There’s a well-known story about a 1970s Tory party meeting where new leader Margaret Thatcher waved high a copy of Friedrich Hayek’s The Constitution of Liberty before slamming it down on a table and proclaiming, “This is what we believe!” Hopefully, the stirring moment is included in the new biopic starring Meryl Streep.
Jon Huntsman in the 1980s, along with President Ronald Reagan and Rep. Jack Kemp
Anyway, lots of Republicans right now would love a 2012 presidential nominee like Thatcher, one so obviously smart and passionate about the virtue and necessity of economic freedom. They don’t want only to beat Barack Obama, but also rhetorically beat and bury Obamanomics, the latest incarnation of the same wealth-distribution ideology that had infected Thatcher’s Britain back then, almost fatally.
The diplomat. Jon Huntsman clearly isn’t a candidate super comfortable with escalating the 2012 elections into a climactic clash of ideologies. He’s too cool, too diplomatic. Would rather move beyond Obama’s obvious policy failures and talk about where the nation needs to go. Focus on solutions. And Huntsman may well have never read Hayek … or Joseph Schumpeter or Thomas Sowell. If he has, he sure doesn’t talk about them.
But know that Thatcher’s famous Braveheart moment, as deliciously cinematic as it is, most likely is apocryphal. Sure, Thatcher read Hayek’s Road to Serfdom at Oxford. But Thatcherism was really birthed in Alfred Roberts’s little grocery in Grantham as the future prime minister helped her father around the shop and experienced quotidian capitalism up close and personal. A former political ally once said Thatcher had an “intuition” for free enterprise, a gut instinct that was reinforced only later by intellectual argument.
Huntsman has also seen entrepreneurial capitalism operate firsthand, though on a grander scale. Growing up a 99 percenter, he watched his middle-class dad build a company and eventually become a billionaire. He later worked in the family business himself before becoming Utah’s governor and then U.S. ambassador to China.
Tax cutter. Those lifetime lessons have made a big impact. Huntsman, like Thatcher, seems to be a conservative of intuition derived from personal experience. Huntsman a conservative? As governor, he massively cut income and sales taxes—instituting a 5 percent flat income tax—while expanding the state’s “rainy day” reserve fund. His approach to healthcare reform relied on markets rather than mandates. As the Club for Growth describes it, “Utah’s main health reform contained no individual mandate, no employer mandate, and has very limited regulatory authority. … It empowers individuals to take ownership of their own health insurance and to choose coverage that works for them.”
If elected president, Huntsman says he would like to slash tax rates to their lowest levels since before America entered World War I and eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends. Powerful supply-side medicine for an anemic economic recovery. Huntsman has embraced Representative Paul Ryan’s transformational, market-oriented debt-reduction plan, calling it “the model I would work from.” He’s also pro-life, a dedicated free trader and—at least as evidenced by his sweeping bank reform plan—an ardent anti-crony capitalist.
Of course, conservatives would sure like more details about Huntsman’s views on dealing with climate change. And just how would he match defense cuts that might reduce spending to Clinton-era levels with superpower America’s global commitments and power-projection capabilities? A lot more clarity is needed there. And the Club charges Huntsman with being disinterested in cutting spending when governor.
Heavy fire. But a good amount of the flack Huntsman has taken from the Right seems more about form than function. Accepting Obama’s offer to go to Beijing. Giving a conciliatory rather than confrontational candidacy announcement speech. Mucking up the debates with too much snark and not enough talk of conservative tax and entitlement reform. Jon Huntsman (R-Davos), the darling of Manhattan magazine writers. The Republican uncomfortable with being a Republican. Yet the policies Huntsman advocates, if implemented, would usher in a conservative, free-market, small-government revolution that no Tea Party member could help but applaud. No Thatcherite or Reaganite, either.
This isn’t a lesson in comparative conservatism, an attempt to prove Huntsman is more or less conservative than Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, or the rest of the Republican field—or more or less deserving of the GOP nomination. Certainly not. This is about policy, about agenda, and about not ignoring some great ideas because of a candidate’s awkward introduction.
print this page
My only question is: Why is Jon Huntsman running as a Republican? He is a thinly veiled moderate Dem at best.
John Huntsman’s brand of Conservatism is like a Hollywood movie set. From the front, it looks like a real building. But the stage hands and the set builders know that there’s nothing behind it but a few boards propping it up.
John Huntsman, with the perfect hair and tan, even looks like an actor which some Hollywood director would cast to play the part, but taking him seriously as a presidential candidate would be like expecting someone who played a doctor on TV to preform life-saving surgery on someone dying in the ER.
It is a matter of record that Huntsman funneled 25,000 dollars through family members to help re-elect Harry Reid and ensure that the Democrats held the Senate. Huntsman may claim to be a Republican and even ran as one in a state where he couldn’t have been elected if he’d run as a Democrat, but these day political expediency trumps having actual principals an\y day of the week.
Sp to describe “Huntsman’s Conservatism” is like talking about the vegetation on the Moon; it simply is non-existent yet some people choose to believe in it either because it’s an appealing notion in itself, or in the case of those who support Huntsman who also support Obama, it’s a way of siphoning off votes from gullible Republicans not quite stupid ENOUGH to be convinced that election day is the first WEDNESDAY in November.
Huntsman is in the bottom tier of the bottom tier. “Look at him,” all you want; has no chance whatsoever.
If the choice is Gingrich or Huntsman, the nod absolutely goes to Huntsman.
