Ready or Not, Huntsman Faces In Moment In New Hampshire

[General Mung Beans]

Ready or Not, Huntsman Faces His Moment in New Hampshire


By JIM RUTENBERG
Published: January 7, 2012

NEWPORT, N.H. — Jon M. Huntsman Jr. was in jeopardy of arriving late to his own rally here the other night. But his wife’s desperate need for caffeine forced them to stop for gas-station blend at the Bradford Market, where an admiring clerk added to their delay.



“You have a working knowledge of China,” the clerk, Jason Reid, told Mr. Huntsman, the ambassador to China until last spring. Mr. Reid said he would vote Huntsman in the Republican presidential primary on Tuesday. But, calling himself “a realist,” he added, “Say Romney does get the nomination or something like that: could you see yourself working in an executive position for him in some capacity?”

Pausing for a moment, Mr. Huntsman pursed his lips and said as politely as he could, “Don’t want to even contemplate that.”

For good or for bad, this is Mr. Huntsman’s moment. An early favorite of the pundit classes in Washington and New York — invited for cameos on “The Colbert Report” and “Saturday Night Live” — Mr. Huntsman, out of other options, has bet it all on New Hampshire.

Glimmers of promise appeared for him last week: an endorsement from The Boston Globe, the unveiling of his first television advertisement Friday morning, and the taste of possibility implicit in Rick Santorum’s come-from-behind showing in Iowa against Mitt Romney. There have also been challenges, including Mr. Romney’s solid lead in polls and new strength from Mr. Santorum and Ron Paul.

But none are more threatening than his own relatively minuscule campaign bank account, which constrains his ability to carry on even if he does well here in New Hampshire. It is one of the great incongruities of the year: that a race being run by the son of one of the richest men in the world — the chemical magnate Jon M. Huntsman Sr. — could fail because of a lack of money.

Aides predicated the building of Mr. Huntsman’s campaign upon the idea that he would tap his father’s resources and connections to have one of the best-financed operations in the Republican presidential field. But through a complicated father-son dynamic — Mr. Huntsman, 51, a former governor of Utah, has spent much of his life trying to balance the benefits of being a Huntsman against a drive to make a mark on his own — he told his advisers and even reporters that he would not accept extensive help.

Still, it is an outside group financed in part by his father that has kept him in the running, putting advertising on television here when he could not afford to. Barring a first- or second-place showing here, Mr. Huntsman will most likely require the sort of quick infusion only his father could offer to carry out the never-say-die plan his aides have hatched for the weeks ahead: to muddle through the next few contests doing just well enough to survive, and then make a bigger stand against Mr. Romney as the rest of the field presumably drops away.

“If he doesn’t prevail, it’s going to be for lack of resources,” said a close supporter, who would speak about Mr. Huntsman’s financial situation only on condition of anonymity. “And this is from one of the great wealthy families of America.”

Of course, there are other significant factors at play. Analysts, rivals and even some former aides have wondered aloud in interviews whether he was not his own worst liability, unwilling to run the kind of rock-ribbed conservative campaign that his rivals are using to show their toughness against President Obama — who until 10 months ago was his boss. And in a climate where the loudest, pithiest voices stand out, he is soft-spoken, given to detailed policy lectures about China, the “trust deficit” in Washington, or his calls to limit the size of banks.

From the start, Mr. Huntsman’s father was prepared to press his network of high-flying associates — and underlings — into the service of raising money for the campaign, two people with knowledge of the early operation said.

The family relationship was already complicated. And while the father is a Mormon church elder who strictly adheres to the religion’s tenets against caffeine and alcohol, the junior Mr. Huntsman and his family do not, a choice that especially rankles his mother, family associates say.


Though he lent his campaign some $2 million to help it along, Mr. Huntsman has said publicly that he should be able to raise the necessary money without depending on the family fortune. That stance seemed to signal ambivalence at best about reliance on his father, who had helped start his career by helping him get a low-level job in the Reagan White House.




So without a clear go-ahead from his son, the senior Mr. Huntsman was willing to go only so far to help his campaign, most importantly donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Our Destiny “super PAC” — which can accept unlimited contributions but cannot work in coordination with Mr. Huntsman and his campaign — but not the many millions aides believe he would have put in had his son invited it. Campaign filings show that only a smattering of his employees gave to his son.

