Why Jon Huntsman will get a nice reception in Atlanta

GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, the former U.S. ambassador to China, has a first fund-raiser in Atlanta this evening — a 7 p.m. reception at the City Club of Buckhead. We understand he’s to be introduced by state Rep. Joe Wilkinson of Sandy Springs.

Yes, Wilkinson is pledged to Newt Gingrich. But he’s known Huntsman for 30 years — since the Reagan White House years.

Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman/Associated Press

Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman/Associated Press

In the polls, Huntsman is mired in single digits, and has difficulty establishing a productive niche within the Republican electorate. Texas Gov. Rick Perry leads in the one Georgia poll that’s been done, and probably has the largest crop of state lawmakers as supporters.

But when Huntsman dips into the state Capitol on Wednesday for a little handshaking, look for him to get a very, very healthy reception.

Gingrich aside, the last Republican presidential candidate to stop by the Capitol to ask for votes was Tim Pawlenty – last November.

State lawmakers will be very happy to send the message to the GOP field that votes go to the candidate who asks for them.

- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.

60 comments Add your comment

Keith

August 23rd, 2011
12:58 pm

Huntsman couldn’t win Georgia even if he had been a star quarterback for UGA. The guy is more liberal than most GA Democrats!

Hazel

August 23rd, 2011
1:02 pm

Southern Hospitality?

Elephant Hunter

August 23rd, 2011
1:13 pm

Huntsman probably will not win GA…that is correct. He is, however, probably the best shot the GOP has at a win in the General Election.

Michael Francis

August 23rd, 2011
1:13 pm

If he broke 5% this weekend at the next straw poll in Perry, I’d be in shock.

crabby

August 23rd, 2011
1:30 pm

Huntsman projects too much professionalism to be acceptable to the GOP faithful. He needs to start talking birth certificates, loyalty oaths, fears of gun confiscation to appeal to the masses.
BTW – anyone notice the announcement of another bank failure? GWB’s soft enforcement of banking laws strikes again.

deegee

August 23rd, 2011
1:38 pm

He’s a Mormon, forget it. He’ll get as nice a reception as a Mormon will ever get in the land of the bible thumpers but who is going to give him money much less their vote?

Centrist

August 23rd, 2011
1:39 pm

Like Newt, he is campaigning for something other than President.

Campaigning is a good way to make a living if you have enough wealthy supporters who expect something in return.

John Galt

August 23rd, 2011
1:43 pm

Crabby-

You may want to look to your butt-buddy Barney Frank when you start looking for accompices to the bank failures.

Huntsman couldn’t win Georgia even if he moved 90 degrees to the right- that silly smirk on his face reminds me of Clintonista Terry McAulliffe.

Guys like Elephant Hunter think the GOP would have to elect a democrat to win in November 2012- they aren’t stupid enough to accept advice from the enemy.

The Snark

August 23rd, 2011
1:49 pm

Keith:

Liberal? If by “liberal” you mean he has a brain and thinks for himself, rather than parroting Tea Party talking points, yeah, he’s a liberal. But I don’t think any real liberals would agree with you.

The Snark

August 23rd, 2011
1:51 pm

John Galt:

If you think anyone who holds a different belief than you do is “the enemy,” then you’re living in the wrong country. Try Somalia, or maybe North Korea.

PS Ayn Rand was a really, really lousy writer.

The Snark

August 23rd, 2011
1:53 pm

Crabby:

GWB had nothing to do with Georgia’s bank failures. Almost all the failed banks are Georgia chartered banks. That responsibility lies 100% at the feet of our previous governor and the Georgia Department of Banking & Finance.

Hazel

August 23rd, 2011
1:54 pm

MYTH: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the “current financial mess”

In a September 19 Huffington Post blog post, Center for American Progress senior fellow David Abramowitz wrote:

“There must be a Republican playbook circulating widely with a chapter entitled, ‘What to say if asked who’s to blame for the foreclosure mess.’ Because an awful lot of Republican candidates are all suddenly yelling ‘Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae, Fannie Mae’ whenever plunging home prices and the housing crisis comes up. [...] So their plan seems to be to chant Fannie Mae often and loudly enough, and hope the public will get confused about who really caused this huge national calamity. It is always a good political story to just blame a bad guy who has something to do with the same topic.

