Huntsman to formally enter race.

[Dostoyevsky]

Here is news unlikely to surprise anyone. Huntsman is in it, or is soon to be. Question(s): is he the new Daniels, as in the alternative to Romney who's not Pawlenty? Will his Mormonism help Romney by making the faith look more mainstream? My main question though centers on the field itself. At current count, he's one of nine (counting the invisible Johnson) and will be one of ten if Perry enters. Aren't there enough candidates at present? Couldn't one of them pivot to the center? I don't see why he's necessary.

On a personal note, I like the fact that he hasn't apologized for his work as an ambassador under the current administration. That shows he's an American first, Republican second. I also like his tone on gay rights, not a firebrand civil libertarian like Glenn Greenwald but not a Rick Santorum either. He seems to be a sane conservative and, like Andrew Sullivan and David Brooks (sane cons themselves), I look forward to hearing him out. I just wish the GOP could narrow its field to, say, 3 people instead of upwards of a dozen.

[Dostoyevsky]

FWIW, George Will doesn't seem optimistic about Huntsman's chances.

[Dostoyevsky]

And!!!... it's over for John Huntsman. I wonder if he'll see these numbers before next week and rethink his announcement.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Dostoyevsky

On a personal note, I like the fact that he hasn't apologized for his work as an ambassador under the current administration. That shows he's an American first, Republican second. I also like his tone on gay rights, not a firebrand civil libertarian like Glenn Greenwald but not a Rick Santorum either. He seems to be a sane conservative and, like Andrew Sullivan and David Brooks (sane cons themselves), I look forward to hearing him out. I just wish the GOP could narrow its field to, say, 3 people instead of upwards of a dozen.

He hasn't apologized...yet. He will, or he'll spend the next year and a half battling teabaggers as they bounce off his lips and chin.

-Joe

[Dostoyevsky]

Originally Posted by Merijeek

He hasn't apologized...yet. He will, or he'll spend the next year and a half battling teabaggers as they bounce off his lips and chin.

-Joe

He can't pull a Romney 2.0 and stand by his prior sins? I'm curious as to what his niche would be if he, too, must renounce middle of the road positions.

[RTFirefly]

Here's a bet, for anyone who wants to take it: Huntsman will finish third or worse in the Iowa caucuses, and the NH and South Carolina primaries.

[Dostoyevsky]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Here's a bet, for anyone who wants to take it: Huntsman will finish third or worse in the Iowa caucuses, and the NH and South Carolina primaries.

I doubt he'll finish fifth there. He's already said he's not competing in Iowa. This is because of his opposition to subsidies for ethanol as this piece notes.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Dostoyevsky

He can't pull a Romney 2.0 and stand by his prior sins? I'm curious as to what his niche would be if he, too, must renounce middle of the road positions.

What do you mean?

If he were to pull a Romney he would have to insist that he wasn't an Obama ambassador to China, but he was in fact vacationing in China had occasionally had his phone calls back home tapped by Eric Holder.

-Joe

[Dostoyevsky]

Originally Posted by Merijeek

If he were to pull a Romney [SNIP]

Ah, herein lies the confusion. Were he to pull a Classic Romney, 1.0, then, yes, he would deny anything no matter how implausible. Which is why I asked:

He can't pull a Romney 2.0 and stand by his prior sins?

A brief explanation: The new Romney, 2.0, is standing by his individual mandate despite its nearly universal unpopularity with his conservative base (dubbed: Obamney Care by Pawlenty) as the right policy for Massachusetts while still criticizing Obama's federal policy requiring a mandate. He does so on the grounds of federalism, as in states can force citizens to buy insurance but the fed govt. cannot. Many Republicans thought he would have to run away (flip) from this position as he's done on social issues. Romney, though, has been staunchly defending his mandate since (as George Will recently declared on ABC's This Week) he's exceeded his alloted policy changes.

(For more on Romney's newfound consistency, see FrumForum's take.)

I was wondering if Huntsman, who recently told ABC News that he didn't regret his service could, like Romney 2.0, continue to defend an unpopular position.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Dostoyevsky

I was wondering if Huntsman, who recently told ABC News that he didn't regret his service could, like Romney 2.0, continue to defend an unpopular position.

