RSS Feed Menu
The continuing deflation of Rick Perry after yet another fumbling debate performance has opened the most unexpected chapter yet in the GOP 2012 race: Jon Huntsman’s emerging challenge to Mitt Romney – from the right.
Sound incredible? Take a look at the opening of Jon Huntsman’s speech today to Florida’s regional CPAC conference, text courtesy of the Huntsman campaign:
Nothing long survives without advocates, and that includes those rights, penned by Thomas Jefferson, upon which our nation was founded: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
How quickly those rights could be eroded – if not for this organization, and all of you. So thank you for your work.
I’d like to speak today about life and liberty, without which there can be no pursuit of happiness.
Let me begin by telling you about the life of my daughter, Gracie Mei. She’s 12 years old….I can’t imagine our world without Gracie and her younger sister Asha, who’s adopted from India. Every day we look in their eyes and thank God their mothers chose life, and did not throw it away.
As governor of Utah, I supported and signed landmark legislation to protect life – including parental consent and fetal pain laws – and as president I would do the same. …
The pursuit of happiness is imperiled not just by infringements on life and liberty, but by the inability to find a job… Our most urgent priority must be putting the American people back to work and restoring America’s prosperity.
President Obama believes that we can tax and spend and regulate our way to prosperity. We cannot. We must compete our way to prosperity.
I’ve lived overseas four times, most recently as Ambassador to China.
I know our nation’s biggest competitor, and what it takes to compete in the 21st Century global economy.
I’ve also been governor of a state that under my leadership led the nation in job creation, and whose economy grew at triple the national rate – even faster than Texas under my good friend Rick Perry.
But I would never describe what happened in Utah as a “miracle,” because that is something unexplained. And we know exactly why we led the nation. We passed the largest tax cut in state history; streamlined regulations; honestly balanced the budget; tripled our rainy day fund; created certainty and an environment for growth.
We must do the same for America.
My jobs and economic plan is the only one endorsed by the Wall Street Journal, and described by one conservative economist as “the most pro-growth proposal ever offered” by a presidential candidate. …
We should not be nation-building overseas, when we have nation-building to do here at home. We should not rest until we rebuild our core.
And when our military is overextended, we risk being unable to aid our allies in times of crisis, such as Israel staring down a nuclear Iran. I cannot live with a nuclear-armed Iran. If there was ever a reason to use American force, it would be that.
Very astute, no? The speech goes on to acknowledge Huntsman’s support for science-based climate policy and same-sex civil unions (but not marriage!) – but the emphasis is on opposition to abortion and support for tax cuts, the two litmus test issues for Republican primary voters in pre-2012 contests. On both, Huntsman’s record can be plausibly presented as more consistent than Romney’s.
Now that Perry, the last great non-Romney hope, looks more and hopeless, Huntsman has a real chance to present himself as the Buckley candidate: the most conservative viable candidate.
If this plan works, it will raise two thoughts: What a nimble piece of campaigning by Huntsman! Perry followed the obvious path (lurch hard right to gain the Tea Party, then pivot to the center to appear electable) – and tripped over his own feet. Huntsman did the opposite, feinting left to gain elite media support – then reasserting his previous conservative credentials on abortion and taxes.
Second thought: As Perry crumbles, so do the last hopes of Tea Party Republicans to nominate one of their own. Are Tea Party Republicans wondering: what is it about us that we could not generate a ready-for-primetime candidate of our own? Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Perry: all our preferred candidates join Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle in the annals of bad choices. What does it say about a movement that it consistently produces – and then disastrously hero-worships – such third-rate leadership?
UPDATE: On the other hand, actual Republican primary voters remain as yet untroubled by Rick Perry’s debate performances, according to the Quinnipiac poll.
That’s a shame so many of the GOP make abortion views a litmus test, because I think if you really wanted to take a bite out of poverty and diminish the number of marginalized members of American society you would set up nationwide accesability to free, no-questions-asked abortion clinics.
When will people interested in birth control learn not to use the word “abortion?” Nobody is pro-abortion. The most effective way to control births is not through abortion – a final choice – but through education and access to methods of birth control. The so-called pro-lifers (who almost always support the death penalty, btw) demonize not only the practice of abortion but also sex education in the schools and provision of low cost medical care and birth control information and methods at clinics. Those in favor of birth control and sex education allow themselves to be drawn into the rhetoric of the anti-sex harpies rather than develop a strong program for sex eduction and birth control.
Huntsman might thank the mothers of his adopted daughters for “choosing life” but does he really know if they actually had a choice. The fact that they chose to give up a child to adoption does not mean that they wouldn’t have chosen abortion had that choice been given to them. His comment is akin to that of Bachman who says she “raised 23 foster children.” Since she was in the foster parent program for something like seven years and a foster parent can have only three foster children at one time, I hardly think she can claim to have “raised” all twenty-three of them. Inviting a teenager into her home for a weekend or two prior to them being placed somewhere else hardly qualifies as being a foster parent in any sense of the word.
