Comment on Entry: Thinking About Jon Huntsman, authored by warrenpeterson
1. You're kidding, right? Huntsman is a pathetic RINO that once fell all over himself praising Obama when he wanted that ambassador job.

If he's the nominee I'm voting libertarian.

Posted by Kato at November 8, 2011 09:58 PM
2. I second Kato. I can not find one program, department, or agency he would cut or better yet eliminate. I would much prefer a candidate serious about fixing the spending problem our federal government has.

Posted by Lysander at November 8, 2011 10:44 PM
3. Sorry, no sale. RINO, global-warmist AND plugged into the CFR/Bilderberg crew.

Posted by greybeard3 at November 8, 2011 10:46 PM
4. He has a legislative record more conservative than all the frontrunners and has never flip flopped. Yet he comes off as a moderate. This is the perfect candidate to make the fiscal conservative case to the american people and not only win the election but create the second conservative revolution.

Has a record of experience and accomplishment on fundamental tax reform, regulatory reform, strengthening gun rights and prolife laws, extensive work in the private sector, international business, trade and foriegn policy in asia where the econimic future of the us depends. All the while people think he is a moderate. This is his greatest strength if the conservative base simply realizes the conservative record is the indication of how he will govern. he will be able to push through conservative policies while the others would fail, because he appeals to moderates.

Posted by Ash at November 8, 2011 10:57 PM
5. I agree with you Kato...Huntsman is a pathetic RINO. Huntsman believes in Global Warming which also, means he believes in Cap and Trade. Cap and Trade is simply a phony pump-up excuse to Rip-Off Industry and the American people by Big Government. It is crippling act of Grand Theft that will further destroy the economy and America itself. Plus, Huntsman believes in Evolution which is a strong indication that Huntsman is an atheist and since this Nation is a Christian Nation under God, we most certainly do not need an atheist as our President. No Huntsman is every bit as bad as Mitt Romney. They are both RINOs and a grave danger to the American people.

Posted by Daniel at November 8, 2011 11:10 PM
6. He is the only candidate that has a real tax reform, eliminates all subsudies, supports the ryan plan to fix medicare and balance the bugdet. To suggest he has no plan is wrong. He is the only one with a real planthat could create growth and fix the budget. I dont kbow what your definition of rino is. Perhaps herman cain is for supporting a womans right to choose but not really knowing what it means, or mitt for sopporting healthcare mandates, increasing fees constantly, proclaiming his support roe v. Wade in 1994. Maybe Perry who only ever worked for the government his entire life and actually being a dekocrat and supporting al gore. I challenge you to actually look at huntsman plan and his record. It solid. You may find an issue or two, but they all have that. On the most important conservatice issues and fiscal policy he is more conservative than the rest.

Posted by Ash at November 8, 2011 11:11 PM
7. He is oppose to cap and trade because it will adversely affect our competitive edge and intends to only support reforms that increase our competetivness. He has no record of contradicting what he claims he will do. He passed his entire 10 point reform plan in Utah because thats what he ran on. He has a record of accomplishment and doing what he says that is unrivaled. Let go of your bias that the media has propetuated and youll be amazed. You critisism is exactly what obama is hoping for because he fears Huntsman the most.

Posted by Ash at November 8, 2011 11:18 PM
8. Yeah, Ash...All we need is another compromiser and a go along to get along. No, we don't need another same ol same ol Crap of a career politician. We don't need another member of the Ruling Class to continue to destroy America. We need a true American Patriot and not some insider career SLOP.

Posted by Daniel at November 8, 2011 11:20 PM
9. Okay. Enjoy another 4 years of obama instead of a person who has a record of actual conservative reforms. I dont know what you afraid of since is record is something you would probably support if you didnt know it was attatched to him. Which part of his previous tax reforms or current tax proposal are you oppose to. Which part of his mandateless free market health reform didnt you like. Which part of a notification and automatic abotion ban did you thing was to rinoesque. Which part of the expansion of gun carrying rights was to liberal?

