gtaggart Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I thought Huntsman made a pretty good governor. I read that he's considering a run for President. What think ye? And while we're at it, anyone know where he stands with regards to the Church? I remember reading something that made it seem like he didn't walk in all of his father's footsteps.
Duncan Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I think you have to be an Apostle to be the President of the Church
Vance Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I don't think he was a good Governor, just not a bad one. I wouldn't support him in a primary. And wouldn't vote for him in the General. I wouldn't need to worry about it too much though, since only the Electoral College counts and I know that my state would definitely go to the Republican, I would vote for one of the lessor candidates.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I think, I need to go back and read some of the stuff he did do, he was ok as the Utah Governor. For some reason it seems like an eternity since he was our Governor. As I recall there was a few things that made me cringe. I really like his Dad though. To bad he is not running.If he does run I would need to see what campainge he was running on. He seems to be a man of his word, and I like that. Also being able to speak Chinese could definitaly be a big plus in this day and age.
alter idem Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 Well, I think the democrats and moderates were happy with him as governor. My problem with him is that he ran as a Republican, but then, once in office, IMO, didn't govern as one.As for his church stance, As I remember it, he inferred in a recent News article that he wasn't that religious. I'll see if I can find the article. It was in the Deseret News a few months ago.
alter idem Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 He was described as 'soft' on religion, unlike Romney or the Huntsman family.From the article:"I can't say I am overly religious," Huntsman is quoted as saying in the interview, which refers to his consideration of a 2012 run. "I get satisfaction from many different types of religions and philosophies."http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700052627/Mitt-Romney-Jon-Huntsman-Jr-mull-Mormon-dilemma.html
katherine the great Posted January 31, 2011 Posted January 31, 2011 I dunno. He quit the governorship to become an ambassador which he subsequently quit to prepare for a presidency bid. He kinda sounds like a quitter to me.
BCSpace Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 How about we randomly pick a citizen for the post every four years? Perhaps only those with prior honorable military service. Hah!
daz2 Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 He might lose in Utah because he is not conservative enough, and for the same reason probably would not get the GOP nomination.
Stargazer Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 I dunno. He quit the governorship to become an ambassador which he subsequently quit to prepare for a presidency bid. He kinda sounds like a quitter to me. He didn't quit to become ambassador, he accepted an appointment by President Obama -- that's not quitting. I'd say that quitting the ambassadorship before the ink on his appointment is dry is quitting, though. I think he would be better off waiting until 2016, except that with Obama seen as at least somewhat vulnerable, a Republican stands a good chance of getting elected in 2012, which would mean a 2016 bid would be seen as a challenge to a sitting president -- not such a good thing in the same party. Most first-term presidents with a serious challenger in the same party have ended up losing to the candidate of the opposite party in the upcoming election. So if he doesn't plan to run until 2016 he would end up having to wait until 2020. He may see this upcoming election as his best chance.
frankenstein Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 if two mormons run, then the one could sort of count on the mormon vote being split, one could also count on the evangelical or christian crowd to concentrate their votes on the non-mormons, thus one could have reason to believe a mormon would not win the primary.
katherine the great Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 He didn't quit to become ambassador, he accepted an appointment by President Obama -- that's not quitting. I know. That part was a little "tongue in cheek" on my part. I'm kind of mad at him for quitting his duties in China to pursue something that isn't going to happen. I think he could have done a lot of good there and he understands how important China is to the outcome of the problem with North Korea. He may have been able to have some influence there.
katherine the great Posted February 1, 2011 Posted February 1, 2011 if two mormons run, then the one could sort of count on the mormon vote being split, one could also count on the evangelical or christian crowd to concentrate their votes on the non-mormons, thus one could have reason to believe a mormon would not win the primary.Mitt Romney has many non Mormon supporters. New Englanders don't care as much about that as some other voters.
