This brings us to our last candidate, even as non-viable as he may be. No, I do not believe that Huntsman could ever become president, unless of course aliens landed and abducted every other candidate on the eve of the primary. And even then it is doubtful. This being said, though, here we go with a review of Jon Huntsman.
On the subject of Afghanistan, Huntsman believes that American should just cut its losses and pull out now. No hesitation, no delay. He has said that without a winning strategy, we are doing nothing more than wasting our time, our money and our resources. Although he is correct in saying that the Afghanis are a incendiary tribal people, and that they always will be, I have to wonder if we should not develop a different strategy, one that will deter terrorists in that region from attacking America ever again. A plan which Huntsman does concede to be possible.
Huntsman’s view on the economy and the budget seems to be very straight forward and very austere. He believes the budget should be balanced, and that America should not spend more than it has. Create a budget that enables us to live within our means and stick to it. Creating that budget, however, will require some deep cuts according to Huntsman. He insists there should be no “sacred cows” when it comes to cutting program spending, and believes this should include cutting military spending, Social Security spending and entitlement spending.
I always find it interesting when listening to politicians talk about cutting from Social Security (which they will never have to rely on) or entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and others (which they will never have to rely on). It seems they are always willing to cut just about anywhere that will not directly, if ever, affect them. They always seem willing to cut from everyone but themselves. Where are the cuts to congressional or presidential pay, or benefits, or healthcare? Not that these cuts would be significant enough to balance the budget and reign in spending, but it would go a long way toward making this bitter pill a bit easier to swallow for the rest of America.
Huntsman relies a lot on idealistic sentiments that tug on the patriotic heartstrings of his listeners, but do not offer any real concrete ideas that will benefit America. He says “What we now need is leadership that trusts in our strength. Leadership that doesn’t promise Washington has all of the solutions to our problems, but rather looks to local solutions from our cities, towns and states. Leadership that knows we need more than hope; leadership that knows we need answers.
“We must make hard decisions that are necessary to avert disaster… If we don’t, in less than a decade, every dollar of federal revenue will go to covering the costs of Medicare, Social Security and interest payments on our debt. Meanwhile, we’ll sink deeper into debt for everything else – from national security to disaster relief.
“Our country will fall behind the productivity of other countries. Our influence in the world will wane. Our security will grow ever more precarious. And the 21st century will then be known as the end of the American Century. We can’t accept this, and we won’t.
“But here is the challenge. We must proceed at a time of weak economic growth and very high unemployment. We desperately need jobs and the opportunities they carry. So, we must play to our strengths, and give the most innovative society on Earth the tools they need to succeed.
“We must make broad and bold changes to our tax code and regulatory policies, seize the lost opportunity of energy independence and reestablish what it means to be a teacher in society.
“We must reignite the powerful job-creating engine of our economy — the industry, innovation, reliability and trail-blazing genius of Americans and their enterprises — and restore confidence in our people.”
This sounds so good I almost want to grab a set of Pom-Poms and start cheering. Unfortunately, Huntsman doesn’t really say anything definitive here. “We need, we should, we must,” yes, that’s all true and we all understand this but what are you going to do Mr. Huntsman to accomplish these goals?
Huntsman is equally vague on the Second Amendment. When asked where he stood on the Second Amendment. Huntsman made a joke about it saying, “With a name like Huntsman, do you think I have a choice?” Wouldn’t it have been easier to say “I support the Second Amendment” or “I don’t support the Second Amendment” rather than being vague and making a joke that doesn’t really answer the question? Personally, I would prefer a candidate who is more direct, says what he means, and means what he says.
His legislation in the subject does not really reveal his stance either. As governor, he did endorse and sign legislation that allowed individuals to transport and store firearms in privately owned, locked motor vehicles. Is this not already allowed? If not, then how do hunters get from their home to their hunt locations with a firearm? It seems like meaningless legislation to me. He also endorsed and signed a bill which allows and individual to have a concealed firearm in their own residence, on their own property, or in their own place of business without a concealed carry permit. Again, this sounds good, but why wouldn’t a homeowner be allowed to have a gun, concealed, while in his or her own home? It seems to me that this is a piece of fluff legislation designed to make people feel good about Huntsman (when he signed it), rather than provide them with any real benefit. I say this because I am willing to lay odds that prior to this legislation, there were a good many homes in Utah with guns, and a good number of those homeowners would and did conceal those guns when they deemed it necessary.
Additionally, I am not even sure that Huntsman himself truly believes he has what it takes to become President. Especially after he expressed a willingness to take the number two spot of Vice-President if Michele Bachman were to win the White House. This alone makes me question his self-assuredness. His stand on other issues serves to cement it.