I'm Officially Scare to Death...

@anniepa (25218)
United States
January 17, 2012 2:44pm CST
...of the prospects of any of the current crop of Republican Presidential candidates ever getting within a mile of the White House. True, things have never looked very good, but at least there was ONE intelligent, compassionate, DECENT candidate with whom I could live if something drastic happened and President Obama lost in November, but when Jon Huntsman dropped out of the race there went the last brain cell of the GOP field! What I don't understand is WHY he did so horribly. I mean, apparently the only reason Mitt Romney is the leader of the race by default is that he's the only one considered to be "electable" in a general election because he is, or at least has been at one point or another, more moderate and less extreme than the others, except for Huntsman. WHY is that? I mean, why NOT Huntsman? Huntsman is certainly as qualified as any of the Republican hopefuls; like Romney, he's a former Governor, like Romney, he's extremely wealthy and like Romney, he's a Mormon. The latter can't be the problem since Romney is the leader, right? He's moderate on some issues and he even seems to believe in science, but the same could be said about Romney, at least some of the time. At least Huntsman is consistent in his views, especially when compared to Romney. So, come on conservatives, tell me what his problem was: Was it that he served in the Obama Administration? Was it that he speaks Chinese? This is a serious and sincere question so help me out here, PLEASE! Annie
4 people like this
18 responses
@matersfish (6313)
• United States
17 Jan 12
There's nothing special about him; he has no celebrity appeal. That's just the way it is now. And while there are a lot of things to blame, the constant barrage of criticism levied at Bill Clinton and George W. Bush--plus the ongoing Congressional scandals--has tilted the field substantially. In the age of the 24-hours news cycle, reality TV, and with celebrity worship at an all time high, candidates aren't pulling ahead because of their message. I mean, let's be honest: Obama wasn't a popular politician; he was a popular celebrity. I guarantee more than half the people who voted for him in 2008 did so for 30 different reasons on a list above his particular political persuasions. We need something to latch onto as a culture with high profile politicians. Example: If we're only going on intellect, values, experience, and what's best for a party (in terms of primaries), Clinton bested Obama in every conceivable category. Well, almost every category. Celebrity was the X factor. That's what Huntsman doesn't have. Romney has it for a few reasons, some of which are more ironic than anything. He has the proverbial debonair looks. He's controversial as a former governor and supposedly cutthroat businessman. He speaks well (that has always attracted people). And, above all, he's been plastered in our faces enough to have infinitely more recognition. In terms of being fearful, I think we're all in for a huge surprise should Obama win another term. Hypothetically, we're off the cliff entirely should this record spending and debt even continue at quarter pace for four more years. There is just no way Obama can stop it. Even if he wanted to, which we all know he doesn't, no one is going to cooperate with him. He has become an ineffective leader. So that's another reason Mitt is more popular than Hunstman -- people see Romney and see someone who has a better shot at defeating Obama.
4 people like this
@anniepa (25218)
• United States
17 Jan 12
If you're going to judge political figures according to their "celebrity status" I can't imagine anyone being a bigger celebrity than Hillary Clinton. She definitely had the edge on name recognition. It just makes no sense to me that a party whose members seem to want anyone BUT Romney would ignore someone who has all of Romney's positive traits but seemingly none of his negatives. However, I'm not a Republican so I guess I shouldn't even TRY to figure out what makes them tick, right...lol? Annie
1 person likes this
• United States
17 Jan 12
Clinton a bigger celebrity than Obama?
1 person likes this
• Redlands, California
18 Jan 12
I did not vote for Obama because he was a celebrity, and most people I know did not vote for Obama because they thought of him as a celebrity. If this is why the country votes for someone, then this country is in serious trouble. If that is the perception of Obama on the right and they are looking for their own celebrity to beat him, then not only has the right missed the boat, they have been run over by the boat. Here is a concept: maybe Obama was elected because he actually seemed like a very competent leader. One Who could help pull us out of a mess created by no leadership at the top of the government, and the private sector. He was elected because people liked his ideas of where he wanted to take this country. No one knew who he was until he won Iowa in 2008. Then the media started showing his DNC speech from 2004, and that is when he started becoming a "celebrity," as you like to call him. I will not be scared if Obama gets elected to a second term. I am more scared of our congress. Since you are so worried about the debt as we all should be. Even with your newly elected tea party congress in the house. Our debt has still has gone up a trillion dollars over the last year. Now you can say it is Obama's policies all you want for the reason, but it is a Republican controlled house, and spending and cutting laws are created from the house. I think it has something to do with what ever Obama wants lets do the opposite approach, even if they are Republican ideas. Then as Annie said, I will be really scared if you add any of these Republican candidates as the next President to add to the fire of our congress. They all want to cut taxes even more for the rich , and get rid of all regulation that has gotten us in this mess in the first place. How many times do I need to repeat this line? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result. Not only are the Republicans doing the same thing over again, but multiplying their insanity.
