Hunstman blasts his Republican rivals.

[Landslide Lyndon]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/08/jon-huntsman-comes-out-swinging.html

On global warming:

"I think there's a serious problem.  The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party - the anti-science party, we have a huge problem.  We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012.  When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Science - Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position.

The Republican Party has to remember that we're drawing from traditions that go back as far as Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, President Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Bush.  And we've got a lot of traditions to draw upon.  But I can't remember a time in our history where we actually were willing to shun science and become a - a party that - that was antithetical to science. I'm not sure that's good for our future and it's not a winning formula."

...

On the debt deal:

"Well, I wouldn't necessarily trust any of my opponents right now, who were on a recent debate stage with me, when every single one of them would have allowed this country to default.  You can imagine, even given the uncertainty of the marketplace the last several days and even the last couple of weeks, if we had defaulted the first time in the history of the greatest country that ever was, being 25 percent of the world's GDP and having the largest financial services sector in this world by a long shot, if we had defaulted, Jake, this marketplace would be in absolute turmoil.  And people who are already losing enough as it is on their 401(k)s and retirement programs and home valuations, it would have been catastrophic."

...

On Perry's comments about Bernanke:

"Well, I don't know if that's pre-secession Texas or post-secession Texas.  But in any event, I'm not sure that the average voter out there is going to hear that treasonous remark and say that sounds like a presidential candidate, that sounds like someone who is serious on the issues.

But it gets to a broader point of, you know, the fact that, you know, we've had so much hope and hype in politics the last little while.  We've found ourselves at the extreme ends of the political spectrum and people are crying out for us to get back to some level of sensibility."

[J. J.]

He can't even get his campaign off the ground; how is going to run the county?

[NVGonzalez]

Huntsman is the only candidate who is willing to admit that Obama loves his country just as much as he does and the only one who is in touch in reality and has a grasp of common sense. That is why he will not be nominated.

[Simfan34]

He can't even get his campaign off the ground; how is going to run the county?

Perhaps this is the way to do it. I, personally, like it.

[Oakvale]

I think it was Andrew Sullivan that said that the very traits that make Huntsman so unlikely to be the Republican nominee - civility, moderate views, general election appeal - along with his fairly laudable, from a conservative standpoint, record in Utah, would make him the frontrunner in almost any other country... or party. Heh.

[King]

He can't even get his campaign off the ground; how is going to run the county?

Considering getting a presidential nomination and being competent appear to have an inverse relationship in this new GOP realignment, quite well I imagine.

[Bull Moose Base]

The interesting thing is Huntsman choosing Perry as his target.  Huntsman's first order of business is competing with Romney but he's doing that (here, at least) by attacking the other wing of the party.  It's a bit of a mini-version of Romney's strategy of competing with his primary rivals by attacking Obama.  Also, not unlike Santorum picking a fight with Ron Paul or responding to Huntsman's attack on Perry.  Huntsman's strategy makes sense here and I think it's an adjustment.  I think he stumbled a bit in the beginning, overcompensating for his perceived moderate image and connection to Obama by endorsing Ryan's Medicare plan.  Smarter to carve out his niche as the proud moderate.  Anything else is dissonant with his past and makes him a garden variety flipper.  But even beyond that, he's competing with Romney who is playing to his right to try to head off Perry (and before that Pawlenty or whoever it might be) from getting an opening, which leaves Huntsman space on his left- as seen in his attack on everyone else (including Romney) recklessly rejecting the debt deal.  Huntsman also in a way echoes the strategy of Bill Clinton who, though populist, also made an effort to exude a more moderate image (I believe even in the primaries but memory is failing me).  In any case, I think that would have made sense in 1992 because the Democrats had come off their third consecutive presidential loss and presumably were more desperate whereas the Republicans only lost one presidential election, then swept midterms even with a lot of Tea Party candidates.  Though there is some nervousness within the party about unelectable nominees, I think this is what it looks like: Huntsman positioning for 2016.  Exceed low expectation in New Hampshire and/or Florida, watch Romney get taken down by Perry and Perry by Obama, and let the pundits and party leaders conclude Huntsman was right and hope him and Bachmann are the 2016 finalists.  I suppose they could even be in 2012 if she and he both pull off big upsets in their brackets, but it's a real long shot.  I also think everyone dismisses the chance that Romney runs again in 2016 if he lost the nomination in an Obama-Hillaryesque marathon if that were followed by a solid Obama win over Perry.  I even used to think he could be a losing nominee and run again but Morden largely talked me down (unless the popular vote is almost tied in which case I do think it's very plausible).  But I'm off topic now.

