THESIS: I believe Jon Huntsman was Mitt Romney’s wingman, serving to help Mitt win the GOP nomination from the very moment Jon declared his own candidacy. I further believe Jon was ordered into this role by the president of the Mormon Church.
DISCLAIMER: I don’t have any proof of my claim, beyond what follows after this paragraph. That is, neither Jon nor Mitt actually came out and told me, “This is the game plan,” nor was I a fly on the wall that overheard any such scheming. However, I can suggest a compelling case starting with certain common sense elements.
The lineage of the Princes Huntsman and Romney
According to USA Today*:
QUOTE*: Did you know Republicans Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are distant cousins? … Parley Pratt, an early Mormon missionary, is Romney's great-great-grandfather and Huntsman's great-great-great-grandfather. :UNQUOTE*.
What this article fails to mention is that Parley Pratt was more than just “an early Mormon missionary.” He was an original member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. That would place both Huntsman and Romney in very favorable circumstances. But it would also subject them to the dictates of an extremely patriarchal and rule-bound hierarchy.
This becomes a matter of extreme importance when this claim is taken into consideration: Mormons believe that God reveals His will directly and continually to the Mormon Church president. And I find it hard to believe that any prince of the Church could resist an order (in this or similar language) coming directly from their President:
“Jon, I had a revelation from God that you will announce your candidacy for the GOP nomination, while in reality doing everything you can to help Mitt Romney obtain that nomination.”
What was Huntsman role in this ruse?
Jon’s primary role was to, crudely put, double the Mormon presence on the GOP stage. The Church president was primarily interested, not so much in the present and in Romney’s particular chances for success, but in the long-run. The long-term goal of gaining Mormon acceptance among the US general population (not to mention, eventual election of one of the brethren to the White House) wouldn’t be well enough served with only one man – the somewhat wooden Romney – being the standard bearer for the whole church.
More was needed, which Huntsman could provide. Both men are fabulously wealthy, having gained their fortunes in business. Both were state governors, speak a foreign language, have stable marriages of long duration, and aren’t members of the legal profession.
Huntsman had to self-sabotage, so as not to upstage Romney. Hence, his decisions to wear a bright lavender tie during one interview, speak in Mandarin Chinese during one of the GOP debates (way to turn off the base), and not come across as polished as Romney.
It was also important for Huntsman to attack Romney. Given Huntsman’s early emphasis on running a nice guy, civil campaign, I was surprised (at first) that Jon criticized Mitt – almost up to the point when he dropped out of the race and ended up endorsing Romney. The attacks were necessary, though, to disarm any fear that “Mormons are mindless automatons who stick together.”
Consider this item from the LA Times**:
QUOTE**: …Jon Huntsman…accused Mitt Romney of not understanding business…just a few days ago…. (His “Scared Mittless” site is still running, but the videos are gone.)… [and]…Huntsman’s the one who famously called Romney a “perfectly lubricated weathervane” and in New Hampshire said that Romney hadn’t made a “case to the American people” and has been on “three sides of every issue.” In a nod to Romney’s “I like to be able to fire people” remark, Huntsman said “Gov. Romney enjoys firing people. I enjoy creating jobs.” :UNQUOTE**.
That last sentence (about firing people) gave it away. That’s when I started to suspect Huntsman’s role as (secret) wingman. Any neutral and reasonable person who knew the context of Romney’s “firing people” comment would know he didn’t mean it in the sense of “I enjoy firing people so much, I look forward to every opportunity to do so.”
This is what Romney had actually said, “
“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone doesn't give me the good service I need, I want to say, ‘You know, I'm going to get someone else to provide this service to me.’”
The highlight, obviously, is mine. Mitt Romney expressed a sentiment that we all could readily understand. Go ahead and say this out loud: “I like being able to fire people who don’t provide good service.” Now, contrast by saying this: “I like being forced to continue suffering with bad service and being denied any right to fire for bad performance.”
And yet, Jon Huntsman jumped on the bandwagon of those who gleefully (and falsely) took Romney’s words to mean he likes to engage in wanton and wholesale terminations of employment.
Anyone hearing Huntsman twist these words out of context would surely have had second thoughts about his civility and reasonableness. And that was precisely why Huntsman twisted as he did – to deflate his own good guy image and to increase sympathy for Romney among thinking people who knew exactly what Romney had meant in the first place.