People familiar with the situation, who would speak about it only on condition of anonymity, have described a stand-off between two headstrong Huntsmans, one unwilling to help greatly if he is not asked, the other unwilling to ask. That in spite of a lobbying effort by supporters who were said to have even sought to enlist his wife, Mary Kaye. Asked during a campaign stop in North Haverhill on Saturday if she had been approached, Mrs. Huntsman demurred. But she said Mr. Huntsman would not want to “buy an election.”

“He wants to know at the end of the day if he gets to the finish line it’s because the people took him there,” she said, “not his money.”

With no real money to advertise on his own, he has had to campaign door to door, learning hard lessons along the way. After Senator John McCain endorsed Mr. Romney last week, Mr. Huntsman said of his steadfast support for Mr. McCain in 2008, even when times were grimmest, “That was when loyalty trumped politics.”

Mr. Huntsman’s senior strategist, John Weaver, who was a close friend and adviser to Mr. McCain for years, dismissed Mr. McCain’s endorsement of Mr. Romney as “further evidence that the Washington insider class is trying to coalesce around a fairly moderate candidate that they’re comfortable with.”

Then again, Mr. Huntsman and his aides caught a whiff of possibility last week. Our Destiny landed several new donations that it says have allowed it to double its advertising here and start running commercials in South Carolina. They did not come from Mr. Huntsman’s father; while the names are not yet public, one donation came from the Nike co-founder Phil Knight, according to two people familiar with the contribution.

And Mr. Huntsman’s aides were hoping that the Boston Globe endorsement would help among women and independents in New Hampshire and push him into third place — perhaps an optimistic view, given the attention being paid to Mr. Santorum and Mr. Paul as the most prominent alternatives to Mr. Romney.

In a strategy memo for supporters, Mr. Weaver noted that Mr. Huntsman had moved from ninth place months ago to a tie for third in several recent polls. He laid out a possible situation in which Mr. Huntsman exceeds expectations here on Tuesday and then goes on to South Carolina and Florida with enough momentum to eventually emerge as the sole rival to Mr. Romney in the race.

That strategy will require still more money. Mr. Huntsman has dismissed questions about whether he would relent and ask his father for more help fund-raising, saying, “We don’t operate that way.” On Saturday, he added that some people seem to be making assumptions about his family’s wealth: “People forget, we have given everything to humanitarian causes.”

Mr. Huntsman has been circumspect on how well he would have to do to carry on after Tuesday.

“We have to wake up the next morning and say that we exceeded those expectations in order to go forward,” he told reporters. “Otherwise, the marketplace isn’t going to reward us — we won’t raise money; we won’t get volunteers. So, that’s our goal.”

I sincerely hope Governor Huntsman does well in New Hampshire. If not there's always 2016 or even 2020 considering he's still quite young.

[Lord Zentei]

Better him in 2016 than Santorum, regardless of his pussyfooting on global warming.

Though I daresay that his chances are slim. Unfortunately.

[Zinegata]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/07/politics/ ... =obnetwork

(CNN) -- Republican presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman called it stupid. His rival Ron Paul denounced it. But perhaps most appalled by a "China Jon" ad on YouTube were Hindus in America.

An amateurish video posted by self-characterized Paul supporter NHLiberty4Paul questions Huntsman's "American values," shows Huntsman, a former ambassador to China, speaking in Mandarin and calls him the "Manchurian Candidate."

So why is that so offensive to Hindus?

The ad also shows images of Huntsman with his two adopted daughters -- one from China and the other, India.

The Huntsmans adopted Indian daughter Asha Bharati from the western state of Gujarat in 2006.

The ad asks: "Share our values? A man of faith?" as a photograph flashes of Huntsman with an infant Asha Bharati. Both are a wearing a red tikka, a mark associated with the sacred and often seen on foreheads at Hindu ceremonies and temples.

The Hindu American Foundation objected to the insinuations made in the video.

"This deplorable ad is blatantly racist and religiously intolerant, and crosses all lines of acceptable political discourse," said Suhag Shukla, the foundation's managing director and legal counsel.

"Instead of vilifying Governor Huntsman, he should be applauded for being open-minded enough to raise his adopted daughter as a Hindu," she said.

Huntsman, a Mormon, is raising Asha "to learn about and appreciate her native culture and the faiths associated with it," his spokesman told CNN last summer.

The advertisement was posted on YouTube earlier this week. An e-mail attempt to reach NHLiberty4Paul was not immediately successful.

A description accompanying the video states that "Ron Paul is the only authentic conservative in this race, and the only one capable of bringing authentic change to Washington. He is the only sole alternative to flip-floppers responsible for the costly mistakes of the past."

