AP story points to Huntsman Jr. as Secretary of State candidate

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: KSL-TV

SALT LAKE CITY — A story published Thursday by the Associated Press named Jon Huntsman Jr. as a possible pick to replace Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State, but the former ambassador and governor has stayed tight-lipped about the possibility.

In an interview with KSL, Huntsman spoke about the need to put the "country first" with a tough presidential campaign now over. He spoke about his own plans in very general terms, sidestepping a question about what's next in his future plans.

"Being a good dad, managing a lot of projects that I find absolutely fun, interesting and satisfying," Huntsman said Wednesday.

The AP story reported a list of possible contenders for the Secretary of State, citing unnamed officials that included Huntsman.

Read more: http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=22889804

[yardwork]

1. I think it would be very unwise to put a Republican in charge of the State Department

Personally I am not keen on the idea of any Republican in the cabinet, but certainly not Secretary of State.

[cyclezealot]

11. Remember , Bill Clinton's last Secretary of Defense

was a Republican.

[yardwork]

20. Defense is different from the State Department.

It's bad enough to have a Republican running the Pentagon, but running the State Department? No.

[cyclezealot]

37. My question about Huntsman

would be what are his neo con credentials. More so than what are his party identification.. Its rare but there are a couple Goobers out there who don' like the Neo Cons.. Example. Lawrence Wilkerson. How would he be as a Secretary of State.. ? He all but calls many in his party a bunch of loons.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. Uhmmm ...

Didn't Huntsman serve, rather well, in President Obama's State Department?

The fire extinguisher is located at the rear of the car.

[yardwork]

52. Sorry you think I'm overreacting. I would be very disappointed to see a Republican made SoS.

I don't think that that is necessary or wise. Serving in the State Department is quite different from being in charge of it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. Okay ...

Partisanship over competence ... gottcha.

[yardwork]

62. There are many Democratic candidates more competent than Huntsman.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. By what measure?

Huntsman was extremely effective in dealing with the up and coming theater, China.

[ChillZilla]

98. So much for that whole "unity" thing eh?

Oh yeah, Huntsman would be great.

He's an Evil Racist Republican Homophobic Nazi!!!

Right, forgot, let's get a Democrat.

This move would honestly be briliiant and assuage a lot of harsh feelings after this election.

Maybe it's time to put blind partisanship to bed for a little while.

[yardwork]

101. LOL!

That's not even a good try.

[BigDemVoter]

69. Doesn't mean Obama should do it

Was against it then and am against it now.

[BigDemVoter]

67. Agree with you one million %

NO Repukes!!!

[Enrique]

79. why?

some Republicans are completely in line with Obama on foreign policy, so why should their party rule them out? Colin Powell for example, or Richard Lugar. I don't know about Huntsman specifically.

[FarPoint]

2. I say no.....

just to be safe...no need to up his credibilty for 2016.

Huntsman already identified a desire to be President.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Republicans distrusted him because he was Ambassador to China under Obama

Serving as SoS would kill his GOP credentials.

[TomCADem]

9. Huntsman is DOA as a Republican Presidential Candidate

You need to be batshit crazy or at least sound like you are batshit crazy to get any traction in the primaries.

[harmonicon]

73. Exactly. It's bizzaro world over there.

Most people would think that Huntsman was the most credible candidate in the field, and that's precisely why he got no traction.

[Cal33]

96. The right-wingers are supposedly doing some inner soul-searching

right now. Some Democrats are already expressing the idea that the bat shit
crazy ones will no longer have all that much power since their election loss.
A great deal of intra-party fighting is supposedly going on. The Tea Party
might even be on the way out.

Give it some time, and we might see if there is any truth to this.

[cyclezealot]

13. His goose is cooked with the GOP.

He could not gain traction last time around. Same goes for Colin Powell. What have they to loose. ?

[Spider Jerusalem]

71. The Republicans had an aneurysm over Chris Christie

you really think they're going to nominate a guy who just spent four years in Obama's cabinet? It's actually pretty clever because a) Huntsman is eminently qualified, and b) Huntsman is the sanest and potentially most electable Republican candidate, so...assuming he could win his party's nomination (which he probably can't; he's sane and too moderate), he's politically neutralised.

[liberalmuse]

3. No...

Let's get a good liberal in there.

[FarPoint]

5. Exactly...

We need to be smart for 2014 and 2016.

[SoapBox]

41. I'll ditto that!

...Prez O...no, no GOPathetics, Pukes or Baggers. GIVE UP on them. You are going to have an almost impossible task of getting stuff done, again, with the House.

