GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman (R-Obama) made the rounds this weekend on TV talk shows saying that fellow candidate Mitt Romney is unelectable because of some of the legislation and positions that Romney’s taken in the past.
Huntsman, who is the former governor of Utah, and who also served as Obama’s ambassador to China, may want to remember his own flirtations with the liberal wing of the Grand Old Party when he makes that assessment. Huntsman, for example, was a supporter of cap and trade legislation.
"There is an issue on the flip-flops as it relates to trust. I don’t know that he can go on to beat President Obama given his record,” said Huntsman on NBC’s Meet the Press according to the Hill “I mean, when there is a question about whether you're running for the White House or running for the Waffle House, you've got a real problem with the American people.”
At least, if Mitt flipped, he also flopped, unlike Huntsman who apparently has no problem plagiarizing President George the First’s criticisms of Bill Clinton in his Waffle House reference.
What do you call it? Oh, yes: “unrepentant” is probably the right word for Huntsman.
If Mitt Romney is unelectable then, Jon Huntsman is unmentionable as the GOP nominee.
It makes me wonder if there are some Mormons in the West who resent an Easterner like Romney representing the faith.
Huntsman, who is right about Romney’s record, is wrong about his electability.
The truth is that in 2012 the GOP could nominate Franklin Roosevelt’s dog Fala and still beat Obama if the economy remains the number one issue.
But, still, Huntsman has done conservatives a favor in putting the Romney flip-flops on the table again.
Perhaps Perry, Cain or Gingrich- whichever eventually wins the nomination- can send Huntsman back to China as a reward.
Because the argument the GOP is having should not be about electability. It should be ideas. Not who has them, but whose ideas best represent the party and the country as a whole.
Huntsman is a great example of the linear thinking that has come to represent the establishment GOP. Instead of participating in what could be one of the most salient debates of this century in regards to the direction of the country, he’s more interested in talking about the politics of the election than in the policy of a president.
That’d be a fine thing if he was running for chairman of the RNC, but I want a president who aims a little higher.
It’s Mitt’s flaw too.
If Mitt Romney was more interested in having strong personal beliefs than he was in positioning himself as a “moderate” perhaps he wouldn’t have created his own private-label version of Obamacare while he was governor in Massachusetts. Or held any of the other positions that he did- on abortion or gays, for example- in an attempt to make himself more agreeable to the general public.
That’s partly why I think the field is narrowing down to Cain versus Gingrich.
Say what you will but both men are authentic and originals.
After the faux, one-dimensional celebrity of Obama- who let’s face it, is only famous because he’s not a white man- it would be refreshing to have people of real substance leading our country.
While not to be confused as an endorsement, I think both Cain and Gingrich offer that substance.
Don’t go past here if you are easily offended and don’t click on the links.
I’m all for internet freedom, 1st Amendment, etc.
But I can’t help wonder about a new Wiki site that seems to have an inordinate number of conservatives listed on it.
Do not click on the links if you are easily offended. The site contains language that some may consider inappropriate.
Just another reason not to trust the Man.
PS- If you friend me on Facebook you get sneak peeks of columns!
PS Part 2- The email function at the top of the page working again. Sorry it took so long. Let the Hate Mail begin!