« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Loyalty, Honor, and Faith. Virtues We Should Prioritize.

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 11th, 2011 at 05:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

In the past 48 hours, I have received a lot of criticism for my takedown of Jon Huntsman. Some of it was not surprising, i.e. when you want to see the traitor Jonathan Pollard freed instead of hanged, you can’t be expected to understand arguments about loyalty and honor. Some of it was surprising.

The most interesting aspect of it all is that the older the conservative or the further south the conservative lives, the more likely they are to understand and agree with my point. The Texans I know are largely uniform in agreement that the act is both dishonorable and disloyal.

Ultimately that is the point. In the past 48 hours, in addition to the incoming fire, a lot of people both inside and outside the Huntsman camp have wondered if this is all cover for some other grievance against Huntsman. Put as clearly and simply as I can — no.

I view being an American a higher thing than being a Republican or a conservative. And I view what Jon Huntsman did — openly plotting a Presidential bid against the President of the United States while serving the President of the United States in China — to be both profoundly disloyal and profoundly dishonorable.

However, the more I learn about Jon Huntsman’s character, the less it surprises me.

In a Salt Lake Tribune article from yesterday it is clear Jon Huntsman, a Mormon, does not take his faith very seriously.

Huntsman hasn’t addressed his faith to the same degree, though he hinted last year that he wasn’t a devout Mormon.

In a 2010 interview with Fortune magazine, Huntsman, then serving as the U.S. ambassador to China, talked briefly about his personal faith, with the magazine terming his Mormon credentials “soft.”

“I can’t say I’m overly religious,” Huntsman said. “I get satisfaction from many different types of religions and philosophies.”

I’m sorry, but I want a guy who takes his faith seriously. And if he is not going to take his faith seriously, if he has no honor in his conduct while serving the President of the United States, and if he is not loyal to the President he serves, count me out.

I think we do not value honor, loyalty, and faith enough in this country and the embrace of many of Jon Huntsman and the dismissal of these concerns by many as frivolous are just added indicators in how far down the road to Gomorrah we have gone.

Now, one of the common reactions has been, in effect, “Well, surely Obama knew and had no problem with it.”

Let’s just get this out there — Barack Obama started his political career in the home of a terrorist. He’s not exactly known to embrace traditional American virtues. He’s certainly, as President, never shown himself to give a damn about precedents of the office.

And because Barack Obama cares so little about the office in which the nation has entrusted him, I think we are forced to care more for it. We must be willing to say it is dishonorable, disloyal, and a terrible precedent for an Ambassador of the United States, while still on the job, to begin openly and publicly contemplating a challenge to the President he serves.

We should not reward people like Jon Huntsman.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • barryd

    You are right. If he cannot stand behind his religion then it shows his lack of commitment. I also think that his stand on same sex marriage says a great deal about his religious commitment.

  • barryd

    You are right. If he cannot stand behind his religion then it shows his lack of commitment. I also think that his stand on same sex marriage says a great deal about his religious commitment.

  • jdtruth

    I do not know much about Huntsman and you may have a point. However, there are some of us who question the actual legitimacy of this president, simply for the fact that he taught classes to ACORN that was indicted for voter fraud and fraudullent voting practises.

    I do not know enough about the actual Huntsman issue, however, I do not fault you for your opinion re it at all.

    What I do disagree with, though, is your using your radio show to push Herman Cain for president.

  • merryj1

    And thank you, Erick, for elaborating. It completely threw me, yesterday, to see so much disagreement with something that seems fundamental. I felt a bit “queasy” myself at the realization Huntsman was still an Ambassador when I first heard about his Presidential feelers. (Although his fan letters to Obama and Clinton, alone, would take him off my list of “good” candidates).

  • politicalqrm

    we can glean from his actions in China that he has nothing but power on his mind. I’ve seen some people run over any iota of self-respect they may have for a chance at power.

    People with integrity and honor would have graciously declined the ambassadorship.

    America, at this point in time cannot afford to put someone like that in office. The damage done by the Obama administration dictates that we have someone who is steadfast in his or her beliefs.

    Oh, gee, like Ronald Reagan?

    Enough said..

  • djvu

    as in the case of President Truman’s dismissal of Gen. McArthur (of whom I was a great admirer (until) but never served under him as I was too busy hunting German submarines in the North Atlantic). If Mr. Huntsman wants to run against Mr. Obama he should resign. Just as Gen.McArthur should have resigned before he went public against his Commander-in-Chief’s policies.
    Robert Palmer Smith, author of DARKEST TRUTHS OF BLACK GOLD in which he, also, records the dilemma in which he finds himself when he is adamantly opposed to his Chairman’s actions.

