Top Dem picks Huntsman

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

soccerboy22 said:
Something unfortunate for some one like Huntsman that Senator Obama did not face is the primary system. Part of the reason that Obama did so well against Clinton was because the way the Democrats hold their primaries and especially their delegates. Huntsman can do really well in the individual primaries, but unless he wins he won't get anything to show for it other than I did so well. Whereas, in Obama's case he still got something out of coming in second. So, while Huntsman is saying the right things to get people's attention he needs to do the right thing, because second place in the GOP is still nothing.

The right thing for liberals? He offers conservatives nothing

Renae · Jun 22, 2011

donsutherland1 said:
In mid-September 2008, McCain was very competitive, even holding a small lead in some polls. However, aside from his campaign strategy that positioned him away from his record, he also panicked when the financial crisis broke. He tried to cancel his debate. Afterward, he backed down when Senator Obama refused to cancel the debate and in doing so, provided a fresh glimpse of weakness.

He called for a White House summit. When President Bush accommodated his request, McCain was largely mute during the summit while Senator Obama was an active participant. In his memoirs, former Treasury Secretary Paulson confirms those events at the summit and suspects that McCain's call for the summit might have been little more than a campaign tactic that backfired when President Bush actually organized such a summit for which Senator McCain was ill-prepared.

During crises, leaders need to be decisive. They need to impose a sense of order/structure on the chaos/turmoil. Hesitation is fatal. Weakness amplifies fear. Senator McCain hesitated. He displayed weakness in the face of rapidly changing events. His conduct revealed that he was not a decisive leader. Senator Obama seized upon the opening created by Senator McCain's lack of decisiveness and never looked back.

The 2012 landscape is different. The financial crisis and severe recession are in the recent past. Financial system fragility still persists to some degree. Structural economic challenges and massive debt overhang (nonfinancial domestic debt: households and rapidly rising federal debt) have tempered the growth leading to a sluggish, relatively jobless recovery to date. A new crisis threatens should the U.S. remain on its current fiscal path.

Tough decisions will be required to address today's challenges related to suboptimal job creation and to avoid a future debt crisis. Voters will be looking for a credible roadmap that addresses those issues. The lack of public confidence on the direction of the nation and lack of satisfaction with current economic outcomes create an above-average opening by which an incumbent President could be defeated. Whether that opening is seized will depend, in part, on whether the economic recovery accelerates ahead of the election (creating more jobs/changing the general public mood), and whether the Republicans nominate a viable candidate.

Okay, allow me to clarify don, Zyph. My point is, that leading up to elections, I've noted this trend that the GOP cannot dare back a Conservative Leader. That's the way of madness, that democrats and moderates and Independents won't go for it. In 2008 it was McCain, this year's current "Moderate dejour" is Huntsman. The arguments are always the same; Conservative must sacrifice their beliefs, sacrifice principles if they want to win.

Why?

I point to Reagan, and 1994, as examples of Pushing Conservatism can win elections.

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

Zyphlin said:
Ah, so you're saying that being inexperienced is only something to disqualify someone as being worthy of being president if they claim they have it.

So lets grab a bum off the street! If he never says he had experience then it must mean his lack of experience doesn't matter! BRILLIANT!

The same could be cobbled together for Obama and his leading of community projects and endevours. The fact of the matter is that's a secondary type of experience and not a direct job related experience of being either a part of the Executive Branch or a Military Commander, the two main parts of the Presidents job.

Again, that's nice. And Barack Obama was a constitutional professional and a board member of various groups. Again, that's not direct experience relevant to the Presidency

Why does that matter, its apparently the sign of someone that's a liberal to you.

We don't need another inexperienced person either

WOW. Good to know that you enjoy engaging in Identiy Politics "Lawdy! The DEM Blackman didn't support the GOP Blackman, Lawdy Lawdy, those negros be acting strange!"

Seriously, you just referenced Cain as "The GOP Blackman" and suggested Obama should've put his name out seemingly because they're both black. Sorry, if you're who we're supposed to be upholding as the decider of what is or isn't conservatism, I'll pass. Last I checked, conservatism tries to move away from identiy politics.

Please name those Presidents.

Sop tell me about Obam's leadership and budgets he met annd the people he put to work.

