Who next for the republicans

[imatfaal]

A few days after Rick Perry forgot one of his three agencies of govt to be scrapped - and did look a bit of a nitwit, it seems that Herman Cain has been struggling to communicate effectively or even comprehensibly.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/15731843

 

I am not a fan of the glib soundbite-meister - we've ended up with Tony Cameron and David Blair in the UK. But if you heard either of the recent gaffes/blunders from a friend in the pub when they were holding forth on a subject, wouldn't you be tempted to gaffaw and say something along the lines of "ah now we know that you don't have a clue what you are talking about!"

 

Both struck me as someone who didn't have command of a subject forgetting lines which had been written for them - rather than a knowledgeable man struggling to find the right words to convey his position

 

edited to fix link

Edited November 15, 2011 by imatfaal

[Phi for All]

What strikes me is the blatant partisan maneuvering going on for some time now. The Republicans in Congress can't let Obama be seen doing anything positive, so they sabotage any help that might appear to come from his administration. It's clear that Cain jumped to attack the president's handling of Libya, and then struggled to remember why he felt that way. Oppose first, then stall for time to figure out your opposition. Is that a good leadership quality? Is that even a good campaign strategy if you have to think that hard?

 

We're in huge trouble and the US politicians are once again setting up the country to scream across a non-existent fence instead of discussing our problems at a sorely needed round table. Both major parties are fighting to control who gets to do the bidding of the corporate lobbyists, ignoring the representation aspect of their jobs as elected representatives. House Resolution 3035 is a perfect example. A sloppy bill that allows corporate robo-calling of consumer cell phones, clearly something that nobody but big business really wants. Is this really the House's answer to the economic crisis, wasting working America's cell-phone minutes with recorded sales calls?

 

I'm not sure the Democrats are any better, but I know the Republicans lied to us about how the Bush tax cuts would allow big business to create more jobs. I know they lied about keeping jobs in the US, and how much taxes their mega-corporations have been paying. And now candidates like Herman Cain can sit in interviews and stall while they make up crap reasons why they oppose anything the current president has done. I curse Obama for not engaging the American people in his struggles against the House, but his handling of Libya was exactly what was needed, imo. I'd bet a dollar that Libya stabilizes in less time than Iraq (and with a better opinion of the US).

 

I hope this isn't too far off the topic, but I often find myself staring open-mouthed and dazed at many of the Republican actions lately. Cain and Perry forgetting their prepared lines, Rumsfeld criticizing Obama for not having an exit strategy in Libya, and the phenomenal waste of effort at trying to cut taxes for the wealthy when they will make more money if the lower classes have more to spend. The Republicans remind me of a guy I had classes with in college. He was renting an apartment but lost his two roommates because he was insufferable to live with, never helping with shared responsibilities. Rather than trying to get along and find new roomies, he started spending his rent money on himself. When the landlord served him with an eviction notice, he trashed the place and left in the middle of the night.

 

I think the Republicans have demonstrated that they aren't interested in helping with shared responsibilities. They're spending our resources on themselves. Are they starting to trash the place in anticipation of an eviction notice?

[JohnB]

Maybe they need to look to the past for a suitable candidate? Someone superior to the current crop?

 

[imatfaal]

Maybe they need to look to the past for a suitable candidate? Someone superior to the current crop?

 

 

I think they have taken you at your word Newt is Back - well not quite exactly your idea, its definitely a candidate from retro-world

[CaptainPanic]

I think the Republicans have demonstrated that they aren't interested in helping with shared responsibilities. They're spending our resources on themselves. Are they starting to trash the place in anticipation of an eviction notice?

 

I do not think that there are any politicians who aren't primarily trying to help themselves. Actually, that in itself is not necessarily a problem. The ideal voting system should ensure that they think of the voters. This prevents them from doing anything really stupid.

 

In the US however, there are so few swing states, and the number of votes that are practically guaranteed to both parties is so large, that a party can have the arrogance to ignore their voters. All they need to do is to convince a relatively small number of undecided people what to vote. Or, alternatively, they can just cheat.

 

Also, voters got themselves to blame because they interest themselves so much in the martial status, and any sexual escapades that a large number of capable leaders are just not suited because of some previous life... and a large number of topics just never get discussed because the focus is elsewhere during the elections.

 

What the US democracy really needs is a third party to get big. Or a couple of new parties to get big.