Posted by Ash at November 8, 2011 11:28 PM
10. You're full of Crap...Ash. Huntsman was all for Cap and Trade before he flip-flopped because, he decided it would be more prudent to say, at this time, he was now, against Cap and Trade. Huntsman is a career politician and will Lie through his teeth if he thinks it will get him elected. Think of Obama, the Liar and Chief and now, think of Huntsman, a proven flip-flopper and Liar.

Posted by Daniel at November 8, 2011 11:33 PM
11. Your not going to find someone 100% Daniel. Personally think he's pretty much on the ball for the most and i can live with that if he can get the main tax reform plan and benefit reforms and econimic policies in place. The current situation is bad.

Posted by Ash at November 8, 2011 11:48 PM
12. I don't expect 100%. I would put Cain way above Huntsman. Cain comes from the Private Sector. Cain has proved at every level that he understands the engine that has made this the Land of Opportunity. Huntsman again, is a career politician with all the insider compromises, favors owed and sell out that career politicians are known for. American cannot afford the same ol same ol Crap of another career politician.

Posted by Daniel at November 9, 2011 12:17 AM
13. Fair enough. Nothing to disagree about Cains executive experience. Its definately needed. I'm also focused on foreign policy and trade as a key component of a sustained recovery and the future. Huntsman hands on work in trade, leading Huntsman Corp in an expansion into asian markets, and his plan for a foreign policy based on econimics looks like it will come in handy. Getting into the asian markets will be impotant in this century. Cain, unforunately didnt know the basics about china. We have to play China right by using its rise to expand our into military and trade alliances with some of the countrys in that region. But I like Cain i think he is a capable man.

Posted by Ash at November 9, 2011 12:46 AM
14. Huntsman is not 'pro Second Amendment' unless you put the bar ridiculously low. And why would you do that regarding a basic Constitutional right?

Posted by travis t at November 9, 2011 03:10 AM
15. Mitt Romney is a flip flopper?

Herman Cain has a minor bimbo eruption and your planning on counting all of the ones bound to follow?

Huntsman, a candidate polling in single digits, a candidate who endorsed what you all called the Porkulus, who fled his elected position to serve the Obama administration, is the "conservative alternative to Romney"?

Heck, with this logic it is clear that Barrack Obama is your conservative alternative to the GOP nominee, Mitt Romney.

Posted by MikeBoyScout at November 9, 2011 04:12 AM
16. And what is wrong with France?
"and stick it to the French"

Mitt Romney, the GOP nominee, was a Mormon missionary in France serving France and his religion while many Americans marched blindly into war over in Vietnam. Not Mitt Romney.

In 1968 Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee for president was not in Vietnam. Mitt Romney was in France, leading.

Posted by MikeBoyScout at November 9, 2011 04:24 AM
17. Would Mr. Huntsman be from the Sam Reed/ Fred Jarrett wing of the Republican Party?

Cain will likely not be the GOP nominee to run for president. Being a sex predator, dope smoker, lying about military service or being a degenerate are pre-requisites for being the liberal nominee.

Posted by Attila at November 9, 2011 05:24 AM
18. Ash,

What agency or department would he cut?

Posted by lysander at November 9, 2011 05:53 AM
19. I'm curious as to what the personal bigotries, or rather biases, are of someone who first raves of the virtues of Mitt Romney, and if that isn't going to work, then raves of Jon Huntsman. What do these two have in common? Does Huntsman also think that he also should have Dictatoral powers and Force you to purchase something you don't want to or else be fined? That must not be it, I can't think there would be more than one evil marxist in the field....what could it be?

Posted by doug at November 9, 2011 08:01 AM
20. No, No, No, not Huntsman. GOP, don't nominate the candidate most feared by the Obama camp in regards to winning. How foolish can you be? :-)

Posted by tc at November 9, 2011 08:21 AM
21. Huntsman is disqualified from the GOP nomination for his stance on global warming/cap and trade, his support for "smart growth" and his embrace of universal healthcare as a 'right'.

He's a waste of time. A non-starter. Go away.

Posted by Palouse at November 9, 2011 08:49 AM
22. Good post. I agree entirely, but, as you can see from most of the comments, he is unlikely to get through the Republican primaries.

Posted by Thomas Rekdal at November 9, 2011 09:06 AM
23. Huntsman? You're kidding, right Warren? You were only supposed to turn the clock back an hour, but with this post you managed to return us back to April 1st. Good one.

