E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
LONDONDERRY, N.H. -- Jon Huntsman missed the Republican debate in Iowa Saturday night and, frankly, he didn't seem to care.
Remaining unabashedly confident that he has a shot at the GOP presidential nomination despite a one-state strategy and single-digit poll numbers, the former Utah governor deployed sharp language in a town hall-style meeting with voters during which he bashed Mitt Romney and Donald Trump and declared that all he needs to win is New Hampshire.
Huntsman was not invited to the ABC News-Des Moines Register-Iowa GOP debate because he did meet the minimum 5-percent support required in either a national or Iowa poll. Huntsman is focused exclusively in New Hampshire after rolling back a multi-state strategy this fall. He has never campaigned in Iowa.
"They're engaging in another evening of theatrics and game show-like discussions," Huntsman said ahead of Saturday night's GOP debate, after speaking to more than 150 voters at Londonderry High School. "We're here on the ground in New Hampshire talking real issues with real voters. I feel we are exactly where we ought to be, this is what needs to be done. We're doing the New Hampshire primary."
This is the second national debate that Huntsman has missed since he entered the race. Yet again, he replaced the missed opportunity with a simultaneous New Hampshire campaign event. Earlier this fall, Huntsman boycotted a Republican debate in Las Vegas in order to show solidarity with the New Hampshire's status as the first-in-the-nation primary. In lieu of Nevada, he took questions from voters in Hopkinton. Later, the Nevada state GOP moved its contest to a later date after pressure from the national Republican party leadership.
Huntsman joked he may not tune into the debate at all.
"I can't make any promises, it depends on if Curb Your Enthusiasm is on at the same time," he told reporters.
In a standard stump speech covering a variety of domestic and international issues, Huntsman repeatedly called for substantive dialogue in a race that has seen more than a dozen debates televised and half a dozen front-runners. The upcoming December 27 NewsMax debate, hosted by Donald Trump, was his latest example.
"We were the first to say we wouldn't do it. I got attacked by Mr. Trump and we attacked him back. I simply said to him, 'If Trump had any cojones, you would be in this race and not trying to manipulate it from the sideline,'" he told a packed auditorium.
"Then, of course five days later, Mr. Romney made his decision after carefully evaluating the environments," Huntsman said, needling the former Massachusetts governor's decision time to laughter and applause.
So far, all candidates have declined Trump's invitation, except for Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich who committed to the event.
But it won't be long before Huntsman faces off in another debate of his own. On Monday, Huntsman meets former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for a one-on-one Lincoln-Douglas style forum at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire.
"I think having a substantive debate with Newt Gingrich on Monday is the kind of thing that we should be doing. Delving into the issues in an unedited fashion and primarily giving people of this early state a little sense of what we believe and where we're going to take this country," Huntsman said.
The former Ambassador to China holds the most direct and diverse set of foreign policy credentials in the GOP field, but said on Saturday that he is not fully informed of Gingrich's positions on major foreign policy issues.
"I don't know where his policies lie," Huntsman told reporters. "He's been a little back-and-forth on Libya. He's been a little back-and-forth on Afghanistan. He's been a little back-and-forth on Russia with respect to Putin. But we'll see. I don't yet understand his fully developed foreign policy."
As for future bilateral debates with other rivals, Huntsman and his campaign say they welcome a face-off with the rest of the field.
"We try to bring in anyone who wanted to engage in a smaller forum, a more intimate setting with kind of a wide open format. And Newt was the only one who was willing to do that," Huntsman told NBC News on Saturday.
When asked if the Huntsman campaign had challenged New Hampshire frontrunner Mitt Romney to a similar debate, Huntsman said he would be open to arranging an opportunity for a verbal spar.
"I am in this race because I fundamentally feel the American people are getting screwed," he told voters Saturday evening.
Leave a Comment:
that mentality, of "ready to pull the trigger", at any moment, won't get us anywhere, and is very dangerous thinking. if i had to guess the general mentality of humanity, when you compare where it is now, to every place we've been before this moment, i would say we are in our adolescence. we have relied on the overseeing parental figures that are big government, big religion, big corporation, big institution,for far too long. people everywhere are "waking up" around the world, to a more global perspective. we are on the verge of transition from adolescence into maturity, and during this transition, it could go either way, we could free ourselves, from these institutions, that have done nothing, but rob us of our freedoms, our voices, our power, our humanity; or we could go the way of sheeple, enslavement on such a mass scale, we could continue the rat race that has gotten us nowhere, but further apart from one another, our diets regimented, our thoughts and views, prefiltered. as such a great nation that we are, we should be doing more to promote peace, to promote equality, to promote justice, to promote freedom, in their purest intentional forms, and not their perverted counterparts we find so prevalent in global society these days. so many humans around the world are realizing their potential to do great things, and their argument would be "if i just had the chance". a mature humanity, would do whatever it takes to acknowledge, and make that reality.
here's where i may lose you, and to be honest that's okay with me, you've listened to me thus far, and that should be fodder for your soul for some time. i support dr. paul, because i truly believe that a man that has lived that long, can see the value of global peace. this is a man, who since his birth, notice the population of this globe has more than triple. we are a growing species, someday bound to venture the stars, and beyond. we will meet our brothers and sisters on other planets. hopefully, by then we'll be in a better place by then. when i am for peace, equality, freedom, justice, etc, it's not only from the perspective of a youth in florida, usa; it is from the global perspective. we cannot continue business as usual, when the children of some impoverished nation, does not have the same potential and opportunities that my children will have someday.
disenfranchised youth see the potential, value, and wisdom a paradigm shift the ron paul presidency offers. which is why i believe the establishment type, and similar figures fear the man so much. that's why he's marginalized in the debates, that's why his name is omitted from broadcasted polls, and discussions. international support for ron paul is at an all time high, and only getting higher. we must do whatever it takes to get the word out about such an honest man, such a grand man, such a wise man. i urge those of you who agree, to spread the word.