At a campaign stop Friday in Concord, New Hampshire, Huntsman told reporters that Paul should disavow the ad.

"If the group is in any way affiliated with his organization, of course he should," Huntsman said.

"It's just political campaign nonsense. It happens from time to time."

He described how his Chinese daughter Gracie Mei was found abandoned in a vegetable market and taken to an orphanage as a newborn.

Now 12, Gracie Mei is a fixture on the Huntsman campaign. The GOP contender often endearingly refers to her as his top foreign policy adviser.

In all, the Huntsmans have seven children.

"To attack a candidate's family, particularly his young daughters, is completely unacceptable and should be denounced by all Americans," said Samir Kalra, director of the Hindu Foundation.

Paul, meanwhile, told CNN that he disavowed the ad and had no control of his supporters' actions.

"Of course I denounce it ... but people do that, and they do it in all campaigns," Paul said.

Ron Paul's supporters are douchebags for making the ad. Huntsman gets extra coolness points for adopting two kids from India and China.

[Panzersharkcat]

Really, guys? Really? What a fucking idiot. God, save me from my friends. I can handle my enemies. Kudos to Huntsman for his adopting those kids, even if I don't agree with him politically.

[TimothyC]

This is getting weird because the same video shows up under youtube accounts labeled "NH4Santorum", "NHLiberty4Huntsman",and "NHfreedom4Romney".

[Grumman]

Ron Paul's supporters are douchebags for making the ad.

That's supporter. Singular. The only thing that's new here is that some idiot on Youtube kludged together a terrible video instead of just making bigoted comments.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its not going to help Paul though to be once again associated with racists, even if he had no part in it.

[Darth Wong]

Its not going to help Paul though to be once again associated with racists, even if he had no part in it.

Ron Paul will always have a constellation of racists orbiting around him.

The man published a racist newsletter for a decade and then pulled a Reagan and pretended he didn't know anything about it.

The man rails against the power of the federal government, but has absolutely no problem with expansive powers being granted to state governments: this states' rights nonsense is the loudest "The South Shall Rise Again" dog-whistle code in the world.

The man says the Civil Rights act was a mistake. The man says businesses should be allowed to openly discriminate against black people if they feel like it: he portrays it as a "freedom" issue (and pretends to be unaware that the freedom of the strong to oppress the weak is the source of all of history's great tyrannies).

He's the fucking Pied Piper of racist douchebags.

[bobalot]

The man published a racist newsletter for a decade and then pulled a Reagan and pretended he didn't know anything about it.

At my workplace, when I review other people's work and sign off on it, I'm held responsible if something goes wrong. If I just said "I didn't actually do the original work! I don't bear any responsibility for it! The only thing on it is my name!", I would get laughed out of the office (perhaps out of a job).

I don't quite understand why people think Ron Paul doesn't bear any responsibility for written his own newsletter (with his fucking name on it), which he published for years and made him loads of money.

[madd0ct0r]

And if Ron Paul comes out strongly against the video, he looses his core support of closet racists. nice trap.

[Crossroads Inc.]

And if Ron Paul comes out strongly against the video, he looses his core support of closet racists. nice trap.

He doesn't have to do anything but ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist.
Worked for many many others in his footsteps.

That said, Wong said something I had never thought about aul before. That being that his 'anti government' shtick ends at the states.

While he is happy to destroy and eraddicate every aspect of the Federal government. The man has no problem if a State government became a Tyranical despot instituing slavery and outlawing free speech.

[Broken]

Huntsman may be the sanest man on the stage at the Republican debates (now that's damning with faint praise) but he still embraced the Ryan budget plan during the David Gregory debate.

Well, I would have to say that I agree with the Ryan plan. I think I'm the only one standing up here who has embraced the Ryan plan. It's a very aggressive approach to taking about 6.2-- $6.2 trillion out of the budget over 10 years. And it looks at everything. And what I like about it is it says there will be no sacred cows.

Yup, very aggressive. Medicare changed so seniors have to purchase another health care plan; Medicaid changed to block grants to the states; and Taxes cut yet again because that's worked so well so far. Oh, and the public hates the plan when it was explained to them.



As for Ron Paul, he refuses to wash his hands of lunatics like Stormfront (iirc, he doesn't because he wants the chance to convince them he's right) he deserves all the flak he gets everytime one of his supporters reveals themselves for the racist conspiracy theorist they happen to be.