  • Ausonius

    has a quote I have always liked:

    “He serves his party best who serves his country best.”

    And thank you for using the word “Virtue” in your essay!

    We hear far too much about “values” and “value systems” as if they were virtues. Value is an economic term, coming from the Latin word for “pricing.” As such it implies that a “value” has a negotiable worth, and goes up or down in estimation.

    A “virtue,” coming from the Latin word for “man,” NEVER changes its quality. The True Man is supposed to have certain qualities, in the Roman/Latin view, and those qualities are expressed in the word “Virtue.” Courage is Courage, and Honesty is Honesty: they have no debatable or negotiable value. They are qualities which every person needs to find in themselves.

    Our dishonest, pusillanimous politicians need to look in the mirror not as Narcissus, but as Socrates, and carefully and truthfully examine the lack of qualities present in their character, and determine how they can improve.

  • 2warabnvet

    When the president says, ?We can?t drill our way out of our energy problems? he is entirely correct. You cannot succeed if you never try. and he won’t.

  • coralchristie

    I appreciate the comments made about Huntsman’s lack of honor and loyalty. A close and honorable friend of mine who lives in Utah voiced her concerns about Huntsman and was happy that he left the state for China so that they didn’t have to deal with his lack of honor anymore. As in any faith, there are those who choose not to live the doctrine and he and Harry Reid seem to be some of those. It simply reinforces Mr. Erickson’s evaluation of disloyal and dishonorable to describe this man. From what I’ve heard and read, it seems that Jon Jr. doesn’t have the integrity and honor of his father.

  • texan4america

    Huntsman is disloyal to the President he is supposed to be serving, what makes anyone believe he will be “loyal” to the American people? A thought worth considering.

  • texan4america

    Obama’s way of “enforcing” his green policy. His policy, like Obama himself, isn’t worth a S**T!!

  • edintexas

    And others from the Southern States. I can’t speak for everyone, and I’m sure my experience isn’t limited to the South, but I used to conduct business on a handshake. Doing business that way requires a belief that the other person’s word is his bond (to use an antiquated term, or so it seems these days).

  • ihateliberals

    “Soft” in his honor and values. Apparently he goes the way the wind blows and does take a faithful stand on anything. he’s not faithful to God and he isn’t Faithful to the President that he serves. Why would i believe he would be faithful to me while in the Office of the President?

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    Of course he’s not as bad as a general who commanded soldiers in battle while plotting his political future, but he sort has that vibe to him.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • gunslingr45

    grandpappy use to say “if it smells bad, there is a real reason for it.”

  • brojohn2

    nothing apparently, to this man. When you say you will faithfully carry out the duties assigned to you, it means just that. This man is at best a liar and a thief, and at worst a turncoat. One thing I am sure of, it is that a person who is self-centered, cannot be loyal to anything or anyone other than himself.

    Our nation needs a few more men and women who will stand in the gap, who will be honest stewards of that which the nation has entrusted to her/him. Who hold the honor of our nation to be worth serving, and who will hold honor as a shield and buckler to withstand the slings and arrows that are hurled against honorable men and women every day. I would be profoundly proud to see someone in office once more, who will declare a national day of prayer for those in Japan, or those along the Mississippi River. Who will insure that the Defense of Marriage act is vigorously enforced and who will protect and defend our borders.

    Loyalty, Duty, Honor, Honesty, and Faith, these are the virtues that shine forth for all the world to see. These are the bonds that used to hold our nation together. We, who call ourselves Americans, Conservatives need to concentrate ourselves on finding that one who exemplifies these virtues, and then do all in our power to bring this person to the Oval Office. I don’t myself care very much any more for either party, I understand the arguments against a third party, BUT, it is time to stand behind the person who will be Loyal to the men and women of the Nation, who will hold it his or her Sacred Honor to serve. Who will stand for the God of our Fathers and for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Who will perform the duties with honesty and honor, never wavering from the path but treading it as a sacred trust.

    I don’t know who that person might be yet, but when I find that person, they will have my utmost.

    “The virtues of men are of more consequence to society than their abilities; and for this reason, the heart should be cultivated with more assiduity than the head.” –Noah Webster, On the Education of Youth in America, 1788

  • buddha1556

    I live in Indianapolis and don’t turn 30 for a few weeks, but I’ve agreed with the stance you’ve taken. I have taken notice of the intensity of your focus, and it concerns me. I know you indicate otherwise, but me thinks you are privy to information that indicates Huntsman would be formidable in the primary, so it makes sense to illustrate his flaws early on. Whether said information exists, or not, I appreciate the impassioned stand on principle.

  • johnt

    Like the cannibals they are. Honor among thieves, forget it. I don’t know a thing about Huntsmanm if a Democrat, definitely he’s trash. But it’s a rare man who’s lower then Obama.

  • renny

    and close the borders, keep illegals from getting gov’t freebies, stop all those UN treaties like ones taking away Am. guns, promote jobs jobs jobs, make a case for fighting terrorism as a matter of national security, and stand up for human rights, freedom of speech, and human dignity.

    Who will do that?

  • capeconservative

    I don?t know who that person might be yet, but when I find that person, they will have my utmost.

    I would like to see someone who has stood up to defend our country against the enemies from within! Immediately coming to mind is Senator DeMint! With his Senate Conservative Fund, he, more than any other person in Washington (certainly the RNC chair!) made the difference that led to the ‘shellacking’ last November. I was proud to be a contributor to several winners he supported from coast to coast – people with HONOR & VIRTUE & INTEGRITY who have made their presence known and done their best to put the skids onto this runaway government since taking office in January.

    Paul Ryan would make a GREAT Treasury Secretary for our next president!

    As to which outsider I’d like to see, Herman Cain stands out like a crown jewel amongst the other early candidates!

    As to whom I do NOT want to see on the ballot is ANY ONE of the 2008 candidates!!!! Stay home and put your money to better use elsewhere…and most of all, that includes you, Mitt Romney!

  • blarman

    I don’t support Hunstman, I don’t live in Utah, etc., but Eric, you have still failed to mention that Huntsman had already given his resignation before he put his hat in the ring. And he did it three months prior.

    I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and I hold Huntsman in the same view as Harry Reid – as someone who claims a title in contradiction to what they actually practice (i.e. a hypocrite/liar). But I do have to call you on this. I wouldn’t expect anyone to contemplate a job change without “putting out feelers” to investigate the options. That seems completely prudent to me. And he resigned when he went looking for another opportunity that would have presented a conflict of interest, which is what he should have done. If you’re that stuck on this, rather than focusing on his record, you’re making a mountain out of a molehill while ignoring the actual mountains. This isn’t about “honor” or “loyalty”, you’ve got some other bone to pick.

  • ceili_dancer

    .

  • judgebean

    Say the word Honor and you get my attention.
    In my community, other than veterans, like myself, no one understands or chooses not to. Huntsman would be unknown to me had you skipped this word.
    I feel I can do little nationally, locally I will do what I can. The problem of Washington is same as local just a different scale. I go to local school boards to ask questions, that I already know the answer to. Why you ask, to give them an oppertunity to lie to me. Just hold a person accountable for their actions.
    I have a way to bring Honor, Respect, Sacrifice, Commitment, and Responsibility into local discussion. At one school it seems to be working, in another I’ve failed, you can find that school by looking up the school with the highest per capita taxes in the nation on an acedemic watch list, imagine that.

  • Bill S

    Let’s let it stop at that.

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

    John Weaver set up Huntsman’s PAC in October of 2010.

    Huntsman began reaching out to people by December of 2010.

    At the first of January, 2011, Huntsman told Newsweek he was considering running.

    At the end of January, 2011, Huntsman sent in his resignation letter.

    Huntsman did not actually leave office until May 1, 2011, well after it had been established he was plotting a run and people were moving into place.

  • red_oakster

    and his shenanigans during his time as Washington’s Secretary of State.

  • blarman

    Your argument is that no sitting Ambassador should be exploring other job opportunities without first resigning: that to do so is disloyal. Resignation is merely a formality and that continuing to serve temporarily while a replacement is located indicates a lack of honor. Is that correct?

  • mtsam

    I agree wholeheartedly. The issues are not the issue at all — more like distractions from the real issue we should be considering when looking to put someone into office to represent us … that being the character and integrity of the candidate.
    “The virtues of men are of more consequence to society than their abilities. … In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate — look to his character.” — Noah Webster

  • dblagent007

    I agree that Huntsman is not a good choice for the Republican nomination. However, I reached this conclusion entirely on the basis that he is not very conservative. The issues Eric keeps bringing up are, well, ridiculous. I won’t deal with Eric’s loyalty to the President argument since many others have already made the same points.

    Eric’s criticism of Huntsman’s loyalty to Mormonism will play nicely to orthodox Mormons since the religion tends to value loyalty above all else. Church leaders demand loyalty or else you will be punished by not being able to witness your children’s weddings, participate in certain rituals with your family, and risk divorce. All this because your doubts are a little too strong.

    I cannot criticize anyone who reevaluates their loyalty to any particular cause, religion, or point of view as long as he/she did so based on sound evidence. We don’t know why Huntsman is not completely devoted to Mormonism. However, as someone who is Mormon and recently learned the distasteful history of the religion, I can tell you there are very valid reasons to not be loyal to the Church (e.g., Joseph Smith married other people’s wives (some while the husband was gone on a mission), 14 year old girls; the Book of Abraham is an ordinary Egyptian funeray papyrus; the Egyptian fertility God Min cannonized in facsimile 2 with an erection; and on and on; see www.mormonthink.com). I cannot hold this against Huntsman.

    If Huntsman’s commitment to Mormonism is soft because he has evaluated the evidence and concluded it doesn’t hold up, then Huntsman actually deserves a lot of praise. His family is deeply entrenched in Mormonism so he has taken a huge, huge, risk both personally and politically by admitting that his commitment to Mormonism is soft. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, worse than an apostate in Mormonism. Mormons will vote for just about anyone instead of an apostate.

    If anything, this shows that he has a lot of character. He is willing to make an unpopular admission that has lots and lots of downside both personally and politically and no upside – because his personal convictions require it. For that he deserves our kudos (I still won’t support him in the primary).

    Sincerely,
    Another Utahn who has studied the history of Mormonism more than I should

  • blarman

    … or a jab at someone’s religion?

    You are welcome to your beliefs. In defense of my religion, however, I would like to bring up some actual doctrines of the Church:
    1) The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints holds that Jesus Christ is the Savior and Redeemer of the world, and that it is only through Him that we can return to live with God. His atoning sacrifice paid the price for our sins if we repent and His resurrection makes it so we will be resurrected some day as well.
    2) Just as in olden days, God calls prophets today and reveals His will through them. Revelation is a core principle of divine inspiration, not only in the government of the Church, but in individual’s lives.
    3) The Holy Spirit confirms truth and is the foundation of all revelation. Just as we can know Christ is the Savior through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we can gain a personal confirmation or witness from God that other things are true.
    4) Sincere prayer with a desire to know the truth is the way we invite the Holy Spirit to witness to us of truth. The core request our 55,000+ volunteer missionaries make of everyone is to study out our beliefs and then pray to obtain a witness that it is true.
    5) Sacrifice/obedience is a way of LDS life. We agree to give 10% of our income as tithing. We agree not to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage. We agree to live by a strict code of health. We commit to look after one another and our fellow man.
    6) The family is our ultimate goal. Just as we are children of our Father (God), we believe that all government and society is rooted in the family as well. We believe that families can be together forever – husbands and wives married not just “until death do us part”, but forever. We believe that relationships carry past the grave through the power of Christ’s Atonement. We strongly oppose anything that threatens the stability of the traditional family unit.

    Visit www.lds.org to learn more.

    Again, I don’t support Huntsman. I appreciate that he was honest enough to admit that he doesn’t live in harmony with his religion – something I wish Harry Reid would also do. I wouldn’t willingly vote for him because our core values do not match. However, I can’t fault him for looking beyond the temporary nature of a political appointment toward his future. I think his record is more than enough to polarize conservatives against him – the timing of his resignation vs leaving of office is of no consequence when his record is so damning.

  • blooch

    The more I learn about politics, the less it surprises me.

    Let me just start by saying Huntsman is a complete tool where his politics are concerned. He’s an odious choice of last resort.

    I am a 50-year-old Southerner (although I was born a few stories above Peachtree St. and grew up a mile from same, so some may question my Southernness) who believes in loyalty, honor and faith. But I have a hard time getting worked up about a politician’s byzantine maneuverings in the halls of political power.

    What I do get more easily worked up about is a politician’s loyaly, honor and faith with regards to his family and friends, for this is an arena in whioh I can better identify moral, legal and ethical tresspasses, since I have played in that arena all of my middle-aged Southern life.

    Several famous pols have opined on the site who have displayed the lack of loyalty, honor and faith which truly concerns me. Yet, I do not dismiss them out of hand because of this. Indeed, I wish most of them success in their endeavors, because I value forgiveness, I believe in personal growth and I agree with their politics.

    Erick, you pretty much had me at “served as Obama’s ambassador”. Tere’s no need for all this talk of “plotting”. It’s a “risky scheme” and a distraction to the good points you’re driving home about Huntsman.

  • jackhammer
  • steelpier1

    against the Kenyan Kommie, then, more power to him. I know he is, politically, a dirt bag, and I wouldn’t vote for him, but in this case, anyone doing ANYTHING in opposition to this America hating, Jew hating, White hating Marxist in the White House gets a big “ATTABOY” from me.

  • catt

    In the article you say “We must be willing to say it is dishonorable, disloyal, and a terrible precedent for an Ambassador of the United States, while still on the job, to begin openly and publicly contemplating a challenge to the President he serves.”

    Begin? Huntsman waas openly and publicly contemplating a challenge to the President BEFORE Obama picked him. Search for articles from 2009 about Obama’s selection of Huntsman. Most mention … usually prominently … that Huntsman was an unexpected pick _because_ he was already taking steps toward a possible run against Obama in 2012.

    Obama knew this when he picked him. In fact some of the speculation was that Obama picked Huntsman _because_ he was a strong potential rival in a “keep your enemies closer” kind of strategy. Doesn’t matter. The point is that Huntsman clearly did not “begin opening and publicly contemplating a challenge” after he became ambassador … he openly and publicly began that before Obama picked him. Surely you know this.

    “At the first of January, 2011, Huntsman told Newsweek he was considering running.”

    At the beginning of January Huntsman said something that a Newsweek reporter interpreted as “hinting” that he was considering running. What Huntmsan actually _said_ was “no comment”.

    “Huntsman did not actually leave office until May 1, 2011, well after it had been established he was plotting a run and people were moving into place.”

    There’s that word “plotting” again. BTW every article I’ve seen says April 30 was his last day but I assume you have a cite that says he left May 1 instead of April 30 as planned.

    In any case the day he ended his term as ambassador wasn’t his decision to make. If Obama had wanted him out of there on Feb 1 that’s when it would have happened. Huntsman’s part of the decision was when to tender his resignation … and that was January.

    Obama WANTED him to stay for three more months … even knowing that Huntsman was thinking of running in 2012. Is this surprising? Obama knew Huntsman was thinking of running _before he picked him_. Huntsman wasn’t just carrying out Obama’s agenda … he was doing it with fawning admiration.

    Unfortunately for Huntsman his love letters to Obama and Bill and Hillary were leaked in April … and there’s the core of the REAL case against Huntsman right there in Huntsman’s own words. If he’s foolish enough to run those words are going to come back to haunt him over and over.

    BTW was there ever a retraction and apology of the comparison between Huntsman talking to fellow Republicans about a possible run and Kennedy conspiring with Soviets during the cold war about how to undermine Reagan? Or do you stand by that analogy? Maybe it’s okay to compare Republicans to our Soviet enemies during the cold war as long as the Republicans being insulted this way are RINOs from Team McCain.

    It’s hard to understand why all of this overheated rhetoric is being used when the case against Huntsman doesn’t need the slightest bit of factual distortion AT ALL.

  • dblagent007

    Blarman, I attend Church every Sunday for the full three hours, I served a mission, am endowed, and have been a member my whole life. I’m not interested in arguing the merits of Mormonism. My point is that, contrary to what Eric said, I think Huntsman may have some very valid reasons to not be loyal to the Church. And, in fact, his admission that he isn’t too strong of a Mormon is actually courageous and shows character since there is nothing worse in Mormonism than an apostate, which is how Huntsman comes across to other Mormons.

  • blarman

    “However, as someone who is Mormon and recently learned the distasteful history of the religion, I can tell you there are very valid reasons to not be loyal to the Church …”

    …You _are_ arguing the merits of “Mormonism”. You go to great pains in your first post to criticize the Church with unproven assertions that aren’t relevant to the political discussion. I responded by citing the core doctrines of the Church. Now you respond as if I was attacking you personally rather than defending the Church and try to claim that you are an upstanding member. I am confused: you criticize on the one hand yet say you believe on the other. The two stances are inherently contradictory. Can you help me understand how to reconcile this?

  • blarman

    “It?s hard to understand why all of this overheated rhetoric is being used when the case against Huntsman doesn?t need the slightest bit of factual distortion AT ALL.”