Stargazer Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 I know. That part was a little "tongue in cheek" on my part. I'm kind of mad at him for quitting his duties in China to pursue something that isn't going to happen. I think he could have done a lot of good there and he understands how important China is to the outcome of the problem with North Korea. He may have been able to have some influence there.Up to this point I'd been rather interested in Huntsman's possibilities for the Oval Office, and in fact was kind of hoping he would go for it, but now I am not so sure. I think he may have been able to accomplish more if he had stayed ambassador.But the one thing that had gotten me thinking about a Huntsman run for the Presidency was the fact that President Obama appointed him ambassador, which seemed to me at least to have killed two birds with one stone:A. Put a Chinese-speaker into an important ambassadorship, andB. Put him out of the way as a means to reduce the number of potential competitors in 2012.Part B, if valid, didn't work.And if Daniel Peterson doesn't like him, then I wonder if I should.
rongo Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Mitt Romney has many non Mormon supporters. New Englanders don't care as much about that as some other voters.Evangelicals for MittNot just a fringe, non-influential group. They were influential in Mitt's straw poll success in the South last time around (which admittedly did not directly translate into primary success; I'm not sure if deep-seated anti-Mormonism in the South can be overcome).
CQUIRK Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 if two mormons run, then the one could sort of count on the mormon vote being split, one could also count on the evangelical or christian crowd to concentrate their votes on the non-mormons, thus one could have reason to believe a mormon would not win the primary.You also forget that Huckabee and Palin will be running too, and combined with others trying to reach out to the "Religious Right", the EV vote will also be split as well.
alter idem Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 I guess Jon Huntsman Jr. has his reasons for wanting to run, but frankly I think he's wasting his money. Personally, I see him as the GOP equivalent of John Edwards--before the scandals. He's got a very thin political resume. He held no political office other than Governor--and before that, he'd been an Ambassador to Taiwan. Now, he's got Ambassador to China to add to his resume. Not much. His life before politics was running his father's companies.As Governor, there was nothing that stood out. He managed to alienate the conservatives in the state as well. So, I see no reason for him to be a viable candidate on a national level.Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has a chance of getting the nomination. He was a strong candidate in the last primaries. He was a governor of an eastern state and that always helps on the national level. He also has the claim to fame of turning around the Salt Lake Olympics and making them a success. He's considered very strong on economics--something the President lacks--which would make him a good choice by Republicans.The church thing is probably the biggest hurdle, and frankly, I don't believe it will be a problem this time. Maybe I'm optimistic, but I think the mood is changing after two years of President Obama and the fact that he hasn't been able to turn the economy around. I also think that people who claim Romney can't get the nomination because he's a moderate are wrong. I only have to point to the fact that we got McCain as our candidate the last time. Most Conservatives were not happy with McCain, but we still voted for him--what other choice did we have? I don't hold out much hope that Republicans would actually nominate a true conservative--so I'll take at least a fiscally conservative choice to help get us out of the economic troubles we are in, and I believe Romney would fit that. The economy is Pres. Obama achilles heel and I expect the Republicans to figure that out. The Pres is too wedded to his progressive economic ideology to be able to dig us out; he's ballooned the deficit and continues to spend. At this time, I believe Romney is the front runner for this next election. We'll see how public opinion goes in regards to his religion. But I think it will be nominal. Pres. Obama PROVED the naysayers wrong when they said a Black man could not win. The naysayers say a mormon can't win and I think they are wrong about that too. During the next year we'll have to see who else gets in the race, but right now, I'd say Romney's at the top of the list.
Analytics Posted February 2, 2011 Posted February 2, 2011 Mitt Romney, on the other hand, has a chance of getting the nomination. He was a strong candidate in the last primaries. He was a governor of an eastern state and that always helps on the national level. He also has the claim to fame of turning around the Salt Lake Olympics and making them a success. He's considered very strong on economics--something the President lacks--which would make him a good choice by Republicans.The church thing is probably the biggest hurdle...Romney's two biggest challenges last time were the Mormon thing and the flip-flop thing. This time around, he will be adding healthcare reform to his resume of flip-flops. While governor, he championed a law that required the folks in Massachusetts to purchase health insurance. Now he is against essentially the same law on a national level. How will he explain that? Because he thinks states should mandate the purchase of health insurance, but the federal government should not?Even though Obamacare was originally a Republican idea for healthcare reform, the Republican naysayers are now vehemently against it. Romney doesn't have a chance.
