E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
EXETER NH--Ending his New Hampshire marathon exactly where he first began it, Jon Huntsman delivered his closing argument to his biggest ever crowd in the Granite State, hoping that his weekend surge will be enough to propel him to South Carolina.
“Something is happening out there,” Huntsman said, basking in deafening cheers at the quintessentially charming Exeter Town Hall. “I have no idea what it is going to mean tomorrow night, but I do know this: we’re going to surprise a whole lot of people in this country.”
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Jon Huntsman speaks to voters during a 'Restoring Trust Rally' in Exeter, New Hampshire.
Huntsman launched his Granite State strategy on June 21 in the same town hall. Later, New Hampshire would become the singular focus of shoe-string strategy that was once a three-state approach. His sudden surge over the past several days has been a welcome change for a candidate who usually spoke to crowds of a few dozen until very recently.
Huntsman also hammered home a new mantra: “Country First.” The phrase
-- which was first used in John McCain's 2008 campaign -- is a ninth hour addition to his stump speech, after front-runner Mitt Romney questioned Huntsman's decision to serve as US ambassador to China under Democratic incumbent Barack Obama in two debates last weekend.
The Huntsman campaign began airing an television advertisement slamming Romney's position and generated new lawn signs emblazoned with the tagline to drive the point home in the final hours before New Hampshire votes.
“Our movement is here to put our country first. We’re tired of people putting politics first,” Huntsman said of Romney as his Exeter crowd roared.
The sizeable rally, which was utterly unfathomable just one week ago, featured an energetic Huntsman who spent the day crisscrossing the state drawing a contrast between himself and Mitt Romney. Clad in a leather bomber jacket, Huntsman brought up Romney's debate comments repeatedly.
"It has become abundantly clear over the last couple of days what differentiates Gov. Romney and me," Huntsman told reporters in Concord today. "I will always put my country first. It seems that Gov. Romney believes in putting politics first. Gov. Romney enjoys firing people.
I enjoy creating jobs."
Huntsman was referring to a comment on health care by Romney earlier in the day, during which Romney answered a question on health care.
"I like being able to fire people who provide services to me," Romney said this morning. "If someone doesn't give me the good service I need, I want to say I am going to get somebody else to provide that service to me."
Huntsman spent most of his final full day on the New Hampshire trail kissing babies, dropping by diners and bakeries, and shaking hands with any voter who would give him their attention. Starting from the northern reaches of the state and slowly working his way south, Huntsman told voters he wanted to "twist your arm and earn your vote."
"We're looking for a little help," a hopeful Huntsman told voters in Nashua. "We need help in getting out the vote tomorrow. We've worked very, very hard...no one has worked this state like we have."
By evening, a cloudy moment momentarily dampened the otherwise ebuillient mood.
Huntsman's application to appear in the Arizona primary ballot was rejected because of a missing notarized signature today, according to the Arizona Secretary of State's Office. This comes after the former Utah governor missed ballot requirements in Virginia and Illinois. The Huntsman campaign vowed that it did complete the application and plans to litigate to put his name on the ballot.
But Huntsman himself remained focused on leveraging his weekend surge into a performance worthy of the many days he has spent in the Granite State.
"Are we ready to rock and roll tomorrow?" Huntsman bellowed in Exeter.
"We are ready to rock and roll!"
Leave a Comment:
This guy is unlike the other republicans...i would vote for him ...he isn't a total douche bag like the " Tin Man " Romney ..This guy appeals to the people of the United States ..he doesn't threaten to take away our rights and he doesn't seem preoccupied with the goings on between other peoples legs ...If i was him, i would be embarrassed to say i was a republican. After seeing the other idiots they think they can force down the throats of the American people ! Huntsman actually stands a chance ..i am interested and will watch him closely.
I've heard enough to want to hear more....
That's all I'm going to say at this time
I hope he can pull it off, look, even Obama was impressed with Huntsman. The guy at least has a measurable IQ, and does speak fluent Chinese, which may become vital, at some point....yeah, Huntsman is the only one that could actually handle the job of a universal POTUS.... me thinks
Despite the squeamers, Huntsman is a rabid 1%-er.
You can be a One-percenter/derugulate yer granny/tax cuts for the rich, no-matter-how-rich, even if you speak Mandarin.