Obama had little responsibility in those jobs as far as keeping people working or budgets.

You can see this in the last 2 years. No employment and higher deficits

soccerboy22 · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
The right thing for liberals? He offers conservatives nothing

Not liberals. Your independents, slight conservatives, and probably moderate conservatives as well. Plus, if the slight liberals are liking him as well then it means it would be even harder for Obama to win. You don't want another four years of Obama right?

Jeezy · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
Herman Cain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, I've read that. It confirms exactly what I said.

He's the least experienced candidate in this race.

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

soccerboy22 said:
Not liberals. Your independents, slight conservatives, and probably moderate conservatives as well. Plus, if the slight liberals are liking him as well then it means it would be even harder for Obama to win. You don't want another four years of Obama right?

Swapping one liberal for another liberal is a loss not a gain.

You will find that if the GOP runs a conservative on the conservative values the GOP had years ago they will win.

I am talking about lower taxes, lower spending, a balanced budget, less entitelments.

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

Jeezy said:
Yeah, I've read that. It confirms exactly what I said.

He's the least experienced candidate in this race.

You mean he is not a Washington insider that will give us more of the same we have had for the last 20 years or so

Jeezy · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
You mean he is not a Washington insider that will give us more of the same we have had for the last 20 years or so

Know who else ran on that platform?

They were outsiders too.

Zyphlin · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
There was more than 2 there was also healthcare. The link shows he is a liberal. That is why the dems want him. Then your choice will be which liberal is better.

Right, like I said...2 fiscal issues built themselves upon cherry picking. Those being:

Health Care = Which ignored that individual mandate at one time was a conservative idea AND that he pushed for private sector focused reform through tax incentives as governor

and

Cap and Trade = Which ignored that the legislation he passed about it must've not been too stringent on Business since it was still a top rated state for business after it, and he's stated he does not support Cap and Trade right now at a national level.

No, your link doesn't show that he's a liberal. It CHERRY PICKS a few issues where he breaks with conservatives on and attempts to use those few positions to declare him a liberal while ignoring EVERYTHING else he's done.

Picking 3 or 4 things and ignoring everthing else is pretty much the definition of cherry picking.

Not me I no longer vote the lesser of 2 evils. I can vote for the conservative constitution party

Be my guest.

donsutherland1 · Jun 22, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Okay, allow me to clarify don, Zyph. My point is, that leading up to elections, I've noted this trend that the GOP cannot dare back a Conservative Leader. That's the way of madness, that democrats and moderates and Independents won't go for it. In 2008 it was McCain, this year's current "Moderate dejour" is Huntsman. The arguments are always the same; Conservative must sacrifice their beliefs, sacrifice principles if they want to win.

Why?

I point to Reagan, and 1994, as examples of Pushing Conservatism can win elections.

I don't seek to make that argument at all. Indeed, a candidate with impeccable conservative credentials and a vision, record, and strong leadership/communications skills could be very viable. Governor Christie would make a formidable contender, especially as he has created an early record of making tough choices and also achieving bipartisan agreement over seemingly intractable pension/health benefits. Governor Perry might be a strong contender, as well.

Also, one cannot fail to mention that President Reagan was the kind of once-in-a-generation transformational leader. Transformational leaders along the lines of an FDR, JFK, or Reagan are not present in every election. He could do what Barry Goldwater could not because of his extraordinary leadership abilities.

In the current field, those with arguably the most conservative positions face challenges, not so much due to their views, but more due to their own limitations. Senator Santorum lacks a broad vision that runs beyond social issues and is also seeking to rebound from a devastating defeat in his Senate re-election bid. Congresswoman Bachmann did well in her first debate (minor issue about ridiculing France, a strategic ally), but has work to do to demonstrate that she has gained the experience necessary to avoid the gaffes that have marked her political career. She has an opening on account of her debate performance but has a lot of work to do. Herman Cain is, to be blunt, a political lightweight who will not be a serious contender. Ron Paul is more prophet than political leader. He has unwavering commitment to his libertarian ideology, but lacks the communication abilities and policy specifics to align broad support for his vision.

