• 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!

Jon Hunstman Declares His Candidacy (Watch Live)

Ah, the media has their new John McCain. Wishy washy on everything.

Republicans will do well to avoid those kind of candidates this time around, and pick a true conservative, which wins with voters but gets pummelled by the media.
 


Thanks for the live feed, After watching it, I don't know if anyone can win the Presidency against Obama waging the civil, nice approach. Obama is specifically shooting for raising $1Billion to wage his campaign, and you can bet that since Obama can't run on any success he has had in his first term, that money will be attack money....


j-mac :cool:
 
Ah, the media has their new John McCain. Wishy washy on everything.

Republicans will do well to avoid those kind of candidates this time around, and pick a true conservative, which wins with voters but gets pummelled by the media.

That thinking is why 1. Hunstman won't win, and 2. the eventual GOP candidate is going to lose to Obama.

"True conservatives" don't win President very often, and if Obama can get half as many people riled up to get him a second term, its a done deal.
 
That thinking is why 1. Hunstman won't win, and 2. the eventual GOP candidate is going to lose to Obama.

"True conservatives" don't win President very often, and if Obama can get half as many people riled up to get him a second term, its a done deal.

If he has half as many votes then he won't win unless the opposition gets no votes. That's just crappy math. I wouldn't be confident about any scenario at this point, to be honest.
 
That thinking is why 1. Hunstman won't win, and 2. the eventual GOP candidate is going to lose to Obama.

"True conservatives" don't win President very often, and if Obama can get half as many people riled up to get him a second term, its a done deal.

Wrong and wrong.

Obama has lost the independents, which got him elected last time.

True conservatives win. Reagan did it, Bush 1 did it until he went liberal and raised taxes, and Bush 2 did it. That's 5 of the last 8 elections, and if Perot never reared his head, it might have been 7 of 8.
 
Wrong and wrong.

Obama has lost the independents, which got him elected last time.

No he has not lost anything till the election result comes in. Now I would agree that he might have a very hard time convincing them to vote for him this time around, but that is not the same as loosing them. It will all depend on who runs against him. Independents might think that the Republican candidate is a radical freak and dangerous and vote for Obama just to avoid the GOP candidate. Or the GOP might just find (and pigs will fly) a viable candidate with not too many skeletons in the closet and more centrist views that independents like and then the GOP would have a great chance over Obama.

But Huntsman aint that... Obama would trounce him on personality alone. Not that he stands a chance to get past the GOP radical right wing primaries.

True conservatives win. Reagan did it,

HAHAH Reagan a true conservative.. MR. Raise taxes and explode the national debt and lie to the American people? Reagan was about as "true" conservative as Lenin was a free marketeer.

Bush 1 did it until he went liberal and raised taxes,

Was just following his mentors ways... you know Reagan. Not to mention he went up against a very charismatic Clinton... Bush 1 was rather dull..

and Bush 2 did it.

Wait a minute, people on the right on these boards constantly try to claim he was no conservative... let alone a "True Conservative"...not to mention... doubled the national debt, and allowed the biggest financial collapse since 1929..For a "true conservative" he did have a lot of deficits.... and borrowed a buttload of money to cover it... very "conservative" of him..

That's 5 of the last 8 elections, and if Perot never reared his head, it might have been 7 of 8.

All the GOP President went towards the middle and not towards the right to win... that is the only reason they won and can win. Same goes for the Dems btw.
 
But Huntsman aint that... Obama would trounce him on personality alone.

...uh, no. How many Huntsman speeches have you seen? He easily has more personality than anyone in this race.

YouTube - ‪2010 Commencement Address by Jon Huntsman, Jr.‬‏



HAHAH Reagan a true conservative.. MR. Raise taxes and explode the national debt and lie to the American people? Reagan was about as "true" conservative as Lenin was a free marketeer.

What a silly talking point. The top marginal tax rate went down, the tax code was simplified, ans the 1986 budget was revenue neutral. He shifted the burden of specific taxes, yes, but to say that he was a tax hiker by principle is asinine.
 
Wrong and wrong.

Obama has lost the independents, which got him elected last time.

True conservatives win. Reagan did it, Bush 1 did it until he went liberal and raised taxes, and Bush 2 did it. That's 5 of the last 8 elections, and if Perot never reared his head, it might have been 7 of 8.