alter idem Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 Romney's two biggest challenges last time were the Mormon thing and the flip-flop thing. This time around, he will be adding healthcare reform to his resume of flip-flops. While governor, he championed a law that required the folks in Massachusetts to purchase health insurance. Now he is against essentially the same law on a national level. How will he explain that? Because he thinks states should mandate the purchase of health insurance, but the federal government should not?Actually, I believe he could use the argument that Healthcare matters should be dealt with on a state level, rather than a National level. Frankly, that's my opinion and I'm a conservative. If states want to put high taxes on their citizens and make all kinds of demands on them, then I guess they can do that(as long as they are responsible for the consequences and don't try to get the federal govt. to bail them out). This way, Americans can choose to leave a state and move elsewhere if they don't like how it is run and how it impacts them. As for 'flip flops', most politicians can be accused of this. Even our beloved Reagan can be accused of being a 'flip flopper'--he was a democrat at one time!! I don't see this as keeping him from being the candidate.Even though Obamacare was originally a Republican idea for healthcare reform, the Republican naysayers are now vehemently against it. Romney doesn't have a chance.You ought to restate this. There is NO WAY you can say this. Obamacare was not a Republican idea for healthcare reform. Republicans wanted to reform certain aspects of healthcare, like tort reform (which is completely non existent in Obamacare) and allowing plans to be sold across state lines--which would have helped lower costs by creating competition. I don't know if that made it into Obamacare, but since Obamacare will ultimately lead to the Govt. being the only healthcare provider, the point is moot. Analytics, Republicans have NEVER supported Obamacare, ever. Of course they are against it, they never wanted it in the first place, and a majority of Americans don't want what was passed either.However, since the Mainstream Media has been running mostly positive stories on Obamacare, it won't really matter if they try to associate Romney with it. For this tact to damage him, they'll have to start running negative stories about it...and I don't see them doing that since this would hurt the President-his approval rating as well as his chances for re-election, because after all--it IS his healthcare; it bears his name.Romney most certainly is a contender.
ElfLord Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I think, I need to go back and read some of the stuff he did do, he was ok as the Utah Governor. For some reason it seems like an eternity since he was our Governor. As I recall there was a few things that made me cringe. I really like his Dad though. To bad he is not running.If he does run I would need to see what campainge he was running on. He seems to be a man of his word, and I like that. Also being able to speak Chinese could definitaly be a big plus in this day and age.I posted this on the other thread but here sounds like it would be pertinent too...1) I beleive under his tenure that Utah was voted the best financially run state in the Union. (A balanced Washington budget?) Who'd a thunk it?!2) Who is better known for healthcare... at least in the mid-mountian region than the Huntsmans?!Some food for thought:http://en.wikipedia....on_Huntsman,_Jr.
Analytics Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 I had said, "Even though Obamacare was originally a Republican idea for healthcare reform, the Republican naysayers are now vehemently against it. Romney doesn't have a chance," to which you responded You ought to restate this. There is NO WAY you can say this. Obamacare was not a Republican idea for healthcare reform. Republicans wanted to reform certain aspects of healthcare, like tort reform (which is completely non existent in Obamacare) and allowing plans to be sold across state lines--which would have helped lower costs by creating competition. I don't know if that made it into Obamacare, but since Obamacare will ultimately lead to the Govt. being the only healthcare provider, the point is moot. Analytics, Republicans have NEVER supported Obamacare, ever. Of course they are against it...That is exactly why Romney isn't electible. Here's a history lesson for you. Four years ago, Democrats were generally in favor of single-payer healthcare, and Romney was arguing for a federal mandate that everybody be required to purchase health insurance. He took full credit for that idea in Massachusetts, and campaigned on doing it on a national level. When Obama won, the Democrats adapted this Republican idea. Rather than embrace the fact that the Democrats were running with a Republican idea, the party of no shifted to the right and Republican media machine demonized the whole idea, leading their followers to attitudes like yours.So what's going to happen in a few months when the campaigning for the Republican primary gets underway? The other Republicans are going to show these negative ads like this:Mitt Romney says he
TAO Posted February 3, 2011 Posted February 3, 2011 To be quite honest, I do not see why republicans hate Obamacare so much. There are good things and bad things about it, but they seem to hate it all. I'm not going to blame Romney for supporting some things in it =P.Politics, to me is a very 'bleh' subject =P.
