Huntsman strikes me as a technocrat. It's hard for the 'competent' to inspire. If given the choice I'd vote for either Romney or Huntsman. Like a lot of people Romney's flip-flops make me nervous - there's just something about a person who changes his mind a lot that makes them seem weak. The prototype R was Reagan. He said what he believed and you could make up your own mind - the closest to that may be Santorum, maybe he can get the VP nod. less

I agree about romney's flip flops, but for different reasons. It's not weak if one changes their mind after getting new information in fact it might be insane if they didn't. Romney's unnerving because it seems his only conviction is to be president, everything else is squishy. the advantage is that if you don't like what romney says, you can hope he's lying/pandering (sarcasm).

Also, Newtmentum is starting and oddly enough, newt could hold onto it long enough to win. If not, it's santorum's turn next and he could win iowa at the last minute giving him a chance.

link less

I agree - seems Romney does not respond to 'new' information, he responds to the direction that the 'wind' is blowing. It's a serious lack of principals.

So why would I vote for him? Honestly to me he is the republican Obama - very much a pragmatist. Like Romney, Obama's rhetoric is far more left-wing than his actual governance. Romney likewise would be less right-wing than his rhetoric. For example he doesn't really oppose abortion, he just feels he needs to say it.

So why not vote for Obama? In my view he does not understand how business works enough to make the right economic moves. On the other hand Romney has adequate business acumen to govern more effectively - as does Huntsman.

I would be very comfortable with Huntsman as president. less

I discussed this with someone else today and he too expressed the opinion that the only reason Huntsman isn't doing that well in the polls with registered R's is because it IS the primary and they're all trying to go hard to the base.

It's not a surprising strategy minus that Huntsman would probably do very well in a general and appeal to moderates in both parties (big majorities). As for Newt.... Idk. I feel like he already had his time in the spotlight lol.


I don't know. The thing that gets me with some of the other candidates is that when I see them try and speak about foreign relations and diplomacy and the military, all I can think about are how some of the biggest conflicts of the century were resolved through one-on-one "let's take a walk" negotiations. I think of Reagan and Gorbachev. I think of how Jimmy Carter, although not a particularly successful president, aided in the successful negotiation of the Geneva Accord. Quite simply, I just can't see a candidate like Cain, for example, as having a prayer in situations even mildly similar to those. You have to be strong, you have to be likable, you have to have a thorough understanding of your policies and you need to be able to communicate them intelligently and empathetically. To me, there is value in being professional and respectful, and being able to obtain the trust and respect of even those who disagree with you. That type of competency is not something most of these candidates have displayed. And what's more, they seem quite convinced that's a good thing. less

The more I see Jon Huntsman the more I wonder why he doesn't have more support.

He seems highly intelligent, confident, literate and conversant. He also has a strong record as governor AND years of diplomatic experience, including serving as US ambassador to the People's Republic of China. Bonus points for having a general respect for science. And he hasn't even f'd anything up in his campaign yet.

I get that he doesn't have the name recognition of Romney, but I don't necessarily understand why the people who are currently unenthusiastically supporting Romney aren't somewhat more enthusiastically supporting Huntsman. To me, he's basically the same candidate except upgraded to a more intelligent, coherent and somewhat less dull model.

What are they missing? Or what am I missing?

Of the two, (Romney & Huntsman) who do you all think is better?

Of the entire current R field, who do you think has been strongest?

I'd appreciate input from all sides of the political spectrum private voting less