Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    13 Dec '11 04:02
    I've contributed to several threads about this in the past, but I thought I'd raise the question one final time before primary season begins here in three weeks. In all seriousness, I don't understand: why haven't Republicans given Jon Huntsman a chance, especially in the "revolving door"-style consideration of every candidate save Romney? [Reading this article on CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/12/opinion/avlon-huntsman/index.html?hpt=po_r1) precipitated my decision to ask.]

    --The WSJ glowingly endorsed his economic plan, which includes a substantial number of tax cuts. He was also one of the first candidates to support openly Paul Ryan's economic plan.

    --Regarding abortion, as governor of Utah, he signed a "trigger" law that apparently would immediately criminalize abortions if the Supreme Court reversed its Roe v Wade decision (in other words, he did about as much as humanly possible without breaking the law).

    --He is staunchly opposed to the individual mandate, and as far as I understand it, seemingly always has been. He is also strongly anti-gun control.

    --He doesn't want the U.S. to be the policeman of the world. His experience in China also means he has a clue of what's going on in the world, and he is also decisively non-interventionist.

    And of course these are just the highlights. He was also estimated by the New York Times to be the best candidate to beat Obama, even if his diplomatic style isn't the confrontational style the GOP base sees in Gingrich.

    So, are his comments regarding civil unions (to the criticism of which Huntsman has affirmed that he believes in the sanctity of "traditional marriage" ), cap-and-trade (which, as a worst-case-scenario for conservatives, Huntsman has insisted must wait until the U.S. has fully recovered from the recession), and evolution the only things keeping him back? What's the deal?
  2. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    13 Dec '11 06:47
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    I've contributed to several threads about this in the past, but I thought I'd raise the question one final time before primary season begins here in three weeks. In all seriousness, I don't understand: why haven't Republicans given Jon Huntsman a chance, especially in the "revolving door"-style consideration of every candidate save Romney? [Reading this ...[text shortened]... the recession), and evolution the only things keeping him back? What's the deal?
    Huntsman is Mormon -- that makes him a "Romney".

    The Republicans are looking for a "not-Romney".
  3. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    13 Dec '11 14:17
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    I've contributed to several threads about this in the past, but I thought I'd raise the question one final time before primary season begins here in three weeks. In all seriousness, I don't understand: why haven't Republicans given Jon Huntsman a chance, especially in the "revolving door"-style consideration of every candidate save Romney? [Reading this ...[text shortened]... the recession), and evolution the only things keeping him back? What's the deal?
    Good question.

    Maybe he's not charismatic enough.

    I'd sure vote for him.
  4. 13 Dec '11 14:56
    Originally posted by sh76
    Good question.

    Maybe he's not charismatic enough.

    I'd sure vote for him.
    He's said that he trusts the scientists on global warming and evolution. That is two deal breakers for the primaries.

    He's definitely the one republican in the primaries now that I'd even consider voting for at this point.

    Actually, there is another guy that at least was running, but he got less press than Ron Paul and even less support than Huntsman. I don't even remember his name though and don't know if he's actually still running.
  5. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    13 Dec '11 15:48
    Erick Erickson sums up Huntsman's problem pretty well I think. This is from December 1st:
    Jon Huntsman is rising in New Hampshire. If Huntsman comes back in New Hampshire, he is in the game. Here’s the funny thing about Jon Huntsman. His record as a Governor is more conservative than Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney combined. He is more pro-life than either of them. He is more economically wedded to the free market than either of them. He has better foreign policy experience than either of them. Huntsman should be a conservative hero in this race.

    But he is not because of his own campaign’s doing. The campaign made a conscious choice to give the middle finger to conservatives early on. Huntsman decided to cast himself as the moderate in the race — go to the left of Romney. I think his campaign thought Romney would run right. Instead they both tried to run up the center and Huntsman got to the left. He also, maybe he can’t help himself, comes off as too condescending to a lot of primary voters. His attitude rubs people wrong in South Carolina and Iowa.

    What’s so tragic about the Huntsman race is that he has the boldest free market economic recovery plan. He has the most pro-life record of anyone in the race other than Rick Perry. He has the best jobs creation record of anyone in the race with the possible exception of Rick Perry. And he has run away from all of that to be the guy who doesn’t offend the women of The View.

    If Jon Huntsman made that decision, he might want to commit seppuku. If his campaign team did it, he should fire them. I have come to the conclusion that Jon Huntsman is more conservative than Mitt Romney and would be a more conservative President than Mitt Romney. I have also come to conclude that if the Huntsman campaign has anything to do with it, you will never ever know how conservative his record and economic vision actually are and he will lose as a result.

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/01/the-horserace-for-december-1-2011/
  6. 13 Dec '11 17:09
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    I've contributed to several threads about this in the past, but I thought I'd raise the question one final time before primary season begins here in three weeks. In all seriousness, I don't understand: why haven't Republicans given Jon Huntsman a chance, especially in the "revolving door"-style consideration of every candidate save Romney? [Reading this ...[text shortened]... the recession), and evolution the only things keeping him back? What's the deal?
    He's the one candidate I wouldn't fear so much, and he might even be a sleeper liberal agenda candidate like Nixon who signed into law environmental and worker protections that no Democrat could dream of.

