View Full Version : Jon Huntsman's Candidacy
So, a contender for Romney?
Jon Huntsman Gets Boston Globe Endorsement
Jon Huntsman got a high-profile endorsement when the Boston Globe endorsed his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination over a frontrunner from the paper's home state, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.
The Globe made clear that it was between Huntsman and Romney for the endorsement. But it suggested Romney has moved too far to the right in his pursuit of the nomination. Indeed, the endorsement of Huntsman spent a fair amount of time describing the faults of Romney.
"Both his supporters and detractors suspect that behind the conservative scaffolding is a data-driven moderate who will make practical compromises. But the way Romney has run his campaign, it's impossible to tell," wrote the Boston Globe editorial board.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/jon-huntsman-gets-boston-globe-endorsement-033009692--abc-news.html
Huntsman has NO traction with the GOP, unfortunately. I really like him and would pull the lever for him if I knew him a bit better and continued to have positive feedback about him. Still, the two-party system acts as a gatekeeper for national candidates, and I don't see how he could possibly end up facing Obama. He is certainly not charismatic enough to mount a third-party candidacy.
Huntsman has NO traction with the GOP, unfortunately. I really like him and would pull the lever for him if I knew him a bit better and continued to have positive feedback about him. Still, the two-party system acts as a gatekeeper for national candidates, and I don't see how he could possibly end up facing Obama. He is certainly not charismatic enough to mount a third-party candidacy.I think you're right in your current assessment. But, to me anyway, Romney doesn't have any charisma either. So, I wonder why the corporate media seems to like Romney better than Huntsman.
So, a contender for Romney?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/jon-huntsman-gets-boston-globe-endorsement-033009692--abc-news.htmlThanks for starting this thread Evo. Huntsman would seem to me to be a sort of ideal GOP candidate. But then, there's something about him that says to me that he's not presidential material. Maybe I'm just way off wrt that initial impression. Hopefully this thread will enable me to learn more about the guy.
I think you're right in your current assessment. But, to me anyway, Romney doesn't have any charisma either. So, I wonder why the corporate media seems to like Romney better than Huntsman.I don't know! They are both pretty plain Mormon guys without a lot of baggage (unless you count Romney's penchant for taking over companies and stripping them of value and firing the workers). There isn't a lot for GOP functionaries to bite into there, in order to differentiate them.
I don't know! They are both pretty plain Mormon guys without a lot of baggage (unless you count Romney's penchant for taking over companies and stripping them of value and firing the workers). There isn't a lot for GOP functionaries to bite into there, in order to differentiate them.Huntsman's a Mormon!? I didn't know that. See, I'm learning stuff from this thread.
I have nothing against Mormons, other than their religious beliefs which I consider idiotic. Huntsman just went down several notches in my respectability index.
The thing is, all the Mormons I know seem so ... normal ... that is if you don't count their 'Mormonism'.
Huntsman's a Mormon!? I didn't know that. See, I'm learning stuff from this thread.
I have nothing against Mormons, other than their religious beliefs which I consider idiotic. Huntsman just went down several notches in my respectability index.
The thing is, all the Mormons I know seem so ... normal ... that is if you don't count their 'Mormonism'.He still might be a decent candidate. I'd rather vote for a Mormon than a radical evangelical. People had a lot of angst about voting for JFK, because of his presumed "fealty" to the Pope. I can't hold anybody's religious affiliation against them (at the polls) unless they are rabid enough to make me doubt their objectivity.
He still might be a decent candidate. I'd rather vote for a Mormon than a radical evangelical.From my personal experience, so would I.
I can't hold anybody's religious affiliation against them (at the polls) ... I can, and do.
... unless they are rabid enough to make me doubt their objectivity.Ok, this is a good qualifier. The thing is, for me, if a candidate regularly and emphatically makes statements that are obviously based on his/her religious convictions, then that turn's me off wrt them.
Romney and Huntsman don't dwell on their religious affinities. That's a good thing, imo. However, the fact that they do identify with what I consider to be a strange religious cult is not a good thing, imo.