1 person likes this
@sierras236 (2740)
• United States
17 Jan 12
Jon Huntsman never really got his name out there. He failed in the PR department and failed to make an impression on the debates. He didn't even get the distinguish spot of being number one for a while. I don't think I remember even seeing him on Fox News. What he needed was at least one viral video (good or not), a innovative tax plan, a strange view on foreign policy, or something that made him stand out from the crowd. Instead, he just blended in to the background.
2 people like this
• United States
17 Jan 12
Oh, I forgot. He was also late to the party.
@anniepa (25218)
• United States
17 Jan 12
What do you mean, "late to the party"? He was in the race quite awhile before Perry, if I remember correctly. I think he failed to make an impression in the debates because nobody asked him any questions. However, I often found myself thinking that when he DID say something he made more sense than any of the others. I guess to me that alone made him stand out. I guess Fox News probably decided they didn't want Huntsman so they didn't have him on any of their shows. They must prefer having one of their own analysts win but that isn't working out too well for them either with Romney being the apparent nominee. Annie
• United States
18 Jan 12
Too late for the party. He is a relative unknown. If he wanted to get his name out there, he needed to start way earlier than everyone else like Herman Cain did. No one knew who Herman Cain was until he started to run and then it took him almost a year to get the support in place to get recognition. But it wasn't until Cain presented a very unique idea that he got fame. Where is Huntman's unique idea? From what he presented, it was the same thing as everyone else was saying but without the unique pitch line that would have made his campaign and get people talking about him. But the real reason he needed to start much sooner was he needed the time to put his support in place, get the grassroots movement that he needed started, the time for fundraising, and the time to get his name out there. He needed the time to catch people's attention. Remember he is competing against people who can mobilize on a large scale. For him, he started to late to the Party.
1 person likes this
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
17 Jan 12
Well Annie, from a proud liberal ... number one, he worked for President Obama, number two, intellect ... plus a mormon!! I think what really takes their biscuit (just heard someone say that) is the pure hatred for the president ... how dare he deploy for "Obama" !
2 people like this
@anniepa (25218)
• United States
17 Jan 12
Yes, and I think he really sealed his own fate when he more or less scolded the others for criticizing him for having served under a Democratic President. He wasn't willing to use the hateful rhetoric against Obama and the base wouldn't stand for such civility! Annie
1 person likes this
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
17 Jan 12
Indeed Annie. While he admonished Romney saying unlike Romney he puts country first .. "hours" later, I mean hours later (not a year) he completely reversed course and put party first by endorsing Romney! Even after publicly stating that he felt Romney was unelectable!!Certainly, it is his right to endorse whom he will, however, I would have continued to respect him had he remained silent on any endorsement.
1 person likes this
@Latrivia (2890)
• United States
17 Jan 12
I didn't think he had a problem, I just wasn't enthusiastic about his ideas. His stance on prohibition isn't clear, I don't like that he supports the idea of a "right to life" act. While he's not for nation building, he doesn't seem to have a problem with using our troops as "peace police" in other parts of the world. I'm not sure I care for that. I like him better than Perry, Gingrich, and Romney, but he's not my first pick - or my second.
