In an article posted on the New York Times website (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/us/19iht-letter19.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=primaries), author Albert R. Hunt points out the many promising attributes of Mr. Hunstman before explaining why he suspects they will ultimately get him nowhere in the 2012 Presidential race.
Although finishing last in the most recent national Republican candidate polls, Huntsman boasts, as Hunt puts it, "a consistently conservative record that eschews fringe views, a proven and scandal-free track record as an executive and respectable national-security credentials." He has experience in foreign relations thanks to his role as ambassador to China, which Huntsman says makes him a better candidate than Romney, and he feels Perry puts himself "out of the mainstream" because of his ultra conservative stance on global warming and evolution.
According to this article, Huntsman is basically putting all of his eggs in one basket labeled: New Hampshire. Because he is a more moderate conservative, Huntsman is hoping that he will win over this key state where "independents can vote in either primary and Democrats can switch registration." From this win he plans to take Florida.
So why is it that the author of this article finds it so implausible that a moderately-conservative, experienced, and "complex" individual like Mr. Huntsman doesn't stand a chance? Well it may just be precisely because many of his "good" qualities will likely do more bad for his campaign. The author mentions how its quite possible that conservatives will steer clear of him because of his position on issues such as evolution and global warming but personally I think the most interesting reasoning the article mentions is where Huntsman and Perry are compared as individuals. Alex Castellanos says of Huntsman, "Jon Huntsman is a complex individual....you speak to him, you get the big picture but not a simple narrative," in constrast to Perry who he describes as having a "simplicity" that works in his favor. This almost sounds as though it could be suggesting that despite the fact that Huntsman could be a better qualified candidate than Perry or some of his other opponents, his message is too complicated for voters to comprehend and appreciate. Perhaps the author is suggesting that American voters are too dumb to think beyond the black and white that they were brought up with. In any case, the author believes that because of this small set-back, Huntsman will not go far because he will be overlooked. I tend to agree with him.
No comments:
Post a Comment