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

Zyphlin said:
Right, like I said...2 fiscal issues built themselves upon cherry picking. Those being:

Health Care = Which ignored that individual mandate at one time was a conservative idea AND that he pushed for private sector focused reform through tax incentives as governor

and

Cap and Trade = Which ignored that the legislation he passed about it must've not been too stringent on Business since it was still a top rated state for business after it, and he's stated he does not support Cap and Trade right now at a national level.

No, your link doesn't show that he's a liberal. It CHERRY PICKS a few issues where he breaks with conservatives on and attempts to use those few positions to declare him a liberal while ignoring EVERYTHING else he's done.

Picking 3 or 4 things and ignoring everthing else is pretty much the definition of cherry picking.

Be my guest.

You forget his spending. Cherry picking he is known as a moderate so yes he is left leaning or liberal if you prefer or he would not be called moderate. He offers nothings for conservatives just more of the same failed policies

Zyphlin · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
The right thing for liberals? He offers conservatives nothing

Indeed. What conservative would EVER want someone who would institute a flat tax, reduce taxes in general, push for business friendly policies, create an environment where business want to come to, raise GDP at a large rate, lower government spending increases comparitive to the increase of GDP, support Israel staunchly, work to end any North Korea nuclear capability, secure the border first, and supports the Ryan Budget plan.

Why would a conservative want any of that. Its obvious he offers NOTHING to conservative voters.

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

donsutherland1 said:
I don't seek to make that argument at all. Indeed, a candidate with impeccable conservative credentials and a vision, record, and strong leadership/communications skills could be very viable. Governor Christie would make a formidable contender, especially as he has created an early record of making tough choices and also achieving bipartisan agreement over seemingly intractable pension/health benefits. Governor Perry might be a strong contender, as well.

Also, one cannot fail to mention that President Reagan was the kind of once-in-a-generation transformational leader. Transformational leaders along the lines of an FDR, JFK, or Reagan are not present in every election. He could do what Barry Goldwater could not because of his extraordinary leadership abilities.

In the current field, those with arguably the most conservative positions face challenges, not so much due to their views, but more due to their own limitations. Senator Santorum lacks a broad vision that runs beyond social issues and is also seeking to rebound from a devastating defeat in his Senate re-election bid. Congresswoman Bachmann did well in her first debate (minor issue about ridiculing France, a strategic ally), but has work to do to demonstrate that she has gained the experience necessary to avoid the gaffes that have marked her political career. She has an opening on account of her debate performance but has a lot of work to do. Herman Cain is, to be blunt, a political lightweight who will not be a serious contender. Ron Paul is more prophet than political leader. He has unwavering commitment to his libertarian ideology, but lacks the communication abilities and policy specifics to align broad support for his vision.

The polls are all over the place. I expect to see a conservative. I think Huntsman has little chance. I feel the same about Romney

Michele Bachmann tops new 2012 poll | Iowa Independent

Renae · Jun 22, 2011

donsutherland1 said:
I don't seek to make that argument at all. Indeed, a candidate with impeccable conservative credentials and a vision, record, and strong leadership/communications skills could be very viable. Governor Christie would make a formidable contender, especially as he has created an early record of making tough choices and also achieving bipartisan agreement over seemingly intractable pension/health benefits. Governor Perry might be a strong contender, as well.

Oh I wasn't, and I'm sorry if I came across that way so much going after your stance as I was clarifying my motivation.

donsutherland1 said:
Also, one cannot fail to mention that President Reagan was the kind of once-in-a-generation transformational leader. Transformational leaders along the lines of an FDR, JFK, or Reagan are not present in every election. He could do what Barry Goldwater could not because of his extraordinary leadership abilities.

I firmly agree with you. He was indeed, but that doesn't mean we cannot strive to match his legacy.

donsutherland1 said:
In the current field, those with arguably the most conservative positions face challenges, not so much due to their views, but more due to their own limitations. Senator Santorum lacks a broad vision that runs beyond social issues and is also seeking to rebound from a devastating defeat in his Senate re-election bid. Congresswoman Bachmann did well in her first debate (minor issue about ridiculing France, a strategic ally), but has work to do to demonstrate that she has gained the experience necessary to avoid the gaffes that have marked her political career. She has an opening on account of her debate performance but has a lot of work to do. Herman Cain is, to be blunt, a political lightweight who will not be a serious contender. Ron Paul is more prophet than political leader. He has unwavering commitment to his libertarian ideology, but lacks the communication abilities and policy specifics to align broad support for his vision.

