Huntsman had no chance in 2012 anyway

obama/huntsman

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, right, appearing at the White House with President Obama to accept nomination as U.S. ambassador to China.

Over the weekend, Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, a moderate Republican, accepted an invitation to serve as U.S. ambassador to China. The move was depicted by some as a political coup by President Obama, a sly bit of sleight-of-hand that removed the popular Huntsman as a challenger in the 2012 presidential campaign.

That’s a vast overreading of both the motivation behind the pick and its political impact. Huntsman is perfect for the job of ambassador to China, and the job is perfect for Huntsman. He speaks Mandarin, has lived in China as a Mormon missionary and aligns with the Obama administration on issues such as economic development and climate change.

According to a political adviser, Huntsman “had not made a decision to run for president, but he had made a decision to prepare to run. We were probably a month away from announcing the formation of a political action committee, so we were pretty far down the road.”

Even given that, I doubt that either Obama or Huntsman saw the 2012 election cycle as favorable for the Utah governor.

For one thing, Mitt Romney, Huntsman’s fellow Mormon, has already staked first claim for political and financial support from that community.

Huntsman’s bigger problem is that I like what I’ve read about him. He has been an effective governor on issues such as transportation reform, he supports civil unions for gay couples, and he even led the effort to liberalize liquor laws in Mormon-dominated Utah, a stark contrast with a certain Georgia governor.

And if I like Huntsman, the GOP’s current primary electorate must hate him. In 2012, the party faithful will be in no mood to consider anybody but a movement conservative, especially after putting up a more moderate John McCain and losing badly. If that conservative candidate is defeated in 2012, as I think likely, it could force an internal fight over the party direction and, by 2016, a potential opening for Huntsman and other moderates.

By the way, the adviser quoted earlier was John Weaver, who is also a longtime McCain adviser. Weaver seems to share the conviction that this is a cycle too early for Huntsman.

“I firmly believe that Huntsman and people like him are the prescription for what ails us,” he told Byron York of the Washington Examiner. “But I have the feeling that our party maybe won’t order that prescription in 2012.”

“If it’s 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we’re headed for a blowout,” Weaver said. “That’s just the truth.”

In that light, here’s the results of a Fox News poll released last week, asking GOP and independent voters who they would support in 2012:

    Among GOP voters

Huckabee 20
Romney 18
Gingrich 14
Palin 13
Guiliani 12
Jeb Bush 3
Jindal 3

    Among independent voters

Giuliani 19
Huckabee 16
Romney 12
Palin 10
Gingrich 5

What do you think? As prognosticators rather than partisans, who do you predict will be the GOP candidate in 2012?

UPDATE: Mike Huckabee wanes poetic.

156 comments Add your comment

Wes

May 18th, 2009
1:25 pm

Jay,

It’s an impossible task. No one would have predicted Obama 4 years ago, Bush the younger in 1997 or Clinton in 1989. More to the point if the GOP puts up a reasonably predictable candidate such as Dole 1996 or Kerry 2004 you can probably make a reasonable guess that the party is sticking to its roots and therefore not making a serious run.

Red

May 18th, 2009
1:27 pm

Since it really looks like the GOP (Grandpas Opposing Progress) are doing nothing but veering sharply right after having their cheerios gobbled up over the last two embarrassing election cycles, it looks like they’ll go for the ‘good ol’ boy’ Huckabee- son of the south; regional appeal and all that.

Bosch

May 18th, 2009
1:27 pm

I disagree with you Jay – and it’s a little early to be counting people out.

The economy is not going to be “fixed” (whatever that means) by 2012, it’s never going to be what it was. Most people understand that, but alot of people do not and they will blame Obama. And I think Huntsman has a good chance with Independents because, again, many moderates and Independents will like him as an alternative if they feel Obama hasn’t delivered (which I’m not sure Jesus Christ himself could right now – and no, I’m not comparing Obama to Jesus – so please don’t go there wingnuts).

Huntsman is a good alternative to the bat crazy right wing which most of those folks you mentioned above belong to. People are tired of those whackos and someone new people will perk up and listen to. Most of us like the thoughts of at least two people to think about voting for.

Brad Steel

May 18th, 2009
1:27 pm

Bosch

May 18th, 2009
1:31 pm

But on another note – he could still chose to run for POTUS, which will make it difficult for Obama to criticize him during a campaign – after all, if you bring up criticisms of your subordinate – one could always make the argument – if you’re so critical, then why’d ya’ keep him around.

Of course you can keep your eye on him more easily, but it’s kind of a gamble either way.

Jay

May 18th, 2009
1:32 pm

All that may be true, Bosch. It is also irrelevent if the GOP refuses to nominate a moderate in 2012, which I’m pretty sure it will.

Bosch

May 18th, 2009
1:34 pm

Jay,

What do you mean by “it is also irrelevant” – I’m almost certain the GOP will nominate a moderate in 2012. If not, then yes, our worst fears about them have come true – they are all insane and the party will most definitely collapse (which, is okay by me – at least the GOP the way it is now).

