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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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?