• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Question: Why not Jon Huntsman?

I wouldn't disagree. But I still think there's more positivity in the Republican camp (even if not by much) than the Democrat camp.

It's certainly true that most people of any stripe as disappointed with their representitives. But the Democratic party doesn't even know what it is anymore. It's sort of become "anything that isn't Republican." No one can really support them almost by definition. Republicans at least have an idea of what they are. While their supporters may not represent most Americans, they do have them, whereas the Democrats just have people who aren't willing to vote Republican or independent.

While true in certain respects, I think it was Todd Gitlin who had a nice way of putting it. The Democratic Party's base for quite some time (let's say to a certain extent,the 1970s onward) was based on the group identity politics: blacks, women, union workers, and so on. Somehow it was able to create the "commons" and make a show of force. The truth is, however, that identity strength comes in waves. It was fairly strong and swift circa 2008-2009 or 2010. Now you can make the argument it is not. Just as I could point to, shortly after 9/11 to about 2004 or so being a strong identity for Republicans. Yet, in 2005 onward, it would have been hard to suggest that, as legislation after legislation failed to garner support amongst the camps in the GOP.
 
Forgive me....I'd hate to come in here and screw up such high brow, serious, completely even minded and serious analysis such as "He is waaay too reasonable" and he "is too electable" but I feel I"ll do it anyways.

I'm probably one of the biggest fan's of Huntsman on the site. I think he'd be a great President and I think he'd actually have the best shot at beating Obama if he ran a halfway decent campaign of any of the Republican's in the race. However, there's a number of reasons why "not" Huntsman unfortunately. There's five things that I think are playing against him and would be the cause for him not getting the nod. Each of them, to a point, play into the next as well.

1. Name Recognition

Huntsman just wasn't a well known name on the national scene leading into this. Every other candidate still in the race was in some way shape or form. Bachmann's been in the news for some time. Newt is one of the most well known Speakers ever. Perry came out of a high profile state. Romney and Paul ran last time. Santorum was in a much publicized Senate race last time around. Cain was the only unknown similar to Huntsman, but benefits from being "different" from the rest both as a minority and a non-politician. The last time most voters that are mildly involved in politics heard about Huntsman was when he was being made an Ambassador for Obama, which is not a good last memory for a Republican primary. The simple lack of name recognition has done him no favors. By itself though it wouldn't be hard to overcome, however we move to the next....

2. Media Portrayal

This is a big one. When Huntsman announced there was a big media rush, one that could've helped get him name recognition. And in some ways, it did...but not in the way he needed. Right off the bat the majority of stories referred to him as a "moderate", with snarkier comments around the net and opinion pages giving backhanded slaps at Republicans while trying to praise him calling him a "reasonable" or "adult" Republican. The went for much of the "conservative" media as well, who jumped in on the "moderate" presentation due to their preferences already being established for other candidates in the race. Media focus during the primary has been far more on his "bi-partisan appeal", and highlighting his problematic policies as if they're a bonus and generally glossing over the more attractive to conservative qualities, which has done him no favor if cultivating the name recognition he'd need. Democrats love to point out how they like him, which creates an immediate uncertainty. Unfortunately, the next item simply plays into the hands of the portrayal of him...

3. Moderate Tone

Forgive me as I forget which poster stated it or else I'd give them credit for it, but the best line I heard summing up how Huntsman was "moderate" was essentially that he was moderate in TONE, not necessarily action. Huntsman stated out stating how he was going to run a clean and civil campaign, and shockingly enough relative to how campaigns and primaries usually go he's actually upheld that stated goal. He's not a big, in your face, fighter. He's not a guy with huge lofty rhetoric in terms of aggressive issues. He's very even, very reasoned, passionate but in a realistic and honest way rather than a feigned presentation focused style. He's not one to jump on the bandwagon of making ambiguous comments about wedge issues in hopes of hiding his positions or views, or in breaking with the "typical" republican view point on some things like evolution. He's prone to focus on issues, on policies, on what HE would bring rather than just attacking and emotional ploys against the other side. Strangely, this is a key common phrase of a major conservative figure in Rush Limbaugh, that Liberals argue on "emotion" and Conservatives argue on the "issues" and that's why conservatism will win. And yet, it seems that right now instead of appealing to emotions by uselessly attacking rather than presenting alternative ideas and issues.

