Top Dem picks Huntsman

Zyphlin · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
I see we want more life long politicians that have screwed up this country. Cain has through his life shown he can fix companies with financial problems.

So, back to my point, "We didn't like Obama because he was inexperienced to be an Executive official in the government.....but um, its different now with our guy".

Before, people shouldn't have voted for Obama because he had only 2 years in the federal government and no executive experience. Now, we should elect someone BECAUSE they have 0 years in the federal government or executive experience.

He is a leader and loves this country. I do not hear Cain apologizing for this country.

All irrelevant in regards to whether he has good experience for hte job.

Zyphlin · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
So now that I proved she paid for her spending you go another direction. You sound like you are defending liberals and democrats not supprting conservatives.

I'm not going in another direction. You proved she paid for her spending...by RAISING TAXES. Huntsman paid for his spending through getting through legislation that made his state more friendly to business, causing his states GDP to grow by an average of 8.5% compared to Palin's 1.5% growth.

One person paid for their extra spending through growth of the private sector, one person paid for their extra spending through taxing a company. However, we're to understand that the first one is a "moderate who leans left" and the other is someone whose a conservative.

Zyphlin · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
The pain he can not refute my links?

You've given no links. You've given platitudes of why its okay that Cain have no directly relevant experience but wasn't okay for Obama and you've attempted to prove that Huntsman is less fiscally conservative than Palin by pointing out that Palin raised taxes.

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

Zyphlin said:
So, back to my point, "We didn't like Obama because he was inexperienced to be an Executive official in the government.....but um, its different now with our guy".

Before, people shouldn't have voted for Obama because he had only 2 years in the federal government and no executive experience. Now, we should elect someone BECAUSE they have 0 years in the federal government or executive experience.

All irrelevant in regards to whether he has good experience for hte job.

The point is that does not matter at this point. Compared to Obama Cain is more expierenced for what the economy needs.

I notice you still refuse to address my link on Huntsman. This thread is about Huntsman and you keep going in other directions because you know the reason the democrats want him is he is closer to Obama than he is a conservative.

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

Zyphlin said:
I'm not going in another direction. You proved she paid for her spending...by RAISING TAXES. Huntsman paid for his spending through getting through legislation that made his state more friendly to business, causing his states GDP to grow by an average of 8.5% compared to Palin's 1.5% growth.

One person paid for their extra spending through growth of the private sector, one person paid for their extra spending through taxing a company. However, we're to understand that the first one is a "moderate who leans left" and the other is someone whose a conservative.

Read my link.

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

Zyphlin said:
You've given no links. You've given platitudes of why its okay that Cain have no directly relevant experience but wasn't okay for Obama and you've attempted to prove that Huntsman is less fiscally conservative than Palin by pointing out that Palin raised taxes.

I posted the link again in post#43

danarhea · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
The point is that does not matter at this point. Compared to Obama Cain is more expierenced for what the economy needs.

I notice you still refuse to address my link on Huntsman. This thread is about Huntsman and you keep going in other directions because you know the reason the democrats want him is he is closer to Obama than he is a conservative.

Actually, Huntsman has the ability to do what almost no other Republican can do - Get the votes of the majority of Independents, and win over moderate Democrats. I have been saying for months that the GOP needs a fresh face in the race, if they want to beat Obama in 2012, and I strongly believe that Huntsman could very well be that fresh face.

Boo Radley · Jun 22, 2011

danarhea said:
Huntsman seems to be a very pragmatic individual, who puts whats good for the nation ahead of political party. He was Obama's Ambassador to China. He wasn't picked for political reasons, but because he is fluent in 2 dialects of Chinese. He is not a religious zealot either. Although he is Mormon, he is raising an adopted child according to her Hindu beliefs. Huntsman is not a birther nutter either, nor does he bash Obama only for the sake of bashing Obama, but his arguments are based on reality. He represents mainstream America more than any other Republican candidate.

For the above reasons, I believe that Huntsman has the ability to siphon off moderate Democrats, and I believe that Obama has plenty to be worried about if Huntsman is nominated. The question is whether or not Huntsman can keep the idealogue base. Based on their hatred of Obama, I believe that they will come out and vote for Huntsman.

IMHO, Huntsman is an excellent choice for the GOP.

I don't know him that well, but what little I do know seems to support what you say. If he is as you say, I'd be interested in heaing more from him.