Just Say NO to Pukes.

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. Wouldn't it be smart ...

for 2014 and 2016 and beyond to reward reasonable republicans; thereby, further drawing a distinction with, and drawing attention to, Democratic reasonableness?

[kurt_cagle]

6. Not sure I agree

Huntsman ran a very credible campaign as a Republican moderate. I think you're beginning to see a few of the brighter moderate Republican politicians realize that their party has abandoned them - Huntsman and Christie both come to mind, as well as Colin Powell and Robert Gates - and they are casting about for a political future. I think that so long as the Republicans head farther and farther right and the moderates get left behind, the likelihood for political compromise remains low and polarity remains high. In many respects, I think that one thing that Obama may be trying to do (very quietly) is to help jumpstart a new Eisenhower-like Republican party, one focused on environmental issues, civil rights, respect for science and humanism and fairness. Putting them in high profile positions that are not necessarily domestic or economic (SoS and Defense are both good examples) builds a cadre of Republicans that could quite possibly nucleate a new party and take it back from the extremists. As a Democrat I'd be a bit wary of this, but as a progressive, I think this would be a good thing overall.

[global1]

8. This Sounds Like The Worst Team Gets The First/Best Draft Choice....

why should we be interested in "jumpstarting a new Eisenhower-like Republican party" that in the future could beat us? Please explain.

[iandhr]

12. Having an opposition that is sane and rational is good for the country

[Exultant Democracy]

43. When and if the Republicans started to nominate people like Huntsman we all win.

[demwing]

16. Because it creates a contingency against a powerful extremist right-wing

which, should it somehow gain power, would be horrifying to the future of the country.

Besides, it divides our opposition. Never a bad idea.

[Ed Suspicious]

22. keep your friends close and your enemies closer, isn't that the adage? n/t

[demwing]

34. Absolutely, and while I don't see Huntsman as an "enemy"

I do see him as the most qualified challenger on the right. From Obama's comments, I think he must feel similarly.

[SemperEadem]

15. I'm with you

I think that had the rethugs run Jon Huntsman instead of Mittiot, the thugs would be in the white house today. Huntsman was the one candidate who scared me the most in the sense that he could snatch a second term victory away from Democrats and I was relieved when he dropped out of the race and had nothing to do with their convention.

Huntsman represented the type of republican that understands the world in a larger context, with him being Ambassador to China--not too many of their ilk have ever been outside of the US in an official capacity roll. Sitting in on meetings isn't foreign policy experience, like lyin' ryan tried to assert. IF, like you say, they can bring about an Eisenhower style party, they may be able to rescue the adult-sane part of their party from the idiots in the clown car.

Personally, I think John Kerry's going to get it.

[JustAnotherGen]

18. +1

[coalition_unwilling]

38. I was scared of Huntsman but knew he could not make it out of the primaries. Huckabee

scared me even more, but he has some heavy baggage in his gubernatorial past that might have doomed him, once Axelrod and Plouffe sank their teeth into him. (He released a rapist on parole who went on to murder and rape again after being released, IIRC.)

[sendero]

32. IMHO..

... we are lucky Huntsman did not win the nomination. Because he would have given Obama a run for his money.

[enough]

7. Why? (nt)

[John2]

10. So

the Democrats win the election and people are talking about giving the Repubs olive Branches? You need people that endorsed your Policies. I would consider Colin Powell before any other Repuke. For one thing Powell is loyal and I don't think the Obama administration would throw him under the Bus like the Bush\Cheney Administration did. Powell is someone you can trust. He is very experienced with Foreign Policy.

The only reason I would be hesitant about John Kerry is because that would open up a Senate seat where we need him. Scott Brown is still lurking around too.

[AnnaLee]

14. Hilary, now Huntsman, Is Obama trying to engineer the future?

So is Obama's State Department a training ground for possible future Presidential contenders? (Obama hand selecting the candidates.)

I really don't think we can afford to cross parties with the State Department. We tried this love-in idea last time and nothing came of it that made it worth it.

[madrchsod]

17. well this guy is a republican

http://fastlane.dot.gov/

obama will pick the right man for the job no matter the party affiliation

[MessiahRp]

19. I think clearly John Kerry deserves this job.

Last edited Fri Nov 9, 2012, 09:37 PM - Edit history (1)

If it wasn't for Kerry we likely wouldn't have a Barack Obama Presidency and Kerry has been extremely vital to Obama as a surrogate (and unfortunately for him, Mitt Romney debate stand in). He expressed interest in the job before Hillary was offered it, he should be granted this job as a thank you for his service to the President. Oh yeah and the whole he's probably the most qualified person in the world for the gig, thing.