There's no way you can reconcile calling GWB a "true conservative" both in his first election campaign and his second election campaign. The history of what he did in office and his rhetoric were significantly different.

In 2004 Bush ran on continuing to increase the federal budget and deficit. He continued a campaign of nation building. He had saw to the creation of a new federal agency, expanded federal control in schools, and created a new segment of an entitlement program.

In 2004 Bush ran as a SOCIAL conservative that was moderate to average at best at fiscal issues and was liberal when it came to governmental issues.

If that's a "True Conservative" how is Huntsman, whose at least on part with Bush fiscally, is less conservative socially but more conservative governmentally, a "moderate"?

You can't reconcile calling both 2000 Bush and 2004 Bush a "True Conservative" candidate. Not unless you're simply meaning "True Social Conservative" but just leaving the social word out because you know that's not really all there is to be a conservative.
 
Ah, the media has their new John McCain. Wishy washy on everything.

Republicans will do well to avoid those kind of candidates this time around, and pick a true conservative, which wins with voters but gets pummelled by the media.

Shhh....the grown-up Republicans are trying to watch the best candidate in this race.;)
 
I really, really like Jon Huntsman. Could see myself voting for him.
 
My first impressions are as follows:

1. Jon Huntsman brings credible domestic and foreign policy experience to the campaign.

2. He has large name recognition challenges to overcome. That no major media outlet printed a transcript of his speech even two hours after his announcement, none of the Cable stations covered his remarks in their entirety, and that his own campaign website had not been launched to precede or coincide with his address points to those challenges.

3. Even as he aims to keep things positive--and his vision is a positive one even as it points to serious challenges facing the nation--the competition for office is not just a battle of ideas. It is also a battle for power and no candidate can refrain from being prepared to deal with inevitable negative attacks nor have a strategy for trying to deter them.

4. His challenge will be to translate his formidable record/experience and his vision into substantive policy prescriptions around which the public can rally.

In sum, he could start in the middle of the pack (helped by the "freshness" of his entry), but will have to work hard to push toward the front of the pack. He will need to differentiate himself from the field. If he can make a compelling argument that he would be competitive in the general election (and have polling numbers to back up the claim), he could become a serious contender. So far, unlike Tim Pawlenty who stumbled badly, Rick Santorum who is waging a battle on abortion even as the leading candidates all share his pro-life position, and Herman Cain whose recent debate performance revealed that he simply lacks the gravitas and capabilities needed to serve as President, Huntsman's debut did not hurt him. In coming weeks, he will need to build his name recognition and distinguish himself from his rivals, even as Governor Romney tries to consolidate his early lead and Congresswoman Bachmann tries to build on her debate performance, possibly using the debt ceiling debate as a stage.
 
Last edited:
All the GOP President went towards the middle and not towards the right to win... that is the only reason they won and can win. Same goes for the Dems btw.


Problem is that with political drones out there, especially ones that can't even embrace their own liberalism think that anything to the right of them is somehow "radical"....


j-mac
 
I think Huntsman has a good chance for a few reasons.

One, you can't really question the man on experience. Executive experience, foreign experience, etc. He's got it all. And with people pointing out Obama's lack of it previously, and how that has possibly affected his ability on the job, it could be a useful tool.

Two, he was extremely successful as a Governor of a decently conservative state. He won relection with more than 3/4ths of the vote. Job approval polls were always generally high for him, hitting above 90's and being in the 80's when he left office. His State was ranked as the best managed in the country and as a top 3 good place to do business.

Three, this is an election about jobs and fiscal responsability. Lets look at Huntsman on this. The CATO Institute ranked him as the best Governor on tax policy in the country during his tenure. He was tied for 5th in total with regards to fiscal issues in general. He simplified the tax code, reduced taxes, and his polices were considered "business friendly". His only fiscal ding was his spending but lest we attempt to label him a "moderate" during that lets compare him to Republican darling Governor of the past election, Sarah Palin.

Palin's state expenditures went up roughly 0.9 billion per year while Huntsmans went up 1.2 billion per year. However, when you look at GDP you see that Alaska went up roughly 1.5 billion per year under Palin while under Huntsman Utah's went up at a rate of 8.4 billion per year. By the time Palin left, government spending was 28% of GDP. Huntsman was a full 10% lower, sitting at 18% when he left. Even more than that, Utah's spending as a percent of GDP went DOWN under Huntsman from 20% the year before he came in where as Alaska's went UP under Palin where it was at 26% the year before she came in.

