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

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

Dav said:

Thing is, that seems to be already happening.

I'm already hearing whispers from conservative pundits and bloggers that Huntsman "isn't that bad" and deserves a "second look". George Will, for example, just came out strong against Romney and Gingrich, saying he'd prefer either Perry or Huntsman (and the former might just be because Will's wife advises Perry).

Sadly, Huntsman still seems stuck in the low single digits in the polls. Then again, McCain wasn't polling that well at this point either. So who knows, anything can happen.

Click to expand...

McCain was in the lower single digits?

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

Catawba said:

McCain was in the lower single digits?

Click to expand...

I don't know. All I'm saying is that it's impossible to tell at this point who the nominee will end up being, and that polls this early are completely un-predictive.

There's no doubt that Huntsman has a lot of odds stacked against him though.

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

Being so low profile early may become an advantage for Huntsmen. He's not getting much traction in the debates, so why not miss some of them, concentrate on New Hampshire grass roots, and let the romney/Gingrich dreary reality set in on the voters. A victory in New Hampshire, where Independents and non registered Democrats can vote in the Republican primary, which is a big advantage for him along with the demographics, with the resulting spark from the free and massive media coverage, and in light of Romney/Gingrich weariness, Huntsmen can come across as a breath of fresh air and someone voters need to give a second and more thorough look to. Then Huntsmen needs a close 4 or 5 way race that goes the distance where enough independents, moderates, and pro Huntsmen conservatives gives him just enough of the pie to squeak by a four or five person field. Seems like a very long shot.

Or how about Huntsmen and Bloomberg on an independent ticket. Two billionaires, Huntsmen already has an organization that can be built on. They can go to the public with the case that neither party has shown they are capable of being fiscally responsible, and that in a non partisan manner they will bring the discipline, managerial, and leadership skills to the table to solve the budget and economic problems. Only hangup I see would be who gets the top of the ticket.

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

Dion said:

Huntsman with Snowe as VP.

Click to expand...

That would be attrocious and would be horrible political strategy.

Huntsman's biggest issue is that he's having an issue appealing to the base despite his conservative credentials. Going with one of the most "moderate" senator the Republicans have in Congress who is the posterboard for the type of Republican the base by and large doesn't like and could only win in a very liberal state. She's had congress sessions recently where she's voted only 65% in line with the party, not to far off from literally being a 50/50 split. Putting her as a VP would be political suicide and would do nothing but affirm that Huntsman apparently has no political instincts in the least.

You're right, the middle is important to get in an election. The reason this is the case is because you need to add something to your base. The problem is, that's because most people assume you'll get that base. They assume this becuase the ASSUMPTION is that you have a ticket that would appeal to the base.

Huntsman / Snowe wouldn't appeal to it. On the contrary it would destroy voter enthusiasm, discourage donations, and create an overwhelming enthusiasm gap between the Republicans and Democrats.

Far and away that would be the most ridiculously stupid nomination Huntsman could possibly make. Huntsman is moderate in tone, VIEWED by both sides as moderate in thought process, and can potentially have wide appeal. HE is the person on the ticket you play towards the middle to attract independents. Which means you bring on a VP that can appeal and help out in places he's deficient, namely, with your harder Republican base. Go for a VP that will appeal to the base, that can go out into various information channels that will reach those people, and let that person generate interest and excitement from the base and sell Huntsman's conservative credentials along with it. However, Huntsman's the top of your ticket and needs to be the star and the main person out there on the larger and more well viewed information channels. Have him continue to preach conservatism, but in a measured and moderately toned way that is convincing to people as to why it should work. This way you have him reaching the middle and hopefully out to the right, where his VP is pushing people towards him from.

Going with a President that appears moderate and then nominating a VP who essentially is viewed as a necessary evil by most Republicans would doom him as it would seemingly prove everything they thought about him correct.

This isn't the "Moderate" or "Independent" candidate for President, its the REPUBLICAN Candidate for President. You absolutely need to find a way to appeal to the center, but not at the expense of completely abandoning your base unless you're just looking to lose.

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

Catawba said:

As a progressive, I agree with more of Huntsman's policy positions than any other candidate.

Click to expand...

Which positions?

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

Huntsman would get the begrudging votes of most Republicans, the fairly satisfied votes of most independents and moderate democrats, and perhaps even some liberals. Which probably makes him the best candidate in the race, not only from a strategic perspective, but from a substantive one.

We are in a strange and worrisome place where the candidates who have the capacity to appeal to the most people overall aren't even considered legitimate contenders in the primaries. People wonder why turnout in America is not higher, except perhaps for 2008 (where we had a candidate with unquestionably broad appeal). I submit to you that the primary process is the problem.