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

danarhea said:
Actually, Huntsman has the ability to do what almost no other Republican can do - Get the votes of the majority of Independents, and win over moderate Democrats. I have been saying for months that the GOP needs a fresh face in the race, if they want to beat Obama in 2012, and I strongly believe that Huntsman could very well be that fresh face.

He will not get true conservatives. His stance on GW will hurt him. No one wants Cap and Tax

If he is the nominee I will vote constitution party again.

donsutherland1 · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
You vote for a tax and spend liberal that is globalists that will cave into the UN issues I will not I want a conservative and I do not want to pay more taxes because of the GW scam

In my view, and I fully recognize that there are other schools of foreign policy, several principles are important:

1. The Constitution is the ultimate source of foreign policy authority for the U.S. government. No other source can supersede the Constitution e.g., UN Security Council resolutions are not a substitute for circumventing Constitutional requirements.

2. The U.S. has critical interests in many parts of the world.

3. U.S. foreign policy should be grounded in those critical interests.

4. The U.S. also has strategic allies.

5. The balance of power is a key underpinning of global stability and the U.S. should do what it can to assure that the balance of power is consistent with its interests and the needs of its strategic allies.

6. Military power should be used wisely. It should not be utilized when critical U.S. interests/security of strategic allies are not under attack or credible imminent danger. Intervention in civil wars that have little connection to U.S. interests or solely to promote political change that has little connection to U.S. interests is a misapplication of military force.

7. Abdication/non-interventionism/neo-isolationism would be a disastrous policy. It would make the U.S. a bystander, deprive it of an ability to influence events, and undermine the reliability of its commitments. Far from enhancing its security, it would undermine its security and interests.

8. An effective foreign policy leverages the nation's economic, technical, diplomatic, and military capabilities, using the tool or combination that reasonably offers the best chance at success (consistent with U.S. interests, the needs of its strategic allies, and U.S. values).

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

donsutherland1 said:
In my view, and I fully recognize that there are other schools of foreign policy, several principles are important:

1. The Constitution is the ultimate source of foreign policy authority for the U.S. government. No other source can supersede the Constitution e.g., UN Security Council resolutions are not a substitute for circumventing Constitutional requirements.

2. The U.S. has critical interests in many parts of the world.

3. U.S. foreign policy should be grounded in those critical interests.

4. The U.S. also has strategic allies.

5. The balance of power is a key underpinning of global stability and the U.S. should do what it can to assure that the balance of power is consistent with its interests and the needs of its strategic allies.

6. Military power should be used wisely. It should not be utilized when critical U.S. interests/security of strategic allies are not under attack or credible imminent danger. Intervention in civil wars that have little connection to U.S. interests or solely to promote political change that has little connection to U.S. interests is a misapplication of military force.

7. Abdication/non-interventionism/neo-isolationism would be a disastrous policy. It would make the U.S. a bystander, deprive it of an ability to influence events, and undermine the reliability of its commitments. Far from enhancing its security, it would undermine its security and interests.

8. An effective foreign policy leverages the nation's economic, technical, diplomatic, and military capabilities, using the tool or combination that reasonably offers the best chance at success (consistent with U.S. interests, the needs of its strategic allies, and U.S. values).

So are you saying we need a liberal that will cave to the UN?

donsutherland1 · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
So are you saying we need a liberal that will cave to the UN?

The opposite. See especially point #1. What the UN desires is not always compatible with U.S. interests. A classic example is the UN General Assembly's stance vis-a-vis Israel. The U.S. should not cave to the General Assembly's will, no matter how overwhelming the General Assembly's votes might be.

On a separate matter, the political turmoil in Libya does not impact critical U.S. interests. I do not believe the U.S. should be using its military forces to pursue regime change in Libya. The same held true with respect to Somalia in the early 1990s. No critical U.S. interests were at stake. No strategic allies were threatened. The U.S. should not have sent military forces to Somalia.

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

donsutherland1 said:
The opposite. See especially point #1. What the UN desires is not always compatible with U.S. interests. A classic example is the UN General Assembly's stance vis-a-vis Israel. The U.S. should not cave to the General Assembly's will, no matter how overwhelming the General Assembly's votes might be.

