E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFormer Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) will announce a week from today at Liberty State Park in New Jersey that he's running for president, a source tells First Read.
At an event today in New York with Henry Kissinger, Huntsman is expected to say that he will back in the area in a week to make a big announcement.
"Lady Liberty provides a great backdrop for an announcement speech," the source said.
New Jersey is the latest unorthodox move by the Huntsman campaign. They also will headquarter a campaign out of Orlando, FL. Huntsman also did not participate in last night's debate in New Hampshire, even though the Granite State will be key to a Huntsman campaign.
Leave a Comment:
Who would of guessed?
Never saw that one coming! lol
He's going to have a tough time trying to outdo the current crop of crazies!
It's a shame because out of all of them - he is the one who makes the most sense. Of course as the campaign heats up he won't have enough sizzle to keep the spotlight on him!
Feisty - if necessary I will repeat what you said just two days ago. You remember, about how you have lost the argument if you can't comment on substance.
Of course you remember, they were after all your own words.
So if you are going to assert that they are all crazy, please give us the basis of you comment. Why specifically are the "crazy?" And please try to stay away from silly blanket generalizations.
Oh and in case you have also already forgotten, you also specifically chided someone, just two days ago about having to "resort" to commenting about someone's looks.
So I'm am sure you will no so resort.
Great. So let's hear, in your own words [no more relying on Move on or THink Progress] why these folks are crazy.
Feisty:
The only question is why did he wait so long. We all figured he would run. These debates are going to get crowded real soon. We may even end up with an even dozen. Can we then call them the "dirty dozen"??
I see the brownshirts did not like your FT Post #1 today. The repugnant party just cannot stand the truth. It will come back to bite them.
You noticed too huh? lmao
I'm starting to enjoy being collapsed - appears MORE people look and vote! ;o)
Yep, we all knew Huntsman was planning on running. A few more may decide to run. But as some toss their hat into the ring, others will be dropping out. I don't see Gingrich, Santorum and Cain lasting much longer.
With regard to Huntsman, this may be a practice run for 2016. He will be busy creating a political network. His chances are still in the future.
Feisty and Navy: It's looking like you two are the most feared bloggers on FT. That's something to be proud of.
Oh My, Brownshirts? Poor little Navy, what a sad and huddled world he must live in.
Hey Navy - please explain to me how you can equate my comments with a Brown shirt. Come on Navy walk your silly talk.
Please also advise how it is you seemed to gloss right over the subject of my post - which was to remind dear Feisty of her own words. What's the matter Navy, do you not like what Feisty had to say two days ago, or was this you best shot to call me a name? I think you ought to define what you mean by Brownshirt. I don't think it means what you think it does.
Navy? I sure don't want you to feel like you are being "cyber-stalked" [again], but it sure appears that you never are able to back anything up. More a case of cyber-beating, cause that's what seems to happen to you a lot around here.
Your move my man.
Feisty and Navy: It's looking like you two are the most feared bloggers on FT.
______________________________
Dr. Ron: you are a moron, but. thanks for the laughs.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Feisty: It's a shame because out of all of them - he is the one who makes the most sense
This is exactly the reason I won't support him.
Well what a surprise poor old Navy could not muster a response. Dismissed.
It's ok Navy I know that standing up for yourself, and articulating your position is hard for you. So let me clue you in, you know for future reference:
My post called out Feisty, reminding her of her own words - she flatly chided someone that they had lost the argument because they did not comment on the substance, but rather resorted to the candidate's looks.
First that is absolutely ridiculous for Feisty to say, as that very method is used by her at least 95% of the time.
But more importantly for you Navy - by chiding me you are really chiding Feisty. All I was doing was reminding her of her own words.
In other words Navy - you just highlighted who the real Brownshirt is - Feisty.
I'd thank you for that, but obviously you just don't get it.
How sad for you.
