's time the far end of the R base wakes up and realizes that you can win the battle and lose the war--if people don't see any hope of change, we may have another "throw the bums out" election in 2012 (like we did in 2010) and it's going to hurt the R's just as much as the D's.
Here's the problem--I think the majority of people in this country are really tired of the bickering and they want someone who'll actually be able to pull folks together and finally get something--anything--accomplished.
Well since almost 80 percent of the American people
want us to end both wars of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and overwhelmingly are against the add'l
conflict in Libya - I'd say with Ron Paul as our President,
we would unite almost unanimously.
After all, he would be the commander in chief
Well since almost 80 percent of the American people
want us to end both wars of choice in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and overwhelmingly are against the add'l
conflict in Libya - I'd say with Ron Paul as our President,
we would unite almost unanimously.
After all, he would be the commander in chief
He was Obama's ambassador to China (and an ambassador to Indonesia under Bush I think?) He was an incredibly popular 2 term governor in Utah--he balanced their state budget--and he has extensive business experience through his family's company. He's likable, smart, and has both foreign policy and successful business experience--he's a proven leader. I think he has it all.
Here's why the far right end of the R base hasn't embraced him. He's very much a social moderate. I'm an old school, moderate R, so it works for me. He's also a Mormon. The very things that kill him with the R base--religion and social issues--are the things that would make him very appealing to independents. Obama praised him for the job he'd done as ambassador, and that upsets the extreme Obama haters as well.
I look at it this way--the things that demand real and meaningful change in this country are the economy and foreign policy, and he's a star in both those areas. The R party is going to have to decide what they want--a candidate that meets their purity test, or one who can actually get the job done and has a chance of winning the general.
i disagree with your perception of what hurts hunstman with republicans.
it is his pro illegal stance, and he would make a better fit for the democratic party than the republican party. i don't know anybody who cares that he is a mormon, (or romney, or harry reid)---that is a media created issue.
i don't see how you can be a fiscal conservative and not address one of the biggest issues for america going forward, which is an oversupply of labor and falling wages, along with rising social service costs. it costs more to educate a non-english speaking person and to assimilate them in society, as well as the fact that they generally are lower wage earners and NEED more social service support. in our county, the illegals need free transportation, food, schooling, language education, healthcare, clothing, etc. -all of which cost significant sums of money to a county.
that is the same reason that i cannot support rick perry, because i don't think he understands it either. i think when you live large (like our politicians do) you don't really understand "life in the "trenches". i think ron paul or mitt romney come closer than the other candidates running. ron paul has been the most consistently focused on the middle class of EVERY candidate running in either party.
i don't care whether obama praised huntsman or huntsman praised obama. (both of which happened). that is irrelevant to the election and the issues facing america. i do know that our trade issues with china are getting worse, and not better.
That could work to his advantage in the general if he plays it as his ability to work across party lines to pull us out of this mess. You're right though--it kills him with the portion of his own R base in the primary who are highly partisan and hate the democrats at all cost--the ones who see no need to work together. Here's the problem--I think the majority of people in this country are really tired of the bickering and they want someone who'll actually be able to pull folks together and finally get something--anything--accomplished. You know the polling numbers on dissatisfaction with Congress right now--historic low. It's time the far end of the R base wakes up and realizes that you can win the battle and lose the war--if people don't see any hope of change, we may have another "throw the bums out" election in 2012 (like we did in 2010) and it's going to hurt the R's just as much as the D's.
Republicans hate Democrats at all cost: isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black? I know more Republicans that would cross over than Democrats.
Yeah, right...and we'd probably be attacked by enemy nations within a week after he became "I'M THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF"
Why would you say that. After all, we have "Homeland
Security" at a price tag of around 56 Billion a year - we
have the CIA, the FBI, and we've pretty much droned to
death the middle east. Are they coming here via swimming
camel....
