The sane candidate comes clean

Zyphlin said:

I agree here. There's a variety of reasons that Huntsman didn't take off and I've gone into them at length, but this is one of them. He has a very moderate TONE to him that just doesn't really draw great attention in something like a party primary. For someone with such potential imho he ran one of the crappiest campaigns strategy wise that I've seen in my short bit of time watching politics.

What's funny, and it's one of the reason I like you because it shows you think, if I remember correectly you weren't a fan of Paul at first and slowly came around as you started looking into him.

I think you would've liked Huntsman had you looked into him. Probably not as much as Paul depending, but you would've. He's more hawkish than Paul is but less so than some other candidates, believing the military needs to start thinking in a 21st century mindset and attempting to find ways to modernize based on the new realities of warfare in terms of finding ways to cut spending rather than just go chopping at it (there's an article I need to find again explaining his stance on the military and I think it's outstanding). He's more moderately fiscal than Paul, but that's like saying $95 dollars is less money than $100. I would actually say he's more pragmatically conservative on fiscal policy than Paul. However, he had a great fiscal record of actually accomplishing things which is a bit different then what Paul has. He's more socially conservative, policy wise, than Paul is but still moderately socially conservative compared to most of the republican candidates. Pretty strong in terms of governmental conservatism. He had three major issues and each came with caveats that his detractors rarely brought up that mitigate them to a point. Really was an oustanding candidate in theory but just horrible in application sadly enough. It was his run that made me fully understand what some people felt in '08 with Paul...that feeling that for the first time they found a candidate they can actually fully rally behind becuase they support them massively, not because they're a lesser evil.

Click to expand...

Exactly, his tone is moderate. I thought he was Romney-lite. I actually remember looking at my wife during a debate and saying "This dude is like Romney's lesser twin".
LOL, I actually hated Ron Paul at first. Again, I remember saying to my wife "This dude is out to lunch! He needs to retire or something". Then, I slowly started looking into his stances, evaluating why we (I) have gone to war with the people and countries we (I) have, and realized he was right. BTW, I appreciate the compliment.
I'm going to look into Huntsman more in case he runs again. I have heard a few people say that this shouldn't be the last time he ran.

How sad is it that candidates are virtually disqualified from the GOP nomination because they sound reasonable?

AdamT said:

How sad is it that candidates are virtually disqualified from the GOP nomination because they sound reasonable?

Click to expand...

That's a Democrat's way of looking at it.

Fiddytree said:

That's a Democrat's way of looking at it.

Click to expand...

You mean that it's sad?

AdamT said:

You mean that it's sad?

Click to expand...

It relies on the Democrat's perception of reasonable in the same way that a Republican looks at a "sane Democrat," whom the base of the Democratic Party would nearly dismiss out of hand.

Fiddytree said:

It relies on the Democrat's perception of reasonable in the same way that a Republican looks at a "sane Democrat," whom the base of the Democratic Party would nearly dismiss out of hand.

Click to expand...

If you like, substitute moderate for reasonable. You have two conservatives above opining that one of Huntsman's big problems was his moderate tone. The obvious implication is that a GOP candidate doesn't have much chance if he doesn't have an IMMODERATE tone. And that, I think, is sad.

Would Democrats get all hot and bothered for a Lieberman or a ... I don't know, let's say a Dorgan? I just don't see it.

Fiddytree said:

Would Democrats get all hot and bothered for a Lieberman or a ... I don't know, let's say a Dorgan? I just don't see it.

Click to expand...

The issue isn't what Democrats would cotton to, but rather who Republicans will freeze out in the primaries.

But I think it's generally accepted that Democrats and independents prefer Republicans who are more moderate. Hence the the common understanding that Romney was the most electable of the mainstream candidates.

Yes a "moderate" tone...especially one where your first true "jab" at anyone happens to be at part of your own constituents rather than the other side...is not a positive thing during a parties primary. A parties primary is one in which you typically have ideological voters of that particular ideological side voting. So a Republican Primary is largely made up of Right leaning moderates, solid right leaning people, and strongly right leaning people. Much like shooting somewhat "center" in a general election is wise because that's in the center of the spectrum of the voting base in that situation, shooting to the center (So solidly in your ideological side) during the primary is ALSO wisest to attract the most support.

