Jon Huntsman is the Most Electable Republican

For the last three years, the Republican Party has been engaged in a struggle to define itself.  They have seen the backlash resulting from the failed policies of the Obama Administration and realized that this is an opportunity to reassert the small government, free market, low tax pillars of Conservatism.  We have seen the emergence of the Tea Party, the sweeping midterm election of 2010 and the increasingly abysmal daily tracking polls for President Obama.

As the Republican primary commenced, this struggle played out in the constant tug and pull between a resurgent Republican base and the party establishment.  It is, as the media has portrayed it, a struggle between philosophical catharsis (Newt Gingrich) and electability (Mitt Romney).  But that dichotomy is deeply flawed.

Romney has been seen since day one as the establishment candidate with a broader appeal to independents and thus better general election chances.  The reality of the situation, however, is that Romney’s persona does not appeal to the country at large.  In a year when the electorate loathes the political process, and the politicians who guide it, Romney’s image of politician through and through will be viewed with skepticism, at the very least.

His electability is in question for another reason: the Obama Administration, which is inept at governing but unparalleled at campaigning, knows his weaknesses and has a strategy in place to defeat him.  They will—in fact they have already started to—paint him as an unattached, job-killing flip-flopper with no moral center, willing to say or do anything and everything to get elected.  It is hard to imagine a more powerful strategy for a general electorate which values consistency and boldness over almost anything else.

Which brings us to Newt Gingrich.  His recent rise in the polls is the result of his constant, vocal, and sometimes outlandish criticism of Barrack Obama, a cathartic experience for Republican voters who are angry and passionate about defeating him in 2012.  But Conservatives, Liberals, and the Obama Administration itself realize the ease with which they would cruise to victory were Gingrich nominated by the Republican Party, for two reasons.

First, his bombastic personality, which is a positive in the primary election, would become a negative in the general election and the chances of him saying something too outlandish would increase day by day.  His past statements, such as when he stated that “people like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz” or when he described himself as a “definer of civilization” paint a picture of a Nixonian candidate, one with bold ideas and political prowess but hindered by substantial personal flaws.

Second, Gingrich is not the bastion of Conservatism that the Tea Party thinks he is.  The flip-flops on issues such as climate change, the individual mandate, and Libya are well known.  But more importantly, Gingrich has shown an utter disregard for some Conservative principles.  Last week, Gingrich committed Conservative heresy by responding to Mitt Romney’s statement asking the speaker to return the $1.6 million he received from Freddie Mac with his own challenge to return the money Romney made “bankrupting companies and laying employees off” at Bain Capital.  To equate crony capitalism and influence peddling with the market realities of capitalism itself is to completely misrepresent Conservatism and its principles, something voters will realize under greater scrutiny. 

If the Obama Administration is content with facing Mitt Romney in the general election, they are licking their chops at the potential nomination of Newt Gingrich.  But the dichotomy of Gingrich and Romney is flawed because it doesn’t include the candidate who is the most electable and who the Obama Campaign is most worried about, Jon Huntsman. 

As Conservative columnists George Will and Erick Erickson pointed out, Governor Huntsman has the most Conservative record of any of the Republican candidates.  The Wall Street Journal and most recently The Tax Foundation, a Washington based Think Tank, endorsed the Governor’s tax and jobs proposal as bold and transformative.  The New York Times ranked him as the most likely Republican candidate to defeat Barrack Obama.  He appeals to independents because of his consistent record, his foreign policy experience and his nuanced demeanor. 

The true dichotomy is not between catharsis and supposed electability; it is between candidates seeking political absolution through shallow verbal barrages and a candidate with the leadership credentials and bold proposals necessary to win.  Put simply, it is true electability.  Jon Huntsman is truly electable and he is the right leader to set the United States on the path toward future sustainability.  

Jobs, Taxes, and the Republican Primary

Economic factors are always paramount in presidential elections.  But in a year when the unemployment rates remains above 9% and the Eurozone debt crisis looms, the importance expands exponentially.  With the first Republican primary less than two months away, each of the potential candidates has outlined a tax and jobs plan that will, according to them, bring the United States out of this recession and restore it to its once great position as the only viable superpower.

Mitt Romney, the unflappably stagnant former governor of Massachusetts, introduced his 49 point jobs plan last month in Las Vegas.  It entails cutting corporate tax rates from 35% to 25%, eliminating the estate tax, and extending the so-called Bush Tax Cuts.  He also recommends reducing the regulatory burdens on business by repealing Obamacare and Dodd-Frank (the financial reform bill) and expanding drilling in areas such as the Gulf Coast, the Plain States and Alaska. 