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

Zyphlin said:

They don't, which is sad because I think he'd 1) win the Presidency and 2) lead a strong fiscally and governmentally conservative administration. He's about everything I'd hope for in a Presidential candidate...

1. Experience. He's spent time both as a Chief Executive in Government (Governor), within the white house cabinet (under Bush 41 and 43), and with regards to foreign policy (Ambassador under Bush 41 and Obama). Outside of service in the military, there's nothing I could want more from the guy in terms of experience.

2. Record of Results. He enacted the largest tax cut in Utah history, increased state GDP while lowering government spending as a percentage of that GDP, enacted market driven health care reform, and helped create an environment that led Utah to be the best state in the nation for starting a business. He doesn't just talk a good game but has actual results ot back it up.

3. Solid Conservative. He's not far right and does have some places where he veers away, but by and large...and especially on the two pillars most prevalent today (fiscal and governmental)...Huntsman is a solid conservative in his principles and ways of approaching things.

4. Moderate and Positive in Tone. The guy doesn't go after wedge issues, he's not in slinging a ton of mud, he's not making wild statements. He's positive, about his vision of America and what it should and can be, in a way that is somewhat reminiscent of Reagan. This type of tone I think will make Moderates and Independents more apt to actually LISTEN to him rather than immediately write him off, which then opens up the possibility that they hear this conservative message and buy in. If your rhetoric appears too aggressive and extreme from the onset then even if your policies are good, you don’t have a chance to convince undecideds because they’ve already tuned out.

5. A Good Shot to Win. He's got the conservative background and results that, if actually pushed correctly, COULD excite the base I think. At the same time, he has the moderate tone and the avoidance of more emotionally charged wedge issues that could help him draw moderates/independents/"Reagan Democrats" to his message. His experience and results both trounce Obama's imho. Finally, due to his tone and the fact that Obama choose him to be an Ambassador, it nullifies any worth while attempt by Democrats to paint him as an "extremist", a "crazy ideologue", or a "far right winger" as doing so then calls Obama's own judgement into question. I think far and away he has the best recip to win in a general election with Obama.

Click to expand...

Rush's current stand on this is that Beltway Republicans want Romney, because he's not conservative. It goes like this; those Republicans feel a conservative would lose them the House, and they want to keep the House and win the Senate at all cost. They don't care about the WH; don't think Obama can be beat. The basis for this thinking is that everyone but Romney is being attacked and gotten rid of, and the Beltway Republicans are helping the Dems and media. This isn't what Limbaugh wants, but what he thinks is going on with all this Republicans-eating-their-own business.

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

Its an interesting theory. Not sure how much validity there really is to it, but its intriguing.

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

One fun question I have on Huntsman would be this. If he gets into office and does the following (not saying JUST these things):

1. Refuses to raise taxes just on the rich
2. Looks to remove regulation on business
3. Appoints a pro-life judge to an opening on the Supreme Court
4. Refuses any sort of path to citizenship right now and moves forward with stricter border security and enforcement of the laws
5. Helps repeal Obamacare and signs a health care reform bill aimed at consumer focused, market driven reform.
6. Adopts a spending and entitlement reform plan similar to the Ryan Plan

Would we have liberals flooding all over the place saying how he's "No longer moderate like he was" or that he's "caved in to the crazy right" or that he's "shifted into an out of touch extremist"?

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

Nate Silver has an interesting take on the seeming inability of establishment Republicans to steer the primary process. He theorizes that their embrace of the anti-establishment Tea Party has come back to haunt them, insofar as Tea Pariers are just as distrustful of establishment Republicans as they are of anyone else.

Mistrust of Institutions May Touch G.O.P. Itself - NYTimes.com

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

Dav said:

Kinda makes me sick whenever I see a die-hard liberal hold their nose high and claim that Huntsman is "too sane" for the GOP. Thank you, liberals, you're so much smarter than we are and so much better at picking a candidate that we would like. What really bugs me about it is that given his conservative track record, were he 10% higher in the polls he'd be derided as a crazy-far-righter just like the rest of them. (Since when did the left have any respect for anyone who supports Paul Ryan's Medicare plan?)

That said, Huntsman has terrible political instincts, and it's really a shame. He left for China in 2009 and now that he's back, he has no grasp on the change in the political landscape and seems to think that it's still early 2009/late 2008. He has made no attempt to appeal to the conservative base, even deriding them at several points (his "call me crazy" tweet being a particularly groan-worthy example). Instead he insists on being the liberal media's darling, painting even his mainstream conservative positions in a moderate light (his position on Afghanistan is fairly mainstream, yet emphasized the "we gotta get out of there" part over the "we need to keep bases there" for some reason). He's also incredibly lame when he tries to be clever, which is too often, and keeps coming across like that lame creepy uncle everyone tries to ignore (the eyebrows don't help). Not quite sure why liberals insist he's more "presidential" than Romney. Again, it's a shame, since he has one of the best tax plans of the field and seems to be more committed than the rest of them to reforming entitlements, taxes, and spending. But he doesn't have a chance unless he wises up and realizes he's running for the Republican primary, not the establishment east-coast media primary.