Huh?
WTH? Ron Paul called in and said if you are trying to make him look like a sane, viable candidate - leave out the line "we will meet our brothers and sisters on other planets"....
Golly, maybe a few capital letters in your essay would help. It's the shift key. Then again, maybe not.
And here, folks, you see what happens when you get too much sun rays or other rays. Wow, another waste of genes that made it.
Why do they still call these "things" debates???
Dude, can I meet your dealer?
Well, that was a waste of time.
B Dune
Mozzie-600
gdvegas
JerryFLA
rustyboyFL
Answer the following questions to test IQ?
How lost can they all be?
How dumb can they get????
How out of it do they sound?
What deminsion do they come from?
"SIR LUIS MIGUEL RIVERA OF NAZARETH"
Excellent Post...
You are definitely one who has been paying attention and we know whose side your on.
Greetings...
I like what JON HUNTSMAN wants to do !!!!
He may be on to something here . No more dog & pony shows with kid gloves on debates . They all should all get out in front of the voters and bare knuckle it . These so called T V debates are staged and scripted . Put them out front of us and let them have at it . Best way I know of to tell which one is the best person for the job . The LINCOLN - DOUGLAS style debates should be brought back and used during the campaign season for all elections !!!
bob
huntsman the only one with a brain ... when the other GOP candidates do the Jerry Springer ooops I mean Donald Trump debate ..Huntsman can sit back and laugh like the rest of us
That is precisely his problem and will be his downfall!
Not all conservatives are stupid, sure and true, but all stupids are conservative and are afraid of intelligent people
Definitely a good move for Huntsman to get off that stage, out of the big top GOP circus, and ply his wares elsewhere. Would like to see Hunstman and Paul distance themselves from the GOP and run as Independents. How about a Moderate Party candidate also as a counter to the Tea? I wish Elizabeth Warren well in her campaign and would like to see Hillary and Elizabeth on a Moderate party ticket in 2016. We're at an 'extreme' crossroads in politics for the 2012 campaign. Without campaign reform we need more than what our two-party system offers as a 'representation' of our society to save our country.
I read just the other day that Huntsman in a speech at the Heritage Foundation (read Koch) said he may have been wrong about enviromental concerns.
Read....sold out to Koch.
So sad...the ONLY candidate that used to have principles.
There is now more talk about the U.S. getting downgraded.... mainly because Obama is waiting for someone else to fix his mistakes! The so called super committee was a lame idea of BO's from the first 6 democratic libbies and 6 republicans.... you could never get a concensus with that crowd. But lets talk about why the U.S. was downgraded a couple months ago:
• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
Let's now remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385
Got it?
OK now Lesson # 2:
Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:
Let's say, You come home from work and find there has been a
sewer backup in your neighborhood....and your home has
sewage all the way up to your ceilings.
What do you think you should do?
1. Raise the Ceilings, or
2. Pump out the sewage
Your Choice is coming November 2012.....
Vote out Obama, Vote in Gingrich/Huntsman (my choice) or anyone... we now need real hope and change!
Yes, great numbers. Now let's add in the fact that nearly 10 Trillion of the 14 Trillion of debt was accumulated by the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II administrations, another 1 from remaining WWII debt (yes, we still have some of it), and you want us to believe that a Republican Administration will clear this up for us? Right after having added over 6 Trillion in debt in the 8 yrs from 2000-2008? Numbers out of context are interesting on their own, but don't reflect reality...what we need is a Congress that doesn't see every tax or spend bill as a life or death struggle with a mortal enemy and can figure out how to go back to our Clinton-era surpluses without the extreme politics they are forever pandering to...
DD-361642 is correct about the budget deficits during GOP administrations, especially the $1.3 trillion added during 2002-2008 -- by Bush/Cheney and a GOP-controlled Congress. They reduced the surplus handed to them by cutting taxes at the same time they embarked on huge long-term spending programs.
They alone added Part D to Medicare - a major gift to big pharma & insurance companies. They declared war against Iraq - based on an entirely NEW "Preemptive War Doctrine" - on fishy grounds, and sold to the American people as a very short-term war to be funded by Iraq's oil revenue, but the war was long lasting & unfunded. This was the giant deficit added to the national debt! Not likely corrected in just a few years.
