Erick Erickson's Blog, page 159

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On February 21, 2009, Larry Sabato declared in the Hotline, "He's got the presidential bug."

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

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

SANCHEZ: Governor, I've always described you and seen you as — in fact, I referred to you this way earlier — as a straight shooter.

Do you believe — and I think I can show you some sound from President Obama earlier today where he seemed to be implying — I don't know if we can cue that up again, Dan — where he seems to be implying that some people are playing politics with this.

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Is he right, governor?

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

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

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

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

[Emphasis added]

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

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

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

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

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

It wasn't just Weaver.

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

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

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

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

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

On November 8, 2010, the Hotline noted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Emphasis added]

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

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

Note the bit on breaking with the party over immigration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

———————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———————————

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On February 21, 2009, Larry Sabato declared in the Hotline, "He's got the presidential bug."

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

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

SANCHEZ: Governor, I've always described you and seen you as — in fact, I referred to you this way earlier — as a straight shooter.

Do you believe — and I think I can show you some sound from President Obama earlier today where he seemed to be implying — I don't know if we can cue that up again, Dan — where he seems to be implying that some people are playing politics with this.

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Is he right, governor?

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

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

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

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

[Emphasis added]

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

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

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

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

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

It wasn't just Weaver.

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

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

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

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

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

On November 8, 2010, the Hotline noted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Emphasis added]

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

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

Note the bit on breaking with the party over immigration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huntsman & Foreign Affairs

Someone just put this on YouTube:

I guess they are going to try to make the case that I was for Huntsman before I was against him. Actually no, both prior to and after that I dismissed him as a candidate, but I stand by the statement.

Foreign policy is going to be a huge issue and by virtue of being an ambassador, Huntsman will have a leg up on the competition. So will John Bolton.

The difference between John Bolton and Jon Huntsman, however, besides the spelling of their first names, is that you never had to question John Bolton's loyalty to his boss over his own ambitions.

Oh, and John Bolton would have never worked for Barack Obama.

The Huntsman Team Responds With Obamaton Precision

It is stunning that Jon Huntsman is going to run against Barack Obama when, in responding to me, his campaign behaves exactly as someone close to Obama, or at least close to the left, would. They cite Media Matters and, in the process, defend Obamacare.

Not kidding.

Someone close to Huntsman tells Ben Smith

Ironic that someone who suggested sending President Obama to the death panel is calling someone else disloyal to the President. And based on Erickson's track record of Republican primary endorsements, he will most likely get another bite at the apple, and when he does, we hope he closely examines Huntsman record of creating jobs, cutting taxes, and signing prolife legislation.

Note first that the suggestion of "sending President Obama to the death panel is calling someone else disloyal to the President" is actually a reference to Obamacare, but was a hit job by Media Matters. What does it say that Huntsman's team would go after a Republican by going first to Media Matters.

Second, I did not work for the President of the United States nor serve as this President's Ambassador to China while plotting to run against the President. I'm very clearly in the opposition and proudly so.

As for the bit about primary endorsements, perhaps Huntsman needs to talk to Sue Lowden, Jane Norton, Charlie Crist, Trey Grayson, Gresham Barrett, or . . . hey, I know! . . . Bob Bennett.

Lastly, my point, which I will reiterate here, is that Jon Huntsman's record as Governor is irrelevant compared to his judgment that it is perfectly okay to plot a campaign for the Presidency against the incumbent President of the United States while serving as that President's Ambassador to the People's Republic of China.

The disloyalty is not just to the President; it's to the country he swore an oath to serve. One cannot serve both God and money, nor can one serve both the President of the United State of America and one's own ambition to depose the President.

By the way, over at Slate, Dave Weigel notes

Team Huntsman doesn't take this charge terribly seriously, given that its proponents are unable to point to actual, provable examples of how this short political grey period — roughly January 2011 to early May — affected anything in China.

First, it seems pretty clear the plotting began back in October. Second, examples do not matter in my mind. That he would do so is a matter of disloyalty as an Ambassador of the United States. Third, you think there are no examples? Just wait until Barack Obama's team gets finished with him should he get the nomination. This man was ambassador prior to, during, and after a summit with China. There'll be examples.

Why I Will Not Support Jon Huntsman. Ever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On February 21, 2009, Larry Sabato declared in the Hotline, "He's got the presidential bug."

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

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

SANCHEZ: Governor, I've always described you and seen you as — in fact, I referred to you this way earlier — as a straight shooter.

Do you believe — and I think I can show you some sound from President Obama earlier today where he seemed to be implying — I don't know if we can cue that up again, Dan — where he seems to be implying that some people are playing politics with this.

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SANCHEZ: Is he right, governor?

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

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

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

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

[Emphasis added]

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

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

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

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

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

It wasn't just Weaver.

