• 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.

Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...?

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Ahh my OP was JH regarding his resolute intellect and critical strategy in his op ed.

I thought this quick question posed by a journalist ... (albeit not on issues) still prompted an impressive answer. Check out the clip!

[video]http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/politics/2011/12/05/snow-huntsman-talks-trump.cnn[/video]
 
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

To me, Huntsman comes across like so many others. A polished pretty boy that is coached on what to say, and he says a lot, without much meat.

Until something is done to end the 'career politician' I don't think we will have any really good and solid choices.
 
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

USAMP1970 said:
Jon Huntsman would not be my first choice... or my second... but I would certainly take him over Bachmann, Cain, What was the third one? Opps, Perry, Newt, Mitt, and most certainly Santorum.

I'd agree that Huntsmans is too saine for the Republicans. Reagan paraphrasing Lincoln once said "At the very heart and soul of Republicanism is Libertarianism". Yet some how it has turned into bible thumping and war mongering.
When they do come up with a good candidate, most of them think he is crazy or radical...
The pot calling the kettle black.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

I am warming up to him as a candidate, especially for not kissing rear anatomy of Trump.
 
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

So where did he flip his position? I still don't see him suggesting that Global Warming doesn't exist, simply that he doesn't feel at this point that we should be doing over arching legislation based on it which has been his position for a while...IE, his statement months and months back on Cap and Trade at a national level.

The only real flip here is that he's not being very aggressive in regards to his view that we should defer to scientists on this rather than just going off his personal opinion. Which is really only a "flip flop" if we take one debate question and one tweet as the definition of how he must always act with regards to Global Warming which would be asanine.

What I find funny is this is exaclty what I thought would happen with Huntsman. "News" would come out about something that has been pretty much his stance for some time, but it would be counter to the imaginary figure many liberals have created for him and then they will get upset at him for "caving" to the right when in reality had they just taken some time to research him rather than just assume what he stands for becuase he SOUNDS moderate.

His previous stance was that he'd trust scientists regarding global warming but that we need to wait and hold off on making any kind of over arching policies regarding the environment. He's still saying that he'd trust scientists, but is acknowledging there's at least some quesitoning going on within the community (how much and how relevant it is, is debatable. That it's happening, is not). He's not said that he'd impliment a ton of global warming policy, liberals assumed that. He never said it was an indisputable absolute fact that man made global warming is definitely occuring, liberals assumed that. He's not flip flopping, he's just not living up to what some people have deluded themselves into thinking he is. That's not him caving to the right, that's those people not actually looking at him beyond simply how he sounds and the rhetoric about him being a "moderate".
 
Last edited:
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Here's a slightly more fair take on the issue, one that isn't focused on taking a statement made to an unexpected question at a forum and attempting to disect it as proof of some grand conspiracy of flip flopping (mistaking a university in england with one in scotland) or interjecting significant amounts of biased opinions before and after every quote in an attempt to sway the reads vantage point...LINK

I know its shocking, but when asked a question...in person...on camera where there's not a 160 character limit, Huntsman gave a more nuanced answer than he did with a short tweet about global warming. Perhaps its not a flip flop, but rather his short tweet could absolutely fit into what he said at the interview session if one didn't immedietely apply their own assumptions to the meaning and views the tweet suggested he held.

Also, the article points this out...highlighting my point in the previous post:

Before we start setting goals going forward, I think we need to kind of step back and make some effort to make sure that people are on the same page, from a scientific standpoint,” he said, arguing that unilaterally reducing emissions “might debilitate economic recovery in this country, or hobble job creators.”

(That comment echoes what he told Time magazine in May: “Cap-and-trade ideas aren’t working; it hasn’t worked, and our economy’s in a different place than five years ago. Much of this discussion happened before the bottom fell out of the economy, and until it comes back, this isn’t the moment.”)
Click to expand...

OH MY GOD! John Huntsman is flip flopping and catering to the radical insane right by saying the same type of thing he was saying back in May when we were all gushing over how wonderfully moderate and sane he was and how stupid the republicans were to not embrace this marvel of moderation! Drop him in our standings immedietely, that crazed flip flopping extreme righty who has been saying the same stuff for months now! Curse him, ruining my respectometer by changing from the fake image I naively and ignorantly made of him in my head based on my own assumptions rather than any actual research into the man!
 
Last edited:
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

I have to agree with Zyphlin with Rubio being great fit as vice president. He would add many strengths to the ticket. I think it would have a great chance of winning the latino vote, strengthen him in Florida a key state, strengthen him with the base and tea party movement, has the potential to be a strength with the youth vote. Both are good debaters, no worries there. Combine the anti-Obama element out there with Rubio gets you a high turnout of the base, you add new voters in hispanic and youth, and then Huntsman will attract many former Obama voters who will not vote for Gingrich or even possibly Romney among centrists, moderates, dissatisfied liberals. He'll do well in the Asian American community. Huntsman/Rubio ticket would be the Obama administration's worst nightmare imo.
 
