• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Question: Why not Jon Huntsman?

The easy answer: He is waaay too reasonable for today's GOP.
 
disneydude said:
The easy answer: He is waaay too reasonable for today's GOP.
Click to expand...

He just looks reasonable in comparison. He's still very hard-right.

Huntsman is certainly not crazy, as much of the GOP field is. But he's also certainly not a moderate choice.

As much as people rail about Obama being a "socialist," he's really pretty moderate. He's considerably less liberal than me, and I'm pretty much smack in the middle of the liberal spectrum. He just looks socialist compared to the extreme reactionary GOP.
 
Huntsman is too electable. He could beat Obama.

This is why the GOP and TP don't want him.
 
Fiddytree said:
I quite honestly do not see that.
Click to expand...

- Extremely anti-abortion
- Pro voucher system for education
- His idea of "environmentally sound" energy projects would be drilling in sensitive US areas. Seriously, that's what his website says.
- Pro death penalty
- Weaken the approval system for pharma drugs
- No national healthcare, gut Medicare
- Weaken the EPA
- Roll back regulations in general
- Flat tax
- Cut corporate taxes
...I'm sure there's more.

See, this is the thing about a GOP that is pulled so far to the right. Huntsman doesn't look as far-right as he is by comparison.

He has some fairly moderate stances - he's ok with "civil unions," he's reasonable on immigration, and on the wars.

He also opposed the GOP effort to let America default. But think about that. Think about how insane a party has to be to make not wanting the country to default look like a moderate position.

Huntsman, in reality, is far-right. Far-right means regressivism. And Huntsman is regressive on several topics. He's just not as regressive as his competition.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
- Extremely anti-abortion
- Pro voucher system for education
- His idea of "environmentally sound" energy projects would be drilling in sensitive US areas. Seriously, that's what his website says.
- Pro death penalty
- Weaken the approval system for pharma drugs
- No national healthcare, gut Medicare
- Weaken the EPA
- Roll back regulations in general
- Flat tax
- Cut corporate taxes
...I'm sure there's more.
Click to expand...

He is not a proponent of the flat tax on the national level according to:

-Individual tax rates: 8%, 14%, 24%; corporate rate: 25%

There is plenty more to be excited about:

  • Eliminate loopholes & make code flatter & simpler.
  • Utah job growth at 5%; unemployment under 3%
  • Focus on fixing legal immigration as well as illegal
  • H1B visa process is broken; we need immigrant brainpower
  • Conservative line on gun control
  • Two-year cooling-off period before State employees can lobby
  • Get used to 21st century of US and China on the world stage
  • Wipe clean all corporate welfare loopholes and deductions
  • EPA's regulatory reign of terror prevents building in USA.
  • I believe in traditional marriage but also civil unions
  • Clear out the cobwebs; debt is a cancer
  • OpEd: Huntsman offers most pro-growth proposal ever.


And some other positions that would consider him more moderate:

  • Congress should cap greenhouse-gas pollution
  • Bring troops home from Afghanistan.
  • Vetoed repeal of college tuition for illegal immigrants.
  • To produce first-rate students, pay for first-rate teachers

Jon Huntsman on the Issues

It's too bad Huntsman sucks so bad at marketing himself. With a better campaign strategy and a stronger public personality, he could easily be the frontrunner.

The partisan answer: He is waaay too reasonable for today's GOP
Click to expand...

FTFY
 
Last edited:
25% corporate tax would be a cut. The current max is 35%. I am unsure if he wants to maintain a tiered system.

I'm coming up with mixed results about his tax policy. But he implemented a (mostly) flat tax in Utah.

But at any rate, my point was not that Huntsman is a nutjob. He isn't. He's by far the most reasonable GOP candidate, and he does have a few moderate stances. But he is still far-right in the big picture.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
25% corporate tax would be a cut. The current max is 35%. I am unsure if he wants to maintain a tiered system.

I'm coming up with mixed results about his tax policy. But he implemented a (mostly) flat tax in Utah.