 

It's really a pity that the Tea Party is not getting any bigger, and that they (for these elections at least) seem to get along with the other Republicans quite well. It would be a blessing for everyone if they would split off, forming that 3rd party. I think a good democracy has at least 5 parties that can all be in a government, and that can all deliver a president. Then you have something to choose, and then the politicians have to listen to their voters in more detail.

 

There is one danger in a multi-party system: if all the parties get divided into a very simple left vs. right discussion, then politics will get as silly as the US's. Two options just isn't enough.

[Phi for All]

I do not think that there are any politicians who aren't primarily trying to help themselves. Actually, that in itself is not necessarily a problem. The ideal voting system should ensure that they think of the voters. This prevents them from doing anything really stupid.

If the middle class would stand up to show the pols that "thinking of themselves" should require more thought to what the people want instead of the corporations, I agree that this focus wouldn't be as much of a problem. You can't maneuver yourself into a cushy private sector job if you can't get re-elected.

 

Also, voters got themselves to blame because they interest themselves so much in the martial status, and any sexual escapades that a large number of capable leaders are just not suited because of some previous life... and a large number of topics just never get discussed because the focus is elsewhere during the elections.

We're to blame but we've been manipulated in this as well. It's easy to whip some folks into a frenzy when you claim a certain group is threatening deeply held beliefs, and the pols are very good at that.

 

It's really a pity that the Tea Party is not getting any bigger, and that they (for these elections at least) seem to get along with the other Republicans quite well. It would be a blessing for everyone if they would split off, forming that 3rd party. I think a good democracy has at least 5 parties that can all be in a government, and that can all deliver a president. Then you have something to choose, and then the politicians have to listen to their voters in more detail.

I would agree but I don't think the time is right for the Tea Party. Stripping away already eroded regulations seems counter-productive at a time when most our problems can be traced back to giving corporations and banks far too much power. Corporations aren't necessarily evil or greedy, but it's a big part of their mandate to grow and prosper in any legal way possible. We've allowed them to lobby to relax the laws too much and it's come back to bite us in the ass. If we put the regs back into place and make lobbying more costly than it's worth, corporations will look elsewhere to cut costs and bring more profit.

 

Hell, if we work hard enough at it, we may even be able to bring back the model of happy, healthy, well-treated, well-compensated workers being more prosperous and beneficial, to replace the model where treating them like dirt and making them fear losing their jobs is more profitable. Wouldn't that be something?

[CaptainPanic]

If the middle class would stand up to show the pols that "thinking of themselves" should require more thought to what the people want instead of the corporations, I agree that this focus wouldn't be as much of a problem. You can't maneuver yourself into a cushy private sector job if you can't get re-elected.

The problem is that in the US 2-party system, there isn't much to stand up to. You can't stand up if the only other 2 choices are (1) not voting or (2) something almost the same or even worse. The Democrats aren't much better than the Republicans, in all fairness.

 

We're to blame but we've been manipulated in this as well. It's easy to whip some folks into a frenzy when you claim a certain group is threatening deeply held beliefs, and the pols are very good at that.

Sure, the blame is not one-sided. The voters are interested in irrelevant issues. And the politics/media happily supply irrelevant information, because that will never harm their campaign, and can often only hurt the opponent's campaign.

 

I would agree but I don't think the time is right for the Tea Party. Stripping away already eroded regulations seems counter-productive at a time when most our problems can be traced back to giving corporations and banks far too much power. Corporations aren't necessarily evil or greedy, but it's a big part of their mandate to grow and prosper in any legal way possible. We've allowed them to lobby to relax the laws too much and it's come back to bite us in the ass. If we put the regs back into place and make lobbying more costly than it's worth, corporations will look elsewhere to cut costs and bring more profit.

 

Hell, if we work hard enough at it, we may even be able to bring back the model of happy, healthy, well-treated, well-compensated workers being more prosperous and beneficial, to replace the model where treating them like dirt and making them fear losing their jobs is more profitable. Wouldn't that be something?

I did not say that I want the Tea Party in power. I said I want them to split off from the Republican party, because three parties is better than just two, regardless of what that third party represents. As long as it attracts some voters, you're onto a possible multi-party system. It could kickstart a change in US politics with more parties getting a chance, and that only gives voters more power. And that's the goal I had in mind.