2 people like this
@anniepa (25218)
• United States
17 Jan 12
I guess that leaves Paul and Santorum, right? I'm not sure what you mean about prohibition. Annie
1 person likes this
@fannitia (2172)
• Bulgaria
17 Jan 12
As an outside observer I agree with you about the Republican candidates. But I didn't like so much Huntsman. He has served in the Obama Administration and finally declared himself against him - I find this confusing. He is not wealthy, the money belong to his father. The rich man is Romney and it seems that he receives a lot of money from the super PACs that support him. But why do people vote for any one of this pack? Until now I haven't heard one compelling message, even one useful idea for the government of the country. They use their campaign only to attack each other. Most of them want to eliminate Romney and he pours accusations against Obama. I wonder how people assess this conduct.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (25218)
• United States
17 Jan 12
I think for many within the Republican it's all about hatred for Obama. They'll even cheer when Newt Gingrich sends out his "dog whistle" codes when he talks about the "food stamp President" and having poor children work as janitors. Annie
@Taskr36 (13874)
• United States
17 Jan 12
More people have been using food stamps since Obama became president than ever before. I know the left wants to frame that as racist, but you know as well as I do that most people on food stamps are white Annie. I still don't see what's wrong with the idea of having poor kids work as janitors in their schools. Even kids in juvenile detention facilities get to do janitorial work. These kids can actually learn a decent work ethic and some worthwhile skills. One of my employees has her 13 year old daughter volunteer at the library so she can learn that work ethic. It's good to get kids ready to understand how jobs work at a young age.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (25218)
• United States
18 Jan 12
Taskr, YOU know and I know most people on food stamps are white but does Newt think the people he's trying to reach know? As for kids working, I have no problem with them learning a work ethic but is it fair to stigmatize poor kids by having them clean their schools? How do you suppose they'd be treated by their more well off classmates if they're cleaning toilets. Annie
@Rollo1 (16788)
• Boston, Massachusetts
18 Jan 12
I can see why you would like Huntsman - he was the only candidate in the race that liberals liked. He appeared less threatening because he seems the least Republican of anyone, he was the Obama-esque candidate. But if he was the candidate who appealed to anyone other than liberals, he would have done better. The true swing vote here is the independent vote and they are not supporting Obama on the whole so they are more likely to be voting in Republican primaries. The independents are more likely to support Paul in these primaries. The main reason is that Ron Paul seems to them to be the least like Obama. That's what people want more than anything - Not Obama. Romney is perceived as the most likely to defeat Obama and that is why the pragmatists keep him in the lead. Huntsman's problem is that he doesn't seem like the Not Obama candidate. And anything Not Obama scares liberals. Luckily, only 19% of Americans consider themselves to be liberals. Anyone scared of real American values should realize that they are in the minority. They only seem to be the majority because the majority of the media is made up of those in the 19%. America is already scared, scared of what is happening to their country and what another four years of the Obama agenda will do to it.
1 person likes this
• Redlands, California
18 Jan 12
From what I heard from many Republicans is that Huntsman had more of a conservative voting record than all the candidates who ran, on most issues. He just actually believed in focusing on the issues instead of throwing nonsense out like all the other Republican candidates. I don't know why people on the right encourage their politicians to act like that. It just makes them look like idiots. I wonder what these Republicans are going to do when they retire and reflect at their impact on this country.
@anniepa (25218)
• United States
18 Jan 12
Actually the far right extremists like the other GOP candidates are in the minority. I saw a poll yesterday that shows President Obama leads all of the Republicans by a huge margin among "moderates", which is what many if not most independents are. If it's a problem that Huntsman wasn't willing to put the party ahead of his country or to use the same hateful rhetoric the others used against the President and all other Democrats that sure doesn't say much for the party as a whole. Annie
@Rollo1 (16788)
• Boston, Massachusetts
18 Jan 12
Crossbones, Huntsman doesn't really have a voting record since he was never in Congress. He has a record as a governor, but although he was quite conservative on tax policy, he is a big spender as an executive. That is one of the things that makes him a fine Obama substitute - he loves to spend other people's money. Annie, all people who are at the far edge, whether right or left are in the minority. Self-identified liberals are 19% of the population. 41% of Americans consider themselves conservative. Be unhappy with that if you like, but the numbers prove that being conservative is mainstream.
@peavey (14944)
• United States
17 Jan 12
Between Huntsman and Romney, Romney was better known. A lot of people never heard Huntsman's take on things. Also, it's statistically proven that the better looking people are most often elected, at least as presidents. Not always, but often. I know... it's rather telling of our society. Romney has made a name for himself that almost everyone recognizes even if they don't know much about him and people go for that which is familiar for the most part.
