• 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!

Jon Hunstman Declares His Candidacy (Watch Live)

Being as you are obviously not a member of the tea party, how would you possibly know? Media reports? Speculation?

Nah, from my experience, the tea party abhors any sort of perceived liberal policies, whether they're fiscal or not.

Remember when Ronald Reagan called for reduction of our nuclear arms? Well Barack Obama and Richard Lugar (senator from my state) happen to agree. Unfortunately, since that START treaty that Lugar supported was signed by Barack Obama, he now has a tea party challenger in the primaries next year.

For...the...START...treaty. That's the reason being cited. That same one that got 2/3s of the votes in the Senate and was supported by secretaries of state from several Republican administrations. Yeah, that's the one. But Obama liked it, so Lugar's got a tea party challenger.

That's not for fiscal reasons at all, and that's just one example that's close to home for me.
 
Remember when Ronald Reagan called for reduction of our nuclear arms? Well Barack Obama and Richard Lugar (senator from my state) happen to agree. Unfortunately, since that START treaty that Lugar supported was signed by Barack Obama, he now has a tea party challenger in the primaries next year.

For...the...START...treaty. That's the reason being cited. That same one that got 2/3s of the votes in the Senate and was supported by secretaries of state from several Republican administrations. Yeah, that's the one. But Obama liked it, so Lugar's got a tea party challenger.

I'm sorry, just wanting to check.

Are you suggseting that New START...a DIFFERENT treaty then START I that was proposed by Reagan....is the "Same" treaty in all instances of its affect?

Or are you suggesting that two things that when spoken about broadly seem similar but yet when talked about in specifics have differences can not cause someone to have different views about then without being hypocritical?
 
Once again, as I said, I wouldn't be calling peoples views or thoughts or comments ignorant when your own shows similar qualities.

<--- Long admitted and open Tea Party supporter on this forum that's attended rallys who is advocating for this guy as a President.

The only reason members of the Tea Party movement have to rip this guy on, other than the two comments Vicc pointed to that ignore other relevant facts concerning his stance...are non-Tea Party issues. Now, because his opponents will try to trumpet those up individuals within the movement may dislike him for his broader stances based on their own broader stances. However, looking at him purely through the concerns and views that the movement...not the individual members...has a stated care for, he's an exceptionally good candidate.

To put it another way....

One could say that the Anti-War movement would have a wet dream about Ron Paul in regards to his war policies. However, it would also be realistic to say that individual members of that movement would not vote for him and tear him to shreds if he ran as a Democrat (The typical haven of the Anti-War movement). Not because he wasn't an ideal anti-war candidate, but because various movements like the Tea Party movement and the Anti-War movement rarely encompass an individuals ENTIRE view. IE, you rarely find someone that cares 100% ONLY about Tea Party issues or 100% ONLY about Anti-War issues. Thus, if the sum of a person doesn't match with a sum of the individuals views, they may not support them even if the individual falls 100% in line with the views of hte Primary movement the voter identifes themselves as.

In regards to TEA PARTY ISSUES Huntsman is a very good candidate. In regards to individual members of the Tea Party movement, he may not be a very good candidate because he may not encompass their other views and their Tea Party focused views may not be enough to outweigh that.

Huntsman is very much in line with the ideals of the Tea Party movement. That said I wouldn't be surprised if he's nto the most liked of the candidates by INDIVIDUALS within the Tea Party.

However, I do think compared to Obama he has the fiscal credentials to motivate the Tea Party base.

Yeah and that's all fair. I believe you mean that sincerely. But I have a hard time believing that will be consensus across the tea party as a whole.

Or, if you'd prefer me not use the term 'tea party', I'll just say the far right. There has been a move to the right in reaction to Obama's presidency that is rather undeniable. And I find it hard to believe they will like someone who worked for Obama, supports civil unions, supported cap and trade, embraced the stimulus (albeit with some reservations), etc.
 
Nah, from my experience, the tea party abhors any sort of perceived liberal policies, whether they're fiscal or not.

Remember when Ronald Reagan called for reduction of our nuclear arms? Well Barack Obama and Richard Lugar (senator from my state) happen to agree. Unfortunately, since that START treaty that Lugar supported was signed by Barack Obama, he now has a tea party challenger in the primaries next year.

