redhouse1938, no offense, but if he's popular among Europeans he's entirely unsuitable to make it out of a GOP primary process.

"And I read he left the governership of the state of Utah with a >80% approval rating."

That was Palin's approval rating in Alaska when she was tapped, too.

"I just don't see what you Americans have against him. To me as a European, he seems to be head and shoulders above the rest.. "

*shrug* I guess if Europeans were voting, then, he'd be a leading candidate. As it is, he's completely unelectable.

You may be right Invictus. I wouldn't mind that turn of events.

"redhouse1938, no offense, but if he's popular among Europeans he's entirely unsuitable to make it out of a GOP primary process."

I doubt he's popular among Europeans. I doubt more than 1% of the Europeans even know who he is. I just think it's a pity the Republicans also turn this into a prom queen election. It's the same as Obama, who was "charismatic" (I never saw it, really) and now turns out to be a complete failure. It takes some courage to stand behind a guy like JH for the legitimate reasons you all mention, but I think if you do, you'll be surprised about the results (and by you I mean the more elitist faction of the Rep party)

By European I meant more something like: looking at it from a distance.

Obama a complete failure? Speak for yourself, I see a president that produced results in Syria despite rancorous cries to stand down and stop playing cop. Chess not checkers.

Not supporting Huntsman doesn't mean it's a "prom queen election." He simply doesn't line up with the views of the party at large on a lot of issue and, more importantly, he's got a set reputation as a liberal Republican. That's exactly what is needed in some areas of the country where the party simply cannot compete, but it is not the way to win the nomination of the party for president. It just can't happen.

And, having followed the last election quite closely, he's just not an inspiring leader, regardless of how good he is on certain policy questions. I'd be shocked if he even ran again. It's over, johnny.

Thucydides, you're joking, right? Putin and Assad won this.

Yeah, rh, he'd be a pretty terrible President. He comes across as pouting and petty. Those aren't prom-queen things to mention -- as Invictus says, they go to leadership. He hasn't displayed much.

And yes, beyond that, he simply doesn't agree with Republicans on almost anything when it comes to major domestic policy questions. Why they would be well advised to ignore this, I can't imagine.

I guess who won depends on your perspective. From an ethnocentric parochial perspective I suppose they did, but we've been over that I don't give a shit about that.

Assad will be stripped of his gas. That's the bottom line. And we have Obama to thank. That's all I really need to hear.

Even more important, the norm on chemical weapons has been reinforced. Average people today now know and care about the issue. Again, thanks to Obama not ignoring the attack of August 21.

Yeah yeah you're a citizen of the world we're a bunch of jingoist cavemen. We get it.

Assad is not giving up his chemical weapons. If you believe that you're a fool. What Putin and he have done is make American intervention in the civil war impossible as long as talks on disarming Assad go on, and they'll go on forever with no progress made. Who exactly is supposed to take these weapons from Assad while the war's going on? Are we suppose to just trust a man who just gassed civilians a few weeks ago to now be a boy scout and turn in his poor-man's-nukes? What's to stop him from, say, giving a bunch to Hezbollah or Iran for safekeeping? As these phantom talks go on Russia sells Syria more weapons and Iran provides more military aid to crush the rebels in as brutal a fashion as ever. Far from being reinforced, the norm on the ban on chemical weapons is in tatters since this agreement basically ratifies Assad's legitimacy as the leader of Syria in a way that hasn't been the case for years. Instead of going to the Hague he's now got a better chance of staying in Damascus indefinitely. America has been shut out of influencing events in Syria but Putin has brilliantly done it in such a way that it looks like Obama had some sort of a victory. The war, however, will go on and Assad is in a better place now than he's been almost since the rebellion began. That's a good thing to you? Just because politicians are using the right shibboleths to warm your liberal internationalist heart?

You've fallen for White House spin, Thucydides.

"Yeah, rh, he'd be a pretty terrible President. He comes across as pouting and petty. Those aren't prom-queen things to mention -- as Invictus says, they go to leadership. He hasn't displayed much."
-Utah was elected the US' best governed state when he was governor, >80% approval rating, >70% of the vote, impressive international track record; on the leadership qualities list all this doesn't largely outweigh "coming across as pouting and petty"?