Santorum is a non-player in my book, I just don't think he's going to get anywhere. I see him as the GOP "John Edwards" role this time. (In political position and purpose, not personality).
Bachmann has some good momentum but she will face an extremely hostile media.
Cain is politically untested, but I believe he's a stronger candidate then you give him credit for.
Ron Paul is Ron Paul, he runs, he gets a lot of excitement among a niche group and goes no where.

Zyphlin · Jun 22, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Okay, allow me to clarify don, Zyph. My point is, that leading up to elections, I've noted this trend that the GOP cannot dare back a Conservative Leader. That's the way of madness, that democrats and moderates and Independents won't go for it. In 2008 it was McCain, this year's current "Moderate dejour" is Huntsman. The arguments are always the same; Conservative must sacrifice their beliefs, sacrifice principles if they want to win.

Why?

I point to Reagan, and 1994, as examples of Pushing Conservatism can win elections.

My support for Huntsman Vicc has nothing to do with the notion that we cannot dare back a Conservative leader. My singular view point regarding that is we cannot dare back someone who wants to make social conservatism the primary focal point of their campaign...such as Santorum has promised to do at the recent debate. Look at almost any social issue in this country and you'll see that there is NOT a strong split to either side. Focusing heavily on gay marriage, which ultimately is going to come down to the courts because a constitutional amendment is highly unlikely, and abortion, which ultimately is a court issue at this point, is a useless endevour in the current climate.

We're at a climate where Fiscal and Governmental issues are the most important things for the majority of Americans...Liberal, Conservative, or Moderate. Now, contrary to what you suggest, I think we need someone who is distinctly conservative in those areas to be able to capitalize on it. For the first time in decades I think we are in the position to substantially win over Independents and "Reagan Democrats" in substantial numbers and turn them onto conservatism. NOT "become moderate and get them" but actually turn them onto Conservatism, or at the least fiscal and governmental conservatism.

The thing is though, its VERY possible to be fiscally and governmentally conservative but socially moderate or liberal. And the problem with social issues is they generally are also the most EMOTIONAL issues. If we focus heavily on emotional controversial social issues during an election that those aren't really heavily on the public at larges mind we risk blowing this chance to actually attract new people under the Big Tent and losing.

So when I'm looking at what candidate I'm wanting to support, first and foremost in this election I am following Tea Party philosophy and I'm looking SINGULARLY at Fiscal and Governmental Conservative credentials first off. Next, personally, I look to see if they're going to focus on that or if they're going to push for a Social Conservative agenda just as much...and specifically if they're going to push for a BIG GOVERNMENT Conservative agenda such as those advocating cahnging the constitution to for the first time since prohibition RESTRICT people not government from doing something. Ditto in regards to their foreign/military policy. After that I start going into the various tertiary things such as their experience, their electability, their political savy, etc.

There is no perfect candidate right now. I've got issues with all of them. Huntsman is not 100% ideal perfect guy for me. However, he's as good fiscally and governmentally in my mind as any of the other candidates. Does he have some blemishes? Yes. On the flip side though, he has far more accomplishments, experience, and actual credentials regarding his fiscal and governmental conservative traits than those who lack the blemishes save for POSSIBLY Santorum and Paul. However, Santorum fails #2 for me as he's a big government social conservative who plans to make social issues a major portion of his campaign. And Paul fails for a bit for me in regards to the military policy and many of the tertiary issues.

Huntsman is a top 3 guy for me in this crowd currently with regards to fiscal and governmental conservatism. He fits the bill as someone whose not going to make social issues a major part of his campaign. He seems to be similar to a 2000 George Bush in regards to foreign policy which is a thumbs up from me. He's got the best experience out of ANYONE on either side in this as both a Govenor, cabinet like positions under Presidents, and as an Ambassador. He's got solid past conservative credentials serving Reagan and both Bush's while he has a good shield from some Obama attacks due to being Ambassador under him. It also allows him to show he honestly seeks to serve the country, where he walks that walk rather than Obama who simply talked about "bipartisanship" and "Post partisanship".