Honest.
Egilman,
Right on, I want to hear more as well.
Backhouse,
Sorry. I refuse to sign up with OWS sloganeering nonsense. The 1% - 99% classification is toxic and meaningless. The rich are not the enemy here. Anybody who makes it to the level of a presidential candidate is going to be a "1 per-center." Irrelevant.
I wonder how much traction Huntsman will get from a decent NH showing...if he can regroup in Florida, maybe win as the Not-Romney candidate. He definately seems preferable to Romney, but maybe that's just because I don't know his politics in depth.
He is the ONLY candidate with any chance of defeating Obama, because he appeals to a wider base than the other extremists.
I would certainly consider voting for him.
I agree with all of the above, and the only one of the bunch who did not sign that stupid pledge and refuses to sign.
If Huntsman comes out for a "Clean Government Amendment"..... THEN I'd be for him!
Maybe now that the GOP has shaken off some of the clowns (Bachman, Perry) they can start to look at the REAL candidates. I still think it will end up being Romney, though - Jobs First will be the theme, but maybe Huntsman will make a good VEEP?
ANYONE BUT GINGRICH!!!
I just registered as a Republican so I can vote for this man in the NJ Republican primary. The other men I would be afraid to have in the White House. This one would be the first Republican not to scare me in my adult life. I hope people start to recognize his lack of craziness despite the Tea Party madness that is making this country appear more and more disturbed.
He's truly the only adult in the race. Heck, he's the only adult in the Republican party.
'One-percenter' is shorthand for a lot of things.
Things millions of ordinary folks are tired of.
As for slogans, Norquist has sold 99.9% of Republicans at all levels of government, on one or two.
Yes, his closing argument to his swan song.
When I see and hear Huntsman.. for some reason.. I trust him.
The more I read about him, his career, and his positions... for some reason... I respect him.
I would vote for him.
Romney, however... nope, nope, and nope.
I'd like to see a Huntsman/Paul ticket.
No way we'd see a Huntsman/Paul ticket. Too very different, even contrary philosophies at work. Paul is an ideological purist where Huntsman is a pragmatist.
Of course, no way the Republican party would nominate Huntsman. He doesn't seem interested in doing anything to fuel the fantasies of the base, even if he would be a strong contender for the middle and probably even be able to steal disillusioned democrats.
As a Republican who supported Obama in the last election, Huntsman is my first choice and he'll get my vote in the primary, but I'm a realist and I'm not holding my breath. At this point, third party looks like the only way I'll be able to vote in the next election. A Romney vs. Obama matchup is simply a choice between two wall street tools. Of course, thanks to the Citizens United decision, that's probably all we'll ever get again anyway going forward until something drastic changes.
The land of fantasy and make believe where money buys reality's definition.
I am a Ron Paul supporter and I feel everyone should read the constitution prior to voting. My second choice would be Huntsman. I think we have to be realists here and not be fooled by big talkers and stop talking about what you have done and what you will do for our country. I don't care about Mr. congenial or the gift of the gab give us a down to earth candidate with some answers how we got in this financial mess and why and what are they proposing to do about it> Trust and honesty is a huge asset. Ron Paul went way out to inform the people of how government works more than any other candidate and that is what I like about him but I do think Huntsman is a pretty sincere guy also.
Casandra,
Paul believes an employer should be able to fire anyone they want for any reason - Including if you don't "put out".
He doesn't think there should be laws protecting employees from sexual harassment.
He even blames the employee.
Page 25 of the book HE WROTE:
Freedom Under Siege
The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years
by Ron Paul
According to Paul if you have been propositioned by your employer it is your fault if you stay. You need to quit even if you have been on the job 15 years, and have the salary and benefits that goes with it.
According to Paul your boss should be able to fire you if you don't pleasure him.
I would not trust Ron Paul at all.
He is for the Huge Corporation and is against the Common Man.
I'm going to re-read the WHOLE passage because I'm sure you are taking it out of context, as most Paul bashers do.
No he is not saying that, he is saying that if such happens and YOU DO NOTHING, then you have to take SOME responsibility for your situation.
Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity.
This is a statement of current thought not a validation or invalidation, just a statement.
Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts?
This is usually the first question to a complainant when they allege ongoing sexual harassment. It is a valid question asked by many lawyers defending or reviewing such claims. It doesn't mean that the person subjected to the harassment is guilty of anything nor does it suggest that they need to submit. It is just a question that requires an answer and it will be asked in a court of law.
Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended,
This is as clear a statement as anyone can give that the harasser is WRONG! and needs to be dealt with.
but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?
The standard for attorneys when asked this same question is to document as much as possible, get witnesses if possible, QUIT immediately, file a claim for damages immediately. If they stay then Dr Paul's question is VALID on it's face. IF they subject themselves to this when they know they will be abused they are not being responsible for themselves. This is exactly what any competent attorney will tell them. They HAVE to take care of themselves first and foremost, if they do not, it can and will be used against them.
You are right it's a choice, your personal integrity, or money. Do you really espouse that a person in this situation would want to stay with such an employer? They obviously don't think anything of your 15 years on the job.
Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable.
Again it's a choice, you want to stay with this employer while you attempt to settle a claim of this nature? You like to subject yourself to even more abuse? It's an intolerable situation what he is saying is that it is not acceptable to stay in this situation while seeking redress under laws that notoriously take years to resolve.
If force was clearly used, that is another story,
Clearly this is a statement if the issue is a case of rape or any other of the sexual assaults it is a crime that should be dealt with immediately and severely.
but pressure and submission is hardly an example of a violation of one's employment rights.
Because submission IS A CHOICE. You have the right to work and be paid for that work as you agreed to in the employment contract, under conditions agreed to in that contract. If you chose to work under intolerable personal conditions created outside the employment contract, the employer is not responsible if you chose not to do anything about it.
Pretty clear statement to me.
Nice attempt at twisting words, taking chunks of statements and rearranging them to suit a point you want to make and invalidate the REAL point he was making.
Personal Individual responsibility is the first liberty everyone MUST Defend
There is only one way to end this political mess that has been created over the past 50 years, and strengthened by the SCOTUS. Join the Popular Amendment Movement at www.faircampaignreform.us and help circulate the two constitutional amendments posted there: Election/Campaign Finance Reform and Term Limits. It's too late to change things for 2012, but we sure can make changes going forward.
Many sexual harassers are expecting their victim to submit to another's sexual proclivities as an explicit or implicit quid pro quo for continuing their job or advancement. At this point, prostitution becomes part of the job requirement. Ron Paul doesn't live in reality. The victim of sexual harassment didn't get the job to commit prostitution. Even in the warped world that Ron Paul lives in, isn't this a violation of the job contract? Hired for one thing but asked to do something completely different (and illegal)? From an ideological perspective, Ron Paul's views aren't always bad---in a Jean Jacque Rousseau/John Locke sort of way. But in the same way, Karl Marx had some great ideas too but when it was implemented, it didn't work out so well. Ron Paul's "free society" would be a train wreck too. Anyone that has been on the planet for any length of time would recognize this.
LogicalP, you are twisting it the same way JOregon is.
You are both wrong logically, morally, and legally.
The only rights you have are the ones you can defend. those rights start with yourself and your right to self determination, ie you right to chose whats best for you, the constitution says you only have the rights until they interfere with another's rights.
You guys don't like that move to another country, you will find that you don't have such rights.
Egilman, my friend, I most heartily disagree with you on this. There is NO right for an employer, whether he owns his own company or not, to sexually harass anyone. The fault lies entirely with the abuser, not with the abused. To make the argument the way that Paul does can be carried further. Is it the fault of the murdered that he or she did not defend himself in such a way to avoid being killed? The answer, of course, is no.
Think of a single mother, trying to raise a couple of kids in a bad economy, who has worked at a job long enough that her salary is above minimum wage, or maybe she is a professional making a good salary, but would have trouble replacing her salary in this economy. Do you REALLY want her choices to be submit or be fired or quit? Why would the burden be on her rather than the wrong doer? We would become a predatory society, the powerful allowed with impunity to prey on those without power. I don't want my two daughters in a situation like that...do you?
In your post at 2.8, you say "the Constitution says you only have rights until they interfere with another's rights." Exactly, and that is why those laws are in place, to make sure that rights are protected for those without the power that money brings.