Indeed, during the September 24 edition of Fox News’ Special Report, host Brit Hume said, “Many financial analysts are saying that if mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been effectively regulated years ago, the supercharged subprime mortgage meltdown that led to the current financial mess would either never have happened or would have been nowhere near as severe.” But rebutting the suggestion that the subprime mortgage purchasing activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the “current financial mess,” economist Dean Baker recently stated:

Fannie and Freddie got into subprime junk and helped fuel the housing bubble, but they were trailing the irrational exuberance of the private sector. They lost market share in the years 2002-2007, as the volume of private issue mortgage backed securities exploded. In short, while Fannie and Freddie were completely irresponsible in their lending practices, the claim that they were responsible for the financial disaster is absurd on its face — kind of like the claim that the earth is flat.

Bootnewt

August 23rd, 2011
2:01 pm

Huntsman…thoughtful, intelligent, works cooperatively with others and mature. In the GOP primaries: Unelectable! Too Bad.

Centrist

August 23rd, 2011
2:02 pm

@ Hazel – nice try quoting a liberal trying to dismiss this disaster. Here is the video you only partially quoted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

Ghost Rider

August 23rd, 2011
2:12 pm

Hazel:

“In a September 19 Huffington Post blog post,”

You are kidding, right? The Huffington Post is about as authoratative as ‘Mad Magazine’!

You’re so funny!

Hazel

August 23rd, 2011
2:15 pm

It’s not a video.
Another citation:http://seekingalpha.com/article/98533-fannie-and-freddie-did-not-cause-this-crisis

Factual data is neither liberal or conservative. I’ve not seen any objective analysis that places more of the blame on Fannie/Freddie than on Wall Street greed. If data is rejected because it doesn’t fit the narrative, it’s no longer about the data.

Ghost Rider

August 23rd, 2011
2:18 pm

Centrist:

Don’t confuse Hazel with facts. After all, anyone quoting the Huffington Post is obviously out of touch with reality.

Truth

August 23rd, 2011
2:19 pm

Herman Cain for President !

brad

August 23rd, 2011
2:22 pm

DEVELOPING: Darrell Issa launches inquiry into why Obama didn’t prevent the earthquake.

Obama out of town…coincidence or not?!

findog

August 23rd, 2011
2:23 pm

Snark :Ayn was not a bad writer, just misguided in some of her absolute ideas

Hazel

August 23rd, 2011
2:23 pm

OK. The video clip is from Fox, which I would guess is more Fair and Balanced than the Huffington Post. But that isn’t factual either. Fannie/Freddie were a mess, but they didnt cause the crisis. Again, show facts that prove otherwise. Hint: Not just Fox, Rush, & Glen Beck. Facts, economic data, not opinion.

findog

August 23rd, 2011
2:28 pm

the earthquake was caused by lifting the debt ceiling
if we had restrained spending then we could have kept the seismic shift from occurring by keeping a tight lid on the foundation of our government

findog

August 23rd, 2011
2:34 pm

plate tectonics is unsubstantiated junk science dreamed up by the USGS to keep their jobs and to cost developers extra cost in building which is how the Obama Administration is destroying jobs our illegal immigrants need to work at sub-minimum wages to perpetuate our SPLOST dependent local governments

findog

August 23rd, 2011
2:50 pm

brad, earthquake was caused by heathen democrats as all good godly Republicans know that only God, or Moses, can part the sea and USGS claims that earthquakes are caused by the continents moving apart/together, see earlier disclaimer of who can do that…

Butch Cassidy

August 23rd, 2011
3:25 pm

I voted for Huntsman when I lived in Utah, he was an excellent Governer. Unfortunately, his ability to work with opposing parties and his tendancy not to rant on about “big government”, “socialism” and the “Obama Disaster” will keep him from being a serious contender. However, I’m sure if he launches a diatrabe about all of the above, he will rise steadily in the eyes of the party faithful.

