(R)Governor Jon Huntsman for 2012?

[Janice]

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV8HFHkX3PA[/youtube]
Hear what he has to say on carbon and health care.

Huntsman heads to California on fundraising swing

Jon Huntsman Jr. kicks off a fundraising swing to California today, looking to drum up support for his likely presidential bid.  The former Utah governor will meet with donors in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Orange County, as likely opponent Mitt Romney continues to show his fundraising edge — last week, he raised $10 million in a single day.

Though Huntsman has access to a vast family fortune, he has said that, should he run, he will rely on donors rather than his own wealth.  Huntsman, who was born in Palo Alto, Calif., has a team of advisers who worked for former California governor Arnold Schwarzennegger.

Huntsman, who spent last week in New Hampshire meeting with party leaders and voters, met yesterday with President George H.W. Bush in Maine at a private lunch.  >>>

==============================

Huntsman is latest elite 'moderate' Republican who believes that he can usher in a 'new civility' in Washington with the Democrats. Translation: he would cave on every issue without a fight, being on their side on many issues from the start.

There is very little practical difference except maybe style and skin color between Barack Obama and Jon Huntsman. They are both tools of progressive internationalists.

Watch Jon get much good press from the MSM in the next few months. They will push his "reasonableness". If Huntsman's ingratiating patter shows any evidence of "resonating" in the polls the RNC and DNC will join with the MSM to cinch the sale. The pitch from those organizations has already started.

Jon Huntsman Extols the Virtues of Cap and Trade (YouTubeVideo)
Jon Huntsman for civil unions without anyone (Utah voters) asking him
Huntsman, Schwarzenegger ink global warming pact

Huntsman also says the border fence "repulses" him. Pardon me but, isnt that the whole idea of a fence - to repulse people?

[Rebel]

Liberals love him. That should tell you everything.

[BlueStateSaint]

Erick Erickson pointed out something on RedState.  Huntsman was planning this while he was the Ambassador to China--so he was plotting the demise of his boss while working for him.  Major, major disloyalty.  I don't care who you are, or on whose side you're on--stay on that side.  Once a traitor, always a traitor.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Rush was apparently ripping him a new one, with Huntsman's own recorded soundbites, yesterday.  I was previously unfamiliar with him but he sounds like an express train to Loserville. 

[Eupher]

The name "Huntsman" in the Salt Lake City valley is a big one. Lots of money, lots of influence, solidly LDS.

I'm still puzzled how this guy could've possibly become governor in a state that is so controlled by the LDS church. He's got liberal RINO written all over him, and this must've been at least somewhat known by the church before they gave the green light for him to waltz into the governor's mansion.

Then again, he's probably a ***** and does exactly what the church wants him to do. Ergo, the support.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Euph, with the LDS, it's a lot more important that he's bona fide true-blue LDS than whether he goes Left or Right of center. 

[Eupher]

Euph, with the LDS, it's a lot more important that he's bona fide true-blue LDS than whether he goes Left or Right of center. 

Taking that a step further, it's more important that he take his orders and direction from the president of the LDS church.

You're right that political stance on the issues is secondary.

Musing a la vesta:

Reminds me of a cartoon I read in the SLC non-LDS newspaper (Salt Lake Tribune).

Anyway, in the first panel there's the drawing of the Utah Capitol building, with Governor Mike Leavitt at his desk on the phone. On the other end, there's the LDS prez who, at the time, was Gordon Hinckley.

They were quite cosy, but the underlying tone of the cartoon indicated that the governor was subservient to the LDS prez. He took his orders well.

[Janice]

A Liberal’s Idea of a Republican

I’ve written before about how Jon Huntsman seems to be running for the wrong party’s presidential nomination. Today, the New York Times’ Matt Bai takes the opposite tack in a post in the paper’s Caucus political blog  in which he argues Huntsman has a reasonable chance to win the Republican presidential nod. Bai is the author of a Times magazine profile of the former Utah governor that he promises will be available online next week. It is apparent Huntsman charmed him, and his staff supplied him with what he claims are Republican sources who believe in Huntsman. Suffice it to say, it is likely the portrait of this liberal-leaning Republican in that liberal publication will be a lot more flattering than one about, say, Michele Bachman.

