Jon Huntsman (and the like): can they ever win

[nixium]

I was reading about this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.

To summarize, he's center right, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, intellectual and has foreign-relations savvy. On the surface, he's willing to work with the other side to get things done. It seems to me that you need people like him the white house, or holding positions of power and relevance, but I would give him less than 1% chance of ever getting there.

I think nearly everyone would agree that this is a bad state of affairs for this country. How then, are the crazies winning (both left/right)?

(Note: he's not running for 2016)

 

[brycejones]

To a significant chunk of the GOP base and especially party activists many of the qualities you listed above you make him a RINO. So no he would not have a chance, and yes that is a very bad thing.

 

[theeedude]

Is he still fiscally conservative, even after fiscal conservatism (a.k.a trickle down) has largely been discredited? That would be disappointing. He seems like a more data driven guy to me.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

He may be a vast improvement over the usual field but don't expect anything other than being a Republican from him. Just not enough of one to win over the base.

 

[Sonikku]

Willing to work with Dem president to overcome gridlock = unelectable.

 

[IronWing]

He had the best looking daughters of any of the candidates.

 

[finglobes]

On the surface, he's willing to work with the other side to get things done.
(Note: he's not running for 2016)

That's a main trait of RINOs. They always want to give things the old congenial college try - while the other side rarely does. Thats because the media always defames the RINOs and never the other way around. RINOs are always trying to prove they are really "good guys" despite the other side and media not caring.

What happens is that the RINOs play along and then get shit on anyway. Then the base gets discouraged and stays home like Romney voters did.

Dems don't pass on Dem candidates to vote for Dem Lite GOP RINOs. We've learned this over and over. Only the GOP consultants seem to resist the lessons. Dems were whacked in two massive election defeats because people DONT WANT candidates to "work with Obama". They want people to oppose Obama. Yet the GOP still sticks its fingers in voters eyes trying to earn brownie points from those who defame them. Its like political battered women's syndrome

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

That's a main trait of RINOs. They always want to give things the old congenial college try - while the other side rarely does. Thats because the media always defames the RINOs and never the other way around. RINOs are always trying to prove they are really "good guys" despite the other side and media not caring.

What happens is that the RINOs play along and then get shit on anyway. Then the base gets discouraged and stays home like Romney voters did.

Dems don't pass on Dem candidates to vote for Dem Lite GOP RINOs. We've learned this over and over. Only the GOP consultants seem to resist the lessons. Dems were whacked in two massive election defeats because people DONT WANT candidates to "work with Obama". They want people to oppose Obama. Yet the GOP still sticks its fingers in voters eyes trying to earn brownie points from those who defame them. Its like political battered women's syndrome

Wow, just Wow. Seek professional help.

Do really believe what you write?

 

[PokerGuy]

I was reading about this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Jr.

To summarize, he's center right, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, intellectual and has foreign-relations savvy.

Whether that's good or not depends on your perspective. If you're a social conservative, you might not want to have someone in office who's socially liberal.

On the surface, he's willing to work with the other side to get things done.

In general being willing to work together to get things done is a desired trait, but when the other side basically takes the "my way or the highway" approach and is intent on screwing things up, then working with them is the wrong approach. Gridlock is preferable over taking steps to further screw things up.

I think nearly everyone would agree that this is a bad state of affairs for this country. How then, are the crazies winning (both left/right)?

(Note: he's not running for 2016)

The radicalization of both sides (moderates on both sides of the isle are becoming an extinct species) is a bad thing for the country as a whole. However, as a voting public, we get what we vote for, so the voters are to blame.

 

[PokerGuy]

Is he still fiscally conservative, even after fiscal conservatism (a.k.a trickle down) has largely been discredited? That would be disappointing. He seems like a more data driven guy to me.

Only an idiot would think that "fiscally conservative" == "trickle down". How about someone who doesn't think spending like money we don't have like a drunken sailor isn't a good idea. Someone who wants to figure out how to stop adding to the mountain of debt that will burden future generations.

Oh, I forgot, such fiscal responsibility is sheer lunacy! Easier not to bother the mind with "thoughts" and just blather out things like "Trickle down!" and "Koch brothers!" :biggrin:

 

[fskimospy]

Only an idiot would think that "fiscally conservative" == "trickle down". How about someone who doesn't think spending like money we don't have like a drunken sailor isn't a good idea. Someone who wants to figure out how to stop adding to the mountain of debt that will burden future generations.

Oh, I forgot, such fiscal responsibility is sheer lunacy! Easier not to bother the mind with "thoughts" and just blather out things like "Trickle down!" and "Koch brothers!" :biggrin:

While I would argue that cutting spending in a depression is the opposite of fiscal responsibility, I guess that's neither here nor there.

