« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Jon Huntsman’s Newest Denial Defies Credibility

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 11th, 2011 at 11:13 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Jon Huntsman went to Florida and denied gearing up to run for President while serving as United States Ambassador to China.

“There was no gearing up for a campaign, whatsoever,” Huntsman said, explaining that the campaign structure had been put together without his input.

That defies credibility.

In May of 2009, Jon Huntsman retained McCain strategist John Weaver to advise him on running for President.

Later that year, Huntsman became Ambassador to China.

In October of 2010, while still Ambassador to China, John Weaver fires up Huntsman’s PAC.

In December of 2010, Huntsman, well, here is how his groupies described it to Newsweek back at the first of January:


But sources close to Huntsman (who requested anonymity to speak freely without his permission) say that during his December trip to the U.S., he met with several former political advisers in Washington and Salt Lake City to discuss a potential campaign. “I’m not saying he’s running,” says one supporter who has worked with him in the past. “But we’re a fire squad; if he says the word, we can get things going fast.”

Newsweek and the press subsequently played up his interview with Newsweek as a hint that he was running. Neither Huntsman, nor his team, denied it.

Huntsman sent in his resignation letter on January 31, 2011, but he did not resign until May 1, 2011.

Oh, and now for all you people who said there were no problems, we get word today that, in fact, Huntsman’s machinations caused all sorts of problems within the State Department and Diplomatic Corps.

Never mind that this all came just as we were headed into a summit with China.

By the way, we should now be asking if this was really an accident or just a way to get some positive buzz going into primary season considering how Republicans and evangelical voters feel about the pro-democracy movement in China.

Given what we now know, I would not put it past Huntsman to have done this intentionally, damn the consequences.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • dblagent007

    I hope not because it isn’t very good. Lets go after him for his lack of conservative credentials and beliefs. He isn’t very conservative and that is where we should be attacking him, not about whether he was thinking about running while he was an ambassador.

  • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

    to another person serving the Obama Administration. Erick said about Huntsman:

    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.

    How many leftist Democrats agreed with Erick’s analysis? I don’t know, but I imagine some have.

    So, what about that other person? “I cannot tolerate a woman serving as our Secretary of State plotting, while in that capacity, to run against the President of the United States.”

    We have all heard from Hillary Clinton that she will not challenge Barack Obama. But what if she does? What, then, will those on the left say about her honor?

    Who, right now, would be a better candidate for the Democrats in 2012, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?

    Thank you.

    ColdWarrior

  • msctex

    “Top Democrats in and outside the White House, speaking on background so they could be more candid, suggest that former US Ambassador to China and Utah Governor Jon Huntsman would be the GOP candidate President Obama would least like to face in 2012 — but they think he can’t win the nomination.”

    Looks like Erick might have recognized a McCain in the making, and brought him to light almost from Day 1.

    To me, the above is conclusive proof Huntsman is to be disregarded by anyone serious about Conservatism re-establishing itself in the White House. We want the candidate they go into a drooling rage over as they try to destroy, not the one they pretend to nod at and say, “Yep, he sure could be a problem.”

  • oldbird77

    After studying a lot of subtle clues and reading between the lines, I’m starting to get the feeling that Redstate will not be endorsing Jon Huntsman in the Republican primaries.

  • Common_Cents

    Keep your friends close and (potential opponents) enemies closer. Besides Huntsman’s qualifications or unqualifications its kind of odd to devote several diaries on the loyalty to Obama issue IMHO.

    I say let’s quit carrying too much water for Obama by ending our own circular firing squads.

  • LibertarianHawk

    I’m starting to feel like the conservative movement — not merely the Republican Party — is at genuine risk coming apart at the seams.

    With you tearing into Jon Huntsman like this, Limbaugh, Levin, & Co. tearing into Mitch Daniels, countless conservatives tearing into Sarah Palin, etc. etc., I think we’re in real danger of suffering the “divided we fall” fate.

    We should spend more time finding and discussing things about Republican candidates that we like than finding and discussing things about Republican candidates that we don’t.

    But that’s just me.

  • jackhammer

    Because I don’t think it is the most comfortable ride, but you sure like going all in against Huntsman? It is starting to feel like he might have been in grade school with you, and always picked you last for every team.

    I refuse to believe that for someone with access to so much money, it really takes so much effort to determine whether he should run or not…if he is out after the first primary, what has he lost, $8 million tops?

    Did you plot against Eagle Publishing when you thought of taking the CNN job?

    We get it, you hate Jon Huntsman, he is the devil incarnate for you…because he schemed to be president instead of acting as an ambassodor with all his might….can you take these to diaries, they don’t belong on the front page.

  • jackhammer

    It looks like he turned in his resignation, and then the Obama people decided to keep him on in that role, but did all they could to limit what he could do and say…so the failing is not on Huntsman’s part, but rather on Obama’s.

  • rottitoo

    I do not understand the obsession with Huntsman, unless Mr. Erickson knows something more serious than we all know. I do not agree that Huntsman was disloyal to his country, if anything he’s been serving his country for years. My much bigger question is if the Obama regime is setting all these questions up because they know that Huntsman could be a big threat to Obama, more so than any other candidate or possible candidate we have running. That’s why Obama sent him to China to begin with.

    Give the guy a chance to proof and explain himself before throwing him to the wolfs. Same goes for all other candidates. Then we decide. And lets starting looking at their positive contributions, not just the negative.

  • lunaticrex

    While this comment is unlikely to provide new insight into the Huntsman candidacy situation, I think it needs to be said.

    Whatever Huntsman’s positions vis-a-vis politics (is he a RINO, a conservative, etc), if he had a thought toward running for POTUS in 2012, he should not have accepted the nomination to the ambassador post. If only for pragmatic reasons, it might have served his 2012 chances better if he’d remained Utah’s governor. Unless he had some plan to magically make China weaker relative to the U.S. Which he of course did not.

    Whatever the case, once he accepted the appointment and was confirmed, his duty is to the president and to the people. As such, he was absolutely wrong to actively say or do anything to enhance his chance of obtaining elected office in the future during his tenure as ambassador. As Erick said in yesterday’s piece, if he cannot display unquestioned loyalty in this capacity, how can we expect him to do so as POTUS? It is clear to this observer that to Huntsman, an oath of office is nothing more than a formality to be dispensed with so one can get on with one’s career planning.

    In other words, it took some cogitating but I completely agree with Erick’s take on Huntsman. It isn’t often that a potential candidate makes it so easy for thinking people (such as most here) to dismiss him out of hand. I now will not need to waste time and effort figuring out what his positions are; he is sufficiently non-credible based exclusively on his disloyalty to his oath, and to his boss.

    I am also convinced that if he were a solid conservative, he would not have accepted the posting.

  • septembergurl

    posts (so dire that I expected the siren and the red typeface) without bringing up an issue which would make Huntsman a problematic candidate for conservatives (or Republicans).

    Non-issues:

    1. Religion: Yes, Huntsman is not a terribly devout Mormon — rather, he is sort of a secular Mormon, much less devout than Mitt Romney, for example.

    This does not hurt Huntsman, rather it helps him. I’m reminded of the comment John F. Kennedy made during his Presidential campaign, that it was unfair of voters to hold his religion against him, since he was a pretty bad Catholic.

    Exactly. The American people find Mormonism to be odd if not sinister (the secrecy, the history of racism,, the polygamy) as they once did Catholicism. So, being a diffident Mormon and being open to other faiths hurts Huntsman not at all (one of his daughters was married in the National Cathedral in DC, one of his adopted daughters is being raised in the Hindu religion, the faith of her birth).

    2. The McCain redux problem would be an issue, if true. But while he has indeed relied on former McCain staffers to ramp up his campaign, he has also hired Haley Barbour’s communications director and will no doubt pick up others from across the spectrum as it becomes more apparent what a formidable candidate he is.

    3. Disloyalty as serving an Administration while planning to run against the President who appointed him. All Ambassadors (whether political or career appointees) and indeed all diplomats have to walk the line between carrying out the policies of a particular administration and promoting the long-term interests of the United States in the world. Huntsman’s work in China will be evaluated during the campaign, as will his work in the Reagan and both Bush Administrations. He has a long and distinguished career in diplomacy, international trade and business, and you are cherry-picking one element to make your point.

    Incidentally, the Daily Beast has a story about the steps taken by the Obama White House when Huntsman’s intention to run in 2012 became clear early this year. Even as they praised him publicly, they began micromanaging his schedule, limiting his public appearances and scrutinizing all his speeches. (I’d love to know who at State got this lovely assignment — was it Herself or someone lower down the food chain? Or was it political operatives in the White House?)

    Being treated by Obama like Joe the Plumber, or being criticized by ChiComs (as Huntsman is) — to my way o thinking, not a negative.

    4. Ambition. You find it unseemly that Huntsman has been planning a Presidential run since 2009.

    I’d say it goes back a lot farther, I’d say he’s been thinking about it for a long time, maybe since the rock band broke up.

    You know about the rock band, don’t you Erick? And the motorcycle?
    I’m surprised you haven’t added them to your indictment of Huntsman.

    Because if there’s two things Americans really hate, it’s rock bands and Harleys!

  • gpclaw

    For starters, I think it’s time someone defined what THE core principle of the conservative movement is. Of course, they’re are a number of issues that are important to all of the different pieces that make up the conservative movement, but what is THE central, unifying piece of the puzzle.

    What ever that issue is, should be the starting point in any discussion of who is qualified or not to be the nominee.

    It seems too many of us are allowing our decisions to be made by the establishment, and letting the party lead the electorate, instead of the other way around.

  • Vegas_Rick
  • kestrel

    Didn’t think so.

  • swami7774

    ’nuff said.
    Scott Reed wasn’t available?

  • toothpick

    This is getting a little odd, almost like a personal feud. I’ve never seen a topic get so much front-page air time on redstate. It’s probably lifting Huntsman’s visibility among the conservative set like nothing else he could have done.

  • toothpick

    We get it: you don’t like Jon Huntsman. Now, can we get back to our regularly scheduled programming?

  • powertothepeople

    telling the guy who is head of the site to not post what he wants to. And to state that all while not considering he has been able to build this site to what it is by being the face of the site.

    Yep Erick, do as this guy says, he knows best about what you need to post.

  • kestrel

    In a subtle way, I think a comment from mBecker, contrasting Jon Huntsman with John Bolton, strikes at the heart of the problem: Becker notes that, unlike Huntsman, ?Bolton wouldn?t have worked for BO because their positions on issues, ESPECIALLY related to State, are diametrically opposed.?

    If Huntsman were preparing to challenge Obama in a *Democrat primary*, I’d feel more sure that Huntsman has been doing his ambassadorial work in good faith ? due to the fact that the type of potential undermining (of Obama) that is inferred would have also required Huntsman to go against his own core beliefs and positions. If such were the case, then maybe his presidential aspirations could be said to be motivated (as with Hilary) by believing he can improve on Obama’s performance for the good of the country; maybe then, too, as some have argued, he would even have a duty to try to do so. It seems to me that Huntsman has an issue of *conflicting* loyalties that raises a disturbing question of, ?Who are you, Mr. Huntsman??

  • williamjameson

    Those of you who want to bury your heads in the sand and refuse to analyze relevant information about candidates should Ostracize yourself. ROFL! I’m not kidding, actually I am. Relax and learn.

    Wouldn’t discussing the issues be better than ranting at the creator of the dairy?

    If you don’t want to know the negatives then how could you honestly evaluate a candidate?

    Obama got elected with liberals refusing to analyze his past political career and lack of experience.

  • ayrnieu

    This is an “anti-Huntsman… by this single argument” horse. Or rather, Erick has climbed on a horse, looked through the available weapons, and discarded all of the steel and iron lances, swords, maces, so that he can charge at Huntsman with this brittle wooden lance. The lance is boldly described as killing the disloyal, the quasi-treasonous, but in the fine print the label actually reads “vague, easily-disputed suggestion of a conflict of interest.”

    Proof: there is no repetition of any real arguments against Huntsman, nor a link to the earlier post that had those arguments. What Erick is all-in on isn’t opposition to Huntsman, but opposition by this argument.

    And I’ll reiterate one of my replies to that first post: this is *so* bizarre, I just can’t see it as sincere. I speculated that he wanted this wooden lance to draw all of the attention of the pro-Huntsman crowd so that the steel could kill his candidacy. Maybe the opposite is intended: for the anti-Huntsman crowd to all get caught up in this wooden lance, forget about the rest of the anti-Huntsman arguments, and be thoroughly convinced of his candidacy when the lance shatters ten ways against Huntsman’s shield.