Part of the issue here is the state of mind of the Republican base during this primary. The base is angry, wound up, and frothy. They're in the mood for a fight. As such, they want a candidate that kind of represents that, which embodies it. Huntsman doesn't, or at least isn't, fitting that bill which works against him. His tone also plays into the media's presentation and makes it easier to buy into the worst case scenario of the next item...

4. Problem Stances

Huntsman has problems in his past on four issues currently in the political arena. In regards to same sex marriage, he's in favor of civil unions which parts him a bit from the religious right. When it comes to immigration, he's open to individual states providing benefits for children of illegals and in the long term is open to something like a path to citizenship. With Health Care, he was open to an individual mandate on the state level. Finally, perhaps the biggest, he signed onto a regional state level cape and trade legislation.

One (Civil Unions) of these stances is big to the religious right, a major constituency within the base. One (immigration) is a bit on the back burner but still an important issue. Two (health care / cap and trade) are somewhat major issues in this primary. By themselves, these four hurt him. This is especially true given the media presentation and his image due to his tone which leads people to hear these things and take them at face value, seeing nothing more about it. However, save for the civil union issue, the initial view doesn't tell close to the whole story. On immigration, he's strongly in favor of securing the border first before talking about any kind of path to citizenship; the same view point held by Sean Hannity during Bush's push for "comprehensive" reform. On health care, he worked with the republican state legislation and passed a health care overhaul that was consumer focused and market driven with no individual mandate. On cap & trade, he's admitted to seeing first hand issues with the notion on the state level and the lack of viability in our current economic climate on a national level. These things could be pushed to counter act the press on his stances, but that leads us to the last negative...

5. Campaign Strategy

His campaign has just been horribly handled, from the start. With the current mood of the Republican base, he needed to find a way to present himself at times at least a bit passionate if not aggressive. I'm not saying go away from his "Civil" campaign, because that would hurt him if he won the primary (And what's the point of winning the primary but not the general?), but its possible to show some emotion and anger without violating that. Show anger at the situation we're in at this country, at the problems people are facing, even if you don't directly aim it at Obama himself.

The man has an immensely good fiscal conservative record. One of the best of any candidate and by far the best of any on that stage when it comes to ACCOMPLISHMENTS rather than simply rhetoric or failed votes. He's also got an extremely good record with regards to economic and business growth. This is one of the key, if not THE key, issue in this debate with regards to the one that likely registers highest across the board with republicans, independents, and democrats. Yet, rather than making this a focus during interviews and in info pushed out to the press, it seems to be just kind of...there...in presentation.

Primary awareness, he just doesn't have it here. Again, asking him to just lie about his stances is going to hurt him and is likely problematic. But he should be looking to avoid making statements or focusing on things that he knows is going to be unpopular with primary voters. If you don't HAVE to talk about it, don't. If you have to, hit it and then move on quick if possible. Save that kind of stuff for when it'll actually be beneficial to your chances at winning...during the general.

He's done a horrid job at countering things as well. As I stated in #4, he's got easy ways to try and fight against the negative issue stances that are out there about him. However, the campaign doesn't seem to try and counter when it gets thrown out. His ambassadorship gets thrown out and there's seemingly no counter when instead they should be pointing out his positions in the Bush and Reagan White Houses and highlighting the BENEFITS of his ambassadorship.

Just in general, campaign wise, he's made some MAJOR political mistakes. He's running for the Presidency at the very start of the primary season and that's not going to help you because you have to win the primary first to get to the Presidential election. You don't want to go TOO far from who you are during the primaries, otherwise it hurts you during the general because you look fraudulent. However, you have to be able to filter yourself and know how to speak to the audience in question and he's not doing that.

THOSE are the reasons right now why I think it would "not" be John Huntsman. I've highlighted in other threads that I do see a path for him to win, but its a narrow one and a long one and requires a lot of things to happen with other candidates. However, I think those 5 factors are what's causing him to be so far behind at this point with seemingly no momentum.

Two interesting studies, here at debate politics. The first is Dav. Dav is a pretty solidly conservative poster. Early on he was very negative towards huntsman, highlighting him being a "moderate" and questionable with regards to his view on conservative issues. However, after talking with him and getting him to actually look deeper into Huntsman's record rather than the rhetoric put out about him, he's seemingly became a fan or, at least, changed his view regarding his conservatism. The second is Liblady. Clearly a liberal, she was one who strongly suggested she liked Huntsman to a point because he seemed moderate. She highlighted how many people want higher taxes on the rich and don't want ideologues like Bachmann so want Huntsman. Mind you, Bachmann has little actual practical implemented credentials to point to with regards to taxes while Huntsman passed the largest tax cut (across the board) in Utah history.