This is why I have no liking for Ron Paul. In his world, it is everyone for themselves, and if you get hurt along the way, you must have caused it.
This is also why he is unelectable.
Newday Sweetheart,
I"m not saying the burden shouldn't be on the doer neither is Dr Paul, what Dr Paul is saying and I agree with is when this happens, RAISE A STINK IMMEDIATELY! don't let it happen! It is your personal right and RESPONSIBILITY to raise a stink!
Too many of these things are allowed to go on to the point where it becomes he said she said.... And that is when Government is asked to go in and sort it all out, it is too late by then, that is what is wrong.
People shouldn't be sheep and allow themselves to be lead down the path. I do not for the life of me understand why people do not understand this simple fact of freedom and liberty.
Newday,
If the sweetheart feels wrong I apologise...
No, Egilman... never wrong between friends! Charmed by it actually.
Look, I'm a gazillion years old. I remember what it was like before the harassment laws were put in place. There was no one to raise a stink to. That's why the laws are important. I want my daughters, especially the one that is in a very competitive environment, to have those protections!
I don't disagree and Dr Paul I don't believe would disagree either. For one thing in the book the OP quoted, Dr Paul was talking the theories of libertarianism, there is always a difference between theories and reality.
It's hard sometimes to relate theory to reality, the situations can get intense. Like the murder scenario you posted in Dr Paul's Libertarian world Murder shouldn't ever happen, but in the real world it does and the guilty should be punished. That is where I stand and If I was unsure about the Doc I wouldn't support him.
I have a granddaughter, if an employer did this to her he would meet his maker for judgment very quickly.
Egilman
Back in the 70's I lost a friend to a cult.
His discussions on Elizabeth Prophet run similar to discussions with Paul supporters. Please don't take this as an insult. Try to see both sides of the coin then make a well thought out decision.
He says the thing you need to do is quit. He says that is the ONLY solution. You should not be entitled to seek Protection from Civil Rights Legislation.
That is your only protection, without it there is nothing you can do.
Read what he says:
To understand Paul's intent you should look at the previous paragraph that I didn't post:
In Paul's mind the rights of the employer trump the rights of the human.
He tries to tie it to not having to pay women as much as men for the same job.
Which in it's own is an archaic idea he wouldn't mind bringing back. He recognizes that also includes sexual harassment.
That is why he says in the next paragraph (posted earlier) that there should be no regulations against sexual harassment. Just quit your job, and starve.
Of course he doesn't like unchecked sexual harassment, he just acknowledges it will happen in his world.
It's not just money - It's food, housing, medical care, retirement, etc. When it comes to survival people will do most anything. Nobody should have to make that kind of decision.
It is through the Civil Rights Legislation - That Paul wants to eliminate - that you are able to make any claim at all.
It is not twisting words because it is within the context of what he was discussing; the rights of the employer to hire and fire for ANY REASON.
Actually when it comes to sexual harassment it isn't just the women that are subject to this. A male or female boss could make demands of a male employee just as easily.
Egilman you are right what Ron Paul represents is a pure model of libertarianism. There is no evidence anywhere on this planet that a pure political model is in place. Free market principals are tempered when implementaion occurs. This is what is wrong with the current political atmosphere of this country. The conservatives in Congress do not get it.They are so stuck in their ideology that nothing can get accomplished. All political models including marxism were designed as guidelines. There needs to be compromise in order for a society to be fluid and able to best resolve challenges that arise. The constitution was designed as a guideline, the supreme court is a non political body that can decide whether the adjustment to the constitution being presented does not attack the fundmentals and intent of the constitution. Those that espouse a pure interpretation of what they believe to be the constitution are nieve and espouse the opposite of what the founding fathers wanted.
Egilman
According to Paul the very Laws that allows you to raise a stink shouldn't exist.
He says they are a hindrance to a free society and destroys our competitiveness in the world economy.
Huntsman did a good job out here in Utah as Governor. I voted for him and I usually vote democratic. I think he would make a good president.
With the amount of time and effort he's put into New Hampshire, he better at least place a STRONG second, like an almost winning strong second place. Third will be seen as a rejection. Anything else will be seen as time and effort wasted.
