Jon Huntsman has gotten better at campaigning, Rachel argued last night, with ads like the one above that blunt frontrunner Mitt Romney's attacks. Our guest, Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post, argued that Mr. Huntsman still has a serious problem:
I had a really interesting conversation today with a very prominent Republican here in New Hampshire and he was saying one of the problems with Huntsman's whole message, for instance "I served my country," is that he never closes the circle. He never explains why he left the Obama administration, what it was that he saw from inside that administration that really convinced him that he could do things better than Barack Obama is.
And I think that the appetite right now among Republican voters is for somebody who will take the fight to Barack Obama. And that is what I think probably Jon Huntsman has not conveyed and has yet to convey.
Mr. Huntsman has made use of the same three-part formula that took Rick Santorum to unexpected near-win in Iowa -- being an alternative to Mitt Romney, going as an unvetted underdog, and wearing out shoe leather in retail politics. But today's Suffolk poll in New Hampshire has Mr. Huntsman third behind Ron Paul.
It looks the Huntsman campaign may have lacked a fourth part of the Santorum strategy, namely drawing a clear distinction between their candidate and Barack Obama. Rick Santorum challenged voters not to settle for less than a true conservative, a real alternative to Barack Obama. That was his closing argument, and it worked, and it may be what's missing for Jon Huntsman.
The full segment's after the jump.
Leave a Comment:
"What's missing for Jon Huntsman?" A D after his name. Hatch is up this year.
What's missing for Jon Huntsman?
sane republican voters.
630 seat gain nationwide for conservative candidates in 2010 elections. We don't want another John McCaine. George Bush overspent, Obama came in and spent five times what Bush did, and He's still spending. WTF ???
LOL thanks for that morning laugh.
but i would not quit your regular job just yet, as that could have been a fluke.
@Mark: Care to link me some unbiased documentation of these facts? I didn't know Obama's spent 35 trillion dollars in the last three years. That seems like an awful lot of money.
Thanks in advance!
Sorry Kate but as the type is prone to do he chose to run rather than fight. See how he driveled below? Amazing ain't it.
Why would anyone vote for Jon Huntsman? He's not even eligible in 3 states! His campaign is based in one state, New Hampshire, which he isn't even going to win! He's polling at 2% in most other states and isn't even on the ballot in 3 other states! What a loser. What a waste of a vote.
Rachel, I love posting on Your blog, 'cause I'm always the only one on here. Rachel, If You want to be a true Obama supporter, You may want to do more than propagating falsehoods on TV. Go to Chicago, open up an empty Acorn office, and help people get rid of unborn babies. If You can be as shady as Acorn was, You may get a star on Your forehead from ObamAcorn. Oh Yeah, Social Security is in great shape !! Right ?
OMG, you're always the "only one on here"?
Wow, you need to get with the times mark f, there are facts, man, facts to back up your opinions. Now you can skate the edge with opinions, but a few facts would bolster your credibility.
I'm an Independent, but have tended to lean more Republican. Huntsman is the ONLY candidate, on either side, that I could in good conscience vote for. I've even changed my party affiliation in order to be able to vote for him in my state's primary. I'm proud of the way he has carried himself, I am proud of his intelligent and wise and comprehensive consensus making ideas. Yeah, he has one or two things I would change if I could, but all in all this is a man of quality.
Patti, do you realize Jon Huntsman isn't even on the ballot in Arizona, Virginia or Illinois? And he's polling at about 2% almost everywhere else. Is that a winning strategy?
Well, sad to say one of those "things" is that he totally supports the Paul Ryan budget. I would vote for no candidate that is in favor of stripping the Social Security benefits that I have paid into for most of my life up to and including today, or turning the Medicare program that I have paid into from it's inception and that I still continue to pay into today (including the premiums deducted from my Social Security check and the taxes deducted from my paycheck every 2 weeks. I earn a grand total of between $160 and $200 gross on that bitty check and still have to pay into Medicare and Social Security, not to mention the premium I have to pay to Humana for my prescription coverage. So keep Paul Ryan and Jon Huntsman out of Social Security and Medicare. There are other ways these programs can be saved within the next 20 years when it is estimated they will get in trouble without depriving our seniors of what they have paid for most of their lives.
While Jon Huntsman is the most sane of the clowns running for the office of the President of the United States that is one, big, major problem with his plans, at least for me.
I like John Huntsman.. He is definitely the most sane candidate out of all these other "Clown" posse candidates in the republican party seeking the nomination for president. but the guy lacks personality , every time he speaks he sounds robotic in his talking points , he lacks passion and believe in what he says... I think he is the most viable candidate out of all the rest of these clowns. But the tea party zealots will never vote for him . As for Mitt Romney , the guy is no "Job Creator" , he was just another "Corporate Raider" ala Carl Icahn while he was at Bain Capital.. he destoyed companies and the lives of thousands of middle class workers.. the guy is a total "Job Creating" FRAUD !..
Its just like he said in New Hampshire the other day !.. He just LOVES to fire people !...
If Mitt Romney becomes president he will introduce economic policies that will turn this country into another BANANA REPUBLIC !..
OBAMA/CLINTON 2012 !..
No its not a type-o, an OBAMA/CLINTON ticket would break voting records nationwide !...
Should be Clinton/Obama. I could vote for that as long as Hillary and Bill were at the top of the ticket.
It's funny - I didn't know who Jon Huntsman was a couple of months ago, but someone did an interview with him and he said he respected President Obama. (Horrors!) It was then that I decided to try to follow him, which hasn't been easy.
I think, in fact I KNOW, that if I were a Republican (which will never happen) I would be solidly behind Jon Huntsman. With his foreign policy experience, which NOBODY else has and which it looks like we'll be needing and because he seems like a good man (which nobody else particularly does) I could actually see him in the Oval Office.
I like the way his daughters represent him and wish I could see a lot more of THEM on MSNBC rather than the sour-faced Megan McCain.
I'd love to see a big, big surprise and see him actually give "Let's don't fund PBS anymore Romney" a run for his money.
Jon Huntsman has, and remains the ONLY viable candidate IMHO--he is a moderate Republican and it seems he might be able to actually make COMPROMISES.
Huntsman is actually more conservative than Romney. He was a fiscal conservative governor from conservative Utah vs. a moderate governor from liberal Mass. Unlike Romney, Huntsman hasn't flip/flopped on abortion and has always been against it, for the NRA and endorsed Paul Ryan's budget. As George Will argues:
"[Huntsman] endorses Paul Ryan’s budget and entitlement reforms. (Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”) Huntsman would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Gingrich’s benefactor). Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. (Romney would eliminate them only for people earning less than $200,000, who currently pay just 9.3 percent of them.) Huntsman’s thorough opposition to corporate welfare includes farm subsidies. (Romney has justified them as national security measures—food security, somehow threatened. Gingrich says opponents of ethanol subsidies are “big-city” people hostile to farmers.)… Between Ron Paul’s isolationism and the faintly variant bellicosities of the other six candidates stands Huntsman’s conservative foreign policy, skeptically nuanced about America’s need or ability to control many distant developments.
Other than his stance on abortion, I support all of Huntsman's positions and do believe that he is THE Conservative of the field, but I find it amusing that there is so much support for Huntsman from the left. Obviously most of these lefty supporters are not familiar with his policy positions and only assume that if Obama appointed him ambassador to China, that he must be be moderate.
What's missing for Huntsman is the identity of the pragmatic conservative within the electorate. Pragmatism is now seen on the right as a code word for someone who compromises their principles.
It has been noted that the conservative elites still have not made up their mind how to explain the meltdown of 2007. They may not have made up their minds, but the Thomas Frank correctly notes that the narrative that the conservative electorate is buying is that the reason why all the privatization and deregulation for the past thirty years have failed and is that:
We simply didn't go far enough. We compromised our principles.
Elites like Greenspan now understand it isn't so, and that is why more of the same won't work. Self interest should have kept the players from orchestrating the train wreck they did. Self regulation was supposed to work- it was supposed to prevent this.
2010 showed that the "we didn't go far enough" theme of puritanism burns brightly in the base, and the candidates have all been drawn to it. Moderates in the GOP have been systematically silenced and marginalized.
That is what Huntsman is heroically trying to appeal to- that maybe those moderate voices are still there and will courageously stand up with him.
And they aren't.
They might have, but he doesn't know how to tell a national story. To be fair, Obama's speechwriters have also failed to project coherent national narrative that constructs a counter reality that Americans (including independents and conservatives) will eagerly switch to. Reagan's speechwriters were very good at this socially construction of reality. Huntsman, Romney and the others don't have a clue. Obama is very close, but Osawatomie only provided an excellent argument the the time is ripe for a transformative narrative. If you look at the speech, you have stories, but not the story.
The White House staffing I am most interested in is not the chief of staff but the speechwriters, because Obama still does not have a narrative.
A definition of insanity is doing the same things over and expecting a different result.
It's not like liberal intellectuals have an answer either. Reich noted on Olbermann that what Romney did was perfectly legal. Labor is considered to be a fungible resource. Bain viewed themselves as a kind of Salvation Army for US business in a new era of competition and innovation. We might view them more as a Marley and Scrooge operations that raided and drove to bankruptcy the healthy and happy economy of Fezziwig businesses.
Let me play devil's advocate and present the argument that Romney supporters will. Bain lived within the constructed reality that they were refurbishing businesses. They were helping them by identifying inefficiencies and either solving them, or if they were insoluble, then to liquidate a company that was no longer viable. This is the fundamental proposition that economic systems necessarily must be dynamic. This "Creative destruction" must be allowed or it will become sclerotic, and due to the inevitable uncompetitiveness, the nation that blocks this dynamism will inevitably sink into decline. That's why they even view "cutting these workers lose" is freeing them for work in companies that are viable.
There are two directions of attack on this. The first is a point of fact about Bain, and doesn't really go to the core of America's economic challenge, that will be there with or without companies like it. Nonetheless going after Bain goes after Romney, and as CHuck Todd expertly noted on Lawrences show last night, his strength is being turned into a weakness as was done with Kerry. Anyway, the case will be made was that Bain was not refurbishing, but 80s style corporate raiding, whose goal was not the philanthropic activity of making these businesses profitable, but the parasitic goal of extracting wealth from them by loading them with debt and selling off assets and delivering the profits to Bain's shareholders. Josh Kosmon's "The Buyout of America" reportedly demonstrates that their activity was in fact parasitic. Haven't read it yet, but he was on Chris's Saturday show and talked a bit about it (second half I think).
The second most important part will have to wait. Must drive the kids to school.
The average American worker is not going to make a sophisticated analysis when looking at Romney's actions.
Right. America didn't perform a sophisticated analysis when they stepped into the Pottersville reality we are in today. But there was an economic theory that provided the rationale behind the narrative structure than Reagan layed out for who he was and who is opponents were. The casting of Carter as an ineffectual defeatist persists to this day. Romney will be cast as a plutocratic parasite, and Mitt appears to be quite willing to help Axelrod out.
It is odd that in the context in a serious economic downturn there is so little discussion of the fundamental challenges facing the US economy. I am of the opinion that the collapse in aggregate demand is not a temporary one that we can innovate our way out of.
Thorough economic analysis is required because the forces that have been cratering the middle class are doing this to all countries of the OECD regardless whether they have bought into America's delusions regarding economic policy or not. The problem with the idea of "freeing labor up to work in more competitive businesses" is that this is not what is happening. Outsourcing and automation is decreasing the demand for US labor. The conundrum for liberals is this: If we accept that companies must strive to find ways to become more competitive, what is the theoretical basis for saying that some efficiencies like cash machines and automated checkout at Home Depot are ok, but others are not? What is the counterbalance to the drive for efficiencies which is not currently at play in the dynamics of our economy.
The counterbalance is known, but there is no proactive expression of it. It is a macro effect that has such tremendous latency that it presents the severe downside of decisions long after they are made that those making the decisions are never made to pay for them. Granted, a business can be made more efficient by closing a plant in the US, moving the equipment to South East Asia, and producing the same products for a fraction of the labor costs. The obstacle to this was a kind of Fezziwig paterrnalism that main street businesses in America had towards "their people". The decision is a no brainer from the perspective of strategic advisors bringing this hard nosed Wall Street attitude to Main street. Bain evolved from solely providing strategic advise because they understood the financial rewards these Fezziwigs were declining when their Bain advise was ignored.
The thing is that the Fezziwigs were right. The reason why rests not just on sentimentalism and solidarity with the lives of the Bob Cratchit's around us.
The Nation's collective purchasing power is a national resource. It is like a river that provides water that all companies need. They extract some, and return some in the form of wages and cheaper goods. But if the wages are small or go to workers outside the US who are not buying US goods, or are being built by robots that are not being paid wages, then the company extracts more from the river than they return. This resource is free, and no one requires that the river be restored, because the balance has always seemed to take care of itself.
Because the Bains of America do not suffer any penalty for this macroeconomic deconstruction of the national economy, what Bain can quite legally do is sell off the River.
This cannibalizes the US consumer's purchasing power. If middle class jobs continue to dry up, the consumer economy continues to dry up. Without purchases, more businesses close and there is even less consumption. The economy spins down but what is especially perverse is that the economic incentive is to accelerate the process of it spinning now, because it is immensely profitable to the "wealth creators" to automate and outsource. They aren't making wealth for the 99%. They are making wealth for themselves.
Of course there is the solution of a command economy, but I am interested in decentralized dynamic systems. One approach is to use the current dynamic system, but introduce a cost for what is now a macroeconomic externality- the cost of unsustainable reduction of the level of the "river of purchasing power". There two main implementation paths, and the fuller exploration of the concept and its solution are described here.
For the purposes of this posting though, one solution is to increase government employment to sustain sufficient levels of consumption. There is a disincentive for outsourcing because the funding for the jobs is extracted from duties on all imported goods. What about automation in US companies? Companies that have egregiously skewed revenues compared to wages paid means that the company for whatever reason is extracting much more purchasing power than they return. In response the government taxes the company on these excesses. Equilibrium is achieved either by the company correcting the imbalance by hiring more workers to restore the balance, or by the government recovering the capital through taxes and hiring the people to perform socially beneficial work such as in the arts or education. Equilibrium is achieved in the case of cheap imported goods when a country shows either that it is returning sufficient purchasing power to consumers by purchasing US goods that result in actual US wages. Otherwise, their goods are made so costly that other countries that are able to consume US products do provide the products, or if no countries can, then a US company will find it sufficiently profitable to provide the product.
This is not to say that Bain type companies are not also profiting by from other global disparities such as cheaper production costs due to absence of laws governing workplace safety, and lack of ecological regulation. Tariffs might by part of an enforcement mechanism not simply to maintain the health of each nation's river of purchasing power, but also to address need for global integration of laws regulating international businesses.
This is not a retreat from the positive objectives of global neoliberal free trade doctrine. Market forces can work to assure that incomes of third world countries are raised. Growth of stable middle classes in those countries will work towards world peace because of the transhistorical and transcultural phenomenon that countries with strong middle classes demand democratic institutions with a leadership responsive to their interests. Can the "Invisible hand" be trusted to deliver these positive results? Especially after 2007, we know about misplaced trust in the capability of economic systems to deliver social goods with only self interest to guide its decisions.
The left must not submit to the label of being anti-globalization. We are against the globalisation of irresponsibility, not against the global integration of social movements and socially positive economic activities. The World Social Forum is an example of this framing of the challenges.
As a step towards this lofty goal, and in the context of the problem of outsourcing, a pure neoliberal economic argument can be made that the global economy benefits by active intervention to maintain healthy levels of purchasing power in each country. The system may or may not incorporate tarriffs as I propose, but the goal would be the same.
I agree with your points, but the majority of American voters do not like analysis. They are looking for or believe the simplistic slogans. The logic of cutting taxes and regulations is simple logic which appeals to some voters. Sophisticated voters want more than that simple logic. But the voters are willing to let politicians slide on details. A politician that goes beyond a slogan runs the risk of being tuned out by voters who want to hear good "news" from candidates. That news has to be wrapped in a simple slogan which is why the parties retain PR firms to help develop that message. Voters love to hear candidates promise tax and spending cuts, but they do not want to hear or ask what the bad side of those promises will bring.
We are cannibalizing the government and its services for the sake of trying to balance the budget. Privatization is not about efficiency; it is about putting money into companies pockets. There will be a large cost for this defunding and privatization when they need to be fixed by the government. We are already seeing the effects of these problems. The poverty rate is increasing; our education system is deteriorating and our infrastructure is doing the same.
We pay homage to the free market when in fact, we accept restricted markets from our trading partners. I have advocated for an end to trade agreements that allow other countries to restrict our products while they are allowed to dump their products here. Our government needs to further restrict the private sector's give away of our technology to foreign countries like China. These actions need to be taken cooperatively with the EU which has the same problems with trade.
Tax laws need to be revamped to encourage job creation in this country and penalties for shipping jobs overseas. Another corporate tax holiday will not add any more jobs, but Republicans and some Dems are proposing another one. The last one resulted in execs paying themselves a lot of bonuses and increases in pay when the money was repatriated. We need to change our laws so that it is no longer cheaper to let corporate money to stay abroad.
These are broad outlines but not a complete list of actions we need to take. Our political problem is the influence of business, Wall Street and the banks exert on our government process. The lobbying system is not going to sit back and let their influence be diminished; they will fight back. It is up to the voters to push the 28th Amendment that has been proposed. If Congress refuses to send the amendment back to the states, then it is up to the states to call for the amendment with a constitutional convention. The Prohibition Amendment took a long time to pass as the proponents worked in the states to elect government officials. If Congress sends the amendment to the states it will take time to get enough states because each state will become a battleground for the lobbyists. But that means it is going to take a lot of money for the lobbyists to fight on a state by state basis.
If you want to watch programs filled with propaganda, watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh. We need people like Rachel to keep us informed or we will all be squashed by the greed of those who consider themselves above the law and who do not have to answer to the all omnipotence of the majority.
What's missing for Jon Huntsman is not just one thing. To name a few:
Jon Huntsman's answer to Romney accusing him of serving under President Obama was brilliant and he should start running with that message of UNITY. People are sick and tired of being divided and nobody amongst the Republican nominees ever talk about UNITY (except for the time they accuse the Democrats for waging class warfare).
Jon Huntsman is the only sanity left in the current Republican field. His problem is the Republican party (at least for the moment) like being in their insane state.
The only decent candidate in the GOP freak show and we never got to hear from him. Why he never got a chance is beyond me. They let the nuts have their 15 minutes of fame but turned their backs on Jon Hunstman. I think the GOP has a death wish.
Jon Huntsman's problem is that he served "his country" rather than his "party."
The GOP machine can't have a "rebel" in the top spot. They have to know that he can follow direction; stick to the script and do what he is told without question.
they rather have Rouge over Rebel.
Greed Over Patriotism
Corporation over Democracy
Huntsman may be able to position himself for the 2016 elections if Republicans have huge losses in 2012. Those losses could provide the impetus to purge the radicals in the party. It may take further losses in the 2014 elections for the purge to pick up steam. If the party continues to move further right, it will most likely result in the Republicans becoming a minority for the next decade as well as losses in the states. The Republican party will be changing as their older more conservative constituents are replaced with a new generation of voters that are going to be more moderate in social views. We may witness the dissolution of the Reagan coalition of conservatives with the religious right which will lose influence along with the radicals. Four years would give Huntsman time to build a moderate constituency and make him the leading contender for the nomination in 2016.
Agreed , I believe the democrats have a really good chance of retaking the House in 2012.. even though the stats say the chances are about 37% , I think its actually higher than that.Republicans in the house are digging their own political graves for 2012.And I dont see any of these republican presidential candidate clowns actually beating Obama in 2012 no matter who the republican nominee is.
It is way too early to make any election predictions. We still have a House dominated by Tea Party views and timid moderate Republicans. Republicans are operating on the principle that the bad economy is going to be good for their reelections. But I expect more House confrontations with Obama which will build opinion in favor of the president. There are a lot of swing districts that may flip because of voter anger about gridlock. The anger may also flip a few solid red districts. If Boehner cannot control the TP and Cantor continues pushing for more confrontations, the regular Republicans are going to work on saving their own jobs. The TP House members think the majority of people support their views. They will not be persuaded until public opinion polls in their own districts point to the opposite. And even then, these radicals may not be moved; they are ideologues rather than pragmatists. These confrontations will have a tipping point in public opinion that Republicans will be unable to overcome in time for the elections. And it will be impossible for the radical right to undo the damage they have caused to the party in time for the elections.
That philosophy only works if the American people are not so horrified by the Republican over-reaches since 2010 that they (like me) swear never to vote for another Republican to try to take away our inalienable rights.
The current Republican actions have moved 99% of the population to an awareness of the greed and corruption in our government, not to mention selling their leadership of our nation to the likes of a nobody Grover Nordquist (sp?). To take any pledge that overweighs the pledge to protect our Constitution is shameful and should be illegal. I am appalled that the country seems to just shrug off this fraudulent pledge as some kind of anomaly -especially with all the miscellaneous pledges the Republican campaigners are busy signing, is ludicrous. The only pledge they should be honoring is the pledge of office. Period.
Its never "never too early for predictions", so mine is that the electorate will throw out all the bums and result with the majority of incumbents turned out with a dems controlling the House, Repubs controlling the Senate and White House.
"He never explains why he left the Obama administration, what it was that he saw from inside that administration that really convinced him that he could do things better..."
Maybe it's because he can't "close the loop". I'm not apologizing for this President - but really after 30+ years of "trickle down", massive hemorrhaging of jobs, policy that has favored the Oligarchy, a massive dumbing down of the electorate, 2 totally unnecessary wars, a corporate owned media that truly doesn't inform the masses, and a Congress without a spine (Harry Reid) & obstructionist (McConnell)- exactly what did we all believe - that this would all be cleaned up within he first 2 years?!?! WTH!?!?! Really?!?
I have nothing against Mr. Huntsman, I'm sure that he sounds a bit more sane, and "thoughtful" than those other rabid reich's - but he's to sane for the "rabid base" that he must appeal to, and he doesn't seem willing to throw out the red meat to appeal to these crowds!!
"He never explains why he left the Obama administration"
Well, it is possible that he either can't or shouldn't publicly discuss why he left the ambassador posting in China.
He was in China 2009-2011, during the whole China-Google-Internet Censorship thing (remember?) that turned into international news. The between the lines read of the news stories is that he was "behinds the scene" pressure on the Chinese government that helped resolve the dispute but burned all his bridges within China.
No longer able to actually accomplish anything, he came home and resigned to little notice or fan-fare. In the vacuum of reasons for his resignation the media standard line is "he resigned to run for president." He actually tendered his resignation in Dec of 2010, but the media didn't pick up the story until 2 months later after a mid-January politco hit piece speculated Huntsman reason was to run in 2012.
There has been no counter story from the administration or huntsman, either to confirm or deny this speculation. Strange in today's world of political attack-counterattack, don't you think? I'm not much on conspriacies, but I do think there is something more to why Huntsman left the ambassador posting than either he or the government is willing to admit or discuss.
Or maybe Huntsman was planning to run for president on the GOP ticket and try to get his Grand Old Party back to some sense of intelligent life before the Rabid Religious Right implodes the GOP.
Hey indy - good luck with that thought....
You're right, Zora. Too late!
Huntsman didn't even make it on the ballot in Arizona. So now he is officially off of the ballots in Virginia, Illinois, and Arizona. He still polls ~2% nationally despite non stop ass kissing by the media. HE IS NOT A SERIOUS CANDIDATE.
You posted that three times. Unless there is a rule about being on the ballot in all 50 states to win the primary, it's possible to win without winning all 50 states, so not being on the ballot in 3 states needn't be disqualifying. A procedural and potentially moot point, given the "conventional wisdom" at the moment and the history of primary results.
I don't know where you get the "non-stop ass kissing" thing from, in most media outlets any time his name comes up, it's immediately followed by "but he won't win, so why talk about him." <shrug>
As who is not a serious candidate, that list is long and notorious, and includes Newt, Ron, and Rick (both of them).
if you notice today the VA supreme court said that Rick and Newt Jon etc... can be put on the ballet, so guess its down to two states.