"Mr. Huntsman, who had struggled to live up to the soaring expectations of his candidacy, made plans to make an announcement as early as Monday..."

Jon Huntsman
Jon Huntsman speaking to CPAC, FL, 2011. Photo credit: Gage Skidmore.

By the Left Coast Rebel

The "announcement" in the headline of this post is the -- shock -- Jon Huntsman's presidential campaign swan song.

And, "soaring" expectations of his candidacy, New York Times? Really, Jeff Zelleny? The lamestream press's big Huntsman push several months back notwithstanding, anyone with two brains cells to rub together would hardly say that his presidential run was in any sense "soaring."

Sorry dad, we won't judge you if you weep, but your millions were for naught.

Shockingly, Jon Huntsman is expected to endorse Mitt Romney.

Who's next to drop out of the GOP presidential race? Perry?

And where will all of those Huntsman supporters go? All 200 of them (including his family).


  1. With his endorsement of Mittens, it looks like Huntsman is applying for a job.

    1. Absolutely... and the country club, good ol' boys network continues. I wonder what position he is angling for?

    2. "I wonder what position he is angling for?" Ambassador to China?

    3. How do you say, "have no principles, will travel" in Chinese?

  2. I guess Huntsman should have developed a taste for red meat. I suppose it was inevitable. Now the field is one of three circus clowns, and Ron Paul.

    Why I ask myself does anyone want to be a republican in this day and age. Especially Ron Paul. He should be a third (or forth) party candidate.

    Oh well, the sorry state of American politics.

  3. No, now the field is Mitt Romney and three people who haven't figured out they are losers.

    Huntsman is going to be Secretary of State or UN Secretary. Pawlenty will be the VP pick. Chris Christie will get some post, because his days as governor are numbered. Gingrich could have had a job, but he soured his chances with sour grapes.

    This should surprise no one. Politics is about organization and fundraising as much as it is personal characteristics and views. Romney and Paul were the only ones smart enough and prepared enough to get on the Virginia ballot - that says it all. The two candidates with effective organizations have run consistently in the top three.

    Paul's performance has been impressive, but a third party run would be stupid. He would only get Obama reelected. Third parties are like bees - they sting and then die.

    There is nothing "sorry" about American politics. Our politics are based on the structure of our government and the nature of mass communications. We can certainly suggest reforms, but the last attempt got shot down by the Supreme Court as violating free speech.

    What you're feeling "sorry" about Les is that you lost. Libertarians have always done better fighting on issues than fighting for candidates. Yeah, you can get a few Congressmen under a Republican banner just like a few socialists can win under the Democrat banner. If Paul were magically made president, he would be chewed apart by both parties. He would find common ground on no issues. He would have no clout in the Senate for appointments.

    Again, for people who love the Constitution, you guys really don't spend a lot of time reading it and understanding how it is applied.

    My job is promoting liberty as a political, social, and economic reality. Your job is building an altar to liberty in a barn, embuing it with magical powers, and worshiping it as a deity. I'll join your religion, but I won't vote for your pastor as president.

  4. "There is nothing "sorry" about American politics."

    There is indeed when there are so few with principles and organization and willingness to sell yourself to the highest bidder takes the day.

    Maybe someday people will figure it out. But I'm not holding my breathe given you comment response.

  5. "If I'm not the candidate, I'll be behind whoever is. Look, we have five candidates on that stage, any of which is better than Barack Obama." - Mitt Romney (1 minute ago)

    He gets it, Les.

    You don't.

    Highest bidder? I don't recall getting a check from Romney. In fact, I don't recall voting for him or donating to his campaign. I don't recall specifically endorsing him as anything other than the person most likely to win.

    I do recall saying I would vote for and donate to whomever won the primary, without reservations. That includes Ron Paul. In Ron's case, I might actually have to go door to door in Utah campaigning for him.

    I like you Les. I like Ron Paul. I like most of your ideas. I love many of them. I cringe at a few of them. But we are on the same team. I'm a bit resentful of being told I have no principles.

    I explained before that winning political office requires organization and funds. Even something as simple as knowing how to get on a ballot in each state is important. I wouldn't know how to do that, even if I thought I would make a better president than those five guys. And I do think I would be a better president. I don't have the political chops to win.

    This is our year when we take back our government and solidify a majority on the Supreme Court for a generation. It's our year unless somebody screws it up. Ron Paul running as a third party candidate would screw it up. Libertarians in swing states not showing up for the Republican would screw it up. Attacking our candidates in ads, giving free advertisement for Obama, is screwing it up.

    Ron Paul made a great run. He has lost. It's over already. Get over it.

    Back a winner. Write your Congressman about making changes to laws we don't like. When we take back power next January, your principles will be heard much more clearly by President Romney than President Obama. If Romney is half as bad as you say he will be, I will vote for whoever you choose for the rest of my life. If Romney isn't half as bad as you say he will be, then I would just like to hear you say you misjudged him.

  6. Nick, my apology if you thought I was saying you don't have principles. I was referring to the quality and lack of principles in most politicians.

    I used to vote for the lesser of two evils, no I vote for the candidate that O believe has principles and won't be bought. If I don't see one I just won't vote.

    In reality there is little difference between the two parties, ay the end of the day the results are about the same. Everything is cyclical

    I've been away for a week, it has been nice not dealing with blogging all the time and trying to respond to all the BS. May just stay away a while longer.


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.