Why I Will Not Support Jon Huntsman. Ever. [UPDATED]

Monday, May 9th at 6:44PM EDT

159 Comments

“I cannot tolerate a man serving as our ambassador to our chief strategic adversary in the world plotting, while in that capacity, to run against the President of the United States.”

Ambassador Jon Huntsman is gearing up now to run for President of the United States.

If he is the Republican nominee, I will vote for him. But until that moment I will never, ever support him.

And if you are a patriot to the United States of America, you should not support him either. It’s pretty simple why.

John Huntman’s disloyalty to the President of the United States, regardless of the President or to which party the President belongs, should not be rewarded by any patriot of this country.

No, it is not his terrible record. It is not his lefty record on the environment. Nor is it Huntsman’s willingness to stand against 70% of Utah’s voters as Governor and come out for civil unions without anyone asking him. Nor is it his buddy-buddiness with Ahnuld and their global warming pact.

And no, it is not because Jon Huntsman’s Presidential bid is largely a creation and fixation of the media and backed by key John McCain advisers. The media, led by McCain’s old advisers, have collectively fawned over Huntsman since the end of the 2008 election.

John Weaver, formerly of the McCain camp, began advising Huntsman in May of 2009. Even before that, in February of 2009, the media began buzzing that Huntsman was a contender and headed to South Carolina after a stop in D.C.

On February 21, 2009, Larry Sabato declared in the Hotline, “He’s got the presidential bug.”

On May 8, 2009, Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe singled out Jon Huntsman as one of those Republicans he’d feel “a wee bit queasy” about should Huntsman run. That’s all the media needed to begin the buzz.

You know, it’s not even that, like Charlie Crist, Jon Huntsman was one of the Republican governors parading around television in 2009 defending Barack Obama’s stimulus. On February 23, 2009, Huntsman appeared on Rick Sanchez’s show on CNN and had this exchange after Sanchez highlighted Governors Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford refusing stimulus funds:

SANCHEZ: Governor, I’ve always described you and seen you as — in fact, I referred to you this way earlier — as a straight shooter.
Do you believe — and I think I can show you some sound from President Obama earlier today where he seemed to be implying — I don’t know if we can cue that up again, Dan — where he seems to be implying that some people are playing politics with this.

Let’s listen to him and then I want to get your reaction on the back side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: If we agree on 90 percent of the stuff and we’re spending all our time on television arguing about one, two, three percent of the spending in this thing and somehow it’s being characterized in broad brush as wasteful spending, that starts sounding more like politics. And that’s what, right now, we don’t have time to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Is he right, governor?

HUNTSMAN: Well, let me — let me just shoot straight with you on this. We live in a political world, where politicians are going to take sides on issues. And we live in a world where the media are going to take these differences and they’re going to enhance them from time to time and make them the story of the day. So here we are. You’ve got one side talking about 1 percent of the bailout package and our friends in the media who are basically making this a cause celeb day after day.

And in actual fact, we have real people out there who are expecting governors to lead and solve some of these problems. And we’re doing our best to do that.

On February 24, 2009, the Deseret Morning News noted that

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. appeared on two cable news programs Monday defending Utah’s decision to take federal stimulus dollars and made an effort to look presidential while doing it. With Washington, D.C., as a backdrop, the governor took a jab at Republicans for resorting to “gratuitous political griping” and “carping” on MSNBC over President Obama’s federal stimulus bill, which will bring $1.5 billion to Utah.

[Emphasis added]

And you know what? It’s not even that Jon Huntsman chose to go to China as Barack Obama’s Ambassador that I will not support him. Clearly, Obama appointed Huntsman to get him out of the way. With the exception of 2008, Obama’s campaign strategy has always been to knock off his potential challengers early and clear the field.

No, none of those reasons have anything to do with it.

The reason I will never, ever support Jon Huntman is simple: While serving as the United States Ambassador to China, our greatest strategic adversary, Jon Huntsman began plotting to run against the President of the United States. This calls into question his loyalty not just to the President of the United States, but also his loyalty to his country over his own naked ambition.

It does not matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat. Party is beside the point here. When the President of the United States sends you off to be Ambassador to our greatest strategic adversary in the world, you don’t sit around contemplating running against the very same President you serve. It begs the question of did you fully carry out your duties as Ambassador or let a few things slip along the way hoping to damage the President? Likewise, it begs the question of whether our relations with China have suffered because the President felt like he could not trust his own Ambassador?

And don’t tell me that Jon Huntsman was not thinking of running for President and contemplating that while still in office. On May 5, 2009, the Washington Post reported McCain adviser John Weaver was giving Huntsman strategic guidance on running in 2012. This came before Huntsman went to China.

It wasn’t just Weaver.

Former McCain strategist John Weaver and longtime ad guru Fred Davis are among those who have joined Huntsman’s nascent presidential effort. Peter Spaulding, a former New Hampshire executive council member who chaired McCain’s 2000 and 2008 campaigns in the state, is also advising Huntsman.

According to Real Clear Politics’ Erin McPike, the three are set to attend an informal 2012 strategy session with other Huntsman advisers next week in New Orleans. Huntsman, who officially leaves his post April 30th, won’t attend.

Then, on October 28, 2010, while still serving as the United States Ambassador to China, the Deseret Morning News reported

A presidential bid by former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. may be more likely than ever with the formation of a new political action committee by powerful supporters who want him in the race. Huntsman, who stepped down as governor in August 2009 to become the U.S. ambassador to China, has also just bought a new $3.6 million home in Washington, D.C., even though he’s not expected to leave Beijing for at least another year.

Guess who helped get the PAC off the ground? John Weaver.

On November 8, 2010, the Hotline noted

Huntsman, who remains Obama’s envoy in Beijing, has bought a new $3.6 million house in Washington, D.C., and, A group of supporters has organized a political action committee with the potential to raise money for a presidential run in either 2012 or 2016.

GOP strategist John Weaver, a former top strategist to the presidential campaigns of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., helped organize the PAC. Although board members include many well-known Huntsman backers, Weaver insisted that Huntsman had nothing to do with theÂ creation of the PAC and that its goals are to elect GOP candidates, not necessarily to advance the ex-governor’s political career.

On January 2, 2011, while still serving as Ambassador, the AFP ran a wire report as follows:

Jon Huntsman, the US ambassador to China, has hinted he is considering running for the Republican presidential nomination in comments made to Newsweek.

Huntsman, former governor of Utah and a rising Republican star, was picked by US President Barack Obama for the China posting in 2009 in a bipartisan move that some speculated was aimed at removing a potential future rival.

“You know, I’m really focused on what we’re doing in our current position,” he said in response to a question about presidential aspirations. “But we won’t do this forever, and I think we may have one final run left in our bones.”

Asked whether he was prepared to rule out a run in 2012, he declined to comment in the interview posted online on Saturday.

The report quoted anonymous sources close to Huntsman saying he met with several former political advisers during a December trip to the United States to discuss a potential campaign.

[Emphasis added]

Indeed, it was taken as an admission that Huntsman might run. Three days later on January 5, 2011, National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar wrote,

This New Year brought little in the way of the presidential cattle call save a surprise admission from former Utah Gov.Jon Huntsman that he wasn’t ruling out running.… Huntsman’s coming-out in Newsweek to express interest in 2012 underscored two realities of GOP presidential politics this year. The first: The field is so unimposing that even an Obama appointee who broke with the party base on immigration and climate change sees a chance. The second: The best background for a future presidential candidate is through the governors’ ranks.

Note the bit on breaking with the party over immigration.

On January 20, 2011, President Barack Obama, preparing for a summit with the Chinese, had to deal with press reports that his Ambassador to China just might be setting up to challenge him. From Good Morning America, Jake Tapper noted that President Obama, during a press conference with the Chinese premier joked about a possible Huntsman run with Ambassador Huntsman in the room. Jon Garcia of ABC News caught up with Huntsman and, Tapper reported, “Garcia asked him about a run and Huntsman didn’t specifically answer the question. He said, we are loyal to the President and loyal to the country.”

On January 27, 2011, Chris Cilizza, writing in the Washington Post said Huntsman was definitely running and had already begun reaching out to his advisers to fire up the engines. At the end of the month, Huntsman resigned.

The Huntsman camp claims it was a coincidence in which he was not involved that his chief adviser set up a PAC for Huntsman in October 2010. It was all a coincidence and unrelated to anything that the United States Ambassador to China began talking to key players in Presidential politics at the end of 2010 about a Presidential run — over a month before a summit between the United States and China.

From a level of patriotism and pride in my country, regardless of politics and Presidents, I cannot tolerate a man serving as our ambassador to our chief strategic adversary in the world plotting, while in that capacity, to run against the President of the United States. It is unseemly and disgusting.

Republicans made a great deal of and were outraged by the release of old records in the Kremlin that showed Senator Teddy Kennedy collaborating with the Soviets to undermine President Ronald Reagan. Out of just plain old intellectual honesty, I have a hard time seeing how Republicans could not then be outraged by the United States Ambassador to China plotting with advisers, while still on the job, a run against the President of the United States.

Politics is supposed to stop at the waters edge, though that happens less these days. But politics sure as hell should have stopped at Peking (editorial note: I always refuse to say Beijing because that’s what the Chicoms want us to use). And it didn’t. This disloyalty should not be rewarded by any patriot.

———————————

UPDATE: A lot of people take issue with this and the core argument is, in essence, he was a good ambassador. This doesn’t matter to me. My position is not about partisan, politics, or ideology. It’s about being an American.

Put simply — it is a terrible precedent for a United States Ambassador to, while on the job, begin plotting a challenge to the President of the United States. Some of you will disagree. I will not be able to persuade you. That is fine.

But, for some of you, I just want to ask a simple question: what if this was one of George Bush’s ambassadors to Iraq or Afghanistan or China? Would you still think it is okay?

This is not about partisanship. This is not about Barack Obama. This is about the loyalty of an Ambassador of the United States of America plotting a challenge to the President of the United States while representing the United States to a foreign power.

159 Comments Leave a comment

How much effort to floating the idea of a presidential run take?

schteve Monday, May 9th at 1:10PM EDT (link)

If he truly expects to run he will undoubtedly resign his post first.

Huntsman already resigned

catt (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 2:30PM EDT (link)

Gary Locke is the nominee for the replacement.

I don’t get the criticism. Huntsman is accused of “plotting” but the “plotting” seems to go no deeper than the fact that he had ambitions of running for President. He resigned before he started running or in any way opposing Obama.

Comparing this to Kennedy collaborating with the Soviets is … well let’s be charitable and call it an analogy that went astray. Kennedy was collaborating with the Soviets to undermine Reagan. Huntsman wasn’t collaborating with our enemies he was “collaborating” with his fellow Republicans … and there’s no evidence presented that he did anything at all to undermine Obama. Trying to set up a moral equivalency comparing these two situations is

On the contrary Huntsman seems to have faithfully implemented Obama’s agenda in China … and the criticism that fits the facts is that he accepted the position and promoted Obama’s agenda because he _agreed_ with and _admired_ Obama’s agenda:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/15/jon-huntsmans-love-letters/

He’s way too liberal to have any chance at getting the nomination even if he hadn’t written love letters to Obama and Clinton. I can’t imagine what his strategy is that would make him think he has a shot … especially with Romney in the race.

Huntsmans for President....Eric is Wrong

rwmslb7373 (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 7:35PM EDT (link)

Very shallow logic….loyalty…what about serving the country….
As I recall several of the Founders were “ambassadors’ and opposed the very formation of the US….I think Eric need to rethink his position and move away from the ideological…and to the practical….