Posted by Rick D. at November 9, 2011 09:22 AM
24. I would support Huntsman over Romney, granted his leanings are similar to Romney's with respect to the size of government. He is less of a flip-flopper than Mitt thereby has more credibility and would not scare off independents like Perry, Cain and Newt would. @21 - Can you verify his stance on Cap & Trade - don't recall him supporting it per se, but he did state global climate change is an issue & he does not support Obamacare ! I dispute your claim. He has stated that in debates.

He would be a plus with foreign policy and his knowledge on China. He is articulate and did well on Meet the Press, when being interviewed by NBC hack David Gregory. His father was a great role model. I am unclear how he would fare in a debate vs. Mr. Obama - more of a clue would be unearthed in upcoming debates. Check his negative ratings and compare with Romney & Gingrich. The albatross he has around his neck is having served in this administration, which makes him a RINO by definition (like Mitt and Newt have already been called). With the present state of this vetting of the GOP, Huntsman does deserve a closer look.

Posted by KDS at November 9, 2011 09:33 AM
25. He fairs well on NBC because they aren't going to grill him on his liberal positions. NBC wants to glorify the most liberal of the candidates and grill the most conservative. They'll give him a complete pass on healthcare, cap n trade and how to eliminate governmnet departments.

Posted by Cecil at November 9, 2011 09:52 AM
26. It is pity for Americans especially these so-called GOP! Those called J Huntsman "RINO" actually "ARE RINO THEMSELVES" because they are helping Obama to get re-elected. J Huntsman is the only one in the GOP field could win general election by getting votes from independents, both Republicans and conservative Democrats. J Huntsman is the only person Obama is afraid of in the national election!

He has more prviate sector experince as well as executive and diplomatic experience thanl others like H Cain!

Posted by Dan L at November 9, 2011 09:56 AM
27. I see your point and while it fits, it only explains part of the big picture - he will attract more independents than most of the current crop.

Still waiting for documented evidence on his acceptance of Cap and Trade & Universal Health care.

Posted by KDS at November 9, 2011 09:57 AM
28. Before we can make any progress we must reform the GOP and that means RINOs need not apply. There is more than this one election at stake. Huntsman is a collaborator and I find him unacceptable. That said, I will vote for anyone other than President Obama in the General election.

My GOP contenders, in order of preference. Cain, Newt, Paul.
I really wish Ron Paul were not clinically insane when it comes to foreign policy and that Newt was not such a darned d*bag.

Posted by M167A1 at November 9, 2011 10:45 AM
29. Romney will not suffer with the indy's. He'll suffer with the base. He flip flops, but guess what, so has the president so there's no winning position on that for either of those two.

Mitt has many fleas. Cain is too unpolished, talks without thinking, has unsophisticated international considerations, but he's the most "electable" of the true conservatives. Gingrich is the best conservative, he kills the indy's and is unelectable. The others are all invisible to radar, that includes Huntsman.

Huntsman really has nothing on Romney. Romney has a vastly larger war chest, election machine and the support of the inside baseball R's. The big government, entrenched types. He's not offensive to the Indys and at the end of the day the indys aren't going to compare Romney to the R they don't have on the ballot, they're compare him to Obama. He has plenty of draw in that respect as a serious moderate to liberal R.

Get used to the idea. Romney is the candidate. He's electable, but not exciting, at all. What a tradgedy that in a very, very winnable election at a time a truth talking conservative can win, we don't have one serious charismatic and DEEP on policy conservative to put up. Huntsman has no appeal to conservatives and there's only the ron paul type of love of his followers that attempts to make the case that he's the only one that can win. That's utter BS. He and Romney are essentially the same candidate but one has far more organizational strength.

Posted by cecil at November 9, 2011 10:46 AM
30. Just about everyone on the left is saying that Huntsman is the only guy running that can beat Obama. Based on that, I'd say please don't run Huntsman, but I've been to Utah and it's a really nice, well run, state.

Hell, I might vote for Huntsman over Obama.

Posted by MichaelfromHA at November 9, 2011 11:12 AM
31. @24 You can find Huntsman's support for Cap and Trade here:

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=21122

Here's video of his support for an individual mandate for health insurance.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=25060

If you watch/listen to that, I don't see how any REAL conservative can support Huntsman.