Gingrich is indeed a giant phoney.
- He bashed Paul Ryan’s plan
- He was for Cap and Trade
- He was a Capitol Hill influence man for the GSEs (despite is moronic claims otherwise)
- He has never ran any institution as an executive
- He has zero appeal to the open-minded independent
I simply cannot believe that in this year when confidence in Washington is at an all-time low that the GOP would nominate the consummate Washington insider and backroom dealer.
…heck, is Tom Delay available for VP?
Come on, people.
The problem with Huntsman is, that despite an impressive resume and great ability, he has contempt for a broad swatch of Republicans and did not hesitate to use a word like “idiot” when speaking of a voter who didn’t understand what Mormons believe. He is an utter snob and lacks the common touch. When Perry stumbled badly, Huntsman’s campaign manager quipped, “I guess he has electile dysfunction.” It’s that sort of tone that permeates his campaign, and people sense it.
That’s a great line. Why can’t he have a candidate who has a sense of humor? Since when is wit a vice?
Well, if Huntsman ran as a Republican he might get a look from the GOP base.
But since he’s running as a Democrat in the GOP primaries, one who not only believes in the fraud of AGW, but who belittles those who do not worship at the altar of that cult as being “anti-science” (I guess that means the heads of climate science at MIT, UCSB, the 1973 American Nobel awardee in physics, and thousands of other real, actual, working climate scientists, all of whom know AGW is a fraud, all are anti-science), then, no, Huntsman neither will, nor will deserve to, get another look from the base.
If America wants a cap-n-trade fool in search of an agenda to tax the wealthy to redistribute to the lazy, we already have Obama.
“Well, if Huntsman ran as a Republican he might get a look from the GOP base But since he’s running as a Democrat in the GOP primaries….”
Wasn’t he running as a Republican? NOW he decides to tell the truth?
Fool me once, shame on you. –except that he didn’t even fool the first time. So why would he get a look form the GOP base if he now switched back to running as a Republican again?
I can’t believe anyone takes this charlatan seriously, but then again there’s people that think Obama and all his promises of hope and change is for real, too.
Clearly participants in this recent “poll/election”in NW see Gov. Huntsman as a viable candidate.
Who will win the 2012 New Hampshire Primary? (Exp. 12-2-11)
Mitt Romney (21%, 807 Votes)Newt Gingrich (20%, 798 Votes)Ron Paul (19%, 752 Votes)Jon Hunstman (18%, 718 Votes)Hermain Cain (8%, 301 Votes)Gary Johnson (6%, 219 Votes)Rick Perry (4%, 167 Votes)Rick Santourm (3%, 125 Votes)Michele Bachmann (1%, 32 Votes)Total Voters: 3,919
Look for the upcoming “Lincoln-Douglas” style debate between Huntsman and Gingerich. That should give a clear indication not only who is better prepared to lead this country, but who is more likely to win against Obama. Remember Wm. Buckley’s admonition to vote for the most conservative candidate who can get elected. By that measure, Huntsman is the ONLY conservative who stands a chance of getting elected.
The challenge will be to mount to develop a campaign effort capable of carrying him forward. Favorable press articles alone, whether from mainstream liberal media or from proven conservative media (not including Rush, Beck, et al.), will not be sufficient. Are conservatives ready to take up the challenge and support Huntsman if he breaks through in NH?
Club for Growth, cited above:
“Utah’s main health reform contained no individual mandate, no employer mandate, and has very limited regulatory authority…”
The operative word in this sentence is “Utah.” Such a plan could never have passed in Massachusetts, irrespective of what Romney proposed. And Huntsman probably could not ever have been elected in Massachusetts.
I agree Republican voters need to take a second look at Huntsman. Too many voters want the candidate equivalent of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck – i.e. someone who goes for the jugular whenever possible. Those guys might work if the election was taking place among only conservatives, but to win you have to win over some independents. That doesn’t mean you have to compromise your conservatism, but you have to moderate your temperament. Look to VA’s Gov. Bob McDonnell for an example of a conservative without the temperament problems.
There is a trace of self-defeating conservative purity about these comments: a trivial abhorrence of Romney Lite, or lack of conservative intensity, or writing love letters to Obama, etc. Huntsman is an intelligent and reasonable conservative with an impressive record who will, I think, prove an excellent candidate and president. If conservatives want to win in 2012, they should set aside their purist contentions, or else they will succeed in nominating a weak candidate who is no match for the Great Rhetorician, or provoke someone like Ron Paul to lead a third party effort. The result will be, Welcome to Obama’s Second Term.
Gosh, why hasn’t the base thought of that?
Gee – we could nominate a moderate, northeast Republican from the Rockefeller wing of the GOP.
How cool would that be? Just like Ford, Dole, McCain……
C’mon….be realistic.
Ford lost because of Watergate and because he pardoned Nixon.
Dole lost because of Perot (like GHWB) and because Clinton slid to the middle.
McCain lost from the economic fallout and people’s politically correct feel-goodness.
There is no ideological similarity in these guys and no reason to swing to the far right (and lose) because of them.
or Bush I and Bush II, Eisenhower. Even Nixon and Reagan were much more moderate than their rhetoric suggested.
Since when are Kansas or Arizona (or even Michigan) in the Northeast?
PS
Maybe his daughters can do some more of those touching “Vote For Our Dad” YouTube videos.
THAT should swing things in his favor!