If the Republican party nominates Mitt Romney it will be a similar blowout to past elections of Bob Dole and John McCain, since none of these men could get the Republican base to turn out for them. Romney has been running for President for 4-5 years and he still can't get past 25% in the polls.
I agree David those that are anti Romney will just not go out and vote in the general election. The democrats are for Obama and will come out in droves ergo Obama will be elected for four more years. The improving unemployment figures will just be gravy for the Obama camp. What people fail to realize is granted Obama has a 45% approval rating however it is four times higher than any other elected body currently serving the people. No one likes governnent at this stage but it seems that the people dislike Obama less.
The only sane candidate in the Cuckoo's nest. The only sane alternative to Obama for independents.
In the votes cast so far Obama has won ,Huntsman and Romney were tied
Hunstman and Christie . . . .Hmmmm?
Christie is an anchor... he will drag anyone down to the lowest level.
Christie doesn't have what it takes ....he just alienates people by being present !
Sorry doodley that is not going to happen, Christi is a brash newcomer that has the novelty of being brash he does not have the credentials, he does not even have a 50% apprroval rating in his own state and he comes across obnoxious. He could very well be the male counterpart to Palin but we all saw how that worked out for McCain.
It looks like NBC/General Electric is trying to push John Huntsman into 2nd place and they are ignoring current 2nd place Ron Paul.
SURPRISE
SURPRISE
SURPRISE
Huntsman Chemical Corporation
Address:
2000 Eagle Gate Tower
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
U.S.A.
Statistics:
Private Company
Incorporated: April 1983
Employees: 1,500
Sales: $900 million
SICs: 2821 Plastics Materials Synthetic Resins
Company History:
The Huntsman Chemical Corporation is the largest manufacturer of polystyrene in the United States. Although it also produces a number of other types of plastic, the company remains virtually unknown to the general public. Its customers are large corporations that have usedHuntsman plastics to make such familiar objects as McDonald's Corporation clamshell burger containers and L'eggs pantyhoseegg shells. Huntsman is privately owned and operated. But where other family-owned corporations generally maintain a family member as a titular senior executive, Huntsman employs most of its founder's family in important positions.
Huntsman was established in 1982 when Jon Meade Huntsman, a devout Mormon businessman with a declining fortune from a previous business, engineered a series of leveraged takeovers of other companies' polystyrene operations. At the time, the polystyrene market was in a deep recession. Huntsman, however, had extensive experience with the industry and was convinced that its downward cycle had bottomed out. He learned that the Shell Oil Company was eager to sell its $67 million polystyrene plant at Belpre, Ohio. Shellwanted to abandon this and other noncore industries and was ready to sell the facility at loss. The company offered the plant to Huntsman for $42 million, but warned that he would never be able to make the deal as an individual. Having taken the advice as a challenge, Huntsman became determined to make the deal work. He pledged $500,000 in collateral against his home, and added $1.3 million from his existing businesses. He approached ARCO Oil and Gas with an offer to purchase $1.8 million worth of styrene monomer, the raw material for polystyrene, over 13 years. In return, he wanted ARCO's support in securing his deal.
and on and on and on
Michael spoken like a true libertarian, If Ron Paul had any traction the media would be all over him, just look at what Santorum got after Iowa, the media is about the story and how many viewers they would get from the story and nothing more, these crazy conspiracy theories about the hated liberal media is getting real old and shows how little you know about media or politics.
This is getting good.
ARCO was interested in securing a long-term supply contract and offered Huntsman a $10 million loan. With his supplier on board as a partner, he later won a $29 million loan from the Union Bank of California. Huntsman then negotiated the balance, $3 million, as a deferred loan from Shell and convinced that company to secure $12 million of his loan from the Union Bank. Convinced that Huntsman was crazy,Shell executives sent the entrepreneur a bronze sculpture called The Riverboat Gambler inscribed with the words, "From your friends atShell." The oil company regarded its Belpre plant as a money-losing facility operating at only 60 percent of its capacity. Huntsman, however, saw a plant that could nearly double its output with no additional investment. Despite Shell's lack of confidence in Jon Huntsman, the transaction was completed in late March of 1983. The oil company sold its Belpre plant to the Huntsman Chemical Corporation, a company formed specifically for the deal.