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

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

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

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

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

On November 8, 2010, the Hotline noted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Emphasis added]

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

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

Note the bit on breaking with the party over immigration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Morning Briefing for May 9, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

For May 9, 2011

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Wasserman Schultz: 'We've really concentrated' on oil production

2. Obama Winds Down the War on Terror

3. It's Not Just Amateur Hour at the White House

4. Craig Becker is a Natural Fit in a Socialist Administration

5. An Interesting Coincidence?

6. ThinkProgress pig-ignorant about military.

7. Permit me to correct the New York Times.

8. Obama has Green Dreams of Car Taxes

———————————————————————-

1. Wasserman Schultz: 'We've really concentrated' on oil production

There was an undeniable uptick in U.S. oil production in 2009 and 2010.

But new DNC chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) tried to take credit for it:

"Like I said, domestic oil production is at its highest point in recent years. So we've actually really concentrated on that."

Democrats patting themselves on the back for oil production increases?

Ba. Lo. Ney.

With all due respect.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Obama Winds Down the War on Terror

The killing of Osama bin Laden has created a series of dilemmas for the left. My colleagues have detailed the debt owed the Bush Administration which the current administration juvenilely and churlishly refuses to acknowledge ( here | here). And many on my side are willing "to give the president credit" for doing his duty. According to reports bin Laden's location has been known to the administration since March with the same degree of certainty that existed on May 1, so I fail to see what credit is really due unless we are saying that indecisiveness is a virtue.

Bin Laden's death will eventually be seen as the unofficial end of the US assault on al Qaeda. We will leave a war not won and forsake a victory that would make the world a safer place simply because Barack Obama doesn't have the guts to prevail. What is worse, he wants to give the impression of being serious.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. It's Not Just Amateur Hour at the White House

There are two stories out today that suggest it is not just amateur hour at the White House where five days after Osama Bin Laden went to sleep with Davy Jones there are still more questions than answers.

No, it is also amateur hour in the House of Representatives. Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) is declaring the fight to repeal Obamacare over. That's right. He's giving up. They won't pick a fight.

If that were not stupid enough, Camp said that "Instead … the GOP would turn its focus to overturning the most controversial portion of that legislation: the mandate requiring individuals to buy insurance."

If the House GOP is successful in repealing the individual mandate, the case from Florida that threw out the entire legislation would die before getting to the Supreme Court. The GOP would yet again have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Craig Becker is a Natural Fit in a Socialist Administration

The other night in the Luntz panel after the Fox debate, Luntz seemed taken aback that his panel of voters largely viewed the Obama Administration as socialist.

Only effete intellectuals keen on nuancing socialism could disagree at this point. As socialism is commonly understood, i.e. spreading the wealth around through government intervention, Barack Obama is a socialist and his administration is a socialist administration.

So it is no surprise that we are learning Craig Becker, a Presidential appointee to the National Labor Relations Board and a key player in screwing Boeing for moving the 787 assembly line to South Carolina, has a paper trail of socialist views going all the way back to college.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. An Interesting Coincidence?

A week ago, the Wall Street Journal ran a big story about major hedge fund managers jumping to the GOP from Barack Obama. One of the big jumpers is Steve Cohen.

The Wall Street Journal is now reporting federal prosecutors have suddenly decided to examine "trades made in an account overseen by hedge-fund titan Steven Cohen that were suggested by two of his former fund managers who have pleaded guilty to insider trading."

I'm sure it is just a coincidence in timing.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

6. ThinkProgress pig-ignorant about military.

Legal Insurrection tipped me to this one: apparently, ThinkProgress (link available via Legal Insurrection) got itself in a bit of a tizzy over a story in the Mexican press that one of the Navy SEALs that killed Osama bin Laden was the son of Mexican immigrants, which apparently means (according to TP) that we need to pass the DREAM Act* and that the military is by the way keeping Latinos down. Now, let's establish something right off of the bat; I don't know who was on that SEAL team, and it would not surprise me in the slightest to hear that one or more of them were of Latino ancestry. Or any other ancestry, frankly. That's not the point: the point is that when you're a hardcore partisan ideologue using a story for agitprop, you should probably check the story first to make sure that you don't get burned.

ThinkProgress did not check the story first.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

7. Permit me to correct the New York Times.

A few days ago, the New York Times made the following (somewhat bitter) comment, in the process of trying to pretend that we're all racists over here on the Right:

"[Obama's] administration took too long to find its footing on Egypt's transition and in Libya, but it was not because, as the popular conservative blog RedState said, he is a 'trainee president.'"

A point of order, here: if you were to click on the link (post written by reader cmndr45*) then you will find that this was a diary, not a front page piece. This is a common error made by Old Media types, particularly ones who have difficulty adapting to New Media paradigms; the concept that there can be controllable tiers of of information dissemination privileges can be surprisingly hard to understand by those with insufficient mental flexibility. I note all of this because Old Media entities already are notoriously bad at telling writers on group websites and blogs apart: it's best that we not allow them to start failing to distinguish between various levels of permitted access.