Huntsman hasn’t been able to pull a respectable poll number since he announced.
He used to work for Obama.
The MSM adores him.
That’s all we need to know.
He hasn’t been able to pull respectable poll numbers because too many folks are committing the same error as you describe here: refusing to go past a superficial and irrational “assessment” that being ambassador to China and being favorably reviewed by a few journalists taints him to such a degree that you won’t even consider the rest of his record or, what the above article recommends, consider the policies he advocates.
that’s all we need to know, really?
Why don’t you stop blindly following the pack and actually look at the substance of his stances?
This is a weak field and Huntsman has been running a horrible campaign by not emphasizing his historical conservative bona fides. Another plus is that he does not appear to be a neocon, which has been plague on the GOP. A candidate’s history is what is important, and not just current rhetoric. That pretty much eliminates Romney and Gingrich, but not Huntsman The rest of the field are hung up on fringe issues that are killers for the GOP, except for Ron Paul, who I like very much but he is just too extreme. Conservatives were badly burned by W, who very nearly destroyed the GOP and did everything he could to bankrupt the country. We would run the risk of another W with both Romney and Gingrich. I do not buy into the meme of the oligarchy that I have to vote for another oligarch, whether Dem or GOP. Thus, I often exercise my rights by not voting for anyone. At this point, I see Huntsman as the only person who might get my vote in the general. I do, however, favor Ron Paul in the primaries to nudge the GOP in the right direction for the future. That strategy worked well in 2008, because the GOP has moved a long way in Paul’s direction since.
As a Brit I cannot claim to be an expert but I admire US and read a lot. I think
Huntsman, apart from his AGW position, is a superb candidate. But he has failed to sell himself. That lack of the killer instinct to connect with people emotionally is important. I would not be surprised, however, if he became a VP one day, perhaps with Christie?
Agree~ Well put.
Am just now taking a look at this guy, really for the first time. Better than advertised perhaps…
Sadly about half of eligible voters “exercise their rights by not voting for anyone.” This means you voluntarily hand elections to the voters who care…and this has resulted in increasingly polarized Congresses who no longer feel it is their responsibility to actually legislate, but seek to remain ideologically pure at the expense of critical issues like the (for many years now) looming social security crisis. You abdicate your voice and wonder why you can’t find a candidate you like? Shame on you…
Huntsman = Romney Lite.
Do you really think this? because Romney may be the most left swaying candidate that i can think of. with this comment you sound dumb, and unintelligent, please do not vote because you do not have the IQ.
Bull. Romney is actually much “liter”. Why don’t you read the article and multiple others that have been written by conservatives about Huntsman’s record? Romney is the lite-one here. Newt Gingrich would be a disaster as the GOP nominee, virtually assuring a 2nd term for Obama. No disheartened democrat or independent will EVER vote for him and when Nancy Pelosi drops her “bomb” about Newt, it’s all over. JON HUNTSMAN 2012.
All these same things can be said of Perry. Texas is a conservative state with a conservative government helped made so by Commissioner, Lt. Governor, and Governor Perry. And while I think the man needs polish, its hard to argue with results.
What is wrong with you people?
“Anyway, lots of Republicans right now would love a 2012 presidential nominee like Thatcher, one so obviously smart and passionate about the virtue and necessity of economic freedom. They don’t want only to beat Barack Obama, but also rhetorically beat and bury Obamanomics, the latest incarnation of the same wealth-distribution ideology that had infected Thatcher’s Britain back then, almost fatally.”
It may come as a shock to you, but the wealth-distribution ideology of Obamanomics is similar to the same FDRonomics that produced the greatest profusion of wealth ever created on a wide scale basis on Earth, and did so elevating an entire population of people to a level their forebears never knew.
On the other hand, Reaganomics and Hayek have created a dismal morass of a weak economy that has been in and our of recession on an almost monthly basis and has teetered not only on the brink of depression but total melt-down.
Economics is human nature playing with real money. If Human nature were benevolent and just, we wouldn’t need laws. Similarly, the human creature needs to have regulations when it comes to finances because left to our own devices we’re greedy little snips.
In order for an economy and government to function properly, that that’s got got to give, even if it hurts. Selfishness is not a virtue, no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig.
On what planet do you reside?
Those problems of human nature are exactly why the government should be as small as possible. Their job is simply to protect people from those who would do them harm. Give them trillions of dollars to play with and you are unleashing all of the evils of human nature and putting it in the hands of politicians drunk with power. You are giving the most money and the most power to the most corrupt among us. I’ll take Bill Gates directing his own money to charity over Barack Obama directing it to his campaign contributors any day of the week.
For generations, up to the 1930s, America had probably the world’s most dynamic economy. Then the Depression,then FDR’s policies, which showed no results (and some argue prolonged the recession.) Then an immense stimulus program called WWII, which ended abruptly in 1945, which was followed by the kind of prosperity seen prior to the Depression. On these facts, you claim such prosperity to be the fruit of FDR’s programs. How ridiculous; how pathetic. Grow up.
… and naturally, we should be grateful to have wizened intellectuals such as yourself to promulgate those regulations that us “greedy little snips” need.
But seriously, FDRonomics “produced the greatest profusion of wealth ever created on a wide scale basis on Earth”? Really? The economy was worse in 1937 than it was in 1929. Recovery didn’t begin until World War II.
I guess we are left to wonder then why FDR’s brilliant policies didn’t rescuscitate the economy from the Great Depression a little sooner than EIGHT YEARS after FDR took office.
