GOP Primary Megathread!

[CountDeMoney]

Also, love how Gingrich and Santorum attack Romney for being an out of touch wealthy man. Class warfare much? 

Romney doesn't help his case as a bulwalk for the wealthy, though.  "President Obama wants to put free enterprise on trial"?  "Bitter politics of envy"?  "Dragged down by a resentment of success"?

Really, Mitt?

[CountDeMoney]

I feel bad for Huntsman.  A bipartisan gesture by Obama to put a prominent Republican in one of the most important ambassadorial posts in the world for the US, and he's branded a traitor to the party.

Man, the GOP sure hates that negro.

[Phillip V]

I feel bad for Huntsman.  A bipartisan gesture by Obama to put a prominent Republican in one of the most important ambassadorial posts in the world for the US, and he's branded a traitor to the party.

Man, the GOP sure hates that negro.

Like many at the time, Huntsman bought into Obamamania and jumped ship, resigning as Governor of Utah. He is quoted as saying in 2009 that Republicans were now "irrelevant". However, Huntsman did not anticipate the 2010 midterm elections, thus quitting his ambassadorship after less than two years to abandon the Obama administration and run against it.

[Darth Wagtaros]

I feel bad for Huntsman.  A bipartisan gesture by Obama to put a prominent Republican in one of the most important ambassadorial posts in the world for the US, and he's branded a traitor to the party.

Man, the GOP sure hates that negro.

Like many at the time, Huntsman bought into Obamamania and jumped ship, resigning as Governor of Utah. He is quoted as saying in 2009 that Republicans were now "irrelevant". However, Huntsman did not anticipate the 2010 midterm elections, quitting his ambassadorship after only two years to abandon the Obama administration and run against it.

That makes him sound like an all around tool.

[CountDeMoney]

He is quoted as saying in 2009 that Republicans were now "irrelevant".

Link, please.

[Phillip V]

He is quoted as saying in 2009 that Republicans were now "irrelevant".

Link, please.

Feb 2009: Says the GOP are "inconsequential". Cites Newt Gingrich as the guy he goes to for ideas. Joins the Obama Administration 3 months later.

http://www.salon.com/2009/02/24/huntsman/singleton/

[DGuller]

To be fair, Republicans were inconsequential.  What he didn't foresee was that most Americans in 2010 decided they wanted to be inconsequential as well.

[Phillip V]

To be fair, Republicans were inconsequential.  What he didn't foresee was that most Americans in 2010 decided they wanted to be inconsequential as well.

Fair? In politics? Though, former Senator Arlen Specter had the worse fate; switched from being a Republican in the Senate to being a Democrat; then replaced by a "real" Democratic nominee a year later. (The nominee ended up losing.)

[Valmy]

So what the heck is up with all the votes for Ron Paul? The guy is a radical no government type, along with other "out there" ideas. Now, to a point I can like that he wants to cut back government, but he goes way too far/radical. And other stuff, especially on Foreign Policy. As I've said before though, it looks like those annoyed over government are looking to him for some big changes. And between the OWS, Tea Party, and other folks not liking the way Washington has been doing business for a long time now, I guess I can understand Paul's popularity as there are a lot of disaffected folks.

Well I am going to vote for him because of foreign policy and civil liberty stuff but it will hardly matter by then.  This nomination is a formality for Mitt at this point.  I mean yeah it would be bad if Paul became dictator and implemented his entire crazy program, but he would not be able to do that even if he won (which he wont) but he is really the only guy who even addresses this stuff for the most part.  I think you have it that a big part of it is just that he challenges the establishment that is generating so much frustration and resentment

[garbon]

So what the heck is up with all the votes for Ron Paul? The guy is a radical no government type, along with other "out there" ideas. Now, to a point I can like that he wants to cut back government, but he goes way too far/radical. And other stuff, especially on Foreign Policy. As I've said before though, it looks like those annoyed over government are looking to him for some big changes. And between the OWS, Tea Party, and other folks not liking the way Washington has been doing business for a long time now, I guess I can understand Paul's popularity as there are a lot of disaffected folks.

Well I am going to vote for him because of foreign policy and civil liberty stuff but it will hardly matter by then.  This nomination is a formality for Mitt at this point.  I mean yeah it would be bad if Paul became dictator and implemented his entire crazy program, but he would not be able to do that even if he won (which he wont) but he is really the only guy who even addresses this stuff for the most part.  I think you have it that a big part of it is just that he challenges the establishment that is generating so much frustration and resentment

Yeah but the thing is that he'd be even more ineffective that a typical president. Which is sort of okay if you go with the notion that you'd rather the president be hamstrung and not fuck things up, but I'm not sure we're in a good place to have ineffectual presidents.

[Eddie Teach]

Going nowhere beats going in the wrong direction.

[Valmy]

Yeah but the thing is that he'd be even more ineffective that a typical president. Which is sort of okay if you go with the notion that you'd rather the president be hamstrung and not fuck things up, but I'm not sure we're in a good place to have ineffectual presidents.

That would be an important point of consideration if I was a member of the Politburo and we were having meetings to determine the President of the People's Republic of America.  But since all I am really saying here is 'hey I want politicians to talk, and maybe even do more, about a couple issues Paul brings up' I am not too worried about it.  I am in Texas, my state is already a lock to vote Romney in the general so what I do is pretty pointless.  The only reason I vote in statewide elections is just because I feel like I should, they are never really contests.  Well ok the Democratic Primary in 2008 was pretty competitive and interesting but that was obviously a very unusual set of circumstances.

[grumbler]

Like many at the time, Huntsman bought into Obamamania and jumped ship, resigning as Governor of Utah. He is quoted as saying in 2009 that Republicans were now "irrelevant". However, Huntsman did not anticipate the 2010 midterm elections, thus quitting his ambassadorship after less than two years to abandon the Obama administration and run against it.

Truthspeak at it's best! 

Of the 8 ambassadors to the PRC before Huntsman, 4 served less than 3 years.  The argument that Huntsman's resignation in April 2001 came as a result of his hearing about the results of the election in Nov 2010 is pretty amusing.

The argument that Huntsman resigned as governor of Utah and took the job from Obama because of "Obamamania" (which contains the implication that it was merely coincidental that Huntsman was fluent in Mandarin and had already served in two ambassador-level positions).

[grumbler]

Feb 2009: Says the GOP are "inconsequential". Cites Newt Gingrich as the guy he goes to for ideas. Joins the Obama Administration 3 months later.

http://www.salon.com/2009/02/24/huntsman/singleton/

I am kinda curious:  did you read the article and not understand it, or did you read it, understand it, and deliberately ignore it to come up with the "Says the GOP are "inconsequential"" canard?

If the latter, why would you make yourself out to be so blatantly dishonest?  Anyone else who reads that can see that Huntsman is saying that "saying the GOP's leaders in Congress are "inconsequential" and that they've failed to move beyond "gratuitous partisanship.""  That's GOP leaders, not the GOP overall.  A pretty huge difference.

EDIT: Actually, what he says is that the statements of the GOP House leadership are inconsequential, an even more qualified statement than that the leaders are inconsequential:

"I don't even know the congressional leadership," Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, shrugging off questions about top congressional Republicans, including House Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "I have not met them. I don't listen or read whatever it is they say because it is inconsequential — completely."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/24/utah-governor-ignores-top-gop-legislators/

[Ed Anger]

Feels like the GrumberDeathStar has cleared the planet and is locking on to a target....