Huntsman has accepted a nomination to serve in the Obama administration as ambassador to China.
Superficially at least, its a rather odd move for a Democratic President who the right wing calls and "extreme liberal" to nominate the governor of the nation's reddest state to serve in his administration.
I'm really wondering how this is going over in Utah. If I know anything about Utah politics its that its fundamentally weird.
I'm expecting that the right wing pundits that are so popular in Utah will be foaming at the mouth over Huntsmans "treason" against the right. Will Utahn's side with the pundits they love or Huntsman. Will this increase Obama's popularity in the state or will it simply make Huntsman persons non grata in Utah.
Then there is the religious factor. I have no doubt how this is going to play out in the republican strong holds of the Bible belt. Right wing Christians are certain to see the fact that Huntsman is LDS and working with Obama as evidence of villainy on both Huntsman and Obama's parts.
But many Mormons will surely view having a prominent Latter Day Saint appointed to an influential position in China as an opportunity for the LDS church**. I'm fairly confident that if Bush had nominated Huntsman as ambassador to China, many Utah Mormons would be gushing about Bush being inspired even acting as the hand of God. But many of those same people have been seriously convinced that Obama is the anti-Christ. Is the cognitive dissonance causing their heads to implode or are they already so immune to cognitive dissonance that they can call Obama the anti-Christ and the hand of God in the same sentence with out flinching?
Is this likely to improve Obama's popularity in Utah. Will the Christian rights rejection of the 2nd Mormon Native Son in 2 years be the straw that final breaks the republican strong hold on Mormons or is that too much for a leftist Mormon to hope for?
*I'm curious about two things. As a faithful Mormon I have no doubt that this thought will be running through the heads of many LDS people. But for those of you on the ground in the US, are people saying this openly in church meetings or among Mormon friends today or being cautiously tight lipped. Second, do you think this is likely to be seen as a problem in the confirmation hearings? How much will having a Mormon as Senate Majority leader affect that? Will Huntsman be pressured to issue an official statement saying that he will not act as the LDS church's ambassador to China?
I'm particular interested in hearing from people in Utah about how this is being received but this being Hatrack, I'm happy to hear the rest of your opinions and experiences as well.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I'm curious to see how this plays out, myself...
quote:Will this increase Obama's popularity in the state or will it simply make Huntsman persons non grata in Utah.
Neither. I have a feeling that the Republican death grip on Utah politics will continue for another decade or two. Obama is already abnormally popular in Utah for a Democrat (which isn't saying much). And the Governor, man -- he's a Huntsman. There's virtually no higher honor in the state than just being a Huntsman. Aside from that, he's done a remarkably good job. And I think most people recognize that. After the last two governors -- one well-intended but ineffective; and one who was loveable but lousy (and rumored to have been a dirty dealer) -- Huntsman has been a dream come true. He's been progressive. He's been smart. I'd go so far as to say: He's been daring. The sting comes not from the fact that he's going to work for Obama, but from the fact that he's been so good. We're in the lurch a bit, because whoever gets elected in 2010 will certainly not be as good.
I can't imagine, as popular as he's been, that everyone will suddenly flip on him and take the sides of the propagandists.
By the way -- are they saying anything bad about him? What could they possibly think is wrong with this? If anyone listens to those guys, fill me in, please. I'd be genuinely curious to know.
quote:But many of those same people have been seriously convinced that Obama is the anti-Christ.
I don't see that. I mean, I know there are a few nuts out there. But many? Many people? I don't know about that. I wonder how that would poll in Utah. "Do you think Obama is the anti-christ?" I wonder how that would poll amongst LDS people.
My sense is -- and I could be off-base -- but my sense is that very, very few LDS people feel that way.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Firstly, I think this is a good appointment. Huntsman was ambassador to Singapore under Bush pere, and a trade ambassador under Bush fils. He speaks Mandarin from his time as a missionary in Taiwan. He's got a good business background. He'll make a good ambassador.
Huntsman had been getting a lot of good press recently, particularly after his moderate statements about, paraphrasing slightly, not being opposed to improved rights for non-traditional unions (which is essentially a restatement of the current official LDS church position). There have been a lot of early rumblings from the moderate wing of the Republican party (yes, such a thing still exists) that Huntsman would make a good candidate in 2012.
So Obama shipping him off for a few years to China takes away a candidate that Obama admitted would be "formidable." It also gives Huntsman more foreign policy cred for a future run (he'll be 56 in 2016). So politically good for both of them, but lousy for moderate Republicans who are losing one of their few national voices. I imagine that also went into the political calculation; the longer Obama can prevent moderate voices from rising to the top of the Republican party, the better for him and the Dems.
<edit> Speaking of moderate Republican viewpoints, here's David Frum's take on the Huntsman appointment.</edit>
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't see that. I mean, I know there are a few nuts out there. But many? Many people? I don't know about that. I wonder how that would poll in Utah. "Do you think Obama is the anti-christ?" I wonder how that would poll amongst LDS people.
