Let's Talk South Carolina

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
GL:

The “problem” for Huntsman is (are):

  1. He is not an ideologue.

From the start of this Campaign he CLEARLY stated that he would never sign a “pledge” that locked him into doing things that may please the “base”; but be terrible for the country.

  1. He is about consensus and compromise. (That served him well as Governor of the most Conservative State in the Union); but is almost a “Death Nail” in National Politics these days.

  2. He is Mormon.

  3. His Economic Vision and Plan is brilliant…but not “flashy” or one that can be boiled down to simple sound bites. (remember “9/9/9”?)

  4. His speaking style won’t leave you “passing out in the Pews”.

I personally think that he is the best Candidate for the Job; but he won’t make it out of the GOP Primary.

Mufasa

[/quote]

Mormonism is not Huntsman’s problem. Things like that only become a problem when you are a rising star and they dig deeper. Nurdism is Huntsman’s main problem. Because of this he has no chance of getting the nomination and he never did. He’s the dweeb we all sat next to in science class that got all excited over a calculation that the teacher wrote on the blackboard. Meanwhile, you were ogling the head cheerleader who sat next to you with her legs uncrossed in a very unladylike position. Guys like Huntsman were hot for a deeper understanding of the periodic table of elements. This came out in last nights debate when he started speaking Mandarin Chinese. I blurted out to the others in the room, “are you kidding me? How out of touch is this guy?” But that wasn’t enough, when each candidate was asked what he’d be doing if he were not at the debate each remarked about watching the football game (Gingrich confused football with basketball but hey good attempt at being normal). Not our boy Huntsman, he wanted to go deeper, “I’d probably be communicating with my two sons who are in the military.” That was when my own son took the liberty of hollering out a comment, “what a tool that guy is.” Uh huh…that about sums it up. As I said months ago Huntsman is not worth talking about. And from this point on I won’t mention him again unless pushed :wink:

He’s a really smart guy who is out of touch with the American people and has never, and will never connect.

[/quote]

This is what I meant when I said Huntsman won’t leave you “passing out in the Pews…”

Mufasa

62

By the way, Zeb:

I never said that Huntsman even had a REMOTE chance of getting the GOP nomination (much less win the Presidency)…just that he was one of the most qualified for the Job.

Mufasa

63

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
GL:

The “problem” for Huntsman is (are):

  1. He is not an ideologue.

From the start of this Campaign he CLEARLY stated that he would never sign a “pledge” that locked him into doing things that may please the “base”; but be terrible for the country.

  1. He is about consensus and compromise. (That served him well as Governor of the most Conservative State in the Union); but is almost a “Death Nail” in National Politics these days.

  2. He is Mormon.

  3. His Economic Vision and Plan is brilliant…but not “flashy” or one that can be boiled down to simple sound bites. (remember “9/9/9”?)

  4. His speaking style won’t leave you “passing out in the Pews”.

I personally think that he is the best Candidate for the Job; but he won’t make it out of the GOP Primary.

Mufasa[/quote]

Well, 1, 2, and 4 ought to be “good things” but I understand what you mean. 3 is something that I wonder about, especially with Mitt at the front of the pack. 5 is probably a huge part of it as well. That said, all the other candidates had quite a few flaws as well, yet they were “checked out” by republicans…

64

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Hey at least you’re consistent huh? But if you change your mind and support Romeny I will not call that a flip-flop :slight_smile:

[/quote]

So, as a conservative, you’d help the man you know is lying his ass off to your fellow conservatives clinch the nomination?
[/quote]

First off I don’t believe that he’s lying. Why is it so difficult for you to believe that people evvolve over a period of time? In fact, do you know intelligent person who has held the exact same beliefs over a 25 year time span?

Many years ago I approved of abortion. Today I look back and think how stupid my position was. Only 10 years ago I was in favor of capital punishment today I am against it. I’ve changed my mind on a number of issues over the years. I’ve gained more information and reformulated my opinion. Am I a liar now because I’ve changed? Of course not, don’t be ridiculous. As I’ve said before (we’re at the point in this debate where we can only repeat what we’ve said to each other) I believe Romney is telling us the truth. But even if he isn’t he will have to make enough deals with conservatives who will inevitably hold him to his word. And secondly if he wants to get reelected he will keep his word!