 

No matter how coorporation-focussed the Tea Party may be, if they split off from the Republicans, that would be a very democratic move which all the voters should appreciate (imho). At the same time, I think that it would be a complete disaster if the Tea Party would have a majority in the houses in the US, or if they would supply you guys with a president. So, I see them as a way to improve democracy in the US, even though I disagree with each and every word in their program.

[Phi for All]

The problem is that in the US 2-party system, there isn't much to stand up to. You can't stand up if the only other 2 choices are (1) not voting or (2) something almost the same or even worse. The Democrats aren't much better than the Republicans, in all fairness.

They're both catering to the ones who are willing to fund their re-elections and pay for the spin that convinces the voters. It would be very interesting to see voter reaction to a strong independent who wanted to put an end to the nonsense and focus on bringing back a robust economy that wasn't based on broken promises from big business.

 

I think a big part of the problem is that most politicians come from big money. There's a disconnect with people who live their lives being serviced by lesser mortals. It's hard to consider the needs of working America when you're busy thinking about what toys need to go on your main yacht and which can be put on your shadow yacht.

 

I did not say that I want the Tea Party in power. I said I want them to split off from the Republican party, because three parties is better than just two, regardless of what that third party represents. As long as it attracts some voters, you're onto a possible multi-party system. It could kickstart a change in US politics with more parties getting a chance, and that only gives voters more power. And that's the goal I had in mind.

 

No matter how coorporation-focussed the Tea Party may be, if they split off from the Republicans, that would be a very democratic move which all the voters should appreciate (imho). At the same time, I think that it would be a complete disaster if the Tea Party would have a majority in the houses in the US, or if they would supply you guys with a president. So, I see them as a way to improve democracy in the US, even though I disagree with each and every word in their program.

I see what you mean. It would be very good for the Democrats, almost ensuring that Obama would be re-elected. I tend towards the Democrat platform but don't really trust them much anymore. As you said earlier, they're really not much better. I like Obama's policies and his goals, but I hate that he thinks American's should just sit back and let professional politicians handle the governing. It's caused him to miss some great opportunities to engage the public on issues where he's being stonewalled. I hate that he doesn't seem to want to bother us. It makes me think he's just another pol that doesn't want to poke the beast too much for fear of what will happen if we're aroused.

 

Beyond that, having a third party would show us that we don't need to settle for "nearly as good" representation. If the Tea Party could thumb their nose at the GOP, maybe those of us who are more concerned with efficiency in government spending could give the full bird to the DNC.

[JustinW]

Wouldn't a growing number of parties deminish the effectiveness of government? You could look at it as, the more parties a government has the more ideologies will be in play, and that it would be near impossible to elect a president whose ideology would come close to the majority of the nation. Not to say that I do look at it that way. Other parties are already represented. This is the reason for having primary elections from a group of candidates who represent a platform's intentions. Not to mention that if there were more people that didn't come close to agreeing with the ideolog and policy of one party or another, you would see Independant candidates at least come closer to winning elections. When it comes to fiscal cause or social cause no one will ever agree completely. The republican platform have conservatives, libertarians, and recently folks who claim tea party principles. While democrats have progressives, liberals, and folks of many different social and fiscal stripes. They all get sorted out in the primaries to represent one of the two main platforms. So just because there are only two platforms doesn't mean that no other view points aren't represented. That is why I like to consider myself an Independant until election time. Listen to what everyone has to say and pick the lesser of two evils. Having to pick between two evils at once is better than having to pick between more than two at once. The country would be back and forth on policy at a more extreme level if this were the case. I think this wold cause more unrest in the nation.

 

Oh! I forgot to answer the original question of the thread. I think you'll see Newt rise in the ranks. He is becoming better able to articulate what he is saying, and also becoming more convincing that he believes in what he is saying. I also believe that he is the best candidate they have for GOP nomination. I do wish someone will get into the race on the democrat side. It would make things a little more interesting.

Edited November 17, 2011 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

Wouldn't a growing number of parties deminish the effectiveness of government? You could look at it as, the more parties a government has the more ideologies will be in play, and that it would be near impossible to elect a president whose ideology would come close to the majority of the nation.

I don't think so. Do you think the US is as evenly split down the middle in terms of ideology as the 2000 / 2004 presidential elections would suggest? Or is it the result of having only two major parties?

 

Not to say that I do look at it that way. Other parties are already represented. This is the reason for having primary elections from a group of candidates who represent a platform's intentions. Not to mention that if there were more people that didn't come close to agreeing with the ideolog and policy of one party or another, you would see Independant candidates at least come closer to winning elections.