So, I wouldn't vote for either one -- no matter what sort of agendas they forwarded.
Jack21222
Jan7-12, 07:56 AM
I like Huntsman. Although I disagree with him on many issues, he's sane and has a lot of experience. He's also a very well-qualified candidate. As a former governor, he has executive branch experience, and as a former ambassador (to Singapore, and then to China), he has foreign policy experience.
I cannot figure out why he's being ignored by so much of the establishment. It isn't as if he is some pizza CEO with no political experience at all. He is every bit as qualified as Romney, and probably more qualified than Perry, both frontrunners or former frontrunners.
So it looks like Huntsman will take second place in New Hampshire today.
No one has information on him?
I don't like what I see (but that goes for all GOP candidates right now). At this point, I'd say I'm voting Obama.
http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/candidate/Jon-Huntsman/
Greg Bernhardt
Jan10-12, 01:11 PM
I really enjoyed this civil debate a few weeks ago
Q54P2djFx8U
I'm not finding much on him that's firm. I read that he wants to change SS, he doesn't want to change SS. Anyone have a more fleshed out platform?
Thanks Greg, I'll watch it.
Gokul43201
Jan10-12, 06:42 PM
I don't think anything should be off the table except maybe some of the drama that's playing out here on this floor today. You've got Gov. Romney, who called it a fraud in his book "No Apology." And then you've got Gov. Perry, who is calling this a Ponzi scheme. All I know is that we're frightening the American people who just want solutions. And this party isn't going to win in 2012 unless we get our act together and fix the problem. We all know that we've got entitlement problems, we've got Medicare, we've got Social Security--the fixes are there. The Ryan plan is there, for heaven's sake. We've got the answers. We don't have leadership. That's the problem.
This and more like it from: http://www.issues2000.org/Jon_Huntsman.htm (with similar pages for the other candidates)
Astronuc
Jan10-12, 07:09 PM
Huntsman would probably have to be in the top 2 or 3 in NH to stay in the running.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/us/politics/ready-or-not-huntsman-faces-his-moment-in-new-hampshire.html
It's expected that Santorum will do well in SC, perhaps leading Romney and the others.
Greg Bernhardt
Jan10-12, 07:20 PM
This and more like it from: http://www.issues2000.org/Jon_Huntsman.htm (with similar pages for the other candidates)
The only moderate of the bunch, no wonder I like him!
The only moderate of the bunch, no wonder I like him!
Exactly.
I remember in one of the debates, he gave a really good, solid, well-reasoned, sane answer to one of the questions and you could just HEAR the "thud" with which it was received by the Republican audience. One of my relatives (an avid Republican) says Huntsman absolutely doesn't belong in the Republican pack because he is WAY too moderate.
Huntsman seems to me to be the best candidate they've got, but there is absolutely no way he'll get the nod from the Republicans.
Exactly.
I remember in one of the debates, he gave a really good, solid, well-reasoned, sane answer to one of the questions and you could just HEAR the "thud" with which it was received by the Republican audience. One of my relatives (an avid Republican) says Huntsman absolutely doesn't belong in the Republican pack because he is WAY too moderate.
Huntsman seems to me to be the best candidate they've got, but there is absolutely no way he'll get the nod from the Republicans.Moderate? Well, compared to the others, maybe, but not by my definition. I could never vote for him, too many things against basic rights for me. I guess this year you could say I am not leaning Republican.
Greg Bernhardt
Jan10-12, 08:59 PM
too many things against basic rights for me.
Please elaborate
Please elaborateWomen's right to abortion is number one. That is too important to me to waiver on. I was part of the movement that got abortions legalized. Abortions were still illegal when I was in college, and I know girls that got illegal abortions and what they suffered. Making abortions illegal doesn't stop abortions, it makes them dangerous, the rich will just send their daughters off to where they are legal and the rest will risk their lives. I researched the effects of illegal abortion when I was in school and I wrote a paper titled "A case for abortion in the United States", my professor asked me to sign a release because he wanted to use portions of it in a book he was writing. I am pro-choice and will only vote for someone trying to reverse that if there are other crucial things they are for that I feel would outweigh that danger. Most on here probably weren't alive when it was illegal and have no idea what it was like. Of course most men can't even relate, IMO.