65

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way, Zeb:

I never said that Huntsman even had a REMOTE chance of getting the GOP nomination (much less win the Presidency)…just that he was one of the most qualified for the Job.

Mufasa[/quote]

Qualified? Eh…nope.

66

Looks like Ron Paul got a good bump off last night’s debate.
Went from Romney 39% and Ron Paul 17% to Romney 35% and RP to 20%,

A few highlights.

67

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
GL:

The “problem” for Huntsman is (are):

  1. He is not an ideologue.

From the start of this Campaign he CLEARLY stated that he would never sign a “pledge” that locked him into doing things that may please the “base”; but be terrible for the country.

  1. He is about consensus and compromise. (That served him well as Governor of the most Conservative State in the Union); but is almost a “Death Nail” in National Politics these days.

  2. He is Mormon.

  3. His Economic Vision and Plan is brilliant…but not “flashy” or one that can be boiled down to simple sound bites. (remember “9/9/9”?)

  4. His speaking style won’t leave you “passing out in the Pews”.

I personally think that he is the best Candidate for the Job; but he won’t make it out of the GOP Primary.

Mufasa

[/quote]

Mormonism is not Huntsman’s problem. Things like that only become a problem when you are a rising star and they dig deeper. Nurdism is Huntsman’s main problem. Because of this he has no chance of getting the nomination and he never did. He’s the dweeb we all sat next to in science class that got all excited over a calculation that the teacher wrote on the blackboard. Meanwhile, you were ogling the head cheerleader who sat next to you with her legs uncrossed in a very unladylike position. Guys like Huntsman were hot for a deeper understanding of the periodic table of elements. This came out in last nights debate when he started speaking Mandarin Chinese. I blurted out to the others in the room, “are you kidding me? How out of touch is this guy?” But that wasn’t enough, when each candidate was asked what he’d be doing if he were not at the debate each remarked about watching the football game (Gingrich confused football with basketball but hey good attempt at being normal). Not our boy Huntsman, he wanted to go deeper, “I’d probably be communicating with my two sons who are in the military.” That was when my own son took the liberty of hollering out a comment, “what a tool that guy is.” Uh huh…that about sums it up. As I said months ago Huntsman is not worth talking about. And from this point on I won’t mention him again unless pushed :wink:

He’s a really smart guy who is out of touch with the American people and has never, and will never connect.

[/quote]

Reverse dominance hierarchies.

A remarkable feature of our little branch of primates is that we do not want our leaders to be THAT smart.

68

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way, Zeb:

I never said that Huntsman even had a REMOTE chance of getting the GOP nomination (much less win the Presidency)…just that he was one of the most qualified for the Job.

Mufasa[/quote]

Qualified? Eh…nope.[/quote]

Zeb:

Resume, resume, resume, my friend…

Are you basing your opinion on something else?

Mufasa

69

’

70

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Mormonism is not Huntsman’s problem. Things like that only become a problem when you are a rising star and they dig deeper. Nurdism is Huntsman’s main problem. Because of this he has no chance of getting the nomination and he never did. He’s the dweeb we all sat next to in science class that got all excited over a calculation that the teacher wrote on the blackboard. Meanwhile, you were ogling the head cheerleader who sat next to you with her legs uncrossed in a very unladylike position. Guys like Huntsman were hot for a deeper understanding of the periodic table of elements. This came out in last nights debate when he started speaking Mandarin Chinese. I blurted out to the others in the room, “are you kidding me? How out of touch is this guy?” But that wasn’t enough, when each candidate was asked what he’d be doing if he were not at the debate each remarked about watching the football game (Gingrich confused football with basketball but hey good attempt at being normal). Not our boy Huntsman, he wanted to go deeper, “I’d probably be communicating with my two sons who are in the military.” That was when my own son took the liberty of hollering out a comment, “what a tool that guy is.” Uh huh…that about sums it up. As I said months ago Huntsman is not worth talking about. And from this point on I won’t mention him again unless pushed :wink:

He’s a really smart guy who is out of touch with the American people and has never, and will never connect.[/quote]

…“We need George Marshall…we want George Patton…”

Mufasa

71

[quote]ZEB wrote:

First off I don’t believe that he’s lying. Why is it so difficult for you to believe that people evvolve over a period of time?