My sense is -- and I could be off-base -- but my sense is that very, very few LDS people feel that way.
I wonder about that too. I'm living in the Caribbean and Obama is wildly popular here, including in Mormon circles.
I'm kind of surprised to hear that he is reasonably popular in Utah since the only state that voted against him by a wider margin was Oklahoma. I know he won in Salt Lake County, but I'm remembering him loosing by a land slide everywhere else in the state. Based on what I've read seen in letter's to the editor in the Utah papers, he seems fairly unpopular but that may simply reflect the fact that whack jobs are more likely to write in. The sense I've gotten from my more liberal relatives in Utah (I tend to avoid talking politics with my more conservative relatives for the sake of family peace) is a sense of disappoint that Obama is so widely disliked in Utah but that could also be a biased perspective.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Rabbit, none of my (long-distance, it's true) Utah friends who dislike Obama have stated they feel he's evil or anti-Christian, or any of that.
Nor have they given the impression that they're hard-wired idiots who will explode if Obama does something they like and approve of.
Just sayin'. Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I think the biggest "paranoid" argument that you could have, at least as a rational person, would be that Obama is trying to eliminate a potential contender for the next Republican nominee --- while very aptly filling an open position.
I'm a Utahan myself; and though I consider myself middle of the road, my extended family are all hardcore Utah Mormon Republicans. The general consensus from them is, "I didn't want him, but I'll stand behind him," and "he's doing a lot better job than I thought he would" (I've actually heard both statements dozens of times).
Realistically, the typical Utah Mormon IS Republican, but they're not the same as the dominant evangelical Republican mindset that's prevalent in Washington. They are generally more socially liberal and more fiscally conservative than the Washington crowd, with a much stronger belief in "small government". They're also much more likely to think about an issue than to act rashly.
As a middle road libertarian, I see the loss of Huntsman as a grave blow to the state. He's much more liberal on Human Rights (read gay rights) issues than nearly all other Republicans, and certainly more liberal than his forthcoming replacement. He's a great manager, and the state could certainly use that. And he's been outspoken about loosening the state's restrictive alcohol policies.
---As an added point, Utah voted more than a third Democrat in this election. So the hatred you imagine cannot really be justified by the facts.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Wow this is out of left field for me. This is way cool! I'll have to get back to you on what the folks at church and elsewhere are saying Rabbit.
edit: anti-Christ might be a bit strong but several of my family members have stated that Obama is going to destroy our country by himself. The terrorists are going to win, the economy will never recover, and the Republicans will be left to pick up the pieces after his reign of terror ends.
My conservative political scientist colleagues in the classroom were never that negative, at worst they think the country will simply be stagnant for 4-8 years.
[ May 17, 2009, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Realistically, the typical Utah Mormon IS Republican, but they're not the same as the dominant evangelical Republican mindset that's prevalent in Washington. They are generally more socially liberal and more fiscally conservative than the Washington crowd, with a much stronger belief in "small government". They're also much more likely to think about an issue than to act rashly.
*wipes away a tear* I was starting to think I was the only one. Here's hoping the Republicans either start moving that direction or we split off and become something else.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I've heard people say that he's a false Christ but not an antichrist. I doubt Huntsman's appointment will change anybody's opinion of Obama very much, but maybe I'm naive. My reaction was surprise and a bit of pride that someone from Utah is serving on the administration.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
What's the difference between a false Christ and an antichrist? (A false Christ has good intentions and isn't Satanic?)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Auntie Christ is a nice old woman who sends you money on your birthday.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
lol
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm sort of amazed that people care.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:What's the difference between a false Christ and an antichrist? (A false Christ has good intentions and isn't Satanic?)
I think the 'false Christ' was in reference to a lot of conservatives who feel that the left wing idolizes bordering on worships Obama. Making him a false icon, or false Christ. An anti-Christ in LDS theology is someone who actively tries to destroy the system of values God has put in place, and my understanding is that in general Christianity can mean Satan, or someone very close to him. :shrug:
quote:I'm sort of amazed that people care.
Because you don't think it's important, or because it seems like they already haven't cared about other things that probably are more important?
For myself, I can't get too worked up about it in any direction, especially the "Church ambassador" direction but what they hey.
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Because you don't think it's important, or because it seems like they already haven't cared about other things that probably are more important?
Well, both. I mean, not only are we talking about a position as relatively unimportant as the ambassador of China, but we're talking about the notable fact that somebody from Utah's in the administration. Given that Utahns basically run the CIA and FBI, I can't figure out why this is notable at all. Maybe I'm spoiled, since people from the Great Lakes go into government all the time, but going "Hey, this guy's representing our entire state" seems a little odd. Maybe it's the way Alaskans felt about Palin; I dunno.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Honestly, I feel that it can only hurt Utah. The Lieutenant Governor is much more socially conservative than Huntsman, and he certainly doesn't have an equivalent background in business.
Obama's just shuffling away a possible political rival.