Posted by Palouse at November 9, 2011 12:36 PM
32. Here's a great campaign ad for Huntsman!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV8HFHkX3PA

Posted by Palouse at November 9, 2011 01:01 PM
33. Huntsman supported the individual mandate as Gov. of Utah, as stated below from your reference;
That does not mean he supported Obamacare. Utah's health insurance plan is different from Obamacare. How about some research on the Health Plan that he referenced ?

(Jon Huntsman said;)
I get the sense that I'm one of maybe 6 people who even care about this issue at this stage, but for whatever reason it continues to garner mainstream media coverage, and since I have more to report I feel compelled to cover it. Sorry."

Politico posted another story yesterday by Sarah Kliff on the question of whether Jon Huntsman supported a health insurance mandate as Governor of Utah. The piece leads off with the Huntsman quote we discovered and posted a couple of weeks ago, that Huntsman was "comfortable" with a mandate, which I think for many people would settle the question. However, the bulk of Kliff's article is devoted to rebutting this conclusion with quotes from Huntsman insiders such as this:

John T. Nielsen, who was Huntsman's most senior health policy adviser during the 2007 negotiations that led to Utah's health care reform bill, says the former governor might have supported an individual mandate if his staff had called for one.

"We talked about the mandate. It was clearly part of the discussions -- I can't deny that," Nielsen said. "He never did say 'I want to see a mandate.' But if we had recommended [the mandate], and thought it was the best way, I suspect maybe he would have gone along with it."

And this:

When pressed on the issue, a half-dozen sources tell POLITICO they do not recall Huntsman or his administration taking a position on the mandate.

"Honestly, we never had an in-depth discussion on it," says David Sundwall, another key member of the Huntsman administration who continues to serve as the executive director of the Utah Department of Health. "Of course, it would have been of interest. But you've got to have a critical mass. It didn't waste our time pushing for something that would be."

There is more, but the overriding conclusion is that no one remembered Huntsman ever directly expressing support for a mandate, that he was mostly hands-off in crafting the reform framework anyway, and that a mandate was ultimately never even considered by the strongly conservative-leaning Utah legislature. Oh, and Kliff's piece also throws in this:

But opponents will likely have trouble tracking down a "gotcha" moment for an attack ad, as his advisers describe Huntsman as a governor who was thoughtful and deliberate, rarely making his policy preferences known -- or, even whether he had a policy preference to begin with.

Well, I beg to differ. While I don't really want to parse words or drill into semantics over this, if the question is whether Jon Huntsman ever held the belief that a health insurance mandate was good public policy (and what more salient question can there be than this?), I think the answer is unequivocally yes, in spite of Politico's reporting. And not just based on the quote from Huntsman stating that he was "comfortable" with a mandate. (Although this alone is enough to demonstrate that Huntsman did in fact take a position expressing some support for the mandate.)

No, I actually have another Huntsman statement from the same time period that I've been holding off on publishing. This one should really leave no doubt about Huntsman's prior position on the mandate, and even suggests something about his view on the advisability of the policy on a national level."

Huntsman supported cap and trade (as did McCain, Romney and Newt) back in 2008. That is outdated. Now, check the footage of the debates on youtube of the last 6 months and see if he still supports it - I'd say he no longer does.
It is apparent that Huntsman did not pay enough attention to the details as did a number of other Republicans, back when he came out for it in 2008.

There is a strong probability that a real conservative will not be the GOP candidate for President in 2012. Policy-wise not much difference between Mitt and Huntsman, but Huntsman has more credibility IMO, because he flip-flops less. Santorum is a real conservative, but his style turns a lot of people off and he is not getting traction. Bachmann is the only other real conservative running and her poll numbers are slightly better than Santorum's but well below the top three. Ron Paul is more of a libertarian. Better candidates who are conservative is the answer.

Posted by KDS at November 9, 2011 01:59 PM
34. So Huntsman now doesn't believe healthcare is a 'right'? I haven't not seen anything to indicate this. And if he has flipped on cap and trade and insurance mandates, so he's another flip flopper. Even if he has flipped on cap and trade, he still has come out recently saying he 'trusts scientists' on the issue of global warming. Which means he trusts the cabal of statists who want to control everything in the name of carbon. No thank you.

