Posted on 12/06/2011 12:27:05 PM PST by St. Louis Conservative
“The best ideas are going to come out of the states,” said Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman, speaking to a group of bloggers, online journalists and digital strategists at the Heritage Foundation.
Huntsman, who has seen an uptick in interest in his candidacy since the last two Republican debates that showcased his foreign policy strengths, used the event to draw on his experience as Utah’s governor as a way to reinforce his domestic bonafides.
Huntsman served as Utah’s governor from 2004 until 2009, when he was appointed by President Barack Obama to be U.S. ambassador to China.
In a wide-ranging talk, Huntsman’s discussion included Medicare, Medicaid, social security, education, global warming and the deficit, arguing that the answers to many of the country’s problems “are at the state level.”
“Our number one challenge — the economic deficit — can be changed,” said Huntsman. He suggested that the United Stares “could be on the cusp of an manufacturing renaissance.”
However, according to Huntsman, the United States also faces a devastating “trust deficit” resulting from “no trust toward Congress,” “no leadership” from the executive, and total distrust of Wall Street. “The people of this nation no longer have trust in the institutions of power,” he said.
“I want to phase out corporate welfare — totally,” said Huntsman.
“I’m still trying to find the value of the Department of Education,” said Huntsman, pointing out that he was the first governor to opt out of No Child Left Behind.
“Every child has a genius within... It’s not about resources, it’s about priorities,” he added.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I don’t get that impression. First, it’s 100% totally off-base. Romney’s record and platform are clearly to the left of Huntsman. That’s the objective truth - not debatable. Huntsman has ALWAYS been 100% pro-life and 100% pro-gun - two issues that Romney has been on the Dem side for the first half of his political career - and those are two hot-button issues for FReepers.
Second even if it is true (and I don’t think it is), hostility towards a candidate has never cost him the nomination. There was a TON of hostility directed toward John McCain last year - at least as much as Romney - and yet he went on to win the nomination because it was a subpar, flawed field of candidates. Huntsman is a FAR better candidate than McCain was, and better than Mitt & Newt are now.
Huntsman’s problem is he’s a CoC/CFR sock-puppet. Romney already owns most of that contingent. He doesn’t really hold any appeal for nationalists or social conservatives (although admittedly, neither does Mitt or Newt). And he’s not old enough for the geriatric entitlement mafia. I think he’d be a fine candidate if he were running as a democrat.
Unlike Mitt or Newt, he’s someone I might actually consider holding my nose for if he did manage to win the nomination. But he’s not someone I’m going to waste a primary vote on.
I don’t know what polls you are looking at but it isn’t a matter of opinion or hearsay. Huntsman was at 5% in a national poll recently (American Research Group ?) which is how he is in the Iowa debate.
If the article is referring to New Hampshire polls in particular, he is undeniable up there - posting in at 11% on the last Rasmussen survey. You might be forgiven for thinking nothing has changed and he started at 5, though. haha.
He is just another RINO statist who thinks Government is the solution....
&&&
And he’s a girly man, too.
>> Huntsman was at 5%
VERY IMPRESSIVE!
Say, what was the MOE in that poll?
He has been in the race 6 months compared to 6 years for Romney, 3 times a contender for Paul, and of course Newt who has been around forever. Naturally Huntsman’s name recognition is 30-40% behind the others and it is going to be tough with half of the country not having the foggiest idea you exist. I think he is actually doing well in NH for a candidate with those handicaps. The others have reached a saturation point but the market potential for Jon is still wide open. IMO.
Who is the kind of electable conservative you can support?
Are you kidding? Huntsman is a smarmy, unctuous, progressive in RINO’s clothing. I wouldnt buy a used car from him much less trust him with the reins to the country.
That's a fair question. It's a tough one too.