Huntsman promised that, if elected, he'd serve his full term. I feel a little let down. Both Republicans AND Democrats in Utah respect his political integrity. I really don't see an upside for Huntsman, for Utah, or for the Republican party.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I don't see why there is a sentiment that this will hurt Huntsman's political future. He has reached his term limit. This will give him experience with China, a big player in international politics. It is putting him in the national spotlight for people to see.
He will be impressive to both liberals and conservatives. The man has some serious integrity.
My first two thoughts were:
1: He is exceedingly qualified. I don't think Obama could have picked a better person.
2: I think it is politically savvy of Obama. I think this helps Huntsman's presidential bid, and, like it or not, no Mormon will ever be president. There is too much fertile ground to run fear into the rank and file American.
I love Huntsman. I am with him politically on so many issues. I like Huntsman a lot better then Romney--both politically and personally. I think this helps his presidential run, but his Mormonism will help his defeat--even if he wins the primaries.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
The press states that he'll be unable to participate in the next election process if he's serving in China. While this might not be categorically true, I'd assume that it would be an impediment to primaries --- at the least.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Obama's just shuffling away a possible political rival.
I find that argument both overly cynical and kind of silly. I'm sure this is disappointing to those republicans who in recent weeks had begun imagining Huntsman as a leader who might be able to revitalize the Republican party but the idea that Obama is trying to take him down is a bit delusional. If Huntsman had any serious intention of taking that role and running against Obama in 2012, I doubt he would have accepted Obama's nomination.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I think it is politically savvy of Obama. I think this helps Huntsman's presidential bid, and, like it or not, no Mormon will ever be president. There is too much fertile ground to run fear into the rank and file American.
I think this is also a bit too cynical. Harry Reid is senate majority leader and the fact that he is republican had gone virtually unnoticed. As long as conservative Christians maintain a death lock on the republican party, I think there is no chance for a Mormon to be nominated as the republican candidate. But that situation won't last forever. There's plenty of reason to think that ultra right wing Christians are on the verge of splitting or killing the republican party quite soon. I think there is every reason to believe that if a moderate Mormon democrat (or left leaning Republican who somehow managed to make it through the primary) were to run for President religion wouldn't be a big issue.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
To believe that Obama isn't thinking several "moves ahead" is to not give him enough credit. He gets a possible rival (no matter how trivial he MAY seem) out of the way, and he gets one of the best candidates into a slot he needs to fill. Two birds with one stone.
But to think that it's "cynical and kind of silly", to believe that he hadn't considered the political ramifications and advantages is a little naive. It may not have been the primary reason, but I'm certain it was a consideration.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Anyone that can capture the country's imagination can be president; regardless of race, religion, or creed.
Obama's family were non-religious or atheist, depending on which version of his story you're listening to. And he's gone on record to say that he's the same religion as his mother, and that it's hard to trust Christians.
I know that his religious affiliations have been spun countless different ways, but his ambiguity has got to be a harder sell than Mormonism.
As much as people think that others won't accept Mormon's, I've found the opposite to be true. Mormon girls are in demand all over the country to be nannies (it's VERY common for Utah girls to nanny for a few years after high school, usually to wealthy east-coast families). Mormons are known for integrity, even if other may find some of the practices strange.
Frankly, especially with the younger generation, religion just isn't the issue that it once was. If the Republicans could recapture the imagination of the American people, the Democrats would shift back regardless.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm certain it was a consideration.
And I'm quite confident it wasn't. Ambassador to China (under a President from the opposition party) isn't a powerful enough or prestigious enough post to tempt a potential rival to cross party lines. Arguing that this was a serious consideration is indeed both cynical and kind of silly.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:it's VERY common for Utah girls to nanny for a few years after high school, usually to wealthy east-coast families
VERY common is a bit of exaggeration here. I have known a few people who've done it but I wouldn't put it at more than 1 or 2% of Utah girls at the very most.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
And I know eight or nine high school friends who did, but it isn't like I purport to know the exact statistics.
I wouldn't say that it's a high percentage of "Utah girls"; but at least in the far northern Utah / country-area, it's very common for Mormon girls who're waiting for their sweethearts on missions. They get out to "see the world", stay busy, and earn some money. There's a rather low college attendance rate in some of the rural farm communities, and this option is one of the main two or three available to them.
Almost silly to even argue about it, really.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I don't see why there is a sentiment that this will hurt Huntsman's political future. He has reached his term limit.
No he hasn't. Utah doesn't have a term limit for Governor. Mike Leavitt was elected to a third term as recently as 2000 and back in my childhood, Cal Rampton served 3 terms as Utah Governor. Huntsman has served less than 4.5 years. The only Utah Governor since statehood who spent less time in office was Olene Walker, the Lieutenant Governor who took over when Mike Leavitt left to become head of the EPA during the middle of his 3rd term.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:After the last two governors -- one well-intended but ineffective; and one who was loveable but lousy (and rumored to have been a dirty dealer) -- Huntsman has been a dream come true.
