Now, even Huntsman seeks running room on Romney’s right
When Jon Huntsman entered the Republican presidential race, the conventional wisdom held that he would try to position himself as a centrist and challenge Mitt Romney for moderate GOP primary voters. That belief held up through the first several debates, when Huntsman staked out a not-so-hawkish view on foreign policy, stated support for civil unions, and accused his own party of “run[ning] from science**.”
But apparently, Huntsman has decided to portray himself instead as the more conservative of the two. At least, that’s the impression given from the “Open Letter from Jon Huntsman to John Sununu” his campaign released this morning, mildly scolding the New Hampshire governor for endorsing Romney instead of a true “conservative governor”:
* While Mitt Romney opposed the Bush tax cuts and raised taxes and fees by $750 million in Massachusetts, I signed the largest tax cut in Utah history which helped our state lead the nation in job growth.
* While Mitt Romney implemented government healthcare in Massachusetts — which included an individual mandate and became the blueprint for Obamacare — I signed free-market healthcare reform described as “the other end of the spectrum” from the Obama-Romney approach.
* While Mitt Romney once declared that he does not “line up with the NRA” and pledged to not “chip away” at Massachusetts’ onerous gun control laws, I signed landmark legislation to defend the Second Amendment.
* While Mitt Romney was once ardently pro-choice — stating in 1994 that “abortions should be safe and legal” — I am proud to be a lifelong defender of the sanctity of life.
* While Mitt Romney proudly declared himself an independent during the Reagan-Bush years — even saying during his Senate campaign that he was “not trying to return to Reagan-Bush” — I am proud to have served in President Reagan’s administration which ushered in a golden era of prosperity in America.
When you look at his past statements, positions and voting record, the idea that Mitt Romney is a principled conservative is an impossible conclusion. It is more than his one term dealing with a liberal legislature; it’s a lifetime and record of inconsistent and liberal positions.
One last thing I almost forgot to mention: while we both served President George H.W. Bush — you as Chief of Staff and me as ambassador to Singapore — Mitt Romney supported and voted for Democratic presidential candidate and potential Bush opponent Paul Tsongas.
There’s not much new here in the way of accusations against Romney, just an interesting mix of fiscal and social issues with which Huntsman tries to push Romney to Huntsman’s left. A few observations:
- It’s officially Romney versus everyone else in this race.
- While I give Huntsman 1 million to 1 odds of winning the nomination (”So you’re saying there’s a chance!”), what will be the impact on Romney’s chances of having yet another candidate trying to tear Romney down? Can we expect a big “gang up on Romney” strategy in future debates?
- Romney now has to overcome this line of thinking bound to enter some GOP voters’ minds: “If even Jon Huntsman says Romney’s too liberal to be the nominee…”.
- If Huntsman is able to gain even a few percentage points of support in opinion polls with this approach, whom does that hurt most? (My guess: Probably not Romney; perhaps Cain, if he sheds voters due to his recent gaffes, or Perry, the other ex-governor in the race?)
- A change in approach likely signals one of two things: desperation time for Huntsman, because he knows he can’t win with his previous approach; or a decision that running to the right in the primary isn’t going to hurt any Republican against President Obama if the economy remains stagnant. Or maybe some of both.
Thoughts?
** – Partisans of both the Democratic and Republican brands embrace science when it suits them and ignore/attack it when it doesn’t. To believe the notion that one party is faithful to dispassionate analysis, and the other not, is to ignore the stances of the “faithful” on genetically modified crops, nuclear energy, DDT as a tool for fighting malaria…
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
173 comments Add your comment
JKL2
October 24th, 2011
7:29 pm
DW- Does Obama believe in screwing over the poor for the benefit of the rich like republicans do?
No. He believes in screwing over the poor(and everyone else) for the benefit of him and his friends.