See above post about being teabagged into oblivion, then. There is no room for such things in a GOP primary.

If it comes down to Romney and Huntsman as the final two, it'll be whichever decides to throw in to the teabaggers first.

-Joe

[Balance]

At present, I have to say that I have more respect for Huntsman than for anyone else currently in the Republican field. While I disagree with him on many things, he hasn't really shown much sign of the batshittery that characterizes many of the candidates, and it's possible he has the backbone to buck the radicals. Some years back, I watched him stand up against considerable pressure from the ultra-conservatives in Utah to veto a piece of legislation I was opposed to. It was a relatively minor thing compared to Presidential aspirations--a back-door attack on video games with mature content--but I thought he handled it well.

As I said in another thread, though, I suspect he's tossing his hat in this time in order to improve his name recognition and "get in line" for a more serious run in 2016. If so, he's probably gambling that the extremists will wear themselves out in this cycle, and not turn out when there's no Obama to attack.

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by Dostoyevsky

I just wish the GOP could narrow its field to, say, 3 people instead of upwards of a dozen.

At this stage I think they should be looking for more. I'm not too familiar with Huntsman though.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Dostoyevsky

The new Romney, 2.0,

Romney 2.0 is so 2007. I think he's up to 5 or 6 by now.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Balance

it's possible he has the backbone to buck the radicals.

Too late.

[Balance]

Originally Posted by RTFirefly

Too late.

Sigh. In that case, he can go to hell on a pogo stick. Sadly, it still doesn't make him suck as badly as most of the candidates (and maybe-sorta candidates), but that's only because the suckage of the whole field is measured in petahoovers.

[Dostoyevsky]

Originally Posted by Balance

At present, I have to say that I have more respect for Huntsman than for anyone else currently in the Republican field.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Balance

As I said in another thread, though, I suspect he's tossing his hat in this time in order to improve his name recognition and "get in line" for a more serious run in 2016.

Agreed.

Question: does Huntsman's Mormonism matter? Could it help Romney by possibly normalizing the thought of Mormons running for the Presidency? Or, assuming Huntsman will run in '16, could Romney's Mormonism help him?

[Dostoyevsky]

Huntsman may no longer be bucking the radicals, but it appears they're bucking him. Here Rush Limbaugh disapproves of several of his positions.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Dostoyevsky

Question: does Huntsman's Mormonism matter? Could it help Romney by possibly normalizing the thought of Mormons running for the Presidency? Or, assuming Huntsman will run in '16, could Romney's Mormonism help him?

His Christian heresy would eventually be important if he were to become enough of a threat to the front runners. It won't matter, though, because he has already committed a much greater sin by violating the GOP orthodoxy - he consorted with the socialist Muslim negro. He won't get far enough for the first to matter.

-Joe

[Yaxche]

I like Huntsman... I'm a liberal in Utah, and he's the first Republican governor I've voted for.

Socially moderate, reasonably successful business man, and fiscally conservative. I thought he did a good job around here, too, before leaving for the China appointment.

The sad part is, he could easily win the general election because of these points, but he won't make it out of the primary because of the rabid base pandering going on. I voted for Obama, and will again, over any Republican currently in the field... except Huntsman. That sort of cross-over doesn't seem to figure into the nomination process, however.

[Dostoyevsky]

Originally Posted by Yaxche

I like Huntsman... I'm a liberal in Utah, and he's the first Republican governor I've voted for.

It's nice to hear from a seasoned Huntsman observer. Did you, as a liberal, like him despite his economic views or because of them?

To all Huntsman watchers: this article at National Review nails the current situation for the would-be candidate.

Originally Posted by National Review's Jim Geraghety

● Staff Assistant, Pres. Ronald Reagan

● Ambassador to Singapore

● Deputy U.S. Trade Representative

● Two-term governor, elected in two landslides

● Signed into law the largest tax cut in his state’s history

● From 2005 to 2010, his state’s economy expanded by 3.5 percent annually, second-fastest in the nation and three and a half times faster than the U.S. economy as a whole

● Enacted a health-care reform that raised the legal standard for malpractice claims

● Enacted the most expansive school-voucher program in the country and three pieces of pro-life legislation

● Married, seven children, two adopted

● A financial net worth that makes self-funding a possibility, or at least suggests that his campaign is unlikely to run low on cash

Yet Huntsman is, at this early date, a distinct long shot for the Republican nomination.