I think independents would fare better if our voting system wasn't winner-take-all. As it is now, people often vote for a candidate only to stop the other candidate from winning. A vote for an independent who may represent you better could very well allow your worst candidate to win, especially when the vote is close.

 

When it comes to fiscal cause or social cause no one will ever agree completely. The republican platform have conservatives, libertarians, and recently folks who claim tea party principles. While democrats have progressives, liberals, and folks of many different social and fiscal stripes. They all get sorted out in the primaries to represent one of the two main platforms. So just because there are only two platforms doesn't mean that no other view points aren't represented.

But the two major platforms tend to poison any type of common grounds they may share with partisan rhetoric. I don't think anybody wants tax dollars going to healthy, work-capable people who want to live off welfare. Similarly, nobody wants a widowed mother of three to be thrown out in the streets. Yet the major platforms refuse to acknowledge such common ground on the welfare issue.

 

We may not agree on the details, but I think there is more common ground out there than terms like liberal/conservative, right/left, Democrat/Republican will let us admit. But it's in the parties best intrests to keep us bickering about it so we don't get together to solve the real problem.

 

That is why I like to consider myself an Independant until election time. Listen to what everyone has to say and pick the lesser of two evils. Having to pick between two evils at once is better than having to pick between more than two at once. The country would be back and forth on policy at a more extreme level if this were the case. I think this wold cause more unrest in the nation.

How much unrest is caused when people are voting for *anything* they consider an evil, lesser or greater? How much better would you feel to back the candidate who most nearly represented the stance you do?

 

I do wish someone will get into the race on the democrat side. It would make things a little more interesting.

Pretty sure the incumbent almost always gets his party's nomination if he wants the job.

[JustinW]

I think independents would fare better if our voting system wasn't winner-take-all. As it is now, people often vote for a candidate only to stop the other candidate from winning. A vote for an independent who may represent you better could very well allow your worst candidate to win, especially when the vote is close.

Wouldn't it still be that way no matter how many parties you have? It seems to stop that from happening it would have to be all or nothing. Every political view point would have to be represented to stop the winner take all mantality. I think it might be split as you suggest but with a little twist. I believe that the majority of independants lean towards a conservative set of principles, but to a limit. If the Reps get out of hand the Dems usually walk away with the election and vice-a-versa.

 

But the two major platforms tend to poison any type of common grounds they may share with partisan rhetoric. I don't think anybody wants tax dollars going to healthy, work-capable people who want to live off welfare. Similarly, nobody wants a widowed mother of three to be thrown out in the streets. Yet the major platforms refuse to acknowledge such common ground on the welfare issue.

 

We may not agree on the details, but I think there is more common ground out there than terms like liberal/conservative, right/left, Democrat/Republican will let us admit. But it's in the parties best intrests to keep us bickering about it so we don't get together to solve the real problem.

I completely agree. I think most Americans would agree with that too. As bad as politics are it would probably amount to political suicide to agree too much with the opposite side of the isle. The only way it could work is if they threw their own agendas out the door and focused on the problems in a general way. But every one in Washington has their own agenda. Whether it's using the Federal Government to support local Government issues with outrageous earmarks or being stubborn with the idea that "I'm right you're wrong" instead of working together to come up with the best possible solution.

How much unrest is caused when people are voting for *anything* they consider an evil, lesser or greater? How much better would you feel to back the candidate who most nearly represented the stance you do?

 

I do vote for the candidate that most closely represents the stand I do, but I was talking more about policy. Here lately the policy matters have been pretty big with Health Care, Lybia, etc... The political protests have been growing in number and severity. If a larger number of factions had more of a say, I would think that policy would change switch from one extreme to another in a shorter amount of time. Which deffinitely give rise to more unrest and protest.

 

Pretty sure the incumbent almost always gets his party's nomination if he wants the job.

Sure they do. I meant someone should run against Obama on the Democrat side. The way his numbers are, the only thing the Dem's can hope for is to have a strong Independant candidate that splits the conservative vote. That would be the only way I could see him winning another election. Edited November 17, 2011 by JustinW

[Brainteaserfan]

Sure they do. I meant someone should run against Obama on the Democrat side. The way his numbers are, the only thing the Dem's can hope for is to have a strong Independant candidate that splits the conservative vote. That would be the only way I could see him winning another election.