alter idem Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 To be quite honest, I do not see why republicans hate Obamacare so much. There are good things and bad things about it, but they seem to hate it all. I'm not going to blame Romney for supporting some things in it =P.Politics, to me is a very 'bleh' subject =P.I will explain why I don't like the President's Healthcare Law. First, I do not believe that the federal govt. should be able to force Americans to buy a product. I believe this takes away our liberty and rights as a free people to insist we pay for something. This is not like Car insurance. Car insurance is required only for those who buy a car. But all of us have a body and therefore we can't 'opt out' in this situation. I find it incredible that people would so ignorantly give up their right to their own healthcare over to a federal govt. who cannot manage anything efficiently and under budget.I also worry about a future where I am at the mercy of the federal govt. for my healthcare needs. If there is a problem with my care, who do I appeal to? There is no one to appeal to, no authority above the federal govt. to take complaints or concerns to. I also recognize that it is a fact that people with money to do so, from countries who have socialized medicine (which is what Obamacare will become as private insurers go out of business) come here to the US for care that they cannot get in their own countries. So, where will the world go for care? What will likely happen is that only the rich will be able to afford the care they need, and they will get it from private clinics that cater to the wealthy because when the govt. is footing the bill they will cut down on services in order to manage costs. They are already starting to do this by changing guidelines for how often to get screenings, such as mammograms. I do not relish the thought of going to the doctor and being subjected to the same kind of experience I have presently when I have to deal with the DMV, the Social Security office or any other govt. run facility.We don't really know all that is in the plan but we know that the President had to do a lot of arm twisting and bribing to get Democrats to pass it--and they were on his side. So far hundreds of large corporations have gotten waivers from the administration to not be subject to some of the demands it makes. Of course, most of us who don't work for these big companies won't get them and we will be subject to the penalties. The President's plan also did not address tort reform, which is a big part of the problems with Health care today. So why don't I care that Romney is responsible for Mass. Healthcare? Because I believe that healthcare can and should be handled on a state level. The people of Mass. are liberal and a majority clearly wanted him to do something. He did. If it's not working, then they can repeal it. If states want to burden themselves with all kinds of programs and policies that is their right--as long as their citizens are willing to pay for it themselves. Americans are not forced to live in any state--if we don't like how a state is run, we can move. I hope this helps you understand why some of us are extremely unhappy with the federal government taking over our health care needs.
rongo Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Evangelicals for Mitt had a good article on how Romney can address the inevitable RomneyCare/ObamaCare canard:Four Hugely Important Differences Between RomneyCare and ObamaCareAs for flip-flopping, I would have my staff troll for the other candidates flip flops. *Everybody* with any public record has flip flops. Romneys hark back to his run against Kennedy in Mass. for Senate.
alter idem Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 To the extent that Romney tries to distant himself from Obamacare, he'll get nailed for flip-flopping. Republicans aren't going to vote for him. So far he's not trying to distance himself, he's saying what I said. Healthcare should not be handled on a federal level. I think that will pacify many a Republican voter--to the dismay of Democrats who rightly recognize that Romney is a serious contender against the President in 2012. I've watched the Democrats and their sympathizers among the Media try to influence Republicans when it comes to our picks for candidates. Romney has a strong advantage over the President when it comes to economic issues and they will do their best to try and frighten Republicans into choosing a weak candidate like McCain was during the last election. I hope Republicans will not be manipulated by these tactics.Romney is seen as a moderate, but on the national level, that is an advantage. He was a successful Governor and a successful businessman. I realize this shouldn't matter, but clearly it does--he has the right image--the put-together 'package' of a candidate. And IMO, he's also a good person and I think that comes through.Especially if the economy gets worse, I'd say right now, Romney is their best choice. We can continue to disagree on this.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.