[/quote]

Oh, stop. His supporters know he’s lying. In fact, they count on the moderate/progressives, republican and independent, to understand as much. That’s exactly why ‘Santorum’s social conservatism can’t win,’ but Romney exact same (wink, wink) social conservatism is barely mentioned. It’s why “gay marriage and pro-life issues will just be a distraction with Santorum.” But not Romney, no. Even though he claims flatly, in debates on national TV, that he supports the very same amendments Santorum would.

72

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way, Zeb:

I never said that Huntsman even had a REMOTE chance of getting the GOP nomination (much less win the Presidency)…just that he was one of the most qualified for the Job.

Mufasa[/quote]

Qualified? Eh…nope.[/quote]

Zeb:

Resume, resume, resume, my friend…

Are you basing your opinion on something else?

Mufasa[/quote]

There is something very important about the nominating process that weeds out those who cannot connect with the voters Mufasa. While the high intellect candidate with a great resume (like Huntsman) may look good on paper politics and also governing takes more than this. It takes a people person. If you look over the past 60 years some of our best Presidents were not necessarily the ones with best resumes going in, or had the highest intellect. What they all did have in common regardless of party was a love for people and an ability to communicate and persuade by making such a positive connection.

There is a place in government for people like Huntsman, but certainly not at this level. Or as John Huntsman would say “qui xi pau zi maiga”

73

[quote]Sloth wrote:
ZEB wrote:

First off I don’t believe that he’s lying. Why is it so difficult for you to believe that people evvolve over a period of time?

Oh, stop. His supporters know he’s lying.[/quote]

Um…cause you said?

[quote]In fact, they count on the moderate/progressives, republican and independent, to understand as much. That’s exactly why ‘Santorum’s social conservatism can’t win,’ but Romney exact same (wink, wink) social conservatism is barely mentioned. It’s why “gay marriage and pro-life issues will just be a distraction with Santorum.” But not Romney, no. Even though he claims flatly, in debates on national TV, that he supports the very same amendments Santorum would.
[/quote]

Wow, there’s a whole lot wrong with this paragraph buddy.

1- Santorum can’t win because he’s Santorum. Just like Gingrich can’t win because he’s Gingrich get it? Stop with the issues for a minute and take a good look at him. He’s a boy scout, or as I’ve described him a ticked off Gym teacher. His persona is borderline mean, certainly stern at best. He wants to lecture us and we don’t like that in America, we never have. Whereas Ronald Reagan would say basically the same things he was inspirational. How else can I put this? How about this, all issues aside, Obama is cool Santorum is not. And in America since the media age well…you know what I’m going to say right?

2- As to politics all other things being equal. The top prize usually goes to the candidate who can spread himself out over a large number of issues. You and I can be standing next to each other have completely differing political opinions and when a certain candidate pops up on TV we both say “I like that guy”. That’s the man who will win the White House for certain. Does it happen like this all the time no, obviously not. But that’s what each good candidate strives to become.

You with me?

When person A sees Romney he sees someone who is moderate enough to be President. His mental script might go something like this,

“I like Romney he seems like a reasonable guy who isn’t one of those right wing nut cases that want to tell the rest of us how to live—he even appointed gay people to his administration as Governor. I’m voting for him.”

Person B sees Romney and his mental script is as follows:

“I like Romney he’s a pro family values guy just look at his wife of 38 years and those great kids. And Romney is against gay marriage I like that. He’s also for cutting my taxes I’m voting for him.”

I know, I know it’s not what you want to hear. You want someone with pro ______________(fill in the blank with everything you are for) who will win the nomination. But I am here to tell you that such a person does not exiist. AND, if he did exist he would still be trying to reach out across several voter segments telling them how much he is for what they are for. We’re back to “the game” again. The one you don’t like but the one that dictates who will be President over the next four years.

Yeah it’s a game of sorts, it always has been and it always will be.