In both cases you had individuals who bought into the "moderate" presentation and image. In one case you had a conservative turned off from him that needed to be spurred to look at him further. In the other you had a liberal loudly proclaiming how he would be the Republican they like and propping him up while referencing a stance he doesn't even support. In the first case, without that prompting, that's a primary voter that's likely not going for him. In the second case, its a person who just adds to the image and portrayal of him as conservatives interacting with that person view such support as a negative.

Its those kind of things that are hurting Huntsman right now.
 
Forgive me....I'd hate to come in here and screw up such high brow, serious, completely even minded and serious analysis such as "He is waaay too reasonable" and he "is too electable" but I feel I"ll do it anyways.

I'm probably one of the biggest fan's of Huntsman on the site. I think he'd be a great President and I think he'd actually have the best shot at beating Obama if he ran a halfway decent campaign of any of the Republican's in the race. However, there's a number of reasons why "not" Huntsman unfortunately. There's five things that I think are playing against him and would be the cause for him not getting the nod. Each of them, to a point, play into the next as well.

1. Name Recognition

Huntsman just wasn't a well known name on the national scene leading into this. Every other candidate still in the race was in some way shape or form. Bachmann's been in the news for some time. Newt is one of the most well known Speakers ever. Perry came out of a high profile state. Romney and Paul ran last time. Santorum was in a much publicized Senate race last time around. Cain was the only unknown similar to Huntsman, but benefits from being "different" from the rest both as a minority and a non-politician. The last time most voters that are mildly involved in politics heard about Huntsman was when he was being made an Ambassador for Obama, which is not a good last memory for a Republican primary. The simple lack of name recognition has done him no favors. By itself though it wouldn't be hard to overcome, however we move to the next....

2. Media Portrayal

This is a big one. When Huntsman announced there was a big media rush, one that could've helped get him name recognition. And in some ways, it did...but not in the way he needed. Right off the bat the majority of stories referred to him as a "moderate", with snarkier comments around the net and opinion pages giving backhanded slaps at Republicans while trying to praise him calling him a "reasonable" or "adult" Republican. The went for much of the "conservative" media as well, who jumped in on the "moderate" presentation due to their preferences already being established for other candidates in the race. Media focus during the primary has been far more on his "bi-partisan appeal", and highlighting his problematic policies as if they're a bonus and generally glossing over the more attractive to conservative qualities, which has done him no favor if cultivating the name recognition he'd need. Democrats love to point out how they like him, which creates an immediate uncertainty. Unfortunately, the next item simply plays into the hands of the portrayal of him...

3. Moderate Tone

Forgive me as I forget which poster stated it or else I'd give them credit for it, but the best line I heard summing up how Huntsman was "moderate" was essentially that he was moderate in TONE, not necessarily action. Huntsman stated out stating how he was going to run a clean and civil campaign, and shockingly enough relative to how campaigns and primaries usually go he's actually upheld that stated goal. He's not a big, in your face, fighter. He's not a guy with huge lofty rhetoric in terms of aggressive issues. He's very even, very reasoned, passionate but in a realistic and honest way rather than a feigned presentation focused style. He's not one to jump on the bandwagon of making ambiguous comments about wedge issues in hopes of hiding his positions or views, or in breaking with the "typical" republican view point on some things like evolution. He's prone to focus on issues, on policies, on what HE would bring rather than just attacking and emotional ploys against the other side. Strangely, this is a key common phrase of a major conservative figure in Rush Limbaugh, that Liberals argue on "emotion" and Conservatives argue on the "issues" and that's why conservatism will win. And yet, it seems that right now instead of appealing to emotions by uselessly attacking rather than presenting alternative ideas and issues.

Part of the issue here is the state of mind of the Republican base during this primary. The base is angry, wound up, and frothy. They're in the mood for a fight. As such, they want a candidate that kind of represents that, which embodies it. Huntsman doesn't, or at least isn't, fitting that bill which works against him. His tone also plays into the media's presentation and makes it easier to buy into the worst case scenario of the next item...

4. Problem Stances

Huntsman has problems in his past on four issues currently in the political arena. In regards to same sex marriage, he's in favor of civil unions which parts him a bit from the religious right. When it comes to immigration, he's open to individual states providing benefits for children of illegals and in the long term is open to something like a path to citizenship. With Health Care, he was open to an individual mandate on the state level. Finally, perhaps the biggest, he signed onto a regional state level cape and trade legislation.

