Obese woman who couldn't keep her husband from running around on her announces presidential run

Foreign policy experience? Check

Fiscally conservative? Check

Socially in the middle? Check

Actually sounds like an intelligent human being when he speaks? Check

Isn't afraid to be bi-partisan (e.g. accepted a post under the Obama Administration)? Check

Led his state to outstanding results when he was governor of Utah, leaving with the highest approval rating in that state's history? Check

An admitted conservative? Check

The one candidate Obama's camp was afraid of? Check

“We were honest about our concerns about Huntsman,” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said at a Politico breakfast event Tuesday. “I think Huntsman would have been a very tough candidate.”

As for the president, he liked Mr. Huntsman enough to appoint him ambassador to China in 2009. Mr. Messina, who was working in the White House at the time, said he helped Mr. Huntsman win Senate confirmation.

“As someone who helped manage his confirmation for Chinese ambassador, he’s a good guy,” Mr. Messina said. “We looked at his profile in a general election and thought he would have been” a formidable candidate. Politico’s video of the remarks is here.

Mr. Huntsman’s candidacy never caught on. In 2011, he sent out a tweet affirming that he believed in evolution and trusted “scientists on global warming.”

“Call me crazy,” Mr. Huntsman said at the time.

So, did the White House shuttle Mr. Huntsman off to China in hopes of forestalling a presidential bid? Was the Obama team looking to remove Mr. Huntsman from the “chessboard?” asked moderator Mike Allen of Politico.

“No, I thought he was a committed American who would serve our country well, and he did,” Mr. Messina replied.

At that, the audience chuckled.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/20/obama-campaign-viewed-huntsman-as-very-tough-candidate/

 

If the Republicans want to be serious in 2016, they should memorize the bottom of this article:

House Speaker John Boehner is whining about how President Barack Obama wants to annihilate the Republicans and discard them to the dustbin of history, and the Democrats are warning that the results of the 2012 presidential race were harbinger of things to come and that the GOP is destined to go the way of the Whig Party. But they should consider the following proposition: if former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman had been nominated as the Republican presidential candidate last year, Barack Obama would not have delivered his second inaugural address last week (which suggests that Obama made a smart move by sending Huntsman to China as the U.S. ambassador).

Unlike Kevin Phillips I cannot recall how each of the districts in Oklahoma had voted in presidential elections in the last 100 hundred, but I am quite confident that unless it is discovered that Huntsman violated Edwin Edwards’s First Rule of Politics, there was a better-than-even chance that Huntsman would have won Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia, and under the best case scenario could have carried several states in New England, including Connecticut (and perhaps even Massachusetts), and on the West Coast, including Oregon.

And Huntsman would have won the race for the White House by running as a conservative committed to the principles of fiscal responsibility and prudent foreign policy, in contrast to an incumbent president with mediocre record of success in most policy areas.

The fact that Huntsman had been the Governor of Utah is by definition an indication that he is a conservative Republican. And he’s one who can also win the votes of independents and Democrats.

But then, one would ask, wasn’t that the political brand that former Governor Mitt Romney was supposed to sell in 2012?

The problem was that under the pressure of the ideologues in his party Romney failed in getting that marketing campaign going and instead let Obama and the Democrats design his political brand.

No less important, Romney may have the presidential look that would have gotten him hired to play the commander-in-chief for a movie in the 1980s. But he was too boring, too wooden, too uncool, and lacked that—je ne sais qoi? mean streak?—to play the president in a 2012 film. A former keyboard player in a rock band called “Wizard,” Huntsman could have given Obama a run for his money in the “coolness” department.

Bottom line: Huntsman would have won more independent voters, suburban and professional women, Hispanics and Asians, which was all Republicans needed to carry northern Virginia or Colorado. Case closed.

I am pointing all this out not because of my interest in Huntsman and his political career, but in response to the avalanche of op-eds and speeches about What Must Be Done about the GOP. Before you know, we’re going to have new think tanks, magazines and websites devoted entirely to “fixing the Republican Party.”

Well, it’s not nuclear physics. Yes, there are the demographic trends (which I discussed here and here and here) that require paying more attention to voters in the Northeast and the West Coast, to Asian American, young professionals, and women.

But overall, becoming Jon Huntsman’s Republican Party doesn’t require a Big Bang political-electoral revolution. Here are some simple ideas that can be packaged into five fortune cookies.

1. The central focus on national debate in coming years would be on finding ways to fix (as opposed to abolish) the welfare state and readjusting U.S. strategy to the changing global balance of power. Republicans should understand that what Ayn Rand and John Bolton have to say about these issues is irrelevant and cannot be sold to the American people. Period.

