If you were trying to put together the dream résumé of a Republican presidential contender, it might look something like this:
● Staff Assistant, Pres. Ronald Reagan
● Ambassador to Singapore
● Deputy U.S. Trade Representative
● Two-term governor, elected in two landslides
● Signed into law the largest tax cut in his state’s history
Advertisement
● From 2005 to 2010, his state’s economy expanded by 3.5 percent annually, second-fastest in the nation and three and a half times faster than the U.S. economy as a whole
● Enacted a health-care reform that raised the legal standard for malpractice claims
● Enacted the most expansive school-voucher program in the country and three pieces of pro-life legislation
● Married, seven children, two adopted
● A financial net worth that makes self-funding a possibility, or at least suggests that his campaign is unlikely to run low on cash
This résumé, of course, is that of Jon Huntsman Jr., former governor of Utah and until recently the U.S. ambassador to China.
Yet Huntsman is, at this early date, a distinct long shot for the Republican nomination. He polls in single digits nationally, and a recent poll of 481 Iowa Republicans found precisely one supporter. For a little-known candidate, he has surprisingly high negatives among Republicans in some key primary states. He has already attracted hard-hitting videos from some bloggers slamming him as insufficiently conservative.
Never has a candidate with such a sterling résumé faced such a steep climb for the nomination — probably because few presidential candidates have worked for their prospective opponent, at least in the modern era. (Thomas Jefferson had worked for John Adams, but this was back when the second-place finisher in the presidential election assumed the office of vice president; Gen. George McClellan worked for Abraham Lincoln; Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott worked for Franklin Pierce; William Howard Taft worked for Theodore Roosevelt. More recently, Colin Powell served for about a year under President Clinton, but he decided against a run in 1996.) At the time, Joe Klein and Andrew Sullivan, among others, declared that Huntsman’s accepting the appointment as President Obama’s ambassador to China would make it impossible for him to become the Republican nominee in 2012.
Huntsman says that in his meetings with voters in his not-quite-campaign stage, he has encountered criticism for his service under a Democratic president, but not often. “I can usually see it in their eyes when I meet them,” he says. “But it has come up much less frequently than I expected.”
He emphasizes his beliefs that as ambassador he was serving the country, not President Obama, and that there is in fact a broad bipartisan agreement on U.S.-China relations. He mentions occasional disagreements with President Obama on U.S. policy toward China, lamenting that at times he wished the president had emphasized American values as much as American interests, but Huntsman characterizes the differences as minor. (Shortly before leaving his post, Huntsman sharply criticized the Chinese government during a speech in Shanghai, denouncing the imprisonment of three high-profile activists.) He reiterates that his work with Obama was on this one bilateral relationship, and that he has significant differences with the overall vision of Obama’s foreign policy.
Most notably, Huntsman deeply disagrees with President Obama’s decision to take military action in Libya, declaring it not a “core national-security interest.” He wants to see a smaller footprint for the U.S. in Afghanistan. He echoes the complaint of most Republicans that in terms of foreign policy, Obama has been harder on America’s allies than on most hostile countries.
How can anyone seriously run as a Republican candidate without pointedly naming Obama's policies and incompetence as the reason for the current economic and foreign policy failures? We need a president that will lead significant change and not another middle of the road politician who has no abiding principles or understanding of our place in the world as an example of freedom and liberty.
I've been on the Huntsman bandwagon for a few months now. His record in Utah is second-to-none. He is basically Mitt Romney minus all of the drawbacks, and I think Jim has done a great job of encapsulating that. Overall I'd just add that he is competent, intelligent, and makes me proud to be a conservative. And really the key campaign edge? He can and WILL beat Obama. Someone that receives 16 percent more of the vote than John McCain in 2008 is someone that can appeal to every single spectrum of the vote, bringing in even some of the conservatives Democrats.
I'm a young guy and when I talk to other Huntsman supporters we're pretty much all young people; it may not seem like Huntsman is generating much traction but I can ensure you that the under-30s (like myself) are starting to galvanize around him. My first political memories were the Gulf War in the 90s and Bill Clinton; our generation doesn't have a conservative leader. Huntsman has a chance to create a new generation of conservatives, and I wish people would give him a fair look like Jim has done. His resume is replete with tangible conservative accomplishments.
If some Republicans play too right they may help get Obama a second term. This is a canidate that middle of the road Americans would elect. Here is a chance to pull independents to the "right", Republican ticket. Great resume. No baggage. Being Ambassador to China is a plus, no matter whose administration. Vote Huntsman
Your "resume list" needs a few important qualifiers:
- He won his first election due to the name of his father. Jon Huntsman Sr is immensely respected in Utah. In retrospect, comparing Huntsman Sr to Jr is like comparing Ronald Reagan to Ron Reagan Jr.