For...the...START...treaty. That's the reason being cited. That same one that got 2/3s of the votes in the Senate and was supported by secretaries of state from several Republican administrations. Yeah, that's the one. But Obama liked it, so Lugar's got a tea party challenger.

That's not for fiscal reasons at all, and that's just one example that's close to home for me.

I agree with this. There seem to be a lot of conservatives who are changing their opinions on issues just because Obama supports it. And they should be called out on their hypocrisy. But I don't think that represents the majority of conservatives or the majority of Tea Partiers. There is a small fringe of extremists that are very loud and seem to be the only ones who get heard. I know many who are consistent with their beliefs and supported that treaty.
 
I'm sorry, just wanting to check.

Are you suggseting that New START...a DIFFERENT treaty then START I that was proposed by Reagan....is the "Same" treaty in all instances of its affect?

Or are you suggesting that two things that when spoken about broadly seem similar but yet when talked about in specifics have differences can not cause someone to have different views about then without being hypocritical?

I'm not suggesting they're the same thing at all. I'm suggesting that the new START treaty simply moves towards reduction of nuclear arms...a goal championed by Reagan.

But more importantly, I am suggesting that the START treaty is NOT a fiscal issue. You claimed that the tea party's main worry was fiscal issues, and that may be true, but I pointed to an example of a tea party primary challenger arising over an issue that wasn't fiscal in the slightest. THAT was the point of my post.
 
If Republicans truly have an overarching goal of reclaiming the White House, they will unite behind whomever wins the nomination. If, however, they prefer putting "tests of purity" on narrow issues ahead of that goal, they will help assure the President's re-election. That one faction might cite social issues, another foreign policy, another environmental policy, another national defense, another health care, etc. will make little difference.

Choices have consequences. All choices are deliberate. The reality will be that those factions will have make a conscious choice to produce exactly the outcome that would have resulted under such circumstances. Moreover, those factions will, their loud objections to the contrary, have made a substantive investment in exactly the policies that would be sustained or pursued following the election.

Such a situation would not be unprecedented. Victory has often been achieved not solely on account of the merits of the winning party, but also on account of the divisions among the ranks of the losing side.
 
I'm not suggesting they're the same thing at all. I'm suggesting that the new START treaty simply moves towards reduction of nuclear arms...a goal championed by Reagan.

And George Bush was against nation building.

Barack Obama is for lowering Taxes.

Tim Pawlenty is for abortions.

Dick Cheney supports gay rights while Barack Obama doesn't.

If you want to take a BROAD statement without looking at specifics involved with justifying or backing up that statement you can make a lot of absurd assertions.

Where is it that the Tea Party, those challenging Lugar, or anyone else have said that Reducing the amount of Nuclear Weapons in the world is a bad thing. Who is suggesting START was a bad thing? People had issues with the SPECIFICS within New START.

But more importantly, I am suggesting that the START treaty is NOT a fiscal issue. You claimed that the tea party's main worry was fiscal issues, and that may be true, but I pointed to an example of a tea party primary challenger arising over an issue that wasn't fiscal in the slightest. THAT was the point of my post.

You pointed to an indvidiual local cell mounting a primary challenge. You're absolutely right on that. Because as you move away from the central portion of the movement you get more individualism. Tea Parties in some areas are filled with more socially conservative people and thus are supporting people who are fiscally good AND socially good. Other Tea Parties in other areas are less socially conservative and support people who are Fiscally good and socially moderate or socially irrelevant. However, at the heart of all of them is that they're good FISCALLY and GOVERNMENTALLY.

Show me a Tea Party group or candidate that was not fiscally and governmentally conservative but socially conservative and still got significant Tea Party support...specifically national support...and you'd likely have my agreement. But that's not the case.

And funny, with just a TINY bit of research I can already see issues regarding his sponsorship of the DREAM act which is a fiscal and governmental issue, his support of ear marks, and his views on the Federal Reserve as being key to their opposition to him as well. But...hmm, odd, you failed to mention those things.
 