Huntsman did a horrendous job in explaining his conservative credentials and while towards the end he started doing far better at simply vocalizing conservative ideology, early on he was failing at that too. Rather than showing any real passion for taking the fight to the other side...specifically during a year where his bases fervor is at a significant fever pitch...he was routinely trying to be very neutral and cordial towards them. Which in and of itself would've been a mild problem at most, if not for the fact that at the same time he had no issue making flippant comments on twitter with implied insults to other candidates...giving the impression that he wouldn't attack his likely opponent for the BIG ticket, but had no issues going after his fellow ones. (I think that impression was incorrect...I think the non-attacking was a [poor] campaign strategy. I think his twitter response was more of a less filtered action).

Honestly...by the end Huntsman's tone and style improved a lot. The problem was, by that point he was already passed over by many people and the only ones that really noticed any positive change was primarily those who already liked him and were watching him closely. Had he started off like that, I think he would've done good.

Historically in elections both parties run towards their ideological side during the primary and then run to the middle during the general. Huntsman seemingly was going the opposite way at first, a strategy that should honestly warrant his campaign manager being tarred and feathered on the way out of his camp.

AdamT said:

The issue isn't what Democrats would cotton to, but rather who Republicans will freeze out in the primaries.

But I think it's generally accepted that Democrats and independents prefer Republicans who are more moderate. Hence the the common understanding that Romney was the most electable of the mainstream candidates.

Click to expand...

But that works for the Democratic party as well. I don't see why Democrats have to be so fixated on the republican party's lack of moderation when the Democrats wouldn't like to have their primary interests dictated by open primaries where republicans can have a disproportionate effect.

Fiddytree said:

But that works for the Democratic party as well. I don't see why Democrats have to be so fixated on the republican party's lack of moderation when the Democrats wouldn't like to have their primary interests dictated by open primaries where republicans can have a disproportionate effect.

Click to expand...

I think that Democrats are justifiably dismayed at the recent insistence by so many Republicans that compromise and negotiation are dirty -- even disqualifying -- words. It wasn't long ago that Bush won the nomination on the promise of being a uniter, not a divider. Can you imagine a GOP candidate winning the primary on that basis today?

To AdamT: My issue, and always has been, with a moderate is that he typically takes a soft stance and bends quickly. Particularly this election cycle and with this POTUS, a strong stance is needed. The stronger the lean to the left, the stronger the need for a hard lean back to the right. President Obama, by all accounts minus foreign policy (according to the neo con playbook) is a medium to far left. He is a fan of government involvement, of meddling in individual freedom for what he perceives as the greater good, and high spending to combat a bad economy. For a guy like me, his foreign policy is a negative as well. Although most on the right would disagree and say he should be doing more. I seem to remember Dems going after Clinton for his "moderate" actions as well.
I know Obama has reasons for doing what he does. I know he thinks he's doing what's best. I just don't agree. AT ALL. Personally, I am in favor of the hard, no compromise stance taken by the House. Some, especially on the left, may look at it as nothing getting done. I look at it as the things that would be done don't need to happen. I don't believe there's some huge liberal conspiracy. I believe that, just like the GOP, most Dems will toe the line and support whatever is popular at the time. Right now, big gov't and the like is popular on the liberal side of the house. So, in turn, the right leans back harder to counteract it and make a clear distinction.
Not to make you feel old, but you've been around longer than me. You know how it works. In about 8 years, most people who thought they supported Tea Party values and ideals will have forgotten all about it. There will still be the Ron Paul like guys running around, still trumpeting the stuff (and I'll still be listening), but most righties will have moved on because Obama isn't around anymore. Then, Hillary will make her comback...........lol

AdamT said:

I think that Democrats are justifiably dismayed at the recent insistence by so many Republicans that compromise and negotiation are dirty -- even disqualifying -- words. It wasn't long ago that Bush won the nomination on the promise of being a uniter, not a divider. Can you imagine a GOP candidate winning the primary on that basis today?

Click to expand...

It happened in foreign affairs for the democrats in the early 2000s. Domestic spending for the Republicans is also a big problem for compromise.