When Jon Huntsman discusses an issue, he does something that an alarmingly low number of potential GOP presidential candidates are doing these days: he makes sense. He is not extreme, and nor is he concerned with saying anything in a dramatic fashion. This level-headedness is, ironically, a major reason that he is doing so poorly in recent opinion polls. Individuals like Hermann Cain, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and even Michele Bachman have a great deal of name recognition; for a few of the candidates, a potential voter might even conjure up a face with a particular context when the name is said. Although a majority of these candidates is known best for some sort of egregious campaign mistake, the excessive coverage they receive tends unfortunately to drown out the more rational candidates. As a result, too few people know enough about Jon Huntsman to throw their support behind him in an opinion poll.
Huntsman recognizes the sensationalism inherent in the media coverage of the Republican nominee race. He nevertheless remains hopeful, saying that it is still the “pregame” and that people will ultimately make the rational decision as they cast their ballots. Unlike other candidates, Huntsman is concerned less with being overtly partisan and more concerned with reinstating a level of Trust in the American political system.
His discussion of Trust in the previous video may possibly be just another work of sophistry, a means of manipulating a collectively naïve public. Yet his point rings true either way. Nobody seems to trust government these days – Republicans cannot trust Democrats, and vice versa; Tea Partiers choose to shun the majority of governmental action, both presidential and congressional; and even Occupy Wall Street protesters tend to be wary of the existing power structure. At least Huntsman recognizes this sad fact.
In light of Hermann Cain’s most recent “Libya” flub, Huntsman’s experience as a diplomat working for the Bush Administration in East Asia would be a major asset to the country. As Cain can hardly formulate an opinion on President Obama’s response to the Libya crisis and has trouble naming the leader of Uzbeki-beki-beki-stan-stan, having a commander-in-chief who speaks Mandarin fluently, like Huntsman, would be a much more preferable alternative.
One potential snag the candidate might be experiencing is his moderate tendencies. According to Michael D. Shear’s New York Times article, “Huntsman on Evolution? ‘Call MeCrazy,’” for instance, Huntsman does not agree with Rick Perry that evolution is a fallacy. He agrees also that humans could potentially have left a carbon footprint, thus having a part in exacerbating the phenomenon of global warming. “He doesn’t believe the party can be an anti-science party,” says Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller. To those who claim that he “lacks faith” because of his pro-evolution stance, he has credentials as a Mormon missionary in Taiwan. It is unclear if this fact is simply another snag, however. Nevertheless, if Mitt Romney can overcome being a Mormon with certain socially liberal tendencies, then so can Huntsman. It matters not what religion the candidate follows as long as he vows to carry out his duties with composure and rationality.
No comments:
Post a Comment