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.