To try and declare him a "moderate" fiscally based on the increase in spending would be an uninformed declaration, and one that doesn't jive with many of those who would do so having been the ones praising Palin's conservative credentials in years past.

So he's strongly conservative fiscally when it comes to taxes and at worst an average conservative with regards to spending. His state was voted into the top three, and then later as the #1, place for business in this country. His states GDP went up nearly 8% every year, almost tripling the speed that the U.S.'s GDP improves. The man's got great credentials when it comes to fiscal responsability and jobs which is going to be the biggest issues right now.

Fourth, the area he's "moderate" in is with regards to social issues. While a large part of the base is unquestionably worried about social issues, they also tend to be worried about fiscal issues. In this election, the fiscal issues I believe will trump it. The Tea Party movement was not started becuase of Abortion. It wasn't started about Gay Marriage. It wasn't started about porn or sex ed or DADT. It was started because of taxes, spending, and expansion of government. In elections past I'd say a moderate social republican would have significant issues with the base regardless of how strong he is fiscally. In this election, with the atmosphere as it is, I believe the base can and would easily rally around this guys fiscal credentials because in that area...which is the most important to many in the base currently...he's significantly different than the other side.

However, the fiscal issues are important, but to a less fevered degree, to Independents. Enough so that I think someone to over the top on the social issues...such as Santorum...would turn them off. The fact is that yes, you must get your base but you ALSO must get independents. The combination of strong fiscal / moderate social I think can do that and can't be compared to McCain who was questionably moderate on all fronts.

Fifth...he can't be made out as some crazy extremist. The Democrats and Obama can't make this guy out to be some lunatic fringe crazy person because in doing so they damn themselves as Obama trusted him to be Ambassador to China. On the flip side, its very easy to state that when the President...ANY President...asks you to serve your country its the patriotic thing to do to serve. I think his ambassadorship during the Obama Administration is more likely to hurt Obama than Huntsman.

Sixth...for those on the right that want to bash him for being a moderate or not a true conservative, in part because of the ambassadorship, he's got some backup for his republican credentials. On top of his fiscal record I pointed out above you can look at his past experience. He's served, prominently at times, in all three of the previous Republican Administrations: Reagan, GHWB, and GWB. His ambassadorship under Obama wasn't new, but rather simply another one after he already served in such a role for GHWB.

Of all the candidates, the more I look at the situation and this guys record, I think Huntsman might have the most legitimate chance to win.
 
Last edited:
That thinking is why 1. Hunstman won't win, and 2. the eventual GOP candidate is going to lose to Obama.

"True conservatives" don't win President very often, and if Obama can get half as many people riled up to get him a second term, its a done deal.

Obama, no matter how deeply liberals wish it to be is up against it this time round. A monkey would give him a run for the money. It isn't so much about who the GOP will put up against him, it's about how well Obama will be able to perform the magic that is bait and switch. if he can pull it off one more time, then he wins, but my guess is that he won't be able to fool all the masses this time. Fool me once comes to mind. :)


Tim-
 
I really, really like Jon Huntsman. Could see myself voting for him.

Yep, no surprise liberals would like him. He comes across as Obama Lite to me.
 
I think Huntsman has a good chance for a few reasons.

One, you can't really question the man on experience. Executive experience, foreign experience, etc. He's got it all. And with people pointing out Obama's lack of it previously, and how that has possibly affected his ability on the job, it could be a useful tool.

Two, he was extremely successful as a Governor of a decently conservative state. He won relection with more than 3/4ths of the vote. Job approval polls were always generally high for him, hitting above 90's and being in the 80's when he left office. His State was ranked as the best managed in the country and as a top 3 good place to do business.

Three, this is an election about jobs and fiscal responsability. Lets look at Huntsman on this. The CATO Institute ranked him as the best Governor on tax policy in the country during his tenure. He was tied for 5th in total with regards to fiscal issues in general. He simplified the tax code, reduced taxes, and his polices were considered "business friendly". His only fiscal ding was his spending but lest we attempt to label him a "moderate" during that lets compare him to Republican darling Governor of the past election, Sarah Palin.