Pokey

May 18th, 2009
1:36 pm

Climate change(good catch all turn if words)??? What?? We can’t call it global warming any more?? It is hard to keep up with all the verbal “change” going on in Washington these days.

JB, is all the rain we received over the last few months evidence of “climate change” or was the drought was last summer?? Seems like you cited the drought as proof of “global warming”…or was it “climate change”? It is hard to keep up.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

May 18th, 2009
1:36 pm

Jay, 2012 is a long way away (and it will feel a lot longer with Urkel the knucklehead in the White House), so China is a great place for Hunstman to lay low and protect his legacy until it is time to pull the trigger on a Presidential run. Rather than some sort of a stroke of genius, it was more of what is becoming all too familiar, another stupid move by Urkel. After the continuing problem of the “Obama Depression” China may well be our biggest problem in 2012 and, President Urkel just made on half, who already had an outstanding record as a governor of a great state, the nation’s foremost expert in residence on one of 2012’s biggest unresolved issues. Not too sharp on Urkel’s part.

getalife

May 18th, 2009
1:40 pm

“If it’s 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we’re headed for a blowout,” says Republican strategist John Weaver. ”

Well, Obama’s campaign manager was scared of him but I don’t think the gop really wants power in 12.

They can’t destroy the country when it is in such bad shape from the last time they had power so they will wait for the adults to fix it so they can break it again.

Pokey

May 18th, 2009
1:41 pm

JB, is BHO a moderate as you define the word?

Billy Bob

May 18th, 2009
1:42 pm

All the more reason why Romney should have received the Republican nomination. If he can win a governorship in Massachusetts, he’s got some political moxey.

Secondly, on your underlying thesis Mr. Bookman, YES, Jeremiah, Jr. appears to have a penchant for election strategies the favor buying-off or disqualifying the opposition.

Bosch

May 18th, 2009
1:44 pm

But on another note – this move shows that Obama really is working to be bi-partisan – from what I’ve read Huntsman is made for this job. And it also shows he’s not scared of a potential political foe.

Politics is SOOOOOOO fun!!!!!

getalife

May 18th, 2009
1:45 pm

He has a leg up for the job.

He speaks Chinese.

Bosch

May 18th, 2009
1:46 pm

Jay,

I TOTALLY misread your response. My brain didn’t compute the word “refuses” in it. So, in other words, you are convinced they WILL nominate a far right wing nutty buddy. Sorry. Obviously, you think that from your lengthy blog post, in which, I’ve said I disagree.

Okay, wow. I might need some coffee.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 18th, 2009
1:46 pm

The far right would not accept Mitt, they won’t accept Huntsman.
Many of them don’t consider Mormans as Christians.

I agree Jay, he had no chance. We’re gonna’ clear the GOP bench of any of the real talent they have long before 2012.

Goldie

May 18th, 2009
1:49 pm

I predict Mike Huckabuck, along with his Book of Genesis and “creationism” beliefs, will be the Repubs’ nominee… it’ll be loads o’ fun to have that discussion of evolution and science in 2012!

Jay

May 18th, 2009
1:53 pm

Well, Bosch, let’s run an informal poll:

Any Republican primary voters out there who might consider a moderate nominee in 2012?

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

May 18th, 2009
1:53 pm

The religion of Mitt and Huntsman has nothing to do with whether or not they could get the nomination. Mitt didn’t because he changed his positions as Mass Governor to run for President. Rule number 1 of conservativism, to thine ownself be true. Huntsman has no such problem. The Morman thin comes from the true halls of reace hate, the liberals. Religion is their pecadillo, not the conservatives.

Pokey

May 18th, 2009
1:55 pm

Mrs. Godzilla,

“Many of them don’t consider Mormans as Christians”??? By them I assume you mean “Republicans”? If you do, I wouldn’t disagree with that observation. If you also mean to imply that many(perhaps most) libs aren’t bigoted against Mormans, just look at the gay marraige debate in CA and elsewhere. One wonders how many times the “mainsteam” press and the BHO campaign would have reminded voters that Romney was a MORMAN had he been the 2008 GOP nominee.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

May 18th, 2009
1:57 pm

Goldie 1:49 pm

So you say, ” predict Mike Huckabuck, along with his Book of Genesis and “creationism” beliefs, will be the Repubs’ nominee… it’ll be loads o’ fun to have that discussion of evolution and science in 2012!”, do ya?

I wouldn’t worry about 2012 if I were you, just remember what Ol’ Wyld Byll told you when you are giving account to your maker for your life and evolutionary beliefs, I suspect that conversation won’t be much fun and you’ll have an eternity to reflect on it.

Bosch

May 18th, 2009
1:57 pm

Jay,

Really? There are only about four or five moderate GOPers on this blog.