Is he perfect? No, but his entire package, to me, is the best. And not because I want a "moderate" or a "liberal" or someone whose not a "conservative", because that's not true. I am a Tea Partier and my concerns are FISCAL AND GOVERNMENTAL conservatism, just like the Contract From America states, and to me he's solidly that kind of conservative. And I wouldn't have it any other way with the candidate I support.

donsutherland1 · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
The polls are all over the place. I expect to see a conservative. I think Huntsman has little chance. I feel the same about Romney

Michele Bachmann tops new 2012 poll | Iowa Independent

For me, it's too soon to speculate who will win. I do believe one can begin to guess who won't win (Santorum, Pawlenty, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Giuliani, if he enters) given either their debate performance and/or narrow appeal. Romney is arguably the frontrunner, but his lead is not solid. The field is fragmented and a lot can change. Additional new entrants cannot be ruled out.

Zyphlin · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
Sop tell me about Obam's leadership and budgets he met annd the people he put to work.

Why?

Obama had little responsibility in those jobs as far as keeping people working or budgets.

And Cain had little dealing with how to get legislation drafted and passed, matters of military issues, dealings with foreign governments, meetinsg with dignitaries, how to set up a budget from a government stand point, and i can go on and on.

Yes, Obama was inexperienced. No ****. I've been saying that for a while now. The difference is I'm not making excuses why the inexperienced guy on my side...or as you put it "The GOP Blackman"...is magically perfectly capable.

donsutherland1 · Jun 22, 2011

MrVicchio said:
Cain is politically untested, but I believe he's a stronger candidate then you give him credit for.

Perhaps, but his debate performance provided no indication of such strength. During the debate, I was looking for him to articulate why his business experience was relevant to the big challenges facing the nation and why such experience gave him an edge over his rivals. That did not happen.

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

donsutherland1 said:
For me, it's too soon to speculate who will win. I do believe one can begin to guess who won't win (Santorum, Pawlenty, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Giuliani, if he enters) given either their debate performance and/or narrow appeal. Romney is arguably the frontrunner, but his lead is not solid. The field is fragmented and a lot can change. Additional new entrants cannot be ruled out.

Romney will do the same he did in 2008

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

Zyphlin said:
Why?

And Cain had little dealing with how to get legislation drafted and passed, matters of military issues, dealings with foreign governments, meetinsg with dignitaries, how to set up a budget from a government stand point, and i can go on and on.

Yes, Obama was inexperienced. No ****. I've been saying that for a while now. The difference is I'm not making excuses why the inexperienced guy on my side...or as you put it "The GOP Blackman"...is magically perfectly capable.

Cain was lobbyist so he may know more that you think

Renae · Jun 22, 2011

Zyphlin said:
My support for Huntsman Vicc has nothing to do with the notion that we cannot dare back a Conservative leader. My singular view point regarding that is we cannot dare back someone who wants to make social conservatism the primary focal point of their campaign...such as Santorum has promised to do at the recent debate. Look at almost any social issue in this country and you'll see that there is NOT a strong split to either side. Focusing heavily on gay marriage, which ultimately is going to come down to the courts because a constitutional amendment is highly unlikely, and abortion, which ultimately is a court issue at this point, is a useless endevour in the current climate.

We're at a climate where Fiscal and Governmental issues are the most important things for the majority of Americans...Liberal, Conservative, or Moderate. Now, contrary to what you suggest, I think we need someone who is distinctly conservative in those areas to be able to capitalize on it. For the first time in decades I think we are in the position to substantially win over Independents and "Reagan Democrats" in substantial numbers and turn them onto conservatism. NOT "become moderate and get them" but actually turn them onto Conservatism, or at the least fiscal and governmental conservatism.

The thing is though, its VERY possible to be fiscally and governmentally conservative but socially moderate or liberal. And the problem with social issues is they generally are also the most EMOTIONAL issues. If we focus heavily on emotional controversial social issues during an election that those aren't really heavily on the public at larges mind we risk blowing this chance to actually attract new people under the Big Tent and losing.

So when I'm looking at what candidate I'm wanting to support, first and foremost in this election I am following Tea Party philosophy and I'm looking SINGULARLY at Fiscal and Governmental Conservative credentials first off. Next, personally, I look to see if they're going to focus on that or if they're going to push for a Social Conservative agenda just as much...and specifically if they're going to push for a BIG GOVERNMENT Conservative agenda such as those advocating cahnging the constitution to for the first time since prohibition RESTRICT people not government from doing something. Ditto in regards to their foreign/military policy. After that I start going into the various tertiary things such as their experience, their electability, their political savy, etc.