Click to expand...

I think that is a pretty summary of some the issues with Huntsman. If elected, I think he would be more interested in doing deals with liberals than his own base. Keep in mind this guy loved the cap & spend BS.

I simply do not trust him......I actually trust him less than Romney. At least Romney has worked in the real world, Huntsman's real world experience involved managing the family trust......talk about a pampered silver spoon baby. People make a big deal about his time as governor and how he pulled off some great tax policies. Wow, that must have been real difficult to do in an ultra conservative red state.

Lastly, I think he would run a campaign against BO that would have even less energy than McCain's. I want the next republic candidate to have the cajones to go toe to toe with the fool in the White House.

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

Zyphlin said:

Is this your current cute lingo for "cap and trade" or is it referencing something else?

If its is, yep that's an area Huntsman has flip flopped on. After seeing the results at a state level he's stated it would not be beneficial on a federal level, especially with regards to our current economic crisis.

Though if we're going to diqualify every Republican candidate if they've ever changed their stance on an issue then we can't stop at Newt and Romney. Bachmann didn't support Cut, Cap, and Balance before flip flopping and signing a pledge to support it. Or when she questioned the Presidents birth and then flip floppd to say we should trust the President about his birth. Or Cain whose "pro-life" but doesn't feel its the government role to make the decision on whether someone can have an abortion or not. Or Santorum being for raising the minimum age for social security before being against it. Or Perry's flips on energy subsidizes, the birther issue, and displaying the confederate flag just to name a few.

Click to expand...

I reserve the right to dislike all of them. A this point in time it looks like I will be voting for the guy that sucks the least.

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

Zyphlin said:

One fun question I have on Huntsman would be this. If he gets into office and does the following (not saying JUST these things):

1. Refuses to raise taxes just on the rich
2. Looks to remove regulation on business
3. Appoints a pro-life judge to an opening on the Supreme Court
4. Refuses any sort of path to citizenship right now and moves forward with stricter border security and enforcement of the laws
5. Helps repeal Obamacare and signs a health care reform bill aimed at consumer focused, market driven reform.
6. Adopts a spending and entitlement reform plan similar to the Ryan Plan

Would we have liberals flooding all over the place saying how he's "No longer moderate like he was" or that he's "caved in to the crazy right" or that he's "shifted into an out of touch extremist"?

Click to expand...

The press would crucify him.

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

conservativeguy said:

Keep in mind this guy loved the cap & spend BS.

Click to expand...

Yeah, unlike this guy! :lol:

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

AdamT said:

Yeah, unlike this guy! :lol:

Click to expand...

That's not the same though! Because he uses the word "socialist" a lot so he must be legit.

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

Krhazy said:

We are in a strange and worrisome place where the candidates who have the capacity to appeal to the most people overall aren't even considered legitimate contenders in the primaries. People wonder why turnout in America is not higher, except perhaps for 2008 (where we had a candidate with unquestionably broad appeal).

Click to expand...

Uh, you mean John McCain?

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

Dav said:

Uh, you mean John McCain?

Click to expand...

McCain had a lot working against him (Bush backlash, age, anger management, lack of economics knowledge, choice of Sarah Palin, out spent, general campaign mismanagement). It would be a mistake to generalize from his loss that the GOP should only nominate hard core partisans.

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

AdamT said:

McCain had a lot working against him (Bush backlash, age, anger management, lack of economics knowledge, choice of Sarah Palin, out spent, general campaign mismanagement). It would be a mistake to generalize from his loss that the GOP should only nominate hard core partisans.

Click to expand...

True. But the fact that one of the most centrist Republicans lost soundly to a Democrat with one of the most liberal records in the Senate sort of goes against his point that "the problem" lies with both party's refusal to nominate someone with broader appeal.

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

With a revolving door of Republican candidates taking the lead (Palin, Bachman, Romney, Perry, Cain, Gingrich) and then falling out of favor, Huntsman should eventually get his turn for "15 minutes" of fame.

Romney may not be the Republican/Tea/Party "poster boy," but he's their one and only candidate that has any chance of defeating Obama.

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

Dav said:

True. But the fact that one of the most centrist Republicans lost soundly to a Democrat with one of the most liberal records in the Senate sort of goes against his point that "the problem" lies with both party's refusal to nominate someone with broader appeal.

Click to expand...

A fair point, though McCain has a lifetime conservative rating of 82, which really isn't all that centrist.

