The GOP's Only Reasonable Choice.

Jon Huntsman was interviewed by Fareed Zakaria this morning on CNN and I was very impressed.

This seems to me to be the only reasonable choice for a presidential nominee in the entire GOP stable of candidates outside of Ron Paul. If I were a Republican (which i’m not) i’d be supporting either Jon Huntsman or Ron Paul for the nomination for president, but since Paul is outside the mainstream, even though he appeals to a lot of us independents, i would have to favor Huntsman for nominee.


Dr. Paul certainly has his following though. I don’t agree with all of his philosophy, but I admire his consistency, his passion and his impatience with the greed in our government. He’s against sticking our noses in other countries and fighting wars we don’t belong in.

Mitt Romney is a little too oily for me and too eager to please whatever audience he’s in front of, even though I’m sure he’s a fine family man and loving father. But the voters are wary of him.

Newt Gingrich is by far too unpredictable and arrogant for my taste; sure he’s been in government for decades, but he’s a slippery ol' gas bag.  And he will lose in any debate with President Obama because of his off the cuff carelessness. Not only that, but imagine the two of them together on stage:  Obama’s cool, svelte demeanor next to Newt’s over the belt paunchiness. It may not be fair, but appearance made the difference in the Kennedy - Nixon debate in 1960. 

I admire Michelle Bachman, not for what she professes but for her incredible audacity. I like her gutsiness and her fortitude in holding her own, debate after debate, against all that testosterone on stage. Still, not a chance at the nomination.

Rick Perry has embarrassed himself to the point where I’m beginning to feel sorry for him. His support is dwindling.

Ah yes, and then there’s Rick Santorum about whom I have really nothing to say.

So if the Republicans want a chance at the Whitehouse in 2012 they had better start looking for a viable candidate. Jon Huntsman is their best bet to win.

Huntsman is an intelligent man, a former governor, a statesman, having served as ambassador to China and Singapore. He is moderate and broad-minded, which appears to be his problem with the tea party people – far too reasonable, too well spoken, much too intelligent.  He's in favor of term limits and believes in the science behind environmental issues and he's doing well in New Hampshire.

Above all, Jon Huntsman handles himself well, does not pander, did not sign Grover Norquist’s demeaning and humiliating tax pledge and refuses to kiss the ring on Donald Trump’s hand by attending the two-person debate at Trump’s request.

It will be interesting to see how he and Newt fare on the stage Monday night in what has been described as the first Lincoln-Douglas debate of the season.

I will be watching.  Will you?

Newt's Approach to Solving Poverty

Most people who know me, know that Newt Gingrich is my least favorite of the current stable of GOP candidates, but for a multitude of reasons that are not associated with the flap over his recent statement about putting poor children to work.

I think he's right on this issue,  but his solution applies to all of us, not just the destitute and therefore, could have been worded a bit more artfully.

He's right because all children should have a model, parental or otherwise, of an adult who works to earn a living or is looking for work,  or otherwise contributes by working at something that helps family and community.  I know about the jobless rate and how hard it is to get a job.  I'm sure it's easy to become inured to not working for months and months, becoming disillusioned and essentially giving up.

That's why his idea is a good one!  Allow children of non-working families--of all families--to learn what it's like to earn a dollar by their own labor and enjoy that heady sense of empowerment that comes from feeling truly worthy (worth-y).

Sure, these kids could assist in the school library as he said. That would teach them not just responsibility but would instill in them a love for books and reading, yes even perhaps a thirst for knowledge (and therefore lead to higher degrees of learning). That's not such an outlandish idea, is it?   Helping out in the school cafeteria, even cleaning toilets isn't out of the question either. 

This is not a class issue;  it's about a whole attitude that is claiming the work ethic with which many of us were raised.  I baby sat, delivered local papers, worked in a drug store after school -- I did many things in order to have my own money.  But that was because I was encouraged to do so by my parents.

When people have children, their responsibility is to teach them responsibility. And the most effective way of teaching is through example.  I think what he's saying is that if they don't always have that example to learn from, give them another way out. 

I think his idea could solve several inter-related problems that appear to be unsolvable:  if more of our teens worked at menial jobs (busing tables, washing dishes, delivering papers, caddying for golfers, waiting on tables as I did) even working in the fields during summer vacation as my husband did, there would be fewer illegals filling those roles.

I could never agree that our child labor laws are  "truly stupid" as Newt said.  They were put in place for good reason -- to prevent children from working in the fields instead of going to school, and we don't want that.  Obviously, we want our kids educated and that is why his idea appeals to me. It could become an adjunct to public education whose main benefit accrues to the kids, teaching them self-reliance, independence, the work ethic, social interaction, putting a few dollars in their pockets, reducing petty theft, dealing drugs and perhaps making a small dent in the economy.

I'm not talking about putting nine-year olds to work as he was. I'm saying that kids of all ages could learn from a tiered (graduated)  program promoted by the schools that would allow school children of all ages to benefit.  I see it as comparable to the allowances our parents gave us for taking care of a pet and cleaning our rooms and mowing the lawn.  Think about it. 

Is it possible that the "idea man" from those days as house "whip" has actually come up with a decent idea!

(See my rant "Where's the Sacrifice?" way back on May 16 in which I vent my spleen on related issues).