On a separate matter, the political turmoil in Libya does not impact critical U.S. interests. I do not believe the U.S. should be using its military forces to pursue regime change in Libya. The same held true with respect to Somalia in the early 1990s. No critical U.S. interests were at stake. No strategic allies were threatened. The U.S. should not have sent military forces to Somalia.

We are talking about Huntsman not your opinions

Zyphlin · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
I posted this and it has been ignored

“Moderate” Jon Huntsman’s Record Scrutinized For 2012 Bid

Cap and Trade = Yes, he took action with this at a state level. He did it in such a way that it seemingly didn't significantly affect business since even after it his state was a top 3 state for business to start up shop. He's also publicly stated that he feels that such a system like Obama is pushing for is not something the country needs or should do currently with the state of our economy

Individual Health Care Mandate = Yes, he's supported it in a general sense though has not supported it to my knowledge directly relating to Obamacare. Which doesn't make him different than the majority of the Republican Party in the 90's who agreed with the notion as well. Indeed, the issues with the individual mandate didn't crop up on the right until Obamacare and the fact it was viewed as a potential way to backdoor UHC in the future and as a way to possibly get it tossed out.

It also "Cherry Picks" things as while Governor he offered up a reform plan that focused on private sector methods of reform by attemptin to give tax breaks and incentives to insurers, similar to what Republicans wanted to do on a federal level. So it only gives part of his health care story.

Amnesty = Not sure where your source got its information since it doesn't offer any reference, but I've found absolutely zero evidence that Huntsman has stated he's in favor of amnesty. Zero. If you can provide some legislation he supported or a statement of him supporting it, then perhaps that may change my mind. A random article stating he supports it when I find no reference to that anywhere doesn't.

At worse Huntsman has said the notion of a border fense repulses him because its so backwards to the image of what America is supposed to be. But, immedietely following that, he stated that the fact of the matter is that we don't have much of a choice based on the situation we face today and we've got to process the border first. THEN we can figure out what to do with the illegals in this country. Wasn't this what Republicans called for all throughout the debate? SECURE THE BORDER, and then lets have the debate about what to do after that.

Trade Agreements = This is hardly one that we can even nail down as being "conservative" or not because half of conservatism seems to think Free Trade is absolutely necessary and the other half seems to think its horrible and needs to be abolished. Huntsman is in favor of free trade agreements.

So for all your talk of "Cherry Picking" on my part the 4 things you use to counter all my points about him being a Fiscal Conservative are:

1. Environmental issues, which he did in such a way to keep his state strong for business and has stated he's against doing cap and trade federally at this time
2. In favor of an individual mandate, which isn't far off what was a general view of Republicans some years ago and ignores his push for medical reform focused on private sector incentives.
3. In favor of amnesty, even though nothings been provided that shows he actually IS in favor of it and there's quotes out there of him saying reality is we must secure our border first then figure things out
4. He's for free trade agreements

That's your killer bullet to prove he's a "moderate to left leaning" Republican?

Yes, he's in favor of civil unions. I will not deny, the guy is ABSOLUTELY moderate when it comes to Social Conservatism. However, if being moderate in one area of Conservatism makes one a "moderate left leaning" Republican then there's a lot more that deserve that title then just Huntsman and I'm not just talking about Snowe and her ilk.

Your article then goes on to talk about his "wild" spending, looking at it from only one area. It talkes about the Cato centers view of his spending. However, it FAILS to mention that despite their view on that spending that all told, his policies...taxes, spending, etc...still tied him as the 5th best governor in the country regarding fiscal issues.

And lets continue Cherry Picking. Like how they condemn him for taking an Ambassadorship from Obama as if thats proof he's not conservative...and yet he worked in the White House for Ronald Reagan (Guess he's a RINO now too?). He was an Ambassador and a deputy secretary for GHWB. He was a high official for GWB as well. The man wishes to serve his country and feels that when such an honor is asked of you you serve your country. But lets ignore him serving in the white house, sometimes in a similar position, for 3 other Republican Presidents...he did it with Obama, BOO HISS.

Yes, your link definitely proved your point so well.

donsutherland1 · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
We are talking about Huntsman not your opinions

I don't have any credible evidence that Amb. Huntsman holds such a view.

Zyphlin · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
The point is that does not matter at this point. Compared to Obama Cain is more expierenced for what the economy needs.

But we're not talking about Obama, we're still in the primaries. If Obama shouldn't have been President because he didn't have the experience, then Cain shouldn't be beating the other people to have a chance to be President because he doesn't have any experience.