The real argument against Obama as far as I'm concerned has been his inability to form a consensus on any issue. He has allowed the Republicans to be the Party of No for too long. The Republican party as a whole set forth a campaign strategy from the moment Obama was sworn in to block this president from accomplishing anything. That strategy put their party objectives well ahead of the interests of our country, but it is working. If they can put forth a viable candidate, I would vote for them in the hopes that our government could actually accomplish anything. That viable candidate thing is a big if, however. I've already scratched off Perry (I'm from Texas, and we're sorry about that), Romney, and Bachman. Newt and Ron Paul may be too far out there to ever build a consensus, but at least they speak their mind. That leaves Huntsman. I will let the process of elimination bring my attention to Huntsman, but he needs to be more aggressive if he wants to earn the nomination.
So $10 trillion has been accumulated under Republican Presidents.... hmmmm.... and I wonder how many of you libbies checked to see that much of this excess spending was actually perpetrated by the likes of DEMOCRAT Congresses, you know, like the Nancy and Harry show, that accumulated nearly 50% of the "Bush debt".
Look at years 2007-2010 - we went from $8.5 trillion to about $14 trillion, all under a Congress that was being run by Democrats. You know, the folks who actually spend all the money?
In 4 short years, DEMOCRATS have added $5.5 trillion to our debt, and are now adding debt at 300-400% of the worst Republican Congress. By the time Barak is out of office next year, Democrats will have DOUBLED our debt.
I can just hear it now - but we "inherited"... No, you CREATED this mess. 2007 Democrats were in control of the budget, the laws, and for nearly 6 years had refused to fix the housing fraud that was being perpetrated. So what Bush warned of, a housing collapse, happened. Democrats were 100% responsible.
Now in 6 years we will have had the most irresponsible level of over-spending in the history of our nation, all done by DEMOCRATS.
But nice try with the revisionist history.
Just try to play the inherit card, and you can then explain the recession Bush inherited and didn't whine about for 4 years like a little spoiled brat (read Barak Hussein Obama).
The only GOP candidate with any chance of beating Obama is Huntsman, and he won't get the nomination.
I really like the guy, of course at the beginning I liked Cain.
I don't understand why the Republican voters have so much trouble seeing that so many of their choices are either stupid, dishonest, flipfloppers, and or loony.
Paul, your 2007-10 number is the most telling. Until 2009, when Obama put all of the costs of Afghanistan and Iraq on budget, those costs were funded by continuing resolutions - pushed off into the future. Obama, by putting those amounts on budget, has given everyone a much clearer picture of what these two wars are costing us.
Silver: The Republican approach to solving your "family budget" is to go to the boss and demand a cut in pay, since that would benefit the Corporation and make it more profitable. But of course your "family" just goes deeper in debt, as there isn't any more places to cut spending - unless you turn off the heat and starve the kids and stop buying medicine for Grandma and don't pay for any maintenance on the leaky roof.
For Republicans, it's much more important for the wealthy to get richer than to keep the rest of the country going.
To equate a household budget to a national economy shows a total misunderstanding of how economics works. There is a reason that micro- and macro-economics are two different course track in an economics degree program. This is a common mistake that many on the right who post here make.
Even though the Democrats had control of both houses during the last two years of the Bush administration, saying that they had control of the government ignores the fact that President Bush vetoed every single bill that would have benefited the middle class, lowered the debt, lowered the deficit, and maybe even have helped avoid, or soften the recession that hit in 2007 (yes, the downhill slide actually started in 2007).
No less than Reince Priebus lied last Sunday on 'Meet the Press' when he said that President Obama was unable to accomplish anything even though he had a super majority during his first two years in office. If he had a super majority, the Republican/TP Inc. party couldn't have used the filibuster more times than previously used in the entire history of the Senate.
(Interestingly, the Republican/TP Inc. people complain that President Obama has ruined this economy (never mind the recession started long before he was even elected), but then turn around and say he has done nothing even though he had a Democratic controlled House and Senate. So which is it? Either he implemented policies that ruined the economy (a lie), or he is so ineffective as a leader, he couldn't get anything accomplished, even with a Democratically controlled congress.)
The last two are lies that many on the right who post here often repeat. If you are one of those saying these things because you don't know any better, stop, it makes you look stupid. If you are saying it, even though you know it to be wrong, or you keep repeating it after being told it is wrong, you are a liar. That's right, I am calling you who purposefully say those things, liars. Get all indignant, foam at the mouth and berate me, the fact remains, you are a liar.
PaulF: It is you who is revising history with a broad partisan brush.
Apparently you didn't get that memo... Bush/Cheney & the GOP Congress never intended to fund the invasion of Iraq because they expected the downfall of Saddam to be short (via "shock & awe") & the Iraqis were expected to quickly take over their government. Cheney set up a "shadow" government called the National Iraqi Council in Washington, which was very naive at its inception, based as it was on Chalabi's claims about Iraq. Taking over Iraq's oil reserves was an essential key to funding the invasion.
Those naive expectations never were met & military costs were kept off the books - not included in annual budgets - until the accumulated amounts had to be accounted for in budgets for 2009-2010. If you did not follow the manner in which all military direct and indirect costs were handled from 2002 to 2008, I suggest you begin digging into the CBO's databases and analyses. There were white papers written on it, too.
I agree with the fact that Obama decided to include everything in the budget and I distinctly remember him saying we should do that because people needed to know what we were actually spending. So what happened was that everyone thought he was the big spender. When that money was already spent just secretly. And up front too when Bush didn't pass his budget right away Obama got the blame for flipflopping as if he was supposed to go back and change what should have been passed before he even got there. I was previously a Bush supporter but was surprised when he quit before his job really ended and he left so many unfinished things for the next president republican or democrat to take care of - the wars, the financial mess, the budget, the expiring tax cuts. Such a disappointment!
