Conservatives: What's not to like about Jon Huntsman?

[Direckshun]

This guy has a good track record as governor, has actual foreign policy experience, is incredibly likeable and pragmatic with bipartisan credentials, and is totally composed on the stage.

What's not to like? I am obviously not the GOP's demographic here, but I think he is far and away the strongest candidate on that stage.

Yet he's polling in the single digits.

(This is a thread primarily for conservatives and those who usually vote GOP. I think my fellow liberals will have a harder time pegging why conservatives refuse to flock to him.)

[Taco John]

I think Huntsman is pretty well positioned. He splits the difference between Romney and Paul better than Rick Perry did, and when the GOPers in Iowa who were in love with Bachmann, then with Perry, then with Cain, and now with Gingrich wake up, they're going to wander either to Paul or Huntsman. That said, Huntsman has to come in at least third to make any headway. NH is probably already lost for him - how could he possibly come in third there?

[Jawshco]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I think Huntsman is pretty well positioned. He splits the difference between Romney and Paul better than Rick Perry did, and when the GOPers in Iowa who were in love with Bachmann, then with Perry, then with Cain, and now with Gingrich wake up, they're going to wander either to Paul or Huntsman. That said, Huntsman has to come in at least third to make any headway. NH is probably already lost for him - how could he possibly come in third there?

I agree. The fact that he does split that difference and is a more reasonable candidate than Newt and Cain is very appealing to me. I really like Paul, but a couple of the things he said tonight scared me a bit.

The first caucus isn't until January 3rd. I think he still has time. Sure it would need to be a meteoric rise in popularity, but he did good tonight and could ride this momentum into that. Herman Cain rose and fell fairly quickly. I'm not sure why Huntsman couldn't do the same. As long as he deemphasizes his religious and global warming beliefs- I see no reason that he'd lack support. I thought Newt's stance on immigration really left the door open for Huntsman who was taking a more conservative approach on that topic.

[Bo's Pelini]

Originally Posted by Royal Fanatic

Conservatives don't like Huntsman for many of the same reasons they don't like Romney. He's a Mormon, and his views aren't far enough to the right. He's not a creationist, and he has stated that he trusts scientists on the issue of global warming.

He would destroy Obama in the general election. Sadly, he won't get a chance to do that, because the same people who think Obama=Romney will also say Obama=Huntsman.




.

Not true with me I like Huntsman but I like Paul even more.

[jjjayb]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

This guy has a good track record as governor, has actual foreign policy experience, is incredibly likeable and pragmatic with bipartisan credentials, and is totally composed on the stage.

What's not to like? I am obviously not the GOP's demographic here, but I think he is far and away the strongest candidate on that stage.

Yet he's polling in the single digits.

(This is a thread primarily for conservatives and those who usually vote GOP. I think my fellow liberals will have a harder time pegging why conservatives refuse to flock to him.)

Does foreign policy experience really matter?

[LOCOChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I'm rewatching the debate because I DVR'd it (because I'm a glutton for punishment), and Huntsman and Paul are the only people who are complete command of what they're talking about.

Gingrich comes close, but then he says things like "we can make the price of oil plummet globally if we just drill everywhere".

I really, really like what Huntsman proposes for conservativism. A saner, less dogmatic conservativism that doesn't give a shit about talk ****ing radio. It's fantastic and it provides the necessary counterweight to liberalism.

At least that's where I come from. But again, I'm not the target demographic.

A liberal trying to intelligently discuss conservative ideas, principals and views is like a vegetarian reviewing steak houses. Also I can't imagine that you "really really like what Huntsman proposes for conservatism" but rather for republicans and you are neither.

I'm afraid you're in the wrong locker room little girl.

[FD]

I think this National Review writer does a good job summing it up. When you look at Huntsman's record and policies he's one of the most conservative guys in the race, but his demeanor is that of a diplomat. He doesn't have the anger/killer instinct in him that the GOP base wants in their candidate right now.

Huntsman: Too Nice to Be President?
Can the former governor’s even-keeled style win in a red-meat era?

If you were trying to put together the dream résumé of a Republican presidential contender, it might look something like this:

● Staff Assistant, Pres. Ronald Reagan

● Ambassador to Singapore

● Deputy U.S. Trade Representative

● Two-term governor, elected in two landslides

● Signed into law the largest tax cut in his state’s history
● From 2005 to 2010, his state’s economy expanded by 3.5 percent annually, second-fastest in the nation and three and a half times faster than the U.S. economy as a whole
● Enacted a health-care reform that raised the legal standard for malpractice claims

● Enacted the most expansive school-voucher program in the country and three pieces of pro-life legislation

● Married, seven children, two adopted

● A financial net worth that makes self-funding a possibility, or at least suggests that his campaign is unlikely to run low on cash

This résumé, of course, is that of Jon Huntsman Jr., former governor of Utah and until recently the U.S. ambassador to China.

