I had planned to write a column explaining why Republican voters should give Jon Huntsman a second look. The timing was right: less than four weeks until New Hampshire. There had been a slight increase in Huntsman’s polling numbers, and other columnists were hesitantly fanning the flames of a possible, if improbable, victory. He’s a politician whose virtues I felt had not yet been reflected in the polls. I believed that, unlike other, less deserving candidates, he hadn’t yet been given his turn in the media cycle.
Then I drove to New Hampshire and watched him debate Newt Gingrich for an hour and a half.
Advertisement
It seemed to be a great opportunity for Huntsman to share the stage — and a captive audience of journalists and voters — with the frontrunner. Moreover, the debate topic would play to the former Utah governor’s strength: foreign policy.
The opportunity was missed. Rather than seizing the moment to make what I think is a compelling case for both his worldview and his qualifications for the presidency, Huntsman put his own daughter to sleep in the front of the auditorium. (Gingrich graciously took the credit.) If, as New York magazine’s John Heilemann suggested, Huntsman’s strategy at the debate was to damage Romney by helping Gingrich siphon votes from the Romney campaign, he probably succeeded. If his strategy was to attract voters away from Romney to him, he failed.
In Monday’s debate, Huntsman showed no desire to be president, certainly not when compared with Romney — or even Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, and Ron Paul. Gingrich really wants to be president, and had nothing to lose by sharing his spotlight with the former ambassador to China. But Huntsman, who had the most to gain if he had stepped up to the plate and challenged Gingrich (or at least taken a few shots at Romney), didn’t even come close to drawing blood — except perhaps his own.
I first saw Jon Huntsman speak last July at Dartmouth. He spoke thoughtfully and knowledgeably on foreign policy and seemed a rare, and welcome, voice of reason. But right after the speech, he skipped town to attend his son’s induction-day ceremony at the Naval Academy, leaving behind supporters and journalists who wanted to talk with him. I found this a questionable “good parent” excuse, but I brushed it aside at the time. There is something noble in wanting to be a good dad, but I wondered if he understood that when you run for president there’s a tacit acknowledgement that parental duties will suffer.
It seems to me Ms. Jordan is criticizing Huntsman for all the wrong reasons. Attending his son's induction at the Naval Academy? Really? Not "wanting" to be President enough? You know what you get when you get people who really, really want to be President? You get obsessive megalomaniacs with messianic complexes.
We could do with more Presidents who aren't all that excited about being President.
She also faults Huntsman for agreeing too much with Gingrich and for the reporters failing to ask questions about what Huntsman had said. One might equally draw the conclusion that these two smart conservatives naturally agree on important foreign policy issues, and that the reporters are at fault -- aren't they supposed to provide us balanced coverage? -- by focusing on the more flashy, bombastic Gingrich.
Ms. Jordan's analysis is correct. I think Jon Huntsman would be a fine president, but his campaign has always been more about running against Romney than for the presidency. I mostly associate him with negative attacks on a fellow Republican than anything else, though if you look closely at his proposals, they are reasonable and should appeal to a broad spectrum of Republicans.
I don't see what she sees in Huntsman in any way. "He spoke thoughtfully and knowledgeably on foreign policy and seemed a rare, and welcome, voice of reason," says she. Who other than Paul has been unreasonable? The only other supposed positive she mentions is his enthusiastic daughters. If Huntsman really is fizzling only because he doesn't want the position badly enough, I'm glad his desires comport with mine.
I'd welcome a president who doesn't really "want" to be president. Have there been any like that since George Washington? Certainly not Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, who both wanted to be president just for its own sake, without having any useful agenda for the country.
Huntsman would be an excellent President if elected. But he is missing the fire in the belly that all political leaders must have. By signing on with Obama he took himself out of the chicken dinner circuit that is crucial to get early support. I want John Bolton Sec State but Huntsman would be my 2nd choice,
I wish I could put my finger on what bugs me about Huntsman. It's almost as if he's prissy. He looks like he could be a Kennedy brother. He seems to have a private school for boys air of privilege about him. On paper I like him, except for working for Obummer but in person there is just something I can't quite figure out what it is that bothers me.
Huntsman is not now nor has he ever been "conservative". God, give me Newt as El Presidente for life before four years of Obama light, HUNTSMAN. There are only two choices for a true conservative, Bachman & Santorum.
He seems to have a lot of the right boxes checked: pro-life, pro 2nd amendment, smaller government, good jobs record, foreign policy experience, executive experience. What's missing is that intangible.
He's one of those "on paper" guys. On paper, he seems like a legit candidate. In person (or on TV), he doesn't do much to recommend himself.
"But right after the speech, he skipped town to attend his son’s induction-day ceremony at the Naval Academy, leaving behind supporters and journalists who wanted to talk with him. I found this a questionable “good parent” excuse, but I brushed it aside at the time."
Huntsman has some attributes, as several NRO writers here have noted. Jordan does him and this site a disservice with this Peggy Noonan-type mush, even if Huntsman has little chance beating Obama.
Given the typos, I assume the editors didn't read it. NRO needs to 86 this fluff.
This is yet another garbage article by Elise Jordan, herself a New York RINO and a former speechwriter for RINO Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Yet, it is perfectly fit for a RINO magazine like National Romney Online, because this mag is a de facto free weekly advertisement paper for Romney and Huntsman.
Ms Jordan claims that:
"Moreover, the debate topic would play to the former Utah governor’s strength: foreign policy."
Utter garbage. Foreign policy is Huntsman's biggest WEAKNESS. Despite his claimed credentials, he's extremely WEAK on foreign and defense issues. He supports massive defense cuts, claiming that those that the sequester would make are not enough. He supports, and as President Obama's Ambassador, executed appeasement towards China, the most repressive dictatorship in the world. He supports withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan before the job is done. He supports appeasement towards Russia. He supports nationbuilding at home. He believes that the only threats to the US are irregular, assymetric threats (i.e. terrorist organizations). And on and on and on. Huntsman is to the left of President Obama on foreign policy.
"The opportunity was missed. Rather than seizing the moment to make what I think is a compelling case for both his worldview and his qualifications for the presidency"
What compelling case? There is none. What qualifications for the Presidency? He has none.
Of course, it's not surprising to find such a garbage pro-Huntsman article on a RINO website. As Brent Bozell has rightly said, his uncle would've been ashamed of what NRO has become if he were alive today.
Huntsman was done in by himself and his campaign manager his first week.
1) the speech at the statue of liberty BOMBED worse than any speech in history
2) he bobbled his head and raised his eyes in very quirky fashion that made me think of Charle McCarthy (the mannequin)
3) he attacked republicans that said un-nice things about the president
----
The piece de resistance is that half Huntsman's votes in NH were from voters that were satisfied with Obama's performance.
Huntsman was done in by himself and his campaign manager by the end of his first week:
1) the speech at the statue of liberty BOMBED worse than any speech in history
2) he bobbled his head and raised his eyes in very quirky fashion that made me think of Charlie McCarthy (the mannequin)
3) he attacked republicans that said un-nice things about the president
4) he spewed ire at people that believe in creationism and disbelieved in man-made global warming
----
The piece de resistance is that half Huntsman's votes in NH were from voters that were satisfied with Obama's performance.