One (Civil Unions) of these stances is big to the religious right, a major constituency within the base. One (immigration) is a bit on the back burner but still an important issue. Two (health care / cap and trade) are somewhat major issues in this primary. By themselves, these four hurt him. This is especially true given the media presentation and his image due to his tone which leads people to hear these things and take them at face value, seeing nothing more about it. However, save for the civil union issue, the initial view doesn't tell close to the whole story. On immigration, he's strongly in favor of securing the border first before talking about any kind of path to citizenship; the same view point held by Sean Hannity during Bush's push for "comprehensive" reform. On health care, he worked with the republican state legislation and passed a health care overhaul that was consumer focused and market driven with no individual mandate. On cap & trade, he's admitted to seeing first hand issues with the notion on the state level and the lack of viability in our current economic climate on a national level. These things could be pushed to counter act the press on his stances, but that leads us to the last negative...

5. Campaign Strategy

His campaign has just been horribly handled, from the start. With the current mood of the Republican base, he needed to find a way to present himself at times at least a bit passionate if not aggressive. I'm not saying go away from his "Civil" campaign, because that would hurt him if he won the primary (And what's the point of winning the primary but not the general?), but its possible to show some emotion and anger without violating that. Show anger at the situation we're in at this country, at the problems people are facing, even if you don't directly aim it at Obama himself.

The man has an immensely good fiscal conservative record. One of the best of any candidate and by far the best of any on that stage when it comes to ACCOMPLISHMENTS rather than simply rhetoric or failed votes. He's also got an extremely good record with regards to economic and business growth. This is one of the key, if not THE key, issue in this debate with regards to the one that likely registers highest across the board with republicans, independents, and democrats. Yet, rather than making this a focus during interviews and in info pushed out to the press, it seems to be just kind of...there...in presentation.

Primary awareness, he just doesn't have it here. Again, asking him to just lie about his stances is going to hurt him and is likely problematic. But he should be looking to avoid making statements or focusing on things that he knows is going to be unpopular with primary voters. If you don't HAVE to talk about it, don't. If you have to, hit it and then move on quick if possible. Save that kind of stuff for when it'll actually be beneficial to your chances at winning...during the general.

He's done a horrid job at countering things as well. As I stated in #4, he's got easy ways to try and fight against the negative issue stances that are out there about him. However, the campaign doesn't seem to try and counter when it gets thrown out. His ambassadorship gets thrown out and there's seemingly no counter when instead they should be pointing out his positions in the Bush and Reagan White Houses and highlighting the BENEFITS of his ambassadorship.

Just in general, campaign wise, he's made some MAJOR political mistakes. He's running for the Presidency at the very start of the primary season and that's not going to help you because you have to win the primary first to get to the Presidential election. You don't want to go TOO far from who you are during the primaries, otherwise it hurts you during the general because you look fraudulent. However, you have to be able to filter yourself and know how to speak to the audience in question and he's not doing that.

THOSE are the reasons right now why I think it would "not" be John Huntsman. I've highlighted in other threads that I do see a path for him to win, but its a narrow one and a long one and requires a lot of things to happen with other candidates. However, I think those 5 factors are what's causing him to be so far behind at this point with seemingly no momentum.

Two interesting studies, here at debate politics. The first is Dav. Dav is a pretty solidly conservative poster. Early on he was very negative towards huntsman, highlighting him being a "moderate" and questionable with regards to his view on conservative issues. However, after talking with him and getting him to actually look deeper into Huntsman's record rather than the rhetoric put out about him, he's seemingly became a fan or, at least, changed his view regarding his conservatism. The second is Liblady. Clearly a liberal, she was one who strongly suggested she liked Huntsman to a point because he seemed moderate. She highlighted how many people want higher taxes on the rich and don't want ideologues like Bachmann so want Huntsman. Mind you, Bachmann has little actual practical implemented credentials to point to with regards to taxes while Huntsman passed the largest tax cut (across the board) in Utah history.

In both cases you had individuals who bought into the "moderate" presentation and image. In one case you had a conservative turned off from him that needed to be spurred to look at him further. In the other you had a liberal loudly proclaiming how he would be the Republican they like and propping him up while referencing a stance he doesn't even support. In the first case, without that prompting, that's a primary voter that's likely not going for him. In the second case, its a person who just adds to the image and portrayal of him as conservatives interacting with that person view such support as a negative.