So what euphemism do you suggest I use in place of abortion?
We don’t need a euphemism. We need to concentrate on sex education, family planning, and access to birth control methods. I.e., don’t get pulled into the lifers’ argument against “abortion” – focus on the positive aspects of available, low-cost, health care form women in need.
Speaking as an adopted daughter (not Huntsman’s of course), it is very important to me that my mother had a choice. (I’m not precisely sure she did). The idea that my birth and all that entails would have been forced upon some young woman, without even her after the fact agreement, is abhorrent to me. It turns my entry into the world into a kind of rape, no way to start a moral life. It also increases the chance that I totally derailed her life, and equilibrium. And how could I wish that on someone who gave me life?
So until these people have some semblance of an idea of what they are asking of these young women, they need to stop trotting out adoption as if it is a simple matter.
And as was said earlier, fund birth control.
“I think if you really wanted to take a bite out of poverty and diminish the number of marginalized members of American society ” (Insert something that’s not going to happen.)
And from this what can you conclude?
Too many Americans here for me to really give you a blunt answer.
What, you think that Yanks are all too thick to figure it our for ourselves?
A significant portion of children who live in poverty live with one parent. If both of their parents lived together, they would be sharing resources and only paying for one home. Increasing the precent of children who are born to parents who are married and stay married would significantly improve the economic situation of children who are currently born into and live in poverty.
Unless that long-term married couple has adequate access to health care and birth control, you won’t stop the babies being born into poverty. Being married has little to do with it.
I hate Perry and like Huntman but I watched the debate last night and think that Perry did fine, his stumbles made him seem human and I completely agree with him on Guardasil and the treatment of children of illegals with decency, I gotta imagine he would hold his own with the Hispanic vote if he wins the nomination.
David simply sees the debate he wants to see and not the one there was.
Cain is also a pretty good debater, Santorum is the worst, he looks at the other candidates with disdain bordering on contempt. Huntman did ok, he dragged out a few answers too long and only did well when he went toe to toe with Santorum.
David simply sees the debate he wants to see and not the one there was.
Well, he keeps seeing the GOP that he wants to see, and not the one that really exists, so this is no surprise.
huntsman,up to this point, seemed sane and moderate…but then he would choose cain for VP?? he’s toast
David simply sees the debate he wants to see and not the one there was.
Really? LOL Is that why he is usually on target? and gets paid for his opinion while you sit at home and rant and rave behind the comfort of a computer? Yeah… someone respects your opinion other than a few other ranters on this site.
Huntsman is the ONLY honest candidate standing. While some may prefer to ignore Perry’s lies, flip flopping and sooooo much extra baggage I don’t care to have the Secret Service have to step over the piles he would leave on the White House lawn… some in this country still believe the man in that house? is there to represent all of us.
so unless I get paid to write I should keep my opinion to myself? Wow, just wow.
And where is the rant? To call one sentence you cited a rant shows you lack a fundamental understanding of English. And then why do you comment then? Are you not behind the comfort of your own computer? Seriously don’t take yourself so seriously. Or David for that matter.
And for the record I have gotten paid for what I write in another venue than this. It has given me the financial luxury that I can post here while millions of others are working.
I honestly thought that Perry came across as fairly human last night, especially when he talked about the woman who died of cervical cancer and his desire to see children of illegals get an education.
And I hate Perry personally, I just don’t choose to wear blinders when watching a debate. It is perfectly natural for David to do this. When I watch a basketball game I always see the fouls the other team makes but think that when my team gets called it is a cheap foul (unless it is way flagrant)
The right to own one, buddy. The right to own one.
It is clear that his decision to treat the children of illegals with decency is not going to win him any favors on the right. Nor is his vaccine answer. He and those who like his answer don’t seem to realize that it is not about saving lives, or having an opt-in vs. and opt-out. The people who have a problem with this issue don’t want the vaccine out there, period.
Huntsman is too soft & nerdy. Trump if he ran could lock up the tea party, the unions (tariffs), the seniors, many independents (the fed up with both parties group) and the Reagan republicans if he ran as an independent. Huntsman just does not have that leadership snap to him, he would get ran over by strong personalities and be a weak pres, like Obama.
Huntsman will not resonate with the voters, maybe in 2016 with a few more skills but not in this race.
Whether it is Obama or one of the GOP yahoos our choices suck! A well known independent just might be the none of the above ticket we need.
At this point I would not be at all surprised if Bloomberg actually did try to mount a third party/non party run.
jg:
People hate Trump. He’d poll under 5%.
Trump was trumped by his own stupidity. His ranting on national TV trying to drum up and instigate the boors and bigots on the right about Obama’s legitimacy as a citizen and President was disgusting.