No Repub Will Win In 2012
October 24th, 2011
7:59 pm
All these rich republicans and their rich lackies thinks FOX NEWS and the 1% of the rich will OUT VOTE the 99% of Americians suffering—No WAY. Keep fooling yourselves and making a yourself look siily. November 4, 2012 11:00PM EST. have your answer. Sorry Rich Folk!
Listen up
October 24th, 2011
8:12 pm
one of the 99%
can’t have sex without a tent. bummer.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 24th, 2011
8:21 pm
JKL2- That isn’t getalife’s whining that you hear, it’s the narcotics that he’s been eating.
You don’t think anyone could come up with that sort of crazy s___ without some help, do you?
carlosgvv
October 24th, 2011
8:23 pm
Billy Bane – MarkV
At some point, a scientific theory gains enough hard evidence to be accepted in the scientific community as fact. Evolution is one of these theories and is the cornerstone of modern Biology as you know, MarkV, or should know. As for your, Billy Bane, your posts show you know nothing about science and are only showing your profound ignorance by such mindless posts. Billy, I think Yahoo for Kids might be a better place for you to go to.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Thee Magnificent!!! mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
October 24th, 2011
9:11 pm
First free vote in Tunisia ‘a celebration’ – Urinal
The winning party was based on religion, dominated by religion and entirely composed of religion and the AJC happily calls it a celebration. A “religion” that mutilates woman, murders innocent people and seeks the return of the 7th Century.
How much sicker does it get, Lord?
@@
October 24th, 2011
9:18 pm
The problem isn’t that Obama has lost his touch. He didn’t have it in the first place.
Something I realized early on. At the very least, I thought he was politically savvy. He ain’t even got THAT goin’ for him.
He’s HOPEless.
@@
October 24th, 2011
9:22 pm
No, I’m not blue today.
Laughing Out Loud
October 24th, 2011
9:56 pm
Actually, there is more scientific evidence supporting the theory of creation than there is for the theory of evolution. To examine the evidence (facts) on either side of the issue with an unbiased mind is the challenge. I dare say, Aquagirl has never read one book or even one article regarding creationism. Her position (though it is only supposition on my part) is probably from some unhappy experience with church life and/or religion. She has a bias of closed mindedness and unbelief.
Laughing Out Loud
October 24th, 2011
9:59 pm
Although it is no laughing matter, Obama is quite successful in creating and maintaining class warfare.
Aurelius
October 24th, 2011
10:33 pm
Do the Republicans require a candidate running to the Right of Barick Obama or a candidate running to the right of Mitt Romney?
Sound like the latter.
the
October 24th, 2011
10:44 pm
LOL: how dare you tease the trolls here with heresy. Yes, there is a proof of God. but first lets see how history defines our involvement in Vietnam and compare that with the Nixon justification and the vestiges of that same nonsense as given by the Joint Chiefs of Staff today.
You are a total idiot. You stink worse than a putrid turd. You have no brain. You have no future. You are a vermin magnet. Enjoy the stench, you piece of sheet jackwad from hell, you.
MarkV
October 24th, 2011
10:48 pm
carlosgvv @ 8:23 pm
With all due respect, you are mistaken. True scientists, who must always consider a possibility of alternative explanations, no matter how small, never call even well documented theories like evolution facts.
MarkV
October 24th, 2011
10:52 pm
Laughing Out Loud @9:56 pm: “Actually, there is more scientific evidence supporting the theory of creation than there is for the theory of evolution.”
Coming from a very appropriate handle. Such a statement is a very good reason for laughing out loud.
the
October 24th, 2011
10:53 pm
Tghe support for the theory of creation is that we are here. The support for the theory of evolution is that we are hard of hearing. God is in the details. The proof is in the
the
October 24th, 2011
10:55 pm
the…the…
@@
October 24th, 2011
11:03 pm
Mayor Reed is evacuating Woodruff Park.
As the turning point, he cited when the protesters teamed up with organizers of a two-day hip-hip concert without proper security plans or personnel. Reed said the concert, which attracted about 600 people, had been wrongly advertised as featuring rapper Ludacris.