Huntsman getting off the stage is not good for him, it just reinforces the appearance to the electorate that he is weak, lacks confidence and experience. He already knows that his candidacy is in trouble and has been from the start. It has nothing to do with his being ambassador to china for Obama, actually that stands in good stead for him.
What his real problem is and it is too late to change is the perception of one shot. He is taking a huge gamble with putting all his eggs in the New Hampshire basket. He does not have the support of the party mainstream even if he is an establishment republican moderate.
Just like the rest of mainstream politico's in this country, he is avoiding Ron Paul, sure he stated first by a few minutes that he would not be involved in the Donald's circus, but he could have done SOOO much more to distance himself from the establishment, but he failed to seize the opportunity.
Ron Paul did use the opportunity to bitch slap the Donald like the clown needed to be bitch slapped.
Clearly he doesn't have the experience yet to be president, BUT, keep an eye on him, he is definitely on the political landscape, but not quite in the liberal cross-hairs yet. A few more years of seasoning should do it, being a rising star in the party is something to cherish, not explode in a useless demonstration of political futility.
If Huntsmn can get the spotlight on him - it won't go away. I think this whole 'underdog' / 'darkhorse' routine might actually pay off for him after the rest of the candidates cannibalize eachother.
When Romny or Gingrch are sitting there chewing on eachother's limbs, emaciated beyond recognition - and Prry and Bchmann are busy sacrificing their first-borns.... in will come Huntsmn for the win.
Huntsman just might be the second to the last man standing, I just do not think he can get around Ron Paul...
Huntsman, is just a bit too smart for your average Tpub.
John Huntsman has a functioning brain. That's an immediate disqualification for a presidential candidate in the current Republican party.
He doesn't believe in human involvement in climate change. Looks like that brain of his isn't so special afterall, but I guess he does have to pander to a political party that sees intellect and intelligence as a danger and wants to try to dumb our country down. Forget about investing in OUR country, let's cut the Department of Education, remove all gov't regulations, and give the rich more tax cuts. Typical republican garbage.
That isn't exactly true.
He does think human involvement causes climate change.
He doesn't think cap and trade works. He doesn't want to "handicap" the economy with local or national regulations when it is a global problem.
I disagree with him on this. I think it has to be done locally and nationally. I also think there is good potential for job growth using the industry.
My biggest complaint is his support of the Keystone pipeline.
We don't need cheap tasteless beer piped through the Ogalla aquifer.
No one even missed him ..I think its so interesting how interested people seem to be in Ron Paul ! He got more response out of the audience then any other candidate. But the moderators pretty much ignored him .I think he should screw the republican party and run as "THE INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY CANDIDATE " After suffering through the carefully scripted answers of the other candidates ..i found the whole debate once again a "waste of time "..the only person i know more about is once again... RON PAUL " I truly think that "Newt " is being forced down the throats of the American people !...I find him and his current conquest both immoral people ! His "i am older and wiser" doesn't fly.. with 62% of the American people ...he strikes "US" as a con artist !
The "con artist" is already in the White House.
This is a great description of Say it isn't so....... and other libbies at FR!
Frank is correct! The the community organizer in the Oval Office is ruining the country, slowly but surely! And most Americans agree with that!
The problem Ron Paul faces, if he makes it that far, is most people will be voting with an eye to who he picks as his running mate. That is exactly what cost McCain the election, a vp candidate that most people could not vote for.
Newt is just plain corrupt as Republican Representatives discovered after electing him Speaker in 1995. Joe Scarborough went on a rant about his time in the House with Newt & said no way should would he vote for him as nominee. George Will said Newt should not be the nominee. David Brooks wrote a similar OpEd for the NYTimes stating no way should Newt be the nominee. How many conservative journalists will it take to get him off the stage?
Ron go home, you're nuts.
Newt go home, you're nuts.
Mitt go home, you're Mormon.
John go home, you have a brain.
Anyone else? Didn't think so.
IMHO,
You left out Perry and Bachman. Please, don't tell me they'll be the last ones standing.
Actually, Ron Paul has already "run" as a 3rd party candidate. Ron Paul was the Presidential candidate for the Libertarian party in 1988. Paul now knows he has no chance as a 3rd party or independent candidate, so if he doesn't win the Republican nomination (likely), he'll just grit his teeth and support whoever the Republicans nominate.
Perry and Bachman went home a loooong time ago. They just aren't aware of it yet. typical....
Right now, this is between Romney and Gingrich. The rest of them might as well go home including that looney Ron Paul.
but wasn't it just awhile ago it was:
Romney vs Trump
Romney vs Bachmann
Romney vs Perry
Romney vs Cain
Close, b dune. It was more like:
Romney vs Romney vs Trump
Romney vs Romney vs Bachmann
Romney vs Romney vs Perry
Romney vs Romney vs Cain
Bull GO RON PAUL GO
RON PAUL 2012
Ron Paul will stay in the race as long as he has money. He has nothing to lose since he is not running for Congress this time. Hopefully at some point he will jump ship and run in the libertarian party so that those who refuse to vote for Newt, Romney, or the rest of the clowns have someone to vote for in 2012.
