Jon Huntsman, as Obama's campaign manager Jim Messina recently stated, was
the GOP's best shot in this cycle. He would have polled better than Romney
among swing voters in battleground states on which the election hinged. Huntsman
was the first to distance himself from Trump who later became a liability for
the party. He would have immediately withdrawn his support for Richard Mourdock
after his rape comment, making a difference with female voters and younger
voters. He would not have made some of the infamous gaffes Mitt made. His record
has been more consistent and he did not have Romney's reputation of being a
flip flopper. Huntsman also had the most impressive resume of all the GOP
candidates. His was state was ranked "Best State For Business" while
Romney's was ranked 47th. He had significant foreign policy experience
compared with none for any of the other candidates. He was a proven fiscal
conservative whose more moderate social views are practical given the
demographic realities in this country. He would have been the hardest candidate
for Obama to build a case against.Hunstman has the best chance to
bring the White House back to the GOP in 2016.
What a laugh! Huntsman lost my respect in his last months as governor of Utah
before he left for Obama's China aasignment. I didn't agree with many
of his ideas and policies. He drifts further and further off the radar for me. I
would never vote for him for anything again!
It may all but end his Republican career, but we all know he's a closet
democrat anyway. Next election, he could say look I'm on both sides of the
line, and voters will buy it hook,line, and sinker. As the last election has
proven, the typical American voter will buy just about anything (note my total
lack of party reference on that!)
I knew back when JonBoy ran for governor the first time that he was not a
conservative, even though he said he was. Didn't vote for him then,
wouldn't now. He wouldn't be where he is today if is Dad wasn't
George Washington said it well in his final farewell address: "When party
wins the people lose." Our parties are more interested in their survival
than the people they represent. I will not financially support either party
until they present issues and not character assassination and run smear
Huntsman would have been slaughtered by Obama. I have a label for JonBoy,
VSTBountiful, UT@LDS Liberal,So, you voted for Huntsman.
Just before the election, you posted that you were going to vote for the
Libertarian Gary Johnson.=============== True - I did, I
was.I've voted Libertarian for over 20 years.I wanted the
Republicans to finally dump their ultra-far-right-wing Tea Party Master
Over-Lords and snap out of it, back to reality -- but, alas....Huntsman was the only sane candidate to throw his hat in.I mean
really? -- Donald Trump, Michelle Bachmann, Rick
Perry,Flip-Flop Romney C'monBesides - I gives
me the ultimate dig for the next 4 years.I didn't vote for
Obama, AND I voted for the only Republican who really ever had a
chance to win it, a shame Republicans were too busy playing ideological
puritans to actually consider winning the WhiteHouse.
@Chris BSo you're suggesting the Green Party has not attempted
to be a viable third party? Even though they have ran candidates for office at
every level of government and have even had a few successes in a several states
like California, Arkansas and Maine, electing candidates to city council and
state legislature offices? Do I personally believe the Green Party
has become a viable third party? Of course not. Any more than the Libertarian
party, which has been around for decades, has any viability.And if Rocky
Anderson thinks his new Justice Party is going to sweep in and become that
viable third party, I wouldn't hold my breath.Could a viable
third party emerge which takes ideas from both the Republicans and Democrats and
adopts them as their own as a means to appeal to all voters? Sad to say, I
don't think so. George Wallace's American Independent
Party tried it in the late 60's and it didn't work. Ross Perot's
Reform Party tried it in the late the 90's and it didn't work. Ego,
infighting and radicalism won out in both cases.
Huntsman would be no more viable a contender in 2016 than he was in 2012. The
truth is, he was never a viable contender, and would never have even appeared on
the radar, had it not been for the Joe-Kennedy-esque efforts of his father to
promote the possibility. Just as in the original gubernatorial race where there
were several more-qualified candidates than Jon, Jr., money (as in long-time
large contributions on the national level) gets people's attention. For those who recall, when Huntsman's name began to appear in
pre-campaign headlines, he was being touted as a Tea-Party candidate. To any one
who paid attention to what Huntsman DID as governor, as opposed to what he SAID
during his campaigns, those early characterizations were straight off Comedy
Central! It was at that point that it became clear that news outlets and other
"thought leaders" were being worked via a carefully crafted spin
campaign to get Huntsman's name bumped up the list.I have the
utmost respect for Jon Huntsman, Sr., as a businessman, an individual and a
churchman, but I feel his love for his son may have blinded him to political
He's profiled in the Charlie Rose section of the newest Business Week
Huntsman no longer relevant in the Republican Party. What a blessing for him.
He must really be "favored of the Lord".
Jon Huntsman's only flaw is that he is a Mormon.If the GOP
rejects him, so much the worse for the GOP.
Call me extreme -- My conscious is clear...I voted for Jon
Huntsman Jr. THIS last election 2012 -- [wrtie-in candidate].
ClarkHippo-"Look at Ralph Nader and the Green Party..."You are assuming the 'Green Party' was a viable third party. That
could be part of the problem.
Huntsman has a future with the GOP???
Tea Party people may have some good principles to ride on but how they ride on
them is what has some people upset and bias about. Ross Perot may have had
similar type principles but he split the Republican Party and gave the election
to Bill Clinton whose wife is still very viable due to that process in the
public's eye. You have to work from within a Party to improve
the process, whether Democrat or Republican. Those two parties would even join
forces to put the other group asunder. Since Abraham Lincoln both parties have
developed their inner circle type of processes. They have too much power to let
it go.Which party to choose is the for principled people is hard.
