*Sigh* - I think it's a sad commentary on American Politics that I can look at that and see someone saying something not completely reprehensible in every way and think "Well it's better than any other Republican's position on the issue." Seriously. We've (we in this case meaning liberals) gotten so used to all the Republicans being just so completely awful all the time, that when one of them breaks rank and says something reasonable we think "Good on you. How vary courageous of you not to be as completely indefensible as you normally would."

+1 Mafialligator...

Though to be fair, while I do lean liberal on social policy, I would say both parties have their problems...

Newt's "Wow...that wasn't entirely disgusting and/or racist and somewhat reasonable" take is, sadly, as rare as the times I can point to Obama nowadays and say "Now THERE'S the young, energetic force I pulled so hard for in '08...look at him sell his message!"

We're in a pretty shallow time in American politics...the richness of the political stables from the 1960s-90s seems to have run dry...

What I find terrible for politics is that even in the Information Age, 50% of people can not name a single Republican nominee.

It's rather startling. This article talks about how most of them are registered Democrats, so why would they follow the Republicans at all? That's terrible for our country, and I was opposed to the Electoral College until I saw this survey.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/07/poll-nearly-half-of-americans-cant-name-a-single-gop-presidential-candidate/

Richness of the political stables of 60s-90s? WTF are you talking about. The era that produced Nixon, Ford, Carter and Bush Sr. and yes that conservative construction Reagan was a golden age?

Huntsman has some genuinely good ideas, he would be the only republican i might consider voting for.

*sigh*

and thats only if he allows me to date his brunette daughter

i guess his stance on abortion is a deal breaker though, pity.

@Adam Bomb, the fact is, for registered democrats it kinda doesn't matter who the field is right now, they're not voting for the Republican nominee. Once the election rolls around most people will know who the nominee is. Fact is, every election cycle, every 3 years there's always some newspaper article saying like "Oh 50% of people can't name any candidates!" "33 % of people don't know what their own district is!" "67% of people don't know which party each candidate belongs to!" "25% of people don't know what a president is!"
The fact is, I'm no longer worried about those sorts of "the sky is falling" polling results. People are not more stupid or uninterested than they ever have been before.
At any rate, I have to say that result, if genuinely true, speaks more to a serious problem with the Republican candidates, rather than the Democratic voters.
Besides, it actually doesn't matter to them, registered Democrats can't vote in Republican primaries. When it comes to the actual election, I guarantee you, most of those people will know who the Republican nominee is.

Errr i realize I repeated the thing about not being able to vote, sorry.
Also the election cycle is every 4 years, not 3 years. That was a typo.