"Assad will be stripped of his gas. That's the bottom line. And we have Obama to thank. That's all I really need to hear."
-It's all you really want to hear, there's a difference.

"-Utah was elected the US' best governed state when he was governor, >80% approval rating, >70% of the vote, impressive international track record; on the leadership qualities list all this doesn't largely outweigh "coming across as pouting and petty"?"

Not really. It might if it weren't Utah.

In any case, you're ignoring the bottom line about domestic policies. He disagrees with Republicans on them. That's not a small thing.

"In any case, you're ignoring the bottom line about domestic policies. He disagrees with Republicans on them. That's not a small thing."

I personally am happy to vote for someone who disagrees with me, but makes an excellent case doing so, than for someone who agrees with me, but makes a terrible case doing so.

Maybe, but Houseman didn't make a good case for anything. He whined and complained and insulted. I know you want me to ignore that too. But I just can't see how you're building up a case from the facts here.

Huntsman, that is, not Houseman.

Youtube video of Huntsman doing that or it didn't happen

http://www.buzzfeed.com/zekejmiller/jon-huntsman-trashes-gop-expresses-campaign-regre

He's not wrong on some of his criticisms of the party, but you can't talk like that and expect to win the nomination. Comparing the GOP to the CCP is a kiss of death for someone's electoral prospects in the party. You can't insult people into voting for you.

Would he run on the GOP ballot? He's been talking third party since he ended his 2012 campaign.

Hmmm well that's all very domestic, I shouldn't get into it too deep, although I'd say he criticized party cadre here and not party members. If somebody would say something like that about the parties I vote for in Holland it wouldn't stop me from voting for them, especially if what they said had some merit, as I wouldn't consider myself addressed by the comment.
But anyways, when looking at his domestic comments, I thought that some of his views on, for example, the role of science in the public debate, were very valuable, even though unpopular.

If Assad stalls its pretty clear what needs to be done - attack him. I think Obama is up to it.

How is it White House spin to assert that this agreement would never have existed without Obama's threats of attack? That seems obvious. Care to outline a way this could have come about any other way?

American political parties are very different from European ones. Ours are basically like your coalitions, but jammed in one party as a result of our winner-take-all voting system.

You gotta just give up on Huntsman. There are relevant politicians who would please you just as much.

You really think Obama has the credibility left with Putin to attack and expect Putin to just let it go?

Don't pretend for a second, by the way, that I am pleased with the way the world had reacted to Syria in the past two years. When your idea of what should be done is so far from what anyone in power will do, you create two standards of judging them: the first and most fundamental is the absolute standard, the second, more useful for opinion pollsters, is based on the piss poor standards of public servants. It's a relative standard. Hence my praise of Obama above. What he has done is far better than nothing and cannot face been easy. But we still fall soul-crushingly short.

And Invictus, don't make this about you and me. Because you are one rude motherfucker. Sorry, but it's true. I don't want to whine so I won't prove it to you by quoting all the times you've insulted me for no reason other than to feel better than me. Get over yourself. We get it - you're a pragmatic young conservative. Get your fucking morals together.

...
Because the worst thing he did was expressing his not entirely unjustified anger over being dis(!)invited to a fundraiser?

"You really think Obama has the credibility left with Putin to attack and expect Putin to just let it go?"

Actually what I think is that when push comes to shove Putin would not dare stand up to the United States militarily. Russia's military is no match, and Putin has few allies. Don't be ridiculous.

Thucy, I did not make any mention of militaries. Russia and the United States are not going to war. Everyone knows that. Pretend neither country has a military for a second and tell me just how Obama can pull that off.

Pretending neither country has a military doesn't make any sense to me. The exact reason Obama can pull it off is because of the American military.

I really don't care if you think I'm rude. I'm just being honest as I see it. No need to sugarcoat things for a stranger over the internet's feelings.