[iandhr]

21. If he picks Kerry Scott Brown comes back. After we worked our asses off to boot him.

[Ed Suspicious]

23. exactly. that would stink.

[TomCADem]

24. Ditto. Brown Becomes The Frontrunner for Kerry's Job

[wisteria]

70. Why? He lost by a large margin.

I don't follow the reasoning behind this speculation.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

95. In an off year election, his chances go back up

Sadly.

[karynnj]

47. This really ignores the good Democrats that MA has

In addition, Brown squandered his run by not running on his record - which means one of two things (or both) - his record could not get him elected or he ran a stupid campaign.

The election showed that he was not the nice guy that the media defined him as (which was a huge gift.)

In addition, the winner becomes the most junior Senator AND he has to run again in 2014! Imagine how the former Senator with delusions of grandeur would like that. He would be less likely to take frequent phone calls from Obama and the Secretary of State and the kings and queens. Not to mention he may not even be ranking member of a subcommittee - of which he misspoke saying he was a ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

This is a special election so one of the Congressmen could run, or one of the candidates from last time who never really went against Brown. (It could be fun to have two Senators Warren from Massachusetts.)

The fact is though, Kerry is incredibly valuable in either the very influential Senate position he has or as Secretary of State. In a way, the fact that he is so talented makes him great in either role and a loss to the role that he is not in. It is very hard to see anyone doing as well as Secretary of state and a Senate without Kerry loses a foreign policy and a finance expert. (In fact, the position that lets him use all his skills was the one he sought in 2004.)

[wisteria]

72. Nicely put.

I would personally like to see him as SOS-that is, if he wants the position. It just upsets me that the talk is of him not getting the spot because Brown might run again and win. I think the whole idea of that is stupid. Also, there are now 52 Democratic Senators and 2 Independents, they could spare Kerry. And, looking back, no one had a problem with Hillary being taken away from the Senate to become SOS and we had less of a majority then.

[karynnj]

80. 53 Democrats plus 2 independents

[graywarrior]

58. I think Brown will have a difficult time getting re-elected for anything in MA

No one wants to vote for a loser.

[MessiahRp]

64. What makes you so sure that the Dems couldn't beat Brown again?

It's not like he lost a close race and I don't see him as a viable option in MA especially after his racist Native American taunts.

[wisteria]

68. Not really, This is only speculation.

Brown might have expended him self during this election. And, besides we now have 52 Democratic senators and 2 Independants, we could spare Kerry. We were in worse shape when the job was given to Hillary Clinton and there was no talk then about the balance in the Senate. This, IMO is BS talk, stired up by those who don't want to see him get the job.

[wisteria]

66. I am with you, but I wouldn't be surprised if he gets pushed aside.

That is assuming he wants it, which I think he just might.

[politicasista]

82. ...

[zonkers]

25. I find this topic fascinating on a number of levels.

Ha! Democrats came within a hair, a storm and gaff of losing to the Republicans -- the folks who want to control your body, turn you away from the hospital and send your kid to war -- and now conciliatory attitudes are popping up all over the place like whack a mole. Folks, let's take Paul Krugman's advice and SCREW' EM.

Sheesh, you guys most have Stockholm Syndrome of some sort.

First off, such talk, so early, sure is a slap in the face to tall the marginalized Americans who -- minorities, women, gays who stepped up magnificently and won this election for Barry and for us.
"I think they earned a little political currency and Obama ought to spend it accordingly"

As illustrated by this thread, the differences between the two parties could not be more obvious --- I cannot imagine in a million years, folks on a Republican message board discussing the merits of putting a charismatic left winger in a cabinet position, let alone discussing it civilly.

Leave the Republican Party alone. Let them fix their own mess. They may be down but do not underestimate them. They are dangerous and will be sponsoring plenty of mean spirited-ness, cruelty and unkindness in the next four years. They may not have popular ideas but they have and can raise money in a heartbeat.

It has never been more clear that their party is one of fear, ours is a party of hope. They have done enough damage, we have to deal with. We cannot waste the time or energy fixing them.

I could not believe the faces of all those sad people for Mitt Romney of all people --- the most insidious, look you in the eye and lie, position changing, secretive candidate I have ever seen in my life.