Zyphlin · Jun 22, 2011

soccerboy22 said:
Zyphlin I think what we are seeing is that you aren't a true conservative unless you are a social conservative and fiscal conservative and it is a shame.

I can buy that. If you want to say Paleo-conservatives are the only "true" conservatives...fine. In that case there are no "true conservatives" in the race because Santorum and Bachmann, from what I understand, both have a rather aggressive, government interventionary, world policing mentality that isn't conservative in regards to Militaristic conservatism and both are moderate Governmental Conservatives because they don't mind the government telling people what to do and interjecting itself into peoples lives if its for "moral" reasons.

One can still be Conservative rather than Moderate though without being a "true" conservative in such a case.

It seems like when McCain started going right on social areas is where he began to lose the independent vote.

Mccain lost independent votes when he started to fake going right, in general. McCain is a good definition of a moderate conservative almost across the board.

Also, what is a positive about Huntsman is that the Democrats and other left leaning groups will have a harder time going after him.

Absolutely agree. You can't make him out as this crazy lunatic, because if you do you then question Obama's decision making. Ditto if you suggest that he's not responsable, or isn't trust worthy, or is out of touch, and on and on.

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

Zyphlin said:
Cap and Trade = Yes, he took action with this at a state level. He did it in such a way that it seemingly didn't significantly affect business since even after it his state was a top 3 state for business to start up shop. He's also publicly stated that he feels that such a system like Obama is pushing for is not something the country needs or should do currently with the state of our economy

Individual Health Care Mandate = Yes, he's supported it in a general sense though has not supported it to my knowledge directly relating to Obamacare. Which doesn't make him different than the majority of the Republican Party in the 90's who agreed with the notion as well. Indeed, the issues with the individual mandate didn't crop up on the right until Obamacare and the fact it was viewed as a potential way to backdoor UHC in the future and as a way to possibly get it tossed out.

It also "Cherry Picks" things as while Governor he offered up a reform plan that focused on private sector methods of reform by attemptin to give tax breaks and incentives to insurers, similar to what Republicans wanted to do on a federal level. So it only gives part of his health care story.

Amnesty = Not sure where your source got its information since it doesn't offer any reference, but I've found absolutely zero evidence that Huntsman has stated he's in favor of amnesty. Zero. If you can provide some legislation he supported or a statement of him supporting it, then perhaps that may change my mind. A random article stating he supports it when I find no reference to that anywhere doesn't.

At worse Huntsman has said the notion of a border fense repulses him because its so backwards to the image of what America is supposed to be. But, immedietely following that, he stated that the fact of the matter is that we don't have much of a choice based on the situation we face today and we've got to process the border first. THEN we can figure out what to do with the illegals in this country. Wasn't this what Republicans called for all throughout the debate? SECURE THE BORDER, and then lets have the debate about what to do after that.

Trade Agreements = This is hardly one that we can even nail down as being "conservative" or not because half of conservatism seems to think Free Trade is absolutely necessary and the other half seems to think its horrible and needs to be abolished. Huntsman is in favor of free trade agreements.

So for all your talk of "Cherry Picking" on my part the 4 things you use to counter all my points about him being a Fiscal Conservative are:

1. Environmental issues, which he did in such a way to keep his state strong for business and has stated he's against doing cap and trade federally at this time
2. In favor of an individual mandate, which isn't far off what was a general view of Republicans some years ago and ignores his push for medical reform focused on private sector incentives.
3. In favor of amnesty, even though nothings been provided that shows he actually IS in favor of it and there's quotes out there of him saying reality is we must secure our border first then figure things out
4. He's for free trade agreements

That's your killer bullet to prove he's a "moderate to left leaning" Republican?

Yes, he's in favor of civil unions. I will not deny, the guy is ABSOLUTELY moderate when it comes to Social Conservatism. However, if being moderate in one area of Conservatism makes one a "moderate left leaning" Republican then there's a lot more that deserve that title then just Huntsman and I'm not just talking about Snowe and her ilk.

Your article then goes on to talk about his "wild" spending, looking at it from only one area. It talkes about the Cato centers view of his spending. However, it FAILS to mention that despite their view on that spending that all told, his policies...taxes, spending, etc...still tied him as the 5th best governor in the country regarding fiscal issues.