I guess the other thing Huntsman could attempt would be an Independent run a la John Anderson if Obama, like Carter, had approvals in the 30s but the Republicans were even lower.  The Republican Party in 1980 was way less reviled.  On the other hand, what does that mean?  Huntsman could double John Anderson's 10% and rule out any chance to run as a Republican in 2016?  I assume instead he'll endorse the 2012 nominee like McCain endorsed Bush who he couldn't stand.  And did Hunstman gushingly intro Palin in 2008?  Of course, Palin was a moderate governor too.  I do by the way, maintain it's a good bet that Gary Johnson runs as a third party candidate next year.  And who would blame him after his shoddy treatment by the party in this campaign?  I also think Johnson if he did run third party would pull away just as many Obama as GOP voters and not to affect the outcome.  I just can't stay on topic, can I.

How's this?  Today's Republican Party is not one that's going to nominate a guy who mocks the sentiments of most people in the Republican Party, deserved though that mockery might be.

[Yelnoc]

I guess the other thing Huntsman could attempt would be an Independent run a la John Anderson if Obama, like Carter, had approvals in the 30s but the Republicans were even lower.  The Republican Party in 1980 was way less reviled.  On the other hand, what does that mean?  Huntsman could double John Anderson's 10% and rule out any chance to run as a Republican in 2016? 

I don't think he will do this.  But let's say AmericansElect gets on the ballot in every state and nominates him and he excepts.  And Obama's approvals are in the 30's as are the Republican Party's (and Perry, who is the nominee).  How well can Huntsman do?  How many voters does he pull from each party?

[anvi]

Some nice lines in there. Nice to see Huntsman being both tough and himself.  Bravo!  If he had only sounded this way in the Ames debate, though he wouldn't have won the straw poll, he would have gotten the country's attention.

Of course, it's pretty hard to win the GOP nomination these days by running to the left of everyone.  He could always change tacks and primary Obama! 

[Simfan34]

As a Huntsman supporter, here's my take on this: I couldn't be happier. The Republican Party has been taken over by loons and their appeasers, and I thought I was the only one on the right who noticed this. When Huntsman raised his hand when asked if he would pass up a 10:1 deal on the budget, called Obamacare unconstitutional, and refused to condemn talks of impeaching Obama, I feared that he might fall under the "appeaser" category. These comments he's made in the past few days have sent such thoughts away. I've just finished the excellent book Grand New Party by Salam and Douhat. They outline a plan for a right-of-center, broad-based conservative  majority; they argue against "anti-intellectual" and "anti-government" ideologies. The modern party seems to embrace those very things, and it's time someone said "that's not conservatism".

Some may say this goes against his pledge of civility, I think it does not. Huntsman has, and does, maintain a stance against needless and false mud-slinging. This is not mudslinging. This is Jon Huntsman being brutally honest, not uncivil. This is, I think, what it takes to finally gain traction: be that voice who says "we are headed in the wrong direction". It's a strong assertion to make, and he even suggests the current crop of candidates are no better than Obama. There are those moderates in the Republican Party, and they may have found their man. I will be flabbergasted if this does not get his name out.

Will this win him the nomination? Probably not. But it's certainly a step forward. Was it you Torie, who said if he wanted a chance, he'd have to stake out a position to the left of Romney? This is it. As for an independent run, I don't see it. I think Huntsman truly is agonized by the state of his party and wants it to return to the center. "If I can't win," he probably thinks, "at least I can set the discussion on the right track." An independent run would invalidate his message.

I can, however, see him primarying a President Perry, Bachmann, et al, in 2016.

[pbrower2a]

No Republican candidate for President can know the strengths of President Obama as does Jon Huntsman. If the Hard Right can't beat President Obama in 2012, then maybe Jon Huntsman can defeat some mediocrity in 2016 as a RINO by current standards. 