Whatever respect I had for him dissolved in those moments. He looked and sounded like an utter fool. Good riddance.
jg- Haven’t you ever heard the saying about the “quiet guy?” Some times the loudest or perceived toughest voices are nothing but an empty blast of smoke.
Huntsman will appeal to a lot of voters. He can appeal to left leaning Independents and some Dems. Furthermore, if given the chance of a Republican and or Dem President, most Republicans will pick the Republican candidate. Why in the world would they settle for a candidate that will cause more deadlock?
Redistricting is going to open the door for the Independent candidate that they don’t want to run. They need to be wise about who can actually run and win a Presidential election. With some of the recent advancements of Democratic policies, my hunch is that they are reading things wrong and setting up the government for more of the same.
Ahh yes the Obama lead from behind method look how well that works and I voted for him. I am totally put out with both parties, they cannot get anything accomplished because they have no leaders.
Are winning coaches or generals quiet nice guys? Hell no it is tough love. Huntsman is way too soft.
I am totally put out with both parties, they cannot get anything accomplished because they have no leaders.
I would argue that the Democrats accomplished quite a bit in Obama’s first two years, thanks to Obama’s and Pelosi’s leadership … but I suspect we’re going to just have to disagree on that point.
not really obama has not been a leader he has pissed everybody off. i could not even imagine voting for a republican (except for trump) i am totally put out with obama’s lack of cajones when it comes to reagan, ike or kennedy like leadership charms. you either have leadership mojo or you don’t and barack obama and everyone standing on the stage but cain last night does not have it. i would never vote for cain so it is snake eyes for me.
people think i’m crazy for supporting trump but read the economic headlines, that big haired billionaire is on the money.
Just yesterday
US lawmakers target China with new currency bill
WASHINGTON — US senators unveiled legislation to punish China over its alleged currency manipulation, promising angry American voters to put an end to Beijing’s “economic murder” of US jobs.
The measure aims to make it harder for the US Treasury Department to avoid labeling Beijing a currency cheat, triggering various sanctions, while making it easier for US companies to seek retaliatory tariffs on Chinese goods.
The bill, which had support from several Republicans, would empower US businesses and, in some cases, labor unions to trigger a US Commerce Department investigation into alleged currency manipulation……
Nice Guys Finish Last
“not really obama has not been a leader he has pissed everybody off.”
I hope that your support for the first is not the second, because those people were pissed off before he ever took office.
POOR LEADERSHIP MOJO 101
Obama Tells Abbas To ‘Abandon Statehood’
President Obama said Wednesday there is no “shortcut” to Middle East peace, as he urged the Palestinians to abandon their push for a statehood vote before the United Nations.
THE RESULT TODAY
Palestinians Formally Request U.N. Membership
Mr. Abbas was greeted by numerous standing ovations from the moment he approached the lectern to deliver his speech to the General Assembly. “I do not believe anyone with a shred of conscience can reject our application for full admission in the United Nations,” Mr. Abbas said.
STRONG LEADERSHIP MOJO 101 WHAT TRUMP SAID
I applaud @netanyahu for announcing that he will show up at the UN to defend @Israel. A true US friend and great leader.
“Why is the UN planning to attack @Israel’s sovereignty and ignore Iran’s nuclear program? The US should look at future funding.”
“The UN is about to use its Assembly to attack @Israel. We should defund the UN entirely”…………….
Whether you agree with Trump or not he has the CAJONES to take a hard position, Obama is too soft and speechy and that is why he fails.
Huntsman, Huntsman, Huntsman!!! Frum is so correct!!!
Nerds rule!
When Donald Trump takes a position, this does not influence our relationship with countries whose borders contain billions of dollars worth of infrastructure of US Corporations, or relationships with countries who are critical partners in the GWOT, or countries who we are working to keep key economic alliances with before they all go over to siding with the Chinese.
When Donald Trump takes a position, a handful of 20-somethings and TV-has beens trying to glom onto a small piece of the spotlight might quake in their boots. Nobody else notices.
Donald Trump basically ducked out of the Presidential Race exactly when the timing was critical for him to re-up his TV contract for the coming season. He deserves the respect that such a decision entitles him to.
Some yes. Strength is not the same as noise.
Are Republican primary voters ready to fire up a fresh new military conflict in the middle east? With Iran?
Given how much of the Republican playbook Obama has used, I’d be watching for an October Surprise with Pakistan. That one’s ramping up, and the DOD is going to need a shooting war to replace Iraq and Afghanistan.
Best of all, Pakistan has nukes. That ought to make the folks at home REALLY nervous, get the old Cold War reverence for the Imperial President juiced up. Horses, midstream, that stuff.
Yeah, right, David; Huntsman’s going to catch FIRE with the base and the legion of Republican Nirvana fans.
By the way, Jon, as far as the “President Obama believes that we can tax and spend and regulate our way to prosperity” shtick- which all Republicans believe to be more true than the fact that the earth is 5000 years old- it is better stated that “President Obama believes that we taxation and spending policy, with proper regulatory oversight, can get us back on our way to prosperity”.
