On Friday, reporting GOProud Executive Director Jimmy LaSalvia’s personal endorsement of Mitt Romney, I noted that although I found him Jimmy’s candidate of the four (then) leading contenders for the White House, I was not yet ready to endorse the former Massachusetts governor because of his failure to put forward a bold enough economic plan. A few days after making that comment, I was reviewing the platform of another candidate who, like the former Massachusetts governor, has executive experience, having helmed the state of Utah for four years.
His policies were as bold, as conservative as his economic plan which Wall Street Journal editors had touted in early September. Not just that, it seemed that on a great variety of issues, Jon Huntsman took the stand I would have taken, showing a skepticism of state power and a confidence in the private sector.
He would “dismantle Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) at the heart of the financial crisis. He understands that real “financial reform will mean breaking the Faustian bargain between Wall Street and Washington that helped fuel the housing bubble”. Emphasis added. The problem is not just the greed on Wall Street, but primarily the system “crony capitalism” where political appointees and federal bureaucrats help create an unstable (and unfair) system.
Huntsman would repeal “the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, which perpetuates too-big-to-fail and imposes costly and mostly useless regulations on innocent smaller banks without addressing the root causes of the crisis or anticipating future crises” and end “the bailout subsidies”. That’s not the only misguided legislation the candidate would repeal; he would ask Congress to reverse, opposing also Obamacare and Sarbanes-Oxley. He has expressed admiration for “Congressman Paul Ryan’s honest attempt to save Medicare.”
Jon Huntsman also believes that we “must increase the production of domestic energy sources.” To that end, he favors “expediting the process for reviewing and approving safe, environmentally sound energy projects, including the development of North American oil and gas reserves; oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska; shale gas and oil in the U.S.; and Canadian oil sands.” Not only will this development lead to greater energy production — and thus lower costs — it will also create private sector jobs.
And then there was his statement on same-sex civil unions in Saturday night’s debate. For these reasons, I endorse Jon Huntsman for President of the United States and encourage our readers who live in New Hampshire to vote for him in tomorrow’s primary. I know that I differ from my co-blogger on this issue; when I alerted Bruce to the impending endorsement, he informed that Huntsman has been his “favorite punching bag on Twitter.” I speak for myself — and not the blog — in making this endorsement.
Now, to be sure, Huntman’s record has been far from perfect. And, in the course of this campaign, he seems to have a predilection to attack his fellow Republicans — and mock conservatives. And Huntsman has seemed particularly eager to attack his Romney.
At times, these seems almost a personal vendetta. Now, to be sure, Romney has, by and large, conducted himself with class on the campaign trail; he has articulated a strong critique of the incumbent administration and has in broad terms outlined a conservative vision. But, unlike Huntsman, he has not put forward a bold enough plan. The frontrunner could use some needling.
This is not a time for half-measures. The next president will, to borrow an expression, inherit a number of problems from his predecessor (i.e., the incumbent), notably challenges created by burdensome federal regulations and the crisis of our ever-increasing national debt.
Barack Obama has not done that. Jon Huntsman has. Mitt Romney has only taken a few steps in that direction. To be sure, the frontrunner has made some solid suggestions, but hasn’t gone as far as Huntsman in offering a comprehensive approach.
Huntsman may not have as strong a chance of winning the Republican nomination as does Romney, but should he do well tomorrow — and it looks like he’ll outpoll Rick Santorum (the man who should have the momentum following his strong showing in Iowa) he may, as a friend of a friend put it on Facebook, “force Romney to move to the right and commit to a Conservative agenda.”
In 1976, Ronald Reagan wanted to see a “new and revitalized” Republican Party, “raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors”. On his web-site and in his economic plan, Jon Huntsman has raised just such a banner. And that is why I endorse him for President of the United States.
Should he not succeed in that quest, let us hope that his bold vision inspires the man who vanquishes him to campaign under a similar banner.
I will be more attentive and attempt to discern Huntsman’s bold colors.
Your endorsement has many important claims about Hunstman and they are compelling. I only wonder why he has (unlike Reagan) failed so miserably in awakening conservatives to his campaign.
Iowahawk could not come up with a better picture for T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII than Hunstsman. Huntsman looks really sharp in his blue commodore jacket with the yacht club crest of the pocket and the razor-sharp creased white pants and white bucks. Granted, he does omit the ascot for reasons unknown.
Seriously, I will make every effort to parse the man’s words and see if I can arrive somewhat closer to your endorsement position concerning the man.
I am certainly not inclined toward an appeaser and compromiser who is socially integrated and desperately wants to keep the good-old-boys happy.
Jon Huntsman is an opportunistic hollow shell–nothing more; he has more moral center. Therefore, I wouldn’t piss on him if he was on fire. He’s total scum.
If he were truly a Republican, he would not have accepted any positions in the Clinton & Obama White Houses. This betrays his true reason for political office: power.
This is not a time for selfish politicians in order to repeal much of the Obama agenda, particularly ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank, & Porkulus.