The religious have nothing to fear from legal abortions, no one is going to force them to get an abortion, and they have no right to impose their views on others, IMO.
They talk about not funding abortions for the poor, so they would rather fund welfare for the mother and child? They would rather fund social services and foster care? Yeah, I'm riled up. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. IMO.
Most on here probably weren't alive when it was illegal and have no idea what it was like.I was, and I know how bad the repercussions are (unplanned children at a young age, and worse, abortions that were somewhat less than sanitary). Luckily, by the time I was in later HS years, the pill was available.
I was, and I know how bad the repercussions are (unplanned children at a young age, and worse, abortions that were somewhat less than sanitary). Luckily, by the time I was in later HS years, the pill was available.Not to mention girls that were not fit emotionally to have children, resulting in child abuse. Many women/girls were left infertile as a result of illegal abortions, others died. We are talking about endagering women's lives. It was a terrible time in our history. Anyway, I'm dragging this thread off topic and don't wish to start a debate.
CNN is projecting New Hampshire results (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/nh?hpt=hp_pc1):
Romney 38%
Paul 23%
Huntsman 17%
Huntsman spent a *lot* of time in New Hampshire. I haven't seen any hard data on it, but judging from what I read, he put in far more time than the others - when they were all in Iowa, he was getting a head start in New Hampshire.
After that much effort, I don't know if a third place finish is going to be good enough to continue on.
CNN is projecting New Hampshire results (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/nh?hpt=hp_pc1):
Romney 38%
Paul 23%
Huntsman 17%
Huntsman spent a *lot* of time in New Hampshire. I haven't seen any hard data on it, but judging from what I read, he put in far more time than the others - when they were all in Iowa, he was getting a head start in New Hampshire.
After that much effort, I don't know if a third place finish is going to be good enough to continue on.Santorum is supposed to be strong in SC, so that will probably hurt Huntsman. It looks like Romney is it unless someone better throws in their hat last minute and can gain enough support.
I think Christie is a hoot as a stand up comic, but no idea what he believes in.
Jasongreat
Jan10-12, 11:54 PM
Women's right to abortion is number one. That is too important to me to waiver on. I was part of the movement that got abortions legalized. Abortions were still illegal when I was in college, and I know girls that got illegal abortions and what they suffered. Making abortions illegal doesn't stop abortions, it makes them dangerous, the rich will just send their daughters off to where they are legal and the rest will risk their lives. I researched the effects of illegal abortion when I was in school and I wrote a paper titled "A case for abortion in the United States", my professor asked me to sign a release because he wanted to use portions of it in a book he was writing. I am pro-choice and will only vote for someone trying to reverse that if there are other crucial things they are for that I feel would outweigh that danger. Most on here probably weren't alive when it was illegal and have no idea what it was like. Of course most men can't even relate, IMO.
The religious have nothing to fear from legal abortions, no one is going to force them to get an abortion, and they have no right to impose their views on others, IMO.
They talk about not funding abortions for the poor, so they would rather fund welfare for the mother and child? They would rather fund social services and foster care? Yeah, I'm riled up. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face. IMO.
I dont understand the abortion issue. If it is a choice issue, arent there a few choices that a woman could make differently before the choice to destroy? Like to have sex or not. As a man if your seed leaves you and fertilizes an egg, you are responsible for your choice. There is even a case, iirc, where a lesbian couple sued a sperm donor for support. If equallity between the sexes is ever to be the way of the land, both sexes need to held to the same standard, make a choice and you live with it.
As far as hunstman, he is no conservative, unless one believes conservatism means government should be grown.
Jack21222
Jan11-12, 11:58 AM
I dont understand the abortion issue. If it is a choice issue, arent there a few choices that a woman could make differently before the choice to destroy? Like to have sex or not. As a man if your seed leaves you and fertilizes an egg, you are responsible for your choice. There is even a case, iirc, where a lesbian couple sued a sperm donor for support. If equallity between the sexes is ever to be the way of the land, both sexes need to held to the same standard, make a choice and you live with it.