After all, Huntsman was so low in the public opinion polls and going nowhere fast, he might as well have tried to give his fellow Mormon a sympathy boost, since his own campaign couldn’t have benefitted from any sincere attempt to knock Romney down.
But what about the contradiction?
Earlier this month, Huntsman had called Romney “unelectable because he lacks a core” and is “completely out of touch”…although, when endorsing Mitt, Jon said Mitt is the “best equipped to defeat Barack Obama”
Isn’t that a contradiction – to say he’s “unelectable” and “completely out of touch” while also claiming he’s the “best equipped to defeat Barack Obama?” Actually, no it isn’t, if you consider his exact words:
· Romney could well be considered “best equipped to defeat Barack Obama” – relative, that is, to Gingrich and Santorum, who could also be accused of “[lacking] a core” and being “completely out of touch.”
· When Jon said Mitt was “unelectable because he lacks a core,” that doesn’t prevent him from becoming electable (and here’s the interesting part) even without magically obtaining a core – by virtue of being the only person who can stop Obama from being re-elected. Of course, that assumes Mitt wins the nomination.
· To say that someone “lacks a core” is vague and could be dismissed as merely something one candidate generically says of an opponent. It can’t be said that Romney lacks core personal values. He’s a religious man who has faithfully served his church. Even his foray into Romney Care was well-intended, which could be spun as “compassionate.” Once the one-on-one with Obama gets underway, Romney won’t have to be so defensive about what was, really, quite altruistically (and practically) motivated.
· This whole notion of Romney lacking a core isn’t damning, in and of itself. A case could be made that Obama lacks a core, which many of his most idealistic supporters should now at least suspect. After all, didn’t Obama sink us deeper into Afghanistan? Didn’t Obama pick financial advisors who were connected to businesses directly responsible for our economic meltdown? How on earth did Obama pick Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff? We’re no closer to peace between Israel and Palestine. And Obama’s position on our eroding civil liberties leaves many liberals wondering, “WTF?”
· The public’s memory is short, and by the time Romney is nominated, he can settle into specific positions best suited to win the election. As for Romney being a “flip-flopper” – which Huntsman had meant when calling him a “perfectly lubricated weathervane – that won’t be fatal, since all politicians are known to pander when it suits their needs at any particular moment.
· There’s a delicious irony in calling someone a “perfectly lubricated weathervane.” The intention translates to, “This guy lacks leadership; he goes whichever way the wind blows.” But it could also mean: “This guy is totally responsive to the way the electorate feels and he, therefore, points in that direction.” If he weren’t such a weathervane, he would resist the direction We-the-People would be trying to point him in by not being “sufficiently lubricated” (that is, “flexible”) to yield to their desires. Some people would call such a yielding “being responsive to the electorate, which is more desirable than leading (a euphemism for ‘dragging’) the country where it doesn’t want to go.”
What’s the long-term plan of the Mormon Church?
I believe the Mormon leaders see the Republican Party itself as either ripe for takeover or destined to resign itself to the superior political and financial resources of the LDS. With the huge amounts of money at Romney’s disposal, ads favorable to the Mormon’s long-range plans and viewpoints could prove to have long-lasting power (well past this election cycle) in terms of overwhelming the amateurish and unfocused Tea Party groups.
I believe the LDS leadership thinks Mitt Romney can beat Barack Obama. But I also believe they think having Jon Huntsman waiting in the wings for a possible 2016 run is a pretty good insurance policy – especially with the name recognition he has gained by having shared a debating stage with other GOP contenders this time around.
At least the Mormons won’t have the Tea Party to worry about if Obama gets reelected. Having failed to dislodge Obama, they will sink into the obscurity they so richly deserve.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“If you think Jon-as-wingman is too far-fetched and assumes unseen powers are playing you, just remember: Sometimes ‘too far-fetched’ actually works, and we’ve all been played for decades. So what else is new?”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
* USA Today’s article, published on June 24, 2011 linked here: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/06/mitt-romney-jon-huntsman-family-ties-/1
** http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-huntsman-wipes-history-of-romney-attacks-20120116,0,5885397.story : by James Oliphant, Jan. 16, 2012, “Huntsman wipes his history of Romney attacks”
No comments:
Post a Comment