    I completely agree.

  • davidmadison

    I am so disheartened by the majority of Republican candidates currently in office. I’m also not too happy with the current “popular” crop of presidential wannabies. Nearly all are fatally flawed, or have serious issues to address and overcome before they can be a genuine ?Hopeful?, in my opinion. One possible exception I see is Herman Cain. Serious faith; serious budget concern; serious about our economy; serious about anti-amnesty for illegal aliens residing in the US. The only problem I see is that he has no political track record and, he’s not well known. (I haven’t seen him in a debate.)

    Is there anyone else who takes true Conservative values (and virtues) seriously? I like Mrs. Palin but, she has a definate uphill climb, to overcome the stigmas of ?pretensiveness? (hand checking), and being a ?quitter? (for resigning as Governor of Alaska when the heat was on.)

    Please, don’t tell me you think that guy in the Senate, Newt Gingrich, is a serious hopeful? He’s a repeatedly divorced ?Christian?(which would seem to undercut the seriousness of his faith) and, his RINO endorsing tendencies (endorsed NY 23rd dist. Republican RINO Dierdre Scozzafava) undercuts the seriousness he affords to his supposed Conservative values, (showing serious party hack tendencies.) He also seems to be willing to embrace some form of amnesty for illegals. He says he’s for cutting spending but, he’s willing to raise the debt cap limit at any time, (when has he ever said ?No.??) He’s not a serious conservative. In my opinion, Gingritch is a politician first, a party hack second, and a Christian third. He talks a good game but, he just doesn’t seem to be willing to stand up for what he says he believes in. That should be enough to dissuade ANYONE from taking him ?serious? as a presidential candidate for conservative values.

    Where, O’ where, do we go (to find a real Republican Conservative presidential Candidate)?

  • MF

    In EE’s own words at the top: In the past 48 hours, in addition to the incoming fire, a lot of people both inside and outside the Huntsman camp have wondered if this is all cover for some other grievance against Huntsman. Put as clearly and simply as I can ? no.

    Since EE specifically said there are no ulterior motives, you’re calling him a liar. Nice. Back up your assertions with unimpeachable sources, or hit the road. (Not that I’m one who can enforce…)

  • dblagent007

    If you disagree with “distasteful history of the religion,” then please read Rough Stone Rolling. It was written by a faithful member (Richard Bushman – stake patriarch) who told the history like it is (well, he put a positive spin on things as much as possible). You also might want to check out the websites of the organizations that defend the Church in these matters, e.g., www.fairlds.org.

    In Church, you will only learn the positive aspects of the history. If you look a little deeper, you will find that there is a lot of unsavory stuff.

    Since I didn’t intend this to become a discussion of Mormonism per se, I will check out at this point.

  • williamjameson

    Anyone who works directly for the president has a higher duty to his country than to engage in personal gain that leads towards a political career. Did Rahm Emanuel start a PAC while Chief of Staff?

    I think the real issue isn’t what’s being said in new dairies, its that some people don’t like or respect Obama therefore they really don’t care what a conservative working for Obama does while working for the country. So its easier to defend Huntsman before we know all the facts and dirt.

    Huntsman has more baggage, that’s why the Obamabots like him as do some in the liberal media.

    Have you Huntsman fans forgotten that liberals want to move the country further left and they think republicans are extreme?

    I’ll avoid the religion issue since I haven’t read enough but launching a career including a PAC is a no no. Ethics dilemma!

  • williamjameson

    I don’t see HDS as a syndrone takes time to manifest. This is nothing like BDS. Funny though.

  • jb77

    I’m from Utah…and could not vote for Huntsman even if he’s the republican candidate, and even though he’d be running against Obama. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, is about as far left as can be and still somehow qualifies as a republican (although this is getting less and less surprising), is a big government progressive, never met a tax he didn’t like, and would be a disaster. This on top of the fact he won’t commit to his faith.

  • buddha1556

    and not have ulterior motives. It can be nothing more than reading the tea leaves. To say that I called him a liar is a reach. My “soft disagreement” was that despite my being a yankee and relatively young, I understand his sentiment. I trust EE consumes much more info than I, and thus has to be selective about his diaries. His time is too valuable to devote that type of passion to a marginal candidate. My concern was though Huntsman was relatively unknown in my view, EE felt compelled to write several diaries outlining his opposition. If anything, I was thanking EE for drawing my attention to said candidate, logically assuming the diary author was more versed than I am.