I always thought Huntsman would make the best Secretary of State, but he always seems to let his desire to have a career get in the way by toeing the party lines. It's not a poor motivation since I know he wants a career so he can do good, but he's severely limiting his potential anyway.

Fighter_McWarrior wrote:

What I don't understand is why the Republicans didn't nominate him. I mean, I get that a lot of hardliners don't like him because he's moderate, but so was Romney. And unlike Romney, Huntsman has been consistent and honest about his beliefs and has never, to my knowledge, had a major gaffe. They got a moderate anyway. Why didn't they pick a more successful one?

They don't want a moderate, intelligent person. They want someone who can throw out folksy wisdom about how the world was better before Jim Crow left the building. To me, baby boomers are the first generation that you've been able to lead around by the nose via nostalgia. They were all little kids raised by TV, and since Andy Griffith and Leave it to Beaver were on, that's how they remember those times. They want Palin and Trump talkin' bout good ol' days when people worked hard on their own (when the '50s-'60s booms were fueled by Eisenhower's straight-up socialist policies) to fuel nostalgia about how great the good old times were, inflating voter egos and confidence in the candidate.

Like it or not, baby boomers are now the old-timers that will vote in huge numbers, and they don't want the moderate. They don't want a well-grounded, realistic guy like Huntsman understanding just how fucked up the world has been, and currently is. They want someone to bring back their Andy Griffith childhoods where the darkies were invisible, and certainly not elected.



It's not just Republicans, too. I've rarely heard a baby-boomer Democrat with a complete thought. Tell them what they want to hear about using tax money for important projects (promises broken since LBJ) and women's rights (while voting them down), and you have their vote. Even then, I feel like even when they come to dumb conclusions like "CORPORATIONS R BAD," I feel like they understand realities of past and present better, which is why I reluctantly associate myself with the party of inspiring people like Waxman and Cuomo, while begrudgingly accepting useless, opportunistic losers like Reid and Pelosi.

One thing I hear conservatives freaking out about is Obama not meeting Netanyahu, and for the risk he's taking, I'm glad. I'm just kind of tired of the militant Israeli politicians trying to start shit over everything, and dragging us along. The vast majority of Muslims don't give a hot shit about Israel, and no sane country would ever attack them, because

A)They'd end up destroying the holy land they're vying to control
B) If Iran dropped a nuke, they'd have a hundred nations directly up their assholes the next day.

I understand that they were systematically invaded and terrorized for over 60 years. There are vets there who participated in 3 major wars, then had their homes bombed in the '90s-'00s. It's different now. Israeli and Palestinian kids go to school together, and most Muslims just don't give a damn about Israel's existence. It must be shitty in Israel when you have a party in control that straight-up says they just want to get into war and conflict with everyone. Maybe just letting them shout this shit out, and actually have to sit down with these local nations will be more helpful than just pulling us out of their sleeves to scare people off and incite more anger.

Like Fighter said, I think Iran is a lot more shrewd than people give them credit for. They pick a popular revolutionary as a figurehead Head of State, but are really ruled by a council of ten people, and I don't think they're all hate-mongering people who want to start another war, especially after so many remember the Iran-Iraq war. I don't think they'd pick a fight with two of the most powerful militaries on the planet, who could literally glass all of Iran.

If anything, their nuclear drive is probably more of a defensive move. When they're part of the "Axis of Evil," and saw that we invaded one and pacified the only one of the three with nuclear capabilities, they figured a nuclear weapons program would be the best option in terms of securing themselves. It'll take years to tell, but the Bush doctrine may have been one of the most important foreign policies in shaping the world (for good or bad) since the CIA's first two decades.