But at any rate, my point was not that Huntsman is a nutjob. He isn't. He's by far the most reasonable GOP candidate, and he does have a few moderate stances. But he is still far-right in the big picture.
Click to expand...

"You ought to be given a competitive tax code. We need to clear out the cobwebs. We need to clear out the deductions, the loopholes, the corporate welfare, and all the subsidies. And we leave it at 8%, 14%, 24%--those are the three rates that I think would work on the individual income side.

On the corporate side, I think we recognize the reality that a whole lot of companies can afford to have lobbyists and lawyers on Capitol Hill working their magic. Let's recognize the reality that they're all paying 35%. We need to lower that to 25%. So let's phase out the corporate subsidies and clean out the cobwebs and leave it more competitive for the 21st century.

I can tell you, by doing that with our tax code--and I know, because we did it in a state that took us to the number-one job creator in this country--it will leave you and your generation a whole lot better off"

From the Tea Party Debate in Florida.

Jon Huntsman on Tax Reform
 
radcen said:
I have thought that IF he does get the nomination... not that I will be holding my breath... it will be because all the others beat themselves up and he's the last one standing.
Click to expand...


Not Jon Huntsman because he is too liberal on some issues for this "NEW" far right GOP
 
So I look at that list, and I suppose I am a far right-winger. Even though I am not anywhere near it. I'm pro-drilling in those areas, pro death penalty, pro school vouchers, anti-national health care, and so on, and yet I am an alien species to the GOP. I'm more in line with conservative Democrats and liberal Repubicans. I suppose from many people's perspective (typically from the left) I am somehow far-right, but I would suggest that is a more Left-wing view of my positions than based on actual placement of my positions.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
So I look at that list, and I suppose I am a far right-winger. Even though I am not anywhere near it. I'm pro-drilling in those areas, pro death penalty, pro school vouchers, anti-national health care, and so on, and yet I am an alien species to the GOP. I'm more in line with conservative Democrats and liberal Repubicans. I suppose from many people's perspective (typically from the left) I am somehow far-right, but I would suggest that is a more Left-wing view of my positions than based on actual placement of my positions.
Click to expand...

Like I was saying, sometime in the last 10-15 years, the entire political scale has shifted right. 15 years ago? You'd have been a fairly conservative Republican. And there aren't more than a handful of actual liberals in the entire Democratic party if you plot them out on a political spectrum. Some of them are even on the right.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Like I was saying, sometime in the last 10-15 years, the entire political scale has shifted right. 15 years ago? You'd have been a fairly conservative Republican. And there aren't more than a handful of actual liberals in the entire Democratic party if you plot them out on a political spectrum. Some of them are even on the right.
Click to expand...

What shift to the Right in the mid to late 90s are you speaking of?
 
Fiddytree said:
What shift to the Right in the mid to late 90s are you speaking of?
Click to expand...

People in the middle always look far-right/left to people on the fringe.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
People in the middle always look far-right/left to people on the fringe.
Click to expand...

Certainly, but also with specific areas. There were changes that happened at that time period, but it is difficult to really suggest that the entire electorate changed during that time and it was thus far to the right or far to the left. Certain positions seemed to change for good, sometimes to the Left or the Right, and yet, many were still involved in that constant flux of back and forth electoral politics. In many respects, I could argue that the GOP moved to the Left during the 1990s, and I can also argue in some ways it moved to the Right, or even still I could suggest the differences were somewhat minor.
 
Last edited:
Rhapsody1447 said:
People in the middle always look far-right/left to people on the fringe.
Click to expand...

There's nothing particularly fringey about me, at least not politically. I would have been a Democrat 20 years ago. Now-a-days, I'm too liberal to be a Democrat - most Democrats are right-leaning moderates. This can be demonstrated on any political spectrum. Quite a few of them have been plotted. Even Obama, one of the more liberal Democrats of today, is only very slightly left. He's definitely not liberal.