Fiesty__— Heck, according to your earlier 7 dwarfs post, Huntsman was at the debate last night.... or did you really not watch it at all? Maybe you got all your infomraiton that you like about him during his non-appearance at the debate that you cited in your post. As usual....Feisty woke up and decided to make her normal unsubstantiated post.
Feisty a feared blogger?? LOL Feisty is a standing joke that we can rely on for our morning laugh.
Huntsman may be a more serious candidate than any of the airheads who offered up mere blatherskite last night - but he has some problems, too.
He actually has a reasonable record of public service that normally would serve a candidate well. But with the Teabaggers hijacking the agenda - and exerting far more influence than their numbers justify - that record seems now a millstone about his neck.
As a result, in recent weeks Huntsman has made a showy point of bascially reciting the same vapid talking points delivered last night. When he makes himself the same as all the rest, he loses his potential to appeal to voters who are repelled by the general right-wing ideological line. And now that he's on public record with those positions, he will certainly be fed back his own words in the course of a campaign.
Further, of course, he is virtually unknown. There's enough time for him to present himself to the nation, but by the time that begins to sink in, he's also liekly to have been "defined," in unflattering ways, by the opposition (both GOP and Democratic).
In marketing, there are times to be the same as the next product when it pulls the item along, and times when there's supposed to be a "unique distinguishing characteristic." Huntsman has already given up the latter. So what's the reason to buy?
I wanted to tell Chuck that Stan Musial got his 3000th in Wrigley. That was the old baseball, not showbiz. It happened when it happened.
Here's hoping Mr. Huntsman has some ideas to share, and not just more made-for-media blah blah blah.
I won't hold my breath though.
Hi Nash
He supports gays and is not anti-abortion.
In that case he's DOA! lol
You mean to tell me he didn't bring his dead baby home to bond with the family ala Santorum?
Good to see you back Nash - the time off sure sharpened your sword GF! ;o)
Hey Feisty did you get that term - "sharpened your sword" from a Weiner post?
It's a good one, given the context of cape and tights. You know "super-hero" stuff.
Turgid Weiner-man, coming to rescue libbies from their continued mental oppression by conservatives....
From Politics Daily..
So, who is Jon Huntsman? What does he stand for? Can he win a primary and unite the Republican Party?
Personally, I'm not so sure he can. Both stylistically and substantively, I see a lot of red flags when it comes to crowning Huntsman a potential leader of the party. On the substance side, his positions are decidedly to the left of mainstream conservatism. While they may win him praise from the media and the left wing of the party that agrees with him, his positions are going to be a hard sell with the rank-and-file primary voters.
He supports civil unions for gay couples and a cap-and-trade strategy on climate change -- both of which don't go down easy with many Republicans -- but those things could be negotiable with some skilled parrying. What may give him a harder time are his strongly-stated positions on President Obama's "stimulus" package, as he was rather vocal about the fact that he planned on taking all of the money offered to his state.
This is not only a troubling position from an ideological standpoint, but it could make a presidential campaign much harder, as he may have to run against as many as three Governors who refused stimulus cash. After all, even assuming he could convince party regulars to look the other way on social issues, what are the odds he can get them to abandon fiscal conservatism, too?
When it comes to strategy, Huntsman is in an even bigger pickle. On one hand, he will have to work hard to ensure that he doesn't become "the other Mormon guy" -- which is complicated by the fact that he not only has the exact same hairstyle as Mitt Romney, but shares his profile as a blue-blooded scion of a high-powered business family (his Father, Jon Huntsman, Sr. is the billionaire founder of The Huntsman Corporation, one of the largest chemical companies in the world).
Huntsman could definitely win a lot of centrists to his cause, but I don't see a real opening for him.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/04/06/jon-huntsman-for-president/
Excellent analysis Groucho. I recently read an article in Time about Huntsman. The main thing that I got out of it is that Huntsman would make a great general campaign contender, but no way in Hell will he even compete well in the primary.
So Groucho what do you make of Obama's comments about the first family being ok if he decides not to run again?
I have heard several pretty good commentators assert that he won't end up running/getting to actual nomination. I have always discounted that premise.
