« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

The MRC Gala and Why Patriots Should Not Support Jon Huntsman #EERS

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 9th, 2011 at 07:01 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Tonight on the Erick Erickson Show, I’ll play audio from the Media Research Center Gala from Saturday night and get into the details of why patriots should not support Jon Huntsman for President of the United States.

You can listen live at http://wsbradio.com and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.

Consider this an open thread.

Tags: , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • politicalqrm

    that he doesn’t have any ethics.When he accepted the Amb post, his obligation was to serve the administration and its policies in a foreign country. You’re asked by that president, you serve him and no one else. His comment about being called to serve no matter who is president is laughable and disingenuous.

    Those of us with ethics would never accept a post in an administration whose ideology we didn’t agree with in the first place.

    As you mentioned on your show, when he was Ambassador and started an exploratory committee, that was a slap in Obama’s face and disrespectful. (Believe me, I am not a fan of Obama’s by any means, but respect is respect.)

    He’s serving his own interests and no matter whose dogma he has to run over; whether it’s Obama’s or America’s, he wants what he wants.

    Unfortunately, he already has some supporters even here in New Hampshire. However, from what I can see so far: they’re basically RINOs.

    People are grasping at straws for a decent candidate.

  • sandbun

    Or how about any of the other military officers that have served under President Obama? Or does the standard of not being allowed to work under Obama and still have ethics apply only to those you don’t like?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • Stinger808

    …one might view Huntsman as a catspaw of Obama’s, whose task it is to hit Romney on his “Mormon flank” so to speak.

    I don’t think much of Romney, but if the Obama campaign views him as a viable threat, then wouldn’t encouraging an ideological fellow traveler like Huntsman to run–and bleed Mittens in the primaries— be the sort of thing they might do?

    Naaahh…

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    didn’t follow Administration policy or attempted to undercut the President or State Department while he was Ambassador?

    Absent that, you’re argument is not quite up to “weak”.

    Full disclosure: Huntsman is two notches below Palin and one notch above RonPaul on my potential candidate list. I don’t support him, or like him, for his positions on policy and issues. I could care less about the mental masturbation involved in the “loyalty” argument. It’s on par with Obama’s birth certificate and the tripe pushed by the “deathers”.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    You’re really going to tell me that my concerns about Huntsman serving as President Obama’s Ambassador to China while plotting a run against him are comparable to birtherism and deatherism?

    Really?

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    either didn’t carry out Administration policy or actively worked to undermine the President with the international community on issues of foreign policy, then I’d say the argument isn’t much different than the others I noted.

    Specifically, there was no tangible evidence to support either of those arguments either. In addition, making those arguments was a distraction from the real argument which was, and is, Obama’s policies. I see this headed in exactly the same direction, it’s an absolute distraction from Huntsman’s positions on issues that matter. And Lord knows there are more than enough of those to oppose to eliminate him from primary consideration.

    I agree with the basic premise – I’ll never support Huntsman outside of the general election. For exactly the same reasons I won’t support Huckabee (or Trump – heh), issues. I support the decision, I just find the rationale to be not up to your usual standards.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    Loyalty is a primary issue for me and there need be no further evidence that he is disloyal.

    It’s not a big issue in this day and age when we turn everything into partisan issues, but I guess I’m a bitter clinger to the way things used to be.

    Back during the Mexican War, President Polk fired his Ambassador for publicly aligning with the opposition. The guy went on to stay in place and undermine Polk.

    To be sure, there is no evidence *yet* that Huntsman betrayed Obama. I’m sure Obama will manufacture some. But it is irrelevant to me.

    An Ambassador of the United States is the President’s representative to a foreign power and should not openly contemplate or plot running against the President until he resigns from office.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    :-)

    See here…

  • Doc Holliday

    that was persuaded by local priests to turn against America. Even when they changed their minds they still were executed.

    The thing is Erick, you have totally ruined Huntsman here, that should be enough. We each chose our battles so it is not for me to tell you what matters to you. I would say be glad some agree with you and others are turned off by Huntsman for other reasons, in the end, does it really matter why they oppose him?