Things like taking all the teeth out of FDA and EPA, essentially scrapping public ed, gutting Medicare, etc, didn't used to be a viable platform even for a Republican. Bog standard conservatism is a stance of continuity. Far-right conservatism is regressivism. Huntsman is plainly regressive in quite a number of issues.

Al Gore actually has a fairly good quote on this. His stances really haven't changed much since the 90's. Back then, he was a Democrat. Maybe *slightly* more liberal than most, but not substantially. Not he's considered a whacko communist. On this, he says, "My position hasn't changed. The scale has moved right."

It's hard to deny that there's been a swing to the right lately. The beginnings of it go back to the 70's, but it didn't become a popular movement until the turn of the millennium.
 
disneydude said:
The easy answer: He is waaay too reasonable for today's GOP.
Click to expand...

Easy answers aren't always simple ones. Too many assumptions here, such as that most voters even knew Huntsman's name a year ago.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
There's nothing particularly fringey about me, at least not politically. I would have been a Democrat 20 years ago. Now-a-days, I'm too liberal to be a Democrat - most Democrats are right-leaning moderates. This can be demonstrated on any political spectrum. Quite a few of them have been plotted. Even Obama, one of the more liberal Democrats of today, is only very slightly left. He's definitely not liberal.

Things like taking all the teeth out of FDA and EPA, essentially scrapping public ed, gutting Medicare, etc, didn't used to be a viable platform even for a Republican. Bog standard conservatism is a stance of continuity. Far-right conservatism is regressivism. Huntsman is plainly regressive in quite a number of issues.

Al Gore actually has a fairly good quote on this. His stances really haven't changed much since the 90's. Back then, he was a Democrat. Maybe *slightly* more liberal than most, but not substantially. Not he's considered a whacko communist. On this, he says, "My position hasn't changed. The scale has moved right."

It's hard to deny that there's been a swing to the right lately. The beginnings of it go back to the 70's, but it didn't become a popular movement until the turn of the millennium.
Click to expand...

When right-wing policies work and left-wing policies fail it's not surprising to see a "shift to the right". The political spectrum has a tendency to adapt to reality. I'm sure the failure of the USSR caused lots of communists to sit back and rethink their positions. The fact that you view the candidates in your own party has right-wing and the opposing party as far right-wing tells me you are probably one of the "people on the fringe" I referred to in my last post.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
There's nothing particularly fringey about me, at least not politically. I would have been a Democrat 20 years ago. Now-a-days, I'm too liberal to be a Democrat - most Democrats are right-leaning moderates. This can be demonstrated on any political spectrum. Quite a few of them have been plotted. Even Obama, one of the more liberal Democrats of today, is only very slightly left. He's definitely not liberal.

Things like taking all the teeth out of FDA and EPA, essentially scrapping public ed, gutting Medicare, etc, didn't used to be a viable platform even for a Republican. Bog standard conservatism is a stance of continuity. Far-right conservatism is regressivism. Huntsman is plainly regressive in quite a number of issues.

Al Gore actually has a fairly good quote on this. His stances really haven't changed much since the 90's. Back then, he was a Democrat. Maybe *slightly* more liberal than most, but not substantially. Not he's considered a whacko communist. On this, he says, "My position hasn't changed. The scale has moved right."

It's hard to deny that there's been a swing to the right lately. The beginnings of it go back to the 70's, but it didn't become a popular movement until the turn of the millennium.
Click to expand...

While also true, on numerous instances, the discussion was quite to the contrary. Many in the Republican party were embracing ideas promoted by the Democratic party of previous years, and advocated some modifications here or there. Also, many were finding that their positions had changed in a Democratic party which had in some areas moved to the Left. That too left many saying "We didn't change, it was the debate that changed."
 
Last edited:
Rhapsody1447 said:
When right-wing policies work and left-wing policies fail it's not surprising to see a "shift to the right". The political spectrum has a tendency to adapt to reality. I'm sure the failure of the USSR caused lots of communists to sit back and rethink their positions. The fact that you view the candidates in your own party has right-wing and the opposing party as far right-wing tells me you are probably one of the "people on the fringe" I referred to in my last post.
Click to expand...