Or could he be forming a "Republicans for Obama" group that might draw Republican moderates away from the GOP for the Presidential race?

[Eraserhead]

Is he going to try to primary Obama?

[Guderian]

Huntsman is basically an identity candidate for affluent white people who are culturally uncomfortable with the current Republican Party but won't switch parties for some reason. It's a niche so small it's no wonder he's doing so badly.

[specific_name]

He's either positioning for 2016 or a big throw-off of the far right morons currently in the running. I suppose he hopes for the latter and bets on the former.

[Simfan34]

He kind of apologized for raising his hand.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

So Huntsman has admitted that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas?  Wow that takes guts in the modern day Republican party.  That single issue precludes him from winning the nomination.

[CJK]

Most conservative Republicans believe they lost in 2008 because McCain was a moderate RINO squish. So they are very leery of any candidate who strikes them as "another McCain".

[President von Cat]

^ Agreed, and that is why it is better for the country if Republicans to run a hard right candidate and lose 2012.

Running a moderate like Romney may win them the election, but it just opens up the possibility that he will be worked by a hard-right base that can't take no for an answer. Plus if he compromises with Democrats, the right-wing will just move on and look for more of a Perry type, instead of moving back to the center. A rejection of a right-wing champion, someone like Perry or Bachmann, would pave the way for some self-reflection and moderation. Someone like Huntsman will hopefully become the party's champion for the latter half of the 2010s - I would love to see that happen.

[Bull Moose Base]

He kind of apologized for raising his hand.

How so?

[Cobbler]

Full interview here.
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/web-extra-full-interview-jon-huntsman-14349624?tab=9482931&section=4765066

[ilikeverin]

I guess the other thing Huntsman could attempt would be an Independent run a la John Anderson if Obama, like Carter, had approvals in the 30s but the Republicans were even lower.  The Republican Party in 1980 was way less reviled.  On the other hand, what does that mean?  Huntsman could double John Anderson's 10% and rule out any chance to run as a Republican in 2016? 

I don't think he will do this.  But let's say AmericansElect gets on the ballot in every state and nominates him and he excepts.  And Obama's approvals are in the 30's as are the Republican Party's (and Perry, who is the nominee).  How well can Huntsman do?  How many voters does he pull from each party?

I don't know, I think that's what he must be doing.  And, looking at approval ratings right now, if any year's the year to do that, it's 2012.  Who knows if he's the candidate to do it... but it's the right time (unless the economy magically fixes itself!).

[Marokai Backbeat]

Too reasonable to be nominated.

[redcommander]

He's aiming for a Bachmann or a Perry to take the nomination and crash the GOP into the ground against Obama in 2012 and try to come back in 2016 to try to "steer the party in a new direction." You don't say things like these and expect supporters to surround you.

That won't work though. There are plenty of more appealing and charismatic candidates who are moderate that would have a better chance in 2016 if the GOP crashes than him.

[izixs]

He's aiming for a Bachmann or a Perry to take the nomination and crash the GOP into the ground against Obama in 2012 and try to come back in 2016 to try to "steer the party in a new direction." You don't say things like these and expect supporters to surround you.

That won't work though. There are plenty of more appealing and charismatic candidates who are moderate that would have a better chance in 2016 if the GOP crashes than him.

He'd have the chance if none of those folks run, with them thinking that the extreme right candidates would win the nomination again.

[The_Texas_Libertarian]

Most conservative Republicans believe they lost in 2008 because McCain was a moderate RINO squish. So they are very leery of any candidate who strikes them as "another McCain".

I completely disagree.  Even though John McCain was on the ticket, people really did not want another Republican after what the country went through with George W Bush.  Now I have heard that talking point from many conservatives but I think it is just an excuse to run a more right wing candidate in a year when they have a better chance.  Whoever had the GOP nomination probably would have lost 2008 but with minor shifts in the electoral vote (Indiana, Missouri, possibly Montana).  Make no mistake, Romney, Thompson, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, the GOP were set to lose 2008.  Unfortunately all we can do is speculate how those elections would have gone.

The conservative base did get motivated when Palin was chosen as the VP, however she was too extreme for most independents and probably cost McCain dozens of electoral votes.