1 person likes this
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
17 Jan 12
Is that how our nation was so unfortunately graced with G.W.Bush ... name recognition!! Well, that figures.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13874)
• United States
18 Jan 12
Does that really surprise you gladys? I remember telling people back in 2000 that Bush was a sure thing based on name recognition. I was wrong in thinking he'd win handily, but I was at least right about him winning.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (25218)
• United States
18 Jan 12
Well, you were right about him being put into office but "winning"?...Not so much! Annie
@xfahctor (14107)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
18 Jan 12
For me it was a number of things. His support for NDAA, supports provisions in the patriot act and such. Although he wasn't salivating like Romney, Gingrich, Santorum and Perry to jump in to a war with Iran, his position on a pre-emptive strike if they came close to developing a nuke was close enough for me. He is Obama lite. All set with that thanks.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (25218)
• United States
18 Jan 12
I wouldn't quite call him "Obama lite". He's still too conservative for me but just not crazy like the rest of them. Annie
@xfahctor (14107)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
18 Jan 12
What do you define as "conservative"?
• United States
18 Jan 12
Conservative to a liberal: Republican who isn't a conservative and sides with Democrats.
@Taskr36 (13874)
• United States
17 Jan 12
Well Annie, he always ranked third on my list behind Paul and Johnson eventually moving up to second when Johnson dropped out and decided to run with the Libertarian party. I agree that his experience is solid and I think it's a very positive thing that he's been a governor which is the most similar job to president, and a diplomat who has worked with both administrations showing that party politics aren't an obstacle for him. That said, two big things stopped him. 1. Zingers. He just didn't have any. Even Gary Johnson had that great line of "My next door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel-ready jobs than this administration." Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich were full of good zingers that earned each man his 15 minutes of fame.John Huntsman just never had anything solid in the debates to separate himself. You might think that getting 1 question and 1 follow-up per debate would be enough, but apparently not for him. 2. The media. Every front-runner we've had, as I told you, has been hand-picked by the media. Romney was the default thanks to 2008. Had Huckabee run it might have been him. John Huntsman was one of only 3 candidates who was never annointed a front-runner by the media. They practically shut him out of the debates giving him 2 questions per debate. Only Ron Paul got less unless you count Gary Johnson who they stopped inviting to debates even though he polled higher than Santorum, Huntsman, and occasionally Gingrich and Bachmann after the first two debates. I don't think working for the Obama administration hurt him. It would have been used against him if he became flavor of the week, but that never happened. Same thing about the Chinese. It would have only been an issue if he were flavor of the week. You really shouldn't be scared though. It seems like Romney has it pretty well locked up and he's just another Obama with better hair and a game-show host persona. Very little will change if he gets elected aside from the veto threats and "I WON" crap that Obama was pulling. I think he'll largely be a rubber stamp for whatever legislation gets passed and won't be nearly as combative with democrats as Obama has with republicans.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13874)
• United States
17 Jan 12
They don't control everything, but they showed exactly how much power they have when they somehow managed to get Rick Santorum to tie Romney for first place. Even when I TOLD YOU the media could do it, I wasn't sure I believed it myself. Many in the country didn't even know who Rick Perry was before 2011. The only semi-major story I remember hearing about him before that was when he made some stupid remarks about seceding from the country. Despite that they literally made him the front-runner before he even entered the race. Then he opened his mouth and it was all over. I still feel the media is 100% responsible for us getting Obama as president. I know I've shown you the charts before showing the percentage of positive vs negative stories on him. Fox was 40:40, but CNN was lopsided in his favor and MSNBC was like 73:11. It's sad to say Annie, but most voters are like sheep who can be herded one way or the other. They don't know anything about politics or economics. We're talking about people who can literally be convinced that they can lose weight on a chocolate diet, or that a ex-con guilty of fraud can write a book for them that gives them secret remedies to fix all their ailments that doctors are intentionally hiding from them. FYI, there is NOTHING that republicans in congress are doing right now that's going to kill people. That's just you buying the crap that your own side is feeding you. You should stop listening to Alan Grayson for a day.