You are right. FDRism can easily be interpretetd as a failure. It is widely recognised that it was war and re-armament of Britain that gave the shot in the arm to US manufacturing. I am a Brit so thank my ancestors!
Actually, WWII was simply a change in form of the Great Depression. Until the War, there were quality goods in good supply, just no one had the money to buy. During the war, there was nothing to buy, but “money” was plentiful. Goods in reasonable supply and money to buy with didn’t occur until 1948-1950. The Depression lasted from 1929 until about 1949–20 years.
WWII took about 15m young men off the unemployment roles, put them in uniform, sent them off to get shot at, some killed, others maimed for life. But–it did nicely solve the “unemployment” problem.
So–presided over 10+ years of economic misery, led us into the biggest war the US has ever been in–got 250K young men (mostly) killed and he is a hero to the Left. Go figure.
Actually, got 418,000 killed.
So what you are actually saying is…
(1) Man is fallen and a good society needs wise and just laws and rules – which we singularly have failed to do given subprime etc etc. I agree.
(2) That ALL economics is not immutable, but rather depends on the context, on the precise circumstances. The implication is that Reaganomics or FDRism works sometimes, not others. I agree. Economists forlornly try to predict but cannot do so. We simply do not know for sure what will work.
But this does not help in choosing the future path, and the next President.
Ethan has apparently never opened any books about the USA economy or about FDR. When FDR was president he PROLONGED the depression just as Obama is doing now.
The article claims Huntsman would “rather move beyond Obama’s obvious policy failures and talk about where the nation needs to go. Focus on solutions.”
Focus on solutions? That is the biggest bunch of malarkey yet this election cycle. If you listen to Huntsman at the debates, never will you hear a candidate say so many words while communicating so little. He describes almost everything as a “human tragedy” but can’t emote his way out of a paper bag. Only Herman Cain rivaled Huntsman’s ability to be vacuous.
“Growing up a 99 percenter…” — this is how you want to advertise Huntsman’s a conservative? OWS rhetoric is not going to close a sale with the GOP base.
“Of course, conservatives would sure like more details about Huntsman’s views on dealing with climate change.” — No, we’re not interested in the details. We know he favors a cap & trade scheme. We’re not interested because we believe that anthropogenic global warming is bunk, period.
“And just how would he match defense cuts that might reduce spending to Clinton-era levels with superpower America’s global commitments and power-projection capabilities? A lot more clarity is needed there.” — Actually, more clarity isn’t necessary. His foreign policy is essentially a diet-version of Ron Paul’s. He wants to roll back the military (keeping about 1/10th of our current forces in Afghanistan), but he won’t use the “It’s all America’s fault” rhetoric while doing it. He prefers drone strikes to COIN.
“Heavy fire. But a good amount of the flack Huntsman has taken from the right seems more about form than function. Accepting Obama’s offer to go to Beijing” — If you’ve read Huntsman’s letters to Obama and Clinton, he’s practically fawning over the Obama administration. He calls Obama a remarkable leader, praises his handle on world events, and sounds off like a committed Democrat. One can only infer that’s because he agrees with the policies and approach of the Obama administration. That is a substantive concern, and there is a place and a party for such people. The GOP isn’t it.
“Yet the policies Huntsman advocates, if implemented, would usher in a conservative, free-market, small-government revolution that no Tea Party member could help but applaud.” — Have you ever met a Tea Partier? How many do you hear claiming health care is a right, or who want cap and trade? How many favor civil unions for homosexuals?
It doesn’t surprise me that this comes from AEI. They perceive Conservatism only in the form of tax cuts.
I have been a strong conservative Republican for more than 50 years. I worked for Berry Goldwater in his campaign. I am a member of the pro-business, libertarian wing of the Republican party that believes in small government with limited regulations. I am totally opposed to the extreme religious right party members that want to impose their religious views on the party which turns off the independents, the American majority, who actually elect the President. a I have researched all the Republican candidates and Jon Huntsman is the best canditate for the of President. No one else has the diplomatic experience which is probably the most important job of the Chief Executive. I also have no problems with any of his conservative credentials, they are very close to mine.
“I am a member of the pro-business, libertarian wing of the Republican party that believes in small government with limited regulations. I am totally opposed to the extreme religious right party members that want to impose their religious views on the party which turns off the independents”
Then I am totally opposed to you, sir, because a politician without a moral foundation is worthless. To favor legal abortion is to favor an unconscionable genocide that must not be permitted. To favor civil unions is to favor an incrementalism that is designed to set the foundation for undermining marriage — the one institution we have dedicated to child-rearing. To favor drug legalization is to favor the ability to sacrifice self-control and thus personal responsibility by giving up control over motor function, giving into skewed perception, and allowing addiction to overtake the human psyche.
To say that you are pro-business and anti-regulation means what exactly? Do you favor the practice of “tying” goods and services to one another (not the same as bundling) just so long as the government is not involved? Do you have no problem with monopolies? Does unequal trade disturb you? What do you think of the civil rights act prohibiting racial discrimination in hiring? Should companies be obligated to replace, repair, or refund faulty goods or services? Should they be held liable for consumer or worker harm, such as incidents like Deepwater Horizon when a rig was knowingly operated in an unsafe manner?
Having no conscience and thinking that those culpable for harm should suffer no consequences doesn’t make you a conservative. You worry about turning off independents. I’d suggest you look in the mirror.
