I'd vote for John Huntsman

[Anonymous]

Moderate, smart, engaging, bipartisan and best of all he agrees with "Taxation without representation" and is open for giving us a seat. Of course he won't win the nomination and even by some fantasy if he did the District votes 90% democrat anyway. But my Virginia and MD friends take a look at him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moderate, smart, engaging, bipartisan and best of all he agrees with "Taxation without representation" and is open for giving us a seat. Of course he won't win the nomination and even by some fantasy if he did the District votes 90% democrat anyway. But my Virginia and MD friends take a look at him.

I'm in DC and your 90% is probably about the odds that I would vote for Obama, but at least I would not feel sick at the thought that Huntsman might win.

[Anonymous]

Huntsman is thinking 2016, is my guess. Just working to develop some name recognition this time out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huntsman is thinking 2016, is my guess. Just working to develop some name recognition this time out.

It could be. Maybe he figures they will crater in 2012 with a wack job conservative, learn their lesson, and open up to moderates after Obama finishes his 2nd term.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huntsman is thinking 2016, is my guess. Just working to develop some name recognition this time out.

It could be. Maybe he figures they will crater in 2012 with a wack job conservative, learn their lesson, and open up to moderates after Obama finishes his 2nd term.

As part of my battle to fight the rightward shift of our vocabulary, I think Huntsman claims and deserves the title "conservative". I think the word you seek is not "moderate", but "sane".

BTW, that was me a couple of messages back speaking of my vote in DC. Despite Jeff's attempt to keep me aware of my status, I failed to notice I had slipped back into anonymity.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huntsman is thinking 2016, is my guess. Just working to develop some name recognition this time out.

It could be. Maybe he figures they will crater in 2012 with a wack job conservative, learn their lesson, and open up to moderates after Obama finishes his 2nd term.

As part of my battle to fight the rightward shift of our vocabulary, I think Huntsman claims and deserves the title "conservative". I think the word you seek is not "moderate", but "sane".

BTW, that was me a couple of messages back speaking of my vote in DC. Despite Jeff's attempt to keep me aware of my status, I failed to notice I had slipped back into anonymity.

I'd even be comfortable saying he's a "staunch conservative." The man was the governor of Utah, for cryin' out loud. Utah - routinely cited as the most conservative state in the union. That he is one of the more moderate candidates for the GOP nomination (and apparently the only one with the courage to stick by those "moderate" (read: not crazy) stances (yes, Mitt, I'm looking at you) speaks volumes for how far right the GOP has tacked. (The GOP, not the country.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huntsman is thinking 2016, is my guess. Just working to develop some name recognition this time out.

It could be. Maybe he figures they will crater in 2012 with a wack job conservative, learn their lesson, and open up to moderates after Obama finishes his 2nd term.

As part of my battle to fight the rightward shift of our vocabulary, I think Huntsman claims and deserves the title "conservative". I think the word you seek is not "moderate", but "sane".

BTW, that was me a couple of messages back speaking of my vote in DC. Despite Jeff's attempt to keep me aware of my status, I failed to notice I had slipped back into anonymity.

I'd even be comfortable saying he's a "staunch conservative." The man was the governor of Utah, for cryin' out loud. Utah - routinely cited as the most conservative state in the union. That he is one of the more moderate candidates for the GOP nomination (and apparently the only one with the courage to stick by those "moderate" (read: not crazy) stances (yes, Mitt, I'm looking at you) speaks volumes for how far right the GOP has tacked. (The GOP, not the country.)

That's actually not true. Just because Utah is a conservative state doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't vote for a relatively moderate bipartisan candidate.

[takoma]

This is from his website:

Jon's free-market, job-friendly policies helped make Utah the fastest growing state in the nation and number one in job creation. It was named the best-managed state by Pew and the best state for business by Forbes.

Jon delivered market-based health care reforms that, in stark contrast to Massachusetts, did not include mandates and fines on individuals and businesses. He signed landmark legislation to protect the sanctity of life. He was also praised by the National Rifle Association for his strong support of the Second Amendment.

Jon is the conservative problem-solver America needs.

Aside from the fact that he is not a gay-basher and believes that scientists are worth listening to, he is a down-the-lne conservative

[Anonymous]

I support Obama, but liked the fact that as ambassador Huntman had the guts to show up at a pro-democracy demonstration in China.

[Anonymous]

Aside from the fact that he is not a gay-basher and believes that scientists are worth listening to, he is a down-the-lne conservative

Yes - although again, that conservatism has come to be defined as anti-science, and that a GOP candidate who doesn't denigrate science is "news" just speaks again to how skewed the GOP has become. And by skewed, I mean completely fucked up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support Obama, but liked the fact that as ambassador Huntman had the guts to show up at a pro-democracy demonstration in China.

Agreed - I'm wouldn't vote for him, no matter how horribly disappointed in Obama I am, because I simply don't agree with many of his stances (as Jeff said, he's down-the-line conservative). But I applaud his willingness to serve in the Obama administration, and I think he's got more integrity than all the other potential GOP nominees put together (except Paul, who also has boatloads of integrity, despite the fact that he's nuts). In short, I would be disappointed if he became president, not horrified. Which means, of course, that he's got no chance in hell.

Here's the scary thought - if you put W circa 2000 in this group, we'd be saying similar things about him. At a minimum, he'd be considered one of the more rational candidates. Yikes.

[Anonymous]

No, all republicans are the tea partiers. Republicans can not be trusted with this country. Look at what they did when they had a 1/3 of the power.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the scary thought - if you put W circa 2000 in this group, we'd be saying similar things about him. At a minimum, he'd be considered one of the more rational candidates. Yikes.

20 years ago, Obama would have been a Republican* and tax-the-poor Hunstman would have been unelectably conservative (for president).

* Figuratively speaking, of course. There weren't any more black Republicans then than there are now, and Obama himself would have just been whatever would have gotten him elected, anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, all republicans are the tea partiers. Republicans can not be trusted with this country. Look at what they did when they had a 1/3 of the power.

Agreed. Republicans work in lock-step. Either Huntsman will get kicked out of the Elephant club like Colin Powell or he will fall in line with the rest of them. If you don't like the Tea Party, don't vote Republican for any position. We are talking getting evolution out of public schools, blaming the poor for the nation's troubles, limited government response for natural disasters, and big military budgets.