The important thing is that your definition of 'fiscal conservatism' is something that not one prominent conservative that I am aware of adheres to. They might be willing to cut spending to lower deficits, but they are simultaneously willing to enact huge tax cuts that then cause huge deficits themselves. The Ryan budget is a great example of this fake fiscal conservatism.

 

[theeedude]

Only an idiot would think that "fiscally conservative" == "trickle down". How about someone who doesn't think spending like money we don't have like a drunken sailor isn't a good idea. Someone who wants to figure out how to stop adding to the mountain of debt that will burden future generations.

Oh, I forgot, such fiscal responsibility is sheer lunacy! Easier not to bother the mind with "thoughts" and just blather out things like "Trickle down!" and "Koch brothers!" :biggrin:

Modern day fiscal conservative = trickle down fraud artist. The end.

 

[nageov3t]

Jon Huntsman was great on paper, but ran a truly terrible campaign and lost for reasons having very little to do with his policies. he was also too much like Romney in an election cycle where GOP voters were largely looking for an anti-Romney (eventually settling on Santorum)

a more charismatic candidate running a better, more efficient campaign could potentially make some headway.

 

[ivwshane]

Whether that's good or not depends on your perspective. If you're a social conservative, you might not want to have someone in office who's socially liberal.

Its about compromising, a trait republicans used to have.


In general being willing to work together to get things done is a desired trait, but when the other side basically takes the "my way or the highway" approach and is intent on screwing things up, then working with them is the wrong approach. Gridlock is preferable over taking steps to further screw things up.

Is this a general statement or are you talking about a specific party?


The radicalization of both sides (moderates on both sides of the isle are becoming an extinct species) is a bad thing for the country as a whole. However, as a voting public, we get what we vote for, so the voters are to blame.

The only side that has radicalized are republicans, the polls show this and people like finglobes are a perfect example of the overall rights mentality. Hell, I've heard McCain called a RINO along with Romeney and that's just retarded.

 

[fskimospy]

In general being willing to work together to get things done is a desired trait, but when the other side basically takes the "my way or the highway" approach and is intent on screwing things up, then working with them is the wrong approach. Gridlock is preferable over taking steps to further screw things up.

You realize that Republicans are the ones that approve more of the 'my way or the highway' approach, right?

The radicalization of both sides (moderates on both sides of the isle are becoming an extinct species) is a bad thing for the country as a whole. However, as a voting public, we get what we vote for, so the voters are to blame.

While I agree that the voters are primarily to blame, radicalization is not symmetrical in this situation. As shown before:

 

[TheSlamma]

Modern day fiscal conservative = trickle down fraud artist. The end.

Elon Musk considers himself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Does he strike you as the trickle down guy? or are you just hacking away again?

 

[WHAMPOM]

Only an idiot would think that "fiscally conservative" == "trickle down". How about someone who doesn't think spending like money we don't have like a drunken sailor isn't a good idea. Someone who wants to figure out how to stop adding to the mountain of debt that will burden future generations.

Oh, I forgot, such fiscal responsibility is sheer lunacy! Easier not to bother the mind with "thoughts" and just blather out things like "Trickle down!" and "Koch brothers!" :biggrin:

Fiscal Conservatives think massive tax breaks doesn't bring collection short falls that add to the debt. Why exempt the rich from paying into the system that got them rich, is it a "fuck the poor so they can't get where we are" mind set?

 

[PokerGuy]

While I would argue that cutting spending in a depression is the opposite of fiscal responsibility, I guess that's neither here nor there.

Agree, that's neither here nor there, it's just arguing about whether something is prudent or or not at a particular time. Intelligent people can have differing opinions on that.

The important thing is that your definition of 'fiscal conservatism' is something that not one prominent conservative that I am aware of adheres to.

Trust me, I'm well aware of the fact that very few politicians actually believe in fiscal conservatism or fiscal responsibility. The main reason they don't, is because as voters we generally punish those who don't go around promising more spending for everyone.

They might be willing to cut spending to lower deficits, but they are simultaneously willing to enact huge tax cuts that then cause huge deficits themselves.

That's assuming you don't believe tax cuts can be made such that they spur growth in the economy to offset the cut. Again, that's certainly debatable, but in general we seem to have two philosophies right now. One says don't raise taxes (or cut them), but keep spending way more than you bring in. That is a long term recipe for fail. The other says raise taxes, but increase spending even more. Another recipe for fail.

Either we are willing to pay for the things we want government to do (through taxes), or we are not.... but if you give people the option of getting services/goods from government, but not have to pay for it (which is what we have now), they are going to choose that option every time...

