RSS Feed Menu
Ever since Jon Huntsman declared on Twitter that he thinks evolution and climate change are real, he has been identified as the “moderate” candidate in the GOP field, the candidate whose goal seems to be to antagonize the Republican base. Charles Krauthammer described him as “a liberal’s idea of what a Republican ought to be.”
But what if the real Jon Huntsman is actually a candidate with an incredibly conservative record? This is the argument in The American Conservative’s new piece on Huntsman by Michael Brendan Dougherty.
-In spite of his support for civil unions, Huntsman is very socially conservative. His pro-life record is very substantive. Dougherty calls him “the pro-life cause’s most accomplished executive.” In Utah, second trimester abortions are banned and third trimester abortions are a felony because of Huntsman. His gun record includes making it possible to carry concealed guns in Utah.
“In Jon Huntsman’s America, once a child survives the first trimester, he’s well on the way to having a rifle in his small hands and extra money in his pockets,” Dougherty says.
-His economic record is very conservative: $110 million in tax cuts and a flat tax rate state wide. On healthcare, the article refers to Health Exchanges in Utah that he approved, adding that, “Unlike Romney, Huntsman’s state healthcare reform achieved more insurance coverage for residents without resorting to an individual mandate.” Left unmentioned in the piece is that Huntsman is also a strong advocate for the Ryan budget and has made multiple calls for it to be signed into law.
-His foreign policy at times can hit similar to Ron Paul sounding notes without being isolationist. In addition to questioning America’s role in Libya, Huntsman also asks, “why do we have so many military bases in Japan, we’re half a century after World War II? Why so many in Germany? Does it make sense for America to remain in these places?” He wants counter-terrorism in Afghanistan, not counter-insurgency or nation-building, and he wants the US to return to focusing on its long-term growth before going abroad.
Despite this, Huntsman isn’t seen as a conservative at all. He has some of the lowest poll numbers of anyone in the GOP field — he only barely qualified for the upcoming NBC-Politico debate. Rick Perry gets more traction just by calling Ben Bernanke’s actions treasonous and by calling Washington DC a “seedy place”.
Speculating what any of this can mean for Republican presidential nominee, Jon Huntsman is very premature. But during the next debate, it will be important to listen to Huntsman’s answers and keep in the back of your mind this piece of knowledge: whatever Huntsman is, he is not as moderate as you think.
Conservative yes, crazy no. So he´ll have to wait till 2016.
In any event, Krauthammer´s idea of what a Republican should be includes wanting to invade every possible country you can, with no plan to pay for it.
Kraut is a bottom feeder and his audience is the Tea Jihadis on Fixed News that still buy his BS.
Krauty himself is a reasonable educated man who is the antithesis of the Palindronic teabagger ideal. Yet like most conservative Jews, he finds it necessary to pander to the most braindead redneck part of the conservative base. He is a secular version of Prager. He was one of the many who chimed in on the “Evil Liberal Media is Picking on Poor Palin” song only to turn on her later.
That’s what is so disturbing about Krauthammer–he’s clearly smart enough and well-informed enough to know better. But he keeps pandering to a bunch of people whose agenda items are impossible, mutually exclusive, or self-contradictory.
On the other hand, maybe that means that he’s smart enough to figure out that his gravy train consists of regurgitating nonsense for the true believers.
Sort of like the dumber but cuter FOX house atheist SE Cupps, who writes books about the liberal media attacking (right wing conservative) Christianity. But she was upset the “liberal media” didn’t attack Rev Wright and the TUCC enough. If you are going to be a conservative commentator, that is where the money is. You don’t get anywhere being reasonable until long after the story becomes old.
Exactly, I would be happy to see him run in 2016. I don’t know if I would vote for him, but it would make me proud of this country if we choose two intelligent capable leaders.
Huntsman calling for passage of the Ryan plan is an instant disqualifier. It shows that he too believes in the sunshine and unicorns snake oil that Heritage spit out, and is only too happy to put off deficit reduction until he’s probably dead. Anyone who endorses that monumentally cowardly and ill-informed piece of crap that is the Ryan plan is eminently unqualified to lead government in this country.
> Huntsman also asks, “why do we have so many military bases in Japan,
> we’re half a century after World War II? Why so many in Germany?
> Does it make sense for America to remain in these places?”
Good question! I bet quite a few Republicans, Democrats *and* Germans, Japanese are asking the same thing! Like in the U.S. these bases are certainly valuable to the local economy but, yeah, is there really a pressing need for keeping almost 100,000 U.S. soldiers in Germany two decades after the end of the Cold War?
My impression is the bases in the UK and Germany have mostly been used as staging posts for GWoT operations in the Middle East. Considering the outrageous (IMHO) sums that Israel receives as “foreign aid” every year, would it perhaps make more sense to move some of these bases to the Holy Land instead? I am sure there are lots of practical problems, but maybe a “land for peace” swap between Israel and Palestine would be more likely to work if Israel receives protection from the world’s biggest US military bases…
MARCU$
Huntsman, like Ron Paul, has made many statements I can agree with, viz get the hell out of the war game. But, as others have pointed out, his policies while gov of Utah show that he is firmly in the clutches of the elders of the LDS church. Under that expensive business suit, he still is wearing those magic panties.