Palin's state expenditures went up roughly 0.9 billion per year while Huntsmans went up 1.2 billion per year. However, when you look at GDP you see that Alaska went up roughly 1.5 billion per year under Palin while under Huntsman Utah's went up at a rate of 8.4 billion per year. By the time Palin left, government spending was 28% of GDP. Huntsman was a full 10% lower, sitting at 18% when he left. Even more than that, Utah's spending as a percent of GDP went DOWN under Huntsman from 20% the year before he came in where as Alaska's went UP under Palin where it was at 26% the year before she came in.

To try and declare him a "moderate" fiscally based on the increase in spending would be an uninformed declaration, and one that doesn't jive with many of those who would do so having been the ones praising Palin's conservative credentials in years past.

So he's strongly conservative fiscally when it comes to taxes and at worst an average conservative with regards to spending. His state was voted into the top three, and then later as the #1, place for business in this country. His states GDP went up nearly 8% every year, almost tripling the speed that the U.S.'s GDP improves. The man's got great credentials when it comes to fiscal responsability and jobs which is going to be the biggest issues right now.

Fourth, the area he's "moderate" in is with regards to social issues. While a large part of the base is unquestionably worried about social issues, they also tend to be worried about fiscal issues. In this election, the fiscal issues I believe will trump it. The Tea Party movement was not started becuase of Abortion. It wasn't started about Gay Marriage. It wasn't started about porn or sex ed or DADT. It was started because of taxes, spending, and expansion of government. In elections past I'd say a moderate social republican would have significant issues with the base regardless of how strong he is fiscally. In this election, with the atmosphere as it is, I believe the base can and would easily rally around this guys fiscal credentials because in that area...which is the most important to many in the base currently...he's significantly different than the other side.

However, the fiscal issues are important, but to a less fevered degree, to Independents. Enough so that I think someone to over the top on the social issues...such as Santorum...would turn them off. The fact is that yes, you must get your base but you ALSO must get independents. The combination of strong fiscal / moderate social I think can do that and can't be compared to McCain who was questionably moderate on all fronts.

Fifth...he can't be made out as some crazy extremist. The Democrats and Obama can't make this guy out to be some lunatic fringe crazy person because in doing so they damn themselves as Obama trusted him to be Ambassador to China. On the flip side, its very easy to state that when the President...ANY President...asks you to serve your country its the patriotic thing to do to serve. I think his ambassadorship during the Obama Administration is more likely to hurt Obama than Huntsman.

Sixth...for those on the right that want to bash him for being a moderate or not a true conservative, in part because of the ambassadorship, he's got some backup for his republican credentials. On top of his fiscal record I pointed out above you can look at his past experience. He's served, prominently at times, in all three of the previous Republican Administrations: Reagan, GHWB, and GWB. His ambassadorship under Obama wasn't new, but rather simply another one after he already served in such a role for GHWB.

Of all the candidates, the more I look at the situation and this guys record, I think Huntsman might have the most legitimate chance to win.
Very good assessment and a well thought out post by Zyphlin. It digs deep into the issues, experience, past decisions, his role as governor, foreign policy experience etc. It discusses the various ways in which people could attack him and the effectiveness of those attacks. Good god I wish most posts around here were as well thought out as yours.

Too bad that the average fellow conservative that you're trying to discuss this with thinks and talks more like this...
Yep, no surprise liberals would like him. He comes across as Obama Lite to me.

Ahh! I don't need info or facts about the man or his experience! I need someone who can scream and rant with absolutely no experience in government! Herman Cane, that's more like it.
 
Shhh....the grown-up Republicans are trying to watch the best candidate in this race.;)

LOL

"Grown-up republicans" is code for liberal in sheep's clothing. Easy to spot these days.
 
I think Huntsman has a good chance for a few reasons.

One, you can't really question the man on experience. Executive experience, foreign experience, etc. He's got it all. And with people pointing out Obama's lack of it previously, and how that has possibly affected his ability on the job, it could be a useful tool.

Two, he was extremely successful as a Governor of a decently conservative state. He won relection with more than 3/4ths of the vote. Job approval polls were always generally high for him, hitting above 90's and being in the 80's when he left office. His State was ranked as the best managed in the country and as a top 3 good place to do business.