If One of Bush's Ambassadors...

monkey Tuesday, May 10th at 8:15AM EDT (link)

…had also been appointed for the purpose of “taking him out as a potential Democratic challenger,” I would be a great deal more concerned about Bush’s judgement (than the ambassador’s) in attempting to sleep with the enemy for partisan and personal gain.

Erick, I side with you strongly in the face of opposing views often, but THIS is NOT the issue to take exception to Huntsman. One could argue that seeing the Obama administration from the inside would turn any man of character against a dangerous office holder. In such an instance, what higher sign of loyalty to our nation would there then be than to ensure that such a dangerous man be replaced through the terms outlined in the Constitution — at the ballot box?

Surely you can’t believe that Hillary doesn’t think about replacing Obama on a daily basis? Huntsman resigned his Ambassadorship before making political statements. He has acted reasonably. While there is still much to learn, he may be a much stronger candidate than most of the Republican field. It is too early to oppose him on frivolous grounds.

Amen

blarman Tuesday, May 10th at 11:35AM EDT (link)

Eric’s logic is MORE than just a little faulty. Every politician is looking for the next step just the same as anyone in business. And I guess I’m just confused about why Eric thinks it’s so important to support a President whom he is morally opposed to! If Obama is such a terrible president (which I agree with), then wouldn’t it be the moral duty of a patriot to try to do something about it?

I can understand the complaints about some of the moral issues, but this logic just escapes me, not to mention the fact that Huntsman resigned as ambassador and hasn’t even officially thrown his hat in the ring.

New Subscriber Comment

billbotex Thursday, June 23rd at 8:29AM EDT (link)

I am a new subscriber to your blog. I have enjoyed all posts I have read here so far – Lots of food for thought.

I have a comment about your “Why I Will Not Support Jon Huntsman – Ever” post. My comment is not intended to change yours, or any other reader’s mind about anything. My intention is just to express my opinion – take it or leave it.

I enjoyed the Huntsman post because I know little about him, and your post increased my “Huntsman database”. It would have been more palatable for me if you had not used the words “plot” or “plotting”. One of the most common liberal pundit’s strategies is to lean everything published, strongly to the left, with no regard for truth. Conservatives lean to the right, but with greater regard for truth, IMHO.

There are three reasons I wish the words “plot” and “plotting” had not been used. First the words remind me too much of the liberal ploy to “mold” opinion. In my opinion, “plan” and “planning” would have been more appropriate words.

Second, my intuition tells me that most Conservatives do less actual “plotting”, and most Progressives do more actual “plotting”. Of course this is not hard data, but my experience because of Progressive tactics like midnight & vacation voting sessions, fleeing from the State to avoid voting (when voting is what they get paid to do), recommendations of “Pass the 2000+ page bill so we can find out what’s in it”, 3 votes other than “present” in Obama’s 18 month Senate position (this to me is more deserving of the “plotting” category), Obama IRS annual charitable contributions at $1050 (<1%) prior to candidacy, spiking to 5.4% after candidacy announced ( compared to my income always being one fifth or less of his income, over the same years, whereas my contributions were $4700 (10%) and $5200 (10%) in the same years listed for his), etc., etc., etc. Again not “proof” of plotting but a lot of circumstantial evidence. And at least enough evidence to make me a Conservative and willing to publically express my political opions.

And third, I see no dishonor for anyone to plan career changes while in a current job, so long as there is no INTENTIONAL damage to the current employer.

My blog site is at http://billbotex.blogspot.com if you want to take a look, but I like your site best!

Check out my blog at http://billbotex.blogspot.com

Yep ... he's on the bottom of my list in the "will vote for if I have to, but not before"

Change Jar Conservative (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 1:11PM EDT (link)

I will stay on topic and not list the other GOP candidates that fall into that category as well.

Couldn’t agree with you more on this one, Erick.

********
Formerly know as “Oz” in these parts

US Soldiers..

rwmslb7373 (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 7:36PM EDT (link)

Eric…what about the military that are fighting for our FREEDOM that oppose Obama….should they lay down their arms????

you realize

streiff (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 9:32AM EDT (link)

that serving in the military is not a political appointment, right? I hope?

“What keeps me here is the reek of beer, the ladies and the craic”

Well, anything below those guys with a star on their collar.

Tbone (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 9:04AM EDT (link)

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

What branch of the service do Texaco fall under? [nt]

acat (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 9:28AM EDT (link)

“You can trust your car to the man with the star”

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Cripes, get your meter right.

Tbone (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 9:52AM EDT (link)

“You can trust your car to the man who wears the star.”

Anyway, that would have been the Texian Army, I believe.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Flawed logic

gpclaw Tuesday, May 10th at 12:42PM EDT (link)

If you don’t support a candidate, you shouldn’t vote for him in any situation. By voting for a candidate that you fundamentally disagree with, your sending the message the party can nominate moderate candidates, with no fear of reprisal.

If you feel that a candidate does not represent enough of your political views, or has a record that you just can not forgive, then the principled thing to do would be to write that person’s name on your ballot. The only way the party will change, is by being defeated when a “questionable” candidate is put on the ticket, and strong support is shown for a more acceptable candidate, more reflective of your political leanings. If this happens, I will guarantee that the party will think twice before supporting a squishy candidate.

I understand the logic behind “anyone but Obama”. However, if this means embracing the type of moderate candidate, who will not adhere to the constitution, and will continue “business as usual”, then what did you really win? Besides, their is still the senate, and state races, that can have a more significant impact on the direction of the country, than the person who resides in the White House.

Lets look at your logic

PowerToThePeople (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 4:17PM EDT (link)

and the complete fallacy of your argument. Going to make it quite simple.

I am so conservative, many would call me a neo-con, radical con, extreme con. Ask Doc here on the site.

That being said, lets say hypothetically we have these contenders in the next election:

Jim DeMint who is just about as conservative as one can be and is most likely the most conservative person to serve in Congress in the last 25 years.

Mitt Romney who has some conservative credentials and some liberal ones but tends to be a left leaning moderate. Some of his positions are his now due to flip flops whether legitimate or nothing more than a political maneuver.

Olympia Snowe, liberal republican who is a little to the right of Obama. Nothing I like about her but even on her worst day, she is much better than Obama.

I will state to you now, never would I support Mitt or Olympia in any primary. I would never send them a dime in any primary nor would I assist them in any primary. That statement is not negotiable.

Olympia wins the primary much to my dismay. I am now faced with a choice of seeing the biggest POS president in Obama win another 4 years or do the right thing and come behind Snowe. I would do the right thing 10 out of 10 times and cast my vote for Snowe. This has nothing to do with me giving up my principles or now all of a sudden liking her. It has to do with taking what you can for the time being and doing what is necessary to rid this country of Obama. Sitting home and not voting gives us another 4 years of Obama or any other dem in any other race. So a person stays home and plays with their ball just to show everyone yet screw themselves with another lousy term of a democrat. Not only would that be stupid, it is moronic. The thing to do is grudgingly support the better choice, albeit not much better of a choice, and rid this country of the Obama minions and then concentrate on getting better choices into the winning circle the next go around. That is the only right thing to do.

It has nothing to do with “sending the message” that moderates can be elected, we already know that since all republicans and all republican strongholds are not dominated by conservatives. When a moderate or liberal republican sees that conservatives flocked to the primaries and voted against them, they get our message. Each time they get closer to losing the primary due to a conservative, they know the message is spreading. But when the country sees conservatives grant liberal POS democrats victories because they want to be take our ball home cry babies, the only message sent is that democrats will win because we are our way or nothing quitters.

That's just the "lesser of two evils" fallacy.

schteve Tuesday, May 10th at 4:42PM EDT (link)

News flash: there probably will be more than two candidates for president in your state. If you liked one of them more than Snowe, you should vote for him.

Otherwise, casting no vote for that office is actually a valid vote. It shows that you don’t want either person to win, and I would respect that a lot more than voting “against” Obama.

I always have a candidate

aesthete (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 5:05PM EDT (link)

who I prefer to the guy currently running. He’s called aesthete. However, I’m intelligent enough to realize that that guy can’t be elected. The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for the third party boosters.

“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke

Try to understand this

PowerToThePeople (Diary) Wednesday, May 11th at 11:19AM EDT (link)

even though I would bet my home and land you will not.

There are two parties that stand a chance at winning the presidency. Only two. You can state their will be others who run, but that is a joke.

The place for political ideology is in the primaries. People who have certain stances need to put out the effort to get their candidate elected to the general. But if they fail to do so, the general is the place to beat dems. If the person who wins our nomination is not the one who represents conservatism, so sorry, should have done more to get the better person elected. But in the general, it is not the time to take your ball home and refuse to vote republican as the only result will be a much worse dem. Voting third party is not only moronic, it plays into the dems hands. That is why so many on their side is pushing Trump to run and if he loses to run third party. Why you ask, because they know there are a ton of morons in this party who would abandon our party, vote for Trump (or any other 3rd party candidate), and would hand another 4 years to Obama.

If you do not like who wins our nomination and want to prove some idiot point by voting no, have at it. But it is a moronic position that does nothing but give Obama another term. If a less than stellar person wins the nomination, oh well. We continue to work within the party to get the right people elected. You may think it is OK to act in a stupid manner, I do not. My goal is this and only this, work had to get a great person to win the primary, work hard to beat Obama in the general. Nothing more, nothing less.

Party of Principle

gpclaw Wednesday, May 11th at 2:01PM EDT (link)

Is precisely the reason that the size of the federal government, national debt and entitlement programs continue to grow.

Oh is it really?

PowerToThePeople (Diary) Wednesday, May 11th at 5:29PM EDT (link)

All the problems we face come because we vote republican in the general.

You freakin moron, most of us on here are involved one way or the other in politics and we fight hard to put conservatives up in the general. But unlike morons like you and the idiot 20jan2013, we realize that change comes from within and we must unite to beat every dem possible in the general.

But tell you what, be a big boy and do this. Make a diary where you make this your headline, ” Screw site rules, I will stick to my guns and promote third party candidates when the person who wins the primary is not who I wanted to win!!!” Until then, go talk your nonsense to someone else, I have little time for idiots such as yourself.

Grow up

gpclaw Wednesday, May 11th at 7:28PM EDT (link)

Seriously? I need to read the site rules? Underneath the comment box, it clearly states “Be respectful”, something you are clearly incapable of. At no point have I shown you any disrespect, unless you interpret anyone who disagrees with you as being disrespectful. I’ve seen multiple posts that you have written, resorting to insults, and attempting to belittle those you are responding to.

You are reading too much into my comments, and interpreting things that are not their. Please take the time to review my posts, and tell me where you find any such advocacy for voting third party? Maybe you should be a “big boy”, and take the time to read, and properly comprehend what someone has written, before flying off the handle.

If you have a disagreement over something someone has written, their are more appropriate ways of responding than acting like a child.

OK gpclaw, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

mbecker908 (Diary) Wednesday, May 11th at 8:43PM EDT (link)

You need to write at least an extensive comment – better would be a diary – on just how a third party will be able to elect candidates. Some of the things you might want to consider would include (but not be limited to)…

How do you get national attention.
Where do you find candidates, you should comment on the local, state and national level separately.
How do you build an organization. Same constratints as above.
How do you, and with who, staff the organization. How do you pay the staffers.
Where and how do you raise money. How much do you think it will take to mount at least a regional campaign.

You and 20jan are quickly earning a reputation as people who don’t do the thought process and strategy thingys very well. Here’s your opportunity to show us that you’ve thought through the issues and can express how tactically your insistence on a third party as a viable expression of disdain with the existing Republican Party can happen.

Without some specifics you folks are pretty much viewed, and correctly so, as little children stomping their feet in the playground because they don’t get their way and they don’t like the rules of the game.