    I won’t push the point that Erick has a sinister intent. I fully accept that we may really be in the Twilight Zone. I’m just saying, I have such a sense of unreality when I read stuff like this, that I can’t help searching for a sinister intent.

  • runner12

    Personal attacks should be avoided when evaluating our own. BUT, questioning candidates’ records, experience, and the like is perfectly legitimate and I would say the responsibility of every good citizen.

    I would also point out that you are incorrect when you say Rush attacked Daniels. He simply questioned why a reporter who is an Obama supporter would write a favorable article about Daniels. His point was that it could not have been to give us tips on how to beat Obama. He pointed out the tried and true tactic of the MSM that whoever they put forward as a “formidable” GOP candidate is someone they know is a moderate squish whom they can beat.

  • catt

    “In May of 2009, Jon Huntsman retained McCain strategist John Weaver to advise him on running for President. Later that year, Huntsman became Ambassador to China.”

    Let’s start by noting what a large hole this blows in the previous repeated repeated claims that Huntsman _began_ “talking to people” … or “plotting against the President of the United States” as it’s been put in these overheated diaries … AFTER he became ambassador. He was doing this openly before Obama picked him. Nearly every news article about the appointment commented on this fact. It was no secret.

    Huntsman was not only talking to people before Obama picked him he retained … as in hired and paid … an advisor … and if every newspaper in the world was aware of this fact at the time then can we assume Obama knew this too?

    It’s simply a falsehood to say that Huntsman “began” talking to people about a possible run after he became ambassador.

    The case against Huntsman doesn’t need to be based on falsehoods or exaggeration.

    “Huntsman sent in his resignation letter on January 31, 2011, but he did not resign until May 1, 2011.”

    First of all the date everyone else gives his date of departure as April 30. Presumably Erick has a cite for the May 1 date or some insider information and every other news article is mistaken. Erick wouldn’t just make that up to bump the date into the next month.

    However … does anyone really not understand how it works when someone tenders a letter of resignation? Whether it’s in politics or not when you tender a letter of resignation you don’t get to dictate the date of your departure. You don’t get to send a letter of resignation and then stay around as long as you want.

    Huntsman resigned in January. Obama _wanted_ him to stay on for three more months … or else he’d have been gone earlier. Obama could have asked him to clean out his office effective February 1 … and then that’s what would have happened.

    For petes sake Huntsman’s successor had already been nominated some time in March! Trying to make hay out of the fact that Huntsman resigned in January but … with Obama’s consent … continued in the position until April 30 … or May 1 if Erick is correct … is just really hard to explain.

    The case against Huntsman doesn’t need to be based on falsehoods or exaggeration.

    Interleaved with all of these are some valid points. Which makes the exaggerations … and the fact that the focus is on the exaggerations … baffling.

    The case against Huntsman is solid … without having to resort to these sorts of things … much less comparing him to Teddy Kennedy and his Republican friends to cold war Soviets.

    Huntsman has no chance. Zero. Even before the love letters to Obama and Bill and Hillary were leaked in April he had no chance. The only thing his entry into the race would do is hurt Romney. Two RINO Mormon moderates with weaknesses that hurt their ability to challenge Obama … yeah I think it’s safe to say they’d only be taking votes away from one another.

    Which is to say … the only thing that preemptively knocking him out of the race would do is help clear a path for Romney.

  • http://electionsanalysis.blog.com paint_it_red

    How is it Huntsman gets called to the mat for the audacity of wanting to run for President while ambassador but Trump gets a pass. What has Trump ever done for conservatism? Is he Pro-Life? Is he for immigration reform? Does he have a plan to balance the budget? What are his guiding principles on foreign policy?

    Frankly, I neither know nor care whether Huntsman thought about running or laid groundwork for running while Ambassador. If he did not undermine United States interests, its not treason or anything of the sort. I just don’t get the beef on this one, at all.

    How about some discussion of bread and butter issues like job creation, mortgage foreclosures, gas prices, the 3 wars we’re in, the mounting deficit, the energy crisis, the need to protect the unborn, immigration reform, inflation in the economy paired with dollar deflation, and who has the ability to lead in tackling those crises? We’re fairly late in the process for there to have been as little discussion on real issues as there’s been. Time is running out in more ways than one and this seems like a distraction.