The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

I like him but the current consensus among the folks I listen to is that he's running in the wrong party or that he's better off running as an independent.

Nope.

Just possibly VP (probably not) but he's too moderate, too linked to Obama, and too inconsistent in tone/ message to get the nomination IMO.

One thing for sure this lackluster support of Romney is having an effect on the polls between Obama and republican presidential contender frontrunners.

Right now Cain happens to be the new favorite and even on Rasmussen, Obama is ahead in the polls.

President Obama vs. Republican Candidates

Huntsman's chances of winning the GOP nomination are slim, which is in some ways unfortunate.

His record as an effective chief executive of Utah and fiscal conservative is solid.

The fact that he was our ambassador to China under Obama is not something, at least to me, that works for or against him. I do know that there are some Republicans who have disqualified him simply by virtue of the fact that he agreed to serve under Obama, and others who consider his brief experience as ambassador to be a real plus for his resume.

There is certainly no reason to believe that Huntsman sold his conservative soul to obtain the China posting, nor that by doing so he revealed a true liberal identity. In terms of personal growth and expertise, I'm sure the experience benefited Huntsman but not to the extent that it was the final ingredient in a receipe for a great president. It certainly doesn't hurt, but it doesn't have the same significance as the Romney experience with the Olympics.

He is not a liberal and without scrapping the majority of his stated positions and principles he couldn't jump to the Democrat Party.

To be a viable independent candidate he would need a distinct platform that would attract voters to move away from the canidates of the two parties. I don't see one.

Certainly it's not enough to be "The Republican Candidate Liberals Seem to Find The Least Offensive, Even Though They Don't Really Know Much About Him."

Because it is said that he is likely to have problems with the Tea Party may be reason for liberals to think kindly of him, but it won't be enough to turn them from Obama.

Personally, I was very put off by his tweet that read:



I believe in evolution as well. I also trust in science to provide us with a reasonable understanding of "global warming." I don't however think that people who do not are "crazy," and if I had any hope of securing their vote based on my record and proposals concerning more significant topics, I would surely not gratuitously insult them in this way.

I certainly don't believe that people who do not trust scientists displaying a clear political and personal bias are demonstrating anything other than common sense.

I suppose that some (if not most) of the campaigns closely manage Twitter messaging, but it definately provides candidates with a way to step in it.

I can't imagine why his campaign, let alone he himself, thought this tweet was a clever move.

Along with comments he has made during the debates, I think the tweet suggests a certain smarmy arrogance that is not attractive.

There is a way to appeal to the segment of Republican voters who like to think of themselves as more rational and sophisticated than their country cousins, without insulting the cousins.

My bet is that he was directing the tweet at specific opponents, rather than segments of the Republican Party, but this hardly mitigates the effect of the gaffe.

Which is a potentially serious downside to the early and extended nomination campaign process.

If and when Romney wins the nomination, the party will largely unite around him and there will be excitement over his candidacy, but the votes he will need to defeat Obama, I think, may have to be won now or soon from now and sustained through the long months. They're not likely to get kick started by a tidal wave of balloons cascading over Mitt and his family in a convention center in Tampa Florida.

Of course Obama was able to rekindle independent interest after a long slog of a Democrat nomination campaign.

Long months of tepid support over the next year may not build a lot of momentum for Romney, but if the economy doesn't soon start to turn or if it gets worse, long months of anger and frustration are going to certainly erode Obama's current position.

It might be thought clever. There's probably old records of him expressing belief in evolution and his trust in global warming scientists.

So he does the next best thing to try to keep some anti-evolutionists and anti-global warming fanatics on board by characterising his position as crazy. Maybe being crazy is not thought to play too negatively with the voters many of whom might think it quaintly charming.

I would ask him what he means by evolution in case he believes his female relatives to be monkeys without a long tail. And I would ask him which scientists he trusts on global warming and whether they actually are scientists.

If the stewards throw me out that's okay.

I think his "Call me crazy" line was intended to be facetious. At least that's the way it was used in context to that post.

You'll have to excuse ros Finn. He has me on Ignore and has not seen my explanation.

Isn't he sharp eh?

You'll have to excuse, Finn, Spendi. Has me on ignore and he can't see this response.

Why are there so many Americans, the great debaters, using 'ignore'?

Because they are not great debaters--they only assert that they are.

I was astounded when I came on this site, and it is the only site I'm on, how many people there were who obviously firmly believe something is true on the sole evidence that they have said it. And the number of repetitions, because they can't make something truer than true, simply make the belief firmer.

Later, in my wide reading, I found that Sir Winston Churchill and Sir Anthony Eden had both noticed the very same thing in their memoirs.

Oliver Hardy took the piss out of the characteristic. Goodstyle.

And refutation of the assertion which cannot be countered by argument reflexes on the Ignore function.

It's quite charming in women I find. I've laughed at many a foot stamp and a door slam.

And right on cue Finn asserts this in a post on another thread--



And it wasn't a short post and if the argument referred to is "easily" made one might think there was room for it. Wouldn't one?

Have you seen the following yet, Spendius?

Is that stuff that JTT says about America true?

http://able2know.org/topic/178691-1

Notice the tag sequence,

America, Politics, Curiosity, Us Politics, U S Politics .

To keep this revealing thread buried as deep as possible.

Well, I happen to agree with him so perhaps my edge is now in question

He was being facetious with "Call me crazy," and the implication is that if you don't believe in evolution or don't trust scientists who bray about global warming than it is you who is crazy.

Not a very smart thing to say and imply when there is a sizeable segment of Republican voters who don't believe in evolution and/or don't trust scientists on global warming and are tired of liberals asserting this makes them crazy.

Again, I think he was directing the tweet at Rick Perry and trying to distinguish himself from an opponent who thinks evolution is only one theory and that global warming is a fraud.

By doing so though, he's also distinguishing himself from a lot of people whose votes he wants for himself.

There are just not enough David Brooks among Republican voters to get Huntsman nominated.

One did.

Concede that "fair" and "neutral" are not synonomous and the pollsters' claim that only 9% give congress positive marks will be seen to be inaccurate.

Actually that was much more easily made than the tortured argument, appearing in your post on this thread, that Huntsman tweeted "Call me crazy" because he wanted to appeal to voters who don't believe in evolution.

soz, You got that right@! from cuba

The only other reason I can think of is that him being crazy will appeal to voters.

The expression "tortured argument" is another example of the syndrome I was referring to. You need to justify the expression with a bit more than simply stating it.

Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan is coming under more than a little scrutiny.
He defended it this morning, saying cryptically that some people would pay more in taxes and most would pay less.
He added:
"Who would pay more (in the sales tax portion)? The people who spend more money on new goods. The sales tax only applies to people who buy new goods, not used goods. That's a big difference."

Let's see. Herman's plan would lower the tax rate on his corporation.

Lower his personal tax.

and I'm betting that, except for groceries, that dude has never bought new.

Joe(or retail)Nation

But he's more than happy to sell us used stuff and claim it's new.

The use of "tortured argument" was a lazy reliance on cliche, and can't be justified.

If you're to be taken at face value, you obviously have not caught on to the fact that Huntsman's use of "Call me crazy" was faceteous.

He doesn't think believing in evolution or trusting scientists on global warming is crazy. Quite the opposite. I though this was clear, but apparently not.