@xfahctor (14107)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
18 Jan 12
Agreed. Status quo voters have nothing to fear from an Obomney administration. Seriously. There is so little day light between the two they might just as well pick each other as their running mates and be done with it.
@inertia4 (25345)
• United States
19 Jan 12
The reason is that the real right wingers want Romney to be the guy. They think he has a good chance of beating Obama. In my opinion, none of them have a chance of beating Obama. None of the republican candidates are any good. None of them have what it takes to make positive changes in this sorry country. They just want to bring things back the the old days. Those days are over and we do have to move forward. We need to make a difference. Every other country is slowly going to surpass us on every level. We lost the reins and the number one spot. It will take many years to become number one again.
@anniepa (25218)
• United States
27 Jan 12
You're right about a lot of what you've written. The thing is, we're not going to go back to being in the top spot in anything by denying we need improvement in anything. Taking us back will only push us further down on the totem pole. Annie
1 person likes this
@inertia4 (25345)
• United States
30 Jan 12
Exactly. We need new thinking, new ideas. I do belief that Obama has those ways but is being stifled by the republican party. Now if it were me, I would basically fight them tooth and nail and I would come out on top. Things do need to change. But remember one thing, even though they gave the banks and the auto makers bail outs, does not mean things are going to get any better. Do they bail us out when we fall financially? No they do not. Why? Because we are not a big corporation. To them we are expendable. They, meaning all those corporations have many safe guards, but where are our safe guards. We have none, we are at their mercy. We nee to move forward, the future is technology. I think technology is way more advanced then this countries thinking.
1 person likes this
• United States
18 Jan 12
I think it's because the right is running the same campaign now as the left did in 04 except instead of the anyone but Bush campaign it's the anyone but Obama campaign. So instead of putting up a candidate with appeal to both parties they are running a candidate too far left just because they assume the rest of the country hates Obama as much as they do. Hence they fall into the trap that thinking who ever they put up against Obama will win, which is never the case in a presidential race. I was for Obama in 08, this year I'm so unsure of him that I might have considered voting for a MODERATE Republican, they key however, is moderate, which none of the candidates are. While I might be dissatisfied with some of Obama's decisions these past 4 years, there's a lot I'm happy with, which is far better than I would expect from any of the extreme left candidates bidding for front runner this year. No president fully represents my interests, but the left has a lot less appeal on most issues.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (25218)
• United States
19 Jan 12
I think you mean extreme right, not left, don't you? I mean, all of the GOP candidates are far right which I think will make it hard for any of them to win in the general election. Annie
1 person likes this
• United States
19 Jan 12
Yes I meant right. Running a more centrist candidate will never appeal to the extreme of either side. But A centrist candidate has more appeal to a greater number of voters as most Americans are fairly closer to the middle. People vote out of party all the time. To add to it times are changing. We need a candidate that can fix the real issues. You can be for or against pot, abortion, welfare, public education or whatever you want. But if we hit 20% unemployment and keep upping the debt it won't amount to crap; if we the people can't pay for it. Which basically, we can't afford any more anything. The government is in such a financial crisis that we can't really address other issues until it gets fixed. If we had a huge budget surplus every year, we might not have a problem with welfare, and we might be a lot better off in an economic downturn. But as it stands American was already living paycheck to paycheck, then it got a pay cut, and it has not savings to rely on. So yes, if you can appeal to the 25% that aren't employed or on welfare, the other 10% that are worried about having a job next year, and most of the 99% OWS keeps talking about, you can appeal to most voters. And all that really requires is that you shut your mouth about the issues that divide parties.
1 person likes this
@mehale (2200)
• United States
26 Jan 12
Annie, I usually disagree with you on politics...though not this time for sure! I liked Huntsman a lot and was sorry to see him go. Certainly I don't trust (or like for that matter) Romney or Newt! And no it does not have to do with religion, before anyone decides to say it does! Sorry, had to put that in there, LOL. But still...We really don't have a very good choice for the GOP candidate, especially if the media is going to keep playing favorites. I was very sorry to see Huntsman go, and like you, I am not sure why he did!