Anyone disagree?
[b]“President Obama believes that we taxation and spending policy, with proper regulatory oversight, can get us back on our way to prosperity”.[/]
I think I agree, with a little editing
You write off Dick Perry too quickly, and overlook his one overriding strength: he’s stupid. This is a virtue with the Repooplican base — one which you should not overlook.
Perry/Palin 2012! Where great minds meet! The skies shall part and angels descend from Heaven upon our Nation! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! Amen!
I still want a bumper sticker:
Dunning/Kruger 2012
No matter who gets nominated, that’s the winning ticket. And I so want a stack of them.
To add to the Huntsman problem his family has 18 factories in China and he supports free trade.
Here is something that Geithner and 51 big business leaders just said.
“We’re seeing China continue to be very, very aggressive in a strategy they started several decades ago, which goes like this: you want to sell to our country, we want you to come produce here … if you want to come produce here, you need to transfer your technology to us,” Geithner said.
A coalition of 51 U.S. business groups sent a letter dated Wednesday to senators considering a currency bill, urging them to focus more on China’s inadequate protection of intellectual property and restrictions on market access.
“… unilateral legislation on this issue would be counterproductive not only to the goals related to China’s exchange rate that we all share, but also to our nation’s broader objectives of addressing the many and growing challenges that we face in China,” the groups said.
*****Piracy and counterfeiting of U.S. software and a wide range of other intellectual property in China cost U.S. businesses alone an estimated $48 billion and 2.1 million jobs in 2009, the U.S. International Trade Commission has said.**** BOTH PARTIES ARE JOB KILLERS THEY REFUSE TO GET TOUGH
In May, China was listed for the seventh year by the U.S. Trade Representative’s office as a country with one of the worst records for preventing copyright theft………….
Here are quotes from your man Huntsman about China
On How U.S. Companies can enter the Chinese market:
“I think the first step is getting to know and understand the China market. That means investing time, and it means investing one’s self, as a manager or a corporate leader in the fact you will be doing business together. It means at some level one has to develop a lao pengyou (old friend) relationship, if you will. You’ve got to develop some level of guanxi (interpersonal relationship) as they call it, if you’re to be taken seriously in China.
This takes time and sometimes unwestern-like patience. Regardless of which product you’re looking to sell or market in China, an early step should be to develop relationships and establish yourself as a credible business representative.”
On trade relations with China where he spoke at the US-China Chamber of Commerce conference in Chicago:
“Never in the history of humanity,” he said, “has a trade relationship come so far so quickly.”
Huntsman added China’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) will do for China economically what the Shanghai Communique has done for it politically over that past 30 years.
Speaking of the need to improve trade between China and the US, Huntsman said Americans will be “relentless in the pursuit of success.”
The Bush administration, he said, is “committed to making the most of China’s accession to the WTO.”
He referred to trade and investment as the foundation of the overall Sino-US relationship, the “most important relationship we have in the world today.” (Source: China Daily’s Business Weekly on November 5, 2002.)
Significance: Clearly trade issues are a priority of Huntsman. How that plays out in dealing with other Sino-U.S. issues such as environmental concerns and defense will remain to be seen.
On the roles of the United States and China in the world in a 2006 speech he delivered on U.S.-China Relations at Shanghai Normal University:
“…the United States and China must be good examples and stewards of the Earth. We must match economic progress with environmental stewardship. The effects of industrialization are felt worldwide. In the United States our smokestacks of the Midwest caused acid rain and the destruction of our forests in the Northeast. And even in my home state, Utah – placed in the western mountain region of the United States, our state environmental regulatory agency recently had to issue warnings about consuming water fowl… due to high concentrations of mercury in the water… The mercury is blowing in from Asia; a direct result of the construction and industrialization taking place there. A stark result of how we are all interconnected.”
“In 1984, President Reagan said, “To many Americans, China is still a faraway place, unknown, unseen, and fascinating.” 35 years following the Shanghai Communique, signed not far from here, 22 years since President Reagan’s visit to Fudan University, and years since China joined the World Trade Organization, Americans still have an enormous fascination with the mystery surrounding China.” (Source: Utah’s Governor’s website.)
Significance: By characterizing Americans as fascinated by China and referencing environmental issues in the United States, ****Huntsman has humbled himself to his Chinese audience.***** BOWING TO THE CHINESE IS OBAMA II
I hope that Huntsman does not win the nomination because I am afraid he would get beat in the general election. I would rather have him as a 2016 candidate not having to face an incumbent (for those who thing Obama is a one term President, I remind you that many folks voted for Bush, not once but twice!)
At conservative confab, Huntsman readies warning – The Seattle Times | Conservatives for America // Sep 23, 2011 at 12:19 pm
[...] BoomletAmerican Spectator (blog)Huntsman's moderation alienates GOP mainstreamMiamiHerald.comFrumForumall 192 news [...]