Any other presidential contest I would agree that Ron Paul should try as a third party candidate. With that said, not this time as this contest is about " anybody but Obama " and where Ron Paul would not win he might pull enough votes to give the election to Odumbo. This is how Clinton won his first term against Bush Sr.
I voted for Perot in that election and so did 20% of the voters in hope that whoever won it would realise that 20% of us didn't like either candidate and would work to correct that. Clinton won and ignored us.
We are in the position that I would hope the independents stay out of the race this election because Odumbo has to go. In a two man race anybody but Obama wins.
settersperch.. I voted for Clinton over the looney Perot .. and we had Jobs and growth ..what would we have had with looney Perot .. Ill vote for our President Obama again and vote to keep America free for all Americans ...not just free for ...corporate America
Under Perot you would have no NAFTA.
Guy sure was looney...
Ron Paul already tried the 3rd party route, he was the Libertarian party candidate in 1988, he won't try that again.
Ron Paul is rather reminiscent of Ross Perot - both are elfin looking older guys with business savvy, both are plain-spoken, both were deemed eccentric, both tried and failed as 3rd party presidential candidates, and both have the initials RP.
You assume that the people who support Ron Paul would support anyone else if Ron Paul was out of the race. Most of the Ron Paul supporters I know including myself will NEVER voter for Newt, Romney or the rest just to win over Obama. A numbe of us actually think Obama is less dangrous than Newt. We will either write Ron Paul name in or stay home but we will not stain our souls by voting for these other vipers.
I voted for Perot, still don't regret it, that great sucking sound turned out to be true. Give me Huntsman or give me Obama, the rest are lightweights.
Jon Who?
Galt. You know, the latest demi-urge in Mammon's stable.
Newt Romney?
Huntsman is right on. The theatrical stagings that the GOPers willfully engaged in was a sparring match between two young lads, age five, each not wanting to hurt the other and most assuredly not say anything that might get them in trouble. These are adolescents in the arena, and until they are forced to perform in a smaller and more intimate setting, answering querries from the real electorate, what they do is pure shill and sham. Not one of them mentioned a comprehensive strategy for putting America's failing economy back on firm grounds nor had the cojones to speak their real emotions, simply because they are not possessed of any real creative powers. They gouge, fight unfairly, attack personalities, use racial baitings, and fail to come to grips with the needs of this country and itgs place in the world. Pathetic losers and Mr Huntsman is indeed a gentleman who can resist the temptation of being and IDOL.
William - what I noticed when the moderators asked for specifics on how to fix the economy, they all song and danced around it God forbid they should mention "infrastructure" Obama's plan, and "new technology on energy" Obama's plan, "looking at our school system, especially rising colleges tuition rates" Obama's plan and finally "taxing the 1% and getting rid of the Bush tax give away" Obama's plan.
So what did they have left - Oh yeah Bachmann's kill Obama Care and Ron Paul's get rid of the Federal Reserve - and lest I forget they all want to give Big Business and Millionaires the final gift - do away with all of their taxes and EPA and anything else that keeps us from being polluted
Yup - that will work
If your a Republican and wondering who to vote for. Vote for Obama. The best Republican in the field.
Gotta agree and I hope a lot of disgruntled GOPers write in Obama as their ticket off this GOP train wreck.
Jon who? Huntsman is the only repub. that could defeat Pres. Obama in November. He would be the only repub. that peope would belive would not destroy the SS system, the Medicare system, and other safety nets that are in place. Of course he wil not win the nomination because quite frankly repubs have become so looney that a Reagan or Eisenhower could not be nominated.
I'm no Obama fan because I believe he let the middle class down and caved in to the right before any fight even began. The healthcare reform law targeted the wrong objectives and did not go far enough to help us from big insurance.
It is amazing to me to see the repubs standing behind these nuts trying to destroy the American government. THEY ALL HAVE OR HAVE HAD GOVERNMENT JOBS! Yet you fall for this act over and over again.
Wait until the post office is destroyed and your parents can't get their SS checks. Oh that's right, if any of these guys are elected we won't have worry about that BECAUSE there will be no social security! This country still has plenty of money and potential, it's just in ALOT fewer hands now(another reason obama lost me.He should have sent the middle class thousands in stimulus and let us spend money. After all, it's our tax money we have paid for decades. we have no disposalable income to spend)
Unfortunately, Huntsman is 100% in support of that Wisconsin senator's 'voucher' program for Medicare. If if can amend his stance on that piece of legislative drivel he'd have an even better chance. Let's hope he keeps standing tall on his 'soapbox' to be heard loud and clear. Really hard to believe more of them didn't bail from the 'circus' debates earlier.
It does bother me that he backs Ryan's voucher system. I can see no good come of that. I do like his means testing idea, though. You have to start somewhere, I just don't want it rewarding large insurance companies at the cost of the elderly. There is no way these vouchers would keep up with premium increases. As for people saying, John who, sometimes people decide more who not to vote for than who to vote for. He could win just by being lesser known.
leon - Huntsman has signed on to Paul Ryan's Medicare Plan on a voucher system
cold Kentucky rain
Huntsman is a clear speaker, smart, and well educated in life. While Ron Paul does bring up some great points he would get little done if elected President. Any of the rest would be bad for us.