But I would certainly consider a moderate Republican if he/she were to run for POTUS, yes, even against Obama – I really like Obama and think he’s doing a fine upstanding job – but four years is a long time.

Taxpayer

May 18th, 2009
1:59 pm

Well, clearly, the GOP needs to promote a Cheney/Limbaugh or Limbaugh/Cheney (a coin toss to pick the order) ticket in 2012. They should do it for the children.

Mort Merkel

May 18th, 2009
1:59 pm

I heard that guy speak at the GOP convention … a major snoozer, and a sure loser outside of Utah.

GayGrayGeek

May 18th, 2009
1:59 pm

Wild Bull – With those powers of projection you’re showing in the last two sentences of your 1:53, have you considered a career in a movie theatre?

RW-(the original)

May 18th, 2009
2:00 pm

Jay B.,

Are you offering a prize for this nonsensical exercise? As if last cycles two year campaign wasn’t bad enough you now want us on a four year one.

I’ll go with Romney since the only way BO doesn’t get reelected is if the economy has already tanked under the weight of his deficits and Romney is perceived to be the expert in that arena. That’s probably why Schumer didn’t start his run on the banks until after Romney was out last year.

Later!

/I sure hope I got my capitals and punctuations in the right places….no telling when some whack job is going to come around and say I’ve banged out some secret code for an invasion of Belize or something.

getalife

May 18th, 2009
2:02 pm

Romney huh?

I guess they will debate flip flops in the general.

Bosch

May 18th, 2009
2:03 pm

Pokey,

Many people don’t consider Episcopals as Christian either. I’ve had people tell me that many times. Believe it or not – especially this one.

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

May 18th, 2009
2:04 pm

GayGrayGeek 1:59 pm

While I myself am a true centrist and, if not, slightly left leaning, I do travel amongst some conservatives and I have never heard a conservative say anything negative about any candidate because of a LDS affiliation. Rather, it is the rotten to the core NY Times, Washington Post, NPR, and liberal bloggers who always indicate a conservative problem with a LDS member. It is not an issue for conservatives at all.

Joey

May 18th, 2009
2:05 pm

Jay:
Please try to be a little honest. You like Huntsman the same way you liked McCain.

He is a great Republican Nominee for someone like you who supports Democrats and votes for Democrats.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 18th, 2009
2:05 pm

Byll…

That’s a load a’ garbage.

Here’s a piece from one of Andy’s favorites….

The American Spectator:Evangelicals Against Mitt

here:

http://spectator.org/archives/2008/01/03/evangelicals-against-mitt

highlights

“One such concerned evangelical, Tricia Erickson, was raised in the Mormon faith but left as an adult. She has attended the McLean Bible Church in northern Virginia. Erickson adamantly opposes the LDS church, which she considers a brainwashing cult. She has launched a media blitz designed to discredit Romney based on his religion.”

and

“Or take Bill Keller, evangelical host of the Florida-based “Live Prayer TV.” Last year he told his reported 2.4 million e-mail subscribers that a vote for Romney would mean a vote for Satan.”

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

May 18th, 2009
2:07 pm

Two people does not a position make.

GayGrayGeek

May 18th, 2009
2:10 pm

Wild Bull – Hold your hands over your ears and scream “LALALA Water Is Dry Ice Is Hot Fire Is Cold Stone Is Soft LALALA” all you like, it ain’t gonna change things like Huckleberry’s sly little comparison of Mormons to Satanists

Pokey

May 18th, 2009
2:10 pm

Willing to bet that the GOP will run a Morman at the top of its ticket before the Dems do.

sane jane

May 18th, 2009
2:11 pm

Jay, what’s the impact for Hunstman from a career development standpoint after an appointment to China?

It’s not like we’re talking about cake assignment to Fiji; our diplomat to China would seem to have an important gig. (or is that, too, a figurehead post?) Any chance Hunstman is breezing right by any potential POTUS ambitions & instead will use the contacts he develops in the People’s Republic to sit on a few boards & pocket some directors’ salaries?

Why campaign for a 400k year job when you can sit on the boards of Ebay, Google, Coke, etc. and pocket that much EACH?

Bosch

May 18th, 2009
2:12 pm

Mrs. G.,

“that a vote for Romney would mean a vote for Satan.”

Well, she may have a point. Hehehehehe. :-)

Joey

May 18th, 2009
2:13 pm

How many recent Democrat Governors of Georgia supported liberalizing Georgia’s liquor laws. I could not find a single one.

But as I recall, we can now legally order wine from out of state because a Republican Governor signed the bill? Am I wrong?

Mrs. Godzilla

May 18th, 2009
2:13 pm

Pokey

Think harder.

I would go a step further and say most liberals question any religious fundamentalism or extremism.

I don’t think Romney or Huntsman can be considered either.

Perhaps if one wondered less and thought and studied harder, a better and more logical conclusion might be reached.

