I absolutely agree with you, and I still can’t believe Huntsman is still polling in single digits. I just hope Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney finds a place for him in his cabinet. Maybe Secretary of State if not VP.
You got that right. If Gingrich isn’t qualified, then NONE of the candidates are qualified. He was a Speaker of the House… 3rd in the line of the Succession. He has been closer to National Politics and the Presidency than any of the other candidates running.
Closer to our trade partner China? (I think you’re referring to Huntsman, no?) Newt’s campaign was also being compared to the Titanic - sinking ship and all - as recently as June, when he and his wife went on a cruise - to Greece - immediately after campaign staffers resigned:
I think that Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul are qualified. Gingrich may be good with words, but there are several issues which some people might see as disqualifying him to be President.
Seriously? If Romney got the nomination and chose another moderate like Huntsman then I think many on the right would support a 3rd party - possibly prompt Ron Paul to run. Romney would have to choose someone who has genuine conservative credentials - Marco Rubio, for example, or Bobby Jindal. In general tickets try to have ideological balance - Reagan chose the moderate Bush, for example, and Dole chose the conservative Jack Kemp.
The problem with your scenario are the words " after he is nominated". Huntsman doesn’t seem well positioned to get the nomination as he has failed to catch on. I would support him if he was the nominee and I think he’d probably make a good president, but he simply has failed to get support. Your logic seems like it would apply more to Romney, as he is actually consistently polling high numbers.
Such as? Gingrich has more experience in government that Huntsman, and as an earlier poster said, he was 3rd in line in succession. I think you’re confusing “qualified” with “I want this guy to win.” Ron Paul is qualified? What makes him more qualified than Gingrich? Or is it that you just agree with him on issues? If you are referring to the “personal baggage” that Newt has I would agree with you that it may hinder a possible Gingrich general election campaign, but his baggage doesn’t make him unqualified.
These have been mentioned before and everyone who has read through this thread knows what they are
Oh puh-leeze. Its perfectly legitimate for other candidates to be discussed in conjunction with a “Gingrich surge” thread. There is a race between many candidates and its fair to compare Newt’s strengths and weaknesses with that of others. And fair to say that one might support someone other than Newt. (I say that as an admitted fan of Newt!).
Unfair slam against Romney’s religion. c’mon - you can do better than that. You don’t make your case for Newt stronger by slamming Romney’s religion.
I don;t see Romney as a moderate on foreign policy. From the debates, he appears to take an interventionist stance, unlike Huntsman who seems to be more in favor of winding dowm American foreign intervention.
Romney is a politician of politicians. He appears to be not a moderate, because he’s in the Republican Primary. He’s not in the General election yet. He is appearing to be conservative for right now. Notice how he’s all rhetoric on his answers. Next debate, watch and see if Romney gives a specific policy answer. He won’t, he’ll give a slogan, a platitude, something generally pro-American, conservative sounding… but at the same time nothing definitive enough that it can be put in an attack ad.
When I referred to Huntsman and Romney as more “moderate” I was talking more about domestic policy rather than foreign policy. I don’t judge a candidate’s foreign policy positions the same as I judge his domestic/social policy positions. People often call George W’s foreign policy “far right” but nothing could be further from the truth as the far right tends to be more non-interventionist ( I am thinking of people like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul here). Indeed Huntsman seems to be more non-interventionist - a term I prefer to the derogatory “isolationist” - than Romney.
I take it you don’t like Romney. Show me a Republican that won statewide office in Massachusetts and I’ll show you someone who had to run and govern as a moderate - as opposed to someone who wins statewide office in, say, Texas. Simple rule of politics. Does that mean they have no conservative principles? No, it just means that they had to face political reality. Also, I think some of the candidates’ promises of what they’ll do “right after being sworn in” are gimmicks.
We live in too dangerous times to run the risk of giving Obama a 2nd term because we had to nominate a weak “true believer conservative” candidate.
Ah, so there it is… the two schools present themselves.
Not qualified? What a leap. Just because you don’t happen to like Newt does not make him unqualified. And who in the world could be more unqualified than our current president? Give me a break.
It is rather absurd to claim that Newt Ginrgrich is not qualified. Few running for president on either side have been as qualified.
Everyone has been qualified…Constitutionally speaking. Most have been incompetant…a few grossly so.
My point would be that Newt is unusually unqualified. I've mentioned why, but a quick recap of some of the reasons. 3. He impresses people with his cute one-liners as well as pseudo-intellectual lectures. Forgive me, but **scholars who know far more view him as a fake historian** who has a gift for making his analyses sound very smart. Actually, I see him as a compulsive prevaricator. I will use that relatively polite word.
** 4. His work as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, among others, shows that his big incentive was money.** Personal greed - a major failing in DC. Freddie Mac alone paid him $1.8 million or more. This also proves that he is a Washington insider who has been part of the corrupt pattern that has so besmirched that political town. This is all a testimony to his deep-rooted self-centered hypocrisy. To leave the House and become a lobbyist was, in itself, unethical. It should be illegal. It is a major cause of Capitol Hill corruption.
**5. He would be a shameful spokesman for the USA on the international stage**. Who wants a president with such a shabby and shady record speaking for our beloved America? To me, one could mistake him for a professor perhaps, but as leader of the world's greatest democracy? Hardly. Hm! There's more to say, but my mind has slowed down. But, believe me, his critics will pull many more skeletons out of his closet. And the country as well as the Church will suffer for it if he can hoodwink enough citizens to become chief executive. What a disaster!