2. Not unlike George W. Bush, just be nicer to immigrants and especially to Hispanics and stop patronizing women.

3. Come up with business-friendly proposals on climate change and practical ideas on guns, instead of in-your-face rhetoric.

4. The “gay thing” is a done deal. So get over it and move on.

5. And, yes, select an attractive presidential candidate.

Leon Hadar, a Washington-based journalist and foreign policy analyst, is the author of Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/its-still-jon-huntsmans-moment/

 

soooo0o0o0o0 is op republican

 

We are more likely to elect a minority or female president than an obese president.

 

Everyone already knows Obama is running for a third term before becoming Supreme Galactic Overlord over the new Socialist States of America in 2020. Hillary is just a distraction while Obama and his lizard army are plotting to take our guns and our jerbs and our damn freedom.

 

It's in your title. The guy cheated, but you placed the blame on the woman. If the woman had cheated, she'd still get the blame. Shame on you bigtexxx for blaming the woman, when it's the man that made the choice of infidelity.

Also, you act as if "lefties" are one big monolith, that all act in unison. Hilariously ignorant of you.

Spoiler

Find a post where I called you a racist for "any criticism of Barack" or fat shamed Christie and substantiate your claims.

 

The title of this thread is a blatant attack against BBW's around the world by the OP. Big girls need love too and it's no reason to discriminate against them.

 

Look, I actually liked Huntsman on paper, but he was a terrible candidate. He was creepy, awkward and incredibly rehearsed all at the same time.

 

That's because they know she won't just bend over and take the abuse for the first four years, trying to build consensus and work with people who are dead-set against doing anything bipartisan at all, like Obama did.

 

Not knowing who would be the best Republican candidate has nothing to do with Hillary being a bad candidate. Sure, it's possible that the Republicans will put forth an even worse candidate and Hillary will win, but that won't mean she was a good candidate.

 

There's the rub. I don't think the real money behind the GOP wants their candidate to actually be elected. It's works so much better for the 'spin' of gridlock to have a President you can lay blame on and run against in the Congressional races. You certainly couldn't elect the GOP incumbents on their legislative accomplishments.

It's so easy to make people forget that legislation comes from Congress, that spending and taxation come from Congress. I believe the entire platform of the real power of the GOP is to just maintain the sweet spot for the 1%, change nothing and they will make huge amounts of money.

And they know nothing will change with the election of Ms. Clinton and they will have an easy target target to continue their propaganda campaign. She will not be out there campaigning against Citizen's United, refinancing college loans, or cutting military spending. She's the candidate they want elected.

 

They fear the Big Bad Bill will go Slick Willie on them and fool the American people for the next 8 years while he does whatever he wants..... all while having an angry, liberal, fat, angry, academic woman is barking at them like Bea Arthur in Maude.

 

William Howard Taft is not amused by the fat shaming.

 

"Christ For President" by Wilco & Billy Bragg (lyrics by Woody Guthrie)

Let's have Christ our President
Let us have him for our king
Cast your vote for the Carpenter
That they call the Nazarene

The only way
We could ever beat
These crooked politician men

Is to cast the moneychangers
Out of the temple
Put the Carpenter in

Oh it's Jesus Christ our President
God above our king
With a job and pension for young and old
We will make hallelujah ring

Every year we waste enough
To feed the ones who starve
We build our civilization up
And we shoot it down with wars

But with the Carpenter
On the seat
Way up in the capitol town

The USA
Be on the way
Prosperity bound

 

You are backpedaling furiously. First you said any Republican candidate who wasn't a "total disaster" would "coast to an easy win" against Hillary. The fact that here we are a day later and you still can't identify one Republican candidate who would make it over this very low bar should tell you something about the current state of this upcoming election.

 

Actually I'm not....It's pretty odd that you are struggling to follow along given how straight forward I've been.

Anyway, I'm sure you love you some Hill-dog, and that's fine, but when she loses try to remember just how many people told you that it was likely to happen. I'm sure Bob Dole had loving supporters too.

 

I get your point... but congressional incumbent re-election seems to happen way more than it should regardless who is president.

 

I'm just saying it is the Congressional seats that mean the most to the 1%. That's where tax reform would occur. And they couldn't campaign for those seats against a Republican President. It's a much more effective strategy to just use the GOP candidacy to move the national rhetoric to the right, lose and have a useable scapegoat in Ms. Clinton for non-governance. Hence, we get the nuttery candidates fighting it out to see who is nuttier and not a serious nationally electable candidate like Mr. Huntsman. In the political terms of the last 50 years, Ms. Clinton would be a Centrist Republican.

win/win

 

Another post and still and still no name.