PS I think you got the Prop 8 thing exactly backwards.

Goldie

May 18th, 2009
2:16 pm

I’m just guessing that Wyld Byl loves to visit the Creation Museum in KY, where their version of history has Adam and Eve walking amongst the dinosaurs, oh, around about 6,000 years ago… bwaaaa!

Mrs. Godzilla

May 18th, 2009
2:16 pm

byll

don’t need to make a position…just de-bunk this silliness you posted

“The Morman thin comes from the true halls of reace hate, the liberals. Religion is their pecadillo, not the conservatives”

Might I point out to you that the AmSpec is no liberal publication.

Jay

May 18th, 2009
2:16 pm

BOSCH: “Really? There are only about four or five moderate GOPers on this blog.”

True. But what makes you think they are any more numerous in the world at large.

JOEY: “Please try to be a little honest. You like Huntsman the same way you liked McCain. He is a great Republican Nominee for someone like you who supports Democrats and votes for Democrats.”

Exactly. That’s the kind of nominee who could draw votes from across party lines. How many Democrats did Reagan draw?

WYLD BYLL: “While I myself am a true centrist and, if not, slightly left leaning, I do travel amongst some conservatives ….”

Ooohkay then…..

Mrs. Godzilla

May 18th, 2009
2:18 pm

Bosch

I never though of him as Satan….Ken maybe.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 18th, 2009
2:23 pm

Goldie

Can you imagine…..

Eve nagging Adam to walk Dino before bed?

I Report/ You Whine

May 18th, 2009
2:26 pm

If that conservative candidate is defeated in 2012, as I think likely, it could force an internal fight over the party direction and, by 2016, a potential opening for Huntsman and other moderates.

Not if Obozo keeps picking them off and turning them into democrats.

By the way, Thank You, Obozo.

If what the libs say is true and there is no possibility for a true Conservative to win, then I say we lose and deal with it. Let the liberals be the power mongers with no principles.

We are better than that.

47% of the electorate voted for the Repug, 60% identify themselves as Conservative, all we need now is to cast these aisle reachers off into the Fever Swamps and victory will be ours once again.

Word.

Mike

May 18th, 2009
2:27 pm

“Any Republican primary voters out there who might consider a moderate nominee in 2012?”

I voted in the GOP primary and my candidate of choice is Guiliani, although I have no idea what you would consider a moderate.

Can you provide a little guidance as to your parameters of what policies a GOP moderate would support? It seems like the moderate tag that you gave Hunstman is based on the fact that he shares your views on social issues, although I am not sure that not sharing them disqualifies one from being a moderate. For example 54% of Americans share Hunstman’s views on civil unions. Are the rest extremists?

Joey

May 18th, 2009
2:28 pm

I believe that Carter’s performance pushed Independents and Democrats toward Reagan.

I believe that Obama’s performance is likely to push Independents and Democrats toward the Republican candidate in 2012. That is not a reason to nominate a Republican that Jay Bookman endorses. Just the opposite.

Bosch

May 18th, 2009
2:28 pm

Jay,

“True. But what makes you think they are any more numerous in the world at large”

That there is some goodness in the world – just a little. :-)

Well of course not too many of these guys/gals on your blog are centrist – I don’t care what they say. And no, I don’t think too many of those on the right side of things here would vote for a guy like Huntsman. But this blog is hardly representative of the Independents out there – I think – and I’m never afraid to admit I’m wrong. And if Wyld Bill is a centrist, then I’m the Ruler of the Planet Zook.

The blog world is full of extremes – and not everybody blogs.

And believe me nothing would suit me than for the GOP to have a Joe the Plumber/Rush Limbaugh ticket – so these wackos will be done for good.

I’m just being hopeful they won’t so we will have at least two people to even CONSIDER voting for.

Mrs. G. – LOL!!! You’re right!!!

Wyld Byll Hyltnyr

May 18th, 2009
2:31 pm

Mrs. Godzilla & Goldie 2:23 pm

While I hate your sin, I do not hate you, the sinner. Please repent, repent before it is too late. I, for one, would want neither of you to spend an eternity of teeth gnashing in the farest reaches of purgatory (Where, I imagine, a non-stop loop of ALGORE speeches plays continually.) with Jesus’ love.

Don’t make silly and uniformed comments about the bible, rather you should study it and let the Word become real in your lives. There are any of a number of good Nondenominational and Baptist churches in Atlanta that can help you.

@@

May 18th, 2009
2:31 pm

Hokey Huckabee?????

Nice fella and all but I prefer someone who’s not on the list. I’m not tellin’ who either. It’s a long way off but I’ve heard tell……?

My 1st choice last round was Giuliani

AND OH LOOK! He leads among independents!!!!

I don’t find Newt to be all that conservative anymore. I’d vote for him because of his smarts, but conservative?

HeY aMvEt! Please accept my “sincerest” apology. On the previous thread, I had to start the sentence with a cap “L” leaving your “a” small when, in fact, it’s usually BIG!