I’m not troubled by his service during the Clinton and Obama years…an US Ambassador represents the interests of the People of the United States more than he represents the President politically.
I’ve said before I intended to vote for Huntsman in the NJ Primary…if he’s still in. I’m just not sure he’ll last that long. I’ll also stand behind my previous comments that I believe that Huntsman’s campaigning for 2016 more than he’s campaigning for 2012. Like Reagan and probably Romney, it takes 5-6 years for campaigning, speeches and whistle-stops to successfully gain the natl. GOP-nod and the White House.
Given some of the things I’ve read about Huntsman in the past two or three weeks, I have to say that I would have been more enthusiastic about Huntsman if he: a). hadn’t accepted a position as an ambassador under Obama, and b). hadn’t run his campaign with a strategy of trying to become a darling of the mainstream media. As far as point a). is concerned, my feelings are more aligned with the point Sebastian Shaw makes in comment #2 above, but more than just that, his willingness to serve under Obama suggests he was one of those Republicans who got snookered by Obama’s supposedly “moderate” rhetoric in 2008, and that suggests a flaw in judgment. And as far as point b)., I really do believe that seeking the approval of the mainstream media was a deliberate strategy of his, since he could have started his campaign by trying to make the rounds of conservative media or trying to connect with Tea Party groups, but all of that seems to have been sorely lacking from his campaign.
sorry, I disagree with you on that one… he is a major RHINO. Sure, his response to that question was good, but I haven’t seen or heard anything else good from him
I can’t get worked up one way or the other about Huntsman mainly because I don’t think he has a prayer of making it to the nomination. He’ll be out of the race long before the Virginia primary – which he isn’t even on the ballot for because he failed to turn in ANY signatures. Huntsman & Perry, along with Gingrich probably, are wasting everyone’s time and have no serious chance of winning the nomination. So that leaves Romney, Santorum and Paul on the GOP side. Oh joy. How pathetic.
Huntsman was for ObamaCare, Crap & Tax, & believed the Global Warming nonsense; he’s a RINO that only John McCain & his booby daughter could love.
Kurt, your point b is one of the reasons I hesitated before making this endorsement. I do wish he had reached out to Tea Party groups given how much his economic plan accords with their ideas.
I’ve always thought Huntsman’s conservative credentials have always been rather underrated, possibly due to his acknowledgement of the Theory of Evolution and Anthropogenic Global Warming. The former seems at least marginally acceptable now, the latter is still a deal-breaker for many Republicans (though Huntsman’s Energy Security policies seem to indicate his acknowledgement of AGW wouldn’t necessarily translation to action).
The shunning of him for becoming the US ambassador to China in 2009 really does get to the core of what’s gone wrong with American politics today. Being an ambassador used to be about serving your country, helping to set up trade links and spread democracy. But now a Republican is apparently not allowed to accept if a Democrat asks just in case the Republican does a good job and the Democrat looks good for having asked them. Nevermind that this may harm the country as a whole, defeating the opposing party is the only thing that matters.
So I don’t like Jon Huntsman’s policies, but he is probably the only Republican candidate right now that I could say I respect. Who knows how long that would last if he saw some success (I probably would have said I respected Ron Paul until the media went digging through old issues of his newsletter) but now for now I do. I already said some months ago that I’m endorsing no candidates this cycle though.
Well, Serenity, at long last I can give your pompous self a bit of credit. It is your choice to call it the theory of evolution which permits one to engage in a sane discussion concerning the whys and wherefore of continuity and change in the progression of adaptation within a species.
As to “Anthropogenic Global Warming” I am left to wonder if you are sticking with “consensus science” in the face of fraud and deceit employed to make the fudged numbers fit the agenda.
Huntsman is a chameleon who takes on the colors of his audience. Terrific for him to have served his country in China. God knows, Obama has fallen well short of credible ambassadors. Just which other Obama ambassadors can you name? No fair Googling them. Let their famous names just roll from off your lips.
My problem with Huntsman is not what he says, which I agree sounds great… but what he does, which is get in bed with Obama, preen for the media elites, frequently indulge his nasty streak, etc.
I can’t have any more confidence in Huntsman than I do in the Newt, in or in Willard Mittens. Of course, the good news (for Dan) is that I don’t have any less confidence in Huntsman, either
I’m not sure why you chose to emphasize ‘theory’. It is a theory like germ theory or quantum theory, in that it has a massive and well-understood body of evidence that means we can effectively consider it fact. Which is why it’s hard for me to take seriously anyone that would reject it.
You mean the endlessly quote-mined ‘Climategate’ emails and the (incredibly) pre-quote-mined ‘Climategate 2.0’ emails that recently came out? I’ve seen them, and was unimpressed. Constantly shouting “Hide the decline!” without knowing what ‘decline’ was being hidden does not a conspiracy make. It’s nothing more than a way of bamboozling the easily led.
Exactly like Mitt Romney then.