For Jewish voters, very little is more important than choice?
Obviously it’s vital for the Republican Base, but at the end of the day Jewish women will pick abortion rights over just about any other issue including Israel.
Is that all Jewish women or just Jewish women of a certain age?
Women past reproductive age often have daughters whom they wish for these rights even to an even stronger degree.
+1
Frum needs to get over Huntsman. His campaign is going nowhere.
No clean-shaven, stick-thin white guy with an upper-class accent will ever get elected President of this country again unless he’s a flaming homo or a communist. Not even John Edwards could pull it off. Sorry. I don’t make the rules, I just live by ‘em.
“Republican primary voters remain as yet untroubled by Rick Perry’s debate performances, according to the Quinnipiac poll.”
Color me unsurprised. Debates aren’t about anything except dog whistles and emotional identification. If actual DEBATING were what matters, Nixon would have mopped the floor with Kennedy.
Given DF’s loathing for the theocratic wing of the POG, it’s not surprising that he’d grasp at a Huntsman straw, but the plutocratic faction in the Party isn’t about to split its influence and make it even easier for Perry to lock up the nomination. By this point they have too much invested in Romney to waffle.
Besides, that whole “science” thing is radioactive to both the theocratic AND plutocratic wings of the Party. Total nonstarter.
Good points. The plutocrats will hold Huntsman in reserve for 2016.
Romney/Perry for 2012. Huntsman/Rubio in 2016, if Obama wins next year.
And how, exactly, are we ever going to compete in the world as long as science is “radioactive” to half our population? Biblical physics? Faith-based geology? Prayers instead of medicine? Perry and Santorum may just be dopes, but only Huntsman has any guts at all.
So this is a little off topic and I didn’t watch the debate only excerpts. But, when the crowd boo’d the question from the gay serviceman, I have to say I was totally disgusted by the audience. You can be against someone’s orientation, even consider it an abomination, but while you’re sitting on your fat asses in the relative security of the US of A, that man is putting his life on the line – for you. Show some respect.
+1
+1
They can make all the excuses they want for the folks who cheered a record number of executions (at least they were convicted of crimes by juries) and allowing uninsured people to die (barely sellable on the ‘personal responsibility’ and moral hazard arguments).
But there’s no excuse for this one. Booing an active duty American servicemember who happens to be gay while he is risking his life to protect their fat, ignorant asses? How many of those craven sociopaths ever served their country?
And not a soul on the debate stage or among the moderators points out that at the very least the uniform deserves respect? Just as craven and sociopathic as their fanbois.
Sure, lady. And we’ll stand to at the beginning of every movie starting next week.
???
The “crowd” didn’t boo. It was one loud guy and maybe 2 or 3 others. In a crowd of 6,000.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46388
And its debatable as to whether the booers were booing the questioner or the question.
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=26629
-1.
Human events? For serious?
Lol.
Hey, you are most welcome to rebut with a link of your own. Instead of your valuable opinion.
Insect.
AM – How about these comments:
- National Review: “Whatever you think of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” or homosexuality, Hill is risking his life on behalf of his country. It is troubling, and revealing, that Santorum’s answer entirely defined Hill as a gay man first and as a soldier second, if at all.”
- GOProud: “Tonight, Rick Santorum disrespected our brave men and women in uniform, and he owes Stephen Hill, the gay soldier who asked him the question about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal, an immediate apology. That brave gay soldier is doing something Rick Santorum has never done – put his life on the line to defend our freedoms and our way of life. It is telling that Rick Santorum is so blinded by his anti-gay bigotry that he couldn’t even bring himself to thank that gay soldier for his service.”
- Log Cabin Republicans: “Unfortunately, for many Americans the take-away from last night’s debate was not that Republicans have the solutions our country needs, but that too many in our party are clinging so strongly to a failed and discriminatory law that they are willing to disrespect a man in uniform. As a current Army Reserve officer and an Iraq combat veteran, I found it appalling that a soldier serving down range would be disrespected in such a fashion.”
Want more?
valkayec
All those points may be true, but they don’t rebut my points that
1. The “crowd” didn’t boo and
2. The booers may have been booing the phrasing of the question, “…do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?”, not the soldier.
Nice try, though
Here’s the point that needs to be made about that. Whether or not it was 5 guys yelling it out or 25, it is an absolute truism that the present day GOP is comprised of many bigots and haters.
Funny how ‘just a few’ cheered about executing people, not considering for one precious moment that they *may* be innocent (they did), or cheering to allow a young proverbial man without insurance (maybe he couldn’t afford to buy it?) die instead of a helping hand (they did)…
….
or they boo’d (5, 10, 20 people?) a serviceman risking life and limb so that they could act like a bunch of Neanderthals?