As for Huntsman himself, he doesn’t match up with you particularly well, especially when it comes to both healthcare being a right, and cap & trade. If those don’t disturb you, then not only are you not a conservative, you’re not even a libertarian. You’re merely another liberal, posing to be something else.
So, no abortion allowed? Even though up to 75% of the abortions in this country are done on low income minority women. You would like them to have more children? Sure, let’s expand our social services programs and throw more money at people who drag down our society. Unless of course you’re proposing they just wander the streets and beg? That works well with your attack on cap & trade. Those begging poor, uneducated, one-parent kids can beg or mug people near polluted rivers and factories that spew crap into our environment. Is your vision for America something like Haiti or Bangladesh? Sure sounds like it. moron.
By your logic, should we exterminate Africans? I’m being serious. They’re by-and-large diseased, poor, and have lives mired in misery. So on that basis you’re deciding to snuff people out? How charitable of you. It’s the poorest justification for murder I’ve ever heard. But it’s good to see that you think others should die because otherwise they might present a financial liability.
Regarding the particulars of my abortion position, I look for brainwaves — it’s the essential element of human personhood. I can cut off a hand or an arm of a person, but that person is still a person. The irreducible element of a human being is the mind, and the empirical sign of the presence of a mind is the brain at work — that’s brainwaves, and that occurs about 40 days into a pregnancy. Past that, I only make an exception for the life of the mother.
Your vision for America sounds like the Mayans. Human sacrifice galore!
The religious right has destroyed the GOP brand, and no one needs your religious claptrap to have a moral foundation.
Actually, I happen to be an atheist who has the most profound respect for the religious right. And they haven’t destroyed the GOP brand. They’re the only ones keeping it respectable. If it weren’t for the religious right, we’d have 2 parties bent on “population control” a la China, and we’d glorify adultery and betrayal until it rotted out our society and collapsed. Marriage and parenting would be even bigger jokes than they are now, with it being commonplace to accept the idea of rights without responsibilities, and that children would be abandoned in even greater numbers than they are now.
The religious right is the lone bulwark that has prevented the United States from turning into Brave New World. I thank them fully.
No one needs your responsibility-free claptrap. Get your civil law to comply with moral law, enforce that law, and you’ll find that you have a rather nice place to live.
Question, please describe a situation in foreign policy that you think Obama did not handle it well?
“He calls Obama a remarkable leader, praises his handle on world events, and sounds off like a committed Democrat. One can only infer that’s because he agrees with the policies and approach of the Obama administration. That is a substantive concern, and there is a place and a party for such people. The GOP isn’t it.”
I am also a “patriot” yet I agree with most of the forgien policy of the current administration. There is a difference you know between forgein and domestic policies.
No, Conservatism is not just about tax cuts you are right, although in this election, it appears that is what everyone wants to talk about.
Please read some of Huntsman’s stuff before you judge further
Also who do you purpose as an alternative?
IHSV
“Question, please describe a situation in foreign policy that you think Obama did not handle it well?”
Answer:
Iran
Iraq
Afghanistan
Libya
Egypt
Tunisia
Israel
Greece
France
Germany
Russia
China
Mexico
Canada
Shall I continue?
countries are not situations. why don’t you read up on some current events before posting nonsense.
ShawnH,
Here are a few foreign policy situations Obama handled badly:
1.) Missile Defense — Obama sold out both Czechoslovakia and Poland, with whom we had missile defense agreements to Russia, and did so on the anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Poland. Given that under Bush we had been developing alliances with these people, this is an example of royally screwing up.
2.) Honduras – Manuel Zelaya was seeking to gain the authority to become a lifelong ruler of Honduras. The military ousted him as the Honduran constitution prohibits such activity. Naturally, Obama sided with Zelaya.
3.) Brazilian Oil – Obama has fought our own development of offshore drilling tooth and nail. However, he’s also told the Brazilian government that he wants the US to become their best customer, and even loaned money to the Brazilian government so they can drill in the Gulf of Mexico — exactly what he’s trying to stop our own companies from doing!
4.) The Falklands – Obama said that Britain should give the Falklands over to Argentina. Argentina has had a long-standing dispute over the Falklands with Britain, even though they’ve had no historical presence, and the islands were uninhabited until British colonization. Argentina merely desires them due to regional proximity. Obama has no business doing such a thing.
5.) Israel – Obama has lectured Israel about expanding housing in Jerusalem, which is controlled by Israel itself. He has told Israel that they should return to their 1967 borders. This is supremely arrogant. Should we return to our 1940 borders so that Hawaii is no longer a state? At least that way we can get rid of this disgrace for a President.
6.) Iran – Obama said that he would give the Iranians only 1 year to abandon their nuclear program, or else there would be serious consequences. Mind telling me where those consequences are? Also, why did he not speak out when he had the chance when Iranian youth were out protesting the regime?
7.) Guantanamo Bay – Obama has said he wanted everyone out of Gitmo by the end of his first year, and that he wanted civilian trials for everyone. This was simply a bad idea, and one that thankfully Congress has blocked him on. He’s been completely incoherent on who gets assassinated, and who gets trials. Hence we assassinate Awlaki (an American citizen), but heaven forbid we waterboard KSM? Huh?
8.) Egypt – Obama called for the ousting of Mubarak. I’m not sure if you looked at the electoral results that just came back, but the Muslim Brotherhood now has a plurality, followed by the Salafis (which makes the Muslim Brotherhood look tame by comparison). Add in the slaughter of Coptic Christians, and you want me to think that Obama’s had a great foreign policy? No thank you!