Still, perish the thought that we should have to wait several decades for the Old Grey Lady to get around to a correction, so here goes: President Barack Obama is in point of fact a trainee President with virtually no practical life skills, woefully inadequate inexperience, precious little in the way of a proper aptitude for governance, and - most annoying - an inherent unwillingness to change any of the above, or in fact partake in any sort of internal program of either self-discovery, or self-improvement.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

8. Obama has Green Dreams of Car Taxes

There seems to be no shortage of ways that this administration and the Democrat party can think of to tax away every bit of our nation's prosperity. But the "car tax" simply defies logic and begs the question, "What are they thinking?"

Aside from their apparent love of taxation, what is the underlying reason this administration would want to levy more taxes on America's driving? Environmentalism? Money for infrastructure investment? Justify more hires at the IRS?

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Herman Cain Joins Me On the Radio #EERS

The buzz today has been about Herman Cain's stellar showing in the South Carolina Republican Debate last night. He dazzled and performed way the heck above expectations.

Tonight on the Erick Erickson show, Herman is going to join me at 7:05 p.m. ET and we'll spend a good amount of time tonight breaking down last night's debate performances.

You can listen live at http://wsbradio.com and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.

Consider this an open thread.

Craig Becker is a Natural Fit in a Socialist Administration

Last night in the Luntz panel after the Fox debate, Luntz seemed taken aback that his panel of voters largely viewed the Obama Administration as socialist.

Only effete intellectuals keen on nuancing socialism could disagree at this point. As socialism is commonly understood, i.e. spreading the wealth around through government intervention, Barack Obama is a socialist and his administration is a socialist administration.

So it is no surprise that we are learning Craig Becker, a Presidential appointee to the National Labor Relations Board and a key player in screwing Boeing for moving the 787 assembly line to South Carolina, has a paper trail of socialist views going all the way back to college.

The Daily Caller has uncovered some of Becker's old law review articles in which he advocates the government controlling the flow of capital.

In essence, as Fred Wszolek of the Workforce Fairness Institution told the Daily Caller, we have a member of Barack Obama's NRLB "believes that the United States should somehow control or restrain the freedom of capital, or that the mobility of capital not being under 'popular control' is somehow a threat to Big Labor."

Make no mistake about it — the Obama Administration is a socialist administration and it is pushing to be an authoritarian administration as it passes executive order after executive order designed to punish its enemies and reward its friends with government contracts.

More House Republican Amateurishness

Geez. They showed up to work this week after a bunch of time off and Mike Flynn over at Big Government notes the House GOP failed to do one thing they very much should have done.

it was no surprise that the United States Senate took time on Tuesday to honor these men and women by discussing and passing a resolution expressing the nation's thanks for a job well done.

It was also no surprise that similar resolutions were introduced in the U.S. House, the "peoples' chamber." Although slightly different, resolutions from Reps. Thaddeus McCotter, Sheila Jackson Lee and Bill Owens also expressed the nation's deep appreciation of the men and women who played a role in this dangerous mission.

But, a funny thing happened on the way to passage; House GOP leadership decided not to pass ANY resolution honoring our service personnel. They simply went about their normal business and then left town yesterday, ignoring all of the resolutions. It is unlikely the House will ever get around to, you know, saying thanks for doing such a great job.

To use a phrase common around these parts, the House GOP is operating at Busch League capacity.

It's Not Just Amateur Hour at the White House

There are two stories out today that suggest it is not just amateur hour at the White House where five days after Osama Bin Laden went to sleep with Davy Jones there are still more questions than answers.

No, it is also amateur hour in the House of Representatives. Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) is declaring the fight to repeal Obamacare over. That's right. He's giving up. They won't pick a fight.

If that were not stupid enough, Camp said that "Instead … the GOP would turn its focus to overturning the most controversial portion of that legislation: the mandate requiring individuals to buy insurance."

If the House GOP is successful in repealing the individual mandate, the case from Florida that threw out the entire legislation would die before getting to the Supreme Court. The GOP would yet again have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

That's not all though. It looks more and more like Paul Ryan is retreating from the field leaving the freshman House Republicans to take all the bullets over his own plan. It begs the question if he is the dumbest smart man in America.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) paid the heaviest price, stepping on his message even before White House talks had begun. But House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) also played a part by opining publicly that it's now unlikely that any debt deal this summer will include the wholesale Medicare changes that had been envisioned in his ambitious budget plan adopted just last month.

All this was news to the rank-and-file Republicans who had voted for the Ryan plan last month and felt political heat at home over the spring recess. And it left Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) as the unlikely tough guy on the block, pulling a Cantor on Cantor, so to speak.

The House Freshman went to Washington expecting a fight. Many of them have been willing to lose re-election in a fight to the death to reform entitles and get rid of Obamacare. It is what they promised to do. But the Republican leadership seems intent on pulling the football away just as the GOP is about to kick.

If the GOP leadership won't stand up and fight, we're going to need somebody new.