Ralph

August 23rd, 2011
3:38 pm

He may be the most electable Republican in the general election, but is disqualified from the nomination because he is not in bed with the wingnuts.

RGB

August 23rd, 2011
3:38 pm

Hunstman has nice hair and wears nice suits. Other than that there’s little to recommend him.

President Obama is rumored to be considering honoring former President George W. Bush by formally naming today’s underlying geologic phenomenon after him.

It’ll be called BUSH’S FAULT.

Remember to tip your waitress.

RGB

August 23rd, 2011
3:44 pm

Yeah, everybody knows that if one wants to balance the budget or fix the actuarial messes that are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid–then that person is a “wingnut”.

People who want those and other programs (such as a little thing called “national defense”) to blow up into 17 trillion pieces so that nobody ever is able to use them again are termed “progressives”.

Thanks for reminding us of the term “wingnut” as we have never heard it before. And thanks for your useful, meaningful, cogent solutions to the pressing problems of the day–mainly calling other people “wingnuts” (which incidentally surpasses President Obama’s contributions in this area).

Be sure to go see if the mailman has made it by. Wouldn’t want to miss your check.

RetiredSoldier

August 23rd, 2011
3:46 pm

Why do liberals say Huntsman is the most electable candidate for the republicans? Huntsnman is just warmed over McCain and you know how well McCain did.

The main body of republicans are more conservative than Huntsman, he will not be nominated. My hope we nominate someone with as conservative as Obama was liberal in the senate. Don’t forget, Obama had the most liberal voting record of anyone, and that includes Kennedy, Kerry, Durbin, et al.

Elephant Hunter

August 23rd, 2011
3:59 pm

We are saying that because he is the closest to the median voter.

See, we liberals…aka intelligent people, realize that when you have a pool of candidates running to the right of Attila the Hun, they will have a difficult time moderating their fascists statements in those last 4 months before the general election. Huntsman does not need to do that…he is a centrist.

Hazel

August 23rd, 2011
4:02 pm

Mostly False

“Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate.”

John McCain on Friday, September 26th, 2008 in Oxford, Miss.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/26/john-mccain/several-ratings-rank-obama-lower/

Ghost Rider

August 23rd, 2011
4:02 pm

Retiredsoldier:

“Why do liberals say Huntsman is the most electable candidate for the republicans?”

Because they want the Republicans to nominate a candidate that Obama can defeat?

Ghost Rider

August 23rd, 2011
4:03 pm

Huntsman = That dog won’t hunt!

RetiredSoldier

August 23rd, 2011
4:06 pm

EH-

Let’s see if I have this correct. Republicans should do what hasn’t worked over and over again because liberals, that won’t vote for whom they are recommending, recommend that person? Now I see why you consider yourself intelligent.

Obama didn’t have that problem with the ulta liberal statements he made in the primary in 2007-2008, why should a conservative republican?

RetiredSoldier

August 23rd, 2011
4:07 pm

GR-

Exactly and they sincerely don’t understand why we won’t take their advice.

Elephant Hunter

August 23rd, 2011
4:10 pm

Retired soldier,

Because Obama did not make many liberal statements. What you fail to understand is that there is this middle ground called “the center.” For some reason people like you think that everyone one notch to the left you are liberal. People like you and Bachmann and the rest of your ilk alienate every liberal, centrist and moderate republican.

McCain lost for several reasons…his age and his VP nominee topping that list. The least damaging thing to his campaign were his politics.

Time Traveler

August 23rd, 2011
4:18 pm

The center…aka “independent voters” end up deciding elections. People like Bachmann and Paul and Cain scare the crap out of these people.

2012 is going to be all about the Presidential campaign…it is a highly salient election that will draw a representative sample of the population. Midterms tend not to be that way, so tea party…celebrate the inch you made in 2010, because you are going to lose a mile in 2012. It is a matter of basic statistics. The population of the country, in terms of partisanship, is fairly normally distributed in presidential contests..midterms tend to skew in the direction of the party not in the White House.