Curious assessment. I lived outside of Utah for most of that time but still know (and am actually related to) a few people who are very active in the Utah republican party and I don't even know whether you are referring to Bangerter and Leavitt or Leavitt and Walker. I have no idea which one you might have considered a dirty dealer.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
To answer the original question, I'm not a Republican, but I'll say I'll be sad to see him go. Utah was starting to be a nice place to be different in.
But, who knows, maybe the Lieutenant Governor will surprise me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And I know eight or nine high school friends who did, but it isn't like I purport to know the exact statistics.
I wouldn't say that it's a high percentage of "Utah girls"; but at least in the far northern Utah / country-area, it's very common for Mormon girls who're waiting for their sweethearts on missions.
I'd like to know what what you consider to be the difference between "very common" and a "high percentage".
I can imagine that something like this might be common in one town yet not at all representative of the larger picture. One girl from your high school gets a job as a Nanny and has a great experience so she persuades some of her friends they should try it. Then the same thing happens on the other end. One wealthy family in Massachusetts hires a Mormon Oper from some small Utah town. She turns out to be terrific so wealthy friends of her employer starting asking if she can recommend any one. Bingo -- you have a weird cluster of Mormon nannies even though its not common in the broader culture at all. If you happen to live in that region, you get a really skewed impression.
In my high school, it was fairly common for people (mostly guys killing time before they old enough to go on a mission) to get jobs working for pineapple plantations and canneries in Hawai'i, but I'm quite confident this wasn't something that was VERY common among Utah Mormons. It was just a small enough circle that one person doing it caused a bunch of other people to do it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Epictetus: To answer the original question, I'm not a Republican, but I'll say I'll be sad to see him go. Utah was starting to be a nice place to be different in.
But, who knows, maybe the Lieutenant Governor will surprise me.
Epictetus, I'm curious how much of this is really Huntsman's responsibility and how much of it is because the cowboy caucus no longer has as much power in the legislature. If the changes reflect things going on the legislature as well, there is more hope that the Lieutenant Governor will stay on the same track.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm sort of amazed that people care.
I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. Are you saying that if Tim Pawlenty (Republican Governor of Minnesota) or Mitch Daniels (Republican Governor of Indiana) stepped down to accept an appointment in the Obama administration no one would care?
I find that kind of hard to believe. We are coming out of a rather long era of intense partisanship in Washington so people are going to notice and talk about it whenever Obama appoints a republican to a position of any importance no matter where that person comes from. Did Bush ever appoint a democrat to any position? Did Clinton appoint any republicans? If they appointed lots of them and it never made the headlines, then you've got a point -- did that happen? Either it didn't or my googlefu is weak today.
I know small state politics are a bit weird to those of you in big states, but it should be hard to understand why. People who live in the sparsely populated states of the west and midwest generally feel that their issues and leaders are neglected on the national scale so they tend to get a bit over excited when a local issue or a local person makes the National News. Its kind of a combination of "small town boy does good" and "finally people are noticing we exist". But this isn't just news in Utah and among Mormons. It made the headlines in the Washington Post. And while I'm sure its much bigger news in Utah, I'm also sure it was Blagojevich is even bigger news in Illinois than in the rest of the country too.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote:Epictetus, I'm curious how much of this is really Huntsman's responsibility and how much of it is because the cowboy caucus no longer has as much power in the legislature. If the changes reflect things going on the legislature as well, there is more hope that the Lieutenant Governor will stay on the same track.
IMO, much of his responsibility for these changes comes from a Public Relations standpoint. For many years, the proverbial finger in the dike that kept Mormon/non-Mormon relations from boiling over was Gordon B Hinckley. After he died, Huntsman seemed to fill that role, at least he did from a non-Mormon point of view. I also think that having a moderate republican as the governor directly contributed to the cowboy caucus' drop in power. They're still just as vocal and just as divisive as they ever were, but knowing that extremely conservative legislation isn't going to be signed into law seems to have toned down the actual bills that get passed.
So, in short, there really haven't been many changes that I'd say he was personally responsible for, but he's created a positive image that's been reaching across the party and social divisions in Utah, and helping to tone down the rhetoric from the legislature.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Curious assessment. I lived outside of Utah for most of that time but still know (and am actually related to) a few people who are very active in the Utah republican party and I don't even know whether you are referring to Bangerter and Leavitt or Leavitt and Walker. I have no idea which one you might have considered a dirty dealer.
I was speaking of Leavitt and Walker. Walker was ineffectual. Leavitt was lousy. "Lousy" represents my opinion. "Dirty dealer" does not. I didn't say I considered him to have been a dirty dealer -- I said he was rumored to have been one. I speak now specifically of his deregulation controversy, along with a few other things. Newspapers have a funny habit of grasping for controversy. So who knows....
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Tom, I can't say why the world-at-large cares, but many people in the good state of Utah care because, after many long years of mediocrity and disappointment, they finally have someone excellent in the governorship, and they're anxious at the thought of losing him and possibly/probably returning to the governmental meh status quo.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Are you saying that if Tim Pawlenty (Republican Governor of Minnesota) or Mitch Daniels (Republican Governor of Indiana) stepped down to accept an appointment in the Obama administration no one would care?