I’m looking forward to your enlightening us.

Change

Again

gpclaw Wednesday, May 11th at 10:45PM EDT (link)

No where have I stated that anyone should support a third party candidate.

If you have any questions regarding any of my posts, point it out, and will be more than happy to break it down for you.

You've been wandering around here insisting that

mbecker908 (Diary) Wednesday, May 11th at 10:48PM EDT (link)

a third party will fix the “problems” you see with Republican Party. So has your lap cat, 20jan. Now you walk the fine line repudiating that.

Pathetic. Simply patheic.

Change

So

gpclaw Wednesday, May 11th at 10:54PM EDT (link)

Do you plan on going beyond generalizations, or will you at least have the courtesy of providing specifics?

Also, please point me to any comments I have posted in response to 20jan.

Well lets see what you stated

PowerToThePeople (Diary) Wednesday, May 11th at 9:02PM EDT (link)

“If you feel that a candidate does not represent enough of your political views, or has a record that you just can not forgive, then the principled thing to do would be to write that person’s name on your ballot. The only way the party will change, is by being defeated when a “questionable” candidate is put on the ticket, and strong support is shown for a more acceptable candidate, more reflective of your political leanings.”

Or in other words, my candidate did not win, lets make sure the party gets taught a “lesson” by being defeated by a dem because I wrote in another name rather than voting against Obama or another slimy dem.

“News flash: there probably will be more than two candidates for president in your state. If you liked one of them more than Snowe, you should vote for him.”

That is promoting third party voting bub. Now my words but yours.

So do you still deny that those two example, and others you have posted across this site, are not explicit third party endorsements and or taking your ball home and doing what you can to make sure the repub loses just to teach them a “lesson?”

And site rules are no promotion of third parties bub and no encouraging others to vote against the winner of the general. So yes, your statements across this site are violations of site rules.

News flash!

gpclaw Wednesday, May 11th at 9:31PM EDT (link)

That wasn’t my comment.

That’s just the “lesser of two evils” fallacy.
schteve Tuesday, May 10th at 4:42PM EDT (link)
News flash: there probably will be more than two candidates for president in your state. If you liked one of them more than Snowe, you should vote for him.

Otherwise, casting no vote for that office is actually a valid vote. It shows that you don’t want either person to win, and I would respect that a lot more than voting “against” Obama.

I suggest that if your going to give someone a hard time over a comment, take the time to make sure they authored the comment.

When God was passing
powertothepeople Wednesday, May 11th at 11:12AM EDT (link)
out intelligence, he skipped you didn’t he.

Yep

PowerToThePeople (Diary) Wednesday, May 11th at 9:52PM EDT (link)

one out of two comments was not yours, but lets not forget the other was, was along the same line, and you backed him up. Either way, you have made multiple comments about writing in and taking your ball home and not voting for the winner of the general just because you do not like the one who won.

The premise of your comments remains the same even if one of the comments was wrong attributed to you. You are still trying to pass off failed nonsense as a solution to not getting your way in the primary.

You still misunderstanding

gpclaw Wednesday, May 11th at 10:39PM EDT (link)

First off, I never “backed up” schteve’s comment. I replied directly to your comment.

Second, as far as “picking up my ball and going home” – your words, and interpretation, not mine.

To avoid any more misinterpretation, and to make sure we are on the same page, allow me to elaborate.

If you feel that a candidate does not represent enough of your political views, or has a record that you just can not forgive,

Let’s say candidate A is the GOP nominee, and has a record of supporting cap and trade, universal health care, and is an adulterer. I’m not voting for that person, because that person goes against my political values on to many issues.

then the principled thing to do would be to write that person’s name on your ballot.

If voting for candidate A violates my principles to the point that I can’t vote for him, I can stay home, or I can write in the name of the primary candidate I supported. I choose to write in a name, because I can at least feel like I sent a message. To be more specific, Republicans had a low turn out in 2008. Imagine if those voters wrote in their preferred candidates name, instead of simply staying home. Don’t you think that would have sent a message to the party, and future candidates as to why those voters didn’t turn out?

This ties into the final part of my comment

The only way the party will change, is by being defeated when a “questionable” candidate is put on the ticket, and strong support is shown for a more acceptable candidate, more reflective of your political leanings.

Back to the 2008 turn out. For those who didn’t turn out to vote, their is a high probability that they felt McCain was “questionable. Why did they feel McCain was “questionable? By writing in the name of a “more acceptable candidate”, we would have a better idea who they considered to be “acceptable”.

As I said before, your interpreting things that are not their.

Oh Boy

PowerToThePeople (Diary) Wednesday, May 11th at 11:01PM EDT (link)

Lets address one glaring thing you posted, then the rest will fall into place.

“If voting for candidate A violates my principles to the point that I can’t vote for him, I can stay home, or I can write in the name of the primary candidate I supported. I choose to write in a name, because I can at least feel like I sent a message. To be more specific, Republicans had a low turn out in 2008. Imagine if those voters wrote in their preferred candidates name, instead of simply staying home. Don’t you think that would have sent a message to the party, and future candidates as to why those voters didn’t turn out?”

You bring up 2008. One of the reasons we lost to Obama is that many on our side were lethargic towards McCain. Many chose to not show up, write in names, or vote third party. Do I sympathize with them, yes. I can not stand McCain. But the ignorance cost us 4 years of Obama and countless dems winning state seats and national seats. By by golly, we taught the republicans a lesson…right? No, what we did is build a huge wall that we are still having to tear down now. We gave ourselves Obamacare, massive spending, foreign policy disaster, a bowing president, etc. Even with a resurgence in conservatism in 2010, we still lost some seats we should own, still have major problems, did not win the senate, may have a tough time unseating Obama, etc. Did the repubs learn the lesson you keep alluding to, hell no. The only thing that changed from 2008 to 2010 is we got off our duffs and voted. And we voted heavily even in races where the repub who won the primary was not the one that should have won or was just a hair better than the dem. McCain losing did not benefit us, did not teach the party a lesson (look at who we are putting up again), they have not changed habits, etc. We simply handed a POS the highest office in the world and we are paying for it and will pay for it for a long time.

Your mentality, whether or not you strongly support 3rd parties or just dance around it, is a dangerous and costly attitude. Writing in some name does nothing because A)you will not get enough write in votes to unseat anyone and B) there would have to be a serious grassroots movement in order to even have enough consistent write ins to even generate some sort of message to the party. It does nothing but hand votes to an evil party and costs us dearly. The time for political ideology is during the primary. That is the time to put conservative candidates up and do what is needed to win. But once a winner is decided, the general is the time to make sure the dems lose. If the right person did not win for us, then you start working on getting the right person in the next go around. The lesson that can be learned or taught is when we hold even the most liberal republican’s feet to the fire once they are in office. This is something that has started since 2010.

So you can continue to state that if a lousy candidate who is an adulterer, scum bag, etc wins, you will not vote for him and I will continue to state that the time to beat him/her was during the primary and the time to beat the dems is in the general. Sort of explains the sites motto, conservative in the primary, republican in the general. Are there rare exceptions to this motto/rule, yes. But they are few and far between and are at a state level. Even then, a person better make sure that who they vote for can beat the lousy repub and more importantly the POS dem or that the dem who is running is a dem in name only. Writing in some name or staying at home serves only one purpose and one purpose alone, making sure the dems gain more seats and or a presidency where they can take this country even closer to the abyss.

No, that would be the Democrats, gpclaw.

Moe Lane (Diary) Wednesday, May 11th at 8:17PM EDT (link)

This is what your tactics lead to:

Note the point where things went from ‘bad’ to ‘worse.’

The Kim Kardashian of blogging.

Check out my blog at http://moelane.com/.
http://moelane.com/filthy-lucre-filthy-lucre/
http://twitter.com/moelane

My (combined) wish list.

Moe

gpclaw Wednesday, May 11th at 10:04PM EDT (link)

I won’t argue with you that the Dems aren’t bigger spenders than the GOP has been. That said, I don’t think that anyone would argue against the notion that the Republican party “lost their way”, and fell into the big spending trap when they last held the majority. This is why we saw so many challenges in the Republican primaries, and was one of the contributing factors leading up to the Tea Party Movement. But I’m sure I’m preaching to the choir, as this topic has been hashed, and rehashed ad nauseam..

And the solution is NOT

mbecker908 (Diary) Wednesday, May 11th at 10:21PM EDT (link)

to find a “third party”. Unless you can demonstrate how to put together a competitive third party that can win. See above.

Change

Never said it was

gpclaw Wednesday, May 11th at 10:46PM EDT (link)

mbecker… never said it was.

If that helps you sleep at night

gpclaw Wednesday, May 11th at 11:07AM EDT (link)

Using your hypothetical, if Olympia Snowe were the nominee, casting a vote for her would be selling out your principles, because you would be voting for a candidate who you don’t actually support. By casting a vote for Snowe, you are saying that she is acceptable to you.

Your vote sends the message to the party, that they can put up anyone they want, and you will give your blind support. You may have won this battle, getting rid of Obama, but you have lost the war. As long as moderates can garner the support of people, such as yourself, they will always pay lip service to your political values, knowing that they will get your vote as long as they are more conservative than the person with a D next to their name.

I would rather deal with four more years of President Obama, with a conservative House and Senate, than eight years with a moderate Republican president.

When God was passing

PowerToThePeople (Diary) Wednesday, May 11th at 11:12AM EDT (link)

out intelligence, he skipped you didn’t he.

If your statement made a bit of sense, I would respond. Since it does not and you obviously live in imaginary land, going to skip right on by this one and move to other posters who do not live with head in rectum disease.

Have a good one……….

Ad Hominem

gpclaw Wednesday, May 11th at 1:54PM EDT (link)

Yes, it is clear by your response, that you declined to respond. I’m sure that this is the same logic you use when you vote for Big Government conservatives – “I would never vote for that RINO”, right up to the moment you vote for him/her.

If you prefer to be one of the sheep, who votes for party over principle, you are free to do so, but at least be honest about it.

gpclaw,

20jan2013 (Diary) Wednesday, May 11th at 2:11PM EDT (link)

P2P should take grammar lessons before he talks about others being unintelligent.

The blowhards are scared.

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion

I see you finally came out of the

PowerToThePeople (Diary) Wednesday, May 11th at 2:23PM EDT (link)

moron closet and are doing nothing to hide it anymore.

When you have made your first intelligent statement, I will worry about impressing you with my sentence structure.

OK, dishonors are even here. (PLEASE READ)

Moe Lane (Diary) Wednesday, May 11th at 8:18PM EDT (link)

The name-calling will stop now, thanks.

The Kim Kardashian of blogging.

Check out my blog at http://moelane.com/.
http://moelane.com/filthy-lucre-filthy-lucre/
http://twitter.com/moelane

My (combined) wish list.

Its no Fallacy

billbotex Thursday, June 23rd at 9:08AM EDT (link)

powertothepeople, I agree with your voting strategy, and schteve, IMO choosing the lessor of two evils ALWAYS trumps choosing the greater of two evils.

Any vote cast for a candidate who has little chance to win, is the same as casting a vote for the greater of two evils.

I believe that that specific philosophy is the ONLY way that Conservative voters can throw away the opportunity to defeat Obama in November 2012. DEMs often DEPEND on this to win elections by injecting, or promoting a candidate who will DILUTE the votes for possibly the ONE Conservative who otherwise could beat Obama. They want third party candidates, or “conscience” candidates, or “respect” candidates, or “distraction” candidates – ANY candidates who will pull 6% to 12% of the Conservative vote AWAY from the Conservative candidate who could possibly beat Obama or any other choice for the progressives.