LOL

"Grown-up republicans" is code for liberal in sheep's clothing. Easy to spot these days.

Actually, "grown-up Republicans" are the ones who drag the party to success, kicking and screaming.

(Despite people like you.)
 
You pointed to an indvidiual local cell mounting a primary challenge. You're absolutely right on that. Because as you move away from the central portion of the movement you get more individualism. Tea Parties in some areas are filled with more socially conservative people and thus are supporting people who are fiscally good AND socially good. Other Tea Parties in other areas are less socially conservative and support people who are Fiscally good and socially moderate or socially irrelevant. However, at the heart of all of them is that they're good FISCALLY and GOVERNMENTALLY.

Show me a Tea Party group or candidate that was not fiscally and governmentally conservative but socially conservative and still got significant Tea Party support...specifically national support...and you'd likely have my agreement. But that's not the case.

I never once said there were tea party candidates who weren't fiscally conservative. Never once. I just said that more of them are more conservative socially than you're letting on.

And funny, with just a TINY bit of research I can already see issues regarding his sponsorship of the DREAM act which is a fiscal and governmental issue, his support of ear marks, and his views on the Federal Reserve as being key to their opposition to him as well. But...hmm, odd, you failed to mention those things.

Alright, do we need to get specific? I didn't think you needed me to write a research paper on Lugar's primary challenger.

The tea party group in Indiana that wants a challenge for Lugar has cited four reasons in particular from the start. Perhaps more have arisen since then, not sure. But those four were:
1) Support for the DREAM Act
2) Support for the new START treaty
3) Confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor
4) Confirmation of Elana Kagan

So at least 3 of those 4 are not fiscal issues, which alone proves my point.

The final issue, which you claim IS fiscal, is the DREAM Act. Well guess what? The CBO estimated that the DREAM Act would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion over 10 years. So if we're framing it as a fiscal issue...it's one that a conservative should support!

My point is still proven: the fact that Lugar, considered a reliable conservative in a red state for decades, is now seeing a challenge from his right, proves that the Republican party has moved to the right since Obama's presidency began. And since the reasons cited for this tea party challenge are not fiscal, it proves my point that tea party candidates are not singularly focused on fiscal issues, but are driven by conservative ideology as a whole.
 
He's saying a lot of things I like. He gets it.
 
Do you actually believe this? This leads me to think you have no understanding of the tea party movement.

Tea party supporters are going to want to rip this guy to shreds.

I wouldn't go that far, but there is no way he will be supported by more than a very few voters who consider themselves tea partiers. As far as I can tell so far, he's a liberal. He's left of Romney and the Tea Party doesn't like Romney either.
 
I wouldn't go that far, but there is no way he will be supported by more than a very few voters who consider themselves tea partiers. As far as I can tell so far, he's a liberal. He's left of Romney and the Tea Party doesn't like Romney either.

Just curious, what makes you think he is a liberal? Besides social issues he is really quite conservative.
 
It's anything another candidate on the Republican dung heap. That just shows how bad things are. Obama is deplorable. The Republicans are tripping over each other to run for an opportunity to beat Obama. As bad as Obama is there is no GOP statesman who can galvanize the GOP let alone beat a version of Bush Lite. The GOP steps up to the challenge with a field of "also rans". I'm definitely not voting for any presidential candidate from either version of the Corpgov.
 
I read the transcript. It's an okay speech, lots of cliches, not much on policy, and a few curious lines, like

I learned something very important as Governor. For most American families, there is nothing more important than a job.

Really? How many of us figured that out without being elected governor?
 
I read the transcript. It's an okay speech, lots of cliches, not much on policy, and a few curious lines, like



Really? How many of us figured that out without being elected governor?

Rather than literally suggesting that he learned the importance of a job to America's families while serving as governor, he was likely signaling that his campaign will make one of its priorities the issue of job creation.
 
Rather than literally suggesting that he learned the importance of a job to America's families while serving as governor, he was likely signaling that his campaign will make one of its priorities the issue of job creation.

Yes, but I prefer the way you just said it to the way he did.
 