The point is that it doesn’t matter how many did those things. The point is that the GOP has made it extremely *comfortable* for bigots and haters to express themselves.
It started with Palin and her instigation that Obama was a near terrorist, not a ‘real American’, etc….the bigots yelled out at her rallies, and she said nothing to combat them.
So the GOP marches on. When you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas. The GOP has become morally bankrupt.
You mean bigots and haters like Morgan Freeman, Maxine Waters, and Janeane Garofalo who whine that I’m a racist because Obama’s half-black (not because I think he’s an incompetent failure)?
Honestly, Lefties are totally blind in this area. Cheering to “punish our enemies?” Cheering for “Take them out!”? Actual violence (not just incitement) in Wisconsin and Washington?
Please. Take your sanctimonious sh*t and go lecture someone else.
Yeah, A.M….there are ‘haters’ on the left, too. And if you think Obama is ‘incompetent’ what did you think of GWB43? Competent?
But aside from that.. I am pointing out one thing. And that the GOP from Palin on downward, opened up a Pandora’s box of bigotry since Obama was elected. We’ve seen it and we’ve heard it, and it is not just a few screwballs in a political party. The fact that ‘some’ people in an audience feel perfectly free to call out at rallies and at Presidential debates, or yell out ‘You Lie!” in the Congress on national TV at the POTUS, says a lot about where your party is going….
…it is mired in racist hatred for this President (sans you), and we all know it.
Annie
It’s no use discussing. The Racism of the Right (but not on the Left) is obviously a religious conviction for you, despite evidence such as the racist epithets thrown around by North Dakota union thugs.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/09/union-thugs-hurl-racist-slurs-and-hang-stuffed-monkeys-at-sugar-plant-protest/
“….and we all know it.”
This reminds of the story of the Hollywood liberal who was mystified that W won the 2004 election. “But no one I know voted for him!”
Dear Arms Merchant, If you say some thugs on the left used racial epithets, to me it makes no difference. Race baiting and/or religious baiting, or culture-baiting is wrong. Wrong!
Immoral and unbecoming. So I condemn them as well. I am an equal opportunity basher, because a political party is less important to me than try to call out the wrongs, whereever they come from, and support the good.
But I reiterate. The Democrats did not encourage race-baiting or minority bashing as much as the GOP does and do. I have heard too much for too long. And I hear very little protestations from the GOP against those haters.
If my political party were wooing the idiots and haters, I would not be unabashed to call them out for it. But where are the leaders in your party to stop the ugly rhetoric and catcalls from the peanut gallery? The audiences at these events say a lot about the atmosphere the GOP is inspiring.
Put it in writing, anniemargret.
Okay Arms Merchant, I re-listened to the question and I agree it is not the whole audience and sounds like just a few people. And, in any crowd (liberal, conservative or otherwise), you can’t control a few people’s initial outburst. You are correct.
I will say that in my view, a courageous politician would have said, “don’t boo that soldier! Whatever you think about him, he is serving his country courageously”. None there did. At least Rick Perry stood up for his position on the Texas Dream Act, even if the crowd didn’t go for it.
As for Santorum – he wants to take that back to where it was – “don’t ask don’t tell”. I’d like to ask him if he really wants to take it back to where it was in 1992. Illegal to serve. I suspect that what Santorum really thinks is that if a gay serviceman got beat up, he would consider that his or her just deserts for dishonoring the uniform.
Firstly, I don’t think our soldiers should ever have to lie to serve in the armed forces. Do you? That is the only way they can not “put it in your face”.
But even when they did lie as required, it was often not enough, because plenty of people did ask and instead of being ignored, the outed soldier was kicked out. Never mind that the outed soldier never “told”, they were blamed not the person with a vendetta.
AM, it is not so much the crowd reaction but for no candidate on the stage to give even a perfunctory thank you to the soldier (at which time the audience should have clapped) was disgraceful.
And Santorum was just ridiculous in his answer. There should be NO sex in the military? So active duty soldiers can never be seen in public with their girlfriends or wives?
Do you really think that straight soldiers do not consider sex to be an integral part of their own lives? Soldiers are not monks. And our soldiers, even in wartime in Iraq and Afghanistan, do not spend 100% of their time under fire, they have R&R. Are they supposed to stay in their tents praying?
DADT is dumb, either have a total ban or total openness. I prefer total openness.
Appearing on Fox News today, Santorum condemned the scattered boos and said, “I condemn the people who booed that gay soldier. That soldier is serving our country and I thank him for his service to our country. I’m sure he’s doing an excellent job, I hope he’s safe and returns safely and does his mission well. I have to admit, I did not hear those boos . . . If I had, I would have said, ‘Don’t do that, that man is serving his country and we ought to thank him for his service.’”