Unless you want to endure Obama’s “magic” for an additional four years, with the possibility of PERMANENT changes to our lives, you had better vote for the best Conservative with a chance to beat him. Any other vote is a vote to re-elect Obama.

Check out my blog at http://billbotex.blogspot.com

Then don't vote in my party's primaries, gpclaw.

Moe Lane (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 10:21AM EDT (link)

If you only abide by results when they’re the ones that you like, we don’t actually want your input in the first place.

The Kim Kardashian of blogging.

Check out my blog at http://moelane.com/.
http://moelane.com/filthy-lucre-filthy-lucre/
http://twitter.com/moelane

My (combined) wish list.

...Sorry, gpclaw, my bad.

Moe Lane (Diary) Thursday, June 23rd at 10:26AM EDT (link)

I didn’t mean to get snarly about a comment that’s over a month old and part of an argument that was thoroughly hashed out; it’s not fair to do that, and I apologize for it.

The Kim Kardashian of blogging.

Check out my blog at http://moelane.com/.
http://moelane.com/filthy-lucre-filthy-lucre/
http://twitter.com/moelane

My (combined) wish list.

Disloyalty comes before anything else

BigRedConservative (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 1:13PM EDT (link)

Even if the best possible candidate did what Huntsman did (resign from an executive-appointed job to run against his boss) I would not vote for him. End of.

And two and two always makes a five
It’s the devil’s way now
There is no way out
You can scream and you can shout
It is too late now

Radiohead

Again John McCain Weakens The GOP Brand (nt)

Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 1:15PM EDT (link)

Mr. Obama is pretending that an economic “recovery” is underway when he knows damn well that the banking system is just blowing smoke up the shredded *** of what’s left of that economy – James Howard Kunstler

You had me at "John Weaver"

Dan McLaughlin (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 1:29PM EDT (link)

Even McCain got some distance from Weaver in time to get the nomination in 2008. Weaver is the prototypical “run against the Republican base” consultant.

You win by beating your opponent. You lose by beating your supporters.

“No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong.” – Winston Churchill

This diary needs to be preserved...

acat (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 1:39PM EDT (link)

and rubbed in the face of any Huntsman-bots who show up trying to convince anyone of supporting their idiot, erm, candidate.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

have you ever seen a Huntsman-bot on here?

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 10:47AM EDT (link)

I think they only exist in theory.

You think they won't show up if Huntsman runs?

acat (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 11:04AM EDT (link)

Seriously, running astroturf campaigns on influential (not necessarily synonymous with popular…) sites is pretty much standard procedure at this point.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Well then you

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 12:51PM EDT (link)

can’t really “rub their faces in anything” can you?

Huntsman's

Daniel Horowitz (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 1:39PM EDT (link)

infatuation with illegal immigrants and global warming would make him well suited as Bloomberg’s running mate. Nonetheless, Bloomberg would be wise to watch his back.

Yes, those two things

bs61 Monday, May 9th at 9:25PM EDT (link)

make him unelectable to me! We don’t need 4 more years of the same Obama agenda.

Plus, I saw on other message boards the people in UT said he campaigned conservative and then turned to the left once in office.

that's the way I view Huntsman...

Justin Spagnolo (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 10:17AM EDT (link)

he disappointed me when I lived in Utah… he was consistently on the wrong side of immigration, he was all for bringing money to Utah by any means necessary i.e. federal funding and pork barrel lobby, but also hacked the partisan lines by going environmental and taking on battles with corporations that were unnecessary and costly to the public. I believe he is opportunistic, and simply likes being the center of attention.

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. “ -James Madison

The premise is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

Flagstaff (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 1:58PM EDT (link)

Not that I think Huntsman is even viable, nor would I support him, but why hammer him on a theoretical but unproven “disloyalty” to President O when there are so many other issues with him? Especially when one could say his loyalty should be to the country, not to the President.

Given his choice of advisors, it’s probably a moot point. It wouldn’t even be worth mentioning, absent his great wealth. That last thing we need in Washington now is a RINO version of Teddy Kennedy to reinforce the “ruling class.”

Buffett Rule #1: “Tax rates don’t matter if you don’t pay your taxes”
– Unnamed tax adviser to Warren Buffett, Leavenworth, KS, 2011
Buffett Rule #2: “A parrot in every pot and two Volts in every garage”– Jimmy Buffett, at a seance in Margaritaville, 1977

No stretch at all.

Erick Erickson (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 2:12PM EDT (link)

This issue of loyalty should be the very first issue, beyond all others on his issues stands.

It is a terrible precedent for any Ambassador of the United States of America to plot against the President of the United States while still on the job.

Party and who the President is at the time are irrelevant to this starting point.

Who will stand on either hand and keep this bridge with me?Follow @EWErickson

I understand that viewpoint, and I would agree if

Flagstaff (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 3:01PM EDT (link)

you could tell us what the “plot” is/was. Considering a run for the White House is not what I’d call a plot, and there is nothing in that consideration that requires or even suggests that an Ambassador will take actions that undermine the President’s policies or America’s best interests.

If there were some evidence that Huntsman were sandbagging Prez 0 while at the Court of St. Yao Ming, I would agree with you 100%. Even if he’d already decided to run some time before he announced his resignation, that alone doesn’t constitute disloyalty to either the President or the country.

OTOH, if this were in his mind before he even accepted the ambassadorship to China, it would be more problematical. Still, it doesn’t seem to be great strategy for him to take an important job in a Democrat administration if that were the case. Huntsman was very well suited to fill that role, and let’s face it, Obama doesn’t really know that many people who can actually do any of his important work. Why else would he have kept so many Bush appointees/Republicans on the payroll?

The guy gave three-month’s notice. The Prez could have asked for his portfolio then but he didn’t, indicating HE didn’t consider it a loyalty problem, or at least it was a smaller problem than filling the vacancy quickly.

Was Senator Barack Obama plotting against President Bush in 2005-2008? Although he wasn’t exactly working “for” the President, he was definitely planning to get his job, and he was definitely in a position to help thwart some of the policies Bush wanted to put in place. Did Senator Obama do things intended to help his future candidacy at the expense of President Bush and perhaps the American people? You could certainly say that Obama spent more time preparing his future campaign than he did being a Senator. Disloyal? Do we ask more loyalty from an Ambassador than we do a Senator?

I don’t say that you might not be right, just that it’s a stretch based on the word “plot.” “Disloyalty” in a public figure requires an ACT or omission that goes counter to the wishes of the offended party or to an oath of office. I haven’t seen that yet.

And I agree that it doesn’t matter who the President is or which party he belongs to.

I don't have much problem with Huntsman's "loyalty".

mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 6:40PM EDT (link)

We’re talking politics. “Loyalty” is significantly more transitory than “virginity” in a whorehouse.

I’m much more bothered by the fact that Huntsman’s positions on issues are clones of Obama’s.

Change

I am with you Mbeck

Doc Holliday (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 7:06PM EDT (link)

Erick had me at Cap and trade, the rest I did not need.

Was Huntsman not disloyal to Republicans first? Either way, just another cannon fodder candidate. My opinion of the field is poor.

Molon Labe!

Wow, I've never disagreed with Erick more...

Remington_Steele (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 7:30PM EDT (link)

I’m with mbeck on not liking Huntsman due to his positions, but to question his loyalty is a tough sell in my book.

Obama knew what Huntsman was before he appointed him. Obama was aware of Huntsman’s “loyalties” and the fact that he could run for President even after such appointment. If you want to call Huntsman out on actual, real, solid proof of disloyalty by undermining Obama while Huntsman was in office, please do so.

Otherwise, this sure sounds like a red herring for “… and John Bolton would have never worked for Barack Obama” rant. You don’t want to support your President when he asks you to do something? Fine, I call that unpatriotic.

John Bolton wouldn't have worked for Obama...

mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 10:24PM EDT (link)

having nothing to with any sense of “loyalty”. Bolton wouldn’t have worked for BO because their positions on issues, ESPECIALLY related to State, are diametrically opposed.

Change

5

aesthete (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 8:09PM EDT (link)

I am not in the least bit worried that Huntsman is doing something improper in his capacity as Ambassador. I am worried that he would govern improperly if President.

And a Kowalski on Huntsman...

mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 10:30PM EDT (link)

again, with respect to the “loyalty” argument, while I admit I haven’t followed Huntsman’s performance as Ambassador to China at all, I’d expect to be able to see some evidence that he didn’t wholeheartedly carry out the policies and wishes of the Obama Administration while he was Ambassador, or that he attempted to undercut the Administration through his role as Ambassador before I’d even consider discussing whether this was a real issue.

Absent specifics of the above, I think the argument is unworthy of someone who is fully capable of a reasoned argument.

Change

Disloyal to a disloyal President

mine Monday, May 9th at 10:52PM EDT (link)

Is Obama loyal to his oath of office? Don’t think so. I also have no problem with Huntsman running while Ambassador. I actually thought he represented the country rather than the President anyway. The issues are far more important to me. BTW, I am always suspicious when Democrats say which Republicans keep them awake. So many Democrats say Daniels and Huntsman. It’s an organised attempt to make particularly weak candidates look strong and split the field some more. Reality is these guys don’t stand a chance. Shame Bachmann isn’t considered more. I believe she was the top fund raiser in congress last elections. She impresses me.

It's both the potential for conflict-of-interest and the principle of the thing, Flagstaff

MikeG (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 2:27PM EDT (link)

If Jon Huntsman wishes to be elected president, than he has an incentive to ensure that Barack Obama looks bad.

As Ambassador to China, the easiest way for him to make Obama look bad is to perform his job in a manner that weakens and embarrasses the United States before our greatest rival on the world stage. Obama takes the blame when things go from bad to worse, and Huntsman is left in a better position to oust the president in a general election.

However, hurting Obama in this way ALSO hurts the United States. In showing his willingness to open himself to this kind of temptation, regardless of any good intentions he might be harboring, it shows that deep down, Huntsman ranks his personal ambition above the good of the nation. Such a man is not deserving of the highest office in the land.

Finally, I think there is a general sleaziness to accepting the role of advocate for a man and policy you fundamentally disagree with and intend to work against. President Obama, for better or for worse, is our Chief Diplomat, and sets the foreign policy of the United States. Ambassadors are beholden, by oath and personal honor, to serve as the president’s representative on these matters to other nations. To accept an ambassadorial posting with the full intention of actively opposing the policies and agenda of POTUS constitutes a violation of good conscience and public responsibility. It would be just as dishonorable for a pro-life lawyer to agree to go work for Planned Parenthood, with the intention of working to undo abortion from the inside.

If he was actively considering running for election as President of the United States, Jon Huntsman should never have accepted the post of Ambassador, to China or any other nation.

Huntsman and Obama

catt (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 2:42PM EDT (link)

“As Ambassador to China, the easiest way for him to make Obama look bad is to perform his job in a manner that weakens and embarrasses the United States”

Yes but is there any evidence that he did such a thing? Or that he disagreed with Obama and intended to work against him in China?

I’m not supporting Huntsman … I don’t think he has a chance at the nomination or that he’d make sense as anyone’s running mate … but this is an insinuation against him without evidence to back it up.

In act the evidence is just the opposite. In letters Huntsman expected were strictly private he gushed about what an amazing leader Obama was … how brilliant Bill Clinton was … what a great job Hillary was doing and how Hillary has “even more charisma” than Bill! There’s disloyalty to be criticized here but not disloyalty to Obama and the Clintons.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/15/jon-huntsmans-love-letters/

If you know of any way that he did try to make Obama look bad or did perform his job in a manner that weakened or embarrassed the United States … then let’s see it.

catt said basically what I would have.

