Now that Newt is a frontrunner...

Post Reply New Topic

Huntsman has demonstrated himself as an honorable man who puts nation above politics and is willing to do his best to serve his country, regardless of who is in charge at the moment. He has hardly been "Obama's lapdog." Just look at his record in Utah. Certainly far outshines anything Romney or Perry ever achieved in their respective states, and none of the other candidates have any real executive experience to even compare against.

By the way, is David Petraeus "Obama's lapdog" for continuing to work for the federal government while Obama is President?

I give Huntsman credit on the doing better than Romney and Perry, but the point is he was an elected official.

I'm not going to go after Petraeus because he is military, not a politician.

So? And incidentally, being an ambassador is an appointed position, not elected. Huntsman had an opportunity to serve his country, and he took it. It doesn't matter that the man in charge at the time was on "the other side." What matters is that he was able to represent the interests of the whole US on the world stage and help our relations with one of the other great powers. Huntsman was willing to do what he could for the good of the United States even if it meant setting partisan quarrels aside- a level of maturity that no one else in the Republican field has ever demonstrated. Gingrich and Bachmann have both demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice the well-being of the country for cheap political gain. It is hard to imagine Huntsman sinking so low.


Petraeus is retired from the military. He is currently head of the CIA, which is a strictly civilian post. And just like being an ambassador, it is an appointed post- appointed by the Democratic President Barack Obama.

When has Gingrich sacrificed the well-being of the country for political gain? He actually did the opposite if you look at the fact that him and Clinton balancing the budget is probably what got Clinton re-elected in 1996... He could have just sat on his hands and let the country implode.

If you seriously don't believe in the positions someone is taking and feel they are being detrimental to the country, you do not serve under them as an ambassador to further their agenda. Huntsman has some additional explaining to do, no matter how you slice it.

If Huntsman just gave a bad explanation then you can make a case for him. However, Huntsman has demonstrated that while he has more guts than Mittens (being willing to go 1 on 1 with Gingrich), I seriously doubt he can handle the most brutal Presidential Election in this country's history.




Heading up the CIA is a little different because he has publicly fought the President on things. Being simply an ambassador, means you're supposed to do what the administration tells you, and take the stances the administration wants you to take.

Huntsman may come across better than Perry (which isn't hard), and he comes across as more genuine that Mittens, I really can't see him holding up in a general election.

The government shut-down, although that did end up backfiring on him.


Further Obama's agenda? That's hardly what Huntsman was doing. He was serving to advance US interests and improve our relations with Asia. That is no more Obama's agenda than any other American's. The fact is that Huntsman served America- not Barack Obama. He served as an ambassador under George H W Bush as well, and was a diplomat during the George W Bush administration. Service and loyalty to one's country trumps shallow partisanship. I suppose that is a concept you will never understand, though.


What has he to explain? Unlike Gingrich, he has maintained firm and consistent stances on all the major issues.


Refresh my memory- I remember McChrystal criticizing Obama publicly, but Petraeus is too much of a professional to flame his boss in the open. And anyways, you're shifting the goalpost. Petraeus is currently serving as a civilian appointee under the Obama administration. Is that any different from what Huntsman did? (And you certainly aren't going to claim that Huntsman has never publicly disagreed with Obama, are you?)


He's the only plausible candidate in a general election, as far as I can tell. Romney is too slimy, Gingrich has too many skeletons in his closet, and the rest are clowns. Huntsman has solid conservative credentials, a proven track record of real accomplishment, and the ability to win the moderate vote.

My worry with Huntsman is that he won't get conservatives out to vote. I appreciate that he would split some of the moderate vote, but in a system as dependent on turnout as the US is, one most likely gains more from energizing their own base as they do by claiming the central ground. Here in Australia, we have compulsory voting, so our parties move towards the center and those that move away form it lose government. The Karl Rove strategy, that worked quite well for Bush, did not bother with the moderates (probably too much), instead choosing to almost exclusively focus on getting people out.

Why wouldn't Huntsman get conservatives to vote? He has very compelling right-wing credentials. He worked in the Reagan administration and both Bush administrations, and he delivered the nominating speech for Sarah Palin. He cut taxes massively in Utah, and also slashed regulations. He implemented a major school voucher program. He can certainly do better at getting conservative votes than Romney ever will. Plus his conservative record is much more believable than Gingrich's, since Gingrich has been on both sides of nearly every issue.

That was because the Republicans were demanding budget cuts to balance the budget and Clinton wouldn't play ball (he was listening to one set of advisors).