I think having Ron Paul as our commander in chief,
while being difficult to correct the damage of past administrations,
would not only be an asset in creating
a realistic foreign policy for our nation,
but one that actually makes sense, philosophically and well as fiscally.
I've always questioned our military policies - militarism at
the expense of the safety and fiscal soundness of our
own citizens, is more dangerous than any isolated terrorist
could ever be....let alone, the loss of our freedoms.
"Do not separate text from historical background.
If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution,
which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." - James Madison
"The real Huntsman"? The real Huntsman is sincere and has more integrity than the rest of the candidates all put together.
That's really a lame and prejudicial observation. Huntsman is a Mormon. He has never "pretended" to be anything other than a Mormon. He simply is not as devout as Romney. Did you ever consider the fact that maybe his religion didn't enter into the election at all? In his first term, he ran against another less-devout Mormon. His sweeping win (by something like 78% of the vote) the second time around was attributable to the way he governed the state. Democrats and Republicans all thought he was a terriffic governor.
While Huntsman did have the advantage of governing a state that has always been fiscally well-managed, he did bring about some fiscal changes that further improved the state's economy.
My statement was a reflection of how bigoted people can be, not how I feel about being a Mormon. If you will remember, I have stated that religion has nothing to do with the office of President and since I am a Romney supporter I would think that is obvious for me.
Why would you say that. After all, we have "Homeland
Security" at a price tag of around 56 Billion a year - we
have the CIA, the FBI, and we've pretty much droned to
death the middle east. Are they coming here via swimming
camel....
I think having Ron Paul as our commander in chief,
while being difficult to correct the damage of past administrations,
would not only be an asset in creating
a realistic foreign policy for our nation,
but one that actually makes sense, philosophically and well as fiscally.
I've always questioned our military policies - militarism at
the expense of the safety and fiscal soundness of our
own citizens, is more dangerous than any isolated terrorist
could ever be....let alone, the loss of our freedoms.
"Do not separate text from historical background.
If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution,
which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." - James Madison
What? Haven't you been listening to this 'person?' He indicates he would ..to a great degree, Dis-mantle the military!!
Republicans hate Democrats at all cost: isn't that like the pot calling the kettle black? I know more Republicans that would cross over than Democrats.
Nita
I didn't mean all republicans--I mean the far right end of the party--the largely social conservative ones who see the D's as evil vs. just another opinion. I don't think it's unfair to say there are almost 2 R parties right now: the social moderate/pragmatic business oriented vs. the social conservative/hard right econ conservatives mixed in with the neocons. Personally--I think there will be moderate R's crossing over to vote D if the nominee is viewed as too extreme, but on the other side, I think some of the far right R's will just stay home if they see the nominee as too much toward the middle. I think you're right that you'll see virtually zero D crossover to R, but they could pick up a bunch of lean D independents if they nominate a socially moderate, likeable R candidate. It's going to be interesting, and it's a darned if you do, darned if you don't kind of situation.
I didn't mean all republicans--I mean the far right end of the party--the largely social conservative ones who see the D's as evil vs. just another opinion. I don't think it's unfair to say there are almost 2 R parties right now: the social moderate/pragmatic business oriented vs. the social conservative/hard right econ conservatives mixed in with the neocons. Personally--I think there will be moderate R's crossing over to vote D if the nominee is viewed as too extreme, but on the other side, I think some of the far right R's will just stay home if they see the nominee as too much toward the middle. I think you're right that you'll see virtually zero D crossover to R, but they could pick up a bunch of lean D independents if they nominate a socially moderate, likeable R candidate. It's going to be interesting, and it's a darned if you do, darned if you don't kind of situation.
Only after thinking about this...for a good while, and observing the worsening of EVERYTHING, let me give my view. Since Ronald Reagan left office in '89....I believe God has been punishing America by allowing 'bad' presidents to harm, to damage our country...by causing a multitude of blunders, errors, bad decisions, etc.
Last edited by quality guy; 10-07-2011 at 12:00 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