Mrs. Godzilla

May 18th, 2009
2:33 pm

Byll….

I believe you are blaspheming…..

That’s going on your permanent record.

sane jane

May 18th, 2009
2:34 pm

What is an “Obamatang”, and is it as racist a term as its first impression would imply?

I yap about Bush & Cheney all the time but at least give them some modicum of respect by using their actual names. Obozo, Obambi, Oblahmi… you just can’t bear to write “Obama”, can ya?

(although I did read a good one here recently: “Obamateur.” At least that one’s clever. I’ll forgive pretty much anything for “smart & funny”)

Speaking of “smart and funny”, three cheers for Kornheiser leaving Monday Night Football. That means his radio show will be back on air soon & available in podcast form. Highly, highly recommended. The anti-Gnome. If you hate Jim Rome-style sports talk, this guy is the antidote.

Shawny

May 18th, 2009
2:38 pm

Palin, Limbaugh, and Cheney are NOT the voices of the GOP. They are the voices of the liberal left as the GOP. They are the ones you want to focus on because they are the ones you can’t stand.

This guy Huntsman sounds like a real stand up guy. He does represent the GOP, and no, because you like him, doesn’t mean that Republicans hate him. That is just your shortsightness talking.

I think he is legit. As ambassador to China, Obama isn’t necessarily taking out the competition in 2012. I think this becomes a feather in his hat, should he consider running in 2012. Thanks Big O. Move after move, Obama cements his legacy as a very temporarily popular one term president.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 18th, 2009
2:40 pm

Oh Byll…

Purgatory ain’t a permanent gig…..read a little about the RCC sometime.

ty webb

May 18th, 2009
2:42 pm

Jay,
So you think the GOP should nominate a moderate? Let me guess, you would also like to see Bob Davie coach at Michigan or Ohio State?

sane jane

May 18th, 2009
2:45 pm

If Rush isn’t the Voice of the GOP, then what is he doing with that “Golden Microphone” he’s always yapping about?

Pokey

May 18th, 2009
2:46 pm

Tolerance and openmindedness according to Mrs. Godzilla… if you oppose gay marraige, you are bigoted and a homophobe…if you hold religious views contrary to Mrs. Godzilla, you are a fundamentalist, didn’t study hard, and can’t think logically…

It is stunning to read the total lack of self-awareness many of the libs have on this blog.

And for what it is worth…I am not a Morman. I do hold serious, considered religious beliefs but I reject religious bigotry from all sides. It is particularly virulent from the left as your comments and many of those who support gay marriage make that clear.

Pokey

May 18th, 2009
2:48 pm

JB, is BHO a moderate as you define the word?? Easy question.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 18th, 2009
2:51 pm

Pokey

Did I really say all that? Wow! You not only read between the lines but you add words and subtext!

Bet you did real well in creative writing. Fiction seems the correct genre for you!

DB, Gwinnettian

May 18th, 2009
2:51 pm

This far out, I guess my money would be on Romney. But then I thought he’d win the 2008 nomination so what do I know.

sane jane

May 18th, 2009
2:52 pm

And I guess when Hannity calls himself “the voice of the conservative underground”, that’s just a lib pulling his strings, right?

Bosch

May 18th, 2009
2:54 pm

Mrs. G.,

Sigh. There’s another wingnut thinking they can talk for you. You’d think they’d just worry about themselves. I mean really.

PinkoNeoConLibertarian

May 18th, 2009
2:54 pm

ty webb…U of M Please!!!

Oh the irony…my beloved Irish would have a chance to win that year! :)

Paul

May 18th, 2009
2:58 pm

Jay

I like a follow-on thread like this, when more information has come out and people have time to think about it. I was going to write ‘and reassess their views’ but that would be pushing it.

[[Huntsman’s bigger problem is that I like what I’ve read about him. .. And if I like Huntsman, the GOP’s current primary electorate must hate him.]]

Who’da thunk you could be such a great reverse bellwether?

Huntsman. Interesting positions. Supports full civil unions for gays (not marriage, so only the words are different, a position I think is a fine compromise. Note to gay marriage advocates who got defeated in Calif: live and learn). Plus all that other stuff. And he gets elected in Mormon conservative Utah. Then there’s Romney, elected in liberal Massachusetts. And let us not forget Sen Harry Reid, Mormon convert who converted his wife.

Interesting crowd, those Mormon politicians. One could even say a diverse bunch. And the fact they represent Mormon constituencies… I’ll offer possibly the Mormon stereotypes so many toss about are a bit off.

[[especially after putting up a more moderate John McCain and losing badly.]]

If they would’ve nominated a true to the social agenda conservative, it would’ve been a blowout.

So I suppose we’ll see a few more years of angst and lurching. Then Huntsman and others will not come along to put Humpty Dumpty back together. They’ll build a new one.

ty webb

May 18th, 2009
2:58 pm

Pinko,
Don’t know about that. Not sure Weis was much of an upgrade from willingham or davie.