At the end of the day I think that you can't generalize about the sort of candidate a party should nominate. It really depends on the mood of the country. With the caveat that anyone on the faaar right or left generally stands no chance of winning.

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

Zyphelin ... just a quick speed read of your posts in response to mine ... Only in terms of strategy (not your personal favorite) if JH won the republican nomination who would be the best VP? ... not only in terms of winning yet ability to be POTUS in worst case scenario.

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

Dion said:

Zyphelin ... just a quick speed read of your posts in response to mine ... Only in terms of strategy (not your personal favorite) if JH won the republican nomination who would be the best VP? ... not only in terms of winning yet ability to be POTUS in worst case scenario.

Click to expand...

First, let me say its somewhat hard to just throw a name out in part because its difficult having an intimate knowledge of all the various governors and senators the nation over. Additionally, there's little indication that various ones may or may not even be willing to go.

For example, just shooting from the hip to say anyone, I'd say Marco Rubio would be picture perfect for it. Charismatic, loved by the base, popular in a big swing state, minority candidatet, executive experience. He'd likely fit the bill. However, I've got no real reason to think that he's interested in running in such a position right now.

If I was going off people I know would consider it, so primarily those that have been running for President during this period of time, I'd likely say Newt would be the best match for him. Despite his tendancy to side with the left on things, he's still rather liked by the base as evidenced in part by his "not-romney" stance. I think a lot of his baggage issues would be less relevant in a VP role then in a Pres role because the focus isn't on him. I think he could work better actually as a VP than a President on a ticket and in practice anyways. He's the only person that's been running whose popular with the base that I don't think has some major flaws that would be a drag on the ticket (Cain's CURRENT baggage and inexperience, Bachmann and Santorums extreme social focus, Perry likely just refusing to play second fiddle).

A surprise candidate like a Nikki Haley whose popular with the base, a minority, female, and executive experience could come into play or they could aim at setting up the "next guy" in line by going for someone like Bob McDonnell whose got some buzz as a soon to be "big name" in the GOP apparently.

I can't really give you a specific name, but I could give you a specific arch type.

1. He/She would HAVE to appeal to the base. This is Huntsman's biggest hindrence point, and its going to be the most important aspect for him to have in a VP candidate.

2. It would help if the person had either Executive experience or significant time in the Senate, but would prefer the former. This goes to your notion of trusting them to take the seat should the worst happen.

3. They need to be Charismatic, or at least a good speaker, in order to go about various conservative heavy channels to push the campaigns message and promote Huntsman's conservative record.

4. They can't have issues or views that are likely to flare up and become a focal point even if they stay mostly to the background, and they need to be able to be a #2 not the star.

5. They need to appeal to at least 2 demographics, if not more, that would be helpful and different from what Huntsman offers. This includes religious demographics, racial demographics, gender demographics, age demograhpics, or geographical appeal.

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

AdamT said:

Yeah, unlike this guy! :lol:

Click to expand...

Where did I say I think Gingrich can be trusted?

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

Dav said:

True. But the fact that one of the most centrist Republicans lost soundly to a Democrat with one of the most liberal records in the Senate sort of goes against his point that "the problem" lies with both party's refusal to nominate someone with broader appeal.

Click to expand...

I would generally agree with you and all your points, except that the last election had components that have never been in a presidential election before.
Obama being black invoked deep passion from the left that galvanized the entire left for their candidate, that does not usually happen there are always the dissenters...For the first time in recent memory the Youth of america was galvanized in their support of Obama.
Obama at that point showed youth and energy and the country was rife wanting change...8yrs of any president brings out the desire for something new and 8 yrs of GWBush battles really drove change to into the limelight and obama seized it.
McCains age worked HUGELY against him in 2008 alot more than it would in any other election because of the youth and exuberance that was brought into the 2008 election by obama made McCain look like Methuselah.
Parlay all that with missteps by McCain being afraid to attack Obama because of the race thing and his terrible choice for VP in Palin...she turned out to be his nemisis...he could not get any message out with the medias infatuation AGAINST her.
What it all boils down to in my mind there were many ingredients in the 2008 election that just wont be here this time and the negatives are growing on harsh partisanship stands.

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

Dav said:

True. But the fact that one of the most centrist Republicans lost soundly to a Democrat with one of the most liberal records in the Senate sort of goes against his point that "the problem" lies with both party's refusal to nominate someone with broader appeal.

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. BO didn't win in a landslide but he did energize his base. McCain fought against his base. BO captured the votes from the squishy middle and the youth vote that was turned off by Bush......who, BTW, wasn't a conservative either. The guy that will win will have to energize his base while appealing to a reasonable percentage of the squishy moderates.

BO's liberal record was hidden quite well during the campaign in 2008. Yeah, folks that follow politics knew about it but the vast majority of the country was told this guy was apolitical.....the great uniter. People know better now.