  • septembergurl

    In the run-up to 2012, it’s clear from the sluggish ratings of the “frontrunners” that the race is wide open. Looking at the top 4 in polls, etc, it s clear that no frontrunner has emerged. Rather, it is a function of name recognition that Romney, Huckabee, Palin and Gingrich are usually the top 4 , with no candidate gaining more than 20%.. Romney and Huckabee are the runners up from 2008. People have heard of them and know who they are. But there is not much enthusiasm. Palin and Gingrich have a core of enthusiastic supporters, but they also have very high negatives. Gingrich has crippling baggage; Palin, for whatever reason (and I am sorry to say because she is my #1 choice) has not done what is necessary to clear the way for a Presidential run.

    Let’s forget about the second tiers, shall we? Herman Cain and Michelle Bachman are terrific, Santorum a has-been, Trump a joke, Ron Paul will get his usual 6%, Gary Johnson a bush league Ron Paul. Pawlenty is just not Presidential.

    So it’s going to be a Dark Horse. For a long time I was sure it would be Chris Christie, or maybe Scott Walker. However, recent events have changed my mind.

    The Bin Laden rubout is not a game-changer, nor does it guarantee Obama’s re-election. However, it does mean that portraying O as Jimmy Carter redux is
    no longer a given. In other words, national security, foreign policy, etc becomes salient.

    Aside from John Bolton and maybe Gingrich, who do we have who can go up against Obama, post OBL rubout?

    Let’s see….Ambassador to Singapore when he was , I believe, 29. Years in Taiwan as a Mormon missionary. Mastery of Mandarin and Taiwanese language. In the Commerce Department promoting trade in Asia. Successful businessman. Twice elected Gov of Utah, with approval ratings reaching the 90s. Pro-business. Anti-abortion. Very pro-gun rights. Ambassador to China.

    The strategy is obviously for Huntsman to take out Romney in New Hampshire and South Carolina. (He has no shot in Iowa, obviously). He becomes the frontrunner, wins out over various stop-Huntsman efforts (Daniels, Huckabee). At the convention he and his running mate, FL Sen Marco Rubio, promise a new era of fiscal responsibility at home and American power overseas. They win 45 of the 57 states against the exhausted Democrap ticket.

    This would also be (not that it matters) the best-looking ticket EVAH.

  • Goldwater_Conservative

    but I think it would be impossible to prove it. Loyalty is a big deal.

    One possible way to also think of it from Huntsmans view is that he is being a good loyal subject at his job during Obama’s term, but in 2012 his term is up and if Huntsman thinks he can do better than his boss the he should run. The American people elected him to a term ending 2012, so it would be treasonist for him to undermine this current term while working for the adminsistration but it wouldnt be out of character to throw his hat in the ring for 2012. Its certianly a red flag, along with all his other ones, but Erick’s argument seems to imply that Obama’s adminsitration is entitled to extend beyond his term. In fact, this happens in this country all the time in our sherrif departments as deputies may want to run agaisnt the sitting sherrif when his term is up, but until then they do their job for their bosses.

  • politicalqrm

    on Huntsman and the other and I can’t believe what I am seeing.

    So, basically we should back Huntsman just because he has an (R) after his name?

    It has nothing to do with whether or not he did anything against Obama’s policies while in China; it is because he took a post that entailed promoting O’s policies. And his borrowing money from China helped put us in this fiscal mess that we have to get out of.

    Anybody remember last November? Congressmen in DC had no responsibility toward their constituents. Many went to DC and decided they were working for themselves and not their districts. Voters got tired of them ignoring their campaign promises. They were kicked out. Granted there were more Dems thrown out, but the reason was that they weren’t working for the people that put them in there. Loyalty. No matter what party you’re in, you have to have loyalty to the person that gave you the job.

    People aren’t still getting it. It’s sad.

  • sandbun

    I haven’t read all the comments in the other posts, but I have yet to see anyone push for Huntsman, and I’ve seen a lot of people arguing the opposite. All I’ve seen is people say that the idea Huntsman is “disloyal” to the president for considering his own future is a silly premise. That’s not near the same thing as supporting Huntsman.

  • Common_Cents

    It’s easier than running on your own merit. Game the system instead.

    Why did Obama offer it to Huntsman in the first place, for the good of America?

  • politicalqrm

    what is your opinion on his possible run for the presidency?

    At least some of us have a standard that we mark candidates with; agree or disagree, that is your right. Of course that puts us open to criticism, scolding or even ridicule.

    But at least we put it out there for all to see…