On the purely stylistic bits, add on the continuous bowing and apologizing for America around the world, as well as his inability to treat British leaders with any kind of competent hospitality, and blocking out with a hand-wave not one, but two different world leaders from photos of world leaders on separate occassions, and you have a remarkable embarassment.
The Falklands? Seriously? Your list is impressive and so vital for our national security. Obama got Osama. Bush did not, case closed. Use your research skills to check Obama’s record on deportations and drone attacks. He sucks at domestic policy but….
Actually, the CIA and Navy SEALs got bin Laden. Obama simply held the office of President when it happened.
You’ll notice that everything I have cited about Obama are things *he directly controls.* No one forced him to support Zelaya, much like no one forced him to pull out of our missile defense agreement.
Happening to occupy the Oval Office when we found bin Laden doesn’t make Obama a foreign policy visionary. It means he got plenty of adulation due to (1) dumb luck, and (2) making an easy (not gutsy) call. Had it come out that he let bin Laden go even though we knew where he was, we’d be discussing his impeachment instead. Thus, I’m not about to applaud him where at most infinitesimal credit is due.
I will give Obama credit for increasing the drone strikes and exercising judgment independent of Pakistan, although crediting him on deportations when he’s getting in the way of ICE (much like Bush did) won’t earn him any accolades from me.
That’s a really good post.
ShawnH,
Alex was good enough to list it, but I had forgotten about Operation Fast & Furious, where we allowed guns to walk across the border to Mexico without informing the Mexican government about it. Those weapons were then found at crime scenes in Mexico. That’s a brilliant way to undermine relations with a country.
Additionally, it was later discovered that we’ve also been laundering money for the cartels, again, in a fiasco of an effort to catch “the big fish.” When it comes to the international drug trade, I think it’s possible to have a better foreign policy than arming and funding drug cartels.
How you can say that you agree with most of the Obama’s foreign policy flummoxes me.
You are no “patriot”. You are a right wing divisive extremist who is letting your hatred and aggression color your judgement. If you were really a conservative, you would be truly pro-life and would not want to see lives wasted in wars we cannot ever win, and respect somebody who has way more foreign policy and worldly experience than you do, has lived in several third world countries, including those whose economies threaten to rival ours, and who is intelligent and not afraid to express his opinions like a gentleman. And who the heck cares about civil unions? We have way more important issues to discuss than that stupid topic……that’s not my business and needs to be left to the “individual” or the states, Mr. Anti-Big Federal Government hypocrite.
“If you were really a conservative, you would be truly pro-life and would not want to see lives wasted in wars we cannot ever win”
To the extent that I am pro-life, I am pro *innocent* life. As such, I favor the death penalty and I favor the overthrow of dictators who violate human rights with impunity. As for not being able to win wars, who controls Afghanistan right now? Karzai, not the Taliban. Who controls Iraq? Maliki, not Saddam. Were they won without setbacks or sacrifices? No. But they were won and making claims to the contrary suggests to me that you have little interest in American well-being, but simply wish to rant against war. That doesn’t make you intellectually developed or mature. It just makes you prone to incessant whining.
“And who the heck cares about civil unions? We have way more important issues to discuss than that stupid topic”
I do. And I agree that there are more important issues. But a well-developed mind should be capable of tackling multiple issues. It’s not a matter of whether or not it’s “your business.” It’s an issue as to what sort of contracts / institutions get governmental promotion and why.
I’m not anti-big government or anti-Federal government. I’m not a Federalist, nor do I particularly like the idea of states rights. I see it allowing for multiple standards of right and wrong, which nearly tore the country apart over slavery, and which should not continue. In short, I find your charge of hypocrisy laughable.
Use whatever insults you will. All I ask is that you introduce evidence to support them.
I always wonder at the intellect of people who can’t see the difference between killing the innocent and killing the guilty.
No – they perceive Conservatism in the form of limited, Constitutional government. Said government – as described in the Constitution, interestingly enough, doesn’t need all the taxes it takes today because the money taken from the private sector is spent on stuff that is NOT within the federal government’s Constitutional duties.
Tax cuts are to get the government back in the box established by American’s founders. If you don’t like that box, amend the Constitution to create a box you like.
But as long as the Govt is allowed to take huge sums from the private sector to do stuff not its role within our Constitutional, limited government, then COnservatives will support tax CUTS as the only way to return to limited, Constitutional government of, by and for the people.
Progs don’t udnerstand this. Therefore they take as much as they think they need, regardless of the capacity, willingness or Constitutional authority to do so – mostly to buy votes (check voting patterns in any precinct against the amount of income derived from government in that precinct) – and then get all hot-n-bothered when adults want to cut taxes.
It isn’t about tax cuts; it’s about freedom. Starving the beast is the way to get there.
Favoring tax cuts is a completely misguided approach to achieve said end. The idea behind that is to “starve the beast.” The only problem is that the so-called beast isn’t fed through tax revenue. It’s fed through spending.
Insisting on tax cuts won’t generate a return to the Constitution or strict constructionism. If you want that, you need judges in the appropriate positions of power. All it will do is put the United States in a precarious financial position that will result in continuous deadlock between two partisan sides, neither willing to give an inch, that will result in default, the collapse of the dollar, and in turn, the dissolution of the United States.