Huntsman supports open borders and unlimited immigration. To Huntsman, allowing the U.S. to be inundated with third world immigrants is more important is more important than helping the economy, helping the environment, improving education, or competing in the global marketplace.
It should be impossible for any politician to credibility talk about keeping taxes low, limiting the size of the government, helping parents educate their children, lessening the impact of activities on the environment if that politician supports open borders and unlimited immigraiton.
Huntsman seem the most interested in turing the U.S. into Mexico with a small class of uber-rcih and most of the population being poor.
This is factually wrong. His first step regarding immigration is to close and control the borders. He stated this during the Iowa debate.
The Republicans promised border security the last time. Of course, the Republicans lied then and are lying now. Open borders now with a promise of border security later means unlimited immigraiton with no enforcement. Of course, that will make the corporate Republicans happy in the short term due to lower payroll costs but unhappy in the long term due to the destruction of many of their markets.
Huntsman says he cares about the enviroment but then support unlimited immigraiton. How do you reconcile that?
So we now live in an America where in order to be considered “conservative” one must oppose science? What a sad commentary on our current politics.
Here’s why I don’t see him as a conservative:
[blockquote]Jon Huntsman, the U.S. Ambassador to China who recently stepped down to explore a White House run, once said that President Obama’s much maligned $787 billion economic stimulus package was too small.
“I guess in hindsight we can all say that there were some fundamental flaws with it,” Huntsman told Politico in 2009. “It probably wasn’t large enough and, number two, there probably wasn’t enough stimulus effect. For example, a payroll tax exemption or maybe even a cut in the corporate tax…for small and medium-sized businesses for three years, for example. “
[/blockquote]
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/01/huntsman-thought-obamas-stimulus-plan-wasnt-big-enough/#ixzz1WKrEylFZ
When Huntsman said the stimulus package was too small, that puts him on the same page as Paul Krugman.
And when Huntsman called for a cut in the payroll tax, that puts him on the same page as Obama.
I’m a conservative. I say that the last thing we need right now is more Keynesian fiscal stimulus. (I’ve said what I think we do need, in other posts. Search for them if you’re curious.)
OK, so conservatives are always in favor of tax cuts unless Obama endorses them, in which case they’re a nefarious Keynesian plot? Lol!
I think Obama should endorse extending the Bush tax cuts indefinitely, on the grounds that they constitute a stimulus in the finest tradition of Keynes. That would make Boehner’s head explode.
Sinz:
“And when Huntsman called for a cut in the payroll tax, that puts him on the same page as Obama.”
I remember tax holidays being a policy supported by Republicans until Obama supported it. http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/94167/why-republicans-turned-against-payroll-tax-cuts details Republican support in 2001 and 2008 for a similar concept.
Sinz, do you even really know anything about Kenysian economics, other than the fact that the knuckleheads of Fox News started using the K word?
We’ll never know who the ‘real’ conservatives were in terms of the stimulus. We’ll never know if the stimulus kept us from a decade long depression with 20%+ unemployment, massive bank failures, huge tax increases to back up FDIC, Fannie, Freddie, etc. If that had happened, then the people who supported the stimulus (but in this hypothetical, were on the losing side) would have been the conservatives.
I don’t think any of the True Believers who vote in GOP primaries are going to be convinced. Huntsman may indeed be very, very conservative by conventional standards.
But in 2012, that isn’t going to be conservative enough for the folks who do the nominating.
True, being, or acting like, a redneck fool who sounds like Beck and Limbo is the only sure way to get the nomination.
I’m trying to figure out Noah’s mindset in writing this post. Is he trying to point out to moderates that Huntsman’s record might be quite a bit too conservative for their tastes? Or is he trying to point out to conservatives that Huntsman really is one of them and not to write him off, as they seem to be doing? I’m guessing the latter…
Color me a little less than shocked to hear that a former governor of Utah has a conservative record!
exactly, put this whole thing under the “no shit sherlock” category.
I like Huntsman well enough, I understand he has to pander to the base (as with his endorsement of the Ryan fantasy budget), even if he truly believes it he has to know it stands no chance of passage.
Huntsman is polling in the low single digits, neither he nor his billionaire father are going to bankroll his run from their fortunes and I think the only reason Huntsman is running is to siphon enough votes away from Romney so that one of the wingnuts will win the nod and lose next year, setting himself up for 2016.
Its all a matter of degrees. Simply by voicing any belief in global warming or evolution will make any Republican a crazy, wild eyed liberal these days no matter what else they do, say or believe.
There simply is no room for anything other than total party line adherence in the Republican party any longer.
If one goes back and reads Huntsman support of the Ryan plan, it was not an endorsement of the plan verbatim. Huntsman said it was the best starting point, given that no one else had come close to posing a plan rooted in reality.
My initial impresion of Governor Huntsman was that he seemed to have a good record and could be a good President. There is absolutely no question in my mind that he would make a better President than President Obama. I had absolutely no problem with him serving as an ambassador to China for the United States during part of the Obama administration. But, since he has become a candidate, he has really given me no reason to vote for him for President. If you want to become President, then you ought to be making a convincing case to likely primary voters of your party why you should be the next President. Then Senator Obama was very good at that, but, so far, Governor Hunstman has been miserable at it. Can anyone articulate a really good reason or reasons why Governor Huntsman would be a better President than any of the serious candidates for the Republican nomination?