Its time the GOP votes in a real conservative who doesn't change his mind based off polls. Someone that will stand up to politicians who have rooted themselves so deep at our expense.
Huntsman 2012
He just needs to distance himself from Ryan's policies. Or present them in a way that American's can agree with. But at least he did not sign the Norquist pledge.
I agree with Sheila on Huntsman's support of Ryan's deficit/debt reduction plan. However, the Debt Reduction SuperCommittee couldn't come to an agreement either. We have to begin somewhere. I look at the SS/Medicare as not only supporting the elderly, but it also supports massive employment in a multi-billion dollar healthcare industry. We should compare employment in that industry with employment supported by US military complex industry - the two largest components of the US budget. Compare employment in those two industries with employment in US manufacturing or education or service industries. Like it or not, we are all in this together.
I don't believe a candidate should toe the party line 100%. Complete agreement with some litmus test just tells me they aren't a leader, but just another politician.
Since there is no apparent logic to Republicans both Democrats and Independents should adopt a DADT policy on this entire primary. The choice of candidate for the GOP truly makes no difference as they all eat from the same bucket of swill. Listening to the idiotic claims of even non candidates has become ho hum... I know what he or she is going to say well before they do. Asked about oh say Ron Paul they begin with President Obama. Asked about Mittens they begin President Obama and so on. So I say let them pick whomever and let's have at it after that.
Competent, softspoken, understated, somewhat truthful - that's huntsman. But not conservative enough. To be a full fledged member of the gop you need to be a right wing radical completely for the 1%. Like hank jr who yells out obama when asked whose caused trouble.
Huntsman is the only republican candidate I would vote for. He is genuine, smart, believes in science, understands foreign policy and seems to care about everyday Americans. The rest are a waste of time and Wall St money. If he isn't the nominee, 4 more years.
At this point, I would vote for him as well. Hopefully he is still in the race by Super Tuesday so that I get the chance. If you live in a state like Texas that always goes Republican in the general election, or a state like California that always goes Democrat, the primaries are your only chance to have your voice heard when it comes to picking a president.
Poor Huntsmam, poor Santorum, poor Paul, poor Bachmann, poor Romney. They don't understand why they are not the front runners. After all, each claims to be more conservative than the next. They honestly believe the Republican rank and file just doesn't understand their individual conservative credentials, and if only they did, then each believes he or she would be the front runner. So, each believes he or she must continue to make clear to the rank and file that he or she would be the best conservative president. So, they continue on. Pitiful.... They simply don't understand what's left of their own Republican Party. One person does understand and he's going to become the Party's nominee.
The Republican rank and file hates President Obama. The issue to them is to find a candidate who hates at least at the same level as they. Huntsman clearly is not such a person; he appears too intellectual. Santorum appears weak almost childlike. Bachmann appears a total simpleton. Ron Paul is too much interested in centering in on his social Darwinist issues that he been pushing for years (lassiez faire capitalism). Perry doesn't seem stable enough, and Romney is a Mormon who also appears mealy-mouthed. No, they want a killer; they want a man who is not interested in truth, ethics, or justice. What hit man is concerned about such BS. They hate Obama and they want him destroyed. They want a man who is so untrustworthy that most of his own colleagues are saying he is too unstable to be President of the American Republic. They want a man just like they are; they want Newt Gingrich.
TJefferson - Well put & hits the pitiful nail on the head!!
Your really boring
whuck: Dang it! The word you want is "you're" (which is a contraction for "you are," NOT "your."
perhaps "yer" would work as well.... just sayin'
TJ what does constipation have to do with anything? No wonder all you can talk is liberal horsehockey.
Right wingnuts will never vote for any one really competent or intelligent. It's ALL about the candidate that pushes the right buttons (abortion, god, guns, gays, shrinking government, cutting their taxes while raising their benefits for them.). The loonier the better as far as I can see. Lincoln was probably their Last Best.
workingpoor: Keep in mind that even Lincoln didn't run on the Republican Party twice. He ran on the Union Party ticket in 1864. Can you blame him?
He got shot shortly after too.
I liked Teddy Roosevelt, but he was nuts too. LOL
When Pat Robertson says they are being too extreme, you know its bad.
why does the press not give former GOV> ROMER any lines? you only get to see him on the DR show on TV, msnbc!
Ummm... suggest you read up on Roemer's history & you will understand. But why then does Gingrich resonate with GOP voters is a mystery to me, although TJefferson's post comes closest - Gingrich articulates some deep seated need to hate Obama.
It is not a mystery to me. They like the comments he throws out and his concocted history is in the past. It is funny how such info just sets there not hidden but not mentioned either. I saw where when Newt was at his peak he had only 9% that wanted him to be president. All is forgotten though. It is up to the republican party to reinform us again. We don't want to find out the hard way. It sounds to me like Newt can and is bought by the highest bidder. And since the presidency doesn't pay that much it will have to be something in the background that is profitable and therein lies the problem. Who will be buying and what will he have to do for the money? Seriously.
An editor needs to step in and fix this article. The third sentence reads "Huntsman was not invited to the ABC News-Des Moines Register-Iowa GOP debate because he did meet the minimum 5-percent support required in either a national or Iowa poll."