 

[PokerGuy]

Modern day fiscal conservative = trickle down fraud artist. The end.

Idiot has no clue what "fiscal conservatism" is. The end.

 

[PokerGuy]

The only side that has radicalized are republicans, the polls show this and people like finglobes are a perfect example of the overall rights mentality. Hell, I've heard McCain called a RINO along with Romeney and that's just retarded.

Baloney, that's demonstrably false. Go take a look and see how "blue dog" democrats have fared over the past decade or so. Those who don't tow the party line are getting culled from the dem side just like those who don't tow the party line get culled on the repub side.

 

[PokerGuy]

You realize that Republicans are the ones that approve more of the 'my way or the highway' approach, right?

Nope. You can't measure that in a vacuum. If the other party is truly bent on doing stupid things, then obviously any form of compromise is a bad thing, and "my way or the highway" is not a bad thing. If, however, there are things when you can agree on the goals and working together helps achieve them, then "my way or the highway" is not the right approach. With obummer in office, clearly both sides have taken the "my way or the highway" approach, and whether you think it's appropriate depends on your political perspective.

While I agree that the voters are primarily to blame, radicalization is not symmetrical in this situation. As shown before:

Yeah, I'm sure the dimensions of the "liberal vs conservative" scale are purely objective and everyone agrees with that. Oh wait, no, they aren't, and they don't.

 

[theeedude]

Idiot has no clue what "fiscal conservatism" is. The end.

Ask politicians who identify themselves as fiscal conservatives what they stand for. Supply-side trickle-down fraud, that's what.

 

[fskimospy]

Agree, that's neither here nor there, it's just arguing about whether something is prudent or or not at a particular time. Intelligent people can have differing opinions on that.
Trust me, I'm well aware of the fact that very few politicians actually believe in fiscal conservatism or fiscal responsibility. The main reason they don't, is because as voters we generally punish those who don't go around promising more spending for everyone.


That's assuming you don't believe tax cuts can be made such that they spur growth in the economy to offset the cut. Again, that's certainly debatable, but in general we seem to have two philosophies right now. One says don't raise taxes (or cut them), but keep spending way more than you bring in. That is a long term recipe for fail. The other says raise taxes, but increase spending even more. Another recipe for fail.

Either we are willing to pay for the things we want government to do (through taxes), or we are not.... but if you give people the option of getting services/goods from government, but not have to pay for it (which is what we have now), they are going to choose that option every time...

I don't believe it's debatable that tax cuts grow the economy enough to pay for themselves. They don't. The most optimistic estimates seem to be that they can pay for about 10-20% of their 'cost' at most. There could be certain levels and types of taxation that could be so onerous as to be counterproductive, but I'm not aware of any meaningful ones that exist in America today.

What is funny (or sad, depending on how you look at it) is that obama's long term budgeting is more fiscally responsible than anything I've seen from a republican, if deficit control is your goal. Sure the republicans claim lower deficits in the future, but they do so with magic asterisks or crazy assumptions.

I honestly believe we should probably be running larger deficits right now, but I do wish conservatives would engage in the fiscal debate more honestly. You really want to balance the budget? Let's see it and talk about it with no magic asterisks.

 

[TheSlamma]

Ask politicians who identify themselves as fiscal conservatives what they stand for. Supply-side trickle-down fraud, that's what.

Pelosi says she stands for the little people and the environment then takes limos and private jets everywhere. Let us all go a head and not use politicians as the basis for our definitions.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope. You can't measure that in a vacuum. If the other party is truly bent on doing stupid things, then obviously any form of compromise is a bad thing, and "my way or the highway" is not a bad thing. If, however, there are things when you can agree on the goals and working together helps achieve them, then "my way or the highway" is not the right approach. With obummer in office, clearly both sides have taken the "my way or the highway" approach, and whether you think it's appropriate depends on your political perspective.

You made a claim, and Pew asked Republicans themselves if they supported a 'my way or the highway' approach. They did, to a significantly higher level than Democrats do. Sure they may think they are doing it for good reasons, but everyone thinks that. It also wasn't the question. This poll shows pretty concretely that one party is less compromising than the other, using their own views. It is the republicans, end of story.

Yeah, I'm sure the dimensions of the "liberal vs conservative" scale are purely objective and everyone agrees with that. Oh wait, no, they aren't, and they don't.

They are based on an acclaimed bridging process using the votes of these legislators and prior legislators to measure ideology over time. You may not like what the results tell you, but that doesn't change them.

It's funny how often conservatives accuse DW-NOMINATE as somehow being a liberal tool designed for partial results. I took a class from Keith Poole (one of the primary creators) and I've had some conversations with him out of class. To put it softly, he is not some flaming liberal.