Was anybody really surprised last year? Honestly? The only people that showed up were radical right wingers…of course the tea party got elected. Next year, however,…next year is a story more similar to 1968 in terms of partisan participation. Republicans will show up next year, but only if the GOP nominee is somebody in close to the middle. The GOP can be representative of the country, the tea party is not.

For all of you disgusted with the 2 party system, know that it is the result of the electoral system. Both candidates will race to the middle in the general election, they need to extend their party tent to cover that voter. The further they have to run to get to that median voter the more difficult it is to not appear as a “flip-flopper.”

Just watch.

RetiredSoldier

August 23rd, 2011
4:22 pm

EH-

One thing liberals love to do is rewrite history. Your post is so full of errors it’s almost funny.

“Because Obama did not make many liberal statements”- Do you really think anyone takes this comment seriously? You need to look at file tape of Obama during the primaries.

“People like you and Bachmann and the rest of your ilk alienate every liberal, centrist and moderate republican”- Bachmann is fine, but she isn’t my candidate at the moment. I was very disappointed Paul Ryan decided not to run. Glad you know me and all republicans so well.

“McCain lost for several reasons…his age and his VP nominee topping that list”- If you go back and look at the polls, McCain took the lead after Palin joined the ticket. When did McCain lose his lead? When the economy was about to go under. If you think Obama won because of Palin then I think you need another IQ test. BTW, not a Palin fan, but facts are a stubborn thing.

elephant hunter

August 23rd, 2011
4:22 pm

Retired Soldier,

Maybe you should take Huntsman’s advice. He is almost a billionaire, sorry “job creator” to use your parties enforced language, and you are not.

Who cares if that “dog can hunt.” Hunting is what people like me pay people like you to do. Georgia is ultimately irrelevant. It does not have enough delegates to do anything in the primary and will not vote for a democrat…let alone a black democrat…for president. Even if Huntsman is the nominee, this state is too stupid to figure out how to turn it into an advantage.

RetiredSoldier

August 23rd, 2011
4:32 pm

TT-

Interesting post, but I doubt 2012 will be anything like 1968. Why? First and foremost there wasn’t an incumbent in 1968. The election this year will be all about Obama, did he do a good or poor job. I will agree the quality of the republican will be important only if that candidate doesn’t appear to have the qualities to be president.

Your comments about the tea party being so far out of the mainstream are interesting. What view is radical, or I should say reactionary? Is it the desire to have a balanced budget? Is it the desire to reduce the size of the federal government? Is it the position that we pay enough taxes? Where are they out of normal political bounds?

RetiredSoldier

August 23rd, 2011
4:36 pm

EH-

There you go again, writing before thinking. I am a job creator, I own a small business. I am always looking for someone that has a good sales record. Interested?

I see you can’t answer the post with facts, you have to go to the race card. Typical. On second thought I withdraw my offer of employment, you don’t seem to be …nevermind.

elephant hunter

August 23rd, 2011
4:46 pm

You can’t afford me. Besides, something tells me your business is not in need of an epidemiological researcher/theoretical chemist.

Don’t seem to be what…a person that calls things as he sees them or white?

I am both. My interest in political science is recent. When I taught at Emory I became friends with a few of their political scientists and gave them a hard time about the lack of consistency in their data over time. They used to tell me “If you think chemistry and physics are hard, imagine if atoms changed their minds.” That statement bothered me for about 15 years…then I realized something…opinion crystallization. Some people are far more predictable than others, primarily because they are so emotionally attached to “their” ideas that they never sit down to do the math or apply the logic.

I am sure you are not a racist, most people, even in the south, are no longer racists. I just like pushing peoples buttons. That being said, you do not study politics, economics, psychology, or the interactions between those disciplines. You are probably some small business person that thinks they are living the American dream. In fact, you probably think Obamacare is bad for your business (if you employee fewer than 250 people that are legal residents of the US you do not). My point is this, there are so many things that you and the rest of the lay population, liberals included, think are matters of theory and opinion which are not. It is an empirical fact, for example, that the government bureaucracy is more efficient than private bureaucracy. It is an empirical fact that tax cuts decrease government revenue. It is an empirical fact that 97% of humans do not operate at the level of rationality required for theoretical models of free-market capitalism to function without mass levels of government regulation.

elephant hunter

August 23rd, 2011
4:50 pm

Hey Retired Solder,

I have a quick question, a query of sorts. It is purely hypothetical.