?? Are you saying that Obama has lower poll numbers than the Reps? As bad as Obama is, I have this feeling we're in for 4 more years.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

[CaptainPanic]

Wouldn't a growing number of parties deminish the effectiveness of government?

No.

Just look at Europe. Most European countries have multi-party democracies and coalition governments. But at the same time, we have effective governments.

 

I know that a few examples are not enough to extract a rule, but in this case we have little else to go on.

[JustinW]

?? Are you saying that Obama has lower poll numbers than the Reps? As bad as Obama is, I have this feeling we're in for 4 more years.

http://www.realclear...candidates.html

No not at all. Once the Reps get one candidate to back I think you'll see their poll numbers will go up.

 

No.

Just look at Europe. Most European countries have multi-party democracies and coalition governments. But at the same time, we have effective governments.

 

I know that a few examples are not enough to extract a rule, but in this case we have little else to go on.

Okay, I'll give you that. It was just a thought, my knowledge of foreign government is limited at best.

[Brainteaserfan]

No not at all. Once the Reps get one candidate to back I think you'll see their poll numbers will go up.

Maybe, but I expect Obama's campaign will also spend more time bashing that candidate.

[JustinW]

Ah 'tis true. But Obama has given everyone plenty of ammo.(not for guns,he's against that) I know people say that as Americans we're a forgetfull nation. But the backlash that Obama recieved from alot of things hit home to a lot of people. It won't be good for the DNC once the public is reminded constantly during the campaign.

 

 

[Phi for All]

Maybe, but I expect Obama's campaign will also spend more time bashing that candidate.

It might not take as much time as you think. A brief link to support of the Bush administration should do it.

[Curiousabout]

The republican dilemma is the tea party. Viewed as nuts by even the most conservative republicans themselves, they don’t know which way to turn. The tea party is adamant about such issues as illegal aliens flooding into the country, lowering taxes, less government interference in our lives. These are not necessarily the types of issues that most mainstream republican politicians want to make commitments about. There have been more debates in this primary then I can recall any previous years. And the poll numbers change almost weekly. I really think that if the tea party would go away you would see a big difference in the political arena.

[Brainteaserfan]

Ah 'tis true. But Obama has given everyone plenty of ammo.(not for guns,he's against that) I know people say that as Americans we're a forgetfull nation. But the backlash that Obama recieved from alot of things hit home to a lot of people. It won't be good for the DNC once the public is reminded constantly during the campaign.

The more I think about it, the more I conclude you're right.

[imatfaal]

I think there is a huge amount of anger at the lack of progress and refusal to work together between legislature and executive - how the blame for that is settled and on whose shoulders is placed will be a determinative factor

[iNow]

There are numerous problems with our current system, and many of us are today dealing with the consequences (also known as logical outcomes) of those problems. Phi for All is absolutely right in his point about the need for a different voting system. The winner take all / first past the post approach of today (with some consistency) causes many of us to head to the polls to “beat the other guy” instead of to select the person whom we think is the most capable and possessing of the right characteristics to lead us and improve the world in which we exist. The winner take all approach reinforces the wrong behaviors in both voters and elected officials.

 

If we could pick the candidate we prefer without worrying that we’re throwing away our vote… If we could pick the candidate we prefer without fear that it will cause the candidate we despise to win the election… If we could pick the candidate we prefer and the candidate we want without hedging our bets to maximize return and minimize loss… that would naturally lead to a more solid foundation upon which other parties and platforms and planks could become successfully involved in the process and contributory to our mutually shared and overlapping goals.

 

Today, we’re essentially given two choices. We’re asked to select between bad and worse. We’re forced to pick between dumb and dumber. We’re tasked with pointing to either insincere or incompetent… manipulative or megalomaniacal… self-serving or small-minded. We’re required to vote for the lesser of two evils, and we’re required to balance our preference with the logical and more practical need of ensuring our vote in the end doesn’t ultimately help the person standing firmly opposite to our preferences and wishes.

 

Again, Phi is correct, IMO. The central issue here leading to these downstream challenges is that we are forced to choose one person, and if that one person doesn’t happen to win the majority vote then our voice in the process becomes muted and moot. A few years back, MrSkeptic used to very articulately and passionately describe an alternative in these types of discussions at SFN, recommending that we have the option to indicate our top three choices instead of just our top one, and to then differentially rate and count those top three. I liked this idea, and think it addresses many of the challenges described above in this thread.