Since when are candidates punished for meeting the bare requirements?
Somebody please insert the word "not" in front of the word "meet".
Why does the GOP not back Huntsman? The RNC & GOP leadership continue pandering to the extreme right wing, which has left me out in the cold. This craziness of the GOP is the reason I left the party after 1996. I had been a Republican all my life, but Newt Gingrich was running it into the ground. He cannot be trusted with the presidency.
Murdoch's NewsCorp (FoxNews & WSJ) now owns the GOP. After following this year's slate of candidates, I will not vote for a Republican unless the party nominates Jon Huntsman. As an Independent voter, I view him to be by far the best Republican candidate with statesman qualities and experience (both domestic and foreign as twice governor and thrice ambassador) who could actually handle the job of today's presidency.
Don't take my word for Huntsman... make up your own mind after listening to his answers at "The Bloggers Briefing" hosted by the Heritage Foundation. The briefing focused on policy issues so I learned more about what & how he thinks and whether he can articulate his views clearly. The Heritage is NOT my cup of tea, but I did learn more about Huntsman & felt I could support him, other than he supports the Paul Ryan Plan.
YouTube Video (44 Minutes): Heritage Bloggers Briefing
I have listened to Huntsman, I've read about Huntsman, I've heard about Huntsman.
There is a lot to like about Huntsman, EXCEPT.....
He is Mainstream, more of what the electorate wants changed, a milder version of George Bush II.
Classic Establishment Republican. And the Electorate knows it.
Huntsman is delusional, at best.
Nice hair Huntsman.
I think that Mr. Huntsman is the only one left standing, with half a brain! If I was still a republican, he would be the only one I could/would vote for! The rest are all bat sh** crazy. Gesh! How disgusting they all are. Some of their comments seem treasonous to me.
Sharon - Huntsman has signed on to the Paul Ryan Plan for Medicare and reducing more taxes on Billionaires, don't be fooled by "he's the only sane one".
I agree. He is the only one who looks presidential and acts presidential. He may be a little too cozy with the Chinese but again that might be a good thing because knows exactly how they function. I think we should be aware of them at all times. Especially when I stumbled on the fact that Rupert Murdoch's wife is Chinese and he has two Chinese children who will inherit any influence over this country he has. I stumbled on Rupert and his info when I was checking out Newt Gingrich, one of his employees at Fox News and a financier of at least one of his books if not two. . One big reason we don't need Newt is because he is an arm of Rupert a person who wasn't even born here. He was born in Australia. Money is good to have but it leads to corruption so easily.
Actually, I'm thinking that a Paul/Huntsman ticket would be "Just the Ticket" They would cream Obama in the election.
Paul is viewed as a nutcase. His ideas of having America declare bankruptcy is a prime example.
The money owed is to us the Americans who have paid into Social Security. In my case 40+ years worth.
Pay me the money you owe me.
Is bankruptcy the route all Americans should take when dealing with their debt?
Add to that his suggestion we should have asked permission from the country that was hiding OBL to politely knock on his door to see if he was home.
Paul has NO CHANCE.
Well, JOregon
He is viewed as a nutcase mostly by the liberals here on First Read.
Most other boards I post on actually are pimping for him to win. like the Boston Globe for one, WSJ blog is another, You would be surprised at how many time I've read posts talking of how they voted democrat in 2008, but now they are going to vote for Paul, It's all over the Internet blogs of how the media is shortchanging him, forcing people to actually go out and search for information on his views.
The Media shortchanging him in the myopic view that he is a "Nutcase" is only helping him, it is forcing the people to wonder why the media is trying to silence him so hard. The other thing that is pissing people off is the arrogance of the Media in thinking that the people just blindly follow what they advise and take what they say as fact.
I think that the Obamacare bill and it being crammed down everyones throat has done more to wake up America than anything else ever could have. I'm very happy to see the electorate is finally waking up and is going to take the country back. I think both the Democrats and Republicans are not going to be very happy when it is all said and done.
PS: even CBS News is reporting that he has a better than average chance and is driving the issues
Egilman
I am liberal on somethings and conservative on others.
When it comes to electability he cannot overcome his issues with National Security (my conservative side), and he has a huge issue with the Bankruptcy suggestion. I am close to retirement age and there are lots of us out there, he doesn't want to give us the money WE have put into Social Security
Lots of people think or national debt issue is to foreign countries, once they realize most of America's debt is to Social Security and similar American debt he won't stand a chance.
As far as Obamacare I think we NEED to take care of the poor.
Two of my four kids have jobs that don't offer health care. A year ago both needed medical care, my son also needed a ear specialist. Both work, but as they are starting out they have no money. I had to pay their bill - so YA I am in favor of health care for all (my liberal side).
As far as national security I think he is on the right side of the issue and that is my conservative side coming out, not all conservatives think we should be an empire or have worldwide imperialist intents.
As far as social security, the savings from cutting back the military budget would be mostly used to repay the SS trust fund and eliminate the IOU the Democrats and Republicans have exchanged for the cash. the payments due to current SS beneficiaries would be continued without interruption and allow the young to Opt Out if they so choose. I am also a SS recipiant and I take it very seriously.
As far as health care, I already get docked a third of my SS for medicare and now I am going to be forced to buy insurance also? Now I'll have NO SS and have to pay the taxes that will come into effect in the coming years.... I say NO, NO mandated insurance, NO further taxes.
