I don't think its bad that Huntsman speaks Chinese... What I basically meant was that he is really no better than voting for Obama, imo. Huntsman speaks glowingly about Obama, worked for him, and seems to absolutely adore him. That's not really what I have in mind when I vote. As for your negative opinion on Romney, at least Romney has some real world dirt under his fingernails and some actual understanding about jobs and their creation, unlike Huntsman, Obama, Gingrich, and the rest of the posers in this race. Although I'm also not naive enough to believe that my vote is a deciding factor. I just enjoy going out and putting my vote in even though at this point Romney seems inevitable.

It would seem as though you support Huntsman, and you've also bought into this whole bogus class warfare argument.. I agree with you on one point, we do need a Governor this time around and not a lawmaker who generally hides in a legislative body where he basically gets away with doing nothing, or voting present like our current vacationer in chief Obama. All this seems somewhat pointless now as Romney is all but inevitable, especially with desperate Newt and Rick Perry self destructing and cutting class warfare campaign commercials for Obama. Its time to turn this all around and I wouldn't rely on a guy like Huntsman to do it, especially with his soft China policies. He seems to have no problems with our trade deficit or China's manipulation of currency,  for that reason alone I consider him extremely weak. Then factor in his glowing reviews of Obama and we are talking disaster. More of the same. And remember, Palin had a 90% approval in Alaska until she became a VP candidate and went under the microscope. We have vetted Romney already in a national campaign and there won't be any surprises. He has flaws, but hes generally a good man and would make a good President.

I would just sit it out if Ron Paul were the candidate. He seems to be a true dove in the vain of Carter and Chamberlain and that's truly dangerous for security. At least Obama seems to understand that part of the job. Terrorists have been dropping like flies all over the world under Obama's watch and I'm sure that would end under Paul. That's the Presidents first responsibility and the first consideration for casting a vote, imo.

Actually I was born into a society where class "warfare" as you call it has always existed. It exists in almost every society I know except maybe some of the tribal areas of places like Papua New Guinea. In places like that they simply have tribal warfare. In most modern societies you have classes of one sort or another. We may have more mobility than many other societies to move amongst the classes however some things make it easier and somethings make it harder to do so. I'm not holding my breath however to see the ruling class change their status though. You should look at recent class mobility statistics from around the world. You will probably be quite surprised. The class warfare deniers seem to be very good warriors themselves. Just take a listen to Gingrich.

I don't actively support him however I do like people who actually do (or at least try to do) what they say because the rest are simply contestants in what they think is a popularity contest. I do not like phonies so that really only leaves Paul and Huntsman IMO. So we are left with the economy which has more to do with what the a-holes in congress are not doing and foreign affairs in which although I agree with some of Ron Paul's Ideals, I really don't think they are realistic when I look at what is actually happening in the world. Support Huntsman No. More likely to vote for than the others.Yes.

I don't believe it is a qualification...Simply easier to analyze the record because the voting records of legislators are much more complex.Bush Sr. was 1000% better than his son and was not a Governor. He had foreign policy experience and understanding and that is actually the qualification I look for (as well as what their foreign policy stance is as well) . Most candidates don't have much of that so then I look at whether I think they will listen to others or not.

Nothing is inevitable or pointless simply because the pundits say so. They have been saying Romney from the get-go for a reason and the reason is not because he is best for you or me. It is because they think he is best for them. Only you can decide what is best in your eyes unless you decide to drink the various flavors of kool-aid that are out there. It comes in many flavors. Saying something is inevitable really means "why don't the rest of you just stay home". Then those with the money fund the "inevitable" so they can buy their piece of the pie.

He was an ambassador so the policies are not his. Remember...Ambassadors are simply "information gatherers" amongst their other normal duties and not much more. Trade policy is difficult. As far as his stance on China what do you suggest? Tariffs and a trade war? How about comparing his stance with Romney's? As if Romney even has the sack to say what he really thinks. He has no nuts.  He doesn't say what he thinks, he mostly says what he thinks you want to hear and nothing more. Isn't that rather obvious by now? How many times do you have to see him change his tune after the polls show what he said the day before was the wrong song and dance? You want a trade war? I suggest you start reading The Wall Street Journal and Forbes before you decide that Huntsman's "weak" stance is or isn't better than Romney's "flex my muscles for the audience" stance.