Three, this is an election about jobs and fiscal responsability. Lets look at Huntsman on this. The CATO Institute ranked him as the best Governor on tax policy in the country during his tenure. He was tied for 5th in total with regards to fiscal issues in general. He simplified the tax code, reduced taxes, and his polices were considered "business friendly". His only fiscal ding was his spending but lest we attempt to label him a "moderate" during that lets compare him to Republican darling Governor of the past election, Sarah Palin.

Palin's state expenditures went up roughly 0.9 billion per year while Huntsmans went up 1.2 billion per year. However, when you look at GDP you see that Alaska went up roughly 1.5 billion per year under Palin while under Huntsman Utah's went up at a rate of 8.4 billion per year. By the time Palin left, government spending was 28% of GDP. Huntsman was a full 10% lower, sitting at 18% when he left. Even more than that, Utah's spending as a percent of GDP went DOWN under Huntsman from 20% the year before he came in where as Alaska's went UP under Palin where it was at 26% the year before she came in.

To try and declare him a "moderate" fiscally based on the increase in spending would be an uninformed declaration, and one that doesn't jive with many of those who would do so having been the ones praising Palin's conservative credentials in years past.

So he's strongly conservative fiscally when it comes to taxes and at worst an average conservative with regards to spending. His state was voted into the top three, and then later as the #1, place for business in this country. His states GDP went up nearly 8% every year, almost tripling the speed that the U.S.'s GDP improves. The man's got great credentials when it comes to fiscal responsability and jobs which is going to be the biggest issues right now.

Fourth, the area he's "moderate" in is with regards to social issues. While a large part of the base is unquestionably worried about social issues, they also tend to be worried about fiscal issues. In this election, the fiscal issues I believe will trump it. The Tea Party movement was not started becuase of Abortion. It wasn't started about Gay Marriage. It wasn't started about porn or sex ed or DADT. It was started because of taxes, spending, and expansion of government. In elections past I'd say a moderate social republican would have significant issues with the base regardless of how strong he is fiscally. In this election, with the atmosphere as it is, I believe the base can and would easily rally around this guys fiscal credentials because in that area...which is the most important to many in the base currently...he's significantly different than the other side.

However, the fiscal issues are important, but to a less fevered degree, to Independents. Enough so that I think someone to over the top on the social issues...such as Santorum...would turn them off. The fact is that yes, you must get your base but you ALSO must get independents. The combination of strong fiscal / moderate social I think can do that and can't be compared to McCain who was questionably moderate on all fronts.

Fifth...he can't be made out as some crazy extremist. The Democrats and Obama can't make this guy out to be some lunatic fringe crazy person because in doing so they damn themselves as Obama trusted him to be Ambassador to China. On the flip side, its very easy to state that when the President...ANY President...asks you to serve your country its the patriotic thing to do to serve. I think his ambassadorship during the Obama Administration is more likely to hurt Obama than Huntsman.

Sixth...for those on the right that want to bash him for being a moderate or not a true conservative, in part because of the ambassadorship, he's got some backup for his republican credentials. On top of his fiscal record I pointed out above you can look at his past experience. He's served, prominently at times, in all three of the previous Republican Administrations: Reagan, GHWB, and GWB. His ambassadorship under Obama wasn't new, but rather simply another one after he already served in such a role for GHWB.

Of all the candidates, the more I look at the situation and this guys record, I think Huntsman might have the most legitimate chance to win.

I completely agree with almost everything you said. Huntsman would be very, very hard for Obama to run against....whereas it's easy to run against a Romney (paint him as inauthentic) or Bachmann (far-right loon), etc.
 
I really, really like Jon Huntsman. Could see myself voting for him.

Liberals always come out and say "Ya know, I could vote for this moderate wishy washy republican...

Then they vote straight Dem.

It's one of the dumbest, and silliest games played on forums, blog and in the media.
 
Liberals always come out and say "Ya know, I could vote for this moderate wishy washy republican...

Then they vote straight Dem.

It's one of the dumbest, and silliest games played on forums, blog and in the media.
Funny, I don't ever remember seeing you sitting behind me in the voting booth.
 
I think Huntsman has a good chance for a few reasons.

One, you can't really question the man on experience. Executive experience, foreign experience, etc. He's got it all. And with people pointing out Obama's lack of it previously, and how that has possibly affected his ability on the job, it could be a useful tool.

Two, he was extremely successful as a Governor of a decently conservative state. He won relection with more than 3/4ths of the vote. Job approval polls were always generally high for him, hitting above 90's and being in the 80's when he left office. His State was ranked as the best managed in the country and as a top 3 good place to do business.