“I spoke with Ludacris,” Reed said. “He was never going to the park.”
The protesters LIED?
It would appear so.
the
October 24th, 2011
11:06 pm
The proof of God. Gee, have I got your attention?
the
October 24th, 2011
11:08 pm
@@: U R a LIAR.
Fast and Furious Spending
October 25th, 2011
12:11 am
“But you’re re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Promoting open stupidity and denialism ensures it doesn’t matter who we elect, because in 30-40 years we’ll be another France or England has-been nation.”
Aquagirl,
While I agree with you on the potential decline, somehow, our founders founded a great nation WITHOUT the “wisdom and experience” of Charles Darwin behind them. Despite the nascent scientific movement of the eighteenth century, they began this country with the first premise that men, (people if you like) are created by God. Though you may marvel at this “stupidity” in “misunderstanding” the Creation story vs. evolution, please know that one of these accounts explains everything that exists, and the other does not.
If you rely upon science to explain the universe, you will ALWAYS come up short, Aquagirl. The universe can not logically explain itself and we can not, by studying from within it, understand what came before the fourteen billion or so years that it has exsited and continued expanding.
So, as you scoff that Christians are in your mind, stupid, and as you sneer at a people, that only the most backwards and fundamental version of which, really thinks a world was created in six days instead of 4.5 billion years, which was several billion years after the first generation of stars in our galaxy began to fuse hydrogen into larger-atom elements that make up our planet and our bodies, you might just consider that stories aren’t really as devoid of truth as you may think them to be. The light did come first, after all.
Truth ought to be the goal that we can agree upon, not the striving to achieve truth through science only, which is severely limited by strictly emprical or “human” knowledge and our ability to test theories. If your focus is really truth, you simply can not ignore Creation stories as cavalierly as you do. They happen to be as fine an explanation of reality as anything we know. If you want to ignore physics, thermodynamics, chemistry and move right to microbiology as an explanation for everything, be my guest. It just isn’t a very large picture of everything.
Furthermore, it can’t be that “dumb Creationism” was the reason behind the decline of Europe over the last 60 years. Have you been to Church over there? They’re really quite empty these days, and there is absolutely no evidence that they would have anything at all to do with “dumb american creationists” than turn their noses at them.
I think rather that the rearranging of deck chairs on the Titanic is a metaphor more accurately describing the Europeans, who through all these years of decline have abjured the fundamental tenets of republican democracy in favor of bureaucratese, social programs and multi-culturalism.
Fast and Furious Spending
October 25th, 2011
12:25 am
MarkV @ 1048,
You were right, of course. Furthermore, carlos said that evolution was a “cornerstone of modern biology”, and I wanted to point that out because it really makes no sense.
Understanding DNA certainly is a cornerstone of modern biology because it is a useful bit of information to know about curing disease, fixing genes, etc., On the other hand, evolution isn’t useful to a biologist because it is an entirely natural process that only begets understanding without benefit. There’s nothing particularly revealing about evolution except to politically nail creationists, whom you don’t like, to their Bibles.
If I understand that the earth revolves around the sun, is that also a cornerstone of science?
No, but it is a fact much more easily proven than evolution.
Fast and Furious Spending
October 25th, 2011
12:30 am
Geez the @ 1044
Overreact much?
Sounds like your beliefs might be as strong as many believers.
Only difference is they believe in something.
Ed Darrell
October 25th, 2011
3:43 am
Kyle, you wrote: [Aquagirl: I am drawing in part on experience from past reporting: I wrote about GMOs and DDT/malaria at my previous job. All three issues I mentioned are ones against which green activist groups lobby, based on such unscientific precepts as the precautionary principle, while claiming to be “pro-science.” And they have the most luck with center-left parties, both in the U.S. and around the world.]
Surely you are not claiming that the case against DDT is in error, are you? That’s the scientific view, supported by 60 years of research and experience, and hard reality. Where did you write about the DDT/malaria issue earlier?