Pokey

May 18th, 2009
2:58 pm

Godzilla,

The truth obviously hurts. THAT is exactly what you meant. NO doubt…you know it. Just trying help you become more self-aware.

Swami Dave

May 18th, 2009
2:58 pm

To answer Jay’s question, it would probably depend on the candidate and their specific positions. I would be more likely to support a fiscally conservative candidate.

Personally, I am looking for the candidate who can best present the fiscally-sound narrative. Specifically, someone who steps up and, once and for all, addresses the reality that America’s economic challenges are not a result of its producers and achievers not “sharing enough”, but that not enough of its beneficiaries (who clamour for more shared bounty) are producing and achieving for themselves and their families.

If our economy were a train, it is not the fault of the engines not pulling enough; the fault lies with too many cars & cabooses sitting back expecting a shrinking pool of engines to pull them where they (by assumed right) want to go!

The voice of the true change that America needs in these challenging times will be calling for more consumers to become producers; beneficiaries to become achievers; cars to become engines! They will celebrate and empower those engines supporting their freedom and opportunity to grow, develop, and excel.

The candidate for whom I am looking will talk about achievement, excellence, opportunity, and growth; not need, limitations, apportionment, and confiscation.

If that was to be Huntsman’s principles, he might have gotten my vote. If not, it is pretty unlikely.

-SD

Mrs. Godzilla

May 18th, 2009
2:59 pm

Bosch

Can we give them amnesty? (Big fine and go to end of line kind of amnesty)

sane jane

May 18th, 2009
3:00 pm

I’d like to hear from a conservative who can support their opposition to gay marriage without consulting their holy book.

Mike

May 18th, 2009
3:00 pm

sane jane –

“If Rush isn’t the Voice of the GOP, then what is he doing with that “Golden Microphone” he’s always yapping about?”

“And I guess when Hannity calls himself “the voice of the conservative underground”, that’s just a lib pulling his strings, right?”

Anyone can call themselves whatever they want, but it doesn’t make it so. For example, the “King of all Media” Howard Stern is anything but.

As for who speaks for the GOP, that is best determined by the members of the party, not Limbugh, Hannity or Rahm Emmanuel and his lackeys in the media. Polls show that a tiny, almost statistically invalid portion of Republicans consider Limbaugh the leader of the party.

The whole “Limaugh=GOP” bit is a cynical strategy put forward by Rham Emmanuel and James Carville which was abetted by a partisan media and swallowed whole by gullible folks.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 18th, 2009
3:03 pm

Pokey

Sorry dude, you are wrong. big time.

sane jane

May 18th, 2009
3:04 pm

And Pokey, I would classify Obama as a moderate, at least in the sense that he seems to be p!ssing off the lunatic fringe left just as readily as he spooks wingnut righties.

Question for you: would you agree that Obama has governed far more as a centrist than he campaigned? I sure think he has.

William

May 18th, 2009
3:05 pm

Jay,

From your post: “JOEY: “Please try to be a little honest. You like Huntsman the same way you liked McCain. He is a great Republican Nominee for someone like you who supports Democrats and votes for Democrats.”

Exactly. That’s the kind of nominee who could draw votes from across party lines. How many Democrats did Reagan draw?”

I think it’s irrelevant how many votes from Dems Reagan drew. Both elections that he won were won rather handily, and winning the election is what counts.

As for your little poll…I’m conservative, but I’m not a Republican. I voted for Alan Keyes in the last primary, so that should tell you what kind of conservative I would vote for.

sane jane

May 18th, 2009
3:09 pm

Fair points, Mike ~ thanks for your reply.

I would agree that the Limbaugh=GOP meme was orchestrated by Carville/Emmanuel, but it wouldn’t have resonated (kidspeak: “had legs”) if it didn’t at least somewhat reflect reality. Even as an exaggeration.

Mike

May 18th, 2009
3:10 pm

sane jane –

“I’d like to hear from a conservative who can support their opposition to gay marriage without consulting their holy book.”

My opposition to gay marriage stems from the fact that I don’t think the the government should be redefining family relationships that existed long before our country did. My concern is that down the road the government can come to redefine the parent-child relationship and abrogate a parent right to raise a child as they see fit.

BTW: You don’t have to be a conservative to oppose same sex marriage. Ask President Obama.

Mike

May 18th, 2009
3:12 pm

sane jane –

“it wouldn’t have resonated (kidspeak: “had legs”) if it didn’t at least somewhat reflect reality. Even as an exaggeration.”

Not according to polls:

“Despite efforts by the Obama political team and its surrogates to link Rush Limbaugh to the Republican Party, just 11% of GOP voters say the conservative radio commentator is the party’s leader.”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/just_11_of_republicans_say_limbaugh_is_their_party_s_leader

Again, this number is borderline statistically insignificant and comes at a time when there really are not a lot of GOP leaders. As they emerge, the results of this poll would demonstrate even less belief that he is a party leader.