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/278157/no-thanking-gay-soldier-iraq-his-service
AM, other candidates did not wait until today to condemn the booing. They did so last night.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/unfortunate-condemnation-of-gay-soldier-boos-in-post-debate-spin-room.php
I agree, the suggestion that military personal will be celibate is an absurd one. The Romans supposedly were forward thinking enough to have a brothel that traveled with them on some campaigns.
Perhaps he meant it differently?
How many young men are going to be non-sexual as a matter of their call to duty? Now add to that the percentage of gay men and women who want to serve their country. How does denying a person’s sexuality (straight or gay) in any way advance the objectives of the U.S. armed forces and their mission? Its counter to human nature and therefore destined to fail as a policy.
Santorum and the rest of the panel disappointed me AGAIN when they refused to acknowledge that man’s service to his country. The fear of alienating some is risking the integrity of the whole system.
Honestly I was very disappointed in them as supposed leaders.
Look, I really don’t like to be in the position of defending Santorum, but I honestly don’t think celibacy is what he meant. If he did, then he’s even a bigger jerk than I thought.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278207/santorums-ill-advised-border-war-kevin-d-williamson#
When he said “sex in the military,” I thought it was an ill-formed thought having to do with strictures against sex in the barracks, rules against fraternization, and the whole series of issues designed to keep unit cohesion and discourage favoritism based on sexual relationships. “Celibacy” wasn’t the word that came to my mind.
You MAY be right it could be bad word choice, but then we are left to draw a conclusion about what he DID mean…and stars could burn out before we reached the correct outcome.
Like all leaders and public figures he will be judged on his words and how they are perceived. I don’t expect him to make it much further.
Just the same, it will be interesting to watch it play out.
When are homosexuals going to see their own self interest? Their self interest is in living, not dying. No self-respecting homosexual should ever consider the military if they don’t want to die. Period. I’d suggest a nice flower shop or Hallmark store. Preferably out in the country, where people are more sentimental.
Now if you are homosexual and worship Thanatos, then by all means, join the military.
So are heterosexuals worshipping Thanotos when they serve their country?
David:
You can write him in if it makes you feel better.
Huntsman has a wider appeal across the aisle. He may pick up disenfranchised Democrats or Independents that voted Democratic in 2008.
I appreciate that he does not race to the sidelines when challenging topics are presented (evolution for example).
But the GOP will have to see a thinning of the herd and he will have to have McCain like staying power to make it deep into the Primary season. If not I expect the nominee will be Romney as the other choices are too deeply flawed to carry a majority of financial supporters and remain viable.
The real question will be if Romney can shake the LDS stigma in the deep South as they will be the proverbial kingmakers of the next nominee.
Huntsman is a smarmy little pissant. In the debate before, he lamely accused Perry of a “pretty much a treasonous comment” (whatever that is). I don’t know why he’s even on the stage.
Huntsman is a smarmy little pissant. In the debate before, he lamely accused Perry of a “pretty much a treasonous comment” (whatever that is).
I think Huntsman was trying to be sarcastic.
“Huntsman has a wider appeal across the aisle. He may pick up disenfranchised Democrats or Independents”
If you go to the trouble of disenfranchising them, don’t expect them to vote for one of your candidates.
Maybe not Overshoot. There are PLENTY of disenfranchised people who self identify as Conservative that will vote for WHOEVER the GOP candidate is.
Their reasons are their own, but it seems to be based in emotion more then logic. That isn’t unique to either political party, its just part of the human condition…sadly.
“There are PLENTY of disenfranchised people who self identify as Conservative that will vote for WHOEVER the GOP candidate is. ”
You’re saying that conservatives are into voter fraud?
I’m not sure how you interpret my words to mean voter fraud?
I’m saying some people will vote GOP no matter who else is running. Even IF there was a 3rd party.
Disenfranchised people voting — that’s practically the definition of “voter fraud.”
AM’s opinion, apparently, is the view of the Tea Party and the RedState crowd. Huntsman’s not doing well amongst this group either. Not enough testosterone?
So Huntsman’s best bet is to become Tim Pawlenty, another guy who tried to go the “housebroken conservative” route? He might as well skip ahead to the inevitable endorsement of Romney.
What is becoming clearer and clearer, is that the conservative establishment (including the host of this blog, even if he is presently banished from the proverbial tent) is terrified that W² is actually going to win the nomination, and then get flattened by Obama much as McGovern was flattened by Nixon forty years ago.
Following up to my own thoughts–the proposal that Mr. Frum makes *did* work, after all, for his former boss: Convince much of the political establishment that you’re a moderate, thus convincing independents that it was safe to vote for him, while convincing sufficient numbers of folks on the left that it was safe to defect from a Democratic candidate who was considered insufficiently liberal; yet signalling to the base that he was one of them. But then again, W was the front-runner in 2000 from day one, being the scion of the Bush family and the son of the former President, as well as a red-state evangelical–neither Huntsman nor T-Paw have these advantages.