He's another McCain, who will get absolutely crushed if he's nominated, which thank goodness it doesn't appear he will.

Posted by Palouse at November 9, 2011 02:58 PM
35. With the choices that the GOP have put forward, you'll probably want to hope for a brokered convention and open the possibility of drafting a new candidate.

Posted by KDS at November 9, 2011 03:41 PM
36. If conservatives are looking for the "not-Romney" candidate, I'd go for Newt over Huntsman, since it appears Cain is done. At least Newt came out and said his support of the climate stuff with Pelosi was a huge mistake. Rare that a politician is willing to flat out admit things like that. He's got plenty of baggage too, but he's a great communicator and gets a lot of credit for 1994 from me. He'd wipe the floor with Obama in a debate.

Posted by Palouse at November 9, 2011 03:55 PM
37. Um, we already ran a RINO squish who enjoyed kicking the base in the teeth. In 2008. And just how did that turn out?

Jon Huntsman. The guy who makes Romney look good.

Posted by jimg at November 9, 2011 04:11 PM
38. I kept scrolling and scrolling around but never did find the punchline for the Huntsman is a Conservative joke. Where is it?

Posted by John425 at November 9, 2011 05:14 PM
39. You know who else you should think about?

Think about Rick Santorum. And when you are thinking about Rick Santorum think about the relationship he has had with Rick Jerry Sandusky and the Penn State football program.

Like Rick Santorum don't give a thought to the abused children. Worry about the careers and reputation of the enablers.

Posted by MikeBoyScout at November 9, 2011 05:39 PM
40. @ 39:
1- Since when do heartless pro-borts like yourself care about "abused children"?

That's nearly as much of a logical disconnect as Warren trying to paint Huntsman as a "conservative", when he's so clearly not.

Posted by Rick D. at November 9, 2011 08:42 PM
41. Can any of the candidates, outside of Huntsman (and slightly Romney) get serious for a moment? For example, the "forgotten" agency in Rick Perry's "stepping in it/Oops" moment is the Department of Energy. Do any of these folks really know what DOE is responsible for? Does the management and security of the nations nuclear power industry and material even come across their minds? To flippantly through agencies up on the dart board without understanding their vital important national interests is a true lack of understanding of the job. Eliminate DOE, just truly amazing! WTF?????

Posted by tc at November 10, 2011 09:08 AM
42. Perry was done well before last night. His performance in previous debates were terrible, and last night just sealed his fate.

It's between Romney and Newt I think. Newt continually displays a strong grasp of the issues, and has recovered nicely from his early campaign troubles.

Posted by Palouse at November 10, 2011 09:25 AM
43. While on the Romney front, it looks like he has some "splaining" to do regard his charities and other business investments with Iran (see: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68074.html).

Posted by tc at November 10, 2011 09:49 AM
44. @43 That's a completely bogus hit piece. Many large American companies do business with Iran through foreign subsidiaries. And none of it is illegal.

Companies that have done legal business with Iran include, among many others, Alcatel-Lucent, BASF, Caterpillar, ConocoPhillips, Daimler, Dresser-Rand, Exxon Mobil, General Electric, Halliburton, Hewlett-Packard, Honda, Honeywell, Ingersoll Rand, KPMG, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nestle, Nissan, Nokia, Schlumberger, Siemens, Sony, Tyson Foods and Unilever.

You'll notice that bolded one has their CEO in charge of creating jobs or something in Obama administration. Politico better get on that.

Posted by Palouse at November 10, 2011 12:28 PM
45. Groveling for an ambassadorship is the strategy of a self absorbed jerk.

Even worse, groveling to the other political party.

Capper, Obama selected him!!

Surreal.

Loser....

Posted by Hank at November 10, 2011 12:49 PM
46. Palouse,
That may be true, but Romney stated that he would have his charity divest itself. He felt it was an important action. Just holding Romney to his own words. He has some explaining to do on why that hasn't happened.