Huntsman, described as a deeply religious Mormon and father of nine, had a long history with polystyrene. While in high school, Huntsman struck up an acquaintance with Harold Zellerbach, president of Crown Zellerbach Corp. Zellerbach arranged a scholarship for Huntsman at his alma mater, Wharton. Upon graduation, Zellerbach refused to give Huntsman a job at his company. "You are the most natural entrepreneur we have ever met," noted Zellerbach. He advised Huntsman to avoid the stifling bureaucracy of a corporation and strike out on his own. Dejected, Huntsman turned to his in-laws for work. They ran Olson Farm, a simple egg business in Los Angeles, and put Huntsman to work as a manager. Here he gained crucial experience with farmers and also noted the substantial losses incurred from inadequate packaging.
Hoping to design a better egg carton, Huntsman established contact with the polystyrene operations of the Dow Chemical
Jon will make a great President who will return the moderates of this country back into relevance.
Huntsman creates jobs....in China
Huntsman closes plants in the USA and moves to them to China as CEO of $9billion chemical corp. Huntsman corp.
Net worth is $90million
Huntsman resigned as governor of Utah
Huntsman is a fool, dishonest and will do great things for ....China.
Yes he resigned from serving his State so that he could serve his NATION.
Much different than the Palin resignation.
"They will be pushing Huntsman now", a friend of mine told me. He says they need 2 men up there, Mitt + Any other but Ron Paul... He means, a second choice..if you do not like Mitt. Any one to distract people away from Ron Paul. Other candidates were pushed before by MSM (Perry, Gingrich, etc). Santorum was the last one helped to accompany Mitt in Iowa..."Now it's Huntsman turn", my friend says... HE WAS SO RIGHT!
Do not misunderstands me. I like RP but I am not exactly his fan.. Besides, Huntsman is a very very nice man. I love his collected demeanor, a pretty decent man, and a lot younger than RP.
What bothers me is the media predictability... I am not too educated but I like to read the news at bedtime to practice my English and to nourish my mind a little. It is so frustrating to find out MSM is so mediocre... (if you believe mediocrity is that ability to never surprise another human being)..
Well, I guess most Americans are so used to it they dont even notice it..
PRESIDENCY
According to the Chinese Zodiac, the best chance for a candidate to beat OBAMA in 2012 are :
1. Jon Huntsman - Year of the Rat.
2. Mitt Romney - Year of the Boar
3. Rick Santorum - Year of the Dog
The least likely to beat Obama is Santorum
Obama's birthday is in the Year of the Ox. Either of the two Mormon candidate can beat Obama. But Jon Huntsman is most likely to win the presidency as the Rat has the best chance under the year of the water Dragon (2012).
I voted for Obama but he lied. The only ones he's helped have been the drug companies, the insurance companies, and the banks. He is totally beholden to them. He is starting to jawbone "populism" but it's a fraud. Most of the other republicans are just as much in service to crony capitalism, bought voted, and corruption, so I wouldn't vote for them.
But Huntsman seems like a good guy - not an ideological idiot, a slave to the money men, or a fool.
I'd vote for him over that lying, empty suit, Obama.
According to financial records, Goldman-Sachs, the bank at the heart of the financial downfall, and recipient of huge TARP money, gives most of its money to Democrats. Despite admitted wrongdoing and cheating of customers, not one exec has been prosecuted, although Bush Sr. prosecuted the S&L crooks.
In addition, they been given a Special dispensation other banks did not get, by the Administration, to speculate in commodities, raising the price of food, not only here, but so much in some countries as to cause starvation.
Geithner opposes any tax on casino-banks, even though they make much more money, unproductively, than the few factories still in America, and often do the nation harm - yet those factories Are taxed.
And oh, G-S was the second biggest donor to the 2008 Obama campaign. This election they will probably be first, thanks to government largesse and “favors.” Obama will shriek “populism” to Deadocrats, who will swallow another “hope and change” lie, while dealing with Goldman, et al, behind the door.
Or maybe we could just take off the mask and call him President Goldman-Sachs.
Tim Geithner: “Jump, Obama, Jump. Jump for your Goldman-Sachs masters!”
Obama: “How high?”