*nod* I can't imagine anyone caring much. Except there might be general celebration in Indiana, getting rid of Daniels.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I don't see why there is a sentiment that this will hurt Huntsman's political future. He has reached his term limit.
No he hasn't. Utah doesn't have a term limit for Governor. Mike Leavitt was elected to a third term as recently as 2000 and back in my childhood, Cal Rampton served 3 terms as Utah Governor. Huntsman has served less than 4.5 years. The only Utah Governor since statehood who spent less time in office was Olene Walker, the Lieutenant Governor who took over when Mike Leavitt left to become head of the EPA during the middle of his 3rd term.
IIRC, Huntsman had already stated he would not seek re-election. He was under self-imposed term limit, which perhaps has been reported incorrectly in some publications.
And I think it's unrealistic (although you can call it cynical if you like) to imagine that a politician as smart as Obama, with a team as good as Obama's, didn't take into account the fact that Huntsman was generating a lot of chatter about a 2012 run. Reporters had even asked Obama about it recently (which must have made him smile, since this appointment was probably already in the works).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And I think it's unrealistic (although you can call it cynical if you like) to imagine that a politician as smart as Obama, with a team as good as Obama's, didn't take into account the fact that Huntsman was generating a lot of chatter about a 2012 run.
Its unrealistic to think that an astute politician like Huntsman would set aside plans for a Presidential campaign to be ambassador to China. Its equally unrealistic to think that a politician as smart as Obama would have thought Huntsman would accept a position as ambassador if he were seriously considering running for President in 2012. So while I'm sure both men were aware of the chatter, its unrealistic to think it made any significant impact on their decisions.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I think Huntsman accepting Obama's call is evidence he didn't want to run in 2012. And I can't blame him; 2016 should be a much more favorable year.
The point, however, isn't that Obama takes Huntsman out of the running for 2012 (as I said, I think Huntsman would have done that himself eventually). It's that he takes him out of the dialogue for the next few years, making it that much easier for Obama (and others) to continue to paint Republicans as the party of Limbaugh.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
It's funny how people in Kansas don't seem to care much about the Sebelius appointment. She's in the news, on a regular basis, because of her Kansas connection, but I don't hear her name mentioned in ordinary conversation, anymore. I imagine that it will be a lot like the situation with Dan Glickman. We'll get regular updates on what they said at a meeting, or what policies they're working on at the Federal level, just because they're from Kansas. Day-to-day, nobody will actually care.
So, I can see the situation possibly being the same in many other states. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It could also be that when Obama said he wanted to have a coalition government with the best and brightest from both sides he actually meant it to some extent. Of course it's unreasonable to expect a 1:1 party ratio in the administration, but the fact he is willing to recruit those with the expertise he needs regardless of parties is something I find heartening. It may just be that Huntsman will take his appointment seriously, and US/China relations will prosper.
Maybe there is strategic value in Huntsman being an ambassador, but I doubt Huntsman would take such a post unless he was determined to do a good job.
Posted by Kalliroe (Member # 12048) on :
I'm a Utahan and when I heard the news, my first reaction was sadness that we would be losing a good governor so soon into his second term.
My second reaction was pride in my state and that one of our own would serve in Obama's administration.
Though I did not vote for Obama, I don't detest him, and it is good to see that he is able to put party affiliation aside and appoint a man with the skills and experience best suited for the job.
I don't know Lt. Gov. Herbert's politics very well, but hopefully when he takes over he can retain at least some of the tone of moderation and reform that Gov. Huntsman has set.
Do our country proud in China, Gov. Huntsman!
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:The point, however, isn't that Obama takes Huntsman out of the running for 2012 (as I said, I think Huntsman would have done that himself eventually). It's that he takes him out of the dialogue for the next few years, making it that much easier for Obama (and others) to continue to paint Republicans as the party of Limbaugh.
I'm not sure that Republicans aren't still the party of Limbaugh. The party-at-large doesn't seem to be very cool with having moderate or progressive people on their team. Take, for instance, the decision to cancel a GOP event rather than let Hunstman speak. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL:
quote:The point, however, isn't that Obama takes Huntsman out of the running for 2012 (as I said, I think Huntsman would have done that himself eventually). It's that he takes him out of the dialogue for the next few years, making it that much easier for Obama (and others) to continue to paint Republicans as the party of Limbaugh.
Words escape me. Wait not they don't, "What the heck is the matter with Michigan!?"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I'm not sure that Republicans aren't still the party of Limbaugh. The party-at-large doesn't seem to be very cool with having moderate or progressive people on their team.
I have no idea what the break down is, but there are definitely many loud voices in the republican party that are opposed to moderation. Cheney recently came endorsing the Limbaugh side of the party.