Dick Morris got Bill Clinton to finally play ball with the Republicans so he could go on to win re-election.



It is a concept I understand, but when you don't trust the man you're supposed to be working under, how is it helping the country when the positions you have to take are arguably detrimental to the country.



Gingrich hasn't been in public office for over 10 years, being a private citizen is a lot different than being a public servant that is supposed to be upholding the public's trust.



Didn't he get fired...



What skeletons in the closet? The ethics violations? The IRS cleared Newt Gingrich a few years after he was forced to pay a $300,000 fine saying that no crime had been committed. He was fined because a lawyer screwed up the paperwork. All the other violations fell apart on the spot, and Pelosi's attack on Gingrich recently shows that the ethics investigation was nothing more than a political witchhunt orchastrated by the queen of corruption Nancy Pelosi.

His being kicked out of the Speaker's Position was the work of Tom Delay, and we all know how much that man was a shining example of a good public servant, NOT!

Then we have the additional fact that he has his accomplishments and can easily argue the reason he wasn't liked was he kept people from spending like lunatics.

I really don't see many attacks on Gingrich that wouldn't have the potential of royally backfiring on the person that attacked Gingrich.

Gingrich is a lot better at turning tables on the media and politicial adversaries than anyone else running. All his baggage is old enough and well known enough that it really doesn't hurt him anymore.

You're spouting ignorant nonsense. Give a concrete example of anything Huntsman would have been required to do in his capacity as ambassador to China which would have been "detrimental" to the country.


Whether he's a lobbyist or a politician doesn't change the fact that his political positions have flip-flopped time and again.


McChrystal? Yeah, he did. That tends to happen when you undermine your boss's authority in public. How come you never answered my question on Petraeus? When has he ever fought Obama on anything publicly?


Flipping his stance on global warming, opposing Paul Ryan and other House Republicans, his connections to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, being one of the original supporters of the individual mandate (which will make attempts to run against PPACA ring hollow), and assorted minor embarrassments like his serial philandering and the massive bills he keeps running up at jewelry stores.

You can start about not being tougher on China not respecting intellectual property rights.



Are you saying that Newt Gingrich has grounds to sue Freddie Mac for instance?



Again though, Petraeus was military not a civilian and he can make the argument to prevent further damage if someone else was running it.



Concerning Paul Ryan -- How about you look at what Newt was actually asked, I'm not going to bother finding the video at this point because I know you like other people here are so dead set in your views that I could post it all day and you still wouldn't acknowledge the truth.

Concerning Global Warming -- he was trying to do a video to show that Conservatives could care about the environment too. He changed his stance based on new information. He testified against the Democrat's Cap & Tax because it was a lousy piece of legislation and a power grab, I've posted the testimony numerous times but I imagine you didn't bother to watch it...

He changed his stance on the individual mandate a long time ago when he figured what the other consequences would be, which is not a flip flop.

Also the stuff about philandering and jewelry stores, the philandering is old news and the fact he chooses to buy his wife jewelry with his own money is his business, it's his money not yours.

I think you need to consider the nature of the role of an Ambassador in the modern world.

Ambassadors do not enunciate their own policy--they have four principal functions:

1) To communicate the policy of the Sending State to the government of the Receiving State,
2) To gather information from the Receiving State and communicate it to the Sending State,
3) To engage in public diplomacy to promote the interests of the sending State, and
4) To deliver the public policy programs of the Sending State within the territory of the Receiving State (e.g. immigration and consular programs)

The interests of the Sending State are defined by one, and only one authority: its government.
The policy of the Sending State is established by one, and only one, authority: the government of the day.
An Ambassador who disagrees with the interests indentified by or policies established by the government of the Sending State has one, and only one, option: to resign.

If you have a complaint about how US interests are promoted and defended in China, then you should be laying that complaint at the feet of the Secretary of State and the President, not at the feet of the Ambassador.

He is seen as 'the moderate' perception is a powerful motivating factor. His credentials on life are very good, even above average but his position on same-sex unions is probably not going to work for him with the republican base. Also he has said next to nothing on 'family values' or the 'culture war'; every winning republican since Nixon has successfully set up an 'us and them' approach with his oppositions values base.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=373wcoVen88[/youtube]

Cute song.

Does everyone remember this sketch?

Thanks for the reminder of how dishonest the left-wing drive-by media is. Clinton shut down the Government.

Thanks for the reminder of how disingenuous the right-wing disciples are.

When Congress denies supply, the government is left with no choice but to, "shut down." The President may sign the orders, but it is Congress that has dictated those orders.