Another good post. Spending is the root of all federal govt evil – including “money in politics”.
Big Money buys pols because those pols have the ability to bestow largesse or do great favors – and that is because we have allowed the federal govt to become far too big and have too many powers. Remove those powers, and there is dramatically less for sale to the highest bidder. Expanding the federal govt simply brings more Big Money into the game.
Spending is identical to raising taxes – just later. So, all those libs who love spending – and payroll tax cuts and unemployment benefit extensions – actually want to raise taxes on the future citizens – take the money now and let someone else pay for their party later.
Governor Huntsman is perceived as Republican Light. His record is formidable but he has not shown zeal or clarity in stating his position. He has been reluctant to go after Obama’s destructive leftist-socialist governance thus resurrecting memories of the disastrous McCain campaign.
I believe that behind this veil is a legitimate aspirant. In spite of what might happen to the contrary in IA and NH, the rest of the field, as with Cain, will be measured for what they present and begin to fall away. If Huntsman is astute, he can take advantage.
“Governor Huntsman is perceived as Republican Light. His record is formidable…”
The Liberals among us doth protest too much when it comes to insisting on Huntsman’s Conservative bone fides and indeed his very legitimacy as a candidate.
But when someone’s “fomidable” record as as conservative includes funneling twenty-five thousand dollars through family members to help Harry Reid win re-election and help the Democrats retain control of the Senate, I wonder how much more damage anyone who WASN’T as solid a conservative and a legitimate aspirant as Huntsman could do of they they REALLY wanted to screw conservatives!
http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2011/jun/22/huntsmans-family-gave-nearly-25000-reid-last-cycle/
If he were astute, he would have higher poll numbers now…
After Obama riding the coat tails of Nancy Pelosi’s gleeful disregard of the minority presence of the Republican party in Congress…a diplomatic President is exactly what we need to bring a polarized Congress back to a place where they can work together to conduct the business of the people. A diplomatic President would have exercised some leadership over an evenly divided supercommittee. A diplomatic President would have heard the voice of the people (and Congress) and not rammed any kind of program down the throats of the American people. A diplomatic President would not bow to any other world leader, but would treat them with appropriate respect and improve the image of the U.S. worldwide. A diplomatic and consistently conservative President is exactly what our country needs right now.
Sir, you are giving too much responsibility to the president, please go read the constitution and understand the branches of government before speaking about American politics again. I promise it is for your own good
Shawn H – fully understand coequal branches of govt…but are you trying to imply that the President’s agenda has nothing to do with the work that gets done by Congress? That Obama didn’t have anything to do with the passage of the healthcare plan? That a president can’t exercise (partisan or non-partisan) leadership and influence congressional decisions? Please understand history before critiquing others….
My issue with Huntsman is his professed belief in AGW.
There are only 3 reasons to believe in AGW.
1) Money – Al Gore was worth $100Million, and if cap+trade ever passes he will be an instant CO2 billionaire. Another example, look at all the politically connected heavily invested in companies like Solyndra – had cap+trade passed, these people would be sitting on a gold mine. But since it didn’t, we the taxpayers are bailing out the companies so those people can get out while recovering their investments.
2) Ignorance – Most of the people who believe in AGW, know little or nothing of the actual theory. They only know what their political team captains tell them. Go up to an AGW proponent and ask them if they understand the CO2 theory, and they will say “yes”. Then ask them “According to the AGW theory, what ‘greenhouse gas’ will increase trapping large amounts of energy, leading to significant temperature increases?” – 100% will say “CO2″, which is incorrect. The correct answer, which anyone who understands the simplest parts of the theory would know, is ‘water vapor’. The basis of the theory is that the Earth climate is very stable. And that an increase in CO2 (which is a very weak GHG) will result in a small amount of heating. This small amount of heating will result in increased evaporation, which will result in creased amounts of water vapor (which is a much better GHG) in the atmosphere. Which will create a positive feedback resulting in increased evaporation, and so forth.
3) The third, and most scary proponents of AGW are the ideologists. These are people like john Holdren (Obama’s science czar) who wants to ‘de-develop the United States’, and Steven Chu who says – “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” – (that would be around $8-$10 per gallon!) – that would do some serious ‘de-development”!
Non of the 3 seasons to promote AGW are good. Huntsman has come out as a proponent of AGW, and therefore he MUST fall into one of those categories, and that in and of it’s self should be enough to omit him from any consideration!
“Al Gore was worth $100Million” – don’t know what happened, this should have been, “Al Gore was worth $2Million when he left office, and is now worth $100Million”
Unfortunately, you’ve completely ignored the voice of our National Academy of Sciences, in which a consensus 98% of scientists professionally trained in climatology, geology, meteorology, and all other pertinent fields of earth science assert the veracity of AGW. Furthermore, the remaining 2% are not contrarians, but have failed to reject the null hypothesis (i.e., data is inconclusive).
You may squawk all you like about the political fallout, but to deny AGW is to repudiate science.
Found that moist air in the equitorial upper atmosphere yet?
And science has never ever been wrong. So as long as you have a majority consensus, you will be in the truth. Definitely.
The national academy of sciences is an organization where to be a member you have to be nominated by an existing member. I highly doubt they’re nominating a lot of scientists who disagree with their “religion”.
Ummm.. NOPE.
1973 Nobel Laureate in Physics: AGW is bunk
UCSB Physics prof, member for 60 years of APS: “Frauds on a scale never before seen.”