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Zyphlin said:
Here's a slightly more fair take on the issue, one that isn't focused on taking a statement made to an unexpected question at a forum and attempting to disect it as proof of some grand conspiracy of flip flopping (mistaking a university in england with one in scotland) or interjecting significant amounts of biased opinions before and after every quote in an attempt to sway the reads vantage point...LINK

I know its shocking, but when asked a question...in person...on camera where there's not a 160 character limit, Huntsman gave a more nuanced answer than he did with a short tweet about global warming. Perhaps its not a flip flop, but rather his short tweet could absolutely fit into what he said at the interview session if one didn't immedietely apply their own assumptions to the meaning and views the tweet suggested he held.

Also, the article points this out...highlighting my point in the previous post:



OH MY GOD! John Huntsman is flip flopping and catering to the radical insane right by saying the same type of thing he was saying back in May when we were all gushing over how wonderfully moderate and sane he was and how stupid the republicans were to not embrace this marvel of moderation! Drop him in our standings immedietely, that crazed flip flopping extreme righty who has been saying the same stuff for months now! Curse him, ruining my respectometer by changing from the fake image I naively and ignorantly made of him in my head based on my own assumptions rather than any actual research into the man!
Click to expand...

You're willingness to bend over backwards, or just bend over, to make excuses for GOP candidates is impressive, but even the link YOU CITED noted that Huntsman's comment was a "striking departure" from his earlier position. Presumably you don't object to the quality of your own source? If you do a quick search you'll find that virtually all of the political/news sites are characterizing it the same way, so it may be that you're not the only sane person in the world and everyone else is crazy.

When he mentioned climate change in the Tweet he was clearly making the point that he was the adult in the room -- not a climate change skeptic like the rest of the field. Now he's changed his position and falling back on the standard skeptic/denier argument -- which is bull****, btw -- that the scientific community really hasn't made up its mind. He's smart enough to know that that's bull****. I do give him that much credit.

His earlier position -- to the extent that he could be nailed down at all -- was that climate change is an international problem that requires international rather than unilateral action. That's quite different from saying that the science is unsettled.
 
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

AdamT said:
You're willingness to bend over backwards, or just bend over, to make excuses for GOP candidates is impressive, but even the link YOU CITED noted that Huntsman's comment was a "striking departure" from his earlier position. Presumably you don't object to the quality of your own source?
Click to expand...

I did say "slightly more fair" did I not? Its still an opinion piece, its still that persons opinion...not some kind of unquestioned fact. Some random person jotting it down on their blog doesn't make it relevant. However, the source by and large did a more fair take on the situation and was posted due to quotes that were useful in the discussion, such as his made on cap and trade.

If you do a quick search you'll find that virtually all of the political/news sites are characterizing it the same way, so it may be that you're not the only sane person in the world and everyone else is crazy.
Click to expand...

Yes, shocker...a bunch of political news sites, largely it seems their opinion sections and a fair bit of them liberal blogs like Slate and Think Progress...are shocked, SHOCKED at his departure.

No **** the media is shocked, they're the ones that largely created the false image of Huntsman in the first place. The media, with many liberals and conservatives going along with it, constructed this false persona of Huntsman in their desire and hope for their ideal candidate...IE a liberal to moderate guy with an (R) Next to his name so that its essentially a battle of "adults" for them IE not someone that's on the right. Now that he's actually campaigning and they're having to report on them, shock and horror...all the things that were obvious by looking at his record and not just going "adult, responsable, SANE REPUBLICAN" and ignoring all others are going ot clearly start seeing the light of day.

When he mentioned climate change in the Tweet he was clearly making the point that he was the adult in the room -- not a climate change skeptic like the rest of the field.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and his statements don't go against that. Most of the others claim its a hoax, claim its fraudulent, claim its patentedly not real. Huntsman is making no such definitive suggestion, coming down on the side of concensus but not enough to say its an absolute certainty or enough to suggest we need over arching government policy about it.

His earlier position -- to the extent that he could be nailed down at all -- was that climate change is an international problem that requires international rather than unilateral action.
Click to expand...

That was his earlier position, however you say that like its not his current position. Lets see here....

Huntsman said:
But there’s not information right now to formulate policies in terms of addressing it over all, primarily because it’s a global issue.
Click to expand...