Mooney,,,, Come on now dude, show some honor here. TARP was Bush's, 44 million went to Romney's Bain Capital. .. Obama's was the American Reinvestment & Recovery Act & it brought an end to Federal Bailouts while getting billions back to the tax payer
Obama is keeping his promises,, We are out of Iraq, getting out of Afghanistan in 2014, he's brought financial reforms conservatives can't stand, brought stability to a collapsing economy, gave us millions of jobs, restored our national honor, helped our military, his health care reform works for American Families while lowering federal costs & keeps fighting the moral fight for the Middle Class & American Families
Obama also happens to be the only one who has even read the "Sermon on the Mound" ---- Conservatives or their candidates obviously haven't
although Bush Sr. prosecuted the S&L crooks.
You are too funny Jim Mooney. Just like most posers and like Rush etc you throw out incredible claims (lies and partial truths) and sees what sticks. Some of us know the truth and don't even have to research (a republicans nightmare) when reading a post like yours. But here let me help you:
Between 1981 and 1989, when George Bush finally announced that there was a Savings and Loan Crisis to the world, the Reagan/Bush administration worked to cover up Savings and Loan problems by reducing the number and depth of examinations required of S&Ls as well as attacking political opponents who were sounding early alarms about the S&L industry. Industry insiders were aware of significant S&L problems as early 1986 that they felt would require a bailout. This information was kept from the media until after Bush had won the 1988 elections.
Jeb Bush defaulted on a $4.56 million loan from Broward Federal Savings in Sunrise, Florida. After federal regulators closed the S&L, the office building that Jeb used the $4.56 million to finance was reappraised by the regulators at $500,000, which Bush and his partners paid. The taxpayers had to pay back the remaining 4 million plus dollars.
Neil Bush was the most widely targeted member of the Bush family by the press in the S&L scandal. Neil became director of Silverado Savings and Loan at the age of 30 in 1985. Three years later the institution was belly up at a cost of $1.6 billion to tax payers to bail out.
It should also be noted that shortly after news of Neil Bush’s involvement in the S&L scandal hit the press his father, George Bush Sr., announced the Desert Storm campaign in Iraq, which subsequently had the result of making Neil’s name quickly fade from the headlines.
Oddly enough Jim Mooney I don't recall any of the Bush family going to prison. Even odder look at ALL the people George Sr. pardoned at the end of presidency. The huge number of drug sentences pardoned and embezzlement's are VERY telling!
Finally!
Someone has actually strung together things that the President has managed to accomplish in the face of Republican obstructionism.
I think it was well said (by Huntsman, no less) that attitudes like Romney's (supporting conservative ideals is the only way to go) is the reason this nation is divided in the first place.
How can these Tea Party Republicans claim to love America, when they clearly don't like Americans?
right on target Charles and Jim ! Obama has kept more promises than any other President I have seen in my life time. Where did anyone get that Obama is somehow beholden to the insurance companies??, wall street?? He is the only politician that has taken them on. Boy... the conservative koolaide runs deep around here.
Why not supply a source for your claim?
OH how about that! I have a source:
Goldman Sachs: Recipients
Contributions for the 2012 elections:
To members of the House:
R - $293,799 (Average Contribution $3,497)
D - $177,650 ($2,912)
I - $0
Senate:
R - $182,050 ($10,708)
D - $131,335 ($7,296)
I - $0
The top single recipient is Mitt Romney - $367,200
Obama is at #4 with a mere - $50,124
Hey, don't confuse all the Republicans by using facts!! They don't like facts. That's why they always talk about family values, being religious, supporting free enterprise/capitalism, and reminding you of better times in the past.
They do that so that people won't look too hard at the facts, like Mark Sanford's family values, or Newt serving his dying, cancer-suffering wife with divorce papers while she was in a hospital bed!, How about Randy Cunningham's business deals, or Dubya bankrupting several oil companies and real estate companies? What about Mitt Romney's underwear having to be blessed before he can put them on? They never talk about how they're only going to help the very wealthy with tax breaks, and how much of the burden they can shift off to the ever-dwindling Middle Class.