However, given the clear downward spiral we are in, and the out and out bashing he will take for the next year and a half, I'm starting to think the idea has some merit.
I just can't believe that he is real excited to be president now that the entire focus is about debt, deficits, and entitlement reform. Those are the opposite of what he wants to to.
Groucho---good analysis. Problem is as you suggest---for Huntsman to move far enough to the right to get the nomination, he loses people in the center and risks being labeled a "flip-flopper." I also wonder how his service to the Obama administration will play with the far right. He was after all the President's representative in China.
Spanky,
Perhaps the reality has set in that if the economy doesn't improve, there is going to be blame placed and that blame is going to fall directly on him. I think he wants to be President but with his programs not working and no new ideas it on how to jump start it, it has to be frustrating as hell for him.
If he does get re-elected, perhaps in his second term, with no re-election worries facing him, he can get finally let go and fight for the programs he wants. He seems so constricted by the limitations of having to run again in this lousy economy. Most Presidents get all their work done in their second term.
Seems though, the country is fatigued by these years of economic hardship, which he inherited and somewhat exacerbated. You can see it by SOME of the posts here. People are looking for some modicum of proof that things are changing. Bases on the current numbers, they are not.
Unfortunately, Groucho, things are changing- for the worse, not the better.
Obama banked on economic theories that work beautifully in the classroom, but fail miserably in reality.
He took the same tack with thorny foreign policy initiatives- Iran is closer than ever to building nuclear weapons, and North Korea is still ignoring calls to halt their own nuclear program.
Worse yet, Obama failed to heed warnings that food shortages in North Africa and the Middle East would lead to unrest in that region; he thus failed to instruct the Department of Agriculture to take the actions that would mitigate the shortages, and we see the result.
The man was, and is, unsuited for the presidency. He lacked experience that would inform his ideas, and continues to lack the humility to correct his errors.
I read the story on his statements on Politico. It is my belief that this is a response to dismal fundraising numbers- but he will put the blame on his family.
So be it- as long as he leaves.
Good points Groucho and No Joe.
Personally I do see any way he gets re-elected - the economy is bad and getting worse. For me it's the real estate market. No possible recovery until it hits rock bottom, which it has not.
But the problem is, no matter who comes in, until the debt/entitlements are dealt with the economy is always going to be bad.
You can't barrow $.40 of every dollar spent and expect prosperity. It's just insane.
groucho - (post 4.4) - interesting about obama wanting to fight for his programs if he is reelected. The main problem I see him facing in doing this is where will obama get the funding for his wish list. Their is already market speculation on a coming global market meltdown in late 2012 or more likely 2013.
I often read MSN money commentator Jim Jubaks columns. He has always seemed to have a positive common sense approach to investing. Not today though, rather one of doom and gloom.
Grouhco, in your reference in post four. The piece talks about the left wing of the republican party? Are they serious?The ones I know are either dead or older than dirt.
Color me dead.
As a resident of Utah, (the state J. Huntsman resigned his governorship to answer B. Obama's call to serve as ambassador to China...., which he also resigned...to, presumably run for president) I must say that Jon Huntsman is more EGO than substance.
Nadine - one has to have an ego to run for potus.
Every mention of Jon Huntsman is used by the snarky liberal media to diss the GOP.
How many times will it be said: "He is a great candidate, but the Republicans are too extreme to nominate him."
Blah, blah, blah.
Who cares what liberals say, we Republicans will make the choice. Huntsman's fiscal views are conservative, he is no raving liberal. He will get his opportunity.
There's just no room for Huntsman. The Independent crowd will vote for Romney, the non-interventionist crowd (and a few leftwing loons) will go with Paul, and the rightwing loons will go with Bachman. Nothing left for poor Huntsman I'm afraid.
And yet jimmy carter became potus.
You must ask yourself; which candidate would be most able to work with a dysfunctional Congress? For that reason, I would say the answer is Huntsman.
Interesting choice Liberty State Pk, It's in Jersey City, N.J. across from Ellis Island.
All planned out. In early 1980’s both political parties endorsed and released “Workforce 2000” plans starting with the Fortune 500 companies. Workforce 2000 and NAFTA is Americas contribution to the new global economy. Jack Welch, then CEO of GE designed the model and the rest of the big leaguers followed in his foot steps. I remember it well working for a large aerospace company in So. Cal.
We attended a four hour presentation on how America was going to change. We were to become a service oriented country. How labor intensive work was going to be out sourced. How Chinas average pay scale was a whopping .35 cents per day. The man hours it took us to build one large airplane would be an equivalent cost to the most expensive BMW motorcar. Were all our stock holder excited. The Demographics of America were also explained. Guess what? The Hispanic communities was going to be the major population in the LA basin area. That’s right. See where we are today. All part of the plan and don’t forget, all endorsed by both political parties. Then the whipshooding began. Jack Welch implemented a theme called, “Keeping the Ideas Coming”. Ref. March Fortune 500 article. With the threat, or inevitable loss of our jobs, he started a manipulation cooptation strategy to pick the employees brains and make them think they could compete and save their jobs/asses. The CEO’s, corporate leaders and politicians are raking in all the benefits.
In 1992 United Auto Workers union, (UAW) predicted that only 4% of the American workers will be represented by a union. Police, fire services and a few more government jobs will be represented to show the world America is still labor friendly.
As Americans Change so to speak and our earning power diminishes Americans will eventually take what they can get. Just like other third world counties did. Its Americas turn to become the stepchild.
And now Obama is bringing in Jeffrey Immelt CEO from GE. Immelt cut his teeth under Jack Welch and Harry Stonesypher. GE was the model corporation which has led to American’s loosing their jobs. Amazing how everything predicted is coming to pass.
Wal-Mart has become the new commissary to America.
So when I hear and read about this new economy BS, remember our government has it all under control. The part I have trouble with is if people are not working and or making half of what they use to make, income tax revenue will drop as well. How dose a tax system expect to sustain and pay for basic services, afford a healthcare program and frequent handouts to the world in trouble?
Laos, your post is very thought provoking. The predictions about outsourcing and the global economy are reality today. The question you pose goes beyond just a simple fix of the tax code or cuts in unnecessary spending. I am reminded of a book, I never finished, that addresses the paradigm shift that is occurring in this country in this new century. It is" The Tyranny of Dead Ideas" by Matt Miller. I will finish reading it now and might have better understanding of what in hell going on in this country beyond the tired finger pointing,slogans and petty distractions of our political discourse here and with most political pundits.
Goodnight.
Oh sounds like maybe some Obama supporters may have written this article. While I didn't listen to the debate last evening I feel that we definately need a new President. What has been done in less in four years is something I didn't think I would ever see in this country. Trying to appease our enemies that would cut our throats even after we have helped them more than any other country. Will they really ever come to our aid when it is needed. I think not. Don't have any idea who I will vote for yet and if the ones running start bashing each other like they have in the past I won't vote for any of them. So tired of the political scene. The economy is not getting better with people still losing their jobs, homes and grocery, gasoline, utilities and everything from medicare to personal insurance policies rising. Come on America wake up out of that dream world you are living in.
Seems to me he is not radical enough for the current Republican Party but if he ran as an Independent he would have a slight outside chance. If he does the unthinkable of EXACTLY spelling out his plans for balancing the budget and timely debt and deficit reduction I think he could cause an upset.
I am no Obama hater I just do not feel he has taken the offensive on the debt serious enough I believe he stepped in a mess and that is reality.
The current Rep. party is so caustic and nasty they are turn off to most of us middle of the road people who live in reality. Anyone who says they will balance the budget without tax increases and major defense cuts is just plain disingenuous in actual deficit reduction and a balanced budget.
With all that said I would rather have 4 more years of Obama over ANY of the current Reps. running except possibly Huntsman.