But let’s examine Bai’s premise, which is Huntsman is set up to appeal to a significant segment of the Republican electorate. In order to do that, Bai sets up a straw man he then proceeds to knock down:

Democrats and some commentators tend to see the Republican Party right now as a kind of wild, barren land where nothing thoughtful ever grows. If you start from the premise the Republican grass-roots is made up mostly of stereotypical birther types with pictures of Sarah Palin on their refrigerators and nothing but Bibles on their bookshelves, then sure, Huntsman’s candidacy would seem to be a little laughable.

The turnout in next year’s presidential primary, on the other hand, will probably reach 60 percent. The influence of the most conservative, most motivated activists will almost certainly be diluted.

Bai’s portrait of conservatives is both insulting and false. It assumes “thoughtful” is synonymous with liberal or middle of the road. >>>

>>> He’s a candidate whose campaign is geared to run against his own party and specifically not against Obama, whom he refuses to attack in his speeches.  >>>

----------------------------------

Huntsman: The rino's rino.

[CG6468]

A while back, wasn't the media (who love his liberalism) trumpeting that Huntsman would be the candidate?

[Hawk]

Personally his moderate stance is rather refreshing to me.

[Doc]

Personally his moderate stance is rather refreshing to me.

Right....and I'm still looking for the book entitled:  Great Moderates in American History........

His positions on Cap and Trade, and border security will ensure that he never gets out of single digits in the actual polling........a slicker, more polished version of Ron Paul.........and will get about as far in the primaries.

doc

[Hawk]

Right....and I'm still looking for the book entitled:  Great Moderates in American History........

His positions on Cap and Trade, and border security will ensure that he never gets out of single digits in the actual polling........a slicker, more polished version of Ron Paul.........and will get about as far in the primaries.

doc

Oh, I don't expect him to advance at all. Both mainstream parties will automatically reject anyone who even smells centrist.

[TVDOC]

Oh, I don't expect him to advance at all. Both mainstream parties will automatically reject anyone who even smells centrist.

True....however, I guess my point was more philosophical than practical.  If history is our teacher, "moderates" never accomplish anything......they are simply caretakers, never taking leadership positions on issues.

America typically only makes great strides under strong partisan leadership.  The rest of the time we simply "wallow", as moderates either kick the can (problem) down the road to the next guy, or come up with "compromise" solutions that never actually do anything except mollify their constituencies.

The moderate "constituency" further are the folks that are either totally dosconnected, or want to "sit on the fence until their pants rip" (defined as not making anyone angry).  Granted they are there, and must be tolerated, however such a position never garners much respect from either side.

doc.

[Rebel]

Personally his moderate stance is rather refreshing to me.

Illustration #1.

[Rebel]

I'm done with fiscal "moderates". They're spineless cowards with no convictions.

If you just set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing. ---Margaret Thatcher

Compromise is the failing of a fool.

[Hawk]

True....however, I guess my point was more philosophical than practical.  If history is our teacher, "moderates" never accomplish anything......they are simply caretakers, never taking leadership positions on issues.

America typically only makes great strides under strong partisan leadership.  The rest of the time we simply "wallow", as moderates either kick the can (problem) down the road to the next guy, or come up with "compromise" solutions that never actually do anything except mollify their constituencies.

The moderate "constituency" further are the folks that are either totally dosconnected, or want to "sit on the fence until their pants rip" (defined as not making anyone angry).  Granted they are there, and must be tolerated, however such a position never garners much respect from either side.

doc.

Your post reminds me of Jimmy Carter. I will agree that in far too many cases moderates are just marking time. Maybe to elaborate, I would prefer genuine compromise in the House and the Senate. When the sides become too polarized this is nearly impossible. What scares me the most is when one side or the other has a large majority. I would rather see full fledged gridlock.

