I…didn’t see that coming. I know he has no hope in hell of winning the nomination, but that would make me consider voting for him.
John Huntsman is a very intelligent, reasonable, capable, charming man. It’s a shame that he’s not the white Mormon governor who got all the attention from the media, because I like him far more than Mitt.
And he can say that without fear of reprisal because he has no chance of winning the nomination and most Republican primary voters have forgotten he’s in the race.
I really don’t care what John Huntsman has to say.
I would be interested if presidential candidate Jon Huntsman said it, though. 
It’s truly sad if this is the kind of belief that disqualifies you from the Republican presidential nomination these days.
The thing that disqualifies him is that he spent a couple of years working for Barack Obama. This is icing on the cake- and it’s probably Huntsman trying to look that much more reasonable and bipartisan as he gets ready to drop out.
Deleted the extra h in the thread title.
Is he really in the race? Or just laying a marker for 2016?
Oopsy. Thanks. Otherwise, I thought it a masterpiece of diction.
Not that he had much of a shot anyway, but if he’s signing on to man-made climate change/global warming - he can kiss ANY chance goodbye, unless he’s switching teams
Another slick, sleazy politician, who is adept at manipulating the media and the public.
He obviously has something in mind by coming out with a statement like this.
That said, I sure can’t figure out what it is, but he has burned a lot of bridges recently here in his home state of Utah, where evolution and (especially) Global Warming are widely regarded as on a par with pagan, Godless fertility rituals carried out with 17-year old Danish maidens, Buddy Holly-impersonators and a herd of 13 pygmy goats…
I can’t remember do they use maple syrup or chocolate syrup?
Band name!
Well, actually probably not.
Still a show I would pay money to see (you’d have to make the Danish maidens 18 though…).
Maybe, if he’s hoping the nuttier-than-thou competition in the GOP will burn itself out by then (which is to be hoped; democracy works better when the competing factions are rational even if irreconcilably different).
This is an interesting question. I’ve been looking at the Republican field and wondering this. The cliche is that the Republicans nominate the person whose turn is next, who is usually the second lead. Romney was a legitimate candidate in 2008, and did all the things that build bridges to the next election, which is why he’s been considered the front-runner from the beginning.
Is there anyone who looks like that this year? I’d have to say no. Huntsman isn’t in the race at all, Pawlenty has dropped out, and nobody else in the establishment wing has made a dent. Unless something truly bizarre happens, none of the conservative wing candidates will win the nomination and this is really their one big shot.
I have to believe that most of the contenders for 2016 are sitting it out this year. The only possibility is if Rick Perry tones down the rhetoric and emerges as a serious opponent to Romney. That might give him leverage for another run. Otherwise he’ll be another Ron Paul.
Maybe he’s establishing himself as a real moderate, with an eye to run as a third party candidate. Thus guaranteeing his former boss a second term.
Of all the possible Huntsman scenarios I could imagine, this actually might be something he is toying with.
He is pretty liberal on social issues for a Republican (INCREDIBLY liberal for a Mormon, even a semi-inactive one) and he obviously has access to plenty of family $$$ to finance a run as an independent candidate.
He was known to get along well with Dems here in Utah, and with Obama’s approval rates in the toilet and sinking fast, maybe a White Knight glory run looks tempting. (“Let’s move beyond party politics, and vote for the son of a Mormon billionaire; This is our time!”)
It would be a terrible mistake to vote a sane Republican into the Presidency as long as adult Republicans in congress are derided as RINOs and are primaried for insufficient dedication to The Cause. In fact, personalities should be ignored in the general election: just vote the straight party ticket at the national level. Modern Washington Republicans vote in lockstep after all. This advice would have not applied 20 or 40 years ago.
That said, Huntsman shows every sign of being a traditional conservative, one who respects professionalism and expertise in general and the National Academy of Sciences in particular. The same could easily be said of Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon. Though Nixon gave no indication of wanting to substantively end Medicare like Huntsman’s self-described hero Paul Ryan.
Huntsman’s odds are underestimated, btw. The sane branch is pretty thin, while the crazy vote is being split multiple ways. And he not only has 2016 to think about (slogan: I’m the candidate who can beat the Democrat): he could also secure a VP slot.
With whom? Romney and have a ticket with two Mormons, both of whom are anathema to the right wing? To Perry or Bachmann and drive their supporters crazy?
The VP is chosen to add a little something to ticket. In reality, their real job is not to subtract anything. Palin is the classic recent example, who was supposed to add the base, but wound up subtracting the moderates. Thomas Eagleton is the classic Democratic example of a candidate who hurt the top choice. Both parties have learned (or should have) that you put in a VP with as few negatives as possible. How does Huntsman fit into that?
I appreciate his statement, but saying “I believe in evolution” is kind of wrong-headed. It’s like saying “I believe in magnetism” or “I believe in multiplication.” It’s a statement that validates the whole Creationism vs. Evolution debate, as if it were a choice between two options that came down to a simple matter of belief.
I have no problem with Creationism when it’s kept in the realm of religion. Many Creationists believe in evolution; the former is a mythic / poetic / philosophical way of understand our beginnings, the latter a scientific way of understanding our developement. No conflict. It is a huge mistake, however, to treat Creationism as if it were science.
(“I trust scientists” is completely unproblematic: I really appreciate that half of the statement.)