(Emphasis mine. The above was, of course, not acutally posted by Geraghety.) Has there ever been a candidate more qualified to run yet shunned by his base?

[Normal Phase]

I believe Huntsman is in favor of Ryan's Medicare-destruction plan -- hard to get much more radical than that.

[Yaxche]

Originally Posted by Dostoyevsky

Did you, as a liberal, like him despite his economic views or because of them?

It's a mixed bag, but as monolithic as Utah is, he is as reasonable a Republican as we've seen come up here. I don't believe we needed all the corporate welfare that has been doled out around here, and we certainly didn't get as far down that road as he wanted, but overall we've done pretty good as a state in the face of the recession. So I'll give him grudging credit for results...

I get more excited about the fact that he isn't afraid of 'green' initiatives.

He isn't going to support 'same sex marriage', that would be a kiss of death, but at least the civil union thing is there, which is a step in the right direction from a conservative in this country.

A lot of little 'progressive' thinking things around here, too, like going to 4 day work weeks for state employees to save energy in facilities and reduce emissions from commutes.

[RTFirefly]

Quote of the day:

"So far today, [the] Huntsman campaign has gotten his name, phone number & address wrong. That’s a rough day in first grade."
-Jamison Foser

[boytyperanma]

I think Matt Bai's piece calling Jon Huntsman the 'caveman lawyer' from Saturday Night Live was pretty good.

He's genuine, reasonable, and likeable, which means he has no chance in the Republican party. He's been away for a few years and doesn't really grasp how far into the deep end the Republican party has gone.

The standard has become you must demonize the Democrat's and everything they stand for before you can even be considered a Republican candidate. This isn't the stance of Huntsman and I think he's too honest a man to make it there. He's not another Romney, Romney would disown his children if it bought him a vote.


I still wouldn't vote for Huntsman over Obama but if I had to choose from the available Republican figures running for President, he'd be miles ahead of the rest.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by boytyperanma

The standard has become you must demonize the Democrat's and everything they stand for before you can even be considered a Republican candidate. This isn't the stance of Huntsman and I think he's too honest a man to make it there. He's not another Romney, Romney would disown his children if it bought him a vote.


I still wouldn't vote for Huntsman over Obama but if I had to choose from the available Republican figures running for President, he'd be miles ahead of the rest.

I think you're wrong. Huntsman will debase himself totally to run if that's what it takes. There's no way anyone at this point can claim the "I didn't know what it would take to get a GOP nomination so I'm going to have to bow out" line of bullshit.

If he was that much of a high-roader he'd never have declared.

-Joe

[Wheelz]

What I find ironic is that, because of his moderate stances on certain social issues, Huntsman is probably the only GOP candidate with any chance at all of beating Obama. However, for those very same reasons he has no shot in hell of winning the nomination.

On the other hand, if the Republicans actually wise up enough to realize why they got slaughtered in 2012, Huntsman may just be the guy 4 years later.

[Merijeek]

Originally Posted by Wheelz

On the other hand, if the Republicans actually wise up enough to realize why they got slaughtered in 2012, Huntsman may just be the guy 4 years later.

Sadly, losing the presidency doesn't mean they'll get slaughtered.

-Joe

[Dostoyevsky]

Originally Posted by Wheelz

On the other hand, if the Republicans actually wise up enough to realize why they got slaughtered in 2012, Huntsman may just be the guy 4 years later.

True enough, but this same strain of conservatism made quite the comeback in 2010 so they have an incentive to stay pure. Plus, Obama may need to figure out why he's being slaughtered by independents in the polls.

[RTFirefly]

Originally Posted by Wheelz

On the other hand, if the Republicans actually wise up enough to realize why they got slaughtered in 2012, Huntsman may just be the guy 4 years later.

When was the last time the GOP moved from more crazy to less crazy?