1 person likes this
@anniepa (25218)
• United States
7 Feb 12
I don't see much - no, make that ANYTHING - to like or trust about Mitt or Newt either and it's nothing about religion for me either! Believe it or not, it's not about their politics either because, again believe it or not, there are many with whom I differ politically but still like and respect AND trust immensely. I can't say that about any of the remaining GOP candidates and that's what scares me. I know a lot of people blame the media for the way the race is going but to be honest I'm not sure who the media's favorite is at this point. I think members of the media want the story to keep going so they don't want the nominee to be chosen just yet. Annie
@lawdude (237)
• United States
18 Jan 12
Huntsman is a good man but did not have the organization and money to mount a serious campaign for the GOP nomination. Romney's organization goes back to 2008 and has been active since. His last official position was ambassador to China and he lacked a political constituency and name recognition. As intelligent as he appeared in the debates he came across as bland and did not make comments to appeal to the firebrands and yahoos of the far Republican right. He was also the only candidate who did not make a pledge to Grover Norquist never to support tax increases under any circumstances, thus dooming his candidacy from the start by assuring he would never receive the financial backing necessary to win the nomination. It's a shame that a principled man like him is taboo in national Republican politics.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (25218)
• United States
18 Jan 12
I guess "principled Republican" is the mother of all oxymorons...lol! Annie
• Redlands, California
18 Jan 12
I think it was just that Huntsman (in my opinion) is one of the very few honest Republicans left. One who cares more about the country than money and power. Plus he did not like to call Obama a Socialistic, Communist, Marxist, Nazi, from Kenya who is anti-business, hates old people, white people, rich people, and is Muslim. Wow, I have been keeping up with politics the last few years and this has been the Republicans main message about our countries first black President. Nice message to send to our kids. Sorry Huntsman, putting the country first. What were you thinking? Don't you know it is party first, Rich people second, then the country.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (25218)
• United States
18 Jan 12
He's like many of the Republicans years ago used to be. Now those who refuse to repeat the hateful rhetoric of the tea partiers like Jim DeMint get run out of the party. It's too bad because nothing will ever get accomplished with the current GOP. Annie
@goldeneagle (6776)
• United States
7 Feb 12
I agree with you, although I can’t really say that I was a Huntsman fan, because I didn’t know a whole lot about him. I started following the election coverage only recently, but I have to say that we should be really concerned about the upcoming election. We certainly need to get Obama OUT of office, and as long as that happens, the American voters will have done the job they really need to do in this election. However, when Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are the best candidates the Republican Party has to offer, we should certainly be worried. While either of these choices would be better for our country than Obama, neither of them are really worth voting for…
1 person likes this
@wiguen (551)
• United States
18 Jan 12
that is how politic works, you act today for the sake of tomorrow, i think his make was deploy for president Obama. and seriously it would take a very smart one to win president Obama, for the fact that many things happened on his administration that every body was waiting for.
1 person likes this
• United States
18 Jan 12
The main reason is that you , a thoughtful Democrat could be ok with him as president is why he didn't do so well. He isn't part of the tea party , therefore he is Way too liberal . And he made sense when he speaks and leaves out the rest of the party.It seems to be a Republican candidate you need a deep, blind, hatred of Obama and a promise to Never , Ever raise taxes. If you sound meaningful on any other topic , they will not listen to you.
1 person likes this
@SarahAlyx (181)
• United States
18 Jan 12
Not to disrespect on you and your beliefs on politics but why would you want huntsman in the first place? He endorses Mitt Romney who first of all has a bad record, he wants to spend more money, he supports expensive wars, he doesn't think we should negotiate with Iran (therefore possibly causing WW3) those are just a few things. Just wanted to get that out there and in the open. I am personally a Ron Paul supporter, but that isn't your question. Huntsman never really seemed to have gotten anywhere from the beginning although I havent been following him as closely because he hasn't gotten much coverage. I think Huntsman may have been on the good side in the beginning but he changed. Thats the best answer I can give you without asking the man himself. He wasn't getting votes and he was way down in the polls. Also, Ron Paul would abolish income taxes entirely and the IRS would be very limited if it even existed at all under the Paul administration. There is only one old man between a future for America or its total collapse lets just hope we dont let fox, cnn, and other corporate media smear him out of the race.
• United States
18 Jan 12
Thanks for the welcome. It just seemed to me by the way your words were typed that you were for Huntsman. I agree we do need some form of government but small government not big take over everything government like they keep pushing for or so it seems.