Three, this is an election about jobs and fiscal responsability. Lets look at Huntsman on this. The CATO Institute ranked him as the best Governor on tax policy in the country during his tenure. He was tied for 5th in total with regards to fiscal issues in general. He simplified the tax code, reduced taxes, and his polices were considered "business friendly". His only fiscal ding was his spending but lest we attempt to label him a "moderate" during that lets compare him to Republican darling Governor of the past election, Sarah Palin.

Palin's state expenditures went up roughly 0.9 billion per year while Huntsmans went up 1.2 billion per year. However, when you look at GDP you see that Alaska went up roughly 1.5 billion per year under Palin while under Huntsman Utah's went up at a rate of 8.4 billion per year. By the time Palin left, government spending was 28% of GDP. Huntsman was a full 10% lower, sitting at 18% when he left. Even more than that, Utah's spending as a percent of GDP went DOWN under Huntsman from 20% the year before he came in where as Alaska's went UP under Palin where it was at 26% the year before she came in.

To try and declare him a "moderate" fiscally based on the increase in spending would be an uninformed declaration, and one that doesn't jive with many of those who would do so having been the ones praising Palin's conservative credentials in years past.

So he's strongly conservative fiscally when it comes to taxes and at worst an average conservative with regards to spending. His state was voted into the top three, and then later as the #1, place for business in this country. His states GDP went up nearly 8% every year, almost tripling the speed that the U.S.'s GDP improves. The man's got great credentials when it comes to fiscal responsability and jobs which is going to be the biggest issues right now.

Fourth, the area he's "moderate" in is with regards to social issues. While a large part of the base is unquestionably worried about social issues, they also tend to be worried about fiscal issues. In this election, the fiscal issues I believe will trump it. The Tea Party movement was not started becuase of Abortion. It wasn't started about Gay Marriage. It wasn't started about porn or sex ed or DADT. It was started because of taxes, spending, and expansion of government. In elections past I'd say a moderate social republican would have significant issues with the base regardless of how strong he is fiscally. In this election, with the atmosphere as it is, I believe the base can and would easily rally around this guys fiscal credentials because in that area...which is the most important to many in the base currently...he's significantly different than the other side.

However, the fiscal issues are important, but to a less fevered degree, to Independents. Enough so that I think someone to over the top on the social issues...such as Santorum...would turn them off. The fact is that yes, you must get your base but you ALSO must get independents. The combination of strong fiscal / moderate social I think can do that and can't be compared to McCain who was questionably moderate on all fronts.

Fifth...he can't be made out as some crazy extremist. The Democrats and Obama can't make this guy out to be some lunatic fringe crazy person because in doing so they damn themselves as Obama trusted him to be Ambassador to China. On the flip side, its very easy to state that when the President...ANY President...asks you to serve your country its the patriotic thing to do to serve. I think his ambassadorship during the Obama Administration is more likely to hurt Obama than Huntsman.

Sixth...for those on the right that want to bash him for being a moderate or not a true conservative, in part because of the ambassadorship, he's got some backup for his republican credentials. On top of his fiscal record I pointed out above you can look at his past experience. He's served, prominently at times, in all three of the previous Republican Administrations: Reagan, GHWB, and GWB. His ambassadorship under Obama wasn't new, but rather simply another one after he already served in such a role for GHWB.

Of all the candidates, the more I look at the situation and this guys record, I think Huntsman might have the most legitimate chance to win.


Guys got a snowballs chance in hell... Here is why:

 
Yeah **** moderates who have a chance of attracting independent voters (the ones that win elections).

Let's go with Bachmann, Palin and Cain. Just make sure you're not Muslim cause Cain needs to ask you a few questions.

And this is whats wrong with the republican party.

Go bat**** hard crazy right.... Or go home.
 
Liberals always come out and say "Ya know, I could vote for this moderate wishy washy republican...

Then they vote straight Dem.

It's one of the dumbest, and silliest games played on forums, blog and in the media.

You don't have the slightest clue who I am or what my beliefs are or what my voting history is, so I'd appreciate if you didn't make assumptions.

I DID vote for Obama in 2008. I also voted for Mitch Daniels for governor. So there goes your ignorant theory.
 
Back
Top Bottom