I'm thinking it was between the 1964 election and the 1966 midterm.

GWB in 2000 made an effort to sound less batshit than Gingrich's impeachment Congress, but without any decrease in the actual GOP batshit level AFAICT.

[Chronos]

What I find ironic is that, because of his moderate stances on certain social issues, Huntsman is probably the only GOP candidate with any chance at all of beating Obama.

His stances would give him a chance, but the fact that he worked as a member of Obama's administration kills it. He can't credibly tell the country that his administration would be better than Obama's when he himself was a part of it. 2016, though, if the Republicans have sobered up enough to nominate him, he has a pretty good chance of billing himself as the best of both worlds.

[Yaxche]

Originally Posted by Chronos

2016, though, if the Republicans have sobered up enough to nominate him, he has a pretty good chance of billing himself as the best of both worlds.

I had that thought yesterday after the details of the campaign came out as well. Republicans like to give the runner-up guy his shot, and Huntsman has plenty of money to run again...

That may be why he's skipping Iowa, trying to stay out of the mud. Just get the name out and try and build some numbers for a more serious run in 2016 when he's not facing an incumbent.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Yaxche

I had that thought yesterday after the details of the campaign came out as well. Republicans like to give the runner-up guy his shot, and Huntsman has plenty of money to run again...

That may be why he's skipping Iowa, trying to stay out of the mud. Just get the name out and try and build some numbers for a more serious run in 2016 when he's not facing an incumbent.

Being the runner up, or even the third place runner, is indeed a pretty good position to have if you want to run in future elections, especially in the GOP.

But I'm not sure Huntsman has much chance of even a third place showing, and I don't see much evidence that coming in fourth or lower is much help. Indeed, I have a sense it would be detrimental in future elections, since it makes you seem like a looser. "Fifth best" seems like a much less appealing option then "Second best". Ditto "couldn't even beat Ron Paul or Bachmann last time" isn't much of a rallying cry.

[DSeid]

Can he come in 3rd in NH though? Romney, Bachmann, then him? Gives him the chance to nobly bow out to consolidate the not crazy vote behind someone who at least has a chance of getting the moderates to vote for him. Romney then wins the nom and of course loses the general and then Huntsman has a position to run from in 2016.

Romney in the top spot seems likely. Bachmann could easily get the TP base to come out for who enough to squeeze ahead of any other less crazy person. Then Huntsman just needs to edge out Pawlenty ...

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by DSeid

Romney in the top spot seems likely. Bachmann could easily get the TP base to come out for who enough to squeeze ahead of any other less crazy person. Then Huntsman just needs to edge out Pawlenty ...

You never know, but its hard to see Huntsman edging out Pawlenty. And if Pawlenty does implode, then it doesn't seem anymore likely that his votes will go to Huntsman then to anyone else.

Plus Paul, while he won't come anywhere close to winning, will probably be in the top three or four, simply because he seems to attract most of the GOP protest votes. He had a decent number of second place finishes in 2008. I'd give him decent odds to beat Huntsman, especially in NH.

So Huntsman could easily end up with a single digit vote share, and beaten by at least one fringe candidate (Paul) even in a socially moderate state like NH that ought to be one of his stronger showings. I have trouble seeing him using that to propel people to vote for him in 2016.

[Chronos]

Eh, what's he got to lose? It's not like he has any other, more likely, path to the Presidency.

[Martin Hyde]

Here's the reason I don't think Huntsman has much of a chance. His name is too long at 8 letters.

No man since Roosevelt has won the Presidency with a name longer than 7 letters.

There are in fact only 14 Presidencies in history in which the President had a name longer than 7 letters. (Washington, Jefferson, van Buren, Harrison x 2, Fillmore, Buchanan, Garfield, Cleveland x 2, McKinley, Roosevelt x 2, Coolidge)

[Chronos]

And 14 out of 44 is such a ridiculously tiny fraction, it's not worth worrying about. Why, that's not even a third of them! And of course, there are perfectly sound reasons to draw the cutoff at "more than 7 letters", and not, say, "more than 6", rather than it just being cherry-picked to let Clinton through.

[Chimera]

Just you wait until PETA protests his very name!