Huntsman Campaign Launch Begins Day with Misspelling of His Own Name

Your article launched by starting the 2nd paragraph with the same sentence repeated twice in a row. Unbelievable…

Honestly, it was a typo….meanwhile, your article goes on to repeat a sentence twice in a row AND suggest that the announcement was at the State (instead of Statue) of Liberty.
Lets focus on something more important…like the content of the speech?

Not surprised that liberal ABC is all over something as trivial as this, but when Obama said, “My muslim religion”, or “the 53 states” where was ABC.
I’ll go back to Fox… “Fair and Balanced”

Maybe I’m missing something, but the author did NOT misspell Statue.
“Today’s campaign kickoff at Liberty State Park is a nod to Ronald Reagan, who used the Statue of Liberty backdrop to launch his 1980 general election campaign.”
Both of those are correct.Access to the ferry to the Statue of Liberty is gained via Liberty State Park (on the Jersey side, anyway). ABC didn’t screw up. Yet.
Oh, and to Egg on your Face, Obamacare already eliminates Medicare ‘as we know it’, and the Ryan plan doesn’t affect Medicare for anyone over age of 55. Stop with the misinformation campaign.

Actually, on August 3, 1980, Ronald Reagan gave his first post-convention speech after being officially chosen as the Republican nominee at the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia, Mississippi, town where three civil rights workers were lynched by local sheriffs. This signaled to the racists of America that their new home was in the Republican Party.
Now, in states like Alabama, 80% of whites vote for the party of the rich and corporate greed because of their racism.

“and the Ryan plan doesn’t affect Medicare for anyone over age of 55.” -Anthony
So you agree that it does affect Medicare for anyone not over the age of 55.
If you are college-age, this means your parents are probably going to have to pay increased Medicare costs even if they are, say, 53 and despite having had Medicare taxed out of their paychecks for most of their working life. WHAT AN AWESOME DEAL!
I simply cannot understand why anyone who does not belong to the top 2% of income earners category would support policies that cut back on social security or medicare while REDUCING taxes on the top 2%. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the opposite of “trickling down.” I understand that the health care system needs dramatic overhaul and to work more efficiently. But, if you belong to the middle or lower class, why would you favor benefits taken away from you while more and more taxpayer money is allocated to the richest individuals (who can afford their own health care 20 times over)? I realize a lot of the excuse for getting rid of so-called “entitlements” is the overwhelming debt. But this does not excuse cutting back on taxes, especially for the wealthy, who are capped at 35%. (Pre-Bush tax rates at the Clinton rate were 39.5%, not that much higher). Besides, wealthier earners can get a 15% rate for long-term capital gains (don’t even get me started on how little we tax the extractive industries), so not even all their income would be taxed at 39.5% if we returned to that rate. And, remember we are talking about the wealthiest 2%, unless you’re in that category why do you oppose an increase in taxes for that group? Particularly, when the income gap between rich and poor is at a record high in the US (2010 Census). This is NOT good news, just ask Latin America. Oh, and quick fun fact: for most of the 20th century, the highest marginal rate was at least 70%…and the US did just fine.
Simply put, if you are going to claim that the US is bankrupt and we have to do something about it, don’t propose to lower the standard of living for the average Joe, while telling the wealthiest to keep more of their money. That simply is not equitable. The average Joe would have to be severely misinformed (perhaps a little brainwashed) to risk his health and retirement plans so that the wealthiest Americans can buy a bigger bad yacht. (just check out this link:

Oh good, now maybe this means that abc news will now cover ALL gaffs from ALL candidates. Yes, I mean Obama.
I don’t remember such an article devoted to Obama’s 57 states comment or his Muslim faith. Or how about when he was in his first month as president, he thanked himself for being invited to the white house. The list goes on and on…
So is abc going to now spell out all of his mispeaks and mistakes too? I won’t hold my breath as I know who carries who’s water.

If Huntsman is Reagan, I’m King George.

Huntsman is mega rich via a family fortune built on the chemical industry which is polluting our planet…
and blah,blah, blah. I’ll bet you casn’t name one substance or chemical that is made that does not come from the earth and yet these”earth destroying” chemicals enable us to listen to radios, have pc’s and all the other stuff we have today. Science is wonderful, isn’t it?
By the way, those ubber rich Huntsman have given millions away to different charities..the elder, giving away all his fortune.
I wonder how many poor people will club each other over the head today for their valuables, steal airconditioning units and copper wire from their neighbors to sell for a bit of money to buy drugs?

Huntsman is the sanest of the candidates, but he had to get his weird credentials validated. The story of the dozens of screwups could become an incredible urban legend. I howled and howled starting with that translated-from-the-Chinese by a non-English speaker campaign ad. His crowning screwup attempt to send the press corps to Saudi Arabia was something out of a Cheech & Chong movie. I have not laughed so long or loud at a political story in years.

I’m a Tea party member and would not vote for Huntsman on a dare.
Likes Obama
Likes Reid
Brings NOTHING to the party.