Last edited:
If Republicans truly have an overarching goal of reclaiming the White House, they will unite behind whomever wins the nomination. If, however, they prefer putting "tests of purity" on narrow issues ahead of that goal, they will help assure the President's re-election. That one faction might cite social issues, another foreign policy, another environmental policy, another national defense, another health care, etc. will make little difference.

Choices have consequences. All choices are deliberate. The reality will be that those factions will have make a conscious choice to produce exactly the outcome that would have resulted under such circumstances. Moreover, those factions will, their loud objections to the contrary, have made a substantive investment in exactly the policies that would be sustained or pursued following the election.

Such a situation would not be unprecedented. Victory has often been achieved not solely on account of the merits of the winning party, but also on account of the divisions among the ranks of the losing side.

I agree with this, but it won't matter if they unite behind someone who is too radical. I'd love to see a race between Obama and Huntsman, but he's jst not going to win, because too many of the GOP is looking for a Palin-esque candidate. They aren't going to find that in Huntsman, who is a viable, moderate candidate. The proof is in this thread. You see reasonable conservatives arguing for Hunstman, and then you have other, in my opinion less reasonable, conservatives attacking Huntsman, and on this board, people advocating other candidates like Cain, Bachmann, etc.
 
Ah, the media has their new John McCain. Wishy washy on everything.

Republicans will do well to avoid those kind of candidates this time around, and pick a true conservative, which wins with voters but gets pummelled by the media.

Actually - he's quite concise and clear about his beliefs and intentions. He's not wishy washy on a damned thing . . .and he has a strong track record of positives to back up his world knowledge.

He's far out of McCain's league - superior in many ways. On the conservative side, I like him.

I don't like anyone else yet.
 
For Zyphlin:

But as Rubin also pointed out, Huntsman’s biggest problem with the conservative base, should he decide to run, would be his devotion to cap and trade policies. And never was it on display more prominently than when then-Gov. Huntsman signed the Western Climate Initiative (WCI).

The WCI is an alliance of states and provinces along the western edge of North America seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lay the groundwork for a regional cap and trade system.

Hunstman signed onto the initiative in 2007, and was one of only two Republican governors to do so. The other was former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Then there’s the governor’s Blue Ribbon Advisory Council (BRAC) on Climate Change. Established by Hunstsman in 2006, it was intended to be a “forum where government, industry, environment, and community representatives could identify proactive measures” to reduce greenhouse gases.

BRAC’s final report found, among other things, that “based on extensive scientific research, there is very high confidence that human-generated increases in greenhouse gas concentrations are responsible for most of the global warming observed during the past 50 years.”

The report’s recommendations included calling for the state of Utah to promote “urban and community trees” and implement a greenhouse gases registry, greenhouse gas reductions targets, and a regional or state cap and trade program or tax.

Huntsman was even quoted in 2009 as saying, “It’s been enormously frustrating…We would not need the Western Climate Initiative if it were not for the foot-dragging nature of Congress.”

“If Republicans had identified this problem earlier and tackled it aggressively, we would all be working together,” he said.

Moreover, in his statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after being nominate to serve as ambassador to China, Huntsman once again stressed the threat of climate change.

“We have entered an era in which all nations are called upon to work together to address the urgent problem of global climate change. The United States and China should be part of the solution, and collaboration on clean energy and greater energy efficiency offer a real opportunity to deepen the overall U.S.-China relationship,” said Huntsman.

While Huntsman may appeal to an audience of liberal Republicans and some more conservative Democrats, few believe that the conservative Republican base would likely to support him.



Read more: Jon Huntsman’s cap and trade record could be significant barrier in 2012 run | The Daily Caller

When Jon Huntsman was the governor of Utah, he proposed a healthcare plan, which looked remarkably similar to RomneyCare and ObamaCare legislation. The only difference, RomneyCare passed state legislation and was signed into law and ObamaCare passed federal legislation and was signed into law, while Utah lawmakers firmly rejected Huntsman’s mandates.
Politico reports that, “conservatives have been attacking Jon Huntsman over his previous flirtation with an individual mandate as governor of Utah – but a Huntsman noted that the series of laws that the governor eventually signed into law ultimately lacked a requirement that citizens purchase insurance. But it raises the question – what exactly was the health care bill that Huntsman signed into law as governor of Utah?”

