Jon Huntsman’s ideas on restructuring the economy and to fix the banks is really interesting.
He would cap the size of banks, and also put in place a hard limit to the amount of leverage they can use. There are other key ideas that also really would restructure the economy by setting up the framework, rather than the Obama/Bush plan of tinkering with individual companies.
He explains that where companies are not allowed to fail, we do not have capitalism. Bingo!
Here is a great discussion on it on Morning Joe
While I think his chances for winning are low, I really like many of his ideas. If Romney or someone else wins, I would like to see him as Secretary of Treasury, so as to put some of these ideas into place. They can’t help but bring about a stronger economy, as small business and big corporations all understand what the rules are, the risks they must now accept for themselves, and that government will get out of their way.
Your thoughts?
Agreed that Huntsman has put forward some very good ideas. These ideas are better than Bush/Obama but still far from the reform we need (ie, getting the government completely out of the banking business and allowing the market to flourish). Huntsman is better on foreign policy than most of the other candidates (except Ron Paul). A poll out today shows him getting some traction in NH, which is his only hope. He might even make a good Sect of State.
Can you imagine the Evangelical backlash if Romney picks the other Mormon to do anything in his cabinet? I wonder if a Romney Presidency means less Mormons in the Cabinet, etc. than in previous Republican admins?
I don’t think there would be that much trouble. It appears that Huntsman has built up a fair amount of credibility as a public servant himself, but Secretary of State looks like a better fit to me.
I would not wish to put my savings in an unregulated bank with no deposit insurance.
Of course, that doesn’t mean the regulations have to be done the way they are today, or that the government has to be the one doing the deposit insurance. Though the government probably has to be the reinsurer.
Yes, Huntsman has ideas…and they strike me as sane and honest and on the pragmatic side. The rest of the pack scares the heck out of me.
This is a really good explanation of why Huntsman is not going anywhere…unless he catches fire after NH, which we should bet against.
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/29/the-huntsman-handicap/
Huntsman has no current political future. As pointed out in Geoff B’s link, he attacked his own party. The reaction has been, if you don’t want us then we don’t want you. He is seen by a large part of the base as worse than a flip-flopper; he is considered a Democrat. Any Republican who hires him will be seen as a traitor.
Huntsman is really great, isn’t he? I wish he were a viable candidate. That he’s not says a lot that is unfortunate about the current Republican Party and nothing particularly negative about him. He would indeed be excellent as Secretary of State.
This article was posted on Facebook regarding Huntsman. It really opened my eyes to the possibility that he could be a much better choice than Romney or (certainly) Gingrich. Gingrich would be a disaster in all possible ways; Romney is better, but I have detailed the many areas of disagreement with him. I am a Ron Paul guy, but Huntsman seems much less objectionable than I thought several months ago, especially compared with the prospect of Gingrich. Huntsman’s big mistake was to come out making fun of the Republican base. I am not sure how he thought this was a winning strategy. There are certainly things to make fun of there, but it immediately made him not viable as a candidate.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/jon-huntsman-the-no-drama-conservative/
I never understood why Huntsman decided to run. He knew he was too moderate for the now completely right-wing Republican Party. I don’t see him as a cabinet official in anybody’s administration, although he would be good at several things. Huntsman was born 30 years too late. He can’t win the nomination, but then neither could Reagan if he were still alive, nor any other sane, rational human being. Nut cases only need apply.
I don’t think Huntsman was making fun of a certain segment of the base, he was just refusing to pander to them. Romney could learn a thing or two from him. Other than Paul, those other candidates could easily be switched out for one another and most voters could hardly tell a difference, they’re all so busy spouting the lines the Tea Partiers want to hear. The only way Romney differentiates himself from the other front-runners is by not sleeping around, hardly enough for the GOP that suddenly doesn’t seem to care about philandering.
Well that makes sense, why hire somebody that is qualified because he might have hurt someone’s delicate sensibilities. Hire Bachmann then, she’ll tell your base exactly what they want to hear, even if she doesn’t know what she’s saying.
A Democrat. I have literally laughed out loud when Republicans tell me he’s really a Democrat. He’s nowhere near a Democrat, being slightly moderate in a few specific areas does not make one a Democrat.
Jjohnsen, I think if you were to sit Huntsman down in an honest moment and ask him, he would definitely say he muffed it early in the race. Live and learn, I guess. If he runs again in four years he will make fewer mistakes, and his good qualities will come out. I think he is only 51, so he will have other chances.
As I say, there is still a small chance he could catch fire now. He is a million times better than Gingrich and somewhat better than Romney, so it would be nice to see him get some support.