Pokey

May 18th, 2009
3:15 pm

Godzilla, no I am not and your post proves it. Are you disassociating yourself from what YOU wrote??? You clearly implied that one is bigoted if they oppose gay marraige. You also clearly imply that anyone who disagrees with your version of morality is a fundamentalist and thus to be dismissed.

That is ok if you are disassociating yourself form your comments…as a Christian I believe in forgiveness and redemption.

DoggoneGA

May 18th, 2009
3:16 pm

“My opposition to gay marriage stems from the fact that I don’t think the the government should be redefining family relationships that existed long before our country did.”

So…you don’t believe in equal rights? Got it.

” My concern is that down the road the government can come to redefine the parent-child relationship and abrogate a parent right to raise a child as they see fit”

Oh, that DARN slippery slope. It’s SO pervasive. What do you think about the interference in how you raise your children NOW? Just think, that darn government won’t let you work your children 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, they won’t let you raise them as illerate slaves to your every whim, they won’t let you beat them to death, or even beat them into submission. They make you get them shots to prevent them from catching childhood diseases.

Oh, the HORROR of all that GOVERNMENT interference. Of course, that’s just me…I happen to KNOW that marriage is a legal contract, something that is, and should be, GOVERNED. Some people seem to not know that or else they keep forgetting it.

Paul

May 18th, 2009
3:16 pm

sane jane 3:00

Dreamer -

md

May 18th, 2009
3:16 pm

“Question for you: would you agree that Obama has governed far more as a centrist than he campaigned? I sure think he has”

There is nothing at all centrist about “share the wealth”. That is based on purely liberal/socialist/communist ideology.

sane jane

May 18th, 2009
3:17 pm

Mike, how do you feel about gay & lesbian spouses enjoying the same rights and privileges that hetero marriages enjoy? (wills, heirs, next of kin, visits to the hospital, tax benefits, etc.)

(Which, I think, is a more accurate depiction of BHO’s position than “opposing same sex marriage” as you state)

I may depart from my lib sibs when I say I don’t care about the term “marriage” – that’s a religious ceremony (or at least, historically, it was). If they’ve got the same rights and privileges (i.e., are not being denied their civil rights = “equal protection under the law”) as straights, I really don’t care what it’s called.

DoggoneGA

May 18th, 2009
3:18 pm

“There is nothing at all centrist about “share the wealth”. That is based on purely liberal/socialist/communist ideology.”

The problem is…it’s not. Plus, you seem to be reading “share the weatlth” as “share the money” – all wealth is not money. Or do you REALLY prefer a “master/slave” relationship where only the moneyed deserve ANY of the WEALTH of our society?

Jay

May 18th, 2009
3:19 pm

To Pokey, yes. Moderate to liberal, but more moderate than liberal.

That’s in part why the American people elected him. They didn’t buy the right’s caricature of him as a leftist radical.

DoggoneGA

May 18th, 2009
3:21 pm

“I may depart from my lib sibs when I say I don’t care about the term “marriage” – that’s a religious ceremony (or at least, historically, it was).”

Actually, no it isn’t or wasn’t. “Holy matrimony” is a church “marriage.” Marriage is, and has been for many centuries, a LEGAL contract to help the state govern the transer of estates and care of surviving children in the case of the death of one or both parents.

sane jane

May 18th, 2009
3:22 pm

md, I hate to break it to you, but government was “sharing the wealth” long before President Obama came along.

Reagan cut & ran from Beirut. (correct call, by the way) George H. W. Bush raised taxes. (also the right call)

Quit substituting soundbytes for critical thinking.

md

May 18th, 2009
3:23 pm

“So…you don’t believe in equal rights? Got it.”

Just love the hypocrits from the left that preach about “equal rights” and refuse to extend that very basic term to a fetus in the womb. Just because a defintion has been created to justify the lack of rights, does not mean the “being” is not there. The position defies logic.

sane jane

May 18th, 2009
3:25 pm

Thanks DoggoneGA. I heard a great line recently that I will butcher here by attempting to rephrase it:

“Traditional marriage IS same sex… it’s a solemn, permanent vow taken by one man and one woman….’s father.”

Mrs. Godzilla

May 18th, 2009
3:26 pm

Pokey

You are new here. You don’t know me from Adam’s housecat and
it really is quite rude to put words in other peoples mouths.
And ruder still to deny it.

Fred Phelps and David Duke oppose gay everything, I comfortably call him a lost worse than a bigot, fundamentalist or extremist. I hope you do too. I put David Duke on that list too.

I seem to have touched some nerve deep in you. Perhaps you can explain why you are so sensitive?