Well, lookie there. Its Huntsman stating that he doens't agree with making policies over it, primarily because its a global issue. Yep, sure did flip flop from that earlier position he held...what was it you said it was...."was that climate change is an international problem that requires international rather than unilateral action".

Damn flip flopper
 
Last edited:
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Good old liberal condescension...gotta love it.
 
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

I'll give you this. He "flip flopped" on how forceful he was going to present himself in opposition to the rest of the party in regards to his global warming stances. Earlier on he was going at it head on, aggressive with litle substance and mostly bravado. It seems he's taken a reasoned look at the situation and has decided, when actually doing things involving more than a 30 second debate blurb or a 160 character tweet, that he'd actually give a more nuanced and accurate representation of what his global warming stance has been. However, as I stated before, I don't really counter that as a "flip flop" because a few tweets or debate answers that don't necessarily go against what he's saying now...just state it in a different manner in terms of tone and aggression....isn't a "flip flop" in view point or opinion but rather simply a change in strategy of stating his position. Something that normally happens when a question on a topic is asked in a different environment.

This time his "moderate tone" that liberals love so much when its talking about matters that they care about is being extended to the conservative people where he's using a "moderate tone" regarding his stance on global warming and the role of science in it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Zyphlin said:
I did say "slightly more fair" did I not? Its still an opinion piece, its still that persons opinion...not some kind of unquestioned fact. Some random person jotting it down on their blog doesn't make it relevant. However, the source by and large did a more fair take on the situation and was posted due to quotes that were useful in the discussion, such as his made on cap and trade.



Yes, shocker...a bunch of political news sites, largely it seems their opinion sections and a fair bit of them liberal blogs like Slate and Think Progress...are shocked, SHOCKED at his departure.

No **** the media is shocked, they're the ones that largely created the false image of Huntsman in the first place. The media, with many liberals and conservatives going along with it, constructed this false persona of Huntsman in their desire and hope for their ideal candidate...IE a liberal to moderate guy with an (R) Next to his name so that its essentially a battle of "adults" for them IE not someone that's on the right. Now that he's actually campaigning and they're having to report on them, shock and horror...all the things that were obvious by looking at his record and not just going "adult, responsable, SANE REPUBLICAN" and ignoring all others are going ot clearly start seeing the light of day.



Indeed, and his statements don't go against that. Most of the others claim its a hoax, claim its fraudulent, claim its patentedly not real. Huntsman is making no such definitive suggestion, coming down on the side of concensus but not enough to say its an absolute certainty or enough to suggest we need over arching government policy about it.



That was his earlier position, however you say that like its not his current position. Lets see here....



Well, lookie there. Its Huntsman stating that he doens't agree with making policies over it, primarily because its a global issue. Yep, sure did flip flop from that earlier position he held...what was it you said it was...."was that climate change is an international problem that requires international rather than unilateral action".

Damn flip flopper
Click to expand...

Spin it, baby! But the truth is that he was speaking in front of a very conservative group who he knows to be virulently anti-climate change, so he completely walked back his earlier stance. He claimed that, "The scientific community owes us more in terms of a better description or explanation about what might lie beneath all of this." In other words, typical AGW denier bull****.

But as recently as late August, he was quite clear that the scientific community was speaking with one voice on the issue:

"The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party, the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012," Huntsman said then. "When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position."
Click to expand...

Now do a back flip for me and tell me that he didn't flip flop. :popcorn2:
 
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Where's he taking a position counter to what climate scientists have said? Is he stating man made global warming doesn't exist? Did he state that its a myth, that its not real? Or did he state that its not an absolute certainty to the point where its reasonable to take over arching policy actions regarding it?

He stated, in the instances your article quoted, that he'd trust scientists. That we should leave it up to scientists to determine. That he trusts the scientific community, but that simply he'd hope to see a bit more. There's a difference between trusting scientists in regards to whether it exists or not and trusting it to the point that it should override the economic needs of this country with regards to enacting policy over it....a stance he was on record with back in May.

There's consensus in the scientific community there is global warming. In regards to its immediete impact, the short term impact, the long term impact, our ability to have an affect on those things, whether those impacts would be all harmful, etc are not clear and unquetsionable concensus. There's enough there to "trust scientists" in stating that Global Warming exists and that's its not a myth or a hoax, there's not enough evidence there to pass over arching policy that will have an impact on our economy in the current situation the United States finds it in. That has been Huntsman's stance for some time now.
 
Last edited:
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Zyphlin said:
Where's he taking a position counter to what climate scientists have said? Is he stating man made global warming doesn't exist? Did he state that its a myth, that its not real? Or did he state that its not an absolute certainty enough to take policy actions regarding it?
Click to expand...