I understand the need for health coverage for all, but the way the ultra leftist Liberals want to do it is WRONG!!! Even the unions are against it. There are better options and we need to look at those.
It was wrong when Hillarycare was brought out and hated by the majority, Romneycare is hated in Mass, and Obamacare is hated by a great majority of Americans. If you look at each one of those they all mandate huge tax increases to pay for what little they actually provide.
NO MORE TAXES! Cuts first, REAL cuts, not decreases in the automatic increases.
I really do not see how anyone can argue with this position logically, But I know there are always the loud and ranting emotional arguments that serve to do nothing but alienate each side.
We need change, the change that Obama promised and didn't deliver, Ron Paul will deliver the change that Obama promised, you can count on it.
I think Paul suggesting we ask Pakistan for permission to arrest OBL, who they harbored, is a good example of Paul's failures in security.
It was isolationism (or non-interventionism), which is where he wants us to go, that kept us out of WW2. We only went in after we were attacked. Unfortunately because we sat on our hands many died and Hitler grew strong and confident. In the end it probably cost us many more lives.
If we had not been drawn into the war who knows what Hitler could have achieved?
The world is a global community. Instead of taking an us-them attitude, like Paul wants, we need to take a family attitude.
I see us cutting back on the military now under Obama. We are leaving Iraq, we are using more unmanned weapons such as drones. My son is in the Army, he pointed out that now it is difficult to get in the military. They have been able to be very picky because they don't need as much "meat" on the lines.
Paul isn't interested in paying off the debts he wants to declare bankruptcy - a foolish and unnecessary tactic.
Rep. Ron Paul: Bankruptcy could be cure for U.S. debt
If you think your SS would survive under Paul you might want to think again.
You would actually come off better under Obamacare. While the GOP hits some of the negative points, and lies about most, what isn't said is the positive. You would be given an opportunity to shop (with government subsidies) for better coverage under “health insurance exchanges”. By being given an opportunity to buy from private insurers you can actually get better coverage.
Here is an interesting Forbes article on Seniors and Medicare:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2010/09/25/does-obamacare-really-cut-medicare-benefits-to-senior-citizens/
Under Obamacare prescription prices go down.
Also you might want to look at page 6:
Obamacare isn't what the GOP wants you to believe.
No more taxes maybe. I say eliminate the tax CUTS that were given to the rich, those making over $250,000 a year.
The gap between the rich and the poor has become immense.
The United States has the 4th largest gap in the developed world right behind Chile #1, Mexico #2, and Turkey #3. Great company. Israel follows us.
http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/2/
The tax cuts didn't create any jobs. None. All it did is make some very rich people richer, some poor people poorer, and the debt even bigger.
That is because all the value they say we have is in debt, nothing real, the Fed is having the treasury printing money as fast as they can. The reason, is to back the banks when it comes time to pay trillions out to the IMF when Europe goes under. And it IS coming. The bankers get paid the interest on these loans that we the taxpayers pay. this is how they are transferring the wealth to the rich.
WE need to get off the FED roller-coaster and stop paying 40% of every dollar to the uber wealthy bankers.
In a real economy, based on REAL value, you have notes that are exchangeable for a specific item of value that has limits on how much one can acquire of that item, that is a natural limit to wealth acquisition. and since the currency has actual wealth, lowering the amount you take allows more to be invested in job creation. You have to work to create more wealth, and it is created slowly. no instant millionaires overnight.
One of the axioms that was used to explain it to me was this,
in 1900 a good tailored men's suit was worth 50 dollars, an ounce of gold was worth 50 dollars, in todays world, again the good suit of clothes is worth 1700 dollars, an ounce of gold is wirth 1700 dollars.
The innate value of things hasn't changed much if at all over the years, so why the valuation change from 50 to 1700?
Phoney Fiat money! They can tax us or not tax us and it won't make any difference because all the actual wealth is being accumulated in the hands of a few and we (everyone) are forced to use something for currency that has no value. And, it's not just the American dollar, it's EVERY currency the world over.
Everything you hear about taxes from this government just perpetuates the ripping off of any wealth from everyone on the planet.... Much like the robberbarons of the 1880's
I for one do not like shopping at the company store..... sill thing is there isn't many that realize that is exactly what we are doing.
the Debt is going to get larger and larger nothing they do is ever going to stop it unless we cut back NOW, everything we can. I"m not against Taxes, I'm against taxes until we see some REAL cuts.
NOT decreases in already planned for increases.
Keeps going the way we are and there is no way we will avoid what is happening to Greece and Italy where international bankers are dictating how those governments will be run from here on out.....
There will be a LOT of blood spilt before that happens here, I would like to avoid this if at all possible.
I hope this makes sense to you...
other than that we will have to agree to disagree...
I understand what you are saying but I don't necessarily agree with it. At least not fully.
I appreciate the conversation. This was about Huntsman and not Paul so probably a good time to put it to rest.
Have a good night.
No one cares!!
The good news for Huntsman is that he has actual foreign policy experience as America's Ambassador to China - something no other Republican contender (or pretender) can offer. The bad news is that Huntsman was selected for his role in China by Obama; something that will never sit well with the true Republican believers!