- He won re-election in a walk due to an extremely weak Democratic candidate. The fact that Utah has not had a Democrat Governor in nearly 25 years might have something to do with too.
- He had little responsibility for the "largest Tax cut in history". That was not a Huntsman intitative and would have been political suicide if he had vetoed it (although he hinted several times he would). Reverserly, Huntsman proposed a HUGE cigarette tax increase which would had been the largest in US History. It was killed after immense opposition from Republicans and the Club for Growth.
Yes, John Galt, you have demolished his resume. I'm sure your blistering criticism will have him reconsidering his presidential announcement.
It's becoming increasingly clear that these Palinistas don't want a primary contest at all. They wanted 2012 to be a coronation for St. Sarah. They're offended that anyone else would have the audacity to run. What's sad is that if Palin had finished her term as governor and beefed up her policy credentials it could have almost come to pass. Instead she decided on the celebrity route and became a source of controversy in her own party.
I'm happy to see Huntsman get in. He seems like a smart guy, and if nothing else should add an important foreign policy element to the debates. And if nothing else, he would make a fine secretary of state for a Republican president. A rigorous, issue-driven primary is good for the party, and only improves our prospects for an upset next fall.
John Galt - End of Story? Your story was just beginning. Where is the evidence he's a RINO? You've only explained some points that could be true of any governor in Utah, no matter how fiercely conservative. If he's RINO, I'd want to know, but making claims without evidence makes you sound like you're campaigning.
That he advocated Cap & Trade as way to fight AGW, which he firmly believes in? External Link
That he supported a Health Care Mandate, identical to that we are currently fighting in courts over ObamaCare? External Link
That his main critique of Obama's Stimulus Bill was that it wasn't big enough? External Link
I could go on and on. If you are truly interested in learning more, please call ANY Tea Party organization in Utah and ask. I am sure they will be more than happy to tell you their opinion of this guy.
Like I said, he is a RINO. And for the record, I would be fine with Perry, Pawlenty, Santorum, Paul, Johnson, Bachmann and most any other GOP candidate. But I would NEVER vote for Huntsman.
Perfect analysis. Right now too many Republicans are more interested in candidates who are mean spirited and belligerent than they are in having effective and electable conservative leaders.
Huntsman is out of the question because of his position on civil unions – and this is true even if you support civil unions but expect your President to respect and uphold the Constitution.
In 2004, the people of Utah overwhelmingly passed the following amendment to its Constitution:
1. Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman.
2. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.
Section 2 of the amendment was obviously intended to preclude civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any sort of marriage equivalent. It is hard to see how the provision could have been more clearly worded to that effect. Supporters themselves stated that the amendment was intended to prevent the creation of "counterfeit marriages," such as civil unions.
Yet in 2009, Jon Huntsman endorsed civil unions and stated his belief that they were consistent with the amendment.
Even if I favored such an outcome, I could never support a candidate who would be willing to override the clearly expressed will of the people, as set forth in their Constitution. How else would he be willing to substitute his own predilections for those of the people he governs? It's nothing short of shameful.
Absolutely nothing is more important than beating Barack Obama. By 2016 he'll have most likely named two more Supreme Court justices. The window to repeal Obamacare will be largely closed. The entitlement squeeze may be too far gone for the country to recover. Iran will have nuclear weapons, Pakistan will be another Syria, Turkey will slide further toward Islamism, and our allies will be even more isolated from us by an administration that views friendships as fleeting and world leadership as the job of the U.N.
I don't know if Huntsman can beat Obama. I don't know who can. But it's pretty clear that there are a handful of favored republicans who can't. If we nominate one of them because it makes us feel better about being a red to the bone conservative, then as it is said, the people get the government they deserve. And that government will be four more years of Obama.
His maddening rule must end in 2012. Nothing is more important than beating him. Nothing. No conservative ideal is more important than getting him out of office. No single issue on the right is more sacred than getting him out of the White House. If we can win with someone we agree with 70% of the time, it is infinitely better than continuing the slide in socialist destruction with someone we agree with 0%.
Don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. We need a good candidate who will beat Obama more than we need a perfect candidate who will lose to him. Please don't lose sight of the single most important thing in this process: Winning.
Too liberal, too close to Obama, too out-of-touch with the grass roots, too low in the opinion polls, and too uninspiring, except to political insiders: Those are a few of his problems.
He's not too nice to be president; he's too obscure to be president. If his name recognition were increased by a factor of ten, then he could qualify as a Rockefeller Republican (as people actually knew who rockefeller was).
Follow