Taxpayer

May 18th, 2009
3:29 pm

Huckabee personifies right wing religious fanaticism. He’s a shoe-in for the 20 percenters.

md

May 18th, 2009
3:32 pm

“Quit substituting soundbytes for critical thinking.”

I see you are one of those that can not distinguish between collective social needs – military, fire, police, etc – and enabling the lazy.

Do you also condone giving alcohol to alcoholics?

Society needs to motivate and hold accountable, not enable and take care of.

Explain this simple comparison: Why should an individual that CHOSE to take advantage of the education system, borrowed tons of money to pay for it, studied for many years to obtain an education, sacrificed to get there, share with an individual that CHOSE to drop out of a “free” education system and shun all opportunities to better themselves for his/her sake and the betterment of society?

We choose everything we do – why are we not held accountable for our actions???????

sane jane

May 18th, 2009
3:33 pm

Like it or not, the question of “When does life begin?” can be answered succinctly and thusly:

Whenever the mother says it does.

She could have an abortion. She could throw herself down a flight of steps. She could do all sorts of things to spontaneously miscarry.

It may be gruesome and revolting, but it’s true. Life begins whenever the mother says so.

Momma rabbits EAT their young whenever food resources are too scarce to feed another hungry mouth.

It’s brutal, but it’s true. Deal with it.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 18th, 2009
3:34 pm

Huckabee personifies right wing religious fanaticism.

Well, that’s a little harsh. He’s the only guy on the right who had Obama’s back during the stupid Rev. Wright flare-up last year.

Mike

May 18th, 2009
3:34 pm

DoggoneGA –

“So…you don’t believe in equal rights? Got it.”

Sure I do. I believe that everyone should be able to marry someone of the opposite sex, which we all have the right to do.

The rest of your sarcastic ranting and shouting is to incoherent to respond to.

Paul

May 18th, 2009
3:35 pm

sane jane

[[I really don’t care what it’s called]]

But many here do, on both sides of the spectrum. It’s the word that causes the furor, not the concept behind the word.

Which is why I think Huntsman has got it about as right as can be got. I tend to look at things in pretty simple terms, in general guiding principles, and one of them is, on anything considered for change, who stands to lose money or power? Therein lies a clue to opposition. And on this issue, it holds for leadership of groups those opposed to civil unions (including gay groups), as well as those opposed to gay marriage.

Bosch

May 18th, 2009
3:36 pm

sane jane,

I’ve always felt that it’s up to the churches to determine if someone is actually “married.” Me, personally, I think that will never happen in some – maybe in the Episcopal Church down the road, but not anytime soon – maybe after all the “Oh my God, I can’t believe we ordained a gay bishop” parrishes leave and the lawsuits that will happen.

And that is the problem with “marriage” is that it has legal and “religiousy” implications. And I’m no lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but to my knowledge there is no legal leg to stand on to deny gay/lesbian couples the same rights as others – which is why you only have people who oppose it start spouting off their religious views on the matter. Anywho – my two cents.

Mike

May 18th, 2009
3:37 pm

sane jane –

“Mike, how do you feel about gay & lesbian spouses enjoying the same rights and privileges that hetero marriages enjoy? (wills, heirs, next of kin, visits to the hospital, tax benefits, etc.)”

I absolutely believe in civil unions that would extend those rights and privileges. And just be clear, same-sex marriage is not an overriding concern of mine. It could pass in GA tomorrow and I wouldn’t miss a wink of sleep.

Mike

May 18th, 2009
3:39 pm

sane jane –

“Like it or not, the question of “When does life begin?” can be answered succinctly and thusly:

Whenever the mother says it does.

She could have an abortion. She could throw herself down a flight of steps. She could do all sorts of things to spontaneously miscarry.”

By that logic the mother should be able to abort the day before birth or even kill their baby the day after.

I really don’t care much about the abortion issue, but your logic is flawed.

Bosch

May 18th, 2009
3:39 pm

sane jane @ 3:33 –

Dang. I’ll keep that in mind the next time I see a cute little rabbit hopping through my yard.

sane jane

May 18th, 2009
3:39 pm

So everything was hunky dory until Obama came along & told everyone that nobody was accountable for anything anymore? He came and implemented some kind of “accountability free for all”? Was it an executive order he signed?

You’re still speaking in exaggerated, hypothetical hysterics. Voters rejected this caricatured meme in November 2008 and will likely continue to do so.

Bosch

May 18th, 2009
3:42 pm

sane jane,

And yeah, DoggoneGA makes a good point. “Marriage” whatever that really means hasn’t always been about love between a man and woman as most opponents to same sex marriage put it – it’s over the years meant more about contracts between families.

Goldie

May 18th, 2009
3:43 pm

sane jane @ 3:25 — I heard a similar sentiment spoken by Al Franken a few years ago… I’ll butcher his words, I’m sure, but it went something like:

“I’m not sure what all the discussion about same-sex marriage is about… marriage is all about same-sex; it’s the same sex week after week.”

Good one.