If it weren’t for Huntsman running in this election, I doubt I could name even one American ambassador from the last hundred years. What relevance does this have anyway? Ambassadors are hardly ever famous, I can’t even name a single British ambassador. I doubt anyone else here could do much better.
While the case here is compelling, I must disagree. I find Huntsman to be very condescending toward conservatives and uses many of the left’s talking points to get his point across (on issues like global warming etc).
We can do *much* better than an Obama admin alum.
Ironically, Dan posted this on my Facebook Sunday, “I always root for the guy bullied (by the legacy media).” Except in this case, he’s voting for the guy who is getting fluffed by the MFM. The support of the liberal media for Huntsman should give anyone pause. One should be wary of supporting a Republican whose biggest supporters are people who will never vote for a Republican. (We’ve been down that road before.)
Oops, I congratulated too soon. Senility is all atwitter with consensus science and theory as fact. That is “fact” on the way to becoming “proven fact” upon the way to becoming “immutable fact.” Sort of a form of “fact relativity” as it were.
Then there is the tired old shifting away from whether there is global warming caused by the acts of man or global warming which is cyclical or whether there is a global warming trend at all. Sterility called it “Anthropogenic” and then forgot to defend that part in her attack on people “bamboozled” and “easily led.” Another “fact” on the way to becoming “proven fact” upon the way to becoming “immutable fact.” Sort of a form of “fact relativity” as it were.
But congratulations are still in order, Supercillery agrees that she was a bit over the top on the ambassador thing:
For a person who knows no names of ambassadors, Suppository is well versed on Huntsman and his effective China policy which rose above his being a mouthpiece for the Hillary Clinton foggy bottom crowd. Or something. Stay tuned for another “fact” on the way to becoming “proven fact” upon the way to becoming “immutable fact.” Sort of a form of “fact relativity” as it were.
Ho-hum.
Heliotrope, Insipidity has stated unequivocally that she only comes here to stir sh-t up, not to have honest debate. Knowing that, I refuse to be her entertainment.
Thank you so much for your endorsement of Huntsman. I am a long time Sarah Palin supporter and I know it may seem weird to switch the two out, but I think they both had very effective records of Governing. Jon won me over at the debates this past weekend so I’m glad to see someone else supports him on here. I’m a long time lurker and have my own blog, but this is the #1 blog, as far as I’m concerned, for gay cons and I really love reading it!
LJ,
I would like to hear more about your reasons for backing Huntsman. I am not backing anyone as of yet. There is much about Huntsman’s demeanor and pontifications that pushed him to the bottom for me. But I am always open to a reevaluation.
First Cain, now Huntsman. Hopefully your third choice will be someone who can actually win.
What I gave was the definition of a scientific theory. You clearly don’t like that, but facts are facts.
You made the issue about ‘fraud and deceit’, I responded. You want a debate about the root causes of global warming? We’ll arrange to have it somewhere else, that’s too in-depth for this thread.
As stated above, I forgot nothing, I declined to address that part of the debate as a) it’s too long and b) you forgot to ask.
Another gem from the Department of Redundancy Department.
When the hell did I say Huntsman did a good job? I know nothing of his performance beyond the fact that he took the job. You try to backup your claims here with a quote that states nothing of the sort, nor could any reasonable person construe it as such. Please working more on reading comprehension and less on name-calling, it’ll help you look less stupid.
You must be really proud of yourself.
The irony being, despite that, I still manage use the fewest insults and have the best ability to actually comprehend opposing positions. Even when trying, I can’t be as awful as you.
Stupendency,
You are a quart low on BS. Here is your last paragraph at #9:
We here are so desperate to know who you respect. Of course, you wouldn’t have a reason for the respect or a least you would not offer a reason.
I love the part about if a person you “respect” gains traction he automatically loses your “respect.” That is unassailably brilliant and a beacon of light for all of us.
And then you piously proclaim that the one and only great Serenity deigns not to endorse any candidate during this cycle.
Oh, bitter fate. What are we to do?
But wait, there is more!
This marginally literate babble is so full of “now” and “then” and false cause as fact that parsing is nearly a fool’s errand.
Serendipity finds “shunning” Huntsman for becoming Ambassador to China at the “core of what’s gone wrong with American politics today.” This is a seminal statement concerning the state of political affairs in the US.
And what is this major discovery that exposes the rotting core? Ready? Defeating the opposing party. There you have it. Running against a sitting President or representative is at the “core of what’s gone wrong with American politics today.”
No, no, no…. stupid Heliotrope ….. Solemnity said you should be able to put politics aside for the good of the country and serve the country in an administration of the other party.
Oh, OK. The people, then are not permitted to take working across party lines into account for any reasons whatsoever under any circumstances no how. Tell that to Joe Lieberman who once ran for Vice President for goodness sakes.
Now my head hurts. It is hard to think like an imperial wizard on steroids.
brenda, please read the blog. My co-blogger endorsed Cain. I have made no endorsement until I penned this piece.