Jon Huntsman on guns

[Neverwinter]

When it come to the 2012 nominees, we're finding that the most popular ones are the most lacking when it come to solid principles. The Ron Paul thread has inspired me to start this one on Jon Huntsman, another of the candidates who "has no chance of winning" despite his better stance on aspects of public policy(eg. environment, civil unions, energy).

OnTheIssues had these two points for Huntsman on gun control:

• Conservative line on gun control. (May 2009)
• Absolutely veto a ban on assault weapons. (Jun 2011)

Has anyone heard anything else about him?

 

[GEM]

Too smart and rational to be nominated.

Actually knows where other countries are.

Understands science.

No chance -

 

[801sureshot]

As a registered libertarian I voted for huntsman twice for governor of Utah. He was a great leader for our state and would make an exceptional president. Utah has great gun laws. He has been criticized for been to centrist but I think that might be a good thing. His campaign might build steam ya never know.

 

[jackpinesavages]

He's the only nominee with children(2) in the military. That's good enough for me.

 

[mljdeckard]

When he was Utah's governor, he held a carry permit. (I have no idea if he still does.) And had a great record for supporting positive gun laws. (Much more so than his successor has.)

 

[Diggers]

Sounds like he is good with the 2A issues.

What GEM said is true. I don't know what the Republicans are doing/ thinking with the people they seem interested in. It really seems like fanatics have taken over that party.

Huntsman is such the obvious choice by far there shouldn't even be a debate about it. Yet he is totally ignored.

It truly is scary to me when a man with huge qualifications who is obviously intelligent and is informed on and understands the world AND China specifically (which will be more and more important in the future.) was not even in the running against people like Paul, Perry and Bachmann and the others.

What does that say about the Republican Party?

 

[TT]

Huntsman is such the obvious choice by far there shouldn't even be a debate about it.

As a Republican, why would I want to vote for someone who felt comfortable enough with Obama’s politics to work for him?

 

[GEM]

If you thought you could aid the country by being the best person for the job, shouldn't you step up?

So if you didn't like FDR - stay home and let the Nazis win?

Rather have a crappy ambassador to an important country just so you can have ideological purity?

The country is more important than one party or party tribalism.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Nicely said GEM.
If you think you can make a positive difference, you do it.

 

[TT]

The country is more important than one party or party tribalism.

Unless one party stands opposed to the concept of limited government that this country was founded on. No libertarian should ever work with any communitarian; one who does is suspect.

 

[mljdeckard]

When he resigned his governor's job here in Utah for the ambassador job, we talked a lot about it. It was pretty obvious that it was mostly to take Huntsman out of action for this election. And it may have worked. Look at it this way: If Huntsman was now running for president as governor of Utah, instead of former China Ambassador, would you have any reason to complain about him?

I think it was a calculated gamble on Huntsman's part, to accept the ambassador job, and plan on resigning to run for president later. But in doing so, he made two mistakes: 1. He thought he could enter the race late and it would make a big enough splash to come in on top. It didn't work. 2. He hasn't denounced the Obama administration in any way. Not even to say; "Yeah, I worked for him, but I don't like him." He didn't even need to go way dirty, spilling facts and missteps in how the administration dealt with China, nothing like that. His failure to distance himself from the administration leaves him suspect, and he has done little if anything to reverse it.

 

[Infringed]

Huntsman hasn't completed the GOA candidate questionnaire, along with Romney. Gingrich, Paul and Santorum have completed this.

 

[hso]

It doesn't follow that a candidate that doesn't fill in GOA's questionnaire is suspect on RKBA.

 

[Infringed]

hso, that's true. Of course, if he is pro 2A, why hasn't his campaign filled it out to give gun owners some comfort? Gun owners aren't exactly a tiny, insignificant percentage of voters, and one would think that his campaign would want to court us, if indeed, his views line up with ours on 2A. I'm not saying he is anti 2A, just confused on the non-response. With Romney, who also hasn't responded to GOA, I'm not confused or surprised, given his actions in office and his comments related to 2A.

 

[Neverwinter]

Sounds like he is good with the 2A issues.

What GEM said is true. I don't know what the Republicans are doing/ thinking with the people they seem interested in. It really seems like fanatics have taken over that party.

Huntsman is such the obvious choice by far there shouldn't even be a debate about it. Yet he is totally ignored.

It truly is scary to me when a man with huge qualifications who is obviously intelligent and is informed on and understands the world AND China specifically (which will be more and more important in the future.) was not even in the running against people like Paul, Perry and Bachmann and the others.

What does that say about the Republican Party?