My premise is that both the Democrat and Republican parties have moved drastically left. The Democrats openly support all forms of deviancy. They demonstrate contempt for our founders and the documents they drafted. While the Republicans pay lip service to our founders and their documents, they don't advocate for them soundly enough, and have proven themselves perfectly willing to exist in various states of rebellion against them.
Some of our folks seem to get it for a while, and then they reveal cracks in their facade, that make it clear we really didn't understand who they were all along. It's very demoralizing.
I thought Cain was quite good as it relates to the Free Enterprise system. I wasn't as happy about his foreign policy merits.
I thought Bachmann was pretty good, but I haven't cared for the way she tried to capitalize off some of the Leftist attacks on our other candidates. She made a few stumbles that caused me concern. I could still support her, but she would need to prove she had cleaned up her act.
As for the others, I see major problems with each of them. Some of it is based on their past history. Some of it is based on the fact that I can't trust them because of it. It bothers me a lot when folks try to pass themselves off as something they aren't too.
"Hey, I know I did things I shouldn't have for a decade or more, but I am a very Conservative guy now, even if you don't see eye to eye with me." This logic floors me. Who do they think they're kidding?
I realize this isn't much help, but I am very unimpressed by the field of candidates this year.
We don't have a person who has gotten it long term, and still does. Is that too much to ask? Evidently so.
Sorry I can't be of more help.
Cite for me specifics. Being an ambassador under Obama is not a deal-breaker for me.
If you want to cite his record, or his platform as a reason to call him a “RINO”, be my guest, but you’re gonna need some facts to back up your assertions. My assertion is that Huntsman is more conservative than Mitt or Newt. You could say that Huntsman has at times dabbled in climate change nonsense, but so have Mitt & Newt, and to much larger degrees. Huntsman’s economic platform is the right of both candidates, and he’s always been 100% pro-life and pro-gun.
McCain got the nomination, anything can happen.
You deal with the field you have, not the field you want. I too think the field is lacking. After a lot of reading and research and going back and forth between several candidates, I have settled on Huntsman as 1) the most consistent conservative record and platform and 2) as the guy who has the best chance of defeating Obama.
Any of the candidates running would be better than Obama. There will likely be one or two Supreme Court appointments in the next four years too, so think about that. Do you want another Sotomayor or Kagan on the bench that will be there for 30 years?
Huntsman has some flaws, but overall he’s got a great record and a great platform. He can win too. Vote for whomever you want in the primary, but if you can’t support a Republican this year, then I’ll put you down as a half-vote for Obama.
Huntsman’s got the best platform of any of them for tax reform, energy, financial regulatory regulation, etc.. He’s always been solidly pro-life.
I don’t like his record on illegal immigration and some of his foreign policy positions, but there’s a good chunk of his record and campaign positions that is quite conservative.
Any republican that shakes and eats out of the hand of Obama is not what the USA needs at this time. So just cross off the list of suitables the likes of Huntsman, Boehner, and some SC justices.
Well, that there lies the REAL problem. Heussein loves RINOs.
lol. So the verifiable RINOs Newt and Mitt are preferable to the true conservative who served his country in a nonpartisan position for a president of the opposite party ?
Anyone interested in Gingrich should the transcript of the Glenn Beck interview. There is no way I can vote for him after that. Unlike Huntsman, he really doesn’t disagree all that much with Obama when it comes right down to it. Unlike Huntsman, both he and Obama and Mitt are for individual mandates in health care (Washington just needs to provide better choices...) and will govern as heavy handedly as Teddy Roosevelt. Increasing the size and scope of government rather than decreasing it.
Unlike Huntsman, both he and Mitt have flip flopped so much it really is hard to tell where they stand. I can only assume their recent shift to the right was calculated move because of the Tea party surge and influence in the last midterm election than under the gun of true conviction. Mitt and Newt are the two that have figured out the science of telling people what they want to hear and has decided most people wont check to see if they are actually telling the truth.
It is always good to know how far conservatives will sell out their core values for the sake of a competent Washington insider.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.