MIT head of climatology: “AGW evidence makes Creationist arguments sound rigorous by comparison.”
2,000 IPCC Climate scientists, don’t forget, wrote the Bali letter to the IPCC telling them that, no, the science in the body of the IPCC report did NOT support AGW; that the AGW nonsense was written ONLY in the Exec Summary, that part of the report written by govt bureaucrats.
NASA, CRU and all other climate databases have been corrupted to provide a pre-ordained answer to a theory that was collapsing under its own weight.
And the Hockey Stick? Insert ANY set of random numbers into it instead of temerature readings…. you get the same hockey stick. It was rhetorically destroyed in the same magazine that first published it. It’s all hokum, start-to-finish.
So, no, real climate scientists do NOT support the AGW nonsense, and if you were honest, you’d go verify what I wrote and, if you really believe in science and not politics, return here and apologize for your ignorance.
The idea that Huntsman is a conservative is laughable! I live in Utah where he supposedly was very popular as governor. The truth is he was not popular at all with conservatives. Huntsman went against his state in 2008 when he endorsed McCain for president before Utah’s GOP primary where Romney later won 90% of Republicans vote in Utah. Huntsman also was alway pushing green initiatives that if imposed would have stopped one of the most robust economy’s in the country in its track. Huntsman pushed “Lights off Utah” which asked Utahns to turn off all their lights for one hour (absurdity) and thought we should do it once a month. Huntsman is a weenie who has no core. He’s been handed everything to him by daddy or on his fathers merits.
Oh no!!!!!!!! He asked people from Utah to turn out the lights for one hour a month!!!!!!???? You are part of the reason conservatives have a bad name right now. That is not a big deal at all, haven’t you ever heard of “picking your battles” is that the one you choose to fight? That he asked people to use less electricity for an hour a month! You sir, push me farther to the left. Common sense has evaded your line of logic.
Get over yourself. The idea that the governor of a state would ask people to turn off their lights for an hour is ridiculous and has nothing to do with common sense. Common sense would dictate that if you can’t pay your electric bill you turn the lights off and turn down the heat in the winter and turn up the AC in the summer.
The governor should have been saying “lets find more energy in Utah so people can leave their lights on 24 hours a day if they want to”.
Whats wrong with conservation? Should everyone leave the tap water running just because we can? And if we run out of water, don’t shut off the taps….just find more water.
There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to conserve natural resources, even if it is small like the govenor suggested. Unbridled use of resources as republicans often encourage is a turnoff to many independents.
Tyler: Good idea!
If one hour a month isn’t enough to satisfy Krugman and Obama and Pelosi and their ilk, we can turn them off one day a week.. then one week a month…
Pretty soon our economy would rival Kazakhstan’s! What a deal!
Do liberals just hate thinking? Is that it? I can’t explain what you guys write any other way: Luddism, Malthusian projections, hysterical ahistorical diatribes – what IS it with you people, anyway?
Look: All the facts in the world support conservatism; none of the facts in the world support Progressivism. Doesn’t matter if you like it or not.
Can you guys just, you know, open your minds, inject a little diversity in your thinking, broaden your views and tolerate new ideas once-in-a-while?
Why not? You are SOOOO reactionary these days.
Yes, but his policies relative to defense and foreign policy are quite important and it is interesting that you didn’t address them. The appeal of his fiscal approach could be somewhat offset if he advocates drastic cuts to our military and appeasement with our enemies. I suspect that is the reason why you left that out of this article.
Sorry, not supporting anyone who writes love letters to BHO.
The woman in the photograph is U.S. Senator Paula Hawkins of Florida, not Nancy Reagan.
The well-sourced profile by Michael Brennen Dougherty (American Conservative, August 24)
offers valuable perspectives about Huntsman that seem to have largely gone unnoticed.
Or conveniently ignored.
Jon Huntsman, the No-Drama Conservative
The former Utah governor speaks like a diplomat, but he’s no moderate.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/jon-huntsman-the-no-drama-conservative/
Quoting Greg Hughes, the majority whip in Utah’s conservative House of Representatives:
‘ “…I have an easy rule of thumb,” says Hughes summing up his feelings on Huntsman. “If someone walks into the room and you cut $400 million in taxes and do school reform with him, you vote for him for president.” He turns fiercely protective of Huntsman’s credentials whenever a conservative outside Utah uses the word “moderate” to describe him.
“There’s a style he has that gets misinterpreted, and that’s a diplomatic style,” says Hughes, “he has reached out to all Utahns, and some people have mistaken his diplomatic approach for being a moderate. If you get to know the guy, his rudder is in the water.” Hughes has a point. For the past two decades a “moderate” Republican was one who generally didn’t side with his party on three issues: taxes, guns and abortion. Huntsman’s record on those isn’t just to the right of other moderates, it is to the right of most conservatives.’
Highly recommended.
John Huntsman, the No-Drama Non-Conservative
The former Utah governor speaks like a diplomat, but lies like a dog on a rug.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/ralstons-flash/2011/jun/22/huntsmans-family-gave-nearly-25000-reid-last-cycle/
Thanks for this. Especially the form v. function note. Even if I wasn’t a Huntsman fan, it would bother me to see the dissonance between his actual positions and the Republican-in-name-only label that’s been applied by many of the blogs. Maybe this piece will give Erik Erikson some cover to renounce his prior position, thereby allowing his readership to give Huntsman an actual look. Again, thanks for the reasonable and substantive treatment.