Huntsman cannot be the nominee.

As for my choice, I'm waiting for the field to narrow down, filter out, no candidate is perfect. Cain's a good guy with lots of potential but his lack of political experience leaves him vulnerable to mistakes, Romney has Romneycare and his big government leanings like an anchor aroudn his neck, Bachman has a piss poor media image and is liable to "Palin'd"...

I'd to see someone like Col. Allen West (ain't happening) but he's a great guy that I think if he really wanted it, could make a serious run at the WH. Same thing with Rubio.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, just hours after announcing his bid for the White House Tuesday, called for an "aggressive drawdown" of troops in Afghanistan.

Though Huntsman said he didn't have "specifics" on a plan for withdrawal, he said the U.S. "should begin a fairly aggressive drawdown," while "leaving behind a counter-terror effort that is appropriately matched to the threat we face."



Read more: Huntsman Calls for 'Aggressive Drawdown' in Afghanistan - FoxNews.com
 
Last edited:
Ah, the media has their new John McCain. Wishy washy on everything.

Depends on how you define wishy washy. Sure he's flipped on the stimulus, but not on civil unions.

Republicans will do well to avoid those kind of candidates this time around, and pick a true conservative, which wins with voters but gets pummelled by the media.

"True Conservative" what the hell is that? Someone who bails out social security? expands government to huge proportions? Signs one of the biggest tax hikes in history? Guess who I'm talking about? :peace
 
Yes, he does feel that an individual mandate is an okay thing. A sentiment shared by a the Republican Party at large not too long ago but has been abandoned primarily because of the method in which its implimented in the Obama plan and the ramifications of the political backdoors it's there to allow for.
I think you and I both know that it was abandoned by most or at least a large minority of Republicans for political expediency more so than anything else. If Obama would have proposed single payer and a well known Republican would have countered with individual mandate you would hear virtually no talk of it being unconstitutional or a government takeover of healthcare imo. Not saying that the Republicans are the only ones that have ever done this or anything like that. Just that some of them are guilty of it in this case.
 
That thinking is why 1. Hunstman won't win, and 2. the eventual GOP candidate is going to lose to Obama.

"True conservatives" don't win President very often, and if Obama can get half as many people riled up to get him a second term, its a done deal.

if the eventual candidate is a guy like Huntsman, we already lost. Obama/huntsman - I fail to see any significant difference.
 
I agree with this, but it won't matter if they unite behind someone who is too radical.

Of course, then the independents would be lost. Whomever wins will need strong support from his/her own party and probably the majority of independent voters.

I'd love to see a race between Obama and Huntsman, but he's jst not going to win, because too many of the GOP is looking for a Palin-esque candidate. They aren't going to find that in Huntsman, who is a viable, moderate candidate. The proof is in this thread. You see reasonable conservatives arguing for Hunstman, and then you have other, in my opinion less reasonable, conservatives attacking Huntsman, and on this board, people advocating other candidates like Cain, Bachmann, etc.

At this time, I suspect Huntsman will start out in the middle of the pack aided, in part, by the "freshness" of his candidacy and by Tim Pawlenty's poor debate showing, Rick Santorum's trying to make the campaign a referendum on social values (already widely shared by his rivals), the Gingrich campaign's continuing disintegration, Herman Cain's lack of gravitas, and Ron Paul's still narrow-based appeal. Nevertheless, formidable obstacles lie ahead. Huntsman still has not launched his campaign website (depriving people of a one-stop location to learn about his candidacy). He still needs to translate his experience (domestic/foreign policy) and vision into a substantive policy framework, probably centered around the jobs issue (his speech hinted that jobs would be a core priority). He needs to build a strong fundraising apparatus. In the meantime, he will be faced by a Michelle Bachmann who will be trying to strengthen her support based on her recent debate peformance, possibly using the debt ceiling issue as a stage to galvanize Tea Party conservatives and Mitt Romney who will be trying to consolidate the lead he has recently built. One also cannot rule out additional competition from possible new entrants to the race.
 
Back
Top Bottom