    But he's pro-science, so he can't win the nomination.
  7. 13 Dec '11 18:18
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    He's said that he trusts the scientists on global warming and evolution. That is two deal breakers for the primaries.

    He's definitely the one republican in the primaries now that I'd even consider voting for at this point.

    Actually, there is another guy that at least was running, but he got less press than Ron Paul and even less support than Huntsman. I don't even remember his name though and don't know if he's actually still running.
    Not Thadeus McCotter by any chance. Huntsman just isn't getting poll results.
  8. 13 Dec '11 18:21
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Erick Erickson sums up Huntsman's problem pretty well I think. This is from December 1st:
    Jon Huntsman is rising in New Hampshire. If Huntsman comes back in New Hampshire, he is in the game. Here’s the funny thing about Jon Huntsman. His record as a Governor is more conservative than Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney combined. He is more pro-life than ...[text shortened]... a result.

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/01/the-horserace-for-december-1-2011/
    That all sounds pretty logical, except that when I hear Democrats waxing eloquent about Huntsman being the one they would consider voting for, I think McCain.
  9. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    13 Dec '11 19:50
    Originally posted by normbenign
    That all sounds pretty logical, except that when I hear Democrats waxing eloquent about Huntsman being the one they would consider voting for, I think McCain.
    Yep, I hear ya. Go to Huntsman's website and poke around though and try to figure out what the Dems see in him. Then compare to Newt. It really is odd that Newt, who has extended the middle digit to conservatives time and time again, is leading over the guy.
  10. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    14 Dec '11 15:18
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Erick Erickson sums up Huntsman's problem pretty well I think. This is from December 1st:
    Jon Huntsman is rising in New Hampshire. If Huntsman comes back in New Hampshire, he is in the game. Here’s the funny thing about Jon Huntsman. His record as a Governor is more conservative than Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney combined. He is more pro-life than ...[text shortened]... a result.

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/01/the-horserace-for-december-1-2011/
    I think it's a shame that there is such an anti-intellectual bias among so much of the GOP that Huntsman might be considered "condescending" (for what by the way--his "call me crazy" position on climate change and evolution?) while Gingirch--the same candidate who "made a name for himself" by belittling moderators' questions at debates and mocking Obama as a "food stamp president"--is considered bold and "intellectual."

    Otherwise, I agree with your article. After I figured out over the summer that Huntsman did not have a moderate position on most issues, I had to ask myself, why on earth did I find him appealing? I assume it's because he seems to be a statesman and a diplomat first, and a politician second.
  11. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    14 Dec '11 15:26 / 1 edit
    Who knows, maybe we'll be looking at Gingrich-Huntsman vs. Obama-Biden in a few months.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-huntsman-gingrich-debate-that-wasnt/249896/

    Republican front-runner Newt Gingrich took a break from the campaign trail Monday to give a wide-ranging foreign-policy lecture at a New Hampshire university, where he was joined on the panel by a former ambassador to China, one Jon Huntsman.

    That's what Monday afternoon's supposed "Lincoln-Douglas debate" between Gingrich and Huntsman really felt like. The two flattered each other, recited a number of views that they mostly agreed upon, and filled the balance of the time with uncontroversial blather about the importance of foreign policy, the glories of the present event and, of course, the greatness of America.
  12. 14 Dec '11 15:52
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Yep, I hear ya. Go to Huntsman's website and poke around though and try to figure out what the Dems see in him. Then compare to Newt. It really is odd that Newt, who has extended the middle digit to conservatives time and time again, is leading over the guy.
    If anything it is I think Huntsman's diplomatic, non confrontational approach and demeanor. Newt isn't hesitant to extend the middle finger to anyone, at any time.

    I think that above all, his rhetorical fearlessness makes him appealing to Republican voters who are sick of sitting back and taking it from liberals and progressives.

    One thing that makes me personally slow to adopt Newt is his dropping out as Speaker in the face of 72 ethics charges by David Bonior of Michigan. In the end, 71 charges were false, and one was a minor "process" charge, involving the formation of a PAC. That makes Newt look like a quitter despite all the fiery rhetoric. By the way, Bonior ultimately faced a slew of charges himself forcing his retirement.

    Newt will magnetically attract the hatred of the left exponential to that leveled at George W. Bush if he is elected.
  13. 14 Dec '11 17:29
    Huntsman is the best of the Republican candidates in my feeble opinion.
  14. 14 Dec '11 23:47
    Originally posted by normbenign
    That all sounds pretty logical, except that when I hear Democrats waxing eloquent about Huntsman being the one they would consider voting for, I think McCain.
    I would never have voted for the McCain of 2008. Maybe the McCain of 2000. If he was running against W.
  15. 15 Dec '11 02:34
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    He's said that he trusts the scientists on global warming and evolution. That is two deal breakers for the primaries.

    He's definitely the one republican in the primaries now that I'd even consider voting for at this point.

    Actually, there is another guy that at least was running, but he got less press than Ron Paul and even less support than Huntsman. I don't even remember his name though and don't know if he's actually still running.
    Gary Johnson?