The principles that rule this blog

Principles that will govern my thoughts as I express them here (from my opening statement):


  • Freedom of the individual should be as total as possible, limited only by the fact that nobody should be free to cause physical injury to another, or to deprive another person of his freedoms.
  • Government is necessary primarily to provide those services that private enterprise won't, or won't at a price that people can afford.
  • No person has a right to have his own beliefs on religious, moral, political, or other controversial issues imposed on others who do not share those beliefs.

I believe that Abraham Lincoln expressed it very well:

“The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do, at all, or cannot
so well do, for themselves — in their separate, individual capacities.”


Comments will be invited, and I will attempt to reply to any comments that are offered in a serious and non-abusive manner. However, I will not tolerate abusive or profane language (my reasoning is that this is my blog, and so I can control it; I wouldn't interfere with your using such language on your own!)

If anyone finds an opinion that I express to be contrary to my principles, they are welcome to point this out. I hope that I can make a rational case for my comments. Because, in fact, one label I'll happily accept is rationalist.

Saturday, June 18, 2011

Jon Huntsman

I notice a lot of publicity about Jon Huntsman recently. It's not surprising to find two posts in a row over at Dennis Sanders' "Big Tent Revue" blog — he's shown a great liking for Huntsman for some time. But his name is appearing in a lot of places, treated as a serious rival to Mitt Romney, unlike such as Herman Cain (who has about as much chance of nomination as I do) or Fred Karger (who might as well have never declared his candidacy, for all the attention he's getting). So I should weigh in on him. I don't know very much about him, of course. But one newspaper described him as "the only moderate" in the race; that alone tends to incline me favorably toward him, though the comment comes from a paper tht is hardly itself describable as moderate. And the simple fact that Dennis Sanders likes him has to count in his favor, as Sanders' positions and mine tend to be pretty close on a lot of issues.

That's probably enough to say that Huntsman gets a positive rating — if he becomes well-enough known that it looks like he can beat Obama in November of next year, I could easily support him.

2 comments:

Solomon Kleinsmith said...

It's really tough to peg Huntsman... he was genuinely moderate in Utah, but his early communications hint at a move to the right from what I've seen. But he still has time to define himself however he wants, so with him jumping in this week officially, we should start getting clarity very soon. I'd prefer a centrist, but I'd settle for a moderate, if he's actually one.

Solomon Kleinsmith
Rise of the Center

Opinionator said...

Well, any candidate is going to have to take a position in a Republican primary which would look to be further right than the positions he might express in a general election campaign. In the same way, Romney's moved rightward from the way he governed in Massachusetts. I think this has to be taken into account. One cannot always go by a candidate's rhetoric alone; just as Obama, as a candidate, kept saying to people, "If you're happy with your present health insurance, you'll be able to keep it," and the current plan he's signed will certainly not provide that. I susopect the way Huntsman governed in Utah is better clue to what he'd do as President than whatever rhetoric will come out of his primary campaign. (Sarah Palin, as governor of Alaska, was a lot less extreme than the positions she's adopted as a candiidate, as well!)