I think the fundamental problem with the republican party right now is adherence to ideology rather than results and a focus on a few simple recipes that can't work for ever like cutting taxes, deregulating, and privatization. Unless you believe that we should have no taxes, no regulations and no public programs -- there comes a point at which continuing to cut is a mistake. Many if not most Americans are recognizing that we are likely past that point. Katrina, the current economic crisis and the Bush debts up are all evidence that we've cut government and taxes too far already. But cutting is still the only idea in the republican recipe book.
Then you add to that the social agenda that simply isn't working. Abortions actually dropped under Clinton but rose under Bush. Opposition to both civil unions and marriage fail to recognize that our society is already full of non-traditional families that can't simply be legislated out of existence. The war on drugs has become US sponsored international terrorism and we have a larger percent of our population in criminal justice system than any other country. I'm not saying that the democratic approach is the right approach to solving these problems. I'm saying we need new ideas to address this problems and all the republican party has to offer is the same worn out ideology that just isn't working.
[ May 18, 2009, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Obama's just shuffling away a possible political rival.
This is my thought. From governor to ambassador seems like a step down. Why is Huntsman doing it?
[ May 18, 2009, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'd rather he stay in the US. It sounds like he's a republican I could happily vote for. And not just because he's kin.
Posted by Sphinx (Member # 10219) on :
quote:This is my thought. From governor to ambassador seems like a step down. Why is Huntsman doing it?
Although this is complete supposition on my part, becoming an ambassador is exactly the type of move I'd make if I were contemplating a serious run at the presidency in 2016 with Gov. Huntsman's record.
Ask yourself, what are the types of basic qualifications that voters look for in Presidential candidates? Some of the most basic ones, looking back at the most recent election, are experience as an executive (remember all the cries about then-Sen. Obama's deficiency in this area) and experience with foreign powers (recall Gov. Palin's "I can see Russia from my house" line).
Gov. Huntsman has the experience as an executive, having been the governor of Utah for the past several years. From what's been said here, he's popular in the state, and that popularity would likely transfer to other states.
What he doesn't have -- and what no governor in the middle of the U.S. would easily get -- is experience with foreign relations. So, what he's doing is, for lack of a better phrasing, filling in what's missing on his professional resume.
What I think might prove even better is that he's going to be the ambassador to China, which (though probably not thought of by a lot of Americans) is and will be extremely important to the future of the United States. Rather than what would seem to be a more prestigious (but likely more strictly ceremonial) position like ambassador to Great Britain or France, having been ambassador to China will allow Gov. Huntsman to claim that he's gained practical experience working with one of the few other major powers in the world.
Honestly, the only other think he could do to get that kind of experience would be to join the State department, and he'd either have to wait for the next Republican administration or join the current State department under Sec. Clinton (and at that point, the writers of the West Wing would start asking for royalty checks, I think).
Just my thoughts.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
where's Mucus?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I'd rather he stay in the US. It sounds like he's a republican I could happily vote for. And not just because he's kin.
I heard some Utahns today say they were glad that gay lover was leaving the state. It kinda made me wish he was staying on as governor.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
BB: I'm around. Just a combination of the term starting up, longer hours at work ahead of a version release at an upcoming conference, and well, Victoria Day slowing me down.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: BB: I'm around. Just a combination of the term starting up, longer hours at work ahead of a version release at an upcoming conference, and well, Victoria Day slowing me down.
Can we at least call Blayne "B B" thus acknowledging the all important space that only exists in one of our names?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'll try to make my addressing more distinct in the future BlBl
Edit to add: Catching up on news, you may be among the few that will especially appreciate this news bit. I don't know how much Cantonese you understand, but that early exchange between the Tsang and Margaret Ng is pretty sweet.
quote:Donald Tsang Yam-kuen was forced to apologise yesterday after claiming to speak for "Hong Kong people" in expressing hopes for an "objective assessment" of the Tiananmen Square crackdown in light of China's economic development.
The chief executive's remarks in the Legislative Council, three weeks before the 20th anniversary of the bloody crackdown on the 1989 pro-democracy movement, sparked a walkout by pan-democrats, who accused him of burying his conscience.
The row erupted at a question-and-answer session after Mr Tsang sidestepped a request by the Civic Party's Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee to back the public's demand for vindication of students killed in the crackdown.
"I understand Hong Kong people's feelings about June 4, but the incident happened many years ago. The country's development in many areas has since achieved tremendous results and brought economic prosperity to Hong Kong. I believe Hong Kong people will make an objective assessment of the nation's development."
Ms Ng asked: "Are you saying that as long as the economy is developing well we cannot admit people were killed? Should we bury our conscience to share economic benefits?"
Mr Tsang replied: "My view represents the opinion of Hong Kong people in general, and the opinion of citizens has affected my view. What I have just said is how I feel about the views of the people of Hong Kong."
A government source later called the remarks a slip of the tongue.
Mr Tsang's remarks led to uproar among pan-democrats and drew jeers from the public gallery. Lawmakers took turns to demand he withdraw his statement. "How can you claim you are representing me? You have raped public opinion," unionist Lee Cheuk-yan said. All 23 pan-democrats then walked out and the meeting adjourned for seven minutes before resuming without them.