Yet Huntsman is, at this early date, a distinct long shot for the Republican nomination. He polls in single digits nationally, and a recent poll of 481 Iowa Republicans found precisely one supporter. For a little-known candidate, he has surprisingly high negatives among Republicans in some key primary states. He has already attracted hard-hitting videos from some bloggers slamming him as insufficiently conservative.

Never has a candidate with such a sterling résumé faced such a steep climb for the nomination — probably because few presidential candidates have worked for their prospective opponent, at least in the modern era. (Thomas Jefferson had worked for John Adams, but this was back when the second-place finisher in the presidential election assumed the office of vice president; Gen. George McClellan worked for Abraham Lincoln; Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott worked for Franklin Pierce; William Howard Taft worked for Theodore Roosevelt. More recently, Colin Powell served for about a year under President Clinton, but he decided against a run in 1996.) At the time, Joe Klein and Andrew Sullivan, among others, declared that Huntsman’s accepting the appointment as President Obama’s ambassador to China would make it impossible for him to become the Republican nominee in 2012.

Huntsman says that in his meetings with voters in his not-quite-campaign stage, he has encountered criticism for his service under a Democratic president, but not often. “I can usually see it in their eyes when I meet them,” he says. “But it has come up much less frequently than I expected.”

He emphasizes his beliefs that as ambassador he was serving the country, not President Obama, and that there is in fact a broad bipartisan agreement on U.S.-China relations. He mentions occasional disagreements with President Obama on U.S. policy toward China, lamenting that at times he wished the president had emphasized American values as much as American interests, but Huntsman characterizes the differences as minor. (Shortly before leaving his post, Huntsman sharply criticized the Chinese government during a speech in Shanghai, denouncing the imprisonment of three high-profile activists.) He reiterates that his work with Obama was on this one bilateral relationship, and that he has significant differences with the overall vision of Obama’s foreign policy.

Most notably, Huntsman deeply disagrees with President Obama’s decision to take military action in Libya, declaring it not a “core national-security interest.” He wants to see a smaller footprint for the U.S. in Afghanistan. He echoes the complaint of most Republicans that in terms of foreign policy, Obama has been harder on America’s allies than on most hostile countries.

continued

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Bewbies

Conservatives don't like Romney either.

But they feel he is most electable—so support him anyway. Remember, it's who can beat Obama not a principled conservative—a Horse Race!

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Forward Dante

When you look at Huntsman's record and policies he's one of the most conservative guys in the race, but his demeanor is that of a diplomat. He doesn't have the anger/killer instinct in him that the GOP base wants in their candidate right now.

One thing I like about him. (Not his belief in both GW or Iran is getting a nuke.)
I had to leave a certain mag/link out because it makes me feel dirty.

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

This guy has a good track record as governor, has actual foreign policy experience, is incredibly likeable and pragmatic with bipartisan credentials, and is totally composed on the stage.

What's not to like? I am obviously not the GOP's demographic here, but I think he is far and away the strongest candidate on that stage.

Yet he's polling in the single digits.

(This is a thread primarily for conservatives and those who usually vote GOP. I think my fellow liberals will have a harder time pegging why conservatives refuse to flock to him.)

1). A liberal like yourself is pimpin him. That is reason enough. Do you think we are stupid?

[Calcountry]

Originally Posted by Bewbies

If you are an uber liberal and like a guy on the other side it should make sense that people who believe opposite of you would see things differently, yes?

I wish I would have read, just a bit further before posting.

[SNR]

His newest ad that will be aired over Thanksgiving weekend in NH:

[petegz28]

He isn't good media fodder. The guy is by far the most qualified but he conducts himself in a statesman like fashion and doesn't have any drama behind him so the Repubs will nominate a non-winner instead of a guy who if put side-side with Obama would blow Obamaout the door.

[SNR]

So other than his unwillingness to kill as many foreigners as the other candidates, what don't people like about him? He's still going to fund the military adequately and we're still going to kill terrorists. What's wrong with him? Some of you weirdos think he's ****ing Duncan Hunter for crying out loud.

[FD]

Originally Posted by SNR

So other than his unwillingness to kill as many foreigners as the other candidates, what don't people like about him? He's still going to fund the military adequately and we're still going to kill terrorists. What's wrong with him? Some of you weirdos think he's ****ing Duncan Hunter for crying out loud.

Ultimately I think a huge portion of why many write off Huntsman comes down to this tweet he sent a month ago:

To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy

That kind of talk just doesn't play well with a lot of GOP primary voters. Its given him the image of a moderate that he has yet to shake. I personally don't think either of those things are un-conservative, though.

[Bo's Pelini]

Originally Posted by Forward Dante

Ultimately I think a huge portion of why many write off Huntsman comes down to this tweet he sent a month ago:



That kind of talk just doesn't play well with a lot of GOP primary voters. Its given him the image of a moderate that he has yet to shake. I personally don't think either of those things are un-conservative.

That's so ****ing dumb. It's not like that belief comes into play much when you're the president.