Really? How many times do we have to go over this? He flip flopped on the issue of whether the science is settled, which is absolutely critical to the question. In August 98 out of 100 scientists and the Academy of Sciences had spoken. In December some college in Scottland might have some reservations.... :roll:
 
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

AdamT said:
Really? How many times do we have to go over this? He flip flopped on the issue of whether the science is settled, which is absolutely critical to the question. In August 98 out of 100 scientists and the Academy of Sciences had spoken. In December some college in Scottland might have some reservations.... :roll:
Click to expand...

No, he questioned if the science was settled enough to warrant taking over arching policy action regarding it. Which is in line with his comments in May that no, the evidence is not there to suggest its so important that we take Policy measures that would hurt our economy at this point in time. Believing there's not enough evidence that we need to undertake policy measures to "Fight" it and not believing there's evidence to suggest there is global warming is not the same thing.

It is absolutely possible to believe in man made global warming and not believe that it is a danger enough that we need to enact over arching policy measures to "curb" it. It is not a "Flip Flop" to say you believe in global warming because you trust scientists but you don't want to pass policy because its damaging to the economy, and then to turn around and say that you don't think there's solid enough evidence to suggest we need to take policy action that is damging to the economy. Those two statements are not incompatable, nor a flip flop, but two ways of saying the exact same thing.
 
Last edited:
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Zyphlin said:
No, he questioned if the science was settled enough to warrant taking over arching policy action regarding it. Which is in line with his comments in May that no, the evidence is not there to suggest its so important that we take Policy measures that would hurt our economy at this point in time. Believing there's not enough evidence that we need to undertake policy measures to "Fight" it and not believing there's evidence to suggest there is global warming is not the same thing.

It is absolutely possible to believe in man made global warming and not believe that it is a danger enough that we need to enact over arching policy measures to "curb" it. It is not a "Flip Flop" to say you believe in global warming because you trust scientists but you don't want to pass policy because its damaging to the economy, and then to turn around and say that you don't think there's solid enough evidence to suggest we need to take policy action that is damging to the economy. Those two statements are not incompatable, nor a flip flop, but two ways of saying the exact same thing.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with all that. But that's not exactly what Huntsman did, as much as you would like to spin it that way. What he actually did was question the validity of the science: ""Because there are questions on the validity of the science. ... I think the onus is on the scientific community to help clarify the situation, that's all." And THAT is exactly the kind of stupid **** that he was mocking the other candidates for doing.
 
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

laska said:
I have to agree with Zyphlin with Rubio being great fit as vice president. He would add many strengths to the ticket. I think it would have a great chance of winning the latino vote, strengthen him in Florida a key state, strengthen him with the base and tea party movement, has the potential to be a strength with the youth vote. Both are good debaters, no worries there. Combine the anti-Obama element out there with Rubio gets you a high turnout of the base, you add new voters in hispanic and youth, and then Huntsman will attract many former Obama voters who will not vote for Gingrich or even possibly Romney among centrists, moderates, dissatisfied liberals. He'll do well in the Asian American community. Huntsman/Rubio ticket would be the Obama administration's worst nightmare imo.
Click to expand...

While I really like Rubio, and he would be a nightmare for Team BO, he has made it clear to me he is not interested in leaving his current job.
 
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Huntsmen is a victim of the primary system for selecting nominees.

Moderate voters generally do not vote at primaries, which means that more extreme candidates have an advantage of becoming nominated.

Huntsmen is just too moderate. He is dead center right, which makes him probably the most representative of the country as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Zyphlin said:
Which positions?
Click to expand...

Huntsman thinks we should spend less on the military, he thinks we should end the war quicker in Afghanistan, he doesn't deny AGW, and he doesn't come off as being out of touch with reality when he speaks.

While not much, that is more than I have to support in any other GOP candidate.
 
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Realizing what is good and best is one thing, realizing what is a winner is another. It's like McDonalds vs Rally Burger...rally has superior burgers, far better fries and cost less but the majority of the people flock to Mickey D's because "they recognize the name.
 
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Catawba said:
Uh-oh!!! This was one of the only 4 things that I liked about this guy. I guess he figures he has to cave to the GOP base to rise in the polls. Pity!
Click to expand...

You stated you liked that he doesn't deny AGW

Where in anything that has been posted does he deny AGW?
 
Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Zyphlin said:
You stated you liked that he doesn't deny AGW

Where in anything that has been posted does he deny AGW?
Click to expand...

Huntsman quote from the article that AdamT posted above:

"there’s not information right now to formulate policies in terms of addressing it over all, primarily because it’s a global issue."

There hasn't been a single scientific body of national or international standing that has held a dissenting opinion of AGW since 2007.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom