-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Channeling his old boss Ronald Reagan, former Ambassador and Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman declared for president with the Statue of Liberty in the background. “For the first time in our history, we are about to pass down to the next generation a country that is less powerful, less compassionate, less competitive and less confident than the one we got,” Hunstman said. “This is totally unacceptable and totally un-American.”
Hunstman’s announcement speech can be summed up with one word: restraint. He championed fiscal restraint, restraint in foreign policy, and above all restraint in attacking Barack Obama. “He and I have a difference of opinion on how to help the country we both love,” Hunstman said. “But the question each of us wants the voters to answer is who will be the better President; not who’s the better American.”
This last bit might be out of step with the mood of many Republicans, but hopefully it at least gets that annoying Chris Matthews commercial — in which he claims no Republican presidential candidate would say what Huntsman just said — pulled. Huntsman is selling his own governing credentials, not ideology, potentially out-Romneying Romney.
View all comments (38) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/06/21/huntsman-declares
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Sheila| 6.21.11 @ 11:01AM
Huntsman, as Ambassador to Singapore, totally imbibed the "thousands' year culture of the Chinese" as infinitely superior to historical America. He's terribly impressed by the Han Chinese; historical Christian Americans, not so much. There are those of us who travel, work, and/or serve overseas and learn a genuine appreciation of our own country. Then there are those like Huntsman. People get the government they deserve. Decline and fall.
Timothy L. Pennell| 6.22.11 @ 7:18AM
I know. Let's find a guy from a sparsely populated State, who doesn't like any "Conflict", just served 2 Years in the Obama Administration, and wants DESPERATELY, to "work with" the Liberal/Progressive/Socialist/Communist/Marxist Democrats.
What could possibly go wrong?
Dai Alanye | 6.22.11 @ 8:09AM
The fact that Huntsman thinks Obama is a good American, deserving of respect, is by itself enough to eliminate him from consideration.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.21.11 @ 11:05AM
He should stop with that nonsense that Obama loves this country.
On the face of it, it's absurd since he's doing everything he can to destroy it.
Also, he claims we should be compassionate.
All that's gotten us is a permanently entrenched welfare state and permanent drug infested rat infested crime infested thug infested government sponsored ghetto neighborhoods that you enter at your own risk.
The government is the least efficient of all operations to deliver any service so when I hear the word compassionate I want to puke. Compassion can not come from a government. Only force to enforce someone's view of compassion.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.22.11 @ 7:39AM
Obama does not love America, he passionately hates it. That's why he's pursuing disastrous policies - he derives some sort of sick satisfaction from ruining the US.
PattyMor| 6.21.11 @ 11:30AM
We need another Romney like we need another Dodo Bird. Sorry but you both are all so passe.
There is NO money. The gov'ment does not do good. In fact, the gov'ment has become evil. Like the mob, wanting ever more of our freedom, ever more tribute. Squelching, stiffling, discouraging anything productive, but feeding the beast.
solidground| 6.21.11 @ 11:57AM
I seriously question that Obama "loves America." He loves being idolized as a latent champion of the bogus one-world concept, far more than he loves the ideas and ideals of democratic rule and free enterprise unfettered and unencumbered by an overweening government. To put it another way, Obama loves raw personal power--far, far more than he loves or prizes any connection with a national identity or heritage. That's what makes him, not China or terrorism, the gravest immediate threat to our future. Huntsman sounds all to willing to give Obama a pass on too many fronts, and for too many of King Barrack's affronts to our country. That's not the way to run a campaign.
l5j6| 6.21.11 @ 12:14PM
Wow, so exciting! Are the Beltway boys & girls turning cartwheels?
Wayne | 6.21.11 @ 12:22PM
We need candidates willing to demand Obama resign because of the gun-running in Mexico. We don't need another Mc Cain type trying to make Obama look good.
Louis Tully| 6.21.11 @ 1:10PM
One word:
McCain Jr.
sorry, that was two
Red Phillips | 6.21.11 @ 1:17PM
I hold it against Huntsman that he served as the Ambassador to China under the Obama Administration. That is an offer he should have politely declined. But I don't hold it against him that he was the Ambassador to China. The suggestion from some that that somehow means he has Communists sympathies is just silly and will be easy to parody and ridicule by our enemies to the left and center.
Remember that George H. W. Bush was our Envoy to China. (I don't think we had an official Ambassador to China at the time.) I wasn't a big fan of GHWB, but his having been a diplomat to China did not make him a Communist. (His having been our Ambassador to the UN did make him a globalist and should have been held against him.)
Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.22.11 @ 7:42AM
No, the US did not have an official Ambassador during the 1970s, it had an "envoy". The US did not have formal relations with China or an Ambassador to Communist China until 1979.
And yes, Jon Huntsman IS a pro-Chinese, pro-Communist sympathizer, just like your beloved candidate, Ron "Blame America First" Paul. Both of them are self-proven flakes. The only difference between Huntsman and Paul is that unlike Paul, Huntsman is well-educated, appeals to moderates, and has at least a small brain, which makes him more dangerous than Paul.
Red Phillips | 6.22.11 @ 1:01PM
"Unlike Paul, Huntsman is well-educated."
ZM, you continue to display your ignorance. Ron Paul went to Duke University School of Medicine. Do you think they let dummies in there?
Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.22.11 @ 1:43PM
Just attending an elite university proves nothing. Dubya is a graduate of both Yale University and Harvard University, yet he's a total imbecile who cannot even utter a correct sentence in his native language, let alone speak a foreign language, and, even though he has an MBA from Harvard, he has only business failures to his credit.
Ron Paul is no better. He is immune to logic, common sense, and facts, not to mention the fact that even simple math completely eludes him.
rightasrain| 6.21.11 @ 1:28PM
What niche does Huntsman fill in this race? It sounds like he's going after the wishy-washy wussy vote. We don't need a candidate who has a "difference of opinion" with Obama. We need a candidate who finds Obama's policies repugnant, odious, loathsome, repellent, detestable.... Mr. Restraint need not apply.
Al Adab| 6.21.11 @ 1:46PM
YAWN
WL| 6.21.11 @ 1:50PM
Why would this squish-clown even think that he has a chance???
He should just go away.
I am so tired of the dumb Republicans putting up garbage like this....
So for the last 2 1/2 years...
While alot of other Conservatives and some Republicans were doing the heavy lifting....and trying to slow the Obama agenda from taking us over the cliff....
He was INSIDE of the Administration....
BUT NOW he thinks he should be our candidate...
If our voters vote for this guy...
We deserve what we get.
Period.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.21.11 @ 1:54PM
SCREW HUNTSMAN!
Casey Abell| 6.21.11 @ 1:56PM
Huntsman got 2% support in the latest Rasmussen GOP presidential preference poll. Not attacking Obama should propel him all the way to 1%.
Jack von Bauer| 6.21.11 @ 3:26PM
Actually the article about Gingrich's campaign would be better off as THE INCREDIBLY SHRINKING (HUNTS)MAN.
His fallacious reference to Reagan should shrink him from his massive 2% to something way below the horizon.
steve in Ohio| 6.21.11 @ 3:44PM
Daddy Huntsman and Glenn Beck are very close; this guy may not be as moderate as we've been told.
Child of God| 6.21.11 @ 11:09PM
Glenn said today that he does not know Huntsman Jr. He does however have a relationship with Huntsman Sr.
martin j smith| 6.21.11 @ 4:56PM
What do Huntsman and Ron Paul have in common: They are both half an Obama. Support either for President: NO.
Curtis Rasmussen| 6.21.11 @ 5:55PM
2 halves make a zero, in this case
Red Phillips | 6.21.11 @ 10:27PM
That has got to be just about the most ignorant statement I have ever read. Are you suggesting Obama is a non-interventionist? Are you really that clueless? Obama has been Bush's third term on foreign policy. A surge in Afghanistan. A new war in Libya. Drones bombing Yemen. What more interventions would it take to make you happy?
Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.22.11 @ 7:46AM
Both Obama and Ron Paul support massive defense cuts, nuclear disarmament, and appeasement towards AMerica's enemies across the world (China, Putinist Russia, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, etc.). The only difference is that 1) Obama is making stuff even worse by gutting America's military and then ordering it to fight 3 unnecessary wars of nationbuilding at the same time so that it will bleed 2) Obama, unlike Paul, is electable. This means that Obama is more dangerous than RP can ever be. Obama is the incumbent President and will win by a landslide if RP is the GOP nominee. RP is a self-proven flake who stands no chance of winning the GOP nomination, and even if you paulbots pull an ACORN on the GOP to get him the nomination (and I know you are capable of doing so), he wouldn't poll higher than the single digits against even Ahmed the Dead Terrorist during the general election campaign.