As far as hunstman, he is no conservative, unless one believes conservatism means government should be grown.
I don't know if abortion is a valid topic to discuss here, and I don't mean to sidetrack the thread by responding to you, but strictly speaking, getting an abortion is taking responsibility for your choices.
SC will probably sink Huntsman. He is not going to appeal to the evangelicals or the hard-right. Romney may look "inevitable" enough to do OK there, though those groups will have to hold their noses to vote for him. I fear that Huntsman is toast, though IMO he's the most attractive candidate out there.
Char. Limit
Jan11-12, 12:44 PM
There is even a case, iirc, where a lesbian couple sued a sperm donor for support.
Wait, wait, wait. Are you serious? Did they actually try for a case like that? Did it pass? If it did, remind me to stay away from those places... I don't want to get sued!
Wait, wait, wait. Are you serious? Did they actually try for a case like that? Did it pass? If it did, remind me to stay away from those places... I don't want to get sued!He voluntered to be the father and didn't go through an anonymous sperm bank. It was in the UK. They were all "friends". I say it's ridiculous. And it has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose.
Back to topic.
AlephZero
Jan11-12, 02:16 PM
There is even a case, iirc, where a lesbian couple sued a sperm donor for support.
You may be thinking of Germany, according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sperm_donation_laws_by_country.
Remember the German legal system is just about the polar opposite of the US. Everything is illegal unless there is a law that permits it. :smile:
I don't know if abortion is a valid topic to discuss here, and I don't mean to sidetrack the thread by responding to you, but strictly speaking, getting an abortion is taking responsibility for your choices.
By that logic prior to birth if a man says he would prefer the woman had an abortion would he then not be responsible for child support?
Or does she get to make that choice on her own and demand child support?
The only part that both parties have a choice in is the act initially I am pro choice ,but if you make it about responsibility the entire argument falls apart.
The man is responsible at conception legally to support the child even if he does not know for 18 years he could be sued for back child support.
Yet (excluding rape) the woman made the same choices at the same time and you are saying she is not responsible until she gets passed whatever point of no return you feel should be legal. (first trimester second third at birth what have you)
EDIT: Unless legal documents become needed prior to any brith giving consent of both parties and binding them legally to support the child....or relent all rights to support from a non consenting father.
By that logic prior to birth if a man says he would prefer the woman had an abortion would he then not be responsible for child support? That's how it should be, IMO. It's unfair otherwise. Our laws are outdated. It's no longer a time when women were restricted from getting an education and a decent job and if they got pregnant it was the man's *duty* to provide support.
Yet (excluding rape) the woman made the same choices at the same time and you are saying she is not responsible until she gets passed whatever point of no return you feel should be legal. (first trimester second third at birth what have you) Jack never said any such thing.
Bolding mine.
ThomasT
Jan11-12, 10:32 PM
... strictly speaking, getting an abortion is taking responsibility for your choices.I agree. The assertion, by devout Christian conservatives, is that an unborn fetus has legal rights. Silly? Imho, yes.
This is maybe somewhat off-topic, but then the abortion issue seems to be considered to be an important one by GOP candidates in general.
I agree. The assertion, by devout Christian conservatives, is that an unborn fetus has legal rights. Silly? Imho, yes.
This is maybe somewhat off-topic, but then the abortion issue is seems to be considered to be an important one by GOP candidates in general.But many first term pregnancies naturally abort anyway. I could get real graphic here about why they are not considered viable, but I hope our members get it.
Seriously, can we PLEASE get off this and back to the topic?
ThomasT
Jan11-12, 11:23 PM
But many first term pregnancies naturally abort anyway. I could get real graphic here about why they are not considered viable, but I hope our members get it.