It is item 008, there are also some interesting poll numbers.
[ May 18, 2009, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: BB: I'm around. Just a combination of the term starting up, longer hours at work ahead of a version release at an upcoming conference, and well, Victoria Day slowing me down.
I generally expect you to post in these type of threads sooner, or start them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'll try to make my addressing more distinct in the future BlBl
Edit to add: Catching up on news, you may be among the few that will especially appreciate this news bit. I don't know how much Cantonese you understand, but that early exchange between the Tsang and Margaret Ng is pretty sweet.
quote:Donald Tsang Yam-kuen was forced to apologise yesterday after claiming to speak for "Hong Kong people" in expressing hopes for an "objective assessment" of the Tiananmen Square crackdown in light of China's economic development.
The chief executive's remarks in the Legislative Council, three weeks before the 20th anniversary of the bloody crackdown on the 1989 pro-democracy movement, sparked a walkout by pan-democrats, who accused him of burying his conscience.
The row erupted at a question-and-answer session after Mr Tsang sidestepped a request by the Civic Party's Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee to back the public's demand for vindication of students killed in the crackdown.
"I understand Hong Kong people's feelings about June 4, but the incident happened many years ago. The country's development in many areas has since achieved tremendous results and brought economic prosperity to Hong Kong. I believe Hong Kong people will make an objective assessment of the nation's development."
Ms Ng asked: "Are you saying that as long as the economy is developing well we cannot admit people were killed? Should we bury our conscience to share economic benefits?"
Mr Tsang replied: "My view represents the opinion of Hong Kong people in general, and the opinion of citizens has affected my view. What I have just said is how I feel about the views of the people of Hong Kong."
A government source later called the remarks a slip of the tongue.
Mr Tsang's remarks led to uproar among pan-democrats and drew jeers from the public gallery. Lawmakers took turns to demand he withdraw his statement. "How can you claim you are representing me? You have raped public opinion," unionist Lee Cheuk-yan said. All 23 pan-democrats then walked out and the meeting adjourned for seven minutes before resuming without them.
It is item 008, there are also some interesting poll numbers.
"Are you saying that as long as the economy is developing well we cannot admit people were killed?"
This is why I love Cantonese people, I don't think there is another group of Chinese people, even in Taiwan, that would put it this plainly. People from Hong Kong often come across as rude, but at least their BS threshold is lower than the national average. It's sad to me that Hong Kong is probably the only place that holds sincere vigils on June 4th. In Taiwan, even if they cared, they are too afraid of harming their economic interests, and in the Mainland, they are starting to simply forget it ever happened.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Because they want to be able to buy certain weapons openly again rather then simply having the french buy it, call it a microwave and sell it under dual use technology.
I should however point out that Japan and plenty of other nations aren't being that much better on the acknowledging embarrassing events in their history.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I should however point out that Japan and plenty of other nations aren't being that much better on the acknowledging embarrassing events in their history.
Put the USA at the top of that list.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, we really aren't at the top of that list. To use an example just from the last post, Japan makes the US look like amateurs at denial, and they aren't the only ones.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The war on drugs has become US sponsored international terrorism
What?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The war on drugs has become US sponsored international terrorism
What?
I take it you aren't familiar with the School of the Americas .
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No, we really aren't at the top of that list. To use an example just from the last post, Japan makes the US look like amateurs at denial, and they aren't the only ones.
I put the USA at the top of the list not because I think we are the worst but because I am a US citizen. I think we need to clean our own house first and the fact that others are much worse is no excuse for the USA not to deal with our own crimes, which by the way aren't trivial and all far in the past.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The war on drugs has become US sponsored international terrorism
No, I wasn't. I note that the School of Americas was closed in 2001, and became the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation.
I'm not sure that it's fair to say that SOA or WHINSC represent the total of the war on drugs, either. Can you explain why you apparently do?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I was avoiding mentioning the US as I'm Canadian and it would seem like nitpicking and its been overdone but I was trying more to find a more recent/modern national embarrassments and I think the worst thing the US has done domestically was back a hundred to two hundred years back. I think Japans white washing of its history makes anything the US whitewashes since seem like nothing.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I'd rather he stay in the US. It sounds like he's a republican I could happily vote for. And not just because he's kin.
I heard some Utahns today say they were glad that gay lover was leaving the state. It kinda made me wish he was staying on as governor.
Well, yeah. We need more Red State Governors like him. Fiscally Conservative *and* concerned about equal rights? Shuffling him off to China is crazy.
And the man isn't going to be President. Republicans don't vote for Mormons. (Well, I voted for Romney, but I'm not a normal registered republican.) And Democrats sure as hell don't.
We've already had one Against The Odds president this century, don't think we can count on another.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:[T]o say there was no political consideration in Huntsman's appointment and those of his predecessors would be naive.