Red Phillips | 6.22.11 @ 1:14PM
ZM, I do not support Ron Paul because I think he would make a strong general election candidate. I support him because I am a Constitutionalist and Paul is the ONLY Constitutionalist in the race. (I consider Roy Moore a Constitutionalist, but so far he is only exploring.) I happen to agree that the electorate is probably not ready for authentic Constitutionalism, but I find this a sad indictment of the electorate, not of Ron Paul. Why do you take apparent joy in the fact that the electorate is likely to reject principled Constitutionalism?
Your beef with Ron Paul obviously has to do with his non-interventionism, but his non-interventionism flows from and is a consequence of his Constitutionalism. The Founders did not intend a "benevolent global hegemon." They intended a limited constitutional federal republic.
We do need deep cuts in the "defense" budget because a large part of the "defense" budget is not about the actual defense of the US of A. It is about maintaining hegemony. I don't see maintaining hegemony anywhere in the Constitution.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.22.11 @ 1:37PM
You are wrong on all counts.
Firstly, you are not a Constitutional conservative, and neither is your favorite politician, Ron Paul. Both of you are anti-Constitution, inconsequential, anti-American LIBERTARIANS (Big L). Your beloved Ron Paul supports entitlement programs and wants entitlement spending to be hugely INCREASED, as he has admitted during last week's NH debate. He is also joined at the hip to Lew Rockwell and, like Lew Rockwell, he believes that the Constitution is a "Big Government" document which authorized a Big Government. Proof:
http://www.davidbahnsen.com/in.....-ron-paul/
RP's policy of "noninterventionism" (which is a mere euphemism for "isolationism) is not the only issue I have with him. Ron Paul is an inconsequential, anti-American, pro-entitlements Big L Libertarian who is totally unresponsive to common sense, logic, and facts, not to mention the fact that he can't even do simple math.
Noninterventionism does not flow from the Constitution and is not a consequence of it. The Constitution does not dictate nor prohibit any foreign policy; it leaves that question for the Congress and the Executive Branch to resolve.
Cuts in the defense budget are not needed, and would actually be detrimental, ill-advised, and foolish, as they would save little money while harming the US military and emboldening America's enemies. That is a FACT. One cannot have a strong defense without robust funding. America's defense spending (3.50% of GDP) is already at its lowest level since FY1948, if one excludes the last 4 Clinton years and FY2002, when it was even lower, and modernization spending is woefully inadequate.
And your claim that "a large part of the "defense" budget is not about the actual defense of the US of A. It is about maintaining hegemony" is completely false. The core defense budget has nothing to do with "maintaining global hegemony" (which the US no longer enjoys, by the way), it's used to fund, maintain, and feed the military on a day-to-day basis. The OCO (GWOT) supplemental budget is used (improperly) for wars of nationbuilding, but it will eventually be zeroed out once American troops come back from Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Med (which cannot happen soon enough). The Constitution does not talk about maintaining hegemony, but it does authorize, and indeed REQUIRE, a strong defense (technically, it requires "protecting against invasion" and "providing for the common defense", but any defense must be strong if it is to be adequate).
Your beloved Ron Paul is not a defender of the Constitution. He's just another Barney-Frank-style peacenik. He fanatically supports entitlement programs and fanatically opposes a strong defense. A true constitutionalist would've argued FOR a strong defense and AGAINST entitlement programs. He's a loon and the vast majority of Americans are wise to regard and dismiss him as such. He couldn't care less about the Constitution.
The only Constitutional conservative running right now is Michele Bachmann.
Red Phillips | 6.22.11 @ 2:30PM
There is too much ignorance on display here for me to deal with all at once. First of all, I don't deny that Ron Paul is a philosophical libertarian, although his libertarianism is of the paleolibertarian variety. (I would explain the difference to you, but it would be lost on your incapable of nuance brain.) But his political approach is Constitutionalist.
I, however, am not a libertarian (neither big or little l). I am a paleoconservative. I am a Constitutionalist at this point in time because it is what we've got. I readily admit that I am an anti-Federalist at heart, and think we would have been much better off sticking with the Articles of Confederation. I don't agree that the Constitution is inherently a big government document, but I do agree that it is not self enforcing and the massive government we see today is evidence that the document was flawed.
Secondly, Ron Paul does not support entitlements. Are you that ignorant or are you an intentional deceiver? Ron Paul is on the record as saying he thinks entitlement programs are not authorized by the Constitution. He, however, realizes that we can't just abolish them overnight and they must be transitioned away from. His debate reference was not about increasing entitlements (I don't think you are even ignorant enough to really believe that.). It was about using the money from decreased military spending to keep these programs afloat while we transition away from them.