Well, that's extremely debatable, according to history. And now you're just getting into "my side is better" rhetoric. Nothing really worthy of response.

I don't view the Democrats as right-wing. I view them as moderates - some with a slight right lean, others with a slight left lean. I view them that way because they support moderate positions, and external sources plot them as moderates.

Fiddytree said:
While also true, on numerous instances, the discussion was quite to the contrary. Many in the Republican party were embracing ideas promoted by the Democratic party of previous years, and advocated some modifications here or there. Also, many were finding that their positions had changed in a Democratic party which had in some areas moved to the Left. That too left many saying "We didn't change, it was the debate that changed."
Click to expand...

I think this is more true of the populace than politicians. The citizen's debate has certainly become more polarized and people have moved further into their respective fringes.

But the parties themselves I think are a different story. Liberals are very disenfranchised with Democrats, voting for them predominantly out of a sense of resignation, not because they represent their views. A few do - but most don't. The Democratic party is very fractured and timid. Most Democrats are not particularly excited about any of their representatives, whereas Republicans are moreso.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Well, that's extremely debatable, according to history. And now you're just getting into "my side is better" rhetoric. Nothing really worthy of response.

I don't view the Democrats as right-wing. I view them as moderates - some with a slight right lean, others with a slight left lean. I view them that way because they support moderate positions, and external sources plot them as moderates.



I think this is more true of the populace than politicians. The citizen's debate has certainly become more polarized and people have moved further into their respective fringes.

But the parties themselves I think are a different story. Liberals are very disenfranchised with Democrats, voting for them predominantly out of a sense of resignation, not because they represent their views. A few do - but most don't. The Democratic party is very fractured and timid. Most Democrats are not particularly excited about any of their representatives, whereas Republicans are moreso.
Click to expand...

What I am referring to referred to both the citizen debate and the politician debate. Remember McGovern's "Come Home, America"? It was rejected by many Democrats after they were finding themselves more outsiders because of it. Furthermore, I would be incredibly hesitant to suggest that the Democratic party is fractured and timid in comparison with the Republican party...or that the Republicans are more excited about their Representatives. In much respect, the past two to six years shows a hole in that narrative. What also shows a hole in the narrative is a fairly consistent positive reading of each state's representatives in comparison with the whole of congress. Further still, the political parties do operate in big tent theories. From time to time it is more unified in message, but in other times it is not.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
What I am referring to referred to both the citizen debate and the politician debate. Remember McGovern's "Come Home, America"? It was rejected by many Democrats after they were finding themselves more outsiders because of it. Furthermore, I would be incredibly hesitant to suggest that the Democratic party is fractured and timid in comparison with the Republican party...or that the Republicans are more excited about their Representatives. In much respect, the past two years shows a hole in that narrative. What also shows a hole in the narrative is a fairly consistent positive reading of each state's representatives in comparison with the whole of congress.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree. But I still think there's more positivity in the Republican camp (even if not by much) than the Democrat camp.

It's certainly true that most people of any stripe as disappointed with their representitives. But the Democratic party doesn't even know what it is anymore. It's sort of become "anything that isn't Republican." No one can really support them almost by definition. Republicans at least have an idea of what they are. While their supporters may not represent most Americans, they do have them, whereas the Democrats just have people who aren't willing to vote Republican or independent.
 
Rhapsody1447 said:
When right-wing policies work and left-wing policies fail it's not surprising to see a "shift to the right". The political spectrum has a tendency to adapt to reality. I'm sure the failure of the USSR caused lots of communists to sit back and rethink their positions. The fact that you view the candidates in your own party has right-wing and the opposing party as far right-wing ells me you are probably one of the "people on the fringe" I referred to in my last post.
Click to expand...


...you would have a valid point if right-wing policies had actually worked, but most have failed miserably....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom