Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman is the most "moderate" Republican candidate running for the presidency. And in a political season in which rage has largely triumphed over reason, no one seriously expects such an urbane and thoughtful man to win the GOP nomination.
In fact, until recently, with first Michele Bachmann, then Rick Perry, and more recently, Herman Cain -- to say nothing of Sarah Palin -- hogging the limelight, Huntsman's quirky and at times bizarre campaign wasn't gaining him much attention. His poll numbers seemed to hover between 2% and oblivion. Many voters came away from his town halls and "meet-and-greets" impressed with his calm and folksy manner, but hardly anyone claimed they'd actually cast a ballot for him.
But take a look at the latest polls coming out of New Hampshire. After months of barely registering there or anywhere else, Huntsman's suddenly broken into double-digits. At 11%, he's nearly tied with libertarian stalwart Ron Paul for third place behind Mitt Romney, whose candidacy has largely stalled, and Newt Gingrich, who's surging just about everywhere, sending the Romney campaign into panic mode.
Gingrich's extraordinary rise -- he's pulling away in Iowa and South Carolina, and most of the Deep South -- seems to have masked the equally remarkable rise from obscurity of Huntsman. Why, after all this time, is Huntsman suddenly making real headway, and could he actually win somewhere?
One possibility is that Gingrich's rise is part of a more generalized fall from grace of the leading Tea party candidates that seems to have re-focused the GOP campaign on practical ideas and solutions - -and away from tea party placards and bumper-stickers. Gingrich may not be the super-deep intellectual he so often projects himself to be, but his battery of thoughtful debate points have turned him into the Republican equivalent of E.F. Hutton: when he talks, people listen, even his fellow candidates.
And that dynamic clearly favors the cerebral Huntsman. Especially with the recent debate in New Hampshire, Huntsman seems, at last, to have found his true "voice." He's taking on other
candidates, including Romney and Cain, more directly, and no longer looks and sounds like a wan but charming intellectual -- all smiles and affability -- who's still trying to re-acclimate himself to the rough-and-tumble of American politics after two (arguably sterling) years as Obama's ambassador to China.
Huntsman recently scored big points for moving beyond Rick Perry- and Ron Paul-style rhetoric about "abolishing" the Fed or "firing" Fed chief Ben Bernanke. He not only managed to offer a detailed -- and by all accounts, innovative -- plan for reforming the US financial system, he even coined -- or least propagated -- what's become a catchy expression for how the major banks got the country into so much trouble, leaving Main Street so far in arrears -- and literally "Fed up." It's called "Too Big to Fail," or TBTF, the idea that at a few gargantuan financial institutions can still hold the US Treasury, and the entire central government, completely hostage, should they choose to.
Huntsman's plan, which among other things would would restrict bank assets to a much lower percentage of the GDP and set a hard cap on total borrowing by any single bank, has won him big kudos from influential conservative scholars at institutions like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. Expect TBTF to figure prominently in future GOP debates (there are two more scheduled for mid-December), much as Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan has in the past, which should shine a fresh spotlight on Huntsman.
But Huntsman's sudden rise in New Hampshire also rests on the patient, and nearly invisible, base work he's conducted in the state -- in fact, only Romney has spent more time there than the former Utah governor.
Huntsman also has a secret weapon: his leading campaign director in New Hampshire, Wally Stickney, is the same man who nearly delivered the state to Romney in 2008. Stickney helped Romney focus on a key concentration of voters in and around Salem, who turned out heavily for the former Massachusetts governor, allowing him to finish a close second, and to continue his campaign. Romney, of course, has gone back to these voters -- but so has Huntsman, and apparently, with doubts about Romney growing everywhere, it's finally paying off.
Make no mistake: Huntsman's road to the GOP nomination, let alone the White House, is barely discernible. He supports cap-and-trade, and like Gingrich, has long favored a nationwide "guest worker" program as a solution to the illegal immigration crisis -- even working closely with then-Arizona Governor and current Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano to fashion one in 2006. However, there's also a major sea-change occurring, with Gingrich, especially, helping to redefine who a "moderate" and a "conservative" Republican is.
And with so many conservative challengers to Romney having fallen by the wayside, and now Romney, himself, apparently fading, just about everyone left standing, including Ron Paul, is getting a serious second look.
Huntsman, it turns out, is decidedly pro-life and has an impeccable record of cutting taxes and creating jobs in Utah, where he was once rated the nation's top governor. Sure he's a Mormon, but so is Romney, and Huntsman's a decidedly unorthodox one, expressing admiration for Buddhism and sending his kids to Catholic schools, and as an adult, generally steering clear of the Mormon institutions he grew up in (unlike Romney, who turns out to be a distant cousin, he refused to attend Brigham Young University).
It's a "two-man race," say the pollsters, meaning Gingrich and Romney. But of course, that's what they said about Romney and Perry and Romney and Cain -- and look where we are now. Gingrich is devouring Romney from the right, but Huntsman's surge is coming from the left, and in both New Hampshire and South Carolina, which hold "open" primaries in 2012, many Democrats who openly admire Huntsman -- and who despise Gingrich -- are expected to vote also, and that could easily lead to unexpected consequences for the two men at the top.
And remember: this is New Hampshire, which has a habit of defying the odds and voting for candidates (witness Pat Buchanan in 1996) who have no real chance of going the full distance.
If nothing else, by depriving his fellow Mormon of a badly needed sanctuary among moderates, in New Hampshire and possibly elsewhere, Huntsman, even more than Gingrich, could well be the man who sends the former Massachusetts governor to his second straight defeat for the presidency. That could spell an end to Romney's once-promising political career -- and quite possibly, the beginning of a bright new one for the man who once dropped out of school to play lead guitar in a rock-and-roll band.
Who knows, maybe the GOP has a future after all?
Karl Frisch: Meet Mitt Romney's Vice Presidential Running Mate
More from Jon 'Call Me Crazy' Huntsman
US Presidential Race: Daughters Of Republican Hopeful Jon Huntsman Rap In ...
Huntsman hits Romney over Fox interview
Huntsman Gaining Traction In NH
to screw the middle class and protect the rich just as much he just doesn't foam at the mouth like the rest of them.
way, which would mean either more gridlock, or more compromise.
As usual, the mainstream media was quick to misinterpret Gingrich's decision to debate Huntsman as a "blunder," just as they misinterpreted Gingrich's cagey bait-and-switch maneuver on immigration as a Perry-style gaffe.
Why agree to debate a guy who's a long-shot and trying to displace you? Why? Because he won't displace Gingrich and even if he did, and killed Romney in New Hampshire, that would seal the nomination for Gingrich.
Gingrich and Cain used their "debate" appearance to their mutual advantage, and here the Gingrich and Huntsman have an opportunity to close the door on Mitt, who foolishly refused an offer to debate Gingrich giving Huntsman the opening.
This will also have a very interesting impact on the immigration debate, since the two are the most moderate GOP candidates on the issue - both backing a guest worker program, and both wanting to see flexibility on letting some illegal immigrants stay.
I don't think that will play badly in New Hampshire, and I think Huntsman could score big with his TBTF campaign against the banks. On the other hand, he may not be able to take advantage of the venue -- he hasn't exactly shone in most of the debates, but wither way Newt wins, I think.
Hard to imagine what is going through Romney's head at this point. It's becoming pretty clearn that when truly pressed he can't handle the pressure.
http://www.wbur.org/2011/12/02/huntsman-nh
The Gingrich-Huntsman debate is a very interesting maneuver by BOTH men - common interest in destroying Romney.
Last time Gingrich agreed to a debate - with Cain - both men rose.
First, the GOP gets too much support from the military-industrial-petroleum complex to accept Huntsman's more rational stance on national defense. But more importantly, for a GOP candidate to successfully advocate curtailing defense spending, he or she must sufficiently appeal to the xenophobia that is endemic among conservative voters while being vague about specific military activities overseas. Gingrich is following that strategy:
http://www.newt.org/solutions/tell-truth-about-national-security
"1... We are engaged in a long war against radical Islamism, a belief system adhered to by a small minority of Muslims but nonetheless a powerful and organized ideology within Islamic thought that is totally incompatible with the modern world."
"4. Military force must be used judiciously and with clear, obtainable objectives understood by Congress.
Huntsman, on the other hand, is too straightforward about specific failings of our national defense activities that have been touted by GOP leaders for years. From his campaign website:
http://jon2012.com/issues/national-security
"[O]ur mission [in Afghanistan] has evolved into an ill-advised counterinsurgency campaign which continues to carry heavy costs in terms of blood and treasure."
Moderates and isolationists in the party might agree with this statement but I highly doubt the conservative bulk of the party, who still cling to the myth of America's invincible military might, can yet appreciate the merit of Huntsman's honesty on this issue.
Look, there is a very strong current of support ion BOTH parties for Hujtsman's view of Afghanistan and counterinsurgency. It's the "neo-realists" now camped around Brent
Scowcroft, but tracing their deep roots to America Firsters and others. Even Haley Barbour began moving in this direction before he decided to pull out.
Can it survive the neo-con onslaught once a candidate gets elected? Maybe not, Dubya sure embraced them quickly. But the public mood is changing, and actually, the Tea party in Congress, teaming up with liberals, has helped fuel this movement to
question military spending.
Sure it will be a huge battle, it might even split the party, but I do think a new fault line is opening
up.
Great post, thanks.
I agree with your view - but it's a static one, I think. A lot of the GOP establishment types are sitting this one out because they want to see the Tea
For too long, and still to this day, the majority of the party leaders have touted to its faithful the merit of our country's egregiously wasteful defense spending and it's overly ambitious military adventurism. The defense hawks in the party, which is most of the GOP "establishment", are going to have to slowly walk back their rhetoric on these issues in order to (a) not spook their supporters in the defense and petroleum industries, while also (b) not opening themselves up as being label as "soft on defense", including that of the right-wing government of Isreal. That last point, for example, is why Ron Paul is not being invited to participate in the upcoming Republican Jewish Coalition Presidential Candidate Forum:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/02/ron-paul-republican-jewish-coalition-israel_n_1126326.html
And why, in part, my conservative Christian older brother supports first Romney, then Gingrich, for the GOP nomination even though he has scaled back his support for the war in Afghanistan.
Probably not.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2011/10/26/gop_candidates_differ_sharply_on_economy_266151.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/05/23/huntsman_in_2009_stimulus_probably_wasn_t_big_enough.html
Here's a polite suggestion.
1. Try to write at least two and hopefully 3 lines.
2. Try to introduce new information that adds something not already known. Include a citation.
3. Try to be respectful of your fellow bloggers. I'll do the same. And
4. GROW UP. We're all professionals here (presumably)
But beyond that, what's your point? Of course, most Republicans agree on the fundamentals, as do the Democrats. They're Republicans Get it?
The elephant in the room is trade. Huntsman has failed to publicly offer a solution to the China problem. As a former Ambassador to China, this should be an expertise. Perhaps his China policy is more of the same. He should learn from his fellow Utah candidate, and unambiguously take positions on the critical issues.
Unfortunately for husntman, the american voters don't like hearing that there is no quick and simple solution; they don't like hearing that its complex and could take years or even decades to deal with. Talking tough makes them feel so much more comfortable.
And this is why so many presidents end up loosing so much of their support after their elected; They got their support by talking tough and hopeful but as president they find themselves bogged down by harsh realty and thus disappoint the voters whose hopes they raised. Hunstman is too realistic for voters who are in desperate need of a reality check.
The first step needs to be an understanding that the status quo is broken to such an extent that gross changes must be made. That will probably be very difficult. The choice is to act now, under difficult circumstances, or later, after more damage, under even more difficult circumstances.
Many of the Republicans pretend to less intelligent to appeal to the Tea party folks. These voters are easily alienated by anyone who they perceive to be intellectual. If you met Rick Perry off camera, you would think it was a different person. Same with Michelle Bachmann. George Bush played the same game. I think Rove is behind it.
Huntsman is sane.
I am a 21 year old college student, whose saying that I hope Huntsman wins the nomination so I can compare someone to Obama who I might actually consider voting for.
He's the only candidate in the race who supports gay civil unions. He knows that climate change is man-made. He has a real heart, and not just a faint one, for immigrants, though yes, a guest-worker program is a pro-business approach. Lastly, he's probably not going to start a war.
And for what it's worth, he'll probably sponsor a rock jam at the White House with Mike Huckabee,
and ask Led Zeppelin to choose the winner.