And lets continue Cherry Picking. Like how they condemn him for taking an Ambassadorship from Obama as if thats proof he's not conservative...and yet he worked in the White House for Ronald Reagan (Guess he's a RINO now too?). He was an Ambassador and a deputy secretary for GHWB. He was a high official for GWB as well. The man wishes to serve his country and feels that when such an honor is asked of you you serve your country. But lets ignore him serving in the white house, sometimes in a similar position, for 3 other Republican Presidents...he did it with Obama, BOO HISS.

Yes, your link definitely proved your point so well.

Correct it shows Huntsman is a liberal and that is why democrats want him as the GOP nominee.

I will not vote for this liberal Obama wannabe

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

Zyphlin said:
But we're not talking about Obama, we're still in the primaries. If Obama shouldn't have been President because he didn't have the experience, then Cain shouldn't be beating the other people to have a chance to be President because he doesn't have any experience.

Problem is Obama claimed he had the expierence.

Cain has leadership expierence and multiple expierence in several large companies. he knows what it takes to balance a budget and get people back to work.

We do not need another liberal. Obama even puts Huntsmans name out there yet he does not mention the GOP Blackman.

If you look at history you will find that except for Goldwater conservatives standing on conservative values win presidential elections

Jeezy · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
Cain has leadership expierence and multiple expierence in several large companies. he knows what it takes to balance a budget and get people back to work.

We do not need another liberal. Obama even puts Huntsmans name out there yet he does not mention the GOP Blackman.

:2rofll::2rofll::2rofll:

...but seriously, Cain has never held public office. His leadership experience is being CEO of a pizza company, and being a conservative talk show host. You can throw the federal reserve thing at me, but he was on the civilian board, which just means he was a CEO of a certain large company in a certain region. The CEO of JCPenny is on a similar board. Doesn't mean he has any economic training, or is ready to be president.

In fact, I can safely say that Herman Cain is the least experienced candidate in this race.

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

Jeezy said:
:2rofll::2rofll::2rofll:

...but seriously, Cain has never held public office. His leadership experience is being CEO of a pizza company, and being a conservative talk show host. You can throw the federal reserve thing at me, but he was on the civilian board, which just means he was a CEO of a certain large company in a certain region. The CEO of JCPenny is on a similar board. Doesn't mean he has any economic training, or is ready to be president.

In fact, I can safely say that Herman Cain is the least experienced candidate in this race.

Herman Cain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zyphlin · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
Correct it shows Huntsman is a liberal and that is why democrats want him as the GOP nominee.

Wow. Just. I'm at an utter loss for words.

You bitch about Cherry picking, then you grab two fiscal issues that themselves are built upon cherry picking, one debatable issue altogether, and one thing he has never actually supported along with the fact he's a social moderate and somehow THAT is proof he's a "liberal".

Yet I point out his #1 rated tax record, his top rated fiscal record, his history of being projobs, his accomplishments in actually growing a state economy not a pizza chains, him actually reducing the amount of spending compared to GDP, and his view that we need to secure the border first...and that's "cherry picking".

Just...wow, really can't say anything beyond that.

soccerboy22 · Jun 22, 2011

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.

Zyphlin · Jun 22, 2011

ptif219 said:
Problem is Obama claimed he had the expierence.

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!

Cain has leadership expierence

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.

and multiple expierence in several large companies.

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

he knows what it takes to balance a budget and get people back to work.

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

We do not need another liberal.

We don't need another inexperienced person either

Obama even puts Huntsmans name out there yet he does not mention the GOP Blackman.

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.

If you look at history you will find that except for Goldwater conservatives standing on conservative values win presidential elections

Please name those Presidents.

ptif219 · Jun 22, 2011

Zyphlin said:
Wow. Just. I'm at an utter loss for words.

You bitch about Cherry picking, then you grab two fiscal issues that themselves are built upon cherry picking, one debatable issue altogether, and one thing he has never actually supported along with the fact he's a social moderate and somehow THAT is proof he's a "liberal".

Yet I point out his #1 rated tax record, his top rated fiscal record, his history of being projobs, his accomplishments in actually growing a state economy not a pizza chains, him actually reducing the amount of spending compared to GDP, and his view that we need to secure the border first...and that's "cherry picking".

Just...wow, really can't say anything beyond that.

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.

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

Top Dem picks Huntsman

Slayer of the DP Newsbot