Which party has values that you can support? Which party has shown that it
actually believes in people?Parties say they are for people but what
does that mean? Do they want entitlements that bankrupt the country if not
managed? People want entitlements once they are hooked on them due to political
promises. When one part or another gives those entitlements or extends them,
when they come due the people then tread backwards. Grandchildren
I was fine with Romney but was excited about Huntsman. If he could make it
through the primaries he would do very well in a general election. Unfortunately
I doubt he can ever make it out of a primary run by tea-party zealots. If Huntsman had been the nominee this year we would be celebrating the first
Utah-based president elect.
Huntsman was a serious contender for my vote. He did not participate in the
'race to extremes' like all of the others in the Primary.I
hope the Administration looks at him for Secretary of State.
Matthew Wilson believes No Labels lacks relevance and that it is not in the
cards for Huntsman to be President because of his association with the group.
This is just another miscalculation by and about the GOP. In the wake of all of
the GOP’s post-defeat reflecting, Huntsman and this organization are more
relevant than ever. He remains consistent with his maverick stance during the
primaries regarding excessive and extreme partisanship and as Americans of all
demographics become more familiar with him they will respect these convictions
and support him.
While Jon Huntsman Jr. wasn't my first choice, he wasn't my last
choice, that would be who was elected. It isn't just some
republicans attitude about party label needs to change, many democrats will not
vote for an "R", no matter who it is or what they stand for.Lucky there are between 1/2 to 60% of the population that will look at who is
running, and not just the R or D. There were about as many straight
ticked D's in SLco as R's this last election.That said,
Huntsman stopped going to party conventions while he was still governor of Utah.
This is nothing new.
Smart move. Talk about issues.
The founding fathers liked the electoral college idea, where the states would
have a voice as states--but they warned about the whole process being hijacked
by political parties. So what do we have now? A "two-party system."
What a disaster. Like some have pointed out, how come we have 50 choices for
Miss America, but only two for president? But the way it's set up now with
the power structure, anyone who doesn't play in one of those two sandboxes
is pretty much doomed to just pulling votes from other candidates. Sad.
"A viable third party would not take equal votes away from both the R's
and the D's. Look at Ralph Nader and the Green Party in 2000. I seriously
doubt Nader got the same number of Republican votes as he did Democrat
votes."Can't agree with this statement. Hence the
"viable" part of "viable third party." I agree that Tea Party,
Libertarians, and Green Party types will never become that third party. But
there is room for a third party that adopts major principles from both parties.
For example, a party that is opposed to abortion but is also in favor of social
programs like welfare. An offshoot of an extreme of either party doesn't
stand a chance, because neither party is large enough to support that. But a
party that is truly centrist stands a chance. We just have to get over the
belief that a single party's platform somehow naturally goes together (what
does military spending have to do with abortion, for example?).
Huntsman has Republicans not liking him and Democrats not liking him. He was
much better qualified than Romney. I would support a Huntsman 2016 run as in
@1conservativeYou said - "I've never quite understood why
there isn't a viable 3rd party."A viable third party would
not take equal votes away from both the R's and the D's. Look at Ralph
Nader and the Green Party in 2000. I seriously doubt Nader got the same number
of Republican votes as he did Democrat votes.Not only that, third
parties have a tendency to attract those who support loopy ideas. I've read
some of the platforms of third party candidates who want to bring back
prohibition, eliminate public schools, protect U.S. borders with shoot-to-kill
methods, eliminating the U.S. military and many other ideas most reasonable
people would object to.
Huntsman is no better than the Democrats, or the wishy washy Republicans who
have mired their party in failed campaigns for far too long.Republicans need to get away from trying to be a pale pastel shade of liberal
democrats and their Santa Claus approach, and instead be fire breathing
conservatives who aggressively fight the lies of the media and the ignorance and
dependency that enables Democrat victories over and over. Huntsman is NOT the
man to do that.Huntsman needs to come out of the closet to admit
that he is the same as a Democrat.
John Huntsman is better than the GOP and Democrat parties.
Jon Huntsman would have beat President Obama but you Republicans insisted on a
purity test and ran out the best possible and sensible candidate.
Huntsman's politics are similar to what Romney's USED TO BE before he
became MittChameleon. Maybe Hunstman is't the church goer you
think he should be but that is between him and The Holy One Of Israel and he
employeth no servant. If you judge him spiritually, you will be judged. He
would have been a great economic planner, a fiscal conservative, and NOT pushed
for 2 Trillion in addition to military spending on top of DOD budget
requests.Huntsman is right, we all need to work together, even the
First Presidency said so in their congratulations to President Obama in the
second term. Stop with the dramatic predictions and make this country a better
place instead of using reelection as an excuse to treat people poorly who
don't agree with you.
According to Ghandhi one of the seven great evils are: Politics without
I've never quite understood why there isn't a viable 3rd party.Maybe Huntsman is the one to get it going.No doubt in my
mind that a 3rd party could pick up votes from both "R's" and
"D"'s.I doubt the mainstream media would like it much
though. It would probably give them "brain freeze" trying to figure out
who "fits" where!They so much like to stereotype BOTH
Jon Huntsman is too good a man to remain with the GOP. He needs to move on to
someplace where his good sense and intellect can be used and not stifled.
As JHJ is reasonable, articulate and willing to listen to the opinions of
others, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the Republican Party
would want nothing to do with him - and vice versa.
"poised to play a key role in No Labels, a national organization that
promotes bipartisanship, a move that some see as all but ending his political
career as a Republican."My goodness. We certainly cannot have
someone in the GOP who "promotes bipartisanship"How sad is
I think Jon Huntsman has realized, like a growing number of Americans have, that
both major political parties in this country are evil. Both parties are filled
with people who are more loyal to their party than they are to the nation or the
constitution. Until the partisanship can be put aside, our country will
continue its down slide.