Its those kind of things that are hurting Huntsman right now.

Thanks for the diligence in expressing what I could not.

I think most people (especially the ideologically minded) don't realize how important branding, campaign strategy, and marketing is in a presidential campaign. This is what Obama did so successfully. Obama turned himself into a brand and made voting for him "the cool thing" to do. I was a freshman in college at the time and I remember half my friends voting for him even though they didn't even know who he was. For Huntsman to succeed, he would of have had to do much better than everyone else due to disadvantages you listed above. I remember just recently a Fox interview at a Jets game where the majority of people couldn't even recognize Rick Perry, let alone Jon Huntsman (reporter said not a single person knew who he was). Another survey found that 50% of Americans couldn't list one Republican candidate. Unfortunately, in the end, the issues are nearly as important as the image.
 
Excellent post, but I think you understate the significance of the fact that he worked for Obama. That is a sin that no hardcore righty will forgive, and it's pretty tough to win the Republican primary without the base.
 
Hah I just turned on SNL and he's on it.
 
Excellent post, but I think you understate the significance of the fact that he worked for Obama. That is a sin that no hardcore righty will forgive, and it's pretty tough to win the Republican primary without the base.

You simply justify it in a way that also appeals to that section of the bases "hardcore righty" tendancies. Namely, when the President of the United States asks you to serve YOUR COUNTRY...not serve him, not to serve his party, but to Represent the United States of America, that doing such is an honor. To choose to not represent this great country by being its face in a part of the world that is going to be perhaps the most important in regards to foreign policy over the next 20 years would be saying that you aren't worthy or can't handle representing this great nation. This was not a matter of serving under Obama's administration, it was a question of what being asked to be a patriot and to serve this country.

I think its something that, to be quite honest, would not be hard for people to get over pretty quickly. And its something I think in the primary will actually significantly help him.
 
Hah I just turned on SNL and he's on it.

He like's to spread his wings and fly like the purple finch.

A little stiff, definitely not a good actor or used to doing something like that, but did a decent job making fun of himself. I laughed.
 
You simply justify it in a way that also appeals to that section of the bases "hardcore righty" tendancies. Namely, when the President of the United States asks you to serve YOUR COUNTRY...not serve him, not to serve his party, but to Represent the United States of America, that doing such is an honor. To choose to not represent this great country by being its face in a part of the world that is going to be perhaps the most important in regards to foreign policy over the next 20 years would be saying that you aren't worthy or can't handle representing this great nation. This was not a matter of serving under Obama's administration, it was a question of what being asked to be a patriot and to serve this country.

I think its something that, to be quite honest, would not be hard for people to get over pretty quickly. And its something I think in the primary will actually significantly help him.

That's exactly how he's presenting it, and it's quite reasonable and, I think honorable. But the people I'm talking about are the ones who would literally rather see the country fall back into recession rather than see Obama's policies succeed. I think the service to country argument is a big whiff given the level of irrational hatred for President Obama on the far right.
 
That's exactly how he's presenting it, and it's quite reasonable and, I think honorable. But the people I'm talking about are the ones who would literally rather see the country fall back into recession rather than see Obama's policies succeed. I think the service to country argument is a big whiff given the level of irrational hatred for President Obama on the far right.

Really? I've never really heard him presenting it much at all, other than kind of passively going in a quick one liner that he was asked to serve his country and it was an honor. Short, not much passion, not much indignation of someone even suggesting that serving ones country should be a negative, etc. Again, its all about presentation and I think he's doing poorly with HOW he's presenting the counter.

And Adam, I honestly don't think there are many people are you describe. I think there are a large amount that would rather see the country fall back into a recession rather than see Obama succeed at getting his policies, which is SIGNIFICANTLY different than what you described.
 
Really? I've never really heard him presenting it much at all, other than kind of passively going in a quick one liner that he was asked to serve his country and it was an honor. Short, not much passion, not much indignation of someone even suggesting that serving ones country should be a negative, etc. Again, its all about presentation and I think he's doing poorly with HOW he's presenting the counter.

And Adam, I honestly don't think there are many people are you describe. I think there are a large amount that would rather see the country fall back into a recession rather than see Obama succeed at getting his policies, which is SIGNIFICANTLY different than what you described.