Flagstaff (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 3:15PM EDT (link)

“Finally, I think there is a general sleaziness to accepting the role of advocate for a man and policy you fundamentally disagree with and intend to work against.”

Do we know for sure that Huntsman fundamentally disagrees with Obama’s policies? He seems to love them. Maybe he is angling to get Joe Biden’s job in 2012 under Obama. Would he still be disloyal? It may be silly, but it’s more likely than Huntsman getting the Republican nomination.

If it happens, remember you saw it here first.

Even if he never acted in a disloyal fashion

MikeG (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 4:08PM EDT (link)

There would still exist the temptation to do so.

An intelligent man would recognize that accepting such a position would put his personal ambitions at odds with the national interest, and create a scenario wherein there would lie the temptation to act against the interests of his nation.

So either Jon Huntsman is dumb, or he’s aware of the danger and yet is still willing to take that chance. Either way, he shouldn’t be allowed to be the president.

You make the guy sound like Aaron Burr.

Flagstaff (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 4:29PM EDT (link)

Now it’s “temptation”?

Who among us has not been tempted? What counts is what happens in the aftermath.

There are way too many other things wrong with Huntsman to pick this one out as “the big one.” He’s done so much else wrong, why should I worry about what he might have done but didn’t?

I say it’ll be Obama-Huntsman running in 2012. Or maybe Clinton-Huntsman. But it won’t be Huntsman-Republican.

You mean you would seriously discount a person

schteve Monday, May 9th at 5:38PM EDT (link)

who is able to resist the temptation of personal gain for the sake of the national interest? That’s somehow a bad thing???

Again, if you have proof that Huntsman has acted in a way that detracts from Obama or the United States, call him out on that. But hating him solely because he could potentially do something along those lines is a bunch of baloney.

What?!? You are hammering Huntsman for "disloyalty"...

taylerdog23 Monday, May 9th at 2:04PM EDT (link)

to this President?

I am in no way in the Huntsman camp AT ALL. This is not about that. I could give 2 you-know-whats about the guy.

But can someone please explain to me how disloyalty to a President that apparently hates America is NOT at least being patriotic?

Erick has been outspoken in his criticism of Obama, as have most of us here on RS. Obama is generally accepted here as a Socialist/Marxist/America hater (one of these or a combination of all three).

Now whether I agree with those characterizations of him (specifically or generally) or not, this entry against Huntsman for being disloyal to Obama seems to be a sharp reversal of the criticism of this president here on RS.

Shouldn’t we be cheering that Huntsman is willing to oppose this Socialist/Marxist/America hater? If you believe this about Obama, then it seems Huntsman is taking the courageous patriotic tact–that his loyalty to his country is more important than his loyalty to the President.

Last September on CNN Erick stated that, “I think his [Obama's] world view is anathema to the American destiny as conservatives have viewed it.”

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/09/16/erick-erickson-smacks-down-cnner-claiming-voter-anger-racist#ixzz1LsYhrKW6

I just don’t completely understand how EE can have that same view of Obama and then criticize as disloyal someone who has decided to oppose Obama. Seems counterintuitive to me. Even if Huntsman is driven by blind, naked ambition, does that really matter if the ultimate goal is that that he defeats Obama, a President who wants to ruin this country? If someone can explain, I’m all ears.

It is not about Barack Obama

Erick Erickson (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 2:11PM EDT (link)

If you don’t think it sets a dangerous precedent for a United States Ambassador to be plotting against the President of the United States while on the job, you might not be capable of processing high level thoughts.

It does not matter who the President is at the time.

I highly doubt you’d think otherwise were it a Democrat Ambassador considering running against his Republican President.

Who will stand on either hand and keep this bridge with me?Follow @EWErickson

Thx for the reply, Erick...

taylerdog23 Monday, May 9th at 2:29PM EDT (link)

it is much appreciated, even despite your “high level thoughts” snark.

I just view the “water’s edge” mark differently than you.

If a sitting President is out to destroy America (it seems you personally do not believe this), then the precedent set by a sitting U.S. Ambassador plotting against such a President matters little to me. Patriotism over protocol. Loyalty to country over loyalty to the President. That’s my point.

Thanks again for your response.

Except for it being China

Erick Erickson (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 2:34PM EDT (link)

I’d add a great deal of weight to it also being China.

How exactly do you proceed in dealing with a country that is rapidly becoming not an adversary, but an enemy, when that country knows you may or may not be representing the United States’s positions accurately?

Who will stand on either hand and keep this bridge with me?Follow @EWErickson

With all due respect...

taylerdog23 Monday, May 9th at 2:54PM EDT (link)

the China factor shouldn’t be the driver in this discussion, IMHO.

I absolutely agree that China is becoming an enemy, but I do not place so much stock in the Ambassador’s loyalty and it’s implications for relations with China alone. Certainly the Ambassador affects relations and is the official face of American policy, but he (or she) is by no means the only conduit for communications with China. Myriad other entities interface with the Chinese government on everything from trade relations to human rights concerns and all manner of other policies.

And if the Obama administration is shrewd enough to jam a healthcare bill down the throats of America despite widespread opposition, then certainly they are able to keep track of an ambassador that may not be pushing the administration’s agenda 100%. If Huntsman wasn’t fulfilling his role to the letter, then I expect State would recall him in a hot minute.

Also, do ambassadors take an oath to preserve/protect/defend the Constitution? I honestly do not know, but if they do, perhaps Huntsman is simply acting on his oath by opposing someone who is intent on destroying such Constitution.

So not to sound like a broken record, but if Barack Obama is an enemy of the United States, then patriots should back anyone who opposes him. End of story. Again, just my humble opinion.

Thanks once again for your response above.

Ah, the old "The enemy of my enemy..." argument.

acat (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 3:35PM EDT (link)

I much prefer Howard Tayler’s formulation…

“The enemy of my enemy is my enemy’s enemy. No more. No less.”

Huntsman may be Obama’s enemy, but that doesn’t make him my ally, or my choice for POTUS.

Mew

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlock_Mercenary#The_Seventy_Maxims_of_Maximally_Effective_Mercenaries

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Nope, not my argument, acat...

taylerdog23 Monday, May 9th at 5:00PM EDT (link)

but I certainly see where you got that from my final para. And I like the Tayler quote.

He ain’t my ally or choice for POTUS either.

The crux of my argument is this: What role does “loyalty” have in the context of working for someone who is trying to destroy America? If you believe that Obama is really doing grave harm to this country, then why be upset when someone is disloyal to him?

There is no dearth of rhetoric and analysis here on RS about Obama’s anti-American tendencies. It seems that folks are now backtracking a bit on this view in the attempt to advocate that the office of the Presidency demands loyalty regardless of the occupant. It seems incongruous to me to believe this and also believe Obama is hell bent on ruining America. Seems like some folks are trying to have it both ways. That’s all.

See, it kinda is your argument, taylerdog...

acat (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 6:48PM EDT (link)

… because you’re excusing his hypothetical disloyalty because he’s disloyal to your enemy.

The problem is .. he’s still disloyal…. and we have no good way to tell* whether he will remain so or whether this is a one-time thing.

So .. you are, in effect, arguing that because he’s your enemy’s enemy, his disloyalty is acceptable. I .. disagree.

Mew

* actually, we have a very good way to tell … he’s a politician and should be presumed guilty.

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

LOL, acat!

taylerdog23 Monday, May 9th at 9:59PM EDT (link)

Still digesting your response, but your last sentence is GREAT. Kudos!

Thx, dude.

Example: McLooser light.

gekster (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 10:11PM EDT (link)

They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.

We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway

I’ve gone from
“Hope and Change” to
“Hopeless and Changeless”

You're misreading what I'm saying, acat...

taylerdog23 Tuesday, May 10th at 9:31AM EDT (link)

I have not claimed that Obama is an enemy. Rather, I have merely pointed out what is often said about him (Socialist/Marxist/America-hater) here and I’m trying to balance that with all of a sudden having respect for the office of the President. I do not recall seeing that before here.

So to be clear, I’m not in fact excusing Huntsman’s disloyalty at all. I find it unacceptable as well. I merely find it ironic that so many people are hammering on him for disloyalty to a President they likely feel is an enemy of the country. That’s it.

Seriously?

acat (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 9:37AM EDT (link)

Now you’re going to try to make this an argument about hyperbole?

Methinks the dog doth protest overmuch.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

I won't disagree...

taylerdog23 Tuesday, May 10th at 9:47AM EDT (link)

that my comments & replies may have seemed disjointed, but yeah, the argument has always been about hyperbole to me. I’ll of course take responsibility if that wasn’t clear.

See my response to Neil below. Not trying to stir things up. Just trying to learn.

Barack Obama is the President of the United States

Neil Stevens (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 4:34PM EDT (link)

You need to learn what an enemy is.

RS contributing editor and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

a timely reminder, Neil nt

20jan2013 (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 7:19PM EDT (link)

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion

Ok, Neil, then what is an enemy? Because...

taylerdog23 Tuesday, May 10th at 9:21AM EDT (link)

it seems that the overwhelming consensus here on RS is that Barack Obama is intent on undermining the greatness of this country and is thus an enemy that must be defeated because our republic is in peril.

Is this all just empty rhetoric to fire up the base? Or the ramblings of a few crazies?

Let me clarify where I’m coming from–I’m a conservative who does not buy into the gloom and doom scenarios that many here on RS paint about Obama and Dems. I think we can win the battle of ideas and policies but that it won’t happen in one election cycle and we certainly won’t get everything we want. I’m just trying to figure out where folks are coming from here because it seems that a vast majority of the folks here believe that Obama is intent on ruining America and then all of a sudden we have this groundswell of support for the integrity of the office.

Wait...

Neil Stevens (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 9:27AM EDT (link)

So are you just trolling, arguing in bad faith to stir up something?

Is that what you’re saying?

RS contributing editor and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

Seriously?

taylerdog23 Tuesday, May 10th at 9:44AM EDT (link)

The troll argument?

No. I am merely trying to understand where folks here are coming from. I was genuinely surprised by Erick’s take on this and it doesn’t seem to jibe with the overall opinion of Obama here on RS.

I have said this before, but I guess I need to say it again to deflect the “troll” assumption–I really dig Red State, and as a 20 something conservative still learning about the issues, I find it a fascinating place to explore the conservative mind and get a take on issues I don’t see anywhere else. My parents are liberals turned Regan democrats turned moderate Republicans turned Tea Party members who spent most of their lives in the political desert mostly uninterested in politics. I really enjoy the fact that they are passionate about politics now and they both turn to RS both as a sounding board and to help shape their political opinions. I spend time on RS for much the same reason. It certainly enhances (lively) discussion at the weekend dinner table!

So yeah, I’m not a troll (as far as I’m concerned, although I guess you may see it differently) — just trying to understand politics, my parents, and the world around me. That’s all.

So you're gorillas in the misting

Neil Stevens (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 3:33PM EDT (link)

My advice to you: Stop it.

This is a site for conservative Republican activists, not for you to try to play gotcha games with us.

So if you want to keep your account, hold your tongue on that stuff. We’re not interested.

RS contributing editor and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

Got it, Neil.

taylerdog23 Wednesday, May 11th at 2:18PM EDT (link)

I’m way too young to have seen the movie you are alluding to here, but I get your message. Note that I was not trying to play gotcha games, btw. Just trying to learn.

Nonetheless, thx for the advice & have a good one…

Well, I would vote for Hillary

blooch Monday, May 9th at 2:09PM EDT (link)

in a primary if I got a chance.

“Lieutenant Dike wasn’t a bad leader because he made bad decisions. He was a bad leader because he made no decisions.”

which reminds me...

20jan2013 (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 7:20PM EDT (link)

All these bad candidates running about–aren’t we at risk to get Operation Chaosed by the Democrats?

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion

I think Dem voters are on a shorter leash than our voters

blooch Monday, May 9th at 9:19PM EDT (link)

in regard to the primaries. The Party of Superdelegates can’t trust them with that kind of independent thinking, and have gotten better results in the past by letting them think express themselves “extralegally”in the general election.

But you’re probably right. If Barry doesn’t get primaried, some bored Devil’s Tools may come shambling into our primaries looking for some entertainment, even if it makes them legally ineligible to vote as Dems in the general.

“Lieutenant Dike wasn’t a bad leader because he made bad decisions. He was a bad leader because he made no decisions.”

"Even if it makes them...

merryj1 Tuesday, May 10th at 4:23AM EDT (link)

…legally ineligible to vote as Dems in the General” ???

No it doesn’t. Why would you think that? I think it’s unethical to vote in a Primary for a Party & candidates you have no intention of supporting in the General, but it isn’t illegal and it certainly isn’t illegal to vote for your own Party’s candidates (or for any others) in the General, no matter how you Declared and/or voted in the Primary.

The purpose of Primary elections is for Party members to select their Party’s candidates/slate.

Except in cases where the primary is open or "jungle" and....

acat (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 9:31AM EDT (link)

the outcome on “your” side is pretty much a sure thing.

At that point, well .. the Dems are the ones who fought for open and “jungle” primaries, let them eat the results.

Mew

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

That was the main scenario I was thinking of.

blooch Wednesday, May 11th at 10:07AM EDT (link)

And I believe that some states won’t allow you to switch back if you change parties with the intention of jiggering the oppo’s primary results, or they allow you to switch but have tight deadlines for switching back. In either case, Dem voter fraud in the general can overcome any legality obstacles to party-switching chicanery in the primary, because that’s the way they roll.

“Lieutenant Dike wasn’t a bad leader because he made bad decisions. He was a bad leader because he made no decisions.”

Not Only Disloyal, But Dishonorable As Well

MikeG (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 2:33PM EDT (link)

Excellent post, Erick. Barack Obama, for all his many and well-documented faults, is still the President of the United States, lawfully elected by the representatives of the several States, and as such he deserves all the respect and loyalty that the office affords him (and not one iota more).

Jon Huntsman has behaved in a disloyal and dishonorable manner, in violating the spirit of his oath and revealing that he ranks personal ambition over love of country. We have no need for such men in the office once held Washington and Lincoln.

Are you sure about that?

Flagstaff (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 3:48PM EDT (link)

Just what exactly has Huntsman done?

I noted above my opinion that Erick’s premise was a stretch. Not that “disloyalty” isn’t a very bad character flaw, but that it’s a stretch to call the contemplation of a run for President, or even preparing to run, while employed as an Ambassador on behalf of the United States, “disloyalty.”

Personal ambition? Which of these guys does not have a huge ego, resulting in high levels of personal ambition? Ronald Reagan probably had the least obtrusive ego of any recent President, precisely because he had already proven himself to himself, and he didn’t have to keep doing it. You start looking at 40-year-olds running for President (I don’t know how old Huntsman is, nor do I know what his motivation is) and you’re going to find a lot of personal ambition. They wouldn’t even think about running if they didn’t have it.

You have to provide an act or omission on the part of Huntsman before you can make the charge that he “ranks personal ambition over love of country.”

5...Party Switchers are more suspect to me

blooch Monday, May 9th at 9:45PM EDT (link)

than someone who has acted as Huntsman has. Yet party-switching blessed us with Ronald Reagan. Maybe Huntsman is ambitious, maybe he’s privy to some knowledge which is damaging to Obama or maybe he’s a whack job. I don’t know. But disloyal?

It seems like Conventional Wisdom is impatient to once again run the next non-threatening White Guy with seniority.

“Lieutenant Dike wasn’t a bad leader because he made bad decisions. He was a bad leader because he made no decisions.”

I noticed on O'Reilly recently that Mort Zuckerman

Flagstaff (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 8:08PM EDT (link)

considers Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels (I think), and Jon Huntsman the best potential Republican candidates for President in 2012.

I think he needs new tea leaves, except maybe Daniels has a chance. Bush might get nominated, but not elected. Huntsman might get elected, but not nominated.

Then he threw in Chris Christie, who swears he’s not running.

The Ruling Class is still assembling its wagons.

Isn't it possible

schteve Monday, May 9th at 2:47PM EDT (link)

that a person can actually perform his duties fully and loyally until the point of resignation? How is it *necessary* for him to have “plotted” against the president while he was still an ambassador?

I’m not saying he specifically hasn’t. Rather, the mere fact of toying with the idea of a presidential run doesn’t mean you definitely have been doing things that aren’t in the country’s and the president’s best interests before you even declare your intention to run.

NRO Reads Redstate.

Repair_Man_Jack (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 3:41PM EDT (link)

http://www.nationalreview.com/primary-event/266750/huntsman-attacked-considering-2012-while-ambassador-china-katrina-trinko

Cool.

earlgrey (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 4:05PM EDT (link)

I noticed on the NRO Corner on Friday that they had what appeared to be a response to one of Erick’s Posts about Daley giving up on Health Care Repeal, and Ryan throwing in the towel on Medicare. I think Ramesh Pommeru (spelling?) wrote it. They didn’t mention Red State directly so I just took it to be a coincidence.

So does OpinionJournal's Best of the Web

Finrod (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 4:21PM EDT (link)

This article was linked under the Answers to Questions Nobody Is Asking headline (a common feature there).

PETA and the ASPCA are pure evil. See here and here.

I dont see how

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 4:02PM EDT (link)

he is going to get any traction whatsoever in a GOP primary. How is he going to connect with any part of the base better than the other candidates are going to? I know the beltway and MSM heard mentality is trying to make him a factor, but like Gingrich, Johnson and Santorum they are not factors now and wont be factors.

Huntsman

septembergurl (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 4:06PM EDT (link)

took an oath to defend the Constitution, not the President. The real question is not his loyalty, but whether he would be effective running against Obama, if, as I have believed for a while, Huntsman is the Republican nominee.

I just don’t think “disloyalty” to Obama is going to play as a negative with the Republican base.

555.

taylerdog23 Monday, May 9th at 4:11PM EDT (link)

nt.

supposed to be a reply to septembergurl.

taylerdog23 Monday, May 9th at 4:12PM EDT (link)

ugh…

That doesn't bother me half as much

Menlo (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 4:16PM EDT (link)

I wouldn’t want to support anyone showing respect to the Chinese government or, by extension, its economy. There should not even be any diplomatic relationship with the regime in the first place!

“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter

Sorry, but that is just wrongheaded! You cannot ignore

davesinsanantonio (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 6:00AM EDT (link)

a country that controls one sixth of the world’s population and about a tenth of its production (and growing). You have to talk to them and listen to them, and that is what diplomatic relations is all about. It doesn’t mean you like them or condone everything you are doing inside their country. It just means you recognize reality and are dealing with it.

So?

Menlo (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 11:24AM EDT (link)

The reality is that they are in effect as bad or worse than any of those Middle Eastern regimes and certainly should be treated no better than Libya. Perhaps that could be said as much if not more of the American business owners, executives, and investors who choose to do business with them. Regardless, we need an embargo, and we need it now! THAT is the ultimate problem that I don’t see anyone willing to change.

Civilized human beings who care about more than their own wealth, power, and prestige do not support China and do not, regardless of the consequences, support the ability of American businesses to do so.

“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter

Huntsman's Lonely Island

silentcal2012 (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 5:12PM EDT (link)

I dont think Huntsman has a clue or chance. I cant think of another candidate who has done less to help other conservatives and Republicans, nor has he done anything to court voters in key primary states. He cant us his service as an excuse. He has no sweat in this game. No one knows him. He has no network.

If he thinks he is going to saunter into a state like Iowa or NH and have an impact, he is mistaken.

Or as the REAL Silent Call would have told Huntsman: "You lose." nt

20jan2013 (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 7:21PM EDT (link)

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion

Silent Cal wouldn't have repeated it... clear your cache. [nt]

acat (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 7:59PM EDT (link)

——
self-portrait

Caveat Suffragator

Or as the REAL Silent Cal would have told Huntsman: "You lose." nt

20jan2013 (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 7:22PM EDT (link)

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion

Or as the REAL Silent Cal would have told Huntsman: "You lose." nt

20jan2013 (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 7:22PM EDT (link)

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion

Huntsman will go nowhere, he has promised not to self-fund

victrola Monday, May 9th at 5:18PM EDT (link)

I just heard he has gone on on the record that he will not self-finance his campaign. That was his only real shot, being a trust-fund billionaire I could potentially see him buying the primary with a weak field.

I consider myself to be a “big tent” Republican that understands you need to attract independents to win elections, but even I couldn’t stomach a Huntsman candidacy. When I see a Republican Governor of Utah (the most conservative state in the US) doing everything he can to pull to the Left AND jumping at the chance to work for Team Obama, I would rather take my chances with another candidate.

Right now, I’m pulling for Pawlenty, but I would MUCH rather have Mitt Romney than Hunstsman. At least Mitt has real business acumen and is something of a self-made man (though he also came from money) I also think it takes some political skill to be a Republican and get elected to Massachusetts. Hunstman just strikes me as the type that had his dad bail him out his whole life. (like being a High School dropout so he could play with his silly band)

I don't begrudge Huntsman or anyone else for being rich.

20jan2013 (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 7:25PM EDT (link)

I leave that to the class warmongers. What a parade of ridiculousness, that Romney, Huntsman, and Trump are being discussed as candidates to capitalize on the groundwork we laid in 2010. Meanwhile half the folks on redstate can’t say Palin or Huckabee without some snarky comment or snicker. We need to get it together, people!

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion

I don't begrudge, but I certainly don't admire

victrola Monday, May 9th at 11:01PM EDT (link)

If someone inherited a billion dollars, I hold that in the same regard as someone who say won the lottery.

I don’t think the government should penalize such people, but as far as leadership qualities go, usually these people don’t have any because everything usually was simply handed to them, they never had to earn anything. (sounds like a certain President we have now that was given everything because of White guilt) To me, Huntsman is such an individual, I’m not making a class argument that wealthy people are unfit for higher office, more of a character argument.

A person who actually created wealth is a whole different story, and I do think society should admire such people (if it was done in a legal and moral way)

Agreed, Eric. 5 (nt)

Mike Ferguson (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 6:59PM EDT (link)

Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith.
Ronald Reagan

Erick, you had me at "backed by key John McCain advisers."

20jan2013 (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 7:15PM EDT (link)

Huntsman makes Daniels look like a tea partier!

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion

An Ambassador's loyalty is with the United States.

ayrnieu Monday, May 9th at 7:47PM EDT (link)

The President is not the United States. The President’s personal interests are not the interests of the United States. There is absolutely no contradiction between such intense emotion as, for example, actually completely despising the person of the President, and still accepting a role as an ambassador to an important country. And why? Precisely because it’s an important country: our relationship with China is not some 4-year or 8-year affair, rather we’ll be living by our good or bad terms with them for decades to centuries.

It really bewilders me that I need to point this out, and that you invite it in a post in which plenty of real and meaningful objections to Huntsman are noted and passed on. It’s _so_ bizarre that I think it must be an attempt at a clever trick, to get people to argue about this non-issue while the actual objections are quietly accepted as true by everyone..

This is nuts

Erick Erickson (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 7:56PM EDT (link)

The President is chosen by the people as its executive and the Ambassador is the President’s representative to a foreign power.