I don’t see how Perry’s misfortunes benefit Huntsman. They ought to go to a social conservative like Bachmann, or a frontrunner like Romney. Would’t Huntsman benefiting be as rare as exceeding the speed of light or a satellite falling from the sky?
Perry has been trending down in public opinion since the first debate. Liberal media and polling organizations will try to keep him viable as an easy opponent for the president, although he is already behind or even with Huntsman in New Hampshire. Tea Party purists are basically writing off his candidacy based on issues as well as another Texan that can’t talk. And conservatives better stop hating on Jon for no reason because if someone like Palin or Christie doesn’t get in the race, they are going to end up with Romney. He’s already 20-30 points behind in New Hampshire.
He did well last night and gets the economic principles right, but is too elite for evangelicals.. They could never vote for him. He isn’t one of us…blah, blah, blah…
Perry isn’t the ultra rightest that everyone makes him out to be and Romney isn’t even center right. Isn’t this election supposed to be about the economy ?
I think Perry would be the easiest one of this crew to beat in a general election, so I am biased. But, trying to be objective, I think it’s way too early to count Perry out and I don’t see a large path for Huntsman even though it opened a lot last night. I think Perry fits the “vengeance” of the Tea Party, well, to a tee. Most of the negative opinions about Perry I’ve seen are from the elites, not the voters. The hard core religious right cum white supremacist group loves this guy and the primary state schedule in the South favors him.
And that will probably be the kiss of death in the end. The South is its own experience…having spent a few years there I find it to be stuck in a 1970s time warp.
But they have their own agenda and it seems socially based over interest based so while Perry will play well as a down home Good Ol’ Boy he is too reminiscent of Bush.
That won’t play well just about ANYWHERE else.
Huntsman wants to do nation-building but rejects 10 to 1 tax cuts to revenue increase? He just repeats what Obama says?
tchanta, can you translate that from gibberish into something resembling sense.
Let me help. “Huntsman wants to do nation-building [which Obama doesn't] but rejects [Obama's very generous offer of] 10 to 1 tax cuts to revenue increase.” , therefore, “He just repeats what Obama says.” Do you now see your elementary logic fail?
10 to 1 tax cuts to revenue increase? Hardly. Obama’s Pass-This-Now jobs non-bill is $11 tax hikes for every $1 in new spending and $0 in spending cuts.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277699/obamas-deficit-plan-all-tax-hikes-no-cuts-andrew-stiles
Well, let’s see.
If your plan is to get a 3 to 1 cut to tax plan, and you are dealing with a opposing party full of lunatics who say that 10 to 1 cut to tax plans are unacceptable because even 1c of tax increase is off the table, how would _you_ go about putting together your initial offer?
tchanta
Ah, but you miss the rub. You don’t need money to do nation building. You just get the country you are rebuilding to foot the tab.
You know, like we did in Iraq.
Honest, my behind. Huntsman is showing he’s just as loony as the rest.
Seriously – invading Iran, to stop WMD. The GOP is the party of Endless War™. He’s slick because he has made himself appear more competent, but don’t be fooled – he is still selling the tax cut snake oil with Endless War™.
Truthfully, Huntsman knows that he can’t win the nomination this year, and that the GOP will get drubbed by Obama, even if Mittens finally stops being the bridesmaid and becomes the bride. This is a plan to raise his profile for 2016. His campaign makes no sense otherwise.
Well, look – part of the party difference is philosophical, and based in history. Democrats tend to side with those (like Rousseau) who think that human nature is essentially good. Republicans tend to side with those (like Hobbes) who think that human nature is essentially bad.
If you think that our nature is bad, the best framing to get you motivated is fear, because you think that people are always out to get you. So endless war makes complete sense, even if it is endless war in the sense of “We are always at war with Eastasia”. It’s a required part of the Republican platform.
“science-based climate policy and same-sex civil unions”
Uh huh, Huntsman is about as likely to win over conservative primary voters as– I dunno, let’s think crazy– someone who worked in the Obama Administration. Oh yeah, he’s got that on his resume too.
The Case for Buying Low on Perry | e Online News // Sep 24, 2011 at 1:38 pm
[...] he is often at odds with other conservative thinkers) said he thought the debate presented an opening for Jon M. Huntsman Jr. Mr. Gingrich and Gary Johnson generally got warm reviews in the comment [...]
I don’t like Huntsman’s demeanor.
There’s something about him that says NO to me – I can’t quite put my finger on it, yet, but……. he’s just a no for me.
OK – I will leave me ‘feeling’ about him aside for now.
I think he’s really not as qualified for the job as someone like Romney is.
Huntsman has a bachelor’s degree in international politics, and because he threw some voters in a direction, he got a few appointments for it. Granted, he served in those positions, but I am sure more people were well more qualified for those positions, and I’m sure most of his tenure in those positions were more self serving than not.
He never went to school for business, and really never worked in the private sector.
In our trying times, we need someone who has BOTH great business schooling AND great business experience.