Well yeah, he certainly didn't play it with any kind of indignation. On the other hand, I'm not sure he could pull that off. Couldn't hurt to try, I suppose. He can't poll much worse than he has been.

Re: Obama, I disagree. I think that, given a choice, there are many on the right who would choose a bad economy over a good economy brought about by something that could be credited to Obama.
 
To my knowledge Jon main (only?) camp is in NH.

High possibility he won't win NH even though he is giving it everything he has over there. If he did win NH, he polls miserably in every other state that the monument wouldn't carry. He has to do something in the debate or poll higher in NH quickly to gain some traction. If he can't do it soon then he should hedge his bets before getting into more debt.
 
Last edited:
You need at least 2 of 3 things in order to win an election: backroom political power, money and public pandering. Huntsman has none of them. It doesn't matter if his tax plan is vastly superior to Cain's 999 plan, because nobody has even heard of it. The style of policy counts far more than substance in today's media. His diplomatic experience, tangible accomplishments in governance and reasoned approached are not summed into a marketable sound byte. Romney is a similar boat with the base, but his long term planning and vast resources may be enough to plow ahead anyway.
 
Well yeah, he certainly didn't play it with any kind of indignation. On the other hand, I'm not sure he could pull that off. Couldn't hurt to try, I suppose. He can't poll much worse than he has been.

Re: Obama, I disagree. I think that, given a choice, there are many on the right who would choose a bad economy over a good economy brought about by something that could be credited to Obama.
This is a bull**** statement. No one wants a bad economy.
 
This is a bull**** statement. No one wants a bad economy.

...except the conservatives that would gladly sacrifice America to win an election. Sorry, but its pretty hard to explain the three years in Washington without coming to this conclusion.
 
Things like taking all the teeth out of FDA and EPA, essentially scrapping public ed, gutting Medicare, etc, didn't used to be a viable platform even for a Republican. Bog standard conservatism is a stance of continuity. Far-right conservatism is regressivism. Huntsman is plainly regressive in quite a number of issues.
The department cutting is due to a uprise of states rights. They have not thought about the consequences of cutting the departments. No one is in favour of scrapping public education. They do want to cut in programs such as medicare, but that is because it has become much more neccecary.

There's nothing particularly fringey about me, at least not politically. I would have been a Democrat 20 years ago. Now-a-days, I'm too liberal to be a Democrat - most Democrats are right-leaning moderates. This can be demonstrated on any political spectrum. Quite a few of them have been plotted. Even Obama, one of the more liberal Democrats of today, is only very slightly left. He's definitely not liberal.
Slightly left? take a look at his profile and compare them to for instance Bill Clinton.
http://www.issues2000.org/barack_obama.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/Bill_Clinton.htm

What issues excactly? The issues the right are winning, are global warming skepticism, and states rights. What about gay marriage, racial equality, acceptance of higher taxes, class warfare, anti-war movemebt, and the anti-trade movement. They have all done really well the last 20 years. Fact is, Republicans have moved right, but the rest of the country has been moving left.
 
The department cutting is due to a uprise of states rights. They have not thought about the consequences of cutting the departments. No one is in favour of scrapping public education. They do want to cut in programs such as medicare, but that is because it has become much more neccecary.


Slightly left? take a look at his profile and compare them to for instance Bill Clinton.
Barack Obama on the Issues
Bill Clinton on the Issues

What issues excactly? The issues the right are winning, are global warming skepticism, and states rights. What about gay marriage, racial equality, acceptance of higher taxes, class warfare, anti-war movemebt, and the anti-trade movement. They have all done really well the last 20 years. Fact is, Republicans have moved right, but the rest of the country has been moving left.

I agree with your last sentence. 50 years ago, people weren't tolerant of racist crap, didn't care about gays and even hated them, etc etc. But now, we have been taught to tolerate everyone. Kids don't get grades in school, they pass if they show up. They get an award if they participate. When I was in school, there were winners and losers, and I got grades in kindergarten. Global warming or cooling didn't exist, cars had 500hp on the showroom floor and nobody cared about pollution. While some of these things weren't good and I'm glad we cleaned up our acts, some of it is still bull****.

50 years ago this country was tough. WW2 showed that we could put politics aside and fight a 2 front war and win on both fronts. We were tough as nails, we were feared as a nation. Now.....none of that exists. We have gays in the military, don't ask don't tell, all this pansy ass ****.

So yes, the nation is moving left. And it makes me want to puke.
 
Back
Top Bottom