Anyone who knows how to think critically, and read history can clearly see that tax breaks do not generate jobs. Like a wealthy company is suddenly going to come off all those bucks to hire people? Heck no, that's their PROFIT... When a company is hit with a fine or a tax, what do they do? They pass that cost along to the consumers, so it doesn't cut into their profit margin!
Dubya came in with the biggest surplus in history. Left with the biggest deficit in history. That ought to tell you everything you need to know about the Republican party. All they do is try to blame someone else for the problems (Did you know there are rabid right-wingers saying that Obama was driving the Italian cruise ship that ran aground off Tuscany?) while making the uninformed look the other way.
Unless or until this nation stops looking at only making money, unless or until this nation starts looking out for the middle class, poor, and working people, we will continue to become more divided.
It is attitudes like Romney's (Only conservatives are patriotic Americans) that divide this nation.
Huntsman is the only one who refused to sign all those stupid pledges.I always liked him the debates. Hope he does well but realistically he probably will run out of money before making a serious dent.
I didn't hear his closing statement,,, How much of it was in Chinese?
The part about "take out" dinner.
Isn't it amazing that we are drowning in a sea of off poop to put it nicely and all the candidates can do is remind us how crooked one another is as they battle on all their past transgressions. How in the heck are we supposed to weed through this mess and does our vote even matter. You really have to wonder.
Sit back & enjoy the show Casandra, that's what it's all about. You know, all the False Flag Waving, competition on who's the most Jesus like, guns & all ---- All that is missing is the burning crosses & white sheets
I agree 100% Casandra except the part where our vote may not count just look at Iowa both 8 votes made a difference you can make a difference.
Get out and vote for huntsman, He's smart and honest and will do great thing for out country.
Huntsman creates jobs....in China
Huntsman closes plants in the USA and moves to them to China as CEO of $9billion chemical corp. Huntsman corp.
Net worth is $90million
Huntsman resigned as governor of Utah
Huntsman is a fool, dishonest and will do great things for ....China.
I didn't hear his closing statement,,, How much of it was in Chinese?
Forget about him... He supported our Commander in Chief ---- Conservatives will nail Huntsman to a cross & keelhaul him and his family
Check out Huntsman's audio. I think you will be impressed. I was...
eh,, what's up doc? --- I don't think so, he is still a conservative and they led this nation down a very destructive path
They seem to have pooped on the "Sermon on the Mound" as they have on our country ---- Their policies simply don't work in the 21st century
He made a better ambassador, he should have kept his job
Jon, your piano playing is almost as good as mine. You're a nice man with a lovely family. Give it up. Go back to Utah and enjoy life, and practice the piano a little more: http://Ronbowman.com this guy can play, especially 'Annalee'.
Huntsman differs from the othe GOP presidential hopefuls in that he is intelligent. Its a shame that he is a Mormon, since, per the pundits, this means that he is unelectable.
Huntsman's net worth is est. at $90million. Kind of disingenuous to criticize Romney.
Huntsman resigned as governor to become Obama's ambassador to China. Why didn't he run for governor again?
As CEO of his fathers $9billion chemical business, he closed plants in the USA, laid off American workers and moved operations to CHINA.
In the words of JON HUNTSMAN "Romney loves to fire people...I create jobs
...YEP HE DOES....IN CHINA!
He seems sane. This alone would disqualify him as a republican nominee for POTUS.
true, true
EVEN OBAMA SAW THE QUALITY OF THIS MAN ; he is the under dog, but his honest simplicity, will draw honest to goodness voters.
I remember when Dubya was in office, whenever anyone criticized him or even hinted at namecalling, these rabid right-wingers were out in force attacking people for being disrespectful to the President. Remember Natalie Mains?
And now I see all this Obamabashing going on, by the same people who were claiming it was un-American to criticize the President!
Hypocrisy at it's finest!
Imagine how much more effective the President would have beeen, if he weren't faced with rabid right-wingers who publicly state their only function is to oppose him. What about putting the country first? Instead of merely opposing the President, how about trying do do the right thing and support common Americans first? You don't see the underwear-blessing Mormon doing that, you don't see the tea party ideologue doing it, and you surely don't see the philandering salamander doing it... How can Romney, Paul, Gingrich, or any of the rest of these so-called conservatives claim they love America, when they all clearly show how much they don't like Americans?