Posted by tc at November 10, 2011 01:12 PM
47. If that's the best the left has on him, he'll be fine in the crap that doesn't matter department. Romney's not my favorite candidate and is inconsistent on many issues, but in general he can win which is the most important thing.

I was a fan of Pawlenty, but he was too plain for people I guess. I wonder if he had stuck around, with all the attrition happening, if he would have got a second look like Newt is getting.

Posted by Palouse at November 10, 2011 01:47 PM
48. Palouse,
Pawlenty's immediate problem when he left the race was Cash (lack of it). He didn't have the personal wealth that others have in order to continue operations. If he had been able to continue, my guess it would be a Romney-Pawlenty contest.

OBTW, this (Cash) is a problem for other candidates too and is where Romney definitely has an edge. Perry has been good at fundraising and Cain had a good month. It takes a lot to have a ground game in multiple states.

Posted by tc at November 10, 2011 01:59 PM
49. Kato at #1,

You should vote for the Libertarian agenda anyway. What's so great about the Republicans? They're just the opposite wing of the Big Government Party.

Posted by Libertarian at November 10, 2011 02:23 PM
50. Agreed, and that is unfortunate. Romney has learned a lot from the last campaign too, and it shows. He is much better prepared and polished in his responses to the attacks on his record. Issue is whether he will be able to get the Tea Party contingent to unite behind him. Not sure about that. Newt certainly could, which is why he's hovering around. But I think he might have less general election appeal.

Cain might not be done too, it's early and this harassment stuff could blow over. But I don't see Perry in it much longer.

Posted by Palouse at November 10, 2011 02:24 PM
51. I'm really not sure where you all are getting your information on Romney and his supposedly doing better. If you look at the state polls and the results of the 2008 state primaries, it is pretty obvious to me that he is pretty much where he was back then, and he came in third place.

A couple states he is doing better, and a couple he's doing worse, overall he is about the same.

That is the lid for a supposed businessman who thinks the solution to reduce healthcare expenses is to drive up the demand for healthcare.

Posted by doug at November 11, 2011 08:19 AM
52. Palouse @50
I think at this point, given less than two months before Iowa, that we will see the current slate in it through Iowa and possibly NH. Possibly people going out after Iowa would be most likely Bachmann (if poor showing, i.e., not within top two) and Santorum. If Huntsman doesn't do well in NH (top two), he will probably be out after it. It will probably be SC that may narrow the field to three or four. It is hard to tell whether this will be a long race (see Obama-Clinton 2008) or a more typical GOP race, wrapping up, basically after Super Tuesday.

Posted by tc at November 11, 2011 03:21 PM
53. Why do you think Paul is insane on foriegn policy. His position is
1. We use our military for defense not offense.
2. reduce spending since we do not have the money.
3. Do not need to spend as much because we already spend many times more than any other country.

Which position do you find certifiably insane?

Posted by lysander at November 11, 2011 04:47 PM
54. I don't really care who gets the nomination. What I do care about is defeating Barack Obama and his band of marxist sympathizers (Jarrett, Axelrod, Pflouffe, Holdren, Sunstein, et. al.) in the Administration in Nov. 2012. Whoever the candidate is (Romney or someone else) must not scare away independents. It's a fact that Bachmann, Santorum, Perry and possibly Gingrich (who may drive away women votes).

Whoever is the nominee must expose Barry for who he really is, untrustworthy, corrupt and an incompetent ideologue with actions that belie his love for this country and small business. Whoever it is must be prepared to fight, engage the Tea Party and realize there is no limit on how low they will go with their negative campaigning. We have already witnessed this with Herman Cain. That's all they've got to run on, plus upwards of $500 Million dollars.

Posted by KDS at November 11, 2011 06:02 PM
55. Huntsman is a dark horse right now. If he can sustain his campaign after 3-4 drop out, he sounds good and the urban myths about his liberalism seem to be just that. As I stated before, I am convinced that he would not scare away independents. Here is his interview. It would serve the public better if the GOP candidates would have interviews like this, in place of 10 debates.


He does not favor cap and trade and explains why, has a reasoned approach on foreign policy and is the only candidate to endorse Paul Ryan's economic plan and is a good communicator. He deserves another look, IMO



Posted by KDS at November 14, 2011 07:29 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?