Seems? What makes things "seem to appear" to you? Things don't seem to me. I have seen him speak about such issues and address those specific issues as existing problems. I may agree or disagree with what he believes to be the most appropriate course of action however he seems has addressed those specific issues more thoroughly than most if not all of the other candidates. Again do yourself a favor and read what the actual experts write. It is a lot different from the 30 second sound bytes created for the "show" debates.

Show me the glowing reviews he has cast. He has certainly made specific positive comments about very specific decisions that the Obama administration has made but at least he can give an honest opinion if he thinks credit is due as opposed to those who find a way to criticize everything....What don't you understand about the nature of divisive politics? You are best to give answers based on issues and not politics if want to validate opinions.

I would agree he at least "appears" to be good family man. Would make a good president? Might make a good president and might not is more like it.

Maybe no "personal life" surprises however there will be surprises when it comes to how he deals with the issues. There were many surprises for the people in Mass. when he was the Governor. Although I do care very much about character my scrutiny goes much further than someone voting for the next American Idol simply because they have a good song and dance.

Unfortunately, we do not have a real choice in my state.  So I will be skipping the primary.

Nope, write-ins are not allowed in primaries in this state.

Republican primaries are usually predictable affairs and dark horse candidates never occur. An Obama couldn't rise from a Republican primary. A guy who has done virtually nothing for his party except one keynote speech in 04 and 4 years in Government with no real record of achievement or even a significant law that bear his name. Romney is the next guy in line for the GOP and that is typically how it works with Republicans. Mittens is just running out the clock and that's really all he has to do while Newt and Perry have to throw it down the field. They mix it up a little and try to make the imbeciles think they have a choice when all along its already been decided. By the time these guys even get here to the East Coast the whole thing is usually over anyway. By the time I vote its already always openly decided.

I didn't say that I picked Romney simply because I thought he was inevitable, but because I actually thought he was the best bet, even though I believe its already decided. On the Dark horse thing, I might have said "never," but I also led into it with "usually" and that left me plenty of wiggle room. I'll tell you what, I'll bet you 10 bucks, (not 10,000), that Romney is the last man standing.

I'll cut you a deal. I'll go back to learn English if you go back to learn manners.

Its all phony to me. Another "prophet" has a vision. Doesn't matter to me whether its a burning bush or an angel. Simply the same story regurgitated for a different audience.

He's no different than Gingrich.Both want to take your tax dollars and give them to Wall st. and big business. What is funny is he openly (and through Bain Capital) lobbied against a republican conservative backed tax reform bill that would have closed some of the loopholes he personally takes advantage of. And we all know about Gingrich and Freddie Mac. They are political clones whose only differences are how they present their hypocrisy to the public and whether they actually live by the "family values" they espouse or not.

Never looked at it that way ... humm ... but I think we are already on the precious and I think it is going to take something quite drastic and damaging to change the direction we are headed in … and I see nothing approaching another viable solution in the republican field. What better person to throw (vote, sorry) into the middle of this mess. If there is anything politically appealing to me any more … it is electing someone (just about anyone semi-qualified) both parties despise that the people actually like. But as things stand, most people seem to bet on the most money … the root of all evil, hahaha. Our choices are quite limited as usual so ... Ron Paul is where I have to offer support based on truth speak and honest convictions. When he is gone, I will then again have to decide the least of the evils ... what a lot in life. I envision the look on the face of the king when he presents his ring for President Paul to kiss, hahaha.

You know I used to laugh at Ron Paul, but these days I generally respect him, although I do still think he is totally divorced from reality on the threat of Islamic fascism and Islamic nukes. One thing about Paul though, he says what he means and doesn't focus group it or poll it to find out if its popular. That's integrity and conviction and I respect that. Paul is a truer conservative and much better man than Newt Gingrich, but his followers treat him like a cult leader, and that gives me great pause and the creeps. Paul really needs to stop saying crazy things out there, like "the US shouldn't have fought WWII." Paul would be a tough vote for those reasons. I'm not sure if I could do it, but I wouldn't rule it out in a general election against Obama. I would rule out Gingrich. I would never vote for him.