Does Bachman support enumerated powers doctrine? Has she voted against every spending bill on the grounds that it contained money for unauthorized programs? Is she on the record as believing that entitlement programs are unconstitutional? Please provide me with a link.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.24.11 @ 7:52AM
"First of all, I don't deny that Ron Paul is a philosophical libertarian, although his libertarianism is of the paleolibertarian variety. (I would explain the difference to you, but it would be lost on your incapable of nuance brain.) But his political approach is Constitutionalist."
Nope. Ron Paul is not a Constitutionalist and has never been one. He's actually an ENEMY of the Constitution, just like his pal Lew Rockwell, with whom he's joined at the hip. Both of these guys hate the Constitution, because they believe it's a Big Government document which authorized an obscenely big federal government. Proof:
http://www.davidbahnsen.com/in.....-ron-paul/
Proof is not needed with this one, however. RP has never denied that he's joined at the hip to Lew Rockwell.
As for entitlements, you are also 100% wrong. Ron Paul fanatically supports entitlements and, during the NH debate, he called for entitlement spending to be radically increased and to be paid for by massive military spending cuts. And you can't credibly weasel his words. He's on the record. Contrary to your blatant lie, he did NOT say during the debate that entitlements should be abolished or even gradually phased out. Moreover, he said that spending on them should be significantly INCREASED and paid for with radical reductions of military spending (including defense spending).
This is unconstitutional, because 1) the Constitution does NOT authorize any entitlements whatsoever); and 2) the Constitution REQUIRES a strong defense and thus, by implication, robust funding for defense - albeit not for wars of nationbuilding.
There's also a third problem with his statement. No amount of military spending cuts will ever be sufficient to pay for entitlements. Even if the DOD is completely abolished tomorrow, the federal government won't have anything even partially sufficient to pay for entitlements. Proof:
http://www.heritage.org/Resear.....udget-Plan
You have also proven beyond doubt that logic is not your strongest suit. If one wants to gradually phase entitlements out, one does not INCREASE spending on them, but instead, one tries to reduce it and to teach people how to live without entitlement programs, to prepare them for the day when entitlements will be phased out. Ron Paul has proposed to dramatically INCREASE spending on entitlements, which would not only bankrupt America, but also make it harder for future generations of politicians to phase out entitlement programs.
Regarding Bachmann - yes, she does oppose unconstitutional legislation on the grounds that it is both unaffordable and unconstitutional. She (unlike the vast majority of Republicans) supports the abolition of the Department of Education, voted against the TARP (not to mention the bailout of Detroit, the Porkulus, and the FY2010 Omnibus), and opposes the Libyan war. Also, as an attorney, she, unlike you and your beloved RP, is knowledgeable about the Constitution.
Oh, and thanks for proving that you are an anti-Constitution loon just like RP and Lew Rockwell. Here are your own words (I'm copying them into a Word file on my HD, just in case the mods delete them):
"I readily admit that I am an anti-Federalist at heart, and think we would have been much better off sticking with the Articles of Confederation. I don't agree that the Constitution is inherently a big government document, but I do agree that it is not self enforcing and the massive government we see today is evidence that the document was flawed."
You're absolutely wrong. The Articles of Confederation were a joke. They and the Confederation they provided for were dysfunctional, as was recognized by the majority of Americans (including the majority of the Founding Fathers) by 1787. They didn't even provide for the common defense and the management of foreign affairs. Don't delude yourself, Mr Loon, no state could have or will ever be able to 'go it alone'. No American state can, by itself, count for anything in world affairs, defend itself, or be a serious trade partner for anyone. The Constitution is NOT flawed - it provies for STRICT limitations on the federal government. Which part of the Tenth Amendment do you not understand? Which part of the EP doctrine do you not understand? When, in the early 1790s, the Congress pondered whether to appropriate just $75,000 to refugees who had come from France to the US, James Madison, the Father of the Constitution (yes, I know he personally rejected the term) said that there was NO authorization for this in the Constitution, because it doesn't allow the Feds to spend money on "objects of benevolence".
This massive federal government that now exists in DC has been created not BECAUSE of the Constitution, but in spite of it. It has been created because American politicians of both parties - AWARE that the Constitution includes STRICT limits on the federal government - decided to simply IGNORE the Constitution, as if it never existed. George W. Bush even said in 2005, during an Oval Office meeting with someone, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" In 1995, when Rep. Melvin Watt (D-NC) included the text of the 4th Amendment in an anti-crime bill, 303 members of Congress voted "no", because they couldn't let the Constitution stop them. (Stopping them is exactly its purpose.)
The Constitution is NOT flawed. American politicians are flawed. We humans are flawed by nature. The American people are indirectly to blame, because they've been reelecting the same politicians over and over again. Even so, from 1789 until the Progressive Era the Constitution's limits on the FG were largely honored (except the Civil War, whose provisions were temporary and were repealed after the war). By dismissing it as a flawed document that let this monstrous FG arise, you've once again proven that you're a loon totally ignorant about history and the US Constitution.
Burberry Canada | 6.22.11 @ 3:56AM
Here are various styles of latest arrival Burberry Bags, Burberry Watches, Burberry shoes and other Burberry products hot sale on Burberry Canada online store. Fashionable and elegance Burberry will enrich people’s lifestyle.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.22.11 @ 7:49AM
Ah.... another blogpost by James Antle.
Jimmy Carter has never met a dictator whom he doesn't love. Jimmy Antle has never met a RINO whom he doesn't love.
Jon Huntsman is a strident liberal on social, economic, and defense issues. He supports gay civil unions, cap-and-trade, and massive defense cuts. He thinks that the problem with the Porkulus was that it wasn't large enough. As Governor of Utah, he implemented socialized medicine in that site. As Obama's Ambassador to China, he wrote Obama letters telling him what a great President Obama supposedly is.
Fortunately, Huntsman so far hasn't managed to poll higher than the single digits, behind self-proven flakes like Ron Paul.
Red Phillips | 6.22.11 @ 1:16PM
ZM, if you think Jim Antle is a RINO or a RINO supporter then you are more clueless than I even imagined. Try a little nuance. You might like it.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.22.11 @ 1:39PM
Of course Antle is a RINO lover. But of course you, as a supporter of RINOs and pseudoconservative libertarians, will always defend them and Antle.
Here, on this website, Antle has been consistently defending, promoting, and making excuses for, RINOs, including Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney (whom he even crowned as the frontrunner even though there isn't a clear frontrunner), and now, Jon Huntsman. TAS continues to discredit itself by allowing him to post stuff on its website.
Red Phillips | 6.22.11 @ 2:05PM
ZM, your cluelessness is beyond words. You seem completely incapable of nuance, and can only think dichotomously. If someone is not an uber-hawk then they are a liberal or a RINO in your book. Jim Antle is what I would call a paleoish conservative. I don't know if he wants to be labeled completely a paleocon (I'll let him speak for himself.), but he leans that way. He has written for The American Conservative magazine. Surely you don't think TAC is some sort of RINO rag. Please educate yourself before you spout off. Your ignorance is embarrassing to read.
Bo| 6.22.11 @ 10:21AM
He lost me when he mentioned compassion.
weddingdresses | 6.23.11 @ 5:39AM
Huntsman got 2% support in the latest Rasmussen GOP presidential preference poll. Not attacking Obama should propel him all the way to 1%.
Zbigniew Mazurak | 6.24.11 @ 8:17AM
"ZM, your cluelessness is beyond words. You seem completely incapable of nuance, and can only think dichotomously. If someone is not an uber-hawk then they are a liberal or a RINO in your book. Jim Antle is what I would call a paleoish conservative. I don't know if he wants to be labeled completely a paleocon (I'll let him speak for himself.), but he leans that way. He has written for The American Conservative magazine. Surely you don't think TAC is some sort of RINO rag. Please educate yourself before you spout off. Your ignorance is embarrassing to read."
Look in the mirror, Red Loon. Antle IS a RINO. He's the TAS counterpart of Chris Matthews. Just like Matthews fawns over every word of Obama, Antle fawns over every word of RINOs like Daniels, Romney, and Huntsman. He has written numerous articles and blogposts lavishing praise on Daniels (while the Hoosier was still mulling a presidential campaign), Romney, and now, Jon Huntsman. (He is hardly the only RINO doing so - George Will hasn't allowed Antle to outdo him.) If a person supports RINOs, it's reasonable to conclude that he/she is also a RINO, or at least a RINO supporter.
But Antle is not just "a RINO supporter", he has crowned the Alec-Baldwin-endorsed Mitt "I like mandates" Romney as the frontrunner, even though, as other columnists (e.g. Michael Barone) and the Gallup polling firm have pointed out, there is NO frontrunner at present (although Romney could be called the closest thing to a frontrunner that the GOP has).
No TAC credentials matter if a columnist turns himself into a de facto propagandist for RINOs. And nominating Mitt Romney (or Jon Huntsman) would nail the GOP's coffin shut.