Jon Huntsman

In the midst of speculation about 2012 GOP presidential nominees, I don't entirely understand why so many pundits dismiss Huntsman as a serious candidate. I do think that in the context of a muddled GOP field, from which many voters will simply choose the most hardline, socially conservative candidate available, Huntsman would have a difficult time winning the primary election. With that said, imagining for a second that he did manage to appeal to some sense of reason within the Republican party and eek out the nomination, what about having worked with Obama would be so damning in the general election? Isn't there that old saying, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer"? From what I've read (which admittedly is rather little) about Huntsman, his record is pretty much spotless, so it's not like Obama would have anything to hound him about. So, why couldn't Huntsman simply say something to the effect of, "Obama has done a fair job with respect to X, Y, and Z; believe me, I worked with him. But, since I did work with him, I also know firsthand what I could do better..."? As long as he doesn't go about it in a haughty and condescending manner, wouldn't that be an effective strategy? Plus, it seems like Huntsman is fiscally conservative and socially moderate, to the point that he could swing independent voters his way.

Anyway, I'm just thinking (typing) out loud here, so feel free to comment.

Edit: Here's more food for thought. (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-04/jon-huntsman-for-president-2012-how-he-could-win/) As it turns out, Huntsman isn't that socially moderate--apparently he signed off on Utah's efforts to create a fund to defend lawsuits when the state government there decides to pass a law outlawing abortions--but otherwise he still looks like a solid challenge to Obama, all things considered.

Originally posted by wittywonka
In the midst of speculation about 2012 GOP presidential nominees, I don't entirely understand why so many pundits dismiss Huntsman as a serious candidate. I do think that in the context of a muddled GOP field, from which many voters will simply choose the most hardline, socially conservative candidate available, Huntsman would have a difficult time winni ...[text shortened]... otherwise he still looks like a solid challenge to Obama, all things considered.

Like Obama, he needs the media and some well-placed luminaries to throw some light on him. What did BHO have to offer, really, when he became the front runner? Although highly intelligent and hella-gifted in personality dynamics, he may as well have been a page or other low-level intern, for all the punch his experience provided otherwise.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Like Obama, he needs the media and some well-placed luminaries to throw some light on him. What did BHO have to offer, really, when he became the front runner? Although highly intelligent and hella-gifted in personality dynamics, he may as well have been a page or other low-level intern, for all the punch his experience provided otherwise.

Isn't that all the more reason why Huntsman is a great candidate to run, considering his experience as governor, and as ambassador? Assuming he can speak well enough, he seems like candidate Obama-and-then-some.

For what it's worth, Huntsman apparently "said he would work to repeal the national health care law." That doesn't thrill me, but it would again probably work in his favor in the general election, let alone the primaries.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/20/diplomatic-huntsman-draws-contrasts-with-ex-boss/

BUMP. Here's a nice piece about Huntsman's situation that I found on CNN today, titled "Why Democrats don't want Huntsman to run."

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/05/24/avlon.huntsman/index.html

At the end of the day, Huntsman's biggest weakness might turn out to be an unexpected strength. As Obama's China ambassador, he has no choice but to be the candidate who embodies civility and the ideal of a loyal opposition. He can credibly say, "I wanted this president to succeed. But it's become evident over the course of his administration that we have very different philosophies of government. I want to elevate the debate in 2012. I want to give the American people a civil, substantive choice about the future direction of our nation."

This message will resonate with the overwhelming number of Americans who want to see an end to Washington's hyper-partisan infighting. Huntsman's approach could give swing voters who personally like Obama permission to vote against him in the fall of 2012. It's the politics of addition, not division: an affirmation of old American wisdom once articulated by Benjamin Franklin. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Score!

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/14/huntsman.announcement/index.html?hpt=po_t2

Hopefully he'll bring some strong ideas to the table. Working to repeal the health care law is probably a waste of time. They might be able to change some things in it, but I doubt repeal is a realistic goal.

Originally posted by wittywonka
For what it's worth, Huntsman apparently "said he would work to repeal the national health care law." That doesn't thrill me, but it would again probably work in his favor in the general election, let alone the primaries.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/20/diplomatic-huntsman-draws-contrasts-with-ex-boss/

To be on the GOP ticket, this has to be apart of their platform, even if they are not serious about reform.

I know, maybe Kucinich can run on the ticket since he insisted that Obamacare was a sell-out to insurance companies......before he voted for it.

Originally posted by whodey
To be on the GOP ticket, this has to be apart of their platform, even if they are not serious about reform.

I know, maybe Kucinich can run on the ticket since he insisted that Obamacare was a sell-out to insurance companies......before he voted for it.

Dennis finds it a very flawed approach, but preferable to having 50 million or more uninsured. Surely that is a reasonable position to take.

Originally posted by whodey
To be on the GOP ticket, this has to be apart of their platform, even if they are not serious about reform.

I know, maybe Kucinich can run on the ticket since he insisted that Obamacare was a sell-out to insurance companies......before he voted for it.

Yes, this year's field has seemed very interested in platform conformity. By the looks of things, that may not necessarily be to the candidates' advantage in the general election.

As for Kucinich: there is a fundamental difference between opposing health care reform because you think it is too progressive and opposing it because you think it is not progressive enough. You know that, even though you would choose not to.

He has proposed legislation to nationalize health care every year; seeing as Republicans would never even consider such a plan, he finally conceded to support whatever change the Democrats could swing.

Originally posted by dryhump
Hopefully he'll bring some strong ideas to the table. Working to repeal the health care law is probably a waste of time. They might be able to change some things in it, but I doubt repeal is a realistic goal.

Indeed; for better or for worse, 41 Democrats in the Senate will most likely prevent any repeal effort.

I think Huntsman is reasonable enough, though, to work with Democrats one way or another to improve the bill as it stands.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Indeed; for better or for worse, 41 Democrats in the Senate will most likely prevent any repeal effort.

I think Huntsman is reasonable enough, though, to work with Democrats one way or another to improve the bill as it stands.

I'm not so sure that's true IF Obama loses esp. if it is coupled with continued Republican control of the House; I find it hard to believe the Democratic party would have that much backbone.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I find it hard to believe the Democratic party would have that much backbone.

Haha. Maybe.

One thing I was wondering is: could Republicans repeal Obamacare via reconciliation? If that were the case, obviously Democrats would still need to control the Senate; not just have a 41-member presence.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Dennis finds it a very flawed approach, but preferable to having 50 million or more uninsured. Surely that is a reasonable position to take.

Dennis also sees aliens running around. Maybe they abducted him and rewired his brain to vote for Obamacare after voting against it the first time.

Originally posted by wittywonka
Indeed; for better or for worse, 41 Democrats in the Senate will most likely prevent any repeal effort.

I think Huntsman is reasonable enough, though, to work with Democrats one way or another to improve the bill as it stands.

Personally, I don't think the GOP has any real interest in repealing Obamacare. I think it will be used for years to come as a rallying cry to defeat Dems. In the interim they will be free to bludgeon the legislation as they are free to expose its soon to be discovered short comings.