74

[quote]ZEB wrote:

When person A sees Romney he sees someone who is moderate enough to be President. His mental script might go something like this,

“I like Romney he seems like a reasonable guy who isn’t one of those right wing nut cases that want to tell the rest of us how to live—he even appointed gay people to his administration as Governor. I’m voting for him.”

Person B sees Romney and his mental script is as follows:

“I like Romney he’s a pro family values guy just look at his wife of 38 years and those great kids. And Romney is against gay marriage I like that. He’s also for cutting my taxes I’m voting for him.”

[/quote]

Rofl. People see hims as a moderate…even though he’s busy telling conservatives that he’s no less of a social conservative than Santorum. So why do moderates see him as a moderate? Because they know he’s the biggest bullcrap artist on the stage.

75

Admit it Zeb, moderates looks past his Santorum-like social conservatism because they know he’s saying, for now, what conservatives want to hear. They know his pledge to sign a federal amendment defining marriage between a man a woman is bunk. We both know it. We’re all too smart here for this. Don’t treat me like one of the slack-jawed conservatives your guy has to fool. It’s the same deal as when he tried to paint himself as a natural Washington outsider, and got smacked down by Gingrich, to applause.

76

"I believe in the experiences by virtue, I have had I am in a good position to make a contribution to Washington. I long for a day instead of people go to Washington for 20 and 30 years, who get elected and then when they lose office, they stay there and make money as lobbyist, or connecting to businesses ? I think it stinks. I think people should go to work in Washington and serve Washington and serve as the people of their nation and go home. I would like to see term limits in Washington. As the president of the United States, if I am elected, of course I will fight for a second term. There is a lot of work to be done.?

Yeah, yeah, he’s a political outsider…because he was a political loser at key times.

Watch the video.

77

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
By the way, Zeb:

I never said that Huntsman even had a REMOTE chance of getting the GOP nomination (much less win the Presidency)…just that he was one of the most qualified for the Job.

Mufasa[/quote]

Qualified? Eh…nope.[/quote]

Zeb:

Resume, resume, resume, my friend…

Are you basing your opinion on something else?

Mufasa[/quote]

There is something very important about the nominating process that weeds out those who cannot connect with the voters Mufasa. While the high intellect candidate with a great resume (like Huntsman) may look good on paper politics and also governing takes more than this. It takes a people person. If you look over the past 60 years some of our best Presidents were not necessarily the ones with best resumes going in, or had the highest intellect. What they all did have in common regardless of party was a love for people and an ability to communicate and persuade by making such a positive connection.

There is a place in government for people like Huntsman, but certainly not at this level. Or as John Huntsman would say “qui xi pau zi maiga” [/quote]

Agree, Zeb!

The person for the “Top Job” really does have to connect with the electorate; and it is pretty obvious that Huntsman hasn’t (and probably never will, regrettably…)

He has been VERY consistent in saying “If My Country Calls…I will serve”. I could definitely see a cabinet position for him.

Mufasa

78

[quote]Sloth wrote:
"I believe in the experiences by virtue, I have had I am in a good position to make a contribution to Washington. I long for a day instead of people go to Washington for 20 and 30 years, who get elected and then when they lose office, they stay there and make money as lobbyist, or connecting to businesses ? I think it stinks. I think people should go to work in Washington and serve Washington and serve as the people of their nation and go home. I would like to see term limits in Washington. As the president of the United States, if I am elected, of course I will fight for a second term. There is a lot of work to be done.?

Yeah, yeah, he’s a political outsider…because he was a political loser at key times.

Watch the video.
[/quote]

I think most of them are full of shit

79

It occurred to me that one of the reasons that Sloth doesn’t like Romney is because he plays the game better than his competition.

Who in 2012, that is likely to win, is doing and saying what YOU want them to?

80

Romney will win Tuesday in NH with somwhere between 35% and 40%. Doubling his closest rival. He’s already ahead by 10pts. in South Carolina which will be held on the 21st. That will be three in a row which will help give him a gigantic boost in Florida which is held on the 31st. And as I’ve said Florida will be the last serious primary where there is anything close to a challenge to his eventual nomination.

Iowa—NH–SC–FLA…OVER!