What I find funny is all my conservative friends say they would vote for Huntsman, based on my informal poll he should win Iowa by 30 points.
I am just wondering is Huntsman the go to, I am voting for this guy because, it makes me seem like a sane Republican. I find it funny.
I find that curious too.
A few weeks ago on another site run by a liberal, he posited the question just to Republicans what they thought about the Republican field. Besides my own answer, that's how the vast majority of responses lined up, Huntsman, and then Paul. That's a wide variance with the actual Iowa and nationwide polling. I don't have an explanation for that.
Yet.
But I'm not interested in trying to please Democrats with picking a candidate that
they will find "sane." From the party that thinks we can deficit spend forever? Their definition of sanity doesn't interest me.
Quite simply, by Buckley's dictum, Huntsman is the most conservative electable candidate who's in the race. Romney is electable, but isn't even close to being a conservative (except on alternative Tuesdays when he totally flips positions). Gingrich supported Medicare Part D. In the oxymoronic way of the media, he is considered a big government conservative. And he's not even electable. Santorum, another big government conservative. Sure, he likes babies, but he likes spending too. Also he's not electable. Paul, it goes without saying, isn't electable. Neither is Bachmann, although I think in future election cycles that could change, although it won't change for Gingrich or Santorum. That pretty much leaves Huntsman.