Who will stand on either hand and keep this bridge with me?Follow @EWErickson

Here's the Oath of Office

ayrnieu Monday, May 9th at 8:12PM EDT (link)

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

^ That’s all of it. That’s what an ambassador swears by. The Executive Branch isn’t the President’s own private police force, and when we replace the President we don’t have to replace every single member of the FBI, for instance. The President, his representatives, his political adversaries in office – they all have this sworn obligation to put the United States first. Before themselves, before the President, before the President’s second term.

In order for you to take it as bad for Huntsman to consider running for President while he was still an ambassador, you have to assume things that are already really, really, really bad: that’s it’s personal rather than national interests that motivate his Presidential campaign, or that he’d sabotage the interests of the United States as a way of preparing the ground for his campaign.

Yes, on foreign policy the President IS the United States - nt

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 8:30PM EDT (link)

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

So Erick, would Hillary be accused of plotting?

GregInFla (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 10:17PM EDT (link)

if she decided right now to primary BHO? I’m sorry, but you’ve identified no evidence that Huntsman acted in any way against BHO as Ambassador to Red China.

– A true evolutionist would let endangered species die off. Think about it.
– The sign outside the courthouse said no signs allowed. So I took it down.
– Atlas Shrugged is now on the non-fiction aisle at Amazon.

The core argument is not whether he was a good ambassador

catt (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 7:52PM EDT (link)

The core argument is whether he demonstrated a despicable kind of disloyalty and if so … what’s the evidence to back up such a serious accusation.

Using phrases like “plotting against the President” makes it sound really bad. It’s a loaded phrase. “Plotting against the President of the United States.”

What really happened was that an ambitious politician considered running for President … talked to friends and advisors about his prospects … and tendered a letter of resignation in February so that he could explore the possibility further. When was the last time you heard anyone use the phrase “plotting against the President of the United States” to describe someone deciding whether to throw their hat into the ring?

Even worse … comparing Huntsman’s Presidential aspirations to Kennedy’s collaboration with the Soviets. Kennedy collaborating with the Soviets on the one hand … Huntsman talking to Republican friends on the other. Soviets during the cold war on the one hand … Republican friends and advisors in the pre-primary season on the other. Trying to undermine a sitting president’s effectiveness during office on the one hand … thinking about throwing his hat into the ring for the next election cycle on the other.

It’s a comparison that shouldn’t convince anyone of anything … except the need to go back and reconsider how they ever thought such a wretched comparison was reasonable.

Huntsman’s real problem is that he’s so much in tune with Obama’s agenda and showed such fawning admiration for Obama and Bill and Hillary. It’s not surprising that there are no examples of him undermining Obama’s agenda in China … he was thrilled to be part of it.

5 nt

aesthete (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 8:15PM EDT (link)

55 - nt

Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 8:31PM EDT (link)

Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Sad that doing a good job serving his country becomes disloyalty

tankertodd (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 10:52PM EDT (link)

I just don’t get how being a good ambassador could cause someone to be disloyal when running to be president. I suppose he should resign, but mature people should be able to do their job. An ambassador represents the views of the government, not his own. That’s clear and above board to anyone with a brain. No one expects an ambassador to toe the party line 100% no more than I expect the Best Buy sales clerk to agree with a stupid store policy. Just because I work for Best Buy doesn’t mean I agree with price gouging.

Lighten up Francis.

———————————
The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race – Chief Justice Roberts

Partially disagree

paint_it_red (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 8:28PM EDT (link)

To my mind, by going to China, he was able to round out his foreign policy creds with a huge international player (China) as his focus. That makes him more, not less, Presidential. He has foreign policy cred. Maybe more so than any of the others so far. There really is no Obama policy on China, so I don’t fault that he got that experience as an appointee of Obama.

The disloyalty thing I don’t buy. If a man can’t handle a Presidential campaign and ambassador duties at the same time, that would be a disqualifier to my mind that he was not capable of handling/managing multiple fronts. Presidents have to be able to do that, and credible candidates for POTUS do as well. I’m not clear on any deficiencies in his performance as ambassador, so where is the deficiency? No deficiency, no disloyalty.

America expects this versatility. McCain crashed and burned in the polls when he halted his campaign to address the fiscal crisis.

Far more troubling to me would be his support of the stimulus which would show a tendency toward Keynesianism. And far more probative is his record. What was his record on job creation? On taxes? On protecting the unborn? On upholding American values overseas? Does he represent America well? Does he have a firm grasp of the complexities of the international political arena? Most importantly, given what faults I do find with him, how do those faults stack up against other candidates in terms of conservatism and electability?

“It is not good to cultivate a respect so much for the law as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think is right.” Henry David Thoreau

“The means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek.” Martin Luther King Jr.

“If you want peace, work for Justice.” Pope John Paul II

WRONG!

appman Monday, May 9th at 8:41PM EDT (link)

I totally disagree. Huntsman was offered a position at which he could excel.

Actually working for the USA.

He has every right to run and the case against him not doing so is silliness!

But it is about Obama...

Remington_Steele (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 8:45PM EDT (link)

Erick, you said, “this is not about partisanship. This is not about Barack Obama. This is about the loyalty of an Ambassador of the United States of America plotting a challenge to the President of the United States while representing the United States to a foreign power.” With respect, I disagree. This is about Barack Obama. It was his choice in choosing Huntsman, and we all know why he did it.

My opinion is if Obama chose Benedict Arnold after the treason was made known, then the problem is not with the chosen, but the chooser. I’m not saying Huntsman is a traitor, but in doing what Obama knew he would do, then any fault for that happening is Obama’s.

I don’t like Huntsman’s positions, but it’s not about that. It’s about Huntsman being called out on having personal meetings about his personal future behind closed doors after he notified the President he would be stepping down. I don’t see any problems with this.

I disagree with the correlation of “Kennedy collaborating with the Soviets” as Kennedy was with an enemy state and this is with Huntsman’s meeting with personal advisers about a matter that Obama was well aware of. If it affected Huntsman’s work as Ambassador, then he needs to be called out on that intensely, but is there any evidence of that?

I don't like Huntsman because he is too

runner12 (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 10:05PM EDT (link)

much like Obama and just another big government statist. I do not think he necessarily “plotted” against Obama, but it does seem a bit unethical of him to plan a Presidential run while serving as an Ambassador under him.

Didn’t Cain give up his radio show before setting up an exploratory committee? I think he did to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
Perhaps Mr. Huntsman ought to have done the same with his ambassadorship.

I agree

Lori Jeffries Monday, May 9th at 10:17PM EDT (link)

The whole point to public service is that you are supposed to put the COUNTRY and the good of the country before your own. Too many of our politicians seem to have forgotten this and Huntsman is proving to be one. Was he “building” bridges that he thought he could take advantage of as President? How can the President rely on his opinion/judgment without question, knowing that Huntsman might be setting him up as he seeks to run against him in 2012? It is unethical, unseemly and just plain bad form. I didn’t like Huntsman to begin with and now I know my intuition is right. Just say NO. We don’t need another RINO running. We need a man of character and unquestionable integrity. That is certainly NOT Huntsman.

Thank you for the information and insight.

If you love wealth better than Liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom – go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our country men.

Samuel Adams

if running for office against your boss is disloyalty we're in trouble

tankertodd (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 10:48PM EDT (link)

Terrible logic. There’s nothing inherently disloyal about running for office against someone. Eric is taking running for office WAY too seriously. It’s a job in the end. Is it disloyal to interview for a job against someone you know/like? It implies that all political campaigns involve dirty tricks and skulduggery. The assertion implies Eric has a nefarious view of politics, which is disheartening to say the least.

Wow.

———————————
The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race – Chief Justice Roberts

nonsense

Erick Erickson (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 11:50PM EDT (link)

“There’s nothing inherently disloyal about running for office against someone. ”

You’re being much to broad with my point.

My point is that a United States Ambassador, i.e. the representative of the President of the United States to a foreign power, should not begin a campaign to run against the President of the United States while on the job.

We know his PAC got up in running in October.

We know he began talking to people in December.

We know he declared his interest in January.

We know he did not leave office until May.

That disloyalty is not treasonous, but it is treacherous. And it does not matter the party or the particular President.

Who will stand on either hand and keep this bridge with me?Follow @EWErickson

If there were a strong case for that kind of disloyalty then it could be made without exaggeration.

catt (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 1:54AM EDT (link)

Huntsman talking to his advisors about running for office is _nothing_ like Kennedy conspiring with the Soviets to undermine Reagan. Nothing.

When a politician is considering running for President nobody calls it “plotting against the President of the United States”. That’s a loaded phrase with dark connotations and yet you use it and the word “plotting” over and over again. You wouldn’t use that phrase to describe any other Republican’s preparation for a possible run for the GOP nomination.

When did he start preparing for the 2012 race?
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700077118/PAC-sends-strong-signal-for-Huntsman-presidential-run.html
“When President Barack Obama, a Democrat, chose him for the prestigious ambassadorship, Huntsman was already preparing for the 2012 GOP presidential race after playing a significant role in McCain’s campaign.”

In other words Huntsman didn’t start talking to people about running in 2012 after he became ambassador. He was talking specifically about 2012 _before_ Obama selected him … and do you think Obama didn’t know this? Huntsman’s probably the type who has been making plans for a run for the presidency since college but he was taking steps specifically about running in 2012 _before_ Obama picked him.

The PAC that started in October is described as a “draft Huntsman” PAC. Taking into account that Huntsman started preparing for 2012 before Obama picked him … how about the charitable interpretation that while he was doing his job in China his friends were … in a legal and open way … using a PAC to lay the groundwork without improper involvement by Huntsman? Or else they’re all liars … but what’s the evidence that they’re all liars?

You say “We know he began talking to people in December”? He was “talking to people” about a 2012 run before he was nominated to be the ambassador.

“We know he declared his interest in January”? The article you cite has a magazine saying he “hinted” at an interest … and what he actually _said_ was “no comment”. Here you turn that hint and a “no comment” into him having “declared” his interest.

“We know he did not leave office until May.” *He resigned at the end of January.* You say so yourself in the original article! Gary Locke had already been nominated as his successor by early March. The resignation became effective April 30. Somehow you turn all of this into “We know he did not leave office until May.” I don’t care how you turned April 30 into May … maybe it took him an extra day to clean out his office.

The point is he _resigned_ in January. Obama could have asked him to clear out any time after that … or before for that matter. Describing this as “We know he did not leave office until May” is very misleading.

That’s enough. If there’s a case to be made that he overstepped his bounds in the steps he personally took for a possible run in 2012 … something Obama knew he was already preparing for _before_ he picked him to be ambassador … it wouldn’t need this kind of exaggeration to make it.

There are lots of good reasons not to support Huntsman. Lots of good reasons to think he’s got no chance at the nomination … even before his love letters to Obama and the Clintons were leaked. Lots of good reasons to think that if he got the nomination somehow he’s be a weak candidate. Why not make a case that the evidence supports without having to resort to hyperbole and misleading statements?

so Erick, Huntsman should have resigned before October

20jan2013 (Diary) Wednesday, May 11th at 2:14PM EDT (link)

to avoid your charge of treachery?

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/the_parties/republicans/mitt_romney_lies_about_abortion

I couldn't agree with you more Erick

andysmith (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 10:50PM EDT (link)

Great take! I have issues with a man who said he would serve his country, regardless of the political party of the President, and then started plotting to run against him.
I do have to take issue with the line in your post where you said that you would vote for Huntsman if he were the nominee. I won’t list them here, but there are candidates in the field or talking about joining the field like Hunstman that are just a “Democrat-lite” version of Obama. I know it’s hard, but there has to come a time where we stop pulling the lever for someone just because there’s an (R) next to their name. (R) does not necessarily mean conservative, or even Republican anymore.

“Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. ”
“Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. ”
“Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them.”

-The great Ronald Reagan
www.rightreality.wordpress.com

Got any evidence that Huntsman

mbecker908 (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 10:53PM EDT (link)

didn’t do his job as Ambassador well? Did he undercut the President or not follow the policies/dictates of the Administration?

Change

I don't think it matters.

Erick Erickson (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 11:54PM EDT (link)

First, you don’t know the Obama team if you don’t think that they’ll start trotting out “concerns” about Huntsman’s representation of the country and have the media take them seriously the moment Huntsman becomes the nominee.

Second, it does not matter. An Ambassador is the President’s representative to a foreign government and should not be seen by the foreign power as planning a challenge to the President until the Ambassador leaves office.

Third, it’s China. It would not surprise me one bit if China figured out subtle ways to play Huntsman’s vanity off Obama’s once they knew he was going to run against Obama. Remember, word got out and Huntsman fessed up to it before the US-China summit in January.

Who will stand on either hand and keep this bridge with me?Follow @EWErickson

Erick, I've been here nearly six years.

mbecker908 (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 12:06AM EDT (link)

I’m pretty sure this is the first time I’ve disagreed with you. A better track record than anybody else (except of Franz and Mrs908) than I can think of.

I’ll give you this one, though I find your argument completely unpersuasive. We can probably expect that I’ll disagree with something else you say sometime around May of 2017.

Change

The question for me is Who is more cynical?

romeg Tuesday, May 10th at 7:48AM EDT (link)

Huntsman for accepting an ambassadorship and all that it portends from a President that clearly did not hold views that Huntsman could not, in good conscience, faithfully represent or Obama who appointed someone that HE KNEW IN ADVANCE was likely to oppose him in his re-election bid and might well have difficulty faithfully executing the task assigned.

I say we should treat these two imposters just the same.

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” – C. S. Lewis

Agree, Obama's M.O. is marginalizing opponents

Common_Cents (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 10:33AM EDT (link)

If it was somehow a surprise that Huntsman had POTUS ambition I could possibly see issues but Obama likes to keep friends close and potential adversaries closer.

Think Obama was looking out for the best interest of America when offering the gig to Huntsman? sheesh.

These are separate issues from Huntsman qualifications and I don’t know much about him. But he gets a first strike by even accepting a position offered by obama.

“Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government
that requires every citizen to prove
they are insured…. but not everyone
must prove they are a citizen.” -Ben Stein

“In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”[especially in DC] – Friedrich Nietzsche

A Kowalski...

mbecker908 (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 10:37AM EDT (link)

and my final note on this, from the Brisbane Times, and I will note that I recall many similar articles in US papers at the time, I’m just too lazy to find them but article represents the content and tenor of everything I remember from the time…

Obama appoints Republican rival as ambassador to China

WITH a single stroke, President Barack Obama swept aside a potential 2012 rival, made his Administration more bipartisan and assigned a respected Asia expert to handle the delicate relationship with the US’s largest economic competitor.

Mr Obama announced at the weekend that he is nominating Utah’s Republican Governor, Jon Huntsman, as ambassador to China, choosing an envoy who is fluent in Chinese and has deep ties to a country critical to US national and economic security.
[...]
Several of Mr Obama’s advisers in the White House regarded him as a potent challenger. David Plouffe, who managed Mr Obama’s presidential campaign, told US News & World Report this month that Mr Huntsman was “the one person in that party who might be a potential presidential candidate”.

1. It’s not like his POTUS ambitions were a surprise.
2. It’s apparent that Obama made the miscalculation that nominating Huntsman would take him out of the ’12 race.

And finally, Huntsman’s positions on any number of issues, specifically AGW and immigration, and his history of running right and governing left (Orrin Hatch where are you?) are more than enough to disqualify him for any office at all.

We need to beat the left on the issues. And that would be the left in both parties. We have the opportunity to do that with Huntsman, based on his positions on issues – and as a bonus we might even be able to link him to idiots like Hatch and Lugar and take them down as well.

Change

There is an abundance of reasons

romeg Monday, May 9th at 11:05PM EDT (link)

to not support or to oppose Huntsman, his disloyalty being just one of them. But a case could be made that he accepted the ambassadorship believing that he could make a positive contribution and then saw that he had a greater duty to oppose the President who appointed him in order to prevent his re-election. I’m not going to make any attempt to defend or support him in one way or the other.

But I take strong issue with your analogy comparing Huntsman’s actions to those of Edward Kennedy. Kennedy’s efforts to use our sworn enemy at the time to undermine his President were not merely despicable. They were a hallmark of the makeup of this truly disgusting individual. It would be impossible for anyone to make a case that Reagan posed any kind of threat to the American Way of Life. Treachery was part of Kennedy’s DNA. His father famously consorted with Hitler and the NAZI’s prior to our entry into WWII.

Huntsman, by comparison, consorted with his own countrymen, NOT the ChiComs, for the purpose of undermining his President in an open and very risky scheme to mount a campaign against his bid for a second term that were Obama to be elected would have consequences for this country that I do not even wish to contemplate.

It is not merely a difference in degree but a difference in kind altogether.

I thought this was overwrought until you brought up the McCain crew.

spainishirish (Diary) Monday, May 9th at 11:41PM EDT (link)

And AGW. And MSNBC. And CNN.

My apologies.

ever?

jackhammer Tuesday, May 10th at 5:33AM EDT (link)

so if he is the republican presidential nominee up against barack obama in 2012, you’ll be abstaining, or vote 3rd party?

Seriously, sometimes you are as petulant as friends fo my 5 year old (she isn’t ever that petulant), words like ever and never are should be among the least used. You should reread the Dan McLaughlin post you prescribed as compulsory reading,a nd why “ever” is so easy to have to walk back from.

“Plotting” as you so nefariously put it is also as overblown as possible. Has Huntsman done anything as an ambassodor to China that has made Obama look incompetent….has he provided false information about what is going on there, has he set obama up for a fall by making allusions ot the Chinese that Obama has had to publicly walk back from? No. In fact in the 2 years he has been there I don’t really remember that many big blunders that got major press with China. There was the google and facebook thing, but the government didn’t seem to get involved. There was the regular “manipulation of currency” thing that likes to get tossed back and forth, and their answer of questioning the US creditworthiness…but I hardly think that Huntsman went to Hu and said, “Can you pick up the bill for this dinner…it is the strangest thing, but my pay checks have been bouncing the last few months.”

Don’t forget that he comes form a truly rich family….so there are 2 rich mormons in the running, only Huntsman’s family is richer, so in a lot of ways his mulling over whether to run or not, might well be somehtign he slept on 3 nights, because he could actually afford to do it on a whim without a major exploratory committee…what is losing 20 million to him?

Actually

Erick Erickson (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 11:02AM EDT (link)

I said if he were the nominee I’d vote for him.

Who will stand on either hand and keep this bridge with me?Follow @EWErickson

$3.6 million?????????????

djvu (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 5:58AM EDT (link)

I don’t know anything about Huntsman’s business background. I just assumed he was a politician. I’m not from Utah and I live in France. If he is only a politician, where did he get $3.6 million to buy a house in Washington D.C.?
Robert Palmer Smith

Sorry!

djvu (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 6:00AM EDT (link)

Just read the above post.
Regrets,
Robert Palmer Smith

HUNTSMAN NEVER

barrowmrb Tuesday, May 10th at 6:44AM EDT (link)

We lost our last election due to and because of JOHN MCCAIN.

He was Weak, Liberal and tried to play into the Democratic Ideals.
to get votes. He and his staff were constantly mis-using Sarah Palin and allowed the Liberal,Communists Media to destroy her
reputation.

The fact that Huntsmans has McCain staffers on his side means that we will loose again if he is on the ticket.

HUNTSMAN???????? NEVER EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of Regeneration and Regurgitation

funkyconservative Tuesday, May 10th at 8:22AM EDT (link)

As I posted on Twitter this morning, every time I see a new “moderate”
Presidential candidate, I’m reminded of the Doctor Who regenerations; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aivYb_0npqw&feature=youtu.be Bottom line; they are all different on the outside but the same on the inside!

When is the GOP establishment going to learn that we do not want predigested, softened candidates intended to feed the toothless independent masses? It has been proven that strong conservative values win voters and elections. We must ensure that in 2012, candidates (and potential candidates) like Huntsman, Romney, Gingrich, and Huckabee have regenerated for the last time.

This is a much harder question than it seems.

BigRedConservative (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 8:23AM EDT (link)

Yes Huntsman has shown what can be construed as disloyalty. Yes he supported cap-and-trade. But he (and John Bolton, who sadly may not be running) are the only candidates who understand foreign policy. And considering the Arab Spring, a possible Al-Qaeda reprise due to UBL’s death, and America stuck in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future, it’s important to find someone with foreign-policy creds. Romney? No way? Huckabee or Palin? Not a chance in hell. Daniels perhaps, but he isn’t the best.

Huntsman has those skills. I don’t want him, but if the field doesn’t improve and he’s the only one clued up on foreign policy, I’ll take him.

And two and two always makes a five
It’s the devil’s way now
There is no way out
You can scream and you can shout
It is too late now

Radiohead

Ask the man in the street who Huntsman is

renny (Diary) Tuesday, May 10th at 8:40AM EDT (link)

and the answer will be HUH?

Can’t we come up with someone both competent and with name recognition?

What if it was a Bush ambassador?

cordpt Tuesday, May 10th at 9:40AM EDT (link)

Yeah, I’d be okay.

Where’s the beef on this? Either the guy carried his duties as an Ambassador diligently or he didn’t. If he did, the accusations of disloyalty are hollow – he was an Ambassador, not the CoS or some political operative. If he didn’t and he tried to undercut the Administration policies, then you need to provide some evidence on this.

I see

gunslingr45 Tuesday, May 10th at 9:54AM EDT (link)

the same McCain play all over again. If the dem crossovers help us put up another candidate like McCain in play, I will vote third party no if ands or butts this time.
And don’t try to sell me on Obumber winning again because if we are going to cast a vote for a RINO like Huntsman (McCain) I really don’t see the difference.
Also, please don’t start on me about becoming a precinct committeeman, Your talking to a guy who has Carson for a congress critter and Lugar for a senator, And you can not tell a difference between them unless your looking right at them.

By the way, Chris Matthews is devastated by the release of Obama’s birth certificate. He was convinced Obama was born in a manger in Bethlehem.
Found on the web.

disloyal ?

rockymtn1776 Tuesday, May 10th at 12:13PM EDT (link)

Huntsman is being disloyal by running against this P”resident ? I don’t agree, I’ll vote for anyone who can get America back on track, citizens working, borders protected, and the list goes on. We have been badly damaged, we need a statesman, not more politicans, they had their chance !

Just another puppet politician

della Tuesday, May 10th at 5:37PM EDT (link)

Huntsman is just another puppet who was sent to China to brush up on marching orders from the communist puppeteers who control the entire Democratic party and a sizeable portion of the Republicans.

Oxymoronic loyalty

jimcarson Tuesday, November 8th at 2:48PM EDT (link)

I do not understand how Erick can claim that, in Huntsman’s case, loyalty to a man trumps all other considerations.

Loyalty to a man will inevitably, and often quickly, lead to disloyalty to one’s country, or more importantly, one’s own conscience.

I hold this truth to be self-evident.

Comment title:
Your thoughts: (smaller size larger size)
	Be respectful, or be banned. No Profanity.