Well apparently GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman see himself as being more "electable" than former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney when placed up against Barry "Almighty," and the rationale for his making that assessment is because of what he describes as being Gov. Romney's flip-flop on the issues. “I don't know that he can go on to beat President Obama, given his record,” the former Utah governor said today on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “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." Huntsman said that Romney has changed his position on issues including the being of pro-life, the Second Amendment, healthcare, as well as taxes. “I think the electability issue is a very real one,” he said, although he also said that he would support Romney if he wins the Republican Party’s nomination. Even though he states that he would support Romney in just such an eventuality, I just don't see him as being a man that you can take at his word. He just strikes me as a guy trying to be too smooth.
Turning to the sexual harassment allegations against fellow candidate Herman Cain when he was CEO of the National Restaurant Association, Huntsman, in kinda jumping on the bash Cain bandwagon, Mr. Huntsman said that the former businessman must disclose all information about the allegations. Mr. Huntsman said the information needs to come out "in total" because legitimate questions have been raised and the controversy has distracted from the real issues in the campaign. What legitimate questions have actually been raise? What's actually been going on here is a witch hunt! The more I hear from this guy, Huntsman, the more it is that he sounds like someone who is trying to set himself up as the default candidate. Huntsman, who let's not forget, was Barry "Almighty’s" former ambassador to China, says that for the Republican Party overall, the GOP must secure the independent vote in order to win the White House. He just comes across, at least to me, as being more of a John McCain wannabe. I'm not looking for a moderate and yet another "Maverick." That's not what we are now in desperate need of.
It is also the opinion of Mr. Huntsman that a majority of the GOP field represents a “Republican Party that dismisses mainstream science,” he said. “You can't be on an extreme end of politics and expect to win over the independent vote,” he said, pointing to an early debate during which most of the candidates onstage said they’d vote against extending the debt ceiling and force the country into default. Just how is it that Mr. Huntsman defines, "extreme?" So what we now have is a potential nominee who seems perfectly comfortable joining in with those on the left referring to our group of candidates as being extreme. “We’ve got to win over some independents,” he said. What does he mean, exactly, by what he describes as "mainstream science?" I get a little nervous when one of the guys on our side, especially in the group seeking our party's nomination to go up against Barry, starts talking about a fervent belief in "mainstream science." To blindly trust science, I think is more than just a little reckless, and to accuse those wanting to ask questions as being guilty of "dismissing science" is patently dishonest.
Also according to Mr. Huntsman, "The minute that the Republican Party becomes the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012. When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position." Also according to Mr. Huntsman, "The Republican Party has to remember that we're drawing from traditions that go back as far as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, President Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush. And we've got a lot of traditions to draw upon. But I can't remember a time in our history where we actually were willing to shun science and become a party that was antithetical to science. I'm not sure that's good for our future and it's not a winning formula." Not the words of someone I can vote for, at least in the primary.
While a certain number of so-called "scientists" may be pushing this nonsense about climate change, there are just as many, if not more, with whom the jury is still out. As it also remains very much out with the majority of Americans. So whose side, regarding this issue, is Mr. Huntsman on, those 98 scientists or the majority of Americans? And why is it that just because people choose not to fall for the whole climate change theory, they are said to be shunning science. I'd say what represents the bigger danger is to simply buy into this nonsense, accepting what the climate change alarmists as saying at face value and never issue any sort of challenge to what they are saying. "Proof" of climate change is very highly suspect, to say the least," and for Mr. Huntsman to be so willing to buy into the cockamamie scheme makes him questionable as a viable candidate. Now I know that Gov. Romney has, himself, made some confusing statements regarding his stand on climate change, which has caused concern among conservatives. And he is going to make very clear where it is that he stands on the issue to allay those fears.
Mr. Huntsman has defended his record of conservatism and said that, even though he currently trails in the polls, people will come to see that he is the right candidate to face Barry. Ya know, this guy Huntsman is just a little too slick for me, by about a factor of 10. My wife describes him as being the undertaker that cries with you in one room and then chuckles as he counts your money in another room. Of these two candidates I would go with Romney and not even think twice about it. Huntsman just does not come across as being someone I could trust. And he can attempt to defend his "conservative" record, and I think when a majority of Republicans look for someone who defines what it means to be a conservative I'm fairly certain that Mr. Huntsman never enters their mind. If I were to have my druthers, I'd druther our candidate be someone like Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich or even Rick Perry. I initially had high hopes for Gov. Perry who seems insistent upon shooting himself in the foot. Having said that, however, I will support whomever it is that wins the GOP nomination, because anyone is better that Barry.
No comments:
Post a Comment