He hasn't denounced the Obama administration in any way. Not even to say; "Yeah, I worked for him, but I don't like him." He didn't even need to go way dirty, spilling facts and missteps in how the administration dealt with China, nothing like that. His failure to distance himself from the administration leaves him suspect, and he has done little if anything to reverse it.

It's rather odd that the very qualities which would make him strong with moderate fence sitters(intelligent, informed, and capable of reaching across the aisle) are the very things dooming him in the primary.


Sent using Tapatalk

 

[TT]

‘Capable of reaching across the aisle’ is a weasel way of saying ‘willing to compromise with communitarians’. When a libertarian compromises with a communitarian, the libertarian loses and the communitarian wins. I’m not interested in supporting anyone who will advance the communitarian cause, no matter how intelligent and informed ‘moderate fence sitters’ think he is.

 

[Neverwinter]

‘Capable of reaching across the aisle’ is a weasel way of saying ‘willing to compromise with communitarians’. When a libertarian compromises with a communitarian, the libertarian loses and the communitarian wins. I’m not interested in supporting anyone who will advance the communitarian cause, no matter how intelligent and informed ‘moderate fence sitters’ think he is.

You can't discount the moderate fence sitters without committing voter fraud on a massive scale.

I'm so glad the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists took that no-compromise approach to ratification of the Constitution.

 

[Sky]

Too smart and rational to be nominated.

Actually knows where other countries are.

Understands science.

No chance

GEM that was really good!! I like Huntsman for many of the reasons you stated. He does not have the big money of Mitt or the many small money donations of Paul. Still early and maybe he will get some traction.

 

[Tiberius67]

‘Capable of reaching across the aisle’ is a weasel way of saying ‘willing to compromise with communitarians’. When a libertarian compromises with a communitarian, the libertarian loses and the communitarian wins. I’m not interested in supporting anyone who will advance the communitarian cause, no matter how intelligent and informed ‘moderate fence sitters’ think he is.

There is also the fact that the same people gushing about how wonderful he supposedly is today will be railing against him as a baby-eating monster who also wants to repeal the 13th Amendment the moment he became the nominee....just like they did with McCain. He's pretty much McCain without the war record, right down the the election strategy of getting Dems and 'Independants' to switch to the GOP long enough to vote for him in the Primary.

 

[TT]

I'm so glad the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists took that no-compromise approach to ratification of the Constitution.

The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists differed in the details of the practical application of limited government, they were not philosophical opposites. Communitarians and libertarians share no significant common ground, compromise between the two groups is neither possible, nor desirable for the libertarian side (again, compromising on limited government is always a win for the communitarian side and a loss for libertarians).

 

[Neverwinter]

The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists differed in the details of the practical application of limited government, they were not philosophical opposites. Communitarians and libertarians share no significant common ground, compromise between the two groups is neither possible, nor desirable for the libertarian side (again, compromising on limited government is always a win for the communitarian side and a loss for libertarians).

They were on different positions of the spectrum between the concentration of power in the state vs federal government. Just because they do not fall on the absolute ends of the spectrum doesn't mean that they were not diametrically opposed to each other.

The idea that positions are black or white is an oversimplified model which is incapable of understanding things like the opposition between the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists.

If we were to go with the assumption that a libertarian is only a person on the absolute edge of the spectrum, then Huntsman has never claimed to be one nor indicated a desire to be one.

 

[TT]

Libertarianism is a very unforgiving doctrine- if you favor limited government in some places and communitarianism in others, you are a communitarian.

 

[GEM]

Too many other causes in history have abandoned critical thinking and were sure their cause was the only one truth. They would bring down their civilization for purity.

Great plan.

A minor RKBA example. We prefer not to have a shall issue law because the 2nd Amend. is all we need. Thus, we will try to sabotage the shall issue law in our state.

Seen it happen three times. Luckily the purists could only delay the law in some cases and we now have 40 ish states with such laws. To the great benefit of the citizens of those states.

 

[Waywatcher]

Too smart and rational to be nominated.

Actually knows where other countries are.

Understands science.

No chance -

Yep. No chance of being nominated, but if he somehow was, he would stand a very, very good chance of beating Obama.

 

[TT]

GEM: Too many other causes in […] great benefit of the citizens of those states.

I’m not sure what you are trying to get at here, since requiring a permit to CCW is not necessarily a violation of libertarian principles. Certainly two libertarians may differ in good faith about the appropriateness of a particular use of State power; that seems self-evident to me, but if it would please you to see me state it, you have been so accommodated. If you are trying to argue that it is possible to espouse communitarian principles and still be a libertarian, I stand on my original statement.

With regard to Huntsman, there is no realistic dispute that Obama is a communitarian, and yet Huntsman chose to work for him. As a Republican I am not interested in candidates that are willing to compromise with my political enemies.