I was mostly going by his support of the stimulus (he said it wasn’t big enough)
Specifically, wanted larger amount of tax cuts in it
huge spending increases as governor (though like you said, he still somehow managed to balance the budget)
I question your use of "huge". That said, while the total amount of money spent increased, its percentage of GDP decreased unlike in previous years in Utah. His polices grew the private sector at a far quicker pace than government was growing and helped to make government less as a percentage of GDP by the time he left office. They were running a surplus, and his tax policies were bringing increased revenue. I'm not a huge fan of government spending, but we're being intellectually dishonest as conservatives if we're going to try to compare increasing spending while you're running deficits and greatly in debt (you know, Reagan did that. I guess he was a moderate?) and say its the same thing as raising it when you're already running a surprlus and having increases in revenue.
and support of cap & trade as making him more of a fiscal moderate.
What the hell does Cap & Trade have to do with fiscal policy? At most its more regarding governmental issues and the expansion of government. But lets say its fiscal since its affecting businesses. You're looking at this in such a black and white matter that his support for a
SINGLE thing, which he has since backed away from supporting, somehow outweighs the actual evidence through the results of his policies of his primary actions towards business which is to remove legislation, lower taxes, and give them more self determination? Despite the Cap and Trade thing, Utah was still regularly listed as a top 3 place in the country to do business during an economic time where much of the country was doing horrendous. Judging him fiscally in regards to his stance on business on a SINGLE piece of legislation rather than looking at the sum of his parts is ridiculous and using that to claim he's a moderate is again, akin to saying we must declare Ronald Reagan a Moderate if he had ever done ONE thing in any area that was not directly in line with conservative thought.
But now that I’m looking at his record, it seems like he’s more conservative than he bills himself off as.
Dav, I'll be honest with you. I don't think he's more conservative than he bills himself as...I think he's more conservative than the conservative media and some of the more steadfast republicans bill him as. I think you've bought into the PERCEPTION while tricking yourself into thinking you bought into him.
He's moderate socially, at the best. And even then, while he's "moderate" on what to do with immigrants in this country he's decidedly conservative in his belief of "secure the border first" and then go from there. And he's okay with civil unions. On the flip he's "pro-life". Yet the civil union thing alone generally gets him termed a "moderate". What he bills himself as is essentially an individual, not a moderate. He's not just a cookie cutter conservative that does EVERYTHING the republicans think and isn't going to just agree with everything that's stereotypical to a republican...just because. He breaks with them here and there, such as on environmental issues, but for the most part is a pretty sound conservative.
Under this man and through his policies and those he supported Utah...
Increased GDP by 8%
Reduced government spending as a percent of GDP by 2%
Maintained a AAA Bond rating
Implemented health care reform that was market driven and focused on consumer choice
Implemented a flat tax
Implemented the largest tax cuts in the history of Utah (a traditionally pretty conservative state)
Created an environment that was routinely listed in the top 3, and at times as the #1, place in the country to do business
To me, that sounds like the type of results that I'd want to be seeing from our next President.
Which is kind of weird; if he wanted to I’m sure he really could claim to be more fiscally conservative than most of the others running (I think he might be the only one yet to really embrace Paul Ryan’s plan), yet he seems determined to be the media’s darling for being the only “sane” (i.e. moderate) candidate in the race.
He's only been in the running for a month and a half, the Media pushes what they want to push, and he's only been in one debate. During that debate he tried to focus on a few things he does well fiscally; mentioned the bond rating, the jobs, etc. What the media is going to cover and how they're going to portray him though isn't largely his choice. You know this. Conservatives often bitch how the media portrayed Bush and Palin for instance.
Huntsman could pose a significant challenge to Obama. He's got fiscal credentials that should win over any honest tea partier who is part of the movement for reasons that actually are supposedly the focus of the movement...fiscal issues. He's got a slightly more moderate stance on social issues that may attract some libertarians and democrats. He's got a record as an executive that is 180 degree's from the record Obama has as an executive. He's got executive experience, foreign policy experience, and private sector experience. He's also got a slight shield from some of the more over the top criticisms the Obama camp may want to throw out, as if you absolutely DESTROY Huntsman than it reflects poorly on Obama's judgement and honesty since he had selected him for an ambassador position in one of the most important spots in the global world.
Huntsman I honestly think could create a huge challenge to Obama...so what's the best way to make sure he's never going to sniff the election? Well, make him McCain II, the wishy washy moderate that the base obviously will hate.
For some reason most descriptions of his views - both by conservatives and liberals - label him as more of a technocrat uninterested in shrinking the size of government; there must be something to that, though I wish I could find more details to prove it.
He's not a Ron Paul, lets cut entire departments tomorrow, type of shrink the government. I think also his time in Utah gives a bad image of it. When your economy and revenues are growing so much that even if your spending increases its still, compared to the past, essentially smaller compared to the rest of your states spending the incentive, need, and reason to cut isn't there as much. That's an entirely different situation then the nation as a whole is facing. To give you an idea and an analogy...
In case one...You make $4000 a month, your bills and living expenses cost you $3200, you're paying $300 on minimum payments of credit cards, and you're spending $1000 on misc purchases and entertainment. Well, that means every month you're putting $500 on your credit card because you're spending too much, which raises slowly that minimum payment you have to pay as it compounds your debt.
In case two...You've managed to make $500 more a month, meaning $400. Your bills and living expenses still cost you $3200, but you're debt is far more manageable and from your past, so you only pay $25 a month on it. You however started adding a gym membership to your monthly expenditures, making you spend $1125 an misc purchases and entertainment. Now, rather than a $500 debt, you're running a $150 surprlus. Meaning each month you've got money you're putting into the bank and/or paying down your debt. And you're doing that with increased spending.
It'd be irresponsible for someone in case one to go out and add that gym membership to their spending, pushing them more in debt. However, that's not really the case with #2. Now while I understand that issue with thinking that more government spending of any kind is bad, I have issues with the notion that because someone would increase spending by a small but manageable amount in case two that they'd do the same in case one. That's essentially what people suggest with Huntsman. That seemingly because in a state that had a good budget, good revenues, little debt, and great GDP growth Huntsman's budgets increased by a bit that if he came into the Presidency where we have bad budgets, iffy revenues, a HUGE amount of debt, and slow GDP growth that he'd still increase spending. To me, that's a very, very poor assumption to make.