Not only is the Republican party not ours or the President's to fix but do you really think that any fix or "reconciliatory" gesture or appointment would be truly welcome or interpreted as such? No way. I have seen this movie before. No fix or olive branch that comes from this side will ever be valued -- it has to come from within.

It is time for us to get things done.

[GeorgeGist]

26. NO! NO! NO!

[MotherPetrie]

27. FUCK NO don't reward a Repug, dammit!

[byeya]

28. What a horrible possibility. DON'T DO IT!!

[TwilightGardener]

29. I don't like Huntsman. He is disloyal.

He is 100% for Jon Huntsman.

[Kelvin Mace]

30. No! No more "bi-partisan" appointments

Unless it gets a GOP house member or senator to give up their seat in favor of a liberal.

[Swede Atlanta]

31. Personally I would not have an objection to this...

He was Obama's Ambassador to China. He has lived abroad extensively, speaks Chinese, etc.

I'm not saying he stands heads above other qualified Democrats such as John Kerry but he is the kind of moderate Republican that doesn't really have a home in that party anymore.

I also think he is the kind of man who would do what is asked of him and conform to the President's policies. He would not be one to go off and create his own foreign policy.

As for Kerry, I think that would be a very good fit BUT I don't want to lose him in the Senate. Granted he is from Massachusetts but I wouldn't want to go through another Senate campaign there with the possibility it could be won by a Republican.

I would rather not harvest the House, but especially the Senate, for Democratic candidates to serve in the new Cabinet.

[Paulie]

33. When he left the administration to run with the republicans, he made his bed.

If he would have stuck with the team then I wouldn't have a problem with his consideration. But he was asked to do a job by the President, was doing fine, then left. No thanks.

[Blue_Tires]

35. Completely selfish of me, but I'd want Howard Dean

(I know there are plenty others with better foreign policy credentials)

I just want Dean to have a place at the table in the WH...He's earned it as much as anyone else, imo...

[harmonicon]

75. ... but, as you say, this isn't the job for him.

Of course Joe Biden would be great, but he already has a job.

While I thought Clinton was a good senator, I feel like she really didn't do a good job, and I'm glad she's leaving it. In my dream world, the job would go to Jesse Jackson, but I'm sure it wouldn't be offered to him.

What I think Dean would be good at is AG, which is likely to be another open position.

... oh, but this is crazy talk. Dean is out with this lot of Dems. He got them all into power, and they threw him aside.

[Blue_Tires]

78. I saw a DUer throw Wesley Clark's name in the discussion

[harmonicon]

85. I don't know...

"Hi there. Sorry about all the killing I did of your people. Lets have breakfast." just doesn't seem to work. I don't think ex-military is really right for the job.

[Firebirds01]

90. Clinton would be saying

"Hi there. Sorry about all the killing my husband did of your people. Lets have breakfast." Clark is very popular in the balkans outside of Serbia. Same with Clinton. I dont necessarily see the problem. World leaders realize its just business.

[SDjack]

36. No to Huntsman. He passed on becoming a DEM before the

primaries, now he should be passed on all senior level appointments.

[nolabear]

39. I wouldn't pad the resume of a Republican who has White House aspirations. Is there a deal going?

I'd love to know what would be behind the scenes in that one.

[Ashened]

40. Replacing Hillary?

I'm not up to date on this... why are we talking about replacing Hillary? Is she stepping down?

I personally think she's the best Secretary of State we've had in a decade. She's highly competent and takes her job seriously, at least from what I've seen when I've paid attention.

[justiceischeap]

45. Yes, she intends to "retire." nt

[harmonicon]

76. She said long before the election that she'd only be on for one term - maybe even years before. (nt)

[Ashened]

86. Shows how closely I follow the news...

thanks.

[iamthebandfanman]

42. blarg. n/t

[valerief]

44. NO MORE FREAKIN' REPUBLICANS!!!!!! nt

[forestpath]

53. +1

[appacom]

46. Huntsman? Never. Obama forgives, but he is not Jesus

O

[The Second Stone]

48. No. Sec of State is a plum and while it is traditional to have

one cabinet member of the opposing party, for too long Democrats have been giving the big ones, Sec of Def, while Reps have let us have small ones like transportation.

If Hillary cannot be persuaded to stay, there are plenty of competent loyal Dems who can fill the slot. How about Bob Kerrey? He is available and qualified for the job.

[KamaAina]

51. Not just no but HELL NO!!

You can appoint a Secretary of Transportation from the other party. NOT a Secretary of State.

[NYC Liberal]

54. "Unnamed officials" said list of "possible" contenders "possibly" contains Huntsman's name.

Yeah, this is nothing.

I'm sure there are a LOT of names being bandied about right now. Even if this is true, there's nothing that says he's a top pick, or a likely one. Just that he's on a list -- probably a list that contains 15-20 names.

I just found the original AP story and there are several names mentioned that are not Jon Huntsman -- including Kerry and Susan Rice. Rice is mentioned as a"favorite".

[TwilightGardener]

60. I think maybe Huntsman is the unnamed official

who floated Huntsman's name, LOL.

[NYC Liberal]

74. They're just floating this to appear bipartisan,

so it can be said that Obama "considered" him. Just like he said he would work with Romney or whatever. Obama will make some token gestures before he appoints someone like Kerry

IMO...

[Daniel537]

55. No thanks. We need a liberal running our foreign policy.

Huntsman remains an Iraq war supporter to this day. Fuck that shit. No more neo-con hawks.

[Freddie Stubbs]

94. The President will be "running our foreign policy"

The SoS doesn't set policy, he or she implements the President's policies.

That said, there will be a moderate running our foreign policy

[matt819]

56. Tarred with same brush

Huntsman may be a decent person, and he may have been a pretty good ambassador, and I know I shouldn't generalize, but Republicans have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, and I wouldn't trust a Republican in any cabinet position. Obama tried to take the high road for four years, and was blocked every step of the way. Republicans have to pay the price for this in the role they play in government, now and in the future.

[Arkana]

59. No. Huntsman already proved what kind of person he was with that ill-fated

presidential candidacy. His own ambition meant more than serving his country.

[harmonicon]

77. How do you figure?

Sorry, but that logic just doesn't make sense to me. Should he have tried to run for president while living in China?

Obama and Biden could run and do their jobs at the same time - but not really. We all know that senators campaigning for higher office are going to miss votes, etc., and that's just within the US.

I see being a Republican as a mark against Huntsman, but nothing about his behaviour or job record as a mark against him.

[maq-az]

61. I like him

[wisteria]

65. He walked out on President Obama before to run for President,

and he had no good works for the administration. Why him?

I had wanted to see Sen. Kerry get this position since the first administration, I held out hope in the second, because he has so much good work under the wire, but it seems as though the powers that be in Washington are going to screw him out of this.
I will be very disappointed if he isn't offered this positon and it goes to Huntsman or Rice.

[Cass]

81. Huntsman resigned his ambassadorship to run against Obama didn't he?

Who's to say he wouldn't bail again to run in 2016? Why give it to a repub and boost their credentials for a possible run at some point? There are plenty of well-qualified Dems out there to choose from, I don't understand the desire to fill this with a republican, especially since its a pretty high-profile position.

[JI7]

83. Susan Rice or John Kerry

[cire41]

88. Give it to Susan Rice

She deserves it after cleaning up the mess that bush created at the UN

[goclark]

97. Susan Rice is a class act..

A rethug from congress just said on msnbc that she did not/could handle Benzazee
..so how can she handle anything else?
That's all I heard.

I think she has done a wonderful job.

[Myrina]

102. If Kerry gets the nod, do we need another election to fill his seat?

Or would it be an appointment by the Gov?

Thanks!

[wordpix]

84. Please, NOOOOO! We already had repugs as SOS for 8 yrs, now give Dems the chance to fix what

they screwed up

[TheDonkey]

87. Fuck no. We have hundreds of more qualified Democrats. Nt

[KewlKat]

89. General Clark would make a great SOS or SOD for that matter

He's busted his butt for the party and is respected in Europe as well.

[Hugabear]

91. Do not put ANY rethug on a pedestal. There are NO good rethugs.

If they were truly so "moderate" and "acceptable", then they wouldn't be rethugs. They wouldn't identify themselves with a party that is so racist, anti-woman, homophobic, xenophobic, and full of warmongers.

[kurt_cagle]

92. The Petraeus Scandal

will scotch this idea quickly. Petraeus, as a Republican appointee, compromised national security in a big way. The Senate Dems are NOT going to put a Republican in a position of any real power at this point, for fear that these appointees will explode messily if nothing else.

[Beacool]

93. Poor Kerry, always a bridesmaid and never a bride.

[SayitAintSo]

99. Oh no....Kerry should get it

Like Huntsman...Kerry deserves the job tho'

[AzDar]

100. Hope this is not true. Hard to believe he couldn't find a qualified *liberal* who wants the job.