[UnderAGreySky]

That said, Wong said something I had never thought about aul before. That being that his 'anti government' shtick ends at the states.

I brought this up in the big RP thread the other day and got no response. It is said "Ron Paul will end the war on drugs and end indefinite detention" - but doesn't he mean by the feds alone? And doesn't that make him not a libertarian but a neo-confederate?

If you're a Libertarian (I'm not), you have to be for freedom at all levels for everything. Which is why, like Wong, I've always thought RP and his fanbois to be arses.

[Panzersharkcat]

The argument would be that since Paul is running for a federal office, it's not his job, as per strict constitutionalism or whatever, to tinker with things in the states have not defined as having been given up to the federal government. State governments, while probably just as corrupt as DC, would be presumably be easier to control and more accountable to the populace, or something to that effect. Still, in those two areas, it would be an improvement. Your mileage will vary on the other parts of his platform, though.

[Darth Wong]

The argument would be that since Paul is running for a federal office, it's not his job, as per strict constitutionalism or whatever, to tinker with things in the states have not defined as having been given up to the federal government. State governments, while probably just as corrupt as DC, would be presumably be easier to control and more accountable to the populace, or something to that effect. Still, in those two areas, it would be an improvement. Your mileage will vary on the other parts of his platform, though.

Yeah, but to anyone other than a die-hard Southern redneck, that argument is historically farcical. In case after case, the federal government stepped in to protect people from oppression by local and state authorities. Anything bad you can say about the feds, local and state governments (particularly in the south) have shown themselves to be worse.

[Panzersharkcat]

Yeah, but to anyone other than a die-hard Southern redneck, that argument is historically farcical. In case after case, the federal government stepped in to protect people from oppression by local and state authorities. Anything bad you can say about the feds, local and state governments (particularly in the south) have shown themselves to be worse.

Well, there were instances in the 19th century where state governments, particularly in the North, did some good against tyranny. Wisconsin comes to mind. In 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the Fugitive Slave Act to be unconstitutional and refused to obey it. They got overruled five years later, yeah, but it was a good run. There's also instances recently of states refusing to enforce the REAL ID Act to the point where the feds have stopped trying to enforce that law. There's also California not doing jack about marijuana dispensaries. So frankly, I think the situation is mixed.

[UnderAGreySky]

In my opinion, if you're willing to let personal freedoms (especially those subject to discrimination) in other states of your own country be something left for states to decide, you've no business calling yourself a country. You're better off being an 'American Union' with fifty constitutions and fifty armies occasionally banding together to bomb brown people.

[bobalot]

Yeah, but to anyone other than a die-hard Southern redneck, that argument is historically farcical. In case after case, the federal government stepped in to protect people from oppression by local and state authorities. Anything bad you can say about the feds, local and state governments (particularly in the south) have shown themselves to be worse.

Well, there were instances in the 19th century where state governments, particularly in the North, did some good against tyranny. Wisconsin comes to mind. In 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled the Fugitive Slave Act to be unconstitutional and refused to obey it. They got overruled five years later, yeah, but it was a good run. There's also instances recently of states refusing to enforce the REAL ID Act to the point where the feds have stopped trying to enforce that law. There's also California not doing jack about marijuana dispensaries. So frankly, I think the situation is mixed.

Your counter argument against the Federal Government enforcing the landmark Civil Rights Act is an example from 150 years ago and weed? From this, you believe the record of the Federal government protecting minorities is "mixed"?

[Panzersharkcat]

Your counter argument against the Federal Government enforcing the landmark Civil Rights Act is an example from 150 years ago and weed? From this, you believe the record of the Federal government protecting minorities is "mixed"?

Just examples off the top of my head. When I said "mixed," I meant the record of state governments as far protecting their people from federal encroachment.

EDIT: Well, liberties in general.

[bobalot]

EDIT: Well, liberties in general.

You do realise the liberty to smoke weed is comparatively far less important than the liberty to not be oppressed and discriminated against? Something that the States have a abysmal record of doing?

In fact, if the Supreme Court were to be constrained (as Ron Paul advocates), there are many States that use this as an opportunity to violate the Separation of Church and State (in schools, etc.) and shit all over homosexuals.

On the other hand, we have people like Sheriff Joe Arpaio who have widespread support in their backward states. This douchebag violates civil rights on a regular basis and shits all over due process. Under "State's Rights" with little Federal oversight, the situation would be even worse.