Texas Governor Rick Perry, the unflappably flappable candidate, introduced his tax and jobs proposals in recent weeks.  His jobs plan focuses mainly on increased energy production in oil and natural gas which he states will “unleash 1.2 million American jobs through safe and aggressive energy exploration at home.”  His tax plan proposes creating an opt-in flat tax, meaning those who choose to do so, can have their taxes reduced to a flat rate. 

Former Godfather Pizza Executive Herman Cain, the ever-present attention seeker, has infamously proposed his 9-9-9 plan to reform the tax code.  It would throw out the existing tax code and replace it with a 9% corporate tax rate, 9% individual income tax, and 9% national sales tax.  Cain has not explained his plan much beyond that except to say that his advisors have crunched the numbers and it will be deficit neutral.

Former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman (disclaimer, I volunteer on Huntsman’s campaign) has proposed a tax and jobs plan that synthesizes many aspects of Romney, Perry and Cain’s proposals.  He calls for tax reform in which loopholes and deductions for corporations and the rich are eliminated and the base is broadened.  The corporate tax rate would then be reduced from 35% to 25% and the personal income tax would be reduced to flatter, fairer rates of 8%, 14%, and 23%.  He has also called for expanded oil and natural gas exploration, regulatory reform, free trade expansion, and stronger relationships with foreign nations.

Other candidates have made various similar and sometimes outlandish proposals.  Rick Santorum, has proposed cutting the tax rate for manufacturing to 0%, an interesting thought.  Ron Paul has proposed eliminating the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development.  Michelle Bachmann has not been able to formulate a sentence that does not end with “repeal Obamacare.” 

Many of these proposals are seriously flawed.  Romney’s tax plan leaves the existing tax code, loopholes, deductions, and all, in place allowing for companies like GE to continue to make billions of dollars and pay no income taxes.  Perry’s tax plan also leaves the existing loopholes and deductions in place because those benefiting from them will not choose to opt-in to the proposed flat tax.  Cain’s plan is simply simplistic; as a tax lobbyist I spoke to recently put it, “I have serious questions about a tax policy that can be summed up in a catch phrase.”

 Santorum’s proposal concerning tax rates on manufacturing is intriguing but has little chance of success in Congress.  Paul’s proposals are simply ludicrous; maybe in a perfect world we could do away with five Executive Agencies and be fine, but that is not this world.  Huntsman’s jobs and tax plan was called “big and bold” by Reuters and “as impressive as any to date in the GOP presidential field, and certainly better than what we’ve seen from the front-runners.”  Because of my stake in the Huntsman campaign I will let you decide for yourself.

What is clear is that the Republican candidates for president have displayed many similarities and many differences in these proposals.  The distinctions may seem minute, but they are clear and integral in this time of economic woe.  The candidates now have approximately eight weeks to distinguish themselves from each other and from President Obama.  It should be interesting to watch.  

Winners and Losers from the GOP Presidential Debate

Wednesday night’s debate was the much anticipated debut of newly crowned Republican front runner Rick Perry.  From the beginning, two things became obvious.  First, it is not only the press but the rest of the Republican field that views Perry as the frontrunner, evident by the constant barrage of criticism from the other candidates.  Second, the main competition, for better or for worse, is and will continue to be between Perry and Mitt Romney.

From the get go, Romney and Perry engaged in a political pissing/spitting contest about their records as governors and their plans for job creation.  Perry touted his record as the 4^th ranked job creator among governors in the United States and Texas’ record as the top job creating state during the current recession.  He then criticized Romney’s record as the 47^th ranked job creator among US governors during his tenure.

Romney responded by explaining the difficulties the state of Massachusetts faced at the start of his term and the positive steps he took as governor, creating jobs at a faster rate than the national average.  He also touted his private sector experience in creating and optimizing companies around the world.  He then pointed out that a large percentage of the jobs created in Texas are the result of their surplus of natural resources, not Perry’s policies or leadership, and that Texas has the highest rate in the country of jobs at or below the minimum wage. 

Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah and perennial voice of reason, chimed in that Utah was the 1^st ranked job creating state during his tenure, but that did not detract from the Romney/Perry rivalry. 

By the end of the debate, the hierarchy of candidates became much more clarified.  Romney and Perry maintained and even solidified their position as the top tier of candidates.  Considering the setting and the crowd, they both presented strong arguments in favor of conservative positions on jobs, immigration, health care and defense.  They were both winners of the debate and will now attempt to spin the results more in their own favors using it as a springboard to future debates and appearances in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and around the country.

Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul presented strong arguments but failed to make a statement in terms of policy positions or memorable rhetorical flourishes.  Both, in my opinion, did more harm than good.  Paul further reduced himself to the periphery by arguing that the FDA, TSA and Air Traffic Control are unnecessary government agencies.  Bachmann was simply outshined in her conservative, Tea-Party message by Perry who is now funneling her support to his own campaign.

Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are most likely on the verge of dropping out of the race.  They simply do not have the financial and electoral support to continue the rigorous process of campaigning for elected office.  Gingrich, by making multiple attempts to claim unity among the candidates and defend against supposed efforts by the media to divide them, gave off the impression that he was above criticizing his fellow candidates and ready to get behind the eventual nominee.  This is not the attitude a real player in the Republican primary should have.

The two remaining candidates, Jon Huntsman and Hermain Cain, are both polling in the low single digits but made positive strides on Wednesday night.  Cain articulated coherent policy positions (whether or not they would be beneficial or passable is another story) and Huntsman continued to position himself as holding the rational middle ground.  Unlike some of the other candidates, however, Huntsman sounded more presidential; he did not stoop to the personal attacks and criticisms like the other candidates did and he made real, useful references to his past experiences as Ambassador and government official in four presidential administrations.  Because of the financial support both maintain, they are likely to remain in the race at least through the New Hampshire primary and have the potential to gain support in the next few months.

Very little was said in the debate that was at all novel.  It was simply part of the process of whittling down the field and creating a coherent message for the coming months.  Tonight is the Democrats’ turn, with President Obama giving his jobs speech, but it’s also opening night for the NFL…

Why College Students Should Support Jon Huntsman

Today’s jobless numbers are worrying.  According to the report released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the American economy added no net jobs in the month of August and the unemployment rate remains at 9.1%.  President Obama and Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney are set to release their jobs proposals next week, but one candidate has already done so, Jon Huntsman.

As college students, there are three broad issues pertinent to our interests.  The first is jobs.  Many of us have parents who are out of work, siblings unable to find work or will be looking for jobs ourselves in the next year or so.  Huntsman, the former governor of Utah and Ambassador to China, has outlined a 4 part plan for economic recovery. 

First, he proposes comprehensive tax reform which includes simplifying tax brackets and lowering rates, eliminating capital gains taxes, reducing corporate rates and eliminating corporate and personal loopholes and deductions.  Second, he proposes expansive regulatory reform including the repeal of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank (the financial regulatory bill), reigning in the EPA and FDA, and enacting patent reform.  Lastly, he emphasizes the need for energy independence, through expanding drilling rights and natural gas capabilities, and enacting free trade agreements.

Some of these things may seem obvious, but believe it or not, they have not been outlined by any politician or presidential candidate until now.  These are all market-based solutions that will make American companies competitive with foreign corporations, reduce regulatory instability and give individuals and families more money in their pocket.  The stabilization of the economy and the stimulation of the jobs market is in our best interest as students soon to graduate. 

The second pertinent interest as college students the long-term sustainability of government, specifically in terms of spending.  We are still young but at the rate the government is spending, programs like Social Security and Medicare are on a path to destruction while the basic ability of the government to sustain its constitutionally mandated role becomes more and more hazy.  With the debt we have built up, and will continue to build up, will be able to respond to natural disasters?  Will we be able to respond to an attack on our country?  Will we be able to support law enforcement, education, infrastructure twenty years down the road?

Huntsman has been a rational voice in a sea of irrationality during these last few months of debate.  While Republicans have decried any revenue increases or defense cuts and Democrats have decried any changes to entitlements, the former governor has clearly stated that decisive action must be taken.  We must curtail entitlement spending; we must end costly foreign entanglements; we must reform the tax code. 

This is our future at stake; shouldn’t we support a candidate who has our best interests in mind rather than a candidate who caters to special interests (whether they be the anti-tax lobby or the pro-entitlement force, or the pro-military shop)?

The third pertinent issue (and this is by no means and exhaustive list but rather a general summary) that is important to college students includes social and environmental policy.  We care about equality, about clean air and clean water, about climate change.  Huntsman has been one of the most forward looking members of the Republican Party in all of these respects. 

Huntsman recently stated in an interview with ABC’s Jake Tapper that “in a center-right country, I am a center-right candidate.”  He also described himself as holding the “sensible middle ground.”  Of all the Republican candidates, he is the most reasonable in his politics, personable in his approach and experienced in both foreign and domestic affairs.  Right now, the sensible middle ground is exactly what America needs.