[DumbAss Tanker]

There is a time and a place to speak of compromise, generally near that nexus of force, time, and capability which a Clauswitzian would call a campaign's 'Culminating point,' and which a Machiavellian would recognize as the point for a certain necessary pragmatism to move beyond irresolvable impasse on essential issues.  The beginning of a party's primary process is not that point.

[Hawk]

There is a time and a place to speak of compromise, generally near that nexus of force, time, and capability which a Clauswitzian would call a campaign's 'Culminating point,' and which a Machiavellian would recognize as the point for a certain necessary pragmatism to move beyond irresolvable impasse on essential issues.  The beginning of a party's primary process is not that point.

I agree to a point. When it is just obvious pandering the voters should call them out on that and redirect to the issues. The veterans of office should know better and as voters when it's someone who has never served we should know better. How can someone who has never been there stand and talk about all the mighty change they are going to bring, when in fact, they have no idea as to how things work.

The veterans should know better as they have been there, but in reality it's the American voters who are failing the system. We know things are done by back room deals and trade-offs. We know that elected officials are going to protect their position first and foremost.

We still buy into the sound bites, the catchy phrases and the emotional strings the politicians are so good at playing.

Sadly, we just might have the government we deserve.

[docstew]

I agree to a point. When it is just obvious pandering the voters should call them out on that and redirect to the issues. The veterans of office should know better and as voters when it's someone who has never served we should know better. How can someone who has never been there stand and talk about all the mighty change they are going to bring, when in fact, they have no idea as to how things work.

The veterans should know better as they have been there, but in reality it's the American voters who are failing the system. We know things are done by back room deals and trade-offs. We know that elected officials are going to protect their position first and foremost.

We still buy into the sound bites, the catchy phrases and the emotional strings the politicians are so good at playing.

Sadly, we just might have the government we deserve.

Re: the bolded above, I interpret that as a slam against Herman Cain, one of the two or three best candidates in the running right now.  If Herman makes it to the NC primary, I will be voting for him

[Hawk]

Re: the bolded above, I interpret that as a slam against Herman Cain, one of the two or three best candidates in the running right now.  If Herman makes it to the NC primary, I will be voting for him

It wasn't directed at any candidate in particular, but at all in general. The final responsibility still ultimately falls on the voters to see through the rhetoric.

[RightCoast]

It wasn't directed at any candidate in particular, but at all in general. The final responsibility still ultimately falls on the voters to see through the rhetoric.

Wrong. The final responsibility rests with the politicians to stop LYING their way into office, voting on laws solely in their own personal best interest, and generally being the lowest form of human life imaginable. That is where the responsibility rests.

[Hawk]

Wrong. The final responsibility rests with the politicians to stop LYING their way into office, voting on laws solely in their own personal best interest, and generally being the lowest form of human life imaginable. That is where the responsibility rests.

Who fell for the lies and pulled the switch in the booth? We could get into a discussion in this case about Less Wrongâ„¢.

[CG6468]

Who fell for the lies and pulled the switch in the booth? We could get into a discussion in this case about Less Wrongâ„¢.

What are our selections for political offices? Crooked or a little less or more crooked.

[Hawk]

What are our selections for political offices? Crooked or a little less or more crooked.

Yes, the King Makers are in charge. Grassroots and local elections are they way to fight back. As it stands now it will take decades, if American Apathy can be defeated, which I doubt.

Power corrupts, as has been proven repeatedly.

[RightCoast]

Who fell for the lies and pulled the switch in the booth? We could get into a discussion in this case about Less Wrong™.

You blame the voter because it makes you feel smart. You knew who to vote for but the idiots to your left and right mucked it up - the truth is the historical nature of political corruption is sickening and there should be a system in place to exercise control over the excesses of "public servants".

America is doomed because the system is unchangeable. Democrats will and have elected felons and dead people just because there is a "D" in the box. We are the poorest "rich" country in history not a single person running currently (except possibly Cain) can change that. There will be another "civil" war in the United States within the next 15 years.