Seriously, can we PLEASE get off this and back to the topic?The topic is John Huntsman's candidacy, and since abortion rights are an important topic wrt GOP candidates and their apparent constituency, then John Huntsman's position on this is relevant, and discussions about it are relevant.
Jack21222
Jan12-12, 12:16 AM
The topic is John Huntsman's candidacy, and since abortion rights are an important topic wrt GOP candidates and their apparent constituency, then John Huntsman's position on this is relevant, and discussions about it are relevant.
Relevant, but tangential.
It's really starting to look like Huntsman's campaign will fall by the wayside, and Romney will be the nominee. If Huntsman got the GOP nomination, I'd still be rooting for Obama to win (wouldn't vote for him, voting for president is worthless in my state, it goes to the Democrat by a 2 to 1 margin every year). But, if Huntsman did somehow get it, at least some semblance of rational discussion would occur in this country. Even though I disagree with Huntsman on a lot of things, I get the impression that he wouldn't start yelling sound bites at me like most of the rest of the field, or just telling me whatever I want to hear, like Romney would.
mathwonk
Jan13-12, 12:30 AM
this guy is so well known even the title of this thread spells his name wrong.
ThomasT
Jan13-12, 01:05 AM
this guy is so well known even the title of this thread spells his name wrong.This thread was started by Evo. I sense a possible temporary banning.
Chronos
Jan13-12, 02:44 AM
He is going all in for south carolina. A loss there will almost surely be fatal for his campaign.
this guy is so well known even the title of this thread spells his name wrong.LOL! Shows how much I know about him. :tongue2:
LOL! Shows how much I know about him. :tongue2:Nobody seems to know much about him, and the media isn't real helpful in that regard. The most "damning" thing I have hear said about him is "He speaks Chinese", as if that is some kind of disqualification for the GOP nomination.
Actually, it may be a disqualifying factor, with the apparent anti-intellectualism on the right.
Char. Limit
Jan13-12, 11:14 AM
Nobody seems to know much about him, and the media isn't real helpful in that regard. The most "damning" thing I have hear said about him is "He speaks Chinese", as if that is some kind of disqualification for the GOP nomination.
The GOP don't want no one who speaks a furrener's language! Makes me wonder what they think about high school foreign language requirements.
On a related note, Gringrich is attacking Romney because he speaks French. I guess it's not just a Huntsman/Chinese thing. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gingrich-hits-romney-knowing-speak-french-150300235.html
Greg Bernhardt
Jan13-12, 11:33 AM
On a related note, Gringrich is attacking Romney because he speaks French. I guess it's not just a Huntsman/Chinese thing. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gingrich-hits-romney-knowing-speak-french-150300235.html
Was that ad approved by Newt Gingrich? It didn't say and these ads usually have a bit at the end that says it is. If it was approved by Newt Gingrich, then my case is closed with him!
There's a little banner at the bottom (right at the end of the clip) that says "Paid for by Newt 2012", so it appears the ad was produced and distributed by his campaign and not some outside SuperPac.
Was that ad approved by Newt Gingrich? It didn't say and these ads usually have a bit at the end that says it is. If it was approved by Newt Gingrich, then my case is closed with him!The longer version just says "paid for by Newt Gingrich 2012".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyFaWhygzjQ
Huntsman is out.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/15/10163220-huntsman-to-drop-out-of-presidential-race-endorse-romney
Looks like he'll endorse Romney.
I figured as much - the south, starting with South Carolina, is much to daunting after a third-place finish in New Hampshire.
mheslep
Jan31-12, 12:52 PM
I really enjoyed this civil debate a few weeks ago
Yes? I watched it at the time in order to take a good look at Huntsman, as I liked his background and some of his written proposals. In this 'debate' I was disappointed, as I saw little ability to build constructive argument, and instead a got a job interview, a return again and again to a 'once upon a time I was Ambassador to China so hire me' platitudes.
That was disappointing, mheslep, and I took away about the same impression. I don't want an off-the-wall "idea-man" like Gingrich to chose from in the general election, but I'd sure like to have somebody who is not beige or taupe. Somebody that can contrast with Obama, and be rational at the same time.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.