There is no perfect candidate right now. I've got issues with all of them. Huntsman is not 100% ideal perfect guy for me. However, he's as good fiscally and governmentally in my mind as any of the other candidates. Does he have some blemishes? Yes. On the flip side though, he has far more accomplishments, experience, and actual credentials regarding his fiscal and governmental conservative traits than those who lack the blemishes save for POSSIBLY Santorum and Paul. However, Santorum fails #2 for me as he's a big government social conservative who plans to make social issues a major portion of his campaign. And Paul fails for a bit for me in regards to the military policy and many of the tertiary issues.

Huntsman is a top 3 guy for me in this crowd currently with regards to fiscal and governmental conservatism. He fits the bill as someone whose not going to make social issues a major part of his campaign. He seems to be similar to a 2000 George Bush in regards to foreign policy which is a thumbs up from me. He's got the best experience out of ANYONE on either side in this as both a Govenor, cabinet like positions under Presidents, and as an Ambassador. He's got solid past conservative credentials serving Reagan and both Bush's while he has a good shield from some Obama attacks due to being Ambassador under him. It also allows him to show he honestly seeks to serve the country, where he walks that walk rather than Obama who simply talked about "bipartisanship" and "Post partisanship".

Is he perfect? No, but his entire package, to me, is the best. And not because I want a "moderate" or a "liberal" or someone whose not a "conservative", because that's not true. I am a Tea Partier and my concerns are FISCAL AND GOVERNMENTAL conservatism, just like the Contract From America states, and to me he's solidly that kind of conservative. And I wouldn't have it any other way with the candidate I support.

How can a man that supports Obamacare/UHC style healthcare and Cap and Trade be considered a fiscal conservative?

That to me, is why cannot be the candidate, I want Obamacare, GONE, I want this madness of "Cap and Trade" or other business killing greenie bull****, buried into teh ash heap of history where they belong.

Renae · Jun 22, 2011

donsutherland1 said:
Perhaps, but his debate performance provided no indication of such strength. During the debate, I was looking for him to articulate why his business experience was relevant to the big challenges facing the nation and why such experience gave him an edge over his rivals. That did not happen.

I agree, and his lack of political experience showed there, how he moves forward will tell the tale.

CriticalThought · Jun 22, 2011

Councilman said:
Could there me more to this than meets the eye?

What good reason could Reid have for endorsing a Republican?

Could it be that Reid wants someone to run he believes Obama can beat?

Or is it a chance to play the Mormon card?

We went through this with JFK and people playing the Catholic card which in the end was a specious argument and had no affect on his day to day running of the Oval Office.

Romney is Mormon.

Jeezy · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
Cain was lobbyist so he may know more that you think

A lobbyist FOR THE RESTAURANT INDUSTRY. Not really a political cause there, huh chief?

And hey, if he's a lobbyist doesn't that make him an insider? So which is it, ptif? Is he a Washington outsider or a lobbyist?

Every position the man has held relates to pizza and food. He has zero policy-making experience.

Zyphlin · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
I am talking about lower taxes, lower spending, a balanced budget, less entitelments.

Huntsman was rated higher than both Governors running currently for the Republican nomination and the presumed candidate Palin when it comes to taxes and lowering them.

Huntsman spending was slightly higher than Palin's (1.2bil compared to 0.8bil), slightly lower than Pawlenty's (1.2bil compared to 1.5bil), and all of them fail in comparison strikingly to Romney whose states spending went up on average 0.1 billion a year under his watch.

Huntsmans GDP went up 8% per year, besting Palin's 1.5% but falling a bit behind Pawlenty's 12%. Both Huntsman and Pawlenty lowered government spending as a percent of GDP by 2% compared to when they took office, while Palin grew hers by 2%. I didn't have GDP info for Romney.

So really, unless we're calling Pawlenty someone whose not good for "lower spending" I don't see how we could say Huntsman isn't.

As far as Entitlements, Huntsman has came out in favor of the Ryan Budget plan which significantly changes one of our largest entitlement programs to make it more cost effective.