I believe Huntsman is in favor of Ryan’s Medicare-destruction plan – hard to get much more radical than that.
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.
[Quote of the day]
(http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_06/off_to_an_awkward_start030401.php):
“So far today, [the] Huntsman campaign has gotten his name, phone number & address wrong. That’s a rough day in first grade.”
-Jamison Foser
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.
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
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.
Sadly, losing the presidency doesn’t mean they’ll get slaughtered.
-Joe
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 …
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.
Eh, what’s he got to lose? It’s not like he has any other, more likely, path to the Presidency.
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)
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.
Just you wait until PETA protests his very name!