Take a hypothetical young woman…call her Nancy.

Nancy is a college student at UC Berkeley and is majoring in philosophy. She is active in a student environmental association and helped organize a nuclear non-proliferation rally in San Fransisco during her senior year and helped start a Berkeley chapter of PETA.

Which is a better estimation of what she will do in the future and why:

A) Nancy becomes a bank teller.
B Nancy becomes active in the feminist movement while working as a bank teller.

RetiredSoldier

August 23rd, 2011
4:56 pm

EH-

There you go again. I am well schooled in political science, I earned a M.A. in political science from a major university. So I may know a bit about those “interactions”.

Yes less than 250 employees and yes opposed to Obamacare like 58 per cent of Americans from the last poll I saw.

As an educated person please cite the facts you stated at the end of your post. I would be happy to look at them.

Diehard

August 23rd, 2011
4:56 pm

If I had Huntsman’s daddy’s money, I choose a sport like golf or yachting around the world – definitely not ego spelunking (running for president).

RetiredSoldier

August 23rd, 2011
5:02 pm

EH-

I would answer C.Nancy, from a political family, marries well, her husband owns the bank and she goes on to be active in the feminist movement, is elected to Congress and becomes the first female Speaker.

Or it could be D. After entering the real world and turning 35 she becomes a realist and a republican. Attends a tea party, becomes an activist, runs for office and supports the balanced budget amemdment.

How did I do?

Ghost Rider

August 23rd, 2011
5:05 pm

elephant poop:

You are WAY too impressed with your self-importance.

elephant hunter

August 23rd, 2011
5:45 pm

well, the “major” university you got your “MA” from must have been pretty pathetic…actually it is probably non-existent. There is a correct answer.

I am impressed with my self-importance, Ghost Rider. I will add that I am not a political scientist, it is just a hobby that I have gotten into during retirement. After spending a lifetime in research it is hard to turn it off the urge to figure real world problems out. Politics is very interesting and I have been surprised about how scientific it really is. Coming from the natural sciences I did not entirely know what to expect…it is amazing how accurately political scientists can predict election outcomes and other political behavior. For example, why retired soldier is a conservative and thinks that obamacare is not popular. Did you know that Obamacare has an approval rating of about 87%?! You see, polling companies that report their advertisements to Faux News and CNN are not interested in facts…they are interested only in advertising. When you conduct a poll and ask questions to survey respondents about the component parts of the healthcare reform act, the highly approve. That being said, the phrase health care reform has been tainted…and deliberately so, when asking about approval of the act the responses are biased.

I will give Retired Soldier some time to figure out my question I asked about Nancy above. It does not require research…it is a simple question with a simple answer.

JD

August 23rd, 2011
5:58 pm

what the crap is it with MDs being such @ssholes, Elephant Hunter!

I never got this from PhDs or DBAs I studied under in grad school.

Get a life.

JD

August 23rd, 2011
6:05 pm

By the way, as a professional investor…you are right about 1 thing that I can confirm. Very very few people can live up to the standards of “rationality” that free-market capitalist theory demands. People are too emotional and lack the background in math and logic to participate…but that is why people like me exist, it is called the division of labor. I will never bring myself to change my own oil or kill my own food. I too pay people for that, but they also pay me to manage their portfolios (provided they have one).

I will wait to spoil your little experiment with the veteran small business guy. I want him to actually try to respond rather than try to duck embarrassment. After all, it only benefits people like me when others realize that they can not run their own businesses or handle their own investments.

A quick plug, 3 out of every 10 small business fail in their first year because of mismanagement. 7 out of 10 fail in ten years because of their inability to expand (or their lack of know-how). Those last 3 of 10 are either in rural areas and have no competition or have a strict niche (ie high technical consulting groups, medicine partnerships, and law firms).