 

If we could vote for our top three, listed in descending order… pointing to our primary choice, our secondary choice, and our tertiary choice… Then have those choices given different points… Top pick gets 5, second pick gets 3, third pick gets 1 point… Then tally all of the total points at the end, you’d soon see more power in third, fourth, and even fifth parties. You’d soon see people voting based on what they want and not against what they hate or fear. You’d soon see a requirement to form coalitions and bring people together based on ideas and common ground. You’d soon see a deterioration of the ruts and rhetoric and ridiculousness that is causing us to sit idle in the face of great challenges… causing us to stand motionless in the face of great opportunity… causing us to spend more time angry and agitated than advancing and acting… These things would all soon deteriorate and lead to a more empowered, engaged, and protected electorate.

 

Frankly, with this updated system, you’d soon see many of the aforementioned issues ameliorated in rather short order. This alternative voting approach is not a panacea, not by any means, but when so many of our problems are the result of a tribal rivalry of two very deeply entrenched and established powers you must implement changes that serve to disperse those powers. You must implement changes that allow for more granularity and fidelity in capturing vote preference. You must implement changes that ultimately enhance and amplify the voice and wishes of those people arriving at voting booths around the nation to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right of suffrage in our republic… To step forth and be heard… to actually be represented in our representative democracy.

 

Unfortunately, as the occupy-movement suggests, our democracy is no longer representative, and the only people with the power to fix it are the ones benefiting from its current dysfunction. In the words of Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" … and without that understanding any changes or improvements in the system will arrive only by accident… or by collective mandate from the people. I’m not yet convinced, however, that our populace is willing to extract themselves from the lazy-boy and step away from the flat screen for long enough to make that happen.

[Phi for All]

If we could vote for our top three, listed in descending order… pointing to our primary choice, our secondary choice, and our tertiary choice… Then have those choices given different points… Top pick gets 5, second pick gets 3, third pick gets 1 point… Then tally all of the total points at the end, you’d soon see more power in third, fourth, and even fifth parties. You’d soon see people voting based on what they want and not against what they hate or fear. You’d soon see a requirement to form coalitions and bring people together based on ideas and common ground. You’d soon see a deterioration of the ruts and rhetoric and ridiculousness that is causing us to sit idle in the face of great challenges… causing us to stand motionless in the face of great opportunity… causing us to spend more time angry and agitated than advancing and acting… These things would all soon deteriorate and lead to a more empowered, engaged, and protected electorate.

 

Frankly, with this updated system, you’d soon see many of the aforementioned issues ameliorated in rather short order. This alternative voting approach is not a panacea, not by any means, but when so many of our problems are the result of a tribal rivalry of two very deeply entrenched and established powers you must implement changes that serve to disperse those powers. You must implement changes that allow for more granularity and fidelity in capturing vote preference. You must implement changes that ultimately enhance and amplify the voice and wishes of those people arriving at voting booths around the nation to exercise their constitutionally guaranteed right of suffrage in our republic… To step forth and be heard… to actually be represented in our representative democracy.

 

Unfortunately, as the occupy-movement suggests, our democracy is no longer representative, and the only people with the power to fix it are the ones benefiting from its current dysfunction. In the words of Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" … and without that understanding any changes or improvements in the system will arrive only by accident… or by collective mandate from the people. I’m not yet convinced, however, that our populace is willing to extract themselves from the lazy-boy and step away from the flat screen for long enough to make that happen.

I've never seen this expressed as eloquently and meaningfully before. It strikes me that such scholarly appraisal is only available at a site like this where politics is viewed from a more erudite perspective than your average sound-byte filled political forum. Well done, iNow.

 

Btw, I pictured you saying this standing in front of a rapt crowd of supporters. There were balloons. Will you be 35 by 2016?

 

Off-topic, I was going to start a thread about what platform would be most beneficial for an independent candidate to work from, and I think this is one of the top three issues. I think it would resonate with the people and it's an issue that doesn't already carry a lot of pre-judged baggage with it. And you're never going to see it discussed with any kind of intelligence from either major party.

[Brainteaserfan]

If we could vote for our top three...

I believe places like San Francisco already do this.

[iNow]

Am I the only one surprised that John Huntsman isn't doing better than he is?

[Phi for All]

Am I the only one surprised that John Huntsman isn't doing better than he is?

As the other candidates continue to show their flaws, Huntsman can't help but look better and better. Maybe he's just laying low until he figures out how to spin his spending record.