He points to JFK appointing Henry Cabot Lodge as ambassador to South Vietnam and FDR sending Wendell Wilkie on a world-wide good will tour as historic precedents. Both were good policy and had the advantage of also being good for the president politically. Much like BHO appointing Huntsman (BHO doesn't seem as natural as JFK or FDR; will it in time? or is it simply not as mellifluous a conjunction of letters).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I'd rather he stay in the US. It sounds like he's a republican I could happily vote for. And not just because he's kin.
I heard some Utahns today say they were glad that gay lover was leaving the state. It kinda made me wish he was staying on as governor.
Well, yeah. We need more Red State Governors like him. Fiscally Conservative *and* concerned about equal rights? Shuffling him off to China is crazy.
And the man isn't going to be President. Republicans don't vote for Mormons. (Well, I voted for Romney, but I'm not a normal registered republican.) And Democrats sure as hell don't.
We've already had one Against The Odds president this century, don't think we can count on another.
Ha! Maybe. But if you track the Republican primaries, I think Huckabee had more to do with McCain pulling ahead of Romney than McCain himself. McCain's campaign looked dead in the water, especially after Huckabee barely inched ahead with Iowa. McCain likely carried New Hampshire because Huckabee snagged votes away from Romney yet again. I honestly think if Huckabee hadn't entered the stage the Republicans would have nominated Romney. I think Romney would have lost to Obama, but it would have been a much more interesting race, and no Sarah "icanseerussiafrommyhouse" Palin, which I would have paid money to have avoided.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I generally expect you to post in these type of threads sooner, or start them.
To be honest, I don't know if I would have started this thread anyways. It doesn't seem that the US ambassador to China makes much more of a splash in the Chinese news + China-blogs than, well, the Chinese ambassador to the US makes here.
There's a lot more interesting stuff going on if I had more time to address, like the swine flu response, the upcoming CCP 60th celebrations, June 4th 20th remembrance, and the ongoing currency story with Brazil and China being the latest development.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... "Are you saying that as long as the economy is developing well we cannot admit people were killed?" ...
Actually, I'm a bit dissatisfied with the quality of that initial translation. They kinda make everyone sound kinda curt and dumb while the exchange really was a thing of beauty by Margaret Ng and with Tsang looking like a deer caught in headlights. Here's a better one by an American expat:
quote: "Am I understanding the Chief Executive's meaning? Do you mean to say that as long as the economy is prospering that we should not care about people who were killed? That we should bury our conscience for economic benefits?"
Sometimes the Cantonese-English news translations are not that great which makes me wonder about the quality of the Mandarin ones which I am not capable of checking the quality of. (that last article is worth a read too but more for an American)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I put the USA at the top of the list not because I think we are the worst but because I am a US citizen. I think we need to clean our own house first and the fact that others are much worse is no excuse for the USA not to deal with our own crimes, which by the way aren't trivial and all far in the past.
To be fair, I don't think anyone here said or even approached suggesting that a) our own crimes are trivial, b) far in the past, or c) that because others' crimes are worse, ours are less bad.
That's what fugu was objecting to, I think. We're simply not at the top of the list. We're tops in importance to you (and me), but that's not at all the same thing as saying we're at the top of the list in national crime-deniars.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus:
quote:Sometimes the Cantonese-English news translations are not that great which makes me wonder about the quality of the Mandarin ones which I am not capable of checking the quality of. (that last article is worth a read too but more for an American)
I can't speak for news agencies, but I can say that I am often disappointed with the English subtitles during Mandarin speaking movies.
Still Margaret Ng gets my seal of approval for now.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I put the USA at the top of the list not because I think we are the worst but because I am a US citizen. I think we need to clean our own house first and the fact that others are much worse is no excuse for the USA not to deal with our own crimes, which by the way aren't trivial and all far in the past.
To be fair, I don't think anyone here said or even approached suggesting that a) our own crimes are trivial, b) far in the past, or c) that because others' crimes are worse, ours are less bad.
That's what fugu was objecting to, I think. We're simply not at the top of the list. We're tops in importance to you (and me), but that's not at all the same thing as saying we're at the top of the list in national crime-deniars.
To be fair, I never said the US should be at the top of the list of national crime-deniers. I said only "top of the list". You and fugu seem to infer that by top of the list I meant that the US had committed the most egregious crimes or was in the most severe denial. That wasn't the list I was referring to.
The list I was referring to was ranked on how concerned I think US citizens should be about the denial of national crimes. I think the US belongs at the top of that list.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:I should however point out that Japan and plenty of other nations aren't being that much better on the acknowledging embarrassing events in their history.
Put the USA at the top of that list.
You said "that list" when the quotation you were referring to was talking about "better on the acknowledging embarrassing events in their history".
I understand what you mean after you have clarified, but the meaning of your words was definitely not the same as the position you are advancing now.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... I can't speak for news agencies, but I can say that I am often disappointed with the English subtitles during Mandarin speaking movies.
Oh, I wouldn't be surprised. After all, the quality of the Cantonese -> English subtitles are fairly awful too. Comedy is the worst, you'll get these really long sections that get abbreviated. (Especially long and elaborate insults often get reduced to fu** or sh**)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)